NBA MVP race - the top ten candidates ten games in

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I said that he got hurt in Game 3.

You said Allen didn't get hurt in Game 3.




There is no world in which I was wrong. He got hurt in Game 3. Facts are right there. We weren't talking about whether he also got hurt in other games, we were talking about Game 3, and I have the receipt right there.

i) He was hurt before and all throughout the playoffs
ii) 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.
iii)

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.

iv)
v) 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.

All facts.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Because FGA don't tell the whole story. One of CP3's main strengths as a defender is how many shots he limits his guy to. That's what I showed you in the 2014 shooting chart - it's not just guys shooting a low %, it's that they hardly get opportunities at all.

Dame's FG% only went up slightly after CP3 went out. But his usage (and both his and Portland's scoring) went well up.

You say FGA don't tell the whole story and in the next breath you say Dame's FG% only went up when CP3 went out. You can't make this shyt up. Look at the clip and then you'll see how Paul defended Lillard (and how other Clippers defended him ), and maybe you won't be spouting this utter nonsense about absolutely nothing.

When a guy is bulldogging you all game, and you're not getting your shots, it affects your game. Dame was pressing even when he got free.

That's what I mean by subtleties.

You clearly didn't watch that series nor that clip. CP was doing the opposite of bulldogging. It was actually the other Clippers defenders that were suffocating him - not CP. Whenever CP was on him, most of the time Dame got the shot he wanted or he drove straight to the rim. CP was pathetic at trying to fight over screens or staying on his hip when Lillard drove.

But he still was pressing because he was frustrated. You're not showing clips where CP3 kept Kyrie from getting a shot at all. It's just like what Billups was talking about they did to Kobe. By limiting Kobe's shot attempts by luring the ball to Shaq, they got Kobe to press even when he was only single covered. CP3 limited Dame's attempts significantly, and that affects him even when CP3 slacks on a possession.

That's what I mean by subtleties.

Now you're just making up shyt. It was the EXACT opposite. I can't believe you're lying through your teeth like this.

Best part is that even while you think I'm partially wrong, you also know deep down that I'm at least partially right, but you'll never admit that as long as you can't even admit something as simple as "Tony Allen got hurt in Game 3" even when the receipt is right in your face.

What kind of pompous nonsense is this? My nikka you're full of yourself. Are you always strung out off a power trip like this?

And I antagonise you by not watching your video, which gets in your head so deep that even when I post what others see as an innocent, facts-based thread, you go off like I insulted ya mama.

If you think this is 'going off like my mama was insulted', then you're more sensitive than I thought -

First of all, LeBron isn't going to get a lot of votes based on last year's Finals. Second of all, why does every candidate have a specific bullet point that lessens their chances of winning MVP, but LeBron doesn't?

This is who you are with your long-lasting, never-admitting defeat agendas. There's been entire threads about you celebrating it.

Again, the irony. Do you ever look at yourself in the mirror?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I can't believe somebody could be so self-absorbed that they accuse others of long-winded posts by trying to shell themselves from admitting defeat when that's the very thing they do.

 

[SuaveHooper88]

I swear you dudes NEVER watch the fukkin spurs

Kawhi is handling the ball all the fukkin time this year. He clearly worked on it big time this off season. He's doing that and getting to the line.

The media is almost all casuals in terms of the media members who make reports like these.

This is CONCRETE evidence. Kawhi is not only handling the ball a lot this year, he is even initiating the offense a lot. He is also splitting double team off the dribble more than ever.

Now you see where casual basketball fans get their info and thoughts, they rehash what other casual in the media say to them

these dudes when have Durant and Curry on the list, as if golden state wont have same record whether or not they play smh. Then on top of that Golden State is CLEARLY worse and REALLY REALLY BAD on Defense now. They drop from top 5 defensive team to 17th best. In terms of golden states success Durant is least valuable. They made 73-9 without him and came within 1 game of winning championship. They simply don't need Durant so how can he possibly be even on this list period?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

i) He was hurt before and all throughout the playoffs
ii) 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.
iii)
iv)
v) 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.

All facts.

And none of those facts have ANYTHING to do with what we were talking about.


The only think I had said was that Tony Allen got hurt during Game 3. And he did. I proved that already.

You claimed, straight up, that he did not get hurt in Game 3. And you were wrong. I proved that already.


All this verbal diarrhea on your part is useless, because the point of contention is not whether he also got hurt in other games. I never, ever said that he didn't get hurt in other games.

How can you claim that you "never said he didn't re-aggravate it in G3"? Here, again, were the exact words of the first two exchanges that started the whole argument:

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

I said he got hurt in Game 3. You said, straight up, that he didn't.

I never said that he didn't make it even worse in Game 4 - in fact, I made clear that he did, and that was my whole argument - that his health in Games 4-6 was worse than his health in Games 1-3.

But you said I was wrong about him getting hurt in Game 3. And no matter how many times the receipt is clearly in front of your face, you can't admit that I was right. You have to keep going to ridiculous stretches to avoid the clear receipt that he hurt the hamnstring in Game 3 and it was a GROWING concern, meaning that it was worse than before, going into Game 4.

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."

Like I've been saying, you can't admit something that clear, of course you're going to wiggle and deflect in all the other arguments too.

* But Durant really did sign with the Warriors.

* Kyrie really did hurt himself trying to play too much on an injured knee.

* Kyrie didn't actually need more playing time to "get into rhythm" and play well against the Warriors.

* Stephen Curry really did come back from his injury on-schedule and it didn't hurt them in the WCSF

* Warriors really did catch a lot of lucky breaks on injuries from the 2015 WCSF to the 2016 WCSF, and got exposed once the breaks fell the other way.

* Tony Allen really did get hurt in Game 3.


Every time one of our arguments has been something that got proven on the court by actual outcomes, not something that was a matter of impression, I've been proven right.


So put your money where your mouth is. Assuming both Durant and Curry both remain healthy and the Warriors don't break the wins record they set last year, if either one of them wins MVP, then I'll disappear just as long as you did when the Warriors lost in the Finals this year.

And if Lebron wins the MVP, you'll disappear again, for the same length of time.

Once again, we have an argument that can actually get proven by outcomes. You ready for it this time or not?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

And none of those facts have ANYTHING to do with what we were talking about.


The only think I had said was that Tony Allen got hurt during Game 3. And he did. I proved that already. You claimed, straight up, that he did not get hurt in Game 3. And you were wrong. I proved that already.

All this verbal diarrhea on your part is useless, because the point of contention is not whether he also got hurt in other games. I never, ever said that he didn't get hurt in other games.

How can you claim that you "never said he didn't re-aggravate it in G3". Here, again, were the exact words of the first two exchanges that started the whole argument:






I said he got hurt in Game 3. You said, straight up, that he didn't.

I never said that he didn't make it even worse in Game 4 - in fact, I made clear that he did, and that was my whole argument - that his health in Games 4-6 was worse than his health in Games 1-3.

But you said I was wrong about him getting hurt in Game 3. And no matter how many times the receipt is clearly in front of your face, you can't admit that I was right. You have to keep going to ridiculous stretches to avoid the clear receipt that he hurt the hamnstring in Game 3 and it was a GROWING concern, meaning that it was worse than before, going into Game 4.

He was hurt in Game 1
He was hurt in Game 2
He was hurt in Game 3
He was hurt in Game 4
He didn't play in Game 5 (because of what happened in Game 4)
He was hurt in Game 6

"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."

You fukked up because you didn't watch that series nor did you watch the Grizzlies play in the first round. Allen was basically "hurt" in every game in the playoffs. Someone that actually watched the games wouldn't single out G3 of the Warriors series as to when he got hurt, they would single out G4 because that's when he got hurt/injured and needed to come out of the game and stay out of the game.

But Durant really did sign with the Warriors.

Kyrie really did hurt himself trying to play too much on an injured knee.

Kyrie didn't actually need more playing time to "get into rhythm" and play well against the Warriors.

Stephen Curry really did come back from his injury on-schedule and it didn't hurt the aga

Warriors really did catch a lot of lucky breaks on injuries from the 2015 WCSF to the 2016 WCSF, and got exposed once the breaks fell the other way.

Tony Allen really did get hurt in Game 3.

i) Durant wanted Horford in OKC - clearly his first option was to stay - the most probable outcome like I said
ii) I NEVER said Kyrie wouldn't hurt himself, just that it was the best option given the circumstances. Kyrie was still going to re-aggravate his injury no matter what because there wasn't enough time in the postseason to get the appropriate rest.
iii) Curry wasn't the same after his injury and it was one of the reasons why the Warriors didn't go back-to-back
iv) It was dishonest for that poster to say "the Warriors get all the luck" when their #1 player was out injured

Every time one of our arguments has been something that got proven on the court by actual outcomes, not something that was a matter of impression, I've been proven right.

Not only is this FACTUALLY untrue. You can't even remember all the arguments we've had. Never mind the fact the most "blindingly obvious" one [Paul's defense on Lillard] where you were completely wrong is staring at you right above.

So put your money where your mouth is. Assuming both Durant and Curry both remain healthy and the Warriors don't break the wins record they set last year, if either one of them wins MVP, then I'll disappear just as long as you did when the Warriors lost in the Finals this year.

And if Lebron wins the MVP, you'll disappear again, for the same length of time.

Once again, we have an argument that can actually get proven by outcomes. You ready for it this time or not?

i) I didn't disappear after the Warriors lost in the Finals - I made hundreds of posts in the month immediately after they lost.
ii) These are the conditions of the bet :

If the Warriors grab the #1 record in the league and Durant or Curry (or both) win MVP - you're banned until the start of the '17/'18 season
If the Cavs don't grab the #1 record in the league and LeBron wins MVP - I'm banned until the start of the '17'18 season

 

[Professor Emeritus]

He was hurt in Game 1
He was hurt in Game 2
He was hurt in Game 3
He was hurt in Game 4
He didn't play in Game 5 (because of what happened in Game 4)
He was hurt in Game 6

"If you're going to say he was "hurt" in Game 3 you might as well say he was hurt all throughout the playoffs."

No one has ever disputed that Tony Allen had lingering hamstring issues the whole series. But he still HURT his hamstring midway through Game 3. It doesn't matter that it was already hurt, in Game 3 it got hurt worse than before, and that affected him going into Game 4. ESPN and Tony Allen's own words have already verified that.

"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."

Where do you make up these rules?

Why doesn't ESPN follow your rules, when THEY said that Tony Allen hurt his hamstring in Game 3.

Why did Tony Allen tell ESPN that his hamstring was a "growing" concern before Game 4 if it wasn't worse than before?

Did Gronk not get hurt on Sunday because he stayed in the game after his lung got punctured?

Or is this only the special and very specific unwritten "lingering injury" rules that you and the other voices agreed on in your head?



And FWIW, after Allen reaggravated that injury he went out with 6min left in the 3rd quarter and sat for 8 minutes of game time extending into the 4th. In the previous game, his 3rd-quarter break was only 3 minutes and he played the entire 4th. After playing 38 and 39 minutes in Games 1 and 2, he only played 33 minutes in Game 3 (due to that extended time sitting in the 3rd/4th), went into Game 4 saying that he had reaggravated the injury and that his hamstring was a growing concern, played 12 limited minutes in Game 4 before re-aggravating it again, sat Game 5, and could only play 5 minutes in Game 6.

After playing 110 minutes in Games 1-3, Tony Allen only played 18 minutes in Games 4-6.

CLEARLY he was doing worse in Games 4-6 than he had been in Games 1-3. And that was the whole point of the argument.

I said that Conley and Allen's injuries hurt Memphis's chances in that series. Memphis won the two games when both players were the closest they were to healthy. If they had been fully healthy the entire series, they might have had a chance.

The fact that not only you deny this, but that the lynchpin of your denial is "Tony Allen didn't get hurt in Game 3 even though ESPN says that he did!" is one of the best examples I've seen of you not being able to back down on any argument, ever.

Tony Allen did get hurt in Game 3. You were wrong.

i) Durant wanted Horford in OKC - clearly his first option was to stay - the most probable outcome like I said

And all I had said was that unless something big happened, Durant probably was leaving for a contender. Obviously a major free agent signing would have been big.

But you came onto a thread where you hadn't even been involved and mocked me for saying that Durant was probably leaving to a contender, then you chased me down and mocked me after OKC beat SAS solely because you assumed that made it certain that Durant wouldn't leave, and then you refused to admit that you were wrong when Durant did leave.

The fact that Durant left EVEN THOUGH OKC WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO BEAT SAS shows exactly how probable his leaving was.

