Conflicted rooting interests

I'll be the first one to admit that my rooting interests change in a heartbeat. Team loyalty is not my specialty. The Packers and Brewers are the only teams that I have always been a consistent, die hard fan of. I have been a fan of the Steelers, Bucks and Michigan football for almost as long as I can remember, but my passion and dedication for those teams has fluctuated largely throughout the years (usually correlating with those teams' success). The other exception is Marquette basketball, but that's heavily influenced by the fact that I am a Marquette alum.

You could call me a fairweather fan, and to some extent I am guilty as charged because I do lose interest in my teams when they are losing. But the main cause of my flimsy fanhood is that I cheer for players, and collections of players, rather than particular organizations. In the 90s, you would have been hard-pressed to find a bigger Pacers fan outside of Indiana than I was. But the team I loved was made up of Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, the Davis "brothers," Mark Jackson and the rest. I could give a damn less about the Pacers today. In the same manner, I have always cheered against teams who had players that I hated. The Cowboys of the 90s were easy to hate because Aikman and Irvin were easy to hate (it didn't hurt that they kept knocking the Packers out of the playoffs). My hatred for Roger Clemens has led directly to my hatred for whatever team he was playing for.

Once in a while, there is conflict caused by players I like and players I dislike playing on the same team: A-Rod and Jeter, Pujols and Eckstein, Garnett and Spreewell. But never before has the conflict been this great.

Shaq, perhaps my all-time favorite athlete, was traded to a contender! Hooray, I'll be able to cheer on the Big Aristotle in the playoffs! Oh, if only it were that easy. But it's not. Because, see, there's this other player on Shaq's new team that I kind of don't like. I mean, I really don't like him. I've made it very clear how much I don't like him. And it especially enrages me that he is never criticized by the sports media. So how can I bring myself to cheer for any team he is a part of?

What's more, my second favorite player in the NBA (yes, more than Wade, LeBron or Agent 0, and yes I was a HUGE Lakers fan in their most recent Championship days) had just got himself some all-star help in Pau Gasol, giving me a contender to cheer for in the West.

At first, I brushed it off, saying, "Shaq's got nothing left. He's a shell of what he used to be. He's not even the same player that I fell in love with. I can cheer against the Suns without feeling like I'm cheering against the 'real' Shaq."

Then came his press conference, and those sound clips that made him so damn loveable in the first place:

"You just don't really want to get me upset. When I'm upset, I'm known to do certain things -- like win championships."

And, as a Shaq fan, I want him to be right. I want him to prove everyone wrong, find a reserve fuel tank and, as he said, "Get ready to play another 10 years."

In a perfect world, Steve Nash would suffer a season-ending injury before the playoffs, and Shaq would lead the Suns to a championship averaging 30 points and 15 boards in the playoffs. Also, in a perfect world, I would get paid millions of dollars a year to watch porn and drink beer...oh, and there would be no hunger, poverty or any of that shitty stuff.

In the slightly more realistic world, I'm hoping that any success that comes to the Suns will be attributed properly to the appropriate players, whoever they may be. Alas, we all know that the gritty, under-sized white guy always gets more credit than he deserves.

Read more...

Steve Nash is a magician

I swear (fingers crossed, just in case) that this is my last (probably) post about Steve Nash and his general overratedness (but to be fair, he is really overrated). But seriously, the dude deserves the title of escape artist for squirming out of the "Can't Win When It Matters" shackles.

This is the shame of David Stern's suspensions. The headline across ESPN after San Antonio won was something along the lines of SPURS WIN* (not that they're trying to influence public opinion or anything). The Spurs won...kinda...there are a lot of what-ifs...the Suns could have (should have?) won.

Where are the questions of whether Steve Nash can ever get to the championship? Where are the columns suggesting that maybe it's not possible to win a championship with absolutely no defense? Where is any criticism of the Suns?

Lost in a pile of what-ifs.

Of course, we can't blame Mr. No-Rings-but-plenty-of-MVPs for how the series played out. It's not like he's actively suggesting that the series should have an asterisk.

"I can sit up here and complain about it after the fact... I guess cry about it after the fact,"

But, of course, you're not going to, right?

"But it's tough not to just think forever what would have happened if this stupid rule didn't get in the way of this series. There's no guarantees of anything, but to come this far and put this much into a season and for us to be without two key guys for Game 5 for nothing we instigated -- and for not either one of them having a malicious tone in their offense -- will forever haunt us."

Wow. That sounds a lot like crying after the fact.

"But I don't want to cry about it after the fact. The Spurs played great."

Let's review: I don't want to cry after the fact --> waaaaaaaaaah, we got screwed! waaaaaaaaah! --> seriously, I'm not going to cry after the fact

Not that I can really blame Nash for playing this up. I too would be trying to distract people from the fact that once again you have fallen short of the NBA Finals. I too would want to pawn the Game 5 loss off on the easy suspension excuse before people looked at the box score and realized that you were 1-for-8 in the fourth quarter of that game (including a ridiculously bad final attempt with plenty of ticks left on the clock).

