posted at 2/14/2011 2:27 PM EST
I hope he has yet to update his rankings but here it was just a few minutes ago
Does this guy even watch the games or does he just put stats in his computer to spit out his rankings? How does the team with the 2nd best record in the league and who has beaten Miami 3 times still be ranked 6th? I like to place some bets with him if this is the best he can do with the NBA rankings.
posted at 2/14/2011 2:28 PM EST
Here is how I would rank them not as a Celtic fan but as an impartial observer.
What do you all think?
posted at 2/14/2011 2:41 PM EST
Hollinger is a joke....I just read Bill Simmons' latest book and he ripped the guy...he has all these categories he makes up....during the '87 Finals Bird was hurt but put up some great stats across the board....Hollinger didn't rank his performance in his top 50!!! ..this is the guy that called the Lakers the greatest franchise in league history....he is truly a joke!
posted at 2/14/2011 3:18 PM EST
I agree, this guy is classic example of a joke. The guy is a notorious Laker lover and hates the Celtics. It does not matter if the Lakers lose, he still does not drop them in his standings. The guy is a BUM!!
posted at 2/14/2011 3:41 PM EST
Statistics lie when not taken in the right context. The problem with Hollinger is that nobody told him.
posted at 2/14/2011 3:52 PM EST
even after us beating them in L.A. earlier this season and being 3 games ahead for HCA, he still had them #2!
posted at 2/14/2011 4:17 PM EST
I`m not an expert in the Hollinger rating but I alway thought it is based on statistics only. If I`m right, his "love for LA" doens't effect the statistics.
In principal I think it is a good approach to have a rating based on statistics only, as a second opinion. Of course it is difficult to weight this amount of data in the right manner.
As far as I know, Hollinger weights the point differential of wins a little to high, thererfore the Cs are not top notch.
posted at 2/14/2011 4:48 PM EST
Numbers don't lie - okay, so here come some. We are the #1 defensive team in the league. We shoot > 50% from the floor as a TEAM. AND we have the second best record in the league.
Yes, we don't have a great point differential, and yes we love to inferior opponents. Our offensive rebounding and FT % are also low.................BUT, the very definition of basketball is to "put the ball in the basket and prevent the other team from scoring." We do both very well - so who cares what he says?
posted at 2/14/2011 4:48 PM EST
Hollinger focuses a LOT on recent play (record in the last 10 and point differential in the last 10 and strength of schedule in last 10 games). By that definition, we've had some losses recently, Miami had a win streak recently, and Miami blows people out. Also, the Lakers are on a little bit of a run recently. Road wins count for more than home wins, also (shows up in strength of schedule).
So, Hollinger's statistical approach hurts us. I also believe that head to head doesn't even factor into his analysis. So, our beating Miami but losing to Charlotte and Dallas hurts more than their one road loss to us.
I like Stein's rankings better. He, too, focuses on recent play but he uses his own judgement on how well a team is playing, who they played and beat, etc.
Finally, rankings for full season performance vs recent performance vs playoff potential would all yield different rankings. We'd be EXTREMELY high (1 or 2) on playoff potential and on full season performance but we wouldn't rank higher than others if you're ONLY looking at last 10 games and not looking at potential.
posted at 2/14/2011 7:24 PM EST
He uses point differential as a big part of his formula because, as he states, it has been the single biggest statistical predictor of wins/losses over the years. You can't argue with that. Of course its not going to be 100% correct every time. But I think its nice to have a ranking system like this that is not just based on human judgement.
I would guess that at any point during a season, Hollinger's rankings are closer to how the teams finish than the human judgement rankings.
posted at 2/14/2011 7:33 PM EST
And I have taken a class where the research indicated OFFENSIVE rebounding was the single biggest predictor of wins and losses over a long period of time. So, he does use the human element, because there in NO single predictor of that over time.
posted at 2/14/2011 10:13 PM EST
I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Hollinger's rankings are a purely statistical measure of team success. Bias or prejudice don't affect it at all. You don't have to agree with the order of the teams (and I don't), but to accuse them of being rigged is just nonsensical
posted at 2/14/2011 11:27 PM EST
Tell Doc, he says offensive rebounds are not that important. He wants his guys to get back down court on a miss and be ready to play defense.
When I heard him say on camera once I thought I heard it wrong and then I thought about it, defense is what defines his teams and that is how he wants it done.
posted at 2/15/2011 12:14 AM EST
posted at 2/17/2011 12:37 AM EST
I guess the Fakers will move up 3 spots in the infamous Hollinger Rankings. That guy has got to be the biggest bozo among the so called experts.
posted at 2/17/2011 5:29 AM EST
dropped to 6th, 1 spot below boston.
look, I know it's flawed, but the guy has his method. It's a bit quirky but I don't mind looking at it occasionally.
drop the topic, move on