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

[Mano]

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?

[MikeyPatriot]

God I miss those Bulls teams.

[Hello Nasty]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[Max Raker]

Can somebody with insider tell me the worst finals team?

I am guessing that horrible Knicks team with houston and spree

[Assani Fisher]

[ 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?

[lastchance]

Yeah, pretty much.

Knicks team was second worst.

1981 houston rockets.

[Mano]

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 ]

[Assani Fisher]

[ 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.

[Max Raker]

[ 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.

[Dynasty]

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