A potential NBA Finals matchup is in sight, as both the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Indiana Pacers have taken 3-1 leads in the conference finals.
The Thunder will have an opportunity to close out the Minnesota Timberwolves on the road Wednesday, while the Pacers will try to eliminate the New York Knicks in Madison Square Garden on Thursday.
With both series reaching a critical point, let’s break down what we’ve seen in the conference finals so far.
Which team has been more impressive so far in the playoffs, the Thunder or the Pacers?
Nadkarni: The Pacers have been more impressive because their road has been a little more difficult than the Thunder’s. Indiana had to knock out an MVP finalist and former champion in Giannis Antetokounmpo and the Milwaukee Bucks in the first round, then upset the No. 1-seeded Cleveland Cavaliers in the second, and is now flustering a Knicks team that made swift work of the defending champion Boston Celtics. And the Pacers aren’t squeaking by these teams — they’ve either dominated large stretches of play or pulled off miraculous late-game comebacks.
OKC has cruised in the first and third rounds, but the Thunder were also pushed to the brink by a Nuggets team that had maybe three reliable players and a bunch of wild cards. That may speak more to the greatness of Nikola Jokic, but Indy hasn’t been tested in that fashion … yet.
Greif: Indiana is on the verge of the NBA Finals by taking the path of most resistance, given the ridiculously high degree of difficulty of victories against Milwaukee, Cleveland and New York. There is nothing to take away from its transformation into one of the best “clutch” teams in postseason history.
Oklahoma City’s own growth might not be as obvious, but it’s just as impressive because of its nuances. A team whose top-10 players in the postseason average 24.6 years old feels like it’s maturing nightly. It was an impressive feat of focus when Oklahoma City sustained its No. 1-seed caliber level of play since the fall, something with which teams this young can struggle.
But there was no guarantee that dominance would translate to the postseason, especially after enduring growing pains last year at this time. So far, they’ve proven they can dominate (see Memphis in the first round), stay composed in a seven-game series (Denver) and grab control of the Western finals when Minnesota has given them an opening.
Is Tyrese Haliburton a top 10 player in the NBA?
Nadkarni: No, but it doesn’t matter. Are there 10 players who I think have better individual talent than Haliburton? Yes. Does that mean he can’t be the best player on a championship team? The answer appears to be no.
The ultimate point here is Haliburton doesn’t need to be anything more than what he’s been during this playoff run — an elite table-setting point guard who can score when needed, play good-enough defense and generate offense in clutch time. Labels like “Top 10” and “superstar” are irrelevant to what we’re watching.
Calling Haliburton a superstar won’t magically change the Pacers into some juggernaut. What we’re watching is a team with a unique talent in Haliburton that’s been built perfectly around him and coached to amplify the roster’s strengths. It’s not necessarily a replicable formula for everyone, but all that matters is it’s working for Indy.
Greif: You could ask 100 NBA awards voters how they define a “top-10 player” and you might receive 100 different answers. If you’re looking to quite literally count out the best players, the annual All-NBA teams are a helpful guide, and by that metric Haliburton, a third-team honoree, is at least top-15.
But here is my definition: Could they be the best player on a legitimate championship team? What last year’s run to the Eastern Conference finals first indicated, and what this year’s postseason has confirmed, is that Haliburton more than meets that criteria. He’s efficient with the ball (only six turnovers through four games of the conference finals), makes his teammates better and isn’t scared by pressure.
Having spent a little time around Haliburton, it seems like he’s gotten this way through a rare blend of extreme self-confidence and self-criticism. He has called his start to this season “trash,” and came back from Indiana’s collapse loss in Game 3 to New York aware of where he needed to be better. In Game 4, he became the first player with at least 30 points, 15 assists and zero turnovers in the postseason. Looks like a top-10 player to me.
Which team has been more disappointing in the conference finals, the Timberwolves or the Knicks?
Nadkarni: The Knicks have to be the answer here. New York upset a Celtics team that very few predicted, even after they went up 2-0 in the series. For New York to come off such a stirring victory and then lose two straight home games to start the conference finals was shocking.
At various points against the Pacers, the Knicks have looked lost defensively, and it’s late in the season for coach Tom Thibodeau to be experimenting with his bench, but he’s been left no choice as he tries to find answers for the Pacers’ pace. Perhaps the most disappointing part is this series could be tied 2-2 if not for New York blowing Game 1 in historic fashion.
Greif: New York, because while Minnesota gives off the air of a team at the beginning of something — it’s still trying to plot out which pieces fit best for the future around Anthony Edwards — the Knicks sold off much of their future, both in cap space and draft assets, to commit to taking advantage of this present opportunity.
This isn’t to say the end of New York’s title-contention window is here, but it’s fair to say, given their stars’ age, that they’re closer to the end of it than the beginning. The wrenching part for New York is that the moves were defensible because this team has shown toughness during the postseason while beating Detroit and stunning Boston. But if the Knicks lose, they will face difficult questions about why they weren’t good enough in losing to Indiana in consecutive postseasons.
Which team has a better chance to come back, the Timberwolves or the Knicks?
Nadkarni: As disappointing as they’ve been … the Knicks! Every one of their losses against Indy has been close. New York could somehow just as easily be up 3-1 if not for a few unlucky bounces in the fourth quarter. And with two more games at home, the Knicks should theoretically get a boost from the MSG faithful, even as they’ve struggled in New York during this postseason run. The Knicks are definitely on the ropes, but these games have been too close to write New York off.
Greif: New York. Facing Oklahoma City must feel like playing a disciplined machine that makes the right moves virtually all of the time. I don’t like Minnesota’s chances against that. In contrast, there is more variability to Indiana’s style and room for opportunity; just look at the final minutes of Game 3 during the Knicks’ comeback win after trailing by double digits, and the final minutes of Tuesday’s Game 4, when the Pacers introduced more doubt after seeing their lead trimmed from 13 to just 6. Indiana held on, but its control over the series doesn’t feel like a vise grip to the same extent as Oklahoma City’s.
The post Knicks and Timberwolves are fighting for their playoff lives appeared first on NBC News.
