Jump to content




Photo

Lakers "only" 3rd in ESPN rankings


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 ogarte24

ogarte24

    Rookie

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: Aug 03, 2008
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted February 24, 2009 - 09:51 PM

LINK

Lakers Only Third in ESPN's Power Rankings

By BRETT POLLAKOFF

Most people that closely follow the NBA agree that the Lakers, at least right now, are the league's best team. There is no shortage of evidence to support this fact, but at least one respected follower of the league ranked them no better than third this week.

ESPN's John Hollinger is the great mind behind many useful metrics that help us to further dissect professional basketball, including the PER (Player Efficiency Rating) which measures players across a variety of statistical categories. His weekly rankings are "100 percent automated," which might explain how the Lakers could end up ranked behind two Eastern Conference teams that they haven't lost to all season -- the Celtics and the Cavaliers.

But Hollinger himself provided his own explanation, which, in all honesty, just doesn't make any sense.



#2 BeeZee

BeeZee

    Reigning Purple & Gold

  • 5,869 posts
  • Joined: Sep 24, 2008
  • Location:Southern California
  • Fan Since:1993
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe, Horry, Van Exel

Posted February 24, 2009 - 10:04 PM

It's John Hollinger - what else do you expect?


Bleeding purple & gold...


#3 leor_77

leor_77

    Superstar

  • 8,338 posts
  • Joined: Nov 27, 2008

Posted February 24, 2009 - 10:47 PM

You guys shouldn't even read it or talk about it...it is irrelevant.

#4 lyk13

lyk13

    BACK 2 BACK NBA CHAMPIONS

  • 4,722 posts
  • Joined: Jul 25, 2008
  • Location:Singapore
  • Fan Since:1999 (But reminiscent all the way back till 1960s, even 1948)
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant & Wilt Chamberlain

Posted February 24, 2009 - 11:29 PM

I did read it, and I somewhat agree to it. Let them keep underestimating us...we know what we can do anyway.




#5 Beethovenite

Beethovenite

    Veteran

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: Sep 08, 2008
  • Location:Southern California
  • Fan Since:1994
  • Fav. Laker:Chick Hearn

Posted February 25, 2009 - 12:10 AM

Yes it makes sense.

It's ESPN.

#6 phifedogg76

phifedogg76

    I left my wallet in El Segundo's practice facility

  • 1,838 posts
  • Joined: Jul 29, 2008
  • Location:Glendora, CA
  • Name:Joe $
  • Fan Since:1980
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Shaq and Kobe

Posted February 25, 2009 - 01:08 AM

Hollinger doesn't even agree with himself
Posted Image

Go Lakeshow!!!

#7 Junayd

Junayd

    Based Prophet

  • 10,890 posts
  • Joined: Jan 28, 2009
  • Location:Dire Dawa
  • Fan Since:'97-'98
  • Fav. Laker:Sedale Threatt

Posted February 25, 2009 - 01:11 AM

#1 on CBS :dance1:

Posted Image
@MooMeezy | Tumblr
“i have more respect for a man that lets me know where he stands, even if he’s wrong.
than one who comes up like an angel but is nothing but a devil.”


#8 ILLWiLL20

ILLWiLL20

    Chick and Stu

  • 5,071 posts
  • Joined: Nov 30, 2008
  • Location:L.A County,26 miles away from Staples Center
  • Name:WILL.I.AM
  • Fan Since:Birth
  • Fav. Laker:Magic, Mamba

Posted February 25, 2009 - 02:09 AM

John Hollinger and ESPN is WRONG!!!!!!!!


AN THEY KNOW NADA
Posted Image
Posted Image

#9 Imadogg

Imadogg

    Rookie

  • 0 posts
  • Joined: Jul 24, 2008

Posted February 25, 2009 - 02:41 AM

Another thread about Hollinger's automated rankings... who cares ahhh. Dude uses a formula based on scoring margin primarily, plus wins and all that. He has a very good point and it would work very well, if every team always tried it's hardest. Unlike Rivers and Brown, Phil doesn't care about scoring margin, he cares about the playoffs. We leave our bench players out there forever to give em experience, while other teams would never think about doing that, and Kobe comes in to finish strong so we don't end up winning by 20 each game when we easily could.

People who watch the games could tell you who the best team is. I never care about these rankings, I enjoy reading all the actual selected power rankings though (and you all enjoy reading em too, unless the Lakers aren't ranked first).

#10 TheAssassin611

TheAssassin611

    "The Young Assassin"

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: Jan 31, 2009
  • Location:Philippines
  • Name:Mohammad Abdulrauf L. Lauban
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted February 25, 2009 - 02:43 AM

Lakers Have the Best Record in this Season
And in ESPN ranking 3rd ONLY?


#11 Base

Base

    Casadee

  • 4,376 posts
  • Joined: Aug 11, 2008
  • Location:Hawaii
  • Fan Since:1999
  • Fav. Laker:Ime udoka

Posted February 25, 2009 - 03:02 AM

The Magic are undefeated Vs the Lakers and Cavs, so why are they ranked so low? Well they lost to bottom dwellers. But "What does matter is how you stack up against the other elite teams in the league, and no statistical category can disprove what we've seen with our own eye"

So I guess this writer would have the top 5 rankings something like this:

1. Lakers- Beat Boston Twice, but Lost to Orlando twice to Boston, Beat Cavaliers Twice.
2. Celtics- Beat Orlando Twice, who beat the Lakers Twice.
3. Orlando- Lost to Boston Twice, but Lakers beat them Twice, Beat Cleveland Once in one matchup
4. Cleveland- Beat Boston Once, Lost to Boston once, Lost To Lakers Twice, Lost to Orlando Once
5. Pacers- Lost to Boston Twice, Beat Cleveland Once, Lost twice to Cle, Beat orlando once, lost to orlando 3 times, Beat Lakers Once Lost to them once.

Pacers can beat elite teams too.

Edited by Base, February 25, 2009 - 03:19 AM.


#12 netlord

netlord

    Flying high

  • 10,581 posts
  • Joined: Jul 29, 2008
  • Location:España
  • Name:Alexi
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted February 25, 2009 - 03:57 AM

I like it.
Posted Image

#13 phifedogg76

phifedogg76

    I left my wallet in El Segundo's practice facility

  • 1,838 posts
  • Joined: Jul 29, 2008
  • Location:Glendora, CA
  • Name:Joe $
  • Fan Since:1980
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Shaq and Kobe

Posted February 25, 2009 - 03:59 AM

to be fair, ESPN has 2 different sets of Power Rankings, Hollinger and Stein, Stein is usually more accurate while Hollinger uses numbers
Posted Image

Go Lakeshow!!!

#14 Kenrae

Kenrae

    Metal Mutant

  • 954 posts
  • Joined: Aug 09, 2008
  • Location:Barcelona

Posted February 25, 2009 - 05:31 AM

Repeat with me: it's just an arbitrary equation. It doesn't mean anything.

Edited by Kenrae, February 25, 2009 - 05:31 AM.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent

#15 Pau16Kobe24Drew17

Pau16Kobe24Drew17

    Rookie

  • 700 posts
  • Joined: Jan 10, 2009
  • Location:Arkansas
  • Fan Since:1966
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted February 25, 2009 - 08:02 AM

BSPN is full of Boston homers in all sports. The Bristol homers grew up fans of the Boston teams.

#16 wmcguire33

wmcguire33

    Rookie

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: Feb 04, 2009
  • Location:Ohio
  • Name:Will McGuire
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted February 25, 2009 - 09:29 AM

This scrub uses a formula based on scoring differentials.

THIS MEANS NOTHING WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT.
A WIN IS A WIN, A LOSS IS A LOSS.

You know, last night the CHICAGO BULLS blew the ORLANDO MAGIC off the floor. (Score Wise)
But the Magic are, obviously, much better than Chicago.

So if point differential is so important...
Hollinger is basically telling us, that if the Lakers played the Celtics 4 times, and the Lakers went 3-1, winning by maybe....lets say like 8, 12, and 15 or something like that-- but the one game they lost they went down by 35--that the Celtics are better?

I mean, that makes no sense what so ever. But like you guys all said before, its only a formula and not a true reason based power ranking article.

47-10 1st NBA
47-10 1st West
2-0 vs. Boston
2-0 vs. Cleveland

WITNESS Kobe.
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

#17 UKUGA

UKUGA

    All-Star

  • 5,910 posts
  • Joined: Jul 29, 2008
  • Location:28269
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted February 25, 2009 - 09:37 AM

I read Hollinger's article, and I think the biggest problem with it is that he sounded like a whining ninny, who refused to even open the door to their being a better option than what his rankings were producing.

If Hollinger had said simply that he had developed a formula that he felt generated the best representation of where teams rank, then I'd have been fine with that.

But instead, he went on and on about how the Lakers were not the best team, and people were putting too much stock in a "no call on Ray Allen's final shot attempt", and how the Celtics were 17-3 in their last 20, while the Lakers were 16-4 in the same period and how not only did the latter prove that the Celtics were better, but how the Lakers fans were overstating the significance of the win in Boston, because had the "right" call been made at the end, then the Celtics would win, and the Lakers, Celtics, and Cavs would all have the same record.

I will say this, he had Boston on top last year at the end, and San Antonio on top the year before, and each hoisted the LOB at the end.

Right now, though, I do think that the Lakers would beat Boston or Cleveland in a 7-gamer; however, there is that team in Florida that has beaten us twice and 3 out of the last 4.

www.twitter.com/ukuga


#18 Base

Base

    Casadee

  • 4,376 posts
  • Joined: Aug 11, 2008
  • Location:Hawaii
  • Fan Since:1999
  • Fav. Laker:Ime udoka

Posted February 25, 2009 - 04:55 PM

This scrub uses a formula based on scoring differentials.

THIS MEANS NOTHING WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT.
A WIN IS A WIN, A LOSS IS A LOSS.

You know, last night the CHICAGO BULLS blew the ORLANDO MAGIC off the floor. (Score Wise)
But the Magic are, obviously, much better than Chicago.

So if point differential is so important...
Hollinger is basically telling us, that if the Lakers played the Celtics 4 times, and the Lakers went 3-1, winning by maybe....lets say like 8, 12, and 15 or something like that-- but the one game they lost they went down by 35--that the Celtics are better?

I mean, that makes no sense what so ever. But like you guys all said before, its only a formula and not a true reason based power ranking article.

47-10 1st NBA
47-10 1st West
2-0 vs. Boston
2-0 vs. Cleveland


Posted Image


If you exclude Celtics, Cleveland and Lakers out of the equations it's very close to the equation. Take the Rockets for example.

Rockets 5617 total points
Opponents 5409 Total Points

Equation

Winning Percentage=(5617^14)/((5617^14)+(5409^14))=.629 winning percentage...Rockets Actual winning percentage is .632 Just .003 points off. Hollinger is using a equation similar to that. Point differential to determine the more efficient team, not necessarily the better team.

Edited by Base, February 25, 2009 - 05:00 PM.


#19 UKUGA

UKUGA

    All-Star

  • 5,910 posts
  • Joined: Jul 29, 2008
  • Location:28269
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted February 26, 2009 - 08:55 AM

Definite weakness in Hollinger's rankings is appearing.

Celtics lose to the Clippers last night, are 6-4 in their last 10, and have the league's 3rd best record.

Still ranked #1.

The Lakers and Cavs both have better records than Boston, and are 9-1 and 8-2, respectively, over their last 10.


Cavs #2
Lakers #3

www.twitter.com/ukuga


#20 Makaveli

Makaveli

    where will i go?

  • 13,312 posts
  • Joined: Jan 27, 2009
  • Location:Estonia.
  • Fan Since:'06
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe 'Bean' Bryant.

Posted February 26, 2009 - 10:26 AM

Hollinger is an idiot. Guy should rename it to "ESPN Celtics & Cavs weekly rankings"

DOUCHE.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users