Were we that close?

[82CardsGrad]

I think things happened this season that worked to our favor that you can't really count on in the future. I'm sure there were other teams that also benefitted from an unequal distribution of fortune but it afforded us an opportunity that our team took advantage of. I'm not trying to diminish what these guys accomplished. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect similar results next season.

Steve

Oh, I also don't believe we should expect similar results next season... however, I don't say that because we were more lucky versus being good enough.
Repeating a season like this (getting VERY close to winning the WCF) is extremely rare. You really don't see many teams at all accomplishing that type of feat. The Lakers are immensely talented and have the best player on the planet.
The Celtics put together an all-world team with KG, PP and Allen... and of course Rondo is amazing as well....
The Spurs also were an incredibly talented team during their run.
Luck factors in, but talent in the end rules and this is why I think it's unreasonable to expect another trip to the WCF next year. Nash and Hill will be one more year older. Who knows what will happen with Amare, Frye and Lou. Just too much working against this team to expect another visit to the WCF... Playoffs? Sure... but WCF? Nope...
It had to be this year. Nash and Hill and Amare... this was their year. Almost did it... dammit, if we were just a little more lucky!!

 

[Joe Mama]

Oh, come on now. Every team gets some luck. Besides Brandon Roy's injury I don't see how we were any luckier than any of the other teams. For the second half of this season the Phoenix Suns were one of the best two or three teams in the league, and that includes the playoffs. This was a really good team. They aren't going to blow it up this summer. They shouldn't blow it up this summer, imo, even if Amare walks.

Btw, we weren't 4 seconds away from going up 3-2 against the Lakers at the end of game five. We were 4 seconds from getting a chance to go up 3-2 if we could beat them in overtime. There is quite a difference.

Joe

 

[mojorizen7]

Were the Suns close? Absolutely.

Are they close at this point? I'm not so confident they are.

+1
I believe this team still has at least one hole to fill if we're to be considered favorites to return the WCF and beyond....a big strong rebounding forward who can defend the post.
If Amare leaves then we've got 2 big holes to fill....

 

[AzStevenCal]

Oh, come on now. Every team gets some luck. Besides Brandon Roy's injury I don't see how we were any luckier than any of the other teams.
Joe

Well, in addition to Portland, I think we were luckier than Denver. I think we were luckier than Utah. I think we were luckier than Dallas. I even think we were luckier than OKC. They were neck and neck with us until that screw job call by the refs. It wouldn't take a whole lot for it to have been us facing the Lakers in the first round.

I just don't look at this team and say they are clearly the 2nd best in the west. If the rest of you do than my argument is going to ring hollow for you.

Steve

 

[SirStefan32]

Well, in addition to Portland, I think we were luckier than Denver. I think we were luckier than Utah. I think we were luckier than Dallas. I even think we were luckier than OKC. They were neck and neck with us until that screw job call by the refs. It wouldn't take a whole lot for it to have been us facing the Lakers in the first round.

I just don't look at this team and say they are clearly the 2nd best in the west. If the rest of you do than my argument is going to ring hollow for you.

Stebe

The West is loaded with great teams. There is no team in the West that's clearly the second best. Spurs, Mavs, Nuggets, Suns are all great teams. Portland, OKC, and Utah are very good as well. I actually agree with your original point to some degree, but asking to "clearly be the second best team in the west" is a bit too much.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The West is loaded with great teams. There is no team in the West that's clearly the second best. Spurs, Mavs, Nuggets, Suns are all great teams. Portland, OKC, and Utah are very good as well. I actually agree with your original point to some degree, but asking to "clearly be the second best team in the west" is a bit too much.

Yeah, the "clearly the second best team" is probably too extreme. It's not at all uncommon for someone other than the 2nd best team to make it to the conference finals. Still, from my perspective I see us being somewhere between a little worse and a lot worse next year and either scenario takes us out of the running. And given that, I'd like to see us move some pieces while they still have value so as to limit our rebuild phase. If Amare walks and we let Nash continue till he drops we're looking at a much steeper hill to climb, IMO.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

Yeah, the "clearly the second best team" is probably too extreme. It's not at all uncommon for someone other than the 2nd best team to make it to the conference finals. Still, from my perspective I see us being somewhere between a little worse and a lot worse next year and either scenario takes us out of the running. And given that, I'd like to see us move some pieces while they still have value so as to limit our rebuild phase. If Amare walks and we let Nash continue till he drops we're looking at a much steeper hill to climb, IMO.

Steve

IF (and that's a big if) we would have made it to the Finals and actually won the title, which was a possibility IMO if we had made it past the Lakers, would you discount the title because you thought we were "lucky" to get there to win it? Doesn't that sound a little absurd? It's easier to discount a playoff exit if it's less than 16 wins.

Your point appears to be that you think the Suns are good, but probably not good enough to be in the Western Conference Finals--saying they were lucky pretty much implies that.

I happen to think--and I have said this over and over regardless what people like cheesebeef like to think--that our playoff road was the toughest in the Western Conference. Even with their injuries, Portland is a good, big team. Remember we were underdogs after game 1. And we all know what usually happened when we play the Spurs.

The Lakers, on the other hand, had a tough series with the Thunder, but there really was no chance they would lose that one, and surprisingly had no trouble at all with the Jazz. I would say the Lakers were more lucky to have gotten a woefully depleted Utah team.

The Suns deserved to be in the Western Conference Finals. Nobody gave them a lucky break.

Now, if you want to start prognosticating about next year, then fine. I haven't really addressed next year in any of my posts. And to be honest, I'm not sure what's going to happen next year, there are a lot of factors, not the least of which is Amare's status.

 

[AzStevenCal]

IF (and that's a big if) we would have made it to the Finals and actually won the title, which was a possibility IMO if we had made it past the Lakers, would you discount the title because you thought we were "lucky" to get there to win it? Doesn't that sound a little absurd? It's easier to discount a playoff exit if it's less than 16 wins.

No, I definitely wouldn't have disregarded a title if we'd have won. But then again, I don't discount our WCF trip. Luck ALWAYS plays a role in sports. Sometimes the only luck you need is to avoid bad luck. Sometimes you need a heck of a lot more. I contend that we had a fair amount of luck this year which culminated in a nice playoff run. Some of the luck was our own and some occurred in the form of bad luck that hurt other teams.

My only reason for pointing to the fortune of this season was not to diminish what they accomplished. It was to highlight the unlikelihood of it happening two years in a row. It was intended to counter the argument that this team should be kept together because they were so close to winning it all this year and by extension would be true contenders next year.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

I think the Suns' luck is historically so bad that when they have average luck, it feels like good luck.

 

[chickenhead]

I don't think the Suns were lucky--they played extremely well down the stretch and advanced to the conference finals in 10 games. The only thing that seems like a special circumstance was Roy's injury. Denver, Dallas, and Utah were all eliminated by other teams, and none of those series were flukes.

The only team I'd say is probable for the WCF next year is the Lakers. Any of the other teams can beat each other, and any one of them might face the Lakers in the first or second round.

 

[Mainstreet]

AzStevenCal, you have diluted your position in the first post... that the Suns were lucky to make it the WCF. See quote from original post below.

I know this will probably anger a few people but here goes. One of the main reasons I believe we should look to rebuild is that I just don't think we're all that close to the promised land. AFAIC, our trip to the WCF came with an extraordinary amount of luck and I just don't see the stars aligning that way again soon.

Now your position seems to be:

Luck ALWAYS plays a role in sports.

This is stating the obvious. Luck always has a role in sports but a team does not make it to the WCFs unless they are very good. Next year is another season. If the Suns make it again to to the WCFs is really another issue and does not take away from how good the Suns were this season. As Chaplin said:

The Suns deserved to be in the Western Conference Finals. Nobody gave them a lucky break.

 

[AzStevenCal]

AzStevenCal, you have diluted your position in the first post... that the Suns were lucky to make it the WCF.

No dilution. We had more luck than we could reasonably expect to occur again next season. That's not saying we were the luckiest team ever or that luck was the only reason we played in the WCF. It's acknowledging that things fell into place for us and they won't likely do so again soon.

Luck always has a role in sports but a team does not make it to the WCFs unless they are very good.

I agree with both parts of that statement. I guess we could quibble over what "very good" means but I do believe we earned our way to the conference finals. We were good enough to take advantage of the misfortune of other teams. There are a lot of teams out there that would have loved to do the same but didn't.

Look, without major changes, I think the Lakers can examine themselves and reasonably expect to at least duplicate this year's run. I think Orlando can do the same thing. However, I don't believe the Suns can look back on this year and feel very confident that they'll have a similar run next year. Too many things fell our way to reasonably expect a repeat performance.

I think we're likely to decline next season even if we retain everybody and yet so many other teams in our conference can reasonably expect to improve. If our justification for keeping this team intact is for a possible championship drive I think we're living in fantasy land.

There's always a possibility that Lopez stays healthy and grows into a quality big man next year. It's also possible that Nash has an unusually healthy season in 2011. And maybe Hill will continue to defy the odds while Dragic continues his rise to stardom. And perhaps all those other teams that suffered unexpected losses will continue to suffer for another year. If all this happens we could well be on a title run next year but that's the stuff of dreams and shouldn't factor in to this teams approach.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

IF (and that's a big if) we would have made it to the Finals and actually won the title, which was a possibility IMO if we had made it past the Lakers, would you discount the title because you thought we were "lucky" to get there to win it? Doesn't that sound a little absurd? It's easier to discount a playoff exit if it's less than 16 wins.

Your point appears to be that you think the Suns are good, but probably not good enough to be in the Western Conference Finals--saying they were lucky pretty much implies that.

I happen to think--and I have said this over and over regardless what people like cheesebeef like to think--that our playoff road was the toughest in the Western Conference.

dude, what are you talking about? Can you show me anywhere that I said we didn't have the easiest road? The Lakers getting Utah was MUCH easier than us and I said it then and continued to say it. Please, stop putting words in my mouth and stop personally attacking people.

 

[AzStevenCal]

IThe only thing that seems like a special circumstance was Roy's injury. Denver, Dallas, and Utah were all eliminated by other teams, and none of those series were flukes.

If we had suffered the personnel losses that Denver, Utah and Portland did last season we'd be justifiably stoked about this next season. Portland didn't just lose Roy. They lost Roy at pretty much the worst part of the season in addition to playing most of the season without their starting center or his backup. We could easily have been facing them without the benefit of home court if they'd not met such misfortune.

Denver was a better team than us for most of the season. They fell apart because of injuries and the absence of their head coach. And Utah entered the postseason as a weak shadow of the team they had been when healthy. I don't remember the exact standings but we definitely moved up a few spots in seeding, at least in part, because of these late season circumstances.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

If we had suffered the personnel losses that Denver, Utah and Portland did last season we'd be justifiably stoked about this next season. Portland didn't just lose Roy. They lost Roy at pretty much the worst part of the season in addition to playing most of the season without their starting center or his backup. We could easily have been facing them without the benefit of home court if they'd not met such misfortune.

I can agree with you here... to an extent. Oden is just NEVER going to be healthy. However, the Camby move was a big one and if Roy's back healthy, that team will be tough as nails next season.

Denver was a better team than us for most of the season. They fell apart because of injuries and the absence of their head coach. And Utah entered the postseason as a weak shadow of the team they had been when healthy. I don't remember the exact standings but we definitely moved up a few spots in seeding, at least in part, because of these late season circumstances.
Steve

I think you discount the fact that both Denver and Utah are facing the probability of being worse as well. There's no telling if George Karl will ever come back to that team, Kenyon Martin is always hurt, Nene busted his knee in the playoffs and who knows how he'll be next year and Chauncy is a year older as well.

And as far as Utah is concerned, they're most likely going to lose Boozer for nothing and Okur/Korver are FA. They have the #9 pick in the draft, but I doubt he'll be an impact maker next season. I expect them to take a step back next year due to the above.

Other teams are facing the same issues we are. Of all the teams in the West, I think if this team came back in tact, it would be a race between us, OKC and Portland to see who's going to end up the top 2-4 seeds.

 

[Mainstreet]

No dilution. We had more luck than we could reasonably expect to occur again next season. That's not saying we were the luckiest team ever or that luck was the only reason we played in the WCF. It's acknowledging that things fell into place for us and they won't likely do so again soon.

Steve

This season should be considered separate from next season. Give the Suns their due for this season. Enough about the Suns being lucky to make it to the WCFs. They earned it.

Now if you want to build a case that other teams have more talent than the Suns then you have a valid point. However, what the Suns had more than most other talented teams was chemistry this past season. It's hard to quantify it. Next year's Suns team will likely have a different chemistry even if the Suns keep the same players. Unless a team has extraordinary talent like the Lakers it's hard to project how far teams will go in the playoffs. A lot of people thought Lebron and Cleveland would come out of the East.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I think you discount the fact that both Denver and Utah are facing the probability of being worse as well. There's no telling if George Karl will ever come back to that team, Kenyon Martin is always hurt, Nene busted his knee in the playoffs and who knows how he'll be next year and Chauncy is a year older as well.

And as far as Utah is concerned, they're most likely going to lose Boozer for nothing and Okur/Korver are FA. They have the #9 pick in the draft, but I doubt he'll be an impact maker next season. I expect them to take a step back next year due to the above.

Other teams are facing the same issues we are. Of all the teams in the West, I think if this team came back in tact, it would be a race between us, OKC and Portland to see who's going to end up the top 2-4 seeds.

Good points, and a few of them I failed to consider. I keep looking at our cap situation and our draft situation and just assume all of our opponents are considerably better off in these regards and that's not necessarily the case. Still, I don't see Dallas falling apart next season and OKC looks to be a real threat not just to us but to the Lakers.

Steve

 

[AzStevenCal]

This season should be considered separate from next season. Give the Suns their due for this season. Enough about the Suns being lucky to make it to the WCFs. They earned it.

Except my point all along about the WCF trip was how it relates to what we can expect next season. You, and others, keep saying "enough with the luck-they earned it" as if I'm on the opposite side of the point. I'm not. Just because they benefitted from circumstances doesn't mean they didn't earn it. I just believe that the extra good fortune we experienced this year make's our WCF a poor predictor for next year's success.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

Except my point all along about the WCF trip was how it relates to what we can expect next season. You, and others, keep saying "enough with the luck-they earned it" as if I'm on the opposite side of the point. I'm not. Just because they benefitted from circumstances doesn't mean they didn't earn it. I just believe that the extra good fortune we experienced this year make's our WCF a poor predictor for next year's success.

Steve

I definitely think you have a good point about this year as a predictor for next season. I'd love to be able to say the team will stay together and produce great chemistry, but we just don't know. My previous posts did not take next year into consideration--I was responding to the implication (whether I'm wrong or not) that this season was "lucky."

I disagree that the Suns got any "extra" good fortune (or luck) to reach the Western Conference Finals. Many Laker fans felt they were lucky to get the Suns in the WCF (who they considered inferior). I totally disagree with that, even though they were EXTREMELY lucky to get a decimated Jazz team in the 2nd round. The Suns were the Lakers toughest opponent in the playoffs, as they should be.

I guess some could say the Blazers not having Roy for a few games and then after his one good game having him come back to earth might be good luck on our part, but we WERE without Robin Lopez since March, so wouldn't our "good luck" be offset by the "bad luck" we had with Robin out? I just hate pinning anything on "luck" unless it's a shot like Ron Artest had at the end of Game 5. The way NBA playoffs are set up with the Best of 7 makes luck a virtual non-factor in anything.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I guess some could say the Blazers not having Roy for a few games and then after his one good game having him come back to earth might be good luck on our part, but we WERE without Robin Lopez since March, so wouldn't our "good luck" be offset by the "bad luck" we had with Robin out?

we definitely weren't lucky with Robin's injury, but I don't think losing an up and coming, yet still inconsistent C is equitable with losing one of the best players in the game/leader of the team (not to mention the other losses that team had suffered).

 

[ASUCHRIS]

we definitely weren't lucky with Robin's injury, but I don't think losing an up and coming, yet still inconsistent C is equitable with losing one of the best players in the game/leader of the team (not to mention the other losses that team had suffered).

Bottom line is Roy wasn't very good against us this year, and Camby ended up being a huge upgrade over Vanilla Gorilla and Oden, and they never would have acquired Camby if those two were healthy.

That's one example of bad, and one example of good luck.

Almost every team will run into injuries or other issues, I don't see us as being any luckier or less lucky than anyone else.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I just hate pinning anything on "luck" unless it's a shot like Ron Artest had at the end of Game 5.

Can someone tell me how this was luck? We played GREAT D on Kobe getting him to do exactly what we wanted, Artest read the ball perfectly that it would be short, attacked the rim to get it and hit a turn-around jumper. He made a GREAT basketball play. How was that luck? And if it WAS luck as you say... what the heck was Richardson's bank three pointer?

when I think of lucky shots, I think of things like Sampson's over the head shot to end the WCF against the Lakers back in the 80's... or Barkley's catch off the backboard, falling sideway shot against the Blazers in 1993... or Fisher's .4 miracle. Artest just kept playing till the whistle was blown, made a great read on the ball and put back a ten foot turnaround.

 

[Chaplin]

Can someone tell me how this was luck? We played GREAT D on Kobe getting him to do exactly what we wanted, Artest read the ball perfectly that it would be short, attacked the rim to get it and hit a turn-around jumper. He made a GREAT basketball play. How was that luck? And if it WAS luck as you say... what the heck was Richardson's bank three pointer?

when I think of lucky shots, I think of things like Sampson's over the head shot to end the WCF against the Lakers back in the 80's... or Barkley's catch off the backboard, falling sideway shot against the Blazers in 1993... or Fisher's .4 miracle. Artest just kept playing till the whistle was blown, made a great read on the ball and put back a ten foot turnaround.

Watch the shot again, Artest HIMSELF said he just threw it up behind his head. And did I mention anywhere that JRich's bank shot wasn't lucky? In-game heroics are much different.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Can someone tell me how this was luck? We played GREAT D on Kobe getting him to do exactly what we wanted, Artest read the ball perfectly that it would be short, attacked the rim to get it and hit a turn-around jumper. He made a GREAT basketball play. How was that luck? And if it WAS luck as you say... what the heck was Richardson's bank three pointer?

when I think of lucky shots, I think of things like Sampson's over the head shot to end the WCF against the Lakers back in the 80's... or Barkley's catch off the backboard, falling sideway shot against the Blazers in 1993... or Fisher's .4 miracle. Artest just kept playing till the whistle was blown, made a great read on the ball and put back a ten foot turnaround.

I wouldn't say the "shot" was luck... it wasn't. But the entire play was certainly lucky for the Lakers. If Kobe's shot had hit the rim, Artest doesn't make that play and we head into OT.

 

[jibikao]

I know this will probably anger a few people but here goes. One of the main reasons I believe we should look to rebuild is that I just don't think we're all that close to the promised land. AFAIC, our trip to the WCF came with an extraordinary amount of luck and I just don't see the stars aligning that way again soon.

Dallas ran out of gas, Denver lost their HC at a critical juncture, Utah was beset by a bevy of injuries and Portland lost their best player. We also benefitted from an incredible run by Amare that far outpaces any previous stretch of his career and likely any future stretch. Factor in that the Lakers look to have a few more years in them and OKC is closing fast and the future is not all that bright.

Even if we bring Amare I back I just don't see us being quite as good. Lou and Frye each contributed considerably at times this season and it's probable that neither will be back (and it's doubtful their replacements will match or exceed them). Nash was ineffective (or at least considerably less effective than usual) in roughly a third of the 2010 games because of injury and that's likely to worsen not improve. It's also unlikely that Hill will continue to play at his recent level.

There's no doubt this team can be competitive but I just don't see them as true contenders (or even close, for that matter). Besides his back issue, Lopez has a ways to go before he becomes even a top 10 center. Dragic showed signs of greatness this year but he also showed signs of mediocrity. I expect improvement from both of them but not enough to offset the overall lessening this team will experience because of age, injuries and defections.

It takes a lot of luck to win a championship but IMO it took an awful lot of good fortune just to get us part way there. If we really weren't all that close what good does it do to put out a roughly equal version of it in 2011? Especially when that roughly equal version may prove to be a mirage if age and injuries do catch up to them.

Steve

This can be said for Magic and Cavs as well. I actually think we were CLOSE. Our biggest problem is size and besides Lakers, I don't see other teams giving us that much size trouble. Just think...if Lopez was healthy for the whole post season, the outcome could be different. And yes, luck is very important because we didn't have major injuries during post season. Nash had some back problems during first series (he had some very bad games).