Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: In Crunch Time, Spurs Don't Change Their Game

Officiating

There's been a fair amount of commentary about the referees so far in the playoffs.  Doubtless since the league got its dream matchup of L*kers-Celtics in the Finals there will be more speculation about the integrity of the officials.  I must confess that I have run the gamut of opinion in my fairly long tenure as a fan.  I remember at one time (probably rather naively) thinking that each game was going to be called fairly, right down the middle and in accordance with the rulebook.  (As if such a thing were possible…)  I distinctly remember my conspiracy phase, where I was dead certain the league had the whole thing rigged.  I still suspect at one point during the post-Jordan panic we might have seen some covert fiddling going on, but there’s no way that’s ever going to be proven, so you have to let that lie.  I progressed into a final phase where I was fairly certain I had it down.  The league didn’t directly mess with the officiating, but nevertheless the officials knew which side their bread was buttered on.  The star system (a.k.a. “Give the fans what they paid to see”) that protected marquee players also protected marquee teams.  However subtly, ratings and drawing power drove the whistles.  That was before we all ran headlong into the ultra-plain, coldly-effective, small-market-dwelling ratings sinkhole that is the San Antonio Spurs.  Nobody can doubt the Spurs have received their share of calls and breaks.  It became pretty clear after their first title run that none of those were to the league PR department’s advantage.  Crumple up that theory and start over.

I’m still not sure I understand fully how the complex relationship between referees, actions, teams, players, and the league works.  But even with that lack of understanding I’ve come to a peace with a couple things.  I’m not sure I’d call them truths or answers, but they seem to describe what usually happens:

1.  Sometimes refs are just going to make mind-numbingly bad calls.  The importance of the situation doesn’t seem to have any effect in curbing this habit.  Much like Bill Buckner back in ’86, a whole stadium--a whole country even--can see a situation developing as if in slow motion…a plain, routine event that you don’t even have to think about twice.  Everybody knows exactly what’s going to transpire.  Yet somehow the one guy at the fulcrum of the situation misjudges it.  He’s literally one in a million there but he’s the only one that matters.  Ooops!  The ball dribbles between the legs.  Ooops!  No call for Brent Barry.  This is part of the delightful idiocy of being human.

2.  Every NBA infraction not involving a clock or a line on the floor is subjective.  Refs generally do a decent job in keeping their own subjectivity uniform.  They absolutely stink at interpreting a call the same way as their colleagues, however.  A foul on Tuesday night is perfectly acceptable on Thursday.  This week’s travel is next week’s reverse layup.  This is mildly annoying in the regular season when opponents change night to night.  It’s fiercely aggravating in a seven-game playoff series against the same adversary.  Now it’s not, “Back in Atlanta last week that was a foul.”  It’s, “Last night, against THIS opponent, against THIS EXACT SAME defender in JUST THIS SITUATION that was a FOUL!!!”  Same teams, different refs.  Even if refs were perfectly consistent with themselves this would remain a problem.

3.  Refs aren’t perfectly consistent with themselves.  And yes, that inconsistency often has something to do with the players they’re officiating and/or the teams on the floor.  Here’s how it goes:  The Spurs have won multiple world championships.  The Spurs have been around forever.  The Spurs have some of the best players in the league.  All other things being equal, the Spurs are going to get the benefit of the doubt most nights.  I used to hate this, but you know what?  OK...it’s fine.  If things are going to be subjective (and they pretty much have to be) San Antonio probably does deserve a little more credit and leeway.  Despite popular local belief the same thing did happen to Portland for a brief period right around 1992.  Clyde Drexler got plenty of benefit on close calls.  Steve Smith did too nearly a decade later against everyone but the L*kers.  Both they and their teams had proven it and earned it.  You can fuss about it all you want.  You can gnash your teeth until you hit the gumline.  That’s the way it’s going to be.  A team like Portland does have to be a little better than The Man to become The Man.  Nobody’s cheating…again it’s just human nature.  And more than that, it mirrors the culture of athleticism.  No matter how talented and hyped a rookie is he is supposed to have to take the veteran’s spot, not be given it.  He has to be better than the incumbent to earn his keep.  All in all, that’s really not so wrong.

Even coming to terms with the weighted scales of justice in a profit-making league with a subjective rulebook and human beings making calls, I do have one, tiny objection.  The system of credit does not work equally for every team.  There are a small handful of marquee teams, including most obviously the one that wears purple and gold, that get to take shortcuts of a sort.  They get near-instant credit from fans, media, and refs every time they peek beyond the basest rungs of the playoff ladder without ever having to prove it or win anything.  No doubt a true L*ker fan would quickly point to this being their 29th appearance in the NBA finals and ask how much more proof one needs.  Despite that, this incarnation of the L*kers with these particular players has not been anywhere near a championship in recent years.  If the league were truly consistent in its inconsistencies (i.e. the things I just mentioned) they should have to prove themselves before getting benefit-of-the-doubt calls.  They don’t, while others will.  Those who cry about unfairness certainly have a point.  But then again that point is narrower and far more submerged than most objectors would have it.

The bottom line is, it’s an imperfect system and an imperfectly refereed league, for intentional and unintentional reasons both.  It’s still a reasonably good league though.  The little guy does have to fight harder to make his way but that doesn’t mean that the little guy can’t make it.  Just like in real life, some are born with advantages and some have to earn them.  Personally I’d rather be the guy who founded Quiznos than Paris Hilton any day.  It’s more satisfying when you finally do break through.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

P.S.  Tomorrow on Blazersedge:  An exclusive night-vision video of a Phil Jackson pep talk.  See it before it hits the newsstands! 

Comment 61 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

this is the truest thing i have ever read

i have always known that stern sleeps in a filthy bed with mobsters. just look at the referee scandal and how quickly it was resolved. Should that guy still be handling games? No way. Big market teams get big calls. It is sick to me….. oden 4 prez

"Blazer's win the 89-90 World Championship! Arvydas Sabonis takes MVP honors!"

by oden4prez on May 31, 2008 3:07 AM PDT reply actions  

I like the human element (well, except when it goes against us).

It serves to remind us of our own imperfections and have us reflect on them.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure most people see it this way. All too often I see “If it wasn’t for those [expletive] refs, we would have [expletive] won the [expletive] game!” But we have to have referees, and referees are human, therefore referees will miss calls, sometimes crucial ones. But that human element is why it is necessary to play 82 games. After a sample size that big, all the human errors and anomalies work themselves out, and we know who really deserves to be in the playoffs and at what seed. Even the [expletive] from Los Angeles. A seven game series serves the same purpose. A series isn’t lost on the last possession of game seven, it’s lost well before then. This call at this time probably balances out a missed call in your favor earlier. It’s statistics. It all averages out in the end.

I reserve the right to change my mind when the Blazers’ season starts this fall.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on May 31, 2008 8:18 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Sometimes I think that

you and I and some others around here are in another world – it’s not the world we grew up in and we’re still flopping around uncomfortable with the way it has changed. I’m thinking of the tendency to blame someone, something, anything for all that goes awry. The refs made bad calls so we lost (not because the other team was better.) The Blazers lost three games in a row so Nate is a lousy coach (not because we played poorly.) I tripped on the sidewalk because the city isn’t doing proper maintenance (not because I was daydreaming.) Referees (and others) aren’t “allowed” to make mistakes – but any mistakes I make in my job are because someone else didn’t do theirs correctly. (Or the wind was blowing from the wrong direction.) There are few allowances for the human element (it seems to me.) I’m so dreading KP’s first mistake – there will be calls for his head on a platter.

by jorga on May 31, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree for the most part.

I’m just not sure people have changed all that much. Henry the Eighth used a similar excuse, saying “It’s not my fault Catharine wont have babies,” in order to justify dumping her for Anne Boelyn (and then later having her executed to marry Jane Seymore). Everyone sees this behavior in others and realizes that it is wrong, but think themselves completely justified when they do it themselves.

You are absolutely right about Kevin Pritchard. It is a good thing that he hasn’t made any mistakes yet. Although, I think when it happens, everyone will initially buy off on it because it was an idea that they liked to begin with (i.e. if a Hinrich trade happens). But when it becomes obvious that it was a wrong move, I see many people even those who supported the move (or maybe especially those) will then call for his head.

We human beings are a fickle bunch. We always want to be on the winning side, even if that win is a short-term victory that costs us a long term war. Especially for Americans, patience is non-existent. No one knows what it even is anymore, much less is able to identify it as a virtue. It’s as if our entire nation is composed of toddlers (which my daughter is right now. The resemblance is eerie.) It’s always about me, but I never have to take responsibility for anything.

And for all the flak he gets, that is the one thing that made me kinda proud of Fatty’s self-banning. Not that he didn’t make it all about him, but that he took responsibility for his actions. He was so sure that he was right, that he put himself on the line, and when he turned out to be wrong, he admitted it and took responsibility for his prior foolishness. He kept his word, and that astounds me. I just don’t see that kind of stuff with most people today, and it was refreshing to see for a change, even if I didn’t agree with him (or understand him for that matter) much of the time.

I’m in this Blazer fandom for the long haul. That does not mean looking at just this next season, but for years and years down the road. One game blown here and there by the refs, even in the playoffs is not going to change the long-term goals which McMillan and Pritchard have been setting up. If it did, then its because we aren’t as good as we think we are. However, I like what I see and the long-term future looks bright. As Wheels says, “It’s a great day to be a Blazers fan,” and he is absolutely right.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on May 31, 2008 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

There's some traction here

for a discussion of blame/vitriol and how the internet contributes to it or not. Bob Costas was angling towards that conversation a month ago before his whole show got derailed (ironically enough) by wild accusations and over-generalizations. We’ll introduce that topic here this summer following the draft and Summer League.

—Dave

by Dave on May 31, 2008 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right with you, Jorga.

I would also add that sports has become about winning championships and that is it. If that is your one and only goal, a blown call can ruin everything that you are playing for or hoping for as a fan. If winning a championship is your only reason for playing a game or following a team, you are bound for some serious disappointment.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on May 31, 2008 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Excellent point!

I have heard a few posters even here say that they would give up our current roster for a championship. To which I say “no way.” I root for these guys, because I like these guys. If they weren’t likable, I’ve got other things to do with my time. Now, do I want these guys to win a championship? Absolutely. I’m not against championships, and I want these guys to go get one. But that is not all I hope for. I love to see our guys get better, and to make progress, even slow progress. I want to watch them grow up and be the best they can be. They’re kinda like my children, except not.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on May 31, 2008 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

You read Pat McManus?

You’re my new hero. Seriously.

by jamon51 on May 31, 2008 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

To me

it is about winning a championship. Without that, there’s no point. And I’ll be satisfied with nothing less in the long run.

I’d argue the opposite is true…people have been distracted by all kinds of things BESIDES winning a championship: All-Star appearances, statistics and point totals, highlight-film dunks, sappy (half-true) dramatic stories about their players, and the chance to shove their allegiance in other people’s faces. People don’t see or value the dedication, team play, sacrifice, quiet and steady competence, intelligence, and all of the things that go into making a championship team. People who want championships and truly understand what it takes to get there don’t usually get wildly upset (though we still do get upset) about a blown call or bias because it doesn’t ruin everything. They appreciate what it took to get there and they understand that over time dedication and work married to talent will prevail. Championship work cannot be forever marred by a whistle. I would argue that when people get wildly upset about a blown call it’s less about it ruining their championship and more about it ruining their STORY, their chance to be on the “right” side, and all of the bragging rights and good feelings that go with it.

A championship is singular…different than anything else that the game has to offer. It is rightly the main, and really only, goal of everybody who plays. It should be the main goal of every fan as well. If it truly were, and if we truly knew what it took to win one and how hard that is, we would be a little more humble in our approach to the game, a little more appreciative of the people who do win it, and a little more tolerant of the foibles of referees.

—Dave

by Dave on May 31, 2008 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Part of being an American

is to love to compete. It has been our culture for most of its existence. We competed against the wilderness and nature and wild animals and Native Americans to prosper and grow (no political statement there – just history). So I agree with you that games are to compete and win. However we have all had enough of the counter-culture win-at-all-costs approach of the previous administration with the Blazers. So it is an entirely new and better appreciation of the team that winning can come from genuinely likable players as it did in earlier eras.

I agree Dave – without striving for a championship we miss the point. Only after one championship can we hope for another. The whole idea of dynasty is embedded in our hopes but even San Antonio has not won back-to-back and maybe never will. So I am happy with singular and I am happy with progress toward that goal each year. Breaks are made and breaks are given to either team unexpectedly. And I agree that over time the rewards may come and we continue to hope and accept that we are not omnipotent and we cannot know or will any particular outcome.

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on Jun 1, 2008 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

This surprises me a bit...

I think we are just talking about two different aspects of the same thing. In the words of Herm Edwards, “You play to win the game!” That is why players should play and that is what fans want to see. Playing for money or stats or all-star appearances might be fine for some but I want to watch players who want to win.

What I am getting at is the difference between 89-93 and 99-03. I wanted both eras of teams to win it all. I followed both sets of teams and rooted for both. I would have to say I enjoyed the journey much more with the 89-93 teams. We built through the draft and added key pieces in the summer of 89. The team overcame a year or two of underachieving and bickering about who should start and rose up to play together and make a great run at some titles. There was electricity and excitement and anticipation followed by real disappointment. The 99-03 teams were all about trades and making whatever moves possible to find that one missing piece that was going to make it all work together and overcoming the inevitable bonehead off-court and/or on-court incident. It took some work to root for teams that were at best mismatches of talent and at worst a collection of poisonous personalities.

The inevitable “what if…” arises here. What if one of the 99-03 teams had won a championship? Would that have made it all worthwhile? Maybe in the short-term for that one season there would have been some gratification for me. But I am confident that those groups of players would not have avoided the implosion that followed even after winning a title: witness the current championship ring wearing Rasheed. Not much has changed.

What I am trying to say is that playing the right way, running your organization the right way, and expecting a championship from the team you root for might not result in a championship. But it might actually make the whole journey more enjoyable than winning one.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Jun 1, 2008 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

Amen....well said

I would agree for myself. However I bet a sustantial fraction of the folks here believe the opposite. I know of a few people in here bashing Clyde and that era for losing to Jordan’s Bulls. I know of even more who love Sheed to the point of rooting for Detroit in the previous series. I personally can’t stand the guy anymore. I invested too much in him and he couldn’t give a crap about us or our city. On the other hand…I really felt glad that Clyde was able get a ring…even if was with another team. I always got the feeling that Clyde truely fond of Portland and the fans here even after he left.

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein

by 92wastheyear on Jun 1, 2008 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

It wasn't just Clyde for me...

Just the way that team was constructed, Clyde at number 14, Porter late in the 1st, Kersey a second round pick, Cliff and Bryant late in the first round, Buck and Duck came in trades as the last two major pieces. It wasn’t a bunch of stars thrown out there to see what would happen. It was a thoughtfully constructed team that played hard, ran the floor like gangbusters, and had some success at it. Not every player was a saint by any stretch but I think they overachieved on the court while the 99-03 group never reached their potential because of their on-court/off-court issues. To me, that is a huge difference.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Jun 1, 2008 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Let's put it this way:

KP’s job is to get championship players. Anything less, for any reason, is not fulfilling his purpose. Kevin happens to think, and I agree, that the definition of “championship player” includes things like commitment, teamwork, and enough self-awareness to sacrifice one’s personal needs for the betterment of the whole. However the latter qualities in and of themselves are not enough. I would venture that I probably try to live by them as much as anyone, but as thrilled as I would be, I would also be pretty angry as a fan if David Stern announced that with the 13th pick of the 2008 NBA Draft the Portland Trailblazers selected Dave from Blazersedge. I’m sure everyone would agree.

You have to aim for the championship first. In that context you get the players that fit your needs. If that is happening we are free also to marvel at how wonderful (and smart) it is to have people of upstanding character who get All-Star berths and throw down highlight dunks and make us all feel proud. This freedom continues even if we fall short of the rings. However if that is not happening-if the championship drive isn’t coming first and if we’re simply picking people because of their character or All-Star history or propensity to fill seats-then something is wrong. That freedom is gone. Instead of all (fans and team and staff alike) being on the same journey with a common goal (the championship) now the fans are being catered to by the team and staff. We’re being acted upon instead of acting with. We and the staff are on two different sides. And by those rules fans are more than free to express their displeasure that they were not catered to fully. This, to me, has been one of the main difficulties of the past few years. Everybody seemed to be chasing something besides a common goal, the team and fans were on different sides, and the few things we ended up celebrating turned out fairly hollow all the way around.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 1, 2008 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Like I said at the beginning of my last post...

We are not that far apart. I think we might be looking at the same point from two different ends of the timeline. In 1989, the Blazers were pushing for a championship. That was their common goal and they went about it the best they could and did not make it. Looking back, I can, and I imagine players and other fans can, look back with fond memories of that time even though we fell short.

In 1999, the Blazers were still focused on a championship but were willing to make choices that many fans were not thrilled about even if it meant winning a championship. My wife for one will only refer to Ruben as “the rapist”. I can’t really fault her for that. They slowly but surely alienated their fan base to the point where a championship was the only thing that could have possibly redeemed those choices. I would argue that a championship would not have smoothed over the frustrations that most fans had with those teams.

You say that was the result of people losing focus on a champioship as the ultimate goal. I say the championship became the only goal and they lost sight of how a team could make that its ultimate goal without having it be its only goal. I like it when I hear Nate and KP talk about playing the right way instead of focusing on wins and losses. The philosophy is that if you play the right way, and gather talented players who are willing to buy in to playing the right way, the wins will ultimately follow.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Jun 1, 2008 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree we're lighting both ends of the same candle

The difference, at least to me, is that I wouldn’t call those moves after losing in the WCF “championship moves”. They were moves to look good or build up an All-Star fueled roster or prove that the GM could razzle and dazzle. I don’t know what Trader Bob was thinking, but anyone who looked at the early-2000 version of Shawn Kemp and thought, “This is a championship player” had to have a screw loose somewhere. (And yes, I did call that at the time.) You could say the same for bringing Strickland back, Detlef Schrempf at the end of his career, and so on. Those weren’t about championships, those smacked of ego and desperation to me. But you know what? Most of us bought into it. Most of us squealed with delight at Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson and every name that came in here…not because those were logical championship pieces, but because they looked good on paper and it was thrilling to make these trades where we were supposedly ripping other teams off. We all took our eye off the ball and got caught up in something besides the ultimate goal.

Then at some later point, when they realized that neither winning nor charisma was going to follow, the team tried to market some of these same players as “fan friendly” and “guy’s you’d love to love”. Anyone remember Ruben swinging from a chandelier? Darius at the block party? Theo Ratliff in the swimming pool? Whether they were right or wrong about the individuals involved, I found the effort nearly as bad as the intital wave of acquiring these guys. It doesn’t matter if they’re nice or not if they’re the wrong guys. That was management again trying to three-card-monte us into following something else. That’s the “opposite sides” point I was making earlier. If you have to do that in the first place, something is wrong.

We don’t know a ton about the character of the 70’s championship team other than they had some good community people but also counter-cultural, substance-inhaling (at least) Bill Walton and Maurice Lucas who by most accounts was somewhat…prickly to be around. Again with the 90’s teams we had some great guys but Clyde who didn’t like to practice or show up early, Duckworth who was supposedly a bit of a whiner and problem child, Jerome Kersey who was not necessarily nice around town, and Uncle Cliffy who needs no introduction. Those negative things didn’t matter so much, though (in fact they aren’t even remembered that much) because the character of those teams in so far as they were legitimately shooting for a championship spoke louder. Unless the community infractions reach the ridiculous the basketball character, evidenced by success on the floor, will win out. Without that success even a team of the nicest guys isn’t that inspirational and isn’t remembered the same.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 1, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

By the way

in case it isn’t coming through, I am enjoying this conversation and the chance to define and refine some points. It’s a good topic.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 1, 2008 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

I am too

I almost added a “I hope I am not nit-picking” post just to make ure I wasn’t coming across as argumentative.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Jun 1, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not nit-picking at all

in fact your interpretation makes more instinctive sense than mine. That is why it’s been so fun to try to expand/explain mine and make it work. I’ve considered it a challenge, and I like challenges. Good ones are rare.

The real answer, of course, is that you really need character and championship aspirations…they’re two sides of the same coin, just as you have said.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 1, 2008 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

The summer of 1999

I get your point more now about losing focus on championships and just trying to make moves to look good etc. Trader Bob couldn’t resist tinkering with the team and it certainly stunted the progress in the long run.

I was actually not too excited about the trade to bring in Pippen at first. I would have been interested to see what the team, minus Rider and Jackson and plus Smith, would have accomplished by just signing Detlef.

Sabonis, Grant, Wallace, Steve Smith, and Damon as your starters with Detlef, Anthony, Augmon, O’Neal, Bonzi, and Kato as role players might have had something going. Oh, and Walt Williams gunning from outside. Or maybe even developing Wallace as a sixth man to relieve the 3,4, and 5 positions and starting Detlef.
Certainly not a poster child version of the Blazers but maybe a better collection of talent and role players than we ended up with after that summer.
I remember being disappointed that they made the deal for Pippen at first mainly because I didn’t think they would be able to make that mix work. But of course I came around to thinking the team would dominate simply out of sheer talent.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Jun 1, 2008 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Mind if I go off on a tangent?

I think Trader Bob also messed up the collective thinking of the fan base. I know all fans do the “what if” trades to make the team better, but I see it with our fans more than any others. Trader Bob poisoned the water and the side effects still linger for some people who are drinking KP’s cool aid.

What's love got to do, got to do with it?
Who needs a point guard when a center can be drafted?

by tominhawaii on Jun 2, 2008 5:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

Indeed

I have often thought this. Although I think "what if trades" are common to every fan base, there seems to be a perception among Blazer fans that if you’re not trading, you’re not progressing. Also we have among the higher assumption levels in the league (third perhaps to New York and the L*kers) that we can and should actually get familiar-name players.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 2, 2008 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

Paul Allen gets some credit for that

He’s shown that he’s willing to pay luxury tax for a championship team. How can you expect fans not to fantasize about bringing in a few gunslingers to get us over the top when we’re playing with house money?

I don’t spend much time at Knick fan sites, but James Dolan is the league’s biggest spender, and the occasional Knick fan comments I’ve read are ALWAYS about making big, splashy trades, even though that has blown up in their faces the last few years.

I’m not going to advise a multi-billionaire not to go into luxo-tax territory to build the team I support into a champion, but I would prefer to see the Blazers win a championship without everyone saying how Paul Allen bought the title.

If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball. --Phil Jackson
If you meet Greg Oden in the lane, drop the ball and run. --MiledAnimal

by MiledAnimal on Jun 2, 2008 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I've lost track of the original point anyway...

...something about officiating, I think.

I hadn’t really thought about us being worse than other fans but I have wondered why so many people think we have to trade to improve at this point. It might happen, but trades are riskier than most people seem to think. I think we are in a position of power in our negotiations at this point because we don’t have to trade to improve. People see us as an up and coming team but the expectation to contend is still a year or two away. We don’t have to trade 5 players for an aging super-star. If we are patient with this group of players +/- a couple along the way, we should be golden.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Jun 2, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nope

The championship is the hot fudge on the ice cream. Hot fudge is…uh…the frosting on the cake, but if the ice cream is of superior quality it can stand alone. I would love to see a championship, but I would find satisfaction in a decent run for it (see 89-93). 2nd best isn’t the same as #1 but #2 of 30 is still an A on my curve.

Maybe it’s a gender thing – though even pre-historically the #2s survived to pass along their genes and I doubt there is a Neanderthal hall-of-fame.

by jorga on Jun 1, 2008 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree and I don't

I could say the regular season is like a plain hot dog and each round of the playoffs is a condiments. I guess winning the Finals would be chili. After a while, I would get sick of plain hot dogs and would want something else. I’d be like, “Plain hot dogs again? I’m going to eat some mac and cheese.”

What's love got to do, got to do with it?
Who needs a point guard when a center can be drafted?

by tominhawaii on Jun 2, 2008 5:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Thank you, kind sir,

but I’m a trifle wary of someone named odoriferous emanations :-)

by jorga on Jun 1, 2008 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's just an ode to one of my all time favorite players Sir Charles Barkley

It was a line from his Old Spice commercial long ago. Do you remember? Anything less would be uncivilized. Oddly enough it was taken when I signed up so I had to add the 74. Here I thought I was original.

I'm a little confused by your tactics

by oderiferous emanations 74 on Jun 1, 2008 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Giggle

I probably saw the commercials, but I don’t remember them. Guess that is why I always think of different odoriferous emanations – the kind that Old Spice can’t control…

by jorga on Jun 2, 2008 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

You just need to use a lot more of it.

If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball. --Phil Jackson
If you meet Greg Oden in the lane, drop the ball and run. --MiledAnimal

by MiledAnimal on Jun 2, 2008 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

the bulls vs the jazz

I don’t remember what year, but it was game six.

A three pointer CLEARLY before time expired didn’t count. Another three pointer didn’t count. A two pointer was waived off. It was an 8 point difference of CLEAR bad calls… the bulls won by 8.

I think the refs do pay favorites. I think the game is rigged… to a point. I think that teams HAVE to be good enough to overcome that. I think the Spurs were.

I don’t think it’s every game. I do think refs sometimes just make bad calls… but if you’re going to make a bad call, I think they make it on the side of the team they want to win.

"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned

by ratbastird on May 31, 2008 9:00 AM PDT reply actions  

oh.... to support my thoughts

if Stern wanted a fair game, he’d make reffing open, transparent, and allow technology to play a part in making calls as long as it didn’t create undo stress/slowing of the game. Give coaches the right to challenge four calls.

Imagine the tension of that spurs laker game if the spurs could challenge… the refs deliberate… the clock has expired… and what’s that???? two free throws for a tie?

Stern doesn’t hold refs accountable, he doesn’t allow technology into the game, and he’d rather cover up a bad ref than shed light on the situation that made it happen. Stern doesn’t want fair games.

"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned

by ratbastird on May 31, 2008 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Problem with open and transparent...

I agree in principle with what you are saying but there is something to be said for backing your refs so they don’t get hung out to dry when they inevitably blow a few calls. It sounds like the NBA is increasing accountability inside their walls and I am not sure tearing down those walls for fans to see all would help do away with bad calls. It might just make officials second guess every call before they make it.

I favor replay in limited use in all sports but even then calls get blown. In my mind expanding replay would slow down the game without “getting it right” every time.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on May 31, 2008 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with backing refs

But Stern does it to a fault, and that’s what I have a problem with. If changes are taking place internally… i could live with that, except I’ve heard and seen nothing that indicates that Stern is acknowledging a need. Actually the last ref article I read was about how much animosity there was between stern and the refs.

AS for the technology, that’s why I mentioned four calls during a game. It doesn’t have to be that but putting a limit should help with limited use.

Hmmm… I suppose the abuse risk would be to use them for additional time outs, but I’m just throwing out ideas. I’m sure it could work, people just need to figure out how.

"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned

by ratbastird on Jun 1, 2008 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

Replay

I guess i just feel that replay has been around long enough for me to see it doesn’t take the human element out of the game anyway. It just ups the ante for expectations to be super high for a perfectly called game and it just isn’t possible even with replay. Exhibit A is of course the Oklahoma/Oregon game a couple years ago, but there are countless others.

I am not trying to pooh-pooh your desire for improvement. The NBA should try to improve its officiating. I just don’t think replay, other than for foot on the line or clock type issues should be toyed with. The games are already too long.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Jun 1, 2008 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

That was probably it

I don’t remember two of the plays, but I remember a CLEAR 8 points on bad call and one was a halfcourt shot that was out of the hands by about .5 seconds when time expired and it was waved off.

"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned

by ratbastird on May 31, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

Last paragraph is dead on...

I was always taught if you need a call to win a game then you weren’t better than the other team. You may have been as good, but you didn’t prove you were better.

I still think this applies in just about every situation where bad calls play a role. The Cardinals lost game 7 after the infamous Denkinger call. The Spurs were down with 3 seconds to go. They shouldn’t be in the situation where they need a call to bail them out.
That isn’t to say that it doesn’t suck that they didn’t get a chance to shoot free throws, it just means they lost the series and it was pretty clear that LA was the better team.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on May 31, 2008 11:16 AM PDT reply actions  

IN general

I agree strongly with this. HOwever, what if those bad calls create a 8-12 point difference in the game and could have been momentum changers or WERE momentum changers?

I’m letting off some steam and frustration in the post, but during the season I’m with you on this. It reminds me of Enders Game by Orson Scott Card.

“The only way to gain respect is doing so well you can’t be ignored.”

If others cheating can beat you, if changing the rules can beat you, then you deserve to lose.

So I’m letting some frustration I’ve had over the years out now. I generally don’t do it because I believe in the above.

"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned

by ratbastird on Jun 1, 2008 7:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Believing it...

doesn’t change the feeling that you didn’t get an opportunity you should have. I think it just gives perspective to that tendency to point the finger outside and blame someone else for falling short of your goal. Maybe that did have an effect but it wasn’t the only thing that caused the loss.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Jun 1, 2008 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Uniformity is Needed

The basketball is by far the most difficult sport to referee. Every thing the ref’s make is a judgement call. The closest equilivent I can think of is pass interference with football, but the problem is that in basketball, every call is pass interference, not just a couple of calls a game. Because of this, referee mistakes and bad calls are going to be an unfortunate way of life.

The probem is not so much that bad calls happen, it’s that hey happen disproportionately to certain players and teams. How many times have you have you been watching a game on TV and the announcer says something about a young player like, “In a few years, he’s gonna get that call.” It happens almost every game and goes to show that bias is not only apparent, but also accepted.

If they league truly wants to get rid of these ‘conspiracy theories’ once and for all, they will find a way to not only make fouls uniform from player to player, and from ref to ref as well. So many referes call games differently that it leaves everything open to interpretation and takes accountability away.

Whether it be more training, performance reviews, or video review, the gap needs to be closed between different players and different refs to make a foul a foul depending on what ref is calling the game or what players are playing it. Only then will the conspiracy theories go away for good.

by BGPhillips on May 31, 2008 3:03 PM PDT reply actions  

That all sounds good...

But how in the world do you achieve uniformity? Officiating is always going to have some subjectivity to it unless you do away with any contact whatsoever. Every play involves some sort of contact and officials have to decide if that contact gave one player an unfair advantage and if it was enough of an advantage to warrant a call.
How would you take that situation and make it uniform?

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on May 31, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

I haven’t read the referee handbook I can’t say exactly how a foul is defined in it but it seems like some players just don’t have to play by the same rules. As I said above, there is always going to be bad calls because everything is a judgement, but if you could get all referees on the same page as far as what is standard contact that occurs within the course of the game and what is excessive and constitutes a foul then mistakes could be limited. And then take those guidelines and enforce them equally across all players then it could improve. It will never be perfect but it can improve.

by BGPhillips on May 31, 2008 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

To agument the variations in refs

one can simply look at the plea confession of Donaghy. He was getting paid to provide the names of the referees before the games. That alone allowed the gamblers to add or subtract points from their formula and illustrates that referees do decide the outcome of games. This is a factor that has gone un-addressed by the league.

In baseball this disparity also exists but K-zone evaluations have slowly brought more uniformity. NBA had the ability to evaluate every play and we are told they do just that for the referees. But they refuse to provide any substantial indicators of accountability from those reviews. We can hope that this review will slowly bring uniformity both within games and between games. Referees need to be largely invisible including the TV posing before each game.

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on May 31, 2008 4:01 PM PDT reply actions  

"He has to be better than the incumbent to earn his keep."

Same thing in boxing. A title challenger has to win a decision by more than 51% to get the nod from the judges. When you’re fighting the king of the hill, it’s not enough to bring him to his knees. You have to kick him off the summit.

You seem a little hallucinated with these comparisons.

by MiledAnimal on May 31, 2008 5:24 PM PDT reply actions  

What are the rules?

Someone mentioned pass interference in football and how it is a the toughest call in football. This poster likened basketball ref-ing to making that call game long and there is some truth to that. However, I notice that I pretty much know what pass interference is. I can see it the contact and I basically know when it has happened and what constitutes a foul and what doesn’t . B-ball is different. The rules are nebulous and there isn’t a clear cut set of guidelines as what a foul is let alone the vagaries of how a particular ref is calling the games. I give you all a challange …explain what is a charge is. When is it a charge or when not? When I was a kid in the late 70’s-early 80s the defender has to get his position established and that required a beat or so before contact or else the offesive guy got the call. That isn’t how it is called now. Now the defender just has to get in front of the guy with the ball. His feet can be sliding, he can be not square to the offesive player and still get the call. I don’t think the acutal rule has changed, but I can’t prove it since there isn’t really a resource for a fan to understand it. This true for almost any rule of the game you choose. That means the Refs are pretty much making it up as they go along and this as much anything else prompts the backlash that refs get from fans.

Anyway thats my rant of the night…back to making smart aleck comments and Dr Suess poems

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein

by 92wastheyear on May 31, 2008 7:47 PM PDT reply actions  

Tssbro has brought us the answer

here.

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on Jun 1, 2008 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

Anyone ever reffed a game?

I was pulled out of the stands to ref an 8th grade game because they didn’t have anyone else when I was 18. I sucked, and I consider myself to be above average as far as understanding the rules. It gave me a huge perspective about what a ref goes through, the pressures he/she’s feeling, and how overwhelming it can be.

I still complain about it though. It’s a fan’s RIGHT.

by jamon51 on May 31, 2008 7:53 PM PDT reply actions  

I have umpired a number

of baseball games and it is incredibly difficult to focus, be aware of the possibilities and judge the outcome with split-second decisions and then to sell that decision to the watchers. I respect these guys and gals for what they do. I also have recognized over the years umpires and referees that allow their egos to influence their decisions. That certainly causes me concern.

With the advent of instant replay ad nauseum, the fan (and the commentators) feel like an obvious call was “blown” without having the angle or the knowledge of the game that referees have. Most of us would be lying on the floor in pain within 5 minutes just trying to stay up with the flow!

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on Jun 1, 2008 1:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

You may have had it right in your "final phase" after all

That is, that without being explicitly told which teams to favor, the officials are made aware in a number of ways “which way their bread is buttered.” Of course, the San Antonio Spurs seem to be the debunker of that theory, as you wrote. How can the success of an unpopular, small market team like the Spurs serve the nefarious interests of the league? Yet again and again-at least until this season-the Spurs have benefitted from questionable calls and rulings.

I was stumped by that one until someone pointed out something to me. That is: David Stern’s dream is for the league to go global. That’s the big picture for him. And internationally, the Spurs are one of the most popular teams because they’ve had so many international players. Duncan, Parker, & Ginobli in particular-the Spurs’ “Big Three”-are foreign players with huge followings abroad. Other teams have followed the Spurs in signing lots of foreigners, but the Spurs were certainly at the forefront when they were getting the benefit of all those whistles.

So while the Spurs are indeed a “small market” team on the domestic level, on an international level they’re huge. Just not as huge as the Lakers—now that they have so many foreign players on THEIR roster! (Cue video of that non-call on Derek Fisher vs Brent Barry.) Time to rev up your conspiracy engine again, Dave!

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on May 31, 2008 8:03 PM PDT reply actions  

When it is all said and done

how many times can we say with certainty that the better team lost due exclusively to the officiating?

I'm a little confused by your tactics

by oderiferous emanations 74 on Jun 1, 2008 2:40 PM PDT reply actions  

That is part of the problem with poor officiating

You don’t really know what the heck would have happened.

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein

by 92wastheyear on Jun 1, 2008 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

At least one time for sure!

—Joe and Gavin Maloof, Geoff Petrie, Rick Adelman, and the roster of the 2002 Sacramento Kings.

If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball. --Phil Jackson
If you meet Greg Oden in the lane, drop the ball and run. --MiledAnimal

by MiledAnimal on Jun 2, 2008 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

One of the best series ever.

I remember game 7 Sacramento seemed to be playing “not to lose” much like the Blazers in the 4th quarter of game 7 of the 2000 WCF. They were just trying to protect the lead.

I'm a little confused by your tactics

by oderiferous emanations 74 on Jun 2, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I thought they looked like they expected the refs

to start handing the game over to the Lakers at any minute. I figured they had to feel that way after the refs handed game six to the Lakers—excuse me, to “the team that must not be named.”

If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball. --Phil Jackson
If you meet Greg Oden in the lane, drop the ball and run. --MiledAnimal

by MiledAnimal on Jun 2, 2008 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

I remember Ralph Nader got involved regarding the officiating

and Doug Christie and Peja getting ultra tight sphincters. The level of play during that series was very high. Beautiful basketball.

I'm a little confused by your tactics

by oderiferous emanations 74 on Jun 2, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

The best part of that series

was in Game 3 in L.A., when Jax had to call another timeout after the Kings had run off another string of points. The camera zoomed-in on smack-talking Shaq, who was sweating profusely and looking scared. Not concerned or annoyed. Scared. Sweet!

Some of you may recall seeing that same look on Shaq’s face during the 2000 WC finals against the Blazers as well. I don’t recall which game, but I think it was Game 7, when the Blazers were pulling away in the third period.

Too bad those reShaqtions were the only things I could remember fondly from those two series.

If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball. --Phil Jackson
If you meet Greg Oden in the lane, drop the ball and run. --MiledAnimal

by MiledAnimal on Jun 2, 2008 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

NBA refs have always been bad

Nothing new. I’ve heard the “they have a difficult job” theories. Lots of people have difficult jobs. So what.

The refs have powerful forces on their side and they are next to impossible to fire. You’d have to prove bias. Good luck.

On the other hand it’s embarassing how many grown players act like children on the court when they feel they should’ve gotten a call. More than ANYTHING, that’s what the NBA should be addressing. These players know the refs are bad, yet they’ve signed contracts stating they’ll play under these conditions, and they are being paid millions to do so. SO THEY SHOULD SHUT UP AND PLAY.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Jun 2, 2008 8:52 AM PDT reply actions  

Experiment

Make a rather large mistake at work, bonus points if it alters an outcome significantly for the worse. When your boss asks you why you made that mistake, say “well gee, this is a really difficult job” and see how far that gets you.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Jun 2, 2008 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The ultimate coverage and analysis of the Portland Trail Blazers.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Hard to be a fan of a team that is so poorly managed.
Cs-sj_053_small
10 Years of 1st Round Blazer Draft Picks
Small
Draft Drawer: Pre-Lotto
Small
Trade Drawer: The Big 5?
Kpavatar2_small
Not 5, not 6, not 7, not EVER - Junk with Heat poll

Recent FanPosts

Small
Drummond, Lamb, Machado
Dsc01448_small
GM History
Small
What will be the future of our Blazers. Just a few seasons ago, the Blazers were going to be the OKC of the NBA but injuries to Roy and Oden crippled our dreams of a young championship contender for years and years.
Small
Beal and Marshall!!!
Small
Batum: "It could be worse then Portland"
Albert-einstein-funny-face-gel-coated-textured-art_small
Playoffs: Whiners Not Winners
H_small
B-Roy as player development coach?
Small
Brent Barry for GM
Duck_pot_small
Thing COULD be worse...
Irish_small
Anyone play Draft$treet?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Maybe this is what we need to succeed...
Quick: Stern Says Blazers Not For Sale; More GM Interviews Coming
Freeman: Blazers Want To Bring Over Joel Freeland, Victor Claver

Recent FanShots

Colonel Rondo and his second round armada? 

If Boston is determine to rebuild and cut salary isn’t two mid lotto pics and the right salary filler decent. Maybe not enough but better than what most teams get in that situation.  I would prefer that over the Chris Paul package.

I hope and figure that the Trail Blazers could have the best of both worlds. I’ve never seen a more bountiful 2nd round. Its conceivable that the team could deal both lotto picks and still find some nice players in the draft.  Players like Orlando Johnson, Lucas Nogueira, Kevin Jones, Will Barton are 1st rounders in most drafts even if its just based on hype and potential. Then you have some possible gems in such a deep draft like Machado, a couple guys that I personally like from Georgetown-their center Henry Sims and forward Hollis Tompson.  Both high upside players that I would love to watch in the summer league.  If PA were to ever buy into or trade into late first or second round now is the time. Give me Freeland, Diebler and four second rounders in the summer league with Rondo coaching.
Orlando Magic Fire Coach Stan Van Gundy
Terry "Versatility" Porter
OT: The (New) San Francisco Warriors
Still tear up every time I see a highlight of this guy... He literally meant the world to Blazer...
Hibbert talks loyalty towards Pacers
This is going to be a great game. Granger vs. James
Teaford: Blazers Still Haven't Contacted Lakers Regarding GM Kupchak
The Onion - Heat Lose Chris Bosh Indefinitely To Severe Poetic Justice
Go big or go home...

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Headshotsmall_small Ben Golliver

Lead Moderators

Getfuzzy-satchel_small Timmay!

Bucky3_small Cablinasian

Authors

Plainlc_small Storyteller

Moderators

Lamb_small T Darkstar

Small douglast

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Lrg_magpie_small Corvid

Wallpaper_small geoffm