Our NBA experts answer the big questions and make bold predictions after Game 2.

A. The Cavs can get back into the series.

B. The Warriors are in complete control.

Jackie MacMullan, ESPN.com: I think both statements are true. The Golden State Warriors re-established their mojo in Game 2 by sharing the ball, which led to easy baskets, and being far more engaged on the defensive end of the floor. When they play like that — and Steph shoots 3s from the Oracle parking lot — Golden State simply does not lose. But don't forget the Cavs nearly stole Game 1.

Their role players will perform better at home. And there is still no evidence that Golden State has any idea how to stop LeBron. There is also one thing we know about the Warriors: They get careless. Happens every four games or so. They just can't seem to help it.

Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: A. Contrary to popular opinion, a series doesactually start before a team wins on the road, but two games in Cleveland where the Cavs have won eight straight gives them plenty of opportunity to scratch back. If nothing else, the first two games in Oakland exposed some vulnerabilities. The Warriors are simply not as deep or as disciplined as they've been in past years.

Jeremias Engelmann, ESPN Insider: A. though Las Vegas gives bettors 15-1 odds for Cleveland to win the series, and the Cavs are 5-point underdogs for Game 3 at home. I do believe they can pick themselves up one more time to win at least one of the two upcoming games. But even if they tie up the series, the Warriors will be clear favorites to win it all.

Dave McMenamin, ESPN.com: A. The Cavs are a whopping 19-for-64 from 3 so far in the series (29.7 percent). Is some of that because of the Warriors' closeouts? Sure. But that's the type of stat that will ascend toward the mean back in Cleveland. And can we really say Golden State is in complete control when LeBron is averaging 40 points on 55.8 percent shooting, 10.5 assists and 8.5 rebounds so far?

Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: B, if forced to choose. We've seen (in Game 1) how Cleveland can be competitive, and the Cavaliers should derive some boost from returning home. I'm also cognizant of how we wondered in 2016 whether we'd be back in Oakland for a Game 5 (yes, and a Game 7) and the Warriors' tendency to coast. But overall, through two games this looks more like a mismatch than a series likely to turn.

Arnovitz: Provided there isn't a Warriors performer who's within an arm's reach of LeBron, then sure. Apart from the appealing pageantry of Bill Russell presenting the trophy on a confetti-covered riser to a beaming star from the winning team wearing an NBA champs ballcap and T-shirt, there's really no good reason why the most productive player in the series shouldn't be rewarded accordingly.

McMenamin: Yes, if only to see how the trophy presentation goes down. Maybe Jerry West can be invited to fill in for Bill Russell to hand over the hardware and give James a knowing pat on the back. But in all seriousness, we've seen two competitive basketball games (for the most part) because of one person showing his capabilities in all aspects of the sport to give his team a fighting chance.

Pelton: Absolutely. I made this case in 2015, and I still believe it just as strongly. The idea that the MVP of a Finals/World Series/Super Bowl has to come from the winning team is a relatively recent convention and one we could stand to change.

Engelmann: If he clearly is the best player and Cleveland manages to win at least one game, then yes. As of right now, though, I don't think the gap between LeBron (averaging 40/10/8.5 with five turnovers per game) and Curry (31/8.5/6.5 with only 2.5 turnovers) is large enough.

MacMullan: Yes — if LeBron is clearly the best player in the series. With a minimum of two more games to play, that remains to be seen. He is carrying a heavy load, particularly on the offensive end of the floor, but there were spurts in Game 2 in which he failed to hustle back defensively when Golden State was in transition.

Was he saving energy or exhibiting a hint of the frustration of futility? Fair or not, when LeBron is passive, or tired, or perturbed, that vibe permeates his huddle. Likewise, when he's fully engaged and driving to the hole full throttle, he electrifies his guys. LeBron really should holler at Jerry West, the only Finals MVP of a losing team. Misery loves company.

Pelton: Stephen Curry made a persuasive case in the second half of Game 2. I don't think he's got a decisive edge over Kevin Durant yet, and a wild-card candidate could yet emerge, but for now Curry is — in a cliche the golf nut would surely appreciate — the leader in the clubhouse.

MacMullan: At this exact moment, I'm leaning toward the wispy, baby-faced (even with the beard!) kid who looks like he's having so much more fun than everyone else. Remember when people were actually concerned about Steph Curry's long-range shooting? Ha! Curry has hit big shots in big moments of these Finals, and his in-game swagger is a reminder to all that he may look like a high school AAU baller, but he's really a two-time MVP with an edge.

Arnovitz: Stephen Curry. Assuming he can turn in another couple of performances like the two he has already exhibited, it's his turn.

McMenamin: Steph Curry. He led the Warriors in fourth-quarter scoring with eight points in Game 1 and doubled that with 16 in the fourth quarter in Game 2 (including 5-for-5 from 3). And his 31 points, 8.5 assists and 6.5 rebounds per game is certainly gaudy enough to stand up against most Finals MVPs in league history.

Engelmann: In a world where defense is valued equally to offense, Draymond Green would have a shot. The number of plays he disrupts and the number of shots he contests is mind-boggling. His per-game averages of 9.5 rebounds, 8.0 assists, 2.5 steals and 1.5 blocks with only one turnover also look great — if only he didn't average fewer than 10 PPG. Unfortunately for Draymond, points per game tends to be the most important stat when it comes to Finals MVP voting, so it's more likely that Curry or Durant will get the award.