better than the 72-10 Bulls by winning pct?

Yes, the Spurs winning percentage is higher now than the winning percentage that the 72-10 Chicago Bulls finished with.

Of course, I do not expect this pace to continue, especially with all of the tough games ahead of us. Games at Dallas, at Orlando, at Boston on a back to back ... will almost certainly knock us off of first place and down to Earth. After that stretch, we are likely to be second in division and may win only 5 of this difficult stretch of 9 games. Obviously, that 72-10 Bulls team is better as they had the GOAT, MJ, as well as Pippen on their team. Tim Duncan, in my book, is a top 5 or top 10 player of all time, but he is not in his prime. So, he won't put up big numbers on a consistent basis during the regular season. In the playoffs, it looks like he will be the same dominant Tim Duncan and will be our best player. He just can't do that now over an 82 game season.

Despite all of these caveats, I find it very impressive that this Spurs team was able to get through more than a fourth of the season and have a better winning percentage than the Chicago Bulls finished with, especially considering all of the rest that they have given Timmy.

:flag:

are the spurs the 72-10 bulls? no. are they better? no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 024

are the spurs the 72-10 bulls? no. are they better? no doubt.

---

are you serious?

:wakeup

The spurs could have an outside shot at that record if Pop made everyone play balls out. The spurs would however be gassed and too tired to take on the deep West in the playoffs though. Pop would never let that happen. Spurs will finish around 59-63wins. Hopefully thats what we'll need for the #1 seed.

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems unusual to me that so many teams would have such great records this late in the season. It looks to me like there is not as much parity this season. There are several great teams, Spurs being the best so far, and those teams include Boston, LA, and Dallas. There are a few very good teams like Orlando. And a bunch of teams which are not very competitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty85

The spurs could have an outside shot at that record if Pop made everyone play balls out. The spurs would however be gassed and too tired to take on the deep West in the playoffs though. Pop would never let that happen. Spurs will finish around 59-63wins. Hopefully thats what we'll need for the #1 seed.

---

I believe that this is correct, except I suspect that we will go 5-4 or 6-3 over a difficult 9 game stretch. And that will be the end of the search for that holy grail. If somehow, we stayed on pace through that series of games to have a chance at beating that record, then I would completely agree with you, Pop is about championships, not regular season records. He would rest his players to give them the best chance of winning a championship instead of pursuing the regular season record books.

:flag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty85

The spurs could have an outside shot at that record if Pop made everyone play balls out. The spurs would however be gassed and too tired to take on the deep West in the playoffs though. Pop would never let that happen. Spurs will finish around 59-63wins. Hopefully thats what we'll need for the #1 seed.

---

Yeah, no way are they going to beat that 72-10 record. Nobody will have enough gas in the tank for the playoffs.

Ya'll remember the Bulls had 6 games v expansion teams.

On top of that an EC team has an easier road than WC. For instance, the East Coast is more compressed, and you don't find yourself flying from Portland to New Orleans, LA to Minnesota more than once a year.

That being said, the Spurs can take it one game at a time and finish 74-8. Anything less and a bit of disappointment is perfectly acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mavs<Spurs

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems unusual to me that so many teams would have such great records this late in the season. It looks to me like there is not as much parity this season. There are several great teams, Spurs being the best so far, and those teams include Boston, LA, and Dallas. There are a few very good teams like Orlando. And a bunch of teams which are not very competitive.

---

What is unusual is that whomever set up the schedule this year back-loaded it so the good teams don't play each other much in the first third of the season.

It is interesting to note that the difference in the two conferences this year. West is Best. Dallas and San Antonio have 2 of the 3 best records in the league. All of the games that they lost were to Western Conference Teams (this is not conclusive of course, but it is suggestive - Spurs lost to Clippers for example). Boston has lost only 1 game to teams in its conference.
I notice also that our division is clearly the best. Spurs, Mavs, and Hornets. wow. No other division is really close. Northwest may be next: OKC, Denver, and Utah. Then, we could be looking at Chicago, Orlando and Atlanta as being in the third best division. The rest of the divisions have one good to great team and no other serious title contenders.

:flag:

yeah we'll never reach 70 wins

Pop will rest the starters once we have a seed locked up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mavs<Spurs

are you serious?

:wakeup

---

was this thread serious??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CubanMustGo

What is unusual is that whomever set up the schedule this year back-loaded it so the good teams don't play each other much in the first third of the season.

---

And this explains the disparity in records. But all of that is about to change. Spurs are playing Orlando, Boston, LA, Dallas, Denver, and Chicago in an upcoming series of games.

the Bulls had only 4 losses by the all-star break..... that gives us only 1 mistake in the next 2 months to keep pace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 024

was this thread serious??

---

about the Spurs having a better winning percentage than the 72-10 Chicago Bulls finished with, yes. That is a mathematical fact.

And that is what this thread was all about. I even pointed out that the Spurs were not as good as that Chicago Bulls team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stnick2261

the Bulls had only 4 losses by the all-star break..... that gives us only 1 mistake in the next 2 months to keep pace

---

and a horrible grouping of games. no way.

However, I am sure that you noticed the metric I am using is not comparing their records at the same time time in the season, but rather the Spurs current winning percentage against the winning percentage that the 72-10 Bulls finished the season with (horrible English to finish a sentence with a preposition ) .

Man at this rate i don't know, i feel we can be up there. We look like were just cruisin through the regular season...

the bulls were 41-3 at one point. So ... yeah if we can rattle off 18 wins, cool. They had like two more streaks of 15+ wins to come at this point in the season. The fact that we can even talk about this is cool, but it would take some magic.

it would be a miracle to do it, look at the last few games - we won with 1-2 points diff. Usually there are nights when the dice will roll against us, even if we have a pts diff of 20 as average (for the season). But of course records are records in order to be beaten, I mean, it happened once, it should happen again, if we are the team to do it - it would be great for all us - spurs fans, to be part of the history :) Hehe, excuse my english

72-10 bulls played in a league weakened by a recent expansion draft of 2 teams. That team also had the liberty of playing those expansion teams 4 times each. For me the team before was better.

Not that I wouldn't love to see it happen, but there's two reasons I believe SA won't sniff that 72-10 Bulls' eye. First, the Bulls' level of competition during that season was hardly of the caliber the NBA offers in 2010. Secondly, Popovich has ALWAYS valued postseason games more than regular season success, and I highly doubt that he strays away from that bedrock principle of San Antonio's success merely to chase a regular season record.

we are 22-3

the bulls were 41-3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

we are 22-3

the bulls were 41-3

---

I'm still a little mad about that loss to the Clips, we should've had that game
>=o!!!! Would've made our pretty record look even better.

No, and it's not even on their radar.

This thread is terrible and I'll tell you why. The Bulls had a better winning percentage through 25 games than the Spurs did during their 72-10 season. That is a mathematical fact.

Comparing the Spurs winning percentage through 25 games to the Bulls winning percentage through 82 games is absolutely nonsensical and irrelevant.

http://espn.go.com/nba/features/best

If we win tonight, then we will have the same winning percentage a the Bulls did through the first 26 games.

If we want to stay on pace with the Bulls, we'd have to win the next 18 games.

bulls had weak ass competition in the east, and when you play against the pathetic east teams 4 times....its easy to rack up wins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juanobili

yeah we'll never reach 70 wins

Pop will rest the starters once we have a seed locked up

---

This probably.

But fuck the record. It's all about overall team chemistry and defense come Playoff time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooks

I'm still a little mad about that loss to the Clips, we should've had that game
>=o!!!! Would've made our pretty record look even better.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jestersmash

http://espn.go.com/nba/features/best

---

why aren't the celts on that page?

I don't want to see the chaos and bedlam that will ensue here if the Spurs go on a two game losing streak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralfats

why aren't the celts on that page?

---

they just HAD to include the lakers in there :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralfats

why aren't the celts on that page?

---

I'm surprised as well because that page isn't immutable by any means.

They started out having the Lakers and the Miami Heat on that page. Miami started so poorly and San Antonio started so well that they interchanged the two teams.

Boston deserves to be featured over the Lakers but at the end of the day it doesn't actually matter of course. We can all track Boston's progress just fine using the NBA.com standings.

To be honest, ESPN hasn't even plugged that page much at all. You won't readily find a hyperlink to it, which is why I bookmarked the page.

Some of you are suggesting that the Bulls easy schedule played in a big part in their record. I was watching basketball a lot at that time and that team was dominant. Period. The addition of Rodman made them such a tough team. With Jordan, Pippen and Rodman they had 3 of the best defenders in the NBA. I can't think of any other team in history that had that kind of defensive ability. Remember, Rodman could stop Shaq in his prime, which is something no one else could do. And Jordan and Pippen were Bowen-esque perimeter defenders. That team was the best NBA team I ever saw, and I've been watching since the Bird-Magic years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

bulls had weak ass competition in the east, and when you play against the pathetic east teams 4 times....its easy to rack up wins

---

Not only that. The leauge was weak.
And really Bulls had nobody who could concur with that at the time

The 72-10 Bulls actually lost to one of the expansion teams (Toronto), and had three 1-point losses. With some luck they could have been 75-7

With a big luck they could make it a 82-0 season

spurs are closer to the 06 Pistons than the 72 win bulls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Worlds_finest

72-10 bulls played in a league weakened by a recent expansion draft of 2 teams. That team also had the liberty of playing those expansion teams 4 times each. For me the team before was better.

---

They didn't play them 4 times each. Vancouver was in the western conference.. They played toronto 4 times and vancouver 2 times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mavs<Spurs

It is interesting to note that the difference in the two conferences this year. West is Best. Dallas and San Antonio have 2 of the 3 best records in the league. All of the games that they lost were to Western Conference Teams (this is not conclusive of course, but it is suggestive - Spurs lost to Clippers for example). Boston has lost only 1 game to teams in its conference.
I notice also that our division is clearly the best. Spurs, Mavs, and Hornets. wow. No other division is really close. Northwest may be next: OKC, Denver, and Utah. Then, we could be looking at Chicago, Orlando and Atlanta as being in the third best division. The rest of the divisions have one good to great team and no other serious title contenders.



:flag:

---

There is no Chicago, Orlando, Atlanta divison... Chicago is in the central.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

bulls had weak ass competition in the east, and when you play against the pathetic east teams 4 times....its easy to rack up wins

---

Give me a break 72 wins is 72 wins if it were easy it would something that is done all the time.

Anyone who's been following the Spurs knows that Pop doesn't give a shit about their regular season record. The REAL season starts when the playoffs begin. Pop just wants to get a good seed and try to win another :lobt2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TampaDude

Anyone who's been following the Spurs knows that Pop doesn't give a shit about their regular season record. The REAL season starts when the playoffs begin. Pop just wants to get a good seed and try to win another :lobt2:

---

Yup. As soon as they lock the #1 seed its over. Can't wait.:toast

Any team that won their first game had a better winning percentage at that point than the Bulls finished the season with.

How were the Bulls at this point in the season? Compare apples to apples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _JaG

I don't want to see the chaos and bedlam that will ensue here if the Spurs go on a two game losing streak.

---

You might leave now then, because it's going to happen soon if the trend continues. The Spurs are getting closer and closer to apathy as the season progresses. I think it's always an uphill battle to keep focused. It often requires a couple losses to get players' attention.

As far as the Bulls having an easier schedule because of expansion teams: There's always the worst teams in the league, expansion or not, and so that's not an excuse. The Spurs lost to the Clippers... so... ?

the thing I like best about this season is that Dallas, Lakers and SA are so close and jocking for position that you won't see any of them let up until the very end. This really bodes well for the Spurs. We are the ones getting our superstars rest, and it is our system that needs all the cogs to be running at peak efficiency, this means we must keep our guys playing hard.

I hate it when we start to rest guys because we tend to lose our Chemistry.

