Gingeball

League Board

Which teams face multi-player planning windows, and where do the scenarios lack evidence?

As ofLatest

Decision volume Planning windows Sequencing workload Keep/exit optionality Competitive window

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26

sorted by scenarios · click a column to re-sort · click a team for its workspace · open a row for why it is here

Team	Windows	Scenarios	2-dec	3-dec	Apron pressure	Salary gaps	Basketball gaps
DAL DAL has 2 multi-player planning windows and 16 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Second apron pressure review triggered	2	16	0	2	16	9	10
DEN DEN has 2 multi-player planning windows and 12 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	2	12	1	1	12	12	0
IND IND has 2 multi-player planning windows and 8 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Partial contract-identity coverageCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	2	8	2	0	0	8	2
LAL LAL has 2 multi-player planning windows and 8 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:First apron pressure review triggered	2	8	2	0	8	6	0
MIL MIL has 2 multi-player planning windows and 8 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Partial contract-identity coverageCap context:First apron pressure review triggered	2	8	2	0	8	5	2
OKC OKC has 1 multi-player planning windows and 8 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	1	8	0	1	0	1	4
ORL ORL has 2 multi-player planning windows and 8 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	2	8	2	0	8	8	0
POR POR has 2 multi-player planning windows and 8 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:First apron pressure review triggered	2	8	2	0	8	5	0
UTA UTA has 2 multi-player planning windows and 8 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	2	8	2	0	0	8	2
BOS BOS has 1 multi-player planning windows and 4 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	1	4	1	0	0	4	2
BRK BRK has 1 multi-player planning windows and 4 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	1	4	1	0	0	1	0
MEM MEM has 1 multi-player planning windows and 4 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	1	4	1	0	0	4	3
MIN MIN has 1 multi-player planning windows and 4 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:First apron pressure review triggered	1	4	1	0	4	1	0
NOP NOP has 1 multi-player planning windows and 4 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	1	4	1	0	4	4	0
NYK NYK has 1 multi-player planning windows and 4 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Second apron pressure review triggered	1	4	1	0	4	1	0
TOR TOR has 1 multi-player planning windows and 4 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	1	4	1	0	4	4	0
WAS WAS has 1 multi-player planning windows and 4 fully enumerated conditional branch combinations. Overlap counts identify review pressure, not preferred outcomes. Coverage:Conditional stress map with named evidence gapsCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	1	4	1	0	4	4	2
ATL ATL has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
CHI CHI has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
CHO CHO has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
CLE CLE has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Second apron pressure review triggered	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
DET DET has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
GSW GSW has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:First apron pressure review triggered	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
HOU HOU has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:Partial contract-identity coverageCap context:First apron pressure review triggered	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
LAC LAC has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
MIA MIA has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Cap position observed; no apron trigger	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
PHI PHI has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
PHX PHX has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SAC SAC has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SAS SAS has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Counts describe conditional planning workload and evidence gaps, not team quality, flexibility or front-office success.