Was the Bucks-Sixers 2001 ECF series also rigged?

[AIfan3]

Why is this even a thread? The Sixers beat the Bucks no questions asked..

[BobbyLight]

Why is this even a thread? The Sixers beat the Bucks no questions asked..

Actually there are a lot of questions to be asked. That is why there is a thread.

[667Club]

Most people are just mindless sheep. They abide by any truth that is decided/fabricated by some authority.

You wonder how so many people don't question the nba ? Please ... Look at how the vast majority of the medias and the people thought that Irak got WMD or that Saddam was somehow tied to the 9/11 !

[nudson]

I'm a Bucks fan, and from what I recall the main issue wasn't the foul/FT discrepancy, instead it was that the Bucks seemed to get called for ticky tack fouls (sometimes in quick succession) and the Sixers didn't seem get as many. In part this was due to their defensive reputation (top defensive team, POY on D), and in part it was due to the quality of their D.

As for Mutumbo, he only had 6 fouls in the 7 game series, but I think this was pretty consistent with previous regular season games as the Bucks had no low post presence on offense. However, when watching the games he was very physical on both D and O, and easily could have picked up a few more fouls, particularily on the boards. Again, I don't see this as a huge issue, it just stood out against the ticky tack fouls.

As for the Williams foul, I thought he pretty much got Iverson hard on the shoulder/collarbone. It looked really bad though due to the way he flew back into another player (EJ?). I thought the Flagrant 1 ruling on the court was right, given where he hit him, but good 'ole Stu Jackson thought differently. I'd have to think that if the foul was against anyone but Iverson, it wouldn't have been upgraded.

All the other stuff I recall, it was pretty benign...but it looks a little bad thrown all together...e.g.

- Stern supposedly "rooting" for the Sixers

- Robinson not going to the line until Game 5 (though he didn't go to the line much in the regular season IIRC)

- Mutumbo possible Goaltend at end of Game 5 (I don't think the network ever showed a good replay of it. Ray Allen had a putback with the clock expiring that Mutumbo blocked on the way down. It didn't look like it would go in...but it looked like it might hit the rim).

- Iverson seemed to be given much more latitude to whine to the refs than Cassell. I think one of the refs gave Cassell the "shh" sign at one point, which just sort of egged him on.

- The Bucks actually took more shots in the paint than the Sixers during the series. They didn't drive as much, but they also were not just shooting 20 footers all game. I don't have the stats, but recall looking at the shot charts after the games. I think this plays into the fact the Bucks felt slighted on the FT/Foul side.

I find a full blown conspiracy doubtful for the Bucks/Sixers. However, I wouldn't find it hard to believe that the the league provides direction on what should be called more closely, and what should be let go. The problem is that this could influence the outcome of games, even if there is no intent to do so.

Still I'd like to watch games 1 & 4 again, as those seemed to be the ones that drew the most attention as far as the refs went.

[th87]

How can anybody who didn't watch the series comment on this subject?

And Sixers and Bucks fans will be biased. For objectivity, we can only rely on those impartial fans who saw the series. There are some in this thread, and they seem to side with the Bucks.

[BobbyLight]

How can anybody who didn't watch the series comment on this subject?

And Sixers and Bucks fans will be biased. For objectivity, we can only rely on those impartial fans who saw the series. There are some in this thread, and they seem to side with the Bucks.

Becasue looking at numbers on a spreadsheet tells you everything you need to know. Duh.

[th87]

Haha, tell me about it. Numbers never replace good old fashioned context. If they did, GMs and Coaches would be robots running statistical analyses to pick the best players for given situatons.

In this case, if it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Anybody impartial watching the series (like Rome) thought we got jobbed.

But even if the point is made that the Sixers were more aggressive and hence deserved the benefit of the doubt, isn't that STILL preferential treatment? I can't believe we let that concept go so easily. So stars will get the game called differently from everyone else? That's garbage.

[Walt Cronkite]

You guys are so right! I can't believe I didn't see it before!

The Scott Williams ejection turned the series TOTALLY in Philly's favor! His 6.1 points and 5.5 boards in 19.3 mpg was the difference! I'm SUCH an IDIOT!!

Despite the fact that Philly didn't have George Lynch since game 4 of their Toronto series, or that league MVP Allen Iverson didn't play in game 3 (where Philly only lost by 6 points)... SCOTT WILLIAMS WAS THE DIFFERENCE MAKER!

How can anyone that claims to have the series engrained into their memory be expected to give an impartial recollection.

Scott Williams fouled Iverson. Maybe Iverson sells it, I don't know, but it's a foul. Move on. It is in the leagues best interest to protect it's players in general, especially the superstars.

Like I've written a lot over the past two days, I take exception to the game being called differently depending on who does what and when. This is stupid and not consistent, rules are rules, call them how they're written. You guys seriously... 7 years later... believe the Scott Williams suspension was the move that ended the series?

[th87]

1. "It is in the leagues best interest to protect it's players in general, especially the superstars."

Why especially the superstars? Shouldn't the playing field be equal? Also, "protect" how? The damage had been done already. It's not like Iverson would feel better if the foul was upgraded.

2. Obviously again, you didn't watch the series. Remember your discussion where "Vin Baker" couldn't take it to the hole because of Mutombo patrolling the paint? Well, Scott Williams was MONEY from 10 feet out. He had games where he went like 8-8 or something. That would've drawn Mutombo out, enabling "Vin Baker" to get to the hoop.

So sure, he might've had 6.1 points, but he really helped Robinson, Allen, and Cassell get their points by creating spacing.

3. The ejection was just one example of a slew of crap that the Bucks were forced to overcome, but ultimately couldn't.

See, context helps.

[Walt Cronkite]

-= original quote snipped =-



So your saying it shouldn't have been upgraded to a flagrant 2 which cost Williams game 7? Becuase that was the worst issue to the entire series. Iverson threw himself into Williams and that somehow ends up in Williams getting a flagrant 2. How does that make sense or seem fair?

Also, you can go into stats all day long, but unless you watch it (it's melted into my brian) you aren't going to really know what happened. The Bucks were very agressive the entire series and they did not get the calls. It was like both teams were being officiated completely differently.

I know it looks different in your memories, but this is CLEARLY an intentional foul. Iverson is in the paint making his way to the basket and Williams sidesteps over, lifts his elbow up and thrusts it toward Iverson. He's looking directly at him and puts all of his weight forward. He was trying to hit Iverson with a hard foul to make sure he thought twice before coming into the lane again. This is not a play on the ball, it is an intentional foul. Iverson does not throw himself into Williams. Maybe you can make that argument from the sideline cam, DEFINITELY not from the one under the hoop though.

[Walt Cronkite]

1. "It is in the leagues best interest to protect it's players in general, especially the superstars."

Why especially the superstars? Shouldn't the playing field be equal? Also, "protect" how? The damage had been done already. It's not like Iverson would feel better if the foul was upgraded.

2. Obviously again, you didn't watch the series. Remember your discussion where "Vin Baker" couldn't take it to the hole because of Mutombo patrolling the paint? Well, Scott Williams was MONEY from 10 feet out. He had games where he went like 8-8 or something. That would've drawn Mutombo out, enabling "Vin Baker" to get to the hoop.

So sure, he might've had 6.1 points, but he really helped Robinson, Allen, and Cassell get their points by creating spacing.

3. The ejection was just one example of a slew of crap that the Bucks were forced to overcome, but ultimately couldn't.

See, context helps.

The league made an example out of Williams. You cannot elbow a player in the head, this is a dangerous play. I don't think in game calls should be different depending on who is committing penalties. They need to be consistent. I can't dissuade you from believing that the league decided that they better remove Williams from game 7 to ensure a Philly victory, but you should be open-minded enough to recognize the hard foul. Kobe got suspended for punching Marko Jaric and Mike Miller, so it works both ways.

I'm sorry I wrote Vin Baker instead of Glenn Robinson. It's been a long time since I've though of either of them. I would not be upset if you slipped up and wrote PJ Brown once when I was discussing JR Reid. You can type about how I didn't watch the series all you want. I watched the series. I was a basketball nut when I was 15. Obsession was not an overstatement. At the time, like I've written before, I wanted Milwaukee to win because I found the 76ers terribly boring and I thought AI was rather obnoxious and that he scored so much because he was a volume shooter. I hated the selection of him as MVP. Was there poor officiating in the series? Fine. We're the refs trying to keep a year long status quo? Uhh.. sure. But this isn't a "The officiating of the Milwaukee/Philadelphia ECF in 2001 was TERRIBLE thread" it's a "Was the Bucks-Sixers 2001 ECF series also rigged?" one.

[BobbyLight]

You guys are so right! I can't believe I didn't see it before!

The Scott Williams ejection turned the series TOTALLY in Philly's favor! His 6.1 points and 5.5 boards in 19.3 mpg was the difference! I'm SUCH an IDIOT!!

Despite the fact that Philly didn't have George Lynch since game 4 of their Toronto series, or that league MVP Allen Iverson didn't play in game 3 (where Philly only lost by 6 points)... SCOTT WILLIAMS WAS THE DIFFERENCE MAKER!

How can anyone that claims to have the series engrained into their memory be expected to give an impartial recollection.

Scott Williams fouled Iverson. Maybe Iverson sells it, I don't know, but it's a foul. Move on. It is in the leagues best interest to protect it's players in general, especially the superstars.

Like I've written a lot over the past two days, I take exception to the game being called differently depending on who does what and when. This is stupid and not consistent, rules are rules, call them how they're written. You guys seriously... 7 years later... believe the Scott Williams suspension was the move that ended the series?

Further proof you have no idea what you are talking about on this series.... You as a basketball fan should know aobut chemistry. Look at the Celtics, they got that part nailed down. When Williams was here, he was the peacekeeper between 4 rather large egos. Cassell, Allen, Big Dog and Karl.

The next season the Bucks traded Williams. They went from ECF's to not even making the playoffs. You tell me he wasn't important but have absolutley no context to it, except for your stats (which never, ever tell the whole story. Ever!).

[Walt Cronkite]

My point is that Philly faced just as much hardship. They were without a starter for the entire series and in one game where they lost by only 6 they were without 2... one of which was the MVP.

I understand team chemistry and how not having one of the guys there makes it difficult, but you should understand that it's a weak argument for the entire series being rigged, but you don't.

[th87]

Very fair points. I will always believe the officiating was uneven and biased, but we can't ultimately prove that the series was rigged (at the moment).

But this is only revisited in light of the allegations. Now doubt is casted on the integrity of the series - sort of an "if it quacks like a duck" situation. That's all we're really doing - speculating on a situation that suddenly smells a lot fishier than it did a few days ago.

And just messing around with the Vin Baker thing. The jerk in me just couldn't resist.

[BobbyLight]

-= original quote snipped =-



I know it looks different in your memories, but this is CLEARLY an intentional foul. Iverson is in the paint making his way to the basket and Williams sidesteps over, lifts his elbow up and thrusts it toward Iverson. He's looking directly at him and puts all of his weight forward. He was trying to hit Iverson with a hard foul to make sure he thought twice before coming into the lane again. This is not a play on the ball, it is an intentional foul. Iverson does not throw himself into Williams. Maybe you can make that argument from the sideline cam, DEFINITELY not from the one under the hoop though.

What is your opinion on upgrading the foul after the game. Do you agree that it should've been upgraded to a Flagrant 2 which then took one of the Bucks starters out of their most important game of the series. Do you agree with that?

And after that, lets switch players. Kobe for Scott Williams. Exact same situation and foul. Does the L sit Kobe for a game 7 against his home town team? If you answer was yes to 1 and no to 2, then you are providing fuel to the fire that the NBA has SOMETHING wrong. Maybe not outright fixing, but preferential tretment to star players. That's not how life goes. The NHL, NFL and MLB suspend the people who deserve to be suspended, star or not.

[Walt Cronkite]

I have no reference for what a flagrant foul was in 2001 and I don't really want to go look it up just because you're incapable of finding the point.

If Kobe punches someone in the throat he should be ejected from the next game. There is no place in basketball for that.

[BobbyLight]

My point is that Philly faced just as much hardship. They were without a starter for the entire series and in one game where they lost by only 6 they were without 2... one of which was the MVP.

I understand team chemistry and how not having one of the guys there makes it difficult, but you should understand that it's a weak argument for the entire series being rigged, but you don't.

Did Philly have some issues that series with injuries? Yes it did. But those were not leauge imposed issues. The Bucks had to fight the Sixers and refs (and after game six Stu Jackson). The Sixers had to fight the Bucks and 2 injuries.

And about the fix or not to fix... I am not 100% on the side of there being a fix. I am on the fence. My arguments in this thread are in relation to what it felt like at the time and the recent allegations. This just brought up a lot of bad memories that I had just recently gotten over. Sad, I know, but I love my team, and if this is even the slightest bit true I may be done with the NBA. I don't think we should say yay or nay yet. We need more facts. Bottom line is there is room for discussion here, so there is a possibility (however small) that the leauge did indeed have it in for the Bucks.

[ACGB]

I have no reference for what a flagrant foul was in 2001 and I don't really want to go look it up just because you're incapable of finding the point.

If Kobe punches someone in the throat he should be ejected from the next game. There is no place in basketball for that.

You are a former Charlotte Hornets fan? Still bitter about the semi-finals huh?

[BobbyLight]

I have no reference for what a flagrant foul was in 2001 and I don't really want to go look it up just because you're incapable of finding the point.

If Kobe punches someone in the throat he should be ejected from the next game. There is no place in basketball for that.

That's fair enough.. but kinda cheap on your part. You seem to have some strong opinions on everything else, but can't answer if it was or was not a flagrant 2 in your opinion.

[Walt Cronkite]

But this is only revisited in light of the allegations. Now doubt is casted on the integrity of the series - sort of an "if it quacks like a duck" situation. That's all we're really doing - speculating on a situation that suddenly smells a lot fishier than it did a few days ago.

But you're unwilling to see the other side. Philly quacked their way to the free throw stripe all season. Argue that the league was pushing Iverson as a brand and wanted him to succeed so the refs were lenient with and 1s and his drives for the entire season. Suggest that the NBA/Stern/Refs wanted Iverson to be the MVP for television ratings or ticket sales and this was the reason for preferential treatment (until they got to the Finals I guess, where they wanted bigger market LA with bigger stars in Shaq and Kobe to be the triumphant brand).