"Deserved"? That's stretching it

I'm not going to say that Spurs were robbed. I didn't see the entire game, but from what I can gather from the box score and the lines, aside from Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Brent Barry, the Spurs played horribly. Did they deserve to win? I doubt that Popovich or any of the Spurs think so. Should they have won? That's a completely different story altogether. Sure there could have been no calls and controversial calls on the Lakers, yeah, it's hard to believe that Kobe got his 29 points without a single trip to the charity stripe. Let's face it though, this one was obvious, Derek Fisher landed on Brent Barry, and the refs just sat there looking. I don't know what they were looking at, each other? In exit interviews you'll hear Barry and Popovich both say that the no call was the right call, because the refs don't want to deter the "outcome of the game". The fact of the matter is, call or no call, something happened, which invariably altered the outcome of the game. Simply put, the refs don't want to be responsible.

Putting aside all conspiracy theories of David Stern's dream of an NBA Showtime revival, let's simply look at the play. Barry fakes, Fisher bites, lands on Barry and Barry tries to get around for an open shot, chucking up a prayer that was more of a blind heave before the buzzer than any real attempt at making a shot. Had this happened 1 minute earlier, Fisher would have had his 5 personal foul and Barry would've gotten his two free throws. Assuming he makes them and no one scores, the Spurs and Lakers go into overtime. I've heard the argument that the Lakers "deserved" the win more. Sure they played better ball, but if they deserved it that much Kobe wouldn't have been rushing shots at the end of the 4th giving the Spurs back posession of the ball. Of course there's the no resetting of the shot clock after Fisher's toss skimmed the rim, ok, I can buy that, and the whole "poetic justice" of the next no call against the Spurs. To argue that the no call was made simply because the Lakers "deserved" the win? Excuse me? If that's not game fixing I don't know what is. The Lakers deserve the win if Brent Barry had clanked it off the front of the rim with Derek Fisher's hand in his face, if he had bricked it off back iron on an off balance shot, or if Kobe came around the weak side and swatted it, but don't tell me that the Lakers, who had let the Spurs come back within two, "deserved" the win when a 6'1", 200 lb point guard is sitting on Brent Barry's shoulder at the last shot. Lakers made mistakes at the end, sure the refs made mistakes but so did the Lakers. Kobe tried to drive it in instead of eating clock, Fisher bit on the pump fake, doesn't matter how well you played for the remaining 47 minutes of the game, mistakes cost you points, and sometimes mistakes cost you games.

Again, I'm not saying the Spurs were robbed, I'm not going to say that the Lakers were nearly robbed. If the Spurs played the way they were supposed to, they wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with (as most of you that read this would likely know I'm a Spurs fan). However, to say that the no call was the right call because the ref didn't want to affect the outcome of the game and hand the "undeserving" team the victory, that's bogus, by not calling it, the ref simply says, "This team should win, and the other one, well, jump through these burning hoops and if you make the impossible shot, then we'll give you your miracle". I don't get what the Lakers fans yelling at me are all defensive about, the foul wasn't in continuation. Barry gets a foul on the floor, gets his 2 free throws, presumably if he makes them both the game goes into OT and the Lakers can just prove how much more they "deserve" the win in the extra minutes of play. I'm not gonna say whether or not the refs called the game perfectly, because it's obvious that they're human and they didn't, but the fact is, they saw this one, and deliberately decided not to. Sure the Spurs didn't play like they "deserved" to win, but sometimes, even if you don't, you should. This is basketball, not figure skating, refs don't decide who "deserves" the win, they're just there to make the calls when they happened, and please don't tell me that this didn't happen.

It's the Conference Finals!

So the Conference Finals are here, and Game 1 of the East is already done with the home team (Boston) winning. Game 1 of the West occurs tonight and this is year, and these series will be off. These four teams are, hands down, the four best teams in the NBA, and now it comes down the essentially, the professional Final 4. A potential 14 games (7 potentially from each conference) of good ol' slug 'em out basketball. As your resident non-expert NBA follower, here are my following predictions and theories (someone's got to make them, and if JE Skeets and Kelly Dwyer can, why not me? Not like I get paid to do this like them).

Eastern Conference:

Boston Celtics vs Detroit Pistons

Looking at the Eastern Conference you honestly have to ask yourself, is there any reason these two teams shouldn't be here? Now, someone might have the courage (I'd like to say audacity) to say, Yeah, what about that guy named, LeBron James? And of course I would reply, "Seriously, is there any reason these two teams shouldn't be here?" No knock on LeBron, but I'm still going with the fact that last year was a fluke. Looking at the team around Lebron, they still don't have what it takes, LeBron either needs better help or he needs to leave (some would say to New York or New Jersey in 2010). Regardless, he didn't make it and here we have the two best teams of the regular season (record-wise) duking it out in the Eastern Conference Finals.

I've said this to several people already, but during Round 2, I said that if Cavs force a Game 7 on the Celtics, despite winning the series, they (the Celtics) are going to be in trouble. I think to say they have road woes is something of an understatement, but to put it succinctly, they are the only team in the Conference Finals that has not won a road game. They're playing some crazy ball in the Garden, but I wouldn't hold it above the Pistons, or should they advance, whoever wins in the West, to steal a game there. The Celtics now have at least 2 (maybe 3) road games to show that they can do what they do somewhere other than Massachussets.

Pistons have been playing the way they're supposed to be and competing nicely in the postseason, clearing out the Orlando Magic even with a sidelined Chauncey Billups. Now with Billups back in the lineup, I don't expect Detroit to fold like last year. They've been 0-2 in their previous two Eastern Conference Finals appearances, disappearing after a commanding 2-0 lead to LeBron James last year and then falling to the Miami Heat the year previous. The main thing that Detroit has to work on is keeping their head in the game, but then again, I think both teams need to do that, and if Boston does it, I like their chances better.

I think the best matchup would be Rasheed Wallace on Kevin Garnett. Both players are solid defensively and have a range that eludes many power forwards. The Celtics have much more to attempt to stop as the Pistons use a much more balanced offense and attack than the Cavs did. Rajon Rondo has the length and speed to bother even a guard like Billups, and really has an opportunity to at the very least disrupt the Pistons offense as Billups is known to hold on to the ball too long. While he's no LeBron, Paul Pierce has shown he is still one of the most effective scorers in the game, and Tayshaun Prince will have a tough time guarding him. If anyone is up for the task though, it would be Prince. Richard Hamilton we look to be his usual consistent self, finding thing spot up jumpers and cutting to the rim with regularity, of course Boston will work extra hard to stop him. The key I think to this matchup though, I think will be whether or not Ray Allen will be able to find his postseason shooting touch. He didn't look to hot in the Cavs series, and still hasn't seem to be able to find his shot. I think once his touch is back, the Pistons are going to be in a lot of trouble. Allen isn't exactly a great catch-and-shoot kind of guy, which is what the Celtics need, but if they can run a couple of plays for him, then I think he'd find his groove very fast. I think because of his poor shooting Allen has been criticized as "disappearing" in the playoffs, but I think that it's because the team needs him to be a Reggie Miller, that is, a Reggie Miller that's a third scoring option. Allen is more comfortable making his own shots off the dribble, but he doesn't get the option very often. Catch-and-shoot like Jason Kapono, Eddie House, Daniel Gibson, even Peja, isn't Allen's forte. In my opinion, he's still adjusting.

Regardless, I see Boston waking up on the road, finally.

Celtics in 6.

West:

Los Angeles Lakers vs San Antonio Spurs

The last time I remember a competitive matchup between the Spurs and the Lakers was when the Lakers still had Shaq, and when Allen Iverson's 51 point Game 1 in the NBA Finals kept abruptly halted the Lakers' 12 game post season win streak. The Lakers who promptly finshed the post season with championship rings on a 16-1 post season record (I'm sorry, I didn't follow in 2002, but apparently they won then too). Ok, so maybe it hasn't been that long, say 3 years, since Shaq was traded. Anyways, it's something of a revival of two major powers in the Western Conference, of course Spurs are always a perennial contender, so I would argue that anyone is a rival, but the fact that they've won all save 2 (Detroit in 2004 and Miami in 2006) of the last 9 championships, I suppose you could say it's something.

Now the Lakers summarily tidied up Denver Nuggets, who simply collapsed after Game 1 and essentially invited the Lakers over for 2 games of practice scrimmages prior to Round 2 (who knew? I thought they could steal a game). Afterwards, it was deja vu for Jerry Sloan (well not quite) as Phil Jackson exited him and his Jazz out of the running for the NBA Finals again in Game 6. Now the Lakers are rested up and once again ready to make their run for the NBA Finals, of course, only one thing standing in their way, wait, that's right, the defending champions. San Antonio has shown that despite their age, their players can still complete. They proved Steve Kerr and idiot by summarily handing Phoenix and their Spurs stopper Shaquille O'Neal an early 4-1 exit out of the first round. Then showed why they are the defending champs and how experience does matter when they finished out the New Orleans Hornets in a tight 4-3 series.

Now as far as matchups go, neither one of these lineups have been complete, the Spurs having won prior to the Gasol trade and the Lakers later winning when Ginobili was out with a groin injury, so we have yet to actually see these two rosters go at each other full force. As hard as Bruce Bowen will try, there really isn't anyone or anything short of season ending injury that can stop Kobe Bryant. What the Spurs are going to have to do then, is play the Lakers soft interior. They have to out body inside on all the rebounds where their overall size and physicality can help them win out. Of course to do so, the shooters from the outside are going to have to do their jobs as well. As for the Lakers, they just have to pass, do what they do well and they're nigh impossible to stop. I get the feeling though, the bench is going to need this year as a growing experience, as they seemed to fade a little in Utah series. Tough call, but experience is not dead or overrated, not if you have the talent to go with it (sorry Dallas).

Spurs in 7.

What's Next? Pt 2

So, in my previous entry I had only referred to the Mavericks and had mentioned both the Mavericks and Suns as having embarrassing first round exits. So for the 2 readers out there wondering, "Well, what about the Suns?" here it is.

Steve Kerr in essence summed up the reason the Suns can't win, they don't play defense. Kerr wants D'Antoni to coach both ends of the floor and work on accountability, two things that D'Antoni doesn't like or want to do. Thus D'Antoni is looking at a very lucrative offer from the New York Knicks' Donnie Walsh to be their head coach. Now regardless of whether or not I think D'Antoni can work with the Knicks (even if they do get rid of Curry, Randolph, and Marbury somehow), the Suns are in something of a dilemma.

They have a 36 year old Shaquille O'Neal, a 36 year old Grant Hill who hasn't played a healthy season in the NBA for the past 10 years, and a 34 year old Steve Nash. Add onto that a frustrated Amare Stoudamire and an apathetic Boris Diaw, and you get a team that has some serious issues. It doesn't matter that the locker room atmosphere is better, less abrasive, the fact is that the team is getting old, and there's nothing to show for it. The Suns have to eat Shaq's monstrous contract and now Steve Kerr has to find them a new coach that they'll be willing to work with. Likely, it's not going to be someone the players like, simply because it's going to be a coach that will preach what Kerr wants to hear; defense. Maybe it'll be Kerr's former teammate and fellow Spur Avery Johnson walking the sidelines, how he gets Shaq, Nash, and Stoudamire to focus on the defensive game will be a wonder.

The fact of the matter remains also that Shaq, Nash, and Amare, in addition to being defensively lax, are something of a cap killer. It makes it really hard to rebuild around them, and the only real legitimate piece that they have to trade remains Boris Diaw and possibly Leandro Barbosa. In fact, if they weren't so worried about moving to Oklahoma City, I'm sure that the first round exit, and the ending run of D'Antoni's run-'n-gun offense, has the Sonics celebrating. Their two first round, unqualified picks for 2009 are looking nicer and nicer as Phoenix begins to look more and more likely to head to the lottery. In essence, the Suns have to start over again, and even that looks fairly distant unless Shaq decides to retire before his contract is up.

The Playoffs Thusfar

So the NBA playoffs have reached round 2 (finally, after what was nearly the greatest upset of all time), and each team here is arguably the best in the league, the Elite Eight if you would. The only difference being that each series is decided in 7 games instead of one. Let's breakdown what's going on so far.

East:

Celtics vs Cavaliers (Celtics lead 1-0)

After what was likely one of the most offensively disgusting game from both teams, the Celtics manage to pull a big victory over the Cavs in Game 1 and look to repeat in Game 2. Of course, the fact that Ray Allen went scoreless and Paul Pierce shooting only 2-14 and not getting to the freethrow line should worry the Celtics, but they had Lebron missing layups and shots all the time after a rattling first half and was limited to 2-18 shooting. Of course, what everyone talks about the most is Lebron's near quadruple double (12pts, 9rbds, 9assts, 10TOs), and how Posey and Pierce were really able to take the momentum out of him. Of course, they can't really bank on this deterring King James. Of course we do also have 852 other games to tell us that historically, Ray Allen will put numbers onto the board. Indeed, the Celtics can't really expect to bring the steamroller that is Lebron to a grinding halt, but what they can do is make his journey to the bucket difficult and make it hard for him to get his teammates involved. One of the Cavs' biggest weaknesses is that while they have several pieces, all their talent (except James) is diversified through several different players, meaning that oftentimes they have to forgo one aspect of the game for another. The supporting cast around Lebron is frequently one-dimensional, and thus it's easier to exploit.

Pistons vs Magic (Pistons lead 2-1)

The Orlando Magic showed us how they can play up to their potential in Game 3, where Rashard Lewis proved his worth by draining a career playoff high of 33 pts. Dwight Howard was getting easy looks and dominating inside and everyone was hitting beyond the arc, the inside-outside offense was working like it was supposed to. Of course, it helped that Chauncey Billups left the game with a strained hamstring. To continue to hold on to this series of course, the Magic have to regain a certain degree of consistency from beyond the arc, Lewis and Turkoglu have to start making their shots with regularity so that they can spread the floor and have Dwight Howard abuse the inside like we're so used to seeing. Of course, you can't really expect the Pistons to ease off either, so the biggest question will be for them; will Chauncey Billups come back? when? and will he be 100%?

West:

Lakers vs Jazz (Lakers lead 2-0)

I think that people are making too big of a deal about the 2-0 leads in the Western Conference. Generally, they've simply been teams winning at home. Yes, it does build a certain degree of momentum, it does mean the team is 2 games closer and only 2 games away from advancing. Of course, though, as many say, "The Playoffs don't really start until someone wins away." Or something to that effect. Lakers have been really abusing the Jazz with the perfection of Phil Jackson's triangle offense, making the right passes at the right time, and of course, Kobe Bryant's 38 pts in Game 1 and 34 in Game 2 helped a little too. Jerry Sloan needs to simply keep a tight reign on his team, he's been there, I'm sure there's a certain history with Sloan and Jackson, Phil Jackson, Michael Jordan, and the Chicago Bulls having ousted Jerry Sloan, Karl Malone, and John Stockton from the NBA Finals two consecutive years. Arguably both coaches once again have similar pieces that run their offenses similar to those heyday years if not better. Jackson has his triangle running through Kobe, Odom, and Gasol, a legitimate big man scorer, something that Chicago lacked back then, and thus relied on Jordan's post shot. Sloan has his Malone and Stockton reincarnate in Boozer and Williams. Of course there are those who say that calling Boozer and Williams, Malone and Stockton is unfair, it's more like Malone and a Jason Kidd that can shoot.

I think the Jazz have a very good opportunity to tie the series back up with the two upcoming games in Utah. Most teams have generally commented that Utah is the hardest place to play for any team (other than the Jazz). The atmosphere is almost hostile. I think that the Jazz will draw a lot of energy from the home crowd, but in addition to that there are just a couple of little things the Jazz need to do to make this series a little more interesting. One of them is to capitalize more on second chance opportunities. The Jazz easily out-rebounded the Lakers 58-41 in Game 1 and 25-8 on the offensive glass. I think that Utah is a bigger team inside, and they need to try to get in a position to exploit that more, meaning that Okur and Korver are going to need to hit outside more often to free up some space for Boozer. It's going to be a tough series, but I think that Jazz just have to keep their heads, they're the underdog, Lakers are just playing amazing basketball right now, but I think the Jazz can step up to the challenge.

Hornets vs Spurs (Hornets lead 2-0)

The New Orleans Hornets are leading 2-0 and they are the feel-good story of the year, about how a young point guard named Chris Paul has completely turned a failing team around and how he has revived basketball in the city of New Orleans. As the Hornets manhandled the Spurs 101-82 in Game 1 and then 102-84 in Game 2, people are all shouting about how the Hornets' young legs have made the Spurs look old and lethargic, how the Spurs are showing their age and can't keep up with the Hornets' dynamic game. However, as Chris Paul himself says, "A series doesn't start until the home team loses." And again, all the Hornets have done is won at home. So don't count the Spurs out until the series is over, T-Mac did that when he was in Orlando with a 3-1 lead over Detroit, and he still hasn't made it out of the first round.

The Hornets of course have everyone wondering about the value of experience in the playoffs as they easily handed the Dallas Mavericks their exit out of the playoffs in Game 5, but I would argue that simply, the Hornets were always a better team than the Mavs, and the play from your roster is always more important than experience. A team of young studs (say like I took a roster of All-Stars playing for under 4 years) will beat out a team of old reserves (not to say that Dallas is a bad team, but the talent is just too limited). The Spurs however, are a different story, and I look for their experience to pull them out of this one. The Spurs, in the first two games seem to have been unable to find their offense and thus have looked rather confused and bewildered by Chris Paul. While the Hornets thrive on the only game Spurs defense allows, the 15-18 foot jumper, I think the Spurs just need to slow down and catch their breath. A good opportunity to do so back home. The primary need of the Spurs is two-fold, one is that Manu Ginobli can once again get into his game, once he's on, the Hornets effective don't have much that can stop him, of course to do so, he'll need some help, which means that the role players have to step in, Michael Finley and Brent Barry need to find their shot from long range, Robert Horry has to start making big shots again. Another thing I believe that the Spurs can exploit is how thin the Hornets are on the bench in terms of big men. Beyond Chandler and West there really isn't much there, thus if Duncan can get Chandler into foul trouble early, there might be some easy points to be had inside. Of course, the Spurs justh ave to gear it up offensively once again, and spread the floor like they generally do. Most of all they can't let this young upstart team faze them.

What's Next?

Both the Phoenix Suns and the Dallas Mavericks have once again fallen short. Both teams were met with high expectations and summarily shown out of the playoffs after the first round. Phoenix by the defending champion, the San Antonio Spurs, for the third time in four years, and Dallas by the New Orleans Hornets, led by playoff rookie, Chris Paul. Needless to say the swift five game exit of two of the largest players in this year's trade market definitely brings murmurs of speculation out into the open. Already, Avery Johnson has been fired from the head coaching position in Dallas, and there are questions as to Mike D'Antoni's staying power in Phoenix as well. Well, that's a lot to deal with, but let's look at this piece by piece:

Dallas Mavericks
Now, the despite the fact that Avery Johnson took the Mavs to the Finals in 2006 then a 67 win record in 2007 are very impressive feats in and of themselves, two consecutive first round exits from the playoffs merits some blame to go somewhere, and the onus of the scapegoat happens to land on Avery Johnson. You could arguably say that Mark Cuban created this dilemma for himself, but the fact remains that someone has to go, and it's easier to get rid of a coach than the players. So the question remains, what went wrong?

We can always try to trace things back to the Jason Kidd trade, how the Mavericks sacrificed their future for immediate results. They offered up a young point guard (Devin Harris), a stop plug in the middle (DeSagana Diop) and two draft picks for a 35 year-old guard clinging to his youth. There's always the argument that Jason Kidd just never melded together with Avery Johnson's system and Avery Johnson never figured out how to incorporate Jason Kidd. There's the point that coming in halfway through the season with a completely new point guard to run the offense is very difficult for both the team and the point guard, that Jason Kidd was expected to do too much in too little time.

I want to go a different rout though, it's not the coaching, it's not even the trade for Jason Kidd, the fact that the Dallas Mavericks failed once again, is simply because that the team was constructed improperly. The fact is that I never considered Dallas a championship contender before Jason Kidd, and I certainly didn't consider them one afterwards, so to call the Jason Kidd a failure is a little premature because it didn't really bring them any closer to the championship, I would generally call it a wash.

So what's wrong with this team? Didn't they make it to the Finals? Didn't they win 67 in a season? The answer is yes and yes, but what amounts to their embarrassing forfeiture of a 2-0 lead in the NBA Finals in 2006 and their embarrassing upset by the 8th seed Golden State Warriors in 2007, is simple, the Dallas Mavericks aren't built to win championships. The fact is, is that their roster inherently is faulty, and the owners aren't willing to admit that. If we look at the roster, even just the starting lineup, there's already a obvious glaring problem with it, let's take a looksee;

PG - Jason Kidd
SG - Jerry Stackhouse
SF - Josh Howard
PF - Dirk Nowitzki
C - Erick Dampier

Now the glaring issue is that you have a dynamic point, a second rate center, a role player, and your two all-stars are perimeter players. So what happens is that you have team that would sooner settle for a jump shot rather than drive to the hoop. They have no finisher outside of Jason Kidd, their bench is stripped thin with little left other than Eddie Jones, Devean George, and Brandon Bass. The fact is that their lack of an interior game both on the offensive and defensive end has been and will continue to be their downfall time and time again. They're softness inside was the reason for their early exit last year, as an undersized Golden State abused them in the paint. The fact of the matter is that any team built around Dirk Nowitzki is bound to fail. Nowitzki cannot and does not thrive as a go to guy on a team. His game is fairly one-dimensional, he's an oversized shooter, a monstrous SG that can rebound. As much as his post game has improved, that's still what Nowitzki's known for, his shot. He'd make a great second option, and I think, that being able to share that burden and of having someone else (a post player) as the go to guy will help him to thrive even more. Shooters make big shots, but it's the post that wins games.

The "Formula" to Winning Championships

I don't claim to be an expert on basketball, I just do a lot of research and love following the sport, so when I tout a "formula" of some sort, don't get me wrong, there's nothing "official" about it. There are a lot of things that I'm actually ignoring such as salary caps and the whole front office side you have to deal with when dealing with the NBA, and of course, I'm completely ignoring David Stern. So take my advice with a grain of salt here when I say that there is a key to building a solid NBA team, and remember, the NBA is and ultimately will run like a business, it's here to make money.

So in looking back at the history of the NBA there seems to be a general trend of things that stand true for all of the NBA champions. These things are what ultimately won each of these teams championships.

First: Dominance down low

This goes beyond rebounding, this is a legitimate inside post presence that the team can consistently go to. Inside presence defensively is important, but it's the inside post game that made the offense flow, it's the goto when nothing else works, because you create the highest percentage shots that way. Why else do you think that the highest FG% players are mostly post players? Let's look at it historically:

Starting 10 years ago we have the NBA Champions and their inside game:

1997-1998 Chicago Bulls : Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman
1998-1999 San Antonio Spurs: Tim Duncan, David Robinson
1999-2002 LA Lakers: Shaquille O'Neal
2002-2003 San Antonio Spurs: Tim Duncan
2003-2004 Detroit Pistons: Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace
2005-2006 Miami Heat: Shaquille O'Neal
2006-2007 San Antonio Spurs: Tim Duncan

Now some people are going to start looking at me and say, "Bulls? Rodman wasn't an inside threat." The thing is, all they needed Rodman for was rebounding, Jordan was the post threat. Despite being a 2 guard, Jordan was as physical as any inside post player. His feared game was not his shooting game, but in fact his post presence down low. With the Pistons you have Ben Wallace dominating at one end and Rasheed Wallace creating at the other, with a significant post presence your team opens up the floor and gives your shooters an easier time. This is why the Lakers have not been so hot until their recent acquisition of Pau Gasol and development of Andrew Bynum, they're both legitimate post threats. As much as Lamar Odom and Kobe Bryant can finish around the rim, they're not post players. Kobe would sooner shoot the pull-up jumper and Odom has trouble creating his own offense. Likewise Dallas has no inside presence short of Erick Dampier, which is to say, none. Dirk Nowitzki is just a 7 ft SG. The overall talent on the team isn't bad, it's just that shooters won't win you championships, it's too hard to open up the floor when you don't have something that pulls defenders into the paint.

Second: Solid backup

Needless to say you need to have your role players and players off the bench that can keep you in the game. You can't honestly expect your star players to go 48 minutes a game through 4 seven game series in peak form. You always have your shooters like Glen Rice, Steve Kerr, Toni Kukoc, James Posey, Antoine Walker, Ron Harper, etc... both starting and off the bench that are just there to catch and release. Each player has his role and does his best to fill it. The Horace Grants, Samaki Walkers, and Malik Roses there to fill up space in the middle and get the leftover rebounds. You have your Robert Horrys there for the big shots, and you have your James Poseys, Antoine Walkers, and Rick Foxs there doing all the extra dirty work. Needless to say, all these teams have solid reserve and role players to sustain them through the playoffs and through the Finals series.

Third: Chemistry

The team has to play well together. If we look at the old Trailblazers, they were a team with boundless talent, Damon Stoudamire in his prime, Scottie Pippen, Rasheed Wallace, but they just didn't get along, so they played horribly together. Everyone had a "me" first mentality. The best example we can see today of good chemistry is the San Antonio Spurs. You have to all share the same vision of winning and then everyone has to understand his own part in reaching that vision. Spurs are all on the same page, and it shows. All the teams that have won, played together for a good chunk of time (Lakers started the Shaq-Kobe era 1 season after the Shaq trade) being able to meld together and work as a unit on the court.

The Setting Suns in Phoenix: Too Little, Too Late

Boris Diaw came out with a 20 pt, 10 rbd, 8 asst game while Raja Bell shot the lights out with his own 27 pt contribution to rout the Spurs at home to stay in the series and keep from being embarassingly swept from the first round of the playoffs. Despite their best efforts though, the Suns are simply delaying the inevitable, because it's too little too late for them to really expect to get out of their 3-1 deficit in the series. I'm not just talking about how it's nearly impossible to come back from a 3-0 deficit in a 7 game series in the NBA, or how no team in the NBA has never done it before. The fact remains is that the Spurs were and still are a better team than the Suns, but even then, that's beside the point.

While I think the Spurs still would've won out on the series, what has really made this series so open and close has really been the Suns themselves. This series was supposed to be the ultimate test of the Shaq for Marion trade, it was supposed to be a revival of last year's round 2 rivalry, and instead, it's turned into the annual trouncing of a 3 seed over a 6 seed. The disparity of play just seems to be that way. How come? Why is it turning out this way? I could answer how Grant Hill's health has not held up and thus has not been able to defend as Shawn Marion did and not contribute, I can argue how Bowen hounding Nash has kept him from his usual production (he was limited to, 15 pts and 4 assts last game and 7 pts, 9 assts the game before). The fact however, of the loss, lies in the attitude that the Suns carried to each game. The Suns always have this attitude of being as good, if not better than the Spurs coming into the series, and in all honesty, they're the underdogs. Game 1 D'Antoni and the rest of the Suns brushed off as a fluke, Nash said they simply had to work on their offense, and Shaq claimed that, "the floppers prevailed." The Spurs got lucky, then they held home court by showing some more of their "luck" trouncing the Suns 102-96 in Game 2. Then of course when the Suns get home, the Spurs pull another fluke of a "near perfect game" embarassing Suns further in Game 3 with a 115-99 victory. Game 4 is just too little too late. The attitude of overconfidence has been the downfall of the Suns. They think that their offense can run through a system like San Antonio, they think that last year was a fluke, resting solely on the fact that Amare was suspended.

Given how Boris Diaw played last season and most of this season, I don't think the Suns can bank him having a repeat performance of Game 4. Unfortunately for Phoenix, I don't know that they have much choice. They're too far out to keep the series interesting, and the only thing that kept them from doing that was themselves.