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

[Professor Emeritus]

NBA players with Grade 1 MCL sprains missed an average of 15 days (7 games) this year. That would put Curry back 2-4 games into the semifinals, and back for over a week by the first day of the Conference Finals.


538 showed that if Curry was out for the conference semifinals and CP3 hadn't gotten hurt, the Clippers would have had a 27% chance to beat the Warriors even with Blake not at 100%, and the Warriors' overall shot at a title would drop from 52% to 38%. But with CP3 out now, the Clippers' chances go back down to zero, and as long as Curry is healthy for the conference finals in three weeks, their title chances will not have changed.

Betting books still have Warriors as the favorites too.


To give a different non-statistical perspective of how huge the CP3 injury is, take a look at the ESPN five-on-five (after Curry injury, before CP3):

"Based on what we know, who would you pick in a Clippers-Warriors series?"

Lowe: "Warriors...but if Curry's absence lingers I'd flip the other way."
Torre: "Warriors in 7."
Strauss: "Warriors...I guess I'd pick the Clippers if Curry misses the whole series."
Stein: "Warriors in 7....they haven't ruled Steph out for the whole series yet."
Adande: "With Curry's availability in doubt...I'd pick the Clippers."

Your current pick to win the West finals and the NBA Finals?

Lowe: Warriors, assuming Curry recovers well on the timetable.
Torre: Warriors, because Curry can and should return.
Strauss: Warriors, but it's not a confident choice at this point.
Stein: Warriors...no one is saying that Steph's season is over.
Adande: Spurs



So after the Curry injury, 4 out of 5 are still picking the Warriors because everyone thinks that Curry is coming back.

However, that was a big "if", because 4 out of 5 also appear to say that if Steph is out for the whole semifinals, then they're picking the Clippers.

Or Bontemps:

"Now the Clippers have gone from the possible favorites to make it to the Western Conference Finals to likely exiting the postseason by the end of this week."


That's how lucky this CP3 injury is in comparison to the Curry injury. The Curry injury put the Warriors from "strong favorites" to "still the favorites, but they could lose the next series." The CP3 injury means, "Steph's injury doesn't even matter for the next 3+ weeks because this next series is a cakewalk."

 

[Robbo]

That's how lucky this CP3 injury is in comparison to the Curry injury. The Curry injury put the Warriors from "strong favorites" to "still the favorites, but they could lose the next series." The CP3 injury means, "Steph's injury doesn't even matter for the next 3+ weeks because this next series is a cakewalk."

That's not luck.. Clippers don't have a good enough roster. To say that they were favorites to make the Western Conference finals doesn't mean anything. If the Warriors and Clippers match up in the 2nd round, and both are without their starting point guards for the entire series, the Warriors are favored. That's not luck, they just have a better team.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I'm going to wrap this up, since we aren't getting anywhere by running in circles.

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 didn't cherry-pick anything, I responded to each comment in chronological order, which is why there was confusion on what you meant. Yes you did list series beforehand (you never established they were meaningful or not - not to mention you added a team which they didn't even play), however the connection was never made and never made sense with your first comment of post #327 -

"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."

Forgive me if it seems like you blatantly left out the Rockets series from this season, especially since in the initial series you listed you had OKC as their WCF series opponent, when the comment in bold sounds like you were talking about the teams they actually played. You can't claim they were decisively helped by an injury in consecutive series and throw a team in there they didn't play, because not only wouldn't they have played Memphis in the second round (therefore you wouldn't be able to use Memphis as an example) but the landscape of the entire playoffs would've played out differently with different teams and matchups.

You can't use one hypothetical series and two/three that actually happened to prove your point. It doesn't work like that. It's half the reason why we're arguing over semantics.

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.

It made perfect sense - mordant in that I found it ironic you'd bring up a degree of science to blow your trumpet, over an argument over words, when I have a M.A.

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.

What I said was it wasn't the cause (the main reason) of them losing the series, it was the Warriors adjustments on defense/offense. As I specifically said - "Even if Memphis were healthy, the Warriors adjustments still have the same effect and result.". Reading comprehension.

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.

Actually it does since, he was still playing his typical defense in the first half of G4. LOL at he sat down for a big chunk of the 3rd quarter of G3 -

He played seven minutes of the third quarter in G3
He played eight minutes of the third quarter in G2

He had been re-aggravating it since the first round - he was listed as questionable a couple of times against the T'Blazers. It was a growing concern before the Warriors series. Game 4 was when he re-injured it in the third quarter, and could no longer play on it - not Game 3. He could still play on it in G3 and the first half of G4. You didn't destroy that narrative at all, because I remember the first half of G4 and G3 (I actually went over that game and the games prior a while back to look at his defense).

You didn't even get the quarter in which he "re-aggravated" in G3 right - in which he was still able play on. It was actually done in the first half. He ended up playing around 9-10 minutes of the 4th quarter of G3, so explain to me how he re-injured it in the third quarter of G3, yet still managed to play most of the fourth quarter? Could it be because he could still play on it, as it didn't seriously hamper him, and he only re-injured it to the point he could no longer play in the third quarter of G4?

You're making yourself look silly at this point.

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

You don't know what the fukk you're talking about. Just stop. You clearly didn't watch that series.

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".)

First of all - I actually went over those games with a fine-toothed comb (from a previous argument regarding Allen's defense in that series). He had a lot of help on the FGs he did guard; I remember tweets which seem to generalize his FGAs he defended - some even being when he wasn't the main defender and some where the Warriors missed easy shots.

There was this notion that Allen was shutting down Klay in Game 2 and 3, when it couldn't be further from the truth - Klay would regularly take him off the dribble or lose him off screens. It was the defensive help and Klay missing easy shots which was cause of him shooting poorly, not Allen. Which brings me to my next point of you saying "he's a 43% shooter against Allen, and that he was 3-9 in their last game this year" - no those aren't Klay's percentages against Allen, they're his percentages against the Grizzlies. It's disingenuous for you to act like Allen held him to those #s.

Again, you're leaving out the proper context.

Same goes for the on/off court #s. Proper context.

Same goes for "new defensive strategy" that was used in the playoffs - where you cherry-picked an anomaly of him shooting well this season against the Warriors - did you watch the game? Were they leaving him open (like they did in the playoffs), but this time he was making open shots? How many points of his came against the second unit? Not to mention Bogut never started that game, and he was a big reason why that strategy worked in the first place.

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

This is the problem with you. THERE'S NO GOOD ARGUMENT AT ALL. If Durant was healthy last season, everything during the regular and postseason plays out differently. You can't automatically assume or make an argument for OKC playing GS in the WCF because they were the second best team (according to you). It doesn't work like that. And you most certainly can't use that theory, but then say they still would've played Memphis in the earlier round - it's in conflict with the makeup of your hypothetical.

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?

When has this ever been about me not acknowledging the amount of luck they received last season? Need I remind you that I took objection to this post - "The Warriors got all the luck" - in wake up of CP's injury, in a thread based on Curry getting injured and being out for at last two weeks. It was a troll comment, because quite clearly GS does NOT get all the luck. Why you chose to contest my argument against that, I don't know.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

@The Dankster

Answer me this - are you of the opinion that the Warriors get ALL the luck? If you're not, what was the point in replying to my post in the first instance?

 

[G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman]

God is great.

 

[Thegospel]

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.





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.





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.





This is exactly what I had said:




And this is what you responded with:



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.








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.






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?





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".)





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".





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?

@all that typing. Wtf dude

 

[360Waves]

I'm going to wrap this up, since we aren't getting anywhere by running in circles.

I didn't cherry-pick anything, I responded to each comment in chronological order, which is why there was confusion on what you meant. Yes you did list series beforehand (you never established they were meaningful or not - not to mention you added a team which they didn't even play), however the connection was never made and never made sense with your first comment of post #327 -

"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."

Forgive me if it seems like you blatantly left out the Rockets series from this season, especially since in the initial series you listed you had OKC as their WCF series opponent, when the comment in bold sounds like you were talking about the teams they actually played. You can't claim they were decisively helped by an injury in consecutive series and throw a team in there they didn't play, because not only wouldn't they have played Memphis in the second round (therefore you wouldn't be able to use Memphis as an example) but the landscape of the entire playoffs would've played out differently with different teams and matchups.

You can't use one hypothetical series and two/three that actually happened to prove your point. It doesn't work like that. It's half the reason why we're arguing over semantics.

It made perfect sense - mordant in that I found it ironic you'd bring up a degree of science to blow your trumpet, over an argument over words, when I have a M.A.

What I said was it wasn't the cause (the main reason) of them losing the series, it was the Warriors adjustments on defense/offense. As I specifically said - "Even if Memphis were healthy, the Warriors adjustments still have the same effect and result.". Reading comprehension.

Actually it does since, he was still playing his typical defense in the first half of G4. LOL at he sat down for a big chunk of the 3rd quarter of G3 -

He played seven minutes of the third quarter in G3
He played eight minutes of the third quarter in G2

He had been re-aggravating it since the first round - he was listed as questionable a couple of times against the T'Blazers. It was a growing concern before the Warriors series. Game 4 was when he re-injured it in the third quarter, and could no longer play on it - not Game 3. He could still play on it in G3 and the first half of G4. You didn't destroy that narrative at all, because I remember the first half of G4 and G3 (I actually went over that game and the games prior a while back to look at his defense).

You didn't even get the quarter in which he "re-aggravated" in G3 right - in which he was still able play on. It was actually done in the first half. He ended up playing around 9-10 minutes of the 4th quarter of G3, so explain to me how he re-injured it in the third quarter of G3, yet still managed to play most of the fourth quarter? Could it be because he could still play on it, as it didn't seriously hamper him, and he only re-injured it to the point he could no longer play in the third quarter of G4?

You're making yourself look silly at this point.

You don't know what the fukk you're talking about. Just stop. You clearly didn't watch that series.

First of all - I actually went over those games with a fine-toothed comb (from a previous argument regarding Allen's defense in that series). He had a lot of help on the FGs he did guard; I remember tweets which seem to generalize his FGAs he defended - some even being when he wasn't the main defender and some where the Warriors missed easy shots.

There was this notion that Allen was shutting down Klay in Game 2 and 3, when it couldn't be further from the truth - Klay would regularly take him off the dribble or lose him off screens. It was the defensive help and Klay missing easy shots which was cause of him shooting poorly, not Allen. Which brings me to my next point of you saying "he's a 43% shooter against Allen, and that he was 3-9 in their last game this year" - no those aren't Klay's percentages against Allen, they're his percentages against the Grizzlies. It's disingenuous for you to act like Allen held him to those #s.

Again, you're leaving out the proper context.

Same goes for the on/off court #s. Proper context.

Same goes for "new defensive strategy" that was used in the playoffs - where you cherry-picked an anomaly of him shooting well this season against the Warriors - did you watch the game? Were they leaving him open (like they did in the playoffs), but this time he was making open shots? How many points of his came against the second unit? Not to mention Bogut never started that game, and he was a big reason why that strategy worked in the first place.



This is the problem with you. THERE'S NO GOOD ARGUMENT AT ALL. If Durant was healthy last season, everything during the regular and postseason plays out differently. You can't automatically assume or make an argument for OKC playing GS in the WCF because they were the second best team (according to you). It doesn't work like that. And you most certainly can't use that theory, but then say they still would've played Memphis in the earlier round - it's in conflict with the makeup of your hypothetical.



When has this ever been about me not acknowledging the amount of luck they received last season? Need I remind you that I took objection to this post - "The Warriors got all the luck" - in wake up of CP's injury, in a thread based on Curry getting injured and being out for at last two weeks. It was a troll comment, because quite clearly GS does NOT get all the luck. Why you chose to contest my argument against that, I don't know.

What in god's green earth is wrong with you?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

What in god's green earth is wrong with you?

Problem, friend?

 

[keepemup]

Awww shyt. Cats in here givin' lectures. I'm out.

 

[fifth column]

Awww shyt. Cats in here givin' lectures. I'm out.

yo word, some of these brehs

 

[360Waves]

Problem, friend?

Its one thing to have a shyt load of posts like you do.

But the absolutely jaw dropping part is that the large majority of these posts are novel length walls of fukking text.

I really ask this in the least insulting way possible, what do you do outside of this site?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Its one thing to have a shyt load of posts like you do.

Considering I've been here since the very first day this site was active, my post count isn't even that noteworhty - certainly not when there's plenty of posters who have more posts than I do yet signed up well after I did.

But the absolutely jaw dropping part is that the large majority of these posts are novel length walls of fukking text.

They only make up a very small percentage. The majority of my posts are short and usually in game-related threads. These long posts stick out more because you remember these instances more than you do when I post a few words or lines.

I really ask this in the least insulting way possible, what do you do outside of this site?

A lot more than you could ever imagine.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

I'm starting to get convinced that you're somewhere on the spectrum and have difficulty communicating or understanding what people are saying.

I pointed out his autism years ago and people thought I was just trying to clown.

73 lucky wins?

Bout 10-12

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I pointed out his autism years ago and people thought I was just trying to clown.

I contest a post where somebody said the Warriors get ALL the luck, he then contests my post by saying the Warriors do have some luck - when it didn't even warrant a reply in the first place, because that's not what I was arguing against. This is what happens when folk don't read properly.

Many posters have pointed out your whinging, manipulating and feminine ways when it comes to discussing sport - according to your logic that must be true too.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

Many posters have pointed out your whinging, manipulating and feminine ways when it comes to discussing sport

Not really and nobody worth a shyt