Spurs: Ibaka will not change the outcome of the series

[DMC]

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?



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



The absence of right is not wrong.



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



I even responded:

That's not a grammatical error. You didn't misuse tense. You specifically said "series", not "games". To say "would not have changed the outcome of the series" after only game 2 would make even less sense. Does the Amb in your name mean "ambiguous?"

You basically moved the goalposts after the OP in a recovery attempt when you thought the series could go either way.

[DMC]

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

Or you could just tire yourself out patting yourself on the back for being so intuitive.

[ohmwrecker]

Or you could just tire yourself out patting yourself on the back for being so intuitive.

or we could both kill time waiting for m>s to come in here and stroke you off.

[ambchang]

That's not a grammatical error. You didn't misuse tense. You specifically said "series", not "games". To say "would not have changed the outcome of the series" after only game 2 would make even less sense. Does the Amb in your name mean "ambiguous?"

You basically moved the goalposts after the OP in a recovery attempt when you thought the series could go either way.

It was a grammatical error, and I stated as such. Thanks for letting me know what I was supposed to be thinking two weeks ago. Apparently, you can read minds despite me stating SPECIFICALLY before Game 3 that I put in the wrong tense.

It's even more hilarious that in the OP, prior to Game 3, I stated that my intent of the thread was not to state which team will come out winning, and yet after Game 3, a Spurs blow out loss, I came out and explicitly said that I predicted a Spurs win in another thread, and yet here you are, saying that I moved the goalpost AFTER Game 3, which just flies directly against the timeline of all the posts I had.

[RsxPiimp]

Ambchang waving the white flag but DMC shows no signs of mercy, continuously dropping massive truth bombs

[DMC]

It was a grammatical error, and I stated as such. Thanks for letting me know what I was supposed to be thinking two weeks ago. Apparently, you can read minds despite me stating SPECIFICALLY before Game 3 that I put in the wrong tense.

It's even more hilarious that in the OP, prior to Game 3, I stated that my intent of the thread was not to state which team will come out winning, and yet after Game 3, a Spurs blow out loss, I came out and explicitly said that I predicted a Spurs win in another thread, and yet here you are, saying that I moved the goalpost AFTER Game 3, which just flies directly against the timeline of all the posts I had.

Actually I made a grammatical error when I said you're lying. What I meant to say was that the price of pork has increased dramatically at HEB and I don't know if I will buy any ribs because of it.

[DMC]

or we could both kill time waiting for m>s to come in here and stroke you off.

So you like watching men jerk off.

[Franklin]

It was a grammatical error just as Amb said, D, such grammar errors are common for s and sure amb is no exception.

[ohmwrecker]

So you like watching men jerk off.

I was just offering to keep you company until he showed up and then split. Not my thing, but I appreciate the offer.

[DMC]

It was a grammatical error just as Amb said, D, such grammar errors are common for s and sure amb is no exception.

There are rarely a series of grammatical errors that lead to a proper statement. It's more likely that he doesn't mean that any longer, but he did when he posted it. I tend to go with the more likely scenario unless shown otherwise.

[ambchang]

Actually I made a grammatical error when I said you're lying. What I meant to say was that the price of pork has increased dramatically at HEB and I don't know if I will buy any ribs because of it.

Read the thread. I quoted the exchange between Tlong and me, and it was clear as day. You are now just arguing for arguing's sake. And the above quote is amusing coming from someone who rejects spursraiders arguments saying it's strawman.

Come to think of it, I am not even sure why I owe any explanations to you.

Course of argument goes:
I predicted Spurs in 7
Found out Ibaka got hurt
I revised my prediction to Spurs in 5
Spurs routed OKC in Games 1 and 2
I made a thread saying that Ibaka would not have changed the outcome of the series, and stated this is not a prediction thread
I predicted a Game 3 loss
Ibaka came back, OKC won Game 3
I predicted Spurs to win Game 4
OKC won Game 4
Spurs won game 5 and 6.
I gloated.

[ambchang]

There are rarely a series of grammatical errors that lead to a proper statement. It's more likely that he doesn't mean that any longer, but he did when he posted it. I tend to go with the more likely scenario unless shown otherwise.

I made one significant grammatical error, the one in the le.

[ambchang]

It was a grammatical error just as Amb said, D, such grammar errors are common for s and sure amb is no exception.

You have one in the statement above. What race are you?

[ambchang]

Ambchang waving the white flag but DMC shows no signs of mercy, continuously dropping massive truth bombs

Typical RsxPiimp post, declaring some kind of fact with nothing to back it up.

[DMC]

I made one significant grammatical error, the one in the le.

No you would have made two. You said "will not" which shows future tense and "this series" which was not even midway through. Both were indicating a series statement, not a last two games statement. If you made a grammatical error, it fooled you as well.

You would have had to have said "would not have" and "last two games" otherwise.

[DMC]

Read the thread. I quoted the exchange between Tlong and me, and it was clear as day. You are now just arguing for arguing's sake. And the above quote is amusing coming from someone who rejects spursraiders arguments saying it's strawman.

Come to think of it, I am not even sure why I owe any explanations to you.

Course of argument goes:
I predicted Spurs in 7

I am not saying the Spurs will win - you

Found out Ibaka got hurt
I revised my prediction to Spurs in 5
Spurs routed OKC in Games 1 and 2
I made a thread saying that Ibaka would not have changed the outcome of the series, and stated this is not a prediction thread

The series was only 2 games in. You could not have been referring to just those two games, OR you could not have been saying Ibaka would not change the outcome of the series. You cannot have it both ways. Despite what you think you meant, what you said is what people read. If you place your bet on the wrong horse, you lose, no one gives a what you meant to do.

I predicted a Game 3 loss
Ibaka came back, OKC won Game 3
I predicted Spurs to win Game 4
OKC won Game 4
Spurs won game 5 and 6.
I gloated.

In this thread (I don't follow you around reading your takes), you made a clear statement and I took issue with it and you've spent the rest of the time arguing about your original intent.

[mavsfan1000]

OKC 2-2 with Ibaka. 0-2 without Ibaka. It could've been a different story if he played the entire series.

[ambchang]

I am not saying the Spurs will win - you


The series was only 2 games in. You could not have been referring to just those two games, OR you could not have been saying Ibaka would not change the outcome of the series. You cannot have it both ways. Despite what you think you meant, what you said is what people read. If you place your bet on the wrong horse, you lose, no one gives a what you meant to do.

In this thread (I don't follow you around reading your takes), you made a clear statement and I took issue with it and you've spent the rest of the time arguing about your original intent.

Why did you it out myoriginal stance of spurs in 7?

[ambchang]

OKC 2-2 with Ibaka. 0-2 without Ibaka. It could've been a different story if he played the entire series.

Give the three blow outs in San Antonio with and without Ibaka, it wouldn't be a stretch to say the spurs would have won games one and 2 even with Ibaka in the game.

[ambchang]

It doesn't exactly work like you're saying.

If Ibaka is in the paint, the Spurs aren't in the paint as much. That puts them further out, and that puts KD and RW where they are accustomed to being. With Serge out, someone has to try to fill that gap and there's no one there who can defend the paint and score from both inside and outside. he could very well make a 20+ ppg difference if he is locking down the paint and being another person that the Spurs have to defend against both inside and out.

Serge's absence is the difference in this series. I am convinced of that.

The perimeter defense sucked because they had to watch the paint as well. It all goes hand in hand.

Great take.

[ambchang]

Ibaka made a difference because the spurs shot 73.7% with him on the floor in game 5

[DMC]

OKC 2-2 with Ibaka. 0-2 without Ibaka. It could've been a different story if he played the entire series.

He was injured regardless.