The Nets might seem easy to dismiss, but they are 34-17 since January 1. So they played at a 55 win pace for the last two thirds of the season. I'd say that's much more representative of how good they really are than their poor start in November and December. They also have the personnel to win those low scoring, grind it out playoff games. If I were Indiana or Miami, I'd want absolutely nothing to do with the Nets. The Bulls? Let's be honest here. The Bulls will fight hard every game and make you work for every win. They could probably take Indiana or Miami to 6. Thibs is a great coach and if he were coaching us, we'd probably be in the playoffs right now. But the Bulls are also playing over their heads a little.
Anyway, it's still going to be Indiana vs. Miami, and I'm glad the Pacers have home court for that one. But Brooklyn is easily the third best team in the east. I mean, when I see people picking the Bulls over the Pacers but saying Miami will cruise past the Nets - I think that's unrealistic. I think if it were the other way around, and it were IND-BRK and MIA-CHI, people here would be picking Brooklyn to beat Indiana and Miami to cruise past Chicago. In other words I'm saying that I think people here are letting pessimism determine their picks: Miami will cruise and Indiana will somehow be upset, for no reason other than "shit happens".
Meanwhile in the west it looks like every team will be at least a 50 game winner. Imagine if Miami had to go through teams like Golden State and Memphis in the first round every year, and teams like the Clippers in the second round. Then someone like OKC/Spurs not in the NBA finals but just the conference finals. I'm not saying they can't beat those teams, but it's so much harder when you have to go through 3 in a row as opposed to playing just one good team (if that) in the east every year. Honestly, I doubt they make the finals once if they had formed in the west. Definitely no more than once though.
