ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Hollinger's top 10

I think you need ESPN insider to see the rest, but what do you guys think of the top 10 list?

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

God I miss those Bulls teams.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
God I miss wishing those Bulls teams would lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Can somebody with insider tell me the worst finals team?

I am guessing that horrible Knicks team with houston and spree

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the nuts and bolts. For both the regular season and playoffs, I looked at two factors: win-loss record, and average scoring margin. Every regular-season win was worth two points, with the 1999 participants having their wins prorated to an 82-game season. Similarly, every playoff win was worth four points, but each playoff loss docked a team four points -- this helped differentiate between champions who went 15-2 (like the 1991 Bulls) and those who went 15-9 (like the 1988 Lakers).

For scoring margin, I took the team's season scoring margin and divided by 15 -- basically, a one point per game increase was worth 5.47 points in this formula. For playoff scoring margin, I did the same thing but multiplied by four -- since most teams played about four times as many regular-season games as playoff games, this made the two virtually equal.

Finally, I added 15 points to the score of each team that won a championship. Why 15? (A) Because that amount meant that every champion rated ahead of the runner-up from the same season; and (B) Because the valuation seemed about right -- the same as 7.5 regular-season wins.

From there, only one other tweak was necessary -- adjusting for those teams in the earlier years who didn't have as many early-round playoff games in which to rack up points. Teams who didn't play a first-round series got 12 extra points; teams that played a best-of-three got six points; teams that played a best-of-five got three points. That's an approximation, obviously, but it mirrored what other teams in their situation actually did.


[/ QUOTE ]

So basically its 100% stat driven and has nothing to do with his actual opinion, correct?

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Yeah, pretty much.

Knicks team was second worst.

1981 houston rockets.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

I don't care if it makes me look like a homer. The 1986 Celtics are the greatest team of all time.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...eltics1986.jpg

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

From Hollinger's comments above the rankings:

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the list below is how I'd rank them even without a formula, more or less, but it's nice to know the numbers have my back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

The problem I have with this statistical type ranking is that it tends to punish teams who had greater competition. The 80's Boston and 76'ers teams had to face each other (and a very good Milwaakee team) to get to the finals, while the best Lakers teams and some of the Bull's teams pretty much had a cakewalk to the finals, so of course their scoring margins were lower and playoff losses greater.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
From Hollinger's comments above the rankings:

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the list below is how I'd rank them even without a formula, more or less, but it's nice to know the numbers have my back.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

ah ok...so he'd rank them exactly as his formula ranks them? Seems like he must really love going by stats then.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From Hollinger's comments above the rankings:

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the list below is how I'd rank them even without a formula, more or less, but it's nice to know the numbers have my back.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

ah ok...so he'd rank them exactly as his formula ranks them? Seems like he must really love going by stats then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem ranking them purely satistically (this is no doubt the best way provided adequate metrics) but I hate his stupid blurbs making it seem like he came up with it on his own when it was spit at him by a computer.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Can someone with access tell me where he put the '77 Blazers?

I saw that they were outside the top 10, which I think is probably incorrect.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone with access tell me where he put the '77 Blazers?


[/ QUOTE ]

26

[ QUOTE ]
Remembered fondly because of team-oriented play, Portland had just 49 wins -- third-fewest by a champion -- but the Bill Walton-led Blazers stepped it up in the playoffs with a 14-5 run. Portland swept the top-seeded Lakers in the conference finals and, after dropping the first two games in the Finals, rallied to win the next four and claim the franchise's only title.

The Blazers beat the teams with the NBA's three best records (L.A., Philadelphia and Denver) to claim the crown.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the 6th worst finish for a champion. And finishes behind the 97 Jazz at 24, which was the highest ranked runner-up.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Yeah, but that team was sick, it just took them a while to gel.

The next season after winning, they went 50-10 before Walton got hurt.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

it's a pretty good list... you have to take into account the whole body of work... regular season and how they did in the playoffs which probably hurt those blazers team a tad...

i have no problem with those bulls teams... it's interesting to see those jazz and sonics teams... who the bulls rolled.. to finish so highly... the celtics and lakers teams were great.. but you can't really argue with 72 wins in the regular season and yawning through the playoffs...

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

List is busto. 1993 Suns are way too low. I want to jam a knife into Hollinger's side and short-wire his circuits, as he is clearly a robot.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Jazz should be rated higher

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Could someone also report where the Shaq/Kobe Lakers teams are rated?

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

If he just went back a few more years, Hollinger would've run into one of the worst NBA Finals teams ever - the 1975 Golden State Warriors, perhaps the least talented team to win an NBA title in the last 40-50 years.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

where are the 07 Cavs and the 00 sixers? that sixers team has to be really low.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
it's interesting to see those jazz and sonics teams... who the bulls rolled

[/ QUOTE ]

In 97 the Bulls beat the Jazz 4-2 with winning margins of 2,12,2 and 4 points. Bulls beat the Jazz 4-2 in 98 playoffs with 3 of their wins coming by 5,4 and 1 point respectively. Not exactly "rolled".

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

A major problem with trying to rank teams like this is that you can only measure each team relative to the competition they played against. If you play against really good competition you get penalized.

So it's not so much that he's ranking these teams against each other. It's basically just saying which teams were the most dominant over their competition. That seems different than actually figuring out which team is actually the best.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
List is busto. 1993 Suns are way too low. I want to jam a knife into Hollinger's side and short-wire his circuits, as he is clearly a robot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Jazz should be rated higher

[/ QUOTE ]

By his ranking system, teams that actually win the title get a bunch of bonus points. So it's not shocking that almost no runner-ups are ranked higher than any of the actual championship teams.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Here are the 11-40 rankings. That should cover about all of the winning teams.

11. 2001 Lakers
12. 1998 Bulls
13. 1990 Pistons
14. 2000 Lakers
15. 1993 Bulls
16. 2005 Spurs
17. 2002 Lakers
18. 1981 Celtics
19. 2003 Spurs
20. 1982 Lakers
21. 2004 Pistons
22. 1980 Lakers
23. 1984 Celtics
24. 1997 Jazz
25. 1988 Lakers
26. 1977 Blazers
27. 1994 Rockets
28. 1996 Sonics
29. 1989 Lakers
30. 1985 Celtics
31. 2006 Heat
32. 2006 Mavs
33. 1984 Lakers
34. 1998 Jazz
35. 1992 Blazers
36. 1988 Pistons
37. 1979 Sonics
38. 1991 Lakers
39. 1980 76ers
40. 2005 Pistons

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Taraz,

Re: weighting, you're right. It's just busted and while lists are fun and all, this particular one leaves more questions than answers. I'm too lazy to see how many non-champs finished ahead of actual champs, but most sane people would agree that last year Mavericks were better than the Heat, yet ended up ranked below them (although the Heat took a bit of a brutal beat in their ranking, at least among winners).

Not saying I have a better idea, but Hollinger is a robot who must be stopped.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Does he ever rank a team that won behind the team that it beat. Seems pretty crazy if the best team has won the finals every time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
List is busto. 1993 Suns are way too low. I want to jam a knife into Hollinger's side and short-wire his circuits, as he is clearly a robot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike you, the rest of the sports world recognizes that Game 1 and Game 2 in that series did actually occur.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Clark,

Meh, I mostly made that post cuz I knew you would delurk. I'm too busy to counter your comment, but look forward to the debate raging anew in coming months.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does he ever rank a team that won behind the team that it beat. Seems pretty crazy if the best team has won the finals every time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
No. 15 point bonus to the winner (which, yeah, is lame).

And yes, the mavs were way better than the heat last year.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does he ever rank a team that won behind the team that it beat. Seems pretty crazy if the best team has won the finals every time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
No. 15 point bonus to the winner (which, yeah, is lame).

And yes, the mavs were way better than the heat last year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wah wah wah. If they really were way better, they would have won. There's quite a bit to be said for actually getting [censored] done and not running 2nd all the time.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does he ever rank a team that won behind the team that it beat. Seems pretty crazy if the best team has won the finals every time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
No. 15 point bonus to the winner (which, yeah, is lame).

And yes, the mavs were way better than the heat last year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wah wah wah. If they really were way better, they would have won. There's quite a bit to be said for actually getting [censored] done and not running 2nd all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. I'm not even a mavs fan. And upsets happen, jesus. It's not like the best team always wins. Even those 1996 Chicago Bulls lost a few games.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does he ever rank a team that won behind the team that it beat. Seems pretty crazy if the best team has won the finals every time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
No. 15 point bonus to the winner (which, yeah, is lame).

And yes, the mavs were way better than the heat last year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wah wah wah. If they really were way better, they would have won. There's quite a bit to be said for actually getting [censored] done and not running 2nd all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. I'm not even a mavs fan. And upsets happen, jesus. It's not like the best team always wins. Even those 1996 Chicago Bulls lost a few games.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can't win a 7-game series, you're not way better. You may have been marginally better, but if you really are significantly better, you'll win the series. Getting it done is part of being better. No championship points for being a paper tiger.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Both teams obviously sucked.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

Now we're just arguing semantics. Sagarin has the mavs 2+ points better.

I don't know if that's way better, but it's significant.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does he ever rank a team that won behind the team that it beat. Seems pretty crazy if the best team has won the finals every time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
No. 15 point bonus to the winner (which, yeah, is lame).

And yes, the mavs were way better than the heat last year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wah wah wah. If they really were way better, they would have won. There's quite a bit to be said for actually getting [censored] done and not running 2nd all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. I'm not even a mavs fan. And upsets happen, jesus. It's not like the best team always wins. Even those 1996 Chicago Bulls lost a few games.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can't win a 7-game series, you're not way better. You may have been marginally better, but if you really are significantly better, you'll win the series. Getting it done is part of being better. No championship points for being a paper tiger.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if we take two teams and make them play a 7 game series you will always pick the winner in a rematch? I think this is the question you are trying to answer by ranking them and I think his list gives to much weight to actually winning the series.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here are the 11-40 rankings. That should cover about all of the winning teams.

24. 1997 Jazz
34. 1998 Jazz


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, the '98 Jazz were a much better team than the '97 team. They just got too rusty & tight with the ten day layoff and all the high expectations after nearly stealing it the year before & raping the Lakers in the conf finals.

The '97 team actually came much closer to beating the Bulls, tho Malone would've found a way to choke both series away under any possible scenario save MJ out w/an injury.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't win a 7-game series, you're not way better. You may have been marginally better, but if you really are significantly better, you'll win the series. Getting it done is part of being better. No championship points for being a paper tiger.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this year's Mavs were way better than the Warriors.

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Scoring: Larry Bird, 25.8 ppg
Rebounds: Larry Bird, 9.8 rpg
Assists: Larry Bird, 6.8 apg


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

The Spurs have 3 of the top 19? That's interesting. (There's no way that the 1999 Spurs were better than the 2005 Spurs. And I doubt they were better than the 2003 Spurs.)

Re: ESPN\'s Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Spurs have 3 of the top 19? That's interesting. (There's no way that the 1999 Spurs were better than the 2005 Spurs. And I doubt they were better than the 2003 Spurs.)

[/ QUOTE ]

In all of the spurs championships, have they ever beat a team that won it all?