Hollinger argues Minn worst then NJ. What's the point?

[nickagneta]

That's what led to my mention of the other stats and thats what led to, I guess, my mistaken defense mention offensive rebounds as different possessions(OMG, how could I have not known that!! Doesn't everyone!!! That's like not knowing 1+1=2 ).

Your use of those stats was still flawed nick.

In those stats Minnesota has a higher assist%, a lower turnover%, a higher eFG% and higher TS%, a lower defensive rebound rate, a higher offensive rebound rate and an almost identical rebound rate(48.0 to 48.1) and differential in the offensive and defensive efficiencies(13.8 to 13).

Funny how when Hollinger wants to make stat based arguments he always excludes anything that doesn't prove his point....even his own derived statistics.

Those are all factors in the fact that Minnesota is a better offensive team than NJ. That doesn't really undercut Hollinger's point, which is that Minnesota has a worse efficiency differential than NJ. (Because of their defense is bad)

You are right, Hollinger could have gotten much in more depth on all the factors going into predicting wins. But his Per Diem articles are always pretty short and efficiency differential is the best single stat to look at.

He never mentioned efficiency differential. He mentioned point differential...scoring margin. Two completely different things.

Er they are and they aren't. They're slightly different, but both tell pretty much the same story. How much you score and how much you're scored on. One is just regularized a bit for pace.

Fundamentally you won't get different conclusions from using one instead of the other.

Except that he makes a big deal about the TWolves having a 2 point differential in scoring margin and having a scoring margin that is near record breaking. But Minnesota's efficiency differential is 13.8 just 0,6 above that of their scoring margin. New Jersey's efficiency differential is 13.0 or 1.8 points higher than their scoring margin.

If the things are virtually identical stats then why didn't he use the efficiency differential? Why? Because a difference of 0.8 isn't that big and the 13.0 for New Jersey starts to show that they really are near record breaking bad in that respect as well.

It's easy to call stats the same thing and say that all these stats equal that but they don't.

Each stat needs to be looked at separately and in context and as Fan from Vermont said used to ask questions and answer them as to why other stats may be the way they are. But one or two never tell a definitive anything. His point differential only pointing to Jersey being better means nothing if you don't take a look at every stat and put it in their context.

It was a ridiculous article and he used one basic stat to make an argument on which of two teams were better. Typical Hollinger using stats to try to tell us something that makes no sense.

[Fafnir]

Except that he makes a big deal about the TWolves having a 2 point differential in scoring margin and having a scoring margin that is near record breaking. But Minnesota's efficiency differential is 13.8 just 0,6 above that of their scoring margin. New Jersey's efficiency differential is 13.0 or 1.8 points higher than their scoring margin.

If the things are virtually identical stats then why didn't he use the efficiency differential? Why? Because a difference of 0.8 isn't that big and the 13.0 for New Jersey starts to show that they really are near record breaking bad in that respect as well.

It's easy to call stats the same thing and say that all these stats equal that but they don't.

Isn't Minnesota worse than the Nets by both measures? Is it really that different of a story nick?

I think accusing Hollinger of being intellectually dishonesty for using point differential is a stretch. Point differential is a strong indicator of a team's overall play, so is efficiency differential. Is Hollinger supposed to breakdown all of the stats he has available? Authors always have to make choices on what they'll discuss.

[nickagneta]

Except that he makes a big deal about the TWolves having a 2 point differential in scoring margin and having a scoring margin that is near record breaking. But Minnesota's efficiency differential is 13.8 just 0,6 above that of their scoring margin. New Jersey's efficiency differential is 13.0 or 1.8 points higher than their scoring margin.

If the things are virtually identical stats then why didn't he use the efficiency differential? Why? Because a difference of 0.8 isn't that big and the 13.0 for New Jersey starts to show that they really are near record breaking bad in that respect as well.

It's easy to call stats the same thing and say that all these stats equal that but they don't.

Isn't Minnesota worse than the Nets by both measures? Is it really that different of a story nick?

I think accusing Hollinger of being intellectually dishonesty for using point differential is a stretch. Point differential is a strong indicator of a team's overall play, so is efficiency differential. Is Hollinger supposed to breakdown all of the stats he has available? Authors always have to make choices on what they'll discuss.

I don't think it's a stretch because if you pay attention to everything he bases his arguments on with stats he always uses a multitude of stats to explain a decision or opinion of his. He used ONE stat to argue this point saying that 2 points in the differential were significant(okay maybe he didn't say it but the implication was there and others have said it).

When you and others start saying he was discussing efficiency differential and I point out you were wrong, you then defend him and yourselves by saying point differential and efficiency differential are the same thing(or almost). When I point out that if that's true then why didn't he use the efficiency because the efficiency differential points to a much different story and a much smaller gap than the scoring margin, you know blow that off.

Is he being dishonest with his stats? Maybe a little. He decided to write a ridiculous article claiming the team that started with the worst record ever isn't the worse team in the league and pointed to one stat. That stat, according to you and others, has a mirror like stat that might be even more reflective as to how good a team is and that stat shows a much closer gap than the one and only stat he used. Do I think he knows what that stat was and failed to use it on purpose because it severely weakens his argument when looked at in the big picture? You bet I do!!

You know you can't have it both ways. You can't claim he's right and using the right stat to do so, then be mistaken about what stat he's using and then when shown that the stat you claim he is right in using that is almost the same as the other shows a different story just blow it off. This is the last I am discussing this subject. Want to defend you stat hero and his ridiculous ideas and opinions based on the use of only one stat. Have fun. I'm done.

[Fafnir]

When you and others start saying he was discussing efficiency differential and I point out you were wrong, you then defend him and yourselves by saying point differential and efficiency differential are the same thing(or almost). When I point out that if that's true then why didn't he use the efficiency because the efficiency differential points to a much different story and a much smaller gap than the scoring margin, you know blow that off.

We didn't blow it off, I got the two confused. They're very related stats, and don't alter the overall picture between the two teams. Minnesota has a worse differential than NJ.

Is he being dishonest with his stats? Maybe a little. He decided to write a ridiculous article claiming the team that started with the worst record ever isn't the worse team in the league and pointed to one stat. That stat, according to you and others, has a mirror like stat that might be even more reflective as to how good a team is and that stat shows a much closer gap than the one and only stat he used. Do I think he knows what that stat was and failed to use it on purpose because it severely weakens his argument when looked at in the big picture? You bet I do!!

He's not being dishonest about this. Hollinger frequently points to scoring differential. Its what he uses in his power ranking system instead of efficiency! Take a look here. If he's using it for his team strength formula I don't see how he can be committing a sin of omission for using it for the same purpose in another article.

You know you can't have it both ways. You can't claim he's right and using the right stat to do so, then be mistaken about what stat he's using and then when shown that the stat you claim he is right in using that is almost the same as the other shows a different story just blow it off. This is the last I am discussing this subject. Want to defend you stat hero and his ridiculous ideas and opinions based on the use of only one stat. Have fun. I'm done.

I've never said I agreed that NJ is worse nick. I just took issue with your arguments and interpretation of the statistics.

I don't disagree with what you say overall. My main issue has been with Nick's approach to arguing the same conclusion as you.

If you want to argue head to head trumps that because they're both very close, that's fine I don't disagree!

But you clearly are not looking closely at what the numbers are saying, you dismiss them with incorrect statements and don't correctly attribute the relative difference that there is between the teams.

I think NJ is the worst team in the league right now.

Finally Hollinger isn't my "hero", nor have I been inconsistent with my arguments either. You're conflating my confusion on whether Hollinger referred to efficiency differential with being completely inconsistent and moving the goal posts. Meanwhile your continue to ignore the many other issues your attacks on Hollinger in general have.

You clearly don't like Hollinger, you clearly don't like his approach, and you clearly don't like advanced basketball stats.

I disagree with you on this, I think they add a lot to our understanding of the game. I don't like it when people distort what advanced stats are, what they can tell you, and what they can't tell you.

[Hoops]

So, who's the worst team now? One is game is just one game, but still...

[wdleehi]

So, who's the worst team now? One is game is just one game, but still...

Does it even matter?  It didn't before.