I quite enjoyed ESPN's halftime coverage of the disturbing claims found in a letter written by the lawyers of disgraced former NBA ref Tim Donaghy. Stuart Scott presented the brief-but-necessary research that let us know which series were probably being discussed (the Lakers-Kings in 2002 and the Rockets-Mavericks in 2005). Jeff Van Gundy responded with a little editorializing and his confusing-as-ever distinction between NBA officials and NBA referees, but he made a fantastic plea for more transparency in these affairs. And the network didn't edit any of the self-satisfaction out of David Stern's response.
ESPN.com also has a good article and legal analysis up on the situation.
All caught up now? Good. What bothers me most about the situation is that Stern can afford to speak so smugly, because he knows the fans have short memories.
Of course there's no way I can prove any official corruption. But the 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Lakers and Sacramento Kings, which the Kings led 3-2 before losing the series, was the absolute worst officiating I have ever seen in my life. It was complete and utter garbage, and whether or not it was rigged, the NBA should be ashamed for ever allowing it to happen.
I was rooting for the Kings, and yes the Kings were floppers, and yes I hated the Lakers even more then than I do now. None of that matters. If you don't remember the series, you'll just have to trust me that L.A. got every single call those last two games. I don't remember any specific examples (it's been six years), but there are some in the article. Also, Ralph Nader, who would never do anything just for the attention, called for an investigation.
The irony? The referees were so bad in that series that since it happened, I take almost no complaints about refereeing seriously. Sure, your team might have it rough...but as the Kings proved, it can always be much, much worse.
You can say the Kings blew the series and frankly, that's true. They allowed Robert Horry to knock down a game-winning three at the end of Game Four. Despite the refs, they had a chance to win Game Seven, and only point guard Mike Bibby stepped up and played well. In the end, they still had a shot, and they lost.
I disagree with the implication that that makes any and all reffing errors excusable, though. Clearly the Kings weren't going to be a dynasty either way. But the peak for teams in many sports is to be good enough to win just one title—take the recent Pistons or Heat championship teams, for instance. Maybe the Kings were only good enough to beat the Lakers once, and maybe the Nets would have beat them in the Finals. None of these excuses or rationalizations affect the truth, though many fans will repeat them anyway. I don't get it, but people make excuses for leagues, especially in retrospect. I remember hearing once from a Michael Jordan supporter that Jordan was so good that he earned the bad calls that went his way, such as when he pushed off Bryon Russell to win his sixth championship and no whistle was blown. Hey, I love Jordan, but that's insane.
In 2002, I felt the league wanted the Lakers to win, but then as now I had nothing but circumstantial evidence. The Lakers were the two-time defending champs, and the franchise's resurgence was good for the NBA, as far as that goes. The league certainly favored them the next year, when they extended the first round of the playoffs in the middle of the freaking season because the Lakers looked like they'd only last a round.
I would love for some sort of investigation to prove that the league conspired to help the Lakers win, if only to confirm my suspicions. Of course, that won't happen, in large part because no one else in the country cares.
All I remember from 2002 is being so distraught that I couldn't watch the NBA Finals. That was a definite first since I'd started following the NBA. Like in baseball, the playoffs in basketball are the best part, and the NBA's, where the brightest of stars could have such an impact, always seemed like the purest for me. And they've never been the same since.
Comments
And compared to other major sports leagues, the NBA is most susceptible to poor refereeing precisely because the refs can influence the game more. In other sports, particularly the NFL, there is a lot that goes on that the refs can't possibly see - but in the NBA, the court is so much smaller, and it is clear where the action is.
To me, this is all related to the fact that the NBA announced that it would start fining guys for flopping. Of course, that wouldn't be necessary if the refs got the calls right - so the NBA is more or less conceding that the refs can't and won't get the calls right on the floor. So I don't get how Stern or anyone else can say that officiating can't or doesn't influence games.
Stern's smugness is a huge part of the problem. I understand that he doesn't want to lend credibility to the accusations of referee bias by instigating an investigation, but attacking Donaghy's shaky credibility doesn't impress me much. And after last night's ridiculous foul call advantage for the Lakers, who wouldn't be at least a little bit suspicious of how the refs are doing their job?
It does seem like NBA teams can get totally favorable treatment. As much as I like Duane Reade, he definitely benefited from such treatment in the Finals.
The standards the refs are held to seem ridiculously low, as you point out with the flopping calls. I really want flopping to decrease but think that judgment calls after the fact are a terrible way to do it. Plus how's it going to look next year if Manu Ginobili gets suspended during a series with the Lakers for flopping?
Stern's attitude bothers me, especially last night. To me, Stern has a huge credibility problem.