Do you think the NBA is a fair game?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Is the NBA a fair game?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 15.7%

  • No

    Votes: 35 68.6%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 8 15.7%
  • Total voters
    51
TBpup said:
I think you'll see a much more evenly called game tonight.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if the refs after having assured the game 1 win for the Clippers will back off and let these teams play...
 
Here's the thing: In the beginning the NBA was openly biased. The average American knew only a small handful of NBA players, and the league used to advertise the star players and their athleticism, grace, speed, power,.... The referees openly made calls to help these players - if they didn't succeed the league wouldn't.

When did this change?
Did it change?

The league has been desperate to show that it's a level playing field, but it hasn't done a good job of that. Maybe, because hasn't been levelled.

Championships by Media Market size - 2000-today: 3,3,3,27,14,27,19,27,11,3,3,8,19,19,27,9.

Outside the Spurs, no team in the bottom 10 has won a championship since 2000.
OTOH, only 1 team outside the Lakers in the top 10 has won one either.
Taking out the Lakers and Spurs: 14,19,11,8, 19, 19, 9.

Of course if you go back to the 50s and 60s, it's all Lakers and Celtics - but there weren't that many teams back then.

90s: 14,5,5,5,11,11,5,5,5,27
80s: 3,11,3,7,11,3,3,14

Since 1980, outside of the Spurs, NO TEAM has won a championship that has a current media market of 20 or worse, period.

Since 1980, EXACTLY ONE TEAM without Duncan or James has won a championship that has a current media market of 15 or worse, period. (that one was the Heat, who had Wade + Shaq).

So, the question is "Can Lillard become, or can we trade for a Duncan/James level of player?" The answer is probably no, sigh.

(confirmed by another site)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions
 
Last edited:
Portland was called for nearly double the fouls that L.A. was called for and both teams were equally aggressive. Overall, a poorly officiated game that fortunately did not cost us.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
Here's the thing: In the beginning the NBA was openly biased. The average American knew only a small handful of NBA players, and the league used to advertise the star players and their athleticism, grace, speed, power,.... The referees openly made calls to help these players - if they didn't succeed the league wouldn't.

When did this change?
Did it change?

The league has been desperate to show that it's a level playing field, but it hasn't done a good job of that. Maybe, because hasn't been levelled.

Championships by Media Market size - 2000-today: 3,3,3,27,14,27,19,27,11,3,3,8,19,19,27,9.

Outside the Spurs, no team in the bottom 10 has won a championship since 2000.
OTOH, only 1 team outside the Lakers in the top 10 has won one either.
Taking out the Lakers and Spurs: 14,19,11,8, 19, 19, 9.

Of course if you go back to the 50s and 60s, it's all Lakers and Celtics - but there weren't that many teams back then.

90s: 14,5,5,5,11,11,5,5,5,27
80s: 3,11,3,7,11,3,3,14

Since 1980, outside of the Spurs, NO TEAM has won a championship that has a current media market of 20 or worse, period.

Since 1980, EXACTLY ONE TEAM without Duncan or James has won a championship that has a current media market of 15 or worse, period. (that one was the Heat, who had Wade + Shaq).

So, the question is "Can Lillard become, or can we trade for a Duncan/James level of player?" The answer is probably no, sigh.

(confirmed by another site)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions
Click to expand...


Completely overlooked is the team owner's relationship with the league.

All the Championship teams have owners who are basically yes-men to whatever the league management proposes. Paul Allen has been successful in court in opposition to league changes and has openly utilized "legal loopholes" to get around limitations that the league has imposed. This cost us an Allstar game hosting promised by the league and I believe it has been the main factor in every playoff loss we've had since.

We are blacklisted.
 
dviss1 said:
Violet Palmer gets a bad rap but she's actually a great referee.
Click to expand...

LOL. Easily the most openly biased against the Blazers in their entire history. Master (Mistress?) of the non-call.
 
FB_IMG_1461522006407.jpg

You tell me...
 
MARIS61 said:
Completely overlooked is the team owner's relationship with the league.

All the Championship teams have owners who are basically yes-men to whatever the league management proposes. Paul Allen has been successful in court in opposition to league changes and has openly utilized "legal loopholes" to get around limitations that the league has imposed. This cost us an Allstar game hosting promised by the league and I believe it has been the main factor in every playoff loss we've had since.

We are blacklisted.
Click to expand...
Mark cuban is a yes man? Thats gotta be the first time ive heard anyone call him that
 
I'm a little concerned that with Curry out for ~2 weeks, the NBA might think they can sneak a big market like LA into the WCF against the Spurs. That would mean getting the Clips through this series as soon as possible so they could take advantage of Curry being out. Then even if Curry comes back and the Clips stole a game in GS, it is a huge story and goes 7 games as Curry leads the Warriors back. It would be a huge ratings series and with the bad blood would make for must watch TV.
 
