The Western Conference Finals begin Monday night in Oakland as the Oklahoma City Thunder take on the Golden State Warriors. Matt Moore and Zach Harper go back and forth on how these two match up, and what, if any, Oklahoma City can do against the defending champs.
1. Are there any role players OKC can trust against Golden State?
Matt Moore: Let's start here with the bigs. Ibaka, who for so long has been a dominant, looked awful vs. the Spurs, and yet still wound up with a plus-12.6 per 100 possessions. He's one of the few role players for OKC that you can reliably trust to make the shot when the defense collapses. On the other hand, the Steven Adams- combo just mauled the Spurs. San Antonio wasn't able to exploit Kanter in the pick and roll, in part because he played it surprisingly, shockingly well, and in part because the Thunder were fine with shooting when he came off the screen. That won't be the case with Steph. I just wonder if OKC can survive if Ibaka continues to struggle like the eye test says he has and if Kanter is unplayable because of how the will target him.
Zach Harper: That's my biggest question for them other than shooting. What is the lineup you feel the most comfortable playing? Is it with two bigs? Is that combination Adams and Ibaka or Adams and Kanter? Do you feel the pressure to defend what the Warriors do more or do you feel the pressure to keep up with them offensively? And where is Ibaka's confidence with his shooting? He was a bad stretch-big during the regular season but the 3-point shot (54.1 percent) and midrange shot (55.2 percent) have both been there during the playoffs.
I don't think the Thunder can survive with Kanter on the floor unless the perimeter is great defensively. So will Russell Westbrook, Dion Waiters (what am I typing?) be able to lock down defensively? Or if you switch Waiters out for Andre Roberson when Kanter is in the game, can you score enough whilst defending those pick-and-rolls? Their starting lineup success against the Warriors in the regular season is such a small sample that I'm not sure how much I can put into it. Once those subs happen, it's hard to know what OKC will look like. We know what the Warriors look like when they sub. But to be completely fair, I thought Kanter would struggle against the Spurs too.
Matt Moore: And Waiters has stepped up big time, but to defend the Warriors it takes everyone being able to stretch out to the perimeter. To me, the advantage in the Kanter-Adams combo is that if you can beat them up on the offensive glass, so if Kanter can manage to out-muscle (which is so tough no matter how big you are), you can force that smallball death lineup off the court. That has to happen. One thing that could wind up swinging this is if Adams just tears Bogut apart. Adams hasn't just been a defensive monster or good on the board, he's beating teams when they collapse on Westbrook. But beyond all that, it's not going to matter if the bigs can't get out to contain Curry. Spoiler alert: They can't. I feel that for all the talk about the matchups and everything else, it's just not going to matter because it's not physically possible to stop Curry, so you throw more resources to do so, and when you do that, the Warriors eviscerate you.
2. What will OKC need to do to handle Stephen Curry?
Zach Harper: So then what's the plan? We've talked a couple of ways about how you deal with the entire Steph Curry problem and obviously we didn't come up with any solutions because we're the only two people that didn't interview for the Kings' coaching job. You're not going to stop Curry when he's on the court and I'm not entirely sure you're going to be able to realistically contain him. So how do you absorb those 30-45 points every night from him? What are the game-to-game adjustments? Because what worked against the Spurs (daring Tony Parker and LaMarcus Aldridge to beat you) won't fly against the Warriors.
We've said many times to just put a small guy on to dare the Warriors to go to that, but Mark Jackson isn't coaching this team. They don't fall for that stuff. And when Curry gives the ball up, that's actually when he's at his most dangerous because he never stops moving. That constant movement allows him to get as many open jumpers as anybody else, which seems like a bad idea to give the greatest shooter ever. You obviously can't zone up with a hybrid box-and-one because the Warriors shoot too well everywhere besides Curry.
Is it possible to do a triangle-and-two bastardized zone defense attempt and just hope you force Draymond Green to beat you? Man never leaves Curry. Man never leaves . And the rest is just some chaotic switching? This isn't a thing, right? Especially not with the way the Warriors run so many pick and handoff plays for their two guys?
Matt Moore: It's the best option they may have. I think blitzing Curry is the play. Stay home on Ezeli, stay home on the corner shooter, and dare Draymond to score 40 on you out of the short roll. In post-ups, live with the Livingston jumper. You mentioned how dangerous Curry is off-ball. Westbrook played better defense towards the end of Spurs-Thunder than he has all year, but he's still a ball-watcher, and Waiters has that tendency as well. And if you put Waiters, who is great on-ball, on Curry, that means Westbrook, shorter than Thompson, is chasing Klay around and getting lost.
There are no good options here.
Are there things we at least feel like the Thunder can exploit offensively? I feel like they should be able to attack the rim. The Warriors clog it, but with the attention they have to pay on the perimeter, there will be chances. Finishing at the rim is going to be so, so important throughout this series for OKC. Not just for Westbrook, who struggled but eventually adjusted vs. San Antonio, but for Waiters and those guys as well.
3. How will Golden State match up against Durant?
Zach Harper: Even with the matchup of Draymond Green on Kevin Durant, I love KD's advantage here. He'll light anybody up. ANYBODY. That's not a knock on the defenders either. He torched the Spurs for the most part and that was with Kawhi Leonard and Danny Green taking turns against him. Even though his 3-point shot was off, he still got mostly any shot he wanted, and that's all you can hope for if you're OKC -- let Durant be comfortable on offense. That's a tough ask for him to do it against the Spurs and then again against the Warriors. But he torched this team in the regular season (for whatever that is worth).
Now I'm not sure if that would change anything for the Warriors and what they want to do. How much help are they wanting to send toward Durant? They'll feel pretty confident in Draymond and even Harrison Barnes sizing up Durant and trying to take away his shot. But if he can get to the hoop consistently, that may change things. This is where the movement that we pine for with the Thunder's halfcourt sets becomes so important. They have to move. They can't ball watch on offense. Roberson and Waiters need to cut baseline. Russ has to cut down the middle of the floor. Adams and Kanter have to orbit the restricted area. You have to force the Warriors to make decisions on defense and not dictate the decisions for the offense.
I think Durant can do that and I think he has solid safety valve options.
4. Should Russ stop taking 3s, and how can he wear Klay and Curry down?
Matt Moore: I don't think you can. I'm not trying to bust in with cliches like "Let Westbrook be Westbrook" but there's simply no way for him to play his game without trusting his instincts for when he should go for a kill shot. And that's what those are. When Westbrook hits one of those shots, the whole building suffers a collective involuntary bowel movement. Because if he's hitting those, there's nothing you can do. Now, the Warriors will stick to the percentages and challenge him to do it over and over again, which is something that he can't do. But the effect it has is what will keep Westbrook shooting. However, Westbrook adjusts really well to what he needs to do. He was hyper-aggressive in Game 3 and it cost them. He came back, played within the offense, and distributed. That wound up being a good thing. But there's going to be one "Westbrook takes terrible 3-point shots" game in the first two at Oracle. I would guarantee that.
Iguodala doesn't honestly try and guard Westbrook much. He just pushes him to help. He knows Russ is faster, and there's nothing he can do. Iguodala's priorities with Westbrook are to force him to help and not foul. From there, it'll be up to Bogut and Draymond to vertically contest at him the rim.
Roberson and Waiters have to hit some shots in this series. The Warriors are going to Roberson, and likely going to Waiters. They're going to sink to take away the driving lanes and create stagnation. One thing the Thunder adjusted to vs. the Spurs, and I asked Donovan about this between 3 and 4, is that they had to get used to being quicker with the trigger.
If you hesitate or try and find the extra man, the defense is going to jump that. You have to make them worried about you, or it's just not going to work. Roberson had his big Game 6 vs. the Spurs, but it's just unlikely he winds up having even one more game like that in this series.
Man, the Thunder need a lot to go their way.
Zach Harper: That's been the biggest thing about the Thunder's offense. People complain that not enough happens, but really not enough happens with urgency. They get into stuff too slowly and it sometimes takes away the advantages their talent can create. I have no problem with Westbrook being Westbrook, but he's a horrendous 3-point shooter and I don't know that you can waste four possessions a game on him hoping the shot is clicking that night. That's my worry with it. I'd much rather him attack to 18-20 feet and fire up a midrange jumper.
Even with all of these problems the Thunder have ahead of them, I struggled to pick the Warriors. I realize how stupid that sounds because these Warriors are historic and relatively healthy (save for what's troubling Bogut) and crazy dangerous. And I get the flaws of the Thunder. There's just something about what Durant and Westbrook can do. We're hyper critical of them, not in a LeBron James type of way, but not far from it either. Defending the Warriors will be different than what it was against the Spurs, but the principles are still loosely the same: protect the rim, protect the 3-point line, and limit the ball movement.
The Spurs couldn't get dribble penetration against them so those were easier things to accomplish. But it's not like this Spurs team can't score. The Thunder stopped them from scoring efficiently. Doing that against the Warriors is near impossible because of what Curry can do. But what if Durant can do what Curry does? What if that supernova is smacked in the mouth by another supernova? Does that change things? Does that change how we perceive the lack of vulnerability the Warriors have when healthy? I really think this gets tested in this series. Whether that means the Thunder shock the world or not is probably a couple more levels to break through.
