End of an Era

The Steve Nash Era in Phoenix has been a pretty amazing thing for NBA fans (especially those of us with no allegiances to any other Western Conference contenders) to behold. When the Suns signed him to his deal, the move was pretty widely criticized, but with Nash and Amare Stoudemire in the mix the 29-53 Suns of 2003-2004 became the 62-20 Suns of 2004-2005 and electrified fans with an up-tempo game. Then Amare went down with injury and the 2005-2006 Suns stunned us by going 54-28 with the previously unheard-of Boris Diaw serving sometimes as center sometimes as a backup point guard.

Then Amare came back the next year, they won 61 games, and lost again in the playoffs. I was hoping to see them do better, just as I was hoping to see them do better this year. I think a lot of us were. It was a great story, and they played a really fun style. And now with the Shaq trade and last night's first round exit, it seems like that era's over. It's hard to imagine Shaq or Nash or Grant Hill getting any better next year and hard to see what kind of moves they can make. The window has closed, and it's too bad.

Comments

Hack-A-Shaq was devastating. It broke the Suns. Nash never looked like himself because for five or six minutes each quarter the Suns offense was removed from the game. And offense is the Suns game.

They never had a chance. Shaq killed their chances.

Posted by BasketballMe | April 30, 2008 11:27 AM

it seems like that era's over.

For gawd's sake, they lost to the team that many people think should be favored to win it all.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 30, 2008 11:28 AM

The Shaq trade was a horrible idea, not just because it completely destroyed what the Suns are, but it puts them in dire financial straits the next two years. By the time Shaq is done, Nash will be too old to win a title. As a Suns fan, I'm crushed. If they had to trade for a center, why didn't they trade for, say, Pau Gasol, before the Lakers got there? Since Shaq can't play defense anymore anyway, why not get a young center at the top of his game who can run the floor? sigh...

Posted by Joe | April 30, 2008 11:28 AM

Wow, Nash looked absolutely terrible in that 4th quarter. But, I agree with BasketballMe, Nash was taken out of his game by the slowed down, half-court offense, and he has no chance of guarding Parker one-on-one.

Posted by Stacy | April 30, 2008 11:30 AM

As a New Orleans fan, I was hoping the Suns would really contest this series and wear out San Antonio. It just seemed that the Spurs had this weird dual-track game where if the Suns were on a bad run they would just coast and rest and if Nash did get a couple breaks or the Suns went up by 4 points, they would click into the their "higher level" and take it all back and then some. You could really see the frustration on Nash's face -- most notably in the final game. Everyone was just a year two old and a step behind.

Posted by Ryan | April 30, 2008 11:32 AM

SomeCallMeTim,
That might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that Matt is correct. The Suns window has closed. They are done as a title contender for the foreseeable future.

Posted by Stacy | April 30, 2008 11:34 AM

"Hack-A-Shaq was devastating. It broke the Suns."

I think D'Antoni made the same error Avery Johnson made last year when he took Dampier out of the starting lineup to accommodate Don Nelson.

The first time Popavich did Hack-A-Shaq, D'Antoni immediately removed Shaq from the game. I thought that was a huge error on D'Antoni's part in demoralizing his own team. It amounted to conceding the series.

You simply can't let the opposition take you away from your strengths without a fight.

Posted by Petey | April 30, 2008 11:37 AM

Nash has always been a turnover machine when it really counts - i.e., crunch time in the playoffs.

Last night, he was downright pathetic. At least three awful turnovers when they needed baskets.

Ugly memories of him getting stripped by Smush Parker (!) a year or two back to give a game to the Lakers.

As to those blaming Shaq - please, open your eyes.

Tim Duncan did not score 30 points a game in this series.

That was Tony Parker, the guy Steve Nash is supposed to guard, the guy who made the so-called 2 time MVP look like what he is - probably the worst defensive point guard in the league.

Which in these eyes has always made dude overrated - how can you be most valuable when you only play one end of the court.

Tony Parker >>>>>>>>> Steve Nash

And the only ones who won't admit it, clearly didn't watch this series.

Shaq is old and fat and sucks now, too. But Phoenix knew that before they made the stupid trade for him. Wouldn't have made a difference though.

Posted by The Canadian Contrarian | April 30, 2008 11:43 AM

If they had to trade for a center, why didn't they trade for, say, Pau Gasol, before the Lakers got there?

I am quite sure they would have been ecstatic to get Pau Gasol. That wasn't really available to them. Shawn Marion was just not that big a trading chip but he was just good enough to get a player like Shaq, whose salary, age and diminished skills translated to relatively low value for the Heat. The Suns would have had to give up quite a lot more to get Gasol. Enough that it wouldn't have helped them in the long run. Sorry.

Posted by brent | April 30, 2008 11:45 AM

Brent,
Shawn Marion is head and shoulders better than what the Lakers gave up to get Gasol. That whole trade is an absolute joke. The Suns could have packaged draft picks, Marion, and an expiring contract to get Gasol. The NBA pushed that LA-Memphis trade through somehow. There is no way the Memphis G.M. is that stupid. Popovich called bullshit on that from the beginning. And he was right.

Posted by Stacy | April 30, 2008 11:50 AM

It's kinda scary to think about what the NBA might have looked like over the past 15 years if Shaq hadn't been too image-conscious to take up Rick Barry's offer to teach him how to shoot free throws underhanded. What would have the league been like with even a 75% from the line Shaq?

Posted by Will Allen | April 30, 2008 11:51 AM

Dallas and Phoenix go down in the same night. It's the end of an era; I thought one of these teams would eventually rip San Antonio's throat out and surmount them as a natural order of things. I say this as a Spurs fan.

The Shaq trade didn't work, but a different draw and the Suns could have done well. There have been a series of bad personnel moves and acquiring Shaq was meant too late to cover them. They should have kept Joe Johnson, traded Marion's horrid salary earlier for a passel of helpful players, and used their draft picks.

Posted by Eric | April 30, 2008 11:52 AM

It was hard to watch. Shaq missing layups and put-backs, bricking free throws. Nash's turnovers. Diaw's botched pass in the 4th quarter. They just fell apart. Nash really did look out of sync throughout the game. I can't imagine him wanting to play their current 'style'(if you cab call it that) while he has a few decent years left in the tank-it'd be depressing watching him become Steve Blake.
The Shaq trade really has screwed them- they're on the hook for two more years at $20 million, thus ensuring they can't upgrade in the offseason. I always thought the championship talk was a bit delusional, but the window is obviously shut now. D'Antoni took the fall, but this clusterfuck is all on the ownership. Sarver is willing to pay a severely deteriorated Shaq $40 million but cut costs by trading Kurt Thomas and multiple draft picks including Rajon Rondo.
But hey, whatever- it's not they needed a quick, defensively capable point guard to check Tony Parker or to reduce Nash's minutes, right?

Posted by Waingro | April 30, 2008 11:52 AM

It's possible Matthew's correct. Nash really did look awful last night, and it may be that Nash really is on the downturn of his career. OTOH, it is possible that they'll get a new coach next year that will play Nash and Hill a bit fewer minutes (why does Nash play 34+ MPG and Manu only play 31?) and they will be fresher for the playoffs.

This series really was a close series, despite it being 4-1. PHX really should have won Game 1, and had a nice lead in Game 2 also. But D'Antoni was outcoached and Parker was spectacular. It is entirely possible that the team comes back next year with a better coach, players that are fresher and healthier come the playoffs, and a full year of integrating Shaq, and wins a series like this. They really weren't that far away.

That said, there really is something to having young legs, like Parkers, around for the playoffs, and I don't see where PHX is going to get that unless Amare decides he wants to be beast instead of disappearing in the 4th quarter of close games as he always does.

Posted by Al | April 30, 2008 11:53 AM

I am quite sure they would have been ecstatic to get Pau Gasol. That wasn't really available to them.

I still think they should have tried for Wallace + Noah + change. They didn't need points, Noah can run, and they could park Wallace if need be. But, as a Bulls fan pointed out, it's not clear that the Bulls would have parted with Noah. And maybe that wouldn't have helped this year.

Shawn Marion is head and shoulders better than what the Lakers gave up to get Gasol

Except that he still has a year on his contract. I don't know why people keep dropping this out of the equation. Heisley has said that the Bulls could have had Gasol even at a late date if they'd been willing to create an ending contract and pay the resulting luxury tax.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 30, 2008 11:54 AM

BTW - going to Hack-a-Shaq in the 2nd quarter is completely unsportsmanlike. Popovich should be ashamed of himself. The rules need to be changed - even if just to prevent the game from slowing down in the way that it did.

Posted by Al | April 30, 2008 12:00 PM

"BTW - going to Hack-a-Shaq in the 2nd quarter is completely unsportsmanlike. Popovich should be ashamed of himself. The rules need to be changed"

The Spurs have never asked anyone to like them. They just win.

Spurs : Clinton :: Suns : Obama

Posted by Petey | April 30, 2008 12:06 PM

Can't find where I read it this morning, but someone brought up the theory D'Antoini's refusal to adjust to H-a-S was his passive-aggressive way of sticking it to Kerr. A Larry Brown trademark "Look what you're making me do out here...

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 12:07 PM

It's hard to feel sorry for the Suns. Their ownership is terrible. D'Antoni has no balls. If the Spurs want to play hack-a-shack, let them. They only have so many fouls to give and if you want to go to that style in the 2nd quarter or something, that's going to cost you. Even with Shaq shooting 50% from the line, you're not losing much from your normal offensive efficiency. Plus they have a bunch of chokers on their team. Diaw constantly shits the bed in big games and Stoudemire mysteriously disappears. And did you see Nash's two turnovers at the end there? On the last one Bowen just out hustled him. On the first it looked like he just wasn't paying attention. And who, at this point, is a fan of Shaq? I was pretty unimpressed with both of these teams this series. I'd be pretty surprised if the Spurs do anything in round 2.

Posted by mpowell | April 30, 2008 12:11 PM

I can defend H-a-S.
I cannot defend fouls 20 feet away from the ball.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 12:12 PM

Spurs : Clinton

Southern, aging, a reputation for dirty play, and widely hated? Yeah, I buy that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 30, 2008 12:18 PM

Shaq should be ashamed that H-a-S was such a obvious way to counter him for most of his career.

Posted by Will Allen | April 30, 2008 12:19 PM

I like the Spurs, don't find them boring at all. But I like the Suns too and would have liked to see them win a title. The NBA should have something less than a flagrant foul but intentional that gives the offensive team the ball back after the shots when a player runs up to a player off the ball and grabs him and shouts at the ref that he's commiting a foul. It's obviously a smart strategy given Shaq's free throw woes, but it stinks to watch it happen over and over. If Shaq gets the ball and they foul him, let him try to make the shots, but this off the ball crap should stop.

Posted by SteveH | April 30, 2008 12:20 PM

yeah, teams should play according to "the spirit of the game" rather than the rules, even if it means losing. that's gone really well for the suns. pop is a genius for realizing (his assistents convinced him) how much of a liability shaq was to the suns -- not just because he can't make his FTs, but because of how it disrupts the suns' offense when shaq goes to the line -- and then sticking with it, regardless of whether shaq made some shots. pop effectively exposed shaq in a way few others have. you cannot be most dominant now or any time prior if you're that much of a liability.

as for the other big man in the game, yes, parker was great, but duncan was pretty awesome as well, effectively contributing more than shaq and amare combined on most nites.

Posted by dj superflat | April 30, 2008 12:23 PM

I can defend H-a-S.
I cannot defend fouls 20 feet away from the ball.

Well, by Hack-a-Shaq, I mean fouling him off the ball, like the Spurs did. Obviously fouling him when he has the ball is prefectly legitimate.

BTW, I made the point obliquely above, but I think it bears emphasizing: the biggest problem with the Suns is that their best player - the guy with young legs who they should be turning to in the big spot - completely disappears in big spots. Amare had exactly ZERO points in the fourth quarter last night. He's their best player at this point, and he needs to do better. And D'Antoni needed to do better in getting him the ball. Why they don't post him up on just about every posession puzzles me. But instead it was the Nash-Shaq-Boris Diaw(!) story down the stretch. Just give the ball to Amare on the block already.

Posted by Al | April 30, 2008 12:24 PM

Shaq should be ashamed that H-a-S was such a obvious way to counter him for most of his career.

Yeah, but...a lot of big men suck at the line. I don't know why. Duncan's percentage seems to yo-yo a lot, but he shot .613 this playoffs, and .644 last time.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 30, 2008 12:25 PM

The rules - in both spirit and letter - are the responsibility of the league. No one here has said the Spurs should've "played fair" and not gone to H-a-S. But I imagine you'll find something close to a consensus that the game is not enhanced by a defender putting a bear-hug on his man far closer to the half-court line than the basket.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 12:29 PM

H-a-S is like the intentional walk: less effective than people think. All Shaq has to do is shoot 53% or so from the line and it's a losing proposition. Not to mention the fouls you're accumulating. When Shaq was younger you needed to save those fouls to use when he was dunking on you. Now you don't as much, but they still mean something. Sometimes he'll miss both free thows and the coach will panic, but you don't score every time either. You have to play the averages. On the other hand, I agree that intentional fouls away from the ball should be more heavily penalized so that they don't make sense. No other sport that I am aware of allows for so many intentional fouls. It just doesn't have to be a part of the game and it shouldn't be.

Posted by mpowell | April 30, 2008 12:29 PM

Al,
I completely agree. The ball should be touching Stoudemire's hands on every possesion. They are so intent on running the offense through Nash that they blew that game. Stoudemire should have been posting up on the block every time down the court. If they double him, kick it out. He should have been demanding the ball. He was arguably one of the top four players in the league since Shaq got there.

Posted by Stacy | April 30, 2008 12:31 PM

H-a-S is like the intentional walk: less effective than people think. All Shaq has to do is shoot 53% or so from the line and it's a losing proposition. Not to mention the fouls you're accumulating. When Shaq was younger you needed to save those fouls to use when he was dunking on you. Now you don't as much, but they still mean something. Sometimes he'll miss both free thows and the coach will panic, but you don't score every time either. You have to play the averages. On the other hand, I agree that intentional fouls away from the ball should be more heavily penalized so that they don't make sense. No other sport that I am aware of allows for so many intentional fouls. It just doesn't have to be a part of the game and it shouldn't be.

Posted by mpowell | April 30, 2008 12:32 PM

the NBA rule i don't get: TOs advancing the ball. creates lots of late game excitement, but often seems ridiculous when the teams just take turns running half court sets for the last minute.

Posted by dj superflat | April 30, 2008 12:33 PM

H-a-S is like the intentional walk: less effective than people think. All Shaq has to do is shoot 53% or so from the line and it's a losing proposition. Not to mention the fouls you're accumulating. When Shaq was younger you needed to save those fouls to use when he was dunking on you. Now you don't as much, but they still mean something. Sometimes he'll miss both free thows and the coach will panic, but you don't score every time either. You have to play the averages. On the other hand, I agree that intentional fouls away from the ball should be more heavily penalized so that they don't make sense. No other sport that I am aware of allows for so many intentional fouls. It just doesn't have to be a part of the game and it shouldn't be.

Posted by mpowell | April 30, 2008 12:34 PM

H-a-S is like the intentional walk...
Here's a better analogy: H-a-S is like the intentional walk - if the batter then was forced to make a steal attempt of second base.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 12:35 PM

And now with the Shaq trade and last night's first round exit, it seems like that era's over. It's hard to imagine Shaq or Nash or Grant Hill getting any better next year and hard to see what kind of moves they can make. The window has closed, and it's too bad.

And now it's looking unlikely that D'Antoni will come back next season, meaning the window is really closed.

The thought of D'Antoni in New York or Chicago is interesting though...

Posted by right | April 30, 2008 12:48 PM

Here's a better analogy: H-a-S is like the intentional walk - if the batter then was forced to make a steal attempt of second base.

Nope. NBA teams usually average about 100 points/ 100 offensive possessions. The Suns are a little better than average, they average 114 in the regular season, but against the Spurs they have to expect that number to fall to around 108, maybe. If Shaq hits 54% of his FT's they aren't losing any offense. People act like every missed FT is a big problem, but it's not. You're not scoring on every possession. Collecting 1 pt and a foul is a pretty good possession.

The difference is that the intentional walk gives the other team a definite advantage while reducing the problem of a single run scoring (in most situations where it's used). There is no assymetry in BB, either it's a good idea or it's not, and I think it should be discourage, but I don't think H-a-S is what beat the Suns.

Posted by mpowell | April 30, 2008 12:50 PM

Shaq should be ashamed that H-a-S was such a obvious way to counter him for most of his career.

