Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Knicks411, post: 4667326, member: 767"]
Literally zero doubt he meant Harden.

The Sloan point especially is a crazy one, it goes to show how different things are.  Not just Sloan, but Stockton and Malone.

Sloan took over during the 89 season, this is how it went for them
89: 51-31 (40-25 with Sloan).  Swept in the first round by a 43 win GSW team that then lost in 5 games
90: 55-27, lost in the first round in 5 (back when it was best of 5) to a Suns team that made the WCF.  Malone and Stockton are 26 and 27 at this point.  You can see some progress being made here
91: 54-28, won a play-off round, lost in 5 to the Blazers, who lost in the WCF
92: 55-27, lost in the WCF to Portland.  So 4 years in, definite progress.  Consistent 50 win seasons, winning playoff rounds now
93: 47-35, lost in Rd1 to Seattle.  In the current time, this is definitely a major danger signal.  Could easily be fired
94: 53-29, lose to the eventual champs in the WCF.  Good bounce back
95: 60-22, lose in the first round.  It was to Houston who ended up winning, but still 60 wins and a first round loss?  Danger again!
96: 55-27, lose in the WCF in 7.
97: 64-18, lost in the finals
98: 62-20, lost in the finals.

That feels like the end of the story for them, but they were 37-13 (61 win pace) in the lockout season before losing to Portland in rd 2, and won 55 games in 2000 and lost in rd 2.

The real danger time to me seems around 93, momentum seemed to be stalling.  From 95-99 they won an average of 60 games per year, which is a hell of a run (I would imagine one of the better runs for a team that never won a title) but with the current mindset I think it's inconceivable a team would keep the same coach and 2 star players together for that long without winning a title.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?