Bill Simmons Finally Weighs In

[da_suns_fan__]

Crooked ref = tainted series. 'Nuff said.

I agree. Thats all there is to it.

But its fun to watch the Spurs fans spin it.

[Leetonidas]

Uh okay.

But my team is the best in the world. These recent events prove it.

The "best team in the world" would've been able to take a Spurs team missing their first big off the bench in Robert Horry in Game 6 you piece of . You guys like to downplay his significance to the Spurs because he's old, but he is the Spurs' best big man outside of Tim Duncan.

[monosylab1k]

I know what I said... and I meant it.

so let's hear an explanation of what "striking the core of integrity itself" ing means

[O-Factor]

I agree. Thats all there is to it.

But its fun to watch the Spurs fans spin it.

Its more fun to have the rings and watch suns fan whine about it.

[Mister Sinister]

I agree.

[da_suns_fan__]

The "best team in the world" would've been able to take a Spurs team missing their first big off the bench in Robert Horry in Game 6 you piece of . You guys like to downplay his significance to the Spurs because he's old, but he is the Spurs' best big man outside of Tim Duncan.

Under what extraordinary cir stances would you admit that the Suns were the better team and that the series was tainted.

Is there any other way to possibly tarnish this series more?

There was a freaking referee calling games in your favor.

The Suns had their key players suspended for a game five when the series was tied (despite the Spurs officiating advantage).

[Mister Sinister]

Under what extraordinary cir stances would you admit that the Suns were the better team and that the series was tainted.

Is there any other way to possibly tarnish this series more?

There was a freaking referee calling games in your favor.

The Suns had their key players suspended for a game five when the series was tied (despite the Spurs officiating advantage).

We're not going to admit it because IT ISN'T ING TRUE!!!!! you biased p.o.s!

[da_suns_fan__]

We're not going to admit it because IT ISN'T ING TRUE!!!!! you biased p.o.s!

EVERYTHING i said is true.

Thank God for the FBI. We finally have the truth.

[Mister Sinister]

EVERYTHING i said is true.

Thank God for the FBI. We finally have the truth.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Under what extraordinary cir stances would you admit that the Suns were the better team and that the series was tainted.

Is there any other way to possibly tarnish this series more?

There was a freaking referee calling games in your favor.

The Suns had their key players suspended for a game five when the series was tied (despite the Spurs officiating advantage).

at least the mob likes the Spurs.

[Leetonidas]

Under what extraordinary cir stances would you admit that the Suns were the better team and that the series was tainted.

Is there any other way to possibly tarnish this series more?

There was a freaking referee calling games in your favor.

The Suns had their key players suspended for a game five when the series was tied (despite the Spurs officiating advantage).

The series may have been tainted, however, the Spurs would've whipped the Suns' asses in 7 games either way so shut the up and quit ing about it. Like I said, if the Suns were the best team in the world, they'd have been able to win Game 6.

And for what it's worth, had the Mavericks not lost to GS and the Spurs lost to Phoenix instead, Dallas would've kicked Phoenix's ass.

[td4mvp3]

NBA Champions don't win EVERY SINGLE GAME!

The Spurs lost games two and four (with a full roster), therefore, by your logic they "whiffed"?

There's no getting around the fact that this series was completely tainted.

End of story.

losing by 20 after keeping the suns down in the first half of game 2? yeah, they whiffed it.

tanking in game 4 after leading by double digits in the fourth? yep, another whiff.

but regardless of how we categorize the losses, the point is that they were not beaten for the series in that one game. no, every game didn't need to be won, but the idea that this one game somehow counts more than the other three is silly. so far, one ref is implicated in shaving games, but no one knows which games and which teams. on top of that, this one game loss didn't decide the series because the suns had games 5 and 6 to get it back, and game 6 had no excuses for the loss.

[Extra Stout]

EVERYTHING i said is true.

Thank God for the FBI. We finally have the truth.

My cousin Rino is going to have you whacked if you don't stop squealing. We gots connections.

[leemajors]

Game 3 AND Game 5 can.

Spurs were the lesser team. I think the recent news just proves what everyone already knew.

the "lesser" team sure got double digit leads in nearly every game consistently.

[Johnny RIngo]

The Spurs should have been playing the Lakers in the Conference Semis. Donaghy fixed the S0ns-Lakers series and gave Phoenix an unfair advantage(not surprising considering Mike D'Antoni and Colangelo's ties with the Italian mob)

[Testing]

You could go on and on with the what if's of the series. Move on people...even if the Suns had magically gotten past the Spurs, you know for sure they could have beaten the Cavs and Jazz.......two far superior defensive teams than the Suns?

Defense always wins championships, ALWAYS. And the Suns don't play enough of it to win a series. Marion and Bell are slightly above average defenders, that's about all you have on that team. You can score as many points as you want, but you have to be able to stop the other team from catching up....this has been the downfall of the Suns for the past 3 seasons~! Don't blame it on cir stances, blame it on your coach and his system.

Either way, if Suns fans thinks the calls against them in that series were "biased" I guarantee you every Jazz fan from the 90's, every Pacers fan from the 90's, every Net's team from 2000 on felt the same way. Every series, there is dubious calls against the losing team which can be said looking back well if that call hadn't been made...they could have won. Point is they didn't. Spurs got clouded by the Mavs and refs the year before...........but they came back and took it to 7 games despite this. Did the Suns?

If the Suns were clearly the better team as you beleive, wouldn't they have been able to put all their anger/frustration aside...after all this is the playoffs, and go to SA and win Game 6 with their entire roster in tact? No bloody noses, no suspensions, etc?

[Phenomanul]

so let's hear an explanation of what "striking the core of integrity itself" ing means

Slang version: "Don't kid yourself"

[monosylab1k]

Slang version: "Don't kid yourself"

more believable version: you had no clue what the you were saying, because nobody could say something as ridiculous as "striking the core of integrity itself" and have any idea what the they mean by it.

[Phenomanul]

more believable version: you had no clue what the you were saying, because nobody could say something as ridiculous as "striking the core of integrity itself" and have any idea what the they mean by it.

OK... you want to drag this further? Fine by me.... just don't go crying with your tail between your legs after I'm done with you.

Post #13

If people were to go by biased refereeing or analyze every bad call made in the playoffs throughout the NBA history, I guarantee you that every champion would have an asterick next to their year. It's easy to say that this call went bad, and if it hadn't happen maybe the team wouldnt' have advanced etc.

In the end though, it always balances out in the NBA, which many people are forgetting. In a 7 game series, the BEST team always wins. You can't honestly tell me that the Suns were better than the Spurs last year?

And all you Mavs fans agreeing with this....you were pretty adament that the calls were fair and square when it involved your own team 2 seasons ago against the Spurs. Fan and "Analyst" biasness such as Bill Simmons is often taken for fact, when it's just the opinion of one single person.

Shred's remark: Post #14

You can't rationalize what Donaghy did. It strikes at the core of the integrity of the game.

My rearrangement of Shred's comment: Post #15

Just like you can't claim that Donaghy alone was the reason the Suns lost the series. That strikes the core of integrity itself.

If Shred claimed that:

The ref was crooked. Everything he touched is tainted. Quit pretending otherwise.

Which even you agreed was an exaggeration in Post #12, why then would my comment not be relevant?

Here it goes....

You ready....

His comment strikes at truth itself... as in, his comment is a slap in the face to veracity (i.e. truth). He would have to be lying to himself in order for him to believe it. The rearrangement of the words was needed to convey a sense of parallelism... Understand now?

Geeesh... seriously... people need to stop pickin' battles they're not entirely equipped to engage.

I refuse to and will not discuss this aspect of the argument any further.

[monosylab1k]

"striking at the core of the integrity of the game" makes perfect sense. "striking at the core of integrity itself" makes no ing sense at all. bottom line.

integrity of what? what integrity is being challenged by you? he said the integrity of the game.....you said "integrity itself".

you basically said that the integrity of integrity was being challenged.....so, again, how the can integrity have integrity? Explain that one to me, genius. Or do I need to provide a 4th grade grammar lesson as well?

He would have to be lying to himself in order for him to believe it. The rearrangement of the words was needed to convey a sense of parallelism... Understand now?

No, the rearrangement of words was your attempt to be clever. Unfortunately since you had no grasp of the words you were using you were clueless that you just said something incredibly stupid.

Geeesh... seriously... people need to stop pickin' battles they're not entirely equipped to engage.

Good advice, I hope you start following it.

I refuse to and will not discuss this aspect of the argument any further.

Sounds to me like you realize that you've got nothing. Good idea. No need to dig your own hole any deeper.

[monosylab1k]

everbody!

say "it strkes at the very core of integrity itself" in your best George W. Bush voice. ing hilarious! and it sounds exactly like something that Dubya would say!

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I'm wondering what the kind of point Simmons is trying to make. Immediately after game 3 he writes:

Congratulations to Greg Willard, Tim Donaghy and Eddie F. Rush for giving us the most atrociously officiated game of the playoffs so far: Game 3 of the Suns-Spurs series. Bennett Salvatore, Tom Washington and Violet Palmer must have been outraged that they weren't involved in this mess. Good golly. Most of the calls favored the Spurs, but I don't even think the refs were biased -- they were so incompetent that there was no rhyme or reason to anything that was happening. Other than the latest call in NBA history (a shooting foul for Manu Ginobili whistled three seconds after the play, when everyone was already running in the other direction), my favorite moment happened near the end, when the game was already over and they called a cheap bump on Bruce Bowen against Nash, so the cameras caught Mike D'Antoni (the most entertaining coach in the league if he's not getting calls) screaming sarcastically, "Why start now? Why bother?" What a travesty. Not since the cocaine era from 1978-1986 has the league faced a bigger ongoing issue than crappy officiating.

So back in May, right after game 3, he felt that the outcome of the game was influenced by sub par refs. But when all the dust had settled, he felt like the Spurs were the better team. I know that because he goes on to write:

I left that series believing that the Spurs were better, that their offensive execution was unparalleled, that Tim Duncan was the best player on the court, that they would have figured out a way to win that series whether the suspensions happened or not. Now? I'm not so sure. What if an allegedly crooked referee hadn't been working Game 3? What if the Suns won that game? What then?

So now, because a suspect ref may have influenced the game, the Spurs might not be the better team? Regardless of why the calls were bad, why does that suddenly change whether or not the Spurs were the better team? The Spurs are better if they are aided by general incompetence but if a shady ref was making calls for them they aren't better?

[td4mvp3]

"striking at the core of the integrity of the game" makes perfect sense. "striking at the core of integrity itself" makes no ing sense at all. bottom line.

integrity of what? what integrity is being challenged by you? he said the integrity of the game.....you said "integrity itself".

you basically said that the integrity of integrity was being challenged.....so, again, how the can integrity have integrity? Explain that one to me, genius. Or do I need to provide a 4th grade grammar lesson as well?



No, the rearrangement of words was your attempt to be clever. Unfortunately since you had no grasp of the words you were using you were clueless that you just said something incredibly stupid.



Good advice, I hope you start following it.



Sounds to me like you realize that you've got nothing. Good idea. No need to dig your own hole any deeper.

actually, there's nothing really wrong with saying striking at the core of integrity. the idea of "integrity" is a thing in much the same way honor, courage and truth are. to strike at the core of integrity, then, would mean to question the very foundations and definition of the concept in and of itself, not necessarily the integrity of a thing. that is to say, when you mention the "integrity" of the game, you are speaking of the basic values and assumptions of fair play that fans and spectators expect when watching or participating in the sport. but "integrity" obviously can be applied to more than just sport: the integrity of politicians, the integrity of parents, etc. that core idea of "integrity," not as a description or characteristic of some other thing, is, i believe, what he is getting at, that is to say, that following your logic would be a blow to the very definition of integrity regardless of its context. my 2 cents, i'd like my change and shall not speak more to the subject. i'm also not giving you gruff or being glib, just saying he is not in the wrong for his usage of "integrity" in the manner that he did.

[monosylab1k]

actually, there's nothing really wrong with saying striking at the core of integrity. the idea of "integrity" is a thing in much the same way honor, courage and truth are. to strike at the core of integrity, then, would mean to question the very foundations and definition of the concept in and of itself, not necessarily the integrity of a thing. that is to say, when you mention the "integrity" of the game, you are speaking of the basic values and assumptions of fair play that fans and spectators expect when watching or participating in the sport. but "integrity" obviously can be applied to more than just sport: the integrity of politicians, the integrity of parents, etc. that core idea of "integrity," not as a description or characteristic of some other thing, is, i believe, what he is getting at, that is to say, that following your logic would be a blow to the very definition of integrity regardless of its context. my 2 cents, i'd like my change and shall not speak more to the subject. i'm also not giving you gruff or being glib, just saying he is not in the wrong for his usage of "integrity" in the manner that he did.

let's all discus the integrity of integrity then. makes perfect sense.

[monosylab1k]

that following your logic would be a blow to the very definition of integrity regardless of its context

how could do anything to the definition of integrity? it would be YOUR integrity that's being challenged, not the "integrity of integrity". it makes no sense, end of story.