PDA

View Full Version : Which playoff series/games do you feel like the officials were working one side?



JasonJohnHorn
04-12-2016, 10:41 AM
I know a lot of people role their eyes at certain 'conspiracy' theories, but it does seem like there are instances where officials to change a game and even a series.

I know every homer has their complaints. I, for instance, think the Raptors got railroaded in the Philly series back in the day, because who wants to watch Milwaukee and Toronto in the conference finals when the regular-season MVP is a bigger draw; and who wants to see a team from Canada or the Bucks in the finals? But I have a bias in that series, so it is likely a bad example.


There are other instances, though. The Miami '06 run, for example. Miami won by a point in game 5; Wade got over 20 FTs that game. And Game 6 was decided by 3 points and Wade got 25 FTs that game. Game 3 was also tight, and Wade got 18 FTs. The Mavs jumped out to a 2-0 lead in that series, and the officials really seemed to want to put Wade on the line. Wade has always been good at drawing fouls, but not Iverson/Harden good. It seemed like skill that suddenly went off the charts for Wade, and one that the coaching on the other side utterly failed to address. Given how close those games were, it seems like the officials may have had an undue influence on that.

Then there is the Lakers/Portland series in 00, where Portland was up by 13 in the 4th quarter, and then only managed to score 13 points while LAL posted 31. I remember a lot of phantom foul calls in that quarter. I also remember in that series in general that Sabonis, Sheed, and Grant all got in foul trouble early in almost every game, and those were the guys who were most effective against Shaq. During the regular season, Grant averaged a personal foul once ever 8 minute; in the LAL series it was once every 4.6 minutes (almost twice as frequently). Sabonis average a foul once every 9.2 minutes, but committed on every 6.8 minutes in the LAL series. And Sheed committed on ever 13.3 minutes in the regular season, but once every 10.9 minutes in the LAL series. The things is, these were smart players. They knew what they were doing, and they were working to avoid fouls, but the officials seemed to give them tick-tacky fouls constantly, which forced the coach to take them out of the game, and let Shaq dominante. If it were one guy playing out of sorts, I wouldn't be suspicious. But when you have 3 guys with high IQs all making the same mistake every game? That is a pattern.


Then there is the Kings/LAL series. I don't even want to get into that.


It's no secret that the league wants high ratings, in the finals especially. And it's not secret that they haven't had the rating Jordan posted in a long time. It makes sense, from a business perspective, to make sure a big market team is in the finals, because ratings are higher. But do you think that officials actually work toward that goal? And if not, do you believe at the very least that they, even subconsciously, or at a result of 'star treatment' change the outcome of games/series and even championships?

What examples can yo think of?

dhopisthename
04-12-2016, 11:49 AM
How about one I have never heard anyone talk about. In the 1998 finals game six the Jazz were cheated out of 3 points and the bulls given 2 points in what ended up being a 1 point game for the Bulls.

https://youtu.be/fbFxB41pkso?t=39m40s

Eisley makes a 3 ball that clearly leaves the hand before the 24 second shot clock goes off

https://youtu.be/fbFxB41pkso?t=1h42m29s

this is one is closer, but it still looks like the ball is in his hands when the 24 second shot clock expired.

What bothers me as a Jazz fan is that the first one isn't even close and the announcers say as much. This would have meant a game 7 where Pippen was severely hobbled by his back, Jordan was having to do everything on offense, Malone had completely figured out the Bulls defense, and the home team in a game 7 very often wins. It wouldn't have hurt Jordan legacy really to lose that series as his supporting cast was starting to age just as poorly as ever, but man it would have been so huge for the Malone and Stockton to get the monkey off of their back and to win the championship.

Wade n Fade
04-12-2016, 12:07 PM
Any series Toronto played in the last couple of seasons. Toronto always gets hosed by NBA officiating.

aman_13
04-12-2016, 12:18 PM
Game 6. Lakers - Kings.

/thread.

