Vegas win totals

[Lipoli390]

The Celtics won 51 games last season. But I think they were really a 45 win team. Jayson Tatum played 76 games last season while playing only 66 and 64 in each of the previous two seasons. Those extra 10-12 games with Tatum inflated the Celtics' win total.

Anyway, it's sort of interesting to speculate on what a team's record would have been with different variables adjusted. But it's pretty pointless. The Wolves were a 46-win team last season. That's a fact. They achieved that win total even though (1) DLO missed 17 games, (2) Beverley missed 24 games, (3) Edwards missed 10 games, (4) KAT missed 8 games, and (5) Beasley had just gotten out of prison and therefore required at least a quarter of the season to get into game shape.

The Vegas oddsmakers simply got it wrong last season because they miscalculated the development of Edwards, the infectious impact of Beverley, the resurgence of KAT, the contribution of Vanderbilt and the coaching of Chris Finch. That's understandable. Edwards was a 19-year old coming off his rookie season, Beverley's fit with this young team was a mystery, KAT seemed like an emotional wreck, Vanderbilt was totally unproven, i.e., not someone you'd predict would average 8.5 rebounds per game, and Finch only had a half-year of NBA head coaching experience at the time. The Vegas boys just blew it. That doesn't happen often, but it does happen once in a while and it happened last season in their evaluation of the Wolves. Keep in mind also that the Vegas boys are setting lines based in part on perception. They want roughly even bets on both sides. The Wolves have long been perceived as a bad team among basketball fans and general public. That factor would tend to drive the win-total line down a bit.

But the Vegas boys won't get fooled again (as Pete Townsend would say). I think they're very close with their 49.5 win-total for next season. I think it's slightly understated because of the lingering perception that the Wolves can't be good and the related perception that two bigs can't play together. If you remove the perception factor, I think the win total would be set at around 51. Bottom line is I that Vegas sees the Wolves as as 50-win team and I think that's close to the mark.

The Wolves gained with the Gobert trade, but they also lost. There really are two sides to the equation. While Gobert obviously adds a lot to this team, the Wolves are also losing a lot with the departure of Beverley and Vanderbilt. Losing the defensive havoc they created for opposing teams will leave a huge void on this team. In addition, the Wolves will lose the positive impact those two had on their teammates. Losing their combined 12.5 rebounds per game will leave a big void, which offsets much of what Gobert brings on the boards to an otherwise poor rebounding team. There will also be an adjustment period as the team adapts to a very different style. You don't go from Vando and Beverley to Gobert without some growing pains. We're talking about a major shift in the way this team plays on both ends of the court. The Vegas oddsmakers know this and we should too.

The Wolves were a 46-win team last season; the Vegas oddsmakers just blew it. The Wolves are probably a 49-51 win team this season. They're a better team, but the improvement isn't as profound as some caught up in the Gobert euphoria might believe. Meanwhile the Western Conference will be better overall. If Gobert goes down for an extended period then we're looking at a win total in the low 40s.

[FNG]

The Celtics won 51 games last season. But I think they were really a 45 win team. Jayson Tatum played 76 games last season while playing only 66 and 64 in each of the previous two seasons. Those extra 10-12 games with Tatum inflated the Celtics' win total.

Anyway, it's sort of interesting to speculate on what a team's record would have been with different variables adjusted. But it's pretty pointless. The Wolves were a 46-win team last season. That's a fact. They achieved that win total even though (1) DLO missed 17 games, (2) Beverley missed 24 games, (3) Edwards missed 10 games, (4) KAT missed 8 games, and (5) Beasley had just gotten out of prison and therefore required at least a quarter of the season to get into game shape.

The Vegas oddsmakers simply got it wrong last season because they didn't have miscalculated the development of Edwards, the infectious impact of Beverley, the resurgence of KAT, the contribution of Vanderbilt and the coaching of Chris Finch. That's understandable. Edwards was a 19-year old coming off his rookie season, Beverley's fit with this young team was a mystery, KAT seemed like an emotional wreck, Vanderbilt was totally unproven, i.e., not someone you'd predict would average 8.5 rebounds per game, and Finch only had a half-year of NBA head coaching experience at the time. The Vegas boys just blew it. That doesn't happen often, but it does happen once in a while and it happened last season in their evaluation of the Wolves. Keep in mind also that the Vegas boys are setting lines based in part on perception. They want roughly even bets on both sides. The Wolves have long been perceived as a bad team among basketball fans and general public. That factor would tend to drive the win-total line down a bit.

But the Vegas boys won't get fooled again. I think they're very close with their 49.5 win-total for next season. I think it's slightly understated because of the lingering perception that the Wolves can't be good and the related perception that two bigs can't play together. If you remove the perception factor, I think the win total would be set at around 51. Bottom line is I that Vegas sees the Wolves as as 50-win team and I think that's close to the mark.

The Wolves gained with the Gobert trade, but they also lost. There really are two sides to the equation. While Gobert obviously adds a lot to this team, the Wolves are also losing a lot with the departure of Beverley and Vanderbilt. Losing the defensive havoc they created for opposing teams will leave a huge void on this team. In addition, the Wolves will lose the positive impact those two had on their teammates. Losing their combined 12.5 rebounds per game will leave a big void, which offsets much of what Gobert brings on the boards to an otherwise poor rebounding team. There will also be an adjustment period as the team adapts to a very different style. You don't go from Vando and Beverley to Gobert without some growing pains. We're talking about a major shift in the way this team plays on both ends of the court. The Vegas oddsmakers know this and we should too.

The Wolves were a 46-win team last season; the Vegas oddsmakers just blew it. The Wolves are probably a 49-51 win team this season. They're a better team, but the improvement isn't as profound as some caught up in the Gobert euphoria might believe. Meanwhile the Western Conference will be better overall. If Gobert goes down for an extended period then we're looking at a win total in the low 40s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Ip6_U2lIo

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

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?

That's not necessarily the argument -- or at least not from my point of view. The disagreement I have is with those framing last season's team as lucky and/or not that good. I think it's entirely unfair to say that while also dismissing approximately seven (!) wins from their record. That's a pretty significant number -- essentially the difference between a lottery team and surely making the playoffs prior to the establishment of the play-in tournament.

It's a fact that the Timberwolves were one of the healthier teams in the league last season. I've acknowledged that. Actually, they were number one in games NOT missed due to injury or otherwise with just 86. However, how much of that can be explained by having the fifth-youngest roster in the league -- with only one player above the age of 30 in Patrick Beverley? Surely, there could be a correlation between health and youth, right? As in, younger players are less frequently banged up than older players who typically have more mileage on their bodies. Is it really that surprising or fortunate that one of the younger teams in the league was also one of the healthiest? That should probably be the expectation.

Lastly, there are various kinds of luck in sports -- so much so that attributing team success to good fortune is misleading or misguided. We're currently shining the spotlight on health and/or injuries, but how many games last year did the Timberwolves persevere through lopsided officiating? How many unfair -- or unlucky -- calls and no-calls went against Jaden McDaniels on the defensive end or Karl-Anthony Towns on the offensive end? Was Minnesota truly deserving of their place as second in the league in personal fouls? How many instances did an opposing team's star player receive ticky-tack whistle after whistle -- Joel Embiid and Ja Morant being the most memorable? How many games was Minnesota on the receiving end of a non-star player having their career-high or just near it? These are just additional questions I'm bringing into the discussion because when we say that a team is lucky or not it entails a lot more than the health of their roster.

The reality is that Minnesota likely outperformed their talent by a win or two -- once you account for the winnable games they dropped for one reason or another. They did not magically win 46 games instead of 39, or whatever arbitrary total has been thrown around carelessly.

[thedoper]

Fortune favors the bold. When we dont have a proven team we will continue to be underrated. There is still much to prove now that we added Gobert, mainly can Towns actually play the 4 alongside Gobert. 49.5 wins seems like a fair place to land with a legitimate style of play change in an era where massive front courts are not the rage.

[60WinTim]

I suspect Vegas is pretty conservative on the Wolves forecast because nobody knows how Towns at PF will work out. If there are significant stretches in games where Finch cannot play Towns and Gobert together, then yeah, that 50-ish win prediction is reasonable. But if Towns is able to resemble Dirk or Anthony Davis at PF playing alongside a C, well then the Wolves will probably blow that 50-ish number out of the water.

And as has been mention many times before, the growth of Edwards and McDaniels is also a significant factor in how the Wolves perform this year. As for me, I tend to look on the bright side! 8-)

[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?

That's not necessarily the argument -- or at least not from my point of view. The disagreement I have is with those framing last season's team as lucky and/or not that good. I think it's entirely unfair to say that while also dismissing approximately seven (!) wins from their record. That's a pretty significant number -- essentially the difference between a lottery team and surely making the playoffs prior to the establishment of the play-in tournament.

It's a fact that the Timberwolves were one of the healthier teams in the league last season. I've acknowledged that. Actually, they were number one in games NOT missed due to injury or otherwise with just 86. However, how much of that can be explained by having the fifth-youngest roster in the league -- with only one player above the age of 30 in Patrick Beverley? Surely, there could be a correlation between health and youth, right? As in, younger players are less frequently banged up than older players who typically have more mileage on their bodies. Is it really that surprising or fortunate that one of the younger teams in the league was also one of the healthiest? That should probably be the expectation.

Lastly, there are various kinds of luck in sports -- so much so that attributing team success to good fortune is misleading or misguided. We're currently shining the spotlight on health and/or injuries, but how many games last year did the Timberwolves persevere through lopsided officiating? How many unfair -- or unlucky -- calls and no-calls went against Jaden McDaniels on the defensive end or Karl-Anthony Towns on the offensive end? Was Minnesota truly deserving of their place as second in the league in personal fouls? How many instances did an opposing team's star player receive ticky-tack whistle after whistle -- Joel Embiid and Ja Morant being the most memorable? How many games was Minnesota on the receiving end of a non-star player having their career-high or just near it? These are just additional questions I'm bringing into the discussion because when we say that a team is lucky or not it entails a lot more than the health of their roster.

The reality is that Minnesota likely outperformed their talent by a win or two -- once you account for the winnable games they dropped for one reason or another. They did not magically win 46 games instead of 39, or whatever arbitrary total has been thrown around carelessly.

Fair points. We also shouldn't forget that Ant played injured for a fairly big stretch in the middle of the season and he just wasn't the same player. Perhaps if he were an older player he would have sat out those games (?). Either way, it's arguable how much he was helping us during that timeframe. I don't think he was actively hurting us, but he definitely wasn't the protagonist when we won.

[kekgeek]

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.

Wolves defense with Dlo
Every lineup: 111.1 (63rd percentile)
With Dlo and Pat Bev: 109.3 (77th percentile)
With Dlo and w/o Pat Bev: 112.1 (54th percentile)
Wolves w/o Dlo: 112.1 (55th percentile)


So just based on stats last year the Wolves we slightly above average defensive team with Dlo on the floor. The Wolves were better on defense with Dlo and Pat bev on the floor compared to Pat Bev off the floor but it was not this gigantic drop off. There was literally no difference in the wolves defense when Dlo played and didn't play. Dlo was not a net negative last year at all when it came to defense statistically last year. What is nice to know that this is the 2nd time in Dlo career a defensive system has worked and that team was average/above average on defense with Dlo on the floor.

[D-Mac [enjin:19736340]]

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?

That's not necessarily the argument -- or at least not from my point of view. The disagreement I have is with those framing last season's team as lucky and/or not that good. I think it's entirely unfair to say that while also dismissing approximately seven (!) wins from their record. That's a pretty significant number -- essentially the difference between a lottery team and surely making the playoffs prior to the establishment of the play-in tournament.

