Hollinger is an idiot.
The Big three are 26-8 together this year.
But Hollinger thinks the Spurs will finish 21-12, and win 55 games.
59 or 60 looks more likely.
If the Spurs win 3/4 of their remaining games, they will win 59, about Duncan's average for his career.
Hollinger needs to revamp his formulas. He may also need his brain revamped.
Only 40 days ago...
PER Diem: Dec. 31, 2008
By John Hollinger
ESPN.com
D. Clarke Evans/NBAE/Getty Images
Even with a healthy big three in San Antonio, the Spurs might have a hard time making the playoffs.
Checking out the Playoff Odds on Wednesday, there's a bit of a surprise out West.
According to Wednesday's simulations, the eight most likely playoff teams from that conference are the Lakers, Blazers, Nuggets, Hornets, Rockets, Jazz, Mavs and Suns.
You'll notice I didn't mention the Spurs. After Tuesday's 100-98 loss at home to Milwaukee, the Spurs project to finish ninth in the West with a 47-35 record. They're a lowly 14th in the Power Rankings -- more than a point behind No. 13 Dallas.
All this seems a bit odd just looking at the standings. San Antonio is 20-11, after all, with the third-best record in the West and just a half-game behind New Orleans in the Southwest Division race.
Intangible factors seem to be on the Spurs' side, too. They've compiled their record despite losing Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili for big chunks of time, and they have a history of rallying in the second half of the season after ho-hum starts.
However, the Playoff Odds and Power Rankings underscore this: San Antonio hasn't played nearly as well as its record. The Spurs already have played 18 home games, tied with Boston for most in the league. Also, their opponents' .469 winning percentage is the worst of any team in the West.
Moreover, the Spurs have been remarkably mediocre since Parker and Ginobili returned to the lineup. Their past 10 games include close shaves at home against Minnesota, Oklahoma City and Memphis, a home loss to the Bucks and a convincing defeat in Orlando.
As a result, the Playoff Odds project the Spurs to go just 27-24 in their final 51 games. This would be hugely disappointing from San Antonio's perspective, but its schedule is about to rise several notches in difficulty.
From Jan. 11 to March 4, the Spurs will play only eight of their 25 games at home. Of those eight, six are against high-caliber opponents: Orlando, Portland, Cleveland, the Lakers, Dallas and New Orleans. The other two games, against Indiana and New Jersey, aren't exactly gimmes, either.
And of the 17 road games, at least eight -- at L.A., Utah, Phoenix, Denver, Boston, Detroit, Portland and Dallas -- have to be considered likely or somewhat likely defeats. Of the 25 games, only two are against the bottom six teams in the West, and both are on the road.
Thus, the Spurs' position isn't nearly as strong as it appears in the standings. The Spurs aren't playing real well, and they'll get absolutely bushwhacked by the schedule if they don't start playing better real soon.
I consider myself a numbers guy but the truth is there are too many variables in team sports to try to quantify it with formulas. You've got emotions, heart, exhaustion, frustration, hot teams, cold teams, players get as hot as lava and cold as ice. You have injuries, tough parts of a schedule, weak parts. Basically too many variables to come even close to making a valid prediction.
Hollinger has the occasional decent article but as long as he is covering team sports with a season as long as the NBA's, he needs to put the formulas away and write in the now instead of trying to project stats so far out.
You cannot evaluate the Spurs without taking their dynasty run into consideration.
That's like saying man-made global warming exists by analyzing the last 100 years out of 4.3 billion.
See what I did there
What a .
If you are going to dismiss the Spurs since even before the start of the season and take shots at them throughout the season, you can't suddenly jump on the bandwagon after a few wins. Just a couple days ago he predicted the Spurs to get murdered on the RRT.
The Mavs started the '07 season 0-4, and finished 67-15. The Suns started 1-4. They both ended up with the top two records.
Did Hollinger dump it on those teams as well?
The Spurs will win 59 or 60 games this season, including the remaining game against the Lakers in San Antonio...BOOK IT!!!
National sports writers are not terribly unlike some posters on this site. Over reacting to wins and losses in the regular season no matter what has happened in the past and using logic to look forward.
After losing to the Lakers recently in LA some were throwing themselves off of buildings metaphorically and some writers were ready to crown the Lakers, no need to mess with playing games the rest of the season.
Now that the Celtics fell to the Spurs in a compe ive games, some are saying we're going all the way baby and guys like Hollinger are hopping back on the bandwagon.