Chronz
04-12-2016, 12:50 PM
Of late? Definitely 01. Sixers had no business besting Milwaukee. The Lakers should've beaten the Kings alot sooner but there was some bad reffing that prolonged the series. You didn't want to touch on. that tho, polly because you know the selective stats don't apply in that series. Shaq actually had a game where he fouled out and practically never went to the line. Shaq gets mugged practically every play so that's not legit

YAALREADYKNO
04-12-2016, 01:07 PM
Of late? Definitely 01. Sixers had no business besting Milwaukee. The Lakers should've beaten the Kings alot sooner but there was some bad reffing that prolonged the series. You didn't want to touch on. that tho, polly because you know the selective stats don't apply in that series. Shaq actually had a game where he fouled out and practically never went to the line. Shaq gets mugged practically every play so that's not legit

That bucks team was really solid with Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, and Sam cassell

ewing
04-12-2016, 01:18 PM
i remember in 98 i really thought the Pacers were going to beat the Bulls. I even after they lost in 7 i thought they were the better team. Free throws weren't a huge disparity but Jordan and Pippen were allowed to mugged people on the perimeter

valade16
04-12-2016, 01:26 PM
Of late? Definitely 01. Sixers had no business besting Milwaukee. The Lakers should've beaten the Kings alot sooner but there was some bad reffing that prolonged the series. You didn't want to touch on. that tho, polly because you know the selective stats don't apply in that series. Shaq actually had a game where he fouled out and practically never went to the line. Shaq gets mugged practically every play so that's not legit

The game after Shaq fouled out both Vlade and Scott Pollard fouled out in the pivotal game to tie the series when the Lakers shot 40 FTs and the Kings only 25. Christie also fouled out the game Shaq fouled out of, in fact Christie fouled out of 2 games that series and Vlade fouled out of 3 games, including both Game 6 and 7.

The reffing that series heavily favored the Lakers. Whether it was intentional or not is another matter.

ewing
04-12-2016, 01:29 PM
The game after Shaq fouled out both Vlade and Scott Pollard fouled out in the pivotal game to tie the series when the Lakers shot 40 FTs and the Kings only 25. Christie also fouled out the game Shaq fouled out of, in fact Christie fouled out of 2 games that series and Vlade fouled out of 3 games, including both Game 6 and 7.

The reffing that series heavily favored the Lakers. Whether it was intentional or not is another matter.

Anytime Ralph Nader gets involved you know **** is a little suspect

Scoots
04-12-2016, 02:59 PM
I think the vast vast majority of officials don't call games for or against a team ... I think it just ends up looking that way. If there is an official who calls all outside hand checks but doesn't call contact on drives it would look like they were preferring the team shooting outside and against the inside scoring team, but maybe it's just how they call the game.

There are ALWAYS examples that look like a bias, doesn't mean it IS a bias.

Big Zo
04-12-2016, 03:07 PM
There was no game 7 in 2006, OP. If you're gonna talk ****, at least get your facts straight. ;)

R. Johnson#3
04-12-2016, 03:08 PM
Any series Toronto played in the last couple of seasons. Toronto always gets hosed by NBA officiating.

To be fair, we sucked *** last post season.

valade16
04-12-2016, 03:18 PM
I think the vast vast majority of officials don't call games for or against a team ... I think it just ends up looking that way. If there is an official who calls all outside hand checks but doesn't call contact on drives it would look like they were preferring the team shooting outside and against the inside scoring team, but maybe it's just how they call the game.

There are ALWAYS examples that look like a bias, doesn't mean it IS a bias.

True, but it isn't like we are saying this out of nowhere. An NBA ref was caught manipulating games and made accusations that others did it as well, specifically referring to some of the games that are most commonly cited as abnormal officiating due to their lopsidedness or inaccuracies.

At a certain point, where there's smoke, there is fire.

Tony_Starks
04-12-2016, 03:34 PM
I used to get really mad watching the Bulls during their runs. The refs would bail them out in crunch time and swallow their whistles on the other end.

In particular the Pacers, Knicks, and Jazz got really screwed.

Ironman5219
04-12-2016, 03:46 PM
Any game where my team loses☺

JasonJohnHorn
04-12-2016, 03:52 PM
i remember in 98 i really thought the Pacers were going to beat the Bulls. I even after they lost in 7 i thought they were the better team. Free throws weren't a huge disparity but Jordan and Pippen were allowed to mugged people on the perimeter

I thought the Pacer won that series too.

After game-six, when Reggie hit that 3 to force a game seven, Jordan, in the post game press conference, complained about the officials (didn't get fined?!?!) and said Reggie pushed off on him to get the shot off. I almost died laughing. Of all the people to complain about somebody pushing off to create space for a shot... lol... Pot; Kettle.

Scoots
04-12-2016, 03:55 PM
True, but it isn't like we are saying this out of nowhere. An NBA ref was caught manipulating games and made accusations that others did it as well, specifically referring to some of the games that are most commonly cited as abnormal officiating due to their lopsidedness or inaccuracies.

At a certain point, where there's smoke, there is fire.

But when a fire is put out the smoke left over doesn't mean there is still a fire. :)

JasonJohnHorn
04-12-2016, 03:56 PM
How about one I have never heard anyone talk about. In the 1998 finals game six the Jazz were cheated out of 3 points and the bulls given 2 points in what ended up being a 1 point game for the Bulls.

https://youtu.be/fbFxB41pkso?t=39m40s

Eisley makes a 3 ball that clearly leaves the hand before the 24 second shot clock goes off

https://youtu.be/fbFxB41pkso?t=1h42m29s

this is one is closer, but it still looks like the ball is in his hands when the 24 second shot clock expired.

What bothers me as a Jazz fan is that the first one isn't even close and the announcers say as much. This would have meant a game 7 where Pippen was severely hobbled by his back, Jordan was having to do everything on offense, Malone had completely figured out the Bulls defense, and the home team in a game 7 very often wins. It wouldn't have hurt Jordan legacy really to lose that series as his supporting cast was starting to age just as poorly as ever, but man it would have been so huge for the Malone and Stockton to get the monkey off of their back and to win the championship.

I get more frustrated with consistent plays being called, because as much as I get upset from one play, I realize people do make mistakes.

But with that series, it was all over the place. I remember that last play, Jordan first racked Malone's arms to get the ball loose after Malone got an offensive rebound, then went up court, pushed off on Russell, and then put the shot up, so he got away with two fouls on the same play. And that's pretty much how it always went for Jordan. He was allowed to tear people's arms off going for a steal. Dude could decapitate somebody and they'd get charged with a foul for getting blood o him.

JasonJohnHorn
04-12-2016, 03:57 PM
But when a fire is put out the smoke left over doesn't mean there is still a fire. :)

But neither does the presence of smoke mean that a fire is put out ;-)

ewing
04-12-2016, 04:01 PM
I thought the Pacer won that series too.

After game-six, when Reggie hit that 3 to force a game seven, Jordan, in the post game press conference, complained about the officials (didn't get fined?!?!) and said Reggie pushed off on him to get the shot off. I almost died laughing. Of all the people to complain about somebody pushing off to create space for a shot... lol... Pot; Kettle.


I'm not a Peter Vecsey fan but i remember after that series he said you can't beat the champ by decision, you have to knock his *** out. Thats definitely how i felt about that series

ewing
04-12-2016, 04:03 PM
But when a fire is put out the smoke left over doesn't mean there is still a fire. :)

and sometimes there is smoke on the water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwEIt9ez7M

:rock:

JasonJohnHorn
04-12-2016, 04:03 PM
There was no game 7 in 2006, OP. If you're gonna talk ****, at least get your facts straight. ;)

You are correct that I got the number of the games wrong. But the issue still stands. I understand, given your clear bias, that you might think this is 'talkin' $#!T', as you say, but there was a pattern in that series that every other fan of every other team noticed.

Wade is amazing. Shaq was great. That Heat team was fantastic. But you cannot ignore the fact that Wade got a LOT of calls that series, and that it was uncharacteristic of his game to get that many calls.


You can correct me on details that don't impact the argument, and then say I'm talking $#!T, or you can address the issue at hand.

Or you can not respond at all. Doesn't matter to me. Frankly, I didn't have a horse in that series. So it didn't matter to me who won it.

ewing
04-12-2016, 04:18 PM
You are correct that I got the number of the games wrong. But the issue still stands. I understand, given your clear bias, that you might think this is 'talkin' $#!T', as you say, but there was a pattern in that series that every other fan of every other team noticed.

Wade is amazing. Shaq was great. That Heat team was fantastic. But you cannot ignore the fact that Wade got a LOT of calls that series, and that it was uncharacteristic of his game to get that many calls.


You can correct me on details that don't impact the argument, and then say I'm talking $#!T, or you can address the issue at hand.

Or you can not respond at all. Doesn't matter to me. Frankly, I didn't have a horse in that series. So it didn't matter to me who won it.



I think we were still in the shadow of the Pistons/Pacers bawrl that year with the refs doing everything imaginable to make sure they didn't lose control. Wade was by far the best slasher on the 2 teams and took it to the hole. IMO that's why he got the line so much. It was not bias but in another year i don't think it happens

Scoots
04-12-2016, 04:26 PM
For the most part it's probably best to assume bad officiating is just bad officiating.

Watching the Warriors Spurs game with the Spurs commentary it was interesting that they pointed out close calls that didn't go their was as bad calls but didn't mention when the same kind of calls went the other way, and further there were some fairly blatant non-calls that were not commented on, but only one way. The officiating was a little inconsistent in that game and tended to allow more and more contact as the game went on but occasionally the officials were calling ticky tack calls too.

I think the commenting crew has a big effect on people's perception of the quality of officiating, and local crews are essentially all biased toward their employer, but some are worse than others. I think Jeff Van Gundy thinks most fouls are bad calls and a lot of non-calls are bad non-calls too ... he doesn't comment on the ones he agrees with ... it's the way things work that people only talk about the outliers.

Do other people here watch nba.com Court Call and and BBallBreakdown with Ronnie Nunn? They point out the mistakes, but also explain what the official was looking at to make the call. They are interesting and convinced me that the NBA needs more officials calling every game. There should be 2 officials who go from the mid court area to the baseline one way and 2 other officials who cover from the other baseline to mid-court. Cut the amount of running they have to do (some of them are not the youngest people) and divide the areas of focus too. Right now the back official has to look at a players feet when they are taking a shot to see if they are behind the line but they are also in the best position to see if that player gets hit on the arm mid-shot because the other 2 officials might be covered, a second official up top increases the eyes and the angles to see plays and doesn't dramatically change the game either.

Big Zo
04-12-2016, 05:31 PM
You are correct that I got the number of the games wrong. But the issue still stands. I understand, given your clear bias, that you might think this is 'talkin' $#!T', as you say, but there was a pattern in that series that every other fan of every other team noticed.

Wade is amazing. Shaq was great. That Heat team was fantastic. But you cannot ignore the fact that Wade got a LOT of calls that series, and that it was uncharacteristic of his game to get that many calls.


You can correct me on details that don't impact the argument, and then say I'm talking $#!T, or you can address the issue at hand.

Or you can not respond at all. Doesn't matter to me. Frankly, I didn't have a horse in that series. So it didn't matter to me who won it.
He did get a lot of calls, but who from Dallas was attacking the rim as much as Wade? Dallas was basically settling for jumpshots the whole series. I'd say the Mavs choked more than the refs helped Miami. They had a 13 point lead midway through the fourth quarter of game 3, and had a chance to go up 3-0. Instead they blew that lead, and proceeded to lose 4 straight. Them losing to the Dubs in the first round the following year further proves they were chokers.

Scoots
04-12-2016, 06:34 PM
and sometimes there is smoke on the water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwEIt9ez7M

:rock:

On fire! ... is that in poor taste :)

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-12-2016, 07:01 PM
I think rooting interest has a huge impact on perception. When the Lakers were good I would be watching every call and be pissed if we got screwed. These past three years I have not thought the refs missed one call at all.

Did they get better? Or is it more likely my lust for them to win has changed and I see things more unbiased.

nastynice
04-12-2016, 09:11 PM
I think the vast vast majority of officials don't call games for or against a team ... I think it just ends up looking that way. If there is an official who calls all outside hand checks but doesn't call contact on drives it would look like they were preferring the team shooting outside and against the inside scoring team, but maybe it's just how they call the game.

There are ALWAYS examples that look like a bias, doesn't mean it IS a bias.

I kinda agree. Basketball by nature is just the toughest game to officiate, and there are always bad calls in every game. I came to terms with this years ago, I just accept blown calls as part of the game.

JasonJohnHorn
04-13-2016, 12:18 AM
and sometimes there is smoke on the water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwEIt9ez7M

:rock:
LMAO.... some Deep Purple for the young kids... lol.

JasonJohnHorn
04-13-2016, 12:24 AM
I'm not a Peter Vecsey fan but i remember after that series he said you can't beat the champ by decision, you have to knock his *** out. Thats definitely how i felt about that series

Interesting perspective. I'm not sure that applies to basketball though, since that title doesn't change from hand to hand, but is decided by a fresh tournament each year.

I feel like, as a Knicks fan, you should feel this pain as well. I mean, I remember how the official hounded the Knicks in the Bulls series in 92. That play, (I think it was Charles Smith), where they got like three offensive boards in a row at the end of the game, and each time Smith put it up he got fouled, and the officials were like: What? I don't see anything? But when NY played hard D like they were the Bad Boys 2.0, the officials were like: We aren't having any of that!

I felt like that was an extension of the Pacers got treated in much the same way that the Knicks had been treated. in 93 and 94.

I understand the sentiment, but for me, in basketball, the 'champs' have to prove themselves over again each year. There is not champion once the playoffs start. Like the King of the Ring, only, I would hope, it's not predetermined. ;-)

Really loved those 90's Knicks teams.... especially the series they had against the Bulls and Pacers, and later the Heat.

ewing
04-14-2016, 12:13 AM
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure that applies to basketball though, since that title doesn't change from hand to hand, but is decided by a fresh tournament each year.

