72-10 Record

[letitshine24]

lakers went 67-15 didnt they when they won the chip in 09? Im pretty sure some of those 15 losses were less than 10 points as well. The record will be broken though, records are meant to be broken. Word to Phil Jackson

 

[letitshine24]

lakers went 67-15 didnt they when they won the chip in 09? Im pretty sure some of those 15 losses were less than 10 points as well. The record will be broken though, records are meant to be broken. Word to Phil Jackson

 

[drop knee 101]

Originally Posted by Just bLAzed

Originally Posted by welcome2jungle

Lakers got the bench this year to get this done and they got the coach if Phil Jackson wants his record broke he will break it this year..
If Lakers start 41-3 at all star break they goin for that record

i'm a laker fan and this is a dumb *** comment
are you a bandwagon fan?

we gotta try to put up with him
jungle stays talking reckless in every thread. hes in

 

[drop knee 101]

Originally Posted by Just bLAzed

Originally Posted by welcome2jungle

Lakers got the bench this year to get this done and they got the coach if Phil Jackson wants his record broke he will break it this year..
If Lakers start 41-3 at all star break they goin for that record

i'm a laker fan and this is a dumb *** comment
are you a bandwagon fan?

we gotta try to put up with him
jungle stays talking reckless in every thread. hes in

 

[welcome2jungle]

La Lakers have the fewest back 2 back games out of all nba teams
i did my research homie

 

[welcome2jungle]

La Lakers have the fewest back 2 back games out of all nba teams
i did my research homie

 

[kb8sandiego]

Originally Posted by welcome2jungle

Lakers might go 73-9 this year yea i said it
Western Conference is weak as hell and their schedule is weak also

 

[kb8sandiego]

Originally Posted by welcome2jungle

Lakers might go 73-9 this year yea i said it
Western Conference is weak as hell and their schedule is weak also

 

[dmbrhs]

My research also shows me they haven't had a road trip yet. It's a long season.

 

[dmbrhs]

My research also shows me they haven't had a road trip yet. It's a long season.

 

[welcome2jungle]

yea its a long season and look at the 2 toughest road trips they have only 1 back to back game
i speak with facts about this schedule
Kobe is gonna win his mvp award rite here on these 2 road trips & make those Kobe VIs popular more than the Vs
he gonna show n prove

March
Sun 06 @ San Antonio 12:30pm
Tue 08 @ Atlanta
Thu 10 @ Miami 5:00pm
Sat 12 @ Dallas 5:30pm

Feb
Sat 05 @ New Orleans 5:00pm
Mon 07 @ Memphis 5:00pm
Thu 10 @ Boston 5:00pm
Fri 11 @ New York 5:00pm
Sun 13 @ Orlando 12:30pm
Mon 14 @ Charlotte 4:00pm
Wed 16 @ Cleveland 4:30pm

 

[welcome2jungle]

yea its a long season and look at the 2 toughest road trips they have only 1 back to back game
i speak with facts about this schedule
Kobe is gonna win his mvp award rite here on these 2 road trips & make those Kobe VIs popular more than the Vs
he gonna show n prove

March
Sun 06 @ San Antonio 12:30pm
Tue 08 @ Atlanta
Thu 10 @ Miami 5:00pm
Sat 12 @ Dallas 5:30pm

Feb
Sat 05 @ New Orleans 5:00pm
Mon 07 @ Memphis 5:00pm
Thu 10 @ Boston 5:00pm
Fri 11 @ New York 5:00pm
Sun 13 @ Orlando 12:30pm
Mon 14 @ Charlotte 4:00pm
Wed 16 @ Cleveland 4:30pm

 

[benjamin stone]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

It's a long season.

Very true.

Notice how reactionary sports is now, on an almost minute-to-minute basis. Everybody is always prepared to crown someone, or call a single loss the biggest disaster of all time, like entire franchises will fall because of a bad defeat in early November. Then the next game the presumed dying wreck of a team blows somebody out and all is well. Just speaking in general of course, but that's the way people react these days.

That being said the Lakers have been real impressive. For 7 games. But they are already proving to be a tremendous team, from to top to bottom. It all comes down to health; as much as Kobe doesn't like to hear the questions, they're still valid. It's inevitable. Unfortunately for those anticipating a steep decline, I don't see it happening this year. 

Lakers are just part of the story this year. It's a good time to be an NBA fan...
  

 

[benjamin stone]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

It's a long season.

Very true.

Notice how reactionary sports is now, on an almost minute-to-minute basis. Everybody is always prepared to crown someone, or call a single loss the biggest disaster of all time, like entire franchises will fall because of a bad defeat in early November. Then the next game the presumed dying wreck of a team blows somebody out and all is well. Just speaking in general of course, but that's the way people react these days.

That being said the Lakers have been real impressive. For 7 games. But they are already proving to be a tremendous team, from to top to bottom. It all comes down to health; as much as Kobe doesn't like to hear the questions, they're still valid. It's inevitable. Unfortunately for those anticipating a steep decline, I don't see it happening this year. 

Lakers are just part of the story this year. It's a good time to be an NBA fan...
  

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by Remi23

Originally Posted by nycknicks105

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Well...has anyone actually had a close chance to being 72-10?

These teams sit their starters at the end of the season because they already have more than 10 losses....

this thread sucks...

in 2007 Dallas went 67-15

& What happen to them

What happened to them had nothing to do with them not resting their stars at the end of the season.

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by Remi23

Originally Posted by nycknicks105

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Well...has anyone actually had a close chance to being 72-10?

These teams sit their starters at the end of the season because they already have more than 10 losses....

this thread sucks...

in 2007 Dallas went 67-15

& What happen to them

What happened to them had nothing to do with them not resting their stars at the end of the season.

 

[welcome2jungle]

Dallas lost because Dirk didnt take charge and Golden State was young n runnin
Just like Okc Thunder did the Lakers last year only difference Kobe & Gasol wasnt havin that
1st round ko treatment

 

[welcome2jungle]

Dallas lost because Dirk didnt take charge and Golden State was young n runnin
Just like Okc Thunder did the Lakers last year only difference Kobe & Gasol wasnt havin that
1st round ko treatment

 

[recycledpaper]

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

Originally Posted by recycledpaper

lakers look unbeatable and they don't even have bynum.

beating 72-10 is very possible. the lakers just gotta want it.

anyone who's a laker fan or follows the lakers knows their not going to win 70 or more games.  these are the lakers  they'll race off to a great start,  get bored and lose games to teams they have no business to which will prompt all the panic threads and they'll get it together late going into the playoffs end they'll end with around 61-62 wins. 

now i hope they can get home court advantage throughout the playoffs though but staying healthy and going into the playoffs in the best position to defend the title is what matters most to me.

anyone who's a laker fan or follows the lakers should ALSO know that since acquiring gasol, we haven't had a bench even REMOTELY close to our current bench.

most of the games we lost was because our bench was unable to maintain our lead or bring any energy/hustle. our bench scoring last year was ABYSMAL. this season, we have a FULLY RESTED kobe and gasol, odom is in amazing shape thanks to him being on team USA, and a relatively easy schedule compared to last year.

i would say beating 72-10 is very possible.

 

[recycledpaper]

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

Originally Posted by recycledpaper

lakers look unbeatable and they don't even have bynum.

beating 72-10 is very possible. the lakers just gotta want it.

anyone who's a laker fan or follows the lakers knows their not going to win 70 or more games.  these are the lakers  they'll race off to a great start,  get bored and lose games to teams they have no business to which will prompt all the panic threads and they'll get it together late going into the playoffs end they'll end with around 61-62 wins. 

now i hope they can get home court advantage throughout the playoffs though but staying healthy and going into the playoffs in the best position to defend the title is what matters most to me.

anyone who's a laker fan or follows the lakers should ALSO know that since acquiring gasol, we haven't had a bench even REMOTELY close to our current bench.

most of the games we lost was because our bench was unable to maintain our lead or bring any energy/hustle. our bench scoring last year was ABYSMAL. this season, we have a FULLY RESTED kobe and gasol, odom is in amazing shape thanks to him being on team USA, and a relatively easy schedule compared to last year.

i would say beating 72-10 is very possible.

 

[kenji714]

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

Originally Posted by recycledpaper

lakers look unbeatable and they don't even have bynum.

beating 72-10 is very possible. the lakers just gotta want it.

anyone who's a laker fan or follows the lakers knows their not going to win 70 or more games.  these are the lakers  they'll race off to a great start,  get bored and lose games to teams they have no business to which will prompt all the panic threads and they'll get it together late going into the playoffs end they'll end with around 61-62 wins. 

now i hope they can get home court advantage throughout the playoffs though but staying healthy and going into the playoffs in the best position to defend the title is what matters most to me.

 

[kenji714]

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

Originally Posted by recycledpaper

lakers look unbeatable and they don't even have bynum.

beating 72-10 is very possible. the lakers just gotta want it.

anyone who's a laker fan or follows the lakers knows their not going to win 70 or more games.  these are the lakers  they'll race off to a great start,  get bored and lose games to teams they have no business to which will prompt all the panic threads and they'll get it together late going into the playoffs end they'll end with around 61-62 wins. 

now i hope they can get home court advantage throughout the playoffs though but staying healthy and going into the playoffs in the best position to defend the title is what matters most to me.

 

[will068]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

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.

 One of those 10 games lost were against the Raptors. Chicago being sportsmanlike for the losing teams like Vancouver and Toronto. They would play along with them until the 4th quarter - this is when the Bull would pick it up a notch and a single digit game would easily finish as a double digit game. End Result: fans extremely satisfied that they are given the illusion that their home team can keep up with the MJ led Bulls. Unfortunately for the Bulls, they let the game slide for too long and they weren't able to brush off the Raps in that game they lost. MJ hit the last shot that would have sealed the game - but it was not counted since he released the ball to late. It could have easily have been a 73-09 season.

 

[will068]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

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.

 One of those 10 games lost were against the Raptors. Chicago being sportsmanlike for the losing teams like Vancouver and Toronto. They would play along with them until the 4th quarter - this is when the Bull would pick it up a notch and a single digit game would easily finish as a double digit game. End Result: fans extremely satisfied that they are given the illusion that their home team can keep up with the MJ led Bulls. Unfortunately for the Bulls, they let the game slide for too long and they weren't able to brush off the Raps in that game they lost. MJ hit the last shot that would have sealed the game - but it was not counted since he released the ball to late. It could have easily have been a 73-09 season.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

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.


Differences between a team's home record and away record is a part of the game. The 08-09 Cavs only lost one game at home as well, so what? And one of the games the Bulls lost was to the expansion Raptors. So out the window goes that argument. Fewer teams does NOT mean that the league was tougher. I simply refuse to believe that winning a championship is tougher the fewer teams there are in the league, because that ultimately means that the toughest league would be a league with two teams. And that's just stupid On the contrary, more teams just means that there is a higher possibility of a team running into another team that is significantly worse on paper, but might be a matchup problem - example 1994 Sonics Vs Nuggets and 2007 Mavs Vs Warriors. By 95-96, the league had so many sources to take players from that being "watered down" was not a problem. How many international players were there in 85-86? By 95-96 there was Divac, Petrovic (who would've been playing had he not passed away prior to 95-96), Kukoc, Sabonis, Radja, Marciulionis, all above average or even good players. And I'm sure I'm forgetting more. Basketball had grown a lot in those ten years, thanks to Bird and those Celtics (and Magic, Jordan and others of course) and because of that there were more quality players available in colleges.

They won with Wennington and Longley as their centers. AND??? They won with Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman as their shooting guard, small forward and power forwards. What's your point? The main jobs of the center was to add inside presence. They obviously made up for that by having clearly the best rebounder of the game and one of the best interior defenders in Dennis Rodman. The scoring was not an issue with Jordan and Pippen averaging 50+ combined.

And since we're talking about would'ves, what about the 95-96 Bulls missing Dennis Rodman in three of their losses?