Look, it was a bad break for the Suns, no doubt. But to question the legitimacy of the series is stupid, because it ignores so many other factors.

First, the Suns (not Horry) initiated the brief scuffle. All Horry did was give a hard foul, one that he said he would do again if in the same situation. Hard fouls happen all the time in playoff basketball, and are usually met with some words and glares from the opposing team. But when you race at a guy with your fists clenched like a drunken frat boy, you are raising it to a new level. Did Stoudamire and Diaw have ill intent when they came off the bench? It certainly didn't appear so. They looked to be taking preventive roles. But if the on-court Suns had not raised the level to where something needed to be prevented, none of this would have happened.

Second, I don't want to hear this bullshit about "If Amare Stoudamire had played, the Suns would have won game 5. Period. No argument." If the hip check incident had not happened, or had the incendiary suspensions not been handed out, game 5 is a completely different game.

(Warning: tangent) This is something that has always bugged me about post-game analysis in general. The idea that the addition of a injured/suspended star into a game would simply add a certain amount of points to that teams total. You can't say (so-and-so injured superstar) would have made that catch/shot/pass/goal/etc. if he had played, because that player would have been treated differently by the defense than his replacement. The entire strategy of a game changes entirely when you take out a key element like Amare Stoudamire. To assume that the insertion of a star player automatically guarantees you positive results is absurd. Just ask the Rockets or Nuggets.

Would the Suns have stood a better chance with Stoudamire? Certainly. Would they have won the game? Don't know. But guess what? They had every chance to win the game without him. I know, I know, they were tired and worn too thin because they only had six players. I'm not buying that excuse because these are professional athletes, and these are the playoffs. Endurance should not be much of an issue, at least not so much of an issue that you blow an 8-point lead in five minutes. Remember, Kobe and Shaq played virtually every minute of every game in their title run.

Of course, the NBA commentators have to have something to talk about while we all wait around for the Spurs and Pistons to trudge through the most uneven conference finals in recent memory (I would love to be proven wrong here). So we're going to hear the same Suns-got-screwed, asterisk-season montage for the next week or so.

And there sits Steve Nash, a significant part of six legitimate playoff teams that had their chance and blew it. There he sits with everyone's pity--pity that the Suns got screwed, pity that he didn't win his third MVP, pity that he hurt his nose--and nobody's criticism. Well, except mine.

You can always count on YCS to be the voice of cynicism in the sea of feel-good media romances.

Read more...

More ragging on everybody's favorite Canadian

I will not stop.

Here are some, uh, interesting post-game comments from Steve Nash:

"We have to be a little hungrier. I think some of us just didn't have the fire it takes to beat a championship team."

Besides using several meaningless cliches to say "We lost," this is coming dangerously close to throwing your teammates under the bus. Personally, I think it's there, since he is clearly not including himself in this anonymous group of "some of us." But I want a second opinion, since my disproportional hatred for Steve Nash is matched only by my disproportional hatred for Brady Quinn. The only thing that might save him is that it's not obvious who he's referring to since no one on the Suns had a particularly bad game, which might actually make it worse.

What do you say YCS Nation? Does this qualify as throwing your teammates under the bus?

Read more...

The rules don't apply to Steve Nash

Steve Nash is currently dripping (literally dripping) blood from his nose, and somehow they keep letting him back on the court.

I'm screaming so hard at the TV that I'm about to get a bloody nose myself.

I fucking hate Steve Nash.

Read more...

It's time to hate on another undersized white guy

Well now that the NBA regular season is over, I’m sure two NBA-less days are just driving everyone crazy. So it’s time to go back to one of the earlier discussions that kicked off YCS a year ago: the NBA Steve Nash Award.

Last year, we all argued that Nash did not deserve the award, but he won it anyway. Of course, most of our bitching was after the fact…and most of our bitching was just that: disorganized, whiny bitching. This year, I’m jumping on the topic in time for all the voters to read YCS and be convinced.

First off, forget that he’s won the last two MVPs. Forget that John Stockton put up similar (except better) numbers and never sniffed an MVP. Forget that most of the YCS staff (I say “staff” like we’re paid) has an unnatural hatred for “scrappy” players in general, especially when they’re Canadian. Throw all of that out, because it’s unnecessary noise in what should be a straight comparison between Nash and the other candidates.

Here are eight reasons that Steve Nash is an overrated punk bitch, and NONE of them are “He’s already won two” or “Scrappiness is overrated.”

8. He plays no defense.

Personally, I could end the post right here and be satisfied that I had provided enough evidence to give the MVP to someone else…anyone else. When Sports Illustrated polled the NBA players on who plays the worst defense in the NBA, you know who won? Mr. Team-First himself. This really upsets me, because Nash gets all the glory for being an unselfish player who doesn’t seek out glory. And yet when it comes to the most unselfish, team-oriented aspect of the game, Nash takes a breather. Let Shawn Marion worry about playing D. Let Leandro Barbosa get deflections. Then Nash, who never stepped inside the three-point arc, can lead the fast break and pick up another assist. And that leads perfectly into my next quibble.

7. Steve Nash’s stats are the benefit of D’Antoni’s European-style offense.

The Suns have built a team to win without defense. The plan is to outscore their opponent every time, and it usually works. A lot of people credit Nash with re-inventing the Suns, but it wasn’t as much him as it was the new offensive system. If you take out any of the key parts (Nash, Amare Stoudemire, Marion, Barbosa, or Raja Bell) the system will suffer greatly. Given a full off-season together with another good point guard like Deron Williams or Chancy Billups, the Suns could be just as good, if not better, than they are with Nash. If you put Nash in a lineup with a different system, or take away the best transition players in the game, I promise you he would not put up the same numbers that he is putting up now. In fact, let’s take a look at those numbers, because they're not as impressive as they initially seem.

6. Turnovers.

Just to repeat myself, Nash’s stats are inflated by the system. More assist opportunities mean more assists. Likewise, more risky passes mean more SportsCenter highlights. They also mean more turnovers.

Here are a few names for you: Chauncey Billups, Chris Paul, Jose Calderon, Jason Kidd, Jason Williams, Steve Blake, Brevin Knight.

See any MVP candidates in there? Me neither. But all of these players had a better assist/turnover ratio than Nash while averaging at least five assists per game.

Everyone loves Nash’s assists, but everyone seems to forget that only Dwight Howard and Eddie Curry had more turnovers than Steve Nash.

5. More inflated stats

I realize that I’m stretching this into three separate reasons, but it’s a big point that affects a lot of misguided perceptions of Nash’s year. A big part of why he won the MVP last year, and is up for it again this year, is that he’s not just dishing the ball; he’s scoring (18.8 pts/game last year and 18.6 this year). Buuuuuuuut, he’s still playing in a run-and-gun system, and that affects his numbers. Nash scores, sure, but it is not a substantial percentage of the Suns scoring. Nash’s 18.6 points per game made up 16.9% of the Suns total scoring this year. Compare:

Dirk Nowitzki: 24.6%
Lebron James: 28.2%
Kobe Bryant: 30.6%
Chauncey Billups: 17.7%
Chris Paul: 18.1%

For the record, that means that Billups and Paul both have better assist-to-turnover ratios AND score a higher percentage of their teams’ points. And I’m not even making an MVP case for either of them (although I think they’re more qualified than Nash).

4. Steve Nash cannot single-handedly take over a game.

…No matter how many times an NBA commentator says, “Nash is just taking over this game.” Nash can take over a game, but he can’t do it single-handedly. Usually when Nash is said to “take over” he is throwing ally-oops to Stoudamire and drive-and-kicking to Raja Bell. He makes great plays, but without Stoudamire to throw it down, or without Bell to stroke the three, there is no basket. Of course, like any shooter, he can hit a couple big threes in a row, and I guess that’s sort of taking over. But it’s “taking over” the way that Steve Kerr took over. The way that Kobe, Dirk, Wade or Lebron can take over a game is a superhuman, individual feat. The “selfishness” of such a take-over can turn some people off, but there is nothing more frustrating to an opposing team than “just give it to Kobe/Dwyane/Lebron/Dirk and clear the lane.”

3. Bill Walton picked Nash for MVP

And you have to be an insider to see all of his season-award picks! No explanation for why anyone wins any of them. Just the awards and the names. By Bill Walton. For an annual fee. That’s a reason, kids. That’s a legitimate reason to vote against Nash.

2. Kobe Bryant

Of course, the best reason to not give someone an MVP is that another player is more deserving. Most people see it as a two-horse race, and once again Kobe is getting screwed by being left out of the discussion. After all, most years the MVP race includes the scoring leader, especially when that player’s name is in the same sentence as Wilt Chamberlain. I’m not going to go into it too much, but Kobe is more qualified than Nash. The reason I’m not going to go into it is…

1. Dirk Nowitzki

Finally, you’re 2006-07 MVP. I am optimistic about his chances, but I think he’s going to win for all the wrong reasons. Some people vote for “the best player on the best team” and some people refuse to put Nash in the company of Chamberlain, Bill Russell and Larry Bird by giving him a third MVP. While I will support anyone who does not vote for Nash, these are some pretty dumb reasons.

The real reason is that Dirk does much more for the Mavs than Nash does for the Suns (like rebound and play defense). Dirk also passes the “Who would you start your team with?” test, as well as the “Where would his team be without him?” test with better results than Nash. That’s why Dirk should win the MVP instead of Nash.

Plus all the reasons above.

Read more...