re: The Cavs can beat the Warriors

Imagine how the Warriors would look without Thompson and Green. In that scenario, do you think the Warriors still win if the Cavs had been healthy? Probably not. Removing two of the most productive players on a team changes everything in basketball. Given the Cavs perceived overachievement due to their injury situation, many people naturally conclude that adding their two missing all-star players to a competitive series would've been enough for them to win. It may be an oversimplification, but it's an easy deduction to make considering how their replacements performed in the series.

By replacing Irving and Love with Dellavedova and Mosgov, you're essentially shrinking the floor and giving away possessions due to a drastically lower team FG% since suddenly no one is open anymore. Obviously Golden State is the last team you'd want to do that against, as many of your misses turn into points on the other end. Mosgov actually played pretty well and gave them a rebounding edge, but Love provides spacing that helps guys like Smith, Shumpert, and Dellavedova get open looks. Their entire purpose on that team was built around this philosophy.

Kyrie's liability on the defensive end wouldn't have offset his impact offensively. Lebron was the only guy who could create his own shot, so Irving's presence would've made a massive difference. Love may have struggled defensively but he spreads the floor, is a good passer, and runs the pick and roll, which would've played a significant role in generating offense. If he's there, Lebron likely isn't driving into Igoudala's chest at the end of the shot clock every possession to force up a bad shot. With those two Lebron doesn't have to take 35 shots a game resulting in tired legs and settle-jumpers. That offense was painfully imbalanced and the Cavs still went up 2-1. Obviously there's no guarantee that the Cavs would've won the series, but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to believe so.