Does travel have an effect on performance?

Henry Abbott of the excellent TrueHoop posted a link to a very interesting Los Angeles Times piece by Mike Bresnahan yesterday, in which Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson said he didn't think his team could top his record-setting 72-10 campaign with the 1996 Bulls. The reason Jackson cited wasn't the absence of Michael Jordan, or in fact anything on the court. Instead, he suggested that the Lakers' West Coast location and the increased travel required because of this would prevent them from breaking the record.

This isn't the first time a West Coast coach or GM has discussed the impact of travel on their team, but it's the first time I've heard it in the NBA. In Vancouver sports, this is a common theme, and others are picking up on it: Gregg Easterbrook of the always-excellent Tuesday Morning Quarterback has been tracking the miserable failures of West Coast NFL teams on the East Coast this season (they're currently 1-16 in games played in Eastern Time and 1-17 if you include the game played in London). Moreover, the theme took on new life this year thanks to The Globe and Mail's Matthew Sekeres, who wrote in November that new Vancouver Canucks general manager Mike Gillis was bringing in military sleep experts and biorhythm monitors in an attempt to improve his team's road play. I mentioned this to Abbott, and he was nice enough to quote me and send a link here.

Anyway, I figured it would be useful to take a quantitative look at the subject and its impact on the NBA. I'm not the most brilliant with stats, so I figured the easiest way to do this would be to look at the five remaining teams in the Pacific Time Zone (thanks to the demise of the SuperSonics) and their records at home, on the road in their time zone and on the road out of the time zone. I did this just by going through the schedule by team on NBA.com. This is done in the following spreadsheet:



What can we draw from this? Well, it's a very small sample size so far, but it does seem to suggest that there may be an effect. Of the five teams studied, three of them (Golden State, Sacramento and the Lakers) are demonstrably worse on the road when they're playing outside of their time zone. As a whole, the West Coast teams are 15-23 (.394) on the road out of their time zone thus far. I'd theorize that there may be a similar effect for East Coast teams playing out of their time zone. If anyone has an easy way to pull these kind of records without manually looking through all the games or a way to get this information from other leagues, send me an e-mail at andrew_bucholtz [at] hotmail.com; I'd love to try to expand this study.

NBA: Celtics are in the House, but Donaghy's shadow still lurks

Photo: Eddie House celebrates after the Celtics' win Thursday. [Photo from TrueHoop]

That was one of the craziest games I've ever seen last night. It looked to be all over at the end of the first quarter after the Lakers jumped out to a crazy 35-14 lead without Kobe Bryant even making a field goal, and things only got worse for the Celtics. This is possibly the only game I've ever seen where the announcers start predicting the win midway through the first. The Lakers justified their praise for a while, though, as it was 45-21 partway through the second, and 58-40 at the half.

Strangely enough, what probably turned the tide for the Celtics was an injury to one of their players. After Rajon Rondo proved utterly ineffective, Kendrick Perkins hurt his shoulder, which caused Doc Rivers to go to the smaller pairing of James Posey and Eddie House to replace them. House and Posey are both effective outside shooters, something that can rarely be said for either Perkins or Rondo. The substitution forced Bryant to choose between guarding House and helping the other Lakers. At first, Bryant doubled off House the way he had off of Rondo. House missed his first couple of open looks, but then started dropping them in. As a result, Bryant shifted back to guarding him, and Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett started making their shots. On the defensive end, Pierce switched to Bryant and absolutely shut him down.

Boston still had a long way to go, but they were pouring it on and the Lakers were starting to crack under the pressure. L.A. fought back down the stretch, but they couldn't handle the Celtics with all five guys on the floor draining shots. In the end, Boston prevailed 97-91, completing the biggest comeback since at least 1971 and perhaps the biggest ever [Matthew Sekeres, The Globe and Mail]. It was a huge team effort: Pierce had 20 points, seven assists and four boards, Garnett contributed 16 points and 11 rebounds, Ray Allen rediscovered his jump shot and knocked down 19 points while grabbing nine rebounds, Posey kicked in 18 points from the bench and House added 11 points and four rebounds while putting up a game-high +20 rating.

That was definitely one of the greatest NBA games I've seen, and the impressive thing was how it improved as it went on. The first quarter seemed so predictable, so one-sided: Boston would again lose on the road, the series would be even, and we'd probably be set for a long Finals.

I guess it's proof that the NBA can't always be predictable: in fact, the refs, probably on orders from on high to show neutrality in the wake of the new Donaghy revelations, did just that. The foul shots awarded wound up 29-28 Lakers, vastly different than the 38-10 Boston stat in Game Two, the 34-22 Lakers balance in Game Three or the 35-28 Boston discrepancy in Game One.

Now, certainly, plenty of people have taken that as an an excuse to discredit Donaghy's claims. To them, I have a couple of points to make. First, do you really think the NBA would try anything fishy right after a press conference decrying that they ever do anything of the like? Every journalist, blogger and fan in the world was watching this game under a microscope. In fact, if anything, the league probably used the Stern button [credit to Matt McHale, as always] to make sure the totals were lining up precisely.

