LOL Hollinger

[Venti Quattro]

If he's a better predictor than anyone, then why does he always predict Utah getting the top seed in the West? He's done that for 2 or 3 seasons already

[jestersmash]

If people want rankings based on win-loss record alone, I've got news for you - we already have them.

Look no further -

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_re...w_Std_Cnf.html

Here are rankings based purely on win-loss record

1. Spurs
2. Hornets
3. Lakers

so on and so forth.

If people want rankings based partially on win-loss record and partially on the subjective notion that the Lakers should arbitrarily be bumped up X slots on the rankings because they happen to be the defending champions, here they are -

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Hornets


Whenever I see people trash Hollinger's rankings, I'm eager to find out what they feel the rankings should be - and yet this never happens.

Instead of Hollinger's rankings serving as an instrument for debate, most people tend to react with useless insults. I don't actually care about the insults themselves; rather, I'm tired of seeing a lot of criticism and not a lot of actual debate/argument to back up that criticism. That's all.

[Killakobe81]

If people want rankings based on win-loss record alone, I've got news for you - we already have them.

Look no further -

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_re...w_Std_Cnf.html

Here are rankings based purely on win-loss record

1. Spurs
2. Hornets
3. Lakers

so on and so forth.

If people want rankings based partially on win-loss record and partially on the subjective notion that the Lakers should arbitrarily be bumped up X slots on the rankings because they happen to be the defending champions, here they are -

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Hornets


Whenever I see people trash Hollinger's rankings, I'm eager to find out what they feel the rankings should be - and yet this never happens.

Instead of Hollinger's rankings serving as an instrument for debate, most people tend to react with useless insults. I don't actually care about the insults themselves; rather, I'm tired of seeing a lot of criticism and not a lot of actual debate/argument to back up that criticism. That's all.

I said last night I thought:

1. Hornets
2. Spurs
3. Lakers

Primarily due to Hornets head to head win over Spurs and SOS ...and cause they were the LAST team to lose ...

Like I said I would like his rankings if he gave won/loss more weight. Isnt winning the point of a game?

[endrity]

If he's a better predictor than anyone, then why does he always predict Utah getting the top seed in the West? He's done that for 2 or 3 seasons already

He's never said that, what he's said is that he considered the Jazz as a sort of a darkhorse to get out of the West in the playoffs. That's because the Jazz have always had a period in the spring, where for some reason they start playing really well and blow teams out. They especially do that at home, which means that even without hc advantage in his view, they can push teams to 7 games. That to me is the perfect way to look for a darkhorse. I guess you are just feeling bad that not every topic he writes ends with the phrase "Lakers are amazing". Not only is that bad journalism, it's bad business, no one outside of LA would keep reading such a column.

Yet, he eventually did concede before the series against the Lakers, i think two years ago, that LA was still the favourite. So I think he's paid his dues quite well to the Lakers.



This year, he's actually said that the Jazz are not close to LA's level.

[Cry Havoc]

at Lakers fans getting owned in this thread with their usual complete lack of functional NBA knowledge, as usual.

[Killakobe81]

He's never said that, what he's said is that he considered the Jazz as a sort of a darkhorse to get out of the West in the playoffs. That's because the Jazz have always had a period in the spring, where for some reason they start playing really well and blow teams out. They especially do that at home, which means that even without hc advantage in his view, they can push teams to 7 games. That to me is the perfect way to look for a darkhorse. I guess you are just feeling bad that not every topic he writes ends with the phrase "Lakers are amazing". Not only is that bad journalism, it's bad business, no one outside of LA would keep reading such a column.

Yet, he eventually did concede before the series against the Lakers, i think two years ago, that LA was still the favourite. So I think he's paid his dues quite well to the Lakers.



This year, he's actually said that the Jazz are not close to LA's level.

No, burt he has predicted Jazz success come playoff time which hasnt happned much save vs. Nuggs the past 3 seasons ...

[jestersmash]

I said last night I thought:

1. Hornets
2. Spurs
3. Lakers

Primarily due to Hornets head to head win over Spurs and SOS ...and cause they were the LAST team to lose ...

Like I said I would like his rankings if he gave won/loss more weight. Isnt winning the point of a game?

And that's perfectly reasonable. I respect the fact that you backed up your rankings with sensible, rational reasons. If everybody was like you, I'd have nothing to rant about.

Your personal rankings are just as good as anyone's and because you backed them up with actual reasons - it fosters good argument and debate.

My rant was mostly about the people who dismiss Hollinger all together because they arbitrarily cite him off as an "idiot" or as some alleged real life "troll."

Calling him an "idiot" doesn't really help your case. That was my point. (This is not directed at you, by the way, it's just how most people generally react to Hollinger).

[Ghazi]

Lakers and Celtics are the 2 best teams

Heat are still better than the Spurs/Hornets regardless of records.

[Ghazi]

Magic > Spurs/Hornets too

same w/ Mavs once Beaubois comes back and we trade for Iggy.

[BRHornet45]

If people want rankings based on win-loss record alone, I've got news for you - we already have them.

Look no further -

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_re...w_Std_Cnf.html

Here are rankings based purely on win-loss record

1. Spurs
2. Hornets
3. Lakers

so on and so forth.

