FUBAR

In this case, it means fouled up beyond all recognition.

Anytime a team shoots and makes twice as many free throws as the opposition, usually the team going to the line more wins. There was a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth in Utah last night, and a Jerry Sloan ejection, but the Jazz have no one to blame but themselves. Especially in the second half, there were key times where the Jazz had the opportunity to go ahead in the game, but turned the ball over repeatedly. Both Carlos Boozer and AK-47 had trouble throwing outlet passes, and Deron Williams--who was still very good last night--could not catch a break when he penetrated and tried to create contact. I think the Spurs got the benefit from some calls, especially since Duncan got some ticky-tack fouls called in Game 3, but when it came down to crunch time, the Jazz simply didn't get it done.

Now for the real meaning of FUBAR. As I was watching the Jazz-Spurs last night, I decided to browse to the KFAN web site and check their on-demand audio section. Because of work, I usually don't get to tune into Chad Hartman, and sure enough, he had Jim Petersen as an in-studio guest last week, right after the NBA lottery selections. Anyone reading my contributions to Britt Robson's blog in the past knows I disagree with Petersen on just about everything. I've been told he's a great guy, but please as a public figure, I find him to be arrogant, a homer commentator, and really wrong on most issues related to pro basketball. What I heard from him last night was again one more reason for the Wolves NOT to consider him for any coaching or front-office position.

First, let's start with his defense of the Diaw-Amare suspensions in the Suns-Spurs game. Jim Pete mentions how Stern was absolutely right in his decision to suspend those two; bringing up--as Stern did--the "punch", Kermit Washington's vicious smack to Rudy T's face. David Stern is the boss, and therefore has the right to interpret the rule, but here's why their stated rationale is disingenuous. "The Punch" occurred in 1977. The NBA leaving the bench rule was adopted before the ‘94-’95 season. So, where was the concern for players during those missing years?

The current rule is not a direct result of that incident, it was an attempt to try and maintain order during an increasingly fractious and contentious period of the league. They had an image to protect after all, and it was getting worse at that time. So for Jim Pete and the Commish to defend it on "The Punch" is ludicrous. That's what spin artists do these days. They bring up the worst possible scenario or example to illuminate the point, instead of actually intelligently talking through the issue. It's flat out wrong not to punish the instigators more than players who broke the letter of the law by leaving the bench, but not the spirit of the law by going back to the bench and not getting involved. Isn't that the intended result of all these rules, not getting involved in a fight and throwing a punch?

The second issue is in his assessment that the top need for the Wolves is a big small forward or in hoops vernacular, a "three".

What?!

You've got a soft front-court with no offensive rebounding to speak of, no interior defense, very little shot blocking, and you're saying our primary need is a big SF? Let's review. Here's a guy that was spinning Mark Blount to be the second best center in the Western Conference at one time and a guy who advocated the signing of Mike James. Just like his right wing brethren, when has Jim Pete been correct about anything in the couple of years? Jeff Green as the Wolves #1? Please, not another wing man.

This is the true definition of FUBAR.