Vegas win totals

[D-Mac [enjin:19736340]]

Yep. Minnesota had 46 lucky wins last season and should have 50 or more lucky wins this upcoming season. Who knew this franchise was so fortunate?

Who knew that you were so un-objective? If Kat and Gobert miss a bunch of games this year and we win 31 games, are you going to be claiming all next offseason that our roster is a 31 win team? Well it's the same thing here. If you can't see that, you're a stubborn and/or irrational homer.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Yep. Minnesota had 46 lucky wins last season and should have 50 or more lucky wins this upcoming season. Who knew this franchise was so fortunate?

Who knew that you were so un-objective? If Kat and Gobert miss a bunch of games this year and we win 31 games, are you going to be claiming all next offseason that our roster is a 31 win team? Well it's the same thing here. If you can't see that, you're a stubborn and/or irrational homer.

Frankly, that's a laughable analogy because it disregards the entire analytical process. Objectively, the Minnesota Timberwolves won 46 games last year. That's not a feeling. That's a fact. The early Vegas line last season was set at 33.5 wins. Myself and others pointed out that was severely underrating the talent on the roster as well as the coaching upgrade from Ryan Saunders to Chris Finch, and strongly suggested to take the over. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to check the wins prediction thread. I thought the Wolves would win 40-44 games based on talent, coaching, and relatively good health. I believe I said 42 for the sake of the thread. Minnesota winning 46 wasn't shocking to me or others given that it was in line with our own predictions. We saw what the oddsmakers didn't -- likely because they weighed the previous year's record too heavily in whatever equation or formula they use to set their lines.

The point is that if I'm expecting 42 wins from the roster and the team scratches out 46, then that's pretty close to expectations. No big deal there. If we're expecting 50-plus wins and they're snakebit with injuries resulting in a mere 31 wins, then yeah, that's vastly different from expectations and not truly indicative of the talent on the roster.

Lastly, why is it that the Timberwolves should be viewed as less than their record when other teams never are, especially in the past when Minnesota was on the wrong side of the injury bug? Why does their season have to be marginalized because they managed their roster better than other teams around the league? Furthermore, why are we acting as if Minnesota didn't deal with their own injuries periodically, specifically in the backcourt with D'Angelo Russell missing 17 games and Patrick Beverley missing 24? It's legitimately weird when "fans" of this team can so easily dismiss seven wins from their record just because they feel like it. I suppose that's part of a losing culture.

[Lipoli390]

I was right on the mark with my 46 win prediction last season. I don't think it was a fluke. How could it be a fluke if I predicted it? :).

I'm not ready to offer my prediction for next season quite yet. But I'm pretty sure my prediction will be north of 49.5. So I'll likely take the over. But things could go south easily if Gobert goes down for a long stretch. Our perimeter defense is weaker than last season and we don't have a strong defensive backup for Rudy. Take Rudy out of the rotation for a long stretch and next season could be a really bad one for the Wolves. The nightmare scenario has a couple key injuries putting the Wolves in the lottery. How depressing it would be to watch the Utah Jazz get the pick the Wolves should have received in what is expected to be one of the best drafts in NBA history. The Wolves have very little margin for failure.

[D-Mac [enjin:19736340]]

Yep. Minnesota had 46 lucky wins last season and should have 50 or more lucky wins this upcoming season. Who knew this franchise was so fortunate?

Who knew that you were so un-objective? If Kat and Gobert miss a bunch of games this year and we win 31 games, are you going to be claiming all next offseason that our roster is a 31 win team? Well it's the same thing here. If you can't see that, you're a stubborn and/or irrational homer.

Frankly, that's a laughable analogy because it disregards the entire analytical process. Objectively, the Minnesota Timberwolves won 46 games last year. That's not a feeling. That's a fact. The early Vegas line last season was set at 33.5 wins. Myself and others pointed out that was severely underrating the talent on the roster as well as the coaching upgrade from Ryan Saunders to Chris Finch, and strongly suggested to take the over. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to check the wins prediction thread. I thought the Wolves would win 40-44 games based on talent, coaching, and relatively good health. I believe I said 42 for the sake of the thread. Minnesota winning 46 wasn't shocking to me or others given that it was in line with our own predictions. We saw what the oddsmakers didn't -- likely because they weighed the previous year's record too heavily in whatever equation or formula they use to set their lines.

The point is that if I'm expecting 42 wins from the roster and the team scratches out 46, then that's pretty close to expectations. No big deal there. If we're expecting 50-plus wins and they're snakebit with injuries resulting in a mere 31 wins, then yeah, that's vastly different from expectations and not truly indicative of the talent on the roster.

Lastly, why is it that the Timberwolves should be viewed as less than their record when other teams never are, especially in the past when Minnesota was on the wrong side of the injury bug? Why does their season have to be marginalized because they managed their roster better than other teams around the league? Furthermore, why are we acting as if Minnesota didn't deal with their own injuries periodically, specifically in the backcourt with D'Angelo Russell missing 17 games and Patrick Beverley missing 24? It's legitimately weird when "fans" of this team can so easily dismiss seven wins from their record just because they feel like it. I suppose that's part of a losing culture.

The fact that you think my "analogy" is laughable is well... idk I'm speechless. We were very lucky to win 46 games last year. It's cool that we did and I enjoyed the season, but we simply weren't that good. If we were really that good prior to the trade, do you think Vegas bumps us up three games with the addition of gobert? Do you really think you're seeing things that oddsmakers aren't? They stay in business because of people like you. They take the emotion out of the equation and you frankly don't.

FNG is a good poster who actually gets what I'm saying, so at least I'm not alone :)

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

The fact that you think my "analogy" is laughable is well... idk I'm speechless. We were very lucky to win 46 games last year. It's cool that we did and I enjoyed the season, but we simply weren't that good. If we were really that good prior to the trade, do you think Vegas bumps us up three games with the addition of gobert? Do you really think you're seeing things that oddsmakers aren't? They stay in business because of people like you. They take the emotion out of the equation and you frankly don't.

The Timberwolves had the seventh-best offensive rating (113.8 ), the 13th-best defensive rating (111.0), and the 10th-best net rating (2.7) in the NBA last season to go along with a 46-36 regular season record -- tied for the 12th-best record in the league. All of that should be disregarded or ignored because a random "fan" on a message board thinks they were lucky and not that good while providing zero evidence or context to support their claim. Here's an adjective that you're familiar with: lazy. Your response is lazy.

[Q-is-here]

I fall somewhere in the middle on this one.

Cam - do you really think injury luck has zero affect on how to judge a team's true capability?

FNG - yes, the injury gods helped us last year, but do you really think it resulted in a 6 or 7 game swing in the win column? That's actually quite a lot and it's not like we were a total clean bill of health ourselves.

D-Loser - I know you will want to look away and cover your ears when you read this, but DLO missed 17 games last season. Our record in those games he missed? 7-10. That means we were 39-26 when he played. So if DLO had missed 10 games instead of 17, may be we would have won 50 games instead of 46! That is a countervailing fact that may be hard for you to accept. PM me and I can refer you to a good therapist I know!

[FNG]

I was right on the mark with my 46 win prediction last season. I don't think it was a fluke. How could it be a fluke if I predicted it? :).

I'm not ready to offer my prediction for next season quite yet. But I'm pretty sure my prediction will be north of 49.5. So I'll likely take the over. But things could go south easily if Gobert goes down for a long stretch. Our perimeter defense is weaker than last season and we don't have a strong defensive backup for Rudy. Take Rudy out of the rotation for a long stretch and next season could be a really bad one for the Wolves. The nightmare scenario has a couple key injuries putting the Wolves in the lottery. How depressing it would be to watch the Utah Jazz get the pick the Wolves should have received in what is expected to be one of the best drafts in NBA history. The Wolves have very little margin for failure.

Lip, you're humility is duly noted ;-) .

I don't disagree that it would be a nightmare if Rudy missed a lot of games. But his history tells me that is a concern we don't have to worry too much about. He keeps himself in extraordinary shape, and plays with an economy of motion remindful of Tim Duncan (although Rudy is much quicker jumping out to defend the perimeter), and we all know how resilient Duncan was. Gobert has only missed about 10% of the season the past 4 years. It's critical that he continue his very good injury history.

Yeah, absent a pre-season injury, "over" 49.5 is the play this year. Most posters here recognize that the Wolves were better than a 23-win team two years ago (because of bad injury luck) and worse than a 46-win last year (because of excellent injury luck), so getting to 50 wins is by no means a layup...that is, it won't represent a "real" increase of only 4 wins. But Rudy changes the defense of this team so dramatically, a "real" increase of 10 wins seems easily achievable to me.

[FNG]

I fall somewhere in the middle on this one.

Cam - do you really think injury luck has zero affect on how to judge a team's true capability?

FNG - yes, the injury gods helped us last year, but do you really think it resulted in a 6 or 7 game swing in the win column? That's actually quite a lot and it's not like we were a total clean bill of health ourselves.

D-Loser - I know you will want to look away and cover your ears when you read this, but DLO missed 17 games last season. Our record in those games he missed? 7-10. That means we were 39-26 when he played. So if DLO had missed 10 games instead of 17, may be we would have won 50 games instead of 46! That is a countervailing fact that may be hard for you to accept. PM me and I can refer you to a good therapist I know!

Good morning, Q, and thanks for your Jimmy Carter Camp David-like efforts here. To answer your question to me, yes...I think the combination of our relatively very good injury health, an almost unprecedented number of games where we were able to face an opponent missing its best player or several key players, and the luxury of being able to play several games against Western teams who were actively tanking, easily added up to unexpected wins in at least 6-7 games. Late in the season I reflected on how many wins we had against above .500 teams not missing a key player or players, and I could only come up with 3 (there were a few more after that)!

And as I've said before, this is a 2-way street. I didn't see us as anywhere near a 23-win team two seasons ago, because our injuries that year were so much worse than our opponents, and I think most posters here would say we were closer to a 28-30-win team two seasons ago (go back and read some posts from that season if you're having a slow day ;-) and you'll see all the hand-wringing about our bad injury luck that season). But 2021-22 was a mirror image of the previous season, and intellectual honesty compels us to "normalize" the success of each season in a similar fashion. I loved all the wins last season that led to a fun playoff series, but we have to keep it real here.

[Q-is-here]

I fall somewhere in the middle on this one.

Cam - do you really think injury luck has zero affect on how to judge a team's true capability?

FNG - yes, the injury gods helped us last year, but do you really think it resulted in a 6 or 7 game swing in the win column? That's actually quite a lot and it's not like we were a total clean bill of health ourselves.

D-Loser - I know you will want to look away and cover your ears when you read this, but DLO missed 17 games last season. Our record in those games he missed? 7-10. That means we were 39-26 when he played. So if DLO had missed 10 games instead of 17, may be we would have won 50 games instead of 46! That is a countervailing fact that may be hard for you to accept. PM me and I can refer you to a good therapist I know!

Good morning, Q, and thanks for your Jimmy Carter Camp David-like efforts here. To answer your question to me, yes...I think the combination of our relatively very good injury health, an almost unprecedented number of games where we were able to face an opponent missing its best player or several key players, and the luxury of being able to play several games against Western teams who were actively tanking, easily added up to unexpected wins in at least 6-7 games. Late in the season I reflected on how many wins we had against above .500 teams not missing a key player or players, and I could only come up with 3 (there were a few more after that)!

And as I've said before, this is a 2-way street. I didn't see us as anywhere near a 23-win team two seasons ago, because our injuries that year were so much worse than our opponents, and I think most posters here would say we were closer to a 28-30-win team two seasons ago (go back and read some posts from that season if you're having a slow day ;-) and you'll see all the hand-wringing about our bad injury luck that season). But 2021-22 was a mirror image of the previous season, and intellectual honesty compels us to "normalize" the success of each season in a similar fashion. I loved all the wins last season that led to a fun playoff series, but we have to keep it real here.

But there will be injuries every season. So if you normalize injury luck, you still have to factor in a decent amount of injuries. Also, you can't assume that every one of those teams we played we would have automatically lost to if they were fully healthy. Plus, there are teams that actively tank every year. Nothing new there.

Anywho, it's unknowable what we would have won last season if it were a more normal injury season. I think it's closer to 43 or 44 wins. Again, DLO only played 58 games and we weren't so good in the games he missed, so wasn't that some bad injury luck on our side??? Or what about PBev? He missed a bunch of games too.

[FNG]

I fall somewhere in the middle on this one.

Cam - do you really think injury luck has zero affect on how to judge a team's true capability?

FNG - yes, the injury gods helped us last year, but do you really think it resulted in a 6 or 7 game swing in the win column? That's actually quite a lot and it's not like we were a total clean bill of health ourselves.

D-Loser - I know you will want to look away and cover your ears when you read this, but DLO missed 17 games last season. Our record in those games he missed? 7-10. That means we were 39-26 when he played. So if DLO had missed 10 games instead of 17, may be we would have won 50 games instead of 46! That is a countervailing fact that may be hard for you to accept. PM me and I can refer you to a good therapist I know!

Good morning, Q, and thanks for your Jimmy Carter Camp David-like efforts here. To answer your question to me, yes...I think the combination of our relatively very good injury health, an almost unprecedented number of games where we were able to face an opponent missing its best player or several key players, and the luxury of being able to play several games against Western teams who were actively tanking, easily added up to unexpected wins in at least 6-7 games. Late in the season I reflected on how many wins we had against above .500 teams not missing a key player or players, and I could only come up with 3 (there were a few more after that)!

And as I've said before, this is a 2-way street. I didn't see us as anywhere near a 23-win team two seasons ago, because our injuries that year were so much worse than our opponents, and I think most posters here would say we were closer to a 28-30-win team two seasons ago (go back and read some posts from that season if you're having a slow day ;-) and you'll see all the hand-wringing about our bad injury luck that season). But 2021-22 was a mirror image of the previous season, and intellectual honesty compels us to "normalize" the success of each season in a similar fashion. I loved all the wins last season that led to a fun playoff series, but we have to keep it real here.

But there will be injuries every season. So if you normalize injury luck, you still have to factor in a decent amount of injuries. Also, you can't assume that every one of those teams we played we would have automatically lost to if they were fully healthy. Plus, there are teams that actively tank every year. Nothing new there.

Anywho, it's unknowable what we would have won last season if it were a more normal injury season. I think it's closer to 43 or 44 wins. Again, DLO only played 58 games and we weren't so good in the games he missed, so wasn't that some bad injury luck on our side??? Or what about PBev? He missed a bunch of games too.

The PatBev factor is an interesting variable this upcoming season. My eye test told me that DLo was not nearly as effective on defense when Pat was not on the court with him. But I recall kekgeek providing some stats that didn't jive with my eye test...if my recollection is correct, perhaps kek can provide those again. I want to believe DLo can provide adequate defense even with Pat gone, but I remain skeptical.