stretch
03-12-2010, 04:08 PM
Hi guys! How are you all doing? Hope you all enjoy this and have a wonderful day!
http://www.dallasbasketball.com/fullColumn.php?id=2722
Hollinger And The Mavs: Is ESPN 'Expert' 'Full Of Mathematical Reason'? Or Full Of Something Else?
Today's Top Six Examples Of His Factual Flaws On The '13th-Best' Mavs
By Mike Fisher -- DB.com
Why do I generally ignore John Hollinger’s ESPN-sponsored anti-Mavs ravings?
Because I believe they contain as much sincerity as a Glenn Beck teardrop.
But then, on Thursday, Hollinger went on the defensive, went online, went on the radio, and went a little nuts trying to insist that he can justify his "scientific'' position that Dallas is but the NBA's 13th best team. And then my friend Tim MacMahon opened a new pathway by courteously stating that Hollinger’s Mavs take is “devoid of emotion’’ and “full of mathematical reason.’’
Now that is worth a deeper look.
Let’s chronicle Hollinger’s day-long campaign on Thursday – his rankings, his attempt to explain his rankings, his radio appearances to attempt to explain his explanations of his rankings – and see if they are indeed “full of mathematical reason.’’
PART I: THE TOP SIX EXAMPLES (JUST FROM THURSDAY!) OF JOHN HOLLINGER NOT BEING ‘FULL OF MATHEMATICAL REASON’ WHEN IT COMES TO THE MAVS
1. John says the Nuggets would beat Dallas in a playoff series even though “the two teams will meet March 29 in Dallas, and if the Mavs win, they'll take the season series 2-1 thanks in part to having two of the games at home.’’
FISH: His “mathematical reasoning’’ is inaccurate. Dallas has indeed split its two games so far with the Nuggets. But and any Mavs fan knows, any Nuggets fan knows, and anybody with access to the internet can know, both games were played in Denver.
2. John says the Cavs would beat Dallas in a playoff series because “the Cavs sport the ultimate trump card in (LeBron) James.’’
FISH: There is nothing “mathematical’’ and nothing in John’s system to account for “trump cards.’’ If there is credit due to “trump cards,’’ Dallas’ employment of Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Kidd should also be factored in.
3. John says that when Dallas plays the Lakers, “The problem is the Mavs can't score on L.A. …’’
FISH: Once again, this is worse than misapplied science.
This is fake-deep knowledge that isn't knowledge at all.
Just two weeks ago, the Lakers played the Mavs. Dallas scored 101 points in the five-point win (too close, right, John?), which is right at its season average.
In other words, Dallas' point total does go down when it plays the Lakers. It stays the same.
John is making a habit (and in a way, has made a career) out of ignoring circumstances that lead to outcomes. But this cannot be ignored: In that game, Dallas played without Caron Butler, without Erick Dampier and with Roddy Beaubois out of the rotation. But Nowitzki scored 31 and Jason Terry scored 30.
But besides all that, yes indeed, Dallas cannot score against the Lakers. Except for those pesky 101 points. … two guys scoring 30 plus. … and three rotation players being out of the rotation.
4. In judging the Hawks and Mavs to be close, John points out that “They've split six meetings during the past three years.’’
FISH: That’s true. Indeed, who can forget the all-important Mavs’ November 2, 2007 loss at Atlanta … and who can deny the impact that game and its principles will have in this year’s Atlanta-Dallas NBA Finals!
I mean, I hope coach Avery can get better production this time around from starters ‘Gana Diop, Jerry Stackhouse and Eddie Jones. Oh, and having Trenton Hassell and Juwan Howard available off the bench, that oughta be helpful, too.
With a game like this -- so important to John's argument -- I wonder if President George W. Bush will attend?
5. John says Dallas is inferior to Orlando and says the only reason the Magic lost is because “Orlando also shot 4-for-25 on 3s in that game -- an event unlikely to repeat itself in future meetings.’’
FISH: If John had actually watched the game, he’d know one of the reasons the “new Mavs’’ were able to manage that feat.
Additionally, in that same game – which Dallas won by 10! … in Orlando! -- Dirk, Butler, and Marion shot a combined 38 percent.
You know what that is? THAT is what us scientists call "an event unlikely to repeat itself in future meetings.''
6. In explaining why he is certain Milwaukee would beat Dallas in a playoff series (an outrageously unsound opinion that reeks of a Skip Bayless-esque craving for contrarian attention), John says, “Unbeknownst to most Mavs fans or the larger world in general, the Bucks may be the hottest team in the league right now. Since acquiring John Salmons, they’ve won nine of 10. … ‘’
But John, what about the fact that Dallas is 2-0 against Milwaukee this year?
John says, “Because both contests happened before the Bucks' recent rejuvenation, I'd lean toward Milwaukee in a neutral-site series.’’
FISH: “Mathematical reason’’? Milwaukee’s nine wins in 10 outings makes the Bucks “the hottest team in the league right now’’ even as another team has 13 wins in 13 outings?
What sort of math is this where "9 out of 10'' is hotter than "13 out of 13''?
A neutral-site series? On what planet would a Mavs-Bucks best-of-seven feature all seven games at a neutral site? Is there a basketball court on some Nut Farm somewhere where we could tip this bad boy off?
It is exactly this sort of Pretzel Logic that casts so much doubt on, and draws so much skepticism of, John’s miscalculations.
Consider the insistence that “acquiring John Salmons’’ is somehow more important than “acquiring Caron Butler'' AND "acquiring Brendan Haywood.’’ That is simply not a justifiable basketball opinion. Not on any level. (To test it, somebody call the Bucks and ask them if, right now, they'd like to swap Salmons to Dallas in exchange for Butler/Haywood.)
John cites Milwaukee’s “recent rejuvenation’’ as the reason it is now superior to the Mavs … thus ignoring a “recent rejuvenation’’ of the Mavs that has propelled Dallas to within a whiff of first place. (Milwaukee is 15 games out of first place.)
And then there is the odd girly slap at Mavs fans who are, in John's mind, apparently ignorant as to the Bucks’ hotness.
"Unbeknownst to Mavs fans ...''?
Is that comment somebody’s idea of being “devoid of emotion’’? Is John chiding you, the Mavs fan, because you watch 82 Dallas games but maybe only two Bucks games?
Clip-and-save that thought for a bit. …
Because coming up, Part II … The Top Six Examples of John Hollinger Not Being ‘Devoid Of Emotion’ When It Comes To The Mavs.
In the meantime, please let my “Full of Mathematical Reason’’ counterpoints sink in. … and contemplate the possibility that “mathematical reason’’ isn’t the only thing John Hollinger is full of.
The DB.com Store: "The UberMan,'' "Fish For Lunch'', "The DUST Chip'', 'FREE RODDY B'!
Follow us at twitter.com/fishsports
Discuss this story at DB.com Boards
231pm mar 12 2010
http://www.dallasbasketball.com/fullColumn.php?id=2722
Hollinger And The Mavs: Is ESPN 'Expert' 'Full Of Mathematical Reason'? Or Full Of Something Else?
Today's Top Six Examples Of His Factual Flaws On The '13th-Best' Mavs
By Mike Fisher -- DB.com
Why do I generally ignore John Hollinger’s ESPN-sponsored anti-Mavs ravings?
Because I believe they contain as much sincerity as a Glenn Beck teardrop.
But then, on Thursday, Hollinger went on the defensive, went online, went on the radio, and went a little nuts trying to insist that he can justify his "scientific'' position that Dallas is but the NBA's 13th best team. And then my friend Tim MacMahon opened a new pathway by courteously stating that Hollinger’s Mavs take is “devoid of emotion’’ and “full of mathematical reason.’’
Now that is worth a deeper look.
Let’s chronicle Hollinger’s day-long campaign on Thursday – his rankings, his attempt to explain his rankings, his radio appearances to attempt to explain his explanations of his rankings – and see if they are indeed “full of mathematical reason.’’
PART I: THE TOP SIX EXAMPLES (JUST FROM THURSDAY!) OF JOHN HOLLINGER NOT BEING ‘FULL OF MATHEMATICAL REASON’ WHEN IT COMES TO THE MAVS
1. John says the Nuggets would beat Dallas in a playoff series even though “the two teams will meet March 29 in Dallas, and if the Mavs win, they'll take the season series 2-1 thanks in part to having two of the games at home.’’
FISH: His “mathematical reasoning’’ is inaccurate. Dallas has indeed split its two games so far with the Nuggets. But and any Mavs fan knows, any Nuggets fan knows, and anybody with access to the internet can know, both games were played in Denver.
2. John says the Cavs would beat Dallas in a playoff series because “the Cavs sport the ultimate trump card in (LeBron) James.’’
FISH: There is nothing “mathematical’’ and nothing in John’s system to account for “trump cards.’’ If there is credit due to “trump cards,’’ Dallas’ employment of Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Kidd should also be factored in.
3. John says that when Dallas plays the Lakers, “The problem is the Mavs can't score on L.A. …’’
FISH: Once again, this is worse than misapplied science.
This is fake-deep knowledge that isn't knowledge at all.
Just two weeks ago, the Lakers played the Mavs. Dallas scored 101 points in the five-point win (too close, right, John?), which is right at its season average.
In other words, Dallas' point total does go down when it plays the Lakers. It stays the same.
John is making a habit (and in a way, has made a career) out of ignoring circumstances that lead to outcomes. But this cannot be ignored: In that game, Dallas played without Caron Butler, without Erick Dampier and with Roddy Beaubois out of the rotation. But Nowitzki scored 31 and Jason Terry scored 30.
But besides all that, yes indeed, Dallas cannot score against the Lakers. Except for those pesky 101 points. … two guys scoring 30 plus. … and three rotation players being out of the rotation.
4. In judging the Hawks and Mavs to be close, John points out that “They've split six meetings during the past three years.’’
FISH: That’s true. Indeed, who can forget the all-important Mavs’ November 2, 2007 loss at Atlanta … and who can deny the impact that game and its principles will have in this year’s Atlanta-Dallas NBA Finals!
I mean, I hope coach Avery can get better production this time around from starters ‘Gana Diop, Jerry Stackhouse and Eddie Jones. Oh, and having Trenton Hassell and Juwan Howard available off the bench, that oughta be helpful, too.
With a game like this -- so important to John's argument -- I wonder if President George W. Bush will attend?
5. John says Dallas is inferior to Orlando and says the only reason the Magic lost is because “Orlando also shot 4-for-25 on 3s in that game -- an event unlikely to repeat itself in future meetings.’’
FISH: If John had actually watched the game, he’d know one of the reasons the “new Mavs’’ were able to manage that feat.
Additionally, in that same game – which Dallas won by 10! … in Orlando! -- Dirk, Butler, and Marion shot a combined 38 percent.
You know what that is? THAT is what us scientists call "an event unlikely to repeat itself in future meetings.''
6. In explaining why he is certain Milwaukee would beat Dallas in a playoff series (an outrageously unsound opinion that reeks of a Skip Bayless-esque craving for contrarian attention), John says, “Unbeknownst to most Mavs fans or the larger world in general, the Bucks may be the hottest team in the league right now. Since acquiring John Salmons, they’ve won nine of 10. … ‘’
But John, what about the fact that Dallas is 2-0 against Milwaukee this year?
John says, “Because both contests happened before the Bucks' recent rejuvenation, I'd lean toward Milwaukee in a neutral-site series.’’
FISH: “Mathematical reason’’? Milwaukee’s nine wins in 10 outings makes the Bucks “the hottest team in the league right now’’ even as another team has 13 wins in 13 outings?
What sort of math is this where "9 out of 10'' is hotter than "13 out of 13''?
A neutral-site series? On what planet would a Mavs-Bucks best-of-seven feature all seven games at a neutral site? Is there a basketball court on some Nut Farm somewhere where we could tip this bad boy off?
It is exactly this sort of Pretzel Logic that casts so much doubt on, and draws so much skepticism of, John’s miscalculations.
Consider the insistence that “acquiring John Salmons’’ is somehow more important than “acquiring Caron Butler'' AND "acquiring Brendan Haywood.’’ That is simply not a justifiable basketball opinion. Not on any level. (To test it, somebody call the Bucks and ask them if, right now, they'd like to swap Salmons to Dallas in exchange for Butler/Haywood.)
John cites Milwaukee’s “recent rejuvenation’’ as the reason it is now superior to the Mavs … thus ignoring a “recent rejuvenation’’ of the Mavs that has propelled Dallas to within a whiff of first place. (Milwaukee is 15 games out of first place.)
And then there is the odd girly slap at Mavs fans who are, in John's mind, apparently ignorant as to the Bucks’ hotness.
"Unbeknownst to Mavs fans ...''?
Is that comment somebody’s idea of being “devoid of emotion’’? Is John chiding you, the Mavs fan, because you watch 82 Dallas games but maybe only two Bucks games?
Clip-and-save that thought for a bit. …
Because coming up, Part II … The Top Six Examples of John Hollinger Not Being ‘Devoid Of Emotion’ When It Comes To The Mavs.
In the meantime, please let my “Full of Mathematical Reason’’ counterpoints sink in. … and contemplate the possibility that “mathematical reason’’ isn’t the only thing John Hollinger is full of.
The DB.com Store: "The UberMan,'' "Fish For Lunch'', "The DUST Chip'', 'FREE RODDY B'!
Follow us at twitter.com/fishsports
Discuss this story at DB.com Boards
231pm mar 12 2010