Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:

FNG wrote:I laid a bet down on the Grizzlies giving 9 to the Thunder. Probably a dumb bet with Morant, Anderson and Ziare Williams out. Can anyone tell me if Memphis somehow managed to squeak by?

So if we blew out the Grizzlies and the Grizzlies blew out OKC by 72, does that mean we'll beat OKC by 100 when we play them? It would be great to sit our starters after the first quarter!

I can find absolutely no flaws in this math or logic...

FNG wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

FNG wrote:I laid a bet down on the Grizzlies giving 9 to the Thunder. Probably a dumb bet with Morant, Anderson and Ziare Williams out. Can anyone tell me if Memphis somehow managed to squeak by?

So if we blew out the Grizzlies and the Grizzlies blew out OKC by 72, does that mean we'll beat OKC by 100 when we play them? It would be great to sit our starters after the first quarter!

I can find absolutely no flaws in this math or logic...

I know we don't have ton of wrestling fans on the board. But this made me think of the Scott Steiner math promo immediately lol.

https://youtu.be/msDuNZyYAIQ

Jester1534 wrote:

FNG wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

FNG wrote:I laid a bet down on the Grizzlies giving 9 to the Thunder. Probably a dumb bet with Morant, Anderson and Ziare Williams out. Can anyone tell me if Memphis somehow managed to squeak by?

So if we blew out the Grizzlies and the Grizzlies blew out OKC by 72, does that mean we'll beat OKC by 100 when we play them? It would be great to sit our starters after the first quarter!

I can find absolutely no flaws in this math or logic...

I know we don't have ton of wrestling fans on the board. But this made me think of the Scott Steiner math promo immediately lol.

https://youtu.be/msDuNZyYAIQ

Ha...the numbers don't lie!

(although I think Samoa Joe actually won that match)

FNG wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

FNG wrote:I laid a bet down on the Grizzlies giving 9 to the Thunder. Probably a dumb bet with Morant, Anderson and Ziare Williams out. Can anyone tell me if Memphis somehow managed to squeak by?

So if we blew out the Grizzlies and the Grizzlies blew out OKC by 72, does that mean we'll beat OKC by 100 when we play them? It would be great to sit our starters after the first quarter!

I can find absolutely no flaws in this math or logic...

To be fair, Ja Morant played vs. the Wolves... but not last night.

Obviously, he's the weak link on Memphis and is 102% responsible for the two vast difference in the two blowouts.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

FNG wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

FNG wrote:I laid a bet down on the Grizzlies giving 9 to the Thunder. Probably a dumb bet with Morant, Anderson and Ziare Williams out. Can anyone tell me if Memphis somehow managed to squeak by?

So if we blew out the Grizzlies and the Grizzlies blew out OKC by 72, does that mean we'll beat OKC by 100 when we play them? It would be great to sit our starters after the first quarter!

I can find absolutely no flaws in this math or logic...

To be fair, Ja Morant played vs. the Wolves... but not last night.

Obviously, he's the weak link on Memphis and is 102% responsible for the two vast difference in the two blowouts.

Well, that changes things in the event there is a hypothetical near-term matchup with Memphis. If Morant didn't play last night, but did play against the Wolves in our blowout win, is 102% responsible, and.....but wait, wait, hold on now! There is another key factor to consider! Dillon Brooks did NOT play against the Wolves but DID play against OKC. So give me a sec to do the calculations if we play Memphis without Morant, but with Dillon Brooks..........................................Ok, got it now.

The Wolves will lose to Memphis by 84 points.

Q12543 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

FNG wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

FNG wrote:I laid a bet down on the Grizzlies giving 9 to the Thunder. Probably a dumb bet with Morant, Anderson and Ziare Williams out. Can anyone tell me if Memphis somehow managed to squeak by?

So if we blew out the Grizzlies and the Grizzlies blew out OKC by 72, does that mean we'll beat OKC by 100 when we play them? It would be great to sit our starters after the first quarter!

I can find absolutely no flaws in this math or logic...

To be fair, Ja Morant played vs. the Wolves... but not last night.

Obviously, he's the weak link on Memphis and is 102% responsible for the two vast difference in the two blowouts.

Well, that changes things in the event there is a hypothetical near-term matchup with Memphis. If Morant didn't play last night, but did play against the Wolves in our blowout win, is 102% responsible, and.....but wait, wait, hold on now! There is another key factor to consider! Dillon Brooks did NOT play against the Wolves but DID play against OKC. So give me a sec to do the calculations if we play Memphis without Morant, but with Dillon Brooks..........................................Ok, got it now.

The Wolves will lose to Memphis by 84 points.

That sounds about right.

Blazers have fired their GM

And now McCollum is out indefinitely with a collapsed lung. Sad news for the Blazers, but the Wolves' good fortune continues. We should beat them in 4 days with both their star guards out.

FNG wrote:And now McCollum is out indefinitely with a collapsed lung. Sad news for the Blazers, but the Wolves' good fortune continues. We should beat them in 4 days with both their star guards out.

Yes, we've been on the right side of the injury gods this year when it comes to our own roster vs. opponent's rosters.

Fox misses both free throws with no time on the clock and Sacramento loses by 1 to Charlotte at home...heartbreaking for the fans. If the Wolves had shown up tonight, I might be celebrating the Kings losing. But it seems a little silly to be thinking playoffs when we're losing to the Cavs by 30.