The Lakers and Mavs are playing their starters big minutes and this is wearing them down. We keep this up and by the time the real season starts we will be rested, healthy, and playing our best basketball. The mavs and lakers will be tired, and banged up.

the thing is that Jax teams could take it, no matter how many minutes he played them.

Well one year he overplayed Horry and Horry was bad in the playoffs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Any team that won their first game had a better winning percentage at that point than the Bulls finished the season with.

How were the Bulls at this point in the season? Compare apples to apples.

---

At the 26-game mark, the 95-96 Bulls were at 23-3.

At the 26-game mark, the 10-11 Spurs are at 23-3.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...996_games.html

what a fucking idiot even trying to compare the Jordan Bulls and the tin man spurts lol

Only in your dreams idiots!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crickets

what a fucking idiot even trying to compare the Jordan Bulls and the tin man spurts lol

Only in your dreams idiots!

---

He says, hunched over his blowup doll of LeBrick while he fucks it feverishly, stopping only long enough to refresh his latest troll...

The NBA was fairly talent diluted the year the Bulls set that record. Couple that with the fact that 5 of their wins were by 3 points of less, and they had two overtime victories, and you could argue that they were lucky to reach the 70 win plateau, too. They were very, very good, but fortune smiled their way, plus they had the NBA Rating Franchise in Michael Jordan.

I used to hate the refs back then because it seemed like Jordan would be on the receiving end of so many phantom calls. Ahhh, memories.

If you remove the Bull's fantastic season, there is one behind it that would be the best. Then people would be able to discount that one as well for various reasons. After a while, there would be no legitimate seasons, regardless of the stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Helicopter Jones

The NBA was fairly talent diluted the year the Bulls set that record. Couple that with the fact that 5 of their wins were by 3 points of less, and they had two overtime victories, and you could argue that they were lucky to reach the 70 win plateau, too. They were very, very good, but fortune smiled their way, plus they had the NBA Rating Franchise in Michael Jordan.

I used to hate the refs back then because it seemed like Jordan would be on the receiving end of so many phantom calls. Ahhh, memories.

---

Yea and mostly to blow a whistle in a difficult situation a scream HeY! by Jordan was enough.

The bonus of having a quick start 24 -3 . Is the spurs simply have to winh 60 % of their remaining games ( similar to their finish last year after the all star break) and their guaranteed of a 60 win season

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

Not only that. The leauge was weak.
And really Bulls had nobody who could concur with that at the time

---

http://jolieodell.files.wordpress.co...0&crop=1&h=380

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

the thing is that Jax teams could take it, no matter how many minutes he played them.

Well one year he overplayed Horry and Horry was bad in the playoffs

---

That's one of the things about Jackson that fascinates me (particularly as a Spurs fan), how does he get so many minutes from his stars?

:depressed

^ about concur

Fuck 72-10. If we can lock up the top two seeds in the West, I will be very happy.

A friend(who's a rockets fan, actually, but loves the NBA) called me today who had been on his honeymoon:

Friend: Did I just hear on the radio the Spurs are 23-3?
Me: Yeah. So if we win 18 of our next 19, we'll be on pace with the '96 Bulls.
Friend: No...you're on pace with them now
Me: Well, okay, but we won't make it I'm sure.
Friend: But it's still so impressive! Think about it this way: Even if y'all only win every other game for the rest of the year, you'll still end up with 52 wins!

When I think about it that way...man. We have set ourselves up for quite a finish!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LoneStarState'sPride

Not that I wouldn't love to see it happen, but there's two reasons I believe SA won't sniff that 72-10 Bulls' eye. First, the Bulls' level of competition during that season was hardly of the caliber the NBA offers in 2010. Secondly, Popovich has ALWAYS valued postseason games more than regular season success, and I highly doubt that he strays away from that bedrock principle of San Antonio's success merely to chase a regular season record.

---

Give me 60+ & great PO seeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LoneStarState'sPride

Secondly, Popovich has ALWAYS valued postseason games more than regular season success, and I highly doubt that he strays away from that bedrock principle of San Antonio's success merely to chase a regular season record.

---

+1

The 70-9 Bulls were still playing Jordan/Pippen/Rodman more than 40 minutes in a meaningless game against the Bucks (25W-57L that season).

I don't see Pop doing that with Duncan/Ginobili/Parker (even if they were younger).

like Pop would care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m33p0

like Pop would care.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manu_Forever

The 1990-91 Boston Celtics were 29-5 (putting them on pace to win 70 games if they stayed healthy) before a bunch of injuries started to set in. They finished the season with a 56-26 record.

To go 72-10 you have to be really good, lucky, play in a totally watered down league, and stay healthy all year.

The Spurs are really good so far and the league is incredibly watered down. But the chances of being lucky and staying totally healthy? Doubtful.

---

Like the Greek League, for example. A league dominated by two teams where the regular season champion has finished with a higher winning percentage than the 1996 Bulls for the last five seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mel_13

Like the Greek League, for example. A league dominated by two teams where the regular season champion has finished with a higher winning percentage than the 1996 Bulls for the last five seasons.

---

:lol no joke.

People really need to get a clue around here.

Quote:

---

I used to hate the refs back then because it seemed like Jordan would be on the receiving end of so many phantom calls. Ahhh, memories.

---

Phantom calls? :lol You have to be kidding me. I swear you people have no idea how easy perimeter players have it today. Michael Jordan at his peak averaged only 7-8 free throws a game. I'm talking about a player that shot the ball anywhere from 23-26 times a game, could get to the rim anytime he wanted (and did). Let me give you a little comparison to the league Jordan played in and the candy ass league the players are competing in today.

In '93 Michael Jordan, an athletic freak in his prime, played nearly 40 minutes a game, shot the ball 26 times a game. He only shot the three about 2-3 times a game. He averaged 7 free throws that year...pretty much around the average he always had.

Manu Ginobili this year plays 32 minutes a game, shoots the ball 13 times a game. Shoots the 3 point shot about 7 times a game. And yet still somehow averages 6 free throws a game. That's basically one free throw less than Jordan for a player who puts up half the shot attempts. TWICE as many threes and plays almost a full quarter less :lol

That's how freakin easy it is for players to get to the line these days. The same goes for the rest of these stars today (D-Whistle, Lebron, Durant, etc). Michael Jordan (and Scottie Pippen for that matter) would KILL to play in this league today. If Jordan were getting any phantom calls at all he was getting them FAR less than the players of today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

Yea and mostly to blow a whistle in a difficult situation a scream HeY! by Jordan was enough.

---

I hope that was sarcasm because unlike the bitch-made stars of today Jordan never verbal flopped like a sissy to get calls. Other than Reggie Miller perimeter players used to play with integrity in that era. And Spurs fans should know what a good verbal flop sounds like since Tony Parker screams "HEY" (ala Kobe) every single time he gets in trouble in the paint.

Yea but parkers HEY is ignored - Jordans HEYs never were


I was not sarcastic - that's the way it was and you can realize this by watching Bulls games and treatment they had back then. I'm talking about 2nd peat

btw. the defense back then was not as good as it is now.
The rules have changed because of the D getting better and refs could not handle the contact issues and game was getting slow and not fun [still they interpret it by not so strict rules]

I was not a fan of changes but it occurred to be good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manu_Forever

Boston Celtics = 17 championships

LA Lakers = 16 championships


Two NBA teams have won 33 out of the 62 (53.2%) NBA championships in history. All other NBA teams combined, have won 29.

The NBA is the all-time ultimate king of 2 team leagues in the whole entire world. The NBA is, and always will be, a two team league.

---

PAO and Oly have combined to win 17 of the past 18 Greek League championships. That's 94.4%. (Btw, they have both started 9-0 in a 26 game season. There's a good chance that neither team will lose a single to any of the Washington General clones in that joke of a league).

And I thought you were ignoring me. Strange way to go about it.

It's hidden for polandprzem as well?

ill be really happy if we get 60 wins (and a title of course). but we still need alot of luck and breaks along the way