2016 Playoffs

[Cactus Jack]

I actually hope he stays in OKC and if he wants to win - he should. They had a good year - just ran into amazing shooting from a couple guys. If they are together next year, they will be better.

I do too (unless he were to come to Phx, which won't happen anyway), and I think there is about a 90% chance he stays in OKC.

right - if he wants to go to Phoenix - fine

otherwise - I hope he stays in OKC.

[bwgood77]

total lame a** bail out BS call

when uyou let the contact happen in the game - don't blow the whistle

if you let Draymond Green kick a guy in the jewels and take down Adams and trip Kanter and he plays every damn game - that call was bleeping bull bleep!

Yeah, with the momentum OKC got, that was a killer. Green got his hand tangled before the shot, so Curry throws up a shot. I think such things should be looked at with a bit of context. He certainly wasn't fouling him on a shot he was going to take. The fact people can jack up shots post foul and get the call is BS imo.

I may have been a foul on Ibaka but I also that that up and under move - they didn't call free throws on. That's what it looked like to me - Curry went under Ibaka and created contact. And with as many times as players were "touched" going to the hoop - both teams, they bailed his a** out. NBA has to do something that if you shoot in your non shooting motion - keep playing. They are worried about Hack a ?? - I say, learn to make free throws but stop this bull crap where a guy throws his body and begging for a foul and they bail him out. Curry got bailed out with two minutes left - come on man!! Incidental contact

GSW deserved the series but there is no way in hell Draymond Green should have played every game
He knee'd Adams in Game 2
Kicked him in Game 3
Tripped Kanter in game 5
and he took down Adams in Game 7 and hell, Adams got a foul too. When do the refs just say "enough, get your a** to the locker room"

Its too much like Suns/Spurs where Bowen kicks Nash in the groin - nothing; Duncan leaves the court to check a teammate in Elson when Elson and the Suns guy were pushing under the basket - nothing; the code red by Horry and Amare and Diaw are suspended

Yeah, I used to really like GS, and I still like them ok, but their dirty play and exceedingly high cockiness turns me off.

[MrMiyagi]

It's pretty uncanny how much you seem to hate Bender.

I don't want to draft him at 4. I think I have a pretty logical case against it. What separates him from Maker, Zimmerman, Zhou Qi, Chriss, Davis, Ellenson, Skal, etc. that makes him worthy of a top 5 pick? He's 18?

Perhaps. But it might be a better question for all the experts ranking him top 4 and those other guys late first/early second. Maybe you have more knowledge than them though. Mainly I trust the experts and within tiers, I take the guy for our team right now with the perceived highest upside and who also fits a question of need.

I'm no expert, but just watching whatever videos on each of them, none of them wow me. I know experts love the idea of the complete basketball player, the dude who's 7 feet tall, passes, shoots, rebounds, blocks, steals, defends, strong as a big should be, quick as a guard, etc, but there have just been too many guys reported to be that guy and aren't. I'm always skeptical of unicorns. I feel like you've got to draft excellence in the top 5 - that doesn't mean excellence in all areas, but something you can point to and say "this guys will do this, and do this well". Buddy can score and shoot, Murray can shoot, Dunn can set up and defend, Simmons can set up and rebound, Ingram can score and shoot. I'm confident in this translating. Dunn and Simmons can develop shots, Murray and Buddy can develop as passers, they all can develop as defenders, but they've got a fallback that's pretty much money in the bank. I feel like Buddy at his floor is Jamal Crawford, Murray's floor is Reddick, Simmon's floor is Diaw with rebounding, Ingram's floor is Rashard Lewis, Dunn's floor is like a bigger Kyle Lowry (actually kind of struggling to find a good comp). I feel like this is the top 5, everyone else has question marks or aren't elite at something. I feel like 6-10 is the worst spots to have in this draft because you're really banking on development. I like Valentine, but at 13.

[GMATCallahan]

It seems like he only really gets that way when he feels desperate. Once again, they have made mistakes, but overall, at least through the first half and start of the 3rd, OKC outplayed them, but the fact they can shoot 3s at close to 45%, and earlier, between Curry and Thompson, it was much higher (though they are still a combined 10-18) that is almost always going to be extremely tough to overcome.

But yes, in the 3rd, they were scrambling and barking at each other a bit too much.

Westbrook's shot selection, though, started to suffer in the second quarter after Oklahoma City took a thirteen-point lead. One might actually infer that with the significant lead, he became complacent or overly excited and lost his discipline, which then affected the way that the rest of the team played (because a ball-dominant point guard often sets the tone and creates the rhythm or lack thereof).

Consider a baseball game where one team is leading 3-0 and has a runner at third base with less than two outs. What you really want is to just bring in that runner to give yourself a valuable insurance run and render your lead that much more daunting. If the pitcher grooves a fastball down the middle, okay, you might hit a two-run homer, but otherwise, you just want to hit a single or even a sacrifice fly or a well-placed ground ball. Instead, you become complacent or overly excited, you lose your discipline, and you start swinging from your heels, trying to hit the ball five hundred feet, regardless of the pitch. Then you swing and miss at three straight breaking balls in the dirt and you never knock in that insurance run, while the other team comes back and wins 4-3.

That is basically Russell Westbrook for you. Now, he may have hit a three-run homer to give you that 3-0 lead in the first place, but in the later situation, all that he really needed to do was to make some contact and knock in that insurance run.

Westbrook's erratic feel for the flow of a game and inability to consistently keep himself under control reflect why I stated earlier in the thread that I doubted whether a team could win a championship with him in a dominant or co-dominant position. Earlier in this series, he seemed like he might be proving me wrong (and he still could in the future), and although I generally do not care who wins these series, after this one got under way, I wanted to see Oklahoma City take it. But unfortunately, for this series at least, I believe that my original stance proved correct—not that the Thunder's failure to close out the Warriors is all on Westbrook, by any stretch, but nuance and discretion are vital for a point guard. In the end, extreme explosiveness and box score-stuffing numbers can get you close, but nuance, discretion, and composure are what complete the puzzle.

[bwgood77]

I don't want to draft him at 4. I think I have a pretty logical case against it. What separates him from Maker, Zimmerman, Zhou Qi, Chriss, Davis, Ellenson, Skal, etc. that makes him worthy of a top 5 pick? He's 18?

Perhaps. But it might be a better question for all the experts ranking him top 4 and those other guys late first/early second. Maybe you have more knowledge than them though. Mainly I trust the experts and within tiers, I take the guy for our team right now with the perceived highest upside and who also fits a question of need.

I'm no expert, but just watching whatever videos on each of them, none of them wow me. I know experts love the idea of the complete basketball player, the dude who's 7 feet tall, passes, shoots, rebounds, blocks, steals, defends, strong as a big should be, quick as a guard, etc, but there have just been too many guys reported to be that guy and aren't. I'm always skeptical of unicorns. I feel like you've got to draft excellence in the top 5 - that doesn't mean excellence in all areas, but something you can point to and say "this guys will do this, and do this well". Buddy can score and shoot, Murray can shoot, Dunn can set up and defend, Simmons can set up and rebound, Ingram can score and shoot. I'm confident in this translating. Dunn and Simmons can develop shots, Murray and Buddy can develop as passers, they all can develop as defenders, but they've got a fallback that's pretty much money in the bank. I feel like Buddy at his floor is Jamal Crawford, Murray's floor is Reddick, Simmon's floor is Diaw with rebounding, Ingram's floor is Rashard Lewis, Dunn's floor is like a bigger Kyle Lowry (actually kind of struggling to find a good comp). I feel like this is the top 5, everyone else has question marks or aren't elite at something. I feel like 6-10 is the worst spots to have in this draft because you're really banking on development. I like Valentine, but at 13.

Understandable, but I feel like you just don't see it in Bender because either you've never watched him live or you just in general are against drafting europeans with high draft picks.

[GMATCallahan]

I may have been a foul on Ibaka but I also that that up and under move - they didn't call free throws on. That's what it looked like to me - Curry went under Ibaka and created contact. And with as many times as players were "touched" going to the hoop - both teams, they bailed his a** out. ... Incidental contact

Frankly, I believe that Ibaka was getting away with a hand check, and he had probably been getting away with some hand checks and holds on Curry earlier. He switches onto Curry better than any big man that I can recall and certainly much better than any of the Thunder's other big men (unless one counts Durant on Curry's cuts and drives inside the arc), but Ibaka might have gotten away with some things, too. The play was a smart one by Curry, and the referees had to call it—Ibaka got caught with his hand in the wrong place.

