Then you have the teams that are slightly above losing, the 500 and close to 500 clubs, so you beat on them, because they're wack, so what's that, like 40 wins? Then you add some wins against the good clubs, you're looking at about 45 wins at least, or in the 50s, and that all starts with beating the garbage teams.

That's where it's at, and I'll say this again, Kobe scored 81 on the Raptors, not the Celtics. True winners beat on the losers.

orangeblobman wrote:13 teams had losing records last season in the L. These are cream puffs. You play each team twice, at least, and conference teams 4 times. So, at least, if you beat on the cream puffs every time, that's at least 26 wins, now, some of them you face 4 times, and let's say you beat on them every time, you're talking 30+ wins, but you lose some, probably, as we already have, so that's like, what, about 30 wins? Let's say 30 wins just off the cream puffs, that is if you're a team that consistently beats cream puffs like we have so far.

Then you have the teams that are slightly above losing, the 500 and close to 500 clubs, so you beat on them, because they're wack, so what's that, like 40 wins? Then you add some wins against the good clubs, you're looking at about 45 wins at least, or in the 50s, and that all starts with beating the garbage teams.

That's where it's at, and I'll say this again, Kobe scored 81 on the Raptors, not the Celtics. True winners beat on the losers.

True winners beat on winners...
So we'll see who we are pretty soon...

fishmike wrote:

arkrud wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:13 teams had losing records last season in the L. These are cream puffs. You play each team twice, at least, and conference teams 4 times. So, at least, if you beat on the cream puffs every time, that's at least 26 wins, now, some of them you face 4 times, and let's say you beat on them every time, you're talking 30+ wins, but you lose some, probably, as we already have, so that's like, what, about 30 wins? Let's say 30 wins just off the cream puffs, that is if you're a team that consistently beats cream puffs like we have so far.

Then you have the teams that are slightly above losing, the 500 and close to 500 clubs, so you beat on them, because they're wack, so what's that, like 40 wins? Then you add some wins against the good clubs, you're looking at about 45 wins at least, or in the 50s, and that all starts with beating the garbage teams.

That's where it's at, and I'll say this again, Kobe scored 81 on the Raptors, not the Celtics. True winners beat on the losers.

True winners beat on winners...
So we'll see who we are pretty soon...

not really... not in the NBA. Blob's anal-sis isnt as far fetched as it sounds. Look at the Lakers vs. winning teams this year. To be an elite team in the NBA you really need to pound on the lesser team. Thats how you pad your record, and thats how the top teams will win 55-60 teams. There are like 8 lousy teams in your conference. x4 thats about 30 wins. Another 8 in the other conference. x2 thats about 15 wins. You pad your record with 45 wins against doo doo, win most of your home games againt the elite and steal a couple on road.

Its ALWAYS been this way. The fact that the KNicks are winning EVERY game against the losing teams is huge. Its very hard to be that consistant in this league. Raptors have beat Magic, Celtics and OKC so far, but we survived a career night from Bargs. This stuff matters. All good signs

A very good shooter, and a #1 option.

And absolutely, absolutely, fish, you know, people see the 50, 60 win records, but those 50, 60 win teams every year are necessarily built on 30, 40 wins against cream puffs. There's only a handful of very good teams in the L and once you are good enough to consistently beat the puffs, that means you're nearing that upper echelon.