Eventually I will have to concede to everything you say, however, because you have a very tactful strategy of debate -- not listening! Like I said, I think plenty of people have put down your arguments in many of the other threads, but you just refuse to acknowledge them. I'll admit, it's really effective to say after the fact, regardless of what's being bantered about, that "No one has refuted my arguments." Kinda reminds me of when I was a little kid and I covered my ears and screamed at the top of my lungs because I didn't want to hear what other people said. No, I've listened. The argument is about the same. The common perception is that the Kings had game 7 to win anyway, and merely had to make their free throws to win that game. While that may be true, as someone pointed out a few days ago, a 3-2 series lead means you have chances, not a chance. Anything can happen in a one game scenario, and it did. The point is, you build series leads to have multiple chances to close a team out, and the Kings never had that chance. You can cry scoreboard all you want, but the 27 free throws is a fact. For me to refute your argument The Cat, I have to know what it is. What is it? Outline it for me...give me a flow chart or something, with a picture of David Stern at the top, his consigliere below and a parade of soldiers below that...(sorry, been watching the GodFather) The NBA wanted a game 7 between the two best teams in the NBA. There's my argument. No, because if the NBA championship was pre-determined, like you always complain about after the Lakers win a game, or a series, why do you always pick against them when you call your shot before the series starts (the Nets excluded)? Wouldn't you just pick the Lakers out of common sense if you truly believed the NBA was fixed? I've complained about the Lakers and officiating in seven out of more than 100 games. I've complained about a fixed and pre-determined NBA championship once. That's a far, far cry from always. Oh, and if I ever truly believed the Lakers would win, I wouldn't watch the series. That's why I didn't watch much of these Finals. I don't want to waste my time if I don't believe my team can win. I've also never really thought the NBA was fixed before these Finals. I had thought that LA got a few calls in the crucial moments because of the superstars and the big market, but teams have gotten that before. That's not an all out fix. But when you shoot 27 free throws in the fourth quarter of an elimination game, I'm not sure what else I can think. The above paragraph is what causes me to believe you are entirely too emotionally attached to your teams (ie teams not called the Lakers). This is what causes people to call you a cry baby and a whiner, because you cling so desperately to these rationalizations of yours to the point where you sound completely IRrational. No, the only reason people complain about me "whining" is that there's a segment of fans who are obsessed with not blaming officials and instead point blindly to the scoreboard no matter what the situation. Also, about 99% of those comments have come from Laker fans, so I'm not too concerned about that. I've been to other BBS' since Game 6, and I can guarantee that my opinion is the majority. It's not even close. Either most of the country is just a bunch of crybabies and whiners who are all out to get the Lakers, or maybe those few Laker fans want to ignore what happened. I also love how when the Kings get free throws, it is because they were "agressive" and "going towards the basket." I guess Shaq isn't agressive, or he doesn't go to the basket. No, wait, OR, is it that he is TOO agressive and should be called for offensive fouls every possession? Most of the fouls on the Kings in game 6 were like the fictional 6th foul on Pollard for apparently standing between Shaq and the basket. Or the mystery foul on Kobe with two minutes left as he's fading away. The Kings consistently went inside at the Lakers interior defense much more than the Lakers did to the Kings. Okay, I hope I didn't waste my time writing all that, but I'm guessing I did, because if history is any indication, you only scanned it for words like "cry baby" and "whiner" so you can seek pity and make me feel guilty for "singling you out." Since when is that history? Anyway, I was trying to avoid these arguments and save the BBS from the thousandth debate between myself and gettinbranded on this subject, before I was personally called out in this thread which I hadn't even posted in. What else am I supposed to do? No one has come up with a sound argument, IMO, for what happened in game 6, so yeah I'm going to respond if you dismiss it as whining.
I can remember games that were decided by one call in about 25-50 games in the past 3 seasons. The lakers won. THEY WON!!!!!!! Come on guys, give them credit. There the ones having a parade in there honor today, so we all should bow down and praise "the lakers" The thing of it is, is the fact you (we ) can make so many what if's, what if this call was fouled, what if the refs saw this instead of that. You can't go through life, dwelling on the what ifs. You have to learn from the past and use that experience in the future. The experience I learned is that to never bet against the Lakers when they're in the playoffs. They'll get all the calls, and it'll make your 5 weeks playoff viewing period a living hell, like it was for me. Thanks to the mighty lakers I owe a friend a fez dozen 20's It's all good. I had a bad case of what, the cat is doing, but i've learned to back off with my case and let thing's be. It's not so bad seeing the lakers CHAMPS again.
And so despite the supposed debacle of game 6, they had game 7. I don't see your point. The argument keeps changing though.
My point was that the Kings should've had two chances, not just the one in game seven. Not sure how that's deviated from the original argument.
well, looking at the scoreboard, i saw that the kings shot 44 MORE freethrows than the lakers did in their 3 wins. the lakers shoto only 23 extra fts in their 4 wins. of course, that has no relevance right cat? it doesn't matter the kings got some help themselves to get to that elmination game, it only matters that the lakers got some help in it? lol, sure.
No, sure doesn't matter. I watched the series. The Kings were the more aggressive team. They got to the line more because they earned it. Bobby Jackson went straight at the defenders in the lane. Mike Bibby continually was tripped by Laker defenders on the penetration. Chris Webber took it inside. Even Turkoglu was slicing through the lane for dunks. On the Lakers, you had Shaq, and that was about it. Did Shaq get fouled inside and not get the call? Maybe, but I can guarantee you there were just as many instances where he dislodged a defender without a call, so it levels off. Look at the rest of the Lakers. Fisher's not a penetrator. Horry isn't an interior player-- he's a spot up shooter. Same for Fox. Kobe can take it inside at times, but often resorts to that fadeaway jumper. The Kings should've gotten more free throws because they're the more aggressive team in taking it to the basket. No, I don't have facts to show that, but I watched the series and that much was obvious, even to most Laker fans on their BBS. The number of free throws shot isn't usually an accurate representation of who the officials favored. Usually, it favors the more aggressive team. But somewhere the line must be drawn, and I'm thinking the 27 free throws in one quarter isn't usual circumstances.
I thought the page 2 artice Cat quoted above was dead on, having watched all of those Bavetta games in disbelief, also. I don't see why the league has refs who can't call an even game. They give the league a bad name. The thing is, the lakers shouldn't have needed Bavetta - they have the talent to win without him. When good teams resort to using their starpower instead of their skills, well, it just shows me they don't repect the game, or themselves. That's why I've always hated Karl Malone and David Robinson. I don't know what to think about a dog like Bavetta though. Do you blame Shaq for realizing what Bavetta was calling and rolling to the hoop? I'm going to put the blame for this travesty more on Bavetta than the Lakers, who played a great game. It's too bad Sacto wasn't allowed to play, too, and astonishing they kept up as well as they did. Do you remember How Hakeem and Drexler made enemies with some of the refs early in their carreers, and it haunted them through the years? I remember D. Garrettson and Hugh Evans really hated Drexler. Hakeem couldn't buy a foul for years. He'd get hacked and the whistles would just watch. In his younger days, Hakeem would regularly carry a player on his back while scoring over a second defender hitting him in the face. No call. When a team overcomes that kind of adversity, it is the mark of true greatness. I don't like that the Lakers have never had to overcome adversity, on the contrary, there has been a helpful hand there, at least since Phil arrived. Maybe you can give Phil credit for Jedi-mind-tricking the refs. Del Harris sure didn't have the gift. His Lakers were ready to implode at any moment. Ditto Rambis. Personally, I wish the league would clean up it's refs. I don't see what's wrong with Cuban's approach of monitoring actions and keeping statistics. Everyone should be accountable. Yes, it's a terribly difficult job and requires judgement and opinion. Still, some rules are very clearly ignored. I think Stern does a disservice to the players and the league allowing different rules for different players. Shaq is a great player. It diminishes him to take 5 steps to the basket. It diminishes him to knock over stationary defenders on the way to the basket. He has the skills to do it right. When he was younger, that he regularly fouled out, picking up offensive fouls easily. I don't think he's changed so much, I think the whistles have stopped blowing. This is not good for the league - it doen't make an interesting game, and it's galling to watch someone get something they didn't earn. So, in conclusion, choke on your trophy, a-hole laker fan. You can put it right up there on the mantle next to the OJ verdict. Scoreboard! That's all that matters, right? I guess you can have Orinthal lead the parade of "winners".
GB, you're not this dumb. I've seen other, intelligent, enjoyable posts from you. Why are you acting like this? If the refs take a game away from a team then that team never got their chance. An unfairly called game is not a game at all. It is a farce. Your attempts to refute Cat's arguments contain no basis in logic. While I may not completely agree with Cat on a lot of issues (Namely, those horrible Spurs) I will say this, the Kings earned their their opportunities to win the series in games 6 and 7. The Lakers were given their chance to play game 7 by the refs. The Kings may have "tripped over thier own feet" in game 7. But, realistically, the Lakers never deserved to even play that game.
I could sit here arguing about this call or that foul but I know opinions won't change. It's too bad everybody reads posts while the whole time thinking about what to respond with, or what they want to say to counter that rather than trying to understand what the other poster is saying. (note that I have no problem with people arguing back and forth, championing free speech is something that should be done more often)
I actually thought watching it in real time that the shot appeared to be late. I wouldn't have counted it if I had been one of the refs, but it was definitely close enough that I can see why they did.
