I think what Hollinger brings is a good starting point, but not the end-all, be-all of team analysis.
For example, his analysis of the Sixers puts them at third, but doesn't necessarily consider how the addition of six new players strengthens the team dramatically. The addition of Brand should mean that the Sixers can have an effective half-court offense, which was their primary area of weakness last season. This makes them a much more competitive ball club all by itself, but the addition of Rush, Ivey, Ratliff, and Speights gives them much more depth and the ability to continue their same style of play. with better outside shooting and inside scoring.
In short, he uses past stats to project the future performance of a team, but does not consider how the addition of certain parts adds much more to the team than the stats would indicate. The Sixers had a point differential of less than a point by the end of the season- a .500 team basically. The addition of Brand with no subtraction, should be at least 10 games, making them a 50 game team, which is what Hollinger projects. Is he saying that Rush, Ivey, Ratliff and Speights means nothing, or that Thad Young and Louis Williams won't continue to improve? That implies an even stronger team and therefore more than 50 wins.
Since I haven't seen the Sixers play one game yet with the new group, there's no reasonable way to project how many they should win, or how long it will take them to figure out the line-up that gets the maximum potential out of the players. But on paper, it's not unreasonable to consider them to be ranked as high as 2nd in the East, and as low as 6th. Things will be much clearer by the mid-point of the season.
As much as I am impressed with the Jazz, I'm a lot more impressed with the Lakers and the addition of Bynum. They were a strong rebounding team without him, but with him, they should be better on the boards than Boston, as well as a team with multiple inside and outside scoring threats.
