1003 replies to this topic

[Jed Zeppelin]

Of course nothing has been done. As far as Stern is concerned there is and has never been anything wrong with his boys.

[Toe Nash]

I've kind of blocked it from my memory, but didn't Pierce get a tech in the first game of the Miami series last year that was later rescinded? IN A PLAYOFF GAME?!! I should have quit on the NBA then and there.

As it is I haven't felt the urge to watch a game since the Miami - C's game in the second game of the year. I was going to go to see them play in DC on New Year's day, but kept my money instead. Too bad because KG and Ray are two of my favorite players in any sport, all-time.

[jhp64]

I've kind of blocked it from my memory, but didn't Pierce get a tech in the first game of the Miami series last year that was later rescinded? IN A PLAYOFF GAME?!! I should have quit on the NBA then and there.

I think that Jermaine O'Neal was called for a flagrant foul, which was later rescinded, and a few minutes later in the same game, James Jones was not called for a flagrant foul, and one was later assigned to him. The Heat got a 3-pointer on the possession after their flagrant free throws, so if Boston had been able to do the same thing, then it was a potential 6 point swing. Oh, actually reading the article, I see that James Jones had a technical rescinded on the same play, so maybe it's only a potential 5-point swing. (Pierce was later thrown out of the game on a BS call.)

[mwonow]

The league has been rescinding techs for at least the last three years. Only useful insofar as bogus techs don't count towards total count and therefore cannot contribute towards a suspension. But still BS insofar as the bogus techs impact on the game in which they were called remains.

Based on my limited viewing thus far this season, the league has done nothing to address the officiating.

My understanding is that players are suspended from participating in games if they amass a certain number of Ts - 16 Ts is a one-game suspension, with another game tacked on for every subsequent 2 Ts. Wouldn't it be fair to hold refs to the same standard on the flip side? So, Crawford would be "credited" with the reversed Ts, and suspended from one game after 16, and an additional game for every two thereafter? The league would be less happy to rescind Ts if this were the case, but it would at least result in more stringent review, which might act as a deterrent for players and refs alike...

Of course, as Jed Z points out, Stern would never acknowledge that there's a problem, so there's no need to look at a solution. Cue the foreign objects and other dasterdly WWF effects!

[Kull]

Hockey was unwatchable for years, as it degenerated into a game of grabbing, stick holding, and interfering. When the league finally woke up and realized that fans had to come to hate the product, only then were the rules enforced and the excitement returned. The NBA is right there, right now. Unwatchable. I honestly don't know how you could "fix" the officiating, but agree that certain refs are too visible and some of those should just go away. But one thing the league could do is to institute post-game tape reviews and start doling out fines and suspensions for obvious fakery or needless brutality. This should be publicized much like the "shanaban" videos in hockey, as it will put the players on notice that certain types of behaviour will simply not be tolerated, even if they go unnoticed during the game itself. One of the interesting fallouts from the recent Marchand suspension was the revelation that he went to the league office earlier in the season to ask about the legality of his "ducking hip check" move. By contrast, when was the last time that an NBA player went to the league office to discuss the "legality" of how he playes the game? Um, never? That alone speaks volumes here. As for the refs, their performance should also be examined during the tape review, even if only to look for instances where a ref let his ego interfere with the flow of the game. Those findings don't have to be publicized, but they should come with the same real consequences faced by the players - fines and suspensions.

This wouldn't fix everything that's been discussed in this thread, but if players and refs understood that their conduct was always going to be monitored and that you can't get away with crappy bullshit anymore, well, it will finally stop. And that might be enough to make this sport interesting to watch again.

[CaptainLaddie]

"It's a crab dribble!"

[TheoShmeo]

I agree that the NBA officiating is ridiculously poor. Joey Crawford is insane, actually thinks fans come out to see him and has an agenda. I watched the 4th quarter of the Celtics-Knicks opener and was almost embarrassed at some of the calls. "I'm spending time to watch this?"

But would the NBA be "unwatchable" if the Celtics were rolling along like they were in 2007-8? Or is this conclusion partially, or even largely, a function of the fact that the Celtics are very likely not title contenders this season?

[LESDL]

But would the NBA be "unwatchable" if the Celtics were rolling along like they were in 2007-8? Or is this conclusion partially, or even largely, a function of the fact that the Celtics are very likely not title contenders this season?

I don't think so. I watch the C's and other games and there is often striking inconsistency not just in occurrence of the really bad calls, but in the flow of the game. In one game they let the guys play. The next game they're calling every touch a foul and the game just grinds to a halt. That makes it extremely frustrating and hence "unwatchable."

[HomeRunBaker]

I don't think so. I watch the C's and other games and there is often striking inconsistency not just in occurrence of the really bad calls, but in the flow of the game. In one game they let the guys play. The next game they're calling every touch a foul and the game just grinds to a halt. That makes it extremely frustrating and hence "unwatchable."

How is this any different than home plate umpires who have different strike zones? Of course there are going to be inconsistentcies when there are literally 150-250 subjective calls each game......that is the nature of the sport. Shit, that is the nature of football as well as baseball also.

[scottyno]

they just let lebron take about 6 steps on a drive to the hoop with 10 seconds left, so I'm going to go with no

[LESDL]

How is this any different than home plate umpires who have different strike zones? Of course there are going to be inconsistentcies when there are literally 150-250 subjective calls each game......that is the nature of the sport. Shit, that is the nature of football as well as baseball also.

Well, I was referring to the issue of games becoming unwatchable. Inconsistent strike zones, while frustrating, don't have the end result of making a baseball game unwatchable.

When refs let the game be played, it's watchable. When they call unnecessary fouls and interrupt the flow of the game, it's not.

[HomeRunBaker]

Well, I was referring to the issue of games becoming unwatchable. Inconsistent strike zones, while frustrating, don't have the end result of making a baseball game unwatchable.

When refs let the game be played, it's watchable. When they call unnecessary fouls and interrupt the flow of the game, it's not.

If they let the game be played without controlling the physicality the official loses control of the game and it becomes a free-for-all. There is a VERY fine line in officiating high level basketball games be it the collegiate level, FIBA, or the NBA. You can't just "let them play"......that simply doesn't work and can become dangerous.

[LESDL]

You can't just "let them play"......that simply doesn't work and can become dangerous.

You know what I'm talking about- when they don't clog up the game by calling a bunch of touch fouls every time down the floor which results in the quick penalty and even more foul shooting. I'm not suggesting it become a free-for-all.

[reggiecleveland]

Part of the problem is evolution of the game. The increased focus on fitness and defence the last 20 years has lead to much more athletic much stronger players playing defence a lot harder and in more sophisticated team systems.At the same time at lower level (High school college) teams can win by getting the best athletes and playing d and scoring in transition. Offensivey you have fewer good all round players since the game has become about spreading it out and penetrating. 3 maybe 4 of the kids on the floor at AAU game these days can score only one way, they can shoot the staionary jumper, or they can finish at the rim, kids who can do both, even if the can't put the ball on the floor more than one bounce are all rounders these days. If you have one or two guys that can beat people off the dribble that is the offence. So penetrating and stopping penetration is the battlefront.

So the officials are faced with an increasing number of on the ball calls, that are critical to flow of the game. Plus with the floor spread and great athlets everywhere the rebounding is full of guys crashing in from all over. It is tougher to ref now since the game had become physical and agressive than ever.

Personally I find the dribble, kick dribble kick, dribble kick shoot a three, flow that often results as tedious and unwatchable just as much as the refffing.

[ifmanis5]

Boogie Cousins Called BS last night and now he'll get fined.

LINK: http://sportsillustr...ml?eref=writers

But Cousins didn't see it that way. He viewed the no-call as a continuation of the preferential treatment that Griffin has received from the NBA during his two seasons.

"He's babied," Cousins told SI.com after the Kings fell to the Clippers 93-85. "He's the poster child of the league. He sells tickets, but he's babied. Bottom line."

Babied by whom, Cousins was asked.

"The refs, the league -- period," he continued. "He gets away with [everything]. He taunts players. Nothing is done. He's babied."

[Greenwell982]

Boogie Cousins Called BS last night and now he'll get fined.

He speaks the truth. It's sad you can't anymore in the league.

[fairlee76]

Wow, and here I was thinking the day would never come when I would agree with DeMarcus Cousins. Dude is spot on in his critique of Blake Griffin and the NBA/ESPN marketing machine in general.

[Brickowski]

The Vegas line for last night's game with Atlanta was Celtics +3. So anyone who bet on the Hawks cashed in. Just sayin.....

[Sheets]

The Vegas line for last night's game with Atlanta was Celtics +3. So anyone who bet on the Hawks cashed in. Just sayin.....

You mean Celtics -3, but I think we know what you meant.

[lars10]

You mean Celtics -3, but I think we know what you meant.

Last nights game was the first time in a while that I saw a ref crew trying to give a game to one team over the other, but the Hawks couldn't make it happen...(Can anyone imagine Wade or Lebron getting fouled out on a moving pick? or having a foul called on a incidental hit to the defenders face as they drove past with ten seconds left in OT?) It seems like the NBA puts a concentrated effort into keeping games close and leveling out calls which theoretically shouldn't have to happen.

My fear is that the playoffs brings about fewer ref groupings and most of them have history with the Celts..and usually not good. I think the reason the Heat beat the Celts last year in 5 is because they had a +70 something free throw advantage...especially late in games. In addition given how shallow the bench is a team like the Celtics can be put in real trouble early if given quick fouls to one star or two.

[BigSoxFan]

Last nights game was the first time in a while that I saw a ref crew trying to give a game to one team over the other, but the Hawks couldn't make it happen...(Can anyone imagine Wade or Lebron getting fouled out on a moving pick? or having a foul called on a incidental hit to the defenders face as they drove past with ten seconds left in OT?) It seems like the NBA puts a concentrated effort into keeping games close and leveling out calls which theoretically shouldn't have to happen.

My fear is that the playoffs brings about fewer ref groupings and most of them have history with the Celts..and usually not good. I think the reason the Heat beat the Celts last year in 5 is because they had a +70 something free throw advantage...especially late in games. In addition given how shallow the bench is a team like the Celtics can be put in real trouble early if given quick fouls to one star or two.

There was a long discussion last year about the FT discrepancy between the Heat and Celtics - some of it was justified and some of it was due to BS calls. That is my biggest fear about playing the Heat though. We all know that LeBron/Wade won't foul out so they never have to worry about foul trouble. Essentially, 2 quick fouls to Rondo/Pierce/KG is a lot more painful to us than 2 quick fouls to either LeBron or Wade because getting #5 or #6 against them is next to impossible.

[slamminsammya]

To me, the tone of the arguments people make about the officiating bias resembles conspiracy theorists at times. One hears phrases like "the league machine" and "David Stern's minions" and the like. And there is a whole hell of a lot of confirmation bias and a great dearth of real data or quantitative analysis. And no, comparing FT attempts does not constitute quantitative "proof".

[lars10]

To me, the tone of the arguments people make about the officiating bias resembles conspiracy theorists at times. One hears phrases like "the league machine" and "David Stern's minions" and the like. And there is a whole hell of a lot of confirmation bias and a great dearth of real data or quantitative analysis. And no, comparing FT attempts does not constitute quantitative "proof".

I realize that some of it is smoke and mirrors..but I remember that at one point the Heat had +130 free throws or something on their opponents in the playoffs. Now this by itself wasn't a big deal, but the next highest discrepancy was +40 or so and most teams were grouped around them. Now maybe I'm wrong, but I see a problem when there is an outlier like that, but maybe I'm just grasping at straws. In the games I watched the Heat play I felt like they were allowed a much greater swath in regards to physical contact on D. This may be confirmation bias, but I rarely see Lebron get called for going through the body to get one of his monster blocks, for instance...he is truly athletic, but I believe those should be fouls even if he gets the ball but I could be incorrect.

And my bias doesn't come from being a Celts fan, but was truly frustrated by the Bulls series as well. All in all I think the flow of NBA playoff games has been ruined with too many whistles and breaks for advertising.

I think someone needs to do a study in general to see if there is anything to confirm that certain teams are favored... for every person that says there is something fishy going on there is another (slamminsammya for instance) saying that they are just conspiracy theorists...neither side brings any actual data or 'proof' to the conversation. slamminsammya..what numbers would actually show that games are 'rigged'?

[BigSoxFan]

To me, the tone of the arguments people make about the officiating bias resembles conspiracy theorists at times. One hears phrases like "the league machine" and "David Stern's minions" and the like. And there is a whole hell of a lot of confirmation bias and a great dearth of real data or quantitative analysis. And no, comparing FT attempts does not constitute quantitative "proof".

Umm, people were watching the games where they could see for themselves and quoting the relevant stats. The refs were (arguably) pro-Heat in their series against the Celtics/Bulls. Then, for whatever reason, the calls for the Heat didn't show up in the Finals and, what do you know, they lost.

[JohnnyTheBone]

To me, the tone of the arguments people make about the officiating bias resembles conspiracy theorists at times. One hears phrases like "the league machine" and "David Stern's minions" and the like. And there is a whole hell of a lot of confirmation bias and a great dearth of real data or quantitative analysis. And no, comparing FT attempts does not constitute quantitative "proof".

I realize that some of it is smoke and mirrors..but I remember that at one point the Heat had +130 free throws or something on their opponents in the playoffs. Now this by itself wasn't a big deal, but the next highest discrepancy was +40 or so and most teams were grouped around them. Now maybe I'm wrong, but I see a problem when there is an outlier like that, but maybe I'm just grasping at straws.

How's the Tim Donaghy scandal for quantitative proof? Does the fact that an NBA referee did prison time for fixing games qualify as "proof"? How short are our f*cking memories? It's like smashing your head into a motherf*cking wall.

http://sportsillustr...aghy/index.html

That's one of many. Anybody who thinks Donaghy "acted alone" must believe the same of Lee Harvey Oswald. Look at the extent of the NFL's investigation of the Saints bounty scandal. There are over 5,000 pages of evidence. Where was David Stern's similar investigation involving the very integrity of the outcomes of these games we spend so much time and money on? Oh yeah, Stern confidently assured us that he looked into it and discovered that Donaghy was just a "rogue official" and there was nothing else to see here.

http://deadspin.com/...ant-you-to-read

[bosox188]

How's the Tim Donaghy scandal for quantitative proof? Does the fact that an NBA referee did prison time for fixing games qualify as "proof"? How short are our f*cking memories? It's like smashing your head into a motherf*cking wall.

http://sportsillustr...aghy/index.html

That's one of many. Anybody who thinks Donaghy "acted alone" must believe the same of Lee Harvey Oswald. Look at the extent of the NFL's investigation of the Saints bounty scandal. There are over 5,000 pages of evidence. Where was David Stern's similar investigation involving the very integrity of the outcomes of these games we spend so much time and money on? Oh yeah, Stern confidently assured us that he looked into it and discovered that Donaghy was just a "rogue official" and there was nothing else to see here.

http://deadspin.com/...ant-you-to-read

This may veer a bit off topic, but for all the complaints people have about Roger Goodell, he sure looks good next to David Stern when it comes to protecting the integrity of their respective games.

[slamminsammya]

How's the Tim Donaghy scandal for quantitative proof? Does the fact that an NBA referee did prison time for fixing games qualify as "proof"? How short are our f*cking memories? It's like smashing your head into a motherf*cking wall.

http://sportsillustr...aghy/index.html

That's one of many. Anybody who thinks Donaghy "acted alone" must believe the same of Lee Harvey Oswald. Look at the extent of the NFL's investigation of the Saints bounty scandal. There are over 5,000 pages of evidence. Where was David Stern's similar investigation involving the very integrity of the outcomes of these games we spend so much time and money on? Oh yeah, Stern confidently assured us that he looked into it and discovered that Donaghy was just a "rogue official" and there was nothing else to see here.

http://deadspin.com/...ant-you-to-read

I guess my point was not very clear. I am not disputing that the officiating is at times not good. Nor do I dispute that there is bias amongst the officials. Nor do I disagree with the premise of the topic. I think the NBA has an officiating problem which they could be doing more about. My problem is that it often seems the discussion gets carried away with groupthink, confirmation bias, and good ole fashioned conspiracy theorizing.

In particular I think that there are certain tacitly accepted positions in this thread that people hold simultaneously and yet contradict each other. For example, you brought of Steve Donaghy. Perfect example to point towards if you are arguing that there is questionable officiating. But actually a terrible example if you are one of those people constantly harping about the calls the superstars get. If you think the refs are all crooked or gambling on games, then they would likely not be consistently giving particular players calls. Another example: A frequent line of thought is something like "well Stern and his cronies in the league office really want to see team X succeed for the ratings and MONEY EVIL LAUGH NEW WORLD ORDER", and you bring up Tim Donaghy, but again the Donaghy example demonstrates a lack of control over the officials that doesn't really jibe with a David-Stern-Puppet-Master theory.

I guess I would ask, to those people who talk about "rigging" games and the like, what exactly do you think is going on? Because I just feel like the discussion is a bunch of half-coherent theories thrown around without any real critical reflection or attempt to find data which is not just "Well Lebron shot more FT's than Paul Pierce in the playoffs so....DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS!!!"

There was actually a website, which I think sadly does not exist anymore, which a couple of NBA fans made because they were also frustrated by the officials and wanted to systematically test their theory that the officiating was garbage. They did several Celtics playoff games last year, and I recall that their results were generally surprising in that the officials were quite good, and really the only thing that they were consistently inconsistent with was travelling calls, which were not really skewed towards particular teams or players. I can't find the link maybe someone can help me out.

[bowiac]

The existence of a crooked ref does not show in any way that the refereeing in the NBA is systemically rigged or biased against certain teams, or types of teams.

[JohnnyTheBone]

For example, you brought of Steve Donaghy. Perfect example to point towards if you are arguing that there is questionable officiating. But actually a terrible example if you are one of those people constantly harping about the calls the superstars get.
<snip>
I guess I would ask, to those people who talk about "rigging" games and the like, what exactly do you think is going on? Because I just feel like the discussion is a bunch of half-coherent theories thrown around without any real critical reflection or attempt to find data which is not just "Well Lebron shot more FT's than Paul Pierce in the playoffs so....DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS!!!"

Read the Deadspin link I provided, it will answer almost all of your questions. Here's an excerpt:

Relationships between NBA players and referees were generally all over the board — love, hate, and everything in-between. Some players, even very good ones, were targeted by referees and the league because they were too talented for their own good. Raja Bell, formerly of the Phoenix Suns and now a member of the Charlotte Bobcats, was one of those players. A defensive specialist throughout his career, Bell had a reputation for being a "star stopper." His defensive skills were so razor sharp that he could shut down a superstar, or at least make him work for his points. Kobe Bryant was often frustrated by Bell's tenacity on defense. Let's face it, no one completely shuts down a player of Kobe's caliber, but Bell could frustrate Kobe, take him out of his game, and interrupt his rhythm.

You would think that the NBA would love a guy who plays such great defense. Think again! Star stoppers hurt the promotion of marquee players. Fans don't pay high prices to see players like Raja Bell — they pay to see superstars like Kobe Bryant score 40 points. Basketball purists like to see good defense, but the NBA wants the big names to score big points.

If a player of Kobe's stature collides with the likes of Raja Bell, the call will almost always go for Kobe and against Bell. As part of our ongoing training and game preparation, NBA referees regularly receive game-action video tape from the league office. Over the years, I have reviewed many recorded hours of video involving Raja Bell. The footage I analyzed usually illustrated fouls being called against Bell, rarely for him. The message was subtle but clear — call fouls against the star stopper because he's hurting the game.

If Kobe Bryant had two fouls in the first or second quarter and went to the bench, one referee would tell the other two, "Kobe's got two fouls. Let's make sure that if we call a foul on him, it's an obvious foul, because otherwise he's gonna go back to the bench. If he is involved in a play where a foul is called, give the foul to another player."

Similarly, when games got physically rough, we would huddle up and agree to tighten the game up. So we started calling fouls on guys who didn't really matter — "ticky-tack" or "touch" fouls where one player just touched another but didn't really impede his progress. Under regular circumstances these wouldn't be fouls, but after a skirmish we wanted to regain control. We would never call these types of fouls on superstars, just on the average players who didn't have star status. It was important to keep the stars on the floor.

Edited by JohnnyTheBone, 12 April 2012 - 09:04 PM.

[bowiac]

In fairness, there's no reason to believe a word he says there, right? I mean, it could be true, but it's also exactly what you would expect him to write in order to sell books, no?

The book by him that was all about how the NBA isn't super crooked, and he was really just an isolated bad actor would probably not be as interesting, or sell as well, right?

[JohnnyTheBone]

I don't know what else to say. Canseco was mocked when his book came out. The guy was privvy to what goes on because, unlike you or I, he was actually there as a longtime NBA ref.

[ishmael]

The existence of a crooked ref does not show in any way that the refereeing in the NBA is systemically rigged or biased against certain teams, or types of teams.

No, but one crooked ref being caught does not mean all the remaining guys are clean.

I am usually so annoyed by Tommy that I turn down the volume, but last night was ridiculous in OT. Let's just say I was less than shocked when I looked up the lines and saw Celtics at -2.5 or -3.5 in every sports book.

I stopped following wrestling when I was 10 years old, because it's not real. Sad that I might have to stop watching the NBA for the same reason...

[Brickowski]

The problem in the NBA, as I've said before, is that the quality of the everyday officiating is so inconsistent and awful that it's impossible to distinguish the crooked refs from the merely incompetent ones.

[bowiac]

I don't know what else to say. Canseco was mocked when his book came out. The guy was privvy to what goes on because, unlike you or I, he was actually there as a longtime NBA ref.

I'm not saying it's implausible, but there's also no reason to believe it. The fact that Canseco was right has no real relationship to this. Canseco burned actual bridges with what he wrote - Donaghy's bridges were all already burned. At that point, you might as well go all out. There have also been a couple different betting analysis analyzing Donaghy's claims about more widespread fixing, which in so many words, found he was full of it.

I agree he was in a position to know. That's not enough to conclude he's telling the truth however. Being privvy is helpful if your witness has credibility, not so much if they don't.

[SumnerH]

The Raja Bell stuff is pointless--it's entirely possible that the reason that the calls went against him instead of Kobe is because there are tons more fouls called on the defense than the offense in the NBA.

But I agree with the thread's premise--I've barely watched the NBA since a couple of years before Donaghy; whether it's for my team or against, it looks more rigged to me than any other sport (college basketball included), to the point where I'm not sure I'm watching a real athletic contest and therefore it's not very interesting to watch.

I grew up with the Sox and Celts as my 1 and 1A teams, but at this point it'd take a lot to get me back watching. People always say that "you say that now, but when they start winning you'll come back", but even 2008 didn't do it for me.

[lostjumper]

But I agree with the thread's premise--I've barely watched the NBA since a couple of years before Donaghy; whether it's for my team or against, it looks more rigged to me than any other sport (college basketball included), to the point where I'm not sure I'm watching a real athletic contest and therefore it's not very interesting to watch.

I'm in exactly the same place. I would love to watch basketball again, but anytime I try to watch a game, I can't tell if the game is rigged or the refs are simply incompetent. I have as much faith in the fairness NBA officiating as the WWE. What amazes me is people have been complaining about the terrible officiating for years, and it never changes. If anything, its gotten worse. As long as Stern runs this league, there will be questions about the officiating, so I simply don't watch anymore.

I think my favorite thing is when a team gets up by 10-12 at halftime, and then they come back out and the first 5 calls go against them and the game is suddenly even again. Its almost like the officials got a call during halftime...

Edited by lostjumper, 13 April 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

How's the Tim Donaghy scandal for quantitative proof? Does the fact that an NBA referee did prison time for fixing games qualify as "proof"? How short are our f*cking memories? It's like smashing your head into a motherf*cking wall.

http://sportsillustr...aghy/index.html

That's one of many. Anybody who thinks Donaghy "acted alone" must believe the same of Lee Harvey Oswald. Look at the extent of the NFL's investigation of the Saints bounty scandal. There are over 5,000 pages of evidence. Where was David Stern's similar investigation involving the very integrity of the outcomes of these games we spend so much time and money on? Oh yeah, Stern confidently assured us that he looked into it and discovered that Donaghy was just a "rogue official" and there was nothing else to see here.

http://deadspin.com/...ant-you-to-read

How short is your memory? Because this comes up around here everytime the playoffs roll around, and every time 3 or 4 people provide dozens of links that show how easily Donaghy's stories are debunked and how ultimately he was just a degenerate gambler who tried to push the NBA is fixed narrative to make some cash. But there wasn't any substance to it, so much so that his publisher refused to publish his book because it wasn't based in fact, and they didn't want to open themselves up to a lawsuit.

Seriously, the guy was a shitty gambler. Nothing he claims holds up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. At this point, the NBA fixers sound like 9/11 truthers. There may as well be some guy sitting in the Union Square Subway station playing a shitty VHS copy of that Lakers-Blazers game 7.

The NBA has some officiating problems, sure. But the idea that it's fixed is ridiculous.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

How short is your memory? Because this comes up around here everytime the playoffs roll around (i.e. when 85% of people start watching the NBA), and every time 3 or 4 people provide dozens of links that show how easily Donaghy's stories are debunked and how ultimately he was just a degenerate gambler who tried to push the NBA is fixed narrative to make some cash. But there wasn't any substance to it, so much so that his publisher refused to publish his book because it wasn't based in fact, and they didn't want to open themselves up to a lawsuit.

Seriously, the guy was a shitty gambler. Nothing he claims holds up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. At this point, the NBA fixers sound like 9/11 truthers. There may as well be some guy sitting in the Union Square Subway station playing a shitty VHS copy of that Lakers-Blazers game 7.

The NBA has some officiating problems, sure. But the idea that it's fixed is ridiculous.

Edited by Grin&MartyBarret, 13 April 2012 - 08:14 AM.

[BigSoxFan]

See, this is where this argument always, and I mean ALWAYS, breaks down. Saying the games are "fixed" is too strong of a wording so the people who attack the NBA ref "truthers" use that to disprove what the other side is saying. The games aren't fixed - well, that Lakers/Kings game may have been - but they certainly are influenced by questionable reffing. Of course, it's impossible to determine which calls are due to ref bias and which ones are due to incompetence. So this discussion always gets bogged down.

The simple reality is that the NBA is a superstar league. Teams with more superstars are naturally going to get more calls - it's unfortunate that we have to deal with this reality but it's not going to change. LeBron will continue to be allowed to take 5 steps on a fastbreak dunk. Wade will be allowed to do practically whatever he wants without retribution. And everybody else will basically play under the same rulebook. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Celtics typically play better when refs are more lax with the whistles.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

See, this is where this argument always, and I mean ALWAYS, breaks down. Saying the games are "fixed" is too strong of a wording so the people who attack the NBA ref "truthers" use that to disprove what the other side is saying. The games aren't fixed - well, that Lakers/Kings game may have been - but they certainly are influenced by questionable reffing. Of course, it's impossible to determine which calls are due to ref bias and which ones are due to incompetence. So this discussion always gets bogged down.

The simple reality is that the NBA is a superstar league. Teams with more superstars are naturally going to get more calls - it's unfortunate that we have to deal with this reality but it's not going to change. LeBron will continue to be allowed to take 5 steps on a fastbreak dunk. Wade will be allowed to do practically whatever he wants without retribution. And everybody else will basically play under the same rulebook. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Celtics typically play better when refs are more lax with the whistles.

I agree with this. The quality of NBA officiating is pretty low, due to dozens of factors, including superstar bias, NBA basketball just being difficult to call, and a bunch of others.

I just hate it when people throw the Donaghy thing out there as if it's evidence of anything. He himself vehemently denies fixing NBA games, and claims that through his knowledge of the behavior of other NBA referees, he was able to win 70% of the time when betting on the NBA. His book laid out examples of tendencies other referees had that he used to be successful. The problem is that the data--the results of NBA games involving those referees--simply doesn't support Donaghy's claims.

[ALiveH]

Donaghy lays out some serious accusations that jive with what most in the "conspiracy theory" crowd claim...

Now, you may think he made a lot of mistakes in his life and is a bad guy and I'd agree.

You may think his book is full of lies - but remember he made all those accusations in Federal court testimony under penalty of perjury.

You may think a convicted felon should lose all credibility automatically - but remember we have a concept in the legal system of "repaying one's debt to society" - he has already taken his punishment.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Donaghy lays out some serious accusations that jive with what most in the "conspiracy theory" crowd claim...

Now, you may think he made a lot of mistakes in his life and is a bad guy and I'd agree.

You may think his book is full of lies - but remember he made all those accusations in Federal court testimony under penalty of perjury.

You may think a convicted felon should lose all credibility automatically - but remember we have a concept in the legal system of "repaying one's debt to society" - he has already taken his punishment.

I don't think his book is full of lies. I think his book is about strategies that he genuinely believed to be successful NBA gambling strategies. He was just wrong, and like most big gamblers, he wasn't nearly as good as he thought he was.

People completely misunderstand the nature of his accusations and how he claimed to have been so successful gambling on NBA games. It wasn't about fixing games or an edict handed down by Stern, it was about the human relationships between NBA players/coaches and referees, and specific tendencies of referees that he'd observed. And I think he genuinely believed in his strategies effectiveness, the same way all degenerate gamblers believe in their ability to be better than the odds. But again, the things he said to be true didn't turn out to be true. He said that he won by doing following a specific set of rules, and the data shows that you wouldn't win by betting on the set of rules he laid out.

[crystalline]

People completely misunderstand the nature of his accusations and how he claimed to have been so successful gambling on NBA games. It wasn't about fixing games or an edict handed down by Stern, it was about the human relationships between NBA players/coaches and referees, and specific tendencies of referees that he'd observed. And I think he genuinely believed in his strategies effectiveness, the same way all degenerate gamblers believe in their ability to be better than the odds. But again, the things he said to be true didn't turn out to be true. He said that he won by doing following a specific set of rules, and the data shows that you wouldn't win by betting on the set of rules he laid out.

I also agree with you on almost all issues of substance- that the league has a problem with superstar favoritism, for example.

But the issue with Donaghy's gambling strategies is that the market is pretty efficient. Vegas basically knew everything he did- hell, we talk about Crawford's biases regularly. So the line would be set to take that knowledge into account. That's the reason why the only good gambling strategies are secrets- once enough people know, they no longer work. So I'm not sure Donaghy's results are a good counterargument.

[slamminsammya]

See, this is where this argument always, and I mean ALWAYS, breaks down. Saying the games are "fixed" is too strong of a wording so the people who attack the NBA ref "truthers" use that to disprove what the other side is saying. The games aren't fixed - well, that Lakers/Kings game may have been - but they certainly are influenced by questionable reffing. Of course, it's impossible to determine which calls are due to ref bias and which ones are due to incompetence. So this discussion always gets bogged down.

The simple reality is that the NBA is a superstar league. Teams with more superstars are naturally going to get more calls - it's unfortunate that we have to deal with this reality but it's not going to change. LeBron will continue to be allowed to take 5 steps on a fastbreak dunk. Wade will be allowed to do practically whatever he wants without retribution. And everybody else will basically play under the same rulebook. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Celtics typically play better when refs are more lax with the whistles.

Regarding the infamous Lakers-Kings game, Roland Beech (who now works for Dallas) had a fantastic article in which he did a systematic, though subjective, review of the officiating in the game. See here: http://www.82games.c...skingsgame6.htm For those who don't want to read it/don't want to accept a viewpoint that contradicts their cherished impression of NBA officiating, Beech's conclusion is that the officials were actually pretty darned good, although with the caveat that the Lakers were the beneficiaries of 7 out of 9 "dubious" calls. Whether you think that constitutes a "fix" is up to you; I personally find that notion outrageous.

BigSoxFan, I was with you on the first paragraph, but I want to challenge that assertion you make that the NBA is a "superstar league" and that Miami is somehow benefiting from special treatment. I do agree that Lebron/Wade get away with lots of travels, but to that I say so does everybody and I mean everybody in this league, and if Wade/Lebron get away with more it is not so much because they get conscious special treatment from the refs but rather because their styles of play just result in more hard drives to the hoops which will naturally lead to a greater number of noncalls. But really my problem with your point, and this really goes to everyone who just casually engages in the "superstar league" theory and never really questions it, is that there is no data! Can someone please find any hard evidence that superstars get more calls?

Now I understand that objective analysis is difficult particularly on this issue since one naturally runs into chicken/egg questions. Does Lebron get to the line because he gets lots of ticky tack calls, or is it because his playing style is that of a freight train? Are the superstars beneficiaries of calls in general, or are they superstars in the first place because they are able to draw/avoid contact due to superior athleticism/intelligence etc.? It is hard to show convincing evidence that there is systematic bias towards superstars. But my issue is that no one really makes an attempt to question this accepted wisdom beyond just saying "well the Heat shot a bunch of FT's so there." Even in the Donaghy example, he claimed that calls were to a large extent influenced by personal relationships, but this would seem to contradict the superstar theory since one would expect that personal relationships with superstars should be not substantially different than those with scrubs. Maybe Greg Stiemsma is a great guy who gets along really well wit Dick Bavetta; maybe they all hate Wade for his whining.

Again, I do not question that there are problems with the officiating. But I love love love the NBA product and hate to see people turned away by it because they hear that its a "superstar league" from a board which when it comes to baseball never blindly accepts those old fashioned accepted wisdom stock phrases. Watch any game that doesn't involve a team that you feel strongly about and I bet that with an objective eye you will conclude that the officials are at times not good, but for the most part pretty spot on and when they are not good they tend to be in the long run equal opportunity incompetents.

[Brickowski]

I'm tired of the excuses. Many of the factors that make the NBA game hard to officiate are present in the men's college game, and IMHO those officials generally do a better job than the NBA refs-- and that's with two guys, not three.

If you've ever taken the trouble to write directly to the NBA about the terrible officiating you get this canned response about how closely the officials are evaluated, blah blah blah blah. But the quality never improves. In fact, the officiating was better in the Mindy Rudolph days than it is now. Stern took responsibility for the officials away from Stu Jackson following the Donaghy incident and gave it to some retired army general, but nothing changed. Nothing ever changes.

Edited by Brickowski, 13 April 2012 - 11:25 AM.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I also agree with you on almost all issues of substance- that the league has a problem with superstar favoritism, for example.

But the issue with Donaghy's gambling strategies is that the market is pretty efficient. Vegas basically knew everything he did- hell, we talk about Crawford's biases regularly. So the line would be set to take that knowledge into account. That's the reason why the only good gambling strategies are secrets- once enough people know, they no longer work. So I'm not sure Donaghy's results are a good counterargument.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but the past data didn't show his strategies to be effective. The data that was analyzed was the data for the period during which Donaghy claims to have been employing those strategies. For instance, he claims in his book that Dick Bavetta always favors the underdogs, and that he would always bet on the underdog in games with a spread of 7 points or more in games Bavetta was officiating. When that data was sorted, it turned out that the underdog only covered 46% of the time in those instances. Underdogs actually covered the spread more frequently (52% of the time) when Bavetta wasn't officiating. He also claimed that Steve Javie hated Allen Iverson, and as a result that he would always bet against the Sixers in games when Javie was reffing. The Sixers went 6-7 against the spread in those games. On the other hand, Donaghy claims that Joe Crawford loved Allen Iverson, and that he would win big by betting on Iverson teams when Crawford was reffing. And Iverson teams went 5-9 against the spread in those games.

[slamminsammya]

I'm tired of the excuses. Many of the factors that make the NBA game hard to officiate are present in the men's college game, and IMHO those officials generally do a better job than the NBA refs-- and that's with two guys, not three.

If you've ever taken the trouble to write directly to the NBA about the terrible officiating you get this canned response about how closely the officials are evaluated, blah blah blah blah. But the quality never improves. In fact, the officiating was better in the Mindy Rudolph days than it is now. Stern took responsibility for the officials away from Stu Jackson following the Donaghy incident and gave it to some retired army general, but nothing changed. Nothing ever changes.

Don't watch that much college basketball, but I can say for certain that would never happen in the NBA.

[crystalline]

Maybe I wasn't clear, but the past data didn't show his strategies to be effective. The data that was analyzed was the data for the period during which Donaghy claims to have been employing those strategies. For instance, he claims in his book that Dick Bavetta always favors the underdogs, and that he would always bet on the underdog in games with a spread of 7 points or more in games Bavetta was officiating. When that data was sorted, it turned out that the underdog only covered 46% of the time in those instances. Underdogs actually covered the spread more frequently (52% of the time) when Bavetta wasn't officiating. He also claimed that Steve Javie hated Allen Iverson, and as a result that he would always bet against the Sixers in games when Javie was reffing. The Sixers went 6-7 against the spread in those games. On the other hand, Donaghy claims that Joe Crawford loved Allen Iverson, and that he would win big by betting on Iverson teams when Crawford was reffing. And Iverson teams went 5-9 against the spread in those games.

Sorry I didn't explain well.
It may well have been that Steve Javie hated Allen Iverson and made calls against him. But I was saying that the Vegas line already took that into account. It's completely reasonable to believe that sports books watch the games very carefully and observe what fouls are called and how players respond. And they read the media about the refs; they may even have access to ref gossip. Vegas probably knew as soon as Donaghy did that Javie didn't like Iverson.
So if the Vegas line already took Javie's biases into account, then Donaghy would not do well against the spread.
But that doesn't mean he's not right.

Fair enough?

The big picture is that there's widespread disillusionment with NBA refereeing, and the NBA is not taking high profile action to fix it. We can all agree there is bias in favor of superstars. It's hardly a stretch to believe that refs can be biased against particular players because of personal reasons -- the Duncan/Crawford problems are not disputed and Crawford is still reffing. I don't need Donaghy's stories to believe those statements.
The next step is whether refs make calls to keep games close or to extend playoff series or to favor the home team. (And the step after that is explicit fixing, influenced by the league - let's completely ignore that, as only the most extreme advance that view.) I tend to believe that those three are all done to some extent. But my feelings on this don't matter - the only thing that matters is whether enough fans are annoyed with the reffing that they stop watching the games. Despite giving up on the NBA repeatedly, initially and most intensely after Lakers/Kings game six, I've gotten drawn back in this year. But I'm pretty sure that any game where the Heat are down and LeBron takes 5 steps without a call is going to set me off. And if Wade injures another Celtic this year semi-intentionally, I may throw something through the nearest TV.

[simplyeric]

But I agree with the thread's premise--I've barely watched the NBA since a couple of years before Donaghy; whether it's for my team or against, it looks more rigged to me than any other sport (college basketball included), to the point where I'm not sure I'm watching a real athletic contest and therefore it's not very interesting to watch.

I grew up with the Sox and Celts as my 1 and 1A teams, but at this point it'd take a lot to get me back watching. People always say that "you say that now, but when they start winning you'll come back", but even 2008 didn't do it for me.

I find this stance curious. I don't love the refereeing of the games... But I'd say you're missing a heck of a lot of good basketball. Some of Rondo's recent games have been lovely to see.

It's like you decided not watch movies ever again because you watched too many Tyler Perry joints and/or America Pie movies, and decided that film was dead to you.

There's still good basketball out there. The refs piss me off, but you're missing out.

[Brickowski]

Yeah, the refs do their best to ruin about half the games, but the other half are great. And once in awhile there is a game that is so well officiated that you hardly know the officials were there.