Edit 2024: Well I found this unfinished draft. I am pretty sure I wanted to take a look at 4-5 shirts but two shirts will just have to be where it ends....
Apparently, the people that lived at our current address must have received a catalog from a company called "The Lighter Side". Inside, however, something dark, very dark lurked. Barf-inducing t-shirts. Yeah, let's take a look. Here are some t-shirts worn by "REAL AMERICANS" they might be wearing right now!
Check out this macho shirt. That's right folks, we don't run from a fight, oh, HELL NO.
When 12 dudes decided to use airplanes for murder, we didn't run, NO SIR. Instead, we will spend at least $2.7 trillion over twenty years on war (that was in 2017).
Yeah, those terrorists that attacked on 9/11 got us good but we sure showed them. Sure, they were dead. Sure, they wanted us to bumble into a decades-long war, but we sure showed them....something.
But that's not all, it's not all about money. After all, we RELOAD!!! The result would be over 7,000 US troops dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi & Afghani civilians dead, hundreds of thousands more severely injured, hundreds of thousands traumatized, millions more would suffer the loss of a close family member or friend and don't forget, tens of thousands more to die by suicide as a direct result of their service or the trauma suffered during our twenty-year plus war on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yup, good thing we didn't run, that sure would be a God damn shame.
The arrogance on this t-shirt is something to behold and it explains the way people who would buy this shirt see the world: full of danger, criminals, and the certainty that they know better.
I sure as hell don't like guns they kill about 40,000 Americans a year but you don't have to like or dislike guns to know that your house is much safer WITHOUT a gun in it than it is with it. I know this first hand from personal experience in our family.
If you have a gun in your house you are more likely to have an accidental shooting or murder in your home. This has been seen in study,after study, after study.....The fantasy of saving your family from someone trying to break into your home is a powerful narrative but life is more boring for most of us.
In fact, the gun in someone's home is much more likely to be used for suicide by a family member than in home defense action. Half of US gun deaths are suicides. But of course, no, those things wouldn't happen to you, just couldn't happen. We know 17 of the 20 states with the highest gun death rates are dyed-in-the-wool Republican states. More guns and ease of access to guns equals more deaths and more shootings. It's not that difficult to figure out, but it's a point often challenged.
The narrative of saving the day is so powerful it plays to ideas of masculinity and a media obsessed with danger, violence, and crime. In many ways, gun ownership becomes a conservative self-own.
If guns kept us safer, then our death cult country would be safer than our industrialized peers and that's not what the data shows us. We've been fooled, conned, and bamboozled into signing up to the notion that we can't change the way things are....and that the only way out of the problem is more of the problem.
I was going through my old art portfolio last night and I really noticed how the phases in my life correlated with style in my art. I thought I would share a few of the pieces and reflections here. Here they are in chronological order.
Untitled - 2000 (acrylic)
This is one of the oldest paintings I still have. I don't think this is a particularly good piece but also, there's a reason I never trashed it either. I guess I kinda like it. This was done in the Spring of 2000, in my last semester of college. My roommate had moved out the year before and while I briefly had a roommate in the summer, I couldn't find another roommate. One of my closest friends had died in 1998, my girlfriend dumped me and I was a real piece of work. Lonely and yet hopeful for the next season of life to begin.
Keep in mind that College Station, TX had one of the lowest cost of living rates in the nation. My rent for a two bedroom, 1.5 bath and it was only $500 a month. This was a pretty good apartment too! I miss the 90s. Anyway, this meant I had a whole other bedroom that was sitting empty. I began to use it as an art studio and started to tape up my best work on the walls as if it were an exhibit hall. It was a unique time in my life, I briefly wrote about somewhere on this blog....but when I look back on that time, this painting makes a lot of sense. It was a time of self-discovery, chaos, and a bit of danger. This character seems to exhibit all those qualities.
Untitled - 2006-2009 (??) (printer ink)
This next piece was done in the mid-2000s. At this point, I was married and had a kid or two. We had recently had our printer break, so we were left with a ton of printer ink that wouldn't fit in the new printer....so, it was either the trash or art! At this point in time, I had kept busy by working, having babies, and maintaining our first home..... and I hadn't created art in a long time. The results were experiments in the garage because I was too impatient to find something to catch misplaced ink. I used a wet sponge and random tools on each of the pieces. Some of the paint found its way to the concrete floor and the stains were still there when we moved out over a decade later. Some of these paintings are bright like this one but most are dark. They are a bit moody but this was purely a chance event, the main memory of this art was pure experiment. A lovely time of life that was busy but also a time of experimentation and purity.
Untitled, 2012-2015 (?) (acrylic paint and ink)
The last piece came from the early 2010s, maybe as late as 2014. If the last piece was just random experimentation, this next piece is its polar opposite. When I was bored, I would often draw these maze-like structures, usually on the margins of notes, ever since college. The design would grow around the notes and other doodles. It was just fun to do. I decided I should do a whole piece of my maze structures one day. This is on a single sheet, maybe a 12X10, so it's not too big but it's not small either....it was painstaking and time-consuming work. After the kids were tucked in, I would sit in the kitchen and build the maze in pencil, trace in ink, and later I colored it in red acrylic paint with the smallest brush you could buy. Sure, I could have used a red pen....but there was something extremely satisfying about using the brush. It was an act of relaxation that yet, it doesn't quite look relaxing at all. I hold only lovely memories of those days and yet they were exhausting. A simple painting that took hours of effort. No doubt, we had a deceptively simple life but a life that took hours of love and patience to make it work.
Time flies. It's been almost two years since I wrote a "Confucius Didn't Say That!" blog post. To be honest, people searching for Confucius quotes and/or their veracity amounts to basically 90% of the traffic on my little home on the internet. So, if that describes you, welcome!
It's time once again to take another trek into the wacky and weird world of fake Confucius quotes. Today, we will be digging into two fake Confucius quotes that focus on roads or journeys.
Quote # 1 - "Roads were made for journeys, not destinations" - Confucius
This implies the destination is actually more important than the journey. That is, don't stray too far from home, dilly-dallying, because your most important obligations are back home. Travel should serve a purpose (the destination) not an end to itself.
This makes much more sense coming from someone that lived in ancient China, travel wasn't seen as a tool to learn more about oneself and in relation to others. The fake quote "reads" as more of a privileged, modern perspective. From a Confucian perspective, life wasn't about finding yourself or forging your own path to success or self-realization. Life was best understood as the striving to live an ethical life within a framework of clear relationships.
If you're looking for a Confucian spin on the idea of living one's purpose, maybe a selection from 7:34 might fit the bill:
"The Master said: “I dare not claim to be a sage or a ren (humane) man. But I strive for these without being disappointed, and I teach without becoming weary. This is what can be said of me...."
Usually at this point in my discussion of the fake quote, I end up trashing it, making fun of it, etc...but I actually like this quote. It resonates well with my 21st-century American soul. It's a good reminder to stop and appreciate the ups, downs, and the adventure that is life. The meaning in our lives comes not from the accomplishments, status or achievements, but in how we live between the "destinations".
Quote # 2 - "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" - Confucius
As a part-time Confucian blogger (never thought you'd see that in writing, huh?), I was perusing the web for fake Confucius quotes. I saw this one and clicked the link, only to receive four pop-up ads telling me my laptop was compromised and had a virus. It felt a bit ominous, but it felt like a sign I should investigate this fake quote further.
Upon another quick search, I found out this is an actual ancient Chinese quote but of course, it's NOT from Confucius. It's actually from the Dao De Jing.
If I was a better blogger, I would give you a little background on Daoism and compare and contrast its philosophy in regards to its rivalry with Confucianism, etc., etc. but I'm not going to do that, too much to do, too little time.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.
Contriving, you are defeated;
Grasping, you lose.
The sage doesn't contrive, so she isn't beaten.
Not grasping, she doesn't lose.
When people are carrying out their projects
They usually blow it at the end.
Basically, the quote and context speak for itself, this isn't rocket science. The quote reminds us to be patient and recognize that even big projects and goals begin with very small beginnings. I couldn't find an exact match for this idea but I did find this Confucius quote about the importance of patience:
[15:27] The Master said: “Clever words disrupt virtue. Lack of patience in small matters leads to the disruption of great plans.”
Well, folks, that's two more fake Confucius posts down, a thousand more to go. But remember dear readers, this blog isn't about destinations but the journey, and every blog of a thousand posts begins with single post.
Robert Horry inhabits an interesting chapter in NBA history. Even though Big Shot Bob was just a role player, he is an absolute playoff legend. Horry benefited from playing alongside some of the all-time greats of his era (Hakeem, Shaq & Kobe, Timmy, etc.) and when it was all said and done, he wound up with more rings than Jordan (seven). That said, his rings weren't all luck, the guy was good and had ice in his veins. He was a great shooter, defender, and teammate. Some say he should be in the Hall of Fame for his title-turning shots, but I disagree. Still, if there was a role-player Hall of Fame, he would be on everyone's first ballot.
The Spurs experienced the full gamut with Horry; the pain of his clutch shots when he was with the Rockets and Lakers but they also benefited when he joined the team in the 2003-2004 season. In his time with the Spurs, he was nothing but a consummate teammate. He was a critical player in both of his championships in San Antonio (especially in 2005).
"They had nobody that could guard Dream [Olajuwon's nickname]. They had nobody that could guard Dream. I'm gonna say that twice because Dream was just that dominant. When we played San Antonio one time, Tim was killing me on the block, and [then-Lakers coach] Phil [Jackson] refused to double-team Tim to get the ball out of his hands. And Dream is 20 times better than Tim Duncan."
Here's a clip with a little more pushback from Stephen Jackson and Paul Pierce.
I want you to really think about that for a hot minute. Horry is claiming Hakeem Olajuwon is TWENTY TIMES better than Duncan. If that was literally true, Hakeem would have career averages of 380 points, 216 rebounds, 44 Blocks and 14 steals a game. Those numbers would make Wilt look like a bench warmer.
Okay, okay, I know he didn't mean this literally. It's just a colorful way of saying that Horry thinks Hakeem was an all-around greater player than Duncan....and in his mind, it wasn't even close. Once I stepped outside of my defensive Spurs reaction, I started thinking. Who would be better to judge between the two legends than someone that played alongside both, and won titles with both players? Even if he's using disrespectful hyperbole, does Horry have a point? Was Hakeem better than Timmy? And if he was better, how much better was he?
This question was posed on thetylt.com and I saw these horrifying results, please note we don't know how many people voted and maybe they only allowed people to vote that were terrible at math?
I think it's wise to take a time out here and state that I think it's not just hard to compare players from different eras (while their careers overlapped, it's not by much). Even comparing two players from the same season presents challenges for great basketball minds. There are so many different factors to account for and to quantify. To be clear, I don't think I have a great basketball mind. I'm just a dude blogging on the internet, but yes, I will be taking a look at the stats and trying my best to deconstruct Horry's argument and comparing two players.
So, let's get back to Horry's first comments. As we know so far, his argument is that Dream was better because "no one could guard him". The ESPN crew didn't let that sit for too long and they pressed him for more details as to his judgment:
"I played with both. I know the work ethic of both. I've seen it live. I've seen these two guys in the gym. I know what Dream brought to practice and I know what Tim brought to practice. I know Tim brought work ethic to practice, but to be a superstar you need to go to the extra level—not saying Tim's not a superstar, but I'm saying what Dream brought to the game was amazing, and I don't think people understand how good Olajuwon was."
Again, he receives more push back and he states, making his final argument (as seen in the video above):
"I always tell people you judge a player by what they cannot do, who would you want at the free throw line with the game at the line? Would you rather go with 85% or 70%?"
I know it's a morning ESPN show and not a graduate thesis but let's summarize Horry's argument as to why Olajuwon was TWENTY times better than Duncan:
Olajuwon couldn't be guarded (and Phil Jackson didn't send a double team to Tim "one time")
Olajuwon had a better work ethic
Olajuwon shot better from the free-throw line (according to Horry, 85% to 70%)
The first two points are extremely subjective and have varying degrees of ridiculousness. We will get back to the first two points in a moment. However, we can definitely check the numbers for the players as free-throw shooters. Did Hakeem really shoot 85% from the free-throw line?
Tim Duncan was a career 69.6% free throw shooter (Horry was pretty darn close). It's not a good number and he had his ups and downs at the line (he shot a career-high of 81% one season and a low of 59% another) While Hakeem's career free throw shooting percent is better than Tim's career average, it's not 85%.
Hakeem shot a career average of 71.2% (with a high of 78% and a low of 56%). So, Hakeem has the edge but it's not that much of an edge, Shooting less than two percentage points for his career at the free-throw line does not make Duncan twenty times worse than Hakeem.
Horry's other points are harder to quantify. I think the work ethic argument might be his best argument given his closeness and experiences with both players. However, at the same time, it's still a very weak argument because it's unfalsifiable. That is, the argument cannot be proved either way, it's unknowable and completely subjective. I think the all-time greats have amazing work ethics. Even if Olajuwon had a better work ethic - does it matter when we're evaluating their careers and the results on the court?
Still, if you want a neat story about Duncan's work ethic, check out this video (cued at the 1:52 mark):
Finally, his last argument is that Phil Jackson didn't send a double team one time and this illustrates that no one could guard Hakeem. That's right, Jackson didn't send a double-team in one game and that proves what exactly? Jackson sent double teams at Duncan in many regular season and playoff games, I saw them. In fact, Horry often needed help handling Duncan.
As Horry gave one example, here's my one example, game six of the 2003 WCSF one of Duncan's best games from the 2003 title run:
If you didn't watch the highlights above it looks like Jackson used primarily single coverage, (especially if Shaq was guarding Timmy) but there were plenty of weak-side doubles, feigning doubles from the top of the key (reaches to disrupt Timmy's dribble and set up) and late doubles in the paint when Duncan made his move. There was even one triple-team at one point. So, there ya go, Horry said Jackson didn't send a double team one time, in one game and I found a game where he did it numerous times.
At this point, it may seem I am beleaguering the point, kicking a dead horse, and maybe just being silly. It's more than obvious Horry was talking out of his ass, and maybe even trolling San Antonio and their fans. Maybe Bob is just really bad at math and didn't realize how dramatic a difference "twenty times better" really is. .
All that may be true but we're done yet.
As it turns out, just a few years later, Horry changed his tune. In 2022, it looks like Hakeem was now downgraded to now only being "ten times better than Duncan."
I guess he was feeling a bit more generous and actually self-reflective during this interview. He admits that he admired Hakeem due to the fact that he was his mentor when he came into the league (on and off the court). He mentions "Hey, I think my mom is ten times better than your mom," as if to admit his own feelings are quite biased on this topic. Because he recognizes his own subjectivity, he doesn't bother with any nonsensical arguments this time around and centers discussion over how Spurs fans hate him now (Bob, I don't hate you!!!!)
I am glad to see a change in his tune but....but....but..... "ten times better than Duncan" is still more than a little disrespectful. Geez, maybe he really is terrible at math?
A Real Comparison and a Deeper Dive
So, now that we have Horry's argument out of the way, who was the better player?
Let's start with a quick overview of the two players:
Tim Duncan was a five-time NBA champ with six appearances in the NBA Finals. He was the NBA Finals MVP three times and won the regular season MVP twice. He appeared in 15 All-Star teams and made 10 All-NBA First Teams, 3 All-NBA Second Teams, and 2 All-NBA Third Teams. Although he never won the Defensive Player of the Year (it is a well-understood travesty), he was on the NBA All-Defensive First Team 8 times and NBA All Defensive Second Team 7 times.
Hakeem Olajuwon was a two-time NBA champ with three appearances in the NBA Finals. He was the NBA Finals MVP twice and won the regular season MVP once. He appeared in 12 All-Star teams and made 6 All-NBA First Teams, 3 All-NBA Second Teams, and 3 All-NBA Third Teams. He was also Defensive Player of the Year twice and was on the NBA All Defensive First Team 5 times and NBA All-Defensive Second Team 4 times.
If we were basketball archeologists and all NBA stats were lost in some event like the Alexandria fire, and all we had to go on was this brief overview, Duncan clearly has the edge.
If you are a Hakeem or Rockets fan you might counter and say, the Spurs had a better-supporting cast or coaching or that Olajuwon had to play in the Jordan era. He also had to play in an era with amazing centers like Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq, making an All-NBA team was tough (although it should be noted Tim played in a power-forward-rich era as with Malone, KG, Dirk, Webber and Amare). Again, all those could be something to consider, but let's again turn to team results as a measuring tool. I don't want to focus on just one way of assessing a player's performance but winning should be one of the most important ones. I occasionally see some stat heads that disregard winning too much (an overaction to the prominence of "ring culture"). I freely admit that part of being an all-time great or winning even one championship depends on a good helping of luck. Who your teammates are, what era you play in, even how the ball bounces for one shot. There's just no way around this. We can only look at what we can look at.
Tim Duncan has a winning percentage of 71.91%, which is good for eighth all-time. Olajuwon isn't even in the top fifty. Tim Duncan played in 48 playoff series and ended with a 35-13 record. Olajuwon played in 29 playoff series and ended with a 16-13 record. Tim's top highest Win Shares for the playoffs were 5.9, 3.7, and 3.5 while Hakeem's top three playoff win shares were 4.3, 3.7 3.0. Just about every year the Spurs were a legitimate contender, the same can not be said for Hakeem and the Rockets. The Spurs not only appeared in 6 Finals (5-1) with Tim as the leader but he also led them to 8 total conference final runs. Hakeem appeared in 3 Finals (2-1) and appeared in 4 conference finals.
So if we are judging the players on their team success, Duncan has another clear advantage. Big Shot Bob is off the mark thus far....but let's take a look at some individual numbers, where the Dream shines.
Hakeem's per-game stats are marginally but decisively better than Duncan's, he beats Duncan in almost every category, career-wise, except assists.
Hakeem averaged 21.8/11.1/2.5/3.1 shooting at 51%
Duncan averaged 19.0/10.8/3.0/2.2 shooting at 50.6%
It's very close but I give Hakeem the edge here, let's look at their MVP peaks.
In 1994, Hakeem averaged 27.3/11.9/3.6/3.7 while shooting 52%
In Duncan's 2002 MVP campaign, he averaged 25.5/12.7/3.7/2.5 while shooting 50.8%
In Duncan's 2003 MVP campaign, he averaged 23.3/12.9/3.9/2.9 while shooting 51.3%
You could give the slight edge to Hakeem but here's where it gets tricky, if you dig deeper you find out that most of the advanced stats actually favor Tim's impact on the court.
Both players had two-year seasons at their absolute peak (Hakeem 1992-1994 and Tim with 2001-2003), here's what their two runs looked like:
Again, it's very close but I think Duncan gets the nod here as Hakeem bests him in TOV% (it's lower), BLK%, and STL% and some other minor areas but it's still an advantage for Tim.
However, when you look at the career advanced stats, Timmy now takes a decisive edge over Hakeem.
Tim has a total of 91.1 VORP, 5.6 BPM, 2.3 DBPM, 3.3 OBPM with 206.4 Win Shares.
Hakeem has a total of 74.2 VORP, 4.6 BPM, 2.5 DBPM, 2.2 OBPM with 162.8 Win Shares.
Final Thoughts
In most areas of our comparison, Duncan has the advantage. If Hakeem was a better player, the team impact and advanced stats don't show it. If he is better, it's not TWENTY times better, not even TEN times better, but if that's your persuasion, I can see a good argument being made that despite the advanced stats and finding excuses for the Rocket's not being better, maybe, just maybe Hakeem was smudge better player but it wouldn't be by much. I would be okay with that argument. If there was a deeper dive exploring some of this, I think there's an argument to be made.
I think Hakeem had two iconic playoff runs in those two seasons when he peaked. Although Tim was nearly as good defensively if not just as good (Tim's total Defensive Win Shares for his career was 106.3 while Hakeem's was at 94.5), Tim was more of a positional defender. Hakeem was more athletically talented and he had more blocks and steals. That kinda stuff matters in the eyes of the public. I see it all the time on Instagram. Up until this point, you would think Bol Bol is an All-Star from what I see on social media. Maybe he will be someday, but right now (summer 2023) he's not even close now. They see the Dream Shake, the blocks, the beautiful post moves, the highlights, and they think he was better.
I think the stats and winning show Tim was a slightly better player than Hakeem. He was less athletically gifted and less highlight prone but you can't argue with this success. He had a longer, more consistent, and more relevant career than Hakeem. He was able to change his body later in his career and he easily shifted from being the "top dog" to doing whatever the team needed. In my mind, he was the ultimate teammate.
Robert Horry was a great NBA player, even a historic player at that. I loved watching him with the Spurs, but he doesn't know what he's talking about. Tim Duncan was a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon.
The 2007 Spurs-Suns Western Conference semifinals series is one of the most maligned and controversial playoff series in NBA history. Despite the popular opinion that the Suns were robbed or cheated, when you take a look at the evidence, including the stats and game footage, you see a team that had bad luck but also a team that was routinely outplayed and outcoached in the crunch time.
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 while 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-basket 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 halfway 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 (oh don't worry, they had another excuse for losing that series too, as Joe Johnson was hurt). The Spurs 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 in their dynasty (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. Game one is most memorable because Nash and Parker collided with a little less than 2 minutes left and Nash's nose bled 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.
The entire game one used to be online....alas, all that I can find now are some highlights from Nash and Parker from game one:
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 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 Suns' owner, Robert Sarver and it biased the officials against the Suns. You have to hand it to him; it's a unique argument. You might think conspiracy-minded fans would believe the NBA would favor the fresh, exciting, young Suns. But David Stern be damned, the refs actually favored the small-market, boring Spurs because they didn't like Robert Sarver (which, ya know at this point, is officially confirmed to be an assshole).
Here's one of Donaghy's 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 the Mavs lost in the first round, it's not accurate 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? Shouldn't they have closed out game one despite missing Nash for a few plays? Why couldn't the MVP carry them in game five at home? If they were clearly the best team, why couldn't the Suns push the series 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 nor does the term "group supervisor" for NBA officials 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?
Finally, his claim that Tommy Nunez, Jr. liked the "lifestyle in San Antonio" just might be a racist statement. What does the "lifestyle" is in SA mean and why Nunez would like SA so much? Would he be willing to risk his professional reputation and career? Maybe, just maybe, could it be because San Antonio has a large population of Hispanic Americans, 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. This is an unfalsifiable argument and in my opinion, it should be dismissed until more evidence can be provided other than an unreliable huckster.
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 only one game (game three). It should be made clear that Donaghy never said he bet on the game. He never stated he did a poor job for game three (his allegations about the series have led people to associate the scandal with this particular game). 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. Game three is tainted by its association with Donaghy.
I have seen on a few Phoenix sports articles 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. I dug for data or evidence and the most they provide are a few quotes from Donaghy. Nor do these articles or videos examine game footage or stats in any capacity. Again, game three is used as "the" 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 frequent way of deciphering if the game was fairly called is by 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 is, FTA as a measurement tool 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). While the Spurs didn't get to the line as much as you might think with players like Duncan, Parker, and Manu, they also didn't foul as much as other teams. 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 game 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 of a strong bias in favor of 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 by other referees. 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 blocks.
The game went back and forth for most of the game but in the last two minutes of the third quarter, Manu scored 10 points to give the Spurs a 80-72 advantage entering the fourth quarter. In the fourth, the Spurs kept the Suns 9-12 points away and held on to win the game. Without that 2 minute burst from Manu, it could have been a nail-biter.
But with Manu, you never knew when lightning would strike. Manu finished with 24 points, 2 rebounds, 4 assists, 3 Steals and 1 block.
The only videos I could find 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 and 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:
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 that 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 Simmons:
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 who received a costly tech in the fourth quarter of game three and frequently complained about officiating after games. That's an example of a lack of professionalism on the coaching staff. The small stuff always matters and it matters even more in the playoffs.
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. The NBA can't change the rules in the middle of the playoffs, even if it seems unfair to a beloved team. I could be biased and just a mean old Spurs fan but if the rule was so unfair, why is it still in place 16 years later? Ultimately, it's good to remember that if the roles were reversed, the Suns wouldn't have protested if Spurs players were suspended for leaving the bench and they definitely wouldn't let it diminish their 2007 title.
"At the time, no one knew about that rule, about not stepping on the court. We had no idea about that rule. In the heat of the moment, when [Steve] Nash got knocked into the scoreboard, we didn't know what to expect. So I'm looking to see what's going on. I'm walking towards Nash. Me and also Boris Diaw, and I didn't think nothing of it. No one did."
So yeah, this strengthens my argument about a lack of coaching and discipline. The little stuff matters.
NBA history is full of unfair moments and the Spurs have more than their share of them. The playoffs are ultimately about being healthy, match-ups, role players, and luck.
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 led by 9 after the first quarter and 11 points at the half. It was the classic "Ewing Theory", the Suns were motivated and at home. I remember watching the game and 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 blocks 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 just a bit. However, the Suns were 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 blocks with an average of 20 minutes). We all know how capable Horry was of having incredible playoff performances.
Game six was another close game. You can watch the full game on YT but it's in Chinese and it's in two parts. If you watch part one below, part two should pop up for you next or just click on the dude's channel and find it. Strangely, after about 10 minutes of listening to the game in Chinese, you get used to it.
The game was eerily similar to games three and four, with the Spurs gaining separation from the Suns in the 3rd quarter. They closed out the 3rd with a 23-8 run to took a 14-point lead into the fourth. The Spurs 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 off the Suns' surge.
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 are filled with some outstanding performances on both sides. I forgot how good Steve Nash was; weaving in and out of traffic and keeping the Suns' offense chugging along. I don't think he was a deserving MVP (given his defensive liabilities and the competition for MVP) but he was one of this generation's greatest point guards. As a person, he seems like a great guy. Amare might have been at his peak in 2007. Sure, his game didn't age well, but for a few years in the mid-2000s, he was one of the best power forwards. Some of his highlights from this series will make your jaw drop.
That said, the Spurs were the better team. The Spurs were the more consistent team and they had a strategic plan on offense and defense that was tightly executed. The Spurs were physically and mentally tougher than the Suns. 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). It seemed the Suns were always struggling to find that consistent third player in the series. The Suns had bad luck with the suspensions and definitely missed Nash in some key plays in game one. Finally, I think Pop outcoached D'Antoni in the series.
I do not think there was a bias for the Spurs in the officiating. People can make excuses for the 2007 Suns all they want, but the Spurs won without help from the officials, without bending the rules, and without any evidence of cheating going on. The NBA is a lot like life. It's unfair and seems cruel when you lose and it seems just and right when you win.
