73-9

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

People still talking about that Bulls team with 73 wins.....nobody talks about Houston's most recent championship...thats whyy

Jordan, that's why. People talk about Bird's winning teams and Magic's too. Who was on Houston?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Jordan, that's why. People talk about Bird's winning teams and Magic's too. Who was on Houston?

Houston did win back to back championships at at time where many people today watched them so its not like we are talking about a team in the 40s...akeem and drexler both in the Hall of Fame...they were a 6th seed one year..if they had won 73 games in one of those seasons, you cant say we wouldnt be talking about them.....or if you don tthink anyone on G.S. is as good as Jordon and Bird and that team would be like Houston (both winning back to back champs, but noone like Jordan etc) because no big players...thats my point...win 73 games and people will talk about them a loot more than 72 wins -- 20 years from now if thats still the record..

[Peter_Spaeth]

Whatever. To me it's meaningless. The regular season, especially in the NBA where half the league makes the playoffs, is pretty meaningless. Half of those wins were against horrible teams whose seasons were over and could not have cared less and just wanted to get it over with. If Curry et al can win back to back titles, that will be something significant.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whatever. To me it's meaningless. The regular season, especially in the NBA where half the league makes the playoffs, is pretty meaningless. Half of those wins were against horrible teams whose seasons were over and could not have cared less and just wanted to get it over with. If Curry et al can win back to back titles, that will be something significant.

I disagree. A championship is clearly more important. But the most wins in league history? That's pretty impressive. Half of any teams wins were against similar teams that weren't competitive. Many teams have won back to back titles. Someone wins a title every year. Only 1 has won 72 games before.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I disagree. A championship is clearly more important. But the most wins in league history? That's pretty impressive. Half of any teams wins were against similar teams that weren't competitive. Many teams have won back to back titles. Someone wins a title every year. Only 1 has won 72 games before.

Can you name without looking the major league baseball record for wins in a season?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can you name without looking the major league baseball record for wins in a season?

I believe the Mariners broke that record one year after griffey left. I can't name the year but think the total was 114.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I believe the Mariners broke that record one year after griffey left. I can't name the year but think the total was 114.

Nope number is wrong. qed

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can you name without looking the major league baseball record for wins in a season?

The 2001 Mariners won 116 games. I remember the season very well. The M's lost their last game of the regular season, and failed to eclipse the Cubs record. They faced the New York Yankees in the ALCS and lost 4-2 in a playoff series with a great deal of patriotic fervor after 9/11.

I agree with you on this point, if Golden State loses one of their final three games, and fail to best the 95-96 Bulls, it will dampen their spirits. Even if they best the record, but do not win the championship, they may be remembered as an anomaly like the 2001 Mariners. However, I do not see a team that can beat them in a seven game series with home court.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can you name without looking the major league baseball record for wins in a season?

I think I could, at least from 1900 on. I'd guess Ed Walsh, as I know he had 40. I think Jack Chesbro also had 40.

Pre 1800? I would have no idea. Pud Galvin?

[the 'stache]

73 wins is incredible, no matter how you cut it. But for this season to be truly "one for the ages", they need to carry that dominance over to the playoffs, and win it all. The '95-'96 Bulls that won 72 games only lost one game in the first three rounds of the playoffs, and went 15-3 overall in winning the NBA Championship.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think I could, at least from 1900 on. I'd guess Ed Walsh, as I know he had 40. I think Jack Chesbro also had 40.

Pre 1800? I would have no idea. Pud Galvin?

Pretty sure he's talking about team wins which are the Cubs and Mariners (think 116?).. Think been mentioned earlier in this thread too)

... But pitching yes, is Chesbro for post 1900, Old Hoss Radbourn has pre-1900 mark. I'm pretty sure I've seen Hoss's listed anywhere from 61 down to 58. Think it's officially 59 now. Old Hoss also liked to flip the bird whenever he got the shot. Seemed quite the character.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think I could, at least from 1900 on. I'd guess Ed Walsh, as I know he had 40. I think Jack Chesbro also had 40.

Pre 1800? I would have no idea. Pud Galvin?

Team wins.

[esehombre]

Didnt the '96 Bulls lose 2 games at home? Although I dont expect it I certainly think the Warriors are capable of beating SA at home. Heck, the Warriors are almost unbeatable against the best teams in the NBA. It is a good thing they wont be facing the Lakers or Timberwolves in the first round.