Reply With Quote
"it works every time, 60% of the time."
See, to me it's not chicken or egg; it's a simultaneous occurrence. 80% of the time, the best team finished 1, 2, or 3 in PD. This isn't hindsight - it's observation.
"it works every time, 60% of the time."
It's like Hollinger is saying the Mavs are chopped liver. They're still number # 2, just a couple ticks behind us. All he's saying is as of how the two teams are playing right now, it wouldn't surprise him at all if the Spurs won a best of seven.
80% of the time, thank you. And it's a of a lot more reliable than "this team has heart", or "this team is peaking at the right time", etc.
Let me ask you this: if you needed surgery and you had two choices for a surgeon, which of these two would you select?
Surgeon A= 80% rate of success
Surgeon B= has a great reputation
One of these surgeons is giving me hard data. I'd go with A.
I think it's amusing that people call Hollinger out for this article.
So he is heavily relying on statistics. So what? Show me where he said the Spurs were a lock for the le. Show me where he said that they were going to unequivocally beat the Mavs.
People can criticize him all they want. All he stated is that statistically -- mostly by point differential -- the odds should favor the Spurs. This bothers people because it seems counterintuitive to the notion that winning is everything.
It's kind of amusing to me though. All the hype and pomp of the regular season dissipates so rapidly when the playoffs start. Who remembers -- without looking, which teams had the top 3 records the past 5 years? Not nearly as easy as it is to say who won the finals, or who got there.
I thought he was saying that the Spurs are playing the best ball in the NBA right now. There is no mention of odds or 7 game series.
It's a pretty ridiculous statement considering the Spurs have only been playing extremely well for the last few weeks while the Mavs have been playing extremely well for the last few months.
Could the Spurs beat the Mavs in the playoffs? Of course.
Are the Spurs playing better ball than the Mavs right now? Not a chance.
relax man I was just quoting Anchor Man. I felt it was a humurous quote to put in this situation. Next time I will add.
Also I have never used the "this team has heart" or "this team is peaking at the right time." as a reason to rationalize the spurs being better than any of their compe ion.
Be interested in some of y'all's thoughts here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61146
Remember----they threw the combined offers to Elson and Butler rather than spend it on Rasho and Nazr. It wasn't a bad signing---it was a swap of two more expensive contracts for two lesser ones. The fact that Butler hasn't proven himself after 1/2 a season doesn't mean much. He'll either produce in the next year or so or he won't, and the Spurs won't lose anything by giving him a shot. Remember, S-Jax sat on the bench for a year before becoming an integral part of the 2003 championship run. Not saying Butler is S-Jax---just that he's green, and if we do see a payoff, it may come in 2008 or 09.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm guessing Pop's relationship with Larry Brown had (let's pick a number out of the air) 100 times more influence over the decision to pursue Butler, than did Hollinger's opinion.Hollinger's work has been in the public domain, but he's taken it further. To use his words Monday, he said he has pointed teams "in the right direction."
Among those he's helped are the Spurs. Asked if they paid him, Hollinger said, "I'd prefer not to disclose that."
It's the blurry dot.com world, where columnists sometimes act like fans, and everyone poses as journalists. And last summer, when the Spurs signed Butler with advice from Hollinger, the move was later hailed by, well, Hollinger.
"For the Spurs to get a young player of this quality this cheaply was highway robbery," Hollinger wrote in his preseason projection story. "All they were missing were the ski masks."
Uh, that's exactly why people are ridiculing him. His fairly arbitrary measure (point differential) suddenly proves, vis-a-vis his measure, that the Spurs should have a better chance to win over Dallas. That's almost defiantly obtuse. His metric is close to worthless, but since his pocketbook depends heavily upon it, he heavily promotes it. Let's call out the bull now.
Sorry. I haven't seen Anchorman (yes, I'm the one).relax man I was just quoting Anchor Man. I felt it was a humurous quote to put in this situation. Next time I will add
Also I have never used the "this team has heart" or "this team is peaking at the right time." as a reason to rationalize the spurs being better than any of their compe ion.
And I didn't mean to imply that you were the one that said it, but they're the type of thing you hear from people a lot. Personally, I'd rather know the Spurs have a good shot at winning the le based on something measureable instead of saying things like, "I've got a good feeling about this team".
This thread is funny in hindsight because the Spurs' 2007 championship is the primary example Hollinger and other analytics writers cite when defending the usefulness of point differential as a predictor of future team success.
ShoogarBear, Guru of Nothing, kinda missed those guys.
Funny you should mention that, because:
2006-07 season: 8.35 SRS, le
2007-08 season: 5.10 SRS, WCF exit
2008-09 season: 3.36 SRS, first round exit
2009-10 season: 5.07 SRS, second round exit
2010-11 season: 5.86 SRS, first round exit
2011-12 season: 7.28 SRS, WCF exit
2012-13 season: 8.60 SRS, TBD
I like our chances this season.
that was some good discussion back in 2007 with no contamination of dumb posters like timvpdpoy
lol yeah the quality was much higher... with links to even more in depth information amd statistics.
Good curve... hope the Palindromic pattern continues to run its course...
OP: please refrain from posting the entire articles from mysa/express news.
Thank you.
It's a meager point, but I was correct.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
