Spurs moving up in ESPN rankings.

[Rummpd]

http://espn.go.com/nba/powerrankings/_/season/2011/week/2

Spurs moving up and Stein says they may be LAL's biggest threat*.

6 (10) Spurs 4-1 The Spurs have very quietly injected their roster with some quality youth: George Hill, Blair, Splitter, maybe even sleeper Gary Neal. Which is one big reason we keep saying they might be L.A.'s biggest worry out West.

(Notice he forgot Anderson)

Behind: 1) LAL 2) BC 3) MH* 4) NOH 5) OM

Now why exactly are the Heat currently above the Hornets [when they (NOH) beat them head to head and are undefeated?]

*Although I doubt LAL fans are worried yet with that team cruising along but time will tell!

[Lizard]

That seems about right (for what his opinion is worth).

[ajballer4]

Stein had said before the season that we were the Lakers biggest threat though so he was already on our side

[Shifty]

Now why exactly are the Heat currently above the Hornets [when they (NOH) beat them head to head and are undefeated?]


A case surely can be made that the Hornets deserve to be even higher, given that they also have quality road wins at Houston and Milwaukee in addition to a home win over Denver, but don't forget that the committee always has factored overall "power" into its subjective weekly equation. Future promise carries significant weight here on top of the obvious focus on recent performance.

People fill the comments section (in ESPN) attacking something he already explained. You might not agree with him but at least bother to read what he says. Anyone reading Stein's rankings knows this, or at least should know this. Same thing happens to Hollinger, 99% of the complaints to his rankings are from people who didn't bother to read the explanation of how the rankings are an automated system based on a formula.

[Obstructed_View]

Now why exactly are the Heat currently above the Hornets [when they (NOH) beat them head to head and are undefeated?]

Probably because the Hornets were 11 last week and Miami was 2 last week; both teams going in different directions.

You make a good point. Too many polls are slave to preseason rankings. At some point it's okay to say "oh New Orleans is way better than we thought they'd be" and make an adjustment.

EDIT: Just saw the post above. Stein's explanation doesn't really address the question with the Hornets, who've beaten a lot of really good teams so far (I see he forgot the win over "LA's biggest worry out west"). Unless there's some mathematical explanation of how they calculate "overall power", I'm unsure how the future is dimmer for New Orleans than the teams currently above them.

[ddjeffries]

Not sure why ATL dropped to 9. I still think they're up there with the Spurs.

[Obstructed_View]

Not sure why ATL dropped to 9. I still think they're up there with the Spurs.

I think he said they lost to the only playoff team they faced.

[Shifty]

Just saw the post above. Stein's explanation doesn't really address the question with the Hornets, who've beaten a lot of really good teams so far (I see he forgot the win over San Antonio). Unless there's some mathematical explanation of how they calculate "overall power", I'm unsure how the future is dimmer for New Orleans than the teams currently above them.

Like you say, Miami is (supposed to be) a good team playing irregulary, NOH is (supposed to be) an average team playing really well. If you were forced to place a bet on the chances of either team, would you pick NOH or Miami? I believe Stein keeps things like that in mind.

[8FOR!3]

I don't think Miami's #3 right now. Fact is the Hornets are the 2nd or 3rd best team in basketball right now until proven otherwise. They might be supposed to be average, but they're winning games and playing good ball. My Cowboys were supposed to be a Super Bowl team, but we can't buy a win. The guys on their team made it in the NBA for a reason.

[FromWayDowntown]

Moving towards that mythical Power Rankings championship.

[xtremesteven33]

Only way the Spurs beat the Lakers is if the Lakers suffer an injury or Parker finally develops a consistent 3 point shot....

Both are rather slim... :depressed

[FromWayDowntown]

Little that I saw on Saturday night suggested to me that I was watching the 6th best team in the NBA.

[8FOR!3]

Only way the Spurs beat the Lakers is if the Lakers suffer an injury or Parker finally develops a consistent 3 point shot....

Both are rather slim... :depressed

Do you watch basketball? Our success depends nothing on Parker being able to shoot 3's...

[xtremesteven33]

Do you watch basketball? Our success depends nothing on Parker being able to shoot 3's...


No ive never seen a Spurs game before

[jjktkk]

http://espn.go.com/nba/powerrankings/_/season/2011/week/2 Now why exactly are the Heat currently above the Hornets [when they (NOH) beat them head to head and are undefeated?]

If you watch ESPN, thats all they ever talk about Miami this, Miami that. Judging by the media coverage in this country, it seems that there are only 3 teams in the NBA, Boston, Miami, and the Lakers.

[Leonard Curse]

ive said this many times and this is why well always be L.A's biggest threat, because of pop/manu/duncan. period those three are not scared of L.A at all. this is a big deal because L.A uses fear to intimidate their opponent such as the jazz/dallas/NO shoot even OKC really choked.

theres certain players that are intimidated by the L.A squad i know for a fact deron williams turns into a lil bitch when he plays kobs and so did boozer yet they were tough against everyone else. cp3 is also intimidated ill even say parker is intimidated in a way. ppl may say this sounds stupid but if you watch players body language its amazing how much some of these players think kobe is jesus. thats why you hardlyt see kobe talk shit when he plays us! ginobili always out shines kobe when hes healthy

[jestersmash]

I find hollinger's automated power rankings to be more useful as they have been far more prophetic in the past.

I also know that the spurs probably won't be ranked as high on hollinger's power rankings as spurs fans might like, but the reason for this is simple - our scoring margins (of victory) have been extremely small - certainly for the past 2 games.

You look at us winning by (almost) the slimmest of margins against phoenix and houston, and then you look at the Lakers who are bull dozing through their opponents, and the disparity between us becomes all the more clear.

And all of this considering the fact that RJ is shooting out his mind at the moment. Once RJ's FG% efficiency inevitably drops (if we go by historical standards, then there is exactly a 100% chance that it will by the season's end) the team as a whole is either going to have to pick up the offensive slack (not likely) or significantly improve team defense.

