2014 Thunder- Where would they rank today?

[Matt15]

Where would the 2014 Thunder rank overall in today’s league? How far do they go?

[Homer38]

Great team but KD and Westbrook would need to be much better in the playoffs.... And their spacing would been a problem after Durant.And maybe Scott Brooks would be still too stupid to start Kendrick Perkins at the 5 in every game

[Bergmaniac]

Not that high, their bench was really bad apart from Reggie Jackson and they had 2 starters who were major negatives on offense in Thabo and Perkins. The 39 year old Derek Fisher and 34 year old Caron Butler played major minutes for them in the playoffs. In the playoffs they just couldn't score with Westbrook or Durant not on the court.

[falcolombardi]

championship contenders

if you go with 13 or 16 thunder then champipnship favorites instead

[No-more-rings]

championship contenders

if you go with 13 or 16 thunder then champipnship favorites instead

Westbrook wasn’t healthy in the 13 playoffs.

[falcolombardi]

championship contenders

if you go with 13 or 16 thunder then champipnship favorites instead

Westbrook wasn’t healthy in the 13 playoffs.

assuming wrstbrook doesnt get injured* it was a freak injury that derailed a ridiculous team

tjeir 60 win record was actually a huge underachieving for a +9 team like that

[No-more-rings]

championship contenders

if you go with 13 or 16 thunder then champipnship favorites instead

Westbrook wasn’t healthy in the 13 playoffs.

assuming wrstbrook doesnt get injured* it was a freak injury that derailed a ridiculous team

tjeir 60 win record was actually a huge underachieving for a +9 team like that

If we assume no injuries I’m curious to what makes 13 any better than 14. The roster was basically the same and Westbrook and KD are both likely at least a little better.

[falcolombardi]

Westbrook wasn’t healthy in the 13 playoffs.

assuming wrstbrook doesnt get injured* it was a freak injury that derailed a ridiculous team

tjeir 60 win record was actually a huge underachieving for a +9 team like that

If we assume no injuries I’m curious to what makes 13 any better than 14. The roster was basically the same and Westbrook and KD are both likely at least a little better.

they performed better with the same roster healthy in 2013 than in 2014

that was the season sefolosha shot 40% from 3 in decent volume, kevin martin gave thunder a really efficient 20 points a game, ibaka played great and we had depth and players like perkins still being useful at the time

the healthy 2014 thunder played around +7~, the 2013 one around +9 which is historically high

in 2016 the healthy thunder with less shooting but incredible rebounding and more mature kd and west played +9 basketball agaik when healthy in the regular season, then procedeed to beat the +10 spurs and outscore the +10 warriors proving it was not a fluke

[No-more-rings]

assuming wrstbrook doesnt get injured* it was a freak injury that derailed a ridiculous team

tjeir 60 win record was actually a huge underachieving for a +9 team like that

If we assume no injuries I’m curious to what makes 13 any better than 14. The roster was basically the same and Westbrook and KD are both likely at least a little better.

they performed better with the same roster healthy in 2013 than in 2014

that was the season sefolosha shot 40% from 3 in decent volume, kevin martin gave thunder a really efficient 20 points a game, ibaka played great and we had depth and players like perkins still being useful at the time

the healthy 2014 thunder played around +7~, the 2013 one around +9 which is historically high

in 2016 the healthy thunder with less shooting but incredible rebounding and more mature kd and west played +9 basketball agaik when healthy in the regular season, then procedeed to beat the +10 spurs and outscore the +10 warriors proving it was not a fluke

What’s your source for OKC performing clearly better when healthy in 2013 vs 2014? I mean they still won 59 games despite Westbrook missing a bunch of games so i sort of have trouble seeing that, but the data could change my mind I suppose. Either way, in a playoff atmosphere I find it hard to imagine there’s going to be much difference between the two.

[falcolombardi]

If we assume no injuries I’m curious to what makes 13 any better than 14. The roster was basically the same and Westbrook and KD are both likely at least a little better.

they performed better with the same roster healthy in 2013 than in 2014

that was the season sefolosha shot 40% from 3 in decent volume, kevin martin gave thunder a really efficient 20 points a game, ibaka played great and we had depth and players like perkins still being useful at the time

the healthy 2014 thunder played around +7~, the 2013 one around +9 which is historically high

in 2016 the healthy thunder with less shooting but incredible rebounding and more mature kd and west played +9 basketball agaik when healthy in the regular season, then procedeed to beat the +10 spurs and outscore the +10 warriors proving it was not a fluke

What’s your source for OKC performing clearly better when healthy in 2013 vs 2014? I mean they still won 59 games despite Westbrook missing a bunch of games so i sort of have trouble seeing that, but the data could change my mind I suppose. Either way, in a playoff atmosphere I find it hard to imagine there’s going to be much difference between the two.

i am kinda bad with researching this stuff beyond basic tools so here i am going off ben taylor durant article

https://backpicks.com/2018/03/05/backpicks-goat-26-kevin-durant/

In 2014, sidekick Russell Westbrook missed 31 games in which Durant and Ibaka played, yet the Thunder trucked along at a 59-win pace (6.5 SRS) without their wrecking-ball point guard.

oklahoma full season srs in 2014 was 6.7 which means that thunder was proabbably around +7 in westbrook games

in 2013 they had +9 srs for the full season per bball ref

[No-more-rings]

they performed better with the same roster healthy in 2013 than in 2014

that was the season sefolosha shot 40% from 3 in decent volume, kevin martin gave thunder a really efficient 20 points a game, ibaka played great and we had depth and players like perkins still being useful at the time

the healthy 2014 thunder played around +7~, the 2013 one around +9 which is historically high

in 2016 the healthy thunder with less shooting but incredible rebounding and more mature kd and west played +9 basketball agaik when healthy in the regular season, then procedeed to beat the +10 spurs and outscore the +10 warriors proving it was not a fluke

What’s your source for OKC performing clearly better when healthy in 2013 vs 2014? I mean they still won 59 games despite Westbrook missing a bunch of games so i sort of have trouble seeing that, but the data could change my mind I suppose. Either way, in a playoff atmosphere I find it hard to imagine there’s going to be much difference between the two.

i am kinda bad with researching this stuff beyond basic tools so here i am going off ben taylor durant article

https://backpicks.com/2018/03/05/backpicks-goat-26-kevin-durant/

In 2014, sidekick Russell Westbrook missed 31 games in which Durant and Ibaka played, yet the Thunder trucked along at a 59-win pace (6.5 SRS) without their wrecking-ball point guard.

oklahoma full season srs in 2014 was 6.7 which means that thunder was proabbably around +7 in westbrook games

in 2013 they had +9 srs for the full season per bball ref

I get that, but that's still fundamentally the same team with no major changes or injuries other than Westbrook's, but Westbrook had a great playoff run that year and I remember people talking about him being a top 3-5 player in the postseason. Westbrook raising his play in the postseason isn't something that SRS can capture or predict is kind of what I'm getting at. Also I think people tend to overstate the difference in teams from year to year unless there's major decline or roster changes. Sometimes guys just catch a team who's real hot at that time, or their role guys go cold or whatever.

You are free to disagree, but it's a good discussion to be had at least.