Ronald Johnson hiring - not so smart. Plus, I think we were all looking for more of an independent organization to oversee the referees, not a yes-man.
Anyways, for whatever it's worth, there's an article on 82games.com charting every foul in the 2002 King-Lakers Game 6 playoff game, and remarkably, they reach the conclusion that the game was not fixed somehow.
http://82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm
Gutsy, why is the linked article's conclusion "remarkable"? While I agree that the NBA has a serious credibility issue, and that the officiating in that now-famous Game 6 was pretty bad, let's remember that the only "evidence" of a fix is the allegation of a disgraced former employee. Did you think the fix was in before Donaghy opened his mouth?
I couldn't agree more with Mighty Mike. Instead of taking the opportunity to fix a problem (or at least appear to fix a problem), David Stern opted to "get tough" by hiring a former general. Now it looks like the problem will be solved, thanks to the stern, no-nonsense attitude of the Army of One. David Stern is a fucking asshole and his league is getting more irrelevant by the second.
As to the point regarding the alleged fix of Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals...Hitman, you've missed the point entirely. The point isn't to prove or disprove a "fix." You'll never be able to prove that the game was fixed (although that doesn't mean that it was). The point -- as it's been for as long as I've been watching basketball -- is that there is a clear trend towards "star calls". Michael Jordan never travelled, Shaq never commited an offensive foul, etc. You're so desperate to rid people of their conspiracy theories that you're neglecting to realize that there would be no conspiracy theories if the NBA simply did a better job of calling games more evenly. No sport has worse officiating from night to night. It's a fixable problem that Stern seems unwilling to fix.
My comment has NOTHING to do with conspiracy theories, either for or against. Where the hell did that come from? Show me where in my comment I expressed any opinion in either direction as to the involvement of the league into these issues.
I merely asked for an explanation of Gutsy's reaction to the linked article's conclusion, in light of the absence of much evidence supporting that there was a fix. That's it.
(Side note: Of course there's a way to prove a fix. If it was Bavetta and his bookie who admitted a fix, that's be pretty solid proof, don't you think?)
Thus, I find your responsive comment to be way off base, and in the breadth of its attack rather unfair to me. That is no way to have a debate on this blog.
As to the substance of MJ's comment: Obviously there's a "star calls" system in effect. It's been around for as long as any of us have. But as I understand things, the issue regarding Game 6 is not so much that there are "star calls", which can go in either direction. Rather, the issues are (i) the perception and now the allegation that the refs were favoring an entire TEAM, perhaps out of personal financial incentive, and (ii) the league's active encouragement, or at least passive acquiesence, of such behavior.
the article is "remarkable," because it's contrary to my memory of the game and all the allegations. the 82games.com article is very lengthy, and i haven't yet had a chance to go through the entire article. however, I did see that in the first spreadsheet in the middle of the article, this person said there were "7 dubious calls in favor of the lakers, and only one in favor of the kings" plus, 4 of the 7 were by dick bavetta! If you look at when the calls took place, http://82games.com/lakerskingscalls.htm, (1st-8:36, 2nd-8:30, 3rd-4:28, 3rd-2:53), bavetta actually did not mess up the 4th quarter (as has been suggested in the media).
in the end, hitman is right, and i hope more people realize this: "that at this point, there is no evidence of game-fixing by the NBA." the evidence may come out later, but this thorough analysis by 82games.com seems to suggest that there were bad calls in the game, but nothing sinister happening.
82games isn't a fucking analysis. It doesn't prove anything. Its his opinion. Thats all. I'm ever so happy he spent the time watching the game again. And he has opinions on it. Great. And the guy , who's a NBA fanatic, decides hey that NBA is fine and don't believe your lying eyes. Bravo for him. In other news the sun rose. Its a non-seperable point that someone who likes the NBA comes to the conclusion that NBA is ok. Don't insult my intelligence by using such drivel as a crutch.
The bottom line is that a corrupt referee influenced games and the NBA was either negligent, passively or actively fine with it. And this occurred for years. And outside of PR whitewashing nothing has been done to avoid any of this from happening again. NCAA schools lose scholarships over any of those conclusions.
If you want to rely on legal admissible evidence as your line for guilt or innocence or whatever thats your own prerogative. But I expect lots of post of how awful it is that Big Mac is persecuted for steroid use when he hasn't admitted to using steroids and no test has proven it. At least be consistent on your line of what constitutes evidence. Mine has long been crossed that the NBA has been negligent with its refs and its immaterial if a passive or active shaping of refs. The end result for me is that I find the result less then procedurally just and as such not worth my time.
Whoa, big guy. Here we go again, implying that things were said that were never said. Let's back up a step...
This is not about "legal admissible evidence" (but thanks for the passive-aggressive condescension of my profession). Gutsy and I are simply talking about the FACT that this whole scandal is mostly about conjecture and unsubstantiated allegations at this point. Gutsy believes that there is substance to the allegations, and frankly, so do I to some degree. But we, and you, and all the other fans and experts and academics and media blohards, are ultimately guessing, until we know more.
As to the Big Mac reference that is almost certainly aimed at me: you're damn right I've been consistent. I wrote of McGwire in a comment to a 11/28/06 post:
"Unlike every other slugger of the Era, the circumstantial (or, in Palmeiro's case, actual) evidence of steroid use is so strong that it's impossible to ignore - such that it's misleading to dismiss the suspicions as mere "speculation." These guys juiced, and everybody knows it. That we're lacking an official MLB test to cement this as fact is a formality in the truest sense of the word. All three deserve to be punished severely, and the worst punishment that can be imposed on them is rejection from Cooperstown."
In other words, I recognized with McGwire that hard proof was lacking, and yet I read the tea leaves and engaged in what can fairly be labeled conjecture anyway.
In sum, I'm not an idiot. Quit talking down to me like you're better or smarter than I am. Either respect me and my opinions (even - especially - if you disagree with them) or ban me from this blog. I'm 100% serious.
well... personally, i think i differ from hitman's opinion. i believe a lot of baseball players did steroids, evidence or not, only because we saw their bodies grow enormously, and they hit numbers that never before were seen. so, in that steroids example, there is additonal "evidence" of guilt.
i do love the nba. so do the writers on 82games.com. their analysis is only an opinion of course, not a fact. i'm not at all saying that its impossible that games were fixed. but i think it's going too far to saying "all games were fixed" or "all playoff games were fixed," etc. unlike steroids, where we had some good evidence (not from a court) of physical bodies bulking up and HRs being hit, whether games were actually fixed in the nba is still a big unknown, whereas inconsistent refereeing already exists and is acknowledged.
as i've said before though, stars in the nba do get favorable treatment, and the reffing has been inconsistent. but inconsistent refereeing and the "fixing of games" are different situations in my mind, and i don't think they should be lumped together.
if anyone's wondering though, the 82games article says it's hired two former referees to go through and analyze the game... we'll see what those results are (not that they are conclusive of anything, but just from an informational standpoint).
I'm never entirely sure if the comments section fundamentally lead towards misinterpretation or if its because we read and write things while distracted by other activities (I know I am guilty)that causes it.
I certainly didn't mean to attack anyone's profession or intelligence; no different (upon re-reading everything) that anyone meant to attack my intelligence (which is where my reaction came from). I hope with a days' breather we can see nobody was intentionally acting condescendingly and as usual here I think we might be talking past and hence reacting past each other.
The scandal I was referring to was that the NBA had a rogue referee, Tim Donaghy, who bet and I think we safely state influenced several NBA games. During this period the NBA had no clue about the gambling addiction and in fact rated him as a top tier referee. Again not conjecture. No different than if a university school lost institutional control, it is largely immaterial what the motives of the controlling agents were. Once it is deemed that a school is negiligent it can not get out of bad standings until institutional changes are made.
I have no heard of any changes from the NBA other than what I consider a PR stunt of hiring an ex-general. As such, regardless of what the other charges allege that we have less knowledge of, the NBA has a serious problem .
The point I was making about baseball and steroids is that is perfectly acceptable to make judgments based on "tea leaves" and to react accordingly . In both cases its a reaction to a credibility problem. Given the seriousness of what we know i.e., that the NBA at minimum lost institutional control of its referees, the general perception that there are additional problems (i.e. tea leave reading) with the referees, and that the NBA has not been serious in addressing it, the result in my eyes is that there is a very large pale on the sport.
In my personal opinion, until concrete and transparent steps to fix a problem that allowed a referee with possible mob ties to not only be undetected but held up as a model I think that the NBA's credibility will remain in a state of disrepair (no different that even if the totality of steroid issue has not been revealed there was enough evidence that required institutional changes). The point of the initial blog post is that the NBA's current actions are insufficient.
In the future I will make it point to try to not assume anyone is outright dismissing my position out of hand or at least to ask for further clarification before reacting. I hope we all can to avoid these mis communications and reading into things.
I also have to apologize for not clarifying the issues. what i originally posted, was the fact that i agreed with mighty in that the nba's hiring of ronald johnson will not fix anything or provide much credibility.
i posted that one article on 82games.com just to show a minority position supporting the belief that one game, the 2002 kings-lakers game, was not fixed. i apologize b/c my comment ended up blending a number of issues together (nba credibility, the fixing of one game, etc.). i'm still exploring what the proper position is on the nba, and I still found these series of comments to be informative and educational.
Commenting by HaloScan
