Spurs: Ibaka will not change the outcome of the series

[m>s]

Chimping out

[ambchang]

You seem to give random cause vs correlation credit to things like the crowd without justification. The Spurs had the best road record in the league, why would they get blown out on the road in the playoffs just because a crowd is cheering? Do crowds not cheer in the RS? Have the Thunder not won in SA because of the crowd?


And yet okc have one of the best home records in the league, with the spurs not being able to win there in years until Saturday.

Fact is, Ibaka played in 4 of the 6 games, the spurs still won. Unless you want to argue that Ibaka not playing in games 3 to 6 would have resulted in an OKC series win, or Ibaka would have made a big enough difference in games 1 and 2, knowing full well what happened in game 5, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on

[ambchang]

Chimping out

Come to think of it, you didn't even have a basketball take in this entire thread.

loser.

[ShowtimeFan]

Some day, you guys may be able to have a decent basketball take for a change.

Oh the irony!

And with just that thought I've spent more time in this crap thread than it deserved.

[ambchang]

Oh the irony!

And with just that thought I've spent more time in this crap thread than it deserved.

What is that? Nothing to back up and no arguments again? I guess we just have very different standards of what a basketball take is.

[DMC]

And yet okc have one of the best home records in the league, with the spurs not being able to win there in years until Saturday.

Fact is, Ibaka played in 4 of the 6 games, the spurs still won. Unless you want to argue that Ibaka not playing in games 3 to 6 would have resulted in an OKC series win, or Ibaka would have made a big enough difference in games 1 and 2, knowing full well what happened in game 5, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on

Since you screwed up the quote format I had to steal a different post and trick it.

I could say the Thunder would have keep the Spurs scoreless in 4 consecutive games had Ibaka played uninjured and you couldn't disprove it. Hypothetical scenarios are just the mind's way of creating that which doesn't exist in reality. You made one in the OP and Ibaka came back and suddenly the game changed. So you either have to attibute that 40+ point swing to the lineup or to the crowd. If you think playing at home makes a 40 point difference in the playoffs, I cannot help you any further, however if you think having a key defender in the paint can shut down an offense that's predicated it's last 2 games on points in the paint, then we can continue this discussion.

Indy had the best home record in the league and look how well they did at home against a team with a worse road record.

You've completely dismissed the peripheral effects that a player like Serge can have on the game, and truth be known you went AWOL until the Spurs won again.

[DMC]

If the spurs lost Parker or Duncan id be concerned, but not anyone else. Reason being nobody else will turn wins into loses or vice versa.

On the okc roster, only Durant and maybe Westbrook has that impact.

Turn wins into losses? What the does that mean? A team doesn't have a win until the game ends, but they can have the lead. I guess Manu didn't help the Spurs win game 6, especially with Tony out. I guess the Spurs would have won that game anyhow if Tony was playing all game and Manu wasn't.

You are basketball re ed tbh.

[ambchang]

Since you screwed up the quote format I had to steal a different post and trick it.

I could say the Thunder would have keep the Spurs scoreless in 4 consecutive games had Ibaka played uninjured and you couldn't disprove it. Hypothetical scenarios are just the mind's way of creating that which doesn't exist in reality. You made one in the OP and Ibaka came back and suddenly the game changed. So you either have to attibute that 40+ point swing to the lineup or to the crowd. If you think playing at home makes a 40 point difference in the playoffs, I cannot help you any further, however if you think having a key defender in the paint can shut down an offense that's predicated it's last 2 games on points in the paint, then we can continue this discussion.

Indy had the best home record in the league and look how well they did at home against a team with a worse road record.

You've completely dismissed the peripheral effects that a player like Serge can have on the game, and truth be known you went AWOL until the Spurs won again.

Well, that goes without saying. The point is given what has been observed prior to game 2, and what transpired after Game 2, it is extremely difficult to defend what you just threw out. And yet what happened in Games 5 and 6 gives a lot of support to my argument.

I made the call after game 2, with my take on why that has happened, then Ibaka came back and basically what I said would happen happened. I did not dismiss his effects, I have said multiple times that Serge does have an effect on the game, just not big enough to change the outcome of the series, which was what I predicted to be, and what actually happened, a Spurs win.

[ambchang]

Turn wins into losses? What the does that mean? A team doesn't have a win until the game ends, but they can have the lead. I guess Manu didn't help the Spurs win game 6, especially with Tony out. I guess the Spurs would have won that game anyhow if Tony was playing all game and Manu wasn't.

You are basketball re ed tbh.