If people want rankings based partially on win-loss record and partially on the subjective notion that the Lakers should arbitrarily be bumped up X slots on the rankings because they happen to be the defending champions, here they are -

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Hornets


Whenever I see people trash Hollinger's rankings, I'm eager to find out what they feel the rankings should be - and yet this never happens.

Instead of Hollinger's rankings serving as an instrument for debate, most people tend to react with useless insults. I don't actually care about the insults themselves; rather, I'm tired of seeing a lot of criticism and not a lot of actual debate/argument to back up that criticism. That's all.

LOL son at your homerism as if no one would notice ... how in the do the Spurs get ranked ahead of the Hornets? The Hornets will get the nod over the Spurs simply because they have a win over them. Both teams are 11-1 and the Hornets went into San Antonio and beat that ass. LOL at you trying to fool people by ranking the Spurs ahead ... the REAL "based on records alone" is as follows ...

1. Hornets
2. Spurs
3. Lakers

[jestersmash]

Magic > Spurs/Hornets too

same w/ Mavs once Beaubois comes back and we trade for Iggy.

I agreed with your take up until the bolded portion

[jestersmash]

LOL son at your homerism as if no one would notice ... how in the do the Spurs get ranked ahead of the Hornets? The Hornets will get the nod over the Spurs simply because they have a win over them.

Calm down "son," I completely made those rankings up (save the first set which I defined to be based on win-loss record alone) to make a point.

Those aren't my actual rankings.

[BRHornet45]

Calm down "son," I completely made those rankings up (save the first set which I defined to be based on win-loss record alone) to make a point.

Those aren't my actual rankings.

son I know its a silly stat and early in the season, but you CONVENIENTLY listed the Spurs ahead of the Hornets which EVEN in the link that you provided shows otherwise .... just saying

[BRHornet45]

based on records alone ...

1. Hornets (11-1, Conference 7-1)

2. Spurs (11-1, Conference 6-1)

3. Lakers (11-2, Conference 8-2)

[Killakobe81]

Hornets have been the most impressive team in regards to accomplishment on the court ....meaning wins.
Mad props BR, Fever and Redzero ...

On paper Lakers, Celts, Spurs and Heat are better and MAYBE Magic ...but the game is played omn the court not on paper or in Hollinger's computer. Hornets are NBA's best right now ...

[jestersmash]

son I know its a silly stat and early in the season, but you CONVENIENTLY listed the Spurs ahead of the Hornets which EVEN in the link that you provided shows otherwise .... just saying

Yes, I know the Hornets eked out a win in a nail biter against a powerhouse 4-7 (8 now) Sacramento team earlier tonight.

The results of that game weren't in when I made my previous post.

[BRHornet45]

Hornets have been the most impressive team in regards to accomplishment on the court ....meaning wins.
Mad props BR, Fever and Redzero ...

On paper Lakers, Celts, Spurs and Heat are better and MAYBE Magic ...but the game is played omn the court not on paper or in Hollinger's computer. Hornets are NBA's best right now ...

Lakers are still without a doubt the favorites with the following teams in contention ...

- Hornets
- Spurs
- Celtics
- Magic
- Heat (simply because of financial reasons. the NBA needs them to succeed)

[DPG21920]

lol your blatant homerism putting the Hornets at number one even after a LOSS to the Mavs.

[Killakobe81]

Lakers are still without a doubt the favorites with the following teams in contention ...

- Hornets
- Spurs
- Celtics
- Magic
- Heat (simply because of financial reasons. the NBA needs them to succeed)

But we are not talking favorites.
IMHO ...Power rankings are like AP or Coaches polls ...you are ranking teams based on what they have accomplished this season so far.

YEs, the Lakers Heat and Celts have more POTENTIAL than the Hornets but you could argue that the Blazers and Rockets do too ...on paper.

Based on production it's the Hornets ...end of story. Spurs are 2nd. Lakers 3rd ...

[Pelicans78]

Magic > Spurs/Hornets too

same w/ Mavs once Beaubois comes back and we trade for Iggy.

Iggy's not going to make the Mavs better you moron. He will only hurt the offense and not improve an already stout defense. Roddy will help offensively.

[BRHornet45]

lol your blatant homerism putting the Hornets at number one even after a LOSS to the Mavs.

yea we lost to the Mavs by 2pts and then beat them two nights later. you guys got curb stomped by the Hornets and will get yet another one this Sunday.

[BRHornet45]

same w/ Mavs once Beaubois comes back and we trade for Iggy.

lol dumbest on this board

[Killakobe81]

Now, if teams are tied you should go by head2head ...
If no head2head then you should vote based on potential ...

[DPG21920]

yea we lost to the Mavs by 2pts and then beat them two nights later. you guys got curb stomped by the Hornets and will get yet another one this Sunday.

So you lost to the Mavs. That was my point. You barely beat them as well. You can't rank yourself one when you are barely beating and then losing to a team not in contention unless you are a blatant homer.

[BRHornet45]

Now, if teams are tied you should go by head2head ...
If no head2head then you should vote based on potential ...

its still very early in the season, but the Hornets and Spurs are tied. However the Hornets went into the Spurs house, King Paul pulled his out, and whipped them with it so they get the nod.