I don't need to go back and read it. I was one of the principle participants in it. When you attack the "luck" issue, you're attacking the system itself. Since you can't back up your claim that it's bad to consider the difference between actual wins and expected wins from point differential (when making a prediction for the next season), you can retreat back to "Well, he got THIS single prediction wrong!" That's fine.
Actually, I argued that he got the only prediction that mattered to me wrong. I didn't argue about any other team, and how "luck" affected their Hollinger prediction. AND I WAS CORRECT. Deal with it.
That's it? That's your big victory? Enjoy your cupcake, dude. Someone on the internet was wrong, and boy did you get 'im!
And that "luck" was a stupid thing to factor in. You never supported that well. The luck part is the part I argued with and don't think you've proven to be right on it. I never argued with you about whether Hollinger was right about the Blazer prediction, so it's pretty irrelevant to me whether you were "right" about that. Both of us were right on that, because both of us thought Hollinger predicted the Blazers too low. What we argued about was the luck issue, and that hasn't been proven one way or the other.
Oh, but I did. Pull up the BBF thread and let's go at it again. Net/net, though, I was correct in regarding the Blazers.
Nope. Sorry. A single failure doesn't mean a system-wide failure. I predicted 48 wins, and that is significantly higher than Hollinger's prediction. I didn't find his method crazy, though, and that's why we argued on BBF. You clearly didn't understand what "luck" means in this context and you continue to be ignorant. Ed O.
Um, no. You argued that luck was subjective and that it inflated the Blazers of 07-08. I said "luck" was foolish, and that a young team adding Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez would surpass Hollinger's 42-win prediction. You were wrong.
Why? We argued it the first time and I didn't think you supported your opinion well. Saying the same things again doesn't seem very interesting. So was I. We rock, you and I.
You asked me who I was, so I told you. Alas, you have provided me with exactly 0 jollies in the years on BLT, ESPN, BBF, and here.
I honestly don't remember a single thing you have ever posted until tonight. Apparently we go back a long time.
This may be my pantyhose riding up into the unknown, but I think Hollinger's "luck" premise stems a lot from Rob Neyer's and Bill James' explanation of deviance of the actual from the Pythagorean projection for wins based upon run differential in baseball. They claim (paraphrased) that over a 162-game season, managerial decisions and close-game factors generally wash out, so if a run differential analysis says a team should win 93 games and they win 96, it's considered "luck" and unable to be counted upon going forward. I think Hollinger used that as part of his projection analysis to show that, even though we won 41 games last year, we played above our heads (in terms of point differential) and close-game results. But I think a few things discount that "luck" aspect for us. One is that Nate's coaching is considered about the best in the league coming out of timeouts (which are by-and-large in late-game situations). So our record in close games wasn't determined as much by "luck" as by an "off-the-court asset"...which still counts for wins. I think a projection spanning a few years will show that our point differential is generally deflated due to things like pace and lower-than-average minutes from our elite players; and that our record is inflated due to good coaching out of timeouts and "clutchness" of our players. That said, I'm having a hard time finding John's preseason projections...
This is a testable hypothesis! You should check all of the final records and expected records for Nate-coached teams (Blazers and Sonics) and see if he outperformed his collective expected records and by how much. basketball-reference.com has the Pythagorean records for each team, each year. I'm too lazy to do it, but if you want to, I'd be interested in the results.
I think what yuyuza1 was trying to get at with the "distorted" thing is if you throw out the outliers (the big wins and the big losses), our point differential is probably closer to the norm for our record. Whether or not it actually is, I haven't calculated, but it makes sense that it would be... What good is point differential other than as an indicator of what happens on average? Outliers are arguably a "distortion" of that.
No, I think you are wrong here. You seem pretty stubborn in this thread and lack a willingness to think this through. Being right about your Blazer prediction means absolutely nothing to the question of "luck" or of Hollinger's systems. Frankly, it is a pretty bizzare position to take. Makes you look bad. Makes folks like me read this thread, and think "wow, dude just doesn't get it." I am stunned Minstrel wasted so much of his life trying to help you understand. Seems you refuse to make a legit attempt to try to understand what is going on here. And the naner-naner tone about you supposedly being "right" about everything isn't helpful - for your attitude prevents an open mind from receiving and makes you seem less likeable.
We've had a lot of blowouts this year! A good percentage of our wins have been dominating. Which is ironic since we've also been in 14 very close games 8-1 in 1-2pt games 1-4 in OT games. Also, if Portland wins 5 out of their next 7 games, that will give them 53 wins. Which would be tied for the 6th best season in franchise history. Looking back at it, none of our teams of the past have been really good for more than 3 years in a row. It was relatively short lived when compared to dynasties like the Spurs, because they were veteran teams. This team is coming into it's own at a very young age, and I suspect we will never win less than 55 games for the next 7 years or so.
