http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds Has the blazers at 88 percent chance Really what is the point of this? Can anyone explain to me one reason why anyone should click and read this?
0%...For the Clips...really...right... but I guess its all done with math and no opinion...thats still BS
Hollinger is the worst and is desperate attempt to be relavent with his forumla's is downright pathetic. I have zero respect for this guys thoughts/opinions and stats.
I ALWAYS hear stuff like this about Hollinger and any other national sports reporter. Is there ANYONE who ISNT bashed on forums like these? Im not saying you are right or wrong on your opinion...Im yet to see a reporter get anyone get any kind of consistent praise like Hollinger gets consistent hate
Hey I love Peter King and Bill Simmons, but as for a solid writer you can count on for serious predictions/insight.. nahh most are blowhards who are guessing as much as the next guy and have biases as well IMO.
I think it's kinda cool. Assuming teams play as they have, and the rest of the league plays as it has so far, how would the season end? Of course a weird game or two in the first ten can make a huge difference, but it's an interesting thing to look at even with such a small sample size. Ed O.
sigh...my bold prediction of the Clips make the playoffs and PHX not isnt looking too good according to his equations... PHX chance: 98.9% LAC chance 0%
hey..if we get the 6th seed...id take that in a heartbeat AND getting to play the hornets in round 1? SIGN ME UP! like i said for weeks.....2 teams out of these 4 get in the playoffs. warriors, spurs, blazers, mavs you pick which 2. its really anyones spot
Yep. The Clippers are 1-9 and they haven't played the toughest schedule in the universe. If they continue to play at that level it makes sense they have something approaching a 0% chance of making the playoffs. Ed O.
they don't take into account intangibile, such as hustle, leadership, setting picks, assiting on double teams, making the extra pass.. you know things you learn by watching players and teams
How is that biased? It might make them INACCURATE, but I don't see a bias against certain teams, let alone an intentional one. Ed O.
Well there are no way you can put those things into an equation form. Hollinger isnt the end all be all, but it gives a lot of good information IMO
Yup. Pretty much every little thing that happens on a baseball field is trapped into some kind of a stat. That's why sabermetrics are becoming huge there fast. But there's lots of activity on the basketball court that is not captured anywhere. There's no statistic that showed how James Jones adjusted the Blazers' defensive spacing. There's no stat that shows the players who sat there pump-faking Oden (unsuccessfully) during the game. Yes, there's a stat for points in the paint, but that's not representative in Oden's personal stats. PER is a good stat for some basic offensive info about players. But it's not a great way to judge two players who provide different services to a team on the court.
it's simple. he takes how the teams have performed thus far this season(using his power rankings forumla) and using those rankings simulates the remainder of the season 5000 times to get the projected outcomes. it definitely isn't perfect as it doesn't take into account injuries and assumes teams are going to play at the same level they have played at thus far, but as long as you realize the flaws in the system it's an interesting thing to look at.
those don't make them biased towards specific players or teams. obviously any rating system is going to be flawed. just using stats doesn't tell the whole story and it's impossible to involve personal opinion without some biases. but as long as you know what his stats represent, they are very useful.
While I agree that baseball is better suited for statistical analysis (since, despite being technically a team sport, baseball is really a series of one-on-one competitions), I think there are stats that make an effort at capture such things, like Adjusted +/-, which gives you an idea of which players are having a positive impact or negative impact on the court (for any reason...if their leadership, floor spacing, whatever, is having an impact, it should show up on the scoreboard when they're on the floor). Straight +/- is extremely flawed, since backups play against worse players and with worse teammates, but Adjusted +/- stats attempt to adjust for that. PER is useful for exactly what it claims to be for: a measure of individual overall production. It doesn't claim to account for intangibles or for general defense. It's purely a production stat. You have to account, yourself, for defense or intangibles (if you think intangibles are a key aspect).
