PDA

View Full Version : 73 = 60



KINGOFSPORTS
04-03-2016, 02:43 PM
Tanking has caused the NBA win totals to mean almost nothing

What the Bulls did in their era will always be more impressive than anything going forward.

The NBA is almost unwatchable right now

Bostonjorge
04-03-2016, 02:59 PM
Act like it then

Raps18-19 Champ
04-03-2016, 03:02 PM
I see you failed math.

IndyRealist
04-03-2016, 03:12 PM
The only team confirmed to be tanking is the Sixers, and Golden State only played them twice. There are currently 13 teams under .500, and in 1996 there were 13 teams under .500.

beasted86
04-03-2016, 03:14 PM
Cringe-worthy, but I tend to agree.

When Lakers can beat the Warriors it tells me that the roster has more potential than they are putting out. But they are tanking to earn the right to keep a top 3 pick. The Sixers management isn't even trying IMO. Brooklyn tanked for tax money. Suns should be at least 10 games better than they are.

It's not going to be as impressive even if they break the record.

Kyben36
04-03-2016, 03:19 PM
i supose, yes, there are teams like the lakers and 76ers who give up looses like free candy. i can see your point, but still, you cant denny there are allways bad teams.

JasonJohnHorn
04-03-2016, 03:26 PM
Cringe-worthy, but I tend to agree.

When Lakers can beat the Warriors it tells me that the roster has more potential than they are putting out. But they are tanking to earn the right to keep a top 3 pick. The Sixers management isn't even trying IMO. Brooklyn tanked for tax money. Suns should be at least 10 games better than they are.

It's not going to be as impressive even if they break the record.

There is a big difference between tanking, and having a bad coach or no chemistry.

Look at the Suns. You say they should have more wins? Sure. But the reason they struggled to start was locker room issues. Then rather than trade the player that was trouble, they fired the coach, then they traded the player.

That isn't tanking. That's a bad situation.

The only teams that are losing intentionally (and by that I mean coaching/management: not players) are the Sixers and Lakers, and they aren't 'tanking' so much as developing their young talent.


As for the Warriors losing to the Lakers... sure.... and the Bulls lost to the Raptors that season they won 72.


Sure... there are bad teams.... there always have been and always will be. The cellar dwellers are a little worse than they used to be, but I think that is in part because the league has expanded to 30 teams (they only had I think 22 when Jordan started: The Magic, T-Wolves, Heat, and Hornets came in quick succession, then the Raptors and Grizz, then many years later the Bobcats).

The Bulls were lucky that season because, if I remember right, they brought the 3-point line in, making Jordan a 3-pt shooter, and the league just had an expansion, so a couple of teams were depleted through the expansion draft, and a couple of crap teams were added.

The Warriors are amazing. The Bulls were amazing. The league is different now. The league n 95 ws different than the league in 75, or 65.

PhillyFaninLA
04-03-2016, 03:55 PM
I see you failed math.


Hey, its not his fault....his username is kingofsports.....kings are royalty, in a lot of cultures there used to be a history marrying and procreating within the family to keep the blood line pure....its a scientific fact that imbreading can lead to physical and mental disorders, so its not his fault.

Bostonjorge
04-03-2016, 04:17 PM
Wow forgot that 72-10 Bulls team played in the short 3 point line period.

KINGOFSPORTS
04-03-2016, 04:38 PM
It's not just the GSW. Look at the Spurs setting a franchise record for wins.

The NBA is a complete joke right now

mngopher35
04-03-2016, 05:19 PM
The Bulls lost 8 games to teams of .500 or more while the Warriors have lost 5 so far. 4 teams over .600 beat the Bulls while just one has so far for the warriors (granted still gotta meet spurs twice). Now there was one more .600 team in 96 but there are more in the west this yr than east that year. There were 2 teams under 20 wins then and now. There were 7 teams under 30 wins then and 6 now. 35 wins flips it to 9 then (with 1 more at 35) and 11 now but that isn't really tank level necessarily. 76ers are a difference but it isn't to the point where they alone ruin the league (6 less wins currently than worst team in 96)

This means little to me generally speaking between the teams but I wanted to point out that top level teams were more likely to beat the bulls in comparison to the Warriors which goes against this tanking thing you brought up. Not saying Warriors are more impressive just pointing some things out about the comparison of bad teams and who each was losing to that might against the thread topic.

