The 4th seed Celtics and 6th seed Rockets were also defending champions… so maybe you can be a little inconsistent, if you have that recent championship DNA.

I can’t find the sauce right now but I read some study of the major sports trying to quantify the luck factor. Basketball had BY FAR the least luck involved. The better team just wins in basketball at a crazy high rate. It makes sense that the champion is usually pretty dominant all year

Agree. Teams that don’t win the large majority of their games are often (not always but often) just not good enough. I won’t stick to an arbitrary ratio but the idea behind is very sensible.

Yes - people often talk about teams like if they can just get in it doesn’t matter the seed. But, the best regular season teams are usually the best playoff teams, especially when you consider making it all the way to the championship.

But that may widen the circle of candidates by 2x and only increase the champion percentage by 9%

Great, you just sparked another 100 posts about the 40-25 rule.

Just cause Phil Jackson coined it don’t mean you KNicks fans gotta hate it lol

I don’t get it either. I think it just sounds cooler to say they won the games before reaching a static win total lol

It’s kinda like Phil just saying if you can’t win 2/3s of your games you prob aren’t winning the title

Actually crazy no one has ever won without being 40-25 or better

Why does that make it dumb?

But you get an earlier prediction with the 40 before 20 metric.

100% of champions have made the playoffs. 100% have also finished with a winning record.

Honestly, a 91% chance that applies to 3 or maybe 4 teams is more impressive than 97.5% chance that applies to 6 teams

That Western conference was loaded. I think Suns were 6th seed with 55 wins in one of them Nash years. I’m not sure they fulfilled the 40-20 rule in that year but they were contenders.

It should only be taken as a general rule of thumb simplified breakdown/observation by an all time great head coach. A rule of thumb is not supposed to be 100% hard and fast reality but rather a pattern drawn from multiple situations.

It’s probably something Phil said to his players and used as an internal memo to help get his message across because it helps the players to focus on a smaller mid-season/all star break Wins/Loss target and keep them on track.

Basically, if Celtics don’t win their next 3, and only go 1-2 in that stretch, that’d not make them any less a contender from the eastern conference.

That depends on other teams though

Na, 40-20 is actually an insane metric.

Of the 4 teams that won without doing that, 2 of them were because of a mid season trade that turned them into contenders in the middle of the season(Rasheed Wallace and Clyde drexler)

Then you have the heat who started 11-10 before van gundy resigned and pat Riley took over head coaching. They funnily enough, proceeded to go 41-20 with Riley as the head coach, fulfilling the 40-20 rule.

Pretty much every team has either fit the 40-20 rule, or had a mid-season change to the team

Top 5 is crazy but I hear it

2006 finals officiating was so bad.

part of it is just that 2021 was just a super weird year. covid meant there were like 2 months between the end of the finals and the start of the next season. the previous year’s conference finalists combined to 7 total playoff wins

Kawhi, AD, Trae, Harden, Kyrie all injured

As a Bucks fan, it was partially injuries. Also Giannis going fucking Super Saiyan.

Giannis injuring Kyrie

Basketball is also the most top heavy sport out of them all. Every season you know who the contenders will be at all star break and its usually a handful of teams to pick. Baseball anyone can get hot after all star break and go on a crazy run and is much more random given its nature. Football is tough because of 1 and done.

Basketball has way less randomness compared to other sports just on the sheer amount of scoring opportunities the teams have. Hockey might have around 60 shots on goal total for both teams combined. Soccer even less so. Basketball will have around 180 shots taken in a game.

When there are that many scoring opportunities the talent discrepancy will be way more apparent

91% accuracy doesn’t seem dumb.

Are you kidding? This gets brought up literally everyday. Every single day on this sub. Bill Simmons doesn’t need credited for it. 

People bring this up every year because it’s a meme. Not everyone listens or gives a shit what Bill says

It’s a Phil Jackson thing from the 90s, but I’m sure he got it from someone else