LOL Hollinger

[JJ Hickson]

http://i56.tinypic.com/10pt7wn.png






Seriously.....:lol You can't make stuff like this up.

[Giuseppe]

Only gay people do these power rankings.

[jeebus]

hollinger....all I read there was "in the spirit of thanksgiving, the heat let the cats win. however, they were still able to blow their load in my mouth. thanks for the daily dose of protein, oh number one team of all time!"

[Venti Quattro]

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

[sananspursfan21]

how does hollinger have a job with espn. he cant even back up his decisions. i could make better power rankings and have a reasonable explanation

[Giuseppe]

how does hollinger have a job with espn.

He's got people like us across the land playing stinker finger over his materiel of a Sunday morning.

[j.dizzle]

Hollinger is nothing but a little bitch that gets paid to troll lmao..Maybe some posters on this board can get a job at espn too hahaha.

[Venti Quattro]

Hollinger is nothing but a little bitch that gets paid to troll lmao..Maybe some posters on this board can get a job at espn too hahaha.

Trollinger crofl

[Cry Havoc]

how does hollinger have a job with espn. he cant even back up his decisions. i could make better power rankings and have a reasonable explanation

Hollinger uses stats to calculate these odds. This is not new. It has very little to do with his opinion of who he thinks is the best team.

He plugs the numbers into his equation and tabulates the results. Very straight-forward.

I don't know why people have such a hard time grasping the fact that it's a formula that's giving this answer. Anytime you apply math to sports unconditionally, you are going to occasionally see outliers like the Heat. If you approach his ratings from the understanding that he's using numbers instead of bias/observation, they make a lot more sense.

They might not be "right", but numbers aren't right or wrong in a conventional sense. The worst you can say is that his formula for calculating the best team is flawed.

[jestersmash]

Hollinger uses stats to calculate these odds. This is not new. It has very little to do with his opinion of who he thinks is the best team.

He plugs the numbers into his equation and tabulates the results. Very straight-forward.

I don't know why people have such a hard time grasping the fact that it's a formula that's giving this answer. Anytime you apply math to sports unconditionally, you are going to occasionally see outliers like the Heat. If you approach his ratings from the understanding that he's using numbers instead of bias/observation, they make a lot more sense.

They might not be "right", but numbers aren't right or wrong in a conventional sense. The worst you can say is that his formula for calculating the best team is flawed.

Jesus fucking Christ +100000 for this post, finally someone else "gets it."

It's a mathematical model you ingrates. Hollinger's not claiming absolute knowledge. He's not claiming that his rankings are the end-all-be-all.

He developed a mathematical model and explained his rationale for why the variables are what they are, and the results then are whatever the model spits out.

What exactly about that do you yahoos not understand? If you don't like the formula, by all means create a new one and share your results with the rest of us.

If you don't want to create a mathematical model, feel free to disagree with Hollinger's rankings and explain why. Nobody is stopping you.

Yet, all I see from people are unsophisticated personal attacks like this -


hollinger....all I read there was "in the spirit of thanksgiving, the heat let the cats win. however, they were still able to blow their load in my mouth. thanks for the daily dose of protein, oh number one team of all time!"

when "debating" Hollinger's rankings. Laughable.

If you want to say that you think the Heat aren't the best team in the league because they lost to Memphis, then say it. By (trying) to make a mockery of a mathematical model, you actually end up making a mockery of yourself because you're showing the world that you're incapable of thoughtful, sincere, rational, level-headed debate.

How the fuck do half of you idiots (save Cry Havoc who actually provides intelligent, thoughtful insight) have bolded user names? I thought that was supposed to be some sign of quality posting. Guess not.

[GoodOdor]

Tbh hollinger does fairly well in predicting the playoffs every year, at least much better than the other espn "analysists". Didn't he pick lakers over celts in 7 in the finals?

[MavDynasty]

GNSF gettin' his butthurt on

[jestersmash]

BNMFN gettin' his veteran circlejerk on

[jestersmash]

Tbh hollinger does fairly well in predicting the playoffs very year, at least much better than the other espn "analysists". Didn't he pick lakers over celts in 7 in the finals?

I'd tell you how accurate his rankings have been (in terms of his top ranked team winning the championship and one of his top 3 ranked teams winning the championship) but I'd wager people around these parts would be far too awe-struck to actually believe me, so it doesn't really matter. As far as they are concerned, Hollinger is and always has been dead wrong with every prediction he's ever made (by the end of the season - of course; early rankings mean little given that so little data has poured in). I think it's funnier to leave them wading in their own ignorance.

[Roddy Beaubois]

GNSF gettin his continued butthurt on

[NZ Spurs]

Hollinger uses stats to calculate these odds. This is not new.

And therein lies the problem. Its a gimmick that has no worth. Statisticians don't know shit about the world and how it works.

[sananspursfan21]

Hollinger uses stats to calculate these odds. This is not new. It has very little to do with his opinion of who he thinks is the best team.

He plugs the numbers into his equation and tabulates the results. Very straight-forward.

I don't know why people have such a hard time grasping the fact that it's a formula that's giving this answer. Anytime you apply math to sports unconditionally, you are going to occasionally see outliers like the Heat. If you approach his ratings from the understanding that he's using numbers instead of bias/observation, they make a lot more sense.

They might not be "right", but numbers aren't right or wrong in a conventional sense. The worst you can say is that his formula for calculating the best team is flawed.


well i still hate him

[Cry Havoc]

And therein lies the problem. Its a gimmick that has no worth. Statisticians don't know shit about the world and how it works.

And yet advanced statistic give us numbers like PER, which tends to be far more accurate at measuring production. In the past four Spurs championships, Hollinger has typically been the only analyst who has even mentioned us before the post-season begins. In a sea of staunchly East-West coastal biases, Hollinger is just trying to ask a few fundamental questions to figure out who the best team is.

Yes, statistics are wrong a lot. They can miss some obvious facts that they shouldn't. And yet all too frequently, they give the most level view of the playing field, uncoloured by hype or flare.

Be honest. You might hate Hollinger, but what analyst do you always agree with? Hell, what analyst even gives consistently decent insight or playoff predictions? At least with Hollinger, you know what you're getting, as opposed to people like Bill Plaschke, who is undoubtedly still convinced that USC is going to win the NCAA title in football this year.

Give me that any day over hearing Jalen Rose fellate himself for 5 minutes at a time.

[Jelloisjigglin]

:lol

[Killakobe81]

his formula for calculating the best team is flawed

You could of just said this ...everyone knows the rest.

Problem is since I have followed his rankings, he was only right about the Celts ... his numbers aRE flawed ...

How are win/loss not given more weight? Who cares about scoring margin or SOS if you are losing?

[Killakobe81]

And yet advanced statistic give us numbers like PER, which tends to be far more accurate at measuring production. In the past four Spurs championships, Hollinger has typically been the only analyst who has even mentioned us before the post-season begins. In a sea of staunchly East-West coastal biases, Hollinger is just trying to ask a few fundamental questions to figure out who the best team is.

Yes, statistics are wrong a lot. They can miss some obvious facts that they shouldn't. And yet all too frequently, they give the most level view of the playing field, uncoloured by hype or flare.

Be honest. You might hate Hollinger, but what analyst do you always agree with? Hell, what analyst even gives consistently decent insight or playoff predictions? At least with Hollinger, you know what you're getting, as opposed to people like Bill Plaschke, who is undoubtedly still convinced that USC is going to win the NCAA title in football this year.

Give me that any day over hearing Jalen Rose fellate himself for 5 minutes at a time.

PER is flawed too ...it loved Bynum over better bigs two seasons ago ...

[Killakobe81]

Jesus fucking Christ +100000 for this post, finally someone else "gets it."

It's a mathematical model you ingrates. Hollinger's not claiming absolute knowledge. He's not claiming that his rankings are the end-all-be-all.

