...not sure why they even do pro rankings, but these are especially bad.

Rockets at #9 at 1-5
Spurs at #14 at 5-1

Rockets are not as bad as their record indicates and have played a tough early schedule.

Rockets have lost a bunch of close games to good teams. 1-5 is misleading.

No one is saying the Rockets are as bad as their record, but to rank them 5 spots higher than a team that is 5-1 is another reason why I don't put any value into anything Hollinger puts out.

Agree. Hollinger is/has been garbage. Dude needs to put the calculator away.

I don't understand the hate. If you want to know who the best team is subjectively, look at the experts power rankings. If you want to look who the best teams are stats-wise, look at Hollinger's rankings. If you don't care what the stats say, then ignore him.

Not to mention that the Spurs just beat the Rockets IN HOUSTON. Complete idiocy.

Every single year you guys hate on Hollinger and every single year he ends up more accurate than anyone else.

Look at the Football Outsiders. Today their top 10 is:

NYG
PHI
TEN
PIT
KC
GB
SD
NE
IND
ATL

Obviously, that's controvertial. But... has it not been confirmed in the last few weeks? The FO were the first people to have KC as a playoff team.

Isn't Hollinger one of those statistical things (like the BCS) that doesn't mean anything until late in the season?

Too much variation because of insufficient data.

quote:

---

Look at the Football Outsiders. Today their top 10 is:

NYG
PHI
TEN
PIT
KC
GB
SD
NE
IND
ATL

Obviously, that's controvertial. But... has it not been confirmed in the last few weeks? The FO were the first people to have KC as a playoff team.

---

I question any list that doesn't even have Baltimore in the top 10 at this point and so should anybody else.

As far as Hollinger goes, in the end, his team analysis usually ends up starting to make sense a little down the road. His individual player ratings, however, are completely wonky and offbase.

[This message has been edited by ATM9000 (edited 11/9/2010 5:30p).]

dp

[This message has been edited by ATM9000 (edited 11/9/2010 5:30p).]

quote:

---

Every single year you guys hate on Hollinger and every single year he ends up more accurate than anyone else.

---

ill believe it when i see it. no matter how you put it a 1-5 team isn't 5 spots better than a 5-1 team.

I know Hollinger uses all sorts of metrics to come up with his rankings but this is all too similar to what folks said about the Cowboys when they started 1-4 and had lost every game by less than a TD. Close losses, they'll put it together and get back on track, they are on the cusp...and now look where they are



"Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish"

Except 1-5 in football guarantees you better win out to make the playoffs.

1-5 in basketball is barely a blip as your team starts to gel and get ready for the marathon.

I have realized though that this Rockets team seems to be missing a killer instinct. Every game, the other team goes off in the fourth quarter and the Rockets are left saying how they were in perfect position to win and lost. Well maybe the other team just wanted it more. That has to change.

Mazag - you're right. I just had a bit of deja vu based on the comment that they had lost a bunch of close games. If I do remember correctly, the year the Mavs took one on the chin from the Warriors (btw I'm a Mavs fan so don't overreact) they started the season 0-4.

I would agree that the Rockets lack the killer instinct. The instinct that changes a couple of those L's into W's.

The question is - what effect with the Yao injury have on that problem?

Well the 6-1 Spurs have climbed to within 1 spot of the 1-6 Rockets at this point.

Goes to show you how important strength of schedule is in Hollinger's ranking. I think there is a flaw in the formula there. Maybe the metric should be improved by "quality wins" rather than SOS. Right now, SOS is the ONLY metric by which the Rockets lead the Spurs.

I think it more or less proves that you need longevity and lots more data than 2 weeks of the season than a real flaw in the system much like early season RPI in college bball. As somebody mentioned, SOS is huge in Hollingers numbers and it needs to be. The problem with basketball at this point in the season is rating a SOS at this point would be the equivalent of ranking an NFL SOS a game and a half into the season. The only reason it is published now is that it's off the mainstream and therefore serves as another reason single dudes with too much time on their hands would actually shell out $40/yr for an Insider subscription.

That's pretty bad in and of itself, but to have the 8-0 lakers not at #1? Pathetic.

(Coming from a spurs fan)