PDA

View Full Version : John Hollinger's Rankings



Swashcuff
11-09-2010, 11:42 AM
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

:confused: his formula is beginning to make less and less sense to me. Houston at 9? :confused:

theducksmuggler
11-09-2010, 11:52 AM
i legit jus looked at the top 5 and stopped he must be high Miami 1? Hornets 4? Lakers 2? Nuggets 5? Houston 9? Spurs 13? that list is a joke

Swashcuff
11-09-2010, 11:55 AM
i legit jus looked at the top 5 and stopped he must be high Miami 1? Hornets 4? Lakers 2? Nuggets 5? Houston 9? Spurs 13? that list is a joke

His formula is the real joke.

Giaps
11-09-2010, 11:56 AM
I've never ever liked his dumb formula

justinnum1
11-09-2010, 11:57 AM
This formula will look more accurate in 2 months, once more games have been played.

Lakers should be first

daleja424
11-09-2010, 11:59 AM
this is based on stats. It is more a projection of where these teams will end up by the end of the year based on their production today. It doesnt take actual wins and losses into account. I actually like it. It gives you a better idea who the good teams are.

For example.... If a team is 4-1 b/c they played 5 nonplayoff teams in a bunch of 1-2 point games...are they really better than a team that is 1-4 that has played 1-2 point games against 5 playoff teams?

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:02 PM
my reason for liking it is simple... if you had to win a game...would you rather face the 3-3 Knicks or the 1-5 rockets. If you look at their record you would say you would rather play the Rockets...but real NBA fans would probably say they would rather play the Knicks b/c the Rockets are a better team.

mamba24
11-09-2010, 12:05 PM
i legit jus looked at the top 5 and stopped he must be high Miami 1? Hornets 4? Lakers 2? Nuggets 5? Houston 9? Spurs 13? that list is a joke

you forgot the suns at 8... heat look like an above average team... not the best team... dude has a renob for lebron... hate hollinger

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:05 PM
as for the HEAT and Lakers debate... it comes down to a couple simple facts...

Miami has played 3 home games and 4 road games and have a far stronger SOS so far and have still maintained a +13. While the Lakers have played 5 home games and 3 road games against a weaker SOS and also have a +13. Indicates that in the long run, when both teams have played a similar schedule and both have had equal numbers of home and road games that Miami SHOULD be the better team.

That is all this is saying.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:06 PM
you forgot the suns at 8... heat look like an above average team... not the best team... dude has a renob for lebron... hate hollinger

LOL. It is a FORMULA! It is not subjective. How can a formula have a bias!

Hollinger is a stats guy. His POV comes from number crunching...

If he personally likes Lebron a lot, it is because the numbers told him to...

Big Quett
11-09-2010, 12:08 PM
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

:confused: his formula is beginning to make less and less sense to me. Houston at 9? :confused:

i dont understand it but my Grizz at 10?.....I FREAKING LOVE IT.....:clap:....LOL

Swashcuff
11-09-2010, 12:09 PM
my reason for liking it is simple... if you had to win a game...would you rather face the 3-3 Knicks or the 1-5 rockets. If you look at their record you would say you would rather play the Rockets...but real NBA fans would probably say they would rather play the Knicks b/c the Rockets are a better team.

I understand you point and his reasoning, but aren't these ranking supposed to be based on not only the best team on paper but the best team on the court and thus far this season the Rockets have not shown that they could possibly be a top 10 team. Would you rather play the 6-0 Hornets or the 5-1 Spurs?

I hear your point and in all honestly understand your point but these rankings are a bit head scratching sometimes when you see teams who aren't performing well and aren't really looking good going forward being ranked highly.

Swashcuff
11-09-2010, 12:10 PM
LOL. It is a FORMULA! It is not subjective. How can a formula have a bias!

Hollinger is a stats guy. His POV comes from number crunching...

If he personally likes Lebron a lot, it is because the numbers told him to...

I should have put that in the opening post.

In no way shape or form in he being biased or opinionated.

TheHoopsProphet
11-09-2010, 12:13 PM
this is based on advanced stats. It is more a projection of where these teams will end up by the end of the year based on their production today. It doesnt take actual wins and losses into account. I actually like it. It gives you a better idea who the good teams are.

For example.... If a team is 4-1 b/c they played 5 nonplayoff teams in a bunch of 1-2 point games...are they really better than a team that is 1-4 that has played 1-2 point games against 5 playoff teams?

his formula accounts for offensive and defensive ratings as well as strength of schedule.

This is a logical fallacy, bcause essentially what you're saying is the wins-loss records of the teams is one of the least valuable ways to determine how good they are, and factoring their performances and opponents is more important than how many losses or wins they have. Yet, even though yousay your scheduling is important, and if a team has played more playoffs teams then non-playoff teams their wins are more valuable, how is a "playoff team" determined if wins don't matter? You might say oh this team has played against an unbeaten team and won, yet this other team beat a winless team and won too, therefore the first team is better.

So records matter for the opponents they play, but not for the team analyzed itself?

Here;s what you and John Hollinger needa do

1) Take a deep breath
2) Reevaluate ur position in life, are you satisfied with how things are going? Is this influencing your day to day decisions?
3) Give yourself a me-day. Go shopping, go to a strip club, maybe rent a prostitute or four, rent a movie lay back on a couch and eat some delicious mocha almond fudge ice cream
4) Come back to your computer and reconsider your argument.

macc
11-09-2010, 12:13 PM
He uses to many "politics" in his calcuations. Bottom line if you're undefeated then you should be ranked # 1 ie Lakers or NO. So on and so forth. If you haven't won a game you should be ranked on the bottom.

Wasn't it Bill Parcels who said the team is only as good as their record? That's how it should be.

arkanian215
11-09-2010, 12:14 PM
LOL. It is a FORMULA! It is not subjective. How can a formula have a bias!

Hollinger is a stats guy. His POV comes from number crunching...

If he personally likes Lebron a lot, it is because the numbers told him to...

Well formulas can have a bias and be derived from subjective assumptions. If I came up with a formula for ranking teams, I probably wouldn't weight the strength of schedule the same way you do. I would also have a weight for back to backs and the performance on the back end of the back to back.

I do get your point though. His formula, as far as I know, has not changed since last year, so whatever he was using "objectively" ranks these teams (as in, it wasn't changed to fit some promotional scheme employed by ESPN).

SouthSideRookie
11-09-2010, 12:14 PM
this is based on advanced stats. It is more a projection of where these teams will end up by the end of the year based on their production today. It doesnt take actual wins and losses into account. I actually like it. It gives you a better idea who the good teams are.

For example.... If a team is 4-1 b/c they played 5 nonplayoff teams in a bunch of 1-2 point games...are they really better than a team that is 1-4 that has played 1-2 point games against 5 playoff teams?

his formula accounts for offensive and defensive ratings as well as strength of schedule.

The Rockets have played about the toughest schedule thus far. In two of the six games Yao was out, they were in position to win late in the game in every single instance. So yeah this is pretty accurate, however these rankings should change as the season progreses.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:15 PM
I understand you point and his reasoning, but aren't these ranking supposed to be based on not only the best team on paper but the best team on the court and thus far this season the Rockets have not shown that they could possibly be a top 10 team. Would you rather play the 6-0 Hornets or the 5-1 Spurs?

I hear your point and in all honestly understand your point but these rankings are a bit head scratching sometimes when you see teams who aren't performing well and aren't really looking good going forward being ranked highly.

The Rockets look good in his formula b/c they have played a rediculous SOS (.676) and still have maintained a near even +/-

The results havent been there yet in the form of wins, but they are obviously a really tough team to beat.

As for the hornets or the spurs. The hornets are a better team and that is echoed in his ranking. The spurs, while 1-5, have only a +/- of 3... indicating they are playing a bunch of tight games to get those wins AND they have played a weak schedule so far.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:23 PM
Well formulas can have a bias and be derived from subjective assumptions. If I came up with a formula for ranking teams, I probably wouldn't weight the strength of schedule the same way you do. I would also have a weight for back to backs and the performance on the back end of the back to back.

I do get your point though. His formula, as far as I know, has not changed since last year, so whatever he was using "objectively" ranks these teams (as in, it wasn't changed to fit some promotional scheme employed by ESPN).

great point, you can build bias into formulas...

it appears to me he is using some pretty solid logic though...

his forumla incorperates three factors, who are you playing, where are you playing them, and how close of a game is it.

he looks at SOS, point differential, and H/A ratio (which is what is hurting the Lakers most right now in the rankings)

Gibby23
11-09-2010, 12:26 PM
here is another ranking system.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba1011.htm

Sadds The Gr8
11-09-2010, 12:27 PM
Miami at 1 is joke.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:28 PM
This is a logical fallacy, bcause essentially what you're saying is the wins-loss records of the teams is one of the least valuable ways to determine how good they are, and factoring their performances and opponents is more important than how many losses or wins they have. Yet, even though yousay your scheduling is important, and if a team has played more playoffs teams then non-playoff teams their wins are more valuable, how is a "playoff team" determined if wins don't matter? You might say oh this team has played against an unbeaten team and won, yet this other team beat a winless team and won too, therefore the first team is better.

So records matter for the opponents they play, but not for the team analyzed itself?

Here;s what you and John Hollinger needa do

1) Take a deep breath
2) Reevaluate ur position in life, are you satisfied with how things are going? Is this influencing your day to day decisions?
3) Give yourself a me-day. Go shopping, go to a strip club, maybe rent a prostitute or four, rent a movie lay back on a couch and eat some delicious mocha almond fudge ice cream
4) Come back to your computer and reconsider your argument.

Win-loss is incredibly important. And at the end of the season, it is all that matters. What Hollinger's formula tries to do is project what will happen the rest of the year essentially. You can't simply look at W-L this early in the year b/c there are huge discrepancies between home-away schedules and schedule difficulty this early on. His formula is suggesting that once everything evens out, this is how it will look. It is a great argument IMO.

If a team plays 5 "easy" teams at home and another team plays 5 "hard" teams on the road... just looking at W-L will not tell you which of those teams should win head-to-head.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:31 PM
here is another ranking system.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba1011.htm

and notice that even in that one the "predictor" has Miami at #1. The reason the Lakers are number 1 in that poll is because of W-L record. Hollinger's idea is that what you have done so far with W-L doesnt really matter all that much, he wants to predict what you will do once the schedule evens out.

Fmaranesi
11-09-2010, 12:37 PM
are some of you pre-teens that have never seen Hollingers formula before?

H/A, strength of schedule and margin of wins are what he takes into account. NOT WINS AND LOSSES, if you want to see power rankings that only deal with wins and losses then go somewhere else.

We are only a couple weeks into the season the 1-5 rockets have had the toughest schedule and have played almost every game close, while the Spurs and Hawks have played against inferior competition.

Once the season gets to the midway point then these standings are going to look more accurate.

The Hawks were 6-0 a few nights ago and many of you would have said they were the best team but they played against weaker teams to get those wins. Look at what has happened when they played actual playoff contenders..0-2 .

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:39 PM
let me clarify something... if I was making my own subjective rankings I would have LA and NO ahead of Miami at this point. I would probably even have Boston ahead of Miami at this point. But this is based highly on W-L in my mind. It is cool to have a different perspective on this like Hollinger often gives. He tells you what the numbers say. And I always enjoy seeing what the stats say.

Supa
11-09-2010, 12:39 PM
People still read Hollinger??

---

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:40 PM
are some of you pre-teens that have never seen Hollingers formula before?

H/A, strength of schedule and margin of wins are what he takes into account. NOT WINS AND LOSSES, if you want to see power rankings that only deal with wins and losses then go somewhere else.

We are only a couple weeks into the season the 1-5 rockets have had the toughest schedule and have played almost every game close, while the Spurs and Hawks have played against inferior competition.

Once the season gets to the midway point then these standings are going to look more accurate.

The Hawks were 6-0 a few nights ago and many of you would have said they were the best team but they played against weaker teams to get those wins. Look at what has happened when they played actual playoff contenders..0-2 .

THIS. as the schedule evens out we will start to see that his models align pretty well with W-L records.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:44 PM
Why is it that it is only Lakers fans coming in here with one-liners and not contributing something to the conversation? If you disagree with Hollingers system...explain why you do... so we can have a discussion about. That is what this place is for...DISCUSSION. Not snappy one liners when you don't like something

Seriously guys, either contribute to the convo or don't.

Hellcrooner
11-09-2010, 12:44 PM
oh what a surprise, lakers are not first in hollinger list.

The dude that said last yer at playoff begining that the chances of lakers wining it all were 9% and celtics 11% vs like 20% for cleveland, mavs and Magic......

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:46 PM
Hellcrooner, I encourage you to read up on Hollinger b4 supposing that he has an anti Lakers bias. Heck, even just read this thread...

Swashcuff
11-09-2010, 12:49 PM
Hellcrooner, I encourage you to read up on Hollinger b4 supposing that he has an anti Lakers bias. Heck, even just read this thread...

:clap: There is NO biased with his system. It just has its holes.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:49 PM
For anyone who would actually like to know what they are talking about:

Here is some background to help you as you look through the rankings each day.

Scoring margin

One of my goals was to create a system that told us more about a team's quality than the standings do.

So instead of winning percentage, these rankings use points scored and points allowed, which are better indicators of a team's quality than wins and losses.

This might not sound right at first, but studies have shown scoring margin to be a better predictor of future success than a team's win-loss record. Thus, scoring margin is a more accurate sign of a team's quality.

That explains why, for instance, three seasons ago the Spurs ranked ahead of the Mavericks even though they had won nine fewer games -- San Antonio's scoring margin was superior. That ultimately proved to be prophetic, as Dallas lost in the first round of the playoffs while the Spurs won the championship.

Strength of schedule
Yes, this matters in the NBA, too. It is not as profound in the pro game as in the college game, because the 30 NBA teams are more evenly matched, but it still affects a team's results.

This comes into play mainly in the early part of the season, when there can be wide disparities in the quality of competition, but even at the end of the season, there will be differences among teams -- particularly when one conference is far better than the other.

Recent performance
Another key variable in the formula is recent performance, which I included for two reasons.

First, it stands to reason that more recent games are more valid indicators of how strong a team is currently.

Second, I wanted these rankings to follow the model of Marc Stein's "human" power rankings, on the site each Monday, in which a team's recent play is a huge factor.

To accomplish this, I weigh a team's full-season results by two-thirds and its most recent games by another one-third, so the overall ranking gives greater weight to recent games.

You're probably wondering at this point what I mean by "recent." It varies depending on where we are in the season.

For the first 40 games of the season, it means a team's past 10 games.

From that point forward, however, it means the most recent 25 percent of a team's schedule. The net result is that, after the first 40 games, a team's most recent 25 percent of its schedule will account for 40 percent of its ranking.

Home and road

The final variable here is home and road games.

In each game, a team's scoring margin is adjusted by the 3.5-point advantage we (and by "we," I mean the Vegas books, of course) expect the home team to have in a game between otherwise equal opponents.

This can have a large effect at certain points in the season for some teams, as their home and road numbers can get way out of line. This is particularly true for the two "circus/rodeo" teams -- Chicago and San Antonio -- who take at least one extended road trip every season because their arenas are being used for special events and thus end up with a big home-road disparity.

wmudford
11-09-2010, 12:50 PM
According to his formula, the heat could barely be the wolves and the lakers could barely lose to NO. Yet the lakers take #1 because the played the MUCH better team. It's basically guessing that by the end of the year MIA will have the best record.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:50 PM
Swascuff,

what holes do you see? (I am not saying that there are not holes, I am just interested in this kind of thing, and I would like know what you see as its flaws)

Swashcuff
11-09-2010, 12:51 PM
let me clarify something... if I was making my own subjective rankings I would have LA and NO ahead of Miami at this point. I would probably even have Boston ahead of Miami at this point. But this is based highly on W-L in my mind. It is cool to have a different perspective on this like Hollinger often gives. He tells you what the numbers say. And I always enjoy seeing what the stats say.

I understand all this bro. My problem is him calling it a "ranking system". Its not holistic it just takes into consideration pure numbers and advanced stats but that's not how you rank NBA teams. IMO its just not holistic enough.

John Walls Era
11-09-2010, 12:52 PM
Small Sample Size. IN the end Rockets will deserve that number 9!!!!

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:52 PM
According to his formula, the heat could barely be the wolves and the lakers could barely lose to NO. Yet the lakers take #1 because the played the MUCH better team. It's basically guessing that by the end of the year MIA will have the best record.

correct. b/c if Miami beats the Wolves by 1 point and the Lakers lose to the Hornets by 1 point... it doesn't make Miami better b/c they have a win and LA doesnt. In fact, as the year goes on and the teams all play eachother the Lakers would be expected to pummel the Wolves and the HEAt would be expected to struggle against the Hornets. (THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL!!!)

TheHoopsProphet
11-09-2010, 12:53 PM
Win-loss is incredibly important. And at the end of the season, it is all that matters. What Hollinger's formula tries to do is project what will happen the rest of the year essentially. You can't simply look at W-L this early in the year b/c there are huge discrepancies between home-away schedules and schedule difficulty this early on. His formula is suggesting that once everything evens out, this is how it will look. It is a great argument IMO.

If a team plays 5 "easy" teams at home and another team plays 5 "hard" teams on the road... just looking at W-L will not tell you which of those teams should win head-to-head.

But dalai lama, dont you get my point? if wins-loss records dont matter, then how do you differentiate the hard from the easy teams? Reading this, you might think, "Well you sexy beast, its pretty simple. We look at defensive and offensive ratings." But if a team gets a 20 point lead by the half, their defensive and offensive ratings will take a huge dent because their star players wont play much of the second half. And they will look like, by the end of the game, just an average-to-above-average team. And is the no.1 offensive team worse then the no.1 defensive team? Does losing a close game that you should have won mean that you secretly deserve that W, or does it mean you should have never had a close game in the first place and should have annilatermination that team?

You also mention projections, but does it take account into injuries (as andy bynum is PROJECTED to come back to the team, thus shouldn't they be no.1?) And are these projections based on scheduling? Even though the hypothetical playoff teams are still under review, how does one determine a hard vs easy schedule? You can have an IDEA, but you cant pint point it down to the milisecond! Its all subjective, we might as well Fox News or listen to my grandpa talk about how he killed 300 poles and slept with their mothers during WWII if we gonna listen to John hollinger. We can all use formulas akin to our personal likings.

Swashcuff
11-09-2010, 12:53 PM
Swascuff,

what holes do you see? (I am not saying that there are not holes, I am just interested in this kind of thing, and I would like know what you see as its flaws)

If Miami were to somehow lose Bosh, LeBron and Wade for the next month but were to manage to still win 3-4 with avg margin of 9.0 they'd more likely than not still be ranked 1st next week. In all likeliness they are NO longer the #1 team in the league. Going forward. Hole!

daleja424
11-09-2010, 12:56 PM
I understand all this bro. My problem is him calling it a "ranking system". Its not holistic it just takes into consideration pure numbers and advanced stats but that's not how you rank NBA teams. IMO its just not holistic enough.

you see, I disagree. I think it is the perfect idea for a ranking system. It tries to rank teams by something MORE objective than W-L. This early in the season, W-L is very dependent on SOS and H/A... his rankings try to remove that bias.

tcav701
11-09-2010, 12:59 PM
HAHAHAH

**** Hollinger and his BCS bullsh*t

jbeezy
11-09-2010, 01:00 PM
This is the stupidest poll I have ever seen. You can talk about strength of schedule but if you do shouldnt the Celtics and Hornets be ranked higher than the Heat since they both beat them? Hollinger has always been a notorious Laker hater and never gives them the benefit of the doubt or credit. Last season he said both Orlando and Boston were a much better and the Lakers beat them yet the Lakers won it all.

The Lakers have a better record and they are the defending back to back champions.

wmudford
11-09-2010, 01:03 PM
Boy. If a lakers fan were to be the writer of the power rankings, LA would be number 1 every time. Nobody else seems to have a big issue with the formula.

Hellcrooner
11-09-2010, 01:03 PM
Man i ve read enough times hollinger coums to understand he INDDED has lakers bis.

and that he BARELY ever gives an acurate predicition with his metrics.

Even Bill simmons the Buffon has a better record on his nostradamus basll

daleja424
11-09-2010, 01:05 PM
But dalai lama, dont you get my point? if wins-loss records dont matter, then how do you differentiate the hard from the easy teams? Reading this, you might think, "Well you sexy beast, its pretty simple. We look at defensive and offensive ratings." But if a team gets a 20 point lead by the half, their defensive and offensive ratings will take a huge dent because their star players wont play much of the second half. And they will look like, by the end of the game, just an average-to-above-average team. And is the no.1 offensive team worse then the no.1 defensive team? Does losing a close game that you should have won mean that you secretly deserve that W, or does it mean you should have never had a close game in the first place and should have annilatermination that team?

You also mention projections, but does it take account into injuries (as andy bynum is PROJECTED to come back to the team, thus shouldn't they be no.1?) And are these projections based on scheduling? Even though the hypothetical playoff teams are still under review, how does one determine a hard vs easy schedule? You can have an IDEA, but you cant pint point it down to the milisecond! Its all subjective, we might as well Fox News or listen to my grandpa talk about how he killed 300 poles and slept with their mothers during WWII if we gonna listen to John hollinger. We can all use formulas akin to our personal likings.

I do see your point in the first part. It is definitely a hole in the logic to use W-L of opponents to determine SOS. The formula would be strengthened if it based SOS on opponents +/-. Currently, however, that is not the case.


If Miami were to somehow lose Bosh, LeBron and Wade for the next month but were to manage to still win 3-4 with avg margin of 9.0 they'd more likely than not still be ranked 1st next week. In all likeliness they are NO longer the #1 team in the league. Going forward. Hole!

Hollinger himself points out that this does not take into account injuries. All this can tell you is how the Lakers project out as they are currently constituted (without Bynum). That is certainly a hole. Again, however, I would suggest that things like this tend to average out, so maybe it is not that large of a hole... but it is certainly there.

Overall, you can't really make an entirely objective system, but Hollinger makes a pretty good attempt, so I never just dismiss these rankings.

It would be interesting to see how his rankings compare to w-l records in the past, but I havent been able to find an archive.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 01:08 PM
This is the stupidest poll I have ever seen. You can talk about strength of schedule but if you do shouldnt the Celtics and Hornets be ranked higher than the Heat since they both beat them? Hollinger has always been a notorious Laker hater and never gives them the benefit of the doubt or credit. Last season he said both Orlando and Boston were a much better and the Lakers beat them yet the Lakers won it all.

The Lakers have a better record and they are the defending back to back champions.

I will say this for the fourth time, Hollinger is a NUMBERS guy. There is not a Lakers bias. Look into the strategy behind these rankings a little before bashing them just b/c the Lakers are currently #2...

jbeezy
11-09-2010, 01:14 PM
Like Ric Flair says "To be the man you gotta beat the man whooooo".

prodigy
11-09-2010, 01:15 PM
He gets paid for this ****? wow.

wmudford
11-09-2010, 01:15 PM
It's very simple people. The two games that miami barely lost were against teams that are a lot better than any teams LA has played. Then they blew out the rest.

tcav701
11-09-2010, 01:16 PM
How is this any different than the BCS?

At least this system counts for nothing.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 01:17 PM
you answered your own question... it is just one way to look at things...and it doesnt count for anything...

jbeezy
11-09-2010, 01:17 PM
Also he should take into account that the Lakers have have 20+ point leads againts most of their opponents at halftime and they let the subs play for most of the second half.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 01:23 PM
thats what most teams with 20 point leads do... Miami has done the same thing... In fact, Miami has played their starters even less. Compare big threes. Wade/Bosh/Lebron average 33.5 minutes a game... Gasol/Odom/Bryant have averaged 34.8 minutes per game...

The Lakers "stars" have played more than Miami's have...

tcav701
11-09-2010, 01:24 PM
you answered your own question... it is just one way to look at things...and it doesnt count for anything...

He took a BCS like ranking system from college football which everyone knows is crap and implemented it in the NBA. Though they claim to not be biased and will freely give out the criteria, it is based off of preseason rankings used as a control.

This doesn't make him a genius or a pioneer, it makes him a douche.

TheHoopsProphet
11-09-2010, 01:27 PM
I will say this for the fourth time, Hollinger is a NUMBERS guy. There is not a Lakers bias. Look into the strategy behind these rankings a little before bashing them just b/c the Lakers are currently #2...

