Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    I hope this "Curry is injured" narrative doesn't pick up too much steam!

    He looked fine against Portland. He looked fine in game 1&2 of this series. He looks fine to me now. He's just not getting as many wide open, clean looks at the basket. Plus, Westbrook is absolutely destroying him anytime he guarding him.

    OKC deserves credit for playing hard and playing well. GS deserves flack for not making adjustments and for all of a sudden going cold. These are the same shots they've hit all year to win 73 games, and now they're missing.

    I really hope credit goes to where credit is due.

    (d_c this wasn't directed at you, just saying in general. Great analysis from you as always)
    Why would the thunder give two ***** how healthy Curry is? They haven't had a healthy team in the playoffs themselves since they made the finals in 2012.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

      There is clearly value in keeping a team together and just making small tweaks here and there. It's amazing what they are doing to a 73 win team!

      Comment


      • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        I hope this "Curry is injured" narrative doesn't pick up too much steam!

        He looked fine against Portland. He looked fine in game 1&2 of this series. He looks fine to me now. He's just not getting as many wide open, clean looks at the basket. Plus, Westbrook is absolutely destroying him anytime he guarding him.

        OKC deserves credit for playing hard and playing well. GS deserves flack for not making adjustments and for all of a sudden going cold. These are the same shots they've hit all year to win 73 games, and now they're missing.

        I really hope credit goes to where credit is due.

        (d_c this wasn't directed at you, just saying in general. Great analysis from you as always)

        Curry is definitely hurt, but he's not going to say anything about it. He came back from a grade 2 sprained MCL in 2 weeks, something that people normally sit out a month for. If this were the regular season, he'd likely still not be playing. He's had exactly 2 Curry like games since coming back. Other games, he hasn't been Curry like.

        And as Kstat said, I doubt OKC cares. They've had season changing injuries in each of the past 3 years. I've probably been the person who has harped most on the fact that Ibaka being hobbled in the 2014 playoffs was a league changing injury. It was a huge break for the Spurs, and I've said over and over that Lebron might still be in Miami had Ibaka been healthy.

        Comment


        • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Why would the thunder give two ***** how healthy Curry is? They haven't had a healthy team in the playoffs themselves since they made the finals in 2012.
          I think your comment is obvious but that is not what he was referring to. It is the media narrative that he is making note of, thus taking away some of the luster of what they are doing.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

            You figure OKC could compete with GS scoring the ball. The thing I have been absolutely floored by is the level of OKC's defense the last two games. They are using their size, strength, and overall athletic advantage to throttle the Warrior's offense. They are heavily contesting and running them off the 3 - point line while still contesting everything around the basket. Assuming some of the success/intensity there was riding the emotional wave of home court. Interested to see if GS can turn that momentum at all with homecooking in game 6.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

              Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
              There is clearly value in keeping a team together and just making small tweaks here and there. It's amazing what they are doing to a 73 win team!
              There's value if the team is clearly as talented as OKC is and you know it's because of a fluke/freak injury in each of the past 3 seasons that ended your year If you don't have as talented a team, you should be looking to upgrade. Really also kind of justifies Sam Hinkies' rationale: You need a couple great players to truly contend and the best way to get them is from the draft. You can build a great system and culture, but all that can be trumped by a couple of great players. I'm not justifying the lengths Hinkie was going to, but you can certainly see the rationale of his "strike it rich in the draft or bust" method. If he got Wiggins and Towns in the draft, he'd probably still be the GM right now.

              The entire narrative about Durant "needing his own team" and needing Westbrook somewhere else was always stupid. Numbers have always shown that Durant performs better being on the same floor as Westbrook. OKC has had the most talented roster in the league for some time now. They play in a small market. It's not as if trading one of Durant or Westbrook and getting 75 cents on the dollar for them was going to bring them closer to the title or the type of fortune they had in the draft from 2007-2009.

              I told a lot of my fellow Warrior fans after last season about how incredible it was that we won the title (w/o benefit of big free agency or lotto luck) and a team that once drafted Durant, Westbrook and Harden still have no titles to show for it. I said nobody would've saw that coming after the 2011-2012 season. A lot of Warrior fans scoffed at that notion, saying the OKC bunch just wasn't all that good. Just a really silly notion and they overlooked how fortunate we were to win last year.

              Comment


              • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                You figure OKC could compete with GS scoring the ball. The thing I have been absolutely floored by is the level of OKC's defense the last two games. They are using their size, strength, and overall athletic advantage to throttle the Warrior's offense. They are heavily contesting and running them off the 3 - point line while still contesting everything around the basket. Assuming some of the success/intensity there was riding the emotional wave of home court. Interested to see if GS can turn that momentum at all with homecooking in game 6.
                They have length and athleticism, which is probably the best way to stop the "space pace" offense that Pop, Kerr and Budenholzer brought to prominence. If you can run people off the 3 point line and get into passing lanes, you can disrupt a lot of what those types of teams want to do.

                So far all the talk about how ball movement has been all the rage the past few seasons and how it's been good for the game (it has been), having great ISO players is still important come playoff time too. The term "Iso Joe" for Joe Johnson has always been used kind of derisively, but there absolutely is value to what he does, being able to score one on one.

                OKC has 2 great ISO players. They've been criticized for keeping that style for quite some time now, but hey, if you're really good at that, it might not be a bad idea to stick to that. It might come in handy during the playoffs, anyways.

                Comment


                • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                  Lost in this is the fact OKC is playing harder than golden state. It isn't hard to figure out which team is haunted by postseason demons and which just came off a championship.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    Lost in this is the fact OKC is playing harder than golden state. It isn't hard to figure out which team is haunted by postseason demons and which just came off a championship.
                    I said coming into this series that the Warriors looked beat up and out of sync vs. Portland. They didn't look good in that series, especially defensively. I think Portland was the first team (either ever or in quite some time) to score 120 points in 3 consecutive playoff games. That wasn't a good sign for the defending champs to repeat.

                    It's intangible stuff and can't be clearly proven, but the pressure/scrutiny of a 73 win season has gotten to the Warriors. You could see how much it was wearing on them the last 20-25 games of the year, with the constant media pressure, questions about whether they should go for it or rest guys plus getting every team's best shot every single game of the year. It's taxing.

                    It may or may not have an affect on this series, but I have no doubt in my mind they're going to approach the regular season differently next year. Can't blame them for what they did this year, though. Everyone dared them to do something historic, and they went on to do it.

                    On the other hand, you've got a hungry team in OKC. It was their league to dominate after 2012, but due to some injury every year since, they haven't fulfilled their destiny. They are playing like a team that is looking to make up for that. And the team/franchise has always known this season that they're essentially playing to keep Durant. They have absolutely been the team showing urgency.
                    Last edited by d_c; 05-25-2016, 08:30 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                      What I like most is that we're watching GS be beaten by a team that isn't playing small ball. OCK is even forcing GS to use there small ball lineup a lot less to be able to match up against them. What a concept, force the small ball club to worry about matching up instead of changing your own team. Most teams may have there small lineups that they use situationally but to date there has only been 1 team to win a title playing small ball and I hope it stays that way. Look at the ECF series and the impact post players have had in Toronto getting this far. I really hope Bird is watching this trend and rethinking his vision.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                        Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                        You figure OKC could compete with GS scoring the ball. The thing I have been absolutely floored by is the level of OKC's defense the last two games. They are using their size, strength, and overall athletic advantage to throttle the Warrior's offense. They are heavily contesting and running them off the 3 - point line while still contesting everything around the basket. Assuming some of the success/intensity there was riding the emotional wave of home court. Interested to see if GS can turn that momentum at all with homecooking in game 6.
                        Durant and Westbrook playing intense smothering defense for the entire game has a lot to do with that. They've been the best offensive and defensive players on the floor for either team. And neither guy has shown particular interest in being consistent defenders prior to this postseason, but since game 1 in San Antonio they've taken it to a level neither guy has reached before.

                        It's hard to overstate how good those two have been in the last 2 rounds. They're playing like fatigue doesn't apply to them. Just 100% intensity every play. It's been shocking to watch.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 05-25-2016, 09:02 AM.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                          You can only play who is on the schedule and GS deserves obvious accolades for being the last team standing in 2015, but let's face it, their road to the title was relatively easy. I mean the Rockets somehow made the WCF's lol. They were able to avoid SA and LAC, plus OKC was nowhere to be found because of the Durant injury. Then in The Finals they played a one man show Lebron team. This Oklahoma City team with Durant and Westbrook firing on all cylinders is light years better than any team they had to face a year ago.

                          The Durant/Westbrook duo has lost to veteran teams every time they've been in the playoffs: 2010 Lakers, 2011 Mavericks, 2012 Heat, and 2014 Spurs. All of those teams had more experienced players. Well now all of the sudden Durant and Westbrook have experience and are in the prime of their careers. It's all working out so beautifully.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                            What I like most is that we're watching GS be beaten by a team that isn't playing small ball. OCK is even forcing GS to use there small ball lineup a lot less to be able to match up against them. What a concept, force the small ball club to worry about matching up instead of changing your own team. Most teams may have there small lineups that they use situationally but to date there has only been 1 team to win a title playing small ball and I hope it stays that way. Look at the ECF series and the impact post players have had in Toronto getting this far. I really hope Bird is watching this trend and rethinking his vision.
                            Small ball I do not believe is a long term league trend. With better bigs, you can beat small ball. I sure hope Bird and company is watching. The Pacers need a point but I think a quality big man is maybe more pressing. The Pacers got beat up a little inside this past year.
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                              I have no particular investment in the Warriors but the Steph Curry 'haters' coming out of the woodwork irritate me.

                              That and people are going to question them going for 73 despite that being idiotic. Steph and Klay barely played in 4th quarters this year.

                              It's also funny given how much you could find people blaming the Colts lack of going for the regular season record for them losing in the Super Bowl. I had to stop from calling people in my family crazy.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                                He's had exactly 2 Curry like games since coming back. Other games, he hasn't been Curry like.
                                He had 40 in his first game back, 17 in the O.T period.
                                He had 29 in the close out game, shooting over 50% from the field. He closed out that game in the 4th with daggers.
                                He had 28 in game two of this series, again shooting over 50% from the field. He had 17 in the 3rd when they put OKC away

                                So that's 3 out of 5 games that he's looked more than fine. If he's going to receive praise for performing well (which he deservedly received after these games) then he should receive blame when he doesn't show up. His lack of defense is inexcusable for a guy that's supposed to be the greatest player in the league.

                                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                                And as Kstat said, I doubt OKC cares. They've had season changing injuries in each of the past 3 years. I've probably been the person who has harped most on the fact that Ibaka being hobbled in the 2014 playoffs was a league changing injury. It was a huge break for the Spurs, and I've said over and over that Lebron might still be in Miami had Ibaka been healthy.
                                Ohh I agree. OKC doesn't care. And nor should they. Asterisk's don't make rings any less shiny. And there's nothing that should take away the incredible feat they have the chance to pull off. EVERYONE was saying this was the best team ever (Golden State) and OKC has a chance of not only knocking them off, but doing so in almost a dominating fashion.

                                For those of us not a fan of the Dubs style of basketball, it's very fun to see. For fans of the Warriors, I'm sure it's a bit of a shock. But there's still hope. It ain't over until it's over. But Kerr needs to make some adjustments and fast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X