Minnesota Sports Forum

I don't think the line is pessimistic at all considering the Wolves only won 23 games last year. In fact, I think the oddsmakers might be a tad optimistic with the Wolves. The Wolves didn't really address their lack of defense and I think the Wolves don't have much quality depth at point guard. The Wolves didn't really help themselves this offseason and unless Edwards and McDaniels make big leaps (which is certainly possible), the Wolves will have a tough time breaking 34.5 wins.

KG4Ever wrote:I don't think the line is pessimistic at all considering the Wolves only won 23 games last year. In fact, I think the oddsmakers might be a tad optimistic with the Wolves. The Wolves didn't really address their lack of defense and I think the Wolves don't have much quality depth at point guard. The Wolves didn't really help themselves this offseason and unless Edwards and McDaniels make big leaps (which is certainly possible), the Wolves will have a tough time breaking 34.5 wins.

I don't think it'll be that difficult for the Wolves to replace Ricky Rubio's production from last year... As long as the roster stays reasonably healthy, especially to the core players, then I don't think it'll take much else to surpass that 35-win threshold. This roster definitely has quality talent on it.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:I agree with Cool that Vegas is typically very accurate with their projections. But I agree with Cam's analysis. I'm sure there are instances in the past where Vegas has missed the mark by quite a bit - not often, but I'm sure there are examples. Assuming the Wolves stay reasonably healthy, I think this upcoming season will be another example.

It's also worth noting that (I would assume) they are making their projections based on someone finishing behind other teams. And win totals for other projections. So their projections aren't just based on what they put for the Wolves but for all the other WC teams too right? Maybe if we see all of the Vegas win projections that would inform us even more. I mean I don't really care as other have said I would have lost money several times if I had bet on my wolves.

Monster, what Vegas tries to do is get equal wagering on both sides of the line. If they can do that, they essentially guarantee the 10% juice on half the wagers.

Sometimes Vegas will get inside information, and they will throw out a line that looks too good to be true. I'm sure you've heard the phrase: "They are just begging you to take the <xxxxx>" These are the games or event they clean up on. The public all goes one way, and the book knows the odds are in their favor.

Cool's right of course that Vegas only wants to set a line that half the betting public will favor each side. How they get there sometimes is kind of interesting. In many instances (and I think always with season bets like "wins totals"), a sportsbook's lines maker will float a line out to a select group of "wise guys" before they release the line to the general public. Usually these lines makers are so good at what they do, they have a pretty good idea of how to set a line that will produce something close to equal wagering. But if they screw up with their opening line, they will catch it with the early wise guy betting and can adjust it before they go public with it. This practice reduces the chances of taking a bath with a bad line.

Camden0916 wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:I don't think the line is pessimistic at all considering the Wolves only won 23 games last year. In fact, I think the oddsmakers might be a tad optimistic with the Wolves. The Wolves didn't really address their lack of defense and I think the Wolves don't have much quality depth at point guard. The Wolves didn't really help themselves this offseason and unless Edwards and McDaniels make big leaps (which is certainly possible), the Wolves will have a tough time breaking 34.5 wins.

I don't think it'll be that difficult for the Wolves to replace Ricky Rubio's production from last year... As long as the roster stays reasonably healthy, especially to the core players, then I don't think it'll take much else to surpass that 35-win threshold. This roster definitely has quality talent on it.

Rubio had a down year last year which I think was at least partially attributable to getting Covid, but he was quite good the prior year and he looked good this summer. I think his absence will be detrimental, but not sure how much. Staying healthy would help some, but I think the Wolves need Edwards and McDaniels to take some big strides.

KG4Ever wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:I don't think the line is pessimistic at all considering the Wolves only won 23 games last year. In fact, I think the oddsmakers might be a tad optimistic with the Wolves. The Wolves didn't really address their lack of defense and I think the Wolves don't have much quality depth at point guard. The Wolves didn't really help themselves this offseason and unless Edwards and McDaniels make big leaps (which is certainly possible), the Wolves will have a tough time breaking 34.5 wins.

I don't think it'll be that difficult for the Wolves to replace Ricky Rubio's production from last year... As long as the roster stays reasonably healthy, especially to the core players, then I don't think it'll take much else to surpass that 35-win threshold. This roster definitely has quality talent on it.

Rubio had a down year last year which I think was at least partially attributable to getting Covid, but he was quite good the prior year and he looked good this summer. I think his absence will be detrimental, but not sure how much. Staying healthy would help some, but I think the Wolves need Edwards and McDaniels to take some big strides.

Aside from the COVID reasoning, I think that's a fair response. I think that Ricky Rubio should be better this season, but it's not that version of him that Minnesota will be replacing. The same goes for the player he was in Phoenix. They'll need to replace arguably his career-worst campaign with negatives in several inclusive metrics. They'll basically need their backup guard, whoever that may be, to play at a replacement level or better. I think there's decent odds of that happening, personally.

As for Anthony Edwards and Jaden McDaniels, I'd expect that sophomore season improvement, but nothing outrageous. Perhaps we get Edwards' production in the second half of last season over a full year, which would be a pretty serious contributor. And maybe McDaniels replicates his play from last year as a starter rather than as a reserve. I feel like that's more of a possibility than a hopeful prayer when it comes to those two.

Edwards (last 36 games):
23.8 PPG (56.7 TS%), 5.3 RPG, 3.4 APG (2.6 TO)

McDaniels (27 games as a starter):
9.0 PPG (59.7 TS%), 4.3 RPG, 1.3 APG, 0.6 SPG, 0.9 BPG

Camden0916 wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:I don't think the line is pessimistic at all considering the Wolves only won 23 games last year. In fact, I think the oddsmakers might be a tad optimistic with the Wolves. The Wolves didn't really address their lack of defense and I think the Wolves don't have much quality depth at point guard. The Wolves didn't really help themselves this offseason and unless Edwards and McDaniels make big leaps (which is certainly possible), the Wolves will have a tough time breaking 34.5 wins.

I don't think it'll be that difficult for the Wolves to replace Ricky Rubio's production from last year... As long as the roster stays reasonably healthy, especially to the core players, then I don't think it'll take much else to surpass that 35-win threshold. This roster definitely has quality talent on it.

Rubio had a down year last year which I think was at least partially attributable to getting Covid, but he was quite good the prior year and he looked good this summer. I think his absence will be detrimental, but not sure how much. Staying healthy would help some, but I think the Wolves need Edwards and McDaniels to take some big strides.

Aside from the COVID reasoning, I think that's a fair response. I think that Ricky Rubio should be better this season, but it's not that version of him that Minnesota will be replacing. The same goes for the player he was in Phoenix. They'll need to replace arguably his career-worst campaign with negatives in several inclusive metrics. They'll basically need their backup guard, whoever that may be, to play at a replacement level or better. I think there's decent odds of that happening, personally.

As for Anthony Edwards and Jaden McDaniels, I'd expect that sophomore season improvement, but nothing outrageous. Perhaps we get Edwards' production in the second half of last season over a full year, which would be a pretty serious contributor. And maybe McDaniels replicates his play from last year as a starter rather than as a reserve. I feel like that's more of a possibility than a hopeful prayer when it comes to those two.

Edwards (last 36 games):
23.8 PPG (56.7 TS%), 5.3 RPG, 3.4 APG (2.6 TO)

McDaniels (27 games as a starter):
9.0 PPG (59.7 TS%), 4.3 RPG, 1.3 APG, 0.6 SPG, 0.9 BPG

If the Wolves resign Vanderbilt and he improves that could be a nice boast.

There is a lot of talk about downgrading from Rubio but I can see Prince being a reasonable upgrade over guys like Juancho and Layman. That has value.

I believe the Wolves may end up with a better version of McLaughlin this season compared to last year. He started off slow but then statistically played reasonably well down the stretch. If McLaughlin is more like that player he will replace a lot of what Rubio provided last season and in some cases McLaughlin probably fits as a complimentary PG better as I believe in his outside shooting more than Rubio.

There are a lot of chances for the Wolves to improve from within but not all of them will happen. Heck there is a chance we see a slightly better version of Juancho this year when he plays. If Finch is a legit even average NBA head coach as Ryan Saunders wasn't that's a big difference. Injuries are a massive IF because that's been something that has legitimately derailed the Wolves the past 2 seasons. I'm not expecting Russell to play more than 70 games but if The roster can avoid big chunks of injuries that's gonna really help.

If things go reasonably well what win total does it add up to? Idk but as usual I'm excited to find out.

I liked this bet at the time, but I like it even more now, obviously.

Look at the Western Conference standings last year and they are basically saying we will be the 9 or 10 seed with that win projection. I'd say that's about right and the west beats up on each other so 34.5 is probably just about right. With the current roster in place you have to think we are just one KAT or ANT injury away from 34.5 being a pipe dream. So while I would love to take the over it's not a lock by any means.

Tactical unit wrote:Look at the Western Conference standings last year and they are basically saying we will be the 9 or 10 seed with that win projection. I'd say that's about right and the west beats up on each other so 34.5 is probably just about right. With the current roster in place you have to think we are just one KAT or ANT injury away from 34.5 being a pipe dream. So while I would love to take the over it's not a lock by any means.

This is why the acquisition and development of the surrounding talent is so critical. Obviously we're dead in the water if those guys miss half the season or more. But if they each miss 20 or so games, which is not unreasonable to expect, we can't fall apart like a house of cards.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:I agree with Cool that Vegas is typically very accurate with their projections. But I agree with Cam's analysis. I'm sure there are instances in the past where Vegas has missed the mark by quite a bit - not often, but I'm sure there are examples. Assuming the Wolves stay reasonably healthy, I think this upcoming season will be another example.

It's also worth noting that (I would assume) they are making their projections based on someone finishing behind other teams. And win totals for other projections. So their projections aren't just based on what they put for the Wolves but for all the other WC teams too right? Maybe if we see all of the Vegas win projections that would inform us even more. I mean I don't really care as other have said I would have lost money several times if I had bet on my wolves.

Monster, what Vegas tries to do is get equal wagering on both sides of the line. If they can do that, they essentially guarantee the 10% juice on half the wagers.

Sometimes Vegas will get inside information, and they will throw out a line that looks too good to be true. I'm sure you've heard the phrase: "They are just begging you to take the <xxxxx>" These are the games or event they clean up on. The public all goes one way, and the book knows the odds are in their favor.

That's right. They simply want equal betting on each side.

Not to mention they get your money for many months interest free.