Spurs ain't gonna do shyt in the playoffs - bookmark this shyt :nailcoffinyadeadmowmylawns:

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

How's that? You like to type a lot, break it down for me in detail.

Feel free to use your notes and bookmarks.

For all the dumb shyt you've been talking over the past few seasons. Yeah lets forget Harden failing horribly in the last two postseasons, Westbrook making Paul his bytch in the LA/Thunder series last season and the laundry list of everything you were proven wrong on. I'm not going through that with you again, you can play dumb but you and I both know what's up.

The very fact you think Griffin isn't a top 20 player and that Boris Diaw is better is in a nutshell of how pathetic and delusional you are -

@GoddamnyamanProf thinks he isn't a top 20 player AND that Boris Diaw is better.

That was wholly true through 5 games, two of which Blake gave away. He stepped up afterward against all odds, so props to him.

First five games -

Griffin - 23.8 ppg (#1 in series), 13.4 rpg (#1 in series) and 7.4 apg (#1 in series)
Diaw - 10.4 ppg, 7.0 rpg and 3.4 apg.

No mention of how Griffin was carrying a near-unprecedented load by averaging more points , more rebounds and more assists than everybody else - just mention that he wasn't a top 20 player. No mention of how tired he got from overexerting himself - just mention that he wasn't better than Boris Diaw. No mention that he was the main player keeping them in games - just mention of ones that he 'gave away'.

Funny how there's also no mention of the games the Clippers lost that Paul was partly responsible for - just that it was all Griffin's fault.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You were all ready to blame Griffin if the Clippers lost that series. Shameless.

 

[Trojan 24]

Few things are greater then a @Gil Scott-Heroin and @GoddamnyamanProf back and forth. But Timmy being sent to retirement by the Clippers is one of them

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

You were all ready to blame Griffin if the Clippers lost that series. Shameless.

Who the fukk you think was getting the blame if LA lost? The bench that came through better than anyone expected? The hobbled hero, Chris Paul, best player in the series?

Blame Griffin bytched up every 4th quarter and single-handedly was responsible for 2 of the Spurs 3 wins. Yes he posted great numbers and didnt fukk up nearly as much after game 5, but it shouldve been over after game 5. Duncan, Leonard and yes, Boris Diaw outplayed him in the majority of 4th quarters when it was winning time.

When Spurs went up 3-2 off Blake's latest game-breaking poor decision, they were headed to SA to close out and a ton of media outlets were talking "big changes on the horizon for the Clippers"

CP did that so Blake aint have to go through that

 

[Greenstrings]

A journey that wouldn't have ended up with them repeating.

Their age was showing, luck wasn't in their favor like last season and they would've slipped up further down the road even if they progressed past the first round.

Who's to say give or take a few plays? It wasn't so much, their age. I had similar doubts during the Dallas series last year, but they showed that the system always had an answer. Over the series they were probably the better team, just unable to make it count this time around.

It's irrelevant because everything that led up that point is why they were in that position in the first place -

"This is only scratching the surface as to what they'll need to go their way this season:

Secure #1 seed
Largely remain injury-free
All three of Parker, Duncan and Ginobili to maintain their games (relative to what their bodies can cope with)
Role players step up another level and at the right times
Kawhi to develop his game and grow into a star
Maintain the gap on the competition or at least keep them out of team difference
Injuries (e.g. Ibaka last season) to other other squads
Have 50/50 calls go their way in every series and at certain turning/momentum points in games
Ability to stay fresh enough to counter balance the youth of other teams throughout the playoffs
The reliance on other teams' stars not having career performances
The reliance on other teams' role players not outplaying theirs

I could go on and on but you get the point - if any one of these fails to reoccur, it'll break the foundation and cracks will emerge, and when cracks emerge, their % of repeating drops according to the relevancy of each one to where a team can take an advantage of power."

It wasn't about having a gut feeling, it was the fact that they weren't going to have the same luck again, the decline in ability and the general improvement of every other team.

Man, I could have made a similar laundry list for every team in contention bar Golden State, but at the end of the day luck is ephemeral and not dictated by past occurrences. Each new coin toss has 50/50 odds (this is leading to a quantum mechanics debate that I never want to have again). Yes talent lessens the extent to which a team needs to rely on small odds but that's universal and at the time of when this thread was made more than any other team, the Spurs had the most assured route to a title. That much is undeniable.

Last season was the closing of their window - like I said before the season started, teams' star players were hitting their primes or either still in their primes on hungrier teams while the Spurs were on the decline - the margin between all the teams in the West and the Spurs would close significantly. And that's what exactly happened, the Spurs were no longer untouchable.

Other teams stars in their primes can ultimately mean nothing if teams aren't in a position to make the most of it. We all had a nagging feeling that GSW should have been significantly better than they were but Jackson's coaching aside it wasn't clear whether or not there was a flaw in the makeup of their roster that was holding them back plus defensively they were too reliant on an injury prone Bogut. There's always been a ton of reasons to doubt the Clippers and Durant's injury gave good cause to be very nervous. A team doesn't have to appear untouchable to be the favourite as long as they still have the most things going for them which the Spurs seemed to.

That couldn't possibly be more further from the truth on both fronts. Seeding didn't really matter to this Thunder team, and while there was concerns over Durant's health - any reasonable person wouldn't expect him to sit out for most of the season (nobody had the Thunder missing the playoffs because of it). I never lowballed the Spurs in any fashion - all their highs/lows through the season, their seeding and their playoff exit disproves any notion I was doing so.

Seeding and homecourt is important for any team hoping to make a run and come on man, we knew what that injury was. Half the players that have had it suffered going forward. It was quite literally a coin toss. Them missing the playoffs was seen as a possibility if they fell too far below 500 before Durant got back.

Their lows mostly revolved around Splitter's unhealthiness and a freak injury to Kawhi, not the older players as you would expect. And are you really talking seeding in the only season in history where the difference between the 2nd and 6th seed was one game? When the margins are that small there are no clear conclusions to be had and things not panning out according to favoured odds can't be justified retroactively, which is why "they're not going to get lucky again" isn't a useful prediction.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Who the fukk you think was getting the blame if LA lost? The bench that came through better than anyone expected? The hobbled hero, Chris Paul, best player in the series?

Everyone involved. That includes Chris Paul and Blake Griffin.

If you didn't think Griffin was a top 20 player and he put up 24/13/7 in the series, surely he can't be blamed can he? After all he's not one of the best players and he was playing better than expected - I mean when was the last time someone who wasn't ranked amongst the top 20 players in the league put up those type of #s in a series?

Or is he one of the best players in the league only when it's convenient for you to dish out the blame?

Blame Griffin bytched up every 4th quarter

You're wrong there.

single-handedly was responsible for 2 of the Spurs 3 wins.

What a surprise you're wrong again.

Yes he posted great numbers and didnt fukk up nearly as much after game 5, but it shouldve been over after game 5. Duncan, Leonard and yes, Boris Diaw outplayed him in the majority of 4th quarters when it was winning time.

Every quarter is winning time. Miss me with that bullshyt.

So now it's changed from being the better player and playing better all throughout each game to now just the majority of 4th quarters? The constant moving of goalposts is hilarious.

Yeah let's ignore all context as to why Griffin struggled in SOME of the 4th quarters and why others who had less offensive work loads played 'better'

4th quarter of Game 1 - Diaw had 0 points (0-2)
4th quarter of Game 2 - Diaw had 4 points (2-6)
4th quarter of Game 3 - Diaw had 4 points (1-1)
4th quarter of Game 4 - Diaw had 0 points (0-1)
4th quarter of Game 5 - Diaw had 8 points (3-4)

So really the only fourth quarter that can be definitively attributed to Diaw outplaying him was in Game 5. So all you've got to hang your 'Diaw is better than Griffin' argument on is ONE 4th quarter? Never mind every single other quarter during those first five games or the difference in workloads that left BG exhausted come the 4th quarter while Diaw was still relatively fresh. Or the fact that Diaw had far less defensive attention than BG in those 4th quarters.

That's like me saying Mo Williams was a better player than James Harden last season because he 'outplayed him in the majority of 4th quarters when it was winning time' in that Portland/Houston series.

You see how stupid that sounds?

CP did that so Blake aint have to go through that

Blake had to all throughout the the first three quarters of just about each game so Paul had a chance to close out ONE quarter.

 

[L@CaT]

Do posters really read all that back n forth between you two

 

[Goatpoacher]

Do posters really read all that back n forth between you two

There are some gems in there. They're like Itchy and Scratchy :JJ:

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

Do posters really read all that back n forth between you two

I only read about half of it

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Who's to say give or take a few plays? It wasn't so much, their age. I had similar doubts during the Dallas series last year, but they showed that the system always had an answer. Over the series they were probably the better team, just unable to make it count this time around.

Age had a lot to do with it. When the Clippers pushed the ball the Spurs couldn't keep up. And no the Spurs weren't the better team - they relied on players having hot bursts from the bench whereas the Clippers' production was more steady and dependable.

Man, I could have made a similar laundry list for every team in contention bar Golden State, but at the end of the day luck is ephemeral and not dictated by past occurrences.

Exactly, which is why past occurrences will always be intrinsic to how luck goes around. The same team isn't going to have the same breaks over and over. All the shyt that went the Spurs way last season wasn't going to go their way again - especially when most teams in the harshest environment of the league were getting better and they were nearing the stages of atrophy.

Each new coin toss has 50/50 odds (this is leading to a quantum mechanics debate that I never want to have again)

Then you'd know each season's probabilistic equation all have different results...

Yes talent lessens the extent to which a team needs to rely on small odds but that's universal and at the time of when this thread was made more than any other team, the Spurs had the most assured route to a title. That much is undeniable.

Nah, that's not true at all. Which is where I see most of our conflict stems from. I recognized all the indicators and you didn't. It really is as simple as that.

Other teams stars in their primes can ultimately mean nothing if teams aren't in a position to make the most of it. We all had a nagging feeling that GSW should have been significantly better than they were but Jackson's coaching aside it wasn't clear whether or not there was a flaw in the makeup of their roster that was holding them back plus defensively they were too reliant on an injury prone Bogut. There's always been a ton of reasons to doubt the Clippers and Durant's injury gave good cause to be very nervous. A team doesn't have to appear untouchable to be the favourite as long as they still have the most things going for them which the Spurs seemed to.

Most of these Western conference teams were in a position to make the most of it. It wasn't the threat of just ONE team, it was the threat of combination of them. Teams were bridging the gap with every season and the Spurs had just come off two consecutive grueling Finals runs with three players that are nearing the end of their careers.

Seeding and homecourt is important for any team hoping to make a run and come on man, we knew what that injury was. Half the players that have had it suffered going forward. It was quite literally a coin toss.

It was not quite literally a coin toss at all. Far from it; the precautions taken and the amount of recovery time that began before the season started were more in favor of him being ready for the playoffs than a 50/50 chance. Seeding and homecourt didn't matter because they were always going to be a few steps behind to begin with - ultimately all that mattered was having everyone out there on the court healthy.

Them missing the playoffs was seen as a possibility if they fell too far below 500 before Durant got bac
Their lows mostly revolved around Splitter's unhealthiness and a freak injury to Kawhi, not the older players as you would expect. And are you really talking seeding in the only season in history where the difference between the 2nd and 6th seed was one game? When the margins are that small there are no clear conclusions to be had and things not panning out according to favoured odds can't be justified retroactively, which is why "they're not going to get lucky again" isn't a useful prediction.

Parker, Duncan and Ginobili averaged less minutes, had adecrease in workload and increase in injury niggles all throughout the season.

Yes I am, because they had the #1 seed last season - the Thunder and them were the clear cut top two teams in the West. This season they fell amongst the Clippers, Grizzlies, Rockets and T'Blazers - their records and performance only reflect this. The conclusions drawn from that are that teams were better equipped to beat the Spurs (who wouldn't be as good as last season) this season; combined with the fact they wouldn't get the same luck this time around.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I only read about half of it

Explains why you take so much of what I say out of context.

 

[Shadygreatest]

Troll @Gil Scott-Heroin

 

[Floyd Pinkerton]

Troll @Gil Scott-Heroin

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

@Mephistopheles

I'mma need you to come and collect this L (again) after the shade you been throwing over the last couple of seasons.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

@Mephistopheles

I'mma need you to come and collect this L (again) after the shade you been throwing over the last couple of seasons.

What do you want me to say? They got beat.