RealGM

Yes, I know, it is all about flag 17. Once we have secured the home court it is no big deal how many games we win.

That being said, it is nice to be poised to have our first 60 win season since the 86 championship team. 60 wins in the NBA is the mark of a genuine contender, an elite team. It has been a long time.

And it will be nice to set the record for the biggest improvement in wins from one season to the next.

But one accomplishment that has not been noted to my knowledge is this: The Cs are likely to win at least 64 games. That will be the third highest total in team history, after the 67-15 86 championship team and the 68-14 73 team that was one Hondo injury away from being the NBA champion that year.

On a team with the Cs history, having the third best win total (and likely third besty winning percentage) ever is quite an accomplishment.

See for yourself: http://www.basketballreference.com/team ... m=bos&lg=n

If the Cs run the table they can tie the 86 team with 67 wins, but I think that unlikely.

That can be next year's regular season goal.

The way our schedule goes it's not too much of a reach to think we'll run the table. The competition the rest of the way out is pretty poor.

With 8 games to go, we're pretty much to win the rest of the way.

Book it!

If the Cs play like they did last night, the Wizards and Hawks will probably beat them.

I'd much rather scale back KG/PP/RA's minutes to 20-25 a game, maybe give them each a game off, then worry about hitting any win total.

MalReyn wrote:I'd much rather scale back KG/PP/RA's minutes to 20-25 a game, maybe give them each a game off, then worry about hitting any win total.

Exactly. Better to have them fresh for the playoffs!

elrod enchilada wrote:If the Cs play like they did last night, the Wizards and Hawks will probably beat them.

...and if they play like they've done the majority of the seaeson, they'll probably beat anyone. So what's your point? I don't know about you, but I'm willing to bet on the latter.

another little goal thatd be a good sidenote is to match last seasons win total in 20-point wins alone. for us to do that wed have to win half our remaining games by 20. seems kinda out there, but doable. we had 7 20+ wins in march

greenbeans wrote:another little goal thatd be a good sidenote is to match last seasons win total in 20-point wins alone. for us to do that wed have to win half our remaining games by 20. seems kinda out there, but doable. we had 7 20+ wins in march

Honestly that's one I couldn't care less about and I bet the C's feel the same way.

MyInsatiableOne wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Honestly that's one I couldn't care less about and I bet the C's feel the same way.

the same way they could care less about all these other things getting mentioned. i just said itd be a good sidenote.

greenbeans wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

the same way they could care less about all these other things getting mentioned. i just said itd be a good sidenote.

Equating the win total with number of 20+ victories is like saying a baseball player should be just as interested or disinterested in the number of home runs he hits in a season versus the number of home runs he hits when the guy on second base is lefthanded whose name starts with J.

It's comparing a fundamental stat with one made up by some ESPN jerkass in order to sound impressive.

Sorry, don't mean to come off as a jerk but I am so sick of all of these ridiculous stats we get bombarded with when watching and/or following sports.

MyInsatiableOne wrote:Sorry, don't mean to come off as a jerk but I am so sick of all of these ridiculous stats we get bombarded with when watching and/or following sports.

then why would you keep going back to a thread called "another april target" thats in regards to a number of wins that has NO bearing on ANYTHING??

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, IGNORE LIST!


YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

I'd like to see the big three have minutes curtailed, but only to the low 30's per game.

I'd rather have momentum and be firing on all cylinders then any 'rest' the players can get after an 82 game season.

3pt % wrote:I'd like to see the big three have minutes curtailed, but only to the low 30's per game.

I'd rather have momentum and be firing on all cylinders then any 'rest' the players can get after an 82 game season.

but why?!??!? it worked so well for Dallas last year

greenbeans wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



but why?!??!? it worked so well for Dallas last year