Okay, lets pretend for a bit. Lets say im a numbers guy who works for ESPN and I do power rankings. My name is, ohh, i dont know, Fancy McDouchebag. Everyone calls me a genius, "Did you see Fancy McDouchebag's latest power rankings? What a contrarian, always going against the grain! He dont take dougie from nobody! Fancy McDouchebag is objective! And he knows things! Unlike you stupid fans."

But what my fans dont know, is if they walk into my house they will see that I have a Colby Bryant dummy hung from the ceiling above my fireplace. I have a huge 6 foot LeJames painting (which I painted) in the dining room I watch everytime I eat. All over my walls, painted in blood (the blood of Jerry Buss, who no one has oddly seen in person for a while now) it reads "Redrum Lakers, Redrum Lakers, Redrum Lakers", and next to my bed I have a shrine of Pat Riley and Heat excutives I pray to everytime before I go to sleep.

I think to myself, what will the heat be good at? Defense, the transition game, and dunks. What are Lakers good at? Offense, winning champions, having sexy women attend games. I make rankings that weigh in defense more then offense, and I will also rank in statistics that show watching dunks where Wade and Lejames do 360 windmill toejams is more entertaining then watching sexy women like Megan Fox and Maria Sharapova make out with each other at courtside staples center.

In these rankings i make Heat no.1, Lakers no.2. And i say I used a numbers formula WHICH I CREATED that determines good from bad teams. I then drink champagne and laugh at the world, collect my paychecks, while everyone assumed Fancy McDouchebag is a numeralsexual genius.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 01:27 PM
^^You clearly do not know what you are talking about... go look at the Hollinger's formula... it is NOTHING like the BCS (which has considerable human input)

daleja424
11-09-2010, 01:31 PM
Okay, lets pretend for a bit. Lets say im a numbers guy who works for ESPN and I do power rankings. My name is, ohh, i dont know, Fancy McDouchebag. Everyone calls me a genius, "Did you see Fancy McDouchebag's latest power rankings? What a contrarian, always going against the grain! He dont take dougie from nobody! Fancy McDouchebag is objective! And he knows things! Unlike you stupid fans."

But what my fans dont know, is if they walk into my house they will see that I have a Colby Bryant dummy hung from the ceiling above my fireplace. I have a huge 6 foot LeJames painting (which I painted) in the dining room I watch everytime I eat. All over my walls, painted in blood it reads "Redrum Lakers, Redrum Lakers, Redrum Lakers", and next to my bed I have a shrine of Pat Riley and Heat excutives I pray to everytime before I go to sleep.

I think to myself, what will the heat be good at? Defense, the transition game, and dunks. What are Lakers good at? Offense, winning champions, having sexy women attend games. I make rankings that weigh in defense more then offense, and I will also rank in statistics that show watching dunks where Wade and Lejames do 360 windmill toejams is more entertaining then watching sexy women like Megan Fox and Maria Sharapova make out with each other at courtside staples center.

In these rankings i make Heat no.1, Lakers no.2. And i say I used a numbers formula WHICH I CREATED that determines good from bad teams. I then drink champagne and laugh at the world, collect my paychecks, while everyone assumed Fancy McDouchebag is a numeralsexual genius.

and yet he made this formula WAY before Lebron came to Miami... and yet his formula does not contain categories for ANY of the things you mentioned... and yet the rankings are comepletely transparent as to how they are being calculated.

If you want to argue this with me using facts I would love to have it... but if you want to discuss a fantasy hypothetcial that does not model the situation at all...you are on your own.

Gibby23
11-09-2010, 01:33 PM
His numbers system has also picked the Jazz to beat the Lakers in the playoffs the last 3 years. It doesn't take into account the lack of size Utah had and how the Lakers bigmen would dominate. He also picked the suns to beat the Lakers last year based on his system... lol.. It's a system that has never been right.

TheHoopsProphet
11-09-2010, 01:34 PM
and yet he made this formula WAY before Lebron came to Miami... and yet his formula does not contain categories for ANY of the things you mentioned... and yet the rankings are comepletely transparent as to how they are being calculated.

If you want to argue this with me using facts I would love to have it... but if you want to discuss a fantasy hypothetcial that does not model the situation at all...you are on your own.

You wants facts? Here's a fact: John Hollinger sux!

F--k facts! And f--k the Poe-LEASE!

tcav701
11-09-2010, 01:37 PM
^^You clearly do not know what you are talking about... go look at the Hollinger's formula... it is NOTHING like the BCS (which has considerable human input)

The Human input is the ONLY difference I see.

If there were Human input, undefeated teams and teams that beat Miami (with similar or better records)would be ahead of them because humans use logic.

The strength of schedule, Home vs ROad wins, recent performance, point differential and team expectiation based on talent/conference are all factors in the BCS formula and reasons Boise State and TCU aren't going to get a chance at a national championship despite being undefeated.

He has created the BCS computer and passed it as his own.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 01:51 PM
The Human input is the ONLY difference I see.

If there were Human input, undefeated teams and teams that beat Miami (with similar or better records)would be ahead of them because humans use logic.

The strength of schedule, Home vs ROad wins, recent performance, point differential and team expectiation based on talent/conference are all factors in the BCS formula and reasons Boise State and TCU aren't going to get a chance at a national championship despite being undefeated.

He has created the BCS computer and passed it as his own.

LOL. The computers have TCU as #2... its the human vote that kept them at #3 :up:

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/bcs-computer-rankings-week-four-heavy-computer-boosts-for-tcu-and-lsu

tcav701
11-09-2010, 01:55 PM
LOL. The computers have TCU as #2... its the human vote that kept them at #3 :up:

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/bcs-computer-rankings-week-four-heavy-computer-boosts-for-tcu-and-lsu


Yea but it took them beating #5 in Utah to get there.

doesn't change the fact the Hollinger is being Al Gore claiming he invented the internet.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 02:01 PM
I dont really know/care about Hollinger and what he claims. I am simply saying that his system makes sense and it shouldnt be just dismissed. Whether or not he came up with it...I dont know/care. I think it makes sense though.

Gibby23
11-09-2010, 02:08 PM
I dont really know/care about Hollinger and what he claims. I am simply saying that his system makes sense and it shouldnt be just dismissed. Whether or not he came up with it...I dont know/care. I think it makes sense though.

It should be dismissed until he is right. He hasn't ever been right since the system came out.

Bob_at_york
11-09-2010, 02:09 PM
I have never bought into his stats.

tcav701
11-09-2010, 02:10 PM
I dont really know/care about Hollinger and what he claims. I am simply saying that his system makes sense and it shouldnt be just dismissed. Whether or not he came up with it...I dont know/care. I think it makes sense though.

I'm not dismissing it because these are factual statistics in him formula. However, the wieght that he designates to particular stats are in fact his opinion.

It's just a matter of if you agree with his formula/opinion.

I believe in results and don't think one stat is always better than another in terms of judging a team.

lakers4sho
11-09-2010, 02:11 PM
And the assumption is that he never, EVER, alters his formula.

tr4shb0t
11-09-2010, 02:16 PM
LOL. It is a FORMULA! It is not subjective. How can a formula have a bias!

Hollinger is a stats guy. His POV comes from number crunching...

If he personally likes Lebron a lot, it is because the numbers told him to...

Fail

Anyone could come up with a formula that always put their chosen team on top. But since its a formula it must hold true right?

Hollinger's rankings are just as biased as he is and they have never been very accurate.

Delusional

daleja424
11-09-2010, 02:16 PM
I'm not dismissing it because these are factual statistics in him formula. However, the wieght that he designates to particular stats are in fact his opinion.

It's just a matter of if you agree with his formula/opinion.

I believe in results and don't think one stat is always better than another in terms of judging a team.

you can see his formula though... the only arbitrary weight he uses is that he weights the work of the whole season heavier than the weight of the last 10 games...

he gives the entire season a weight of 67% and the last ten games 33%...

but that doesnt even have an impact this early in the year b/c no one has played 10 games yet.

so as of right now...there arent any arbitrary weights in the formula at all...

daleja424
11-09-2010, 02:19 PM
Fail

Anyone could come up with a formula that always put their chosen team on top. But since its a formula it must hold true right?

Hollinger's rankings are just as biased as he is and they have never been very accurate.

Delusional

just becasue someone could do something doesnt mean they have. For the fifth time I will say this, look at the formula and the explanation before you talk about a formula you are uninformed about. Also, this formula has been used for several years now. If you want to question the formula, then question something specific about it rather than make unfounded blanket statements.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 02:20 PM
I agree that you could build a formual to creata a bias... but that is not the case here if you actually look at the formula he uses.

fresh prince
11-09-2010, 02:22 PM
i legit jus looked at the top 5 and stopped he must be high Miami 1? Hornets 4? Lakers 2? Nuggets 5? Houston 9? Spurs 13? that list is a joke

Its Hollinger he is paid and has a job at ESPN only to be "different". Its the whole concept behind PER and everything else he puts out.

Be different be polarizing = unique visits and attention.

tcav701
11-09-2010, 02:24 PM
you can see his formula though... the only arbitrary weight he uses is that he weights the work of the whole season heavier than the weight of the last 10 games...

he gives the entire season a weight of 67% and the last ten games 33%...

but that doesnt even have an impact this early in the year b/c no one has played 10 games yet.

so as of right now...there arent any arbitrary weights in the formula at all...

Obvously there is when point differential is a bigger focus than opponents.

Miami and Boston each lose 2 road games by single digits.

Miami crushes New Jersey (twice), Philly, Minnesotta, Orlando. 1 projected playoff team.

Boston beats OKC, MIAMI, NYK, CHI, MIL, det. 5 projected playoff teams including Miami.

IMO a win in OKC or a close win over CHI and MIA outwieghs blowouts over MIN and Philly.

Thats just one of the reasons i disgree with this formula.


NO is undefeated and beat Miami. So obviously this system is flawed.

tr4shb0t
11-09-2010, 02:25 PM
Just weird, you have a lot of posts in this thread for someone who doesn't care about hollinger's rankings...

daleja424
11-09-2010, 02:30 PM
I didnt say I didnt care about the rankings...I said I dont care about Hollinger.

I think that what is being attempted by these rankings is cool...and has a basis in fact.

tr4shb0t
11-09-2010, 02:34 PM
You said you didn't care "what he claims" before, but ok

daleja424
11-09-2010, 02:40 PM
read it in context. the user said that hollinger claims to be some brilliant person and a revolutionary...

I said I dont care about hollinger or what he claims (meaning I dont care if he claims to be god or not)

I went on to say that his rankings do make sense though and they are interesting.

kArSoN RyDaH
11-09-2010, 02:40 PM
as for the HEAT and Lakers debate... it comes down to a couple simple facts...

Miami has played 3 home games and 4 road games and have a far stronger SOS so far and have still maintained a +13. While the Lakers have played 5 home games and 3 road games against a weaker SOS and also have a +13. Indicates that in the long run, when both teams have played a similar schedule and both have had equal numbers of home and road games that Miami SHOULD be the better team.

That is all this is saying.

i get what you're saying bro but in no way are the heat ahead of LA. La has a higher margin of victory and the SOS that miami has isnt that far off. 2 losses in 7 games? thats more than 25% of games played. lakers have yet to lose. NO should be ahead of Miami if you want to take into account SOS. they have similar SOS and NO is winning by an average margin of 6.

SouthSideRookie
11-09-2010, 02:42 PM
Just weird, you have a lot of posts in this thread for someone who doesn't care about hollinger's rankings...

And its funny that he's the only one trying to have a rational discussion and making valid points instead of arguing of how someone is being biased because team x isn't ranked ahead of team y.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 02:44 PM
from John Hollinger just now on twitter:

2010-11 Power Rankings up today (and every day) at http://es.pn/47zyNN Remember, it's entirely automated - same formula last five years

so unless, Hollinger predicted perfectly what all the teams would look like today, I highly doubt he built an equation in 2005 that would favor Miami against LA in 2010...

kArSoN RyDaH
11-09-2010, 02:49 PM
And its funny that he's the only one trying to have a rational discussion and making valid points instead of arguing of how someone is being biased because team x isn't ranked ahead of team y.

is that not what is supposed to go on in a sports discussion forum? :shrug:

tcav701
11-09-2010, 02:50 PM
from John Hollinger just now on twitter:


so unless, Hollinger predicted perfectly what all the teams would look like today, I highly doubt he built an equation in 2005 that would favor Miami against LA in 2010...

For the record, I don't think its biased. I just think it's a piss poor formula.

Slimsim
11-09-2010, 03:00 PM
my reason for liking it is simple... if you had to win a game...would you rather face the 3-3 Knicks or the 1-5 rockets. If you look at their record you would say you would rather play the Rockets...but real NBA fans would probably say they would rather play the Knicks b/c the Rockets are a better team.

I know what your saying, but no one is that clueless

Hunter48MVP
11-09-2010, 03:07 PM
This guy should be fired. Lakers should have been number #1

Patman
11-09-2010, 03:07 PM
It's funny how always when the Hollinger Power Rankings come out and they don't align with the perception of Fans, he is called an idiot and biased. And it's always from the fans of the Team that isn't first, be it Lakers, Celts, Orlando etc.

His Formula isn't that bad, even though i don't know if H/A should get that 3.0 points. But overall it's ok. Also we should not forget that the System has to work with a small sample size of about 7 games.

Chronz had a nice Thread in the Stats Forum where he showed that SRS is more important then Home court in the Playoffs, SRS is basically Point differential*SOS. So there is a reason tho think that win-loss record isn't the best way to predict how well a team will do.

justinnum1
11-09-2010, 03:16 PM
It's funny how always when the Hollinger Power Rankings come out and they don't align with the perception of Fans, he is called an idiot and biased. And it's always from the fans of the Team that isn't first, be it Lakers, Celts, Orlando etc.

His Formula isn't that bad, even though i don't know if H/A should get that 3.0 points. But overall it's ok. Also we should not forget that the System has to work with a small sample size of about 7 games.

Chronz had a nice Thread in the Stats Forum where he showed that SRS is more important then Home court in the Playoffs, SRS is basically Point differential*SOS. So there is a reason tho think that win-loss record isn't the best way to predict how well a team will do.

It is hilarious.

kArSoN RyDaH
11-09-2010, 03:16 PM
It's funny how always when the Hollinger Power Rankings come out and they don't align with the perception of Fans, he is called an idiot and biased. And it's always from the fans of the Team that isn't first, be it Lakers, Celts, Orlando etc.

His Formula isn't that bad, even though i don't know if H/A should get that 3.0 points. But overall it's ok. Also we should not forget that the System has to work with a small sample size of about 7 games.

Chronz had a nice Thread in the Stats Forum where he showed that SRS is more important then Home court in the Playoffs, SRS is basically Point differential*SOS. So there is a reason tho think that win-loss record isn't the best way to predict how well a team will do.

maybe because Lakers have the best record and are undefeated while having an average margin of victory at 13 pts? hmmm.

or how about bc the celtics beat the heat? :shrug:

:rolleyes:

fresh prince
11-09-2010, 03:25 PM
The "Hollinger formula" also had the Lakers losing in the West Semis in 2009 and in the confrence Finals last year so its already shown to be off base.

The formula's main deritive is to create controversy.

Baller1
11-09-2010, 03:28 PM
Jesus, we're 25th. How embarrassing, I hope we turn it around soon.

allupinya
11-09-2010, 03:30 PM
La IS #1

Supa
11-09-2010, 03:32 PM
Any idiot brave enough to use Hollinger's stats on Vegas bets?

Will Hollinger himself bet significant money of his own (say, 3 months of salary) base on his own stats?

People kept saying he is just a number guy. Well, the problem is not the numbers, the numbers are just the results, the problem is the formula.

The truth is, he is a writer, and he will get more viewership with controversial results.

---

MickeyMgl
11-09-2010, 03:39 PM
LOL. It is a FORMULA! It is not subjective. How can a formula have a bias!

Hollinger is a stats guy. His POV comes from number crunching...

If he personally likes Lebron a lot, it is because the numbers told him to...

Formulas reflect the biases of whoever drew up the formula.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 03:40 PM
we have already established that... keep reading :)

redsox0717
11-09-2010, 03:40 PM
Any idiot brave enough to use Hollinger's stats on Vegas bets?

Will Hollinger himself bet significant money of his own (say, 3 months of salary) base on his own stats?

People kept saying he is just a number guy. Well, the problem is not the numbers, the numbers are just the results, the problem is the formula.

The truth is, he is a writer, and he will get more viewership with controversial results.

---

You should of seen Hollinger's playoff predictions last year which he bases largely on these stats. Needless to say he was horribly wrong with 80% of his picks, particularly with Boston. They're fun to look at, sure, but they don't really prove anything.

MickeyMgl
11-09-2010, 03:44 PM
The Rockets have played about the toughest schedule thus far. In two of the six games Yao was out, they were in position to win late in the game in every single instance. So yeah this is pretty accurate, however these rankings should change as the season progreses.

The Rockets' position is actually one of the things I have the LEAST problem with on this list. They are a good team, with close losses to stronger teams. That said, I'd expect them to slip with the absence of Brooks.

daleja424
11-09-2010, 03:47 PM
The thing is these are not great with playoff predictions b/c it doesnt account for the ability of some teams to turn it up in the playoffs. The predictions he makes are based on what these teams do in the regular season. Boston looked old and not all that great in the regular season last year, so of course the predictions based on THOSE stats isnt going to have them going very far.

News24/7
11-09-2010, 03:56 PM
You know what's hilarious. Hollinger used this formula in the 2008-2009 season for the western conference where at the end of the regular season, he has the Utah Jazz at #1 and Lakers at #2 despite the fact the lakers once again ended with a better record, point differential, etc. Then in his playoffs predictions that same year, he had the Utah Jazz making the finals.

For a second i thought he either hated the lakers or was a huge jazz fan, but i was wrong since he pulls up stuff like this every year. IMO, i think he pulls off controversial stuff like this all the time just to get some recognition regardless if the rep is bad or not.

J4KOP99
11-09-2010, 04:02 PM
I dont really know/care about Hollinger and what he claims. I am simply saying that his system makes sense and it shouldnt be just dismissed. Whether or not he came up with it...I dont know/care. I think it makes sense though.

It may make sense from a numbers POV but his predictions are rarely ever right. I can only find a couple of them on the internet right now but the past few years he has always been wrong.


Why are you guys giving him so much credibility when his statistical way of ranking teams always fails?


Last year his finals prediction was Cavaliers vs. Suns... (Pheonix vs. Utah being the WCF... at some point, you have to let the numbers go)

TheHoopsProphet
11-09-2010, 04:09 PM
The thing is these are not great with playoff predictions b/c it doesnt account for the ability of some teams to turn it up in the playoffs. The predictions he makes are based on what these teams do in the regular season. Boston looked old and not all that great in the regular season last year, so of course the predictions based on THOSE stats isnt going to have them going very far.

hyena sight is 20.20 with Barbara Walters my friend.

The formula is flawed! Quintessential example of why stats only explain half the story. You must take his stats with a grain of fruity pebbles, and not defend them like they are the gospel of truthiness.

dnewguy
11-09-2010, 04:10 PM
Just because Germany has a better economy than the United States don't make them a better country. The United States has the largest economy, freedom and the best military on the planet thus making us the best country. Using that analogy, just because the Lakers have a better record don't make them the better team, we have Lebron James, Dwayne Wade and some nights we also have Chris Bosh. It just goes with the territory; lets face it, Miami Heat has the best team on the planet.

NeutralFan
11-09-2010, 04:12 PM
Just because Germany has a better economy than the United States don't make them a better country because the U.S has the largest economy and best military on the planet. Using that analogy, just because the Lakers have a better record don't make them the better team, we have Lebron James, Dwayne Wade and some nights we also have Chris Bosh. It just goes with the territory; lets face it, Miami Heat has the best team on the planet.

hilarious. The Heat couldnt beat the current Lakers without Bynum let alone with him. They have 0 inside presence and Gasol and Odom would destroy Bosh.

dnewguy
11-09-2010, 04:14 PM
hilarious. The Heat couldnt beat the current Lakers without Bynum let alone with him. They have 0 inside presence and Gasol and Odom would destroy Bosh.

With only Wade and Beasley, the Lakers needed a lucky shot to beat them ONCE, even with Bynum.

CityofTreez
11-09-2010, 04:14 PM
John Hollinger is such an idiot. His predictions year after year are nothing close to sensible

DCB/LAL
11-09-2010, 04:16 PM
Just because Germany has a better economy than the United States don't make them a better country. The United States has the largest economy, freedom and the best military on the planet thus making us the best country. Using that analogy, just because the Lakers have a better record don't make them the better team, we have Lebron James, Dwayne Wade and some nights we also have Chris Bosh. It just goes with the territory; lets face it, Miami Heat has the best team on the planet.

:laugh: :laugh2:

NeutralFan
11-09-2010, 04:18 PM
With only Wade and Beasley, the Lakers needed a lucky shot to beat them ONCE, even with Bynum.

And you obviously dont realize that the Lakers coast in the regular season

xabial
11-09-2010, 04:18 PM
I Stopped Reading when I Saw Heat Ahead of Lakers...

daleja424
11-09-2010, 04:23 PM
My point stands... you mock Hollinger for having Phoenix and Cleveland in the finals last year... but based on how they played in the regular season last year that is what the stats suggested. Ya, it is easy to say he is an idiot now that we saw Cleveland lose to Boston... but at the time it wasn't really all that bold of a prediction was it? His formula cannot account for the fact that some teams put it in cruise control in the regular season...but neither can humans. Who honestly thought, after how old Boston looked all year last year, that Boston was the best team in the east? Come on.

J4KOP99
11-09-2010, 04:25 PM
My point stands... you mock Hollinger for having Phoenix and Cleveland in the finals last year... but based on how they played in the regular season last year that is what the stats suggested. Ya, it is easy to say he is an idiot now that we saw Cleveland lose to Boston... but at the time it wasn't really all that bold of a prediction was it? His formula cannot account for the fact that some teams put it in cruise control in the regular season...but neither can humans. Who honestly thought, after how old Boston looked all year last year, that Boston was the best team in the east? Come on.

How the hell is pheonix vs Utah in the WCF not a bold prediction? If his formula can't take those key points into consideration, then why is this deserving of any credibility at all?

TheHoopsProphet
11-09-2010, 04:29 PM
Just because Germany has a better economy than the United States don't make them a better country. The United States has the largest economy, freedom and the best military on the planet thus making us the best country. Using that analogy, just because the Lakers have a better record don't make them the better team, we have Lebron James, Dwayne Wade and some nights we also have Chris Bosh. It just goes with the territory; lets face it, Miami Heat has the best team on the planet.

you shutta your mouth! you shutta your mouth right now!

DCB/LAL
11-09-2010, 04:33 PM
Just because Germany has a better economy than the United States don't make them a better country. The United States has the largest economy, freedom and the best military on the planet thus making us the best country. Using that analogy, just because the Lakers have a better record don't make them the better team, we have Lebron James, Dwayne Wade and some nights we also have Chris Bosh. It just goes with the territory; lets face it, Miami Heat has the best team on the planet.

So their the best team on the planet yet according to you their not "a championship team"?? :laugh:


http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15460035&postcount=249


Yeah go edit that post....

Supa
11-09-2010, 04:33 PM
Hollinger must be brilliant; he comes out with this shady "formula" every year that has one group of people defending him, and another group of people hating him, all while both groups reading his articles on ESPN.

If you want to see less of Hollinger, just skip him.

---

daleja424
11-09-2010, 04:33 PM
How the hell is pheonix vs Utah in the WCF not a bold prediction? If his formula can't take those key points into consideration, then why is this deserving of any credibility at all?

they deserve just as much credibility as we give every other set of power rankings... and as much credibility as we give the analysts who also did not pick Boston to get to the finals.

Like I have said though, these rankings work well in the regular season b/c they are based on what teams do in the regular season.

Your point would be the same as saying why should we base playoff seeding on W-L when W-L doesnt really matter once the playoffs have started (if it did then there would be no need for the playoffs).

daleja424
11-09-2010, 04:34 PM
The point is simple. This is just one tool that can be looked at to see where teams stand. It is not an end-all-be-all anymore than W-L is... but it is pretty well thought out and it makes sense.

SouthSideRookie
11-09-2010, 04:44 PM
The Rockets' position is actually one of the things I have the LEAST problem with on this list. They are a good team, with close losses to stronger teams. That said, I'd expect them to slip with the absence of Brooks.

Actually I disagree, Brooks lack of running the offense and bad defense has been a major issue. It's no coincidence that in the Spurs game after Brooks got hurt the Rockets inserted Ish Smith and the Rockets made a comeback and actually had the game had Courtney Lee made his free throws.

On Ish, he impressed in the pre-season and like I said, the way he ran the point in the second half of the Spurs game made the offense run alot alot smoother because of how Ish was setting everyone up, he's defense was also significantly better than Brooks.

It's been just 6 quarters and 4 of those vs the TWolves so obviously it's a tiny sample size but the difference in the way Ish ran the offense is cearly better than how Brooks had with this Rockets squad.

cambovenzi
11-09-2010, 06:24 PM
So the heat are better b/c they lost more and have a harder SOS b/c of it.

Makes lots of sense. :rolleyes:

The undefeated Lakers are definitely doing better and deserve to be higher in any power rankings.

Bruno
11-09-2010, 06:57 PM
LOL. It is a FORMULA! It is not subjective. How can a formula have a bias!

Hollinger is a stats guy. His POV comes from number crunching...

If he personally likes Lebron a lot, it is because the numbers told him to...

Anyone who has majored in statistics, or is a mathematician can use statistics to argue one side or the other. Statistics can be manipulated depending on ones bias. Not that Hollinger does this, but stats can be argued to fit a bias.

I respect his advanced stats formulas (mainly because GM's look at them), but his predictions can be as flawed as the next guys. All you gotta do is go back to the ESPN playoff pages for the past three years; he's wrong just as much as anyone else who doesn't use a fancy formula.

Kevj77
11-09-2010, 07:17 PM
Hollinger's formula really leaves a lot to be desired with such a small sample size. It is based mostly on margin of victory and ignores W-L, but subtracts 3.5 points from margin of victory for home wins. It also rates SOS, which can vary widely with a small sample, but by the end of the season will be nearly the same for all teams. He rates last ten games played higher to account for recent performance, but that can't come into effect after only 7-8 games.

Not a very effective power ranking system this early in the season.

Afro
11-09-2010, 07:21 PM
No sports formula is going to be perfect.

The Lakers are undoubtedly the best team in the NBA right now followed by the Hornets, Celtics then the Heat. That's just my personal opinion. We really shouldn't be getting upset about these rankings since it's obvious the Lakers are the best in the league at the moment.

Avenged
11-09-2010, 07:25 PM
Hollinger uses stats for rankings.

While other use facts [as in who's won, and who's lost]

For rankings, personally, I prefer the W-L formula. At the end of the day, a loss is a loss, and a win is a win no matter who your opponent is.

Swashcuff
11-09-2010, 07:34 PM
Hollinger uses stats for rankings.

While other use facts [as in who's won, and who's lost]

For rankings, personally, I prefer the W-L formula. At the end of the day, a loss is a loss, and a win is a win no matter who your opponent is.

EXACTLY

That's why I say it should not be called rankings. It should be called league leaders by Hollinger's statistical formula/analysis.

I understand there is a formula to it all and in many ways it makes sense. Just not when it comes to ranking which teams are the best. If all you take into consideration is stats you are leaving major key elements of the game.

Fmaranesi
11-09-2010, 07:40 PM
Once the Lakers face the Celtics, Magic, Heat and so on and if they beat them then you will clearly see them as the number 1 team but as of right now the Lakers have beaten a bunch of trash teams ( Im not saying the lakers arent the best, I know they are) . The same way the Hawks werent higher even though they started out 6-0, they played garbage teams and won and when they faced their only two real competition , they lost.

Hollinger has his formula, why do you care so much about which team is ranked where?

irishkid1691
11-09-2010, 07:41 PM
how are the heat at 1 and the celtics at 6? makes no sense that they are higher. and how is it that the defending champs are not number one with the record they have? ********

bringinwood
11-09-2010, 07:45 PM
So according to the logic of some people...

If a team such as the Heat blow out 10 teams by 50 points in those games and then lose one game by one point they shouldn't be considered the best team ???

Say the only undefeated team has won each game in overtime by 1 point... Does that still make them the best team or the luckiest ???

The Heat, far and away, have the most talent in basketball... They have the best shot at winning the East and will compete for a championship with the best possibility of winning...

Would anyone in this forum disagree with anything I just said ??? If you don't, then they should be number one in the rankings...

MacFitz92
11-09-2010, 07:50 PM
Rockets(1-5) above Mavericks (4-2)

Lol. These don't mean anything.

Enemey
11-09-2010, 08:13 PM
Once the Lakers face the Celtics, Magic, Heat and so on and if they beat them then you will clearly see them as the number 1 team but as of right now the Lakers have beaten a bunch of trash teams ( Im not saying the lakers arent the best, I know they are) . The same way the Hawks werent higher even though they started out 6-0, they played garbage teams and won and when they faced their only two real competition , they lost.

Hollinger has his formula, why do you care so much about which team is ranked where?

Yeah because the heat have beaten Great teams!! 76ers NJ twolves !!!

I can't believe the Lakers still have to prove something when they are the defending CHAMPS !

Kevj77
11-09-2010, 08:38 PM
So according to the logic of some people...

If a team such as the Heat blow out 10 teams by 50 points in those games and then lose one game by one point they shouldn't be considered the best team ???

Say the only undefeated team has won each game in overtime by 1 point... Does that still make them the best team or the luckiest ???Holliger's formula is based on margin of victory and SOS. He subtracts 3.5 points from margin of victory for home games. The Lakers actually have a better margin of victory and are 7-0. They missed the top spot because they had more home games and because Heat opponents have a .595 winning percentage when they're not playing the Heat, compared to .524 for Lakers foes.

The sample size is much to small for this formula.

ink
11-09-2010, 08:44 PM
Holliger's formula is based on margin of victory and SOS. He subtracts 3.5 points from margin of victory for home games. The Lakers actually have a better margin of victory and are 7-0. They missed the top spot because they had more home games and because Heat opponents have a .595 winning percentage when they're not playing the Heat, compared to .524 for Lakers foes.

The sample size is much to small for this formula.

This.

The rankings are not that weird. Actually they make a lot of sense, but the sample size is ridiculously small. Wait another 10-20 games and they will make more and more sense.

Margin of victory and SOS. A team like the Heat who is winning big against its opponents is going to skew the results with such a small sample. Fact is though that they are probably going to stay near the top all year because they are going to blow a lot of teams out.

ink
11-09-2010, 08:45 PM
Yeah because the heat have beaten Great teams!! 76ers NJ twolves !!!

I can't believe the Lakers still have to prove something when they are the defending CHAMPS !

Everyone knows they're a top team. But this is a new season and they have new players. For all we know they could be better. They'll prove themselves, no need to get worked up about it.

49erGiantLaker
11-09-2010, 08:50 PM
I can't believe the Lakers still have to prove something when they are the defending CHAMPS !

i agree

ink
11-09-2010, 08:56 PM
i agree

Do you really think anyone is really going to let go of their personal bias when it comes to rankings? Everyone who cheers for a contender is going to believe their team is the best until the next rings are handed out. Just the way it is.

saintdrew
11-09-2010, 09:01 PM
Hornets at 4 baby

numba1CHANGsta
11-09-2010, 09:04 PM
Ive learned something over the years from his rankings and that is whoever finishes first will NOT win the NBA title lol

ink
11-09-2010, 09:08 PM
Ive learned something over the years from his rankings and that is whoever finishes first will NOT win the NBA title lol

Which is why stats are a good guide with a ton of information but have to be taken with a grain of salt. Fans watch for the human element, the upsets, the beatdowns, the regular season wonders who can't close the deal in the playoffs, the underdogs who kill off the contenders. The players and teams that can be inferior statistically but superior in a dozen other ways that determine championships.

TrueHeatFanHere
11-09-2010, 09:54 PM
We the best

Hawkeye15
11-09-2010, 09:57 PM
Holliger's formula is based on margin of victory and SOS. He subtracts 3.5 points from margin of victory for home games. The Lakers actually have a better margin of victory and are 7-0. They missed the top spot because they had more home games and because Heat opponents have a .595 winning percentage when they're not playing the Heat, compared to .524 for Lakers foes.

The sample size is much to small for this formula.

I mean, this is thread right here. Perfect explanation. Remember last year, when the Lakers had 30 home games to 15 road games to start the season, so their record was inflated (yes, a bit of a stretch, you get my point)? SOS, and home vs away margins do tell us a lot.

cambovenzi
11-09-2010, 10:09 PM
I mean, this is thread right here. Perfect explanation. Remember last year, when the Lakers had 30 home games to 15 road games to start the season, so their record was inflated (yes, a bit of a stretch, you get my point)? SOS, and home vs away margins do tell us a lot.

True, but you know what else tells me alot?
Winning every single game you play.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2010, 10:19 PM
True, but you know what else tells me alot?
Winning every single game you play.

huh? Do you think the Lakers will win 82 games? Their schedule absolutely has to be addressed. Same thing as last year. When they had that unreal record after game 44, anyone knew it was going to get worse due to their home/away game disparity.

Kannon81
11-09-2010, 11:44 PM
well the Heat are now 5-3 lost a 20+ point lead and gave up 46 points in the 3rd qt.

tcav701
11-10-2010, 07:19 AM
Does this loser Hollinger still have them #1 at 5-3??????

MickeyMgl
11-10-2010, 08:04 AM
Just because Germany has a better economy than the United States don't make them a better country. The United States has the largest economy, freedom and the best military on the planet thus making us the best country.

Yeeee Hawwwwww!!!!!! America! Fugh Yeah!

Sactown
11-10-2010, 08:43 AM
The formula takes a small sample size and makes a projection for the rest of the season that's not based off of W/L..
If it were based of W/L, La would be 82-0 along with NO
and the clips would be like 10-72 along with Houston...
I would take Hollingers over a W/L based ranking.
FYI no ranking is going to project a w/l record that's going to be accurate after 10 games.. teams like Miami have to find chemistry while teams like NO will eventually come back to earth.. I'm not saying NO sucks, but they're not going to win 82 games.

shep33
11-10-2010, 09:26 AM
I don't like his formula and how he interprets who is better and what not. It's for the regular season I understand, but honestly what's the point... say hypothetically the Celtics have a worse ranking then the Magic... Okay, this is no disrespect to Magic fans, but a lot of people would consider Boston a better team, even if they finish worse according to his advanced stats, etc.

What i'm saying is that you can tell which teams are better than others just by watching them play. The atmosphere of the game also varies... a playoff game is different from a regular season game, which is different from the preseason.
Basically the formula and system is useless in determining who the real best teams in the league are. The Lakers and Celts for instance... if they tried extremely hard each night they'd blow a lot of teams out by 30ppg. However, that's not there goal, they play to win championships, so they really don't care about the regular season...

I dunno, i just think its kinda useless.

cambovenzi
11-10-2010, 10:42 AM
huh? Do you think the Lakers will win 82 games? Their schedule absolutely has to be addressed. Same thing as last year. When they had that unreal record after game 44, anyone knew it was going to get worse due to their home/away game disparity.

Ofcourse they wont win every game, but they have so far.
Winning every game so far is much better than having a tough schedule and losing almost every tough game you play in.

Cool they played the hornets, celtics and jazz so far. they lost all 3 games.

Orlando is the only good team they have played and beaten from what i see.

Way too many bonus points for losing to good teams.

Even after their 3rd loss they are STILL ranked higher than the undefeated lakers...

Hawkeye15
11-10-2010, 10:45 AM
Ofcourse they wont win every game, but they have so far.
Winning every game so far is much better than having a tough schedule and losing almost every tough game you play in.

Cool they played the hornets, celtics and jazz so far. they lost all 3 games.

Orlando is the only good team they have played and beaten from what i see.

Way too many bonus points for losing to good teams.

Even after their 3rd loss they are STILL ranked higher than the undefeated lakers...


well, that loss wasn't factored in to last weeks rankings.
And it does matter what SOS, and home/away games do man. For sure it does. I am not saying I agree entirely with Hollinger's forumla, and 8 games is not a big enough sample size for him to even start these rankings yet.
I actually love George Karl's measure of how good a team is. He basically says, take margin of victory, and then subtract road wins from home losses, and that will tell you who is better.

cambovenzi
11-10-2010, 10:58 AM
I think it updates, but i could be wrong. (has lakers @8-0 and heat @5-3)

michael811
11-10-2010, 11:35 AM
It says its a daily power ranking so obviously this formula is flawed. Its all based on scoring margin but there is a reason some teams are able to win close games while others can't and its has nothing to do with luck

cambovenzi
11-10-2010, 11:38 AM
It says its a daily power ranking so obviously this formula is flawed. Its all based on scoring margin but there is a reason some teams are able to win close games while others can't and its has nothing to do with luck

Some of it has to do with variance, but i agree not all of it does.

Also some teams coast more when they are up big and let the margin of victory shrink.
Not really indicative of the team's true talent.

Hawkeye15
11-10-2010, 11:51 AM
my only major issue with it currently is lack of sample size.

daleja424
11-10-2010, 11:56 AM
Yes it still has Miami ahead of LA, but the lead has shunken... the reason is that Miami lost to Utah by 2 points in OT and LA beat a bad T-Wolves team by only 5 points. That brought the scoring margin and SOS down for LA.

and honestly, the HEAT should never have let the Jazz get back in it... but what the heck can you really do when Paul Millsap is 3-3 on contested 3 pointers to tie the game!?!

michael811
11-10-2010, 01:41 PM
Here is an issue with this formula holinger computes strength of schedule using opponents winning percentage. Since he claims his formula his better than win loss records at determining which team is better than which shouldn't his formula be used to determine strength of schedule. The Utah Jazz just beat the best team in the league according to Holinger but they only get credit for beating a 5-3 team

Patman
11-10-2010, 03:58 PM
Here is an issue with this formula holinger computes strength of schedule using opponents winning percentage. Since he claims his formula his better than win loss records at determining which team is better than which shouldn't his formula be used to determine strength of schedule. The Utah Jazz just beat the best team in the league according to Holinger but they only get credit for beating a 5-3 team

Yeah thats an inconsistency in the System especially bad in the first half of the Season. Over the course of the Season you could argue that SOS evens out because sometimes you play teams that are better then their record indicates and sometimes teams that are worse, so in the end Winning percentage isn't a bad indicator of SOS, but i totally agree that at the moment it is a problem. And for that matter the whole sample size issue makes those rankings fragile.

michael811
11-10-2010, 04:29 PM
Yeah thats an inconsistency in the System especially bad in the first half of the Season. Over the course of the Season you could argue that SOS evens out because sometimes you play teams that are better then their record indicates and sometimes teams that are worse, so in the end Winning percentage isn't a bad indicator of SOS, but i totally agree that at the moment it is a problem. And for that matter the whole sample size issue makes those rankings fragile.

You know thats a good point that it evens out I didn't think of that. But I guess I would say that the schedule eventually evens out for all teams so why have it in the first place then. The sample size is too small at the moment so I guess I will wait and see what it looks like in a few weeks

Bishnoff
11-10-2010, 04:36 PM
Oh dear. I'm a Suns fan and I know that we are clearly not the 6th best team in the league right now.

Miami 1st??? Come on, show some respect to the Lakers, Hornets and Magic.

rjvacad
11-10-2010, 04:49 PM
Lakers are 8-0 and the heat are 5-3, enough said. The only team that can beat the Lakers, are the Lakers.

justinnum1
11-10-2010, 04:53 PM
why are all the lakers fans complaining?

cambovenzi
11-10-2010, 05:01 PM
why are all the lakers fans complaining?

Is that a serious question?

We are complaining b/c ranking the back to back 8-0 undefeated champs behind the 5-3 heat in rankings should be a crime.

cambovenzi
11-10-2010, 05:03 PM
God forbid the Lakers lose a game or two, we might fall out of the top 10 ;)

rjvacad
11-10-2010, 05:03 PM
Whose complaining?

Patman
11-10-2010, 05:50 PM
You know thats a good point that it evens out I didn't think of that. But I guess I would say that the schedule eventually evens out for all teams so why have it in the first place then. The sample size is too small at the moment so I guess I will wait and see what it looks like in a few weeks

Not necessarily, because not all teams play the same teams, you play the teams in your conference and Devision more. So a Team from a stronger Conference will have a harder time winning than one in a bad conference or Devision.

Margin of Victory is a good indicator because it does not take in to account lucky close wins, sure you can say that if you win them the Team is more clutch, but there are so many factors there, a bad call, a player getting ridiculously hot (Paul Milsap for example) etc.
I don't claim that Hollingers system is perfect or the end of it all, but it is solid. No statistical model will explain everything and be correct all the time this is just not possible because many things can't be taken into account.

tcav701
11-10-2010, 06:35 PM
Here is an issue with this formula holinger computes strength of schedule using opponents winning percentage. Since he claims his formula his better than win loss records at determining which team is better than which shouldn't his formula be used to determine strength of schedule. The Utah Jazz just beat the best team in the league according to Holinger but they only get credit for beating a 5-3 team

Thats the thing that gets me.

According to Hollinger winning percentage is not importat when deciding his rankings but opponents win percentage is what decides SOS which in turn, decides his rankings.

It is such a crock of **** lol.

WadeKobe
11-10-2010, 06:59 PM
Thats the thing that gets me.

According to Hollinger winning percentage is not importat when deciding his rankings but opponents win percentage is what decides SOS which in turn, decides his rankings.

It is such a crock of **** lol.

I think all of the people talking like this need to calm down, take a deep breath, back up, and re-evaluate their life. Why are you so angry? Why is it a crock of ****?

Do you have a better methodology to propose? Would you make the win% more valuable in the formula? Would you propose a different method for determining SOS?

That is how scholarly analysis (which in-depth statistics is) works in any field. You identify weaknesses in the methodology and you improve upon them. You don't thrash about like an angry juvenile.

tcav701
11-10-2010, 07:02 PM
I think all of the people talking like this need to calm down, take a deep breath, back up, and re-evaluate their life. Why are you so angry? Why is it a crock of ****?

Do you have a better methodology to propose? Would you make the win% more valuable in the formula? Would you propose a different method for determining SOS?

That is how scholarly analysis (which in-depth statistics is) works in any field. You identify weaknesses in the methodology and you improve upon them. You don't thrash about like an angry juvenile.

First off if Miami was in the 15 spot you would be calling BS on his system just like 90% of the world.

My point was if he is confident in his rankings, he should use those same rankings to determine SOS.

mavwar53
11-10-2010, 07:28 PM
He uses to many "politics" in his calcuations. Bottom line if you're undefeated then you should be ranked # 1 ie Lakers or NO. So on and so forth. If you haven't won a game you should be ranked on the bottom.

Wasn't it Bill Parcels who said the team is only as good as their record? That's how it should be.

Well smart guy that is one way to look at it this is a different one. All it takes is even a tiny opening in your brain if you want to understand this but obviously yours is closed shut.

Open Sesame!

It has been just a few games, when we are a month and a half to 2 months in these stats should be more reflective of the standings.

WadeKobe
11-10-2010, 07:29 PM
First off if Miami was in the 15 spot you would be calling BS on his system just like 90% of the world.

My point was if he is confident in his rankings, he should use those same rankings to determine SOS.

And my point is that it's very easy to criticize someone else for what you might perceive as a flawed methodology. It's much more difficult to do the hard work to offer a better methodology or to improve upon the given methodology.

Anyone can say something stinks. But until you offer some air freshener... you're just adding bad breath to the smell.

WadeKobe
11-10-2010, 07:30 PM
First off if Miami was in the 15 spot you would be calling BS on his system just like 90% of the world.

My point was if he is confident in his rankings, he should use those same rankings to determine SOS.

And no. Currently I would have no problem with Miami being in the 15 spot. If we can't play against bigs down low and we keep allowing 60 points in the paint.... we won't make it past the 2nd round.

tcav701
11-10-2010, 07:33 PM
And no. Currently I would have no problem with Miami being in the 15 spot. If we can't play against bigs down low and we keep allowing 60 points in the paint.... we won't make it past the 2nd round.

And yet Hollinger still has you at 1.

WadeKobe
11-10-2010, 07:36 PM
And yet Hollinger still has you at 1.

Again... do you have anything better? You're kinda proving my point...

mohye
11-10-2010, 07:46 PM
correct. b/c if Miami beats the Wolves by 1 point and the Lakers lose to the Hornets by 1 point... it doesn't make Miami better b/c they have a win and LA doesnt. In fact, as the year goes on and the teams all play eachother the Lakers would be expected to pummel the Wolves and the HEAt would be expected to struggle against the Hornets. (THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL!!!)

Well then Hypotheically your Heat can be the #1 team and the champs..the Lakers will be the real #1 team and the real champs once the season is over...

tcav701
11-10-2010, 07:57 PM
Again... do you have anything better? You're kinda proving my point...

Dude, I dont have to create an alternate ranking system to dsipute Hollinger's. Miami is still #1 at 5-3. I know it's a small sample size, but if it's inacurate in week one because of the sample size, it should not be released.

My only point was downplaying winning percentage and uplaying SOS is hypocritical when using winning percentage to determine SOS.

My system? The one that works.

Teams that win are better than teams that lose.

michael811
11-10-2010, 08:03 PM
it should be a simple fix instead of using win loss to determine strength of schedule use an average of your opponents rating in holinger's formula to determine strength of schedule. As it stands right now a win over the hornets is more valuable than a win over the Heat and that completely contradicts the point of the formula in the first place. I have no idea how to actually do that because I am not smart enough and also I am too lazy but Holinger should be able to do it.

tcav701
11-10-2010, 08:06 PM
it should be a simple fix instead of using win loss to determine strength of schedule use an average of your opponents rating in holinger's formula to determine strength of schedule. As it stands right now a win over the hornets is more valuable than a win over the Heat and that completely contradicts the point of the formula in the first place. I have no idea how to actually do that because I am not smart enough and also I am too lazy but Holinger should be able to do it.

I'm right with you man problem is nobody is grasping this in Miami.

cambovenzi
11-10-2010, 08:35 PM
it should be a simple fix instead of using win loss to determine strength of schedule use an average of your opponents rating in holinger's formula to determine strength of schedule. As it stands right now a win over the hornets is more valuable than a win over the Heat and that completely contradicts the point of the formula in the first place. I have no idea how to actually do that because I am not smart enough and also I am too lazy but Holinger should be able to do it.


I'm right with you man problem is nobody is grasping this in Miami.

The problem with that is it would change the hollinger rankings and they wouldn't really be hollinger ranked what you had them at.
(ex, if utah is awesome for beating #1 miami, and then miami dropped spots b/c they got beat by lesser hollinger ranked teams, miami would drop. now suddenly you are rewarding utah big time for beating a middle ranked team.)
Its a circle.

rjvacad
11-10-2010, 08:35 PM
Dude, I dont have to create an alternate ranking system to dsipute Hollinger's. Miami is still #1 at 5-3. I know it's a small sample size, but if it's inacurate in week one because of the sample size, it should not be released.

My only point was downplaying winning percentage and uplaying SOS is hypocritical when using winning percentage to determine SOS.

My system? The one that works.

Teams that win are better than teams that lose.

Bingo!

MickeyMgl
11-10-2010, 08:41 PM
why are all the lakers fans complaining?

Are they?

tcav701
11-10-2010, 08:41 PM
The problem with that is it would change the hollinger rankings and they wouldn't really be hollinger ranked what you had them at.
(ex, if utah is awesome for beating #1 miami, and then miami dropped spots b/c they got beat by lesser hollinger ranked teams, miami would drop. now suddenly you are rewarding utah big time for beating a middle ranked team.)
Its a circle.

I see what you're saying bro but stay with me here,

you can't do it either way and there is no logical way to create rankings that contradict themselves. I undertstand his rankings would change if he changed his formula.....

The way it is now though Miami is #1 on his rankings but Boston,NO and Utah only get credit for beating a 5-3 team.

Do you not see the gross deficiency in this?

cambovenzi
11-10-2010, 08:45 PM
I see what you're saying bro but stay with me here,

you can't do it either way and there is no logical way to create rankings that contradict themselves. I understand his rankings would change if he changed his formula.....

The way it is now though Miami is #1 on his rankings but Boston,NO and Utah only get credit for beating a 5-3 team.

Do you not see the gross deficiency in this?

yea i see the problem there too.

evadatam5150
11-11-2010, 02:50 AM
this is based on stats. It is more a projection of where these teams will end up by the end of the year based on their production today. It doesnt take actual wins and losses into account. I actually like it. It gives you a better idea who the good teams are.

For example.... If a team is 4-1 b/c they played 5 nonplayoff teams in a bunch of 1-2 point games...are they really better than a team that is 1-4 that has played 1-2 point games against 5 playoff teams?

I guess if you aren't taking into account that team A (the good team) is winning by 15 with 2 minutes to play so coach puts in his scrubs so the talent doesn't get hurt.. Team B (the bad team) keeps their starters in and goes off on a 12 to 0 run and team A only wins by 3.. Is this then really indicative of what really happened in the game..?? The answer is no..

It's smoke and mirrors and isn't absolute.. It's mathematics based on probables that aren't factual.. But hey, it's Hollinger so it's always going to be based on warped and biased thinking..

KDM1986
11-11-2010, 03:11 AM
the guy is clearly an azz clown

Patman
11-11-2010, 05:42 AM
I see what you're saying bro but stay with me here,

you can't do it either way and there is no logical way to create rankings that contradict themselves. I undertstand his rankings would change if he changed his formula.....

The way it is now though Miami is #1 on his rankings but Boston,NO and Utah only get credit for beating a 5-3 team.

Do you not see the gross deficiency in this?

Like i pointed out before over the course of a season this will probably even out because sometimes you play a team that has a better record then it should have (example Atlanta before there losses) and sometimes you play teams that have a worse record then they should have. so in the end you can take Win-Loss as SOS.
I would think that Hollinger and other Stat Guys had a look at this and decided it wouldn't be worth the trouble to define SOS with other metrics.

Also it's interesting that SRS (Simple Rating System) wich is ScoringMArgin*SOS is a better playoff succes predictor then HCA (wich is based on Win-Loss), even though the HC Team should have an built in advantage because they play at home.

No the system is not perfect and it is way to early for it before 20 Games are played the sample size is way to small.

sharqstealth
11-11-2010, 06:15 AM
How can you say the Heat are #1? It's plain and simple. The Heat's record is 5-3, the Hornets 7-0. The hornets beat the Heat. Shouldn't the Hornets be better than the Heat at this point? John Hollinger is an A*hole! He sucks Lebron and Wade's d*ck for a living!

sharqstealth
11-11-2010, 06:16 AM
How can you say the Heat are #1? It's plain and simple. The Heat's record is 5-3, the Hornets 7-0. The hornets beat the Heat. Shouldn't the Hornets be better than the Heat at this point? John Hollinger is biased! He sucks Lebron and Wade's d*ck for a living!

rjvacad
11-11-2010, 10:12 AM
^^You clearly do not know what you are talking about... go look at the Hollinger's formula... it is NOTHING like the BCS (which has considerable human input)

It figures, only a heat fan would agree or defend hollinger. Even Mark Stein disagrees with hollinger and has the Lakers #1. IMO and I know I will hear about this, but the heat don't even belong in the same breath as the Lakers and they won't belong until they win something and what they are showing now is weak compared to all their hype, he has to back his claim that the heat will win the title their 1st year.

michael811
11-11-2010, 11:40 AM
Like i pointed out before over the course of a season this will probably even out because sometimes you play a team that has a better record then it should have (example Atlanta before there losses) and sometimes you play teams that have a worse record then they should have. so in the end you can take Win-Loss as SOS.
I would think that Hollinger and other Stat Guys had a look at this and decided it wouldn't be worth the trouble to define SOS with other metrics.

Also it's interesting that SRS (Simple Rating System) wich is ScoringMArgin*SOS is a better playoff succes predictor then HCA (wich is based on Win-Loss), even though the HC Team should have an built in advantage because they play at home.

No the system is not perfect and it is way to early for it before 20 Games are played the sample size is way to small.

The Nba toughest schedule in the league last year was houston at .509 and the easiest was New York at .492 is that really that much of a difference? SoS was included so that you could look at the rankings earlier in the season and it would take into account the schedule not being even at that point but it relies on a methodology that needs to even out itself. So its probably just as likely this his strength of schedule is off as much as the actual schedule is itself. And as the season goes on when we get a larger sample size that becomes more and more the case

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 05:21 PM
Dude, I dont have to create an alternate ranking system to dsipute Hollinger's. Miami is still #1 at 5-3. I know it's a small sample size, but if it's inacurate in week one because of the sample size, it should not be released.

My only point was downplaying winning percentage and uplaying SOS is hypocritical when using winning percentage to determine SOS.

My system? The one that works.

Teams that win are better than teams that lose.

But that's not a system that works. That's why teams with lower Win% make it to the NBA Finals like Boston did last year. Eventually, given enough games and head-to-head matchups when it matters, the better teams win - regardless of what their record is up to that point.

That's why the Cavaliers have had the best record in the NBA the last two seasons and not won a single title. Because they never were the #1 team in the league despite their having the best record.

Being the best team or performing the best, the most consistently does not always translate into the most wins. ONe team could play miserable but catch a lot of teams on their bad nights and end up with a lot of close victories while another team could play well, but get a lot of teams on their best nights and lose a lot of close games.

The fact is that win-loss is never the best indicator of how good a team is. That's why the teams with the best win-loss don't win championships all the time.

So... no. You're wrong. Your system doesn't work. Especially not after 7 games. LOL.

tcav701
11-11-2010, 05:38 PM
But that's not a system that works. That's why teams with lower Win% make it to the NBA Finals like Boston did last year. Eventually, given enough games and head-to-head matchups when it matters, the better teams win - regardless of what their record is up to that point.

That's why the Cavaliers have had the best record in the NBA the last two seasons and not won a single title. Because they never were the #1 team in the league despite their having the best record.

Being the best team or performing the best, the most consistently does not always translate into the most wins. ONe team could play miserable but catch a lot of teams on their bad nights and end up with a lot of close victories while another team could play well, but get a lot of teams on their best nights and lose a lot of close games.

The fact is that win-loss is never the best indicator of how good a team is. That's why the teams with the best win-loss don't win championships all the time.

So... no. You're wrong. Your system doesn't work. Especially not after 7 games. LOL.

Teams with the best record win the title more than teams who are 2 games over .500.

cambovenzi
11-11-2010, 05:41 PM
actually winning the games needs to be factored in somewhere.
many teams coast when they are up a comfortable amount.

ink
11-11-2010, 05:46 PM
I would agree that using margin of victory as such a main variable is flawed. Teams behave really differently when they are being blown out for example. What the rankings seem to be over-valuing is the ability to blow teams out. That will be meaningless when those teams have to face tougher opponents. Then again that may mean that the formula he's using is self-correcting.

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 05:49 PM
Teams with the best record win the title more than teams who are 2 games over .500.

2 games over .500? It's hard to be more than 2 games over when there is only 8 games total. lol.

Do you not see that you just keep digging a hole? 8 games is too small of a sample size. That's just the fact of the matter.

If you don't like the system, articulate what is flawed in it in a respectable, educated manner, then try to offer some ideas you think would be better.

Then, when we're 60 games in, and we actually have a respectable sample size, we'll see who's idea worked out better.

Then, when it's all said and done, we'll evaluate again. That's how this sort of analysis is done. Not by amateurs on internet forums saying "this blows, it's a crock of ****, teams that win more (after 8 games) are the best."

That doesn't get the conversation anywhere. Period. I lose interest in PSD more and more each day.

ChiSox219
11-11-2010, 05:50 PM
At the end of last year Hollinger had the Mavericks ranked below where most people (especially Mavs fans) thought, I think it was something like #14. Keep in mind the Mavs were the #2 seed in the west.

In the Mavs forum there was a thread similar to this where fans called Hollinger all sorts of names and questioned his sanity. The Mavs fans thought their team was a near lock for the Conference Finals.

Then they lost in the first round to the Spurs.

I lol'd hard.

ChiSox219
11-11-2010, 05:52 PM
I would agree that using margin of victory as such a main variable is flawed. Teams behave really differently when they are being blown out for example. What the rankings seem to be over-valuing is the ability to blow teams out. That will be meaningless when those teams have to face tougher opponents. Then again that may mean that the formula he's using is self-correcting.

Margin of victory is better indicator of future success than team record.

That's not to MoV is perfect, nothing can predict 100% what is going to happen in a sport with nearly infinite variables.

ChiSox219
11-11-2010, 05:53 PM
The Rockets are a very good team and if any of you guys watched their first game, they proved they are one of the top teams in the West.

They've just had some bad luck and a difficult schedule so far.

tcav701
11-11-2010, 05:54 PM
2 games over .500? It's hard to be more than 2 games over when there is only 8 games total. lol.

Do you not see that you just keep digging a hole? 8 games is too small of a sample size. That's just the fact of the matter.

If you don't like the system, articulate what is flawed in it in a respectable, educated manner, then try to offer some ideas you think would be better.

Then, when we're 60 games in, and we actually have a respectable sample size, we'll see who's idea worked out better.

Then, when it's all said and done, we'll evaluate again. That's how this sort of analysis is done. Not by amateurs on internet forums saying "this blows, it's a crock of ****, teams that win more (after 8 games) are the best."

That doesn't get the conversation anywhere. Period. I lose interest in PSD more and more each day.

Read back in the thread there are a million reasons posted by myslef and others why this is flawed.

The fact you checked in 2 days later to blindly defend the Heat is your own doing.

As far as sample size, that could be the issue so far. If it is, these rankings should not be released untill the sample size is large enough.

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 05:56 PM
Read back in the thread there are a million reasons posted by myslef and others why this is flawed.

The fact you checked in 2 days later to blindly defend the Heat is your own doing.

As far as sample size, that could be the issue so far. If it is, these rankings should not be released untill the sample size is large enough.

No, actually I read the whole thing. I'm also not defending the Heat. Lol. I've never once said they should be #1. I just expect more out of people than to run their mouth and criticize without offering anything more than the amateur, naive opinion that "You win more games = you're better." That idea has been proven wrong time and time again.

That's why he has a job in statistical analysis and you don't. Again, anyone can criticize, and they might even be right. However, it takes a lot more to do the hard work to offer something better. I see no one here doing that. In that case, your criticism is pretty useless.

VladTheImpaler
11-11-2010, 05:59 PM
At the end of last year Hollinger had the Mavericks ranked below where most people (especially Mavs fans) thought, I think it was something like #14. Keep in mind the Mavs were the #2 seed in the west.

In the Mavs forum there was a thread similar to this where fans called Hollinger all sorts of names and questioned his sanity. The Mavs fans thought their team was a near lock for the Conference Finals.

Then they lost in the first round to the Spurs.

I lol'd hard.

Not only did Mavs fans not think the team was a lock for anything, but I hate when people use this kind of hindsight to prove their point. The Mavs have had little playoff success, while the Spurs have had a lot, so that really wasn't a surprise and they weren't exposed as ****. Reminds me of the Angels in 2008. Had the best record in MLB, but the stat geeks said they weren't nearly as good as their record, and then they lose to a good Red Sox team and apparently were exposed as frauds, which was far from the case.

I also hate this line of thinking, because it's so easy to back down from statements like that. Mavs lose, Hollinger and all his fans look smart for "knowing" the Mavs weren't that good. Mavs win and they simply got lucky. Gotta love the luck defense, saving stat geeks ***** since 2003.

ink
11-11-2010, 06:00 PM
Margin of victory is better indicator of future success than team record.

That's not to MoV is perfect, nothing can predict 100% what is going to happen in a sport with nearly infinite variables.

My point was that a highly talented team could become very soft rolling up huge leads and coasting to W's. It's artificial because when they play a much tougher, more physical opponent they may not have developed the team intensity to play that closer type of game.

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 06:02 PM
My point was that a highly talented team could become very soft rolling up huge leads and coasting to W's. It's artificial because when they play a much tougher, more physical opponent they may not have developed the team intensity to play that closer type of game.

I think that was obvious in the Heat-Jazz game. Spoelstra will have to start leaving the stars out there and having them play hard until the end of the game or talented teams like the Jazz will take advantage of them.

tcav701
11-11-2010, 06:04 PM
No, actually I read the whole thing. I'm also not defending the Heat. Lol. I've never once said they should be #1. I just expect more out of people than to run their mouth and criticize without offering anything more than the amateur, naive opinion that "You win more games = you're better." That idea has been proven wrong time and time again.

That's why he has a job in statistical analysis and you don't. Again, anyone can criticize, and they might even be right. However, it takes a lot more to do the hard work to offer something better. I see no one here doing that. In that case, your criticism is pretty useless.

Dude,

Obviously you or I cant do his job just like he couldnt ours. But to say i have to come up with an aternative system to know his is flawed makes no sense. The ONLY point I have to make is people who agree with him will tell you record isnt everything and that is partialy correct. But in his method SOS plays a large role and opponents winning percentage determines SOS.

So you can understand what I jut said, Win% is not important in his numerical rankings but Win% determines how good an opponent is.

That is hypocritical in itself.

When I make playoff predicitons or single game predictions for that matter, I weigh teams strengths and weaknesses depending on how they matchup. There is no numerical system to decide this.

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 06:07 PM
Not only did Mavs fans not think the team was a lock for anything, but I hate when people use this kind of hindsight to prove their point. The Mavs have had little playoff success, while the Spurs have had a lot, so that really wasn't a surprise and they weren't exposed as ****. Reminds me of the Angels in 2008. Had the best record in MLB, but the stat geeks said they weren't nearly as good as their record, and then they lose to a good Red Sox team and apparently were exposed as frauds, which was far from the case.

I also hate this line of thinking, because it's so easy to back down from statements like that. Mavs lose, Hollinger and all his fans look smart for "knowing" the Mavs weren't that good. Mavs win and they simply got lucky. Gotta love the luck defense, saving stat geeks ***** since 2003.

But this assumes that every stat geek is dishonest and unwilling to admit that statistical analysis is never 100% correct or accurate. I don't think that's true. I think plenty of statisticians are honest enough to admit that there is no such thing as a perfect predictor in a sport that has uncountable variables.

The fact is that 5 and 7-game series reduce and limit outlier success. But the fact is that #14 teams can beat #4 teams. It's unlikely, and rare. But it's possible. In 1-game series it hardly happens, but does (think NCAA tournament). 5 and 7-game series make it even harder and less likely, but it still happens.

An honest statistician can admit that their stats are 1) not always correct and 2) even when correct, they are imperfect indicators/predictors.

On top of that, an honest statistician can even admit that they were flat-out wrong. That may not happen much, but it's certainly not out of the question and even the fact that they a) are wrong from time to time and b) don't admit it doesn't mean that they're automatically invalidated. That's a logical fallacy.

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 06:09 PM
Dude,

Obviously you or I cant do his job just like he couldnt ours. But to say i have to come up with an aternative system to know his is flawed makes no sense. The ONLY point I have to make is people who agree with him will tell you record isnt everything and that is partialy correct. But in his method SOS plays a large role and opponents winning percentage determines SOS.

So you can understand what I jut said, Win% is not important in his numerical rankings but Win% determines how good an opponent is.

That is hypocritical in itself.

When I make playoff predicitons or single game predictions for that matter, I weigh teams strengths and weaknesses depending on how they matchup. There is no numerical system to decide this.

I think you're still missing the fact that even the best possible systems are still "flawed" as there are no perfect systems.

So, even though his may be flawed and you may be able to point it out, the nagging question still remains - is there any better alternative?

You seem to be assuming there is. I'm just trying to say that assumptions in general are incredibly unhelpful.

tcav701
11-11-2010, 06:11 PM
I think you're still missing the fact that even the best possible systems are still "flawed" as there are no perfect systems.

So, even though his may be flawed and you may be able to point it out, the nagging question still remains - is there any better alternative?

You seem to be assuming there is. I'm just trying to say that assumptions in general are incredibly unhelpful.

His colleagues strongly disagree with his system.

The better alternative? He keeps this **** to himself.

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 06:13 PM
His colleagues strongly disagree with his system.

The better alternative? He keeps this **** to himself.

So you reject the entire project itself as unhelpful and would rather just see people let the season play out on it's own without this sort of silliness?

Just say that. You've yet to say that.

ChiSox219
11-11-2010, 06:17 PM
Not only did Mavs fans not think the team was a lock for anything, but I hate when people use this kind of hindsight to prove their point. The Mavs have had little playoff success, while the Spurs have had a lot, so that really wasn't a surprise and they weren't exposed as ****. Reminds me of the Angels in 2008. Had the best record in MLB, but the stat geeks said they weren't nearly as good as their record, and then they lose to a good Red Sox team and apparently were exposed as frauds, which was far from the case.

I also hate this line of thinking, because it's so easy to back down from statements like that. Mavs lose, Hollinger and all his fans look smart for "knowing" the Mavs weren't that good. Mavs win and they simply got lucky. Gotta love the luck defense, saving stat geeks ***** since 2003.

Well, maybe some hyperbole as far mavs being a lock, but they were adamant that the Mavericks were better than #14...

or maybe not:


I bet he'd still rank us out of the top 10 even after we win the Championship.

I was having this arguement with Mavs fans and posted this March 11th:



I will come back to this after the playoffs are over whether the Mavs win the title or get knocked out in the first round.

Of course when I returned following the Mavs first round loss, Mavs fans were seething.

I also bet:

4/18 Spurs +4.5
4/21 Spurs ML and Under 194
4/23 Spurs +3.5 and Under 194
4/25 Spurs -2.5
4/27 Spurs +5


I would call that foresight, not hindsight.

tcav701
11-11-2010, 06:18 PM
So you reject the entire project itself as unhelpful and would rather just see people let the season play out on it's own without this sort of silliness?

Just say that. You've yet to say that.

Well if you are going to have power rankings, have a collection of "NBA minds"
put out their 1-30 and make a ranking based on the average of the voters. It doesnt take a computer to know which teams played on the road or against tough teams (which contradicts itself when teams have inflated records in Hollingers system).

Hollinger can be included on this pannel with other NBA experts this way some common sense and reason can go into the process as well as the unorthodoxed system. Each persons system would count for 10% or less depending on the number of voters.

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 06:35 PM
Well if you are going to have power rankings, have a collection of "NBA minds"
put out their 1-30 and make a ranking based on the average of the voters. It doesnt take a computer to know which teams played on the road or against tough teams (which contradicts itself when teams have inflated records in Hollingers system).

Hollinger can be included on this pannel with other NBA experts this way some common sense and reason can go into the process as well as the unorthodoxed system. Each persons system would count for 10% or less depending on the number of voters.

See how much more constructive that is? I'm sorry, it's just that I study in a highly technical field and by its nature I deal with amateur laymen always criticizing without ever offering anything constructive and without even grasping the reality behind the process and work. It irks me when I see it anywhere. I can't help but try to implore people to raise the level of their criticism and add something constructive.

Also, is it not possible to do both/and? That is, can't Hollinger offer his own system/rankings as well as contribute to a pool/collective system/rankings?

tcav701
11-11-2010, 06:37 PM
See how much more constructive that is? I'm sorry, it's just that I study in a highly technical field and by its nature I deal with amateur laymen always criticizing without ever offering anything constructive and without even grasping the reality behind the process and work. It irks me when I see it anywhere. I can't help but try to implore people to raise the level of their criticism and add something constructive.

Also, is it not possible to do both/and? That is, can't Hollinger offer his own system/rankings as well as contribute to a pool/collective system/rankings?

Of course,

How else would we prove how far off in outer space he is?

VladTheImpaler
11-11-2010, 06:45 PM
Well, maybe some hyperbole as far mavs being a lock, but they were adamant that the Mavericks were better than #14...

or maybe not:



I was having this arguement with Mavs fans and posted this March 11th:



Of course when I returned following the Mavs first round loss, Mavs fans were seething.

I also bet:

4/18 Spurs +4.5
4/21 Spurs ML and Under 194
4/23 Spurs +3.5 and Under 194
4/25 Spurs -2.5
4/27 Spurs +5


I would call that foresight, not hindsight.

Not really. Jack of Blades was likely just saying that if we won, he'd still rank us outside of the top 10(which probably would happen). There was no arrogance of any kind, in fact the confidence level for a team that finished 2nd in the West was probably below average.

And okay, so you actually did call it. However, that's just as meaningless, as "bold predictions" are far from bold on forums. They're nothing but win-win scenarios. If you're right, you can bring it up, if you're wrong, it gets forgotten(I know you'll try and say you would've been back if they won the championship, but let's face it, that's a lie). The Mavs losing in the first round, no matter the seed, is far from a "bold prediction" as well, especially against the Spurs.

EDIT-Case in point about that last paragraph, well, just take a look at last season. Everyone seemingly remembers how he had the Mavs ranked so low and they lost in the first round, clearly proving him right, right? Of course, he also had the Celtics ranked fairly low IIRC, and of course, they almost won the whole damn thing. That was just luck, though, right?

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 06:47 PM
Of course,

How else would we prove how far off in outer space he is?

Hahahaha. Fair enough. :D

tcav701
11-11-2010, 06:53 PM
Hahahaha. Fair enough. :D

Well for what it's worth, and I promise it's not worth much lol, I now have a good deal of respect for a PSD Heat fan.

I knew it was gonna happen some day hahahaha.

No homo BTW.

WadeKobe
11-11-2010, 07:01 PM
Well for what it's worth, and I promise it's not worth much lol, I now have a good deal of respect for a PSD Heat fan.

I knew it was gonna happen some day hahahaha.

No homo BTW.

Thanks. I'm glad you realize I wasn't trying to be a dick. Lol. I just think everyone benefits from the level of conversation being raised. Even if it is only by a few.

tcav701
11-11-2010, 07:17 PM
Thanks. I'm glad you realize I wasn't trying to be a dick. Lol. I just think everyone benefits from the level of conversation being raised. Even if it is only by a few.

As soon as I realized you weren't blindy defending the Heat (which you see a lot of with certian PSD fan bases) I was willing to.

michael811
11-12-2010, 12:27 AM
I think you're still missing the fact that even the best possible systems are still "flawed" as there are no perfect systems.

So, even though his may be flawed and you may be able to point it out, the nagging question still remains - is there any better alternative?

You seem to be assuming there is. I'm just trying to say that assumptions in general are incredibly unhelpful.

How about not including a strength of schedule at all. In a league where every teams strength of schedule ends up roughly the same what is the point of it. People will say look how easy the Lakers schedule is early on but those same people say wait 60 games for a proper sample size by then the schedule will have become closer for each team. When something has a big effect on the outcome of the ratings but doesn't improve its accuracy what is the point?

ink
11-12-2010, 12:32 AM
How about not including a strength of schedule at all. In a league where every teams strength of schedule ends up roughly the same what is the point of it.

Because the rankings are progressive and allow you to track how the teams are doing during the season.

michael811
11-12-2010, 01:07 AM
Because the rankings are progressive and allow you to track how the teams are doing during the season.
OK fair enough but every team roughly ends up playing a schedule of .500 or the average of whatver holinger's rating is. But there will be variance on that schedule til the end of the season because it is for the most part randomly created. Now to compensate for that Holinger's formula included W/l as a part of a strength of schedule. But since Holinger's formula has the Heat as the best team (and they probably still will be tomorrow) but only gives the teams they played strength of schedule that of their W/L record that introduces variance to the formula. Now this will even out over the season as the heat win more and you play more teams but the actual schedule will even out as well. So does the inclusion of strength of schedule remove more variance then it introduces I am not sure that it does and if it doesn't it should not be included. Does that make any sense at all ?

rjvacad
11-12-2010, 01:53 AM
His system is wrong.

tcav701
11-12-2010, 09:47 AM
Somehow Hollinger still has the Heat at #1 playing 5-4 ball....

The celtics are at #4 because their SOS is lower mainly because they played the Heat twice hahahah.

This guy is embarassing himself.

justinnum1
11-12-2010, 11:42 AM
Somehow Hollinger still has the Heat at #1 playing 5-4 ball....

The celtics are at #4 because their SOS is lower mainly because they played the Heat twice hahahah.

This guy is embarassing himself.

:violin:

tcav701
11-12-2010, 12:11 PM
:violin:

HAHAHA

wouldnt expect anything less from the worst poster on PSD.

cambovenzi
11-12-2010, 03:52 PM
How about not including a strength of schedule at all. In a league where every teams strength of schedule ends up roughly the same what is the point of it. People will say look how easy the Lakers schedule is early on but those same people say wait 60 games for a proper sample size by then the schedule will have become closer for each team. When something has a big effect on the outcome of the ratings but doesn't improve its accuracy what is the point?

Right now teams' SOS is very different. so it is very relevant right now.

The problem is he is rewarding the heat big time for losing close games to the best teams.

michael811
11-12-2010, 04:10 PM
Right now teams' SOS is very different. so it is very relevant right now.

The problem is he is rewarding the heat big time for losing close games to the best teams.
You know I was thinking about that it almost seems like in his formula its better to lose by 1 then win by 1 because then your opponents will have a better record so your strength of schedule will go slightly up. I know everyone SOS is very different I just think he might have created just a big a problem the other way by including W/L records as a SOS and if he didn't have it at least the formula wouldn't contradict itself but like someone else said nothing will ever be perfect.

CLASSOF72
11-12-2010, 05:11 PM
Hollinger threads should be banned from PSD on the acount that he's a complete idiot. The Heat numba one? Laughable!