I feel like, as a Knicks fan, you should feel this pain as well. I mean, I remember how the official hounded the Knicks in the Bulls series in 92. That play, (I think it was Charles Smith), where they got like three offensive boards in a row at the end of the game, and each time Smith put it up he got fouled, and the officials were like: What? I don't see anything? But when NY played hard D like they were the Bad Boys 2.0, the officials were like: We aren't having any of that!

I felt like that was an extension of the Pacers got treated in much the same way that the Knicks had been treated. in 93 and 94.

I understand the sentiment, but for me, in basketball, the 'champs' have to prove themselves over again each year. There is not champion once the playoffs start. Like the King of the Ring, only, I would hope, it's not predetermined. ;-)

Really loved those 90's Knicks teams.... especially the series they had against the Bulls and Pacers, and later the Heat.


At the time i felt like we got jobbed at times. In retrospect that only thing that pisses me off is that the league was against us. we made the game ugly and they changed rules in the off seasons in reaction to us. The hand check was first outlawed b/c of derrick harper the intentional foul rules were in reaction to charles oakly. i don't like rule changes that are in reaction to a player or a team that takes advantage. i feel the same way about the hack a jordan/howard. Felt that way about the away from the ball foul rule in the final 2 that was for Shaq. the knicks weren't good enough to knock out the champ but the NBA shouldn't be promoting a style of play. opposing styles/tempos and the the match up of opposing styles makes the game more interesting. the league seems to want everyone to play the same. i was a HUGE fan of the Dantonio Suns but that doesn't mean that the rules should be manipulated to prevent a team of combating them with an opposing style.

goingfor28
04-14-2016, 12:25 AM
Lakers Kings is the most obvious one that comes to mind. That was terrible.

DR_1
04-14-2016, 11:18 AM
Kings/Lakers back in 02. Lol

WaDe03
04-28-2016, 07:00 PM
The most recent one I can think of is the Heat and Hornets series from 2016.

KnickNyKnick
04-28-2016, 11:08 PM
LMAO.... some Deep Purple for the young kids... lol.


yup some times these kids need to feel the Burn!

https://youtu.be/LCnebZnysmI

DboneG
04-29-2016, 01:50 PM
'conspiracy' theories....when it comes to the San Antonio Spurs, it's a "conspiracy fact" that the Spurs get the calls down the stretch and very close games. Pick any Spurs playoff series.

The NBA have certain teams they look out for and San Antonio Spurs are one of them. You have to really beat the Spurs in order to win a game against them.
Add:

GSW to that list. Green and Bogot should have fouled out a ton of games!
Larry Bird's Boston Celtics. Got calls from the refs. all the time in the playoffs.
Brooklyn Nets....NBA wanted this franchise to be successful so bad.
Bill Walton's Portland Trail blazers. HOW DO YOU THINK THEY CAME BACK ON DR. J'S 76'ERS!!
That was highway robbery.

WaDe03
04-29-2016, 02:03 PM
At the time i felt like we got jobbed at times. In retrospect that only thing that pisses me off is that the league was against us. we made the game ugly and they changed rules in the off seasons in reaction to us. The hand check was first outlawed b/c of derrick harper the intentional foul rules were in reaction to charles oakly. i don't like rule changes that are in reaction to a player or a team that takes advantage. i feel the same way about the hack a jordan/howard. Felt that way about the away from the ball foul rule in the final 2 that was for Shaq. the knicks weren't good enough to knock out the champ but the NBA shouldn't be promoting a style of play. opposing styles/tempos and the the match up of opposing styles makes the game more interesting. the league seems to want everyone to play the same. i was a HUGE fan of the Dantonio Suns but that doesn't mean that the rules should be manipulated to prevent a team of combating them with an opposing style.

Yea the league was against the Knicks lol. No reason to they weren't winning ****. Overrated franchise.

Hawkeye15
04-29-2016, 02:19 PM
At the time i felt like we got jobbed at times. In retrospect that only thing that pisses me off is that the league was against us. we made the game ugly and they changed rules in the off seasons in reaction to us. The hand check was first outlawed b/c of derrick harper the intentional foul rules were in reaction to charles oakly. i don't like rule changes that are in reaction to a player or a team that takes advantage. i feel the same way about the hack a jordan/howard. Felt that way about the away from the ball foul rule in the final 2 that was for Shaq. the knicks weren't good enough to knock out the champ but the NBA shouldn't be promoting a style of play. opposing styles/tempos and the the match up of opposing styles makes the game more interesting. the league seems to want everyone to play the same. i was a HUGE fan of the Dantonio Suns but that doesn't mean that the rules should be manipulated to prevent a team of combating them with an opposing style.

well, because without it's viewers, the NBA wouldn't exist. I could barely stomach watching those Knicks, and that brand of basketball is a turn off to most. I am in the majority most likely, because people probably don't enjoy 80-78 final scores in professional basketball games.

They make rule changes to make the game more visually appealing. Slow down, physical ball just isn't appealing to most.

It wasn't just the Knicks, there were some other teams playing that way as well.

Hawkeye15
04-29-2016, 02:20 PM
Yea the league was against the Knicks lol. No reason to they weren't winning ****. Overrated franchise.

how are the Knicks overrated? I have never seen anyone pimp them as a contender, not since I was like 20. You know, when they were...

ewing
04-29-2016, 02:45 PM
well, because without it's viewers, the NBA wouldn't exist. I could barely stomach watching those Knicks, and that brand of basketball is a turn off to most. I am in the majority most likely, because people probably don't enjoy 80-78 final scores in professional basketball games.

They make rule changes to make the game more visually appealing. Slow down, physical ball just isn't appealing to most.

It wasn't just the Knicks, there were some other teams playing that way as well.

i understand the rational. I just am not a fan of it and was in reaction to the knicks mainly maybe also the Pacers and Heat but that's really it. scoring in the early to mid 90s was pretty similar to what it is now. the knicks were on TV a lot in in big series and were ugly. that was a problem for the league. In the late 90s there was a drop off league wide in scoring and a lack of Jordan- more changes. i am sure more natural adjustments would have brought scoring back up. I think overall making dramatic rule changes in reaction to having an ugly finals or an ugly conf championship is an overreaction (I am against changing the rules for Jordan and Drummand as well and i root for the Pistons) unfortunately $ is king and for all his good David was a very aggressive commish who wasn't going to have prime time playoff games that looked like the Knicks and Heat. in response to Wade03 i still don't think the refs were against us i just think the league changed the way games were called very quickly and it didn't benefit my team. I still think college should have a 45 sec shot clock

Hawkeye15
04-29-2016, 03:36 PM
i understand the rational. I just am not a fan of it and was in reaction to the knicks mainly maybe also the Pacers and Heat but that's really it. scoring in the early to mid 90s was pretty similar to what it is now. the knicks were on TV a lot in in big series and were ugly. that was a problem for the league. In the late 90s there was a drop off league wide in scoring and a lack of Jordan- more changes. i am sure more natural adjustments would have brought scoring back up. I think overall making dramatic rule changes in reaction to having an ugly finals or an ugly conf championship is an overreaction (I am against changing the rules for Jordan and Drummand as well and i root for the Pistons) unfortunately $ is king and for all his good David was a very aggressive commish who wasn't going to have prime time playoff games that looked like the Knicks and Heat. in response to Wade03 i still don't think the refs were against us i just think the league changed the way games were called very quickly and it didn't benefit my team. I still think college should have a 45 sec shot clock

Money is king, and it will always drive the league. That Knicks finals had a huge dropoff in viewers from the previous finals, and the league responded. The dropoff was even worse after Jordan retired. I agree with you, I think things would have happen naturally. But I for one, didn't really like that style.

I don't like slow pace, low scoring that much. Why? Because I personally hated playing defense haha, I was all about "bucketzzzz"

ewing
04-29-2016, 03:56 PM
Money is king, and it will always drive the league. That Knicks finals had a huge dropoff in viewers from the previous finals, and the league responded. The dropoff was even worse after Jordan retired. I agree with you, I think things would have happen naturally. But I for one, didn't really like that style.

I don't like slow pace, low scoring that much. Why? Because I personally hated playing defense haha, I was all about "bucketzzzz"


See i think seeing team with conflicting styles play a 7 game series is really interesting. The match up i most wanted to see last year was a healthy Grizz vs the Warriors. I also loved the old days in college when a bunch of unathletic kids could hold the ball all day and try to force run and gun teams into a grind. I think i just like to see the battle. I think the NBA and the way young players are handled these days has taken some of the variety out of the game

Hawkeye15
04-29-2016, 04:05 PM
See i think seeing team with conflicting styles play a 7 game series is really interesting. The match up i most wanted to see last year was a healthy Grizz vs the Warriors. I also loved the old days in college when a bunch of unathletic kids could hold the ball all day and try to force run and gun teams into a grind. I think i just like to see the battle. I think the NBA and the way young players are handled these days has taken some of the variety out of the game

we all watch for different reasons :)

Redrum187
04-29-2016, 04:06 PM
2006 NBA Finals quite easily. We have an ex-ref who spills the beans about other refs favoring certain players... we have video after video of phantom fouls called on the Mavericks being near Wade... We have the announcers, most NBA fans, and even a significant chunk of Miami fans who agree that the refs butchered that series...

Is it a "conspiracy"? The US allowing the Japanese to attack in Pearl Harbor to get into WWII is technically a "conspiracy" but it's taught in just about every college history course. The evidence speaks for itself.

JasonJohnHorn
04-29-2016, 04:10 PM
well, because without it's viewers, the NBA wouldn't exist. I could barely stomach watching those Knicks, and that brand of basketball is a turn off to most. I am in the majority most likely, because people probably don't enjoy 80-78 final scores in professional basketball games.

They make rule changes to make the game more visually appealing. Slow down, physical ball just isn't appealing to most.

It wasn't just the Knicks, there were some other teams playing that way as well.

I get this, but at the same time, if this is the approach, then they should make the NBA sports entertainment instead of a sport. When Jordan came back, I felt like they brought the 3-pt line in to offset Houston's advantage over every team in the league the two years they won. The moved it back out a couple years later when Houston was no long a 3pt threat. That's not cool. If they change the rules to help the popular guy win, then it's not a sport any more. It's entertainment.



I loved watching those Knicks teams. I loved watching the Bad Boys and the Bad Boys 2.0. I loved watching the spurs defense over the last 20 years. I loved watching the Garnett Celtics defense. Good defensive plays are entertaining. I mean... how many people chat "Of-fense" n the stadium? Everybody chants "D-Fense!"


What people like depends on what they see and what styles are perfected. We can agree to disagree about those Knicks teams, because it is a subjective matter as to how entertaining they are, but I loved watching post players work the paint, and I loved watching guys work their @$$3$ of on defense.

Don't get me wrong, as much as I hated the way the Heat 2.0 were built, that was a great team to watch on the fast break. And lob-city in LAC were one of the most entertaining teams I've ever since CP3 came to town up until last season. I love the fact break Suns under 'Antoni, and the Showtime Lakers. But I enjoy post play and defense as much.


I mean, what is going to happen next? How entertaining is if going to be to watch a league where over half the shots are 3pters? I mean, I enjoy the thrill of a dagger, but when it happens literally 30+ times a game, it loses it's appeal. Should the NBA just keep making rule changes to ensure players who can dunk win rings?


The rules are the rules. Unless somebody comes along the compels a rule change, like Wilt, there shouldn't be rule changes unless it improves the game (like the shot clock). Jordan.... that was the NBA rigging things for their cash cow. In the past, and since, they put rules in place to prevent one player from dominating. For Jordan, they put rules in to HELP him dominate. That's not good for the sport, even if it is good for the ratings.

Chronz
04-29-2016, 04:19 PM
The game after Shaq fouled out both Vlade and Scott Pollard fouled out in the pivotal game to tie the series when the Lakers shot 40 FTs and the Kings only 25. Christie also fouled out the game Shaq fouled out of, in fact Christie fouled out of 2 games that series and Vlade fouled out of 3 games, including both Game 6 and 7.

The reffing that series heavily favored the Lakers. Whether it was intentional or not is another matter.

You add it all up and the Kings actually got more calls, they definitely shot more free throws overall. Vlade was flopping like no one ever has or ever will flop and the refs didn't punish him enough for it. Shaq and Kobe are aggressive as **** come playoffs so subjectively, I dont see what you mean the refs "heavily favored the lakers". If that were true Shaq wouldn't have had such a game, thats just gross negligence that they had to make up for with film review, when they can see each angle of the flopping.

LOL, if the refs were favoring the Lakers, they sure did a ****** job of gifting them calls cuz it turns out the Kings got more despite the Lakers having hack-a-shaq as a strat against them in certain situations.

Hawkeye15
04-29-2016, 04:39 PM
I get this, but at the same time, if this is the approach, then they should make the NBA sports entertainment instead of a sport. When Jordan came back, I felt like they brought the 3-pt line in to offset Houston's advantage over every team in the league the two years they won. The moved it back out a couple years later when Houston was no long a 3pt threat. That's not cool. If they change the rules to help the popular guy win, then it's not a sport any more. It's entertainment.



I loved watching those Knicks teams. I loved watching the Bad Boys and the Bad Boys 2.0. I loved watching the spurs defense over the last 20 years. I loved watching the Garnett Celtics defense. Good defensive plays are entertaining. I mean... how many people chat "Of-fense" n the stadium? Everybody chants "D-Fense!"


What people like depends on what they see and what styles are perfected. We can agree to disagree about those Knicks teams, because it is a subjective matter as to how entertaining they are, but I loved watching post players work the paint, and I loved watching guys work their @$$3$ of on defense.

Don't get me wrong, as much as I hated the way the Heat 2.0 were built, that was a great team to watch on the fast break. And lob-city in LAC were one of the most entertaining teams I've ever since CP3 came to town up until last season. I love the fact break Suns under 'Antoni, and the Showtime Lakers. But I enjoy post play and defense as much.


I mean, what is going to happen next? How entertaining is if going to be to watch a league where over half the shots are 3pters? I mean, I enjoy the thrill of a dagger, but when it happens literally 30+ times a game, it loses it's appeal. Should the NBA just keep making rule changes to ensure players who can dunk win rings?


The rules are the rules. Unless somebody comes along the compels a rule change, like Wilt, there shouldn't be rule changes unless it improves the game (like the shot clock). Jordan.... that was the NBA rigging things for their cash cow. In the past, and since, they put rules in place to prevent one player from dominating. For Jordan, they put rules in to HELP him dominate. That's not good for the sport, even if it is good for the ratings.

well, the NBA has always changed the rule to help the entertainment value, but it's still a competitive sport, where everything is equal for all players and teams.

valade16
04-29-2016, 04:46 PM
You add it all up and the Kings actually got more calls, they definitely shot more free throws overall. Vlade was flopping like no one ever has or ever will flop and the refs didn't punish him enough for it. Shaq and Kobe are aggressive as **** come playoffs so subjectively, I dont see what you mean the refs "heavily favored the lakers". If that were true Shaq wouldn't have had such a game, thats just gross negligence that they had to make up for with film review, when they can see each angle of the flopping.

LOL, if the refs were favoring the Lakers, they sure did a ****** job of gifting them calls cuz it turns out the Kings got more despite the Lakers having hack-a-shaq as a strat against them in certain situations.

Well the Kings actually shot more FTs that season than the Lakers, so the idea that the Kings shooting more FTs that series is somehow counter to their playing styles is incorrect.

Also, I should clarify, it's not so much the entire series as it is Game 6 in which the Lakers got 40 FTs.

Then there is subjectively an NBA ref who alleged that refs affected the outcomes of certain games specifically mentioned that series and Game 6.

I mean, not only that, whenever a question like this is asked the majority of people will specifically reference that series and Game 6. I am certainly not alone in questioning the authenticity of that particular game and series.

Chronz
04-29-2016, 06:40 PM
Well the Kings actually shot more FTs that season than the Lakers, so the idea that the Kings shooting more FTs that series is somehow counter to their playing styles is incorrect.

Also, I should clarify, it's not so much the entire series as it is Game 6 in which the Lakers got 40 FTs.

Then there is subjectively an NBA ref who alleged that refs affected the outcomes of certain games specifically mentioned that series and Game 6.

I mean, not only that, whenever a question like this is asked the majority of people will specifically reference that series and Game 6. I am certainly not alone in questioning the authenticity of that particular game and series.
Im talking about the entire series tho. And dont get me started on TD, he has no legs to stand on. The only reason hes not in jail is cuz he wont admit to being a rogue ref so of course hes gonna use controversial games/series in his favor. Its like asking me to believe in the devil cuz of a practicing witch you know.

Aside from the minutes distributions being much different, Kobe can be relentless but hes a different beast in the playoffs and Shaq is notorious for using the RS as a warm up before turning it up in the playoffs. Theres that little thing called hack-a-shaq that teams used selectively (as in more often come playoffs imo).

Anyways, back to the lineup usage, if you followed the Lakers you knew that Phil used the RS to experiment with castoffs or youngsters. Meaning, come playoffs you shouldn't expect to see much of the bums like Samaki Walker. Dude went from starting every game to riding the pine come playoffs and teams ignored him entirely so it was hard to get to the line when people are always in position. The numbers on the Lakers with and without him are that jarring. The Lakers primary playoff lineup was with Horry in his place (and either Gump or Fox on the wing) and those were the lineups that the Lakers saw their FT/A per possession skyrocket. So yeah, the Kings had the best regular season and they were up there with the Lakers, but cmon, thats FAR from being a one sided series. Kings had their chance and they blew it, they missed all those FT's the refs gifted them while the Lakers stepped up and hit theirs.

They deserve no pity.