Hollinger really gets on my nerves

[Tnerb02]

Legler actually picked the Lakers but he eventually changed it.

[NoraG1]

Why do people get bothered by the Hollinger rankings? He never said they were authoritative. Here is a quote from Hollinger:

Since this is an entirely automated ranking, you'll notice certain "human" factors missing.

It doesn't know which players are about to come back from injury or which teams have been playing without their best players for the past 10 games.

Along the same lines, it doesn't take into account injuries, trades, controversial calls or any other variables -- just the scores, please.

Nonetheless, it can be very useful because it allows us to see what the landscape looks like when we remove our usual filters.

It is meant to be useful, not authoritative. It is meant to be useful by NOT relying simply on W-L record, especially midseason when teams have played more or less home games or bad teams.

Considering how many more losses we had on the road last year, we can expect that we will have more losses when we play more games on the road, and our advantage in home games to start the season may have helped us to this record. These are the kinds of insights we can get from Hollinger's rankings.

Try asking yourself why his rankings would have us lower than the Cavs instead of feeling cheated.

Keep in mind that if we do not count the head-to-head game which we played in OUR arena when their team was not yet in sync, and if we discount the games when big Z was injured (esp considering we have been healthy all season), they also only have 2 losses.

Keep in mind though that other teams are gunning to try to beat the Celtics every game because they won the championship. 
Cavs also won games when Z was injured.  Every team gets injuries. Was that an excuse for the C's last year when they lost KG for multiple games?

[Birdbrain]

There are a million interesting stats and I'm not at all upset with Hollinger's take.  I mean it's only for discussion purposes.

There are just more pertinent statistics.

Better won loss record
Better head to head record
*** Won the championship and have the best start in the history ***

Pt differential with teams playing different schedules is very low IMO.  It's sort of akin to using the BCS as way of ranking teams.

Mark Stien should be releasing his rankings sometime later today and since he doesn't use math to determine who's the better team he'll more than likely have the C's ranked #1.  

[celticmaestro]

Legler actually picked the Lakers but he eventually changed it.

Honest? Well, more power to him.

[BballTim]

  Not to defend Hollinger but he can't use head to head in his rankings if he's ranking all 30 teams.

[crownsy]

  Not to defend Hollinger but he can't use head to head in his rankings if he's ranking all 30 teams.

he could adjust the rankings for SOS though. The only reason the cavs are in first, if you look at the break down is style points (I.E point diffreantal) and the fact that they have a higher SOS than us because we can't play ourselves.

Each win we get litearly makes the cavs look better in the rankings, since it jacks thier SOS. until we can play ourselves, we'll always help them out in his BCS rankings by being good. It makes no diffreance to his rankings that they LOST to us, just that we're a tough day on the calander.

[nickagneta]

  Not to defend Hollinger but he can't use head to head in his rankings if he's ranking all 30 teams.

he could adjust the rankings for SOS though. The only reason the cavs are in first, if you look at the break down is style points (I.E point diffreantal) and the fact that they have a higher SOS than us because we can't play ourselves.

Each win we get litearly makes the cavs look better in the rankings, since it jacks thier SOS. until we can play ourselves, we'll always help them out in his BCS rankings by being good. It makes no diffreance to his rankings that they LOST to us, just that we're a tough day on the calander.

Celtics actually have a stronger strength of schedule and I think in his SOS calculations he takes out the results of the games played against. Example if thye cummulative record of the Celtics opponents is 275-300 then the OS is figured by taking out the 2 wins and 25 losses the celtics were responsible for putting into that record and the strength of schedule would be based on a record of 273-275

[crownsy]

  Not to defend Hollinger but he can't use head to head in his rankings if he's ranking all 30 teams.

he could adjust the rankings for SOS though. The only reason the cavs are in first, if you look at the break down is style points (I.E point diffreantal) and the fact that they have a higher SOS than us because we can't play ourselves.

Each win we get litearly makes the cavs look better in the rankings, since it jacks thier SOS. until we can play ourselves, we'll always help them out in his BCS rankings by being good. It makes no diffreance to his rankings that they LOST to us, just that we're a tough day on the calander.

Celtics actually have a stronger strength of schedule and I think in his SOS calculations he takes out the results of the games played against. Example if thye cummulative record of the Celtics opponents is 275-300 then the OS is figured by taking out the 2 wins and 25 losses the celtics were responsible for putting into that record and the strength of schedule would be based on a record of 273-275

our stronger SOS is new then, i havent checked his rankings in two weeks because thier useless (two weeks ago they were smoking us .952 to .925 in SOS)

also, im pretty sure thats not how he figures SOS, he includes all opps. last time i saw a breakdown. Otherwise that would unfarily penailize good teams and reward bad ones (as it stands now, this is reversed.)

[nickagneta]

  Not to defend Hollinger but he can't use head to head in his rankings if he's ranking all 30 teams.

he could adjust the rankings for SOS though. The only reason the cavs are in first, if you look at the break down is style points (I.E point diffreantal) and the fact that they have a higher SOS than us because we can't play ourselves.

Each win we get litearly makes the cavs look better in the rankings, since it jacks thier SOS. until we can play ourselves, we'll always help them out in his BCS rankings by being good. It makes no diffreance to his rankings that they LOST to us, just that we're a tough day on the calander.

Celtics actually have a stronger strength of schedule and I think in his SOS calculations he takes out the results of the games played against. Example if thye cummulative record of the Celtics opponents is 275-300 then the OS is figured by taking out the 2 wins and 25 losses the celtics were responsible for putting into that record and the strength of schedule would be based on a record of 273-275

our stronger SOS is new then, i havent checked his rankings in two weeks because thier useless (two weeks ago they were smoking us .952 to .925 in SOS)

also, im pretty sure thats not how he figures SOS, he includes all opps. last time i saw a breakdown. Otherwise that would unfarily penailize good teams and reward bad ones (as it stands now, this is reversed.)

I was wrong earlier. The Celtics current SOS according to Hollinger is .496.

Adding up the record of every team the Celtics have played, counting team's records for each game they have played against a team(i.e. if the Celtics played the Hawks twice, count the Hawks' record of 17-10 twice) the Celtics opponents' record is 355-345 for a SOS of .514.

Adding up the record of every team the Celtics have played, counting only the teams record no matter how many times they played that team, the Celtics opponents' record is 285-290 for a SOS of .496.

That must be how he does it.

[TheRev72]

Actually, I like Hollinger's computer rankings.  It seems generally pretty accurate, and injects an "objective" number-crunching ranking into the mix that allows you to see things that you might not otherwise see.

If you look at the current rankings, the Celtics and Cavs are clearly tops, with rankings over 110.  That makes sense - those two teams have really been playing better than everyone this season so far.

After that, it's the Lakers, Hornets, and Nuggets all over 105.  I'd say that sounds right as well, as those 3 teams are clearly up there - not quite playing consistently at Celtics-Cavs level, but knocking on the door and clearly threats.  The next step down, teams over 100, is the usual list of quality teams like the Jazz, Spurs, Mavs, etc.  

The big surprises, and where Hollinger's rankings are interesting, is the inclusion of the Hawks and Bucks in the list of teams scoring over 100 on the computer.  I guess the Hawks aren't a huge surprise, but they are certainly ranked high - a sign that they aren't just playing the Celtics well.  

The Bucks, on the other hand, seem overrated by Hollinger at 12.  But if you look at their home/away games (11 home to 18 away) and strength of schedule (.522), part of their poor record is explained.  So Hollinger's ranking could demonstrate some predictive ability if, as the Bucks play more home games and some weaker teams in the future, their record improves. Something to keep an eye on.

