* * *
Cavs or Warriors? Who wins this series and in how many games?
* * *
Steve Aschburner: This was a no-brainer for me, if only because I didn’t have to think about it here. I went on the record in our Finals preview with my pick and can’t very well change now without seeming more like a politician than a prognosticator. I’m seeing Warriors in five games, in basically a repeat of last June’s outcome. To me, the relative gap between Golden State and Cleveland hasn’t changed, having four All-Stars is better than two, and too many Cavaliers will be dipping their toes into Finals water for the first time.
Shaun Powell: The Cavs only took one game from the Warriors last year with Kyrie Irving. Now there’s no Irving, so … Let’s give LeBron a little more respect this year and say he’s good for a game without Kyrie. Same result, though. Warriors in five.
John Schuhmann: Calling Warriors in 5 (again) is too easy and should be forbidden to make these prediction things interesting. So… Warriors in four. They’re the better team on both ends of the floor, they’ve had the best defense in the playoffs (with multiple guys who can make things as tough as possible on LeBron James), and they’ll have a much easier time offensively against the Cleveland defense than they did against that of the Rockets. I’ve been wrong before and Warriors in 5 is probably the best way to go, but what’s the fun in that?
Sekou Smith: Warriors in five. I know, I know, I’m not exactly living on the edge with this pick. But I see no pathway for the Cavaliers to pull off this upset, not even with LeBron playing at his zenith at 33 and 15 years into his career. There is not enough help, healthy or otherwise, on hand to assist LeBron with the heavy lifting against a team like the Warriors. That said, I’m going to enjoy every single dramatic moment of this series. Because I expect the competition to be fierce, when possible. And when you have two teams that know each other as well as these guys do, there has to be a little extra juice in play for both sides.
* * *
