Idiotville

On the internet, you're bound to find stupid things. Writers these days are forced to come up with clever angles on boring stories, and we're as guilty as anyone else.

Still, Lang Whitaker's article at si.com today is unbelievably bad. Go, take a read, then come back.

Finished?

Okay, here's some of his logic on why the Spurs will win:

Peace: The Spurs have it, the Sonics don't. Huh? The Sonics had exactly 3 days of conflict in the entire season. Not exactly the '04 Lakers.

Desire: The Spurs have it. Really? Where was it yesterday? Did they leave it in Brent Barry's hotel room?

Understanding: The Spurs edge the Sonics again, since they “know their roles.” Give me a break. If any team in the history of this league understands understanding it’s these Sonics. Has anyone complained about minutes the whole year? Other than Ray Allen a few times, no one has bitched about anything.

Then there’s this classic: “When the Spurs lose, they either lose by a few points right at the end, or they get behind early and just kind of pack it in. They did the former in Game 3 and the latter in Game 4.” So, the Spurs either lose by a couple of points, or they get blown out. Um, Lang, what other way to lose is there?

Finally, gander at this: “All season [Seattle has] been Phoenix-lite, a run-and-gun team with fewer outside threats than the Suns but more interior depth and hustle.” In reality, all season experts have been calling the Sonics a run-and-gun team, but they’re completely wrong. This team doesn’t run and gun. If they get a shot early, they’ll take it, but McMillan has gotten this team to sit on the ball until late in the clock if their shot isn’t there. Take a look at 82games.com, and you’ll see that the Sonics take a higher than average number of shots late in the shot clock.

I have no problem with people saying the Spurs are going to win. Heck, if I was wagering $100 on this series, I’d probably take SA, because they’ve got 1) home court advantage, and 2) Tim Duncan. What I have a problem with is people being lazy and not bothering to research their articles before forming an opinion. Lang, if you want to say the Spurs will win, great. But next time spend more than 10 minutes researching something before you throw it out there.