LA takes the game and we have a series. Boston was 8-18 on three pointers but only 29-83 from the field overall. That means they made 21 two point shots out of 65 attempted -- just 32 percent, way worse than the shot from behind the arc. That can't happen often.
« Primaries | Main | Have No Fear »
Lakers Win
11 Jun 2008 12:39 am
Comments (54)
Even in a win the Lakers are unimpressive
Three players were impressive: Kobe, Allen, and Vujacic.
Everyone else was terrible.
Like the rest of the world basketball does not exist in my life. Boring.
Like the rest of the world basketball does not exist in my life. Boring.
The rest of the world doesn't exist in your life?
The Lakers are making the Cavs and Hawks look good.
Watched the game in a bar full of Lakers fans. Applause at the final buzzer was almost non-existent.
Ugly, ugly win for L.A. Boston didn't even look like they were trying. Not only will the Celtics not shoot 32% every night, they also won't get outrebounded 2-1 in the fourth quarter again.
Lakers will be lucky to take this series back to Beantown.
So everyone who complained about the officiating in Game 2 and said that the lopsided number of free throws was proof the refs were biased is going to say the exact same thing happened to the Lakers benefit tonight, right? Because, you know, they were arguing purely out of principal.
By the way-- I believe Donaghy.
Credit where it's due: The Lakers don't make the Cavs and Hawks look half as good as the Celtics did.
In the meantime, I'm trying to figure out the downside of winning when you played poorly.
If that's the best that the Lakers can muster, I can't see it going much further. Garnett and Pierce shoot 8 for 35 and the C's lose by only six. Rondo only plays 22 minutes. When will Gasol and Odom show up? Vujacic at least had a good game and Kobie was solid. Still, it was a pretty uninspired effort from a Laker perspective. I particularly loved all the traveling calls tonight after Radmanovich's strong finish in game two.
If that's the best that the Lakers can muster, I can't see it going much further. Garnett and Pierce shoot 8 for 35 and the C's lose by only six. Rondo only plays 22 minutes. When will Gasol and Odom show up? Vujacic at least had a good game and Kobie was solid. Still, it was a pretty uninspired effort from a Laker perspective. I particularly loved all the traveling calls tonight after Radmanovich's strong finish in game two.
In conclusion, though I appreciate the sentiment in the original post I don't think we really have a series again unless the Lakers sweep at home. Nevertheless, I must admire the Celtic fans' spirit in trying to find a way to gloat even when they lose. Class all the way.
Didn't watch this one, why watch a fixed game? but the box score comparison is preposterous. Kobe shot 18 fts compared to just a few last game? he was quite aggresive in game 2.
yes I believe Donaghy and I think the turnaround in the fouls says these games are being pushed by the refs.
That can't happen often.
Where "Hey, that outcome looks like professional wresting" happens.
So everyone who complained about the officiating in Game 2 and said that the lopsided number of free throws was proof the refs were biased is going to say the exact same thing happened to the Lakers benefit tonight, right?
Makeup call.
I have no idea why the Lakers haven't been able to take more advantage of Gasol and Odom. KG is great and everything, but he can't cover both of them. They are the weak links right now, even with Radmanovic and Fisher giving very little.
Celtics lost an ugly game that could have guaranteed a series win. I wouldn't feel too good about that until they win a game in LA. Then, I would feel pretty great if I were a Celtics fan. Lakers have enough firepower to win all 3 in LA but they have got to do a whole lot more than they did tonight.
I have no idea why the Lakers haven't been able to take more advantage of Gasol and Odom. KG is great and everything, but he can't cover both of them. They are the weak links right now, even with Radmanovic and Fisher giving very little.
Celtics lost an ugly game that could have guaranteed a series win. I wouldn't feel too good about that until they win a game in LA. Then, I would feel pretty great if I were a Celtics fan. Lakers have enough firepower to win all 3 in LA but they have got to do a whole lot more than they did tonight.
I'm amazed that the game was as close as it was given that Pierce didn't show up and KG didn't do much better.
Even with Kobe scoring 36 and two of the Big Three essentially MIA, the Celtics had the lead late and only lost by 6.
I see Boston picking up one game in the Garden and then finishing this off in six.
Yeah, but a lot of those were caucus games, so they shouldn't really count.
Whichever way it goes, it will be the worst team to win an NBA championship in over thirty years. I haven't seen so many dropped passes since Bernie Kosar played for the Browns - missed dunks, rebounds hitting the floor, outlet passes overthrown by 25 feet. Do these guys have somewhere else they'd rather be? They don't seem to have their minds on the game.
The officiating in this series has been so bad that I'm now convinced it can't be incompetence: David Stern is exercising WWF-style control over the outcome of games by directing the referees to make calls in favor of his desired outcome.
Tim Donaghy may be a criminal, but I think there is truth to his claim about the fix being on. Phantom calls, no calls, make-up calls, etc. I don't think I could have scripted more corrupt officiating in order to a) benefit the Celtics in Games 1 and 2 when they were considered the underdogs and b) bail out the Lakers when they were in danger of being swept.
This matchup is good for the NBA brand and an extended and exciting series is crucial for capitalizing on it. Unfortunately, I think David Stern is ruining the integrity of the competition. And, yes, there is genuine competition and exciting players in the league now. I wish the man would stop obviously meddling with the game. It's such a turn off.
From the looks of game 3, a key matchup has changed: Kobe will be defending Pierce rather than Allen. That leaves Ray Ray more room to score, but slows down Pierce a lot. That's a good trade-off for the Lakers and should tighten these games up. Doesn't seem like it'll be enough though, unless Gasol and Odom really turn it around.
Credit to Kobe for breaking out, but wtf was going on with the calls? The charge called against Pierce as his fifth foul was atrocious, and at a pivotal moment in the game.
Also, I want to know why PJ Brown stayed in the game down the stretch. He looked overmatched - just out of it - last night. Maybe Perkins' ankle is still a mess.
The officiating in this series has been so bad that I'm now convinced it can't be incompetence
I wouldn't be so sure. Incompetence can explain a gawd-awful amount. The big scandal is that no one really cares that much about the Donaghy affair because no one has any idea what motivates the refs to call about a third of the fouls they call. The calls just appear to be random whistle eruptions.
Unfortunately, many of us living near Boston couldn't see the game. The hot weather screwed up our cable service. Oh well. Glad this didn't happen in the 7th game.
"The calls just appear to be random whistle eruptions."
If that's the case, I'd like to know much NBA refs are paid. Because I could do a better job with a co-crew of slack-jawed assclowns.
One of the games Donaghy was talking about was the 2002 game six Lakers/Kings game. That was the game that prompted Ralph Nader to call for congressional investigations. It came after a game five where Sacramento beat the Lakers and, I'm pretty sure, Shaq fouled out. The Lakers complained bitterly and the result was the most ridicuouly officiated game in history. Scott Pollard gaurded shaq in the third quarter and recieved three or 4 calls in about 30 seconds. All he had to do was approach shaq and and he'd get called. Hopefull, people will start looking at that game again. I totally believe there was something fishy about that one.
PS. I emailed David Stern and expressed my outrage, but he never replied.
So everyone who complained about the officiating in Game 2 and said that the lopsided number of free throws was proof the refs were biased is going to say the exact same thing happened to the Lakers benefit tonight, right?
Last I checked the calls weren't almost 4 to 1 in the Lakers' favor and Ronny Turiaf didn't go to the line more than the entire Lakers team. This game was more akin to Game 1's officiating, which no one really bitched about. Look at the shot chart, the paint tells the story. The problem is the Lakers went to the paint as much in game 2 as the Celtics (primarily in the 4th) and there was still the huge disparity.
Donaghy is full of it and grasping at straws. Especially since one of his alleged "fixes" is Yao getting called for moving picks. Moving picks are illegal and they should be called. Does anyone really think Stern would have games fixed in Cuban's favor? I'm not surprised he called out the Lakers-Kings Game 6 because if you're going to claim the NBA fixes games, you'll call that game out for sure. Just like if you were to claim the NFL fixes games, you would use the Seahawks-Steelers Super Bowl for evidence.
"One of the games Donaghy was talking about was the 2002 game six Lakers/Kings game. "
I remember that one. I don't put a lot of stock in NBA conspiracy theories, but that one was certainly fixed for some reason. I doubt Donaghy really knows anymore about it than any fan who saw the game, though.
"I doubt Donaghy really knows anymore about it than any fan who saw the game, though."
He would be in a position to know more.
I'd like the NBA conspiracy theorists to explain one thing for me. If the NBA is fixed, why are the Spurs 3 time world champions and the Knicks gawdawful? Why would the Spurs keep advancing past the popular and wildly entertaining Suns?
If you could answer those questions in a way that is consistent with fixing it for the Lakers/Celtics, then I'll subscribe to your newsletter..
Oh and yes that Game 6 was poorly called. It wasn't fixed, but the refs were atrocious.
Can Matt please explain why --since everyone says the NBA West so much stronger--the Celtics had a tougher time against the Atlanta Hawks.
