Blazers ahead of Lakers in Hollinger's Power Rankings

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
blazerboy30 said:
You are using relative terms like "sucks" and "worthless".

If you want to use relative terms to describe a statistical analysis, then you have to provide a statistical, non-subjective baseline.
Click to expand...

WTF? No I don't. I don't have to do anything.

I am not arguing 2+2 = 4.

This is a formula who's inventor doesn't even back 100%. Why should I?
 
OddEnormous said:
This is a formula who's inventor doesn't even back 100%. Why should I?
Click to expand...

No one considers it perfect, including the inventor. You're arguing a strawman. It's used on this forum a lot because many consider it the best non-subjective measure of players...subjective evaluations are also perfectly acceptable.

Hollinger does consider it a good measure, even if not perfect.
 
OddEnormous said:
WTF? No I don't. I don't have to do anything.

I am not arguing 2+2 = 4.

This is a formula who's inventor doesn't even back 100%. Why should I?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't. But betting Blazer fans $250 that the Lakers will beat Portland in the first round would imply that you think we are.
 
OddEnormous said:
WTF? No I don't. I don't have to do anything.

I am not arguing 2+2 = 4.

This is a formula who's inventor doesn't even back 100%. Why should I?
Click to expand...

Nobody's asking you too, but you came in critical of the link, acting as if there were many members thinking they were better than the Lakers. Nobody claimed it shows which team is better. Someone posted a link to a rating system that currently has the Blazers ahead of the Lakers, and you took that to mean anyone who defended Hollinger was dumb, his formulas were stupid,a dn we wanted to put money on Portland beating the Lakers.
 
OddEnormous said:
WTF? No I don't. I don't have to do anything.
Click to expand...

Haha. Ok dude.

OddEnormous said:
I am not arguing 2+2 = 4.

This is a formula who's inventor doesn't even back 100%. Why should I?
Click to expand...

Nobody is backing it 100%, and nobody is saying you should. But you are saying it "sucks" and it is "worthless". What non-subjective model does it "suck" compared to?
 
Minstrel said:
No one considers it perfect, including the inventor. You're arguing a strawman. It's used on this forum a lot because many consider it the best non-subjective measure of players...subjective evaluations are also perfectly acceptable.

Hollinger does consider it a good measure, even if not perfect.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the power rankings are not based on PER, but on point differential. What a worthless stat!
 
axs88 said:
Not to mention the power rankings are not based on PER, but on point differential. What a worthless stat!
Click to expand...

Any stat that puts the Blazers in front of the Lakers is pretty worthless wouldn't you say?
 
OddEnormous said:
If it doesn't prove anything what's it's point? In this case, if it's not perfect it's no more useful than opinion.
Click to expand...

Science has come up with all sorts of theories to try and explain phenomena ... and almost none of them provide absolute "proof" that something exists or functions in a certain way, but they do seem to be useful (to varying degrees) in helping to explain or predict things.

So I guess instead of attempting to come up with objective measures for things we should instead refuse to analyze them or discuss them because there is no way to provide "proof"
 
Nikolokolus said:
So I guess instead of attempting to come up with objective measures for things we should instead refuse to analyze them or discuss them because there is no way to provide "proof"
Click to expand...

Jesus fucking Christ dude.

Can you stay on the subject? I'm only talking about PER.
 
OddEnormous said:
Any stat that puts the Blazers in front of the Lakers is pretty worthless wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

The team's are 1 and 1 this year ... so far I guess you could say they are even by any observed head to head measurement, who's playing better adjusted for strength of opponent, road and home and record in the past month? Well according to Hollinger's forumula the Blazers are modestly better. Where's the controversy?
 
OddEnormous said:
Jesus fucking Christ dude.

Can you stay on the subject? I'm only talking about PER.
Click to expand...

PER? I thought this thread was about Hollinger's power rankings? Jesus fucking christ, can you stay on subject please :ohno:
 
OddEnormous said:
Any stat that puts the Blazers in front of the Lakers is pretty worthless wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...
Here's a stat like that for you:

Last 10 games:
Blazers: 8-2
Lakers: 6-4

I'm sure even you understand that one.
 
OddEnormous said:
Any stat that puts the Blazers in front of the Lakers is pretty worthless wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

I would say opponent's PPGs is a pretty worthwhile stat. It shows how many points you give up to your opponent. The purpose is to win, adn you win by scoring mroe than your opponent. We are ahead of the Lakers in Opponent's PPG, so it's worthless, apparently. We shoot a better FG% than the Lakers. FG% = worthless stat. We shoot a better 3pt% than the Lakers. 3pt% = worthless stat. We have less turnovers than the Lakers. Turnovers = worthless stat. FT% = worthless stat.
 
OddEnormous said:
Jesus fucking Christ dude.

Can you stay on the subject? I'm only talking about PER.
Click to expand...

:biglaugh:

You had me fooled for a little while. I thought you might be interested in having an intelligent discussion. But you're more interested in trolling.

Carry on.
 
RR7 said:
I would say opponent's PPGs is a pretty worthwhile stat. It shows how many points you give up to your opponent. The purpose is to win, adn you win by scoring mroe than your opponent. We are ahead of the Lakers in Opponent's PPG, so it's worthless, apparently. We shoot a better FG% than the Lakers. FG% = worthless stat. We shoot a better 3pt% than the Lakers. 3pt% = worthless stat. We have less turnovers than the Lakers. Turnovers = worthless stat. FT% = worthless stat.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't understand your point.
 
OddEnormous said:
The formula is only an opinion.
Click to expand...

The formula is only an opinion...an opinion that this is the best current way to determine a player's contributions. The results aren't subjective, though. There's a big difference between the subjectivity in building a formula and subjective results.

Obviously, if you don't agree with the basis of the formula, then you won't agree with the results. You haven't really provided any rational argument against PER, though...just "stop sucking on PER" and "if it isn't perfect, it's worthless" (a principle which would also render all of science worthless too).
 
OddEnormous said:
Sorry I don't understand your point.
Click to expand...

judging by the rest of your responses, I'm not all that surprised. But really, you have to read what ISN'T there, not just what is there. Then maybe you'll get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sinobas
power rankings
Replies
13
Views
1K
magnifier661
magnifier661
magnifier661
Hollinger Power Rankings
2 3
Replies
67
Views
6K
maxiep
maxiep
magnifier661
Blazers #4 in Hollinger Power rankings
Replies
10
Views
965
handiman
handiman
KingSpeed
3rd in Hollinger's Rankings
Replies
0
Views
322
KingSpeed
KingSpeed
KingSpeed
LOL! Blazers lose 5 straight and still rank higher than lowly Grizzlies and mediocre Rockets
Replies
7
Views
543
Boob-No-More
Boob-No-More

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top