- Aug 29, 2009
- 1,515
- 19
i'm a laker fan and this is a dumb *** comment
are you a bandwagon fan?
72-10 Record
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by curtiscarter23,
- Start date
i'm a laker fan and this is a dumb *** comment
are you a bandwagon fan?
- Nov 1, 2005
- 26,898
- 383
There's going to be a team to top it... But not anytime soon.
- Nov 1, 2005
- 26,898
- 383
There's going to be a team to top it... But not anytime soon.
- Dec 17, 2003
- 9,530
- 91
- Dec 17, 2003
- 9,530
- 91
- Jul 29, 2001
- 25,568
- 17,106
The '86 Celtics are the prime example of a team that could have done it, but fits the "didn't care about the regular season" argument:
1. They lost one game at home the entire season, including playoffs (56-1 overall). They'd go on road trips and just mess around a couple games at a time (for instance, Bird used to play with his off hand because he'd get so bored). They had multiple two game losing streaks because they just didn't try. They just knew they weren't losing at home. Plain and simple. So if they got home court, it wouldn't matter what their record was.
1A. By that same token, Steve Kerr said this about the '96 Bulls: there are a number of back-to-backs, especially on the road, where even good teams just pack it in for the second game, and it amounts to a handful of extra/avoidable/bad losses per season. Teams like the '86 Celtics didn't care about those games. But Jordan was so competitive that he was responsible for winning those extra games. Without Jordan caring as much, that Bulls were probably a 65 to 67 win team, just like everyone other great team.
2. The '96 Bulls had the fortune of playing at a time when the league was at its most diluted point (they won 72 games with Wennington and Longley as their centers!). The Raptors and Grizzlies were added that season, so there's six games that were basically gimmes for a team like the Bulls. Six teams had been added in eight years, and the talent pool hadn't caught up yet, especially with two brand new teams. I could also dive into lazy players and bloated contracts, but it's too easy.
2A. Remember, the '86 Celtics, even while goofing around, managed 67 wins when the league was at its highest concentration of talent. Mass expansion set in two seasons later.
1. They lost one game at home the entire season, including playoffs (56-1 overall). They'd go on road trips and just mess around a couple games at a time (for instance, Bird used to play with his off hand because he'd get so bored). They had multiple two game losing streaks because they just didn't try. They just knew they weren't losing at home. Plain and simple. So if they got home court, it wouldn't matter what their record was.
1A. By that same token, Steve Kerr said this about the '96 Bulls: there are a number of back-to-backs, especially on the road, where even good teams just pack it in for the second game, and it amounts to a handful of extra/avoidable/bad losses per season. Teams like the '86 Celtics didn't care about those games. But Jordan was so competitive that he was responsible for winning those extra games. Without Jordan caring as much, that Bulls were probably a 65 to 67 win team, just like everyone other great team.
2. The '96 Bulls had the fortune of playing at a time when the league was at its most diluted point (they won 72 games with Wennington and Longley as their centers!). The Raptors and Grizzlies were added that season, so there's six games that were basically gimmes for a team like the Bulls. Six teams had been added in eight years, and the talent pool hadn't caught up yet, especially with two brand new teams. I could also dive into lazy players and bloated contracts, but it's too easy.
2A. Remember, the '86 Celtics, even while goofing around, managed 67 wins when the league was at its highest concentration of talent. Mass expansion set in two seasons later.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 25,568
- 17,106
The '86 Celtics are the prime example of a team that could have done it, but fits the "didn't care about the regular season" argument:
1. They lost one game at home the entire season, including playoffs (56-1 overall). They'd go on road trips and just mess around a couple games at a time (for instance, Bird used to play with his off hand because he'd get so bored). They had multiple two game losing streaks because they just didn't try. They just knew they weren't losing at home. Plain and simple. So if they got home court, it wouldn't matter what their record was.
1A. By that same token, Steve Kerr said this about the '96 Bulls: there are a number of back-to-backs, especially on the road, where even good teams just pack it in for the second game, and it amounts to a handful of extra/avoidable/bad losses per season. Teams like the '86 Celtics didn't care about those games. But Jordan was so competitive that he was responsible for winning those extra games. Without Jordan caring as much, that Bulls were probably a 65 to 67 win team, just like everyone other great team.
2. The '96 Bulls had the fortune of playing at a time when the league was at its most diluted point (they won 72 games with Wennington and Longley as their centers!). The Raptors and Grizzlies were added that season, so there's six games that were basically gimmes for a team like the Bulls. Six teams had been added in eight years, and the talent pool hadn't caught up yet, especially with two brand new teams. I could also dive into lazy players and bloated contracts, but it's too easy.
2A. Remember, the '86 Celtics, even while goofing around, managed 67 wins when the league was at its highest concentration of talent. Mass expansion set in two seasons later.
1. They lost one game at home the entire season, including playoffs (56-1 overall). They'd go on road trips and just mess around a couple games at a time (for instance, Bird used to play with his off hand because he'd get so bored). They had multiple two game losing streaks because they just didn't try. They just knew they weren't losing at home. Plain and simple. So if they got home court, it wouldn't matter what their record was.
1A. By that same token, Steve Kerr said this about the '96 Bulls: there are a number of back-to-backs, especially on the road, where even good teams just pack it in for the second game, and it amounts to a handful of extra/avoidable/bad losses per season. Teams like the '86 Celtics didn't care about those games. But Jordan was so competitive that he was responsible for winning those extra games. Without Jordan caring as much, that Bulls were probably a 65 to 67 win team, just like everyone other great team.
2. The '96 Bulls had the fortune of playing at a time when the league was at its most diluted point (they won 72 games with Wennington and Longley as their centers!). The Raptors and Grizzlies were added that season, so there's six games that were basically gimmes for a team like the Bulls. Six teams had been added in eight years, and the talent pool hadn't caught up yet, especially with two brand new teams. I could also dive into lazy players and bloated contracts, but it's too easy.
2A. Remember, the '86 Celtics, even while goofing around, managed 67 wins when the league was at its highest concentration of talent. Mass expansion set in two seasons later.
- Apr 8, 2005
- 11,640
- 506
in 2007 Dallas went 67-15
- Apr 8, 2005
- 11,640
- 506
in 2007 Dallas went 67-15
- May 8, 2006
- 13,432
- 224
Originally Posted by RustyShackleford
I'm a huge Lakers fan and I don't believe this #%++
- May 8, 2006
- 13,432
- 224
Originally Posted by RustyShackleford
I'm a huge Lakers fan and I don't believe this #%++
- Sep 7, 2006
- 7,322
- 112
As much as I dislike Laker fans, I think this years Lakers are certainly capable of pulling off a 67+ win season. They have a very good team that may be deeper than the last 2 title winning teams, they are in a terrible division, the West is weaker than in years prior, etc. Do I think they'll win 70? No...its just too tough for any team to do due to the reasons listed above (schedule, motivation, resting players at the end of the season, etc) but I think if this years Lakers really wanted it they could finish with close to 70.
- Sep 7, 2006
- 7,322
- 112
As much as I dislike Laker fans, I think this years Lakers are certainly capable of pulling off a 67+ win season. They have a very good team that may be deeper than the last 2 title winning teams, they are in a terrible division, the West is weaker than in years prior, etc. Do I think they'll win 70? No...its just too tough for any team to do due to the reasons listed above (schedule, motivation, resting players at the end of the season, etc) but I think if this years Lakers really wanted it they could finish with close to 70.
- Jan 10, 2008
- 1,234
- 10
Yup. I don't think it's about teams not caring or trying. It's a combination of things. It's a record that quite possibly will never be touched but yet it's thrown around by the media (and then the kids) like it has a chance every single year of happening. It's not even on the radar for me for things to potentially see in a given year.
Here is the bottom line: Only two teams (MJ's 95-96 team and 96-97 team) have gotten past the 67-win mark since the beginning of the 70's. Yet you have media people who think it's actually worthwhile to spend their time saying the Heat could go 73-9 or better.
that 96-97 team is always overlooked.. almost repeating a 70 win season the year after is truly remarkable. ( 69-13 )
- Jan 10, 2008
- 1,234
- 10
Yup. I don't think it's about teams not caring or trying. It's a combination of things. It's a record that quite possibly will never be touched but yet it's thrown around by the media (and then the kids) like it has a chance every single year of happening. It's not even on the radar for me for things to potentially see in a given year.
Here is the bottom line: Only two teams (MJ's 95-96 team and 96-97 team) have gotten past the 67-win mark since the beginning of the 70's. Yet you have media people who think it's actually worthwhile to spend their time saying the Heat could go 73-9 or better.
that 96-97 team is always overlooked.. almost repeating a 70 win season the year after is truly remarkable. ( 69-13 )
- Sep 22, 2009
- 5,261
- 11
that 96-97 team is always overlooked.. almost repeating a 70 win season the year after is truly remarkable. ( 69-13 )
And we were literally a shot away from 70 wins, I think Pip missed a shot against the Knicks.
- Sep 22, 2009
- 5,261
- 11
that 96-97 team is always overlooked.. almost repeating a 70 win season the year after is truly remarkable. ( 69-13 )
And we were literally a shot away from 70 wins, I think Pip missed a shot against the Knicks.
cedric ceballos 1995 lakers
Banned
- Jul 1, 2009
- 10,833
- 11
And we were literally a shot away from 70 wins, I think Pip missed a shot against the Knicks.
they lost the last game of the season at home to the knicks which kept them at 69. i remember it was a prime time saturday night game on nbc. god i miss nbc, i could never imagine a saturday night regular season game on prime time on crappy abc
cedric ceballos 1995 lakers
Banned
- Jul 1, 2009
- 10,833
- 11
And we were literally a shot away from 70 wins, I think Pip missed a shot against the Knicks.
they lost the last game of the season at home to the knicks which kept them at 69. i remember it was a prime time saturday night game on nbc. god i miss nbc, i could never imagine a saturday night regular season game on prime time on crappy abc
Humbled
formerly whatslosinlike
- Aug 4, 2010
- 15,707
- 2,314
Humbled
formerly whatslosinlike
- Aug 4, 2010
- 15,707
- 2,314
do be doo
Banned
- Mar 13, 2009
- 6,589
- 547
do be doo
Banned
- Mar 13, 2009
- 6,589
- 547
- Aug 11, 2006
- 772
- 10
Schedule is weak?
- Aug 11, 2006
- 772
- 10
Schedule is weak?