Mo:
Then NBA refs are incompetent. You could take any game in this series and find many many inconsistent calls. I really don't see how anyone can deny that refs make unfathomably inconsistent and apparently biased calls. I'm not saying they do it every play, but enough to influence the game.
At least in the NFL there is some pretense of objectivity via video review.
At least in the NFL there is some pretense of objectivity via video review.
Not for "subjective" calls. The calls that tend to be most inconsistent and egregious (holding, PI, roughing the X) aren't reviewable. The only ones that are reviewable are the ones that are relatively cut and dry (did the ball pass plane X, is his foot out of bounds). There's inconsistency in all officiating, there are more opportunities in basketball because of the sheer number of plays and the amount of contact. The real solution is to have more refs so they can focus on fewer players a piece.
The NBA has review of quarter ending shots to see if they left the shooters hand. Basketball is easily the hardest sport to officiate and it gets harder as the players get bigger, faster and stronger. My biggest pet peeve is how charges are called. Once the shooter leaves his feet, you can't slide into and draw a charge, that's a block dammit.
Can Matt please explain why --since everyone says the NBA West so much stronger--the Celtics had a tougher time against the Atlanta Hawks.
Last I checked the Celtics have won as many games in LA as they won in Atlanta and they've yet to blow the doors off the Lakers in Boston like they did to Atlanta. In both games the Lakers had a chance to win at some point in the last 5 minutes of game time. You Celtics fans are as clever as you are loyal in bad times.
Can Boston score without KG's illegal screens? It seems like they can't.
KG's illegal screens are a great example of how the officiating in the NBA probably isn't fixed so much as it's just terrible.
In the 4th quarter, the Celtics ran a series of screens for Pierce off of Garnett that Kobe struggled to get through. Why did he struggle? Looking at the replays, Garnett was clearly shuffling his feet on the screens. They were patently illegal and making a big difference, but the officials refused to call it b/c if they had it would have pretty much ended the game in favor or the Lakers, and the officials hate to make calls like that. Also, even though the picks were textbook illegal, they weren't that bad compared to the average 'allowed' NBA pick. So how did they handle the situation? They can't just let Garnett continue to throw moving picks, right? Well, at the very end, when it was 99% over, on the last Celtics possession, Garnett threw yet another moving pick for Pierce and the officials finally called it. After the Laker's were already 99% sure to win the game. But they weren't going to call it until the game was already decided, which is crap, in my opinion.
I think Van Gundy got it right in the broadcast. The problem in the NBA is a lack of transparency. If the refs are not making the right calls in certain situations, they need to publicly acknowledge it and let other teams know they're going to change ahead of time to allow them to make corrections.
The big problem with the playoffs is that these individual matchups come down, a lot, to how the officials will call certain plays. The match ups are so close, and repeated over and over again, that the difference b/w a tight or lose moving pick call strategy has a large impact on the outcome. And the NBA needs to come up with a reasonable strategy for keeping it fair. In their defense, I think this is really hard to do.
I agree, basketball games are difficult to officiate. This does not excuse inconsistent application of the rules. There is a general pattern to NBA basketball games that should at least provide refs the experience to call games with relative uniformity. It is not impossible to call a good basketball game (it has been done before) and NBA refs should be held accountable even in the face of a more difficult task.
More refs is a good idea.
"Not for 'subjective' calls."
The NFL is not immune to the appearance of biased officiating. I don't know why you think it is so unbelievable to suspect that league front offices have certain motivations that they convey to refs, umpires, etc. Maybe not with the heavy hand that Donaghy suggests, but even still...
"The NBA has review of quarter ending shots to see if they left the shooters hand."
Yet they cannot review quarter ending sequences to determine whether time expired in cases where the clock malfunctions (see Det vs Orl 2008).
CW says that when the NBA wants calls to favor the home team, they put on an older (and generally less sharp) officiating crew. Less competence = more likely to give favorable home calls. There is no logical inconsistency between noting incompetence and suspecting meddling by the league office.
mpowell,
Actually, an even better example of incompetence of malice is the last 8 seconds of Game 5 of Lakers-Spurs. If there were a conspiracy for the Lakers, don't you you think the refs would make the borderline, yet correct call on the Fisher shot hitting the rim (allowing Bryant to go to the line and ice the game w/ a 4 point lead), rather than the obviously incorrect no call on Fisher vs. Barry (which I still believe is a make-up call*)? Unless, of course, the refs are incompetent at fixing games.
Yet they cannot review quarter ending sequences to determine whether time expired in cases where the clock malfunctions (see Det vs Orl 2008).
