# 12/6/12 predict the Lakers final record



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

The Lakers are currently 9-10. I think 99% of the population thinks they will improve, but the question is how much? 

I predict they finish at 56-26. That a 47 win, 16 loss finish.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

They should end up at 57-25 but since they have a bad habit of underachieving I'll say *52-30 *


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bunch of cowards nervous to go on the record here? 44 views?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

I'll go with 53-29.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

mid 50s win totals


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

51-31, but with strong run in the playoffs. This depends, of course, on what happens with Gasol and who they do or do not turn him into.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Unfortunately, I think they will finish at 52-30, which is about 6 wins less than they should get.


----------



## Cajon (Nov 1, 2012)

52-30.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

51-31


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> 51-31, but with strong run in the playoffs. This depends, of course, on what happens with Gasol and who they do or do not turn him into.


This is all assuming gasol stays, Nash is back any day and no one else is hurt majorly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

51-31


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

55 wins.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

58 wins.


----------



## LLROCKS (Mar 15, 2012)

49-33. That would be one helluva improvement from the nightmarish current 9-10. If this was last years club, I would love their chances against the Hardenless Thunder tonight. The silver lining, is that the Lakers have a lot of games left to reach their potential for the playoffs. I was surprised that the Lakers went with D'Antoni and not the Zen Master. Especially since the Lakers werent built for that type of offense. Oh well.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

With the exception of LLROCKS, you guys are all drinking the Kool-Aid.

46-36.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Bunch of cowards nervous to go on the record here? 44 views?


Keep in mind Jamal we have a lot of unregistered guests view these pages and even spider-bots that add to the views.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

This team will either be an 8 seed or a 55+ win team. The talent is there but...


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

MojoPin said:


> This team will either be an 8 seed or a 55+ win team. The talent is there but...


Ha ha, that didn't take long! :laugh:

58 to 55+/8th seed, can you start to marginalize your choice more? :laugh:


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Ron's prediction might seem on the pessimistic side, but while you expect them to improve drastically over the final 75% of the season, twice as many losses in that span as they had in the first 25% seems reasonable. That would put them in a tie for the 7th/8th seed in 2011, and out of the playoffs the two previous seasons (that's as far back as I bothered to look), which just doesn't sit right for me. It's hard for me to even see them in danger of missing the playoffs in March/April, but the West is super-competitive this year. I can't see them not getting to 50 wins, ultimately.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> 51-31


*UPDATE: *This team won't win 50 games.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

38-44


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

doctordrizzay said:


> 38-44


Is this you admitting you made a horrible prediction when you said they would lose in the second round?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Predictions: 47-35, 7th seed

So far, Lakers are on the pace to win the record 35-47


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ballscientist said:


> Predictions: 47-35, 7th seed
> 
> So far, Lakers are on the pace to win the record 35-47


Where do you think We Warriors will finish? Could it be possible that the Lakers will finish 3rd in California for only the third time (94 and 2005) in the history?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

9-73


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

50-32


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Is this you admitting you made a horrible prediction when you said they would lose in the second round?














Cinco de Mayo said:


> 9-73


Isn't that what World Peace predicted?


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

44-38

Lakers will be either fifth or sixth seed


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

With 44 wins? That's not very Western Conference-like. Usually you need at least 50 to make the postseason.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

We'll win at least 50.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Luke said:


> We'll win at least 50.


So you are saying that a bad basketball team that barely beat the worst team in the league without their best player in order to snap a 4-game losing streak is going to go at least 40-18 the rest of the way?

Right.

That Kool-Aid container must be bottomless.

I'm already worried about my 46-36 prediction holding up.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I'l keep sipping my "kool-aid" and you can keep pretending the sky is falling every time this team hits a rough patch.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Luke said:


> I'l keep sipping my "kool-aid" and you can keep pretending the sky is falling every time this team hits a rough patch.


24 games (exactly one-third of the season!) is just a "rough patch" for you?

You aren't sipping, you're guzzling.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

It's the regular season. One would think that a fan, especially a fan of a team that is the Lakers' calibur historically, wouldn't be so prone to pushing the panic button.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Luke said:


> It's the regular season. One would think that a fan, especially a fan of a team that is the Lakers' calibur historically, wouldn't be so prone to pushing the panic button.


You keep referencing me as shouting the "sky is falling" or "pushing the panic button" but the truth of the matter is I accepted this team's inability to play with one another quite some time ago.

I don't get all worked up when I know a team is below-caliber. I do get worked up with I know a team is above-caliber and losing. That frustrates me.

This team does not frustrate me anymore. I have accepted that they are a mediocre team.

Oh, and more point in regard to your statement "it's the regular season." They are currently in 12th place in the WC. If things continue this god-forsaken path, the regular season is all they will end up with.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

You don't get worked up over below calibur teams? Didn't you swear off basketball when the Lakers missed the playoffs in 2005?

Yeah, the Lakers are in 12th place. I would be willing to bet that they won't be in 12th place at the end of the season. We'll be fine.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

And thanks archivist.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Luke said:


> I'l keep sipping my "kool-aid" and you can keep pretending the sky is falling every time this team hits a rough patch.


In 2001 during a rough patch Ron claimed the team was done and needed to rebuild. They did after two rings and three trips to the finals later.

Last year he claimed they were a "strong conteder" when they started the season 10-4 and was second in the west. He changed his mind weeks later.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> You keep referencing me as shouting the "sky is falling" or "pushing the panic button" but the truth of the matter is I accepted this team's inability to play with one another quite some time ago.
> 
> I don't get all worked up when I know a team is below-caliber. I do get worked up with I know a team is above-caliber and losing. That frustrates me.
> 
> ...


I'll bet you any amount of money the Lakers will make the playoffs. I'll even give you 10-1 odds.

You are the definition of a chicken little and for you to claim you don't get all worked up and emotional is hilarious to anyone that ever reads your posts.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I'll bet you any amount of money the Lakers will make the playoffs. I'll even give you 10-1 odds.
> 
> You are the definition of a chicken little and for you to claim you don't get all worked up and emotional is hilarious to anyone that ever reads your posts.


Just telling it like it is, Jamel.

You don't seem too enthused about this team either, by reading your recent posts. So pile on me all you want, but you aren't exactly the definition of calm, collect fan either.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Luke said:


> You don't get worked up over below calibur teams? Didn't you swear off basketball when the Lakers missed the playoffs in 2005?


I think most posters here with half-a-brain know I mostly post tongue-in-cheek. Why are you having such a hard time "getting it?"


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> You are the definition of a chicken little and for you to claim you don't get all worked up and emotional is hilarious to anyone that ever reads your posts.


Same here...for someone who should know far better, you should DEFINITELY know my posting style. Yet you insist on reading my posts "verbatim" as though my emotions can defined by black ink on white canvas. I've stated here many times how you misrepresent my posts and then argue against the misrepresentation.

It's the oldest debating trick in the world and I think most people have figured you out as well by now, Jamel.

As far as the Lakers go, I won't take that bet, because yeah they might make the playoffs, but I am thinking they won't. That is my opinion and I don't have to back it up with hard-earned money...in other words, I don't gamble. I just give my money away in basketball contests on this site.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Oh, and I am still sticking with 46-36, and out of the playoffs. Gonna take 50 wins to make the playoffs in the West.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

:laugh:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> Just telling it like it is, Jamel.
> 
> You don't seem too enthused about this team either, by reading your recent posts. So pile on me all you want, but you aren't exactly the definition of calm, collect fan either.


Difference between me and you is I know history and realize this could be very different in 3 months. 


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Ron said:


> I think most posters here with half-a-brain know I mostly post tongue-in-cheek. Why are you having such a hard time "getting it?"


You post tongue in cheek? Didn't you leave this site following 2005?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Luke said:


> You post tongue in cheek? Didn't you leave this site following 2005?





Ron said:


> ghiman did the unthinkable, and got me to post again...
> 
> A couple of things I'd like to say before I crawl back in my hole...
> 
> ...


http://www.basketballforum.com/los-angeles-lakers/149808-tough-too-watch.html

You tell me if you think this is a composed guy posting tongue-in-cheek.

BTW while searching for that I found a bunch of other Ron threads, where he claims the sky is falling because the Lakers would lose to a lottery team (and these were in seasons they won 50 games and had a finals appearance).


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Ron predicted lottery for a struggling Laker team*



Ron said:


> Well, the Lakers teased me with that 8-2 run. They have now lost two in a row, three of four, and are playing just awful.
> 
> No offense, no defense.
> 
> ...


That season? Lakers won 50 games and easily made the playoffs after a slow start. Without making any trades that Ron demanded.

Maybe every post in this thread from Ron is tongue in cheek?

I'm drinking the koolaid!


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

The difference between you and me, Jamel, is I don't have all day long to search other people's posts in order for you to attempt to "prove a point."

You lead a sad life, man.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

*Re: Ron predicted lottery for a struggling Laker team*



Jamel Irief said:


> That season? Lakers won 50 games and easily made the playoffs after a slow start. Without making any trades that Ron demanded.
> 
> Maybe every post in this thread from Ron is tongue in cheek?
> 
> I'm drinking the koolaid!


And they got bounced in the second round by San Antonio.

Now you tell me...you really think this Laker squad is going to bounce back like that one did?


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Difference between me and you is I know history and realize this could be very different in 3 months.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


Wake me up when this team learns how to play defense.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Ron said:


> The difference between you and me, Jamel, is I don't have all day long to search other people's posts in order for you to attempt to "prove a point."
> 
> You lead a sad life, man.


Lol, so a poster proves you wrong and you reply by insulting him? I get as much shit from the archivist as anyone but at least I can admit when I'm wrong or blatantly contradicting myself.

And as for 2003, yeah, we got bounced in the second round. By the eventual champions. Who happened to have a top 8 player at the absolute peak of his abilities. And considering even then we still only lost due to "In, out, heartbreak!" I'm going to go ahead and stay optimistic about my team.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> The difference between you and me, Jamel, is I don't have all day long to search other people's posts in order for you to attempt to "prove a point."
> 
> You lead a sad life, man.


As usual, Ron gets personal when he's embarrassed. Its amazing how you lead an amazing life with your emotional instability. Unlike you I have a great memory, it's why I notice trends in great veteran teams that start off slow and why I notice trends in chicken little emotional posters that become unglued when things don't go there way. With that "tongue in cheek" thread being in my memory I found it rather quickly. 

Granted, after I found it I still read like 6 other "sky is falling" threads of yours. My poor life. 

Kool aid!


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Luke said:


> Lol, so a poster proves you wrong and you reply by insulting him? I get as much shit from the archivist as anyone but at least I can admit when I'm wrong or blatantly contradicting myself.
> 
> And as for 2003, yeah, we got bounced in the second round. By the eventual champions. Who happened to have a top 8 player at the absolute peak of his abilities. And considering even then we still only lost due to "In, out, heartbreak!" I'm going to go ahead and stay optimistic about my team.


He's done it before. Last time he called me a "Internet stalker." He knows he has no retort for me exposing his contradictions. He forgot he made those posts and now says he has no time. 


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> And they got bounced in the second round by San Antonio.
> 
> Now you tell me...you really think this Laker squad is going to bounce back like that one did?


Yes, or I wouldn't have predicted they will win 56 games.

You were just as pessimistic in 2003. So don't tell me "it's different."


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

At the end of this season, someone is going to have a big, fat, shiny, new "I TOLD YOU SO" sitting in their holster. opcorn:

BTW, 27 games would be a third of the season. 24 is a third of 72.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Jace said:


> At the end of this season, someone is going to have a big, fat, shiny, new "I TOLD YOU SO" sitting in their holster. opcorn:
> 
> BTW, 27 games would be a third of the season. 24 is a third of 72.


Everybody makes good and bad predictions. The annoying thing is when people are intolerants of others having a different opinion and keep saying they're koolaid drinking idiots as if they've never been wrong before.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Jace said:


> At the end of this season, someone is going to have a big, fat, shiny, new "I TOLD YOU SO" sitting in their holster. opcorn:
> 
> BTW, 27 games would be a third of the season. 24 is a third of 72.


I won't, but you can be sure those two above will (if given the opportunity).

And I will repeat, I am not sure why Jamel has such an obsession with me, but I will run with it, he is not the first poster to do so. I did start this site, after all, so I am an easy target.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Luke said:


> Lol, so a poster proves you wrong and you reply by insulting him? I get as much shit from the archivist as anyone but at least I can admit when I'm wrong or blatantly contradicting myself.


Prove me wrong? Really, Luke?

I mean if I had all the time in the world as the archivist has, I guess I can find some emotional and/or "contradictory" posts by him as well. I am just not that petty, besides not having the time. That really is not what this site is about (or at least I didn't think this site was about that).

As for getting personal, I guess all you have to do is look at his posts in this thread to see that cuts both ways.

In any event, didn't mean to take this thread off the rails. I stick to my prediction of 46-36. However, looking at the standings, I change my earlier thought that 50 wins are needed for eighth place...we are looking at a 13-12 team in eighth place right now, so 46-36 could very well get us into the playoffs.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> I won't, but you can be sure those two above will (if given the opportunity).
> 
> And I will repeat, I am not sure why Jamel has such an obsession with me, but I will run with it, he is not the first poster to do so. I did start this site, after all, so I am an easy target.


Probably because you take this elitist attitude with anyone that disagrees with you. See your first post in the thread. 

I'm not as obsessed with you as I am with Luke so get over yourself. I'm an equal opportunity archivist. 


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> Prove me wrong? Really, Luke?
> 
> I mean if I had all the time in the world as the archivist has, I guess I can find some emotional and/or "contradictory" posts by him as well. I am just not that petty, besides not having the time. That really is not what this site is about (or at least I didn't think this site was about that).
> 
> ...


It took me two minutes to find that thread because I have a better memory than you and actually remembered you making it. That's all. 




Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I'm not as obsessed with you as I am with Luke so get over yourself. I'm an equal opportunity archivist.
> 
> :laugh:


You are okay in my book, Jamel. :laugh:

The rest of it, I will leave alone. I don't think I am elitist but time to move on to the subject at hand.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Ron said:


> In any event, didn't mean to take this thread off the rails. I stick to my prediction of 46-36. However, looking at the standings, I change my earlier thought that 50 wins are needed for eighth place...we are looking at a 13-12 team in eighth place right now, so 46-36 could very well get us into the playoffs.


I've thought about this. There seem to be very few flat-out bad teams in the West, so I think we'll continue to see a lot of teams out there beating up on each other from top to bottom. This could result in there being less separation amongst the bottom 10 or so, probably with the cream on top winning a whole lot, meaning one or two might get in with below 50 wins.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

Bump...


----------



## LLROCKS (Mar 15, 2012)

LLROCKS said:


> 49-33. That would be one helluva improvement from the nightmarish current 9-10. If this was last years club, I would love their chances against the Hardenless Thunder tonight. The silver lining, is that the Lakers have a lot of games left to reach their potential for the playoffs. I was surprised that the Lakers went with D'Antoni and not the Zen Master. Especially since the Lakers werent built for that type of offense. Oh well.


I was off by 4 games. I will take it.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Ballscientist said:


> Predictions: 47-35, 7th seed
> 
> So far, Lakers are on the pace to win the record 35-47



ಠ_ಠ


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Injuries seriously derailed this season.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

freaking BallScientist


----------

