*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

Same arguments every single year. All conspiracy theories can be dispelled with two words: "The Spurs"

No, when a team is so good that they keep winning, there is nothing anyone can do about it (like Miami dispatching the Knicks in 5 in the 1st round), but in close games, a call here and a call there can influence the outcome of a game (like the Sacramento/LAL debacle in '02). For all you need to know about the Spurs and the league, go back to Game 4 of 2008 against the Lakers. Down 2, the Spurs attempt a 3 for the win, a Laker clearly fouls the Spur...and no call. Now, I do NOT think that Stern ever tells the refs to call games certain ways, but they work for him, and they know what will make him happy, and that is more games, ratings and money. The refs weren't about to get in the way of the Celtics/Lakers NBA Final back in '08, hence the no call on that 3 at the end. A Spurs win would have gotten them back in the series and possibly ruined the magical Boston/LA Final.

I know, right? And how about the way they blatantly handed the Lakers those close games against another small market team, the Thunder, in 2012? That was totally unfair. No way the refs would help the Lakers get eliminated in five games in the conference semifinals in a bunch of close games that could easily turn on a call or two. They're not gonna get in the way of a LeBron/Kobe or Lakers/Celtics Finals, right?

I am not saying it is an exact science, or that it always happens, but there are too many glaring examples to ignore. Or is NBA officiating really just that completely awful? Because it is one or the other (or a combination of the two, which I would lean towards). Also, you keep talking about small markets, but the NBA is a superstar-driven league, and the stars bring out the ratings more than anything most of the time (unless they are non-flashy ones like Duncan in SA). Miami might not be as big a market as NY, but James is the biggest star in the league right now, and he is a guy many will tune in to hopefully see lose, so he is now a ratings magnet. And OKC might be a small market, but Durant and Westbrook are two of the best and most exciting young stars in the league right now, and holding them down would be counterproductive.

 

[TobiasFunke]

One more... People say NBA refs are always terrible - ok. But there are degrees of terrible (note - this is someone else's analysis)

To put it in perspective lets compare last night's game to Lakers/Kings Game6 in 2002 which pretty much everyone agrees is one of the worst officiating jobs ever.

Lakers/Kings Game6:

Lakers took 59 2pt FG attempts, got 40 FT attempts, or 0.67 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Kings took 73 2pt FG attempts, got 25 FT attempts, or 0.34 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Last night:

Celts took 65 2pt FG attempts, got 29 FT attempts, or 0.44 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Heat took 57 2pt FG attempts, got 47 FT attempts, or 0.82 FT attempts per 2pg FG attempt

All of the numbers, no matter how you slice them, add up to the same story

Teams and players that attack the basket aggressively get more FT attempts than teams that settle for jump shots?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Same arguments every single year.

All conspiracy theories can be dispelled with two words: "The Spurs"

No, when a team is so good that they keep winning, there is nothing anyone can do about it (like Miami dispatching the Knicks in 5 in the 1st round), but in close games, a call here and a call there can influence the outcome of a game (like the Sacramento/LAL debacle in '02). For all you need to know about the Spurs and the league, go back to Game 4 of 2008 against the Lakers. Down 2, the Spurs attempt a 3 for the win, a Laker clearly fouls the Spur...and no call. Now, I do NOT think that Stern ever tells the refs to call games certain ways, but they work for him, and they know what will make him happy, and that is more games, ratings and money. The refs weren't about to get in the way of the Celtics/Lakers NBA Final back in '08, hence the no call on that 3 at the end. A Spurs win would have gotten them back in the series and possibly ruined the magical Boston/LA Final.

I know, right? And how about the way they blatantly handed the Lakers those close games against another small market team, the Thunder, in 2012? That was totally unfair. No way the refs would help the Lakers get eliminated in five games in the conference semifinals in a bunch of close games that could easily turn on a call or two. They're not gonna get in the way of a LeBron/Kobe or Lakers/Celtics Finals, right?

I am not saying it is an exact science, or that it always happens, but there are too many glaring examples to ignore. Or is NBA officiating really just that completely awful? Because it is one or the other (or a combination of the two, which I would lean towards). Also, you keep talking about small markets, but the NBA is a superstar-driven league, and the stars bring out the ratings more than anything most of the time (unless they are non-flashy ones like Duncan in SA). Miami might not be as big a market as NY, but James is the biggest star in the league right now, and he is a guy many will tune in to hopefully see lose, so he is now a ratings magnet. And OKC might be a small market, but Durant and Westbrook are two of the best and most exciting young stars in the league right now, and holding them down would be counterproductive.

There are only glaring examples you can't ignore if you ignore the counterexamples, like OKC-Lakers this year. Or the fact that the Spurs somehow overcame this supposed bias to win 4 championships in the Stern era. How did the officials let them win a 5 point game and a 2 point game to get past the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in 6 in 2003? How did they get past the wildly entertaining Phoenix Suns in the semis in '07 with four close wins?Officials make a lot of mistakes in the NBA. Part of that is the quality of the officiating, and part of that is the difficulty of calling the sport as compared to other sports. But there's no conscious on unconscious conspiracy afoot. Make the playoffs enough times and your team will be on both sides of it, meaning that any fan of those elite teams who wants to make the refs a scapegoat for their team's losses can find evidence.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Just to be clear ...

People are suggesting is that the NBA front office is somehow arranging for certain teams to advance in the playoffs for ratings purposes? So they:

(1) allowed the team from the #1 TV market in the country to lose in a five-game series in the first round;

(2) allowed the team from the #2 TV market in the country to get eliminated in six games (almost all of them close and easily turned by a few calls) in the second round in favor of the Western Conference being represented in the Finals by either the team from the #37 TV market or the one from the #45 TV market; and

(3) are now favoring the team from the #16 TV market (with a fan base so weak that needed instructions from the team in order to show up to games on time and cheer for the likes of LeBron James) over the team from the #7 TV market ... a team with a rabid fan base that they also "allowed" to win 17 previous titles?

That's really what people are going with?

I agree that the NBA is not picking who wins and loses and influencing the results. But to simply put the size of market out there is unrealistic. If the Heat make the Finals it wont just be Miami fans watching. Lebron has fans in every city. The same way that while Oklahoma is a much smaller market than LA, Durant, Harden and Westbrook have fans all over the country, not just in OKC.

Sure, but there's no question that from a ratings standpoint the Lakers would be the league's first "pick" if it had one. So you'd think that watching them lose in the Western Conference in six games, many of the close, would be enough evidence that there's no conspiracy. And even though LeBron draws a lot of eyeballs, I really don't think he draws as much as the Celtics, who have a huge fanbase of frontrunning Bostonians plus frontrunning NBA fans from the last 30 years, and also have some stars of their own.

You don't think Lebron James has more fans himself around the World than the Boston Celtics have? Interesting question. James sells a lot of stuff, can't say I ever bought something because it was the official such and such of the Boston Celtics.

 

[ivnabru]

One more... People say NBA refs are always terrible - ok. But there are degrees of terrible (note - this is someone else's analysis)

To put it in perspective lets compare last night's game to Lakers/Kings Game6 in 2002 which pretty much everyone agrees is one of the worst officiating jobs ever.

Lakers/Kings Game6:

Lakers took 59 2pt FG attempts, got 40 FT attempts, or 0.67 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Kings took 73 2pt FG attempts, got 25 FT attempts, or 0.34 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Last night:

Celts took 65 2pt FG attempts, got 29 FT attempts, or 0.44 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Heat took 57 2pt FG attempts, got 47 FT attempts, or 0.82 FT attempts per 2pg FG attempt

All of the numbers, no matter how you slice them, add up to the same story

Teams and players that attack the basket aggressively get more FT attempts than teams that settle for jump shots?

Broussard said the Celts took 25 shots in the paint and the Heat took 26 in Game 2. So I think your jump shooting argument might be a little off for that particular game.That being said the Celts were ahead most of the game, close calls almost always go against whoever is ahead. The Celts are the visiting team, close calls almost always go against the visiting team. The Celts don't have the starpower of the Heat, the calls almost always go to the superstars. I don't think there's any conspiracy, but I do think superstar treatment happens (hell it helps Boston against most teams), I do think home teams have an advantage (again helps Boston half the time) and I do think the trailing team gets the benefit of the doubt because close games are better for the bottom line than blowouts.

 

[TobiasFunke]

One more... People say NBA refs are always terrible - ok. But there are degrees of terrible (note - this is someone else's analysis)

To put it in perspective lets compare last night's game to Lakers/Kings Game6 in 2002 which pretty much everyone agrees is one of the worst officiating jobs ever.

Lakers/Kings Game6:

Lakers took 59 2pt FG attempts, got 40 FT attempts, or 0.67 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Kings took 73 2pt FG attempts, got 25 FT attempts, or 0.34 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Last night:

Celts took 65 2pt FG attempts, got 29 FT attempts, or 0.44 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Heat took 57 2pt FG attempts, got 47 FT attempts, or 0.82 FT attempts per 2pg FG attempt

All of the numbers, no matter how you slice them, add up to the same story

Teams and players that attack the basket aggressively get more FT attempts than teams that settle for jump shots?

Broussard said the Celts took 25 shots in the paint and the Heat took 26 in Game 2. So I think your jump shooting argument might be a little off for that particular game.That being said the Celts were ahead most of the game, close calls almost always go against whoever is ahead. The Celts are the visiting team, close calls almost always go against the visiting team. The Celts don't have the starpower of the Heat, the calls almost always go to the superstars. I don't think there's any conspiracy, but I do think superstar treatment happens (hell it helps Boston against most teams), I do think home teams have an advantage (again helps Boston half the time) and I do think the trailing team gets the benefit of the doubt because close games are better for the bottom line than blowouts.

Here's the shot chart, count them up yourself. I get 22 near the rim for the Heat, 19 for the Celtics, although of course shots taken that are missed but draw fouls aren't counted in these totals so they're not really that useful.It's ALL about style of play. Rondo got 12 free throw attempts, almost twice as many as the two Miami PGs combined. Why? Because the refs were biased, or because he attacked the rim more?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just to be clear ...

People are suggesting is that the NBA front office is somehow arranging for certain teams to advance in the playoffs for ratings purposes? So they:

(1) allowed the team from the #1 TV market in the country to lose in a five-game series in the first round;

(2) allowed the team from the #2 TV market in the country to get eliminated in six games (almost all of them close and easily turned by a few calls) in the second round in favor of the Western Conference being represented in the Finals by either the team from the #37 TV market or the one from the #45 TV market; and

(3) are now favoring the team from the #16 TV market (with a fan base so weak that needed instructions from the team in order to show up to games on time and cheer for the likes of LeBron James) over the team from the #7 TV market ... a team with a rabid fan base that they also "allowed" to win 17 previous titles?

That's really what people are going with?

I agree that the NBA is not picking who wins and loses and influencing the results. But to simply put the size of market out there is unrealistic. If the Heat make the Finals it wont just be Miami fans watching. Lebron has fans in every city. The same way that while Oklahoma is a much smaller market than LA, Durant, Harden and Westbrook have fans all over the country, not just in OKC.

Sure, but there's no question that from a ratings standpoint the Lakers would be the league's first "pick" if it had one. So you'd think that watching them lose in the Western Conference in six games, many of the close, would be enough evidence that there's no conspiracy. And even though LeBron draws a lot of eyeballs, I really don't think he draws as much as the Celtics, who have a huge fanbase of frontrunning Bostonians plus frontrunning NBA fans from the last 30 years, and also have some stars of their own.

You don't think Lebron James has more fans himself around the World than the Boston Celtics have? Interesting question. James sells a lot of stuff, can't say I ever bought something because it was the official such and such of the Boston Celtics.

I don't necessarily think he draws viewers as well as the Celtics do. Take a look and decide for yourself. The 2007 Finals featuring LeBron were a terrible draw, and the best draws of the last decade are the two Lakers-Celtics matchups. Certainly the difference isn't enough that you could reasonably argue that they're cause for an elaborate conspiracy where the calls favor the Heat.

 

[wilked]

Couldn't even leave it alone for 2 hours...

Haha, thought I would be hearing from you Good stuff... So the Spurs are a 4 point dog tonite... Looks like a strong play, anyone else agree?

 

[ivnabru]

One more... People say NBA refs are always terrible - ok. But there are degrees of terrible (note - this is someone else's analysis)

To put it in perspective lets compare last night's game to Lakers/Kings Game6 in 2002 which pretty much everyone agrees is one of the worst officiating jobs ever.

Lakers/Kings Game6:

Lakers took 59 2pt FG attempts, got 40 FT attempts, or 0.67 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Kings took 73 2pt FG attempts, got 25 FT attempts, or 0.34 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Last night:

Celts took 65 2pt FG attempts, got 29 FT attempts, or 0.44 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Heat took 57 2pt FG attempts, got 47 FT attempts, or 0.82 FT attempts per 2pg FG attempt

All of the numbers, no matter how you slice them, add up to the same story

Teams and players that attack the basket aggressively get more FT attempts than teams that settle for jump shots?

Broussard said the Celts took 25 shots in the paint and the Heat took 26 in Game 2. So I think your jump shooting argument might be a little off for that particular game.That being said the Celts were ahead most of the game, close calls almost always go against whoever is ahead. The Celts are the visiting team, close calls almost always go against the visiting team. The Celts don't have the starpower of the Heat, the calls almost always go to the superstars. I don't think there's any conspiracy, but I do think superstar treatment happens (hell it helps Boston against most teams), I do think home teams have an advantage (again helps Boston half the time) and I do think the trailing team gets the benefit of the doubt because close games are better for the bottom line than blowouts.

Here's the shot chart, count them up yourself. I get 22 near the rim for the Heat, 19 for the Celtics, although of course shots taken that are missed but draw fouls aren't counted in these totals so they're not really that useful.It's ALL about style of play. Rondo got 12 free throw attempts, almost twice as many as the two Miami PGs combined. Why? Because the refs were biased, or because he attacked the rim more?

Even the 22/19 number doesn't really support your point.22/19 is 53.6% and 46.4%.

The FT disparity was quite a bit more.

That being said I agree there's no conspiracy out there, but the superstar treatment does happen whether you want to believe it or not.

 

[ivnabru]

Just to be clear ...

People are suggesting is that the NBA front office is somehow arranging for certain teams to advance in the playoffs for ratings purposes? So they:

(1) allowed the team from the #1 TV market in the country to lose in a five-game series in the first round;

(2) allowed the team from the #2 TV market in the country to get eliminated in six games (almost all of them close and easily turned by a few calls) in the second round in favor of the Western Conference being represented in the Finals by either the team from the #37 TV market or the one from the #45 TV market; and

(3) are now favoring the team from the #16 TV market (with a fan base so weak that needed instructions from the team in order to show up to games on time and cheer for the likes of LeBron James) over the team from the #7 TV market ... a team with a rabid fan base that they also "allowed" to win 17 previous titles?

That's really what people are going with?

I agree that the NBA is not picking who wins and loses and influencing the results. But to simply put the size of market out there is unrealistic. If the Heat make the Finals it wont just be Miami fans watching. Lebron has fans in every city. The same way that while Oklahoma is a much smaller market than LA, Durant, Harden and Westbrook have fans all over the country, not just in OKC.

Sure, but there's no question that from a ratings standpoint the Lakers would be the league's first "pick" if it had one. So you'd think that watching them lose in the Western Conference in six games, many of the close, would be enough evidence that there's no conspiracy. And even though LeBron draws a lot of eyeballs, I really don't think he draws as much as the Celtics, who have a huge fanbase of frontrunning Bostonians plus frontrunning NBA fans from the last 30 years, and also have some stars of their own.

You don't think Lebron James has more fans himself around the World than the Boston Celtics have? Interesting question. James sells a lot of stuff, can't say I ever bought something because it was the official such and such of the Boston Celtics.

I don't necessarily think he draws viewers as well as the Celtics do. Take a look and decide for yourself. The 2007 Finals featuring LeBron were a terrible draw, and the best draws of the last decade are the two Lakers-Celtics matchups. Certainly the difference isn't enough that you could reasonably argue that they're cause for an elaborate conspiracy where the calls favor the Heat.

Are you being serious? The best example of what kind of draw we'd expect from the Heat is what happened last year with the same team. Not what happened 5 years ago with LeBron and a bunch of no names who got swept. Come on, this is absolutely ridiculous. And this is from someone who agrees with you that there's no conspiracy.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

DX has Harrison Barnes listed at #7.

If the Warriors can get healthy, I think Barnes would be a very good fit for them. Curry, Thompson, Barnes, Lee and Bogut seems like a pretty good starting lineup.

yep. I like Barnes a lot. He'll be a good pick if the Dubs get him at 7.

Ugh. I'd rather have Henson.Apparently they're shopping for an established SF: Gay, Iguodala, Josh Smiff, etc.

 

[pollardsvision]

I don't mind you venting here, wilked.

Your boys took a bitter loss last night and the Garnett-era Celtics are pretty much done. Some bad calls didn't go your way.

I know this isn't really about the calls.

I'm sorry for your loss.

 

[wilked]

I don't mind you venting here, wilked. Your boys took a bitter loss last night and the Garnett-era Celtics are pretty much done. Some bad calls didn't go your way. I know this isn't really about the calls.I'm sorry for your loss.

Thx GB

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just to be clear ...

People are suggesting is that the NBA front office is somehow arranging for certain teams to advance in the playoffs for ratings purposes? So they:

(1) allowed the team from the #1 TV market in the country to lose in a five-game series in the first round;

(2) allowed the team from the #2 TV market in the country to get eliminated in six games (almost all of them close and easily turned by a few calls) in the second round in favor of the Western Conference being represented in the Finals by either the team from the #37 TV market or the one from the #45 TV market; and

(3) are now favoring the team from the #16 TV market (with a fan base so weak that needed instructions from the team in order to show up to games on time and cheer for the likes of LeBron James) over the team from the #7 TV market ... a team with a rabid fan base that they also "allowed" to win 17 previous titles?

That's really what people are going with?

I agree that the NBA is not picking who wins and loses and influencing the results. But to simply put the size of market out there is unrealistic. If the Heat make the Finals it wont just be Miami fans watching. Lebron has fans in every city. The same way that while Oklahoma is a much smaller market than LA, Durant, Harden and Westbrook have fans all over the country, not just in OKC.

Sure, but there's no question that from a ratings standpoint the Lakers would be the league's first "pick" if it had one. So you'd think that watching them lose in the Western Conference in six games, many of the close, would be enough evidence that there's no conspiracy. And even though LeBron draws a lot of eyeballs, I really don't think he draws as much as the Celtics, who have a huge fanbase of frontrunning Bostonians plus frontrunning NBA fans from the last 30 years, and also have some stars of their own.

You don't think Lebron James has more fans himself around the World than the Boston Celtics have? Interesting question. James sells a lot of stuff, can't say I ever bought something because it was the official such and such of the Boston Celtics.

I don't necessarily think he draws viewers as well as the Celtics do. Take a look and decide for yourself. The 2007 Finals featuring LeBron were a terrible draw, and the best draws of the last decade are the two Lakers-Celtics matchups. Certainly the difference isn't enough that you could reasonably argue that they're cause for an elaborate conspiracy where the calls favor the Heat.

Are you being serious? The best example of what kind of draw we'd expect from the Heat is what happened last year with the same team. Not what happened 5 years ago with LeBron and a bunch of no names who got swept. Come on, this is absolutely ridiculous. And this is from someone who agrees with you that there's no conspiracy.

Fine. Use last year's ratings then, although I don't think this year's Heat team could possibly match the ratings of last year's team now that the novelty is gone. They still can't compete with Lakers-Celtics- sure part of that is the Celtics but the Heat were playing a team from a relatively large media market too, and one with a much-loved superstar and a charismatic coach.The ultimate point is that there's no reason to think the refs are part of some silly ratings-based conspiracy. The Celtics draw just fine.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Same arguments every single year. All conspiracy theories can be dispelled with two words: "The Spurs"

it was rigged for them to get Duncan

and what was the Bulls chances of winning the lottery for D.Rose? Freakin joke

 

[ivnabru]

Just to be clear ...

People are suggesting is that the NBA front office is somehow arranging for certain teams to advance in the playoffs for ratings purposes? So they:

(1) allowed the team from the #1 TV market in the country to lose in a five-game series in the first round;

(2) allowed the team from the #2 TV market in the country to get eliminated in six games (almost all of them close and easily turned by a few calls) in the second round in favor of the Western Conference being represented in the Finals by either the team from the #37 TV market or the one from the #45 TV market; and

(3) are now favoring the team from the #16 TV market (with a fan base so weak that needed instructions from the team in order to show up to games on time and cheer for the likes of LeBron James) over the team from the #7 TV market ... a team with a rabid fan base that they also "allowed" to win 17 previous titles?

That's really what people are going with?

I agree that the NBA is not picking who wins and loses and influencing the results. But to simply put the size of market out there is unrealistic. If the Heat make the Finals it wont just be Miami fans watching. Lebron has fans in every city. The same way that while Oklahoma is a much smaller market than LA, Durant, Harden and Westbrook have fans all over the country, not just in OKC.

Sure, but there's no question that from a ratings standpoint the Lakers would be the league's first "pick" if it had one. So you'd think that watching them lose in the Western Conference in six games, many of the close, would be enough evidence that there's no conspiracy. And even though LeBron draws a lot of eyeballs, I really don't think he draws as much as the Celtics, who have a huge fanbase of frontrunning Bostonians plus frontrunning NBA fans from the last 30 years, and also have some stars of their own.

You don't think Lebron James has more fans himself around the World than the Boston Celtics have? Interesting question. James sells a lot of stuff, can't say I ever bought something because it was the official such and such of the Boston Celtics.

I don't necessarily think he draws viewers as well as the Celtics do. Take a look and decide for yourself. The 2007 Finals featuring LeBron were a terrible draw, and the best draws of the last decade are the two Lakers-Celtics matchups. Certainly the difference isn't enough that you could reasonably argue that they're cause for an elaborate conspiracy where the calls favor the Heat.

Are you being serious? The best example of what kind of draw we'd expect from the Heat is what happened last year with the same team. Not what happened 5 years ago with LeBron and a bunch of no names who got swept. Come on, this is absolutely ridiculous. And this is from someone who agrees with you that there's no conspiracy.

Fine. Use last year's ratings then, although I don't think this year's Heat team could possibly match the ratings of last year's team now that the novelty is gone. They still can't compete with Lakers-Celtics- sure part of that is the Celtics but the Heat were playing a team from a relatively large media market too, and one with a much-loved superstar and a charismatic coach.The ultimate point is that there's no reason to think the refs are part of some silly ratings-based conspiracy. The Celtics draw just fine.

Lakers/Pistons was as big of a draw as Lakers/Celtics. While I agree the Celtics draw fine, I don't think you can say since the Celts/Lakers drew well the Celts are the top draw around. I tend to think the Heat draw better right now. Everyone cares about the Heat even if most people are watching hoping they lose.And there was a huge difference in ratings between the first Heat/Mavs where the Mavs were about the same from starpower and market and the more recent Heat/Mavs. Probably because of how big the Heat are now. So I don't think you can chalk much of it up to the Mavs beloved superstar and charismatic coach.

 

[TobiasFunke]

My last statement on the ref bias thing:

I'm sure there's some small margin of error in favor of superstars. But I think 99% of it is not bias, but superior play. Guys become superstars because they are bigger, faster, smarter and more skilled that other players. That means they beat lesser players to spots more frequently, and as a result either score or draw fouls more frequently.

I'm a UNC fan, and UNC and Duke guys have been hearing this same nonsense from the fans of other ACC teams for years. "Look at the free throw disparity!" The reason for the disparity, for the most part, is because the teams and the players are usually superior, not because the refs are biased. If UNC/Duke fans ask for actual examples of blown calls, the response is usually a couple blown calls that may seem important but are ultimately just anecdotes, and the other team's fans can almost always find blown calls that went the other way in the same game. Same deal here. You can point to the FT or foul disparity last night, but how many blown calls can you really identify? Three or four maybe?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

home crowds influence the refs in every sport. that's why the home-field advantage exists.

it's probably more obvious in basketball b/c the foul calls are more prevalent and more subjective, but this isn't limited to the NBA.

 

[wilked]

Couldn't even leave it alone for 2 hours...

Haha, thought I would be hearing from you Good stuff...

You're on fire. Your run on claims ranging from unsubstantiated to flat-out false is inspiring.I know you said it was someone else's analysis, but since you posted it you likely thought there was some significance to it. Why do you think the ratio of FT attempts to 2-point shot attempts matters? Why does a large differential between FTA/2PTA ratio between two opponents in the same game indicate referee bias?

I'm not asking rhetorically here. You just posted the numbers without any interpretation, so I am curious about your take on them.

Well, I compared the numbers against this game http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3436401Not sure if you recall that one, but it is pretty widely agreed to be one of, if not the worst officiated games ever. There were an amazing amount of 'phantom fouls' called, you couldn't breathe on a Laker without being called for a foul. So given that as the 'worst', the free throw attemps/2 pointers attempted ratio was compared with last night's game. As the numbers showed, Heat drew significantly more (like 25% more) free throws/2 point attempt than that game.

Unfortunately this is not an easy stat to amass, but as another example, take the 2006 finals

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1173800-10-worst-officiated-games-in-nba-history-could-the-nba-really-be-rigged#/articles/1173800-10-worst-officiated-games-in-nba-history-could-the-nba-really-be-rigged/page/12

Heat

Game 3: 55%

Game 4: 76%

Game 5: 94%

Game 6: 62%

Mavs

Game 3: 44%

Game 4: 47%

Game 5: 40%

Game 6: 33%

So last night's 82% vs 44% looks pretty bad to me, especially when the two teams had failry equal shots in the paint.

 

[wilked]

What is your take Ferris, do you think free throw/shot rate is at all an interesting stat? I am not surprised to see the Heat with an edge on this stat, but I do not think they should be double that of the Celts. For whatever it is worth, the Heat's rate in game 1 was 49%, nearly half that of last night (Celts were 31%)

 

[tommyGunZ]

wait, is wilked arguing that the refs conspired against the Celtics, or just that the refs missed quite a few more fouls on the Heat than on the C's?

B/c the latter happens occasionally, but the former is crazy talk.

 

[flapgreen]

Whether anyone believes it or not, the NBA wants the Heat in the finals. They don't really care who wins between OKC and San Antonio, hence the more balanced called game. It's so obvious. Whether the Heat would win anyway doesn't matter. The league wants them there for the ratings and will do everything they can to help them get there, while trying not to come off looking too obvious. Open your eyes people.

 

[wilked]

wait, is wilked arguing that the refs conspired against the Celtics, or just that the refs missed quite a few more fouls on the Heat than on the C's? B/c the latter happens occasionally, but the former is crazy talk.

Since you asked... I do not think there is a conspiracy to advance particular teams, Game 1 technicals notwithstanding. I do think the refs are coached / advised to call fouls in a manner which makes the product (basketball) more exciting (in Stern's view) to the common fan. The common fan does not want to see grinding defense, they want to see alley oops. The common fan does not want to see the stars receive early fouls and have to take a seat on the bench, they want the whistle swallowed on those plays so the star can dunk. Taken as a whole, all of that has the refs leaning toward favoring the style of play the Heat exhibit, and not a team such as the Celtics (or frankly, any team compared against the Heat). It's all opinion, but that's what I see, sort of a combination of the 'star treatment' and 'high-scoring bias' of the league

 

[GDogg]

With regard to the "clutch" discussion, some dude from Stats Inc. was on the Dan Patrick Show this morning and countered Patrick's take that he'd want Kobe, above all other players, taking a jump shot at the end of a game. The Stats Inc. guy countered that LeBron has been much better than Kobe and shoots better from the field and that he'd take LeBron.

So, Patrick steers the discussion back to his point about jump shots and says that, sure, he'd be fine with LeBron going to the basket for a dunk or layup, but take those away (can you?) and he doesn't think LeBron would look so good.

The Stats Inc. guy calls back later in the show and said that, since LeBron came into the league, in the last 15 seconds of a game (maybe it was 10?) with his team tied or down by one possession, Kobe is shooting 48.5% from the field on jump shots and LeBron shoots 31% from the field on jump shots.

In that same period of time, as Ferris previously pointed out, Kobe has 15 game-winning shots and LeBron has 7.

I'm a little fuzzy on whether the field goal percentage actually was based solely on jump shots or if it was total FG% and whether the time was last 15 seconds or last 10 seconds.

Anyone else hear this?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Same arguments every single year.

All conspiracy theories can be dispelled with two words: "The Spurs"

No, when a team is so good that they keep winning, there is nothing anyone can do about it (like Miami dispatching the Knicks in 5 in the 1st round), but in close games, a call here and a call there can influence the outcome of a game (like the Sacramento/LAL debacle in '02). For all you need to know about the Spurs and the league, go back to Game 4 of 2008 against the Lakers. Down 2, the Spurs attempt a 3 for the win, a Laker clearly fouls the Spur...and no call. Now, I do NOT think that Stern ever tells the refs to call games certain ways, but they work for him, and they know what will make him happy, and that is more games, ratings and money. The refs weren't about to get in the way of the Celtics/Lakers NBA Final back in '08, hence the no call on that 3 at the end. A Spurs win would have gotten them back in the series and possibly ruined the magical Boston/LA Final.

I know, right? And how about the way they blatantly handed the Lakers those close games against another small market team, the Thunder, in 2012? That was totally unfair. No way the refs would help the Lakers get eliminated in five games in the conference semifinals in a bunch of close games that could easily turn on a call or two. They're not gonna get in the way of a LeBron/Kobe or Lakers/Celtics Finals, right?

I am not saying it is an exact science, or that it always happens, but there are too many glaring examples to ignore. Or is NBA officiating really just that completely awful? Because it is one or the other (or a combination of the two, which I would lean towards). Also, you keep talking about small markets, but the NBA is a superstar-driven league, and the stars bring out the ratings more than anything most of the time (unless they are non-flashy ones like Duncan in SA). Miami might not be as big a market as NY, but James is the biggest star in the league right now, and he is a guy many will tune in to hopefully see lose, so he is now a ratings magnet. And OKC might be a small market, but Durant and Westbrook are two of the best and most exciting young stars in the league right now, and holding them down would be counterproductive.

There are only glaring examples you can't ignore if you ignore the counterexamples, like OKC-Lakers this year. Or the fact that the Spurs somehow overcame this supposed bias to win 4 championships in the Stern era. How did the officials let them win a 5 point game and a 2 point game to get past the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in 6 in 2003? How did they get past the wildly entertaining Phoenix Suns in the semis in '07 with four close wins?Officials make a lot of mistakes in the NBA. Part of that is the quality of the officiating, and part of that is the difficulty of calling the sport as compared to other sports. But there's no conscious on unconscious conspiracy afoot. Make the playoffs enough times and your team will be on both sides of it, meaning that any fan of those elite teams who wants to make the refs a scapegoat for their team's losses can find evidence.

The Spurs winning four titles goes back to when I earlier said (which is in the quote pyramid I am quoting here), "when a team is so good that they keep winning, there is nothing anyone can do about it ," so, no, I am not ignoring the counterexamples. To clarify, no, I do not think there is some conspiracy or anything like that, but I think that certain (see: NOT all) games and calls are made because officials knows how the league wants certain series or games to go. I mean, I am sure Stern and everyone wanted a LeBron vs Kobe matchup in the 2009 Finals, and the example I have given before is how lopsided the officiating was in the favor of Cleveland in Game 3 of that series; I think it was even commented on in a thread here quite a bit about how the officials were giving the Cavs every call. And yet the Magic still won, because like I said, when one team outplays another so badly, there is nothing the league can do about it, hence the Magic winning that game, the Spurs winning four titles, etc.

 

[The Commish]

I have a dumb question, but why doesn't the NBA show the actual "lottery" for the draft? You know...the ping pong balls flying around in that big ### plastic bubble

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Lot of weak fishing trips here.

Interested to see if OKC will continue the much more successful small lineup vs. SA.

 

[GDogg]

I have a dumb question, but why doesn't the NBA show the actual "lottery" for the draft? You know...the ping pong balls flying around in that big ### plastic bubble

I think Darren Rovell said yesterday (as did a few other commentators) that it's not exactly TV friendly. After the first televised "lottery," ratings would be awful. That being said, he thought the league should show it just to do away with the conspiracy theorists.

 

[wilked]

I have a dumb question, but why doesn't the NBA show the actual "lottery" for the draft? You know...the ping pong balls flying around in that big ### plastic bubble

I think Darren Rovell said yesterday (as did a few other commentators) that it's not exactly TV friendly. After the first televised "lottery," ratings would be awful. That being said, he thought the league should show it just to do away with the conspiracy theorists.

I would think it would fit right in at halftime during one of the Finals games...

 

[Ghost Rider]

Whether anyone believes it or not, the NBA wants the Heat in the finals. They don't really care who wins between OKC and San Antonio, hence the more balanced called game. It's so obvious. Whether the Heat would win anyway doesn't matter. The league wants them there for the ratings and will do everything they can to help them get there, while trying not to come off looking too obvious. Open your eyes people.

Exactly. Which is why there will be counterexamples and not every game is always gonna be called the way the league would like it to go. Because giving one team every close call in every game would be extremely obvious, but with many series often decided by a close game or two, a few calls one way and not the other way, can often influence the outcome of a series. I honestly cannot believe some people do not see it. Has their been any athlete talked about more since The Decision than LeBron James? No way. People will tune it to see him play, many to see him win, many to see if he can win, and many to see him lose. He is a ratings bonanza, which is why Miami in the last two years has had tons more nationally televised games than they had the previous few years. Had he gone to Toronto to play, you'd all of a sudden start seeing the Raptors getting all kinds of close calls and whatnot in big playoff games and being featured in games on ABC, TNT and ESPN throughout the season. It's the way it goes in the NBA.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Same arguments every single year.

All conspiracy theories can be dispelled with two words: "The Spurs"

No, when a team is so good that they keep winning, there is nothing anyone can do about it (like Miami dispatching the Knicks in 5 in the 1st round), but in close games, a call here and a call there can influence the outcome of a game (like the Sacramento/LAL debacle in '02). For all you need to know about the Spurs and the league, go back to Game 4 of 2008 against the Lakers. Down 2, the Spurs attempt a 3 for the win, a Laker clearly fouls the Spur...and no call. Now, I do NOT think that Stern ever tells the refs to call games certain ways, but they work for him, and they know what will make him happy, and that is more games, ratings and money. The refs weren't about to get in the way of the Celtics/Lakers NBA Final back in '08, hence the no call on that 3 at the end. A Spurs win would have gotten them back in the series and possibly ruined the magical Boston/LA Final.

I know, right? And how about the way they blatantly handed the Lakers those close games against another small market team, the Thunder, in 2012? That was totally unfair. No way the refs would help the Lakers get eliminated in five games in the conference semifinals in a bunch of close games that could easily turn on a call or two. They're not gonna get in the way of a LeBron/Kobe or Lakers/Celtics Finals, right?

I am not saying it is an exact science, or that it always happens, but there are too many glaring examples to ignore. Or is NBA officiating really just that completely awful? Because it is one or the other (or a combination of the two, which I would lean towards). Also, you keep talking about small markets, but the NBA is a superstar-driven league, and the stars bring out the ratings more than anything most of the time (unless they are non-flashy ones like Duncan in SA). Miami might not be as big a market as NY, but James is the biggest star in the league right now, and he is a guy many will tune in to hopefully see lose, so he is now a ratings magnet. And OKC might be a small market, but Durant and Westbrook are two of the best and most exciting young stars in the league right now, and holding them down would be counterproductive.

There are only glaring examples you can't ignore if you ignore the counterexamples, like OKC-Lakers this year. Or the fact that the Spurs somehow overcame this supposed bias to win 4 championships in the Stern era. How did the officials let them win a 5 point game and a 2 point game to get past the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in 6 in 2003? How did they get past the wildly entertaining Phoenix Suns in the semis in '07 with four close wins?Officials make a lot of mistakes in the NBA. Part of that is the quality of the officiating, and part of that is the difficulty of calling the sport as compared to other sports. But there's no conscious on unconscious conspiracy afoot. Make the playoffs enough times and your team will be on both sides of it, meaning that any fan of those elite teams who wants to make the refs a scapegoat for their team's losses can find evidence.

The Spurs winning four titles goes back to when I earlier said (which is in the quote pyramid I am quoting here), "when a team is so good that they keep winning, there is nothing anyone can do about it ," so, no, I am not ignoring the counterexamples. To clarify, no, I do not think there is some conspiracy or anything like that, but I think that certain (see: NOT all) games and calls are made because officials knows how the league wants certain series or games to go. I mean, I am sure Stern and everyone wanted a LeBron vs Kobe matchup in the 2009 Finals, and the example I have given before is how lopsided the officiating was in the favor of Cleveland in Game 3 of that series; I think it was even commented on in a thread here quite a bit about how the officials were giving the Cavs every call. And yet the Magic still won, because like I said, when one team outplays another so badly, there is nothing the league can do about it, hence the Magic winning that game, the Spurs winning four titles, etc.

That's why I didn't mention 1999 and 2005, when they rolled. They could very very easily have gotten bumped in 2003 and 2007 in favor of teams that would have been a LOT more popular, as I explained. Why weren't they?When I say you're ignoring counterexamples, that's what I mean. Sometimes they win the close ones. Sometimes they don't. They're only "glaring examples" (your words) if you only focus on the times they lose and ignore the times they won.

What's more likely: that a team that is a perennial presence in the playoff will eventually be victimized by bad luck or bad officiating a couple of times? Or that there's a conspiracy, even an unconscious one, to advance certain more desirable teams from a ratings standpoint in the NBA playoffs despite the myriad missed opportunities to do so with teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, LeBron's Cavs/Heat, and so on?

 

[The Commish]

I have a dumb question, but why doesn't the NBA show the actual "lottery" for the draft? You know...the ping pong balls flying around in that big ### plastic bubble

I think Darren Rovell said yesterday (as did a few other commentators) that it's not exactly TV friendly. After the first televised "lottery," ratings would be awful. That being said, he thought the league should show it just to do away with the conspiracy theorists.

Doesn't have to be on TV....they can put it on their web page or whatever...just have it somewhere for folks to watch. Given all the crap the NBA's gone through and all the allegations of shenanigans, this one seems easy to fix. I don't know what would be different between picking a ball vs opening an envelope though.

 

[The Commish]

Another question...for those dismissing the possibility of refs intentionally tampering with the game, are you taking Stern's and the league's word that they've cleaned up all the ref issues?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Whether anyone believes it or not, the NBA wants the Heat in the finals. They don't really care who wins between OKC and San Antonio, hence the more balanced called game. It's so obvious. Whether the Heat would win anyway doesn't matter. The league wants them there for the ratings and will do everything they can to help them get there, while trying not to come off looking too obvious. Open your eyes people.

Miami being in the Finals will certainly build interest and story lines far more than an aging Boston team will. So I'm sure "the NBA" (whomever that entails) would love to see two of their marquee players representing in the Finals. But it's a quantum leap from Stern and Co. secretly hoping LeBron and Wade are in the Finals, to officials actually fixing the games. That is ludicrous.

 

[GDogg]

I have a dumb question, but why doesn't the NBA show the actual "lottery" for the draft? You know...the ping pong balls flying around in that big ### plastic bubble

I think Darren Rovell said yesterday (as did a few other commentators) that it's not exactly TV friendly. After the first televised "lottery," ratings would be awful. That being said, he thought the league should show it just to do away with the conspiracy theorists.

Doesn't have to be on TV....they can put it on their web page or whatever...just have it somewhere for folks to watch. Given all the crap the NBA's gone through and all the allegations of shenanigans, this one seems easy to fix. I don't know what would be different between picking a ball vs opening an envelope though.

I agree and so does Rovell. I think the difference between picking a ball vs. opening an envelope might be the time it takes. Unlike the Mega Millions or other lotteries, aren't there a ton of balls in there? Don't they need to remove all of the balls for the team that is drawn after each pick?

 

[The Commish]

I have a dumb question, but why doesn't the NBA show the actual "lottery" for the draft? You know...the ping pong balls flying around in that big ### plastic bubble

I think Darren Rovell said yesterday (as did a few other commentators) that it's not exactly TV friendly. After the first televised "lottery," ratings would be awful. That being said, he thought the league should show it just to do away with the conspiracy theorists.

Doesn't have to be on TV....they can put it on their web page or whatever...just have it somewhere for folks to watch. Given all the crap the NBA's gone through and all the allegations of shenanigans, this one seems easy to fix. I don't know what would be different between picking a ball vs opening an envelope though.

I agree and so does Rovell. I think the difference between picking a ball vs. opening an envelope might be the time it takes. Unlike the Mega Millions or other lotteries, aren't there a ton of balls in there? Don't they need to remove all of the balls for the team that is drawn after each pick?

Hadn't thought about the logistics. You would have to remove balls after each pick. You could probably do the top 10 during commercials of one of the games though. Not sure anyone cares after that.

 

[Gr00vus]

Is this a new low for the NBA threads, or just typical for this time of year? I forget.

 

[GDogg]

I have a dumb question, but why doesn't the NBA show the actual "lottery" for the draft? You know...the ping pong balls flying around in that big ### plastic bubble

I think Darren Rovell said yesterday (as did a few other commentators) that it's not exactly TV friendly. After the first televised "lottery," ratings would be awful. That being said, he thought the league should show it just to do away with the conspiracy theorists.

Doesn't have to be on TV....they can put it on their web page or whatever...just have it somewhere for folks to watch. Given all the crap the NBA's gone through and all the allegations of shenanigans, this one seems easy to fix. I don't know what would be different between picking a ball vs opening an envelope though.

I agree and so does Rovell. I think the difference between picking a ball vs. opening an envelope might be the time it takes. Unlike the Mega Millions or other lotteries, aren't there a ton of balls in there? Don't they need to remove all of the balls for the team that is drawn after each pick?

Hadn't thought about the logistics. You would have to remove balls after each pick. You could probably do the top 10 during commercials of one of the games though. Not sure anyone cares after that.

Actually, I just looked it up. It looks like they are assigned combinations. Here's a take on how boring it is from ESPN for the 2009 lottery.

 

[encaitar]

One more... People say NBA refs are always terrible - ok. But there are degrees of terrible (note - this is someone else's analysis)

To put it in perspective lets compare last night's game to Lakers/Kings Game6 in 2002 which pretty much everyone agrees is one of the worst officiating jobs ever.

Lakers/Kings Game6:

Lakers took 59 2pt FG attempts, got 40 FT attempts, or 0.67 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Kings took 73 2pt FG attempts, got 25 FT attempts, or 0.34 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Last night:

Celts took 65 2pt FG attempts, got 29 FT attempts, or 0.44 FT attempts per 2pt FG attempt

Heat took 57 2pt FG attempts, got 47 FT attempts, or 0.82 FT attempts per 2pg FG attempt

All of the numbers, no matter how you slice them, add up to the same story

Teams and players that attack the basket aggressively get more FT attempts than teams that settle for jump shots?

Broussard said the Celts took 25 shots in the paint and the Heat took 26 in Game 2. So I think your jump shooting argument might be a little off for that particular game.That being said the Celts were ahead most of the game, close calls almost always go against whoever is ahead. The Celts are the visiting team, close calls almost always go against the visiting team. The Celts don't have the starpower of the Heat, the calls almost always go to the superstars. I don't think there's any conspiracy, but I do think superstar treatment happens (hell it helps Boston against most teams), I do think home teams have an advantage (again helps Boston half the time) and I do think the trailing team gets the benefit of the doubt because close games are better for the bottom line than blowouts.

It's analysis like this that makes Broussard so terrible at what he does. Every shot in the paint is not equal. Every jump shot is not equal. Any unbiased observer of last night's game could tell you that. When Rondo drives the lane, he looks to avoid contact in order to get his shot off. I don't blame him, he's skinny as a rail and a hard foul could break him in half. Counting that the same as a drive by James or Wade where they go right at the defender looking for contact and depending on their strength to still get the shot off is stupid.

 

[Gr00vus]

I have a dumb question, but why doesn't the NBA show the actual "lottery" for the draft? You know...the ping pong balls flying around in that big ### plastic bubble

I think Darren Rovell said yesterday (as did a few other commentators) that it's not exactly TV friendly. After the first televised "lottery," ratings would be awful. That being said, he thought the league should show it just to do away with the conspiracy theorists.

Doesn't have to be on TV....they can put it on their web page or whatever...just have it somewhere for folks to watch. Given all the crap the NBA's gone through and all the allegations of shenanigans, this one seems easy to fix. I don't know what would be different between picking a ball vs opening an envelope though.

I agree and so does Rovell. I think the difference between picking a ball vs. opening an envelope might be the time it takes. Unlike the Mega Millions or other lotteries, aren't there a ton of balls in there? Don't they need to remove all of the balls for the team that is drawn after each pick?

Hadn't thought about the logistics. You would have to remove balls after each pick. You could probably do the top 10 during commercials of one of the games though. Not sure anyone cares after that.

Actually, I just looked it up. It looks like they are assigned combinations. Here's a take on how boring it is from ESPN for the 2009 lottery.

They should choose a ball per day/game, starting with game one of the conference finals. And have hot chicks selecting the balls. And emptying and resorting the balls. Maybe even washing the balls. And that should all be shown live on NBA TV.

 

[thecatch]

What is your take Ferris, do you think free throw/shot rate is at all an interesting stat? I am not surprised to see the Heat with an edge on this stat, but I do not think they should be double that of the Celts. For whatever it is worth, the Heat's rate in game 1 was 49%, nearly half that of last night (Celts were 31%)

This is too subjective an exercise for the numbers to be decisive. There are legit reasons for huge free throw disparities. In that laker series, you had Shaq and Kobe in their primes who could violently get to the rim far more frequently than anyone on the kings. What made that game absurd were the phantom calls (and the fact that every objective observer thought they were phantom calls), not the FT disparity in of itself.

 

[GDogg]

I have a dumb question, but why doesn't the NBA show the actual "lottery" for the draft? You know...the ping pong balls flying around in that big ### plastic bubble

I think Darren Rovell said yesterday (as did a few other commentators) that it's not exactly TV friendly. After the first televised "lottery," ratings would be awful. That being said, he thought the league should show it just to do away with the conspiracy theorists.

Doesn't have to be on TV....they can put it on their web page or whatever...just have it somewhere for folks to watch. Given all the crap the NBA's gone through and all the allegations of shenanigans, this one seems easy to fix. I don't know what would be different between picking a ball vs opening an envelope though.

I agree and so does Rovell. I think the difference between picking a ball vs. opening an envelope might be the time it takes. Unlike the Mega Millions or other lotteries, aren't there a ton of balls in there? Don't they need to remove all of the balls for the team that is drawn after each pick?

Hadn't thought about the logistics. You would have to remove balls after each pick. You could probably do the top 10 during commercials of one of the games though. Not sure anyone cares after that.

Actually, I just looked it up. It looks like they are assigned combinations. Here's a take on how boring it is from ESPN for the 2009 lottery.

They should choose a ball per day/game, starting with game one of the conference finals. And have hot chicks selecting the balls. And emptying and resorting the balls. Maybe even washing the balls. And that should all be shown live on NBA TV.

This is a fantastic idea. We should get this to the NBA.

 

[timschochet]

Cliff-

I know you like to make fun of me. That's fine. And I don't mind it, truly. And I don't mind being compared with Ministry of Pain- MOP is a little strange at times, but I enjoy his commentary.

But please don't compare me with the other guy. He's not a real good guy, IMO. He's not somebody I like having my name linked with in any way. It's awfully distasteful to me.

Much appreciated.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Cliff-I know you like to make fun of me. That's fine. And I don't mind it, truly. And I don't mind being compared with Ministry of Pain- MOP is a little strange at times, but I enjoy his commentary.But please don't compare me with the other guy. He's not a real good guy, IMO. He's not somebody I like having my name linked with in any way. It's awfully distasteful to me.Much appreciated.

The three of you live-blogging the game made my morning coffee and the reading of this thread quite dreadful. If you apologize, I may change the subtitle.

 

[timschochet]

OKlahoma CIty reminds me of the Chicago Bulls as coached by Doug Collins and the Los Angeles Lakers as coached by Del Harris: so much young talent, so close to winning a championship- but not quite together yet. Mix in a Phil Jackson and you get multiple rings. But even without him, they'll probably get them; just not this year.

 

[timschochet]

Cliff-I know you like to make fun of me. That's fine. And I don't mind it, truly. And I don't mind being compared with Ministry of Pain- MOP is a little strange at times, but I enjoy his commentary.But please don't compare me with the other guy. He's not a real good guy, IMO. He's not somebody I like having my name linked with in any way. It's awfully distasteful to me.Much appreciated.

The three of you live-blogging the game made my morning coffee and the reading of this thread quite dreadful. If you apologize, I may change the subtitle.

I apologize. Please change the subtitle.

 

[Daywalker]

Simmons' podcast with Chad Ford on lottery is really good. On Grantland.

 

[bosoxs45]

All this ref talk is nauseating. Jesus

Its as if these people have never watched an NBA game before.

To all the whiners: NBA reffing is always terrible. HTH.

My link

why would the NBA choose to ignore these glaring problems? Simple. Acknowledgment of these issues would open up a pipeline of criticism toward the current NBA structure and administration. Why allow that to occur? Why subject this authoritative organization to criticism that could tarnish the integrity of its own unique adaptation of the game? The fear of raised questions, lost sponsors, an eroding fan base and internal discontent, has paralyzed the NBA from making changes. The threat of lower ratings and less revenue, resulting in a discontent internal circle and an inability to pay astronomical salaries, has proven too much for the NBA to tackle.

 

[Gr00vus]

Yeah the NBA is in horrible shape right now. They need to find a way to get back to when Finals games were shown on tape delay - if they were shown at all. Back when you could see your home team's rode games on t.v. and that's it. That Tim Donaghy really knows stuff.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Yeah the NBA is in horrible shape right now. They need to find a way to get back to when Finals games were shown on tape delay - if they were shown at all. Back when you could see your home team's rode games on t.v. and that's it. That Tim Donaghy really knows stuff.

No better way to accomplish this by rigging lotteries and coaching refs so the right team wins.