Chronz
04-03-2016, 05:28 PM
Isn't this what people said about the last team to top 70?

KINGOFSPORTS
04-03-2016, 05:35 PM
The notion that only the 76ers and the Lakers are tanking is ridiculous.

The Nets, Suns, Pelicans, Nuggets, Knicks Bucks, and Magic are so god awful that it has impacted the competitivness of the league. The Eastern conference, in general, is complete garbage and now the bottom half of the West is also.

In just the past 5 years I've seen a dramatic shift from middle to lower tier teams trying to sign top free agents to teams intentionally signing or trading for terrible players so that they lose as many games as possible.

Over the past 20 years the shift has been monumental.

The NBA needs to make some changes to their draft lottery and playoff system because right now there is absolutely no reason to try and win if you aren't a top 5 team in the league.

Jeffy25
04-03-2016, 07:51 PM
Tanking has caused the NBA win totals to mean almost nothing

What the Bulls did in their era will always be more impressive than anything going forward.

The NBA is almost unwatchable right now

In 95-96, the Grizzles won 15 games and Philly won 18. Chris King played the most minutes down the stretch for the Grizzlies that year.


Teams have been tanking for a long time.

The Sixers grabbed Iverson the following draft.

Gibby23
04-04-2016, 12:19 AM
In 95-96, the Grizzles won 15 games and Philly won 18. Chris King played the most minutes down the stretch for the Grizzlies that year.


Teams have been tanking for a long time.

The Sixers grabbed Iverson the following draft.
Lol. You knew none of that. Looked it all up

Chronz
04-04-2016, 01:13 AM
Lol. You knew none of that. Looked it all up

Lol. Do you memorize your teams record every year?

Jeffy25
04-04-2016, 01:27 AM
Lol. You knew none of that. Looked it all up

You feel it would be better to be ignorant and to not use information available at my disposal to have my arguments?

HouRealCoach
04-04-2016, 01:34 AM
Yeah I was just about to say, there are bad teams every year

KINGOFSPORTS
04-04-2016, 01:40 AM
It not about the bottom 2 teams in a season - its about the whole league

Right now the NBA is filled with terrible teams - more than Ive ever seen

BKLYNpigeon
04-04-2016, 02:05 AM
If you watch any warriors games. Every team has been playing them HARD, even the Sixers.

Bostonjorge
04-04-2016, 02:15 AM
Imagine this warriors team with the 3 point line pushed in to the top of the key? GOAT season team easily. Curry going for 500 threes and klay 400 threes.

hidalgo
04-04-2016, 04:13 AM
the 3 point line in 95-97, it was 22 feet, a corner 3 today, so legit 3 point distance, just basically all corner 3s

hidalgo
04-04-2016, 04:20 AM
yes, it's really bad

coward teams with 0 interest in standing up to GS

Bostonjorge
04-05-2016, 03:26 PM
the 3 point line in 95-97, it was 22 feet, a corner 3 today, so legit 3 point distance, just basically all corner 3s

All corner 3's all the way around makes curry the most valuable player on the court.

beasted86
04-05-2016, 05:43 PM
There is a big difference between tanking, and having a bad coach or no chemistry.

Look at the Suns. You say they should have more wins? Sure. But the reason they struggled to start was locker room issues. Then rather than trade the player that was trouble, they fired the coach, then they traded the player.

That isn't tanking. That's a bad situation.

The only teams that are losing intentionally (and by that I mean coaching/management: not players) are the Sixers and Lakers, and they aren't 'tanking' so much as developing their young talent.


As for the Warriors losing to the Lakers... sure.... and the Bulls lost to the Raptors that season they won 72.


Sure... there are bad teams.... there always have been and always will be. The cellar dwellers are a little worse than they used to be, but I think that is in part because the league has expanded to 30 teams (they only had I think 22 when Jordan started: The Magic, T-Wolves, Heat, and Hornets came in quick succession, then the Raptors and Grizz, then many years later the Bobcats).

The Bulls were lucky that season because, if I remember right, they brought the 3-point line in, making Jordan a 3-pt shooter, and the league just had an expansion, so a couple of teams were depleted through the expansion draft, and a couple of crap teams were added.

The Warriors are amazing. The Bulls were amazing. The league is different now. The league n 95 ws different than the league in 75, or 65.
Look, all I'm saying is Denver missing Gallinari and Wilson Chandler for most/all the season shouldn't be in 10th in the West. They've also missed Nurkic who's been out a lot and I expected to have improvement as a 2nd year player after a promising rookie season.

Milwaukee shouldn't add Parker and Monroe and be this much worse.

There are many teams legitimately playing to lose or "letting the season play out" like the Suns did without much in the way of prudent and proactive steps to correct known problems and improve the team from early on. You really think the Suns were hoping the Morris situation would correct itself, or that the Kings firing assistants from under Karl would go over smooth as glass under the already fraying relationship between the coach and Cousins?

You realize between the mismanaged Kings and Suns, and tanking Lakers that's 3 teams in the Warrior's division already?

This is not just bad luck or team management doing their best, and their best not being good enough. There are a significant amount of teams completely comfortable with losing in the hopes of adding a top draft pick to the ample amount of cap space they will be getting over the next 2 summers.

Gibby23
04-06-2016, 11:35 AM
You feel it would be better to be ignorant and to not use information available at my disposal to have my arguments?

Like comparing tanking teams to expansion teams?

mngopher35
04-06-2016, 01:58 PM
The OP has mentioned teams like Nets/Knicks who have 0 incentive to tank without owning their pick. The fact that there were 2 expansion teams added the same season as the Bulls record seems as relevant to the discussion as them imo.

If we are just talking about pure tanking then outside of 76ers and now the Lakers (who I don't think came into the season thinking lets suck as hard as possible), I just don't see this excessive tank job from teams. As mentioned two of the bad teams don't even have their own picks and many of the bottom teams have not been attempting to lose as many as they can for a pick.

The Wolves have played better the last two months than the rest of the season which doesn't happen when you give up and tank for the season. We are 12-17 since February including a win against the Warriors themselves now, OKC, Toronto, Boston, Bulls, Clippers, Washington (so not just tanking/bad teams only).

Then we have Milwaukee who has gone 12-14 since using Giannis at point and MCW off bench or out completely. Again if they were tanking they would have a worse record once they were out of the mix instead of better record down the stretch. They too beat the Warriors early in the year along with Miami, Houston, Hawks, Wizards, Boston in that span so not just horrible/tanking teams.

Even the Pelicans who could have lost their remaining set of games to get below the Wolves in the standings have now won 5 out of their last 11 to likely keep the 6 pick and not move up anymore barring a great finish from us. If they lose to the Clippers/Knicks who have no reason to tank they might have had a chance to move up.

I think people really over use the term tanking and let what the 76ers are doing cloud their judgement on the league as a whole. I just pointed out 2 teams with no incentive, 2 teams who have played good down the stretch with changes to lineups (why improve late if the goal is to lose as much as possible?), and another team who could have just given in and lost all their games to move up at the end. Even teams at the bottom of the league who might be considered tanking want to give their all when they play the Warriors anyways (see Lakers) so this whole notion seems off. If you want to make the general argument the league is worse as a whole now it's a different argument than just teams tanking but again then you should also factor in two expansion teams added in 96 (not that I am disagreeing, just pointing it out as relevant since we have moved away from only tanking at that point).

KINGOFSPORTS
04-06-2016, 02:10 PM
The OP has mentioned teams like Nets/Knicks who have 0 incentive to tank without owning their pick. The fact that there were 2 expansion teams added the same season as the Bulls record seems as relevant to the discussion as them imo.

If we are just talking about pure tanking then outside of 76ers and now the Lakers (who I don't think came into the season thinking lets suck as hard as possible), I just don't see this excessive tank job from teams. As mentioned two of the bad teams don't even have their own picks and many of the bottom teams have not been attempting to lose as many as they can for a pick.

The Wolves have played better the last two months than the rest of the season which doesn't happen when you give up and tank for the season. We are 12-17 since February including a win against the Warriors themselves now, OKC, Toronto, Boston, Bulls, Clippers, Washington (so not just tanking/bad teams only).

Then we have Milwaukee who has gone 12-14 since using Giannis at point and MCW off bench or out completely. Again if they were tanking they would have a worse record once they were out of the mix instead of better record down the stretch. They too beat the Warriors early in the year along with Miami, Houston, Hawks, Wizards, Boston in that span so not just horrible/tanking teams.

Even the Pelicans who could have lost their remaining set of games to get below the Wolves in the standings have now won 5 out of their last 11 to likely keep the 6 pick and not move up anymore barring a great finish from us. If they lose to the Clippers/Knicks who have no reason to tank they might have had a chance to move up.

I think people really over use the term tanking and let what the 76ers are doing cloud their judgement on the league as a whole. I just pointed out 2 teams with no incentive, 2 teams who have played good down the stretch with changes to lineups (why improve late if the goal is to lose as much as possible?), and another team who could have just given in and lost all their games to move up at the end. Even teams at the bottom of the league who might be considered tanking want to give their all when they play the Warriors anyways (see Lakers) so this whole notion seems off. If you want to make the general argument the league is worse as a whole now it's a different argument than just teams tanking but again then you should also factor in two expansion teams added in 96 (not that I am disagreeing, just pointing it out as relevant since we have moved away from only tanking at that point).

Yes I think my real point is that the league is just terrible now in general - tanking aside.

In 96' I'd be curious to know what the average age of players was. The fact that guys don't stay in college for 4 years might be the central problem. It's league of boys instead of a league of men.

The extra experience and fundamentals learned in 4 years of college made for better basketball and a more competitive league

mngopher35
04-06-2016, 02:38 PM
Yes I think my real point is that the league is just terrible now in general - tanking aside.

In 96' I'd be curious to know what the average age of players was. The fact that guys don't stay in college for 4 years might be the central problem. It's league of boys instead of a league of men.

The extra experience and fundamentals learned in 4 years of college made for better basketball and a more competitive league

Ya I figured this after your longer post where Brooklyn/Knicks were mentioned. Bad teams but 0 incentive to tank this season.

Average age is likely lower although I don't have the numbers on that to back it up. Also there seems to be more rest/injured players or they keep them out due to injury longer to ensure long term health but again don't have backing numbers for that. Now with just the Warriors in mind I am not sure the age thing is as big of a factor in that sense because while younger players have consistency issues many times they might flash their potential on bigger stages. Wiggins had one of his best games of the year last night and usually plays big against Cleveland (who traded him). I don't think I have ever seen Shabazz play that focused for an entire game in his career so far. The Lakers young trio combined for one of their better games against the Warriors as well from what I saw.

In a general discussion about where the leagues were at we also would want to consider two expansion teams added in 96 which could "water down" the league a bit. Also given the popularity across the globe continuing to grow now you could argue that the talent pool to choose from has increased. All in all it comes down to a personal opinion if that is your main point. I think there are arguments for both sides and to me it isn't a major deal until we get into the early years of the NBA, but to each their own. I think the Bulls team was better than the Warriors (still need to see their playoff performance) but 73 does not equal 60 to me at all. Warriors would have been the 2nd best team in 1996 IMO, better than the Sonics who won mid 60's and lost in 6 games to the Bulls in the finals.

KnicksorBust
04-06-2016, 03:01 PM
I think my favorite part about that equation is that a perfect 82-0 record this season would essentially be worth 68 wins in the Jordan era. Thereby making it mathematically impossible for a team to ever surpass the 90s Bulls by a full 4 wins.

ManRam
04-07-2016, 09:57 AM
Tanking is an overblown epidemic. This year illuminates that really well, for reasons previously stated. There have always been bad teams, but because the 76ers came around and cleaned house to avoid mediocrity, every team that's bad now is "tanking". That's some weird logic. No NBA player is stepping foot on a court trying to lose. Yes, some teams are prioritizing the future over the present, but suddenly every bad team is "tanking" when in the past we just called them what they were: bad teams.


Worst records in 1996:

15-67 (.183)
18-64 (.220)
21-61 (.256)
25-57 (.305)
26-56 (.317)
26-56 (.317)

Worst records in 2016:

10-68 (.128)
16-62 (.205)
20-56 (.256)
21-57 (.269)
26-52 (.333)
29-49 (.372)


Ehh...


And let's not act like the current Western Conference is of low quality. Hell, the East is better overall than it has been in a long time. The Warriors aren't doing this in an era without other great teams and stars. That's a silly thing to surmise.