NBA has to do something that if you shoot in your non shooting motion - keep playing.

But Curry is a difficult player to referee in that regard, because he will just suddenly shoot out of his dribble, sort of pushing his arm up and flicking the ball off his hand. So his "non-shooting motion" may well be his shooting motion.

Regardless, the Thunder certainly did not lose this series because of this call or that call or Draymond Green getting away with some questionable plays. Oklahoma City only has itself to blame, especially down the stretch of Game Six.

[bwgood77]

It seems like he only really gets that way when he feels desperate. Once again, they have made mistakes, but overall, at least through the first half and start of the 3rd, OKC outplayed them, but the fact they can shoot 3s at close to 45%, and earlier, between Curry and Thompson, it was much higher (though they are still a combined 10-18) that is almost always going to be extremely tough to overcome.

But yes, in the 3rd, they were scrambling and barking at each other a bit too much.

Westbrook's shot selection, though, started to suffer in the second quarter after Oklahoma City took a thirteen-point lead. One might actually infer that with the significant lead, he became complacent or overly excited and lost his discipline, which then affected the way that the rest of the team played (because a ball-dominant point guard often sets the tone and creates the rhythm or lack thereof).

Consider a baseball game where one team is leading 3-0 and has a runner at third base with less than two outs. What you really want is to just bring in that runner to give yourself a valuable insurance run and render your lead that much more daunting. If the pitcher grooves a fastball down the middle, okay, you might hit a two-run homer, but otherwise, you just want to hit a single or even a sacrifice fly or a well-placed ground ball. Instead, you become complacent or overly excited, you lose your discipline, and you start swinging from your heels, trying to hit the ball five hundred feet, regardless of the pitch. Then you swing and miss at three straight breaking balls in the dirt and you never knock in that insurance run, while the other team comes back and wins 4-3.

That is basically Russell Westbrook for you. Now, he may have hit a three-run homer to give you that 3-0 lead in the first place, but in the later situation, all that he really needed to do was to make some contact and knock in that insurance run.

Westbrook's erratic feel for the flow of a game and inability to consistently keep himself under control is why I stated earlier in the thread that I doubted whether a team could win a championship with him in a dominant or co-dominant position. Earlier in this series, he seemed like he might be proving me wrong (and he still could in the future), and although I generally do not care who wins these series, after this one got under way, I wanted to see Oklahoma City take it. But unfortunately, for this series at least, I believe that my original stance proved correct—not that the Thunder's failure to close out the Warriors is all on Westbrook, by any stretch, but nuance and discretion are vital for a point guard. In the end, extreme explosiveness and box score-stuffing numbers can get you close, but nuance, discretion, and composure are what complete the puzzle.

I agree about Westbrook, not that he can't win the finals...this Spurs team may have been better than any finals team this year and they beat them....granted that is easy to argue, but they nearly beat GS, another historically good team, on the road as well. Not sure why you don't think they could win the finals ever, particularly when you have two historically good teams record and scoring margin wise in the west. Do you think the Spurs could have won it this year?

[GMATCallahan]

I agree about Westbrook, not that he can't win the finals...this Spurs team may have been better than any finals team this year and they beat them....granted that is easy to argue, but they nearly beat GS, another historically good team, on the road as well. Not sure why you don't think they could win the finals ever, particularly when you have two historically good teams record and scoring margin wise in the west. Do you think the Spurs could have won it this year?

I feel that the Thunder "could" have won the title this year, and Oklahoma City "could" win the championship in the future (if Durant and ultimately Westbrook re-sign), but there is also a reason why, even when healthy or relatively healthy, that team keeps coming up short. And although Westbrook's flaws do not represent the entire reason, and although he can carry a club, his defects constitute a large part of that reason.

I would analogize the situation to Charles Barkley in Phoenix. Sure, the Suns "could" have won the championship in any of his first three seasons with the Suns (and maybe the fourth if management had not foolishly forced Danny Ainge into retirement rather than bringing him back for another year). But given how Barkley would hold the ball or slowly dribble down the shot clock; given how he would attempt cringe-worthy threes, especially off the dribble, even though he possessed the worst three-point field goal percentage in NBA history among those with a certain volume of attempts; given how he would sometimes revert to "hero-ball"; given his general inattention to defense; given that he almost never practiced, even when healthy; given that he set his own hours for arrival at practices (where he would often just sit in the stands and read magazines and newspapers rather than at least working out on his own); given that he would generally arrive at games (including Game Seven of the 1995 Western Conference Semifinals) forty minutes after the assigned arrival time; given how he rarely joined team huddles if he was not in the game; and given that he was a party animal, is the fact that the Suns did not win a title with Barkley surprising? And I am not even criticizing Barkley. I am just saying that a lack of discipline, on or off the court (both in Barkley's case) makes winning a championship less likely. In other words, if you are betting in Vegas, bet against it. If the team gets lucky, a title still could happen—if, for example, John Paxson had missed that wide-open three at the end of Game Six of the 1993 NBA Finals off a defensive breakdown that began when Barkley, trying to be a hero, gambled, went for a steal, and missed. But even with immense talent, a lack of discipline sort of gives you 40/60 odds instead of the 60/40 odds that you could otherwise enjoy. That is the paradox of Russell Westbrook, much as it was the paradox of Charles Barkley.

The Spurs probably could have won the championship this year, but unfortunately, for the second straight season, we did not see a San Antonio-Golden State matchup in the playoffs and how that would have shaken out. We last saw these two teams face each other in the postseason in 2013, when the Warriors were just starting to emerge and still two years away from elite status.

My point regarding Westbrook is not about the NBA Finals stage per se, but about beating enough championship-caliber opponents over the course of a postseason in order to win a title. Sooner or later, that lack of discipline comes back to bite you, as always occurred with Barkley and his Phoenix teams, which were more "talented" than the Suns' clubs of the preceding few years, but not necessarily better equipped to win a championship in the end, even if they made the NBA Finals once. (The operative word there is "once.")

[Cactus Jack]

Thank god Golden State took care of business. Really looking forward to these finals. Should be another epic series.

[GMATCallahan]

OKC could actually do with Knight instead of Waiters.

... not sure about that. Waiters goes to the basket with much more power, he possesses more of a mid-range game (I mean mid-range in a classic sense), his sense of timing is better, and he has long arms, which help him as a passer and finisher in traffic, enabling him to create angles and wrap the ball around defenders. He also better enables the Thunder to play a small lineup, since he has some size and strength and can thus switch onto bigger opponents. Knight cannot do that, and he is a terrible defender in any event.

Waiters' game has not fully translated to his numbers yet, but he impressed me in the playoffs and he has a lot of game.

[thamadkant]

I willbe cheering 100% for Cavs.

[GMATCallahan]

OKC just can't shoot the 3.

Imagine how good their offense would be with Durant able to play 1 on 1 and Westbrook with the lane open.

Roberson, Waiters, Westbrook, Ibaka aren't who you want open for 10 3-pointers a game.

Yeah, but then you sacrifice defense without those guys.

And too much one-on-one stuff from Durant and Westbrook would still bog their offense down and render the team less than ideally efficient, regardless of the spacing.

[Cactus Jack]

I willbe cheering 100% for Cavs.

Poor Cleveland, right? I actually wouldn't mind seeing them win. The Warriors are fun to watch though.

[Damkac]

Anyone but the Cavs

[MathiasPW]

GSW will have troubles when Cleveland plays Frye at the 5. Bogut just cant cover the perimeter.

He certainly won't play if Clev goes small with Love or Frye at the 5. Many think when GS goes small, Love will have problems guarding people out on the perimeter as well.

I think Love and Bogut will see the least minutes among each teams starters

On this subject, on the recent Bill Simmons new website The Ringer:

https://theringer.com/cleveland-cavaliers-golden-state-warriors-nba-finals-d4f31ceef281#.4t5fqmek6

[ducler]

[Damkac]

Interesting that Cavs plays better in PO than in RS while Warriors contrary. But it may have something to do with East Conference being worse. I would rather play Detroit, Atlanta, Toronto, than Houston, Portland, OKC.

[Cactus Jack]

Game time. Go Warriors!

[jredsaz]

Barbosa!!!!

[jredsaz]

Miss that dude