ejftw wrote:NyKnicks1714 wrote:AussieCeltic wrote:
It actually didn’t.
They went
October: -1.7
November: +6.5
December: +3.4
January: +1.8 (Celtics game last game in Jan)
February: +11.9
March: +10.6
April: +8.4
It was also IMMEDIATELY after the Celtics game where there was an uptick. Like you can pinpoint it to the exact day.
I mean it must be the world’s biggest coincidence it happened right after the Lakers organisation complained about the calls in the Celtics game.
There's as much evidence to support the idea that they started getting a favorable whistle after that game as there is to support the idea that they were getting an unfavorable one prior. You haven't demonstrated why one of those is the case and not the other.
And I can predict the responses I'll get: "as if the Lakers would ever get an unfavorable whistle", etc. Cool, but that's not anything.
Why would he need to demonstrate they got unfavorable calls?
Such a weird counter attempt to the facts showing that the Lakers got a biased whistle like very little, if any, other.
What? I'm saying he needs to demonstrate they got a favorable whistle afterwards. I.e. you have to provide support for a claim you make.
4 things can be true here:
1) They got an unfavorable whistle before that date, and it was corrected.
2) They got a normal whistle before that date, and then got a favorable whistle afterwards.
3) They got an unfavorable whistle prior, and a favorable one after, whatever the ratio is
4) The whistle they got did not change in terms of fairness, and other factors drove the increased FTA
No one has provided evidence for any one these, at all.