NBA Finals: OKC v Indiana

[Inyatkin]

A team is what its record says it is. There is no way that the Pacers win the East if Cavaliers, Celtics and Bucks stay healthy and fresh. They barely got by an average Knicks team. The Pacers got some breaks in this playoff.

Breaks happen in tournaments. This is a UConn board, so we know that better than anyone. Tyus Edny takes one step left or right in his coast to coast drive against Missouri in 1995, or Donyell hits either free throw against Florida in 1994, and Calhoun wins his first title one or both of those years. Brimah doesn’t make a 3 point play against St. Joe’s in 2014, or the AZ 3 attempt in the 2011 Regional Final is 2 inches more on target, or Coach K manages his front court better against us in 2004, and any or all of those championships go away.

The 2004 Pistons are the closest comparable, but that team was really strong in the regular season. Siakam is the only likely Hall of Famer on this team, and he is not a lock. There are no generational superstars like other upset teams have had, like the 1995 Rockets.

You keep talking about the Bucks, a team with one great player and an entire roster of below-average talent. That team was going nowhere.
The Celtics had some injuries, but that's not why they lost. Cleveland was hurt, too, but the Pacers ran them out of that series.
I know you've planted your flag on "the Pacers are just ok" and will stick with it no matter what, but we have many months of basketball that prove otherwise.

 

[Waquoit]

If the NBA really wants to fix the ratings, it has to stop all the favoritism. Indiana has pushed this to 7 despite the league working against them.

People on this board have said that this Finals match-up would have never happened under David Stern's watch. Pretty much everyone nodded. How do you think he would have made that happen? Or better, how did he influence the outcomes in the past? And what's wrong with the ratings? Has it affected the purchase price of franchises? The amount the NBA gets from the massive new TV rights deal?

 

[Waquoit]

I think you’re selling Indiana a bit short with your “ok” evaluation. They may have been during the regular season but they’re playing better than ok now. Nice mix of talent. They’re not one of the great finals teams but ok isn’t fair.

I'm not sure I buy it either. Teams do have peaks and valleys. I thought they looked great in last seasons NBA Cup. Then they fell off my radar. But the last few months they've been totally legit. That means more than the dog days of a long season, imo.

 

[BigTenFan]

Most 'experts' predicted OKC to sweep .
Guess Indiana got lucky with the three wins

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You keep talking about the Bucks, a team with one great player and an entire roster of below-average talent. That team was going nowhere.
The Celtics had some injuries, but that's not why they lost. Cleveland was hurt, too, but the Pacers ran them out of that series.
I know you've planted your flag on "the Pacers are just ok" and will stick with it no matter what, but we have many months of basketball that prove otherwise.

If the Pacers were so obviously good, someone on this board must have predicted them to make and be a game from winning the NBA finals in October. Or January. Or March. Anyone have a link to such a prediction?

This board could hold a clinic in after-the-fact “I told you so” when no one told anyone so.

If the 50 win Pacers beat a 68 win team in the NBA Finals, they will be one of the, if not the most, improbable NBA champions in 45+ years. That is not a controversial statement.

 

[gsmooth]

I gave up my fandom for any specific teams in the NBA years ago. I reserve my insanity for Uconn only. It allows me to fall in love with whatever good, fun basketball I'm seeing. Recently its been the Celtics, Knicks, Pacers, OKC, Denver and the Spurs. This years playoffs and these two teams in the finals have been incredible. Hopefully they usher in a new era of NBA basketball of team first, high energy, all out basketball. Like the concept in Soccer, Total Football, - Total Basketball.

That is how I am, too. I don't really have a favorite NBA team. I guess if I had to choose it would be the NY Knicks, Brooklyn Nets, and Boston Celtics. The Knicks and Nets because I was born in Brooklyn and my roots and family origins are from NYC and the Celtics because I live here in Boston. Also, the Knicks being a consistent perennial playoff team and possible threat to win it all is great for basketball and the NBA. MSG being loud and raucous makes for great entertainment.

My fandom and insanity is reserved for UConn.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

If the Pacers were so obviously good, someone on this board must have predicted them to make and be a game from winning the NBA finals in October. Or January. Or March. Anyone have a link to such a prediction?

This board could hold a clinic in after-the-fact “I told you so” when no one told anyone so.

If the 50 win Pacers beat a 68 win team in the NBA Finals, they will be one of the, if not the most, improbable NBA champions in 45+ years. That is not a controversial statement.

This is genuinely such a stupid argument. “If they were so good someone would have predicted this”. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are, CURRENTLY, very good. Yes it would be a huge upset, that doesn’t lead into your silly opinion that they are “just okay”.

Stop dying on stupid hills.

 

[gsmooth]

Pressure is on Daigneault. OKC is really good and Indiana is just ok and has injuries. This would be a really bad loss for him.

What are the biggest upsets in NBA finals history? Detroit 2004 was a legitimate upset although the teams were close in the regular season. I don’t count the 2006 Heat or Cavaliers as significant upsets because both teams were very good and had generational superstars. Mavericks win was kind of an upset, although much of that turned out to be sandbagging by Carlisle, Dirk and Kidd in interviews.

OKC won 18 more games than Indiana, and it wasn’t like Indiana was missing a star for extended stretches or didn’t care about the regular season like Shaq or Hakeem used to do in their prime. Indiana needed every win it got. Its 50-32 regular season record is reflective of the above average, but nothing more, team that Indiana is. Indiana is only in the finals because Cleveland and Boston were gutted by injuries and Milwaukee has a lousy coach and was gutted by injuries.

There is no close comparable in NBA history for the level of upset this would be if Indiana wins.

to be fair, Nelson, even though Haliburton played 73 out of 82 regular season games, he was injured in the first few months of the season with hamstring and leg issues and it was affecting his play. The Pacers started the season poorly, but since January 1st, 2025, the Pacers and Thunder have the best regular season record in the NBA.

But, yes, you are correct in that if the Pacers win game 7, this would be considered to be among the greater upsets in sports history. Where it would rank among them, I don't know.

 

[gsmooth]

SGA takes are so weird. He gets fouled all the time because no one can stop him. He does make contact on offense but the idea he pushes off on every play is absurd. The Harden stuff was about jumping into defenders on threes, something they had to rewrite the rulebook to stop. We really think the refs are in the tank for a guy from OKC?

The Harden stuff was also about hooking defenders arms and then going up for a shot and flailing to get the calls and go to the FT line. Harden is a very good player with great skills, but I did not always find him to be an entertaining watch.

 

[superjohn]

CardiacAndre: I agree this would be a huge upset.
Also CardiacAndre: You are stupid for saying this would be a huge upset.

Posters like you have turned "dying on a hill" into a cliche with your gross misuse and overuse of the phrase.

Waylon flops even more than Gilgeous-Alexander.

 

[aceboon]

CardiacAndre: I agree this would be a huge upset.
Also CardiacAndre: You are stupid for saying this would be a huge upset.

Posters like you have turned "dying on a hill" into a cliche with your gross misuse and overuse of the phrase.

Nobody is disagreeing that it would be a huge upset, the disagreement is with you acting like the Pacers are just some ok team that is lucky to be there. They literally have the 2nd best record in the league after January 1st, they've been a very good team for awhile now after a rough start.

 

[HooperScooper]

Nobody is disagreeing that it would be a huge upset, the disagreement is with you acting like the Pacers are just some ok team that is lucky to be there. They literally have the 2nd best record in the league after January 1st, they've been a very good team for awhile now after a rough start.

Nobody tries to defend and hold on forever to a bad take like nelsonmuntz. Not even worth arguing with him.

 

[UConn990411]

Agreed. Harden manipulating calls is still ok, but was far more obnoxious and boring than anything SGA does. He’s just really crafty. I am not sure why that gets HIM vitriol.

SGA does some foul baiting nonsense that’s frustrating to watch but a) it’s nowhere near as bad as prime Harden, and b) the criticism is largely misplaced at him rather than NBA officials continuing to give him those calls.

If the refs simply stopped making those calls, the players would adjust within weeks.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Nobody is disagreeing that it would be a huge upset, the disagreement is with you acting like the Pacers are just some ok team that is lucky to be there. They literally have the 2nd best record in the league after January 1st, they've been a very good team for awhile now after a rough start.

OMG, you are RIGHT!!!! And they are 50-0 if you look at all the dates where they won!!!

Why pick Jan 1? Because Indiana lost 3 of 4 right before that against OKC, Boston x2, Milwaukee (i.e. "good teams")

Have you looked at the late run where they went 7-1?

Sacramento
Charlotte
Utah
Denver (no Murray)
Washington
Cleveland (no Garland, starters on reduced minutes)
Loss to Orlando
Cleveland (no Garland, starters barely played)

Between Jan 1 and March 29, Pacers went 27-13, which is pretty good, with a whole 11 wins over teams with winning records. In other words, the Pacers played the easy part of their schedule and did fairly well, like an above average team.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

I

SGA does some foul baiting nonsense that’s frustrating to watch but a) it’s nowhere near as bad as prime Harden, and b) the criticism is largely misplaced at him rather than NBA officials continuing to give him those calls.

If the refs simply stopped making those calls, the players would adjust within weeks.

I’ve always said this. Fix the way the refs call it, every great player, literally ever, has taken advantage of loopholes or bad rules. Blaming the player for putting his team in better positions to win is pretty hilarious.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

OMG, you are RIGHT!!!! And they are 50-0 if you look at all the dates where they won!!!

Why pick Jan 1? Because Indiana lost 3 of 4 right before that against OKC, Boston x2, Milwaukee (i.e. "good teams")

Have you looked at the late run where they went 7-1?

Sacramento
Charlotte
Utah
Denver (no Murray)
Washington
Cleveland (no Garland, starters on reduced minutes)
Loss to Orlando
Cleveland (no Garland, starters barely played)

Between Jan 1 and March 29, Pacers went 27-13, which is pretty good, with a whole 11 wins over teams with winning records. In other words, the Pacers played the easy part of their schedule and did fairly well, like an above average team.

You’re insufferable

 

[aceboon]

OMG, you are RIGHT!!!! And they are 50-0 if you look at all the dates where they won!!!

Why pick Jan 1? Because Indiana lost 3 of 4 right before that against OKC, Boston x2, Milwaukee (i.e. "good teams")

Have you looked at the late run where they went 7-1?

Sacramento
Charlotte
Utah
Denver (no Murray)
Washington
Cleveland (no Garland, starters on reduced minutes)
Loss to Orlando
Cleveland (no Garland, starters barely played)

Between Jan 1 and March 29, Pacers went 27-13, which is pretty good, with a whole 11 wins over teams with winning records. In other words, the Pacers played the easy part of their schedule and did fairly well, like an above average team.

I know your teachers let out a heavy sigh when you raised your hand in class

 

[controlfade]

If the Pacers were so obviously good, someone on this board must have predicted them to make and be a game from winning the NBA finals in October. Or January. Or March. Anyone have a link to such a prediction?

This board could hold a clinic in after-the-fact “I told you so” when no one told anyone so.

If the 50 win Pacers beat a 68 win team in the NBA Finals, they will be one of the, if not the most, improbable NBA champions in 45+ years. That is not a controversial statement.

The Pacers have been a top 3-4 team since December. Anyone who didn’t give them a chance after watching them throttle Cleveland and the Knicks were nuts.
I will not stand here and say I was confident they would beat OKC but I was pretty certain they would make it a series.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Nobody tries to defend and hold on forever to a bad take like nelsonmuntz. Not even worth arguing with him.

There is not a single poster on this board, nor a sportswriter outside of the state of Indiana, that predicted anything out of the Pacers at any point this season. The Pacers were HUGE underdogs (+375) against the Cavaliers heading into that series. But since it was so obvious to you that the Pacers were a super team, you must have made a killing on the Cavs series.

 

[Matrim55]

There is not a single poster on this board, nor a sportswriter outside of the state of Indiana, that predicted anything out of the Pacers at any point this season. The Pacers were HUGE underdogs (+375) against the Cavaliers heading into that series. But since it was so obvious to you that the Pacers were a super team, you must have made a killing on the Cavs series.

1. Celtics fans have been warning everybody for a year.
2. Lowe & Simmons were both high on the Pacers entering the playoffs.
3. I did, in fact, make a ****ing killing on the Cavs series.

 

[Waquoit]

Nobody tries to defend and hold on forever to a bad take like nelsonmuntz. Not even worth arguing with him.

I dunno. I thought of a couple more immediately.

 

[Waquoit]

Nobody tries to defend and hold on forever to a bad take like nelsonmuntz. Not even worth arguing with him.

There is not a single poster on this board, nor a sportswriter outside of the state of Indiana, that predicted anything out of the Pacers at any point this season. The Pacers were HUGE underdogs (+375) against the Cavaliers heading into that series. But since it was so obvious to you that the Pacers were a super team, you must have made a killing on the Cavs series.

This exchange gave me a chuckle.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

1. Celtics fans have been warning everybody for a year.
2. Lowe & Simmons were both high on the Pacers entering the playoffs.
3. I did, in fact, make a ****ing killing on the Cavs series.

The same Bill Simmons that said it would be a huge calamity if OKC lost this series after having one of the greatest seasons of all time?

 

[HooperScooper]

There is not a single poster on this board, nor a sportswriter outside of the state of Indiana, that predicted anything out of the Pacers at any point this season. The Pacers were HUGE underdogs (+375) against the Cavaliers heading into that series. But since it was so obvious to you that the Pacers were a super team, you must have made a killing on the Cavs series.

"Not even worth arguing with him."

 

[Waquoit]

The same Bill Simmons that said it would be a huge calamity if OKC lost this series after having one of the greatest seasons of all time?

So you're more of a Presidents Trophy guy than a championship fan? And it wasn't a calamity when the Pats lost to the Gints? I beg to differ. "Greatest regular season of all-time" is a term of derision. Touting "one of the greatest seasons of all time" is #1 in Final AP Poll banner-level. Especially after all your posts shading the Pacers.