RealGM

which of the following outcomes would you say a team is a "winning" team?

you can vote for more than one.

45 wins, 1st round exit
45 wins, 2nd round exit
45 wins, conference finals exit
50 wins, 1st round exit
50 wins, 2nd round exit
50 wins, conference finals exit
55 wins, 1st round exit
55 wins, 2nd round exit
2nd round exit regardless of record
conference finals exit regardless of record

I mean it all depends. 45 wins and a 1st/2nd round exit this year is a lot different than if we do that 4 years in a row.

Winning team is more so about consistency over a span of several years.

Hawks made the ECF 3 years ago but nobody calls them a winning team. Being a consistent playoff team is a winning “team”

If it's just for a single year then top 5 in the conference

1 game over .500?

I think it changes based on age/ where the organization is at in the building process.

42 win team with a ton of youth, that has gotten better over the last few seasons = winning.

42 win team with aging vets & a declining win/ loss % = not winning.

45 wins would've put you 6th in the east but only 9th in the west, so I guess it depends on your perspective.

Overall, though, since the majority of NBA teams don't get to that win total, I'd say 45 is a winning season.

all of those are winning for this team this season.

douggood wrote:all of those are winning for this team this season.

Yeah, if it's for us this season, those are all wins.

As others said, a winning team is consistantly in the Playoffs and plays well there. The round itself is not important, but the opponent they play against. Having a 7 games series against okc in the first round, is more worth than losing in the 2nd round against a so-so team.

All of them are “winning” teams.

Successful? That’s more context dependent.

I would consider pretty much any of these outcomes to be a success for the 25-26 Raptors. Many teams would consider about half of those a failure.

Not interested in a barely .500 team which is "winning". Build towards a legit contender which is usually top 4 in the conference.

14 wins

-tWo

ItsDanger wrote:Not interested in a barely .500 team which is "winning". Build towards a legit contender which is usually top 4 in the conference.

Intermediate steps are required. You don't just go from ass to contender overnight.

tsherkin wrote:

ItsDanger wrote:Not interested in a barely .500 team which is "winning". Build towards a legit contender which is usually top 4 in the conference.

Intermediate steps are required. You don't just go from ass to contender overnight.

Last 4 seasons of the finals teams:

IND: 25 wins - 35 wins - 47 wins - 50 wins (finals)
OKC: 24 wins - 40 wins - 57 wins - 68 wins (finals)

OakleyDokely wrote:Last 4 seasons of the finals teams:

IND: 25 wins - 35 wins - 47 wins - 50 wins (finals)
OKC: 24 wins - 40 wins - 57 wins - 68 wins (finals)

Cool. Scam a team for a Haliburton-level talent with the assets we've got, and then also a Siakam-level talent.

Alternately, scam a team for a Shai-level talent who then gets healthy after his first few seasons with the team, and then turns into an ATG 30/5/6 player on insane efficiency and wins an MVP. (EDIT: Oya, and author an historic -7 defense around said player)

When those options actually become available to us, that sort of commentary becomes viable, you know what I mean? It's not that simple, though.

Timing and opportunity are rooted in luck.

tsherkin wrote:

OakleyDokely wrote:Last 4 seasons of the finals teams:

IND: 25 wins - 35 wins - 47 wins - 50 wins (finals)
OKC: 24 wins - 40 wins - 57 wins - 68 wins (finals)

Cool. Scam a team for a Haliburton-level talent with the assets we've got, and then also a Siakam-level talent.

Alternately, scam a team for a Shai-level talent who then gets healthy after his first few seasons with the team, and then turns into an ATG 30/5/6 player on insane efficiency and wins an MVP. (EDIT: Oya, and author an historic -7 defense around said player)

When those options actually become available to us, that sort of commentary becomes viable, you know what I mean? It's not that simple, though.

Timing and opportunity are rooted in luck.

It's a process and you will fail more often than you will succeed. Maybe Ingram is the guy who replaces Siakam adequately and they get a surprise jump from one of the young guys. Or they don't, and they end up in the lottery again.

OakleyDokely wrote:It's a process and you will fail more often than you will succeed. Maybe Ingram is the guy who replaces Siakam adequately and they get a surprise jump from one of the young guys. Or they don't, and they end up in the lottery again.

This wasn't meant as a criticism of the Raptors' process. It was a note that looking at those specific periods for those teams, there were some things which happened which haven't been available to us.

Indy and OKC had opportunity and they took good advantage of what was available. We have enjoyed neither the same opportunity nor the same luck, which is why our timelines have differed.

tsherkin wrote:

OakleyDokely wrote:It's a process and you will fail more often than you will succeed. Maybe Ingram is the guy who replaces Siakam adequately and they get a surprise jump from one of the young guys. Or they don't, and they end up in the lottery again.

This wasn't meant as a criticism of the Raptors' process. It was a note that looking at those specific periods for those teams, there were some things which happened which haven't been available to us.

Indy and OKC had opportunity and they took good advantage of what was available. We have enjoyed neither the same opportunity nor the same luck, which is why our timelines have differed.

You also don't jump from 18 wins to 58 overnight. That's they key point. Even if you draft a superstar somehow, it takes time to build around that guy and some teams never get it right.

OakleyDokely wrote:You also don't jump from 18 wins to 58 overnight. That's they key point. Even if you draft a superstar somehow, it takes time to build around that guy and some teams never get it right.

Yes. That was the thrust of what I was saying. You need to operate inside your opportunity, and have some patience, because unless you get startlingly lucky, it takes a fair amount of time. And MJ didn't push the Bulls to .500 in his first couple seasons because of the roster context when he arrived, you know what I mean? Orlando went from 21 wins to 41 wins with Shaq. They move the needle only so much (and that was still quite significant), and don't immediately make you contenders.

It's something I rail against on the GB and elsewhere, because people assume a star is crap because he can't immediately overcome the deficiencies of the team around him, and it's straight-up daft.

I feel like making it to the conference finals is when you can start feeling proud about the team.....at that point a finals appearance and a shot at a championship becomes a real possibility.