Outlier...lols. It doesn't do anything better than RW/HL in aggregate....Show me All he does is use PT differential. We know that is king, but not quite as good as a seed predictor. And it is meaningless until end of season vs road wins.
No. He's saying the Rockets are playing the 5th best basketball right now. The Rockets just blew out the Hawks, Memphis, Bulls, Knicks, Phillies, beat Minnesota, and lost to arguably 2 of top-3 team in the NBA. If you think that's not playing great basketball, please tell me which other team ranked below them has those kind of big wins? The Rockets by record are 6th in the west. They're obviously not as good as Miami, who have been pretty much coasting so far and has played supbar basketball by their standard. But the Rockets are 2-0 against the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best teams in the East. Which probably puts them at #7 objectively by record mixed with on-court play. And this doesn't even account for the Rockets starting slow due to chemistry issues. #5 ranking at this current time seems very reasonable given their play.
Ok, I see, you guys are trying to predict the final standing. I am sure point differential is a better measure to Carl's point about close games. But I do think RDW - HL is a better indicator of how a team will do in the post-season - in other words, the true strength of the team.
Minute differences...lol. I'm saying Hollinger's stat is bull**** because it ranks the Rockets at #5 in the entire league, while a much simpler stat ranks them at #10 in the West. I am vastly closer to reality than Hollinger. Does anyone actually think we can make up 11 road wins by GS vs our 5. Hollinger, durvasa and Carl Herrera do.
Point differential is the best indicator aside from true W/Ls. However, RW vs HL is always 100% accurate for final seeding. It's just math. So, it is actually better throughout the year than pt differential. Can no one else see this? Pat Riley first pointed this out to me.
Denver is 8-1 and leading the NBA in Road wins/Home losses. I don't have data to show what is better power ranking, but that is a bad outlier too. I don't like that Hollinger's method looks at the recent data more strongly. I know the power ranking was meant to be comparable to other power rankings...but sports stats tend to suffer from sample size issues. In this case, shrinking the sample size by weighting recent games puts rockets too high.
Some of you guys are way too pessimistic. Of course I know Rockets aren't better than Miami. But I still believe we have almost a guaranteed chance to make the playoff. As long as Harden - Lin duo keeps playing backcourt like this, our offense IS within top 5 of the nation. But offense AND defense combined overall, we're somewhere within top 10. It's just that people here has had the tanking mentality for too long. They've been too used to Rockets failing to deliver past few years. Well this is not the case anymore. Rockets are serious contenders and we have enough strength to make a noise in the playoffs. Believe me, I'm not being too optimistic.
"Seed predictor" is essentially the same thing as "#wins predictor". And I showed you in post #70, but you chose to dismiss the results.
Explain the math to me. Its apparently very basic and obvious, but I'm still not seeing it: Team A wins 55 games: 36-5 at home, 22-19 on the road. Their final RW-HL record would be 22-5 (RW-HL% is 82%). Team B wins 50 games, 39-2 at home, 11-30 on the road. Their final RW-HL record would be 11-2 (RW-HL % is 85%) Team B has a higher RW-HL% than Team A, even though Team A would have a higher seed.
The reason to weight more recent games higher is because that can be used to capture things like team hot streaks or injury situations, which is helpful for simulating upcoming games.
I wouldn't go quite so far, but as far as their recent performance is concerned Miami has been playing terribly. Another factor statistics can't quite define: effort.
correct. RW vs HLs in not the final indicator. My point is: So what is? It is better than pt differential because is actually scores a Win!
I did dismiss it, because all your Hollinger stats converge on reality, yet not 100% like RW / HL do. He is using a pt differntial formula that is unnecessary, while simpl RW/HL is better throughout the year. If you want to argue that Final Seeding is not true indicator of best teams, fine...But I'm sure all I have to do is layover PT differential ranking on top of RW/HLs and I'll be as good as Hollinger. Not that complicated. I don't get it. The math is not that hard.
But Hollingner is looking at the recent games more...as we should...the Rockets aren't the same team today as they were in the begining of the season. They are a better team than their record. So I think 10th is too low.
Agreed, though guaranteed chance is a bit much considering the robustness of the Western conference. I do think we'll get there, but that's if we continue to have confidence and learn to win close games, especially back to back. I believe that January will be very telling as we face relatively weak teams which we must do everything we can to win over 11 games over a bad schedule in terms of the number of back-to-backs, road games, etc. I have hope but it's just that we're soooo young and inexperienced.
I did not assign %, you did. I assigned a +/- to Wins....Which is the final end of regulation seeding indicator..no? I never said anything about %...lols...now I get why you and Carl Herrera are still defending Hollinger. Every team plays 82 games, right? 41 at home vs 41 on the road. If you are 41-0 at home at a .500 team, that dictates that you are 0-41 away? It's just math. Wins vs Losses seeding is identical to Road Wins vs Home losses...which is also Identical to Road losses to Home Wins. Weird how that math works...so simple...Look it up. RWs versus HLosses is a better predicator throughout the year than pt differential. Because it actually gives more value to a WIN...ya know...a WIN!!!
every win has a corresponding loss. The league plays .500 ball as a group. Everyone plays half their games at home and half their games on the road. symmetry...it's simple math. Do you see it now?
