Hollinger predicts Celtics go 54-28...

[Birdbrain]

The fact that people are arguing that pt diff is more important than wins and losses is the reason I can't stand Hollinger.

Charts and stats don't win championships great defense does.

But you are guys are more than welcome to think that way I'll just be a dissenter.

[sully00]

I don't even disagree with the Celts being 3rd in the East, I think it will be similar to last season but for any of those 3 teams not to win 60 then some teams that look like they are going to suck big time are going to have to be a lot better.  Outside of those 3 teams who in the East got better? I think it is going to be one of those years were 35 wins gets you into the playoffs.

Point differential is evidence of great defense and dominance.  It clearly isn't necessary to win a championship but it has been consistent indicator of great teams.  But isn't about being simply the best, until last season no team in the last 10 years had failed to win a championship with a point differential over 8. While it magnifies the choke of the Cavs, The C's would have been over 8 as well had Garnett not gone down.

[Fafnir]

The fact that people are arguing that pt diff is more important than wins and losses is the reason I can't stand Hollinger.

Charts and stats don't win championships great defense does.

But you are guys are more than welcome to think that way I'll just be a dissenter.

You're missing the point, the reason point differential is valuable is that it is a more accurate gage of a team's strength. So you can use it to differentiate between two regular season teams that have similar records, but one might be a lot better than the other.

For example: The Spurs had 3 fewer wins in the 2004-2005 than Pheonix Suns. But the Spurs point differential and efficiency differential was signifigantly better. Thus we can use other things than "wins and losses" to say that the Spurs were the favorites going into those playoffs.

[fairweatherfan]

The fact that people are arguing that pt diff is more important than wins and losses is the reason I can't stand Hollinger.

Charts and stats don't win championships great defense does.

But you are guys are more than welcome to think that way I'll just be a dissenter.

I think you're misunderstanding what stats mean and how they're used.  Stats don't win or lose anything - they measure performance.  Measures of past performance can predict future performance to some degree of accuracy.  Point differential predicts future success more accurately than win-loss record alone.  That's really all there is to it. 

It doesn't mean a team should try to run up the score because "a better pt differential magically makes us a better team" it means that an uninvolved observer, like all of us, can predict which teams are better based on the differential they show.  It's not about saying what teams should do, it's about assessing what they've done to predict future outcomes.

[ManUp]

So we're 8 games behind Orlando, and one behind Portland? Really? That's just stupid. The only way i could understand such a prediction is if Hollinger is banking on another key injury to the team.

[Fafnir]

So we're 8 games behind Orlando, and one behind Portland? Really? That's just stupid. The only way i could understand such a prediction is if Hollinger is banking on another key injury to the team.

I think he's predicting a signifigant decline in the play of all of the Big 3. Probably some games lost to injury as well.

[nickagneta]

So we're 8 games behind Orlando, and one behind Portland? Really? That's just stupid. The only way i could understand such a prediction is if Hollinger is banking on another key injury to the team.

I think he's predicting a signifigant decline in the play of all of the Big 3. Probably some games lost to injury as well.

I don't buy that because otherwise he would start banking on a significant drop off of Shaq and Kobe yet clearly he is a believer in Shaq being a difference maker in Cleveland and Kobe still humming along at his near MVP level play.

I think almost all of Hollinger's predictions are number based and I think he clearly interprets average team age into the equation without regard for just how in shape or outstanding the players are at any age.

[Fafnir]

So we're 8 games behind Orlando, and one behind Portland? Really? That's just stupid. The only way i could understand such a prediction is if Hollinger is banking on another key injury to the team.

I think he's predicting a signifigant decline in the play of all of the Big 3. Probably some games lost to injury as well.

I don't buy that because otherwise he would start banking on a significant drop off of Shaq and Kobe yet clearly he is a believer in Shaq being a difference maker in Cleveland and Kobe still humming along at his near MVP level play.

I think almost all of Hollinger's predictions are number based and I think he clearly interprets average team age into the equation without regard for just how in shape or outstanding the players are at any age.

Why would him doubting KG/Pierce/Allen have to do with his projections of Shaq and Kobe?

[nickagneta]

So we're 8 games behind Orlando, and one behind Portland? Really? That's just stupid. The only way i could understand such a prediction is if Hollinger is banking on another key injury to the team.

I think he's predicting a signifigant decline in the play of all of the Big 3. Probably some games lost to injury as well.

I don't buy that because otherwise he would start banking on a significant drop off of Shaq and Kobe yet clearly he is a believer in Shaq being a difference maker in Cleveland and Kobe still humming along at his near MVP level play.

I think almost all of Hollinger's predictions are number based and I think he clearly interprets average team age into the equation without regard for just how in shape or outstanding the players are at any age.

Why would him doubting KG/Pierce/Allen have to do with his projections of Shaq and Kobe?

Because clearly he is an interpreter of stats. The Celtics have a higher average team age than Cleveland or LA so that would be perceived as a negative. To him all that matters is the age and not the quality of the player at that age.

So my argument is that he isn't taking the specific case of an aging individual player into his interpretations because otherwise he would start looking at Kobe being 31 as an individual strike against LA, which he clearly does not, and he would look at the age of the two centers in Cleveland Shaq and Z as being a negative. But he does not.

Hollinger is a creature of his mathematics, which I find horrible, and he would look more at team average age as a factor before he would the decline of individual players. Then he would interpret what would happen off that.

[mgent]

50, 60, who cares?  I just want one win-- in the very last game they play this year.

So you'd be okay with them winning their last regular season game and missing the playoffs?

[Fafnir]

So we're 8 games behind Orlando, and one behind Portland? Really? That's just stupid. The only way i could understand such a prediction is if Hollinger is banking on another key injury to the team.

I think he's predicting a signifigant decline in the play of all of the Big 3. Probably some games lost to injury as well.

I don't buy that because otherwise he would start banking on a significant drop off of Shaq and Kobe yet clearly he is a believer in Shaq being a difference maker in Cleveland and Kobe still humming along at his near MVP level play.

I think almost all of Hollinger's predictions are number based and I think he clearly interprets average team age into the equation without regard for just how in shape or outstanding the players are at any age.

Why would him doubting KG/Pierce/Allen have to do with his projections of Shaq and Kobe?

Because clearly he is an interpreter of stats. The Celtics have a higher average team age than Cleveland or LA so that would be perceived as a negative. To him all that matters is the age and not the quality of the player at that age.

So my argument is that he isn't taking the specific case of an aging individual player into his interpretations because otherwise he would start looking at Kobe being 31 as an individual strike against LA, which he clearly does not, and he would look at the age of the two centers in Cleveland Shaq and Z as being a negative. But he does not.

Hollinger is a creature of his mathematics, which I find horrible, and he would look more at team average age as a factor before he would the decline of individual players. Then he would interpret what would happen off that.

You're supplying his logic for him and also saying that because he makes a certain conclusion, that Kobe will still play at a high level, that he has a flawed methodology. Could it be that he still views the team as overall the class of the NBA? Or that Kobe will still be good enough despite his age for other reasons?

I don't think you're being fair, I understand your overall criticism of Hollinger's analysis. But in this case you've picked a poor example that I think illustrates your opinion of him more than anything.

[guava_wrench]

So we're 8 games behind Orlando, and one behind Portland? Really? That's just stupid. The only way i could understand such a prediction is if Hollinger is banking on another key injury to the team.

I think he's predicting a signifigant decline in the play of all of the Big 3. Probably some games lost to injury as well.

I don't buy that because otherwise he would start banking on a significant drop off of Shaq and Kobe yet clearly he is a believer in Shaq being a difference maker in Cleveland and Kobe still humming along at his near MVP level play.

I think almost all of Hollinger's predictions are number based and I think he clearly interprets average team age into the equation without regard for just how in shape or outstanding the players are at any age.

Why would him doubting KG/Pierce/Allen have to do with his projections of Shaq and Kobe?

Because clearly he is an interpreter of stats. The Celtics have a higher average team age than Cleveland or LA so that would be perceived as a negative. To him all that matters is the age and not the quality of the player at that age.

So my argument is that he isn't taking the specific case of an aging individual player into his interpretations because otherwise he would start looking at Kobe being 31 as an individual strike against LA, which he clearly does not, and he would look at the age of the two centers in Cleveland Shaq and Z as being a negative. But he does not.

Hollinger is a creature of his mathematics, which I find horrible, and he would look more at team average age as a factor before he would the decline of individual players. Then he would interpret what would happen off that.

You're supplying his logic for him and also saying that because he makes a certain conclusion, that Kobe will still play at a high level, that he has a flawed methodology. Could it be that he still views the team as overall the class of the NBA? Or that Kobe will still be good enough despite his age for other reasons?

I don't think you're being fair, I understand your overall criticism of Hollinger's analysis. But in this case you've picked a poor example that I think illustrates your opinion of him more than anything.

Also, Kobe hasn't looked worn out at the end of seasons. Pierce has, and KG was out last season.

Shaq on the other hand had a revival, and he is also an addition to the Cavs, and already elite team.

The logic is fine. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. In predictions, sometimes you just agree to disagree. Forecasts are unreliable.

[nickagneta]

So we're 8 games behind Orlando, and one behind Portland? Really? That's just stupid. The only way i could understand such a prediction is if Hollinger is banking on another key injury to the team.

I think he's predicting a signifigant decline in the play of all of the Big 3. Probably some games lost to injury as well.

I don't buy that because otherwise he would start banking on a significant drop off of Shaq and Kobe yet clearly he is a believer in Shaq being a difference maker in Cleveland and Kobe still humming along at his near MVP level play.

I think almost all of Hollinger's predictions are number based and I think he clearly interprets average team age into the equation without regard for just how in shape or outstanding the players are at any age.

Why would him doubting KG/Pierce/Allen have to do with his projections of Shaq and Kobe?

Because clearly he is an interpreter of stats. The Celtics have a higher average team age than Cleveland or LA so that would be perceived as a negative. To him all that matters is the age and not the quality of the player at that age.

So my argument is that he isn't taking the specific case of an aging individual player into his interpretations because otherwise he would start looking at Kobe being 31 as an individual strike against LA, which he clearly does not, and he would look at the age of the two centers in Cleveland Shaq and Z as being a negative. But he does not.

Hollinger is a creature of his mathematics, which I find horrible, and he would look more at team average age as a factor before he would the decline of individual players. Then he would interpret what would happen off that.

You're supplying his logic for him and also saying that because he makes a certain conclusion, that Kobe will still play at a high level, that he has a flawed methodology. Could it be that he still views the team as overall the class of the NBA? Or that Kobe will still be good enough despite his age for other reasons?

I don't think you're being fair, I understand your overall criticism of Hollinger's analysis. But in this case you've picked a poor example that I think illustrates your opinion of him more than anything.

So, in your opinion, I picked a poor example but I still thinks he makes much more decisions on win-loss predictions on his mathematics than he does by taking an individual look at each team. If Kobe and Shaq can continue to be considered positive factors for their teams and Pierce, Allen, and KG are being looked at as more of an aging trio, then that's a dichotomy that I don't see a stat geek like Hollinger making. Pierce is only like 10 months older than Kobe. Why would he view Pierce's game as declining and not Kobe's? Why would he look at a 37 year old Shaq as a positive addition to Cleveland and not look at a 33 year old KG and a 34 year old Ray Allen, both 2 of the most unbelievably fit athletes in the league, as declining and being a negative?

I don't buy it. Hollinger is a slave to his stats and the overriding factor that made Cleveland and LA that much better in his mind than Boston would, in his mathematical probabilities, be the average age of the team.

[mzepol]

It has become pretty obvious that Hollinger is losing more and more credibility as time passes, if he hasn't lost all of it already.

[Roy Hobbs]

I see nothing to suggest that a team that won 62 games without KG for 1/3 of the season is going to decline by 8 games, especially after adding two legitimate players like Rasheed and Daniels.

The only player we lost is Powe.  We've added Rasheed, Daniels, and most importantly, KG.  That should be enough to win 60 games, even if the team cruises a bit in the regular season.