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

[Professor Emeritus]

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

Nope, now you just further proved that you do not know what you're talking about.


Science is NOT equivalent to philosophy of science. Your assumption that knowing the first must mean having knowledge of the second proves that you don't have any knowledge of the second at all. There are many trained scientists who have never taken a philosophy of science course in their lives...much less a technician such as yourself.

Of course, your previous statement about the invalidity of subjective decisions within statistical analysis already proved you didn't know what you were talking about...this just furthers it.


And, just to further embarrass your attempt at useless one-upsmanship (ya should have learned from Z-Bo), I have no doubt that you couldn't even get in to my alma matter. To give a bit of a hint, Jim McMillian's alma matar was my safety school.

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.

I have to start to believe that you've never solved a science problem in your entire life.

EVERY statistical analysis can only be done if you lump together some things that aren't exactly the same, place different events into categories that aren't 100% homogeneous, and simply leave out some factors...for every situation has literally infinite factors that could affect it, and making any calculation with every potential factor considered is, quite literally, impossible.



But you were wrong - I DID assign weight to injuries, yet only in the context of each individual series. That is embedded within the statement "You are significantly healthier than the other team."

If in the context of ONE series, Tony Allen is hurt and Curry (and everyone else) is not, then Memphis is less healthy than Golden State, no?

If Curry is hurt and out a few games, while Blake is hurt but still playing, then the Clippers would have been more healthy than Golden State.

However, if CP3 AND Blake are out and not coming back, then they are less healthy than Golden State, whether or not Curry comes back.

Not to mention that Curry's almost certainly coming back before Blake OR CP3.


Was there a single series where I inappropriately labeled the wrong team as being healthier? If so, show it. If not, STFU.



And no, I didn't use "real probabilities of teams beating each other"....because there wasn't even anywhere in my analysis where that calculation was even included. The only place I talked about probability of a team beating another team was as a qualitative choice, not a quantitative choice, based on a yes or no answer. And I made a simple and justifiable decision - in neither of these cases did the #8 seed pose a serious threat to the title contender, injuries or not. Do you actually dispute that? Because even Z-Bo's Deep Thoughts AGREED with that assumption 100%, back when he was confused and thought I was arguing the opposite.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

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.

See -

"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.

You're all over the show with this; it's a complete mess. Who's to say if they actually ended up playing Memphis in the second round, if OKC was their WCF opponent? Who's to say if they they actually ended up playing OKC in the WCF, if Memphis was their second round opponent? And that's only detailing 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 out of all the possible outcomes that would affect every team, every game and every bounce of the ball. And that's only the immediate basketball-related outcomes. Like I said above, you can not use OKC as a point of reference to pin up your Warriors were helped by an injury in three consecutive meaningful playoff series (based on one particular injury that began around two seasons prior - because again, if Durant was healthy it would have an impact on what happened before the start of last season - we go back to an incalculable # of outcomes it would affect) - even a minute perturbation can have large scale changes down the line.

This is my last post on this point.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Because even Z-Bo's Deep Thoughts AGREED with that assumption 100%, back when he was confused and thought I was arguing the opposite.

I don't even know what you're arguing in here, exactly. Or what your end game is. It seems to me you're basically saying the Warriors are lucky until it's proven that they aren't - the proof being of course IF the Warriors lose to the Spurs/Thunder (and that's before we discuss the Finals if they make it). Do I even need to put out how irrational that sounds?

I mean basically if the Warriors do lose any series this season, it will be because of Curry's injury, regardless if it's directly or not. Your theory of them being lucky depends all on them winning, else if they don't... well you've made yourself look like a complete idiot. And even then it could be argued that if they do go back-to-back, it won't be because of luck, it will because of their ability to overcome bad luck.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This is my last post on this point.

Thanks be given to Him who gives life to us all.



I've clarified the point to you seven times....which should have been unnecessary because THIS is what I said before ANY of this idiotic argument started:

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.


In the 2015 Conference Finals, there's a good argument that the Warriors would have been facing OKC if Durant hadn't got hurt, but instead they were matched up against the Rockets.


In the 2015 NBA Finals, Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving.


And now in the 2016 NBA Semifinals, they could be facing a very dangerous Clippers team with Curry out....but instead the Clippers have lost CP3 AND Griffin is hurt, and they don't have remotely the depth to recover.


