NBA over/under win totals

[polkaface]

Johnd - I am semi-with you on Houston. They have one hell of a talented team. The only issues are 1) will Yao and T-Mac stay healthy (T-Mac finally did for once) and 2) How will Steve Francis and Mike James do in sharing the ball. Those are two me-first PGs with big heads. Could hurt a lot of team chemistry, which is what got Houston where it went last year. They didn't have near the talent they have this year, but they all knew their role and did their role well.

I think Atlanta is an UNDER. They are listed at 9 wins higher than they had last year. I do not think Horford and Law IV are worth 9 extra wins. They are also the #9 team in the East in terms of projected wins for the over/under and I don't think they should be there yet. Maybe in 2 years.

[Allah_In]

the problem with Houston is 53.5 is a really large number, especially considering the teams they play day in and day out

[Runner Runner]

Some words of caution before making these season long wagers:

There is a slight over-bias in these numbers as the average # of wins per team is 41.5 (should be 41). This should make you more likely to take an Under.

One thing you guys should also consider before wagering is regression to the mean from season to season. A typical team will move closer to .500 from one season to the next, this is a given.

So, in order to make a play on an over above 41 wins, hopefully you will have some real strong evidence of improvement for that team. Especially if they won 41 or less games last year.

Also, you are tying up money for a long time, it is often better used during the season.

[polkaface]

[ QUOTE ]

One thing you guys should also consider before wagering is regression to the mean from season to season. A typical team will move closer to .500 from one season to the next, this is a given.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is one major problem with your rationale. Each team is not created equal (or 'typical' as you said) so the "mean" for a certain team is not 41 wins. There is no way you can look at the Wolves and look at the Mavs and say that each teams expected win total is the same. If you played out 1000 seasons with these exact two teams as they are set up right now they would not go .500. They WOULD revert to a certain number, but that number would be different for the two teams and it would be that team's expected win total. Not the average win total for the league.


There are different players, different coaches and different front offices. Some are good and competent, others aren't. If all of these things were the same then yes you would make a very good point.

Your argument is more or less the same as saying that Mike Cameron and Ichiro Suzuki will end up with the same batting average over their careers because the mean BA for the league is .270 (or somewhere around there) and only random chance will keep that from happening.

There are reasons why the same teams, people, companies lead categories year in and year out and isn't attributed to luck (which is what you are suggesting if everyone and everything should average out to the same).

[Runner Runner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One thing you guys should also consider before wagering is regression to the mean from season to season. A typical team will move closer to .500 from one season to the next, this is a given.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is one major problem with your rationale. Each team is not created equal (or 'typical' as you said) so the "mean" for a certain team is not 41 wins. There is no way you can look at the Wolves and look at the Mavs and say that each teams expected win total is the same. If you played out 1000 seasons with these exact two teams as they are set up right now they would not go .500. They WOULD revert to a certain number, but that number would be different for the two teams and it would be that team's expected win total. Not the average win total for the league.


There are different players, different coaches and different front offices. Some are good and competent, others aren't. If all of these things were the same then yes you would make a very good point.

Your argument is more or less the same as saying that Mike Cameron and Ichiro Suzuki will end up with the same batting average over their careers because the mean BA for the league is .270 (or somewhere around there) and only random chance will keep that from happening.

There are reasons why the same teams, people, companies lead categories year in and year out and isn't attributed to luck (which is what you are suggesting if everyone and everything should average out to the same).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood what I said, I said that a typical team will move towards .500. This is simple and inevitable. It has nothing to do with any teams in particular, just that in any given year, there will be more teams that move towards .500 then there are teams that move away from .500.

So, try and have a real strong data if you are picking a team to have more wins then last year and above 41 wins. Also, the same thing goes for unders where you expect a team to lose more then last year and below 41 wins.

A simple way of understanding what I am saying, is that there is a push towards mediocrity in sports that acts like gravity, bringing the good teams down and the bad teams up from year to year. There are teams that sometimes buck this trend, but the push does exist.

[agencia1]

[ QUOTE ]
Johnd - I am semi-with you on Houston. They have one hell of a talented team. The only issues are 1) will Yao and T-Mac stay healthy (T-Mac finally did for once) and 2) How will Steve Francis and Mike James do in sharing the ball. Those are two me-first PGs with big heads. Could hurt a lot of team chemistry, which is what got Houston where it went last year. They didn't have near the talent they have this year, but they all knew their role and did their role well.

I think Atlanta is an UNDER. They are listed at 9 wins higher than they had last year. I do not think Horford and Law IV are worth 9 extra wins. They are also the #9 team in the East in terms of projected wins for the over/under and I don't think they should be there yet. Maybe in 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

def agree w u there.
atlanta is in the east but still v inexperienced

[polkaface]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One thing you guys should also consider before wagering is regression to the mean from season to season. A typical team will move closer to .500 from one season to the next, this is a given.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is one major problem with your rationale. Each team is not created equal (or 'typical' as you said) so the "mean" for a certain team is not 41 wins. There is no way you can look at the Wolves and look at the Mavs and say that each teams expected win total is the same. If you played out 1000 seasons with these exact two teams as they are set up right now they would not go .500. They WOULD revert to a certain number, but that number would be different for the two teams and it would be that team's expected win total. Not the average win total for the league.


There are different players, different coaches and different front offices. Some are good and competent, others aren't. If all of these things were the same then yes you would make a very good point.

Your argument is more or less the same as saying that Mike Cameron and Ichiro Suzuki will end up with the same batting average over their careers because the mean BA for the league is .270 (or somewhere around there) and only random chance will keep that from happening.

There are reasons why the same teams, people, companies lead categories year in and year out and isn't attributed to luck (which is what you are suggesting if everyone and everything should average out to the same).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood what I said, I said that a typical team will move towards .500. This is simple and inevitable. It has nothing to do with any teams in particular, just that in any given year, there will be more teams that move towards .500 then there are teams that move away from .500.

So, try and have a real strong data if you are picking a team to have more wins then last year and above 41 wins. Also, the same thing goes for unders where you expect a team to lose more then last year and below 41 wins.

A simple way of understanding what I am saying, is that there is a push towards mediocrity in sports that acts like gravity, bringing the good teams down and the bad teams up from year to year. There are teams that sometimes buck this trend, but the push does exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I now understand what you meant and I can see your point.

It does turn out that about 1/3 of the teams from the past 5 years do not move IN THE DIRECTION OF (not necessarily closer to) .500 (I mean not necessarily closer in that a team could have been 40-42 and then the next year they are 45-37). I only went on win totals. It would be over 1/3 (by another 2 or 3 teams a year from 11 teams a year to about 13 teams a year) of teams if I went by actual distance from .500.

[New001]

The only line I've played so far is Toronto over 41.5. I'm eying Phoenix under as well.

[Assani Fisher]

I havn't read any of the thread yet. I'll give my initial reactions first then think it over more as I read through the thread.



Washington Wizards 39.5: I'll give a disclaimer that I'm a Wizards homer. With that said, this is the very first line that jumped out at me as exploitable. In 04-05 the Wizards won 45 games. In 05-06 they won 42 games. Last year it looked like they had finally started to put it all together. In late January they found themselves in 2nd place in the entire East, only Detroit ahead of them. Detroit was on a roll- they had just added Chris Webber and won something like 9 out of 11 games- the two losses? Both to Washington. It legitimately looked like Washington was making a run at the #1 overall seed! Gilbert Arenas was getting legit MVP consideration, Caron Butler had raised his game to a new All Star level, and optimism was high. That all ended when Butler and Arenas went down with injuries. Washington lost 15 of its last 20 games. Even still...they finished with 41 wins. How on earth are they only predicted to get 39.5 wins now? I guess their division is a bit tougher with R Lewis going to Orlando and J Rich to Charlotte...but still. I think this is the best line on the board, and those of you who follow my NFL picks know that I'm not a blind homer(have only picked the Redskins once this entire year and it was a winner). Also Jamison is playing for one last big contract, which can only help his efforts imo.

Detroit 50.5: I can make a legitimate argument for well more than 1/2 the teams in the East that they've improved their teams from last year, both through added playing and having young talent that should only get better. I can't do that for Detroit. This team won 64 games 2 years ago and slipped to 53 last year. They lose Chris Webber, and while you may mock him he helped fill the void of Ben Wallace a lot. Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess are a very old frontcourt that isn't nearly as intimidating defensively as the Pistons of a few years ago. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they finished in 3rd place in their division. I'd take the under.

Memphis 32.5: Everything that could go wrong went wrong with them last year. Two years ago they won 49 games. Conley is obviously a question mark, but Rudy Gay is showing tons of improvement and last year was good for Mike Miller to get some experience as a go to guy...he'll find things a lot easier this year with Gasol back to draw double teams. Adding Juan Carlos Navarro was a great move imo. He is experienced with good international competition. Darko will fit in well here...hes still supremely talented. PG Stoudamire/Conley, SG Miller/Navarro, SF Gay, PF Milicic/Warrick, C Gasol/Swift....thats a very solid and deep lineup. I wouldn't be surprised to see Memphis crush this line.

Utah Jazz 47.5: Remember Elton Brand 2 years ago when he put up career highs seemingly out of nowhere? And remember how he regressed last year? Same exact thing will happen to Carlos Boozer imo. The Jazz are a bit overrated becuase everything seemed to go perfectly for them last year and they had an easy road to the WCF so they are fresh in people's minds. I still think they'll get into the playoffs, but with Denver, Houston, and Golden State among others looking improved I think they'll be the 7th or 8th seed. Take the under.

L.A. Clippers 30.5: This team got bad in a hurry. Brand and Livingston are out. Sam Cassell really started to show his age last season(he'll be 38 in a month). Corey Magette is their best player. Thats not a good thing. Under under under!

Toronto 41.5: I think this team is really underrated....maybe its because they have so many foreign players that people don't know well. But I really like the foundation of Bosh/Bargnani...big men aren't easy to come by in this league. Ford/Calderon provide a solid PG duo. Adding Kapono really lets them space the floor. They won 47 last year...could it have been a one year fluke? Perhaps, but I still think theres good value in this line.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
30 Teams x 82 Games each, divide by 2 Teams per game = 1230 games in a season.

Sum of all the O/U wins listed = 1519.5 games.


There has to be value on selecting unders.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, great point. Very interesting too imo. Could one actually beat the -115 line by taking all the unders?

Edit: Nevermind I guess.