Was the company conducting the independent review Investigated completely to ensure no ties to the NBA or other factors that would skew results? I remember that game and it's impossible to get anywhere near even missed calls even if you are very loosely interpreting the league rules. I don't know if it's blatant cheating but something isn't right.
The NBA should all along have been employing the Sam Rothstein philosophy with regards to officials who continuously call skewed games - "either you're in on a scam or you're too stupid to know the difference. Either way we can't trust you"
I don't think there is a blatant conspiracy or outright criminal conduct by anyone with the NBA. Instead I think the league knows and the refs know where the money is and whether consciously or subconsciously they show bias like superstar treatment, etc. It's still manipulation and a hurdle to overcome no matter what, but the question to me is if it's a conscious decision or a subconscious one.
Why not? Why should that be just another part of the game? It's a very unprofessional and poor performance by the refs at best and borderline cheating at worst. Would your boss consider you messing things up and working in an unprofessional manner because of your ego and personal bias "just a part of the job?" if so let me know so I can work for that person and be a whenever I feel bad.
parkers face was funnierI didn't know about Jack Nies and Duncan, I must have missed that.
I just laugh every time I think back to Tim with that dumbfounded look (y'know his normal look) when he got a T for laughing on the bench. That was too funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGeNWwBN5bQ
I don't need a simple analogy about my job and work performance to understand the message you're trying to convey.
My response was directed at those who believe that the refs are being asked by the NBA to manipulate the outcomes of games. If you, or anyone else, is convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the NBA is doing this then there's no reason to question the intentions of referees. Accept it as part of the game.
I think you did need the analogy because you still don't understand. What part of what I've posted would make you think I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt the NBA is asking refs to manipulate games? As I posted previously I don't think the NBA is "asking" because that would be criminal act. I believe the NBA is not taking action to ensure there is no "superstar treatment" or other biases that effect games. I don't know the reason why they haven't taken steps. Is it because those activities by refs benefits the league by letting stars be even bigger stars? Maybe. Is it because the league is subtley, without explicitly saying, directing refs to call games this way to the benefit of the league at the expense of fair play and sportsmanship? Maybe. There is a 500 lbs fat lady sized shadow of a doubt because we don't know why they aren't correcting those biases that I think we all can agree do exist.
you know what i think news broke out to the refs about the investigation last night and they finally just called an even game!! lakers are so used to having the refs on their side its ridiculous!!! do you guys remember when they got the replacement refs who was the first one complaining about it publicly? derek fisher why? its all an even slate at that point and they rely on those calls day in and day out!! duncanownskobe phoenix fan, dont give me that crap that we had handed to us!!! the guy said he liked the spurs community and believe me i watched every second of that game and u could have swaped stoudamire for jordan in that series i mean it was ridiculous, i honestly think it was fair game with all the fouls the spurs were called for. if we got things handed to us just look at some videos from any of our playoff appearances!!! i encourage you to prove me wrong on this, san antonio has been ed so many times its ridiculous
i do believe however that this year is going to be totally fair because of the investigations going on, and im excited as because of it. now if your not excited that this stuff has come out, (laker,boston,cleveland) you know your team has been getting special treatment!! by all means investigate the spurs please i've watched the spurs my whole life we have always had to play so good the refs couldnt even beat us!! believe me they were never on our side. sure.. they want lil ol san antonio to win? give me a break remember were the most boring team in the nba!!
Too many people expect these guys to show up at their job and be error-free. Human error will always be a part of being a NBA ref.
What action do you propose should be taken to ensure that there is no superstar treatment? Certain players earn certain respect for what they have done over the course of their careers. That's how the NBA has always been. It's not in a memo that the League office passes around every season, it's just the way things are. Larry Bird was given calls that JJ Re doesn't get...and i think that's how it SHOULD be. Tim gets aways with things that Mark Madsen could never get away with, and i think he has earned that.
Referees are human beings with varying emotions, judgement and personal biases. I'm sure they do their best to suppress certain emotions and feelings for the sake of their job, because like most everyone, they want to be perceived as competent in their profession. I'm not exactly sure what "steps" could be taken to "correct" these biases and emotions, because they will always exist.
Punishing referees for ridiculous behavior is something the NBA already does (see Joey Crawford). And i just don't think it's practical to start punishing refs per bad call. Referees don't have the benefit of slow motion...they are making split-second decisions in front of thousands of screaming fans while the best athletes in the world are moving at top speed right in front of them.
Bad calls happen in every game, and to every team. Superstars get calls that scrubs do not get. That's just how the game is, and that's how it's always been.
The best teams win.
The Spurs-Suns series was not a conspiracy allegation, it was a lone nut with a grudge.
Well, this is ironic, isn't it?
I've been saying for seemingly years without number that the NBA was rigged beyond all rigging. That as much I love the Spurs, Duncan's les were an allowance by the NBA, just something to deflect attention. I remember when I posted just that on Spurs Talk, how many I was referred to as a "conspiracy theorist" and whatever else.
I tell you, where's there's smoke, there's fire. And ALL evil that is done in darkness shall be brought out into the light.
makes you wonder how many nba les david would have had if the nba wasn't rigged against us.
The spurs only started to win championships when the hispanic market became something companies targeted.
Last edited by clubalien; 10-31-2009 at 11:47 PM.
In the real world, large-scale manipulations in various fields do occur. Why would we assume that the most successful and powerful people would not exercise control if they have the means to do so? Do we really think that highly-connected politicians don't economically benefit from their connections, that companies with monopolistic power don't use it?
If the NBA could significantly increase its profits by giving amorphous, deniable, "understood" direction to their refs, it would be tempting. If it could be done with little risk, we would then be relying on the honor system to prevent it. It seems similar to me to how insurance companies work their claims in systematic attempts to deny coverage (a process which is by nature more do ented; thus they sometimes get caught).
D's allegations may be tainted by his background, but allowing for a bit of hyperbole, they are no less plausible. Think about it: what credible person could blow a whistle on such a "conspiracy"? Witnessing it would mean being part of it, being part of it would mean being tainted.
(BTW, OV, I'm not targeting you with this post, but it's also in response to the thread so far)
BAVETTA STATS IN BUCKS GAMES SINCE 1991-92
by SCassell19 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:52 pm
I have records going back to the 1991-92 season of every Bucks game (except 2 I cant find boxscores from) played with the final score, free throws, fouls called ect. I have records of who reffed each game as well. Since all this broke on Bavetta, and since Ive always thought he was the main game fixer in the NBA, I took a look at his records and stats when he reffed Bucks games. Some of it is interesting.
Record by year (Playoffs included):
91-92: 1-5
92-93: 3-2
93-94: 1-5
94-95: 3-3
95-96: 1-2
96-97: 0-2
97-98: 2-1
98-99: 1-2
99-00: 3-6
00-01: 0-7
01-02: 1-5
02-03: 3-2
03-04: 1-5
04-05: 1-5
05-06: 0-1
06-07: 2-2
07-08: 1-1
Overall: 24-56
Playoffs: 1-5
Notice how Bavetta's "worst" year was also the Bucks best percentage wise. The Bucks had a 16 game losing streak in games reffed by Bavetta. This happened from 2000-2002 (playoffs included). Keep in mind what the Bucks record was during that time (especially in 2000-01). Its not like that was a 16 game losing streak when the Bucks were horrible.
The Bucks are 31-48-1 against the spread in games reffed by Bavetta.
The Bucks are 13-20 Straight Up when they are favored in a Bavetta reffed game.
12-29 Overall on the road
12-27 Overall at home.
I wanted to know what the Bucks record was when they were the better team (record wise). The records I used for this research were the records for both teams at the end of the regular season. So if the Bucks finish 42-40 and played an opponent that was 39-43 at the end of the year...the Bucks were the "better team" even though its possible the other team had the better record at the time the game was played.
The Bucks are 11-19 when they are the "better team"
The Bucks are 4-8 when they are the "better team" and at home.
The Bucks are 9-27 when they are .500 or better at the end of that season.
The Bucks are 14-18 when their opponent is below .500 at the end of the season.
The Bucks are 10-38 when the opponent is .500 or better at the end of the year.
The Bucks are 11-26 in games decided by 6 or less
The Bucks are 6-13 in games decided by 7-10
The Bucks are 4-4 in games decided by 20+
In the 80 games the Bucks were outscored by 307 total points (3.84 per game). The Opponents shot 319 (3.99 per game) more free throws than the Bucks in those same 80 games.
48 times the opponent shot more free throws than the Bucks
23 times the Bucks shot more free throws than the opponent.
9 times it was equal.
24 times the opponent shot 10+ more free throws than the Bucks
8 times the Bucks shot 10+ more free throws than the opp.
21 times the opponent shot 60%+ of the total free throws shot in the game.
6 times the Bucks shot 60%+ of the total free throws in the game.
I also looked at games where the free throw differantial was greater than or equal to the point differential in the game. So if the Bucks shot 15 fewer free throws in a game and lost by 10 then it would qualify. I call these "fishy" games. Another rule is that the free throw differential must be 10 or more. So if the Bucks lose by 1 and the opponent shoots 1 more free throw...this doesnt count as a fishy game. They would have had to at least been outshot by 10 at the line for that to count.
There were a total of 20 "fishy" games. 16 were in favor of the opponent. 4 in favor of the Bucks.
The 3 refs in the infamous Sac-LAL game were Bavetta, Ted Bernhardt and Bob Delaney. Two of these guys were called "company men" by Donaghy...always doing things in the NBA's interest. It was obvious that it was in the NBAs interest to have the Lakers advance and send the Kings home.
Was it in the NBA's interest to keep the Bucks out of the 2001 Finals and have the 76ers in it? The key game in that series was game 4. The Bucks were up 2-1 at home and a 3-1 lead would have been very commanding. Bavetta and Ted Bernhardt also reffed that game. Philadelphia shot twice as many free throws as the Bucks in that game. Im just saying...
So to recap...
16 game losing streak when Bavetta refs (just happens to be during the best few years in this 17 year study.
Bucks win 30% of the games Bavetta refs.
Bucks shoot more free throws only 28.8% of the time
Bucks only win 37% of the time when they are the "better" team.
Bucks only win 30.7% of the time AT HOME.
Bucks are 9-27 .250 when they are .500 or better at the end of that season.
In games where one team shoots 10+ more free throws, it is the Bucks opponent that shoots those extra ones 75% of the time.
When there is a "fishy" game (as described above) it is the opponent who is the benefit 80% of the time.
When one team shoots 60% or more of the total free throws it it the opponent that benefits 78% of the time.
Im not saying the word "fix", but perhaps theres too many people that have blinders on that need to take them off.
Any feedback? Any other refs I should research?
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtop...?f=21&t=814760
flashback - for those who have not seen:
Nba Fixed
http://www.video4viet.com/watchvideo...itle=Nba+Fixed
VIDEO
Kings vs. Lakers, 2002 WCF Game 6, Part 3 of 3
http://www.gazotube.com/b0KJvlSUB-w.html
I don't have blinders on, but at the same time------------ so many games come down to one team MAKING A SHOT, or not making a shot. And I don't see how the refs control that. In a 7 game series, the better team will win, even if one game is influenced one way or the other.
\ i find Donaghy's accusations to be pretty vague and cir stantial for a "tell all book."
I do think Stern should be ousted and the NBA should take serious steps to assure fans that the refs are above influence.
Ask Mavericks fans about the Mavs' record in playoff games officiated by Dan Crawford.
Go look at the Spurs' record in playoff games officiated by Ed Rush.
Curiously, neither of those guys has been implicated in any conspiratorial conduct.
To me the worst ever was the laker comeback against portland during their first championship of the 3-peat. No way in they comeback without help. It could be fixed or maybe they just suck. I also never understood why old men were the ones who had to chase the finest athletes in the world and make good calls.
Not many sports have a foul system where the referee can give a team a lot of opportunities to score points or conversely take away scored points by the other team. If the difference comes down to a shot or two it can be very crucial to see that the favored team gets those shots.
Also, you can take away one team's star(s) with fouls and in a game like pro basketball that is almost always decisive.
So let me get this straight guys.
1. How many of the last 4 Spurs Championships were given through the cheat?
2. How many of the last 4 Lakers Championships were given through the cheat?
human error is one thing, but a 50+ yr history of favoring superstars just to keep them on the court is a history of unethical behavior. Basketball has rules, and a foul on the worst player in the NBA should be the same as a foul on Kobe. It's why the NBA is seen as kind of a joke among the major US sports behind both Nfl and MLb
I'll answer this question for other people that might read this thread, as I'm sure you won't pay attention to my answer, nor do I really think that you actually believe the stupid you say.
Donaghy didn't say anything to anyone until he got caught. He only said what he said as part of a plea agreement, which was to save his own ass. He's only saying what he's saying now because he wants to make money off a book, capitalizing on the only fifteen minutes he's ever likely to have.
Why is his character in question? Because the number on his federal prison uniform says so.
Donaghy was in on it. Of course he isn't going to say anything until after hes busted.
I do not understand why it so hard to believe when its pretty much a given that the rules are changed to suit certain players. If they do that then why wouldn't they extend that out a bit if that also suits their marketing needs?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
