I had been planning on doing two posts a month...so here ya go, the obligatory post just in time before February (so just to check your expectations).
My Ranking Spurs Championships blog was off to a great start (well, at least wordy start) but I found a place online that sells games and now I think I have to kinda watch some of those games before I move on. It will happen, but it is a bump in the road and it's just too important to half-ass.
That's a joke btw but I desire to be detailed and I love doing some original research.
Blog-wise, I am concentrating my efforts on the next Spurs blog, I don't have anything intelligent to add or say or even think. I am floating upon the sea, only soaking up what comes my way and trying not to sink. But I do have a goal to post another Confucius Didn't Say That! post by May.
Weezer's new album (OK Human) is surprisingly good. Yeah, at or near White album quality. Pretty sweet, it's a relaxing album to listen to.
My oldest daughter was dressed like the 90's tonight. Kinda threw me off, it was weird. Sometimes she's so much like me it's scary (and I like myself too). She's so laid back, weird and reflective.
I am in the middle of reading Dune. It took a few hundred pages but I am finally enjoying more than in the first 300 pages. The Hunchback of Norte Dame is next on my list.
I have been watching the LOTR trilogy on HULU and watching the DVD extras on YT. I dunno why. Why not? It's been about 3-4 years since I've done a re-watch.
Random Fragments
I have been missing my old buddy who moved to Illinois (hi Eric!). Just found out a new set of friends might be moving (in town but further away). They just came over and we had a few beers....there just aren't many friends we have like that. So, it goes. Eric, if you're reading this you have better read that 2007 Spurs blog post. Get to it.
School started and I now it feels like the old normal will feel abnormal whenever that day comes (mid-fall? - next spring???). I feel like I am all alone. Email and a few Zooms just don't cut it. I am alone with my classes. Weird and yet, it's not.
Wondering about traveling this summer. We missed our annual trip to WI to visit K's fam because of the pandemic and now we're left wondering what to do. We're hoping to get the vaccine by late spring/early summer....but not sure how comfortable K's family will be with us coming up...? Also might plan a trip west to the Grand Canyon and CO but not really sure...we'll see.
We have had many close calls with COVID. My sister's family got it, and now my sister-in-law has it....I am not convinced everyone will get it...and I don't want it. Hoping and praying we avoid it in the next few months before we can get vaccinated.
Fragments and Musings on Aging and Traveling
When I think back to what I want to with my job (which is travel), of course, 2021 is gone and given the constraints and people's well-founded concern and caution, 2022 will be strictly limited if not crossed off as a possibility. I had planned on traveling every other year so this means that a good chunk of my 40's is gone right there. As each travel opportunity takes a year of planning in the process, this means if a trip doesn't "make", it means two years were lost in the process.
Of course, I am thankful I traveled in the summer of 2019 for school and then the fam had a quick early trip in 2020, but now this means the first part of my 40's was wasted (as far as traveling for work). At this point, the earliest I can travel will now mean, I will be in my mid-to-late 40's (sigh...I sure am getting old).
Ultimately, I shouldn't complain given many have lost so much more but it's my blog and my time to bitch, so give me some space, will ya? It's all the more shocking that now I am old enough now, I plan in terms of decades. Good thing I am not on planning on retiring until I am in my late 70's or early 80's (God willing). In my head, I had always imagined a flurry of travel in my 40's-50's as I (in theory and hopefully) retained my health. Then again, I am greedy.... I will likely travel professionally into my 60's, even in all the possible alternate time-lines, anyhow.
Whomever you are, I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Don't forget to take a hot shower (if possible) and turn your brain off for a bit and forget about all your troubles (at least for 10 minutes or so).
The San Antonio Spurs have won five championships and it's likely to remain that number for a long time. I also like ranking things on this blog, so let's do this.
Methodology for the ranking of an NBA Championship
Well, it's completely subjective. I won't bother to quantify which Spurs team was statistically best or do any deep dives into the stats, but I'll boil it down to basically three main components:
Satisfaction Scale (1-5)
This component measures howpersonally satisfying I found the championship. Satisfaction includes the regular season, post-season, and the various individual and team narratives involved,. The post-season is favored but the other stuff matters too. I am quantifying my subjective feelings, so just accept this makes no sense.
Degree of Difficulty (1-5)
How difficult or impressive was the title run?What teams and challenges did the Spurs face along the way and how? Did the team overcome injuries or some other team or individual challenge? What obstacles had to be overcome in the regular season and post-season?
Enjoyment Scale (1-5)
How enjoyable was it to watch (and re-watch)?What was the style of the play? Were the games along the way blow-outs or were there significant buzzer-beaters and late-game heroics and drama?
# 5 - 2007 (SS -3.5/DoD - 3/ES - 3.5/ Total = 10
2006-2007 Championship
The 2006 playoffs ended in disaster. The Spurs had the best record in the NBA but faced the second-best team in the second round, the Dallas Mavericks (this series ended up being the driving force that changed NBA rules to prevent this very case from happening again). The Mavs matched up with the Spurs very well that year and making the series tougher was the officiating was terrible. The Spurs overcame a 3-1 deficit and forced a game seven at home. The Spurs blew it (well, okay, Manu did) in the closing seconds of game seven. It still stings to this day, so I am not going to even recount how that game ended. I couldn't have imagined how a loss could top the pain of Derek Fisher's .4 catastrophe from 2004 (see below) but it did. Oh boy, I hated those Mavs (Pain Index of Spurs Losses will get it's own blog post at some point). I am relatively confident we would have beat the Heat in the 2006 Finals for our second straight title and a great chance at a three-peat, given the breaks we got in 2007.
I know people say it's bad sportsmanship for you to root against the team that beat "your" team but I had no qualms when the Mavs lost largely due to refs, as they sure benefited against the Spurs. Including when Tim Duncan had his feet stepped on by Dirk near the end of Game 3 and got called for a foul. So, karma tasted delicious to me. To make matter worse, the Spurs seemed old and the West was stacked with younger and hungrier teams like the Mavs, Suns, Nuggets and the Jazz. At the time, I thought 2006 may have been our last best hope for one last title. Most title windows last about 3-8 years and 2006 was year seven for Duncan and the Spurs.
Regular Season
The regular season of 2006-2007 felt like a hang-over. Sure, the Spurs won 58 games but the talk of the league was the 67-win Mavs and the 61-win Suns. The Spurs seemed like an afterthought. There was some talk the Spurs would make a trade to shake things up and improve their chances. I remember rumors included Tony Parker but luckily nothing ever came of it. I didn't keep up with the games as much as I used to, but I was on blogs, watching highlights, etc. after every game.
Note: The videos in this blog post are not loading on the mobile version, if you want to see the videos, scroll to the end of the page and click on "view web version" or just view the blog on a laptop/PC. There's a ton of videos, so ya know, just do it.
2007 Playoffs
First Round - Denver Nuggets (45-37, 6th seed) - "Much Closer Series than You Might Remember"
The Spurs faced a hot Nuggets team (the short-lived Anthony-Iverson team) in the first round. The Nuggets were one of those teams that clicked late in the season and no one wanted to face in the playoffs. It was unfair that both teams had to meet this early in the playoffs. Although the Spurs would take the series in a "gentlemen's sweep" (4-1), most of the games were competitive.
After a game one loss, the Spurs played pretty darn good and captured the next four games (with two tight games on the road). The Big 3 looked great and Finley had a great shooting series (53% from 3). I remember George Karl (coach of the Nuggets) complaining to no end about Manu "flopping" and he got the crap knocked out of him when he went to the hoop...but he never backed down.
Check these highlights above. Horry with an under-rated and largely forgotten dagger. Manu's line in game four was just so "Manu", 19 pt, 7 rebounds, 5 assists and 5 steals.
An Interlude - Luck and Winning in the Playoffs
Meanwhile, NBA history was happening. The top-seeded Mavericks, the team that matched up so well with the Spurs were defeated by the 8-seeded, loveable, rough and tumble Warriors. It was an incredible series. It was easy to laugh at the Mavs back then (and I did) but this was a nightmare match-up for the Mavs. Ultimately, the Mavs (and Dirk) wet the bed but I think everyone should admit, it was more about an amazing and historic performance by the Warriors.
The public loves to see players "willing" their team to a championship and subsequently assigns the failure to win a championship as the sole responsibility of the team's best player....but that's just not how it works. Dirk didn't lose that series, the Warriors took it. Jordan would have never won 6 titles without Pippen, he would have been lucky to win one without him! He was lucky to have a great bunch of role players (especially on the second three-peat teams). Had Jordan not retired the first time, I think they would have lost against one of those Rockets teams (or even fallen beforehand out of sheer exhaustion).
As a Spurs fan, I learned over the 20 years of contention that playoff success is less about being a "winner" and more about being healthy, match-ups, the play of the role-players, and a good old dash of good luck.
As soon as the Mavs were defeated, there was only one team left in the Western conference with a good chance to beat the Spurs....
The Infamous Suns Series (with multiple interludes)
This is one of the most maligned and controversial playoff series in NBA history.
1. The Suns were loved by the basketball intelligentsia and basketball junkies everywhere.
Going back to watch some of these series (especially the 1999 season) is indeed, a slog. The pace can drag to mind-numbing depths and three-pointers are not utilized efficiently. It was a different and flawed game; dominated by defense-first teams like the Spurs and Pistons. The seven-seconds-or-less Suns were a breath of fresh air. The Suns were a compelling team to watch and unlike some other offensive juggernauts, they had dashes of defense from Amare Stoudemire, Raja Bell, and Shawn Marion.
2. The Spurs were boring and "old".
If the Suns represented a new, fresh approach the Spurs represented the old, boring approach. By 2007, the Spurs were old news. They had been contending since 1999, won three championships and were known for their tough defense and Tim Duncan's back-to-the-bsket post-up game. "4 Down" (Tim Duncan posting up) was the go-to Spurs call.
Timmy was considered "old" at 31. We had no idea he was only half-way through his 18-year career.
3. The Spurs usually ended up beating the Suns.
Not only did the old, rusty Spurs beat the Suns in 2005 (with another built in-excuse for the Suns because Joe Johnson was hurt), they beat them in 2007 and again in 2008. Sure, the Suns finally beat them in 2010 but by then, the Spurs were at a low point (and the Spurs were the 7th seed that had upset the 2nd seeded Mavs, so the loss wasn't all that surprising). The fact that the Spurs kept getting in the way of the Sun's title chances was a double-whammy of frustration for casual NBA fans. It seemed like the Spurs didn't know when their time was up.
The Games
Game 1 - Spurs 111 - Suns 106 - (Spurs 1-0)
Game one was a playoff classic. The game is most memorable as the game where Nash and Paker collided with a little less than 2 minutes left and Nash's nose bleed like crazy, costing Nash some critical playing time in the waning minutes of a very close playoff game. Timmy was huge in this game with 33/16/3 blk and Tony had 32/8 assists in an amazing duel with Nash.
Here's the whole game, it's a great watch:
It's an understatement to say the Suns seemed to have bad luck against the Spurs.
Game 2 - Suns 101 - Spurs 81 - (Series tied 1-1)
This game was a must-win for the Suns as they had already lost home-court in the first game, so in typical "our backs are back against the wall" they blew the Spurs out. Not much to say here as a Spurs fan.
Game 3 - Spurs 108 - Suns 101 (Spurs 2-1)
(wait a sec....something's missing here)
ahem...
Interlude on the Officiating in the Spurs-Suns 2007 series or "Why Tim Donaghy is Full of It"
This series will always be defined by what happened at the end of game four, but another factor seen around the web is the idea that the series was somehow tainted by the officiating. Disturbingly, it is claimed this bad officiating was done on purpose. However, the idea has gained some traction in recent years because of the need for Tim Donaghy to sell a book.
Everyone's favorite ex-ref and ex-felon Tim Donaghy claims that NBA officials disliked the Sun's owner, Robert Sarver and it biased the officials against the Suns. You have to hand it to him; it's a unique argument as usual, people think the NBA would want the fresh, exciting, young Suns. But David Stern be damned, the refs actually favored the small-market, boring Spurs.
Here's one of his more recent claims:
“Obviously, everybody knows I refereed one of those famous games with the San Antonio Spurs where [the Suns] were definitely the better team in that series and San Antonio went on to win that series,” he said.
“Tommy Nunez, who was the group supervisor at that time for that series, didn’t like Sarver, who was the owner of the Suns at that time, and was always pointing out in the tape sessions of things to call against Phoenix and things not to concentrate on against San Antonio,” Donaghy said. “And I think it put San Antonio at an advantage.”
“2007 Suns were the best team in the league. And that whole series was officiated poorly, and one of the reasons is that Tommy Nunez was the supervisor of officials in that series. And he had a dislike for the Suns owner Robert Sarver, and he enjoyed the lifestyle in San Antonio and liked to get back in the next round of the playoffs and continue to go to San Antonio. So it was a situation that he was steering the series to San Antonio in tape sessions.”
To summarize Donaghy's claims (to my knowledge these are his only claims about the series):
1. The Suns were the best team in the league.
2. The whole series was officiated poorly and one of the reasons was because Tommy Nunez was the supervisor of the officials in that series.
3. Tommy Nunez did not like the Suns owner, Robert Sarver.
4. Tommy Nunez liked the "lifestyle in San Antonio" and wanted to return to SA in a later series.
5. Therefore, Nunez was "always pointing out in the tape sessions of things to call against Phoenix and things not to concentrate on against San Antonio.”
The first claim is the easiest to dismiss. The Dallas Mavericks were by far the best regular-season team with a franchise-record 67 wins; the largest win total that the league had seen since 2000. They were the clear title favorites. The Mavs finished six games up on the Suns for the first seed while the Spurs were three games back from the Suns. While in hindsight it's easy to dismiss the Mavs (see above), it's simply not straightforward to state the Suns were the best team in the league that year. This will be covered in depth below but if they were the best team shouldn't they have sealed the deal down the stretch in game five? Gutted out game one despite missing Nash for a few plays? The Suns couldn't even push the Spurs to seven games when they were at full strength.
The allegations against Nunez are interesting but...not very credible.
Tommy Nunez, Sr. retired in 2002, after 30 years in the NBA. Tommy Nunez, Jr. was an NBA referee from 2004-2010. So although his correct name is not used in the allegation, I am going to assume he meant Nunez, Jr.
"Group Supervisor" is not a position or term I have ever heard about in my 30+ years of NBA fandom. The term "group supervisor" for NBA officials does not turn up anything on Google (I also searched various other terms to no avail). However, it is possible such a role exists and I could see the value in having an off-site official supervise the officiating for a series. It's interesting that a third-year official was a "group supervisor" in a playoff series given the NBA's preference for veteran officials in the playoffs.
In this case, the group supervisor didn't actually call any of the actual games in the series. Thus, Nunez, Jr. could only encourage the officials to call the games a particular way. I find it hard to believe a referee in his third year could hold much sway over his fellow officials, many of whom had been in the NBA for decades. Would a relative newbie feel comfortable being implicit or explicit in his bias with veteran officials?
Nunez, Jr. did not officiate any of the Spurs-Suns series, so his impact (if any) would be extremely limited. If his goal was to return as a game official to SA, as Donaghy alleges, the plan failed as he did not officiate any Spurs playoff games in 2007. Would a group supervisor even be on-site at all? For what purpose?
Finally, his claim that Tommy Nunez, Jr. liked the "lifestyle in San Antonio" just might be a racist statement, as I am not sure what the "lifestyle" is in SA means or why Nunez would like SA so much, that he was willing to risk his professional reputation with older refs. Maybe, just maybe, could it be because SA has a large population of Hispanics and Nunez, Jr. was only the second Hispanic NBA official? Is that why Donaghy believed this?
To summarize, Nunez, Jr. even if he was the supervisor for the series, would have had a very limited role in how the games would be called given his new status and lack of actually, ya know, officiating the games. A close read of Donaghy's comments shows a bit of a hedge anyway, "I think it put San Antonio at an advantage" is not a strong affirmation of fraud, only his interpretation of alleged events. It could be Donaghy didn't agree with Nunez, Jr.'s analysis of the games and projected fraud and bias in his analysis.
As for Tim Donaghy's role, he only officiated one game of the series. So, even if you were buying that Donaghy had complete control over the officiating in that game, it's still just one game. Details on game three will be discussed below. It should be clear Donaghy said he never bet on the game or even admitted that he did a poor job (maybe his allegations stood in for his poor job in game three). In the aftermath of game three, Bill Simmons said it was a terribly officiated game. However, if Donaghy had never called the game, I don't think anyone would really remember it as a poorly officiated game (any more than any other average playoff game). It just happened because Donaghy called it, and later that summer he was charged with betting on games, it was tainted only by the association with Donaghy.
I have seen on a few Phoenix sports websites or blogs claim that the series officiating was obviously in favor of the Spurs. I won't bother to link as they don't back up their claims with data or facts. Nor do they go beyond quoting Donaghy as far as finding a motive. Game three is particularly used as an example to "prove" the claims. I don't find that much merit in that claim but it is a claim so, let's investigate it a bit further.
FTA Comparison: Flawed or Insightful?
The easiest and most frequently used way of deciphering if the game was fairly called is looking at the FTA for each team. This method is extremely flawed, to say the least.
Simply looking at FTA fails to account for the way the teams play. Is a team being more aggressive by driving the ball inside or is another team being tentative? Does the team adhere to a philosophy of handing out hard fouls for layups or do they intentionally play to avoid fouls?
FTA alone also ignores the circumstances of the fouls. Critically important is understanding when the fouls were called in the game. If the refs really did have it out for a team, they could easily call many fouls early on and slowly balance them out along the way, as needed. A team trailing at the end of the game can intentionally foul another team several times in the waning minutes and this would create the appearance of a FTA disparity.
My point being, FTA is extremely flawed. It is only one metric, and that's what I will treat it as. One data-point, among many.
FTA in the 2006-2007 Season for the Spurs and the Suns
Both teams were near the bottom of the league in average FTA per game (SA with 24 FTA and the Suns with 22 FTA). A consistent feature during Popovich's reign in SA has been the Spurs' ability to typically be one of the best teams at NOT fouling.
“It’s really one of their core principles,” said Atlanta coach Mike Budenholzer, a Spurs assistant for 20 years before joining the Hawks. “They talk about it regularly. They drill it. They show film on it. Everybody knows how important it is to them being so good defensively that they defend without fouling. It’s been that way from the beginning, really.”
In 2007, the Spurs were first in the league with the least amount of FTA for opponents (21 FTA per game average). Meanwhile, the Suns were also excellent at avoiding fouls, ranking 3rd in the league. My anecdotal experience tells us there are usually more FTA in the playoffs and while I am not going out of my way to prove that, that's what we see in this series.
Here are the FTA attempts and PF for each team in the series:
Game
Suns FTA
Spurs FTA
FTA Advantage
PF
Advantage
Game Outcome
1
27
33
Spurs +6
Suns -1
Spurs 111-Suns 106
2
19
16
Suns + 3
Suns – 4
Suns 101-Spurs 81
3
27
36
Spurs + 9
Spurs -2
Spurs 108- Suns 101
4
29
14
Suns +15
Suns – 9
Suns 104-Spurs 98
5
17
28
Spurs +11
Tied
Spurs 88- Suns 85
6
24
30
Spurs +6
Spurs - 2
Spurs 114-Suns 106
Devoid of context, just scanning the FTA, nothing sticks out too much as a huge advantage for the Spurs, although in games three and five they did have a solid advantage.
Game Three's Officiating
As seen above the Spurs did have nine more FTA but the Suns had six more turnovers and got outrebounded by eight (Spurs had 11 offensive boards to the Suns' 5 offensive boards). The Spurs had more offensive sets and this translated into extra possessions, which in turn led to more opportunities to get to the line. It's hard to clearly see this game as "rigged". The stats alone do not show evidence for a strong bias for the Spurs.
The video below frames Donaghy's crimes as having an influence on the series, but when this video was made, little was known about the allegations. Donaghy has not been shy about his role in all this and has never insinuated that he bet on this series, only that it was poorly called. Ironically, it has been the one game he officiated that is pointed out as an example of terrible officiating.
Here are the plays from the video with my analysis:
1 - Manu Shooting Foul (on Bell) - the call is made by Donaghy (I think the only one on the video above) and he was really out of position to make the call, it's a bad call and it's unreasonable.
2 - Tim blocks Amare (no call) - At best it's a questionable no-call. It looked like a clear block to me, it's a typical physical NBA drive/block. These are human beings watching it in real-time and Tim Duncan, being one of the all-time greats, might get the benefit of the doubt but it's reasonable to see how it would not be called.
3. Flop by Oberto on Amare (his fourth foul) - it's a bad call but it is a heck of a flop by Oberto. He really does sell it, he was such a smart player. In real-time, I could see how it could be called, but I will grade it "bad" out of fairness as it sent Amare to the bench. The call is reasonable in real-time but bad.
4. Blocking foul on Nash as Duncan shoots - like most blocking calls...it's questionable. You have two MVP's competing in a playoff game. I wouldn't say it's bad, just questionable but in the realm of debate, reasonable. It's questionable and reasonable.
5. Foul on Diaw against Duncan in the post - it's a foul. There's nothing questionable about this one to me. Diaw reaches in as Thomas pulls the chair out from Duncan. Duncan leans into the reach by Diaw, and it's a smart move but even if he didn't move toward Diaw, it would have been a foul. Thomas who moves and it made Duncan's fall made the foul look worse. Good foul call.
6. Bowen knees Nash in Groin - this was a foul and it was called correctly, I think it was put here to make the viewers hate the Spurs. Did Bruce mean to back Nash off of him? Of course. Did he intentionally knee him in the groin? I honestly don't know. Doesn't matter, it was called in the Suns' favor. Good foul call.
7. Bowen steals on Nash - it's a bad call. Bowen hits him across the arm to get the ball. What makes it worse than just a turnover is that Coach D'Antoni is called for a technical foul, which is really stupid given it's the fourth quarter of a playoff game. You don't see that often in the playoffs. Oh and one of the announcers says, getting a technical is a "good call by the coach". Oh, okay, buddy. Bad call, slightly unreasonable.
8. Horry steals from Nash - it's a good no-call. The announcers say it's a foul, its not, Horry pokes the ball out. Good call, reasonable no call.
So, a total of eight plays were picked from the above video, which you could do with a lot of NBA games. By my own biased eyes, I recorded three good calls, two questionable calls and three bad calls, only one of which was unreasonable. I admit I am biased, but I tried to be objective. Even if I remove my Spurs glasses completely, at worst, there are six bad calls. How many bad calls go against the road team in a given NBA game? If these were the absolute worst calls (and given this video was meant to find bad calls) this is pretty tame stuff. My verdict: the Spurs got some calls, but they were at home in an NBA playoff game. It's not egregious, it's not anywhere near the Lakers-Kings debacle in 2002. On a scale of NBA outrage of 10, it's a 3.
If you really want to see some BS, check out the Spurs-Portland series from 1990. In game one, Portland shot over 30 more FTA than the Spurs (yes, really) and won FTA six of the seven games of the series including a back-breaking break-away foul in game seven which was worse than anything above. And you really want something to cry about? Do you think any human being can actually catch and shoot a basketball in .04 seconds?
I am not shedding any tears for a few bad calls for a road team, it sucks, but they are part of the game.
Anyway, as far as I know, the rest of the series was called fine, there are no controversies. The biggest problem people have come from the suspensions for game five more on that below.
Wow. I cannot believe how much I just wrote on that. So, back to game three:
Here are some Tim Duncan highlights, who put up a "quiet" Duncan-esque 33/19/3 blk:
The game was back and forth for most of the game but in the last two minutes of the third quarter, Manu scores 10 points and gives the Spurs a 80-72 advantage entering the fourth quarter. In the fourth, the Spurs keep the Suns 9-12 points away and hold on to win the game. Without that 2 minute burst from Manu, we would have had a nail-biter. But with Manu you never knew when lightning would strike. Manu finished with 24/2/ 4 Asst/ 3 Steals and 1 block. The only videos I could find as of very early 2021, on game three are the two videos I shared above. Bummed I can't revisit that Manu outburst.
Game 4 - Suns 104- Spurs 98 (Series tied 2-2)
This is it, the controversial game four. Of course, the game itself wasn't controversial. It was a typical playoff game. I remember watching it at my good buddy's Eric house. The game was similar to game three, with the Spurs controlling the action for most of the second half. With about 9 minutes left in the game, the Spurs had a ten-point lead. They clung to a 6 point edge for a while but the Suns' offense heated up and the Suns put together an impressive win. The Spurs out-shot the Suns from the field had four more three-pointers but were outrebounded by the Suns and the Suns had a +15 FTA advantage over the Spurs. No conspiracies....yet.
The Suns were poised to go back to Phoenix with momentum and a 2-2 tied series. And then....
Another Interlude: The Game 4 Robert Horry Hip-Check and Aftermath
With 22 seconds left and the Spurs down by three, the Spurs needed to foul a Suns player to force free-throws and get another possession. Playoff legend, Robert Horry once again made an impact but this time with a hip-check to Nash. Here's a nice highlights package that gives context before the hit:
Here is Horry remembering the play:
Finally, here's the entire game, it was uploaded last summer:
Commentary on the "Horry Hip-Check Hit"
It was a dumb foul. Horry should have just given him a good hack and be done with it. Instead, he was frustrated and hit him harder than he should have. He was rightfully ejected (given the other suspensions, I think it was appropriate to suspend him for game five but he was also suspended for game six as well). I wish he had never done it. It's hard to know what would have happened, but I do admit the Suns would have had momentum.
The issue often overlooked is that Nash "oversold" the foul. Nash flails his arms out to ensure a flagrant would be called. It's a smart move by a smart player. I wouldn't quite call it a flop, as he was actually fouled, but he did sell it. Teammate, Raja Bell stated tht Nash admitted his dramatic flair to him a few years ago. I am not victim-blaming here just giving context to what came next.
The problem of overselling the foul is that this drew Amar'e Stoudemire and Boris Diaw off the bench. Following the letter of the law, the NBA suspended Stoudemire and Diaw for one game (and Horry as well as he instigated the whole thing and was ejected). Here is a very even-handed and excellent video and review of the play. Both teams and coaches are fair to each other while maintaining their pride:
Everyone hated the suspensions, even though at the time, I didn't mind being greedy for another championship. Here is Nash's perspective on the hip-check many years later with Bill Simmions:
The NBA had done this before in the playoffs (as discussed in the first video above). The actions did fall within the letter of the law, and the rules did not give the league room to "interpret" the intentions of the players. If you're being harsh, that's directly on the coaches to teach the players the rules. This is coming from a head coach that got a costly tech in the fourth quarter of game three and frequently complained about officiating after games. That's a lack of professionalism and it is evidence of a head coach that may have been inattentive to detail.
Furthermore, the NBA did not have the authority to change the rules in the middle of the playoffs to allow Stoudemire or Diaw to play in game five. You don't change the rules in the middle of the playoffs, even if it seemed unfair. You could just say I am a biased, mean old Spurs fan...but so what?
It sucks, but again, go back to earlier in my post. The playoffs are about being healthy, match-ups, role players and luck. Wait...it feels like I wrote that years ago...and it's in the same post.
I'm not even out of the second round!!!
Game 5 - Spurs 88 - Suns 85 (Spurs led 3-2)
Game five is usually the most pivotal game of a playoff series. In my unprofessional opinion, that's why teams should work hard for homecourt advantage because the most critical games are at home (1,5 and 7). The Suns were mad and their fans were frothing at the mouth. It was quite an atmosphere. The Suns were a wounded animal and they came out aggressive while the Spurs spent much of the first half playing tentative (and maybe perhaps guilty). The Suns lead by 9 after one, and 11 at the half. It was the classic "Ewing Theory", the Suns were motivated and at home. I remember watching the game feeling a deep sense of dread.
The Suns were without their second and probably fourth-best player but they still had their MVP. This could have been Nash's career-defining moment or game....but it wasn't to be.
The Spurs made their inevitable second-half run but the game was tight down the stretch. The Spurs played well defensively and gutted out the win. Timmy had 22/11/5 blk, while Manu had 26/10/3 along with 2 steals and one block. The critical play came down to the hated Bruce Bowen making his patented corner threes to ice the game:
Here are the full-game highlights:
Game 6: Spurs 114 - Suns 106 (Spurs win series 4-2)
If the final game of the series had been the game when the Suns were forced to sit Diaw and Amare, I think it would have tainted the series' win. However, it wasn't and the Suns had another game at full strength. If it was true the Suns were actually the better team, they should have (at minimum) forced a game seven.
I don't want to make too much out of this but the Spurs were missing Horry in this game as well (who in this series averaged 4.8/4.4/.8 steals/1.5 blk with an average of 20 min) and we all know Horry was capable of having some incredible performances.
Game six was another close game. You can watch the full game on YT but it's in another language and the audio is about 6 seconds behind the video. Strangely, you get used to it.
The game was eerily similar to games three and four, with the Spurs once again gaining separation from the Suns in the 3rd quarter. They closed out the 3rd with a 23-8 run to take a 14 point lead into the fourth. The lead peaked at 18 points with about 9 minutes left. Once again, the Suns made a furious comeback cutting the lead to six at one point but the Spurs made just enough clutch plays and hit their free-throws down the stretch to fend the Suns off.
Concluding Thoughts on the Spurs-Suns Series
If you can catch a game of this series, you should. With the exception of game two, the rest of the games are competitive and entertaining games to watch. The games have a modern pace and filled with some outstanding performances on both sides. I forgot how weaselly and wiley Nash was. I don't think he was a deserving MVP-level player (given his defensive liabilities and the competition) but he was one of this generation's greatest point guards. As a person, he seems like a great guy.
I do not think there was a bias for the Spurs in the officiating.
The Spurs had a more consistent defense, a better strategic defensive and offensive plan, and a more flexible team in performance and in their mentalities. More importantly, they had a third star in Manu that really helped separate them from the Suns. Duncan/Parker/Manu were all pretty amazing in this series (although Manu got off to a cold start in games 1-2). The Suns had bad luck with the suspensions and missing Nash in some key plays in game one but down the stretch, the Spurs were able to make the critical plays and outside game four, the Suns couldn't. Finally, I think Pop outcoached D'Antoni in every playoff series they faced each other.
Conference Finals - Spurs vs. Jazz
The first two rounds of the 2007 playoffs offered more than their share of drama and controversy. The conference finals....not so much. The Jazz were an up-and-coming but, not quite ready for prime time team. They faced the above-mentioned eighth-seeded Golden State in the second round. The Warriors' magic seemed to run out and the Jazz beat them 4-1. This was the peak of the Deron Williams-Carlos Boozer Jazz teams.
I could sum it up by noting the 2007 championship DVD deposes of this gentlemen's sweep in 2 freaking minutes. 2 minutes for the conference finals. Here it is:
I was thrilled to face the Jazz instead of the Mavs but it wasn't very exciting and they weren't a proper rival. Games 1 & 2 were pretty much lazy blow-outs by the Spurs. In each game the Spurs built a lead only to see the Jazz come within striking distance in the fourth and make them somewhat competitive.
In game three in Utah, the Jazz kicked the crap out of the Spurs. Even in their glory, the Spurs were always capable of getting blown out on the road. The most interesting game came in game four, with a chance for the Jazz to tie the series. It was a competitive game and the crowd was wild. The Spurs maintained a 6-9 point lead for most of the fourth, but the Jazz just wouldn't go away. It was a physical game but the Spurs maintained their composure and won 91 - 79.
Here are some highlights from game four:
Finally, the Spurs came back home and ended the series (4-1) in a blow-out. This is the point of the blog I just want to give some love to the starting center, Fabricio Oberto. He only played four seasons with the Spurs but he was a high-IQ, all-hustle work-horse. He was always just barely tipping the ball to himself or a teammate because he could barely jump. He was the kind of self-less center this team needed. I always thought if you could combine the athleticism of Elson (the back-up center) and combine it with Oberto's IQ, you'd have an amazing center. In game five, Oberto had a classic Oberto line: 7/10/2/1. Here is the full game on YT:
The 2007 Finals: Spurs vs. Cavs
It's hard to believe this was Lebron's first finals. It feels like centuries ago and yet he just won his fourth title last year. Pretty amazing. The fact he got this squad to the finals is one of his most under-rated accomplishments. Let's get this straight: this team sucks. Besides the 1999 Knicks and 2002 Nets, this is one of the worst Finals teams in history. If you placed the Cavs in the Western conference in 2007, I am not sure they make the playoffs.
This is a hard series to watch. The Cavs suck and the Spurs (largely) play down to their level. Games 1 and 2 are similar to the Jazz series. The Spurs take a big lead and the Cavs claw their way back in to make it kinda-sorta interesting. The games in Cleveland are close and well, a little dramatic at the end.
That said, both games are hard to watch. I wouldn't even call them all that entertaining. If you aren't a hardcore Spurs or Lebron fan, don't bother. If had to pick one to watch, I would recommend game four. Duncan plays one of his worst playoff games ever shooting 4 of 15 and 4 of 10 at the free thrown line and if he played half as good as he usually did, the game wouldn't have been close. Manu had a tough series too although game four is his best game with 27. Tony was the deserving MVP of the series, he was consistently slicing and dicing the Cavs' defense with ease.
Here's the championship DVD of the entire season:
Concluding Thoughts on 2007 Championship Season
One solid first-round series and an epic second-round series can't cover up for two more boring and unfulfilling rounds. If the Pistons had taken care of business and beaten the Cavs, I think the series would have been more interesting and probably more fulfilling to watch as a fan.
Satisfaction Scale - 3.5/5
It felt good to come back from the crushing Mavs loss of 2006 and to beat the Suns again but the last two rounds just weren't that impressive. I don't think the Spurs played well in the Finals at all.
Degree of Difficulty - 3/5
It doesn't bear repeating but the Jazz and Cavs weren't all that great.
Enjoyment Scale - 3.5/5
The Nugget and Suns games were outstanding. Near A+ in terms of enjoyment, especially the Suns series. However, the Jazz and Cavs games are a slog to re-watch (with the exception of game 4 in Utah), which cannot be found online as of early 2021. A few years ago I watched all the Spurs Finals and 2007 is by FAR is the worst on the entertainment scale. There are moments here and there (of course) but overall it's not fun.
Well, I really went down the rabbit hole on this one, not sure what will happen with the rest of the series. Up next is #4 on the list, which came as a surprise but I hope my reasoning will explain: 1999.
