This is not a prediction, but...

a look at the historical advantages and disadvantages for the stars on the upcoming 16th season of DWTS.  This is based on past season results, with the raw data accessible here.

Age

Top-to-bottom, this chart shows the most statistically age-advantaged stars to the most statistically age-disadvantaged stars:

The average placement (Avg Place) is the averaged result of all previous stars who fit the age group of the current star when they competed.  Those results are adjusted to a scale of 1st through 12th place (a.k.a. "normalized") prior to averaging.

For most stars, the comparative age group consists of same gender stars within 2 years of their current age.  For some stars, the comparative group was too small to calculate a reliable average, so a bigger comparative group was improvised.  These improvised groups are in italics, and their averages are in red.

Height

Following the same idea described for age, this chart lists the most statistically height-advantaged stars down to the most statistically height-disadvantaged stars:

Heights are shown in inches, and height groups are defined as males or females within 1 inch of the current star's height.

Job

This chart shows the most job-advantaged stars down to the most job-disadvantaged stars:

Job groups are based on the categories defined on ABC's fantasy DWTS casting site, and are separated by gender.  Also, a subgroup of Basketball, Boxing, & Tennis (BBT) Athletes was distinguished from the other Athletes.  For those groups with too few stars to yield a reliable average, males & females were combined to create a larger comparison group.  These combined groups and averages are shown in italics and red type.

Pros

This chart shows the most statistically pro-advantaged stars down to the potentially pro-disadvantaged stars:

The averages are most meaningful and stable for the pros who have had the most star partners.  Only Derek and Cheryl are notably advantageous.  Despite last season's win, Tony is historically somewhat disadvantageous, but that's only relative to the other established pros.  (His average placement of about 7th place isn't bad, but it's about a full place below the 4 pros above him.)  The potentially disadvantaged group is more a wild card group that includes three first-time new pros, and two still relatively new pros.

For the first-timers, an improvised average was based on the first-year results of the 7 most recent new pros.  (Namely, Peta, Tristan, Val, Damian, Anna Demidova, Chelsie, and Dmitry.)  Aside from being recent enough to be relevant to the current show's dynamics, this group includes pros with similar backgrounds as the new pros.  (i.e. SYTYD crossovers Chelsie & Lindsay, Burn the Floor alums Peta & Sharna, pro competitors Val & Gleb.)

Technically, Val and Tristan rank below the improvised new pro average, but their averages (and Peta's) are still volatile.  Meaningful and stable averages for the first-year and fourth-year pros won't be available until they have competed with at least 5-7 partners.

Alternate New Pro Average:

Another way to improvise an average for the new pros is to use the average of the Season 13 new pros (Peta, Tristan, Val).  Although a smaller group, their situation may be more comparable to the new pros', likewise being a recent set of three new pros.  The new improvised average falls below Val & Tristan:

Overall Averages

This chart indicates the overall average of the historical age, height, job, and pro group averages for each current star.  They are listed from the most overall statistically advantaged star down to the most overall statistically disadvantaged star:

I used job average as a tie-breaker where needed.  The reasoning is that job is the nearest available proxy for fanbase and skills.

Weighted Average

The simple overall averages showed little separation of the middle group.  I tried recalculating the numbers with a weighted average.  Based on both correlations (in the spreadsheet linked above), and the idea of job as a fanbase and skill proxy, I increased the importance of job by 50%, and decreased the importance of height by 50%.  Using job average as a tie-breaker, here are the weighted overall averages, listed from the most overall advantaged star to most overall disadvantaged star:

The results are clustered by three, because they break down somewhat nicely that way.

Alternate New Pro Average:

The bottom 2 clusters are slightly different if the alternate new pro average is used, with D.L. & Victor switching positions:

Comments

Again, this is not a prediction post, but rather an assessment of historical advantages and disadvantages.  That said, the weighted averages appear consistent with general predictions that fans and media pundits are making.  (The one surprise, personally, is Sean's better-than-expected average, resulting primarily from his youth.)  Otherwise, I generally think that the stars' final placements will transition within these clusters, or possibly transition to within one cluster above or one cluster below.

That is, I imagine that the three most advantaged stars (Aly, Jacoby, Kellie) will each finish somewhere in the top 6; that the three most disadvantaged stars (D.L./Victor, Lisa, and Andy) will each finish somewhere in the bottom 6; that the top middle cluster (Dorothy, Ingo, & Zendaya) will each finish somewhere 1-9; and that the bottom middle cluster (Sean, Winona, Victor/D.L.) will each finish somewhere 4-12.  (But again, that's not a prediction.  It's just my personal interpretation of the numbers.)