It means that the impact of those players would be so profound that the Game 1 and 2 win would have been a loss without them. Try to follow the conversation instead of pulling stuff out of thin air, will you?

Oh, and please don't let the irony of how your take in this thread got pounded into the ground escape you.

[DMC]

Well, that goes without saying. The point is given what has been observed prior to game 2, and what transpired after Game 2, it is extremely difficult to defend what you just threw out. And yet what happened in Games 5 and 6 gives a lot of support to my argument.

No it doesn't. Your OP stated you weren't saying the Spurs would win. How then did two games where the Spurs won support your argument? Your argument is that whether or not Ibaka played the entire series, the series outcome wouldn't be different. Now suddenly winning the series justifies your argument? Why then did you hedge your bet in the OP?

I made the call after game 2, with my take on why that has happened, then Ibaka came back and basically what I said would happen happened. I did not dismiss his effects, I have said multiple times that Serge does have an effect on the game, just not big enough to change the outcome of the series, which was what I predicted to be, and what actually happened, a Spurs win.

Yes, you made your call after two blowouts by San Antonio then the Thunder responded and you didn't say . You waited until the Spurs won again before you started yapping again. You're basically doing a Tlong. You didn't predict anything, you made it clear that you were not making a win/loss prediction. You basically said what happens will happen regardless whether Ibaka plays or not. Otherwise you wouldn't have filed that disclaimer just in case the Spurs lost.

Let's not get all stupid and think it's in fashion.

[DMC]

It means that the impact of those players would be so profound that the Game 1 and 2 win would have been a loss without them. Try to follow the conversation instead of pulling stuff out of thin air, will you?

Oh, and please don't let the irony of how your take in this thread got pounded into the ground escape you.

Thin air? I quoted you.

So whether or not Tony plays in a game 6 on the road, the Spurs will win anyhow. I can prove that by showing that they did win in a game 6 without Tony for half the game. The Thunder were up while Tony was playing. Therefore your claim that only Tim and Tony being absent will turn a win into a loss has been debunked.

So that makes as much sense in retrospect as your retrospective hyperbole.

[ambchang]

No it doesn't. Your OP stated you weren't saying the Spurs would win. How then did two games where the Spurs won support your argument? Your argument is that whether or not Ibaka played the entire series, the series outcome wouldn't be different. Now suddenly winning the series justifies your argument? Why then did you hedge your bet in the OP?

My first post is saying the point of the post is not to say the Spurs will win or not, ie, this is not a prediction thread. I have already said that the Spurs will win in 5 without Ibaka and 7 with Ibaka in another thread. If the Spurs were to lose this series, it does not invalidate my stance that Ibaka would not change the outcome of the series, it would only invalidate my earlier prediction the Spurs will win in 5/7 games.

Yes, you made your call after two blowouts by San Antonio then the Thunder responded and you didn't say . You waited until the Spurs won again before you started yapping again. You're basically doing a Tlong. You didn't predict anything, you made it clear that you were not making a win/loss prediction. You basically said what happens will happen regardless whether Ibaka plays or not. Otherwise you wouldn't have filed that disclaimer just in case the Spurs lost.

Let's not get all stupid and think it's in fashion.

You went blind or something? I responded to every single response to me after Games 3 and 4. In fact, one of the post you QUOTED was after either Game 3 and 4.

Thin air? I quoted you.

So whether or not Tony plays in a game 6 on the road, the Spurs will win anyhow. I can prove that by showing that they did win in a game 6 without Tony for half the game. The Thunder were up while Tony was playing. Therefore your claim that only Tim and Tony being absent will turn a win into a loss has been debunked.

So that makes as much sense in retrospect as your retrospective hyperbole.

It was a quote I answered to a specific question, you just pulled it out of nowhere and make it sound like I said Tim and Tony would be the only guys to make a difference in any given game, when I was specifically speaking to Games 1 and 2.

[m>s]

drive for five!

dmc u aint jane goodall you can't talk to this guy tbh

[DMC]

My first post is saying the point of the post is not to say the Spurs will win or not, ie, this is not a prediction thread. I have already said that the Spurs will win in 5 without Ibaka and 7 with Ibaka in another thread. If the Spurs were to lose this series, it does not invalidate my stance that Ibaka would not change the outcome of the series, it would only invalidate my earlier prediction the Spurs will win in 5/7 games.

You just ignored the question. You weren't required to disclaim picking a series winner in this thread. You did disclaim it in your OP. Then, in the same thread, you're using a win to say you were right. How can a win prove you to be right when you didn't say what the outcome would be, only that it wouldn't be changed by Ibaka? There would have to be a parallel universe to prove you to be right or wrong since you're making a hypothetical argument and not even choosing an outcome. You've insulated yourself from injury in the OP, you cannot file a claim now.

You went blind or something? I responded to every single response to me after Games 3 and 4. In fact, one of the post you QUOTED was after either Game 3 and 4.

And you didn't say anything to me. You responded to a bunch of talking but did not address the fact that I called out your bet hedging early on.

To address what MNP said about you being right until proven otherwise, that's not how it works. When you make a claim you accept the burden of proof. You're wrong until proven otherwise. Since there cannot be two outcomes, you can never be proven right. It would be different if you were countering another claim, however you weren't. You just felt good about the 1st two wins and had to make this thread, and in the process of doing so realized you might look like an idiot if the Spurs lose, so you made that disclaimer about picking a winner. If you felt strongly that the Spurs would win, you could have easily continued that in this thread. The fact you didn't is evidence enough that you were hedging.

It was a quote I answered to a specific question, you just pulled it out of nowhere and make it sound like I said Tim and Tony would be the only guys to make a difference in any given game, when I was specifically speaking to Games 1 and 2.

Actually no...

Ok, lemme know how you would feel going into a crucial series without a key player

If the spurs lost Parker or Duncan id be concerned, but not anyone else. Reason being nobody else will turn wins into loses or vice versa.

On the okc roster, only Durant and maybe Westbrook has that impact.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st two games since they had already occurred before that post.

Thinking that key players don't decide wins and losses is just idiotic, as if anyone can fill those roles and the win would still occur.

[DMC]

drive for five!

dmc u aint jane goodall you can't talk to this guy tbh

Crikeys!

[Robz4000]

Been a while since I've ventured downstairs and just now noticed this thread. My thoughts:

1) Thunder probably win with a healthy Ibaka. It took a crazy dunk from their 3rd string PG for the Spurs to realize that Serge isn't Prime Hakeem tbh. They probably would have split the first two games and it would have been a dogfight for 6-7 games.
2) Nobody will care about Serge being out for the first 2 games except for OKC fans and Laker fans still around on Spurstalk. Just like how nobody brings up Manu being out for Game 1 against Memphis except for Spurfan.

I could not care less if Ibaka, KD, LeBron, Wade, etc. were out these playoffs.

The only thing that matters is that Duncan rings.

I still think the Spurs win if Abaka was healthy tbh. Had they given up a game at home Pop prolly doessn't throw the white flag as early as he did in Game's 3 and 4. As ElNono has said multiple times, Pop gave up those games too early.

Still, its all moot, as long as Duncan rings...

[ambchang]

drive for five!

dmc u aint jane goodall you can't talk to this guy tbh

too re ed to even gain an upper hand in an argument vs a chimp
coat tailing a superior poster
zero takes.

[m>s]

You're winning!

drive for five internet argument wins!

[ambchang]

You just ignored the question. You weren't required to disclaim picking a series winner in this thread. You did disclaim it in your OP. Then, in the same thread, you're using a win to say you were right. How can a win prove you to be right when you didn't say what the outcome would be, only that it wouldn't be changed by Ibaka? There would have to be a parallel universe to prove you to be right or wrong since you're making a hypothetical argument and not even choosing an outcome. You've insulated yourself from injury in the OP, you cannot file a claim now.

I did answer the question, and Game 5 provided the best proof. I gloated after Game 5, with strong evidence that the presence of Ibaka will not change the outcome of the series due to the similarities with Games 1 and 2. Unless you want to claim that without Ibaka in Games 3 thru 6 would have resulted in a Spurs loss, then go ahead. But you will most definitely be the minority.

And you didn't say anything to me. You responded to a bunch of talking but did not address the fact that I called out your bet hedging early on.

I went on and talked about predictions of Spurs win.

To address what MNP said about you being right until proven otherwise, that's not how it works. When you make a claim you accept the burden of proof. You're wrong until proven otherwise. Since there cannot be two outcomes, you can never be proven right. It would be different if you were countering another claim, however you weren't. You just felt good about the 1st two wins and had to make this thread, and in the process of doing so realized you might look like an idiot if the Spurs lose, so you made that disclaimer about picking a winner. If you felt strongly that the Spurs would win, you could have easily continued that in this thread. The fact you didn't is evidence enough that you were hedging.

That applies to every single argument on Spurstalk, so your point is moot.

Actually no...

That has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st two games since they had already occurred before that post.

Thinking that key players don't decide wins and losses is just idiotic, as if anyone can fill those roles and the win would still occur.

That has EVERYTHING to do with the first two games BECAUSE those games already occured before the post.

Now that the Spurs have won with Ibaka in the lineup, do you want to claim that the Spurs would have lost without Ibaka in the lineup?

[DMC]

I did answer the question, and Game 5 provided the best proof. I gloated after Game 5, with strong evidence that the presence of Ibaka will not change the outcome of the series due to the similarities with Games 1 and 2. Unless you want to claim that without Ibaka in Games 3 thru 6 would have resulted in a Spurs loss, then go ahead. But you will most definitely be the minority.

Once again ignoring the fact that you refused to pick a winner yet used a win to say you were right.

I went on and talked about predictions of Spurs win.

Not in the OP. You made it abundantly clear that you were not saying the Spurs would win. Parsimony dictates that you did that to hedge your bets, especially since you gloated later when the Spurs won.

That applies to every single argument on Spurstalk, so your point is moot.

Tu quoque doesn't save you here. You aren't right until proven otherwise, therefore you're wrong.

That has EVERYTHING to do with the first two games BECAUSE those games already occured before the post.

"Ibaka will not change the outcome of the series" That's the le of the thread. Since two games had passed, you could not be talking about those two games since your thread le isn't past tense. There was no outcome of the series as of the posting of this thread, so you cannot say whether or not something that did not yet exist could be changed and you couldn't know if it could or could not be changed unless you want to debate free will vs determinism which I gather you don't, and that you'd rather just pretend to know enough about the game to know separate outcomes based on who's playing in a 7 game series.

Now that the Spurs have won with Ibaka in the lineup, do you want to claim that the Spurs would have lost without Ibaka in the lineup?

Ibaka wasn't in the lineup during the 1st two games.

You're trying to play this from both angles and I know enough about that to nail your balls to the floor on it.

"Ibaka would not have made a 20+ point difference in either of the first two games, and here is why".. Half of your argument is saying Ibaka didn't make a difference and half is saying he wouldn't have. You cannot know if he would have made a difference in the 1st two games, so don't pretend you're only talking about the other games and don't pretend Ibaka played the entire series.

In essence what you are saying is that Ibaka would not make a difference in the W/L outcome if he played every single game. You've not clearly stated that, but you've talked around it enough to see the outline.

[UZER]

DMC ambchang

You guys write chapters replying to each other. Get a ing room already.

[DMC]

DMC ambchang

You guys write chapters replying to each other. Get a ing room already.

[ambchang]

Once again ignoring the fact that you refused to pick a winner yet used a win to say you were right.

I said the Spurs are going to win in another thread, and then said the presence of Ibaka will not change the outcome of the series. The point of this thread is not to predict the outcome of the series, but it goes hand in hand with it. Even in this thread itself, on later posts, I explicitly said Spurs will win, how is that not picking a winner?

Not in the OP. You made it abundantly clear that you were not saying the Spurs would win. Parsimony dictates that you did that to hedge your bets, especially since you gloated later when the Spurs won.

Yes, because that is not the point of the OP. But when inquired, I immediately picked a winner.

Tu quoque doesn't save you here. You aren't right until proven otherwise, therefore you're wrong.

The absence of right is not wrong.

"Ibaka will not change the outcome of the series" That's the le of the thread. Since two games had passed, you could not be talking about those two games since your thread le isn't past tense. There was no outcome of the series as of the posting of this thread, so you cannot say whether or not something that did not yet exist could be changed and you couldn't know if it could or could not be changed unless you want to debate free will vs determinism which I gather you don't, and that you'd rather just pretend to know enough about the game to know separate outcomes based on who's playing in a 7 game series.

Ibaka wasn't in the lineup during the 1st two games.

You're trying to play this from both angles and I know enough about that to nail your balls to the floor on it.

"Ibaka would not have made a 20+ point difference in either of the first two games, and here is why".. Half of your argument is saying Ibaka didn't make a difference and half is saying he wouldn't have. You cannot know if he would have made a difference in the 1st two games, so don't pretend you're only talking about the other games and don't pretend Ibaka played the entire series.

In essence what you are saying is that Ibaka would not make a difference in the W/L outcome if he played every single game. You've not clearly stated that, but you've talked around it enough to see the outline.

Tlong pointed it out in the first page, and I admitted it was a grammatical error on my part.

He's not coming back is he? Strange thread le...

I even responded:

True, should've been "would not have made ..."

That said, I fully expect to see Ibaka play in at least one game this series.

Also, I expect okc to win game 3.

[ambchang]

oh crap
RsxPiimp
DD

Where you cowards at?

[ohmwrecker]

Bookmarked for when I need something to read at nap time.