[demens]

I want to take a closer look at a situation that at first glace looks very simple. A team playing without an important player. Doesn't matter what the reason is, it could be an injury, suspension or trade. It seems a lot of good cappers believe in the theory that a team in this situation usually plays better then expected. And it makes sense, there is logic behind that theory but it can not be that simple so lets examine it a little further.

Conventional logic says that a team without a star player is likely to give more effort to make up for the missing star. Play together, have each others backs, the guys flinging in are counted on to step up, sometimes a coach will even adjust the plays to change the pace of the game and so on. Sometimes the opponent can take this team lightly.

So is there an edge here to simply put money on the team without its star?

What if you take the following situations under consideration.

Does it matter how long the missing player is out for? I can see a team coming together for 1 or 2 games and overachieve but would it make sense that this team will fade with each game the more games this player misses?


Does it matter how good the team is and if there is a capable back-up? For example lets say the Nuggets are missing Mr. Big Shot Chauncey Billups. They do have a young stud in Ty Lawson that is arguably the best backup in the league. Not a bad guy to fill in. Thats a considerably different then a team like the Clippers missing Barron Davis and forced to start a rookie Eric Bledsoe, a guy who spent his only year in college in John Walls shadow, playing without the ball and out of position. Many people did not even think he can play PG and were surprised by his decision to come out this year. So it seems like the Clippers and the Nuggets are in very different situations, is there an edge anywhere in there?

How about if its LA missing Kobe? They still have Odom, still have Gasol, still a capable line-up that can win games. Very different then lets say the Nets missing Devin Harris who is the only player on the roster capable of creating a shot for a teammate.

Does it matter how many players are out? Maybe a team can overcome 1 guy being out, but how about the top 3 leading scorers all missing a game?

I'm trying to figure this out because i've been on the losing end of these plays all year.

We all try to grind it out, day by day looking for an edge when betting on a game. Looking for a situation that the bookie might have overlooked, looking for a play that the public is completely wrong about and so on. I'd think these circumstances i've been talking about is exactly that.

A player is gets hurt mid game. A trade is announced after the lines come out. This is our chance right? This is the spot we have an edge, a spot to make the big play?

Last night was a big day in the NBA where teams where almost of half strength due to the huge trades going down. Wizards went into a game vs the hot Miami team without their 2 best players, Wall (injured) and Arenas (traded). How can a poor team like Washington overcome that? Poor Hinrich had to play all 48 minutes but they almost pulled the biggest upset of the year. Was it the wrong play?

On the other hand you had the Magic playing without 4 traded players and they did not step up their effort, or play together. No, they lost to a much weaker Sixers team.

Some of my bigger loses this year came betting against the Nets when Harris was missing. As bad as the situation seemed they managed to surprise every time. I've discussed this in detail with many Nets fans and noone can explain how they did it. You can take a look at the backup Jordan Farmars numbers and say he stepped up but anyone that watched those games will tell you he was not playing good basketball.

So are these bad plays to make? Or are these good plays that did not hit due to bad luck and will be productive in the long run.

If anyone actually made it through this whole post, tell me. Is there an edge to be found here or not? I'm not talking about blindly fading or tailing a team missing a player. I'm saying if you carefully consider all the situations i mentioned here, there has to be an edge in there somewhere.....right?

[rfr3sh]

I think the whole star theory is overrated because books account for this, obviously the line reflects it too
you can create ratings for what each player is worth pts wise per game and compare it to the person replacing them to get an idea of how many pts there loss is worth to the spread..then see if you have an edge

[demens]

I think the whole star theory is overrated because books account for this, obviously the line reflects it too
you can create ratings for what each player is worth pts wise per game and compare it to the person replacing them to get an idea of how many pts there loss is worth to the spread..then see if you have an edge

I'm talking about situations where the line DOES NOT account for it. If a player is listed 50/50 then announced out after the line comes out. Or the examples of all the things that went down yesterday with the trades. No line reflected this. Heat line went up 2 points and the Magic line dropped 3 when the news about the trades was public. Both games ended nowhere near those lines though.

Thats my whole point. Finding an edge on a book after the line is out already and something unexpected happens.

[Whippit]

those bets all look pretty bad to me...especially fading harrisless nets

[Avon Barksdale]

depends on the team and the player replacing that star.