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: