I want someone to clearly explain this to me...

[Strenuus]

I want to know the rationale of these two situations:

If we win against teams we're supposed to beat, we're not good enough because it was at home; we lose to those teams... then we're a bad team

If we win against elite teams at home, we're not good enough because we have to see if we beat them on the road. However, if we lose to them on our court, we're bad. However, that elite team just lost to us on our court, but they are still better than us?

I mean, I understand wanting to have an agenda... but at least be logical about it. All I'm asking.

 

[magnifier661]

Winning thread! Crazy how people think in this way huh?

 

[magnifier661]

Listen the same thing was said about the 1998-99 team. We would go on these winning streaks and fans would say "well it's because of this or that". "They can't sustain it". Shit like that. Happened until we beat Utah in the semis. Then people started to believe.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

There have been 5 times this season where the Blazers have been the worst team on the court. Worst team! Fact!

 

[oldmangrouch]

Sustained success = benefit of the doubt.

Anyway - who cares? Having the media jump on the bandwagon won't make the team any better.

 

[Strenuus]

Winning thread! Crazy how people think in this way huh?

It is. I just want to see people's thinking behind it. There must be something I'm missing.

 

[Strenuus]

Sustained success = benefit of the doubt.

Anyway - who cares? Having the media jump on the bandwagon won't make the team any better.

I wasn't talking about the media. I was talking about the fans.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I wasn't talking about the media. I was talking about the fans.

Ah...gotcha.

 

[julius]

I want to know the rationale of these two situations:

If we win against teams we're supposed to beat, we're not good enough because it was at home; we lose to those teams... then we're a bad team

If we win against elite teams at home, we're not good enough because we have to see if we beat them on the road. However, if we lose to them on our court, we're bad. However, that elite team just lost to us on our court, but they are still better than us?

I mean, I understand wanting to have an agenda... but at least be logical about it. All I'm asking.

I'm more confused as to why, if Portland wins at home, it's not as impressive as if the other team wins on THEIR home court.

 

[Strenuus]

I'm more confused as to why, if Portland wins at home, it's not as impressive as if the other team wins on THEIR home court.

It's mindboggling, and frankly, illogical.

 

[Samuel]

Sustained success = benefit of the doubt.

This. You do it in the playoffs and people will believe.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's mindboggling, and frankly, illogical.

No, wanting to blow up the team after losing the first game of the season is mindboggling and illogical.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

Sustained success = benefit of the doubt.

Anyway - who cares? Having the media jump on the bandwagon won't make the team any better.

People posting in this thread care. If no one is suppose to care, do they really need you to imply that they shouldn't care? Having the media, or so-called Blazer fans, jump on the bandwagon won't make your post any better.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

This. You do it in the playoffs and people will believe.

Counter example: I believe, and they have yet to do it in the playoffs. Clearly, a Blazer fan is the exception.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Here's another head scratcher for you...

John Hoillinger's current power rankings are as follows:

OKC - 23-5
IND - 23-5
LAC - 20-11
SAS - 23-7
POR - 24-5

So, Portland has the best overall record and is the only team to have beaten all of the other top 5 teams. Here's each team's record against the other 4:

OKC - 4-2
IND - 2-2
LAC - 2-3
SAS - 0-5

OK, I know Hollinger's rankings are based on a formula that heavily favors strength of schedule and margin of victory, but at some point you'd think better overall record and head-to-head match-ups would carry some weight. The Clippers have lost over twice as many games as the Blazers, just lost to us head-to-head and have a losing record against the other top 5 teams, but they are ranked two spots ahead of us? We also have two fewer loses than the Spurs, beat them head-to-head and they don't have a single win against another top 5 team, while we have 4 such wins and ZERO defeats. Yet, the Spurs are ranked ahead of us?

I know Hollinger is constantly revising his formula to try to make it more accurate. He may have a lot more revising to do after this season.

BTW, its not just the Blazers. He also ranks the 13-15 Timberwolves ahead of the 20-11 Rockets, who beat the TPups by double digits in their one head-to-head meeting.

Crazy shit.

BNM

 

[magnifier661]

Great post BNM

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

Here's another head scratcher for you...

John Hoillinger's current power rankings are as follows...

BNM

It's only crazy if you put all your faith in his man-made formula. Statistics is an art, as it relates to predicting and evaluating NBA basketball, not a science. Hollinger's power rankings paints a mediocre picture.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Great post BNM

Even the computers don't give us any respect! Us against the world (both real and cyber) baby!

BNM

 

[magnifier661]

Even the computers don't give us any respect! Us against the world (both real and cyber) baby!

BNM

Haha, well at least we are proving that the computer program is wrong.

On a side note, Charles picked OKC as the hands down favorite, with spurs a distant second and us distant from the spurs.

It's weird since the spurs haven't even beaten a contending team yet.

 

[Boob-No-More]

It's only crazy if you put all your faith in his man-made formula.

Like he does?

Statistics is an art, as it relates to predicting and evaluating NBA basketball, not a science. Hollinger's power rankings paints a mediocre picture.

He makes a big deal about how accurate his formula is, but is constantly revising it - and he gets paid a lot of money because of it. Still, their are exceptions almost every year, or as he'd call them statistical anomalies. I guess we're this year's anomaly - so far anyway.

Does anyone know of a location that archives Hollinger's past power rankings. I'd be curious to know just how accurate they actually are, and what other past anomalies have occurred.

BNM

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

On a side note, Charles picked OKC as the hands down favorite, with spurs a distant second and us distant from the spurs.

Portland has Wilkins. I'm sure we could sway Clyde, and that would give us two Dream Team guys firmly on the Blazer bandwagon.

 

[magnifier661]

Portland has Wilkins. I'm sure we could sway Clyde, and that would give us two Dream Team guys firmly on the Blazer bandwagon.

It just trips me out even Kenny has Spurs over us easily when the Spurs haven't beaten a contending team yet this season.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

Like he does?

He makes a big deal about how accurate his formula is, but is constantly revising it - and he gets paid a lot of money because of it. Still, their are exceptions almost every year, or as he'd call them statistical anomalies. I guess we're this year's anomaly - so far anyway.

Does anyone know of a location that archives Hollinger's past power rankings. I'd be curious to know just how accurate they actually are, and what other past anomalies have occurred.

BNM

Same with Pelton. If people stopped clicking on it, he wouldn't get paid to do it anymore. I do have last year's Pelton predictions somewhere, and even posted it in another thread this season. He was SO off and wrote a whole article explaining why his system was wrong. Deflecting the fact that he made the "system." lol

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Portland has Wilkins. I'm sure we could sway Clyde, and that would give us two Dream Team guys firmly on the Blazer bandwagon.

Pardon me for being pedantic, but 'Nique wasn't on the Dream Team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men's_Olympic_basketball_team#Roster

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

It just trips me out even Kenny has Spurs over us easily when the Spurs haven't beaten a contending team yet this season.

I think it's funny. I don't care if they change their opinion, I just enjoy watching the BS avalanche till it hits the bottom of BS mountain and these guys decide they need a nice long shower and a warm cup of Blazer coffee with a Voodoo doughnut.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

Pardon me for being pedantic, but 'Nique wasn't on the Dream Team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men's_Olympic_basketball_team#Roster

True, but Lenny Wilkins was an assistant coach on the team. Why do people always have to ruin my opinions with facts?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

True, but Lenny Wilkins was an assistant coach on the team. Why do people always have to ruin my opinions with facts?

Well then, that would have been spelled Wilkens, and then I wouldn't have been confused.

 

[Samuel]

Here's another head scratcher for you...

John Hoillinger's current power rankings are as follows:

OKC - 23-5
IND - 23-5
LAC - 20-11
SAS - 23-7
POR - 24-5

So, Portland has the best overall record and is the only team to have beaten all of the other top 5 teams. Here's each team's record against the other 4:

OKC - 4-2
IND - 2-2
LAC - 2-3
SAS - 0-5

OK, I know Hollinger's rankings are based on a formula that heavily favors strength of schedule and margin of victory, but at some point you'd think better overall record and head-to-head match-ups would carry some weight.

Doesn't it also weigh Defensive Efficiency quite a bit? This is one category that the Blazers are still below average in, and probably explains why Portland is on the lower end of that list.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

Well then, that would have been spelled Wilkens, and then I wouldn't have been confused.

I've said on many occasions that orthography is not my strong suit.

Wilkins played on Team USA at the 1994 World Championships. While it's not "THE" Dream Team, it was still a Dream Team.

Isiah Thomas and 'Nique were snubs. They both should have been on THE Dream Team in the Olympics.

Thank you for ruining my evening!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I've said on many occasions that orthography is not my strong suit.

Wilkins played on Team USA at the 1994 World Championships. While it's not "THE" Dream Team, it was still a Dream Team.

Isiah Thomas and 'Nique were snubs. They both should have been on THE Dream Team in the Olympics.

Thank you for ruining my evening!

Happy to oblige. And you know you love having a foil on here as good natured as I am.