Behold, the idiocy that is John Hollinger - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

aurelino9 · 03-02-2010, 04:54 PM

The margins would have been larger if it weren't for some garbage time 3s going down for the opposition. The smaller MOV does indicate that Dallas hasn't played too many complete 48-minute games . When they dominated early, they let the teams back to make the game look closer than it was. Many of the come back wins have been in games where they once led by 10+.

The Sagarin ratings take into account the raw W/L and the MOV but do not give extra weight to recent performances:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba0910.htm

CadBane · 03-02-2010, 04:55 PM

Man o Man. I used to really like Hollinger. But lately, this guys off the deep end. And any ranking that has the Heat ahead of us...

Mavsfan4ever · 03-02-2010, 04:55 PM

In my humble opinion Hollinger is the worst thing to ever happen to sports media. He can take his statistics and shove them up his ass.

CadBane · 03-02-2010, 04:56 PM

As people mentioned, there's a reason teams with clutch players win close games. It aint coincidence. Dirk, Kobe, Billups, ect. Those guys hit big shots. That's why they win close games.

dude1394 · 03-02-2010, 04:59 PM

I was thinking about his latest missive...about the mavs recent win streak mov not being as high as the mov of the "elite" teams. It would be interesting to see what the "elite" teams mov has been against the same teams. Say cleveland/la against the same teams that are on the mavs win streak.

Dirkadirkastan · 03-02-2010, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinylstar

Hollinger believes that close games are effectively a coin flip. He cites evidence that the best teams and worst teams throughout history have about the same winning percentage in games decided by less than a few points.

In general, I think he's absolutely right. However, one cannot exclusively rely on math when watching basketball. Dirk led teams the last several years have an abnormally high winning percentage in games decided by less than a few points. Hollinger has noted this in previous years as a knock against the Mavs. At some point, you have to believe there is something more than math going on here. What is that something? Well, its the fact that Dirk's got big ones.

The "coin flip" premise is absurd for two reasons. One is just that it's a zero-sum rule: the number of close wins in history is exactly the same as the number of close losses, so it's not surprising that the results aren't terribly skewed.

The other reason is his logical leap that if winning close games was a skill, then all the good teams would have it. There might be one championship team that blocked a lot of shots, and another that hardly blocked any. That doesn't imply that blocked shots are more a matter of luck than skill.

Dirkadirkastan · 03-02-2010, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

I was thinking about his latest missive...about the mavs recent win streak mov not being as high as the mov of the "elite" teams. It would be interesting to see what the "elite" teams mov has been against the same teams. Say cleveland/la against the same teams that are on the mavs win streak.

Points are points, man! It's just as easy to score against the Lakers as it is to score against the Warriors, duh!

aurelino9 · 03-02-2010, 05:14 PM

Something simple like MOV1= Mov*Q(x, y)
where Q(x, y) denotes the "quality" of the opposition is a better indicator of success than raw MOV. The variables x and y could be, say the (normalized) defensive efficiency and the MOV of the opposition

A team like the Spurs which is 7-12 against top-10 teams and 12-18 against top-16 and has a losing road record despite having the easiest schedule shouldn't be ranked above Mavs just because they blew out some lottery teams.

Rick41 · 03-02-2010, 11:36 PM

I personally want to bitch slap John Hollinger.

xrobx · 03-02-2010, 11:56 PM

the last time i checked....

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

not to see how high you can get your scoring margin

Dnowit41 · 03-03-2010, 12:00 AM

F him

xrobx · 03-03-2010, 12:02 AM

the only way we can shove this in his face is for the mavs to keep winning.

he's just mad because the way he calculates power rankings is being exposed as certified bullshit

mkat · 03-03-2010, 12:05 AM

he's just trying to apply math to basketball like they do baseball. as with anything based on humans being predictable there are always gonna be flaws. big deal. just ignore him.

Five-ofan · 03-03-2010, 02:00 AM

Hollinger is smarter than some of you guys are giving him credit for. That said, hes flat out wrong on this one. Im going to take KGs numbers as being correct without checking(i have no reason to doubt them). This team being number 1 in defensive effeciency with najera playing 13 minutes a night over that stretch is nothing short of amazing. Najera is one of the 30 or so worst players in the nba. He hustles but he doesnt do anything well, hes not a scorer, hes not a good defender, and hes a terrible rebounder for a center(because he isnt a center). Combine those qualities and you basically end up with the mavs playing 4 on 5 for 13 minutes a game. Also add in that hes our player outside of dirk and haywood whos even 6-8. Thats a fairly insane lack of size while damps out. When you replace him with damp, the mavs will end up getting quite a bit better in all 3 areas(yes damp is an offensive improvement too). The thing is, this team doesnt have a glaring weakness once Damp gets healthy and thats something very few teams can say and its something his formula doesnt account for.

As for winning close games, I think its like Batting average on balls in play for hitters in baseball. If it happens one year or maybe 2 it can attributed as luck, but if it continually happens over years, it can be based on skill. Theres a reason Ichiro is at the top of the league in BABIP every year and its because his skill set lends itself to that.

mavsfan1000 · 03-03-2010, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Hollinger is smarter than some of you guys are giving him credit for. That said, hes flat out wrong on this one. Im going to take KGs numbers as being correct without checking(i have no reason to doubt them). This team being number 1 in defensive effeciency with najera playing 13 minutes a night over that stretch is nothing short of amazing. Najera is one of the 30 or so worst players in the nba. He hustles but he doesnt do anything well, hes not a scorer, hes not a good defender, and hes a terrible rebounder for a center(because he isnt a center). Combine those qualities and you basically end up with the mavs playing 4 on 5 for 13 minutes a game. Also add in that hes our player outside of dirk and haywood whos even 6-8. Thats a fairly insane lack of size while damps out. When you replace him with damp, the mavs will end up getting quite a bit better in all 3 areas(yes damp is an offensive improvement too). The thing is, this team doesnt have a glaring weakness once Damp gets healthy and thats something very few teams can say and its something his formula doesnt account for.

Oh come on. Give him more credit than that. He puts a lot of pressure on teams offense with full court pressure, he gets a lot of loose balls, he annoys players his size, and etc. For what disadvantages he has, he makes up with his hustle. Dampier will obviously be an upgrade but it's not like we suck with Najera out there.

Dirkadirkastan · 03-03-2010, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

As for winning close games, I think its like Batting average on balls in play for hitters in baseball. If it happens one year or maybe 2 it can attributed as luck, but if it continually happens over years, it can be based on skill. Theres a reason Ichiro is at the top of the league in BABIP every year and its because his skill set lends itself to that.

You're wrong, Five-o. No one else is good at it, therefore Ichiro is definitely not good at it either.

sike · 03-03-2010, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You're wrong, Five-o. No one else is good at it, therefore Ichiro is definitely not good at it either.

just stupid lucky.

Five-ofan · 03-03-2010, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mavsfan1000

Oh come on. Give him more credit than that. He puts a lot of pressure on teams offense with full court pressure, he gets a lot of loose balls, he annoys players his size, and etc. For what disadvantages he has, he makes up with his hustle. Dampier will obviously be an upgrade but it's not like we suck with Najera out there.

We dont suck because of the other 4 players but najera is terrible. Absolutely terrible. He plays hard but he has not talent and theres really not anyone in the nba that he can defend.

G-Man · 03-03-2010, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

Hollinger's blind clinging to his own subjective statistical whims seems almost dishonest.

Actually, Hollinger's problem is that he believes in his stats so strongly, he can't process any other information. I contend that the changes the Mavs made in their lineup with the trade renders all the stats from before the trade irrellevant. JH's stats have told him the trade was insignificant. He concluded that during the all-star break, before theyy ever played a game.

