2024-25 NBA Season Discussion

[jalengreen]

Finals odds for what it's worth:

OKC +175
BOS +185
CLE +500
DEN +1800
LAL +1900
GSW +2300
NYK +3200
LAC +5000
MIN +6000

[Peregrine01]

FWIW I think I'd probably favor the Warriors and Clippers over the Nuggets in a 7-game series

Warriors and Clippers for sure. And then when you go down the list, Lakers, Rockets and Wolves are all pick-em series. Wolves should probably be favored given recent history.

[metta-tonne]

Finals odds for what it's worth:

OKC +175
BOS +185
CLE +500
DEN +1800
LAL +1900
GSW +2300
NYK +3200
LAC +5000
MIN +6000

this is josh giddey disrespect

[lessthanjake]

Finals odds for what it's worth:

OKC +175
BOS +185
CLE +500
DEN +1800
LAL +1900
GSW +2300
NYK +3200
LAC +5000
MIN +6000

I guess there’s a lot of respect for the Celtics, since they’re defending champs, but for me personally I think this is not as high on OKC as it should be. I’d put the Thunder’s odds above 50%, to be honest (these odds suggest a 36% chance). There’s some apprehension about the Thunder because they have not been very successful in the playoffs yet in this era, but this feels like a 1991 Bulls or 2015 Warriors type of situation to me. Of course, maybe that apprehension will be proven right in the end, but I personally have a lot of confidence in the Thunder.

[Bidofo]

Is this the greatest SRS sum of the top 3 teams (31.12) in history? 2016 came to mind but that totaled to about 28.

The Knicks have an opportunity to do the funniest thing of all time

[falcolombardi]

Finals odds for what it's worth:

OKC +175
BOS +185
CLE +500
DEN +1800
LAL +1900
GSW +2300
NYK +3200
LAC +5000
MIN +6000

I guess there’s a lot of respect for the Celtics, since they’re defending champs, but for me personally I think this is not as high on OKC as it should be. I’d put the Thunder’s odds above 50%, to be honest (these odds suggest a 36% chance). There’s some apprehension about the Thunder because they have not been very successful in the playoffs yet in this era, but this feels like a 1991 Bulls or 2015 Warriors type of situation to me. Of course, maybe that apprehension will be proven right in the end, but I personally have a lot of confidence in the Thunder.

I think once you get to the +9, +10, +11...or +13 lmao area is more about "qualitative" stuff

I feel a +4 to +8 gap is probably more telling than a +8 to +12 gap about which team is better buikt to win

So i understand to still give boston the benefit of the doubt when they remain so strong themselves and are a defending champion

I also think that very few people in the basketball community actually realize how dominant okc has been

[ball_takes23]

Finals odds for what it's worth:

OKC +175
BOS +185
CLE +500
DEN +1800
LAL +1900
GSW +2300
NYK +3200
LAC +5000
MIN +6000

I guess there’s a lot of respect for the Celtics, since they’re defending champs, but for me personally I think this is not as high on OKC as it should be. I’d put the Thunder’s odds above 50%, to be honest (these odds suggest a 36% chance). There’s some apprehension about the Thunder because they have not been very successful in the playoffs yet in this era, but this feels like a 1991 Bulls or 2015 Warriors type of situation to me. Of course, maybe that apprehension will be proven right in the end, but I personally have a lot of confidence in the Thunder.

They seem to have fixed their main weaknesses since last year which were interior presence/rebounding with the addition of iHart and replaced their weakest perimeter defender in Giddey with Caruso.ChatGPT says the 2016 Warriors were -150 going into the playoffs. This team is more dominant by net rating than that Warriors team and will have an easier title path than that Warriors team since they only have to play one of Boston/Cleveland. I think +175 is a really good bet.

[lessthanjake]

Finals odds for what it's worth:

OKC +175
BOS +185
CLE +500
DEN +1800
LAL +1900
GSW +2300
NYK +3200
LAC +5000
MIN +6000

I guess there’s a lot of respect for the Celtics, since they’re defending champs, but for me personally I think this is not as high on OKC as it should be. I’d put the Thunder’s odds above 50%, to be honest (these odds suggest a 36% chance). There’s some apprehension about the Thunder because they have not been very successful in the playoffs yet in this era, but this feels like a 1991 Bulls or 2015 Warriors type of situation to me. Of course, maybe that apprehension will be proven right in the end, but I personally have a lot of confidence in the Thunder.

I think once you get to the +9, +10, +11...or +13 lmao area is more about "qualitative" stuff

I feel a +4 to +8 gap is probably more telling than a +8 to +12 gap about which team is better buikt to win

So i understand to still give boston the benefit of the doubt when they remain so strong themselves and are a defending champion

I also think that very few people in the basketball community actually realize how dominant okc has been

This is not a bad point. By my count, out of 23 teams that have had an SRS between 8 and 10, there’s been 11 title winners. So basically, they’ve won half the time. I believe there’s been 11 teams with a 10+ SRS, and 7 of them have won the title. So 10+ SRS teams have historically gotten better results, but the 8-10 SRS teams win a very significant portion of the time too. It’s not indicative of a *huge* difference.

I suppose it’s hard to really map this onto what we have this season. We have a 10+ SRS team (and actually well above 10), as well as two 8-10 SRS teams. Logically, they can’t all have the chance to win that teams of that SRS normally do. So that gives reason to downgrade all of their chances from what we’d normally expect with this dominant a team, because they’ll have to beat another dominant team.

But I feel like the Thunder aren’t even necessarily a garden-variety dominant team. While I can see an 8 SRS team maybe not being all that much worse than a 10 SRS team, I’m not sure that’s right about a 13 SRS team. The one caveat I’d put on all this is that the Celtics were a 10.74 SRS team last year, and probably are coasting a bit this year. So if the Celtics are *really* more like a 10-11 SRS team, then maybe the difference between them isn’t all that big. And that’s especially the case when we can probably assume the Thunder’s SRS will go down a bit as they sit guys near the very end of the season. The Celtics being better than their record/SRS is probably something the betting odds are internalizing to some degree.

[jalengreen]

I guess there’s a lot of respect for the Celtics, since they’re defending champs, but for me personally I think this is not as high on OKC as it should be. I’d put the Thunder’s odds above 50%, to be honest (these odds suggest a 36% chance). There’s some apprehension about the Thunder because they have not been very successful in the playoffs yet in this era, but this feels like a 1991 Bulls or 2015 Warriors type of situation to me. Of course, maybe that apprehension will be proven right in the end, but I personally have a lot of confidence in the Thunder.

I think once you get to the +9, +10, +11...or +13 lmao area is more about "qualitative" stuff

I feel a +4 to +8 gap is probably more telling than a +8 to +12 gap about which team is better buikt to win

So i understand to still give boston the benefit of the doubt when they remain so strong themselves and are a defending champion

I also think that very few people in the basketball community actually realize how dominant okc has been

This is not a bad point. By my count, out of 23 teams that have had an SRS between 8 and 10, there’s been 11 title winners. So basically, they’ve won half the time. I believe there’s been 11 teams with a 10+ SRS, and 7 of them have won the title. So 10+ SRS teams have historically gotten better results, but the 8-10 SRS teams win a very significant portion of the time too. It’s not indicative of a *huge* difference.

I suppose it’s hard to really map this onto what we have this season. We have a 10+ SRS team (and actually well above 10), as well as two 8-10 SRS teams. Logically, they can’t all have the chance to win that teams of that SRS normally do. So that gives reason to downgrade all of their chances from what we’d normally expect with this dominant a team, because they’ll have to beat another dominant team.

But I feel like the Thunder aren’t even necessarily a garden-variety dominant team. While I can see an 8 SRS team maybe not being all that much worse than a 10 SRS team, I’m not sure that’s right about the 13 SRS team. The one caveat I’d put on all this is that the Celtics were a 10.74 SRS team last year, and probably are coasting a bit this year. So if the Celtics are *really* more like a 10-11 SRS team, then maybe the difference between them isn’t all that big. That’s probably something the betting odds are internalizing to some degree.

Probably is part of the logic behind it, but man I don't see it. I think it's legitimate regression from guys like Holiday and Brown. White not quite as good as he was last year either. I'm with you that OKC is undervalued, and I view BOS as overvalued in turn.

[Special_Puppy]

I think once you get to the +9, +10, +11...or +13 lmao area is more about "qualitative" stuff

I feel a +4 to +8 gap is probably more telling than a +8 to +12 gap about which team is better buikt to win

So i understand to still give boston the benefit of the doubt when they remain so strong themselves and are a defending champion

I also think that very few people in the basketball community actually realize how dominant okc has been

This is not a bad point. By my count, out of 23 teams that have had an SRS between 8 and 10, there’s been 11 title winners. So basically, they’ve won half the time. I believe there’s been 11 teams with a 10+ SRS, and 7 of them have won the title. So 10+ SRS teams have historically gotten better results, but the 8-10 SRS teams win a very significant portion of the time too. It’s not indicative of a *huge* difference.

I suppose it’s hard to really map this onto what we have this season. We have a 10+ SRS team (and actually well above 10), as well as two 8-10 SRS teams. Logically, they can’t all have the chance to win that teams of that SRS normally do. So that gives reason to downgrade all of their chances from what we’d normally expect with this dominant a team, because they’ll have to beat another dominant team.

But I feel like the Thunder aren’t even necessarily a garden-variety dominant team. While I can see an 8 SRS team maybe not being all that much worse than a 10 SRS team, I’m not sure that’s right about the 13 SRS team. The one caveat I’d put on all this is that the Celtics were a 10.74 SRS team last year, and probably are coasting a bit this year. So if the Celtics are *really* more like a 10-11 SRS team, then maybe the difference between them isn’t all that big. That’s probably something the betting odds are internalizing to some degree.

Probably is part of the logic behind it, but man I don't see it. I think it's legitimate regression from guys like Holiday and Brown. White not quite as good as he was last year either. I'm with you that OKC is undervalued, and I view BOS as overvalued in turn.

Pritchard and Kornet have really stepped up as Holiday and Brown sucked. Playoff experience also matters to some degree so it matters that Boston has such a massive experience gap over the Thunder. Boston is also finishing the season strong (as are the Thunder tbf). Overall I view the matchup as a near tossup if they meet in the finals

[tsherkin]

Overall I view the matchup as a near tossup if they meet in the finals

Should be a good one, if Tatum can sort himself. If he craps himself like he did over his first 2 Finals appearances, though, that's all she wrote.

[Outside]

Overall I view the matchup as a near tossup if they meet in the finals

Should be a good one, if Tatum can sort himself. If he craps himself like he did over his first 2 Finals appearances, though, that's all she wrote.

It's not Tatum's fault that he's a shooting guard forced to be the primary ballhandler and initiator on offense. He's very good, but he's not LeBron or Luka.

[tsherkin]

It's not Tatum's fault that he's a shooting guard forced to be the primary ballhandler and initiator on offense. He's very good, but he's not LeBron or Luka.

I mean, that isn't a defense of anything, but rather a confirmation. He's being used a given way and people want to talk him up as if he's that kind of player, so he faces that sort of criticism.

He shoots a lot of 3s. He hasn't shot the 3 well in the Finals. His passing has improved, which changes his ability to impact the game on offense even when his shot isn't falling...

But regardless of whether it should be or not, Boston relies on him as a volume scorer. If he can't come through, then Boston won't beat the Thunder. That's a simple enough notion.

[sp6r=underrated]

I didn't watch it but Miami beat Boston pretty good last night. And this year I've felt like we've seen less close games. I decided to look it up

Code: Select all

Season     0-5 Points    20 Point Wins     30 Point Wins     40 Point Wins
1996         342               181                40               6
2000         348               171                33               6
2005         364               145                28               1
2010         314               170                39               4
2015         335               175                41               5
2020         279               177                40               12
2025         295               235                70               21

I used 96 as the starting point since that is when the NBA went to 29 teams. Note, 2020 is covid shortened.

So far we haven't seen a significant reduction in the number of close games but we have seen an expansion in the number of extreme blowouts.

[sp6r=underrated]

Finals odds for what it's worth:

OKC +175
BOS +185
CLE +500
DEN +1800
LAL +1900
GSW +2300
NYK +3200
LAC +5000
MIN +6000

Gun to my head I'd say GSW is most undervalued. But I believe lines are efficient which is why I stay away.

[Outside]

It's not Tatum's fault that he's a shooting guard forced to be the primary ballhandler and initiator on offense. He's very good, but he's not LeBron or Luka.

I mean, that isn't a defense of anything, but rather a confirmation. He's being used a given way and people want to talk him up as if he's that kind of player, so he faces that sort of criticism.

He shoots a lot of 3s. He hasn't shot the 3 well in the Finals. His passing has improved, which changes his ability to impact the game on offense even when his shot isn't falling...

But regardless of whether it should be or not, Boston relies on him as a volume scorer. If he can't come through, then Boston won't beat the Thunder. That's a simple enough notion.

I agree that Tatum hadn't performed well in the finals, where he has a particular tendency to score well early in games and shoot poorly late. I also agree that the Thunder pose a particularly difficult challenge for Tatum.

My point is that Tatum would have much greater chance of success if he could be a 2 guard alongside a primary initiator. He does reasonably well most of the time because Boston is such a three-heavy team, and him penetrating and kicking out to a stationary target at the three-point line is pretty basic. If he's making threes and Boston as a team is making threes, they're likely to win. But a team like OKC is equipped as well as anyone to disrupt that and expose Tatum as a meh initiator.

Tatum wears down physically. He has tiny hips and long, spindly legs. In the 2022 finals, he tried to dislodge Wiggins but couldn't budge him. Tatum has gotten stronger, but a tank like Dort will body him and take a toll over the course of a game and a series. This is a particular problem because Tatum has to initiate the offense most of the time instead of chilling at the three-point line or slashing and receiving a pass.

He's asked to do something he's reasonably good at, but he can be exposed by a top defense over the course of a series. If he could be like Brown, where he can primarily be a scorer and a secondary initiator, he'd have more consistent success in the finals.

Guys like Brown, White, and Porzingis excel because they don't have to carry that load. The Celtics have great depth, but they haven't solved their point guard problem. Isaiah Thomas was a flash in the pan who was a defensive sieve, Brogdon didn't work, and Jrue and White aren't that guy. Tatum isn't either, but he can do it better than anyone else they have.

[tsherkin]

My point is that Tatum would have much greater chance of success if he could be a 2 guard alongside a primary initiator.

Sure. I don't disagree.

He's asked to do something he's reasonably good at, but he can be exposed by a top defense over the course of a series. If he could be like Brown, where he can primarily be a scorer and a secondary initiator, he'd have more consistent success in the finals.

Yep. But this would then also alter the level of player at which he can be considered, right? More in-line with what that lack of capacity has been suggesting for a while now. He isn't a tier-1 player, but his regular-season scoring and that title have permitted some degree of discourse to the contrary, even though it wasn't how things actually unfolded. That was my point. He could be more consistent if he was not taking 10 3PA/g and shooting a weak percentage with rough consistency. He's at 34.6% on the season at 10.1 3PA/g right at the moment, and that isn't particularly good. Nor does it portend well for the playoffs.

That's a strategic thing. His corner shooting in his early years floated his 3P% some and maybe misled some people about his overall shooting ability, but yeah, the Celtics are going to be in for a rough ride if they match up with the Thunder.

[Peregrine01]

Warriors are a problem. At this point I’d favor them over the Nugggets in a first round matchup and they’ll probably give OKC a big run for their money in round 2.

[ShotCreator]

Finals odds for what it's worth:

OKC +175
BOS +185
CLE +500
DEN +1800
LAL +1900
GSW +2300
NYK +3200
LAC +5000
MIN +6000

Gun to my head I'd say GSW is most undervalued. But I believe lines are efficient which is why I stay away.

+5000 for the Clippers feels insane. Especially compared to NYK and MIN.

[Outside]

Finals odds for what it's worth:

OKC +175
BOS +185
CLE +500
DEN +1800
LAL +1900
GSW +2300
NYK +3200
LAC +5000
MIN +6000

Gun to my head I'd say GSW is most undervalued. But I believe lines are efficient which is why I stay away.

+5000 for the Clippers feels insane. Especially compared to NYK and MIN.

Aren't these "odds" a reflection of where bets are placed, not how likely based on basketball reasons that a team might win? If betting increases for a team, they lower the odds, and if betting is slow for a team, they up them.

People don't like betting on the Clippers, for good reason historically, so they raise the odds to make betting more attractive.