Before I talk about how I got these rankings, let me post them first:
| Team | W-L | PF | PA | Diff | Rating |
| 1 | Miami Heat | 4-1 | 100.6 | 84.0 | 16.6 | 0.5393 |
| 2 | Los Angeles Lakers | 4-0 | 114.3 | 101.0 | 13.3 | 0.5372 |
| 3 | Denver Nuggets | 2-1 | 104.0 | 94.3 | 9.7 | 0.5335 |
| 4 | New Orleans Hornets | 3-0 | 98.3 | 92.0 | 6.3 | 0.5244 |
| 5 | Boston Celtics | 3-1 | 97.3 | 90.5 | 6.8 | 0.5191 |
| 6 | Portland Trail Blazers | 4-1 | 98.4 | 92.2 | 6.2 | 0.5113 |
| 7 | Houston Rockets | 0-3 | 110.7 | 117.0 | -6.3 | 0.5098 |
| 8 | Phoenix Suns | 1-2 | 102.7 | 104.7 | -2.0 | 0.5098 |
| 9 | New York Knickerbockers | 1-2 | 98.0 | 99.3 | -1.3 | 0.5088 |
| 10 | Atlanta Hawks | 4-0 | 105.5 | 97.0 | 8.5 | 0.5083 |
| 11 | Dallas Mavericks | 2-1 | 96.7 | 86.7 | 10.0 | 0.5083 |
| 12 | Orlando Magic | 1-1 | 91.0 | 89.5 | 1.5 | 0.5079 |
| 13 | San Antonio Spurs | 2-1 | 103.0 | 98.7 | 4.3 | 0.5061 |
| 14 | Toronto Raptors | 1-2 | 100.7 | 96.7 | 4.0 | 0.5057 |
| 15 | Golden State Warriors | 2-1 | 108.0 | 108.7 | -0.7 | 0.5048 |
| 16 | Memphis Grizzlies | 2-2 | 102.3 | 105.5 | -3.3 | 0.5016 |
| 17 | Chicago Bulls | 2-1 | 102.0 | 98.3 | 3.7 | 0.4981 |
| 18 | Utah Jazz | 1-2 | 100.7 | 106.3 | -5.7 | 0.4935 |
| 19 | Sacramento Kings | 3-1 | 108.8 | 108.5 | 0.3 | 0.4907 |
| 20 | Indiana Pacers | 2-1 | 104.0 | 103.0 | 1.0 | 0.4900 |
| 21 | Cleveland Cavaliers | 1-3 | 92.0 | 98.8 | -6.8 | 0.4877 |
| 22 | New Jersey Nets | 2-1 | 95.0 | 99.7 | -4.7 | 0.4876 |
| 23 | Philadelphia 76ers | 0-4 | 97.3 | 104.0 | -6.8 | 0.4845 |
| 24 | Milwaukee Bucks | 1-3 | 87.5 | 92.3 | -4.8 | 0.4827 |
| 25 | Oklahoma City Thunder | 2-1 | 103.3 | 106.3 | -3.0 | 0.4810 |
| 26 | Minnesota Timberwolves | 1-3 | 99.5 | 110.0 | -10.5 | 0.4796 |
| 27 | Washington Wizards | 1-2 | 98.0 | 108.7 | -10.7 | 0.4736 |
| 28 | Detroit Pistons | 0-4 | 94.8 | 104.0 | -9.3 | 0.4729 |
| 29 | Los Angeles Clippers | 0-4 | 87.5 | 100.8 | -13.3 | 0.4724 |
| 30 | Charlotte Bobcats | 0-3 | 91.7 | 101.0 | -9.3 | 0.4695 |
Explanation:This ranking system is newly designed, at least as far as I know, by me, on Nov. 3, 2010. If someone else has implemented this system, I am currently unaware of it.
I'm calling it, egotistically, the Colley-Woodrow Matrix method. It applies the
Colley Matrix method, but scores EACH POINT as a win/loss. So when Boston played Miami on opening night, instead of playing one game, they played 168 games [Boston won 88-80]. Boston won 88 of them, and Miami won 80.
The Colley-Woodrow Matrix method is optimized for a high-scoring system such as the NBA, in which points are generally proportional to ability. I suspect that in games like the NFL, the ability to score 6-8 points all at once would limit the effectiveness of the point-to-win ratio.
I would further argue that the Colley-Woodrow method is superior to the Colley method, at least for high-scoring systems. It's been proven for awhile that point differential is a more accurate indicator of future success than the win-loss ratio.
Results:
Enough of the details...did you see what I saw? Houston, an 0-3 team, is ranked #7...wow. They're even better than the 4-0 Hawks? And they even have a -6.7 differential! What in the world is going on?
If you look at the numbers, it's actually not that surprising. The strength of the Colley method is in its ability to accurately determine strength-of-schedule. Houston, then, has one of the toughest SOS so far--Lakers, Nuggets, and Warriors--with an average differential of +7.4. The Hawks, by contrast, have played the Grizz, 76ers, Wizards, and Cavs...not the greatest bunch (with apologies to Wall and Love). Their average differential is a measly -6.9.
Although I'm a Mavs FFL, I definitely admire the Rockets and especially Daryl Morey (Dork Elvis). I was surprised to see them down 0-3. This ranking method, however, tells a different story, one where they are the equals (or betters) of a 4-0 team.
