Whom Does Ric Bucher Look Like?

I'm thinking either the guy who played Kenny Banya on Seinfeld or Richie Cunningham-era Ron Howard.

Anyway, Bucher's latest column on espn.com centers on this rather dubious contention:

NBA commandant Stu Jackson could have very well done the Dallas Mavericks a favor by suspending Jerry Stackhouse for Sunday's Game 5 of the 2006 NBA Finals.

Hmm, let's see where this goes.

If the results of some other playoff suspensions are any indication, being a man down can be just the catalyst to get a team, collectively, to man up.

Ooh, that's catchy! I'll stash that one away for a rainy day. The next sentence:

And rest assured, that's exactly what the Mavs need to do if they don't want to be forever haunted by the fourth-quarter passivity that cost them Game 3.

I was neither restless nor in need of assurance before reading that sentence, but I'll take his word anyway.

As for his point, the "that" here evidently refers to "manning up" (not actually used in noun form in the previous sentence, thereby making "that" what my high school English teacher called an "unclear pronoun." Thank you Mr. K. on behalf of our readers for making me obsessively critical of writing style. But I digress.) If I'm not mistaken, "manning up" refers, in the basketball vernacular, to playing defense.

So is Ric Bucher saying that losing very good players causes playoff teams to play better defense? Or was he just really psyched to use that play on words?

While Stackhouse certainly has been a valuable part of the Mavs' success, he doesn't provide anything they can't get elsewhere. Keith Van Horn is a considerably better 3-point shooter. Adrian Griffin is a better defender. Marquis Daniels is, at times, an equal slasher.

Coach Avery Johnson: Keith, Adrian, Marquis--I'd like you to meet a new member of our training staff, Dr. Archibald B. Insano.

Van Horn: What's he do, coach?

Johnson: He's a leading expert in the field of genetic spliceamitology.

Griffin: Spliceama-what-ogy? That sounds like some gibberish, coach.

Johnson: Ah, ah, ah--you many think so, but he's here to help us through this Stackhouse suspension.

Daniels: How's that, coach?

Johnson: He's developed a way to take your slashing, Kieth's shooting, and Adrian's defense and put it all into one player--a superhuman talent slightly better than Jerry Stackhouse!

Griffin, Daniels, and Van Horn together: Wow!

Dr. Insano: Just realize--you will no longer exist as individual beings with separate minds and souls. You will be but one.

Johnson: ...For the team!

All: For the team!

The intangible element that Stackhouse has given them is why he knocked Shaquille O'Neal sideways for looking to get cute with J-Will at Dallas' expense. But if the Mavs are going to reassert themselves, they need that attitude to come from their starters, not a sixth man. If his absence motivates Josh Howard, Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Terry and Devin Harris to "push back" and "punch first" as Johnson has exhorted them to do, that will be worth more than if they had their full squad for Game 5.

I don't know; this whole paragraph strikes me as unsubstantiated flim-flam that pretends to make a point but just fills space with nothing accountable.

Why a player is suspended can have a lot to do with the motivating effect it has. Robinson, bounced for a substance violation, is a morale breaker.

Sloppy writing. Is Robinson a "morale breaker" or was his suspension? (And yes, I'm aware that "Sloppy writing" is a fragment. If you'd like me to justify its use, I'd be glad to.)

Terry's suspension for punching Michael Finley in or near his lower extremities after tying up a loose ball isn't much better. There was nothing to be gained by either act. Both, in their own ways, reflect a simple lack of discipline. It's hard to get pumped up to defend a guy's absence or honor for being stupid.

But when a teammate loses his playing privileges for standing up for his team or himself, it can have a galvanizing effect. [Ron] Artest took an inadvertent elbow to the chops from Manu Ginobili before his suspension-provoking payback chuck to the head. [Raja] Bell had been getting knocked around by Kobe Bryant before he had to miss a game for clotheslining Bryant on a cut to the basket. The Kings lost in OT without Artest after being shellacked with him. The Suns picked up their collective intensity and won without Bell.

Do you think sportswriters really know where the term "galvanizing" originates, or do they just hear people use it and repeat it? Bucher doesn't misuse it or anything; it just got me thinking.

Anyway...the Kings went on to win--not merely almost win--two games of that series with Artest back in the lineup. And yes, the Suns did win that game without Bell, but it was in OT, which I guess is basically the same as a Lakers win according to that previous sentence. The Suns also won three other games in that Lakers series with Raja Bell playing, so I'm not sure I get the point.

Also, I love how conveniently and flimsily he tries to differentiate the situations in the first paragraph there from those in the second. Also, he's talking about one playoff season, and also, he's not making sense, and also, the whole argument is gay, so I don't know why I even bothered.