Iwasawitness wrote:Lunartic wrote:Iwasawitness wrote:
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.
Thanks for the breakdown of why the Heat lost to the Mavericks. It's not exactly pertinent here unless the OKC Thunder are suddenly going to become the Mavericks with an ATG in Dirk and an ATG coach in Carlisle (the same coach that's beating them now)
Fact is - you're grossly overrating this OKC team.
What exactly have they accomplished thus far that makes you think they're nearly unbeatable in a 7 game series for just about every team in recent NBA history (20 years)? Losing in the playoffs last year? Going to 7 against Jokic and his scrubs? Being down 2-1 against the 4th seed Pacers?
Someone like 2010s Bron would murder them and be un-guardable.
Regardless, I'm curious why you're so evasive when it comes to the Pacers. If the Pacers win this series, are they suddenly an all time great team? A better team than OKC? A bunch of gaudy regular season metrics doesn't necessarily make you a GOAT-level playoff team.
An answer please - and leave out the long-winded revisionist pontificating.
If the Pacers win, will you consider them to be a better team than OKC?
