Note: I was writing this at the same time as another post was created. Not an intentional duplicate thread. Read the paragraph below with the blue letters. It's something you haven't read anywhere else.
This is from a USA Today article earlier this year:
TNT analyst Steve Kerr agrees that fighting will never be eliminated. But he says the league reduced the incidents of fighting significantly when it began automatically suspending players who leave the bench during an altercation, even peacemakers.
That was the case with Reggie Miller during the 2004 brawl at The Palace of Auburn Hills (Mich.) involving the Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons. Jerome James and Nene each were penalized one game for leaving their benches Saturday.
"The best rule ever put in is guys can't leave the bench," Kerr says. "Altercations are easier to quell because there are only a handful (of players) to control.
That sounds like the Steve Kerr I know. Hard to believe he's the same guy who wrote this:
I understand the spirit of the rule, which is to keep bench players from potentially initiating or escalating a brawl. But I think there are two fundamental problems with the current rule:
1. It potentially rewards the team that commits the dirty foul in the first place because the players who generally leave the bench (and end up suspended) are the ones from the team that has gotten punked.
2. It makes no room for human reaction. The intensity and emotion involved when you're playing in an NBA playoff game is unbelievable, and when you see your teammate get nailed by a cheap shot, your reaction is to take a few steps toward the play.
My feeling is that the rule should be altered to allow for that human reaction, as long as the players' second reaction is to immediately turn back around when his brain tells him, "Don't leave the bench!" If you watch Diaw on the replay, that's exactly what he does -- he takes three steps, then realizes he shouldn't be on the floor and turns back.
Every player in the league knows he can't run onto the floor, but sometimes human instinct takes over. If it's just for a second or two, and the player turns back around quickly without doing anything, then why punish him?
So what caused Kerr to change his thinking on the subject? What's different this time? Not only did he do a complete about-face, but he thought up a "solution" specifically tailored to the Suns situation.
Which brings me to the real reason I am so down on Kerr - the video of Duncan and Bowen on the floor earlier in the game. From what I understand, as soon as it was clear that Stoudamire and Diaw had come onto the floor, some of the Suns staff immediately began reviewing video footage looking for something the Spurs had done. When they found the clip with Duncan and Bowen, they quickly discussed it with Suns "management", and then brought it straight to Steve Kerr. (Along with the bull story they had concocted that Stoudamire and Diaw were just trying to check in to the game.) It's for sure they wanted it made public. But why Kerr? Because of his involvement with TNT...or his involvement with the Suns?
Can I confirm that? Not without getting anyone fired. But I trust the source. And it looks pretty consistent with the facts. You'll note that Kerr didn't waste any time bringing it to the public's attention. In interviews...on his Yahoo Sports blog... and I think he brought it up during the game broadcast (but I don't have it recorded). Nearly every reference to the Duncan/Bowen issue also references Steve Kerr. I don't care if Kerr is a nice guy, or helped the Spurs win a championship. He sure gives the appearance of someone who is an extension of D'Antoni's lobbying during this series. Like in his Yahoo blog:If the league does indeed follow the letter of the law, both Spurs players would also be suspended for Game 5. ...The series should be decided by the teams and the players, not by an inflexible rule....The only player who deserves a suspension for Game 5 is Horry.
Now that I know the rest of this, some of his other comments piss me off more. Remember his comment about Duncan after the Crawford ejection? "He gives that look of amazement better than anybody else," noted TNT's Steve Kerr, an ex-teammate. "There's a lot of guys in this league who have yet to commit their first foul in their careers." I didn't like it then...it really pisses me off now. After all, Steve is a former teammate. Who would know better than him, right? He's certainly gotten mileage out of that.
Everyone says that Kerr is a smart guy, and a nice guy. Maybe he's just smart enough to make people think he is too nice to abuse his position at TNT to help the Suns.
Last edited by GSH; 05-17-2007 at 01:34 PM.
steve kerr during this series lost all cred.
IMO, having a television analyst calling NBA games, who is also part owner of an NBA team is a conflict of interest. For all the reasons listed above.
He should not be commenting during the games, that's for sure.
Or, get a biased Spurs commentator next to him.
Last edited by MadDog73; 05-17-2007 at 01:50 PM.
I think that Kerr was just illustrating what Phoenix was complaining about. And his opinion is that if you are going to translate the rules literally, then Duncan's stepping two steps onto the court technically might violate that rule. Obviously David Stern cleared that up firmly on the Dan Patrick show.
Look, I'm not necessarily a big fan of Steve Kerr, but I think we're going too far. He's not a bad guy and he has no reason to dislike the Spurs. In fact, I've heard highly complimentary comments on Popovich, Duncan, Manu etc. from Kerr in several broadcasts, including last night.
I don't agree with him doing national commentary since he's a part owner of the Suns. I think that's borderline unprofessional, but again, I don't give a damn. I don't like other talking heads form my opinion.
LMOA @ another thread about how Spurs fans hate that they are getting no respect.
good idea
He's jocked Nash all series long and it's pissing me off, but that's not to say he hasn't talked about Spurs players like that before
The point is, he shouldn't have been lobbying for Duncan and Bowen to be suspended. He has added a lot of fuel to the fire of this "Dirty Spurs" thing.
And now that I think about it, some of his comments have probably crossed the line of what owners are supposed to say. I wonder if Mark Cuban could get by with more if he worked for TNT?
Why does the NBA have a part owner of a team calling a game? Thats a conflict of interest.
More to the point, are we the only ones who care?
You'd think this would get some local attention, if not national.
He said he was a moron on National TV, didn't he?
Great write up, and I am starting to agree with the sentiment of the original poster. An owner should not be the national color commentator for the team they have an ownership stake in.
Totally agree-he brought up the Elson/Jones thing on Dan Patrick's show by claiming "There was almost an incident..." One look at the replay shows that not to be the case. It's like trying to connect Hussein with 9/11.
I guess they figure since he's a former spur that cancels out the fact that he owns part of the Suns.
Part of his normal self-depricating humor. Dude is funny!
Funny or not, this is still a conflict of interest.
Why should 2007 be any different, really?
The Spurs are probably the only "Yeah, but" dominant team in NBA history.
sure, kerr is biased. does it matter? no. next topic.
if he was reffing the game, that could be considered a conflict of interest. calling a game, no way. i think he has a very minor share, i don't see what the problem is. he's paid to express his opinion.
funny how the 'yeah buts' change every year.
yeah but they're soft
yeah but they're boring
yeah but they're dirty
the ring's the thing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
