Regular season outcomes can involve injuries, game prep times and travel schedules. Im not doing research to support an argument that is pretty well known throughout sports.
If we were back in 2014, I would definitely favor a trio of Dame, LA, and Wes over a young Harden, ego driven Dwight, and Chandler freakin Parsons
So totally disregard beating Portland 3-1 in the regular season in 2014 with a guy so many people on this site have claimed is a top 3 player in the NBA? Got it...
I think your opinion would be the minority opinion. I'll give you a few examples: Dirk's 2007 MVP season. Mavericks won 67 games (most in the league) and lost in the playoffs to the Warriors. In the regular season, the Warriors won all 3 matchups by margins of 3 points, 17 points, and 29 points. 2 convincing wins and a close win. Lebron's 2009 MVP season. Cavaliers won 66 games (most in the league) and lost in the playoffs to Orlando. In the regular season, Orlando won 2 (by 11 and 29 points) of the 3 matchups. Their loss was by 4 points. 2 convincing wins and a close loss.
Uh huh. And what about the 1995 Houston Rockets who were 1-5 against San Antonio in the regular season? Or 0-2 against Orlando? See how petty and stupid your argument is?
The 1995 Rockets made a huge midseason trade, and afterwards, it took them months to gel as a team. That's common knowledge.
Ohhhh I see. So regular season records arent important cause of chemistry. Cant have it both ways homie
Yes you are correct playoffs are about matchups, I just said that over a hour ago at 2:12pm to you. Now it's finally clicking for you!
Here is another fun one for you. 2004 Pistons. One of my favorite teams. 1-3 against Indiana in the regular season. Beat them 4-2 in the ECF
Bro of course regular season is not the end all be all for playoff success just ask James Harden. But it will give you a feel for how the team plays and what they like to do. A team is not going to totally change up their whole identity from the regular season to playoffs. And yes obviously the coach is going to add some offensive and defensive wrinkles.
Look at the margin of losses. 2 pts, 5 pts, and 12 points. 2 close losses and a convincing loss. That doesn't prove your point. It's like with the 2014 Nets. In the regular season, they swept Miami, but in the post season, they lost to Miami. However, in the 4 regular season games, they won by 1 pt, 1 pt, and 1 pt. And the 4th game went into double overtime. To prove your point, you'd need to find a team that lost convincingly in multiple games in the regular season and then won in the postseason without injuries/trades playing a role.
That's funny, given that statistically he's not even the best shooter in his own family. (Seth Curry led the league in 3 pt shooting).
My point is your argument is petty asf. Every sports fan knows regular season outcomes are determined by a variety of factors and the most important thing in the postseason (especially the NBA) are positional matchups and coaching. I guarantee you whatever playoff series u pull out your ass next involved a great coach winning that series. Don Nelson and GSW is a perfect example since he knew that Dallas team in and out (helped build it)
And these exist in their regular season matchups, too. That's why consistent, convincing wins in the regular season is a good indicator of success in the playoffs (versus the same team assuming the same circumstances). My point may be petty, but your point is wrong. There's no need to be salty about it.
None of those teams had 2 MVPS. 2 top 5 players in their prime on the same team. As good as Shaq and Penny were, Penny was not a top 5 player. Neither was Wade at the time. There are lots of stack teams on paper but no team ever fit as well together as those Warriors. They had shooter like no other. Its hard to beat a team that shoot soo well from three. Sure Hakeem beat those magic, but would he have won if Clyde went down with an injury? I still believe we win if CP3 was healthy.
