Hollinger argues Minn worst then NJ. What's the point?

[Tai]

Sorry, but some of the logic in this thread reminds me of the people who complain about math in school, "What's the point of studying algebra or geometry or calculus? It's not like I'm ever going to use it in real life." Well, that might be true. But it doesn't mean the information isn't useful. There are quite a lot of people who use complex math everyday and still others that find it interesting simply because they want to better understand how the world works. Same idea applies to this Hollinger article. If you don't find it interesting, that's fine. But it's not like the information is objectively useless. I actually thought it was pretty interesting really.

Sorry, I'm an accounting major, and I agree with wdleehi. You can only supposedly compare "stats" between businesses in the accounting world (at least, in as far as I've learned so far, that's how I perceive it) and invest off that and such. But, the Nets/Timberwolves did play each other, the Nets lost, and they haven't won since. At least the Wolves have, and they beat the Nuggets in Denver. If Hollinger wants to argue that the Nets losing to the Wolves doesn't mean as much now because it was the 1st game of the season, that's one thing.

Even by stats, you got a team in the Nets that scores about six points less than the Timberwolves (85.7 vs 91.4) per game. Their upside is that they give up 8 points less than the Wolves (96.8 vs 104. per game. It's not like the stats clearly show the Wolves are much worse. So, until proven otherwise, the Nets are the worst team in the NBA. Plain, simple.

[Celtzfan8617]

This article by Hollinger seems to be a rip-off/elaboration of the article written over a week ago by David Berri about the same topic in the huffingtonpost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/finding-happiness-with-th_b_367988.html) and on his blog (http://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/finding-happiness-with-the-new-jersey-nets/) Do these seem oddly similair to anyone else?

[Hoops]

Sorry, but some of the logic in this thread reminds me of the people who complain about math in school, "What's the point of studying algebra or geometry or calculus? It's not like I'm ever going to use it in real life." Well, that might be true. But it doesn't mean the information isn't useful. There are quite a lot of people who use complex math everyday and still others that find it interesting simply because they want to better understand how the world works. Same idea applies to this Hollinger article. If you don't find it interesting, that's fine. But it's not like the information is objectively useless. I actually thought it was pretty interesting really.

Sorry, I'm an accounting major, and I agree with wdleehi. You can only supposedly compare "stats" between businesses in the accounting world (at least, in as far as I've learned so far, that's how I perceive it) and invest off that and such. But, the Nets/Timberwolves did play each other, the Nets lost, and they haven't won since. At least the Wolves have, and they beat the Nuggets in Denver. If Hollinger wants to argue that the Nets losing to the Wolves doesn't mean as much now because it was the 1st game of the season, that's one thing.

Even by stats, you got a team in the Nets that scores about six points less than the Timberwolves (85.7 vs 91.4) per game. Their upside is that they give up 8 points less than the Wolves (96.8 vs 104. per game. It's not like the stats clearly show the Wolves are much worse. So, until proven otherwise, the Nets are the worst team in the NBA. Plain, simple.

Oh, I'm totally down with people arguing against Hollinger's conclusion. I wasn't arguing the merits of his conclusion - my point was in response to the "what's the point?" angle expressed by the OP. I could care less whether you agree or disagree with his conclusion that the Wolves are actually the worst team in the league. But to suggest that the article was a pointless waste of time and space on ESPN's website (viewed by millions of people with different interests) seemed rather asinine to me.

[MBunge]

Sorry, but some of the logic in this thread reminds me of the people who complain about math in school, "What's the point of studying algebra or geometry or calculus? It's not like I'm ever going to use it in real life." Well, that might be true. But it doesn't mean the information isn't useful. There are quite a lot of people who use complex math everyday and still others that find it interesting simply because they want to better understand how the world works. Same idea applies to this Hollinger article. If you don't find it interesting, that's fine. But it's not like the information is objectively useless. I actually thought it was pretty interesting really.

