Hollinger predicts Celtics go 54-28...

[Fafnir]

I like many of the Hollinger stats that he brings out, I think his theories have a lot of merit. I just really disagree with his personal assesment of what the numbers actually mean.

Anyways:

While the Celtics can lament the late injuries to Garnett, Tony Allen and Leon Powe -- subtractions that all but ended their title defense before the playoffs even began -- they were one of the league's healthiest teams for most of the regular season. Pierce, Ray Allen, Rondo and Perkins missed only two games between them, and reserves Powe, House and Glen Davis stayed healthy the entire regular season, as well.

I'm still scratching my head.

You mean the fact that he doesn't really know anything about basketball and thinks his finely tuned equations are all he needs to back his opinions?

I agree.

I think he knows an awful lot about basketball, but hyperbole is fun!

Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean he knows nothing.

It would only be hyperbole if you valued his opinion.

You can think he knows something about basketball all you want.

If you've read many of his articles and ESPN chats I don't see how you can say he "knows nothing about basketball".

[BudweiserCeltic]

I like many of the Hollinger stats that he brings out, I think his theories have a lot of merit. I just really disagree with his personal assesment of what the numbers actually mean.

Anyways:

While the Celtics can lament the late injuries to Garnett, Tony Allen and Leon Powe -- subtractions that all but ended their title defense before the playoffs even began -- they were one of the league's healthiest teams for most of the regular season. Pierce, Ray Allen, Rondo and Perkins missed only two games between them, and reserves Powe, House and Glen Davis stayed healthy the entire regular season, as well.

I'm still scratching my head.

That is a weird statement. Any time your team loses its best player, and even worse its best big man you have serious injury issues.

That's not even what I'm reffering to... Davis missed 6 games, and played hurt for a portion of it. Powe missed 12 games, and played hurt for a good portion of it. Scalabrine, who was getting some solid playing time, got hurt for a substantial amount of time, and doesn't even get mentioned. When you add to that that most of our players got injured at around the same time, the effects of injury are felt more strongly.

So no, we weren't one of the healthiest teams through "most" of the season. And there's also an omission of Rondo, who played hurt through a good portion of the season and all of the playoffs.

[Birdbrain]

Not that I give any credence to Pt differential as some an indicator of the strength of a team.  Because it really doesn't but..

Boston was 7.5 = 62 wins
LA was 7.7 = 65 wins

Is LA really a 50 win team as well?

[Birdbrain]

I like many of the Hollinger stats that he brings out, I think his theories have a lot of merit. I just really disagree with his personal assesment of what the numbers actually mean.

Anyways:

While the Celtics can lament the late injuries to Garnett, Tony Allen and Leon Powe -- subtractions that all but ended their title defense before the playoffs even began -- they were one of the league's healthiest teams for most of the regular season. Pierce, Ray Allen, Rondo and Perkins missed only two games between them, and reserves Powe, House and Glen Davis stayed healthy the entire regular season, as well.

I'm still scratching my head.

You mean the fact that he doesn't really know anything about basketball and thinks his finely tuned equations are all he needs to back his opinions?

I agree.

I think he knows an awful lot about basketball, but hyperbole is fun!

Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean he knows nothing.

It would only be hyperbole if you valued his opinion.

You can think he knows something about basketball all you want.

If you've read many of his articles and ESPN chats I don't see how you can say he "knows nothing about basketball".

I choose to stay as far away from John Hollinger's opinion's as I can.  The fact that he is a head writer ( not really ) for ESPN precludes it unfortunately.

[Fafnir]

Not that I give any credence to Pt differential as some an indicator of the strength of a team.  Because it really doesn't but..

Really, what makes you think that it doesn't?

Its a very good predictor, better than raw win/loss records if you look back historically.

[jdpapa3]

I think he knows something of basketball, but his equations are what need the tweaking. I know some smart basketball stats guy and they wince at Hollinger's PER and other stats. He loves young teams and used to be a huge fan of the young Celtics, with Big Al, Rondo, etc. and then immediately hated us when we made the KG trade. He allows this bias to sneak in to everything he does. I don't know what his vendetta is, but I don't trust his basketball opinion at all and stay away from his senseless equations and articles.

[drza44]

Not that I give any credence to Pt differential as some an indicator of the strength of a team.  Because it really doesn't but..

Boston was 7.5 = 62 wins
LA was 7.7 = 65 wins

Is LA really a 50 win team as well?

