Bulls projected to win 32.5 games

[jnrjr79]

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.

Yep. And this is wby these things move as bets start coming in. But this is also why Vegas projections are a fairly rational projection of team performance, because if 50% of people are on either side of the over/under, you’re getting a view of what the consensus is as to a team’s likely performance. So, it makes it a good metric as to “how good to people think this roster is” in an NBA context, which is why I’m so befuddled at your rejection of it in those terms. The only real exceptions are when markets become irrational due to emotional bettors (e.g. everyone wanting Mike Tyson to beat Jake Paul), but I doubt that’s going on much on Bulls over/unders, and if it were, I would think it would add to the Bulls’ projected win totals, not detract from them.

[dougthonus]

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?

They'd place 38, since if they believe that 32 gets them more bets, but 38 is correct, then 32 gets them a crap ton more bets they lose. They don't make money by losing bets.

Fundamentally, Vegas wants to maximize the number of losing bets in an ideal world, but fundamentally will place a number at the point they think they'll generate the least risk. If they encourage bets by moving the line to a point where it makes one side obvious (which is the exact thing putting at 32 vs 38 if they think the real number is 38 would do) then they would bankrupt themselves because they'd be encouraging a high number of winning bets.

If they think the real number is 38, but they think there is a crap ton of dumb overzealous fans that will bet the over because the fan base is full of casuals, then they might set the line at say 40, because they know 38 is a 50/50 outcome, but they take more risk by being at 38 and having 75% of the bets on the over, so they might move the line to get the bets in line with what outcome generates similar money on both sides.

In the Bulls case, if Vegas thought the Bulls would actually win 38, they would have to believe the "casual" money on the Bulls is unbelievably, massively pessimistic and that all the casuals would pound the under to an insane degree, and so to get closer to 50/50 they have to push the number WAY beneath what they expect it to be in reality to get to a 50/50.

I'm not an odds setting expert, but my guess is that they rarely need to shift by more then a couple points to make this arbitrage between casual fan expectations and their best mathematical reality, so that their numbers are always fairly close to what they believe the reality is.

In terms of why they are off by ridiculous amounts every year, the answer is obvious, a billion things happen each year that can't be predicted. Key injuries, unexpected large improvements of young players, whatever. If you could consistently model better than Vegas, no need to post here, just go bet against Vegas.

[Stratmaster]

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.

Yep. And this is wby these things move as bets start coming in. But this is also why Vegas projections are a fairly rational projection of team performance, because if 50% of people are on either side of the over/under, you’re getting a view of what the consensus is as to a team’s likely performance. So, it makes it a good metric as to “how good to people think this roster is” in an NBA context, which is why I’m so befuddled at your rejection of it in those terms. The only real exceptions are when markets become irrational due to emotional bettors (e.g. everyone wanting Mike Tyson to beat Jake Paul), but I doubt that’s going on much on Bulls over/unders, and if it were, I would think it would add to the Bulls’ projected win totals, not detract from them.

And yet it is wrong by a significant margin most of the time. Because betting is often emotional, not logical. Look at the reaction on this board. People who don't even usually gamble talking about being the over because they think the total is way too low. If all the Bulls fans bettors get in, it will jump up in no time.

I showed the numbers. There is nothing accurate enough about these numbers to base any predictions on. But you keep shooting. The un-aimed arrow never misses.

[Stratmaster]

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?

They'd place 38, since if they believe that 32 gets them more bets, but 38 is correct, then 32 gets them a crap ton more bets they lose. They don't make money by losing bets.

Fundamentally, Vegas wants to maximize the number of losing bets in an ideal world, but fundamentally will place a number at the point they think they'll generate the least risk. If they encourage bets by moving the line to a point where it makes one side obvious (which is the exact thing putting at 32 vs 38 if they think the real number is 38 would do) then they would bankrupt themselves because they'd be encouraging a high number of winning bets.

If they think the real number is 38, but they think there is a crap ton of dumb overzealous fans that will bet the over because the fan base is full of casuals, then they might set the line at say 40, because they know 38 is a 50/50 outcome, but they take more risk by being at 38 and having 75% of the bets on the over, so they might move the line to get the bets in line with what outcome generates similar money on both sides.

In the Bulls case, if Vegas thought the Bulls would actually win 38, they would have to believe the "casual" money on the Bulls is unbelievably, massively pessimistic and that all the casuals would pound the under to an insane degree, and so to get closer to 50/50 they have to push the number WAY beneath what they expect it to be in reality to get to a 50/50.

I'm not an odds setting expert, but my guess is that they rarely need to shift by more then a couple points to make this arbitrage between casual fan expectations and their best mathematical reality, so that their numbers are always fairly close to what they believe the reality is.

In terms of why they are off by ridiculous amounts every year, the answer is obvious, a billion things happen each year that can't be predicted. Key injuries, unexpected large improvements of young players, whatever. If you could consistently model better than Vegas, no need to post here, just go bet against Vegas.

And those billion things are why it can never be used as a benchmark to assess team performance after the fact. I mean it can be but it would be silly.

[Jcool0]

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?

They'd place 38, since if they believe that 32 gets them more bets, but 38 is correct, then 32 gets them a crap ton more bets they lose. They don't make money by losing bets.

Fundamentally, Vegas wants to maximize the number of losing bets in an ideal world, but fundamentally will place a number at the point they think they'll generate the least risk. If they encourage bets by moving the line to a point where it makes one side obvious (which is the exact thing putting at 32 vs 38 if they think the real number is 38 would do) then they would bankrupt themselves because they'd be encouraging a high number of winning bets.

If they think the real number is 38, but they think there is a crap ton of dumb overzealous fans that will bet the over because the fan base is full of casuals, then they might set the line at say 40, because they know 38 is a 50/50 outcome, but they take more risk by being at 38 and having 75% of the bets on the over, so they might move the line to get the bets in line with what outcome generates similar money on both sides.

In the Bulls case, if Vegas thought the Bulls would actually win 38, they would have to believe the "casual" money on the Bulls is unbelievably, massively pessimistic and that all the casuals would pound the under to an insane degree, and so to get closer to 50/50 they have to push the number WAY beneath what they expect it to be in reality to get to a 50/50.

I'm not an odds setting expert, but my guess is that they rarely need to shift by more then a couple points to make this arbitrage between casual fan expectations and their best mathematical reality, so that their numbers are always fairly close to what they believe the reality is.

In terms of why they are off by ridiculous amounts every year, the answer is obvious, a billion things happen each year that can't be predicted. Key injuries, unexpected large improvements of young players, whatever. If you could consistently model better than Vegas, no need to post here, just go bet against Vegas.

You could of just said that.

[dougthonus]

And those billion things are why it can never be used as a benchmark to assess team performance after the fact. I mean it can be but it would be silly.

More or less, that's just a way of saying "there is no point in assessing anything, because you can't predict the future", but people can do look backs and see what why things were better or worse than expected and try to come up with what they think the causes and effects of that variation are.

[dougthonus]

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?

They'd place 38, since if they believe that 32 gets them more bets, but 38 is correct, then 32 gets them a crap ton more bets they lose. They don't make money by losing bets.

Fundamentally, Vegas wants to maximize the number of losing bets in an ideal world, but fundamentally will place a number at the point they think they'll generate the least risk. If they encourage bets by moving the line to a point where it makes one side obvious (which is the exact thing putting at 32 vs 38 if they think the real number is 38 would do) then they would bankrupt themselves because they'd be encouraging a high number of winning bets.

If they think the real number is 38, but they think there is a crap ton of dumb overzealous fans that will bet the over because the fan base is full of casuals, then they might set the line at say 40, because they know 38 is a 50/50 outcome, but they take more risk by being at 38 and having 75% of the bets on the over, so they might move the line to get the bets in line with what outcome generates similar money on both sides.

In the Bulls case, if Vegas thought the Bulls would actually win 38, they would have to believe the "casual" money on the Bulls is unbelievably, massively pessimistic and that all the casuals would pound the under to an insane degree, and so to get closer to 50/50 they have to push the number WAY beneath what they expect it to be in reality to get to a 50/50.

I'm not an odds setting expert, but my guess is that they rarely need to shift by more then a couple points to make this arbitrage between casual fan expectations and their best mathematical reality, so that their numbers are always fairly close to what they believe the reality is.

In terms of why they are off by ridiculous amounts every year, the answer is obvious, a billion things happen each year that can't be predicted. Key injuries, unexpected large improvements of young players, whatever. If you could consistently model better than Vegas, no need to post here, just go bet against Vegas.

You could of just said that.

I could have, but figured it was better to correct your post by showing with the most basic common sense math principles that what you said is more or less the opposite of how it works.

But sure, we can take your example to the logical extreme, sports books should just put the over under at 2 wins on the Bulls, it would encourage the most bets.

[Stratmaster]

And those billion things are why it can never be used as a benchmark to assess team performance after the fact. I mean it can be but it would be silly.

More or less, that's just a way of saying "there is no point in assessing anything, because you can't predict the future", but people can do look backs and see what why things were better or worse than expected and try to come up with what they think the causes and effects of that variation are.

No. It is saying exactly what I said. As things always do if people don't reword other's statements to insinuate they meant something other than what they said. Something most married people are still learning after decades together.

1. The intention of the betting line is not to be an accurate predictor of the outcome. That right there should tell you not to use it for any after the fact analysis, or as any type of indicator.

2. #1 is supported by the facts and numbers which, to use your words, are "wildly inaccurate".

3. If one of those look-backs is Billy Donovan is a great coach because he beat Vegas projections by 10 games over 5 years, and all of those games came at the end of one season playing tanking teams, that look-back is lazy and unsupported.

I would put much more stock in an analysis by an experienced party who has NBA experience behind them (e.g. scout, former coach, etc.) who had taken the time to analyze all the off-season moves, direction of each franchise, etc.

[dougthonus]

No. It is saying exactly what I said. As things always do if people don't reword other's statements to insinuate they meant something other than what they said. Something most married people are still learning after decades together.

1. The intention of the betting line is not to be an accurate predictor of the outcome. That right there should tell you not to use it for any after the fact analysis, or as any type of indicator.

The intention of the betting line is very close to being an accurate predictor of the expectations based on known information though. After reality hits, we then look at what happened between expectations and reality and try to figure out the difference.

2. #1 is supported by the facts and numbers which, to use your words, are "wildly inaccurate".

Not sure what you mean really, not sure it matters, but I agree, no one can predict sports futures with great accuracy.

3. If one of those look-backs is Billy Donovan is a great coach because he beat Vegas projections by 10 games over 5 years, and all of those games came at the end of one season playing tanking teams, that look-back is lazy and unsupported.

I don't think being above vegas expectations proves anything about Donovan FWIW, but I think it makes the case harder to say he stinks if the team is better than you expect every year. Not to say they are better than your expectations. My belief from our exchanges is that you think a lot more of the talent on this team over the past five years than I do. Our variance in opinion might be largely also about our variance in expectations.

I would put much more stock in an analysis by an experienced party who has NBA experience behind them (e.g. scout, former coach, etc.) who had taken the time to analyze all the off-season moves, direction of each franchise, etc.

I think the expert opinions on Donovan seem to generally be quite positive, if we're just talking about that.

[econprof]

If the Vegas line balances out both sides of over/under betting, then it is probably a highly accurate gauge of a team's standing at that time. "The wisdom of the crowds" has proven time and again to be about as accurate a tool for prediction as you can find, even when every member of the crowd has their own biases, I love the story of how a statistician discovered the wisdom to be found from a crowd's consensus (this taken from Wikipedia):

The classic wisdom-of-the-crowds finding involves point estimation of a continuous quantity. At a 1906 country fair in Plymouth, 800 people participated in a contest to estimate the weight of a slaughtered and dressed ox. Statistician Francis Galton observed that the median guess, 1207 pounds, was accurate within 1% of the true weight of 1198 pounds. This has contributed to the insight in cognitive science that a crowd's individual judgments can be modeled as a probability distribution of responses with the median centered near the true value of the quantity to be estimated.

To be fair, if the crowd is overflowing with individuals who have the same direction of bias, then the crowd won't seem so wise after all.

[Jcool0]

I think the expert opinions on Donovan seem to generally be quite positive, if we're just talking about that.

Who do you consider an expert and which ones are positive on Donovan? Is it a positive to you that he isn't one of the 10 worst coaches in the NBA? Because that seems like a pretty low bar.

[drosestruts]

I think the expert opinions on Donovan seem to generally be quite positive, if we're just talking about that.

Who do you consider an expert and which ones are positive on Donovan? Is it a positive to you that he isn't one of the 10 worst coaches in the NBA? Because that seems like a pretty low bar.

Pretty positive that his peers just elected him to the Hall of Fame.

But I also get the feeling your mind is made up on Billy Donovan and one could pull quotes praising Billy from current coaches, players, analysts, podcasters, etc. and you still wouldn't be swayed.

[Jcool0]

I think the expert opinions on Donovan seem to generally be quite positive, if we're just talking about that.

Who do you consider an expert and which ones are positive on Donovan? Is it a positive to you that he isn't one of the 10 worst coaches in the NBA? Because that seems like a pretty low bar.

Pretty positive that his peers just elected him to the Hall of Fame.

But I also get the feeling your mind is made up on Billy Donovan and one could pull quotes praising Billy from current coaches, players, analysts, podcasters, etc. and you still wouldn't be swayed.

For his college career not his NBA career, Donovan is an okay NBA coach, he a good relationship builder but a below average X & O guy. Since the Bulls are not bottoming out he doesn't get that asterisk on his record. He is a below .500 coach with the Bulls. I personally think the Bulls need a different type of coach if they want to do this young but experienced team concept aka 9 good players.

[drosestruts]

Who do you consider an expert and which ones are positive on Donovan? Is it a positive to you that he isn't one of the 10 worst coaches in the NBA? Because that seems like a pretty low bar.

Pretty positive that his peers just elected him to the Hall of Fame.

But I also get the feeling your mind is made up on Billy Donovan and one could pull quotes praising Billy from current coaches, players, analysts, podcasters, etc. and you still wouldn't be swayed.

For his college career not his NBA career,

It's for all of it, but yes, heavily influenced by his college success to the point where he probably makes the hall of fame even if he never coaches in the NBA (where he's been coaching for 10 years now)

But is this not an indicator that he's a good coach? or are you going to argue he was a good college coach but not a good nba coach?

[Jcool0]

Pretty positive that his peers just elected him to the Hall of Fame.

But I also get the feeling your mind is made up on Billy Donovan and one could pull quotes praising Billy from current coaches, players, analysts, podcasters, etc. and you still wouldn't be swayed.

For his college career not his NBA career,

It's for all of it, but yes, heavily influenced by his college success to the point where he probably makes the hall of fame even if he never coaches in the NBA (where he's been coaching for 10 years now)

But is this not an indicator that he's a good coach? or are you going to argue he was a good college coach but not a good nba coach?

Tons of college coaches couldn't make it in the NBA. You are asked to do different things. Tim Floyd had a 81–47 record at Iowa St and after the Bulls disaster was 85–50 at USC & 138–99 at UTEP.

[jnrjr79]

No. It is saying exactly what I said. As things always do if people don't reword other's statements to insinuate they meant something other than what they said. Something most married people are still learning after decades together.

1. The intention of the betting line is not to be an accurate predictor of the outcome. That right there should tell you not to use it for any after the fact analysis, or as any type of indicator.

The intention of the betting line is very close to being an accurate predictor of the expectations based on known information though. After reality hits, we then look at what happened between expectations and reality and try to figure out the difference.

2. #1 is supported by the facts and numbers which, to use your words, are "wildly inaccurate".

Not sure what you mean really, not sure it matters, but I agree, no one can predict sports futures with great accuracy.

3. If one of those look-backs is Billy Donovan is a great coach because he beat Vegas projections by 10 games over 5 years, and all of those games came at the end of one season playing tanking teams, that look-back is lazy and unsupported.

I don't think being above vegas expectations proves anything about Donovan FWIW, but I think it makes the case harder to say he stinks if the team is better than you expect every year. Not to say they are better than your expectations. My belief from our exchanges is that you think a lot more of the talent on this team over the past five years than I do. Our variance in opinion might be largely also about our variance in expectations.

I would put much more stock in an analysis by an experienced party who has NBA experience behind them (e.g. scout, former coach, etc.) who had taken the time to analyze all the off-season moves, direction of each franchise, etc.

I think the expert opinions on Donovan seem to generally be quite positive, if we're just talking about that.

Adding on to this, for purposes of this discussion, whether Vegas odds ultimately end up being accurate is sort of beside the point. Strat's assertion was that the Bulls should have generally been a winning team under Donovan's tenure. The bolded above gets to the heart of the issue. Strat has the opinion he has, but my point was that his opinion is at odds with the general consensus on the Bulls. Whether or not they are accurate, Vegas odds are a good metric of pre-season expectations for a given team. Vegas has not viewed the Bulls as a a likely winning team. Vegas has been right about that. I would also say that Vegas has generally been in line with NBA media as well, when making their pre-season predictions. I would note I have seen exactly zero predictions or media analyses saying something to the effect of "this team has a lot of talent, but Billy Donovan is holding them back, and that's why I think they'll miss the playoffs." So what this boils down to is Strat simply having an outlier opinion about the strength of the roster over the last several years. Which is fine! But it's outlier opinion nonetheless.

[jnrjr79]

I think the expert opinions on Donovan seem to generally be quite positive, if we're just talking about that.

Who do you consider an expert and which ones are positive on Donovan? Is it a positive to you that he isn't one of the 10 worst coaches in the NBA? Because that seems like a pretty low bar.

Zach Lowe just after the extension was announced:

"Billy Donovan is not the problem…There’s a lot worse things than keeping a coach you know is good, because as soon as you fire a coach you know is good — & I’ve said this many times before, often about the Sacramento Kings — you can blink your eye & you’re 9 coaches in 8 years trying to find another coach you think is good."

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1mbrprr/lowe_theres_a_lot_worse_things_than_keeping_a/

[Jcool0]

I think the expert opinions on Donovan seem to generally be quite positive, if we're just talking about that.

Who do you consider an expert and which ones are positive on Donovan? Is it a positive to you that he isn't one of the 10 worst coaches in the NBA? Because that seems like a pretty low bar.

Zach Lowe just after the extension was announced:

"Billy Donovan is not the problem…There’s a lot worse things than keeping a coach you know is good, because as soon as you fire a coach you know is good — & I’ve said this many times before, often about the Sacramento Kings — you can blink your eye & you’re 9 coaches in 8 years trying to find another coach you think is good."

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1mbrprr/lowe_theres_a_lot_worse_things_than_keeping_a/

Saying If you fire him you could get a worse coach is i guess a positive statement.

[jnrjr79]

Who do you consider an expert and which ones are positive on Donovan? Is it a positive to you that he isn't one of the 10 worst coaches in the NBA? Because that seems like a pretty low bar.

Zach Lowe just after the extension was announced:

"Billy Donovan is not the problem…There’s a lot worse things than keeping a coach you know is good, because as soon as you fire a coach you know is good — & I’ve said this many times before, often about the Sacramento Kings — you can blink your eye & you’re 9 coaches in 8 years trying to find another coach you think is good."

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1mbrprr/lowe_theres_a_lot_worse_things_than_keeping_a/

Saying If you fire him you could get a worse coach is i guess a positive statement.

Saying that he is good and that you might cycle through 9 other coaches before finding someone else as good is indeed a positive statement, yes.

[ChettheJet]

I found this for last season

https://www.oddsshark.com/nba/chicago-bulls-2025-season-preview-betting-odds


28.5 was the call
there were others right about there

They made some huge changes from the start of the season, . Nobody would have tried to claim that replacing Caruso, DeRozan, Drummond and eventually Lavine with Duarte, Giddey, Smith and eventually Jones, Huerter and Collins was the plan to get from 28.5 to 39 but there's a reason they play the games in the NBA

So look like a fool and believe what you like