Another situation to look at for the value of his rankings is that fact that he has the Raptors rated higher than the Nets, even though the Raps have an awful record and are in last place, while the Nets are at .500.  If the Raps truly are playing better than the Nets, as Hollinger's system says, we should probably expect the Raps record to improve while the Nets falter.  We'll see.

Adding this sort of computer analysis is fun and informative.  Does it mean the Cavs are better than the Celtics?  No.  They still have to play the games.  But there is value in crunching the numbers, especially when the results can tell you something outside the convential wisdom.  

[MMacOH]

You guys really shouldn't worry about this so much.  Just enjoy where the Celtics are currently. 

Any clue where the Cavs ranked on Hollinger's power rankings at the end of the year last year?  You think his rankings would have predicted how close their series with Boston was going to be?

His rankings are set up to be a talking point.....don't let it make your blood pressure rise

[RebusRankin]

Does his computer take into account the fact the Cavs are 17-0 versus teams with losing records and 6-4 against teams with winning records? The Celtics are 14-1 against teams with winning records.

[Schupac]

  An interesting stat is that the Celts are 14-1 against teams with winning records while the Cavs are 9-4.

It took you one sentence to come up with a valid argument against Hollinger's stats which, I am guessing, involve more than a sentence's worth of calculations.



Why do people still care about him?  My friend gave me a great analogy for him - he's like a guy trying to build his house with nothing but a power drill. 

He's got one great tool, and when the problem doesn't fit that tool... he keeps using it.

[LB3533]

OK, here goes......

I broke down the Celtics/Cavs Record according to "5 points swing" and "10 points or more swing".

I also calculated and factored in SOS (at the time each team faced their opponents and overall record as of 12/21).

Here are the results:

Games decided by 5 points or less
(C's average margin of victory +4ppg/7games)

C's vs Cavs 10/28  (Won 90-85)        1-0     +5        Cavs  (0-0, 23-4)
C's vs Rox   11/4   (Won 103-99)      2-0       4        Hou   (3-0, 18-9)
C's vs ATL   11/12 (Won 103-102)    3-0        1                (6-0, 17-10)
C's vs MIL    11/15 (Won 102-97)     4-0        5                (5-5, 13-16)
C's vs CHL   11/29 (Won 89-84)       5-0        5                (5-10, 9-19)
C's vs IND    12/7   (Won 122-117)   6-0        5                (7-12, 10-17)
C's vs ATL    12/17 (Won 88-85)      7-0        3                (15-9, 17-10)
                                                                28 (41-36  @ 0.532)(90-75  @ 0.545)   

Cavs Record: 1-2, average margin of victory +1.333 ppg

vs Bos 10/28   Lost  85-90      0-0, 26-2
vs Ind   11/07  Won 111-97    1-2, 10-17
vs Atl   12/13   Lost  92-97   13-9, 17-10
                                 14-11 @ 0.560, 53-29 @ 0.646

The Celtics are undefeated, a perfect 7-0 in games decided by 5 points or less. The Cavs are only 1-2 in games decided by 5 or less.

Hollinger believes that "close games" are more along the lines of luck or good or bad fortune. He basically doesn't put much value on winning close games, or maybe he just puts too much emphasis on winning blowout games.

I can see his point, good teams should blowout BAD teams, but what if good teams face other good teams? Shouldn't the games be a lot closer? (YES, duh!)

Bottomline here is, with the current data, the Celtics faced above average competition based upon the 0.532 current record and 0.545 overall record to date: 12/21/08.....and they still went 7-0.

The Cavs on the other hand faced 3 teams and lost twice, but their SOS (0.560 current, 0.646) was higher than the C's.

What this data tells me is that the Celtics faced decent competition and prevailed. The Celtics were better and so they won in the end.

The Cavs faced tougher competition and lost. The teams that beat the Cavs were better than the Cavs.

Now let's look at games decided by double digits......

Games decided by 10 points or more
(C's 15-1 with average margin of victory 15.5ppg)

vs CHI  10/31 (Won 96-80)           +16                            (1-0, 13-14)
vs IND  11/01 (Loss 79-95)            -16                            (1-1, 10-17)
vs OKL 11/05 (Won 96-83)            13                              (1-2,  3-25)
vs MIL  11/07 (Won 101-89)           12                             (3-2, 13-16)
vs DET 11/09 (Won 88-76)             12                              (4-1, 14-11)
vs DET 11/20 (Won 98-80)             18                              (8-3, 14-11)
vs MIN  11/21 (Won 95-78)             17                              (2-8, 4-22)
vs TOR 11/23 (Won 118-103)          15                              (6-6, 10-17)
vs PHI  11/28 (Won 102-78)            24                              (7-8, 12-15)
vs ORL 12/01 (Won 107-88)            19                              (13-4, 21-6)
vs IND  12/03 (Won 114-96)            18                              (7-10, 10-17)
vs PO   12/05 (Won 93-78)             15                              (14-6, 17-10)
vs WA  12/11 (Won 122-88)            36                              (4-15, 4-21)
vs NO   12/12 (Won 94-82)              12                              (12-6, 16-7)
vs CHI  12/19 (Won 126-108)           18                             (12-13, 13-14)
vs NY   12/21 (Won 124-105)           19                              (11-15 ,11-16)
                                                        248                 106-100 @ 0.515, 148-197 @ 0.429)

Cavs' Games decided by 10 points or more: (19-1 avg +17.3ppg)

vs Cha 10/30   Won  96-79  (17)            0-0, 9-19
vs NO  11/01   Loss  92-104 (-12)           2-0, 16-7
vs Dal  11/03   Won  100-81 (19)            1-1, 15-11
vs Chi  11/05   Won  107-93 (14)           2-2, 13-14
vs Den 11/13   Won  110-99 (11)           4-2. 18-10
vs Uta  11/15   Won  105-93  (12)           6-3. 17-12
vs NJ   11/18   Won  106-82  (24)           4-5, 13-14
vs Atl   11/22   Won  110-96 (14)            8-4, 17-10
vs NY   11/25   Won  119-101(18)           7-6, 11-16
vs OK  11/26    Won  117-82 (35)           1-14, 3-25
vs GS  11/28    Won  112-97 (15)            5-10, 8-21
vs Mil   11/29    Won   97-85 (12)            7-11, 13-16
vs NY   12/03   Won   118-82 (36)            8-9, 11-16
vs Ind   12/05    Won   97-73 (24)            7-11, 10-17
vs Cha  12/06     W     94-74 (20)             7-12,  9-19
vs Tor    12/09     W    114-94 (20)             8-11, 10-17
vs Phi    12/12     W    88-72  (16)             9-12, 12-15
vs Min    12/17     W   93-70    (23)             4-20, 4-22
vs Den    12/19    W   105-88  (17)             18-8, 18-10
vs OK     12/21     W   102-91  (11)              3-24, 3-25
                                        17.3 ppg (111-165 @ 0.402, 189-246 @ 0.434)

OK, clearly the Cavs are showing they can do well against poor competition, based upon the current SOS 0.402, but it makes sense that good teams would "destroy" bad teams, doesn't it?

But the Celtics clearly show that they can blowout "good" opponents, based upon the current SOS of 0.515, both overall SOS are virtually the same around 0.430ish.

In conclusion, John Hollinger puts too much stock into blowing out the competition.

Generally, good teams will blowout bad teams, more often than not, but when good teams blowout other good teams or when good teams beat other good teams by smallish margins, those good teams should be acknowledged and recognized for those efforts and achievements.

The Cavs are a good team, but they are not better than the Celtics.

[TheReaLPuba]

C's are better than the Cavs and it's pretty obvious.

C's have 3 more wins and 2 less loses.

C's have had a much harder schedule early on in the season which hurt their point differential severely.

The Cavs do not have a good record vs. teams that are actually top playoff teams.

But the Cavs are still the strongest competition for the C's....their defense is much much better than any other team besides the C's.