It's a fact that the Timberwolves were one of the healthier teams in the league last season. I've acknowledged that. Actually, they were number one in games NOT missed due to injury or otherwise with just 86. However, how much of that can be explained by having the fifth-youngest roster in the league -- with only one player above the age of 30 in Patrick Beverley? Surely, there could be a correlation between health and youth, right? As in, younger players are less frequently banged up than older players who typically have more mileage on their bodies. Is it really that surprising or fortunate that one of the younger teams in the league was also one of the healthiest? That should probably be the expectation.

Lastly, there are various kinds of luck in sports -- so much so that attributing team success to good fortune is misleading or misguided. We're currently shining the spotlight on health and/or injuries, but how many games last year did the Timberwolves persevere through lopsided officiating? How many unfair -- or unlucky -- calls and no-calls went against Jaden McDaniels on the defensive end or Karl-Anthony Towns on the offensive end? Was Minnesota truly deserving of their place as second in the league in personal fouls? How many instances did an opposing team's star player receive ticky-tack whistle after whistle -- Joel Embiid and Ja Morant being the most memorable? How many games was Minnesota on the receiving end of a non-star player having their career-high or just near it? These are just additional questions I'm bringing into the discussion because when we say that a team is lucky or not it entails a lot more than the health of their roster.

The reality is that Minnesota likely outperformed their talent by a win or two -- once you account for the winnable games they dropped for one reason or another. They did not magically win 46 games instead of 39, or whatever arbitrary total has been thrown around carelessly.

Fair points. We also shouldn't forget that Ant played injured for a fairly big stretch in the middle of the season and he just wasn't the same player. Perhaps if he were an older player he would have sat out those games (?). Either way, it's arguable how much he was helping us during that timeframe. I don't think he was actively hurting us, but he definitely wasn't the protagonist when we won.

You make a good point on Ant playing hurt. Like FNG said, I think it was easily 6-7 games though still. I watch every game and I paid very close attention to the wins we got against teams who were very banged up. You can say Dlo and Beverly missed games, but they were both relatively healthy still. I'm about to go through every game to prove this point, but I really shouldn't even be writing this post :). Back to work!

[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?

That's not necessarily the argument -- or at least not from my point of view. The disagreement I have is with those framing last season's team as lucky and/or not that good. I think it's entirely unfair to say that while also dismissing approximately seven (!) wins from their record. That's a pretty significant number -- essentially the difference between a lottery team and surely making the playoffs prior to the establishment of the play-in tournament.

It's a fact that the Timberwolves were one of the healthier teams in the league last season. I've acknowledged that. Actually, they were number one in games NOT missed due to injury or otherwise with just 86. However, how much of that can be explained by having the fifth-youngest roster in the league -- with only one player above the age of 30 in Patrick Beverley? Surely, there could be a correlation between health and youth, right? As in, younger players are less frequently banged up than older players who typically have more mileage on their bodies. Is it really that surprising or fortunate that one of the younger teams in the league was also one of the healthiest? That should probably be the expectation.

Lastly, there are various kinds of luck in sports -- so much so that attributing team success to good fortune is misleading or misguided. We're currently shining the spotlight on health and/or injuries, but how many games last year did the Timberwolves persevere through lopsided officiating? How many unfair -- or unlucky -- calls and no-calls went against Jaden McDaniels on the defensive end or Karl-Anthony Towns on the offensive end? Was Minnesota truly deserving of their place as second in the league in personal fouls? How many instances did an opposing team's star player receive ticky-tack whistle after whistle -- Joel Embiid and Ja Morant being the most memorable? How many games was Minnesota on the receiving end of a non-star player having their career-high or just near it? These are just additional questions I'm bringing into the discussion because when we say that a team is lucky or not it entails a lot more than the health of their roster.

The reality is that Minnesota likely outperformed their talent by a win or two -- once you account for the winnable games they dropped for one reason or another. They did not magically win 46 games instead of 39, or whatever arbitrary total has been thrown around carelessly.

Fair points. We also shouldn't forget that Ant played injured for a fairly big stretch in the middle of the season and he just wasn't the same player. Perhaps if he were an older player he would have sat out those games (?). Either way, it's arguable how much he was helping us during that timeframe. I don't think he was actively hurting us, but he definitely wasn't the protagonist when we won.

You make a good point on Ant playing hurt. Like FNG said, I think it was easily 6-7 games though still. I watch every game and I paid very close attention to the wins we got against teams who were very banged up. You can say Dlo and Beverly missed games, but they were both relatively healthy still. I'm about to go through every game to prove this point, but I really shouldn't even be writing this post :). Back to work!

Yes, please go through every game. If you could especially pay attention to the games DLO missed and what our record was without him playing. And if you are really thorough and objective, you'd go back and look at that data since DLO was traded to Minnesota. Given your antipathy toward him, it may be a difficult task for you emotionally, but I think you are up to the challenge!

[Lipoli390]

The Celtics won 51 games last season. But I think they were really a 45 win team. Jayson Tatum played 76 games last season while playing only 66 and 64 in each of the previous two seasons. Those extra 10-12 games with Tatum inflated the Celtics' win total.

Anyway, it's sort of interesting to speculate on what a team's record would have been with different variables adjusted. But it's pretty pointless. The Wolves were a 46-win team last season. That's a fact. They achieved that win total even though (1) DLO missed 17 games, (2) Beverley missed 24 games, (3) Edwards missed 10 games, (4) KAT missed 8 games, and (5) Beasley had just gotten out of prison and therefore required at least a quarter of the season to get into game shape.

The Vegas oddsmakers simply got it wrong last season because they didn't have miscalculated the development of Edwards, the infectious impact of Beverley, the resurgence of KAT, the contribution of Vanderbilt and the coaching of Chris Finch. That's understandable. Edwards was a 19-year old coming off his rookie season, Beverley's fit with this young team was a mystery, KAT seemed like an emotional wreck, Vanderbilt was totally unproven, i.e., not someone you'd predict would average 8.5 rebounds per game, and Finch only had a half-year of NBA head coaching experience at the time. The Vegas boys just blew it. That doesn't happen often, but it does happen once in a while and it happened last season in their evaluation of the Wolves. Keep in mind also that the Vegas boys are setting lines based in part on perception. They want roughly even bets on both sides. The Wolves have long been perceived as a bad team among basketball fans and general public. That factor would tend to drive the win-total line down a bit.

But the Vegas boys won't get fooled again. I think they're very close with their 49.5 win-total for next season. I think it's slightly understated because of the lingering perception that the Wolves can't be good and the related perception that two bigs can't play together. If you remove the perception factor, I think the win total would be set at around 51. Bottom line is I that Vegas sees the Wolves as as 50-win team and I think that's close to the mark.

The Wolves gained with the Gobert trade, but they also lost. There really are two sides to the equation. While Gobert obviously adds a lot to this team, the Wolves are also losing a lot with the departure of Beverley and Vanderbilt. Losing the defensive havoc they created for opposing teams will leave a huge void on this team. In addition, the Wolves will lose the positive impact those two had on their teammates. Losing their combined 12.5 rebounds per game will leave a big void, which offsets much of what Gobert brings on the boards to an otherwise poor rebounding team. There will also be an adjustment period as the team adapts to a very different style. You don't go from Vando and Beverley to Gobert without some growing pains. We're talking about a major shift in the way this team plays on both ends of the court. The Vegas oddsmakers know this and we should too.

The Wolves were a 46-win team last season; the Vegas oddsmakers just blew it. The Wolves are probably a 49-51 win team this season. They're a better team, but the improvement isn't as profound as some caught up in the Gobert euphoria might believe. Meanwhile the Western Conference will be better overall. If Gobert goes down for an extended period then we're looking at a win total in the low 40s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Ip6_U2lIo

Lol. Thanks for posting, Q! Once of GW's finest moments. And such a great song.