DarrinS
04-01-2008, 12:49 PM
quite sad
http://arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=109506
This is the most paranoid conspiracy crap I've ever read.
--------
Breaking News: Spurs Get More Calls
Okay, the title was just to get your attention. I have proof of nothing and this is not news (and even if it was, it wouldn't be of the "breaking" variety). It is merely the long-promised post where I theorize the "why" part of this whole "The Spurs get all the calls" examination.
The other night I tried my best to objectively watch every single close call in Game Two, to see if San Antonio was really getting the benefit of the whistles. I admit this is conjecture and opinion and everything else you could use to assail the results, but the findings seemed to indicate that the Spurs enjoyed a sizable advantage when it came to the officiating. And this was on a night where the Suns actually got more breaks than a normal S.A. opponent and that featured a fourth quarter blowout that took the refs out of play. Many in the comments section and in emails have surmised that if the Spurs still enjoyed a healthy advantage in that game, it only proves how massive the edge is on a normal night.
That said, the little "study" I performed (and likely will never repeat due to the six hours it took to watch the game) doesn't really prove anything. All it does is reinforce something that many basketball fans already think: that San Antonio gets more calls than anyone. More to the point, that the Spurs are able to get away with more fouls than any other team in the NBA.
The "why" is of far more interest to me, because it seems almost impossible to explain. Why indeed? The Spurs don't have many likable players. There are stars on the roster, but not much star power in the traditional NBA sense. They are in a small market. They were involved in two NBA Finals this decade (2003 against New Jersey and 2005 against Detroit) that basically nobody watched.
If the Spurs are really getting all these calls (or all these no-calls), which it seems they are, then the explanation would have to be something along the lines of a conspiracy theory, right? The NBA has to "want" this. But as I just pointed out, there appears to be no reason at all why the NBA would want the Spurs to advance year after year, and certainly no reason to instruct its officials to make that happen, at the risk of a major scandal.
So if the league isn't mandating it, what other explanation could there be?
Ultimately, I've narrowed down a few possibilities to one thing and it was suggested the other day by my brother, Drew. He opined that the referees simply process San Antonio's actions differently than they do the actions of other teams. In other words, they've seen Bruce Bowen foul so many times, on so many plays, for so many years, that they just view a Bruce Bowen play differently at this point. Bruce Bowen shoving an offensive player or grabbing a guy's leg looks normal after all these years.
In a previous blog - while hinting at conclusion I would reach in this post - I used the phrase "systematic desensitization." I like it because it sounded good, but also because there might be some truth to it.
Think of television shows. When we watch 24 (or, I guess, when we used to watch 24), Jack Bauer can bit a guy's neck or shoot someone in the face or hang a terrorist with a big metal chain and we barely bat an eye. Spartan warriors can slice off the heads of Xerxes' Immortals and we are are impassive. Yet when Bear Grylls kneels down to chew on some raw zebra flesh during an episode of Man v. Wild, it is enough to cause us to recoil in horror. This is a result of desensitization. We see people get killed on TV all the time, but we don't often watch stranded men devouring the flanks of zebras. So the former is just background noise while the latter is jolting. I'm not bringing this up to blame entertainment for all of society's woes, or anything like that, merely pointing out that we can indeed become desensitized to seeing certain things.
And it seems to follow that the same thing could happen to NBA officials. They are used to Vince Carter avoiding contact at all cost, so when he puts his head down in the lane, they are jolted and start thinking "charge" right away. But if LeBron goes crashing into the lane, they probably have to fight off a yawn. You are far more likely to see James get the benefit of a close call when he flies into the paint, and you will probably also see a lot more no-calls in those situations. They are just used to it. But a Vince Carter collision is like a Yeti sighting - so rare that there is no built-in reaction.
For another comparison, take Bruce Bowen and Quentin Ross. Bowen has been mauling offensive players for years, so nothing really jumps out at you. A forearm to the neck, two hands to the ribs, a foot slid under a shooter, two hands wrapped around a rolling screener, a leg whip ... we've seen it all before. But when Ross came into the league doing a lot of the same things, he was getting called for more fouls than anyone. The guy could barely stay on the court. The refs simply weren't used to it. Now Ross has been around for a while and I'm already noticing that he's getting away with more. A lot more. Part of it is no doubt based on "reputation" and I'm sure Ross has learned a few tricks, but the bigger factor seems to be that refs just get used to it and, in a way, become immune to certain conduct.
Which brings this back to the Spurs. Many have commented over the years on the benefit San Antonio enjoys from having Pop on the bench year after year. There is consistency, a sense of structure, and a collective memory in San Antonio that gives them a big advantage over other teams in the NBA. However, the long reign of Pop might have created another substantial, hard-to-prove, and often overlooked advantage: favorable officiating.
It seems entirely possible that the Spurs have worked to get to this point. That is, when Pop took over, I doubt they got the kind of calls and no-calls that they get now. But he insisted on a physical style of play and stuck with it. And over time, the refs became used to that style of play. They know - even if it isn't conscious knowledge - that every Spurs player is going to push and nudge and clutch and do a little flopping. And they've become so used to seeing it, so hardened and immune to it, so desensitized, that they just no longer recognize it for what it is. This is why I call it "systematic desensitization." Because it is a slow process that has taken place over time, possibly by design.
I can almost imagine Pop lording over a San Antonio practices back in the late 90's saying, "Listen, we're going to get called for a lot of fouls right now. But just stick with it, eventually they won't even notice it anymore."
Indeed, Pop's first full season on the bench (1997-98) saw the Spurs get called for 1,731 personal fouls. By the time Bruce Bowen had a "full" (2,000 minuets) season in San Antonio, that number was down to 1672 in 2002-03. This year, San Antonio got called for just 1,588 fouls. This, despite the fact that the league average for personal fouls has remained pretty constant (22.4 per game in 1997-98, 21.8 in 2002-03, and 22.3 this year). These are obviously rudimentary numbers, but they do tell a bit of a story; and one that seems to reinforce the idea that the Spurs have built a system that - over time - has created a certain immunity where personal fouls are concerned.
And that is how we reach the place we are at now. When the Spurs can literally commit dozens of fouls each night without getting the attention of the refs, the pundits, the fans, or even the opposition. Oh sure, many fans - especially opposing fans - get a sense that something is amiss, and there are probably a few players who shake their heads and wonder why it always seems like the Spurs are getting the calls, but for the most part, nobody seems to take mushc notice.
Well, this might be why. We are all just used to it. Immune. Desensitized.
And - Bruce Bowen aside - my conclusion is that this is far from cheating on the part of the Spurs or a conspiracy on the part of the NBA. It is sheer genius by Coach Pop. And you know what? San Antonio probably deserves it. When you find the best coach in the league and then keep him for the next decade, you have a right to enjoy these sorts of advantages. NBA seasons don't exist in a vacuum, but istead, string together over time. And keeping the same coach and players and style of play is bound to produce benefits. This appears to be one of them.
Okay, now I feel better about things.
http://arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=109506
This is the most paranoid conspiracy crap I've ever read.
--------
Breaking News: Spurs Get More Calls
Okay, the title was just to get your attention. I have proof of nothing and this is not news (and even if it was, it wouldn't be of the "breaking" variety). It is merely the long-promised post where I theorize the "why" part of this whole "The Spurs get all the calls" examination.
The other night I tried my best to objectively watch every single close call in Game Two, to see if San Antonio was really getting the benefit of the whistles. I admit this is conjecture and opinion and everything else you could use to assail the results, but the findings seemed to indicate that the Spurs enjoyed a sizable advantage when it came to the officiating. And this was on a night where the Suns actually got more breaks than a normal S.A. opponent and that featured a fourth quarter blowout that took the refs out of play. Many in the comments section and in emails have surmised that if the Spurs still enjoyed a healthy advantage in that game, it only proves how massive the edge is on a normal night.
That said, the little "study" I performed (and likely will never repeat due to the six hours it took to watch the game) doesn't really prove anything. All it does is reinforce something that many basketball fans already think: that San Antonio gets more calls than anyone. More to the point, that the Spurs are able to get away with more fouls than any other team in the NBA.
The "why" is of far more interest to me, because it seems almost impossible to explain. Why indeed? The Spurs don't have many likable players. There are stars on the roster, but not much star power in the traditional NBA sense. They are in a small market. They were involved in two NBA Finals this decade (2003 against New Jersey and 2005 against Detroit) that basically nobody watched.
If the Spurs are really getting all these calls (or all these no-calls), which it seems they are, then the explanation would have to be something along the lines of a conspiracy theory, right? The NBA has to "want" this. But as I just pointed out, there appears to be no reason at all why the NBA would want the Spurs to advance year after year, and certainly no reason to instruct its officials to make that happen, at the risk of a major scandal.
So if the league isn't mandating it, what other explanation could there be?
Ultimately, I've narrowed down a few possibilities to one thing and it was suggested the other day by my brother, Drew. He opined that the referees simply process San Antonio's actions differently than they do the actions of other teams. In other words, they've seen Bruce Bowen foul so many times, on so many plays, for so many years, that they just view a Bruce Bowen play differently at this point. Bruce Bowen shoving an offensive player or grabbing a guy's leg looks normal after all these years.
In a previous blog - while hinting at conclusion I would reach in this post - I used the phrase "systematic desensitization." I like it because it sounded good, but also because there might be some truth to it.
Think of television shows. When we watch 24 (or, I guess, when we used to watch 24), Jack Bauer can bit a guy's neck or shoot someone in the face or hang a terrorist with a big metal chain and we barely bat an eye. Spartan warriors can slice off the heads of Xerxes' Immortals and we are are impassive. Yet when Bear Grylls kneels down to chew on some raw zebra flesh during an episode of Man v. Wild, it is enough to cause us to recoil in horror. This is a result of desensitization. We see people get killed on TV all the time, but we don't often watch stranded men devouring the flanks of zebras. So the former is just background noise while the latter is jolting. I'm not bringing this up to blame entertainment for all of society's woes, or anything like that, merely pointing out that we can indeed become desensitized to seeing certain things.
And it seems to follow that the same thing could happen to NBA officials. They are used to Vince Carter avoiding contact at all cost, so when he puts his head down in the lane, they are jolted and start thinking "charge" right away. But if LeBron goes crashing into the lane, they probably have to fight off a yawn. You are far more likely to see James get the benefit of a close call when he flies into the paint, and you will probably also see a lot more no-calls in those situations. They are just used to it. But a Vince Carter collision is like a Yeti sighting - so rare that there is no built-in reaction.
For another comparison, take Bruce Bowen and Quentin Ross. Bowen has been mauling offensive players for years, so nothing really jumps out at you. A forearm to the neck, two hands to the ribs, a foot slid under a shooter, two hands wrapped around a rolling screener, a leg whip ... we've seen it all before. But when Ross came into the league doing a lot of the same things, he was getting called for more fouls than anyone. The guy could barely stay on the court. The refs simply weren't used to it. Now Ross has been around for a while and I'm already noticing that he's getting away with more. A lot more. Part of it is no doubt based on "reputation" and I'm sure Ross has learned a few tricks, but the bigger factor seems to be that refs just get used to it and, in a way, become immune to certain conduct.
Which brings this back to the Spurs. Many have commented over the years on the benefit San Antonio enjoys from having Pop on the bench year after year. There is consistency, a sense of structure, and a collective memory in San Antonio that gives them a big advantage over other teams in the NBA. However, the long reign of Pop might have created another substantial, hard-to-prove, and often overlooked advantage: favorable officiating.
It seems entirely possible that the Spurs have worked to get to this point. That is, when Pop took over, I doubt they got the kind of calls and no-calls that they get now. But he insisted on a physical style of play and stuck with it. And over time, the refs became used to that style of play. They know - even if it isn't conscious knowledge - that every Spurs player is going to push and nudge and clutch and do a little flopping. And they've become so used to seeing it, so hardened and immune to it, so desensitized, that they just no longer recognize it for what it is. This is why I call it "systematic desensitization." Because it is a slow process that has taken place over time, possibly by design.
I can almost imagine Pop lording over a San Antonio practices back in the late 90's saying, "Listen, we're going to get called for a lot of fouls right now. But just stick with it, eventually they won't even notice it anymore."
Indeed, Pop's first full season on the bench (1997-98) saw the Spurs get called for 1,731 personal fouls. By the time Bruce Bowen had a "full" (2,000 minuets) season in San Antonio, that number was down to 1672 in 2002-03. This year, San Antonio got called for just 1,588 fouls. This, despite the fact that the league average for personal fouls has remained pretty constant (22.4 per game in 1997-98, 21.8 in 2002-03, and 22.3 this year). These are obviously rudimentary numbers, but they do tell a bit of a story; and one that seems to reinforce the idea that the Spurs have built a system that - over time - has created a certain immunity where personal fouls are concerned.
And that is how we reach the place we are at now. When the Spurs can literally commit dozens of fouls each night without getting the attention of the refs, the pundits, the fans, or even the opposition. Oh sure, many fans - especially opposing fans - get a sense that something is amiss, and there are probably a few players who shake their heads and wonder why it always seems like the Spurs are getting the calls, but for the most part, nobody seems to take mushc notice.
Well, this might be why. We are all just used to it. Immune. Desensitized.
And - Bruce Bowen aside - my conclusion is that this is far from cheating on the part of the Spurs or a conspiracy on the part of the NBA. It is sheer genius by Coach Pop. And you know what? San Antonio probably deserves it. When you find the best coach in the league and then keep him for the next decade, you have a right to enjoy these sorts of advantages. NBA seasons don't exist in a vacuum, but istead, string together over time. And keeping the same coach and players and style of play is bound to produce benefits. This appears to be one of them.
Okay, now I feel better about things.