Hollinger would take Bucks over Mavs in playoff series

[Rogue]

What "it" qualities does Billups have that Kidd doesn't? Spell it for me at the risk of being pedantic.

Billups is about 4yrs younger. Jordan during his professional career held the superbest skills that couldn't be matched by anyone of all time, today he's no more than a re ed fat manager. Kidd used to be damn great and probably was once the greatest PG around the league, but I don't think he's still playing the exact type of game the younger kidd played.

Jason Kidd has everything Billups does in terms of mental makeup, and the Mavs have more ac ulated playoff experience than Denver. With their leader, Denver got smacked down hard at home in Game 6 to the champs. A bounce of the ball here or there, and the Mavs are 2006 champs without such a leader.

the 06 Mavs were absolutely the best team that year and was undoubted the team most deserving for championship. Dirk has been the Mavs leader ever since Fin turned traitor and trailed Skunk's stinking asses. Kidd was trawled as a decent addition and all. Kidd still plays fine as a first team regular but he isn't fucntioning beyond the meaning of a pivotal player like JET, and that's well satisfying given his age.

[Ghazi]

People always try to make up imaginary reasons for why a team cannot win a championship... cause they choked 3 years ago, because they lack "it", because Dirk isn't a leader.

It generally shows ignorance of the game... if youre gonna give reasons why the Mavs may not win it all this year you can say they lack enough paint scoring... or they don't have enough players who can create off the dribble when defenses tighten up in the playoffs... or while good defensively they're not GREAT defensively.

But this "choke" and "leadership" bull doesn't fly.

[mavsfan1000]

Seriously why are we still talking about a lame analyst with a bull formula?

[ezau]

People always try to make up imaginary reasons for why a team cannot win a championship... cause they choked 3 years ago, because they lack "it", because Dirk isn't a leader.

It generally shows ignorance of the game... if youre gonna give reasons why the Mavs may not win it all this year you can say they lack enough paint scoring... or they don't have enough players who can create off the dribble when defenses tighten up in the playoffs... or while good defensively they're not GREAT defensively.

But this "choke" and "leadership" bull doesn't fly.

that's called "denial". If your team finished the regular season with an astonishing 67-15 record, yet somehow still managed to lose, you have the word "choke" written all over it. What's else do you want to call it then? you can make up tons of different reasons why a team fails even if they were favorites to win the le. At the end of the day, people won't remember those reasons, they'll just call it "choking" and rightfully so.

[spursncowboys]

Mavs fans: when you are one of the top tier teams, you are gonna have haters. They will manipulate stats better than obama to make their boys seem like they will win. Those guys that make crazy predictions that get rises in people get them more jobs. Mavs have a record of choking. Spurs dealt w/ it every year with robinson.
Stop being those fans that run out on the court when your team beats the #1, in a reg season. Act like you've been there before, and like you belong.

[mogrovejo]

Well, the Bucks won again, this time over the Jazz.

Hollinger's formula isn't his formula, he wasn't the one finding it out or writing about it the first time or whatever. It's just that point differential it's the best (not a perfect) predictor of playoff success in the NBA, doing the math with the historical records. Better than the W/L record. So, you're basically arguing, not with Hollinger, but with historical facts, with basketball games results, which is a little dumb and useless.

[Killakobe81]

Well, the Bucks won again, this time over the Jazz.

Hollinger's formula isn't his formula, he wasn't the one finding it out or writing about it the first time or whatever. It's just that point differential it's the best (not a perfect) predictor of playoff success in the NBA, doing the math with the historical records. Better than the W/L record. So, you're basically arguing, not with Hollinger, but with historical facts, with basketball games results, which is a little dumb and useless.

Didnt the PER genius pick the Lakers over the Celts 2 years ago ..like almost ALL of ESPN?

[HarlemHeat37]

Hollinger picked the Lakers to win, but he had an article stating that his numbers suggest that the Celtics were going to win the series..he even said that he was going against "his" numbers by picking the Lakers IIRC..

His numbers did translate into a Celtics-Lakers Finals though, even in March, even though those 2 were obviously the favorites..the numbers are generally very accurate when it comes to figuring out which teams belong in the elite category..

As I said, the Mavs will move up in his numbers as they continue to pick up wins, especially if they do it in impressive fashion..

[Killakobe81]

Hollinger picked the Lakers to win, but he had an article stating that his numbers suggest that the Celtics were going to win the series..he even said that he was going against "his" numbers by picking the Lakers IIRC..

His numbers did translate into a Celtics-Lakers Finals though, even in March, even though those 2 were obviously the favorites..the numbers are generally very accurate when it comes to figuring out which teams belong in the elite category..

As I said, the Mavs will move up in his numbers as they continue to pick up wins, especially if they do it in impressive fashion..

Nice post. When you are not emotional you usually make good ones though you have Anti-Laker bias. LOL

Back to your post. That WAS MY EXACT point even though he claims to have no emotional ties he does ...read any of his chats . He is biased towards "his numnbers" so he favors the efficient guys ...that is cool. But some guys defy numbers. Farve is that way (dont like him but he has something special), AI in his prime, Magic Kobe they are more than their numbers even Lebron (which PER loves) is MORE than his NUMBERS ...

As far as accuracy all my Laker fan friends were arguing with me Lakers in 5 or 6 I said Lakers in 7
I was one of the few (in my circle) who was scared BEFORE game one.

This is what scared me:
Pierce has traditionally killed us
I used to respect the out of KG
Posey always played Kobe tough
The 2 regular season losses
AND the ESPN jinx they treated us like the 16-0 Pats and i hated it ...

I wont lie ...i still thought the Lakers COULD (not would) win because we had Phil and Kobe.
BOTH guys let me down in that series.
And after Game one My heart still believed but my mind said we were done ...

[dude1394]

Hollinger did predict the Mavs' demise before, but he's wrong here..it's not necessarily because of the system though..he's going by the numbers for the entire year, which was obviously a different Mavs team than the post-trade Mavs..it would also be unfair to use the numbers from the post-trade Mavs, because they're still riding high..we have to see how they look once adversity hits them, so we can see how they respond in that kind of situation..

Actually he did not. He predicted that the mavs would be the GSW's and lose to the spurs. Even when he's touting his successes, he's not actually using his own numbers.

[HarlemHeat37]

How is that wrong?..he predicted a dominant team that won an extremely high amount of games wouldn't even make it out of the West..that's pretty ballsy and telling about the stats he uses..

[dude1394]

It's wrong because his predictor stated that he mavs should have beaten the warriors, then beaten the next team and then ultimately lost to the spurs.

[mogrovejo]

If "Hollinger's predictor" or Hollinger as a predictor were right all the time, he'd be ruining Vegas, not writing basketball articles for a living.

[monosylab1k]

How is that wrong?..he predicted a dominant team that won an extremely high amount of games wouldn't even make it out of the West..that's pretty ballsy and telling about the stats he uses..

Actually that's crap too. In 2007 his system didn't even come close to predicting a Golden State upset, and while his rankings had San Antonio ahead of Dallas, his system actually had Dallas as a slight favorite in a series against them when you put home court advantage into the equation.

If he predicted a Dallas upset, it's because he was going against what his formula predicted. Which of course, goes against everything he supposedly stands for.

[mogrovejo]

If he predicted a Dallas upset, it's because he was going against what his formula predicted. Which of course, goes against everything he supposedly stands for.

Why?

[mogrovejo]

Hollinger writes multiple times that "his formula" doesn't factor matchups and that those play an important role in the playoffs.

[icem]

formula or no formula the bucks would win....

[ChrisRichards]

Id take the Mavs. Deeper bench and they have a real Superstar, a great anchor and an all star caliber player second option. Hollinger is normally pretty good but this time he's having a skip bayless moment.

[Shank]

Bucks beat Jazz.

Jazz move up to #2 and the Bucks slide to #12.

Makes perfect sense, as always.

[monosylab1k]

Hollinger writes multiple times that "his formula" doesn't factor matchups and that those play an important role in the playoffs.

He picks and chooses when he wants to apply his formula. This year his defense of the Mavs ranking is "hey, it's not me saying it, it's the numbers" and plenty of times included homecourt advantage into his critique of Dallas (especially in a series against Denver), but back in 2007 he clearly went against what his numbers said, if he did indeed say he favored San Antonio over Dallas.

Either he goes with his formula 100% of the time (because the formula is his gimmick and the only thing that separates him from the hundreds of other jagoff basketball writers in America), or he goes with what he "feels". He can't pick and choose, because in the end that means he has faith in neither his formula nor in his "feel" for the game, making him more worthless than ever.

[dude1394]

Bucks beat Jazz.

Jazz move up to #2 and the Bucks slide to #12.

Makes perfect sense, as always.

That is pretty funny isn't it. Bucks beat the Jazz and drop two spots. Makes perfect sense to me.

[mogrovejo]

He picks and chooses when he wants to apply his formula. This year his defense of the Mavs ranking is "hey, it's not me saying it, it's the numbers" and plenty of times included homecourt advantage into his critique of Dallas (especially in a series against Denver), but back in 2007 he clearly went against what his numbers said, if he did indeed say he favored San Antonio over Dallas.

Either he goes with his formula 100% of the time (because the formula is his gimmick and the only thing that separates him from the hundreds of other jagoff basketball writers in America), or he goes with what he "feels". He can't pick and choose, because in the end that means he has faith in neither his formula nor in his "feel" for the game, making him more worthless than ever.

But you are the one postulating the need for that dilemma. He doesn't.

It's not a matter of faith. Why cant' it be that he uses the formula as a factor contributing to his predictions, the main one, but without overriding value over all the other factors? Sure, he tends to predict with the formula, but sometimes the other factors become more important. I don't see the big deal. I mean, do you do predictions without caring for the teams' records? To you it's indifferent that a team has 60 wins or 10 wins? I don't believe so.

And his "formula" doesn't separate him from anybody. The "formula" doesnt' belong to him. Heck, the guy who "created" the formula (or applied it to the NBA) was no other than Daryl Morey, the current Rockets GM.

[monosylab1k]

But you are the one postulating the need for that dilemma. He doesn't.

It's not a matter of faith. Why cant' it be that he uses the formula as a factor contributing to his predictions, the main one, but without overriding value over all the other factors? Sure, he tends to predict with the formula, but sometimes the other factors become more important. I don't see the big deal. I mean, do you do predictions without caring for the teams' records? To you it's indifferent that a team has 60 wins or 10 wins? I don't believe so.

And his "formula" doesn't separate him from anybody. The "formula" doesnt' belong to him. Heck, the guy who "created" the formula (or applied it to the NBA) was no other than Daryl Morey, the current Rockets GM.

You just aren't getting it. He isn't using his formula as a foundation for his predictions. He's using it as a crutch. He's already got his preconceived notions about the teams he likes and dislikes. When it fits his purpose he will cite the formula and argue to the death over it. When it doesn't fit what he wants to see, then he looks for other statistical "evidence" and conveniently ignores the formula that he previously argued was gospel. There's no balance, it's always one extreme or the other with him.

And name me another sports writer who lives by this formula the way Hollinger does?

[mogrovejo]

You just aren't getting it. He isn't using his formula as a foundation for his predictions. He's using it as a crutch. He's already got his preconceived notions about the teams he likes and dislikes. When it fits his purpose he will cite the formula and argue to the death over it. When it doesn't fit what he wants to see, then he looks for other statistical "evidence" and conveniently ignores the formula that he previously argued was gospel. There's no balance, it's always one extreme or the other with him.

And name me another sports writer who lives by this formula the way Hollinger does?

I rarely read Hollinger and I don't know many other sports writers, let alone statisticians who write. A guy who's easily more fanatic about his formula than Hollinger is David Berri. Former Mavs employee Wayne Winston also comes to mind. I'm sure there are others.

I think you're the one with preconceived notions about Hollinger. To me it's no big deal at all that sometimes he goes with the point differential standings and sometimes don't. It's natural that when he doesnt' see any important factors he simply cites the formula. When he see factors that may override the formula, then it's natural that he stresses those factors because they must be really important to him. Plus, Hollinger isn't a guy who holds grudges, if the Mavericks step up their game he'll give them more credit in the future. I dont' see the drama, anyway, it's just a prediction.

There are 3 things that at some point you can expect from every fan base in the NBA:

- accusing their coach of hating youngsters/rookies and not playing them enough.
- accusing their coach of liking small-ball too much.
- accusing Hollinger of being prejudiced against their team.

[noob cake]

Statjesus strikes