Matthew Yglesias (May 16, 2007)

Jalen Rose! Hot damn, there's a blast from the past.

Posted by JP | May 16, 2007 10:48 AM

God DAMN, I hate the Spurs.

Posted by norbizness | May 16, 2007 10:53 AM

I don't see how they keep Tony Parker from getting into the lane. And I don't see how they stop Manu from carving em up in the paint. On the offensive end, Nash has fewer options since he won't have Amare or even Boris cutting to the basket for easy points...all in all, a bad decision and a major drag (Selena Roberts is pretty much spot on in today's NYT. It's David Stern channeling his inner Guiliani).

For a funny take on this: http://www.jockstrapsonline.com/angrymob.html

Angry Mob of Republican Operatives Storm NBA League Office to Support Suns Players

Protest reminiscent of 2000 Florida Recount, but with different outcome

Posted by Ignacio Rodriguez | May 16, 2007 11:16 AM

I don't see how they keep Tony Parker from getting into the lane.

Tell Jones to foul Parker with enough force that he voluntarily stops going into the lane.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2007 11:18 AM

Tim Duncan is a wonderful player, but with that line-up you need to shut down Manu and Parker and give Duncan his 40. The downside of Duncan is that he is actually unselfish..give him a game in which he can score 60 and he'll score 40.

The Suns need to outscore the Spurs. Hope Nash is hot and run Barbosa. Use Marion and Bell defensively to stop all who are not named Duncan.

Posted by Mudge | May 16, 2007 11:26 AM

"Tell Jones to foul Parker with enough force that he voluntarily stops going into the lane."

And then after Jones gets tossed, have Pat Burke foul Parker with enough force that he voluntarily stops going into the lane.

And then after Burke gets tossed, have Jalen Rosen strangle Parker to death with his bare hands.

That ought to take care of the problem with no negative repercussions for game 6, other then the Suns losing the services of some minor players.

Plus, with Parker dead, ABC's motivation for pushing the Spurs will disappear.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 11:27 AM

"The Suns need to outscore the Spurs."

Disagree strongly.

I believe the key to the game for the Suns is to get fewer points than the Spurs.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 11:28 AM

I think the Suns have a difficult task ahead of them. The most sensible course would be to try to take out Duncan or Parker. How badly do you want that championship?

The problem with slavish adherence to the rules is that you can make playing dirty the more intelligent course of action. I think coaches will look at this series and realize they need a hockey-style goon to deter such behavior. The carefully delineated infractions and punishments stop being a deterrent and become a transaction.

Posted by Njorl | May 16, 2007 11:29 AM

lol..well, Petey..true enough..for Spurs fans.

If the Suns score under 100 they will lose. No guarantee they'd win one if they score over 100, but that seems to be their best chance.

Better? I'll refrain from jargon.

Posted by Mudge | May 16, 2007 11:33 AM

Ever since the 2005 Finals it's seemed to me that Parker and Ginobili are much less aggressive on the road. That could just be in my head.

Posted by Steve | May 16, 2007 11:39 AM

I know this has been discussed in a prior thread, but two things jump out at me:

- Impeach David Stern
- You've really got to hand it to Robert Horry

I mean, seriously. Even if the Suns somehow manage to bring this to game 7, which would result in the Phoenix crowd going nuts on Horry in an unprecedented manner, does anyone expect he won't end up with the game winner?

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 11:43 AM

And then after Jones gets tossed, have Pat Burke foul Parker with enough force that he voluntarily stops going into the lane.

You mean because the solution to a guard who penetrates has never been, "Put him on his ass"?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2007 11:53 AM

it's the Spurs game to lose, so they just might lose it. Undermanned teams win a surprising amount of games, my favorite being a touted Ohio State team in the 80's that lost at home to Minnesota, who dressed only 5 due to suspensions.

Posted by paperpusher | May 16, 2007 12:17 PM

Doesn't this just confirm Horry as the best roleplayer ever?

What would happen if the first time the Spurs come down the court, Pat Burke is at the top guarding Parker and D'Antonio is staring at Popovich?

Nothing good can come from any of this.

Posted by dsmint/ex | May 16, 2007 12:46 PM

Seems to me that people who talk about hard fouls as a means to stop guard penetration need to play more basketball against quick little guards. Not only is any obvious attempt to lay out a Tony Parker liable to get a big man tossed, but you often see big men try to lower the boom and see the little guy simply duck under it.

San Antonio will probably try and exploit its big man advantage in this game, and Phoenix will probably try and counter with its speed. San Antonio will likely win out in the end, but a little luck (a couple of early fouls on Duncan, heat from outside) Phoenix could easily surprise them.

Posted by Kit Stolz | May 16, 2007 12:51 PM

"Nothing good can come from any of this."

Yup. That's why this one lies at David Stern's door.

Seriously, what's the over/under on a homicide taking place during the rest of this series?

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 12:52 PM

The problem will not be on the defensive end for PHX. Amare is a crap defensive player anyway so his loss isn't that big a deal. The question is whether PHX will be able to be efficient offensively without a post player.

Posted by Al | May 16, 2007 12:52 PM

"It was just an end-of-game foul and Steve fell down," Popovich said before the penalties were announced. "I didn't think it was such a big deal."

Man, I fucking hate the Spurs

Posted by norbizness | May 16, 2007 12:56 PM

"Nothing good can come from any of this."

I think that judgment depends on what you think of Parker or Manu.

The question is whether PHX will be able to be efficient offensively without a post player.

Yup. Although I suspect the double on Duncan becomes tougher if you're smaller and slower inside.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2007 12:57 PM

"Amare is a crap defensive player anyway so his loss isn't that big a deal."

I'll quibble.

Amare is actually a pretty spectacular defensive player, but is inconsistent due to mental mistakes.

His game ending block on Brad Miller to win a TNT regular season game a couple of years back remains one of the 10 greatest blocks I've ever seen.

And while consistency is necessary to be an excellent defensive player, Amare can still cause problems for Duncan in short stretches.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 12:58 PM

Amare is actually a pretty spectacular defensive player, but is inconsistent due to mental mistakes.

My impression of him based on not really watching enough Suns games to know is that like many smallish but athletic bigs he's a good rotating help defender, not such a good on-the-ball post defender.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 16, 2007 1:01 PM

No question, the only way the Suns can win this game is by turning it into a total track meet. Unless Thomas can somehow play 40 solid minutes, Duncan is gonna run wild.

Luckily the Suns has James Jones, Jalen Rose, and even Jumaine Jones to fill in. Playing Pat Burke would be insane, the guy is completely useless.

By the Jones' can hit treys (particularly James) and frankly, Jalen Rose could go off for 30 points in a given game. He hasn't had the chance this season, but he's still that player.

Go Warriors style, Mike D'Antoni. It is the only way...

Posted by b.schac | May 16, 2007 1:07 PM

I agree with Popovich. It wasn't that big of a deal. I saw many worse fouls in the playoffs. I don't think Horry meant to foul him that hard - he was trying to bump him and Nash accerelated around him. If Nash had simply taken the obvious fould attempt, none of this would have happened. Instead, he tried to avoid the foul and went sprawling.

Posted by blah | May 16, 2007 1:07 PM

Zengerle has a decent hit job on Stu Jackson.

Of course, I'd point out that the cossacks work for the czar. It's David Stern who should be impeached, not Jackson.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 1:10 PM

amare's an absolute disaster on defense. it's a good thing for the suns that oberto/elson aren't any good offensively, or else we might not even be having this debate.

for example, in game four, there were four straight spurs possessions in which oberto was able to box out amare, putting him in prime offensive rebounding position. he frequently gets lost in screens, etc. he's extremely easy to exploit off the ball for scores and boarding. he's only really decent when he's locking in on one guy, which is why he was credible against duncan in game on.

still, what amare gives you on offense outweighs that.

Posted by dtah | May 16, 2007 1:11 PM

"If Nash had simply taken the obvious fould attempt, none of this would have happened."

Next up, blah explains how women are responsible for rape if they're wearing short skirts...

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 1:11 PM

If the question is winning the answer is...Pat Burke. Burke is the the captain of the Irish National Basketball team and is 6'11, 250lbs. of lucky charms riding the end of the Suns' bench. I predict ten minutes of inspired Pat Burke tonight. He's got 3 championships on his resume already. If you disregard those championships are from Panathinaikos in the Greek League then Burke has the same record of achievement as Tim Duncan. Is maith an t-anlann an t-ocras!

Posted by joejoejoe | May 16, 2007 1:14 PM

The difference, Petey, is that everyone in the NBA recognizes and tolerates the intentional foul in the last minutes of a close game. It's an accepted part of the game.

Posted by blah | May 16, 2007 1:26 PM

I've always agreed with this.

Posted by Freddie | May 16, 2007 1:29 PM

"The difference, Petey, is that everyone in the NBA recognizes and tolerates the intentional foul in the last minutes of a close game. It's an accepted part of the game."

Intentional fouls are obviously OK, but Horry's cheap shot was not.

Sex is an accepted part of civilized behavior, but rape is not.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 1:30 PM

No bulls post? Come on, they might actually pull this off.

(side note: the comment preview screen still has the old double-attribution comment formatting. weird.)

Posted by dbt | May 16, 2007 1:31 PM

"I've always agreed with this."

I've always thought that piece was the archetypical mindless contrarian piece. It's an interesting piece. It makes you think. And it's utterly and completely wrong.

Dave Berri must have studied that piece to death before embarking on his current career.

(And useful to note that that piece appeared only a couple of days before Horry's series saving game-winner in Game 5...)

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 1:35 PM

Really, Petey? I've always agreed with that Slate piece about Horry, too. Yes, in his younger days, Horry was a good player, and in the Laker years, he was probably still average. But I don't buy that he's some awesome clutch shooter. I've seen him miss plenty of those shots. Basically, late in the game he stands at the 3-point-line with his thumb up his ass, and if he gets the ball, he fires it up. Once in a while, they go in, and he looks like a god.

Of course, I'm sure if I wanted to I could find something on 82games.com or someplace on Horry's actual shooting stats in clutch-type situations. Perhaps I'll do that.

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 1:43 PM

The difference, Petey, is that everyone in the NBA recognizes and tolerates the intentional foul in the last minutes of a close game. It's an accepted part of the game.

You're missing the corollary: the offensive ballhandler is supposed to run away from the intentional foul as a way of burning time. He's not supposed to stand there and let himself get fouled. That would be idiotic.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 16, 2007 1:43 PM

Horry also gets too much credit for having great teammates. Yeah, he was a pretty important part of the Rockets and Lakers championship teams, but you could replace him with at a dozen power forwards, and those teams would have been just as good. He's the Forrest Gump of the NBA.

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 1:47 PM

Basically, late in the game he stands at the 3-point-line with his thumb up his ass, and if he gets the ball, he fires it up.

There is some small value to being willing to fire it up. Some players balk. Emphasis on "small."

Posted by Antid Oto | May 16, 2007 1:51 PM

Bulls!

Posted by fasteddie | May 16, 2007 1:52 PM

"It was just an end-of-game foul and Steve fell down," Popovich said before the penalties were announced. "I didn't think it was such a big deal."

Wow. What a fucking douche. I think Nash may be phoning up a few of his Canadian friends who know how to react to hockey fouls.

Though I think the trickiest thing the Suns face tonight is a home crowd that frankly wants to see one of the Spurs stars sent to hospital.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2007 1:56 PM

a home crowd that frankly wants to see one of the Spurs stars sent to hospital.

Not just the home crowd, I suspect.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2007 2:03 PM

Kidnap Eva Longoria? I know, that's pretty desperate.

Posted by CJColucci | May 16, 2007 2:05 PM

"Seems to me that people who talk about hard fouls as a means to stop guard penetration need to play more basketball against quick little guards. "

I agree. "Hard", even when it connects, usually isn't so bad. It's dirty that changes games. Undercutting, tripping and fingers in the eye are all more likely to get somebody out of the game than slamming a guy who comes down the lane.

Posted by Njorl | May 16, 2007 2:12 PM

I include undercutting and clotheslining under "hard."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2007 2:17 PM

Not just the home crowd, I suspect.

Count me in.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 16, 2007 2:26 PM

Horry learned to not care about jacking them up when Houston tried to trade him to Detroit because he was too hesitant to jack them up (deal fell through because Detroit's player failed the physical). I wouldn't call him Forrest Gump - in his Rockets and Lakers years he provided great post defense against players bigger than himself.

Posted by paperpusher | May 16, 2007 2:36 PM

So why is Pat Burke on the Suns at all? Is he enough of a player to even practice against?

Why not some D-league guard who can run?

"[Suns owner] Sarver also said that NBA commissioner David Stern has canceled a schedule appearance in Phoenix for Wednesday night's Game 5."

Posted by dsmint/ex | May 16, 2007 2:42 PM

I wouldn't call him Forrest Gump - in his Rockets and Lakers years he provided great post defense against players bigger than himself.

People were noting with some surprise that Kurt Thomas had been a great offensive player in college; worth mentioning that Horry blocked more shots than anyone in his school's (Alabama) history and was voted to the All-SEC defensive team.

Posted by Quarterican | May 16, 2007 2:47 PM

"Sarver also said that NBA commissioner David Stern has canceled a schedule appearance in Phoenix for Wednesday night's Game 5"

I'll note that my "ABC wants Tony Parker in the Finals for the Desperate Housewives cross-promotion" conspiracy theory is looking better and better every day...