He developed a mathematical model and explained his rationale for why the variables are what they are, and the results then are whatever the model spits out.

What exactly about that do you yahoos not understand? If you don't like the formula, by all means create a new one and share your results with the rest of us.

If you don't want to create a mathematical model, feel free to disagree with Hollinger's rankings and explain why. Nobody is stopping you.

Yet, all I see from people are unsophisticated personal attacks like this -



when "debating" Hollinger's rankings. Laughable.

If you want to say that you think the Heat aren't the best team in the league because they lost to Memphis, then say it. By (trying) to make a mockery of a mathematical model, you actually end up making a mockery of yourself because you're showing the world that you're incapable of thoughtful, sincere, rational, level-headed debate.

How the fuck do half of you idiots (save Cry Havoc who actually provides intelligent, thoughtful insight) have bolded user names? I thought that was supposed to be some sign of quality posting. Guess not.

No eason to get butt-hurt ..over his rankings ... but he should factor won/loss more heavily in his rankings ...

[jestersmash]

You could of just said this ...everyone knows the rest.

Problem is since I have followed his rankings he was only right about the Celts ... his numbers aRE flawed ...

How are win/loss not given more weight? Who cares about scoring margin or SOS if you are losing?

Because the retrospective statistical analysis has already been done (in academic journals like this one: http://www.bepress.com/jqas/) - scoring margin better predicts championship success than win-loss record at the end of the season. That's why scoring margin is given more weight.

How much more weight it's given is completely arbitrary. Do we give scoring margin a 60-40 advantage or 65-35? This part is arbitrary, but just because there is no one "true" answer in terms of just how much weight scoring margin should be given over win-loss record doesn't mean that we should throw our hands up and not try.

Hollinger's basis for placing greater than 50% emphasis on scoring margin relative to win-loss record is justified by history. How much extra emphasis he places on scoring margin is arbitrary and clearly a point of contention.

You mention that Hollinger has only been correct about the Celtics. That's flat out an incorrect assertion.

But, even if you were correct - even if Hollinger's rankings did not offer greater predictability than your typical, ho-hum highly subjective analyst ranking - that still wouldn't defeat the purpose and power of a statistical model. Rather, it would call for tweaking the model for future years. That's perfectly fine.

That said, you actually weren't correct given that his rankings have better predicted the championship than win-loss record for quite a while now, contrary to your assertion that he was "only" right about Boston.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Either way, he's a dipshit. His list is comical and his formula clearly doesn't work. So why the hell does he have a job at ESPN?

[endrity]

Actually, there has hardly been a better predictor of results at ESPN than Hollinger. Everyone is going to make some predictions, that's their job after all, and they will be wrong sometimes. But no one has anything close to Hollinger's 2007 playoff prediction. Anything close! And I say this as a Mavs fan. Not only he predicted the Spurs winning the championship, he also claimed that the Mavs-Warriors series was pretty much a tossup and that infact, the post All-Star break Warriors were a better team. Please tell me someone that has had the guts to make this kind of a call, and get it right!

If there is one writer I am always willing to read that's Hollinger, at least I know I'll get a perspective there that no one else is going to give me.

And for the last time as well, he's explained it quite often, W-L mean very little to him. He has claimed, and in fact it seems to be very true, that point differential is a much better indicator of true team quality. So anytime someone gets really mad at him, it's because they expect W-L record to provide the same rational for his rankings. They don't necessarily, and that's where the conflict lies with many fans.

[Venti Quattro]

If he's a better predictor than anyone, then why does he always predict Utah getting the top seed in the West? He's done that for 2 or 3 seasons already

[jestersmash]

If people want rankings based on win-loss record alone, I've got news for you - we already have them.

Look no further -

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

Here are rankings based purely on win-loss record

1. Spurs
2. Hornets
3. Lakers

so on and so forth.

If people want rankings based partially on win-loss record and partially on the subjective notion that the Lakers should arbitrarily be bumped up X slots on the rankings because they happen to be the defending champions, here they are -

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Hornets


Whenever I see people trash Hollinger's rankings, I'm eager to find out what they feel the rankings should be - and yet this never happens.

Instead of Hollinger's rankings serving as an instrument for debate, most people tend to react with useless insults. I don't actually care about the insults themselves; rather, I'm tired of seeing a lot of criticism and not a lot of actual debate/argument to back up that criticism. That's all.

[Killakobe81]

If people want rankings based on win-loss record alone, I've got news for you - we already have them.

Look no further -

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

Here are rankings based purely on win-loss record

1. Spurs
2. Hornets
3. Lakers

so on and so forth.

If people want rankings based partially on win-loss record and partially on the subjective notion that the Lakers should arbitrarily be bumped up X slots on the rankings because they happen to be the defending champions, here they are -

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Hornets


Whenever I see people trash Hollinger's rankings, I'm eager to find out what they feel the rankings should be - and yet this never happens.

Instead of Hollinger's rankings serving as an instrument for debate, most people tend to react with useless insults. I don't actually care about the insults themselves; rather, I'm tired of seeing a lot of criticism and not a lot of actual debate/argument to back up that criticism. That's all.

I said last night I thought:

1. Hornets
2. Spurs
3. Lakers

Primarily due to Hornets head to head win over Spurs and SOS ...and cause they were the LAST team to lose ...

Like I said I would like his rankings if he gave won/loss more weight. Isnt winning the point of a game?

[endrity]

If he's a better predictor than anyone, then why does he always predict Utah getting the top seed in the West? He's done that for 2 or 3 seasons already

He's never said that, what he's said is that he considered the Jazz as a sort of a darkhorse to get out of the West in the playoffs. That's because the Jazz have always had a period in the spring, where for some reason they start playing really well and blow teams out. They especially do that at home, which means that even without hc advantage in his view, they can push teams to 7 games. That to me is the perfect way to look for a darkhorse. I guess you are just feeling bad that not every topic he writes ends with the phrase "Lakers are amazing". Not only is that bad journalism, it's bad business, no one outside of LA would keep reading such a column.

Yet, he eventually did concede before the series against the Lakers, i think two years ago, that LA was still the favourite. So I think he's paid his dues quite well to the Lakers.



This year, he's actually said that the Jazz are not close to LA's level.

[Cry Havoc]

:lol at Lakers fans getting owned in this thread with their usual complete lack of functional NBA knowledge, as usual.

[Killakobe81]

He's never said that, what he's said is that he considered the Jazz as a sort of a darkhorse to get out of the West in the playoffs. That's because the Jazz have always had a period in the spring, where for some reason they start playing really well and blow teams out. They especially do that at home, which means that even without hc advantage in his view, they can push teams to 7 games. That to me is the perfect way to look for a darkhorse. I guess you are just feeling bad that not every topic he writes ends with the phrase "Lakers are amazing". Not only is that bad journalism, it's bad business, no one outside of LA would keep reading such a column.

Yet, he eventually did concede before the series against the Lakers, i think two years ago, that LA was still the favourite. So I think he's paid his dues quite well to the Lakers.



This year, he's actually said that the Jazz are not close to LA's level.

No, burt he has predicted Jazz success come playoff time which hasnt happned much save vs. Nuggs the past 3 seasons ...

[jestersmash]

I said last night I thought:

1. Hornets
2. Spurs
3. Lakers

Primarily due to Hornets head to head win over Spurs and SOS ...and cause they were the LAST team to lose ...

Like I said I would like his rankings if he gave won/loss more weight. Isnt winning the point of a game?

And that's perfectly reasonable. I respect the fact that you backed up your rankings with sensible, rational reasons. If everybody was like you, I'd have nothing to rant about.

Your personal rankings are just as good as anyone's and because you backed them up with actual reasons - it fosters good argument and debate.

My rant was mostly about the people who dismiss Hollinger all together because they arbitrarily cite him off as an "idiot" or as some alleged real life "troll."

Calling him an "idiot" doesn't really help your case. That was my point. (This is not directed at you, by the way, it's just how most people generally react to Hollinger).

[Ghazi]

Lakers and Celtics are the 2 best teams

Heat are still better than the Spurs/Hornets regardless of records.

[Ghazi]

Magic > Spurs/Hornets too

same w/ Mavs once Beaubois comes back and we trade for Iggy.

[BRHornet45]

If people want rankings based on win-loss record alone, I've got news for you - we already have them.

Look no further -

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

Here are rankings based purely on win-loss record

1. Spurs
2. Hornets
3. Lakers

so on and so forth.

If people want rankings based partially on win-loss record and partially on the subjective notion that the Lakers should arbitrarily be bumped up X slots on the rankings because they happen to be the defending champions, here they are -

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Hornets


Whenever I see people trash Hollinger's rankings, I'm eager to find out what they feel the rankings should be - and yet this never happens.

Instead of Hollinger's rankings serving as an instrument for debate, most people tend to react with useless insults. I don't actually care about the insults themselves; rather, I'm tired of seeing a lot of criticism and not a lot of actual debate/argument to back up that criticism. That's all.

LOL son at your homerism as if no one would notice ... how in the hell do the Spurs get ranked ahead of the Hornets? The Hornets will get the nod over the Spurs simply because they have a win over them. Both teams are 11-1 and the Hornets went into San Antonio and beat that ass. LOL at you trying to fool people by ranking the Spurs ahead ... the REAL "based on records alone" is as follows ...

1. Hornets
2. Spurs
3. Lakers

[jestersmash]

Magic > Spurs/Hornets too

same w/ Mavs once Beaubois comes back and we trade for Iggy.

I agreed with your take up until the bolded portion :lol

[jestersmash]

LOL son at your homerism as if no one would notice ... how in the hell do the Spurs get ranked ahead of the Hornets? The Hornets will get the nod over the Spurs simply because they have a win over them.

Calm down "son," I completely made those rankings up (save the first set which I defined to be based on win-loss record alone) to make a point.

Those aren't my actual rankings.

[BRHornet45]

Calm down "son," I completely made those rankings up (save the first set which I defined to be based on win-loss record alone) to make a point.

Those aren't my actual rankings.

son I know its a silly stat and early in the season, but you CONVENIENTLY listed the Spurs ahead of the Hornets which EVEN in the link that you provided shows otherwise .... just saying

[BRHornet45]

based on records alone ...

1. Hornets (11-1, Conference 7-1)

2. Spurs (11-1, Conference 6-1)

3. Lakers (11-2, Conference 8-2)

[Killakobe81]

Hornets have been the most impressive team in regards to accomplishment on the court ....meaning wins.
Mad props BR, Fever and Redzero ...

On paper Lakers, Celts, Spurs and Heat are better and MAYBE Magic ...but the game is played omn the court not on paper or in Hollinger's computer. Hornets are NBA's best right now ...

[jestersmash]

son I know its a silly stat and early in the season, but you CONVENIENTLY listed the Spurs ahead of the Hornets which EVEN in the link that you provided shows otherwise .... just saying

Yes, I know the Hornets eked out a win in a nail biter against a powerhouse 4-7 (8 now) Sacramento team earlier tonight.

The results of that game weren't in when I made my previous post.

[BRHornet45]

Hornets have been the most impressive team in regards to accomplishment on the court ....meaning wins.
Mad props BR, Fever and Redzero ...

On paper Lakers, Celts, Spurs and Heat are better and MAYBE Magic ...but the game is played omn the court not on paper or in Hollinger's computer. Hornets are NBA's best right now ...

Lakers are still without a doubt the favorites with the following teams in contention ...

- Hornets
- Spurs
- Celtics
- Magic
- Heat (simply because of financial reasons. the NBA needs them to succeed)

[DPG21920]

lol your blatant homerism putting the Hornets at number one even after a LOSS to the Mavs.

[Killakobe81]

Lakers are still without a doubt the favorites with the following teams in contention ...

- Hornets
- Spurs
- Celtics
- Magic
- Heat (simply because of financial reasons. the NBA needs them to succeed)

But we are not talking favorites.
IMHO ...Power rankings are like AP or Coaches polls ...you are ranking teams based on what they have accomplished this season so far.

YEs, the Lakers Heat and Celts have more POTENTIAL than the Hornets but you could argue that the Blazers and Rockets do too ...on paper.

Based on production it's the Hornets ...end of story. Spurs are 2nd. Lakers 3rd ...

[Pelicans78]

Magic > Spurs/Hornets too

same w/ Mavs once Beaubois comes back and we trade for Iggy.

Iggy's not going to make the Mavs better you moron. He will only hurt the offense and not improve an already stout defense. Roddy will help offensively.

[BRHornet45]

lol your blatant homerism putting the Hornets at number one even after a LOSS to the Mavs.

yea we lost to the Mavs by 2pts and then beat them two nights later. you guys got curb stomped by the Hornets and will get yet another one this Sunday.

[BRHornet45]

same w/ Mavs once Beaubois comes back and we trade for Iggy.

lol dumbest nigga on this board

[Killakobe81]

Now, if teams are tied you should go by head2head ...
If no head2head then you should vote based on potential ...

[DPG21920]

yea we lost to the Mavs by 2pts and then beat them two nights later. you guys got curb stomped by the Hornets and will get yet another one this Sunday.

So you lost to the Mavs. That was my point. You barely beat them as well. You can't rank yourself one when you are barely beating and then losing to a team not in contention unless you are a blatant homer.

[BRHornet45]

Now, if teams are tied you should go by head2head ...
If no head2head then you should vote based on potential ...

its still very early in the season, but the Hornets and Spurs are tied. However the Hornets went into the Spurs house, King Paul pulled his dick out, and whipped them with it so they get the nod.

[BRHornet45]

So you lost to the Mavs. That was my point. You barely beat them as well. You can't rank yourself one when you are barely beating and then losing to a team not in contention unless you are a blatant homer.

no son here is the difference you cuckold ...

you guys were trying to rank the Spurs ahead of the Hornets and claiming it was based on "records alone". However you failed to mention that both teams have the exact same record, but the Hornets win the tie breaker due to their win over the Spurs. by you ranking the Spurs ahead of the Hornets and claiming its "based on records alone" shows homerism ... I simply pointed out the FACTS and those facts just so happen to be in my favor. both teams are 11-1, but the Hornets get the nod by having that beat down over the Spurs.

[jestersmash]

yea we lost to the Mavs by 2pts and then beat them two nights later. you guys got curb stomped by the Hornets and will get yet another one this Sunday.

Not sure if I'd call the Hornets win over the Spurs a "curb stomping." We were within 3 late in the 4th.

A couple of missed shots and intentional fouls inflated the Hornets scoring margin relative to how the game actually went (that's my subjective take, at least).

The game was closer than the margin indicates, in my opinion.

I'm eagerly awaiting the next Hornets-Spurs match up, though.

[BRHornet45]

Not sure if I'd call the Hornets win over the Spurs a "curb stomping." We were within 3 late in the 4th.

A couple of missed shots and intentional fouls inflated the Hornets scoring margin relative to how the game actually went (that's my subjective take, at least).

The game was closer than the margin indicates, in my opinion.

I'm eagerly awaiting the next Hornets-Spurs match up, though.

son regardless though the Hornets went into San Antonio and the final score was 99-90 ... had it have been the other way around you guys would be claiming "we owned the Hornets" ... just accept it. now the pressure is on you guys to come into the Hive and try to beat us.

[DPG21920]

no son here is the difference you cuckold ...

you guys were trying to rank the Spurs ahead of the Hornets and claiming it was based on "records alone". However you failed to mention that both teams have the exact same record, but the Hornets win the tie breaker due to their win over the Spurs. by you ranking the Spurs ahead of the Hornets and claiming its "based on records alone" shows homerism ... I simply pointed out the FACTS and those facts just so happen to be in my favor. both teams are 11-1, but the Hornets get the nod by having that beat down over the Spurs.

Girl, the only difference is the disgusting blatant homerism being spewed by out of your hateful mouth.

Hata's gon' hate. You just another. Hatin' Homer.

[BRHornet45]

Girl, the only difference is the disgusting blatant homerism being spewed by out of your hateful mouth.

Hata's gon' hate. You just another. Hatin' Homer.

lol son are you really resulting to that??? ... come on now son I'm just spitting out facts for you. don't be mad its very early in the season. I hate to say this, but you're acting like a Mav fan right now ... you're better than that.

[DPG21920]

Bellineli = Manu is facts? GTFO with that weak trash sons. Just pack your bags, and GTFO.

THe only fact here is you are becoming the ST version of freebies for Dirk in the 4th quarter. Just garbage.

[BRHornet45]

Bellineli = Manu is facts. GTFO with that weak trash sons. Just pack your bags, and GTFO.

son Belinelli is just as good, IF NOT BETTER than Manu this season ... that bald spot boy is falling off. he had a damn good run though.

[DPG21920]

lol you cuck, post the side by side stats or stop postin. K, thanks.

[BRHornet45]

lol you cuck, post the side by side stats or stop postin. K, thanks.

lol son I can't wait till Sunday ...

[DPG21920]

Exactly. I ask you post facts, and you run away. You are like a Mav fan right now. Just sad son. God bless you and your road to recovery.

[jestersmash]

son regardless though the Hornets went into San Antonio and the final score was 99-90 ... had it have been the other way around you guys would be claiming "we owned the Hornets" ... just accept it. now the pressure is on you guys to come into the Hive and try to beat us.

I wouldn't. I'm sure many spurs fans might come to that conclusion based on final score alone, but you have to realize that it's more complicated than that.

Case in point -

Consider team A and team B. Score is 100 (A) - 97 (B) with 40 seconds left in regulation.

Team B attempts a 3 point shot - misses - and team A snags the rebound. B fouls immediately with 31 seconds left.

Team A makes two free throws, pushing the score to 102 - 97.

Repeat - Team B again attempts a 3, misses, and fouls team A intentionally. Score is 104-97, and finally they let time run out.

I'd wager most people would agree that teams A and B had a pretty even game with team A having a true (effective) scoring margin of 3 - not 7. That 7 point win is really an inflated figure - it's the "price" team B pays for having two attempts to close the gap (and potentially win the game).

Alternatively, team B could have just given up and let time run down while they were down only 3, but obviously given the fact that only wins/losses matter when it comes to standings and playoff seeding, this would be an absolutely idiotic move.

What I described is one of the major criticisms I have with considering scoring margin alone, because clearly it's more complex than that. It's difficult for formulas and models to take factors like this into account.

That said, the point I was making with regards to your post was the fact that winning 99-90 doesn't tell the entire story. You have to consider the circumstances near the end of the game in order to make a better qualitative assessment of how two teams match up.

I agree the Hornets matched up better against the Spurs that night - I'm not taking away from your win. I wouldn't call it a curb stomping, though.

[namlook]

Hollinger could fix his formula. Just look at historical data for the past ten years and tweak the formula so the team that won the championship ends up #1 in the power ranking and you have a valid formula. Of course it can't be perfect due to things like injuries but if he could tweak the formula so that accurately predicts the champion 8 out of 10 years he might have something worth paying attention to. As it stands now his power rankings are meaningless except for statistics nerds.

[BRHornet45]

Exactly. I ask you post facts, and you run away. You are like a Mav fan right now. Just sad son. God bless you and your road to recovery.

lol bitch please. we all know Manu has sexy stats ... are you really basing everything on his stats? have you forgotten ALREADY that it was YOU who was trying to LIE and boost the Spurs into 1st place by covering up the facts?

son you are weak. you need to realize this isn't 2005 anymore. Manu has nice numbers simply because he plays 32-35min per game. that bald white boy is done.