Blazers ahead of Lakers in Hollinger's Power Rankings

I'd rather "stay" if it's all the same to you.

 

Then for God's sake man, quit spending so much time on worthless things. You're clearly above all this.

 

Oh alright.....

Get your feet of the couch for fucks sake.

 

Calling something worthless is not a worthless endevor.

 

Please provide a better, non-subjective tool for comparing players currently, or how a player has progressed over time.

Nobody (that actually understands it) says that PER is perfect and the be-all-end-all stat. If you have something that is non-subjective and perfect, or even better than PER, please provide it so we can start using it.

Thanks.

 

Why do I have to provide something better?

I think Journey sucks. I don't have to be better at drums, bass, guitar and singing to come that that conclusion.

Keep on sucking PER all night long if you want. It's flawed from the word go.

 

Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it's worthless.

 

Not sure why this "Odd E" guy is so riled up. I'm certain that over 90% of the members on this board don't believe the Blazers are actually better than the Lakers. KS posted a link that was interesting. It's not like every one on here agrees. Relax.

 

You are using relative terms like "sucks" and "worthless".

If you want to use relative terms to describe a statistical analysis, then you have to provide a statistical, non-subjective baseline.

 

And the link doesn't claim the Blazers are better than then Lakers. It's claiming that the Blazers are playing better than the Lakers at this point in time, which is far from controversial.

This has Hollinger's calculation of relative team strength:

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

 

WTF? No I don't. I don't have to do anything.

I am not arguing 2+2 = 4.

This is a formula who's inventor doesn't even back 100%. Why should I?

 

No one considers it perfect, including the inventor. You're arguing a strawman. It's used on this forum a lot because many consider it the best non-subjective measure of players...subjective evaluations are also perfectly acceptable.

Hollinger does consider it a good measure, even if not perfect.

 

You shouldn't. But betting Blazer fans $250 that the Lakers will beat Portland in the first round would imply that you think we are.

 

If it doesn't prove anything what's it's point? In this case, if it's not perfect it's no more useful than opinion.

 

Nobody's asking you too, but you came in critical of the link, acting as if there were many members thinking they were better than the Lakers. Nobody claimed it shows which team is better. Someone posted a link to a rating system that currently has the Blazers ahead of the Lakers, and you took that to mean anyone who defended Hollinger was dumb, his formulas were stupid,a dn we wanted to put money on Portland beating the Lakers.

 

Haha. Ok dude.

Nobody is backing it 100%, and nobody is saying you should. But you are saying it "sucks" and it is "worthless". What non-subjective model does it "suck" compared to?

 

Great, a useless formula.

Lebron James is the best player in the league?

NO WAY!!!!!

 

Not to mention the power rankings are not based on PER, but on point differential. What a worthless stat!

 

Weird. You don't have a very strong quantitative background, do you?

 

Link?