Anyone who has actually watched the games knows that, while Haywood is statistically similar to Damp, he took on some of the toughest centers in the NBA... Amare, Howard, J O'neal, Bynum and did not need double team help. He played smart, gave up points early to stay out of foul trouble, then defended them aggressively in the 2nd half. Anyone can see that Haywood has quicker feet, so he can run with guys who run off and leave Damp. Better center play makes the perimeter defense better, which is why teams stopped hitting 3's. THERE IS NO STAT FOR HOW HAYWOOD CHANGED THE MAVS, so to JH, it doesn't matter. The reality is his model fails to measure many things that do matter. If your stats ignore the obvious, its time to change your model.

His stats don't measure how much harder the team is playing now, or how much more effort Terry is putting in on Defense, or that Kidd is playing like he's 26 instead of 36. Butler may be statistically similar to Howard, but he plays harder,scores in the 4th quarter, goes to the hole more, draws more fouls and puts the best free throw shooting team in the NBA into the bonus sooner.

There is a stat that measures this. Its called an 8 game winning streak, against top playoff contenders. JH is so in love with his stats, he can't see when they are obviously wrong.

The smart thing for him to do is toss out the pre-trade stats, which he could do. At the very least, when he writes an article like this he could compare pre-trade to post trade. But that would expose the folly of his original conclusion that the trade was good for 1 more win. Instead he insists on only using full season stats. If the Mavs go back to sucking like they did before the trade, he'll be right. If they keep this up, he'll look stupid. He's just writtien that, even if they win 15 straight, they aren't any better. That's already stupid. However, if they blow out the weak teams coming up, their margin of victory will improve, and they will move up in his rankings.

Any system that gives high value to a blowout of the Clips and treats a close win over the Lakers as a fluke is bogus. The real fluke is whenJH's predictions are correct. (as for 2007, the Mavs only lost to GS because Nellie is the only coach who knew Dirk's game well enough to shut him down. Now That's a fluke)

Dirkadirkastan · 03-03-2010, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

The reality is his model fails to measure many things that do matter. If your stats ignore the obvious, its time to change your model.

This is exactly what makes him the smartest dumbass in sports journalism.

Quote:

The smart thing for him to do is toss out the pre-trade stats, which he could do. At the very least, when he writes an article like this he could compare pre-trade to post trade. But that would expose the folly of his original conclusion that the trade was good for 1 more win. Instead he insists on only using full season stats.

I'm starting to think that if the Mavs do make a lot of noise in the playoffs, the Hollinger rankings won't be back next year. He's backpedaling and doing all he can to salvage the dignity of his power rankings, which at this point requires him to dismiss the Mavs any way he can and hope they fail in the long run. Pathetic.

sike · 03-03-2010, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

Actually, Hollinger's problem is that he believes in his stats so strongly, he can't process any other information. I contend that the changes the Mavs made in their lineup with the trade renders all the stats from before the trade irrellevant. JH's stats have told him the trade was insignificant. He concluded that during the all-star break, before theyy ever played a game.

Anyone who has actually watched the games knows that, while Haywood is statistically similar to Damp, he took on some of the toughest centers in the NBA... Amare, Howard, J O'neal, Bynum and did not need double team help. He played smart, gave up points early to stay out of foul trouble, then defended them aggressively in the 2nd half. Anyone can see that Haywood has quicker feet, so he can run with guys who run off and leave Damp. Better center play makes the perimeter defense better, which is why teams stopped hitting 3's. THERE IS NO STAT FOR HOW HAYWOOD CHANGED THE MAVS, so to JH, it doesn't matter. The reality is his model fails to measure many things that do matter. If your stats ignore the obvious, its time to change your model.

