A few years ago, the US Congress passed a law that every former NBA player must host or co-host a podcast. Which in theory, sounds like a good thing....but you know what they say about having too much of a good thing. Rasheed Wallace is one of those former players with a podcast and he co-hosts the "Sheed and Tyler" podcast.
Rasheed was a one-of-a-kind player. He had a great inside-out game for a big man. Sheed had a silky smooth jump shot but could also, post, defend, and run the floor. He had Hall-of-Fame talent but somehow, left us wanting more or wondering if he could have been better. Still, 99% of NBA players would kill for a career like his, he was a four-time All-Star and a key player on a championship team. He's likely the single best trade-deadline deal in NBA history thus far. He made several deep runs into the playoffs (Blazers, Pistons, and later the Celtics) and still holds the all-time record for technical fouls in a season with 41 techs in 80 games (that's pretty amazing).
Anyway, one day I was scrolling on YT, (as I am apt to do) when I saw this:
These aggregator channels typically take any halfway outrageous quote they can find from these podcasts (usually out of context) to gain engagement for their channels. Although I want to point out that in contrary to what Rasheed says above Danny Crawford did not referee Game 7 and Wallace contradicts himself on how many fouls Tim Duncan had (he had two fouls).....so out of sheer curiosity and blogging integrity, I had to find the podcast.
Here's the episode where the quote comes from with more context:
I was intrigued by Sheed's conspiracy theory, so let's check out his claims.
Disclaimers and My Own Perspective
First, I want to show some love to Sheed. I absolutely loved that 2003-2004 Pistons team that took down the Lakers. It was a special team and I loved every minute of it. I harbor no ill will towards Sheed, as I have always respected the man's game. He used to get a ton of technical fouls but there was something I found likable about the guy, in a way that doesn't quite stick with a player like Draymond Green, who I find insufferable.
I also want to recognize that when this podcast was made, it had almost been 19 years since this game was played. While Sheed was familiar with the box score and the situation.....anyone's memory about details from almost two decades ago can get a little fuzzy. I don't doubt it was frustrating to be in foul trouble in game seven of the NBA Finals. That really sucks and it "most likely" impacted the game (more on this possibility later).
The Pistons were facing Tim Duncan, one of the best power forwards in NBA history and it was a home game for the Spurs. Did that mean there was an unfair advantage? Possibly.
It bothers me when I see the frequent downplaying of the Spurs dynasty. Of all the modern NBA dynasties, the Spurs were the longest-lasting and admittedly, the oddest and most nebulous of them all. The Spurs dynasty wasn't the most dominant or the most-talented and of course, they famously never repeated as champs. However, their resume from 1999 to 2017 featured five titles, six appearances in the finals, and ten conference finals appearances is impressive.
The team didn't benefit from playing in a big market and did not have an endless supply of free agents or stars dying to live in South Texas. The Spurs also didn't have MVP player in their prime decide to play for us after losing to us in a game seven either. What a LOSER. (in case you aren't getting the reference I am talking about KD joining the Warriors).
Okay, okay, so Jason Kidd, was an MVP candidate in 2002-2003 (but he did not win it) and he almost signed with the Spurs in 2004, after losing to the Spurs in the 2003 Finals.....and yet, he didn't. Geez, what a "sliding doors" moment for the Spurs. I am glad we didn't sign this domestic violence offender. Kidd would have likely could have netted us a three-peat, from 2003-2005 but we wouldn't have been able to re-sign Parker and likely not Manu later. So it is unlikely the Spurs get the 2007 title and even more unlikely the Spurs are contending in 2012-2014 either. Maybe I should write a 10,000-word blog on that moment......sigh....
My point is, people already shit on the Spurs for not being as good as those other teams, and, I don't like that. They shouldn't be criticized for not being as great as the 90s Bulls or the 2010s Warriors. They could only play who was in front of them with those particular league rules and trends. To this date, the Spurs are the only true modern small-market dynasty in pro sports history and that's pretty cool.
Although I doubt the claims of some vast conspiracy, I can see the possibility that the Spurs benefited from some calls in the 2005 Finals, so let's hear Sheed out.
Sheed's Claims (as seen in the podcast video above)
1. David Stern favored the Spurs because of the following evidence:
A) According to Sheed, in a pre-game seven interview, David Stern called the Spurs "his team of the United Nations". Which implied (to him) that "the fix is in".
B) According to Sheed, it was the first time in "his era", the NBA, "had a flag up for every dude that was from another country".
C) He claimed the Spurs had four Americans on their team and that the NBA never "had a flag up" again for every player.
2. Because David Stren favored the Spurs, the officiating crew was biased against the Pistons. At first, Wallace claimed Danny Crawford's "punk ass" was there (he officiated game six but not seven) but then the hosts correctly listed the refs in game seven were: Dick Bavetta, Joe Crawford, and Eddie F. Rush. The co-hosts claimed they were "company men" for the NBA.
3. Because the refs were biased against the Pistons, Antonio McDyess, Ben Wallace, and Rasheed struggled with foul trouble, while Duncan did not. The crew goes on to talk about the most egregious officiating in the NBA playoffs (i.e. the 2002 Lakers-Kings series) and this connection implies the foul trouble experienced by the Pistons in game seven, should somehow be compared to those games.
4. The Pistons were a small-market team that didn't have a lot of marketable stars and this was also why Stern favored the Spurs over the Pistons.
Stern's Supposed "International Bias"
Let's take on the supposed "international bias" aspect first.
I tried looking for a 2005 Finals interview with Stern but I only found this interview between games 1-2, and Stern did not call the Spurs "his team of the United Nations". In this interview, Stern calls the Pistons, "one of the most underrated champions we've ever had" and "fun to watch".
There is no way to verify Wallace's claim about Stern calling the Spurs "his team of United Nations", and even if this term was used, it doesn't imply bias or favoritism any more than his bland compliments about the Pistons. More than likely, Stern was desperately trying to find an angle to promote a boring Spurs and Pistons Finals match-up. Remember this was still 2005 and it was novel for a title-contending team to have two non-American stars.
I don't think referees listen to televised interviews from the commissioner to figure out how best to call the series. Does Wallace think there was some direct communication to the crews from Stern to favor the Spurs? Both of these ideas are extremely unlikely.
As for having "the flags up for every dude", I have no idea what this is referencing. Again, whatever it was, its existence, (if true), proves nothing. That flag scenario presented by Rasheed didn't make much sense to me. Although it is quite funny when he blurts out, "You didn't see the Bulls put up no fucking flag for Toni Kukoc!"
Finally, his claim that the Spurs only had "three, no four Americans" is not remotely close to being true. The Spurs had 17 players on their roster during the 2004-2005 season and 11 were American. To be clear, I am counting Timmy as an American, as he identifies as a Virgin Islander and an American and played for the 2004 US Olympic team.
Furthermore, five of the top seven players who played significant minutes in the Finals were Americans. The player with the 8th most minutes of the Finals, Beno Udrih (a non-American), played a total of 46 minutes in the series and only played 1:11 in game five and no minutes in 6 & 7.
Rasheed may be conflating the 2005 Spurs team for the 2014 title team which had nine international players but it seems more likely he was just bullshitting and did zero research before the podcast began.
I don't think Sheed's "international bias" argument is plausible and his evidence for this claim is ridiculous.
That said, it doesn't mean the Pistons didn't get screwed by the referees, so we have to do some more digging.
An Overview of the Officiating of the Spurs-Pistons 2005 Finals
The Spurs committed 142 personal fouls in the series while the Pistons committed 149 fouls. On the other hand, the Spurs had a large FTA advantage shooting 159 FTA while the Pistons only shot 126 FTA. Here is the game-by-game breakdown.
Game
Spurs FTA
Pistons FTA
Game 1
15
14
Game 2
34
16
Game 3
17
17
Game 4
24
23
Game 5
21
23
Game 6
26
19
Game 7
19
14
As you can see above, most games were almost even in FTA for both teams. The biggest outlier and the reason for the large advantage in FTA for the Spurs was the FTA in game two (a 20-point blowout by the Spurs). In game seven, the Pistons intentionally fouled the Spurs three times in the last minute to ballon the advantage of the FTA, from -1 to a +5 advantage for the Spurs.
As always, FTA should be just one data point and it should not be used as the only source of evidence for a possible officiating bias.
The podcast's criticism of the officiating crew for game seven being "company men" could be thrown at any NBA officiating team. The NBA has typically favored experienced refs the deeper in the playoffs you go and this was one of the most-experienced and respected crews you could find in 2005.
The idea that Joe Crawford, the ref who would later kick Duncan out of a game for laughing would do the Spurs any favors is quite funny. Most Spurs fans hated Joey Crawford, even before the infamous laughing incident. I looked up the refs' "stats" for 2004-2005 and nothing jumped out to me but feel free to peruse the stats on your own on at basketball reference.
So far, there isn't strong evidence to suggest the Spurs had a huge advantage with the officiating. Still, I want to be fair. The proof is in the pudding so let's take a closer look at the foul trouble experienced by Rasheed and the entire frontcourt of the Pistons during game seven.
Luckily, game seven is on YouTube. I will be examining each foul for Ben Wallace, McDyess and Rasheed Wallace and judging the foul calls on a BS scale, 0-5. Five is complete bullshit while a zero would be a good foul call.
I will attempt to measure both the foul itself as well as the timing of the foul, and the context of the game. Of course, this is very scientific, trust me.
Wallace is called for his first foul on a post-up by Duncan. It's clearly a reach-in, I have linked to the video above and as you can see in the photo above, he reaches across Duncan's body to take a swipe at the ball.
To be fair, it is a quick swipe and it did not disrupt Duncan from his drive. Technically, I think the refs are on solid ground here, but from Wallace's point of view, it was a move that frequently a "no-call" when it does not affect the play. It feels slightly unfair if you're a Pistons fan.
Sheed's second foul comes a little before the halfway mark in the 2nd Quarter, which means he has made it 3/4 of the first half not in foul trouble (hey, look, I'm just pointing it out).
This is an unintentional trip off a screen and roll. He sticks that leg out a little too long and Manu falls to the ground. It's an easy foul to call and it had to be called. There's no issue with this foul.
Wallace's third foul comes barely over a minute after his second foul was called, and this one is a killer heading into the second half. Both players are jockeying for position in the post, with Rasheed fronting Duncan. Parker forces a pass over Sheed and while it's called a push, Wallace actually pushes Duncan's arm down, preventing Tim from catching the ball You can make out Wallace's hand on Duncan's bicep in the above photo but it is a bit grainy.
In a rough and tumble game seven, maybe it shouldn't have been called. That said, it is a foul and I don't think that's disputable. So far, with three fouls down, there are no ghost calls, nothing to this point could be defined as egregious. As this would be Wallace's third foul....and maybe it didn't have to be called I'll go with 2.5 on the BS Meter.
This one is pure stupidity from Wallace, who shows a complete lack of awareness of his foul situation. Less than one minute into the second half and he hacks Manu across the arms. Yes, it prevents an easy lay-up, but at the expense of your fourth foul at the start of the third quarter of game seven of the NBA Finals? This is obviously a mental mistake and it's also clearly a foul.
