Hollinger's 2010 Playoff Odds

[4THQTR]

Not a big fan of hollinger, but usually find this stuff interesting.

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

What really confuses me is that he has the celts as the most likely team out of the east to make it to the finals but gives them a worse chance to win it all than the magic and cavs...
(and a worse chance than the lakers, nuggets and suns as well...)

Any thoughts?



Edit: Also check out how much love OKC gets

[fairweatherfan]

Huh - I'm not sure what goes into the championship odds except for the Power Rankings, and we're #1 in those.  We have the highest odds in the East of making the Finals too - I guess the computer really doesn't like the East's chances in the Finals - every contender in the East wins the Finals less than half of the time that they make it there, and every single playoff team in the West wins it over half! Interesting.

And OKC deserves the love - who knows if they'll keep it up, but they've been very, very solid so far.  Didn't help em against us though  

[nickagneta]

Someone needs to explain to me how a computer that runs 5000 season scenarios has Boston winning the most games, having the highest percentage chance of making the Finals in the East, the second highest chance of making the Finals in the league but be tied for 6th with Atlanta for chances to win the Championship if, as Hollinger claims, the only information it is given is the Hollinger Daily Power Ranking's numbers?

How can a computer mathematically and randomly come up with the team that is second most likely to get to the championship game come up with that team having only tied for 6th best chance of winning it all unless there is definite matchup tendencies or other info being plugged in?

This is why I hate Hollinger's stats. They make no sense logically.

[RMO]

What I found interesting in his Power Rankings is that he has the Lakers overall strength of schedule considerably higher than the Celtics and higher than (at a quick glance) two thirds of the league.

[indeedproceed]

Someone needs to explain to me how a computer that runs 5000 season scenarios has Boston winning the most games, having the highest percentage chance of making the Finals in the East, the second highest chance of making the Finals in the league but be tied for 6th with Atlanta for chances to win the Championship if, as Hollinger claims, the only information it is given is the Hollinger Daily Power Ranking's numbers?

How can a computer mathematically and randomly come up with the team that is second most likely to get to the championship game come up with that team having only tied for 6th best chance of winning it all unless there is definite matchup tendencies or other info being plugged in?

This is why I hate Hollinger's stats. They make no sense logically.

At some level from last season I reached the following two conclusions which I feel are both equally necessary to properly understand Hollinger.

1: At one point, you have to just decide that he knows what he's talking about. I feel like you almost just have to trust that there is some logical reasoning behind all this, and not an arbitrary set of parameters.

2: At some point you have to just decide that you don't care, because John Hollinger's numbers only matter as much as you let them matter...it's not like they're actual wins.

[RMO]

What I found interesting in his Power Rankings is that he has the Lakers overall strength of schedule considerably higher than the Celtics and higher than (at a quick glance) two thirds of the league.

And by interesting I mean completely 100% false.

[Fafnir]

Someone needs to explain to me how a computer that runs 5000 season scenarios has Boston winning the most games, having the highest percentage chance of making the Finals in the East, the second highest chance of making the Finals in the league but be tied for 6th with Atlanta for chances to win the Championship if, as Hollinger claims, the only information it is given is the Hollinger Daily Power Ranking's numbers?

How can a computer mathematically and randomly come up with the team that is second most likely to get to the championship game come up with that team having only tied for 6th best chance of winning it all unless there is definite matchup tendencies or other info being plugged in?

This is why I hate Hollinger's stats. They make no sense logically.

If he's running a monte carlo then the standard deviation probably accounts for the difference nick.

[Fafnir]

The playoff odds is the least interesting thing that Hollinger does in my opinion.

Once you get to the playoffs you're matching up specific teams, you have to look beyond a power ranking and at the matchups. The only thing I'd look at is the projected wins, but you could project that from the scoring differential anyways.

[nickagneta]

Someone needs to explain to me how a computer that runs 5000 season scenarios has Boston winning the most games, having the highest percentage chance of making the Finals in the East, the second highest chance of making the Finals in the league but be tied for 6th with Atlanta for chances to win the Championship if, as Hollinger claims, the only information it is given is the Hollinger Daily Power Ranking's numbers?

How can a computer mathematically and randomly come up with the team that is second most likely to get to the championship game come up with that team having only tied for 6th best chance of winning it all unless there is definite matchup tendencies or other info being plugged in?

This is why I hate Hollinger's stats. They make no sense logically.

If he's running a monte carlo then the standard deviation probably accounts for the difference nick.

That's just it. If he's running that then you might figure another team might just as well be off. But what appears are numbers that shows his preseason picks of LA and Cleveland being the most likely winners. Coincidence?

Again, I don't think Hollinger is the most honest of mathematicians or statisticians. But you already knew that, Faf.

[Fafnir]

Someone needs to explain to me how a computer that runs 5000 season scenarios has Boston winning the most games, having the highest percentage chance of making the Finals in the East, the second highest chance of making the Finals in the league but be tied for 6th with Atlanta for chances to win the Championship if, as Hollinger claims, the only information it is given is the Hollinger Daily Power Ranking's numbers?

How can a computer mathematically and randomly come up with the team that is second most likely to get to the championship game come up with that team having only tied for 6th best chance of winning it all unless there is definite matchup tendencies or other info being plugged in?

This is why I hate Hollinger's stats. They make no sense logically.

If he's running a monte carlo then the standard deviation probably accounts for the difference nick.

That's just it. If he's running that then you might figure another team might just as well be off. But what appears are numbers that shows his preseason picks of LA and Cleveland being the most likely winners. Coincidence?

Again, I don't think Hollinger is the most honest of mathematicians or statisticians. But you already knew that, Faf.

They're the most likely winners by a few percentage points, its all pretty even among the contenders. Denver has the same chance as Cleveland after all.

I also thing you're making a mountain out of a mole hill about a Monte Carlo that's likely on autopilot. We can always just see how it keeps fluctuating.

[fairweatherfan]

What I found interesting in his Power Rankings is that he has the Lakers overall strength of schedule considerably higher than the Celtics and higher than (at a quick glance) two thirds of the league.

And by interesting I mean completely 100% false.

Strength of schedule is entirely opponent winning %.  The model does factor in road vs. away but that # is just the sum of the Lakers' opponents W-L record.  No subjective component at all.

[Fan from VT]

I think the big misconception is that Hollinger does something to make these odds.

No.

What he's done is enter all the season results and stats from previous years to create a sort of footprint. From that, he enters the seasonal data thus far, and sees how those teams generally fare compared to similar profiles from previous years.

[nickagneta]

Someone needs to explain to me how a computer that runs 5000 season scenarios has Boston winning the most games, having the highest percentage chance of making the Finals in the East, the second highest chance of making the Finals in the league but be tied for 6th with Atlanta for chances to win the Championship if, as Hollinger claims, the only information it is given is the Hollinger Daily Power Ranking's numbers?

How can a computer mathematically and randomly come up with the team that is second most likely to get to the championship game come up with that team having only tied for 6th best chance of winning it all unless there is definite matchup tendencies or other info being plugged in?

This is why I hate Hollinger's stats. They make no sense logically.

If he's running a monte carlo then the standard deviation probably accounts for the difference nick.

That's just it. If he's running that then you might figure another team might just as well be off. But what appears are numbers that shows his preseason picks of LA and Cleveland being the most likely winners. Coincidence?

Again, I don't think Hollinger is the most honest of mathematicians or statisticians. But you already knew that, Faf.

They're the most likely winners by a few percentage points, its all pretty even among the contenders. Denver has the same chance as Cleveland after all.

I also thing you're making a mountain out of a mole hill about a Monte Carlo that's likely on autopilot. We can always just see how it keeps fluctuating.

So what do you think of today's playoff odds:

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

The Celtics keep winning, their Daily Power Rankings numbers go up and their position in the Power Rankings improve and yet their odds to win it all decrease??

Still believing the discrepancy on these numbers are a simple Monte Carlo? I think he is inputting further data and not admitting it.

[Who]

I'm guessing that is the team's age is has their Title chances so low.

Otherwise, it would be quite strange given the Celtics impressive statistical performance so far.

[fairweatherfan]

I'm guessing that is the team's age is has their Title chances so low.

Otherwise, it would be quite strange given the Celtics impressive statistical performance so far.

I'm a bit curious about this myself - if the earlier results were just deviation due to a finite but large sample size, it'd make some sense.  I could even understand the Lakers being higher because they're close to us in most metrics but the computer would probably see them as having an easier road in the West than us in the East.  But the fact that we're first the primary formula and expected record and 7th in championship % makes me wonder what's happening with the model. 

I'm gonna email him and see if he answers personally (unlikely) or in a column (more likely).