Its never that simple. This is the same simplistic thinking that Utah took in 2007. They lucked thier way into the WCF by getting incredibly advantageous matchups and convinced themselves that they were on the cusp. Thier record in the playoffs suggested they were better than they actually were. They chose to stay the course which was a terrible idea. They were nothing more than a hurdle for stronger teams.
I like it better when we get extremely underrated that way we can all b**** about it lol its just more fun that way
Hornets and Lakers should be at 1-2, respectively. Both are undefeated, but the Hornets have beaten the Heat, PLUS the Hornets only have one true superstar; to be undefeated, even just 6 games in, is tremendous.
I realize no ranking system is perfect, and ultimately since this isn't college football, none of them matter. They are subjective entertainment. I agree that the Rockets are not likely to continue at a 1-5 win rate for the rest of the year and are not likely to be the worst team in the league by the time every thing is said and done. I could understand rating them higher than Washington or Sacramento despite those teams having more wins at this point. I just don't see how any of that justifies rating them higher right now at 1-5, than the Spurs who are 5-1, and beat the Rockets head to head.
I think the reason is that it isn't intended to be a rating of who has done the best in the past, or who warrants the most praise for their performance so far. That's more about what Stein's power rankings would be for. Hollinger's are intended to be a ranking of which teams are better than others. Or rather, if the two teams played right now on a neutral court 100 times (or 50 home, 50 away), which team would win the most? The Rockets lost on the road to the Spurs in double overtime. It shouldn't be that counter-intuitive for them to be ranked higher if you're looking at who would be better in the general case I described above.