Here is the bottomline: if things go right and the Spurs don't have a major injury(s), they have a shot at winning it all. The same applies to the Lakers and Celtics.
Believe.
Yess! Finally! Apparently Spurs are just now showing up but it's because other teams are underachieving and stumbling. Smell the coffee man and don't miss the wagon. Spurs have just been getting warmed up.
What a pathetic piece by Hollinger! After months predicting through his "it says it all" numbers that the Spurs are going to be murdered by their schedule; the others in the Western pack are going to just streamroll over the Spurs; age has caught up with the Spurs; their draft and free agent picks are not upto the elite mark; without a big man, the Spurs are doomed; the point differential says that the Spurs are badly off; the Playoff odds place Spurs behind the meteoric Blazers and the talented Rockets and the resolute Nuggets and the surefire Jazz; and all that..
he has this piece of tripe to write.
John Hollinger reminds me of Alan Greenspan in many ways of living and dying with the numbers and the illogical Ayn Randian objectivist system. Except Greenspan dragged his senile ass to Congress and said, "I screwed up". This fella from ESPN thinks he is Bill James of Hoops and can't even say a sorry. What a load.
Stats are only supplementary to the way the game is played. For all his geekistry, one screen/roll, one hard elbow and one dive to the floor is enough to put paid to all the numbers that emphasise winning/losing. I will take a million opinionated Charley Rosens over this "objectivist" Hollinger.
Give Hollinger credit. He kept the spurs out of the mix because he knew the defense was not as good this year. In reality, he's right. The spurs are 6th in the league when normally they are the best or near the best.
What about Utah, John? What about Utah?
Fjh
Hollinger has vaginal fluid in his brain.
I don't have to give that balding re , jack .
The Spurs were playing like earlier in the year, and needed a bunch of fluke shots to win a bunch of close games, so Hollinger's model penalized them.
Now they're playing better, so the model rewards them.
What's there to about? Hollinger is smarter than all of you
The top five teams in his model are 1. Celtics 2. Magic 3. Lakers 4. Cavs 5. Spurs
WE can argue the order, but the bottom line is the model rewards good basketball.
The Spurs were playing like earlier in the year, and needed a bunch of fluke shots to win a bunch of close games, so Hollinger's model penalized them.
Now they're playing better, so the model rewards them.
What's there to about? Hollinger is smarter than all of you
The top five teams in his model are 1. Celtics 2. Magic 3. Lakers 4. Cavs 5. Spurs
WE can argue the order, but the bottom line is the model rewards good basketball.
Yeah when they are missing two of their best players it throws the re ed formulaic equation off.
So take that BS somewhere else.
Oh yeah? And thats why he predicted the Spurs to go 47-35 before the season eh? Who is smarter?The Spurs were playing like earlier in the year, and needed a bunch of fluke shots to win a bunch of close games, so Hollinger's model penalized them.
Now they're playing better, so the model rewards them.
What's there to about? Hollinger is smarter than all of you
Model, my foot. He was consistently ranking the effing Sixers over the Spurs.. the team that barely managed to go over .500.
I think we can beat anyone that comes out the East, and I also think we could lose to anyone that comes out of the East. Regardless, getting past the Lakers will be our biggest obstacle. I think they are better than both Cavs and Celtics...
He already said his model doesn't factor injuries.
Which go for all teams, FWIW.
what an ass. does he even watch nba basketball? the spurs had no tony and manu for a big stretch in the beginning of the season.
no your sorry ass mavs played like early in the season. spurs had injuries early on and managed to win still. go kill yourself.The Spurs were playing like earlier in the year, and needed a bunch of fluke shots to win a bunch of close games, so Hollinger's model penalized them.
Now they're playing better, so the model rewards them.
What's there to about? Hollinger is smarter than all of you
The top five teams in his model are 1. Celtics 2. Magic 3. Lakers 4. Cavs 5. Spurs
WE can argue the order, but the bottom line is the model rewards good basketball.
Yeah, you called it in the offseason, IIRC. I defended Hollinger at the time but you were dead right about Hollinger have an axe to grind with the Spurs, for whatever reason.
I didn't mind the article where Hollinger said the Spurs might not make the playoffs. But this article where he reluctantly includes the Spurs as a team that could improve as the season progresses really was lame. In it, he ignores his numbers for a second and still scoffs the Spurs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
