Hollinger Power Ranking....Utah Jazz ranked 12th WTF???

[NUMBERICA]

This is the one response to this I make a year. Hollinger's rankings are a formula. It's mathematics. It's not his opinion. A computer, using his formula, generates his 'opinion' daily. I'm not smart enough to quibble with his math. His ranking is a thing I look at from time to time, like lots of things I look at, and it's just a thing. But it does weigh heavily scoring margin which, according to studies I also don't have the knowledge to question, is apparently meaningful, and we're obviously not that great in that department.

This is also my only response to this issue for the year; why is this thread 2 PAGES LONG after you said that???

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

The Clippers are 1-9 to start the season. Would you expect them to continue playing at a 1-9 level, when they have played Dallas, San Antonio, Portland, Denver, Utah, New Orleans, and San Antonio? If you can't get this, then I don't know what to say anymore.

No, you can't expect them to continue to play at a 1-9 level, but you can't justify ranking them ahead of half the teams they've lost to (e.g., Dallas, San Antonio, Portland, etc.), especially if their best player is hobbled.

I was questioning why OKC would be ranked behind Portland in these rankings--https://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba1011.htm?loc=interstitialskip -- when OKC has beaten Portland twice (home and away), Portland is on a losing streak, and its best player injured. Statistical analysis doesn't tell the whole story, especially when the data sample is too small.

 

[LunaticWolf]

Why even bring up the Clippers? Their performance after the last 10 games is exactly what I'd expect from them. They're not a good team. They're not going to make the playoffs. They're probably going to finish toward the bottom of the league. Does that mean they're going to continue their .100 winning percentage? Of course not. But they're not going to improve much on it because they've shown, over that stretch, they're not a very good team.

So while they'll up their winning percentage to something in the 30s, it won't change the fact they'll still miss the playoffs and finish with a losing record.

Now on that same basic point, I can honestly say the Houston Rockets are not a better team than the Jazz. I say this not because I expect them to win only 25% of their games - their current winning percentage. I say this because over the course of their eight games, they've had a chance to prove at least once or twice they are capable of beating a playoff-caliber team and, like the Clippers, they haven't done that.

You can look at their schedule and expect them to play better when it evens out and they play lesser teams. I agree. But they're 2-6 and they're still winless against anyone with a decent record. That will have to change greatly for them to not only contend for a playoff spot, but to pass the Jazz in the real standings. At this time, I don't think that will happen. The Rockets do not look like a good team. They do not look better than Utah.

That is what I'm saying. Hollinger's numbers are flawed. They're even more flawed this early in the schedule because, as we can all agree, there is not a large enough sample. It just seems pointless to me to release these rankings when the formula is skewed because of the sample size. Especially when, overall, I still think his rankings are ****. So it's **** piled on ****, I guess.

The Jazz just have easily could have lost these last 5 games. Does 1 or 2 shots each game make the difference between an allstar team and a **** team? The Rockets lost to the Lakers by 1 shot. If Scola or Brooks hit the shots they missed at the end of regulation, do they suddenly become a contender?

And honestly, you haven't watched a single Rockets game this year. Your just going by box scores. You can't claim that someone looks better than another team when you don't even watch them.

I brought up the Clippers because they have played the hardest schedule to date, and because they have put together a team that is at least 10 wins better than last season.

You are missing the point of these rankings. Just because one team is ranked higher than the other, doesn't mean they are better.

Regarding sample size, you can always say the sample size is too small. The Jazz were .500 at the end of December in 07-08, when they then won a **** load of games, finishing the the league best record in the second half of the season. Should Hollinger have not had his rankings out at the end of December? Clearly, the first two months of the season were not an accurate representation of what the team was. You have to release them eventually, and you might as well do it sooner than later.

 

[LunaticWolf]

Of course it was posted prior to the playoffs starting! It was his predictions based on his formula.

For most of the second half of that season, Hollinger consistently had Utah ahead of the Lakers. Do you honestly believe the difference in that series was Okur? Because I don't.

His predictions called for Utah to win the series. He had been calling for that based on his formula for a month or two prior to the playoffs starting. I do not believe, with Okur, without Okur, the Jazz were better than L.A. at any point in 2009-2010.

But that's just one series. He picked the Cavs to win the title and they didn't even reach the conference finals! All this based on his formula.

It is tough to take a regular season formula and apply it to the playoffs. Playoffs are more of a matchup game than anything, just ask Dallas.

 

[LunaticWolf]

No, you can't expect them to continue to play at a 1-9 level, but you can't justify ranking them ahead of half the teams they've lost to (e.g., Dallas, San Antonio, Portland, etc.), especially if their best player is hobbled.

I was questioning why OKC would be ranked behind Portland in these rankings--https://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba1011.htm?loc=interstitialskip -- when OKC has beaten Portland twice (home and away), Portland is on a losing streak, and its best player injured. Statistical analysis doesn't tell the whole story, especially when the data sample is too small.

Yeah you can, if you expect them to play better than the team who is 1-9 but has been destroyed every game.

That site takes two ratings: a Pure W/L, and a Pure Scoring Margin. The final rating is about 45% W/L and about 55% Scoring Margin.

Portland is ranked higher because they have been blown out less than OKC.

You guys might be interested in these graphs I put up a season or so ago.

https://www.disp0sable.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10004/mash.jpg

Scoring Margin correlates about 95% to your final season record.

 

[LunaticWolf]

Yeah you can, if you expect them to play better than the team who is 1-9 but has been destroyed every game.

Supposed to say "If you expect them to play better than the team who is 5-4 but squeeked by in their wins and was blown out in their losses.

 

[Sean]

The Jazz just have easily could have lost these last 5 games. Does 1 or 2 shots each game make the difference between an allstar team and a **** team? The Rockets lost to the Lakers by 1 shot. If Scola or Brooks hit the shots they missed at the end of regulation, do they suddenly become a contender?

That's pretty much what separates a good deal of good teams and bad teams. It's that ability to win close games. Good teams win 'em. Bad teams don't. It's not an exact science here.

I'm not going to answer your other question because I don't deal in hypotheticals.

And honestly, you haven't watched a single Rockets game this year. Your just going by box scores. You can't claim that someone looks better than another team when you don't even watch them.

I can claim whatever the hell I want.

You see, the difference between you and me is that you're focused on losses and I'm more focused on wins. My opinion of Houston is built around the fact they've not been able to win one damn game against an elite team yet. So yes, they have lost a lot of tough games against good opponents. However, that also means they've been given the opportunity to win some tough games against good opponents and they haven't. Utah has.

That is the difference. The Jazz went out and beat good opponents on the road. Bad teams do not do that. Not at the consistency the Jazz just did last week. Had Houston been able to knock off New Orleans and L.A. and sat at 5-4, then I think you could make the case they're better than Utah. But they've not defeated anyone. Two of their losses have come to the exact same teams that beat the Jazz. But where Utah differs is that in those tough games, like against the Hornets and Lakers and Spurs, the Jazz went out and actually won. More impressively, they did it on the road.

Let's not forget that every one of Utah's best wins this season came on the road. That's pretty remarkable.

I brought up the Clippers because they have played the hardest schedule to date, and because they have put together a team that is at least 10 wins better than last season.

You are missing the point of these rankings. Just because one team is ranked higher than the other, doesn't mean they are better.

You are missing my point. I think Hollinger's rankings are ****. I think they're **** right now and I'll think they're **** in March when the Jazz inevitably top his list. His track record is no more impressive than that of a person who randomly ranks teams solely based on opinion. That's pretty damning in my view because his formula is supposed to be better than the humans. In the end, it really isn't.

Regarding sample size, you can always say the sample size is too small. The Jazz were .500 at the end of December in 07-08, when they then won a **** load of games, finishing the the league best record in the second half of the season. Should Hollinger have not had his rankings out at the end of December? Clearly, the first two months of the season were not an accurate representation of what the team was. You have to release them eventually, and you might as well do it sooner than later.

The sample size is small because the season is still in its infancy. Hollinger can release his rankings in January where there is a larger sample size and still count each game that took place in November and December.

But in the end, I actually agree with you. It doesn't matter when Hollinger releases his rankings. They'll always be ****.

 

[carolinajazz]

...no man or computer in there right mind would rank the Jazz only the 12th best team in the league right now....not after what we just accomplished on that road trip! After we win about 10 of the next 12 games....even the computers will turn tail and run!

 

[Hopper]

If I was Huffinger's computer, I would send high voltage shocks to his chubby-*** fingers every time he hit the keyboard, ya know?

 

[Gameface]

That's pretty much what separates a good deal of good teams and bad teams. It's that ability to win close games. Good teams win 'em. Bad teams don't. It's not an exact science here.

I'm not going to answer your other question because I don't deal in hypotheticals.



I can claim whatever the hell I want.

You see, the difference between you and me is that you're focused on losses and I'm more focused on wins. My opinion of Houston is built around the fact they've not been able to win one damn game against an elite team yet. So yes, they have lost a lot of tough games against good opponents. However, that also means they've been given the opportunity to win some tough games against good opponents and they haven't. Utah has.

That is the difference. The Jazz went out and beat good opponents on the road. Bad teams do not do that. Not at the consistency the Jazz just did last week. Had Houston been able to knock off New Orleans and L.A. and sat at 5-4, then I think you could make the case they're better than Utah. But they've not defeated anyone. Two of their losses have come to the exact same teams that beat the Jazz. But where Utah differs is that in those tough games, like against the Hornets and Lakers and Spurs, the Jazz went out and actually won. More impressively, they did it on the road.

Let's not forget that every one of Utah's best wins this season came on the road. That's pretty remarkable.





You are missing my point. I think Hollinger's rankings are ****. I think they're **** right now and I'll think they're **** in March when the Jazz inevitably top his list. His track record is no more impressive than that of a person who randomly ranks teams solely based on opinion. That's pretty damning in my view because his formula is supposed to be better than the humans. In the end, it really isn't.



The sample size is small because the season is still in its infancy. Hollinger can release his rankings in January where there is a larger sample size and still count each game that took place in November and December.

But in the end, I actually agree with you. It doesn't matter when Hollinger releases his rankings. They'll always be ****.

Ultimately, what I think you're saying here is that WINNERS WIN, yes?

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Rockets are 1 spot ahead of the Jazz at a record of 2-6 (as of Nov. 14th). If that doesn't show how fatally flawed those rankings are, I don't know what does. At some point, common sense has to take over. But, that's Hollinger for you.

As Sean mentioned, what you have to keep in mind with any mathematical formula of this nature is that it's going to be less accurate with fewer games. With a larger sample size, it starts to become a lot more meaningful. As you point out, it looks kind of silly right now, with the Rockets placed ahead of the Jazz with a 3-6 record. Meh. It'll sort itself out eventually and become at least as accurate as anyone else's guesses. I have respect for Hollinger, for what he tries to do with the math stuff, even when it doesn't always work. And it's obvious from reading his columns that he isn't *just* some number-cruncher... he watches a lot of games and knows quite a bit more than some other sports-writers I could mention.

 

[Sean]

Ultimately, what I think you're saying here is that WINNERS WIN, yes?

Your sig speaks the truth!