Reply With Quote
Wins and losses, Hollinger. Wins and losses.
I apologize if this has been posted before but I thought this was a very interesting read....
Numbers put Spurs at No. 1
by: John Hollinger
posted: Sunday, February 25, 2007 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: San Antonio Spurs
One of the nice things about the blog is it gives me a chance to respond to the topics that are filling up my inbox.
And at the moment, the top question by an overwhelming margin is, to paraphrase, "How the @#%$ are the Spurs ranked No. 1 in the Hollinger Power Rankings?"
At first glance, I understand how this seems totally illogical. San Antonio has lost twice as many games as Dallas, for crying out loud, and the Mavs are currently riding a 11-game winning streak -- their third double-digit win streak this year. They're 46-5 since an 0-4 start and haven't lost consecutive games in more than three months.
But the key word here is "first glance." One of the biggest reasons I created this ranking is to force people to look beyond the superficial first impression. In this case, it involves looking past win-loss record at the elements that go into it.
On its face this sounds absurd, I realize -- isn't winning the whole point? But as I've been trying to beat into people's heads over and over again, point differential is a better indicator of future success than win-loss record. In other words, if you were trying to pick a game between the Mavs and Spurs tomorrow, you'd be better off ignoring the standings at looking just at point differential.
And if you took that route, you'd be surprised to learn that San Antonio, not Dallas, has the best point differential in the league, at +7.9 points per game. (Actually, Dallas is third at +7.7 -- Phoenix also noses in ahead of them). That difference looms even larger once you consider only two teams have played more road games than the Spurs' 30 -- so the Spurs should be able to improve their mark during a home-laden final two months.
Additionally, the Spurs don't seem like they're losing any steam. In the last three weeks they've won games by 27, 25, and 31, helping contribute to their strong victory margin in recent play -- another major determinant in the Hollinger rankings.
Because of the Spurs' place in the standings, this has been perhaps the single biggest misunderstanding of the current season. Columnists are looking at the Spurs' won-loss record and falling all over themselves to write "What's Wrong with the Spurs?" columns.
Reality check: San Antonio won a team-record 63 games a year ago with a point differential of +6.8. This year they're more than a point per game better (They need to be, too: Those 63 wins didn't do them any good in the playoffs); they just haven't been as fortunate in close games (more on that in a minute).
And while the Spurs are disappointed because they're "only" third in Defensive Efficiency instead of their usual perch at No. 1 (they've been there five of the past six seasons), this is the best offensive team of the Popovich Era. San Antonio ranks sixth in the league in Offensive Efficiency, just 2.8 points per 100 possessions behind the Mavs. With their defensive advantage being as big as it is (3.0 points per 100 trips), San Antonio is still well equipped to rule the West.
By the way -- they're doing this while playing their scrubs for much of the game. No Spur is playing more than 35 minutes per game; Tim Duncan leads the team at 34.6. Tony Parker is only playing 33.0 minutes, Manu Ginobili a measly 27.8. No team is playing their starters less, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Spurs' big three will see a lot more action during the playoffs, making San Anotnio even tougher.
In other words, not only is there nothing "wrong" with the Spurs, this actually might be San Antonio's best team since their championship squad in 1999. The Spurs' problem isn't age or a lack of fire or any of the other ideas trotted out in recent weeks. It's that they're 5-10 in games decided by five points or less, while the Mavs are 12-2. That's the main reason the teams are 8 1/2 games apart in the standings, not any difference in the quality of their play.
I realize this is hard to swallow when one looks at the standings, but that's the whole point here -- I'm trying to get you to look beyond them. Once you do, it immediately becomes apparent that the Spurs are a major threat to win the championship, and that they're No. 1 in the rankings because, as heretical as this may sound, they're playing better than everyone else right now. Dallas included.
Wins and losses, Hollinger. Wins and losses.
The Spurs and Mavs both have zero wins that actually count. Preseason wins and losses won't mean much come playoff time.
very nice...............
I understand what hes saying, dont know if the defenses case holds water(my cousin vinny) but i like the fact that our starters avg less mins than all others
why people would at power rankings set by predetermined stats is beyond me - hollinger isn't influencing who is where.
Then again, any power rankings that puts the Spurs ahead of the Mavs right now needs to be thrown away.
We'll see who's left standing come Finals time Maverick fan. And besides, these statistics are very relevant because they indicate who the better team really is. And it is no surprise to me that is San Antonio.
Hollinger is a complete tool and slave to his numbers. He's the kind of guy who give statistics people a bad name, because he blindly insists on forcing reality to fit his numbers rather than acknowledge the imperfections of his precious formulas.
Anyone who would try to argue that this is the Spurs best team since 1999 has little credibility.
Try actually watch some games, John.
is that the first time someone responded to their own post?
While I agree with Timvp that any ranking that puts Spurs ahead of the Mavs should be thrown out, I'll take any sense of optimism in this forgettable season.
He's drunk, I swear
lol, i'm not angry at all, i just find it amusing as how a few spurs fans think that rankings all of a sudden matter...i don't care about rankings at this point when we're a month and a half away from the playoffs, i do see that the spurs have picked up their game but i haven't seen any letdown from the suns or mavs as well so if all three teams continue to get strong, it's going to be a great playoff run in the west this year. personally, i'd like to see the spurs/mavs matchup again this year, s.a. is closer to me (austin) and i can always find tix to a spurs game whereas i had to purchase season tix just to insure that i'll get tix to the mavs playoff run.
I think there's already another long thread about Hollinger's rankings.
I guess by his rankings, the Spurs are really good. But his rankings don't really translate to wins on the basketball court.
The Spurs are better defensively than they were a month ago, but overall no one is close to how good the Mavericks are right now.
And the mavericks to finish the heat off in 5 after they went up 2-0
oh I never implied you were angry, if anything I agreed with your reaction to his post.
BTW, Kori, Kapono tied his career rebound high against the Cavs today.
exactly, he's WRONG WRONG WRONG
Yeah, I saw. The Cavs must suck too.BTW, Kori, Kapono tied his career rebound high against the Cavs today.
how is he wrong the stats prove his opinion
mike brown is not the guy to get it done...and neither is danny ferry...both just terrible...it was sad to hear about ilgauskas today, he looked sad during the gameYeah, I saw. The Cavs must suck too.
i don't think the point differential tells the whole story, just look at who it was that gave up half of the mavs' 30 point lead over the heat the other day...guys that barely get 2-3 minutes in a game, if at all...too much emphasis on point differential doesn't mean so much when everyone knows those rooks getting some minutes now probably won't fit into a shorter rotation come playoff time
Hollinger evidentally didn't have this system in 2001....point differential indeed. That 2001 team had no weakness, other than age, and got embarrassed.
And he also must have selectively forgotten his stats getting stuck up his rear last year as well with regards to the Spurs, when I believe we were #1 in point differential as well.
The Spurs always among the best in point differential...and it's funny that he's using his system to claim they are better than realized, when, if anything, they are the one team that has debunked the point differential stat being indicative of the best team time and time again...he must be new to basketball.
He lost me with the suggestion the best Spurs team was 1999.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
