Let's Go Jazz

Well, for the first time in a few of years, I can actually root for the Jazz in the playoffs. Actually, for the first time this century, I can root for them as they move deep into the playoffs. Nobody is giving them much of a chance to beat the Spurs, and I have to agree it'll be tough. I'm not sure Carlos Boozer will be able to maintain his stellar play against Tim Duncan (although Amare Stoudemire did). The Spurs will probably put Bruce Bowen on Deron Williams, so that the only real advantage the Jazz will have Mehmet Okur. However, I think the Jazz are playing as good as anyone right now.

To be honest, I was rooting for the Suns to win their series over the Spurs because I though it was a better matchup for the Jazz. They haven't won in San Antonio since 1999, while they took the season series with Phoenix 3-1 (although I still would have considered them the underdogs in that one too). Now, even though I was rooting for the Suns, I am getting a little tired of all the "injustice" talk that is going around about the suspensions of Stoudemire and Boris Diaw in the Spurs/Suns series for leaving the bench after a hard foul on Steve Nash. Now, would the Suns have won game five with those two? Good chance, although you might notice they still lost three other games in the series with them. So, playing the "What if" game is pointless.

The biggest laugh I get out of the entire controversy was the idea that the Spurs were "dirty". A few years ago, the Spurs were called soft. I guess facing an even softer team makes you look dirty although it's funny because last year's villain was the Suns' Raja Bell who got suspended for a takedown on Kobe Bryant. Sure, the series got "chippy" (buzz word for this year's playoffs), but it wasn't any more "chippy" than the Jazz/Warriors series where the Warriors were called for several flagrant and technical fouls. Yet, no one was up in arms about that. There were two reasons why. First, unlike the whiny Suns (I saw a play where Steve Nash fumbled the ball away, yet screamed at the ref that his arm had been hit), the Jazz just played on. Second, sportswriters suck. They actually seem to think they have the pulse of the nation and choose their outrage based on the results they want. The Warriors were the lovable (even with a player under indictment for a strip club shooting) underdogs. They weren't going to disrupt the fairy tale. As for the Suns, they were exciting. The Spurs are boring. So, everyone outside of San Antonio must have been rooting for the Suns so they don't have to watch more Spurs.

Really, how else do you explain the fact that Horry's hip check on Nash that sparked the problems in game four became the cheapest shot in the history of basketball? Even by Marv Albert who covered Knick games under Pat Riley. Give me a break. It wasn't good, but I'm not even sure it was worse than the shot Bell put on Bryant last year or the elbow to the face that Baron Davis gave Derek Fisher in the Warriors/Jazz series. It might look bad, but if Nash had any weight, he wouldn't have flopped that far away. I've seen Allen Iverson take worse. It certainly wasn't close to the stuff that Detroit teams did in the 80s or the Celtic teams did in the 80s or what Charles Oakley did his entire career. I'm not sure when the NBA became so wussified, but it has.

Further, how else do you explain the sudden condemnation of a rule that's been in place for years? It's well known that you are going to be suspended if you leave the bench during a fight as Stoudemire and Diaw did. The reason is that the NBA gets bad press for its fights. Mainly because fighting is expected in hockey, padded in football and silly looking in baseball. Plus, basketball players have a much closer proximity to the fans. No one bitched this much when the Knicks lost to the Heat even though the situation was the same as the Knicks lost several players to suspension for leaving the bench. Every argument used then by the Knicks then was used this time by the Suns this year. Defending a teammate; never got near the action; important playoff series; a Heat player instigated it. Yet, everyone was fine with the rule then, but not now. Suddenly, it's the devil. Sorry. Not buying it. They knew the rule. They face the consequences. You might notice that in the Jazz series, they didn't rush the court to fight when Fisher took a cheap elbow to the face nor did the Lakers when Bryant went down. They know the rules.

Is it a dumb rule? That's the new argument, and it's funny as hell because the same people who bitch about the NBA different standards of punishment now want to give them "discretion" in situations like this. I like the rule because it takes the discretion out of the NBA's hands. A fight breaks out, you leave the bench, you get suspended. Look at how warped the NBA already is when it comes to punishment. If Stoudemire and Diaw don't leave the bench, they don't get suspended. I'll bet Horry still gets suspended for the shot on Nash (although probably one instead of two games). Nash is a star, Horry is not. Compare it to the elbow on Fisher. I think it was just as bad, but Baron Davis didn't get suspended at all. Why? He's the star of the Warriors who are the compelling story of the playoffs. The last thing the NBA needs is allowing more protection from punishment by the stars.