Something interesting concerning 72 wins

[Real Deal]

11/14/95: CHI @ ORL (LOSS) 94-88

11/26/95: CHI @ SEA (LOSS) 97-92

12/26/95: CHI @ IND (LOSS) 103-97

02/04/96: CHI @ DEN (LOSS) 105-99

02/06/96: CHI @ PHX (LOSS) 106-96

02/23/96: CHI @ MIA (LOSS) 113-104

03/10/96: CHI @ NYK (LOSS) 104-72

03/24/96: CHI @ TOR (LOSS) 109-108

04/08/96: CHA @ CHI (LOSS) 98-97

04/20/96: IND @ CHI (LOSS) 100-99

 

Eight road losses, two home.

 

Rodman (starting power forward) missed four of those games (ORL, SEA, TOR, CHA).

 

Longley (starting center) missed four (PHX, TOR, CHA, DEN).

 

Harper (starting point) missed one (second IND game).

 

Longley missed 20 total games that season, and Rodman missed 18.

 

Chances that the Bulls could've won 78 or 79? Or, at least four extra, with Rodman missing?

[kingfish]

I wouldnt bother with the injuries card, they were pretty lucky for the most part that Jordan and Pippen were fine, and they didnt have many injuries.

[The Regime]

Also pretty crazy that their loses came by pretty small margins. Healthy Bulls could have easily won 78-80 games.

[Real Deal]

I wouldnt bother with the injuries card, they were pretty lucky for the most part that Jordan and Pippen were fine, and they didnt have many injuries.

The 2004 Lakers were lucky that Kobe and Shaq were not injured for the Finals, you know.

[kingfish]

The 2004 Lakers were lucky that Kobe and Shaq were not injured for the Finals, you know.

Well yeah, but like, Malone was injured n stuff.

 

Ok heres a better comparsion lets say Kobe doesnt break his fingers the last two years and Bynum plays at least 70 HEALTHY games. Dont you think that a Laker team with that kind of health could challenge 70 wins? I think so.

[Real Deal]

Well yeah, but like, Malone was injured n stuff.

 

Ok heres a better comparsion lets say Kobe doesnt break his fingers the last two years and Bynum plays at least 70 HEALTHY games. Dont you think that a Laker team with that kind of health could challenge 70 wins? I think so.

I don't think they'd hit 70, if Kobe and Shaq couldn't do it. Kobe missed games, but they were 12-4 without him (didn't have that bad of a schedule to begin with).

 

No team has ever won 70 other than the Bulls, and the difference in two wins becomes greater the closer you get to perfection.

 

Scary part is, those Lakers were ranked 1st defensively, 5th offensively.

 

The 1996 Chicago Bulls were ranked 1st in both.

 

Jordan (greatest player ever), Pippen (one of the greatest perimeter defenders ever) and Rodman (greatest defender ever, greatest rebounder since the days of Kareem and Wilt)...they were all on the same team, and had Rodman played those four games he missed, I really do believe we'd be talking about Chicago's 76-win season today.

[Multi-Billionaire]

There's a reason why they say "injuries are part of the game".

[Real Deal]

I'm not sure what you guys are getting at. It's a simple question. Do you think the Bulls would've won 78 games if Rodman and Longley were available to them? Any more than 72?

 

I'm not sitting here talking about injury-free teams through every season, every team.

 

It's stellar that they won 72 with Rodman and Longley missing all the games that they did. That's the point. Yeah, teams have injuries every year. Only one team has won over 70 games, and they ALSO did it with injuries.

[Newman]

In that year, the Bulls had everything their way.

 

I would say Longley does not impact on those losses too much as they got Bill Wellington on the bench doing similar things.

 

If you look at the losses, besides the blowout loss to the Knicks, the rest were pretty close and the last 3 losses were all by 1 point! this Bulls team definitely could have won more than 72 games, no doubt.