The best division in the NBA is also the slowest.

[Diaper Dandy]

Unless a team is utterly dominant, like some of the Bulls teams or a couple of the Lakers' three peat teams, it has to get breaks to win the championship.

That's a really good observation and I think it bears repeating. Sometimes people act as if there's a huge difference between teams. Obviously, alot of times luck is something you make. But alot of times it's not. Even dominant teams need breaks sometimes, too. The Bulls got alot of breaks in the 4th quarter of Game 6 of the Finals in 92; the Lakers got alot of breaks in the 4th quarter of Game 7 of the WCF in 2000.

Disregarding teams because they didn't win when the circumstances were very marginal is extremely myopic and not very relevant for gauging their place in history.

[Kobay]

ahhh maybe because they play defense???

[Schad]

A couple months ago, when all of the teams 21-30 in pace were in the playoffs, I was going to make a thread on this.

Right now, the average pace factor of an EC playoff team is 89.1, which would rank 23rd in the league. Non-playoff teams are at 90.8; 14th in the league. Margin: -1.7 for playoff squads.

The average pace factor of a WC playoff team is 91.7; 11th in the league. For non-playoff teams, it's 92.5; 10th in the league. Margin: -0.8 for playoff squads.

Last season, 89.8 for EC playoff teams, 90.2 for the lotto bound. Margin: -1.4 for playoff squads. 92.0 for WC playoff teams, 90.2 for lotto clubs. Margin: +1.6 for playoff squads.

The margins are close enough that it can't be considered statistically significant. Still, I think that there are definite advantages in playing a slower style; during the regular season, higher-paced teams have the advantage of running tired teams out of the building. In the playoffs, that advantage disappears, and slower teams may benefit from the greater structure in their offensive and defensive systems.

[hermes]

slow and steady wins the race

[yehyeh82]

Since the NBA started keeping track of pace factor, the nba champion has averaged 15 of of an average of 25 teams in pace factor. In the 2000, the champion has been 17/29. Pretty middle-of-the-road. While slower teams win a lot of championships, so do faster teams. The Lakers 3-peat team got as high as 6th in the league in pace factor. The Spurs are always in the 20's. The SHowtime Lakers were always near the top in pace. Fact of the matter is slow and fast teams both wins, it just depends on what style has the better players at the time.

[CupcakeNoFillin]

WTF, how fast you play doesn't matter doesn't matter as long as you can score. You're making it seem like playing up tempo is bad. As long as you're playing good defense you'll succeed.

Look at the Warriors. They're like 13 games above .500 and they barely even have a big man. Imagine how scary they would be with some type of frontline like KG and Biedrins. That squad would beat any team in the league. They even beat the best defensive team in the league (Celtics) without Stephen Jackson and scored 39 fourth quarter points on them. Imagine how the Warriors would dominate if they had any kind of good post player for offense and defense.

[CupcakeNoFillin]

You can even use the Suns as an example. Imagine them if they could play defense while still being able to score how they do. It's just a matter of transition defense for fastbreak teams... and if they could play defense on a team when things slow down. That's it.

[corona]

i wish george karl saw this thread.

[MaxRider]

Houston is playing faster than Dallas
that's surprising

[richboy]

Houston, Memphis, San Antonio, and Dallas are also very talented. San Antonio could play fast and still win. Dallas has won 60 games playing fast and 60 games playing slow. Nothing has really changed.

[Ballings7]

Unless a team is utterly dominant, like some of the Bulls teams or a couple of the Lakers' three peat teams, it has to get breaks to win the championship.

Yeah, you need some luck, but you can't rely on luck that much. You still have to go out and play the game. That's the majority factor in winning the title, aside from needing an average amount of luck.

The Suns have definitely run into bad luck.

But, I can't include the conspiracy theory of Donaghy in G3, because it's a reach at most, and not proven at all. Nobody knows if he was doing anything extra in that game, and if he actually did, nobody knows how much he was doing, and how much it effected the game. It's not a legitimate factor because it lacks credibility.

While it was unfortunate Nash and Tony collided, i can't quite include Nash's bloody nose because the Suns had their multiple oppurtunities when Nash went back in the game, and if nothing happened to Nash, the Spurs would still be favored to win that game because of their ability on both ends of the court. Also, Nash shouldn't of even been back in the game after getting worked on, because Nash was clearly still bleeding, and had blood on his uniform, noticably. Also wiping the blood onto his uniform again. But the refs gave him some lee-way to come back in and stay in the game.

The Suns lost their control in G4 after Horry hip-checked Nash. If they react lesser than they did, then they don't get suspended. Natural human reaction to enthusiastically go to Nash and where he was, but this isn't in a bar or something. You don't have to react in a significant way that puts you into risk for penalty. In reacting lesser, they don't force the NBA into the picture to any extent. Including Raja Bell, on the way he reacted, who surprisingly didn't get suspended. As Bell started the scuffle with Horry, after Horry walked away from Nash, when nothing was going on at all for a brief amount of seconds. Bell shouldn't of come up to Horry to start up an altercation. Which escalated the original situation of the unecessary hard foul to Nash. Aside from Horry, none of the Spurs did anything. Especially when Bell got up into Horry.

The whole situation shouldn't of happened, Horry didn't react right, but it still came down to lacking some discpline and experience from the Suns. I'd think the Suns have learned from that, to react little, if something iffy goes on again.

[Texas Longhorns]

I don't care how slow the Southwest is. They are just winning however they are playing, so it shouldn't matter how they are playing.

[bjebaz]

Blaming it on Bell is one thing. I wouldn't have had a problem if he had gotten suspended. And even Amare is iffy. But just watch Diaw closely and compare that to what Duncan did with the James Jones/Elson thing. It's basically the exact same thing, except Nash was on the sideline so Diaw went further. Diaw saw him go down, and went straight toward Nash, not noticing any fighting going on at all. There were so many gray areas to where he didn't have to get suspended and the rule could still have integrity. The league could have said that he wasn't on the floor when the "altercation" started. Or that he was in the "immediate vicinity" of the bench, since he was on the sideline around where the coaches box is. But no, it's not about fairness, as you would like to believe. As Stu Jackson said, "it's not about fairness, it's about correctness."

And Diaw would have made an impact on Game 5, period. KT played 36 or 38 minutes and had to be pulled at the end of the game, so the Suns had James Jones guarding Duncan. And Pat Burke got minutes in the first half.

And you're right, you do need an average amount of luck. The problem is that the Suns have never gotten that (at least in my lifetime) whenever they've been championship contenders. During the Barkley era a key member of the team (or more) was hurt every year. Same this era, except last season, but even unbiased members of the media said the team got screwed.

Again, you have yet to show me a time when the Spurs have had as key an injury in an important series and still went on to win the championship. It doesn't happen, and that's why they don't repeat (that and the existence of other, better teams being healthy in regard to the Lakers). The difference is they've been good for 9 years, while the Suns have only been championship contenders for 3.

[maradro]

The difference is they've been good for 9 years, while the Suns have only been championship contenders for 3.

that, and the spurs are deeper and their coach takes care of his players, unlike the 8-man, 40+mpg suns.

jj is a fine player but he wasnt going to make a difference in 05, the way he left to be "the man" in atlanta goes to show he lacks the fire to make a difference (marion too for that matter). by name, awards, and by salaries, the suns have had "more" than the spurs in both 05 and 07, but they got beat by the tougher team. luck had nothing to do with that.

[xcomputerman]

Houston, Memphis, San Antonio, and Dallas are also very talented. San Antonio could play fast and still win. Dallas has won 60 games playing fast and 60 games playing slow. Nothing has really changed.

Dallas has always been one of the slowest teams in the league ever since Avery took over. They have not ranked higher than 25th in the league in possessions per game over the past 3 years. This is a misconception many people need to drop. Their offense has always been a highly half-court oriented, iso type offense. Even last year they were a much slower team than the Rockets, for example.

[Goubot]

You're right in pointing out that it doesn't matter how fast a team plays as long as they're effective on both sides of the court, but why then single out this division? If the point you wanted to make is that offensive and defensive efficiency are more indicative of success than pace, wouldn't it better to point out the top teams and their paces? Boston is middle of the road (17th), Detroit is dead slow (29th), and the Lakers are fairly fast (6th). These are three excellent teams that play at different paces, but ultimately, they're not successful because of their pace, but because of their offensive and defensive execution or efficiency.

[NetsNash13]

-= original quote snipped =-



About the same as Phoenix, zero championships.

I think you are right though. Twenty years from now people will look back on this era and say, "you know what, that Phoenix team was pretty good! They were 5-3 in playoff series over three years. Sure they never won the championship, but shoot, they won a series!"

Unimpressed.

How has Phoenix done with Shaq thus far? Pretty content with that trade?

Lets judge a trade 4-5 games into it. Ain't like Gasol going to the lakers in which they aren't changing anything. Suns obviously got Shaq for some interior D and better rebounding. It takes some adjusting for a team who has never had a real low post scorer taking up that space. Reports are they will get Giricek who will help a lot coming off the bench. I expect the Suns to mesh come the end of March/early April just in time for the playoffs.
And yea, I am content with the trade because they weren't and haven't done anything with Marion and the West just got a lot stronger. Don't tell me they could have had better because all they would have got in return is another SF in which Marion would be better than. Nets were the only smart team when trading away a big time star because they knew Dallas needed to trade for Kidd and demanded Harris in it no matter what.

[Ballings7]

But just watch Diaw closely and compare that to what Duncan did with the James Jones/Elson thing. It's basically the exact same thing, except Nash was on the sideline so Diaw went further. Diaw saw him go down, and went straight toward Nash, not noticing any fighting going on at all. There were so many gray areas to where he didn't have to get suspended and the rule could still have integrity. The league could have said that he wasn't on the floor when the "altercation" started. Or that he was in the "immediate vicinity" of the bench, since he was on the sideline around where the coaches box is. But no, it's not about fairness, as you would like to believe. As Stu Jackson said, "it's not about fairness, it's about correctness."

Stu Jackson said that didn't deserve a suspension.

The Suns countered by saying that Duncan and Bruce Bowen were guilty of a similar leaving-the-bench offense in Game 4's first half when San Antonio's Francisco Elson fell on the Suns' James Jones after a dunk. That play was also reviewed, but Jackson -- while conceding that Duncan "should not have been on the playing court" -- said that the league determined there was "no cause for the suspension rule" to be applied because the Elson-Jones tangle was not deemed to be an altercation.

Duncan didn't leave the area of the bench. He and Bowen went onto the court a bit, but it wasn't away from vicinity of it. It was right in front of the bench.

Diaw got suspended because of the way he reacted and ran over there. Away from the bench, and right near the area of the situation (Nash on the floor around the middle of the sideline). The altercation with Bell happened almost immediately after, and Diaw had to be pulled away as things escalated. I know what Diaw's intent was, just Nash, but if he reacted better he wouldn't of got suspended. He stood out in that whole schmozz, and that forced the NBA into the picture.

But NBA executive vice president of basketball operations Stu Jackson told reporters in a conference call after announcing the suspensions that the league's longstanding policy of invoking its leave-the-bench rule without considering additional factors made the Suns' suspensions automatic.

"A precedent wasn't necessary here," Jackson said. "The rule with respect to leaving the bench area during an altercation is very clear.

"Historically, if you break it, you will get suspended, regardless of what the circumstances are."

Jackson added that Stoudemire and Diaw, in the league's estimation, were "about 20 to 25 feet away from their seats" and headed "towards the altercation" before Suns assistant coaches scrambled them back to the bench.

And again, other than Horry, none of the Spurs from the bench or on the court did anything. The Suns simply needed to react better.

Sarver added that the "first thing on my agenda" for next season will be making a push at ownership level to have the leave-the-bench rule re-examined. Sarver also said that NBA commissioner David Stern has canceled a schedule appearance in Phoenix for Wednesday night's Game 5.

Jackson said the league would consider re-evaluating the policy for next season "if a change is warranted" but insisted that "right now that line is very clear."

"The rule is the rule," Jackson said.

"It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness."

Jackson added: "The purpose of the rule is to prevent the escalation of these types of incidents and in turn protect the health and safety of our players and diminish the chance of serious injury [for] our players."

The owners weren't on board with Sarver this past summer.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... id=2871615

And Diaw would have made an impact on Game 5, period. KT played 36 or 38 minutes and had to be pulled at the end of the game, so the Suns had James Jones guarding Duncan. And Pat Burke got minutes in the first half.

I just don't buy that about Diaw.

He could of had a stand-out game, plus Amare not being there - but, with how Diaw was in that series (not a factor, two decent games G2/3), I doubt he would of made an impact worth mentioning. He also could of got hurt or got into foul trouble.

Regardless of opinion, it's a who knows situation because he didn't play. There are things for both sides.

Again, you have yet to show me a time when the Spurs have had as key an injury in an important series and still went on to win the championship. It doesn't happen, and that's why they don't repeat (that and the existence of other, better teams being healthy in regard to the Lakers). The difference is they've been good for 9 years, while the Suns have only been championship contenders for 3.

Yup, and injuries are part of having ordinary luck, as is for every team. I have acknowledged the Suns injuries as running into bad luck (2006).

But, Joe Johnson being there for the whole Spurs series wouldn't of changed things much, as I said maybe one game, and maybe not even at all. The Suns lackings as a team combined with the Spurs ability and experience was and is the main thing. Joe Johnson is a very good player, but he wasn't going to push that series to 7 games or win the series.

You really have a limited, illusory perspective, if you think Joe Johnson would of made a significant series extending, or even winning, difference against the Spurs in 2005. Anybody who thinks that does. Just compare the two teams.

[bjebaz]

You don't know what would have happened had Joe been in the lineup. Maybe what you said would have happened, maybe not. You're a Spurs homer though, so I don't really take anything you say in this regard seriously. And 2005 was bad luck, at least compared to the Spurs. Who did they lose in that series? I don't recall anyone. If they had equal luck as you say, then Ginobli could have been lost while Joe was healthy, and that would have been "equal." Dumb. The Spurs were healthy, the Suns weren't, that's a fact.

Regarding Diaw, he would have made an impact, that's a fact. It might have been bad, I don't know, but a fresh KT against Duncan at the end of the game, along with Burke not playing, makes a difference.

You're again looking at what Diaw did through homer glasses. Watch the replay, watch the direction he was walking, watch his eyes. He didn't even know anything was going on. He had "to be pulled away" because of the rule, not because of him being near getting into a fight. As I said earlier, the only reason he went closer to Nash than Duncan went to Elson was because Nash was on the sideline, Elson was on the middle of the floor. I'm sure if Nash had been in the middle of the floor, Diaw wouldn't have gone there. People say "rules are rules," but as I explained before there was enough of a gray area with him that his suspension was not necessary.

You act as if the Spurs blew out the Suns or something. If I recall correctly, the Suns were ahead after 3 quarters of every game in that series. You don't think a 40 minute per game player, a guy who shot 54% from 3 in the games he did play that series, while playing a hell of a lot better defense than anyone not named Marion, would have made a difference? That's ridiculous.

The Spurs won, that's fine. They caught breaks that the Suns didn't. Maybe they would have beaten a fully healthy team, maybe they wouldn't. And again, you still haven't responded to my challenge to find a Spurs championship team who has lost a key player in a key series.

You act as if I'm saying this because I'm a Suns homer. I'm also a Duke fan. They've had to catch breaks to win their championships, I'll admit that. You seem to think that the Spurs don't need breaks, that they're so dominant they'd win anyway. That's false. Let's see how they do this year in a stacked West.

And finally Diaw "needed to react better"? That's just asinine. He ran straight toward his teammate to help him up after he got knocked down. I don't think someone could act better than that.

[Amen316]

Look Im an NBA fan which means I am a Suns fan which they changed the way the game is being played in this era. So many teams are now realizing the importance of a good point guard. And pushing the ball when the opposition doesnt hustle back. However this team is now in its twilight and the spark that made them so special for all accounts is gone. They seem like every other team in the NBA.
For that matter I think the Golden State Warriors and the New Orleans Saints are diagramed and running the system better "now" than the Suns are "now".
It wouldnt take alot to get the Suns back on track so dont think I mean their washed up, but this season has produced very little to show they are still a near great team.