Numbers puts Spurs at #1 (ESPN Blog)

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I apologize if this has been posted before but I thought this was a very interesting read....





Numbers put Spurs at No. 1
by: John Hollinger
posted: Sunday, February 25, 2007 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: San Antonio Spurs

One of the nice things about the blog is it gives me a chance to respond to the topics that are filling up my inbox.

And at the moment, the top question by an overwhelming margin is, to paraphrase, "How the @#%$ are the Spurs ranked No. 1 in the Hollinger Power Rankings?"

At first glance, I understand how this seems totally illogical. San Antonio has lost twice as many games as Dallas, for crying out loud, and the Mavs are currently riding a 11-game winning streak -- their third double-digit win streak this year. They're 46-5 since an 0-4 start and haven't lost consecutive games in more than three months.

But the key word here is "first glance." One of the biggest reasons I created this ranking is to force people to look beyond the superficial first impression. In this case, it involves looking past win-loss record at the elements that go into it.

On its face this sounds absurd, I realize -- isn't winning the whole point? But as I've been trying to beat into people's heads over and over again, point differential is a better indicator of future success than win-loss record. In other words, if you were trying to pick a game between the Mavs and Spurs tomorrow, you'd be better off ignoring the standings at looking just at point differential.

And if you took that route, you'd be surprised to learn that San Antonio, not Dallas, has the best point differential in the league, at +7.9 points per game. (Actually, Dallas is third at +7.7 -- Phoenix also noses in ahead of them). That difference looms even larger once you consider only two teams have played more road games than the Spurs' 30 -- so the Spurs should be able to improve their mark during a home-laden final two months.

Additionally, the Spurs don't seem like they're losing any steam. In the last three weeks they've won games by 27, 25, and 31, helping contribute to their strong victory margin in recent play -- another major determinant in the Hollinger rankings.

Because of the Spurs' place in the standings, this has been perhaps the single biggest misunderstanding of the current season. Columnists are looking at the Spurs' won-loss record and falling all over themselves to write "What's Wrong with the Spurs?" columns.

Reality check: San Antonio won a team-record 63 games a year ago with a point differential of +6.8. This year they're more than a point per game better (They need to be, too: Those 63 wins didn't do them any good in the playoffs); they just haven't been as fortunate in close games (more on that in a minute).

And while the Spurs are disappointed because they're "only" third in Defensive Efficiency instead of their usual perch at No. 1 (they've been there five of the past six seasons), this is the best offensive team of the Popovich Era. San Antonio ranks sixth in the league in Offensive Efficiency, just 2.8 points per 100 possessions behind the Mavs. With their defensive advantage being as big as it is (3.0 points per 100 trips), San Antonio is still well equipped to rule the West.

By the way -- they're doing this while playing their scrubs for much of the game. No Spur is playing more than 35 minutes per game; Tim Duncan leads the team at 34.6. Tony Parker is only playing 33.0 minutes, Manu Ginobili a measly 27.8. No team is playing their starters less, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Spurs' big three will see a lot more action during the playoffs, making San Anotnio even tougher.

In other words, not only is there nothing "wrong" with the Spurs, this actually might be San Antonio's best team since their championship squad in 1999. The Spurs' problem isn't age or a lack of fire or any of the other ideas trotted out in recent weeks. It's that they're 5-10 in games decided by five points or less, while the Mavs are 12-2. That's the main reason the teams are 8 1/2 games apart in the standings, not any difference in the quality of their play.

I realize this is hard to swallow when one looks at the standings, but that's the whole point here -- I'm trying to get you to look beyond them. Once you do, it immediately becomes apparent that the Spurs are a major threat to win the championship, and that they're No. 1 in the rankings because, as heretical as this may sound, they're playing better than everyone else right now. Dallas included.

[Shank]

Wins and losses, Hollinger. Wins and losses.

[timvp]

Wins and losses, Hollinger. Wins and losses.

The Spurs and Mavs both have zero wins that actually count. Preseason wins and losses won't mean much come playoff time.

[Vingianx]

very nice...............

[jaespur21]

I understand what hes saying, dont know if the defenses case holds water(my cousin vinny) but i like the fact that our starters avg less mins than all others

[leemajors]

why people would bitch at power rankings set by predetermined stats is beyond me - hollinger isn't influencing who is where.

[lefty]

:flag: :flag: :flag:

[timvp]

The Spurs and Mavs both have zero wins that actually count. Preseason wins and losses won't mean much come playoff time.

Then again, any power rankings that puts the Spurs ahead of the Mavs right now needs to be thrown away.

[bresilhac]

Wins and losses, Hollinger. Wins and losses.

We'll see who's left standing come Finals time Maverick fan. And besides, these statistics are very relevant because they indicate who the better team really is. And it is no surprise to me that is San Antonio.

[ShoogarBear]

Hollinger is a complete tool and slave to his numbers. He's the kind of guy who give statistics people a bad name, because he blindly insists on forcing reality to fit his numbers rather than acknowledge the imperfections of his precious formulas.

Anyone who would try to argue that this is the Spurs best team since 1999 has little credibility.

Try actually watch some games, John.

[ponky]

We'll see who's left standing come Finals time Maverick fan. And besides, these statistics are very relevant because they indicate who the better team really is. And it is no surprise to me that is San Antonio.

:lol :lol :lol isn't this the guy who picked the spurs over the suns last year and the spurs over the pistons in the finals...and tony parker over tim duncan as finals mvp for 2006? :lol :lol :lol

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Then again, any power rankings that puts the Spurs ahead of the Mavs right now needs to be thrown away.


:lol


is that the first time someone responded to their own post?


While I agree with Timvp that any ranking that puts Spurs ahead of the Mavs should be thrown out, I'll take any sense of optimism in this forgettable season.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

:lol :lol :lol


He's drunk, I swear

[ponky]

He's drunk, I swear

lol, i'm not angry at all, i just find it amusing as hell how a few spurs fans think that rankings all of a sudden matter...i don't care about rankings at this point when we're a month and a half away from the playoffs, i do see that the spurs have picked up their game but i haven't seen any letdown from the suns or mavs as well so if all three teams continue to get strong, it's going to be a great playoff run in the west this year. personally, i'd like to see the spurs/mavs matchup again this year, s.a. is closer to me (austin) and i can always find tix to a spurs game whereas i had to purchase season tix just to insure that i'll get tix to the mavs playoff run.

[Kori Ellis]

I think there's already another long thread about Hollinger's rankings.

I guess by his rankings, the Spurs are really good. But his rankings don't really translate to wins on the basketball court.

The Spurs are better defensively than they were a month ago, but overall no one is close to how good the Mavericks are right now.

[jaespur21]

:lol :lol :lol isn't this the guy who picked the spurs over the suns last year and the spurs over the pistons in the finals...and tony parker over tim duncan as finals mvp for 2006? :lol :lol :lol


And the mavericks to finish the heat off in 5 after they went up 2-0

[Amuseddaysleeper]

lol, i'm not angry at all, i just find it amusing as hell how a few spurs fans think that rankings all of a sudden matter...i don't care about rankings at this point when we're a month and a half away from the playoffs, i do see that the spurs have picked up their game but i haven't seen any letdown from the suns or mavs as well so if all three teams continue to get strong, it's going to be a great playoff run in the west this year. personally, i'd like to see the spurs/mavs matchup again this year, s.a. is closer to me (austin) and i can always find tix to a spurs game whereas i had to purchase season tix just to insure that i'll get tix to the mavs playoff run.

oh I never implied you were angry, if anything I agreed with your reaction to his post.

[ShoogarBear]

BTW, Kori, Kapono tied his career rebound high against the Cavs today. :cheer

[ponky]

And the mavericks to finish the heat off in 5 after they went up 2-0

exactly, he's WRONG WRONG WRONG :lol :lol :lol...anyway, i didn't really see him predict that anywhere but whatever, if he did, then it just bolsters my point...that is, that he is WRONG

[Kori Ellis]

BTW, Kori, Kapono tied his career rebound high against the Cavs today. :cheer

Yeah, I saw. The Cavs must suck too. :reading

[jaespur21]

how is he wrong the stats prove his opinion

[ponky]

Yeah, I saw. The Cavs must suck too. :reading

mike brown is not the guy to get it done...and neither is danny ferry...both just terrible...it was sad to hear about ilgauskas today, he looked sad during the game :(

[ponky]

how is he wrong the stats prove his opinion

i don't think the point differential tells the whole story, just look at who it was that gave up half of the mavs' 30 point lead over the heat the other day...guys that barely get 2-3 minutes in a game, if at all...too much emphasis on point differential doesn't mean so much when everyone knows those rooks getting some minutes now probably won't fit into a shorter rotation come playoff time

[whottt]

Hollinger evidentally didn't have this system in 2001....point differential indeed. That 2001 team had no weakness, other than age, and got embarrassed.

And he also must have selectively forgotten his stats getting stuck up his rear last year as well with regards to the Spurs, when I believe we were #1 in point differential as well.

The Spurs always among the best in point differential...and it's funny that he's using his system to claim they are better than realized, when, if anything, they are the one team that has debunked the point differential stat being indicative of the best team time and time again...he must be new to basketball.

[Mr. Body]

He lost me with the suggestion the best Spurs team was 1999.

[sabar]

It's funny how many people look at wins/losses here instead of the power rankings.

Um, remember Detroit's record last year?
Remember ours?
How much good did that do us?

Hollinger is right, we should have statisically the best chance to win the championship. We play our starters so little that come playoff time they seriously stepup their game without being tired. Duncan does from 20 ppg to 30, Horry steps up, everyone does. Do you think Pop really cares about our record? All he wants to do is get seeded in a good position, nothing else. The Mavs and Phx can chase the win record all they want, but fact is, come playoff time, they will be tired, especially the Suns, just like last year.

[Celtic Pride]

It's funny that Hollinger wants everyone to look past the W-L column so he can put his spin on things to make himself look like a Basketball God. If his formula is so good, he should be as wealthy as Bill Gates. Last I checked, the W-L column is the only realistic stat to look at, because coulda, woulda, shoulda stats get no ring. That is why the games are played and Hollinger should rename his brainchild Fantasy Power Rankings for the Fantasy League.

[ShoogarBear]

It's funny how many people look at wins/losses here instead of the power rankings.

Um, remember Detroit's record last year?
Remember ours?
How much good did that do us?Okay, what were the power rankings at the end of last year?

Find one set where Miami and Dallas were ranked 1-2.

[sabar]

Okay, what were the power rankings at the end of last year?

Find one set where Miami and Dallas were ranked 1-2.

:rolleyes

That's nice, but that only proves that you can't predict the future.
Statistics looks at probable outcomes, not THE outcome. Just because you are most likely to die from heart disease doesn't mean you won't get hit by lightning.

Dallas was ranked 2 and Miami 6.

But this isn't about power rankings, it's about how everyone says that the win/loss ratio is all that matters. Where was the Spurs/Detroit finals in 2006 that I missed?

[ponky]

:rolleyes

That's nice, but that only proves that you can't predict the future.
Statistics looks at probable outcomes, not THE outcome. Just because you are most likely to die from heart disease doesn't mean you won't get hit by lightning.

Dallas was ranked 2 and Miami 6.

But this isn't about power rankings, it's about how everyone says that the win/loss ratio is all that matters. Where was the Spurs/Detroit finals in 2006 that I missed?

you can spin it any way you want but you can't have it both wayys...you just said you couldn't predict the future after saying that some teams will not be fresh because of the minutes they're playing which is more minutes now than the minutes the spurs are getting...well, that's like some dumb mavs fan trying to argue that 9-10 guys on the spurs are around or over 30 and they won't have fresh legs because of their age...which is it? can you or can you not predict the future? i say no so stop homering on hollinger's stats as if they can be used for predicting anything come playoff time

besides, dallas' big three average around 35 min/game...spurs have parker and duncan averaging 34 min/game with bowen coming in next at 31 min/game...after that, stack/devin/damp average 24 min/game while the spurs have manu at 27 and barry/finley at 21 min/game...not that much difference

[ChumpDumper]

If I was a mavfan I'd be pissed.

[sabar]

Homering? Spinning?

Here's my point.

A formula based on stats is more likely to predict who wins a matchup than win/loss ratio.

[johngateswhiteley]

Wins and losses, Hollinger. Wins and losses.

so you read the article?

[ponky]

Homering? Spinning?

Here's my point.

A formula based on stats is more likely to predict who wins a matchup than win/loss ratio.

i understand your point but hollinger's stats have holes, that's all i'm pointing out...anyone can selectively pick stats to prop up their argument which is why i don't think you should take much stock in his (or stein's or nba.com's) rankings...i already explained some of those holes...look at the guys who gave up 16 points in about three minutes the other night in the heat/mavs game...those are not guys who will be playing minutes come playoff time...if it messes with our point differential stats now, then fine, at least i know why this is the case and can be fairly certain barring any injuries that guys like jj, croshere and ager won't be giving up leads come playoff time because they'll be keeping the bench warm...also, check the minutes i posted, those are stats and they don't hold up your theory about why the spurs will have fresher legs against the mavs...sorry about the homer remark, and i guess it's more that i see hollinger doing the spinning

[sabar]

Fresher legs is going to bite the suns a lot more than anyone else actually. They play intense and fast for the whole season and wear out.

The best stats IMO are match ups, as in the end that is all that matters. Of course that can lie too because there are different rotations and play styles in the regular season vs the playoffs.

[ponky]

Fresher legs is going to bite the suns a lot more than anyone else actually. They play intense and fast for the whole season and wear out.

The best stats IMO are match ups, as in the end that is all that matters. Of course that can lie too because there are different rotations and play styles in the regular season vs the playoffs.

well i do agree with this but for the suns, obviously the most important thing that matters is a guy named nash and even a healthy nash just makes them contenders, no guarantee that they'll get past spurs or mavs...i can't even imagine that team 2-3 years from now when nash is already on the downward slope

i like to look at matchups too but it's more of a comfort thing for me than anything else....it will be interesting to see what happens in that spurs/mavs game last week of the season to see whether avery and pop even care about playing starters or whether they just limit those minutes to avoid injuries for the playoffs

[sabar]

I'm sure in the last games Pop will do what he did last year. Beno was a starter in the last game of the season, I don't think Duncan even played. :lol

Dunno Avery well enough, but I figure both teams will rest that game.

[Cry Havoc]

Bottom line: The Spurs, Suns, and Mavs are all four losses away from going home. But until it starts, little else matters. Miami won last year with a very mediocre record, despite the Spurs and Mavs dominating the regular season.

[mavsfan1000]

Too bad the mavs can't hold on to their 30 point leads. Avery should play his starters more in the 4th quarter to help get on the top of Hollinger's rankings. Hollinjerk is more like it.

[aaronstampler]

Too bad the mavs can't hold on to their 30 point leads. Avery should play his starters more in the 4th quarter to help get on the top of Hollinger's rankings. Hollinjerk is more like it.

Hollinjerk! That's brilliant! Let it never be said that Mavs fans aren't witty. Well half witty anyway.

[TDMVPDPOY]

does hollinger holla?

[ShoogarBear]

:rolleyes

That's nice, but that only proves that you can't predict the future.
Statistics looks at probable outcomes, not THE outcome. Just because you are most likely to die from heart disease doesn't mean you won't get hit by lightning.

Dallas was ranked 2 and Miami 6.

But this isn't about power rankings, it's about how everyone says that the win/loss ratio is all that matters. Where was the Spurs/Detroit finals in 2006 that I missed?Nice backtracking. Just for the record, let's look at what you originally said again.


It's funny how many people look at wins/losses here instead of the power rankings.
You clearly imply that power rankings are somehow better predictors than won/loss. You still haven't produced a shred of evidence to support that.

Won/loss certainly has its weaknesses especially when teams don't play equivalent schedules (i.e., Eastern vs. Western conference). But I have yet to see anyone's "system" prove to be anything better than what a semi-knowledgable fan could do.

[ManuTastic]

What Hollinger needs to do, and doesn't do in this blog, is demonstrate that point differential has indicated playoff success in past seasons. Not even all past seasons, but just give some evidence please.
As to the Spurs, it seems obvious that beating the hell out of crap teams is way less indicative of future performance than going .500 against winning teams. Which is what they've done this year, I believe.

[Extra Stout]

Can somebody explain to me how point differential against the Seattles of the league is going to help the Spurs rebound better against the elite teams in the West? Or compete athletically with them? Will point differential cause a player magically to appear who will allow the Spurs to defend Dirk Nowitzki and Josh Howard simultaneously?

And as for close games, hasn't part of the Spurs' defensive strategy for years been to make the opposing teams' best scorers work hard all game long so they don't have much left in the tank in the clutch to make those big shots? Hollinger makes it sound as if winning those games is nothing more than a matter of statistical luck.

Did anybody else live through the 1990's following this team?

[AFBlue]

Can somebody explain to me how point differential against the Seattles of the league is going to help the Spurs rebound better against the elite teams in the West?

Best point of the whole thread. Put more succinctly, how does a 36 point blowout against a lottery-bound team prove the Spurs are better than the Mavs. The Mavs may have only beaten that lottery-bound team by 25, but more importantly, they beat the Spurs soundly and regularly.

He can put the Spurs first all he wants, I'm looking at head-to-head matchups for my rankings...

[mavsfan1000]

I'm glad some spurs fans have figured out the sheer idiocy in Hollinger's formula.

[AFBlue]

I'm glad some spurs fans have figured out the sheer idiocy in Hollinger's formula.

Hollinger isn't a dumb guy. He usually uses the right metrics to make his determinations (PER, etc.). I don't think it should JUST be about wins and losses, because strength of schedule and home/away differential factor into that as well, but I disagree that there should be such an emphasis on point differential for reasons already posted.

[nkdlunch]

pretty stupid way of thinking. Phoenix is ahead of Dallas in pt diff, so what? Dallas will wipe the floor with Phoenix any day. Dallas will not wipe the floor with us but most of the time beat us.

On the other hand, we have lost plenty very close games, we've had bad luck with close games.

[101A]

He's absolutely right about one thing: The difference between the teams is there ability to win close games; Mavs have had it in droves; Spurs not so much.

I seem to remember some pretty close games in that WCSF last season. If there is a repeat of that THIS season; seems to bode well for Mavs.

That being said, I remember the Spurs team that, at least as a lasting impression, that seemed to win EVERY close game more than others, at least during the regular season, was the '95 squad - completely meaningless when they ran up against a Houston team they beat 5 of 6 times in the regular season and finished a FULL 13 games up on!

I remember those playoffs; Spurs polished the Lakers off, and awaited the winner of Houston (6 seed) and Phoenix (2nd seed); EVERY Spurs fan I knew was rooting for the upset (Phoenix was considered a tough out). I cautioned my buddies to be careful what they wished for....

Considering it VERY likely that there could be a DALLAS - LA and Phoenix - SA WCSF this season, and that Dirk might very likely win the MVP in front of Tim ala David in front of Hakeem in '95 - the similarities are kind of eerie.

Of course Cuban probably won't allow the MVP trophy to be presented in front of the Spurs; he'll probably wait till the third game of NEXT season.

[L.I.T]

Some how that focus on point differential reminds me of the old BCS formula, which was such unmitigated crap that they removed that from the formula.

Looking at point differential is a misleading indicator at best. This isn't economics, where differentials actually mean something. Strength of schedule and match-ups make more sense as metrics.

[bull62400]

Some how that focus on point differential reminds me of the old BCS formula, which was such unmitigated crap that they removed that from the formula.

Looking at point differential is a misleading indicator at best. This isn't economics, where differentials actually mean something. Strength of schedule and match-ups make more sense as metrics.

you should look up the explanation of the hollinger power rankings. by the way people, the power rankings do not ONLY take point differential into account, but also strength of schedule and a win-loss record of the last ten games. and yes, there is a strength of schedule in the nba, according to hollinger, the rockets have the hardest schedule.

[phyzik]

He lost me with the suggestion the best Spurs team was 1999.

I happen to think that was about the only thing he got right, the 1999 team was a monster, they would have trounced any team even if it was a full season.

Which team do you think was better?

[L.I.T]

you should look up the explanation of the hollinger power rankings. by the way people, the power rankings do not ONLY take point differential into account, but also strength of schedule and a win-loss record of the last ten games. and yes, there is a strength of schedule in the nba, according to hollinger, the rockets have the hardest schedule.

Yes, yes, whoopdy fricking doo. However, in his explanation that is his primary means of explaining the Spurs being so highly ranked, which then leads one to believe that it's a dominant component of his formula. Wouldn't it be more important to evaluate strength of schedule, momentum? Why not just break it down even further, lets take a look at the point differentials against winning and losing teams?

When you evaluate his formula, it comes across as being arbitrary. In something like this, the weightings are an important factor and they seem to be abitrary, or at best attempts to factor in "momentum" (his 2/3rds 1/3rd weighting).

Ultimately, it's like any attempt to computerize quantifying the good and bad teams...crap.

[bull62400]

Yes, yes, whoopdy fricking doo. However, in his explanation that is his primary means of explaining the Spurs being so highly ranked, which then leads one to believe that it's a dominant component of his formula.

your absolutely right if an ignorant person were looking at it w/o the explanation. i know if i didnt read it, it would mislead me, its a good thing i read it, phew!...but he also mentions the rest that the starters are getting, alot more than most contending teams.



Wouldn't it be more important to evaluate strength of schedule,
he does...

momentum?
he does...


Why not just break it down even further, lets take a look at the point differentials against winning and losing teams?
good point, but only one you made.

[Hook Dem]

What difference does power rankings make? In the NFL, the San Diego Chargers were hands on favorites to win the Super Bowl. How did that turn out?????? Thats why they play the games!!!!!

[nkdlunch]

What difference does power rankings make? In the NFL, the San Diego Chargers were hands on favorites to win the Super Bowl. How did that turn out?????? Thats why they play the games!!!!!

NFL is no way like NBA. in NBA you play 7 games in playoffs, usually the best team wins.

So power rankings are more important. But these stupid media people need to stop looking at records, pt difference only. They need to use common sense, for example, Phoenix cannot be #1, or #2 cause they don't fucking play defense. also Spurs cannot be ahead of Dallas, because Dallas keeps beating our ass. use common sense!

[L.I.T]

your absolutely right if an ignorant person were looking at it w/o the explanation. i know if i didnt read it, it would mislead me, its a good thing i read it, phew!...but he also mentions the rest that the starters are getting, alot more than most contending teams. .

Except for the fact, you know, that saying point differential is a major component, WAS NOT MISLEADING. It actually is, a whole section all unto itself. Which he mentions in his explanation, whoa.

I think you missed the most important aspect, how does he arrive at his weightings? I would have more faith in this formula if he had modeled it on the results of previous years results. For example, apply his formula to each year's regular season results and see if they accurately predict the champion, then tweak the formula to arrive a method that best predicts the future success of a team.

By the way, I failed to see a component in your oh so hollowed formula that quantified "resting your star players and playing the scrubs" factor for success.

As it is now, it's a just a little ditty that fans can trot out every so often to prove that their team is oh so kickass.

I prefer to watch the games and base my confidence in the chances of the Spurs on that.

[Cherry]

Um, remember Detroit's record last year?
Remember ours?
How much good did that do us?

Bingo.

Playoffs = a new story.

[bull62400]

Except for the fact, you know, that saying point differential is a major component, WAS NOT MISLEADING. It actually is, a whole section all unto itself. Which he mentions in his explanation, whoa.

I think you missed the most important aspect, how does he arrive at his weightings? I would have more faith in this formula if he had modeled it on the results of previous years results. For example, apply his formula to each year's regular season results and see if they accurately predict the champion, then tweak the formula to arrive a method that best predicts the future success of a team.

By the way, I failed to see a component in your oh so hollowed formula that quantified "resting your star players and playing the scrubs" factor for success.

As it is now, it's a just a little ditty that fans can trot out every so often to prove that their team is oh so kickass.

I prefer to watch the games and base my confidence in the chances of the Spurs on that.

I kinda wish we were talking and not typing to make arguments a little more clear. I never said that point differential was insignificant. i was suggesting to the people of spurstalk.com that there are other factors other than point differential. its a function of an equation, or ONE of the functions. i knew point differential had its own section, but so are other factors. Although hollinger explained the spurs success with the point margin, there other factors that make the spurs successful that involve the equation, thats what i was pointing out.

Your argument with testing the formula is a good point. although hollinger says that studies have shown point margin is a better way of measuring team quality than win-loss records, he doesn't prove this fact on the site.

On resting the players, this does matter! im not saying they are more successful for it, i am saying that it is better to rest starters for the playoffs emphasizeing the fact that there is an 82 game season and it only positions your team on a 16-team playoff tree. it doesnt matter where we are in the playoffs, what matter is if our players are healthy for the championship run.

im also not saying that this formula is perfect either, but i think its a better way of measuring team quality than the standings. my opinion though...

[ambchang]

I did some basic analysis, and this is what I found.
Since 1950 (the year BAA became the NBA), there have been 57 champions, of which 30 of them were won by the team with the best record. Of those 30 teams, 5 shares the best record with at least another team. But also of those 30 teams, 23 of them belongs to what I call dynasties.
Only the following teams were defined as dynasties:
90's Bulls
80's Lakers
60's Celtics
50's Lakers.
The reason I tabulated those as dynasties and non-dynasties is to show that the teams are so much better than the competition, that winning a championship and having the best record in the league was expected of them. You can make a case that the 80's Lakers does not belong to that group because of the Celtics, Pistons and 6ers. What this shows is that in a competitive league, where there is no clear-cut #1 (subjective call, and is applicable to this year), only 7 of the 27 champions have the best regular season record.
Even if the "dynasty" factor does not come into play, the team with the best regular season record won the championship 30 out of 57 times, which is barely half the time (about 53%).
IF the team with the highest point differential wins the championship 31 times or more out of 57 times, then it is a better indicator than the won/loss column. However, I do not have that data.
Just to make my stance clear, I do NOT agree with Hollinger's ranking formula without further justification as to how well his formula predicted playoff success, and that his arbitrary allotment of weight to each variable is without reason. However, IF he can show me, from past instances, that this formula can predict playoff success with X% accuracy, then I would give more credibility to it. I also do NOT agree with his formula on PER due to the totally subjective nature of the topic, there is just no defition of "best" or "better" player.
But on the other hand, his formula is not without it's basis, and it would be at least helpful for people to discredit his formula without actually going through it, and explain why it was not logical.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dholling er_john%26page%3dRankings-Intro
You can't reasonably attach a logical formula without some logical arguments.

[AFBlue]

Stein came out with his power rankings...

No suprise, Dallas is on top followed by Phoenix. The Spurs did make a jump to #3 though (previously 4th) with their recent streak.

[Cry Havoc]

I did some basic analysis, and this is what I found.
Since 1950 (the year BAA became the NBA), there have been 57 champions, of which 30 of them were won by the team with the best record. Of those 30 teams, 5 shares the best record with at least another team. But also of those 30 teams, 23 of them belongs to what I call dynasties.
Only the following teams were defined as dynasties:
90's Bulls
80's Lakers
60's Celtics
50's Lakers.
The reason I tabulated those as dynasties and non-dynasties is to show that the teams are so much better than the competition, that winning a championship and having the best record in the league was expected of them. You can make a case that the 80's Lakers does not belong to that group because of the Celtics, Pistons and 6ers. What this shows is that in a competitive league, where there is no clear-cut #1 (subjective call, and is applicable to this year), only 7 of the 27 champions have the best regular season record.
Even if the "dynasty" factor does not come into play, the team with the best regular season record won the championship 30 out of 57 times, which is barely half the time (about 53%).
IF the team with the highest point differential wins the championship 31 times or more out of 57 times, then it is a better indicator than the won/loss column. However, I do not have that data.
Just to make my stance clear, I do NOT agree with Hollinger's ranking formula without further justification as to how well his formula predicted playoff success, and that his arbitrary allotment of weight to each variable is without reason. However, IF he can show me, from past instances, that this formula can predict playoff success with X% accuracy, then I would give more credibility to it. I also do NOT agree with his formula on PER due to the totally subjective nature of the topic, there is just no defition of "best" or "better" player.
But on the other hand, his formula is not without it's basis, and it would be at least helpful for people to discredit his formula without actually going through it, and explain why it was not logical.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dholling er_john%26page%3dRankings-Intro
You can't reasonably attach a logical formula without some logical arguments.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/whisperingstorm/wiggum.jpg

"That's some nice work there, boys."

[Man In Black]

Amb...nice work!!!

I wish we did have a point differential...Let me see if I can find you a source.

[leemajors]

i understand your point but hollinger's stats have holes, that's all i'm pointing out...anyone can selectively pick stats to prop up their argument which is why i don't think you should take much stock in his (or stein's or nba.com's) rankings...i already explained some of those holes...look at the guys who gave up 16 points in about three minutes the other night in the heat/mavs game...those are not guys who will be playing minutes come playoff time...if it messes with our point differential stats now, then fine, at least i know why this is the case and can be fairly certain barring any injuries that guys like jj, croshere and ager won't be giving up leads come playoff time because they'll be keeping the bench warm...also, check the minutes i posted, those are stats and they don't hold up your theory about why the spurs will have fresher legs against the mavs...sorry about the homer remark, and i guess it's more that i see hollinger doing the spinning

i wouldn't say he is selectively picking stats, he stated his formula when he started his rankings after the start of the season - they haven't changed. the only bad part is what shoogar pointed out - he's using stats to describe the team as a whole instead of how they play. he mentioned the spurs record in close games, but that's as close as he came to the reality of sa's situation.

[Tippecanoe]

i understand what hollinger is saying, but closing out close games is a huge part of the game. and the spurs have been just absolutely dreadful when it comes to protecting a small leads at the end of games. they're gonna need to get better at that to be able to defeat dallas in the playoffs

[jeffdrums22]

Here are the REAL power rankings:

1. San Antonio Spurs
2. Utah Jazz
3. Phoenix
4. Dallas Mavericks
5-30 are junk NBA teams.

[cornbread]

Here are the jeffdrums22 power rankings:

1. San Antonio Spurs
2. Utah Jazz
3. Phoenix
4. Dallas Mavericks
5-30 are junk NBA teams.
:lmao

This should be entertaining...

[monosylab1k]

Here are the REAL power rankings:

1. San Antonio Spurs
2. Utah Jazz
3. Phoenix
4. Dallas Mavericks
5-30 are junk NBA teams.

finished playing with your dildo and decided to come post?

[fitzgerald]

Here are the REAL power rankings:

1. San Antonio Spurs
2. Utah Jazz
3. Phoenix
4. Dallas Mavericks
5-30 are junk NBA teams.


This guy has to stop smoking crack or crystal meth. Does he really believe the Jazz are the 2nd best team in the league? Obviously he was just trying to start something. He should be ignored for now on.

[ponky]

This guy has to stop smoking crack or crystal meth. Does he really believe the Jazz are the 2nd best team in the league? Obviously he was just trying to start something. He should be ignored for now on.

it's just a coping mechanism for him, he's a scared spurs fan, a rarity among spurs fans...it's actually kind of hilarious to read his posts

[ambchang]

BTW, one more point, I do not care about rankings (as in I don't put much weight into them), but I do find them fun to read and how people (including myself) argue over it despite the fact that it was, under almost all situations, based on a person's opinion.
Hollinger's ranking was supposed to take subjectivity out of it by basing it strictly on stats, but the selection of those stats and weight on each stat is, again, subjective.
Until some stats geek come up with a decent model that can reasonably predict playoff success (not just who won the championship) base on regular season statistics in February, we will just have to go on and on about this argument.
Finally (I guess that's two points I want to make), there is no way in hell I would rank the Spurs #1 at this point, but I do believe that the Spurs will win the championship this year, because I am a fan.

[nkdlunch]

Here are the REAL power rankings:

1. San Antonio Spurs
2. Utah Jazz
3. Phoenix
4. Dallas Mavericks
5-30 are junk NBA teams.

you forgot to put the Heat right below phoenix

[ponky]

i wouldn't say he is selectively picking stats, he stated his formula when he started his rankings after the start of the season - they haven't changed. the only bad part is what shoogar pointed out - he's using stats to describe the team as a whole instead of how they play. he mentioned the spurs record in close games, but that's as close as he came to the reality of sa's situation.


ali i'm saying is that he leaves out other stats that don't fit into his formula, that's what i meant by selective, it would be crazy to include everything. i have a huge problem with the point differential as i already explained in an earlier post because it doesn't account for certain situations (like when the mavs rookies blew 16 points in under 4 minutes) that don't translate well into playoff success and the whole thing about resting the starters may prove advantageous against the suns but it's a wash against the mavs because they basically play the same minutes as i already posted those stats earlier as well.

[jeffdrums22]

This guy has to stop smoking crack or crystal meth. Does he really believe the Jazz are the 2nd best team in the league? Obviously he was just trying to start something. He should be ignored for now on.

Utah is 3-0 vs Phoenix.
2-1 vs San Antonio.
1-1 vs Dallas, including a 101-79 blowout.

SA has 18 losses, but 9 of those are by 5 or less points. I forgot that Phoenix is 1-7 against teams that actually matter.

1. SA
2. Utah
3. Dallas
4. Phoenix/Miami/Detroit

[LEONARD]

I can't believe that garbage was worthy of 3 pages...


Here are the REAL power rankings:

1. San Antonio Spurs
2. Utah Jazz
3. Phoenix
4. Dallas Mavericks
5-30 are junk NBA teams.

jeffdrums22 is here!! yay!!! :hat :drunk :bang

[LEONARD]

Utah is 3-0 vs Phoenix.
2-1 vs San Antonio.
1-1 vs Dallas, including a 101-79 blowout.

Damn...good point...they're clearly #2 behind the Spurs then... :lol

[monosylab1k]

Utah is 3-0 vs Phoenix.
2-1 vs San Antonio.
1-1 vs Dallas, including a 101-79 blowout.

SA has 18 losses, but 9 of those are by 5 or less points. I forgot that Phoenix is 1-7 against teams that actually matter.

1. SA
2. Utah
3. Dallas
4. Phoenix/Miami/Detroit

Utah is also 0-2 vs. New Jersey
lost 101-89 to CHARLOTTE
lost to New York
lost to Seattle
lost to Portland

[FromWayDowntown]

Utah is 3-0 vs Phoenix.
2-1 vs San Antonio.
1-1 vs Dallas, including a 101-79 blowout.

So how a team has fared in head-to-head settings is really important to determining how good that team really is.


SA has 18 losses, but 9 of those are by 5 or less points.

But here is the obvious exception: there's no need to account for the fact that half of the Spurs 18 losses have come to Dallas, Phoenix, Utah, Houston, and the Lakers, and that the Spurs are 5-9 against those teams to this point of the season. In that sense, how a team has fared in head-to-head matchups is wholly irrelevant to that team's likelihood of success in the playoffs.


I forgot that Phoenix is 1-7 against teams that actually matter.

And, again, how a team has fared in head-to-head settings is really important to assessing how good that team really is.

[Nikos]

Can somebody explain to me how point differential against the Seattles of the league is going to help the Spurs rebound better against the elite teams in the West? Or compete athletically with them? Will point differential cause a player magically to appear who will allow the Spurs to defend Dirk Nowitzki and Josh Howard simultaneously?

And as for close games, hasn't part of the Spurs' defensive strategy for years been to make the opposing teams' best scorers work hard all game long so they don't have much left in the tank in the clutch to make those big shots? Hollinger makes it sound as if winning those games is nothing more than a matter of statistical luck.

Did anybody else live through the 1990's following this team?

Well to be fair Dallas also has to play the same teams the Spurs do and they should probably have a higher point differential. Most teams that go 65+ in the wins column tend to (which is what Dallas is likely to do, unless their luck runs out).

It certainly isn't impossible that Dallas might be a little luckier in the regular season sense than the Spurs. But also the Spurs might be getting worse, while Dallas is getting stronger. But I think the point differential does show the Spurs are probably a little better than their record shows. Doesn't mean they will beat Dallas cause they have a better point differential, but it does mean they just might be better than their record shows, and that they might have been a little unlucky in the regular season.

Dallas is simply a tough matchup for the Spurs. They have a great offense, and a good enough defense to beat them in a series of 7. Just forgetting Dirk and Howard -- they have Terry, Harris, and Stackhouse who can all have a 20pt game on you on any given night. The Spurs don't have anyone outside the big three who will suprise you in any other way except making open three point shots that the big three create for them. Harris, Stack, and Terry just need a pick or a play called for them and they can create on any given night. Not to mention Dallas has Diop and Damp for rebounds and defense.

To me the Spurs big 3 is better than Dallas. Actually Duncan and Parker to me are about as good as Dirk and Howard. Its all the other small pieces that Dallas has that gives them the advantage over the Spurs right now.

They'll need to play good basketball on both ends to beat the Mavs. And they might need a breakout performance from either Parker or Manu to have a good chance to beat the Mavs. (Given that Duncan and Dirk play themselves to a standstill).

[big3bigD]

We're No. 2?
'Revenge Of The Nerds' Vs. Mavs
By Mike Fisher - DB.com

When I read John Hollinger and his assertion that because of his Holy Grail of "point differential,'' the Spurs are the best team in the NBA and the Mavs are not, I can only assume the ESPN.com statgeek has traded his eyeballs and his common sense in exchange for a calculator. And a faulty one, at that. Because the entire foundation of his argument (maybe even his career!) is silly and unsupportable.

ESPN.com's Hollinger's Power Rankings utilizes most of all "point differential'' to determine that the best team in the NBA is not the 47-9 Mavs, but the 39-18 Spurs. How much sense does it make? As much as the argument that a pound of bricks weighs more than a pound of feathers.

As Hollinger says himself in his twisted explanation: "How the @#%$ are the Spurs ranked No. 1 in the Hollinger Power Rankings?"

In my writing career, I've been more of a "personality guy'' than a "numbers guy"; that is, I'm far more intrigued with the moods and thoughts and talents of the people than I am the empty mountains of statistics. I leave the latter to the Pocker-Protector Gang. But Mr. Hollinger's assertion is too ridiculous to ignore. So with the help of 75-Member Staffer David Lord, some brilliant questioners from DB.com Boards and Monday's 110-87 dismantling of Atlanta , let's take it apart, piece by preposterous piece:

HOLLINGER: "At first glance, I understand how this seems totally illogical. San Antonio has lost twice as many games as Dallas, for crying out loud, and the Mavs are currently riding a 11-game winning streak -- their third double-digit win streak this year. They're 46-5 since an 0-4 start and haven't lost consecutive games in more than three months. But the key word here is "first glance." One of the biggest reasons I created this ranking is to force people to look beyond the superficial first impression. In this case, it involves looking past win-loss record at the elements that go into it.''

DB.COM: Of course, now the present Mavs win streak is up to 12. The Mavericks are the fourth team in NBA history with three winning streaks of 10 or more in a season, having already had runs of 12 and 13 games. The Milwaukee Bucks (1970-71), Philadelphia 76ers (1980-81) and Los Angeles Lakers (1999-2000) are the other teams with three winning streaks of 10 or more games in a season.

Don't like the "science'' of those numbers? "First glance'' might be the real enemy of the scientist. But "first glance'' is what causes you to be attracted to Marilyn Monroe. If you "look beyond the. ... first impression,'' and you take her rather zaftig measurements and her overly-painted-on makeup and her mind-altering substance consumption. ... you miss the big picture, you overlook the obvious, you over-think the apparent.

Forget the textbook 36-24-36. Marilyn was hot.

Besides, like Marilyn's sexiness, win-loss record isn't "first glance.'' Win-loss record is EVERYTHING. Hollinger cleverly tucks the word "superficial'' into the sentence "I created this ranking is to force people to look beyond the superficial first impression.'' His assumption is faulty -- this first impression is not at all superficial. It is EVERYTHING.

The silliness here is glaring. Hollinger is using point differential to try to tell you a team's ability to WIN. But he gives PD a higher weighting than their actual success at the task we are trying to predict. ... getting a WIN. In a (needless?) quest for some "hidden'' and minor truth, he ignores the obvious and important truth. His formula cannot see the forest for the trees.
HOLINGER: "As I've been trying to beat into people's heads over and over again, point differential is a better indicator of future success than win-loss record. In other words, if you were trying to pick a game between the Mavs and Spurs tomorrow, you'd be better off ignoring the standings at looking just at point differential.''

DB.COM: But, John. ... if I was trying to pick a game between the Mavs and Spurs tomorrow, I might actually ignore the standings. I'd definitely ignore point differential. If I was trying to pick a game between the Mavs and the Spurs tommorow, I'd simply check what happened between Mavs-Spurs yesterday: In their last 11 meetings, including the playoffs last spring, Dallas is 7-4 against San Antonio. Wouldn't a 7-4 record be a good predictor of Dallas superiority?

As Lord points out, "Hollinger's basic thesis is that point differential is a measure of skill, while winning close games is typically as much about luck as skill. As a result, he would like for us to believe that the Mavs are LUCKY to be on a 70-win pace, and it's only because they are luckier than SA and Phoenix when games get close that they are far ahead of the league.

Those of us who actually watch the games to see who is playing well (rather than rely on stats to tell us what is happening) can see very clearly that the Mavs have developed an ability to measure their opponent and then do what it takes to win. If it's a weaker team, they may drift to a double-digit deficit before dialing up the effort and taking the game. But if it's a team that represents a threat, we typically see more intensity from the outset because they have less margin for error. And if it's a back-to-back, or a team that beat them before, then they know they are going to be challenged and they always win those games. That's not luck - it's a great team knowing exactly what it takes to win, and when needed giving a small hint of just how dominant they can be.

But whatever the case, in games that are in doubt, as you get closer and closer to the end of the game, the performance gets better and better. In Hollinger's world, that's just a big ol' pile of luck. But in reality, it's evidence of a team that's playing on another level. And sitting behind his laptop looking at all his numbers, Hollinger is missing out on recognizing these Mavs for who they are: a dominant team showing their greatness when they feel they are tested. They play as hard as they have to, to get the win they came for.

Call them lucky if you want, when it comes to winning. But chance favors the prepared and the skilled.''

How calculating are the Mavs? JJ Barea, the end-of-bencher, entered the Atlanta game with five minutes left in the first period. Why? Because Avery Johnson knew his Mavs could survive Monday with Barea in the lineup while saving fuel for a Tuesday nighter in Minnesota.

How does the Hollinger Power Rankings account for all that?
HOLLINGER: "You'd be surprised to learn that San Antonio, not Dallas, has the best point differential in the league, at +7.9 points per game. (Actually, Dallas is third at +7.7 -- Phoenix also noses in ahead of them).''

DB.COM: Even if Hollinger's Holy Grail of point differential is indeed all-important. ... the difference between San Antonio, Phoenix and Dallas is .2 points?! (It's worth a check today: If Dallas made up the .2 against Atlanta, are the Mavs now the No. 1 team?! Whoopee!!)

What the Mavs have done is "learn how to win." (As the Spurs have long done.) Neither SA or Dallas plays with the intention to "win point differential,'' or to "blow people out.''

The most recent Exhibit A of my argument came Monday at American Airlines Center against the lowly Hawks. Dallas held a 15-point edge at halftime. The outcome was nevere truly in doubt. Now, Dallas beat a poor Atlanta team by 23. Meanwhile, San Antonio beat a good Toronto team by a healthy margin.

How does that cause the Hollinger Power Rankings to bend? Who knows? Who cares? Had the Mavs won by 24 instead of 23, Hollinger's system would respect them more. How ridiculous is that?

HOLLINGER: "Additionally, the Spurs don't seem like they're losing any steam.''

DB.COM: This is simply inaccurate, and on two levels.

1) SA had gone 6-4 in the last 10 before another win on Monday over Toronto, so they have improved, I suppose. But since when is SA's six-wins-in-10-outings more impressive than Dallas' 10-wins-in-10-outings? What sort of pretzel logic is that? Because among SA's wins are three blowouts? Is the goal to win some blowouts, or to win games period?

Besides, the Spurs have indeed lost steam --- if they're being compared to great Spurs teams of the past. This can be proven by looking at numbers if you wish; they are 38-19, they are a fat 8.5 games behind Dallas, and they recently completed a wobbly road trip.

Or it can be proven by The Eye Test. Just as we suggest Hollinger glance up from his keyboard and actually WATCH Dallas, he should be watching the Spurs and their aging jump-shooters and their thinning bench and their step-slow defenders (has Hollinger not been watching Duncan on the defensive end?). ... The Eye Test insists they are losing steam. Inarguably.

2) Um, what do you mean "Additionally, the Spurs don't seem like they're losing any steam''? When did the Hollinger Power Rankings start allowing for such unscientific and subjective hoohah?

HOLLINGER: "(The Spurs) just haven't been as fortunate in close games. ... The Spurs' problem isn't age or a lack of fire or any of the other ideas trotted out in recent weeks. It's that they're 5-10 in games decided by five points or less, while the Mavs are 12-2. That's the main reason the teams are 8 1/2 games apart in the standings, not any difference in the quality of their play.''

DB.COM: I'm completely befuddled. Now it comes down to "being fortunate''? Dallas has won 47 of 52. ... that's the result of "luck''? .Hollinger is acknowledging if it's a close game, the Spurs will lose it. And if it's a close game, the Mavs will win it. That's his argument IN FAVOR of the Spurs?!

Back to the Atlanta win. Devean George and Greg Buckner didn't play due to injury, and Josh Howard exited the game with an ankle problem. Is that "being fortunate''? If those three guys are healthy, does Dallas win by 33? By 43? Does it matter?

A great example of Dallas' dominance comes from when Dallas beat Miami by 12 last week. The Mavs entered the fourth quarter leading by 30. According to Hollinger, the Mavs are a "better'' team if Moe Ager stays in warmups and Dirk stays in the game, because then 30 doesn't shrink to 12.

But to me, the WIN establish enough.

Dallas wins more road games than SA, wins more overall games than SA, hasn't lost at home since Dec. 7, wins more head-to-head games than SA. ... and in a landslide wins more close games? What else is there?

I'll tell you what else there is: There is the Hollinger Power Rankings, which provides a different (read: warped) angle on NBA ratings. And there is Mr. Hollinger's justification for numbers that simply don't add up. So Mr. Hollinger is stuck with his numbers -- and left trying to massage the truth to fit those numbers. But some truths cannot be explained away by deceptive raw numbers; some truths just ARE.

HOLLINGER: "Not only is there nothing "wrong" with the Spurs, this actually might be San Antonio's best team since their championship squad in 1999. ... The Spurs are a major threat to win the championship, and. ... they're No. 1 in the rankings because, as heretical as this may sound, they're playing better than everyone else right now. Dallas included."

DB.COM: Even Coach Pop is chortling at all of this. The Spurs, right now, are not what they were. They are certainly a threat to win a title (my system, a combination of the standings, head-to-head work, The Eye Test, historical trends and other boring and mundane measurements, puts them likely right behind Dallas, Phoenix and Detroit). But the idea that San Antonio is playing better than the Mavs? Since when did "playing better than'' mean anything other than "winning''? As was mentioned on DB.com Boards (I'll paraphrase): Point differential is a by-product of success, not the measure of success.

Finally, some real proof that debunks Mr. Hollinger's position -- and he'll appreciate it because I'll speak Geek to him:

If point differential is the be-all and end-all, then the Points Differential Champion should win the NBA Finals, right? Or at least that team should make it to the Finals, right?

Here are the last four years of Finals participants, and their point differential rank:

2006 Miami (5th) over Dallas (3rd)

2005 SA (4th) over Det (5th)

2004 Det (2nd) over LAL (7th)

2003 SA (3rd) over NJ (4th)

Now, I'm no statgeek. But I can read. And I don't see the team with the top differential there anywhere.

Relying in any way on ESPN.com's Hollinger's Power Rankings to gain a view of the NBA is akin to the view an apartment dweller gets from peering through his peephole. He sees something. ... but he'd see a lot more if he'd quit peeping and just open up the whole damn door.

[mabber]

If I was a mavfan I'd be pissed.

I'm devatasted!!!

[big3bigD]

I'm devatasted!!!


the season is over. Maybe Hollinger will pick the Mavs top in his mid-season power rankings next year. If so, then the Mavs will definately win a title....

[LEONARD]

Fisher owned that moron... :fro

[steppy]

We're No. 2?
'Revenge Of The Nerds' Vs. Mavs
By Mike Fisher - DB.com

When I read John Hollinger and his assertion that because of his Holy Grail of "point differential,'' the Spurs are the best team in the NBA and the Mavs are not, I can only assume the ESPN.com statgeek has traded his eyeballs and his common sense in exchange for a calculator. And a faulty one, at that. Because the entire foundation of his argument (maybe even his career!) is silly and unsupportable.

ESPN.com's Hollinger's Power Rankings utilizes most of all "point differential'' to determine that the best team in the NBA is not the 47-9 Mavs, but the 39-18 Spurs. How much sense does it make? As much as the argument that a pound of bricks weighs more than a pound of feathers.

As Hollinger says himself in his twisted explanation: "How the @#%$ are the Spurs ranked No. 1 in the Hollinger Power Rankings?"

In my writing career, I've been more of a "personality guy'' than a "numbers guy"; that is, I'm far more intrigued with the moods and thoughts and talents of the people than I am the empty mountains of statistics. I leave the latter to the Pocker-Protector Gang. But Mr. Hollinger's assertion is too ridiculous to ignore. So with the help of 75-Member Staffer David Lord, some brilliant questioners from DB.com Boards and Monday's 110-87 dismantling of Atlanta , let's take it apart, piece by preposterous piece:

HOLLINGER: "At first glance, I understand how this seems totally illogical. San Antonio has lost twice as many games as Dallas, for crying out loud, and the Mavs are currently riding a 11-game winning streak -- their third double-digit win streak this year. They're 46-5 since an 0-4 start and haven't lost consecutive games in more than three months. But the key word here is "first glance." One of the biggest reasons I created this ranking is to force people to look beyond the superficial first impression. In this case, it involves looking past win-loss record at the elements that go into it.''

DB.COM: Of course, now the present Mavs win streak is up to 12. The Mavericks are the fourth team in NBA history with three winning streaks of 10 or more in a season, having already had runs of 12 and 13 games. The Milwaukee Bucks (1970-71), Philadelphia 76ers (1980-81) and Los Angeles Lakers (1999-2000) are the other teams with three winning streaks of 10 or more games in a season.

Don't like the "science'' of those numbers? "First glance'' might be the real enemy of the scientist. But "first glance'' is what causes you to be attracted to Marilyn Monroe. If you "look beyond the. ... first impression,'' and you take her rather zaftig measurements and her overly-painted-on makeup and her mind-altering substance consumption. ... you miss the big picture, you overlook the obvious, you over-think the apparent.

Forget the textbook 36-24-36. Marilyn was hot.

Besides, like Marilyn's sexiness, win-loss record isn't "first glance.'' Win-loss record is EVERYTHING. Hollinger cleverly tucks the word "superficial'' into the sentence "I created this ranking is to force people to look beyond the superficial first impression.'' His assumption is faulty -- this first impression is not at all superficial. It is EVERYTHING.

The silliness here is glaring. Hollinger is using point differential to try to tell you a team's ability to WIN. But he gives PD a higher weighting than their actual success at the task we are trying to predict. ... getting a WIN. In a (needless?) quest for some "hidden'' and minor truth, he ignores the obvious and important truth. His formula cannot see the forest for the trees.
HOLINGER: "As I've been trying to beat into people's heads over and over again, point differential is a better indicator of future success than win-loss record. In other words, if you were trying to pick a game between the Mavs and Spurs tomorrow, you'd be better off ignoring the standings at looking just at point differential.''

DB.COM: But, John. ... if I was trying to pick a game between the Mavs and Spurs tomorrow, I might actually ignore the standings. I'd definitely ignore point differential. If I was trying to pick a game between the Mavs and the Spurs tommorow, I'd simply check what happened between Mavs-Spurs yesterday: In their last 11 meetings, including the playoffs last spring, Dallas is 7-4 against San Antonio. Wouldn't a 7-4 record be a good predictor of Dallas superiority?

As Lord points out, "Hollinger's basic thesis is that point differential is a measure of skill, while winning close games is typically as much about luck as skill. As a result, he would like for us to believe that the Mavs are LUCKY to be on a 70-win pace, and it's only because they are luckier than SA and Phoenix when games get close that they are far ahead of the league.

Those of us who actually watch the games to see who is playing well (rather than rely on stats to tell us what is happening) can see very clearly that the Mavs have developed an ability to measure their opponent and then do what it takes to win. If it's a weaker team, they may drift to a double-digit deficit before dialing up the effort and taking the game. But if it's a team that represents a threat, we typically see more intensity from the outset because they have less margin for error. And if it's a back-to-back, or a team that beat them before, then they know they are going to be challenged and they always win those games. That's not luck - it's a great team knowing exactly what it takes to win, and when needed giving a small hint of just how dominant they can be.

But whatever the case, in games that are in doubt, as you get closer and closer to the end of the game, the performance gets better and better. In Hollinger's world, that's just a big ol' pile of luck. But in reality, it's evidence of a team that's playing on another level. And sitting behind his laptop looking at all his numbers, Hollinger is missing out on recognizing these Mavs for who they are: a dominant team showing their greatness when they feel they are tested. They play as hard as they have to, to get the win they came for.

Call them lucky if you want, when it comes to winning. But chance favors the prepared and the skilled.''

How calculating are the Mavs? JJ Barea, the end-of-bencher, entered the Atlanta game with five minutes left in the first period. Why? Because Avery Johnson knew his Mavs could survive Monday with Barea in the lineup while saving fuel for a Tuesday nighter in Minnesota.

How does the Hollinger Power Rankings account for all that?
HOLLINGER: "You'd be surprised to learn that San Antonio, not Dallas, has the best point differential in the league, at +7.9 points per game. (Actually, Dallas is third at +7.7 -- Phoenix also noses in ahead of them).''

DB.COM: Even if Hollinger's Holy Grail of point differential is indeed all-important. ... the difference between San Antonio, Phoenix and Dallas is .2 points?! (It's worth a check today: If Dallas made up the .2 against Atlanta, are the Mavs now the No. 1 team?! Whoopee!!)

What the Mavs have done is "learn how to win." (As the Spurs have long done.) Neither SA or Dallas plays with the intention to "win point differential,'' or to "blow people out.''

The most recent Exhibit A of my argument came Monday at American Airlines Center against the lowly Hawks. Dallas held a 15-point edge at halftime. The outcome was nevere truly in doubt. Now, Dallas beat a poor Atlanta team by 23. Meanwhile, San Antonio beat a good Toronto team by a healthy margin.

How does that cause the Hollinger Power Rankings to bend? Who knows? Who cares? Had the Mavs won by 24 instead of 23, Hollinger's system would respect them more. How ridiculous is that?

HOLLINGER: "Additionally, the Spurs don't seem like they're losing any steam.''

DB.COM: This is simply inaccurate, and on two levels.

1) SA had gone 6-4 in the last 10 before another win on Monday over Toronto, so they have improved, I suppose. But since when is SA's six-wins-in-10-outings more impressive than Dallas' 10-wins-in-10-outings? What sort of pretzel logic is that? Because among SA's wins are three blowouts? Is the goal to win some blowouts, or to win games period?

Besides, the Spurs have indeed lost steam --- if they're being compared to great Spurs teams of the past. This can be proven by looking at numbers if you wish; they are 38-19, they are a fat 8.5 games behind Dallas, and they recently completed a wobbly road trip.

Or it can be proven by The Eye Test. Just as we suggest Hollinger glance up from his keyboard and actually WATCH Dallas, he should be watching the Spurs and their aging jump-shooters and their thinning bench and their step-slow defenders (has Hollinger not been watching Duncan on the defensive end?). ... The Eye Test insists they are losing steam. Inarguably.

2) Um, what do you mean "Additionally, the Spurs don't seem like they're losing any steam''? When did the Hollinger Power Rankings start allowing for such unscientific and subjective hoohah?

HOLLINGER: "(The Spurs) just haven't been as fortunate in close games. ... The Spurs' problem isn't age or a lack of fire or any of the other ideas trotted out in recent weeks. It's that they're 5-10 in games decided by five points or less, while the Mavs are 12-2. That's the main reason the teams are 8 1/2 games apart in the standings, not any difference in the quality of their play.''

DB.COM: I'm completely befuddled. Now it comes down to "being fortunate''? Dallas has won 47 of 52. ... that's the result of "luck''? .Hollinger is acknowledging if it's a close game, the Spurs will lose it. And if it's a close game, the Mavs will win it. That's his argument IN FAVOR of the Spurs?!

Back to the Atlanta win. Devean George and Greg Buckner didn't play due to injury, and Josh Howard exited the game with an ankle problem. Is that "being fortunate''? If those three guys are healthy, does Dallas win by 33? By 43? Does it matter?

A great example of Dallas' dominance comes from when Dallas beat Miami by 12 last week. The Mavs entered the fourth quarter leading by 30. According to Hollinger, the Mavs are a "better'' team if Moe Ager stays in warmups and Dirk stays in the game, because then 30 doesn't shrink to 12.

But to me, the WIN establish enough.

Dallas wins more road games than SA, wins more overall games than SA, hasn't lost at home since Dec. 7, wins more head-to-head games than SA. ... and in a landslide wins more close games? What else is there?

I'll tell you what else there is: There is the Hollinger Power Rankings, which provides a different (read: warped) angle on NBA ratings. And there is Mr. Hollinger's justification for numbers that simply don't add up. So Mr. Hollinger is stuck with his numbers -- and left trying to massage the truth to fit those numbers. But some truths cannot be explained away by deceptive raw numbers; some truths just ARE.

HOLLINGER: "Not only is there nothing "wrong" with the Spurs, this actually might be San Antonio's best team since their championship squad in 1999. ... The Spurs are a major threat to win the championship, and. ... they're No. 1 in the rankings because, as heretical as this may sound, they're playing better than everyone else right now. Dallas included."

DB.COM: Even Coach Pop is chortling at all of this. The Spurs, right now, are not what they were. They are certainly a threat to win a title (my system, a combination of the standings, head-to-head work, The Eye Test, historical trends and other boring and mundane measurements, puts them likely right behind Dallas, Phoenix and Detroit). But the idea that San Antonio is playing better than the Mavs? Since when did "playing better than'' mean anything other than "winning''? As was mentioned on DB.com Boards (I'll paraphrase): Point differential is a by-product of success, not the measure of success.

Finally, some real proof that debunks Mr. Hollinger's position -- and he'll appreciate it because I'll speak Geek to him:

If point differential is the be-all and end-all, then the Points Differential Champion should win the NBA Finals, right? Or at least that team should make it to the Finals, right?

Here are the last four years of Finals participants, and their point differential rank:

2006 Miami (5th) over Dallas (3rd)

2005 SA (4th) over Det (5th)

2004 Det (2nd) over LAL (7th)

2003 SA (3rd) over NJ (4th)

Now, I'm no statgeek. But I can read. And I don't see the team with the top differential there anywhere.

Relying in any way on ESPN.com's Hollinger's Power Rankings to gain a view of the NBA is akin to the view an apartment dweller gets from peering through his peephole. He sees something. ... but he'd see a lot more if he'd quit peeping and just open up the whole damn door.

So does this article excuse the fact that Dallas blew a 2-0 lead on the Heat in the Finals last year and could be working on a back 2 back title year? :toast

Seriously, who cares if the Mavs aren't listed #1 in power rankings that when it all comes down to it are subjective. Seems like a lot made out of nothing.

[ambchang]

Fisher owned that moron... :fro
Actually he didn't.
1) He goes by the assumption that only the Mavs send out their bench players in a blowout, that is obviously not the case. Does it mean anything that the Spurs blew out some crappy team more than the Mavs? No, but that is another argument
2) He continued to say that the ranking put in point differential as the be all and end all. It isn't, look at the formula, it takes many other factors into account.
3) He continued to look at issues in isolation, and pick and choose the ones he felt was important to him as the defining points to strengthen his argument, while dismissing those that does not.
4) He continues to use individual games (read: exceptions) to prove his points. Mavs were saving the starters legs with an end-of-bencher? Spurs save Horry on back-to-backs to, it's not like this is rocket science and Avery Johnson invented it.

On the other hand, he makes great points, it's a classic case of keeping your arguments concise, and not let the weaker points dilute your strong points.

I do agree with him on a few things
1) At this point of the season, the Mavs are playing better ball than the Spurs.
2) End-of-game execution is the sign of a great team, the Mavs didn't get a good record because of luck, it's because they have practiced plays over and over again to combat those situations.
Statistics provide a good guideline to fragment groups in this case, but the finer details need subjectivity. The stats simply show that the Spurs and Mavs are not as far apart as the records indicate.

[mountainballer]

some months ago Hollinger proved by his magic formula, that Jackie Butler was the steal of the 2006 free agency.
well.
if he now proves by another of his self made formulas, that Spurs are no.1, I would rave if I was a Mavs fan.
unluckily I am a Spurs fan and because of the fact, that there is a 99,9% chance that whatever Hollinger calculated is wrong, I'm now absolutly sure that we are not even close to the Mavs.

or is Butler averaging a double-double?

[big3bigD]

So does this article excuse the fact that Dallas blew a 2-0 lead on the Heat in the Finals last year and could be working on a back 2 back title year? :toast

Seriously, who cares if the Mavs aren't listed #1 in power rankings that when it all comes down to it are subjective. Seems like a lot made out of nothing.

I'm not sure what one thing has to do with another... :wtf

Do the current power rankings excuse the Spurs chocking to the Lakers in the West playoffs a few years ago and watching the lakers lose to Detroit? They could now have four titles instead of three... :drunk :wtf :rolleyes

[big3bigD]

some months ago Hollinger proved by his magic formula, that Jackie Butler was the steal of the 2006 free agency.
well.
if he now proves by another of his self made formulas, that Spurs are no.1, I would rave if I was a Mavs fan.
unluckily I am a Spurs fan and because of the fact, that there is a 99,9% chance that whatever Hollinger calculated is wrong, I'm now absolutly sure that we are not even close to the Mavs.

or is Butler averaging a double-double?

:lol :smokin

[steppy]

I'm not sure what chocking is but the Spurs were never that close to a title just to piss it all away. Your team coudln't seal the deal.

[big3bigD]

I'm not sure what chocking is but the Spurs were never that close to a title just to piss it all away. Your team coudln't seal the deal.

Again, the relevace is what??.... I am speaking of current events in the NBA, a.k.a. this season.

If you want to just live in the past, the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls all said that your team sux..:rolleyes

Spurs fan... :lol :lol

[steppy]

Why even write an article about John Hollinger's power rankings? They're subjective. WTF does it matter? Why does a Mavs beat writer whine and bitch about something that doesn't matter? Where's the relevance in that?

[mountainballer]

unfortunatly Hollinger isn't working only for ESPN.

http://buckfush.com/images/bush_War_Never_Ends.jpg

[big3bigD]

Why even write an article about John Hollinger's power rankings? They're subjective. WTF does it matter? Why does a Mavs beat writer whine and bitch about something that doesn't matter? Where's the relevance in that?

Just to have something to write about during a long NBA regular season, and to point out the inaccuracies of another well known sports writer. Why even do any power rankings in the first place? Hell, why even acknowledge the regular season at all? It should be just one long pre-season with absolutely no media coverage until the Finals begin. After all, the Finals are the only thing that matters at all in the NBA, right??

[mavsfan1000]

Actually he didn't.
1) He goes by the assumption that only the Mavs send out their bench players in a blowout, that is obviously not the case. Does it mean anything that the Spurs blew out some crappy team more than the Mavs? No, but that is another argument
2) He continued to say that the ranking put in point differential as the be all and end all. It isn't, look at the formula, it takes many other factors into account.
3) He continued to look at issues in isolation, and pick and choose the ones he felt was important to him as the defining points to strengthen his argument, while dismissing those that does not.
4) He continues to use individual games (read: exceptions) to prove his points. Mavs were saving the starters legs with an end-of-bencher? Spurs save Horry on back-to-backs to, it's not like this is rocket science and Avery Johnson invented it.

On the other hand, he makes great points, it's a classic case of keeping your arguments concise, and not let the weaker points dilute your strong points.

I do agree with him on a few things
1) At this point of the season, the Mavs are playing better ball than the Spurs.
2) End-of-game execution is the sign of a great team, the Mavs didn't get a good record because of luck, it's because they have practiced plays over and over again to combat those situations.
Statistics provide a good guideline to fragment groups in this case, but the finer details need subjectivity. The stats simply show that the Spurs and Mavs are not as far apart as the records indicate.

The mavs have some very bad scrubs at the end of the bench. Ager and Barea are just flat terrible.

[Rummpd]

Dallas is a tough, tough team this year but IMO they are primed for a potential upset. All teams hit tough stretches, and they have been almost injury free since early in the year.

Even a 1-8 first NBA first round seven game series flameout of historical proportions = would never surprise me with a Dirk led team.

[Kori Ellis]

Hollinger is having a live chat right now if you have any questions about his rankings.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=14781

[monosylab1k]

I'm not sure what chocking is but the Spurs were never that close to a title just to piss it all away. Your team coudln't seal the deal.

I'm not sure what "chocking" is either...

[phxspurfan]

Yes, yes, whoopdy fricking doo. However, in his explanation that is his primary means of explaining the Spurs being so highly ranked, which then leads one to believe that it's a dominant component of his formula. Wouldn't it be more important to evaluate strength of schedule, momentum? Why not just break it down even further, lets take a look at the point differentials against winning and losing teams?

When you evaluate his formula, it comes across as being arbitrary. In something like this, the weightings are an important factor and they seem to be abitrary, or at best attempts to factor in "momentum" (his 2/3rds 1/3rd weighting).

Ultimately, it's like any attempt to computerize quantifying the good and bad teams...crap.


so lets bring BCS into the NBA!

[big3bigD]

I'm not sure what "chocking" is either...

Choking.. please excuse the misspelling.. sure got me on that one :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

Hollinger is having a live chat right now if you have any questions about his rankings.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=14781I've boycotted him because I got pissed when the Spurs weren't ranked as high as I thought they should have been that one time.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Hollinger was, is and always will be a douchebag.


Charles (San Jose): Which team's fans have the biggest sense of entitlement - Lakers, Pistons, or Mavs?

John Hollinger: (1:36 PM ET ) LOL ... question of the day! Pistons and Lakers would probably go 1-2. Mavs fans aren't so bad, actually.

[Marklar MM]

Hollinger was, is and always will be a douchebag.

We aren't that bad. Now if you look at Miami...

[nkdlunch]

:lmao this cracks me up:

Chat with John Hollinger

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian (New York): John, If the Spurs are prone to losing closer games, how is that a good thing? Isn't that the test of a tough, proven team? Sure the Bulls and Raps can blow out teams in the Leastern Conf. but how does that make them better than the Jazz who play tougher teams and win close games all the time.

John Hollinger: (1:01 PM ET ) Have had a lot of questions along these lines after my blog item on the power rankings. It all depends on whether you think the Spurs and Mavs performance in close games is predictive of how they'll do in future close games, or if it's just a fluke. I say fluke and I've got reams of data to back me up on this.


hahaha reams of data!? this guy is on crack

[jack0fspeed]

I like this Q&A. Sounds like Hollinger isn't taking responsibility for his prediction.


Kevin (Texas): Any thoughts on why your boy Jackie Butler isn't getting any run in SA? It's not like Elson or Oberto are tearing it up...

John Hollinger: (1:24 PM ET ) Three guesses: a) cheeseburgers, b) brownies, c) fudgesicles. I think you see where I'm going with this ....

[monosylab1k]

Choking.. please excuse the misspelling.. sure got me on that one :rolleyes

wasn't talking to you. look who i quoted.

[mavsfan1000]

Good news. Dallas won by 26 points tonight. That might be enough to be in the lead in Hollinger's ranging.

[phyzik]

Good news. Dallas won by 26 points tonight. That might be enough to be in the lead in Hollinger's ranging.


DAMMIT!! Time to get my pussy hairs in a knot, my g-string crammed up my ass and throw a fucking hissy fit!!!




ohh wait.... Im not a mavs fan... nevermind. :drunk

[THE SIXTH MAN]

Good news. Dallas won by 26 points tonight. That might be enough to be in the lead in Hollinger's ranging.
You've got to be the biggest pussy for whining about some fucking rankings.

[Peter]

By the way -- they're doing this while playing their scrubs for much of the game. No Spur is playing more than 35 minutes per game; Tim Duncan leads the team at 34.6. Tony Parker is only playing 33.0 minutes, Manu Ginobili a measly 27.8. No team is playing their starters less, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Spurs' big three will see a lot more action during the playoffs, making San Anotnio even tougher.

The problem is, the rest of the rotation is filled with "scrubs". Also, I'd posit that heavier minutes for the Big 3 in the postseason will lead to a drop in their overall game performance and every team will be playing their stars heavy minutes so whatever benefit from an increase in the Big 3's production will be muted by that. Also, playoff success and failure is about matchups and exploiting weaknesses.

[mavsfan1000]

You've got to be the biggest pussy for whining about some fucking rankings.
I was not whining about the rankings. I was mocking how stupid Hollinger's formula. I could care less what the rankings are but this guy is an idiot.