http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings ... and we are 9th. surprising to say the least.. how come? is schedule weighed heavily here? also, it would be great if someone could post the article(insider) here http://es.pn/beMY47
We've had the toughest schedule so far, and our point differential is basically 0. His power rankings aren't based on win-loss record, though over time schedule evens out and point-differential ends up correlating very highly to wins/losses.
Strength of schedule and recent scoring margin factor heavily into Hollinger's formula. We played 5 really good teams and lost all those games by close margins, and then blew out Minnesota. Makes sense. I do suspect that that ranking could fall as the team begins to feel the effects of Aaron Brooks' absence, unless Scola and Yao can effectively pick up that slack as go-to scorers especially in the 4th quarter.
I bet people on the Spurs forum are talking about how much ESPN hates the Spurs and how the 1-5 Rockets are 9th ranked while the 5-1 Spurs are 13th ranked.
Explanation of what his power rankings look at: Spoiler [rquoter] By now, you might have noticed our daily version of power rankings is back up on ESPN.com's NBA page. These rankings are based on a formula I devised, and they are updated every day, automatically. I created these rankings to give a quick assessment of all 30 teams so far in the season, since sometimes the standings can be misleading in this department. Here is some background to help you as you look through the rankings each day. Scoring margin One of my goals was to create a system that told us more about a team's quality than the standings do. So instead of winning percentage, these rankings use points scored and points allowed, which are better indicators of a team's quality than wins and losses. This might not sound right at first, but studies have shown scoring margin to be a better predictor of future success than a team's win-loss record. Thus, scoring margin is a more accurate sign of a team's quality. That explains why, for instance, three seasons ago the Spurs ranked ahead of the Mavericks even though they had won nine fewer games -- San Antonio's scoring margin was superior. That ultimately proved to be prophetic, as Dallas lost in the first round of the playoffs while the Spurs won the championship. Strength of schedule Yes, this matters in the NBA, too. It is not as profound in the pro game as in the college game, because the 30 NBA teams are more evenly matched, but it still affects a team's results. This comes into play mainly in the early part of the season, when there can be wide disparities in the quality of competition, but even at the end of the season, there will be differences among teams -- particularly when one conference is far better than the other. Recent performance Another key variable in the formula is recent performance, which I included for two reasons. First, it stands to reason that more recent games are more valid indicators of how strong a team is currently. Second, I wanted these rankings to follow the model of Marc Stein's "human" power rankings, on the site each Monday, in which a team's recent play is a huge factor. To accomplish this, I weigh a team's full-season results by two-thirds and its most recent games by another one-third, so the overall ranking gives greater weight to recent games. You're probably wondering at this point what I mean by "recent." It varies depending on where we are in the season. For the first 40 games of the season, it means a team's past 10 games. From that point forward, however, it means the most recent 25 percent of a team's schedule. The net result is that, after the first 40 games, a team's most recent 25 percent of its schedule will account for 40 percent of its ranking. Home and road The final variable here is home and road games. In each game, a team's scoring margin is adjusted by the 3.5-point advantage we (and by "we," I mean the Vegas books, of course) expect the home team to have in a game between otherwise equal opponents. This can have a large effect at certain points in the season for some teams, as their home and road numbers can get way out of line. This is particularly true for the two "circus/rodeo" teams -- Chicago and San Antonio -- who take at least one extended road trip every season because their arenas are being used for special events and thus end up with a big home-road disparity. Caveats Since this is an entirely automated ranking, you'll notice certain "human" factors missing. It doesn't know which players are about to come back from injury or which teams have been playing without their best players for the past 10 games. Along the same lines, it doesn't take into account injuries, trades, controversial calls or any other variables -- just the scores, please. Nonetheless, it can be very useful because it allows us to see what the landscape looks like when we remove our usual filters. We hope you enjoy our daily power rankings. [/rquoter] It might be interesting to just compare his ordering to the team ordering by win-loss record, and think about which one seems truer to how the standings will eventually end up.
I like Hollinger's stuff, but for the 7-0 Lakers not to be #1 and the 1-5 Rockets to be #9 is bizarre.
Yep, and if the situation was reversed and we were ranked low despite a good win-loss record, people here would complain about the same thing. These people don't understand that Hollinger's rankings are not biased towards or against any team. It is only the results that enter into it.
no...see...you're taking winning and losing way too seriously. i don't even watch these games...i just let the computer tell me who's best.
But you're actually going in the other direction -- "don't even watch the games, just looking at the win-loss record." The Rockets have problems, but they aren't nearly as bad as their record suggests. A computer, if looking at the right data, can see it. Human beings, emotional creatures that they are, may not. Hence the panic attacks we witness in the GARM after every loss.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-101109 Hollinger PER Diem: 11/9/2010 So, can we just have the Lakers and Heat tip off the Finals already? Although there's an eternity of basketball left to be played and the landscape tends to shift in surprising ways between November and June, Tuesday's newly launched Hollinger Power Rankings for 2010-11 underscore a reality that's been obvious to anyone who's been watching: L.A. and Miami are head and shoulders above the rest of the league at the moment. HOLLINGER RANKINGS: THE METHOD The Hollinger Power Rankings debuted on ESPN.com in January 2007, based on a formula devised by John Hollinger. It is based primarily on scoring margin and strength of schedule. This formula has proven over the years to give a more accurate assessment of a team's strength and future success. For more about how the system works, and why teams are not ranked in order of win-loss record, click here. Before we get in too deep, a quick primer: The Hollinger Power Rankings operate based on scoring margin and strength of schedule (including home/road). After 10 games have been played, a component to measure a team's play in recent games kicks in. "Recent" is defined as the past 10 games up until midseason, after which the term expands to include the most recent 25 percent of a team's schedule. Miami sits atop the inaugural Power Rankings with an overwhelming 116.15 rating. Because the league average is set to a rating of 100.0, that means our rating would favor Miami by 16 points against an average team on a neutral court. Despite two mishaps in the Heat's first seven games -- both narrow road losses to highly ranked opponents -- they have been so impressive in their other five games that they still earn the top spot. The Lakers haven't been chopped liver, either, with a rating of 112.86 that is almost as striking. If you're trying to put this into perspective, any team with a rating of 110 or higher is fiddling with all-time great status. That's fair given how awesome the Lakers have been to start the season, winning all seven games and being challenged in only a couple of them. Alas, ratings can and do tend to shrink toward 100.00 as the season progresses; although in a seven-game sample we'd predict a couple of outliers to have dramatically great or terrible ratings (Hello, Timberwolves!), the probability of doing so across 82 games is substantially smaller. By the end of the season, it's likely our top team will have a rating in the 108-109 range and our bottom team will be in the very low 90s. So how do the Heat outrank the unbeaten Lakers? Well, as I mentioned, the two factors are scoring margin and strength of schedule. Although the scoring margins are nearly identical -- L.A, in fact, has a 0.4-point edge -- Miami has played the more difficult schedule. Heat opponents have a .595 winning percentage when they're not playing the Heat, compared to .524 for Lakers foes. Although it seems odd to place Miami's 5-2 record ahead of L.A.'s 7-0, the Lakers have yet to face a night on their schedule as difficult as Miami's visits to Boston and New Orleans (their two losses), or even the Heat's home date against No. 3 Orlando (a 26-point Miami win). The Lakers' highest-ranked opponent to date is No. 8 Phoenix. NBA POWER RANKINGS Which team is on top of the league? Check out our weekly and daily Power Rankings. • Stein's take | Hollinger | SN: Vote! Speaking of which, let's look at the rest of the top teams. After Miami and L.A., we have a predictable list of teams that have started the season strong: Orlando at No. 3, the still-unbeaten Hornets at No. 4, Denver at No. 5, Boston at No. 6, Atlanta at No. 7, Phoenix at No. 8 and Houston at No. 9. (Wait … did he just say Houston?) The Rockets are 1-5, which seemingly makes them an odd choice to rank ninth in a 30-team league. But if we look at their schedule and scoring margins, the ranking is completely justified. Houston's losses were to No. 2-ranked L.A. (by two points on the road), No. 3 New Orleans, No. 4 Denver and No. 13 San Antonio (in double overtime on the road after losing both starting guards in the first half). The only loss to a team outside the top 10 was a four-point