If you’ve been around NBA DFS long enough, you’ve probably heard someone say, “You have to stack if you want to win tournaments.” That’s solid advice in NFL or MLB DFS — but in NBA DFS, it’s arguably a misunderstood concept.
Yes, stacking in NBA DFS can work out. And a type of stacking is probably OK to a degree, but it’s not necessarily always what it’s cracked up to be.
Let’s dive into why stacking in NBA DFS may not always be the answer, what good can still come of it, and the best way to go about stacking in NBA contests.
Why Stacking in NBA DFS Might Not Be Ideal
Basketball simply doesn’t lend itself to the same type of linear correlations you get in football. When a quarterback throws a touchdown to a wide receiver, both players benefit from the same event. But in the NBA, every player on the floor is chasing the same limited stats: points, rebounds, assists, and usage. That creates competition, not correlation.
Stacking in NBA DFS can work occasionally — but far more often, it limits upside, inflates risk, and shrinks your lineup’s chance of separating from the field. Let’s break down why.
Correlation in Basketball is Weaker by Design
The first mistake DFS players make is assuming correlation exists in the same way it does in other sports.
In NFL, the correlation between a QB and WR can hover around 0.65 to 0.75 in fantasy points. In NBA, most teammate correlations fall between 0.1 and 0.3, and many are even negative — meaning one player’s success often comes at another’s expense.
Why? Because basketball is continuous. Every possession has multiple contributors and outcomes. A made basket benefits one scorer and removes a potential rebound or assist from someone else. It’s not a chain of dependent events — it’s a tug-of-war for limited production.
Even statistical studies of DFS correlation (such as those from NumberFire, etc) consistently show that most NBA teammates have either weak or negative fantasy correlations. There are exceptions (mainly assist-to-scorer duos), but the vast majority of player pairings simply don’t mesh well together.
The Overlap Problem — Competing for Stats
Here’s where most NBA DFS stacks go wrong: usage overlap.
Every NBA team has a finite pie of fantasy production. When one player goes off, it usually means someone else took fewer shots, grabbed fewer rebounds, or lost potential assists. That’s just the nature of basketball.
Take Luka Doncic and Kyrie Irving when they were together on the Mavericks as an example. They’re both elite, but when Luka posts a 70-fantasy-point night, Kyrie usually lands in the 30s — and vice versa. They both command heavy usage and ball-handling responsibilities, which directly eats into each other’s ceiling.
Or look at Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown. They’ve coexisted for years, but their high-usage styles mean that 60+ DK point games rarely happen for both on the same night. You might get correlation in minutes played, but not in actual production.
They might both do well, but they may not both smash, and they probably aren’t paying of their salaries, either.
The bottom line: the more players you roster from the same team who share the same responsibilities, the more likely you’re cannibalizing your lineup’s upside.
Blowouts Kill NBA DFS Team Stacks
Even if your stack gets off to a hot start, there’s one thing that can destroy all that potential in an instant — a blowout.
NBA rotations shrink and expand based on score. If your stacked team wins by 25, the starters are sitting for most of the fourth quarter. You didn’t just lose one player’s minutes — you lost every player in the stack at the same time.
Example: A full Nuggets stack might look great in a matchup versus the Wizards, but if Denver’s up by 30 after three quarters, Jokic, Murray, and any other Nuggets starters you use all lose valuable minutes. Meanwhile, your opponent who one-offed Jokic and spent the rest of their salary elsewhere keeps piling up points.
NBA DFS is a game of opportunity. Stacking amplifies both the upside and the downside — and blowouts are one of the biggest downside risks in NBA DFS.
Salary and Lineup Diversity Risks
Stacking doesn’t just affect correlation — it restricts flexibility.
When you load up two or three expensive players from one team, you’re committing a massive portion of your salary to one game script. If that game doesn’t shoot out, your entire lineup sinks. On smaller slates, this also means you’re locking yourself out of elite players in better game environments.
For instance, a full Embiid–Maxey–Oubre stack can easily run $28K+ in salary. That leaves you scrounging for value on the rest of your roster. If the Sixers underperform — even slightly — your lineup is dead before the late games tip off.
It doesn’t have to be the full trio failing to exceed expectations, either. Over-stacking could still fail if even one of them falter.
This is why most sharp NBA DFS players prefer exposure diversity. Instead of going all-in on one team, they spread their salary across multiple game environments with high pace, close spreads, and multiple paths to upside.
Opposing Player Correlation Is Overrated
“Game stacking” — grabbing players from both sides of the same matchup — is another concept that gets borrowed from NFL DFS. In theory, it makes sense: if the game shoots out, both sides should benefit.
In practice, NBA doesn’t work that way.
Opposing player correlations are weak unless the total is extremely high (think 235+) and the spread is tight (within 5 points). Even then, there’s no guarantee stars from both sides go off. You’ll often see one dominate while the other fades due to foul trouble, defensive focus, or substitution patterns.
For example, stacking Curry and LeBron sounds great on paper, but when Curry’s raining threes, LeBron’s not inherently scoring more. Their fantasy outcomes aren’t connected in any meaningful way. They’re both usage monsters — just in separate universes.
Game stacking can sometimes work in pace-up shootouts (like Kings–Pacers last season), but it’s not the reliable GPP edge people think it is.
The moral of the story isn’t that stacking a game is inherently bad. It can still work out and targeting players from both sides of a game with a high total and a tight spread is still good practice. But assuming game stacking automatically puts you in position for success isn’t.
Better Alternatives to Stacking
Instead of forcing correlation, focus on logical synergy and game environments.
- Mini-stacks that make sense — PG + C combos where one’s assists directly feed the other’s scoring (e.g., Kyrie+Gafford).
- Exposure to multiple fast-paced teams — Target players from several games with top-5 pace or high totals rather than loading up on one game. Close spreads are a bonus.
- Ownership leverage — Fade the obvious stack when it’s chalky and pivot to one-offs with similar upside in quieter games. If you feel that stack has to be played, make sure you’re getting different in another way.
- Ceiling independence — Pair players whose production doesn’t cannibalize each other (like a rebound-heavy PF with a scoring SG).
These approaches still give you upside — but without the downside risk that comes from stacking a fragile game script.
Now, does this mean two guards can’t go off on the same team on the same night? Or that team stacking can’t go your way? Of course not. But it’s not the best way to consistently approach NBA DFS lineups.
When Stacking Does Make Sense
There are times when stacking can still work — but they’re rare and context-dependent.
- Small slates (3–4 games) – Where everyone’s player pool overlaps. You may need to stack just to differentiate lineups.
- High-total shootouts (230+ O/U) – Where pace and usage are concentrated among a few players.
- Cheap value stacks – Where players don’t compete for stats (like a PG + bench shooter pairing).
Even then, treat stacking as a tool, not a default setting. It should be intentional, not automatic.
Don’t Stack Out of Habit
The biggest mistake NBA DFS players make is assuming stacking equals strategy. It doesn’t. In most cases, it’s just a lazy way of building lineups that cap your upside and increase your risk.
Sure, you can get lucky, but over time this can be a losing strategy. If you’re going to stack, make sure each play you’re using still has legs to stand on – stack aside.
NBA DFS success comes from understanding roles, pace, usage, and context. Not copying what works in other sports.
So before you jam in three players from the same team, ask yourself: do their stat lines truly depend on one another? If the answer is no — and it usually is — you’re better off spreading out your exposure and letting correlation come naturally.
Should You Stack in NBA DFS?
Stacking in NBA DFS isn’t inherently bad — it’s just overused and often misunderstood. The sharper approach is to build lineups that tell a story about the game environment, not a single team. That’s how you turn projections into profit — and variance into opportunity.
Betting on one of 10+ games being the game to stack is risky. You can always shoot for the moon, but the better approach is to simply play the best possible plays and build a lineup that projects well and isn’t super owned – all while trying to correlate it the best you can.
Leave a Reply