The Boston Celtics and the Oklahoma City Thunder are the clear-cut favorites to meet in the NBA Finals.
NBA betting odds from FanDuel sportsbook suggest there’s a 33.3 percent chance the pair meet in the Finals. They also give implied chances of 35.7 percent for the Celtics and 33.3 percent for the Thunder to win the NBA championship.
With respect to the Cleveland Cavaliers’ historic season, it’s not hard to understand why FanDuel is just one of many sportsbooks that view the teams in this light. Boston is the defending champion and only lost four games in four playoff series last year, and the Thunder (53-12) are 11 games ahead of the next-closest team in the Western Conference.
On the same day the pair are set to square off in TD Garden, I am going to theorize what would go down in a seven-game series between the two juggernauts.
Here’s what I see happening.
Separating tiers of contenders
Basketball is about creating and exploiting margins. For Boston, that’s centered around taking and making a historic amount of three-pointers per game.
A team such as the Houston Rockets creates its margin by dominating the offensive glass to lead the league in second-chance points.
For the Orlando Magic, the margin is conceding the fewest “wide-open” and third-fewest “open” three-point shots per game.
The bottom line is that there are more than one, or two, or three ways to skin a cat. Margins are created by a coach’s point of emphasis and a specific style that is established to maximize the talents of a particular roster.
Boston and OKC are outliers in that they don’t need to create margins by applying a specific focus to their games. In other words, they don’t force teams to play “their game,” they just dominate every game.
The Thunder are a death knell for the NBA
If boa constrictors could play basketball, they would wear Thunder jerseys.
Mark Daigneault’s crew suffocate the life out of their opponents from every area on the court. Their highly versatile, highly switchable lineup keeps them out of rotation and gives them answers to nearly every question.
The team’s 106.1 defensive rating, 43.6 field goal percentage allowed, and 33.6 three-point percentage allowed are all the best in the league. They also force the most turnovers per game, which they use to lead the league in points off turnovers per game.
The Thunder also lead the NBA in three-point percentage (38.9) since the turn of the year and shored up their weakness on the boards since Chet Holmgren returned to the lineup on Feb. 7. That’s all in addition to leading the league in free-throw percentage (82.8) and having the MVP favorite, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (32.7 PPG, 6.2 APG, 5.1 RPG), at the controls.
The most impressive aspect of the Thunder’s game is their consistent focus. They conceded the fewest open shots, defined as the nearest defender being 4-6 feet away, per game.
That gets interesting when looking at their “wide-open,” or nearest defender at least six feet away, shots allowed. They allowed the 10th-highest percent of these types of shots, yet their 54.6 effective field goal percentage conceded on them is the best in basketball.
For comparison, the league average EFG% is 54.1, and the league average EFG% on wide-open shots is 59.1. That means the Thunder’s defense yields an average-efficiency shot quality on players left wide open.
The takeaway here is they are selective and intelligent with who they sag off. They don’t mind playing the numbers game and daring lesser players to beat them while their opponents’ stars are under lock and key.
The Celtics are the gold standard
As unique as OKC’s version of cat and mouse may appear, the Celtics follow a similar approach. They conceded the seventh-highest wide-open shot frequency, yet they allowed a 59.1 effective field goal percentage on those shots—exactly in line with the league average and outperforming the expectation.
Also like their hypothetical opponent, they allowed the sixth-fewest percentage of “open” shots, including the second-lowest percentage of “open” three-point shots.
Boston also blitzes its opponents at one of the lowest rates in the league. They are content switching one through four or one through five, depending on if Kristaps Porzingis or Al Horford are in the game, and basically never have two players on the ball.
The term “spacing” is often used to describe offense, but Boston’s defensive spacing is beautiful. It was arguably the primary catalyst in helping them beat the Dallas Mavericks in the NBA Finals last year.
The corner three-pointer is the most efficient shot in basketball. Three points are worth 1.5 times as many as two points are, and the corner is closer to the basket than anywhere above the break.
Boston makes a point of taking away corner threes and forcing players to shoot longer, above-the-break threes. That’s why it should come as no surprise that they are fifth in three-point percentage allowed (34.8).
Meanwhile, their ability to space well beyond the three-point line with five shooters helps their long-range assault in a way never before seen in the league. It’s also why they find so much success exploiting mismatches, ranking fourth in points per isolation possession and ninth in points per post-up possession.
A Celtics vs. Thunder Finals series
Here’s how I foresee the defensive matchups in a Celtics vs. Thunder Finals series playing out.
For Boston:
- Jrue Holiday on Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
- Derrick White on Lu Dort
- Jaylen Brown on Jalen Williams
- Kristaps Porzingis on Chet Holmgren
- Jayson Tatum on Isaiah Hartenstein
For Oklahoma City:
- Shai Gilgeous-Alexander on Jrue Holiday
- Chet Holmgren on Derrick White
- Lu Dort on Jayson Tatum
- Jalen Williams on Jaylen Brown
- Isaiah Hartenstein on Kristaps Porzingis
Boston’s minutes with the ball would likely be spent making the bigs, Holmgren and Hartenstein, demonstrate their defensive discipline while straying away from the basket and guarding in space. The Celtics normally start fast but slow down their tempo as games progress, and it would be crucial for them to maintain quick ball movement during these periods.
On the other side, The Thunder would need to find success using their drive-and-kick style to force Boston’s excellent defenders to take an extra step away from their primary assignment, opening up passing lanes or opportunities to crash the offensive glass.
The real battle would be on the three-point line. OKC doesn’t rely on corner threes the way that many high-efficiency teams do, but they would have to abandon their “leave ‘em open” methodology against a five-shooter lineup.
Boston would also have to decide if it would be content going bombs-away against the best three-point defense in the sport. Uncharacteristically large lineups, including combinations with Luke Kornet, could be in play to add size to their pick-and-roll game against the long but shorter Thunder wings.
Who would win a Celtics vs. Thunder Finals?
Professional sports teams have to prove themselves until they don’t. The Celtics find themselves on the “don’t” side thanks to their Finals win a year ago, but the Thunder are firmly in the “have to” group.
OKC is the youngest team in the league with an average age of 24.1 years. That’s close to the same as the youngest team to ever win the NBA Finals, the 1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers, who had an average age of 24.2.
It’s also worth noting that no team with an average age below 26.4 years has won the NBA Finals since 1980.
The Thunder also aren’t a team that was knocking on the door for years like the Celtics were. Their only taste of quasi-championship experience was their 97-81 In-Season Tournament Championship Game loss to the Milwaukee Bucks, who were 5.5-point underdogs at closing.
There are also valid concerns about OKC’s late-game management. Their reliance on Gilgeous-Alexander to not only handle the bulk of their scoring but to get to the free-throw line in moments when referees normally swallow their whistle is a heavy burden to bear.
OKC is 12th in clutch net rating (+4.3) and went 11-8 straight-up in games within five points in the final five minutes. For comparison, the Celtics posted a +8.3 rating and 19-10 record in these situations.
Place this in the context of ESPN’s Brian Windhorst’s Wednesday report that members of Western Conference playoff teams don’t mind being on the same side of the bracket as the Thunder and don’t fear them, and there are points that are still to be proven for the young midwesterners.
My Final Celtics vs. Thunder Finals pick
A Thunder vs. Celtics Finals series would make for great television viewing, but I don’t believe it would be as close as many would like to believe.
I see this hypothetical Finals series as a 4-1 win for the Celtics…4-2 if I’m being generous.
And I’m not. The Thunder will be back but need to take their lumps on the path to becoming champions. Celtics 4-1.
