Hollinger Power Rankings - Kings Falling
Kings are falling lower on the Hollinger power rankings.
Say what??
about 1 year ago
dalt99
31 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I remember when the Kings were high on Hollinger's power rankings under Musselman
Hollinger takes all kinds of things, like how much you lose by, into account, and unfortunately, those bad ugly losses are hurting the Kings more than anything. Hollinger’s rankings aren’t really all that accurate and meaningful as opposed to Stein’s.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 9:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not only that Dalt
The other problem is that the Kings are more likely to be blown out by 30 points than to do so to another team. That’s the biggest issue at the moment I have with Hollinger rankings.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree but
The Kings have been winning their last 3/4 games so I find it odd that they are still falling down on the list.
"Oh, boy! This website is very good. Hey, let's talk about the Raiders!" - "Peaches" Napier
by dalt99 on Nov 13, 2008 9:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Hollinger has found a better method
I think he would point out that his method hurts a team like the Kings in a stretch that they’re in. It simply doesn’t reflect exactly how good or how bad the team has been perse. Actually, dalt, it does reflect how poorly the first 4 games were played. And how much that can skew some stats like Hollingers in how he calculates ratings.
As I said in my first comment, this isn’t a big deal. But, It would be interesting to see how the Kings continue to rate as the season goes on & chart it. For at least an academic measure of how certain types of things really play out to a team’s success.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also hurting us is
our strength of schedule, currently .339 ouch.
Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott
by Kfan in Korea on Nov 13, 2008 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that's part of it too
Hollinger’s rankings are just pure bubkus. No way to defend them. On the whole they work, but in a case like the Kings, they really don’t.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think his
rankings show much more than you can get by looking at the standings and using the 2 handy little cheats:
1. Points +/-
2. Road wind – Home losses
Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott
by Kfan in Korea on Nov 13, 2008 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup yup
In some ways it’s not a bad thing. It shows how limited, and pointless in many ways, power rankings are.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those rankigns also don't take into account missing players
as Hollinger clearly stated when they were introduced way back when. And to be fair, they’re based on a very small sample pool. I would proffer a guess that things will make more sense as the season progresses, and the missed games disparities even out throughout the league.
Donte? Donte'! Donté?!?!
'spect da 'xtra E'
by iashwash on Nov 14, 2008 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
IW
I l ove that everybody is like all pissy about it, it shows they care. But they’re power rankings for crying out loud. I think Stein’s power rankings accurately displayed where the Kings were at given the circumstances (he had them about 20th). Again, it’s all subjective, and ultimately, pointless.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 14, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re:"it's all pointless"
I’ve posted many-a-time my disdain for Hollinger’s rankings/stats/metrics. However, as invalid as I think they are, people usually attack them for the wrong reasons, and that I don’t think is fair.
People say “you need to evaluate talent/style of play” to understand a players contribution, and they think that Hollingers rankings don’t take this into account. Well, Hollinger does take this into account slightly, because he proportionally rewards certain statistics, thus implying a certain type of play is favorable. However, these proportional constants are arbitrarily determined based on his own “experimental” results – basically plugging in numbers till the players he likes popped up to the top. While this “works”, it is hardly academic statistics – I mean, does an assist really count for one and one third point or whatever it is? No, not really. Hollinger is engaging in false advertising – he says his system is scientific, but it is largely personal, and that’s wrong.
So, it’s better than nothing but that doesn’t mean it’s good. I’m pretty sure if I was in a different department, coming up with a better algorithm for player metrics wouldn’t be that difficult, because based on some of the stuff he’s written, Hollinger doesn’t seem to have that great a grasp on the technical (ESPN techs do all his programming), which means he really can’t take advantage of technology to further his statistics.
I’m sure good basketball programs have hired statisticians and talent evaluators, and they all have their metrics which I’m sure prove more valuable than Hollinger’s. There’s too much money being spent in the industry for that to not have happened. Way too much.
Donte? Donte'! Donté?!?!
'spect da 'xtra E'
by iashwash on Nov 14, 2008 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough IW
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 17, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
From my observation
Hollinger makes up his mind at the beginning of the season who the “good” teams are, and ranks them accordingly, then uses anecdotal evidence to prove himself right, only admits he’s wrong if a team is getting really good or really bad press from other sources, and only tweaks the power rankings every week just so that people look at it. There is no real substance to it and he’s an idiot.
Let's go home.-Kevin Martin
by LeaguePassAddict on Nov 13, 2008 10:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
No he just uses numbers LPA
The problem is the Kings have some nasty defeats that other teams don’t have. Tha’ts the reason they’re so far down.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Besides that
Rankings are just arbitrary. What does it really mean anyway? Does anybody here care what Hollinger thinks of the Kings? He’s a Hawks fan. He doesn’t care about the Kings any more than we care about the Wolves.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True
I find fault with some of his statistics. Not the way he gets them, but with his emphasis on certain stats which I don’t think are as important as others. Anyway, a respectible statistical system cannot just look at final numbers (such as record vs. win/loss margin) and use them to rate teams. A good system can include things such as top players (Martin) being out for a game or two and adjust the score accordingly. Also, things such as playing on the road against a team playing their home opener is something that can also be statistically accounted for and which is something that Hollinger’s system does not.
