better than the 72-10 Bulls by winning pct?

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!