2016 WCF: Warriors vs. Spu- sorry, Thunder

[air gordon]

Like that circus shot curry hit on Adams in the first qtr?

[Andrew]

Obviously not on that play.

[NovU]

Adams was the hero and hats off to Roberson+Waiters picking up the slack while KD was lost

Kiwi is playing so well that he's justifying Harden trade all alone in this year's playoffs.

Also imagine the Thunder winning it all with Waiters as a sixth man. It will be a big "fuck you" to a stat community as they heavily denounced and claimed Waiters replacing Harden's role is a joke. And it will be a sweet revenge for Waiters against a team that dumped him.

[Andrew]

Waiters is a tough player to figure out. His efficiency stats obviously aren't impressive, and watching him play, he'll quite often look like the worst player on the court (or at least, a player whose basketball IQ drags down and overshadows everything he brings to the table). Then he'll go and do a bunch of positive things: make some stops, hit some big shots when his team needs some buckets, and so on.

I'd say he's capable of being a valuable utility player and solid contributor, but lacks the consistency/basketball smarts to be truly reliable in that role. He may also overestimate his abilities, which doesn't help matters.

[air gordon]

Obviously not on that play.

if the thunder had more "breakdowns", mostly in the 1st half apparently, shouldn't be hard to name a few. in the first half, OKC had 3 lobs in the halfcourt (1 for adams(missed), 1 roberson, 1 durant) where GSW fell asleep/the shots were barely contested

Kiwi is playing so well that he's justifying Harden trade all alone in this year's playoffs.

Also imagine the Thunder winning it all with Waiters as a sixth man. It will be a big "fuck you" to a stat community as they heavily denounced and claimed Waiters replacing Harden's role is a joke. And it will be a sweet revenge for Waiters against a team that dumped him.

"Kiwi" lol. helluva draft pick. not a fan of waiters but i'll give the guy credit when it's due

[Andrew]

A couple of those drives by Klay Thompson and Shaun Livingston. As you said, credit to the Warriors ball movement and the abilities of those players, but on some of those drives I was thinking "Really? This is the Playoffs, you're just going to let them finish easily around the basket like that?" I know it's a different era, and the early flagrant on Bogut probably also set the tone for how they were going to call the game, but on a few plays, it seemed like the Thunder were content to give up some uncontested layups. Curry's lone three in the fourth quarter also came off a mix up on a switch, though again, the Thunder did defend well for the most part throughout the second.

Perhaps I should emphasise and rephrase my initial point though, since the word "breakdown" is obviously a sticking point here. Originally, I was talking about the officiating, and the way that fans focus on bad/blown calls (like Westbrook's travel), singling them out as the reasons for a loss. In doing so, it overlooks any shortcomings and errors that a team makes a long the way. Was that a questionable call (or in this case, non-call)? Sure, though it looked like Donovan might've called timeout first. Even so, there was a lot more to the game that got the Warriors into an unfavourable position with less than 30 seconds left in the fourth. That includes turnovers, missed shots, and any time the defense errs (or isn't tight enough, or whatever), and so on.

[air gordon]

lol did we watch the same game? almost all of thompson's drives were contested in the halfcourt. on the "open" look he had coming down the middle, Bogut was faceguarding Ibaka as Ibaka was coming to contest the shot. Livngston's drive and dunk, a by product of Kanter's terrible close out skills, Adams is unable to contest the shot as Ezeli has him sealed. check the highlights.

is it smart strategically to have OKC"s best perimeter defender, Roberson, just foulThompson instead of contesting the shots? if he's in foul trouble, who's up next? foye? waiters? LOL

Even so, there was a lot more to the game that got the Warriors into an unfavourable position with less than 30 seconds left in the fourth. That includes turnovers, missed shots, and any time the defense errs (or isn't tight enough, or whatever), and so on.

so now you are bringing up GSW's gaffes on defense?

[Andrew]

Fine, fine, alright. I thought the Thunder looked a bit soft at times, but maybe I'm not giving them enough credit, or maybe I have an outdated view of "Playoff defense". Maybe I have more of an appreciation for those Bad Boy Pistons and Riley's Knicks than I thought I did! Using the words "defensive breakdown" and doing so in the same sentence as a completely separate issue was clearly a mistake, so, withdrawn.

My original point about officiating, which is what I was talking about in the first post you quoted, re-stated as succinctly as possible: Westbrook travelled, it was a blown call, but you can't pin a loss on bad calls, because it ignores everything else that contributed to the final outcome. You can't rely on every call being correct to win games. Also, for whatever it's worth, travelling calls are pretty inconsistent, as Curry himself has proven.

Here's hoping Game 2 is another competitive affair, and that there's as little controversy as possible.

One last point about officiating, though: Steve Kerr takes little solace in NBA acknowledging late blown call

Kerr was asked whether he wanted to hear the NBA's acknowledgement. He said no, then reiterated his previously stated stance on the NBA's policy of releasing a two-minute report on late-game officiating.

"I don't like the practice," Kerr said. "I appreciate the NBA trying to be transparent, but it's unfair to the officials. I feel like it throws them under the bus. They have an impossible job. They really do. And there are going to be bad calls both ways, every game. They're never going to be perfect. They're doing the best they can. I don't think there's any point, personally, in exposing bad calls. It doesn't serve a purpose to me."

It's definitely a double-edged sword for the league. If they don't acknowledge mistakes, they're not being transparent. If they do, they're still going to get criticised, and it's not like it's going to change the outcome. I think I'd still rather they acknowledged errors, though. When players mess up, it's publicly reported, as well as the amount of any fines they incur. Acknowledging officiating blunders at least suggests that the league is reviewing their performance, and encouraging officials to get it right in the future.

[NovU]

Waiters is a tough player to figure out. His efficiency stats obviously aren't impressive, and watching him play, he'll quite often look like the worst player on the court (or at least, a player whose basketball IQ drags down and overshadows everything he brings to the table). Then he'll go and do a bunch of positive things: make some stops, hit some big shots when his team needs some buckets, and so on.

I'd say he's capable of being a valuable utility player and solid contributor, but lacks the consistency/basketball smarts to be truly reliable in that role. He may also overestimate his abilities, which doesn't help matters.

Yeah, well said.

I would still consider him a bad player but his scoring ability makes him serviceable at NBA level. Bad players often fill teams' needs and shine. Perhaps like Paxson on Jordan's team and Nate Robinson on recnet Bulls team perhaps? But to give where credits due, Waiters did come through for the Thunder at the perfect time.

[Andrew]

If a player is capable of bringing anything positive to the table, I don't know that I'd call them a bad player. I'd personally go with adjectives such as inefficient, inconsistent, or unreliable, which are certainly not good traits, but not quite the same as being incapable or unskilled. That's admittedly just semantics, though.

Like I said, it seems the main problem with players like that is a lack of basketball smarts, or a belief that they're better/bigger stars than they actually are. When they make good decisions and stick to a role that suits their abilities and level of skill, they do good things for their team. When they start making bad decisions - usually because they believe they can put an NBA team on their backs and have their way with the defense - they become a detriment instead.

I agree with you, there'll always be a place in the league for such players. Ideally, you utilise them on a team that's otherwise very talented and functions well as a unit, so that their role doesn't extend beyond their capabilities, and their teammates can shield their weaknesses while benefiting from the times they do have it locked in.

[NovU]

To me bad player is simply under average players. Say Waiters is 300th best player out of 400 entire NBAers, sure he could be useful but even kicked out players could be stellar like Jordan Crawford. They are basically expendable.

[Andrew]

No question, they're definitely more expendable than above average and better players. I just feel there's another notch on the scale between average and bad, and that a lot of so-called bad players are probably closer to being average, in terms of skill if not efficiency.

[Andrew]

Intense first half. What a run by the Warriors to close it out, though! A lot of basketball left to play, obviously, but Golden State is in full "bounce back and take over" mode. Too many turnovers by the Thunder, and I don't know what Westbrook is thinking on some of those three-point attempts. I still feel the Warriors are going to win this one, and the next three.

On a side note...I really can't stand Draymond Green. Great player, but kneeing someone in the balls and then trash talking them? Dirty pool, and a punk move. Physicality is one thing, but hitting below the belt (even unintentionally) and then jeering is fake tough guy territory.

[benji]

https://twitter.com/Rachel__Nichols/sta ... 36/video/1

[Andrew]

Crazy shot.

[zz21]

[Andrew]

Thunder played a terrible second half. Ridiculous technical on Durant considering some of Green's antics, but that's just a case of when it rains, it pours. Thunder did it to themselves, and now they're reeling. Warriors in five.

[Stress Fracture]

Watching the replay of Game 2 and local commentators say there will be a three-day break. What's with the long break?

[air gordon]

bad boys

Whatever floats your boat

officiating

The non travel call was not a big deal to me. GSW was done before it happened. You eloquently had that part covered

I missed game 2 so we will have to wait until the next one for another discussion

Looked like a cake walk for the warriors

[skoadam]

4:2 thunder imo

[Andrew]

Dirty stuff. Flagrant one is ridiculous; intentionally hit below the belt, that should be an ejection.

[zz21]

Incoming game 4 suspension for Green
Thunder in 6

[Sauru]

he should be suspended and out of this game. however he plays for the warriors so we will see

[zz21]

Hard to believe this team won 60+ games with the way they're playing. Much less 73.

[Andrew]

Considering the precedent that has been set by other players, Green should be suspended. I too have my doubts that it'll actually happen.

Thunder seemed to get angry in the right way, though. Huge win, but a 2-1 lead is still pretty tenuous. I wouldn't count the Warriors out even if it does get to a 3-1 lead, but I'm expecting them to counterpunch in Game 4 to make it a best of three, in which they'll have homecourt advantage. This is as beatable as they've looked all season, but remember what happened after Game 1. Still can't bet against them.