No Friend of Mine

What do Paul Coro, Kelly Dwyer, and Henry Abbott have in common?

While you ponder that question, allow me to give some background information about myself.

I have, as noted by accredited sources, an antisocial personality. I am uncomfortable around people for the most part because I just don't click with society in general. (This point is made painfully clear when one considers my preference to sit in a small, dark room typing away on my computer over any and all social activities, which means that I don't keep a lot of friends.) It can be a lonely and depressing existence at times, but in my mind, it beats the alternative of feeling like I'm living in a mental ward populated by around 300 million patients.

The few people that I do let into my little world generally pass the initial test of not being a complete moron. Admittedly, I have made mistakes, but none that I haven't quickly rectified. For instance, there was the "friend" who stole my portable DVD player and several movies to trade for a teener of meth. I know he did it because he was in my house at the time the items turned up missing, and he had zero money of his own. To his credit, though, he did offer to share it with me, despite his insistence that he did not rip me off.

I chalk up that friendship to a drug induced stupor, though, as I was certainly experimenting at the time - anything to curb the banalities of college life. I wasn't using that particular chemical nightmare when it all happened, which made it all the more astounding that he would even offer to share that which could technically be described as my property.

I made a mistake, and I kicked him out of my life, leaving the supposed friend no doubt that he was no longer welcome in my immediate vicinity.

The gist of all this is that I stay away from people because I cannot mentally handle the innate stupidity with which the general population conducts its daily affairs. It drives me nuts - to the point that fantasies of the barrel of a large caliber firearm resting on the base of my skull bring me a sense of peace.

But even in the virtual world I am not safe.

I knew right after Amare Stoudemire's and Boris Diaw's suspensions came down from the elephant tusk towers of the league offices in New York that I would not be able to go to any basketball site because there would be bitter Laker fans and smug Spurs fans talking about how bad the Suns are and what an amazing team San Antonio is. I also knew that some moron would come out with a gem like this...

I sincerely believe that San Antonio would have won a fairly called Game 4. This could have ended in five.

-Henry Abbott, Truehoop.com

Obviously not a Clockwork Orange reader.

Here writes a person, under the guise of "basketball expert", that the only thing that kept the Spurs from taking this sooner is an unevenly called game four. You remember that one, don't you? It was the one in which Tim Duncan was actually in foul trouble for once, as well as having been called for two travels on his infamous shuffle step under the basket. It was also the game that hid the free throw shooting disparity of the series and made it look as if the other five games were fairly called. You can read the entry below for information on that.

Are people out there really so full of themselves that they have the ability to ignore indisputable hard evidence that contradicts their own beliefs, simply because someone suddenly decided to call them "experts"? This is as bad as a rich, white politician saying that the only problem with the working poor is that they are simply not working hard enough.

It astounds me that the world is able to function like this.

What scares me the most, I think, is that there are actually people out there who get most of their information from people like Henry Abbott and Kelly Dwyer. Even my imaginary arch nemesis Paul Coro is on the Suns' case in this most perverted example of bandwagon jumping from the site that banned my IP.

The Spurs still have the Suns' number. Phoenix is still nothing more than a great, entertaining regular season team. Playoff basketball is a different brand of ball geared for the physical and clutch.

-Paul Coro Suns beat writer for the Arizona Republic

Isn't it his job to be dissonant going the OTHER way? Maybe he didn't watch the Phoenix Suns gut it out for six games, holding the Spurs to 43.7% shooting over the middle four games (series low 40.3% without Stoudemire and Diaw). Maybe he didn't see Steve Nash turning the Suns bench into the river Nile of Moses' day when the Suns needed his clutch the most. Maybe he didn't see an exhausted Suns team trying their hardest to make a clutch play without the services of its biggest man and free throw machine in game five. And maybe he missed game four altogether, considering that it was the biggest clutch performance by the Suns the entire season.

The one thing these three people have in common is that not a single one of them has a fundamental understanding of the game of professional basketball. For the simple fact that they write about the game for a weekly paycheck, they are three of the biggest offenders in a world gone completely retarded.

I don't claim to be a genius. I left that up to the clinical evaluation. But I will NEVER sit here and toss aside half a story in order to prove my own argument. I have a really nasty habit of looking at all the information available, comparing it, then drawing a conclusion that almost always supports my first hand observations. If my research doesn't support my view, I do one of two things.

1. I don't write about it.

2. I admit my error and move on.

If everyone in the world exercised my discretion, maybe I wouldn't be sitting in a small, dark room typing away on a computer. If fewer people were as ignominiously ignorant as those three "experts", then perhaps I would take the trouble to go outside and make more friends.

As it stands, I would rather not risk a gun to the back of my head.

Wrongs, Rights, and What's Left

There is absolutely no part of me that wants to give San Antonio credit for beating the Suns in the 2007 Western Conference Semifinals. Forget the "vicinity of the bench" debacle on the part of David Stern and Stu Jackson. Even if that never happened, I cannot say for certainty that the Suns would have won this series - not when the best defense is a favorable whistle.

I am not convinced that San Antonio is a great defensive team (or even a good one, for that matter). It's impossible for me to believe that when Tim Duncan can swipe Amare Stoudemire's or Kurt Thomas' or Leandro Barbosa's arm, and it shows up as a block in the box score. I don't buy that Bruce Bowen can pull on Steve Nash's off arm on a lay up attempt, or Bowen's constant grabbing at Nash's arms, hips, and legs qualifies as stifling defense. After all, there are rules that clearly state "[c]ontact initiated by the defensive player guarding a player with the ball is not legal. This contact includes, but is not limited to, forearm, hands, or body check" (Rule 12, Part B, Section Ib).

For the record, nowhere in the rules does it state that a foul must be called when a player "flops" or flails his arms with the intent of drawing a call, even if no foul, or simple "incidental contact" (Exception 5 of the above stated rule), occurs.

That's all just my interpretation of "bright line rules" as set forth by the NBA, though. Far be it from me to criticize someone else for a poor performance of a difficult job, but after watching six games of hacking, clawing, grabbing, slapping, kneeing, and hip checking, I wonder whether or not any officials outside of Joe DeRosa, Jack Nies, and Steve Javie have actually read the rule book. They were the only crew the entire series that bothered to call fouls and violations on the Spurs (except for Tony Parker's blatant double jump stop through the lane, of course).

If anyone wants more proof, just look at the game three foul shooting and violation disparity between the Suns and Spurs. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

The final numbers indicate that the Suns should have won this series. The Suns were outrebounded by a total of ten for the entire series. They had only two more turnovers than the Spurs. They made six more shots, but went to the foul line 14 fewer times. Game four was the only one in which the Spurs out-fouled the Suns, and the Suns went to the line significantly more times than the Spurs. (I mentioned before the game even started that it was a good, veteran crew, so don't accuse me of bias on that one.)

But here's the kicker. Take game four out of the equation, and the referee bias becomes painfully clear. The other five games saw the Spurs called for 107 fouls to the Suns' 106. Somehow, though, the Spurs wound up going to the free throw line 143 times compared to the Suns' 112 trips. I'll say that another way to get the point across.

THE SPURS SHOT THIRTY ONE MORE FREE THROWS IN THOSE FIVE GAMES DESPITE COMMITTING ONLY ONE MORE FOUL!!!

I use the word "committing" loosely, as I made the point earlier that the Spurs don't get called for a lot of fouls. Somehow, some way, the Suns fouls nearly always seemed to end up with the Spurs shooting free throws, while the Suns took the Spurs' fouls out of bounds. Consider this - all of the Spurs wins in this series were by a combined 23 points.

But none of it matters now, anyway, because the series is over...done...finished...dead.

The Suns did everything right, everything they could do to win this series. Phoenix outplayed San Antonio at both ends of the court, yet they were not rewarded for their efforts. All things being equal, I can easily see this as a Suns series win in five games, but my preseries prediction was six games. Had it not been for suspect officiating and a DUBIOUS ruling by the commissioner, one that he clearly lied about when defending his stance, the Spurs would be watching the rest of this series at Ultimate Electronics with the rest of the San Antonio faithful.

And what's left for the Suns and their fans? The same thing we have all had to endure the last two postseasons. A whole year of "what ifs".

What if the series had been called evenly?

What if David Stern had stood up for the integrity of the game (as Bud Selig so often claims he does) and meted out just punishment for Robert Horry's dirtiest of plays?

The Suns had it all this year. Defense, depth, health, and a commitment to winning, exemplified by Steve Nash's demonic approach to winning at all costs (except the cheap and dirty ways, of course). The Suns had the complete offense with Amare Stoudemire back in the middle, and they had the hunger and experience finally to topple Mount Duncan.

So why are WE the ones sitting at home left to ponder the future? Why are WE the ones suddenly looking forward to the draft lottery, hoping that Atlanta doesn't get lucky? Why are WE the ones forced to speculate about trading the most versatile defender the league has ever seen?

For such an amazing season to end the way it did, why are we the ones left to ask the big, difficult questions?

When you consider that we had the hopes and confidence finally to make it to the top, it is painful to sit here and ask the toughest question of all.

What's left for us?

Suns-Spurs Round 2 Game 6

There is a post forthcoming, although I do not yet know how detailed it will be. I will be watching with fellow fans again, so I might do a play by play of fan action as well, which might be rather "interesting". Stay tuned.

My apologies. We got behind watching it on DVR. A horrible game in many ways.

Fire David Stern.

This should be the greatest western conference finals in the history of the league. The ratings will be through the roof. Why the NBA preferred it this way, I may never know. It seems that David Stern doesn't like dark men with a lot of tattoos. The whiter and blander, the better, I guess.

Prerecorded Lies

On Wednesday May 16, 2007, NBA Commissioner David Stern answered questions from Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser on the daily espn show, Pardon the Interruption. Below is a truncated version of the seven and a half minute interview (which was recorded well before the broadcast, apparently to avoid a similar outburst from Stern as Dan Patrick received earlier in the day). Feel free to read along with my transcript. I will be coming back to this a bit later, as there are some curious statements made by Stern in this interview, which happened well before tip off of game five.



TK: Stu Jackson said earlier, he said, "It's not a matter of fairness, but of correctness. Is this decision fair to the Suns, in your opinion?

DS: Oh, absolutely.

TK: Even though Robert Horry would be correctly seen as the protagonist in this whole thing.

DS: Uh, yes.

MW: Is there any ability to take intent into account...any desire to do that on your part?

DS: Well, I think we'll discuss it with the owners if they'd like to consider a change, but, but we measure it almost, ummm, by, ya know, by looking at it and say, "Listen, you can't come off the bench, and if you go 20 feet down the line, and I don't know what, I, ya know, I've looked at the tape, obviously. Amare went running out there. In fact, the referee had to stop tending to the combatants to push him away, and finally, his own coaches eventually figured it out, went and grabbed him and pushed him back. And so it's left for me to decide what was in Amare's head when he went there?

TK: I understand when you say that you can't look into Amare's head to find...ya know, to determine why he did what he did, and I understand the fear of something combustible happening like that. But you are, essentially, the sole judge in this particular case. Was there ever a point where you said, "Maybe I should consider benefit of the doubt and apply the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law"?

DS: I think that what we said, quite simply, and really this is the spirit of the rule. That's the part where people have missed the point, here, in my point...in my...in my f...belief. The spirit and the letter of the law say, "Thou shalt not leave the bench...area...during an altercation." And in this case, two of the seven members of the Suns who were on the bench went running down the sideline, and were 20 or 25 feet from the bench. I don't know what the spirit...is different than the letter, here. They were not to be there. They knew it, their coaches knew it, and they violated it.

DS: Unfortunately for the Suns, they had two players that were not able to control themselves, and, and it, it cost them those two important players, and a very important game. And if you think this is a great result for the NBA, you're wrong. It's a terrible result for the NBA, but it's the result required by the rule and its enforcement.

Suns-Spurs Round 2 Game 5

Pregame

OK. So we're all done talking about league stupidity for a few minutes, and hopefully for the rest of the season. I will be doing a transcript of David Stern's interview on PTI from today, and he will be exposed as the lying, manipulative prick that he is. It should be fun, especially once I get all the relevant games downloaded and transferred.

As usual, it's tough to know what to expect with this game. The energy and officiating have been all over the place, and I don't know how Stern's vindictiveness will come into play. Will the Suns get favorable calls to make up for the league's unjust solution to Monday night's Spurs meltdown? Or will Stern be so upset and defensive over EVERYONE questioning him that he'll instruct the refs to screw the Suns royally?

This game will go a long way in determining the near future of the NBA.

In the mean time, there are some funny doin's over at the Purple Palace. Several fans wearing bicycle helmets and bandages in preparation for sitting close to the Spurs players. There's a sign showing love to the Chuckster for his defense of Amare and Boris (what a quick turn around - we ARE forgiving).

Kenny thinks that Steve needs to have a 30 point, 18 assist game. Well, it's possible, I guess. I certainly hope that Nash has those numbers at the end of this game. And Chuck calls the Spurs "Stepford Wives" for just playing the way they do all the time. No let downs expected by San Antonio. Anyway...let's get this party started, and see if I can keep this up all game long. It might not be as comprehensive as the first round series, but I'll try to get as much in as I can.

LET'S GO SUNS!!!

1st Quarter

10:35 Tip goes to Parker. Nash immediately swipes it. KT's first try doesn't go, and I hope that's not a sign of things to come. Interesting note: Bowen is giving Nash noticeably more space. And Duncan gets called for the foul on the Leandro drive. LB needs to make his free throws this game. He's been bad from the field and at the line lately, but he gets both to go. Marion goes for the rebound off Duncan's missed, and Oberto pushes off. Foul favors the Suns. That's two.

9:22 Marion should NOT be shooting threes in this game. Another Duncan miss and WHOOOOAAAA!!!! NICE scoring drive by LB! Then Marion gets popped on Oberto's multipivot pump fake. Standard call, and he makes them both.

6:30 Nash goes long on the shot over Duncan. Suns are booing the Spurs every time, which is cool. Thomas strips Duncan, but TD recovers, and KT gets called for standing there. That's one for SA. Marion's working the glass as best he can, but he's going up against three Spurs. KT goes up against Bowen and misses, but Marion is fouled by Parker on the rebound. Then Trix gets loose inside and throws it down. Nice pass by Kurt. Suns are getting hurt by the lack of size, even with the volley ball effort by KT and Trix. Marion breaks free again, and the Suns are down only one point. 9-8 Spurs. Timeout Pop.

Someone want to call the Ritz and harrass Horry?

4:33 Parker gets the friendly road bounce on the leaner. Too bad. Marion takes Elson to the hole and it works out nicely for the good guys. Marion is everywhere as he steals it, but doesn't have the down court passing skills that Nash does, and it's a turnover after LB and TP roll on the floor. KT hits the open jumper YAY! Parker cannot guard Barbosa in the open court, and the refs support my observation. It's Parker's second. Nice.

2:55 Junior comes in, but it's Nash missing the floater. Good thing Marion is on the court...he stuffs it home, then comes back and hits a BIG three!!! D-3 on the Suns for some mysterious reason. Shawn Marion looks possessed, and that bodes well for the Suns. Finley misses the tech, and Pop goes small with Duncan as the only big on the floor. WOAH!!! THOMAS DRIVES AND SCORES, BLOWING BY DUNCAN!!! Big man's got a first step! Ball is deflected out of bounds on the next possession after Ginobili still can't score on Bell, and we get to hear the Pussycat Dolls get us all hot and bothered for Heineken as we go to the TV time out. 19-11 Suns.

I had other stuff written, but stupid IE closed by itself. Burke is in and Nash gets his first break with less than a minute left. Lotta nothing to talk about since the crash, so I'll try and remember what I wrote. I'll fail, but so long as everyone knows I had some nice stuff written. 24-11 Suns

Suns are shooting 9-21 for 43% shooting, but the Spurs are only 5-20. 15 rebounds to 8 for the Spurs is a VERY good sign. Good thing Pop went small.

2nd Quarter

9:18 Marion comes out and reminds TD how to use the glass. Nash still rests, and Parker comes in after LB's first foul. I don't understand why the crowd isn't chanting Dirty. Maybe it will just distract Kurt. G-Knob gets an open lane, then Raja nails a three. Ugh. Ginobili misses a desperation three, and Burke forgets that he's supposed to box out Oberto. He makes up for his transgression by fouling. Sit down, big fella. Nash comes back. Suns playing REALLY small with Trix at center. Still, it's effective. Junior misses a wide open three...not cool. Oberto tries to post LB, and he decides that it'll be easier just to run him over. Offensive foul. 28-17 Suns.

8:55 Junior misses the puppy that Steve so beautifully set up, but the refs bail him out with a foul on Elson. I don't know if it was a good call, yet, but I'll take it. Junior needs to hit these FTs to get his groove going. 1-2 isn't good enough. LB sends Parker to the floor for his 2nd foul, and the TV wants us to buy things. The energy was great coming out, but it's settled down ever so slightly. I think it works better with KT in there to balance the small line up D'Antoni's throwing at the Spurs. But he's old and needs his rest, so we can't have that for a full 48. If he gives us 30 minutes tonight, this should be cool. 29-17 Suns.

OK...the Elson foul on Junior was a good call. He was late and got some arm.

7:03 Parker gets 1 of 2 free throws, then Bowen kicks the ball out of bounds. Raja misses the sideways runner, KT gets the rebound to Junior who doesn't care about the three point line. Good deal, as he hits the two. Elson knocks Junior down under the basket as the Spurs score. It's wiped clean, and LB misses. Darn. Bowen no good on the long shot, and Suns are rebounding like mad. YEAH!!! Jones can't make up his mind in the corner, juking TP out of his socks, but when he finally does, he gets the three. FINALLY! Bell fouls Duncan, who gets one of two. 33-20 Suns.

5:09 Jones gets screwed on that loose ball, and the ball goes back to San Antonio after great scrambling D by Phoenix. Finley's desperation three doesn't like the rim, and Marion draws Elson's third foul on the blocking call. Suns favor, I think. OH LOOK! Tim Kempton's illegitimate son is in for SA, and Marion makes both freebies. Bell drives in, but Duncan can't be called for EVERY foul, can he? FINALLY Bonner gets the travel call, as his pivot foot was everywhere except where he planted it. Suns fans were waiting for that one. 35-22 Suns as corporate America seduces us again.

Funny how that first quarter just blitzed by, but the second is taking longer. As long as the Suns win, I don't are if it takes all night.

3:12 Dammit. Suns forget that a clock is on, and the overpassing kills them. Duncan finally gets glass, but he has to do it over the shorter marion. Speaking of the Matrix, that's another three off a nifty behind the back pass from Steve. Duncan used to be a volleyball player, but his window washing days are over for now. Great hustle by Barbosa, but it goes just off Nash's fingers out of bounds. Raja needs to get going through the lane. Forget this three point crap for now, Raja...attack the rack. Get your former swim team buddy in foul trouble. Another timeout? Already? OK. 38-24 Suns.

1:35 Thomas will NOT let Timmy score, and Barbosa makes it ahead of the pack. Nice fast break. Damn. A great block by KT on Parker wasted as the rebound mistakenly goes back to the Spurs. Duncan finally scores on Thomas, but it took transition. Suns have missed their last two and Duncan gets by KT again. It's a 20 second breather for Coach D'Antoni. Suns 40-30.

34.9 Yes. Nash scores over Duncan, but Bell is 1-6. Get it to the rack, my friend. Nash is just a wee bit too late to draw the charge on TD, and it's a pair of free throws coming. 1-2. Ginobili rushes out to Thomas on the perimeter, and I have no clue why. Neither does he, apparently, as he's popped for his first foul. Beauty of a 360 by Nash pass to Marion who scores off the runner. And Popovich calls a time out? With 34 seconds left in the half? Seriously? 44-31 Suns.

Wow. Marion is now 7-7 after that 1-4 start. He's got 20. Ginobili makes a move and scores, and Steve slows it down to leave one possession each. Bell still can't find the basket from long range, and G-Knob can't either as the buzzer sounds. 44-33 Suns. More to come after my break.

Halftime

Interesting: There seems to be a bit of a storm brewing outside. The wind is picking up, the shades are flying, and the doors are rattling. I wonder if it's related to November 4, 2001.

No halftime analysis, since I just got back. But I do have a funny thought. Matt Bonner is known by the ignorant Spurs, fans, and media as "The Red Rocket", presumably because he has red hair. But anyone who watches South Park religioously knows better. That's some sick shizzle, right there.

Wow. Marion already has 20-11 for Phoenix. Amazing. Kerr thinks Bowen can contain Shawn? Is he serious? Did he play basketball?

3rd Quarter

10:55 Let's hope that KT got some oxygen at half time. Offensive foul on Leandro? No complaints from the Suns...good deal. Duncan finally makes one over KT, but LB still can't hit. He's coming up short, so it's gotta be nerves. Nash misses the lay in after the foul ON BOWEN?!?! It's only his first foul, though. Odd. Nash makes both free throws, and it's 46-35 Suns.

10:37 Duncan drives and is promptly fouled by Thomas. Not exactly a good call, as TD's shoulder rams KT. He misses the first, but not the second. 46-36 Suns.

8:52 Argh. Thomas goes up and down, and forgets to shoot. Ginobili back doors on Raja. Ginobili misses a three badly, but the long rebound goes right to Duncan who scores on KT again. Hmmm...we're getting a bit sloppy. Nash double dribbles, but Bowen may have swatted it. Still goes against Nash, and Duncan is attacking KT hard. Spurs are on a 9-2 run, somehow, and it's Suns by 4, 46-42.

6:05 KT will NOT be denied, even in traffic, and he breaks the drought. Parker scores, then so does KT. Nash challenges Parker, and KT comes down with the miss. Ugh. LB can't score over Duncan. Finley gets an open three that barely grazes the rim, then Raja gets called for the charge on a moving Ginobili. Bad. Duncan rides KT's back, but gets away with it. But the ball goes off him out of bounds, then Nash promptly turns it over. Then the Spurs do, too, and we're back to an 8 point lead. Marion fouls Duncan on the double team. 52-44 Suns.

4:11 Good defense, but Finley still hits the three. Bowen then runs over Marion, and the crowd at USAC is happy. Say it with me, folks...DIRTY! DIRTY!! DIRTY!!! If Duncan keeps riding Thomas like that, he's going to have to stick a quarter in his ass. Bell misses AGAIN. This should be a run away, but the Suns are missing open looks. Then again, so are the Spurs as Barry misses. Now it's ugly. Pop agrees, and stops the clock. 52-47 Suns.

2:24 More of the same, still. Marion flashes in, but it's another Duncan block. Interesting that TD is guarding Marion now. Nash nails it. LB can't get a break as he picks up his fourth when Duncan elbows him out of the way. Crap call. Good thing G-Knob missed. YES! Bell finally makes a nice clean three. The crowd was behind him as he caught it, and that may help. Ginobili strips Bell, but no foul on the reach in. Marion counters by mugging Knob. Bell vents his frustration at the other end, then gets a T. 57-50 Suns.

NASH FOR THREE!!! And it's back to a ten point lead. Damn. Bowen actually makes a three. OH MY FUCKING GOD!!! Ginobili gets rewarded for the flop and LB picks up his fifth foul. What a joke of a call. LB had the path, Knob rammed right into him. Bullshit. Then Bowen travels. Some nice passingall over the court, but Marion misses. Nash drives and scores while hanging in the air, and floating ever so gently across the lane. A different look from Hockey Nash we've seen lately. Then Knob beats the shot clock with a three. Nash drives, and Bowen gets popped for the free foul. His third, but he should be out already if LB is. 62-56 Suns.

So it seems that the league called the refs at half time and asked them what the hell they were doing. They respond by giving 5 free throws to the Spurs, and only 2 to Phoenix. Maybe they need to make it look realistic?

4th Quarter

10:24 How many times is Duncan going to hang all over Thomas and get away with it? KT misses, but Marion is there yet again. Bell ends up with another three. Maybe he's heating up? Let's hope so. Ginobili takes a few shuffle steps with Jones all over him, but it's a three second violation instead. Just as good. Wow. Thomas is showing his TCU days as he works the screen and roll with Nash, takes two steps in, then gets hammered by Duncan. He makes both free throws. 67-56 Suns.

9:21 Duncan gets swatted by KT, but Ginobili gets the rebound and jumps into Bell for the foul and gets two free throws. Why? Because the league makes no sense. Nash bounces the ball back door to Thomas, but Steve forgets that it's not LB and it rolls out of bounds beneath KT's reach. Finley manages a fade away in the lane, but barely. Thomas is getting aggressive to the rim, but he misses and Knob answers with a 3. KT needs to stick with the jumper for now. 67-63 Suns.

Suns are turning it over a bit too much, but a couple of those were dubious offensive fouls. We'll have to check the tape later.

7:06 Ton Loc implores us "Let's do it". Marion does, and gets the freebies thanks to a shove by Oberto. WHAT THE HELL?! Bowen hits a three after Raja gets laid out by Oberto with no call. Jones gets the ball underneath from LB, and it's good. Now Knob hits another three. DAMN! LB just CANNOT HIT! ANOTHER open three for him. Nash airs out a lay up, and there's a question whether or not Bowen fouled him again, which he did. Thank you, replay. 71-69 Suns.

5:42 Nash is in love with the behind the back, but Thomas just can't handle it. It's time for him to take over, and he responds with a three ball. At the 6:00 mark, it's Nash's time to take over the game. Ginobili can't understand why the refs actually called a foul on him. Thomas took a pae from Knob's book. KT then gets a basket on the other end, and-one, thanks to Duncan's third foul. 77-69 Suns.

3:10 Ginobili gets through, but it's excusable. It was a good play. So was Jones' play at the other end from Nash. Oh...NOW Finley hits threes. Then for some reason, Junior is called for a foul after BOWEN runs into him? This is sickening. FNALLY Nash gets the call as he gets to the spot just before an out of control Parker. Then Knob fouls Junior on the drive. Thomas back taps Junior's miss, and Nash gets it. But he misses the leaning three, and then Knob throws the ball away. Nash goes into traffic, Duncan blocks. No foul, of course. Duncan gets a few extra steps underneath, then Knob gets three free throws as Nash flies into him. Hes disgusted with himself. 79-77 Suns.

2:55 Geez. Thomas gets hacked by Duncan on the shot attempt, but the refs disagree. But it goes out of bounds, and it will be Suns ball. Suns are leading in every category, but still find themselves only up by 2. It makes no sense at first glance, but the Suns have 3 more turnovers (dubious) and five fewer free throw attempts (also dubious).

1:08 Parker ties it after the in bounds is taken away. Then Marion says "Gimme that lead back!" Duncan misses against Marion, but a late whistle indicates that Marion MUST have fouled. No way Duncan misses that close! he makes both free throws, and it's tied again. Nash passes up an open Marion, then misses the lay up. Then Knob gets called for a trip on Bell. It was a flop, but it's Ginobili. He should appreciate it. WHY DOES LB KEEP CHALLENGING DUNCAN?!?!?! Knob turns it over in transition. Time out...thank God. 81-81.

Bad pass by Nash means Marion misses, then Bowen hits a three. Then Marion inexplicably goes for a three with time on the clock. I'm out for now. I need to watch this. Some bad execution going on, and I wish Nash would just take over and win it. 84-81 Dirties.

Thank you, David Stern. Thank you for handing game five to San Antonio. Thank you for taking away our two best post players. Thank you for taking away Phoenix's chances to take the ball inside down the stretch. Thank you for taking away our clutch free throw opportunities. I hope you die a slow, torturous death starting tomorrow. And thank you for the favorable calls in the first half, only to switch it up in the second. Fuck the NBA.

Fix the Damn Rule Already

In a brief moment of serenity, I came up with a fix for the future. The problem with the rule is that it lays out harsh punishment for minimal behavior with supposedly no room for interpretation (as bogus as that notion has proven to be). This whole mess can be cleared up by adding verbage that gives the league a choice in the matter, so Stern doesn't feel upset or saddened that he is "forced" to make such a tough ruling.

As it stands, leaving the "vicinity of the bench during an altercation" carries an automatic one game suspension and fine of $35,000. One is too harsh, the other is pocket change to a millionaire athlete.

The rule needs to be changed to state that leaving the bench will result in a one game suspension AND/OR a $200,000 fine or 10% of a player's earnings, whichever is less.

The "and/or" immediately gives the league room to maneuver in terms of deciding whether or not a player's action is actually bad enough to warrant a suspension. At the same time, for situations just like this, Charles Barkley, and Patrick Ewing, the players can still be punished rather harshly for breaking the rule, but not so much that it affects the entire team. And the fine itself carries weight because it penalizes a scrub as equally as a star.

I don't care if I'm making $12 million a year, a $200,000 fine is going to hurt and be on my mind if something bad happens. But if I'm making the league minimum, giving away 30% of my pay for one step is hardly fair, so the fine is proportional to his pay. $75,000 is just as harsh to a bench warmer as $200,000 is to a starter.

The whole idea is to prevent an entire team for being penalized by the actions of one or two players, and also prevents an offending team from receiving the greater benefit in an important game.

Is that fair? Is that correct?

*Update:

The very least the league could do is add the words "and causes an escalation" right after "vicinity of the bench". Imagine, a rule which allows for interpretation and judgement. Why has our judicial system not picked up on that?

Conversation Over Beef Stu

"A precedent wasn't necessary here. The rule with respect to leaving the bench area during an altercation is very clear."

No, Stu, it is NOT "very clear". "Vicinity of the bench" can be interpreted in as many ways as "altercation". What about a verbal altercation? What about the angry glares that players sometimes give each other after a particularly hard foul - the ones that result in technical fouls for both players? What about the hash mark 28 feet from the baseline that players and coaches are not allowed to pass unless they are checking in at the scorers' table?

"(Horry) was suspended two games for flagrant fouling Steve Nash and also placing forearm and his elbow on shoulders of Raja Bell."

What about inciting the alleged altercation? Why no punishment for an act that resulted in players leaving "the vicinity of the bench"? And the physicality of the series has gotten progressively worse, evidenced by complaints about it from the Suns. Was Horry's action not an escalation in itself? Why was the Spurs organization not penalized for allowing a player to cause an altercation?

"Both Diaw and Amare are 20 to 25 fee away from their seats in the bench area going toward the altercation. In our minds, that is clearly away from the vicinity of their bench."

A-ha! In YOUR MINDS. In other words, you interpreted the rule in such a way that resulted in two Suns' suspensions. If it's such a hard and fast rule, why all the video review to decide whether or not Stoudemire and Diaw were "in the vicinity"?

"This is a very unfortunate circumstance. No one here at the league office wants to suspend players any game, much less a pivotal game in a second round of a playoff series but the rule however is the rule and we intend to apply it as consistently as we have in the past to achieve the purpose of the rule."

Like when you let the Sacramento Kings off the hook in 2003, when Rick Fox attacked Doug Christie in the tunnel? The Kings didn't know what was going on, their teammate could have been in real danger, no one on the Kings' bench knew that it was a Laker attacking their man. Still, they broke the rule. Oh, that's right. You already excused that at the top of this page. But I still have to ask...is it a rule or isn't it a rule? If you can excuse an entire team for extenuating circumstances, why not two Suns players who did nothing wrong, and who were sticking up for their teammate as if he were Doug Christie?

"While (Duncan) should not have been on the game court, there was no altercation occurring in that time he was off the bench."

We need to work on your concept of "altercation". The only reason those players ran down court after the incident was that two officials were standing right there and told them to. The same officials who prevented the later incident from escalating.

"Both players (Diaw and Stoudemire) stood and then made their ways toward the altercation, which occurred on the court. They did not remain in the bench area as the remaining players did."

Which remaining players? The Spurs? Pat Burke and Sean Marks? To whose standards are you holding Diaw and Stoudemire?

"Everything we do here at the league office is up for re-evaluation. If a change is warranted going forward, we will take a look at perhaps tweaking the rule."

Well, we appreciate that. You can't even throw Suns fans a bone and say that, yes, the rule is terrible in this case, so we will investigate rewording it WITHOUT OUTSIDE PRESSURE? You insult the intelligence of every NBA fan with your use of the word "if".

"(The immediate vicinity of the bench) is around the bench area -- close by. In the case of Diaw and Stoudemire, I could not describe them as being close to the bench."

Again, we're dealing with an interpretation of vague wording in a rule that you describe as clear. Now can you tell us what it means to be "close by"? What would you describe as "close to the bench"? Just for the sake of clarification, of course.

"The rule is clear. It's a bright line. Historically, if you break it, you get suspended regardless of what the circumstances are."

Unless you are the Sacramento Kings or San Antonio Spurs in game one (more on that in the days to come).

"Francisco Elson, when he went for the dunk and fell over the Phoenix player, that's what he did. He dunked, he fell over. Both players got up. There was no altercation and they run down to the other end of the court. In the other situation, there were confrontations between multiple players."

Did you watch the video? Did you not see Elson get in Jones' face before the officials broke it up? Interesting way you have of backing up your game officials. You didn't notice their work on that play, then you undermined their efforts at the end of the game. How noble.

"The purpose of the rule is to prevent the escalation of these types of altercations and then in turn protect the healthy and safety of our players."

Then the rule did not come into play, and it should never have been implemented. There was no escalation. The referees did a fine job of ensuring everyone's safety.

"If it's a rule that needs to be revisited, we're open to revisiting it but right now the rule is very clear."

Yeah, you said that already. Right after the part where you felt compelled to interpret the rule as far as where Diaw and Stoudemire were standing.

"I've not seen a player report in quite that way (in relation to Stoudemire's claim that he was checking in)."

You've also never seen a player resting on the bench without warmups. If Amare was not preparing to check in, then he would have been wearing his warm ups and had ice taped to his knees. Regardless of Stoudemire's story, it is your duty to give the player the benefit of the doubt when the truth is not clear and the excuse is plausible. Would you have felt better if he simply said that he was checking on Nash? Well, you didn't accept it from Diaw (he's French, ya know - not exactly known for being in attack mode), so why should you accept anything short of divine intervention on Amare's behalf?

"This is a very unfortunate circumstance but the rule is the rule. It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness. This is the right decision at this point in time."

Yeah. The U.S. Government said something similar when Japanese-Americans were placed in internment camps in the Arizona desert during World War II. Or perhaps the military draft is a better example. It wasn't fair that certain privileged members of our country were pardoned from active duty, but it was the right thing to do because, God knows, those poor working class slobs won't amount to anything anyway. Better they die in war than struggle to make ends meet back home.

Conclusion:

It is not a fair rule, but it IS a rule, and it is very clear on the actions that require punishment (except that whole nasty interpretation business). Precedent wasn't necessary because the league already sidestepped the rule before, so it wouldn't be "right" to compare the incidents. It is only an altercation when more than two players are involved, and the referees don't maintain control before anything starts (does a flagrant 2 foul count as starting it?), or when the San Antonio Spurs remain on the bench. Finally, we're all a bunch of brain dead carcasses filling seats and tuning in, so you'll decide at a later date whether the rule needs to be revisited. The fact that the vast majority of poll data among NBA fans so far (between 75% and 90%) suggests that the suspensions were a bad decision, but the league is still not quite sure until its officials take their summer vacations.

Ladies and gentleman, we are dealing with a true jackass of all trades.

Stern Injustice

It is better to be predictably stupid than surprisingly wise.

I have declined to comment on the "racial bias among NBA referees" story for good reason. It is the worst kind of research in that the conclusions were drawn based almost purely on speculation (they didn't know which official called which foul on which player, or whether those fouls were legitimately called). To their credit, the researches did ask the league for more comprehensive statistics, but David Sterned declined. Instead, the league performed its own analysis based on those "confidential" files (presumably to protect the referees' privacy or whatever) over the three year period between 2001 and 2004.

I learned that fact originally while watching a first round game between New Jersey and Toronto, during which Stern was interviewed by the national broadcaster (I don't recall whether it was TNT or ESPN...sorry). His indignant response struck me as odd for someone claiming to be confident in his league's findings.

When we have gone to the expense of saying you raised a fair subject, let us analyze it ourselves and may we share the data with you and obviously they had a deadline because the information was so fresh it ended in 2003. They had to rush into publication. Why? Because they wanted to get good play on the front page of The New York Times. We're not buying it.

-NBA Commissioner David Stern

He went on to say that the whole story, the way the New York Times just came out with it during the playoffs, was a "bum rap." Sure, he said that the study conducted by Justin Wolfers and Joseph Price was "wrong," but he stopped short of saying how or why. He never once spoke to the obvious invalidity of the study. He never once offered up his league's own findings.

He did eventually (supposedly) release a copy of the league's racial bias study to the researchers, who immediately proclaimed that it did not disprove their claim. The problem with that is that it is their job to prove a claim based on empirical evidence, and not the league's job to disprove anything. Still, the researchers never said that the league's study proved anything. Basically, the findings were inconclusive to the point that they helped neither side.

I only bring all this up because it points to a dark trend coming from Stern's office. It is right up there with the fines for owners, players, and coaches who openly question the officiating in the league. It is no different than his "I have the final say" attitude on matters such as Amare Stoudemire's and Boris Diaw's one-game suspensions for game five of the Western Conference Semifinals against the Spurs.

David Stern is more interested in protecting the "integrity" of the league, its rules, and its officials than he is in pursuing justice. When confronted with questions about the league's policies, Stern bristles like a porcupine in a wind storm, as if he'd rather throw darts than recognize his environment. This is a man who knows that he is wrong, but does not know how to fix what he has done wrong.

(In the world we live in today, how can anyone stand so firm on such an inescapably deteriorating situation so much that it endangers the integrity of the organization/community/government?)

I have watched the replays of the game four incident as many times as anybody, and I see something that only a few fellow bloggers and message board addicts have noticed. Stoudemire and Diaw moved from the bench on the foul. As soon as Robert Horry slammed Steve Nash into the scorers' table, as soon as they heard the thud, as soon as they heard the crowd collectively wince, Stoudemire and Diaw jumped from their spots and headed directly toward Steve Nash. Leandro Barbosa had run down court toward the bench, then turned back when he saw Nash hit the deck.

(Here's proof)


(Nash has just hit the floor after bouncing off the table, D'Antoni has just gotten to him, and Amare is already on the court.)


(Nash is still on the floor, D'Antoni looks up at Robert Horry. Coach hasn't been restrained by Steve Javie, and Amare has taken another step. Phil Weber is keeping tabs on Stat with his left hand.)

Boris took two steps and turned around, never touching the inbounds area of the court. Stoudemire moved around the crowd and made it to the coach's line where Marc Iavaroni stopped Amare's progress. Barbosa was back on the other side of half court backing up Raja Bell, who was by now coming straight up into Horry's grill. THAT was the start of the altercation, and Diaw and Stoudemire were both corralled before it got to that point. Steve Nash hadn't even sprung from the floor yet, and Amare and Boris were back with the bench.

What law's letters spell out a punishment for that? EVERY player in the NBA will jump from their seat on a hard foul to one of their teammates, especially their leader. There is no punishment for that. EVERY NBA player stands just inside the sideline on the playing surface when their team is on the other side of the court during a tightly contested match up. There is no punishment for that, yet that is all Diaw and Stoudemire did. Stoudemire was over the sideline before the foul occurred, and his and Diaw's first movements were toward Nash lying along the scorers' table.

Yet this is an instance where, despite the excellent job of averting any court chaos by the three officials on duty, David Stern felt that the hammer needed to be lowered as hard as ever.

Why? Because Amare Stoudemire had only days before questioned the integrity of the officiating? Because he called the league's choir boys "dirty"? Because Amare Stoudemire is a rather dark shade of brown?

(Hey...if he was so defensive and oversensitive about the racial bias findings, then it stands to reason that he is trying to hide a very real problem with himself.)

But I'm not calling Stern a closet racist. I'm merely suggesting that there may be more to all of this than we all know. One might even suggest that the suspension of Joey Crawford was a method of preemptive plausible deniability. Even if it isn't, it sure helps his case.

See, fans? I punish referees!

See, fans? I hear your pleas!

See, fans? I am a fair arbiter!

What's next? He'll tell us that he found weapons of mass destruction buried beneath a bunker in Baghdad?

The problem with this whole situation with the suspensions is that it is too late for Diaw and Stoudemire. The rule is in place, and they technically did violate it. But instead of making a rational, common sense decision, David Stern fell back on the old stand by that "precedent has to be maintained". This is how it has been handled, so this is how it should be handled.

Too bad the rule does not state that what those players did is actually grounds for suspension. Stu Jackson reportedly argued that the players were "25 feet" from the bench. For perspective, realize that an NBA court is 90 feet long. The distance from baseline to the time line measures 45 feet. The hash mark that indicates the substitution area measures 28 feet from the baseline (even with the three point arc's pinnacle), and the end of the bench lies approximately 13 feet towards the baseline from that mark.

That is where Diaw and Stoudemire were turned around. Diaw took two full steps before turning, and he was standing at the midcourt end of the bench. Stoudemire was behind him and standing over the sideline. Neither player made it even close to midcourt, which would be 25 feet from the bench. Jackson obviously chose to measure from the baseline, where the 12th man sits.

But they moved beyond the end of the bench, so they were technically not in the immediate vicinity. So they "had" to be suspended, even if it meant an unfair advantage for the Spurs in the forthcoming game five of the series.

Stern and Jackson talk as if the rule is written in stone, the meaning clear and concise. But there is a lot of room for interpretation in the words "altercation" and "immediate vicinity" (although "during" is relatively specific). That is how a good rule is written. It may be interpreted at any time in any reasonable way by an arbiter of justice, so that changes in philosophy and public attitude may be accounted for when making a ruling - or even if it's just a simple judgement call that needs to be made.

This incident screams for interpretation. This situation could not be handled to the "letter of the law" because it did not fit within that description, nor is the "letter of the law" clear on a circumstance such as this - an incident in which players were already on the floor before the altercation started, then moved immediately upon realization of the situation . That means that precedent, as ignorant and out-dated as it has been for several years, should have been avoided.
But David Stern, with his almighty power of the commissioner, decided that the integrity of the game - HIS game, it seems - would be better served with Diaw and Stoudemire sitting at home for game five. That is the epitome of stupidity.

The dark shroud of injustice has fully engulfed the NBA landscape with Stern's unreasonable yet predictable decision to suspend two players who did nothing wrong. His actions (suddenly cancelling his trip to Phoenix on the day of game five) and words paint an ugly portrait of the state of the NBA. Stern is more interested in expanding the league to China than he is in correcting a problem that affects his fans at home.

Still, is anyone surprised?

More on the Travesty

I'm just going to put this here now, since I know the league will make an official reply before game five.

Stern's response to the critics of the league's decision will go something like this...

"The league made a difficult decision. We weighed every option, but in the end, we feel we made the right decision. We understand that it is not a popular decision, but what is right is not always what is popular. The rule has been in place, and we have already set precedent that any player leaving the bench during an altercation will receive an automatic one game suspension."

The crux of his response will be the "right vs. popular" argument he makes. I'm going to cut that off at the pass and simply say for now, "It's not unpopular because it's right. It's unpopular because it is wrong and undeniably stupid and counterproductive to the league's standards of excellence."

I know people have said things like this in the past (especially after the 1997-98 lockout), but if this decision has an adverse outcome on this series, if it destroys Phoenix's title run, then I will not be watching the National Basketball Association again until there is a new commissioner. It is hard enough being a fan of a team that has not won a title in its 40 season history. The last thing any fan wants to see is the league itself placing roadblocks on that path. It undermines the integrity of the league, and it only serves to perpetuate the claim that there is indeed a league-wide conspiracy to protect certain players and certain teams.

All of this, of course, is my secondary gut reaction to comments not even made, yet. But I will stand by it. If David Stern and Stu Jackson will not remove their craniums from their lower orifices, then I will no longer support "the greatest game in the world."

*Update:

Oh look, espn Insider Chris Sheridan already asked Stu Jackson...

This is a very unfortunate incident, but the rule is the rule. It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness, and this is the right decision.

Get ready for another heapin' helpin' of cognitive dissonance from the league office.

The Day the Series Died

Wonderful. A perfectly good series that had just been rescued from the brink of controversy to vault into instant classic territory, ruined by David Stern doing his best Bud Selig impersonation.

Fans everywhere were concerned after game four that the results of Cheap Shot Rob's (yes, I'll happily jump on THAT bandwagon) unsportsmanlike, unprofessional, immature hit on Steve Nash would ruin this series. We pondered an impossible amount of scenarios that would work out best for the teams, the next game, the series, and the playoffs as a whole. It was a given that Horry would be suspended, but the fates of Boris Diaw and Amare Stoudemire were in question.

Diaw, who has been a disappointment all season long due to his lack of intensity and desire on the court, takes two steps towards his fallen captain, and he loses a game and $35,000.

Stoudemire, still a big kid in a man's game, follows his gut reaction in a hotly contested, highly physical (more so as the series progresses) contest by jumping up to come to his point guard's defense, gets pulled aside by Marc Iavaroni before getting near the "altercation", and he, too, gets to sit out game five.

Why? Because David Stern and Stu Jackson are so wrapped up in the "integrity of the game" cloak that they can't see the bigger picture? Can these two businessmen, who have built a legacy for the league as a global marketing icon, REALLY have made one of the worst business decisions in league history?

Although not nearly in the same ballpark, this decision goes right to the top of the list as one of professional sports' biggest "What the Fuck?!" moves, right underneath using the MLB All Star game to determine home field advantage in the World Series. It was dumb. It was ill-conceived. It had everything but the best interest of the game in mind, namely the best interest of the commissioner.

This is a commissioner who has been roundly criticized for taking authoritarian rule to Mussolini levels.

During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000. The suspensions will commence prior to the start of their next game.

NBA rule section VII-c under "Fines" states the punishment clearly, that players who leave "the immediate vicinity of their bench" during an "altercation" will be suspended and fined. David Stern's interpretation leaves out "immediate vicinity", and he has taken it upon himself to declare that the rule states that, during an altercation, no player may leave the bench (PERIOD).

This is the same guy who has denied owner requests to expand the league to Las Vegas, a HUGE marketing and sales bonanza, because he is afraid gambling on NBA games will somehow affect the league. Last I checked, people are already gambling on games, no evidence of fixes or shady dealings have surfaced, and everyone involved seems to be doing quite well.

This is also the same person who made a backroom deal with Spalding to release a new line of synthetic basketballs ($100 a pop) to the public without giving players a say in the decision, and without giving them time to adjust. When the complaints from several future Hall of Fame players, including reigning MVP Steve Nash, he made another bone headed, one-sided decision to change back to the leather ball midseason, with only one day for teams to adjust.

Stern is so bent on his own megalomaniacal vision of the entire league, he refuses to exercise any semblance of common sense and human decency because it might make him look like a hypocrite. God forbid that someone thinks that you've done a terrible job and should be fired, Mr. Commissioner. General managers, coaches, and players live with that criticism every day, so what makes David Stern think that he should be held to a different standard than the people who are actually responsible for bringing the product to the consumers?

He's a business person, not a judge. His nature precludes him from making socially beneficial decisions, instead guiding him along the path of self-preservation. He is quickly becoming the George W. Bush of professional sports in America.

Just like the Bushes, David Stern has clearly never been in a fight in his life (though we don't know if Stern's family sold steel illegally to the Nazis). He has never seen his friends or family attacked in a vicious and brutish manner. And it seems likely that he has never fallen victim to his own overloaded emotions (if he has any). If he had, then we would see a lot more discretion in his handling of penalties.

He decided that the officials would rule any display of emotion after a tough call as an automatic technical foul, which only served to suck the life out of the game early in the season.

He decided that Carmelo Anthony was the worst violator in the MSG fight in December, even though it was Nate Robinson and Jared Jeffries piling on the Street Fighter routine by chasing down players and getting into everyone's face, doing their best to continue the action.

He decided that Kobe Bryant's "inadvertent" elbowing of Manu Ginobili was an act worthy of a one game suspension without previous warning.

And now he decides that two players, who have done nothing more than jump to the aid of their comrade without getting involved or heading into the fray, should be removed from the biggest game of any playoff series - game five, tied at two wins apiece. (I believe the statistic is that around 74% of teams who win game five in this situation go on to win the series, although the number could be as low as the 60s.)

What a brilliant marketing maneuver. During a time when the league's ratings are lower than the cut on a French bikini, Stern has the egomaniacal audacity to follow his own gutless precedent by potentially ruining the best playoff match up since Magic Johnson's Lakers met Michael Jordan's Bulls in the 1991 Finals.

Fans don't remember the marketing. They don't care about the global influence of the NBA. And the only people who care about NBA Cares are the ad execs in the league's New York business offices.

Fans remember great play, great series, and great championship runs. They also remember the worst decisions in NBA history (Sam Bowie, anyone?).

The only salvation possible for this entire mess is if the Suns can overcome Stern's ineptness at managing the league. If they do that, then no one will care about game five of the 2007 Western Conference Semifinals.

If the Suns don't win it all (especially if they lose this series), what do you think fans will remember most about the 2007 NBA season?

Not a damn thing, and we're right back to 1999.

The Gash

We are witnessing a rite of passage.

Steve Nash, the reigning MVP and hopeful usurper of the NBA crown, has been battered. He's been beaten. He's been bloodied. Steve Nash is paying his dues. Should the Suns win the title this year, there will be no more question whether or not Nash deserved his MVP trophies. He will have paid off the interest and principal on those awards in this Western Conference Semi-Final round by the time he earns his championship.

Through four games, the Spurs have hazed Steve Nash into the fraternity whose membership is made up only of league champions. Every Hall of Fame champion earned his stripes on the way to the title by getting hammered and tossed around like a puppy in a dryer. A board check from Horry. A Nut n' Honey moment courtesy of Bruce Bowen. The header Steve took into Tony Parker's forehead.

That image has become the icon of this series. If the Suns win it all, the video of Steve Nash's bandaged nose, dripping with blood as he sat helplessly on the sidelines trying to get back in the game in crunch time, will forever be linked with the 2007 NBA Finals and the entire playoffs. It has become known as the "Nose Gash," or more simply, "The Gash."

It symbolizes everything Nash has gone through in this series, scrapping and fighting his way like Rocky IV, taking the best hits the Evil Winning Machine has to offer and coming back in the end to conquer his life long nemesis. It stands as a microcosm of the beatings Nash has taken (and will take) on his way to his first Finals MVP.

That's what the stories will say. It will be all over the news and sports sites and anywhere someone writes about professional basketball, either for a living or as a hobby. Allow me to be the first to offer up this story.

The Gash is emblematic of the Suns attack on the Spurs' psyche. It has been beaten to death, the idea that the Spurs are in the Suns' heads. Take each game individually, and that could very well be seen as the case. But I've been asking for days, who is in whose head?

This is a series, not a collection of games. The playoffs are about adjustments, are they not? Who said that they had to be tactical adjustments? Who said that they had to be strategic? The Suns have been making an adjustment with as much improvisation as a Steve Nash-led fast break.

In case nobody noticed, I have been saying since game one that this series doesn't come down to match ups on the floor or on the bench. It is not about X-factors and star players or point totals. This series gets its intrigue from the match up of styles (and I see that the conventional media joined me on this particular bandwagon after game two). I said that this all would come down to who plays best at whose game.

The Suns have been getting roughed up by the officiating as much as they have by the Spurs. There is no denying it, as it has become the general topic of conversation regarding this series. The Suns are whining. The Spurs are just playing tough, physical playoff basketball. The Suns aren't mentally tough. And on. And on. And on.

But the Suns were just playing the Spurs' game. Are the Spurs not infamous for their whining and "who me, no not me!" looks when they get whistled for a foul or violation? The Suns took that from the Spurs right off the block. That's why the officiating and supposedly dirty play has been the forefront of discussion - the Suns are bigger whiners than the Spurs.

No one seemed to pick up on the fact that the Suns were outdoing the Spurs where San Antonio usually gets the biggest advantage. That foul advantage goes along way to securing three championship banners in the rafters of AT&T Center.

It started with game one, and Amare's controversial 4th foul. Then it turned into the Suns overcoming the disparity in fouls to blow out the Spurs in game two. After that, Amare said the dirtiest word in all of sports - "dirty." Then the referees seemed to assert their authority over Amare in game three. It continued on into game four.

Amare's claims brought the league's attention onto the series. Bowen's knee brought them to action. The league responded by putting three of the toughest-minded officials in the league on this game. Joe DeRosa, Jack Nies, and Steve Javie aren't known for taking crap from players and coaches, but they are known for making tough calls and letting players decide the rest.

Suddenly the Suns were getting the benefit of the 50-50 fouls. Suddenly Tim Duncan was getting called for his shuffle step that usually results in no travel call. And most poignant of all calls in the game was the charge that Steve Nash drew on Tim Duncan, the fans in San Antonio pleading for the blocking call because Nash was supposedly in the circle.

To be fair, Nash did appear to be in the circle on the replay. The best I can tell is that Steve got into position just before Duncan got there, and Duncan's momentum pushed Steve over the line. We should all understand, by now, the tricky nature of the block/charge call. I won't get into it, except to say that it was a tough call. That's what these officials are known for.

In the fourth quarter, Duncan found himself on the bench with 5 fouls. Amare did, as well, but most of those were from his own defensive lapses. The one exception being the foul in the open court, where Fabricio Oberto flopped. Yes, there was contact, but nothing truly foul-worthy.

It is a common call in the NBA, though, except when it happens on rebounds. It's a position move, where both players are fighting for the same spot. But when a player does it on the rebound, the other player doesn't flop to the floor looking for a foul. It doesn't seem too brilliant to hit the deck with three or four very large men jumping on top of you, does it? Personally, I think it should be a no-call. It's ticky-tack, and it's a move that doesn't interfere with the game, except a very large man has fallen to the floor, endangering any potential lane drivers.

Other than that, and the tough Steve Nash charge (when it could be interpreted that Tony Parker elbowed Nash into Oberto), the Suns seemed to get the benefit of a few more favorable calls than the Spurs. (I'll find a more accurate count when I download the series from the official league site.)

The Spurs were shocked, to say the least. They did not look like happy campers at all once the Suns started to make their fourth quarter push. The Spurs had their usual look of astonishment after every call, but some of them looked genuine this time. They really couldn't believe that some favorable calls for the Suns cost the Spurs the game.

That is a deep gash for a champion to take. The blood spilled from the bandage of Saturday night's Spurs win when Robert Horry decided to play a little ice hockey with 18 seconds left in the game.

The Suns did not play great basketball through the majority of three quarters. But with some tough defense and determined offense, the Suns performed the greatest rope-a-dope since October 30, 1974. Nash and the Suns took the best that the Spurs had to offer for three quarters, and the Spurs were dealing it pretty good. The Suns looked ragged on offense, clueless on defense, yet only found themselves down by seven going into the fourth quarter.

That is striking distance.

After duking it out to a 20-17 near draw for most of the fourth, the Suns got off the ropes, headed for the open court, and laid a series of jabs, crosses, and body blows and knocked the wind right out of the Spurs to the tune of a 12-1 scoring run to end the game. The Suns did what they always do when not playing particularly well against a lesser opponent. They fought hard, hung around, and turned it on in the end. They did it to several lottery teams throughout the season, as well as some playoff teams (January 2 in Chicago comes to mind).

The Suns took that game and cut a swath the size of Texas right through San Antonio's psyche. The Suns ripped out their hearts for one game (at least), and left them bloody and bent.

The Suns have to win this series. The Suns have to win the championship this year. Steve Nash has paid his dues. He's fought through the gauntlet and come out stronger.

The Suns have climbed the mountain and planted their flag in its summit. Now they have to get down the other side without falling.

That is their rite of passage. This is Steve Nash's legacy.

Bitte, Herr Kommissar Stern

Here's my feeling on the upcoming suspensions.

Amare clearly came onto the court, which is against the hard line rule. The NBA goes by the hard line in these cases.

I hope he doesn't get suspended, but if he does, Horry better get suspended for two games. It was a flagrant 2 foul, but it happened at the end of a game that was already decided. It was that blatant disregard for player safety (which Amare has been harping on for three days now) that cause the Suns bench to erupt.

In an emotional playoff game that has already been waiting to explode into a fight, it was bound to happen that Players would step on the court. Amare wouldn't have been there (except to check into the game ha ha) if not for Horry's actions. The body check itself was an inciting act, as well as a cheap shot.

My understanding after Carmelo's incident in New York was that a thrown punch is grounds for immediate one game suspension. But Carmelo got 15 games and Nate Robinson got 10 games for escalating the situation. In the case of game four, the situation was already escalated due to hard fouls and alleged dirty play in the previous three games.

So doesn't it stand to reason that Robert Horry should be suspended multiple games for committing a dirty, player-safety endangering foul, as well as escalating an already heated situation? His actions caused Boris Diaw's and Amare Stoudemire's spontaneous gut reactions. And no one seemed to notice that Marcus Banks even stepped onto the floor near the end of the bench to get a better look at what was going on. Will he be suspended with Amare?

I really hope that the league uses it's collective common sense for once, and do the right thing here. You can either suspend Horry for one game, then fine Stoudemire and Diaw if they left the bench. Or you can follow the letter of the law and suspend all players involved, with a little extra for Robert Horry.

I don't know which I prefer. I want my full team on the floor for game 5, but the less I see of Horry, the better for all of us. I'll go with the one game suspension for Horry and fines for the others. No sense in getting all Draconian on such a great series. If the NBA is smart, and they'd better be, they'll go easy on this one. They need to have as many players on the floor for as many games as possible in order to set up ratings for the Finals.

This is the series of the year, and it will be remembered as a classic. I promise you that. I'll be writing about it for hours. But not if the league gets stupid on us. Don't be the Kommissar. Be the Commissioner and do the right thing.

Please. Be David. Don't be Stern on this one.

Suns - Spurs Round 2 Game 4

This is telling. The referee crew working this game consists of Joe DeRosa, Steve Javie, and Jack Nies. This is a VETERAN crew. The league isn't messing around with this game.

2 Q 8:43

Where were Diaw and Marion? They're supposed to be Leandro's back up on that match up. If one of those two had cut off the drive, Barbosa wouldn't have fouled. Bench defense needs to pick it up.

2Q 2:49

Looks like the Suns are finally getting some marginally favorable calls. I say "marginally" because they seem to be either-way calls. They're showing better patience on the offensive end, which I think they need to get the Spurs moving. If the Suns have to play half court, they can still tire out the Spurs for a nice fourth quarter run. That's how the Suns have won the two games against San Antonio this year. No reason to get away from it now.

Upon further review, it was indeed Boris who did not protect the paint on that Ginobili drive on Leandro.

Addendum to the referee observation: These are three of the biggest egos in NBA officiating. These are all guys who won't take crap from anybody, even if they make the wrong call. They don't usually do make up calls, but they will call it evenly. These guys are in here to cut down the whining on both sides, and to prevent any postgame complaints. Put it this way - if Joey Crawford weren't suspended, he'd be in there instead of DeRosa. Not the hothead, Duncan-tossing Crawford. The one with 30 years experience and something like 14 Finals appearances.

3 Q 7:05 OK. I take it back. That was a make up call.

Defending the three point line. What a novel concept. I wish the Suns knew it.

4 Q 18.2

Oh, look at that. Horry can't handle losing to the Suns at home. Guess who's going to be sitting in a bar watching game 5 on Wednesday night.

I ask again...

Who's in whose head?

Well would ya look at that - Suns have home court advantage again. But the really important thing is that they beat the Spurs in San Antonio, coming from behind after playing a sloppy three quarters. And the Spurs players were none too thrilled.

I wonder who will miss game 5, though. Horry should. Diaw maybe, and Stoudemire, as well? I hope it's not as bad as it looks.

*Update:

I'm pondering a few different article ideas, and I'm hoping for some good material by morning. I would love to do a "fuck you" entry for anyone in the media who said the Suns should shut up about the calls, but are now going to question the Suns' favorable calls tonight.

I would like to point out, however, my second quarter update with 2:49 to go. Allow me to pat myself on the back and say, "Nice call." The Suns finished the game on a 12-1 run.