Usually if you go back, emotions gone, and especially if you were to do a visual +/- accounting where you go through the game and document just what plays caused a player's +/- you start to see where you put big emotional emphasis on one dramatic or energetic play and overlooked a bunch of barely noticeable but critical defensive switch problems, failure to deny rebounds, weak screens and other items that slowly eat away at the score.
My anger is that people see a Tyler rebound hustle after his own miss and give it more credit than 2 travels in the next 4 possessions, even though getting your own miss is empty and the 2 travels are brutal. If you are a Tyler fan then you point to the hustle and say "see, that's why he's great" and you point to the travels and say "oh, the refs robbed him, they are against him, that wasn't Tyler's fault".
Well that crap still counts in terms of winning and losing. Okay, the refs are against him. So what, the results are the same in the end. If you have a guy that the refs intentionally target then that's identical to him just being bad. Either way it's a TO. You need to get the refs to like him if you want a better outcome, and if that's not possible then you just can't play him. It's unfair but it's the reality. And this is only if you buy the whole "it's not his fault, they are totally against him" theory, which I don't really buy for any players.
SIDEBAR ON STAR CALLS
BTW, "star" treatment does happen, but a lot less than fans think. Usually fouls, travels, etc are plays that stem from one guy being clearly better than the other. The quicker guy beats his man and his man struggles to catch up, reaches out and fouls by accident. That's not star treatment, that's star power.