IF Curry is actually out against a dangerous opponent like the Spurs or the Cavs, then you can complain about them having bad luck (although again, its bears remembering that Curry has had an injury-filled career and is sitting on a light contract that has benefited the Warriors as a result.). But right now they're saying that Curry will be out 2 weeks, and they don't have to face anyone dangerous in that time....so Lady Luck is still smiling on them.

Ya'all are whining about hypothetical playoff matchups 3 weeks or even more than a month away without even knowing what Curry's health prospects are for then OR what the other teams' health will be like then. Wait for it.

That's when you started talking bullshyt about me propping up the Pelicans and the Rockets, as if their names had EVER come out of my mouth. And THEN you said I was wrong about Tony Allen getting injured in Game 3 when I had receipts to back my words up, THEN you started talking bullshyt about me getting the facts wrong when it had been you getting it wrong in every instance. THEN you claimed we were talking about clarity with words and not numbers when you had insulted me specifically on my supposed inability to use numbers, THEN you used "mordant" incorrectly and doubled-down even when I showed you the actual definition, THEN you claimed Tony Allen was moving fine in Game 4, THEN you claimed that GS's "defensive adjustments" were the reason Tony Allen only averaged 7 minutes/game in the last three losses, THEN you claimed the Rockets are the same team this year that they were last year, THEN you claimed you were wrapping this shyt up 5 hours ago, THEN you claimed that I was somehow supporting the idea that the Warriors literally get "ALL" the luck in the world, THEN you implied that I had said the Warriors had a "global monopoly" on luck, THEN you said, "This is my last post on this point"....and immediately posted again....and watch, you'll reply to me and post again right now.


That's 13 obvious errors that you've refused to admit in the context of trying to make a single point that the Warriors haven't been especially lucky in regards to their opponents' injuries the last two years. That's what makes it look like you have a problem.

Allen didn't get injured in G3

And yet I quote you a report showing Tony Allen saying, "I got injured in Game 3", and you STILL deny that you were wrong? How can you make such an obviously false statement, have it proven false to you, and keep trying to deny it?


You're taking L's like a mutherfukker.

I don't even know what you're arguing in here, exactly. Or what your end game is. It seems to me you're basically saying the Warriors are lucky until it's proven that they aren't - the proof being of course IF the Warriors lose to the Spurs/Thunder (and that's before we discuss the Finals if they make it). Do I even need to put out how irrational that sounds?

That the Warriors have been especially lucky with injuries for two straight years, up to and including the upcoming playoff series, the Western Conference Semifinals.


And that we can't evaluate who is "luckier" in series that are still a month away when we don't even have a clear idea of who will be participating in them.


Your counterargument, that we can ignore the fact that the Warriors just got incredibly lucky in the Western Conference Semifinals because we already know the Warriors are the "unlucky" team in a hypothetical playoff series that will still be being played a month away when we have no idea who either participant will even be yet and have no idea who will be injured or healthy in the 3+ weeks between then and now, is the irrational, unsupportable assumption.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

What's this thread about again?

When it was made, it was about how unfortunate it is that Curry got hurt and will miss at least a few games against the Clippers and how this Golden State group will now face a situation that is not in their favor for the first time since their run began and how it now seems that their unprecedented streak of favorable scenarios (luck) had apparently finally come to an end.

Then Paul and Griffin both randomly went down for the season at the same time.

 

[yseJ]

Nope, now you just further proved that you do not know what you're talking about.


Science is NOT equivalent to philosophy of science. Your assumption that knowing the first must mean having knowledge of the second proves that you don't have any knowledge of the second at all. There are many trained scientists who have never taken a philosophy of science course in their lives...much less a technician such as yourself.

where did I said science was equal to philosophy of science ? all I said is that you should stop the condescending bullshyt considering Im just as much as a scientist as you (allegedly) are. lol at 'technician' too

Of course, your previous statement about the invalidity of subjective decisions within statistical analysis already proved you didn't know what you were talking about...this just furthers it.

it didn't prove anything. you can pull off any contrived 'analysis' by using concrete probability when it benefits you and then where your point isnt supported enough, just use subjective analysis I literally can design any argument about anything this way. it's the opposite of being scientific.

And, just to further embarrass your attempt at useless one-upsmanship (ya should have learned from Z-Bo), I have no doubt that you couldn't even get in to my alma matter. To give a bit of a hint, Jim McMillian's alma matar was my safety school.

embarass me ? lol my school is the #1 engineering school in the world for what I majored in. I dont really care what school you went to breh, there is basically no better college that I couldve went to for engineering. and it was right here in the bay area why would I ever be embarrassed ? anyway, your senseless bragging is hilarious, Ive never heard anyone brag about taking multivariable calculus and doing fourier transforms before

I have to start to believe that you've never solved a science problem in your entire life.

keep believing that.

EVERY statistical analysis can only be done if you lump together some things that aren't exactly the same, place different events into categories that aren't 100% homogeneous, and simply leave out some factors...for every situation has literally infinite factors that could affect it, and making any calculation with every potential factor considered is, quite literally, impossible.

you don't leave out factors that are obviously important, just to fit your theory- yet thats exactly what you are doing.

But you were wrong - I DID assign weight to injuries, yet only in the context of each individual series. That is embedded within the statement "You are significantly healthier than the other team."

If in the context of ONE series, Tony Allen is hurt and Curry (and everyone else) is not, then Memphis is less healthy than Golden State, no?

no. your context is way too broad for anything. you need to assign how much each player is worth to their team and how much he is worth on average to make a conclusion that 'one team is significantly healthier than the other team'.
you also need to take in account how many games a player is out. all of this is easily calculated but you chose to have it under one generalization that doesnt make sense.
finally, your comparison has a scale so large it doesn't show the magnitude at all.

easy example:
just like you yourself just said, memphis is 'significantly less healthier' than dubs if tony allen using your scale
but dubs would be also be 'significantly less healthier' if curry was out

and yet the impact of curry out for dubs cannot EVER be compared to the impact tony allen out for memphis. using your scale, these are equal

if you still don't get it, let's consider this example

bill gates is significantly richer than a guy who makes 100k
a guy that makes 100k is significantly richer than a guy who makes 40k

so using your scale, the comparisons are equal. when in reality bill gates is exponentially richer than guy who makes 100k. and a league mvp is worth probably at least 4 5 tony allens being out.

And no, I didn't use "real probabilities of teams beating each other"....because there wasn't even anywhere in my analysis where that calculation was even included. The only place I talked about probability of a team beating another team was as a qualitative choice, not a quantitative choice, based on a yes or no answer. And I made a simple and justifiable decision .

ALL of your subjective calculations are a 'qualitative' choice, and are extremely basic and simple, and are extremely faulty because of that. not to mention, you don't even consider the possibility of blazers beating the clippers without them being injured. effectively if a team that has a less chance to win, wins and faces warriors next, you conveniently throw it out of your 'analysis'. naturally, in your 'analysis' warriors either get lucky or their opponent doesnt 'count'

 

[yseJ]

What's this thread about again?

it's about warriors being the first team in history to be considered lucky both when facing teams with injuries one year, and having the reigning mvp go down with injury the next year

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

And yet I quote you a report showing Tony Allen saying, "I got injured in Game 3", and you STILL deny that you were wrong? How can you make such an obviously false statement, have it proven false to you, and keep trying to deny it?


You're taking L's like a mutherfukker.

Before I get into all the bullshyt you posted, let me just point this out -

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.

This is where you get yourself into trouble because you don't get the details right, which says to me you don't know what really happened during that series -

HE DID NOT SIT DOWN FOR A BIG CHUNK OF THE 3RD QUARTER AFTER HE GOT HURT - BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET HURT IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF GAME 3

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

He played 9-10 minutes of the fourth quarter in G3
He played 11-12 minutes of the fourth quarter in G2

Explain to me how how he got hurt and sat out in G3 of the third quarter, when he played near the same minutes in G2 of the second half?

Where did you get the idea from that he sat out a big chunk of third quarter in G3, when he played nearly the same identical minutes he did in G2? And it wasn't as if he played the first seven minutes and went off injured in the third quarter - he actually finished the quarter off. He then went on and played 9-10 minutes of the 4th quarter of G3, so explain to me how he was seriously hampered in that third quarter, causing him to miss gametime when he played practically the entire 4th quarter?

Yes he did re-aggravate the injury in Game 3 (he had been re-aggravating it ever since the end of March - he even re-aggravated it in the first round against the T'Blazers and was listed as questionable), but it wasn't in the third quarter of that game and not to the point where it seriously hampered him or caused him to miss serious gametime (he said during a pregame that he's been at 60-70% health since the previous round). It was only the third quarter of Game 4 where he had to come out and stay out of the game, which he then missed Game 5.

I remember when happened in that series, because I went over the games multiple times. It sounds like to me you didn't watch that series, or don't remember what actually happened.

Game 4: Warriors 101, Grizzlies 84: Always Crashing in the Same Car
POSTED BY KEVIN LIPE ON TUE, MAY 12, 2015 AT 6:30 AM

On Monday night, the Grizzlies lost to the Golden State Warriors 101–84 and the Warriors tied at 2–2 a series that had looked like it might tilt the Grizzlies’ way as recently as Saturday night. It’s fair to say that nothing went the Grizzlies’ way for the full 48 minutes in Game 4; Steve Kerr and the Warriors had their backs against the wall, not wanting to return home down 3–1, and they played like it, finally tweaking their defense and altering their offensive attack and taking the Grizzlies down in what appeared to be a pretty straightforward blowout.
So, Game 4 was reminiscent of two things that aren’t very fun to think about: last year’s heartbreaking first round loss to OKC, in which it seemed like the Grizzlies were really going to shock the NBA world and pick off the better team before the No Fun Patrol rolled in and blew them out in a home Game 6; and also the 2013 Western Conference Finals against the Spurs in which the Spurs’ Basketball Bandsaw of Death cut the Grizzlies into tiny strips in a demoralizing sweep that exposed every basic weakness of the way the Grizzlies’ roster is constructed, the only one of which that has actually been straightened out being the backup point guard spot, then a smoldering crater formerly known as Keyon Dooling.

On top of this, another wrinkle: Tony Allen appeared to reinjure his hamstring towards the end of the third quarter Allen ended up playing only 15 minutes, and was visibly limping by the end of that run. To say that Allen has been the key to the Grizzlies’ masterful defensive performance in the games they’ve won is to understate his importance; most of it has started and ended with him. If he’s going to be hobbled the rest of the series, which I assume would press Nick Calathes into service as a backup Tony of some kind, the Grizzlies’ chances of winning are hampered, just like Tony’s mobility. You could argue that Tony’s mobility is the Grizzlies chance of winning.

Game 4: Warriors 101, Grizzlies 84: Always Crashing in the Same Car

Like I said - Game 4, third quarter was when he got re-injured to the point where he couldn't return. While he re-aggravated the injury in previous games (one being Game 3), he was still capable of playing on - hence him playing relatively the same minutes of the second half of G3 that he did in the second half of G2.

 

[Arris]

all the long back and forths

 

[Codeine Bryant]

@ this thread turning into a sonning of the Dankster.


We got dudes bragging about what colleges they applied to

 

[bxrfan]

I dunno breh I feel like everyone's losing here, all these long ass walls of text with no end in sight

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

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.

It was to actually to highlight both - not just the irony of mentioning your physics degree but your disparaging remark about how I was the one on the spectrum in the same breath - that was the crude part.

THEN you said, "This is my last post on this point"....and immediately posted again....and watch, you'll reply to me and post again right now.

This is what I mean when I say you have a reading comprehension problem. When I said "this is my last post on this point" - it means exactly that - that was my last post on that particular point. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop posting about other points we're discussing in this thread, just the point of arguing over semantics over the whole "consecutive meaningful series / hypothetical matchups with actual matchups". Seriously how hard is that for you to understand?

That's 13 obvious errors that you've refused to admit in the context of trying to make a single point that the Warriors haven't been especially lucky in regards to their opponents' injuries the last two years. That's what makes it look like you have a problem.

All my points go back to the fact that the Warriors aren't "especially" lucky when their best player was injured in this postseason. I don't give a fukk about what happened last season - I was never addressing that.

