Didn't you just say that a FT discrepancy isn't evidence of unfairness???

The sad thing is if the Celtics win a game 3 with an even FT discrepancy, you'll probably whine that the Lakers aren't getting the "breaks" at home like the Celtics did. No matter what happens on the court, you'll look at the FT stats, and if it's not to your liking, we'll hear it again.

Let the Laker fans whine. Cry into your cups about how unfair it all is.

Won't bother me, I've already seen what happens to the fanbase of the Boston when they lose. :)

Apparently it's similar to the Lakers fan base (see thread), and oh, EVERY other fan base (except those small-market baseball fans - they just complain about economics). It's all the same though. My team lost, wahhhhh.

And Boston fans certainly aren't immune - I've actually seen them blame losing on the local media.

In one of the worst things about sports (especially on message boards). After the complaining, others inevitably state that "they're not giving the winners enough credit", as if the winning team reads the message board and will have their feelings hurt if they there aren't enough nice things said.

Yes, I will. And I expect you to accept your own hypocrisy when and if that happens.

The first one is simply making fun of all the idiotic criticisms the Celtics have faced at each stage of their run this year. It amuses me how the arguments keep changing.

The second one is explaining that if the Lakers had won more games in the regular season, then they'd have home court advantage and would get the benefit of the "obvious referee cheating for home teams" that the Celtics will be privy to in 4 of the 7 games.

Perhaps. But did you see me posting a ton after game 1?

But your second response was basically a reply to the claims of your first.

Well, then complain that people said that's why they had a good record, not that there are complaints that the schedule was weak. The schedule was weak, that's a fact.

Straight numbers don't tell the story on FTs or fouls. It's never as simple as 30-30 or even or whatever==fair. That said, four to one is pretty hard to explain away.

First of all, don't make any assumptions about what I will do. I always try to call it as fair as I can, and I give other teams their just due all the time.

I am straight looking at the numbers and seeing what we got. There is a rational basis for what I am saying, and it's pretty clear.

And I did say FT discrepancy by itself isn't some smoking gun for unfairness. I broke it down to its literal translation--it means one team took far more FTs than the other. The reasons why take a little further observation, which I also pointed out.

That doesn't mean that discrepancy--especially one so sharp as this one--is not an element to be included in an argument for unfair calls in this game.

Fair enough, although I think it's just as wrong to dismiss those complaints as being "loser fan-itis" as it is for those fans to complain.

Complaining that the schedule is weak, for whatever reason, is pretty silly. This isn't college. They don't get to pick the schedule. All they can do is play their best against it, which they did, and still got criticized.


Not if you watched the game. The Lakers had the Celtics in the penalty midway through the 3rd and they didn't try to take advantage of that at all. Meanwhile, the Lakers were letting Powe get inside whenever he wanted and hammered him constantly.

True, I do agree that it's annoying to note a legitimately bad call and then automatically get hit with a "whiner" tag from somebody who might not even have seen the play. I just don't get how you could honestly have an issue with the FT discrepancy with how the game went down, but that's just my opinion. It's just too easy to plug in "home team" and "refs", and complain about anything, which is what it feels like you're doing.

The lakers were pretty bad for 40 minutes. If they showed up 5 minutes earlier, and played with any aggression on offense, they would have won.

Well, two of your five "idiotic criticisms" are still technically true, and two others were true at some point in time. The only one that is and always was invalid was the "can't win against the West" which was never true, to my knowledge. Not saying those putting out those criticisms were right, are right or will ever be right, but there was good reason to buy four of those five criticisms at some significant point this season.

As for the second, the Lakers played half the season without Bynum, didn't get Gasol until just before the AS break, and they played in a much tougher conference night in and night out, while the Celtics' key players missed just one stretch without KG. This is the system we have, and them's the breaks, so the Lakers just have to deal with that. But you holding that up as some kinda "see how the Lakers suck compare to the C's" argument is just ridiculous.

In light of all this FT discrepancy business, I think it's interesting to take a look at FT totals in the regular season and playoffs.

Regular Season
Lakers +3.4 (6th/30)
Celtics +0.2 (14th/30)

Playoffs
Lakers +3.3 (5th/16)
Celtics -4.2 (14th/16)

In the regular season, the biggest FT discrepancies were the Nuggets (+6.0) and the Timberwolves (-6.9). In the postseason, both the Hawks and Sixers had massive advantages (+11.0 and +9.7), while the Jazz (-5.3) and Raptors (-7.2) apparently got screwed.

Not saying the Celtics are somehow at fault for the weak schedule. It's just a fact that it was a weak schedule. And you're the one who brought it up. If you don't want the weak schedule thrown in your face, don't bring it up.



Actually, the entire game included all those FTs, so yes, even watching the game (which I did).

The Lakers do need to take better advantage of getting the Celtics in the penalty when they get there, so that is a valid criticism. As for Powe, partly a lot of fouls called on the Lakers made them a little iffy trying to take charges or stop drives, adn I think that contributed to Powe's ability to weave through the defense (that said, that was horrid, the Lakers need some serious work with that, and is one of the failings that can and maybe will cost them the series).

The Lakers were pretty bad. They completely deserved this loss. They were not the better team on the floor, and that was a fact. As I have said before, some serious flaws have been exposed in this roster set that I think will likely result in them losing this series, and maybe even badly.

But four to one. Think about that. Four FTs for every one on the other side. You can't just ignore a discrepancy that large. It's very apparent. You may think I am plugging in "home fan" and "refs", but it feels just as much like you and the other C fans will say anything to justify the discrepancy and spurn any notion that you might ahve won a game that was tilted at least slightly in your favor.

Actually, Ray Allen missed 9 games. Also, isn't this all part of the game? The Celtics made their biggest moves before the season, while the Lakers waited until before the AS break. The only thing the Lakers couldn't do anything about was their tougher schedule. Even giving them that, they were only 20-10 against the weak East, while the Celtics were 25-5 against the tough West.


Never said the Lakers suck.

I actually think the Lakers are very good and was very worried about this series coming in, but I'm very surprised at how soft they've played so far. I don't think that will continue in LA, but we'll see.

Nine games? Big whoop. Lamar missed five games. Vujacic ten. Borat 17. Ariza barely played for the Lakers. Come on, you don't really want to get into a "who missed more injury-games this season" argument do you?

As for everything else, exactly what I said. This is the system we're in, the Lakers have to accept it for what it is, and make amends for not doing it as well as the C's did. Kudos to the Celtics. Point is, you were trying to make out like the Lakers roster as it is composed is somehow derelict for not winning more games in the regular season than the Celtics. In and of itself, it's not entirely at fault, and it is disingenuous of you to disparage the team for that.


Read what I wrote again. You must have missed the "compared to the Celtics" part.

Just quoting to note I see your edit here while I was responding.

Yes, their softness is one of the big time issues exposed here, IMO. It's one of the primary reasons they could lose, and maybe should, lose this series. And I think it will continue it LA. This just isn't a very historically tough team.

What surprises me, really, is that the Celtics are so much tougher in comparison, because that was not apparent before the series. They didn't have a very strong rebounding advantage in the regular season, and you already notedc where they stood on the FT discrepancy (which suggests more of a jump shooting team, which in fact, they were, outside of Pierce).

The Celtics have been fantastic with respect to stepping up their game and changing their play to better take advantage of the weaknesses of the opponent. They should be commended for that (especially Doc Rivers, who I think is entirely behind it, from planning to motivation), and they may very well get a well-earned championship as a result.

Just please tell me you're not one of these conspiracy people.

If you do I'll have to expose the sham that was the Gasol trade.

Even though that's a joke, if you're claiming that the Celtics were helped by an incompetent third party (the refs), then ya, the Gasol trade is essentially the same thing X 1,000.

But I'm not complaining. Sports are about breaks and overcoming when the other team gets them....EVERY SINGLE close NBA game, more than any other sport, lends itself to referee second-guessing, because there's so many calls that can go either way.

I still wonder what you think what would make up a fair FT discrepancy after seeing how the game went down. 3-1? I think the Lakers are lucky it wasn't 6-1.

I just looked at the box score again, and the arguments about the foul discrepancy are a bit misleading. Yes, the Celtics took more free throws (38-10), but the actual foul calls were alot closer (28-21).

Not a conspiracy theorist. The refs have their bad days, too, and are human. Trends show refs tend to err on the side of the home team, and the more aggressive team. Doesn't make it right, though.

And I am beginning to wonder what you think would make up an unfair FT discrepancy. 8-1? 10-1?

That's actually a pretty significant discrepancy, too. Not like four-to-one, but still significant. And the difference between the FTs and foul numbers says a lot about the types of fouls called, too, which is another way the game can be influenced without transparency (although once again, I state that as an argument for a poor job by the refs, not as part of some larger conspiracy).

Typical New England fan respone.

(this post was tongue in cheek to some degree, its just nice to be able to make denigrating generalizations about another fanbase instead of have them made about mine)

Yes, I even kept the typo.

I finally saw the highlights of all this.

Wow.

What theatrical drama queen Pierce is. It was absolutely embarassing. To get carried off the court in tears, put in a wheelchair and then come jogging back onto the court? Sweet jeebus.

C'mon, this again, really? This is really the Anti-Pierce, he always pops back up after going down. I don't get how people can't understand he was legitimately worried he wouldn't be able to play against his childhood team in his first NBA Finals.

I don't watch a whole lot of NBA, but I watched last night and I love Jeff Van Gundy! Three awesome comments:

1) Stating what we all know but the NBA would never admit: that if the refs called traveling by the book it would be called on nearly every play.

2) Telling Mark Jackson that he made the most embarrassing statement ever uttered on ABC television. I'm surprised Van Gundy survived the next TV timeout.

3) Immediately following a plug for some new reality show called "Wipeout", Van Gundy dryly intoned: "so many reality shows; so little time".

And after someone brought up the Game 1 Paul Pierce injury conspiracy (that he faked going down), "That's ridiculous. No athlete is that smart".

Hahahaha, why the hell do people think each team should get an equal number of free throw shots?? As if Phil Jackson actually said that! Is that really why you lost? Because Powe had a lot of free throws? Maybe it's because you fouled more? What bs.

It's like complaining about a strikeout ratio in baseball. I mean, how can it be fair that one team got 17 Ks, and the other team only got 4? How is that fair???

I don't get why the Lakers fans are complaining either. Everyone knew the Celtics would win the first two. The Lakers will win the next 3 at home, the Celtics will win game 6, and then game 7 will be the one that matters.

fozzie points out that it's extremely unlikely that the lakers will win all 3 at home. it rarely happens.

Would Chief Rum go on the record now and say that if the Lakers get a foul-call disparity of greater than 28-21 in LA that it's a tainted victory?

So you really think that Boston, being the aggressive team that they are on both offense and defense, really were fouled at that much greater of a clip then the Lakers? You don't believe that Boston got thebenefit of more calls then the Lakers?

There wasn't that much of a difference in foul calls. There was a difference in shooting fouls. The Celtics fouled before the shot, that's all. And once they had a comfortable lead, why would they foul much at all? In fact didn't that lack of aggressiveness lead to the Lakers nearly coming back?

Of course, I don't watch a whole lot of basketball (college or pro) thanks to the officiating and the fouling and the entire way the game is called, so I wouldn't listen much to what I have to say on the matter. Any sport that ignores large sections of its rulebook (travelling, palming) and let's a guy jump into another guy and have it be a foul on guy #2 just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Fair enough. I just can't imagine when a team with Kobe on it would go to the line less as a team, then Leon Powe and not think that maybe the C's were getting a lot of breaks from the refs.

That's the other part of the thinking that bugs me: stars deserve more "respect" from the officials.

OK, I only watched the last 3 minutes of the 3rd quarter and the entire 4th quarter, so please bear with me on this question.

Did the Lakers go to the basket as much as the Celtics did? The Lakers made their comeback by shooting from outside. There wasn't any contact during that time for the refs to call. I acknowledge that something might have happened in the first 33 minutes of the game that I didn't see, but the Lakers didn't deserve many free throws during their comeback, as they operated a mile from the basket. I saw maybe two or three instances of possible fouls that were not called against Boston in the 4th quarter, but I saw the same thing going the other way, too.

So where's the beef? Did the Lakers supposedly get robbed of FT attempts early in the game, or was it late in the second half? If it was early in the game, I didn't see it. If it was late in the game, I guess I just don't understand how to critique an NBA game these days.

this kind of thinking drives me nuts too. a foul is a foul is a foul - regardless of who it is on. or at least it should be. otherwise its just bs

The Lakers were horrible on defense today. The Celtics weren't even running good plays, they were just winging it the entire game, what with all the crosscourt passes and the drive and dish. The Lakers were just a complete mess on defense.

The non-calls by the refs, I can somewhat stomach, despite not liking them. There was a sequence that completely pissed me off where Fisher's arm was all but completely ripped off when a greenshirt pulled at his bicep, and the ref didn't blow the whistle. Still, that is not where the Lakers lost this one.

Defense wins championships, and if the Lakers don't start playing good defense, they are going to lose the series.

I don't think Kobe goes to the line as often as you think.

For the season, he averaged 9 foul shots a game (he had 7 in game 2). But again, the issue is what happened IN THE GAME, not history, not whether there's a discrepency. The Jazz fouled Kobe a lot. The Spurs barely did at all (11 total FTs in that 5 game series).

Why do people want consistency with these numbers game to game, and from team to team within the game? I don't get it. Should umpires hand out an equal number of walks?

Consistency with numbers? Not at all. Consistency with calls? Kobe's second foul was a joke and if the refs called that play, we'd have no players on the court by the start of the second quarter.

What happened in the game was that there was a discrepancy on what fouls were called.

i've seen that foul called on celtics players before - in the detroit series

That should have been a non-call, but it's not an uncommon one - you have to be careful swinging your elbows around the head of a defending player.

So there's one. Do you think you could name 10 others that someone couldn't roughly counter going the other way?

NBA basketball is the hardest game to officiate. A team has to understand that and take it into account. If the refs are calling a tighter game, charge the hoop. If they're putting the whistle away, hack like crazy. If you start to pout and feel bad for yourself after a call doesn't go your way - you're going to lose (see Paul Pierce's career prior to this year).

This is all equiavlent to those fans in football who bring up some holding penalty that wasn't called in the second quarter after a close game. There's SO many opportunities for calls in an NBA game. I'd guess that there's probably at least 20-25 wrong calls in any game, probably more. It's a built-in excuse for ANY loser. Unless you think the game is rigged, they will balance each other out.

That has nothing to do with the game yesterday. I'm not even saying that the refs have a bias against Celtics overall. I had no problem with game 1 as I thought it was done well enough, how were the fouls called in that game?

Why can't the NBA just use the same officials for the entire series? That way each game would be called consistently throughout the series. Or does that make too much sense?

More fouls called on the Lakers by a 29-22 margin. The same +7 margin as game 2.

I think it's all about Powe and the announcers pointing out how often he was going to the line. That riled everybody up for some reason, even Phil Jackson.

If FT disparity shows some kind of referee bias/unfairnes, than the Lakers aren't even a legitimate participant in the finals. Check out the disparity in their four wins in Jazz series:

game1: 46-30 (Lakers)
game 2: 43-16 (Lakers)
game 5:42-28 (Lakers)
game 6: 38-25 (Lakers)

Exactly. Lakers fans have nothing to bitch about. The reason they aren't going to the line is they ar enot driving the ball. The reason they aren't driving the ball is the Celtics D isn't allowing them to drive it.