Elite defense is something that can be maintained through long stretches. 65% FG shooting cannot. Right now RJ is keeping us afloat while we try to get our act together with defense and limiting turnovers, and it's making me nervous. I'm becoming antsy to see the emergence an actually sustainable elite spurs team - one that relies more on defense and less on unsustainable offensive efficiency from certain player(s).

[Leonard Curse]

@jester smash so far L.a has only played portland and thats w/out any bigs, so letsw wait until they play the celtics or us for that matter. i agree with the rest of your post though

[UnWantedTheory]

If you watch ESPN, thats all they ever talk about Miami this, Miami that. Judging by the media coverage in this country, it seems that there are only 3 teams in the NBA, Boston, Miami, and the Lakers.

Dont forget the Spurs...I counted 4 teams....

[mingus]

Hornets dont really have any room for growth while the Spurs, Lakers, Denver, Mavs, Portland do. Hornets are playing at maybe the highest level they'll play all season. Spurs will be the second best team in the West at the end of the day with--if there defense doesn't make serious improvement--a very slight chance at beating the Lakers. d needs to improve if they want to give LA trouble.

[Cry Havoc]

Little that I saw on Saturday night suggested to me that I was watching the 6th best team in the NBA.

It's true that we have a lot of work to do, but come on, man. Even the 05 Spurs struggled against weak competition at times. It's not like they destroyed everyone they played.

That said, if our defense doesn't shape up, it's going to be a long season.

[Obstructed_View]

Like you say, Miami is (supposed to be) a good team playing irregulary, NOH is (supposed to be) an average team playing really well. If you were forced to place a bet on the chances of either team, would you pick NOH or Miami? I believe Stein keeps things like that in mind.

Miami hasn't looked terribly good thus far. I think Stein works for ESPN, who won't let employees bag on Miami.

Out of curiosity, why is New Orleans an average team? The average team in the NBA doesn't have two all-star starters, one of whom is the best in the league at his position.

[hater]

Little that I saw on Saturday night suggested to me that I was watching the 6th best team in the NBA.

IMO the difference was Manu being Manu.

without him and we are spot on among the Dallas, Blazers, Suns, Hawks of the NBA.

[Shifty]

Hornets dont really have any room for growth while the Spurs, Lakers, Denver, Mavs, Portland do. Hornets are playing at maybe the highest level they'll play all season.


Out of curiosity, why is New Orleans an average team?
At the beggining of the season, did you have them making the playoffs? (even now I believe they won't make it)


The average team in the NBA doesn't have two all-star starters, one of whom is the best in the league at his position.

2 All-star starters? Who would it be the 2nd? West? :rollin Ahead of Durant, Dirk, Timmy, Pau, Scola, Melo, Odom, Al Jefferson, Griffin, Aldridge, Lee, Randolph, Gay, (even) RJ. He is probably not even in the top5 power forwards or the top 10 forwards in general.

[Vito Corleone]

Right now there is no team in the NBA that is a threat to the Lakers. I doubt any team can prove it in November, maybe a legit threat will emerge in February or March but not now.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's true that we have a lot of work to do, but come on, man. Even the 05 Spurs struggled against weak competition at times. It's not like they destroyed everyone they played.

That said, if our defense doesn't shape up, it's going to be a long season.

Oh, it's not the result that leaves me doubting. It's things that happened to lead to that result.

For instance, I saw a Spurs team that had a huge size advantage for most of the game manage only 38 points in the paint (out of 107 scored on field goals). I saw a team that gave up 30 points in 2 quarters (and 29 in a third). I saw a team that was outrebounded by a team that shouldn't have been able to do that. I saw a team that conceded a significant number of uncontested 3's and got lucky that enough of them missed. Those are just 4 examples.

Do I think those things are incurable? No. But I also don't think the 6th best team in the NBA should be trying to cure all of those problems at once.

[sa_butta]

Hornets have already beat the Heat and are undefeated, yet the Heat get ranked higher with two losses??

[dbestpro]

Hornets dont really have any room for growth while the Spurs, Lakers, Denver, Mavs, Portland do..

Not really a Hornets fan, but I find it hard to say that they've peaked 5 games in with 2 new starters in their line up. One can only assume that they will get better. They have been winning so far because of solid perimeter defense. You got to give it to Monty Williams for getting his team to play the way they are playing.

[GSH]

Jason Richardson missed two 3-pointers with 40 seconds left, when he'd been shooting lights out. Courtney Lee missed two free throws with 16 seconds left. That's the difference between being 4-1 and being 2-3.

It's also the difference in being 6th in the power rankings, and being about 16th.

[dbestpro]

Jason Richardson missed two 3-pointers with 40 seconds left, when he'd been shooting lights out. Courtney Lee missed two free throws with 16 seconds left. That's the difference between being 4-1 and being 2-3.

It's also the difference in being 6th in the power rankings, and being about 16th.

It is always better to be lucky than good.

[Nathan89]

It is always better to be lucky than good.

Luck is a short-term plan.

[cornbread]

Luck is a short-term plan.

Luck is when opportunity meets preparation.

[GSH]

It is always better to be lucky than good.

Heh... I'll take lucky. But wasn't it last season (or the one before?) that the Spurs were winning a bunch of close games early in the season? A lot of us, myself included, were saying that it was because they were mentally tough. Somebody posted a stat that games decided by 3 points or less were basically a toss-up. It showed that even the best teams lose as many as they win, over the long haul. We sort of dismissed that idea. And by the end of the season, the Spurs had lost at least as many as they had won.

I'm convinced. When you let a team hang around for a photo finish, you're just lucky if you win - no matter how good or bad the other team is.

I'll take lucky. But expect it to even out before May.

[Nathan89]

Luck is when opportunity meets preparation.

My business professor loves to say this. I tend to agree with this a little bit more in business than I do in sports.

[Obstructed_View]

At the beggining of the season, did you have them making the playoffs? (even now I believe they won't make it)

What does the beginning of the season have to do with anything? Preseason predictions don't mean shit. Steve Nash won two MVP awards that he didn't deserve because people couldn't just say that their preseason predictions about the Suns were way off. In addition, what does the playoffs have to do with it? It's a ranking in November.



2 All-star starters? Who would it be the 2nd? West? :rollin Ahead of Durant, Dirk, Timmy, Pau, Scola, Melo, Odom, Al Jefferson, Griffin, Aldridge, Lee, Randolph, Gay, (even) RJ. He is probably not even in the top5 power forwards or the top 10 forwards in general.

What are you talking about? West is a 2 time all star and he starts for the Hornets. That makes him better than half the guys on your list, and he's the second best player on his own team. You're not making a very good case that the Hornets are an average team.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Good for the Spurs, they finally realized that the system has to fit the personnel you have, not the other way around. They're incapable of playing lockdown D anymore, so play to your strengths. Their ceiling is being the 4th best team in the league, and with the coaches and vets they have, it's certainly attainable.

[Obstructed_View]

Good for the Spurs, they finally realized that the system has to fit the personnel you have, not the other way around. They're incapable of playing lockdown D anymore, so play to your strengths. Their ceiling is being the 4th best team in the league, and with the coaches and vets they have, it's certainly attainable.

Given my personal expectations this season, I'll take my chances with 4th best team in the league once the playoffs roll around. If the support players can put them at that level, they more than have the superstars to be the difference against anyone in crunch time.

[GSH]

Given my personal expectations this season, I'll take my chances with 4th best team in the league once the playoffs roll around. If the support players can put them at that level, they more than have the superstars to be the difference against anyone in crunch time.

Damn straight! Expectations and rankings don't mean crap, come playoff time. It's all about 7 games. And the Big 3 all know what it takes to win.

Any team that has guys shooting 3's like this is dangerous in a series. We'll see if they can keep it up, but I feel better about our two rookies than I ever did about Mason.

[JR21]

Glad to see we're getting some recognition.

[99-03-05-07]

as of right now, there is no reason for us not to be that high. our one loss has come against the hornets

[mingus]

It's crazy that Spurs are considered the 6th best team at this point with so many things that aren't going well. So much improvement that this team can make. By the time playoffs come around the team will give itself a chance against anyone if they shore up those things.

[FromWayDowntown]

13th in Hollinger's rankings this morning.

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

According to Hollinger, the Spurs have the 3rd softest schedule to date. With that, they are only 9th in differential.

[Obstructed_View]

13th in Hollinger's rankings this morning.

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

According to Hollinger, the Spurs have the 3rd softest schedule to date. With that, they are only 9th in differential.

What's really funny is that Houston and Phoenix are above them on the list, but their record is what contributes to the "soft" schedule.

[ajballer4]

Bruce just said on ESPN spurs are in top 4 with portland (who I think theyre better than) and LAL and OKC. He had the mavs at 6 in the west

[sandman]

What's really funny is that Houston and Phoenix are above them on the list, but their record is what contributes to the "soft" schedule.

Houston gets 9th because of their strong Strength of Schedule and low Margin of Victory (or loss, as it would appear in their case).

So in Hollinger's world, being 1-5 but not getting blown out by good teams is better than being 5-1 and beating the teams that you are supposed to beat.

Interesting.

[rjv]

interesting 8-13 rankings as well as miami above LA.

sure is some weird math that hollinger uses.

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

[Rob123]

Good for the Spurs, they finally realized that the system has to fit the personnel you have, not the other way around. They're incapable of playing lockdown D anymore, so play to your strengths. Their ceiling is being the 4th best team in the league, and with the coaches and vets they have, it's certainly attainable.

Not trying to start a Spurs are the best team in the league, better then the lakers, heat or celtics debate because I know that's simply not true right now.

But how the hell can our ceiling be the 4th best team in the league if we're ranked 6th right now and playing like absolute crap most nights?

Your logic is almost as flawed as Reagan and Thatchers era of Market Fundamentalism.

[jestersmash]

interesting 8-13 rankings as well as miami above LA.

sure is some weird math that hollinger uses.

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

It's not weird at all. He lays out a formula and emphasizes scoring margin. He also emphasizes recent performance (though this is a moot point right now since we only have 6 or 7 games to work with).

He also provides a rationale for why he emphasizes scoring margin. The reason is simple - if you look back to NBA history in hindsight, scoring margin has been the single most reliable predictor of championship success bar none.

His rankings become progressively more powerful as the season goes on, obviously, because you have more data to work with.

Really though, is anybody truly surprised that Houston is ranked 9th? Did they seem like a 0-5 sub-13 rank team when we played them and barely eeked out a win, especially considering the fact that their two primary scorers went down (martin, brooks) and Yao did not play?

[Obstructed_View]

He also provides a rationale for why he emphasizes scoring margin. The reason is simple - if you look back to NBA history in hindsight, scoring margin has been the single most reliable predictor of championship success bar none.

Suns margin -1.29,
Spurs margin +3.67
Head to head margin, Spurs 1-0

There's the two main indicators right there. Please explain how the Suns are five spots ahead of the Spurs.



Really though, is anybody truly surprised that Houston is ranked 9th? Did they seem like a 0-5 sub-13 rank team when we played them and barely eeked out a win, especially considering the fact that their two primary scorers went down (martin, brooks) and Yao did not play?
It's really nice that this fancy, mathematical, non-objective formula requires how a team seems or gives credit for the potential of injured players that don't actually play.


EDIT: I don't mean to sound overly contentious, I'm just enjoying taking apart the logic. The rankings don't really mean anything, but I'm interested in how they make a lick of sense.

[Obstructed_View]

Houston gets 9th because of their strong Strength of Schedule and low Margin of Victory (or loss, as it would appear in their case).

So in Hollinger's world, being 1-5 but not getting blown out by good teams is better than being 5-1 and beating the teams that you are supposed to beat.

Interesting.

Yeah, that's odd. I don't get it either. The Rockets lost by 8 points to New Orleans, but the Spurs lost by 9. I guess that's more important than all those wins. With such a small sample of games, I'd expect the rankings to go almost in line with scoring margin. Now that I look at it again, how the hell are the Lakers not an easy number one? They weren't blown out by a team they were supposed to beat.

[mathbzh]

And all of this considering the fact that RJ is shooting out his mind at the moment. Once RJ's FG% efficiency inevitably drops..

I agree with you on this but this hopefully, when RJ's % drops... Blair(27%), Hill(36%) will play better, Splitter will be in shape and more confortable with the team...
And any team on a hot streak has one or two players playing out of their minds (this is true of the Lakers with Gasol/Odom)

[Mitch Cumsteen]

Yeah, that's odd. I don't get it either. The Rockets lost by 8 points to New Orleans, but the Spurs lost by 9. I guess that's more important than all those wins. With such a small sample of games, I'd expect the rankings to go almost in line with scoring margin. Now that I look at it again, how the hell are the Lakers not an easy number one? They weren't blown out by a team they were supposed to beat.

It is way too early in the season to put any real stock in Hollinger's rankings. I actually like his model, but not 8 games into the season. There's not enough comparative data to make any sense, especially when the strength of schedule is so skewed this early. Does anybody really expect Houston to play at a .167 clip all year or for Golden State to win 71 percent of their games? Hollinger's rankings will look a lot more realistic in another month or so.

[Seventyniner]

These same Hollinger rankings had the Spurs #1 at the end of the regular season in 2007 when the Mavs finished 67-15 (and the Spurs were 58-24); who's laughing now?

I actually think his rankings are pretty good, though if there were some way to factor in injuries and put less weight on the very end of the regular season, it would be better. The Lakers were in the top 2 in Hollinger's rankings most of last season, but fell to #8 or so in the last 2 weeks of the regular season because they started playing their starters far fewer minutes.

Edit: Small sample size makes the current rankings pretty worthless anyway, but they give you a good idea of how a team is doing beyond their record later in the season. Hollinger did have Phoenix ahead of San Antonio (and both ahead of Dallas) at the end of the last regular season.

[jestersmash]

Suns margin -1.29,
Spurs margin +3.67
Head to head margin, Spurs 1-0

There's the two main indicators right there. Please explain how the Suns are five spots ahead of the Spurs.



It's really nice that this fancy, mathematical, non-objective formula requires how a team seems or gives credit for the potential of injured players that don't actually play.


EDIT: I don't mean to sound overly contentious, I'm just enjoying taking apart the logic. The rankings don't really mean anything, but I'm interested in how they make a lick of sense.

Certainly. The model/formula is what it is. I mentioned that two of the primary variables were scoring margin and recent performance, but that's not the entire story.

The scoring margin for home wins is slightly diminished relative to road wins by a fixed factor, for starters, because Hollinger is (likely) attempting to quantify the tangible advantage that teams have on their home floor. Playing on one's home floor offers a tangible, demonstrable advantage - I'll assume that you have no problem with this fact.

But, on to the bigger picture - you say the model is "non-objective" - I disagree, but I think I know what you are trying to say. The model is objective, by definition, but the variables that go into the model along with their relative contributions are arbitrary. That's perhaps the term you were looking for.

Here's Hollinger's formula -

RATING = (((SOS-0.5)/0.037)*0.67) + (((SOSL10-0.5)/0.037)*0.33) + 100 + (0.67*(MARG+(((ROAD-HOME)*3.5)/(GAMES))) + (0.33*(MARGL10+(((ROAD10-HOME10)*3.5)/(10)))))

SOS = Season win/loss percentage of team's opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

SOSL10 = Season win/loss percentage of team's last 10 opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

MARG = Team's average scoring margin

MARGL10 = Team's average scoring margin over the last 10 games

HOME = Team's home games

HOMEL10 = Team's home games over the last 10 games

ROAD = Team's road games

ROADL10 = Team's road games over the last 10 games

GAMES = Team's total games


The formula is both objective and arbitrary. But, the beauty of mathematical models is that this is O.K. There is no absolute truth to any of this. He created a model, explained his rationale, and the results are what they are.

Scoring margin is chosen to be the chief variable over win-loss record because historically-speaking scoring margin has been a far more reliable predictor of championship success. That's why he uses scoring margin.

Apart from that, though, the remaining factors and relative contributions that each variable has on the final rating are arbitrary and based mostly on reasonable, educated hypotheses.

Recent performance is more important than performance 4 months ago, according to Hollinger's formula. This point is certainly arguable. People are free to agree or disagree with either the premise or the arbitrary relative contributions that Hollinger has chosen to emphasize recent performance over past performance.

Teams have a demonstrable advantage on their home floor - this is a fact. But, the actual "deduction" from scoring margin that Hollinger applies to home wins (compared to team wins) is thoroughly arbitrary and is certainly open for debate. Do we deduct 2 points for home wins? 3 points? 4 points? The premise that teams have an advantage playing at home is an evidenced-based fact. But, the actual, numerical "penalty" on scoring margin that Hollinger gives to home wins is thoroughly arbitrary and most certainly open to argument, bearing in mind that there is no ultimate "right" answer.

Only the core feature of Hollinger's model (scoring margin over win-loss record) is immune to criticism if you want to subscribe to the idea of evidenced-based reasoning.

Hollinger's contention that recent wins should play more into the rating than past wins is merely a reasonable hypothesis; this isn't an evidenced-based fact and therefore this premise is certainly open to argument, although I'd be hard pressed to find anybody who actually disagrees with the premise.

Assuming you agree with the above premise (recent wins should "count more" than past wins), the actual numerical factors that Hollinger chose to emphasize recent wins over past wins is arbitrary and most certainly open to argument.

No model ever claims absolute knowledge. Hollinger's model is certainly no exception. Unfortunately, I find that people often disagree or criticize Hollinger's model for the wrong reasons.

The primary feature of the model is that it emphasizes scoring margin over win-loss record. I have no problem with that. Strictly speaking, if the model just used win-loss record, it would be thoroughly redundant and useless. I'd be happy to consider other models that used both scoring margin and win loss record. Such models would be compatible with the fact that scoring margin better predicts championship success than win-loss record as long as the relative weight of scoring margin compared to win-loss record was greater than .500.



Lastly, regarding the "meat" of your contention with my post when you made this statement


It's really nice that this fancy, mathematical, non-objective formula requires how a team seems or gives credit for the potential of injured players that don't actually play.

I agree completely. The model does not take into consideration the potential of injured players, and therefore I was not justified in using that to rationalize the rankings. I agree 100%. My rationalization of Houston ranking over the spurs was nonsensical because the model does not take into account those factors to begin with.

[Obstructed_View]

The model is objective, by definition, but the variables that go into the model along with their relative contributions are arbitrary. That's perhaps the term you were looking for.
I agree. That's a much better way to put it. There's a caveat to follow.




The primary feature of the model is that it emphasizes scoring margin over win-loss record. I have no problem with that. Strictly speaking, if the model just used win-loss record, it would be thoroughly redundant and useless. I'd be happy to consider other models that used both scoring margin and win loss record. Such models would be compatible with the fact that scoring margin better predicts championship success than win-loss record as long as the relative weight of scoring margin compared to win-loss record was greater than .500.
Again, I agree with the premise, and I agree with the logic. However, the Spurs are ahead of both Houston and Phoenix in both win-loss record, scoring margin, and they have a head to head win over each team to boot. That's really odd. Assuming the math is correct (I won't even attempt it), there's some anomaly there which we may have to chalk up to insufficient data. On the surface, I think I'd guess that you need a minimum of 20 games in order for it to start to flesh out.



I agree completely. The model does not take into consideration the potential of injured players, and therefore I was not justified in using that to rationalize the rankings. I agree 100%. My rationalization of Houston ranking over the spurs was nonsensical because the model does not take into account those factors to begin with.

Ah, I just took your word that it did. It seemed the only thing that might explain the anomaly. I think it's probably just some function of the math. Someone will probably check the formulas to see if they're massaging the numbers to keep Heat fans happy. :)

[mountainballer]

Here's Hollinger's formula -

RATING = (((SOS-0.5)/0.037)*0.67) + (((SOSL10-0.5)/0.037)*0.33) + 100 + (0.67*(MARG+(((ROAD-HOME)*3.5)/(GAMES))) + (0.33*(MARGL10+(((ROAD10-HOME10)*3.5)/(10)))))

SOS = Season win/loss percentage of team's opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

SOSL10 = Season win/loss percentage of team's last 10 opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

MARG = Team's average scoring margin

MARGL10 = Team's average scoring margin over the last 10 games

HOME = Team's home games

HOMEL10 = Team's home games over the last 10 games

ROAD = Team's road games

ROADL10 = Team's road games over the last 10 games

GAMES = Team's total games


The formula is both objective and arbitrary. But, the beauty of mathematical models is that this is O.K. There is no absolute truth to any of this. He created a model, explained his rationale, and the results are what they are.


in other words: Why do things the easy way if there is a hard way?

Hollingers formular is like claiming that running backwards is faster than running forwards. which is A: not true and B: gives you a good chance to fall on your a**.

[jestersmash]

I agree. That's a much better way to put it. There's a caveat to follow.




Again, I agree with the premise, and I agree with the logic. However, the Spurs are ahead of both Houston and Phoenix in both win-loss record, scoring margin, and they have a head to head win over each team to boot. That's really odd. Assuming the math is correct (I won't even attempt it), there's some anomaly there which we may have to chalk up to insufficient data. On the surface, I think I'd guess that you need a minimum of 20 games in order for it to start to flesh out.




Ah, I just took your word that it did. It seemed the only thing that might explain the anomaly. I think it's probably just some function of the math. Someone will probably check the formulas to see if they're massaging the numbers to keep Heat fans happy. :)


Agreed. I'd say it's reasonable to assume that what you described constitutes one of the major limitations of the model early in the season.





in other words: Why do things the easy way if there is a hard way?

Hollingers formular is like claiming that running backwards is faster than running forwards. which is A: not true and B: gives you a good chance to fall on your a**.

K8E_zMLCRNg

[Obstructed_View]

Agreed. I'd say it's reasonable to assume that what you described constitutes one of the major limitations of the model early in the season.

Might be a better idea for him to tell ESPN not to make him start releasing them until a bit later in the season. It costs him quite a bit of credibility to the unwashed if this is what they come up with. The more I think about it, the more I simply can't conceive that LA is in second place.

[jestersmash]

Might be a better idea for him to tell ESPN not to make him start releasing them until a bit later in the season. It costs him quite a bit of credibility to the unwashed if this is what they come up with. The more I think about it, the more I simply can't conceive that LA is in second place.

Yeah no kidding. The state of his rankings right now simply do not jive with my subjective view of the field (I, too, see the Lakers on top at this moment in time).

I think the narrow 2 point victory vs. Houston at home for the Lakers (W 112 - 110) is probably one of the major data points that's holding them back from the #1 ranking. That, and a (somewhat) narrow 5 point win at home for the Lakers against the Toronto Raptors (W 108 - 103)

Miami, on the other hand, lost narrowly to NOH (by 3) and that was on the Hornet's home floor. Their second loss to Boston also came on Boston's home floor, so you've got NOH and BOS home court advantage taking away slightly from their scoring margins of victory over the Heat for these two games.

Miami's 5 wins, on the other hand, have all been by scoring margins no less than 10, including a decisive win over Orlando by 26 points (high scoring margin against a difficult to beat Orlando bodes well for their overall rating).

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the principal explanation for any anomalies in the statistical power rankings offered by Hollinger is the sparse amount of data. Usually (and I suspect for that very reason) Hollinger's rankings aren't made public until a reasonable amount of the season has passed. I was surprised to see them out this morning.

[Obstructed_View]

I think the principal explanation for any anomalies in the statistical power rankings offered by Hollinger is the sparse amount of data. Usually (and I suspect for that very reason) Hollinger's rankings aren't made public until a reasonable amount of the season has passed. I was surprised to see them out this morning.

I have a feeling a number of discussions much like ours are linked to an "I told you so" email to ESPN headquarters.

[jestersmash]

Well, Miami just losing at home to the Jazz should certainly put a dent in their hollinger ratings.

Jazz came back being down 22 at Miami to win by 2. Familiar face francisco elson made 2 clutch free throws with .4 seconds left in OT to put the Jazz up 2, though he was actually trying to miss the second one on purpose (he failed and accidentally banked the free throw in).

[mountainballer]

pretty funny discussion.
I wonder how many fans try hard to find something, when there isn't anything at all.

I try it simple again:
Hollinger's thesis, that if the scoring margin is factored in like he does, you get a better prediction for overall success is plain FALSE.

it's The Emperor's New Clothes for half informed stats believer.

Hollinger uses an empirical analysis to create a formula. which is an acceptable scientific method, if the number of observations is sufficient.
but then he does something illegitimate.
he takes out some abnormalities (ironically it seems to have been mainly the Spurs numbers he used as his prime example) and instead of trying to equate or eliminate the extreme cases of an observation sample, he uses it to create a thesis and then adjusts his formula that way, that it backs up this thesis.
that's not science, that's charlatanry.
it's the Hwang Woo-Suk method.
for whatever reason such stuff can be pretty persistent, especially if it's apparently sophisticated and that way somehow elitist. "oh, you still just watch the game and try to see the good and the bad of a team. I use the Hollinger fomular. yes, it's a bit elaborate indeed."

maybe it would make sense if people invest some of the time they spend to figure out the formula, to just double check how often it works and how often it produces wrong results. and then think about it.
if I key in 2 plus 2 for 10 times in my calculator and 5 times the result is 3, it's acceptable to assume the calculator is buggy, while it's probably not acceptable to claim to have discovered a new mathematic insight.

[Obstructed_View]

I try it simple again:
Hollinger's thesis, that if the scoring margin is factored in like he does, you get a better prediction for overall success is plain FALSE.

No, scoring margin is, quite simply, the best predictor of any single stat. Go check the history. The question is how, after a formula that gives it so much weight, teams with a bad scoring margin (Houston, Phoenix) are ahead of teams with a decent scoring margin (San Antonio, Dallas), and I'm waiting for a math wonk to figure out the anomaly in the formula.

[mountainballer]

No, scoring margin is, quite simply, the best predictor of any single stat. Go check the history. The question is how, after a formula that gives it so much weight, teams with a bad scoring margin (Houston, Phoenix) are ahead of teams with a decent scoring margin (San Antonio, Dallas), and I'm waiting for a math wonk to figure out the anomaly in the formula.

I did.
that's why I'm confident enough to do this claim.
Hollinger either didn't go back 30-40 years, or he just ignored those years, when his theory didn't work.
(and I guess we don't need to discuss, that the teams with the better records tendentially always have a better scoring margin. that's within the nature of the whole thing.)

[Obstructed_View]

I did.


Clearly you haven't, or you wouldn't continue to discount the value of scoring margin as a statistical predictor.

[FromWayDowntown]

Clearly you haven't, or you wouldn't continue to discount the value of scoring margin as a statistical predictor.

Just looking at it superficially, there's a pretty clear correlation between margin and ultimate success, at least since 2002. In that time, here are the champions, their scoring margins, and their placement among all NBA teams:

2002 -- LAL + 7.1 (2nd)
2003 -- SAS + 5.4 (3rd)
2004 -- DET +5.8 (tied 2nd)
2005 -- SAS +7.8 (1st)
2006 -- MIA +3.9 (5th)
2007 -- SAS +8.4 (1st)
2008 -- BOS +10.3 (1st)
2009 -- LAL +7.7 (2nd)
2010 -- LAL +4.7 (7th)

So, if you just picked the team with the best scoring margin at the start of each of those playoffs, you'd have correctly picked the ultimate champion on 3 of 9 occasions and if you'd picked the 1st or 2nd team in that category, you'd have gotten 6 of 9.

I suspect that if you dug deeper, you'd find that when the team with the best scoring margin didn't win, it was more often than not at least a conference finalist -- for example, Cleveland had the best margin in 2009 and lost in the ECF; Dallas had the best scoring margin in 2003 and lost in the WCF; and Sacramento had the best margin in 2002 and lost in the WCF.

[jestersmash]

I did.
that's why I'm confident enough to do this claim.
Hollinger either didn't go back 30-40 years, or he just ignored those years, when his theory didn't work.
(and I guess we don't need to discuss, that the teams with the better records tendentially always have a better scoring margin. that's within the nature of the whole thing.)

You're so laughably ignorant it's embarrassing. There's an entire academic field dealing with this sort of thing, it's called APBRmetrics, look it up. Our sources are from peer reviewed literature (http://www.bepress.com/jqas/)

You're literally pulling things out of your ass at this moment in time. You claimed to have investigated this issue; it wouldn't surprise me one bit if your "investigation" involved nothing more than amateurish google searches or word of mouth from your "bros" at the bar.

I'm not even going to put in the effort to explain why you're wrong, it's not worth it.


maybe it would make sense if people invest some of the time they spend to figure out the formula, to just double check how often it works and how often it produces wrong results. and then think about it.
if I key in 2 plus 2 for 10 times in my calculator and 5 times the result is 3, it's acceptable to assume the calculator is buggy, while it's probably not acceptable to claim to have discovered a new mathematic insight.

What the fuck kind of analogy is that, and what does it have to do with evidenced-based sports statistical models?

Actually, don't answer that. You're so far behind on fundamental, 4th grade ideas of science, theories, hypotheses, and so forth that it would take me far too long to bring you up to speed.

[mountainballer]

You're so laughably ignorant it's embarrassing. There's an entire academic field dealing with this sort of thing, it's called APBRmetrics, look it up. Our sources are from peer reviewed literature (http://www.bepress.com/jqas/)

You're literally pulling things out of your ass at this moment in time. You claimed to have investigated this issue; it wouldn't surprise me one bit if your "investigation" involved nothing more than amateurish google searches or word of mouth from your "bros" at the bar.

I'm not even going to put in the effort to explain why you're wrong, it's not worth it.



What the fuck kind of analogy is that, and what does it have to do with evidenced-based sports statistical models?

Actually, don't answer that. You're so far behind on fundamental, 4th grade ideas of science, theories, hypotheses, and so forth that it would take me far too long to bring you up to speed.

:lol
jesus. you really need to take a break.

(and I'm not going into this: you are the biggest &%$%&$§*(/ whatsover in the world contest. can't see you being very successful with this style with your academic peers)

so, back to my starting point and my position:
I deeply doubt Hollingers fomulas (either PER as well as his team ranking formular) and I'm absolutely convinced that it produces multiple wrong conclusions.
(to many to ever accept it as a reliable tool)
end of story.

did I pull this out of my ass?
well, a bit it's a gut feeling and another bit is what you call the "entire academic field dealing with this sort of thing"
(some might have noticed my position about the accuracy of Hollinger over the years and my critics. well maybe not. however)

assuming that whatever I use as an argument won't count much at this point of our "discussion", I can only try it this way:
the "academic field" (which I highly respect) is NOT accepting Hollingers theories and formulas without doubts. I don't even think that he has many fans in this department. (see for example the critics on PER from David Berri)

just a quote (if you've got the time, read the whole article. best would be to read the wages of wins at all):


http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/11/17/a-comment-on-the-player-efficiency-rating/
Having noted the importance of offensive and defensive efficiency, Hollinger proceeds to discuss a variety of measures of performance which serve as building blocks for PERs. These building blocks include Points per Shot Attempt, Pure Point Rating, Assist Ratio, Turnover Ratio, Rebound Rate, and Usage Rate. He defends these measures as “improvements” over existing metrics, often noting that the rankings that result evaluate players in a fashion consistent with what NBA observers would believe. In other words, his metrics fit what he believed about the players before he started.

Unfortunately, this is not the way science works. We do not begin with our beliefs, play with the numbers until our beliefs are confirmed, and then call it a day. Models are not evaluated in terms of whether they are consistent with what we believe, but in terms of their ability to explain what we purport to explain (and furthermore, provide predictive power).

let's put it in simple words.
Hollingers formula don't work. (they work sometimes, that's not enough to be labeled "accurate").
the major problems are the arbitrary weights he uses for several stats.
(obstructed asked how can scoring margin be that much overrated in the maths, that it produces obviously absurd results. O_V. you gave the answer to yourself, which is pretty much what I tried to tell: it's overrated and therefore the result of the Hollinger formula is damn wrong. as you see, as everyone else can see.)

if you guys like Hollingers maths. that's ok.
I don't. and I tell the reasons.
I hope that's ok with you.

[TJastal]

You're so laughably ignorant it's embarrassing. There's an entire academic field dealing with this sort of thing, it's called APBRmetrics, look it up. Our sources are from peer reviewed literature (http://www.bepress.com/jqas/)

You're literally pulling things out of your ass at this moment in time. You claimed to have investigated this issue; it wouldn't surprise me one bit if your "investigation" involved nothing more than amateurish google searches or word of mouth from your "bros" at the bar.

I'm not even going to put in the effort to explain why you're wrong, it's not worth it.



What the fuck kind of analogy is that, and what does it have to do with evidenced-based sports statistical models?

Actually, don't answer that. You're so far behind on fundamental, 4th grade ideas of science, theories, hypotheses, and so forth that it would take me far too long to bring you up to speed.

:lol :lol

Double lol's for this one. Loved the analogies too, made my day.

[Obstructed_View]

:lol
jesus. you really need to take a break.

(and I'm not going into this: you are the biggest &%$%&$§*(/ whatsover in the world contest. can't see you being very successful with this style with your academic peers)

so, back to my starting point and my position:
I deeply doubt Hollingers fomulas (either PER as well as his team ranking formular) and I'm absolutely convinced that it produces multiple wrong conclusions.
(to many to ever accept it as a reliable tool)
end of story.

did I pull this out of my ass?
well, a bit it's a gut feeling and another bit is what you call the "entire academic field dealing with this sort of thing"
(some might have noticed my position about the accuracy of Hollinger over the years and my critics. well maybe not. however)

assuming that whatever I use as an argument won't count much at this point of our "discussion", I can only try it this way:
the "academic field" (which I highly respect) is NOT accepting Hollingers theories and formulas without doubts. I don't even think that he has many fans in this department. (see for example the critics on PER from David Berri)

just a quote (if you've got the time, read the whole article. best would be to read the wages of wins at all):


let's put it in simple words.
Hollingers formula don't work. (they work sometimes, that's not enough to be labeled "accurate").
the major problems are the arbitrary weights he uses for several stats.
(obstructed asked how can scoring margin be that much overrated in the maths, that it produces obviously absurd results. O_V. you gave the answer to yourself, which is pretty much what I tried to tell: it's overrated and therefore the result of the Hollinger formula is damn wrong. as you see, as everyone else can see.)

if you guys like Hollingers maths. that's ok.
I don't. and I tell the reasons.
I hope that's ok with you.

So you didn't actually check the history, you just took an article someone wrote that questions the scientific reliability of Hollinger's formulas and made a bunch of unrelated conclusions based on that article without understanding what it was talking about.

Fact: Hollinger's formulas have absolutely NO INTEREST in appealing to scientists, they are intended to try to point to strength of an NBA player or an NBA team.

[Agloco]

Only way the Spurs beat the Lakers is if the Lakers suffer an injury or Parker finally develops a consistent 3 point shot....

Both are rather slim... :depressed

I'm guessing that this was sarcasm?

Correction: I'm HOPING that this was sarcasm, it wasn't though was it? <FACEPALM>

Whether or not the Spurs beat LA has everything to do with developing consistent defense and nothing to do with Parkers ability to hit a 3...... :lol

[Agloco]

WTF is "scoring margin" anyway? Is that the same as point diff, or yet another useless derived metric?

[Obstructed_View]

WTF is "scoring margin" anyway? Is that the same as point diff, or yet another useless derived metric?

When I used the term, I was referring to point differential. If that's the incorrect terminology, then I simply made a mistake.

[ElNono]

Good News: After beating the clips, we moved up from 13 to 12.
Weird News: We're still ranked behind the 1-6 Rockets.

[mountainballer]

So you didn't actually check the history, you just took an article someone wrote that questions the scientific reliability of Hollinger's formulas and made a bunch of unrelated conclusions based on that article without understanding what it was talking about.

Fact: Hollinger's formulas have absolutely NO INTEREST in appealing to scientists, they are intended to try to point to strength of an NBA player or an NBA team.

comon kid. you can do better than this.

this: you didn't do this you didn't check that and finally but but but you don't understand is getting old.

and btw. it wasn't me who brought up the "academic field"

btw2. "intended to try" are the key words. no doubt that Hollinger really tries hard. I once really tried hard to dunk a basketball. didn't work. and I even wasn't credited for trying that hard. didn't even give me a single point for my intention to try.

[mathbzh]

Hollinger's contention that recent wins should play more into the rating than past wins is merely a reasonable hypothesis; this isn't an evidenced-based fact and therefore this premise is certainly open to argument, although I'd be hard pressed to find anybody who actually disagrees with the premise.


You can agree with the premise and disagree with how the variable is integrated in the model. 1/3 of the rating comes from 10 games... this can only decrease the accuracy of the indicator. This makes no sense for me because a 10 game sample is just too small... The SOS variability is too large and affect the rating too much (over a season the difference in SOS should be very small) it also gives too much weight to each game (what if you have one 40pts win in these 10 games? What happen when a team save their top players for playoffs when the other try to secure a spot in the playoffs?)...

The only reason why Hollinger includes the last 10 games adjustment is because he has a weakly issue and does not want to produce the same ranking over and over again.

[Blackjack]

I tend to take Hollinger's rankings with a grain of salt. I don't think his methods are without flaw or even the best available, but I do believe there is some merit.

Basically, I believe when given sufficient data and a full sample-size (i.e., a season), Hollinger's PER will give you a decent indicator of a team or player's strength. But when it comes to utilizing it during the course of a season, when the variables are are simply unquantifiable, his formula nets an incomplete result.

It'd be like building or making something that looks like complete shit or nothing like what you'd think it should and making your final analysis off of that.

And in that respect, it's actually a pretty smart thing to write about during the year -- you generate the interest or outrage over the incomplete findings and then turn out to be in the ballpark with your findings when all is said and done.

It allows for him to look like a fool for a good amount of the time, only to save his credibility enough so that he can do it all over again the following year.

Not bad.

[ElNono]

I can confirm we've broken into the top 10 in Hollinger's ranking and are now above the Rockets... breakout the champagne :toast

[The_Worlds_finest]

I want to see the Playoff odds machine. Also for steins top ten to be released tomorrow my prediction.

1.Hornets(Last of the undefeated)
2.Lakers (Defending Champs, One loss doesn't move them too far south)
3.Celtics (Dominated Heat again, Defending East Conference Champs)
4.Spurs (While the leagues best put together Big 3s, The Spurs quietly assembled a big 4, Best Start since 04-05)
5.Jazz (5 come from behind wins)

[jestersmash]

Looks like the win over OKC bumped the Spurs up to 6th for Hollinger's rankings.

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

1. Hornets
2. Heat
3. Boston
4. Lakers
5. Denver
6. Spurs


Subjectively, Boston appears to be far better than Miami so far, and not just because they've defeated Miami head on twice.

Anyways, I - like many others - find these rankings to be largely useless during the beginning of a season. I put more weight into them come february, march, etc once more data has piled in.

[UnWantedTheory]

Looks like the win over OKC bumped the Spurs up to 6th for Hollinger's rankings.

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

1. Hornets
2. Heat
3. Boston
4. Lakers
5. Denver
6. Spurs


Subjectively, Boston appears to be far better than Miami so far, and not just because they've defeated Miami head on twice.

Anyways, I - like many others - find these rankings to be largely useless during the beginning of a season. I put more weight into them come february, march, etc once more data has piled in.
Couldnt have said it better myself.

[The_Worlds_finest]

week 3 Stein has
1.Celtics
2.Hornets
3.La
4. SPURS
5.Jazz
6.Heat
rest ---who cares.

[polandprzem]

[/B]
Couldnt have said it better myself.

Why?

You could try man

[rjv]

utah is 13th for hollinger ? computers suck at basketball !!!

[lefty]

SPurs 4th
Jazz 5th

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

[DaBears]

Can some one explain to me the logic behind the rankings for week 3.. I mean the spurs have the 2nd best record in the NBA, only the hornets have better.. Yet SPurs and hornets respectfully are ranked below both LA and Boston.. I cant quite figure that one out.....

[jestersmash]

Can some one explain to me the logic behind the rankings for week 3.. I mean the spurs have the 2nd best record in the NBA, only the hornets have better.. Yet SPurs and hornets respectfully are ranked below both LA and Boston.. I cant quite figure that one out.....

If you wanted rankings just based on standings, then you might as well just look at the current standings -

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_record_comparison/conferenceNew_Std_Cnf.html

1. Hornets
2. Spurs
3/4. Lakers/Boston

etc.

But, there's no point in creating a ranking system that is solely based on standings, because we already have that.

The only thing you mentioned in your post is standings, so the implication is that you clearly don't care about other variables like strength of schedule, scoring margin, etc. That's fine, that's your prerogative, but if you want to do that, then you can look at the standings all day long, they are there for everyone to see on nba.com

Spurs are "2nd place" if you want to create a ranking system that only considers win-loss record.