The Donaghy Allegations

The officiating in the 2002 Lakers-Kings series was definitely problematic. That said, I think the very fact that that series is so well-known for its dubious officiating casts some doubt on Tim Donaghy's allegations of rigging. What he's done is basically take two conspiracy theories that are already well-known and say they're true. It's exactly what you would do if you were making something up. I would expect a real whistleblower to not only confirm some already widespread suspicion but also bring me something totally unknown or obscure.

But whatever the truth of the matter, as with everything surrounding Donaghy the league wouldn't be in this position if not for the fact that the overall quality of NBA officiating is legendarily low. In large part, that's simply because it's an objectively difficult game to officiate correctly. But the league rarely seems to me to show a ton of interest in improving things, or to be even slightly disturbed by refs' biases in favor of home teams, or even just of the general sentiment that it's fine and proper to use different standards of officiating in different games or at different points in the game clock.

Comments

I have a tape of that game... I honestly question whether anyone can be that incompetent. I mean you have to see it to believe that it actually happened. You literally might think you're watching a scene from some screwball comedy. It is absurdly, incredibly, jaw-droppingly bad officiating.

And, you know, the officiating does suck. I mean that Lakers/Jazz series this year was just incredible to watch, how much LA benefited from the officiating. It would have been an entirely different series without the refs doing so poorly.

99-00 Blazers/Lakers... 99 Knicks/Pacers... 2004-2005 Heat/Mavericks.... It really never ends.

Posted by Freddie | June 11, 2008 2:33 PM

But the league rarely seems to me to show a ton of interest in improving things,

Moreover, it would be nice if the league addressed obvious fan concerns about specific games or calls by addressing the specific issues. (E.g., the 25 FT Wade shot in '06.) Instead, the league seems to often just wave such concerns away as a function of fan ignorance or fan partisanship. It sometimes seems that the league wants to treat reffing questions as similar to judging questions in ice skating: judgment can only be shown by a small set of experts, and fans are sufficiently ignorant to be unable to argue the point. There's a certain amount of contempt for fans in that sort of response, and it strikes me as a pretty good way to reduce the NBA's share of the sports fan market to about that of ice skating.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 11, 2008 2:36 PM

The problem for the Lakers is the 2007-2008 edition can't rehire Donaghy for their finals series against the Celtics.

Posted by Chaz | June 11, 2008 2:37 PM

Or a different set of standards for rookies and for veterans. For stars and everybody else. Basketball officiating in general and NBA officiating in particular are atrocious.

In that Lakers-Kings game 6, I have an image burned into my brain of Scot Pollard holding his hands up in the air, backing out of Shaq's way as fast as he could, not making contact, and still getting a foul called. I lost my innocence that night.

Posted by Another Matt | June 11, 2008 2:39 PM

Yep. Donaghy is only slightly more likely to know the truth in regards to the Kings/Lakers officiating than the conspiracy theorists that show up in this forum. Having said that, until the NBA stamps out the noxious sentiment that something that happens in the fourth quarter should be judged differently than something that happens in the first quarter, the NBA deserves what it gets in regards to this issue. The number of people who argued a few weeks ago that a defender should be able to jump in the air, and land on an opponent who had both feet on the ground, while in possession of the ball, with no foul being called, because there were only a few seconds before the final horn, demonstrates that the NBA has successfully confused their customers as to what the game entails. This is a real mistake, "sophisticated" marketing be damned.

Posted by Will Allen | June 11, 2008 2:41 PM

The big question is, why would Donaghy lie about the Lakers-Kings?

Yeah, I know, he's trying to get his sentence reduced.

But if they investigate the claim - as they must, right? - and discover it to be false, then they no longer have to give him credit on the other stuff he "rolled over" on and can just give him the highest sentence. His deal with the prosecutor would be null & void.

So why would he lie?

RIGHT???

RIGHT???!?!?!?

Yes, I watch Law & Order a lot.

Some lawyer tell me I'm wrong...

Frankly, I saw that game and believe Donaghy.

Posted by The Fix is In | June 11, 2008 2:50 PM

I was on one of these posts the other day saying that I can't believe the games are actually fixed. But that Kings-Lakers game was absolutely appalling. I kind of have to agree with Freddie. It seems impossible to believe that the refs could be that incompetant. However, if Donaghy wanted to nail someone, that would be the game to point to, true or not. I'm surprised he didn't mention the 2006 Finals as well. Game 3 of that series was certainly fishy. Wait, acutually, the rest of that series was messed up as well. I don't know what to believe...

Posted by TheBulge | June 11, 2008 2:53 PM

Why would he lie? It's easy to lie about something that cannot be verified or disproved.

Which is not to say he must be lying.

Posted by phil | June 11, 2008 2:59 PM

The NBA upped the stakes with Donaghy by demanding in the presentencing phase that he reimburse the NBA for the 1 million dollars in damages the league alleges it suffered as a result of Donaghy's misdeeds. Stern wants to crush Donaghy absolutely, and Donaghy is retaliating by the only means available to him, in hope of getting the league to drop it's demand. I have no strong opinion on the games in question, but it must be recognized that Donaghy does have substantial reason to makes these allegations, regardless of whether he actually knows anything, and there is no reason to think that he would have specific knowledge of these matters.

Posted by Will Allen | June 11, 2008 3:02 PM

In large part, that's simply because it's an objectively difficult game to officiate correctly.

Exactly. People are confusing lack of pristine objectivity on the part of the refs as conspiracy.

a) We know that officiating the fast-moving game of basketball with perfection is impossible. Doing it merely well is extremely difficult (it's not only fast moving it's played in a loud and often hostile environment. These officials aren't robots, after all).

b) We also know that, despite its ups and downs (especially since MJ retired) the league is immensely profitable.

c) Finally, we know that a league-mandated-dodgy officiating scandal would be disastrous for the aforementioned profits. Seriously, what fan would even bother to watch games that they know are fixed? What would it do to merchandising, especially overseas? It would also invite the wrath of the government, and there might even be criminal law implications.

d) So, why would the league's bigwigs try to fix games? They'd have to be laughably foolish and reckless to try it. Like nearly all conspiracy theories, it simply doesn't add up. (Although none of this obviates the possibility -- as remote as it might be -- of individual refs being problematic due to corruption, gambling problems, personal biases, , etc.).

Posted by Jasper | June 11, 2008 3:05 PM

If you think the NBA officiating is poor try watching a season of college basketball. It may cost you your sanity. You're likely to see blatant favoritism to a few name teams (UCLA, UNC, Duke); wildly inconsistent definitions of "touch" fouls on the perimeter from game to game; anticipatory charge and travel calls 75% of the time a big man tries to dribble; anticipatory charge calls on plays under the basket where no foul is allowed in the NBA; and really, really old men whose full-time jobs are as school superintendants refereeing the NCAA title game.

http://www.musketeermadness.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1636

The NBA, for all its problems, at least hires fit guys and reviews them on video. It's far better than college.

Posted by jayhawk | June 11, 2008 3:05 PM

Jasper,
Those are all fair points, and I agree with most of them, but college officiating is absolutely terrible, and you never hear anyone talk of those games being rigged. Why? i'm not convinced anything about the NBA is rigged, but sometimes you just get a feeling that something ain't right . I'm no college baskeball fan, but I never get that feeling watching college basketball. I simply get the feeling that the refs suck.

Posted by TheBulge | June 11, 2008 3:11 PM

I agree with everything Matt said, but I'd add that the odd "different officiating for different games/situations" idea isn't limited to basketball. After Super Bowl XL, for example, lots of people complained that the key offensive pass interference and holding calls shouldn't have been made because "it's the SUPER BOWL!"

Of course, the logical conclusion to this idea is that sports should get dirtier and dirtier as the playoffs progress, culminating in the two dirtiest playoff teams beating each other to a bloody pulp as the officials look the other way.

Posted by Nate | June 11, 2008 3:11 PM

Jayhawk,
Definitely agree that the overall officiating in the NBA is much, much better than college. The anticipatory charge calls is my biggest complaint. Its what seperates a terrible ref from a decent one...

Posted by TheBulge | June 11, 2008 3:12 PM

I keep saying this, but if the rules are unchanged, but some of them are only enforced part of the time, nasty things are sure to happen. The rules on contact and traveling are about the same as they ever were, but they're often not called. How could there not be scandals?

Posted by John Emerson | June 11, 2008 3:14 PM

Nate,
I think its more that calls such as PI and holding are so subjective that most people hate to see them decide the winner. Not saying its right, but I don't think people are saying the games SHOULD get dirtier. Its just natural.

Posted by TheBulge | June 11, 2008 3:15 PM

I don't think it has anything to do with getting his sentence reduced, since the Gubbermint is asking for probation, but more to the fact that the League is asking for $1,000,000 in restitution.

It's Donaghy's way of saying "Fuck you Stern, let's look at a few tapes . . ."

As with just about everything he does, Stern is acting like a high-handed, venal little shit. The NBA could have let this pass under the radar, but by protesting too loudly, all it does is once again place attention to the fact that to many fans the NBA is barely more credible than the WWE.

I'm more or less a Laker fan (LA transplant, still more loyal to Da Bulls), but I watched that game 6 with a few hardcore Laker buddies and we doubled over laughing as Scot Pollard was called for a foul after throwing up his hands and backing out of Shaq's way. That wasn't incompetence, it was out-and-out fraud.

Oh yeah, game 7 of the 1994 Western Conference Finals: PHX 64 free throws, SEA 36. Barkley had 22 alone in the 4th quarter. Think the League would have rather seen Barkley v. Jordan than Kemp v. Jordan?

Not so sure about a grand conspiracy. Besides, conspiracies are notoriously hard to prove, either legally or rhetorically, so why go there. However, can anyone deny with a straight face (except the NBA) that there are, indeed, many tiers of officiating, one for superstars, another for home teams, another for big market teams . . .

Posted by Shine | June 11, 2008 3:16 PM

The NBA doesn't help itself with the total lack of transparency regarding how it handles refs, not to mention the lack of a referee union (like the MLB umps union) that would provide at least one layer of independence between the refs and the league.

For example, what does the league do in the wake of games in which there are widespread complaints from teams and fans? Do they say anything to the refs about bad calls (i.e. "feedback" regarding specific calls)? Do they have a policy of absolute silence, whereby refs receive no input from the league whatsoever? The combination of secrecy, total control, and no oversight by any third party must create situation in which it tempting for the league to "suggest" changes after poor ref performances. Such a suggestion might not rise to the level of a direct order, but one would think that refs might feel compelled to strongly consider implementing any changes suggested by their employer.

It is altogether possible that Donaghy is taking a kernel of real information (e.g. the NBA "talked to" the refs after their performance in the Dallas series, letting them know it thought they missed several calls) and spinning it into a grand conspiracy. To draw an analogy with politics, did media outlets receive "direct orders" from their corporate overlords to cover the Iraq invasion a certain way in 2003? Probably not. But it seems like the complaints from the Pentagon (Mark Cuban) had a way of filtering through the networks (the NBA) to the specific news staff (the refs), so that staff "got the message."

Frankly, I'd be shocked if refs ever got specific instructions from league officials regarding how to call a game. I would not be surprised, however, if the league provides refs with "feedback" regarding their performance that translates to a fairly clear message about what the league would like to see in future games. Whether the latter would constitute "fixing" games would be a matter of some debate.

Posted by owenz | June 11, 2008 3:23 PM

Oh, I almost forgot. The most important point out of all of this is that Jeff Van Gundy deserves his $100,000 back. He was right the entire time.

Posted by TheBulge | June 11, 2008 3:30 PM

the NBA lost me about 10 years ago ( i woke up a little when Iverson led the sixers to the finals against the lakers after some very competitive series) when not only the players and coaches but the referees began discussing OUT LOUD, IN PUBLIC, that certain players had (or had not) been in the league long enough to "deserve" the call, etc... How can you "deserve" a call, it is either supposed to be a foul or violation or not. the rules should never be adjusted based on seniority and salary of the players involved, and such a system certainly never discussed openly as an accepted fact!

college BB may be more poorly refereed, but at least for the most part, after physical contact, the referee doesn't have to determine which player makes more money (even if he does still have to account for the coache's or school's reputation). The NBA, just a few steroids short of the WWF is FANTASTIC.....

Posted by alan t | June 11, 2008 3:31 PM

I carry no brief for Stern, but I'd be reluctant to attribute his demand for 1 million from Donaghy to venality. If there are refs in the future who begin to calculate the risk/reward for fixing games, and they start to think that if they make enough big scores before getting caught, and manage to hide some assets, it might be worth risking jail, the knowledge that the league will try to squeeze the offender dry on his way to the cellblock is useful to Stern.

Posted by Will Allen | June 11, 2008 3:32 PM

As with just about everything he does, Stern is acting like a high-handed, venal little shit. The NBA could have let this pass under the radar, but by protesting too loudly, all it does is once again place attention to the fact that to many fans the NBA is barely more credible than the WWE..

Agreed. I saw this on display during an interview with Stern regarding the suspension of a player (I believe it was Pierce's "menacing gesture"). The sideline reporter asked Stern about the player's appeal, and Stern smirked and said something like, "he can appeal all he wants, but I am the one deciding his appeal, so..." The announcers got a good chuckle out of his answer.

The obvious implication was that the appeal process was meaningless and that Stern is the final word on such matters, period. In my opinion, Stern is arrogant enough to think he can "correct" problems with officiating in the playoffs by making sure refs know what would please or displease him in a given series. To Stern, this wouldn't be him "fixing a game" - it would be him "improving the product."

When you put someone who believes he knows best in charge of an organization with no checks or balances, bad things tend to happen.

Posted by owenz | June 11, 2008 3:33 PM

If you think the NBA officiating is poor try watching a season of college basketball. It may cost you your sanity. You're likely to see blatant favoritism to a few name teams (UCLA, UNC, Duke); wildly inconsistent definitions of "touch" fouls on the perimeter from game to game; anticipatory charge and travel calls 75% of the time a big man tries to dribble; anticipatory charge calls on plays under the basket where no foul is allowed in the NBA; and really, really old men whose full-time jobs are as school superintendants refereeing the NCAA title game.

http://www.musketeermadness.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1636

The NBA, for all its problems, at least hires fit guys and reviews them on video. It's far better than college.

Posted by jayhawk | June 11, 2008 3:37 PM

To me, it's not so much the quality of the officiating (which is certainly pretty low even after factoring in the higher degree of difficulty relative to other sports), but the fact that the referees have so *much power*. Whether to call or not call one individual foul may not mean much (unless at a very crucial moment), but there are frequently wild swings where it's blatantly obvious that one team is getting ALL the calls. The sad thing is that the officials are basically followers -- things start out relatively even and then one team goes on a little run. The crowd gets into it, and then all of a sudden, the team that just went on a 5-0 run goes on a 20-3 run because magically they can travel and charge with impunity and then play extremely aggressive defense without fear of being called for fouls. It takes a significant shift in momentum before the officials think, "Oh gee, I'm not supposed to get into the game, I'm supposed to be neutral!"

It's lame.

Posted by Ryan | June 11, 2008 3:52 PM

I'm curious as to why people are so certain that there is no influence on the officiating from the league office. I do believe it remains unlikely; but stop acting as if there is no evidence. There is evidence. People watch the games, and what they see is simply irreconcilable with the NBA's party line. I'm inclined to believe Donaghy, though I wouldn't claim to know. I just wonder why the deniers are so absolutely certain.

Posted by Freddie | June 11, 2008 3:59 PM

I remember watching the NBA playoffs as 12 or 13 year old kid, and getting upset enough to almost cry over some loss that was reffed ridiculously. My mother came in from the kitchen and said, "What's with you? I guess you still think wrestling is real, too. Grow up."

The most frustrating part is watching the grown-ups like Matt trying to wave this away. Nothing to see here. And the way the annoucers and the league and even the players abide by this code of silence by refusing to speak aloud that which is obvious but must not be named is just so stupid. It's like watching the press believe Scot McClellan just b/c he's in front of a podium with an official seal on it. Nothing to see here.

Anyway, the credulity on display ticks me off. All Donaghy said is that the league puts the refs it knows are controllable on certain games and that the league office speaks with these refs about how the games should be called. Everyone does the old wink, wink...nudge, nudge and, presto, illegitimate result.

Posted by keatssycamore | June 11, 2008 4:08 PM

College games may or may not be worse officiated than the NBA (it would be hard to top the Lakers-Kings series, or the Cavaliers-Celtics when Nate Thurmond was playing for Cleveland), but at least after Stanford and Cal got hosed at UCLA on the same weekend this year the conference came out and said the calls had been wrong. Devil will be on ice skates before Stern does that.

I may be the only one that remembers Richie Powers, but Wilt Chamberlain was pretty believable in his complaints about Powers -- who was considered a top ref at the time. But speaking of Wilt, what about the sixth game of the Warriors-76ers series in 1967?

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 11, 2008 4:21 PM

I'm curious as to why people are so certain that there is no influence on the officiating from the league office. I do believe it remains unlikely; but stop acting as if there is no evidence. There is evidence. People watch the games, and what they see is simply irreconcilable with the NBA's party line.

Because (a) there are other explanations than the two you've noted, like the refs suck,(b) it seems like an extraordinary risky thing for the league to do, and (c) you'd think the sports journalists might have been on such a story if it were there. (The last is admittedly the weakest.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 11, 2008 4:21 PM

So we're credulous because we believe the league and notice inconsistency in general, but you're not credulous because you believe a guy that was paid by the mob to officiate games in a certain way and when he was slapped with a punitive lawsuit suddenly remembered that the league fixes games.

The reason I believe the league's line is there are just as many instances where the league's desired outcome didn't come true as there are instances where it did come true. For every shady Lakers over Kings, there's a shady Spurs over Suns. For every Heat over Mavericks in 6, there's a Pistons over Lakers in 5. Why rig it against the Rockets when they play the Mavericks, but not do the same when they play the Knicks in the Finals? Especially, when those Knicks were supposedly given Ewing by the frozen envelope.

Why is Donaghy the only disgruntled ex-ref to come forward with these accusations? If it's so widespread and well known, there would be at least one person willing to come forward (ala Jose Canseco) and write a tell all. The only guy coming forward is going to jail and being sued for $1 million. This is his kitchen sink routine.

Posted by Mo | June 11, 2008 4:23 PM

Apologies for posting again, but SomeCallMeTim's comment needs a response.

If the explanation were the poor quality of officiating, one might expect that to cut both ways. In most of the cases under discussion it didn't.

There is a very large commercial apparatus set up that benefits from the system as it is and would be reluctant to have it undermined. It was also extraordinarily risky for Bush and Co. to lie about the Iraqi nuclear program. Plus they have a well established routine of saying, "Grow up and take it" whenever anybody complains, and a whole lot of people for whom that is a validating response. Particularly in Los Angeles.

No one seems to have mentioned the one call that has always seemed to me to be the easiest to use to affect the outcome of a game, the phantom offensive foul, or the play that is only an offensive foul when it is useful for it to be one.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 11, 2008 4:28 PM

The problem with NBA officiating has been festering ever since the Bad Boys of Detroit figured out that if every one of them fouled every time down the court, refs would let most go uncalled for fear of fouling all of them out of the game in the 1st quarter. It's the combination of physical offensive and defensive play AND ref inconsistency that produces problems.

ESPN replayed the Lakers/Celts from the 87 Finals last week and you could hardly recognize it as the same game. Players could actually move around the court without getting grabbed, pulled or banged into every other step.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 11, 2008 4:30 PM

at least after Stanford and Cal got hosed at UCLA on the same weekend this year the conference came out and said the calls had been wrong. Devil will be on ice skates before Stern does that.

You mean like after the Spurs game when the NBA admitted the no call on Fisher was wrong? How does Old Scratch do on ice skates?

If the explanation were the poor quality of officiating, one might expect that to cut both ways. In most of the cases under discussion it didn't.

You should read King Kaufman's article today. He refreshes our memories of the infamous Kings-Lakers series. But that doesn't fit into the, "The NBA is rigged for big market teams" story. Of course, neither does Spurs, 4 championships in 9 years.

Posted by Mo | June 11, 2008 4:33 PM

O'Grady,
I'm not old enough to watch Wilt or Powers. Care to fill me in a bit on the comments by Chamberlain?

Posted by TheBulge | June 11, 2008 4:49 PM

" So, why would the league's bigwigs try to fix games? They'd have to be laughably foolish and reckless to try it. "

The plausible theory I heard is that they wouldn't have to. David Stern isn't going to call a ref and say, "we want a game 7 in that Kings/Lakers series." But, the refs know that a series going 7, or a big market team advancing is better for the league. They might believe that they will be determined to be a better ref if their calls tend to slightly favor beneficial results for the league. Better refs work more playoff games, and make more money.

Posted by Njorl | June 11, 2008 4:56 PM

It looks like David Stern is such an autocrat that he's not listening to his PR people. The first rule of public relations: perception trumps reality. Perception Number 1: Stern is the sort of tin-plate tyrant who would decide who is or who is not worthy. Certainly he favors some players and owners over others. Look at the record. Perception Number 2: Look at the film. Then listen to Stern say, "who ya gonna believe, me or yer lyin' eyes?" Perception Number 3: Perception has become reality. From now on, every time a ref blows a call, and a player loses a nickle or dime, it's gonna be Stern's fault. Stern can't run and Stern can't hide. And his PR crew is gonna be at the back end of the parade, cleaing up after the elephants, instead of out in front where they oughtta be, leading the cheers. Okay, one more. Perception Number 4: just look at that scatophagic grin plastered across Stern's face and you just know for sure this guy was born on the planet Zorg. Totally and utterly clueless.

Posted by Leon A Davis | June 11, 2008 4:59 PM

The league needs to implement a way of having the officials hired, fired, evaluated, and assigned to games independently of the league office. Much like auditors do not report to the CEO but directly to the board of directors.

Nobody has mentioned the Wolves and Lakers from ought-four. I will never forget the game ending, then Barkley saying in the TNT studio something like, "Well, we all know what we just saw."

Posted by Curtis | June 11, 2008 4:59 PM

I remember Wilt talking about a ref who said Chamberlin had too much of a physical advantage and let other players hack Wilt all they wanted. Wilt thought most refs behaved that way. There was also another ref he overheard who was obviously a Celtic fan and made no attempt to hide it. I don't know if either was Powers.

Posted by Njorl | June 11, 2008 5:02 PM

The reason I believe the league's line is there are just as many instances where the league's desired outcome didn't come true as there are instances where it did come true.

One more time, for the slow learners like Mo: the refs do not have the ability to determine the outcome of every game or series; they do have the ability to unduly influence the game with crucial calls at crucial moments. You are trying to force this cognitive maximalism on us, but I'm not going to let you. The NBA can a) inappropriately pressure the refs to influence the outcome of games, and b) not get the preferred outcome of every series. There is no contradiction there.

By the way-- San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the country. Austin, which largely roots for the Spurs, is also a large city. Stop calling San Antonio a "small market".

Posted by Freddie | June 11, 2008 5:10 PM

Couple of (reluctant) responses:

Mo, yes there was some half-hearted criticism of the non-call on Fisher. But it was certainly drowned out by chorus of "Let 'em play."

And believeing in the fact (as far as I'm concerned) that some series were determined by the officials does not require that one believe that they all were.

And it's a little more complex than "big market teams get all the breaks." I happened to see game 6 of the last Bulls-Jazz series in Utah, and what looked to me like some very creative calls on behalf of Mr. Jordan (and one inexcusable muff with the 24 second clock) struck the Utah fans as just another example of how great our Michael was.

And in regard to Wilt and Richie Powers (even his name is Keltic), what I recall is that Wilt and Richie were at a party (common enough back then) and Richie had had a few and told Wilt what a great player Bill Russell was and how happy he was to help Russell win all those championships. More than thirty years since I've read the book, but I think that's not an unfair representation.

Speaking of Russell, my father was acquainted with his college coach, Phil Woolpert, and claimed that Woolpert had told him that he didn't dare schedule a game at the home arena of certain Pacific Coast Conference Teams because even Russell and KC Jones wouldn't be a match for the homers in stripes. May have been two guys who had a few blowing off steam, but who knows?

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 11, 2008 5:17 PM

Freddie,
I got to be honest. I wanted to call bullshit on San Antonio being the 7th largest city. I looked it up. That's mind-blowing. I suppose their media market is much smaller because the surrounding areas aren't heavily populated??? I can't think of another reason why they don't have other pro franchises. They certainly support the Spurs.
As far as there being no contradiction, I suppose you are right to a degree, but there have certainly been cases where the refs could have forced a series longer, or given a certain team an advantage if they wanted to. Hell, they didn't have to suspend Stoudemire and Diaw(I think)last year for coming off the bench. The Suns would have gotten much better ratings than the Spurs. There may not be a contradiction, but that Lakers-Kings series seemed so obvious.

Posted by TheBulge | June 11, 2008 5:19 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

right up there with Harvard reunions

Posted by Campesino | June 11, 2008 5:20 PM

Calling San Antonio the 7th largest U.S. city, when discussing what matters to the NBA, is incredibly disingenuous. Sure, dominating 1.3 million sets of eyeballs is such a marketing triumph!

I don't have any strong belief on this one way or the other, but I do think some extremely strong evidence, beyond one's impressions of a few games,is required before one can ethically accuse people of racketeering.

Posted by Will Allen | June 11, 2008 5:41 PM

Calling San Antonio the 7th largest U.S. city, when discussing what matters to the NBA, is incredibly disingenuous. Sure, dominating 1.3 million sets of eyeballs is such a marketing triumph!

I don't have any strong belief on this one way or the other, but I do think some extremely strong evidence, beyond one's impressions of a few games,is required before one can ethically accuse people of racketeering.

Posted by Will Allen | June 11, 2008 5:42 PM

Just to clarify, Nielson ranks San Antonio as the 37th largest market. Stern has done a really crappy job of influencing the outcomes of playoff tournaments for the past decade.

Posted by Will Allen | June 11, 2008 5:52 PM

By the way-- San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the country. Austin, which largely roots for the Spurs, is also a large city. Stop calling San Antonio a "small market".

Being the seventh largest municipality in the country is a very different thing from being the seventh largest market, or metro area. San Antonio is a fast growing, but still relatively modest sized town (Wiki says it's #28). It just so happens that a particularly large percentage of its citizens reside within the city limits, rendering the aforementioned high ranking on the "biggest US cities list."

Posted by Big Ass Metropolis Like LA or DC | June 11, 2008 6:18 PM

Yes, as a couple of people have already pointed out, there is a huge difference between being a big city, and a big media market.

Neilsen ranks San Antonio/Del Rio as number 37. To give some perspective, that puts them as falling right behind the Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville market.

Posted by bjh | June 11, 2008 6:27 PM

For those complaining about Game six of the Kings-Lakers series, I would draw to your attention the last seconds of Game 5 of that same series. The game was stolen from the Lakers by a very bad out of bounds call. I knew it was bad call by the look of disgust in Chris Webber's face when he knocked the ball out. Which was replaced(and not very quickly I might add)by the joy of realizng that the Ref got it wrong. The only people who who seem to remember this is me and Phil who mentioned it last night in response to a question about Donaghey

Posted by Skip | June 11, 2008 6:29 PM

You guys are right. Therefore, there is no bias in NBA officiating.

And, you know, Will, I've watched more than a "few games". I haven't missed watching more than 6 Bulls games in the last five years. And it's not just a few people, but the large majority of people in every poll on ESPN, many commentators, bloggers, etc. Stop treating this as some fringe position. Most self-identified NBA fans, by the available evidence, agree with me and not with you. That doesn't make it true, but it does make it more than the vague accusations you seem to be accusing me of.

Posted by Freddie | June 11, 2008 6:34 PM

Laker fans will tell you that they were equally hosed in game 5 of the 2002 WCF. Had that game been called fairly, game 6 wouldn't have mattered. In fact, rather than it being a conspiracy, I think the refs cut the Lakers breaks in game 6 as "make-up calls" for the bad officiating in game 5.

Posted by bum | June 11, 2008 6:49 PM

Freddie, just to clarify, I was just pointing out that there's a distinction between city size and media market size.

As one living in Sacramento in the late 90s and early 2000s, I was known known to accuse the refs of bias in my more heated moments. And still suspect it even in less heated ones.

Probably also worth noting that media market size may not be the only culprit. I don't think many would doubt that the league would prefer to see Lebron's Cleveland over larger markets like Detroit or Atlanta. Marquee players or teams do more to draw audiences generally.

Ok, now Will can attack me as a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by bjh | June 11, 2008 7:09 PM

The problem with NBA officiating has been festering ever since the Bad Boys of Detroit figured out that if every one of them fouled every time down the court, refs would let most go uncalled for fear of fouling all of them out of the game in the 1st quarter. It's the combination of physical offensive and defensive play AND ref inconsistency that produces problems.

This.

Posted by Pooh | June 11, 2008 7:49 PM

I don't think it's a wacky conspiracy theory to say that the refs display bias toward stars, veterans, and guys with established reps. They also display bias toward teams with those characteristics. I do think it's a little wacky to say that David Stern tells the refs, "let's have the Lakers win game 6." That's insanely risky, and it just doesn't happen enough for that to be a likely story.

Still, the reffing in that Lakers-Kings series was horrible. The worst call, of course, was Bibby getting called for a foul after he punched Kobe in the fist with his face. But there were also horrible calls against the Lakers.

Posted by too many steves | June 11, 2008 8:04 PM

Laker fans will tell you that they were equally hosed in game 5 of the 2002 WCF.

Then Kings fans will go on to tell you how they were hosed by Horry's after-the-buzzer 3 at the half in game 4.

Posted by Bean | June 11, 2008 8:12 PM

Hi! Golden State Warriors fan here! You know, fourth largest metropolitan area in the US (I don't really want to debate this point, but 1. San Jose is part of the greater Bay Area, 2. I'll take the Bay Area over D.C. any day).

Anyway, after one playoff appearance in the last 15 years, I would love for a few calls to go our way!

Posted by adlsad | June 11, 2008 8:34 PM

Freddie, for decades, supposedly very knowledgeable people who watched literally thousands and thousands of baseball games would yammer mostly pointlessly about the mostly imagined phenomena of "clutch hitting". Sorry, your having watched a few hundred Bulls games does not constitute objective evidence. I haven't accused you of anything other than lacking evidence by which to say say that a convicted felon's evidence-free accusation of the NBA engaging in illegal raceketeering is something that you are "inclined to believe". I did this because it is true.

Posted by Will Allen | June 11, 2008 9:26 PM

By the way, Freddie, given I stated that I have no position on whether the activity is taking place or not, there is no group of NBA fans who could be said to "agree" with me, as opposed to you.

Posted by Will Allen | June 11, 2008 9:36 PM

Adlsad,

Remember when Curtis Perry clobbered Phil Smith in the last seconds in 1976 and got away with? We coulda been a dynasty!

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 11, 2008 10:26 PM

Game six of the kings/lakers series had a context. The context was that bad call at the end, but more important I beleiev, Shaq was getting called for all kinds of fouls up to that point. I'm pretty sure he fouled out of game 5 or at least spent a lot time on the bench. So there was all kinds of clammor form the lakers after game five. Then comes game six which in which it was obvious that something untoward was going on. Who knows what? The Kings were definitly playing against a huge disadvantage on a night the could have won the series. Then they choked game 7. The also lost an earlierr game on a fluke Horry 3 pointer, as mentioned above. Anyway, they easily could have won that series and they definitely got screwed in game six. Who knows what the true story was. I have absoloutly no problem witht he idea that--for whatever reason--that the refs were told to call that game for the Lakers. If that game, why not others.

PS. People used to really like stern, but it is becoming apparent that he is a lying vindictive dictator with all the trappings. The whole Seattle thing, and this latest Donehy thing, are both going to really hurt his image and hopefully bring about some changes to the league.

Posted by cw | June 12, 2008 12:14 AM

let us not forget about Suns-Spurs last year game 3. Everyone talks about the Suns suspensions and the Spurs lack of suspensions but the real fix came in game 3, a game that Donaghy ref'd and admittadly gambled on. Watch a tape of that game and you will see something that rivals if not surpasses the Kings/Lakers debacle

Posted by Steve | June 12, 2008 1:49 AM

This is spitting in the wind, but I have to defend my Bad Boy Pistons against the type of ignorance displayed by Mike way up above.

Here are the scores for the 1987 Lakers-Celtics Finals: 126-113; 141-122; 109-103; 107-106; 123-108; 106-93

Here are the scores for the 1988 Lakers-Pistons Finals: 105-93; 108-96; 99-86; 111-86; 104-94; 103-102; 108-105

The scores are not that different, especially once you get past the first two games of the 87 finals, when the Lakers just ran the Celtics off the court. That's because the Pistons weren't nearly as different, in either style of play or talent level, from the Lakers and Celtics as NBA marketing has always wanted you to believe. Yes, the Bad Boy Pistons were more defensively focused than either the Celtics or Lakers of the era. Yes, they realized that they needed to play the Lakers in a half-court game to have any chance of beating them (Boston did the same thing). No, they were NOT the clutch-and-grab team that many now claim they were; and no, they did not win their championships by deploying some kind of "foul first and foul often" strategy. The starting rotation for the Pistons of that era was Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, James Edwards, Adrian Dantley/Mark Aquirre and Bill Laimbeer. The main players off the bench were Vinnie Johnson, Dennis Rodman and John Salley. In today's NBA, that team would average about 130 points per night and might go 16-0 in the playoffs.

If you want to blame a team for introducing clutch-and-grab tactics to the NBA, blame the Riley Knicks of the 1990s, not the Bad Boy Pistons.

Posted by Bob W | June 12, 2008 1:49 AM

let us not forget about Suns-Spurs last year game 3. Everyone talks about the Suns suspensions and the Spurs lack of suspensions but the real fix came in game 3, a game that Donaghy ref'd and admittadly gambled on. Watch a tape of that game and you will see something that rivals if not surpasses the Kings/Lakers debacle

Posted by Steve | June 12, 2008 1:51 AM

It just so happens that a particularly large percentage of its citizens reside within the city limits, rendering the aforementioned high ranking on the "biggest US cities list."

And they accomplished this by pushing their city limits way, way out to include a whole bunch of suburbs.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 12, 2008 1:52 AM

At half time of game 3 the other night, Kobe Bryant was asked what he was doing differently in order to finally get to the foul line, he smirked and responded "Were playing the same way as the first 2 games" The players know there are huge discrepencies in the way the games are officiated for home teams. Is this just human nature by the refs? Allowing the crowd to influence them? Or have the refs just gotten used to calling games in favor of the home team in the playoffs in order to help extend series, but not to determine the winner?

Posted by Steve | June 12, 2008 2:21 AM

It just so happens that a particularly large percentage of its citizens reside within the city limits, rendering the aforementioned high ranking on the "biggest US cities list."

And they accomplished this by pushing their city limits way, way out to include a whole bunch of suburbs.

Totally off-topic here, but isn't this an eminently reasonable policy?

Wildcat suburbs, IIRC leech off the resources of major municipalities without contributing any tax revenues to maintain the infrastructure. And this is to say nothing of the difficulties in coordinating region-wide policies (e.g. mass transit).

Posted by scythia | June 12, 2008 2:45 AM

In the 1992-93 season Charles Barkley was traded to Phoenix and led them to the playoffs - NBC, who had the TV rights, heavily promoted him.

When Seattle unexpectedly took Phoenix to Game 7 of the Western Conference finals, there was considerable discussion about the league being very unhappy about the prospect of not having the colourful and controversial Barkley not playing in the finals and losing the anticipated high TV ratings.

In that Game 7 the officials took care of business - over sixty fouls were called on the Sonics while less than twenty were called on Phoenix who obviously won.

There have been way too many stinky playoff games in this league.

Posted by chet | June 12, 2008 12:11 PM

“ESPN replayed the Lakers/Celts from the 87 Finals last week and you could hardly recognize it as the same game. Players could actually move around the court without getting grabbed, pulled or banged into every other step.”

The ’87 Finals, yes. But have you ever seen tape of the 1980, ‘81 or ‘82 ECF of Boston vs. Philly? It’s hard to believe games like those could be played today. There is this classic image of Sixer Bobby Jones intercepting a Celtic pass underneath the basket to help put Philly up 3-1 in ’81. He basically jumps up and grabs it, while at the same time slamming out the intended receiver into the stands with his whole damn body. To see it now, it more resembles a football play.

“If you want to blame a team for introducing clutch-and-grab tactics to the NBA, blame the Riley Knicks of the 1990s, not the Bad Boy Pistons.”

This is basically true and as a Celtic fan, I had to think twice about agreeing with anyone who cheered on the Bad Boy Pistons. The Pistons of this era, while not completely identical of course, were like a younger version of the Celtics that had played LA for the previous several years. They played quality half-court ball and if things didn’t go well, they would play that same style of ball, just in a far more physical way. (Think of Kevin McHale sparking a comeback in the 1984 Finals by his hard take down of Kurt Rambis.) It was Riley’s Knicks that really started the thug-fest and low scores became the result.

Of course, as a mitigating factor in its defense that style of play gave us the image of Jeff Van Gundy grabbing onto Alonzo Mourning’s leg and holding onto it for dear life.

Posted by Raindog | June 13, 2008 1:42 AM