2025 NBA PLAYOFFS West Semifinals: #1 Oklahoma City Thunder vs #4 Denver Nuggets (Series tied 1-1)

[Mavrelous]

Be better than Wolves/Warriors tonight...

[Patches Perry]

I always love the "it's rigged in this 1 game if a certain outcome happens but not the rest of the time and not if the team I'm rooting for wins" pre-game excuses.

Bad news for yall, if game 2 is rigged, then game 1 was rigged

Good news for yall, the games aren't rigged

Oh to live in a world where you can ignore things like this:

Foster is the official who received 134 phone calls from disgraced referee Tim Donaghy between October 2006 and April 2007, as originally reported by FOX News. That was the same period during which Donaghy admitted to betting on NBA games. The report said that Donaghy called Foster more than any other ref and that he didn't call any other official more than 13 times.

The records also showed Donaghy making several calls to Foster on the days of games, generally for no more than two minutes.

The report also said that when Donaghy called Foster, he mostly used the phone that he dedicated to gambling-related phone calls, and the phone calls stopped abruptly when Donaghy said he stopped gambling.

Here's a stat from 2022:

Re: The “Extender”

In the last 21 playoff games that Scott Foster had refereed (not game 1), the team behind in the series is 19-2. Including the 0-3 Raptors to the Sixers.

If you believe NBA is rigging outcomes like this, then so be it. I know a guy who swears by that, although he doesn't watch the NBA which makes sense if you think its fake. I always just assumed people who like the NBA enough to post on message boards are under the impression that the outcomes in these games are basketball outcomes rather than league-directed ones.

I'll keep that in mind as I interact with those who agree with you on this. Eye opening for me tbh.

[MrPainfulTruth]

Jokic benefited a lot more from the whistle in the last game than Shai, so if they are calling more it’s likely not an OKC benefit.

I think that is a very simplified and factually wrong opinion. Jokic got hacked left and right, they couldnt stop him without a ton of illegal contact. One play was even reviewed - we all saw in 4k how Holmgren fouled him but it was apparednly deemed "marginal contact" whereas when he plays with the same physicality its invariably a foul on him, even a flagrant. I have no idea where you see beneficial officiating. Remember, sometimes the benefit of the whistle is expressed by swallowing it on one end.

Jokic played almost the entire fourth with five fouls. How many did SGA have?

[lessthanjake]

I always love the "it's rigged in this 1 game if a certain outcome happens but not the rest of the time and not if the team I'm rooting for wins" pre-game excuses.

Bad news for yall, if game 2 is rigged, then game 1 was rigged

Good news for yall, the games aren't rigged

Oh to live in a world where you can ignore things like this:

Foster is the official who received 134 phone calls from disgraced referee Tim Donaghy between October 2006 and April 2007, as originally reported by FOX News. That was the same period during which Donaghy admitted to betting on NBA games. The report said that Donaghy called Foster more than any other ref and that he didn't call any other official more than 13 times.

The records also showed Donaghy making several calls to Foster on the days of games, generally for no more than two minutes.

The report also said that when Donaghy called Foster, he mostly used the phone that he dedicated to gambling-related phone calls, and the phone calls stopped abruptly when Donaghy said he stopped gambling.

Here's a stat from 2022:

Re: The “Extender”

In the last 21 playoff games that Scott Foster had refereed (not game 1), the team behind in the series is 19-2. Including the 0-3 Raptors to the Sixers.

If you believe NBA is rigging outcomes like this, then so be it. I know a guy who swears by that, although he doesn't watch the NBA which makes sense if you think its fake. I always just assumed people who like the NBA enough to post on message boards are under the impression that the outcomes in these games are basketball outcomes rather than league-directed ones.

I'll keep that in mind as I interact with those who agree with you on this. Eye opening for me tbh.

There’s actually a pretty significant middle area between games being “rigged” and there being no issue at all. After all, refs aren’t playing the game and can only really put a finger on the scale with some calls. If we assume for argument’s purposes that the NBA wants a certain team to win and dispatches Scott Foster to try to make that outcome occur, he can’t *actually* ensure that it happens. He can just make it more likely. That’s not a fully rigged outcome like professional wrestling. It’d just be corrupt, where there’s a finger on the scale for one team. And this is where people lose me when they say “If you think the league does this, then there’d be no point in watching.” That might be true if it was a scripted outcome. But that’s not possible, not least of which because players can’t just decide to make shots. If you think that players do primarily decide the outcome but that refs sometimes tilt the playing field, then there’s still plenty of reason to watch. I don’t really feel strongly about whether the NBA does systematically engage in this type of corruption, but I just think some arguments people make about this don’t sit right. And it’s certainly the case that if we assume that some non-zero number of NBA refs are tilting outcomes, then Scott Foster is the ref that is most likely to be one of them, since there’s a lot of smoke there.

