RealGM

Usually really good teams have to grind their way to the top through a few years of playoff disappointments. E.g., the Tatum-Brown Celtics, the Jokic-Murray Nuggets, and the Giannis Bucks all had years of playoff battles before finally breaking through for a title. Even the MJ Bulls and Shaq-Kobe Lakers.

I think that's what most of us expect with OKC. They're good, but they haven't really earned their playoff battle scars yet, so it doesn't seem like it's their time. We expect them to lose to playoff veterans like the Celtics/Cavs/Warriors/somebody.

OKC, last four years:

• 24 wins (no playoffs)
• 40 wins (no playoffs)
• 57 wins (lost conf semis)
• 68 wins (???)

^ Just such a rapid ascent, without many playoff reps.

HOWEVER...are they just that good?? By overall team stats like point differential, SRS, BPI, etc, they are historically elite. E.g., better SRS than the best Bulls or Warriors team. Very, very good both ways, but particularly elite defensively.

Do playoff reps matter if a team is just too good?

Wannabe MEP wrote:Usually really good teams have to grind their way to the top through a few years of playoff disappointments. E.g., the Tatum-Brown Celtics, the Jokic-Murray Nuggets, and the Giannis Bucks all had years of playoff battles before finally breaking through for a title. Even the MJ Bulls and Shaq-Kobe Lakers.

I think that's what most of us expect with OKC. They're good, but they haven't really earned their playoff battle scars yet, so it doesn't seem like it's their time. We expect them to lose to playoff veterans like the Celtics/Cavs/Warriors/somebody.

OKC, last four years:

• 24 wins (no playoffs)
• 40 wins (no playoffs)
• 57 wins (lost conf semis)
• 68 wins (???)

^ Just such a rapid ascent, without many playoff reps.

HOWEVER...are they just that good?? By overall team stats like point differential, SRS, BPI, etc, they are historically elite. E.g., better SRS than the best Bulls or Warriors team. Very, very good both ways, but particularly elite defensively.

Do playoff reps matter if a team is just too good?

No, and people who say they are, are being biased/

Playoff reps can be a tie breaker, but when you’re overwhelmingly deeper and more talented you make much quicker jumps than other teams. Talent is there and it fits.

That Jalen Williams pick at 12 was the difference between being a playoff team and being a true contender.

Nope Boston is the best team.

Rapid ascension happens when teams are permitted to repeatedly tank and shutdown players....

to be accurate sga and dort were at that lockdown playoffs series against houston plus caruso and hartenstein add tons of playoffs mileage

In the West, probably.

The 2015-2016 Golden State Warriors finished 73-9. They lost in the Finals to LeBron's 57-25 Cleveland Cavaliers.

OKC had a great regular season, but I don't think they will win a championship this season. I doubt they will advance past the Western Conference finals.

Yes. The whole notion of them "not being proven" is meaningless.

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:That Jalen Williams pick at 12 was the difference between being a playoff team and being a true contender.

This is a really good point. If Jalen was where Ousmane Dieng is in his development, this team would be a lot different.

Yes but they don't have Bronny

Yes they're legit....the scary thing is they can get even better. They could win the championship AND also get a top 10 pick this draft

Yes

NyKnicks1714 wrote:Yes. The whole notion of them "not being proven" is meaningless.

Agree. They are the best, the favorites. Doesn't mean they can't be beat, but yes, they are that good.

Your record against bad teams is irrelevant in playoffs. TWolves, Nuggets, Warriors, Mavericks, Rockets beat them twice this season. 4 of those teams are still alive in the playoffs.

They will be favored in every series they play but they're definitely not anywhere close to guaranteed to win. Minnesota, Clippers, Lakers, Warriors are all capable of beating them, as well as Boston/Cleveland.

Ja going down is the only reason they aren’t knocked out 1st round

Fat wrote:Ja going down is the only reason they aren’t knocked out 1st round

Definitely. After losing games 1 and 2 by a combined 70 points (with Ja), Memphis had them exactly where they wanted them. Everything from here on out has an asterisk for OKC.

Ruma85 wrote:

Wannabe MEP wrote:Usually really good teams have to grind their way to the top through a few years of playoff disappointments. E.g., the Tatum-Brown Celtics, the Jokic-Murray Nuggets, and the Giannis Bucks all had years of playoff battles before finally breaking through for a title. Even the MJ Bulls and Shaq-Kobe Lakers.

I think that's what most of us expect with OKC. They're good, but they haven't really earned their playoff battle scars yet, so it doesn't seem like it's their time. We expect them to lose to playoff veterans like the Celtics/Cavs/Warriors/somebody.

OKC, last four years:

• 24 wins (no playoffs)
• 40 wins (no playoffs)
• 57 wins (lost conf semis)
• 68 wins (???)

^ Just such a rapid ascent, without many playoff reps.

HOWEVER...are they just that good?? By overall team stats like point differential, SRS, BPI, etc, they are historically elite. E.g., better SRS than the best Bulls or Warriors team. Very, very good both ways, but particularly elite defensively.

Do playoff reps matter if a team is just too good?

No, and people who say they are, are being biased/

People who say they aren't, are being biased.

See how easy and non substantive that is? Plus we are talking about OKC here, not the Lakers/Celtics/Knicks etc. Public biases are more likely to work against them than for them.