Mamba Time

Down 20 midway through the 3rd quarter? Forget about it! My name's Kobe Bryant and I own crunch time. One of the sweetest game one victories I have ever witnessed and Ginobili having a miserable game just put a cherry on it. Stat of the playoffs: Phil Jackson is 40-0 in playoff series when winning game one.

Have to love that any of the remaining four teams in the playoffs have legit shots at winning the title. If this Laker-Spurs series carries on this way, it'll be hard to top.


Speaking of excellent series matchups, I don't think there's been a better Stanley Cup Finals matchup since Colorado v New Jersey in 2001, potentially when Pittsburgh hooked up with Chicago in 1992. I'm talking strictly about when two heavyweights collide and this Pens-Wings Finals has the potential to be the most exciting, most entertaining of the last 20 years. Yowza! I wasn't a believer at the start of the season, but I'm taking Pittsburgh. In SIX! Fleury has just looked phenomenal. The big Red Wing machine might have trouble cracking this one, especially having yet to face a squad as offensively gifted as themselves.

A dynasty? Puh-lease

This one goes out to all the short-sighted and forgetful honks aware only of the present moment, grasping at straws: Don't take a whiz out of a third-story window and tell me it's raining. Obviously, it's not raining. Just like, obviously, these "4 titles in 9 years" Spurs aren't a dynasty. I'm sorry, but that's a desperate claim from a few desperate fans and a large contingent of desperate media personalities desperately feeling the need to justify this NBA Finals -- possibly the worst ever.

Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star-Ledger seems to be the only one I can find who has any sense about him. He queries, "So why don’t the Spurs connect? Why were these finals a TV ratings disaster and a challenge to watch? Because sports fans aren’t stupid. They can sniff an impostor even when we in the media try to convince them otherwise." But Whitlock only scratches the surface, here, and focuses on the wrong thing. Namely, the attractiveness of the Spurs, which is certainly a factor, but a very minor one at that. He gets warmer, though, when he starts talking about the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

THREE BIG REASONS WHY THE SPURS ARE NOT A DYNASTY

1. 1999
Oh, how quickly people forget what a ridiculous "season" this was. Two things: A) Hyper-accelerated 50-game season (that would be a sprint, compared to the standard NBA regular season marathon). B) 8th-seeded Ewing-less Knicks in the Finals. Can you discount the fact that the Spurs won the title this season? No, of course not. But you sure as hell can put an asterisk there. Yet as we get further and further away from that horrendous 1999 blur, it seems to gain more and more validity. It shouldn't. No reasonable person who follows basketball will put '99 on the same platform as '03, '05, or '07. Nevermind that San Antonio was pretty much the only team to miraculously escape a two-month regular season with no injuries, how about their opponent in the Finals? An 8-seed?!? If that doesn't paint '99 as an anomoly, I don't know what does. If you're going to bring up the words "dynasty" and "Spurs" in the same sentence, I will only begin to listen to an argument that starts out, "Three titles in the past five years." Anyone clinging to 1999 when discussing the Spurs as a dynasty should immediately and repeatedly whack themselves in the face with a frying pan. Seriously, you have no business talking sports. Go away.

2. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers
This one is contingent on whether or not you believe 1999 deserves to be mentioned when talking about whether the Spurs are dynastic or not. If you stupidly do, answer me this: How can you be a dynasty over such a period of time when, largely, you weren't even the best team? 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004. I've got news for you, that's four years that the Spurs were nowhere. Not even close. Those Shaq Laker teams were more dominant and more impressive than any of the Spurs incarnations to date. So when comparing greatness, sure you can talk about how good the Spurs are, but don't kid yourselves that they were in the Lakers' class. Put down the crack pipe, turn on ESPN Classic, and see what I'm talking about.

3. Have yet to win back-to-back titles
Truthfully and honestly, I am still in shock that San Antonio lost to Dallas in the 2nd round in 2006. It's bizarre even to think about. So while I still feel like the Spurs were the best team in '06 (even though they showed they weren't), almost winning back-to-back or three in a row isn't the same as actually doing it. To me, that's a problem when talking about whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty. The Cowboys, The Patriots, the Yankees, the Lakers, they all won back-to-back and three in four years. That's dominance. Sustained dominance. The Spurs have been consistently good and have deserved all the titles they've won (even if they were against some of the sloppiest teams to reach an NBA Finals, 2005 excepted. Although 2005 had to be the ugliest basketball ever until this year), but they've never been able to string two in a row. I'm sorry, but until that happens, you're not a dynasty and you don't belong in the discussion with Russell, Jordan, Magic, and even Shaq. Now, if SA win it next season, then we're talking.

This year's Finals blew.

Undoing Golden State's work

No, that's not a reference to the Warriors going down to Utah in five games. What Golden State accomplished in the first round (hell, up through game 3 of the Jazz series) jump-started the once-flatlining pulse of the NBA. But the Association has a knack for shooting itself in the foot and with the stupidity of the decision to suspend Amare "Shiver-Me-Timbers" Stoudemire and Boris Diaw for tonight's game against the Spurs, are dangerously close to eliminating the excitement that was initiated by the Warriors in round one and built upon by this tenacious Suns/Spurs series. The Wall Street Journal covers all views on why this was a bonehead move by David Stern & co. Know what the NBA hasn't had in several years? A rivalry. Guess it doesn't want one, either. After all, who cares about passion, intensity, and bad blood? Certainly no one interested in television ratings or fan approval, that's for sure.

Memo to the NBA: Stop worrying about "spreading the game" in some jerkhole village in China and get back to focusing on the here and now. Your product will be the better for it.