5-on-5: Green deserve suspension? OKC now favored over Warriors?

— -- Did the NBA get the Draymond Green decision right? 

Will the Warriors come back or fall further behind the Thunder?

Our NBA Insiders go 5-on-5 heading into Game 4 of the West finals.

1. Fact or Fiction: The NBA got the Draymond Green decision right.

Amin Elhassan, ESPN Insider: Faction ... Fict ... Shucks, I don't know. The rational Amin agrees with the decision: Nobody wants to see a series decided by suspension, especially for what amounts to a (reckless) basketball play.

Tom Haberstroh,  ESPN Insider: Fiction. Intent is irrelevant in these matters (it's really hard to get inside the brain), but even so, kicking your leg up like Green did is super dangerous and also not part of the game -- unless you condone flopping. We'll be hearing about this for years if Golden State moves on.

Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: Fact. The kick was unnecessary and excessive and was ruled as such, but there's absolutely no way to measure the intent of a guy who clearly suffers from a severe kicking problem. An argument over jurisprudence can be a compelling plot point in a legal thriller, but it makes a lousy sideshow in an athletic competition featuring five of the best 20 or 25 basketball players in the world.

Jeremias Engelmann, ESPN Insider: Fiction. While there are videos out there showing that Green has a history of flailing his legs when driving, I think he was raising his leg at too high a speed and too steep an angle for it to have been inadvertent.

Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: Fact and fiction. No matter what the NBA ruled, it was going to make people unhappy. I find the arguments about precedent minimize context in favor of broad generalities. Whether the league suspended Green or not, the NBA could make the case that the punishment was deserved and critics could point to reasons that it was wrong. Let's all move on with our lives.

2. What is the most important thing to watch going forward?

Arnovitz: Which OKC is the best OKC? The Thunder are a deceptively versatile team that can win games any number of ways. Their big lineups have bothered the Warriors with length and crushed them at times on the glass. Their small lineups leverage their athleticism in an open-floor game and create seams for their scorers.

They've learned to score with Andre Roberson and learned to defend with Dion Waiters and Enes Kanter. At some point, the Warriors will get them on the ropes again, and it'll be interesting to see which three guys they assemble around  Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant at that point.

Elhassan: Can Golden State take away the easy "scrap points" that OKC has flourished on, namely points in transition and points off turnovers? In other words, can they force the Thunder to score against their set half-court defense, or will they allow them to run wild and free?

Engelmann: Whether the Thunder have the energy to continue to run like they did in Game 3. It seemed like every time the Thunder got a defensive rebound or steal, the entire team was running full speed and the Warriors -- who are one of the fastest teams themselves -- had trouble catching up.

Pelton: Whether the Warriors make shots. As overly simplistic as that sounds, player-tracking data suggests there wasn't much difference between the shots Golden State took in any of the three games.

Their quantified shot probability, which factors in the shooter, the shot location and the location of nearby defenders to estimate the effective field-goal percentage (eFG) on the shot, was 54.5 percent in Game 1, 55.2 percent in Game 2 and 55.1 percent in Game 3. Yet the Warriors' actual eFG has fluctuated from 50 percent in Game 1 to 58.2 percent in Game 2 to 47.3 percent Sunday.

Haberstroh: Et tu, Warriors' Death Lineup? Going small with Draymond Green has always been the knockout blow against opponents, but it betrayed the Warriors in Game 3. With  Serge Ibaka at the five, the Thunder were plus-34 in Game 3 after going minus-7 in Games 1 and 2. Can the Warriors really be beaten at their own game?

3. What should the Warriors be doing differently?

Elhassan: The Warriors have turned it over about the same in their win as in their losses, but Oklahoma City, in its wins, did a much better job of converting those turnovers to points. Moreover, the Warriors gave up considerably more offensive rebounds in their losses, which led to a predictably higher number of second-chance points. Shoring up those two areas would go a long way toward helping the Warriors win.

Haberstroh: Maybe try getting back on defense. The Warriors are allowing 1.47 points per chance in transition against OKC, way more than the Spurs (1.15) and the Mavericks (1.37) surrendered to the Thunder in their respective series.

Pelton: First, no more minutes for Anderson Varejao. Steve Kerr's second-half rotation in Game 3 should be the default.

Beyond that, I'd like to see the Warriors get back to their best attributes. Let's see more Steph Curry-Draymond Green pick-and-rolls, more ball movement and less of the one-on-one basketball we saw too often against switches in Games 1 and 3.

Engelmann: The Warriors' biggest problem appears to be transition defense -- they allowed 29 fast-break points in Game 3. They should give up crashing the offensive glass and try to position their slow shot-blockers closer to their own defensive basket -- for example, by running high pick-and-rolls -- to shorten the distance they have to run back.

Arnovitz: They don't have to be more cautious with their quick trigger (it's what makes the Warriors the Warriors) but they should be more selective. Situation, floor balance, potential for being eaten alive in transition -- all factors to consider. Golden State will also find it useful to stop fouling for 30 seconds at a time. A better flow will yield better opportunities.

4. Which of these numbers is closest to your own estimate?

A. Oklahoma City 64 percent chance to win ( FiveThirtyEight)
B. Oklahoma City 60 percent chance to win ( ESPN's Basketball Power Index)
C. Oklahoma City 45 percent chance to win (betting markets; PredictWise)

Pelton: I guess C, but I do think the market is selling the Thunder somewhat short. A 45 percent chance of winning suggests gamblers' relative views of Golden State and Oklahoma City are unchanged by this series, and as much as I think the Warriors can and will play better than they have, that viewpoint is unjustifiable when the Thunder are plus-9 thus far while playing two games on the road. I think this series is a toss-up at this point.

Engelmann: My simulation gives the Thunder a 56 percent chance to advance, so I'm going with B. While the bettors and bookmakers are implicitly reminding everyone to not overvalue recent performance, I think these Thunder -- having already ousted one of the best regular-season teams of all time in San Antonio -- have stepped it up a notch

Arnovitz: C. Even with the Warriors' 2-1 deficit, I still have this as a 50-50 series. The demoralizing Game 3 loss feels like last May's Memphis series (less so like last year's Finals when the Warriors lost Game 3, but figured out how to crack the code). The Warriors will get better nights from Draymond Green and Harrison Barnes, while Roberson, Waiters and Ibaka have performed at the high end of their range.

Elhassan: C. The Warriors haven't lost twice in a row all season long, and they won two series last year after falling behind 2-1. A lot of this is rooted in their ability to process and adjust to what their opponent is doing. I expect adjustments on the way, the sort that render OKC vulnerable and incapable of readjusting.

Haberstroh: C. I think it's just about even, maybe the slight edge to the Warriors. Believe it or not, the Warriors' quality of looks on offense in Game 3 were the best they've earned this postseason, per advanced SportVU data. They just didn't capitalize on those open shots. This series is a lot closer than it appears.

5. Who wins the series, and in how many games?

Haberstroh: Warriors in seven. We've seen this movie before -- the Warriors coming back from an early deficit and running the table (see: Memphis and Cleveland last postseason). This one will be harder to pull off because OKC is so formidable, but the Warriors are a 73-9 team that hasn't lost consecutive games all season. They arguably bounce back better than anybody in NBA history.

Elhassan: I haven't wavered from my prediction of Warriors in 6, but Game 4 is now effectively "must-win" territory for Golden State.

Arnovitz: Golden State in 7. The Warriors have been successful problem-solvers during this run. Down 2-1, they figured out how to use the Grizzlies' interior advantage against them last year, then figured out how to use the Cavs' hard traps against them. This Thunder squad is better than either of those teams, which fell in six and five respectively. But the Warriors can lick this if they execute.

Engelmann: I think the Thunder take Game 4 and then finally win the series in six. Something seems to be clicking with their current rotation, while the Warriors are slightly hampered by multiple minor injuries to Steph Curry. It all depends on who wins Game 4, though. If the Warriors take it, they'll advance.

Pelton: Warriors in 7. In lieu of flipping a coin between Oklahoma City in 6 and Golden State in 7, I'm going with my gut feeling that the Warriors are ever so slightly more likely than not to settle down, resume playing the intelligent basketball they have throughout the last two seasons and win this series.