ESPN's 1st and 10 is dramatically affected by the participants. Today, ESPN subjected us to Pat Forde and Jemele Hill.
The first topic is Manu Ginobli. Dana Jacobsen asked if Ginobli ruined the series. Honestly, I didn't watch the game because I can't stand watching the Spurs the way the refs are officiating the games. Pat Forde praised Ginobli for drawing fouls. He then admonished Kirilenko, Boozer and Okur for not getting to the foul line. I won't get bogged down arguing that you shouldn't drive to create fouls. Tonight, despite rooting for the Cavs, I was a little sick when Drew Gooden drove in and threw his hip into a Piston and then shot the ball in the direction of the rim while facing the sideline. Gooden contorted his body to produce contact and prevent his shot from being blocked. He wasn't trying to make the shot. Ginobli and Parker do it all the time and it shouldn't be rewarded by the officials. Moving on, the comparison to the Jazz frontline doesn't really make sense. Why single out the Jazz frontline to compare to a SG? The player on the Jazz who should be taking it to the hole and getting to the line is PG Deron Williams. Kirilenko, while a slasher, is not a guy that is going to take over games late consistently by taking defenders off the dribble. Carlos gets to the line a fair amount, but he's not in Ginobli's class when it comes to creating off the bounce. And, Okur doesn't have the type of game that will result in a lot of foul shots. Penetrators like Parker, Ginobli, Wade, Bryant, etc. shoot lots of FT's. Williams has to be that guy for the Jazz because Fisher and Giricek aren't. That is probably the biggest weakness the Jazz have. But, it seems odd that Ginobli shot 13 FT's in the 4th quarter while attempting only 3 FG's. It's hard to imagine there wasn't a lot of flopping ... similar to the Daniel Gibson spasm and flop to make it look like Richard Hamilton touched him tonight. That call was ridiculous (and I was rooting for the Cavs!). Hill seems to think Ginobli is creating a villian persona. I don't see that. Sure, the Jazz fans didn't like him, but does anyone outside of Utah really care?
Jemele says the fans and media are going to turn on Roger Clemens because the Yankees are going to miss the playoffs despite Clemens pitching well. Really? The Yankees are now 14.5 games back (13.5 when the program aired). The good news for NYY fans is that they're not double digits back in the WC race! The media and fans should be smart enough to realize that if Clemens is pitching well, it's not his fault if the Yankees don't make the post-season. When they signed Clemens, there weren't many other options. It's not like they signed him in the off-season and let other FA's go elsewhere. If Cashman and Steinbrenner were saving capital for Clemens, then maybe the fans need to look at that decision. Both panelists think Clemens should face the Red Sox. Personally, I agree with the thought that pitching Clemens on Monday against the White Sox makes sense. They have Wang, Mussina and Pettitte scheduled against the Red Sox. Wang and Pettitte won games against Wakefield and Schilling the last time these two squads faced off. Mussina got roughed up a bit. But, if you want to insert Clemens instead of Mussina, you'd have to have either Clemens or Pettitte pitch a day early and you'd have to push Mussina two days. I don't know how well Mussina would react to such a move. If Pettitte had been knocked around the last time out against Boston then pushing him back would make more sense. Remember, Clemens hasn't pitched in the AL (or against a lineup like Boston's) in a while. It makes more sense to pitch him against Chicago so he has more breaks in the lineup (potentially easy innings).
Dirk for Kobe? Hill and Forde like Kobe more than Dirk. Obviously, that deal would leave a big hole up front for the Mavericks and overload the Lakers with PF's (Nowitzki, Odom, Brown). I guess the Mavs could play small ball with Harris, Terry, Kobe, Howard and Diop in the middle. Hill likes the LA - Chicago trade of Kobe for Deng, Gordon and Ben Wallace. That would leave Chicago with Hinrich and Bryant in the backcourt, and a frontcourt rotation of Sefolosha, Nocioni, Brown and Thomas. Sure, it gets Kobe into the easier Eastern Conference. But, are Hinrich, Nocioni, Thomas and Brown an upgrade over Farmar, Walton, Odom and Brown? It's not the kind of upgrade that will put Kobe back in contention for another NBA crown. Now, if you could add Kobe to the Bulls without giving back Deng, Gordon and Wallace, you might be on to something. And, look at the Lakers after that trade. You'd have Farmar, Gordon, Deng, Odom and Wallace. Is that better than the current Bulls squad of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Brown and Wallace, with Duhon, Sefolosha, Nocioni and Sefolosha off the bench? Not particularly. Hill seems to think Kobe would be another "MJ" in Chicago. If you trade away Deng, Gordon and Wallace, who is left to play Pippen and Grant in the championship run?
Hill was wrong in predicting the Pistons would win. She thought Hughes not being healthy would allow Billups to take advantage of smaller guards. Why not put James or Pavlovic on Billups and let Daniel Gibson chase Hamilton all over the court?
Bonds and the Hall-of-Fame, Venus - Serena, Tony & Eva ... exciting. Who cares about a $30K wedding cake? I wouldn't order one, but if they want to spend their money on that, fine. I hope it looks, and tastes, really good. Hopefully, it won't just fall down in a heap on the floor.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Wanted: Warnings on Personal Fouls
In a quest for consistency in the NBA, I'm leading the crusade for more warnings. Currently, teams are warned the first time they commit a "delay of game." I think the warnings should be applied to even more calls, because from official to official the interpretation of the rules is fairly inconsistent. The players should be given a warning so they can get acclimated each game.
Personal fouls: some officials allow more contact than others. Also, the block/charge call is often a gray area. Fouls are valuable, so players should get a warning so they don't pick up a ticky-tack one early when they didn't realize they were doing anything wrong.
Traveling and palming (carrying): obviously, this is a spotty call. Some officials call these violations, although I don't think any enforce it consistently. By giving a warning, you would key players in on what is acceptable on a given night. It's only fair.
Three in the key: application of this rule is variable and, while some warnings are given verbally during games, big men should get a warning ... no need for another turnover when players are exploring the limits of acceptable behavior.
Technical fouls: sometimes, people just want to get a "T." If so, warn them and let them keep talking. But, let Tim Duncan know that his mocking claps aren't acceptable. Warn the coach that if he's out of his box he'll get one and give him one the next time. Warn Rasheed, then don't put up with him cussing at you the rest of the game. Seems pretty reasonable ... much more reasonable than handing out a technical foul every time a player looks at an official early in the year, then relaxing the standards over the course of the season so that now players are allowed to rip into officials without any punishment. What's the rule, David?
Obviously, I'm not exactly serious, although it seems like it would be nice to know how the rules were going to be applied going into a game. In baseball, the rules aren't applied exactly the same by all the umpires. However, while umps occasionally miss calls, in baseball the only real large variation is in the application of the strike zone by the plate ump. And, usually, the teams figure out the strike zone pretty early and it's pretty consistent throughout the game, a stark contrast to fits of traveling and 3 seconds that often plague basketball.
Tim Duncan just took two steps after catching the ball ... stopped ... dribbled ... then went up for a shot. Obviously, it was a travel ... or it would have been if it was someone besides Duncan. Oh, and they just bailed out Parker with 49.8 left in the 2nd quarter ... after a travel by Parker. That's nice.
They need to get the application of rules refined a little bit because there are so many calls that have such large variation. Many don't occur often in games and that makes it worse because teams aren't able to adjust. Also, why do they give delay of game warnings and illegal defense warnings? Isn't a delay of game always a delay of game? They don't change the rule in such a way that teams don't know what is or isn't a violation of the rule from game to game, at least not in the book ... just like they don't for goaltending, traveling, etc. And, why do you get a freebie for illegal defense? Teams should know what illegal defense is ... they shouldn't need a warning if the rules are applied consistently ... if only that were the case.
Personal fouls: some officials allow more contact than others. Also, the block/charge call is often a gray area. Fouls are valuable, so players should get a warning so they don't pick up a ticky-tack one early when they didn't realize they were doing anything wrong.
Traveling and palming (carrying): obviously, this is a spotty call. Some officials call these violations, although I don't think any enforce it consistently. By giving a warning, you would key players in on what is acceptable on a given night. It's only fair.
Three in the key: application of this rule is variable and, while some warnings are given verbally during games, big men should get a warning ... no need for another turnover when players are exploring the limits of acceptable behavior.
Technical fouls: sometimes, people just want to get a "T." If so, warn them and let them keep talking. But, let Tim Duncan know that his mocking claps aren't acceptable. Warn the coach that if he's out of his box he'll get one and give him one the next time. Warn Rasheed, then don't put up with him cussing at you the rest of the game. Seems pretty reasonable ... much more reasonable than handing out a technical foul every time a player looks at an official early in the year, then relaxing the standards over the course of the season so that now players are allowed to rip into officials without any punishment. What's the rule, David?
Obviously, I'm not exactly serious, although it seems like it would be nice to know how the rules were going to be applied going into a game. In baseball, the rules aren't applied exactly the same by all the umpires. However, while umps occasionally miss calls, in baseball the only real large variation is in the application of the strike zone by the plate ump. And, usually, the teams figure out the strike zone pretty early and it's pretty consistent throughout the game, a stark contrast to fits of traveling and 3 seconds that often plague basketball.
Tim Duncan just took two steps after catching the ball ... stopped ... dribbled ... then went up for a shot. Obviously, it was a travel ... or it would have been if it was someone besides Duncan. Oh, and they just bailed out Parker with 49.8 left in the 2nd quarter ... after a travel by Parker. That's nice.
They need to get the application of rules refined a little bit because there are so many calls that have such large variation. Many don't occur often in games and that makes it worse because teams aren't able to adjust. Also, why do they give delay of game warnings and illegal defense warnings? Isn't a delay of game always a delay of game? They don't change the rule in such a way that teams don't know what is or isn't a violation of the rule from game to game, at least not in the book ... just like they don't for goaltending, traveling, etc. And, why do you get a freebie for illegal defense? Teams should know what illegal defense is ... they shouldn't need a warning if the rules are applied consistently ... if only that were the case.
Another reason I hate Texas
Francisco Elson just blatantly kicked the ball (1:26 left in the first quarter) and the refs didn't see it? Oh, they just called a fairly obvious travel on Elson to give the Suns the ball back. No, that's not my reason for disliking the Spurs. The problem I have with San Antonio is that they play to draw fouls on offense and get them, then they ride the other team on defense and do not seem to get called for it. I guess the refs are culpable in this one as well.
Watch a Spurs game and you'll see Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker throwing themselves into defenders trying to get fouls called instead of trying to make the shots. You'll also witness Tim Duncan manipulate his shooting motion to hit the defender while he's chucking the ball at the basket. Then, there is Bruce Bowen. On his game-winning game 5 3-pointer, he kicked his right leg out to the side to try to get contact with Steve Nash as Nash challenged his shot. Honestly, I don't know what the refs are thinking on these plays, or why they don't call more fouls at the other end when Ginobli is reaching and Bowen is riding the offensive player like (use your imagination).
Robert Horry blamed Steve Nash for acting at the end of game 4. Well, if I remember correctly, when Nash and Parker banged heads at the end of game 1, it was Parker who went down and needed attention. Nash, despite a huge gash being opened on his nose, never went down and just went to the bench to be attended to. Parker and Ginobli are world-class floppers and, for a tough defensive team, the Spurs sure do whine quite a bit. Shouldn't they be tough and able to play through it? The Spurs are led by a trio of prima donnasand no one seems to call them on it.
Watch a Spurs game and you'll see Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker throwing themselves into defenders trying to get fouls called instead of trying to make the shots. You'll also witness Tim Duncan manipulate his shooting motion to hit the defender while he's chucking the ball at the basket. Then, there is Bruce Bowen. On his game-winning game 5 3-pointer, he kicked his right leg out to the side to try to get contact with Steve Nash as Nash challenged his shot. Honestly, I don't know what the refs are thinking on these plays, or why they don't call more fouls at the other end when Ginobli is reaching and Bowen is riding the offensive player like (use your imagination).
Robert Horry blamed Steve Nash for acting at the end of game 4. Well, if I remember correctly, when Nash and Parker banged heads at the end of game 1, it was Parker who went down and needed attention. Nash, despite a huge gash being opened on his nose, never went down and just went to the bench to be attended to. Parker and Ginobli are world-class floppers and, for a tough defensive team, the Spurs sure do whine quite a bit. Shouldn't they be tough and able to play through it? The Spurs are led by a trio of prima donnasand no one seems to call them on it.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Take a Stern Look in the Mirror
David Stern made appearances on numerous media outlets to defend the suspensions of Stoudemire and Diaw for game 5. He cited the rule being the rule; it wasn't a choice, the suspensions had to be handed down. It was correct AND fair because the rule is the rule (Stu Jackson had said the ruling wasn't fair but was correct). Stern was pointing to consistency, which would be fine if the NBA was about consistent application of rules. The suspensions in the Spurs-Suns series don't jive with the lack of suspensions in the Warriors-Jazz match-up, and that's just the beginning.
After the Jazz took game 4 to go up 3-1 on the Warriors, I was chatting with my brother and wondering why the league was not suspending Richardson (for flagrantly taking down Okur with less than a minute left), Davis (for elbowing Fisher in the head) and Harrington (for viciously whacking Boozer across the head). I was fine with letting Harrington skate, although a donation to a charity for the blow would have been nice. It was at a point where the game was still competitive, and maybe he just missed. Maybe Carlos was quicker than Harrington thought. But, Richardson lost his cool after a crucial game had slipped away and appeared to try to injure (or at least send a message to) Okur when Okur drove to the basket. You may be piling on Okur for driving to the basket late in a game. It wasn't a blowout, and even if it was, it's basketball! The commentators got on him when he shot a 3-pointer on a subsequent possession as the shot clock ran down. Are the Jazz just supposed to dribble out the clock and then hand the ball over to the Warriors? That's ludicrous, and they shouldn't have to defend themselves at all times if they choose to continue playing. When did everyone turn into the NY Knicks? Davis elbowed Fisher, a former teammate. I'm pretty sure it was because things weren't going well for the Warriors and Davis was frustrated. That's no excuse for such actions. So, to recap, Richardson and Davis combined for a flagrant foul and an elbow to the head/shoulders. I wanted J-Rich and Baron to sit for a game, but Roy didn't want any punishments because it would cripple Golden State. He was rooting for the Jazz (he was on Carlos' rec league bball one year), but didn't want their series victory cheapened.
Robert Horry committed a flagrant foul on Steve Nash in game 4 of the Suns-Spurs series. Then, when confronted, he threw an elbow at Raja Bell. So, like in the GS game, a flagrant and an elbow late. Horry gets 2 games for his violations when GS escaped without any punishment. Does that really make sense? Why do Stoudemire and Diaw have to be punished in a manner consistent with the rule when the NBA office isn't consistent in punishments for different game 4's in the same round of the same playoffs?
Was Robert Horry punished more harshly than Richardson and Davis because the Suns reacted differently than the Jazz did? That doesn't make sense. If so, then any time you are flagrantly fouled, you should confront the offender in an effort to get him a longer suspension. That's not something the league wants if it doesn't want situations escalating! Was Horry punished more severely because he went after Nash? I hope not. Was Horry's punishment greater because Bruce Bowen had committed some questionable acts earlier in the series? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. If Bowen's actions were so bad (I've met Bruce Bowen and talked to him and he's a nice guy, but I've never kicked someone (Stoudemire) or kneed someone (Nash) like that in all my basketball experience) then he should have been sat down. And, it doesn't really seem fair (or correct) if the only reason Horry was suspended for the flagrant foul was because the league HAD to suspend two Suns for leaving the bench. So ... what was it?
The problem with all the attention on Stoudemire and Diaw is that attention is being drawn away from the real problem and Stern is only contributing to the situation. The real problem should not be Diaw and Stoudemire leaving the "vicinity of the bench." Tim Duncan walked onto the court earlier in the game, but wasn't suspended because there wasn't an altercation at that time. So, let's think about it. The real problem is the altercation. The league doesn't want altercations escalating, but they shouldn't want altercations of this sort at all!
An analogy: our neighbors have a dog and are constantly having to remind their daughter that it is her responsibility to pick up after the dog, Molly (a nice yellow lab, if you were wondering). No matter how often they remind her, there is always some dog crap around. If they don't want to have any dog crap around they need to get rid of the dog, not increase the policing and penalties for not picking it up. To them, it's not really a big problem and Molly isn't going anywhere any time soon, but I hope you get my drift.
David Stern needs to drop the hammer on players like Robert Horry, Baron Davis, and Jason Richardson - guys who lose their cool and commit flagrant fouls late in games when the game is already wrapped up. At no time in the game are these actions okay, but I think they are especially horrendous late in games. The reason? The current punishment doesn't fit the crime. Look at the Jazz-GS game. Jason Richardson didn't care about getting tossed from the game because it didn't hurt the team. What's two more points when you're going to lose anyway? What is Richardson missing the last 37 seconds going to matter? If Richardson knows he's going to miss 10 games for a similar offense, I think he challenges the Okur drive instead of clotheslining him. Same thing for Horry. If Horry knew he'd be sitting for the remainder of that series and the next one, I think he'd commit a normal foul on Nash, rather than hip-checking him into the scorer's table.
One final point: Stern essentially laid the blame on Stoudemire, Diaw and the Phoenix Suns' bench (assistant coaches in particular) for not showing restraint in the situation. What about the original offenders? Well, no, but it's human nature, and that's the problem with the current rule. Who's most likely to get upset when a hard foul is made? The team getting fouled. So, the team most likely to get penalized for leaving the bench is the team being attacked. There needs to be a little bit of leeway on that side. But, more to the point, Stern needs to target the primary offenders ... the ones who are really showing poor restraint and poor sportsmanship. Stephen Jackson (taking down Dee Brown because he was mad at the refs), Davis, Richardson and Horry are the ones who lost their cool and lost their heads, much more than Diaw or Stoudemire.
And, I won't even start on the technical fouls (a bad look got you one early and now you can cuss out officials and not get one), traveling, delay of game, etc.
After the Jazz took game 4 to go up 3-1 on the Warriors, I was chatting with my brother and wondering why the league was not suspending Richardson (for flagrantly taking down Okur with less than a minute left), Davis (for elbowing Fisher in the head) and Harrington (for viciously whacking Boozer across the head). I was fine with letting Harrington skate, although a donation to a charity for the blow would have been nice. It was at a point where the game was still competitive, and maybe he just missed. Maybe Carlos was quicker than Harrington thought. But, Richardson lost his cool after a crucial game had slipped away and appeared to try to injure (or at least send a message to) Okur when Okur drove to the basket. You may be piling on Okur for driving to the basket late in a game. It wasn't a blowout, and even if it was, it's basketball! The commentators got on him when he shot a 3-pointer on a subsequent possession as the shot clock ran down. Are the Jazz just supposed to dribble out the clock and then hand the ball over to the Warriors? That's ludicrous, and they shouldn't have to defend themselves at all times if they choose to continue playing. When did everyone turn into the NY Knicks? Davis elbowed Fisher, a former teammate. I'm pretty sure it was because things weren't going well for the Warriors and Davis was frustrated. That's no excuse for such actions. So, to recap, Richardson and Davis combined for a flagrant foul and an elbow to the head/shoulders. I wanted J-Rich and Baron to sit for a game, but Roy didn't want any punishments because it would cripple Golden State. He was rooting for the Jazz (he was on Carlos' rec league bball one year), but didn't want their series victory cheapened.
Robert Horry committed a flagrant foul on Steve Nash in game 4 of the Suns-Spurs series. Then, when confronted, he threw an elbow at Raja Bell. So, like in the GS game, a flagrant and an elbow late. Horry gets 2 games for his violations when GS escaped without any punishment. Does that really make sense? Why do Stoudemire and Diaw have to be punished in a manner consistent with the rule when the NBA office isn't consistent in punishments for different game 4's in the same round of the same playoffs?
Was Robert Horry punished more harshly than Richardson and Davis because the Suns reacted differently than the Jazz did? That doesn't make sense. If so, then any time you are flagrantly fouled, you should confront the offender in an effort to get him a longer suspension. That's not something the league wants if it doesn't want situations escalating! Was Horry punished more severely because he went after Nash? I hope not. Was Horry's punishment greater because Bruce Bowen had committed some questionable acts earlier in the series? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. If Bowen's actions were so bad (I've met Bruce Bowen and talked to him and he's a nice guy, but I've never kicked someone (Stoudemire) or kneed someone (Nash) like that in all my basketball experience) then he should have been sat down. And, it doesn't really seem fair (or correct) if the only reason Horry was suspended for the flagrant foul was because the league HAD to suspend two Suns for leaving the bench. So ... what was it?
The problem with all the attention on Stoudemire and Diaw is that attention is being drawn away from the real problem and Stern is only contributing to the situation. The real problem should not be Diaw and Stoudemire leaving the "vicinity of the bench." Tim Duncan walked onto the court earlier in the game, but wasn't suspended because there wasn't an altercation at that time. So, let's think about it. The real problem is the altercation. The league doesn't want altercations escalating, but they shouldn't want altercations of this sort at all!
An analogy: our neighbors have a dog and are constantly having to remind their daughter that it is her responsibility to pick up after the dog, Molly (a nice yellow lab, if you were wondering). No matter how often they remind her, there is always some dog crap around. If they don't want to have any dog crap around they need to get rid of the dog, not increase the policing and penalties for not picking it up. To them, it's not really a big problem and Molly isn't going anywhere any time soon, but I hope you get my drift.
David Stern needs to drop the hammer on players like Robert Horry, Baron Davis, and Jason Richardson - guys who lose their cool and commit flagrant fouls late in games when the game is already wrapped up. At no time in the game are these actions okay, but I think they are especially horrendous late in games. The reason? The current punishment doesn't fit the crime. Look at the Jazz-GS game. Jason Richardson didn't care about getting tossed from the game because it didn't hurt the team. What's two more points when you're going to lose anyway? What is Richardson missing the last 37 seconds going to matter? If Richardson knows he's going to miss 10 games for a similar offense, I think he challenges the Okur drive instead of clotheslining him. Same thing for Horry. If Horry knew he'd be sitting for the remainder of that series and the next one, I think he'd commit a normal foul on Nash, rather than hip-checking him into the scorer's table.
One final point: Stern essentially laid the blame on Stoudemire, Diaw and the Phoenix Suns' bench (assistant coaches in particular) for not showing restraint in the situation. What about the original offenders? Well, no, but it's human nature, and that's the problem with the current rule. Who's most likely to get upset when a hard foul is made? The team getting fouled. So, the team most likely to get penalized for leaving the bench is the team being attacked. There needs to be a little bit of leeway on that side. But, more to the point, Stern needs to target the primary offenders ... the ones who are really showing poor restraint and poor sportsmanship. Stephen Jackson (taking down Dee Brown because he was mad at the refs), Davis, Richardson and Horry are the ones who lost their cool and lost their heads, much more than Diaw or Stoudemire.
And, I won't even start on the technical fouls (a bad look got you one early and now you can cuss out officials and not get one), traveling, delay of game, etc.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Rules for their own sake
The back story is this: after heeding my advice (I only wish) and forgoing suspension of any Golden State Warriors for their behavior at the end of game four against Utah, the NBA has broken out the suspensions for the Suns/Spurs series. After knocking Steve Nash into the scorers' table and, apparently, fighting with Raja Bell, Robert Horry has been suspended for the next two games. And, in a horrible twist of justice, Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Suns have each been suspended for game five because they left their bench in the ensuing moments.
It's probably the fighting that explains the suspensions, but part of me wants to believe that the NBA bigwigs haven't even been watching the Warriors/Jazz series because they're convinced the Suns or Spurs are going to represent the Western Conference in the finals. That would also suffice to explain the difference, I would think.
Stu Jackson, who metes out punishment for the league, says of the bench-leaving rule, "It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness." Which shows where the league's priorities lie. I think it's time we examined these rules, and their enforcement, a bit more closely.
I've said it before, and I'll no doubt have to say it again. The reason to have rules in sports is to promote fairness. If enforcing a rule becomes anything other than a matter of fairness, then we have gone astray. Why does the bench-leaving rule exist to begin with? I'd say it's to prevent players from getting into fights. As such, if a player leaves the bench and enters an ongoing confrontation, he should be suspended. But that's not what happened Monday night. Rather, Stoudemire and Diaw were sent back to the bench by Suns assistant coaches before they got anywhere near the fray. Logically, this would imply that they had refrained from doing anything "bad", and should be safe from league persecution.
Unfortunately, the NBA has lost sight of what its rules are trying to prevent, in the interest of "correctness". The bench-leaving rule is about preventing fighting, not about preventing players from leaving the bench. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a player stepping into the court when play is stopped.
The reason we in society put up with arbitrary regulations of this sort is that society has insufficient resources to review the facts of every case and make a fair and logical decision based upon them. But that's not the case in the NBA. Suspensions are never automatic. The league has to decide each one by reviewing the circumstances. So why do they need to enforce the correctness of their silly rules? Why not just make a fair decision?
I don't know. Maybe they want the Spurs to win.
It's probably the fighting that explains the suspensions, but part of me wants to believe that the NBA bigwigs haven't even been watching the Warriors/Jazz series because they're convinced the Suns or Spurs are going to represent the Western Conference in the finals. That would also suffice to explain the difference, I would think.
Stu Jackson, who metes out punishment for the league, says of the bench-leaving rule, "It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness." Which shows where the league's priorities lie. I think it's time we examined these rules, and their enforcement, a bit more closely.
I've said it before, and I'll no doubt have to say it again. The reason to have rules in sports is to promote fairness. If enforcing a rule becomes anything other than a matter of fairness, then we have gone astray. Why does the bench-leaving rule exist to begin with? I'd say it's to prevent players from getting into fights. As such, if a player leaves the bench and enters an ongoing confrontation, he should be suspended. But that's not what happened Monday night. Rather, Stoudemire and Diaw were sent back to the bench by Suns assistant coaches before they got anywhere near the fray. Logically, this would imply that they had refrained from doing anything "bad", and should be safe from league persecution.
Unfortunately, the NBA has lost sight of what its rules are trying to prevent, in the interest of "correctness". The bench-leaving rule is about preventing fighting, not about preventing players from leaving the bench. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a player stepping into the court when play is stopped.
The reason we in society put up with arbitrary regulations of this sort is that society has insufficient resources to review the facts of every case and make a fair and logical decision based upon them. But that's not the case in the NBA. Suspensions are never automatic. The league has to decide each one by reviewing the circumstances. So why do they need to enforce the correctness of their silly rules? Why not just make a fair decision?
I don't know. Maybe they want the Spurs to win.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Flagrant stupidity
Game four of the Jazz-Warriors series turned nasty during the last couple minutes in Oakland late last night. First, Baron Davis elbowed/shouldered Derek Fisher in the side of the head after missing a three-point attempt, knocking him to the floor. Then, with about thirty-seven seconds left, after Golden State had apparently given up fouling, Mehmet Okur of Utah caught a pass on the wing and tried to go to the basket with it. Jason Richardson apparently took offense, and threw the Turk to the ground before he could score.
The officials missed the first incident, and Utah had to call a twenty-second timeout to get Fisher some attention. But the refs handled their second chance a little better. They called a type 2 flagrant foul, and J-Rich was ejected.
Doug Collins, on the other hand, was a miserable failure. Collins, who was calling the game for TNT, blamed Okur for everything. He lamented the horrible injustice of a "professional" player like Richardson having to put Okur's health at risk because Memo defied decorum and went to the hoop instead of standing in the corner holding the ball. Pardon me, but what the hell?
There is no excuse, at this level of play, for the terrible lack of sportsmanship that the Warriors displayed down the stretch in this game. I'm sorry if they thought that it should have been them up 3-1, and were angry with themselves for playing badly in the endgame not once nor twice but three times. And I don't care if Okur's drive was a little bit inappropriate in the final minute of the game. Disrespect or no, it's never okay to try to physically harm other players. And shame on Doug Collins for not taking this same position when he had the stage and the chance to do so.
I, for one, hope that these events don't spill over into the rest of the series. In particular, I hope the league doesn't determine the series off the court by suspending either Baron Davis, Jason Richardson, or both. Rather, I hope the NBA, David Stern, Stu Jackson, etc., let this series be decided by the players, and find some other appropriate way of making it clear to the Warriors that their behavior has no place on the hardwood.
It would be nice if they would also reprimand announcers for saying stupid things on the air. I am firmly against censorship, including the censorship via exacting fines that the NBA currently practices. So, don't try to put a price on stupidity. But someone (besides just me) should explain to Collins that his comments were at the very least not helpful to the telecast last night, and possibly even harmful to the ideal of fair and decent play toward which the NBA is striving.
Richardson reportedly said "That's basketball." after the game. I hope not.
The officials missed the first incident, and Utah had to call a twenty-second timeout to get Fisher some attention. But the refs handled their second chance a little better. They called a type 2 flagrant foul, and J-Rich was ejected.
Doug Collins, on the other hand, was a miserable failure. Collins, who was calling the game for TNT, blamed Okur for everything. He lamented the horrible injustice of a "professional" player like Richardson having to put Okur's health at risk because Memo defied decorum and went to the hoop instead of standing in the corner holding the ball. Pardon me, but what the hell?
There is no excuse, at this level of play, for the terrible lack of sportsmanship that the Warriors displayed down the stretch in this game. I'm sorry if they thought that it should have been them up 3-1, and were angry with themselves for playing badly in the endgame not once nor twice but three times. And I don't care if Okur's drive was a little bit inappropriate in the final minute of the game. Disrespect or no, it's never okay to try to physically harm other players. And shame on Doug Collins for not taking this same position when he had the stage and the chance to do so.
I, for one, hope that these events don't spill over into the rest of the series. In particular, I hope the league doesn't determine the series off the court by suspending either Baron Davis, Jason Richardson, or both. Rather, I hope the NBA, David Stern, Stu Jackson, etc., let this series be decided by the players, and find some other appropriate way of making it clear to the Warriors that their behavior has no place on the hardwood.
It would be nice if they would also reprimand announcers for saying stupid things on the air. I am firmly against censorship, including the censorship via exacting fines that the NBA currently practices. So, don't try to put a price on stupidity. But someone (besides just me) should explain to Collins that his comments were at the very least not helpful to the telecast last night, and possibly even harmful to the ideal of fair and decent play toward which the NBA is striving.
Richardson reportedly said "That's basketball." after the game. I hope not.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Finish the quarter
After two quarters in game three of their second-round series against the Chicago Bulls, after having won their first six playoff games of 2007, the Detroit Pistons had only 28 points. They trailed the young Bulls by sixteen.
By the end of the third quarter, it was 61-60, with the Bulls clinging to a lead that had looked, to some, secure at halftime. The Pistons continued their second-half surge in the fourth quarter, and ultimately took a commanding lead in the series. Final score 81-74. Chicago scored just thirty points in the second half, to Detroit's 53. In other words, the Pistons did to the Bulls what the Bulls had done to them in the first half, only better.
Though Chauncey Billups was inclined to credit the Pistons defense generally with the victory in a post-game interview, the truth is probably that the Pistons owe their comeback in large part to the way they finished the third quarter.
In case you missed it, this was a low-scoring game throughout. It took two minutes for either team to get on the board, and the second quarter started slowly, too. Having begun 20-18 in favor of Chicago, it was still 22-22 until the 7:16 mark. The Bulls finished the half outscoring Detroit 22-6. As the third quarter began, their lead reached its acme of nineteen. It was still seventeen at the seven-minute mark. Then the Pistons ran off twelve straight to make it 55-50 with 2:41 to go in the third.
At this point, the Bulls were still arguably in control of the game. They called timeout, then came back and pushed the lead to nine again with 1:17 to go. My sense at the time was that Detroit had blown their chance to close the gap in the third quarter, and the Bulls had recaptured the ever-important momentum. But I was wrong.
Billups canned a three with 0:59 to go, and then an Antonio McDyess lay-up and a Rasheed Wallace three at the buzzer gave them eight points in the final minute and cut the lead to a single point. The Pistons had scored thirty-two points in the third quarter, after managing just twenty-eight the entire first half. Those eight points down the stretch would more than equal their margin of victory in the end.
The Bulls fourth quarter was about as bad as possible. They had just three field goals, and ten points, in the first 11:57. They missed a lot of free throws. But that demoralizing final minute of the third must be at least partly responsible.
By the end of the third quarter, it was 61-60, with the Bulls clinging to a lead that had looked, to some, secure at halftime. The Pistons continued their second-half surge in the fourth quarter, and ultimately took a commanding lead in the series. Final score 81-74. Chicago scored just thirty points in the second half, to Detroit's 53. In other words, the Pistons did to the Bulls what the Bulls had done to them in the first half, only better.
Though Chauncey Billups was inclined to credit the Pistons defense generally with the victory in a post-game interview, the truth is probably that the Pistons owe their comeback in large part to the way they finished the third quarter.
In case you missed it, this was a low-scoring game throughout. It took two minutes for either team to get on the board, and the second quarter started slowly, too. Having begun 20-18 in favor of Chicago, it was still 22-22 until the 7:16 mark. The Bulls finished the half outscoring Detroit 22-6. As the third quarter began, their lead reached its acme of nineteen. It was still seventeen at the seven-minute mark. Then the Pistons ran off twelve straight to make it 55-50 with 2:41 to go in the third.
At this point, the Bulls were still arguably in control of the game. They called timeout, then came back and pushed the lead to nine again with 1:17 to go. My sense at the time was that Detroit had blown their chance to close the gap in the third quarter, and the Bulls had recaptured the ever-important momentum. But I was wrong.
Billups canned a three with 0:59 to go, and then an Antonio McDyess lay-up and a Rasheed Wallace three at the buzzer gave them eight points in the final minute and cut the lead to a single point. The Pistons had scored thirty-two points in the third quarter, after managing just twenty-eight the entire first half. Those eight points down the stretch would more than equal their margin of victory in the end.
The Bulls fourth quarter was about as bad as possible. They had just three field goals, and ten points, in the first 11:57. They missed a lot of free throws. But that demoralizing final minute of the third must be at least partly responsible.
Friday, May 04, 2007
The most interesting series
The second round of the NBA playoffs begins tomorrow. In the first round, we saw three series sweeps (all in the Eastern Conference), two settled in five games (the Suns and the Spurs), and two won at home by the official underdog in game six. It's hard to argue that the Warriors defeat of the Mavericks is not the highlight of the first round. More on that in a moment.
The Pistons will host the first game of round two against the Bulls a couple of hours before the Jazz face Houston in game seven of their series. With all the hype surrounding Dirk vs. Baron, it's easy to forget that there's this other series still going on. And with the Mavericks eliminated, the winner of this series has to be considered a legitimate contender for the Western Conference title. Neither the Jazz nor the Rockets were swept by Golden State during the regular season.
In fact, I think this overlooked series may be the most interesting of the entire first round. Six games, six home victories. On the one hand, that seems really dull. On the other hand, the reason the teams are winning at home is because they're doing what they're supposed to do. Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming are getting their points. But in game three in Utah, only two other Rockets scored, because of the Jazz defense. Carlos Boozer is leading the Jazz in scoring, Andrei Kirilenko is starting to block shots, Mehmet Okur makes a few three pointers. The stars are starring, the role players are playing their roles, and tomorrow we get to see which team is better. Unlike several other series, it's not going to come down to which team shows up. They'll both be there.
I have every expectation that game seven will be close, because the Jazz made game five in Houston the closest of their three losses there. Derek Fisher made a stupid play down the stretch and was called for an offensive foul when Utah had a chance to tie the game. If not for that, it could have come down to a final shot, or gone to overtime. With the series finally on the line for both teams, it should be the most intense game of the playoffs so far. Forty games already played for the sake of one lonely game seven.
Now, a brief reflection on the Dallas Mavericks. All the buzz on ESPN today is about Mark Cuban re-tooling the team, possibly bringing back Jason Kidd, because their "meltdown" is unacceptable. My question is this: Shouldn't the media, and the Mavericks, wait to see just how good this Warriors team is before they decide that the Mavs suck and condemn a team that just posted sixty-seven regular season wins? What if Golden State goes all the way? Do we still blame Nowitzki et al. for not playing to their potential?
The Pistons will host the first game of round two against the Bulls a couple of hours before the Jazz face Houston in game seven of their series. With all the hype surrounding Dirk vs. Baron, it's easy to forget that there's this other series still going on. And with the Mavericks eliminated, the winner of this series has to be considered a legitimate contender for the Western Conference title. Neither the Jazz nor the Rockets were swept by Golden State during the regular season.
In fact, I think this overlooked series may be the most interesting of the entire first round. Six games, six home victories. On the one hand, that seems really dull. On the other hand, the reason the teams are winning at home is because they're doing what they're supposed to do. Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming are getting their points. But in game three in Utah, only two other Rockets scored, because of the Jazz defense. Carlos Boozer is leading the Jazz in scoring, Andrei Kirilenko is starting to block shots, Mehmet Okur makes a few three pointers. The stars are starring, the role players are playing their roles, and tomorrow we get to see which team is better. Unlike several other series, it's not going to come down to which team shows up. They'll both be there.
I have every expectation that game seven will be close, because the Jazz made game five in Houston the closest of their three losses there. Derek Fisher made a stupid play down the stretch and was called for an offensive foul when Utah had a chance to tie the game. If not for that, it could have come down to a final shot, or gone to overtime. With the series finally on the line for both teams, it should be the most intense game of the playoffs so far. Forty games already played for the sake of one lonely game seven.
Now, a brief reflection on the Dallas Mavericks. All the buzz on ESPN today is about Mark Cuban re-tooling the team, possibly bringing back Jason Kidd, because their "meltdown" is unacceptable. My question is this: Shouldn't the media, and the Mavericks, wait to see just how good this Warriors team is before they decide that the Mavs suck and condemn a team that just posted sixty-seven regular season wins? What if Golden State goes all the way? Do we still blame Nowitzki et al. for not playing to their potential?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
