Comments on: Layups: Phil Jackson on 72 Wins

By: dsong

dsong — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:32:58 +0000

Come on, guys; neither the Lakers nor the Heat will win anywhere close to 72 games...

By: kingkong

kingkong — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:44:41 +0000

I think the argument isn't that the best record means something, it's that winning over 70 games means something which is kind of true, if a team wins 60+ and rests their starters at the end, they're just as good and have the #1 seed anyway

By: taheati

taheati — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:15:12 +0000

It's "hermeneutical" only if you believe Doc Rivers took a pipe to KGs knee so the Cs wouldn't win so much. In the regular season.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:23:26 +0000

That was my fault. I'm amazed that people can believe that the best record means nothing. I seem to encounter this sentiment quite often.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:06:58 +0000

I took #1 to not only mean that having the best RS record was not a guarantee of a championship ("doesn't mean that the team is going to win the chip"), but also that in and of itself it has little inherent historical value, at least when compared to winning a championship ("winning the most games during the RS means crap"). Either way, why exactly are we engaging in a hermeneutical study of JTaylor21's comment?

By: taheati

taheati — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:47:39 +0000

#3/#5 Max is unambiguously correct. The Bulls were 37-5 "around" Super Bowl Sunday (1/26/92) or "around" MLK Day (1/20/92). They were not 37-5 "around" the All-Star break on February 9th -- 16 days or more than half-a-month away. Jackson either misremembered their record around the break or was referring to the 37-5 Bulls, as you point out, of two weeks prior. Had those then-Bulls (37-5 .881) continued apace, they would've finished the season 72-10. I also don't see how #1 & #4 are "both right." #1 said "the RS means crap and doesn't mean that the team is going to win the chip". As I understood #1's usage, "means" meant predictive, as in the regular season does *not* predict the likelihood of a championship. #1 further cited the Celtics as "a team that doesn't try to win every RS game instead focuses on staying healthy and getting primed for a deep playoff-run", which, however unsubstantiated or counterfactual, *clearly* reinforces #1's supposition that regular season success is *not* predictive of postseason or championship success. #4 cited facts to the contrary. #4 is *clearly* correct on fact & merit while #1 is clearly orbiting another planet.

By: Gil Meriken

Gil Meriken — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:26:01 +0000

I wouldn't bet on the Lakers breaking that 72 win mark, but that's not really going out on a limb.

Well, at least the Heat still have a chance at 79-3 after tonight!

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 01:55:05 +0000

You're both right... Ricardo is correct, having the best record is predictive of playoff performance (not as predictive as point differential/SRS, but predictive nonetheless). And JTaylor is also correct when he says the best record, by itself, has traditionally been considered meaningless if the team doesn't win a championship. The best regular-season record helps you on that path by giving you home-court and an easier road to the Finals seeding-wise, but it's essentially nothing more than a means to an end. In other words, the top record is an important piece of evidence to suggest that a team should be favored to win the title. But after the fact, the only thing most people will remember/care about is what you did with that favorite status once the playoffs began.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 01:28:24 +0000

"Neil, you're right. Winning the most games during the RS means crap"

No it doesn't mean crap.

In sixty-four seasons, the team that won the best RS record won the championship 31 times. The team with the second-best record won the championship 19 times. Third place or worse only won it 14 times.

In those fourteen instances, the eventual champion had home court in 74 series out of 114 played.

Sorry, but record matters quite a bit. Best record = best bet.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:50:58 +0000

Good catch... Chicago was 37-5 on January 25 after winning 13 straight games, and 42-9 right after the AS break, but their record was never really as good as Jackson apparently remembers it being. That said, as late as January 28, their season W-L% was still better than the pace they'd need the rest of the season to have 70 wins: