Empirical data shows Rox have been consistently gibbed by the refs against the Warriors

[floppymoose]

Some counter argument for thought. People are quick to jump (on either side) to data that confirms what they believe.

THIS.

[hoosierdaddy34]

LOL at people saying Harden got robbed after all the BS calls he receives. I’m not a Rockets or Warriors fan but come on, a little common sense.

Most of that contact is created because Harden is jumping forward into the defender/landing space and flopping. Rockets fans are ridiculous for thinking he deserves that call and NBA refs are dumb for giving it too him.

The NBA refs created this problem for themselves so now when they call it correct, rockets fans are up in arms. Stop giving him this crap in the regular season and you won’t have this problem.

Oh and some cherry picked report doesn’t change a thing. It’s worthless to actual facts of the situation.

[floppymoose]

Do the first 7 items in the list not show a GS player committing an infraction?

The second on the list (for instance) is an INC. As in, GSW committed an infraction but was not called for it.

You have to actually look at the two minute reports to process the above list into counts of who it favored.

[floppymoose]

Speaking of looking at 2 minute reports, you can learn some interesting things by watching the last two minutes and then looking at what's in the report. For instance, in the most recent GSW/HOU game, the report is here: https://official.nba.com/l2m/L2MReport.html?gameId=0041800221

Around the 18 seconds left mark (see this vid from the report https://official.nba.com/last-two-minute-report/?gameNo=0041800221&eventNum=2244) Chris Paul is arguably fouling Durant. KD then loses the ball and it creates a critical last chance for the Rockets instead of facing GSW free throws to put the game away. Now, I don't know if it's the right non-call or not. But i DO KNOW that it isn't in the report as a notable non-call. They decided to not look at it. It wasn't notable.

Crickets on this, of course. Doesn't fit the narrative. But it does illustrate something important: it's impossible to analyze the 2 minute reports for ref bias if we don't know how they define what plays are "notable non-calls" for inclusion into the report. For instance, maybe part of the criteria is that they are more likely to look at non-calls that potentially hurt the team that lost. I would be fine with that, but since the Warriors win a lot (humble brag!) they would have more non-call situations examined against them than for them.

[JH5]

Watch on YouTube

Definitely not normal to jump that far forward, even Steve Kerr was doing it back in the day

[JH5]

Speaking of looking at 2 minute reports, you can learn some interesting things by watching the last two minutes and then looking at what's in the report. For instance, in the most recent GSW/HOU game, the report is here: https://official.nba.com/l2m/L2MReport.html?gameId=0041800221

Around the 18 seconds left mark (see this vid from the report https://official.nba.com/last-two-minute-report/?gameNo=0041800221&eventNum=2244) Chris Paul is arguably fouling Durant. KD then loses the ball and it creates a critical last chance for the Rockets instead of facing GSW free throws to put the game away. Now, I don't know if it's the right non-call or not. But i DO KNOW that it isn't in the report as a notable non-call. They decided to not look at it. It wasn't notable.

Crickets on this, of course. Doesn't fit the narrative. But it does illustrate something important: it's impossible to analyze the 2 minute reports for ref bias if we don't know how they define what plays are "notable non-calls" for inclusion into the report. For instance, maybe part of the criteria is that they are more likely to look at non-calls that potentially favored the team that lost. I would be fine with that, but since the Warriors win a lot (humble brag!) they would have more non-call situations examined against them than for them.

Agree, Rockets should be calling it both ways.

Either way, I just hope both teams go out tonight and just ball

[Impuniti]

Read on Twitter

[floppymoose]

A lot of players are starting to learn that move. Harden's success does not go unnoticed.

I think the solution is for defenders to start jumping straight up, and then for refs to actually call a charge (and waive off the basket if there was one) if the shooter jumps into/under defender.

it's tough on defenders right now because they believe they won't get that call, which leaves them with two bad choices: play legally, and get fouled but get no call (and also give the shooter space to get off a good look), *or* jump forward to contest and thus be fouling the shooter if there is any contact or landing interference.

[parson]

That is not correct.

I'm not getting you. What are you saying, exactly? Are there steps, hops, skips, slides that are not counted?

Until the ball has been gathered, any movement (steps) are seen as legal steps you can do while dribbling. It is only once you've gathered that the steps are counted.

The man makes a mockery of the rules.

[DonaldSanders]

Another night of the Rockets shooting more FT than the Warriors, another Rockets loss

[spikeslovechild]

Another night of the Rockets shooting more FT than the Warriors, another Rockets loss

The funniest part was when Harden got poked no one was concerned not his teammates, coaches, refs, or GSW players.

Everyone thought it was JAF (just another flop). Karma lol

[drstarheel]

Did the report subtract points for any bad calls that went the Rockets way? I'd be more interested to hear the net effect of bad calls.

Yes it did.

I wish I could find the actual report to see how well it captures the bad calls/no calls. I'd imagine since it was the Rockets camp compiling the report they would be quicker to gloss over plays they benefited from (i.e. if Harden flops without a foul, goes to the line and makes both, then 2 points should be subtracted). In the financial world companies aren't allowed to audit themselves because they would do whatever it takes to cast themselves in the best possible light. So I'm a little skeptical as to how they came up with these numbers.

If Rockets fans were asked to do the exact same thing and compile a report like this, the numbers would average out much different than if Warriors fans compiled the same report. So unless this empirical data is compiled by an impartial third party, I find it hard for the results to hold any weight.

[dhsilv2]

Did the report subtract points for any bad calls that went the Rockets way? I'd be more interested to hear the net effect of bad calls.

Yes it did.

I wish I could find the actual report to see how well it captures the bad calls/no calls. I'd imagine since it was the Rockets camp compiling the report they would be quicker to gloss over plays they benefited from (i.e. if Harden flops without a foul, goes to the line and makes both, then 2 points should be subtracted). In the financial world companies aren't allowed to audit themselves because they would do whatever it takes to cast themselves in the best possible light. So I'm a little skeptical as to how they came up with these numbers.

If Rockets fans were asked to do the exact same thing and compile a report like this, the numbers would average out much different than if Warriors fans compiled the same report. So unless this empirical data is compiled by an impartial third party, I find it hard for the results to hold any weight.

The NBA compiled the report. The rockets simply added point values to the report compiled by the NBA. The point values were explained in the articles and while I'm sure you can disagree, they seemed reasonable.

[drstarheel]

The biggest problem with this methodology is they gave themselves 1.1 points for no calls and "potential infractions" without considering what happened subsequently in the same possession. If the NBA identified a bad no call and the Rockets hit a three later on that same possession then they got 4.1 points in a single possession. Whereas in reality you don't get an extra possession if the call had been made. In order to avoid double dipping they would need to subtract the three they made and then give themselves the 1.1 credit.

Yes it did.

I wish I could find the actual report to see how well it captures the bad calls/no calls. I'd imagine since it was the Rockets camp compiling the report they would be quicker to gloss over plays they benefited from (i.e. if Harden flops without a foul, goes to the line and makes both, then 2 points should be subtracted). In the financial world companies aren't allowed to audit themselves because they would do whatever it takes to cast themselves in the best possible light. So I'm a little skeptical as to how they came up with these numbers.

If Rockets fans were asked to do the exact same thing and compile a report like this, the numbers would average out much different than if Warriors fans compiled the same report. So unless this empirical data is compiled by an impartial third party, I find it hard for the results to hold any weight.

The NBA compiled the report. The rockets simply added point values to the report compiled by the NBA. The point values were explained in the articles and while I'm sure you can disagree, they seemed reasonable.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[dhsilv2]

The biggest problem with this methodology is they gave themselves 1.1 points for no calls and "potential infractions" without considering what happened subsequently in the same possession. If the NBA identified a bad no call and the Rockets hit a three later on that same possession then they got 4.1 points in a single possession. Whereas in reality you don't get an extra possession if the call had been made. In order to avoid double dipping they would need to subtract the three they made and then give themselves the 1.1 credit.

I wish I could find the actual report to see how well it captures the bad calls/no calls. I'd imagine since it was the Rockets camp compiling the report they would be quicker to gloss over plays they benefited from (i.e. if Harden flops without a foul, goes to the line and makes both, then 2 points should be subtracted). In the financial world companies aren't allowed to audit themselves because they would do whatever it takes to cast themselves in the best possible light. So I'm a little skeptical as to how they came up with these numbers.

If Rockets fans were asked to do the exact same thing and compile a report like this, the numbers would average out much different than if Warriors fans compiled the same report. So unless this empirical data is compiled by an impartial third party, I find it hard for the results to hold any weight.

The NBA compiled the report. The rockets simply added point values to the report compiled by the NBA. The point values were explained in the articles and while I'm sure you can disagree, they seemed reasonable.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I'm pretty sure they did just that based on what was written, that almost sounds like an exact quote from it...all be it I didn't reread it before this comment.

I would be down right shocked if a bunch of guys with advanced mathematics degrees who likely mostly came out of high finance didn't build that into a model. The sheer gap here as long as the logic was applied consistently is seriously problematic even if they did fail to make adjustments like you mentioned above.

[drstarheel]

The biggest problem with this methodology is they gave themselves 1.1 points for no calls and "potential infractions" without considering what happened subsequently in the same possession. If the NBA identified a bad no call and the Rockets hit a three later on that same possession then they got 4.1 points in a single possession. Whereas in reality you don't get an extra possession if the call had been made. In order to avoid double dipping they would need to subtract the three they made and then give themselves the 1.1 credit.

The NBA compiled the report. The rockets simply added point values to the report compiled by the NBA. The point values were explained in the articles and while I'm sure you can disagree, they seemed reasonable.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I'm pretty sure they did just that based on what was written, that almost sounds like an exact quote from it...all be it I didn't reread it before this comment.

I would be down right shocked if a bunch of guys with advanced mathematics degrees who likely mostly came out of high finance didn't build that into a model. The sheer gap here as long as the logic was applied consistently is seriously problematic even if they did fail to make adjustments like you mentioned above.

I guess I just can't trust the model if it's built by the same team trying to prove they were cheated. Because then, despite the fact that they have advanced finance/math/statistical degrees they are also tasked with trying to prove the Rockets were cheated. Hence there's an inherent risk they omit anything from the model that would hurt their case.

[Painting_Shade]

i do think that last years series had some skew, but if anyone thinks that game 2 went any other way than the rockets then idk what to tell you. we got the better side of the whistle and we still lost. we aren't in the same class anymore.

[dhsilv2]

The biggest problem with this methodology is they gave themselves 1.1 points for no calls and "potential infractions" without considering what happened subsequently in the same possession. If the NBA identified a bad no call and the Rockets hit a three later on that same possession then they got 4.1 points in a single possession. Whereas in reality you don't get an extra possession if the call had been made. In order to avoid double dipping they would need to subtract the three they made and then give themselves the 1.1 credit.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I'm pretty sure they did just that based on what was written, that almost sounds like an exact quote from it...all be it I didn't reread it before this comment.

I would be down right shocked if a bunch of guys with advanced mathematics degrees who likely mostly came out of high finance didn't build that into a model. The sheer gap here as long as the logic was applied consistently is seriously problematic even if they did fail to make adjustments like you mentioned above.

I guess I just can't trust the model if it's built by the same team trying to prove they were cheated. Because then, despite the fact that they have advanced finance/math/statistical degrees they are also tasked with trying to prove the Rockets were cheated. Hence there's an inherent risk they omit anything from the model that would hurt their case.

If it were done that obviously then we'd know it from the people who reported on it. The information provided seems very legit and doesn't make it sound like anything like that happened. The gap here is massive, far too massive for some leaning on the scale to change the message. At some point just accept the planet is round.

Go read the threads here from those games live...the refs were bad and favoring the warriors. Go look at the youtube videos...again the refs were bad and they changed the momentum of the game with bad no calls. The rockets aren't releasing new data outside of the nba actually doing a full game report which it seems supports the complaints everyone watching the games had.

All the rockets did was put numbers to it...and even if their numbers are biased, it doesn't change the message. maybe it was 70 and not 93...does that change anything for us? 50? Even if it were 30 that would be pretty concerning, especially if games 6 and 7 were where the majority of it came.

[parson]

Oops, do I hear the sound of Morey shooting himself in the foot?
https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/nba-rumors-rockets-might-have-tried-avoid-league-rule-ref-complaints

While the Rockets never sent the memo, the team reportedly voiced its findings with the league via "in-person meetings," according to ESPN.

Some NBA sources reportedly believe this particular brand of griping might have been a way to go around NBA rules by not looping in the Warriors on their complaints, The Athletic's Zach Harper reported Tuesday.

According to The Athletic, the NBA sent out a memo to all teams prior to the playoffs reminding them that "the process for raising 'competition-related matters' that include officiating matters need to be shared with their opponent." The need to loop in the opponent is the league's way of being transparent when it comes to reviewing fouls, no calls, etc. Whenever a complaint is made, the opponent is included in the conversation, according to The Athletic.

Is this "empirical data" part of an illegal attempt to influence officials?