I never quite understood why the average fan figures himself so smart; trusts his hopelessly uninformed gut instincts so much that he thinks he can "eye ball" a sports game or a playoff series and say that one team gets all the calls and another doesn't.
The reality is the Spurs (as the Suns) have consistently been at or near the bottom of the league in terms of fouls committed. More importantly for this discussion is the fact the Spurs were the best in the league this year.
Through four games in this series the Spurs are averaging more than three fouls more than during the regular season. While the Suns are below their season average. (Games 1, 2, 3, 4)
Just to note the subjective nature of such impressions, Game 4 prompted at least one national basketball writer to claim the officiating favored the Suns. Now, the link isn't me making an argument for such, I'm just pointing out the disparity in the claims of officiating favoring one team or another.
The stats aren't, by themselves, absolute refutation of bizarre claims of officiating favoring the Spurs. But the stats should allow reasonable fans (Suns or Spurs) to take a step back from the edge, take a deep breath and view the series more objectively.
Carrying over the two or three 'cheap' or 'dirty' shots the Spurs have given out, which are inexcusable, into imagining the Spurs are just hacking away out there and not getting called on it is simply not backed up by the statistics...or anything else.
Coach D'Antoni's heated sideline rants, Nash's visible on court frustrations, and the Suns' media complaints about the officiating flounder in the discussion, unsupported by the facts of figures (except for the complaints on the cheap shots).
When you add a systemic review of the game footage to the statistics it only strengthens that conclusion.
I can understand, in the midst of frustration, the talk of favoritism for the Spurs. But even ignoring the actual data, the numerous, completely unsubstantiable points you have to connect together to muster a conspiracy is incredible. Especially a cabal of Spurs homers such that only 1/32 Spurs fouls are called.It simply isn't very likely.
A lot of the talk and the identification of the Spurs as the Suns' persecutors no doubt is redirected anger from the several crass, inexcusable fouls (or should've been fouls) the Spurs have carried out.
Let me make it clear, while we might disagree on acceptable consequences for him, I buy the argument Bowen has gotten away with things. At the least he should've been facing a fine. Anger over the 'dirty' moves though does nothing to explain the blame plenty of Suns' fans are putting on the Spurs for a whole host of other woes. Including for Stoudemire and Diaw's suspensions. I'm sure if reason could be fabricated there are plenty of Suns' fans who would put the blame for the Challenger accident on the Spurs.
I'd ask you to put the sample size of "bad acts" in perspective. Reputation speaks a lot of truth and, with the exception of Bruce Bowen, two (or three) 'dirty' moves can hardly turn the soft/whiney Spurs into the Oakland Raiders. While no flagrant foul is excusable, I'd ask you to put Horry's flagrant in perspective. For instance, it is without a doubt the most "benign" (if that is ever an appropriate word to use for a hip check) flagrant foul carried out this post season. However, I know if I was a Suns' fan I wouldn't be able to reason it that way so close to the actual event.
Hell, I probably wouldn't even want to. Fandom is all about emotion. You don't need to reason your way to hating the Spurs.
No one wants to be mellow for Game 5. That being said, putting more than Bowen's infamous step, Bowen's knee to the crotch, and Horry's flagrant on the Spurs? Such is stretching it. To deny Stoudemire and Diaw any semblance of free will and responsibility, and to put the blame for their suspensions on Robert Horry and the Spurs is beyond unreasonable.
The NBA has an absolute zero tolerance policy when it comes to leaving the bench during a scruffle. There is no subjectivity. There is no question. The fact is, the Suns' owner and Coach D’Antoni and Steve Nash and every Suns' fan had to know that Stoudemire and Diaw weren’t going to be playing Game 5.
The singular leniency ever payed to players under this rule involved players who couldn't even see the altercation in the tunnel, and thus didn't know what was going on. Far from applicable here.
The rule clearly came nowhere near applying to when Timmy left the bench because not even a drunk Suns' fan with a close up view from the first row could've mistaken anything on the court for an altercation. Trying to extend the rule to the Spurs foray out of their seats is understandable in the heat of the moment but ignores all precedent. The rule was absolutely applied fairly.
And that is, unfortunately, the chief word. Fairly.
Personally I would've preferred no one got suspended. Common sense - in a game of this magnitude, with nothing coming of Stoudemire and Diaw leaving the bench - called for no one getting suspended as well.
But until the league decides to take footsteps down the WWF road then its central, inherent, primary sales pitch is competition on a level playing field.
It seems above debate, although some without much in the way of a vocabulary of ethics (not that I'm speaking as an expert on the subject) might contend otherwise, that granting Amare and Boris a pass would've been unfair. Every team understood the rule and its inflexible nature from the first tip off of the season.
Breaking such absolutes, if just by a small margin, unlevels the playing field.
The problem is with the rule itself and its lack of exceptions. But it is ridiculous, it voids part of the integrity of the league, it is unfair, to imagine you can alter a hard and fast rule with significant precedent at the moment when it must be applied. One of the chief elements of fairness is decisions being non-arbitrary. Nothing could be more arbitrary than letting Stoudemire and Diaw slide while the other 29 teams either abided by or suffered under the rule for at least 82 games.
In reality, the argument being pressed by many pundits and Suns' fans admits there is a sacrifice of fairness but thinks that is trivial compared to the magnitude of the game Stoudemire and Diaw are missing. Nothing could be scarier in its implications.
For those able to impartially reason it through, the best to hope for is a rethinking of the leaving the bench rule for next season.
That being said, there was a major point made at the beginning of this rant which needs to be reiterated. Whatever your thoughts on the suspensions, it is clearly not largely the Spurs' fault. We can explain Stoudemire and Boris' reactions as 'heat of the moment,' but that does NOTHING to excuse them. Pretending like that mitigates their responsibility is ridiculous. The rule was designed specifically for such acts.
Sure they wouldn't have been suspended if Horry hadn't sent Nash into the boards. I wouldn't have been gotten a speeding ticket as I headed home for dinner if my meeting hadn't run late.
The responsibility is not on Horry or the Spurs and that makes talking about injuring Spurs' players or off court violence just that stupider. Get real with some of the comments on this thread guys.
I would be upset right now as a Suns' fan. Plug that in with the relative anonymity the internet provides and you get outrageous statements. But show a little bit of maturity Suns' fans.
Good luck in Game 5.
