On the white board in a back corner of the Knicks' locker room, "50" was written in blue marker, big enough for everyone to see. Under the number was the word "goal" - written in big blue letters. Nothing subtle about it. Rasheed Wallace sent the message by writing it on the white board during the Knicks' win over the Celtics game.

"We came in here and that was up there. Once we were in the huddle and broke (Wallace) kind of stopped everybody and said, 'Hey, the 50's up there' and he explained it. He's right." - Steve Novak

"It means a lot. To have guys out like we do and have guys banged up throughout the year to get a 50-win season is really big and says a lot for our team." - Raymond Felton

It's funny because two weeks ago no one was talking about 50 wins as a potential goal for this team. The Knicks were a mess out West, losers of their first four games on a five-game trip stuck at 38-26. - Ian Begley, ESPN

Funny

loweyecue wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

misterearl wrote:Slow Your Cinnamon Roll

loweyecue wrote:Excellence? Now we are comparing to Russle's Celtics and Magic's Lakers? Exactly what have the Knicks done? Second in the East? Big Whooopdedo.
First prove you have even the faintest claim to excellence THEN talk about sustaining it.

loweyecue: the comparison was only used to certify 50 wins as a standard of excellence. Mike Woodson needs 6 more wins to get us there for the first time in a dozen years. Before 2000, our beloved Knicks have not had consecutive 50 win seasons since 1991-1994.

Nowhere were the 2013 Knicks put on the same pedestal with those Celtics or Lakers teams. Rather than rushing to judge, you may want to slow down as you read and allow your comprehension skills to breathe.

Can Mike Woodson get 50 wins and replicate that standard for three more years?

BS.

The only reason those teams achieved excellence was because of what they went on to go AFTER their 50 win regular season. 50 wins is NOT a standard of excellence it's BS. And by trying to make it look like we are on the same track that they were you ABSOLUTELY DID COMPARE us to them.
Making arguments you don't fully understand will typically lead to results like this.

BR.

Basketball Reference.
Don't like arguments based on comparisons to proven winners, how about the other side of the equation?

Hawks --> only time they reach the Semis? 50 win seasons 09-10, 93-98, 85-89.
Nets --> only time they win anything? 50 win seasons 73-76, 01-03, won the ABA, went to the Finals.
Cavs --> only time they win anything? 50 win seasons 05-09, went to the Finals and the ECF
Cats --> Number of 50 win seasons? Guess.
Pistons --> 50 win seasons 7 times, won Finals
Warriors --> only 2 50 win seasons. Guess what? only got to the First Round.
Clips --> 2 50 win seasons, only time they made it to the Semis.
Wolves --> 4 50 win seasons, made it to the WCF
Magic --> 7 50 win seasons, made it to the ECF twice, lost Finals.
Suns --> 14 50 win seasons, WCF 4 times, Finals once.
Raptors --> 0 50 win seasons, Semis one time.
Kings --> 5 50 win seasons, WCF once, Semis twice.

Maybe one needs to understand the term "bullshit" before one flings it.

50 wins obviously means something. Winning isn't like a stomach flu. It takes time and it takes doing it long term, like say, sustained over 3 or 4 years.

De nada.

Did you look up examles of teams that win 50 games and didnt do Jack Shit? Way to get on your high horse with a confirmation bias.
I called BS because 50 wins was being equated to EXCELLENSE. That may be your standard for it, mine are a somewhat higher.

No, did you? Didn't see that on your highazz horse's BS anywhere. You know why? Because I cited 12 examples and you cite sheeeehit.
Nice debating skills there, low.

Excellence. I would call going to The Finals and Conference finals a good bar to pass.

You see, my standards for coherent argumentation go beyond typing "BS", which, apparently is where your high horse standards end.