NBA injuries - which is the stronger force?

DarrylParsons · Mar 18, 2004

I've been thinking about this and I can't decide which way it should come out. Any insights are appreciated...

On one hand there is the tendency for the public to overestimate the impact of an injury of a key player -- "Duncan's out, so don't bet on the Spurs"

But on the other hand there are the totally clueless folks who don't even pay attention to injuries. They just bet on their favorite team and only halfway through the 1st quarter they realize that their star player is missing from the lineup.

I'm trying to figure out which group is larger, or at least has the larger impact on the lines. My intuition says it's the first but I have often underestimated the number of clueless people out there so I'm a bit at a loss here.

Any comments?

TheGeneral+ · Mar 18, 2004

Sir, I think history would show that ATS, wagering the team with the injury would be your best bet in the long run. One example(CBK) that stands out is 3-4 years ago, when Seton Hall played ND. Eddie Griffin was out and the world jumped on ND cause Eddie was out.

I have the opinion that this just gives another player the chance to shine. In this game it was the case. SH handled ND fine. I love to see posts when a player will not play and many are on the opp side because of this. I would play the wounded team most every time over the healthy team. BUT, keep in mind I feel the NBA is easily manipulated by officials ATS.

jaypaw · Mar 18, 2004

so relating to cbb would you recommend sticking with depaul and bama?

it is quite interesting that since okafor has been out uconn has still managed a couple of impressive covers...

TheGeneral+ · Mar 18, 2004

When a player (star) goes down it really sways the wagering, although there is someone sitting there on the bench that will play his heart out in a chance to make a name for himself.

DarrylParsons · Mar 18, 2004

Thanks General, good info.

BigGamesOnly · Mar 20, 2004

When a star player is out, please keep in mind that the linesmakers take this into consideration. It is not good practice think that these people haven't already thought of this aspect. Therefore, it would not be correct to automatically bet against the team with the injury.

I think that a better way to think of this aspect, as well as in all games bet, is to decide how far the spread is off taking all factors (including injuries) into consideration. When Duncan was out San Antonio faltered a bit. However, they were able to make adjustments and do well later on.

When I looked at the spread in the games from this point on, it seemed to me that they were still considering that Duncan was out because the lines seemed to be skewed toward their opponent. I bet on the Spurs due to this situation and won several bets.

TheGeneral+ · Mar 31, 2004

Golden St/Phily 3/30/04 Big line move in favor of GS after Allen I announces he is done for season. Phily 95/71.

teamrichie · May 5, 2004

I call it the Kobe Bryant Theory....look at the number of times the Lakers have covered over the last few years with him out. Bookmakers know the average joe will bet against the lakers in the situation so why wouldn't they skew the spread as much as possible. I have used this theory many times this year and came out on top. It does seem that it works best only on the 1st game when a star is out though. After that, who knows. Bet on a team with a star out....but only the first, not the rest of the time he is out. The last time i used it...when carmello was out against the t-wolves...richie