I understand the idea of calling a game fairly and that they are human and will make mistakes as refs. All I would ask is that they call the game consistently. If they were going to "let them play" for three quarters, that should've been the standard going into the fourth.
It's a stupid poll because anyone who really follows the league knows that 2002 was a travesty. So the answer is definitely "no". Now whether the 2010 title is undeserved is another question. I say that the Lakers showed enough to be crowned champs-- at the very least they were evenly matched with the Celtics-- but I would have liked to have seen the officials let them play in the 4th. That could have provided us with an epic finish instead of the snoozefest that 20+ FTs brings. I do think the NBA got what they wanted, though, because casual fans are going to lap up the story next year as the Lakers go for another threepeat. If they had lost, none of that would have been there. No one outside of Boston really gives an F about the Celtics but with the Lakers everyone either loves them or hates them.
I thought they let them play in the fourth as well. The Lakers executed better, and they were drawing some pretty obvious fouls.
ok firstly even if there was admissions by people that 2002 wasnt legit thats still ONE season in what...60ish? Let's even say that there were 2 or 3 others that weren't deserved...your still talking 56/60 were deserved so based just on that you could answer yes to the poll and thats without taking into account that ref might change a game here and there but they dont change an entire season and they dont cause injuries or give people heart. secondly, i dont know if anyone has heard the interview that jim rome did with the ex-mob guy who talks about fixing basketball games, but as i was watching last night all i was thinking the entire time was that this game was validating every single thing he said. im not a conspiracy theorist, but im also not ignorant and last nights game was incredibly inconsistent from the refs. I was cheering for the Lakers (i have a bizarre fascination with artest and wanted him to win, and more improtantly my bro wanted them to lose) and for the majority of the game i was screaming that the refs were cheaters no calls what so ever for the first bit, then when they did start blowing the whistle it was very insonsistent and either very early (shannon brown foul on rondo i think, when the ref could not possibly have seen because he was blocked off from possible hand contact by browns body) or very late (i think it was gasol who took a shot and was fouled but they didnt blow the whistle until it was very obvious the shot wasnt going in). I also think its hilarious that Gasols 2 'highlights' were his 'great block'/foul on the defensive end and his 'clutch shot'/traveling shot at the offensive end. bottom line, ultimately the lakers defense stepped up and their offense made the shots when it mattered the most. i thought the refs sucked but i dont think by any means they gave the game to the lakers. and now the things that make me pause: -the spread was +7 for boston they lost by 4 -over/under was 189 (i think) and they came in at 162, but in the 4th quarter (when the refs changed the way they were calling the game) the scoring jumped up 29% from the previous 3 quarters, at this point though the game was safely going to fall into the under. was the game fixed? who knows is it at least possible based on what we all saw...absolutely. not in terms of the ultimate winner but in terms of the spread and the over/under.
Rick Adelman wouldn't agree. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fxw3yxJt2O0&hl=zh_TW&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fxw3yxJt2O0&hl=zh_TW&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> But as much as I dislike the Lakers, I think they deserve their championship this year.
In general, I agree championships are well-earned. But, I was going to point out that the Kings were genuinely robbed that year.
^ Indeed. Tinman are you implying that there is some universal law that rewards the most deserving team, every single year?
Any team that made it to the finals deserve to win. It takes a lot to play well the whole season and play through the first 3 rounds. The Celtics deserved just as much as the Lakers to win the championship. Dumb thread.
You can argue with Kendrick Perkins injured that the outcome of game 7 may have been different. It's really irrelevant, though. LA won the game, and it's over. To me, one game could be a fluke, but if you lose 4 games to one team in a 7 game span then you don't deserve the championship.
That doesn't make sense. If game 7 was a fluke, which I think it was, then Boston lost 3 to Lakers and vise versa. So Boston deserves the championship just as much as the Lakers.
I know you consistently deny that officiating has anything to do with the result of games. But if you claim that the 4th quarter was called the same way like the first three quarters, I totally disagree with you. I don't think the refs called it unfairly. But the style of officiating did change in the 4th quarter. Calling the game tighter favored the Lakers. If they called the whole game like they did in the 4th quarter, it would not have been a close game. It would have been a blow out. On the other hand, if they called the 4th like the other three, Boston might have been able to pull it off.
First of all, I don't buy the whole "the refs fixed the 4th quarter to help the Lakers" argument. The Celtics COULD have won, and SHOULD have won the game last night, but they made some cardinal mistakes. 1) They ran out of gas in the 4th quarter; the defense was superb in the first three periods, but I noticed that they started to get tired, and it hurt them, especially on offense because they started to run more isos for players; the ball movement became stagnant. 2) The rebounding was horrendous; The Lakers controlled the boards the entire game (The Lakers won the rebounding battle 53-40, including a 23-8 advantage on the offensive boards). It was frustrating seeing the Celtics not getting the rebounds they needed; if they couldn't rebound when they were up double digits, what makes you think they could when the game started to get close? It was a very hard-fought win for the Lakers; the scariest part of the win is that they could totally dominate again next year because I don't see the West getting that much better (as far as competition to challenge the Lakers, even though I'm pulling for the Rockets to make huge strides).
