John Hollinger's Power Rankings

[LarBrd33]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

I don't follow College Football... at all.   I only recently found out that apparently there is some BCS thing where they take some computer generated stats and media opinions and come up with the two contenders that they believe should play for a title.  Seriously?  How does that happen?  So you mean an undefeated team might not get a chance to play for the national title, because a bigger program has better stats and is more popular?  Eh?  No wonder people complain about it. 

Anyways...  I thought of that when I looked at John Hollinger's computer generated power rankings.  We're 16-2, but apparently we are only the 4th best team behind LA, Cleveland and Portland?  Crazy.  Good thing the NBA doesn't use computers to determine the Finals teams. 

His "playoff odds" thing seems pretty pointless too.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

How do we have 100% odds of making the playoffs?   It makes no sense.  The only cool thing about it is the equally stupid "best/worst" projections.   According to him... we are projected to win 59 games.  Our best case scenario:  72-10.  Worst case:  42-40.   Funny...  I thought our worst case was 16-66 and our best case was 80-2.    According to his stats, the Lakers are projected to win 65 and the Cavs 63.   

[shiggins]

These rankings are complete and utter madness.  The Bucks are really better than the Hawks, Jazz, Spurs and Suns?  Really?  Its not even a matter of won/loss or point differential, 1st place/last place, recent trends...

Bucks have lost 4 in a row, they are doing poorly record wise, arent particularly highly ranked in the their division...what am i missing?

I mean what numbers does his highly specialized formula count?

Sure I believe in stats and non-traditional stats if they serve a purpose and can be of use, but when they give you something ridiculous like this, you need to re-evaluate the value of what your really doing...

It goes without saying that there are of course other brutally misplaced teams in this section.  A green one amongst them...

[Cman]

These types of stats just give people something to talk about.  The real surprise is Portland.  They are hugely overrated in my opinion.

[jordb2k5]

Hey at least we were tops most of the year last year in these rankings...

[LarBrd33]

It has the 6-10 Pacers as the 10th best team in the league.  Except that if you look at his "playoff odds" page the Pacers are projected to win 41 games... 18th best in the NBA.   What??

[fatherscott]

No stat is perfect, and Hollinger consistently admits that. However, his metrics are built on tons of data and history, so they shouldn't be dismissed.

But that Bucks thing is crazy, and not many people outside the Pacific Northwest -- or even in the Pacific Northwest -- think Portland is better than Boston.

[crownsy]

you looked at his SF rating lately? perfect example of why this stat really only applies to superstar teams where one guy dominates the ball.

Pierce is 15th.

any stat that, among others, has Q-rich listed as a better SF than pierce is inherently flawed 

[Sweet17]

They are not crazy. I think two statistics often skipped that are important their are strength of schedule and point differential. that being said the C's should rank ahead of Portland. They beat Portland in both of those stats and in record. How can they be ahead of the Cs?

[fatherscott]

you looked at his SF rating lately? perfect example of why this stat really only applies to superstar teams where one guy dominates the ball.

Pierce is 15th.

any stat that, among others, has Q-rich listed as a better SF than pierce is inherently flawed 

TP. Good gracious.

[Mideon]

Ridiculous that Portland is ranked ahead of the Celts at this point (although how exciting of a young team is that?!). I doubt that Hollinger himself would honestly expect them to go further than the Celtics. That being said, they have faced an absolutely killer schedule and come out pretty well from it, whereas our schedule has been very weak thus far. Once we start racking up some W's against some quality comp, this thing will even out. No need to get worked up.

Same thing goes for the Pierce stuff...he's obviously one of the best 15 or so players in the game, but he has been pretty brutal thus far in the season. Once he picks things up a bit, he'll move up the charts. Still, Hollinger's system seems to undervalue Paul a bit (PER=19.8 last season), so maybe the computer does suck.

[guava_wrench]

The rankings also consider home/away breakdown, and the results of the last 10 games.

What is ridiculous is not the stat, but rather being bothered by the rankings. Just enjoy it.

[nickagneta]

The Celtics keep winning and yet the defending World Champions keep falling further and further down John Hollinger's ridiculously contrived mathematical formulations of Power Rankings within the NBA.

At this rate if the Celtics win all the rest of their games they should be ranked somewhere between Memphis and Minnesota by the end of the year.

[Hoops]

The rankings also consider home/away breakdown, and the results of the last 10 games.

What is ridiculous is not the stat, but rather being bothered by the rankings. Just enjoy it.

Amen. I'm getting close to the point that I'm not going to read Celticsblog threads about Hollinger's stats anymore. Too many people seem to completely miss the boat and appear to have no capacity to view the stats with even a modicum of perspective.

But, for old time's sake, I'll offer my own explanation one last time. Hollinger's statistical power rankings are just ONE piece of a puzzle. You can't see the whole NBA picture just by looking at Hollinger's stats - they simply don't tell you everything. But at the same time, I don't think you can see the whole picture without Hollinger's stats. Just like a puzzle piece. The puzzle piece is not a complete puzzle by itself, nor is the puzzle complete without that puzzle piece.

[pearljammer10]

This guy is a looney toon. I dont get how anyone can listen to his made up madness. Last week Kris Humphries was the 9th rated played in the league....He plays a whopping 8 minutes per game! Thats absurd. This guy made up his own system, heck so could I...

[threzd]

The rankings also consider home/away breakdown, and the results of the last 10 games.

What is ridiculous is not the stat, but rather being bothered by the rankings. Just enjoy it.

Amen. I'm getting close to the point that I'm not going to read Celticsblog threads about Hollinger's stats anymore. Too many people seem to completely miss the boat and appear to have no capacity to view the stats with even a modicum of perspective.

But, for old time's sake, I'll offer my own explanation one last time. Hollinger's statistical power rankings are just ONE piece of a puzzle. You can't see the whole NBA picture just by looking at Hollinger's stats - they simply don't tell you everything. But at the same time, I don't think you can see the whole picture without Hollinger's stats. Just like a puzzle piece. The puzzle piece is not a complete puzzle by itself, nor is the puzzle complete without that puzzle piece.

You guys are right - everyone else is missing the point. Every statistic has its flaws. This statistic rates margin of victory as one of its inputs, and for a team like the Celtics that is confident that it can win every game and just cruises until the 4th quarter, their margin of victory won't be that great, even though they may still unquestionably be the team to beat. As a result their rank is going to be lower than it should be. As a comparison look at the Lakers and last year's Celtics, both of which consistently won by huge margins, and both of which were 1st in the power rankings.

Hollinger's power rankings solely rely on the numbers, and I'm sure if you asked Hollinger directly, he would not say that he believes that the Celtics were the 4th best team in the NBA. It's just that his formula states it that way. Every metric has its flaws.