nice.
LOL at the S0ns being contenders. That term is usually reserved for teams that can actually win conference les(Spurs and Mavs). The S0ns are a second tier Western Conference team in the same vein as the Nuggets. The S0ns look good beating up on lower seeded teams like the Lakers. When they face real opposition they crumble and fall apart. Like I said, S0ns are not a contender. In the last decade the only team's to have made the Finals from the WCF are the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Spurs, and last year's Mavs. The Lakers fell apart years ago. That leaves only two contenders: Spurs and Mavs.
I guess the '05 Sonics had us on the ropes too? , even last year's Kings gave us a better fight than the '07 S0ns. Steve Trash's S0ns have never been much of a challenge for the Spurs. Last year's Mavs is what I'd call tough. The S0ns, on the other hand, are about as tough as toilet paper.
Suns Suspensions Bring '97 Knicks to Mind
The Phoenix Suns have only themselves to blame after Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw were suspended last night for leaving the bench during the final seconds of the Suns' Game 4 win over San Antonio.
KRTTen years ago, the Knicks had their season ruined when Patrick Ewing was suspended one game in a second round playoff series against Miami for leaving the bench. Larry Johnson, Allan Houston and John Starks raced off the bench to break up the fight between Charlie Ward and P.J. Brown, while Ewing wandered just a few feet from the bench before being told by Buck Williams to get off the court.
The rule was established to prevent players from escalating an altercation. Rather than three referees having to possibly worry about 30 players on the court at one time, the officials and the respective coaches have a chance to control 10 players.
During his weekly appearance on NBA TV Tuesday night, Ewing said he was "pissed" when the league ruled him ineligible for Game 6 against Miami, along with Ward and Houston, while Johnson and Starks served their suspensions in Game 7.
I still believe had Starks and Ewing had the chance to play together in either Game 6 or 7, the Knicks would have defeated an inferior Miami Heat team. Starks, you may remember, was the league's Sixth Man of the Year in 1996-97.
The Ewing suspension cost the Knicks a chance to face Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls in the Eastern Conference Finals. It would have been an epic series since both teams were clearly the best in the East. (I think the Knicks would have won in six games.)
Does the rule need to be altered? It seems only logical that as long as the player in question never comes close to being involved in the fracas a suspension is not necessary. Ewing, Stoudemire and Diaw all moved toward the scrum but all three quickly retreated and avoided contact with the players currently on the floor.
The Knicks and Ewing were burned by the letter of the law. The Suns had 10 years to get it right and one moment in a great playoff series may have cost them their best chance at an NBA le. Ewing and the Knicks know the feeling.
NBA'S BRAWL RULE GOT IT RIGHT
May 18, 2007 -- SO every now and then a calamitous, scandalous, bench-clearing riot breaks out in an NBA game, the kind that spills into the stands and inspires ESPN and Fox Sports Net to break out and add to their Best of Violence reels.
And the media line up to condemn the NBA for its lack of foresight and crime prevention. We scream for a week, at least.
And then the NBA ins utes firmer, zero-tolerance rules, the kind designed to diminish the likelihood of such shameful episodes and to save the NBA from itself.
And then a hassle on a big stage breaks out - Monday's, for example. And then the NBA applies its no-exceptions rules.
And then, wouldn't ya know it, we do a flip-flop. We in the media condemn and ridicule the NBA for over-reacting, for excessive harshness, for depriving fans of the best players at an important time of year, for failing to factor in the human condition.
On ESPN, throughout the week, people who ostensibly follow the NBA - Stephen A. Smith and Jackie MacMullan, to name two - slammed the NBA's decision to suspend Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw one game each for leaving the Suns' bench to rush to the aid of Steve Nash. A travesty of justice!
They declared the NBA's application of its rules as ignorant to the dictates of "human nature" and as too severe, especially in Stoudamire's case, because he's a key player.
Well, for starters, if rushing from the bench to Nash's aid was instinctive, no matter how fast one arrived, he'd have gotten there in time to break up something that had already ended. Nash was lying on the deck, and the guy who put him there - Robert Horry - was done doing what he did. And Horry would have been left the only one penalized.
So there was nothing more that players rushing from the bench could have done than make matters worse. There never is.
And that's precisely what the NBA's rule against leaving the bench was designed to do - prevent bad scenes from growing worse. And Monday, it worked.
But instead of "Hooray for the NBA!," we turn on our all-sports network to hear the league bashed for its failure to recognize, of all things, human nature.
If rushing from the bench simply was a by-product of human nature, then how do we explain the inaction of the rest of the Suns' bench? And why didn't the Spurs' bench deploy?
