Reply With Quote
Only gay people do these power rankings.
Seriously.....You can't make stuff like this up.
Only gay people do these power rankings.
hollinger....all I read there was "in the spirit of thanksgiving, the heat let the cats win. however, they were still able to blow their load in my mouth. thanks for the daily dose of protein, oh number one team of all time!"
how does hollinger have a job with espn. he cant even back up his decisions. i could make better power rankings and have a reasonable explanation
He's got people like us across the land playing stinker finger over his materiel of a Sunday morning.
Hollinger is nothing but a little that gets paid to troll lmao..Maybe some posters on this board can get a job at espn too hahaha.
Trollinger crofl
Hollinger uses stats to calculate these odds. This is not new. It has very little to do with his opinion of who he thinks is the best team.
He plugs the numbers into his equation and tabulates the results. Very straight-forward.
I don't know why people have such a hard time grasping the fact that it's a formula that's giving this answer. Anytime you apply math to sports unconditionally, you are going to occasionally see outliers like the Heat. If you approach his ratings from the understanding that he's using numbers instead of bias/observation, they make a lot more sense.
They might not be "right", but numbers aren't right or wrong in a conventional sense. The worst you can say is that his formula for calculating the best team is flawed.
Jesus ing Christ +100000 for this post, finally someone else "gets it."
It's a mathematical model you ingrates. Hollinger's not claiming absolute knowledge. He's not claiming that his rankings are the end-all-be-all.
He developed a mathematical model and explained his rationale for why the variables are what they are, and the results then are whatever the model spits out.
What exactly about that do you yahoos not understand? If you don't like the formula, by all means create a new one and share your results with the rest of us.
If you don't want to create a mathematical model, feel free to disagree with Hollinger's rankings and explain why. Nobody is stopping you.
Yet, all I see from people are unsophisticated personal attacks like this -
when "debating" Hollinger's rankings. Laughable.hollinger....all I read there was "in the spirit of thanksgiving, the heat let the cats win. however, they were still able to blow their load in my mouth. thanks for the daily dose of protein, oh number one team of all time!"
If you want to say that you think the Heat aren't the best team in the league because they lost to Memphis, then say it. By (trying) to make a mockery of a mathematical model, you actually end up making a mockery of yourself because you're showing the world that you're incapable of thoughtful, sincere, rational, level-headed debate.
How the do half of you idiots (save Cry Havoc who actually provides intelligent, thoughtful insight) have bolded user names? I thought that was supposed to be some sign of quality posting. Guess not.
Tbh hollinger does fairly well in predicting the playoffs every year, at least much better than the other espn "analysists". Didn't he pick lakers over celts in 7 in the finals?
Last edited by GoodOdor; 11-21-2010 at 02:41 PM.
GNSF gettin' his butthurt on
BNMFN gettin' his veteran circlejerk on
I'd tell you how accurate his rankings have been (in terms of his top ranked team winning the championship and one of his top 3 ranked teams winning the championship) but I'd wager people around these parts would be far too awe-struck to actually believe me, so it doesn't really matter. As far as they are concerned, Hollinger is and always has been dead wrong with every prediction he's ever made (by the end of the season - of course; early rankings mean little given that so little data has poured in). I think it's funnier to leave them wading in their own ignorance.
GNSF gettin his continued butthurt on
And therein lies the problem. Its a gimmick that has no worth. Statisticians don't know about the world and how it works.
well i still hate him
And yet advanced statistic give us numbers like PER, which tends to be far more accurate at measuring production. In the past four Spurs championships, Hollinger has typically been the only analyst who has even mentioned us before the post-season begins. In a sea of staunchly East-West coastal biases, Hollinger is just trying to ask a few fundamental questions to figure out who the best team is.
Yes, statistics are wrong a lot. They can miss some obvious facts that they shouldn't. And yet all too frequently, they give the most level view of the playing field, uncoloured by hype or flare.
Be honest. You might hate Hollinger, but what analyst do you always agree with? , what analyst even gives consistently decent insight or playoff predictions? At least with Hollinger, you know what you're getting, as opposed to people like Bill Plaschke, who is undoubtedly still convinced that USC is going to win the NCAA le in football this year.
Give me that any day over hearing Jalen Rose fellate himself for 5 minutes at a time.
his formula for calculating the best team is flawed
You could of just said this ...everyone knows the rest.
Problem is since I have followed his rankings, he was only right about the Celts ... his numbers aRE flawed ...
How are win/loss not given more weight? Who cares about scoring margin or SOS if you are losing?
PER is flawed too ...it loved Bynum over better bigs two seasons ago ...
No eason to get butt-hurt ..over his rankings ... but he should factor won/loss more heavily in his rankings ...
Because the retrospective statistical analysis has already been done (in academic journals like this one: http://www.bepress.com/jqas/) - scoring margin better predicts championship success than win-loss record at the end of the season. That's why scoring margin is given more weight.
How much more weight it's given is completely arbitrary. Do we give scoring margin a 60-40 advantage or 65-35? This part is arbitrary, but just because there is no one "true" answer in terms of just how much weight scoring margin should be given over win-loss record doesn't mean that we should throw our hands up and not try.
Hollinger's basis for placing greater than 50% emphasis on scoring margin relative to win-loss record is justified by history. How much extra emphasis he places on scoring margin is arbitrary and clearly a point of contention.
You mention that Hollinger has only been correct about the Celtics. That's flat out an incorrect assertion.
But, even if you were correct - even if Hollinger's rankings did not offer greater predictability than your typical, ho-hum highly subjective analyst ranking - that still wouldn't defeat the purpose and power of a statistical model. Rather, it would call for tweaking the model for future years. That's perfectly fine.
That said, you actually weren't correct given that his rankings have better predicted the championship than win-loss record for quite a while now, contrary to your assertion that he was "only" right about Boston.
Either way, he's a dip . His list is comical and his formula clearly doesn't work. So why the does he have a job at ESPN?
Actually, there has hardly been a better predictor of results at ESPN than Hollinger. Everyone is going to make some predictions, that's their job after all, and they will be wrong sometimes. But no one has anything close to Hollinger's 2007 playoff prediction. Anything close! And I say this as a Mavs fan. Not only he predicted the Spurs winning the championship, he also claimed that the Mavs-Warriors series was pretty much a tossup and that infact, the post All-Star break Warriors were a better team. Please tell me someone that has had the guts to make this kind of a call, and get it right!
If there is one writer I am always willing to read that's Hollinger, at least I know I'll get a perspective there that no one else is going to give me.
And for the last time as well, he's explained it quite often, W-L mean very little to him. He has claimed, and in fact it seems to be very true, that point differential is a much better indicator of true team quality. So anytime someone gets really mad at him, it's because they expect W-L record to provide the same rational for his rankings. They don't necessarily, and that's where the conflict lies with many fans.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
