This is the third year I’ve posted my win projections publicly. Last year, my delta was 7.1, while Vegas had a delta of 6.4. The previous year, I had a delta of 5.9 compared to Vegas’s 6.3. So, we’re about even? I will continue betting on the delta of my projections against anything publicly available, including Vegas.

Vegas is much better this year. Last year, I was off by an average of 2.7 wins per team; this year, it’s only 1.6! Even though I "lost" last year, I think Vegas’s improvement is pretty incredible. I know the limits are so low that no one is betting more than a used Toyota on season win totals… but still. Markets aren’t efficient, but they’re improving quickly, and it’s important to have a healthy respect for them [1].

To be honest, there weren’t many surprises this year. One thing I found interesting is that some of my best bets from last year are also some of my best bets this year—but in the opposite direction! The Kings and the Pistons were among my strongest unders last year, and this year they’re some of my strongest overs. Meanwhile, the Raptors were one of my top overs last year, but this year, their lack of depth makes them one of my best unders.

But really, this exercise isn’t about beating the market. It’s about analyzing teams’ various strengths and weaknesses—where their depth falls off, which players might be poised for a breakout year, and who might be nearing a decline. I’ll share some data from my process that highlights overall weaknesses. The chart below shows three fairly simple but illuminating metrics. This is a team’s age, creation, and spacing weighted by projected minutes [2]. I didn’t project these metrics with an aging curve, but they still provide insight into where a team might be deficient [3].

One of the first takeaways is that contenders like Philadelphia and Milwaukee are relying on extremely old supporting casts. That almost never ends well. This’ll be the third year in a row that I’m betting on the geriatric Bucks to go under [4].

The usage calculation also tells a few stories. Teams like the Raptors, Thunder, and Magic have prioritized defensive versatility and transition (to varying degrees of success!), but they may lack half-court creation when the game slows down. And, of course, the 76ers will have plenty of shot creation due to the addition of Paul George.

The spacing metric highlights some questionable team-building decisions by the Raptors and Lakers [5], who have suspect spacing on the wing and non-shooting bigs. Meanwhile, it praises teams like the Celtics and Knicks, who have spacing at the 5, and the Mavericks and Cavs, whose guards can create unassisted 3s.

To be clear, these stats aren’t terribly important without context, and internal improvement will shore up many of these perceived issues. However, teams need a sufficient balance of various aspects of the game, and creation and spacing are two of the most noteworthy.

Without further ado, let us NBA.

[1] Unless the election is already over.

[2] Creation is USG%, spacing is 3%*volume.

[3] And rookies never really provide spacing anyway.

[4]

[5] As you can probably tell, I’m trying to avoid commenting on the core trying to sag for Flagg.