defeat in Golden State -- no slouch itself at No. 17 -- on the second night of a back-to-back. Meanwhile, the Rockets' lone win was by 26 points. Even if you eliminate that game, given that it came against a glorified D-League franchise, and just focus on the 0-5 start, Houston rates well. The Rockets lost all five games by a combined 30 points to teams with a record of 22-6 when they weren't playing the Timberwolves. Basically, every shred of evidence supports the notion that they're a quality team despite their 0-5 start, and as the schedule turns friendlier later this month, their record should even out accordingly. Scan further down the list, and you'll see another big surprise: Oklahoma City. The Thunder rank a shocking 25th, which suggests they're in much deeper trouble than their 3-3 record implies. Oklahoma City's most impressive win, a road victory in Portland, doesn't look that wonderful in retrospect because the Blazers have muddled their way through their eight contests, while OKC has a couple of bad losses -- most notably, one to the Clippers and a beatdown at home by a scuffling Utah team -- on its résumé. Obviously, it's early, and a couple of strong games would quickly move the Thunder up the charts, but I'll add another hopeful note for the them: It's virtually inconceivable that the Thunder will suffer such a large 3-point disparity all season. Right now, Oklahoma City is shooting 21.8 percent on 3s, and its opponents are shooting 41.8 percent -- those numbers put the Thunder last in both 3-point offense and 3-point defense. Given how fluky 3-point percentages can be in small samples, I suspect the stats will revert to something more normal relatively quickly and aid Oklahoma City's recovery. A few other departures from conventional wisdom merit attention. Memphis sits comfortably at the No. 10 position despite a 4-4 start, as the Griz have played a difficult early schedule, and five of their eight games have been roadies. Similarly, Phoenix stands eighth despite a 3-4 record because the Suns have had the league's toughest schedule, and four of their seven games were away. In the East, two unheralded squads with losing records deserve at least a snippet of your attention. Philadelphia, at No. 16 and owning a positive scoring margin despite a 2-5 record, may not be as bad as you think. And Toronto, believe it or not, is a solid 18th in spite of a 1-5 start -- again, the Raptors have played a very tough early schedule and largely held their own against quality opposition. At the other end, Utah's position at 20th is sure to raise eyebrows. As with Oklahoma City, the Jazz's 3-3 start has come against unimposing opposition and with a negative scoring margin. Of course, we still have five months of basketball left to play before the postseason, and these rankings can and will change as hot streaks, injuries and other random acts of nature impact the league's 30 teams. So far, however, we're left with the impression of a two-tier league, with the Heat and Lakers standing head and shoulders above everyone else.
Worst defense is also relative. We've played some of the top offenses in the league so far(LA, GS, SA, DEN, NO). It's no wonder our defense numbers look bad. Compare that to when we played a bad team, Minn, who only scores 94 on us and most of that was in garbage time. I think we'll end up middle of the pack in defense, top 5 in offense.
Sounds like the same sort of logic that got Kubiak an extension and raise last offseason for the Texans... One or two plays every game and they would be undefeated... I agree that our ranking is likely to increase as our schedule gets easier, but if the rankings are meant to say who is strongest as of today, it makes little sense to put weight into a power ranking that has a 1-5 team higher than a 5-1 team that beat them.
This is really not that hard of a concept. I don't know why you are having so much trouble with it. Team A plays the Heat, Lakers, Celtics and Magic. Team A goes 2-2, beating the Heat and Lakers by 40 and 50 respectively. They lose to the Celtics and Magic both by 1. Team B plays the Timberwolves, Raptors, Nets and Clippers. They win the first three games by 1 point each and lose to the Clippers by 70. Who do you think is the better team, A or B? The team that is 2-2 or the team that is 3-1? At the end of the season, after the playoffs, I agree with you. What were the results? That is what matters. But along the way, especially only 6 games in, there are other data points that are better indicators or how a team is doing, and how they bode for future success.
You shouldn't put much weight into any team ranking 6 games into a season, IMO. But should we put weight into wins and losses? Well, according to that we're no better than Washington or Sacramento or a lot of other really bad teams. Actually, I think these power rankings give a more reasonable ordering of how good teams really are than straight wins and losses. Its not perfect, but no ranking is at this stage.
