Hollingers power rankings has us 4th

[Ed O]

They're not my simple numbers, they're his. I just choose to interpret them differently. To me, the team with the 16 - 2 record should be ranked higher than the 12 - 6 team - given that the SOS difference isn't extreme (like Orlando's), and Boston has a higher margin of victory and has played a tougher schedule over the last 10 games with superior (9 - 1 vs. 7 - 3) results.

Do you have any historical data to support your interpretation?

He has looked at previous seasons and determined that the way he crunches the numbers makes for a more accurate predictor of playoff success.

I don't think you have a leg to stand on in calling his system "highly flawed". Well, other than your opinion, which I respect generally... but I don't respect unsupported opinion when it comes to statistical equations. Sorry.

Ed O.

 

[DaRizzle]

Which is kind of mind blowing, because this blazer team is not even close to firing on all cylinders yet.

Well thats an OPINION so stuff like that wont be factored in...You guys had a tough schedule to start and blew some teams out so the power rankings reflect that

 

[Ed O]

Which is kind of mind blowing, because this blazer team is not even close to firing on all cylinders yet.

You think it's not? Blake and Outlaw are shooting at career-bests. Fernandez and Batum have had very uncommon success for rookies. Joel is playing the best basketball of his NBA career.

Oden should improve, and I would expect Aldridge to, as well. I'm excited to get Webster back.

The perimeter shooting, though, has been remarkable and I don't know that we can sustain that all season... so even as we improve in other areas I don't see us suddenly "firing on all cylinders" to the tune of massive improvement.

Ed O.

 

[DaRizzle]

You think it's not? Blake and Outlaw are shooting at career-bests. Fernandez and Batum have had very uncommon success for rookies. Joel is playing the best basketball of his NBA career.

Oden should improve, and I would expect Aldridge to, as well. I'm excited to get Webster back.

The perimeter shooting, though, has been remarkable and I don't know that we can sustain that all season... so even as we improve in other areas I don't see us suddenly "firing on all cylinders" to the tune of massive improvement.

Ed O.

Yes he should, but just to add to your argument Joel is playing at an unconscious level...so its as if Oden were dominating right now



...so yes, they are firing on all cylinders (especially with LA's play recently) or damn close to it.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

That's conclusory.

Not sure what you mean, but I'll simply maintain that he overcompensates for win margin.

In fact, his equation is a better indicator of success than simple win-loss percentage.

No doubt, but it could certainly be better - he agrees and is working on it.

If it were not, he wouldn't waste his time and nobody at ESPN.com would pay him for what he does.
Ed O.

Stephen A. Smith is a complete idiot, but he get paid well for what he does. I enjoy hollinger's work but
I feel that it has an obvious flaw - but it it philosophically interesting. For example, how do you compare
the following two teams:

Team 1: wins by 50, loses by 10, loses by 10
After 3 games: +30, or +10/game

Team 2: wins by 8, wins by 8, wins by 8.
After 3 games: +24 or +8/game

To me, Team 2 is obviously better, but no so by a points differential point of view. Hollinger's method would say
that these teams are actually pretty close, but I don't think it's close.

 

[graybeard]

You think it's not? Blake and Outlaw are shooting at career-bests. Fernandez and Batum have had very uncommon success for rookies. Joel is playing the best basketball of his NBA career.

Oden should improve, and I would expect Aldridge to, as well. I'm excited to get Webster back.

The perimeter shooting, though, has been remarkable and I don't know that we can sustain that all season... so even as we improve in other areas I don't see us suddenly "firing on all cylinders" to the tune of massive improvement.

Ed O.

We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg with Oden, I expect him to get better with each game for a long time.

Batum is only 19 years old and has yet to learn the other teams players strengths & weaknesses. No way is he playing to his potential at his age and experience.

Sergio is going to get a lot better with playing time and experience.

Outlaw hasn't peaked yet.

Martel, anybody that watched the preseason against Sacramento could see that Martel was leaner, more aggressive, more confident, driving to the hoop with authority... this is his break-out year.

Rudy, can play way better than he has lately.

Bayless, hasn't contributed at all. That will change if we keep him.

Also, this team is just now beginning to learn defense. They'll get much better with time.


Is that reason enough?

 

[hasoos]

That's conclusory.

In fact, his equation is a better indicator of success than simple win-loss percentage.

If it were not, he wouldn't waste his time and nobody at ESPN.com would pay him for what he does.

Ed O.

That, and each year he works hard to improve the equation, and make it more accurate. It has improved in design, every year it has been done.

 

[DaRizzle]

Rudy, can play way better than he has lately.

Yeah, until he reaches game 50 and says "Holy shit! There is still 35 games left!!!" He is gonna hit a wall

 

[noknobs]

Yeah, until he reaches game 50 and says "Holy shit! There is still 35 games left!!!" He is gonna hit a wall

Yeah, his 20 minutes a night are really going to wipe him out. No European can handle that!...

 

[Boob-No-More]

Do you have any historical data to support your interpretation?

Yes, I do.

2007-08 NBA Champions - Boston Celtics.

2007-08 Portland Trailblazers: 41-41 failed to make the play-offs

He has looked at previous seasons and determined that the way he crunches the numbers makes for a more accurate predictor of playoff success.

More accurate than what? Play-off experince, past play-off success? His formula isn't 100% accurate. I doubt if it would have predicted the 76-77 Trail Blazers defeating the 76ers for the NBA title. If it's like PER, he's constantly adjusting the formula when new data becomes available - but it still isn't and can never be 100% accurate. It's really just an exercise in curve fitting - creating a formula that best matches the past data he deems relevant. You can do the same thing with stock prices, but as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future success.

The Celtics are the defending NBA champions. The top nine players in their current rotation have a combined 363 games of play-off experience. The top nine players in the Blazers rotation have 14 games of combined play-off experience (9 games for Blake and 5 for Joel). So, while it's only my humble opinion, I would personally rank the defending champion, play-off tested team with the 16 - 2 record ahead of the 12-6 team that lacks meaningful play-off experience. And, in spite of what Hollinger's equation says (this week), I find those stats (play-off experience, past play-off success) a better predictor of future play-off success.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

That, and each year he works hard to improve the equation, and make it more accurate. It has improved in design, every year it has been done.

Well, he just started doing this in 2007. So, it's definitely still a work in progress. Good for him for trying, but there is often more to winning and losing than can be calculated with a formula.

BNM

 

[B-Roy]

Yes he should, but just to add to your argument Joel is playing at an unconscious level...so its as if Oden were dominating right now



...so yes, they are firing on all cylinders (especially with LA's play recently) or damn close to it.

Wait, are you trying to convince yourself that the Blazers have peaked?

 

[DaRizzle]

Yeah, his 20 minutes a night are really going to wipe him out. No European can handle that!...

Right...lets just ignore the travel too...So how many regular season games a year does his old Euro team play? Im not saying he isnt good...just that he will hit a wall at some point this year.

 

[tlongII]

#4 sounds about right to me. Hopefully we'll improve on that.

 

[noknobs]

Right...lets just ignore the travel too...So how many regular season games a year does his old Euro team play? Im not saying he isnt good...just that he will hit a wall at some point this year.

Then I guess he should be on the Lakers, you guys don't appear to travel.


You seem to really be trying to convince yourself that the Blazer team is as good as it will get. Take out Raef and we're the youngest team in the league, with three Rookies playing important roles. I mean, you even wrote that since Joel is playing well, it's the same as Oden dominating right now... It's hard to take you very seriously at that point.

 

[DaRizzle]

Then I guess he should be on the Lakers, you guys don't appear to travel.


You seem to really be trying to convince yourself that the Blazer team is as good as it will get. Take out Raef and we're the youngest team in the league, with three Rookies playing important roles. I mean, you even wrote that since Joel is playing well, it's the same as Oden dominating right now... It's hard to take you very seriously at that point.

Look, I know you dont like me for some reason so you always try to take my views to the extreme so allow me to elaborate.

Yes they are firing on all cylinders for THIS YEAR (or close to it). Undefeated at home and impressive road victories for one of the youngest teams in the league. One cylinder (Joel) might be replaced by another (Oden) but can you really expect Oden to vastly exceed THIS YEAR what Joel has done so far THIS YEAR??? Even Ed O pointed out the players that are exceeding anything they have done before in the NBA. I swear to god, it seems normal rookie tendencies apply to all rookies except if they play for the Blazers (sarcasm). ROOKIES HIT WALLS. You guys beat ORL, NO, and DET in your first month...its gonna be hard for you team to do that all year. You guys can easily have a better monthly record than your NOV record but it will probably be against an easier stretch of games.

 

[Ed O]

Yes, I do.

2007-08 NBA Champions - Boston Celtics.

2007-08 Portland Trailblazers: 41-41 failed to make the play-offs

What does last year's results have to do with this year's standings based on how the two teams have played this year?

Or are you saying that Portland was ahead of Boston in last year's standings?

I'm a bit confused.

More accurate than what?

Than your version of how the data can be interpreted, of course.

His formula isn't 100% accurate.

That's not relevant. No one is claiming it's 100% accurate. The question is whether your explanation of why it's deeply flawed holds any water. And it doesn't seem to as far as I can see.

I doubt if it would have predicted the 76-77 Trail Blazers defeating the 76ers for the NBA title.

I don't know if it would have. What we KNOW is

(a) the 76-77 season is integrated into the historical data that went into the creation of the current equation that you're so critical of
(b) quantitative analysis of the NBA was all but non-existent in 1977
(c) "experts" didn't predict the Blazers would win
(d) those experts relied on the things that you seem to think can't be captured in statistics

The Celtics are the defending NBA champions. The top nine players in their current rotation have a combined 363 games of play-off experience. The top nine players in the Blazers rotation have 14 games of combined play-off experience (9 games for Blake and 5 for Joel). So, while it's only my humble opinion, I would personally rank the defending champion, play-off tested team with the 16 - 2 record ahead of the 12-6 team that lacks meaningful play-off experience. And, in spite of what Hollinger's equation says (this week), I find those stats (play-off experience, past play-off success) a better predictor of future play-off success.

Again: it's gut-level for you, and it's regression analysis for him. It seems a pretty straightforward thing to integrate playoff experience in his equation if it were statistically significant. Maybe he missed it, or maybe you're wrong.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Yes they are firing on all cylinders for THIS YEAR (or close to it). Undefeated at home and impressive road victories for one of the youngest teams in the league. One cylinder (Joel) might be replaced by another (Oden) but can you really expect Oden to vastly exceed THIS YEAR what Joel has done so far THIS YEAR??? Even Ed O pointed out the players that are exceeding anything they have done before in the NBA.

Yes. My point was not that the team will NEVER get better, but simply that for this season I don't see how they can play much better than they have been.

Ed O.

 

[DaRizzle]

Yes. My point was not that the team will NEVER get better, but simply that for this season I don't see how they can play much better than they have been.

Ed O.

Exactly

 

[noknobs]

Look, I know you dont like me for some reason so you always try to take my views to the extreme so allow me to elaborate.

Yes they are firing on all cylinders for THIS YEAR (or close to it). Undefeated at home and impressive road victories for one of the youngest teams in the league. One cylinder (Joel) might be replaced by another (Oden) but can you really expect Oden to vastly exceed THIS YEAR what Joel has done so far THIS YEAR??? Even Ed O pointed out the players that are exceeding anything they have done before in the NBA. I swear to god, it seems normal rookie tendencies apply to all rookies except if they play for the Blazers (sarcasm). ROOKIES HIT WALLS. You guys beat ORL, NO, and DET in your first month...its gonna be hard for you team to do that all year. You guys can easily have a better monthly record than your NOV record but it will probably be against an easier stretch of games.

Joel is currently averaging 6.2 points, 7.9 rebounds, and 1.4 blocks.

Oden is averaging 8.1 points, 7.7 rebounds, and 1.7 blocks already, in less minutes, and I really can't see how that wouldn't increase substantially as he gets into game shape and gains experience. So to answer your question, yes.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Yes. My point was not that the team will NEVER get better, but simply that for this season I don't see how they can play much better than they have been.

Ed O.

I agree. OTOH, at .667 they don't have to play much better, I'd be happy win "only" 55 wins (.667*82).

 

[Ed O]

I agree. OTOH, at .667 they don't have to play much better, I'd be happy win "only" 55 wins (.667*82).

Haha... agreed! Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining, and I'm not even saying that I expect them to back slide significantly (although clearly there's a chance of that).

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

You guys beat ORL, NO, and DET in your first month...its gonna be hard for you team to do that all year.

Well, duh. We don't play them each month!

 

[Boob-No-More]

What does last year's results have to do with this year's standings based on how the two teams have played this year?

You asked for historical data. Hollinger also relies on events that happened many years in the past for curve fitting his play-off predictor equation. Why is his historocal data valid and mine is not?

I don't know if it would have. What we KNOW is

(a) the 76-77 season is integrated into the historical data that went into the creation of the current equation that you're so critical of

Do we know that? How far back does he go. Is what happened 32 years ago statistically relevant to what will happen this year? If he did include it, it's just a single data point, and most likely a statistical outlier.

Again: it's gut-level for you, and it's regression analysis for him. It seems a pretty straightforward thing to integrate playoff experience in his equation if it were statistically significant. Maybe he missed it, or maybe you're wrong.

Or maybe, just maybe, his formula is oversimplistic. And maybe that's why he's constantly revising it. It's not really a "formula", it's simple curve fitting - coming up with an equation that best fits the data. The data changes and he changes his equation.

It would be interesting to create a formula that included play-off experience and past play-off success. I don't have time to do it, but I think it would be a very interesting. Historically, (76-77 Blazers aside), inexperienced teams have not faired very well in the post season. It took the Bulls several years to get past the Celtics and Pistons. You have to go all the way back to the late 1970s to find a "young" team without significant play-off experience that won it all. Once teams figure out how to win in the post season, they are very hard top beat - the Bulls two three-peats, the Lakers three-peat, the Rockets winning back-to-back, the Spurs winning 4 times in 9 years, the Celtics and Lakers pretty much owning the 80s, etc.

Hollinger's equation is fun, but really just how accurate is it. Go back and look at it at any point in the season and see just how closely what he predicts actually happens. At the end of January 2008, he had Indiana with a 66.0% chance of making the play-offs and Philadelphia at 13.8%. Guess who made the play-offs. Of course, the further the season progresses, the more accurate his "predictions" become, but that can be said of almost any system (including simply looking at the current standings).

BNM