You aren't using it correctly.  Here is a brief breakdown of the Celtics' point differentials last year with the Lakers and late-season Bulls included for comparison's sake:

Celtics' win margin with Kevin Garnett: +9.5
Lakers' win margin whole season: + 7.7
Celtics' win margin whole season: + 7.5
Celtics' win margin without Garnett: +4.0
Celtics' win margin without KG accounting for HCA: +3.4
Bulls' win margin after John Salmons/Brad Miller trade: +2.6

The upshot is that by both record and win margin, last year's Celtics measured out as a 65+ win championship contender that ranked above the Lakers when Garnett was healthy.  After KG went down in February, the Celtics won at about a 54-win pace and their win margin suggested they were roughly equal to the Bulls after the Salmons/Miller trade.

The numbers came from this blog ( http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/default.asp?Display=938 ) that also references this Hollinger article ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090416 ).

[drza44]

Oh, and on topic, I'm going to Vegas in a couple of weeks for a vacation.  If for some absurd reason I see ANY over/under lines that have the Celtics at 54 wins, I'm putting every cent that I take with me on the over.  That would be the closest thing to a sure thing that you'll ever come across while betting.

[fairweatherfan]

Someone needs to remember to bump this when we win #55 in mid-March.   

Man, can the season start already?

[Birdbrain]

Not that I give any credence to Pt differential as some an indicator of the strength of a team.  Because it really doesn't but..

Boston was 7.5 = 62 wins
LA was 7.7 = 65 wins

Is LA really a 50 win team as well?

You aren't using it correctly.  Here is a brief breakdown of the Celtics' point differentials last year with the Lakers and late-season Bulls included for comparison's sake:

Celtics' win margin with Kevin Garnett: +9.5
Lakers' win margin whole season: + 7.7
Celtics' win margin whole season: + 7.5
Celtics' win margin without Garnett: +4.0
Celtics' win margin without KG accounting for HCA: +3.4
Bulls' win margin after John Salmons/Brad Miller trade: +2.6

The upshot is that by both record and win margin, last year's Celtics measured out as a 65+ win championship contender that ranked above the Lakers when Garnett was healthy.  After KG went down in February, the Celtics won at about a 54-win pace and their win margin suggested they were roughly equal to the Bulls after the Salmons/Miller trade.

The numbers came from this blog ( http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/default.asp?Display=938 ) that also references this Hollinger article ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090416 ).

If you are you saying that Boston w/o KG is not a 60 win team I agree.  That wasn't the point I was making though.

I don't even agree that pt differential is a big factor in determining strength of team that was more for those that do.

[Birdbrain]

Not that I give any credence to Pt differential as some an indicator of the strength of a team.  Because it really doesn't but..

Really, what makes you think that it doesn't?

Its a very good predictor, better than raw win/loss records if you look back historically.

LOL.  Sorry can't say I agree.

[Fafnir]

Not that I give any credence to Pt differential as some an indicator of the strength of a team.  Because it really doesn't but..

Really, what makes you think that it doesn't?

Its a very good predictor, better than raw win/loss records if you look back historically.

LOL.  Sorry can't say I agree.

Care to back that up? I have to go to work but here's something google pulled up that goes through in very basic terms how its a good predictor of wins.

http://sportstome.blogspot.com/2007/07/predicting-nba-part-2.html

Other full time stats heads have crunched the data in much more detail and have built a better case, but I'll have to find that for you once I'm at work. (or more likely after work)

[fairweatherfan]

Not that I give any credence to Pt differential as some an indicator of the strength of a team.  Because it really doesn't but..

Really, what makes you think that it doesn't?

Its a very good predictor, better than raw win/loss records if you look back historically.

LOL.  Sorry can't say I agree.

Care to back that up? I have to go to work but here's something google pulled up that goes through in very basic terms how its a good predictor of wins.

http://sportstome.blogspot.com/2007/07/predicting-nba-part-2.html

Other full time stats heads have crunched the data in much more detail and have built a better case, but I'll have to find that for you once I'm at work. (or more likely after work)

I'll add to this that above and beyond regular season wins, the team with the best pt differential is more likely to win a title than the team with the most wins.  Often they're the same, but when they differ, the team with a better pt differential is more likely to win even despite not having home court.  The Spurs in particular have done this twice in the last five years.

EDIT: Oops, it's already in the article - only saw the win graph at first.

[nickagneta]

My opinion on Hollinger's stats only based observations on the NBA is well known but, once again, I think he would do better to just throw out his opinions only and stand by them alone and cease with his predictions and weekly power polls based on Hollingermetrics who's math is ridiculous. He's trying to predict human interactions with linear equations. That's just patently absurd in my mind.

[Kwhit10]

Oh, and on topic, I'm going to Vegas in a couple of weeks for a vacation.  If for some absurd reason I see ANY over/under lines that have the Celtics at 54 wins, I'm putting every cent that I take with me on the over.  That would be the closest thing to a sure thing that you'll ever come across while betting.

You mine as well bet all the unders on Lakers.  LA people drive up the Lakers prices like nothing else.