2016 NBA Season

[rah]

Ben's just butthurt that he predicted a short series and then crowed about it when it looked like it was going to happen.
He has problems admitting that he was wrong twice. So he has to make excuses.
But we expect no less from someone with as little class as he usually shows.

[Drizzy Drake]

Ben made a rookie mistake if he predicted a short series. It's been almost a decade since Tim Donaghy proved the NBA is rigged, so no one should be surprised when poor officiating and suspension decisions help the losing team push a series to the full seven games.

[rah]

Not only did he predict a short series, he reminded everyone that he did when they got up 3-1, doubling down on his error.

And no, I don't believe the NBA is rigged. If it was, the Bulls would have gotten the #1 pick this year.

[Aeson]

Look at the distribution of number of games per finals. Only 4 of the last 20 finals have gone 7 games. This series had the most blowouts by the largest margins, so if it could be dictated to be a 7 game series by the officials any closer series would be even easier to push to 7 games. But there's plenty of 4-2, 4-1, or 4-0 series as well.

Also in this series note that the game 7 winner wasn't decided by calls. Both teams seized up offensively and just missed shots down the stretch. The only free throws down the stretch were on a very obvious foul that sent James to the floor, and in the end were irrellevent.

Kyrie hit his 3. Steph missed his. Cavs win. If Kyrie had missed and Steph hits, GS wins. That's the game. Decided by who hit their shot.

Green hit James in the junk. Don't do that, no suspension. Or don't do the other 2 flagrants in the postseason, no suspension.

Drake and BK ->

[rah]

It is weird that GS lost as many games in the playoff as they did in the regular season.


And for the record, the Bulls never needed 7 games to win a finals.

[Drizzy Drake]

Also in this series note that the game 7 winner wasn't decided by calls.

I never said Game 7 was rigged. There's no reason for the NBA to care who wins the Finals as long as they get as many games as possible with two teams who attract big TV ratings. In this case, Game 7 was the most watched basketball game since 1998. The ultimate winner is irrelevant from a business perspective.

It is weird that GS lost as many games in the playoff as they did in the regular season.

I doubt the league had much to do with that, outside of Game 5 of the Finals. Golden State did get some help of their own against Oklahoma City, after all. I think Curry's injury was the primary factor in the Warrior's regression in the playoffs.

Edit: Corrected the ratings comparison. Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals was the most watched basketball game ever on cable. Game 7 of the Finals was the most watched basketball game since Game 6 of the 1998 Finals. The NBA made Disney and TNT very happy this postseason.

[Aeson]

I never said Game 7 was rigged. There's no reason for the NBA to care who wins the Finals as long as they get as many games as possible with two teams who attract big TV ratings. In this case, Game 7 was the most watched basketball game since 1998. The ultimate winner is irrelevant from a business perspective.

You said Ben "was the voice of reason" ... after he had said this: "It was a great series until the NBA decided that LeBron had to win."

You're also ignoring that game 7's aren't normal. Only 4 of the last 20 finals went to 7 games. There are 4-2's where a call or two could force game 7's. There are 4-1's where a call or two could have forced game 6's and thus potentially game 7s. There are sweeps where a call or two could have forced a game 5 and thus potentially 6 and 7.

The '98 series you mention for example ... the highest rated game ever ... the clearest case of the NBA having a vested interest in there being a game 7 ... if there is a foul on Jordan's strip of Malone and/or a clearout on Russel they almost surely get a game 7. They wouldn't have been the right calls, but certainly those were questionable cases. And before you claim they just wanted Jordan to win ... all the games had been close, so if they're using calls to decide games, they probably would have been able to do so in game 7. And it's not clear they even would have wanted the Bulls to win, given that it gives Jordan the perfect retirement, the same formula as the first time around. Jordan might not have retired on a finals loss. He's too competitive. The Bulls were probably done, and the lockout throws a monkey wrench into it, but maybe he follows Phil to LA or something along those lines. Jordan in LA playing for redemption. Yah, the NBA couldn't possibly have wanted that. But there's no call. The Bulls win in 6. Jordan retires.

2000 the Pacers got a questionable call against them down the stretch that helped the Lakers close that game out. If the lose ball foul goes the other way or isn't called, that one might have gone 7 as well.
2006 would have been relatively simple to push to a game 7.
2007 would have been very easy to push to at least a game 6.
2009 could have been pushed to 6 or 7 as the Lakers won 2 overtime games and game 3 was close.
2013 could have been pushed to a game 7, as game 6 was an OT victory.

The rest of the series there wouldn't have been a clear opportunity to extend (close games early on when they could have just as easily shortened the series for all we knew at the time), or the games were not close enough that even a string of calls could realistically make a difference.

There's no evidence that what you claim the NBA does ... happens. All you've got is

[rah]

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/6/22/12006828/derrick-rose-trade-new-york-knicks

THE BULLS TRADED ROSE (still unofficial but)

I'm thrilled they did this than getting rid of Butler. I really don't care what they got.

[Demonbinder]

It is official now. Boston was interested in Butler but Bulls wouldn't make that trade. It would have been nice to have a high draft pick, but maybe they can build around Butler anyway. I'm glad Rose is gone - he was too much of a headache after the injury.

[rah]

One of them had to go and I'm glad it's Rose.

[Drizzy Drake]

There's no evidence that what you claim the NBA does ... happens. All you've got is

Seriously, go read up on Tim Donaghy and all the things he revealed to the FBI.

[Aeson]

Seriously, go read up on Tim Donaghy and all the things he revealed to the FBI.

Donaghy was not fixing games on the NBAs request, it was his own scheme. None of his allegations were corroborated. Donaghy was crooked and lashing back at the NBA which was trying to claw back a large sum of money from him for his part in the betting scandal. All you have is hearsay (often second or third hand and/or speculation) from a crooked guy with a grudge. I said there is no evidence, and you have offered no evidence.

Again, you are relying on your tinfoil hat to try to pretend Ben is the voice of reason and that hitting someone in the groin isn't worth a flagrant 1, while simultaneously claiming a kick to the groin should be more than a flagrant 2. You, Ben, and Donaghy ... nice company you keep

[Drizzy Drake]

Eyewitness testimony from an insider isn't evidence? You must also think it's a conspiracy theory to take seriously the claims of whistleblowers and criminals who turn state's evidence.

[Aeson]

Taking criminals' claims as truth without evidence to support them is not a good thing to do. Donaghy wasn't an "eyewitness" in many of his claims ... some of which were purely speculative like, "they were company men [so I'm just assuming their actions were dictated by the NBA even though I don't any evidence]."

It's a conspiracy theory to take a few claims made by someone who clearly was reacting to a clawback the organization was making due to his criminal behavior, assume all his claims are true without evidence to back them up, take those and conclude that the problem is systemic and goes FAR BEYOND what the claims actually were, making up your own examples in the process ... like specifically your claim that Ben is the voice of reason for claiming Green was suspended because the NBA decided that Lebron had to win. It's utterly ridiculous to do so when your argument relies on such self-refuting nonsense like:

a) Green's flagrant 2 for kicking a player in the groin was too light a punishment and he should have been suspended for it
b) Green's flagrant 1 for hitting a player in the groin was too severe a punishment and he shouldn't have been suspended for it
c) "Ben is the voice of reason"

If A was too light, then B was also too light. If B was too harsh, then A was also too harsh.

You have ignored all the specific cases I highlighted which, if the NBA was systemically pushing series via calls, would have been very easy cases for them to push to later games and perhaps to even much bigger ends (keeping Jordan from retiring). But it didn't happen ... or even the opposite happened ... where calls/no calls resulted in shortened series.

[Drizzy Drake]

Taking criminals' claims as truth without evidence to support them is not a good thing to do. Donaghy wasn't an "eyewitness" in many of his claims ... some of which were purely speculative like, "they were company men [so I'm just assuming their actions were dictated by the NBA even though I don't any evidence]."

Like I said before, you really need to read up on what actually happened with Donaghy. He provided inside information on the NBA (mainly unpublicized injuries and knowledge of what players/teams his fellow referees were likely to favor in a matchup) to his conspirators, who paid him out a portion of the subsequent winnings. The scheme wouldn't have worked unless there was some sort of systematic bias to NBA officiating that Donaghy understood and could consistently profit from.

The following article gives examples of how Donaghy's scheme worked, in addition to relaying the positive view held of him by federal prosecutors.

Federal prosecutors tacitly vouched for the credibility and candor of Tim Donaghy, the disgraced former N.B.A. referee, in a letter filed in federal court last month. The government also stated explicitly, for the first time, that Donaghy did not intentionally make calls to affect the outcome of games. ...

“Donaghy’s cooperation was significant both in its timing and scope,” the prosecutors wrote. “Although it is likely that Donaghy would have eventually been charged, the fact of the matter is that it was Donaghy who approached the government — not the other way around — and that he did so prior to the filing of any complaint or indictment.” ...

While working with the government, “Donaghy was at all times cooperative, forthcoming, candid and always willing to assist the government as needed,” the prosecutors wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/sports/basketball/04refs.html