Stern is a cocky little bitch

[SlyPokerDog]

The Donaghy scandal has had a lot of talk, and fragments of insight, but for the first time this week it has an authoritative book, thanks to two years of research from Penn State associate professor of criminal justice Sean Patrick Griffin.

That book tells a lot, but most importantly it assembles the testimony of the scandal's four conspirators. Three out of the four say that Tim Donaghy's betting picks were unbelievable on games he reffed, and unhelpful otherwise.

The only one of the four to assert Donaghy did not fix games: Donaghy himself.

Before All-Star Saturday night, David Stern met the media, and I asked him about the book. His response:

I have not read the new book or seen it yet, although I'm happy with each All Star Weekend or Finals to present an opportunity for a convicted felon to issue yet another tome on his misdeeds.

So we'll see if there's anything new suggested, Mr. Pedowitz will be asked to continue to review it as we have with each one that has been published, because we want to make sure that we get to the bottom of it all.

But right now, I don't have any more information other than I know you always confirm your sources; so I commend you to confirming the convicted felon's sources.
​

Stern does a bit of taunting there, saying, essentially, "look who your source is!" And indeed Griffin's book was written in collaboration with convicted gambler James Battista.

Nevertheless, the source argument may not serve Stern this time. The predominant story, that Donaghy did not fix games originated with ... Tim Donaghy himself. Despite what Donaghy will tell you, that version of events has not been rigorously vetted by the FBI (to whom it was tangential) or the NBA (whose investigators watched a tiny fraction of the games in question, and even then found some causes for concern).

The three conspirators tell a story of Donaghy picking at an unheard-of rate in games he refereed, which is supported by betting line movement and an ocean of other factors, including the crumbling of Donaghy's version of events when put to the test and the utter lack of any confirmation of Donaghy's story from anybody in the know.

People who have dug in deeply do not share the commissioner's breezy confidence. And so long as the best available evidence suggests -- in this case, fairly screams -- that there may be fixed games in the NBA record, to me the only proper state of mind is open. It's an important question that deserves a real examination of the evidence, much of which is amassed in a book that Stern seems a bit too eager to ignore.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/25001/david-stern-brushes-off-new-donaghy-book

 

[PapaG]

Stern is just pissed that someone else profited off of his scheme, but actually went to the length to fix games, as opposed to just influencing them.

 

[The Professional Fan]

I watched the presser and man, you couldn't be more right. He is one cocky motherfucker. Arrogant. Very, very smart man.

 

[jlprk]

Stern has been a boon for the game, and I wish him another interminable 25 years in his lonely fight against corruption. Just one thing. He could be more concise.

"I haven't read the book becaue I refuse to deal with this. I'll have someone named Pedowitz investigate the paramount issue, whether it says anything bad about me. Games are not influenced. Now go away. I have to meet with the Head of Referees so we can formulate directives to the refs, customized for tonight's games, as we have stated before that we do daily."

 

[Natebishop3]

Stern has been a boon for the game, and I wish him another interminable 25 years in his lonely fight against corruption. Just one thing. He could be more concise.

"I haven't read the book becaue I refuse to deal with this. I'll have someone named Pedowitz investigate the paramount issue, whether it says anything bad about me. Games are not influenced. Now go away. I have to meet with the Head of Referees so we can formulate directives to the refs, customized for tonight's games, as we have stated before that we do daily."

Stern ruined the game. He made it all about highlights, dunks, and superstar treatment. Boon my ass.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Stern ruined the game. He made it all about highlights, dunks, and superstar treatment. Boon my ass.

Bingo. Stern's early success was built on exploiting the Magic/Bird/Jordan era. It's one thing for an individual team to market themselves based on their stars.....marketing the entire league on individual stars warped everything. Once they started down that road, it was inevitable that the league would have to start manipulating results.

 

[jlprk]

I'm the only one here who wants to see another 25 interminable years? He will go down in history as the greatest underappreciated underpaid Big Man of basketball boonery.

 

[STOMP]

Bingo. Stern's early success was built on exploiting the Magic/Bird/Jordan era. It's one thing for an individual team to market themselves based on their stars.....marketing the entire league on individual stars warped everything. Once they started down that road, it was inevitable that the league would have to start manipulating results.

and after starting down this slippery slope where the league has directed it's officials to compromise their integrity skewing nightly results in the name of entertainment and the bottom line, it was only a matter of time before at least one of them slid a little further and went rogue.

Remember when Stern promised a transparent overhaul of the officials following the initial Donaghy scandal... how is that going? [/rhetorical?] Pretty much the overwhelming opinion was that the officials should be independent of the league (like MLB's umpires) if it was the league's goal to restore faith in the results. Of course nothing of the sort happened. The officials still answer to Stern and the right teams have been advancing... forgive me if I'm expecting more of the SOS

[video=youtube;aySGUzzxjGE]
[video=youtube;SdZhcm7vH38]
[video=youtube;vaZIAXJJDKQ]

STOMP

 

[Rhal]

Refs get a lot of anger because of how often fouls are called in the NBA. Every ref seems to ref differently so not only do you have a lot of fouls called per game but a lot of no calls per game. It makes it really hard to be "objective" as a fan and give the Refs any slack because we are seeing different calls every game. The best way to Fix the NBA is to take away from the "star" treatment and go back and make it a team game again. Most teams know they can't upset a contender in the playoffs not because they wont play harder but because of the way stars are treated. The NFL in there playoffs anything can happen and does happen. NBA there are a few upsets now and then but there isn't even 1 upset in the first round every year in the NBA and I do believe that is because of how the fouls structure how a game will be decided.
The NBA needs a 3rd party to constantly monitor refs EVERYGAME and every month have an evaluation of all (what is it 100 refs?) on what they need to call more and what they are over calling. I'd also like these touch fouls to go away, if a foul is called it should be a hard foul not these "i'm gonna drive to the basket barely get tapped and get to the line". The league is slowly turning into a PG/SG dominated league were old school defensive Big Men are a thing of the past.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

I dont think there are many Stern fans.

 

[Natebishop3]

The NBA is a joke...

 

[Natebishop3]

The NBA is no different than wrestling... there's heroes and villains. They build rivalries in a board room, not on a basketball court. The old days are gone.

 

[Minstrel]

Yup. I remember in the 1980s, big games were marketed by teams. Lakers versus Celtics. Celtics versus Sixers. Lakers versus Pistons. Obviously, players like Magic, Bird and Thomas were a big part of why people tuned in, but it wasn't billed as "Magic versus Bird" (in my recollection, anyway).

The earliest time I recall games being marketed by superstars was the 1991 NBA Finals...Jordan versus Magic. It was completely unnecessary, because both teams were incredible and it was an excellent match-up in terms of total talent, but the dominant theme was Jordan against Magic.

Of course, I don't entirely pin that on Stern. ESPN has had a big hand in it, and it extends beyond the NBA. Football games used to be marketed by teams, but now that too is often marketed by stars, especially if they play quarterback. It's more Peyton Manning versus Tom Brady than Colts-Patriots, in my opinion. (To be fair, though, I do remember the 1985 Super Bowl largely being billed as Montana versus Marino...but that seemed like a major aberration.)

Ultimately, though, I can't blame ESPN or the NBA for marketing however they feel is most effective. If what people want to be teased with is the superstars involved, then that is what any sane marketer will give them. I certainly hope that that doesn't influence the league to undermine the competitive integrity of the games (by encouraging officials to ensure superstars stay on the court), but it's probably a vain hope.

 

[RR7]

Yup. I remember in the 1980s, big games were marketed by teams. Lakers versus Celtics. Celtics versus Sixers. Lakers versus Pistons. Obviously, players like Magic, Bird and Thomas were a big part of why people tuned in, but it wasn't billed as "Magic versus Bird" (in my recollection, anyway).

And it was easy to do back then, when each team had 4 or 5 stars, and it was a big game between each team. The salary cap seemed to change some of that, with the Bostons and LAs not being able to own 8 HOFs on the roster. So as you spread players around, it became more about the players. Recently, though you certainly get hype about Kobe, Gasol, Pierce, Garnett, etc., most LA-Boston matchups now are hyped by the team. Because they have started to construct these "super teams". But people hate that. They think teams shouldn't be allowed to collect all that talent. So instead of the Heat, they want it to just be Wade I guess. Instead of it being about the Knicks being back, it should stay Amare, I suppose. Because if they add 2 other stars, yes, they'll be listed individually, but a matchup will be back to being Knicks-Heat! As opposed to Amare versus the Heat. Or, Celtics-Heat, as opposed to Pierce vs. Wade.
Sometimes, I don't think people really know what they want. Superstars ruined the league, yet without them, without hyping them and their popularity, the league likely would be dead. Or just irrelevant.

 

[Masbee]

Stern is just pissed that someone else profited off of his scheme, but actually went to the length to fix games, as opposed to just influencing them.

Corruption is a double-edge sword.

If you have great power, and use that power to design a system that can be abused so you can manipulate to your ends, others may be able to abuse it as well.

Stern created the reffing system that was and is very easily corruptable.

Every bit of this shit is all on him.

Donoghy is the sympton - not the disease.

 

[huevonkiller]

Stern ruined the game. He made it all about highlights, dunks, and superstar treatment. Boon my ass.

You mean the fans made it like that? The fans don't seem that interested in watching good defense and mediocre all-stars winning.

The Big markets will watch their teams no matter what though, aside from that you need to spice things up with some special player. Anyway why does anyone care about ratings? You have a solid team and future and that's what really matters.

 

[PapaG]

Stern is slowly turning into Billy Crystal's character in The Princess Bride.

What a fantastic speech, Stern!

 

[KingSpeed]

The NBA is no different than wrestling... there's heroes and villains. They build rivalries in a board room, not on a basketball court. The old days are gone.

Then why do you watch? Serious question. If I believed what you said, I wouldn't watch.

 

[Natebishop3]

Then why do you watch? Serious question. If I believed what you said, I wouldn't watch.

I watch because the Portland Trail Blazers are the only professional team in the town (Timbers start soon though). If we had football or even hockey I would probably switch. The NBA is rigged. I keep hoping that I will see SOMETHING that leads me to believe otherwise, but I've yet to see it.

 

[Minstrel]

Then why do you watch? Serious question. If I believed what you said, I wouldn't watch.

Lots of people watch pro wrestling.

I don't believe games are literally rigged, but I think the league encourages referees to call games in such a way that allows star players to remain on the floor as much as possible. If you market a league around stars/superstars, you're not going to want them sitting on the bench.

That is one big factor as to why you need superstars to win championships. It's not the only reason (being able to frontload minutes and possessions to your best players, moreso than in football and baseball, is probably the biggest reason), but it's a very significant reason why top-heavy teams are better positioned than teams with evenly-distributed talent. A team with a bunch of good players doesn't have anyone who will get star treatment, resulting in extra points, possessions and fouls on the opponent. A team with a couple of superstars will get quite a lot of that preferential treatment.

 

[maxiep]

They should get rid of the idea of the "personal foul" altogether and just highly penalize team fouls. It hurts the game that an effective strategy is to go after the best player and get him in foul trouble so he has to leave the game.

An offensive tackle can hold play after play after play. They get to stay in the game, but their team gets penalized 10 yards outside of their own 20 every time. It should be the same in the NBA.

Have it be five team fouls for the penalty, seven fouls for three to make two, ten fouls gets you three foul shots (or four if you were fouled on a three pointer), etc. Penalize the TEAM for fouling, not the individual.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

They should get rid of the idea of the "personal foul" altogether and just highly penalize team fouls. It hurts the game that an effective strategy is to go after the best player and get him in foul trouble so he has to leave the game.

An offensive tackle can hold play after play after play. They get to stay in the game, but their team gets penalized 10 yards outside of their own 20 every time. It should be the same in the NBA.

Have it be five team fouls for the penalty, seven fouls for three to make two, ten fouls gets you three foul shots (or four if you were fouled on a three pointer), etc. Penalize the TEAM for fouling, not the individual.

Fascinating idea. Repped.

 

[oldmangrouch]

They should get rid of the idea of the "personal foul" altogether and just highly penalize team fouls. It hurts the game that an effective strategy is to go after the best player and get him in foul trouble so he has to leave the game.

An offensive tackle can hold play after play after play. They get to stay in the game, but their team gets penalized 10 yards outside of their own 20 every time. It should be the same in the NBA.

Have it be five team fouls for the penalty, seven fouls for three to make two, ten fouls gets you three foul shots (or four if you were fouled on a three pointer), etc. Penalize the TEAM for fouling, not the individual.

Very interesting idea.

 

[Webster's Dictionary]

Then why do you watch? Serious question. If I believed what you said, I wouldn't watch.

I used to watch a lot of the NBA. I loved watching other teams, and not just the good ones. For some reason I loved watching the mid 90s Hawks. I used to watch every game I could get my hands on. Now I can hardly stand to watch a game for more than 10 minutes if it doesn't involve the Blazers. I watch highlights of basketball from the late 80s (before I was old enough to remember, this isn't about nostalgia) and early 90s and think, 'This is what basketball should be.'