The Sixers have 2 players better than any player on the Cavs, you don't want to face that in the playoffs because those are the type of players that can almost single handedly win a couple of playoff games. The Cavs have more depth, but depth doesn't tend to win playoff series, top end talent does.
Is Harden better than Donovan Mitchell at this point in their careers?
I am not so sure about that.
If he is healthy, he is. No idea if he can be healthy though. Mitchell is fine,but Harden really can still take over a game here or there both scoring and distributing.
The ringer a couple weeks back had Mitchell at 14 and Harden at 16, so fairly close. I think Mitchell may be a bit more consistent, but I do think Harden has the higher top end.
I think we should just stick to saying Philly has the best player and everyone would agree with that. Acting like they clearly have the best two is a bit over the top, especially when harden is currently injured and it has been lingering. The real question then becomes how much does the depth matter and who has better depth. Most would have garland over maxey no? Then jarret Allen would be taken over harris I assume. Than Mobley over tucker? Who do people prefer to have off the bench?
Possibly, but I have a question on the bolded: Isn't it true that, historically, depth matters less in the playoffs for all sorts of reasons ( rotations get shorter, guys play more minutes, the pace slows down, and so on)?
In other words, I feel like roster depth is what teams rely on to get to the postseason with their main guys as healthy as they can be, not something that gets teams rely on to get past their opponents in the playoffs. So, to your question, would Harden be healthier if the Sixers were a deeper team?