Woj- Curry has grade 1 sprain could miss 2 weeks..no damage to knee

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Because the Spurs didn't win the ring. No one gives a shyt about how much luck a team had on their way to not winning.

Actually, this is incorrect.

Folk on this board were talking about all the luck the Warriors had, before they even made it into the Finals. Did you conveniently forget all the talk about Curry avoiding a healthy starting PG during the first, second and third rounds? Did you conveniently forget all the talk about how the Warriors managed to avoid the Clippers, Spurs and Thunder (who didn't make the playoffs)? Did you conveniently forget all the talk about how the Warriors managed to avoid a healthy team in the first, second and third rounds?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Remind me what injury did the Rockets suffer in THIS series, that outweighs the loss of Curry - who has only played 39 minutes of the series? Or did you conveniently leave that out just so you could emphasize this run of luck by using "consecutive"?



This is patently ridiculous. It doesn't even warrant a proper response.

The Pelicans weren't beating them if Jrue was healthy - how you deem that a "meaningful" series, I don't know
The Grizzlies weren't beating them if Conley was completely healthy (before Allen was injured, their adjustment on defense made him a non-factor)
The Rockets weren't beating them if Beverley or D-Mo were healthy (not only did GS sweep them during the '14/'15 regular season, but Beverley couldn't stop Curry - shyt the Rockets are more or less healthy this postseason and can't beat the Warriors who are WITHOUT Curry)

Explain why this series against the Rockets isn't considered meaningful (the Rockets are healthier this season), and their series against the Rockets last season was? Explain how the Pelicans series was meaningful, and this series against the Rockets isn't - when the Rockets are the better team?

I know you get all up in your feelings when you try to debate me, but please, reading comprehension.


No, I do not consider #1 vs. #8 series to be meaningful for title contenders. Pelicans weren't going to beat them no matter what.

That's why I never mentioned the Pelicans. I don't know why you keep bringing that up when their name didn't come out of my mouth once.


You can't watch the Grizzlies take back-to-back games against the Warriors, but 7 points and 10 points, WITH an injured Mike Conley AND with Tony Allen getting hurt in that third game, and then try to claim that a healthy Grizzlies team would have had no chance. The two games where the Grizzlies were the healthiest, they won. The two games where Conley or Allen were out, they lost. The two games where Conley and Allen both played limited and injured, they lost.


And no, the Rockets weren't beating them last year either, even if they didn't have those injuries. But I didn't mention the Rockets beating them last year. What I said was that OKC, the team they SHOULD have been facing in the WCF, could have beat them if it hadn't been for the Durant injury.


This post wouldn't even have been necessarily if you had actually read and understood my first post. Coming in here claiming that I "deemed" the Pelicans a meaningful series and claiming that I think the Rockets could beat the Warriors when I never said any such thing.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Actually, this is incorrect.

Folk on this board were talking about all the luck the Warriors had, before they even made it into the Finals. Did you conveniently forget all the talk about Curry avoiding a healthy starting PG during the first, second and third rounds? Did you conveniently forget all the talk about how the Warriors managed to avoid the Clippers, Spurs and Thunder (who didn't make the playoffs)? Did you conveniently forget all the talk about how the Warriors managed to avoid a healthy team in the first, second and third rounds?

Because by that point everyone already thought the Warriors were going to win the ring.

By midway through the semifinals, Durant and the Thunder were already out, the Spurs were already out, Conley/Allen were already hurt, CP3 was already hurt, Kyrie/Love were already hurt....people didn't start complaining until it appeared that the Warriors would probably make their way to the title without having faced a single serious threat healthy.


Do you really need this explained slowly to you?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I know you get all up in your feelings when you try to debate me, but please, reading comprehension.


No, I do not consider #1 vs. #8 series to be meaningful for title contenders. Pelicans weren't going to beat them no matter what.

That's why I never mentioned the Pelicans. I don't know why you keep bringing that up when their name didn't come out of my mouth once.

That's because you have a hard time using #s and explaining yourself properly. I don't know exactly what it is you're arguing specifically because you have a tendency to get the details wrong. For example -

The Warriors have been decisively helped by an injury in 3 consecutive playoff series, and now it appears almost certain to be 4 consecutive playoff series. That's good luck.

This doesn't make any sense. Which three consecutive playoff series are you talking about here, and which one would make it four in a row? Do I need to remind you that this current series (Curry injured and the Rockets are healthy) breaks whatever "consecutive" run of luck they'd have going forward?

You can't watch the Grizzlies take back-to-back games against the Warriors, but 7 points and 10 points, WITH an injured Mike Conley AND with Tony Allen getting hurt in that third game, and then try to claim that a healthy Grizzlies team would have had no chance. The two games where the Grizzlies were the healthiest, they won. The two games where Conley or Allen were out, they lost. The two games where Conley and Allen both played limited and injured, they lost.

This doesn't make any sense.

ii) Conley only missed one game - G1
ii) Conley was in his worst state in the game he returned (Game 2 - eight days just after having facial surgery, when he scored 22 on 8-12 shooting), how can you count that game and G3 just because Memphis won, but disregard the rest of the series when Conley was in better shape but shot terribly from the floor? That 22-point performance was an anomaly, due to the fact not only was he still in the earliest stage of recovery but he shoots 40% from the floor over his entire postseason career.
iii) Allen had been struggling with that hamstring injury well before that series even begun
iv) Allen was moving fine in the first half of G4 (no different to the first three games) - the Warriors had a 61-44 lead at the half - due to the defensive adjustment they made by leaving Allen open to double one of Z-Bo or Gasol; limiting their effectiveness. Allen tweaked his hamstring near the end of the third quarter, and the Grizzlies ended up performing better without him after that point, than they did with him in the first half. The momentum swung in the Warriors favor from the adjustments they made (when Allen was fine), not because Allen was injured. They already took control by making Allen a non-factor on offense.

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
Conley's swelling decreased significantly after G2 (where he scored 22) - his sight improved as the series went on. You can not use his injury as an excuse for his poor shooting performances in losses, but not apply the same to the games when they won when he was still recovering from the same injury. Especially since he shot poorly in G3 and the Grizzlies still won.

And no, the Rockets weren't beating them last year either, even if they didn't have those injuries. But I didn't mention the Rockets beating them last year. What I said was that OKC, the team they SHOULD have been facing in the WCF, could have beat them if it hadn't been for the Durant injury.

At this point you're making zero sense. First of all, OKC didn't even make the playoffs. How can you say that OKC should've been facing the Warriors in the WCF, when even if Durant was healthy that season that OKC didn't lose to either the Spurs or LAC (while unlikely, still a possibility) earlier in the postseason? Or if the Warriors actually played OKC in round two - the Grizzlies series wouldn't have happened. And why are you acting like the Clippers weren't the team that was supposed to play GS in the WCF, after they choked in the second round to the Rockets?

Your argument is all over the place with these hypotheticals and your confusion over details.

This post wouldn't even have been necessarily if you had actually read and understood my first post. Coming in here claiming that I "deemed" the Pelicans a meaningful series and claiming that I think the Rockets could beat the Warriors when I never said any such thing..

This conversation wouldn't even be needed if you not only knew what you were talking about, but also explained yourself properly.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Because by that point everyone already thought the Warriors were going to win the ring.

By midway through the semifinals, Durant and the Thunder were already out, the Spurs were already out, Conley/Allen were already hurt, CP3 was already hurt, Kyrie/Love were already hurt....people didn't start complaining until it appeared that the Warriors would probably make their way to the title without having faced a single serious threat healthy.


Do you really need this explained slowly to you?

Your revisionism is comical. The luck agenda was pushed well before "everyone" already thought the Warriors were going to win a ring (and before midway through the semifinals), need I remind you of the 'Warriors ain't shyt without the officials' narrative that continued to gain steam throughout the regular season. Especially since this board were split on who would win between the Cavs/Warriors -

Now does that sound like everyone knew the Warriors were going to a ring midway through the semi-finals, when they still were split over which team would win the Finals?

 

[Damnshow]

That is not luck. The uncertainty of the health of his knee nullifies that very thought. You say they can rest him and send him to the Spurs series, as if he'll be spending all his time training in the gym and will be game-fit for the WCF.

warriors are lucky because they have time to sit out curry without risking of eliminating themselves outta playoffs, they can rest him more than two weeks to not aggravate the injury, curry will not be playing 100% in these playoffs but he can at around 80-90% which is good enough to win the title.

His injury is not that bad that would take him out of the playoffs, meanwhile if they had to face the healthy clippers in the 2nd round shyt would be dangerous. If they see that Curry is ready to play they can send him to game 4 or game 5 against the blazers so he could be more game fit for the spurs series, however yes spurs got lucky too.

I mean lol he injures himself then next day paul is out for the rest of the series, how is that not luck? The situation clearly got better today than it was yesterday for the warriors.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

warriors are lucky...

I'm going to stop you right there. The Warriors are not lucky. Their best player and the key to their success is out injured and it remains to be seen if he will be healthy this season. Whatever parameters you wanna put up post that (that soften the blow), still doesn't take away from that fact.

 

[Damnshow]

This is patently ridiculous. It doesn't even warrant a proper response.

