R-DAWG wrote:In the East - teams #2, 3, 4 in the regular season standings - New York, Milwaukee, and Cleveland - didn't have the benefit of being healthy during the playoffs.
In addition, the defending Eastern Conference championships - Miami Heat - were not healthy all year and arguably the best player in the conference - Joel Embiid - wasn't healthy either - which made both teams play-in teams.
I think having to play against healthy teams is a starting point to beating the Celtics. A few more games/miles on Al and a tweak injury on Brown or Tatum - like Luka had these finals - and the narrative is different.
Boston deserves credit for a great season, they won the championship fair and square, but there needs to be some context to how these playoffs played out.
There is some truth here. But what is also true is none of New York, Cleveland or Miami were going to win the championship even if perfectly healthy. Milwaukee, if healthy and playing their basketball, ok would of had a chance.
I see the same thing next year. Only a healthy and fully engaged Bucks can challenge the Celtics in the East next year. Maybe the Sixers will finally show us something next year they have never shown before. But really I put the Sixers in the same category as the Mavs, meaning they are a tier below the Celtics even if healthy.
Assuming everybody in the East is healthy all year which is unlikely but if they were I say the East will be something like this
1) Celtics
2) Bucks
3) Sixers
4) Knicks
5) Pacers
6) Cavs
7) Magic
8) Heat
But really the Celtics should cruise through the East again next year. Their best players are in their prime (Tatum, Brown), they have unmatched depth of smart veteran players who aren't too far past their prime(Holiday, Kristaps, White), they have the continuity and chemistry of a team that has been together for awhile and the confidence of winning a championship. That's not even mentioning guys like Sam Hauser & Payton Pritchard who look like they can come in and be great spot up shooters.