Do you think Game Six of the 2002 WCF was fixed?

[Muser]

It was nearly 8 years ago, let it go...

[FromWayDowntown]

It was fixed and in fact, EVERY SINGLE PLAYOFF GAME that the Spurs have lost since 2001 was directly attributable to David Stern's agenda and the influence that he exercises over the league's officials.



Um, what's that? They've won a lot more playoff games than they've lost while that agenda was in place? Huh? And they've won 4 championships? And played in 6 conference finals? Well, uh, just imagine what they could have done if only Stern hadn't been the puppet master pulling the strings. . . . Yeah, that's it.

[temujin]

I pretty much believe that the whole issue boils down to the distinction between those that think professional basketball is a sport, and those that think it's a business.

Just about any business can be fixed, given the proper conditions.

[will_spurs]

Um, what's that? They've won a lot more playoff games than they've lost while that agenda was in place? Huh? And they've won 4 championships? And played in 6 conference finals? Well, uh, just imagine what they could have done if only Stern hadn't been the puppet master pulling the strings. . . . Yeah, that's it.

You assume 2 things:
a) Stern doesn't want the Spurs to win
b) if Stern hasn't hampered the Spurs progress, then he hasn't hampered any other team's progress

Re: a), I'm not so sure. In every story you need a good guy, and that's the Spurs, kind of the cinderella story of the small market team, nice players, charity, dedication, hard work and so on. That's 50% of American values. On the other side the Lakers, all bling, riches, spoiled, flashy, big market "one size fits all" franchise with loaded with superstars who don't mind making the headlines for no reason. That's the other 50% of American values.

In short, there's no reason to screw with the Lakers or Spurs. The teams to screw with are Portland, Toronto, Sac-town and so on.

b) well, that's an obvious logical flaw. As I stated before, eyes and a functioning brain are the only 2 things required to realize that that game was fixed. In short, I'm happy to state that whoever believes Game 6 of the 2002 WCF wasn't fixed is either blind or dumb. Take your pick.

And we didn't have to wait for Donaghy to know that.

[hater]

not fixed. Influenced.


those who think the NBA is fixed, as in Stern chooses which team will win it. Are crazy conspiracy theorists.

on the other hand, those who think the NBA is not influenced at all, are delusional lemmings.

[Spurs Brazil]

Not fixed

[easjer]

not fixed. Influenced.


those who think the NBA is fixed, as in Stern chooses which team will win it. Are crazy conspiracy theorists.

on the other hand, those who think the NBA is not influenced at all, are delusional lemmings.

I think that may be one of the best, most logical outlines I've ever heard about NBA conspiracy theories.

[easjer]

It was fixed and in fact, EVERY SINGLE PLAYOFF GAME that the Spurs have lost since 2001 was directly attributable to David Stern's agenda and the influence that he exercises over the league's officials.



Um, what's that? They've won a lot more playoff games than they've lost while that agenda was in place? Huh? And they've won 4 championships? And played in 6 conference finals? Well, uh, just imagine what they could have done if only Stern hadn't been the puppet master pulling the strings. . . . Yeah, that's it.

The Spurs are the biggest flaw in the conspiracy theorists' arguments, being team players with a boring, defense-centered game, with superstars who are efficient but boring, and a small-market team to boot.

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which the Spurs could win 4 championships if things are fixed. Two or three? Actually, yeah, then you can have a conspiracy based argument that the Spurs were the perfect team to deflect su ion of game fixing.

However, I have a hard time with the fact that we (you and I) have in the past discussed in advance how certain games were likely to be affected because of the release of the referee schedules and we were right. We've known that certain referees influence the game, and that certain referees have officiated in favor of certain teams and/or players.

I really think Hater summed up it best - influenced, yes. Fixed, no.

But the reality is that the refs can influence a whole lot, but ultimately (in at least 95% of the cases) the players are the ones who either rise above and play so well that the calls have minimal impact or they allow themselves to be bothered by it and allow it to affect their game. And that can't be fixed unless the players are fixing it. Which is a whole other can of worms.

[dbestpro]

There was a time in the 70s where the game was played as a team and a foul was a foul. Money has changed all of that. When there is more money made in merchandising that in the actual game the corruption is inevitable. Even the international draw of the Spurs has made them a money franchise.

Yes, Sacramento got screwed, but so did the Seahawks against the Steelers. It;s like trying to read the same book and expecting a different ending. At least the Spurs get to win in some of the books. Imagine the King, Warriors, Pacer and worst yet Nugget, Mav or Sun fan. You really have to feel for these guys as they read the same book never to find themselves in that final chapter. But then they turn dirtbag and kind of get what they deserve.

[NFGIII]

I don't know if it was fixed but that game should go down as one of the worst officiated games ever. Bibby's foul on Kobe in particular. Some of the calls in favor of Shaq were mighty peculiar, too.

I don't know how this is going to play out but I feel this will not end well for the NBA.

[FromWayDowntown]

You assume 2 things:
a) Stern doesn't want the Spurs to win
b) if Stern hasn't hampered the Spurs progress, then he hasn't hampered any other team's progress

Re: a), I'm not so sure. In every story you need a good guy, and that's the Spurs, kind of the cinderella story of the small market team, nice players, charity, dedication, hard work and so on. That's 50% of American values. On the other side the Lakers, all bling, riches, spoiled, flashy, big market "one size fits all" franchise with loaded with superstars who don't mind making the headlines for no reason. That's the other 50% of American values.

Ask a fan of just about any NBA team other than the San Antonio Spurs whether the Spurs are perceived as "good guys" and I'm pretty sure you'll get a resounding "no." While the Spurs might be objectively nice people and good guys who engender a significant amount of respect, they've been the men in the black hats in the NBA story for a long time -- at least in terms of perception. Bruce Bowen has been called a billion different negative names by fans of opposing teams and journalists; Manu Ginobili may be more vilified, but in less colorful terms. Tony Parker and Tim Duncan have earned respect, but are routinely castigated for things that they do on court that are unrelated to their actual skills as basketball players.

To be sure, I agree with you that the Spurs are the good guys -- I think much of the blowback they get is rooted in the fact that they've been exceedingly successful for an extremely long period of time while repeatedly vanquishing team after team over that span. Through this run, the Spurs have (I think) two legitimate "rivals" -- the Lakers and Mavericks. Everyone else hates the Spurs because the Spurs seem to always beat them.

That truth may, as much as anything, be manifest by the fact that the Spurs have proven to be ratings Kryptonite -- even Lebron James couldn't bring ratings to a Finals involving the Spurs. If the league's motivation in rigging games is to drive viewers to create revenue, it's done an extremely poor job in executing that motive by not doing more to keep the interest-sapping Spurs out of the Finals.

b) well, that's an obvious logical flaw. As I stated before, eyes and a functioning brain are the only 2 things required to realize that that game was fixed. In short, I'm happy to state that whoever believes Game 6 of the 2002 WCF wasn't fixed is either blind or dumb. Take your pick.

And we didn't have to wait for Donaghy to know that.

Oh, I'm not at all saying that Stern has only hampered the Spurs progress. In fact, I'm saying that Stern hasn't hampered any team's progress. Certainly, Kings fans believe that they had the better team in 2002 -- and maybe they did -- but to me, the Kings cost themselves that series when they didn't corral the rebound that led to Horry's game-winner. Gather in that one rebound, and the game is over; of course, they didn't and that was a pattern in that series, as the Lakers outrebounded the Kings in 5 of the 7 games, and usually by a handy margin. They cost themselves that series when they shot like garbage for parts of Game 7, including going 16-30 from the stripe in that game.

I don't think Game 6 was "fixed," and whether that makes me blind or dumb is something I'll leave to you to decide. What I do know is that regardless of what anyone thinks about the officiating in Game 6, the Kings could have closed out the series in 5 if they had just corralled that one more rebound and they would have won the series in 7 if they had maintained their poise in Game 7 and shot better from the line. Either way, what kept the Kings out of the Finals that year wasn't the officiating -- it was the Kings' failure to execute at key moments and the Lakers' execution in those key moments. Neither of those things have anything to do with the officials.

[FromWayDowntown]

However, I have a hard time with the fact that we (you and I) have in the past discussed in advance how certain games were likely to be affected because of the release of the referee schedules and we were right. We've known that certain referees influence the game, and that certain referees have officiated in favor of certain teams and/or players.

I'm not sure that I've ever really gone that far. I think my point has always been that officials are idiosyncratic and that if you watch them closely, you can pick up on the way that they do things. Some officials call games that tend to be more favorable to certain teams, but I don't think that's a team-specific agenda at play. Dan Crawford, for years and years, allowed teams to just play in the playoffs and that style definitely favored more rugged teams than those that relied on getting to the line a lot. Steve Javie is clearly unconcerned with pissing off home crowds and, therefore, tends to give the road team a more even game than it might usually expect in a big game. Joey Crawford is a technically brilliant official whose play calling is exceptional, but he's a hot head who can allow his greatness to be shadowed by his emotions. There are other examples, but all of them are fairly well-known.

There are also a bunch of officials who seem to get overwhelmed by a big moment, who get intimidated by home crowds, who will try to atone for blowing a call by blowing a different call, who will get pissed at coaches who complain and blow the whistle according to that, and some who just aren't very good. All of those things are idiosyncratic and not (I think) driven by any particular agenda.

Then there is a group of officials who are just plain good at what they do. Their calls are almost always correct, their personalities stay out of the game, they aren't swayed by the crowd, they don't try to get into make-up calls and all of that.

Finally, I also think some officials tend to call games in a manner to manipulate the score to try to create an exciting finish (Bavetta).

Do those things affect the way a game is called? Sure. Are they the consequence of some broad agenda to favor particular teams over others? I don't see that -- these categories are far too consistent, over a variety of games involving a variety of teams, to evidence any sort of overt team-based favoritism.

I really think Hater summed up it best - influenced, yes. Fixed, no.

I think officiating will always influence games, but again, I don't think there's a particular agenda for or against any particular teams, cities, or players that universally drives that influence. And that's my ultimate problem with the complaints that underlie threads like this one.

But the reality is that the refs can influence a whole lot, but ultimately (in at least 95% of the cases) the players are the ones who either rise above and play so well that the calls have minimal impact or they allow themselves to be bothered by it and allow it to affect their game. And that can't be fixed unless the players are fixing it. Which is a whole other can of worms.

At bottom, I firmly believe that the players decide every single game; no matter how the officials are blowing their whistles, a team can win any game if it takes care of its business by rebounding the basketball, runs its offense efficiently, and remains poised no matter what the whistles might be.

[easjer]

I think that is a totally fair summation, and I don't think we disagree on much.

Do those things affect the way a game is called? Sure. Are they the consequence of some broad agenda to favor particular teams over others? I don't see that -- these categories are far too consistent, over a variety of games involving a variety of teams, to evidence any sort of overt team-based favoritism.

I tend to agree with you that there is not really a broad agenda that can be determined via watching officials; but I maintain that when you can predict certain outcomes or behaviors by officials, there is something wrong and an element introduced to the game which ought not be there if you don't want to fan the flames.

You point out certain instances of behaviors, some fair (Javie, Dan Crawford) and some that pose problems or potential issues of unfairness (Bavetta, Joey Crawford, your second paragraph). If the NBA wants to keep things on the up and up - those refs should no longer be employed, and certainly not during potentially pivotal games.

I am one of the people who will jump on officiating after a game if there it was egregiously bad, win or lose. I about refs. I generally state what we clearly agree on though - that ultimately, it's the players that determine the outcome (and obviously - the players are the ones shooting/rebounding/passing, etc) in most cases. But there are times (eh, 5% was probably too high, granted) that the officials have the opportunity to disrupt the game by interfering with the flow, by not calling the game evenly on both sides, by awarding fouls in such a way that a key player is taken out. To some extent, the players/team are responsible for adjusting to the calls on a given night, but there are instances (uh, Duncan being thrown out for laughing pops to mind - and the ref was disciplined for that, as if it could change the outcome of the game after the fact) where refs do influence or affect the game beyond their bounds.

And while the NBA continues to allow that, continues to allow those officials to remain on the payroll, there are going to continue to be questions about the legitimacy of the game.

[temujin]

The Spurs are NOT the good guys, by any means.
Good guys never win it all in real life.

Without the links of Popovich, in particular with Mr Stern, the Spurs would have been EXACTLY where they were in the 70s and early 80s and in the DR era.

Cheerfull folks invited to the party, but not really in the inner circle of "friends" celebrating more seriously at the end of it.

[21_Blessings]

It was fixed as much as games 2 and 5 were in the 2002 WCF.

Ultimately the refs did not make Webber choke in game 7. He was born a choker.

[21_Blessings]

And LMAO @ people thinking Donaghy has credibility here.

Let's ignore the FACT that Donaghy BET ON GAMES HE OFFICIATED. HE OFFICIATED the 2007 Spurs/Suns series and made some blatantly terrible calls. hmmmm

[jag]

So many people in this forum live in a fantasy world.

[quentin_compson]

The officiating in that game was a joke, to put it that way.

I really really liked the Kings back then, still we shouldn't forget that they made a lot of costly mistakes in game 7 (missing a ton of free throws, for one).

I'm with Pop who once said that in a best of 7 series, the better team always wins.

[Baseline]

Yes it was slanted towards LA. Anyone who watched it knew it INSTANTLY.

More importantly, I would similarly state the 2006 semifinals between San Antonio and Dallas was poorly officiated in favor of the Mavericks. The NBA did not want a Spurs-Pistons rematch.

Totally agree.

I've estated this numerous times about the 2006 playoff series with the Mavs. Cuban had been whistle-blowing all season long, and his influence had the refs running scared in that series. Not that Stern disagreed with the Spurs losing, either. It may be the one time Stern has agreed with Cuban.

Tim was hacked on the wrist on the final play of regulation in Game 7. This was right under the basket with about 2 seconds remaining and the score tied. The foul wasn't called (refs swallowed their whistles), the game went into OT, and we lost.

Does anybody have a video of that play? Either Diop or Dirk fouled Duncan. It seems like Dirk admitted it after the game.

So for all the people who say "the better team wins in a 7-game series"? Well, that depends on how the refs call key plays in the games. In the Game 7 mentioned above, if the right call is made, the Spurs advance...and most likely pummel the Miami Heat in the Finals.

To me, that 2006 Game 7 is one of the most overlooked (and blatantly obvious) ref mistakes in NBA history.

[Allanon]

not fixed. Influenced.


those who think the NBA is fixed, as in Stern chooses which team will win it. Are crazy conspiracy theorists.

I agree.

on the other hand, those who think the NBA is not influenced at all, are delusional lemmings.

I sort of agree with this depending on your meaning of influenced.

A) Superstar calls - yes
B) Giving in to the crowd - yes
C) "I'm not sure about this call, I'll give the down team this call" - yes
D) Bibby ed me out, Kobe's been cool, I'll give Bibby the foul - yes
E) I don't like Sheed dissin' me, I'm gonna give him a tech - yes
F) Ron Artest has a reputation for holding, I'll give him that foul though I'm not 100% sure - yes
G) Makeup calls - yes

Refs are human, they're definitely influenced by time, place and score. But this is to be expected.

But to say they're ALL (or mostly) corrupt or puppeted by Stern is nuts.

[JustinJDW]

It wasn't "fixed", just influenced.

People use the words fixed too much. Fixed means that the Kings purposely lose the game. That's not what happened. The Kings weren't throwing the game. The officiating was just purposely influenced to help the Lakers. "Rigged" is a better term.

Fixed isn't the right word.

[exstatic]

I think the more important question is will a pissed off ref corps be the bag men for Stern anymore?

[exstatic]

Hopefully the old ones don't come back and we never find out

Not keeping up, are we? The refs are back.

[dbestpro]

It wasn't "fixed", just influenced.

People use the words fixed too much. Fixed means that the Kings purposely lose the game. That's not what happened. The Kings weren't throwing the game. The officiating was just purposely influenced to help the Lakers. "Rigged" is a better term.

Fixed isn't the right word.

The plastic surgeon said he didn't fix your face, he only influenced it.

[SA210]

Of course it was, and so were many games against us.