Hollinger really gets on my nerves

[NoraG1]

Foun this in the ESPN Daily Dime:

Tacoma, WA): Do you really think that the Cavs are a better team than the Celtics?

John Hollinger: I think the Cavs have played better than the Celtics. Whether they're a better team or just had a really hot 25 games is still to be determined. However, if I'm in Boston they're the one team that I'm deathly afraid of -- if they're this good with LBJ playing 35 minutes, what will they be like when he plays 48?


Getting really annoyed by Hollinger. How can he possibly think Cavs are better? Cavs have 2 more losses, lost to the Celtics and the Big 3 for the most part are not playing 35 min. each and are on an 18 game winning streak tying the longest in NBA history.  The Hollinger formula is not the end all, be all of determining how good a team is.

[cordobes]

It's his opinion. Of course a team doesn't need the best record to be considered the better one. But why do you read him?

[Dybdal]

Its a reasonable opinon when you look at how the Cavs has played in december, that said i havnt seen enough to the Cavs to argue for or against.

We have had the harder schedual but they have been winning more convincingly.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Hollinger didn't say that he thinks the Cavs are better (though he might)... he simply said that the Cavs have played better than the Celtics. I don't know how you guys can argue against that when you consider all our tough wins earlier in the season and all our come from behind wins. The Cavs have simply destroyed their opponents. There are other factors to consider when one argues for who is the better team, but as far as who has played better this season the Cavs take it.

[NoraG1]

It's his opinion. Of course a team doesn't need the best record to be considered the better one. But why do you read him?

Well, it does not help when Cavs lose to the Celtics in their only meeting so far. I just don't think point differential proves too much at this point. I was not specifically looking to read Hollinger but I was reading the Daily dime and it was there.

[NoraG1]

Hollinger didn't say that he thinks the Cavs are better (though he might)... he simply said that the Cavs have played better than the Celtics. I don't know how you guys can argue against that when you consider all our tough wins earlier in the season and all our come from behind wins. The Cavs have simply destroyed their opponents. There are other factors to consider when one argues for who is the better team, but as far as who has played better this season the Cavs take it.

Well they also have 2 more losses though. I guess I just don't see that as playing much better just because they blew out mostly bad teams. I think Cavs are the biggest threat but I don't see them clearly better then the Celtics esp. lately.

[cordobes]

It's his opinion. Of course a team doesn't need the best record to be considered the better one. But why do you read him?

Well, it does not help when Cavs lose to the Celtics in their only meeting so far. I just don't think point differential proves too much at this point. I was not specifically looking to read Hollinger but I was reading the Daily dime and it was there.

What's historically the best predictor of future success at this point of the season, point differential or W/L record?

[LB3533]

Hollinger fails to point out that KG is playing anywhere from 29-33 minutes per game, and Paul Pierce is playing 35-37 mpg, and Ray Allen is playing 36 mpg....what happens when all 3 of these guys are playing 48 minutes per game?

[NoraG1]

Hollinger fails to point out that KG is playing anywhere from 29-33 minutes per game, and Paul Pierce is playing 35-37 mpg, and Ray Allen is playing 36 mpg....what happens when all 3 of these guys are playing 48 minutes per game?

Exactly. Something Hollinger failed to mention.

[kozlodoev]

We're 26-2, but in case you missed it, the Cavs are just 1 loss behind us. I understand homerism and all, but it's simply foolish not to be worried about the Cavs at this point. The difference between the two teams is, in all aspects, pretty small.

what happens when all 3 of these guys are playing 48 minutes per game?

As far as I am concerned, they probably get too winded to close the game, that's what happens.

[Birdbrain]

Foun this in the ESPN Daily Dime:

Tacoma, WA): Do you really think that the Cavs are a better team than the Celtics?

John Hollinger: I think the Cavs have played better than the Celtics. Whether they're a better team or just had a really hot 25 games is still to be determined. However, if I'm in Boston they're the one team that I'm deathly afraid of -- if they're this good with LBJ playing 35 minutes, what will they be like when he plays 48?


Getting really annoyed by Hollinger. How can he possibly think Cavs are better? Cavs have 2 more losses, lost to the Celtics and the Big 3 for the most part are not playing 35 min. each and are on an 18 game winning streak tying the longest in NBA history.  The Hollinger formula is not the end all, be all of determining how good a team is.

Yeah I saw that as well.  Pretty funny.  The old 'Per 48' argument.  That should be the final nail in the coffin in regards to JH's Rankings.

[Roy Hobbs]

Hollinger didn't say that he thinks the Cavs are better (though he might)... he simply said that the Cavs have played better than the Celtics. I don't know how you guys can argue against that when you consider all our tough wins earlier in the season and all our come from behind wins. The Cavs have simply destroyed their opponents. There are other factors to consider when one argues for who is the better team, but as far as who has played better this season the Cavs take it.

Well they also have 2 more losses though. I guess I just don't see that as playing much better just because they blew out mostly bad teams. I think Cavs are the biggest threat but I don't see them clearly better then the Celtics esp. lately.

The Celtics have also played a stronger schedule.  So, they have a better record, have played better teams, and have won have the head to head matchup.  But, because Cleveland has outscored opponents by approximately 75 more points over the course of the season, they're playing better?  I don't think so.

[Birdbrain]

It's his opinion. Of course a team doesn't need the best record to be considered the better one. But why do you read him?

Well, it does not help when Cavs lose to the Celtics in their only meeting so far. I just don't think point differential proves too much at this point. I was not specifically looking to read Hollinger but I was reading the Daily dime and it was there.

What's historically the best predictor of future success at this point of the season, point differential or W/L record?

Well the only 2 teams with this record in the history of the game won the NBA championship so I guess it would W/L record of course.  Who had the best record at this point last year?

[moiso]

People seem to like Hollinger only when his numbers say something that they want to hear.

[nickagneta]

You know I keep hearing that point differential is a greater predicter of success than win-loss record so what I did was go back and check the last 20 years to see if this was true.

Year        Champion       Runner Up       Best W-L      Best Pt Dif

1989        Detroit             Lakers              Detroit          Phoenix
1990        Detroit             Portland           Lakers          Phoenix
1991        Chicago          Lakers             Portland        Chicago
1992        Chicago          Portland          Chicago        Chicago
1993        Chicago          Phoenix           Phoenix         Seattle
1994        Houston          New York          Seattle         Seattle
1995        Houston          Orlando          SA Spurs       Seattle
1996        Chicago          Seattle            Chicago        Chicago
1997        Chicago          Utah               Chicago        Chicago
1998        Chicago          Utah               Chi/Utah        Lakers
1999        SA Spurs      New York         Utah/SA         SA Spurs
2000        Lakers           Indiana             Lakers          Lakers
2001        Lakers            76ers             SA Spurs       SA Spurs
2002        Lakers           New Jersey     Kings             Kings
2003        SA Spurs       New Jersey     SA/Dal           Dallas
2004        Detroit           Lakers               Indiana        SA Spurs
2005        SA Spurs      Detroit               Phoenix        SA Spurs
2006        Miami             Dallas             Detroit           DET/SA
2007        SA Spurs      Cleveland        Dallas           SA Spurs
2008        Boston           Lakers             Boston         Boston


So what does the last twenty years tell us about win-loss record versus point differential? Well:

- 9 times in the last 20 years the team with the best record became NBA champion
- 9 times in the last 20 years the team with the best point differential became NBA champion
- 11 times in the last 20 years the team with the best win-loss record made the Finals
-9 times in the last 20 years the team with the best point differential made the Finals
- 11 times the team with the best win-loss record had the best point differential
- only 6 times did the team that had the best win-loss record and best point differential win the NBA championship

So considering that the team with the best win-loss record has played in the Finals 2 more times than the team with the best point differential, that the team with the best win-loss records have won as many championships as the team with the best point differential and that the team with the best win-loss record had the best point differential more often than they actually won the championship, is it fair to say that point differential and win-loss record are a lot more evenly measured as a factor for success than Hollinger's Power Ranking formula says it is?

I would think so considering these facts.