# Can LA win more than 72 games?



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

If LA does sign Malone and GP, can they challenge the Bulls record of 72 wins in a season? They'll have 3 of the most driven people in the NBA (Kobe, GP, Malone) and the most important player in the game (Shaq). They'll also have a decent bench (Fisher, Rush, Cook, Fox). It all depends on the how the vets approach the season. Some vets are very driven and take the regular season very seriously. Others want to just rest their old bones during the regular season and condition themselves for the playoffs. I think the 2003-2004 Lakers have as good a chance as anyone of breaking the Bulls record. Thoughts?


----------



## ltrain99 (Apr 27, 2003)

I say no way. They would have the talent to come close( amybe 65 games), but with four other powerhouse teams in their conference, I find it highly unlikely.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

i agree, in the east i could definitly see that, but playing in the same conference as the spurs, kings, wolves with cassell and juwan howard, mavs, etc.....i dont think it'll happen.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ltrain99</b>!
> I say no way. They would have the talent to come close( amybe 65 games), but with four other powerhouse teams in their conference, I find it highly unlikely.


Great point. I forgot about the other great teams out West. Plus, the Lakers won't be as cohesive as the Bulls were. Those guys had been playing together for years and knew how to win with one another. I think the Lakers will start off slow (15-10) and then get it together and win 60+ games.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

yea with other powerhouses in their conference I really doubt it, not to mention that bulls team was extremely well put together. I dont think shaq has the same drive as MJ did to lead the best team during the regular season. Lakers will go as far as shaq takes them, and we all know hes not a fan of the regular season haha.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

No, there are a lot of teams improving next year. The Kings are still a force, the Spurs should still be the favorites next year if they sign Kidd IMO, the Mavs look like they're trying to upgrade, the Blazers still have all kinds of talent, the Suns and Rockets should both be improved and be forces, even the Sonics could be a damn good team next year. The schedule will be too tough for them to win 72 games or more. 

And I don't really think Malone will be that big a deal anyway. GP is a different story, he'll be a vast improvement. But what Malone brings to the table, I'm not sure if that's what the Lakers need. But I could be wrong, it never hurts to have another scorer (well, almost never anyway. But I think Malone's big enough to not cause chemistry problems with a ring on the line).


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

I doubt it, the Lakers should win more than 60, but not 72.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> I doubt it, the Lakers should win more than 60, but not 72.


Yeah...I agree, 60+ is likely, but 72 is not...


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> If LA does sign Malone and GP, can they challenge the Bulls record of 72 wins in a season? They'll have 3 of the most driven people in the NBA (Kobe, GP, Malone) and the most important player in the game (Shaq). They'll also have a decent bench (Fisher, Rush, Cook, Fox). It all depends on the how the vets approach the season. Some vets are very driven and take the regular season very seriously. Others want to just rest their old bones during the regular season and condition themselves for the playoffs. I think the 2003-2004 Lakers have as good a chance as anyone of breaking the Bulls record. Thoughts?


No. Possibly next year if they stay together and everyone is healthy and Shaq is in great shape. They are going to need time to learn to work together and Malone and GP are going to need plenty of time to work within the Triangle, which is no easy task.


----------



## KingsCrusher115 (Jul 2, 2003)

Well, the Spurs pretty much owned the Lakers last year, so that's at least 2 losses, probably 3.

Sacramento will probably split the season series at 2 apiece. That's 5 total now.

I don't think there's any way possible that they manage to lose just 4 games against the remaining teams. Even with Payton and Malone (who are no sure thing by far), every team has a slip-up against a sorrier team who just goes out there and busts their butts to get some recognition.

65 would seem to be the ceiling IMO, but I don't think they'll get that. Shaq doesn't seem to give half a rip anymore unless they're playing the elite teams in the game.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

If they get Payton and Malone I say yes. They'll win between 75-80. I mean they did win 67 in 1999-2000 without half that talent. You can argue that the league has gotten better since then, and while it's true L.A. stood still over the years and they paid the price last season, the addition of Payton and Malone will rejuvinate this team even if Fat Shaq doesn't get in shape.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

I agree with KingsCrusher. There is no way Kobe and Payton get along and Malone will be the odd one out. Kobe has his head shoved up his *** and is far from a team player. That being said, Jackson may be able to work a miracle with these four. We'll see...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I don't think adding Malone and Payton makes this laker team any better than the earlier championship teams they had with Ron Harper and AC Green. The big thing then was the lakers had depth and Shaq was in shape and was hungry for more than the big breakfeast at denny's.

They'll be a 50 something win team. Remember the rest of the west is also very good. Everyone on down to the Nuggets will be stronger.

The favorites next year have to be The Spurs and Wolves. I think the wolves adding Cassell and Howard is more significant than what the Lakers are adding. All KG has needed is some talent around him. And Cassell and Howard are that talent.

Does anyone have a stat breakdown of how Malone does defensively against the top power forwards in the West? Specifically how he did last year against them? Because for some reason I was under the impression that he was far from able when it came to stopping the power forward heavy western conference?

It might also be interesting to contrast his numbers defensively against what Robert Horry did against those same guys---according to Bill Walton Robert Horry was one of the best defenders in the league


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

:laugh: @ 75-80 wins


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> The favorites next year have to be The Spurs and Wolves. I think the wolves adding Cassell and Howard is more significant than what the Lakers are adding. All KG has needed is some talent around him. And Cassell and Howard are that talent.


I too question how well Malone and Payton would fit in, etc ... but how exactly are Cassel and Juwan Howard better acquisitions than Malone and Payton? And how would that make Minnesota better than LA? Lakers are already one superstar up on Minny, and Malone is still better than Howard and Payton is definitely better than Cassel ... so I must be missing something.

Oh yeah, and 75-80 wins is ludicrous.


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

Just cuz freakin LA papers say that Lakers are gonna get those guys don't mean crap. :no:


----------



## Kyle (Jul 1, 2003)

Who knows... who thought the Bulls would win 72?


----------



## ltrain99 (Apr 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Lone Ranger</b>!
> Just cuz freakin LA papers say that Lakers are gonna get those guys don't mean crap. :no:


The 1st word Pinball said was if, no1 ever said theyll definitely get them, its all hypothetical. Though, it is a fact that Payton did have a meeting with them about it, so there is a good amount of truth behind it.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dee Bo</b>!
> 
> 
> I too question how well Malone and Payton would fit in, etc ... but how exactly are Cassel and Juwan Howard better acquisitions than Malone and Payton? And how would that make Minnesota better than LA? Lakers are already one superstar up on Minny, and Malone is still better than Howard and Payton is definitely better than Cassel ... so I must be missing something.
> ...


Yeah, they'll lose twice...sure.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kyle</b>!
> Who knows... who thought the Bulls would win 72?


i remember during the pre game of the 2nd game of that 1996 season and the announcer started hyping up a chance at a 70 win season that year. and the hype began really early that season.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dee Bo</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, and 75-80 wins is ludicrous.


Not really. They won 67 with a far weaker team and Chicago won 72 with a weaker team than what L.A. could possibly field. 75-80 is not out of the question if infact Payton and Malone come aboard and Kobe doesn't get sent up the river.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>King George</b>!
> 
> 
> Not really. They won 67 with a far weaker team and Chicago won 72 with a weaker team than what L.A. could possibly field. 75-80 is not out of the question if infact Payton and Malone come aboard and Kobe doesn't get sent up the river.


That Bulls team was a great team that played exceptionally well together and had been together for some time. And that is important, because again, running primarily the Triangle offense takes a lot of time to master, and even without Malone and Payton the current players have not yet mastered it.

Those guys would have to gel together like no other group of superstars has ever ... and with the egos involved, I highly doubt that would happen right off the bat. I almost think that adding Malone and Payton, the team would be better off without Kobe ... ofcourse, i'll catch heat for that.

75-80 wins is not gonna happen this year.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dee Bo</b>!
> 
> 
> That Bulls team was a great team that played exceptionally well together and had been together for some time. And that is important, because again, running primarily the Triangle offense takes a lot of time to master, and even without Malone and Payton the current players have not yet mastered it.
> ...


No not really. Rodman was new Harper was new and a few others, so no the chemistry thing doesn't fly. Also L.A. won 67 games the first year running the triangle so again the learning curve, chemistry argument is BS.

75-80 will happen. Just watch


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Well, if I actually knew you personally, i'd be happy to put a substantial amount of money on that one. Especially 80 wins. You can't actually believe a team can go through the entire season losing only two games.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>King George</b>!
> 
> 
> Not really. They won 67 with a far weaker team and Chicago won 72 with a weaker team than what L.A. could possibly field. 75-80 is not out of the question if infact Payton and Malone come aboard and Kobe doesn't get sent up the river.


Dont let names fool you. I cant believe you think that their going to be a better team than the 67 win lakers or the 72 win bulls. 

No matter how much shaq gets in shape, he'll never be the shaq he was during that season, that comes with age. 

Even on paper, no lineup the lakers put on the court this year will top the bulls roster of that year. 

And the lakers will not win more than 65 games, thats tops. 

Once again a case of people underestimating chemistry and stacking up teams and expecting them to play together. Bulls were a fabulous team ON PAPER, AND THEY PLAYED EXTREMELY WELL TOGETHER. Lakers will never be able to get all four egos in check, be familiar with the triangle real well and endure the whole season. It just wont happen, sorry to let you down.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

Predicting more than 60-65 wins is ridiculous... this team would take at least the first half of the season just to learn how to play together and develop chemistry. Maybe even the whole regular season. Maybe they would never get that far at all.

There are so many reasons that this won't happen, that it's just ridiculous.


----------



## KingsCrusher115 (Jul 2, 2003)

King George, you realize an NBA team only plays 82 games right??

So to win 80 you'd have to lose twice.....2 times.

The greatest basketball player ever (arguably) could not do it....why would the Lakers, who never seem to be motivated for any regular season game except for a matchup with the Kings or Lakers, be able to?

And of course the chemistry argument works....have you watched a Sonics and/or Bucks game in the past decade?? GP is one of the biggest trash talkers in the league; don't think that won't create tension. Oh, and then there's the Mailman......he's bound to catch Shaq right in the jaw with a bow and start a huge fight in practice....how's that for chemistry?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> If LA does sign Malone and GP, can they challenge the Bulls record of 72 wins in a season? They'll have 3 of the most driven people in the NBA (Kobe, GP, Malone) and the most important player in the game (Shaq). They'll also have a decent bench (Fisher, Rush, Cook, Fox). It all depends on the how the vets approach the season. Some vets are very driven and take the regular season very seriously. Others want to just rest their old bones during the regular season and condition themselves for the playoffs. I think the 2003-2004 Lakers have as good a chance as anyone of breaking the Bulls record. Thoughts?


72 wins is one of the most difficult records to break in NBA history. The talent will be there to do it, didn't the Lakers win 67 in 1999 with Kobe, Jones, Exel, and Shaq? I suppose the additions of GP and Karl would get them a good chance. I doubt they could do, but its possible.


----------



## Vinsanity (May 28, 2002)

hell no.....the most wins would probably be like 65-68 not past 68


----------



## BigTMacFan (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>King George</b>!
> 
> 
> No not really...
> ...


*That* is why Laker fans drive me crazy.


Anyway...

If the Lakers haven't been happy in the past about Kobe leaving the offense to go shot happy how do you think the two new guys will react when it happens? Especially since there will already be a premium on shots to go around. 

On paper it looks good, but so have the Blazers in the past and Houston before that.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Can LA win more than 72 games?*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> The talent will be there to do it, didn't the Lakers win 67 in 1999 with Kobe, Jones, Exel, and Shaq?


No. In 99-00 we won with Shaq, Kobe, and Rice. Jones and NVE were long gone.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Can LA win more than 72 games?*



> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> No. In 99-00 we won with Shaq, Kobe, and Rice. Jones and NVE were long gone.


1999..... 98-99. :nonono:

That was the year LA won 67 with Kobe, Jones, Nick, and Shaq.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Can LA win more than 72 games?*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> 1999..... 98-99. :nonono:
> ...


Dude there was a strike that year and they only played about 50 games. It would have been impossible for them to win 60+ games that year. Plus, NVE was gone before that season and Jones was traded in the middle of the year. Maybe you are talking about 97-98 or something?


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

The guy who said 80 wins is retarded. San Antonio, Sacramento, Wolves, Suns, Dallas, Houston,Portland,Denver,New Jersey,Detroit,Chicago,Orlando,Memphis.....Lakers are not going to sweep 80% of those teams. 

Shaq doesn't show up every night, Malone and GP will take some time getting used to the offense, and Kobe will have off nights. None of them have the will of MJ to make every game of the season a playoff game. That's the sort of mentality the Bulls had. Every game was a playoff game. Even if the Lakers somehow manage to sweep most of the Western teams, they'll be inconsistent and lose to some crappy teams in the East. 

The league is going to be way too competitive next year for any team to win more than 70 games. 

75-80? Just a stupid Lakers fan.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

8... ty... wins? :whatever: :rotf:

I would still say the Lakers are the favorites, probbably. Didn't they have a little dissension in 00-01? And then they just...:dead: But that's if Kobe even makes the season, Shaq is in shape, Malone does well outside of Utah, and everything else hold together. So maybe they aren't that indestructible.


----------



## venturalakersfan (Jun 10, 2003)

If they set their minds to winning more than 72, they have a chance. But this team is built to win in the playoffs, the regular season has never excited them, so it would take a major paradigm shift. Offensively the team would be a power house. Defensively, even with his advanced age, Payton would shore up the major hole, defending the perimeter. Malone can't stop Duncan, no one can. But if the Spurs sign Kidd and don't pick up a big man, Malone and Shaq have their way on the inside. The Lakers last year could play .500 against the Kings, so the Lakers getting better and the Kings standing pat won't favor the Kings winning more. The main advantage to Payton and Malone signing is the strength offensively when two sit to rest. When Shaq and/or Kobe went out last year, the team was lost offensively. If this happens, if Shaq and Payton sit, then teams will have to deal with Kobe and Malone with their second units. A Kobe-Malone pick and roll would be deadly. I can't wait to see that one.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can LA win more than 72 games?*



> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude there was a strike that year and they only played about 50 games. It would have been impossible for them to win 60+ games that year. Plus, NVE was gone before that season and Jones was traded in the middle of the year. Maybe you are talking about 97-98 or something?


Don't nit-pick.

Back to the point, LA won 67 in 1999 (without Nick and Eddie) with Shaq and Kobe so it wouldn't be far fetched to think they could add 2 of the greatest ever, and win 5 more.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can LA win more than 72 games?*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't nit-pick.
> ...


Yes. Now you have it right. LA won 67 games in 99-00 with a team that isn't even as talented as the one they are trying to assemble. Plus, Kobe missed about 15-20 games that year and they still won a bunch. I think there is a chance that they could get 72 but it is highly unlikely. First, we all know that Shaq doesn't take the regular season seriously. Next, you are trying to break new players into a complex offense so it will take some time for them to get used to the flow of the triangle. Finally, you have to consider the strength of the conference. There are 3 other superpowers out West so it will be difficult for the Lakers to go through a season and only lose 10 games. They'll probably lose at least 5-6 to those 3 teams. Possible? Yes. Probable? Not really.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

I think the diff. is that the Bulls had MJ.

he demanded so much and kept that team on point evryday of the entire season.

the lakers probably have better talent and will be a great team but 72 takes not only luck but perfect focus for the whole season the lakers have never been known for that reg. season focus.

as for the playoffs, ouch watch out NBA


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

David Aldridge agrees will me that if L.A. signs Paytona dn Malone they own the league and break the Bulls 72 game record. He said it on PTI, watch the repeat if you don't believe me.


----------



## BigPunDoubleG (May 25, 2003)

Ill take the Spurs to get to 72 if they get J.Kidd.The Laker lineup would not work,to many big egos!The lakers are gonna do the same mistake like the rockets.And I will laugh when it all comes crumbling down.(Not at the Lakers but at some laker fans)::laugh:


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BigPunDoubleG</b>!
> Ill take the Spurs to get to 72 if they get J.Kidd.The Laker lineup would not work,to many big egos!The lakers are gonna do the same mistake like the rockets.And I will laugh when it all comes crumbling down.(Not at the Lakers but at some laker fans)::laugh:


Man L.A. managed to win 50 games last season after a horrendous start, what makes you think they'd be unablt to win 70+ with the greatest starting lineup in NBA history? The Spurs even with the addition of Kidd will never win 70+ games never, they simply don't have the talent.


----------



## BigPunDoubleG (May 25, 2003)

Oh please dont give me that crap!Your saying the spurs could not even win more games with Jason????Please......


And to say that the spurs dont have the talent you dont know basketball then!


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BigPunDoubleG</b>!
> Oh please dont give me that crap!Your saying the spurs could not even win more games with Jason????Please......
> 
> 
> And to say that the spurs dont have the talent you dont know basketball then!


They could win maybe 4 more games which would be 65, but Jason Kidd is a bit overrated. They need to replace Robinson not bring in a point guard. Aside from Duncan SA is lacking in the talent department


----------



## BigPunDoubleG (May 25, 2003)

The spurs organization is in contact with Zo.Theres a posibility of him coming to SA!


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BigPunDoubleG</b>!
> The spurs organization is in contact with Zo.Theres a posibility of him coming to SA!


With a healthy Zo and Tim Duncan yeah I could see them winning 70, but not with Kidd.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>King George</b>!
> 
> 
> With a healthy Zo and Tim Duncan yeah I could see them winning 70, but not with Kidd.


Kidd really would not make them all that much better. He'd be an upgrade over Parker but his style is not suited to the Spur's offense. Zo would be huge for them though.


----------



## KingsCrusher115 (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BigPunDoubleG</b>!
> The spurs organization is in contact with Zo.Theres a posibility of him coming to SA!


Heh, yall are a little slow.

Cuban was in Miami on July 1.

I think he might as well be walking around in a Mav's uniform now, but he could always be bluffin'. Ya never know.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

If Lakers win 72 games :no: , Kings will win 73 games :yes:


----------



## BigPunDoubleG (May 25, 2003)

And the bull will win 74! :laugh:


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BigPunDoubleG</b>!
> And the bull will win 74! :laugh:


in three seasons:grinning:


----------



## BigPunDoubleG (May 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Kidd really would not make them all that much better. He'd be an upgrade over Parker but his style is not suited to the Spur's offense. Zo would be huge for them though.


____________________________________________________
Theres also talk about Pj brown goin to the spurs what do yall think of that?Would PJ be just as big as zo????......

Kidd
Parker
Manu
Timmy
PJ ??????:grinning:


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

I don't think Spurs could afford all these players. But if they have money than do it. PJ Brown would be better than Zo. We haven't seen Zo play yet so we won't know until we see him.


----------



## BigPunDoubleG (May 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaUnbreakableKinG</b>!
> I don't think Spurs could afford all these players.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

70 win teams do not come along that often. I think it will be another 50 years before we see it happen again.


----------



## rogue_nine82 (Jul 3, 2003)

They could win 20 games next year. I don't care. As long as we win the championship. :grinning:


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Yeah but we wouldn't win the championship if we only won 20 games.


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

LA cannot win more than 72 games. I think they will be capable of winning 64 games tops


----------

