big3bigD
02-27-2007, 10:26 AM
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.
'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.