Durant did leave for a contender. You mocked me repeatedly for saying that that's what I thought he would do. You were wrong.

ii) I NEVER said Kyrie wouldn't hurt himself, just that it was the best option given the circumstances. Kyrie was still going to re-aggravate his injury no matter what because there wasn't enough time in the postseason to get the appropriate rest.

If a player's leg is a "ticking time bomb", as you called it, then wouldn't the best option be to sit his ass down until you need him, so that the time bomb doesn't keep ticking? Playing him before you absolutely need him just uses up the available minutes he has to give you before he inevitably gets hurt again.

In any other circumstance where you weren't trying to defend yourself, you'd automatically realize the validity of that point.

The Cavs didn't need Kyrie yet against the Hawks. You thought they did. You were wrong.




You CLAIMED that the reason he needed to keep playing after Game 1 of the Atlanta series was that he had to find his rhythm. Well, obviously he didn't, because he played just fine in Game 1 against the Warriors without taking that extra playing time to "find his rhythm".

I said during Game 6 of the Chicago series that they needed to sit his ass down and rest the injury until he could contribute better and the Cavs absolutely needed him. Instead, he rehurt the injury in Game 6, rested a few days and saw it improve, then rehurt it against in Game 1 against the Hawks, rested a few days and saw it improve, then rehurt it permanently when he got over 40 minutes against the Warriors.

Re-aggravating the injury in Game 6 Chicago and Game 1 Atlanta almost certainly hurt his chances of making it through any significant amount of the Warriors series. Rest, when he got it, helped him, and more rest could have helped him more. You were wrong.




Obviously, trying to give Kyrie more playing time to "get in rhythm" was counterproductive. Obviously, rest helped the injury (though didn't fully heal it, as no one has ever claimed), but rest never meant that he was immune from re-injury. Every time he came back from rest he felt better, but every time he played he was only a certain # of minutes from injuring it again, so they should have sat his ass down until they absolutely needed him to win. Sitting the last part of Chicago and all of Atlanta, then giving him about 20 minutes/game against Golden State to take a little offensive load off Lebron and keep Delly from exhausting himself, would have given the Cavs the best chance to win a ring.

This is OBVIOUS now. And you can call it Monday Morning Quarterbacking....except that it's the same thing I was telling you long before the Finals even started.

Kyrie didn't need to play more against the Hawks to "get into rhythm". You were wrong.

iii) Curry wasn't the same after his injury and it was one of the reasons why the Warriors didn't go back-to-back

And I never once said that Curry's injury wouldn't affect the Warriors in the Finals. All I said was that we didn't yet know whether Curry's injury would keep them from winning a ring, but we knew for sure that Blake's/CP3's injuries would keep the Warriors from having to worry about any sort of meaningful opponent in the WCSF. I kept saying that they had caught a lucky break when CP3 got injured because it kept them from facing a dangerous Clippers team with Curry out, and that Curry's injury had not yet hurt them because they were only facing teams they could beat without him, and we didn't know what would happen later.

The second that Curry's injury began hurting them against OKC and the Cavs, I admitted that they were finally on the wrong side of the injury breaks. But that wasn't true in the WCSF - in the WCSF, Blake/CP3 being out mattered more than Curry being out, because the Warriors were still going to win without Curry as long as they didn't have to face the Clippers with CP3 and Blake.

The only point I made was that injuries had given the Warriors a consistent string of breaks from the 2015 WCSF to the 2016 WCSF. Every opponent that could threaten them (2015 Memphis, 2015 Cleveland) and every potential opponent that might have threatened them (2015 Thunder, 2015 Clippers, and 2016 Clippers) ended up facing injuries that either kept them from reaching the Warriors or destroyed their chances against them.

Golden State had gotten lucky on the injury bug in comparison to every meaningful opponent they faced or could have faced from the 2015 WCSF to the 2016 WCSF. I never said that Curry's injury wouldn't hurt them in later series, I said we had to wait and see. You were wrong.

Not only is this FACTUALLY untrue. You can't even remember all the arguments we've had. Never mind the fact the most "blindingly obvious" one [Paul's defense on Lillard] where you were completely wrong is staring at you right above.

I'm quite pleased that the most "blindingly obvious" example of me being wrong that you can come up with is my claim that CP3 defends Lillard well.

When I gave you receipts of Blazers commentators after Game 1 stating that Lillard struggled against CP3,
and I linked breakdowns of Blazer commentators explaining why Lillard typically struggles against CP3 defense and that CP3 dominates Lillard head-to-head,
and that CP3 was credited with getting the job done as the anchor of the defense that had limited Lillard to that point,
and Lillard proceeded to average 30ppg and 7apg the rest of the way in the playoffs after CP3 went out,
and Portland averaged 104ppg the rest of the series after only averaging 91ppg in the first three games with CP3 in,
and just last week CP3 held Lillard to a disgusting 1-10 for 8 points with 1 assist and 3 turnovers game,
and Lillard has only averaged 17 and 5 on 37% shooting with 4 turnovers/game against CP3 for his entire career....

I'm really impressed that "CP3 can't guard Lillard" is the "most blindingly obvious" example you can find of me being wrong.


Now, I'm not going to say that you don't have a point about the Clippers team defense being a factor. I've never said it wasn't. And if that's the most "blindingly obvious" example of me being wrong, then I am doing very, very well.

And I'm still not going to watch your video. What a waste of time!

ii) These are the conditions of the bet :

If the Warriors grab the #1 record in the league and Durant or Curry (or both) win MVP - you're banned until the start of the '17/'18 season
If the Cavs don't grab the #1 record in the league and LeBron wins MVP - I'm banned until the start of the '17'18 season

It's on!

Caveat I want to add - if the Warriors get the wins record, all bets are off. I said that they couldn't win MVP if the Warriors did worse than they did last year.

Also, if Curry or Durant or Lebron get seriously injured (say, miss 10+ games or are seriously limited due to injury), of course all bets are off.

And clarification - the ban from the Coliseum is effective the MOMENT the MVP award is officially announced. No trying to squirm your way through the end of the playoffs.

Watch you try to talk your way out of this one.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

When I gave you receipts of Blazers commentators after Game 1 stating that Lillard struggled against CP3,
and I linked breakdowns of Blazer commentators explaining why Lillard typically struggles against CP3 defense and that CP3 dominates Lillard head-to-head,
and that CP3 was credited with getting the job done as the anchor of the defense that had limited Lillard to that point,

The bold is a prime example of why I can't fukk with you when it comes to actually discussing shyt: regurgitating articles and stats that have little-to-no relevance, while not providing the proper context (most probably because you don't actually watch the games) and purposefully dumbing down your argument to maintain your original position when somebody posts anything that swallows up what you posted.

Lillard vs. Paul: The Showdown Arrives - this article you posted was before the series took place, it's basically a preview - how disingenuous can you be?
Damian Lillard Struggles Against Elite Guards - this article is only from Game 1 and it's got absolutely nothing containing Paul's defense on Lillard from G1 - all it has is a bunch of H2H box score comparisons and how erratic Lillard can be as a scorer
Paul vs. Lillard is the best 1st-round matchup - another preview of the series
How Does Chris Paul's Injury Affect Blazers? - a brief mention of Paul's defense on Lillard but like you it fails to bring up the exact reasons why Lillard's FG% was poor.
Clippers Lose Paul, Blazers Gain Huge Opportunity - a brief mention of Paul being the "hub of LA's defense" but again it fails to back it up with reasons why, gifs/video footage, or stats of when he was the primary defender
Chris Paul: The Commander In Chief - posts a video from only G1 and basically shows a few possessions where Paul plays competent defense and the rest of the possessions are either Paul being bailed out by help defense or letting Lillard do whatever the hell he wants

Basically only ONE of those SIX links you posted was actually relevant and it was only based on ONE game out of the FOUR games Paul played in, and even that link had a # of possessions that showed Paul playing poor defense. You either don't fact check properly or you try to pull the wool over one's eyes in hopes they don't actually click on the links to check. It's a common theme with your posting.

and Lillard proceeded to average 30ppg and 7apg the rest of the way in the playoffs after CP3 went out,
and Portland averaged 104ppg the rest of the series after only averaging 91ppg in the first three games with CP3 in,
and just last week CP3 held Lillard to a disgusting 1-10 for 8 points with 1 assist and 3 turnovers game,
and Lillard has only averaged 17 and 5 on 37% shooting with 4 turnovers/game against CP3 for his entire career....

i) Can you provide any context on the comparison behind the defense being played on Lillard during those games when Paul was out, and when he was playing? Can you provide any context on who was guarding him on those possessions? Can you provide any context on who was reliable for him scoring? Can you provide any context on his made/missed shots and what were contested/uncontested and by whom?
ii) What the fukk does Portland average more points as team have to do with Paul guarding Lillard? Are you conveniently forgetting that Griffin was out too? Are you forgetting that the Clippers couldn't build their normal offensive lines that they usually do when they have their top 2 players - putting more pressure on their defense and forcing the issue leading to the T'Blazers gaining confidence and/or rhythm?
iii) What Lillard scored last week has absolutely nothing to do with last year's series, and can you provide any context on who was guarding him on his shot attempts and when he was driving?
iv) Can you provide any context behind his career #s against Paul and if Paul was responsible for him shooting like that?

This is what you do, throw surface stats against the wall with absolutely no context whatsoever in hopes that they stick. You can get away with that shyt with the typical smart dumb Lakers fan, but not with me.

And I'm still not going to watch your video. What a waste of time!

Clearly you're somebody that doesn't want to acknowledge factual evidence when it goes against your position. This comes as no surprise as this is your MO.


Here I'll give you a brief account of what the video covers:

Only 12 of Lillard's 47 misses came against Paul as the primary defender during the first four games (that's only 25% of his missed shots - you see how stupid it is to put Lillard's low shooting % down to Paul's defense?)
Lillard shot 18/30 (60% shooting) when guarded or left open by Paul including one FG where Paul failed to get back in transition
First four games Lillard shot 27/74 FG (36.5% shooting), he shot 9/44 (20.5% shooting) when other Clippers players were guarding him, but shot 18/30 (60% shooting) when Paul was guarding him or leaving him open
Lillard shot 41.9% during the regular season but shot 60% when he was guarded by Paul

It shows all these shots in the video.

You were wrong.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Tony Allen did get hurt in Game 3. You were wrong.

You were wrong on this - I don't need to repeat my reasoning why you were. Clearly you didn't watch the games nor what I posted.

I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Durant did leave for a contender. You mocked me repeatedly for saying that that's what I thought he would do. You were wrong.

You were also wrong on this because I told you what that most probable outcome was (backed up by him trying to get Horford to OKC).

I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Re-aggravating the injury in Game 6 Chicago and Game 1 Atlanta almost certainly hurt his chances of making it through any significant amount of the Warriors series. Rest, when he got it, helped him, and more rest could have helped him more. You were wrong.

You were also wrong on this because your alternative to my option was he should only play when when he could move - he could move and felt "amazing" during training/days between games.. He injured himself after playing 44 minutes. Your alternative option wouldn't have stopped that. He needed proper rest; rest that wasn't realistic during the postseason. My option was the best balance of keeping him healthy and mentally/physically ready for the Finals.

I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Golden State had gotten lucky on the injury bug in comparison to every meaningful opponent they faced or could have faced from the 2015 WCSF to the 2016 WCSF. I never said that Curry's injury wouldn't hurt them in later series, I said we had to wait and see. You were wrong.

You were also wrong on this because you didn't need to involve yourself in a discussion that didn't concern you. The Warriors didn't get all the luck and yes Curry's injury did hurt them in the end, because he clearly wasn't 100% as the postseason went on.

I'm not going to repeat myself again.

It's on!

Caveat I want to add - if the Warriors get the wins record, all bets are off. I said that they couldn't win MVP if the Warriors did worse than they did last year.

Also, if Curry or Durant or Lebron get seriously injured (say, miss 10+ games or are seriously limited due to injury), of course all bets are off.

And clarification - the ban from the Coliseum is effective the MOMENT the MVP award is officially announced. No trying to squirm your way through the end of the playoffs.

Watch you try to talk your way out of this one.

It's on.

 

[DonKnock]

Poll results:
Harden: 71%
Westbrook: 29%

 

[Brozay]

remove Lillard from any list and insert Jimmy Butler

 

[nomoreneveragain]

I didn't realize how crazy cp3 is playing this season.

He's the MVP

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I'm still amazed at just how many folk believed LeBron was going to win MVP based off last season's Finals. I did try telling you @The Dankster that what happened last season/postseason is basically irrelevant and all narratives for the MVP are built during the year.