Hollinger's Playoff Odds machine doesn't like the Spurs....

by werdnawee on Jan 1, 2009 4:47 AM CST Comment 18 comments

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Perdiem-081231

What does it all mean??? Can it really be true??

Read below -

Checking out the Playoff Odds on Wednesday, there's a bit of a surprise out West.

According to Wednesday's simulations, the eight most likely playoff teams from that conference are the Lakers, Blazers, Nuggets, Hornets, Rockets, Jazz, Mavs and Suns.

You'll notice I didn't mention the Spurs. After Tuesday's 100-98 loss at home to Milwaukee, the Spurs project to finish ninth in the West with a 47-35 record. They're a lowly 14th in the Power Rankings -- more than a point behind No. 13 Dallas.

All this seems a bit odd just looking at the standings. San Antonio is 20-11, after all, with the third-best record in the West and just a half-game behind New Orleans in the Southwest Division race.

Intangible factors seem to be on the Spurs' side, too. They've compiled their record despite losing Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili for big chunks of time, and they have a history of rallying in the second half of the season after ho-hum starts.

However, the Playoff Odds and Power Rankings underscore this: San Antonio hasn't played nearly as well as its record. The Spurs already have played 18 home games, tied with Boston for most in the league. Also, their opponents' .469 winning percentage is the worst of any team in the West.

Moreover, the Spurs have been remarkably mediocre since Parker and Ginobili returned to the lineup. Their past 10 games include close shaves at home against Minnesota, Oklahoma City and Memphis, a home loss to the Bucks and a convincing defeat in Orlando.

As a result, the Playoff Odds project the Spurs to go just 27-24 in their final 51 games. This would be hugely disappointing from San Antonio's perspective, but its schedule is about to rise several notches in difficulty.

From Jan. 11 to March 4, the Spurs will play only eight of their 25 games at home. Of those eight, six are against high-caliber opponents: Orlando, Portland, Cleveland, the Lakers, Dallas and New Orleans. The other two games, against Indiana and New Jersey, aren't exactly gimmes, either.

And of the 17 road games, at least eight -- at L.A., Utah, Phoenix, Denver, Boston, Detroit, Portland and Dallas -- have to be considered likely or somewhat likely defeats. Of the 25 games, only two are against the bottom six teams in the West, and both are on the road.

Thus, the Spurs' position isn't nearly as strong as it appears in the standings. The Spurs aren't playing real well, and they'll get absolutely bushwhacked by the schedule if they don't start playing better real soon.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I can’t say I disagree with Hollinger’s analysis. He always writes, in explaining these sorts of results, that the formula only takes into account how the team has performed thus far. I think we can all agree that if the Spurs don’t get their act together, they will be in danger of missing the playoffs. However, I also would guess that most of us believe that the light bulb will come on for the team sooner or later. Manu and Tony are both still not behaving like themselves, and they haven’t figured out how to integrate RMJ and Hill into the mix with those two guys.

Catch the Spurs Spirit! It's a Fast-breakin' Fiesta!

by tomasito on Jan 1, 2009 8:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

exactly

hollinger is a statistician. he has a formula for predicting who will make the playoffs, which as its input takes various performance indicators for each team to date this season. based on his formula and how that formula manipulates/weights those team performance indicators, the spurs are not making the playoffs. theres nothing wrong with him making that statement, and the points he makes about our play so far this season support that prediction. theres no notion of disrespect in his playoff odds because its simply a mathematical calculation.

i do think you can argue how much worth there is in his odds though. as hollinger himself would admit, the odds are based on the presumption that the way a team has been playing is the way they will continue to play for the rest of the season. they don’t allow for a future trade or injury, or a team gelling together down the stretch (obviously they can’t, because these are things that haven’t happened yet, and i don’t think any crystal ball is involved in determining the odds). basketball is much more susceptible to personnel issues than most other team sports (see denver post-chauncey trade, or imagine the cavs if lebron got injured), and a team coming together can have a huge impact (see the 76ers run into the playoffs last season – 12 games below .500 mid february, rallied to clinch a playoff berth), so i think the usefulness of these playoff odds is debatable (beyond being a talking point).

and on the point about san antonio “rallying” in the second half of seasons – we do generally do that. our record is .746 after the all-star break versus .701 before, over the last 6 seasons (all-star game was an easier date to find than the rodeo road trip). thats not to say we will continue that this year (i’d then be doing what i just pointed out as a flaw in hollinger’s numbers – assuming whats happened in the past will also happen in the future), but it shows a weakness of hollinger’s system.

ultimately the odds are just one persons prediction. i could devise a playoff predictor formula based on each team’s leading scorer ppg (as an indicator of offense) multiplied by percentage of a full house for home games (as a mojo indicator), and i could predict OKC would scrape in (note: i haven’t done the numbers on this, its just a guess :P). my odds would be useless. hollinger’s are a lot better than useless, but its up to the spurs to determine their own fate this season – hollinger won’t make the spurs miss the playoffs, only they can do that.

for the curious, the last six seasons broken down pre/post all-star game

year / post record / pre record
winning percentages

07/08 – 22-9 (34-17)
- .710 (0.667)

06/07 – 23-6 (35-18)
- .793 (.660)

05/06 – 23-7 (40-12)
- .767 (.769)

04/05 – 18-11 (41-12)
- .621 (.774)

03/04 – 22-7 (35-18)
- .759 (.660)

02/03 – 27-6 (33-16)
- .818 (.673)

overall
135-46 (218-93)
.746 (.701)

by sleep research facility on Jan 1, 2009 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Awesome. Love the research and insight.

by speedostuffer on Jan 1, 2009 7:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Er…

So yeah, SRF. You’re crazy, and you also force us to close this thread. Recced.

by LatinD on Jan 4, 2009 12:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that we are struggling. We just don’t look right.

However, our record is 1 game better than I predicted in my schedule breakdown. I was 1 game off in November and 1 off, in the good direction, after December. Let’s see how the rest plays out.

by AusTechSpur on Jan 1, 2009 9:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Can I call you Hollinger 2.0?

by LatinD on Jan 4, 2009 12:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

?

I’m too lazy to check, but hasn’t Hollinger already written this story for the Spurs once this year? If not, he certainly did a couple of times last year. It seems like he has this story on file just waiting to hash it out any time a team falls out of the top 8. In two weeks the Spurs will be back in the top half of his rankings and he’ll have the same story on (fill-in-the-blank), in which something or other isn’t panning out. I like reading his stuff, and appreciate his PER stat, but when has his team-based formulas ever proved any more effective than the general educated guesswork of any other sports commentators? I also find it funny how much he hides behind his numbers, such as last when we he got Spurs-Suns egregiously wrong, and he harped on about he was actually right because the Suns “could” have won any of the games because of such and such numbers. Do we really need formulas to whine about counter-factuals?

by Neuwaldegg on Jan 1, 2009 10:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

I have been literally counting the days until this story came out. This story shouldn’t shock anyone. Being a SPURS fan, when Hollinger picks against us or his ‘playoff odds’ don’t look good for us, it’s called…………….. Wednesday.

by SgtinManusArmy on Jan 1, 2009 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I must hate Wednesdays

I am calm, filling myself with patience - Manu Ginobili

by jollyrogerwilco on Jan 1, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He wrote the same thing last year.

Or at least his stats predicted the same thing last year.

"....It is more about them than it is about the team. Cannot play with them. Cannot win with them. Cannot coach with them. Can’t do it. I want winners!" - Mike Singletary

by DennardC on Jan 2, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger numbers for teams are pretty spot on. After all, he predicted the champion last year (the celtics) and the year before (the spurs, when nobody picked us to win it all). Still, his numbers are far away from perfect, and the spurs seem to have an extra “something” (call it team play, chemistry, clutch playing, or the JV’s savvy) that throw away any possibility to measure them correctly with only numbers. Besides the Spurs are known to pull its act together at the end of the season, just in time for the playoffs.
Just ask the Suns about how the spurs dont give a shit about numbers or logic and let Duncan shot a 3 pointer to tie a playoff game.

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on Jan 1, 2009 2:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Great comments guys.

Yes, the Spurs are curently off and as always (hopefully), it will take until the All-star break or Rodeo Road Trip before they start rolling.

We know stats can’t predict a team’s fighting spirit and heart!!!!

by werdnawee on Jan 1, 2009 6:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Never underestimate the recuperative powers of an RRT.

I am calm, filling myself with patience - Manu Ginobili

by jollyrogerwilco on Jan 1, 2009 11:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

we could pick apart the good and bad about these kinds of number thingys all day. i think the last line of the post says it best

The Spurs aren’t playing real well, and they’ll get absolutely bushwhacked by the schedule if they don’t start playing better real soon

these kinds of numbers and forumlas only take into account the team performance to date, which includes several short-handed games for the spurs. however, there can be no denial about repeated close shaves with bad teams and convincing losses to good ones. we do not need fancy forumas to see that.

by bones on Jan 2, 2009 12:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I’ll trust Hollinger’s stats when he starts considering the team’s mojo. I calculate an increase of approximately 24% in the Spurs’ positive karma from last season to this one.

We got this shit.

by LatinD on Jan 4, 2009 12:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

WTF is that picture link?

Catch the Spurs Spirit! It's a Fast-breakin' Fiesta!

by tomasito on Jan 4, 2009 6:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s WIN.

by LatinD on Jan 4, 2009 7:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger's numbers

are all about point differential. He thinks that’s the best predictor of future success, and after watching his predictions I’m starting to suspect he’s on to something. The Spurs have a pretty good season going from a win-loss perspective, but almost all of their games have been tight. Hollinger’s numbers are what you would expect for a team that seems to prefer to win by <2 points.

by jedye on Jan 5, 2009 12:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs