ImageImageImageImageImage

72 wins was closer than it looked!

Moderators: Kilroy, Danny Darko, TyCobb

User avatar
Anklebreaker702
RealGM
Posts: 13,946
And1: 164
Joined: Mar 29, 2008
Location: Las Vegas (2nd Home of the Lakers)
   

72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#1 » by Anklebreaker702 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:02 am

The Lakers lost 17 games this year, of those 17 only 5 games were ones that we really had no chance to win:
1. Detroit (Staples)
2. Sacramento (Arco) Trying to save Theus' job
3. Denver (Pepsi Center) We shot 29% for the game coming off a back to back
4. Phoenix (American West Arena)
5. Portland (Rose Garden) In March

That leaves us to ponder the 12 loses that were winnable games. Of those 12 games, if we just go 6-6 instead of 0-12 we would have had 71 wins & that's just going .500. let's take a look at some very winnable games that we let get away.

1. Indiana (Conseco Fieldhouse) Tip in at the buzzer after Bynum sits out most of the 4th quarter crunch time.
2. Miami (American Airlines Arena) Kobe's game winning shot goes most of the way down & rattles out
3. Orlando (Amway Arena) Sasha's 3 to win the game goes down further than Kobe's shot the night before & pops out.
4. San Antonio (SBC Center) Fisher's Bone head mistake costs us the win up there.
5. Charlotte (Staples) Lamar comes off his man with us up 2, to leave Diaw open for 3, we lose
6. Utah (Energy Solutions Arena) Pau doubles down in the paint with us up 2 & leaves Okur open for three, we lose.
7. Philly (Staples) Iguodala hits a 3 at the buzzer with us up 2, we lose.

Those are the 7 that stood out in my mind which would have given us 72 wins. Also we lost Bynum for 32 games. I know injury's are part of the game so I really don't want to get too deep in to that but give me your opinions on if you agree or not & if we can make a run at it next year :D
VETERAN LAKER FAN
User avatar
DEEP3CL
RealGM
Posts: 27,899
And1: 3,207
Joined: Jul 23, 2005
Location: LOS ANGELES,CA.
     

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#2 » by DEEP3CL » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:11 am

And here's another knife in the back, of those 7 loses two of those teams didn't make the playoffs. There's your HCA right there. Next season they'll know to punish teams like Indy and Charlotte.
VETERAN LAKERS FAN

SmartWentCrazy wrote:It's extremely unlikely that they end up in the top 3.They're probably better off trying to win and giving Philly the 8th pick than tanking and giving them the 4th.
Sedale Threatt
RealGM
Posts: 50,890
And1: 44,967
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#3 » by Sedale Threatt » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:19 am

Without scrutinizing our schedule I'd bet we had at least as many victories by 2 or 3 points, so if you assume that we could have won a few of the above listed games with a break or two you have to acknowledge that we could have easily lost a few of our close calls as well.

I was skeptical of 70 wins before the season, and once we hit game 20 or 30 or so it became pretty clear that it simply wasn't going to happen. Not to say it's impossible, but that Bulls team was the absolute perfect storm, a mix of talent and veteran savvy that simply wasn't going to be denied. Not with Jordan hungry for another ring after his long layoff, and not with guys like Pippen and Rodman getting his back. Rodman even missed a quarter of the schedule, and they didn't skip a beat.

I just don't see this Lakers squad being built to match the consistent intensity and energy it would take to do match a feat like that. How do you sweep teams like Boston and Cleveland, and get swept by Charlotte?

Even so, 65 victories is a hell of an accomplishment. I put that 86-87 team on a pedestal, and it's amazing this team was able to match that. The only negative is Cleveland just had to pick the same year to have the best season in franchise history and swipe homecourt. Maybe if Bynum stays healthy we win another couple of games, but we'll never know.
Sedale Threatt
RealGM
Posts: 50,890
And1: 44,967
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#4 » by Sedale Threatt » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:28 am

Interesting side note -- that Bulls team lost three games by one point.
User avatar
Anklebreaker702
RealGM
Posts: 13,946
And1: 164
Joined: Mar 29, 2008
Location: Las Vegas (2nd Home of the Lakers)
   

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#5 » by Anklebreaker702 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:31 am

Sedale Threatt wrote:Without scrutinizing our schedule I'd bet we had at least as many victories by 2 or 3 points, so if you assume that we could have won a few of the above listed games with a break or two you have to acknowledge that we could have easily lost a few of our close calls as well.

I was skeptical of 70 wins before the season, and once we hit game 20 or 30 or so it became pretty clear that it simply wasn't going to happen. Not to say it's impossible, but that Bulls team was the absolute perfect storm, a mix of talent and veteran savvy that simply wasn't going to be denied. Not with Jordan hungry for another ring after his long layoff, and not with guys like Pippen and Rodman getting his back. Rodman even missed a quarter of the schedule, and they didn't skip a beat.

I just don't see this Lakers squad being built to match the consistent intensity and energy it would take to do match a feat like that. How do you sweep teams like Boston and Cleveland, and get swept by Charlotte?

Even so, 65 victories is a hell of an accomplishment. I put that 86-87 team on a pedestal, and it's amazing this team was able to match that. The only negative is Cleveland just had to pick the same year to have the best season in franchise history and swipe homecourt. Maybe if Bynum stays healthy we win another couple of games, but we'll never know.

Those are good points ST but I only remember off the top of the head 1 game we won that we probably shouldn't have was the 2nd time we played N.O. @ Staples. I'll look on the schedule & see how many came down to the wire. I hear what you're saying about that Bulls team but I'd like to see us get to that level. The reason that we got swept by Charlotte is the old saying, match up. Dallas won 67 games a few years back & was swept in the regular season by G.S. who staggered into the playoffs as the 8th seed & met Dallas in the 1st round and true to form, knocked them out of the playoffs. It was a bad match up for them.
VETERAN LAKER FAN
Erik Eleven
RealGM
Posts: 16,468
And1: 17
Joined: Feb 12, 2005

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#6 » by Erik Eleven » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:50 am

I believe I had us at 65-17, so no need for me to make excuses. :wink:

That Nicka did too, I think. :wave:
Sedale Threatt
RealGM
Posts: 50,890
And1: 44,967
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#7 » by Sedale Threatt » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:58 am

anklebreaker702 wrote:I hear what you're saying about that Bulls team but I'd like to see us get to that level.


Maybe if we get on the roll of all rolls, and stay completely healthy, and get no bad bounces for six months, and get about five years worth of good ones, but otherwise I don't think it's possible.

Even with some of the wins we missed out on, I never got the sense we were consistent enough, especially on the defensive end, to match an achievement like that. You have to pretty much be locked in for all 82 games, and we took too many nights off for that.

But like I said, 65 wins is remarkable enough. I don't think more than 15 teams in league history have ever won that many. Only one has ever got to 70, and there are plenty of reasons for that.

Personally, I'd be damn happy with "just" the championship.
User avatar
Anklebreaker702
RealGM
Posts: 13,946
And1: 164
Joined: Mar 29, 2008
Location: Las Vegas (2nd Home of the Lakers)
   

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#8 » by Anklebreaker702 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:12 am

Sedale Threatt wrote:
Personally, I'd be damn happy with "just" the championship.

Lol that is the main goal!!!!!!
VETERAN LAKER FAN
User avatar
Dr Aki
RealGM
Posts: 35,685
And1: 31,925
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
   

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#9 » by Dr Aki » Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:48 am

whoever made that remark about 66 wins earning HCA was dead on too
Image
User avatar
Speedlot
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,163
And1: 720
Joined: Jan 01, 2007
         

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#10 » by Speedlot » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:33 am

The same can be said about our last second wins...I'm happy with the record really. The west is TOUGHER after all. And it's not like we didn't dominate the EAST's Elites. (save orlando)
That Nicka
Banned User
Posts: 15,350
And1: 34
Joined: Jun 28, 2005
Location: USC

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#11 » by That Nicka » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:35 am

Erik Eleven wrote:I believe I had us at 65-17, so no need for me to make excuses. :wink:

That Nicka did too, I think. :wave:



:wink:

I think next year we may be even better... We will have a playoff savvy Bynum, and Kobe/Gasol will have all summer to rest instead of the olympics taking up much of their time.... I think next year will be our peak
User avatar
PhilJackZEN10
Junior
Posts: 418
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: A champion will be knocked down, but never be knocked out!

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#12 » by PhilJackZEN10 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:45 pm

It's nice to think that 72 was this close. BUT, it really wasn't. I watched all 82 Bulls games in 1996 and all 82 Lakers games this year. There isn't a comparison to the two teams. That Bulls team would have never lost these games like that, or at least not that many. To think that 72 is that attainable is ridiculous. Saying that 1/2 of our losses should have been W's but bonehead plays caused us to lose is contradictory. We lost these games not because of these singular plays, but because we should have never lost to teams like Indiana, Charlotte (twice), etc,. Winning that many games is simply incredible.
User avatar
Anklebreaker702
RealGM
Posts: 13,946
And1: 164
Joined: Mar 29, 2008
Location: Las Vegas (2nd Home of the Lakers)
   

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#13 » by Anklebreaker702 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:55 pm

PhilJackZEN10 wrote:It's nice to think that 72 was this close. BUT, it really wasn't. I watched all 82 Bulls games in 1996 and all 82 Lakers games this year. There isn't a comparison to the two teams. That Bulls team would have never lost these games like that, or at least not that many. To think that 72 is that attainable is ridiculous. Saying that 1/2 of our losses should have been W's but bonehead plays caused us to lose is contradictory. We lost these games not because of these singular plays, but because we should have never lost to teams like Indiana, Charlotte (twice), etc,. Winning that many games is simply incredible.

I respect that, but I would like to add the fact that the league may be more competitive now. The Bulls were a cut above the rest & everyone else was trying to compete with them.
VETERAN LAKER FAN
User avatar
Anklebreaker702
RealGM
Posts: 13,946
And1: 164
Joined: Mar 29, 2008
Location: Las Vegas (2nd Home of the Lakers)
   

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#14 » by Anklebreaker702 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:58 pm

That Nicka wrote:
Erik Eleven wrote:I believe I had us at 65-17, so no need for me to make excuses. :wink:

That Nicka did too, I think. :wave:



:wink:

I think next year we may be even better... We will have a playoff savvy Bynum, and Kobe/Gasol will have all summer to rest instead of the olympics taking up much of their time.... I think next year will be our peak

I'm with you nicka, I really think if we put our minds to it & stay healthy we could have a shot at it. Remember the Bulls made up their minds to go for it right before the start of the season & stayed focused. I believe we could make a run at it. This team may not have as many superstars but it definitely deeper & more talented
VETERAN LAKER FAN
User avatar
aroba
Senior
Posts: 641
And1: 43
Joined: Aug 08, 2008

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#15 » by aroba » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:31 pm

Sedale Threatt wrote:I was skeptical of 70 wins before the season, and once we hit game 20 or 30 or so it became pretty clear that it simply wasn't going to happen. Not to say it's impossible, but that Bulls team was the absolute perfect storm, a mix of talent and veteran savvy that simply wasn't going to be denied. Not with Jordan hungry for another ring after his long layoff, and not with guys like Pippen and Rodman getting his back. Rodman even missed a quarter of the schedule, and they didn't skip a beat.

...not to say, Chicago is in the middle of the US. That data can look stupid, but is not when you're doing road trips. Less flying time, better rest, more wins
User avatar
SuigintouEV
General Manager
Posts: 7,939
And1: 1,556
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
Contact:
   

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#16 » by SuigintouEV » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:31 pm

by G.S. who staggered into the playoffs as the 8th seed & met Dallas in the 1st round and true to form,


G.S. didn't stagger into the playoffs, they were absolutely dominant after they made the trade for stephen jackson and al harrington midway into the season.
Image
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
User avatar
Dr Aki
RealGM
Posts: 35,685
And1: 31,925
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
   

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#17 » by Dr Aki » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:07 am

SuigintouEV wrote:
by G.S. who staggered into the playoffs as the 8th seed & met Dallas in the 1st round and true to form,


G.S. didn't stagger into the playoffs, they were absolutely dominant after they made the trade for stephen jackson and al harrington midway into the season.


and we all knew dallas couldnt defend athletic wings from getting repeatedly burned by kobe and wade through the years

they still dont have a wing defender still!

golden state was matchup hell for dallas, in which they couldnt defend 3 positions on the court
Image
User avatar
DEEP3CL
RealGM
Posts: 27,899
And1: 3,207
Joined: Jul 23, 2005
Location: LOS ANGELES,CA.
     

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#18 » by DEEP3CL » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:54 am

PhilJackZEN10 wrote:. To think that 72 is that attainable is ridiculous.
It was very attainable, focus was an issue with this team and it cost them in games they should've won period.

PhilJackZEN10 wrote: Saying that 1/2 of our losses should have been W's but bonehead plays caused us to lose is contradictory. We lost these games not because of these singular plays, but because we should have never lost to teams like Indiana, Charlotte (twice), etc,. Winning that many games is simply incredible.
Your saying it's contradictory but you fail to explain why the games were actually lost. What your saying is totally irrelevent, you can't sit here and tell me that the games lost in San Antonio and Utah were games we had no chance in winning. Again focus comes back into what I said was the problem with this team.

It's no way to sugar coat it, bone headed playes cost them those games same thing with the Philly game at home. You have to exacute in every facet in ball, when you don't those things happen.
VETERAN LAKERS FAN

SmartWentCrazy wrote:It's extremely unlikely that they end up in the top 3.They're probably better off trying to win and giving Philly the 8th pick than tanking and giving them the 4th.
User avatar
Dr Aki
RealGM
Posts: 35,685
And1: 31,925
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
   

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#19 » by Dr Aki » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:05 am

at OP

it was attainable only if we had our heads switched during all the games, which is impossible without mentally exhausting the team

the simple fact remains, we had boneheaded plays, oppositions had boneheaded plays. if we went and replayed all those plays again, the lakers might have lost a few that they won

the fact is, for every philly or indiana last second buzzer beater or a kobe or sasha in-and-out bucket, we've had just as many if not more shots missed from oppositions in which we've scraped a win through the skin on our teeth

you need to look at our wins as well. its an elementary mistake to just look at the losses. its obviously the wrong way to make an argument, you're picking and choosing what statistics (losses only) you want to look at that is not indicative of the entire sample population (entire season) and you're systematically making incorrect assumptions which leads to incorrect conclusions.
Image
User avatar
Anklebreaker702
RealGM
Posts: 13,946
And1: 164
Joined: Mar 29, 2008
Location: Las Vegas (2nd Home of the Lakers)
   

Re: 72 wins was closer than it looked! 

Post#20 » by Anklebreaker702 » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:47 am

Akiho wrote:
and we all knew dallas couldnt defend athletic wings from getting repeatedly burned by kobe and wade through the years

they still dont have a wing defender still!

golden state was matchup hell for dallas, in which they couldnt defend 3 positions on the court

You're proving my point. Don't dissect part of my statement & run with it. I said they were a bad match up for Dallas & yes a wing defender falls under 1 of the reasons why they were a bad match up for them.
VETERAN LAKER FAN

Return to Los Angeles Lakers