Secondly, there's always non-interference by interference. Remember Newton's Third Law? "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Anyone who's ever taken physics knows that a body that isn't accelerating either has no force acting on it or two equally balanced forces. Think two equally strong guys pushing a rock from opposite sides: they're both interfering with it, but their interference cancels out, so it's like there's no outside force on the rock at all.

Bringing this back to basketball: it's highly unusual that team foul totals wind up within one. However, perhaps it isn't as odd when you consider the referees involved. Look at this pre-game post by FanHouse's Brett Edwards, breaking down the game not by player matchups, or coaching matchups, but by the officiating assignments! Where else but the NBA?

Anyway, Edwards referenced an interesting website that tracks officials' records "against the spread" in favour of the home team. Two of the officials picked for Game 4, Joe DeRosa and Tom Washington, were the first and fourth-biggest "homers" respectively by this site [covers.com]'s calculations, while the third, crew chief Steve Javie, was one of the biggest "anti-homers", or someone whose road teams consistently outperform their expectations. Add that up, and Edwards comes to the conclusion that it's pretty even. Hmmm... an even refereeing matchup producing almost a perfectly even distribution of fouls, just when the league's in the spotlight for foul discrepancies? Move along, nothing to see here.

Now, see, this is the crux of the NBA problem. I know that sounds perhaps convoluted, but you can't rule it out. It could just be that the officials acted normally, there were no problems and the game was won on the court. Think about the people involved, though, in particular David Stern. Stern strikes me as a bit of a control freak with a ridiculous amount of power. When his league comes under fire for this kind of incident, to the degree that he feels it's necessary to hold a pre-game press conference dealing specifically with the Donaghy allegations, do you think he's just going to trust that his referees will call everything fairly under such an intense microscope, or do you think he'll make sure they get the message to call the game in such a way that no one can question the officiating? I know where my money would go.

Anyways, consider the differentials from this series. +7 in Game One, +28 in Game Two, +12 in Game Three, all for the home team. The Lakers wound up losing by six: if they get even the marginal foul difference awarded to the home team in Game One, they have a chance to win this one. If they get the wider differentials awarded in Game Two or Game Three and hit them at the 75% rate they made during the match, they win.

This is the real tragedy of the Donaghy scandal: it doesn't permit you to sit there and just enjoy a great comeback or a quality win. You sit there wondering if the game's real or if it's fixed, and you really can't know for sure either way. I'd love to believe that the Celtics won due to great contributions from bench guys like House and Posey, excellent defence and solid production from their stars, and this probably is what actually happened. However, I can't dismiss the possibility that they merely played the Lakers to a draw, and their win was due to the sudden absence of the home-court advantage that's been so prevalent in these playoffs. The Donaghy scandal, and the latest accusations to come out of it, are like finding a worm in one apple in a bushel: all the other ones may be perfectly good, but you're awfully hesitant to take a bite.

Related:
- Mike has a good take on the game [The view from the Woods].
- Neate's thoughts over at Out of Left Field.
- A great piece on the Donaghy scandal at Sports on My Mind: I'll have more on that one later.
- Matt McHale, excellent as always, weighs in at Basketbawful and Deadspin.
- Henry Abbott has a great take on House's contributions [TrueHoop].
- Michael Grange of The Globe and Mail weighs in [From Deep].
- Bill Simmons has a marvellous running diary [ESPN].
- Will Leitch has a hilarious take on Kobe Bryant's post-game comments [Deadspin].

Donaghy's new allegations speak to basketball fans' worst fears

Photo: A screen capture of SI's original Tim Donaghy story from beRecruited.

Well, the NBA has managed to find a way to blow it yet again. The Tim Donaghy scandal had almost died down, and all of a sudden, the league starts demanding $1 million he doesn't have in restitution. In response, Donaghy's lawyers file letters and documents with the sentencing court alleging that officials altered the outcome of at least two specific games or playoff rounds: Game Six of the Los Angeles Lakers - Sacramento Kings Western Finals clash in 2002 and the Houston Rockets - Dallas Mavericks series in 2005.As respected ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson writes, accusations that easily could have stayed quiet have now become a dark shadow cutting to the very heart of the league.

"Donaghy's sentencing is scheduled for July 14. He faces a maximum of 25 years in prison for conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce. In the usual course of presentence investigations and procedures, the federal probation department asks the 'victim' about the damage resulting from the crime. As a 'victim' of Donaghy's crimes, the NBA claimed in a June 5 letter that it was entitled to $1 million in restitution from Donaghy. Restitution, or the reimbursement of the victim's losses, typically pays back a bank or a charity for money lost in an embezzlement or a theft. Donaghy obviously damaged the NBA and its reputation, but there is no indication he stole any money from the league. The NBA claimed that it was forced to spend the nice round sum of $1 million investigating Donaghy and the damage he caused, and the league wants its money back. Clearly enraged by the unexpected demand from the NBA for $1 million, Donaghy and [his lawyer John F.] Lauro retaliated with detailed accusations of manipulation by other referees. It is the worst nightmare for the NBA, which might now be reconsidering a withdrawal of its demand for restitution."

Here are the key allegations, from ESPN.com's story:

"Jeff Van Gundy ultimately backed off comments that a referee told him officials had targeted Yao Ming in the Houston Rockets' 2005 first-round playoff series against the Dallas Mavericks. Maybe Van Gundy was right after all.
A letter sent to the sentencing court on behalf of convicted former referee Tim Donaghy outlines just such a plan. It also alleges that referees helped alter the outcome of the controversial 2002 Game 6 playoff series between the Los Angeles Lakers and Sacramento Kings.
...
The letter also details an incident in the 2002 playoffs in which Donaghy alleges that two referees, who were known as NBA "company men," wanted to extend a series to seven games. "Team 5" could have wrapped up the series in Game 6 but saw two players foul out, lost the game and ultimately the series.
Only one series went to seven games in the 2002 playoffs: Lakers-Kings.
...
Donaghy also alleges that team executives conspired with the league to prevent star players from being called for too many fouls or being ejected. He claims that league officials told referees that doing so would 'hurt ticket sales and television ratings.'"

And two more from the New York Times:

"In their letter, Lauro and Donaghy make a number of other charges, among them:
That referees “socialized frequently with coaches and players” and asked for autographs and free merchandise, in violation of league rules.
That a referee’s relationship with one team’s general manager “led to an attempt by that referee to influence a game’s outcome” in 2004. Donaghy claimed that the referee in question told him that he planned to favor the general manager’s team in a game that night."

Lone Gunmen everywhere let loose a simultaneous shout of exultation when this news broke. Finally, all the debates about questionable NBA officiating and the league's conspiracy to influence the playoffs in favour of TV-rating darlings over the years (summarized nicely in this Basketbawful post by Matt McHale) have some tangible evidence from someone on the inside to back the conspiracy theory. Considering how well these theories have done over the years without this, this could be what kicks them into high gear. As Munson writes, this is perfect ammunition for those who question the NBA's credibility, especially because Donaghy's now naming specific instances. "The accusations are the kinds of things that fuel conspiracy theories that abound among NBA fans, but Donaghy is now adding dates, places and games," he writes.

If this was any other sport, this might not be as believable. However, this merely confirms fans' deepest fears about the dark side of the NBA. We already know Donaghy may have "subconsciously" influenced games [The Smoking Gun] in favour of his gambling positions, and that wasn't picked up for a long time: from there, it isn't a huge jump to other referees influencing games in favour of what the league sees as best for itself. Then you get situations in this year's playoffs like the Derek Fisher-Brent Barry incident and the foul discrepancies in Game Two of the Finals. In both cases, a result that just happened to be extremely convenient for the league occurred. Coincidence? Perhaps, but the more times these "coincidences" happen, the harder it becomes to believe that there's nothing to see here.

Donaghy picked a couple of strong examples to release, as well, further helping his cause. Many people have suspected that Lakers-Kings game (and series) was rigged ever since it happened (and Sacramento Bee columnist Ailene Voisin rather presciently predicted last summer that the Donaghy investigation might turn up new material on that fiasco). It was such a ridiculous game that even Ralph Nader called for an investigation, as detailed in Voisin's piece above. The Yao Ming scenario was also interesting: it led to ABC broadcaster Jeff Van Gundy commenting on the air that a working referee had told him that the refs were clamping down on Ming after Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban complained (the Mavericks won the series in seven games). Van Gundy was fined $100,000 by the league for his comments, but they're looking pretty accurate now. During halftime of tonight's game, he said he still thinks Ming was unfairly targeted but he doesn't give Donaghy any credibility: you have to wonder how much of that is just window dressing to avoid another fine, though.

In my mind, the biggest problem this produces is that the NBA can never completely prove its innocence, even if it turns out that they are innocent. No amount of denials is going to take away the suspicions in the minds of many, especially seeing as many of those doubts were implanted long before Donaghy came out with this latest information. We already know that David Stern doesn't particularly value truthfulness or history: now, the question is if he values the integrity of the game, or if the TV ratings are more important. The problem is, we may never really know for sure.

The last word on this matter should go to the National Post's Bruce Arthur, who rather brilliantly called this almost a year ago. Here's some of the best bits from his July 21, 2007 column on the Donaghy scandal (bolding mine), appropriately titled "Donaghy may become NBA's worst nightmare" with the kicker "Referee Scandal Could Rock League To The Core."

"After Game 5 of the 2006 NBA Finals, a Miami Herald columnist reported -- erroneously, as it turned out -- that after a controversial finish, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban turned towards the seats of NBA commissioner David Stern, and screamed, "F---you! F---you! Your league is rigged!"
Cuban never said it, and the columnist later issued a correction. He had reported it because someone told him it happened, and frankly, because it sounded plausible. One, because Cuban is a hothead. And two, because in the NBA, every conspiracy theory is believed.
Now, there appears to be an actual conspiracy. The New York Post first reported yesterday that an NBA referee is being investigated by the FBI for fixing the point spread in a number of games, in concert with organized crime, over the last two seasons."
...
Welcome to David Stern's worst nightmare. Bar none.
For that matter, if the allegations prove true, this is the worst nightmare of every sports league. The players can be criminals, and the games can be one-sided, and hell, Ron Artest could wade into the crowd and beat up a different fan each and every night. But when the integrity of the game is wounded, when that bedrock is cracked, it robs the game of all significance.
This is not steroids in baseball, or labour trouble in hockey, or even Michael Vick's sickening dog-fighting case. The only worst-case scenario is if a star player is the one doing the fixing, and even that may not be as bad. But a star is an aberration, a Pete Rose. A team is the 1919 Chicago White Sox. An official, at least in terms of perception, is institutional.
And in this case, this particular institution is an easy target. For some reason, people are perfectly willing to believe the worst about the NBA.
To be fair, gambling has had its tendrils threaded through in the NBA for years. Michael Jordan was a legendary gambler, at cards and on the golf course, and it was long speculated that his first retirement, in 1993, was in part league-ordered because of Jordan's alleged gambling problems. The 1997 book Money Players -- written by investigative reporter Armen Keteyian, New York Times columnist Harvey Araton, and investigative reporter Martin Dardis -- details allegations that Isiah Thomas wagered thousands in illegal dice games. There are more stories, whispered about throughout the league.
But none of those tendrils had ever demonstrably reached on to the court. Until now.
...
Now, every decision Donaghy made in the last two years will be scrutinized, again. And now, Stern is facing perhaps the biggest crisis of his 23-year tenure.
NBA referees have always been faced with more suspicion than in any other sport -- the league favours superstars, etc. And at every turn, Stern has vigorously defended his officials -- from charges of home-court bias, of incompetence, or of race bias, which was recently floated in a university study.
Now, if this gambling allegation is true, every borderline fan can suspect any call he or she doesn't like. My brother, a lifelong NBA fan, soured on the league after those 2006 Finals, in which Miami's Dwyane Wade seemed to get the benefit of every call. Many other fans went with him. How many more are on the ledge after this? Moreover, how does the NBA put a team in Las Vegas? How does the league maintain its integrity? How does it recover?
...
But this has the potential to bloody the NBA, and badly. This might have been the worst season in NBA history -- the short-lived change of basketballs, the injuries, the tanking, the whining, the All-Star fiasco (in Vegas, natch), the dead-dull playoffs, the playoff-altering suspensions, and finally, a dreadful NBA Finals.
But this is different. This might be the worst poison of all."

Lakers can't handle "The Truth" or the refs

With Game Three of the NBA finals set to tip off shortly, I figured it's time to look back at Sunday's Game Two and what it can tell us about tonight's game. On Sunday, the Boston Celtics beat the Los Angeles Lakers again [Michael Grange, The Globe and Mail] to take a 2-0 lead in the series. Paul "The Truth" Pierce proved that there weren't too many lingering effects from his Game 1 injury, as he went off for 28 points, four rebounds and eight assists. Kevin Garnett recorded his typical double-double with 17 points and 14 boards, Ray Allen showed that he may still be a part of the "Mid-Sized Three" [credit to Matt McHale] with a 17-point performance, Rajon Rondo had a 16-assist night and Leon Powe, of all people, put up 21 points in 15 minutes.
"
Still, the first big story of the night was the Lakers' play down the stretch. They piled up 41 points in the fourth quarter [The Associated Press] and cut a 24-point lead with 8 minutes left down to just two before finally succumbing to the Celtics. As Bill Simmons writes, everyone wearing green and white was pretty terrified in the fourth.

"I wish I could explain what happened, but L.A.'s comeback defied explanation. The Celtics relaxed, the Lakers made a couple 3s, the Celtics missed a couple shots, Kobe shifted into 17th gear, the Lakers made a couple more 3s, and somewhere during this stretch, everyone went into "Oh no!" mode and my buddy Hench texted me, "Will this be the worst loss in Boston sports history?" (Yes, actually. And NBA history. And sports history.) Once Kobe willed himself to the line for two freebies with 38 seconds left, the Celtics were suddenly leading 104-102 with 38.7 seconds left, and my frozen father was only missing a coffin and a touch-up makeup job from a mortician."

Fortunately, that proved not to be necessary, as The Truth drove the basket on the next play, got fouled, converted his free throws and then blocked a Sasha Vujacic shot to seal the deal. However, the outcome is still somewhat in question thanks to the second big story of the night. You guessed it, the refs, who decided to award 38 free throws to Boston and just 10 to Los Angeles.

Think about those numbers for a second. L.A. eventually lost 108-102. That's a six-point gap. They converted every single one of their free throws in Game 2, so give them seven more shots and they win the game. The crazy thing is, if you add those seven free throws, they get 17: half the number Boston earned. Perfect free-throw shooting too much to assume? Well, they shot 75 per cent from the charity stripe in Game 1: let's apply those numbers. Making three out of every four, they would only need eight extra free throws to tie the game and send it to overtime (which they probably win, given how the teams played down the stretch). Or take away some of the fouls at the other end: the Celtics shot 71 per cent from the charity stripe, so if you take away 10 of their shots, they get seven less points and lose. Also, according to Stuart Scott on tonight's pre-game show, that's the fourth-fewest free throws ever for a team in Finals history.

Boston can bring out all the excuses they like about how the Lakers were playing irresponsibly while they did everything by the book, and some of them even contain grains of truth: certainly, the Celtics did seem to get fouled more often, and they deserved to get more calls, at least in my mind. That doesn't mean a 38 to 10 advantage, though! Even Simmons, the Boston fan's Boston fan, admits that it was way too excessive.

"For Game 2, [the Lakers] had a valid excuse … an unspeakable 38-10 free-throw disparity that I won't even attempt to defend," he writes. "At one point, my dad pointed to referee Bob Delaney, who was practically wearing a Celtics jersey and joked, 'I like that guy. I want him for every game!'"

There's some great quotes from "The Zen Master" Phil Jackson on the subject of the officiating. The start of his press conference is fantastic [transcript from Henry Abbott at TrueHoop]:

Q: "What are you most struck by, your rally at the end or your difficulty scoring points on them the first three quarters?"

A:(Laughing) "I'm more struck at the fact that Leon Powe gets more foul shots than our whole team does in 14 minutes of play. That's ridiculous. You can't play from a deficit like that that we had in that half, 19 to 2 in the first half in situations like that. I've never seen a game like that in all these years I've coached in The Finals. Unbelievable. ...
I think my players got fouled. I have no question about the fact that my players got fouled but didn't get to the line. Specifically I can enumerate a few things, but I'm not going to get into that.
I don't want to get into dispute with those situations."

He appeared to have recovered some of his Zen mojo later in the press conference, though, where Michael Grange picks up the story:

"While observers might want to credit the Celtics' determination to force the action to the rim – either through post-ups, offensive rebounds or dribble penetration – and thus draw fouls, Jackson believes his team has been victimized by some officials having visions, rather than simply calling what they see.

'The referees referee an illusion,' Jackson said. “Our guys look like maybe the ball was partially stripped when they were getting raked or whatever was happening, but it was in the crowd, so the referees let that type of thing go. So we have to create the spacing that gives the right impression, and that will have to get accomplished.'"

Hmm... that strikes me as somewhat worrying when the active coach with the most championships thinks he needs to change how his players' actions are perceived by the refs in order to get the calls they deserve. Refereeing illusions and that is all very deep, but essentially, his point is that they aren't calling the game according to what actually is happening, so he feels that he needs to get his team to create what the refs want to see in order to draw fouls. This just after the league vowed to crack down on flopping?

I'm not arguing that the officiating is solely to blame: there were many more problems with their play in Game 2, as Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times argues. My point is, though, especially with that comeback, a few calls here and there could have made a huge difference. Seven or eight calls may have determined the fate of a series and the eventual destination of the championship trophy.

In some ways, it would be even more worrying if those calls don't turn out to make the difference, though. I know that sounds ludicrous, but give me a second here. What we may have witnessed Sunday night was another example of the Stern Button [as always, credit to Matt McHale] in action. Now that Emperor David has his desired matchup of Celtics and Lakers after a phenomenal playoffs, what more could he want? Simple: for it to go six or seven games, bring in tons of TV revenue and ratings and jack the hype up even further. Many had predicted the Lakers to take the series before it began, and given their fantastic record at home and the 2-3-2 system employed in the playoffs, a split in the first two games means there's a good chance this is done in five. Instead, the chances of it going at least six now look very good.



Photo: The Stern Button (photo from Basketbawful)

The league isn't content to leave it at just "very good", though: consider tonight's officiating crew, which Matt McHale has a good take on in his Deadspin column. As he writes, "Anyway, the referees have already been assigned for tonight's game: Joey Crawford (whose reputation precedes him), Marc Wunderlich (who didn't call Derek Fisher jumping on Brent Barry) and the great Bennet Salvatore (who had been accused of favoring home teams and superstars). I guess Sasha Douchychick knew what he was talking about when he said: 'It will be a different story in L.A.'"

Now, this is what I find really troubling: the idea that rather than let the teams decide the series, the NBA would tailor its officials to throw games BOTH WAYS and ensure a longer series. What's worst about it though is that it makes a lot of sense, especially in light of the league's past officiating scandals under Stern. McHale figures these go all the way back to 1984, and not with laughable examples either. In that 1984 matchup between the Celtics and Lakers, there was enough evidence of tinkering that it ticked Larry Bird off. The Boston Globe ran a piece by Dan Shaughnessy entitled Bird: NBA Wanted 7, featuring the following quotes from Larry Legend:

"Stern told a fan that the NBA needed a seven-game series, that the league needed the money. When the commissioner makes a statement like that to a fan, you know it's going to be tough. When Stern makes a statement like that, things are going to happen. You just don't make statements like that and not expect anything out of it. He's the commissioner and he shouldn't be saying anything like that. The NBA wanted a seventh game because they wanted to make more money and they got their wish. There is no reason for me to lie. He said it. He's a man and he'll live up to it. He may say he said it in jest. But I'm out there trying to make a living and win a championship."

Hmm... a commissioner making ill-advised statements about the teams in his league and their playoff chances? Where have we seen that before? Oh, right, Lakers vs. Lakers. Failing that, maybe Lakers vs. Celtics, a series ABC executives were "collectively drooling over"? I'm sure the league would just hate for that to happen. These aren't isolated incidents either: some of the most prominent other examples include Lakers-Kings Game Six in 2002 [Ailene Voisin, Sacramento Bee], Dwayne Wade's free throws in the 2006 finals, Game Six of the Jazz-Bulls Finals in 1998, the Suns getting 64 foul shots in Game Seven of the 1993 Western Finals, the Suns-Spurs incident last year, and of course, Derek Fisher's flying elbow on Brent Barry this year.

Then, of course, you have Tim Donaghy, who just alleged through his lawyers that officials altered the outcome of the aforementioned Lakers-Kings game, and that a NBA executive told the officials to target Yao Ming in the 2005 Rockets-Mavericks series after Mark Cuban complained [more on that later]. I wish I could say that came as a huge surprise: the real tragedy is how believable these conspiracy theories are becoming, and how even if the NBA is eventually cleared, there will still be many of us with doubts. I was skeptical at first, but the evidence just keeps mounting. How can we know if we're watching a real sport, where everything depends on the players, or the WWE, where all outcomes are pre-picked according to what sells? I wish I could unequivocally declare that the NBA would never do such a thing, but I don't think I can any more.

Other related pieces:

- Bill Bridges on how the Celtics get away with more fouls because of the less-noticeable offences they commit [Forum Blue and Gold]
- Tim Keown of ESPN's Page 2 on how the Celtics' constant physical presence let them get away with more.

Basketball: Here we go!

Well, the Finals are finally here. It should be a great matchup, with two teams with such a history going head-to-head yet again. I don't really like either team, but it should still be an excellent series. As much as I hate the Lakers, I think they're probably going to win this one in six: they just have too much talent and too much depth, plus Kobe is playing out of his mind at the moment. Also, you can't back Boston in the coaching matchup of Doc Rivers against "The Zen Master" Phil Jackson.

One thing is for sure, though: the NBA has the NHL beat to shreds on cool pre-game ceremonies. The Boston one isn't quite as good as Detroit's, but it's still better than anything Bettman's league's done lately. Also, the NHL (and all other pro sports leagues) need to go to taping the coaches' pre-game speeches: very cool stuff! I've always wondered what they actually say in the locker room to get the pros fired up, and it's very interesting to see.

The one broadcasting thing I'll miss in this round is TNT's Inside the NBA panel, as the Finals are on ABC: those guys are the greatest halftime/postgame show I've ever seen (especially when they're playing Anchorman pranks or jumping over cars). Should be a great series.

Some good preview pieces:

- Bill Simmons has a nice column, sprinkled with quotes from Jackson's book The Last Season. Definitely worth a read to remember how dysfunctional the Lakers used to be and how bright a coach Phil Jackson is.

- Matt McHale of the excellent Basketbawful has a good preview up at Deadspin.

- Henry Abbott from TrueHoop points out that in many ways, the NBA's at least as good as it was back in the days of the heated Celtics-Lakers rivalry. He's also liveblogging the game: well worth a read.

Use the Stern button, David!

(Photo from SLAM Online)
The end of tonight's Spurs-Lakers clash featured a use of the Stern Button (credit for which goes to the brilliant Matt McHale of Basketbawful) if I've ever seen one. The Spurs were down by two with a couple seconds left, grabbed the ball under their own basket and quickly called timeout, giving them possession in Lakers' territory. Robert Horry inbounds the ball to Brent Barry, who is in excellent position for a three, but can't get it off cleanly while receiving a flying elbow to the head from one Derek Fisher of the Lakers. He still chucks it up at the buzzer, expecting the foul, but then turns in disbelief to see the officials with their whistles already returned to their jewel-encrusted cases in preparation for the trip to L.A. for Game Five, perhaps subtly prompted by a couple shocks from the Stern Button. Now, instead of a 2-2 series where anything could happen, the Lakers have an almost insurmountable 3-1 lead, and Emperor Palpatine, er, Stern, will sleep easy at night knowing half of his dream final is almost in place. His battle station is almost fully operational. I'm not entirely convinced that the whole playoffs is rigged, but it's calls like this one that really make me wonder if there is a big conspiracy to drive towards a high-ratings finals. I'm not a Spurs fan: in fact, I hate the franchise for knocking off my Suns two years in a row, and I admit that they play seriously boring basketball (plus they flop way too much), but they should have won this game. The fact that they didn't means questions need to be answered. The truth is out there, and sometimes even crazy ideas are partly right.

Pieces to ponder:

- John Walters of NBCSports.com last Wednesday: "Spurs-Lakers. This is the series we all wanted. The defending NBA champs versus the league's Most Valuable Player and its best team (you heard me, Boston). As well as its most glamorous. A few years ago, NBA commissioner David Stern was asked to name his dream championship match-up. He replied without hesitation, "Lakers vs. Lakers."" (emphasis mine)


Comments: Lakers vs. Lakers, eh David? Bet you'd sure hate to have those pesky, boring Spurs in the finals. Now, that could never impact a call or non-call, could it? After all, NBA referees are known for their honesty and incorruptibility.

- The L.A. Times' T.J. Simers in an opinion piece after Game Six of the Lakers-Jazz series:
"NBA Commissioner David Stern stopped by the press room before the game and said he had just met with the referees, I presume to remind them how excited he is about the upcoming Boston-L.A. Finals.
For some reason when this game started, the refs called four fouls on Utah, none on the Lakers, and then tagged Jazz Coach Jerry Sloan with a technical foul.
No need to make it so obvious, guys.
If Stern is worried about a Lakers-Celtics matchup, he ought to be spending most of his time with Boston." ...
"Utah shot the ball well early, but once the referees got into the game, it began to tip toward the Lakers. No doubt Tim Donaghy would have bet as much.
Stern's crew took Utah's best player, Carlos Boozer, out of the game with a pair of first-quarter fouls, and then added another 19 seconds after he returned to start the second quarter. Boozer finished the half with no points, the refs doing the best job of defense on Boozer in the NBA this season.
Bryant also picked up two fouls, but his second came with the Lakers up by 15 with less than 30 seconds left in the first quarter and Bryant probably headed to the bench anyway for a rest.
Final first-half stats, the Lakers making 15 of 19 free throws, the Jazz going four for six from the line and Stern being treated to a 14-point Lakers advantage.
The Lakers had 27 free-throw attempts, Utah eight after three quarters, and the Jazz still managed to keep it close. But that's the NBA for you, every game seemingly arranged so it will somehow remain close going into the final two minutes -- like that really happens.
The Lakers won, Bryant got his Podoloff, and all in all, a good night for Stern and the NBA." (emphases mine).


Comments: Some interesting stuff to consider here. First, Simers is a member of the mainstream media, usually slow to jump on such conspiracy theories. Second, he's a Los Angeles columnist, so it's tough to accuse him of anti-Lakers bias. A provocative piece. Also, a question it raises: if things were so unfair in Lakers-Jazz, where there's still a lot of interest in the other team, what are they going to be like in Lakers-Spurs, where the opposition is likely one of the most hated basketball teams on the planet?

- Jon Friedman of MarketWatch in a May 21 piece:
"NBA Commissioner David Stern flashed the tiniest of smiles when I asked him if he looked forward to the possibility of a championship series consisting of those time-honored rivals, the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics.
"Never think of it," Stern said. "Never think of it."
Yeah, right, Commish.
A few minutes later, I told an executive of one of the league's franchises what Stern had said. The official didn't even try to play it straight.
"He doesn't 'think' about it -- he dreams about it," the executive said good-naturedly, underscoring one of the topics of conversation at the annual NBA lottery on Tuesday night in Secaucus, N.J.
So do the executives of ABC, which will be televising the NBA finals this year." ... "That faint sound you hear right now is ABC executives collectively drooling at the prospect of Boston playing Los Angeles in a final series. ... The NBA is a glittering marketing machine. The lottery party was a shining example of how hard the league tries to put on a show for the media and the fans watching at home on TV. ... [T]hese days the stars burn brightest in Boston and Los Angeles. (emphases mine)


Comments: Hmm... an all-powerful commissioner dreaming of a matchup involving two massive metropolitan areas, two giant fanbases and a chance to rekindle the showpiece rivalry of the NBA? ABC executives "collectively drooling" at a Lakers-Celtics Finals? The "glittering marketing machine" of the NBA? Nothing but good can come from these ingredients!

- Will Brinson of FanHouse has an interesting commentary on Friedman's piece:
"David Stern is a funny and very sly gentleman. But if he wants people to stop yapping about conspiracies, he should probably not make snide grins when reporters ask him if he would enjoy a Celtics-Lakers matchup in the NBA Finals." ... "Oh yeah, and since the Spurs and Pistons are the other two teams currently alive, one would expect Stern is a touch nervous about seeing that ratings nightmare again. Of course, just the fact that the Spurs have won four rings in recent years should say something about the lack of conspiracy in the NBA. But Stern making sly grins about playoff matchups sure does not help anything."

Comments: Brinson has something here. Even if there isn't an actual conspiracy, Stern sure isn't doing much to dispel the widespread notion that there is. This is touched on more below.

- An ongoing survey by ESPN's Page 2 on the state of officiating in pro sports has some interesting results so far:
- 77.2 per cent of respondents think the NBA's officials "wrongly influence a game the most". The next-closest league is the NFL, with a mere 11.9 per cent of the vote.
- When asked "Given the Tim Donaghy scandal, how much trust do you have in the neutrality of officials?", 22.5 per cent chose "I have serious doubts that creep into every game I watch" and 57.4 per cent picked "I think there are other Donaghys out there, but it's isolated". Only 20.2 per cent chose "I have little doubt that the majority of officials are uncompromised."
- When asked "Do you believe a league office would ever influence its refs to affect the results in a desired way?", an astounding 66.4 per cent of respondents said "Yes."
- 70.3 per cent of respondents cited "Flopping in the NBA" as the tactic most in need of reform (other options were "Umps with differing strike zones in MLB", "Holding in the NFL" and "Fighting in the NHL").

Comments: This is the crux of the issue here. Even if the league isn't actually encouraging officials to influence the results in terms of what would make a better finals, 66.4 per cent of respondents to ESPN's poll think pro sports leagues are willing to stoop to that. Sure, those numbers aren't scientific, but given the huge differences in TV ratings and the resulting cash influx when negotiating new deals, it isn't hard to see why a lot of sports fans think that way. The NBA is also one of the most subjective leagues in terms of officiating: it's tough to differentiate a charge from a block (23.4 per cent), and there's often a wide range in what gets called: this is why Tim Donaghy's scam was so successful. The Donaghy cloud is still hanging over the league as well: that was just last summer after all. More about that below.

- A May 20 Associated Press piece on comments by Donaghy's attorney. Here's the highlights:
- "Donaghy told investigators about the gambling activities of other NBA officials and about a referee that passed 'confidential' information to an unidentified coach."
- "Disgraced basketball referee Tim Donaghy told investigators in the NBA betting probe that relationships among officials, coaches and players 'affected the outcome of games,' his attorney said."
- "The attorney, John F. Lauro, wrote that the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District agreed to plea agreements with other defendants in the case, even though his client told investigators about NBA matters outside of the government's initial investigation. Lauro said the disparity in treatment could not be fully explained because prosecutors have 'surrounded this case with a cone of silence.'"
- "In a footnote, the attorney suggested that the NBA might have "pressured" the attorney's office 'into shutting down this prosecution to avoid the disclosure of information unrelated to Tim's conduct'"

Comments: Now, granted, these comments must be taken with a grain of salt, as they are from Donaghy's lawyer. Still, that doesn't sound too much like an isolated case to me. The NBA spokesman issued just a standard "move along, nothing to see here" denial, which raises suspicions of if we've seen everything from this case. It again comes back to perception: even if Donaghy was a lone gunman, the NBA's portrayal of the case makes it look like they have something to hide, even if they don't.

- Finally, Henry Abbott from the excellent TrueHoop is rightfully incensed:
"OK, there, big ol' NBA, let's be honest: You were on notice. No funny business! We have had our referee scandal, we have been accused of fixing games, and we have promised that such things would never never never no not ever happen again.
You bounced back pretty nicely. But you promised transparency. You talked about a sacred trust.
And in that context, with everyone and their brother suspecting that the League would prefer to have the ratings monster Lakers in the Finals, and with a notorious anti-Spur referee assigned to the game, how can a key Western Conference final game end like this?" ... "That's a foul in my pickup game. That's a foul in high school. That's a foul in college. And, at just about every moment of NBA basketball that I have ever seen except this one, that's a foul in the NBA.That just simply must be called a foul, if nothing else to allay the fears that the League may be fixing up the Finals for big ratings." ... "I actually do not think that the NBA is rigged (if it was the shot clock would have been reset on the play before, when Derek Fisher's shot appeared to touch the rim). But a lot of people do, and that's a problem. The way to solve that problem is to be scrupulously fair, which this was not." ... "And then, do me one last little favor: Look us in the eye, and tell us just one more time that the sport we love is not rigged."


Comments: Henry nails this one. If the NBA isn't fixed, this is the kind of situation it absolutely has to get right. You have to call an obvious foul like that consistently, regardless of when in the game it takes place. Anything else only gives ammunition to the die-hard conspiracy theorists, and makes other, usually reasonable people like myself wonder if there isn't something to what they're suggesting.

And a photo of the Stern Button from Basketbawful: