Bulls projected to win 32.5 games

[Stratmaster]

lol. And when the Bulls actually win 36 games, we will hear that Billy Donovan is a hall of fame coach for beating Vegas win estimates.

I know we all loved the "fast paced, exciting basketball" we saw the Bulls play at the end of the season, but teams that have to play as fast as they can do so because of a lack of talent. Of the top 4 teams in pace last season only 1 was over .500 (48 wins) and the Bulls were 2nd for the ENTIRE SEASON, not just post ASB.

I know we all loved the 15-7 finish to the season playing against the Little Sisters Of The Poor squads but we all know that isn't what we have here.

I know this board loved to hate on Lavine and we know DDR was a dinosaur, but there is no comparison between Lavine or Derozan's consistent ability to take over a game offensively and Coby's hot streaks.

The team is much worse defensively than it was with Caruso and Ball playing, even with Lavine and DDR's defensive weaknesses.

There is certainly long term hope that the Bulls finally have a reasonably quality player to run point and Matas' long-term upside is enchanting. But that isn't translating to anything without getting at least 1 offensive stud to replace the 2 (who admittedly didn't fit together) they had before.

[Red8911]

lol. And when the Bulls actually win 36 games, we will hear that Billy Donovan is a hall of fame coach for beating Vegas win estimates.

I know we all loved the "fast paced, exciting basketball" we saw the Bulls play at the end of the season, but teams that have to play as fast as they can do so because of a lack of talent. Of the top 4 teams in pace last season only 1 was over .500 (48 wins) and the Bulls were 2nd for the ENTIRE SEASON, not just post ASB.

I know we all loved the 15-7 finish to the season playing against the Little Sisters Of The Poor squads but we all know that isn't what we have here.

I know this board loved to hate on Lavine and we know DDR was a dinosaur, but there is no comparison between Lavine or Derozan's consistent ability to take over a game offensively and Coby's hot streaks.

The team is much worse defensively than it was with Caruso and Ball playing, even with Lavine and DDR's defensive weaknesses.

There is certainly long term hope that the Bulls finally have a reasonably quality player to run point and Matas' long-term upside is enchanting. But that isn't translating to anything without getting at least 1 offensive stud to replace the 2 (who admittedly didn't fit together) they had before.

I think you’re wrong, this team is going to surprise a lot of people. If they build off last seasons play I can see them being a playoff team.

Obviously the final roster will play a role, what happens with Vuc,Giddey, or will there be any other moves that makes them worse/better ? . Still too early to tell.

[sco]

lol. And when the Bulls actually win 36 games, we will hear that Billy Donovan is a hall of fame coach for beating Vegas win estimates.

I know we all loved the "fast paced, exciting basketball" we saw the Bulls play at the end of the season, but teams that have to play as fast as they can do so because of a lack of talent. Of the top 4 teams in pace last season only 1 was over .500 (48 wins) and the Bulls were 2nd for the ENTIRE SEASON, not just post ASB.

I know we all loved the 15-7 finish to the season playing against the Little Sisters Of The Poor squads but we all know that isn't what we have here.

I know this board loved to hate on Lavine and we know DDR was a dinosaur, but there is no comparison between Lavine or Derozan's consistent ability to take over a game offensively and Coby's hot streaks.

The team is much worse defensively than it was with Caruso and Ball playing, even with Lavine and DDR's defensive weaknesses.

There is certainly long term hope that the Bulls finally have a reasonably quality player to run point and Matas' long-term upside is enchanting. But that isn't translating to anything without getting at least 1 offensive stud to replace the 2 (who admittedly didn't fit together) they had before.

I think you’re wrong, this team is going to surprise a lot of people. If they build off last seasons play I can see them being a playoff team.

Obviously the final roster will play a role, what happens with Vuc,Giddey, or will there be any other moves that makes them worse/better. Still too early to tell.

As a fan, I want you to be right!

That said, I feel it is rare for a team without an allstar caliber player to be out of the lottery. Now the flipside of that is that most of those teams are playing rookies and 2nd year guys big minutes. I do expect Matas to play big minutes, and his level of play will dictate a lot of our success or failure. Other than Matas, we are largely guys who have been in the league 4+ years.

I seem to not be able to finish posts like this without noting my view that Vuc starting could reduce wins by 5 to 10 games. It's not just his play, it's how his being on the floor with the starters affects both chemistry and Matas' development.

[Stratmaster]

lol. And when the Bulls actually win 36 games, we will hear that Billy Donovan is a hall of fame coach for beating Vegas win estimates.

I know we all loved the "fast paced, exciting basketball" we saw the Bulls play at the end of the season, but teams that have to play as fast as they can do so because of a lack of talent. Of the top 4 teams in pace last season only 1 was over .500 (48 wins) and the Bulls were 2nd for the ENTIRE SEASON, not just post ASB.

I know we all loved the 15-7 finish to the season playing against the Little Sisters Of The Poor squads but we all know that isn't what we have here.

I know this board loved to hate on Lavine and we know DDR was a dinosaur, but there is no comparison between Lavine or Derozan's consistent ability to take over a game offensively and Coby's hot streaks.

The team is much worse defensively than it was with Caruso and Ball playing, even with Lavine and DDR's defensive weaknesses.

There is certainly long term hope that the Bulls finally have a reasonably quality player to run point and Matas' long-term upside is enchanting. But that isn't translating to anything without getting at least 1 offensive stud to replace the 2 (who admittedly didn't fit together) they had before.

I think you’re wrong, this team is going to surprise a lot of people. If they build off last seasons play I can see them being a playoff team.

Obviously the final roster will play a role, what happens with Vuc,Giddey, or will there be any other moves that makes them worse/better ? . Still too early to tell.

I hope you are right. I just don't see it. 36 to 38 wins.

[jnrjr79]

lol. And when the Bulls actually win 36 games, we will hear that Billy Donovan is a hall of fame coach for beating Vegas win estimates.

I know we all loved the "fast paced, exciting basketball" we saw the Bulls play at the end of the season, but teams that have to play as fast as they can do so because of a lack of talent. Of the top 4 teams in pace last season only 1 was over .500 (48 wins) and the Bulls were 2nd for the ENTIRE SEASON, not just post ASB.

I know we all loved the 15-7 finish to the season playing against the Little Sisters Of The Poor squads but we all know that isn't what we have here.

I know this board loved to hate on Lavine and we know DDR was a dinosaur, but there is no comparison between Lavine or Derozan's consistent ability to take over a game offensively and Coby's hot streaks.

The team is much worse defensively than it was with Caruso and Ball playing, even with Lavine and DDR's defensive weaknesses.

There is certainly long term hope that the Bulls finally have a reasonably quality player to run point and Matas' long-term upside is enchanting. But that isn't translating to anything without getting at least 1 offensive stud to replace the 2 (who admittedly didn't fit together) they had before.

I think you’re wrong, this team is going to surprise a lot of people. If they build off last seasons play I can see them being a playoff team.

Obviously the final roster will play a role, what happens with Vuc,Giddey, or will there be any other moves that makes them worse/better ? . Still too early to tell.

I hope you are right. I just don't see it. 36 to 38 wins.

Yeah, I think 36-38 is about right for this group. Obviously there’s a lot of uncertainty, though, with the Giddey situation not yet resolved and the Bulls heading into the season with a bunch of expiring contracts that could get unloaded and shake up the roster at the deadline.

[dougthonus]

lol. And when the Bulls actually win 36 games, we will hear that Billy Donovan is a hall of fame coach for beating Vegas win estimates.

How many games do you think <insert your favorite coach here> would win with this team next year?

I know we all loved the "fast paced, exciting basketball" we saw the Bulls play at the end of the season, but teams that have to play as fast as they can do so because of a lack of talent. Of the top 4 teams in pace last season only 1 was over .500 (48 wins) and the Bulls were 2nd for the ENTIRE SEASON, not just post ASB.

I know we all loved the 15-7 finish to the season playing against the Little Sisters Of The Poor squads but we all know that isn't what we have here.

I know this board loved to hate on Lavine and we know DDR was a dinosaur, but there is no comparison between Lavine or Derozan's consistent ability to take over a game offensively and Coby's hot streaks.

The team is much worse defensively than it was with Caruso and Ball playing, even with Lavine and DDR's defensive weaknesses.

Based on your analysis (which I generally agree with), it would seem like not so many.

[Stratmaster]

lol. And when the Bulls actually win 36 games, we will hear that Billy Donovan is a hall of fame coach for beating Vegas win estimates.

How many games do you think <insert your favorite coach here> would win with this team next year?

I know we all loved the "fast paced, exciting basketball" we saw the Bulls play at the end of the season, but teams that have to play as fast as they can do so because of a lack of talent. Of the top 4 teams in pace last season only 1 was over .500 (48 wins) and the Bulls were 2nd for the ENTIRE SEASON, not just post ASB.

I know we all loved the 15-7 finish to the season playing against the Little Sisters Of The Poor squads but we all know that isn't what we have here.

I know this board loved to hate on Lavine and we know DDR was a dinosaur, but there is no comparison between Lavine or Derozan's consistent ability to take over a game offensively and Coby's hot streaks.

The team is much worse defensively than it was with Caruso and Ball playing, even with Lavine and DDR's defensive weaknesses.

Based on your analysis (which I generally agree with), it would seem like not so many.

Most of Billy's negative impact has been personnel usage. Insisting on Williams getting major minutes season after season. Trying to make Coby a PG. Concessions to Vuc. Neutering Lavine. Allowing DDR to dictate style and pace. The Bulls should have been over .500 every season but 1 (injuries) that Billy has been here.

Lavine and DDR are gone now. If Williams sees big minutes, and/or the offense runs through Vuc, it will cost them wins yet again and that will once again be on Billy. If not, they will win roughly the same number with Billy as they would any other coach. They are rebuilding. Oops...AK doesn't use that word. "Resetting"? "Retooling"?

Of course, with the track record, I don't doubt his ability to find new ways to misuse personnel and I think the obsessive focus on pace will eventually become a negative. "Play as fast as you can and shoot at your first opportunity" is about the simplest and stupidest basketball anyone could coach.

There is no need to insert a favorite coach. First, a coach who can assess player's strengths and weaknesses, which Billy does well. Just listen to any post-game interview. He can always tell you why they lost. Then take that assessment and translate it into a play style and court groupings that put the players in the best position to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. This is where Billy has always failed.

[jnrjr79]

lol. And when the Bulls actually win 36 games, we will hear that Billy Donovan is a hall of fame coach for beating Vegas win estimates.

How many games do you think <insert your favorite coach here> would win with this team next year?

I know we all loved the "fast paced, exciting basketball" we saw the Bulls play at the end of the season, but teams that have to play as fast as they can do so because of a lack of talent. Of the top 4 teams in pace last season only 1 was over .500 (48 wins) and the Bulls were 2nd for the ENTIRE SEASON, not just post ASB.

I know we all loved the 15-7 finish to the season playing against the Little Sisters Of The Poor squads but we all know that isn't what we have here.

I know this board loved to hate on Lavine and we know DDR was a dinosaur, but there is no comparison between Lavine or Derozan's consistent ability to take over a game offensively and Coby's hot streaks.

The team is much worse defensively than it was with Caruso and Ball playing, even with Lavine and DDR's defensive weaknesses.

Based on your analysis (which I generally agree with), it would seem like not so many.

Most of Billy's negative impact has been personnel usage. Insisting on Williams getting major minutes season after season. Trying to make Coby a PG. Concessions to Vuc. Neutering Lavine. Allowing DDR to dictate style and pace. The Bulls should have been over .500 every season but 1 (injuries) that Billy has been here.

Lavine and DDR are gone now. If Williams sees big minutes, and/or the offense runs through Vuc, it will cost them wins yet again and that will once again be on Billy. If not, they will win roughly the same number with Billy as they would any other coach. They are rebuilding. Oops...AK doesn't use that word. "Resetting"? "Retooling"?

Of course, with the track record, I don't doubt his ability to find new ways to misuse personnel and I think the obsessive focus on pace will eventually become a negative. "Play as fast as you can and shoot at your first opportunity" is about the simplest and stupidest basketball anyone could coach.

There is no need to insert a favorite coach. First, a coach who can assess player's strengths and weaknesses, which Billy does well. Just listen to any post-game interview. He can always tell you why they lost. Then take that assessment and translate it into a play style and court groupings that put the players in the best position to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. This is where Billy has always failed.

If you believe the bolded sentence, I understand why you’d think Billy is not a good coach. But, IMO, the bolded sentence is not remotely accurate.

[dougthonus]

Most of Billy's negative impact has been personnel usage. Insisting on Williams getting major minutes season after season. Trying to make Coby a PG. Concessions to Vuc. Neutering Lavine. Allowing DDR to dictate style and pace. The Bulls should have been over .500 every season but 1 (injuries) that Billy has been here.

You think way more of our past talent than I do.

So how many wins do you think a different coach would get based on our personnel this year?

[Stratmaster]

How many games do you think <insert your favorite coach here> would win with this team next year?



Based on your analysis (which I generally agree with), it would seem like not so many.

Most of Billy's negative impact has been personnel usage. Insisting on Williams getting major minutes season after season. Trying to make Coby a PG. Concessions to Vuc. Neutering Lavine. Allowing DDR to dictate style and pace. The Bulls should have been over .500 every season but 1 (injuries) that Billy has been here.

Lavine and DDR are gone now. If Williams sees big minutes, and/or the offense runs through Vuc, it will cost them wins yet again and that will once again be on Billy. If not, they will win roughly the same number with Billy as they would any other coach. They are rebuilding. Oops...AK doesn't use that word. "Resetting"? "Retooling"?

Of course, with the track record, I don't doubt his ability to find new ways to misuse personnel and I think the obsessive focus on pace will eventually become a negative. "Play as fast as you can and shoot at your first opportunity" is about the simplest and stupidest basketball anyone could coach.

There is no need to insert a favorite coach. First, a coach who can assess player's strengths and weaknesses, which Billy does well. Just listen to any post-game interview. He can always tell you why they lost. Then take that assessment and translate it into a play style and court groupings that put the players in the best position to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. This is where Billy has always failed.

If you believe the bolded sentence, I understand why you’d think Billy is not a good coach. But, IMO, the bolded sentence is not remotely accurate.

Over .500 would be 42 wins. They won 46 his 2nd season, right? And before you say "Lonzo", he only played 35 games that year. Billy's (and AKME's) tenure has been a complete and total failure. Taking a team with a ton of talent and figuring out how to make it less than the sum of its parts.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

I'd take the 'over', the team as constructed is better than that...seems premature to make the odds, there are still moves that could be made...Giddey for one. Hopefully we can S&T him for draft capital or a younger player and shoot for the 'under' because it might imply a rebuild. Or if they're not rebuilding and lose 50 games, maybe that finally gets AK fired.

[jnrjr79]

Most of Billy's negative impact has been personnel usage. Insisting on Williams getting major minutes season after season. Trying to make Coby a PG. Concessions to Vuc. Neutering Lavine. Allowing DDR to dictate style and pace. The Bulls should have been over .500 every season but 1 (injuries) that Billy has been here.

Lavine and DDR are gone now. If Williams sees big minutes, and/or the offense runs through Vuc, it will cost them wins yet again and that will once again be on Billy. If not, they will win roughly the same number with Billy as they would any other coach. They are rebuilding. Oops...AK doesn't use that word. "Resetting"? "Retooling"?

Of course, with the track record, I don't doubt his ability to find new ways to misuse personnel and I think the obsessive focus on pace will eventually become a negative. "Play as fast as you can and shoot at your first opportunity" is about the simplest and stupidest basketball anyone could coach.

There is no need to insert a favorite coach. First, a coach who can assess player's strengths and weaknesses, which Billy does well. Just listen to any post-game interview. He can always tell you why they lost. Then take that assessment and translate it into a play style and court groupings that put the players in the best position to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. This is where Billy has always failed.

If you believe the bolded sentence, I understand why you’d think Billy is not a good coach. But, IMO, the bolded sentence is not remotely accurate.

Over .500 would be 42 wins. They won 46 his 2nd season, right? And before you say "Lonzo", he only played 35 games that year. Billy's (and AKME's) tenure has been a complete and total failure. Taking a team with a ton of talent and figuring out how to make it less than the sum of its parts.

This makes no sense. Billy was the coach when they won 46, so he gets credit for that. And of course the right answer here is “Lonzo” combined with simple regression to the mean + not winning as many fluky clutch games. They played 40 games with Lonzo, not 35, and went 27-13. They went 19-23 without him.

I know you love to dismiss Vegas odds, but here is what the Bulls have been projected to win under Billy’s tenure:

2020: 29
2021: 41.5
2022: 41.5
2023: 37.5
2024: 27.5
2025: 32.5

The idea that the Bulls should generally have been an above-.500 team under Billy’s tenure may be your view, but it demonstrates that you have a markedly divergent view of Billy’s rosters than people whose livelihoods depend on making these projections.

[Stratmaster]

If you believe the bolded sentence, I understand why you’d think Billy is not a good coach. But, IMO, the bolded sentence is not remotely accurate.

Over .500 would be 42 wins. They won 46 his 2nd season, right? And before you say "Lonzo", he only played 35 games that year. Billy's (and AKME's) tenure has been a complete and total failure. Taking a team with a ton of talent and figuring out how to make it less than the sum of its parts.

This makes no sense. Billy was the coach when they won 46, so he gets credit for that. And of course the right answer here is “Lonzo” combined with simple regression to the mean + not winning as many fluky clutch games. They played 40 games with Lonzo, not 35, and went 27-13. They went 19-23 without him.

I know you love to dismiss Vegas odds, but here is what the Bulls have been projected to win under Billy’s tenure:

2020: 29
2021: 41.5
2022: 41.5
2023: 37.5
2024: 27.5
2025: 32.5

The idea that the Bulls should generally have been an above-.500 team under Billy’s tenure may be your view, but it demonstrates that you have a markedly divergent view of Billy’s rosters than people whose livelihoods depend on making these projections.

I didn't dismiss them. I clearly, logically, concisely and decisively proved they are meaningless. No one's livelihood rests on the accuracy of Vegas odds predicting actual win totals. The livelihood depends on keeping betting lines risk-free which has nothing to do with accuracy if pre-sesson predictions. Quoting Vegas pre-season betting lines and comparing them to final season results shows a lack of knowledge of both gambling and basketball/sports.

[jnrjr79]

Over .500 would be 42 wins. They won 46 his 2nd season, right? And before you say "Lonzo", he only played 35 games that year. Billy's (and AKME's) tenure has been a complete and total failure. Taking a team with a ton of talent and figuring out how to make it less than the sum of its parts.

This makes no sense. Billy was the coach when they won 46, so he gets credit for that. And of course the right answer here is “Lonzo” combined with simple regression to the mean + not winning as many fluky clutch games. They played 40 games with Lonzo, not 35, and went 27-13. They went 19-23 without him.

I know you love to dismiss Vegas odds, but here is what the Bulls have been projected to win under Billy’s tenure:

2020: 29
2021: 41.5
2022: 41.5
2023: 37.5
2024: 27.5
2025: 32.5

The idea that the Bulls should generally have been an above-.500 team under Billy’s tenure may be your view, but it demonstrates that you have a markedly divergent view of Billy’s rosters than people whose livelihoods depend on making these projections.

I didn't dismiss them. I clearly, logically, concisely and decisively proved they are meaningless. No one's livelihood rests on the accuracy of Vegas odds predicting actual win totals. The livelihood depends on keeping betting lines risk-free which has nothing to do with accuracy if pre-sesson predictions. Quoting Vegas pre-season betting lines and comparing them to final season results shows a lack of knowledge of both gambling and basketball/sports.

And if you believe this, I can understand why you don’t find Vegas betting odds useful. The only problem is this isn’t true.

[MrSparkle]

I see a scenario where Giddey is S&T’d, instead of taking the QO or 80/4. And honestly, while I like his game, it wouldn’t make much difference in the long term. In fact, it’d probably be better for the Bulls to take the offensive hit, develop/pump Coby/Matas/Noa/Ayo/Tre more, get a better pick.

As it stands with Giddey playing 30+ mpg, there are zero minutes for Phillips, Patrick, Terry, not to mention Noa. Not that they “deserve” em… but those are 4 “prospects” with little-to-no chance of playing regularly. I just don’t see Billy going big at SF, and Giddey/Huerter/Ayo get dibs (I suppose Pat too, if he’s gonna put Matas at SF). I think Josh is his “SF”, with Coby/Huerter/Ayo/Tre filling guard minutes.

If Giddey goes, I see 30 wins. If he stays, I see 37. Either way… what are we doing? The biggest con of losing Giddey is you gave up a championship piece (Caruso) for no long-term asset. The biggest pro of keeping him is we’re a more entertaining team. The net result either way is we’re not a deep playoff contender, barre unimaginable improvement from Matas and Coby.

[Stratmaster]

This makes no sense. Billy was the coach when they won 46, so he gets credit for that. And of course the right answer here is “Lonzo” combined with simple regression to the mean + not winning as many fluky clutch games. They played 40 games with Lonzo, not 35, and went 27-13. They went 19-23 without him.

I know you love to dismiss Vegas odds, but here is what the Bulls have been projected to win under Billy’s tenure:

2020: 29
2021: 41.5
2022: 41.5
2023: 37.5
2024: 27.5
2025: 32.5

The idea that the Bulls should generally have been an above-.500 team under Billy’s tenure may be your view, but it demonstrates that you have a markedly divergent view of Billy’s rosters than people whose livelihoods depend on making these projections.

I didn't dismiss them. I clearly, logically, concisely and decisively proved they are meaningless. No one's livelihood rests on the accuracy of Vegas odds predicting actual win totals. The livelihood depends on keeping betting lines risk-free which has nothing to do with accuracy if pre-sesson predictions. Quoting Vegas pre-season betting lines and comparing them to final season results shows a lack of knowledge of both gambling and basketball/sports.

And if you believe this, I can understand why you don’t find Vegas betting odds useful. The only problem is this isn’t true.

Lol. I have posted the numbers and proof on here twice, and I am pretty sure you commented on at least one of them.It isn't belief. It was cold hard numbers. I compared 15 teams over multiple seasons. If you think a margin of error of 10% and up is something you can use to judge team and coach performance, that thought is delusional. You offer nothing to show they are accurate, but tell me I am wrong after I have proven they aren't. I don't know what possesses people to insist they are right with no proof, when presented with facts that prove they are wrong, but it is reaching epidemic proportions and you are now participating.

