Could the Boston Celtics win 72?
by ZombieMonta on Oct 14, 2009 11:15 AM EDT
in News
3 comments
A couple of days ago, Rasheed Wallace -- pictured right having just escaped an island with his volleyball "Wilson" -- told the Connecticut Post that he thinks the Boston Celtics can match the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls, who won a record 72 games:
"Oh definitely. Definitely, playing with those three other guys, also combining that with the guys we have on the bench, I think we definitely can. Me personally, I think we can get that Bulls record. You know we have the talent for it. We have the will for it and…I think we have the defense for it.
"I really do feel that. That was a good team. They had some HOFs on there, but we have a few on this team, too."
This is an interesting position to take considering Wallace hasn't actually played a game yet with the Boston Celtics. Now I expect Boston to improve from where they were last year -- Rasheed gives them something off the bench, which they lacked since James Posey left for New Orleans. But it's too much to bank on Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Wallace and Rondo and Perkins to all stay healthy throughout the season.
And even if they are healthy, they are not the 1996 Bulls. In the NBA, you can only go as far as the best player on your team; the Bulls had the best player ever in '96 and they had the best team ever. That's not to say that this Boston team can't win in the high 60's. After all, the Dallas Mavericks won 67 games a few years ago, and I think we'd all agree that this Celtics team has a better roster than that Mavs team. But winning 72 is like going 16-0 in the NFL. You basically need to have a perfect season. In 1996, Chicago's only losses at home were a one-point defeat to the Charlotte Hornets and a one-point loss to the Pacers. Through 25 games they were 23-2; through 50 games they were 45-5; through 60 games they were 54-6. And the Bulls didn't have teams like the Magic and Cavaliers within their own conference to deal with -- the Bulls swept their toughest challenger, the Orlando Magic, in the Eastern Conference Finals.
So no, 72 is really unlikely. I will say this though. If any team is reaching 70, it's the Cleveland Cavaliers. No player has ever maximized the talent around him like LeBron James, who took that Cavs team to the finals in 2007 with a twig and a used gum wrapper as his supporting cast. Now they have Leon Powe, Shaquille O'Neal, and Anthony Parker -- and they were a 65-win team last year anyway. If Shaquille O'Neal isn't too old or too hurt, that Cavs team has a legitimate shot at reaching 70. Everyone else? Nah.
0 recs |
3 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Of course no one's getting to 70 or 72
But if I were told a team were this year, I’d think the Lakers would have the best chance, unless the regression of Kobe Bryant is painfully more obvious than it was last year. The Lakers have an obscene amount of talent that will win them games on that alone. They’ve got six games combined against the Cavs/Magic/Celtics, where those teams have at least seven against each other. The Spurs are the only “real” contender to the Lakers as far as the regular season goes.
More than 45-5, I think the absolute benchmark for 72-10 is 41-3. That’s such an unreal record. It signifies a fast start, yes, but it requires unbelievable persistence to reach into February before you lose four games. It required a 31-1 stretch (blemished only by my Pacers, haha), and I think it’s just way too hard.
I can see the Lakers getting through November with only one loss, honestly, but again, that’s only November. There’s still two full months of that level to go. The bad thing about it is it’s been nearly 15 years since that season, so everyone gets excited about that prospect and forgets how difficult that actually and honestly is. Considering how only one team has ever won 70 games, much less 72, it’s pretty safe to say the Celtics won’t, the Cavaliers won’t, and the Lakers won’t.
by goodlucksaturday on Oct 14, 2009 7:51 PM EDT reply actions
My feeling is that the Lakers have always been a team that coasts. They’ve lost 6 of their last 8 games against the Charlotte Bobcats, and that tells me that they don’t have the drive needed to do it. I agree that with Artest, Odom Gasol, Bynum and Bryant, they are the most loaded team in the NBA. But they’re in a conference where, even including San Antonio, they’re going to have nothing to play for the final couple months of the year. They’re going to be around 65-70 wins, but my gut tells me it won’t happen.
Last year, the Cavs were the most over-achieving 66-win team I’ve ever seen. They won 66 games with Ben Wallace, Wally Szczerbiak, Sasha Pavlovic, and Joe Smith in the regular rotation: Shaq, Powe, Parker and Moon are a much better foursome, and that team should be much better than they were last year. I’m always hesitant to say that anyone would, but I think the addition of Shaq might give them the 4 extra wins they’d need.
Inhistoric.com -- the No. 1 source for sports history.
I can agree
On pretty much all counts. The Lakers do coast, and I’m convinced Ron Artest is going to lose a couple of games on his shot alone. I’d actually really like this team if they played to their level of talent, but I was upset with them all postseason last year as they just coasted through the playoffs.
As with the Cavs, they overachieved like crazy, but I can’t help but think they won’t improve in the win column much if at all. I’m not sure if it’s just common sense telling me that improving wins over 66 is ridiculous or not though. They have improved personnel, but I figure they can be a better team without having a better record. I also believe the improvement of the East is going to play a part in that as well. I’m interested to see how it unfolds, though. Should be a great season, even if the league is very top heavy this year.
by goodlucksaturday on Oct 14, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
This is Inhistoric, the ultimate resource in what happened on this day in sports history. To find out all you need to know about the site, click here for the FAQ.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
