Minnesota Sports Forum

It's exhausting seeing someone tout Vegas projections as much as FNG does despite the fact that they get it wrong plenty. Enough!

40-percent (12/30 NBA teams) of the league deviated from the Vegas' betting line by five games or more just a year ago. That shouldn't instill some assertion that they nailed it this year.

Camden wrote:It's exhausting seeing someone tout Vegas projections as much as FNG does despite the fact that they get it wrong plenty. Enough!

His logic is not wrong though, as much as you may tire of it. I think there is a 50% chance we exceed the Vegas projections with a high-powered top 10 NBA offense. I also think there is a 50% chance we don't exceed the projections due to a combination of bad injury luck that hamstrings the offense and poor defense (which is pretty much a given no matter who is healthy).

I think it really comes down to injuries. If our key guys stay fairly healthy, 40-43 wins is within very reasonable reach. But we all know staying healthy in the NBA is hardly a given, thus a 30-something win projection doesn't seem all that unreasonable from a Vegas perspective.

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:It's exhausting seeing someone tout Vegas projections as much as FNG does despite the fact that they get it wrong plenty. Enough!

His logic is not wrong though, as much as you may tire of it. I think there is a 50% chance we exceed the Vegas projections with a high-powered top 10 NBA offense. I also think there is a 50% chance we don't exceed the projections due to a combination of bad injury luck that hamstrings the offense and poor defense (which is pretty much a given no matter who is healthy).

I think it really comes down to injuries. If our key guys stay fairly healthy, 40-43 wins is within very reasonable reach. But we all know staying healthy in the NBA is hardly a given, thus a 30-something win projection doesn't seem all that unreasonable from a Vegas perspective.

Meh. We'll agree to disagree, Q. I have no issue with the Vegas projection itself. Minnesota certainly has to outplay expectations for once before they deserve any respect from oddsmakers. What I find to be erroneous is this constant assertion that Vegas just doesn't make mistakes in their projections or that they simply can't be wrong when the reality is that they're wrong quite a lot -- just less wrong than they are right overall, which is why they remain extremely profitable. Again, look at past years for an example of this.

Camden wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:It's exhausting seeing someone tout Vegas projections as much as FNG does despite the fact that they get it wrong plenty. Enough!

His logic is not wrong though, as much as you may tire of it. I think there is a 50% chance we exceed the Vegas projections with a high-powered top 10 NBA offense. I also think there is a 50% chance we don't exceed the projections due to a combination of bad injury luck that hamstrings the offense and poor defense (which is pretty much a given no matter who is healthy).

I think it really comes down to injuries. If our key guys stay fairly healthy, 40-43 wins is within very reasonable reach. But we all know staying healthy in the NBA is hardly a given, thus a 30-something win projection doesn't seem all that unreasonable from a Vegas perspective.

Meh. We'll agree to disagree, Q. I have no issue with the Vegas projection itself. Minnesota certainly has to outplay expectations for once before they deserve any respect from oddsmakers. What I find to be erroneous is this constant assertion that Vegas just doesn't make mistakes in their projections or that they simply can't be wrong when the reality is that they're wrong quite a lot -- just less wrong than they are right overall, which is why they remain extremely profitable. Again, look at past years for an example of this.

Vegas lines also have perception built into them. The oddsmakers primary objective is to set a line that will have roughly equal bets on both sides. Nationally, there's a negative perception of the Wolves. For example, outside Minnesota probably don't realize or even think about how bad Ryan Saunders was as a head coach. I think preseason betting lines tend to reflect that negative national bias. In other words, I think the oddsmakers would project a higher win total if they based their projections entirely on an objective analysis of a team's talent and likely performance.

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:It's exhausting seeing someone tout Vegas projections as much as FNG does despite the fact that they get it wrong plenty. Enough!

His logic is not wrong though, as much as you may tire of it. I think there is a 50% chance we exceed the Vegas projections with a high-powered top 10 NBA offense. I also think there is a 50% chance we don't exceed the projections due to a combination of bad injury luck that hamstrings the offense and poor defense (which is pretty much a given no matter who is healthy).

I think it really comes down to injuries. If our key guys stay fairly healthy, 40-43 wins is within very reasonable reach. But we all know staying healthy in the NBA is hardly a given, thus a 30-something win projection doesn't seem all that unreasonable from a Vegas perspective.

Yep, there's a 50% chance of going over the total, and a 50% chance of going under, and health will likely dictate which way it goes. Of course Cam is right that Vegas gets the totals wrong occasionally...they're not flawless fortune tellers. But gambling is a multi-billion dollar industry, and you're not going to keep your job if you don't put up a total that roughly half the population thinks is too high, and half thinks is too low. What is more important though is how the Vegas line has compared to the Wolves actual results the past decade. I'm too lazy to look this up (although I imagine someone could easily find it), I'm confident the Wolves have gone under the projected total far more often than over. To predict that they will go almost ten games over the Vegas line for a team with as many flaws as this one has is the gambling equivalent of pissing into the wind...it's not likely to turn out well.

But it's the team we love, so we'll continue to overvalue them like it appears we regularly do on this board (according to the win forecast thread)...and one day they may live up to our hopes.

Camden wrote:It's exhausting seeing someone tout Vegas projections as much as FNG does despite the fact that they get it wrong plenty. Enough!

40-percent (12/30 NBA teams) of the league deviated from the Vegas' betting line by five games or more just a year ago. That shouldn't instill some assertion that they nailed it this year.

I appreciate FNG's take and I enjoy diversity of opinion. What's the alternative? Relying on your opinion or taking the consensus of those of a fan forum? You were off by more than ten games last year and you criticized Vegas odds then (The board consensus was in favor of the over too and you brought that up to support the Over) and you even said I was too negative last year.. I was actually overly optimistic when I predicted 24 wins.. I'm kind of hovering around the Vegas line this year. Slight under if there is no trade for Ben, but decidedly over with a Ben trade. Of course, Vegas won't always get it right as it is forward looking, but its as objective a number as you can find. Of course, if Vegas was not very accurate, then we'd all be able to profit handsomely off the poor predictions made in Vegas.

KG4Ever wrote:I appreciate FNG's take and I enjoy diversity of opinion. What's the alternative? Relying on your opinion or taking the consensus of those of a fan forum? You were off by more than ten games last year and you criticized Vegas odds then (The board consensus was in favor of the over too and you brought that up to support the Over) and you even said I was too negative last year.. I was actually overly optimistic when I predicted 24 wins.. I'm kind of hovering around the Vegas line this year. Slight under if there is no trade for Ben, but decidedly over with a Ben trade. Of course, Vegas won't always get it right as it is forward looking, but its as objective a number as you can find. Of course, if Vegas was not very accurate, then we'd all be able to profit handsomely off the poor predictions made in Vegas.

You enjoy diversity of opinion... unless it's an opinion or take of mine. You will always be my number one fan. Thank you for all that you bring to the board. I'm not sure what we'd do without you here...

Additionally, I can't even find last year's prediction thread nor do I remember the exact amount of wins that I projected for Minnesota, but I can almost guarantee I had a disclaimer that assumed for reasonable health, which last year's roster never had. Nobody could have projected that team to get ravaged by injuries like it did -- not even Vegas! And that's entirely the point that I'm making now. Thank you KG4Ever for helping me make my argument. You're an absolute gem.