http://www.nba.com/history/lakers33_moments.html NBA's Greatest Moments Lakers Win 33 in a Row The Los Angeles Lakers weren't getting any younger as they entered the 1971-72 season. Wilt Chamberlain was 35, Jerry West 33. Team captain Elgin Baylor, 37, would be forced to retire eight games into the season because of bad knees. By beating the Hawks on January 7, 1972, Jerry West and the Lakers set an NBA record for most consecutive wins with 33. But new coach Bill Sharman made several key moves to invigorate the Lakers. He inserted Gail Goodrich into the starting lineup to take some of the scoring load off West and allow him to concentrate on playmaking, and convinced Chamberlain to focus on playing defense and setting up his teammates, rather than scoring. With young Jim McMillian stepping into Baylor's forward spot opposite rebounder Happy Hairston, the Lakers got hot early-and stayed hot. On Nov. 5, 1971 they beat the Baltimore Bullets 110-106, and they did not lose a game for more than two months. On Dec. 12 they beat Atlanta 104-95 for their 21st in a row, breaking the NBA record of 20 set by Milwaukee a year earlier. On Dec. 22 they beat the Bullets 127-120 to make it 27 in a row, surpassing the longest winning steak in major league sports, 26 games by baseball's 1916 New York Giants. They extended their streak to 33 consecutive wins by beating the Hawks 134-90 on Jan. 7, 1972, before finally losing to the Bucks 120-104 two nights later. "We knew it had to end sometime. I would trade all the records for a championship," declared Sharman. No such deal was necessary-the Lakers finished the season at 69-13, at the time an NBA record, and won the championship by beating New York in five games in the NBA Finals. The 1972 crown was the Lakers' first since the franchise moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles in 1960.
I loved watching the Warriors destroy everyone, but ever since the league started adding wins from last year I've been rooting for them to fail. If they had beaten our record fair and square in a single season then I would have applauded them. But not with that garbage help from the league. I didn't think they were going to get to 33 legitimately anyway. It's just too daunting a record. So much has to go right for you in terms of health - to me that's the biggest problem. And the health thing caught up with the Warriors in a big way. If Barnes and Klay hadn't have gotten hurt though, they had a solid shot at it, just because they are that good right now. They are incredible to watch. Most fun I've ever had watching a non-Laker team.
It's funny the NBA had tried to prop up their run as 27 or whatever wins before they finally lost. Once they lost, they changed it to only 24 wins because freaking duh. You don't carry wins over from the last year, that was incredibly stupid and I'm with @lakerjones I wanted them to fail too because of that. The NBA released a "best 24 moments of the 24 game win streak" video so apparently they went back on their word. Still, I like this team. I hope they go another 20 game win streak now and yeah I'd be fine if they broke our record fair and square. They're an incredibly fun and talented team.
A lot of people are acting like that one loss equals 10. They are still 24-1 and can very easily go into Christmas 32-1. They are off until Wednesday to rest up and I think Barnes and Klay will be back close to full strength.
So I'm seeing a lot of internet debate about the Warriors vs Bulls (thanks Barkley). IMO, it's disrespectful to the Bulls. They won 6 titles and weren't really challenged in any of them. The Warriors beat the Cavs in 6 and they were missing their 2nd and 3rd best players. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Warriors, but c'mon, 6 - 1. The Warriors almost didn't have 1. Is this really a debate? In a series that Phil is coaching vs Kerr or Walton? No contest. Especially with the trio of Jordan, Pippen and Rodman. Those 3 are Hall of Fame and the Warriors have Curry who is on the way to the Hall of Fame and that's it. Am I missing something?
John, Its tough to say, its too early. But I think you're underestimating the Warriors a bit and vastly over-rating the bulls. Yeah they won 6 titles but they played in a very weak era in those early to mid 90s. I think our 2001 Lakers would beat those bulls in 6.
I think our 01 team beats them too. They had no answer for a prime Shaq. Yes, it was a weak era, but Jordan, Pippen, Rodman. I just don't see the Dubs matching up. Green would be battling Rodman. Iggy on Jordan (we know that outcome) and Pippen is free to play his all round game. To be fair, I don't see Jordan or Harper being able to slow down Curry. He'd give them fits.
1)Under which rules though ? Let's be honest , today's team defensive schemes and possibility to overload one side off the floor >>> hand checking ... The off ball defense in the 90es wasn't very good 2) Don't underestimate the power of the 3pts shot .
