Kings: Game 6 - 2002 - Western Conference Finals

**YoungSuperTeam** · 12-14-2018

The Kings had more than enough chances. All those missed free throws and airballs in crunch time in game 7 cost them.

I've heard this take a lot over the years. It's shortsighted and lazy IMO.

When 2 teams are as equally matched as those 2 were, when one gets extra chances they don't deserve, eventually they will capitalize. Think USSR over USA in the 1972 Olympics. How many chances were the Soviets given to score on the final play? You could say that team USA also had more than enough chances to win in hindsight. But as things played out, they shouldn't have had to play that final possession and should have won regardless of other things they didn't do right.

If that Samaki Walker half court shot wasn't counted in GM4, the Kings would have been up 3 games to 1 and may have never had to play a game 7. Things surely would have played out differently with the Kings up 3-1, but suppose for a moment they were almost the same except that you give the Lakers the calls that went against them in Game 5 and the calls that went against the Kings in Game 6 --- the Kings win in 6. And nobody's talking about FT's or airballs.

The Lakers really only have Game 5 as an argument when the Kings have both Game 4 and Game 6. Much larger mountain to climb and overcome.

**therealtruth** · 12-14-2018

Originally Posted by YoungSuperTeam

I've heard this take a lot over the years. It's shortsighted and lazy IMO.

When 2 teams are as equally matched as those 2 were, when one gets extra chances they don't deserve, eventually they will capitalize. Think USSR over USA in the 1972 Olympics. How many chances were the Soviets given to score on the final play? You could say that team USA also had more than enough chances to win in hindsight. But as things played out, they shouldn't have had to play that final possession and should have won regardless of other things they didn't do right.

If that Samaki Walker half court shot wasn't counted in GM4, the Kings would have been up 3 games to 1 and may have never had to play a game 7. Things surely would have played out differently with the Kings up 3-1, but suppose for a moment they were almost the same except that you give the Lakers the calls that went against them in Game 5 and the calls that went against the Kings in Game 6 --- the Kings win in 6. And nobody's talking about FT's or airballs.

The Lakers really only have Game 5 as an argument when the Kings have both Game 4 and Game 6. Much larger mountain to climb and overcome.

Even game 4 was self-inflicted with Vlade passing the ball to Horry. He should have tried to tap the ball to a teammate or out of bounds.

**Killakobe81** · 12-14-2018

Originally Posted by phxspurfan

Says the fan of a team that hasn't been robbed of anything (at least in the last 30 years) and is about to be gifted even more players by the league (Ariza) so they can make more money off the LA market. And fans of LA can't be mad about getting robbed / reffed out of series against equally large markets (Boston, NYC etc) because everyone knows the NBA survives/thrives off making stars/champions in big markets. Even if it means other stars in other big markets suffer.

Like I said Lakers fans about 2004 2008 1984 etc big city or not... I don't. I have reffed (soccer) at a high level and Hoops on HS level... There are bad refs of course but conspiracy is bull vor why let Spurs get 5 "chips especially when the ty ratings started following?
SPURS win despite the conspiracy, right?
Get te out of here with that fake moon landing type bull

**Killakobe81** · 12-14-2018

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Bull . Stern got caught fixing Game 6; Celts won that series in 84 5-2 essentially. Stern then went on to fix it so that wouldn't happen again in 85 an 87.

That proves what?
I never said I agree just that fans whenever they feel cheated on even Laker fans.
Lakers were better team in 1984 but Celts played harder and had the best player so they won. I don't blame the refs