Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda

First, a word from the commissioner.

I'm not considering any range of disciplinary action, but my powers are very broad if I choose to exercise them.

- David Stern

Well, the Suns have yet to play a game in the 2007-08 season, but the consensus is already in. They can't beat the Spurs. They're too small. The "experts" agree, mostly, that there's no reason not to pick the defending champs. That's the logical choice, it seems.

Fine. If the "experts" want to pick the Spurs by virtue of last year's title, who am I to argue?

I'll tell you who I am. I'm the guy who relishes any opportunity to put the self-proclaimed experts in their collective place because they too often pander to the league itself rather than exercise honesty (let alone journalistic integrity). Here we have a group of professional individuals who would sooner rewrite history than acknowledge it. This is the same group of individuals who whispered "hypocrisy" just loud enough and long enough to claim that they did their jobs in exposing David Stern for the egomaniacal autocrat that he makes himself out to be.

The people who pick the Spurs to win this year - more specifically, those who believe the Suns can't beat the Spurs - are forgetting something very important in their reasoning. The statistics do not support their argument in the least.

I like logic, so let's see how I do with it.

1. The Suns out-shot AND outscored the Spurs in the series.
2. The Spurs outrebounded the Suns by only 10 -- FOR THE ENTIRE SERIES.
3. The Suns had only two more turnovers and one less blocked shot -- FOR THE ENTIRE SERIES.
4. The Suns were called for 10 fewer fouls, but the Spurs shot 14 more free throws.

I don't consider myself a statistical nut by any means, but I do rely heavily on stats in order to get a good idea how games are won and lost. They are a handy tool, if somewhat imperfect. But a few things jump out in light of those bullets.

For starters, the Suns defended the Spurs shooting very well, holding them to 45.7% shooting for the series. Conversely, the Spurs allowed the Suns to shoot 47.4%.

Then we look at the possessions in rough terms (as I am in no mood to calculate a more accurate estimate - the inherent flaw being the arbitrary measure of free throw attempts in the equation). The Spurs grabbed 13 more offensive rebounds, stole the ball 16 more times, and committed two fewer turnovers in the series. That's an extra 31 possessions that yielded all of four more field goal attempts than the Suns. Of those four extra shots, the Spurs made six fewer than the Suns. That might be explained by the free throw disparity, if not for the fact that the Suns committed 10 fewer fouls.

Now consider the intangible evidence.

1. The Suns annihilated the Spurs in game two, winning 101-81.
2. The Suns humiliated the Spurs in San Antonio in game 4.
3. The Suns lost game five by three points in the last three minutes shorthanded.
4. Game three.

Here's the thing - the Spurs never won a game by double digits. They also blew a double digit fourth quarter lead in game four at home. The Spurs won the controversial game three by seven points (I'm not going into that one again, as I've already spent countless hours breaking down that game).

OK. So the Suns were able to hang with the Spurs in that series. That's why the departure of Kurt Thomas will supposedly prove so detrimental to the Suns' chances this year. Of course, that is completely ignoring the fact that the great KT held Duncan to a measly 26.8 points and a minuscule 13.7 rebounds per game.

Some might argue - with a decent amount of validity - that the Spurs got a lot of help from suspect officiating in that series, at least in the third game. They certainly got a boost from Stern and his "rules are rules" stance on the suspensions of Amare and Boris for the aforementioned game five in Phoenix.

What was that about a logical choice?

But of course, "the better team won" and I should "stop whining about it!" For the record, I am over it as much as anyone in the Suns organization -- like Steve Nash.

I'm not into worrying about what Stern is doing. I figure I'm not going to win that battle anyway. I've lost it in the past so why bother getting involved.

If I let it, it'll distract me. I'll be pissed off all the time. And that's like every other week, a decision comes down that you don't understand. So just stay out of it. Bowen stepped on Amaré's ankle and kneed me in the balls. No suspension, whereas other guys...maybe less infractions get suspended on the first one. I'm not in the office. I don't know why they decide what they decide. Therefore, I'm not going to even bother to start judging their decisions because I don't get it.

Sure, we're all over it as much as we can be. What's done is done, and there is no changing the past. Still, I find it rather telling that the former MVP is heady enough to allude to an apparent miscarriage of justice, especially in the face of Stern's new-found leniency when it came time to drop the hammer on the referees, without explicitly questioning the decision.

Again, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just pointing out pertinent facts that need to be considered when making our preseason predictions.

The Suns as a team understand just how close they were to climbing the mountain in the 2007 playoffs. To a man, they will all say that they should have and could have won that series. It was just an unfortunate turn of events, to be politically correct. And to their credit, they believe they can win it this year.

I have yet to see the annual D'Antoni quote that "anyone can win it" and that "there are a lot of good teams" who can beat any other team in a seven game series. If you pay attention, you will hear it in the words they so carefully choose when speaking with the media. They believe, so why doesn't anyone else?

No one wants to question the outcome, that's why. What's done is done, and we can't change the past, so only the end result matters. The Spurs won, so they should be the favorites this year.

Barnyard excrement.

Those who cite those simplistic reasons for picking the Spurs to beat the Suns - should they meet in the playoffs again - are either ignoring history or are completely oblivious to the evidence available to anyone with an Internet connection, which all of them obviously have at their disposal.

Being the pseudo-logician that I am, I do not buy into conspiracy theories. There is simply too much speculation and not enough tangible evidence involved in drawing such outlandish conclusions about a simple sports league.

But that doesn't mean that I can't indict the professional media for corporate kowtowing. There is far too much money to be made in sponsorship deals and marketing campaigns for these "journalists" to question Stern's integrity - and by virtue of that, questioning the integrity of the league itself. After all, Turner and Disney have invested a fortune for the rights to carry NBA games and events. Why bite the hand they're feeding?

That does not explain, however, our own local media's reticence to address Stern's hypocrisy or their reasoning for predicting another Spurs championship. I can't imagine why they would so easily fall in line with media entities that consistently disrespect Phoenix, its fans, and its teams.

Remember how Dan Bickley and Scott Bordow fumed at the idea that David Stern would dare lay blame on the Suns assistant coaches for Amare's and Boris' game four actions?

Neither do I.

It didn't happen.

If a journalist is asked by his editor to make his predictions, and he chooses the Spurs, then that's his prerogative. I won't argue it because there are good reasons to go the safe route. But when those reasons ignore the facts, I have to question what the hell is going on out there.

Maybe I'm wrong about Stern. Maybe he isn't such a raving egomaniac out to usurp control of the league from its owners. Maybe he's absolutely right.

Maybe his powers ARE that extensive.


Update: That rug is getting lumpy. Keep sweepin', boys.