If you've been a San Antonio Spurs fan for long enough, you've heard someone bring up the 2007 playoff series against the Phoenix Suns. It's one of the most controversial series, not just in team history, but probably in NBA history (even though it shouldn't be). The only group that should have a gripe is the Suns fanbase, and that's because fans aren't really expected to be rational for the most part.
By all accounts, Brad Botkin of CBS Sports isn't a fan of the Phoenix Suns, but he [brought up this storied](https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/25-nba-what-ifs-from-last-25-years-lebron-changes-decision-steph-not-a-warrior-derrick-rose-stays-healthy/) part of history anyway. In his article of what ifs, he asked what would have happened had Amar'e Stoudemire and Boris Diaw not been suspended for Game 5 of that series. When answering his own question, he claimed that the Mike D'Antoni-led team would have won that round.
This tickled me when I first read it because there are few things I love more than fans of a rival team squirming due to the pain the Silver and Black caused them. I'm petty like that. When I realized that Botkin was not a Suns fan, the jolly feelings I waded in morphed into slight annoyance.
Claiming the Suns would have beaten the Spurs is just wrong
-----------------------------------------------------------
That series literally went back and forth up until the fifth game. San Antonio won the first and third games while the Suns got the second and fourth. Game 4 is when Robert Horry knocked Steve Nash out of bounds, prompting the outrage from Phoenix's bench. Stoudemire and Diaw were on the bench at the time and came off it, which triggered automatic suspensions.
It was a well-known rule, and they let their emotions get the better of them. So, I have to call the claim that Botkin made that what happened to them was "unfair" a ridiculous thing to say. There's nothing unfair about enforcing a well-known rule.
This was only three years after the Malice at the Palace, when the Pacers and Pistons got into a large fight that involved fans in the crowd. The league became very strict with acts of aggression in the immediate aftermath. It's their fault for forgetting that.
The thought process that Suns apologists have about the situation tells them that since Phoenix only lost Game 5 by three points, they would have won it if they had all of their players and gone on to win the series. That's not really how things work in hypothetical land. If you change one thing, who's to say other things don't change that lead to the same result?
Even if we give Phoenix that game and the back-and-forth rhythm continues, the Spurs win in Game 7. It's also not like the series was over after the fifth game. They played a Game 6 with those guys back, and they lost with Stoudemire giving them 38 points. Diaw put up one single point. Are we being serious here?
The D'Antoni offense was never strong defensively, and had they gone to a Game 7, do we really think the Big 3 would have lost? The last Game 7 San Antonio played was just the year before against Dallas, which was a better defensive team than Phoenix was at the time.
Tim Duncan had 41 points, 15 rebounds, six assists, and three blocks. Tony Parker had 24 points, four rebounds, and five assists. Manu Ginobili posted 23 points, two rebounds, two assists, three steals, and two blocks. Granted, they lost that game, but it took a Herculean effort from the Mavericks with 37 from Dirk Nowitzki, 27 from Jason Terry, and 18 from Josh Howard.
But that Mavs team was better than the Phoenix team we're discussing now, and Avery Johnson was their coach. He was very familiar with the [Spurs and Gregg Popovich](https://airalamo.com/ranking-gregg-popovich-legendary-championship-runs). The Suns were not winning that series, whether they would have gotten one more game under their belt or not. Knock it off.