It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.
Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004
I am willing to immortalize this statement on PacersDigest. The New York Knicks will beat Boston and move on. There is no doubt about the outcome in that series. Let's just say that millions and millions of dollars ride on the fact that series goes 6 or 7 games.
The fact that some people in Game Threads have been suggesting that the NBA is rigging the series for Atlanta...
No, not rigged. Just poorly officiated. Monty McCutchen and Bennett Salvatore just lost their minds in the 3rd and decided to call everything real or imagined. Then they tried to make up all the phantom fouls they were calling on the Pacers by calling touch fouls on Atlanta. Surprise, surprise, players complained and guys got T'ed up. It was epic. Good thing the pacers were up by 20 pts or there might have been a riot.
Like the Houston [?] game at MSA where they had to stop the game because of all the cups, Ice and stuff thrown on to the floor. One of my favorite games ever.
....so you're making the bold statement that the outcome that has never, ever happened in 65 years of NBA history...won't happen in the current Knicks/Celtics series.
Allow me to pick myself up off the floor.
Last edited by Kstat; 05-02-2013 at 07:03 AM.
I am not KStat, but I assume that it would be the same as for game 6: suboptimal officiating due to human error.
Round 1 seems to be getting more and more interesting, after a few days ago when Charles Barkley called it "the worst (i.e; most boring) first round in NBA history"
Maybe Stern fired his fixer, hiring a new fixer, who is delivering more interesting fixes
(though would losing a #1 and/or a #2 seed in the first round be good for NBA ratings moving forward?)
Alternatively the series may be getting more competitive for legit reasons. You decide!
Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-03-2013 at 12:45 AM.
The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)
Wait... now you are saying PLAYERS are fixing games by sandbagging? I thought it was refs?
There is so much fixing going on, I hear, I may need a map to keep it straight.
So its Stern, the refs, the players, the coaches, presumably the GMs and owners too? How about the announcers like Boyle and Slick?
And is Boomer "in on it" too? Just how far does this conspiracy go?
Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-03-2013 at 12:34 AM.
This sequence of events caught my eye in the Golden State / Denver final game. Corey Brewer of the Denver Nuggets does one of those diving saves, but the refs think he touched down before passing the ball. The refs look at it on replay, and it's clearly obvious that he in fact saved it. What amazes me is that the refs then give the ball to Golden State. Can anyone who watched the last minute of that game explain what happened to me?
Earlier in the thread in post #425 (http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...=1#post1633567) I posted a link to the most detailed call-by-call analysis ever made of this game, a long but interesting read.
The writer is the founder of 82games.com and in the past has been an open critic of officiating. His conclusion was the same as the refs after the game- they did a bad job that night. He notes though that a lot of signs point against a "fix".
Not a single "the NBA is rigged" supporter has referred to this admittedly long but very detailed analysis, yet they keep bringing up this game as the preeminent example of a fixed NBA game.
I want someone to tell me why they are convinced that his analysis is bogus.
FWIW, from the link Slick provided.
I don't see grounds to think there was a conspiracy at work here. Still let me be proactive in trying to address some of the likely counterpoints people may raise.
- Someone might argue that the refs weren't explicitly looking to fix a game, but to just give the benefit of the doubt to the Lakers where tough calls arose.
That's a tougher argument to refute since the Lakers did indeed get the calls as a whole. The reality is the NBA features a pronounced home court advantage and while some of it may come from having the crowd on your side, knowing the arena, the comfort of staying at your home instead of a hotel, etc there's also likely a touch of ref favoritism to the home team without any malicious intent. As stated earlier, the Lakers had some likely gripes about the game five calls so it's probably fair to say over the seven game series that both teams were at times helped and hurt by the officiating. Maybe I need to look at game seven, game five, and game four, and...
- Come on! The Lakers took 40 free throws to 25 for the Kings!
Yes that's true, but let's extract the six that came from intentional fouls so it's now 34 to 25. And having watched this game all the way through twice with many plays reviewed over and over, there was a clear difference in aggressiveness between the two teams. The Lakers were incessantly taking the ball into the paint and to the basket, while the Kings took more outside shots. That's not to say there weren't bad calls but the free throw discrepancy doesn't surprise me.
- What about star treatment from the refs?
This is a fair criticism I believe. Guys like Scott Pollard and Lawrence Funderburke seemed to get away with a lot less jostling with Shaq in the paint than Vlade Divac did. There was some interesting dialogue on this point though from Steve Jones and Bill Walton who commented that part of Pollard's problem was sticking his arms up too soon. There was also a huge collision at one point between Medvedenko and a flopping Pollard with no call...neither player has enough status to get a call? One illegal screen call in the game, yup that was on Pollard. So I agree there does seem to be issues with different standards and allowances for different players.
- O'Neal has earned himself a spot in the Hall of Fame, not on talent but on being so big that when he moves someone out of position, it's a foul on the defender's stomach and not on his forearm going into the defender's throat
It's not the place of this article to really assess how refs have called Shaq's game through his career. I should point out though that in this game Shaq only had two dunks and the vast majority of his baskets were touch shots from 6-10 feet away. Yes he got to the line a lot, but he also had the ball a ton and had two guys draped over him most of the time. The other nice thing about Shaq is that he never seemed to complain to the ref himself, whereas Kobe, Bibby and others would look at the ref after almost every missed shot asking for a call.
- What's with your funky "points system"? Shaq goes to the line and sometimes it's a no cost call?
We can debate the 'ref points' calculations but fundamentally I looked at the subsequent events, so if Shaq only made 1 of 2 free throws then it was pretty much a break even call since the average possession is worth (roughly) one point. Likewise there were a couple of plays where the Kings could justifiably have expected a foul called on the Lakers when the Kings missed a shot, but when the shooter grabbed the miss and put it right back up for a follow up basket I treated it as a zero cost "no call" since the Kings actually scored a basket on the full sequence rather than having to earn it at the line. Admittedly there was no consideration of foul trouble implications on the points values.
- Bavetta off the hook? Are you kidding me, four dubious calls and all in favor of the Lakers?
Well Bavetta did have some bad calls in my view, but several of them were in part due to bad angles. In the first quarter there was a mysterious phantom and one call on Bibby on a Kobe shot where Bavetta was on the baseline and Kobe was at the free throw line with Bibby in front...so bad angle there. In the third quarter there was a horrible sequence for the Kings where Bibby was dribbling on the left side and Fisher hit his arm and then the ball with no call from Bavetta, but again Dick had a bad angle with Bibby in front of him so he may not have seen the hit on the arm, just the later contact by Fisher on the ball itself. Still this one hurt since it led to a Lakers fastbreak three-point play the other way. Bavetta's calls also did seem to tighten up in the fourth quarter...contact that he was letting go by without a whistle in the first three quarters suddenly seemed much more severe than contact getting whistles down the stretch. So a bad game for Bavetta? Yes. A rigged game? I don't think so.
- Face it, the NBA just wants the big time playoff matchups to go the distance
Really? If so they do a lousy job of manipulating results! In the past ten seasons only one NBA final has gone seven games, and only four out of twenty conference finals have gone the distance. In other words, out of thirty key best of seven series, only five have maxed out the games. In contrast, eleven of those series didn't even reach a game six!
- Doesn't a game like this ruin the NBA?
Hardly. This was flat out a fantastic game to watch, incredibly entertaining and the outcome was uncertain into the final seconds. Years later it still carries great watchability. In fact while I was conducting this to really examine the charges leveled against the refs by the "soon to be in jail" Donaghy, I couldn't help but take away some real positives --
- Chris Webber was a special player
As one of the hall of fame types who never won a championship we may not give him full credit for his talents. Watch this game and you'll see him in a different light. If you think Steve Nash is the king of the out of nowehere pass, Webber made probably close to ten behind the back bounce passes in this game, many leading to easy baskets/open looks that were delivered right on the money. He also showed leadership throughout and hit some key shots at moments when the Kings started to struggle. Throw in some nice defensive moments, solid rebounding, and he was indeed a superstar.
- Shaq is much more than just a bulldozer
It must be tiresome to the Diesel to be labeled as a guy who just bullied his way to success. This game displays a nice repertoire of Shaq's scoring moves, from hook shots, to soft banks off the glass, to 'nice footwork' fakes in the paint and more. He was a true workhorse throughout the game, carrying the Lakers on both ends most of the time. Yes he got to the line in this game, but what's forgotten is he made his first ten freebies and 13-17 all told.
- The Kings deserve Bill Simmons' Critically Acclaimed status
Sacramento had a great team that easily could have won a championship with a little luck, or even one different call perhaps! Vlade and Webber were a potent big man duo, Turkoglu and Peja sharing the small forward spot. Bibby and Christie in the backcourt. Bobby Jackson off the bench...the lack of a title should not hold back praise for the great Kings' run under Adelman.
- Long live the Seven Game series
While everyone can appreciate the excitement of a single elimination playoff structure (hasn't hurt the NFL or NCAA much has it), a game like this makes you relish the long series with its up and down momentum changes. Having watched game six, I'm ready to go track down a copy of game seven...
- Aren't you embarrassed to be an NBA apologist? How much is Stern paying you?
I don't think David will be too happy with this article if he ever comes across it, since it's pretty clear the officiating was less than ideal. The truth is that with all the comments I've heard about this game through the years I probably expected the calls to be more biased to the Lakers. The Kings were testy almost from the get go in this one and were chirping at the refs from the first quarter on, but sometimes that kind of mindset works to be a self fulfilling prophecy. They were hurt badly by a few key calls, but had chances to win it nonetheless, and the game seven at home still to come. In the end I agree with Mr. Stern, it's not pretty, but it doesn't make me question the integrity of the game.
- You have no qualifications to do this, get a real ref to go through the game
Yeah, I could debate that some, but I'll agree my lack of officiating experience is a flaw. Consequently I have recruited two supposedly impartial, intelligent people with ref backgrounds to go through the game as well and I'll follow up with another article when they get their scorecards in...
I guess David Stern must have been asleep last night. He allowed TV Market #36 (San Antonio) to defeat TV Market #6 (Golden State). This sets up a Western Conference Finals of the 36th and 49th largest TV Markets. If he's rigging things, he's not doing a very good job.
Just for the record, the team in the smaller TV market has won 8 of the 11 playoff series that have been decided so far.