Finals Teams Rankings

[DanMan08]

I thought this was pretty intresting, obviously the bulls team that had the 72 win season is ranked 1.  But look who he put 9 and 10 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10

[wdleehi]

How they played related to the talent that was in the NBA at that point, that's how he is looking at it.


He is not really comparing how those teams would match up against each other,

[Fafnir]

How they played related to the talent that was in the NBA at that point, that's how he is looking at it.


He is not really comparing how those teams would match up against each other,

Yeah the Lakers definitely went through the playoffs easier than we did last year.

[wdleehi]

How they played related to the talent that was in the NBA at that point, that's how he is looking at it.


He is not really comparing how those teams would match up against each other,

Yeah the Lakers definitely went through the playoffs easier than we did last year.

That's to be expected when the top compitition has big injuries (KG for the Celtics, Manu for the Spurs and even Yao for the Rockets)


edit: forgot Nelson for the Magic even though he played.

[indeedproceed]

Hollinger deserves some kind of nickname. Something that involves being a slave to numbers.

[wdleehi]

Hollinger deserves some kind of nickname. Something that involves being a slave to numbers.

[CelticsWhat35]

To say the 2009 Lakers were a top 10 team of all time totally discredits that entire list.  They're not even a top 10 Laker team of all time, although since it only counts the title years, I guess they are.  But still, every single championship team from the 80's would've beat them, and to say that the 2009 team is better than the 2008 Celtics, the same team that absolutely embarrassed them 12 months ago??  That's just ridiculous.

[Donoghus]

'99 Spurs and '09 Lakers are both overrated here.

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

2009 Lakers

106.9 PPG regular season
99.3 PAG regular season
+7.6 differential

102.4 PPG playoffs
95.2 PAG playoffs
+7.2 differential against Jazz, Rockets, Nuggets, Magic


2008 Celtics

100.5 PPG regular season
90.3 PAG regular season
+10.2 differential

94.0 PPG playoffs
88.8 PAG playoffs
+5.2 differential against Hawks, Cavaliers, Pistons, Lakers


No judgement, just numbers... Take it for what it's worth

[star18]

Everything Hollinger writes favors LA over Boston it is nonsense.  Notice how he doesn't deduct 2 points for a regular season loss, because then the 1985-86 Celtics would be ahead of the 1986-87 Lakers and the 2007-08 Celtics would be ahead of the 2008-09 Lakers.   He always makes the numbers play out like the Lakers are better than the Celtics no matter what he does.  If a regular formula doesn't work he will just add weird intangible numbers or something else so LA comes out ahead. He does it every time with every Lakers team over every Celtics team.   None of his lists mean anything and they are all wrong.

[DanMan08]

Everything Hollinger writes favors LA over Boston it is nonsense.  Notice how he doesn't deduct 2 points for a regular season loss, because then the 1985-86 Celtics would be ahead of the 1986-87 Lakers and the 2007-08 Celtics would be ahead of the 2008-09 Lakers.   He always makes the numbers play out like the Lakers are better than the Celtics no matter what he does.  If a regular formula doesn't work he will just add weird intangible numbers or something else so LA comes out ahead. He does it every time with every Lakers team over every Celtics team.   None of his lists mean anything and they are all wrong.

I dont really get what your saying, he did deduct two points from the 87 team and the 2008+ had the same regular season record?  But yea i never liked hollinger either, even his power rankings seem kinda bogus, he really puts alot of stock into the point differential.

[star18]

He doesn't deduct 2 points for a regular season loss, he only deducts 4 points for a post season loss that is what I am saying.  If you deduct points for a post season loss you should also deduct points for a regular season loss.  However he doesn't do that because the 86 C's would be over 87 LA, and 08 C's would be over 09 LA.  Also he makes the point differential in the playoffs be worth 4 times as much as the point differential during the regular season and that is innacurate.  For example if you go 16-7 in the playoffs that is 23 games which is less than 4 times an 82 game season but if you go 15-3 which only the really good teams did that is more than 4 times an 82 game season, but they didn't start 7 game 1st round series until 2003.   If you go 15-7 in the post season that is 22 games(less than 4 times regular season)and that is more common than going 15-3.   Either way the playoffs should only count as 3 to 3.5 times the regular season, they shouldnt count 4 times the regular season, but he doesn't do that because than 86 C's would be over 87 LA and 08 C's would be over 09 LA.  I'm telling you he does this number thing about 20 times and 19 out of 20 times 86 C's are over 87 LA & 08 C's are over 09 LA.  But once he finds the formula that puts the Laker teams over the Celtics that is the formula he goes with.   Also look at the point scores and look how close they are 301.5 for 87 LA and 301.1 for 86 C's, and 267.1 for 09 LA & 263.3 for 08 C's.  Those scores are too close compared to the scores of other teams(Example 96 Bulls 327.9), that is why he always puts LA over Boston because once he finds the supposed formula that works that favors LA that is the formula he goes with.  Every other forumla that is more accurately based will favor those C's teams over the LA teams. That is why everything he writes is worhtless.

[star18]

He puts alot of stock into anything that will give LA an advantage over every other team.  If they were stronger rebounders than rebounding would count twice as much, if they were stronger passers than assists would count twice as much, if they were much better at TO +- then turnovers would be worth a premium.   He does it every time.  He is not a fair or balanced writer.   Everything favors LA no matter what, when 95% of the time with every other kind of formula Boston is over LA.

[DanMan08]

oh! i gotcha now.  2 Points for the win and 2 for the loss is what your saying just like the postseason 4 and 4. 

[star18]

Yeah, but also notice that any one of Hollinger's formulas are always super complicated, involve approximations and have weird intangibles.   That is how he always favors LA.   Playoffs shouldn't be worth 4 times regular season.  Most teams only play 8 to 10 games because 12 of the 16 teams are eliminated after the 1st two rounds, only the 2 teams that go to the finals play about 20 games, but even then the average team that goes to the finals will play 5,6,6,6, which is 23 games that is less than 4 times the regular season. They should be at most worth 3.5 times the regular season, 4 times is too high it is not an accurate representaion playoffs aren't worth that much over the regular season.  But LA doesn't come out ahead if it isn't 4 times the regular season. I can give you 100 different formulas and in some those same C's team will crush those LA teams, but when he does it LA just barely gets over Boston.  Here is another example, he ranked LA over Boston as the greatest franchise ever, that is ridiculous.   LA went to the finals 31 times and beat Boston 2 times that is a 6.5% success ratio.  Boston went to the finals 20 times and beat LA 9 times that is a 45% success ratio. If you aren't beating the best and Boston & LA are obviously the two best teams then how can you be considered the best.  I can give you a formula that gives importance to these success ratios and the Celtics will absolutely demolish the Lakers so bad in every way shape and formula that Hollinger wouldn't even be able to spell his last name correctly.