BS Meter - 0/5
5th Foul with 1:02 left in 4th Quarter
With the Spurs clinging to a four-point lead with one minute to go, Wallace attempts to strip Duncan as he makes a strong move near the basket. Wallace hacks him across his arms. I am torn from a game theory aspect on if this is a good or bad foul. On one hand, Duncan shooting over a good defense near the basket is probably in the 55-60% success rate. Maybe fouling is a good idea as Ducan is not the best free throw shooter. On the other hand, this is your fifth foul and if you do force OT, or need to foul to get the Spurs to the line later, you would one personal foul from being fouled out. Duncan only makes 1 of 2 free throws, so it's not that bad of a trade-off, but that's not the point....it's clearly a foul, no matter how you slice it.
BS Meter - 0/5
Summary of Wallace's Fouls
Three of Wallace's fouls are clear fouls with little room to interpret them as otherwise. The two fouls in the second half are clear hacks, the other foul in the first half was a clear unintentional trip. The other two fouls might be deemed "questionable" by a Pistons fan or by Wallace but they are not controversial, they're plays you might see called a foul quite frequently.
You might chalk it up to the fact that Rasheed had a bad reputation and refs hated him. That idea might have some truth in it, but some of these fouls are mental errors. After all, this is the guy that left Horry WIDE open in game five.
Sheed mentioned that the other guys were in foul trouble as well. Let's check their fouls out, starting with Hall of Famer, Ben Wallace.
I tried screen capturing the foul but it was not re-played, so from the screenshot, it's hard to tell what's happening at all. If you are interested, I have the link above.
With 4:08 left in the quarter, the Pistons are inbounding the ball. Brent Barry steals the inbounds pass and slips the ball to Horry. Ben Wallace was making the move to get the ball but was too late, so he just ends up shoving Horry with his shoulder. It's a clear foul, as Horry was knocked over. It's not a bad foul as it could have been an easy two points in a fast break....but it's still a clear foul.
Again, the screen grabs didn't work for this play. It's a reach-in on Wallace while Duncan was posting up. Tim still maintained possession of the ball. It is a reach-in but it didn't really need to be called. My guess is the refs are trying to set a tone for the game. I would be annoyed if I was Big Ben, so I'm going with a 2.5.
Okay, it is a lot of effort to screen capture and I am getting lazy and tired.
Again, view the link if you are that insane. This is finally a call I think is pretty bad... Tim is attempting to "pin" Ben Wallace to gain position, right underneath the basket. Tim uses his arms to "find" Ben and prevent him from trying to front him. In an attempt to get around Tim, Big Ben kinda flops. Both players are mixing it up but I think this should have been a no-call or an offensive foul on Tim. I'm going full BS on this if I am a Pistons fan.
Ben gets caught in a switch on a pick-and-roll at the top of the key against Manu, one-on-one. This is not a good matchup, Manu makes his move and Ben reaches in. I don't think it had to be called but Manu was playing great in this game, so it's really a good foul as it's before his shot and it's one of those safe plays to make. If the refs don't call a foul, you might get a steal....if they do, it's still before the player has shot and he won't get free-throws. The announcers note that this was the Piston's FIRST foul of the fourth quarter. If there was a conspiracy against the Pistons why did the refs swallow their whistle for the first 10 minutes of the quarter?!? !
BS Meter 1/5
5th Foul - 16 seconds left in 4th
This is an intentional foul, to get the Spurs to the line, zero BS here.
Summary of Ben Wallace's Fouls
Like Rasheed's fouls, we have two obvious fouls and three more fouls that are "debatable". That said, I think Ben's third foul is the worst we have seen so far. I do not see any bias here so far.
I admit I am a glutton for punishment but I am NOT looking up Antonio McDyess' fouls. I am tired and this is my blog. Go look them up.
If there was no bias against the Wallace "brothers" I can't imagine some greater conspiracy against McDyess either. I've entertained Sheed's inane babbling with more than enough respect to now stop.
Rasheed Wallace was talking out of his ass and if he had guarded Horry in game five, maybe he wouldn't be complaining about some conspiracy against the Pistons in game seven. Maybe if the Pistons had shot better than 2-14 from three-point land in game seven, he wouldn't be on this podcast bitching about the past. Possibly if they had not gotten their ass kicked the first two games, maybe his podcast wouldn't have uncovered some stupid, brain-dead David Stern conspiracy.
In the history of the NBA, there have been some officiating travesties to be sure. This ain't one of them.
Whoops, I basically had this finished last summer but forgot to post it. So, here it is a year late (I don't think anyone else cares, so you shouldn't either).
Last year the San Antonio Spurs celebrated their 50th anniversary with a 50-part docu-series chronicling the history of the team entitled The Ring of the Rowel.
Yes, you read that correctly, it is a FIFTY-part docu-series.
The series produced a total of over 13 and a half hours of footage. It's an impressive piece of work for the in-house production team that included hours of writing, conducting interviews, searching for archival footage, and editing the whole thing into a proper narrative. The series goes above and beyond what most teams do for their anniversaries.
The Spurs franchise had to believe that if they didn't tell the story of one of the most successful sports franchises of the last fifty years, no one would....and it's just as likely no one will give a full review of this excellent series, so why not me?
The Spurs wisely released the videos out of chronological order. This allowed them to slowly release the most popular videos throughout the year, rather than in one clump. This also made the experience a little more fun as each week, fans would eagerly wait for the next episode in complete mystery of what would come next. Many of the videos themselves are more thematic than chronological. For example, there is an episode on the Spurs-Lakers rivalry that covers the early 80s rivalry as well as the 2000s rivalry with Kobe and Shaq. However, most of the episodes are chronological, so if you watch them in the order the Spurs released them, it can be a bit of a discombobulated experience.
Some kind soul has put together a chronological order of The Ring of the Rowel on YouTube. If you haven't watched any episodes, this is the way to do it. Just search it up on YT. Some of the videos are nearly impossible to put in proper chronological order but having a proper chronological order is impossible because of the thematic nature of the series. If someone was insane enough, they could edit the entire 13 + hours and make a giant single documentary.....but you would be insane to even think such thoughts (I just thought of it).
The series focused on the players, but there were episodes on ownership, the buildings the Spurs played in, and even the Coyote (which was surprisingly very good). Last year, former owner Red McCombs died, and it felt like they randomly created a video just for him, even though much of that episode ended up being recycled from a later (or chronologically earlier) video.
Here are some of my favorites:
"Origins" - Entertaining and informative, I honestly learned a lot.
"Ice Man Cometh" - Of course, I love the old footage, and I loved learning about the insanity of the trade that brought Gervin to SA.
"Merging" - like "Origins", very informative but also fast-paced and informative.
"Our Furry Friend" - Surprisingly interesting. I had forgotten that the Coyote had once been kicked out of a game.
"Miracle Man" (Sean Elliott) - Possibly my favorite episode, and although I love Elliott, it's not like I am his biggest fan. I admit the interchange between Elliott and Pop had me shed a tear.
"71" - this is the best thing I have ever seen or read about on David Robinson's 71-point game. Although it seems like in today's NBA 70 is increasingly becoming the new 60-65, in 1994, it was quite the feat. Great interviews with Coach Lucas and Gervin (who was an assistant coach this year), and it included unseen footage from the locker room after the game (hey, look, Madonna)!!!
As you can tell, my favorites were primarily older stuff, but that's because I am a bit of a Spurs nut-case and an expert in the Tim/Tony/Manu era.
If you're a Spurs fan, you really need to watch all of the episodes! The quality is outstanding, and this is a big but, this series is an "official documentary". This means some major stories that did NOT get told because some of these stories were a wee bit unsightly. After all, a "squeaky clean" team like the Spurs doesn't want to tarnish its own myth-making.
If this were a perfect world, here would be the stories that should have been covered but didn't for one reason or another:
Alvin Robertson
It's clear that this guy seems like a messed-up dude, but does that mean we should forget his record-shattering career?
Robertson is one of three players in NBA history that had a quadruple-double (and he was on the Spurs when he did it).
While on the Spurs, he was a 4-time All-Star & the NBA DPOY in 1986.
He is the only player to have 300 steals in an NBA season
Robertson averaged over 3 steals a game, which has only been done ten times (and he did it three of those ten times with the Spurs)!
There isn't a need to get too deep into his off-court troubles, but we should admit that some of his on-court play was historically great.
Dennis Rodman
I would argue Rodman was an idiot with the Spurs, but I also think he might have been at his athletic peak in his time with the Spurs. Rodman played on two crazy, zany years as Drob's sidekick. Both seasons had plenty to remember, and I think framing this imaginary episode about the relationship between Robinson and Rodman, one of the league's most bizarre duos of all time, would have been interesting.
Just start the episode with this:
There were so many interesting things that happened, and at the very least, we got a cool Secret Base Beef episode out of it:
The 1994-1997 Spurs Era and Gregg Popovich's firing of Bob Hill
In 1997, Pop (as the Spurs' GM) fired head coach Bob Hill and installed himself as coach. This insane move wasn't EVEN MENTIONED in the Pop episode.
This bold move by Pop should have been a whole episode. The episode should have begun by honoring that great WCF team, following their rise and fall to the Rockets. At the time, Pop firing Hill seemed like an egotistical and cruel move, right as Robinson was recovering from injury.
Even in the episode that was centered on other coaches the Spurs have had, Bob Hill isn't even mentioned! Hill has been basically whitewashed from Spurs history, which is sad. Until Pop came along, he was easily the Spurs' most successful coach, to not even mention him at all seems unnecessarily mean and petty.
In retrospect, firing Hill was absolutely the right move. Spurs fans held it against Pop until at least 2003. I didn't even really like Pop until 2005ish.
The Spurs-Lakers rivalry got an episode, but the Spurs have had many rivalries that deserved a similar feature. The Jazz could be put in there, but that rivalry was largely limited to the largely the 90s.
Here are some highlights of each of the rivalries' match-ups above that could have been featured:
Spurs-Mavs - Tim v. Dirk, playoff matchups in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2010, and 2014, Tim had his career high of 53 in an OT game, Cuban talking shit about the Riverwalk, acquiring Finley (his journey from being cut from the Mavs, signing with the Spurs, losing to the Mavs in 2006 to finally winning the chip in 2007 with the Spurs might have been a good framing device).
Spurs-Rockets- Hakeem v. David Robinson, 1995 Conference Finals loss, a huge game in 99 (Elie game-winner), Tracey McGrady scoring a million points in less than one minute, Manu blocking Harden and winning WCSF in 2017.
Spurs-Suns - Barkley closing down Hemisphere on a buzzer-beater, Tim's first playoff series in 98, the 2003 match-up (Marbury's buzzer-beater in game one), 2005 and 2007 WCF matchups (both legendary), and Nash's Sun's eventual win in 2010.
The Rise and Fall of the Kawhi Era
I know this seems too fresh for some, but it is definitely one of the most important stories of the last few years in the NBA. The producers didn't have to make anyone look bad but to ignore the topic seems to be petty and flat-out silly.
The guy was a defensive player of the year for the Spurs (twice), our Finals MVP of 2014 and he also led us to a 2017 WCF and the brink of what could have been something special. I don't like the guy, I think he is a certified weirdo, but the fact he didn't get a focused episode on him, left a bad taste in my mouth. It is an inevitability that his number will be in the rafters one day.
Yeah, Secret Base has us covered here too. :)
What's next?
Honestly, probably nothing. I can't imagine the cost and effort this took to produce it, but I would love it if the team released the unedited (or lightly edited) interviews of all these folks that they did interview. It would be a treat for super fans and surely not that difficult to pull off. Some of the interviews barely scratched the surface.
If someone is reading this who has any connection to the Spurs media team, reach out to me, I will help produce the next series at a deep discount from other consultants. lol.
Anyway, if you like the Spurs, you need to check out this underrated and amazing series.
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.
