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.
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.
Okay, what were the power rankings at the end of last year?
Find one set where Miami and Dallas were ranked 1-2.
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
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?
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
If I was a mavfan I'd be pissed.
Homering? Spinning?
Here's my point.
A formula based on stats is more likely to predict who wins a matchup than win/loss ratio.
so you read the article?
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
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
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.
Dunno Avery well enough, but I figure both teams will rest that game.
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.
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.
does hollinger holla?
Nice backtracking. Just for the record, let's look at what you originally said again.
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 clearly imply that power rankings are somehow better predictors than won/loss. You still haven't produced a shred of evidence to support that.It's funny how many people look at wins/losses here instead of the power rankings.
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.
Last edited by ShoogarBear; 02-26-2007 at 07:13 AM.
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 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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
