Whistles and Wins: Cause and Effect

by upper left corner on Apr 29, 2009 9:48 AM PDT Comment 35 comments

Dave, your write-ups are amazing, but I have to question your basic premise on your write-up to last night's game.

You seem to be arguing that the Blazers played a different style of play and that led to a difference in the way the refs called the game. I think it is far more dynamic than the kind of linear cause and effect that your write-up suggests:

The tone of this game was far different because the Blazer big guys were not whistled for ticky-tacky, off-the-ball fouls that put them in early foul trouble. The Blazers shot better because they were ahead rather than behind. In each of the first four games there were almost no calls against Houston and lots of free throws for Houston. The Blazers got behind and they got a bit tight.

In the fourth quarter, when Houston was ahead by four, how did the Blazers get back in the lead? They didn't do it by being aggressive and taking it to the hole; they did it because the refs whistled Houston (Landry and Lowry) for several early team fouls which put Houston in the penalty early in the quarter. The Blazers made five straight FTs to regain the lead.

I know it is very "uncool" to complain about the officiating. Anyone who does so is immediately labeled as a whining homer. I get that. I also understand that a game like last night seems to automatically soothe the ruffled feathers of the fans who think their team is getting screwed by the zebras. Everyone in Portland was up in arms about the officiating; we get the benefit of a majority of the calls last night and suddenly every thing is hunky dory.

I'm not buying into the collective amnesia that seems to have settled over the board. I suspect that this was a "make-up game." Just like there are "make-up calls" in individual games, this looked like a "make-up game" in a series that has been called in a manner that has consistently put the Blazers at a disadvantage.

I predicted last nights game in a comment I wrote yesterday morning. I will take the liberty of quoting myself at length:

"Officiating rarely determines the outcome of a game, but it does set the tone. In a series between two fairly evenly matched teams, that tone goes a long way in determining the outcome of individual games. When the tone is consistently set in favor of one team it goes a long way in determining the outcome of a series.

Portland has gotten almost no calls in the first quarter of every game. Houston plays more physical defense but has been whistled for fewer fouls in every game except in game two when their intentional fouls in the last minute overcame the foul disparity. Portland’s starters have consistently struggled with foul trouble, while most of the fouls called on Houston have been their role players. Roy is the only Blazer who has gotten to the line, and for every call he gets there is another play where there is substantial contact and no call. Yao leaves his feet, hammers people with his body and gets no call. When they do call fouls inside they assign them to anyone other than Yao.

The disparity is real. The reason for the disparity is harder to figure. Perhaps it is just the “star system” protecting Yao. Perhaps it is making a young team “pay its dues.” Perhaps it is part of a larger pattern of giving the benefit of the doubt to larger market teams. I don’t know. Generally, I am very reluctant to sign on to conspiracy theories, but given the history of the last twenty-five years and some of the treatment of small market teams like Portland, Sacramento, and Utah, I don’t think the possibility can be dismissed out of hand. There is a ton of dough at stake, and history has shown that the ratings are much stronger when large market teams are involved. Given the current economic climate, I think the temptation to “gently encourage” large market and marque match-ups is very real.

Again, I don’t know, and I am not pretending that I do, but it would be naive to not consider the possibilities.

Prediction: Portland will be treated fairly tonight and will win game 5. More games = more revenue. Balancing out the calls will make complaints seem unjustified.

I love the game, and I love the Blazers, but I think the lack of consistency in officiating calls the integrity of the league into serious doubt."

My prediction looks pretty good with the benefit of hindsight. I would hypothesize that there is a large-market bias and marque match-up bias that are subtly and consistently encouraged by the league. I don't think it requires a giant conspiracy. I think a few subtle conversations and careful assignment of referees is all that would be necessary to introduce and maintain this kind of bias.

Over the last twenty-five years the results are consistent with such a hypothesis. Look at who has won: Chicago (6), LA (6), Boston (3), Detroit (3), Houston (2), Miami (1). All are top ten markets. The only exception is San Antonio (4) which is a somewhat smaller city but is from a the third most populous state in the country.

I realize that speaking the unspeakable will subject me to ridicule. So be it. I am not saying that I think the league is fixed. I am suggesting that institutionalized bias based on financial incentives is a hypothesis worthy of discussion.

If my hypothesis is correct, the Blazers are likely to get hammered by the refs in Game Six. Yao vs. Kobe. Houston vs. LA. The #4 market vs the #2 market, with 1.2 billion Chinese thrown in for good measure.

I hope I am wrong.

4 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No way. Different referee crew... Home teams get the calls, that's the basic principle at play...

I’m not buying into the collective amnesia that seems to have settled over the board. I suspect that this was a “make-up game.” Just like there are “make-up calls” in individual games, this looked like a “make-up game” in a series that has been called in a manner that has consistently put the Blazers at a disadvantage.

Game 6 is pivotal. Blazers need to stop coming close and to actually win one on the Rockets’ court….

Pontiff of the Pryz for Prez Posse...

by timbo on Apr 29, 2009 9:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If that were true, why didn't the Blazers get the calls in games one and two?

If you take out the intentional fouls at the end of game two, Portland got the short end of the stick in both games.

Do you think the large market results over the last twenty-five years and the collective screwing of Portland, Sacramento and Utah is mere coincidence?

by upper left corner on Apr 29, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me ask you this

If we had won the flip and drafted Hakeem instead of Bowie, so you still believe that we would have won 0 titles?
Same with Jordan?
If Denver had drafted Wade, and Miami got stuck with Carmelo, do you think they would have won a title?
Would Houston have won 2 titles with Bowie?

I agree that the big markets might get some love from refs, but I think the biggest factor that drives big markets to win is that the best players probably want to be traded to those markets.

by Zaig on Apr 29, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My hypothesis is that large markets prosper

The players aren’t stupid. They want to win, and they want more endorsement dollars. Quality players drift toward large market teams. The players, the refs, even the sports-writers and sportscasters reinforce the bias. Those who question the process get ridiculed and labelled as whiners.

by upper left corner on Apr 29, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that players would gravitate towards larger markets

But 60% of the teams, (maybe more, didn’t check the teams I don’t know by heart,) won their titles with a player they drafted. That said, only 2 of those teams did it with a number 1 pick, the other big market teams just got lucky that these superstars fell to them.

by Zaig on Apr 29, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, let's look at where the "market" actually mattered

Lakers: 3/6 titles- Shaq may have gone to the Lakers because of their market size, but his wingman, Kobe Bryant, was drafted 13 (I think) by this team. Did the other 12 teams pass on Kobe because they knew Kobe deserved to play in a big market? I don’t think so. I don’t know enough about how Lakers got Jabbar/Magic to comment on.

Chicago: 6 titles- Umm, Portland passed up on Jordan. Again, we didn’t do this because of our market size, we did this because we screwed up. Chicago would have won 0 titles if we picked him instead.

Houston: 2 titles- We lost a coinflip to Houston for Hakeem. If we win that coinflip, we take Houston’s 2 titles and probably a few of Chicago’s as well. Unless you believe the NBA rigged the coinflip, there is no real complaint here.

Miai: 1 title- They drafted Dwayne Wade 5th. Outside of the Cavs, 3 of the teams above them arguably screwed up. Miami being a big market might have helped Shaq’s decision to go there, but seeing as how he is stuckin Arizona now… I doubt it.

That’s 12 of these titles that went to teams who used their draft picks the best. The non top 10 market team that you mentioned… is the San Antonio Spurs. They won their titles by drafting Tim Duncan, just like these 12 teams won titles by drafting Wade, Jordan, Hakeem, and Kobe.

by Zaig on Apr 29, 2009 10:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

imagine if we would have won that coin flip

Porter, clyde, kersey, cliff, hakeem

bayless leaves over my dead body

by thomasikehara on Apr 29, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The 1990s go to Portland/Chicago, that's it.

Pistons don’t beat us in finals, and Lakers don’t beat us in WCF. Once Jordan emerges, we battle Chicago in 8 consecutive NBA finals. (MJ doesn’t quit for 2 years if he is not dominating the NBA to the point of boredom.)

by Zaig on Apr 29, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You seem to have swallowed the star system whole.....

