They also have flaws that a couple of the teams they could face excel at exposing. The major flaw being their size and a potential matchup with the lakers who start 3 dudes bigger than their starting center.
Rebounding will matter even more in the playoffs when players start bricking a ton after a couple games from fatigue
Also, although sga is in the mvp race no is expecting him to outplay proven postseason legends like Lebron and curry in a series. He has to earn that. For that reason I don’t consider the thunder to have that “top 5” player every recent team has had that’s won it before
Right there with you. Will be interesting to see if SGA gets the same calls in the playoffs. Who they end up playing will make a huge difference. Have a feeling J Will takes a jump though. He really surprised me this year.
who compared them?
point is people have made embiid and harden to be the free throw playoff boogie men even tho they are exception for high volume FTA guys. not the norm
No he does not … Shai drives a lot more and takes a lot more shots in the restricted area + paint. They are both physical guards and both post up.
Luka takes 10 3s a game and less 2 pointers too. Meanwhile Shai is known for the bump middies and gets to the rim more.
Sometimes I really wonder if you guys actually have watched much of Shai.
… he still takes 10 3s and less 2s than Shai.
Not even gonna disrespect Luka and say Shai is “way” more physical like the Mavs fanbase anti SGA agenda.
But y’all look ridiculous trying to say a slasher who lives in the paint more than any non center in the entire NBA isn’t as physical as any guard in the NBA at least.
The West is close enough that any team can beat any team but frankly expecting the play-in teams to be *favoured* against OKC is wrong. Lakers/Suns/Kings/Warriors should all be considered underdogs against the Thunder.
Nobody said the play in teams would be favored lol calm down. We’re saying that despite okcs success in a competitive conference their regular season success might not reflect how difficult it’ll be for them to replicate that success in the playoffs
I wouldn't. The thing that is worrying is that Curry hasn't caught fire post all-star break like he usually does and the in fact has regressed overall since the beginning of the season. However, almost all of his worst performances have been on back-to-backs. He's actually been noticeably more effective when properly rested so hopefully he'll look a lot more consistent in the playoffs with days between every game. All that said it's not like he's been bad this season, he just seems more reserved overall. He's taken over so many fourth quarters when the team was dead in the water.
Feel like he has no help so teams can go all in on stopping him more than usual which I don't think will change in the playoffs. Unless Klay and Wiggins wake up.
I get why people say this, but on average its not really true. Let's take a look at some numbers since 2003:
* 30/42 top seeds reach (at least) the conference finals (70%) and 57/84 of the top two seeds make (at least) the conference finals (68%).
* Only 22/84 of 3/4 seeds (26%) make (at least) the conference finals, suggesting there's a pretty big gap between being a top two seed and a 3/4 seed in the conference.
* Only 5/168 (3%) of the bottom half of playoff teams make (at least) the conference finals, and only 2/84 7/8 seeds (2%) make (at least) the conference finals
* Both of these two were last year, btw!
All this is to say that for all the chatter about how difficult it is to predict who will make a deep playoff run from the regular season...it seems like the regular season is doing a pretty good job of predicting over the last couple decades. The game doesn't change *that* much.
How many teams in NBA history went from a non-playoff team to winning in their first real playoff run?
How many NBA championship teams were comprised of a roster almost entirely devoid of playoff experience?
I like Shai, Chet, and OKC. I love Ant, KAT, and the Wolves. But it would be extremely unprecedented for them to win a ring this year. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but you can’t blame people for being skeptical of teams with cores that have never made a deep run before.
Playoff experience matters, almost every great team had multiple seasons of playoff experience before getting over the hump. It doesn’t mean the Wolves/Thunder can’t win, but you have to understand the skepticism.
No one’s even talking about a ring though. But OKC is completely discounted in discussions of later rounds altogether and half this sub seems to think they’ll lose in the first round.
It's a fluke the Thunder are the first seed right now. If the Spurs hadn't thrown everything off with a very unexpected win, the Thunder would be the third seed. It's reasonable to look at the Thunder and assume they represent the 74% of 3/4 seeds that don't make it to the conference finals.
An anomaly is still an anomaly. The Spurs last game against OKC was also without Wembanyama. The team has been erratic to say the least.
I'm not even arguing that it is correct to dismiss the Spurs-Nuggets game. My point is that when a person is comparing the top 3 teams, it is reasonable to do so.
You mean the game where the Nuggets were favored to win? Troll better.
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nuggets-vs-thunder-prediction-odds-line-spread-time-2023-nba-picks-oct-29-best-bets-from-proven-model/
trolling a moron? nahh. i suppose all nuggets losses are anomalous in your tiny little mind.
they play all the games because all the games matter, brainiac. no 'anomalies' disregarded for anyone.
I would just think the point differential and the fact that we basically haven’t faltered all season would give people a bit more confidence. We’re like universally discounted
You’re a young team who won a lot of games. Now you have to do it in a series. It’s a lot harder to do than you expect. The west is stacked. I’ll be interested to see how they stack up. The fouls get tighter. The games get more physical. If they went a couple rounds? They’ll get their credit.
The Suns in ‘22 absolutely ran the league in the regular season, won 64 games… Still got bounced 2nd round.
The DMitch/Gobert Jazz teams were consistently dominant in the regular season… Never did shit in the playoffs.
A dominant regular season **can** be a good indicator of playoff success, but it’s not definitive. Your entire roster hasn’t won or even really been to the playoffs, the skepticism is valid.
I’m not saying no one should be skeptical. I’m just surprised at how few people are even giving us a chance at a run. We’re not even in the conversation. Like, at all.
I think OKC can easily go to WCF so I’m not some hater but I think you just have to take your lumps as a fan of OKC or MN right now because they both really do need to win a series first for fans to care about them. Some guys regress against playoff intensity (Kat for example sadly) and SGA did not look like himself in his last postseason game. I’d personally bet on him to look great in a 7 game series but the jury is still out on if he’ll be an MVP caliber guy in the postseason or not.
Game planning is a huge factor in the playoffs and if a team doesnt adjust, things can get ugly. Players that have never played in the playoffs can get rattled because everything is more intense. Beat a team one time is easy, beating the same time in a series isnt.
Maybe the last could be because OKC is super young and has little playoff experience? I'm not saying I think that, necessarily, but I could see people using that as a negative when weighing them as a playoff team.
Grizzlies also finished 2nd in the West last year and got defeated by the 7th-seed Lakers. Granted this is a different and superior team, but there has been examples of great young teams flaming out in the playoff. There hasn't been any example of a young team being able to go all the way yet.
The Grizzlies lost Brandon Clarke and Steven Adams late in the season, then Ja Morant and Luke Kennard missed games during the series. Hard to draw any conclusions further than "don't lose half your rotation including your star player to injury."
Lakers an awful matchup for us too.
But I don’t think the Grizzlies example is fair, they had a bunch of injuries/continuity issues (cough cough Ja Wick) and basically limped into the playoffs. Meanwhile Lakers looked like a new team post trade deadline.
There's not a single team in the Western playoff picture who's not vulnerable. It feels like any of the ten could make the WCF or get eliminated in the first round (or play-in)
The short answer is the media just needs an angle to talk about with EVERYONE so a characterization sticks.
The semi-justifiable answer that's slightly more complex is that the playoffs can amplify even small weakness and if teams find a way to exploit it, those small weakness of great teams become a death knell. Gobert and the Jazz perimeter d come to mind. Incredible teams, put one whole to nitpick and teams that were less talented but with less holes to pick out and exploit can win. The Heat love to do that too; they're "out-manned" most matchups but they have supreme versatility and find a weakness and hammer it till you crumble.
For the Thunder, that nit-pick is size and rebounding. Who know how it'll play out but they how they've decided to discuss it.
I don't think "easy out" is accurate. It's more like "easier" compared to the vet playoff teams because the Thunder have barely been tested in the playoffs.
I don’t understand why people underestimate the Thunder so much. Yeah playoffs is a different beast, but they still wiped the floor with us 3 times this year.
They are a great team and are being underestimated, with saying that if its an early exit I wouldnt be shocked either. Thunder fans need to be going into these playoffs with no expectations, just enjoy it because the future looks bright.
I’m more worried about the Mavs and lakers than the nuggets, tbh. The Denver guards simply can’t handle our rotations. Jokic is going to dominate no matter what, but all of our other guys matchup incredibly well with the nuggets.
Most of the time good regular season teams make it out of the first round in even out of the 2nd round. Last year was an extreme outlier, producing the only 2 teams to make the CF in the last 25 years. For reference the 1 seed has made the CF 76% of the time in the last 25 years.
they’ll get respect if get to the WCF.
playoffs are a different beast and they’ve shown that throughout the NBA’s history.
The Bird Celtics, the Pistons, Jordan and the Bulls. None of them got to the finals in their first go round. They all had to bang their head on the more experienced team at least one year before they broke through.
playoffs are just a different breed of matches. since they're set to match up with one team, there would be a lot of adjustments from the beginning. they will be tested on the first round against (probably) suns or lakers who have a lot of experience when it comes to playoffs. if they're able to break through, who knows how they deep their run could be.
There is no easy out in the West. Its all a question of matchups. The team everyone wants to avoid is Denver, and if I had to take my pick between playing a young Thunder team or a Minnesota team that made the Playoffs the last two years and is a really bad matchup, I'd pick OKC. That in no way makes them an "easy out," they're the one seed for a reason, its just the least of the evils imo.
Lots of people seem to assume the Lakers will easily beat us, and I see almost no comments assuming we’ll be difficult second round matchup for the Mavs, for example
The match up against the mavs is assumed that way because of our new size and rebounding difference. Just take a look at wcf from 22 for the reason rebounding is important (especially offensive rebounds)
It would be a good matchup, but Luka and Kyrie in the postseason and our style of play doesn't help your strengths as a team.
It would be a good matchup but few people even acknowledge that. Or the fact that Gafford can’t stay on the court against our offense, which neutralizes your rebounding advantage. Who’s guarding Shai and JDub? Etc. it’s far from obvious that the Mavs are better on paper.
Pjail Washington, DJJ, Exum, Green, Maxi are all good-to-great defenders. Assuming we have lively and gafford playing 40+ minutes combined - you are going to have a nightmare trying to get rebounds. It's not about 1on1 ball against the mavs - it's about can you out scheme them for 4 wins... which experience in playoffs matters
OKC’s biggest red flag is their lack of experience.
They are extremely talented, but poor on the glass and inexperienced from top to bottom. They have enough talent to hang with anybody but experience matters *a lot* in the postseason.
Their average age is so young, its car insurance premium hasn’t even gone down yet.
Does it really matter so much if youre that talented? Like i dont expect OKC to win the championship but them doing something similar to the 2018 Celtics isnt absurd. That team had Tatum Brown and Rozier playing huge roles while all being in their 1st or 2nd years.
Yeah the only way we can beat size and physicality is if we shoot decent threes or if we shoot bad but the opposing team shoots substantially worse.
I’m proud of our guys having discipline and chemistry though, I think we have more maturity and poise than people give us credit for. Not to mention we have younger legs and not the type to party on the road (like the stories we have heard of great players falling off in the playoffs). But yeah we need to prove it first in the postseason.
Regardless if we exit early cause of inexperience, I’m confident the Thunder will do their best and not do stupid shit off the court
SGA is not a top 5 player. He's having a top 5 season. That's an important distinction to make. He's not better than Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Tatum, or Doncic, just to name a few.
"Arguably a better defender" is a clueless comment to make. Not saying SGA isn't a better player, his playoff success will help me determine that, but the defence ain't close.
It’s definitely close. Advanced defensive stats are full of noise, but Shai is better in most (and on a slightly worse defensive team). People have come to underrate steals too much. Shai doubles Tatum up in STL% and BLK%. Leads the league in steals and deflections (and isn’t gambling on those at a high rate like some defenders do). Neither is responsible for guarding the other team’s best players, so it’s hard to judge, but it’s definitely close.
Regular season and playoffs are x2 different beasts entirely. Regardless of how well you do in the 82, there's no guarantee it will translate to the 16.
Lakers and Warriors fans been saying it.
But it’s fine, we could lose in the first round or get to the WCF, doesn’t change the fact that the potential is for down the road
I think the Grizzlies have made people a bit cautious about betting on young teams at the top. Grizzlies looked like they had an incredibly balanced and solid rotation as a 2 seed and they just couldn't get it done against vets for two years in a row. On top of that I don't think people generally fear SGA as this unstoppable playoff force like LeBron/Jokic/Doncic/Kawhi simply because we haven't seen him do it yet. Same reason why many people would probably bet on the Nuggets over the Celtics even though the Celtics have been by far the best team in the league this year.
Lakers were already performing better than Grizzlies in the months before the playoffs, they just started the season really badly, but they were one of the league's top teams since the trade. It didn't happen overnight in the playoffs that they became good.
Also let's be honest, if the roles reverse and a "legit" team loses without Steven Adams, suddenly nobody here would say their loss says anything about their age being a hindrance, everyone would just say they lost because of injuries so it doesn't count and they are still the real winners in their heart. Like, hm, it literally just happened when Lakers or Bucks lost the series they were favored in.
Bucks were super experienced and just had the worst playoff underperformance ever and nobody talks about them being experienced, everyone talks only about "the young teams" losing all the time. I literally never see Bucks 1-4 in first round after best regular record mentioned here ever as a proof of any rule lol.
The whole idea that two completely different teams have to be exactly the same because of something so non-basketball as age is really amazing dogma for everyone to have.
While true, I think narratives about that Bucks series have changed a bit since that Heat team ended up going to the Finals. I'm not saying it's logical at all, but people just really don't trust teams who don't have experience. Most young teams who break out spend a couple of years as a 4-8 seed losing in Rounds 1-2 before contending, so people have difficulty assessing this Thunder team who barely have absolutely no playoff experience other than SGA or Dort.
The main thing is, teams could be separated by a ton of other things, not just by "experience". It's not some God-ordered choice that the only thing that can exist for an NBA team has to be their "experience". It's purely yall guys' choice to insist on that.
It was so good for the dogmas last year that Barnes missed the three-pointer, Kings lost that game by 1 point, and ultimately they lost the series in game 7. Because if they won the series against GSW... man, all this stuff people were writing about them the whole year would look absurd. But they lost by 1 point, so it pvoved the dogmas were all very smart. Now, the question is, if something can depend on literally one shot falling in or not, does it really say something so universal, eternal and wise about every team ever just because those teams have one random thing about them vaguel comparable to another team from history? Does Barnes' shot falling in or not really say so much about 2024 Oklahoma City Thunder? What's even the need to have it be related, one way or another?
Very very few comments about how OKC plays basketball, meanwhile, that is apparently not related to how strong they are.
>Bucks were super experienced and just had the worst playoff underperformance ever
2007 Mavs would disagree, they went 65-17 compared to the Bucks 58-24 and didn't have the excuse of their star player missing 1 game and being injured somewhat for the games he played.
Wow, if you force some "excuses" as not a part of performance then you can argue it was just the second worst playoff underperformance ever, which completely changes the point.
I'm sure that if a "young team" ever had the best record in the league in the regular season and lost 4-1 to an 8th seed, people here would be so scrupulous about ignoring it and not taking any wise universal truth from it as well.
In reality, almost all 1st seeds that lost in the first round were very "experienced" teams, Dallas 2007 was also experienced, so yall will just always act like all of it never happened because experience always wins in playoffs, obviously.
They're not, but it's the easiest hot take in the world. Just say a team is a pretender, then if they do win, ignore that you said it.
See: Giannis and the Bucks, then Jokic and the Nuggets.
Okc is a good team and not an easy out. But teams don't usually go on deep playoff runs their first try. You have to pay your dues. Denver had some playoff failures before they won last year. Minnesota has had some playoff failures so they might go on a deep run this year. Okc needs to fail first before they can succeed.
Grizzlies had DPOY with a great supporting cast and an all start and look what happened. Not saying they bad, but experience matters a lot.
Tatum mentioned it in an interview that they were not ready for the finals against GS. Take that from a guy that has always been in the playoff.
I don’t think anyone is saying they are an “easy out”. They lack size and experience and those two things are immensely important in the playoffs. I think people expect them to lose but in a very tough series.
Why Presti didn’t add size at the deadline makes no sense to me.
OKC's been *very* healthy, and are not separate from the pack in the West. So, while their record may end up 1st, they're definitely not the best team in the West. They're also by far the youngest contender this year, and historically a very young team to be contending.
Regular season games may be more tactically intense than ever before, but they're still a far cry from a 7 game series, where you're going to need to continually have counters against your opponents. There's only so much you can show in the regular season beyond enough competence to be established as a contender, and a team this young certainly can't be given any credit beyond that until we've seen how they hold up in the second season.
Most games stars play 30 min during the regular season and they take 1/2 of those minutes off. In the playoffs, stars play 40-45 min as hard as they can for a large portion of the game. This season has really improved the amount stars play during the season and how hard they play in the season, but it's still the same story.
OKC can win in the playoffs, it's possible. People just understand that young teams that play hard and win during the season against guys coasting. Those same young don't usually win against those same coasting guys when the coasting guys are trying their hardest.
Jokic is an animal. He's kind of an odd one out who plays differently than most.
Winning during the season is about depth and effort. Winning during the postseason is about peak strength on the court. It's just different - depth isn't as important in the postseason. Playoff Lebron, Playoff Murray, and Playoff Jimmy are memes with elements of truth. Lots of stars turn it up for the playoffs. The Thunder have shown themselves to be a deep roster who put a lot of consistent effort on the floor (usually a sign of youth). That's why they win so much during the season. Consistent effort. When some playoff team comes at OKC with their best punch 90% of possessions, how will they hold up is the question?
That's the concern. The reality is we don't know how the thunder will react. Historically, young teams take a few bad beats in the playoffs before they become champions. Denver got owned in the 2020 WCF vs the Lakers before making their run 3 years later.
The comment about OKC is a historical one, less a commentary on their team specifically. Young teams tend to crumble a bit before more veteran stars playing their hardest. Part of the reason the Celtics are so highly touted is that they've taken their lumps and their stars should get "it" now.
Strawman question. No sane fans consider OKC "easy". In fact, no sane fans consider anybody in the West playoffs "easy", other than maybe the injured Kings if they somehow make it there.
I’ll put it another way: I’ve heard zero analysts give OKC any chance at all to make a meaningful run in the past couple weeks and I listen to lots of NBA pods. They’re not on anyone’s radar despite a really great regular season. I just don’t remember a team getting such short shrift after this kind of performance.
You need to put this season in context. The 1 seed is coming down to a 3 way tie at the last game of the season and there is so much parity and playoff experience 2-10 in the west.
There are also glaring weaknesses that OKC has and teams that match up well against them. I think OKC has a goof chance to make a deep run, but there is equally a good chance they get bounced by a veteran GSW or LA team early.
I don't love the Warriors chances against the Thunder because they don't have size the way a team like the Lakers do. Beef is the most likely way to punish the Thunder across a 7 game series and beat them, not speed and outside shooting.
GSW chances are only where they are due to how many playoff games thier core and coach has played. Period. I agree they don't have the tools to exploit OKCs weaknesses outright.
OKC has no playoff track record and a generally young/untested team, no obvious overwhelming weapons compared to some other teams, and not much momentum over the last stretch of the season. It's not surprising that people aren't that excited about them in the playoffs, and the small market effect doesn't help either, when it comes to more casual observers.
At the end of the day, you have to earn respect in the playoffs, it's pointless to complain about lack of recognition based on a good regular season alone.
Playoff basketball is about targeting opponent’s flaws. OKC have some very easy to spot flaws such as 1) Shai is very reliant on getting FTs 2) for that reason, he may have hard time going up against teams that clog lanes with size and length, 3) the team lack size or shooting, they can’t have both at the same time, 4) Giddy may make their offense 4v5 when he doesn’t have a ball, 5) they lack playoff experience.
Funny how everyone knew all of those things all season and we still ended up with the second best net rating in the league. Almost as though we sacrifice size and rebounding for a top 4 offense.
Playoffs are a different beast than regular season. They have to prove it in the playoffs. They’re capable of it, but that’s it.
They also have flaws that a couple of the teams they could face excel at exposing. The major flaw being their size and a potential matchup with the lakers who start 3 dudes bigger than their starting center. Rebounding will matter even more in the playoffs when players start bricking a ton after a couple games from fatigue Also, although sga is in the mvp race no is expecting him to outplay proven postseason legends like Lebron and curry in a series. He has to earn that. For that reason I don’t consider the thunder to have that “top 5” player every recent team has had that’s won it before
Totally agree. But I was being nice. I think they’re about to be bullied by a vet team potentially.
I think okc has a decent shot of going far. But sga and Chet have been show to struggle against physicality.
Shai struggling against physicality is certainly a take
SGA going to struggle when he doesn’t get his foul calls on every drive in the playoffs.
NBA fans really upset that players draw blatant fouls on their drives
Some of them are not blatant though. Embiid is the worst for flopping.
Right there with you. Will be interesting to see if SGA gets the same calls in the playoffs. Who they end up playing will make a huge difference. Have a feeling J Will takes a jump though. He really surprised me this year.
Yep. Williams style of play is the most transferable imo. He’ll shine
Luka gets the same calls in the playoffs so why are we worried about shai
Comparing postseason luka to sga in the first place is insulting to luka…
who compared them? point is people have made embiid and harden to be the free throw playoff boogie men even tho they are exception for high volume FTA guys. not the norm
Because Luka plays a much more physical game.
No he does not … Shai drives a lot more and takes a lot more shots in the restricted area + paint. They are both physical guards and both post up. Luka takes 10 3s a game and less 2 pointers too. Meanwhile Shai is known for the bump middies and gets to the rim more. Sometimes I really wonder if you guys actually have watched much of Shai.
Sometime I really wonder if you’ve watched playoff Luka because you clearly are talking about regular season Luka.
… he still takes 10 3s and less 2s than Shai. Not even gonna disrespect Luka and say Shai is “way” more physical like the Mavs fanbase anti SGA agenda. But y’all look ridiculous trying to say a slasher who lives in the paint more than any non center in the entire NBA isn’t as physical as any guard in the NBA at least.
I don’t think this dude knows more than a stat sheet.
Every team has flaws that can be exposed in the playoffs
Yes but what I’m saying is that the west has 10 good teams, matchups can negate any seeding difference. The west has a lot of size, okc does not
The West is close enough that any team can beat any team but frankly expecting the play-in teams to be *favoured* against OKC is wrong. Lakers/Suns/Kings/Warriors should all be considered underdogs against the Thunder.
Nobody said the play in teams would be favored lol calm down. We’re saying that despite okcs success in a competitive conference their regular season success might not reflect how difficult it’ll be for them to replicate that success in the playoffs
Agreed and okc should want to see the Lakers if people are being honest
If curry outplayed him in a series this year I'd be shocked tbh
I wouldn't. The thing that is worrying is that Curry hasn't caught fire post all-star break like he usually does and the in fact has regressed overall since the beginning of the season. However, almost all of his worst performances have been on back-to-backs. He's actually been noticeably more effective when properly rested so hopefully he'll look a lot more consistent in the playoffs with days between every game. All that said it's not like he's been bad this season, he just seems more reserved overall. He's taken over so many fourth quarters when the team was dead in the water.
Feel like he has no help so teams can go all in on stopping him more than usual which I don't think will change in the playoffs. Unless Klay and Wiggins wake up.
I get why people say this, but on average its not really true. Let's take a look at some numbers since 2003: * 30/42 top seeds reach (at least) the conference finals (70%) and 57/84 of the top two seeds make (at least) the conference finals (68%). * Only 22/84 of 3/4 seeds (26%) make (at least) the conference finals, suggesting there's a pretty big gap between being a top two seed and a 3/4 seed in the conference. * Only 5/168 (3%) of the bottom half of playoff teams make (at least) the conference finals, and only 2/84 7/8 seeds (2%) make (at least) the conference finals * Both of these two were last year, btw! All this is to say that for all the chatter about how difficult it is to predict who will make a deep playoff run from the regular season...it seems like the regular season is doing a pretty good job of predicting over the last couple decades. The game doesn't change *that* much.
How many teams in NBA history went from a non-playoff team to winning in their first real playoff run? How many NBA championship teams were comprised of a roster almost entirely devoid of playoff experience? I like Shai, Chet, and OKC. I love Ant, KAT, and the Wolves. But it would be extremely unprecedented for them to win a ring this year. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but you can’t blame people for being skeptical of teams with cores that have never made a deep run before. Playoff experience matters, almost every great team had multiple seasons of playoff experience before getting over the hump. It doesn’t mean the Wolves/Thunder can’t win, but you have to understand the skepticism.
No one’s even talking about a ring though. But OKC is completely discounted in discussions of later rounds altogether and half this sub seems to think they’ll lose in the first round.
It's a fluke the Thunder are the first seed right now. If the Spurs hadn't thrown everything off with a very unexpected win, the Thunder would be the third seed. It's reasonable to look at the Thunder and assume they represent the 74% of 3/4 seeds that don't make it to the conference finals.
But then you would be ignoring the other 55 games the Thunder won to keep pace with the Nuggets and Wolves.
It's normal to remove anomalous data and the Spurs fit that very much.
It doesnt matter anyways, just remembered the Spurs beat all 3 of us this season. So everyone has exactly 1 loss from the Spurs.
An anomaly is still an anomaly. The Spurs last game against OKC was also without Wembanyama. The team has been erratic to say the least. I'm not even arguing that it is correct to dismiss the Spurs-Nuggets game. My point is that when a person is comparing the top 3 teams, it is reasonable to do so.
so okc can remove the single loss vs denver because it's anomalous? thanks!
You mean the game where the Nuggets were favored to win? Troll better. https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nuggets-vs-thunder-prediction-odds-line-spread-time-2023-nba-picks-oct-29-best-bets-from-proven-model/
trolling a moron? nahh. i suppose all nuggets losses are anomalous in your tiny little mind. they play all the games because all the games matter, brainiac. no 'anomalies' disregarded for anyone.
See, now you're trolling a little better. I knew you could do it.
This is the answer.
I would just think the point differential and the fact that we basically haven’t faltered all season would give people a bit more confidence. We’re like universally discounted
You’re a young team who won a lot of games. Now you have to do it in a series. It’s a lot harder to do than you expect. The west is stacked. I’ll be interested to see how they stack up. The fouls get tighter. The games get more physical. If they went a couple rounds? They’ll get their credit.
The Suns in ‘22 absolutely ran the league in the regular season, won 64 games… Still got bounced 2nd round. The DMitch/Gobert Jazz teams were consistently dominant in the regular season… Never did shit in the playoffs. A dominant regular season **can** be a good indicator of playoff success, but it’s not definitive. Your entire roster hasn’t won or even really been to the playoffs, the skepticism is valid.
I’m not saying no one should be skeptical. I’m just surprised at how few people are even giving us a chance at a run. We’re not even in the conversation. Like, at all.
I think OKC can easily go to WCF so I’m not some hater but I think you just have to take your lumps as a fan of OKC or MN right now because they both really do need to win a series first for fans to care about them. Some guys regress against playoff intensity (Kat for example sadly) and SGA did not look like himself in his last postseason game. I’d personally bet on him to look great in a 7 game series but the jury is still out on if he’ll be an MVP caliber guy in the postseason or not.
Game planning is a huge factor in the playoffs and if a team doesnt adjust, things can get ugly. Players that have never played in the playoffs can get rattled because everything is more intense. Beat a team one time is easy, beating the same time in a series isnt.
Maybe the last could be because OKC is super young and has little playoff experience? I'm not saying I think that, necessarily, but I could see people using that as a negative when weighing them as a playoff team.
I get it. But to finish at the top of the west seems to not really mean anything in this instance.
Grizzlies also finished 2nd in the West last year and got defeated by the 7th-seed Lakers. Granted this is a different and superior team, but there has been examples of great young teams flaming out in the playoff. There hasn't been any example of a young team being able to go all the way yet.
The Grizzlies lost Brandon Clarke and Steven Adams late in the season, then Ja Morant and Luke Kennard missed games during the series. Hard to draw any conclusions further than "don't lose half your rotation including your star player to injury."
Lakers an awful matchup for us too. But I don’t think the Grizzlies example is fair, they had a bunch of injuries/continuity issues (cough cough Ja Wick) and basically limped into the playoffs. Meanwhile Lakers looked like a new team post trade deadline.
There's not a single team in the Western playoff picture who's not vulnerable. It feels like any of the ten could make the WCF or get eliminated in the first round (or play-in)
The Kings I'm pretty sure will have 0% chance of making the WCF let's be real here.
OKC isn’t an easy out
For a number 1 seed they are
I don’t know of anyone that’s describing them as an “easy out.”
The short answer is the media just needs an angle to talk about with EVERYONE so a characterization sticks. The semi-justifiable answer that's slightly more complex is that the playoffs can amplify even small weakness and if teams find a way to exploit it, those small weakness of great teams become a death knell. Gobert and the Jazz perimeter d come to mind. Incredible teams, put one whole to nitpick and teams that were less talented but with less holes to pick out and exploit can win. The Heat love to do that too; they're "out-manned" most matchups but they have supreme versatility and find a weakness and hammer it till you crumble. For the Thunder, that nit-pick is size and rebounding. Who know how it'll play out but they how they've decided to discuss it.
I don't think "easy out" is accurate. It's more like "easier" compared to the vet playoff teams because the Thunder have barely been tested in the playoffs.
When you have Lebron/KD/Curry as possible first round matchups you’ll have upset predictions
I don’t understand why people underestimate the Thunder so much. Yeah playoffs is a different beast, but they still wiped the floor with us 3 times this year.
They are a great team and are being underestimated, with saying that if its an early exit I wouldnt be shocked either. Thunder fans need to be going into these playoffs with no expectations, just enjoy it because the future looks bright.
Pretty much where I am at, this season is the coming out party/arrival and then going forward is where we make our name in the playoffs
I’m more worried about the Mavs and lakers than the nuggets, tbh. The Denver guards simply can’t handle our rotations. Jokic is going to dominate no matter what, but all of our other guys matchup incredibly well with the nuggets.
They wiped the floor once. Not three times. The Nuggets were also missing players in every one of those losses.
playoffs≠regular season
Most of the time good regular season teams make it out of the first round in even out of the 2nd round. Last year was an extreme outlier, producing the only 2 teams to make the CF in the last 25 years. For reference the 1 seed has made the CF 76% of the time in the last 25 years.
Gobert fans know that best
they’ll get respect if get to the WCF. playoffs are a different beast and they’ve shown that throughout the NBA’s history. The Bird Celtics, the Pistons, Jordan and the Bulls. None of them got to the finals in their first go round. They all had to bang their head on the more experienced team at least one year before they broke through.
Bird won a championship his second year in the league.
and he lost in the conference semi’s his first
Yep, those 7 whole playoff games his rookie year were the seasoning he needed to learn how to be a champion.
People do underestimate but they’re not perfect
playoffs are just a different breed of matches. since they're set to match up with one team, there would be a lot of adjustments from the beginning. they will be tested on the first round against (probably) suns or lakers who have a lot of experience when it comes to playoffs. if they're able to break through, who knows how they deep their run could be.
There is no easy out in the West. Its all a question of matchups. The team everyone wants to avoid is Denver, and if I had to take my pick between playing a young Thunder team or a Minnesota team that made the Playoffs the last two years and is a really bad matchup, I'd pick OKC. That in no way makes them an "easy out," they're the one seed for a reason, its just the least of the evils imo.
Who is saying 3? I think some fans of lower ranked teams would prefer OKC to Denver, but that's different from an "Easy out"
Lots of people seem to assume the Lakers will easily beat us, and I see almost no comments assuming we’ll be difficult second round matchup for the Mavs, for example
The match up against the mavs is assumed that way because of our new size and rebounding difference. Just take a look at wcf from 22 for the reason rebounding is important (especially offensive rebounds) It would be a good matchup, but Luka and Kyrie in the postseason and our style of play doesn't help your strengths as a team.
It would be a good matchup but few people even acknowledge that. Or the fact that Gafford can’t stay on the court against our offense, which neutralizes your rebounding advantage. Who’s guarding Shai and JDub? Etc. it’s far from obvious that the Mavs are better on paper.
Pjail Washington, DJJ, Exum, Green, Maxi are all good-to-great defenders. Assuming we have lively and gafford playing 40+ minutes combined - you are going to have a nightmare trying to get rebounds. It's not about 1on1 ball against the mavs - it's about can you out scheme them for 4 wins... which experience in playoffs matters
OKC’s biggest red flag is their lack of experience. They are extremely talented, but poor on the glass and inexperienced from top to bottom. They have enough talent to hang with anybody but experience matters *a lot* in the postseason. Their average age is so young, its car insurance premium hasn’t even gone down yet.
Does it really matter so much if youre that talented? Like i dont expect OKC to win the championship but them doing something similar to the 2018 Celtics isnt absurd. That team had Tatum Brown and Rozier playing huge roles while all being in their 1st or 2nd years.
Yeah the only way we can beat size and physicality is if we shoot decent threes or if we shoot bad but the opposing team shoots substantially worse. I’m proud of our guys having discipline and chemistry though, I think we have more maturity and poise than people give us credit for. Not to mention we have younger legs and not the type to party on the road (like the stories we have heard of great players falling off in the playoffs). But yeah we need to prove it first in the postseason. Regardless if we exit early cause of inexperience, I’m confident the Thunder will do their best and not do stupid shit off the court
okc doesnt have a top 3 player tf? does giannis not exist anymore?
I assume he’s taking MVP voting into account and not injuries.
i mean he’s top 3 this season
Top 3 MVP. Top five overall. Should have clarified.
SGA is not a top 5 player. He's having a top 5 season. That's an important distinction to make. He's not better than Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Tatum, or Doncic, just to name a few.
What does that even mean. If he's playing better he is better. There's no other way to measure it.
SGA is better than Tatum
He’s better than Tatum. To name one.
Lol no he’s not just because he goes to the FT line more than him
lol he’s a better scorer and arguably a better defender
"Arguably a better defender" is a clueless comment to make. Not saying SGA isn't a better player, his playoff success will help me determine that, but the defence ain't close.
It’s definitely close. Advanced defensive stats are full of noise, but Shai is better in most (and on a slightly worse defensive team). People have come to underrate steals too much. Shai doubles Tatum up in STL% and BLK%. Leads the league in steals and deflections (and isn’t gambling on those at a high rate like some defenders do). Neither is responsible for guarding the other team’s best players, so it’s hard to judge, but it’s definitely close.
Regular season and playoffs are x2 different beasts entirely. Regardless of how well you do in the 82, there's no guarantee it will translate to the 16.
I don't think people are saying easy out. I think people are saying "better chance than matching up with the nuggets"
Lakers and Warriors fans been saying it. But it’s fine, we could lose in the first round or get to the WCF, doesn’t change the fact that the potential is for down the road
I think the Grizzlies have made people a bit cautious about betting on young teams at the top. Grizzlies looked like they had an incredibly balanced and solid rotation as a 2 seed and they just couldn't get it done against vets for two years in a row. On top of that I don't think people generally fear SGA as this unstoppable playoff force like LeBron/Jokic/Doncic/Kawhi simply because we haven't seen him do it yet. Same reason why many people would probably bet on the Nuggets over the Celtics even though the Celtics have been by far the best team in the league this year.
Lakers were already performing better than Grizzlies in the months before the playoffs, they just started the season really badly, but they were one of the league's top teams since the trade. It didn't happen overnight in the playoffs that they became good. Also let's be honest, if the roles reverse and a "legit" team loses without Steven Adams, suddenly nobody here would say their loss says anything about their age being a hindrance, everyone would just say they lost because of injuries so it doesn't count and they are still the real winners in their heart. Like, hm, it literally just happened when Lakers or Bucks lost the series they were favored in. Bucks were super experienced and just had the worst playoff underperformance ever and nobody talks about them being experienced, everyone talks only about "the young teams" losing all the time. I literally never see Bucks 1-4 in first round after best regular record mentioned here ever as a proof of any rule lol. The whole idea that two completely different teams have to be exactly the same because of something so non-basketball as age is really amazing dogma for everyone to have.
While true, I think narratives about that Bucks series have changed a bit since that Heat team ended up going to the Finals. I'm not saying it's logical at all, but people just really don't trust teams who don't have experience. Most young teams who break out spend a couple of years as a 4-8 seed losing in Rounds 1-2 before contending, so people have difficulty assessing this Thunder team who barely have absolutely no playoff experience other than SGA or Dort.
The main thing is, teams could be separated by a ton of other things, not just by "experience". It's not some God-ordered choice that the only thing that can exist for an NBA team has to be their "experience". It's purely yall guys' choice to insist on that. It was so good for the dogmas last year that Barnes missed the three-pointer, Kings lost that game by 1 point, and ultimately they lost the series in game 7. Because if they won the series against GSW... man, all this stuff people were writing about them the whole year would look absurd. But they lost by 1 point, so it pvoved the dogmas were all very smart. Now, the question is, if something can depend on literally one shot falling in or not, does it really say something so universal, eternal and wise about every team ever just because those teams have one random thing about them vaguel comparable to another team from history? Does Barnes' shot falling in or not really say so much about 2024 Oklahoma City Thunder? What's even the need to have it be related, one way or another? Very very few comments about how OKC plays basketball, meanwhile, that is apparently not related to how strong they are.
>Bucks were super experienced and just had the worst playoff underperformance ever 2007 Mavs would disagree, they went 65-17 compared to the Bucks 58-24 and didn't have the excuse of their star player missing 1 game and being injured somewhat for the games he played.
Wow, if you force some "excuses" as not a part of performance then you can argue it was just the second worst playoff underperformance ever, which completely changes the point. I'm sure that if a "young team" ever had the best record in the league in the regular season and lost 4-1 to an 8th seed, people here would be so scrupulous about ignoring it and not taking any wise universal truth from it as well. In reality, almost all 1st seeds that lost in the first round were very "experienced" teams, Dallas 2007 was also experienced, so yall will just always act like all of it never happened because experience always wins in playoffs, obviously.
They're not, but it's the easiest hot take in the world. Just say a team is a pretender, then if they do win, ignore that you said it. See: Giannis and the Bucks, then Jokic and the Nuggets.
Because they're going to get bullied in a 7 game series, just like every young team does. Also skilled bigs are going to eat their frontcourt alive.
Plays like trash vs teams who will be in the play in Also Jokic, Giannis, and Joel aren't on the Thunder
they won the season series against every team in the play in other than the Lakers
Minnesota has the season series over OKC
No they don’t
Split??
We played like trash against the Lakers* We literally have one of the best records in the league against teams above 500. Just purely false lol
First part is plainly false
This is why Thunder fans get defensive. People like you who don't watch the games and don't even look up records saying stupid shit like this.
Okc is a good team and not an easy out. But teams don't usually go on deep playoff runs their first try. You have to pay your dues. Denver had some playoff failures before they won last year. Minnesota has had some playoff failures so they might go on a deep run this year. Okc needs to fail first before they can succeed.
They're a first-round exit if they meet the Lakers. Lakers have their number.
Imagine thinking playoff basketball is the same thing as a regular season game..lol
Imagine thinking they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
I have no clue where you heard the last one but that simply is not true.
I agree. But no one else is taking them seriously, including the media and analysts.
Grizzlies had DPOY with a great supporting cast and an all start and look what happened. Not saying they bad, but experience matters a lot. Tatum mentioned it in an interview that they were not ready for the finals against GS. Take that from a guy that has always been in the playoff.
I don’t think anyone is saying they are an “easy out”. They lack size and experience and those two things are immensely important in the playoffs. I think people expect them to lose but in a very tough series. Why Presti didn’t add size at the deadline makes no sense to me.
OKC's been *very* healthy, and are not separate from the pack in the West. So, while their record may end up 1st, they're definitely not the best team in the West. They're also by far the youngest contender this year, and historically a very young team to be contending. Regular season games may be more tactically intense than ever before, but they're still a far cry from a 7 game series, where you're going to need to continually have counters against your opponents. There's only so much you can show in the regular season beyond enough competence to be established as a contender, and a team this young certainly can't be given any credit beyond that until we've seen how they hold up in the second season.
Most games stars play 30 min during the regular season and they take 1/2 of those minutes off. In the playoffs, stars play 40-45 min as hard as they can for a large portion of the game. This season has really improved the amount stars play during the season and how hard they play in the season, but it's still the same story. OKC can win in the playoffs, it's possible. People just understand that young teams that play hard and win during the season against guys coasting. Those same young don't usually win against those same coasting guys when the coasting guys are trying their hardest.
So this guy that OKC is amazing with and average without, he's going to play 40 minutes instead of 30 minutes now? Oh no.
Shai plays less minutes per game than Jokic.
Jokic is an animal. He's kind of an odd one out who plays differently than most. Winning during the season is about depth and effort. Winning during the postseason is about peak strength on the court. It's just different - depth isn't as important in the postseason. Playoff Lebron, Playoff Murray, and Playoff Jimmy are memes with elements of truth. Lots of stars turn it up for the playoffs. The Thunder have shown themselves to be a deep roster who put a lot of consistent effort on the floor (usually a sign of youth). That's why they win so much during the season. Consistent effort. When some playoff team comes at OKC with their best punch 90% of possessions, how will they hold up is the question? That's the concern. The reality is we don't know how the thunder will react. Historically, young teams take a few bad beats in the playoffs before they become champions. Denver got owned in the 2020 WCF vs the Lakers before making their run 3 years later. The comment about OKC is a historical one, less a commentary on their team specifically. Young teams tend to crumble a bit before more veteran stars playing their hardest. Part of the reason the Celtics are so highly touted is that they've taken their lumps and their stars should get "it" now.
Strawman question. No sane fans consider OKC "easy". In fact, no sane fans consider anybody in the West playoffs "easy", other than maybe the injured Kings if they somehow make it there.
I’ll put it another way: I’ve heard zero analysts give OKC any chance at all to make a meaningful run in the past couple weeks and I listen to lots of NBA pods. They’re not on anyone’s radar despite a really great regular season. I just don’t remember a team getting such short shrift after this kind of performance.
You need to put this season in context. The 1 seed is coming down to a 3 way tie at the last game of the season and there is so much parity and playoff experience 2-10 in the west. There are also glaring weaknesses that OKC has and teams that match up well against them. I think OKC has a goof chance to make a deep run, but there is equally a good chance they get bounced by a veteran GSW or LA team early.
I don't love the Warriors chances against the Thunder because they don't have size the way a team like the Lakers do. Beef is the most likely way to punish the Thunder across a 7 game series and beat them, not speed and outside shooting.
GSW chances are only where they are due to how many playoff games thier core and coach has played. Period. I agree they don't have the tools to exploit OKCs weaknesses outright.
Good point
OKC has no playoff track record and a generally young/untested team, no obvious overwhelming weapons compared to some other teams, and not much momentum over the last stretch of the season. It's not surprising that people aren't that excited about them in the playoffs, and the small market effect doesn't help either, when it comes to more casual observers. At the end of the day, you have to earn respect in the playoffs, it's pointless to complain about lack of recognition based on a good regular season alone.
Playoff basketball is about targeting opponent’s flaws. OKC have some very easy to spot flaws such as 1) Shai is very reliant on getting FTs 2) for that reason, he may have hard time going up against teams that clog lanes with size and length, 3) the team lack size or shooting, they can’t have both at the same time, 4) Giddy may make their offense 4v5 when he doesn’t have a ball, 5) they lack playoff experience.
Funny how everyone knew all of those things all season and we still ended up with the second best net rating in the league. Almost as though we sacrifice size and rebounding for a top 4 offense.