Sunday, May 20, 2007

Stern Right, But Defensive

The NBA suspended two Phoenix Sun starters for leaving the bench, just like they did to the Knicks ten years ago, and the depleted Suns team eventually succumbed to San Antonio despite a valiant effort, just like the Knicks fell to the Heat in 1997.

The media and fans scrutinized, who claim the suspensions were not warranted, or that they should suspend some Spurs to equal the playing field. Dan Patrick put forth these arguments while interviewing Stern last week, and was left sounding almost as stupid as the positions he took. Stern did not need to defend his decision, it was clear cut. There are rules, Stoudemire and Diag broke the rules, there are set penalties for the infractions, the penalties were enforced. End of story. Besides what could he say, especially after what happened to the Knicks ten years ago.

Patrick’s interview was amusing. Stern, apparently feeling chippy after the all the questions, sounded defensive and aggressive, with a frustrated undertone, all at once. He barked back at the moronic questioning with a tone as if it was the hundredth time he answered the question. Each Stern answer left Patrick backpedaling further, changing to his kiss up voice, explaining why he had to ask the question, and at the same time trying to make sure his relationship with the commish was preserved. Patrick sounded like a grade-schooler pleading with his parents. He was almost apologetic. He would throw the question like a jab, then retreat and apologize. At least when Barkley makes a stupid assertion he stands behind it.

The only good point Patrick brought up was how the aggressor, San Antonio, benefited from the infraction. Stern countered, again correctly, stating that the Suns lost their cool. The rule stinks, but it’s not Stern’s fault. The rule has been in place for years and nobody did anything or said anything until now. If it was that big a problem, someone should have spoken up.


Post a Comment

<< Home