The Pelicans weren't beating them if Jrue was healthy - how you deem that a "meaningful" series, I don't know
The Grizzlies weren't beating them if Conley was completely healthy (before Allen was injured, their adjustment on defense made him a non-factor)
The Rockets weren't beating them if Beverley or D-Mo were healthy (not only did GS sweep them during the '14/'15 regular season, but Beverley couldn't stop Curry - shyt the Rockets are more or less healthy this postseason and can't beat the Warriors who are WITHOUT Curry)

I've seen this argument before, warriors would have still won if every team was healthy and so on....Those teams were not beating the warriors, sure, why not give them the western conference title already then? Playing weaker healthy squads pushes you to deeper series in which the risk of getting injured increases and things like that. Warriors got lucky very much last year because every damn team did not play up their 100% while warriors did!

Pelicans could have pushed warriors to game 5 with healthy jrue, healthy conley might have pushed them to game 7 (though they figured out letting tony allen brick 3pts), healthy beverley and dmo may have pushed them to game 6, we are talking about like additional 3 western conference games where who knows what could have happened. Each additional game adds more risk to injuries as your body wears out playing longer series.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I've seen this argument before, warriors would have still won if every team was healthy and so on....Those teams were not beating the warriors, sure, why not give them the western conference title already then? Playing weaker healthy squads pushes you to deeper series in which the risk of getting injured increases and things like that. Warriors got lucky very much last year because every damn team did not play up their 100% while warriors did!

Pelicans could have pushed warriors to game 5 with healthy jrue, healthy conley might have pushed them to game 7 (though they figured out letting tony allen brick 3pts), healthy beverley and dmo may have pushed them to game 6, we are talking about like additional 3 western conference games where who knows what could have happened. Each additional game adds more risk to injuries as your body wears out playing longer series.

Do I really need to point out the stupidity in going over a title run, where injuries affected the outcome?

 

[Damnshow]

I'm going to stop you right there. The Warriors are not lucky. Their best player and the key to their success is out injured and it remains to be seen if he will be healthy this season. Whatever parameters you wanna put up post that (that soften the blow), still doesn't take away from that fact.

They are not as lucky as last year but they got lucky TODAY compared to YESTERDAY, the luckiest team in the playoffs right now are spurs I would say, however they get to play healthy okc where we dont know what could happen.


The luck for the warriors is that they will not have to play healthy clippers, instead they will play overachieving blazers, which means that you don't HAVE to put curry in the series to aggravate his injury because they are winning series without him anyways


Actually when I think about it houston is the luckiest team but they are such a horrible quitters its not even funny they would have easy road to the conference finals if that locker room was good,

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

They are not as lucky as last year but they got lucky TODAY compared to YESTERDAY, the luckiest team in the playoffs right now are spurs I would say, however they get to play healthy okc where we dont know what could happen.


The luck for the warriors is that they will not have to play healthy clippers, instead they will play overachieving blazers, which means that you don't HAVE to put curry in the series to aggravate his injury because they are winning series without him anyways


Actually when I think about it houston is the luckiest team but they are such a horrible quitters its not even funny they would have easy road to the conference finals if that locker room was good,

If I lost my leg the day prior, and won $1m the next day - you could say the same thing.

 

[Damnshow]

If I lost my leg the day prior, and won $1m the next day - you could say the same thing.

actually yes, because you had a tragedy but next day the fortune was on your side and you won one million outta nowhere. You are not 100% lucky because of the tragedy but you still got some luck because you got rich. I am not telling that warriors are the luckiest team, I am saying that they got lucky that chris paul went out because it eases them the 2nd round by a mile which gives them more time to take care of curry injury, how is that hard to understand? You don't want to play long ass series and they just avoided that in 2nd round.

I am not telling that warriors are having championship handed to them, because they will have to fight in this year especially with curry having injury, but they got fukking lucky that clippers are done imagine if okc were 4th, now that would have been a bad luck for warriors

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

actually yes, because you had a tragedy but next day the fortune was on your side and you won one million outta nowhere. You are not 100% lucky because of the tragedy but you still got some luck because you got rich. I am not telling that warriors are the luckiest team, I am saying that they got lucky that chris paul went out because it eases them the 2nd round by a mile which gives them more time to take care of curry injury, how is that hard to understand? You don't want to play long ass series and they just avoided that in 2nd round.

Considering this all started from this comment -

Warriors got all the luck. I've never seen shyt like this.

I'd say whatever cycle and abeo of luck that you're applying to this argument doesn't hold much weight - certainly not from the side I'm on anyway. And by your reasoning, 99.9% of championship victors in league history should have an asterisk next to their title wins too -

If they win it all this year they should have the asterisk attached next to the championship trophy.

How many teams have actually made it out of the first two rounds without their best player and gone on to win a title?

 

[prophecypro]

Honestly that's probably a relief for them given he could have been out entirely and with CP3 possibly out, either LA or Portland might be manageable in this absence.

 

[Osmar]

See how fast shyt changed in less than 24 hours

Now they might not even need Steph in the 2nd Round