Macdub, I think I remember reading an article a while ago about how the Warriors had hoodwinked the NBA. Basically saying that Golden State absolutely loved seeing everyone trying to imitate them stylistically because they were confident that other teams simply didn't have the personnel to match them that way. And that has been born out by the teams that have challenged them most effectively being very different: Houston might shoot a lot of 3s like Golden State, but are far more iso-oriented and play a traditional (offensive) big man in Capela (he's more agile and defends the perimeter better than traditional bigs); and as much as Mitchell is the driving force of Utah's offence, their identity comes from Gobert and the defensive side of the ball.
It's easy to pick on OKC when they're 0-3 and looking defensively woeful, but I think that's exactly the sort of thing the article was referring to. OKC are not going to beat the Warriors by having an entire roster of non-shooters jacking up 3s. Boston are the closest thing in the league to a Golden State-style team that's actually good
I think this thread is discussing two different issues, though. There are stylistic changes to the game that maybe are being poorly implemented by teams with the wrong personnel, but that result in higher scoring contests (missed 3s = longer rebounds = more runouts/transition opportunities. Made 3s = more points). And then there are rules changes like the gather step and the way fouls are being called that make it really hard to play effective defence. To me, those are related, but not the same issue. I think the stylistic changes are really just coaching decisions, and the coaches who can identify what best suits their personnel are going to be more successful than those who just follow trends. The rules changes are something that should be considered in terms of how they affect the on-court product from a watchability standpoint, but also how they maintain the integrity of the game. I think that balance is wrong at the moment.