OT: 72 wins seem safe

[Rerisen]

Do you remember those great days when we, as fans, almost always came away happy?

I remember being occasionally, secretly happy, when the Bulls would go down early 20-10 or something because I knew that it wouldn't just be a boring blow out and we would make a exciting comeback and crush some team's hopes in the end.

Now when we go down 20-10 early, I just cry.

[Scott May]

Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak will be broken before a team wins 72 games.

It's an extremely long shot that either will be broken, but if I had to put money on it, I'd say 72 wins is slightly more likely to be surpassed. Even for the most skilled hitter, a streak of that length relies on a series of lucky breaks. Winning 72 games in the NBA has absolutely nothing to do with luck.

If there is one record that I don't see being broken under any circumstances, it's the 72-73 Lakers 33-game winning streak. Oh, and however many years in a row it was that the Iowa wrestling team went without losing a match.

[TB#1]

-= original quote snipped =-



It's an extremely long shot that either will be broken, but if I had to put money on it, I'd say 72 wins is slightly more likely to be surpassed. Even for the most skilled hitter, a streak of that length relies on a series of lucky breaks. Winning 72 games in the NBA has absolutely nothing to do with luck.

If there is one record that I don't see being broken under any circumstances, it's the 72-73 Lakers 33-game winning streak. Oh, and however many years in a row it was that the Iowa wrestling team went without losing a match.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that winning 72 games has nothing to do with luck -- getting that bounce going your way on a bad night, the luck involved with nobody seriously turning an ankle, etc. -- but overall I agree that the dominating talent needed to win 72 is by far the most significant factor in that situation and there is more luck needed to maintain a single player's hitting streak.

I absolutely agree that the Lakers 33 game streak is pretty close to untouchable.

I'll have to take your word on it with the wrestling thing.

[Leslie Forman]

Winning 72 games in the NBA has absolutely nothing to do with luck.

I don't know about that.

But really, that team should've won at least 73. How the F do you lose to Toronto? TORONTO?!

What was most remarkable about that team wasn't even the 72 wins, it was that they led the league in both offensive and defensive efficiency. That has never, ever been done. That is far more unlikely to happen than 72 wins. Hell, forget about efficiency, if they had given up just five less points over the entire season, they would've been the only team in history to have led the league in points scored and given up.

The only team I can even imagine coming close in the forseeable future is the Blazers, but I don't think they'll ever all be healthy enough at the same time to do it.

[Scott May]

I forgot UCLA's 88-game winning streak in college. Um, that one's pretty safe, I think.

I was mistaken -- I thought that Iowa didn't lose a match for nine years in a row. They won nine consecutive NCAA titles, but they didn't go undefeated through that stretch.

[TB#1]

Don't forget Cal Ripken Jr's 2632 game iron man streak. Also probably safe.

[kyrv]

i can't believe some people actually thought the C's were on track to best our 72 win season.

fellas, we started out that year 41-3!

it seems like once every few years a team gets off to a blazing start and all of a sudden people start clamoring about 70 wins. what most don't realize is that in the second half of the season, you usually lose twice as many games as you did in the first half of the season.

the 96 bulls were a team of destiny, i don't know that we will ever see that many wins again in our lifetime. sure, records are meant to be broken, but will we be around to see it?

That made me giggle. Every game has one winner and one loser (so one loss), so in the last 41 games of the season, there are the same amount of losses in the NBA as in the first half.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

I can't believe I was ever actually worried about this.

Now that I think about it I'm not sure why I was.

Our top two players were better than their big 3, probably combined. Our third best player, Rodman, was better than everyone but Garnett.

So comparing out big three
Jordan
...
Pippen
Garnett
...
Rodman
...
Pierce
Allen

Then comparing our role players it isn't even funny. People forget that before being on the Bulls Ron Harper was a 20ppg scorer. Longley was a big stiff, but Kendrick Perkins is very meh. Then we have one of the best sixth men ever.

Remind me again why I was every worried?

Oh yea, knock on wood.

[BR0D1E86]

-= original quote snipped =-

I'll have to take your word on it with the wrestling thing.

I don

[emperorjones]

fellas, we started out that year 41-3!

yeah, the team really fell off the second half of the season if I remember correctly?

[Eminjay7]

Well, I was never really scared, but perhaps they'll try to beat that record next year with a more well attuned team and probably better role-players. But I dont think it's possible these days for any team to beat our record.

[emperorjones]

Seriously though, Doc Rivers is nuts playing Allen and Pierce 38+ minutes a game every night. These two will not be ready for a playoff push. I expect them to have a rough March/April and to struggle late. KG will need to pull them through in the end.

[suckfish]

I think a lot of it is down to Rondo's play, he was out the first game and only played 24 mins last night. He really is crucial to there season.

That and Ray Allen has to play better.

[emperorjones]

Allen's running on fumes

[TB#1]

Allen's running on fumes

Basically all his numbers are down from his career average, but he still has a season average of 17.6 ppg, 4 boards and 3 assists, shooting .412 FG, .367 from 3 and .921 from the line. Last game out he had 16/6/3, with a steal and a block.

There are plenty of guys on the Chicago roster a lot younger who could use a few puffs of those fumes.

[Dieselbound&Down]

I will admit having no sentimental attachment to the record. It would not bother me at all if/when it gets broken. It certainly looks safe for the foreseeable future though.

The one thing I remember the Bulls not getting done was going undefeated at home. IIRC, they lost the last home game of the year against a very average Milwaukee or Indiana team. I'm surprised no one has gone undefeated at home yet as several teams have come within a loss or two of that mark.

For the record, Dan Gable was the wrestling coach at Iowa for 21 years (76 to 97) and his team won 15 national championships and 21 Big Ten championships. Wrestling is a minor sport but that is still a pretty impressive accomplishment.

[suckfish]

By the way, I was only talking about Allen is his last few games. Since he sat out a little while with that injury he seems to be out of rhythm. He will get it back, just from what I have seen he was looking pretty bad.

[cool007]

People are overrating Ray Allen a lot.

If you think Gordon takes bad shots, Ray Allen is far worse. Even with Garnett and Pierce, Allen still takes bad shots.

He should be high on FG % but he is even worse.

He usually has game where he goes for 9-16 and then come back with 3-15 type game. He is NO Consistent.

It's always grass is greener on the other side.

[emperorjones]

-= original quote snipped =-



Basically all his numbers are down from his career average, but he still has a season average of 17.6 ppg, 4 boards and 3 assists, shooting .412 FG, .367 from 3 and .921 from the line. Last game out he had 16/6/3, with a steal and a block.

There are plenty of guys on the Chicago roster a lot younger who could use a few puffs of those fumes.

He should be way higher % wise now that he is the 3rd option and defenses are not focused on him. Plus KG is such a great passer out of the post. That fact that he isn't? If he were on the Bulls right now we'd likely be asking why he cant be as productive as Wallace IMO. and I like Allen.

Fuuuuuummmmmessssss.

[Polynice4Pippen]

-= original quote snipped =-



It's an extremely long shot that either will be broken, but if I had to put money on it, I'd say 72 wins is slightly more likely to be surpassed. Even for the most skilled hitter, a streak of that length relies on a series of lucky breaks. Winning 72 games in the NBA has absolutely nothing to do with luck.

If there is one record that I don't see being broken under any circumstances, it's the 72-73 Lakers 33-game winning streak. Oh, and however many years in a row it was that the Iowa wrestling team went without losing a match.

Good point. But my personal feeling is that an individual "unbreakable" record will always be more attainable than a team "unbreakable" record for the obvious reason that only one person has to be counted on to get the job done. With a team record so many things have to come together and work out perfectly. It goes beyond ability and even the desire and drive and proper mentality. Team records involve chemistry and everyone remaining on the same page. They involve a whole collection of players staying healthy, not just one person. They involve the coach/players communication to remain strong and intact for a collection a varying personalities. They involve multiple egos being held in check and leadership emerging. That's an awful lot to ask over the course of a 6 month season whereas one baseball player could just get into a zone and pound out line drives everyday for 2 months straight. I believe that's far more plausible.