It didn't come up before, so there's no rule for it. Starting in the 2008-2009 season, they will be able to. You can't change the rules mid-season.
* Make-up calls are universal in pretty much every professional sports league.
I don't find it unbelievable that front offices have motivations for who wins or loses. However, the long term motivation is to have a clean league because evidence of a fix would destroy the league. Seeing as Stern's career is with the NBA and his legacy is built on it, his motivation is much more long term than one season of ratings.
I think the NBA is actually better than most leagues re: transparency and admitting they were wrong. Compare how the NBA handles controversial officiating with how the NFL handled Spygate. I assure you if it was the Raiders or the Cardinals that were caught spying, there would be a deeper investigation, harsher penalties, a suspension of the coach and more transparency. However, since it was the league's signature team, there was no way they were going too deep into it until Congress got involved. See also: MLB and the Bonds investigation vs. the Clemens investigation.
If the game yesterday was rigged, Garnett gets called for that obvious travel when the game was tight and Bavetta would have been one of the officials.
38 comments in, and only 1 commenter spoke to the most important basketball thing that took place last night: i wrote in matthew's game 2 thread that coach jackson would come up with something to change up the defense, and he put kobe on pierce.
whether that will continue to work is not for me to say, but it sure made a difference last night.
on the other hand, there are still innumerable yahoos who clearly didn't watch game 2 but who think that leon powe didn't earn each foul shot he took because the lakers didn't take many: i'm not sure why people who think such things claim to be basketball fans (take our friend anon, for example).
john starks, you've seized on one of my favorite topics: the day the nfl starts reviewing line calls (and non-calls) in video replay, we can say they're trying to get it right. until then, not so much.
in general, i've long noted that if you want to see truly biased reffing, game 6 kings-lakers is your primo example....
i wrote in matthew's game 2 thread that coach jackson would come up with something to change up the defense, and he put kobe on pierce.Putting Kobe on Rondo to start the game seemed to work nicely for the Lakers as well, letting Bryant freelance defensively. Lamar Odom needs to do what he did in the fourth quarter, and continue to challenge Garnett in the paint. Even if he doesn't score, it keeps Garnett from roaming (especially towards Gasol), and lets Odom be effective passing the ball.
I think we can all agree that the variance in home/road refereeing is intolerable.
mpowell's excellent discussion of Garnett's moving screens shows clearly why it's so hard to ref NBA games. Even as a Lakers' fan, I can't really blame the refs for not wanting to make that call. It's potentially a game changing move by Garnett, but it's away from the ball, difficult to see, and would indeed seem to be giving the game to the Lakers.
But for the NBA to make announcements about these kind of calls, especially during the season, would not necessarily improve matters. Transparency could be just another word for a big can of worms. Obsessive fans can spend hours arguing charge/block, moving screens, lane violations, taunting, traveling, flopping, and on and on. If basketball becomes an excuse to argue technicalities, the reason to watch will be gone.
This is why I think Phil Jackson has the right idea. Calling NBA games played at this pace fairly will always be something of an impossible task, but it is possible to ensure that no one suspects the league itself of fixing the games.
How? Separate the officiating and its regulation from the league office, in the same way the courts are separate from the executive branch.
Actually, an even better example of incompetence of malice is the last 8 seconds of Game 5 of Lakers-Spurs. If there were a conspiracy for the Lakers, don't you you think the refs would make the borderline, yet correct call on the Fisher shot hitting the rim (allowing Bryant to go to the line and ice the game w/ a 4 point lead), rather than the obviously incorrect no call on Fisher vs. Barry (which I still believe is a make-up call*)? Unless, of course, the refs are incompetent at fixing games.
Yeah, sure. I was just pointing out the example from last night's game. If they didn't have the opportunity to correct the call towards the end, you'd be looking at a game 4 with at least 4 or 5 borderline moving pick calls to 'correct' for things, I'd bet.
"Boston didn't even look like they were trying."
I agree, after they lost the lead they didn't seem to care. When they were trading baskets at 2 & 4 points up they looked good. then the air just went out.
As for the 2/3 point shooting disparity: that's all about Ray Allen.
Bottom line: Pierce didn't show up, KG played hard for like a quarter, He Got Game got his game: Lakers should be quaking in their boots.
And wht's up with Kobe at the line? At home!
I wouldn't worry about Kobe's FTing; the significant thing is that he got the calls going to the basket. If that continues throughout the series and back to Boston (assuming they go back), then the Lakers have a puncher's chance. Right now, Cs defenders are staying home and keeping the shooters covered, but if Bryant's consistently getting into the paint and getting calls, the Cs are going to have to shift their defense to respond, and that'll open the floor up for everyone else. If Bryant's not going to get those calls, then the Lakers are done.
I don't think games are "fixed" as in the referees guaranteeing a certain outcome. I do think that the refs get messages from the home office telling them to favor a certain team or certain players. Wether this is done for "fairness"--to even up bad calls in the game before--, or to give a particular team a better chance, I don't know. I think it's probably some of both. I think the call to the refs option is on that is rarely used, but that it does get used. The Kings/Lakers game six is one where I definitely believe something nefarious happened. One theory I had was that pressure was put on the refs to call it more for the lakers and they rebelled by making the calls incredibly blatant and obvious: "You want us to give them some make up calls? We'll give them some make up calls."
And then there is point shaving. There's tons of money riding on these games, point shaving is near impossible to prove, the refs live in a secret society with a code of silence, it's in the leagues vital interests NOT to catch refs cheating....
And David Stern just seems like he's lying every-time he opens his mouth. he gets that self-satisfied dismissive smile on his face.... The institution the NBA resembles most is a city government, and those are frequently corrupt becasue of the structure and opportunity.
So I don't buy all the corruption deniers.
It is clear that pro sports leagues in general are not above manipulation and David Stern is no exception. Legacy is nice in concept but the focus is generally on short and long term financial returns. There have been as many rumors about shady practices on the part of the NBA (Jordan's gambling; NYK indiscretions; officiating Bulls-Jazz 1998, Lakers-Kings 2002, Heat-Mavs 2006, Lakers-Spurs 2008, etc.)as on the part of MLB and NFL (though for whatever reason the congressional furor over steriods and the media's fixation with Spygate have gotten more recent coverage). As I said, NBA officiating is either incompetent or subject to bias. Maybe it's some deep-seated psychological biasis. But I wouldn't put it past David Stern to implement institutional favoritism.
It is clear that pro sports leagues in general are not above manipulation and David Stern is no exception. Legacy is nice in concept but the focus is generally on short and long term financial returns. There have been as many rumors about shady practices on the part of the NBA (Jordan's gambling; NYK indiscretions; officiating Bulls-Jazz 1998, Lakers-Kings 2002, Heat-Mavs 2006, Lakers-Spurs 2008, etc.)as on the part of MLB and NFL (though for whatever reason the congressional furor over steriods and the media's fixation with Spygate have gotten more recent coverage). As I said, NBA officiating is either incompetent or subject to bias. Maybe it's some deep-seated psychological biasis. But I wouldn't put it past David Stern to implement institutional favoritism.
Check out King Kaufman at Salon.com today, he has a great take on this.
I don't think games are "fixed" as in the referees guaranteeing a certain outcome. I do think that the refs get messages from the home office telling them to favor a certain team or certain players.
Good point. Just because they aren't guaranteeing outcomes doesn't mean they aren't manipulating somehow.
I agree with Freddie.
I don't think games are "fixed" as in the referees guaranteeing a certain outcome. I do think that the refs get messages from the home office telling them to favor a certain team or certain players.
This contradicts pretty much everything being said. The problem is calls being inconsistent from game to game. If teams or players were going to be favored, why does it seem like different teams are favored on a given night? It's incompetence, not conspiracy. That same year when the Lakers beat the Kings, the Celtics were in the Eastern finals' game 6. Why weren't they favored to get the NBA's dream match-up?
You conspiracy theorists have little in the way of consistency.
You realize, Mo, that constantly referring to something as a conspiracy theory doesn't make it untrue. Again-- they don't necessarily have the ability to determine the outcome. They do have the ability to make certain key calls in certain situations. This is not inconsistent.
Freddie,
My question was, why does the favored side seem to shift within the game or within a series. As King Kaufman pointed out, for about half the series the Lakers were on the short end of the officiating stick and for others, the Kings had the short end.
You pointed us to it, but seemed to miss the point of his article. If you look at the games/series as a whole rather than focusing on particular bad calls or poorly called games, the evidence for favoritism falls apart. You can't point to "key calls" and ignore all the other calls that disprove your point. People are doing that with the Spurs-Lakers game 5 ending. They focus on the last, memorable (horribly called play), but ignore evidence that's contradictory to the idea of pro-Laker shenanigans that happened mere seconds beforehand.
Comments closed June 25, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The Lakers whined about the refs so now the refs don't call any of their hacks against the Celtics.
Fixed.
Posted by Fixed | June 11, 2008 1:00 AM