[jnrjr79]

I didn't dismiss them. I clearly, logically, concisely and decisively proved they are meaningless. No one's livelihood rests on the accuracy of Vegas odds predicting actual win totals. The livelihood depends on keeping betting lines risk-free which has nothing to do with accuracy if pre-sesson predictions. Quoting Vegas pre-season betting lines and comparing them to final season results shows a lack of knowledge of both gambling and basketball/sports.

And if you believe this, I can understand why you don’t find Vegas betting odds useful. The only problem is this isn’t true.

Lol. I have posted the numbers and proof on here twice, and I am pretty sure you commented on at least one of them.It isn't belief. It was cold hard numbers. I compared 15 teams over multiple seasons. If you think a margin of error of 10% and up is something you can use to judge team and coach performance, that thought is delusional. You offer nothing to show they are accurate, but tell me I am wrong after I have proven they aren't. I don't know what possesses people to insist they are right with no proof, when presented with facts that prove they are wrong, but it is reaching epidemic proportions and you are now participating.

I think the disconnect here is you think demonstrating that Vegas odds have a margin of error ~10% proves Vegas odds are a bad metric to judge team expectations.

[Jcool0]

And if you believe this, I can understand why you don’t find Vegas betting odds useful. The only problem is this isn’t true.

Lol. I have posted the numbers and proof on here twice, and I am pretty sure you commented on at least one of them.It isn't belief. It was cold hard numbers. I compared 15 teams over multiple seasons. If you think a margin of error of 10% and up is something you can use to judge team and coach performance, that thought is delusional. You offer nothing to show they are accurate, but tell me I am wrong after I have proven they aren't. I don't know what possesses people to insist they are right with no proof, when presented with facts that prove they are wrong, but it is reaching epidemic proportions and you are now participating.

I think the disconnect here is you think demonstrating that Vegas odds have a margin of error ~10% proves Vegas odds are a bad metric to judge team expectations.

If the Vegas algorithm said the Bulls would win 38 games but placing it at 32 gets them more people betting which number do you think they are going with?

[Stratmaster]

And if you believe this, I can understand why you don’t find Vegas betting odds useful. The only problem is this isn’t true.

Lol. I have posted the numbers and proof on here twice, and I am pretty sure you commented on at least one of them.It isn't belief. It was cold hard numbers. I compared 15 teams over multiple seasons. If you think a margin of error of 10% and up is something you can use to judge team and coach performance, that thought is delusional. You offer nothing to show they are accurate, but tell me I am wrong after I have proven they aren't. I don't know what possesses people to insist they are right with no proof, when presented with facts that prove they are wrong, but it is reaching epidemic proportions and you are now participating.

I think the disconnect here is you think demonstrating that Vegas odds have a margin of error ~10% proves Vegas odds are a bad metric to judge team expectations.

That's not a disconnect. 10% is 8.2 games. It's the difference between 36 wins and 44 wins. They were slightly more reliable picking win totals for the BEST teams although still not a real predictor.

It's numbers. Facts.

[Stratmaster]

Lol. I have posted the numbers and proof on here twice, and I am pretty sure you commented on at least one of them.It isn't belief. It was cold hard numbers. I compared 15 teams over multiple seasons. If you think a margin of error of 10% and up is something you can use to judge team and coach performance, that thought is delusional. You offer nothing to show they are accurate, but tell me I am wrong after I have proven they aren't. I don't know what possesses people to insist they are right with no proof, when presented with facts that prove they are wrong, but it is reaching epidemic proportions and you are now participating.

I think the disconnect here is you think demonstrating that Vegas odds have a margin of error ~10% proves Vegas odds are a bad metric to judge team expectations.

If the Vegas algorithm said the Bulls would win 38 games but placing it at 32 gets them more people betting which number do you think they are going with?

Yep. But the real goal is to be as close to a 50/50 split as possible in the over/ under. They aren't trying to win money by duping our outsmarting bettors. They aren't gambling. They make their money off the juice.