[2016] The Finals

Who ya got?


  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
No need to poopoo on jump-shooting teams. Warriors were amazing this season. You can't take anything away from them. The Cavs just slightly outplayed them.

You know what I find funny? How the game winning shot was.....*gasp* A JUMPSHOT. ....also a 3PT SHOT.
Please. Based on that rationale, the "jumpshooting era" began when Paxson hit a three to clinch Game 6 of the '93 Finals. FOH with that.
 
Please. Based on that rationale, the "jumpshooting era" began when Paxson hit a three to clinch Game 6 of the '93 Finals. FOH with that.
No team in the NBA can survive today without 3pt shooting. Take a look at the Western Conf this year.... every single team that made the playoffs with the exception of Memphis rely on the 3pter. In all honestly, Memphis shouldn't even have made it.... Injuries allowed them to advance. (Ended up getting sweeped anyways)
 
The Warriors lost in the last minute or so of a game 7 of the finals. I'm happy the Cavs won, but I'm not sure that's a conclusive referendum on anything.

Should teams continue to copy the Warriors? Unless they also have some of the best shooters in the game, they shouldn't have tried to copy them in the first place. The Warriors simply built on their strengths, some fairly unique otherworldly skillsets. If you don't also have that, you shouldn't try to follow suit.

What does this mean for the Kings? Well, I'd say the Kings still need shooting, nothing I saw in the finals changed that. If you really feel the need to follow the "Cavs model," I saw a physically dominant player paired with a mobile defending big, a secondary creator/shooter, 3-and D types, and Love, whatever you want to call his role there. Boogie and WCS might check off the first two boxes, but our roster similarities stop there. Even if you want to oversimplify things and say "the Kings need to copy the Cavs not the Warriors," well, the Kings still need shooting to do that.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
No team in the NBA can survive today without 3pt shooting. Take a look at the Western Conf this year.... every single team that made the playoffs with the exception of Memphis rely on the 3pter. In all honestly, Memphis shouldn't even have made it.... Injuries allowed them to advance. (Ended up getting sweeped anyways)
You're oversimplifying. No other team "relies" on the three-point shot the way that Golden State "relies" on the three-point shot. Do other teams in the western conference take a lot of threes? Yeah, if you're classifying "a lot" of threes the way Mr. Slim defines "a lot" of threes (Which is, to say, "more than zero," because I hate threes). And, if "every single team" that made the playoffs in the west, with the exception of Memphis, "relies" on the three-point shot, then why were two of the four western conference semifinalists below league average in threes attempted during the regular season (Thunder were 17th in the league in attempts, Spurs were 26th; FYI, the Grizzlies were 25th)?

Last year, three of the Final Four teams in the NBA playoffs were in the Top 4 in three-pointers attempted during the regular season, and all four finished in the Top 7. This year, only two of them did. That doesn't sound like the league is necessarily evolving towards "MOAR FREES~!" to me. Maybe it still is, but there's still no other team shooting them like Golden State is shooting them, except for the laughably ill-conceived Rockets, so the question still remains whether they are the prototype, or a statistical aberration? The 2014-15 Golden State Warriors are the only team in NBA history to have the best player on their team be the guy who finished #1 in the league in three-pointers made, and win a championship. And, if they don't get back to the Finals and win it all in the next 2-3 years, history is going to look back on that team as a fluke.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
The Warriors lost in the last minute or so of a game 7 of the finals. I'm happy the Cavs won, but I'm not sure that's a conclusive referendum on anything.

Should teams continue to copy the Warriors? Unless they also have some of the best shooters in the game, they shouldn't have tried to copy them in the first place. The Warriors simply built on their strengths, some fairly unique otherworldly skillsets. If you don't also have that, you shouldn't try to follow suit.

What does this mean for the Kings? Well, I'd say the Kings still need shooting, nothing I saw in the finals changed that. If you really feel the need to follow the "Cavs model," I saw a physically dominant player paired with a mobile defending big, a secondary creator/shooter, 3-and D types, and Love, whatever you want to call his role there. Boogie and WCS might check off the first two boxes, but our roster similarities stop there. Even if you want to oversimplify things and say "the Kings need to copy the Cavs not the Warriors," well, the Kings still need shooting to do that.
That's cool, but my response to that is to say that needing/having shooters is not the same thing as "relying" on three-point shooting. You need to have complimentary/role players good enough that the defense cannot afford to focus their entire defensive energy on shutting down your best player. When your best player is a dominant big, that means spacing the floor, to let him be able to operate where he can impact the game the most, which is primarily going to be 18-20 feet and closer. We need to have good enough shooters that the defense can't cheat off our guards to double and triple Cousins; I wouldn't really call that "relying" on three-pointers, though, would you?
 
That's cool, but my response to that is to say that needing/having shooters is not the same thing as "relying" on three-point shooting. You need to have complimentary/role players good enough that the defense cannot afford to focus their entire defensive energy on shutting down your best player. When your best player is a dominant big, that means spacing the floor, to let him be able to operate where he can impact the game the most, which is primarily going to be 18-20 feet and closer. We need to have good enough shooters that the defense can't cheat off our guards to double and triple Cousins; I wouldn't really call that "relying" on three-pointers, though, would you?
Nope, no disagreement here. My comment was more in regards to sentiment I've seen that the Warriors' loss somehow means the Kings don't need to worry about shooting.
 
"pretty good numbers" aren't why stephen curry was named mvp. with lebron james' playing at an otherworldly level in the back half of these finals, curry was absolutely pedestrian by his own lofty standards. he looked like a role player out there during game 7, and one who throws up garbage shots, at that. lebron has taken the knocks throughout his career for shrinking from big moments. curry should take them, too. he didn't show up when it mattered most. 17 points on 6-19 shooting (4-14 from 3). only 2 assists as a starting pg for a team that prides itself on ball movement. continually roasted on defense by a cavs team prepared to exploit his weaknesses. it wasn't a good look for a player who's had the "unanimous mvp" tag attached to his name the entire playoffs...
I agree Curry didn't play up to his own standards, but it was just one game. You may judge a player by a single game or a series, but I would never do that. I look at the entire body of work.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say Curry didn't show up when it mattered most. Did the other 17 games not matter? The Warriors rely on team ball movement. They don't need Curry to be the primary passer. That's not their system.

Sure, it wasn't a good look for the unanimous MVP, but those arguments are superficial for water-cooler talk purposes. MVP is a regular season award, not a post season one.
 
Nope, no disagreement here. My comment was more in regards to sentiment I've seen that the Warriors' loss somehow means the Kings don't need to worry about shooting.
this is certainly foolish thinking on the part of the individuals making such a claim. i've no love for the warriors or the pace-and-space era of nba basketball, but some measure of floor spacing has been essential to the game for decades, though it's usually in service to a strategy that prizes the acquisition of points much closer to the basket. the warriors and a couple other teams have attempted to turn the three-point shot into a primary weapon, and that requires the kind of exceptional outside shooting talent that only the warriors have, at this point. and bravo to their front office and their coaching staff for embracing the skill of stephen curry and klay thompson. it's never happened that two of the greatest shooters of all time play on the same team, and it would be silly to attempt to turn the curry/thompson warriors into a grind-it-out ball club that clears space down low for andrew bogut post-ups--just as it was silly for george karl to attempt to turn the cousins-led kings into the fastest team in the nba. as always, you coach to the talent you have, and the warriors have done an excellent job of maximizing their outside shooting talent...

but the warriors loss in the finals doesn't act as some kind of referendum on the entire enterprise of outside shooting in the nba. i think it does a bit to deflate the notion that the warriors are "redefining the game" as we speak. in the absence of their typical shooter's touch, what did the warriors need in the last three games? they needed a traditional alternative to generate points at the rim, to find an offensive rhythm, and they didn't have it. they played really good defense last night, but perhaps the greatest scoring team in nba history couldn't come up with points in a tightly-contested fourth quarter. it was stunning to watch three-point shot after three-point shot clang off the rim. i kept thinking that they were going to uncork on the cavs in the final five minutes and wipe them from the face of the earth. instead, the dubs went completely scoreless during that period. as someone who thinks the three-point line remains a gimmick that cheapens the game, it was thrilling for me to witness. for the warriors, it was surely a major bummer. and unfortunately for them, neither curry nor thompson are particularly gifted slashers. curry can find points at the rim when he's up against weak competition, but it's never his first (or even second) instinct. he'd rather try to shoot over kevin love on the perimeter with the game on the line than simply blow by him for a better shot...

if andre iguodala were ten years younger, i think the warriors would be near-perfectly constructed, because the iggy of yore had a fearless rim attack, and the warriors need a player like that who can help them generate some easy buckets/free throws in a pinch if the shots aren't falling from outside. the dubs only had 13 free throws last night to the cavaliers 25. cleveland was much more aggressive in getting to the rim, and even though they missed a lot of those shots, they managed to draw just enough fouls to create a bit of separation in the fourth. it was gutsy basketball, and it wasn't pretty at all. but winning a title isn't about pageantry, and the cavs were better equipped to win when the game got mucked up and ugly. i mean, all i've heard all season long is how "beautiful" warriors basketball is. yeah, sure, if you consider running side pick-and-rolls ad nauseum and chucking 30-footers early in the shot clock to be "beautiful." but what do you do when those beautiful shots aren't falling in game 7 of the finals? what do you do when the statistics and the averages and the past accomplishments no longer matter? during the regular season, you can blitz each new opponent you face. but in the playoffs, you've got one team gunning for you and game planning for you, and we watched both the thunder and the cavaliers--two teams that are surely inferior to the warriors--unmask deficiencies that didn't seem like they were there for the majority of a 73-9 season...

all of that said, the kings definitely still need to worry about shooting. they've needed to (and failed to) surround demarcus cousins with adequate shooting since they drafted him. i don't want the kings to add three-point shooting because it's en vogue. i want the kings to add three-point shooting because it will make big cuz's life easier. he has to work way too hard for points when the kings just dump it to him into the post. and cuz needs to become better at recognizing when to pass out of those double- and triple-teams, because somebody's gonna be open, and god help the rest of the nba if cuz and the kings ever manage to figure this out...
 
The defensive blueprint to beat the Warriors is firmly in place. OKC used it and nearly won. Cleveland used it and did win because they were more consistent offensively and made GSW work harder. Losing Bogut hurt, but the dude was averaging 12 minutes per game so his absence was unlikely to be a series changer. Losing Draymont in GM5 hurt, but the Cavs beat them with Draymont in GM's 6 and 7 so anyone claiming the Warriors would have won GM5 if not for the suspension are reaching. They may have, but it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion. Not even close.

Cleveland was hurt far more during last season's Finals by not having Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love. This current series showed how valuable a #2 Kyrie was to help LeBron get over the top. Love didn't put up big numbers and was invisible at times, but he did end up with the best +- in GM7 with +19. When Love wasn't on the floor the Cavs were -15. He had an impact even if he didn't score much.

I agree with Slim that GSW will be looked at as a fluke if they don't get back to the Finals and win it. Coming into this season they were already being largely dismissed because they didn't have to face SA or the Clippers in the postseason and they struggled to beat a Cavs team minus multiple starters. They shut up many of the naysayers with their historic regular season and their comeback against OKC in the Conference Finals. However, losing in the Finals has rekindled a lot of the doubt. We'll see what happens from here. If the team comes back as currently constructed, I think they'll be proven a shooting star. However, if they manage to add a pivotal piece or two, I think they'll be back.
 
I agree Curry didn't play up to his own standards, but it was just one game. You may judge a player by a single game or a series, but I would never do that. I look at the entire body of work.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say Curry didn't show up when it mattered most. Did the other 17 games not matter? The Warriors rely on team ball movement. They don't need Curry to be the primary passer. That's not their system.

Sure, it wasn't a good look for the unanimous MVP, but those arguments are superficial for water-cooler talk purposes. MVP is a regular season award, not a post season one.
you were commenting on curry's body of work during the finals, and i was simply saying that his body of work in the finals really wasn't all that impressive, given what we've come to expect from him and given what the warriors needed from him in the last three games of this series. they needed to win just one of those three games (edit: two of which were at home, mind you). they needed curry to show up when it mattered most, and he didn't. he was sub-par through all three of the games in which the cavs were facing elimination. lebron rose to the challenge. curry did not. and now the warriors get to deal with all of that "water-cooler talk." they get to answer questions about the disappointment that comes from breaking the bulls' regular season record but failing to win the championship. michael jordan showed up when it mattered most in the playoffs that followed his 72-10 season. curry is in that conversation now. he plays for one of the greatest teams ever. he's an mvp. he's a champion. and he should be held accountable for bad basketball in the finals. that's the way this works. and sure, the mvp is a regular season award, but to think that there are no post-season implications to that award is silly. the mvp will always carry greater weight and expectations into the playoffs than his peers. lebron is certainly familiar with that weight and those expectations, and he's certainly familiar with the criticism associated with coming up short. curry will become familiar with it, too, and we'll see how he develops as a playoff talent from here...
 
Last edited:
i want the kings to add three-point shooting because it will make big cuz's life easier. he has to work way too hard for points when the kings just dump it to him into the post. and cuz needs to become better at recognizing when to pass out of those double- and triple-teams, because somebody's gonna be open, and god help the rest of the nba if cuz and the kings ever manage to figure this out...
Amen to that.
 
The defensive blueprint to beat the Warriors is firmly in place. OKC used it and nearly won. Cleveland used it and did win because they were more consistent offensively and made GSW work harder. Losing Bogut hurt, but the dude was averaging 12 minutes per game so his absence was unlikely to be a series changer. Losing Draymont in GM5 hurt, but the Cavs beat them with Draymont in GM's 6 and 7 so anyone claiming the Warriors would have won GM5 if not for the suspension are reaching. They may have, but it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion. Not even close.

Cleveland was hurt far more during last season's Finals by not having Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love. This current series showed how valuable a #2 Kyrie was to help LeBron get over the top. Love didn't put up big numbers and was invisible at times, but he did end up with the best +- in GM7 with +19. When Love wasn't on the floor the Cavs were -15. He had an impact even if he didn't score much.

I agree with Slim that GSW will be looked at as a fluke if they don't get back to the Finals and win it. Coming into this season they were already being largely dismissed because they didn't have to face SA or the Clippers in the postseason and they struggled to beat a Cavs team minus multiple starters. They shut up many of the naysayers with their historic regular season and their comeback against OKC in the Conference Finals. However, losing in the Finals has rekindled a lot of the doubt. We'll see what happens from here. If the team comes back as currently constructed, I think they'll be proven a shooting star. However, if they manage to add a pivotal piece or two, I think they'll be back.
Right. So GS missing Draymond in game 5 didn't affect them that much, but having Love and Irving out in the previous season substantially affected the outcome? You mean Kevin "I'll just stand here in the corner" Love's absence hurt them? Nice foregone conclusion.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
I agree Curry didn't play up to his own standards, but it was just one game. You may judge a player by a single game or a series, but I would never do that. I look at the entire body of work.
It's not just one game, it's thirteen. He may have only had one game where he was this bad, but he's been remarkably ordinary for a player with his résumé. He's been the reigning MVP in thirteen consecutive Finals games, now, and he's only looked like the MVP in one of them... maybe two of them. He has not looked like the best player on his own team in any of the thirteen Finals games he's played in his career, which is not something that should happen from a back-to-back MVP of the league.
 
Live by the jump shot, die by the jump shot.

Cleveland figured out how to play hard nosed defense with physicality. The refs let them play for the championship. Finesse teams struggle with physical play. The Warriors are no different.

James has grown up a lot and is starting to act like an adult. I am happy for the City of Cleveland.

One of the reasons people hate the Warriors is their attitude, and the totally biased mumblings of their suck up announcers. Draymond Green is an intense player. He showed us something in game 7 and hung around to congratulate James. The "Brothers" headed straight to the locker room like punks.

The Basketball Universe is now back in perfect alignment.
 
Right. So GS missing Draymond in game 5 didn't affect them that much, but having Love and Irving out in the previous season substantially affected the outcome? You mean Kevin "I'll just stand here in the corner" Love's absence hurt them? Nice foregone conclusion.

I didn't say that Green's absence didn't affect them that much. It may have. It may not have. What's factual is that Green played in GM's 6 and 7 and the Cavs still won. So anybody claiming that the Warriors would have won GM5 had Green played is reaching. Much different point that what you got out of it.

Regarding Kyrie and Love's impact in last season's series --- they missed the entire series sans Kyrie playing in GM1. That's a lot different than Green missing one game, isn't it?

As for Love's impact, you obviously ignored the part where he led GM7 in +- and the Cavs were -15 when he was on the bench. So he made a worthwhile impact in the series deciding game. FACT. He typically plays starters minutes. FACT.

He may not have produced massive stats, but his mere presence on the court helped open things up for both LeBron and Kyrie. They didn't have that last postseason. They didn't have a true #2 with Kyrie last postseason.

So, yeah, I think those 2 playing this postseason helped out a lot. I also believe that missing 11 Finals games collectively last year is much more impactful than missing 1 this year. The fact that you're trying to trivialize it says a lot about you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't say that Green's absence didn't affect them that much. It may have. It may not have. What's factual is that Green played in GM's 6 and 7 and the Cavs still won. So anybody claiming that the Warriors would have won GM5 had Green played is reaching. Much different point that what you got out of it.

Regarding Kyrie and Love's impact in last season's series --- they missed the entire series sans Kyrie playing in GM1. That's a lot different than Green missing one game, isn't it?

As for Love's impact, you obviously ignored the part where he led GM7 in +- and the Cavs were -15 when he was on the bench. So he made a worthwhile impact in the series deciding game. FACT. He typically plays starters minutes. FACT.

He may not have produced massive stats, but his mere presence on the court helped open things up for both LeBron and Kyrie. They didn't have that last postseason. They didn't have a true #2 with Kyrie last postseason.

So, yeah, I think those 2 playing this postseason helped out a lot. The fact that you're trying to trivialize it says a lot about you.
I'm not very smart, but yet you're the one making presumptions. Having Kyrie would have meant the Cavs won last year, but Draymond missing game 5 didn't change the outcome of the series. I won't bother explaining why you're making presumptions because you won't bother to comprehend it so I'll leave it at that.

You even said Love played a part in their victory. Enough said.
 
I'm not very smart, but yet you're the one making presumptions. Having Kyrie would have meant the Cavs won last year, but Draymond missing game 5 didn't change the outcome of the series. I won't bother explaining why you're making presumptions because you won't bother to comprehend it so I'll leave it at that.
Nowhere did I state that it was a certainty Cleveland would have won last year with Kyrie and Love. I said they were hurt more by the absence of those two players for (essentially) the entire series than the Warriors were hurt by Green's 1 game absence this series. Will I have to repeat that yet again?

You even said Love played a part in their victory. Enough said.
Prove that he didn't.

I already provided statistical evidence supporting that he made an impact in the deciding GM7. He led the Cavs with a +19. When he wasn't on the floor they were -15. He had 14 rebounds, including 4 offensive. That's a lot more than the Cavs got out of him last season when he didn't play at all.

Biggest difference is the Cavs won this year with both Kyrie and Love in the lineup versus losing without them last season. Game, set and match.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Entitled fans? I think they were fully justified in burning his jersey at the time. He made a very poor judgment call with "The Decision" and had I lived in Cleveland and been a Cavs fan, I would have been right there with the torch and accelerant.
What poor judgement? LeBron helped Miami get into 4 straight finals, winning 2. His decision to leave Cleveland was right at the time - they weren't willing to step up and get him a better roster to compete with the elite. BTW that fan protest back then was fueled by the owner as much as anything else. Pardon my pun but he "fanned the flames."
 
Again, you can't read and comprehend. Pretty soon I'm going to leave it at that.

Nowhere did I state that it was a certainty Cleveland would have won last year with Kyrie and Love. I said they were hurt more by the absence of those two players for (essentially) the entire series than the Warriors were hurt by Green's 1 game absence this series. Will I have to repeat that yet again?

If Kyrie and Love were healthy last postseason, I doubt that they would have lost that 2-1 series lead and the result would have been the same as this postseason.
The Warriors were clearly superior last season because of the injuries to Kyrie and Love. Just having Kyrie healthy this postseason made the difference, as LBJ was just as dominate and spectacular last season. But he didn't have the supporting cast to get it done. This year he did. It's that simple.
Does this refresh your memory?
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
What poor judgement? LeBron helped Miami get into 4 straight finals, winning 2. His decision to leave Cleveland was right at the time - they weren't willing to step up and get him a better roster to compete with the elite. BTW that fan protest back then was fueled by the owner as much as anything else. Pardon my pun but he "fanned the flames."
I'm not talking about the decision itself. I'm talking about all the hype and how he chose to make it public.
 
Does this refresh your memory?
Where do you see an absolute statement of certainty?

The first quote is an opinion. I even purposely used the words "I doubt". It is my opinion that Kyrie and Love would have made a difference last year, as they did this season. But I don't know that to be fact nor did I position it as such. However, I am much more certain that those 2 players missing 11 games combined last season was far more impactful than Green missing one game this season --- especially when the Warriors still lost GM's 6 and 7 with him back in the lineup

As for the 2nd quote, where's the part that says that Cleveland most certainly would have won? I'm not seeing it. Furthermore, where's the inaccuracy in any of the statements?

Golden State was clearly the superior team last year given the circumstances. LeBron was just as dominate during last season's Finals even though Cleveland didn't win. Kyrie and Love's ability to play and perform was the difference between this year and last year. Kyrie's performance was clearly more important than Love's, but they both made an impact that Cleveland did get last year.

So, again, what's the point?

Lastly, since you failed to acknowledge it --- are you going to provide evidence that refutes the notion that Kevin Love played a part in their championship? I provided several examples of how he did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The BEST thing about GSW losing is that HOPEFULLY this wakes up Vivek from his fascination of small ball, jack up 3's all day, run and gun basketball nightmare. :eek:;):D
I hope you're right. I've been saying this for a very long time. As they say

Offense Wins Games, Defense Wins Championships

That is what doomed us during the Adelman years. The guy was an offensive genius, but we never had a solid defense back then. Why have the Spurs been able to be so dang good all these years? Defense. Why do they have multiple championships? Defense. Why have past teams like Dallas (Dirk and Nash) and Phoenix (Nash, Amare, Marion) struggled to win titles? All O, and No D. I am waiting........no, I'm dying to see the day when the Kings become a lock down defensive juggernaut.

Until then....
 
The BEST thing about GSW losing is that HOPEFULLY this wakes up Vivek from his fascination of small ball, jack up 3's all day, run and gun basketball nightmare. :eek:;):D

Did it though? The reason the Cavs came back is because they've had most of their success when doing the same thing. Lebron played some center in this series. Trying to stay big against the Warriors and pound them inside with Love in the post is what cost them the first two games. The difference is by going small the Cavs were able to switch all screens and lock the Warriors up defensively. When Love was in, it was like watching the Kings last year, just sagging off the pick and watching the shooter have open looks all night.

That said, the Cavs don't have a Demarcus Cousins in the post. That would obviously in theory be a nightmare matchup for the W's "death squad" lineup. Still, being able to switch screens is vital in an era where very little contact is allowed beyond the 3 point line.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
Where do you see an absolute statement of certainty?

The first quote is an opinion. I even purposely used the words "I doubt". It is my opinion that Kyrie and Love would have made a difference last year, as they did this season. But I don't know that to be fact nor did I position it as such. However, I am much more certain that those 2 players missing 11 games combined last season was far more impactful than Green missing one game this season --- especially when the Warriors still lost GM's 6 and 7 with him back in the lineup

As for the 2nd quote, where's the part that says that Cleveland most certainly would have won? I'm not seeing it. Furthermore, where's the inaccuracy in any of the statements?

Golden State was clearly the superior team last year given the circumstances. LeBron was just as dominate during last season's Finals even though Cleveland didn't win. Kyrie and Love's ability to play and perform was the difference between this year and last year. Kyrie's performance was clearly more important than Love's, but they both made an impact that Cleveland did get last year.

So, again, what's the point?

Lastly, since you failed to acknowledge it --- are you going to provide evidence that refutes the notion that Kevin Love played a part in their championship? I provided several examples of how he did.
To be fair, a rational argument can be made that the series doesn't reach a Game 6 if Green plays in Game 5.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
We have a GM who knows that defense is highly important. Cleveland played incredible defense. Tristan Thompson was a huge, huge part of the win. I'm positive that we will be drafting a player who can play defense to help Coach Joerger and his schemes. Steph Curry got exposed for his poor defense. T Lue came up with a great scheme to take advantage of Curry on the defensive side.
 
Nope, no disagreement here. My comment was more in regards to sentiment I've seen that the Warriors' loss somehow means the Kings don't need to worry about shooting.
Nope, no disagreement here. My comment was more in regards to sentiment I've seen that the Warriors' loss somehow means the Kings don't need to worry about shooting.

I think Kings fans are more worried about our naive meddling owner who wants to recreate the Warrior and ask for more "Staukas, Staukas..." than anything.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
Did it though? The reason the Cavs came back is because they've had most of their success when doing the same thing. Lebron played some center in this series. Trying to stay big against the Warriors and pound them inside with Love in the post is what cost them the first two games. The difference is by going small the Cavs were able to switch all screens and lock the Warriors up defensively. When Love was in, it was like watching the Kings last year, just sagging off the pick and watching the shooter have open looks all night.

That said, the Cavs don't have a Demarcus Cousins in the post. That would obviously in theory be a nightmare matchup for the W's "death squad" lineup. Still, being able to switch screens is vital in an era where very little contact is allowed beyond the 3 point line.
Except that, when the Cavs play small ball, their matchup advantage still ends up being a post-up player. Their small-ball offense involves the objective of getting the ball to the guy who still ends up being the biggest guy on the court, and letting him make decisions.

The funny thing about the Cavaliers offense is that, as they got deeper in the playoffs, their three-point shooting actually regressed to the mean. Aside from the blowup against the Hawks, their attempts otherwise went down in every round, to the point that they were shooting around the league average number of attempts in the Finals: 29.6 during the regular season, 34.5 in the first round, 38 in the second round, 29.2 in the conference finals, and 24.3 in the Finals, compared to a league average of 24.1.
 
Where do you see an absolute statement of certainty?

The first quote is an opinion. I even purposely used the words "I doubt". It is my opinion that Kyrie and Love would have made a difference last year, as they did this season. But I don't know that to be fact nor did I position it as such. However, I am much more certain that those 2 players missing 11 games combined last season was far more impactful than Green missing one game this season --- especially when the Warriors still lost GM's 6 and 7 with him back in the lineup

As for the 2nd quote, where's the part that says that Cleveland most certainly would have won? I'm not seeing it. Furthermore, where's the inaccuracy in any of the statements?

Golden State was clearly the superior team last year given the circumstances. LeBron was just as dominate during last season's Finals even though Cleveland didn't win. Kyrie and Love's ability to play and perform was the difference between this year and last year. Kyrie's performance was clearly more important than Love's, but they both made an impact that Cleveland did get last year.

So, again, what's the point?

Lastly, since you failed to acknowledge it --- are you going to provide evidence that refutes the notion that Kevin Love played a part in their championship? I provided several examples of how he did.
You intimated it. You said Lebron was playing at the exact same level as last year, so simply having Kyrie would have produced similar results.

The inaccuracy in those statements is the presumptuous nature of it. On one hand, you say "you cannot presume having Draymond out game 5 affected the result of the series," but in the same breath presume that having a healthy Kyrie would have affected last year's series. I'm not even sure you brought up last year's finals in the first place.

I didn't respond to your "stats" about Love because =/- is flawed. Livingston was +8 and Draymond Green was -1. Who do you think contributed more?