Claim: 13 Refs Involved in Betting Scandal

[closg00]

Why is the NBA getting a pass in Donaghy, referee scandal?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... index.html

[GhostsOfGil]

Why is the NBA getting a pass in Donaghy, referee scandal?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... index.html

best article ever.

[fishercob]

Why is the NBA getting a pass in Donaghy, referee scandal?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... index.html

The answer may be that Donaghy truly has no credibility. Anyone who has interest in the subject should read this piece from TrueHoop in its entirety: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... s-on-trial

Donapghy claims he made bets based on his knowledge of other refs biases:

1) He says Dick Bavetta kept games close and therefore he'd bet on the underdog in games with big spreads. That is completely debunked in this article: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... aker-teams

2) He says Steve Javie hated Allen Iverson and thus he bet against the Sixers in Javie reffed games. However:

One can dig into each and every game -- Javie refereed Iverson just 14 times while Donaghy was betting. And you know what? Iverson's teams did just about average, compared to the betting line. On November 26, 2003, when the Pistons were in Philadelphia, the Sixers were favored by one point, but won by four. So, Donaghy's rule would have lost you money that night. Javie was on the court when Iverson's Sixers played in Seattle on December 28, 2004. The Sonics were eight point favorites, but won by just seven. If he had followed his own advice, Donaghy would have lost money that night. Javie refereed when Iverson's Sixers killed the Nets, 116-96, on April 12, 2006.

All together, in the period in question, Iverson's teams beat the spread six times, and failed to beat it seven times when Javie was refereeing. Once, there was a "push" (in 2005, when the Spurs were nine point favorites, and beat the Sixers 100-91).

Win or lose, gamblers typically pay a 10 percent vig. Basically, to win $100, you have to bet $110. If someone had bet $110 on Iverson's opponents to beat the spread in each of the 14 Javie games, they would have won $700, lost $660, (and had no money change hands on the "push" game). Do the math there, and you'll see that this betting strategy would have left you with a measly $40 profit, on $1540 gambled.

Further:

Wayne Winston is a professor at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business, the author of the book "Mathletics" which explains intricate methods of using math to assess sports, including referee bias. In the nine years he worked for the Dallas Mavericks, Winston built a sophisticated database of NBA game information. Winston used his own methods to check into Donaghy's claim about Javie and Iverson. He looked into how Iverson's Sixers teams performed compared to expectations when Javie refereed, and similarly found nothing to confirm Donaghy's assertion. "I computed forecasts based on Sagarin ratings for each game Javie officiated against the 76ers from 2002-2006," he reports, "and found zero evidence that Javie unfavorably impacted 76ers performance in those games."

Fail.

3) Donaghy bet on the Sixers ingames Joe Crawford reffed b/c Crawford avored the Sixers b/c his grandson loved AI.

Betting against Iverson's team in Crawford games would have been lucrative. But Donaghy recommended betting for Iverson's team to beat the spread in these games. Let's pretend Donaghy bet $110 on Iverson's team to beat the spread in every Crawford game. Donaghy would have paid $990 for the nine losers, and won $500 on the winners, meaning he would have lost $490.

Of course, you'd be far better off just picking winners at random.

For what it's worth, there's little evidence Iverson was getting any favors in these games, as his free throw rate in Crawford games was 7.9 per 36 minutes -- the same as his career average.

Fail.

4) Joe Forte and Mike Fratello were good friends, so Donaghy bet on Fratello's team when Forte was reffing.

But what about a referee and a coach being friends? Isn't that the kind of thing that turns your stomach as a fan? Did Fratello's Grizzlies tend to do well when Forte was on the floor, as Donaghy implies?

Hardly.

Forte refereed 13 games while Fratello was coaching the Grizzlies (all fall during the period when Donaghy was betting). They beat the spread in just six of those 13 games, falling short seven times. According to BYU economist Joe Price's database, when you factor in the final scoring margin in those games -- a more refined measure of a team's performance -- Fratello's Grizzlies did not happen to do well in those 13 games.

And finally, Donaghy's bullshidt response when confronted with all these really makes me believe he's just a desperate pathological liar:

Confronted with all of that data at a Tampa hotel on Monday morning, Donaghy had no explanation, other than to say that his betting techniques were more subtle than simply betting on these rules, and that he did not bet on every game that met the description.

"These are some of the criteria that I used," Donaghy says. "I'm not saying I bet every game. ... You can spin the stats any way you want ... The FBI investigated thoroughly. ... To sit here and say there was a science to how I did this, with the stats you're throwing at me. ... Based on the information you're using, with your equation, it's not even in the same ballpark. There were other factors that came into play. Inside information about injuries. Home game or away game. Home crowd. Many more factors to take into consideration."

Big ups to Henry Abbot for this piece and the accompanying research.

[AceDegenerate]

Just as stats do not nearly tell the whole story when it comes to game play, the same can be said for this situation. Anyone who watches an NBA game knows that a game can be called 100% legitimately throughout the entire game, until that one moment where a call could be purposely blown and shift the entire outcome by changing the flow.

Mentally weak teams like the Wizards, for example, are immensely more vulnerable to something like this because they are not going to "fight through it" or stop dealing with the refs and just play the game. Stats will never tell the whole story here.

Here is a quote from a response to the ESPN article that addresses using this method of discounting Donaghy:

By looking at any individual factor in isolation, the effect of other factors could easily mask an effect by the factor at issue. The validity of the results in the article here depends on the classic "all else equal" assumption in a situation where all else is probably not equal.

[closg00]

Just as stats do not nearly tell the whole story when it comes to game play, the same can be said for this situation. Anyone who watches an NBA game knows that a game can be called 100% legitimately throughout the entire game, until that one moment where a call could be purposely blown and shift the entire outcome by changing the flow.

Mentally weak teams like the Wizards, for example, are immensely more vulnerable to something like this because they are not going to "fight through it" or stop dealing with the refs and just play the game. Stats will never tell the whole story here.

Here is a quote from a response to the ESPN article that addresses using this method of discounting Donaghy:

By looking at any individual factor in isolation, the effect of other factors could easily mask an effect by the factor at issue. The validity of the results in the article here depends on the classic "all else equal" assumption in a situation where all else is probably not equal.

Abbot did his lawyerly best to discredit Donaghy, but it is Abbot who has failed. In Abbots piece he states up-front that:

Personal Foul" has dozens of interesting claims. A good portion of these claims are nearly impossible to verify. But there are some exceptions.

So what does Abbot focus on to "discredit" Donaghy? A large part of the article is focused on the Iverson and the 76ers. Fine, that's one team, what about the other 29 NBA teams? What occurred during those games? Abbott doesn't touch it.

2nd and most importantly Donaghy was not alone in claiming that there were crooked NBA refs.

BOSTON -- Only two people know all the details of the NBA's 2008 betting scandal: former NBA referee Tim Donaghy and his associate, former professional gambler Jimmy "The Sheep" Battista. Both men served time in federal prison for their roles in the gambling scheme.

A source close to Battista who says the gambler explained to him the details of the betting operation tells 7Sports that Battista says he was working with 13 referees and not just Donaghy, as the NBA has claimed.

The source says Battista showed him what the gambler claims are phone records and game notes confirming the names of all 13 referees involved.

The source also tells 7Sports that Battista claimed to have a "Big 5" of "dependable" referees and that Donaghy was the "King,” delivering a winning bet in 78 percent of the games he officiated.

Funny, Abbott kinda left out Battista's claims in his story although Battista and Donaghy were closely associated and both went to prison, probably because it did not fit the angle of his story.

At-best, Abbott challenges a small portion of Donaghy's book, what about the rest of the claims?
The response to the article addressed the use of data well.

The validity of the results in the article here depends on the classic "all else equal" assumption in a situation where all else is probably not equal.

[fishercob]

I don't think Abbot was making the argument that the NBA is and has always been 100% clean, closg00. All he's doing is evaluating Donaghy's own statements against factual data. The examples that Donaghy gives Of the type of referee biases that he know about and used as the impetus for his bets don't explain why this guy was able to win 75% of his bets -- or even close.

Something just doesn't add up to me. There's missing information here.

After watching the full 60 minutes piece, I don't think Donaghy is full of it actually. But I'm bothered by his failure to explain how he was able to win so much -- especially since the data, the FBI, and the league, all support the notion that he didn't fix games he was officiating.

While I don't fully trust Stern and the league, I'm not at the point of believing they fixed games and playoff series. For instance, Donaghy sites the example of betting on the Lakers after a league issued directive in response to the Lakers complaints (and accompanying video footage). I don't think that the league reviewing the footage with refs and saying "look, you're not enforcing the rules properly and most of these are fouls" is fixing games or close to it. But I think Donaghy easily connected the dots that Kobe is a great great player and his fellow refs' bosses were looking over their shoulders to make sure the rules were applied correctly. To me, that's akin to insider trading on Dongahy's part -- not undue favortism/game fixing by the league.

Stern has done a terrible part of one aspect of the job and that's the PR/ "investor confidence" piece. His response (and non-response) to the issue is doing nothing to make me feel like the NBA is doing everything in its power to eradicate the problem. There should be more public transparency on the issue.

[AceDegenerate]

Studying under Dick Bavetta for 13 years was like pursuing a graduate degree in advanced game manipulation. He knew how to marshal the tempo and tone of a game better than any referee in the league, by far. He also knew how to take subtle — and not so subtle — cues from the NBA front office and extend a playoff series or, worse yet, change the complexion of that series.

This is precisely the problem at hand, not blowing entire games or entire quarters, but manipulating the flows and thus the outcome of NBA games. Which is why stats (other than actually rewatching the entire games) will never discredit anybody in this situation.

BTW, the man is selling a book, obviously if you want his whole story; read the book. Or at least check out some excerpts before saying he is not being completely forthcoming. He didn't edit/produce the 60 minutes piece either.

http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read?skyline=true&s=i

[fishercob]

Define flow and tone.

[Zerocious]

Define flow and tone.

[AceDegenerate]

For an NBA fan to not understand what the "flow" of the game entails, I'm not sure I can help with that, but it also is clear that In Stern You Trust. It's not my place to convince you otherwise, I'd prefer if I actually still believed the game was fair.

[fishercob]

For an NBA fan to not understand what the "flow" of the game entails, I'm not sure I can help with that, but it also is clear that In Stern You Trust. It's not my place to convince you otherwise, I'd prefer if I actually still believed the game was fair.

Despite what appears clear to you, I don't simply trust Stern. I'm challenging your argument that game fixing wouldn't show up in the statistical data, though. I think I understand what you think "flow" means. I also think that it's the linguistic equivalent of a cuss word in that it's used in absence of the ability to say what you really want to or mean.

So again, define flow. Tell me how one would measure it. Tempo is easily definable and measurable. It's just another word for pace.

If NBA outcomes really are fixed, Congress is going to need something more than "flow."

[AceDegenerate]

So then we'll just wait for Congress to decide for us then won't we?