Either way, I don’t care for they way he does his statistics and this power ranking proves one reason why.
"Oh, boy! This website is very good. Hey, let's talk about the Raiders!" - "Peaches" Napier
by dalt99 on Nov 13, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
You could factor all those things in. But I still think the idea of power rankings is just dumb to begin with. At least Marc Stein admits that it’s all his opinion.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's eeeeeearly
Hollinger’s system is based all on strength of schedule and points margin. The Kings have played an easy schedule but have a terrible points margin. He isn’t biased or anything. He didn’t tailor his system to make the Kings look bad.
Did the Kings fall because of last night? That’s not abnormal — the system expects the Kings to beat the worse Clippers by a certain amount, and it ended up being a close game. Also, each new game knocks off a bit of influence from the historical addition (which at this point is last season’s performance — it is slowly phased out as the system adds new data from this year).
Hollinger’s rankings are stronger as the season moves along. But then again, so are everyone’s!
by Ziller on Nov 13, 2008 11:22 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Good Points
Again, the thing about his system is that while it’s emphasis on strength of schedule and point margin is by itself just fine, the way he comes about his final numbers is (in my opinion) less than complete. There are things such as winning at home as opposed to on the road for instance that is hard to quantify statistically, but if ignored completely the final numbers cannot be correct. A win against Memphis by 5 at home is not the same as a win over Memphis by 5 (all else being equal) on the road. Not only that but if a team is without a star (Kobe, Wade, Duncan, etc.) for one game or two, that also has to be factored in. His system is not as thorough as it could be therefore it will have errors. In my opinion, it is missing many factors and is really not much better than ranking the teams by their win-loss record alone.
As you pointed out TZ, at this early stage, the strength of schedule portion of the system is not very concrete nor reliable.
"Oh, boy! This website is very good. Hey, let's talk about the Raiders!" - "Peaches" Napier
by dalt99 on Nov 13, 2008 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not even really tZ's point to be honest
Hollinger’s system has 2 arbitrary factors in how he factors his rankings. Strength of schedule, and margin of victory. The Kings don’t rate high on either at this point in time. That’s why they’re low. I think it’s stupid, like you, but until you come up with with a better system yourself, it’s hard to knock Hollinger for at least attempting to do so.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It does factor in home vs road
That’s part of strength of schedule.
You’re right about the conditional points, though. And to be honest, there’s are a lot of different ways to lose to Detroit by 8. You know?
by Ziller on Nov 13, 2008 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dalt I would love to see what you could come up with
But the truth of the matter is, there will be flaws. It will just take me longer to find yours than Hollingers is the actual truth of it.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's an idiot
You can’t make judgements strickly by numbers, they do in fact lie.
Here’s an idea,
Let’s turn over our national defense to SKYNET
Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !
by lietothegirls on Nov 13, 2008 3:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Dude cmon
Hollinger isn’t an idiot. He does know these rankings aren’t perfect. It’s an arbitrary system that unfortunately has many flaws in it. Where the Kings are currently ranked is one. (Or more accurately why.)
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Hollinger is an idiot
then what does that make all of us? I may not always agree with him, but PER has become a rankings benchmark, and you have to give him credit for making statistical (and not emotional) arguments
….And he has never mistaken me for Chad Ford.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Nov 13, 2008 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you were being funny
Even unintentional, it was a great mistake dude.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Futher proof of what I mean
When I’m not covering the draft for ESPN, I grade students for a living as a university professor. So I know that instant grades are based on incomplete information. But they are also a necessary tool for evaluation.
That’s Chad Ford, for those who don’t realize it.
A team should not be criticized just for doing the unexpected. But the Kings made a huge reach for Thompson at No. 12. He’s going to be a solid rotation player at best. But it looks like he might be the Shelden Williams of this draft.
With solid players like Brandon Rush, Darrell Arthur and Mario Chalmers and upside guys like Anthony Randolph and Marreese Speights on the board, I think the Kings blew it.
Mr Professor thinks the Kings blew it. At least Hollinger understands that people are skeptical, and understands what his limits are. Sometimes Ford crosses over into “I’m a draft guru, and somebody should hire me to run their draft for them” mode.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
PER?
So what. I created a “PER” for players back in 1998. Many people have had player "PER"s before Hollinger, but it was Hollinger that was the first to get it into the public eye. It’s not that big a deal to me. Mine is based more on per minute rating. Either way, it’s statistics, so who cares? ha!
"Oh, boy! This website is very good. Hey, let's talk about the Raiders!" - "Peaches" Napier
by dalt99 on Nov 14, 2008 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
who cares as long as the keep winning
maybe if the Kings win the next three games they will be 30th
by Beagle12 on Nov 13, 2008 6:37 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
The longer you stick around here Beagle
I wonder if you’re the real genius roaming these halls.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Nov 13, 2008 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the time difference makes me seem smarter
maybe I should relocate to the UK, lol
by Beagle12 on Nov 13, 2008 6:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
