CELTICS #1 In ESPN'S New Power Rankings - Both Stein AND Hollinger!

[Celtics4ever]

Head to head against MIA we'd win 3 out of 4 when our bigs are healthy.

[birdwatcher]

I admittedly check these two power rankings religiously, however they are as arbitrary as being an All-star selection. 1 is someone's opinion, the other is a bunch of raw data that can be extrapolated anyway you want. Much like the BCS and NFL QB ratings...

[LooseCannon]

I just wish they would take the W-L record off the page (since it's not part of the formula) and show how much each component contributes to the score.

That would defeat the purpose of the power rankings, since the point is to try and identify teams whose win-loss record doesn't tell the whole story.  You need win-loss to give context.

[guava_wrench]

Head to head against MIA we'd win 3 out of 4 when our bigs are healthy.

We would also beat them 9 out of 10 on Rondo's birthday with a full moon.

I imagine you are also saying that Miller and Haslem would be healthy.

I suppose the only chance we could have to test that claim would be in the playoffs. Otherwise, good job going out on a limb.

[byennie]

I just wish they would take the W-L record off the page (since it's not part of the formula) and show how much each component contributes to the score.

That would defeat the purpose of the power rankings, since the point is to try and identify teams whose win-loss record doesn't tell the whole story.  You need win-loss to give context.

I disagree that it is a necessary context, unless you are specifically reading the rankings to see how they differ from the standings. I see your point though, I guess I just don't read them that way.

My point was more that they are the source of a lot of grief ("my team has 2 fewer losses and won the head-to-head!!!") that tends to distract people from actually looking at the numbers that ARE part of the formula.

[Greenbean]

I just wish they would take the W-L record off the page (since it's not part of the formula) and show how much each component contributes to the score.

That would defeat the purpose of the power rankings, since the point is to try and identify teams whose win-loss record doesn't tell the whole story.  You need win-loss to give context.

I disagree that it is a necessary context, unless you are specifically reading the rankings to see how they differ from the standings. I see your point though, I guess I just don't read them that way.

My point was more that they are the source of a lot of grief ("my team has 2 fewer losses and won the head-to-head!!!") that tends to distract people from actually looking at the numbers that ARE part of the formula.

The formula....

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro