When very good teams get swept by very bad teams

This is the 22st NBA regular season (starting in 1979-80, and excluding the strike-shortened 1999 season) in which each team plays each team from the 'other' conference twice.

In the previous 21 seasons, the largest gaps (in terms of total regular season victories) between 50+ win teams and teams to which they lost both interconference games have been:

36 games 1991-92 Celtics (51) vs. T-Wolves (15) 30 games 1997-98 Lakers (61) vs. Sixers (31) 25 games 1985-86 Celtics (67) vs. Jazz (42) 24 games 1981-82 Lakers (57) vs. Knicks (33) 23 games 1981-82 Lakers (57) vs. Bulls (34)

This season's sweep by the Bulls of the Lakers could take the top spot on the list. The Lakers' current winning percentage extrapolates to 59 wins, the Bulls' to 19.

Hmm - 2 of the teams on that list went on to win titles. I'd take that anyday. In fact I would gladly have my team get swept by all the cellar-dwellars if they went on to win the title. That's the thing people like Rob Carpenter don't understand. No one gives a shit who you beat or lost to in the RS - the playoffs are the only thing that matters.

[snip]

Just curious...have the Bulls swept anyone other than the Lakers since Jordan left?

Assuming Charlie means 'left for the second time', the 1999-2000 Bulls won the season series against the Clippers 2-0.

In the strike-shortened 1999* season (in which very few interconference games were played), the Bulls won their only games against the Clippers and Grizzlies.

Yeah, but Sugar Ray was a Knick back then. It's hard to stop someone with that kind of talent when you're getting the worst of their coke rage.

Of course, to qualify for this inauspicious award, you actually have to be a good team. Not surprising that the Lakers and Celtics are the only franchises in the top 5.

If 'good team' equals '50+ regular season wins and lose both games to a team with 23+ fewer wins'.

I disagree.

Although the Lakers and Celtics have had a lot of the 50+ win seasons that made them eligible for the 'inauspicious award', and a lot of the 55+, or even 60+, win regular seasons that tend to maximize the number of interconference opponents with with far fewer regular season wins, the Lakers and Celtics hardly had a monopoly on such seasons.

Here's a chart (which excludes a few teams) shoeing how often various teams have reached given regular season milestones over the relevant time frame:

50+ 55+ 60+

Lakers 17 13 7 Suns 13 8 1 Celtics 12 10 6 Jazz 11 7 3 Spurs 10 7 1 Bulls 9 8 5 Sixers 9 6 2 Sonics 8 7 3 Knicks 8 4 1 Bucks 8 4 1 Hawks 8 3 0 Blazers 7 4 1 Pistons 6 2 1 Rockets 5 2 0 Pacers 4 2 0 Heat 4 2 1 Magic 3 2 1

This list includes 53 regular seasons with 50-54 wins. Only 6 of those were by the Lakers (4) or Celtics (2). 1 of those 6 (the 1991-92 Celtics) wound up on the list, but none of the 47 others did.

There are also 57 regular seasons with 55-59 wins. Only 10 of those were by the Lakers or Celtcs. 1 of those 10 (the 1981-82 Lakers) wound up on the list (twice), but none of the 47 others did.

And there are 34 regular seasons with 60+ wins. 13 of those were by the Lakers or Celtcs. 2 of those 13 (the 1997-98 Lakers and the 1985-86 Celtics) wound up on the list, but none of the 21 others did.

All told, that's 144 'eligible' seasons of 50+ wins. Only 29 of those were by the Lakers or Celtics. 4 of those 29 wound up on the list (one of them twice), but none of the other 115 did.

Must be an LA thing....

As I wrote earlier, the Bulls defeated not only the Clippers but also the Grizzlies in their only meeting during the strike-shortened 1999 season. Then again, I've read that everything anout that season has to be asterisked.

A 'good' team equals 50 wins or more, regardless of who they lost to. Good teams typically make the playoffs. 50 games is usually enough to make the playoffs.

However, the ratio of seasons with 50+ wins to seasons without that many wins is much higher for the Lakers and the Celtics than they are for most of the other teams, which would skew the possibility of such an instance happening to them. It's much more likely for a team that wins 50 games year in and year out to have been swept by an inferior team than it would be for a team that has only had a 50 win season occasionally. That's what I'm getting at when I say that it's not surprising for the two most winning franchises in NBA history to be the sole teams among the top 5 on your list.

It's much more likely for a team that wins 50 games year

If 'much more likely' refers to the probability of being swept by a tea, with a significantly poorer record during a 50+ win season, I disagree.

However, even if I did agree, there's a number of teams on that list (e.g. Suns, Jazz, Spurs, Bulls, Sonics) that have won 50+ (or 55+, or 60+) regular season games more than 'occasionally'.

That the Lakers and Celtics both piled up a lot of wins before some of the other teams on the list existed is completely irrelevant.