Warriors or Thunder? Who you got?

[greece66]

I've put Warriors in 5, I think they are heavily favoured.

Thunder was impressive against SAS but 73 wins is even more impressive.

(not that i would be one bit disappointed if GSW was left out of the Finals, but let's not jinx that already.)

[Moranis]

In the playoffs matchups and top players mean a heck of a lot more than how many games the teams won in the regular season.

Detroit, Atlanta, and Toronto are fine teams. 

But if I'm a coach preparing a postseason game plan, I'd much prefer to figure out how to over come those perfectly fine teams lacking superstars.  Because no matter how discombobulated the Rockets were, or how mediocre on defense the Blazers were, James Harden can win playoff games almost entirely on his own.  Damian Lillard can become borderline unstoppable, even on the road.

I suspect the Spurs werent comforted much that they won so many more regular season games than the Thunder, much as the 2010 Cavs and Magic found little comfort in their regular season exploits when they were embarrassed by the Celtics.

The Cavs will get to the Finals without ever having the figure out how to deal with truly dominant individual opponents.  And Lebron James will never have had to defend such a player, or face a single wing defender with anything resembling the tools required to slow him down one iota.

The Rockets are a terrible team outside of Harden (and maybe Howard).  The other three starters are Ariza, Beverly, and Motiejunas.  The rotation includes 38 year old Jason Terry, Michael Beasley, and Corey Brewer with a bit of Josh Smith and Clint Capela mixed in.  Dwight and Beasley were the only other players at even 10 ppg against the Warriors.  Ariza averaged over 10 shots a game yet scored only 6.6 ppg in the series.  I don't care how good Harden is, that team is a terrible team. 

The Pistons were 16-11 with Harris (and 17-11 after he joined the team).  That 16-11 pace would have put them on at 48.5 wins over 82 games and they lost the first two games with him (without those that is over a 52 win pace and again doesn't include the final game in which Detroit won but Harris didn't play).  And yeah, they don't have a mega scoring player like Harden, but all 5 starters were from 14.3 to 17.8 points a game in the Cavs series.  Good solid team play and by far a better team than Houston (despite Harden). 

And yeah Lillard is better than anyone on the Hawks, but I'd easily take Millsap, Horford, and Teague over McCollum.  After that you probably have Korver, Bazemore, and maybe even Shroder over anyone else on the Blazers. 

Basketball is a team game.  Sure you need top level talent to win championships, but we aren't talking about championship level teams here.  The Pistons are better than the Rockets and the Hawks are better than the Blazers.  All of the metrics show this but aside from that all you have to do is watch the games to see this. 

[PhoSita]

We will simply have to disagree on this.  Basketball is a team sport, but as I say, in the playoffs the best 2-3 players on each team make the biggest difference. 

I don't think you can say a team has really been tested or challenged unless they face opponents featuring players capable of winning games on their own and even dominating the entire series.  The Cavs won't face a team like that until the Finals.

[Roy H.]

We will simply have to disagree on this.  Basketball is a team sport, but as I say, in the playoffs the best 2-3 players on each team make the biggest difference. 

I don't think you can say a team has really been tested or challenged unless they face opponents featuring players capable of winning games on their own and even dominating the entire series.  The Cavs won't face a team like that until the Finals.

That last paragraph confused me a bit. Are Harden / Lillard that much better than Wade or Lowry or DeRozan? The latter trio seems to fit your criteria.

I think good teams probably beat bad teams with a superstar most of the time, though.

[Csfan1984]

I like the Thunder because they are due, but up against an historic team isn't going to be easy.

[loco_91]

W's in 5. Zero confidence in Russ/Kanter to guard the Steph/Draymond PnR.

[PhoSita]

We will simply have to disagree on this.  Basketball is a team sport, but as I say, in the playoffs the best 2-3 players on each team make the biggest difference. 

I don't think you can say a team has really been tested or challenged unless they face opponents featuring players capable of winning games on their own and even dominating the entire series.  The Cavs won't face a team like that until the Finals.

That last paragraph confused me a bit. Are Harden / Lillard that much better than Wade or Lowry or DeRozan? The latter trio seems to fit your criteria.

I think good teams probably beat bad teams with a superstar most of the time, though.

