NBA roster balance sounds simple enough until someone tries to put a number on it. A team can spread its scoring around, produce similar shooting percentages across its lineup, or have one player whose impact towers over everyone else’s. Those are different descriptions of how a roster functions. Calling all of them balanced leaves a lot unexplained.
A November 2026 study from Casino Guru USA brings that problem into focus. Researchers selected each team’s leading player through value over replacement player, or VORP, then compared him with his teammates across six statistical measures. Dallas finished first in star dependence. Utah finished last.
The ranking invites a broader question. What should a balanced NBA roster actually look like? The supplied numbers offer several possible answers, but each describes only part of the picture.
Theo Pinson says that people are prematurely labeling Tyrese Maxey as a superstar before he has actually earned that status. Maxey has never reached the NBA Finals unlike players such as Luka Dončić, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Victor Wembanyama or jalen Brunson nor has he ever been… pic.twitter.com/DhzuiawxDc
— NBA Hoops (@Thechat101) November 5, 2026
Where does the gap between NBA teammates show up?
Start with Utah. The Jazz earned the lowest index score, 80, with Jaxson Hayes serving as their selected player. His player impact estimate reached 11%, while his teammates averaged 10.16%. That 0.84-percentage-point difference ranked third-smallest in the study.
Phoenix presents a similar comparison through shooting efficiency. Jordan Goodwin posted a 56.50% true shooting percentage, just 0.60 percentage points above the 55.90% average for his teammates. No team had a smaller gap in that category.
Both figures describe closeness. Neither figure, on its own, establishes how well the entire roster performs. The Jazz comparison tells us Hayes and his teammates finished near each other in player impact estimate. The Suns comparison tells us Goodwin and his teammates posted similar shooting efficiency. Those are specific findings, and the discussion gets clearer when we keep them specific.
Charlotte helps explain why. Its selected star recorded a 69.20% true shooting mark, while the remaining players averaged 49.08%. The resulting 20.12-percentage-point difference was the widest in the study.
That large separation identifies an efficiency gap worth examining. Simply closing it would still leave an important question about which side changed. The distance between two numbers gives us one piece of information. The level of each number gives us another.
Does sharing the scoring make an NBA team balanced?
Toronto offers a different version of balance. Immanuel Quickley contributed 13.96% of the Raptors’ points, compared with a 12.73% individual average for his teammates. That difference, 1.23 percentage points, ranked second-smallest in the study.
Denver also appeared among the ten teams with the smallest scoring-share gaps. Nikola Jokic supplied 18.60% of the Nuggets’ points, while his teammates individually averaged 13.82%. Denver, Toronto, and Phoenix all finished with index scores of 83.
The shared score puts three teams together even though their highlighted numbers describe different things. Toronto’s standout comparison concerns scoring distribution. Phoenix’s concerns shooting efficiency. Denver’s scoring figures show another degree of separation between its selected player and the average teammate.
At the other end, Luka Doncic supplied 26.84% of the Lakers’ points. Los Angeles finished second in the overall ranking with a score of 99.
“The numbers are the numbers. Luka [Doncic] is absolutely one of the best scorers to ever play this game… This is the best version we’ve ever seen of Luka.”
Tim MacMahon with HIGH praise for the Lakers superstar 👀
(via @ESPNNBA) pic.twitter.com/Qj2psQl5jT
— ClutchPoints (@ClutchPoints) November 3, 2026
Golden State followed at 98, with Stephen Curry leading the selected players in both player impact estimate and box plus/minus. His 21.90% impact estimate more than doubled his teammates’ 10.60% average. His box plus/minus reached plus-14.90 against their plus-1.04.
The Lakers and Warriors finished next to each other, but their standout figures raise different questions. One concerns the share of points a player supplies. The others concern his statistical impact relative to his teammates. A useful discussion of NBA balance needs room for both.
Article Continues BelowWho counts as the star changes the comparison
The study’s first decision influences everything that follows. Researchers used early-season VORP to choose one representative per team. They settled ties through win shares, followed by total minutes.
That process gives the comparison a consistent starting point. It also gives the word “star” a precise meaning within this exercise. The selected player leads his team in the measure the researchers chose during the period they examined.
The study then compares that player with an average of everyone else who qualifies. Its methodology applies a 20-minute threshold and requires at least three appearances. The combined index covers win shares, box plus/minus, shooting efficiency, scoring share, player impact estimate, and on/off rating differential.
Those choices make the results interpretable, but the supplied methodology leaves the individual statistical weights unspecified. Readers can examine the reported gaps directly while keeping that limit in mind.
A balanced NBA roster, then, needs a more complete description than a place near the bottom of a dependence ranking. How evenly does it distribute scoring? How closely do teammates match in efficiency? How much does its leading player separate himself in impact?
Utah, Toronto, Phoenix, and Denver show why those questions deserve separate answers. Their smaller gaps help describe the relationships within their rosters. Evaluating those rosters also requires looking at what the players actually produce. Balance becomes more meaningful when we explain both the distance between teammates and the performances behind it.