Blazers ahead of Lakers in Hollinger's Power Rankings

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

 

It seems to put a heavy weighting on the last 10/25 games, and the Lakers have been struggling lately.

 

well, we all knew this was coming with their easy schedule in the start of the year.

 

Yep! The Portland Trail Blazers are definitely better than the Los Angeles Lakers. Yep, no doubt about that.

This guy seems to really know his stuff. It's such a fresh new approach to logic.

Tell me, has this guy done anything else of note? He seems like he's really got it all together.

Hold on, I've just googled him. What's this "PER" thing?

 

I'm always a little saddened when people are afraid of mathematics and statistics.

 

http://scorecenter.espn.go.com/nba/standings

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro

 

Who said anything about standings? The Lakers were playing great in the first half of the season and lately they've been very mediocre.

Power Rankings = "who's hot, who's not?" and it gets calculated by a formula not some subjective 'gut feeling' like Mark Stein.

 

Perfect!

Would you like to bet $250 on the Lakers v Blazers series with me?

I'll take LA.

 

Problems With PER

PER largely measures offensive performance. Hollinger freely admits that two of the defensive statistics it incorporates -- blocks and steals -- can produce a distorted picture of a player's value and that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen. For example, Bruce Bowen, widely regarded as one of the best defenders in the NBA (at least through the 2006-07 season), has routinely posted single-digit PERs.

"Bear in mind that this rating is not the final, once-and-for-all answer for a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for players such as Bruce Bowen and Trenton Hassell who are defensive specialists but don't get many blocks or steals."

Neither PER nor per-game statistics take into account such intangible elements as competitive drive, leadership, durability, conditioning, or hustle, largely because there is no real way to quantitatively measure these things, which are often based on opinion.

Why do you hate John Hollinger?

 

Why would I want to do that? I'm sorry you don't understand the point of his rankings, but complaining about what he does, or mocking it, when you don't understand it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

That's some formula.

Would you like to bet $250 on the Blazers Lakers series?

I'm going with Los Angleles.

 

I do understand power rankings. They are worthless. Just like PER.

I can tell you the Lakers are playing badly right now, and I don't need John Hollinger to tell me this. I was somehow able to come to this conclusion on my own.

 

Well, if you look at the difference in the two team's "power ranking" it's measured in hudredths of a point which pretty much makes it neglibible and the Lakers are guaranteed home-court which is far more important in determining success in the playoffs.

I just don't get the hostility; the ranking system is not some kind of playoff predictor.

 

OK.

 

How did they get home court?

 

magic

 

A John Hollinger formula gave it to them.

 

That's what I thought.

Run along now.