Wolves make a brief appearance in Donaghy book excerpt
by Stop-n-Pop on Oct 29, 2009 3:00 PM CDT
30 comments
Deadspin took a break from its war against ESPN to post a few high/lowlights from the unpublished Donaghy tell-all:
I remember one nightmarish game I worked with Joe Crawford and Phil Robinson. Minnesota and New Orleans were in a tight game going into the last minute, and Crawford told us to make sure that we were 100 percent sure of the call every time we blew the whistle. When play resumed, Minnesota coach Flip Saunders started yelling at us to make a call. Robinson got intimidated and blew the whistle on New Orleans. The only problem was it wasn't the right call. Tim Floyd, the Hornets' coach, went nuts. He stormed the court and kicked the ball into the top row of the stadium. Robinson had to throw him out, and Minnesota won the game.
[...]
Later that week, Ronnie Nunn told me that we could have made something up at the other end against Minnesota to even things out. He even got specific-maybe we should have considered calling a traveling violation on Kevin Garnett. Talk about the politics of the game! Of course the official statement from the league office will always read, "There is no such thing as a makeup call."
For those of you keeping track at home, this snippet references a 97-90 Wolves victory on January 19th, 2004. Also, tell us something we don't know about make up calls and star treatment. This is the rub with the Donaghy business. Even if the refs weren't throwing games for Las Vegas bookies, most fans outside of LA are already convinced that David Stern is capable of changing the course of a game or series via his direct-to-Dick-Bavetta bat phone:
It's a good thing this book never went to press. Not only would no one want to give money to a liar and a cheat, but 90% of what he appears to be writing about are things that most fans already believe(d) about the league. Anyone who was a fan of the NBA during the period of time between Michael Jordan's last shot in a Bulls uniform and Dwyane Wade's championship run know that there is something not quite right with the refs and that it probably has something to do with the marketing of marquee players. Most of the time this sort of thing makes for an entertaining evening during the regular season. Who wants to drop $50-100 bucks on a Wednesday night tilt in January to see your favorite player foul out? Unfortunately, it also makes for some highly questionable (if not outright compromised) post season action. (BTW: I will never view Kobe as being a legit 4-time champion and as far as I'm concerned, Phil is still tied with Red, if not behind if you throw in the 2000 WCF or the likelihood that a foul could have been called on just about 90% of Shaq's possessions during that period of time.)
What say you?
0 recs |
30 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I think its convenient
to pick and choose which championships/records to keep and which to throw out. If you think that ref bias is a part of the NBA, then so be it, but its unfair to simply single out the Lakers when you talk about rejecting their championships. You’d also have to throw out Jordan’s 6 rings, Wade’s ring, etc., since all could be viewed with more than a tinge of doubt as it concerns the officiating.
Its also hard to rail against it when, at the same time, you’re paying money to see the LeBrons, the Kobes, the Wades and the very people this so-called bias is supposed to help.
by TimAllen on Oct 29, 2009 3:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It seems like Shaq
is involved in alot of these potentially tainted titles. I am curious as to what impact not having those titles would do to his legacy.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 29, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree
Nobody got calls like Jordan, but people don’t hold it against him. In 2002, Sacramento shot 16-30 from the FT line in Game 7 (OT loss) and gave away that series. And the refs had nothing to do with Big Shot Bob’s buzzer beater trey in Game 4, when the series was about to go 3-1.
And if we’re taking a ring from Kobe for bad reffing in his favor, you might as well turn around and give it back for Game 2 of the 2008 Finals. In a display of bad reffing that has never been and hopefully never will be matched, the refs buried LA by taking out Kobe right away on three phantom calls. Final free throw tally: 38-10.
Donaghy stuff is interesting, though.
by Andy G on Oct 29, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Way to cite two irrelevant games.
In a best of seven series, you’re allowed to lose three games and still win. You’re right, the Lakers didn’t get help from the refs in games 4 or 7 (though awarding Samaki Walker a post-halftime-buzzer three pointer probably didn’t hurt their chances of winning a game 4, which was decided by a single point). They were handed the series because Game 6 WAS fixed.
Totally agree with stop-n-pop. The Sacramento Kings will always be the 2002 NBA Champions as far as I’m concerned.
by John Doe on Oct 30, 2009 2:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In a series that goes seven games, it’s hard to call any one of them irrelevant. I wanted Sac to win that series, but it’s hard to believe that David Stern or the refs had any control over Horry hitting buzzer beaters or Hedo & Co. missing free throw after free throw in Game 7. One game of bad reffing can’t account for a whole series — especially when there’s another game to be played AT Sacramento.
by Andy G on Oct 30, 2009 8:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The series wasn't fixed.
But a game was. Games 4 and 7 are irrelevant to whether or not Game 6 was fixed.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Ok, yes, it’s theoretically possible to win a series if the refs take a game that would have been a win and give you a loss instead. If the Kings had won 5, lost 2, they’d have won. Are you saying that’s fair? That it means we should make excuses for the refs/Lakers?
by John Doe on Oct 30, 2009 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Game 6 was fixed, that’s not fair to the Kings. I’m just not that big of a conspiracy theorist. If the league wanted to fix the series, they would have done something earlier, when Sacramento was dangerously close to ending it before 6 games. And if they wanted LA to win the series, they would not have let Game 7 become such an easy win (if they could’ve made a decent % of FT’s) for the Kings. Sacramento choked that series away. Sad, but true.
I doubt the league watched Games 1-5, then came up with this master plan to forever jeopardize its credibility by ensuring a Laker win in Game 6. Give me a break. Bad reffing happens in every sport. Seahawks in the Super Bowl, Lakers in Game 2 of the Finals vs. Boston, Dallas vs. Miami, Twins recently vs. Yankees. Too many examples to take your argument seriously. Tim Donaghy owes money to bad people. His book should help with that if he can intrigue enough gullible fans into buying it.
by Andy G on Oct 30, 2009 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying the series was fixed.
Just game 6. The argument doesn’t have to be “either the entire series was fixed or there was zero foul play.”
But might the league have preferred for the series to go 7? Might the league have preferred for the Los Angeles team with the superstars to make the Finals? Is it possible the refs were trying to influence Game 6 just a little bit? I just don’t know how anyone could watch that game and conclude that nothing happened.
by John Doe on Oct 30, 2009 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do think that ref bias is a part of the NBA...
…and I used the Lakers because I think they’re the most blatant example. The Jordan Bulls were clearly the best team in the league during those titles. I think the refs got in the way in 2000 and 2002 and with the Mavs/Heat series. Also, it didn’t come off like I wanted it to (i.e. dry) but I meant this to be a bit more light-hearted than it came off.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Oct 29, 2009 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The way Shaq got away with running over Rasho
in the playoffs was also ridiculous, there were two or three calls in the 2nd half of a game in LA that were obviously mandated from above. Wolves win that game if Shaq gets fouled out or rides the bench like he should have. Like other fans, I don’t want stars regularly fouling out, but the reverse is just as bad. Imagine the NFL if every time Adrian Peterson fumbled the refs blew a whistle and called the play dead. A stretch I admit, but some NBA calls border this degree of ridiculous.
BTW, why was Shaq so hard to officiate. Seems simple to me, if they guy defending him had position and Shaq bulled him over, it’s a foul. Call it enough and Shaq adjusts.
by Rumblebee on Oct 29, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shaq
Is simply impossible to officiate. I think if anything, Shaq probably has been victimized more by referee’s than any other player. In his prime he had guys hanging on him every time he touched the ball…. Shaq’s legacy is absolutely secure in my mind… I think Jordan, Wade, Kobe, among others have been the beneficiaries of “interesting” officiating.
by DR_JPK on Oct 29, 2009 4:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree..
….that he was tough to officiate but with that type of player the league should have adopted a clear approach rather than fly by the seat of their pants. He was either hacked or bowled people over on an amazing number of possessions. The problem here is that the league didn’t develop a strategy that prevented crappy physical play.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Oct 29, 2009 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is...
…familiarity. In essence, NBA refs are like home plate Umps – a vet pitcher, like Glavine, inches out over the black, then a little further, suddenly 3 inches outside is a strike and will be all game and all his career. In the same way NBA refs see the stars draw contact in certain ways (itself a skill) and call it, so the guy keeps doing it so he keeps getting the call. In essence, both with Umps and Refs, a compromise is reached. Non-stars don’t get it in part because they don’t have the skill to replicate the non-strike strike/not really a foul foul and they lack repetition at same. These guys see each other so often certain things just get established. Refs are human (well, maybe not all of them) and they develop relationships with these guys that are reflected in the whistle. There is also a natural instinct to give the benefit of the doubt to the better player. Bonds didn’t swing on that pitch I’m not sure of? Ball. Wade missed a lay-up that clearly wasn’t touched by Dampier and landed funny? Contact down low. I played on some atrocious college baseball teams. I am pretty sure our pitchers had half the strike zone our hitters did because the Umps knew we were beyond horrible and are predisposed to calling strikes for good pitchers to bad hitters and balls for good hitters against terrible pitchers.
Of course, the replacement Refs proved this beyond a doubt. We can either assume they were just randomly terrible or they just called what they saw as a foul. Nothing was established between the replacement guys so we saw what was probably a real look at the NBA, if that makes sense.
I also think there is no way in hell Stern or anybody upstairs ever tells anybody to bias games for anybody or extend series by calling it a certain way. At most Stern sees fans hating the Riley Knicks and tells guys to crack down on hand-checking next season, or something similar in broad strokes. Stern trying to bias games is like a Casino owner telling dealers to cheat – the cost of being caught once is massively in excess to the cumulative benefit of doing it.
And yes, you are welcome. For my next book….how writing long posts is sometimes better than work :)
All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer.
Homer
by CaliWolf on Oct 29, 2009 6:55 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
It was long, but very well stated
Couldn’t agree more.
by TimAllen on Oct 29, 2009 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Kahn plan take on this story
This is more evidence why the Kahn plan makes sense. His goal is to bring a STAR to the Wolves. The way the NBA works, if you have a STAR, not only do you benefit from his talent, you benefit from the Stern Rules. If you have a wonderfully balanced team that lacks a STAR, you just keep beating your head against the wall because as a team you may be competitive, but the league works against you.
How many FINALS since Stern took over have lacked at least one SUPERSTAR, if not one on each team?
Funny too, 1985, Ewing is obvious franchise changer, ends up in NEW YORK…shocking.
This year, one obvious #1 draft choice, and he ends up in LA. Wouldn’t want him landing in Memphis, would we?
Cleveland Cavaliers franchise is on life support, the hometown guy is the best player in the draft, get ready, Cleveland gets the Number 1 pick.
Couple years later, Bulls are in the lottery and magically move way up to land the #1 player in the draft, who again happens to be a hometown guy. The LeBron/Rose outcomes defy statistics, especially when they both go #1 to hometown teams. Coincidence…Stern wants you to think so.
Not saying every lottery is rigged (especially when the #1 is not a clear franchise player), but some seem to work out extremely well for the league or individual franchises.
by Rumblebee on Oct 29, 2009 6:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
How would you explain Boston not winning the Oden/Durant lottery then?
by museum on Oct 29, 2009 7:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I were a conspiracist
I’d say that Boston tanked that season too blatantly, to the point where tanking was being discussed by ESPN prime-time crews and sports radio personalities. As a result, despite their second-worst records, they slipped to #5 as punishment.
by losDelFuego on Oct 29, 2009 8:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are so many examples where Stern could have easily rigged things
but didn’t. San Antonio being one of the top teams in the league, despite its market share, is probably the best argument against conspiracies. When the Spurs won the Duncan sweepstakes instead of the Celtics; and when the fast, popular Suns team was playing the Spurs, someone who wanted to rig that series would not have suspended Stoudemire and Diaw.
by TimAllen on Oct 29, 2009 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think it is done all the time
or very often for that matter when it comes to the lottery. But if you look at the odds of what has happened a few times over the years, statisticians will tell you the the results have defied the odds by an extreme margin.
A team with a 1% chance getting the #1 pick may happen once in our lives, but a couple times in a decade…huh? The first time it happened may have been coincidence, but when it happens again only ten year later to send Derrick Rose to Chicago, you have to question. If this were an isolated occurrence it could be overlooked, but the lottery has only been around 25 years and there are several odd coincidences. Five of the 25 #1 picks since the lottery started have gone to teams in LA, NY, or Chicago. Four of those years had a fairly obvious #1 pick who looked like a sure All-Star (exception is the first year the Bulls won the lottery). Chicago and LA have WON the lottery twice, yet despite years of ineptitude, the Wolves have only been as high as #3, and only once. Some of these things defy odds.
Does all of this surprise me or bother me, not really. Ultimately, the NBA was on the verge of collapse before Stern took over. Under his leadership, the league has been marketed for entertainment far more than competitiveness, oh well, just realize that when watching. I liked watching ’Rasslin when I was a kid, even though I knew the results were fake. The rasslers were still incredibly talented and entertaining. NBA is similar, though much subtler and less controlled in my mind. I think ultimately the goal is to have the best team win, but maximizing revenue is a close second.
It’s not just the NBA by the way. Look at the NCAA. The Gopher basketball team and Clem Haskins were destroyed by the NCAA for academic violations, but they were not a big market/revenue team. Recent events surrounding the Florida State football program are very similar, but they get a slap on the wrist. Don’t want to hurt the teams that bring in the money, do we?
by Rumblebee on Oct 30, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Blazers game.
Sabonis was owning Shaq and the refs intentionally fouled him out of the game and kicked off that comeback. At least, that’s how I remember it. That Game 6 was the one time I can remember really, really feeling the refs were cheating.
by Princely Frank on Oct 29, 2009 10:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sabonis -- wow
Takes me back. Now that guy was a smart, smart player. He did pretty danged well on one leg in the NBA. As a kid for the Soviet teams, man, he must’ve been something.
by feral on Oct 30, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Guys
Sorry I haven’t posted in a while. I’m sure you guys didn’t miss me lol. Just wanted to drop in for 2 reasons.
1st reason is I want to say that was a great win against Jersey for you guys.
2nd reason….you know I have to talk about Rubio. I know you guys have probably already saw this but here it is anyway………
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/post/Timberwolves-trading-rights-to-Rubio?urn=nba,198953
Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:13 am EDT
Timberwolves trading rights to Rubio
By Mark J. Miller
The Minnesota Timberwolves spent a lot of time and money trying to get Spanish point guard Ricky Rubio to come play for them after the team drafted him fifth overall this past summer. Team bigwig David Kahn flew over to Spain a few times and tried to work out some sort of crazy buyout but obviously nothing ever worked out and Rubio is now playing for FC Barcelona.
Rubio is still saying he wants to play in the NBA someday. Presumably that’s what he intended when he declared himself for this year’s draft, too, and that didn’t seem to work out. The Wolves aren’t bothering themselves to picture him in their jersey anytime soon and it appears that the team will try and trade the rights to the guard before next year’s NBA draft, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
It isn’t expected that the team would get much in return on such a deal since most teams that have any interest in Rubio (read: the New York Knicks) don’t want to get involved in any long-term contract negotiations before the free-agent signing period starts next summer when the All-Star buffet opens up for NBA general managers.
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press
by DaJoka on Oct 29, 2009 11:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Consider the source...
…on that one. It’s Charlie Walters. AKA the Bird Whisperer. He writes the gossip column for the PiPress. Sometimes he’s right, other times…not so much.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Oct 29, 2009 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh those poor Knicks!
When will the Wolves stop trying to force Ricky Rubio’s wretched long-term contract on them? Why can’t they just leave them alone?
I tell you what, the Knicks will take Rubio if and only if he’s on a one year deal, and if the Wolves agree to take back Eddy Curry in return.
by John Doe on Oct 30, 2009 2:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have threads about Rubio
Why are you posting this in a thread about Tim Donaghy?
by feral on Oct 30, 2009 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop n Pop
Yo..I think you have the coolest nickname I’ve ever seen on a blog bro.
Your right about the source. I’m not saying it’s going to happen but as soon as I saw it..I had to come here and see if it was real or not. I figured if it was real you would be all over it.
Johnny Flynn is a beast bro.
42 inch vertical is incredible.
He knows how to run a team waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Nate the great on my team but I think when it comes to scoring I would give it to Nate.
That’s crazy how the #5 pick won’t ever play for the Wolves man.
It’s not that bad for you guys..imagine going through what the Knicks have gone through the last 9 years….shoot, you guys got it good lol.
Makes no sense to pile on Kahn..nobodys perfect and everybody makes mistakes.
He took a gamble and he lost with Rubio…no biggie.
Wolves still look good for the future.
Did you see my man Gallo?
7 3 pointers the night….we lost and it was in garbage time but it was a good display of shooting.
by DaJoka on Oct 29, 2009 11:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Why are you posting this in a thread about Tim Donaghy?
I’m cosigning with feral on that feeling.
by levi_mn on Oct 30, 2009 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two-and-a-half extremely simple observations:
1) The “makeup” call is obviously part of the game. It passes the most basic criterion for me: one can predict when one will occur an awful lot of the time. Questionable traveling offense on one end? Why, just wait…. I was a little struck that we didn’t got such a call to make up for Al’s sorta-block, sorta-foul against Lopez the other night. Maybe there wasn’t time. (Maybe the delay at the buzzer was about that, even.)
2) Joey Crawford is like a rogue elephant, and he needs to be put down.
2.5) Refs feeling intimidated into making calls is not specific to any sport. People who’ve looked into “home field advantage” have found the role of officiating to be a big part of it across all leagues, at every level.
by feral on Oct 30, 2009 9:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
Related FanShots on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
