First of all, I mentioned the Pelicans (only twice), before you even replied to clear up what you initially meant - I did not mention them again after that. Forgive me if I mistook you for one someone likes casual fan talking points (bringing up who they faced in the last season), like you've been accustomed to in the past. And that's largely due to the fact you didn't specifically state which series you were talking about (you initially said three to four consecutive series, before you changed/corrected it to consecutive meaningful series, and not just consecutive series - there's a big difference)
WRONG. Twice.
I clearly specified which series I was talking about in post #325, before any of this happened.
And then in post #327 I clearly said "And even if the Warriors ARE more injured than their opponents at that point, they'd still be up 4 to 1 in having injury advantages
in meaningful series the last two years." and "But this is
the 4th consecutive meaningful series where the Warriors will have seriously benefited from an opponent's injuries".
You responded for the first time with claiming I talked about the Pelicans and claiming that I hadn't been clear about which series I was referring to in post #329.
And you can't claim I corrected any of that later, because
you quoted me saying "meaningful series" in that very response.
That was what you initially ran with - no initial mention of consecutive "meaningful" series - when you added it later on, I took it as all series being meaningful, in a general sense (never mind the fact you just threw the Thunder in there as being one of the series, when the Warriors actually played the Rockets in the WCF). Simply because it made more sense in the context of "four consecutive playoff series". If you had made yourself clear from the very beginning, we wouldn't arguing over such a trivial point.
You just pulled the SAME shyt that you did in the last thread we talked. You selectively quoted me to make it look like I failed to clarify the point, when I clearly said "MEANINGFUL series"
TWICE in that very same comment. This time you edited both of those out, included the "3 consecutive series" (which was accurate) and then quote the 1 time I forgot to add "meaningful" to "4 consecutive series" even though I had already clarified that twice right in the same comment. Not to mention that in the comment before that one
I had already dictated to you exactly which four series I was talking about with the series written in bold.
That's bullshyt. If you're going to try to cherry-pick the ONE time out of three uses in the same comment that I omitted the word "meaningful" AND ignore that I had already listed the exact series out for you, then you ain't trying to discuss shyt, you're just playing games.
I find it quite mordant that you would mention you have a science degree when this revolves around you not making yourself clear with words, especially since I hold a M.A. centered around communication.
1. Learn what "mordant" means before you use it, so that you can use it correctly next time.
2. I was painfully clear, and you had to go to quite a degree of ridiculousness to be as confused as you are.
i) Where the fukk did I Conley was 100% for the rest of the series? My logic is horrible? Your reading comprehension is horrible. I clearly stated he was in his worst state in the game he returned in (ya'know in the game he scored 22 points), I did not say he was 100% anytime after that. He was never completely right at any point of that series. How do you come to the conclusion I was insinuating he returned to full health during that series?
This is exactly what I had said:
In the 2015 Conference Semifinals, Memphis lost Mike Conley, arguably their most important player against the Warriors, for Game 1. Memphis got blown out, but when Conley game back they won games 2 and 3 even with Conley not at 100%. But then Tony Allen, their best perimeter defender, got hurt during Game 3 and had to either sit out or play limping the rest of the games of the series, and the Warriors won the next three games going away.
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 this is what you responded with:
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.
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.
I said clearly that Mike Conley was injured and not at 100% for games 2-6. However, with a relatively healthy Allen AND an injured but playing Conley, they still took games 2 and 3...they just couldn't do it after that with Conley injured AND Allen basically crippled.
You replied by saying that Conley's injury couldn't be an excuse in any of the losses, implying that it had no effect on their chances.
If you mean anything other than that, and admit that Conley and Allen's injuries negatively affected Memphis's chances of winning the series, then say so. But so far it looks like you're trying to deny that.
ii) Like I said, Allen had been struggling with that injury before that series (he wasn't 100% for this series either). Stating he was moving fine (no different from the first three games) - means he was still chasing after loose balls, shadowing Klay around screens and fulfilling his usual roles on defense. He wasn't seriously hampered by it at all, at that point. It only really became an issue -- to the point where he needed to sit out -- was during the third quarter of Game 4.
The fact that someone hasn't satt out yet does NOT mean that he is not being seriously hampered by the injury.
Allen played 38 minutes each in Game 1 and Game 2. In Game 3 he sat down for a big chunk of the 3rd quarter after he got hurt and only played 33 minutes.
In Games 4-6, he only played
21 minutes total.
Allen himself, and his teammates, said that the hamstring
was re-injured in Game 3. They said that it had become a growing concern
BEFORE Game 4. Obviously, the hamstring had a major negative effect on his play before Game 4 even started, and the whole team knew it and stated so.
You seriously can't keep this fake-ass narrative going that he didn't re-injure it and it didn't really affect him until late in Game 4.
I already destroyed that narrative with Tony and his teammates' own words.
Allen had been getting treatment on his hamstring all throughout that series; Joerger even alluded to the state he'd been in. It had been a concern since G1. It only became a real problem in G4, when he didn't return in the 4th quarter (which is why I corrected you on the game he was injured in). This is AGAIN, a case of you not explaining yourself properly and not getting the details right. This is what you stated -
"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."
The problem with this is, Allen played injured or limited in Games 4 and 6, in those games Conley played 39 minutes and 33 minutes, respectively. Not only did Conley play more minutes in those losses, compared to the games they won (27 minutes and 32 minutes), but his body was in a better state and the swelling of his eye had decreased from Games 2 and 3. It seems strange that you claim Conley played limited and injured in Games 4 and 6 (as reason for why the lost), when he was in a better state during those games, than in the games where they won.
Look at you with the selective quoting again!
As I already quoted myself above, I was very, very clear that Conley was playing injured in Games 2 and 3 as well. But the Grizz were still at their healthiest in Games 2 and 3. Conley played MORE minutes in Games 4 and 6 because
Allen couldn't hardly play at all.
And the fact that both Conley and Allen were to some degree injured for EVERY game of the series only backfires on your claim that a fully healthy Memphis team didn't have a chance against the Grizz.
They took two straight games even when neither of their starting guards were fully healthy, and you want to act like that was some fluke?
This all goes back really to you not seeing that it was the Warriors adjustments which were the cause of them winning, and not the Grizzlies' injuries. Even if Memphis were healthy, the Warriors adjustments still have the same effect and result. A healed hamstring wasn't going to fix Allen's offensive woes.
Yeah, like in Game 1 the Warriors were too dumb to realize "Hey, this guy is a 25% career three-point shooter who hasn't made more than 11 threes in a season at any point in the last seven years. Maybe we don't need to guard him all the way out to the three-point line?"
Like teams hadn't been taking advantage of Allen that way for
years.
The difference is, when Allen is fully healthy and athletic, he can take advantage of that space and try to do something with it, and can hurt defenses in other ways.
In Game 1, he had 15 points on 6-11 shooting
In Game 2, he had 9 points on 4-7 shooting
In Game 3, he had 8 points on 4-8 shooting
And in Games 2-3, he held Warrior guards to 9-29 shooting when guarding them. That's a
massive contribution that would have kept him in the game even if Memphis was playing 4 on 5 on offense.
Not a fluke either. Klay shoots 43% career in games against Allen, and was 3-9 in their last game this year (where Allen went 5-7 for 15 points, "new defensive strategy" be damned).
Grizzlies started the season 3-6 with all sorts of problems when they played the Warriors twice and got blown out. But even so, they were -13 in those two games when Allen was on the court and -53 when Allen was off the court. (Too small sample size, but clear that a healthy Allen still retained some effectiveness even with the "new strategy".)
Even if you believe OKC were the second best team, if not for Durant's injury - there's still no certainty they end up as the #2 seed; meeting up wit GS in the WCF, because not only is there no certainty the beat the Spurs or Clippers, but the butterfly effect of him being healthy changes the season completely.
No, there's no "certainty". That's why my exact original words, in the very first post where I mentioned the WCF, were "there's a good argument that the Warriors would have been facing OKC if Durant hadn't got hurt".
"There's a good argument." Not "certainty".
I still don't quite understand why you're using this as weight to your argument of them benefiting from injuries; a meaningful series. Practically every team avoids a matchup during their title run, due to similar circumstances. It would make more sense for you to use the teams in which they did play last postseason and the injuries those teams had. Or is it a case of you referencing the de facto second best team in place of their actual WCF opponents (the Rockets) because it doesn't break your "consecutive meaningful series" talking point - when you've already made it clear you don't consider #1 and #8 a meaningful series - when the Rockets have a near identical team as they did last season, except for the fact they're healthy in the playoffs?
You've got to be kidding me if you're trying to pretend that this year's 41-41 Rockets are the same team as last year's 56-26 Rockets.
It ain't the physical injuries that decimated them this year...those fools got emotional problems.
I could have made the argument with Houston last year instead. If I really thought that "consecutive series" was a talking point and I was playing games, that's what I would have done and I could have included the Pelicans too and gotten to "4 consecutive series".
But I didn't, because I didn't care much about the injuries to the Pelicans or the Rockets. What I thought did make a difference was Durant getting injured. If that was the only meaningful injury, we'd be saying "shyt happens" and wouldn't be on this topic. But it was the combination of the Conley/Allen injuries AND the Love/Irving injuries that made people like me think, "Well damn, on top of this they were able to dodge the Thunder possibly cause Durant got hurt AND the Spurs possibly because Parker got hurt AND the Clippers possibly because CP3 got hurt.
When the playoffs started, 538 had the Warriors, Clippers, Spurs, Hawks, and Cavs as the 5 teams with a 5% or better chance at the championship. The Thunder would have been up there as a 6th team with Durant playing. Warriors only had to face ONE of the other five teams on their way to the title, and that was the team that was most injured of all! In addition, two of the next three teams with the best odds (Memphis and Houston), both were beset by more injuries than the Warriors when they did play them.
Can't you just admit that that was unusually good luck?