Hollinger's article is yet another effort by stat geeks to prove how much better they understand the game than anyone else.  It's like the folks who argued that Belicheck's 4th down call against Indy was obviously the right call because that's what the percentages said.

Mike

[nickagneta]

Let's see...there are two really bad teams in the league, one has 2 wins and one has zero wins. The team with two wins actually has a win over the team with one win. But because their point differential is two points worse than the team they beat that means they are worse than the team that hasn't won a game?

Yeah, Hollinger's idiotic stat playing always seems to get in the way of something called logic. Minnesota beat New Jersey. Minnesota has two wins New jersey none. The worst team right now is New Jersey because no matter how close they may keep their games(and let's be realistic, they don't keep many games close) they still haven't actually been able to beat anyone. Minnesota has. Twice.

[PosImpos]

Let's see...there are two really bad teams in the league, one has 2 wins and one has zero wins. The team with two wins actually has a win over the team with one win. But because their point differential is two points worse than the team they beat that means they are worse than the team that hasn't won a game?

Yeah, Hollinger's idiotic stat playing always seems to get in the way of something called logic. Minnesota beat New Jersey. Minnesota has two wins New jersey none. The worst team right now is New Jersey because no matter how close they may keep their games(and let's be realistic, they don't keep many games close) they still haven't actually been able to beat anyone. Minnesota has. Twice.

I totally agree with you that the Wolves have been better than the Nets so far this year.

I disagree that in terms of their rosters and how they ought to play if mostly healthy that the Wolves are better than the Nets.

Either way you slice it though, I think it's pretty close.  Both teams are very bad and are clearly in rebuilding mode.  So it's kind of an argument about which piece of crap stinks more.

[scoop]

I think it's clear why he wrote the article.

It's interesting that NJ may set an all-time record. But does that mean they're the worst team in the NBA? Well, if you're trying to determine which opponent will be the easiest to beat if you could play either one tomorrow, one of Hollinger's ideas he really adheres to (as do I) is that point differential and other criteria are better indicators of future success (or failure) than actual win/loss record, because the actual record can be swayed by one or two lucky (unlucky) bounces, but point differential et al corrects for that going forward.

So that's why he wrote it, because it was a way to write that the point differential approach is a more accurate indicator of a team's goodness/badness than record, though the overall record is more easily understood/open to hyperbole.

Very good post. I agree completely.

Going by W/L record, then the Suns were the best team in the league till yesterday. They weren't. Although it's still a little early to give trust to point differential, small sample yet. Still, if one is going to rely on numbers, point differential is the way to go.

I think right now the Nets are a better team (more cohesive unit, the Wolves are really bad). However I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the season the Wolves surpass the Nets, providing they assimilate Rambis ideas.

[fairweatherfan]

I think it's clear why he wrote the article.

It's interesting that NJ may set an all-time record. But does that mean they're the worst team in the NBA? Well, if you're trying to determine which opponent will be the easiest to beat if you could play either one tomorrow, one of Hollinger's ideas he really adheres to (as do I) is that point differential and other criteria are better indicators of future success (or failure) than actual win/loss record, because the actual record can be swayed by one or two lucky (unlucky) bounces, but point differential et al corrects for that going forward.

So that's why he wrote it, because it was a way to write that the point differential approach is a more accurate indicator of a team's goodness/badness than record, though the overall record is more easily understood/open to hyperbole.

Very good post. I agree completely.

Going by W/L record, then the Suns were the best team in the league till yesterday. They weren't. Although it's still a little early to give trust to point differential, small sample yet. Still, if one is going to rely on numbers, point differential is the way to go.

As a bonus, going by point differential, we are the best team in the league right now (we also jumped from 6 to 1 in Hollinger's Power Rankings after last night).  So I agree wholeheartedly 

As for Minny vs NJ, Harris was injured for several games, but then again Al's still working his way into game shape.  Minnesota also benefits from playing in the West, which has more legit playoff teams but a much softer bottom half than the East.  Hollinger had a much better case (and probably wrote the thing) before Minny beat Denver on the road though. That win seals the deal for the moment, I think.

But, to all the folks who are saying head-to-head is the only thing that matters when records are similar, why do you think the Suns, Magic, and Hawks are all better than us

[Tai]

I agree with nickagenta. If the Nets and Timberwolves didn't play each other, we could debate all season for all anyone cares. But, they did play, and the Wolves won. The Nets haven't won since, and the Wolves have. You can say the Wolves only won by 2. You can say it was in Minnesota. You can then, in conclusion, say the Nets aren't the worst team by MUCH. All valid, at least to me.

Either way, that doesn't change that the Nets are the worst team. I won't call complete and utter shenanigans on Hollinger's article, but what do the stats really say? That the Nets lose by an average of 11 points per game while the Timberwolves lose by 13? That's why the Timberwolves are a worse team? Cause they're allowing two more points on average in effectively garbage time? Very funny.

You know what that's good as? As me saying the Timberwolves are the better team because the Celtics were taken to the wire by the Wolves and the C's barely beat them 92-90 in their house while the Nets lost to the Celtics 86-76 in their house. Just off these two games our team played, they kinda fall in line with what the stats I posted before showed; the Nets score less, but they allow less points. Not much less points compared to the Wolves, but hey, why complain? It looks better, who cares about winning?

And you know what the best part is? I managed to post on this topic again without mentioning the disaster that happened at the Meadowlands tonight.....I rest my case.

[JBcat]

Point differential is flawed here.   If it's a blowout by the 4th quarter and both teams are essentially playing their 9th through 12 men the final score won't be a true indication when you have non role players fluctuating the score near the end of the game.  Maybe a better indicator would be if we could find the average at what point in the game did the respective coaches waive the imaginary white flag and empty their benches.     

[Roy Hobbs]

Point differential is flawed here.   If it's a blowout by the 4th quarter and both teams are essentially playing their 9th through 12 men the final score won't be a true indication when you have non role players fluctuating the score near the end of the game.  Maybe a better indicator would be if we could find the average at what point in the game did the respective coaches waive the imaginary white flag and empty their benches.     

Excellent point.  TP.

[Who]

I rate Minny as the worse team too. NJ have a lot better talent than they've shown in the early part of the season and it'll show itself as the season progresses.

Minnesota is a train wreck. Their coach is deliberating putting his own players in situations that limit their abilities. Why the heck are pick and roll point guards running the Triangle? The Triangle needs a center who can pass the ball? When has that ever been Al Jefferson? No offensive cohesion + best players (Al, PGs) are all under-performing.

It would be a close battle between the two if Minny had a different head coach.

[footey]

Hollinger has the Celtics rating jump from 6 to 1 in daily power ranking so today I agree with him.

[Tai]

I rate Minny as the worse team too. NJ have a lot better talent than they've shown in the early part of the season and it'll show itself as the season progresses.

Minnesota is a train wreck. Their coach is deliberating putting his own players in situations that limit their abilities. Why the heck are pick and roll point guards running the Triangle? The Triangle needs a center who can pass the ball? When has that ever been Al Jefferson? No offensive cohesion + best players (Al, PGs) are all under-performing.

It would be a close battle between the two if Minny had a different head coach.

When have the Timberwolves given up 77 points in a half? 

[PosImpos]

I rate Minny as the worse team too. NJ have a lot better talent than they've shown in the early part of the season and it'll show itself as the season progresses.

Minnesota is a train wreck. Their coach is deliberating putting his own players in situations that limit their abilities. Why the heck are pick and roll point guards running the Triangle? The Triangle needs a center who can pass the ball? When has that ever been Al Jefferson? No offensive cohesion + best players (Al, PGs) are all under-performing.

It would be a close battle between the two if Minny had a different head coach.

Yeah, Kurt Rambis should be on his way to getting fired at the this rate.