dhsilv2 wrote:SF_Warriors wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
Never said he sucked or made the team worse. The warriors health, without klay, this year were going to compete with the suns for the best record.
I don't care what the warriors record is to start the season compared to when klay came back. He is essential to their success. They absolutely need him to contend. If Klay was healthy last year, the warriors would have benefitted immensely.
OK if you're not responding to my post about why the warriors were better this year without Klay than last year without him, then all good. Was confused because you quoted me.
I'm just saying its dumb to look at the records since its not klays fault injuries happened and its obvious he was never going to cover either draymond or steph's impact.
Why would it not be relevant to consider how well the team would have done last year with him? Is it plausible the warriors would have lost more games this season if klay had not played at all? Isnt it plausible that they would have won more games overall if he was available last season and finish higher than 8th? That's why your take doesnt make sense, because it is hinting at klay not helping the team which is not true.
I mean, yea if klay not playing means steph and draymond stay healthy this season, then your point would actually make sense. But we all know that would be a faulty assumption.