His stats don't measure how much harder the team is playing now, or how much more effort Terry is putting in on Defense, or that Kidd is playing like he's 26 instead of 36. Butler may be statistically similar to Howard, but he plays harder,scores in the 4th quarter, goes to the hole more, draws more fouls and puts the best free throw shooting team in the NBA into the bonus sooner.

There is a stat that measures this. Its called an 8 game winning streak, against top playoff contenders. JH is so in love with his stats, he can't see when they are obviously wrong.

The smart thing for him to do is toss out the pre-trade stats, which he could do. At the very least, when he writes an article like this he could compare pre-trade to post trade. But that would expose the folly of his original conclusion that the trade was good for 1 more win. Instead he insists on only using full season stats. If the Mavs go back to sucking like they did before the trade, he'll be right. If they keep this up, he'll look stupid. He's just writtien that, even if they win 15 straight, they aren't any better. That's already stupid. However, if they blow out the weak teams coming up, their margin of victory will improve, and they will move up in his rankings.

Any system that gives high value to a blowout of the Clips and treats a close win over the Lakers as a fluke is bogus. The real fluke is whenJH's predictions are correct. (as for 2007, the Mavs only lost to GS because Nellie is the only coach who knew Dirk's game well enough to shut him down. Now That's a fluke)

One of the better posts I've read in a while... +rep

Five-ofan · 03-03-2010, 04:11 AM

His biggest issue(or one of them) is that his formula cant measure intangibles. Experience is always praised but in the case of the mavs pre trade it was actually a bad thing in a certain way. This team knew it wasnt going to win. Im not saying they werent trying, but theres a difference between effort and effort coupled with belief. This team doesnt know what it cant do, and thats a good thing.

Thespiralgoeson · 03-03-2010, 08:37 AM

Hollinger may be wrong here, but the man is certainly not an idiot, and he is anything but biased. The guy has given the Mavs more credit over the years than anyone else in the sports media. To my knowledge, he was the ONLY guy calling for the Dirk to be named MVP in 05-06.

MavsX · 03-03-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

Hollinger is borderline mentally handicapped if you ask me.

i would agree with that.

MavsX · 03-03-2010, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

Actually, Hollinger's problem is that he believes in his stats so strongly, he can't process any other information. I contend that the changes the Mavs made in their lineup with the trade renders all the stats from before the trade irrellevant. JH's stats have told him the trade was insignificant. He concluded that during the all-star break, before theyy ever played a game.

Anyone who has actually watched the games knows that, while Haywood is statistically similar to Damp, he took on some of the toughest centers in the NBA... Amare, Howard, J O'neal, Bynum and did not need double team help. He played smart, gave up points early to stay out of foul trouble, then defended them aggressively in the 2nd half. Anyone can see that Haywood has quicker feet, so he can run with guys who run off and leave Damp. Better center play makes the perimeter defense better, which is why teams stopped hitting 3's. THERE IS NO STAT FOR HOW HAYWOOD CHANGED THE MAVS, so to JH, it doesn't matter. The reality is his model fails to measure many things that do matter. If your stats ignore the obvious, its time to change your model.

His stats don't measure how much harder the team is playing now, or how much more effort Terry is putting in on Defense, or that Kidd is playing like he's 26 instead of 36. Butler may be statistically similar to Howard, but he plays harder,scores in the 4th quarter, goes to the hole more, draws more fouls and puts the best free throw shooting team in the NBA into the bonus sooner.

There is a stat that measures this. Its called an 8 game winning streak, against top playoff contenders. JH is so in love with his stats, he can't see when they are obviously wrong.

The smart thing for him to do is toss out the pre-trade stats, which he could do. At the very least, when he writes an article like this he could compare pre-trade to post trade. But that would expose the folly of his original conclusion that the trade was good for 1 more win. Instead he insists on only using full season stats. If the Mavs go back to sucking like they did before the trade, he'll be right. If they keep this up, he'll look stupid. He's just writtien that, even if they win 15 straight, they aren't any better. That's already stupid. However, if they blow out the weak teams coming up, their margin of victory will improve, and they will move up in his rankings.

