LMAO @ Hollinger

[CubanMustGo]

Spurs lose for the first time in nine games, so he drops them four places in his rankings:

1. Magic (29-15, SOS .494, MoV +5.93, 7-3 & SOS .495 in last 10)
2. Lakers (32-13, SOS .459, MoV +7.04, 8-2 & SOS .481 in last 10)
3. cHeat (31-13, SOS .484, MoV +7.84, 6-4 & SOS .488 in last 10)
4. wHornets (29-16, SOS .530, MoV +3.36, 8-2 & SOS .531 in last 10)
5. Spurs (33-7, SOS .518, MoV +7.27, 8-2 & SOS .491 in last 10)

Magic proceed to lose at home to his #24 team tonight (Detroit). Will they drop four places? Tune in tomorrow ...

[DPG21920]

He doesn't drop them. Their loss effects the statistical ranking and drops them.

[DMC]

It's not the loss, but the point differential. Hollinger has the best job: he made a formula and it does everything for him.

The problem with it is as I have previously stated; it's always behind the curve. It doesn't tell you who to watch for, but who's had the best numbers in the last 10 games.

The flaw in the system otherwise is that it's titled "Hollinger's Rankings" when it's technically not. It's automatically generated rankings, and Hollinger probably doesn't even keep up with it much.

[Sean Cagney]

I never get into this stupid stats crap and could care less lol... I mean it is cool and all to look at, but in the end his stats mean crap.

[jestersmash]

Exactly half of the posts in this thread (my post not included) are actually intelligent and well-informed. Impressive. More than I expected.

[jeebus]

Exactly half of the posts in this thread (my post not included) are actually intelligent and well-informed. Impressive. More than I expected.
Time to buck the trend.

Trollinger is a doo doo head.

[jestersmash]

Time to buck the trend.

Trollinger is a doo doo head.

:lol

[redzero]

He doesn't drop them. Their loss effects the statistical ranking and drops them.

What he said.

People need to realize that these rankings are based on a formula.

[jestersmash]

What he said.

People need to realize that these rankings are based on a formula.

Whoa man, whoa, quit getting all fancy on us there that shit just blew right over my head.

[mathbzh]

What he said.

People need to realize that these rankings are based on a formula.

Not a great formula but a formula... I am afraid there is no anti-Spurs bias here.

Seriously, he gives too much weight to the last ten games. Any blowout can have a serious impact on his ranking.
But I think this is exactly what he wants... why would people read his ranking everyday to discover that the Spurs are still #1 when they just have to look at the standings?
Including a little bit of statistical aberration in his ranking shakes things just enough.

[jesterbobman]

As Well as the loss, you have to look at what came out. I think(Not completely sure, Haven't bothered to calulate) that as well as the hiding at the hands of the Hornets coming into our last 25%, the blowout vs OKC came out. It's a -50(~4.5 a game if 11 game included) point swing with virtually no change to strength of schedule. Seeing as recent performance is such a big part of the rankings, and he has to make a cutoff somewhere, there's a massive drop.

[Fireball]

Magic proceed to lose at home to his #24 team tonight (Detroit). Will they drop four places? Tune in tomorrow ...

Holinger was right on cue with this one ... Detroit beat Orlando :lol

[Stringer_Bell]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4919801&postcount=10

I called that shit, kind of. The Spurs played the best SOS for top 5 teams during the Heat's losing streak, and it wasn't until the 3rd Heat loss that the Spurs moved up. That system is stupid, as evidenced by Orlando launching into #1 after beating Toronto. GMAFB, at least the system doesn't determine playoff spots. :p

[mathbzh]

As Well as the loss, you have to look at what came out. I think(Not completely sure, Haven't bothered to calulate) that as well as the hiding at the hands of the Hornets coming into our last 25%, the blowout vs OKC came out. It's a -50(~4.5 a game if 11 game included) point swing with virtually no change to strength of schedule. Seeing as recent performance is such a big part of the rankings, and he has to make a cutoff somewhere, there's a massive drop.

True.

As I said, I think he wants to add some variability to the ranking.

Actually, IMO there is no evidence that what you have done lately is relevant statistically.

Just for illustration I have compiled the Pre/Post ASG records for the last ten Champions.
- Winning % pre ASG: 72%
- Winning % post ASG: 70%

Granted good teams drop a couple of games at the season... but still the two % are very comparable...

If someone as the time to do it, he can go to basket reference and try to dig into it. But my first impression is that there is no typical champion schedule.
You can start or end the season hot, if you end up with 70% record you are a strong team.

But even if you want to give more importance to the latest game, you can do better than just picking the last 10 games.

For instance, you could just give a weight to each game (like 0.9 for the first game of the season and 1.1 for the latest one, and a linear progression between these two... or anything similar) to avoid the edge effect going from 10th to 11th game.

[Bito Corleone]

He didn't drop them at all, the computer did. I love how most of the people who talk shit about Hollinger's rankings never actually understand how they work... :bang

[Bito Corleone]

Seriously, he gives too much weight to the last ten games. Any blowout can have a serious impact on his ranking.

That's why it's a power ranking.] If what a team did 2-3 months ago mattered it would just be called the standings

[mathbzh]

That's why it's a power ranking.] If what a team did 2-3 months ago mattered it would just be called the standings

This is a quote from ESPN


Recent performance
Another key variable in the formula is recent performance, which I included for two reasons.

First, it stands to reason that more recent games are more valid indicators of how strong a team is currently.

Second, I wanted these rankings to follow the model of Marc Stein's "human" power rankings, on the site each Monday, in which a team's recent play is a huge factor.


While I am fine with second point is fine, the first one is a joke.

When you want to evaluate something through statistics, you try to increase the sample size. Here he is basically decreasing it making "a team's recent play" a "huge factor".


That being said I am not complaining here. His ranking is what it is, there is no bias for or against a team. I just disagree when Hollinger write:

I created these rankings to give a quick assessment of all 30 teams so far in the season, since sometimes the standings can be misleading in this department.
His ranking is at least as misleading as the standings.

[Bito Corleone]

Here he is basically decreasing it making "a team's recent play" a "huge factor"

Again, that's why it's a power ranking. Recent play should be a huge factor. If a team wins it's first 40 games and then goes on to lose it's next 15, but still has the best record, would you say that team is currently playing better than anyone else?

[CubanMustGo]

So yes, naturally I understand it's all formulaic and focuses on the last ten games. It's overly dependent on the margin of victory in the last ten, to the exclusion of all else. Example?

After last night's embarrassing home loss to a team that shouldn't be able to carry the Magic's jerseys, and with their record in the last 10 dropping to 6-4 and last 10 SOS dropping to .484, Orlando moved all the way from #1 to #2. After all, their last 10 MOV is still +8.75. Call me old fashioned if I think a 8-2 or 9-1 record against similar or better competition is more indicative of current team strength than Hollinger's formula does.

[Killakobe81]

Agree his stats are useless without context. Not against all stats but hate when folks use them as the only factor in drawing conclusion. We all know the spurs are the best team right now. Best record. they only have had 1 two game losing streak. Plenty of win streaks. I'm sorry but no one that has a brain and watches basketball would argue that any of those teams are better than the spurs so far ...If you watched all the games MAYBE you could make a case (small one) for the Hornets or the Celtics since they beat them head to head. But right now I cant even make a case for the Lakers ...and still give the edge to the spurs over everyone else. The Magic? GTFO ...

As for Hollinger abuut the only thing his ratings got right the past few years was the Celts in 2008 ...and his draft rater (he liked blair, and some others that GM's underrated) most of the time his stats are useless ...

and despite my concession that the spurs are the best team right now, still expect my Lakers to take 'em come playoff time. But we will see, the Spurs are impressively consistent right now.

[Agloco]

He doesn't drop them. Their loss effects the statistical ranking and drops them.


What he said.

People need to realize that these rankings are based on a formula.


He didn't drop them at all, the computer did. I love how most of the people who talk shit about Hollinger's rankings never actually understand how they work... :bang

All of you have a good point, that is unless Hollinger is the one who created the formula. I don't know if he did or didn't. Most seem to agree that at the very least those rankings are a reflection of the stats that he deems most important in determining a teams success.

If he created the formula though, then Hollinger did indeed drop them 4 places.


Either way......lmao

[ALVAREZ6]

trollinger is funny

[703 Spurz]

Well b/c Hollinger and his horsefuck stats say so.......

[Rummpd]

He weighs his rankings IMO on some spurious assumptions: that the last 10 games are more important than a larger body of work; that one bad performance can severely change a ranking; and that the ability to close out games is not truly that important.

Moreover, Pop is more likely to pull his starters either when winning a game big or losing by a large margin more than some coaches and it would be hard to build that into the picture. There is also importantly no adjustment for the fact that the West wins more than 60% vs. Eastern teams so that the SOS of all Western teams is probably understimated. Also, there is no adjustment for the fact some teams play considerably more back to backs - Chicago and Magic are playing a ton while the Lakers play the least.

That being said SOS and point differential are historically pretty good predictors of success but a better model could be designed and Hollinger should publish every year how well his model worked or did not work.

[DMC]

It's a rating system. The catch is that it's the first you see when you click on "Rankings" on the ESPN website. I guess that's by design, since controversy sells. No one argues against Stein's picks because they are pretty much in line with NBA rankings.

I think most people who are not familiar with his system cannot wrap their mind around the concept, thus they continue to insist that Hollinger is biased. Point differential is a legit factor, but it's not infallible. Over the long haul it might be the most infallible next to win/loss however. Point differential indicates both the strength of the offense as well as the defense in one neatly packaged number. It's drawback is that some teams intentionally run scores up while others do not. That doesn't change anything as far as the game goes, but it does affect Hollinger's system.

I don't know if he applies a Savitzky–Golay smoothing filter to control the fliers, and I am not that involved in all of the different ranking systems enough to be that interested in it.

[Seventyniner]

I think most people who are not familiar with his system cannot wrap their mind around the concept, thus they continue to insist that Hollinger is biased. Point differential is a legit factor, but it's not infallible. Over the long haul it might be the most infallible next to win/loss however. Point differential indicates both the strength of the offense as well as the defense in one neatly packaged number. It's drawback is that some teams intentionally run scores up while others do not. That doesn't change anything as far as the game goes, but it does affect Hollinger's system.

I'd love to see a point differential statistic that somehow factors out garbage time, and perhaps includes injuries.

Also, should a 5-point OT win for a team count as +5, 0 (because it was tied at the end of regulation), or something in between?

[jestersmash]

He weighs his rankings IMO on some spurious assumptions: that the last 10 games are more important than a larger body of work; that one bad performance can severely change a ranking; and that the ability to close out games is not truly that important.

Moreover, Pop is more likely to pull his starters either when winning a game big or losing by a large margin more than some coaches and it would be hard to build that into the picture. There is also importantly no adjustment for the fact that the West wins more than 60% vs. Eastern teams so that the SOS of all Western teams is probably understimated. Also, there is no adjustment for the fact some teams play considerably more back to backs - Chicago and Magic are playing a ton while the Lakers play the least.

That being said SOS and point differential are historically pretty good predictors of success but a better model could be designed and Hollinger should publish every year how well his model worked or did not work.

See, I can respect these sorts of criticisms about his ranking system, and I wish more people would do this. You're exactly correct.

Conversely, if the Spurs are blowing a team out by 30 points through 3 quarters and insert their scrubs early in the 4th while the opposing team keeps their starters in and brings the differential down to 18 or 15 by the end of the game, obviously the end of game differential becomes somewhat muted to what it should be in terms of how the game had been played when both teams were trying their best to win. I can imagine a system that somehow adjusts for minutes played by the top 5 players on each team in order to rectify this issue.

As for some of Hollinger's assumptions being spurious - not so much, actually. His decision to place greater emphasis on the last 10 games isn't so much spurious as it is arbitrary. It's really his prerogative to place greater emphasis on the last X games because he wanted his ranking system - by design - to reflect recent performance. His decision to use 10 instead of 12 or 15 is arbitrary. His decision to use point differential as the foundation of his ranking system is evidenced-based, however.

At the end of the day many people seem to fail to realize the strengths and limitations of a mathematical model. There's almost this sense of "well if it isn't absolutely perfect and infallible then it's worthless." That's totally unrealistic. There are perhaps a handful of models in science that are - for all intents and purposes - virtually infallible. Current models for quantum electrodynamics predict many quantities that agree with experiment to the 10th decimal place. That's pretty damned impressive but it's by no means a realistic standard for the level of accuracy that mathematical models should offer.

Too many people are just so egregiously misinformed and uneducated about simple concepts like mathematical models or the fact that point differential has factually been a better predictor of championship success than NBA.com standing, I can't help but pity them. Mostly - I just don't find their arguments to be compelling. Refuting Hollinger's rankings by calling them "horsefuck statistics" - while creatively insulting - just isn't compelling as an argument to me. Sorry "703 Spurzzzzzz"

You have to wonder - how many "HURR DURR TROLLINGER HORSEFUCK STATISTICS LOL" Hollinger critics realize that his rankings have better predicted playoff success than using season-long point differential alone (and certainly have better predicted playoff success than using NBA.com standings)? Not many I'd presume. Most cite his rankings off without actually spending sufficient time to assess how useful they've been historically.