Did you even read what I wrote?
You think it's THAT easy to get 67 wins over the course of a long 82 game season playing primarily in the toughest conference in the league BY FAR?
I specifically mentioned the Hornets, Grizzlies, and Rockets. I didn't bring up the Cavaliers, of course the Cavs injuries had a big part to do with it because those are ACTUAL key players. You honestly believe that Tyreke Evans, Mike Conley (Who played 5 games of the series and played pretty good), and Patrick Beverely are as important to their teams as Kyrie Irving or Kevin Love!? Please. If it was Anthony Davis, Marc Gasol, or James Harden/Dwight Howard, THEN it'd be an issue. But you guys are talking like Mike Conley should've been MVP instead of Curry. Give me a fucking break.
And yes, inexperience DID play a factor. Nobody on that team has ever been to even the Conference Finals, let alone the NBA Finals. You think the Warriors would've played that way if they had at least ONE key guy who has played on that big of a stage like the Cavaliers have LeBron (who has been to the Finals 5 times already including this one!) Igoudala just played better because he's their smartest player and most experienced playoff veteran due to his years with the 76ers and Nuggets. But even he has never even reached the Conference Semifinals.
You think that Magic and the Lakers would've toppled Dr. J and the 76ers in 1980 without Kareem in those first 5 games?
Would the Houston Rockets of 1994 have been able to topple Patrick Ewing's Knicks if they didn't have a guy who has been to the Finals before (Hakeem Olajuwon)
Would Dwayne Wade have been able to lead the Heat by himself in 2006 against the Mavericks (although in a way he kinda did), without Shaquille O'Neal, who won 3 rings before with Kobe Bryant and the Lakers?
Teams who made it to their first Finals appearance without having anyone on the team who had been there before usually ended up losing, especially to a team that DID make it to the Finals before hand . (1992 Portland Trailblazers lost to the Bulls who were on their 2nd trip, 1994 New York Knicks lost the Rockets who had Hakeem, 1996 Seattle SuperSonics lost on the Bulls' 4th run, 1997 Utah Jazz lost to the Bulls on their 5th, 2000 Indiana Pacers lost to a Lakers team that had Shaq on his 2nd trip, Ron Harper who had won 3 rings with Michael Jordan's Bulls, and Robert Horry who won 2 with Hakeem's Rockets, 2001 Philadelphia 76ers lost to the same Lakers' team that won the year before that, 2002 New Jersey Nets lost to the same Lakers', 2009 Orlando Magic lost to the Lakers who had just lost to the Celtics the previous year) Saying or thinking that inexperience on the biggest stage has nothing to do with poor performace is absolutely ridiculous!! Why else would the Warriors have gotten down 2-1 to a Cavs team that was energized with having LeBron as their experienced leader?!
And the teams that were able to do it on their first trip to the Finals without anybody on the team having prior experience, were teams that would go on to be pretty damn special. Teams that went on to become dynasties, like Larry Bird and the Celtics in 80s, Michael Jordan and the Bulls of the 90s.
Now I'm not saying that Steph Curry is on the same level, or anywhere near the level as Larry or Michael, or that this Warriors team are as good as any of the Celtics or Bulls teams of the 80s and 90s. But for the present, modern NBA, for right now. The Warriors are shaping up to be the team of this era, that the Bulls went on to become in the 90s even though nobody on the 1991 team had reached the Finals before that year.
And the Cavs getting tired and worn in Game 4 is the Warriors' fault, how?? Like you said, that's how the game is played.
I think Game 5 will see a well rested Cavs team coming out with all guns blazing, as will the Warriors, and Game 5 will be a close game right down the middle.

LeBron's 2007 Cavs team also got swept by a Spurs team that had already won 3 championships before hand with Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobli (all of whom were in their prime.)
Coincidence that the more experienced team defeated the team that had never been there before? I think not.
Also, it's 67 wins, NOT 66.
You think winning 67 games down the stretch of a long 82 game season while playing primarily in the Western Conference where most of the REAL competition is, is overrated?!
It's a good thing that the those NBA analysts on ESPN, ABC, and TNT are the analysts and not you.

That may be the meanest thing you can tell a person...

The fact remains they are extremely overrated no matter how you look at it.  If they win it all they will easily be the most overrated team to win a final in the last 40 years.  Plus the 2007 Spurs team wasn't the same team that won the previous three titles since none of the Spurs teams won back to back titles they are all pretty different.  Its not like the 1990-93 Bulls and the 1995-98 those two squads pretty much had the same roster for the first three titles then they retooled a bit and had pretty much had the same roster for the next three titles.  Also speaking of analysts Charles Barkley picked the Cavs to win the series in six I highly doubt he wouldn't pick the Cavs if he doesn't agree with me that the Warriors are highly overrated.

Really don't care.  Also most analysts are exremely biased towards one team or another Skip Bayless is pretty much one of the biggest Cowboys homers on television on top of that Jimmy Johnson and Troy Aikman are also huge Cowboys homers but that is to expected since they both used to be Cowboys.

Barkley just doesn't believe in jump shooting teams, that's all.

I'm pretty sure that is not the only reason he picked the Cavs.

http://www.sfgate.com/warriors/article/Barkley-thinks-Warriors-play-wrong-style-to-win-6205242.php

Anyway if what I'm saying isn't the truth then someone already should have made a case for another team in the last 40 years that won the title that is more overrated. Or better yet another 60+ game regular season winning team team that is more overrated. The truth remains if they win it all they will be the most overrated team to win the title in the last 40 years and the most overrated 60+ game regular season winning team that also won a title of all time.

The 2006-07 Dallas Mavericks, who won 67 games, had Dirk as league MVP, yet they got bounced out of the first round in six games by the #8 seed Warriors who won 42 games. :p