How many titles will OKC win until 2030?

[bluejerseyjinx]

25 games into a season and your comparing the Thunder as an all times great team and defense. O.K. I understand bold predictions and smack talk, but come on man.

[dk1115]

For some reason, I read 'how many titties'

[Lo Wang]

I am going to prove to you guys you are smarter than you think. You can make predictions.

If I were to ask you who would win in a 7 game series between the Raptors and Thunder.

Not 1 of you would bat an eye and say Thunder.

Why?

Intuition. I believe Nietzche coined this concept.

This is the highest level of intelligence: this is a gathering of information so vast intuitively you can make an accurate prediction.

If you said the Raptors will win in 4, this means you have no clue about what you are talking about, and vice versa.

[Lo Wang]

25 games into a season and your comparing the Thunder as an all times great team and defense. O.K.

No.

I am using facts (stats) to support that position. It is a fact the Thunder have defensive stats comparable to Russell's Celts.

I never said they were the same team (strawman). I am simply comparing their relative defensive efficiency.

P.S. If you can't have an opinion after 25 games, then you should actually watch the games and not the highlights, no offense.

[SFour]

They should be happy with 1-2.....I thought the Nuggets were going to be a dynasty with multiple championships but now it seems like they'd be lucky to win another one, and they have Jokic an all-time great with 4 MVPs

[bluejerseyjinx]

25 games into a season and your comparing the Thunder as an all times great team and defense. O.K.

No.

I am using facts (stats) to support that position. It is a fact the Thunder have defensive stats comparable to Russell's Celts.

I never said they were the same team (strawman). I am simply comparing their relative defensive efficiency.

P.S. If you can't have an opinion after 25 games, then you should actually watch the games and not the highlights, no offense.

There is still 54 games left. You really think that stat will hold up all year? Get back to me when the Thunder win 8 straight titles.

[Lo Wang]

25 games into a season and your comparing the Thunder as an all times great team and defense. O.K.

No.

I am using facts (stats) to support that position. It is a fact the Thunder have defensive stats comparable to Russell's Celts.

I never said they were the same team (strawman). I am simply comparing their relative defensive efficiency.

P.S. If you can't have an opinion after 25 games, then you should actually watch the games and not the highlights, no offense.

There is still 54 games left. You really think that stat will hold up all year? Get back to me when the Thunder win 8 straight titles.

So we can't have an opinion until the playoffs?

Gotcha.

[MiltownMadness]

0 or 1, you need to be super lucky to win a title without overwhelming talent like 10s Heat or Warriors dynasty. Takes great health, lots of lucky bounces, roleplayers stepping up, etc...

[bluejerseyjinx]

No.

I am using facts (stats) to support that position. It is a fact the Thunder have defensive stats comparable to Russell's Celts.

I never said they were the same team (strawman). I am simply comparing their relative defensive efficiency.

P.S. If you can't have an opinion after 25 games, then you should actually watch the games and not the highlights, no offense.

There is still 54 games left. You really think that stat will hold up all year? Get back to me when the Thunder win 8 straight titles.

So we can't have an opinion until the playoffs?

Gotcha.

You sure can. I have a different one however. Lets see if you are correct first and Thunder win one first. And then back it up another 7 consecutive years after that.

[chilluminati]

1. And then if they can manage to keep their finances right, and they don't lose any key pieces later like our last 3 champions, they can easily win more than 1.

But 1 is the safe choice in this era of the CBA and teambuilding.

[Lo Wang]

There is still 54 games left. You really think that stat will hold up all year? Get back to me when the Thunder win 8 straight titles.

So we can't have an opinion until the playoffs?

Gotcha.

You sure can. I have a different one however. Lets see if you are correct first and Thunder win one first. And then back it up another 7 consecutive years after that.

Where's the fun in that?

[bluejerseyjinx]

So we can't have an opinion until the playoffs?

Gotcha.

You sure can. I have a different one however. Lets see if you are correct first and Thunder win one first. And then back it up another 7 consecutive years after that.

Where's the fun in that?

Winning 8 chips in a row isn't fun. Boring actually. It was an awful time.

[Lo Wang]

You sure can. I have a different one however. Lets see if you are correct first and Thunder win one first. And then back it up another 7 consecutive years after that.

Where's the fun in that?

Winning 8 chips in a row isn't fun. Boring actually. It was an awful time.

Truth.

[dhsilv2]

Those are lazy choices.

Why?

Predictive measures for stacked teams are accurate.

Kobe/Shaq = 5+
Lebron/Wade = 5+
KD/West/Harden = 1+

You're telling me these predictions are wrong if the teams are intact and healthy?

All 3 could easily accomplish those goals.

It's possible to predict if you do your homework.

This whole wait and see approach is a wash. This is a speculative thread, so why are yall acting like you have to be 100% correct?

None of those made up numbers happened. 0-1 is the only reasonable guess here. And there's no reason to discuss intact and healthy as there's near 0% chance of that either.

Those aren't made up; those were predictions at the time.

Heck, if I said Kobe/Shaq will get 8 rings, I wouldn't be wrong. Prime and healthy Shaq/Kobe for 15 years? 8 is a low number.

Predictions can be accurate. Your insistence on the wait and see approach is really no position.

Anybody can say wait and see.

The person with the correct prediction is the smartest 1 in the room.

We call this gambling. There is a science behind it; we're all gamblers when we make predictions. Sure it's impossible to predict the future, but the predictions can be more reliable based on the research.

So bad prediction?

And yes, you WERE wrong if you said Shaq and Kobe would get 8. We played it out and they didn't. more importantly, they barely got the 3 they did. That took a lot of luck falling their way.

But no there isn't a science behind "gambling".

But of the choices, 0-1 has by far the highest probability.

[Blame Rasho]

I am going to prove to you guys you are smarter than you think. You can make predictions.

If I were to ask you who would win in a 7 game series between the Raptors and Thunder.

Not 1 of you would bat an eye and say Thunder.

Why?

Intuition. I believe Nietzche coined this concept.

This is the highest level of intelligence: this is a gathering of information so vast intuitively you can make an accurate prediction.

If you said the Raptors will win in 4, this means you have no clue about what you are talking about, and vice versa.

I love that you have proven me right with all the amazing and great obtuse posts you have made.

Don’t stop and go on…

[Lo Wang]

None of those made up numbers happened. 0-1 is the only reasonable guess here. And there's no reason to discuss intact and healthy as there's near 0% chance of that either.

Those aren't made up; those were predictions at the time.

Heck, if I said Kobe/Shaq will get 8 rings, I wouldn't be wrong. Prime and healthy Shaq/Kobe for 15 years? 8 is a low number.

Predictions can be accurate. Your insistence on the wait and see approach is really no position.

Anybody can say wait and see.

The person with the correct prediction is the smartest 1 in the room.

We call this gambling. There is a science behind it; we're all gamblers when we make predictions. Sure it's impossible to predict the future, but the predictions can be more reliable based on the research.

So bad prediction?

And yes, you WERE wrong if you said Shaq and Kobe would get 8. We played it out and they didn't. more importantly, they barely got the 3 they did. That took a lot of luck falling their way.

But no there isn't a science behind "gambling".

But of the choices, 0-1 has by far the highest probability.

The difference between you and I is I'm willing to take the risk and make a prediction.

I think a few posters in here are scared of being wrong.

Guess what? They are both right and wrong. It's an opinion. Opinions are not facts, so why are some of you guys acting like we are speaking in facts?

If you are wrong, then you are wrong. Who cares?

That's the whole point of a discussion: we throw the best ideas out there and see what sticks.

But if you are afraid of giving your opinion because you might be wrong, you're really robbing us of your insight.

I don't hate stats; I think the over reliance on it hinders creativity: the wait and see approach is nothing more than a stats game. Stats are conclusive, and nobody wants to look stupid in this forum.

Who cares guys?

[dhsilv2]

Those aren't made up; those were predictions at the time.

Heck, if I said Kobe/Shaq will get 8 rings, I wouldn't be wrong. Prime and healthy Shaq/Kobe for 15 years? 8 is a low number.

Predictions can be accurate. Your insistence on the wait and see approach is really no position.

Anybody can say wait and see.

The person with the correct prediction is the smartest 1 in the room.

We call this gambling. There is a science behind it; we're all gamblers when we make predictions. Sure it's impossible to predict the future, but the predictions can be more reliable based on the research.

So bad prediction?

And yes, you WERE wrong if you said Shaq and Kobe would get 8. We played it out and they didn't. more importantly, they barely got the 3 they did. That took a lot of luck falling their way.

But no there isn't a science behind "gambling".

But of the choices, 0-1 has by far the highest probability.

The difference between you and I is I'm willing to take the risk and make a prediction.

I think a few posters in here are scared of being wrong.

Guess what? They are both right and wrong. It's an opinion. Opinions are not facts, so why are some of you guys acting like we are speaking in facts?

If you are wrong, then you are wrong. Who cares?

That's the whole point of a discussion: we throw the best ideas out there and see what sticks.

But if you are afraid of giving your opinion because you might be wrong, you're really robbing us of your insight.

I don't hate stats; I think the over reliance on it hinders creativity: the wait and see approach is nothing more than a stats game. Stats are conclusive, and nobody wants to look stupid in this forum.

Who cares guys?

Words have meanings. When someone asks what's most likely to happen, then you provide that. I don't give a crap if I'm wrong about something. But what I want to happen and what is most likely aren't the same thing. If you thought the MOST likely result was 8 titles for Kobe and Shaq, you were stupid. If you thought they'd beat the odds and shocked the world, cool. Different questions with very different words.

But in short, you can hope for whatever. The most likely result will be 0-1.

[Lo Wang]

So bad prediction?

And yes, you WERE wrong if you said Shaq and Kobe would get 8. We played it out and they didn't. more importantly, they barely got the 3 they did. That took a lot of luck falling their way.

But no there isn't a science behind "gambling".

But of the choices, 0-1 has by far the highest probability.

The difference between you and I is I'm willing to take the risk and make a prediction.

I think a few posters in here are scared of being wrong.

Guess what? They are both right and wrong. It's an opinion. Opinions are not facts, so why are some of you guys acting like we are speaking in facts?

If you are wrong, then you are wrong. Who cares?

That's the whole point of a discussion: we throw the best ideas out there and see what sticks.

But if you are afraid of giving your opinion because you might be wrong, you're really robbing us of your insight.

I don't hate stats; I think the over reliance on it hinders creativity: the wait and see approach is nothing more than a stats game. Stats are conclusive, and nobody wants to look stupid in this forum.

Who cares guys?

Words have meanings. When someone asks what's most likely to happen, then you provide that. I don't give a crap if I'm wrong about something. But what I want to happen and what is most likely aren't the same thing. If you thought the MOST likely result was 8 titles for Kobe and Shaq, you were stupid. If you thought they'd beat the odds and shocked the world, cool. Different questions with very different words.

But in short, you can hope for whatever. The most likely result will be 0-1.

How am I stupid for saying Shaq and Kobe can win 8 rings if healthy and intact?

It's a speculation bro. I'm not talking in matter of fact terms.

If you disagree, state your position and speculate. Stop relying on stats. I understand nobody wants to look stupid, but I'm not learning anything from you guys except a few great posters in here who speculate and come up with the better idea.

If all you do is stats this and that, I'm sorry, you're not teaching me anything.

[dhsilv2]

The difference between you and I is I'm willing to take the risk and make a prediction.

I think a few posters in here are scared of being wrong.

Guess what? They are both right and wrong. It's an opinion. Opinions are not facts, so why are some of you guys acting like we are speaking in facts?

If you are wrong, then you are wrong. Who cares?

That's the whole point of a discussion: we throw the best ideas out there and see what sticks.

But if you are afraid of giving your opinion because you might be wrong, you're really robbing us of your insight.

I don't hate stats; I think the over reliance on it hinders creativity: the wait and see approach is nothing more than a stats game. Stats are conclusive, and nobody wants to look stupid in this forum.

Who cares guys?

Words have meanings. When someone asks what's most likely to happen, then you provide that. I don't give a crap if I'm wrong about something. But what I want to happen and what is most likely aren't the same thing. If you thought the MOST likely result was 8 titles for Kobe and Shaq, you were stupid. If you thought they'd beat the odds and shocked the world, cool. Different questions with very different words.

But in short, you can hope for whatever. The most likely result will be 0-1.

How am I stupid for saying Shaq and Kobe can win 8 rings if healthy and intact?

It's a speculation bro. I'm not talking in matter of fact terms.

If you disagree, state your position and speculate. Stop relying on stats. I understand nobody wants to look stupid, but I'm not learning anything from you guys except a few great posters in here who speculate and come up with the better idea.

If all you do is stats this and that, I'm sorry, you're not teaching me anything.

Healthy and intact for 8 years is already impossible...so yeah. It's a stupid statement. That doesn't even get into the wear and tear of going to the finals for multiple seasons. There's a reason teams just can't keep doing it and breakdown.

[Lo Wang]

Words have meanings. When someone asks what's most likely to happen, then you provide that. I don't give a crap if I'm wrong about something. But what I want to happen and what is most likely aren't the same thing. If you thought the MOST likely result was 8 titles for Kobe and Shaq, you were stupid. If you thought they'd beat the odds and shocked the world, cool. Different questions with very different words.

But in short, you can hope for whatever. The most likely result will be 0-1.

How am I stupid for saying Shaq and Kobe can win 8 rings if healthy and intact?

It's a speculation bro. I'm not talking in matter of fact terms.

If you disagree, state your position and speculate. Stop relying on stats. I understand nobody wants to look stupid, but I'm not learning anything from you guys except a few great posters in here who speculate and come up with the better idea.

If all you do is stats this and that, I'm sorry, you're not teaching me anything.

Healthy and intact for 8 years is already impossible...so yeah. It's a stupid statement. That doesn't even get into the wear and tear of going to the finals for multiple seasons. There's a reason teams just can't keep doing it and breakdown.

That's the criteria. The speculation is based on the criteria.

At the time, when Shaq/Kobe were in their primes, they still had 15 years left.

You're telling me they can't win 8 rings if they were completely healthy and remained as a team?

If you want a real debate, we can break down the metrics and go at it.