NBA MVP race - the top ten candidates ten games in

[Gangstar8]

If the same team without you won more games than anyone in history, then you come on board and they win less, then no, what happened last season is not irrelevant.



If you're so confident, are you going to take that ban bet I offered or not?

What part of last season does not matter dont you get

 

[DonKnock]

Harden #1

 

[Professor Emeritus]

See this is your problem, picking and choosing shyt to suit this LeBron agenda of yours. I've seen you often use the bookmarkers when referring to favoritism before, and in general when one talks about a team/player being the favorites - they're talking about the odds. Not some survey done across the league.

The NBA GM survey is the ONE that I've posted on extensively before, that I started its own thread for, that I've referred to multiple times in past years as well. I don't go looking at Irish bookies when I'm talking about that stuff. It's certainly possible that at some time in 2,900 comments, I may have referred to the bookmakers once, but I don't put any energy or confidence into that - I posted FAR more about the GM survey in those three posts alone than I have about the bookmakers in my entire posting career combined. Same goes for ESPN general staff surveys. I refer to media surveys multiple times in previous posts (especially since they're the ones who actually pick the MVP), I rarely if ever refer to bookies. Do a search and try to find a single reference to bookies for me that shows even 10% of the data of those three GM survey posts above.

The best player on the best team is the one who grabs #1 seeding - not the Cavs just because you want them to be the best. I can't believe this even needs explaining. What happened in the postseason doesn't matter.

No it's not. The examples are so extensive (some already quoted by you) that you obvious have your autistic blinders on again.

2014: MVP race was between Durant and Lebron. Lebron was considered a candidate for "best player on the best team", even though the Heat had 2 fewer wins than the Pacers, because the Heat had just won back-to-back rings and everyone knew from that previous postseason that the Heat were better than the Pacers regardless of what the records showed. And Durant won the MVP despite the Thunder not being the #1 seed either.

2012: Heat have fewer wins than the Bulls AND the Thunder have fewer wins than the Spurs, yet Lebron and Durant are the main two MVP candidates, still in the running for the "best player on the best team" consideration because they're both only a few wins away from the #1 seed.

2011: Bulls only finish 1 win above the Spurs, but like I already said, the season narrative made it obvious that Rose was the favorite whether they finished #1 or not.

2008: Kobe wins MVP because of what happened previous seasons (lifetime achievement award) even though he has 10 wins fewer than the Celtics and fewer than the Pistons too, and despite the fact that other players have better stats. But being #1 in the West is good enough, even though not #1 overall.

2006: Nash wins MVP despite fewer wins than the Spurs/Mavs, because of what had happened the previous year (Nash had been MVP already and now was even more impressive to certain voters due to a lesser team than the previous year). And you can't blame the White vote or the stats argument, because Dallas had a White star with more wins AND better scoring stats. It was clearly a "narrative" vote.

2003: Duncan barely beats Garnett for the MVP, even though the Spurs are only tied with the Mavs for best record and the Timberwolves are a bit behind. Dallas doesn't get in because they are perceived as having two stars (Nash/Dirk) sharing that load.

2002: Duncan barely beats Jason Kidd for MVP, even though the Kings actually have the #1 seed, because Webber/Bibby are both viewed as stars while Duncan is going it alone. Lakers are tied with the Spurs in wins but they also have the two-star issue so Shaq/Kobe split votes. Having the best record in the East, even though much fewer wins than the West teams, is good enough for Kidd to come a hair from winning in one of the closest votes ever, despite having inferior scoring stats to Webber or Kobe or Shaq.

2001: Iverson wins MVP despite the Sixers having fewer wins than the Spurs and the Spurs having a clear #1.

If the Warriors grab the #1 seed, Curry and Durant could very well be co-MVPs.

You can't be that dumb.

I'll leave the Coliseum for a year if Curry and Durant are co-MVPs. No chance whatsoever. None.

i) Durant has been their best performer up to the point, and that could either remain the same or change throughout the season, Besides as I said above, it could come down to both of them winning MVP. It doesn't just have to be one or the other. How the fukk can you say that nonsense in bold when you do not know how "a lot of the voters" will react to a WHOLE season that has barely started?

You're unbelievably transparent.

In 2010-11, no one had any doubt how voters were going to react at the end of the season. Lebron combined with Wade, plus the animosity about the Decision, meant that he was not going to win the MVP full stop, even if his stats looked a lot better than Rose's stats. The fact that the Heat finished 3 wins below the Bulls was irrelevant - we all knew that Lebron wasn't getting that MVP vote even if there was a late surge and he grabbed the #1 seed.

It's the same reason why GM's can call back-to-back MVP Stephen Curry the best point guard in the NBA by a mile, yet only 3 out of 30 picked him to win MVP even though he had just won two of the awards and was only entering his prime and the Warriors were listed as the clear favorites for the title.

Those same GMs gave Lebron top MVP chances even with the Warriors being expected to be better than the Cavs. They gave Westbrook a better chance even while directly saying that he was an inferior point guard to Curry. And the ESPN voters did the same thing. In both cases, it was due to what happened last season and the narrative.

Everyone knows that in April, the Warriors are still going to be seen as the team that choked last year which needs to prove itself in the playoffs, no matter how many regular season wins they get. If you don't see that right now, you're lying.

Everyone knows that barring injury, in April the Warriors are still going to be seen as the team that needed multiple stars to get it done. Neither Curry nor Durant are backing off so much as to look like mere supporting cast. If you don't see that already, you're lying.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

i) He didn't get injured in G3 - he re-aggravated his hamstring during G3, like he had been for most of the postseason. He was listed as unquestionable during a game in the first round against the T'Blazers because he re-aggravated it then. (basically extending back to when he initially was injured, back in March if my memory serves me correct). Yet he still was able to play on. He wasn't able to play on when he injured it in G4.
ii) He actually injured it to the point where he had to be taken off in Game 4 -

He was injured in the third quarter of Game 4, causing him to miss the 4th quarter of Game 4 and the entirety of Game 5. He was injured in Game 4.

I've posted this many times before, why do YOU continue to ignore it?

Because I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE INJURY IN GAME 3. the discussion was NEVER about Game 4 until you started bringing up Game 4 in order to cover the fact that you were wrong trying to call me stupid regarding Game 3.

Here was the actual sequence of events, exact quotes:

with Tony Allen getting hurt in that third game

Details you got wrong in this part of your post:

Allen didn't get injured in G3 - he was injured in the third quarter of G4

Allen initially aggravated the left hamstring midway through the Grizzlies' win Saturday in Game 3 but played two days later in a loss that tied the series at 2-2.....Allen's defense against Golden State guards Klay Thompson and league MVP Stephen Curry was vital in Memphis' two victories in the series....
Leading into Monday's loss, Allen told ESPN.com that his hamstring was a growing concern. "It's tough to still have to deal with this right now," Allen said. "But it's definitely not something I'm trying to advertise. I've just got to fight through it."

I was the one who started by saying that Allen got hurt in Game 3.
You were the one who claimed that I got that detail wrong.
I was the one who quoted ESPN proving to you that he really did get hurt in Game 3.

We've gone over this at least 8 times and you still keep lying about it.

Let me quote myself again -First of all I said the most probable outcome was that he was going to stay in OKC, which at the time of post was true. Which was reflected by him wanting Horford in OKC during FA weeks later. I never said he was definitely going to stay in OKC, just that it was the most probable scenario at the time.

Kevin Durant had been recruiting Horford to OKC, but Horford eliminated OKC with no assurance Durant/Westbrook staying long-term.

— Adrian Wojnarowski (@WojVerticalNBA) July 2, 2016

You made it seem he was already gone at the time of the post - he clearly wasn't. You were wrong, same goes for all of the above. Either wrong or a failure to admit your reading comprehension had you digging holes you couldn't climb out of.

All I said was, "Durant isn't going to the Lakers, and it would blow my mind if he stays with OKC unless they do something huge. He's going to go to a contender."

And you tried to mock me for it, and specifically searched me out and mocked me again when the Thunder beat the Spurs:

Where do you guys come up with this shyt? The most probable outcome is he signs a one-year deal with OKC and re-evaluates in 2017.

You're moving into full-blown stalker level with this thing. I REALLY got up in your feelings.

Don't flatter yourself - I quote pretty much everyone on this board when they post nonsense.

I bet you feel stupid now with the Thunder taking out the Spurs.

Because I'm betting that the "And it would blow my mind if he stays with OKC unless they do something huge." statement stemmed from you believing the Thunder had no chance against the Spurs, therefore forcing KD's hand to leave OKC.

You was wrong.

ii) I never said play him significant minutes or insinuated as such, I simply said play him enough minutes so that he stays in rhythm - I didn't give a set period of time he should play.

"Enough minutes that he stays in rhythm" obviously means some amount of significant minutes.

In Game 6 against the Bulls, he only played 12 minutes and got hurt.

In Game 1 against the Hawks, he only played 27 minutes and got hurt.

And you claimed that that WASN'T ENOUGH MINUTES yet:

You're also missing the obvious fact that he played just fine in Game 1 against the Warriors even though he hadn't gotten any "more minutes" to "get in rhythm".

Just because he hasn't missed any games (technically he hasn't but he only played 27 mins in Game 1 of the ATL series and 12 minutes of Game 6 of the Chicago series), doesn't mean he still can't "find his feet" and be 'mentally all the way there'. The point is because he's been injured, and since he still wants to play he can't run, cut, jump, move laterally like he's used to doing, so of course the issue is still finding rhythm and mentally try and play through his injury struggles

So now you're trying to walk this ridiculous line, saying that playing "only played 27 minutes" wasn't "technically" missing a game but that it wasn't enough for him to find rhythm yet, even though it was way more than enough for him to reinjure the knee. The only time you put a specific number on the minutes was when you said, "I'm not saying he should be playing 40+ minutes", which makes it sounds like you're still talking about something "significant".

He obviously should have been sitting, full stop, letting rest do its work and keeping them thing from getting re-aggravated, until it was shown that they needed him...which I knew they might not, but which you insisted they did:

...Kyrie is desperately needed for the NBA Finals - but when he's a liability on defense and can't drive at all on offense, he isn't a desperate need against this Hawks team. It's more important, right now, to give those minutes to Smith or Shump or Delly and save Kyrie for when he's healthy enough not to be a liability on defense and driving....

...It's preserving those legs for when the Cavs actually need it (against the Warriors or maybe in clutch games against the Hawks) rather than using them now when the Cavs are winning without him. It's keeping him from getting worse with every passing game.

You admitted:

Yes because I thought they would need him in this series. I said his minutes needed to be restricted so that he could regain his rhythm when they needed him his play in a pivotal game of this series.

Are you going to sit there and tell me you had the Cavs sweeping the Hawks with Kyrie playin half a game?

I never said regardless of circumstance. I said he needs to be out there because I thought they'd need his play to get past the Hawks, in any contribution he could offer.

How the hell can you not admit that I was right and you were wrong, when I straight up said, "He isn't a desperate need against this Hawks team", while you repeatedly insisted that you thought he was needed to beat them?

v) Sitting him until they needed him wouldn't have made a difference - not ONE iota. He was a ticking time bomb. Like I said, the only way he was going to get over that was rehabbing in the offseason. He could've sat until G1 of the Finals and then landed awkwardly or had a misstep during the first minute and ruled himself out for the rest of the series. Who knows..... what we do know is that his body was never going to be in a healthier enough state to rule the distinct possibility of him going down again at any time within the period of a postseason.

We know that have never played a serious organized sport with a real training staff in your life, but you can't be this dumb. Literally everyone in sports knows that getting an injury, or aggravating an injury, makes you more likely to get a second injury. When you're hurting more, you weight your body differently, you favor things differently, you do all sorts of stuff that makes you more likely to get hurt. Hell, I have personal experience on this - I was getting serious training room time every day for weeks trying to play through a pulled muscle in my lower back when my knee gave out on a non-contact injury, and I was straight-up told by multiple people that the way I'd been favoring my body differently trying to play through the back injury might have influenced the knee injury.

