Celtics vs Heat ECF Redux Discussion Thread

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,071
Wertheim, L. Jon. Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won (pp. 164-165). Crown/Archetype. Kindle Edition.
Like all studies, particularly good ones, that study raises more questions than it definitively answers, particularly when applying it cross-sport.
 

Cornboy14

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2001
975
Help! I am in the Adirondacks without cable. How can I stream game on the internets? Thx in advance
Do you have a comcast cable account? If so, I think TNT is a channel you can watch anywhere on the Xfinity app (some channels are locked to your home network).
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
23,030
Guys, the rules allow for a player who loses control of the ball to pick it up again after it bounces. It's legal. Always has been. As long as the refs determine that the lost ball was accidental and not a dribble. (that's key because Butler had both hands on it and then lost it and it hit the floor...if he only had one hand on it, lost it, it hit the floor, he could have kept dribbling)

It's always been legal to do this if the refs determined that he lost it by accident. I don't think there's really a good argument that Butler did that on purpose, but ok, if he DID, then he's just taking advantage of the rules. But in doing so, he would have been taking a massive chance:

(1) It's ENTIRELY possible he could have completely lost control of it and never gotten the ball back.
(2) He put himself in a really difficult position to take a shot. You guys go to the gym next time and dribble and try gathering and going up for a shot, and then try fumbling the ball forward, gathering it after a fumble and shooting off balance. See which one is easier to do.
(3) He risked the refs thinking it wasn't accidental but intentional, and being called for a double dribble. He can't know what the refs will think.

Furthermore, how would this be different than any other player taking advantage of any other rule? He takes advantage of foul calls by flinging himself into defenders and getting the whistle. Perfectly legal. Annoying as hell, but perfectly legal. Harden and Tatum (among others) take advantage of the gather step rule to take three side steps to shoot threes. Tatum and Butler and others take advantage of the rules to push off when driving to the basket. Players take advantage of the rules as refs let them play more physically. Tatum (and most everyone else) takes advantage of the rules by carrying and taking multiple steps before dribbling. I couldn't believe it when Tatum was actually called for a carry the other night. Shocking.

The play sucked because it hurt the Celtics. But if he had that bobble and Al didn't foul him and he chucked up this awful, totally off balance shot and missed by three feet, nobody here would have cared or even, likely, noticed a double dribble. It would have just looked like a player fumbling the ball and mishandling it and turning a decent look into a terrible look, and everyone would have made fun of him. If Tatum or Brown would have done it, 100% we would have attributed it to being just a fumbled ball.

But of course, this is just my view of the matter and obviously plenty of people disagree with me here, which is fine. This is just how I see it. (except the rule part in the beginning...that part is objectively true - if a ref thinks you fumble the ball accidentally, the rule 100% allows you to pick it up again...there's no debate to be had about THAT part of this)
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,350
A Lost Time
The only reason I posted these quotes is because I had this debate in a greek soccer forum and I had them handy. According to the book I am quoting from travel doesn't play a role in home advantage:

We submit, however, that the travel doesn’t much matter. The rigors of the road exist, but they don’t underpin the home court advantage. Why do we say this? Consider what happens when teams from the same (or a nearby) city play each other, when the Los Angeles Lakers play the Los Angeles Clippers in the NBA—the two teams share the same arena—or the New York Rangers play against the New York Islanders or the New Jersey Devils in the NHL. For these games, the “rigors of travel” are nonexistent. Everyone is in his natural time zone and sleeping in his own bed. Yet if you look at all these “same city” games, you find that home teams have the exact same advantage they do in all the other games they host. Likewise, road teams don’t lose more often when they travel greater distances. Controlling for the quality of the opponent, the San Antonio Spurs, for example, fare no better when they take puddle-jumpers to play the Dallas Mavericks and Houston Rockets than when they make longer trips to Boston, Toronto, and Miami. We can take this one step further in the NHL, looking at games that involve not only long travel distances but also border crossing—which can require negotiating customs and other procedures that generally increase the pain of transit—by examining U.S. teams that play in Canada and vice versa. Yet we find no abnormal home ice advantage for U.S. teams visiting Canadian teams or vice versa, even for those farthest from home. In Major League Baseball the rigors of travel aren’t a significant issue, either. Just as in the NBA and NHL, for games involving teams from the same metro area—interleague play between the Chicago Cubs and White Sox, New York Yankees and Mets, Los Angeles Dodgers and Angels, San Francisco Giants and Oakland A’s—the home teams win at exactly the same rate at which they normally do. We also know that home field advantage has been remarkably constant over the last century; it was virtually the same in MLB from 1903 to 1909 as it was from 2003 to 2009. This suggests that the teams jetting on chartered flights with catered meals, high-thread-count linens, and flat-screen televisions have no more success than did the teams that traveled to games in Pullmans and buses. (Either travel isn’t causing the home advantage or teams need to rethink their jet purchases and the on-flight catering.)

....

Finally, we noticed that home field advantage in soccer is the same in countries such as the Netherlands, Costa Rica, and El Salvador, where travel distances are minuscule, as it is in countries as vast as the United States, Russia, Australia, and Brazil. It is yet another indication that travel isn’t much of a factor.
Scorecasting (pp. 123-124). Crown. Kindle Edition.

However travel is associated with back to back games and bad scheduling usually hurts road teams contributing to home court advantage:

Okay, we’ve discounted the effect of the “grueling” travel. But what about the fact that visiting teams play the vast majority of back-to-back games? Could that influence the home court advantage in the NBA? We think it does. And this particular Spurs-Blazers game notwithstanding, the vast majority of back-to-back games are played by road teams. Of the 20 or so back-to-back games NBA teams play each season, an average of 14 occur when they’re on the road. That alone affects the home court advantage in the NBA. By our calculations, you are expected to win only 36 percent of those 14 games relative to your normal chances of winning on the road when you aren’t playing back-to-back games. That translates into one or two additional games you will lose each season on the road because of this scheduling twist. In other words, home teams are essentially spotted an advantage of one or two games relative to road teams just from the NBA’s scheduling of consecutive games. It’s not just the back-to-back games. Home teams not only play fewer consecutive games but also play fewer games in general within the same time span, such as the last three days or the last week or even the last two weeks. All this takes its toll on visitors. We estimate that about 21 percent of the home court advantage in the NBA can be attributed to the league’s scheduling. Adjusting for this scheduling effect, the home court advantage drops down to 60 percent. So part of the explanation for the very high NBA home court advantage is the way the league is arranging the schedule.
Scorecasting (pp. 125-126). Crown. Kindle Edition.

However, most of NBA's homecourt bias can be attributed to the refs.

Recall that in the NBA home and away teams shoot identically from the free throw line. But home teams shoot more free throws than away teams—between 1 and 1.5 more per game. Why? Because away teams are called for more fouls, particularly shooting fouls. Away teams also are called for more turnovers and more violations. These differences could be caused by more aggressive or sloppy play on the part of road teams, which could be more tired because of the lopsided NBA schedule. But they are also consistent with referee bias. To help distinguish sloppy play on the road from referee home bias, let’s take a closer look at the types of fouls, turnovers, and violations that are committed by home and away teams. Certain fouls, turnovers, and violations require more referee discretion and judgment than others. For example, highly uncertain situations and close calls, where a judgment must be made, allow for greater referee influence, as opposed to something less ambiguous such as a shot clock violation that everyone can easily monitor because the 24-second shot clock is posted above the two baskets and a red light illuminates the glass backboard when the clock expires. If sloppy or aggressive play by the away team is causing these differences, we should not expect to see the number of violations vary with how ambiguous or uncertain the fouls, turnovers, or violations are regardless of how much referee judgment is required. If you’re playing badly, you’re probably playing badly across many dimensions of the game. We looked at calls requiring more or less referee judgment to see whether the home advantage was the same. Loose ball and offensive fouls seem to be the most ambiguous and contentious. Ted Bernhardt, a longtime NBA official, now retired, helped us with our analysis. “Blocking fouls versus charging fouls are by far the hardest calls to make,” he says. It turns out that offensive and loose ball fouls go the home team’s way at twice the rate of other personal fouls. We can also look at fouls that are more valuable, such as those that cause a change of possession. These fouls are almost four times more likely to go the home team’s way than fouls that don’t cause a change of possession. What about turnovers and violations? Turnovers from shot clock violations, which aren’t particularly ambiguous or controversial, are no different for home or away teams. Turnovers from five-second violations on inbounds plays, which are also fairly unambiguous because everyone can count (though referees may count a little slower or faster than everyone else and there is no clock indicating when five seconds has elapsed), are also not very different for home and away teams (in fact, home teams receive slightly more five-second violations). If, however, we look at the most ambiguous turnover calls requiring the most judgment, such as palming and traveling, we see huge differences in home and away numbers. The chance of a visiting player getting called for traveling is 15 percent higher than it is for a home team player. The fact that ambiguous fouls and turnovers tend to go the home team’s way and unambiguous ones don’t is hard to reconcile with sloppy play on the part of visiting teams. But it’s exactly what you would expect from referee bias.
Scorecasting (pp. 152-154). Crown. Kindle Edition.
So how much of the home court advantage in the NBA is due to referee bias? If we attribute the differences in free throw attempts to referee bias, this would account for 0.8 points per game. That alone accounts for almost one-fourth of the NBA home court advantage of 3.4 points per game. If we gave credit to the referees for the more ambiguous turnover differences and computed the value of those turnovers, this would also capture another quarter of the home team’s advantage. Attributing some of the other foul differences to the referees and adding the effects of those fouls (other than free throws) on the game, this brings the total to about three-quarters of the home team’s advantage. And remember, scheduling in the NBA explained about 21 percent of the home team’s success, as well. That adds up to nearly all of the NBA home court advantage. Long story short, referee bias could well be the main reason for home court advantage in basketball. And if the refs call turnovers and fouls in the home team’s favor, we can assume they make other biased calls in favor of the home team that we cannot see or measure.
Scorecasting (p. 155). Crown. Kindle Edition.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,622
Interesting evidence that Boston's late-game struggles have actually been more about defense than offense:

Boston has been outscored by 11.4 points per 100 possessions in what NBA Advanced Stats defines as clutch situations -- game within five points in the last five minutes of regulation or any overtime -- after posting a minus-14.2 net rating in these situations last year.[...]

Although the Celtics' offense went cold late in Game 6, producing no field goals in the last 4:56 until White's putback, over the course of this year's playoffs Boston has scored close to league average in clutch situations. Furthermore, Second Spectrum's quantified shot probability (qSP) data suggests the Celtics have actually gotten good shot attempts late in games, based on the same factors that go into qSM.

The bigger issue has been Boston's late-game defense. The Celtics have given up 1.29 points per possession in clutch situations, according to NBA Advanced Stats, worst of any team with at least 15 such minutes. By contrast, Miami is allowing just 0.91 points per possession in the clutch.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,627
I was curious about the Heat three-point shooting ... good or great during these playoffs? I'm leaning toward "great," with the exception of the Heat v. Knicks series, when they shot poorly from distance. I decided to look at the numbers, and it's no wonder Milwaukee went down in 5 games. Heat were 77/171, or 45.03%, from three. Even with Giannis, not sure a team can survive that. (I know, Milwaukee's perimeter defense leaves something to be desired, but that's still pretty damn good shooting.)

Then they picked a perfect time to have a slump: against the Knicks. They were 70/229, or 30.57%. If they had shot like that versus Milwaukee or the Celtics, I don't think they'd still be around. But against New York, a weaker opponent, they were still able to win with marked three-point regression.

Then came the Celtics: obviously, here, their three-point game needed to be in excellent form. It hasn't quite been Milwaukee-level bonkers, but not too far off: 75/177, or 42.37%. For the Celtics, that's like your defense going up against a team of Steph Currys. The Celtics defense hasn't always been sharp, but last game they were hustling and contesting shots well, and Miami shot 46.7% from three. Did Pat Riley make a pact with Satan? Anyway ...

Just for kicks, I put together a chart of three-point performance based on avg. shooting for each game, of two of the best three-point shooting teams coming into the playoffs ... and the Miami Heat. It's an average of the percentages for each game, so it's not as accurate as the numbers above, but the figures are in the ballpark (e.g., it shows the Heat at 46.26% against the Bucks, not 45.03%, and 41.88% against the Celtics, not 42.37%). So, just to be clear, in this calculation, three-point shooting of 35% for one game, 40% for another, and 45% for a third, would produce an avg. of 40%, no matter how many shots were taken in each game).

Denver was the second-best three-point shooting team during the regular season. The Warriors were fourth-best. The Heat, as we all know, were in the bottom third (#22). Denver has arguably shot about as well, or maybe a little better, than their season avg. (38%) would have predicted. The Warriors unfortunately didn't shoot that well. But the Heat ... wow. They managed to get their three-point game going, just in time for the postseason, in a big way.


65404
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
41,568
Here
I find the "horford was fucked! No way to defend that" angle to be hilarious. Like, if horford stops when he fumbled the ball, o no 30 pct career shooter jimmy butler is pulling up for a Callaway corner 3
The problem for Al is he has his arm reaching nearly straight out towards Butler. Particularly once Butler picks the ball up, the arm needs to be straight up in the air. Butler still would have jumped into him, but it woulda been a 50-50 call real time and then a 50-50 call on replay kinda thing. Just because Butler seems to get the benefit of everything.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
31,369
Alexandria, VA
The only reason I posted these quotes is because I had this debate in a greek soccer forum and I had them handy. According to the book I am quoting from travel doesn't play a role in home advantage:



Scorecasting (pp. 123-124). Crown. Kindle Edition.

However travel is associated with back to back games and bad scheduling usually hurts road teams contributing to home court advantage:



Scorecasting (pp. 125-126). Crown. Kindle Edition.

However, most of NBA's homecourt bias can be attributed to the refs.



Scorecasting (pp. 152-154). Crown. Kindle Edition.


Scorecasting (p. 155). Crown. Kindle Edition.
That's a lot of quotes of one source, again.

Any explanation for why teams shoot free throws slightly better at home than away? Or the COVID-era studies that were uniquely able to control for crowds, and tended to find things like:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00784-8
Nevertheless, playing at home had a direct effect on the outcome even when the indirect effects through team performance and referees’ decisions were accounted for
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,622
OK, so: home teams are .755% all time in G7. Except, the home team has somehow lost 5 of the last 7 times. And are sub-500 since 2018 (excluding bubble games). But, the Celtics are responsible for the last two home-team G7 wins and have won 6 of their last 7 overall. That's one confusing data set.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,350
A Lost Time
Na bro, some guys did an overview of some soccer teams, and that settled it for all time in all sports. Or do you hate Science?
First, the article Sumner posted relies on soccer, second, the second list of quotes I posted were specifically about the NBA.

Thank you for making this board more readable and constructive though.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,350
A Lost Time
That's a lot of quotes of one source, again.

Any explanation for why teams shoot free throws slightly better at home than away? Or the COVID-era studies that were uniquely able to control for crowds, and tended to find things like:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00784-8
I am in the middle of reading this, thank you. FWIW, the book I quoted from said that home and road teams shoot an identical % of free throws.
 

schillzilla

lurker
May 11, 2006
108
Help! I am in the Adirondacks without cable. How can I stream game on the internets? Thx in advance
There is a direct TNT app that is available. Or I think you can access their stream directly from their website as well. If you do have a cable provider (xfinity, you tube TV, fios, etc) from the TNT app/website you can login with your cable account and get the stream for free. I actually had to do this when YouTube TV crapped the bed earlier in the series. TNT’s app stream was still working fine.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
31,369
Alexandria, VA
I am in the middle of reading this, thank you. FWIW, the book I quoted from said that home and road teams shoot an identical % of free throws.
FWIW I do think that homefield advantage is often overrated by fans, and questioning its degree is sensible. But I'm reluctant to rely on one source or book entirely.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,350
A Lost Time
FWIW I do think that homefield advantage is often overrated by fans, and questioning its degree is sensible. But I'm reluctant to rely on one source or book entirely.
Homecourt advantage is something that can be observed and measured in a pretty unambiguous way and it has been observed and measured across a wide range of sports. In the NBA the home team wins 62% of the time. The real question is what causes it. The intuitive (and flattering for the fans) explanation is that they pump the home team players while intimidating the road team players; but to me the idea that refs are intimidated and/or subtly cajoled into blowing the whistle in favor of the home team is a more counter-intuitive idea that makes sense..

This is a question that has interested me for many years and the reason I quoted from scorecasting is because it was the most complete treatment of the topic I 've come across. I don't have a problem revising my opinion if I see alternative theories that are more convincing.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
61,914
Homecourt advantage is something that can be observed and measured in a pretty unambiguous way and it has been observed and measured across a wide range of sports. In the NBA the home team wins 62% of the time. The real question is what causes it. The intuitive (and flattering for the fans) explanation is that they pump the home team players while intimidating the road team players; but to me the idea that refs are intimidated and/or subtly cajoled into blowing the whistle in favor of the home team is a more counter-intuitive idea that makes sense..

This is a question that has interested me for many years and the reason I quoted from scorecasting is because it was the most complete treatment of the topic I 've come across. I don't have a problem revising my opinion if I see alternative theories that are more convincing.
View: https://youtu.be/x-S-eeInJVk
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
10,834
I may have missed this elsewhere, but keep an eye on Tatum on the two right split screens. He didn’t see the ball go in. He walks back to the bench dejected and then somebody tells him.
This is awesome, thanks for pointing it out. It's up there for me with Edelman after SB 51, telling everyone to get off the field until BB tells him the touchdown was confirmed, followed by a giant hug.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
OK, so: home teams are .755% all time in G7. Except, the home team has somehow lost 5 of the last 7 times. And are sub-500 since 2018 (excluding bubble games). But, the Celtics are responsible for the last two home-team G7 wins and have won 6 of their last 7 overall. That's one confusing data set.
And the home team in this series is 2-4
 

TrapperAB

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2002
2,938
West Hartford, CT
Interesting evidence that Boston's late-game struggles have actually been more about defense than offense:
I wonder how much of that is refs calling things tighter late-and-close. Boston’s D can be aggressive and suffocating. And IMO refs are far more likely to “let them play” earlier in the game. But with a game hanging in the balance, they call things tighter, which makes things far more difficult for the Celtics, who either have to adapt their approach or get hit with whistles.

And that’s the dynamic that Butler counts on — he dares refs to swallow their whistles. And in the 4th quarter, when a “star” is involved, they’re far less likely to. Even when the shooter launched himself into the defender.

Of course, by not wanting their non-calls to determine the outcome of a game, their calls very often do.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
18,588
Santa Monica
Rewatched the last 4 minutes (Boston up 98-88). The C's actually got good FGA in the paint from Tatum, TL, White & Al. Brown had a nice put-back & 1. Smart missed two 3s (needs to post Vincent next time). Tatum missed an open 3. Brown/Smart both missed a FT. So ISO Tatum prevent offense wasn't the problem

More importantly, the Defense (Nitpick Alert). Tatum needs to guard Jimmy. Smart didn't even pretend to try to stay with Jimmy several times. AND there was no reason for Horford to switch on to Butler with 6 seconds left. All he had to do was hedge and fall back to guard Bam (who was unable to screen Tatum).

I know he's a sacred cow & nobody wants to mention it BUT Smart is clearly playing injured & isn't the same on D. CJM needs to pay attention to see how Smart is moving early, adjust, & close with his best lineups. The margins are thin here and playing a gimpy Marcus 42 minutes was too much.

Also small credit to SVG, who before the 3-second inbound pass, noted that no one was guarding White, the inbounder. At first, he said the shot was too late but the replay completely slayed him & a silent/deflated Reggie Miller. Harlan with a nice call.
 

Patriot_Reign

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2011
1,104
10:30am and I'm already sitting here with butterflies thinking about the game tonight. When is it not too early to crack the first beer?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
41,568
Here
I know he's a sacred cow & nobody wants to mention it BUT Smart is clearly playing injured & isn't the same on D.
He's struggled almost all year on D. I don't know that it's an injury, might be just age and wear and tear taking its toll with his body structure. White is a better player and has been all season, but I still think Marcus can be a pest moving forward off the bench, if it's something he and his teammates will accept.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
18,588
Santa Monica
He's struggled almost all year on D. I don't know that it's an injury, might be just age and wear and tear taking its toll with his body structure. White is a better player and has been all season, but I still think Marcus can be a pest moving forward off the bench, if it's something he and his teammates will accept.
CJM just has to be careful cause Marcus would play with a cast on his arm. Brogdon injury makes it really tricky, but accumulated MPG is a sliding scale on Smart's defensive effectiveness
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
62,565
Rotten Apple
It's pretty sad when your multi-billion dollar sport keeps trotting out these guys who everyone knows are problematic. And the reverse is also true, is there a single name that could be listed where each fanbase goes 'oh yeah, that guy is good, we're in good hands tonight.' Can't think of one.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,622
I may have missed this elsewhere, but keep an eye on Tatum on the two right split screens. He didn’t see the ball go in. He walks back to the bench dejected and then somebody tells him.
Awesome.

I thought at the time that Tatum had an odd expression when the TNT cameras caught him after the play was confirmed— like: happy, but also a bit dazed and sheepish. This explains a lot, that he spent a full 10+ seconds in an alternate universe where they'd lost.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,349
Smart's defense in the first half was suffocating old Marcus stuff, but he definitely seemed to wear down over the course of the game. There's some kind of leg injury going on. He got badly kneed in the thigh in Philly, he was on the bench circling his ankle to keep it loose last game, and earlier in the series he was on the bench using a massage gun on his calf, so he might be dealing with multiple leg injuries at this point.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,464
New York City
It's pretty sad when your multi-billion dollar sport keeps trotting out these guys who everyone knows are problematic. And the reverse is also true, is there a single name that could be listed where each fanbase goes 'oh yeah, that guy is good, we're in good hands tonight.' Can't think of one.
The issue is that reffing in the NBA is extremely difficult. We’ve had pages and pages of threads dedicated to nuanced calls that this board can’t even agree on after seeing it in super slo mo. So naturally the refs are going to get a lot of shit, and so after watching a certain amount of games every ref is going to be “that guy who made that call on X that I didn’t agree with” or whatever.

To me, the only thing that’s key is consistency. The refs were bad in Game 6 because they started out letting them play, and then started calling a bunch of ticky tack stuff in the second half. If you look at the fouls called per game stats this year, Foster is high but not crazy high and Brothers is in the bottom 50%, so I don’t really have a problem with them.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,622
I wonder how much of that is refs calling things tighter late-and-close. Boston’s D can be aggressive and suffocating. And IMO refs are far more likely to “let them play” earlier in the game. But with a game hanging in the balance, they call things tighter, which makes things far more difficult for the Celtics, who either have to adapt their approach or get hit with whistles.

And that’s the dynamic that Butler counts on — he dares refs to swallow their whistles. And in the 4th quarter, when a “star” is involved, they’re far less likely to. Even when the shooter launched himself into the defender.

Of course, by not wanting their non-calls to determine the outcome of a game, their calls very often do.
Good theory. Maybe it's indeed as simple as having faced Tre Young, Harden and Butler in consecutive series. That's pretty much the Unholy Gauntlet of Crunch-Time Floppers.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,186
Either way it’s misleading since the Celtics were much better in the regular season so they’d likely have a better record with any ref pairing.
Those stats are always posted to imply bias, but besides the actual probable reason for the numbers (SSS), when you have players actively trying to draw questionable fouls by initiating contact it might just mean your shit doesn't work with certain refs.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,072
I don't understand your point. It's not exclusively a moral component, obviously. But grabbing the rim is different from a typical goaltend in ways that arguably reflect upon sportsmanship, hence the added technical foul over and above the goaltending penalty.
Typical goaltending usually involves an attempt to block a shot. Grabbing the rim is closer to a non-basketball play interfering with an actual basketball play. Like a guy on the bench grabbing a player on the floor.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,072
Rewatched the last 4 minutes (Boston up 98-88). The C's actually got good FGA in the paint from Tatum, TL, White & Al. Brown had a nice put-back & 1. Smart missed two 3s (needs to post Vincent next time). Tatum missed an open 3. Brown/Smart both missed a FT. So ISO Tatum prevent offense wasn't the problem
To me, the "prevent offense" isn't so much about the ISO, it's about walking the ball up so slowly that the ISO begins with 10 seconds left on the shot clock. If it begins with 15, the chances of the ISO turning into something more positive goes up, rather than Tatum having to launch one with 2 seconds on the clock.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
18,588
Santa Monica
Smart's defense in the first half was suffocating old Marcus stuff, but he definitely seemed to wear down over the course of the game. There's some kind of leg injury going on. He got badly kneed in the thigh in Philly, he was on the bench circling his ankle to keep it loose last game, and earlier in the series he was on the bench using a massage gun on his calf, so he might be dealing with multiple leg injuries at this point.
Agree on all accounts, he was classic Marcus in the 1st half. Getting underneath Alpha's, drawing charges, and frustrating them is his special sauce. He couldn't come close to do that after 35mins. 42mins is just too much
To me, the "prevent offense" isn't so much about the ISO, it's about walking the ball up so slowly that the ISO begins with 10 seconds left on the shot clock. If it begins with 15, the chances of the ISO turning into something more positive goes up, rather than Tatum having to launch one with 2 seconds on the clock.
I would have agreed with you by using my memory, but re-watched this AM. They actually were going early, it wasn't their classic prevent offense. They attacked early enough, but just couldn't get a shot to go down or get a friendly whistle.



I dread the whole "Ref" thing, but I'll say this about Scott Foster, he doesn't go for play acting, just ask Embiid/Harden. I bet he doesn't give Jimmy license to throw his body into anyone that guards him
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
20,530
Pittsburgh, PA
It's pretty sad when your multi-billion dollar sport keeps trotting out these guys who everyone knows are problematic. And the reverse is also true, is there a single name that could be listed where each fanbase goes 'oh yeah, that guy is good, we're in good hands tonight.' Can't think of one.
I mean, I think a lot of us have been impressed by Scott Foster's reffing this postseason. Like 5 or 6 of us have remarked upon it, and so surely others have thought it and not posted.

Zarba had been pretty good all postseason too, until G6 when he got taken a little bit at the end, but I still thought he had a good game overall.

NBA reffing is in general bad, but mostly because it's inconsistent, and so sometimes you do get good refs, or get good games out of bad refs.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
29,497
As noted, Cs are -7 for tonight’s game.

Out of curiosity, anyone know what the line was for Red Sox-Yankees game 7 in 2004?
This article has the odds - https://www.sportsinsights.com/blog/nlcs-game-7-analysis-st-louis-cardinals-vs-san-francisco-giants/ - but I'm not a bettor so not exactly sure how to interpret. Since it says that all but two times the home team was the favorite, I'm thinking the MFYs were favorites but I could certainly be wrong about that.
 

TrapperAB

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2002
2,938
West Hartford, CT
Good theory. Maybe it's indeed as simple as having faced Tre Young, Harden and Butler in consecutive series. That's pretty much the Unholy Gauntlet of Crunch-Time Floppers.
That’s a great point. If the Celts get past the Heat tonight (*runs around house knocking on everything that’s wood*), they’d be facing a Denver team that doesn’t have a Fall of Fame-level flopper. Outside of the Celtics and their fans, the happiest people on the planet would be the snipers in the rafters, who could take a well-earned vacation.
 

TrapperAB

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2002
2,938
West Hartford, CT
Question: If you were to go to Boston to hang out near the Garden tonight, where would you go to watch the game? Can’t afford the current ticket prices (Should have pounced yesterday), but would love to take my boy to be around the energy and excitement of a Game 7.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,464
New York City
This article has the odds - https://www.sportsinsights.com/blog/nlcs-game-7-analysis-st-louis-cardinals-vs-san-francisco-giants/ - but I'm not a bettor so not exactly sure how to interpret. Since it says that all but two times the home team was the favorite, I'm thinking the MFYs were favorites but I could certainly be wrong about that.
Yes it's saying that that Yankees were favorites in 04 Game 7 (about 1.5-to-1). Interestingly the Sox were favored in 2003 and 2008 Game 7s on the road, both of which they lost, of course.