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

Not really. I think he's got a point.

If you watch nearly any play enough times in slow motion, you can convince yourself of pretty much anything.

 

that did give me pause. that he could call that a "maybe." that is high up the list of all the terrible calls i've ever seen.

first off, it was a foul on horry, i don't see any way around it. he jumped into webber and then flopped. secondly, we're talking about the guy that i think finished 2nd in the mvp voting and who, at the time, was a superstar, versus a role player (no matter how much i like horry). that already gives the benefit of the doubt to webber, based on everything shaq and kobe got in that series (and every star in history has gotten). thirdly, webber already had 4 fouls, and refs are usually even more reluctant to call a foul when it could put someone in real foul trouble. it was an and 1 that should've put the kings up by 5 i believe.

now having said all that, if you wanted to argue that it's a play with 3 minutes to go in the 4th quarter of a huge playoff game, and you should just let them play on, then i can buy that. no call, count the bucket. but to call that an offensive foul? one of the worst and most pivotal calls ever.

had they not called that, when webber fouled horry on the next play, they could've just called webber for his 5th foul (why they didn't wanna call him now, i have no idea, given the previous play) instead of waiting until divac fouled him to give divac his 6th foul. given that pollard had already fouled out with about 3 ridiculous fouls, that left the kings with funderburke trying to guard shaq. ridiculous call, and no way that's a maybe.


now having said that, i'm sure he went through a good deal of effort to analyze every call and tried to be objective and i like most of 82games.com's work, and i don't think the refs really tried to fix the game, but it seems his analysis may not have been perfect.

of course, one reason his analysis may not end up with the result one would expect is that the actual free throw disparity was only 40-25 for the game, whereas what most people think of when talking about the absurdity of the refs in that game is the 27 free throw 4th quarter. the 4 point differential in the 4th is pretty big (though it apparently didn't matter that much in the final 3 minutes).

 

Again, if you watch anything enough times, you can can convince yourself of basically any preconceived conclusion.

 

You still don't get my point. We do not need to see the plays like the refs did. And we do not need to analyze each call to see if it is correct. All we need is a pattern of reffing, which we do have by watching hundreds of games officiated. If the game was not officiated like a normal game, then there is legitimate concern about fairness. It has nothing to do with whether the refs sucked or not.

 

I didn't want to be an ass, but if you want to do it his way you have to build a way back machine, clone yourself two times and have your clones become referees and ref the game yourself.

to suggest that we have the perspective of the ref live from a television is just not accurate

 

I understand your point, there's just no way of doing that. you have to analyze hundreds of games to determine how refs call games vs. how refs should call games vs. how these particular players are called and then analyze the game from that standpoint.

 

Tougher things have been done

 

That's what I am saying. It is very difficult to prove one way or the other. Watching slow motion video to determine whether each call is correct, like what Beech did, does not answer the question of conspiracy.

But I disagree that we cannot have a general impression of how the refs did. We have watched hundreds, if not thousands, of games. Are you saying that we don't have a general idea of an NBA officiating pattern?

 

not based on the accusations of a rogue employee throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks

 

I never said it was easy. Read my posts. I said it was DIFFICULT to prove one way or the other. My whole point was that the article did nothing to dispel the conspiracy theory. Apparently the author thought it worth doing because some "evidence" was floating around, or else he's wasting his time, and you were wasting your time to post it.

The game had been largely perceived as very one-sided even before that Donaghy guy made the allegation. It was perceived that way for a reason. The way it was called did not match the normal pattern of officiating. You may disagree with that perception. I can't argue with you. That is in some way subjective. But if enough subjective people saw the same thing, then maybe there is some objective truth in it.

 

I am not demanding he proves a negative. He is trying to find out if the conspiracy theory has any leg, which I think is commendable. My criticism, as I repeated many times, is that what he did has not accomplished what he set out to do because he is analyzing the wrong things, or using the wrong basis for his analysis.

I gave you the obvious examples, such as Shaq's treatment by the officials and Yao's moving screens. There are other obvious patterns such as traveling calls. Not long ago, people were arguing about the Fisher-Barry foul at the buzzer. Nobody was saying that that play was not a foul. What was being argued was based on the PATTERN of NBA officiating of "letting them play" at the last moments of a game. I personally don't agree with that pattern, but that is besides the point here.

Again, are you denying that there are no discernible patterns based on the vast number of games we have watched?

In this case, the Webber call is one example of a deviation from the normal pattern.

I agree that there are lots of instances of variance. If they happen here and there, we just assume that they are simple mistakes by the refs. If they happened in a concentration of one game and in favor of one team, it might still be just mistakes. But the question of conspiracy would also be legitimate. I do not object Beech's attempt. I just think his evaluation should not based on "correctness" of a call, but on the typical practice in the NBA.

Look, I don't know if there was indeed a conspiracy. I do think that that game was called unfairly. If it turns out that they were just bad calls, I'd be ok with it. And if it turns out there is a conspiracy, I wouldn't be surprised either. But I doubt that the truth will ever be known for sure.

 

LOL!

Ex-referees are coming out to point a figure at Dick Bavetta.

There is also another espn video that had ex-referee Jake O'Donnell said Dick Bavetta disrepects the game. But I dont know how to post the video:

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3483539&n8pe6c=2&categoryId=2459788

I have a hard time to believe Gm 6 Kings vs Lakers was officiated right. It's even harder now to believe when ex-referees come out to point a figure at Dick Bavetta.

Now, tell me those 4 "dubious calls" from Dick Bavetta as classified by Roland Beech were really resulted from bad angles!?

 

hmmmmm...this reminds me of the OJ case. most people believe he was guilty. But they just can't prove it. You got to love the "assumed innocent until proven otherwise" system.

 

I put it this way:

If Dick Bavetta blows his whistles for dubious calls against visitor teams, especially in Staples Center, I put a million question marks on them.

When Joey Crawford didnt call the foul on Fisher against the Spurs, I call it a habitual mistake.

Joey Crawford has more integrity than Dick Bavetta.

As per George Karl: