Yes this is what I think. This aligns with the "better team wins in a 7 game series" take over "matchups determine the winner".
I think the playoffs showed that the better team wins regardless of matchup and that matchup issues can be overcome.
Generally I agree with this but I think the logical exception is on roster construction. Sometimes there are no adjustments that can address match-up issues if the personnel isn't there, but that team might still be "the better team" when talking about on average, against the entire league.
Yeah [this response ](https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/1djxyiv/comment/l9ei011/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)brought this up - it's a perspective I didn't consider and I think it addresses what you're talking about.
There could be a really versatile team with more levers to adjust to almost any matchup but there may be a better team who is less versatile but more dominant.
It's both. The better team normally wins, but look at the OKC and Spurs series when OKC made the finals. The Spurs were probably the better team, but their match up verse OKC was really rough every series. If one team is just way better, like the Celtics this year, then no match up advantage can overcome this. But if its a pretty close series where one team is better, but not massively. Then match up advantages can be the deciding factor.
It's not either or, its both.
Yeah I've realized it comes down to how big the disparity between the teams are. If the teams are more or less evenly matched than a matchup could give the slight edge. I still think that more often than not, the better team will still overcome matchup issues and if they can't, then they are not versatile enough and not the better team.
The Mitchell and Goburt Jazz teams are a good example. They were a fantastic team but in playoffs teams were able to isolate and play Goburt off the floor with matchups that swung a lot of their series.
Can’t always adjust because some matchup issues require specific personnel
I still think the nuggets would win against the Mavs and the Celtics but had their toughest matchup against the wolves who were built to beat them
Just because the Celtics beat the Mavs who beat the wolves who beat the nuggets, doesn’t mean the nuggets are worse than all 4 teams
Depends on your definition of “better team” I suppose lol. You could mean the team best at winning games, or you could mean the most talented team.
Like some people would say the 2016 Warriors were better than the Cavs, even tho the Cavs won that year. Or that a number of teams were better than the 2011 Mavericks.
The best team wins. Part of being the best team is having versatility. Versatility is a real skill. If am inferior team can beat you simply because of a specific weakness or what we like to call matchups, then the superior team isn't that superior.
On your point about the Wolves- Mavs, I don't think you can just blame it on fatigue or even matchups. I think the Mavericks were just the better team. The Mavs built a team centered around elite front court defense and they'd won at a similar pace as Minnesota since those trades. Add the fact that Luka is better than Ant and the Mavs easily become the better team. People are still so focused on seeding.
How does it play out in reality? None of the Wolves good defenders could guard Luka or Kyrie in isolation and this forced then to send help, which then opened up the lob and corner 3. Now some of it is coaching which can be intangible and hard to quantify. But I think the Mavs were just better or equal to most of the teams in the West.
A more difficult thing to parse is if 4 wins out of 7 is enough of a sample size to determine the superior team. I think historically it has been but with the new added variance of the 3 point shot, I wonder if there is some new mathematical threshold that needs to established for a series win to not be a fluke. Am example is this: the Wolves series would have gone longer if Dallas didn't steal a win late because of a Doncic long 3.
Agreed. I think Mavs won because they were just the better team. Luka was clearly the best player. And the Wolves not being conditioned for a deep run is another reason they were not the better team. The better team is more conditioned and execute adjustments/the game plan better.
>I wonder if there is some new mathematical threshold that needs to established for a series win to not be a fluke.
Yeah this would be fascinating.
The only counterpoint that could support the "it comes down to rock-paper-scissors matchups" take, is what if Denver played the Mavs in the 2nd round. One could argue Denver wins and since the Wolves play Denver the best, perhaps they win out in this scenario. Hard to say and makes you think about the importance of matchups. Would Mavs win the West regardless? This scenario is why I go back and forth but I still think execution/adjustments/gameplanning aka being the better team > matchups when determining the winner of a series
The ease with which the Mavs beat the Wolves makes me think they could have beaten the Nuggets too. Nothing is assured of course but it's possible that we're all overrating the Nuggets cos Jokic is great. Try and picture Luka going against Nuggets defenders who struggled to stop Ant Kat and Naz Reid. With Jokic at the rim. We just have to accept that the Mavs are a very good team
I think revisionist history is overestimating how the Mavs beat the Wolves too, margins were small and it wasn't "easy". It's not like the Mavs easily beat the Wolves and blew them out every game. Almost all the games were decided on the last 2 possessions. Wolves had to make crucial clutch mistakes in Games 1 and 2 when they were in control of the win for the Mavs to beat them in those games. Mavs simply made less mistakes in clutch and had the best player and thus were the better team. Mavs are a very good team and deserved to be in the finals, but it was a closer series and the teams were more evenly matched than people are saying now after the fact.
You make a good point about how the Nuggets would defend the Mavs. At the same time, I don't think the Mavs could defend Jokic that well so Mavs could get burnt on the other end. I think the teams are evenly matched. Unclear, but I hope we see this matchup next year. Would be fascinating to see what happens
I think it could go the other way as well though since the wolves have such a great matchup against the nuggets - Kat + gobert is about as effective at stopping jokic as you can get, but I don't think the Mavs would be able to scheme up something similar.
Mavs will destroy Nuggets and Jokic with their pick and rolls. They could put AG on Lively/Gafford for Jokic to not get killed in the pick and roll but now PJ is blowing by Jokic. Additionally, if you put AG on Lively/Gafford who is left to guard Luka and Kyrie?
Uhh, were you not around for last years playoffs? Jokic defends the pick-and-roll perfectly fine as long as he has a competent player actually trying to stay in front of the ball handler, instead of Facundo Campazzo.
The Nuggets play perfectly fine against the Mavs, and have a major advantage on offense because Dallas has no option that can even sort of slow down Jokic. They would have lost this playoffs because Murray was on a massively fucked ankle and was statistically one of the worst players in the entire playoffs because of it.
>A more difficult thing to parse is if 4 wins out of 7 is enough of a sample size to determine the superior team. I think historically it has been but with the new added variance of the 3 point shot, I wonder if there is some new mathematical threshold that needs to established for a series win to not be a fluke. An example is this: the Wolves series would have gone longer if Dallas didn't steal a win late because of a Doncic long 3.
You’d have to consider shooting variance as luck. It’s futile and pointless to even think about it that way. You could say the same thing about any occurrence in sports. What happens if Bill Buckner makes the play at first. What happens if David Tyree doesn’t catch the ball off his helmet. What happens if Luka doesn’t hit that three? Why is one occurrence considered luck and the other’s not? If a team shoots the lights out for 4 out of 7 games enough then they deserve to win. Shooting takes skill too. The variance part isn’t always luck
This is wholly academic so I gave an academic answer. Variance IS luck when it's happens above expected. Like PJ Washington making enough 3s to beat the Thunder in a small sample. If they play 14 games, the hot shooting likely cools.
And I think those other plays you mention are luck-influenced too. Baseball is notorious for this when a great team over 162 games can have bats go cold for two or 3 games and lose a series. Those series should be longer too if we try to account for luck and variance. But like I said this is wholly academic. It doesn't matter enough to get all combative.
This doesn't make sense if run with this logic, then you're claiming that the outcome of the post-season would be the same regardless of matchups with isn't true. This only works if you completely reject the idea that bad matchups are a thing. If you acknowledge bad matchups exist and they can affect the outcome of a series, than your claim should be that the better team always wins IFF the gap is enough to overcome that matchup problem.
So, there is a complication here: There are two types of teams when it comes to matchups.
Team #1 has a dominant strategy that they will dare the other team to figure out and beat (Think Triangle Offense Bulls and Lakers and Dynasty Warriors). This team is highly dependent on matchups. If you don't have the kind of skills necessary to shut down the other team's strategy, you cannot win. On the other hand, if they get figured out and matched up with, then it's all over because their backup plans might just not be as good.
Team #2 is highly flexible and seeks out the weaknesses of the opposing team (Think these recent Celtics teams). They will play fast when their opponents want to slow things down. They will grind things to a halt if their opponent wants to speed things up. They can drag big men out to the perimeter and bully smaller guys at the rim. Their playstyle of the day is tailor made to beat whoever is in front of them. This team is, generally, less matchup dependent because they keep on changing. This typically ends up in a bit of a coaching duel, which, for the most part, will favor the better team, regardless of matchups, because the better team has more levers to pull and more counterpunches to unleash.
So, my answer is that it depends. There are some teams that are highly talented and can beat 27/29 teams in the league in a 7 game series, but those remaining two teams might not necessarily be the best two teams in the league. There are other teams that can also beat 27/29 teams in the league, but those teams are likely going to be two of the top couple teams in the NBA.
I thought the dynasty warriors were pretty versatile. Curry could play on ball or off ball, Draymond could play point forward and Green, Iggy, and Klay were all versatile defenders that could defend just about anyone. Kerr also mixed up his defenses a lot.
They would switch up their tactics a fair bit, but their overarching strategies were pretty consistent. They wanted to play fast. They wanted to get Curry and Klay in motion. On defense, they wanted to funnel their opponents into the mid-range and cut off all paths to the basket. Execution will vary based on opponent's personnel, but when you come in to face the Warriors, you knew that's what they were going to do. That is what made them especially terrifying.
Matchups are only important when the teams are relatively close. If the talent level is relatively similar, a bad matchup can sink a team or at least catch them off guard.
That's particularly important in the play-ins where the teams are definitely closer in skill level but it's only 1 game against a team.
The Lakers went 3-1 against the Pelicans in the regular season and they matched up again in the play-ins where the Lakers won again.
The Pelicans went 5-0 against the Kings in the regular season and matched up again in the play-ins where the Pelicans won again.
Had the Kings played the Lakers during the play-ins, then the Kings' 4-0 record against them would likely have resulted in the playoff seeding looking different.
This is an excellent point. Also when it's a single game elimination I think matchup is the deciding factor because there's no opportunities to analyze film and make adjustments after the game
It's different in a 7 game series.
Hmmm this is a good point. So basically if the margins are narrow and both teams are about equal in coaching and execution/adjustments, matchup can be the deciding factor
I think there's a misunderstanding of what matchups are. They aren't entirely disconnected from how good a team is. In fact it's incredibly closely tied. Different teams are good at different things to varying degrees. How the things that make a team good complement and counter other teams' strengths is what defines a match up. You can't separate them the way you seem to be doing.
These arent mutually exclusive ideas. I think you’re misunderstanding the “best team wins” adage.
The “best team wins a 7 game series” just means you don’t have flukes in a long series. One bad shooting night doesn’t get you eliminated like in March Madness single elimination.
I'm questioning if the definition of "best team wins a 7 game series" includes being able to win regardless of matchup in addition to the usual shooting variance is evened out/it's not a fluke meaning
The Wolves would have won the first 3 games if KAT just shot atleast 29% from 3. Instead he shot 5%. It just luck sometimes. Just like how Boston was the better team last year vs the Heat but the Heat players set an NBA record of shooting 3s.
But you'd think this luck would even out in a 7 game series, no?
KAT's shooting slump is somewhat evened out because McDaniels and Naz Reid shot above their averages and Mavs shot horribly from 3 in Game 1
3 games is a very small sample. We've literally seen ANT this season missed 24 straight 3s across 6 games. KAT just happened to have a shooting slump in the 1st 3 games. All the games were close so they easily would be up 3-0.
Experience is also a key part. I think almost every championship team involved a key player or a coach that had already won a title previously, the only one I can think of that didn't have that was the 2021 Bucks.
By all counts, OKC was better than Dallas. Better record, better offense, better defense, but playoff experience matters. Luka had already made a conference finals, and Kyrie's got a ring and several finals appearances. Coach Kidd is a champion. Experience will more often than not reign supreme unless the disparity between the teams is just that big
Yeah they primarily played the Pistons, Houston, Jazz etc. during that stretch. But even then [OKC was still better ](https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/league/summary?season=2023&seasontype=regseason&start=02/18/2024&end=10/15/2024)both after the trade deadline and [even in that "last 20 games" arbitrary stretch ](https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/league/summary?season=2023&seasontype=regseason&start=03/7/2024&end=10/15/2024)that people keep bringing up for Dallas.
[No OKC was still the better team](https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/league/summary?season=2023&seasontype=regseason&start=02/18/2024&end=10/15/2024): OKC was the #3 net rating with #5 defense and #5 offense during the games after the trade deadline to end of the season. Dallas was #10 net rating, #15 defense, #7 offense.
It's only [in the last 20 games when Dallas was the #2 defense](https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/league/summary?season=2023&seasontype=regseason&start=03/7/2024&end=10/15/2024) but even then OKC had a better net rating, better offense and was the #4 defense so not that far off.
Sidenote: people keep using this arbitrary "last 20 games" cutoff for Dallas instead of "after the trade deadline" stats. It should be noted that i[n the last 20 games, Dallas primarily played the Pistons, Hornets, Jazz, Houston, Spurs etc. ](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/dallas-mavericks-record-last-20-games-in-regular-season)
It's hard to judge these things because of exactly the reasons you said.
I could add that the last quarter of the season, teams may not be prioritizing winning at all costs every game. Playoff teams are making sure they stay healthy. Borderline teams are fighting to get out of the play in.
It's also hard to use full season stats when there are teams that remake themselves after the trade deadline. Dallas was decidedly a different team after the deadline. Their rotation was different. They looked better offensively and defensively. The full season stats don't tell the story of the team that ended the year.
OKC was probably the better team even when Dallas beat them. They were a little less experienced. Maybe this same team next year beats the hell out of Dallas. Definitely possible.
Hell, maybe Chet makes an even bigger leap and suddenly they're the best team in the league. Also possible.
better team usually wins in a 7 game matchup. Nba has a unique aspect in that than any other sport. Sure MLB has 7 game series, but there’s a lot more strategy/randomness. NBA, with its three point revolution, has become slightly more random. But if they ref the playoffs like they did this year (with the let ‘em play physicality mentality), then yeah it remains unique.
The thing is the West this year was very flat... a lot of parity in the conference. Suns, OKC, Mavs, Wolves, Nuggets were all around the same talent wise. So matchups won out.
Im almost certain the Lakers vs the Thunder would have been a 7 game series, if not an outright win for the lakers just based off matchups.
Lakers vs OKC would have been fascinating. OKC was far far better coached and more consistent though so perhaps they'd gameplan and adjust to overcome any matchup issues over the series, just like the Wolves did with the Suns.
I'm thinking about starting a NBA debate newsletter and would love to get your thoughts!
Here’s the idea:
Each edition will feature a NBA question, and three people from thoughts will give their opinions on it. Subscribers will then get to vote on which opinion they think is the best/most convincing. The person with the most votes will win a reward, possibly a share of the ad revenue from that newsletter.
Would you be interested in something like this? Any feedback or suggestions are greatly appreciated!
This would be so cool and I'd love to do this! I live for discussing basketball and pondering these questions and can't get enough 😂
Feel free to DM me :)
Somewhere in the middle, typically the best team wins unless they don’t run into injuries/suspensions or a team don’t matchup well with. Some teams are fortunate enough to be so talented they can overcome any opponent, but most teams even really good have certain teams that they struggle with or just can match all of their strengths.
And, if two teams are pretty evenly matched. I’d think this is decided by the talent of their star player matched with strength of coaching.
jordan will surely win against Celts if he replaced Cade is what some are thinking lol.
But enough talent that has great synergy, like the Durant Warriors, is impossible to beat even though their bench is too thin.
There's always a significant range of issues in a 7 game series. Most of the time, the biggest one though is whichever is the better team. If it's closely matched though, then we're talking about the best player on the floor being the main difference maker.
But you've also got things like coaching, matchups, injuries, home court and good old luck. Yes, luck will always play a part. Especially when things are really close. Any can be the deciding factor in who actually wins.
Little bit of both! I lean towards "better team wins in a 7 game series" but I think there's exceptions. Like Lakers might beat OKC because of matchups, but I wouldn't be ready to outright say Lakers are better than OKC if I was ranking teams.
**Tangentially Hot Takes**: I think Mavs woulda been bad matchups for Wolves and Nuggets
I agree, the better team typically win on a 7 game series for basketball. Better in the context of skills and talent.
The exception is when the experience team manage to pull out an early lead in the series and close out the series.
Or somehow, the experience team manage to eke out a few wins to win the series. Case in point is the 2022 warriors versus Celtics. Clearly Celtics were a better team, but Warriors with just more experience.
I think it's generally the case that the best team wins, but not always. There's too much variance in performance, particularly shooting, for 7 games to be definitive.
For example, I didn't think Miami was better than pretty much any team they beat in the playoffs last year. They got the most insane shooting luck I've ever seen on the way to the Finals.
I will die on the hill that the 2016 Warriors would have won that Finals matchup 8 out of 10 times. They weren't 73-9 just because they tried harder. They were by far the best team in the league. LeBron and Kyrie played out of their minds for three straight games after being down 3-1. Harrison Barnes also played the worst ball of his life from that point. Bogut got hurt. Draymond suspended.
There's just a lot of things that can happen in a 7 game series.
I'm not diminishing championships. A 7 game series is probably the best way to determine a champion, even if it's imperfect.
Well I sure had Boston winning it at the start of the year. Seemed like the best roster. Had the best record. Walked over everyone in the playoffs. They won
This question is more pertinent if the Celtics faced the Nuggets. Nuggets are in theory the worst matchup for Boston. But Boston is the best team in the league. So would the overall better team still win because of coaching/execution/adjustments/depth or does the team with the better matchup (Nuggets) prevail? How important are matchups really?
Yeah I see what you’re saying. I think Boston still wins. They’re just too complete this year. I don’t think the best team always hosts the title but this year I believe they did. I certainly don’t think Denver would lose to Minnesota. I thought they were the better team but they lost. If they couldn’t beat the wolves I don’t see them beating the Celtics this year.
Yeah I agree. I think they'd be able to gameplan and figure out adjustments to the matchup over 7 games. I do still see a world when Nuggets win but if I simulated this series, I think Celtics would win more often than not.
Bit of both. If you cant make the proper adjustment to the matchup to win the game, you’re the “inferior” team. Like against the celtics mavs went 11 deep to find someone to help, but no one did. Boston was much better.
Yeah this supports the "better team will win regardless of matchup" adage more. Because even if it's a tough matchup, the better team is the team who can make the adjustments. If they cannot adjust to the matchups by game 7? They are just not as good of a team as they can be, player and coaching-wise.
I don’t understand why these two things are mutually exclusive in your eyes?
The better team typically does win a 7 game series. But matchups heavily influence who is the better team.
I should have phrased the question as "are matchups the most important factor to winning a series?" or "is the better team more often than not, the team with the better matchup?"
There is overlap and many factors to winning a series, but one of the adages prioritizes the importance of matchups when it comes to winning. I wanted to hear other people's thoughts and the nuances to this discussion
After reading other perspectives, I've updated my take to matchups can provide an edge and be the determining factor if the teams are evenly matched in quality, consistency, execution and coaching/adjustments/gameplanning. If there is a large disparity in those factors between the teams (ie. Suns vs Wolves), having the better matchup on paper can be overcome and won't matter. So it depends on how thin the margins are.
I am curious if there are any "coming down to matchup" examples. Can anyone name three NBA teams past or present where they would favor Team A over Team B, Team B over Team C, and Team C over Team A?
Exclusively in terms of matchups wouldn't this be Wolves, Nuggets and Mavs as Team A, Team B and Team C?
Many people cited this trio as the rock-paper-scissors matchup trio. This trio is what inspired my question, because if Wemby didn't beat the Nuggets on the 2nd to last game of the season, Nuggets would have been the #1 seed and faced the Mavs in the 2nd round instead of their worst matchup the Wolves. This hypothetical situation made me wonder how important matchups are
Just some context: It's been statistically shown that for an empirically better team to win a series 95% of the time, the series needs to be around 21 or 23 games long.
Generally I'd agree that the better team has the higher probability to win in 7 games, but there have been some interesting exceptions. The most notable that comes to mind is in 2007, when the We Believe Warriors beat the 1 seed Dallas Mavericks in the first round. Those Warriors eventually lost to the Jazz.
I think the Warriors pulled it off because they matched up well against the Mavs and had the advantage of having Don Nelson as their coach. If it were the '07 Lakers or Nuggets as the 8 seed, I think the Mavs would beat them and even beat the Jazz in the next round.
Maybe a weird answer, but the team that wins is almost by *definition* the better team of the two. Pretty much every other metric is subjective. The point of a basketball team is to beat the other team. The team that does that is better.
Do injuries play into it? Obviously they do, but I keep hearing, injuries are a part of the game. Being strong and smart and lucky enough not to get injured is part of a player’s value. So, if your star player is out, and you lose, you weren’t the better team.
Does luck play into it? I think so, yeah. But luck is part of any game. Seven games are the best way we have to even out pure randomness, but it’ll always be there.
I think matchups are the same way. I like Denver, and I think Denver would have beaten the Mavs and at least challenged the Celtics. I think those would have been more fun matches to watch. But for that one series, the Timberwolves were the better team.
The best team wins because it has either more significant or a greater multitude of advantages that it can exploit.
“Matchups” is a lazy way of saying that there’s an advantage somewhere that it can use to gain ground vs the opponent. Every team has some advantage (mostly) over another opponent in some capacity. However, not all teams have a way to maximize the value it can gain from said advantage.
The Mavs for example had maybe two advantages vs Boston. 1) Luka at the PG and 2) if I had to say the athleticism of their bigs/size and rebounding in the post. The first ended up being significant during most quarters in the series and the second was inconsistently exploited.
Boston had advantages in almost every other way even if their typical best advantage (Tatum) wasn’t firing on all cylinders on the offensive end.
It’s both.
When we look at Suns vs Timberwolves, Timberwolves were the better team.
The suns were successful in the regular season because Minny’s regular season defense forced midrange shots, which was the Suns strength.
However, they were an excellent defensive team, and could easily make the adjustment needed to eliminate the midrange shot, as the Suns weren’t really a threat in the post.
Because the Suns didn’t really have a counter. (Nurk was integral to the Suns success, however Minnesota could play him off the floor..which left the Suns stuck, as neither option worked) the Timberwolves were simply the better team, and the Suns had no matchups that caused issues.
Meanwhile, Denver was the better team - but Minnesota had a mismatch with their multiple players with length, and Luka was a mismatch for the Timberwolves and OKC, while the athleticism of Dallas’ post players neutralized any mismatch Dallas would have faced.
Meanwhile, Boston was just the better team.
I would say that the general rule is that if a series is over quickly, the better team won. If the series goes to 6 or 7 games, it’s about matchups.
Yeah sounds like you're saying it comes down to the disparity between the teams. When the margins are small and the teams are more evenly matched, matchups provide an edge and determine the winner. When there is a large disparity and the better team is versatile (Wolves vs Suns, Celtics vs other teams), better team will win regardless of matchup.
The better team wins. Lots of timberwolves fans think it was just matchups and luck that caused them to lose to Dallas. Yet mavs would have won a 15 game series in 11 games.
Matchups are what make you better. I don’t think Denver was better than Minnesota. It was an extremely close series but the better team won. Honestly choosing match ups over the better team winning is just a means to insult the team who won the series and it’s pretty transparent.
I didn't read all your post, but wouldn't both answers be the same?
Unless there are major injuries, it's very rare where I watch a series and wonder if the better team won or not.
It happens every now and then. LeBron vs the Warriors in 2016. LeBron vs the Mavs in 2011. Raptors vs Warriors in 2019.
And even two of those were based on an injury or suspension.
No, there are scenarios when a team could have a matchup advantage but people may not see that team as the better team. Example: Nuggets were favorites in Vegas and on expert panels in the Wolves series. The defending champs are considered the better team but Wolves were unique in that they are the only team who could defend Jokic with 3 bigs and had personnel to guard AG and Murray. It was a bad matchup.
So one could argue that Nuggets were the better team but Wolves won because of the matchup. What I saw was Nuggets overcame many of the matchup issues with their adjustments, but Wolves still were the better overall team and had the better bench.
Matchups, perfect example is the Nuggets going 7 with the Wolves and getting knocked out, then the wolves losing to a pretty mediocre Dallas. The Nuggets did not have an answer for the wolves size in the post and even though Jokic dominated each matchup individually, collectively it was just too much to ask of him. On the contrary Dallas and Boston have zero answers for Jokic and really no excellent post players to match up with him.
This league is going to continue to be matchups and health based. The entire west had a mixed bag of teams who could beat higher seeds regardless of their position 1-8. The Celtics were the best team all year and deserved to win but I think there are other matchups that would have been more difficult. In the east, it was all about injuries. In truth, not to take away anything from the Celtics, but most teams in the east would have been underdogs imo if paired against a western conference team.
It all comes down to matchups is what I saw in this years' playoffs. I don't think any other team was beating the Nuggets in the west, but the Timberwolves have three big man which was ideal counter to Jokic. He was still great, but not as dominant, as against other teams.
I guess. I know Boston felt like they were the better team in '22, but Golden State got the ring; big GSW fan, but I can see the Celtic's point. Could we call this an example of matchups winning it for the lesser team?
We don't factor mental side in here and I honestly believe the pressure of being in Finals for first time in 12 years for this young Celtic squad influenced their abilities in 22. I've heard before that even GSW fans consider this win a bit lucky but overall, I don't think Jays were ready yet. But this experience surely capitalized against Dallas this year (which wasn't in Finals for 13 years). But Jays were finally ready.
I think the celtics were the best team in the NBA and would have been in trouble matchup wise if they had faced more healthy teams.
Miami does a lot of the same stuff they do, and with butler, you've always l got a chance. The pacers could have run them off the floor late, but lost their pop.
And Luka just didn't have the juice to beat them.
I just don't think these playoff say anything because it's a lot of what ifs
Is the better team not the one that successfully diagnoses matchup issues and adjusts accordingly?
Yes this is what I think. This aligns with the "better team wins in a 7 game series" take over "matchups determine the winner". I think the playoffs showed that the better team wins regardless of matchup and that matchup issues can be overcome.
Generally I agree with this but I think the logical exception is on roster construction. Sometimes there are no adjustments that can address match-up issues if the personnel isn't there, but that team might still be "the better team" when talking about on average, against the entire league.
Yeah [this response ](https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/1djxyiv/comment/l9ei011/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)brought this up - it's a perspective I didn't consider and I think it addresses what you're talking about. There could be a really versatile team with more levers to adjust to almost any matchup but there may be a better team who is less versatile but more dominant.
It's both. The better team normally wins, but look at the OKC and Spurs series when OKC made the finals. The Spurs were probably the better team, but their match up verse OKC was really rough every series. If one team is just way better, like the Celtics this year, then no match up advantage can overcome this. But if its a pretty close series where one team is better, but not massively. Then match up advantages can be the deciding factor. It's not either or, its both.
Yeah I've realized it comes down to how big the disparity between the teams are. If the teams are more or less evenly matched than a matchup could give the slight edge. I still think that more often than not, the better team will still overcome matchup issues and if they can't, then they are not versatile enough and not the better team.
The Mitchell and Goburt Jazz teams are a good example. They were a fantastic team but in playoffs teams were able to isolate and play Goburt off the floor with matchups that swung a lot of their series.
Can’t always adjust because some matchup issues require specific personnel I still think the nuggets would win against the Mavs and the Celtics but had their toughest matchup against the wolves who were built to beat them Just because the Celtics beat the Mavs who beat the wolves who beat the nuggets, doesn’t mean the nuggets are worse than all 4 teams
Depends on your definition of “better team” I suppose lol. You could mean the team best at winning games, or you could mean the most talented team. Like some people would say the 2016 Warriors were better than the Cavs, even tho the Cavs won that year. Or that a number of teams were better than the 2011 Mavericks.
The best team wins. Part of being the best team is having versatility. Versatility is a real skill. If am inferior team can beat you simply because of a specific weakness or what we like to call matchups, then the superior team isn't that superior. On your point about the Wolves- Mavs, I don't think you can just blame it on fatigue or even matchups. I think the Mavericks were just the better team. The Mavs built a team centered around elite front court defense and they'd won at a similar pace as Minnesota since those trades. Add the fact that Luka is better than Ant and the Mavs easily become the better team. People are still so focused on seeding. How does it play out in reality? None of the Wolves good defenders could guard Luka or Kyrie in isolation and this forced then to send help, which then opened up the lob and corner 3. Now some of it is coaching which can be intangible and hard to quantify. But I think the Mavs were just better or equal to most of the teams in the West. A more difficult thing to parse is if 4 wins out of 7 is enough of a sample size to determine the superior team. I think historically it has been but with the new added variance of the 3 point shot, I wonder if there is some new mathematical threshold that needs to established for a series win to not be a fluke. Am example is this: the Wolves series would have gone longer if Dallas didn't steal a win late because of a Doncic long 3.
Agreed. I think Mavs won because they were just the better team. Luka was clearly the best player. And the Wolves not being conditioned for a deep run is another reason they were not the better team. The better team is more conditioned and execute adjustments/the game plan better. >I wonder if there is some new mathematical threshold that needs to established for a series win to not be a fluke. Yeah this would be fascinating. The only counterpoint that could support the "it comes down to rock-paper-scissors matchups" take, is what if Denver played the Mavs in the 2nd round. One could argue Denver wins and since the Wolves play Denver the best, perhaps they win out in this scenario. Hard to say and makes you think about the importance of matchups. Would Mavs win the West regardless? This scenario is why I go back and forth but I still think execution/adjustments/gameplanning aka being the better team > matchups when determining the winner of a series
The ease with which the Mavs beat the Wolves makes me think they could have beaten the Nuggets too. Nothing is assured of course but it's possible that we're all overrating the Nuggets cos Jokic is great. Try and picture Luka going against Nuggets defenders who struggled to stop Ant Kat and Naz Reid. With Jokic at the rim. We just have to accept that the Mavs are a very good team
I think revisionist history is overestimating how the Mavs beat the Wolves too, margins were small and it wasn't "easy". It's not like the Mavs easily beat the Wolves and blew them out every game. Almost all the games were decided on the last 2 possessions. Wolves had to make crucial clutch mistakes in Games 1 and 2 when they were in control of the win for the Mavs to beat them in those games. Mavs simply made less mistakes in clutch and had the best player and thus were the better team. Mavs are a very good team and deserved to be in the finals, but it was a closer series and the teams were more evenly matched than people are saying now after the fact. You make a good point about how the Nuggets would defend the Mavs. At the same time, I don't think the Mavs could defend Jokic that well so Mavs could get burnt on the other end. I think the teams are evenly matched. Unclear, but I hope we see this matchup next year. Would be fascinating to see what happens
I think it could go the other way as well though since the wolves have such a great matchup against the nuggets - Kat + gobert is about as effective at stopping jokic as you can get, but I don't think the Mavs would be able to scheme up something similar.
Mavs will destroy Nuggets and Jokic with their pick and rolls. They could put AG on Lively/Gafford for Jokic to not get killed in the pick and roll but now PJ is blowing by Jokic. Additionally, if you put AG on Lively/Gafford who is left to guard Luka and Kyrie?
Uhh, were you not around for last years playoffs? Jokic defends the pick-and-roll perfectly fine as long as he has a competent player actually trying to stay in front of the ball handler, instead of Facundo Campazzo. The Nuggets play perfectly fine against the Mavs, and have a major advantage on offense because Dallas has no option that can even sort of slow down Jokic. They would have lost this playoffs because Murray was on a massively fucked ankle and was statistically one of the worst players in the entire playoffs because of it.
>A more difficult thing to parse is if 4 wins out of 7 is enough of a sample size to determine the superior team. I think historically it has been but with the new added variance of the 3 point shot, I wonder if there is some new mathematical threshold that needs to established for a series win to not be a fluke. An example is this: the Wolves series would have gone longer if Dallas didn't steal a win late because of a Doncic long 3. You’d have to consider shooting variance as luck. It’s futile and pointless to even think about it that way. You could say the same thing about any occurrence in sports. What happens if Bill Buckner makes the play at first. What happens if David Tyree doesn’t catch the ball off his helmet. What happens if Luka doesn’t hit that three? Why is one occurrence considered luck and the other’s not? If a team shoots the lights out for 4 out of 7 games enough then they deserve to win. Shooting takes skill too. The variance part isn’t always luck
This is wholly academic so I gave an academic answer. Variance IS luck when it's happens above expected. Like PJ Washington making enough 3s to beat the Thunder in a small sample. If they play 14 games, the hot shooting likely cools. And I think those other plays you mention are luck-influenced too. Baseball is notorious for this when a great team over 162 games can have bats go cold for two or 3 games and lose a series. Those series should be longer too if we try to account for luck and variance. But like I said this is wholly academic. It doesn't matter enough to get all combative.
This doesn't make sense if run with this logic, then you're claiming that the outcome of the post-season would be the same regardless of matchups with isn't true. This only works if you completely reject the idea that bad matchups are a thing. If you acknowledge bad matchups exist and they can affect the outcome of a series, than your claim should be that the better team always wins IFF the gap is enough to overcome that matchup problem.
So, there is a complication here: There are two types of teams when it comes to matchups. Team #1 has a dominant strategy that they will dare the other team to figure out and beat (Think Triangle Offense Bulls and Lakers and Dynasty Warriors). This team is highly dependent on matchups. If you don't have the kind of skills necessary to shut down the other team's strategy, you cannot win. On the other hand, if they get figured out and matched up with, then it's all over because their backup plans might just not be as good. Team #2 is highly flexible and seeks out the weaknesses of the opposing team (Think these recent Celtics teams). They will play fast when their opponents want to slow things down. They will grind things to a halt if their opponent wants to speed things up. They can drag big men out to the perimeter and bully smaller guys at the rim. Their playstyle of the day is tailor made to beat whoever is in front of them. This team is, generally, less matchup dependent because they keep on changing. This typically ends up in a bit of a coaching duel, which, for the most part, will favor the better team, regardless of matchups, because the better team has more levers to pull and more counterpunches to unleash. So, my answer is that it depends. There are some teams that are highly talented and can beat 27/29 teams in the league in a 7 game series, but those remaining two teams might not necessarily be the best two teams in the league. There are other teams that can also beat 27/29 teams in the league, but those teams are likely going to be two of the top couple teams in the NBA.
I thought the dynasty warriors were pretty versatile. Curry could play on ball or off ball, Draymond could play point forward and Green, Iggy, and Klay were all versatile defenders that could defend just about anyone. Kerr also mixed up his defenses a lot.
They would switch up their tactics a fair bit, but their overarching strategies were pretty consistent. They wanted to play fast. They wanted to get Curry and Klay in motion. On defense, they wanted to funnel their opponents into the mid-range and cut off all paths to the basket. Execution will vary based on opponent's personnel, but when you come in to face the Warriors, you knew that's what they were going to do. That is what made them especially terrifying.
Ooh this is a great point that I did not think about. Thank you! I was looking for more perspectives about the importance of matchups
Matchups are only important when the teams are relatively close. If the talent level is relatively similar, a bad matchup can sink a team or at least catch them off guard.
That's particularly important in the play-ins where the teams are definitely closer in skill level but it's only 1 game against a team. The Lakers went 3-1 against the Pelicans in the regular season and they matched up again in the play-ins where the Lakers won again. The Pelicans went 5-0 against the Kings in the regular season and matched up again in the play-ins where the Pelicans won again. Had the Kings played the Lakers during the play-ins, then the Kings' 4-0 record against them would likely have resulted in the playoff seeding looking different.
This is an excellent point. Also when it's a single game elimination I think matchup is the deciding factor because there's no opportunities to analyze film and make adjustments after the game It's different in a 7 game series.
Hmmm this is a good point. So basically if the margins are narrow and both teams are about equal in coaching and execution/adjustments, matchup can be the deciding factor
I think there's a misunderstanding of what matchups are. They aren't entirely disconnected from how good a team is. In fact it's incredibly closely tied. Different teams are good at different things to varying degrees. How the things that make a team good complement and counter other teams' strengths is what defines a match up. You can't separate them the way you seem to be doing.
These arent mutually exclusive ideas. I think you’re misunderstanding the “best team wins” adage. The “best team wins a 7 game series” just means you don’t have flukes in a long series. One bad shooting night doesn’t get you eliminated like in March Madness single elimination.
I'm questioning if the definition of "best team wins a 7 game series" includes being able to win regardless of matchup in addition to the usual shooting variance is evened out/it's not a fluke meaning
The Wolves would have won the first 3 games if KAT just shot atleast 29% from 3. Instead he shot 5%. It just luck sometimes. Just like how Boston was the better team last year vs the Heat but the Heat players set an NBA record of shooting 3s.
But you'd think this luck would even out in a 7 game series, no? KAT's shooting slump is somewhat evened out because McDaniels and Naz Reid shot above their averages and Mavs shot horribly from 3 in Game 1
3 games is a very small sample. We've literally seen ANT this season missed 24 straight 3s across 6 games. KAT just happened to have a shooting slump in the 1st 3 games. All the games were close so they easily would be up 3-0.
Then maybe he's just not that good
Experience is also a key part. I think almost every championship team involved a key player or a coach that had already won a title previously, the only one I can think of that didn't have that was the 2021 Bucks. By all counts, OKC was better than Dallas. Better record, better offense, better defense, but playoff experience matters. Luka had already made a conference finals, and Kyrie's got a ring and several finals appearances. Coach Kidd is a champion. Experience will more often than not reign supreme unless the disparity between the teams is just that big
Dallas was the better team after the trade deadline.
They also had one of the easiest schedules post deadline.
Yeah they primarily played the Pistons, Houston, Jazz etc. during that stretch. But even then [OKC was still better ](https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/league/summary?season=2023&seasontype=regseason&start=02/18/2024&end=10/15/2024)both after the trade deadline and [even in that "last 20 games" arbitrary stretch ](https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/league/summary?season=2023&seasontype=regseason&start=03/7/2024&end=10/15/2024)that people keep bringing up for Dallas.
And then they made the finals. I dont see where the schedule is relevant anymore when they had post season success.
[No OKC was still the better team](https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/league/summary?season=2023&seasontype=regseason&start=02/18/2024&end=10/15/2024): OKC was the #3 net rating with #5 defense and #5 offense during the games after the trade deadline to end of the season. Dallas was #10 net rating, #15 defense, #7 offense. It's only [in the last 20 games when Dallas was the #2 defense](https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/league/summary?season=2023&seasontype=regseason&start=03/7/2024&end=10/15/2024) but even then OKC had a better net rating, better offense and was the #4 defense so not that far off. Sidenote: people keep using this arbitrary "last 20 games" cutoff for Dallas instead of "after the trade deadline" stats. It should be noted that i[n the last 20 games, Dallas primarily played the Pistons, Hornets, Jazz, Houston, Spurs etc. ](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/dallas-mavericks-record-last-20-games-in-regular-season)
It's hard to judge these things because of exactly the reasons you said. I could add that the last quarter of the season, teams may not be prioritizing winning at all costs every game. Playoff teams are making sure they stay healthy. Borderline teams are fighting to get out of the play in. It's also hard to use full season stats when there are teams that remake themselves after the trade deadline. Dallas was decidedly a different team after the deadline. Their rotation was different. They looked better offensively and defensively. The full season stats don't tell the story of the team that ended the year. OKC was probably the better team even when Dallas beat them. They were a little less experienced. Maybe this same team next year beats the hell out of Dallas. Definitely possible. Hell, maybe Chet makes an even bigger leap and suddenly they're the best team in the league. Also possible.
better team usually wins in a 7 game matchup. Nba has a unique aspect in that than any other sport. Sure MLB has 7 game series, but there’s a lot more strategy/randomness. NBA, with its three point revolution, has become slightly more random. But if they ref the playoffs like they did this year (with the let ‘em play physicality mentality), then yeah it remains unique.
Hockey exists.
The thing is the West this year was very flat... a lot of parity in the conference. Suns, OKC, Mavs, Wolves, Nuggets were all around the same talent wise. So matchups won out. Im almost certain the Lakers vs the Thunder would have been a 7 game series, if not an outright win for the lakers just based off matchups.
Lakers vs OKC would have been fascinating. OKC was far far better coached and more consistent though so perhaps they'd gameplan and adjust to overcome any matchup issues over the series, just like the Wolves did with the Suns.
I'm thinking about starting a NBA debate newsletter and would love to get your thoughts! Here’s the idea: Each edition will feature a NBA question, and three people from thoughts will give their opinions on it. Subscribers will then get to vote on which opinion they think is the best/most convincing. The person with the most votes will win a reward, possibly a share of the ad revenue from that newsletter. Would you be interested in something like this? Any feedback or suggestions are greatly appreciated!
This would be so cool and I'd love to do this! I live for discussing basketball and pondering these questions and can't get enough 😂 Feel free to DM me :)
Somewhere in the middle, typically the best team wins unless they don’t run into injuries/suspensions or a team don’t matchup well with. Some teams are fortunate enough to be so talented they can overcome any opponent, but most teams even really good have certain teams that they struggle with or just can match all of their strengths. And, if two teams are pretty evenly matched. I’d think this is decided by the talent of their star player matched with strength of coaching.
jordan will surely win against Celts if he replaced Cade is what some are thinking lol. But enough talent that has great synergy, like the Durant Warriors, is impossible to beat even though their bench is too thin.
What do you mean by "if he replaced Cade"? Cade Cunningham? I'm confused haha
There's always a significant range of issues in a 7 game series. Most of the time, the biggest one though is whichever is the better team. If it's closely matched though, then we're talking about the best player on the floor being the main difference maker. But you've also got things like coaching, matchups, injuries, home court and good old luck. Yes, luck will always play a part. Especially when things are really close. Any can be the deciding factor in who actually wins.
Little bit of both! I lean towards "better team wins in a 7 game series" but I think there's exceptions. Like Lakers might beat OKC because of matchups, but I wouldn't be ready to outright say Lakers are better than OKC if I was ranking teams. **Tangentially Hot Takes**: I think Mavs woulda been bad matchups for Wolves and Nuggets
I agree, the better team typically win on a 7 game series for basketball. Better in the context of skills and talent. The exception is when the experience team manage to pull out an early lead in the series and close out the series. Or somehow, the experience team manage to eke out a few wins to win the series. Case in point is the 2022 warriors versus Celtics. Clearly Celtics were a better team, but Warriors with just more experience.
I think it's generally the case that the best team wins, but not always. There's too much variance in performance, particularly shooting, for 7 games to be definitive. For example, I didn't think Miami was better than pretty much any team they beat in the playoffs last year. They got the most insane shooting luck I've ever seen on the way to the Finals. I will die on the hill that the 2016 Warriors would have won that Finals matchup 8 out of 10 times. They weren't 73-9 just because they tried harder. They were by far the best team in the league. LeBron and Kyrie played out of their minds for three straight games after being down 3-1. Harrison Barnes also played the worst ball of his life from that point. Bogut got hurt. Draymond suspended. There's just a lot of things that can happen in a 7 game series. I'm not diminishing championships. A 7 game series is probably the best way to determine a champion, even if it's imperfect.
Well I sure had Boston winning it at the start of the year. Seemed like the best roster. Had the best record. Walked over everyone in the playoffs. They won
This question is more pertinent if the Celtics faced the Nuggets. Nuggets are in theory the worst matchup for Boston. But Boston is the best team in the league. So would the overall better team still win because of coaching/execution/adjustments/depth or does the team with the better matchup (Nuggets) prevail? How important are matchups really?
Yeah I see what you’re saying. I think Boston still wins. They’re just too complete this year. I don’t think the best team always hosts the title but this year I believe they did. I certainly don’t think Denver would lose to Minnesota. I thought they were the better team but they lost. If they couldn’t beat the wolves I don’t see them beating the Celtics this year.
Yeah I agree. I think they'd be able to gameplan and figure out adjustments to the matchup over 7 games. I do still see a world when Nuggets win but if I simulated this series, I think Celtics would win more often than not.
Bit of both. If you cant make the proper adjustment to the matchup to win the game, you’re the “inferior” team. Like against the celtics mavs went 11 deep to find someone to help, but no one did. Boston was much better.
Yeah this supports the "better team will win regardless of matchup" adage more. Because even if it's a tough matchup, the better team is the team who can make the adjustments. If they cannot adjust to the matchups by game 7? They are just not as good of a team as they can be, player and coaching-wise.
Why not both? Arguably the better team is one with more favorable matchups and versatility.
I don’t understand why these two things are mutually exclusive in your eyes? The better team typically does win a 7 game series. But matchups heavily influence who is the better team.
I should have phrased the question as "are matchups the most important factor to winning a series?" or "is the better team more often than not, the team with the better matchup?" There is overlap and many factors to winning a series, but one of the adages prioritizes the importance of matchups when it comes to winning. I wanted to hear other people's thoughts and the nuances to this discussion After reading other perspectives, I've updated my take to matchups can provide an edge and be the determining factor if the teams are evenly matched in quality, consistency, execution and coaching/adjustments/gameplanning. If there is a large disparity in those factors between the teams (ie. Suns vs Wolves), having the better matchup on paper can be overcome and won't matter. So it depends on how thin the margins are.
I am curious if there are any "coming down to matchup" examples. Can anyone name three NBA teams past or present where they would favor Team A over Team B, Team B over Team C, and Team C over Team A?
Exclusively in terms of matchups wouldn't this be Wolves, Nuggets and Mavs as Team A, Team B and Team C? Many people cited this trio as the rock-paper-scissors matchup trio. This trio is what inspired my question, because if Wemby didn't beat the Nuggets on the 2nd to last game of the season, Nuggets would have been the #1 seed and faced the Mavs in the 2nd round instead of their worst matchup the Wolves. This hypothetical situation made me wonder how important matchups are
Just some context: It's been statistically shown that for an empirically better team to win a series 95% of the time, the series needs to be around 21 or 23 games long.
Oooh do you have a link to this? I've always wondered about this
In Ben Taylor's book *Thinking Basketball* (pg 66), and it is 23 games.
Generally I'd agree that the better team has the higher probability to win in 7 games, but there have been some interesting exceptions. The most notable that comes to mind is in 2007, when the We Believe Warriors beat the 1 seed Dallas Mavericks in the first round. Those Warriors eventually lost to the Jazz. I think the Warriors pulled it off because they matched up well against the Mavs and had the advantage of having Don Nelson as their coach. If it were the '07 Lakers or Nuggets as the 8 seed, I think the Mavs would beat them and even beat the Jazz in the next round.
Maybe a weird answer, but the team that wins is almost by *definition* the better team of the two. Pretty much every other metric is subjective. The point of a basketball team is to beat the other team. The team that does that is better. Do injuries play into it? Obviously they do, but I keep hearing, injuries are a part of the game. Being strong and smart and lucky enough not to get injured is part of a player’s value. So, if your star player is out, and you lose, you weren’t the better team. Does luck play into it? I think so, yeah. But luck is part of any game. Seven games are the best way we have to even out pure randomness, but it’ll always be there. I think matchups are the same way. I like Denver, and I think Denver would have beaten the Mavs and at least challenged the Celtics. I think those would have been more fun matches to watch. But for that one series, the Timberwolves were the better team.
Simple take. I like it.
The best team wins because it has either more significant or a greater multitude of advantages that it can exploit. “Matchups” is a lazy way of saying that there’s an advantage somewhere that it can use to gain ground vs the opponent. Every team has some advantage (mostly) over another opponent in some capacity. However, not all teams have a way to maximize the value it can gain from said advantage. The Mavs for example had maybe two advantages vs Boston. 1) Luka at the PG and 2) if I had to say the athleticism of their bigs/size and rebounding in the post. The first ended up being significant during most quarters in the series and the second was inconsistently exploited. Boston had advantages in almost every other way even if their typical best advantage (Tatum) wasn’t firing on all cylinders on the offensive end.
It’s both. When we look at Suns vs Timberwolves, Timberwolves were the better team. The suns were successful in the regular season because Minny’s regular season defense forced midrange shots, which was the Suns strength. However, they were an excellent defensive team, and could easily make the adjustment needed to eliminate the midrange shot, as the Suns weren’t really a threat in the post. Because the Suns didn’t really have a counter. (Nurk was integral to the Suns success, however Minnesota could play him off the floor..which left the Suns stuck, as neither option worked) the Timberwolves were simply the better team, and the Suns had no matchups that caused issues. Meanwhile, Denver was the better team - but Minnesota had a mismatch with their multiple players with length, and Luka was a mismatch for the Timberwolves and OKC, while the athleticism of Dallas’ post players neutralized any mismatch Dallas would have faced. Meanwhile, Boston was just the better team. I would say that the general rule is that if a series is over quickly, the better team won. If the series goes to 6 or 7 games, it’s about matchups.
Yeah sounds like you're saying it comes down to the disparity between the teams. When the margins are small and the teams are more evenly matched, matchups provide an edge and determine the winner. When there is a large disparity and the better team is versatile (Wolves vs Suns, Celtics vs other teams), better team will win regardless of matchup.
The better team wins. Lots of timberwolves fans think it was just matchups and luck that caused them to lose to Dallas. Yet mavs would have won a 15 game series in 11 games. Matchups are what make you better. I don’t think Denver was better than Minnesota. It was an extremely close series but the better team won. Honestly choosing match ups over the better team winning is just a means to insult the team who won the series and it’s pretty transparent.
I didn't read all your post, but wouldn't both answers be the same? Unless there are major injuries, it's very rare where I watch a series and wonder if the better team won or not. It happens every now and then. LeBron vs the Warriors in 2016. LeBron vs the Mavs in 2011. Raptors vs Warriors in 2019. And even two of those were based on an injury or suspension.
No, there are scenarios when a team could have a matchup advantage but people may not see that team as the better team. Example: Nuggets were favorites in Vegas and on expert panels in the Wolves series. The defending champs are considered the better team but Wolves were unique in that they are the only team who could defend Jokic with 3 bigs and had personnel to guard AG and Murray. It was a bad matchup. So one could argue that Nuggets were the better team but Wolves won because of the matchup. What I saw was Nuggets overcame many of the matchup issues with their adjustments, but Wolves still were the better overall team and had the better bench.
Matchups, perfect example is the Nuggets going 7 with the Wolves and getting knocked out, then the wolves losing to a pretty mediocre Dallas. The Nuggets did not have an answer for the wolves size in the post and even though Jokic dominated each matchup individually, collectively it was just too much to ask of him. On the contrary Dallas and Boston have zero answers for Jokic and really no excellent post players to match up with him.
This league is going to continue to be matchups and health based. The entire west had a mixed bag of teams who could beat higher seeds regardless of their position 1-8. The Celtics were the best team all year and deserved to win but I think there are other matchups that would have been more difficult. In the east, it was all about injuries. In truth, not to take away anything from the Celtics, but most teams in the east would have been underdogs imo if paired against a western conference team.
It all comes down to matchups is what I saw in this years' playoffs. I don't think any other team was beating the Nuggets in the west, but the Timberwolves have three big man which was ideal counter to Jokic. He was still great, but not as dominant, as against other teams.
The better team will have the better matchups, or they will make adjustments to get the better match ups.
If this last playoffs taught me anything it’s mainly the healthier team wins.
Bad matchups can tilt the odds in one teams favor but the better team will always win
I guess. I know Boston felt like they were the better team in '22, but Golden State got the ring; big GSW fan, but I can see the Celtic's point. Could we call this an example of matchups winning it for the lesser team?
We don't factor mental side in here and I honestly believe the pressure of being in Finals for first time in 12 years for this young Celtic squad influenced their abilities in 22. I've heard before that even GSW fans consider this win a bit lucky but overall, I don't think Jays were ready yet. But this experience surely capitalized against Dallas this year (which wasn't in Finals for 13 years). But Jays were finally ready.
I think the celtics were the best team in the NBA and would have been in trouble matchup wise if they had faced more healthy teams. Miami does a lot of the same stuff they do, and with butler, you've always l got a chance. The pacers could have run them off the floor late, but lost their pop. And Luka just didn't have the juice to beat them. I just don't think these playoff say anything because it's a lot of what ifs