I have just started following these rankings and I can not figure out how he ranks these teams. I could see you being able to make a case for Celtics being ahead of the spurs, but an 8 loss Heat team? How can you put an 8 loss heat team in front of a 3 loss Spurs team? Does anybody know how he can say he legitimately came up with these rankings?

The Heat have played a much harder schedule than the Spurs have up to this point in the season.

He doesn't 'put' teams anywhere. The rankings are based on his formula.

The heat's SOS is 2/1000's harder than the spurs. I'm not sure how that makes up for an extra 5 losses.

Point differential has been shown to be. better indicator of success than win-loss record and that is the main element of his formula. He adds a strength of schedule variable plus recent results count more in the formula.

SOS and point differential are big in Hollinger's formula. The Heat have both on the Spurs.

SOS, point differential, last 10

[This message has been edited by HotardAg07 (edited 12/13/2010 10:10a).]

Oh yeah, and the Rockets are 12th at 9-14 over the Hornets who are 14-9.

That is crazy. Well I won't follow those rankings anymore. The only thing that matters to me now is #1 in the west.

The game with the Clippers counts as 5 losses.

Here’s the actual formula…

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dhollinger_john%26page%3dRankings-Intro

Unlike the bull **** BCS power rankings he actually allows his methodology to be analyzed.

quote:

---

The Heat have played a much harder schedule than the Spurs have up to this point in the season.

---

False.

The Heat are 3-7 against teams above .500. The spurs are 9-2 against that same level of competition. Their total SOS is .002 apart. The spurs have played a harder schedule in the past ten games than the Heat.

SOS is not the reason the Heat are higher than the Spurs, point differential and record in the last ten games is.

quote:

---

Oh yeah, and the Rockets are 12th at 9-14 over the Hornets who are 14-9.

---

That’s because his rankings weigh the last ten games heavily to keep them dynamic and take current performance into account. The Hornets are 3-7 with a -4.00 differential vs 6-4 and a +3.70 differential for the Rockets.

quote:

---

That is crazy. Well I won't follow those rankings anymore. The only thing that matters to me now is #1 in the west.

---

As mentioned above, point differential has been shown to be a better predictor of success than w/l.

[This message has been edited by Tennerman (edited 12/13/2010 11:09a).]

The Spurs' point differential is higher than Miami's. The Spurs' SOS is basically even with Miami. The Spurs are destroying teams lately minus one hiccup in LA (and have won 5 straight since). The Spurs have 5 less losses than Miami.

I don't care what his evaluation system is, there is no way you can rank Miami ahead of SA. It doesn't matter of course, but it's just bizarre.

Yes there is, and the formula to do it is accesible from the link above. It's cool if you don't agree with the algorithm but saying there's no way to do it just means you aren't very good at math.

1/3 of his rankings are based solely upon the last ten games played. In the last ten the Heat are 9-1 and +14.00 vs 8-2 and +10.50 for the Spurs.

His rankings also take home court advantage into account. The Spurs have had 5 more home games than road games vs 1 for the Heat.

Dumb. Best record in the NBA speaks for itself

There have been several years where the Spurs started off slow and Hollinger had them rated highly, but no Spurs fans complained then.

quote:

---

Dumb. Best record in the NBA speaks for itself

---

You just dismissed every power ranking in existence.

For the record, I'm a Spurs fan.

He's how his rankings break down from a spreadsheet I had from a former username here for the top four teams...

Team | SOS | SOSL10 | Margin | MarginL10
Cetics | .072 | -.508 | 6.634 | 4.818
Heat | -.308 | -.428 | 6.392 | 4.851
Spurs | -.344 | -.187 | 6.163 | 3.234
Mavs | .398 | .357 | 3.597 | 2.739

Of course this is Texags, just calling something dumb is a much better rebuttal.

Also, the Spurs have played 61% of their games at home vs 52% for the Heat. When you include his 3.5 point adjustment to margin of victory for home games the Heat end up with a 9.54 (14.7 last ten) margin vs the Spurs at 9.20 (9.8 last ten).

The only way the Spurs would come out on top of the Heat in his rankings is if he removed both the last ten and the home/away factors.

[This message has been edited by jschroeder (edited 12/13/2010 12:38p).]

quote:

---

Our weekly NBA Power Rankings, where if it were a seven-game series I’d take any of the next three teams below Dallas to come out on top, but when you win 12 in a row you get to keep the top spot.

---

quote:

---

3. Spurs (20-3). After they beat the Blazers Sunday Nate McMillan called the Spurs the best team in the NBA right now. Hard to argue that, there may be a couple teams hotter right now but better?

---

quoted for truth

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/13/nba-power-rankings-there-are-some-long-winning-streaks-out-there

[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 12/13/2010 2:43p).]

Hollinger's formula has been proven to be silly for several years now.

He stinks to the formula and it spits out team rankings. There is math behind it, but that doesn't make it sound.

Do you some links to the analysis you are referring to?

These rankings are usually pretty solid IIRC. Spurs fans would do well not to discount them.

quote:

---

Hollinger's formula has been proven to be silly for several years now.

---

Like when he had the Spurs as the top ranked team in the NBA going into the playoffs despite the Mavs having 67 wins. Then the Spurs won the title because they were the hottest team in the NBA.

If he picks the Spurs, Lakers, etc and they win it, then he gets some credit.

But is picking a winner about half the time that impressive? I'll bet most texags poster can boast a similar percentage.

His other predictions have been worse. If you're second, third and fourth favorites consistently underperform - then your prognisticating isn't up to par. If a team wins after you gave a 2% chance of winning, you aren't real accurate.

It's fun to rank teams based on some math and generates some buzz for espn's website. But the guy continues to be a fraud.

Do you have some links to the in depth analysis you are referring to?

quote:

---

Do you have some links to the in depth analysis you are referring to?

---

Yes.

Last year Hollinger predicted Cavaliers over the Suns in Finals. Neither team made it there, Cavs didn't even make Eastern Conference Finals.

He had the Jazz in Western Conference Finals over the Lakers. He was correct with Magic losing in Eastern Conference Finals.

That's deep enough analysis to see that Hollinger stinks at predictions. Spurs fans remember that he correctly picked SA over Mavs. But they forgot all the other lousy picks.

His predictions in previous seasons isn't much better.

http://spursreport.com/forums/spurs-nba-fan-feedback/89469-espn-hollinger-playoff-predictions-round-round.html

His mathmatical formula probably had a tough time quantifying the effect on the Cavs from Delonte West banging Gloria James. The Cavs were playing pretty great basketball heading up to the playoffs.

So by “proven to be silly for several years now.” you were actually referring to him going 10-5 predicting every round of last year's playoffs before they began?

BTW, why does a person need to be a Spurs fan to remember he got the #7 v #2 upset right?

You do know his playoff predictions and power rankings are two different things right?

BTW, his current rankings are pretty the exact same thing as the SRS at Basketball-Reference.com right now because they are pretty much the exact same thing. At their heart they’re both nothing more than ratings based on point differential adjusted for strength of schedule.

The only difference is Hollinger adjusts the differential by 3.5 points for the road team and weights the most recent ten games heavily.

Not sure why you are defending the guy. You wanted some stats and you got them. Getting ten right isn't much better than average. Picking first round matchups isn't a challenge. Casual fan probably nails 6 outta 8.

He got 50% right on Conference Finals. That isn't impressive. And he completely whiffed on Finals. That stinks.

His methodology for power rankings and playoff predictions are similar. He will use his power rankings after 82 games to make his tournament bracket. And year after year, it fails to impress.

Point differential based rankings are a better predictor of playoff success than win-loss records. Birdman has presented nothing that comes close to disputing that. The SRS stars on b-r.com are the ones I prefer to use

No, what I posted was stats. You gave three match ups, and called that “deep enough”.

So where’s the statistical analysis you are referring to regarding “year after year” and “proven to be silly for several years now”? The year you chose he actually hit 10 of 15.

2010 - Hollinger picked 10/15 overall = 8/8 first round, 2/4 Conference Finals, 0/2 Finals, and didn't pick the champion.

2009 - Hollinger picked 12/15 overall = 7/8 first round, 4/4 Conference Finals, 1/2 Finals, and didn't pick the champion.

2008 - Hollinger picked 9/15 overall = 6/8 first round, 1/4 Conference Finals, 1/2 Finals, and correctly picked the champion.

2010 - Straight chalk picked 10/15 overall = 6/8 first round, 2/4 Conference Finals, 1/2 Finals, and correctly picked the champion.

2009 - Straight Chalk picked 11/15 overall = 6/8 first round, 3/4 Conference Finals, 1/2 Finals, and correctly picked the champion.

2008 Straight Chalk picked 14/15 overall = 8/8 first round, 3/4 Conference Finals, 2/2 Finals, and correctly picked the champion.

Overall picks = Hollinger picked 31/45 for 69%, straight chalk was 35/45 for 78%
clear advantage overall for straight chalk

First round = Hollinger picked 21/24 for 88%, straight chalk was 20/24 for 83%
small advantage in first round matchups for Hollinger

Conference Finals = Hollinger picked 7/12 for 58%, straight chalk was 8/12 for 67%
small advantage in Conference Finals for straight chalk

Finals = Hollinger picked 2/6 for 33%, straight chalk was 4/6 for 67%
clear advantage in Finals for straight chalk

Champion = Hollinger picked 1/3 for 33%, straight chalk was 3/3 for 100%
clear advantage in Champion for straight chalk

As I said before, Hollinger's predictions are silly and have been for years.

[This message has been edited by birdman (edited 12/15/2010 1:41p).]

You know his playoff predictions and his formula are two different things? His formula is just margin ov victory adjusted for home court and SOS with a bias toward most recent games.

His playoff predictions use that but are different.

quote:

---

2010 - Straight chalk picked 10/15 overall = 6/8 first round, 2/4 Conference Finals, 1/2 Finals, and correctly picked the champion.

---

False. Cleveland was the “chalk pick” that year.

quote:

---

2009 - Straight Chalk picked 11/15 overall = 6/8 first round, 3/4 Conference Finals, 1/2 Finals, and correctly picked the champion.

---

False. Cleveland had the best overall record in the NBA that year as well.

How much other stuff are you just making up as you go along?

You can see the role that home court advantage has on the rankings in the Mavs & Lakers rankings right now.

Based solely on points, the Mavs have a 7.8 margin vs the 5.8 for the Lakers in the last ten games. However, the Mavs have played 8 of 10 at home vs 3 of 10 at home for the Lakers. Once adjusted by 3.5 points for home court advantage the margins become 5.3 for the Mavericks and 7.2 for the Lakers.