Spurs #1 in Hollinger power rankings right now

[Kidd K]

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


1: Spurs
2: Clippers
3: Rockets
4: Heat
5: Thunder
6: Warriors
7: Blazers
8: Pacers


29: Lakers :lmao


Spurs and Clippers are decently ahead of the Rockets who are noticably ahead of the Heat, Thunder, and Warriors who are kinda packed together.


And yes I know, "jinx thread", since they're playing the Warriors tonight. Still, it's nice to see them in the #1 spot for once this year when we've been kinda spoiled with them up there all season for the past 2-3 years. Spurs have definitely been trending upward all season as they've gotten healthier and Timmy's been getting his groove back. Let's hope they haven't peaked yet.

[MeloHype]

Ok

[spurs1990]

We should be unanimous across the board on Monday if all goes well in Oakland.

[Mal]

This power ranking totally sucks.

[Kidd K]

This power ranking totally sucks.

It's much better and more accurate than "random ESPN dipshit throws a list together with Miami Heat always at or near the top, followed by Thunder, Pacers, and Clippers". Almost 100% of the time being solely based on the current standings and ESPN hype, and not who's actually playing the best and blowing out teams and beating teams with the best records lately.

Not perfect, but certainly better than some random dipshit's power ranking chart.

[xmas1997]

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


1: Spurs
2: Clippers
3: Rockets
4: Heat
5: Thunder
6: Warriors
7: Blazers
8: Pacers


29: Lakers :lmao


Spurs and Clippers are decently ahead of the Rockets who are noticably ahead of the Heat, Thunder, and Warriors who are kinda packed together.


And yes I know, "jinx thread", since they're playing the Warriors tonight. Still, it's nice to see them in the #1 spot for once this year when we've been kinda spoiled with them up there all season for the past 2-3 years. Spurs have definitely been trending upward all season as they've gotten healthier and Timmy's been getting his groove back. Let's hope they haven't peaked yet.

The "peaking" part has me a bit worried tbh.

[ElNono]

It's much better and more accurate than "random ESPN dipshit throws a list together with Miami Heat always at or near the top, followed by Thunder, Pacers, and Clippers". Almost 100% of the time being solely based on the current standings and ESPN hype, and not who's actually playing the best and blowing out teams and beating teams with the best records lately.

Not perfect, but certainly better than some random dipshit's power ranking chart.

"Accurate" certainly isn't the word you're looking for, tbh... Wasn't it like 2 weeks ago that it had the Clippers with better odds of winning the West than OKC and the Spurs and better odds of winning it all than everybody but Miami?

It's a good source for things like SOS, recent point differential and which team is "hot" at the moment (which you really don't need that many numbers to figure out)... so it's not all bad.

Not saying that some alleged "expert" ranking isn't garbage, but you gotta take it with a grain of salt, IMO.

[Kidd K]

"Accurate" certainly isn't the word you're looking for, tbh... Wasn't it like 2 weeks ago that it had the Clippers with better odds of winning the West than OKC and the Spurs and better odds of winning it all than everybody but Miami?

It's a good source for things like SOS, recent point differential and which team is "hot" at the moment (which you really don't need that many numbers to figure out)... so it's not all bad.

Not saying that some alleged "expert" ranking isn't garbage, but you gotta take it with a grain of salt, IMO.

Are you talking about the playoff odds instead of the power rankings? I don't really pay attention to those tbh. But yeah, I do recall the Clippers having a higher power rank than us at one point. They were balling though. They also still have a high championship % and I do disagree with that, but in general I still think the hollinger power rankings are almost always more accurate than a random "expert"'s power rankings.

Hollinger power rankings isn't a definitive list, but imo I will take it over just about any expert's power ranking list almost every single time. After all, at least it isn't just someone's opinion. . .it's just a calculation. You can argue the forumla needs a little tweak, but it's a solid measuring stick imo. The power ranks, not the playoff odds and champ % stuff. I certainly don't see how LAC can be 22% and OKC only 6%. If anything Miami and Indiana should have highest %'s since they won't even be challenged except in 2 of the 4 rounds, whereas in the west you're challenged in 3-4 of the 4 rounds.

[SpursFan86]

LAC had been #1 in the Hollinger's rankings up until last night's win. Even once LAC lost to Denver and we beat the Lakers, we were still #2 behind them.

[Sybok]

It means something, but nothing tangible.

[Kidd K]

LAC had been #1 in the Hollinger's rankings up until last night's win. Even once LAC lost to Denver and we beat the Lakers, we were still #2 behind them.

It doesn't update instantly though. Sometimes even when it lists the last game played, the points didn't update yet.

But yeah like I said before, Clippers been playing well. I hope you guys don't still think they're the pretenders they were the last couple years. . .they're dangerous now.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

A big fourth from Belli would be amazing

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Hopeuflly Ayres is kept off the playoff roster.

[aal04]

Teams looking great. Not much left to iron out. Just need consistency and stamina and luck with injuries.

Theres really nothing left for our guys to figure out.

[Kidd K]

Spurs obviously still on top after tonight. Jinx averted :lol

[ElNono]

Are you talking about the playoff odds instead of the power rankings? I don't really pay attention to those tbh. But yeah, I do recall the Clippers having a higher power rank than us at one point. They were balling though. They also still have a high championship % and I do disagree with that, but in general I still think the hollinger power rankings are almost always more accurate than a random "expert"'s power rankings.

Hollinger power rankings isn't a definitive list, but imo I will take it over just about any expert's power ranking list almost every single time. After all, at least it isn't just someone's opinion. . .it's just a calculation. You can argue the forumla needs a little tweak, but it's a solid measuring stick imo. The power ranks, not the playoff odds and champ % stuff. I certainly don't see how LAC can be 22% and OKC only 6%. If anything Miami and Indiana should have highest %'s since they won't even be challenged except in 2 of the 4 rounds, whereas in the west you're challenged in 3-4 of the 4 rounds.

Yeah, I was talking about playoff odds.. but his rating is basically the same thing, a big soup of numbers, heavily tilted towards the last 10 or last 15 games... won't account for coasting or injuries... so you gotta take it with a grain of salt. Obviously, you rather be on top there than on the bottom.

[Kidd K]

Yeah, I was talking about playoff odds.. but his rating is basically the same thing, a big soup of numbers, heavily tilted towards the last 10 or last 15 games... won't account for coasting or injuries... so you gotta take it with a grain of salt. Obviously, you rather be on top there than on the bottom.

It's tilted towards last 25% of the season that's been played. . .so it's really about last 15-20 games.

The whole point of power rankings are literally all about "who's good now", so how they've done over their last 15-20 are what the ranking should be heavily tilted towards. :P

The injury thing is the only thing that Hollinger's power ranks actually lack in it's ratings. Then again. . .OKC kept balling even when Westbrook went down. A human would've given them a shitty power rank but Hollinger's formula didn't. Which was more accurate despite factoring that in?

If the injury really would have made a big difference, their rating would start to fall over time with the decreased performance.

[ElNono]

It's tilted towards last 25% of the season that's been played. . .so it's really about last 15-20 games.

The whole point of power rankings are literally all about "who's good now", so how they've done over their last 15-20 are what the ranking should be heavily tilted towards. :P

The injury thing is the only thing that Hollinger's power ranks actually lack in it's ratings. Then again. . .OKC kept balling even when Westbrook went down. A human would've given them a shitty power rank but Hollinger's formula didn't. Which was more accurate despite factoring that in?

If the injury really would have made a big difference, their rating would start to fall over time with the decreased performance.

The problem is that some teams are packed up so tightly that 2-3 losses can make a huge difference (due to the tilting in recent games. See Spurs surpassing Clippers after just a mere win). He also tilts quite a bit on scoring margin (even more so than on SOS), which doesn't really mean that much once playoffs roll around (Memphis last season had a terrible margin, but they made it all the way to the WCF because the playoffs are simply a slow paced game with relatively few blowouts). Like I said, I don't disagree that's better than some "hack" ranking, but I personally wouldn't describe it as "accurate"... probably above average.

[Kidd K]

The problem is that some teams are packed up so tightly that 2-3 losses can make a huge difference (due to the tilting in recent games. See Spurs surpassing Clippers after just a mere win). He also tilts quite a bit on scoring margin (even more so than on SOS), which doesn't really mean that much once playoffs roll around (Memphis last season had a terrible margin, but they made it all the way to the WCF because the playoffs are simply a slow paced game with relatively few blowouts). Like I said, I don't disagree that's better than some "hack" ranking, but I personally wouldn't describe it as "accurate"... probably above average.

Actually the scoring margin and SOS are linked. Notice how when blowing out a bad team like the Sixers, the power rating doesn't go up all that much, but blowing out the Thunder will jack it up really high. It doesn't outright say it, but I've definitely noticed that.

Anyway, last sentence of yours there, I see what's up, you just misunderstood me a bit. I was just saying it's "more accurate" than a random expert's list. Not that it's really accurate period. :P I pretty much always put more stock in a formula than some random's dick's opinion. I mean really, what expert's opinion out there do you ACTUALLY even trust? Who's usually spot on or somewhat close? Tbh, Hollinger is the only one who's lists and predictions seem to come true the most often.

[ElNono]

Actually the scoring margin and SOS are linked. Notice how when blowing out a bad team like the Sixers, the power rating doesn't go up all that much, but blowing out the Thunder will jack it up really high. It doesn't outright say it, but I've definitely noticed that.

Anyway, last sentence of yours there, I see what's up, you just misunderstood me a bit. I was just saying it's "more accurate" than a random expert's list. Not that it's really accurate period. :P I pretty much always put more stock in a formula than some random's dick's opinion. I mean really, what expert's opinion out there do you ACTUALLY even trust? Who's usually spot on or somewhat close? Tbh, Hollinger is the only one who's lists and predictions seem to come true the most often.

I thin we mostly agree, I just took exception to the wording in your original post. Power rankings are lousy predictors for the playoffs anyways, IMO, because it's all about matchups between the two teams, and things like injuries can invalidate everything (see Spurs losing to Memphis in the 1st round a few years back).

[Kidd K]

I thin we mostly agree, I just took exception to the wording in your original post. Power rankings are lousy predictors for the playoffs anyways, IMO, because it's all about matchups between the two teams, and things like injuries can invalidate everything (see Spurs losing to Memphis in the 1st round a few years back).

Yeah I got you man, no big deal.

We got fucked by memphis due to a VERY unlucky injury at the last possible second though. I don't think that was really a prob with the rankings though, that was the last day of the season :P I would bet you no human power ranking had SA low prior to that either. SA was probably at #1 or #2 on everyone power ranking list until that happened.

Speaking of matchups though, I don't actually think the Memphis thing was as bad a matchup as everyone made it out to be. I mean after all. . .last year I predicted we'd crush Memphis and that they'd probably never crack 93 points while we always would. And that's exactly what happened. I came to that specific conclusion because of their and our recent team stats + our history against them. They were just lucky our Big 3 wasn't anywhere near 100% in the series they won. And even that one they just barely won. Aside from that we've always crushed that team.

[ElNono]

Yeah I got you man, no big deal.

We got fucked by memphis due to a VERY unlucky injury at the last possible second though. I don't think that was really a prob with the rankings though, that was the last day of the season :P I would bet you no human power ranking had SA low prior to that either. SA was probably at #1 or #2 on everyone power ranking list until that happened.

Speaking of matchups though, I don't actually think the Memphis thing was as bad a matchup as everyone made it out to be. I mean after all. . .last year I predicted we'd crush Memphis and that they'd probably never crack 93 points while we always would. And that's exactly what happened. I came to that specific conclusion because of their and our recent team stats + our history against them. They were just lucky our Big 3 wasn't anywhere near 100% in the series they won. And even that one they just barely won. Aside from that we've always crushed that team.

Timmy wasn't right then, and we trotted out Bonner instead of Tiago... even if we would've moved on, I doubt we were going too far, tbh...

[Kidd K]

Timmy wasn't right then, and we trotted out Bonner instead of Tiago... even if we would've moved on, I doubt we were going too far, tbh...

Fuckin Bonner.

Well if Manu was healthy we would've done alright imo. All we had to worry about that year was the Mavs in the WCF, then a Heat team with mediocre chemistry

[heyheymymy]

it's one of those stats that you know you're doing something right if you're in the top 3 just based on what figures the algorithm takes into account