How much more so when Kyrie was repeatedly re-aggrevating the EXACT knee that ended up knocking him out?

iHe had an eight-day break between the ECF and G1 of the Finals and yet clearly that still wasn't enough - (I know you'll bring up it would've been longer than eight days if he sat out of the ECF completely); he needed an EXTENDED period of time to get over his knee tendinitis (longer than whatever period it would've been had he sat until they needed him), especially for someone like Kyrie who has a history of leg-related injuries.

The best course of action (besides ruling him out for the entire postseason) was to monitor him day-to-day and find a balance of playing him enough minutes to keep his rhythm in prep for the Finals.

Obviously it wasn't.

The fact that they tried this, and it didn't work, and you still won't admit it, is why you are who you are.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The NBA GM survey is the ONE that I've posted on extensively before, that I started its own thread for, that I've referred to multiple times in past years as well. I don't go looking at Irish bookies when I'm talking about that stuff. It's certainly possible that at some time in 2,900 comments, I may have referred to the bookmakers once, but I don't put any energy or confidence into that - I posted FAR more about the GM survey in those three posts alone than I have about the bookmakers in my entire posting career combined. Same goes for ESPN general staff surveys. I refer to media surveys multiple times in previous posts (especially since they're the ones who actually pick the MVP), I rarely if ever refer to bookies. Do a search and try to find a single reference to bookies for me that shows even 10% of the data of those three GM survey posts above.

First of all, those surveys aren't based on the footing of winning and losing - they're flopping and player rankings. They don't hold much weight in this discussion. These however do -

Only so much ether you can deal when you're a role player on the heavy favorite and you lost.

Lebron is just at how hard it's burning their souls. When the team that just lost to you keeps saying you're not that good, you know you got in their hearts something fierce.

When da hell did everyone think that Lebron-Heat was unbeatable? Most years they weren't even the favorite.

If it weren't a survey that picked him to win MVP, you'd be pointing to the odds that favored him. Or wrapping your position in any reference that tied him to being the favorite. It's what you do when it comes to LeBron. You don't have to look at the "Irish bookies" to know that favorite/underdog narratives are created from bookmakers. It pretty much goes hand-in-hand with sports terminology. Obviously you chose not to pay attention to Westbrook being the actual favorite, and ran with whatever put LeBron at the front of the pack.

No it's not. The examples are so extensive (some already quoted by you) that you obvious have your autistic blinders on again.

It seems you're the one who's suffering from severe autism because I already stated that the judging of the MVP started to change and 'the best player on the best team' was the more current trend. I don't know why you'd go back all the way to early '00s and I don't know why you'd bring up instances where I already explained where the #2 seed (Spurs in '11) and the #1 seed (Celtics in '08) didn't have a player that stood out. The point is here, you think the narrative of winning the Finals last season is going to get LeBron "a lot of votes", whereas I'm arguing that the narrative surrounding who gets MVP will be created during the season; based on what happens during this season.

None of those MVP examples you gave were based around events which happened during the previous season.

You can't be that dumb.

I'll leave the Coliseum for a year if Curry and Durant are co-MVPs. No chance whatsoever. None.

I think these insults would be better directed at you. If there's a narrative created during the season which pins Durant and Curry together as equals to the success of their team and they run away with the #1 seed - yes there is high probability they could both win MVP. All that matters is what happens during the season. You can't say Curry and Durant (or both) have little-to-no chance of winning MVP when i) you don't know how the season is going to play out ii) you don't know how the panel is going to vote at the time.

In 2010-11, no one had any doubt how voters were going to react at the end of the season. Lebron combined with Wade, plus the animosity about the Decision, meant that he was not going to win the MVP full stop, even if his stats looked a lot better than Rose's stats. The fact that the Heat finished 3 wins below the Bulls was irrelevant - we all knew that Lebron wasn't getting that MVP vote even if there was a late surge and he grabbed the #1 seed.

It's the same reason why GM's can call back-to-back MVP Stephen Curry the best point guard in the NBA by a mile, yet only 3 out of 30 picked him to win MVP even though he had just won two of the awards and was only entering his prime and the Warriors were listed as the clear favorites for the title.

Those same GMs gave Lebron top MVP chances even with the Warriors being expected to be better than the Cavs. They gave Westbrook a better chance even while directly saying that he was an inferior point guard to Curry. And the ESPN voters did the same thing. In both cases, it was due to what happened last season and the narrative.

Do I even need to point out why this has absolutely no relevance when it comes time to voting? Not only do GMs not have a vote but they're predicting what might happen rather than what happens. I mean shyt you ask those same GMs who should win MVP at the end of the season and I bet a good majority will have a different answer to what they said before the season started.

Everyone knows that in April, the Warriors are still going to be seen as the team that choked last year which needs to prove itself in the playoffs, no matter how many regular season wins they get. If you don't see that right now, you're lying.

Did you conveniently forget that LeBron was awarded the MVP the year after choking in the Finals - basically in similar position to where the Warriors are now in having to prove themselves? If you don't see that what happened last season doesn't matter when MVP-voting rolls around right now, you're lying.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Because I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE INJURY IN GAME 3. the discussion was NEVER about Game 4 until you started bringing up Game 4 in order to cover the fact that you were wrong trying to call me stupid regarding Game 3.

Here was the actual sequence of events, exact quotes:








I was the one who started by saying that Allen got hurt in Game 3.
You were the one who claimed that I got that detail wrong.
I was the one who quoted ESPN proving to you that he really did get hurt in Game 3.

We've gone over this at least 8 times and you still keep lying about it. The Autism Strikes Back. .

This is why I know you don't know what the fukk you're talking about.

He was re-aggravating all throughout the playoffs - not just in Game 3 but in the games prior in that series and in the first round. If you had been actually watching the Grizzlies play, you would've known this. He was basically day-to-day for most games in the playoffs. I never said he didn't re-aggravate it in G3. I said he was 'hurt'/injured in Game 4 (where his injury actually ruled him out of the game). Game 4 marked when he actually got hurt, to the point he could no longer play on it -

After returning for Game 6 Friday night and having a very minimal impact in the opening half, Ramona Shelburne of ESPN passed along word that Allen would not return for the second half of the game.

Allen, 33, was limited to 16 minutes in Memphis' Game 4 101-84 loss after appearing to tweak his hamstring in the third quarter. He finished with four points and five rebounds. For the series, Allen is averaging nine points and 4.5 rebounds a game, including a 15-point performance in Game 1.

This is before the T'Blazers series -


If you're going to say he was "hurt" in Game 3 you might as well say he was hurt all throughout the playoffs. When you bring up a player actually getting hurt that has a lingering injury, it's usually in reference to them coming out of the game and staying out - that only happened in G4 of that series.

This is where you get yourself into troubling because you talk about shyt you have little-to-no knowledge of. You're wrong on this - do NOT bring it up again.

All I said was, "Durant isn't going to the Lakers, and it would blow my mind if he stays with OKC unless they do something huge. He's going to go to a contender."

And you tried to mock me for it, and specifically searched me out and mocked me again when the Thunder beat the Spurs:







You was wrong.

Durant wanted Horford to join the Thunder during the offseason, that says to me his INITIAL decision (i.e the most probable) was to stay in OKC. Since that broke down + other surrounding factors, he chose to leave.

You were wrong once again.

"Enough minutes that he stays in rhythm" obviously means some amount of significant minutes.

Again, this is how you get into trouble, jumping to conclusions when I never said or even insinuated significant minutes. It's probably best from here on forward to clarify what posters say rather than guessing what they mean and then wrongly using quotations marks for what they didn't say.

This is how arguments start. And in your case never end.

In Game 6 against the Bulls, he only played 12 minutes and got hurt.

In Game 1 against the Hawks, he only played 27 minutes and got hurt.

And you claimed that that WASN'T ENOUGH MINUTES yet

I never said this. I said his minutes should be managed in accordance to how he felt + prep for the Finals.

You're also missing the obvious fact that he played just fine in Game 1 against the Warriors even though he hadn't gotten any "more minutes" to "get in rhythm".

You cant be this slow can you? I simply provided an option for him to be prepared for the Finals by trying to keep in rhythm, not that if he didn't have any reps beforehand that he wasn't going to be ready at all.

So now you're trying to walk this ridiculous line, saying that playing "only played 27 minutes" wasn't "technically" missing a game but that it wasn't enough for him to find rhythm yet, even though it was way more than enough for him to reinjure the knee. The only time you put a specific number on the minutes was when you said, "I'm not saying he should be playing 40+ minutes", which makes it sounds like you're still talking about something "significant"

He obviously should have been sitting, full stop, letting rest do its work and keeping them thing from getting re-aggravated, until it was shown that they needed him...which I knew they might not, but which you insisted they did:.

No where in that quote did I say that those minutes weren't enough and I never said it wasn't enough for him to find rhythm yet. Like I said above, it was based on putting him in the best position possible of being ready for the Finals (rhythm, mentally and health wise).

Let me post quotes that gives a clearer picture of what we were talking about -

It's not about those are the only options - the point is this, you initially said that they need to rest him until he can actually move - he could move - prior to that game he specifically said "Just being able to actually feel both my feet underneath me, especially when I'm shooting, it feels amazing,". The problem is despite him feeling great and being prepared for Game 1, he still didn't know if he'd feel like that in the game as prepping for the game (low-rate activity and rest) is not the same moving in an actual game.

The only way that this injury will completely subside is if he's shutdown for the playoffs. Like I said before at this point - this is healthy he's gonna be for the playoff window.


Of course, but he needs PROPER rest. Not an extra day or two, hell or even a week. That means complete rest - no prepping (low activity exercises) for a game, no cortisone pks, no other carbon shots is going to magically heal it between now and when the Finals end. Inflammation will settle down by short-term rest, but any exercise before it's completely healed will trigger it again. It's not going to be completely healed between now and the end of the postseason.

This is the point I'm trying to make to you - this is healthiest he's going to be. The only option I see is since he's not going to be 100% no matter how many days he has off, his minutes need to be restricted, so that he can still play and the pain/movement can still be managed without him moving into the completely debilitated zone during a game.

This is as healthy as he's gonna be. He comes back for Game 3, 4 or 5 he's still going to encounter the same problems.

You never said anything about being rested in the 2nd quarter. You only said "rest him until he can actually move" - there's no time period given through that statement. How are we suppose to gauge by that post on your determination on when he can move, when he was able to move fine before the game?

His injuries aren't going to be healed 'as much as they need to be' in this playoff window. What part of that do you not understand?

This is half the problem, the fact you even have to detail something like this shows you've taken what I said right out of context. Of course every time he plays on it, it's prolonging the healing process, which is why it's only going to be completely fukkin healed once he gets the appropriate rest - rest which is not possible between now and the end of the postseason. Which is specifically why I said he'll only be 100% in the offseason where he can rest - three weeks, 1 month, 2 months - whatever time period he needs in order to get it completely right will only be possible in the offseason.

The problem with that is, he felt "amazing" after 5-6 days rest, he felt ready - yet he wasn't able to scale how he'd feel in a game. He has another five days rest, he's still going to feel 'right' to play as he did five days earlier - yet he's still going to run into the exact same problem he did five days earlier.

Actually playing in a game and seeing how his body holds up.

This is as healthy as he's going to be, obviously with margin on either end, but x-amount of rest between now and when they need him (whether that may be ECF Game 6/7 or start of the Finals) isn't going to make him 100% - which he needs to be in order to completely get over these injuries.

We know that have never played a serious organized sport with a real training staff in your life, but you can't be this dumb.

i) First of all, not only did you NOT read what I posted properly but you're forcing this 'you never played sports' angle when you don't know shyt about me. shyt is corny.

ii) I ran track in HS and had offers from D1 programs for football - long story short I ended up giving football up due to injuries.

Literally everyone in sports knows that getting an injury, or aggravating an injury, makes you more likely to get a second injury. When you're hurting more, you weight your body differently, you favor things differently, you do all sorts of stuff that makes you more likely to get hurt. Hell, I have personal experience on this - I was getting serious training room time every day for weeks trying to play through a pulled muscle in my lower back when my knee gave out on a non-contact injury, and I was straight-up told by multiple people that the way I'd been favoring my body differently trying to play through the back injury might have influenced the knee injury.

How much more so when Kyrie was repeatedly re-aggrevating the EXACT knee that ended up knocking him out?

............




This doesn't even need to be stated. See above:

but he needs PROPER rest. Not an extra day or two, hell or even a week. That means complete rest - no prepping (low activity exercises) for a game, no cortisone pks, no other carbon shots is going to magically heal it between now and when the Finals end. Inflammation will settle down by short-term rest, but any exercise before it's completely healed will trigger it again. It's not going to be completely healed between now and the end of the postseason.

which is why it's only going to be completely fukkin healed once he gets the appropriate rest - rest which is not possible between now and the end of the postseason. Which is specifically why I said he'll only be 100% in the offseason where he can rest - three weeks, 1 month, 2 months - whatever time period he needs in order to get it completely right will only be possible in the offseason.

The only way that this injury will completely subside is if he's shutdown for the playoffs. Like I said before at this point - this is healthy he's gonna be for the playoff window.

His injuries aren't going to be healed 'as much as they need to be' in this playoff window. What part of that do you not understand?

He was always going to run into the problem of re-aggravating it at some point during the postseason, no matter how much rest he had. That's why I said his minutes should be managed in accordance to how he felt during the game (he stated how great he felt during training) where he could keep some sort of rhythm in prep for the Finals.

Since he was never going to be "healthy" no matter how much rest he took during the PS, I looked it as the best possible option for him to be mentally/physically ready for the Finals while balancing/minimizing the chances of him re-aggravating it.

Obviously it wasn't.

The fact that they tried this, and it didn't work, and you still won't admit it, is why you are who you are.

What part of he was still going to re-aggravate don't you seem to understand? The only thing that would've stopped him from re-aggravating it was to rule him out for the entire postseason. I never said my option was going to stop him from getting injured, just that it was the best possible option given the circumstances.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The fact you did all that maneuvering in regards to Paul's defense on Lillard during the postseason when I called you out on it and didn't end up responding despite me posting actual footage of what happened speaks volumes on what type of poster you are (you even have the nerve to keep up this corny ass 'I've never lost to you' routine').

And @The Dankster this is like the third time I've posted this and yet you still haven't acknowledged it. Makes me think you're the one who has a hard time accepting you're wrong.

 

[Shadow King]

MVP will end this way at season's end
1. Kawhi
2. LeBron
3. Durant
4. Westbrook
5. Curry
6. Blake
7. CP3
8. Harden
9. Lillard
10. DeRozan

 

[intruder]

Honorable Mention:

Kemba Walker, PG13, Giannis, Blake, Jimmy Butler, and Gordon Hayward might pick up a few votes down at the bottom of ballots.

Word is bond, son. Why isn't Melo on this list, god?
Tired of clones disrespecting my dude like that. KNICKS tape,suckas!!!

 

[Randoug]

This GiI Scott fakkit writing essays

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Gil is spending hours of his life going after me because he thinks my factual OP was vaguely biased towards Lebron.

I dunno....whatever keeps it on the front page.

This is why I know you don't know what you're talking about.

He was re-aggravating all throughout the playoffs - not just in Game 3 but in the games prior in that series and in the first round. If you had been actually watching the Grizzlies play, you would've known this. He was basically day-to-day for most games in the playoffs. I never said he didn't re-aggravate it in G3. I said he was 'hurt'/injured in Game 4 (where his injury actually ruled him out of the game). Game 4 marked when he actually got hurt, to the point he could no longer play on it -

I'm not even going to reply to anything else until you acknowledge this point. It is pointless for me to engage in less obvious examples of you being wrong if you can't acknowledge the blindingly obvious one.


You know why all the talk you give about Game 4 is irrelevant?

Because I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE INJURY IN GAME 3. the discussion was NEVER about Game 4 until you started bringing up Game 4 in order to cover the fact that you were wrong trying to call me stupid regarding Game 3.

I had said that Games 1-3 were where Tony Allen was the healthiest. After he aggravated the injury late in Game 3, he was never that healthy again for the rest of the series. It doesn't matter that he hurt it even worse later in game 4 - in fact it proves my point, because he was obviously MOST healthy in games 1-3.

All I had said in my statement was that he had gotten hurt in the third game. And you went off on that and said, your exact words, "Allen didn't get injured in G3" and claimed it was a "Details you got wrong".

I gave you multiple receipts that he DID get hurt in Game 3, and that it WAS bothering him going into Game 4. Before Game 4 Allen said that it was a GROWING concern, meaning that it was worse than before. In other words, clear receipts that he was less healthy after Game 3, after he GOT INJURED IN THAT GAME, than he had been going into the first three games.

Here was the actual sequence of events, exact quotes. Please follow the bold.

with Tony Allen getting hurt in that third game

Details you got wrong in this part of your post:

Allen didn't get injured in G3 - he was injured in the third quarter of G4

Allen initially aggravated the left hamstring midway through the Grizzlies' win Saturday in Game 3 but played two days later in a loss that tied the series at 2-2.....Allen's defense against Golden State guards Klay Thompson and league MVP Stephen Curry was vital in Memphis' two victories in the series....
Leading into Monday's loss, Allen told ESPN.com that his hamstring was a growing concern. "It's tough to still have to deal with this right now," Allen said. "But it's definitely not something I'm trying to advertise. I've just got to fight through it."

I was the one who started by saying that Allen got hurt in Game 3.
You were the one who claimed that I got that detail wrong.
I was the one who quoted ESPN proving to you that he really did get hurt in Game 3.


Later you tried to make up new bs about what I'd said:

You're the one who's lying.

You claimed Allen was injured in the third quarter of G3 and went off injured. He only got injured and went off the court in G4 - which is what I've been trying to tell you all this time.

You were lying. I didn't say a thing about when he went off injured until long after you started arguing with me, so it couldn't be "what I've been trying to tell you all this time". I posted the exact quotes that led to the argument.

I said NOTHING about Tony Allen going off injured until long AFTER that sequence of quotes I just gave you. Look it up. On top of that, Tony Allen being healthier in Game 3 further proved my point. You can't deny that he was more limited/injured in Game 4, partly because he said he hurt it in Game 3, partly because he said that it had become a "growing concern" before Game 4, and partly because he re-injured it again bad enough in Game 4 that he had to go off. So Games 2 and 3 were clearly Allen's healthiest games, which was my entire argument...but he still got hurt in Game 3, exactly like I said.


Now try to find any post anywhere before your claim where I say anything more than that Tony Allen got hurt in the 3rd game.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

This GiI Scott fakkit writing essays

at @The Dankster dappin this after he too is in here typing out long-winded posts, and yet I'm the one with autism......

 

[Tide Run This]

Harden

 

[Juggalo Fred]

Kobe and Shaq were the first co MVPs

unofficially

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I am deeeep in this man's soul.
Gil is spending hours of his life going after me because he thinks my factual OP was vaguely biased towards Lebron.

I dunno....whatever keeps it on the front page.

i) Don't flatter yourself, you're certainly not the first poster I've accused of pushing an agenda (shyt, not even the first one I've accused of having a LeBron agenda)
ii) Multiple posters have acknowledged you're pushing this agenda in this very thread
iii) Again, I'm bewildered by how you point the finger at me for being concerned with what you post when you're doing the exact SAME thing, when you keep bringing up these arguments built on half-truths trying to get some leverage over me.

I'm not even going to reply to anything else until you acknowledge this point. Because whatever mental disorder makes it impossible for you to back down in arguments, it is pointless for me to engage in less obvious examples of you being wrong if you can't acknowledge the blindingly obvious one.

The irony.