So I guess, without any independent confirmation from Mark Jackson (as if), we will not bet the answer to the question, “Are the Warriors better without David Lee AND Stephen Curry?”
We have already done the one, a great debate that really wasn’t, about the Warriors’ effectiveness without Lee’s All-Star-level rebounding, scoring, meh-like screening and double-meh-like defense. Without him in Games 1 and 2, the Warriors nearly overcame oxygen deprivation to beat San Antonio in Game 1, and handled the Spurs comprehensively in Game 2.
Then he played three minutes in Game 3, which the Warriors lost, 102-92. Coincidence, or something more sinister?
(cue Lowrey organ dirge).
Now Curry has blown yet another tire, and Jackson is keeping his diminishing options for Game 4 to himself. Of course he is. He has to find out if Curry can heal himself, or if he’ll need a bicycle pump full of Brazilian wombat extract injected into the offending extremity, because it is unlikely Curry will sit out Sunday unless chained to a light pole.
[RELATED: Jackson not going to make a decision on Curry's status]
Put another way, he is almost certain to play. How effective he will or won’t be is unknowable, of course, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying, hoping or faking it.
So we should ask the question, given the Lee precedent, “Are the Warriors better without Stephen Curry, too? And if so, who should get injured next?”
Hey, if we’re going to play the game, let’s play the game. And if sarcasm escapes you, please go somewhere else. We will not be able to save you from yourself.
The Lee debate is an open one, deserving of the kind of airing it received Thursday and Friday. There is no such thing as a bad postulate, after all – it can be proven true or false, but we don’t want to stifle intellectual curiosity. Especially when the word “Tebow” is not involved.
Now there isn’t a lot of support for the less-Lee-is-better-Lee side, but that is neither here nor there. What we want to know, in case the less-Lee side is actually on to something here, is if we can extrapolate this notion and extend throughout the roster.
And don’t laugh. They laughed at Randolph Ford when he invented the gas-powered goat, and look where we are now.
Curry is the next option because, more than any other Warrior, he is maximizing a bent-up body. He’s had a hamstring and an eye to go along with his Chee-to-reinforced ankles, and has muscled his way through it all. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that the more injured he becomes, the better he plays. And if you extend that to its logical extreme, you get to the point where he is too hurt to play at all, and therefore is at his competitive apex.
Hey, that’s where the threads go. We’re just following clues here.
So we’ll ask again – are the Warriors better without Lee and Curry? And who should next? Klay Thompson, who has been superb, pretty good and kind of off almost alternately? Harrison Barnes, who has served well in a number of capacities? Jarrett Jack, whose game has been its own Richter scale of jagged ups and precipitous downs? Andrew Bogut, who hasn’t been 100 percent in so long now that 75 percent looks like 115 percent to him?
I mean, maybe they just get better and better until they disappear entirely. Maybe they’re some new nanotechnology we don’t understand. Maybe this is a huge study in metaphysics. Maybe this is Penn and Teller’s foray into athletics.
Hey, we’re just asking a question here, y’know?