Drygon wrote:limbo wrote:heezyo2o wrote:Thunder have the best player, but the Kings were a better team. Think of it this way....do you think that thunder team could take the Kobe/Shaq Lakers to 7 games
The Thunder took the Steph/Dray/Klay 73-win Warriors to 7 games... how about you think of it this way?
Regular season record doesn't tell how good a team actually is in playoffs
By your logic, I guess any KD Warriors is worse than 2016 GSW?Jordan Syndrome wrote:heezyo2o wrote:Thunder have the best player, but the Kings were a better team. Think of it this way....do you think that thunder team could take the Kobe/Shaq Lakers to 7 games
They took a better team to 7 games and were up 3-2 as well...
2002 Lakers have 38th highest Playoff SRS (9.44) among 148 BAA/NBA Finalists since 1947.
For comparison, 2016 GSW has 58th highest Playoff SRS...
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1977066RCM88x wrote:Thunder are a lot better imo, however their best version was 2013, WB just got hurt. They were a 60 win, 9 SRS team, one of the best of the 21st century.
All that being said, the 2016 Thunder were better than any Kings team, I don't really feel like the Kings matchup well either Ibaka would be great in Webber, KD would give Peja issues too.
Unfortunately, I can't find Playoff SRS for teams who missed out NBA Finals.
But 2002 Kings had better SRS than 2016 Thunder in regular season at least.
SRS in the playoffs?! No way people are using this.
That is wrong on so many levels. Do you know what you're saying by using SRS?! It makes sense in the regular season, in the playoffs the sample is much smaller, some bad losses are gonna make it look bad, and it can just mean the Cavs and OKC were better opposition than what the Lakers faced.