I am a bit more skeptical having watched a lot of ball over the last thirty-nine years. I have watched small market teams like Portland, Sacramento, Utah and even Phoenix play uphill for too many years.

In the seventies Portland, Seattle and the Bullets all won titles, When Stern became Commissioner, that all stopped. Perhaps it is all coincidence. I think it is at least worthy of discussion.

by upper left corner on Apr 29, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand the star conspiracy theorem

And I think anyone that doesn’t think it goes on to SOME extent is probably naive. But it also seems like it would be in the league’s best interest to make a superstar out of Greg Oden. They certainly had the hype machine going leading up to his induction into the league. Making Oden into a goat only embarrasses the league. So what’s the angle there? You’d think they’d do everything they could to give Oden some advantage.

Seems like there’d be a temptation to push every series to seven games too. More excitement for one. And of course, the per game gross for an arena is huge I’m sure.

by zaruga on Apr 29, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the Blazers get good enough that they can not be stopped, the league will turn them into stars....

……a la Robinson and Duncan. But not this year, not now. The entire basketball universe is intent on a Kobe vs Lebron match-up or a Boston LA rematch. Bet on Kobe and Lebron because of Garnett’s injury.

by upper left corner on Apr 29, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the Blazers get good enough that they can not be stopped, the league will turn them into stars….

That’s entirely correct. If a small market team (like Portland) becomes unstoppable, the NBA will attempt to market that team as a superstar in itself. Unless they find marketing Brandon and Greg on their own override their small market status.

It would be interesting to see a team marketed as a whole again. Could create a whole new “Blazer nation” so to speak.

by Timmay! on Apr 29, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except every one of those teams except Sacramento have played in the NBA Finals since Stern became commish

Minus Washington. The league’s 2 most popular and premiere franchises were irrelevant during the 90s, and it took a lucky draft-day trade for Kobe Bryant to make the Lakers a contender. The Celtics had their first legit return to popularity only last year.

It was David Stern who told Bill Walton to have devastating foot problems? Give me a break.

That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT

by Ozzie Montana on Apr 29, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We've had a couple lucky draft day trades ourselves. ;)

by zaruga on Apr 29, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are missing the point.

I am not suggesting that the entire league is corrupt and that Stern sits in his office pulling all the strings and assuring that the big markets get all the players and all the titles. That kind of “instrumentalist” conspiracy would never work. I am talking about a pattern of reinforcing the star system and subtly encouraging refs to give the benefit of the doubt to large market teams. It would only require a handful of people to really be in on the plan. The rest would be refs understanding that only refs who go along with the program will be assigned to the most important games.

by upper left corner on Apr 29, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One problem here

Kobe forced a trade at the draft, had signed with addidas and made it public he would play for the Lakers only. He was drafted by the Hornets I believe and made it quite clear he was young enough and had enough money to sit and wait out the team that drafted him. So is more like a free agent I would say.

by runanjum on Apr 29, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't recall that

If that happened, then it does go under “player wanting big market” and not “refs giving big markets autowin.” I already said that I see that as the bigger factor in big markets dominating the game.

by Zaig on Apr 29, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kobe definitely "forced" a trade

the same as Shaq essentially told Orlando he had no intention of re-signing there. We can cry about these things, but that’s just how things are. Things didn’t exactly work out for Houston when Steve Francis refused to play for Vancouver, and Tim Duncan didn’t leave San Antonio for a bigger market when he had the chance as a FA, and KG was pretty firmly against going to Boston (thought it was a racist city) until they got Ray Allen and both him and Pierce lobbied KG.

Big market teams do have an advantage, but as we’ve seen with the 2000s Bulls and the 1990s Lakers, it’s hardly insurmountable.

by Royster on Apr 29, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one is suggesting "auto win."