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 2:51 PM

"worth mentioning that Horry blocked more shots than anyone in his school's (Alabama) history"

Even at his advanced age, he's still a great shot-blocker.

In the first round series, when Iverson got by the first and second defenders and got to the hoop, Horry frequently came in from behind him on the strong side and either blocked the shot or altered it.

Long wingspan, quick feet, and high basketball IQ.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 3:27 PM

Put me down for impeaching Stern. That decision boggles the mind.

Posted by Warrior Mike | May 16, 2007 4:18 PM

Put me down for impeaching Stern. That decision boggles the mind.

I've been on the "Stern's Hungry for Power and Insane" trip since the Malice at the Palace, so I'm not going to disagree. I'm not in a situation where I can listen to his appearance on espn radio, but apparently it was a doozy.

There's simply no logical way to justify suspending Amare/Diaw and not Duncan/Bowen; the "logic" of Stern's argument is essentially that if the Elson situation had become an altercation, then Duncan would've been in trouble, which puts Duncan inside Stu Jackson's Cat Box of Uncertainty. Ridiculous. I think the Parker/Longoria/ABC connection is flimsy, so I think there's no motive here other than the league's arbitrary power displays; the whole style of management is that they're simply not accountable and not open to criticism, and this looks like another provocation basically because they felt like it.

I feel rather out of place in most online arguments, since while I guess I find the Suns somewhat more entertaining to watch, I like watching the Spurs, and more to the point I *dislike* each team in about equal amounts (which is to say: whichever team wins, I'll be rooting against them in the next round, and in the Finals as well).

Posted by Quarterican | May 16, 2007 4:27 PM

If Nash was trying to run away from the foul at the end of the game, he has a funny way of doing it. Nash accelerates into contact. He always has. Horry fouled him hard, and got ejected. If Suns fans really want to be mad at someone, other than Stern, they should be mad at Raja Bell. Bell prolonged whatever altercation there was so that the unlucky Suns post players could run on the court.

Posted by Bob LaBlog | May 16, 2007 4:27 PM

"I feel rather out of place in most online arguments, since while I guess I find the Suns somewhat more entertaining to watch, I like watching the Spurs"

Ditto. I hate the Spurs, but I enjoy watching them play quite a bit. They play a pretty brand of basketball, if you understand the game.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 4:33 PM

Stern on ESPN radio: two Phoenix suns who knew about the rule, forgot about, couldn't control themselves or had coaches who couldn't control them.

Exactly right. Blaming Stern or Jackson is pure scape goating. The only people to blame are the players.

Posted by Al | May 16, 2007 4:36 PM

"they should be mad at Raja Bell. Bell prolonged whatever altercation there was so that the unlucky Suns post players could run on the court."

Interestingly, almost all of Amare's journey away from the bench took place before Bell challenged Horry.

This is reason #17 why Stern's decision is a high crime and misdemeanor.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 4:37 PM

"Blaming Stern or Jackson is pure scape goating."

Blaming Stu Jackson is scapegoating.

Blaming David Stern is correct thinking.

There really are a host of different reasons why this was a horrible decision.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 4:39 PM

Also, you just like authoritarians, Al. It's why you're in Rudy's corner.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 4:41 PM

Al -

DUNCAN STEPPED ON THE COURT early in the game. The reason Duncan isn't suspended is because the rule requires interpretation of various words. Interpretation is what Stern said there was no room for; that's why Amare and Diaw are suspended. There was no room to interpret that they were, say, just concerned for their teammates' wellbeing before they realized the consequences of their actions. It's assumed that they were heading onto the court to take part in a fight. OTOH, because no fight transpired, Duncan couldn't have been stepping onto the court to take part in any potential fight? Come on.

NB: My preference would be to rejigger the rule; I'd rather nobody got suspended. I would like both teams to play the rest of the series at full strength. Oh well.

Posted by Quarterican | May 16, 2007 4:43 PM

Also it is good to know that Henry Abbott and Dan Shanoff agree with my take on the situation that it is nobody's fault but the players.

Posted by Al | May 16, 2007 4:46 PM

"Interestingly, almost all of Amare's journey away from the bench took place before Bell challenged Horry."

If you watch the tape, here's the sequence:

1) Horry decks Nash
2) D'Antoni jumps over to check on Nash
3) Amare begins to head over to check on Nash
4) Bell challenges Horry
5) Ivaroni grabs Amare and escorts him back to the bench

Ivaroni grabbed Amare almost instantly after Bell went up to Horry, and Amare immediately complied and moved away from the scene.

When Amare was venturing over, there really was no altercation between Nash and Horry or between Bell and Horry. There was just a teammate down on the floor.

Once the altercation began, Amare immediately moved away from the scene.

And sane review of the tape would not have resulted in suspending Amare. It's really quite analogous to the situation where Duncan left the bench earlier in the game.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 4:51 PM

"The reason Duncan isn't suspended is because the rule requires interpretation of various words."

If we interpret "the rule requires interpretation of various words" to mean "ABC wants Tony Parker playing on Sundays" then I'd suggest that you agree entirely with the conspiracy theory I posited.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 4:55 PM

Stern on ESPN radio: two Phoenix suns who knew about the rule, forgot about, couldn't control themselves or had coaches who couldn't control them.

Exactly right. Blaming Stern or Jackson is pure scape goating. The only people to blame are the players.

Oh please, Al. One of the many ways Stern and Jackson's "reasoning" is so pathetic is that they keep trying to hide behind that "don't blame me, blame the rule" bullshit. It's an idiotic rule that Stern made up. How is he not to blame for making up an idiotic rule that has more than once now resulted in idiotic suspensions that fucked up the playoffs?

What a colossal dick he is. And the Nets suck.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 16, 2007 4:57 PM

Second paragraph there is also a quote.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 16, 2007 5:00 PM

"And the Nets suck."

We can blame Al for his rotten interpretation of the past 48 hours' events. We can blame Al for his lousy political views.

But don't kick him because his team is down. Bad form. At the end of the day, 29 out of 30 teams are losers.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 5:01 PM

All right, I'm sorry, I was feeling cranky.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 16, 2007 5:02 PM

Also it is good to know that Henry Abbott and Dan Shanoff agree with my take on the situation that it is nobody's fault but the players.

I like TrueHoop, but Abbot just rolled over to have his belly rubbed about this: let's not challenge an interpretation made by an Authority, let's just hope for a really good game, and I'm sure that this will work out for the best, because Good always triumphs over Evil, and, of course, the Spurs aren't Evil but just a different kind of Good. I find it mildly surprising that ESPN doesn't have John Tesh music playing in the background when you open the TrueHoop page.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2007 5:06 PM

You have got it precisely backwards, petey. YOU are being authoritarian, not me. I am saying there ought to be rule of law. You, on the other hand, are saying there ought to be rule by some official who will do what he thinksis right. THAT is authoritarian, not rule of law.

Posted by Al | May 16, 2007 5:17 PM

"I like TrueHoop, but Abbot just rolled over to have his belly rubbed about this: let's not challenge an interpretation made by an Authority"

And, of course, Abbot's paychecks now come from Disney.

I also like TrueHoop, but it's never worth betting on folks poking their employers in the eye.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 5:19 PM

Where’s the fairness? In last season’s Lakers-Suns playoff, Raja Bell got a one-game suspension for deliberately clothes-lining Kobe Bryant. This season Robert Horry gets a two-game suspension for Nash’s deliberate and well-practiced faux-drama reaction to a typical end-of-game foul.

And tonight, look for Nash's "assists" number to tank. Now that he will not have the crutch of Stoudemire and Diaw to rely on, given their strength, skills, and quickness in getting to the basket, we shall have a real test of Nash’s vaunted superiority as a “passer” deserving of the MVP award.

Posted by Justin | May 16, 2007 5:22 PM

"I am saying there ought to be rule of law. You, on the other hand, are saying there ought to be rule by some official who will do what he thinksis right."

While I am certainly in favor of wise discretion in the administration of justice within the rule of law, I think even a very strict adherence to the letter of the law would have left Amare eligible for tonight's game, as outlined upthread.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 5:23 PM

"And tonight, look for Nash's "assists" number to tank. Now that he will not have the crutch of Stoudemire and Diaw to rely on, given their strength, skills, and quickness in getting to the basket, we shall have a real test of Nash’s vaunted superiority as a “passer” deserving of the MVP award."

A perfectly cromulent point, Justin. If Nash were to play with a bunch of quadriplegics, I bet his assists number would fall right off a cliff. Obviously overrated as a "passer" due to playing with finishers like Quentin Richardson and Tim Thomas.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 5:28 PM

And while I don't agree with everything there, Simmons makes some good points about why it's time for some colonels to stage a coup at NBA headquarters.

So don't blame the NBA higher-ups for the way they interpreted that stupid, idiotic, foolish, moronic, brainless, unintelligent, foolhardy, imprudent, thoughtless, obtuse and thickheaded rule. Blame them for having the rule itself. Blame them for allowing the league to morph into something that doesn't quite resemble basketball anymore. Blame them for a league in which basketball players aren't totally allowed to think and act like basketball players and teammates aren't totally allowed to think and act like teammates. Blame them for an ongoing double standard in which the Bruce Bowens of the league can willfully endanger other players, but a roundhouse swipe on an attempted block can get someone ejected if they miss by a scant 10 inches while moving at full speed.

His best point is that an overreaction to Kermit Washington is to blame for many of Stern's miscalculation.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 5:32 PM

You, on the other hand, are saying there ought to be rule by some official who will do what he thinksis right. THAT is authoritarian, not rule of law.

Which strikes you as more characteristic of authoritarian regimes, Al:

(a) allowing that all rules must be interpreted to be applied, and admitting that it therefore makes sense to take into account the purpose of the rule, among other things, or

(b) pretending that there is no interpretation to be made, and that the rule and the application exist as natural artifacts, independent of us and therefore of the various biases that people ascribe to us?

Or more broadly: if you see the application of a rule being disputed, do you guess that you're in a country with an authoritarian regime or one with out an authoritarian regime?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2007 5:34 PM

Petey, the idea that the altercation didn't begin until Raja came over (by which time Amare was back at he bench) is as absurd as Amare's "I was just going to check into the game" excuse. The altercation began when horry hipchecked Nash - Horry got suspended, Raja didn't.

Posted by Al | May 16, 2007 5:42 PM

"The altercation began when horry hipchecked Nash"

OK. If that's the interpretation, then Duncan deserves to be suspended for the incident earlier in the game under the same logic.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 5:45 PM

Al,

Your rule of law argument is a bunch of nonsense as long as Duncan is not also suspended. Amare got no closer to the action in leaving the bench than Duncan did earlier.

The Simmons article Petey linked to is excellent. He does a great job of cutting through all the BS and simply saying what is obvious about several things, Bruce Bowen is a thug and a dirty player for example, you don't "have incidental contact" in ways that nearly injures players on a regular basis. It isn't a coincidence that generally mild mannered guys like Ray Allen get livid at Bowen.

Posted by Eric | May 16, 2007 5:49 PM

Damn, Petey, that's the best Simmons I've read in a while. Does that mean I'm now officially a grumpy old man, at 29?

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 5:53 PM

And if Antid Oto was to say Nets suck, that's fine. Last game was a suckfest, so I can't argue. (But, um, what team does he root for?). But that is just an ad hominem response, leading me to think he does not have much of a substantive one.

Posted by Al | May 16, 2007 5:54 PM

The Knicks. You're welcome to say they suck. Believe me, I know.

And I did have a substantive point. You'll find it in the sentences immediately preceding my joking ad hominem.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 16, 2007 6:10 PM

Petey, "quadriplegics" are in a different league altogether.

But let's put Nash in a lineup like the current Lakers, for instance, and see how his reputation as a "passer" and MVP would stand up. And this is to say nothing about his abysmal abilities as a defender.

Posted by Justin | May 16, 2007 6:19 PM

Justin, do the quotes you've put around "passer" mean you don't think Nash is a good passer? If that's what you're suggesting, then I would suggest you take the time to watch a basketball game. Just one would be a good start.

Let's try this: let's put Amare with Smush Parker as his point guard, and see how great a "finisher" he is. See? Two can play!

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 6:22 PM

I don't know which bothers me more: the brainless hating or the bizarre use of quotation marks around "passer".

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 6:23 PM

I hate it when someone beats me to the spot, too many steves. It's simply rude.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 6:25 PM

Arguing with Justin on this is like feeding the trolls on a political topic, you guys are clearly wasting your time.

Posted by Eric | May 16, 2007 6:27 PM

Steve Nash has been an amazing offensive player regardless of his supporting lineup for his entire career. I'm sure having a serviceable post player to whom one could pass the ball. Having offensive players who can score will certainly aid a point guards numbers, but I think Nash does a good job of finding open shooters as well.

Posted by Bob LaBlog | May 16, 2007 6:27 PM

Simba's points about Bruce Bowen are so spot on. Really this whole thing begins and ends with him getting away with his bullshit for so long. If Vince Carter wasn't a pussy, Bowen would have had his jaw broken at least once for continually walking under an elevated jump shooter (the second dirtiest play in basketball besides low-bridging someone going up for a rebound, IMO).

And Al lecturing about the importance of the rule of law is priceless. I disagree Petey, now is the perfect time to inform him that the Nets, in fact, suck. Hard.

Posted by Pooh | May 16, 2007 6:37 PM

Petey: "Let's try this: let's put Amare with Smush Parker as his point guard, and see how great a "finisher" he is."

You make my point, exactly. Basketball is a team sport. Certainly, individual brilliance counts for something (case in point: Kobe Bryant with the current Lakers). But ultimately, it's the team that makes the brilliant individual truly excel.

Posted by Justin | May 16, 2007 6:46 PM

Sorry, that quote was from "too many steves"

Posted by Justin | May 16, 2007 6:49 PM

"I disagree Petey, now is the perfect time to inform him that the Nets, in fact, suck. Hard."

I simply can't approve.

I'm still mourning the Nuggets, and when you insult one sucky team, you're insulting all sucky teams.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 6:50 PM

Justin -

If that was actually your point, congratulations on making the most banal point in the history of basketball-related blog commenting. (Wait, I'll take the title from you, just to be fair: David Berri is out of his depth.) That individual success is impossible without assistance from context (teammates, system, etc.) is acknowledged. But individual brilliance must indeed come into play, otherwise your teammates wouldn't matter again - your teammates can only help you shine if they're the right teammates to shine, which indicates that not all are created equal, which is to say...

Look, if you think Nash is no better than the average point guard, if you think the Suns would be pretty much as good as they are if Steve Blake was running the show, you're *not* making a banal argument. Feel free to make it, though. I disagree; I grudgingly decided last year that, defensive liabilities notwithstanding, he'd edged out Kidd for best point in the league. Phoenix is the perfect situation for him; he's unquestionably better there than he was in Dallas, and I don't think Nash is intrinsically better than Kidd, Payton, Stockton, or Isiah were at their peaks, but although I didn't think he deserved his first MVP, I thought he earned it last year AND I thought he earned it this year.

Posted by Quarterican | May 16, 2007 7:01 PM

Stern on ESPN radio: two Phoenix suns who knew about the rule, forgot about, couldn't control themselves or had coaches who couldn't control them.

If Stern had the courage of his convictions, he'd show up in Phoenix tonight. What a dicksplash he is.

And I'm with Petey here. The video makes it clear that Amare and Diaw got to the point on the sideline where Nash had been boarded and no further.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2007 7:04 PM

Phoenix is the perfect situation for him; he's unquestionably better there than he was in Dallas, and I don't think Nash is intrinsically better than Kidd, Payton, Stockton, or Isiah were at their peaks, but although I didn't think he deserved his first MVP, I thought he earned it last year AND I thought he earned it this year.

That's roughly where I come down. I'm probably less sure of the distance between Kidd and Nash, though. Kidd can't shoot for shit, but, if the playoffs have made nothing else apparent, they've made clear that rebounds matter a lot.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2007 7:09 PM

wow, folks here gettin their game faces on already....the letter of the law inherently requires interpretation (constitution, anyone?)--the law is dumb; even the dumb law could have been interpreted so as not to suspend Stoudamire (interpreted justly, on other words); Stern, responsible for both law in general and particular interpretation, is doubly dumb. end of story.

Posted by nick | May 16, 2007 7:10 PM

One word for all those people saying that the rule as written was broken and therefore must be enforced. Traveling.

Posted by daveNYC | May 16, 2007 7:29 PM

Hey Suns fans, settle down. The series is 2-2 and you have 2 out of three at home to get the 2 you need. You act like Stern sat Nash for game 7 or something. I also think that if the Spurs weren't getting rooked by the refs (as usual, if you have actually followed the franchise at all) to the tune of 14 free throws to *29* for the Suns, Horry probably doesn't make his foul so forceful.

If the Suns had kept their cool, Horry would have gotten tossed, Nash would have hit his free throws & Suns would be in great shape tonight. It was a flagrant foul, not "intent to injure" any more that your boy "inadvertantly" submarining Elson.

You guys are almost as melodramatic as D'Antoni...

Posted by Dan | May 16, 2007 7:29 PM

Quarterican, you've lost me with your circular spinning.

However, about Nash versus currently active PGs in terms of individual brilliance: I do rate Kidd as better than Nash on every count, not just because of Nash's "defensive liabilities". Blake is an inferior talent. And Payton is now over the hill. Stockton and Isiah are of a different generation (I don't make cross-generation comparisons).

Posted by Justin | May 16, 2007 7:32 PM

Dan,

I still blame Bowen for everything. Even Spurs fans admit he's a dirty player, right?

Justin, you really put Kidd ahead of Nash "on every count"? Even scoring? Even running the pick & roll?

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 7:35 PM

Justin -

My point was that you indicated you thought Nash's reputation was largely due to his having great finishers (which he does), but when asked how Amare would do with Smush Parker feeding him the ball, you said "you make my point exactly," that you can't excel w/out teammates. What I was trying to say was - no, that wasn't your point, you believe Nash is overrated, that his reputation is *due* to his finishers vs. being made possible by his finishers.

Kidd's horrendous shooting has become a problem for me; frankly, I think he'd suffer a lot more than Nash if he were on a team without high quality finishers, because Nash at this stage is IMO much more capable of getting his own points. I don't think the things that made Kidd a great(er player than Nash) have dropped off - his rebounding, defense, and out of this world passing - much if at all, other than due to physical deterioration. But *right now* I'd probably rather have Nash on my team.

Posted by Quarterican | May 16, 2007 7:41 PM

Two thoughts:
1. This is how badly the NBA has screwed this up: If a Suns player were to cold-cock a Spur tonight, all 19000 at the arena would stand and cheer.
2. The Suns should have an assistant coach watching the Spurs bench at all times. As soon as Tim Duncan steps away from the bench area for any reason (to cheer a dunk, hug a team-mate, or anything) that coach should order a Suns player to take a swing at the closest San Antonio player. Thus Duncan's left the bench during an altercation, and should be suspended. (Not so much a serious suggestion, but an illustration of how absurd literal enforcement is.)

Posted by The Sophist | May 16, 2007 8:01 PM

. I also think that if the Spurs weren't getting rooked by the refs (as usual, if you have actually followed the franchise at all) to the tune of 14 free throws to *29* for the Suns, Horry probably doesn't make his foul so forceful.

So because the refs are more likely to call a Spur for a foul than a Sun, Horry had to foul forcefully? Well, after six years of this Administration, that's the sort of reason that I expect from Texas.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2007 8:14 PM

Steve, “on every count” is perhaps too strong, I should have said “on balance”.

Steve and Quarterican, a quick check of the numbers tells me that Kidd has much better career averages than Nash in terms of blocks, steals, rebounds (total), assists, and ppg. In shooting, Kidd’s percentages are lower, but his ppg is higher.

On the qualitative side, I’d say that Kidd’s passing is a beauty to behold (in addition to giving him much higher “assist” numbers than Nash – 9.2 compared with 7.6), especially now that he has the teammate support of Carter, in addition to Jefferson and Moore (even better when K-Mart was in the Nets). Performance in the pick and roll is heavily dependent on having the right role players – a condition that Nash gets an advantage from by moving to Phoenix and didn’t have when he was in the Mavs.

Posted by Justin | May 16, 2007 8:34 PM

Why not some D-league guard who can run?

They already have Marcus Banks.

Posted by DJ Ninja | May 16, 2007 8:46 PM

Justin: Nash has improved -- or been allowed to thrive, or whatever -- so much over the past 3 years that his career stats are pretty meaningless. Better to take his past 3 years and compare them to Kidd's 3-year prime, which was probably about 5 years ago.

Plus, #s aren't everything. Nash is obviously capable of scoring more points than Kidd. Passing, I'd say they're equally awesome. Defense and rebounding, Kidd is obviously better. Overall, it's close to a wash. I've been a Jason Kidd fan since he was 15 years old, so it's hard to say it, but I think I might take Nash.

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 8:50 PM

I will be watching tonight and hoping for some violent physical payback, but really it's David Stern who ought to be the recipient thereof. I wonder if he'll have the balls to show up in Phoenix if there's a Game 7.

Posted by Tom | May 16, 2007 8:51 PM

And I forgot to say a polite "fuck you" above to Petey at 6:23 pm and to Eric at 6:27 pm

Posted by Justin | May 16, 2007 9:26 PM

If there's a Nash statistic that has me in awe, it's how he changed the Suns' record. The year before he showed up, they were 29-53. He joins the team, with no other significant personnel moves, and they go 62-20. Amare's shooting percentage, which was at .472 and .475 in the pre-Nash years, suddenly hits .559 (it was .575 this year).

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 16, 2007 9:58 PM

Neil the Ethical Werewolf -

Nash made the Suns a lot better, but that statistic is bogus; Amare missed 30 games that year and at the halfway point of the season the Suns traded away their starting backcourt. Yes, the trade happened because the team was underachieving relative to what they did the year before, but the Suns w/Amare and Marbury weren't a 29 win team.

(The FG% is legit, of course.)

Posted by Quarterican | May 16, 2007 10:44 PM

I also think that if the Spurs weren't getting rooked by the refs (as usual, if you have actually followed the franchise at all)

Oh, now that's hilarious.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2007 10:48 PM

The Plan

Comments (107)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories