Over totals logic was solid: Both OVER picks hit comfortably (SAC/MEM by 22.5, SAS/OKC by 3.5). The model correctly identified pace advantages and defensive vulnerabilities.
Injury impact assessment: Milwaukee +5.5 covered by 9.5 points, validating the heavy adjustment for Giannis being out against a poor Pelicans team.
WHAT MISSED
Houston spread badly miscalibrated: Model had HOU -7.5 as a play, but they lost outright 93-114. Overvalued home court advantage and underestimated Boston's motivation/talent despite missing Tatum.
Back-to-back fatigue underweighted: Boston was also on a back-to-back but dominated Houston, suggesting the model's situational adjustments need refinement.
MODEL CALIBRATION NOTES
Confidence ratings were backwards: The "LOW" confidence OKC/SAS pass was actually correct (would have been close), while higher-confidence plays like Houston failed badly.
Injury adjustments appear overtuned: The 13.2-point adjustment capped at 7 for OKC was reasonable, but the model may be double-counting injury impact in different calculations.
METHODOLOGY ADJUSTMENTS TO CONSIDER
Recalibrate home court advantage: The standard +3.5 home edge appears inflated in today's NBA. Consider reducing to +2.5-3.0 and adjusting based on actual venue performance data.
Improve back-to-back modeling: Current fatigue adjustments are too simplistic. Weight by travel distance, days of rest, and roster depth rather than applying blanket penalties.
Overall Record: 3-1 on individual picks, but the Houston miss was a significant model failure that suggests systematic issues with situational weighting.