Lakers reaching 70 wins?

[Prof. Clutch]

It's awfully difficult to win 70 games.  How hard?  So hard that only one team in the history of the NBA has ever won that many in a season.

[JHTruth]

No chance. I think both the Celtics and Lakers will win more than the Heat but no one has a chance to come close to 70. There's just too many tough teams. They do seem to be far and away the West's best team though..

[drza44]

I've thought the Celtics have had a legit chance at 70 every year since KG has been here, and I think they do this year as well with the caveats of health and motivation.

If all 3 teams stay healthy, I really think LA, Boston and Miami could push each other until one stumbles into 70.  Miami needs HCA the most of the 3 IMO, Boston has been recently burned by not having HCA against the Lakers, and the Lakers (read Kobe) have to be irritated by all the Heat buzz and might decide to keep the hammer down for reg season HCA.

Bottom line, I wouldn't be surprised if 70 was in play.

[pearljammer10]

With Garnett healthy this year they look like the 08 championship team only better. Making to within 4 points of a championship last year with an injured Garnett is incredible. With a healthier more explosive Garnett and a better overall core, I think we have to be considered one of the major teams to watch out for in the end.

[papa shuttlesworth]

I think an underappreciated part of the 72 win season was that there were two expansion teams that year.  That drops the strength of schedule by a bit.  It probably only increased the total wins by 1 or 2, but that is enough when shooting for a record.

[xmuscularghandix]

I think an underappreciated part of the 72 win season was that there were two expansion teams that year.  That drops the strength of schedule by a bit.  It probably only increased the total wins by 1 or 2, but that is enough when shooting for a record.

One of The Bulls loses actually came against the 21-61 Toronto Raptors, and it wasn’t even on a back to back.

[papa shuttlesworth]

I think an underappreciated part of the 72 win season was that there were two expansion teams that year.  That drops the strength of schedule by a bit.  It probably only increased the total wins by 1 or 2, but that is enough when shooting for a record.

One of The Bulls loses actually came against the 21-61 Toronto Raptors, and it wasn’t even on a back to back.

I forgot about that.  Looking back, that Raptors team was anchored by the twin towers of Zan Tabak and Oliver Miller, so they were bound to upset some good teams.

[Greenbean]

I think an underappreciated part of the 72 win season was that there were two expansion teams that year.  That drops the strength of schedule by a bit.  It probably only increased the total wins by 1 or 2, but that is enough when shooting for a record.

One of The Bulls loses actually came against the 21-61 Toronto Raptors, and it wasn’t even on a back to back.

I wouldnt be surprised if MJ threw that game just to strengthen the argument that they were the best team ever.

Kind of like, "See our win total wasnt inflated. We lost to an expansion team."

Nothing regarding the depths of his competitiveness would surprise me.

[LakersFan_33]

[/quote]

  Yes, but most posters aren't claiming that our early wins show that we'll win 70 games.
[/quote]

Most Lakers fans (including myself) don't think that they'll reach 70 wins this year...Don't really care either. If you look closer, you'll realize it's just the media that needs something to talk about.

[BballTim]

  Yes, but most posters aren't claiming that our early wins show that we'll win 70 games.
[/quote]

Most Lakers fans (including myself) don't think that they'll reach 70 wins this year...Don't really care either. If you look closer, you'll realize it's just the media that needs something to talk about.
[/quote]

  I'm not sure what the problem is. If we were talking about whether the Celts were going to win 70 games and someone said we'd had an easy schedule so far, I don't think "the Lakers and the Heat have also had easy schedules" would be a useful reply.

[MBunge]

I think an underappreciated part of the 72 win season was that there were two expansion teams that year.  That drops the strength of schedule by a bit.  It probably only increased the total wins by 1 or 2, but that is enough when shooting for a record.

One of The Bulls loses actually came against the 21-61 Toronto Raptors, and it wasn’t even on a back to back.

The point about expansion isn't the two most recent teams that year.  It's that the NBA had added 6 new teams in 7 years with that season.  That's a lot of 1st round draft picks going to crappy teams instead of Bulls' competitors.

[papa shuttlesworth]

I think an underappreciated part of the 72 win season was that there were two expansion teams that year.  That drops the strength of schedule by a bit.  It probably only increased the total wins by 1 or 2, but that is enough when shooting for a record.

One of The Bulls loses actually came against the 21-61 Toronto Raptors, and it wasn’t even on a back to back.

The point about expansion isn't the two most recent teams that year.  It's that the NBA had added 6 new teams in 7 years with that season.  That's a lot of 1st round draft picks going to crappy teams instead of Bulls' competitors.

My point was actually just about the expansion teams for that season, but TP for making my argument stronger!

[bdm860]

I think an underappreciated part of the 72 win season was that there were two expansion teams that year.  That drops the strength of schedule by a bit.  It probably only increased the total wins by 1 or 2, but that is enough when shooting for a record.

One of The Bulls loses actually came against the 21-61 Toronto Raptors, and it wasn’t even on a back to back.

The point about expansion isn't the two most recent teams that year.  It's that the NBA had added 6 new teams in 7 years with that season.  That's a lot of 1st round draft picks going to crappy teams instead of Bulls' competitors.

I think that's a valid point.

Although I wonder on the flip side of that, is it easier to play 14 teams in your conference 3-4 times a year, or the 10-11 teams in your conference 5-6 times a year (in the 80's).  Or we can take it back even further, and play every team in the league 4-8 times a year (in the 70's), or every team in the league 10 times a year (in the 60's).

Plus I wonder if it's tougher traveling to 22 different cities, as opposed to 28-29 different cities, or just 10 different cities.  You're still playing 41 games on the road, but more cities might make the travel more "grueling." 

Not that I disagree with the expansion theory, just something to think about on the flip side of it.

[Witch-King]

The Lakers aren't going to win 70 games, they didn't even win 60 games last season and will be extremely lucky to win even win 65 games. I doubt the Lakers will even attain a winning-streak that is more than, say 16 games long this season. If y'all think back to two seasons ago the Celtics had won 19 games straight going into the Christmas Day game vs the Lakers, which we barely lost. 

[Moranis]

I think an underappreciated part of the 72 win season was that there were two expansion teams that year.  That drops the strength of schedule by a bit.  It probably only increased the total wins by 1 or 2, but that is enough when shooting for a record.

One of The Bulls loses actually came against the 21-61 Toronto Raptors, and it wasn’t even on a back to back.

The point about expansion isn't the two most recent teams that year.  It's that the NBA had added 6 new teams in 7 years with that season.  That's a lot of 1st round draft picks going to crappy teams instead of Bulls' competitors.

I think that's a valid point.

Although I wonder on the flip side of that, is it easier to play 14 teams in your conference 3-4 times a year, or the 10-11 teams in your conference 5-6 times a year (in the 80's).  Or we can take it back even further, and play every team in the league 4-8 times a year (in the 70's), or every team in the league 10 times a year (in the 60's).

Plus I wonder if it's tougher traveling to 22 different cities, as opposed to 28-29 different cities, or just 10 different cities.  You're still playing 41 games on the road, but more cities might make the travel more "grueling." 

Not that I disagree with the expansion theory, just something to think about on the flip side of it.

That Bulls team was just that good.  It came in at the right time, but it would have won at least 65 games in virtually every season in NBA history.  It was just a perfectly constructed team.  You had two top 50 players who were each notivated and in their prime playing on the wing (MJ and Pip), excellent shooters on the perimeter (kerr and buechler), the best rebounder ever (rodman), big bodies banging on the inside (longley and wennington), an excellent defensive PG (harper) and the best 6th man in the league (kukoc).  The Bulls won 69 games the next season but mailed in the last week losing 3 of their last 4.  So it wasn't like it was a one year fluke either.