There is no doubt the West is much stronger than the East, but Cleveland's path through the East is actually not much different than Golden State's path through the West.
In the conference finals Cleveland is making quick work of a 6o win Atlanta team, who had a good record against Western opponents, but who has some injuries and is spiraling the drain. Golden State is making quick work of a 56 win Houston team, who had a good record against Western opponents, but who has some injuries and is spiraling the drain. Not much difference here. I know Houston gave Golden State a couple close games, but I can't take them seriously when they are letting Curry take six wide open 3's a night.
In the previous round Cleveland struggled to beat a big, tough, defensive minded Chicago team in 6 games, while Golden State struggled to beat a big, tough, defensive minded Memphis team in six games. I actually think Chicago is the better of these two teams (slightly). Mostly because Rose was putting up 30 in some of the games against Cleveland while Conley had a broken face and was struggling. Also Memphis has no equivalent player to Jimmy Butler.
The only real difference between Golden State's road and Cleveland's road was in the first round where Cleveland played a terrible Celtics team that really had no business in the playoffs and Golden State had to play Anthony Davis. But does anybody actually think New Orleans would have beat Cleveland? The truth is Cleveland would have come out of the West just as easily as Golden State is going to.
I wish both teams were healthy going into the finals, because it would have been an all time great match up. No team in either league in on their level other than a healthy OKC, which would have made the West very interesting, and made Golden State's road much more difficult than Cleveland's ever could have been.