NBA In-Season Tournament 2023 Discussion and Gamethread

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,047
I mean it's a call that decided a knockout game, it's inside 2 minutes, they're in timeout anyway, they can't go review it? Why even have replay if not for situations like that?
I don't believe that is a reviewable call. It definitely isn't able to be challenged.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,312
What Vogel said after the game is everything is reviewable. The proper review, I think, would be whether there was control and when they saw the indisputable reality it wasn't even close to control when the 'timeout' was called and whistle blown, then they'd rule it an inadvertant whistle. Since there was no control by either team at time of inadvertent whistle, proper ruling would be a jump ball.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,047
What Vogel said after the game is everything is reviewable. The proper review, I think, would be whether there was control and when they saw the indisputable reality it wasn't even close to control when the 'timeout' was called and whistle blown, then they'd rule it an inadvertant whistle. Since there was no control by either team at time of inadvertent whistle, proper ruling would be a jump ball.
I didn't think that was correct but he would know more than me. Why is there a list of triggers in the rules if "everything is reviewable" though? We were just discussing players and coaches arguing and selling calls with the large majority on this board not in favor of it....now we want to listen to these same people on what or what not to review?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,312
I didn't think that was correct but he would know more than me. Why is there a list of triggers in the rules if "everything is reviewable" though? We were just discussing players and coaches arguing and selling calls with the large majority on this board not in favor of it....now we want to listen to these same people on what or what not to review?
I agree---it's not in the listed triggers. Yet, we've all seen huddles leading to jump balls on inadvertent whistles - so I'm not quite sure especially that late in the game what the limitations truly are.

I do think the thrust of the review limtiations is on coaches for challenges, not the refs. My understanding (and I can't parse whole rulebook to prove it) is that the refs can essentially on their own discretion use replay for anythign at this point. So I took Vogel to be saying "they should have checked" which seems like how I observe them using it these days.

I also agree that generally more reviews are bad. I'm in the Belichick camp on this: a small number of reviews with everything 'in scope' for review makes it strategic while limiting time wasted on them.
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,706
Seacoast NH
OK Tin Foil Hat time....
Would the NBA like anything more then the lakers AND LBJ winning the inaugural IST? I mean "its the only thing he hasnt won"....cause...it didnt exist....but now it does and James probably has a year or 2 left to really have a chance. Pretty cool for the league if the GOAT has one more accolade to solidify his GOAT status over MJ et al.

Plus....naming the IST MVP or Championship Trophy the "LEBRON JAMES AWARD" is in the cards.

I am not saying that the fix is in.....but as many have pointed out...there is alot of subjectiveness in officiating that allows things to lean one way or another. I think the NBA because its really hard to officiate can tip the scales especially in a series of 1 game outcomes (IST Playin games and Knockout round). I wonder if we will see that tonight with the suns lakers.
I’m guessing last night’s game didn’t change your mind?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,047
I’m guessing last night’s game didn’t change your mind?
There were a couple egregious calls that went against the Lakers during the game though. Bookers no-call on the kick, several no-calls and bad calls on Lakers. I don't recall specifics only LeBron throwing a fit and after replay thinking yeah he's got a point.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,871
Santa Monica
Thats a bad call (Book may have bumped) but my biggest takeaway is LeBron is a basketball savant.

Not one Laker player or coach on the sidelines is screaming TO.

Bron has a different level of intellect on the court
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
11,022
Thats a bad call (Book may have bumped) but my biggest takeaway is LeBron is a basketball savant.

Not one Laker player or coach on the sidelines is screaming TO.

Bron has a different level of intellect on the court
Agreed on this.

Also, apparently LeBron's work on Space Jam has trickled onto the court. He was a whiner before that movie but after it, the mannerisms and acting have gone to a completely different level. Everything seems like a travesty to him
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,625
Maine
I’m guessing last night’s game didn’t change your mind?
I am betting the House Payment, the XMAS Money, The cash for moms operation and now that there are little Bakas Both Testicles.

Was fully expecting a Laker loss and to come here and everyone be like "NBA wouldnt do something so dangerous to its rep!"

But doesnt it just make too much sense...
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,644
Imaginationland
It's a small sample, but Devin Booker has been very bad in elimination games:

Game 6 in 2021 against Milwaukee: 8-22 for 19 points, 6 turnovers
Game 7 in 2022 against Dallas: 3-14 for 11 points, 4 turnovers
Game 6 in 2023 against Denver: 4-13 for 12 points, 2 turnovers
Last night: 6-16 for 21 points, 7 turnovers

Overall: .323 from the field for 15.8 points, 4.8 turnovers. He contributes in other ways (he had 11 rebounds and 6 assists last night), but the reason he's an all-nba level player and borderline top 10 is because he's an efficient, high volume scorer.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,772
I think they're wrong, though I'll admit not nearly as cut and dry as first appeared. That said, the Lakers were getting hosed on those other calls that the 2 minute report sites, so the usual tin foil "it's an NBA conspiracy" stuff is definitely dumb af. IN and MILW and New Orleans would hardly be part of the final 4 if it was all a pre-cooked plan.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,848
Pittsburgh, PA
No serious person thinks the NBA puts their thumb on the scale. That's "Bill Simmons age 25, drunk off his ass" kind of thinking. But some errors are more decisive than others.

Anyway, two things of note in that L2M report. Firstly, with 39 seconds remaining, the foul by Reddish on Booker that prevented an odd-man fast break, and Booker was calling for a transition take foul. L2M remark:

"Reddish (LAL) reaches in and across Booker's (PHX) body and affects his SQBR. The transition take foul rule does not apply to the last two minutes of either the fourth quarter or overtime."

did not know that. Also not sure why it shouldn't apply. The whole point of the rule is to discourage take fouls by making them hurt your team more than just letting the play go.

And for the timeout call, the L2M remark is: "LAL is granted a timeout when Reaves (LAL) recovers the ball and pins it against his leg, before he loses it again."

Here's the video they offer. And I'm sorry, that's just a load of nonsense covering for their own officials. Look at when ref Tom Washington raises his hand to call timeout. The ball is already rolling back towards the end line. Reaves had lost it well before Washington made the decision to grant the timeout. I'm not gonna Zapruder the thing because it's not the Celtics and none of us care enough, but the league's explanation does not appear to hold any water, at least to me.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,047
And for the timeout call, the L2M remark is: "LAL is granted a timeout when Reaves (LAL) recovers the ball and pins it against his leg, before he loses it again."

Here's the video they offer. And I'm sorry, that's just a load of nonsense covering for their own officials. Look at when ref Tom Washington raises his hand to call timeout. The ball is already rolling back towards the end line. Reaves had lost it well before Washington made the decision to grant the timeout. I'm not gonna Zapruder the thing because it's not the Celtics and none of us care enough, but the league's explanation does not appear to hold any water, at least to me.
The freeze frame should show the ball being pinned against Reaves leg with LeBron calling the timeout.....not when Washington reacts to LeBron and then blows the whistle nearly a full second later.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,312
And for the timeout call, the L2M remark is: "LAL is granted a timeout when Reaves (LAL) recovers the ball and pins it against his leg, before he loses it again."

Here's the video they offer. And I'm sorry, that's just a load of nonsense covering for their own officials. Look at when ref Tom Washington raises his hand to call timeout. The ball is already rolling back towards the end line. Reaves had lost it well before Washington made the decision to grant the timeout. I'm not gonna Zapruder the thing because it's not the Celtics and none of us care enough, but the league's explanation does not appear to hold any water, at least to me.
Agreed, that is a preposterous call and there's simply no possible way to defend the substance of it. The problem is not even really about when Washington's hand goes up even - it is that Reaves does not appear to have full possession of the ball sufficient to support a timeout at any time after he initially stops, much less when LBJ actually called it. The close-up you can get in other places shows that the entire time he's defended (e.g. after he inititally catches and makes a move) the ball is moving around. When the ref signaled is only the secondary problem....Reaves handled it like a receiver bobbling a pass, and that isn't sufficent. Lebron calls for the timeout long after Reaves lost possession - and in fact after he lost any contact with the ball.

As we've talked about around here many times, the reality is that there's so many tough calls in a game either team can usually point to several that were wrong on replay and say it was the difference. 9 or more times out of 10, the calls are even enough for it not to be a big deal; and, sometimes, it does matter. I didn't watch the full game and don't know, overall, which category this game was in overall
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,544
Agreed, that is a preposterous call and there's simply no possible way to defend the substance of it. The problem is not even really about when Washington's hand goes up even - it is that Reaves does not appear to have full possession of the ball sufficient to support a timeout at any time after he initially stops, much less when LBJ actually called it. The close-up you can get in other places shows that the entire time he's defended (e.g. after he inititally catches and makes a move) the ball is moving around. When the ref signaled is only the secondary problem....Reaves handled it like a receiver bobbling a pass, and that isn't sufficent. Lebron calls for the timeout long after Reaves lost possession - and in fact after he lost any contact with the ball.

As we've talked about around here many times, the reality is that there's so many tough calls in a game either team can usually point to several that were wrong on replay and say it was the difference. 9 or more times out of 10, the calls are even enough for it not to be a big deal; and, sometimes, it does matter. I didn't watch the full game and don't know, overall, which category this game was in overall
The below is - as exact as I could make it - the moment LBJ turns to call a TO. Judging by the way the refs are looking, there is no human way that any person could figure out whether or not Reeves actually had control of the ball when the TO was called.

The refs, as all refs do because they are being asked to judge things happening over a wide range at extreme speed, used their judgement to extrapolate things that happened on two sides of the court.

Looking at the video, I don't think the call would have been overturned under a "clearly erroneous" standard but YMMV.
 

Attachments

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,706
Seacoast NH
A guess as a non-TV executive but if they started with the premise of wanting the 2nd game to get the full country prime time slot that game would be penciled in to 9PM. You're working with one court so you add in pregame warmup time which I imagine the NBA wouldn't want to shoehorn in for the players like during day1 of the NCAA tourney games. Build in some cushion for OT and that gets you back to 5PM. You fill the ~7:30-9PM with TNT pregame/discuss first game.

Could they have gone 6PM/9:30? Probably but I don't think the first game could have started later than 6 and still get a national audience for the whole second game.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
37,317
where the darn libs live
I'm glad you posted this, I had no idea. I'd like to understand the logic behind having one of your two semi final games go from start to finish before the entire west coast gets off of work.
They made the IST actually something that mattered and then put one of the semifinal games at 5p on a Thursday. It's.... very silly.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,544
I'm glad you posted this, I had no idea. I'd like to understand the logic behind having one of your two semi final games go from start to finish before the entire west coast gets off of work.
I think the idea is that the other semi-final game can start at 9:00 ET and not end at some ungodly hour. Remember, they are playing the two games at the same location so they have to allow for the game to end, the arena to be emptied, and then re-seated as I presume they are selling individual tickets to the semis.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
37,317
where the darn libs live
I think the idea is that the other semi-final game can start at 9:00 ET and not end at some ungodly hour. Remember, they are playing the two games at the same location so they have to allow for the game to end, the arena to be emptied, and then re-seated as I presume they are selling individual tickets to the semis.
Which does make sense, honestly. T-Mobile is a huge arena and it's right across the street from Park MGM and traffic is a nightmare.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
8,284
Monument, CO
I think the idea is that the other semi-final game can start at 9:00 ET and not end at some ungodly hour. Remember, they are playing the two games at the same location so they have to allow for the game to end, the arena to be emptied, and then re-seated as I presume they are selling individual tickets to the semis.
I think this is it and they probably should have sold the tickets as a set and not taken the time to empty the arena between games.

I don't know how the tickets are selling but up until a week ago I was receiving offers for 25% off because I have bought tickets to summer league the last few years.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,701
Hingham, MA
Yeah they should have done it like the final four and made it single-admission. They could probably have started game 1 at 6 and game 2 at 930.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,907
NYC
If the Lakers win the IST does that break the Banners' tie?
:oops: *ducks*
No, but the fact that Minneapolis won "their" first five titles kinda does. (Similarly, I don't feel any particular ownership of the Philadelphia Warriors' titles).
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,907
NYC
What's most surprising about Indy being up double digits at the half in Milwaukee is ... how unsurprising it is. The Pacers' offense is historically good, and the Bucks' defense is terrible.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,644
Imaginationland
What's most surprising about Indy being up double digits at the half in Milwaukee is ... how unsurprising it is. The Pacers' offense is historically good, and the Bucks' defense is terrible.
Yeah that felt pretty normal. We'll see how aggressive Giannis is in the 2nd half, it felt like Indy couldn't even pretend to slow him down (7-10 for 20 points).
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,871
Santa Monica
Obviously, the Haliburton deal has changed the Pacers' fortunes (the Sabonis or Turner move were inevitable), it's a good thing they didn't land Indiana's favorite son, Wayward

Brown signing, Obi Toppin, and Nesmith have all been nice moves.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,772
Dame is so smooth. When he's gets rolling, damn it's pretty.