Oklahoma City Thunder and Minnesota Timberwolves produced an incredible high -level basketball game for the first 47 minutes of game 4 at the end of the west conference of the NBA playoffs of 2025. The last minute was prepared for an exciting end with the wolves maintaining the possession of three with eight seconds. It was then that the flow of the game stopped and the foul game began.
The Thunder have been committing three throughout the season, and except for a high profile disaster before in these playoffs, the strategy has worked mainly in their favor. Oklahoma City executed their embeddation of three strategies perfectly this time, and allowed them to wait for a victories that change the series.
OKC defeated the Wolves, 128-126, in game 4 to take an advantage of the 3-1 series. The Thunder return home for game 5 with the opportunity to ensure an appearance in the NBA finals for the first time from Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and James Harden led them there in 2012.
The three young stars of Oklahoma City produced exclusive performances in victory. Even so, most of the conversation after the game was about the strategy of the late play of Thunder, the ethics of the lack of three and how the NBA can address it in the future.
Minnesota reduced his deficit to two with nine seconds when Rudy Gobert bounced a Donte Divinzo Miss and put it again. The wolves immediately failed Shai Gilgous-Alexander, and he divided his two free throws. The wolves called Timeout, advanced the ball at half court and prepared to make a play for a three -point attempt that pushes the game. Instead, they never left another field goal because OKC executed two fouls in recent seconds, and the Thunder made enough free throws to endure.
Many fans from all over the country felt that they were going to steal the opportunity to see a classic end because the Thunder decided to heat three. Here is a small sample of the reaction of social networks:
The NBA has to change the rule to eliminate the “intelligent” game of the foul 3. It should be 1 shot and the ball if you get dirty outside line 3 of 3 points with the shooting clock. He turned an incredible game into an late FT contest, he stole us or a great end.
– Nate Duncan (@nateduncannba) May 27, 2025
I understand why it is done, but the lack of 3 is so lame
– JP Acosta (@Acosta32_JP) May 27, 2025
Nothing that I love more to see a fundamentally solid sound in three. The NBA, is Fan-Atastic
– Harrison Faigen (@hmfaigen) May 27, 2025
The lack of 3 shit is antiketalcón
– Abdel (@abdel_taco) May 27, 2025
I hate to turn on 3, as a fan, it is boring to see and I don’t like to give points of the teams either
– VP or WU Tang Financial (@Barbchairscott) May 27, 2025
I said this before:
Informing three is the intelligent strategy. I hate him and because he took off the game.
– Keith Smith (@keithsmithnba) May 27, 2025
I am certainly not going to blame the teams for dirtying 3 for their advantage. Rather, it is in the league to find a way to make it less feasible.
– Joe vioy (@joeviraynba) May 27, 2025
Accredit thunder to achieve strategy. OKC had to successfully defend the entrance passes of two wolves and deceive the player with the ball before he could leave an attempt to shoot. The Thunder had to make his free throws and keep Minnesota out of the offensive vessel when Anthony Edwards lost his last free kick on purpose.
There was still a drama and a suspense to the final bell. At the same time, it would have much more exciting to see Minnesota try a triple at the end of the regulation to try to send the game on extra time.
What could the NBA do to dissuade the lack of three? A solution would be to obtain the penalty for intentionally dirtying with an advantage to a shot and possession. The proponents of maintaining the current rules in their place would argue that the rules of the game should not change depending on the situation and the clock. Of course, the NBA already allows the teams to advance the ball in the mid -court without waiting time only in the last two minutes of extra regulation and time, so there are some precedents.
The teams that stop at the end of the game always use intentional dirty to prolong the game and give themselves the opportunity to return. Should the team with the leader to use the same tactics to preserve it? Teams with leadership have been rehearsing three for years in both NBA and university, even some coaches refuse to do so. Games like this will always make a potential rule change a conversation issue again.
Changes in the rule that greatly benefit the visualization experience of fans should always be considered strongly by the NBA. The Thunder and Los Lobos gave us one of the best games of the season, but instead of talking about the 40 points of Shai Gilgous-Alexander, Jalen Williams Game of Annotation (34 points in 24 attempts at the field goal), or the defense of OKC, again, forcing the counters, again, again, forcing, forcing, again forcing, again forcing the Forcing to force out for leaving for leaving for leaving for leaving for leaving for leaving for leaving for leaving for leaving for leaving to go out for leaving to go out for going out for going out for going out to go back to the rehearsal in recent seconds. This was an incredible game in any way, but deserved an opportunity for a classic ending.