82 games proves no bias in Laker Kings game

[NetsForce]

Once again we have more valid evidence that Kobe = GOAT.

[richboy]

Best part: "Non call on accidental forearm to chin by Kobe trying to break free of Bibby to catch inbounds pass" -- Decision: "No Call" -- 82games verdict: "Maybe"

Kobe almost broke Bibby's jaw, and they say *MAYBE* a wrong call? LOOOOOLLLL!!!

LOL..that was one of the worst calls in NBA history IMO..

That call a perfect example of how important angles are. The ref that made that call was not looking at the tv camera angle. He was behind the play where from his angle Bibby was no doublt grabbing Kobe. Really either player could have been called for a foul. Kobe foul was just worse and easier seen. Bibby foul came before Kobe elbows though.

Again TD point was they made up fouls on players. Non calls would not be a factor in that situation.

Not to mention the Kings were a jump shooting team. Bibby, Webber, Peja, Jackson were not big physical guys going to the line. How is i presumed they were hurt more by non calls.

[OhMyBosh]

Anyone who watched the game from a non-biased view will tell you that the game was not officiated fairly.

[Point forward]

Ironically the 82games.com site actually "PROVES" that the Kings got shafted. There is one stat line "dubious calls pro LA" vs "dubious calls pro SAC": LA got 7, SAC 2. Also to quote 82games.com:

"At the end though, my scoring of the calls amounts to seeing the Lakers getting a net bonus of 6 points in the game, which some might take as a sign that the refs had a big role in determining the outcome of a contest with a four point final margin." (Cut incoherent "what if" rant which followed) FYI, the Kings lost by 4 points. Give them 6 extra points, the Kings win. QED -- the Kings got shafted, and the site even admits it

PS Bibby's nose was BLEEDING after Kobe's elbow. There is no excuse for overseeing that. I also recall Bibby getting a foul vs Kobe while standing 1 foot away, Funderburke getting clotheslined by Shaq w/o Shaq getting a flagrant, Webber's basket being annulled b/c Horry flopped into him, and Divac and Pollard getting phantom fouls left and right.

[Hard2dhole]

Hey lakers fans it's okay to admit you had 3 extra players on the court that game, all wearing striped shirts. Quit trying to justify the job you gave the Kings in 2002.

[Mindflayer]

This guy should do an analysis of the entire series, not just game six. I would not be surprised if the overall officiating favored the Kings. Obviously game 6 was the worse officiated but it would be interesting to compare that aqainst game 1 and 2 and the end of game 5.

[HarlemHeat37]

hahaha, oh you Laker fans..so silly..

[og15]

What I got from that article was that the reffing was bad, but it wasn't some sort of conspiracy attempt, just poor calls made by certain refs. About the Kobe and Mike Bibby thing, I don't know if what Bibby's nose bleeding has to do with whether it should be a call or not, just wondering why that was pointed out by some people.

[Muzzleshot]

That article seems like a long road to nowhere and I'm not taking it.
I did do a very quick skim of it and it seems like a bunch of crap.

[mr_sunshine]

No calls were not the complaint? Was there a bunch of Kings should have gotten more calls talk. I heard a lot of the Lakers were going to the line for no reason stuff. TD words were that the refs made up calls against the Kings. No calls could be added but is that even an issue. For the purpose of things TD was yapping his mouth about I think the article does disprove a lot of what he said.

How about you actually watch the game and then get back to us. Okay?

[cwas2882]

Best part: "Non call on accidental forearm to chin by Kobe trying to break free of Bibby to catch inbounds pass" -- Decision: "No Call" -- 82games verdict: "Maybe"

Kobe almost broke Bibby's jaw, and they say *MAYBE* a wrong call? LOOOOOLLLL!!!

LOL..that was one of the worst calls in NBA history IMO..

That call a perfect example of how important angles are. The ref that made that call was not looking at the tv camera angle. He was behind the play where from his angle Bibby was no doublt grabbing Kobe. Really either player could have been called for a foul. Kobe foul was just worse and easier seen. Bibby foul came before Kobe elbows though.

Again TD point was they made up fouls on players. Non calls would not be a factor in that situation.

Not to mention the Kings were a jump shooting team. Bibby, Webber, Peja, Jackson were not big physical guys going to the line. How is i presumed they were hurt more by non calls.

So Kobe's elbow is retaliation? What is that? A technical foul? Flagrant 1?

[floppymoose]

statistical analysis of basketball is valuable over a very large number of games. Over just one game, it's crazy stoopid. It's like concluding that Seattle is a dry city based on one day of observation.

[Blame Rasho]

In the end we all see what we want to see...

[hsb]

In the end we all see what we want to see...

Yeah, and a lot (most?) of people see it one way...

[HarlemHeat37]

2002*..

serious question..how much do you guys think the 2002 finals cost Buss?..

[triplet1984]

I love how the OP uses the word "proves" in the topic title, when it comes down to the article writer essentially saying "that call looks good to me, that call doesn't, that's a bad call but not a corrupt one".

Here, using that logic, let me prove it was rigged:

*Da-Met pulls up video of game*

*Da-Met watches the last 3 minutes*

*Da-Met does statistical analysis of other aspects of that game that don't relate to whether the calls were good or not*

*after each call, Da-Met says "that call is horrible, it clearly looks rigged"*

there, I just "proved" it was rigged

[og15]

statistical analysis of basketball is valuable over a very large number of games. Over just one game, it's crazy stoopid. It's like concluding that Seattle is a dry city based on one day of observation.

Bad correlation, it depends what the statistical analysis is and what one is attempting to prove. You can analyze one game statistically to prove that ______ player had a bad game that ONE game. But you can't use that game to prove he is a bad player or had a bad season. There is no general extrapolation being made from this statistical analysis outside of that one game being mentioned. So it would be like saying based on a day of observation that the day being observed was dry in Seattle, or that Seattle can have dry days.

[LakerFanMan]

Coming from a Laker fan, I think It's pretty obvious there was bias. I think the real question is: "Was it rigged?" That's a question that needs either hard evidence or a ref who worked that game to come forward and say, "It was rigged".

[Frosty]

I gave up on the article when I read his chart and it said he saw 1 very dubious call (his worst rating). I was wondering which one it was when I noticed he had it favoring the Kings....

Ummm sure

Like that call on Bibby where he was a foot from Kobe could have gone either way....

[floppymoose]

statistical analysis of basketball is valuable over a very large number of games. Over just one game, it's crazy stoopid. It's like concluding that Seattle is a dry city based on one day of observation.

Bad correlation, it depends what the statistical analysis is and what one is attempting to prove. You can analyze one game statistically to prove that ______ player had a bad game that ONE game. But you can't use that game to prove he is a bad player or had a bad season. There is no general extrapolation being made from this statistical analysis outside of that one game being mentioned. So it would be like saying based on a day of observation that the day being observed was dry in Seattle, or that Seattle can have dry days.

The article seems to be addressing the larger issue of the integrity of the game in general. To that extent the data is worthless, in that it's too small a sample size.

The portions of the article dealing with just the one game can be summarized this way: yes, it was poorly called, and ended up favoring the Lakers. But we all new that already.