**2016 Official NBA Playoffs Thread**

[KC_Connection]

Round 1:

EAST:

#8 Pistons @ #1 Cavs
#7 Pacers @ #2 Raptors
#6 Hornets @ #3 Heat
#5 Celtics @ #4 Hawks

WEST:
#8 Rockets @ #1 Warriors
#7 Grizzlies @ #2 Spurs
#6 Mavericks @ #3 Thunder
#5 Blazers @ #4 Clippers

[ARROW2]

Originally Posted by mcaj22

I don't know how teams fall for this small ball Draymond Green at the 5 bullshit. Pound the shit out of them inside

With what? Two average role players down low?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by mcaj22

I don't know how teams fall for this small ball Draymond Green at the 5 bullshit. Pound the shit out of them inside

Because Golden State's quickness allows them to clog passing lanes and Green's hands allow him to interfere with the pass as well.

If you had Shaq - sure, that's the answer. But it takes a pretty skilled big man to get into finishing position against a defense that's as versatile as Golden State's. Those guys live on cutting off the entry pass and forcing bigs to move around to change the angle. Moreover, because Green's so adept at getting around stationed bigs to interfere with the entry, big guys often have to leave the paint before re-entering to avoid a 3-second violation.

At that point the ball likely needs to have rotated to keep the spacing from falling to hell, the angles are all shot and now the offense has to be re-set.

The idea that there's some easy way to keep the Warriors from kicking your ass is pretty comical. They've been doing this for over 150 games now. If it was as easy as 'just feed it to Kanter!' they wouldn't have just won a world championship and followed it up by winning 83 games.

[DJ's left nut]

On top of that - you aren't going to out-score Golden State. This isn't the NFL; your offense becomes your defense as soon as the shot leaves your hand. If you go out there and station a big ol' bastard down low to deal with them on offense, whatever marginal gains you have made offensively you're going to give up in spades defensively. And when their offense is built around setting up 3 point shots that they knock down at a 40% clip, your offense that's built around 2-point shots now has to hit at about 60% to keep up.

Yeah...that's not gonna happen. And anything you do to make it easier for them to hit at that 40% (i.e. essentially playing 4 on 5 against them defensively) isn't going to help.

Again, the only way to really make that strategy work is to have Shaq. Hell, a healthy Howard would be interesting because his length defensively can really help contain a space and pace offense like Golden State's.

But the Thunder can't really do that. They can give it a shot with Ibaka but he's just struggled so much this year that I don't think it's a viable strategy.

[KC_Connection]

OKC is just going to have to keep playing their big lineup (Westbrook, Roberson, Durant, Ibaka, Adams), win the rebound battles on both ends to gain extra possessions, and hope for the best on the defensive end. They simply don't have the personnel to match the Warriors when they go small (nobody does really).

Ibaka and Adams were able to at least manage defensively in game 1 and the first half of game 2 (although more Adams and less Ibaka in that regard). Kanter is abysmal defensively, though, and Golden State looks to target him immediately on switches whenever he's on the floor.

[DJ's left nut]

They pretty much have to hope that Curry and Thompson go cold at least 3 more times.

I used to watch a fair amount of tennis and always felt bad for whatever poor bastard drew Federer.

You just wanted to go pat the guy on his head and say "look man, it's okay, just realize that absolutely nothing you do today really matters. If you go out there and play the single best game of your life and Roger Federer plays a B+ game, you're going to lose. And that's okay. You're really only walking onto the court today hoping that Roger put his shoes on the wrong feet this morning and gives you a C effort. But hey, you'll still need your A game to beat his C game so....uh....good luck."

That's kinda what watching Warriors games is like. If Curry has a quarter like his 3rd quarter yesterday - you lose. If Thompson is feeling it at all - you lose. You just take the court hoping they're off their game and maybe trying to give them a nudge here and there to see if you can force it.

[KC_Connection]

Basically the only chance for underdogs against Federer in those days (or a similarly dominant Djokovic these days) was/is to paint the lines for an entire match with high-risk, ball-bashing tennis. That's kind of what OKC has to do here, except they have to do it successfully for 3 more games and hope that Golden State is also off while doing it. While OKC has more firepower to do that than just about anybody else, it's still likely too much to ask.

[KevB]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

On top of that - you aren't going to out-score Golden State. This isn't the NFL; your offense becomes your defense as soon as the shot leaves your hand. If you go out there and station a big ol' bastard down low to deal with them on offense, whatever marginal gains you have made offensively you're going to give up in spades defensively. And when their offense is built around setting up 3 point shots that they knock down at a 40% clip, your offense that's built around 2-point shots now has to hit at about 60% to keep up.

Ask the Grizzlies from last year. Demoralizing to grind and get good 2 point looks with ZBo, Gasol and Conley, only to have one 3 point blitz put you too far behind to make it up. And then Golden St.'s versatility comes into play on D (Barnes doing ok against ZBo) and add a good coach (puts Bogut on Tony Allen) and that's all she wrote.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by KevB

Ask the Grizzlies from last year. Demoralizing to grind and get good 2 point looks with ZBo, Gasol and Conley, only to have one 3 point blitz put you too far behind to make it up. And then Golden St.'s versatility comes into play on D (Barnes doing ok against ZBo) and add a good coach (puts Bogut on Tony Allen) and that's all she wrote.

No doubt.

I'm the first to admit that I loved the Warriors style initially but it didn't take me long to burn out on it. The core concepts are great but when guys are now shooting 3s and routinely burying them at 40+%, I think it's may be time for a change.

The NFL did it with the XP when kickers just got too good and it was a welcomed change. It seems like both the NBA and the college game could stand to shrink the paint and expand the 3 point line out an extra foot or 2. It wouldn't do a thing to impact Steph Curry and his unlimited range, but it shouldn't have any impact on truly generational talents. I'm not looking to diminish greatness.

I just don't want to see a niche skill-set become all-important. Hitting a set shot from 22 feet is most assuredly not more difficult than hitting a 16 footer off the dribble. I'd just like to see more styles of game become viable. Right now 3 and D is the only way to win ballgames and even the Cavs have come around to that. It makes the game static and boring, IMO.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by KevB

Ask the Grizzlies from last year. Demoralizing to grind and get good 2 point looks with ZBo, Gasol and Conley, only to have one 3 point blitz put you too far behind to make it up. And then Golden St.'s versatility comes into play on D (Barnes doing ok against ZBo) and add a good coach (puts Bogut on Tony Allen) and that's all she wrote.

It's the same way the Heat lost to Dallas and San Antonio in the Finals. Teams got hot from 3, and you are screwed.

[KevB]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No doubt.

I'm the first to admit that I loved the Warriors style initially but it didn't take me long to burn out on it. The core concepts are great but when guys are now shooting 3s and routinely burying them at 40+%, I think it's may be time for a change.

The NFL did it with the XP when kickers just got too good and it was a welcomed change. It seems like both the NBA and the college game could stand to shrink the paint and expand the 3 point line out an extra foot or 2. It wouldn't do a thing to impact Steph Curry and his unlimited range, but it shouldn't have any impact on truly generational talents. I'm not looking to diminish greatness.

I just don't want to see a niche skill-set become all-important. Hitting a set shot from 22 feet is most assuredly not more difficult than hitting a 16 footer off the dribble. I'd just like to see more styles of game become viable. Right now 3 and D is the only way to win ballgames and even the Cavs have come around to that. It makes the game static and boring, IMO.

It was an inevitable evolution. There are only so many Shaq, DHoward, LeBron generational physical talents that are an extremely finite resource. Teams that didn't have the luxury of drafting or (less frequently) trading for one of those pure physical mismatches had to find another way to win.

Now Golden St. is even unique in this new world, as they have two of the best shooters in the history of the game (probably #1 and top 10-20 all time) and a guy in Draymond Green who is one of the most versatile players in the history of the NBA on both ends. They've taken that evolution and injected massive amounts of steroids.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No doubt.

I'm the first to admit that I loved the Warriors style initially but it didn't take me long to burn out on it. The core concepts are great but when guys are now shooting 3s and routinely burying them at 40+%, I think it's may be time for a change.

The NFL did it with the XP when kickers just got too good and it was a welcomed change. It seems like both the NBA and the college game could stand to shrink the paint and expand the 3 point line out an extra foot or 2. It wouldn't do a thing to impact Steph Curry and his unlimited range, but it shouldn't have any impact on truly generational talents. I'm not looking to diminish greatness.

I just don't want to see a niche skill-set become all-important. Hitting a set shot from 22 feet is most assuredly not more difficult than hitting a 16 footer off the dribble. I'd just like to see more styles of game become viable. Right now 3 and D is the only way to win ballgames and even the Cavs have come around to that. It makes the game static and boring, IMO.

You could probably only push it back at the top arch. You can't go any farther back on the sides they are already about to step out of bounds.

My main concern if you moved it back how that would effect the spacing.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No doubt.

I'm the first to admit that I loved the Warriors style initially but it didn't take me long to burn out on it. The core concepts are great but when guys are now shooting 3s and routinely burying them at 40+%, I think it's may be time for a change.

The NFL did it with the XP when kickers just got too good and it was a welcomed change. It seems like both the NBA and the college game could stand to shrink the paint and expand the 3 point line out an extra foot or 2. It wouldn't do a thing to impact Steph Curry and his unlimited range, but it shouldn't have any impact on truly generational talents. I'm not looking to diminish greatness.

I just don't want to see a niche skill-set become all-important. Hitting a set shot from 22 feet is most assuredly not more difficult than hitting a 16 footer off the dribble. I'd just like to see more styles of game become viable. Right now 3 and D is the only way to win ballgames and even the Cavs have come around to that. It makes the game static and boring, IMO.

OR teams could decide to defend the perimeter (leaving the lane more exposed).

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

You could probably only push it back at the top arch. You can't go any farther back on the sides they are already about to step out of bounds.

My main concern if you moved it back how that would effect the spacing.

True.

But in an era where point guards are 6'4'' with regularity, would additional spacing be a bad thing? Couldn't you widen the court by a couple of feet on each side and help some of the clog that happens underneath?

I've always been stunned by how little room there is to work with out there. On television you don't notice it but when you see a game in person, watching that many people try to operate in that space is just crazy. As players have gotten bigger and bigger, why not make the court a little bigger to compensate?

At that point you'd even create better passing lanes to allow additional spacing inside the arc and further increase the odds of succeeding down low.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

OR teams could decide to defend the perimeter (leaving the lane more exposed).

Teams aren't abandoning the perimeter now it's just that there are enough solid shooters in the league that you can rotate around the perimeter and set screens to give guys just enough time to get the shot off.

Offenses now are designed around high screens that force the defenders to go under the screen or switch off. If you go under the screen, that's enough time for the modern sharpshooters to burn you. If you switch off, reverse rotation will kill you.

That's why I say there's not a simple answer. If you could just decide to guard the perimeter, teams would've done it long ago. Giving up 35% beyond the arc isn't an environment coaches want to operate in, it's just become a fact of life given the number of shooters in the game today and the direction the league is trending.

I don't want to irreperably damage the effectiveness of that kind of system, I just want to see other kinds of systems remain possible ways to win and think as the game goes forward that's going to be less and less possible. I'd like to see teams be able to win like the Grizzlies tried; just be big and powerful and imposing underneath. I'd like to see teams be able to utilize the crafty pick and roll point guards and athletic front-courts to try go out there and win a championship.

But right now, the only way to win is to have 2 premier outside shooters and ideally a stretch 4/5 for maximum spacing. It runs the risk of getting almost as stale as the beat and bang teams of the late 90s.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

True.

But in an era where point guards are 6'4'' with regularity, would additional spacing be a bad thing? Couldn't you widen the court by a couple of feet on each side and help some of the clog that happens underneath?

I've always been stunned by how little room there is to work with out there. On television you don't notice it but when you see a game in person, watching that many people try to operate in that space is just crazy. As players have gotten bigger and bigger, why not make the court a little bigger to compensate?

At that point you'd even create better passing lanes to allow additional spacing inside the arc and further increase the odds of succeeding down low.

This guy like you makes a compelling argument to expand the width to 60 ft but not move the 3-point pt line but make sure the corner 3 loophole is closed.

Don't know if the owners would go for that though considering that would mean losing alot of the high price seats.

https://fansided.com/2016/03/03/nba-...-3-point-line/