2025 NBA FINALS: #1 Oklahoma City Thunder vs #4 Indiana Pacers (Series tied 2-2)

[Andri]

On one hand, I do think MD made a mistake changing from the start the starting 5. It was a pre adjustment, and cruel at it was, they even lost G1.

On the other, playing IH and Chet together Vs Indiana Gould break definitely OKC defense. With Siakam and Turner, Pacers will drag both out of the paint, and the constant motion and guard screens will lead to getting to the rim again and again.

So for me it is how OKC improves in offense more than in defense.

[Nuntius]

I'll be interested to see what adjustments OKC makes for game 4. I'd like to see Wallace/Caruso look for their shot just a bit more. I thought when Chet and Jalen Williams were aggressive attacking their defenders a lot of good things happened, ie they got Indiana in foul trouble and got 20 free throws between them. OKC needs more of that and less watching SGA go 1 v 5.

For the Pacers, they still need to cut down on sloppy turnovers/unforced errors. I can't remember Siakam getting around anyone and getting to the basket when he catches around the 3-point line; I'd like to see him catch the ball at the elbow, take a dribble and go up strong. Mathurin on SGA was a disaster for the Pacers, but he did ok against Jalen Williams.

They will definitely play their big lineup more moving forward imo. And it will be effective.

Read on Twitter

Sidery is not accurate when it comes to how many minutes they've played together in the Finals. Chet and Hartenstein have played together for 10 minutes (well, 9 minutes and 45 seconds), not 5. I talked about it in the previous thread:

Chet and Hartenstein shared the court in two different instances in tonight's game. At the start of the second and towards the end of the third.

At the start of the second, they shared the floor for 1 minute and 21 seconds (from the start to the 10:39 mark). The score was 32-24 in OKC's favor when the quarter started and 34-28 when Hartenstein was replaced by Wiggins. So, that's a -2.

In the third, they shared the floor from the 4:24 mark to the 0:34 mark. So, that's 3 minutes and 50 seconds. The score was 79-81 Indiana when Chet returned to the game and 85-84 OKC when Hartenstein left. So, that's a +3.

All in all, they played together for 5 minutes and 11 seconds and were +1 together in tonight's game.

In game 2, they also played together in two different instances. At the end of the first quarter and at the end of the third quarter.

At the end of the first, they shared the floor from the 3:51 mark to the 0:15 mark. That's 3 minutes and 36 seconds. The score was 14-17 OKC when Chet entered the game and 20-24 when Hartenstein left. So, that's a +1.

At the end of the third, they shared the floor from the 1:13 mark to the 0:15 mark. That's 58 seconds. The score was 73-89 OKC when Hartenstein entered the game and 74-92 when he left. So, that's a +2.

All in all, they played together for 4 minutes and 34 seconds and they were +3.

Adding both of them together, it looks like they have played together 9 minutes and 45 seconds so the minutes part of the tweet appears correct. But the +/- part of the tweet seems a bit off. By the numbers above, it looks like they have only been a +4 together.

There is a chance that he's counting some FTs that took place in between the subs (players are often substituted during FTs, after all). If we were to count FTs that were taken after the sub but the foul resulting in these FTs happened before the sub then we'd go to +6 since we did have two of these occasions (in both cases during their third quarter stints). But even then, I still don't know how he gets to +7. Is he counting a FT that Hartenstein made before Chet was inserted in the game? Or is my math just off?

In any case, the point I'm trying to make here is this:

The double big lineup has been fine for the Thunder so far. But it hasn't really led to any runs. It hasn't turned any game around. It's just a solid lineup.

[doogie_hauser]

A lot of the Vegas odds are dicated by billionaire gamblers all over the world (especially in China and Hong Kong) and have more money than sense/astute sporting acumen but they can easily write off their losses.

[durden_tyler]

Still don't understand the Vegas odds. OKC looks super tired and wasn't good at all on the road during the playoffs except for game 4 against the Wolves and we barely won. Vegas giving us more chances to win road games against Indiana than against Denver or Minny...doesn't make any sense to me after what we saw in game 3. Feels like the Pacers are more underrated than OKC is overrated if that makes some sense. Momentum shifted and the line is stucked.

...that being said I hope Vegas is right

Vegas odds aren't supposed to be predictive. They are just a reflection of what people are betting. And, yeah, the general public does underrate the Pacers because they have no recognizable star. This is what is skewing the odds and it has been happening all playoffs.

This is correct. Game 4 line opened OKC in favor by 6 points-- basically anticipating that bounce back game from the Thunder. The most interesting betting data is if this line moves a lot by game time. Will the Thunder bettors push it furter to 6.7 or even 7.5 or will the Pacers backers move this down to 5.5 or below. Some books already have the Pacers at 5.5, which generally means more Indiana bets from the public (although we're still some 15 hours away from tip-off so this could still move and/or even go the other way)

[FeatheryTouch]

A lot of the Vegas odds are dicated by billionaire gamblers all over the world (especially in China and Hong Kong) and have more money than sense/astute sporting acumen but they can easily write off their losses.

Vegas odds are 100% calculated to make the casinos the most money possible and lines will definitely change based on where people are putting their money when nothing about the basketball matchup that people are betting on has actually changed.

Despite that many people seem to assume the odds are just based on dispassionate analysis and data and treat odds as an accurate reflection of who Vegas thinks will win. The initial odds might start there, but where the bets are landing will cause oddsmakers to push the lines around to generate more income.

[Bloodbather]

Indy did a pretty good job on Shai. He didn't murder them with high FG%, he coughed it up 6 times, and then holding him to 3 FGA in the fourth quarter was quite impressive as well. They have to watch some of their own turnovers and stuff, but that press they were playing near the end was pretty brutal for the Thunder to deal with. Just chewed clock.

Game 4 is going to be very, very interesting.

I don't know if I've ever seen a team that's as good at ball pressure as they are without giving up open looks. I'm not quite sure how they're doing it.

That's been the biggest surprise and difference maker for me - the Pacers being this good defensively. OKC's defensive edge becomes less relevant when the Pacers are also doing so well defensively. They won Game 3 on the back of their defense in the fourth. I knew they could win a game or two by getting hot from three, but I didn't expect a clutch defensive performance winning them a game.

[MrPainfulTruth]

Yeah, sure, and even when they dialed up their defense, they didn't look quite like this, for sure. And yes, the Pacers are considerably less unipolar, and they can enter their offense without Hali initiating, which is more problematic than dealing with Denver, no doubt.

This version of Denver, where the two max players basically disappeared and Gordon, Braun und the corpse of Westbrook were the only help he got. I believe with a little bit more, Denver would have won it all. But thats another topic.

No chance Denver gets past Wolves

Denver at full strength can beat teh wolves. They were not that impressive. Denver with MPJ and Murray disappearing can probably not.

They took them to seven games last season and lead in the fourth of game seven. And that was with KAT. Dunno how you come to that conclusion.

[jk31]

Indy did a pretty good job on Shai. He didn't murder them with high FG%, he coughed it up 6 times, and then holding him to 3 FGA in the fourth quarter was quite impressive as well. They have to watch some of their own turnovers and stuff, but that press they were playing near the end was pretty brutal for the Thunder to deal with. Just chewed clock.

Game 4 is going to be very, very interesting.

I don't know if I've ever seen a team that's as good at ball pressure as they are without giving up open looks. I'm not quite sure how they're doing it.

That's been the biggest surprise and difference maker for me - the Pacers being this good defensively. OKC's defensive edge becomes less relevant when the Pacers are also doing so well defensively. They won Game 3 on the back of their defense in the fourth. I knew they could win a game or two by getting hot from three, but I didn't expect a clutch defensive performance winning them a game.

the pacers defense really is such a big (and welcomed) surprise of this postseason. they have never been regarded as good defensive team, it was rather the other way round. but now during these playoffs? they developed a defense identity which is just amazing. have to credit rick carlisle here (again) for getting the team to buy in on that. this is not just skill and scheme, this is also will and teamwork.

[bbms]

Not sure if posted.

Wow!

Read on Twitter

the key aspect for okc here is to come up with a strategy to save energy

if they look gassed like that again, indiana is nba champions

[Iwasawitness]

Raptors had Kawhi, Gasol, Ibaka, Pascal, Lowry, Norm, Fred, Green and OG. That’s a deeper team than OKC with numerous all-stars. They also had a much tougher path than OKC did. Yes, they could beat them.

First off, that's the 2019 Raptors. The 2018 Raptors got swept by the 51 win Cavs in the second round.

Second, I do love me some 2019 Raptors. That team was awesome. But I give a slight edge to the thunder in that series.

2018-19 team I was referring to. I’m not sure why he would refer to the team that got beat in the 2nd round. lol.

I think OKC would be in tough. On paper they get beat quite handily. Raptors certainly wouldn’t struggle with the current Denver squad.

Well that's what he put. Don't know what else to tell you.

Do they get beat on paper? Across the board they have pretty comparable talent. Kawhi at that point was a superstar, but I think the slight edge goes to SGA. I don't think Toronto has a second best player that's as good as J Williams. OKC still has the deeper team. Toronto does have VanVleet and Ibaka off the bench, but after that there's nothing much to their bench (OG wasn't anywhere close to the player he is now at the time). And I think OKC has the capabilities to severely limit Toronto's offense compared to what Toronto can do to them.

I'm not saying Toronto can't beat them. But if we kept repeating a seven game series between the two, I think OKC wins more often than not.

Also, the whole "Toronto wouldn't struggle to beat Denver" isn't a very good argument. It took the 2014 Spurs seven games to get past the eight seeded Mavericks. It took the 2013 Heat seven games to get past the Paul George led pacers. I don't think these are teams OKC would have much trouble with. Basketball is a game of matchups and sometimes, even when you have a significant talent mismatch, certain teams can still have the tools and experience needed to make it harder to use that to your advantage. We've seen it way too many times in this sport. This shouldn't even be something people try to use as a "gotcha" moment.

[SA37]

Spoiler:

I'll be interested to see what adjustments OKC makes for game 4. I'd like to see Wallace/Caruso look for their shot just a bit more. I thought when Chet and Jalen Williams were aggressive attacking their defenders a lot of good things happened, ie they got Indiana in foul trouble and got 20 free throws between them. OKC needs more of that and less watching SGA go 1 v 5.

For the Pacers, they still need to cut down on sloppy turnovers/unforced errors. I can't remember Siakam getting around anyone and getting to the basket when he catches around the 3-point line; I'd like to see him catch the ball at the elbow, take a dribble and go up strong. Mathurin on SGA was a disaster for the Pacers, but he did ok against Jalen Williams.

They will definitely play their big lineup more moving forward imo. And it will be effective.

Read on Twitter

Sidery is not accurate when it comes to how many minutes they've played together in the Finals. Chet and Hartenstein have played together for 10 minutes (well, 9 minutes and 45 seconds), not 5. I talked about it in the previous thread:

Chet and Hartenstein shared the court in two different instances in tonight's game. At the start of the second and towards the end of the third.

At the start of the second, they shared the floor for 1 minute and 21 seconds (from the start to the 10:39 mark). The score was 32-24 in OKC's favor when the quarter started and 34-28 when Hartenstein was replaced by Wiggins. So, that's a -2.

In the third, they shared the floor from the 4:24 mark to the 0:34 mark. So, that's 3 minutes and 50 seconds. The score was 79-81 Indiana when Chet returned to the game and 85-84 OKC when Hartenstein left. So, that's a +3.

All in all, they played together for 5 minutes and 11 seconds and were +1 together in tonight's game.

In game 2, they also played together in two different instances. At the end of the first quarter and at the end of the third quarter.

At the end of the first, they shared the floor from the 3:51 mark to the 0:15 mark. That's 3 minutes and 36 seconds. The score was 14-17 OKC when Chet entered the game and 20-24 when Hartenstein left. So, that's a +1.

At the end of the third, they shared the floor from the 1:13 mark to the 0:15 mark. That's 58 seconds. The score was 73-89 OKC when Hartenstein entered the game and 74-92 when he left. So, that's a +2.

All in all, they played together for 4 minutes and 34 seconds and they were +3.

Adding both of them together, it looks like they have played together 9 minutes and 45 seconds so the minutes part of the tweet appears correct. But the +/- part of the tweet seems a bit off. By the numbers above, it looks like they have only been a +4 together.

There is a chance that he's counting some FTs that took place in between the subs (players are often substituted during FTs, after all). If we were to count FTs that were taken after the sub but the foul resulting in these FTs happened before the sub then we'd go to +6 since we did have two of these occasions (in both cases during their third quarter stints). But even then, I still don't know how he gets to +7. Is he counting a FT that Hartenstein made before Chet was inserted in the game? Or is my math just off?

In any case, the point I'm trying to make here is this:

The double big lineup has been fine for the Thunder so far. But it hasn't really led to any runs. It hasn't turned any game around. It's just a solid lineup.

+/- is a garbage stat, imo. It's basically "correlation = causation" in a singular number and people run with it.

In any case, I think the bolded assessment is spot on.

No issue if OKC decides to try playing Hartenstein/Chet more, but 1) I'm not sure who OKC sits because it won't be SGA and both Dort and Caruso have been excellent and 2) I don't think this necessarily makes OKC better/more effective on either end of the floor. It could potentially lead to better rebounding, but that might just be a product of better/worse shooting.

The most effective adjustment OKC can make, imo, is to trust their bench/depth more. They've literally led the entire series outside of like ~4-5 minutes of game time. I think OKC is the better/more talented team, but they're constricting their offense and rotations down when I think they'd be better off opening up their options, especially through more unconventional channels, like Wiggins/Joe/Caruso. This is precisely what Indiana did with Mathurin/McConnell.

[Capn'O]

I don't know if I've ever seen a team that's as good at ball pressure as they are without giving up open looks. I'm not quite sure how they're doing it.

That's been the biggest surprise and difference maker for me - the Pacers being this good defensively. OKC's defensive edge becomes less relevant when the Pacers are also doing so well defensively. They won Game 3 on the back of their defense in the fourth. I knew they could win a game or two by getting hot from three, but I didn't expect a clutch defensive performance winning them a game.

the pacers defense really is such a big (and welcomed) surprise of this postseason. they have never been regarded as good defensive team, it was rather the other way round. but now during these playoffs? they developed a defense identity which is just amazing. have to credit rick carlisle here (again) for getting the team to buy in on that. this is not just skill and scheme, this is also will and teamwork.

Carlisle and the two Ns executing perfectly.

[Iwasawitness]

Which would imply the Pacers are one of the greatest finals teams ever?

Not necessarily, but they're definitely a lot better than I think we're giving them credit for.

We're also writing off the Thunder way too quickly. I think we should at least wait and see what happens in game 4 before we start drawing any conclusions.

My only point in this entire fiasco is that no matter what happens here, the 2011 Miami Heat are not in any way shape or form better than the Thunder, and the only way you could possibly think this is if you just started watching basketball for the first time and have no understanding of how the sport works.

There's no need to be dismissive especially when a multitude of posters on here seem to be strongly disagreeing with you. Yes, yes you've been watching since the 1970's and that's why you think the OKC can't possibly lose to anyone.

Generally, the team with the best player wins the series. LeBron in his MIA days is very much better than SGA. Bosh is better than any big on OKC and washed up Wade was still as good as anyone not named SGA on the Thunder.

If the Thunder are truly as good as you say and can only be beaten by GOAT level finals teams, why the evasiveness around the Pacers? Surely, that means they're GOAT level if they win, no? They would be placed amongst the best finals teams ever?

But no, according to you - if they beat this nearly unbeatable OKC team they're just "better than I thought"

Mystifying

Did Dallas have anyone that was a better player than LeBron James in 2011? Did they have anyone better than a Dwayne Wade outside of Dirk?

These are the exact same questions that apply to what you were just talking about with regards to OKC vs Miami. And guess what? Dallas still ended up winning that series.

The big problem here is that you're focusing on what's on paper with the top players and you're ignoring all other critical aspects.

2011 Miami Heat, on top of having absolutely no depth whatsoever, had almost no spacing. In their starting lineup, Mario Chalmers was the only three point threat they had. This was a key reason as to why LeBron struggled against the Dallas defense. So how do you think he'd do against one of the greatest defensive teams of all time, consisting of two all defensive members and one who also would've made it had it not been for injury and on top of that, two different elite rim protectors guarding the paint at all times?

Oh but it gets better.

Dwayne Wade lit up Dallas in that series, but it was partially by design. Dallas purposely devoted a lot of their attention towards LeBron and just did single coverage on Wade with either Stevenson or way past his prime Kidd. In this case, he's more than likely getting Dort, who is a nightmare defensive matchup for most guards. Wade is Wade, and he'll find a way to get baskets, but it's not going to be at the rate he did against Dallas.

And then Bosh is going up against Chet, who as I mentioned before would've made all defense had it not been for injuries (and would've been a DPOY candidate). That's another difficult defensive matchup right there.

Dallas proved something in this series, and that is if you're able to limit one or even possibly two of the big three, you have a path to victory. In this case, it was shutting down LeBron that proved to be the key to success.

And where is the additional offense going to come from with these three fighting for their lives to get baskets? OKC certainly has the personal to step up outside of their three best players. They had seven players average double digit scoring. Seven. Do you understand how insane that is?

But yeah sure, Miami has two of the three best players. According to you, that's supposed to make up for it, despite the clear matchup problems on top of the massive overall talent gap.

So yes, I'm going to be outright dismissive of the mere suggestion that the 2011 Heat would beat this Thunder team. It's an incredibly laughable thing to think. If you actually break it down and think about how things would play out, it's almost impossible to imagine a scenario where the Heat win in a seven game series.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

Pacers in 6, it's over.

OKC can't match Pacers physicality on the road because our bench is terrible. Pacers doing a terrific defensive job on Shai so JDub gotta step up but he's scared to attack.

I respect what you are attempting to do here

I don’t! That’s my thing!

[Broadcaster]

How often do you see a team change their starting lineup after making the finals?

I don't recall it happening.

I actually think it’s wildly absurd and really highlights Mark’s inexperience.

[Los_29]

First off, that's the 2019 Raptors. The 2018 Raptors got swept by the 51 win Cavs in the second round.

Second, I do love me some 2019 Raptors. That team was awesome. But I give a slight edge to the thunder in that series.

2018-19 team I was referring to. I’m not sure why he would refer to the team that got beat in the 2nd round. lol.

I think OKC would be in tough. On paper they get beat quite handily. Raptors certainly wouldn’t struggle with the current Denver squad.

Well that's what he put. Don't know what else to tell you.

Do they get beat on paper? Across the board they have pretty comparable talent. Kawhi at that point was a superstar, but I think the slight edge goes to SGA. I don't think Toronto has a second best player that's as good as J Williams. OKC still has the deeper team. Toronto does have VanVleet and Ibaka off the bench, but after that there's nothing much to their bench (OG wasn't anywhere close to the player he is now at the time). And I think OKC has the capabilities to severely limit Toronto's offense compared to what Toronto can do to them.

I'm not saying Toronto can't beat them. But if we kept repeating a seven game series between the two, I think OKC wins more often than not.

Also, the whole "Toronto wouldn't struggle to beat Denver" isn't a very good argument. It took the 2014 Spurs seven games to get past the eight seeded Mavericks. It took the 2013 Heat seven games to get past the Paul George led pacers. I don't think these are teams OKC would have much trouble with. Basketball is a game of matchups and sometimes, even when you have a significant talent mismatch, certain teams can still have the tools and experience needed to make it harder to use that to your advantage. We've seen it way too many times in this sport. This shouldn't even be something people try to use as a "gotcha" moment.

Kawhi was an absolute monster. Elite defensive player who was an incredible 3 level scorer. Lowry is most likely a hall of famer, Pascal is a 3x all-star, 2x ALL-NBA player, Gasol was a DPOY and all-star, Ibaka was a good 2-way big, Green was a great 3+D player, then you had Norm and Fred. It’s actually insane how good that team was.

Toronto as well as many other teams load managed the entire year and didn’t view games in January as important as OKC. So we can talk about how great the Thunder were in the regular season but they’d most definitely get beat by a few teams in the past decade or two. OKC is definitely a great team. No denying that but do they even beat a Sixers team that the Raptors had to beat in 2019?

[Jta444]

First off, that's the 2019 Raptors. The 2018 Raptors got swept by the 51 win Cavs in the second round.

Second, I do love me some 2019 Raptors. That team was awesome. But I give a slight edge to the thunder in that series.

2018-19 team I was referring to. I’m not sure why he would refer to the team that got beat in the 2nd round. lol.

I think OKC would be in tough. On paper they get beat quite handily. Raptors certainly wouldn’t struggle with the current Denver squad.

Well that's what he put. Don't know what else to tell you.

Do they get beat on paper? Across the board they have pretty comparable talent. Kawhi at that point was a superstar, but I think the slight edge goes to SGA. I don't think Toronto has a second best player that's as good as J Williams. OKC still has the deeper team. Toronto does have VanVleet and Ibaka off the bench, but after that there's nothing much to their bench (OG wasn't anywhere close to the player he is now at the time). And I think OKC has the capabilities to severely limit Toronto's offense compared to what Toronto can do to them.

I'm not saying Toronto can't beat them. But if we kept repeating a seven game series between the two, I think OKC wins more often than not.

Also, the whole "Toronto wouldn't struggle to beat Denver" isn't a very good argument. It took the 2014 Spurs seven games to get past the eight seeded Mavericks. It took the 2013 Heat seven games to get past the Paul George led pacers. I don't think these are teams OKC would have much trouble with. Basketball is a game of matchups and sometimes, even when you have a significant talent mismatch, certain teams can still have the tools and experience needed to make it harder to use that to your advantage. We've seen it way too many times in this sport. This shouldn't even be something people try to use as a "gotcha" moment.

Lol in what world is SGA now better than 2019 Kawhi? Kawhi was a much better defender and had better size and strength. That Kawhi is a tier above SGA right now.

And I’d take Lowry and Siakam over JDub and Chet right now. The latter are just too young and inexperienced. Lowry was an experienced vet by that time who was really good.

Also Gasol > Hartenstein.
Danny Green = Caruso.
VanVleet was also better than Cason Wallace. He was a scoring threat off the bench. Cason is still raw. That Raptor team was a veteran team and they are much better than OKC right now.

[kwajo]

First off, that's the 2019 Raptors. The 2018 Raptors got swept by the 51 win Cavs in the second round.

Second, I do love me some 2019 Raptors. That team was awesome. But I give a slight edge to the thunder in that series.

2018-19 team I was referring to. I’m not sure why he would refer to the team that got beat in the 2nd round. lol.

I think OKC would be in tough. On paper they get beat quite handily. Raptors certainly wouldn’t struggle with the current Denver squad.

Well that's what he put. Don't know what else to tell you.

Do they get beat on paper? Across the board they have pretty comparable talent. Kawhi at that point was a superstar, but I think the slight edge goes to SGA. I don't think Toronto has a second best player that's as good as J Williams. OKC still has the deeper team. Toronto does have VanVleet and Ibaka off the bench, but after that there's nothing much to their bench (OG wasn't anywhere close to the player he is now at the time). And I think OKC has the capabilities to severely limit Toronto's offense compared to what Toronto can do to them.

I'm not saying Toronto can't beat them. But if we kept repeating a seven game series between the two, I think OKC wins more often than not.

The 2019 Raptors would beat this Thunder team IMO, they were too savvy, very experienced, and stacked with talent. Who on the Thunder can do anything about Marc Gasol for example? You've still got to deal with Pascal out there in the starting lineup, on top of Kyle who was the second best player and heart on that team. The bench also had Norm Powell who has proven to be a near All-Star level player, and as a whole the defense they played were amongst the best I have ever seen, which is not a slight against OKC's D at all, just acknowledging that I think the Thunder would struggle to generate clean looks. It'd be a fun series no doubt, with some distinct playing style differences.

I will say though, Kawhi was on an all-time playoff run that year, so I have a hard time believing many people would pick this version of SGA over 2019 Kawhi in a seven game series - and this is coming from someone that is a big fan of Shai and his future trajectory.

[Jta444]

This Pacer team just has too many ballers compared to Thunder. You I called it before the series started. Meanwhile OKC relies too much on physicality and defense. But guys like Caruso, Dort, Wallace, JDub, Chet cant really create (yet) at a high level.

Pacers got Haliburton and Siakam who can out the ball on the floor and make plays. Then Nembhard Obi Toppin, Mcconnell, Mathurin, Turner can all create too. They have better basketball skills vs OKC who just have better athleticism and defense at this point. Problem is Pacers have good athletes too who can defend. OKC relies too much on SGA and so Carlisle can gameplan their defense better vs OKC who can’t pinpoint who to defend. Pacers are more balanced

[Jta444]

Not necessarily, but they're definitely a lot better than I think we're giving them credit for.

We're also writing off the Thunder way too quickly. I think we should at least wait and see what happens in game 4 before we start drawing any conclusions.

My only point in this entire fiasco is that no matter what happens here, the 2011 Miami Heat are not in any way shape or form better than the Thunder, and the only way you could possibly think this is if you just started watching basketball for the first time and have no understanding of how the sport works.

There's no need to be dismissive especially when a multitude of posters on here seem to be strongly disagreeing with you. Yes, yes you've been watching since the 1970's and that's why you think the OKC can't possibly lose to anyone.

Generally, the team with the best player wins the series. LeBron in his MIA days is very much better than SGA. Bosh is better than any big on OKC and washed up Wade was still as good as anyone not named SGA on the Thunder.

If the Thunder are truly as good as you say and can only be beaten by GOAT level finals teams, why the evasiveness around the Pacers? Surely, that means they're GOAT level if they win, no? They would be placed amongst the best finals teams ever?

But no, according to you - if they beat this nearly unbeatable OKC team they're just "better than I thought"

Mystifying

Did Dallas have anyone that was a better player than LeBron James in 2011? Did they have anyone better than a Dwayne Wade outside of Dirk?

These are the exact same questions that apply to what you were just talking about with regards to OKC vs Miami. And guess what? Dallas still ended up winning that series.

The big problem here is that you're focusing on what's on paper with the top players and you're ignoring all other critical aspects.

2011 Miami Heat, on top of having absolutely no depth whatsoever, had almost no spacing. In their starting lineup, Mario Chalmers was the only three point threat they had. This was a key reason as to why LeBron struggled against the Dallas defense. So how do you think he'd do against one of the greatest defensive teams of all time, consisting of two all defensive members and one who also would've made it had it not been for injury and on top of that, two different elite rim protectors guarding the paint at all times?

Oh but it gets better.

Dwayne Wade lit up Dallas in that series, but it was partially by design. Dallas purposely devoted a lot of their attention towards LeBron and just did single coverage on Wade with either Stevenson or way past his prime Kidd. In this case, he's more than likely getting Dort, who is a nightmare defensive matchup for most guards. Wade is Wade, and he'll find a way to get baskets, but it's not going to be at the rate he did against Dallas.

And then Bosh is going up against Chet, who as I mentioned before would've made all defense had it not been for injuries (and would've been a DPOY candidate). That's another difficult defensive matchup right there.

Dallas proved something in this series, and that is if you're able to limit one or even possibly two of the big three, you have a path to victory. In this case, it was shutting down LeBron that proved to be the key to success.

And where is the additional offense going to come from with these three fighting for their lives to get baskets? OKC certainly has the personal to step up outside of their three best players. They had seven players average double digit scoring. Seven. Do you understand how insane that is?

But yeah sure, Miami has two of the three best players. According to you, that's supposed to make up for it, despite the clear matchup problems on top of the massive overall talent gap.

So yes, I'm going to be outright dismissive of the mere suggestion that the 2011 Heat would beat this Thunder team. It's an incredibly laughable thing to think. If you actually break it down and think about how things would play out, it's almost impossible to imagine a scenario where the Heat win in a seven game series.

Revisionist history. Dallas had JJ Barea and Terry single-coveraging Lebron that series. Wade was much better than Lebron at that point. Much more fearless slasher. Lebron just **** the bed that year. It’s not bad to admit that. He learned from his mistakes and came much better the next year. No need to revise history and come up with more excuses for Lebron. He became the 2nd greatest player of all time after that anyway, so he didn’t really lose. Dirk just taught him a lesson or two, all greats needed a beating. Jordan had the Pistons, Kobe had the Suns, and Lebron had Duncan and Dirk.