Lowry and Derozan have been atrocious in the playoffs.  Not just this year.  We could probably spend thousands of words delving into exactly why, but for whatever reason they become Marcus-Smart-esque bricklayers in the playoffs.

As for Wade, he's still got the chops to perform very well in the playoffs, but I don't think he's on the level anymore where he can take over games and series on his own.  If he were, Toronto would be eliminated already.

I think you're right, by the way, that good teams beat bad ones with superstars most of the time.  But my point here is that it's always tougher to game plan for the team's featuring the incendiary stars that are so good that it doesn't matter how limited their teammates are -- they can still take over and win a must-win game despite the stacked odds.

A solid, balanced team that's better in terms of process and playing the right way over time is better overall, but still much more likely to lose by a solid margin in 4 or 5 games, because they don't have that higher variance afforded by featuring a top 10-15 player.

[ahonui06]

I like GSW because of their overall depth. OKC has KD & Westbrook but after that there is a lot of inconsistency on their team. Warriors entire team is very cohesive and pick up slack.

[Moranis]

We will simply have to disagree on this.  Basketball is a team sport, but as I say, in the playoffs the best 2-3 players on each team make the biggest difference. 

I don't think you can say a team has really been tested or challenged unless they face opponents featuring players capable of winning games on their own and even dominating the entire series.  The Cavs won't face a team like that until the Finals.

That last paragraph confused me a bit. Are Harden / Lillard that much better than Wade or Lowry or DeRozan? The latter trio seems to fit your criteria.

I think good teams probably beat bad teams with a superstar most of the time, though.

Lowry and Derozan have been atrocious in the playoffs.  Not just this year.  We could probably spend thousands of words delving into exactly why, but for whatever reason they become Marcus-Smart-esque bricklayers in the playoffs.

As for Wade, he's still got the chops to perform very well in the playoffs, but I don't think he's on the level anymore where he can take over games and series on his own.  If he were, Toronto would be eliminated already.

I think you're right, by the way, that good teams beat bad ones with superstars most of the time.  But my point here is that it's always tougher to game plan for the team's featuring the incendiary stars that are so good that it doesn't matter how limited their teammates are -- they can still take over and win a must-win game despite the stacked odds.

A solid, balanced team that's better in terms of process and playing the right way over time is better overall, but still much more likely to lose by a solid margin in 4 or 5 games, because they don't have that higher variance afforded by featuring a top 10-15 player.

The thing is, you can just let those players do whatever they want and just defend the others and those teams don't win playoff series.  Heck they rarely even win 2 games in a series.  The only exception to that is if you have the special room players like James, Jordan, Bird, etc.  Those guys can win a couple of games on their own, guys like Harden can't.  He isn't that sort of player. 

Basketball is a team game.  Yes you need to have superstars to have a special team, but superstars are on teams that don't even make the playoffs all of the time in basketball.  Anthony Davis, Demarcus Cousins, Carmelo Anthony, John Wall, Jimmy Butler, etc. were all sitting at home when the playoffs started.  And some of those guys have some pretty good talent around them. 

The Warriors facing that crappy Rockets team with Harden or the crappy Blazers team with Lillard isn't preparation for the Thunder or Cavs, it is a cakewalk.  It is why they could win games without Curry and why they didn't rush him back when he could have played.  You don't do that against a team that you think could actually beat you.

[Big333223]

I accidentally voted Thunder in 6 but I'm predicting Warriors in 6.

[Tr1boy]

See (;

[Tr1boy]

I accidentally voted Thunder in 6 but I'm predicting Warriors in 6.

You sure it was an accident?

Okc in 6. 

[Big333223]

I accidentally voted Thunder in 6 but I'm predicting Warriors in 6.

You sure it was an accident?

Okc in 6.

If I created some kind of cosmic storm that lands OKC in the Finals, I'll be pretty pleased with myself.

[BornReady]

Thunder are more talented individually
But hard to argue against GSW case
Thunder need to work together like they did against the Spurs and minimise their turnovers to stand a chance against GSW

This is really close and will probably be the most exciting series
GSW in 7

[LarBrd33]

if I put on my NBA Fan hat for a second, as long as the Raptors don't pull off an upset, the Finals are going to be a ton of fun. 

LeBron vs Steph 2

or

LeBron vs Durant

Either way, it's going to be interesting.   I'm definitely rooting for the Warriors, though.  I want to keep the Durant to Boston pipedream alive.