Bill Bridges, writing at Forum Blue and Gold, has a theory about how the Celtics won Game 2 that has to do with Tom Thibodeau, supercomputers and the GM of the Rockets. There is even a Karl Rove mention, and some Darth Vader overtones.
However, the part this is not hard to argue, and is undoubtedly true and relevant, is this:
A wide swipe at the ball whether for steals or blocks (read, Ronny) draws attention and fouls -- contact or not. Thus the Celtics rarely swipe at the ball. What they do is grab arms, wrists, jerseys with the minimum of motion -- much like a master jujitsu artist. Kobe gets by Pierce on his way to the hoop. Pierce doesn't swipe, he grabs Kobe's right wrist. That Kobe twists in air and shoots and scores with his Left hand is a testament to Kobe. That Pierce almost stopped Kobe's score and didn't pick up a foul is a testament to Thibodeau.
Contact with the hands, however incidental on a player with the ball draws a foul. Swiveling your hip into the player to throw off him off stride rarely gets called. In fact, on the play, you can clearly see Paul Pierce swiveling his hips ala Shakira into Kobe's torso as Kobe rises for the running jumper. Maybe Karma rewarded this display by depositing Perkins heft onto the back of Pierce's knee. The Celtics don't hand check. They hip check.
In my e-mail inbox is a massive treasure trove of fresh "the NBA is rigged" e-mails, which always make me sad. (Even sadder than so many people assuming Games 1 and 2 were called in Boston's favor, is the group conviction that Games 3 and 4 will be called in the Lakers' favor -- to get this series to six or seven games.)
Basketball is supposed to be fun, but it's making so many people so upset.
One thing that I think would he helpful: In this era of Tivo and digital video, sophisticated fans should complain about the referees not with angry e-mail rants, but with specific video evidence. It's a needlessly weak argument to say this team shot that many more free throws than the other one.
Anybody with a Tivo and some free time could do something like this. And then we could get into the nitty gritty. How many clearly bad calls, or no calls, were there against each team? Did one particular referee seem to have it in for the Lakers? And forget fouls and free-throws, what about the all-important violations? How much of the disparity had to do with referees, and how much had to do with how the different teams played?
That approach has three serious advantages.
- First of all, it gives you credibility. Someone in the habit of reviewing the calls is not someone who will sound a lot of false alarms. And a lot of NBA calls are, upon review, way better than they appeared at the moment.
- Second, it keeps you out of the overstuffed "ranting fan" category, and puts you into the "information provider" category. Fans are always upset about the referees. It's simply not possible for pulses to quicken at the NBA, after all these years, when they hear "fans are upset about the referees."
- And finally, the end product of that kind of analysis is the most powerful sales tool in the history of civilization: TV. Saying "the refs weren't fair" is the most tired of arguments. Saying "the refs weren't fair, and here's the video," is exciting and impressive. That latter approach might get some real attention as the NBA continues tweaking the game in a digital age.
