View Full Version : Phil Jackson can not get 60 wins
Jimcs50
04-07-2011, 08:29 AM
If you want to look at trends and history, it is huge that Phil Jackson will fall short of 60 wins now that LA has lost 3 straight.
Phil Jackson has gone on to win the NBA championship every time his teams had won at least 60 games in a season.
Yes, he has won championships without 60 wins, but in betting, you look at trends, and this 60 win/championship correlation is a strong trend, so I like it that Lakers can not reach that 60 win milestone.
TampaDude
04-07-2011, 08:32 AM
Spurs will win the title. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Cry Havoc
04-07-2011, 09:17 AM
Spurs will win the title. So let it be written, so let it be done.
If our guys play to their potential, no one is stopping us.
MaNuMaNiAc
04-07-2011, 09:18 AM
If you want to look at trends and history, it is huge that Phil Jackson will fall short of 60 wins now that LA has lost 3 straight.
Phil Jackson has gone on to win the NBA championship every time his teams had won at least 60 games in a season.
Yes, he has won championships without 60 wins, but in betting, you look at trends, and this 60 win/championship correlation is a strong trend, so I like it that Lakers can not reach that 60 win milestone.
so... he HAS won championships without 60 wins? in other words shit just don't matter? ah, I see your point now.
Leetonidas
04-07-2011, 09:20 AM
Weren't the last two Laker title teams sub 60 wins as well? I know one had 57 wins. Either way, it's pretty irrelevant.
wontstartdumbthreads
04-07-2011, 09:26 AM
If you want to look at trends and history, it is huge that Phil Jackson will fall short of 60 wins now that LA has lost 3 straight.
Phil Jackson has gone on to win the NBA championship every time his teams had won at least 60 games in a season.
Yes, he has won championships without 60 wins, but in betting, you look at trends, and this 60 win/championship correlation is a strong trend, so I like it that Lakers can not reach that 60 win milestone.
I don't agree with the math part.
lefty
04-07-2011, 09:28 AM
If you want to look at trends and history, it is huge that Phil Jackson will fall short of 60 wins now that LA has lost 3 straight.
Phil Jackson has gone on to win the NBA championship every time his teams had won at least 60 games in a season.
Yes, he has won championships without 60 wins, but in betting, you look at trends, and this 60 win/championship correlation is a strong trend, so I like it that Lakers can not reach that 60 win milestone.
:wow
:sleep
wontstartdumbthreads
04-07-2011, 09:32 AM
If you want to look at trends and history, it is huge that Phil Jackson will fall short of 60 wins now that LA has lost 3 straight.
Phil Jackson has gone on to win the NBA championship every time his teams had won at least 60 games in a season.
Yes, he has won championships without 60 wins, but in betting, you look at trends, and this 60 win/championship correlation is a strong trend, so I like it that Lakers can not reach that 60 win milestone.
I think we're fucked as well.
Out of the Spurs 4 titles, only 1 was won after a 60+ win season.
Also, out of the previous three 60+ win seasons, the Spurs have not won the title twice.
That being said, when the Spurs win exactly 60 games, they have won the NBA championshihp 100% of the time.
So we need to probably lose out from here and stay at 60.
hater
04-07-2011, 10:06 AM
regular season smack talk.
CubanMustGo
04-07-2011, 10:42 AM
If our guys hit half their threes, no one is stopping us.
fify (sadly)
FromWayDowntown
04-07-2011, 10:45 AM
The Spurs have never won the title without the #1 seed -- except for the 2 times that they have.
TiMMeH*faN*frOmNY
04-07-2011, 10:48 AM
Last night, the commentators kept saying LA struggles with quick backcourts. How the hell are they going to handle a healthy TP and Manu for 7 games
DesignatedT
04-07-2011, 10:50 AM
The Spurs have never won the title without the #1 seed -- except for the 2 times that they have.
:lol
15 and counting
04-07-2011, 10:56 AM
If our guys play to their potential, no one is stopping us.
Two sides to that coin. If (and that is a big if) both LA and Spurs play to their potential, then its a no brainer LA 3peats. It would not matter what the Spurs do. LA simply has a better team but I question their desire and heart. The Spurs need a couple of things to happen in addition to playing at their full potential to beat the Lakers in a 7 game series- 1-HCA (which they already have, 2-No injuries to their big three, and finally 3-The Lakers need to cooperate and not play at their full potential. However, we are truely jumping the gun assuming these two teams will meet. There are some really good teams out West that can derail either of these two teams if overlooked. Regardless, if these two teams were to meet, there is a chance that it might go down as one of the all time great series. It will be the showdown between last decade's two most dominate teams. I would not mind to see Duncan getting one more before he retires. He has been one of my favorite players since the college days. You got it love it if you are a Bball fan. That being said, go Lakeshow.:toast
Giuseppe
04-07-2011, 10:58 AM
After O & 6 Fest it's nice to see the Spurs Bandwaggon full again.:lmao
Phil's championship teams never lost more than 4 consecutive games which this Lakers squad has done already and are on the verge of doing so again @ Portland. :toast
The Gasol-era Lakers have never won a playoffs series on the road either if I remember correctly.
Budkin
04-07-2011, 11:02 AM
That doesn't mean a goddamn thing. The Lakers are the team to beat in the playoffs, hands down.
Jimcs50
04-07-2011, 11:17 AM
so... he HAS won championships without 60 wins? in other words shit just don't matter? ah, I see your point now.
As I said, he has won without 60 wins, but he has never lost when he has had 60 wins....so it follows I like our chances a lot more this way
FromWayDowntown
04-07-2011, 11:20 AM
The Gasol-era Lakers have never won a playoffs series on the road either if I remember correctly.
If you're looking for a trend to give you hope, this might be the one. The Lakers haven't won a series without HCA since the 2004 WCF against the Timberwolves.
Of course, they've also won 11 of their last 12 playoff series and have only played 3 series without HCA since 2004. So, basically, since 2004, they're 0-3 when they don't have HCA and two of those were instances in which they were the 7th seed facing a #2 seed in round one.
And they're 15-17 on the road in the playoffs since 2008 and 11-11 since 2009; those are actually good road numbers (by comparison, Boston is 10-17 on the road in the playoffs since 2008 and 8-10 since 2009).
But the fact holds.
wontstartdumbthreads
04-07-2011, 11:21 AM
If you're looking for a trend to give you hope, this might be the one. The Lakers haven't won a series without HCA since the 2004 WCF against the Timberwolves.
Of course, they've also won 11 of their last 12 playoff series and have only played 3 series without HCA since 2004. So, basically, since 2004, they're 0-3 when they don't have HCA and two of those were instances in which they were the 7th seed facing a #2 seed in round one.
And they're 15-17 on the road in the playoffs since 2008 and 11-11 since 2009; those are actually good road numbers (by comparison, Boston is 10-17 on the road in the playoffs since 2008 and 8-10 since 2009).
But the fact holds.
Here's one:
The Spurs have never won a championship when there defense was this spotty.
Giuseppe
04-07-2011, 11:24 AM
I can still see Pierce in California bellowin' at 1-1 that he ain't comin' back to Los Angeles.
I can also see Pierce back in California, on his heels for a millisecond & Artest takin' his life.
crc21209
04-07-2011, 11:27 AM
There's so many "Phil Jackson" stats that they really dont mean shit if you ask me...:lol
wontstartdumbthreads
04-07-2011, 11:28 AM
There's so many "Phil Jackson" stats that they really dont mean shit if you ask me...:lol
Phil Jackson has never only won two titles in a row.
Giuseppe
04-07-2011, 11:28 AM
There's so many "Phil Jackson" stats that they really dont mean shit if you ask me...:lol
Though Phils's donning of that X Cap in '09 caused some consternation & rolling about in the Auerbach crypt I'll betcha.
crc21209
04-07-2011, 11:28 AM
Phil Jackson has never only won two titles in a row.
:lol See what I mean? They just keep coming....
Giuseppe
04-07-2011, 11:29 AM
Phil Jackson has never only won two titles in a row.
Pop too.
tee, hee.
timtonymanu
04-07-2011, 01:10 PM
Phil's championship teams never lost more than 4 consecutive games which this Lakers squad has done already and are on the verge of doing so again @ Portland. :toast
The Gasol-era Lakers have never won a playoffs series on the road either if I remember correctly.
True but the Duncan-era Spurs have never lost 6 in a row. Also LA beat us in 04 without HCA. I'm just gonna hope that our team shows up in the playoffs. I'm looking at you Richard Jefferson, Matt Bonner, and DeJuan Blair.
TimmehC
04-07-2011, 01:17 PM
After O & 6 Fest it's nice to see the Spurs Bandwaggon full again.:lmao
Lakers currently O and 3...
Mavs currently O and 4...
The Spurs are trendsetters. They set trends.
Phenomanul
04-07-2011, 01:40 PM
The one Phil Jackson playoff stat that always sticks out like a sore thumb... :wow is the one where he doesn't lose a 7 game playoff series after he takes Game 1.
FromWayDowntown
04-07-2011, 01:52 PM
Lakers currently O and 3...
Mavs currently O and 4...
The Spurs are trendsetters. They set trends.
Is there a reason you guys use "O" and 3 and not "0" and 3"? O and 3 makes me think that somehow something like P and 3 is also a possibility; 0 and 3 reminds me that we're talking about numbers and not letters.
/peeve
dbreiden83080
04-07-2011, 02:22 PM
Spurs will win the title. So let it be written, so let it be done.
:lol
Welcome back..
wontstartdumbthreads
04-07-2011, 02:55 PM
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/45895/81417512.gif
Lakers currently O and 3...
Mavs currently O and 4...
The Spurs are trendsetters. They set trends.
Giuseppe
04-07-2011, 03:01 PM
Is there a reason you guys use "O" and 3 and not "0" and 3"? O and 3 makes me think that somehow something like P and 3 is also a possibility; 0 and 3 reminds me that we're talking about numbers and not letters.
/peeve
It's an invention of mine from the old AZ Central Boards where I once upon a time ran roughshod using the >O< to cite the progressive count of their complete inability to ring= O & 27, O & 28.....O & 42, to the current O & 43. The right side number detailing the number of years in existence.
The O instead of the 0 is just a mark of distinction.
I'm a trend setter.
I set trends.
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/45895/81417512.gif
:lol
Nene's facial expression is priceless and creepy at the same time.
Giuseppe
04-07-2011, 03:04 PM
The one Phil Jackson playoff stat that always sticks out like a sore thumb... :wow is the one where he doesn't lose a 7 game playoff series after he takes Game 1.
I thought that was an urban myth, that there is a loss in there somewhere.
DJ Mbenga
04-07-2011, 03:11 PM
cannot. use the edit button. you still can
Spurs will win the title. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Let's let it be done, then written. :)
What sticks out like a turd in a punchbowl to me is that Jackson has been to 13 Finals and won 11 of those. All else is just blah...
wontstartdumbthreads
04-07-2011, 03:35 PM
What sticks out like a turd in a punchbowl to me is that Jackson has been to 13 Finals and won 11 of those. All else is just blah...
That's pretty good. About 85%.
Wonder if there are any coaches that have better Finals winning %'s...
Giuseppe
04-07-2011, 03:38 PM
What sticks out like a turd in a punchbowl
:lmao
TampaDude
04-07-2011, 03:41 PM
That's pretty good. About 85%.
Wonder if there are any coaches that have better Finals winning %'s...
I know of one who's never lost an NBA Finals. :hat
wontstartdumbthreads
04-07-2011, 03:42 PM
I know of one who's never lost an NBA Finals. :hat
Well, that's who I'd go with. Whoever it is.
TampaDude
04-07-2011, 03:44 PM
Well, that's who I'd go with. Whoever it is.
:toast
kjhip1
04-07-2011, 04:24 PM
That's pretty good. About 85%.
Wonder if there are any coaches that have better Finals winning %'s...
somewhere Pop is smiling
That's pretty good. About 85%.
Wonder if there are any coaches that have better Finals winning %'s...
Probably.
If you limited it to coaches who've seen more than 5 that would narrow it down, and then coaches who've seen more than 10, that would narrow it down even further.
Regardless, the two with the most Finals wins will never see each other in the Finals, unless Phil gets sucked over to Miami. He's good at starting with nothing and building championship teams of players no one else wanted, like Lebron, Wade and Bosh.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.