Western Conference Finals: #1 Warriors vs. #3 Thunder

Quicker how? In that they take quick shots in transition before even their own players have crossed the midcourt line or established position for a rebound? If so, I agree.

But the game is not quicker than what the Kings and some other teams were doing in the early 2000's up until these new fads started. And it's certainly not more beautiful to watch. As much as I hate Dallas and Phoenix, I'd much rather watch those Mavs and Suns teams than what we're seeing now. They played better basketball.

Adams is a nice young player, a hustle player that will scrap and wrestle with you. That being said, they need someone else to take some pressure off of them. I think a Brook Lopez would do wonders for them. I remember two trade deadlines ago, OKC nearly acquired him. I think they need to revisit that scenario IMO. After re-signing Durant of course.

10th team in history to come back from 3-1 deficit. Everybody wrote them off after game 4 and had their backs against the wall. It's not like OKC was a bunch of scrubs. They beat the SAS who won 67 games in the regular season, tied for 5th all-time while posting far and away the best defensive rating.

As the road team, all you want to do is to stick around until the 4th quarter. GSW knew OKC would resort to old tactics when push came to shove. Good coaching by Kerr.

From what I remember, the whole term "quick" aka fast paced basketball started with the Suns under D'antoni. Now, I'm not saying there weren't teams before them to start playing faster but the Suns had a motto to shoot the ball under seven seconds. Steve Nash was a maestro out there with his passing and three point shooters all around him.

Well they had Kanter, who has been potent, but its hard to play those guys against the Warriors.

Reggie Jackson is an arrogant little ass, but probably some honesty in his mocking -- the guy the Thunder kinda missed was a dependable 3rd little man. Still, they gave it the ole college try against a 73 win team, and for all these things they lacked, if their stars had not choked they would have beat them, after beating the Spurs. So its hardly like they are fatally flawed. Just hard when the other team is getting a dozen extra points awarded to them every night for the location of their shots compared to yours.

There is definitely some choking involved but it's not as if OKC all of a sudden forgot how to win games. I think more than anything there was some luck involved here, I mean, Klay was making some stupid shots and then Curry joined him after the Game 5 loss.

Klay always makes those shots. It's not luck when he does it on a consistent basis.

Good for them. But I repeat -- if they were truly that great of a team, they wouldn't have ever been down 3-1 to ANY team. The 72 win Bulls never faced an elimination game, let alone 3 of them.

As Slim said, down 3-1, you need a lot of help to overcome the deficit no matter how good you play. The Thunder let them off the hook, it's that simple.

That's not at all true, because I didn't write them off. I was hoping they'd lose, but fully expecting the opposite to happen.

So expecting and relying upon the other team to choke or resort to old tactics once there is no margin for error is now the definition of good coaching? C'mon now.

When Steve Kerr takes an underachieving or mediocre team to new heights, I'll give him credit for good coaching. But a monkey could coach this Warriors team. Think that's hyperbole? An inexperienced Luke Walton did it earlier this season.

Always? What happened in the 2 games when they got blow out by nearly 30??

I'm sure he wasn't trying to miss in those games on purpose, so it was a bit lucky that those same shots decided to go down once there was no margin for missing. Even then, it still took the Thunder imploding offensively for it to matter. Again, that's where the fortunate timing and luck comes into play.

Exploiting another teams weakness is good coaching. Always has been and always will be.

Hey, players have bad games. It happens. The key is to not consistently have bad games.

Agreed. But he doesn't always make those shots. That's the point. The fact that he and Curry were missing a ton of those low percentage shot attempts is one of the prime reasons they were down 30+ in both those games. What comes around sometimes goes around.

Everything is fine and dandy once you win, but let's not ignore the fact that they were one or two misses away from losing the series in 5 games and then again in game 6. They came awfully close.

So, in the end, they shot themselves to victory with a little help from OKC, but nearly shot themselves out of it too.

If you say so. I guess any of us would be good coaches too then.

Walton was nearly perfect. He knew exactly how to take advantage of everybody's weaknesses to start off the season. First weakness to exploit: the other team has less talent and depth than we do.

Marc Jackson never took the team as far.

It seems like some people on here wouldn't be able to coach the Warriors to the first round because they are vehemently against what Curry and Thompson represent.

Fair enough to not like the increase in three pointers, but that seems to be a pretty blatant misuse of the word "objective". Barring TV ratings or revenues going down (which I don't think they are) it's hard to argue to game is dying. The current NBA game may not be what you wish it were, but NBA popularity seems to be riding high.

Was I the only one on here that is happy the Warriors wn? It showed they had a lot of grit. OKC didn't lose, the Warriors won.

Was the team a finished product when MarK Jackson coached them? Big difference from what Kerr and Walton inherited. Not a good comparison at all.

As for your second comment, it's positioned as if you aren't remotely open the idea that the Warriors could possibly be better than they are now if they played a bit more like the teams of 10-15 years ago that have been named numerous times. They pass, move, and shoot it so well that perhaps they've be even MORE efficient if they cut out some of the excessive 3's and quick shots in transition.

Regardless, you are also making a poor assumption that those opposed to excessive 3pt/HORSE shootouts wouldn't allow the offense to run that way if it actually worked best. That's not necessarily the case either.

As opposed to what though? It's hard to compare because as the years go by the exposure keeps growing and growing due to increased TV/Internet coverage that wasn't there previously. They could be losing a lot of old school fans but offsetting it with new viewers/fans from all over the world. And there's no guarantee that those fans will stick in the longterm once the newness wears off. So, there could potentially be a problem in the not-so-distant future. Who knows.

The only one, no.
But since the overwhelmingly majority here are Kings fans and the Warriors represent one of several regional and divisional rivals --- you are certainly in the vast minority.

As Slim said (I believe), I'm not sure why anybody would be surprised that a Kings message board isn't giddy over what the Warriors are doing. If you really want to see some excitement over it, there are some pro-GSW message boards out there you can easily find via google. But you ain't gonna find it here.

And correction, the team that was up 3 games to 1, including double-digits in GM6 and GM7 certainly did lose it more than the other team won it. Your fandom for that "other" team has clouded your judgement. When one team comes from far ahead to lose -- they lost it. That's how these things work.

I'll bet anything that had the opposite thing happened in this series --- the Warriors built then lost a 3-1 series lead including losing the final games in which they led most the time and often by double-digits --- their fanbase wouldn't believe the other team won it as much as their team lost it.

Did the GSW draft a superstar after Mark Jackson was fired? Or did they go +16 in wins because of signing Shaun Livingston, Barbosa and Speights?

Hey if you are able to adapt and find more efficiency in their game, more power to you. After reading things like "gimmick, dog-and-ponyshow, pretty boy Curry, death to smallball," I don't feel my position is irrational at all.

Of course I haven't, because this isn't my issue. My point is that reports of the NBA's death are greatly exaggerated...unless someone can actually produce convincing evidence otherwise. But I'm not going to be the one to search for it, any more than I'm going to go out of my way to try to prove that the sun's going to rise tomorrow when somebody says it won't. There's a certain level of credibility that a statement has to rise to before meriting being proven wrong rather than just being dismissed as silly.

Objectively was used on purpose.

The NBA game has always had certain characteristics. The NBA's war on big men, physical play, etc. has been eroding those characteristics, to such a degree that I could already, today, start a new league and have it look more like any NBA before 2000 or so more than the current one does.

But let this go on to the point, which btw the unending march of the numbers suggest it eventually will, when 3pt shooting reigns completely supreme, and everything else is just what you do when you get unlucky and can't get a three, and then that has nothing to do with the NBA game at all. Just slapping an old logo, of a player who wouldn't recognize that game either, on the product doesn't make it the same game.

There used to be a good set of NBA owners at the core who saw themselves as stewards of the game to a degree. I get the feeling the money has chased that sort of idealism away, and now the new guys would seriously consider neon lines with giant blinking x3!!! signs if it would earn them a few extra bucks. Just a soulless money making endeavor. The next few years will be telling. Until this recent explosion it had looked like 3pt shooting had finally stabilized at about 20-22% of all shots, that was historically heavy, but something you could work with. D'Antoni's Suns against Pop's Spurs, see who wins. But thing have gotten very out of hand very quickly. As mentioned, at current rates in 3 years threes will be 1/3 of all shots as the area under the arc rapidly becomes a ghost town.

Probably due to the same reasons they went +24 during Jackson's second year as coach. You tell me.

You talkin' to me?

Ok.

'11'-12': Curry played in only 26 games during the lockout year in which GSW won 23 games.

'12-13': he played in 78 games and they won 47.

In '13-'14, he played 78 games and they won 51 games and have an ORTG 107.5.

'14'-15', Jackson is fired and Curry plays 80 games with GSW winning 67 games with ORTG 111.6

So what that all indicates is that it doesn't really matter who coaches the team as long as Steph Curry is healthy and plays. Thanks for further proving my point.

As for the improved ORTG, that's easily explained by not only Steph playing and improving his game, but Klay Thompson and Draymond Green stepping it up. That was already occurring before Kerr ever signed his 1st contract.

You don't see the trend? Look at '13-14 and '14-15. He essentially played the same number of games both years, but the Warriors went +16 after Jackson was fired.

FYI Jackson was fired after the '13-14 season.