Hollinger rankings

[Supergirl]

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

Hollinger has us at #3 now, behind the Magic and the Cavs (both of whom we've recently beaten) and good for best in the west. He's got the Jazz, Suns, Blazers, and Lakers in that order behind us.

What is shows is that the Lakers last month of faltering has really hurt them in terms of their efficiency and their defense. They're obviously still the team to beat come playoffs, but it means they are vulnerable...

Interesting...

[SpursNextRomanEmpire]

its all about the numbers

[spursbird]

Hollinger sucks.

[Whisky Dog]

Geek basketball.

[jimo2305]

Do you think he messed himself when he plugged him numbers into his machine this morning?

lmao...


hollinger is one of a kind

[Supergirl]

Hollinger is what he is - his rankings are stats and stats only. Which means they are limited, in a way. Nevertheless, whatever you think about his method, he's proven to be pretty accurate about who comes out standing in the playoffs in the past. His point differential is the key ingredient - that measures defense in a way that is mostly intangible but determines who has the grit to gut out a 7 game series.

[NFGIII]

Hollinger is what he is - his rankings are stats and stats only. Which means they are limited, in a way. Nevertheless, whatever you think about his method, he's proven to be pretty accurate about who comes out standing in the playoffs in the past. His point differential is the key ingredient - that measures defense in a way that is mostly intangible but determines who has the grit to gut out a 7 game series.


Yeah, his a numbers guy who's made a nice niche for himself. Though I don't always believe what his numbers tell him he has beeen pretty decent over many years. Didn't he predict our '07 championship and another one? Can't really remember if he prefdiocted more than one but I think he did.

[jimo2305]

Yeah, his a numbers guy who's made a nice niche for himself. Though I don't always believe what his numbers tell him he has beeen pretty decent over many years. Didn't he predict our '07 championship and another one? Can't really remember if he prefdiocted more than one but I think he did.

lol well i predicted a championship too.. i mean... we were pretty solid in '07

[Mel_13]

lol well i predicted a championship too.. i mean... we were pretty solid in '07

That was the year Dallas won 67 games. While the Mavs were in the middle of winning 51 of 55 and every other so-called expert was handing them the title, Hollinger's computer ranked the Spurs higher.

[jestersmash]

Countering Hollinger's arguments by calling him an idiot is very useful and informative. I finally see the light.

Hollinger's stats are wrong. Why?

"HURR HE'S AN IDIOT"

Oh, I see, thanks for the clear and cogent argument.

[jimo2305]

That was the year Dallas won 67 games. While the Mavs were in the middle of winning 51 of 55 and every other so-called expert was handing them the title, Hollinger's computer ranked the Spurs higher.

but it's the mavs.. :lol

jk

[jestersmash]

That was the year Dallas won 67 games. While the Mavs were in the middle of winning 51 of 55 and every other so-called expert was handing them the title, Hollinger's computer ranked the Spurs higher.

The reason for that is because...Hollinger's rankings by design take into account much more than games won and lost.....

That's...the point of his rankings. It's not just about total win loss, it's not even about most recent win/loss.

Go back and look at Hollinger's computer generated rankings, and match them up with recent wins/losses in the league. I think Hollinger naysayers would be surprised at just how accurate his rankings predicted outcomes, at least in these regular season games.

[ambchang]

The main issue with the rankings is that it applies random weightings to conditions he just pulls out of thin air? Why is the last 25% of games important? How accurate were the rankings for historical purposes?

It also ignores matchups, such that those between the Mavs vs. the Warriors in the 2007 playoffs. If I recall correctly Hollinger said that the Mavs will likely prevail in 6 games, he was wrong, because his rankings ignored the matchups that the Warriors could throw at the Mavs.

[jimo2305]

^ yea some things you just can't get out of numbers alone.. nice effort by hollinger tho..

plus i did give a piece of my mind on hollinger a couple of weeks ago on my site :p:

[Mel_13]

The main issue with the rankings is that it applies random weightings to conditions he just pulls out of thin air? Why is the last 25% of games important? How accurate were the rankings for historical purposes?

It also ignores matchups, such that those between the Mavs vs. the Warriors in the 2007 playoffs. If I recall correctly Hollinger said that the Mavs will likely prevail in 6 games, he was wrong, because his rankings ignored the matchups that the Warriors could throw at the Mavs.

I'll let Hollinger answer for himself:


Caveats

Since this is an entirely automated ranking, you'll notice certain "human" factors missing.

It doesn't know which players are about to come back from injury or which teams have been playing without their best players for the past 10 games.

Along the same lines, it doesn't take into account injuries, trades, controversial calls or any other variables -- just the scores, please.

Nonetheless, it can be very useful because it allows us to see what the landscape looks like when we remove our usual filters.

We hope you enjoy our daily power rankings.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dholling er_john%26page%3dRankings-Intro

[jestersmash]

The main issue with the rankings is that it applies random weightings to conditions he just pulls out of thin air? Why is the last 25% of games important? How accurate were the rankings for historical purposes?

It also ignores matchups, such that those between the Mavs vs. the Warriors in the 2007 playoffs. If I recall correctly Hollinger said that the Mavs will likely prevail in 6 games, he was wrong, because his rankings ignored the matchups that the Warriors could throw at the Mavs.


Yes that's very true, and even Hollinger would likely agree with you there. There's no reason as to why the last 25% of games are most important instead of the last 30% or 15%, say.

As a result, I would welcome anybody who counters his statistics with statistics of their own where they tweak some of these parameters that Hollinger arbitrarily set.

Hell, you don't even have to use his formula and tweak his paramters, come up with a newer formula if you so desire.

Those would make for interesting counter arguments, and I have seen a few rare instances of this (mostly on other message boards).


But, I'm just not seeing that here. I see a lot of "hollinger is dumb!!!!212!!! he's an idoit!!" which is not helpful nor enlightening.

You can't say "this guy's formula and statistics are dumb and he's wrong because he's dumb" (and I'm not saying that you're saying this, by the way, just saying in general for the Hollinger haters)


It's much more helpful to say "I don't agree with Hollinger's parameters/formula, instead I would place more emphasis on this, instead I would weight this statistic more/less heavily, instead I would also include this new parameter" and give us a coherent argument based on that.

But that's hardly ever the case with Hollinger haters. They seem pleased with "hollinger's dumb don't listen to him" and give no other useful information. It's such a bore to read.

If you were a betting man though, who would you listen to? Hollinger, who at least has a mathematical statistics based formula that makes a decent attempt to predict rankings, or joe schmoe saying "HEY GUYS HOLLINGER'S A MORON" if you had to bet on an upcoming game.

[phxspurfan]

Even the Blazers (8th seed) are ahead of the Lakers (1st seed)? This list is garbage.

[jestersmash]

Even the Blazers (8th seed) are ahead of the Lakers (1st seed)? This list is garbage.

No offense but this is kind of what I'm talking about.

You...didn't provide any actual analysis on the issue and just called the list "garbage."

Furthermore, you did not mention that Hollinger has the Lakers and Blazers in a virtual dead heat right now. Look at the ratings, they are very close, they are ranked 6th and 7th.

The only thing you did was mention seeding (1st seed vs 8th seed). Does this imply that you think rankings are only a function of seeding? Are the spurs 7th best in the west right now?

[Spurs7794]

I don't mind Hollinger's numbers and analysis. But he says STUPID things that make no sense. In his last chat, he said "it might surprise some people, but alot of teams would rather play the Lakers than the Jazz". (not an exact quote) REALLY????? Who the hell would rather play the freaking defending champs with the best closer in the game over an untested Utah team with a bunch of mentally soft players (kirilenko, boozer, okur).