John Hollinger saying some stupid stuff in his Chat

[Triple M]

Boston has won 10 games against teams over .500 those teams are a combined 191-100 (.656)
Cleveland has won 6 games against teams .500 or better those teams are 96-162 (.593)

Cleveland is blowing out bad teams better then us but I don't see how that makes them better. They are playing many of these terrible teams at home where a terrible team would get blown out 95% of the time.

[MyInsatiableOne]

LeBron is an all time great talent and he will eventually win titles. The question is, when? The Celtics are certainly capable of holding him off this season.

Well let's wait and see...the same was said of Kobe and he hasn't won squat without Shaq...

[cavsfan_osiris]

I'm counting down the days until January 9th, Clash of the Titans.

We (Celts and Cavs fans) know all this talk about power rankings is just fodder for the mind until it's settled on the court in the post-season. Hopefully everyone on both teams remains healthy and both teams face each other in the ECF. It could be one of the most hyped series in a long time.

[billfromBoston]

...this time around, i'll be quite suprised if they are able to defend Ray Allen nearly as easily as they did last year - Ray's situational usage is night and day from last year....Boston has more offense and equal-to-better defense....Cleveland's efficiency offensively is superb, but a lot of the players producing that efficiency don't have the ability to make difficult shots, they are role players - in a 7 game series against superior top-end talent, I don't think Cleveland's starting 5 can hang with Boston's, and the bench will not be as big a factor in a series as it is during the regular season...

Cleveland is much better than last season, but so are the Celtics...

[Celtic Esquire]

Eff Hollinger. I don't think that guy even watches basketball games. He just looks at stats and then comes up with a stupid formula that doesn't make sense to anyone, but him.

Stats are useful, but they always need to be viewed in the proper context. I remember a few years back so stat geek on SoSH said that his analysis showed Bill Mueller to be a better 3rd baseman than ARod.

[EJay33]

I don't know canman... I think that the Cavs and Celtics are more or less a coin flip as to who is better. Lebron is the best player, easily. Ilgauskas has almost a KG like impact on game with his ability to spread the floor, pass, muddle up the interior, and rebound. Plus he's a clutch shooter.

Ok humblebum, you are definitely one of the best posters on this site, but I've got to disagree with you on this one. For starters Big Z can not stay on the court for much longer than 30 minutes fir whatever reason that so that diminishes some of his effectiveness. Also, due to his slow footspeed, if he's not scoring he can be taken out of games by smaller, quicker lineups. KG can remain on the court for big minutes and be effective playing against bigs or little guys. I agree that Z is under rated but he's not nearly in KGs league. KG is an absolute animal who changes everything. Before LeBron got there, Z was winning 17 games with Ricky Davis, Carlos Boozer, and Tyrone Hill on what could accurately be described as one of the worst teams of the past 10 years. The two are on totally different levels.

With regards to your main point that Cleveland and Boston should be considered equal, couldn't agree more. Although the Celtics are on a record setting pace the more important factor is that Cleveland took Boston to the brink last year and only got better this year. LeBron's MPG, KG's MPG, and Rondo's emergence are all nice stories to talk about, but we all know that the playoffs are a different animal, especially against a good defensive team.

Rondo was ineffective against Cleveland last year and if that changes this year, like you said, it gives Boston an excellent shot. During the playoffs, we know Bron won't be playing 36mpg and KG won't be playing 33 so discussions about these factors and margins of victory during the regular season are almost meaningless.

With regards to the OP, I don't disagree with what Hollinger is saying and I am not a fan, either. Everything he is saying about the Cavs is true, they are dominating and will be better in the playoffs with LeBron giving it his full effort. Also, does anyone really have a problem with Pop and RC being #1 in terms of GMs right now? Look where they got some of these guys, and also look at the absence of really dumb moves. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, whereas Danny, for all he's done for us, also has a number of head scratchers on his resume.

[Celtics_Champs]

I can't stand stat geeks. I don't even read ESPN either. That persons sig on here with all the experts except for tim legler picking the lakers to win in the finals is proof that ESPN is full of crocks.

[GreenMachine]

Celtics are 7-0 in games decided by five or less, with two of those in overtime -- that isn't going to continue, historically even the best teams are around .500 in those games.

Um? 'Historically'? Do teams win 18 games in a row Historically? What does History have to do with it? If teams were only as good as 'history would suggest'... records would never be broken and there would be no reason to play the games!

It is BECAUSE we win those games that we are as good as we are! DU!

(PS - this is not a J Locke quote - it is Hollinger)

[MyInsatiableOne]

No kidding...so just because "history" says something, it means it's fact? So we *won't* continue to win at such a torrid pace?

[ParticleMan]

Last year Hollinger had us as his clear #1 most of the year by his formula. But in the end we were taken to 7 games in our first two series. Cleveland is doing what we did last year: Out-talenting everyone and having something to prove at the same time. Dangerous combination. This year, we don't have nearly as much to prove, so aren't blowing teams out like last year. In Hollinger world, this means we aren't as good. But point differential against crappy teams is a terrible way to measure how good a team is.

Bottom line, I don't think Hollinger is right, but don't be so quick to criticize. Last year he was pimping the C's with those same stat-based rankings. As it turned out, he was right.

[Gold Chain]

Well.....last years Celtic/Cav series was close with the Cavs having no real identity.

No matter who is the better team, the best player on either team is Lebron right?

So they could beat the Celts right? Of course they could. They could also lose.

I am sure hoping we get to see that match up in ECF because that will be something fierce.

[AlCelticFan]

Hollinger is attempting to scientifically analyze basketball. Just because he doesn't think the Celtics are number 1 doesn't mean he is (Please Use More Appropriate Word). I want him to be wrong, of course.

[Banks2Pierce]

I do think that statistics are very important, but they only paint a part of the picture. It is dumb to only cite statistics to provide your reasoning. There are a bunch of other pieces to the puzzle.

With that said, the Cavs are definitely a scary team, primarily because of Lebron.

These defenses look close to even. They basically ran a box and one on Ray last year and that was very effective, and it was also before Rondo realized how good he was. Teams have to help off when Rondo drives. Also, Ray has been getting a lot more looks right off of screens this year in the 2 point range and has been ridiculously effective shooting these. These plays were not even in our offensive repertoire last year.

With all of the advance scouting that is done for the playoffs and off days in between, I take the team with more offensive weapons. I don't buy into the best player in the series wins the series logic. I also think HCA is the huge factor here.

[DowJones]

As a Cavs fan I can see his argument, but I don't agree with it. It is a "logic" type of argument, which is fine, but who knows.

I am just pissed that we dropped that first game against you. We had a great chance to steal it at your place. I think the Jan. 9th game is going to be GREAT....one of the more hyped regular season games in a long time because Cleveland will probably go into that agme with a record of 28-6 at worst...and we could very easily be 30-4.

[GuyClinch]

Bottom line, I don't think Hollinger is right, but don't be so quick to criticize. Last year he was pimping the C's with those same stat-based rankings. As it turned out, he was right.

Well let's be clear - claiming that the team with best record and the best point differential is likely to win it all isn't exactly going out on a limb. Actually most analysts would have picked the C's last year cept they wavered after a surprisingly weak playoff run.

This year it's a bit more interesting. His formula makes a pretty big assumptions. It says that point spreads are important because teams don't really coast. And that a close win could be a close loss simply because luck is a factor in these kinds of victories.

I'd say often he is correct. However there are exceptions. Many a statistician has said there is no such thing as a "clutch" hitter. Sure some guys hit in the clutch - but no more they do during "non-clutch" situations. But I swear to god Manny seemed like an exception to that..

Likewise if there ever was team that will defy Hollinger's "formula" (and I hesitate to call it his cause its nothing new in the statistical world) I think its the Celtics. They really DO seem to coast. They really DO seem to step up the execution in the fourth quarter.

Will it be enough against the Cavs? I think we can hope... stranger things have happened.

Pete

[PPAW4Life]

This is all people really need to know:

In Games decided by 5 points or less:

C's are 7-0 with a "then current" SOS of 53.2% (Overall SOS of 54.5%)
Cavs are 1-2 with a "then current" SOS of 56.0% (Overall SOS of 64.6%)

Translation: Celtics can beat above average teams, Cavs have trouble beating good teams

In Games decided by 10 points or more:

C's are 15-1 with a "then current" SOS of 51.5% (Overall SOS 42.9%) (Average margin of victory +15.5 ppg)
Cavs are 19-1 with a "then current" SOS of 40.2% (Overall SOS 43.4%) (Avg margin of victory +17.3 ppg)

Translation: Celtics can blowout average opponents, while the Cavs can blowout sucky teams.

Conclusion: The Cavs are good, but the competition they have faced make them look better than they actually are. The Celtics, on the other hand, are clearly the best team in the NBA, because they can beat bad teams and good teams by large margins and they can win the close games against bad and good teams. Boston should be a top every Power Ranking list anywhere in the universe.

[MyInsatiableOne]

This is all people really need to know:

In Games decided by 5 points or less:

C's are 7-0 with a "then current" SOS of 53.2% (Overall SOS of 54.5%)
Cavs are 1-2 with a "then current" SOS of 56.0% (Overall SOS of 64.6%)

Translation: Celtics can beat above average teams, Cavs have trouble beating good teams

In Games decided by 10 points or more:

C's are 15-1 with a "then current" SOS of 51.5% (Overall SOS 42.9%) (Average margin of victory +15.5 ppg)
Cavs are 19-1 with a "then current" SOS of 40.2% (Overall SOS 43.4%) (Avg margin of victory +17.3 ppg)

Translation: Celtics can blowout average opponents, while the Cavs can blowout sucky teams.

Conclusion: The Cavs are good, but the competition they have faced make them look better than they actually are. The Celtics, on the other hand, are clearly the best team in the NBA, because they can beat bad teams and good teams by large margins and they can win the close games against bad and good teams. Boston should be a top every Power Ranking list anywhere in the universe.

Great analysis..>I've been saying this for weeks, Cleveland has played a rather soft schedule...

[sam_I_am]

I thought Hollinger was just feeding the media hype until I saw Cleveland play Detroit. The comments here remind me of what the rest of the country said about the Celtics last year. The way Cleveland is winning demands respect. I do agree that they are doing it against inferior competition. Like the Celtics last year who finally gained the respect they deserved as top dog by sweeping 3 in Texas on the road, Cleveland has a chance when they play the Lakers and Celtics in early Jan.

They are now the best defensive team in NBA by ppg allowed and they have crushing teams. I watched them destroy Denver in Denver with the same physical defense they always play while rotating the ball on offense like a well oiled machine. Unlike last year when sketchy officiating combined with tight play by the Celtics allowed Cleveland to stand toe to toe with a vastly superior team, they now look like championship team.

Lebron can single handedly take Pierce out of a game on both ends. And against Cleveland it is very dangerous to let Pierce dribble at top of key because Lebron is getting very good at stripping him leading to easy dunks. With Wallace, Big Z and Varejao they have 3 very physical big men who can make it hard for KG without doubling him. What other team in NBA can afford not to double Pierce or KG? That means doubling Ray Allen which gave us fits in playoffs last year. Now that they can score 110 on a given night..... they could be a handful for us.

The other major question is the Pierce - Lebron battle. Last year with a lopsided supporting cast in Pierce's favor, Pierce and Lebron were pretty much a wash with Pierce winning the "savvy" battle and Lebron with slight statistical edge. But Pierce is a little bit older and playing like it. He might just be saving himself for second half as he usually does. But Lebron is on a huge upward trajectory in his career. Where is he going to peak? He isn't there yet.

The key is going to be Mo Williams vs. Rondo. If Rondo plays like an all-star we probably prevail. That means scoring a lot and shutting down Mo. That is a tall order but he might be up to it because like Lebron, he too is only going to get better.

[sam_I_am]

Bottom line, I don't think Hollinger is right, but don't be so quick to criticize. Last year he was pimping the C's with those same stat-based rankings. As it turned out, he was right.

Well let's be clear - claiming that the team with best record and the best point differential is likely to win it all isn't exactly going out on a limb. Actually most analysts would have picked the C's last year cept they wavered after a surprisingly weak playoff run.

This year it's a bit more interesting. His formula makes a pretty big assumptions. It says that point spreads are important because teams don't really coast. And that a close win could be a close loss simply because luck is a factor in these kinds of victories.

I'd say often he is correct. However there are exceptions. Many a statistician has said there is no such thing as a "clutch" hitter. Sure some guys hit in the clutch - but no more they do during "non-clutch" situations. But I swear to god Manny seemed like an exception to that..

Likewise if there ever was team that will defy Hollinger's "formula" (and I hesitate to call it his cause its nothing new in the statistical world) I think its the Celtics. They really DO seem to coast. They really DO seem to step up the execution in the fourth quarter.

Will it be enough against the Cavs? I think we can hope... stranger things have happened.

Pete

The major flaw in his reasoning is that he is lumping all teams together when looking at that spread. Clearly, in 2006 the Celtics as many close games in their 18 game streak as this team is winning now.

I think if he looked at 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 90 Pistons, 90's Bulls, 2000 Lakers, 2000's Spurs etc. I think he would see a different pattern. Great teams win more close games than bad teams. I remember a Steve Grogan Patriots team that went 4-0 in preseason and were predicted to be a playoff team that went 2-14 and lost a lot of close games. And they really did suck. Or when the Lakers came for 8 pts down in the Garden and won on a Magic hook shot. Or when Larry stole the ball against Detroit ( a little bit of luck and a lot of greatness). The better team simply willed victory.

Luck - as Hollinger tries to claim - has nothing to do with it.

[PPAW4Life]

Here is the issue for me regarding close games and blowout games......

In a close game, it means that both teams are playing pretty even....the prevailing team will be the one team that executes down the stretch. (Usually or generally, that one team is the "good" or "better" team).

In blowout games, it generally means that one team is either superior to the other team or for that one night, one game, that one team is just playing flat out better than the other team.

If we take a look at last year's Championship Celtics, we saw during the regular season a great team blowing other teams out and resting their starters in the 4th quarter.

In the playoffs last year, we saw "better" competition and this did not allow our C's to blowout the other team as regularly as they did in the regular season. Thus, in crunch time during the playoffs, the Celtics were not used to executing down the stretch and coughed up some bigger leads in the 4th quarter, namely to the Hawks in the 1st round (on the road) and to the Lakers in the Finals (at home).

As each playoff series went on, our Celtics learned and grew up and figured out how to excel during crunch time (see Game 7 vs CLE or ECF Game 6 at Detroit, Finals Game 4 at LA, both come from behind wins).

I would also like to emphasis that even though the Hawks took us to 7 games, they were not really a 37-45 team....they were better than that after acquiring Mike Bibby. The Hawks we faced, in last year's playoffs, were clearly a higher than 8th seed. (Currently this season, the Hawks are the 4th seed in the EC).

Now look at the EC SemiFinals last year against the Cavs. They took us to 7 games too. Both teams, apparently were evenly matched. How did the Celtics win Game 7? Because we made the plays down the stretch. We won Game 7 because we were the better team down the stretch.

It didn't have anything to do with luck or miss fortune.

(It is not necessary to examine the Detroit or Laker series from last year because both series were easier for the Celtics to achieve victory. It felt like for the C's that things got easier as they moved forward, and I attribute that to the team learning and maturing through the playoffs last year).