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

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Not really and nobody worth a shyt

If nobody is worth a shyt, why the fukk do you constantly use people's views as references to push your agenda? This double standard shyt is never-ending with you.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So now we find that Blake AND CP3 are pretty much ruled out the rest of the playoffs, while Curry is likely back long before the Warriors face anyone other than...um...Portland or the DeAndre Jordan-led Clippers.

I can't believe we're even still having this discussion.

@all that typing. Wtf dude

Did you not see what I was responding to?

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."

I had listed the serious 1-by-1 in my previous comment, and clarified "meaningful series" TWICE in the exact same comment that you cherry-picked that quote from. You could try to claim that you simply missed all that the first time....but when you keep harping on it after I direct your intention right to it, to claim that I "corrected myself later" when it was right there in the very same comment, and to continue to try to blame me in order to gain some sort of mythical Coli points instead of just admitting that you made a reading comprehension error....that's where you've grown beyond ridiculous.

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.

WRONG and WRONG again. Damn, you're bad at this attempted one-upmanship over facts.

First off, I brought up my degree in science and my math skills in order to counter your claim that I can't use numbers, not to counter any claim that I can't use words. So once again, either your reading comprehension has shown itself to be woefully limited once again, or you're trying to lie for the argument.

And someone trying to bring up their education while misusing words is hilarious.

Mordant is a descriptor of something caustic, not ironic. A "mordant statement" is a biting, sarcastic statement....for you to be talking about my statement and say, "I find it mordant" doesn't mean you found it ironic, it would mean you found it harsh/sarcastic, which obviously it wasn't. I think that you've probably at some point heard someone make a mordant statement in response to an ironic statement, and thus confused their meaning in your head.

A harshly ironic statement could be described as "mordant", but only in reference to the caustic nature of the irony, as in the case when a harshly ironic statement is used as an insult. Since you used the statement to refer to what you thought was unintentional irony on my part, and were trying to draw attention to the ironic error in the statement, not its harshness, you obviously misused the term.

Write one of your old profs and ask her to explain it to you.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

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.

Maybe math will help.

Let's pretend there are three scenarios:

A. You and the other team are equally healthy.
B. You are significantly healthier than the other team.
C. The other team is significantly healthier than you.


Now, let's pretend for a moment that "A" happens 1/2 the time, that "B" happens 1/4 of the time, and that "C" happens 1/4 of the time. If you want you can adjust those numbers however you want and respond, but you won't be able to find an adjustment that will make my argument not work.


So what were the chances that the Warriors would get the benefits of scenario "B" in any specific meaningful playoff series? 1 in 4.

What are the chances that the Warriors would get scenario "B" in 4 consecutive series against opponents that actually had any chance to beat them?

1/4 * 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/4 = 1 in 256 = 0.4%


This looked like it would FINALLY be, for the first time in 2 years, a series in which the Warriors would be less healthy than a dangerous opponent. And if Curry stayed out, they would have been at a disadvantage for the first time....which naturally should happen every so often.

But instead, we see the Clippers' TWO best players, who form basically their entire core, get knocked out, and once again the current incarnation of the Warriors gets to grab scenario B without ever facing scenario C in a dangerous series.

Does that make sense now? The Warriors are the "better team", but even the "better team" can be injured and be put at a disadvantage, as the Cavs were against the Warriors last year. (You can disagree that the Cavs were the better team, but Vegas didn't at the start of the playoffs before the injuries occurred.) Yet, due to luck, that hasn't happened for the Warriors.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

If nobody is worth a shyt, why the fukk do you constantly use people's views as references to push your agenda? This double standard shyt is never-ending with you.

Number one, the curious misinterpreting of what should be clear points is never ending with you: Obviously I didnt mean nobody is worth a shyt, period but rather referring to these nameless individuals that you dubiously claim have nothing but insults for me.

Number two, since when am I "constantly using people's views to push my agenda"? You have a habit of projecting but this is just straight up accusing me of one of your go-to moves lol. You always @ people for help in arguments and will reference ANY perceived support for your posts as evidence of their merit, often going so far as to cling to a single dap and refer to it as if a bunch of people agree with you, as you did recently in the Draymond flagrant situation.

I almost never do any of these things because there's no need to and it comes off insecure

 

[yseJ]

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.

thats awful logic, and you ended up missing the point
million dollars dont cancel out you losing your leg. moreover, if you lose your leg you aren't lucky in any sense of the word, overall.

thats like you getting hit randomly by a truck and being left in a wheelchair, but you're 'lucky' that you didnt die so now this gives me ability to say that you got lucky ? when you were severely unlucky by getting hit by a truck in a first place

and the clippers injuries are like winning 10 dollars out of nowhere after losing a leg. they're nearly irrelevant compared to the warriors (mis)fortunes.
only warrior haters will argue otherwise. whats ironic the same people will dikkride lebron and if he was out for any significant time theyd declare the cavs the most unlucky team in the universe and give out asterisks to anyone facing the cavs, like their life would depend on it

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

So now we find that Blake AND CP3 are pretty much ruled out the rest of the playoffs, while Curry is likely back long before the Warriors face anyone other than...um...Portland or the DeAndre Jordan-led Clippers.

And yet while the diagnosis is only a Grade 1 sprain, there isn't any cause to suggest he'll be right for the WCF. There's setbacks that need to be taken into account, add onto the fact that he sprained his ankle a few games prior - this could be another Irving or Rose-like situation where overcompensating and not enough recovery time leads to him getting re-injured. I mean shyt, by the time the WCF comes around, he'll only have played 39 minutes total in the postseason.

See, this is where you sound like a dude on the spectrum.


If you seriously believe that this thread is about whether the Warriors have had a global monopoly on luck....

I'm the one on the spectrum, yet you seem to think the Warriors are the lucky ones in ALL of this when the health around their best player remains uncertain going forward. It is not a given he comes back healthy and ready to play in the WCF. Unless all of the other playoff squads'' #1 players go down with worse injuries, you can't say the Warriors have the "global monopoly" on luck.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Number one, the curious misinterpreting of what should be clear points is never ending with you: Obviously I didnt mean nobody is worth a shyt, period but rather referring to these nameless individuals that you dubiously claim have nothing but insults for me.

You still don't get it.

Number two, since when am I "constantly using people's views to push my agenda"? You have a habit of projecting but this is just straight up accusing me of one of your go-to moves lol. You always @ people for help in arguments and will reference ANY perceived support for your posts as evidence of their merit, often going so far as to cling to a single dap and refer to it as if a bunch of people agree with you, as you did recently in the Draymond flagrant situation.

Yet I'm not saying people's views don't mean shyt in the next breath (I usually @ people when I get accused of being the only one who has that opinion). Which exactly is what you're doing. You might reference how "people" acknowledge how the refs are in the Warriors' pockets or how much luck they're afforded, yet those same people's opinions don't mean shyt when they go against your opinion on other matters. This is why it's hard to take what you say seriously, when you pick and choose whose opinions matter depending on the topic and agenda at hand.

I almost never do any of these things because there's no need to and it comes off insecure

This is hilarious. I refuse to believe you believe half the shyt you say.

 

[yseJ]

Maybe math will help.

Let's pretend there are three scenarios:

A. You and the other team are equally healthy.
B. You are significantly healthier than the other team.
C. The other team is significantly healthier than you.


Now, let's pretend for a moment that "A" happens 1/2 the time, that "B" happens 1/4 of the time, and that "C" happens 1/4 of the time. If you want you can adjust those numbers however you want and respond, but you won't be able to find an adjustment that will make my argument not work.


So what were the chances that the Warriors would get the benefits of scenario "B" in any specific meaningful playoff series? 1 in 4.

What are the chances that the Warriors would get scenario "B" in 4 consecutive series against opponents that actually had any chance to beat them?

1/4 * 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/4 = 1 in 256 = 0.4%


This looked like it would FINALLY be, for the first time in 2 years, a series in which the Warriors would be less healthy than a dangerous opponent.

you mixed up probability theory and subjective analysis in one, which ends up fukking up your argument and makes it an ugly hodgepodge.

whats the 'opponents that actually had any chance to beat them' garbage ? how do you quantify this ? according to bookies, rockets had a non-zero chance to beat warriors. so no, you can't say the warriors had scenario B 4 times in a row, sorry. the subjective analysis of 'matchups' and probability doesn't mix.

same here with the clippers injuries. theres no guarantee whatsoever that clippers would even beat the blazers even if not injured. therefore if you want to assign weights to each probability, you'd have to assign weight to blazers winning it over healthy clippers.

you can't use statistics and then cherry pick what is considered to be a 'dangerous opponent' subjectively

 

[Codeine Bryant]

If anything, the Spurs and Cavs are the luckiest teams in all of this.

Maybe even the Trailblazers...

Lose your reigning back-to-back league MVP and have people claim you have all the luck, brehs.

 

[dayun]

What's this thread about again?

 

[Full Measures]

You talking shyt while theses boys getting ran off the court by Portland..
#FACTS

How is 48% shooting from 3 wishy washy?

Who's more inconsistent? Thompson or Redikk?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

you mixed up probability theory and subjective analysis in one, which ends up fukking up your argument and makes it an ugly hodgepodge.

Uh, no. Just even try to understand the tiniest iota of philosophy of science. ALL, and I mean ALL, application of mathematical concepts to real-world situations involves the insertion of subjective analysis. The idea that we can isolate objective reality and disassociate it from subjective analysis is a positivist view that has generally been rejected as naive since the 1950s.

There is NO fully accurate and meaningful use of statistical analysis or probability that does not involve subjective analysis at some level.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

And yet while the diagnosis is only a Grade 1 sprain, there isn't any cause to suggest he'll be right for the WCF. There's setbacks that need to be taken into account, add onto the fact that he sprained his ankle a few games prior - this could be another Irving or Rose-like situation where overcompensating and not enough recovery time leads to him getting re-injured. I mean shyt, by the time the WCF comes around, he'll only have played 39 minutes total in the postseason.

Again, IF the WCF come about and Curry isn't well, and the Spurs/Thunder beat them as a result, then of course no one will say "The Warriors were lucky Curry got hurt."

But that hasn't happened.

I'm the one on the spectrum, yet you seem to think the Warriors are the lucky ones in ALL of this when the health around their best player remains uncertain going forward. It is not a given he comes back healthy and ready to play in the WCF. Unless all of the other playoff squads'' #1 players go down with worse injuries, you can't say the Warriors have the "global monopoly" on luck.

You're still talking about global monopoly on luck as if that's really a thing, and then try to make it like I'm the one with issues.

 

[yseJ]

Uh, no. Just even try to understand the tiniest iota of philosophy of science.

I'll take a page from your own book and declare that I have a degree in electrical engineering and cs (from a world-renowned school nonetheless) as well as masters in cs, I probably should have some understanding of science

my point was that you 'conveniently' didnt use stats when they didn't fit your argument. you neither assigned weight to injuries (which in basketball, are clearly not equal. lebron james or steph curry being injured is more like a 1/25 of a hypothetical tony allen injury) nor did you use real probabilities of teams beating each other. you simply declared some teams 'not dangerous', which is absurd. play by the rules or dont play at all.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Again, IF the WCF come about and Curry isn't well, and the Spurs/Thunder beat them as a result, then of course no one will say "The Warriors were lucky Curry got hurt."

But that hasn't happened.

But can't you see that that's the whole point of folk in here who're objecting the notion the Warriors are lucky, given their current state? You're basically of the opinion they have fortune right on their side because Curry will be healthy and game-fit, and be back to where he was in the regular season without losing a step or the without the possibility of re-injuring it again or something else as a result of cumulative injuries in a short span, as soon as the WCFs rolls round. Or if one of the core players ends up getting injured themselves because of a larger offensive workload; picking up the slack which Curry has left.

Your rationale is basically IF Curry comes back healthy for G1 of the WCF and his and the team's play isn't affected that they will be lucky, when that's unknown (and highly unlikely) at this stage. There's absolutely no cause for you to deem them lucky based on what hasn't happened.