PDA

View Full Version : The Phil Jackson theory, 40 wins before 20 losses and you are championship contender?



JordansBulls
04-11-2012, 12:24 PM
A few years back, there was an article by Marc Stein on ESPN talking about The Phil Jackson theory which in part stated that only the teams that had 40 wins before 20 losses were championship contenders?

Last season all of Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Lakers had that and Dallas won it all.

This year only 4 teams have had 40 wins before 20 losses and they are Chicago, Miami, OKC and SAS

With that in mind, are those the only 4 teams that are true contenders?

Celticsfan2007
04-11-2012, 12:29 PM
In a regular non lockout year, I would tend to agree with this theory.

I don't think its a valid theory for this season with the shortened schedule, condensed games, lack of practice time, etc...

I actually think that seeding/wins will have much less of an affect on the playoff outcomes during a lockout year like this one. (see the spurs in 98')

thekmp211
04-11-2012, 12:40 PM
yeah this season is problematic, but it sounds good to me. the meat of the idea is based on a lot more than just wins and losses, i'll bet. it'd be interesting to see what kind of statistical similarities these teams shared besides w/l record. in fact....

Matrix3132
04-11-2012, 12:49 PM
What a brilliant theory. Who would've thought that the teams with the best records during the regular season might be contenders

king_of_limbs
04-11-2012, 12:54 PM
What a brilliant theory. Who would've thought that the teams with the best records during the regular season might be contenders

thats why hes the zen master. you know those games he coached where the team was in a dry spell and he wouldnt call time out because "they need to figure it out for themselves" and then they eventually lost them? Losing is a way of growing with the zen master

Chronz
04-11-2012, 01:30 PM
thats why hes the zen master. you know those games he coached where the team was in a dry spell and he wouldnt call time out because "they need to figure it out for themselves" and then they eventually lost them? Losing is a way of growing with the zen master

They eventually lost them? To what are you referring ?

thekmp211
04-11-2012, 01:35 PM
They eventually lost them? To what are you referring ?

i think he's saying phil would let his guys play out games that they would eventually lose. his theory being that the loss grows them as players and people in the long run. or something.

justinnum1
04-11-2012, 01:36 PM
so your saying teams with really good records are contenders? who woulda thoguht

S & B Bleeder
04-11-2012, 01:39 PM
It doesnt apply to a strike shortened season like this one. Too many back to back (and sometimes 3 in a row) to gauge who really are the "true contenders".


Once the playoffs come, and teams get a day in between games, we will finally see what teams really have. Right now with this schedule everyone is just being run ragged, and it shows.

willabeast77
04-11-2012, 02:03 PM
It doesnt apply to a strike shortened season like this one. Too many back to back (and sometimes 3 in a row) to gauge who really are the "true contenders".


Once the playoffs come, and teams get a day in between games, we will finally see what teams really have. Right now with this schedule everyone is just being run ragged, and it shows.

I think it still does apply to this season. Miami, Chicago, OKC and San Antonio have accomplished this and one of them will win the title this season IMO.

Iodine
04-11-2012, 02:08 PM
Good teams tend to be better bets to win in the playoffs?

Holy **** my mind is blown

KB-Pau-DH2012
04-11-2012, 02:20 PM
Another one of Phil Jackson's theories....winning a championship in a shortened season due to a lockout = ASTERISK!!! :laugh2:

JordansBulls
04-11-2012, 04:37 PM
2011 Dallas Mavericks: 40-16
2010 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-13
2009 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-9
2008 Boston Celtics: 40-9
2007 San Antonio Spurs: 40-18
2006 Miami Heat: 40-20
2005 San Antonio Spurs: 40-11
2004 Detroit Pistons: 40-25
2003 San Antonio Spurs: 40-17
2002 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-17
2001 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-19
2000 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-11
1999 San Antonio Spurs: 37-11 (Lockout season, was on the pace to become 40-12)
1998 Chicago Bulls: 40-15
1997 Chicago Bulls: 40-5
1996 Chicago Bulls: 40-3
1995 Houston Rockets: 40-24
1994 Houston Rockets: 40-15
1993 Chicago Bulls: 40-17
1992 Chicago Bulls: 40-9
1991 Chicago Bulls: 40-14
1990 Detroit Pistons: 40-15
1989 Detroit Pistons: 40-16
1988 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-9
1987 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-13
1986 Boston Celtics: 40-9
1985 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-16
1984 Boston Celtics: 40-12
1983 Philadelphia 76ers: 40-6
1982 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-17
1981 Boston Celtics: 40-9
1980 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-17

EYDI819
04-11-2012, 04:39 PM
2011 Dallas Mavericks: 40-16
2010 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-13
2009 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-9
2008 Boston Celtics: 40-9
2007 San Antonio Spurs: 40-18
2006 Miami Heat: 40-20
2005 San Antonio Spurs: 40-11
2004 Detroit Pistons: 40-25
2003 San Antonio Spurs: 40-17
2002 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-17
2001 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-19
2000 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-11
1999 San Antonio Spurs: 37-11 (Lockout season, was on the pace to become 40-12)
1998 Chicago Bulls: 40-15
1997 Chicago Bulls: 40-5
1996 Chicago Bulls: 40-3
1995 Houston Rockets: 40-24
1994 Houston Rockets: 40-15
1993 Chicago Bulls: 40-17
1992 Chicago Bulls: 40-9
1991 Chicago Bulls: 40-14
1990 Detroit Pistons: 40-15
1989 Detroit Pistons: 40-16
1988 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-9
1987 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-13
1986 Boston Celtics: 40-9
1985 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-16
1984 Boston Celtics: 40-12
1983 Philadelphia 76ers: 40-6
1982 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-17
1981 Boston Celtics: 40-9
1980 Los Angeles Lakers: 40-17

3 out of 32... i guess Phil is 90% right

Iodine
04-11-2012, 04:53 PM
Thats like saying that teams with 41 or more wins tend to finish .500 or better. Yeah its true, but it means nothing.

Cfrey
04-11-2012, 04:58 PM
How is this Phils philosophy ?? Lol he probably saw exactly what JB posted and was like oh look at this lol

Bruno
04-11-2012, 05:01 PM
all bets are off during a lockout season.

*1999 Knicks.

RiLoc
04-11-2012, 05:21 PM
When I think of the four teams that I could see winning this year I would think Chicago, Miami, OKC and SAS.

That being said, it's true in a very obvious way. No kidding the teams that do well in the regular season are contenders. Anyone could make a statement like that, I say, "You need to win 62% of games in the regular season to win a title." Nailed it! Last time a team won a title with less is... Bullets in 1978. That doesn't mean the Bulls, Thunder, Spurs, Heat and Lakers are the only teams that can win, those teams just fit a trend.

AnthonyTyrael
04-11-2012, 05:34 PM
A few years back, there was an article by Marc Stein on ESPN talking about The Phil Jackson theory which in part stated that only the teams that had 40 wins before 20 losses were championship contenders?

Last season all of Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Lakers had that and Dallas won it all.

This year only 4 teams have had 40 wins before 20 losses and they are Chicago, Miami, OKC and SAS

With that in mind, are those the only 4 teams that are true contenders?

It's not just about the record, is it also about the pace or am I mistaken? Some teams reach it earlier, others not. Some start impressive into a new season and slow down, others not but I wouldn't pay too much attention to that and what about considering injuries and other difficulties?

We need the complete article, we can't seriously discuss it without the whole context.