The 40-20 Contender Rule: Will the Celtics Qualify?

[zoyathedestroya]

Phil Jackson had this theory that if a team reaches 40 wins before 20 losses, they can be considered legit contenders.

Last season, the Celtics suffered their 20th loss even before winning half of 40 lol. They didn't win the title, but still reached the Finals. In the last 12 non-shortened seasons, the only other finalists that didn't qualify for the 40-20 rule was the 2010 Celtics and two of Bron's CLE teams. FWIW, every single champion in those seasons qualified.

Below is the list of the teams that satisified the 40-20 rule in the last 12 non-shortened seasons:



The Celtics are 31-12 as of this posting. They just need to win 9 more games before losing 8. 9-7 in the next 16 will get us there. We'll find out before the ASB if we qualify.

[Celts17Pride]

Celtics will get the 40 wins but I don't believe this rule. Celtics in 2009-2010 should have won the championship and we all know the Celtics in 2017-2018 were not real contenders.

Sorry, don't buy Phil Jackson's rule.

[zoyathedestroya]

Celtics will get the 40 wins but I don't believe this rule. Celtics in 2009-2010 should have won the championship and we all know the Celtics in 2017-2018 were not real contenders.

Sorry, don't buy Phil Jackson's rule.

There are exceptions to the rule, but it’s a solid rule. Look at the list above and subjectively speaking, those are really good teams that could’ve competed for a title (there are individual circumstances that could’ve prevented them from doing so like untimely injuries, bad matchups, etc.)

Just from a talent standpoint, the 2017-18 Celtics were contenders. That roster was stacked. Jackson’s rule doesn’t account for star players quitting on the team mid-series.

He’s also not discounting the possibility that those who don’t meet the threshold are automatically not contenders. Heat 2006 were 40-20 (got their 20th loss first) but won the title.

[Parliament10]

Celtics will get the 40 wins but I don't believe this rule. Celtics in 2009-2010 should have won the championship and we all know the Celtics in 2017-2018 were not real contenders.

Sorry, don't buy Phil Jackson's rule.

There are exceptions to the rule, but it’s a solid rule. Look at the list above and subjectively speaking, those are really good teams that could’ve competed for a title (there are individual circumstances that could’ve prevented them from doing so like untimely injuries, bad matchups, etc.)

Just from a talent standpoint, the 2017-18 Celtics were contenders. That roster was stacked. Jackson’s rule doesn’t account for star players quitting on the team mid-series.

He’s also not discounting the possibility that those who don’t meet the threshold are automatically not contenders. Heat 2006 were 40-20 (got their 20th loss first) but won the title.

The Phil Jackson Rule looks like a pretty good barometer.
I believe that we'll cruise through 40 Wins, before hitting 20 Losses.

We're on pace to Win 57-58 Games; hovering around 70%.

[BK_2020]

Phil Jackson rule just sounds like a good team (66% winning rate or more) is a contender but restated with a dash of gobbledigook.
I think the Celtics are going to win 66% easy.

[Homerclease]

I predicted 60 before the season started and with Rob back and healthy I feel even more confident about it. Just gotta stay reasonably healthy

[shackles10]

I feel comfortable stating we’re true contenders, but looking at that schedule I could see us just missing out on the 40-20 rule as well. But if we’re missing then everyone else is missing and someone has to win it all

[zoyathedestroya]

If the trend from the last 12 non-shortened seasons hold, then Lakers, Suns, Warriors, and Clippers aren’t winning the championship this season. And the Mavs have to win their next 16 games.

[zoyathedestroya]

More Championship Contender Criteria silliness…

I got this from the latest episode of The Athletic NBA Show. So they checked the previous 52 champions since 1971.

1. The absolute worst record at the halfway point of the season among those champs is 24-17 (2006 Heat and 1978 Washington Bullets). On average, those champs have won 30 games halfway thru the season. No one got to 30-11 this season. Closest was the Cs at 29-12.

2. No eventual champion had worse than 8th best odds in the preseason. So Nuggets, Lakers, and Grizzlies don’t qualify.

3. No NBA champion started the season 1-4. Sixers and Nets are eliminated.

4. No champion had fewer than 4 wins in their first 10 games. Warriors are eliminated.

Which leaves Suns, Clippers, Heat, Bucks, and Celtics. Halfway point of the season, only the Bucks and Celtics reached 24 wins.

So based on those precedents above, the 2023 champions will either be the Bucks or the Celtics.

Since the Bucks only win titles every 50 years, line up the duck boats!

[shackles10]

More Championship Contender Criteria silliness…

I got this from the latest episode of The Athletic NBA Show. So they checked the previous 52 champions since 1971.

1. The absolute worst record at the halfway point of the season among those champs is 24-17 (2006 Heat and 1978 Washington Bullets). On average, those champs have won 30 games halfway thru the season. No one got to 30-11 this season. Closest was the Cs at 29-12.

2. No eventual champion had worse than 8th best odds in the preseason. So Nuggets, Lakers, and Grizzlies don’t qualify.

3. No NBA champion started the season 1-4. Sixers and Nets are eliminated.

4. No champion had fewer than 4 wins in their first 10 games. Warriors are eliminated.

Which leaves Suns, Clippers, Heat, Bucks, and Celtics. Halfway point of the season, only the Bucks and Celtics reached 24 wins.

So based on those precedents above, the 2023 champions will either be the Bucks or the Celtics.

Since the Bucks only win titles every 50 years, line up the duck boats!

Everything about this makes sense because I want it to.

[zoyathedestroya]

Read on Twitter

Only the Celtics and Nuggets, who are meeting in the Finals.

[Jammer]

Celtics will get the 40 wins but I don't believe this rule. Celtics in 2009-2010 should have won the championship and we all know the Celtics in 2017-2018 were not real contenders.

Sorry, don't buy Phil Jackson's rule.

Agreed. This Celtics team has problems when their shots are not falling because they don't have enough guys who can attack the basket off the dribble and make shots. Grant is a spot up guy. Rob is a lob guy. Al is either on or off. Smart is either on or off. Derrick White is either on or off. Pritch and Hauser have been mostly off this season. That leaves a lot on the shoulders of Tatum, Brown (more inconsistent than Celtic fans may want to acknowledge) and Brogdan. The Celtics may be able to win a 7 game series, but they have holes in the face of EXTREME in your face defense. They need to outshoot teams, and not make turnovers. The problem is that the best teams typically make fewer turnovers and the hot ones that go deep will be legitimate threats to outshoot the Celtics.

[Jammer]

When healthy, the following teams are capable of going all the way this year if they have all hands on deck:

Celtics
Nets
Bucks
Sixers
Golden State
Denver

[zoyathedestroya]

Still not a lock. Next 9: LAL, BKN, PHX, @DET, PHI, CHA, MEM, @MIL, DET

Need 5-4 or better.

[zoyathedestroya]

Celtics will get the 40 wins but I don't believe this rule. Celtics in 2009-2010 should have won the championship and we all know the Celtics in 2017-2018 were not real contenders.

Sorry, don't buy Phil Jackson's rule.

There are exceptions to the rule, but it’s a solid rule. Look at the list above and subjectively speaking, those are really good teams that could’ve competed for a title (there are individual circumstances that could’ve prevented them from doing so like untimely injuries, bad matchups, etc.)

Just from a talent standpoint, the 2017-18 Celtics were contenders. That roster was stacked. Jackson’s rule doesn’t account for star players quitting on the team mid-series.

He’s also not discounting the possibility that those who don’t meet the threshold are automatically not contenders. Heat 2006 were 40-20 (got their 20th loss first) but won the title.

The Phil Jackson Rule looks like a pretty good barometer.
I believe that we'll cruise through 40 Wins, before hitting 20 Losses.

We're on pace to Win 57-58 Games; hovering around 70%.

It’s a solid benchmark. Since 1980, there were only 3 champions that didn’t meet the criteria — 1995 Rockets, 2004 Pistons, 2006 Heat.

[itrsteve]

What an oracle that guy was

[BK_2020]

What an oracle that guy was

It's literally saying very good teams have good championship chances. It's akin to Nostradamus predicting that "something bad (or good) will happen when the sun is in the sky sometime in the future."

[zoyathedestroya]

One more win and I will have a tarpaulin printed, “Celtics 2022-23: Legit Contender” and hang it outside the house.

[zoyathedestroya]

Teams remaining on the hunt:
• BOS: needs to win 1 of the next 4
• MIL: needs to win 2 of the next 4
• DEN: needs to win 2 of the next 3
• PHI: needs to sweep the next 6

40 of the last 43 champions have qualified for the 40-20 rule.

[Tatumfor2]

Teams remaining on the hunt:
• BOS: needs to win 1 of the next 4
• MIL: needs to win 2 of the next 4
• DEN: needs to win 2 of the next 3
• PHI: needs to sweep the next 6

40 of the last 43 champions have qualified for the 40-20 rule.

Do you think injury played a factor for the 3 that didn't qualify? Adding a key player midway through the season for example?