Why don't we take at look at all the shyt you've been wrong about in this thread:

• You claim there was a good argument the Warriors would have been facing OKC in the WCF last postseason
• You claim that just because the prognosis of Curry's injury is only two weeks, and the Warriors won't face a "dangerous" opponent in that time - that it's not bad luck (this is perhaps the most idiotic one of them all)
• Saying that nobody gave a shyt when the Spurs had "bad luck" during their '12/'13 Finals run because they didn't win, failing to realize the luck agenda was pushed before the Warriors even won a ring
• Saying that everyone already thought the Warriors were going to win a ring by the midway point of the semi-finals
• Saying that Allen was injured in G3, when he was actually injured in G4
• Saying that Allen sat out for a large chunk of the third quarter of G3 because he was injured, when he played similar minutes that he did in G2 - then went on to play a similar amount of minutes in the 4th quarter
• Accusing me of saying Conley was 100% for the rest of the series
• Getting details of Conley's and Allen's health wrong on your brief game-by-game analysis
• Changing the parameters and ignoring the direct/indirect effects of what a healthy KD would have
• Accusing me of accusing you of being responsible for the favorable calls agenda pushed by members of this board
• Saying that the Grizzlies lost due to their injuries, and not because of the Warriors adjustments
• Failing to understand the context on why I used "mordant", and then continually stating that I misused it
• Accusing me of saying that Conley's injury had no effect on their chances
• Failing to acknowledge that Allen had issues with his hamstring throughout the playoffs, even re-aggravating it in the first round
• Not seeing how the Warriors defensive adjustments helped swing the series in their favor
• Using Allen's G1 stats as evidence to suggest he was fully healthy and athletic
• Using Klay's FG% against Memphis as if Allen was the one who guarded him on every shot
• Using Allen's 5-7, 15 points statline from a game this regular season against the Warriors, and the "defensive strategy" they used in the playoffs not working when Bogut didn't start - and the fact you didn't provide evidence on how he scored his points and against who
• Using +/- in the wrong manner when valuing what impact players have on the game
• Failing to realize the Rockets had the same emotional problems last season
• Saying that I need to admit the Warriors had good luck this season when my argument from the start was based around Curry's injury this season
• Using CP's and BG's injuries as forms of bad luck, but thinking Curry will be fit and healthy in time for the WCF
• Believing it was a "ridiculous idea" that the Warriors didn't figure out a defensive adjustment to limit Z-Bo/Gasol by doubling them and leaving Allen unguarded on the perimeter until G4, and saying it was all due to Allen being hurt. I've got some video proof for you -
• 
  
• Then there's that point I said I'd never post ... well you know the rest.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

T
Your counterargument, that we can ignore the fact that the Warriors just got incredibly lucky in the Western Conference Semifinals because we already know the Warriors are the "unlucky" team in a hypothetical playoff series that will still be being played a month away when we have no idea who either participant will even be yet and have no idea who will be injured or healthy in the 3+ weeks between then and now, is the irrational, unsupportable assumption.

I'm just going to re-quote my posts at this point, since it seems like this is the only hope you'll ever have of seeing sense -

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.

I don't even know what you're arguing in here, exactly. Or what your end game is. It seems to me you're basically saying the Warriors are lucky until it's proven that they aren't - the proof being of course IF the Warriors lose to the Spurs/Thunder (and that's before we discuss the Finals if they make it). Do I even need to put out how irrational that sounds?

I mean basically if the Warriors do lose any series this season, it will be because of Curry's injury, regardless if it's directly or not. Your theory of them being lucky depends all on them winning, else if they don't... well you've made yourself look like a complete idiot. And even then it could be argued that if they do go back-to-back, it won't be because of luck, it will because of their ability to overcome bad luck.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

where did I said science was equal to philosophy of science ? all I said is that you should stop the condescending bullshyt considering Im just as much as a scientist as you (allegedly) are. lol at 'technician' too

You still don't understand that "philosophy of science" and "engineering degree" have no relation to each other whatsoever.

It's like me saying, "you don't understand Biblical hermeneutics" and you replying, "I read the whole Bible! I'm just as much a Christian as you!"

Such a reply is not only irrelevant, but betrays (just as much as your first post did) that you don't know what you're talking about.

it didn't prove anything. you can pull off any contrived 'analysis' by using concrete probability when it benefits you and then where your point isnt supported enough, just use subjective analysis I literally can design any argument about anything this way. it's the opposite of being scientific.

Define "concrete analysis" in a manner that includes no subjective analysis AND can be used in the real world.

I'll give you an easy test case. "Give me a concrete analysis of how much each team's current injuries affect its probabilities of postseason success which takes all injuries into account, and produce a number telling me how likely incurring that degree of injury was, without including subjective analysis."

You can't do it. It's impossible. There is NO real-world problem that can use supposed "concrete probability", whateveryou even think that means, without incorporating subjective analysis into the picture as well.

embarass me ? lol my school is the #1 engineering school in the world for what I majored in. I dont really care what school you went to breh, there is basically no better college that I couldve went to for engineering. and it was right here in the bay area why would I ever be embarrassed ? anyway, your senseless bragging is hilarious, Ive never heard anyone brag about taking multivariable calculus and doing fourier transforms before

Z-Bo tried to claim that I am incapable of using numbers. I had a very easy counter. It was not "bragging" about taking math classes, just the simplest way to disprove a false narrative he tried to create.

you don't leave out factors that are obviously important, just to fit your theory- yet thats exactly what you are doing.

Except I didn't, at any point. Was there a single meaningful series (with "meaningful" meaning "either team had some non-zero chance to win") in which the Warriors were NOT more healthy than their opponents?

no. your context is way too broad for anything. you need to assign how much each player is worth to their team and how much he is worth on average to make a conclusion that 'one team is significantly healthier than the other team'.
you also need to take in account how many games a player is out. all of this is easily calculated but you chose to have it under one generalization that doesnt make sense.
finally, your comparison has a scale so large it doesn't show the magnitude at all.

What do you mean "does not show the magnitude at all"? You want to assign a particular number to the magnitude? Do that if you want, but it's a waste of time. I made an easy qualitative analysis - the Warriors were healthier than their expected opponents in each of those series. Do you want to dispute that? If you can, challenge it. But if you can't, and just want to argue that I only made a qualitative analysis, when you and everyone else clearly acknowledge that the qualitative results were correct, then you're just wasting time to argue.

easy example:
just like you yourself just said, memphis is 'significantly less healthier' than dubs if tony allen using your scale
but dubs would be also be 'significantly less healthier' if curry was out
and yet the impact of curry out for dubs cannot EVER be compared to the impact tony allen out for memphis. using your scale, these are equal

Where did I ever saying that losing Curry is the same impact as losing Tony Allen?

if you still don't get it, let's consider this example

bill gates is significantly richer than a guy who makes 100k
a guy that makes 100k is significantly richer than a guy who makes 40k

so using your scale, the comparisons are equal. when in reality bill gates is exponentially richer than guy who makes 100k. and a league mvp is worth probably at least 4 5 tony allens being out.

Where did I claim ANYTHING like your example? Where did I EVER say that losing Steph Curry is the same as losing any other random player?

naturally, in your 'analysis' warriors either get lucky or their opponent doesnt 'count'

Where did I EVER say that?

The Pelicans had injuries. I could have counted them, like Z-Bo ignorantly assumed I did. But I didn't count them, because they were an 8-seed that had no chance at any point of winning the series.

That was my criteria. Those two 8-seeds were the two teams that never had a chance of winning the series even at full health. Whether they were more injured than the Warriors (one case) or less injured than the Warriors (one case), I consistently did not count them. Because I, unlike the two of you, have an ability to make a consistent argument and not just spew verbal diarrhea to try to back up a losing point.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

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

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."

You tried to correct me, and you were wrong. I'm the one who made the statement that he got hurt in Game 3. You're the one who tried to claim it was a "detail I got wrong", then used it as a jumping-off point to try to pretend I couldn't get anything right.

Why don't we take at look at all the shyt you've been wrong about in this thread....

Holy shyt, what a dumb list. You repeat yourself over and over to make the list look bigger, complain about me failing to write 1500 word essays to explain the most inane details of minor points, and straight-up lie at least half a dozen times. Let's see....

It was to actually to highlight both - not just the irony of mentioning your physics degree but your disparaging remark about how I was the one on the spectrum in the same breath - that was the crude part.

"Mordant" does not mean "crude". It means "caustic", especially caustically sarcastic. You simply don't use it to insult someone, you use it to describe an especially effective insult. Your attempt to use it to describe my supposedly unintentionally ironic remark was just ignorant on your part.

Please, pass this by one of those communications professors you bragged about. Or just look it up in a fukking dictionary. You need to be humbled on this one.

This is what I mean when I say you have a reading comprehension problem. When I said "this is my last post on this point" - it means exactly that - that was my last post on that particular point. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop posting about other points we're discussing in this thread, just the point of arguing over semantics over the whole "consecutive meaningful series / hypothetical matchups with actual matchups". Seriously how hard is that for you to understand?

It's EASY to understand that you were talking about the point about OKC possibly being in the WCF, and it was EASY to predict that you would almost immediately violate it. Do you even know what the hell you wrote immediately below this self-righteous diatribe?

You claim there was a good argument the Warriors would have been facing OKC in the WCF last postseason

Oh look, there you go harping on that SAME point again in yet another comment, just like I predicted, you un-self-aware imbecile.

You claim that just because the prognosis of Curry's injury is only two weeks, and the Warriors won't face a "dangerous" opponent in that time - that it's not bad luck (this is perhaps the most idiotic one of them all)

I said it was BETTER luck than their opponent. The Warriors losing Curry is NOT as bad as the Clippers losing CP3 AND Blake.

IF the injury lingers and the Warriors end up more injured than their Conference Finals opponent, then they'll be more unlucky than that opponent. But we don't know that shyt yet because that's 3-4 weeks away and we don't even know who their opponent will be yet.

Again, your inability to comprehend that we can't judge relative luck in series where we don't even have another team to judge against yet is just mind-boggling.

Saying that nobody gave a shyt when the Spurs had "bad luck" during their '12/'13 Finals run because they didn't win, failing to realize the luck agenda was pushed before the Warriors even won a ring

I said no one gives a shyt now because they didn't win. That's not even remotely controversial. No one cares about the epic luck a team encountered on their path to not winning. I don't care what the fukk "agenda" was pushed by Warriors-haters in the past - every fukking agenda in the world is pushed by someone at some point - it proves nothing. You won't find a single post on the entire Coli where I was pushing such an agenda.

Saying that everyone already thought the Warriors were going to win a ring by the midway point of the semi-finals

They were the clear and unambiguous favorites by that time. If you really thought I meant literally "everyone", including Warriors-haters on the Coli, then you're a fool.

Saying that Allen was injured in G3, when he was actually injured in G4

You're so stupid it bleeds through the screen. See above.

Saying that Allen sat out for a large chunk of the third quarter of G3 because he was injured, when he played similar minutes that he did in G2 - then went on to play a similar amount of minutes in the 4th quarter

He sat out almost all the last 5 minutes of the 3rd and the first 2 minutes of the 4th. That's a "large chunk". He played 4 fewer minutes than in Game 2, and nearly all of that drop in playing time was in the 2nd half, so he sat for about 3 minutes longer than he would have otherwise. Missing 7 minutes of playing time when you would have missed 4 is a "large chunk". And he SAID that he reinjured himself midway through that game, so I don't know what the hell you're proving.

Accusing me of saying Conley was 100% for the rest of the series

You argued that Conley was getting better so his health was irrelevant. I countered that he was certainly not 100%. If you really think that Conley was not 100% AND his health was irrelevant, then you are in la la land.


If the Warriors beat the Spurs in Game 1 with Curry at 80%, and end up losing the series with Curry later at 85%, are you going to claim that Curry's health was irrelevant because the Warriors won games with Curry at even lower health? Of course you won't, you hypocritical b*stard.

Getting details of Conley's and Allen's health wrong on your brief game-by-game analysis

Have you listed the same "error" about Allen's injury multiple times in this list now? And you were already shown wrong over...and over...and over.

You really are on the spectrum.

Changing the parameters and ignoring the direct/indirect effects of what a healthy KD would have

I said, "There's a good argument that the Warriors would have faced OKC in the conference finals if KD was healthy." That is true, because OKC would have been the #2 or #3 seed and there's a good chance they would have made it to the Conference Finals.

What, you want an entire fukking essay on every bit of the butterfly effect of KD not getting hurt? Goddamn you're a tool.

Accusing me of accusing you of being responsible for the favorable calls agenda pushed by members of this board

You brought up that agenda in an attempted rebuttal against me when it didn't have shyt to do with anything. I simply said, "That shyt don't have anything to do with me" and left it at that. What mileage you're trying to get out of your own random-ass irrelevant reference, I have no idea.

Saying that the Grizzlies lost due to their injuries, and not because of the Warriors adjustments

Accusing me of saying that Conley's injury had no effect on their chances

What the fukk - are you arguing out of both sides of your mouth now?

Yes, Conley and Allen getting hurt seriously affected Memphis's chances. Memphis was not a guaranteed win or even the favorite...but they obviously had a chance in that series, and those two injuries gave them less of a chance. Memphis won the only two games where Conley and Allen played reasonable minutes...they lost when Conley missed a game, when Allen missed a game, and when Allen limped around after TWICE re-injuring his hammy and could only play 10 ineffective minutes/game.

This is such an uncontroversial fukking point that I can't understand how you refuse to accept

Failing to understand the context on why I used "mordant", and then continually stating that I misused it

Because you still don't know what the fukk it means.

Pass your usage off on ANY English professor. Show them the exact quote, and the exact quote of mine you were responding to. Please.

Failing to acknowledge that Allen had issues with his hamstring throughout the playoffs, even re-aggravating it in the first round

You're talking about Allen's injury AGAIN? What the fukk does what happened in the first round have anything to do with anything in my argument?

Not seeing how the Warriors defensive adjustments helped swing the series in their favor

How many times have you repeated this point already in this list?

Using Allen's G1 stats as evidence to suggest he was fully healthy and athletic

Wait, Tony Allen's injury AGAIN???

I did NOT say he was fully healthy and athletic, I said that was the point in the series when he was healthiest. That lasted until midway through Game 3, when he reaggrevated the injury.

YOU are the only one who claimed that Allen's injury was not seriously impeding his play even at the beginning of Game 4, you hypocritical fool.

Using Klay's FG% against Memphis as if Allen was the one who guarded him on every shot

I did NOT say that. But I pointed out that Klay still had bad games against Memphis when Allen played, even this year.

Using Allen's 5-7, 15 points statline from a game this regular season against the Warriors, and the "defensive strategy" they used in the playoffs not working when Bogut didn't start - and the fact you didn't provide evidence on how he scored his points and against who

You want a fukking essay about every little point? Seriously, read a fukking telephone book or something if you're this bored.

ALL I pointed out was that Allen could still be effective at times even with the new defensive strategy....and so for Memphis to have only played him 21 minutes TOTAL in Games 4-6 proved that it was INJURY, not suddenly completely giving up on Allen, that forced their hand.

Using +/- in the wrong manner when valuing what impact players have on the game

I made a clear caveat that it was a small sample size and proved little. Exactly how many word essay would have been acceptable to you to elucidate the point?

Failing to realize the Rockets had the same emotional problems last season

The Rockets were 56-26 last season and they were 41-41 this season.

They were not just as good as team this year as they were last year, and you can't be that big an imbecile to claim they were.

Saying that I need to admit the Warriors had good luck this season when my argument from the start was based around Curry's injury this season

I don't give a shyt about your argument. I'm talking about the championship runs of THIS hopeful dynasty, which started last year.

Using CP's and BG's injuries as forms of bad luck, but thinking Curry will be fit and healthy in time for the WCF

I consistently said that we don't know what will happen 4 weeks from now in the WCF, but we can't ASSUME that Curry will not be healthy then. We can't assume he'll be healthy either. We don't fukking know. You think there's something wrong with that?

Believing it was a "ridiculous idea" that the Warriors didn't figure out a defensive adjustment to limit Z-Bo/Gasol by doubling them and leaving Allen unguarded on the perimeter until G4, and saying it was all due to Allen being hurt. I've got some video proof for you

Liar - what I CLEARLY said to you was that Allen's injury further limited him to the degree that he was unable to take advantage of the manner in which teams tried to guard him, and THAT allowed the Warriors to treat him with even less respect. I did NOT say that the Warriors didn't make any adjustments, I said that:

A: Teams always laid off of Allen at the 3pt-line.
B: Allen could use his other skills to take advantage of that space to some degree, but not when hurt

Then there's that point I said I'd never post ... well you know the rest.

ANOTHER point that you already made earlier, just to top it off.


That might have been the single stupidest list of perceived slights I've ever seen.