May 17, 2005

NASH, VAN GUNDY ISSUES SUPERCEDE PLAYOFF EXCITEMENT

      Houston Rockets’ coach Jeff van Gundy certainly stirred the pot up nice and thick with his statement that an official had informed him that there was a conspiracy against his center Yao Ming.  A week later certain sportswriters and talking heads tried to stir up a similar pot by suggesting that Steve Nash’ MVP victory was racially slanted.  These issues succeeded in taking center stage and pushing the playoff action to the background.  And unfortunately, all those that were consumed with Van Gundy’s comments and the issues surrounding it almost missed one of the more exciting playoff series—Dallas- Houston—that has been contested in years.

       First, let’s deal with Van Gundy.  His initial statement implied that there was an on-court official, not working in the playoffs, that had called to let the Houston coach know about an attempt by NBA officials to monitor Yao’s movements closely through the playoff games.  Van Gundy did not back away from these comments and further intimated that his internationally known center was being targeted making it very difficult for his team to beat Dallas.   The statements caused such a furor within the NBA community that commissioner David Stern levied a hefty $100,000 fine against Van Gundy and threatened the Houston coach with a possible lifetime ban.  The Commissioner had little choice but to attack with such ferocity since the comments were so inflammatory as to suggest there was a league agenda—in effect cheating—that could tarnish not only the image of the league but also create questions as to its legitimacy.

       To surmise that the on-court officials can be bought, coerced, coaxed or convinced is akin to believing that the game is crooked and the outcome can be influenced by outside sources.   There is no issue larger than the sanctity of the sport and to even make an off-hand comment—of which this was not—is subject to serious league sanctions.  There are always questions about whether the officials are competent enough to be placed in such a position of power, but errors and mistakes are part of the game, from all areas, and from all positions.  Pre-conceived notions and agendas are, however, not allowed to have any place within the context of the sport.  This is a flawed notion.

       How many times do we hear announcers utter phrases like “he got the veteran’s call”, or the “superstar call” and, for youngsters, “once he establishes himself he’ll get that call”.  If fouls are called against those with lesser reputations then aren’t the officials exacting a smaller version of an agenda?  Yet, this form of officiating happens every game and is seemingly accepted, if not encouraged, by the league. 

       It was somewhat ironic when Van Gundy came out, after the series loss to the Mavericks, and stated that it was a league official offering an opinion, certainly that official’s last once Stern identifies him, and not an on-court official.  In the end it simply looks as if the coach was protecting his star player and hoping to get some favourable calls his way during the playoffs.  The league has closed the case and unless Van Gundy, or another coach or player, makes similar intimations then the matter, at least publicly, is over.  Needless to say the matter is likely being handled privately since the league can’t afford even the slightest hint of impropriety.

            On the matter of impropriety—to even offer the slightest suggestion that awarding Nash the MVP was done with ulterior motives in mind is to denigrate not only the individual but also the game itself.  To assume that Nash won for any reason other than his ability to turn a previously putrid Phoenix team into a league power is asinine.  To add race to the issue is simply a cry for attention—a means of creating controversy to draw attention to oneself.

       There were two obvious candidates for this year’s MVP trophy—and whether Nash won or Shaq won there should not have been any dispute.  Both had joined new teams and had taken those teams to the top of their respective conferences.  Shaq, by far, is the most dominant player in the game and it is ludicrous that he has won only one MVP award.  But then he is simply a victim of his success (and size).  Everyone assumes that as the biggest and most imposing presence in the game that Shaq will command a certain amount of attention anyway, and the award typically goes to the one player that has vaulted his team to the top of the standings.  Shaq’s teams were always at the top anyway. 

      Nash’ presence allowed the Suns to play the up-tempo style of basketball desired by head coach Mike D’Antoni.  Nash came in and pushed those around him into having career seasons—Amare Stoudamire is now considered one of the great rising talents in the game.  The Suns won 29 games last season—added Nash and Quentin Richardson and this year won 62 games.  If that isn’t enough o qualify Nash to be considered for the MVP then there shouldn’t be an award at all. 

      Nash is good for the game.  The way the Phoenix Suns play basketball is good for the game.  That is not to say that Shaq isn’t good for the game, but then Shaq has been playing—mostly—at an elite level for a number of years and when the trade was made it was widely considered to be enough to vault the Heat in among the NBA’s elite clubs.  Nobody thought that Nash’ signing would add 33 wins to Phoenix’ record. 

       Hopefully, now that these two issues have seemingly been laid to rest fans can turn their complete attention to the playoff action.  Oops, what’s this, the labour talks have broken off and there might be a lockout?  I guess we’re going to have to talk about that now.