Suns-Spurs

Didn't watch the Cavs-Nets but I'm eager to see Suns-Spurs. This is obviously a tough one to call. I'd very much like to see Phoenix win at this point. San Antonio won my affection by slaying the Lakers juggernaut back in the day, but today they've become their own tedious juggernaut. At this point, it's probably passé to be a Suns enthusiast (and, frankly, Shawn Marion's whining's become annoying) but they're still fun to watch.

As Jon Barry just said on TV, however, "I just see the San Antonio Spurs doing it again." To -- unlike Barry -- cite some actual evidence for that proposition, I note that San Antonio's regular season point differential was substantially better than Phoenix's (8.4 versus 7.3) even though San Antonio rested its key players much more. But, of course, home court counts in this league.

Comments

If I was reasonable, I'd think it'll boil down to how many fouls Duncan/Stoudamire pick up.

Instead, I think it's all Phoenix. Phoenix' Nash/Parker advantage is far greater than SA's Duncan/Stoudamire advantage.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 6, 2007 3:38 PM

I'm picking the Spurs because the style of game that they play all season long is a lot like the NBA playoffs. Scores are lower, and there is a premium on good defense.

Posted by global yokel | May 6, 2007 3:38 PM

Didn't watch the Cavs-Nets

Nets ran out of gas in the 4th quarter. A shame, really, because they had a great chance to pull it out. That's what you get when you fail to close out Game 5 against the Raps and need a hard-fought Game 6 to take the series.

In the predictions thread the other day I said I was pessimistic about the Nets because they would have trouble with Cleveland's bigs. And 20 offensive rebounds later, I think that was borne out in Game 1. (I also mentioned that I didn't think LBJ would be great - and I think he had a career playoff low in Game 1.)

Posted by Al | May 6, 2007 3:49 PM

Dude, you really need to worry less about how cool your personal preferences are. How could it possibly be passe to like a team that plays the most beautiful basketball I've seen in the past 20 years?

Posted by too many steves | May 6, 2007 4:19 PM

I know the split infinitive is no longer considered strictly verboten; but "to -- unlike Barry -- cite" is in every way inferior to "to cite -- unlike Barry -- . . ."

Posted by dj moonbat | May 6, 2007 4:38 PM

Longer Jon Barry: "I just see the team that my brother plays for doing it again."

Posted by andrew | May 6, 2007 5:21 PM

If the Suns win this series, it will be because of Barbosa. This Stat is not the old Stat. It's a little painful to watch him.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 6, 2007 5:26 PM

Steve Nash looks like he was Mayweather's opponent last night. Odds are he'll need the Rip Hamilton facemask for the duration.

Fantastic contest, though (26.7 on the clock) and if the rest of the series is like this, it's going to be one for the history books.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 6, 2007 6:14 PM

I hate to see Steve the red-nosed point guard have to sit out so many important late possessions. He looked completely in the zone up until then, too. I'm hoping for a Suns victory in which he comes back with a vengeance in the later games.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 6, 2007 7:17 PM

plays the most beautiful basketball I've seen in the past 20 years

Bah, they're fun to watch, but not exactly beautiful. The Bibby-Webber-Divac Kings played beautiful basketball.

Posted by ogged | May 6, 2007 7:44 PM

Jon Barry had a much better playing career in the NBA than anyone could reasonably have expected.

Posted by JP | May 6, 2007 8:51 PM

"I hate to see Steve the red-nosed point guard have to sit out so many important late possessions."

Wow. I just watched the game, and the ending was fucking surreal.

All these 'drawing first blood' metaphors becoming literal.

Posted by Petey | May 6, 2007 10:59 PM

Can Tim Duncan retire and take up swimming again? Please? The Spurs play the most god-awful boring basketball on the face of the earth.

And yes, I know, it's effective and they win. Who gives a shit? Sports accomplish nothing beyond entertaining fans. Winning has no actual value.

Posted by Freddie | May 6, 2007 11:07 PM

Freddie, i will never understand why execution and teamwork are regarded by some as boring. if you want thrills and chills, watch high-wire walking....

Posted by howard | May 6, 2007 11:13 PM

"Sports accomplish nothing beyond entertaining fans. Winning has no actual value."

You and I are very different people.

Posted by Petey | May 6, 2007 11:20 PM

Weird plus/minus numbers.

Nash was heavy minus. Kurt Thomas and Diaw were heavy plus.

James Jones' short stretch was a disaster, which I knew even before looking the numbers up.

Posted by Petey | May 6, 2007 11:48 PM

Sports accomplish nothing beyond entertaining fans. Winning has no actual value.

So, let's see. I'm a Nets fan. Matthew's a Wizards fan. SCMT's a Lakers fan. Petey's a Sixers, er, Nuggets fan.

And Freddie is apparently a Harlem Globetrotters fan.

Posted by Al | May 7, 2007 12:00 AM

Weird plus/minus numbers. Nash was heavy minus.

I could see that. When he's on, Barbosa's off. They need to stick Barbosa on Parker; he is just killing them.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 7, 2007 12:38 AM

The amazing thing about the Spurs post-season thus far is that they have run off these five impressive wins in a row without much from Ginobili. I don't think that can continue for too much longer.

It was nice to see what a healthy Duncan can do without a double team every possession. And yet the Suns best chance is probably to force Duncan to continue scoring at this high a rate rather than allowing him to dissect the defense the way he did Denver's.

There are several things that happened today that will be interesting to watch as the series continues.

Can the Spurs continue to dominate the rebounding? This seems like an obvious yes, but they are so concerned about the running game, that they are usually only sending one player to the offensive glass. So 14 offensive rebounds are huge in that circumstance, and if that number continues, Phoenix is going to be in trouble.

Who dominates the three point line? Spurs have been bombing away in the post-season, but it was a insignificant margin of three points today. Spurs defend the three point line better than anyone in the league, and Phoenix needs to stay close from out there if they are going to be successful. Of course, the key to that is allowing Thomas and Stoudamire to play Duncan straight up, which could lead to a whole run of 30 point games from him.

Does Jones have anything to contribute to the Suns? How quickly does D'Antoni bench him and give the minutes to Diaw? Vaughn was a disaster for the Spurs today, but I like the veteran's chance of bouncing back, especially since the Spurs don't need much from him.

Posted by Curtis | May 7, 2007 12:40 AM

"And yet the Suns best chance is probably to force Duncan to continue scoring at this high a rate rather than allowing him to dissect the defense the way he did Denver's."

Yuperoo.

"Can the Spurs continue to dominate the rebounding? This seems like an obvious yes, but they are so concerned about the running game, that they are usually only sending one player to the offensive glass."

Yup, again. I'd suspect it won't continue due to the need for transition defense.

"Vaughn was a disaster for the Spurs today, but I like the veteran's chance of bouncing back"

I don't think Vaughn is up to this level of competition, personally.

"The amazing thing about the Spurs post-season thus far is that they have run off these five impressive wins in a row without much from Ginobili. I don't think that can continue for too much longer."

I think the Spurs are highly vulnerable to the Suns. I suspect they would have lost this game minus the bloody nose, though that is obviously not a definite.

I think the Suns are the better team in the series, but if anyone can take the bloody nose advantage, hold home court, and steal the series from the better team, it's an error-free squad like the Spurs.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 12:52 AM

"Wow. I just watched the game, and the ending was fucking surreal."

Seriously. Has anyone seen anything even vaguely like that before?

I don't recall ever seeing a player unable to get back into the game because they couldn't stop the bleeding.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 1:00 AM

i disagree with whomever called the spurs boring. the spurs are exactly as interesting as their opponent. for example, spurs-jazz may be apocalypse, unless deron williams kicks it up. so root against cavs-spurs in the finals, especially (is it just me, or has LBJ become significantly less compelling this year?)

Posted by dtah | May 7, 2007 1:28 AM

"is it just me, or has LBJ become significantly less compelling this year?"

I think Al is the only person in the country who watched Nets/Cavs today.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 3:00 AM

Basketball, like all sports, accomplishes nothing outside of entertaining fans. There is nothing of real-world value that comes out of sports besides that. Winning or losing only has whatever value has been socially assigned to it. Personally, if a team isn't compelling to me, I don't feel any particular need to kiss their ass because they "know how to win". So what? You're not curing cancer. You're throwing a leather ball through a hole. I don't ask anyone else to feel the same way. But don't bring your reification on me.

Posted by Freddie | May 7, 2007 10:10 AM

I've let politics determine a lot of my sports loyalties, which is one of the reasons I'm happy to cheer for the Suns. Steve Nash was the only NBA star to come out and take a strong stand against the Iraq War as it was starting. I'd like to see him win a championship and rise in influence.

It helps that the Suns' style is so fun to watch.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 7, 2007 12:00 PM

My thought - just as unprovable - is that the Spurs probably win anyway without the bleeding nose. Nash doesn't do anything to prevent the sick jump hook from Duncan that put the lead to two possessions down the stretch.

Phil Jackson used to run the most effective variant against the Spurs offense, forcing Horry and Samaki Walker and everyone else to go one on one with Duncan for three quarters. He would torch them, and then in the fourth quarter, the Lakers would double team Duncan, he would shred the defense with his passing, but the shooters would be out of rhythm and stressed out in the moment.

Difference is that Finley, Horry, Ginobili, won't be lost in the moment the way the prior Spurs were. But it is an interesting strategy to consider.

Posted by Curtis | May 7, 2007 12:17 PM

Freddie, you're kind of confusing the issue here (as well as ignoring the psychological identification many fans have with their team and its winning or losing): the spurs play team basketball and execute extremely well. why isn't that entertaining? if you want gymnastics, go watch gymnastics; if you want pro rasslin', go watch pro rasslin'; if you want high-wire acts, go to the circus.

or at least tell us what is so boring about playing the game that way instead of just asserting its inherent boredom.

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 1:31 PM

at least tell us what is so boring about playing the game that way instead of just asserting its inherent boredom.

It's not inherently boring. Nothing is inherently boring or interesting. But you have to recognize that many people now have said it bores them. It interests you, fine. It bores me and many others. De gustibus non disputandum est.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 7, 2007 2:01 PM

antid, believe me, i'm all for de gustibus, but you know, when i said, at the start of the playoffs (in this very space!) that i wasn't really interested in who might make it to the second round; i was interested in who might win the title.

and when people jumped all over me on that, i could at least explain that i like execution and team play (in all walks of life) and that i'm therefore interested (beyond "my" team) in the teams that best manifest that.

matthew, for instance, made it clear in his initial post that he's tired of the spurs winning, which makes sense on a certain level (and anyhow, he didn't call them "boring"). but i really am curious: it's true that people keep saying that the spurs are "boring" but i have yet to see anyone explain why good fundamental basketball is so "boring." since you're among those who find the spurs "boring," maybe you can answer: just what, exactly, is it about how the spurs fill a 48-minute game that puts you to sleep?

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 2:30 PM

"But you have to recognize that many people now have said it bores them."

Sure. But they're not hoops fans.

Folks who aren't Sopranos fans have been bored by the past two seasons.

De gustibus non disputandum est doesn't mean that all tastes are equally correct. It just means that you can't convince someone with bad taste that he has bad taste.

-----

I hate the Spurs for a wide variety of rational and irrational reasons. I'm always happy when they lose.

But I do enjoy watching them play. It's pretty basketball.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 2:41 PM

Myeh. It's hard to analyze why something bores you. I mean, I don't hate the Spurs' style of play, I just tend to tune out when they're on TV and I'm not rooting against them for one reason or another. It doesn't allow deep analysis because I don't bother focusing my attention on it, I just turn away and do something else. And I do consider myself a hoops fan, but I'm a Knicks fan primarily and I need some joy in my life.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 7, 2007 4:30 PM

I've let politics determine a lot of my sports loyalties, which is one of the reasons I'm happy to cheer for the Suns. Steve Nash was the only NBA star to come out and take a strong stand against the Iraq War as it was starting. I'd like to see him win a championship and rise in influence.

Then Neil, I'm assuming, as an Edwards supporter you're also impressed by Gregg Popovich maxing out to John Edwards in '04, no?

Posted by Cincinnatus | May 7, 2007 4:34 PM

antid, i appreciate your trying, so let me just say that i think there's a big difference between having no interest in watching (life is short, you always have to make choices, and if your choice is not to watch the spurs it's not any different than my choice not to watch sunday morning talk shows) and being bored by watching.

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 5:22 PM

Petey, can you perhaps post a complete list of who is and is not a hoops fan, followed by a list of who is and is not a Sopranos fan? I always thought MY was a fan of both, but then, I thought the same about myself. Maybe I'm wrong.

Posted by too many steves | May 7, 2007 5:30 PM