RealGM

I know we already have a power rankings for week 18, however this is a different topic using the power rankings and something Phil Jackson mentioned.

In the NBA Power Rankings for Week 18, Phil Jackson says: in order to be considered Elite you need 40 wins before 20 losses?

Do you agree?

The latest pearl of Zen wisdom from Phil Jackson: "40 before 20." Translation: You must win 40 games before you lose 20 to be seen as an elite team . . . and these Lakers just did so for the first time since Shaq left.

Source: ESPN

If that is the case, then that means these are the only elite teams in the league.

Boston Celtics
Detroit Pistons
San Antonio Spurs
LA Lakers
[possibly the hornets who are 39-19]

i agree, and you know the Hornets play the knicks tonight, right?

just add the Hornets to that list

If anyone would know the definition of an elite team its Phil...

disagree - phil is just building up his players. By Phil's definition, Miami wasn't elite 2 years ago and they won the world championship. They lost their 20th game with just 30 wins, then went on a 10 game winning streak to get to 40-20. How is that any worse than a team who gets to 40-19 then loses their next game?

lj4mvp wrote:disagree - phil is just building up his players. By Phil's definition, Miami wasn't elite 2 years ago and they won the world championship. They lost their 20th game with just 30 wins, then went on a 10 game winning streak to get to 40-20. How is that any worse than a team who gets to 40-19 then loses their next game?

Build up his players? Phil said this when LA was sitting at 37-17.

Cracked Fingers wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Build up his players? Phil said this when LA was sitting at 37-17.

Actually, that quote is from years ago. It was just brought up recently at a press conference.

lj4mvp wrote:disagree - phil is just building up his players. By Phil's definition, Miami wasn't elite 2 years ago and they won the world championship. They lost their 20th game with just 30 wins, then went on a 10 game winning streak to get to 40-20. How is that any worse than a team who gets to 40-19 then loses their next game?

in the regular season they werent elite, if you remember they really morphed into a contender during their playoff run getting stronger each round...they were above average in the regular season but not elite, they didnt have a good record against top teams in the nba...but that all changed in the playoffs..


i agree with the 40/20 idea but i don't necessarily think it's the ONLY way of determining elite teams

I think it's a good rule of thumb. As long as you just use it as a rule of thumb.

In the west, where the separation is like 4 games, it doesn't make a 41-19 team suddenly clear cut superior to a 39-21 team because of this. They are all very good teams, that are elite or near elite.

i think its a rule of thumb as well. it doesn't have to be exactly 40-20 - because teams go through injuries, trades etc.

teams like utah or the mavs probably have lost 20 games already, but they are both elite teams that will be hard to win against no matter how good the other team is. houston is another team that falls in that category.

hornets have the knicks tonight. we'll see.

So does you can be considered an elite team for a single year then all of a sudden you arent because you lost 20 games first?

Can you be elite with this kind of record then get smashed out of the 1st round by a low seed convincingly ala The Dallas Mavs?

Meh, don't buy it.

i know miami was mentioned but other than that anyone know the number of champions in the last 10-15 years that indeed reached 40 before 20?

True. Its a good rule of thumb but theres always exceptions to the rule.

In other words: win two-thirds of your games? A total of 55 for the season? and then you're elite?

dcash4 wrote:i know miami was mentioned but other than that anyone know the number of champions in the last 10-15 years that indeed reached 40 before 20?

Championships from 2000- 2007

2000 Lakers

40-11


2001 Lakers

40-19


2002 Lakers

40-17


2003 Spurs

40-17

2004 Pistons

36-20


2005 Spurs

40-11

2006 Heat

30-20


2007 Spurs

40-18

Don't really wash.

You could be 40-0 and then go 0-20...how good are you now?

You could be 24-20 and then go 15-0 with a chance of 16-0, but without your key centre for the rest of the season...are Houston elite?

Bigmagicfan82 wrote:

dcash4 wrote:i know miami was mentioned but other than that anyone know the number of champions in the last 10-15 years that indeed reached 40 before 20?

Championships from 2000- 2007

2000 Lakers

40-11


2001 Lakers

40-19


2002 Lakers

40-17


2003 Spurs

40-17

2004 Pistons

36-20


2005 Spurs

40-11

2006 Heat

30-20


2007 Spurs

40-18

Also all the Bull's championship teams ( I Think)

Well if this is the rule the Hornets can now join the elite list

FlightNo.23 wrote:True. Its a good rule of thumb but theres always exceptions to the rule.

^ It's obviously a good indicator, but definitely not the only one. Considering the last two championship teams from the east didn't manage to reach 40 before 20, I'd say it's not %100 accurate.

Young_Star11 wrote:Don't really wash.

You could be 40-0 and then go 0-20...how good are you now?

You could be 24-20 and then go 15-0 with a chance of 16-0, but without your key centre for the rest of the season...are Houston elite?

And air could be water. Now please give us an example as it relates to the NBA. Which teams have done that?

Anyway, people make such a big deal out of these quotes. They get dozens of questions a day from the media. This quote was taken out of context. It's not a rule of thumb. It probably related specifically to the Lakers at that time, and Phil was just saying his team was for real. And they were. They won 3 in a row.

That's Phil's perspective of elite. I don't necessarily agree with it, but all the current elite teams have done that rule that he pointed out.