Hollinger Rankings: C's #11

[fairweatherfan]

So these are always a fun midseason topic to argue about...Hollinger's rankings currently have us at #11, ahead of the Mavs, Lakers, and Clippers - the Clips are away down at 16 - but behind the Grizzlies and Pacers.  The Nuggets are #1 with the Bulls right behind them.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

What do you think of these rankings?  They seem pretty fair based on actual performance, though I was surprised at how poorly rated the Clippers are.  I like that they seem pretty high on the Bucks and T-Wolves, who have played pretty well despite below .500 records.  And Charlotte definitely deserves to be by far in last place - they've been putrid this year.

[wdleehi]

I think it is numerical Bull.



Of course most of the types of lists are opinionated Bull.

[PosImpos]

the problem with his rankings, as always, is that they place too much emphasis on blowing out terrible opponents, and very recent performance.  so a team can greatly improve their ranking by having a stretch of easy opponents and blowing them out.  even one enormous win can vault a team up in the rankings.

meanwhile, if a team has a tough slate of opponents and has a lot of close games -- even if they win most of them -- it will hurt their ranking.

[fairweatherfan]

the problem with his rankings, as always, is that they place too much emphasis on blowing out terrible opponents, and very recent performance.  so a team can greatly improve their ranking by having a stretch of easy opponents and blowing them out.  even one enormous win can vault a team up in the rankings.

meanwhile, if a team has a tough slate of opponents and has a lot of close games -- even if they win most of them -- it will hurt their ranking.

It's a mix of the two though - strength of schedule is a major factor as well as victory margin. 

But this season has had more extreme blowouts than I can remember ever before - that is likely to make the rankings a little wonky, especially with the sample still a bit small. 

I wish Hollinger would add a factor that gives diminishing returns for bigger blowouts - the difference between a 30 and 36 point win is much less significant than the difference between a 1 and 7 point win, but the rankings treat them the same.

[Celtic#9]

Holliger's rankings- some overvalued bullcrap which makes me believe he doesn't even watch basketball

[Who]

I think it's still a bit early for Hollinger's rankings. Maybe after the 30 game mark.

[FallGuy]

Holliger's rankings- some overvalued bullcrap which makes me believe he doesn't even watch basketball

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

[RyNye]

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

He's wrong that Hollinger doesn't watch basketball, but he IS right in that Hollinger's stats are not very sound.

Hollinger bases most of his work off of PER and +/-, which are notoriously fickle numbers that don't in any way reflect performance. For example, if you JUST look at the season PER and +/- averages, and use it to extrapolate the record of a team, you will usually be WAY off. Therefore it isn't a good indicator of performance, because it can't be used retroactively to EXPLAIN performance. This is also what leads to players like Carmelo Anthony being rated as superstars, because of high PERs, despite being incredibly inefficient players.

There are much better metrics out there (though none are perfect). WP/WP48, WS/WS48 (there is a different between Wins Shared and Wins Produced), efficiency differentials, and others can all be used to explain performance.

Among statisticians, Hollinger is not very respected. He's a great sports analyst, but not really a great numbers guy (he's just better at it than other ESPN analysts).

[Greenbean]

I like hearing both stats and opinions.

I dont 100% buy into Hollinger's formula but I think it has SOME merit.

For example I think the Celtics right now at 11 is absolutely nailing it.

That being said, his numbers wont make much sense for at least a couple more weeks.

[Greenbean]

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

He's wrong that Hollinger doesn't watch basketball, but he IS right in that Hollinger's stats are not very sound.

Hollinger bases most of his work off of PER and +/-, which are notoriously fickle numbers that don't in any way reflect performance. For example, if you JUST look at the season PER and +/- averages, and use it to extrapolate the record of a team, you will usually be WAY off. Therefore it isn't a good indicator of performance, because it can't be used retroactively to EXPLAIN performance. This is also what leads to players like Carmelo Anthony being rated as superstars, because of high PERs, despite being incredibly inefficient players.

There are much better metrics out there (though none are perfect). WP/WP48, WS/WS48 (there is a different between Wins Shared and Wins Produced), efficiency differentials, and others can all be used to explain performance.

Among statisticians, Hollinger is not very respected. He's a great sports analyst, but not really a great numbers guy (he's just better at it than other ESPN analysts).

Yeah but what about his predictor/explanation of team success? 

The OP is referring to his power rankings based largely on margin of victory.

[FallGuy]

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

He's wrong that Hollinger doesn't watch basketball, but he IS right in that Hollinger's stats are not very sound.

Hollinger bases most of his work off of PER and +/-, which are notoriously fickle numbers that don't in any way reflect performance. For example, if you JUST look at the season PER and +/- averages, and use it to extrapolate the record of a team, you will usually be WAY off. Therefore it isn't a good indicator of performance, because it can't be used retroactively to EXPLAIN performance. This is also what leads to players like Carmelo Anthony being rated as superstars, because of high PERs, despite being incredibly inefficient players.

There are much better metrics out there (though none are perfect). WP/WP48, WS/WS48 (there is a different between Wins Shared and Wins Produced), efficiency differentials, and others can all be used to explain performance.

You're referring to the wrong numbers. Hollinger's rankings are not based on PER (the validity of which is a different discussion). They're based on margins of victory, strength of schedule, amongst others.

Also, for all his faults, calling Carmelo Anthony an incredibly inefficient player isn't accurate.

[Moranis]

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

He's wrong that Hollinger doesn't watch basketball, but he IS right in that Hollinger's stats are not very sound.

Hollinger bases most of his work off of PER and +/-, which are notoriously fickle numbers that don't in any way reflect performance. For example, if you JUST look at the season PER and +/- averages, and use it to extrapolate the record of a team, you will usually be WAY off. Therefore it isn't a good indicator of performance, because it can't be used retroactively to EXPLAIN performance. This is also what leads to players like Carmelo Anthony being rated as superstars, because of high PERs, despite being incredibly inefficient players.

There are much better metrics out there (though none are perfect). WP/WP48, WS/WS48 (there is a different between Wins Shared and Wins Produced), efficiency differentials, and others can all be used to explain performance.

You're referring to the wrong numbers. Hollinger's rankings are not based on PER (the validity of which is a different discussion). They're based on margins of victory, strength of schedule, amongst others.

Also, for all his faults, calling Carmelo Anthony an incredibly inefficient player isn't accurate.

I wouldn't even call him inefficient.  I mean if you are looking at purely rates, Anthony and Pierce are nearly identical players in TS%, eFG%, REB%, AST%, TOV%, BLK%, STL%, USG%, etc.  Anthony is better in some and Pierce is better in some, but none are really significantly in favor of one over the other.  Pierce is a better defender (but even the gap there is inflated by respective teams and systems). 

[KGs Knee]

Hollinger's rankings are no more valid than any informed opinion.  They're just arbitrary stats put into a formula, intended to spit out a supposed "unbiased" set of rankings.  Whatever.

Personally, in relation to sports, I have very little use for stats.  I believe informed, knowledgeable, opinion based analysis is more accurate.

I will say this though, Hollinger is no fool.  He is knowledgeable about basketball.  On the few occasions when he just gives his opinion, he is generally pretty accurate in his analysis.  The problem is, he's just too tied to his "stats" overall.

The main thing I take away from his rankings or "PER, is he's just trying to provide a different point of view, that some readers may be interested in.  Basically, it's his way of trying to play to a specific audience that is inclined to find this point of view valid.  That, and it creates a highly controversial point of debate, therefore generating more viewership for his employer.

[FallGuy]

My fundamental problem with criticisms of Hollinger is that they're often so lazy. Just saying "he doesn't even watch the games" is hopelessly empty (and inaccurate; he knows more about hoops than the vast majority of the general public, which even a cursory reading of his work makes clear).

You can disagree with him if you've taken the time to understand what he's saying. If you haven't, please don't shout invective into the ether; you only mark yourself as a fool.

[FallGuy]

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

He's wrong that Hollinger doesn't watch basketball, but he IS right in that Hollinger's stats are not very sound.

Hollinger bases most of his work off of PER and +/-, which are notoriously fickle numbers that don't in any way reflect performance. For example, if you JUST look at the season PER and +/- averages, and use it to extrapolate the record of a team, you will usually be WAY off. Therefore it isn't a good indicator of performance, because it can't be used retroactively to EXPLAIN performance. This is also what leads to players like Carmelo Anthony being rated as superstars, because of high PERs, despite being incredibly inefficient players.

There are much better metrics out there (though none are perfect). WP/WP48, WS/WS48 (there is a different between Wins Shared and Wins Produced), efficiency differentials, and others can all be used to explain performance.

You're referring to the wrong numbers. Hollinger's rankings are not based on PER (the validity of which is a different discussion). They're based on margins of victory, strength of schedule, amongst others.

Also, for all his faults, calling Carmelo Anthony an incredibly inefficient player isn't accurate.

I wouldn't even call him inefficient.  I mean if you are looking at purely rates, Anthony and Pierce are nearly identical players in TS%, eFG%, REB%, AST%, TOV%, BLK%, STL%, USG%, etc.  Anthony is better in some and Pierce is better in some, but none are really significantly in favor of one over the other.  Pierce is a better defender (but even the gap there is inflated by respective teams and systems). 

Yes, exactly. The composition of the Knicks is inefficient. Anthony, himself, isn't. In fact, PP's career path is probably a good barometer for where Anthony will go.