How many titles will OKC win until 2030?

[ShootersShoot]

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.

When shaq won his first ring with kobe, he was 27..they didnt have 15 years left to play with each other.

So they would have to win 8 straight until shaq is 35...or win it all with a 36 or older shaq. Neither seems plausible when you consider that they lost in 04 and how well shaq was playing when he got older.

[dhsilv2]

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.

They never had 15 years left when they entered their prime. Shaq played 15 years once he joined the lakers. Kobe wasn't in his prime until maybe 2000. These are basic facts.

And there's no reason to make up a fantasy of never breaking up or getting hurt. That's not basketball.

[Letsgokings]

2. This is a talented fun team. This feels like their year

[Tacoma]

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?

Seriously, just cool it with your bombastic tone. What risks are you taking? Posting a prediction on a chat board using a pseudonym is not risk taking. You want to take risk? Go bet your life savings to support your claim that OKC will win 6+. Heck, bet your house too (or more likely your parents house as the case may be). Why not? it's a sure thing according to you.

So far, OKC has played 8 games against the top 5 teams in each division and they are 5-3 in those games. Good but not great, not historic to be compared to (to quote you): "historic team. Think peak GS, Bulls, Celtics, Heat, Lakers, Spurs, etc." Frankly, I don't think the current team is not (yet?) even as good as OKC's 2012 team of Durant, Westbrook, Harden (all to become MVPs) + Ibaka.

[Effigy]

Having multiple options is a huge cheat, lol. But since it's there, I went with 0 or 1. My gut says 0, but why not take the option that includes that and the next most likely option?

[Bandwagon2019]

1-2 feels right. They seem to have too many assets to not win any. But there are also way too many variables (salaries, injuries, other teams rising up) to confidently say they will win more than that. Winning 3+ in 6 years would be a dynasty, and that’s much harder to do today than at any point in history.

[azcatz11]

The odds of them winning >2 are slim to none. That's just how the NBA works.

[Jaqua92]

People are awfully desperate for OKC to become a dynasty and I can't help but wonder if it's because a lot of us don't want to see Boston become that, which is more realistic.

With the exception of the Warriors in 2015, teams don't just win titles without experience.

OKC is talented, but they aren't experienced and there's no telling what their players will become.

They're years away.

Here's the concern with them. There's no second gear. They're having a great season but man they just feel so unprepared and they are pushing and pushing.

Teams will be able to scheme against them and exploit their lack of ball handlers and defense, and they will need to figure out how to score against playoff defenses.

They weren't prepared for a team like the Mavs who had more expeirence, and confidence.

Playoff basketball is a different sport and UNTIL you actually perform in the playoffs... And not just underachieve, you don't get the benefit of the doubt.

They could be close. Or they could be a regular season team that never figures it out in the post season.

We don't know. What we do know is that there isn't any evidence to suggest that they're a legitimate championship threat this year and it's really hard to really conclude how many championships they may or may not win because this team hasn't actually proven to be a real contender.

[Jaqua92]

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?

Seriously, just cool it with your bombastic tone. What risks are you taking? Posting a prediction on a chat board using a pseudonym is not risk taking. You want to take risk? Go bet your life savings to support your claim that OKC will win 6+. Heck, bet your house too (or more likely your parents house as the case may be). Why not? it's a sure thing according to you.

So far, OKC has played 8 games against the top 5 teams in each division and they are 5-3 in those games. Good but not great, not historic to be compared to (to quote you): "historic team. Think peak GS, Bulls, Celtics, Heat, Lakers, Spurs, etc." Frankly, I don't think the current team is not (yet?) even as good as OKC's 2012 team of Durant, Westbrook, Harden (all to become MVPs) + Ibaka.

5-3, yup.

[OkcSinceSGA]

I picked 1-2. Why?

As dominant as Jokic is, his supporting cast has declined. I don't see him being able to carry to championships with teams like OKC and Boston around. Wolves have fallen off their peak from last year hard. As good as Memphis is, I think they are in the tier 2 contender list. Cavs are going to be a dominant regular season team, but I still don't believe in them in the deep playoffs.

I don't see any team besides Boston having the youth, depth, talent to battle them for the next 5 years. Rockets and Grizzlies are the teams out west that I think COULD theoretically take the leap into their tier and cause problems, but I don't see it happening with the sheer volume of picks+assets+upside of OKC.

I'm not picking them to win more than 1-2 just because 1 or 2 rings in 5 years is still an outstanding team... but they aren't quite dynasty tier yet. They are likely 1 more huge leap from that. If Chet jumped to a 25/10/5 type MVP tier player or something then they move up to maybe 2-3 rings in a 5 year span.

[Deivork]

1-2 feels right. They seem to have too many assets to not win any. But there are also way too many variables (salaries, injuries, other teams rising up) to confidently say they will win more than that. Winning 3+ in 6 years would be a dynasty, and that’s much harder to do today than at any point in history.

Agreed but who is really positioned to rival them in this period? Nuggets have the best player but the team construction seems like it will almost limit them out of contention, for real, much to my demise.

Boston should win this year and keep dominating the East for years, so they'll be OKC's biggest rival but their team will need some tweaks. In the West though maybe only Dallas can keep up, but for the rest? Minnesota seems no longer the contender they looked last year. NO went awry... Grizzlies? Don't think they really rival the Thunder's talent. Warriors are on their way out from contention... So are the Lakers and Clippers. Suns? Suns might stand a chance if everything clicks soon but their window is just now short with KD being 36.

Houston is the one clear team with already a solid foundation and many interesting young players. But who's their superstar that could rival Shai? Sorry, no.

To be clear, I'm talking about a 6-year outlook, not just this season. OKC should only be the west favourite this year if Chet gets back to form.

You can make the case in which the West remains the better conference overall but the east Top-4 is tougher than the West's.

The only way I see the future pecking order in the west being challenged is with a blockbuster trade like Houston getting Giannis or San Antonio acquiring somehow another superstar and clicking right away.

Many were jumping the gun with the Spurs, but would anybody be willing to bet that Wemby gets a ring before 2030?


And hey, I don't even like the Thunder.

[Lo Wang]

So far, OKC has played 8 games against the top 5 teams in each division and they are 5-3 in those games. Good but not great, not historic to be compared to (to quote you): "historic team. Think peak GS, Bulls, Celtics, Heat, Lakers, Spurs, etc." Frankly, I don't think the current team is not (yet?) even as good as OKC's 2012 team of Durant, Westbrook, Harden (all to become MVPs) + Ibaka.

This is not a literal comparison. I don't understand why I can't make comparisons without a poster saying, "Oh no, you can't compare to that team. They have 20 rings and you have none."

Why do people do this?

A comparison doesn't have to be literal. You can make specific comparisons: the net rating and defensive player efficiency of the Thunder are better than those legendary teams. These measurements show how dominant a team is.

Their net rating is a 12.1. To put it into perspective, here are the best net ratings the past 10 years:

2023-24 Boston Celtics (11.7)
2022-23 Celtics (6.7)
2021-22 Phoenix Suns (7.5)
2020-21 Utah Jazz (9.0)
2019-20 Milwaukee Bucks (9.4)
2018-19 Bucks (8.6)
2017-18 Houston Rockets (8.4)
2016-17 Golden State Warriors (11.4)
2015-16 San Antonio Spurs (11.1)
2014-15 Warriors (9.9)

Only the 72-10 Bulls have a better net rating (12.3).

That's why they are historic. These aren't literal comparisons.

P.S. Their net rating is still improving. They could have the highest net rating in history by the end of the year if they keep playing like this.

[Capn'O]

Not one, not two, not three…

Reality is they are more likely to win zero than 1. Gotta stay healthy, get lucky, etc.

No need for the walkback. You can talk your **** Your net rating is like 12 and most of that is with either Chet or iHart hurt. That's bananas.

Like, look at this guy:

Fun Fact, I hope It's right LOL.

Can't remember who said, but didn't someone say SGA reminds them of Jordan?

Took Jordan 7 years to win first championship?
This Is SGA's 7th season, this could be the start of something?

I had them at 2 FWIW. If my Knicks can't make the finals, I'd love to see a BOS/OKC finals.

[Lo Wang]

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.

They never had 15 years left when they entered their prime. Shaq played 15 years once he joined the lakers. Kobe wasn't in his prime until maybe 2000. These are basic facts.

And there's no reason to make up a fantasy of never breaking up or getting hurt. That's not basketball.

Do you understand the difference between a speculative discussion and a fact based one?

In a speculative discussion, criterias can be set if both parties agree to it. The idea is to speculate. We're not dealing with facts. We're speculating on a future event. Anytime you make a prediction, it is speculative; we are not speaking fact based. Unless you can tell the future, there's no way of knowing how many rings the Thunder will get.

I'm not trying to be right. This is a speculative thread, and that's what I'm doing.

[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.

Facts, speculation or prediction. Make up your mind please.

[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.

Facts, speculation or prediction. Make up your mind please.

All 3 are different.

You guys are mixing them up. You have people speculating and acting like they are speaking in facts.

[cgf]

With the new CBA, it's gunna be really hard for anyone to win more than 2 titles in the next 6 years. And this year Boston and OKC are clear favorites to come out of their conferences, but it wouldn't be at all surprising if the Mavs beat the Thunder again, or the Celtics fell to the Knicks / Cavs / Magic. I can even see Minnesota going on a tear if they click by the playoffs.

[cgf]

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.

Facts, speculation or prediction. Make up your mind please.

All 3 are different.

You guys are mixing them up. You have people speculating and acting like they are speaking in facts.

You might be onto something there...

[Up-And-Coming]

In the next 5-6 years? I’d say probably 1 with a small chance at 2.

[SlimShady83]

I had them at 2 FWIW. If my Knicks can't make the finals, I'd love to see a BOS/OKC finals.

I'm sticking to my guns all the way until they're both out and that's Knicks/Dallas finals prediction b4 the season started.

If not Dallas It's OKC