TBpup said:
I'm a little concerned that with Curry out for ~2 weeks, the NBA might think they can sneak a big market like LA into the WCF against the Spurs. That would mean getting the Clips through this series as soon as possible so they could take advantage of Curry being out. Then even if Curry comes back and the Clips stole a game in GS, it is a huge story and goes 7 games as Curry leads the Warriors back. It would be a huge ratings series and with the bad blood would make for must watch TV.
Click to expand...

Or they're thinking they need to get their moneys worth, so they need this series to go 7 games.

I really wish we didn't have to think this way about the league, but there has been enough evidence over the years that the fear is legitimate.
 
TBpup said:
I'm a little concerned that with Curry out for ~2 weeks, the NBA might think they can sneak a big market like LA into the WCF against the Spurs. That would mean getting the Clips through this series as soon as possible so they could take advantage of Curry being out. Then even if Curry comes back and the Clips stole a game in GS, it is a huge story and goes 7 games as Curry leads the Warriors back. It would be a huge ratings series and with the bad blood would make for must watch TV.
Click to expand...
Or that Curry needs time to heal, so they make our series go the distance!
 
Oh boy.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/201...says-reports-show-referees-90-percent-correct

"Roughly 90 percent -- they get it right," Silver said. "Now, of course, I'd like 90 percent to be 100 percent. And so would they. But what these reports also show, what fans already know is, human error is part of this game, and the best athletes in the world make mistakes. And coaches occasionally make mistakes. Officials do, too."
Click to expand...

Good that he acknowledges the issue I guess. So 10% of the calls are wrong. That's startling. I do appreciate this after the Stern regime, however:
"Transparency is a key goal of mine," Silver said. "And the nature of these LTMs -- these 'Last Two Minute Reports' -- is that it's information we have already been sharing with our teams. They of course want to know if a particular play in the league's view was correctly called.
Click to expand...
 
The Lakers dynasty era was the worst...still there's no doubt favorites are given more favorable calls especially in the larger markets
 
Natebishop3 said:
And yet.... Draymond went unpunished.
Click to expand...

And really, 10% is awfully high; a basketball game typically has 70-90 plays per game. Unjust points scored on 7-9 plays in a game basically gives the game to one team or the other, if the breaks aren't exactly even.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
And really, 10% is awfully high; a basketball game typically has 70-90 plays per game. Unjust points scored on 7-9 plays in a game basically gives the game to one team or the other, if the breaks aren't exactly even.
Click to expand...

Let's assume that there isn't an agenda, and refs just make mistakes.

To me, it's worse to call something that you didn't actually see because you're reacting to the player, rather than miss a few calls. Flopping shouldn't exist. Either the ref saw the foul, and they call it, or they didn't see the foul and the player is flopping around like an idiot.

They need to stop guessing and only call the infractions that they can clearly see. (Assuming that they don't have an agenda)
 
In the data world, accuracy to within 99.5% is the minimum for making million-dollar decisions. I can't imagine making a decision on player personnel or franchise style/direction based on a set of data *at best* 90% accurate.
 
yuyuza1 said:
Ya whatever happened to the whole fining flopping and making examples of floppers thing?
Click to expand...

When they realized the best players were making entire careers out of flopping, they got stuck in their time honored loop of "how do we enforce a rule without making star players work harder?"
 
BlazerCaravan said:
In the data world, accuracy to within 99.5% is the minimum for making million-dollar decisions. I can't imagine making a decision on player personnel or franchise style/direction based on a set of data *at best* 90% accurate.
Click to expand...
Baffling.

A 10% error rate in most business would be so destructive.

Maybe they just need to hire better refs while also training them to become more accurate. Or just remove the human element altogether. Would take a little getting used to to see calls being made by cameras or robots, but if 90% accuracy is the best humans can do, it's time to start using technology.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Let's assume that there isn't an agenda, and refs just make mistakes.

To me, it's worse to call something that you didn't actually see because you're reacting to the player, rather than miss a few calls. Flopping shouldn't exist. Either the ref saw the foul, and they call it, or they didn't see the foul and the player is flopping around like an idiot.

They need to stop guessing and only call the infractions that they can clearly see. (Assuming that they don't have an agenda)
Click to expand...
I'm going to reiterate what you just said, because I think it's very important. It is better for a ref to miss a call, than to call something that didn't happen because the ref is guessing (or worse, being tricked).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Natebishop3
The NBA is a joke
2 3
Replies
60
Views
8K
Chris Craig
Chris Craig
MAS RipCity
Worst Officiated Game Ever
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Natebishop3
Natebishop3
e_blazer
Officiating Props
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
mobes23
mobes23
BigGameDamian
Do you make it a habit to wacth the NBA All Star festivities and if no then..
Replies
13
Views
692
BigGameDamian
BigGameDamian
Natebishop3
Replay in the NBA
Replies
12
Views
433
Eastoff
Eastoff

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top