40 before 20

Gerhalt11 · Post #1 » by **Gerhalt11** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:51 pm

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.

Source: ESPN Power Rankings

Do you guys agree with this statement from the Zen Master? Is the eliteness of a team dependent soley on its record?

By this logic, the following teams in the NBA are "elite:"

Boston
Detroit
San Antonio
L.A. Lakers
New Orleans

And the following teams are within two games of being "elite:"

Orlando
Utah
Houston
Phoenix
Dallas

It seems to me that the word "elite" gets cheapened a little if one-third of the league qualifies or is extremely close to qualifying.

Optimus_Steel · Post #2 » by **Optimus_Steel** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:55 pm

Nope, dont mean anything other than you are having a pretty good regular season. Dallas showed last year that might not mean much in the playoffs.

Max Power · Post #3 » by **Max Power** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:57 pm

To me any team that wins 50 plus and is a top 3 seed is an elite team, but yeah, some go beyond even that. Teams like San Antonio, Detroit, and Dallas do it every year. Boston and LA, are this season though. To me we're right there too. The Magic are good enough to beat anyone in my opinion.

Dunkin On Ya · Post #4 » by **Dunkin On Ya** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:28 pm

Win a championship, then you are elite. Lose a championship and you are just the runner up.

Gerhalt11 · Post #5 » by **Gerhalt11** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:41 pm

I think it's clear he's talking about his own Lakers with this comment, but you don't spend several seasons hovering around mediocrity and suddenly become elite. The term "elite" I think is used to describe a team with consistent success. San Antonio is elite. Detroit is elite. Today's Lakers are definitely not elite.

NEM · Post #6 » by **NEM** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:45 pm

he's saying it cause the lakers did it finally after like 4 or 5 years

drsd · Post #7 » by **drsd** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:49 pm

In general, I agree that a team should win 66% of its games to have been considered to have had an excellent regular season.

This is 54 wins.

Further, if a team cannot win 54 games, it is VERY unlikely to win the title. In fact, I suspect the Houston Rockets are the only team ever to do so.

macdalejax · Post #8 » by **macdalejax** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:05 pm

If I were Phil I would be trying to distinguish my team from the other 10 "elite" teams in the league as well. Especially in the 2nd larget market in the U.S. Part of his job is to feed the media little nuggets like that.

EasternMagic · Post #9 » by **EasternMagic** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:18 pm

prorl wrote:Nope, dont mean anything other than you are having a pretty good regular season. Dallas showed last year that might not mean much in the playoffs.

agreed

Gerhalt11 · Post #10 » by **Gerhalt11** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:19 pm

macdalejax wrote:If I were Phil I would be trying to distinguish my team from the other 10 "elite" teams in the league as well. Especially in the 2nd larget market in the U.S. Part of his job is to feed the media little nuggets like that.

I'd be much more concerned with my team's performance on the court than my team's performance with the media. It's not like the Lakers are leaving town or anything.

drsd · Post #11 » by **drsd** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:05 pm

Great regular season teams often lay a donut in the playoffs. But good regular season teams almost never rise to the top.