73-9

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I disagree. A championship is clearly more important. But the most wins in league history? That's pretty impressive. Half of any teams wins were against similar teams that weren't competitive. Many teams have won back to back titles. Someone wins a title every year. Only 1 has won 72 games before.

Can you name without looking the major league baseball record for wins in a season?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can you name without looking the major league baseball record for wins in a season?

I believe the Mariners broke that record one year after griffey left. I can't name the year but think the total was 114.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I believe the Mariners broke that record one year after griffey left. I can't name the year but think the total was 114.

Nope number is wrong. qed

[pokerplyr80]

I looked it up after I posted, looks like they tied the Cubs record of 116 wins, although with 10 more losses. I see your point, but I think there is more significance to this record as it breaks the Bulls record with Jordan.

More people would remember those Mariners had they won the series.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I looked it up after I posted, looks like they tied the Cubs record of 116 wins, although with 10 more losses. I see your point, but I think there is more significance to this record as it breaks the Bulls record with Jordan.

More people would remember those Mariners had they won the series.

exactly my point!!!!!!

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

exactly my point!!!!!!

My point was you need both. It won't mean much without a title. But 73-9 with a title and it would be hard to argue against them as the greatest team of all time. I disagree with calling it meaningless.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

My point was you need both. It won't mean much without a title. But 73-9 with a title and it would be hard to argue against them as the greatest team of all time. I disagree with calling it meaningless.

There is no chance IMO this team, 73 wins or not, is better than the Magic Kareem Worthy Lakers, or the Bird McHale Parish Walton DJ Celtics.

[1952boyntoncollector]

]


You cant say this era is easier than back in the day just like that...there are far better european players on teams that were not playing in the 50s to 80s and far less in the 90s compared to today...there were no tony parkers, dirk norwiski, ginoobli etc...given the same opportunites back in the magic days....

[chaddurbin]

ironic the op's name is talkingbaseball. even if they get the record and championship they are no way the best team ever. this ain't baseball anyway, you can't compare different eras with all the rule changes.

curry is a freak and god-moding the game right now and opening up everything else for the team. the developers seriously need to nerf his abilities to balance out the game. take out curry and they'd have trouble grinding out a series vs a bottom seed. talk about draymond's swagger that gives the team confidence etc but you need curry's execution to back it up.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can you name without looking the major league baseball record for wins in a season?

The 2001 Mariners won 116 games. I remember the season very well. The M's lost their last game of the regular season, and failed to eclipse the Cubs record. They faced the New York Yankees in the ALCS and lost 4-2 in a playoff series with a great deal of patriotic fervor after 9/11.

I agree with you on this point, if Golden State loses one of their final three games, and fail to best the 95-96 Bulls, it will dampen their spirits. Even if they best the record, but do not win the championship, they may be remembered as an anomaly like the 2001 Mariners. However, I do not see a team that can beat them in a seven game series with home court.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can you name without looking the major league baseball record for wins in a season?

I think I could, at least from 1900 on. I'd guess Ed Walsh, as I know he had 40. I think Jack Chesbro also had 40.

Pre 1800? I would have no idea. Pud Galvin?

[the 'stache]

73 wins is incredible, no matter how you cut it. But for this season to be truly "one for the ages", they need to carry that dominance over to the playoffs, and win it all. The '95-'96 Bulls that won 72 games only lost one game in the first three rounds of the playoffs, and went 15-3 overall in winning the NBA Championship.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think I could, at least from 1900 on. I'd guess Ed Walsh, as I know he had 40. I think Jack Chesbro also had 40.

Pre 1800? I would have no idea. Pud Galvin?

Pretty sure he's talking about team wins which are the Cubs and Mariners (think 116?).. Think been mentioned earlier in this thread too)

... But pitching yes, is Chesbro for post 1900, Old Hoss Radbourn has pre-1900 mark. I'm pretty sure I've seen Hoss's listed anywhere from 61 down to 58. Think it's officially 59 now. Old Hoss also liked to flip the bird whenever he got the shot. Seemed quite the character.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think I could, at least from 1900 on. I'd guess Ed Walsh, as I know he had 40. I think Jack Chesbro also had 40.

Pre 1800? I would have no idea. Pud Galvin?

Team wins.