Any system that gives high value to a blowout of the Clips and treats a close win over the Lakers as a fluke is bogus. The real fluke is whenJH's predictions are correct. (as for 2007, the Mavs only lost to GS because Nellie is the only coach who knew Dirk's game well enough to shut him down. Now That's a fluke)

this. sorrry male28dan.

but seriously. i would agree with this. we just gotta sit back and hope for the best boys(and girls)

Usually Lurkin · 03-03-2010, 09:22 AM

On the close wins thing, I think it's important to remember that to win by a lot of points, you have to have a blowout going, and you have to keep it through garbage time. In order to do that you have to have
1) a bench that's good enough to keep a blowout alive, and
2) a killer instinct.

both of these, I think, are very important for winning a championship

on 1) Our bench consists of Jason Terry right now, which is great, but on his own, he couldn't keep a blowout going, and he's probably not "garbage time" bench, either.
on 2) We might have the "how do we find a way to win this game" killer instinct, but it's questionable whether we have the "foot on their throat" killer instinct.

bobbyfg7 · 03-03-2010, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

Actually, Hollinger's problem is that he believes in his stats so strongly, he can't process any other information...

The smart thing for him to do is toss out the pre-trade stats, which he could do. At the very least, when he writes an article like this he could compare pre-trade to post trade. But that would expose the folly of his original conclusion that the trade was good for 1 more win...

Any system that gives high value to a blowout of the Clips and treats a close win over the Lakers as a fluke is bogus. The real fluke is whenJH's predictions are correct. (as for 2007, the Mavs only lost to GS because Nellie is the only coach who knew Dirk's game well enough to shut him down. Now That's a fluke)

A lot of what I wanted to say but didn't take the time to put it out there. + rep for you sir.

And speaking of the 1 more win prediction, I wish I could go back and see what the Mavs predicted wins were in JH's playoff odds before the trade and now. I remember him having the Mavs at 48 wins a while back and now we're at 53. So does this mean he's starting to disregard his numbers as well?

saclare · 03-03-2010, 10:48 AM

Hollinger is an idiot...Marc Stein is, by far, a much better read on the NBA and it's rankings.

dirno2000 · 03-03-2010, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Hollinger may be wrong here, but the man is certainly not an idiot, and he is anything but biased. The guy has given the Mavs more credit over the years than anyone else in the sports media. To my knowledge, he was the ONLY guy calling for the Dirk to be named MVP in 05-06.

I agree. He's far from an idiot and over the years he's been more than fair to the Mavs.

Still, this is a case of a stat guy cherry picking numbers to make a point that’s based in emotion. It's intellectually dishonest. The following section is the worst:

Dig deeper, and still, nothing about the Mavs screams "contender." They rank 10th in offensive efficiency and 12th in defensive efficiency. Their offense is predicated on the lowest-percentage shot in the game, the long 2, and three Mavs (Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Terry and Butler) are among the league's leading practitioners of the shot. Sure, that trio converts from midrange more often than most, but it's still a difficult way to build a high-powered offense.

Thus, if the Mavs are to be legit, they will have to improve on defense. That's where the additions of Haywood and, to a lesser extent, DeShawn Stevenson, could help. But even if those two vault the Mavs all the way into the league's top five in defensive efficiency -- an unlikely occurrence -- they still would be on an even footing with only the West's other second-tier teams.

The point of the article is to examine the Mavs viability as a contender POST trade. That being the case why is our full year offensive and defensive ranking even remotely relevant?

His single worst point is that if we move from 12th to 5th in defensive efficiency we'd be on par with the second tier teams in the West. Of course he’s conveniently ignoring the fact that to make such a dramatic leap this late in the season we'd likely have to be the best defensive team in the league post trade. Like KG said, Hollinger knows these things and the fact that he's purposely ignoring them tells you all you need to know. I’m an insider so I read his per diem everyday and I know he's better than this.

FINtastic · 03-03-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirno2000

I agree. He's far from an idiot and over the years he's been more than fair to the Mavs.

Still, this is a case of a stat guy cherry picking numbers to make a point that’s based in emotion. It's intellectually dishonest. The following section is the worst:

Dig deeper, and still, nothing about the Mavs screams "contender." They rank 10th in offensive efficiency and 12th in defensive efficiency. Their offense is predicated on the lowest-percentage shot in the game, the long 2, and three Mavs (Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Terry and Butler) are among the league's leading practitioners of the shot. Sure, that trio converts from midrange more often than most, but it's still a difficult way to build a high-powered offense.

Thus, if the Mavs are to be legit, they will have to improve on defense. That's where the additions of Haywood and, to a lesser extent, DeShawn Stevenson, could help. But even if those two vault the Mavs all the way into the league's top five in defensive efficiency -- an unlikely occurrence -- they still would be on an even footing with only the West's other second-tier teams.

The point of the article is to examine the Mavs viability as a contender POST trade. That being the case why is our full year offensive and defensive ranking even remotely relevant?

His single worst point is that if we move from 12th to 5th in defensive efficiency we'd be on par with the second tier teams in the West. Of course he’s conveniently ignoring the fact that to make such a dramatic leap this late in the season we'd likely have to be the best defensive team in the league post trade. Like KG said, Hollinger knows these things and the fact that he's purposely ignoring them tells you all you need to know. I’m an insider so I read his per diem everyday and I know he's better than this.

That was definitely the weakest point of his article, and I couldn't figure out why he was making it. Using the entire season's worth of stats isn't going to make his case about this particular team.

tc29 · 03-03-2010, 03:02 PM

This is about as bad as Bruce Bowen on SportsCenter on yesterday's morning segment saying that the 8-game win streak doesn't place Mavs as contenders since they've beaten up peewee teams and haven't played the Lakers and Nuggets. I mean, did the rest of the nation just tune out the fact that we beat a healthy Lakers team DURING this stretch while being shorthanded without Butler? When will we get our due?

(Someone else who saw SportsCenter at around 10-11a yesterday will know what I'm talking about hopefully).

mkat · 03-03-2010, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tc29

This is about as bad as Bruce Bowen on SportsCenter on yesterday's morning segment saying that the 8-game win streak doesn't place Mavs as contenders since they've beaten up peewee teams and haven't played the Lakers and Nuggets. I mean, did the rest of the nation just tune out the fact that we beat a healthy Lakers team DURING this stretch while being shorthanded without Butler? When will we get our due?

(Someone else who saw SportsCenter at around 10-11a yesterday will know what I'm talking about hopefully).

i'm honestly having a hard time figuring out why you all care so much. the only thing that matters is wins. they keep winning and the rest takes care of itself.

fluid.forty.one · 03-03-2010, 03:29 PM

The proof is in the pudding... or Ws.

Usually Lurkin · 03-03-2010, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tc29

This is about as bad as Bruce Bowen on SportsCenter on yesterday's morning segment saying that the 8-game win streak doesn't place Mavs as contenders since they've beaten up peewee teams and haven't played the Lakers and Nuggets. I mean, did the rest of the nation just tune out the fact that we beat a healthy Lakers team DURING this stretch while being shorthanded without Butler? When will we get our due?

(Someone else who saw SportsCenter at around 10-11a yesterday will know what I'm talking about hopefully).

... But he's got Mavs at 4 (compared to ESPN and Stein who have us at 5) in a power ranking:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4961050

(Legler's moved them to 3)

purplefrog · 03-03-2010, 03:47 PM

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

JCmasta · 03-03-2010, 04:55 PM

I don't understand why Hollinger even has a job at espn, some of the guys who manage/run things over there probably look at his daily PW and shake their heads. Must be a contract thing but i don't think he'll have a job next season.

FreshJive · 03-03-2010, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FINtastic

That was definitely the weakest point of his article, and I couldn't figure out why he was making it. Using the entire season's worth of stats isn't going to make his case about this particular team.

He thinks the trade was a lateral move, so his stats still stand. His reliance on PER to evaluate the trade is his biggest sin.

bobbyfg7 · 03-04-2010, 05:10 PM

Hollinger during his chat today:

Quote:

David (NYC)

John I thought the trade by the mavs for Butler and Haywood gives them toughness they never had and will make them a tough out in the playoffs, Dirk is as good as he ever was, how do you like their chances to beat the nuggets? How about the Lakers?

John Hollinger (12:12 PM)

I'm still highly skeptical. Scoring margin is a better predictor of future success than win-loss record; Dallas is 8th of the 8 likely West playoff teams in that metric. The trade makes them better, but those numbers haven't improved significantly since the deal, and of course they're not the only team that got players at or near the deadline.

Sam (alabama)

No way Dallas is the 14th best team in the league, as according to your power rankings. No Way!

John Hollinger (12:13 PM)

A lot of Dallas fans up in arms about this -- they fell two more spots after a rather unimpressive home escape against Minnesota last night. Again, scoring margin generally tells us a lot more about a team than win-loss record; what it's telling us about Dallas isn't what Mavs fans want to hear.

More of the same Hollinger hate'n on the Mavs.

Quote:

Mark (Dallas)

I know you are a numbers guy and more often than not I agree with you. I think Dallas will be a prime example for years to come about the ability of your power ranking system to predict the future. Why? Because Dallas is 13-2 in games decided by 5 points or less, the have what is called veteran savy and probably the best assembly of clutch performers in the league and a "tough" team in general. The Mavs are what the Spurs were a couple years ago. Am I right with that assesment and can you understand why Mavs fans see their team in a more positive light than you do because of this?

John Hollinger (12:45 PM)

Actually they're 16-5 in those games, but let's proceed -- I have this debate every year with fans from a different team that happens to be fortunate in close games. They all think their players have magical clutch powers, but they don't. There is NO correlation -- none -- in that stat from year to year, even with teams that keep their personnel remarkably stable. I know Mavs fans are convinced Kidd is the greatest clutch player in history, for instance, but his Nets team in 2002-03 actually had the worst differential between their actual record and that expected by their scoring margin -- 49 wins with a 5.3 margin -- of any team in the last decade.

Wait, what? When did Kidd become the "greatest clutch player in history" and who told him this is what Mavs fans believe? Pretty sure Mark was talking about Dirk, Terry, and Butler.

Quote:

Taj (Dallas)

Mavs post-trade point differential is +5.1, quite a bit better than their season average 2.3. If the Mavs continue this increased point differential advantage will you believe?

John Hollinger (12:31 PM)

You're right it's better since the trade ... and it needs to be. Even at +5.1, they're short of the Lakers/Magic/Cavs and basically even with the Hawks/Nuggets/Jazz/Celtics ... and that's looking at them in the best light we possibly can.

By "basically even" I believe he means the Mavs would be 4th.

rabbitproof · 03-04-2010, 05:40 PM

This is all wrong. Would it be fair to compare your annual salary for 2010 to someone's annual salary over the last 5 years? Why is he comparing our 10 game sample to other team's 60 game sample, when he acknowledged we weren't the only ones to make trades.

What are those teams' respective MOV during that same time period (post-ASG)?

LonghornDub · 03-04-2010, 05:47 PM

According to Hollinger's playoff odds (which are based on his power rankings), the Suns have a 18% chance of makin the Finals, second highest in the West. They also have an 8.2% chance of winning the title, also second highest in the West.

That should tell you all you need to know. His models work sometimes, but other times a set of eyes and a brain are a much better judge.