Oefarmy2005
04-07-2016, 10:18 AM
Tanking is an overblown epidemic. This year illuminates that really well, for reasons previously stated. There have always been bad teams, but because the 76ers came around and cleaned house to avoid mediocrity, every team that's bad now is "tanking". That's some weird logic. No NBA player is stepping foot on a court trying to lose. Yes, some teams are prioritizing the future over the present, but suddenly every bad team is "tanking" when in the past we just called them what they were: bad teams.


Worst records in 1996:

15-67 (.183)
18-64 (.220)
21-61 (.256)
25-57 (.305)
26-56 (.317)
26-56 (.317)

Worst records in 2016:

10-68 (.128)
16-62 (.205)
20-56 (.256)
21-57 (.269)
26-52 (.333)
29-49 (.372)


Ehh...


And let's not act like the current Western Conference is of low quality. Hell, the East is better overall than it has been in a long time. The Warriors aren't doing this in an era without other great teams and stars. That's a silly thing to surmise.

Love the Philly apologetic fans. Your team has been straight up tanking over the last 3 seasons, blatantly. Last year, they traded away any player had a positive +/- for them before the trade deadline. 76ers are not cleaning house, or any other excuse you want to throw out there - they are straight tanking.

Stinkyoutsider
04-07-2016, 11:14 AM
IMO, 73 = 73. The Warriors can only beat the teams they've got on the schedule, regardless of the era that they play in today.

So, is it a greater feat to get to 70+ wins back in the day or now? Not too sure about that but a lot of fans I remember that the league was more physical back then. But, a top class team like the current Warriors would find other ways to win imo. So, it's just as great a feat to get 70+ now than it was back then.

ManRam
04-07-2016, 12:05 PM
Love the Philly apologetic fans. Your team has been straight up tanking over the last 3 seasons, blatantly. Last year, they traded away any player had a positive +/- for them before the trade deadline. 76ers are not cleaning house, or any other excuse you want to throw out there - they are straight tanking.

Why are you saying this to me?

valade16
04-07-2016, 02:25 PM
And let's not act like the current Western Conference is of low quality. Hell, the East is better overall than it has been in a long time. The Warriors aren't doing this in an era without other great teams and stars. That's a silly thing to surmise.

It's weaker than it's been in recent memory. Outside the Warriors, Spurs, Thunder and Clippers it's actually pretty weak historically. The Rockets, Grizzlies, Blazers, Mavericks, Pelicans and Suns all got worse from last season. That's like half the conference.

The West hasn't been this shallow in at least 10 years.

Monta is beast
04-08-2016, 03:04 AM
Cringe-worthy, but I tend to agree.

When Lakers can beat the Warriors it tells me that the roster has more potential than they are putting out. But they are tanking to earn the right to keep a top 3 pick. The Sixers management isn't even trying IMO. Brooklyn tanked for tax money. Suns should be at least 10 games better than they are.

It's not going to be as impressive even if they break the record.

Bulls lost to an expansion team that 72 win year. Its the nba you can lose if you dont bring it every night

nastynice
04-08-2016, 03:47 AM
It's not just the GSW. Look at the Spurs setting a franchise record for wins.

The NBA is a complete joke right now

So if anything isn't that an argument in favor of the Warriors? Bulls never had to play a team as high caliber as this year's Spurs...I guess they had it easy, lol, maybe their 72 = 65?

KINGOFSPORTS
04-08-2016, 04:32 AM
It's weaker than it's been in recent memory. Outside the Warriors, Spurs, Thunder and Clippers it's actually pretty weak historically. The Rockets, Grizzlies, Blazers, Mavericks, Pelicans and Suns all got worse from last season. That's like half the conference.

The West hasn't been this shallow in at least 10 years.

Eggggsactly

valade16
04-08-2016, 06:53 AM
MSo if anything isn't that an argument in favor of the Warriors? Bulls never had to play a team as high caliber as this year's Spurs...I guess they had it easy, lol, maybe their 72 = 65?

Though I think this years Spurs are a better team, the wins argument doesn't really hold much water.

The Bulls and Sonics had 72 and 64 wins that season, the Warriors and Spurs have 70 and 65 this season. They will likely end up with more combined wins but only by 1-3.