hollinger must be desperately trying to tweak the formula to knock the knicks down somehow...
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerra...
can't really cut and paste it, because there are graphics and what not.
but the most impressive thing about this to me was, that for the last 25% of the season, aka the last 14 games, aka the woodson era where the knicks are 11-3, their point differential is +6.06, which is in line with what oklahoma and san antonio have been doing. most impressive? their opponents winning percentage during this 11-3 stretch where they've outscored opponents by 6ppg? .548 - aka, they are beating really good teams by a really healthy margin. they also have the top-rated defense by far in the NBA over that span, which again, is one full quarter of the season.
these ingredients feel like they are for real.
I thought Hollinger hated the knicks?
5th is impressive!
this has to be Defensive rankings not overall power rankings right? Cos Philly would not be that high
HAte to but your bubble but...
gunsnewing wrote:this has to be Defensive rankings not overall power rankings right? Cos Philly would not be that high
Nope, it's overall. Philly has actually been ranked really high all season.
Hollinger with his mathematical formula- I always think it's ridiculous when people think they can create the perfect equation to explain stuff such as basketball- it's not quantum physics!
At the end of the day, who's the best team, who could beat who, what are the best match ups etc- it's all just opinions, so why remove the human element from it?
Oh and his mathematical formula has the Sixers at number 7, which shows just how ridiculous it is- is there any human pundit alive who would rank the Sixers as the 7th best team in the nba right now?
Yea, and the Suns are 9th and the Grizzlies 8th.
Joke of a ranking.
smackeddog wrote:Hollinger with his mathematical formula- I always think it's ridiculous when people think they can create the perfect equation to explain stuff such as basketball- it's not quantum physics! At the end of the day, who's the best team, who could beat who, what are the best match ups etc- it's all just opinions, so why remove the human element from it?
Oh and his mathematical formula has the Sixers at number 7, which shows just how ridiculous it is- is there any human pundit alive who would rank the Sixers as the 7th best team in the nba right now?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say they created "the perfect equation"
MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:Yea, and the Suns are 9th and the Grizzlies 8th.Joke of a ranking.
Memphis on a tear of late.
His rankings really don't apply to reality or rankings wise. It's more like a Zeitgeist, like "who's hot who's not" trending guide.
I still think those are defensive rankings and thats why philly & phoenix are in there
Bonn1997 wrote:smackeddog wrote:Hollinger with his mathematical formula- I always think it's ridiculous when people think they can create the perfect equation to explain stuff such as basketball- it's not quantum physics! At the end of the day, who's the best team, who could beat who, what are the best match ups etc- it's all just opinions, so why remove the human element from it?
Oh and his mathematical formula has the Sixers at number 7, which shows just how ridiculous it is- is there any human pundit alive who would rank the Sixers as the 7th best team in the nba right now?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say they created "the perfect equation"
You need to hang out with physicists and mathemeticians more. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_f...
smackeddog wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:smackeddog wrote:Hollinger with his mathematical formula- I always think it's ridiculous when people think they can create the perfect equation to explain stuff such as basketball- it's not quantum physics! At the end of the day, who's the best team, who could beat who, what are the best match ups etc- it's all just opinions, so why remove the human element from it?
Oh and his mathematical formula has the Sixers at number 7, which shows just how ridiculous it is- is there any human pundit alive who would rank the Sixers as the 7th best team in the nba right now?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say they created "the perfect equation"
You need to hang out with physicists and mathemeticians more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_f...
So does "imaginary unit" and "Knicks ranked 5th" have any necessary correlation?
smackeddog wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:smackeddog wrote:Hollinger with his mathematical formula- I always think it's ridiculous when people think they can create the perfect equation to explain stuff such as basketball- it's not quantum physics! At the end of the day, who's the best team, who could beat who, what are the best match ups etc- it's all just opinions, so why remove the human element from it?
Oh and his mathematical formula has the Sixers at number 7, which shows just how ridiculous it is- is there any human pundit alive who would rank the Sixers as the 7th best team in the nba right now?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say they created "the perfect equation"
You need to hang out with physicists and mathemeticians more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_f...
LOL! I meant specifically the perfect basketball equation.
ChuckBuck wrote:His rankings really don't apply to reality or rankings wise. It's more like a Zeitgeist, like "who's hot who's not" trending guide.
The ranking does give extra weight to more recent games although I'm skeptical about whether it should.
K22 wrote:Gotta love the back-handed "last quarter of the season / last 14 games" compliment.
What's back-handed about it? It looks like pure praise to me.
Bonn1997 wrote:ChuckBuck wrote:His rankings really don't apply to reality or rankings wise. It's more like a Zeitgeist, like "who's hot who's not" trending guide.
The ranking does give extra weight to more recent games although I'm skeptical about whether it should.
The Hollinger ranking is basically designed to show a team's current quality and doesn't actually take records into account. It's quite an interesting formula, but like any other power ranking, it's not actually a ranking based on the entire season. The Knicks being fifth here is a reflection that we're looking at an elite team under Woodson. It's a small smple size, though.
y2zipper wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ChuckBuck wrote:His rankings really don't apply to reality or rankings wise. It's more like a Zeitgeist, like "who's hot who's not" trending guide.
The ranking does give extra weight to more recent games although I'm skeptical about whether it should.
The Hollinger ranking is basically designed to show a team's current quality and doesn't actually take records into account. It's quite an interesting formula, but like any other power ranking, it's not actually a ranking based on the entire season. The Knicks being fifth here is a reflection that we're looking at an elite team under Woodson. It's a small smple size, though.
I think it takes into account point differentials, which are obviously related to but not the same as W-L record.
Bonn1997 wrote:y2zipper wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ChuckBuck wrote:His rankings really don't apply to reality or rankings wise. It's more like a Zeitgeist, like "who's hot who's not" trending guide.
The ranking does give extra weight to more recent games although I'm skeptical about whether it should.
The Hollinger ranking is basically designed to show a team's current quality and doesn't actually take records into account. It's quite an interesting formula, but like any other power ranking, it's not actually a ranking based on the entire season. The Knicks being fifth here is a reflection that we're looking at an elite team under Woodson. It's a small smple size, though.
I think it takes into account point differentials, which are obviously related to but not the same as W-L record.
Right. Hollinger doesn't take wins and losses into account because he argues that points scored and points allowed are actually a better indication of how good a team actually is, and I think he's right about that. Typically there's correlation between the two statistics, but that doesn't always happen. The formula also takes strength of schedule into account and places weight on the team's recent games because the ranking is supposed to determine which teams are the best in the league on any particular day as opposed to being some sort of full-season ranking.
Bonn1997 wrote:smackeddog wrote:Hollinger with his mathematical formula- I always think it's ridiculous when people think they can create the perfect equation to explain stuff such as basketball- it's not quantum physics! At the end of the day, who's the best team, who could beat who, what are the best match ups etc- it's all just opinions, so why remove the human element from it?
Oh and his mathematical formula has the Sixers at number 7, which shows just how ridiculous it is- is there any human pundit alive who would rank the Sixers as the 7th best team in the nba right now?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say they created "the perfect equation"
by definition they are equal...how can one be 'perfect' if all aren't
It is impossible to quantify "heart"
Olbrannon wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:smackeddog wrote:Hollinger with his mathematical formula- I always think it's ridiculous when people think they can create the perfect equation to explain stuff such as basketball- it's not quantum physics! At the end of the day, who's the best team, who could beat who, what are the best match ups etc- it's all just opinions, so why remove the human element from it?
Oh and his mathematical formula has the Sixers at number 7, which shows just how ridiculous it is- is there any human pundit alive who would rank the Sixers as the 7th best team in the nba right now?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say they created "the perfect equation"
by definition they are equal...how can one be 'perfect' if all aren't
It is impossible to quantify "heart"
They aren't all equal; you can easily assess the validity of a formula by seeing how well it predicts future outcomes. Win shares and wins produced both do a very good (but obviously imperfect) job. I don't know anything about the validity of the Hollinger rankings.
