Rockets, Wizards almost certainly would've tested Cavs, Warriors more than this

No one's beating Golden State or Cleveland, but maybe the competition could have been legitimate

The Warriors and Cavaliers were always going to meet in the Finals. 

We knew this last June when the buzzer sounded on Game 7. We knew this in July when Kevin Durant signed with Golden State. We knew it in preseason. We knew it on Christmas, at the trade deadline, at the end of the season, and going into the conference finals. None of this is surprising. Whether that's good or bad, it's the truth. That the Spurs have offered up so little fight after Kawhi Leonard went down, or that the Celtics have been straight-up embarrassed in their series vs. the Cavaliers, it doesn't really matter. You're just talking about the difference in how competitive it is, not the end result. 

Except, that difference is important. Even if you know who the two best teams are, you still want competitive, compelling basketball in the path to get there. You want people to be able to argue about who will come out of the conference, and if the underdog really has a shot. You want some level of drama, and for the best team to win. That's the ideal NBA playoffs: super-competitive seven-game series resulting in the two best teams in the league facing off in the Finals. 

These playoffs... have not been that. And these conference finals certainly have not been. 

And so we're left to wonder: would we have been better off with the Rockets and Wizards? 

The Warriors went up 3-0 on the Spurs Saturday night with a 120-108 victory in Game 3. The Spurs put up a fight, kind of, but at no point did you ever think the Spurs were really going to win that game. Even when the Spurs led, it felt like an adorable push from a massively overwhelmed team trying to make the best of things in a bad situation. 

Let's go ahead and get the elephant in the room and shove him out the door. Yes, Kawhi Leonard is hurt. (Tony Parker, too. And David Lee went down in Game 3 as if things weren't bad enough.) And yes, they were up 20 points when Leonard went down in Game 1. If you want to extrapolate that out, and say that the Spurs would have won, that this one player, as great as he is, changes absolutely everything in a seven-game series, then fine. I can respect that. I understand it. It's an easy conclusion to reach. 

But consider this: When Leonard is out, you look at the Spurs' roster, and you're overwhelmed by the uninspiring, unimpressive set of weapons that the Spurs bring to the table. Leonard makes the other Spurs better, for sure. He contains on the perimeter, he make tough shots constantly. He's masterful. But without him? LaMarcus Aldridge clanging mid-range jumpers? Patty Mills getting devoured by bigger defenders? Danny Green, a great player and spot-up shooter trying to create on his own? 

Jonathon Simmons has been the best player in this series for the Spurs. 

They don't have enough weapons. 

Now, the Rockets lost in humiliating fashion to the Spurs once Leonard went down. After all, how do you lose when the best player on the other team goes down? But consider how much everything changes in a player's mind when that happens. You have a lineup, a rotation, a game plan. The best player goes down, and the dynamics change. Role players go harder, without abandon, desperate to rally for their fallen teammate. It's not an advantage, but it opens the door for an advantage. Look at LaMarcus Aldridge and Pau Gasol, not just in this series, but in every game of the playoffs outside of the Rockets series Games 5 and 6. Look at Manu Ginobili in any game where Leonard plays vs. the ones where he's out and he knows he has to step up.

Which is the "real" Spurs? 

The Rockets, meanwhile, had shooters everywhere. They had players who could create like Eric Gordon and Pat Beverley, finishers and long defenders. They had younger players, and could go small. They could get into a shootout and have a hope of winning. 

They didn't beat the Spurs, and for that, they deserve mockery. But it's not inconceivable or against logic to suggest that the Rockets might have pushed the Warriors more. 

Playoffs are about matchups. The best team usually wins, but not always, based on matchups. And the Spurs don't have the weapons to match up with the Warriors. The Rockets didn't have the gameplan to beat the Spurs, when Jonathon Simmons became LeBron and all their 3s stopped falling. That's a credit to how great the Spurs' coaching and discipline are, but it's also not ridiculous to suggest that the Rockets might have been able to provide at least an entertaining series vs. Golden State. It's two different matchups.  

Now, maybe Kawhi Leonard comes back in Game 4, the Spurs win, they stage an epic comeback, and it turns out the Spurs really are that great. But it's hard to see this 3-0 beatdown, even with Leonard out, and imagine that the Rockets, with substantially more firepower, might have provided if nothing else a more entertaining series. 

In the East, the same situation has played out. Boston showed tremendous heart and toughness in beating the Wizards, in part behind Al Horford shooting 58 percent from deep in the playoffs before crashing back to the earthy mean in the conference finals, while Kelly Olynyk had the game of his life in Game 7. Those aren't flukes, those are good players on a really good team. 

But the Celtics don't have a lot of weapons. Just like with the Spurs, their best player, Isaiah Thomas, is now out, and Thomas had struggled in these playoffs anyway, shooting 42 percent from the field. They have no threats that challenge the Cavs, and are overwhelmed by the Cavs' intensity and physicality. 

Were the Wizards going to beat the Cavs? Of course not. Their bench units would have been run of the floor, across the country, and into the deepest recesses of the ocean. Maybe it would have been a sweep. But the Wizards would've also brought John Wall and Bradley Beal. They have physicality and some size with Marcin Gortat and Ian Mahinmi. They didn't have the consistency or effort to beat the Celtics, and because of that, they deserve criticism, even in a seven-game loss. 

But to perform better than the Celtics have vs. Cleveland, the Wizards literally had to just not suffer the worst playoff loss in their franchise history, as the Celtics did in Game 2, a game they trailed at one point by 50. Not exactly an Olympic hurdle they had to clear. 

We're left wondering what if? We're getting the Finals we all wanted, but maybe we could have gotten that with some degree of competitive basketball and entertainment, rather than the depressing going-through of the motions we're being forced to endure in these conference finals. 

Could have. 

Would have. 

Should have.