Hollinger really gets on my nerves

[SaCaCh]

The Cavs are doing what we did last year, putting it to every team for 48 minutes to try and prove to themselves and the league that they are for real. This year we just don't feel the need to do that. We put it to a team when we need to get the win and get out healthy and prepare for the long playoff run. This behavior by the Cavs and us last year favors Hollinger's formula, plain and simple.



PS  Who cares about Hollinger.

[ACF]

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.

That's a TP for the breakdown.

PS  Who cares about Hollinger.

Exactly. We go for # 19 vs Philly plus an NBA
record and that's definitely more important.

Go Celtics!

[nba is the worst]

The record against 3 teams says it all (since apparently Hollinger doesn't care much for head-to-head results)...

Cavs lost to Pistons, Hornets, and Hawks, C's didn't.

Enough said...

[Fan from VT]

About close games:

It is purely anecdotal that "good teams win close games."

As Hollinger himself points out every so often, season after season the best teams in the NBA have so-so records in close games, but over the course of the season, build up their records with easy victories. In a close game, one lucky or unlucky bounce can make the difference...and luck does happen in basketball.

Look at that Miami-Lakers game the other day. Down 2, Kobe shoots a fadeaway, it's halfway down, rings around at least once, and somehow comes out. Does that show that Kobe and the Lakers don't have what it takes? Does that really prove that Miami knows how to close games? I mean Kobe got the shot he wanted and nearly hit it. One slightly different variation of luck, and suddenly it proves that the Lakers are the ones with the grit to close out tough games? Close games are exciting and often decide the season in the playoffs, but they really tell you very little about what to expect from a team in general.


I know this post won't do any good, but considering that season after season there is little to no correlation between a team's record in close games and playoff success/overall record maybe it's time to stop putting too much stock in winning close games as a measure of a good team.

[TatteredOnMySleeve]

I find it funny how anyone can rate the cavs higher than the celts, I believe they are rated # 1 on realGM's ranking as well
WE'VE WON 18 IN A ROW, HAVE THE BEST RECORD IN THE LEAGUE, DEFENDING CHAMPS, AND WE BEAT THE CAVS.
...I believe because we got taken to 7 last year most people assume cavs will beat us this year

[MMacOH]

The record against 3 teams says it all (since apparently Hollinger doesn't care much for head-to-head results)...

Cavs lost to Pistons, Hornets, and Hawks, C's didn't.

Enough said...

Cavs beat Denver twice, Celtics lost to them.  The cavs crushed Indiana and the Celtics lost to them also. 

This is a silly argument. 

[RebusRankin]

The record against 3 teams says it all (since apparently Hollinger doesn't care much for head-to-head results)...

Cavs lost to Pistons, Hornets, and Hawks, C's didn't.

Enough said...

Cavs beat Denver twice, Celtics lost to them.  The cavs crushed Indiana and the Celtics lost to them also. 

This is a silly argument. 

17-0 versus teams with losing records and only 6-4 against teams with winning records. The Celtics are 14-1 versus teams with winning records. 

[LB3533]

About close games:

It is purely anecdotal that "good teams win close games."

As Hollinger himself points out every so often, season after season the best teams in the NBA have so-so records in close games, but over the course of the season, build up their records with easy victories. In a close game, one lucky or unlucky bounce can make the difference...and luck does happen in basketball.

Look at that Miami-Lakers game the other day. Down 2, Kobe shoots a fadeaway, it's halfway down, rings around at least once, and somehow comes out. Does that show that Kobe and the Lakers don't have what it takes? Does that really prove that Miami knows how to close games? I mean Kobe got the shot he wanted and nearly hit it. One slightly different variation of luck, and suddenly it proves that the Lakers are the ones with the grit to close out tough games? Close games are exciting and often decide the season in the playoffs, but they really tell you very little about what to expect from a team in general.


I know this post won't do any good, but considering that season after season there is little to no correlation between a team's record in close games and playoff success/overall record maybe it's time to stop putting too much stock in winning close games as a measure of a good team.

I totally an see your point regarding Kobe's "in and out" shot against the Heat.

But if you watched the game, you would have noticed that Gasol was suffering from the flu, Bynum was virtually a non-factor going up against Joel Anthony? and Wade was doing anything he wanted in that game....thus it basically evened the two teams out.

At the time Kobe took that shot that rimmed out, the Lakers were already losing and were trailing pretty much for the entire 4th quarter.

I do not attribute that Kobe miss as being unlucky or whatever....missed shots are apart of basketball.

[Fan from VT]

About close games:

It is purely anecdotal that "good teams win close games."

As Hollinger himself points out every so often, season after season the best teams in the NBA have so-so records in close games, but over the course of the season, build up their records with easy victories. In a close game, one lucky or unlucky bounce can make the difference...and luck does happen in basketball.

Look at that Miami-Lakers game the other day. Down 2, Kobe shoots a fadeaway, it's halfway down, rings around at least once, and somehow comes out. Does that show that Kobe and the Lakers don't have what it takes? Does that really prove that Miami knows how to close games? I mean Kobe got the shot he wanted and nearly hit it. One slightly different variation of luck, and suddenly it proves that the Lakers are the ones with the grit to close out tough games? Close games are exciting and often decide the season in the playoffs, but they really tell you very little about what to expect from a team in general.


I know this post won't do any good, but considering that season after season there is little to no correlation between a team's record in close games and playoff success/overall record maybe it's time to stop putting too much stock in winning close games as a measure of a good team.

I totally an see your point regarding Kobe's "in and out" shot against the Heat.

But if you watched the game, you would have noticed that Gasol was suffering from the flu, Bynum was virtually a non-factor going up against Joel Anthony? and Wade was doing anything he wanted in that game....thus it basically evened the two teams out.

At the time Kobe took that shot that rimmed out, the Lakers were already losing and were trailing pretty much for the entire 4th quarter.

I do not attribute that Kobe miss as being unlucky or whatever....missed shots are apart of basketball.

I did watch parts of that game. But you pretty much pointed out exactly what i was saying: a missed shot at the end of the game is part of basketball: sometimes they go your way, sometimes they don't. The best teams don't consistently win those games that could or couldn't go your way. The best teams win and lose some of those, but consistently are at least in every game or blowing out teams

[LB3533]

Right, the best teams are usually in every close game or blowing out their opponents.

The Celtics are basically doing exactly that, with the exception of getting blown out by Indy earlier in the season.

[drza44]

The irony!  The Cs finally lose...two in a row, in fact, one of which was to a very poor team...and NOW they move up to #1 in the Hollinger rankings.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

I understand his system, by the way, and actually think it's a good way to look at things.  I just had to laugh when I saw this, because right after the Sac game last night I read a post from someone that said: Now that we've beaten a crappy team by 50, does that make us better than the Cavs?  Turns out...yeah, it does!

[nickagneta]

Just more proof of the ridiculousness of his system. How can the Cavs and Lakers be on winning streaks, how can the Lakers have beaten the Celtics recently, how can the Celtics have lost two games in a row and then suddenly jump to the top of the rankings simply because they may have beaten the most pathetic team in the league by 45 points?

Truly Mr. Hollinger needs to go tweak his system and put in a factor of win loss record versus opponents within 2-3 spaces of you and also de-emphasize his point differential waiting from the equation. I don't think he has to get rid of it as studies have shown it to be a predicting factor, just minimize it's importance some because clearly, this week proves the inaccuracy with which he has the point differential prioritized.