Yeah. Except for his 4 titles, and 6 Finals appearances with three different teams, what has this clown ever done?

Posted by Brad L | April 30, 2008 12:50 PM

H-a-S is like the intentional walk...
Here's a better analogy: H-a-S is like the intentional walk - if the batter then was forced to make a steal attempt of second base.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 12:50 PM

Weird double post.
For anyone else, when you post does this site hang for about a minute? Odd.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 12:56 PM

The rules - in both spirit and letter - are the responsibility of the league. No one here has said the Spurs should've "played fair" and not gone to H-a-S.

I most certainly did say that the Spurs should have "played fair" and not gone to H-a-S. It is simply wrong to say, as dj superflat did, that if something is not prohibited by the written rules it is therefore completely acceptable. It's the difference between illegal and immoral - some things may be perfectly legal, but you shouldn't do them anyway because to do so would not be moral. In sports, the "unwritten rules" are like morals - there is no explicit rule in the rulebook prohibiting them, but you shouldn't do them anyway.

After all, there is no rule against dunking in the final minute of play when already up by 20, just to show up the other team. The rulebook has nothing to say about it. But you shouldn't do it regardless of the fact that there's nothing in the rulebook. And there is nothing in the rulebook to prevent flopping. But, similarly, flopping violates a sense of fair play, and shouldn't be done. (And, of course, the Spurs are notorious floppers.)

Same with fouling off the ball. Nothing in the rulebook, but I think it is inappropriate. And if teams are going to repeatedly violate the unwrittern rule, then we should try make the rule written (just as we should try to outlaw flopping).

BTW, why is it that the NHL can look at someone breaking an unwritten rule and act the very next day to make the rule written in the rulebook? See the Sean Avery dancing in front of Marty Brodeur in the Rangers-Devils series. Would it be so hard for the NBA to do the same?

Posted by Al | April 30, 2008 12:56 PM

this is obviously a deep philosophical debate but, for me, the point of games is that they are defined by their rules and, thus, what the rules permit is by definition within the spirit of the games. that is, in sports, there is no "you shouldn't do that even though the rules permit it." btw, i completely understand there are great counterarguments, we can all break out our wittgenstein now, etc.

the reason i don't mind the hacking is that i like seeing teams find different, even if boring, ways to win. i respect the spurs for doing something that seems to have given them an edge, even if it was ugly. put another way, i hated the riley knicks, but mainly because they didn't get it done with their style, not just because they were boring (though they were for the most part). similarly, i don't respect the nash suns much because, fun as they could be at times to watch (i find the warriors way more entertaining, particularly post shaq), they couldn't get it done.

Posted by dj superflat | April 30, 2008 1:04 PM

Would it be so hard for the NBA to do the same?
David Stern will get back to you as soon as he's done answering e-mails from the OK City Sonics owner.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 1:04 PM

Al,
Fouling off the ball? What are you referring to?

Posted by Loo | April 30, 2008 1:05 PM

"pop is a genius for realizing (his assistents convinced him) how much of a liability shaq was to the suns -- not just because he can't make his FTs, but because of how it disrupts the suns' offense when shaq goes to the line -- and then sticking with it, regardless of whether shaq made some shots."

Exactamundo.

-----

And it's not merely that it tactically disrupted the Suns offense. It's also that it ended up demoralizing the Suns. I thought Nash's comment about how it bothered him while the series was still ongoing was a sign of psychological surrender.

I'll repeat that I think that D'Antoni's yanking of Shaq the first time it occurred was akin to Avery Johnson sitting Dampier in Game 1 last year. That's how you lose a team.

Posted by Petey | April 30, 2008 1:05 PM

I have mixed feelings on the possible end of an era in Phoenix (and I do think that's what we're looking at). On the one hand, I don't really have any affection for the Spurs. On the other hand, I actively dislike(d), for one reason or another, Robert Sarver, Mike D'Antoni, Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Raja Bell, and their image as saviors of the league. They weren't *that* revolutionary, not compared to a team like the Warriors of the past two seasons (an idea whose time hasn't quite come, but will; that's your positional revolution, FreeDarko fans, not Amare whining about not being a center). The most unusual thing about them was playing Marion at the 4 (and the first year of Boris Diaw was pretty weird, too), but that kind of showed up all their problems, too: so much of what made them successful was invested in playing one guy at one spot, but that guy didn't want to play at that spot or for that team. Someone upthread said they could've kept Joe Johnson, but Joe Johnson didn't want to be there either.

But they were really fun to watch, especially the first two years - IMO, that first team with Johnson and Richardson was the most fun and exciting to watch, while the Diaw-as-homeless-man's-Magic act was fun and perplexing to watch. RIP, I guess.

Posted by Quarterican | April 30, 2008 1:08 PM

Re Hack a Shaq

People seem to forget that the Lakers won three titles with Shaq at center with the opposition playing Hack a Shaq. Maybe that's why Phil Jackson has 9 championship rings on his belt and looking like a good bet to pick up his 10th this season. By the way, Wilt Chamberlain in the latter part of his career was even worse then Shaq at the free throw line.

Posted by SLC | April 30, 2008 1:13 PM

that is, in sports, there is no "you shouldn't do that even though the rules permit it."

As someone pointed out when Jordan changed his jersey back to #23 mid-series, there's no rule against peeing on the court, either.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 30, 2008 1:13 PM

I am totally in favor on the Hack-a-Shaq.

If a team thinks it's wise to putt such a horrible free throw shooter on the floor, screw em.

Shooting free throws in the simplest thing to do in basketball. 10 year olds can do it.

But Shaq, despite his hundreds of millions of dollars, doesn't think he needs to be able to do it. Pretends like he "always hits em when it matters."

Sorry guys - the embarrassment is Shaq at the free throw line.

Anyway, why is Shaq the only guy this stuff works on?

Oh yeah - because Shaq never concentrates on his free throws and clearly doesn't practice them enough and the right way.

Posted by Dantoni is a Bum | April 30, 2008 1:17 PM

Al is essentially saying that you have to
'respect the game' and 'respect your opponents'.

Yeah, right.

Like respect the game enough to learn
to make free throws? No, Shaq is simply a victim
of an evil conspiracy of ... bad sports.

A rule change that would get rid of Hack-a-Shaq:
Large penalties to anyone who missed four free
throws in a row - like a technical foul.
Then players would learn how to make them.

It would be kind of like the story of the Elephant's Child. All would go for lessons to
really learn to make them.

Posted by catclub | April 30, 2008 1:18 PM

Catclub,
That is the dumbest post I've seen all week. You are an idiot. Kill yourself.

Posted by Caleb | April 30, 2008 1:20 PM

Brad, I guess in your view being a physically dominant player precludes one from doing whatever one can do to eliminate the glaring weakness one's game has. I disagree with you. I think it is shameful that a guy line Shaq wouldn't even consider using Barry's underhanded method, as a means of becoming a decent free throw shooter, because he thought it would hurt his image. Boo freaking hoo. Guys who are willing to take the paycheck Shaq was should be open to ANYTHING to eliminate a glaring weakness. It's unprofessional to not be, and one should be ashamed about being unprofessional.

I guarantee this much; Tiger Woods would don a tutu and slippers if there was a rational reason to think it might markedly improve his putting. That's the difference between a guy who is driven to be the best ever, and is ruthless in the pursuit of the goal, and a guy who has enormous physical gifts, but is satisfied with being merely thought of as great.

Believe it or not, I am a Shaq fan in a lot of ways, so I don't mean to condemn him too harshly. He's a great player, who unfortunately was too easily satisfied to give himself a chance to be the best ever. That's not exactly the worst thing you can say about a guy.

Posted by Will Allen | April 30, 2008 1:25 PM

Agree that it's the end of an era, but here's what I can't figure: Why didn't Shawn Marion and Joe Johnson want to play in Phoenix? They run like the wind, score a ton of points, pick up plenty of steals, get countless scoring opportunities from one of the best point guards ever -- what's not to like? What unpleasantness did they see in Phoenix that we can't?

Posted by Kit Stolz | April 30, 2008 1:32 PM

What mpowell said, the Suns owners deserve this for their years of penny pinching and mismanagement.

This is a team that sold 2 1st round picks to the Blazers (Sergio Rodriqguez and Rudy Fernandez, who would have been great fits in the Suns system) for essentially the $ of a mid level excpetion. They gave Seattle another 1st rounder and a trade excpetion to take Kurt Thomas off their hands. Kurt Thomas who is actually kind of a usefull player if you need to guard someone like I don't know, say Tim Duncan? The Sonics then turned him into another 1st round pick.

The also gave Nate Robinson to the Knicks a couple years before all that, yet again another player who would have been a pretty good fit in their system.

As others have mentioned they could have done a lot more with Marion than Shaq.

Posted by Eric k | April 30, 2008 1:35 PM

Will,
Everything you said is a fair point. But you are working off the assumption that he never attempted to shoot underhanded. I do remember him rejecting it at one time, but I would be absolutley shocked if he never attempted this while practicing.

Posted by Wade Garrett | April 30, 2008 1:37 PM

I suspect Joe Johnson was afflicted with Marburyism; that dreaded condition where one is in agony from not being perceived as being clearly the best player on a team. Johnson, it would appear, however, suffers from a lesser form of the disease, in that he can be a really valuable player for someone, whereas the guy who had the disease named after him really couldn't be valuable to anyone.

Posted by Will Allen | April 30, 2008 1:40 PM

I disagree with the idea that trying to taking adavntage of an opponent's specific weakness is unsportsmanlike. I didn't notice the Hawk thinking it was "unfair" for Joe Johnson to torch Ray Allen every time he touched the ball the other night, nor was it unfair for Magic Johnson to post up Muggsy Bogues whenever he could. Baseball teams walk #8 hitters to get to the pitcher, and football teams pick on weak corners. Why would fouling Shaq be any different?

Posted by Kurt | April 30, 2008 1:41 PM

Re underhanded free throw shooting

Wilt Chamberlain tried underhand free throw shooting and his efficiency improved not a jot or a tittle.

Posted by SLC | April 30, 2008 1:43 PM

SLC, I didn't say it was a guarantee. I said being unwilling to try it was unprofessional, and one should be ashamed to be unprofessional while cashing huge checks.

Posted by Will Allen | April 30, 2008 1:47 PM

I'm in mourning for the Suns, but I've been in mourning since the Shaq trade, so I've had some time to adjust. We got 3 and a half years of amazing basketball out of them, at a time when Nash should have been in the decline. It was a good run.

Most of the Suns' problems are Sarver's fault, for being a cheap bastard, and D'Antoni's, for not building a bench and for making dumb GM moves to deal with Sarver's cheapness. I also think they had some bad luck in winding up with some very talented supporting guys (Marion, Joe Johnson) who, because of their egos or whatever, would rather be the star on a bad team.

I don't understand why Will Allen thinks shooting underhand would have helped Shaq. Wilt shot underhand, and he was just as bad as Shaq from the line.

Apparently, his teammates always said Shaq hits his free throws in practice. I'm not sure if I believe that, given how terrible his form is and how ugly his shot looks, but if it's true, then there's some sort of mental block that a change in technique wouldn't help.

I do believe that Shaq has worked at free throw shooting, and he's just not going to be good at it. The guy has many athletic gifts, but shooting a basketball well from outside of 6 feet just ain't one of them.

I think the people who are saying, "Shaq shoots 54%, so that's 108 points per 100 possessions, so the hack-a-shaq doesn't hurt the Suns" are way off. As we all know, the Suns game depends on tempo, and stopping play to watch Shaq shoot free throws ruins that.

I don't understand why the officials don't call an intentional foul on the away-from-the-ball hack-a-shaq, and give the Suns 2 shots and the ball. That's in the rulebook already, right? If it's not, it should be.

Posted by too many steves | April 30, 2008 1:47 PM

Wade, when the guy who was the best ever at it, and one of the best free throw shooters ever, offers to work with you on the technique, and you turn him down because you say your image would be hurt, well, that's just unprofessional.

Posted by Will Allen | April 30, 2008 1:52 PM

Kurt,
While I agree that a team should do everything within the rules, I find it hard to believe that you don't see the difference. Equating Joe Johnson attacking an overmatched defender to continually fouling a player away from the ball are not even in the same ballpark. A fairer equation would be a defensive penalty in football that you couldn't decline.

Posted by Terry | April 30, 2008 1:55 PM

Except for his last paragraph, what too many steves said.

Posted by Petey | April 30, 2008 1:58 PM

Again, too many steves, I never claimed results were guaranteed, and you are very wrong about a change in technique never being helpful in overcoming a mental block. In nearly all sports, changing technique is sometimes employed as a means of overcoming mental blocks. Hitters and pitchers in baseball, golfers (nortoriously), quarterbacks in football, basketball players, etc., frequently change technique to overcome a mental block.

Posted by Will Allen | April 30, 2008 2:02 PM

"Equating Joe Johnson attacking an overmatched defender to continually fouling a player away from the ball are not even in the same ballpark."

Shaq is an overmatched free throw shooter. It's a lot more comparable than dunking up 20, or flopping.

"A fairer equation would be a defensive penalty in football that you couldn't decline."

You mean like encroachment? Or unabated path to the quarterback? Is it now unsportsmanlike for a team to do those things?

Maybe you were thinking more along the lines of grabbing a receiver as he goes by you to prevent an easy touchdown. Which happens all the time, and isn't frowned upon .

Posted by Kurt | April 30, 2008 2:06 PM

the Suns owners deserve this for their years of penny pinching and mismanagement.
Mismanagement? Perhaps.
Penny pinching? No.
Phoenix is among the league's top 10 in salaries. (Check the link in my name.) Sarver has spent money but it's been tied up in a handful of players: Amare, Nash, Marion/Shaq. You can accuse Sarver (and, by extension, GMs Colangelo, D'Antoni and Kerr) of poorly allocating resources, but you can't say the Suns are cheap.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 2:14 PM

What's the Maverick's excuse? Don't answer, they're not worth discussing.

Posted by bob mcmanus | April 30, 2008 2:17 PM

How is the H-a-S any different than intentionally walking Bonds in his prime. One is exploiting a weakness and the other is taking away a strength. Both have the potential for backfiring. Hell, I said to my gf, a Suns fan, when she was freaking out about the H-a-S in the 4th, "Don't worry, he actually makes his free throws in the clutch."He drained 2 of 2 and then 4 of 6. If he did that the whole game, the Suns win.

As an aside, I feel vindicated in the Celtics series. I said the woeful coaching would prevent them from winning it all. It looks like I underestimated how bad he is. Doc may not get them past Lebron.

Posted by Mo | April 30, 2008 2:22 PM

Canadian Contrarian nailed it this morning. The Suns thought they needed someone to guard Tim Duncan, when they really needed someone to guard Tony Parker. It was ridiculous for them to be so worried about Duncan anyway, considering that Stoudamire is capable of matching his output.

Forget Shaq, the Suns should've tried to get Devin Harris before the Mavs made their mistake trade. Then not only would they have had a backup that could actually keep up with Parker, but he could've learned running the offense from Nash. They would've been set at PG for years after Nash left.

I wonder how you get a GM job in the NBA...

Posted by b-psycho | April 30, 2008 2:26 PM

Wow, talk about Kurt totally missing the boat. Those are some assinine comparisons. No, it would be like a defensive holding on a play where the RB runs for a 65 yard TD, but the offense has to accept the penalty anyways. Don't be obtuse.

Posted by Dave23 | April 30, 2008 2:26 PM

as a sad, forlorn Suns fan since the triple OT classic vs. Boston of 1976, I think it is way too soon to judge the Shaq trade, and the Nash era is not yet over. Boris Diaw made it clear in Games 4 and 5 that when he is aggressive - rather than constantly dishing out when he faces the slightest defensive pressure in the paint - he is a real threat. And don't forget that the Suns had a good chance to win this game until the final, fumbling minute of the game, they gave away Game 1 and they led by double digits at the end of the 1st half of Game 2.

On the other hand, I think D'Antoni is done as coach, or at least he should be done. He is not a defensive coach. This team has no lack of talent, but it definitely lacked mental toughness as the numerous game-blowing mistakes of Games 1 and 5 prove. I say this as someone who has NOT been a bandwagon fire-D'Antoni fan. I've been supportive of him but he flat-out got out-coached by Pop and his inability to coach defense showed glaringly.

The window is not yet closed, but the Suns need a coach who can instill the toughness they desperately need. Look how often this team - over the past three seasons - would relax against vastly inferior teams and struggle to beat them. That should have told me/us a lot right there. Great teams always bring their A-games, even against the league doormats. Put 'em away early and rest your starters. That seldom happens in the D'Antoni era.

Shaq needs to work on his conditioning, he really should let go of his pride and learn to shoot FT's Rick Barry style as mentioned up-thread, and we need a coach who can properly instill the toughness and defensive plays this team needs to go deep in the playoffs.

Posted by r€nato | April 30, 2008 2:31 PM

An intentional walk is a clear benefit for the team receiving it. Yeah, Bonds might have hit a home run instead, but he's mortal, the most likely option, barring the walk, is that he'd fail to get on base.

The problem with the hack-a-Shaq isn't that it's "unfair" to Shaq. I couldn't care less about that. The problem is that it's unfair to fans. Nobody wants to watch Robert Horry bear-hug Shaq away from the ball, followed by Shaq shooting free throws, whether he makes them or not. That's not basketball. It's a glitch in the rules that allows it, and it should be fixed.

Basketball is awesome because it's willing to tweak its rules. People perverted the game by stalling, and now we have the shot clock. In the 90s some coaches and players hurt the game with overly physical D and isolation-only offense, so they tweaked the rules to encourage more dynamic offensive play. It's a tradition that goes back to Naismith.

Posted by too many steves | April 30, 2008 2:31 PM

How is the H-a-S any different than intentionally walking Bonds in his prime?
Because Bonds is standing at the plate and pitching to him is part of the action.
Shaq, standing 35 feet away from the basket, is not part of the action.
Look, I have zero problem with trying to break off Shaq's arms when he's got the ball down low. But mugging him as soon as he crosses half-court, that stands the rule book on its head and is terrible to watch.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 2:34 PM

Nobody wants to watch Robert Horry bear-hug Shaq away from the ball, followed by Shaq shooting free throws, whether he makes them or not. That's not basketball. It's a glitch in the rules that allows it, and it should be fixed.

Mugging him as soon as he crosses half-court, that stands the rule book on its head and is terrible to watch.

Great minds think alike, tms.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 2:39 PM

No, it would be like a defensive holding on a play where the RB runs for a 65 yard TD, but the offense has to accept the penalty anyways. Don't be obtuse.

It's nothing at all like that. If they foul Shaq off the ball while Nash is hitting a three, the three counts. If they foul him before anyone takes a shot, what's the equivalent to the 65 yard TD run? Or are they just comparable in the "waah waah I don't like it" sense?

The problem with the hack-a-Shaq isn't that it's "unfair" to Shaq. I couldn't care less about that. The problem is that it's unfair to fans. Nobody wants to watch Robert Horry bear-hug Shaq away from the ball, followed by Shaq shooting free throws, whether he makes them or not. That's not basketball. It's a glitch in the rules that allows it, and it should be fixed.

Exactly. Responsibility for fixing the problem rests with, in order:

1. Shaq
2. The referees, for not calling intentional fouls
3. The league, for having suboptimal rules.

The Spurs are trying to win; the league is responsible for creating an entertaining product. Nobody liked watching the Devils' neutral zone trap, either.

Posted by Kurt | April 30, 2008 2:44 PM

I think the people who are saying, "Shaq shoots 54%, so that's 108 points per 100 possessions, so the hack-a-shaq doesn't hurt the Suns" are way off. As we all know, the Suns game depends on tempo, and stopping play to watch Shaq shoot free throws ruins that.

I know this is the conventional wisdom, but I disagree here. Sure, the tempo of the game changes, but the Suns can still run the exact same offense on possessions where the Spurs don't foul. And on fast breaks a foul away from the ball is called differently, I believe. Do you really think the Suns need to keep running up and down the court to win? I'm pretty sure Nash and Shaq are better off with the rest. I watched many of those games and I think the problem with the Suns offense was the Spurs defense, not the H-a-S stuff. I guess the benefit could have been entirely psychological, but that's the Suns fault for not responding properly.

Posted by mpowell | April 30, 2008 2:46 PM

I don't really understand Kurt's position. Hacking Shaq (or anyone) is against the rules, and people are arguing that, inasmuch as the penalty isn't sufficient to prevent the hack away from the ball, the penalty ought to be increased. Just as the penalty for hacking at the end of games was increased. If you think that would somehow ruin the purity of the game, then say so.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 30, 2008 2:47 PM

Kurt,
You are an idiot. They are similar because the defense is getting a clear advantage by causing a penalty. The fact that you are acting like you don't get this is kind of pathetic.

Posted by Kurt | April 30, 2008 2:47 PM

An intentional walk is a clear benefit for the team receiving it. Yeah, Bonds might have hit a home run instead, but he's mortal, the most likely option, barring the walk, is that he'd fail to get on base.

Nobody wants to watch Robert Horry bear-hug Shaq away from the ball, followed by Shaq shooting free throws, whether he makes them or not.

And nobody pays to watch Bonds watch four balls sail by him and take the bat out of the most dangerous hitter alive's hands.

Free throws also are a clear benefit. If you shoot 50% from the line, it's better than a guy shooting 49% from the field shooting or a guy shooting 32% from three-point range. That's why no one hacks Duncan, even though he's a crappy shooter. He's not so crappy that it's a detriment to his team.

Posted by Mo | April 30, 2008 2:50 PM

Exactly. Responsibility for fixing the problem rests with, in order:

1. Shaq
2. The referees, for not calling intentional fouls
3. The league, for having suboptimal rules.

The Spurs are trying to win; the league is responsible for creating an entertaining product. Nobody liked watching the Devils' neutral zone trap, either.

I think the only disagreement here is the ordering. I would describe it this way: Shaq is responsible for his team's performance. The league is responsible for the product. I don't care if the Suns win or not, so I don't blame Shaq for anything. I blame the league for delivering a worse product.

Posted by mpowell | April 30, 2008 2:50 PM

Kurt,
You are an idiot. They are similar because the defense is getting a clear advantage by causing a penalty. The fact that you are acting like you don't get this is kind of pathetic.
Posted by Kurt

And now we're fouling ourselves...

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | April 30, 2008 2:51 PM

i don't like watching intentional walks, either.

Posted by dj superflat | April 30, 2008 2:55 PM

Gold Star,

They have a high payroll, but they have also made all those moves (teh 2st rounders, Kurt Thomas, etc) to avoid paying even a penny of Luxury tax.

Posted by Eric k | April 30, 2008 2:58 PM

Gold Star,

They have a high payroll, but they have also made all those moves (The 1st rounders, Kurt Thomas, etc) to avoid paying even a penny of Luxury tax.

Posted by Eric k | April 30, 2008 2:58 PM

"Kurt,
You are an idiot. They are similar because the defense is getting a clear advantage by causing a penalty. The fact that you are acting like you don't get this is kind of pathetic."

Apparently I'm such an idiot I write posts insulting myself, apparently while blacked out since I don't remember doing it.

They're not similar, mostly in that one exists and the other doesn't. In football defensive holding *doesn't* negate touchdowns. If it did, every team in the league would do it, and the NFL would change such a silly rule by halftime.

And god forbid the defense would try to get an advantage. How gauche!

Posted by Kurt | April 30, 2008 3:00 PM

I don't see why the league should change its rules because one and only one of the star players - and a star player who will retire within 2 seasons, at that - can't shoot better than 50% at the line.

And I am a Suns fan. Better that Shaq should learn how to shoot a frickin' free throw, even if he has to do it granny-style. I don't blame the Spurs one bit for hack-a-Shaq, I would do it too if roles were reversed.

I also give credit to the Spurs for winning clean this time. No crooked ref, no crooked commish, no Horry hip-checks, no Bowen getting away with kicking Nash in the balls. The refs weren't perfect but they sure called the series fairly this time.

Posted by r€nato | April 30, 2008 3:08 PM

DeShawn Goes Vick!

Posted by Petey | April 30, 2008 3:10 PM

It is tough for one-dimensional teams to win championships because there will always be another team out there that always beats them, so they end up hoping for some rock-paper-scissors phenomenon where they can avoid that team.

D'Antoni took the ball out of Nash's hands for two whole games. It worked in game four, and then the Spurs broke down how they wanted to defend that, and then they stopped the bleeding.

In the regular season, being one dimensional can be very successful because teams don't have the time in a morning shoot-around to do more than minimal preparation for a particular style, and so the practice is based on what the team does, and not what the opponent does. But in the play-offs, that changes.

What the Spurs had in this series were answers to whatever questions the Suns posed. If Shaq wasn't going to play Duncan, then Duncan scored at will againt whatever set they ran at him. (It is no accident that Shaq was in foul trouble in game one and Duncan put up monster points.) And if Shaq were on him, they ran pick and roll at him every possession. They were relentless in attacking the Suns weaknesses.

As for the Clinton-Obama anologies, I am sorry but Clinton is the Suns in this scenario. After all, they were the ones claiming throughout the series that it was closer than it really was, and that they led the first game the whole way, so it didn't matter so much what the scoreboard said when it hit triple zeroes. D'Antoni kept talking about how many quarters they won. But until they change the rules to best 15 of 29 quarters, well, that just doesn't matter.

Posted by Curtis | April 30, 2008 3:10 PM

Kurt,
Now you're catching on. It doesn't negate a TD in football because that would be stupid. That's the point. Allowing a team to foul away from the ball to gain an advantage is also stupid. You finally got the point. But you're correct, its not the Spurs' fault. Its the league's.

Posted by Ted2 | April 30, 2008 3:11 PM

Ted,

But you can PI to get an advantage, especially in college football. If you tackle a WR that blows by you to prevent him from getting to the end zone, you'll get slapped with a penalty, the other team will get a first down, but you keep a touchdown from being scored.

Posted by Mo | April 30, 2008 3:17 PM

Ted2,

I've never disagreed with that. Go reread my 2:44 post, then read Al's 12:56 post, then decide who you ought to be arguing with.

Posted by Kurt | April 30, 2008 3:19 PM

Brad, I guess in your view being a physically dominant player precludes one from doing whatever one can do to eliminate the glaring weakness one's game has.

Will, I'd say you are a poor guesser -- that is nothing remotely like what I said.

What you originally said was that it was shameful that H-a-S was an effective technique for countering Shaq. I'm suggesting that given his level of success, maybe it was a not-particularly-effective technique in preventing his teams from winning.

Honestly, I have no idea how seriously he did or didn't take his poor free throw shooting. It seemed that each year there was going to be a new technique or new coach that might help straighten him out. Poor coaching? Poor effort? Lack of motivation? Poor judgment about how important free throws are? Might be any of those things, although his general track record of success suggests to me that he had motivation to succeed.

Posted by Brad L | April 30, 2008 3:27 PM

I don't see why the league should change its rules because one and only one of the star players - and a star player who will retire within 2 seasons, at that - can't shoot better than 50% at the line.

No, they should have changed the rule years ago, when Hack-a-Shaq, and Hack-a-Ben, and Hack-a-Bowen started. But since we're here right now, and not in 2000 or whenever this crap started, I'm complaining now.

And, BTW, what makes you think that the "Hack-a-[whoever]" will stop when Shaq retires? Coaches do it to all sorts of players nowadays. A whole bunch of coaches were doing a Hack-a-Boone (Josh) against the Nets this year when Boone was shooting 25% from the line and the Nets had no other servicable big men to replace Boone with. It's not going to stop.

Posted by Al | April 30, 2008 3: