[ESPN]Hollinger: 1-6 Rockets still better than Jazz, Hawks, Spurs

Beating Miami doesn't impress me one bit at this point. Of their 5 wins, the Heat have beaten Philly, Minnesota, New Jersey (twice), and Orlando. The only good team out of those is Orlando.

So while I will give Utah credit for winning that game, it's not as great a victory as people make it out to be, especially considering they needed a ridiculous performance from Millsap to actually pull it off. That doesn't mean Utah is a bad team, I just don't think they should be deemed as this great team because they've beaten Miami.

The Hawks, I don't know much about so I won't say anything.

The Spurs? This team was one free throw away from beating them with Yao, AB, and Kevin Martin out for a large part of the game.

I understand this 1-6 start is disappointing, trust me, I'm right there with you guys, but it is still extremely early in the season, and this team has faced nothing but tough competition so far (with the exception of Washington).

 

Rocket fans won't believe anything anymore that the pundits, coaches or management says until we see it on the floor. We got to get those wins!

 

Hollinger reminds me of my wife - useless and overpaid.

 

STFU we suck shet...

 

I thought Hollinger's was just Point Differential adjusted to strength of schedule. I know Point Differential is one of the most accurate predictors, better than actually W/L records.

 

A team that has been unable to beat opponents even when having good leads starting the 3rd and 4th must respect those who, even against weaker or similar competition, succedded in winning.

 

lol seems tough out there

 

Hollinger, your formula is broken. What a joke.

 

**** if you don't want it, pass the savings to me my friend...

 

Wins and loses are also stats!
Wake up bro!!!

 

yeah, those are the ones that matter, bro.

 

His formula isn't broken. Over the past five years, it has correlated much better to final season/playoff standings than any other power ranking in existence. There are always a couple of things that seem out of whack in the first couple of weeks and you can't really read much into it until the season is at least a week old in my opinion. Because he factors in strength of schedule and recent point differential, teams that play well against really good teams will always do well. Home/Road performance counts as well.

The fact is that the sky isn't falling and the season isn't lost like some think, but there are significant problems with this team, particularly defensively, that will send them plummeting down the rankings soon if they don't fix with urgency.

 

Ranking by point differential alone, the Rockets are still hanging around the middle of the pack (17th) despite their 1-6 record. The Clippers, who I'm sure many around here would consider to be better than the Rockets, actually rank 29th in point differential at -8.7 and have a league-worst 1-8 record. Utah look like world-beaters but their point differential is only +0.9 right now.

It's early in the season. You can't put too much significance into the stats yet until the sample size is sufficiently large. I think however it is correct to draw the conclusion that the Rockets are better than a 1-6 team, even if they are pretenders right now as far as the playoffs are concerned.

 

Who cares if we lose one game by 50 points, and win the next 5 by one.

Even though we would suck in Hollinger's formula, we would be 5-1.....

Give me the wins.....screw the rest.

DD

 

No, they don't.
Only the number of rings might matter, just might...
And you only need to experience it once!

 

I feel like I'm reading Ecclesiasties.

 

Anyone take some statistics and know anything about the student's t value distribution table?

I took a course last spring, and admittedly I forgot the details, but I know that there usually has to be at least 30 data points taken if any 'good' observations are to be made.

In other words, before the New Year, power rankings and team W-L standings are meaningless.

 

depends on how many total data points there are.

for instance...the NFL plays a 16 game schedule...there aren't 30 data points ever to be taken.

and again, this is where stats fail you. because if you've been watching the NBA for a while, you don't need that kind of sample size to have some idea what kind of team you're dealing with.

in addition...i don't believe everything is measurable.

 

At least Hollinger has stats to back up his claims, however ludicrous they may seem to the common fan. As opposed to, say, those who believe our path to success runs through Yao. There are no stats whatsoever to back that up.