[bbms]

why would the league benefit the thunder? jokic brings more audience than the thunder

if anything the extender is in for denver.

[sp6r=underrated]

I always love the "it's rigged in this 1 game if a certain outcome happens but not the rest of the time and not if the team I'm rooting for wins" pre-game excuses.

Bad news for yall, if game 2 is rigged, then game 1 was rigged

Good news for yall, the games aren't rigged

Oh to live in a world where you can ignore things like this:

Foster is the official who received 134 phone calls from disgraced referee Tim Donaghy between October 2006 and April 2007, as originally reported by FOX News. That was the same period during which Donaghy admitted to betting on NBA games. The report said that Donaghy called Foster more than any other ref and that he didn't call any other official more than 13 times.

The records also showed Donaghy making several calls to Foster on the days of games, generally for no more than two minutes.

The report also said that when Donaghy called Foster, he mostly used the phone that he dedicated to gambling-related phone calls, and the phone calls stopped abruptly when Donaghy said he stopped gambling.

Here's a stat from 2022:

Re: The “Extender”

In the last 21 playoff games that Scott Foster had refereed (not game 1), the team behind in the series is 19-2. Including the 0-3 Raptors to the Sixers.

If you really believe the NBA fixes games why do you watch and why do you care who wins?

I really don't get the mindset of all the people here who passionately claim the league is rigged but also care about outcomes. If games are fixed outcomes have no meaning.

[Patches Perry]

Oh to live in a world where you can ignore things like this:



Here's a stat from 2022:

If you believe NBA is rigging outcomes like this, then so be it. I know a guy who swears by that, although he doesn't watch the NBA which makes sense if you think its fake. I always just assumed people who like the NBA enough to post on message boards are under the impression that the outcomes in these games are basketball outcomes rather than league-directed ones.

I'll keep that in mind as I interact with those who agree with you on this. Eye opening for me tbh.

There’s actually a pretty significant middle area between games being “rigged” and there being no issue at all. After all, refs aren’t playing the game and can only really put a finger on the scale with some calls. If we assume for argument’s purposes that the NBA wants a certain team to win and dispatches Scott Foster to try to make that outcome occur, he can’t *actually* ensure that it happens. He can just make it more likely. That’s not a fully rigged outcome like professional wrestling. It’d just be corrupt, where there’s a finger on the scale for one team. And this is where people lose me when they say “If you think the league does this, then there’d be no point in watching.” That might be true if it was a scripted outcome. But that’s not possible, not least of which because players can’t just decide to make shots. If you think that players do primarily decide the outcome but that refs sometimes tilt the playing field, then there’s still plenty of reason to watch. I don’t really feel strongly about whether the NBA does systematically engage in this type of corruption, but I just think some arguments people make about this don’t sit right. And it’s certainly the case that if we assume that some non-zero number of NBA refs are tilting outcomes, then Scott Foster is the ref that is most likely to be one of them, since there’s a lot of smoke there.

The problem with the gray area argument is once you concede the league is willing to rig games, you have no way of know what shade of gray they exist in unless you assume that league is telegraphing every attempt to rig outcomes in the most obvious way. But why would that be the case? In short, if there is any rigging, it taints all outcomes.

Also, the rigging claims never have predictive capability. Tonight OKC is favored by double digits so it's not exactly bold to predict an OKC win, but I promise you if Denver wins, nobody claiming game 2 is rigged will stick by that.

[MyTake_1]

Jokic benefited a lot more from the whistle in the last game than Shai, so if they are calling more it’s likely not an OKC benefit.

You are so wildly biased, you should just shut up.

[MoneyTalks41890]

Jokic benefited a lot more from the whistle in the last game than Shai, so if they are calling more it’s likely not an OKC benefit.

You are so wildly biased, you should just shut up.

No

[Dadouv47]

why would the league benefit the thunder? jokic brings more audience than the thunder

if anything the extender is in for denver.

let's help one of the smallest franchises in the NBA and reach bottom audiences in the FInals !

OKC didn't play on Christmas despite finishing first in the West last season and being an obvious contender this season but yeah the league badly wants the Thunder to suceed

(Btw I'm not saying the league is against OKC but thinking they might help them is hilarious)

[Cubbies2120]

I always love the "it's rigged in this 1 game if a certain outcome happens but not the rest of the time and not if the team I'm rooting for wins" pre-game excuses.

Bad news for yall, if game 2 is rigged, then game 1 was rigged

Good news for yall, the games aren't rigged

Oh to live in a world where you can ignore things like this:

Foster is the official who received 134 phone calls from disgraced referee Tim Donaghy between October 2006 and April 2007, as originally reported by FOX News. That was the same period during which Donaghy admitted to betting on NBA games. The report said that Donaghy called Foster more than any other ref and that he didn't call any other official more than 13 times.

The records also showed Donaghy making several calls to Foster on the days of games, generally for no more than two minutes.

The report also said that when Donaghy called Foster, he mostly used the phone that he dedicated to gambling-related phone calls, and the phone calls stopped abruptly when Donaghy said he stopped gambling.

Here's a stat from 2022:

Re: The “Extender”

In the last 21 playoff games that Scott Foster had refereed (not game 1), the team behind in the series is 19-2. Including the 0-3 Raptors to the Sixers.

If you really believe the NBA fixes games why do you watch and why do you care who wins?

I really don't get the mindset of all the people here who passionately claim the league is rigged but also care about outcomes. If games are fixed outcomes have no meaning.

I don't believe they're rigged - rigged would be ensuring a specific outcome.

I do believe some refs have shown over a large sample size that they'll make calls during games that may 'tip the scale' so to speak, but not outright 'rig' games.

[MoneyTalks41890]

why would the league benefit the thunder? jokic brings more audience than the thunder

if anything the extender is in for denver.

let's help one of the smallest franchises in the NBA and reach bottom audiences in the FInals !

OKC didn't play on Christmas despite finishing first in the West last season and being an obvious contender this season but yeah the league badly wants the Thunder to suceed

(Btw I'm not saying the league is against OKC but thinking they might help them is hilarious)

It's a fake victim complex. It's exhausting.

[sp6r=underrated]

If you believe NBA is rigging outcomes like this, then so be it. I know a guy who swears by that, although he doesn't watch the NBA which makes sense if you think its fake. I always just assumed people who like the NBA enough to post on message boards are under the impression that the outcomes in these games are basketball outcomes rather than league-directed ones.

I'll keep that in mind as I interact with those who agree with you on this. Eye opening for me tbh.

There’s actually a pretty significant middle area between games being “rigged” and there being no issue at all. After all, refs aren’t playing the game and can only really put a finger on the scale with some calls. If we assume for argument’s purposes that the NBA wants a certain team to win and dispatches Scott Foster to try to make that outcome occur, he can’t *actually* ensure that it happens. He can just make it more likely. That’s not a fully rigged outcome like professional wrestling. It’d just be corrupt, where there’s a finger on the scale for one team. And this is where people lose me when they say “If you think the league does this, then there’d be no point in watching.” That might be true if it was a scripted outcome. But that’s not possible, not least of which because players can’t just decide to make shots. If you think that players do primarily decide the outcome but that refs sometimes tilt the playing field, then there’s still plenty of reason to watch. I don’t really feel strongly about whether the NBA does systematically engage in this type of corruption, but I just think some arguments people make about this don’t sit right. And it’s certainly the case that if we assume that some non-zero number of NBA refs are tilting outcomes, then Scott Foster is the ref that is most likely to be one of them, since there’s a lot of smoke there.

The problem with the gray area argument is once you concede the league is willing to rig games, you have no way of know what shade of gray they exist in unless you assume that league is telegraphing every attempt to rig outcomes in the most obvious way. But why would that be the case? In short, if there is any rigging, it taints all outcomes.

Also, the rigging claims never have predictive capability. Tonight OKC is favored by double digits so it's not exactly bold to predict an OKC win, but I promise you if Denver wins, nobody claiming game 2 is rigged will stick by that.

Let me ask a higher level question: if the NBA fixed things, why would they allow a really great to exist in OKC rather NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.?

You'd have to be the dumbest **** conspirator not to realize that the present Thunder roster could generate more revenue if it was based out of somewhere like chicago.

[MoneyTalks41890]

Let me ask a higher level question: if the NBA fixed things, why would they allow a really great to exist in OKC rather NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.?

You'd have to be the dumbest **** conspirator not to realize that the present Thunder roster could generate more revenue if it was based out of somewhere like chicago.

That's why the plot is so genius. The league is trying to throw you off the scent by... err... hmmm...

....

[Patches Perry]

There’s actually a pretty significant middle area between games being “rigged” and there being no issue at all. After all, refs aren’t playing the game and can only really put a finger on the scale with some calls. If we assume for argument’s purposes that the NBA wants a certain team to win and dispatches Scott Foster to try to make that outcome occur, he can’t *actually* ensure that it happens. He can just make it more likely. That’s not a fully rigged outcome like professional wrestling. It’d just be corrupt, where there’s a finger on the scale for one team. And this is where people lose me when they say “If you think the league does this, then there’d be no point in watching.” That might be true if it was a scripted outcome. But that’s not possible, not least of which because players can’t just decide to make shots. If you think that players do primarily decide the outcome but that refs sometimes tilt the playing field, then there’s still plenty of reason to watch. I don’t really feel strongly about whether the NBA does systematically engage in this type of corruption, but I just think some arguments people make about this don’t sit right. And it’s certainly the case that if we assume that some non-zero number of NBA refs are tilting outcomes, then Scott Foster is the ref that is most likely to be one of them, since there’s a lot of smoke there.

The problem with the gray area argument is once you concede the league is willing to rig games, you have no way of know what shade of gray they exist in unless you assume that league is telegraphing every attempt to rig outcomes in the most obvious way. But why would that be the case? In short, if there is any rigging, it taints all outcomes.

Also, the rigging claims never have predictive capability. Tonight OKC is favored by double digits so it's not exactly bold to predict an OKC win, but I promise you if Denver wins, nobody claiming game 2 is rigged will stick by that.

Let me ask a higher level question: if the NBA fixed things, why would they allow a really great to exist in OKC rather NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.?

You'd have to be the dumbest **** conspirator not to realize that the present Thunder roster could generate more revenue if it was based out of somewhere like chicago.

Yeah. This goes back to predictive capability. The rationale for why outcomes are rigged or coerced is always posthoc.

It's like the people who think the NBA lottery is rigged but can never predict who will get #1. Yet they always have conspiratorial reasons after the fact for why X team got #1.

The best way to convince me of rigging claims would be consistently accurately predicting unlikely outcomes, but we never see that.

[sp6r=underrated]

Yet they always have conspiratorial reasons after the fact for why X team got #1.

Conspiracy theorists have very low social trust. As best as I can tell looking conspiracy theorists believe the NBA fixes things to make money. If that were the case, there has been a lot of things that are hard to explain:

1. NYC's team has been awful for most of this century.
2. SA, an extremely tiny market, has received 3 number one picks in years with obvious HOF talents: Robinson, Duncan and Wemby.
3. New Orleans has won multiple number one picks despite having a minuscule fanbase.
4. Cleveland won the lottery in a year with a GOAT level prospect.
5. Oklahoma City has been an extremely successful franchise since moving to Seattle and far more successful than they were in a larger, more affluent city.

The conspiracy theorists always come with a post hoc justification for why this makes sense but there justification is incompatible with the alleged motive: make money.

I would think this theory is funny but this mindset causes a lot of problems in the world.

[WarriorGM]

Yet they always have conspiratorial reasons after the fact for why X team got #1.

Conspiracy theorists have very low social trust. As best as I can tell looking conspiracy theorists believe the NBA fixes things to make money. If that were the case, there has been a lot of things that are hard to explain:

1. NYC's team has been awful for most of this century.
2. SA, an extremely tiny market, has received 3 number one picks in years with obvious HOF talents: Robinson, Duncan and Wemby.
3. New Orleans has won multiple number one picks despite having a minuscule fanbase.
4. Cleveland won the lottery in a year with a GOAT level prospect.
5. Oklahoma City has been an extremely successful franchise since moving to Seattle and far more successful than they were in a larger, more affluent city.

The conspiracy theorists always come with a post hoc justification for why this makes sense but there justification is incompatible with the alleged motive: make money.

I would think this theory is funny but this mindset causes a lot of problems in the world.

On the contrary skepticism prevents a lot of problems in the world.

[MoneyTalks41890]

Yet they always have conspiratorial reasons after the fact for why X team got #1.

Conspiracy theorists have very low social trust. As best as I can tell looking conspiracy theorists believe the NBA fixes things to make money. If that were the case, there has been a lot of things that are hard to explain:

1. NYC's team has been awful for most of this century.
2. SA, an extremely tiny market, has received 3 number one picks in years with obvious HOF talents: Robinson, Duncan and Wemby.
3. New Orleans has won multiple number one picks despite having a minuscule fanbase.
4. Cleveland won the lottery in a year with a GOAT level prospect.
5. Oklahoma City has been an extremely successful franchise since moving to Seattle and far more successful than they were in a larger, more affluent city.

The conspiracy theorists always come with a post hoc justification for why this makes sense but there justification is incompatible with the alleged motive: make money.

I would think this theory is funny but this mindset causes a lot of problems in the world.

On the contrary skepticism prevents a lot of problems in the world.

Skepticism is a really good thing!

But it should be grounded in facts and information, not reaching the conclusion first and working backwards.

[WarriorGM]

Conspiracy theorists have very low social trust. As best as I can tell looking conspiracy theorists believe the NBA fixes things to make money. If that were the case, there has been a lot of things that are hard to explain:

1. NYC's team has been awful for most of this century.
2. SA, an extremely tiny market, has received 3 number one picks in years with obvious HOF talents: Robinson, Duncan and Wemby.
3. New Orleans has won multiple number one picks despite having a minuscule fanbase.
4. Cleveland won the lottery in a year with a GOAT level prospect.
5. Oklahoma City has been an extremely successful franchise since moving to Seattle and far more successful than they were in a larger, more affluent city.

The conspiracy theorists always come with a post hoc justification for why this makes sense but there justification is incompatible with the alleged motive: make money.

I would think this theory is funny but this mindset causes a lot of problems in the world.

On the contrary skepticism prevents a lot of problems in the world.

Skepticism is a really good thing!

But it should be grounded in facts and information, not reaching the conclusion first and working backwards.

What facts and information do you need to start with? That there are vested interests exerting pressure to reach certain outcomes in NBA games is simply a fact. You are sticking your head in the sand if you deny it.

[lessthanjake]

The problem with the gray area argument is once you concede the league is willing to rig games, you have no way of know what shade of gray they exist in unless you assume that league is telegraphing every attempt to rig outcomes in the most obvious way. But why would that be the case? In short, if there is any rigging, it taints all outcomes.

Also, the rigging claims never have predictive capability. Tonight OKC is favored by double digits so it's not exactly bold to predict an OKC win, but I promise you if Denver wins, nobody claiming game 2 is rigged will stick by that.

Let me ask a higher level question: if the NBA fixed things, why would they allow a really great to exist in OKC rather NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.?

You'd have to be the dumbest **** conspirator not to realize that the present Thunder roster could generate more revenue if it was based out of somewhere like chicago.

Yeah. This goes back to predictive capability. The rationale for why outcomes are rigged or coerced is always posthoc.

It's like the people who think the NBA lottery is rigged but can never predict who will get #1. Yet they always have conspiratorial reasons after the fact for why X team got #1.

The best way to convince me of rigging claims would be consistently accurately predicting unlikely outcomes, but we never see that.

I don’t think they fix the draft lottery, and I think you’re right that conspiracy theorists just look at outcomes and reason backwards as to why that fits with their conspiracy. But if we were to ascribe some amount of reasonable thinking to the conspiracies, I think the answer here would basically just be that if it’s too blatant then it would lose the NBA money because people would actually widely believe everything is rigged and that would be very damaging to the product. So one might argue that if they were optimizing how much money the league would make, they’d tilt the lottery (as well as ref decisions in games) as much as they can without having it be so obvious that the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit. Which would mean they’d shift an outcome here or there, but definitely not all the time or even close to it. And if that were the case, it would naturally lead to an inability to consistently predict unlikely outcomes, because the outcomes would only be being influenced some particular percent of the time.

I don’t think that’s totally non-sensical. But it’s also basically almost an unfalsifiable premise, because anytime an outcome doesn’t fit the theory, one can just say “Well this time they chose not to.” And I also think the reality may well be that the cost of corruptly influencing something like the draft lottery may well outweigh the benefit if you *ever* do it, because the risk of someone revealing it is always there and would be catastrophic for the league (whereas the benefit of having preferred cities get higher draft picks is marginal—especially when the highest draft picks aren’t necessarily the best players). So, even if I think the league does definitely aim to optimize how much money it makes, I’m inclined to think that such optimization wouldn’t lead to any messing with the draft lottery.

With referee decisions, it gets a bit iffier, because I think it can be done in a wink-wink-nod-nod kind of way, where there’s nothing that could be revealed that would actually definitively make the league look bad (i.e. if they told an official to pay attention to a specific type of situation/infraction in an upcoming game, it could serve to benefit one team, but it wouldn’t look nakedly corrupt if ever revealed). So I find the referee stuff more plausible, though I don’t feel strongly at all about whether it’s actually happening.