Winning 70 games: Is it possible versus it being important

[campybatman]

In my opinion, I believed Boston could've achieved seventy wins last season if you consider those close games that ended as losses. I remember the Turkoglu and Baron Davis buzzer beaters on the road or the defeats at home namely against Toronto and Utah. Could've, would've, should've... I know... But, I was convinced Boston could pull it off last season. What a gyp! No, I'm kidding...

1. The 1995-96 Bulls (72-10) are the only team in NBA history to win at least 70 regular-season games. What's your early read on the Lakers' chances of reaching that milestone? How about the Celtics'?

Ian Thomsen: I don't see it as being important to the Celtics. As impressive as they've been overall, they've embarked on a bad trend this season of falling behind early in games and that is going to result in a few losses along the way. I see the Celtics making a priority of keeping Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen fresh and healthy going into the playoffs. Doc Rivers is likely to follow the example of Gregg Popovich's approach to pacing his team through the regular season, even if it means sacrificing a game or two.

The Lakers are too young to pull it off. That Bulls team was a highly professional and committed group that focused on the job each night. These Lakers around Kobe Bryant haven't even won a championship yet, so they have too much to learn before they can think of becoming the most dominant team of them all. The Lakers are very impressive and they have the game's best player, but let's wait until February or March and see how healthy they (and their rivals) are before we begin comparing them to the most accomplished teams.

Marty Burns: The Lakers have the size and depth to make a good run at it, but not the mental toughness (other than Kobe) to get all the way to 70. The Celtics have the mental toughness, but not the size and depth.

Jack McCallum: Neither will come within 10 games of reaching it. Not only were the Bulls blessed with having the all-time assassin, Jordan, bent on reaching a record level of wins, but the team was also extraordinarily lucky in terms of injuries. Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr and Ron Harper missed only a few games among them, and Dennis Rodman was fine in between suspensions. We are now in an era when players inevitably break down, and somewhere along the line this will happen to Boston or L.A.

Steve Aschburner: I doubt the Lakers or anyone else will win 70 games because this isn't an expansion year. When Chicago won 72 games in 1995-96, Vancouver and Toronto were brand-new entries and absorbed 125 losses (the Grizzlies and the Raptors were a combined 1-5 against the Bulls). Several existing teams were inept, too, with Philadelphia (64), Milwaukee (57), Dallas (56) and Minnesota (56) all losing more than two-thirds of their games. Yet against that backdrop, only six teams besides the Bulls won at least 50.

Put simply, there are more good teams now. Last season, 11 teams won 50 or more. I expect 10 or 11 to do it again this year. Meanwhile, the bottom-feeders are getting better; of the seven teams that lost 56 or more last season, four -- New York, Milwaukee, Miami and Minnesota -- could push toward or past 30 victories. From there, all it takes is the wrong combination of back-to-backs and one semiserious injury to derail a club hoping for 70.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/b ... ml?eref=T1

[DEEP3CL]

Both teams are certainly good enough, but honestly I don't think it's either teams main goal. I'm quite sure both fan bases would like to see it but it's too many factors involved to even make a run at. I read that article early in the preseason.................same old stuff from the experts............lol at Jack McCallum on thinking neither team can even win 60 what ever Jack.

[campybatman]

For me, you win as many games as possible to secure home court advantage throughout the eastern or western conference playoffs. That's important. Both Boston and Los Angeles (Lakers) had that going for them last season. Once you've secured said advantage, then no one can blame you for playing it conservatively in the last one or two months. However, one can point out that you want to remain competitive and still motivated while you conclude your regular season. If you coast, you could pay for it. You'll like to rest or reduce the regular minutes of your starters but not to the extent of losing games that are left to the reserves to win. I would think that the league dislikes that: Not giving a full effort for an entire 82-games season.

[AlCelticFan]

I don't think that the regular season win total record is particularly important to the players or the team. They like to take the end of the season a little lightly, to prepare themselves for the potentially energy draining post season.

I think both teams are physically capable (maybe) but not likely to because of the above...

[Dave_From_NB]

I think winning 70 is possible, but I don't believe it's of interest to the Celtics. The minutes of RA and PP are down a lot from where they were same time last year, and I don't think Doc is going to play them a ton of minutes this year to wrangle anything other than home court advantage. And if the Lakers get really hot, the Celtics will just look to have home court for the East.

Last year, the regular season focus was on getting the starting 5 working as a unit. I think this year the focus will be on having the bench work as a unit, and they're going to continue to get solid minutes. If we do approach 70 wins, it's going to be on the back on the bench, not the starters.

[Willie Beamen]

You know what let the Faker Fans talk about LA going for 70 wins. Boston fans don't need to talk about 70 win teams. It doesn't matter what your record is come play-off time just as long as you make the play-offs. If we learn anything from the 18-1 Pats is that you can make history all you want in the regular season. Because it don't mean a thing if you aint got that ring.

[MyInsatiableOne]

I saw this yesterday on SI.com...I don't think it's important, as long as we get homecourt. We could have won more than the Bulls last year if we didn't blow some games to bad teams late in those games.

I love how they said we fell "far short" of 70 last year...with 66 wins.

And they predict we won't even win 60 this season....

Haters...just sayin'...

[Tommy Udo 6]

What is interesting about the Bulls 72-10 record is that most of the losses were by 3 points or less.

The SF Chronicle wrote at the time that if the players had known that Owner Reinsdorf was going to give each of them a ring with 72 diamonds, they may have tried harder to win some of those other games.

[campybatman]

Well, it's only history if a team surpasses the 72-wins season held by Chicago. Winning 70 games merely gets your team talked about for a week (if even) in print, online and TV/radio talk and then the nation moves on. So, yeah it isn't that important.

[drza]

I do think the Cs (and also the Lakers) have a decent shot at 70 this year, for multiple (different) reasons. To get to 70, I believe you need:

1) To be significantly better than the rest of the league on a game-to-game basis
2) Team depth that allows for success in the face of minor injuries
3) A dominant personality on the team that keeps everyone motivated
4) External Motivation
5) Health/luck

I think both the Cs and the Lakers fit the first 4 criteria in different ways, and the 5th one we won't really know until the season ends. The Lakers may end up getting there because of reason #4, as they are SUPREMELY motivated this season to get the taste of last year out of their mouths and are going all out from day 1 to prove themselves (similar to the 2007 Mavs (67 wins) and the 2008 Cs (66 wins)). Plus, I could see 70 wins resonating with Kobe and Phil as a statement that this team is as good as the Jordan team.

The Cs could end up getting there, but for a different reason. Last year the Cs started off like this year's Lakers at full throttle, but concerns about age (cutting minutes), not really having championship experience, and the travails of the Patriots seemed to make them consciously take their foot off the gas right after the Texas Triangle road trip last year. This year, though, the Cs have started off the season slow, playing their main players fewer minutes from day 1, and already have a feel for the pace they need to maintain to stay in championship shape...and after 15 games, they have the same 13 - 2 record they had when going all out last season. I think they could pace themselves and still challenge for 70, and that if the Lakers and/or Cavs continue to stay with them record-wise it could easily push the Cs into having a legitimate reason to push for wins as the season progresses.

I feel there's at least a 1-in-4 chance that at least one of them gets to 70 this year, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that they both get there.

[DEEP3CL]

^^ Agree 100 times over drza........................simply put that's the formula in a nut shell.

[campybatman]

I do think the Cs (and also the Lakers) have a decent shot at 70 this year, for multiple (different) reasons. To get to 70, I believe you need:

1) To be significantly better than the rest of the league on a game-to-game basis
2) Team depth that allows for success in the face of minor injuries
3) A dominant personality on the team that keeps everyone motivated
4) External Motivation
5) Health/luck

I think both the Cs and the Lakers fit the first 4 criteria in different ways, and the 5th one we won't really know until the season ends.

For me, I don't agree all the way with the first two as it applies to Boston. Boston can't continue to have these slow starts or have games like the Indiana road game. But, admittedly, Boston hasn't played their best basketball yet. For the second point, I think that could've been said of the bench last season when you'd Posey, House and later Brown. This season, I don't feel the same way so much. We'll see... But, the inconsistent play of bench players you rely on in Powe, House and especially (Tony) Allen. Will increase the chances that you've to increase the minutes of your starters and the possibility of losing a game or a close game. Sometimes when Boston has these mid game stretches where there's a scoring drought. It almost feels as if they've underestimated their weaker opponent or they get relaxed and then have to turn it up defensively after the half or during the fourth quarter where you need last minute heroics from Pierce or whoever.

But, again it's early in the season and the team hasn't experienced a minor or major setback in terms of a starter getting injured where he misses a lot of games. Other than Garnett's suspension.

[GuyClinch]

I think the Lakers have a shot this year - they are crushing teams. I don't think they beat the 72 win mark though.

Also I don't know how you can discount home court advantage after watching the C's win last year. I do think the C's should try to beat the Lakers for the best record. I do think they should trade for a shot blocking big though if POB looks to be a bust. Sadly we will likely end up parting with some combination of BBD and Walker or Giddens to get such a player - maybe even TA. I don't really like the idea as I like Giddens, Walker and TA but something has got to give. You can't have a nose tackle as your backup center.

I just don't think a team can win 70+ games with Scalabrine and BBD in your rotation. The Lakers rotation is now free of garbage like Turiaf though Vlad Rad kinda sucks and is borderline Scalabrinesque.

Pete

[Allanon]

Simply put, I think the Lakers will make 70 wins because the Celtics are also going for the same thing.

Both teams are looking to have HomeCourt Advantage throughout the Playoffs. It might take 70+ wins to secure HCA. Who knows, maybe BOTH the Celtics and Lakers get to 70 by motivating each other.

Right now the C's are on a 7 game win streak, Lakers are on a 6 game streak. Each team is waiting for the other to blink.

Last year's C's could have won 70, they reigned it in once they had secured HCA. This year, they might have to go full bore all year long to get HCA.

[campybatman]

I concur with Fisher's point. The same could apply to Boston, but I doubt the Celtics players would ever get ahead of themselves not with their best players being veterans and all three making the conference finals (Garnett with Minnesota and Ray Allen with Milwaukee) only to not reach the next goal and that being the NBA Finals.

Fisher Cautious About Lakers Fast Start

Fisher remembers that the 2001-02 Lakers started the season with a 16-1 record, but stumbled to finish 58-24.

"As quickly as you can win 12 out of 13 or be 16-1, you go through a stretch where things get away from you," Fisher said. "It seems like things snowball from there and all the bad stuff comes out from under the rug.

"What I do remember most from that (2001-02) team was that we completed the end mission, which was to win a title. No matter how you start, it's how you finish that matters."

[Fidel Sarcasmo]

I'm surprised they dont believe the lakers will reach the 70 game win mark. I'm still baffled how everybody picked the lakers last year by demolition and the C's ended up being the punishers. Again this year, ESPN predicts the lakers win it. I just dont get the all the hype. I mean the west is done as the dominant league. Theres a new generation of players taking over now. The mavs, suns, spurs, aren't the best teams anymore. I'm no pyskic nor do I claim to be able to spell it correctly, but with the C's having a year under their belt to know the system and the 2nd unit playing well I still say they have a good shot at reaching 70 wins this year. Even with all the teams gunning after them. Look at the slues given to us early on. 20 percent of our games are being played in November. We'll have a lot of rest in the later months and more time to practice. Plus, right now, all of our starters are getting to rested a lot in the fourth quarter because we're putting teams away with our defense early quite often. I dont see us going on any two game loosing streaks this year.

[Havlicek17]

It depends on motivation and injuries. If both teams stay healthy and it takes 70+ wins to get the home court advantage throughout the playoffs, then the motivation will be there. Both teams have the talent and are playing at that kind of level.

Barring injuries, I don't see how anyone could question the Celtics or Lakers getting to 60 wins.

[campybatman]

You could say that Boston could be pushed to seventy wins by Cleveland remaining in the rear view. Because Boston might not want to see that many more road games during the playoffs, if they aren't the top seed or the second seed, and Orland manages to keep pace in conjunction with Cleveland. Not to mention, if Celtics should suddenly endure unfortunate circumstances at some point mid season. Injuries. Slumps.

[JMillott]

Its possible because the Cavs, Celtics and Lakers are all clearly focused on winning the title this year and getting HCA throughout the playoffs could very easily be the difference maker in getting it done for all of them.

I think of the three teams the Celtics have the least pressing need of homecourt because they already have the mental edge of having beaten both of them enroute to last years title and likely believing they will get it done either way.

[campybatman]

What concerns me about Boston is the fact that Cleveland and Atlanta both strongly believe that they were "this close" to eliminating Boston in their playoffs series. I wouldn't mind Boston securing home court advantage throughout the playoffs this season and really making a statement to both of those teams, if the Celtics face them, and the rest of the eastern conference playoffs participants. Should Boston fail to clinch it... I hope they still have an attitude that whether we face you at home or on the road. We're coming for you... As to say: We don't have the targets on ourselves. No, we're placing them on all of you, the competition.

These are the top five teams I'll like to see Boston stomp in a series if they were to meet.

5. Detroit
4. Orlando
3. Washington
2. Atlanta
1. Cleveland