[82games.com] Roland Beech's statistical analysis of 2002 Kings Lakers Game 6 Referee

dear god...lol too many random stats

 

even the refs that called that game admitted it was a crappy job by them... I don't see how he can argue it was a good job...

 

I don't have time to read it in-depth right now -- but upon a quick skim, I'm very skeptical. One graph in particular stood out:

The Webber offensive foul, to me, was arguably one of the most absurd calls I've seen in 20 years of watching basketball and was the pivotal moment of that game. If that's in his maybe column, I have some serious questions about his objectivity. I've watched that play over and over again, and I have no idea how any logical person could see that as an offensive foul.

 

Thanks. Good article.

 

When a game is being fixed or "guided," the only thing that matters is that the right team wins. This means that all the refs have to do is be "bad enough" to affect the outcome of the game, especially down the stretch.

So while they might have done a decent job throughout the game, what makes me suspicious is the fact that calls went against the Kings as soon as they started making a run. Then, when the game was close down the stretch, some really bad calls were made.

Beech's standard for what constitutes a good or bad call is a little suspect as well.

 

This reminds me of those specials on Discovery or whatever channel where they go to all sorts of lengths to debunk "myths" and "conspiracies". Recently, I saw this long-a$$ show where they attempted to debunk the Magic Bullet theory of the Warren Commission, and another special (by coincidence) that state the CIA had nothing to do with killing Bobby Kennedy.

Now, whatever you believe in the above cases is not the point. But they used the term "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracist" a lot, if not in a scornful tone, to always remind you that anyone who thinks there is more to the story must also believe in UFOs.

Hence the NBA Kings-Lakers game 6. You miss the point with statistical analysis. WAS THE GAME FIXED? If I'm a conspiracy theorist for saying yes, then I get to call David Stern a coincidence theorist.

 

dude, not to call you out but from your postings in the D&D you do tend to believe in conspiracies

 

I think this is exactly why the author's method is flawed. He is using slow motion and tv commentators' view to aid his judgment on whether a call is good or not.

The point of the article is not whether the calls were correct but whether the refs were biased. So why use slow motion? The correct method should be just watch the game in normal speed and judge each call/non-call by normal NBA standard, i.e., what kind of situations are usually in favor of the offensive players, what kind of situation are usually in favor of the defense, etc.

Instead of watching the play 10 times in slo-mo to judge the Webber offensive foul call, he should just take the first impression, because that what the refs were supposed to be doing.

 

because a referee who refs hundreds of games has a different perspective than you or I as a trained official and therefore you probably need to look at something in slow motion to get their vantage point.

same as with anything in life, you're not looking at the same game because the ref is an expert and to fairly judge them you need to be looking at something as the expert does which is going to require more looking for you

 

dude supers32 what are u up to now?

 

Again, the point is NOT to tell whether the calls were correct. We may not have the same perspective as the refs'. But we watch refs calling thousands of games. To see whether a game is "rigged" we should compare how the refs in THIS game is different from general practice in other games.

For example, if the refs never call traveling on LeBron James' ridiculous steps to the basket, and then suddenly they call it a couple of times in crucial situations during a game he played against the Lakers, then that game should be suspect. Watching the plays in slow motion to judge that James did travel (and therefore a correct call) does not clear the conspiracy claim.

 

this standard is even more unattainable. the only way to evaluate something is by how it should be, given your standard you're already going into the evaluation biased and there is no purpose to begin with.

 

This Roland Beech's analysis is as good as you and I. Beech's analysis focuses on calls and non-calls in last 5 minutes. How about the non-calls in the other 43 minutes? Is this Beech dude even a referee?

This is Ted Bernhardt, one of the 3 referees in Gm 6, wanted to say:

Basically, Ted Bernhardt said he knew they sucked right after the game.

Did that affect the outcome of the game? Yes, it did. It was a very close game.

Could we find hard evidence of conspiracy by reviewing the video? No, you wont.

If the League wants fans have more trust to its officiating, it really needs to take away the so-called "home court advantage" in the playoffs. Why do the referees allow/bear more extra-curricular activities by the home teams, like, moving picks, grab, & pushes? Most of the dubious calls are against visitors.

Joey Crawford to Tim Duncan, "I HONESTLY want to screw you and your team over and over again". Oops! The League had to come out and admit Joey Crawford screwed the Spurs again.

 

Read what the author himself said:

The whole thing is NOT to judge whether the standard NBA officiating is good. It is to see if the claim of conspiracy has merit by the "typical standards of officiating."

I don't know if there is a conspiracy. And I do believe that Beech tried to be objective. However, his method does not match what he claims to be doing and therefore the analysis is flawed.

 

Depends on what you watch. If the slow motion was used in watching the referees (their facial expressions, their body language, etc.) then yes, although I don't know how much it would help.

If the slow motion is used for determining if a call is correct, that is not what the analysis is supposed to do.

Look at what he says here:

When he watched the call the first time, he thought it was a terrible call. That should be enough right there. He felt it was a terrible call because in typical game situation, that play would have been called the other way. After he watched the slow motion multiple times, he changed his conclusion not because he believed this play would have been called otherwise in other games, but because he thought "a case could be made for an offensive foul."

You see, he is making judgment of the correctness of the call, not of what referees typically do in that situation. You don't need slow motion to see how a certain kind of play is typically called.

Let me use the author's own illustration. A lot of people think that Shaq gets away with a lot of offensive fouls with his playing style. Whether that is true or not is not the point. The point is, if in an important game, the refs suddenly called offensive fouls when Shaq was doing what he was normally allowed to do, then the Lakers would have legitimate beef that the refs were up to something. Same thing with JVG's complaint about Yao's moving screen calls a few years back. There is no point in using slow motion to judge whether Yao's screens were indeed illegal. All you need to do is to see if Yao was just doing what he was normally allowed to do.

This case is much more complicated because the claim of conspiracy is not just against one player with one kind of play, but the whole team with all kinds of play. That is awfully difficult to prove one way or another by the author's analysis.