2016 NBA Playoffs

[Hank]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

Sometimes you have to make a bold and crazy prediction. If OKC wins this series there's a chance the Cavs can do the impossible and pull a Moses Malone. Foe foe foe foe.

Actually it was foe five foe.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Shocking stat: the Warriors only led by a composite total of 47 minutes during the 5 game series vs Portland.

This was enough to keep me off of game 1. I would look to take Golden State in game 2, and if they win (cover or no cover), I will come back with OKC in game 3.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by Hank

Actually it was foe five foe.

That's true but he predicted 3 sweeps. I was pissed when they lost one. He made Kareem look like a 50 year old.

[Valuist]

Hard to imagine how McCutcheon missed the traveling call on Westbrook. Not a good post season for NBA refs.

[maddog42]

Okc is playing better now (especially defense) than anyone in the nba.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Hard to imagine how McCutcheon missed the traveling call on Westbrook. Not a good post season for NBA refs.

It was bad, but he also missed Thompson fouling him first and the whole bench calling timeout before the travel too.

[lansdale]

Fun but weird game last night. Saw the first half and game back for the end of 4Q. Two things seemed to stand out: GSW didn't take this game completely seriously - lots of behind-the-back passes and circus shots - bizarre in a WCF game -- also, haven't seen Curry since the last Spurs game, but he looks to be at about 70% of his usual game. Throughout the game, he seemed unable to make his usual sharp cuts, and especially in the second half, seemed a step slow, although by usual measures, his stat line was good. There were some comments re inability of GSW to hit shots in 4Q, but it seemed to me that the real problem was that, due to injury, Curry was slow enough so that he couldn't get open, much less draw a double-team, and their offense is greatly dependent on his ability to kick out to open shooters when double-teamed. If Curry can't get open more easily than what I saw last night, OKC will take this.

Re OKC, not a great shooting night for KD/WB - 33%, and it's becoming clearer to everyone that Adams' ability to score in addition to RB is the new differential for them. I don't know what the stat is on WB's drives to the hoop, where he either scores, gets fouled, or dishes to Adams for an easy bucket, but it's got to be ca. 1.9 per attempt. It seems to me that Bogut plays this situation much better than Ezeli, who becomes a foul-machine vs. WB. If Bogut's minutes are limited by injury, could be tough for GSW.

BTW, nobody has said much about the free-throw differential - 32-17 in favor of OKC, KD/WB - 51 shots, 21 free throws, Curry/KT - 47 shots, 2 free throws - yeah, I know GSW guys take a lot of jump shots, but that's ridiculous.

If this game meant anything, does this mean OKC is an unappreciated 75-win team?

[cj]

Originally Posted by lansdale

Fun but weird game last night. Saw the first half and game back for the end of 4Q. Two things seemed to stand out: GSW didn't take this game completely seriously - lots of behind-the-back passes and circus shots - bizarre in a WCF game -- also, haven't seen Curry since the last Spurs game, but he looks to be at about 70% of his usual game. Throughout the game, he seemed unable to make his usual sharp cuts, and especially in the second half, seemed a step slow, although by usual measures, his stat line was good. There were some comments re inability of GSW to hit shots in 4Q, but it seemed to me that the real problem was that, due to injury, Curry was slow enough so that he couldn't get open, much less draw a double-team, and their offense is greatly dependent on his ability to kick out to open shooters when double-teamed. If Curry can't get open more easily than what I saw last night, OKC will take this.

Re OKC, not a great shooting night for KD/WB - 33%, and it's becoming clearer to everyone that Adams' ability to score in addition to RB is the new differential for them. I don't know what the stat is on WB's drives to the hoop, where he either scores, gets fouled, or dishes to Adams for an easy bucket, but it's got to be ca. 1.9 per attempt. It seems to me that Bogut plays this situation much better than Ezeli, who becomes a foul-machine vs. WB. If Bogut's minutes are limited by injury, could be tough for GSW.

BTW, nobody has said much about the free-throw differential - 32-17 in favor of OKC, KD/WB - 51 shots, 21 free throws, Curry/KT - 47 shots, 2 free throws - yeah, I know GSW guys take a lot of jump shots, but that's ridiculous.

If this game meant anything, does this mean OKC is an unappreciated 75-win team?

The Warriors, for the most part, always play like this though. It just didn't work yesterday. I'll watch the game again tomorrow because I probably wasn't watching Curry closely off the ball. He seemed ok to me but maybe he is a little slow. Interesting thought.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Hard to imagine how McCutcheon missed the traveling call on Westbrook. Not a good post season for NBA refs.

Going to be interesting to see the officiating and if the team down 0-1 gets boated home, that seems to be the way things work in this league.

[Poindexter]

Do not think either team played anywhere near there best. Of the 7 shots Durant missed in the 4th he should have made at least 3 of them(probably more like 5), Okc's defense was poor early in the game(a number of steals, but they were giving up layup after layup) and Golden State is a much better team than they were in the 4th quarter.

Re OKC, I really like the team they have built there. They have a wide array of supporting talent, and a very good supporting cast. They also strike me as a very well coached team, never had that feeling with the prior coach. With Westbrook, I see a much more mature player than in years past. Incredibly talented, but not the loose cannon he used to be(imo). The role players seem to be picking up confidence as the playoffs roll on so I think this team will actually continue to improve. One quality I really like about them is they can fall down double digits and they are always in the game. They do not lose their composure, take stupid shots, they seem to just grind away and get back in the game eventually. Reminds me of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, they never seem to go away. They actually showed in the Spurs series an ability to play tremendous defense and we certainly saw some of that in game 1 vs GS. They have all the characteristics of a championship team, but they still have to get by a tremendous GS team and a very talented and good Cleveland team. A lot of great basketball ahead of us. Also let's not forget that they have won 3 straight games on the road against teams that were a combined 79-3 at home during the regular season.

RE GS, I think this team has been playing overconfident for quite a while now. They are so good they win games with spurts, but at this level it is much harder to win games in spurts. Game 1, likely a big wake up call and something they actually needed. They need to focus 48 minutes to win a championship. They aren't playing teams decimated by injuries this year. It is hard when you get away with not playing that way and have a record season. Be interesting to see how they respond not only in game 2, but the rest of the series. Will the loss bring out the beast within or are they so set in there ways, they cannot change.

One final note, I think the top 4 teams(GS, OKC, Cleveland, SA and even the Clips if they would have been healthy) are all good enough to win championships some years. They are all extremely good teams, close enough in ability that matchups are going to dictate who wins or loses. GS, possibly is the exception to that (remains to be seen) as they are clearly the standout power rating wise(although one can argue that OKC and Cleveland are improving and have narrowed the gap quite a bit). For instance I do not think Duncan was completely washed up as it appeared in a couple of games I think he just had a tough time against the bigs of Okc at this point of his career. Put him against less physical bigs and he would have done fine(I think). The point is even if OKC goes on to romp through GS in say 5 or 6(not saying they will) does not mean that should they start a brand new season next week that OKC would win more games than GS or SA. They would all be in the same ballpark, and whoever won the most games is not necessarily the best team. Also even if OKC goes on to roll through GS in 5 or 6 does not mean that they will do the same to Cleveland. By the same token, if OKC rolls through GS and loses to Cleveland does not mean that Cleveland would have beaten GS in a series.........When there is a big disparity in ability between the two teams, the better team wins(usually easy), when they are close as the top 4 are, matchups/coaching/confidence and current form play the much bigger role.

fwiw, I thought going into the series GS had about a 70% chance of winning the series, now I think it is about 50%. Yes Golden State should win game 2, but line is too high. Also, I do not have the impression OKC is going to be satisfied with winning game one, I think they realize the importance of winning game 2. The desperation of GS should put them over the top, but OKC's ability to hang around could make for a very interesting game 2.

[lansdale]

Good breakdown of Game 1 by Lowe, for me the best NBA analyst outside of he late Jack Ramsey and Hubie Brown.

Thinking GSW may go to the staggered high screens again to get Curry loose more easily and pull the OKC bigs as far from the paint as possible. Interesting to see if OKC will again give Waiters more minutes than Roberson at the 2 - makes sense, he's quicker if less disciplined.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15...gether-perfect

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Going to be interesting to see the officiating and if the team down 0-1 gets boated home, that seems to be the way things work in this league.

I don't think the officials could've helped OKC yesterday.

The zig zag starts out fine with the Warriors game 2 win, and we will come back with the Thunder in game 3.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Valuist

I don't think the officials could've helped OKC yesterday.

The zig zag starts out fine with the Warriors game 2 win, and we will come back with the Thunder in game 3.

my point was that they were going to help gsw win game 2, not help okc go up 2-0.

they didnt need to 'step in' and wave their wants like joey crawford did in game 2 of the clips/spurs series last year, so it worked out well for them.

okc did well by just relaxing and resting, they weren't going to win anyway, no need to expend energy for nothing, they knew how things were going to work with the nba's mvp down 0-1. this script has been played out plenty over the years.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

my point was that they were going to help gsw win game 2, not help okc go up 2-0.

they didnt need to 'step in' and wave their wants like joey crawford did in game 2 of the clips/spurs series last year, so it worked out well for them.

okc did well by just relaxing and resting, they weren't going to win anyway, no need to expend energy for nothing, they knew how things were going to work with the nba's mvp down 0-1. this script has been played out plenty over the years.

I don't disagree with your conspiracy theory on the NBA wanting to "stretch" the big series to 7 games. They are such whores. I thought when Stern left, it would end but I doubt that will be the case.

[lansdale]

I've questioned many things about the NBA officiating here, but I still don't think the league controls the outcome of these series, especially as you get closer to the championship. If, according to CT, the purpose of the questionable or non-calls is to equalize teams that aren't close in talent to extend series, it's obviously less necessary at this stage, when teams are close in ability and series are likely to six or seven games. If CT is about a bias toward keeping teams with marquee players in series, it's unnecessary, because you already have that. The last four championships series have only gone six games, and I remember many years in which they didn't go seven (fo,fo,fo), so I don't think there is a bias to extend there. SRU suggests that the league wants the NBA MVP to win the title, but only five of the last fifteen MVPs have also won the championship. Only a very few players ever did it more than once.