i don't know if hollinger agrees or not, but he personally doesn't have the blazers odds of making the playoffs at 95.5%. his playoff odds formula does, but (unless i'm mistaken) his playoff odds formula doesn't take into account injuries or things of that nature and is all just based on how the teams have played statistically.
i'm almost certain if you were to ask hollinger about his playoff odds, he'd say they were a good tool to use in determining which teams are likely to make the playoffs but they don't represent the full picture of his views on the playoff picture.
Of course the prediction doesn't include injuries. Injuries, by their very random nature are unpredictable.
Here's the description of the way the play-off odds predictor works, in Hollinger's own words:
"The idea is to predict what a team's odds are of making the playoffs, winning the division, making the Finals, etc., by simulating all the remaining games in the NBA season. We have a computer at ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Conn., that automatically plays out the rest of the season every night -- not once, but 5,000 times. And we can see from those 5,000 trials how many times a certain outcome resulted, then assign a probability from it. For example, if the Blazers make the playoffs in 2,500 of our trials, we say their odds of making the playoffs are 2,500 divided by 5,000, or 50 percent.
This tool doesn't just play out the regular season, though -- it plays out the postseason with seedings and even runs the draft lottery. As a result, we can get an idea of the probability of all sorts of outcomes; the most prominent is the team's median record from the 5,000 trials. As a reminder, this tool is completely, 100 percent automated, so my obvious, long-standing bias against your favorite team is not a factor here.
As always, the output of a product is only as good as its input, so let's explain a little about how this is derived. The computer starts with the day's Hollinger power rankings. Then, in each of the 5,000 times it replays the season, it makes a random adjustment up or down to allow for the possibility that a team will play better or worse than it has done thus far. (I call this the Anti-Dennis Green Postulate; i.e., maybe they aren't who we thought they were.)"
Of course, no system is perfect, but I'll take Hollinger's structured approach over Kenny Smith's random hunches. After all, Kenny Smith's hunches also don't account for injuries. Obviously, if Dallas loses Dirk or Phoenix loses Nash, it greatly impacts their odds of making the play-offs, but neither Hollinger's system, nor Kenny Smith's opinion take into account events neither is capable of predicting accurately.
BNM