You are being much to literal. I am talking about a system where the Commish makes it clear that we have to “look out for the health of the league”. Where the Supervisor of Refs only assigns key refs to key games and where younger refs learn that if they want to work in the big games they have to follow the lead of senior refs. Think subtle, think institutional bias. Don’t think puppet master.

by upper left corner on Apr 29, 2009 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

koby

said that he wouldn’t play for anyone but LA. That is why he was there at thirteen.

by vullkem116 on Apr 29, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True there's a strong correlation between fouls and loosing/winning games

First 2 games each team had 19 fouls, each team won 1 game. Then on next 2 games I don’t remember the figures but it was about 20 fouls for Houston and 40 for Portland and Houston won both games (by 3 and 1 points). In yesterday’s game Houston had 24 fouls and Portland had 12, Portland won (the officiating was more honest than in the 2 previous games btw). There is a corellation between winning games and having the referee with.
I believe in game 6 the referees will help Houston but the Blazers proved they were close to winning the game even when they had 2 or 3 times more fouls so my hope is they manage to overcome the officiating and still win the game. We never saw every player at 100% at the same in the same game so there’s room to make a perfect game.

by chuky on Apr 29, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The Officiating

No rational watcher of the game is saying anything less than that was the best officiated game of this series. It’s not the reason we won the game, but it’s a reason that we were finally in a position to win a game. Fair calls in the first quarter led to us not having to dig ourselves out of a hole early on. That’s a big reason we lost the last two games.

by robrun2 on Apr 29, 2009 10:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

New York is not on that list

thats what is hold me back from believing the theory

by svlittle on Apr 29, 2009 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

they were close in the 80's

and close in 90’s…

and then there was Zeke.

But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Apr 29, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Collusion is quite difficult

Might be worth thinking through the question of whether or not the league actually has a strong private incentive to have large market teams win titles.

How large is the financial incentive to have large market teams be more successful?
Does it benefit at all of a large market team beats a small market team in the NBA championships?
How much of a ratings boost comes from a championship series with one large market team? Two?

Is the boost in ratings any larger than having well-known stars play in the finals?
Is the financial incentive any larger than having a series go seven games?
How much does the league suffer if only large market teams are successful (compare MLB to the NFL)?

-How much more money does the NBA get if ratings are higher? Are there incentive clauses if ratings are higher or does it only affect future ad revenue? If only future ad revenue, note a time-inconsistency problem.
-How is any excess profit from higher ratings distributed?
    -How much goes to the league office itself?
    -How is the money distributed to teams?
   -Why would small market teams agree to this arrangement? Do they? Couldn’t they organize against such collusion? Isn’t there an incentive for them to report on the league affecting competitive balance?

by PoliSam on Apr 29, 2009 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs

These are questions that have to have answers if one is serious about proving a fix.

And I’m sure those numbers can be found with a little digging. An intern journalist should have no problem finding this out, and a dedicated fan certainly could as well, with a little perseverance.

The burden of proof lies in the accuser’s hands. If they can show it, I’m willing to listen. Until then, this call for fixing is nothing more than whining or at best conspiracy-theory-nutjobbery.

Brilliant post PoliSam. +1 for presenting the framework for a real argument.

Of all the things that can be expressed in the printed word – love, hate, fear, joy – true humor is the one that is the most difficult of all. Sarcasm, for example, is an art of delicate subtlety. Yet too many people wield it as a bulldozer – loud, smelly, ugly, and destructive – and think they are being funny.

by T Darkstar on Apr 29, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

*of fixing

not for fixing, that makes no sense.

by T Darkstar on Apr 29, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for a thoughtful reply

I agree that direst collusion would be very difficult. I am suggesting a sort of institutional bias, where only certain refs are assigned to certain games, where senior officials “train” younger officials to cooperate, and where younger officials learn to extend series and to give close calls to larger market teams or to marquee players.

I agree that your questions are good ones. In addition to following the money, I think it would be worth doing some analysis of the results of playoff series over time. If there is consistent bias, it should show up in the results. Finding the results of bias may be a lot easier than finding the mechanisms by which it is achieved.

This sort of research is often done in civil rights law. If you find bias in hiring results it helps prove intent even if the mechanisms of discrimination are not fully understood.

This is only a hypothesis, but one that I think is worth discussing and exploring.

by upper left corner on Apr 29, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow. Hell of a write up, ULC.

I love it.

The tone of this game was far different because the Blazer big guys were not whistled for ticky-tacky, off-the-ball fouls that put them in early foul trouble.

Totally agree.

In the fourth quarter, when Houston was ahead by four, how did the Blazers get back in the lead? They didn’t do it by being aggressive and taking it to the hole; they did it because the refs whistled Houston (Landry and Lowry) for several early team fouls which put Houston in the penalty early in the quarter. The Blazers made five straight FTs to regain the lead.

Not possible to disagree as it’s a fact (I say that without having video evidence or a photographic memory… so I’m basing this on your assessment that it did, in fact, happen). I think the extension of the lead could be attributed to aggressive play, though.

I know it is very “uncool” to complain about the officiating. Anyone who does so is immediately labeled as a whining homer. I get that. I also understand that a game like last night seems to automatically soothe the ruffled feathers of the fans who think their team is getting screwed by the zebras. Everyone in Portland was up in arms about the officiating; we get the benefit of a majority of the calls last night and suddenly every thing is hunky dory.

TOTALLY…

I’m not buying into the collective amnesia that seems to have settled over the board. I suspect that this was a “make-up game.” Just like there are “make-up calls” in individual games, this looked like a “make-up game” in a series that has been called in a manner that has consistently put the Blazers at a disadvantage.

… AND TOTALLY!!!

I don’t think it requires a giant conspiracy. I think a few subtle conversations and careful assignment of referees is all that would be necessary to introduce and maintain this kind of bias.

AND FREAKIN’ TOTALLY!!!!!1

Rec from me, not just for the well written piece but for nailin’ it.

But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Apr 29, 2009 11:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Officiating was blantenly biased in our favor last night

see how that feels houston? just dont come complainin on here or we are gonna call you the whiniest fans ever just like you did to us on your board.

by GreatOden'sRaven on Apr 29, 2009 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good thing for us we win by 11 to help null the argument

If we’d a won by 1 or 3… I’d a had to have thanked the refs out right for the win.

by Zaig on Apr 29, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah for ONCE houston can complain about the officials

the other close games have been super pro houston

by GreatOden'sRaven on Apr 29, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

great post

Totally agree with your take. I think that some of the responses got off topic a bit by implying that the refs are deciding the games. I don’t believe that is happening but like you said a subtle bias can help swing an otherwise equal match-up one direction.

Also we totally got the good end of the calls last night.

by vullkem116 on Apr 29, 2009 12:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

nice

I felt the exact same way watching that game. I saw nothing different in the way Greg and Joel were playing Yao, but this was the first game in which the Blazers were allowed to do what they have done all year. There were some very weak fouls called on Greg trying to guard Yao, but they were called in the fourth quarter instead of the first.

I still don’t understand why they don’t whistle Yao for putting his knee and elbow into his defender, but I can live with that as long as they don’t whistle the Blazers for early fouls. If the game is called consistently then this is a great series.

"Sasha? That's a sissy name." -Mike Rice

"Let's go to win the playoffs!!!" -Rudy Fernandez

by koyote on Apr 29, 2009 1:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice stuff...

I agree with your take and would like to add that all we are asking for as fans is consistency. Nate got fined for asking for consistency, particularly in the case of Yao vs Brandon. What’s getting called at one needs to get called at the other. Through the entire course of any one game, through the entire course of the series, through the entire course of playoffs, through the entire course of the season…

I did not think last night was consistent at all. Clearly they called a tighter game in the second half than the first half. What Landry/Lowery fouls were pretty ticky tack in my opinion. Those type of fouls could have been called the entire game but they weren’t. This is where I started thinking about the ‘makeup game’ concept, as well. The Blazers were losing and all of sudden a couple of fouls are called in our favor to put us in the bonus and get us back in the game. I am not going to put it all on the refs. Just like the last game for us, Houston missed a few opportunities or failed to execute a few times and lost the game.

‘OK Nic, swag on out on ‘em!’

by clinchmobb on Apr 29, 2009 1:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs