Gingeball

League

Five decision-pressure lenses — one hub for the whole league. No team score, no player grade, no front-office ranking.

As ofLatest

Teams

Lenses

2025-26

Season

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

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

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

#	Team	Windows	Scenarios	2 at once

Asset-valuation archive (legacy surfaces)

trades draft free agency front office decisions franchise development player ancestry outcome explorer value sources

1	DAL Mavericks 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 roster on the Player Board →	2	16	0	2	16	9	10
2	DEN Nuggets 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 roster on the Player Board →	2	12	1	1
3	IND Pacers 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 roster on the Player Board →	2	8	2	0
4	LAL Lakers 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 roster on the Player Board →	2	8	2	0
5	MIL Bucks 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 roster on the Player Board →	2	8	2	0
6	OKC Thunder 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 roster on the Player Board →	1	8	0	1
7	ORL Magic 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 roster on the Player Board →	2	8	2	0
8	POR Blazers 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 roster on the Player Board →	2	8	2	0
9	UTA Jazz 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 roster on the Player Board →	2	8	2	0
10	BOS Celtics 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 roster on the Player Board →	1	4	1	0
11	BRK Nets 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 roster on the Player Board →	1	4	1	0
12	MEM Grizzlies 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 roster on the Player Board →	1	4	1	0
13	MIN Timberwolves 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 roster on the Player Board →	1	4	1	0
14	NOP Pelicans 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 roster on the Player Board →	1	4	1	0
15	NYK Knicks 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 roster on the Player Board →	1	4	1	0
16	TOR Raptors 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 roster on the Player Board →	1	4	1	0
17	WAS Wizards 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 roster on the Player Board →	1	4	1	0
18	ATL Hawks 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 roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
19	CHI Bulls 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 roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
20	CHO Hornets 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 roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
21	CLE Cavaliers 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 roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
22	DET Pistons 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 roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
23	GSW Warriors 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 roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
24	HOU Rockets HOU has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:Partial contract-identity coverageCap context:First apron pressure review triggered roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
25	LAC Clippers LAC has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
26	MIA Heat 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 roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
27	PHI 76ers PHI has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
28	PHX Suns PHX has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
29	SAC Kings SAC has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0
30	SAS Spurs SAS has no supported multi-player decision planning window in this team-season. Coverage:No multi decision planning windowCap context:Tax pressure review triggered roster on the Player Board →	0	0	0	0	0