Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ref bias/conspiracy..

Expand Messages
  • Mike G
    I recently got this message from a member (not sure if it was meant for the whole group). ... Catching up on very old posts, and this caught my eye after the
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I recently got this message from a member (not sure if it was meant
      for the whole group).

      -----

      Catching up on very old posts, and this caught my eye after the fact:

      Mike G wrote:
      >
      > My own guess is that the refs will blatantly hand the Lakers at
      > least one game, and that it will therefore go 6 or 7.

      I take it you ended up being pretty surprised at the large ref bias
      for the
      Pistons in this series, including blatantly handing them game 4, huh?

      Whodathunkit? Makes you wonder if the league didn't listen to the
      conspriracy theorists and react with a "We'll show them!"

      ------

      Can anyone corroborate the observation that ref bias handed the
      Pistons a game, or if it was prevalent throughout? (I didn't see any
      of the Finals.)

      If you are not a "conspiracy theorist", can you imagine how "they"
      think? My own guess would be that a "conspiracy" would only surface
      in close games, and not in a blowout series.

      Someone has written that the Lakers were shown favoritism in the
      Wolves series, notably by "allowing" Malone to hold Garnett. Any
      corroboration there?
    • mrintp2000
      Shaq gets away with murder. Yes he gets fouled a lot, but if the refs called all the fouls he committs, he d have to alter his game considerably. And the
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Shaq gets away with murder. Yes he gets fouled a lot, but if the refs
        called all the fouls he committs, he'd have to alter his game
        considerably. And the Lakers do seem to play defense using the clutch
        and grab.

        In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > I recently got this message from a member (not sure if it was meant
        > for the whole group).
        >
        > -----
        >
        > Catching up on very old posts, and this caught my eye after the fact:
        >
        > Mike G wrote:
        > >
        > > My own guess is that the refs will blatantly hand the Lakers at
        > > least one game, and that it will therefore go 6 or 7.
        >
        > I take it you ended up being pretty surprised at the large ref bias
        > for the
        > Pistons in this series, including blatantly handing them game 4, huh?
        >
        > Whodathunkit? Makes you wonder if the league didn't listen to the
        > conspriracy theorists and react with a "We'll show them!"
        >
        > ------
        >
        > Can anyone corroborate the observation that ref bias handed the
        > Pistons a game, or if it was prevalent throughout? (I didn't see any
        > of the Finals.)
        >
        > If you are not a "conspiracy theorist", can you imagine how "they"
        > think? My own guess would be that a "conspiracy" would only surface
        > in close games, and not in a blowout series.
        >
        > Someone has written that the Lakers were shown favoritism in the
        > Wolves series, notably by "allowing" Malone to hold Garnett. Any
        > corroboration there?
      • John Hollinger
        The Lakers had the second-highest PF rate in the league, so there s somethign too that, but they were obviously smart about fouling (not in bonus,
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 8, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          The Lakers had the second-highest PF rate in the league, so there's
          somethign too that, but they were obviously smart about fouling (not
          in bonus, non-shooting, etc.), because their rate of oppponent FTAs
          wasn't nearly as bad.



          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "mrintp2000" <shzys@n...> wrote:
          > Shaq gets away with murder. Yes he gets fouled a lot, but if the
          refs
          > called all the fouls he committs, he'd have to alter his game
          > considerably. And the Lakers do seem to play defense using the
          clutch
          > and grab.
          >
          > In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
          > > I recently got this message from a member (not sure if it was
          meant
          > > for the whole group).
          > >
          > > -----
          > >
          > > Catching up on very old posts, and this caught my eye after the
          fact:
          > >
          > > Mike G wrote:
          > > >
          > > > My own guess is that the refs will blatantly hand the Lakers at
          > > > least one game, and that it will therefore go 6 or 7.
          > >
          > > I take it you ended up being pretty surprised at the large ref
          bias
          > > for the
          > > Pistons in this series, including blatantly handing them game 4,
          huh?
          > >
          > > Whodathunkit? Makes you wonder if the league didn't listen to the
          > > conspriracy theorists and react with a "We'll show them!"
          > >
          > > ------
          > >
          > > Can anyone corroborate the observation that ref bias handed the
          > > Pistons a game, or if it was prevalent throughout? (I didn't see
          any
          > > of the Finals.)
          > >
          > > If you are not a "conspiracy theorist", can you imagine
          how "they"
          > > think? My own guess would be that a "conspiracy" would only
          surface
          > > in close games, and not in a blowout series.
          > >
          > > Someone has written that the Lakers were shown favoritism in the
          > > Wolves series, notably by "allowing" Malone to hold Garnett. Any
          > > corroboration there?
        • mrintp2000
          ... fouling?
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 8, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Interesting...is there any other possible explanation than "smart"
            fouling?

            In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
            > The Lakers had the second-highest PF rate in the league, so there's
            > somethign too that, but they were obviously smart about fouling (not
            > in bonus, non-shooting, etc.), because their rate of oppponent FTAs
            > wasn't nearly as bad.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "mrintp2000" <shzys@n...> wrote:
            > > Shaq gets away with murder. Yes he gets fouled a lot, but if the
            > refs
            > > called all the fouls he committs, he'd have to alter his game
            > > considerably. And the Lakers do seem to play defense using the
            > clutch
            > > and grab.
            > >
            > > In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
            > > > I recently got this message from a member (not sure if it was
            > meant
            > > > for the whole group).
            > > >
            > > > -----
            > > >
            > > > Catching up on very old posts, and this caught my eye after the
            > fact:
            > > >
            > > > Mike G wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > My own guess is that the refs will blatantly hand the Lakers at
            > > > > least one game, and that it will therefore go 6 or 7.
            > > >
            > > > I take it you ended up being pretty surprised at the large ref
            > bias
            > > > for the
            > > > Pistons in this series, including blatantly handing them game 4,
            > huh?
            > > >
            > > > Whodathunkit? Makes you wonder if the league didn't listen to the
            > > > conspriracy theorists and react with a "We'll show them!"
            > > >
            > > > ------
            > > >
            > > > Can anyone corroborate the observation that ref bias handed the
            > > > Pistons a game, or if it was prevalent throughout? (I didn't see
            > any
            > > > of the Finals.)
            > > >
            > > > If you are not a "conspiracy theorist", can you imagine
            > how "they"
            > > > think? My own guess would be that a "conspiracy" would only
            > surface
            > > > in close games, and not in a blowout series.
            > > >
            > > > Someone has written that the Lakers were shown favoritism in the
            > > > Wolves series, notably by "allowing" Malone to hold Garnett. Any
            > > > corroboration there?
          • Mike G
            ... I appreciate the comments and all; but I really was interested if any of the astute observers in here could confirm or deny what one person said
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 9, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              > In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger" <alleyoop2@y...>
              wrote:
              > > The Lakers had the second-highest PF rate in the league, ...

              > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "mrintp2000" <shzys@n...>
              wrote:
              > > > Shaq gets away with murder. ...

              I appreciate the comments and all; but I really was interested if any
              of the astute observers in here could confirm or deny what one person
              said (off-list), about major ref bias for the Pistons.

              These things intrigue me, and people's perceptions of them not the
              least.


              I do not think foul rates indicate much about bias. Teams that are
              losing tend to foul more, do they not? Players who are ahead of the
              defense are going to be grabbed.

              As far as I know, Shaq hasn't murdered or hurt anyone. (Malone has.)
              I've always thought it helped Shaq on both ends of the stick. No
              offensive fouls = dunks. No defensive fouls = no FT to blow.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.