RealGM

It seems that during different points in the series, both teams and fans have been irate with perceived or real concerns with the refs in the series.

Through the first four games -

Personal fouls called against

Utah 89

Houston 88

Free throws attempted

Utah 104

Houston 102

It seems that the refs are giving an advantage equally to each team while playing on their homecourt.

1st 2 games - Utah 43 pf's, Houston 37, FT's attempted Houston 55, Utah 40

Last 2 games - Houston 51 pf's, Utah 46, FT's attempted Utah 64, Houston 47

I wonder if the 5th game will follow suit with the refs demonstrating somewhat of a homecourt bias. If so, expect to see a marginally discernible advantage for Houston in game 5.

All in all it evens out. I hate some calls. But at the same time its not like we are being taken out of games with this stuff. Games 2-4 we had multiple opportunities to win.

I think at some points the refs allow Utah to be more physical and call it close when we try to respond. I thought that was the case last night in the first half. In the second half the officiating was a lot better and it did result in us having multiple chances to win that game. Game 2 was probably stolen from us on a flop. But Scola did foul AK on that play. Again another mental mistake....those have been costing us more than the officiating.

I think the only thing you can have an argument over is whether one team actually does foul more than the other. And if that's the case, then any comparison for fouls called, free-throws shot, etc. are useful, but don't necessarily convey that the appropriate balance was applied.

And yes, I do think the Jazz foul more than any other team.

However, having said that, I think its been fairly balanced and anyone blaming the officiating over a 7 game series needs to be fair with their conclusion about the balance. We all see the game with some type of bias, so when you are fan of one of the two teams, its probably more difficult for you to be fair than it is for the officiating team.

Finally, I'll add that I don't believe in any type of conspiracy. I hear that type of thing all the time with fans claiming its so obvious the NBA wants this team or that team to progress in the playoffs. While the economics may make that seem reasonable (some are better for ratings than others), it just doesn't pan out when you look at who is making the finals on a regular basis. Conspiracy theories are fun, but anyone taking them seriously on a regular basis is less than credible.

Perhaps a more accurate statistic would be good vs. bad/missed foul calls broken down by how critical a time the calls were made at.

One thing I'm pretty sure of kz1m9w (your name is hard to spell, what's that mean?) is that billionaires are typically billionaires because they know how to work systems to their advantage. Consider now that Stern is in charge of 30 billionaires as far as managing their basketball assets to some unknown degree and has been for over 20 years, that he has an exceptional legal/political mind, and that he gets remarkably little media coverage or general scrutiny. I'm not informed enough to say that any particular conspiracy theory is real or not real or anything like that, if I was, someone else likely would be too, and soon thereafter the theory would be a known situation, rather than a theory, about what's going on behind closed doors.

Given that you're looking at billions upon billions of dollars of profit, that L.A. has missed the playoffs something like 6 times in the entire franchise history, that only 9 teams have won the championship in the league's 60+ year history, and innumerable other circumstances and situations, I'd say there's a good chance that something is going on to try and control the outcome of this system other than mere chance and the hard results of a bunch of 48 minute contests. There's too much at stake. Early on, the league didn't survive if its biggest teams didn't win, now, the league loses potentially hundreds of millions or more if they don't. In Vegas, the house always wins, why think that it's different elsewhere just because that isn't widely known or assumed? There's no saying for certain, but the odds of at least some conspiracy theories being at least partly true at least some of the time are pretty good.

Or, you can think that it's pure coincidence that we've had a Bush or Clinton in the White House as a president or vice president for the past 28+ years, 32+ if Hilary manages to get elected, and that while they may appear opposed in public, they vacation together in the Hamptons and play golf on the weekends. 32 years would only be a full eighth of the USA's history.
^^^^^
I know I've said something involving that fact before. Was it on here?


The biggest difference is that the government employs nukes and tanks and the NBA employs Shaq and D-Ho and maybe ninjas.

moofs wrote:Perhaps a more accurate statistic would be good vs. bad/missed foul calls broken down by how critical a time the calls were made at.

One thing I'm pretty sure of kz1m9w (your name is hard to spell, what's that mean?) is that billionaires are typically billionaires because they know how to work systems to their advantage. Consider now that Stern is in charge of 30 billionaires as far as managing their basketball assets to some unknown degree and has been for over 20 years, that he has an exceptional legal/political mind, and that he gets remarkably little media coverage or general scrutiny. I'm not informed enough to say that any particular conspiracy theory is real or not real or anything like that, if I was, someone else likely would be too, and soon thereafter the theory would be a known situation, rather than a theory, about what's going on behind closed doors.

Given that you're looking at billions upon billions of dollars of profit, that L.A. has missed the playoffs something like 6 times in the entire franchise history, that only 9 teams have won the championship in the league's 60+ year history, and innumerable other circumstances and situations, I'd say there's a good chance that something is going on to try and control the outcome of this system other than mere chance and the hard results of a bunch of 48 minute contests. There's too much at stake. Early on, the league didn't survive if its biggest teams didn't win, now, the league loses potentially hundreds of millions or more if they don't. In Vegas, the house always wins, why think that it's different elsewhere just because that isn't widely known or assumed? There's no saying for certain, but the odds of at least some conspiracy theories being at least partly true at least some of the time are pretty good.

Or, you can think that it's pure coincidence that we've had a Bush or Clinton in the White House as a president or vice president for the past 28+ years, 32+ if Hilary manages to get elected, and that while they may appear opposed in public, they vacation together in the Hamptons and play golf on the weekends. 32 years would only be a full eighth of the USA's history.
^^^^^
I know I've said something involving that fact before. Was it on here?


The biggest difference is that the government employs nukes and tanks and the NBA employs Shaq and D-Ho and maybe ninjas.

Hey moofs,

First off, the id means nothing - so yes, it is hard to remember.

I think you make arguments in a compelling way, but you lost me with a few of them.

For example, where are you getting that only 9 teams have won the NBA championship in 60+ years? I don't know what the actual statistic is, but going back in the most recent 60 years, it looks like about twice that many. And while that may not seem like a lot, I think you can compare it reasonably well to the other major sports in this country.

So, unless I'm missing something, that's exactly the point of serious skepticism regarding conspiracy theories - the facts sometimes (often) seem to get skewed, exaggerated, conveniently forgotten, etc. - and then somehow (surprise, surprise) presented as fact. Whether intentional or not, factual accuracy does matter. Whatever the actual number is, either quote it accurately or mention it with some type of disclaimer that you aren't sure - else it loses credibility.

And don't forget that for most of its existence, the league did not have 30+ teams. If there were only 6 or 10 or 20 (or whatever the number is for the year you choose), having double-digit different champions over those years doesn't seem all that out of whack to me. Especially given that one team was completely dominant (Celtics) for so many of those years - not due to bad officiating in my opinion, but being ahead of the curve with player talent.

Also, no doubt that money plays a huge role in decisions that are made in the league. But how can anyone explain how the Spurs might be heading for their 5th championship in this last billionaire-crazy decade? If you choose to go with the "international marketability" theory, wouldn't that instantly mean the Rockets should be getting preferential treatment against the Jazz? Yao healthy or not, there certainly would be even more Rockets merchandise selling worldwide - definitely impacted by degrees of success - with no nearly the increase realized if/when the Jazz progress.

In addition, if the big money theory applies to the NBA, it certainly must apply even more to the NFL, right? How could anyone justify the Packers ever winning a championship in that case?

Not to say there has never been any corruption or shady dealings regarding the officiating in major sports. But I think its like those that claim man never stepped on the moon. It would take more effort to conceal that conspiracy that to actually get to the moon. That's a good one that in my mind that is black and white only. Either man stepped on the moon or they didn't.

True that not all are like that and some can be partially true. But I believe that logic actually shows the likelihood of any given conspiracy theory to have substantial merit to be extremely low percentage-wise - including the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton possibility. Just for grins, what will you think happened if Hilary is not elected later this year?

I say "bad calls"? - absolutely. "Intentionally bad calls" - mostly not.

I standby the belief that for every conspiracy theory that actually is a reality, there are thousands that justifiably remain "theory only" fueled by a culture of there-must-be-a-reason-I'm-not-number-one!

But to each his own - and that's one of the purposes of a discussion board like this.

Best wishes.

I won't go as far by saying there's a conspiracy in this league. But the increased amount of foul calls is due to the numerous reconstruction of NBA rules (hand-checking, over the back, etc), and players flopping. These new implementations made officiating much more difficult, resulting in bad calls.

Like moofs said, those numbers don't mean ****. As far as I am concerned, there's been too many bad calls down the stretch and it has ruined 2 games in this series. It's time for the league to adopt the instant replay. Without it, bad calls will be inevitable.

T-Mac United wrote:I won't go as far by saying there's a conspiracy in this league. But the increased amount of foul calls is due to the numerous reconstruction of NBA rules (hand-checking, over the back, etc), and players flopping. These new implementations made officiating much more difficult, resulting in bad calls.

Like moofs said, those numbers don't mean ****. As far as I am concerned, there's been too many bad calls down the stretch and it has ruined 2 games in this series. It's time for the league to adopt the instant replay. Without it, bad calls will be inevitable.

I agree completely.

kz1m9w wrote:Hey moofs,

First off, the id means nothing - so yes, it is hard to remember.
lazy response --- ah hokay

I think you make arguments in a compelling way, but you lost me with a few of them.

For example, where are you getting that only 9 teams have won the NBA championship in 60+ years? I don't know what the actual statistic is, but going back in the most recent 60 years, it looks like about twice that many. And while that may not seem like a lot, I think you can compare it reasonably well to the other major sports in this country.

So, unless I'm missing something, that's exactly the point of serious skepticism regarding conspiracy theories - the facts sometimes (often) seem to get skewed, exaggerated, conveniently forgotten, etc. - and then somehow (surprise, surprise) presented as fact. Whether intentional or not, factual accuracy does matter. Whatever the actual number is, either quote it accurately or mention it with some type of disclaimer that you aren't sure - else it loses credibility.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_9_NBA_t ... mpionships
?

kz1m9w wrote:And don't forget that for most of its existence, the league did not have 30+ teams. If there were only 6 or 10 or 20 (or whatever the number is for the year you choose), having double-digit different champions over those years doesn't seem all that out of whack to me. Especially given that one team was completely dominant (Celtics) for so many of those years - not due to bad officiating in my opinion, but being ahead of the curve with player talent.

Some more factors:
- They had much higher odds in a 9-to-14 team league with only a few true competitors (very important - 4 rounds = higher odds of an upset, freak injury, etc)
- Pretty sure that NBA teams used to draft for local/regional talent up to around 1985 (or know that I've read news articles that said as much anyway), so your eastern metro areas are going to be naturally richer
- The Celtics had one of the few tall natural athletes of the league's early days
- As you said, they had a lot of talent overall
- Auerbach innovated several coaching strategies that are commonplace today but were revolutionary at the time

kz1m9w wrote:Also, no doubt that money plays a huge role in decisions that are made in the league. But how can anyone explain how the Spurs might be heading for their 5th championship in this last billionaire-crazy decade? If you choose to go with the "international marketability" theory, wouldn't that instantly mean the Rockets should be getting preferential treatment against the Jazz? Yao healthy or not, there certainly would be even more Rockets merchandise selling worldwide - definitely impacted by degrees of success - with no nearly the increase realized if/when the Jazz progress.

In addition, if the big money theory applies to the NBA, it certainly must apply even more to the NFL, right? How could anyone justify the Packers ever winning a championship in that case?

Not to say there has never been any corruption or shady dealings regarding the officiating in major sports. But I think its like those that claim man never stepped on the moon. It would take more effort to conceal that conspiracy that to actually get to the moon. That's a good one that in my mind that is black and white only. Either man stepped on the moon or they didn't.

Haha well, while I don't think it's unlikely that the NBA participates in a considerable amount of rigging, I don't necessarily think it's likely either. I might be about 50/50 on it? 30/70? Dunno. I was only pointing out the accumulated odds of some theory holding water. As far as your NFL example, the refs don't hold as much sway on the game as NBA refs do, for starters. I know Boxing matches have been fixed since the sport began. Baseball nearly found its way into the grip of fixing (that's not to say it didn't). Trust me, if enough of the right people want it done, it can be done. The question is has it been done. Aside from Donaghy (which instantly increases your odds by a LOT), I don't know. For your money issue, see above notes with rigging. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the "which is the largest market" factor driving such a thing, it could be "which mob has the most bets riding on this game" or one of innumerable other factors.

For the moon thing, I think it's safe to say that some ideas carry more credibility than others. Lumping all theories together as a singular derogative "conspiracy theories" is going to do some of them injustice and some of them too much justice. The nature of theories is going to ensure that most of them are either unprovable, unproven, or just plain silly.

Also, GO PACKERS!!! Best team anywhere in all of pro sports. There is no question on this. (granted I'm only a huge fan of theirs in theory as I rarely watch an actual Packers game. ... GO PACKERS!!!! Where's my cheese hat?)

kz1m9w wrote:True that not all are like that and some can be partially true. But I believe that logic actually shows the likelihood of any given conspiracy theory to have substantial merit to be extremely low percentage-wise - including the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton possibility. Just for grins, what will you think happened if Hilary is not elected later this year?

If Hilary is not elected later this year...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay wrote:Legislative and electoral methods

DeLay was known to "primary" Republicans who resisted his votes (i.e., to threaten to endorse and to support a Republican primary challenge to the disobedient representative),[16] and, like many of his predecessors in Congress, used promises of future committee chairmanships to bargain for support among the rank-and-file members of the party.[citation needed]

Employing a method known as "catch and release," DeLay allowed centrist or moderately conservative Republicans to take turns voting against controversial bills. If a representative said that a bill was unpopular in his district, then DeLay would ask him to vote for it only if his vote were necessary for passage; if his vote were not needed, then the representative would be able to vote against the party without reprisal.[citation needed]

In the 108th Congress, a preliminary Medicare vote passed 216-215, a vote on Head Start passed 217-216, a vote on school vouchers for Washington, D.C. passed 209-208, and "Fast track," usually called "trade promotion authority", passed by one vote as well. Both political supporters and opponents remarked on DeLay's ability to sway the votes of his party, a method DeLay described as "growing the vote".

DeLay was also noted for involving lobbyists in the process of passing House bills. One lobbyist said, "I've had members pull me aside and ask me to talk to another member of Congress about a bill or amendment, but I've never been asked to work on a bill