Lakers cap comeback in 'amazing game 7'

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Slackker

Instead of actually debating the aspects of conspiracy.. I'll just go with "This is why people should do a little research before spouting off conspiracy theories."



They didn't. They made the playoffs in four of the previous seven years, and the Super Bowl in 1996. Only five years prior. Their only year under .500 between that Super Bowl appearance and the one after the 2001 season was the first year Belichek took over - and cleaned out what Pete Carroll left behind. Eight of their 11 losses that season were by 8 points (one score) or less. That team wasn't nearly as bad as their record would tell you. The next year they won six more games, their luck swinging a bit the other way. They won seven of 11 by less than 8 points. So really, it's not a huge logical jump to say it's completely legitimate. It isn't as if they suddenly started blowing out every single team by 30.



I think a lot of it has to do with a guy by the name of Drew Brees who showed up in 2006 and took them to the playoffs. Why wouldn't they just put them in the Super Bowl that year, rather than waiting until 2009, and letting them languish around .500 (due to a terrible defense) for the two years in the middle?

It's funny you claim these teams were horrible before these events. Both found their franchise QB for the next decade, and in one case.. the team wasn't even close to being bad prior to their Super Bowl win.

I may have gone overboard with laughingstocks. I was in a hurry and i was probably thinking of the early 90's. Still the Pats never seemed to put it altogether till after 9/11. I think they were still learning to win consistently since it was belchieck's team now. But i think they may have got more crucial or critical calls to go their way. Once a team starts winning it may start believing in itself more. I mean i think the Pats may have made the playoffs but a couple of seasons but i think 2001 did a lot to boost their confidence.

It may be just the way it happened but it just seems strange. But then again the Rams won in 99.
Ill accept the it just happened theory for now, though it just seemed strange to me but if a hurricane hits New York and the New York Knicks win it all without Lebron James or Dewayne Wade theres no way you guys can tell me that aint a conspiracy.

[f.montoya]

Joining the discussion late but I've read all the previous posts up to this point and I have to say I'm scratching my head a bit. Is it really being postulated by a few here that the NBA pre-determines who they want to win games, especially in the post-season? If this is so, can those who are postulating as such please explain the following...

1. Over the years, the NBA has been increasing it's use of instant replay by the officials. Wouldn't that sort of transparency undermine their yearly agenda?
2. It seems to me that over the past 10 years or so, several of the headlining NBA Finals matchups were less than attractive from a ratings standpoint. LA Lakers aside(since we already know how you feel about them), what was the agenda behind these matchups(the key word is matchup)?

1999 San Antonio Spurs vs. (8th seeded)NY Knicks - *yawn*
2000 LA Lakers vs. Indiana Pacers - Old man Reggie Miller and Rik Smits was the best they could come up with for Shaq's first finals appearance with Kobe and PJ?
2001 LA Lakers vs. Philadelphia 76'ers - Marginal media interest in A.I. at best.
2002 LA Lakers vs. New Jersey Nets - *another yawn*
2003 San Antonio Spurs vs. New Jersey Nets - Boy I'll bet this kept them awake in China!!
2004 LA Lakers vs. Detroit Pistons - Reasonable hype given Karl Malone and Gary Payton joined the Lakers for this. But the Pistons won. Why?
2005 San Antonio Spurs vs. Detroit Pistons - Wouldn't Suns/Heat have been better for ratings?
2007 San Antonio Spurs vs. Cleveland Cavaliers - LeBron's first and only Finals appearance and he lost to the boring San Antonio Spurs. Why?
2009 LA Lakers vs. Orlando Magic - Why Orlando? The Celtics were still good, even with KG nursing injuries so why not a rematch from '08? Would have been better for tv ratings, don't you think?

I happen to think that NBA officiating is not only extremely difficult because of all the fast moving play and high frequency of contact in a relatively small area, but it also one of the least understood. Here are a few points I think are misunderstood...

1. Did you know that there are several types of defenses employed by NBA teams and their coaching staffs and that some of them are very prone to having personal fouls called against them. The early '90's Knicks are prototypical of a team that was willing to give up fouls in order to establish it's own pace for the game. The '08-'10 Celtics, the old '88-'91 Pistons and the Spurs this past decade use similar tactics. Those are the teams media refers to as tough. Others, who don't like their style call them dirty. The fact is they are willing to take the trade-off of having fouls called if it contributes to their success. There are teams that employ a switching type of zone defense and they are often prone to 3 second vioations(recent Lakers' teams and all of Phil Jackson's Bulls). I could go on but the point is that there are many types of defensive schemes and philosophies employed by NBA teams and it is not reasonable to fault the officials for an uneven count of personal fouls at the end of an NBA game.

2. Did you know that post-game, the officials review their calls, with comments on each call or no call, in the locker room and have to submit their game report to the league? We all know they make mistakes but they are very aware of it as well and it affects their job more than the public knows.

3. Copied from an article by David Aldridge...

Despite the increased scrutiny and training, many still think that the NBA seeks a given outcome.


- So, how do you explain Knicks-Heat in 1997 and Spurs-Suns a decade later? The league, in 1997, suspended five Knicks players, including three starters -- Patrick Ewing, Allan Houston and Larry Johnson -- after a fight between New York's Charlie Ward and Miami's P.J. Brown in the final seconds of Game 5 of the Eastern Conference semifinals -- a game won by Miami but one that left the Knicks up 3-2 in the series. Ward, Houston and Ewing, the team's All-Star center, were suspended for Game 6; Johnson and Starks had to sit out Game 7. (Brown got two games from the league.) Ewing, who had been on the bench when the fight began, stood at midcourt, nowhere near the fight. Johnson tried to stop the fight. And yet, they were both sent home -- Ewing for Game 6, Johnson for Game 7.
With the Knicks' bench in tatters, Miami won both games and the series.
New York was 57-25 that season and a legitimate title contender. A Knicks' victory would have set up a New York-Chicago conference final, a ratings dream between storied rivals, in the No. 1 and No. 3 markets in the country. The league destroyed that potential matchup with one ruling from Rod Thorn, then the league's vice president of operations. It followed the letter of its law, right or wrong.
The next day, "I had 350 voice mails," recalled Thorn, now the president of the Nets, and he knew it was 350 because his answering machine cut off. "Three hundred forty-two of them were negative, and around 10 of them I had to give to Horace Balmer (then the league's director of security). You know, 'I know where you live, and I will shoot you' ... People were enraged."


- In 2007, the NBA suspended Phoenix Suns Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw one game each for coming off the bench during an altercation between the Spurs' Robert Horry and the Suns' Steve Nash in the waning seconds of Phoenix's Game 4 victory in the Western Conference semis that tied the series at 2-2. In doing so, the league severely hurt the NBA's most exciting, fan-friendly team.
Fans loved the Suns' fast-break style and their telegenic stars, including Nash, the two-time league MVP. Phoenix is a much larger media market than San Antonio -- 12th highest in the country, compared to San Antonio's 37th-highest, according to Nielsen numbers for 2007-08. (Indeed, among NBA media markets, only Memphis, 47th in the United States, and New Orleans, 53rd, are smaller than San Antonio).
The Spurs, as I've explained before, are ratings killers, having participated in three of the four lowest-rated Finals in history. Their superstar, Tim Duncan, says next to nothing to the media and doesn't have annual postseason ad campaigns from the shoe companies that could potentially boost his Q ratings.
Horry got a two-game suspension for pushing Nash and then shoving Phoenix guard Raja Bell, but that was a trade the Spurs would take every time. San Antonio went on to win the pivotal Game 5 over the Stoudemire/Diaw-less Suns, and took the series. Phoenix fans, players and team officials howled at what they believed was biased treatment in San Antonio's favor -- and they've never really moved past it. That was Phoenix's last, best chance to win a championship.
This wasn't a bang-bang call by a referee. This was the NBA deliberately stepping in, knowing it was going to change the tenor of the series, and doing harm to the aspirations of the league's most popular team. Surely, if the league was attempting to nudge the more popular Suns toward the Finals, and a date with LeBron's Cavs, it would have overlooked Stoudemire's size 17s taking a few non-threatening steps toward the fray. It would have made up some explanation that would have kept Phoenix's dominant forward on the court for Game 5 -- the winner of which, when an NBA series is tied 2-2, goes on to win that series 83 percent of the time. But it didn't. It made a very, very unpopular call that led to near-overwhelming criticism from local and national media.

EDIT: I think reading the Referee Guide might provide some insight of the officials, the nature of calling fouls and the overall job of a referee in the NBA.

[TheRaven]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

I never said that they thought the league is fixed, but that it's predictable. I think it's fixed. And if thinking so means I know nothing about basketball, well... yeah.

I never said they, or you, doesn't know something about the sport. I did say if anyone thinks it is fixed, then you don't know what you are talking about (in regards to it being fixed). Where is the proof? If you make an accusations, at least have the decency to be able to back them up.

[TheRaven]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

The NFL doing it on purpose was never my point or even what i said. I said the Pats probably got more sympathetic calls regardless of whether the ref was doing it on purpose or not.

As for the name um PATRIOTS. Sorry but you lost me at how any other team could come across as being more patriotic than a team named after the american patriots.

You are putting far too much stock into a team's nickname. Your assertion that the Patriots only became good was because of the sympathetic calls they received is simply not true.

[Splitter24]

But if nicknames matter, wouldn't Dallas have gotten all the breaks? I mean, they're called "America's Team", right?

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by TheRaven

I never said they, or you, doesn't know something about the sport. I did say if anyone thinks it is fixed, then you don't know what you are talking about (in regards to it being fixed). Where is the proof? If you make an accusations, at least have the decency to be able to back them up.

I never said 'Oh, the NBA is definitely fixed, I'm definitely right and everyone else is wrong'. I just said that I THINK it's fixed, and therefor I need no proof.

[TheRaven]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

I never said 'Oh, the NBA is definitely fixed, I'm definitely right and everyone else is wrong'. I just said that I THINK it's fixed, and therefor I need no proof.

Okay, fair enough. I just thought you could share the information that enlightened you to come to the conclusion you have.