The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

So, fully recognizing that we NBA fans are a dying breed, and thus this will not be a super popular topic, I wanted to touch on the allegations by Tim Donaghy, outlined in this piece.
I watched the Lakers-Kings game in question and if you came away from that thinking it wasn't fixed, you're either a Lakers fan who needs to justify that game or David Stern ... or one of the many ex-coaches (Van Gundy, Hubie Brown) desperate to coach again and thus unwilling to be critical to the point of being a sychophant.
The officiating in the NBA has been atrocious for the better part of the past 6 or 7 seasons. It began when the league fell in love with San Antonio and decided the Spurs could set moving screens, hack anyone who drove the lane and shove defenders who had boxed them out. Had I the time, or inclination, I could show you HOURS of that happening. And that would pale in comparison to the number of times the Spurs, especially Duncan and Ginobli, simply flopped to draw whistles. I recall a series against the Mavericks, probably 4 or 5 years ago, when Dirk was getting hammered by the Spurs without even the hint of a whistle while virtually any contact on Duncan was an immediate foul. People tend to think I'm exaggerating this kind of thing but, again, if I had that series on tape, and I'm thinking of a game in SA in particular, you'd be stunned.
Or maybe not. I hear quite a few stupid criticisms of the NBA: players are ball hogs, nobody passes, everyone travels, the league is full of thugs, etc. Those are typically from people who already don't like the NBA and thus do not watch. But a perfectly valid criticism, for quite some time, has been the obvious ways in which the officiating changes based on location, circumstance and super-stars. The last item actually doesn't bother me as much, having LeBron or Kobe or Chris Paul or Duncan foul out of a game is counter to the league's interest. And the super-star calls are not nearly as bad as they are often made out to be. Do they get away with some extra stuff? Yes. Do they get hacked and get no whistle? Also yes. So that's a wash.
But the disparity between home and road calls, the extent to which certain officials routinely insert themselves into a game and influence its outcome (Joey Crawford, Bennet Salvatore, Dick Bavetta) is 1) not new and 2) is David Stern's fault. He's clearly mandated this type of officiating, the man is all-powerful when it comes to that league, his word is law. So if officiating is biased, it's because he wants it that way. This is a man who has been in charge for far too long, he's one of those arrogant pricks who believe what he thinks is best should supplant anything else.
I really, really hope this blows up in Stern's face and ends with his disgraceful departure. He's gotten way too much of a free pass for trying to screw over the fans in Seattle but that's a complicated issue. The idea of cheating is one that does not sit well with the public and the league needs a change.
Those of you who don't follow the NBA will have to take me at my word but the league is in a really great place right now in terms of the young talent. Stern is arrogant enough to think any success the league is having is a function of his leadership but, if he sticks around, and the officiating stays as-is, the fans will stop watching.
As a Cavaliers fan, I BADLY want to see them win a ring but if it comes because Stern and his lackeys decide it's LeBron's turn (a la Dwayne Wade) then no thanks. I'll take a hard fought loss over a gift wrapped win 100% of the time.

I was actually beginning to wonder why no one other than me noticed that the "superstars" always make it to the playoffs. One superstar of any caliber should not be enough to win against a team with several legitimate all-stars by the numbers. When games have a disparity in free throw attempts of 30 between teams, something is not only wrong but is intentionally unfair.

I'm an old person, so I both remember and miss the days when playing basketball meant playing basketball. The three point line and the dunk have killed the game. Scoring is down, even with the shot clock, fouls are called for hand checks (the hand used to be part of the basketball), and only players 6'3" and above need apply. This isn't basketball. This is a 48 minute dunk and three point contest.

I could go on forever but people hate when I do that, so I'll leave this as I couldn't agree more. Stern deserves a quick exit and a slow and painful death. He's destroyed all credibility in the sport, particularly among the older fans.

Well, thanks for the applause but I disagree strongly with much of what you said.
I think teams take way too many threes but that's a live-with-it/die-with-it scenario. The 3-point line stretches the floor, it makes for a less stagnant game, when used correctly.
And dunks? Dude, I mean, those are decades old at this point, I LOVE a good dunk. Give me a over some defender, nasty, hide the children thunderous jam any day of the week.
Athletes in all sports have gotten bigger, that isn't exclusive to basketball. I'm a purist in the sense that I like team basketball, teams that reverse the ball and find the open guy for the sensible shot.
Superstars tend to make the playoffs because they are, also, very good players, and smart teams usually build around those guys.
But fluid teams with solid point guard play and lots of passing do still exist, in fact, that's what I think is most exciting about the current crop of players is the sheer number of solid point guards out there.

The Applause was because there is at least one other person at THN paying any attention at all to NBA basketball, not because we agree on everything. Have we ever agreed on anything?

I think we are a few years apart, so we grew up with different brands of basketball, I have no doubt. Oscar Robertson and Earl Monroe didn't score the majority of their baskets by dunking and shooting three pointers

It isn't that dinks and threes aren't part of the game. What it is, from my perspective, is that there should be more to a game than dunks and threes. Do you think, with today's game, that Scott Skiles 30 assist game record will be broken, or even approached? Should 30 point per game scorers be handed half of those points from the free throw line? They weren't always.

I'm sure we disagree, but I'd like to see the three pointer go away. I'd like to see the shot clock go away. I'd like to see the hand checking fouls go away. NBA games used to have around 300 points scored per game. It isn't that defense has improved. It's that the changes made to the game to speed it up have actually slowed it down.

I think what I would most like to see is the violations called correctly. Palming, double-dribbling, taking three steps, etc.
Those seem to be a large number of the gimmes that the home teams receive.

Scrapping the shot clock would be an unmitigated disaster, my god, games would be unwatchable. The rest of that I will address later, probably tomorrow. But, we do agree on one thing: our choice of football teams. On that note, we are decidedly in harmony.

the real 2002 champs Sacramento Kings. Stern does need to go.

The main reason I stopped following the NBA is because of the officiating or lack thereof. In light of all the recent goings on and for the integrity of major sports, I believe an Officials Organization should be formed consisting of officials from all major sports and independent from said sports

i love watching the nba and i have been watching it since 00 (im still only 18 so dont judge). but i agree 100% with what fios is saying. I have watched the Spurs get away (especially Bowen) with so many calls, and then go down the other side of the court and flop like crazy and get calls. At one point this year i was talking to my friend saying, i think Popovich tells his players in practice to fall everytime they go up for a layup or someone leans forward. Its crazy.
You remember last year when they suspended Diaw and Stoudamire for getting off the bench for 2 seconds to defend their point guard after horry shouldered him to the ground? It was straight busch league.
The problem with the NBA is not the 3 point shots, or the dunks or the shot clock. Its actually crazy to think thats the problem. For 1, 3 pointers are a very good momentum changer in a close game. For 2, a good dunk can get the crowd into a game and motivate the players. and if there was no shot clock, then the team with the lead would just dribble around for ever in the 4th quarter. you say the games use to have like 300 points. but the problems you say the nba has actually helps with the scoring. so yeah, i dont know what youre trying to prove.
the problem with the nba is exactly what fios said. And im not sure if david stern is actually making it all happend, but he sure is turning the other cheek when it happends. there are too many biased refs in the game today. they need a new wave of guys who dont know the players, who dont like certain players more. i mean i think it was charles barkley who said that certain refs like certain players more so they'll give that player more freedoms than another player and it affects the outcome of the game somtimes. so until they get a new wave of refs and new rules set for flopping(i think theyre starting this for next year, players getting fined for obvious flopping) and stop being so strict on technical fouls(it is simply ridiculous to give some one a T for showing emotion in a heated game. god forbib some of these players act human for once) and other retarded calls, this is going to continue to be a problem.

They should put more of the officiating powers in the booth.

Have officials watching cameras and coordinating with the on field officials.

Any calls the on field official makes should be reviewed immediately through the booth officials before it is actually called.

It used to be that the "on-field" official had the "best view" of the plays, but that's not the case anymore. Now any moron with a Tivo has a better view than most of the "on-field" officials. The on field official has to make a judgement call based often on what he thought he saw at real speed.

Put the power more into the hands of the guys in the booth, let them buzz the head referee if they see something, and force the on-field ref to buzz the booth, explain what he thought he saw, have it immediately reviewed, and make the call if necessary.

Granted this is an off-the-cuff idea, and I haven't totally thought it all the way through, but if we, the fans, can see these calls that are getting missed from the comfort of our couch, it would seem that the officials should be able to do something similar.

ChocolateMilk wrote:(im still only 18 so dont judge)

you say the games use to have like 300 points. but the problems you say the nba has actually helps with the scoring.

OK. You're 18. I'm not judging your age but have you ever watched old NBA or ABA games? Try watching the games with people like Oscar Robertson, Earl Monroe, Elvin Hayes, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, George Gervin, Dr. J's ABA games, Clyde Frazier, Pete Maravich, Bob Petit, Wes Unseld, Jerry West. Try YouTube.

What do all of these Hall Of Famers have in common? They all hold NBA records of some kind. What else do they have in common? No three point line, no shot clock, and most of their points were scored by shooting, not by dunking.

Teams didn't take anywhere near 24 seconds to shoot before the shot clock. Think about this for a minute. 300 points. No three point line. And players rarely fouled. For the sake of argument, we'll assume 20 points of the 300 are from free throws. That leaves 280 points scored in 48 minutes. 2880 seconds. That's one point scored every 10.28 seconds.

Compare that with today's game. Assume 200 points per game. Assume the same 20 points per game from free throws. That leaves 180 points in 48 minutes. 2880 seconds. That's one point every 16 seconds. With the three point line and the shot clock. And with the hand check fouls and the clock stoppages for 30 free throws per game.

There's nothing wrong with liking the game you grew up with.
I just grew up with a different one, and I like the one I grew up with better. Five man team basketball is far better than five superstars in the entire league.

Since I'm in the minority, let me throw a few records out that won't be broken with the three point line, the shot clock, and the hand-check foul:

Most points, both teams, game
370-Detroit (186) at Denver (184), December 13, 1983 (3 OT)

Most consecutive games, 100 or more points
136-Denver, January 21, 1981-December 8, 1982

Highest average, points per game, season
126.5-Denver, 1981-82 (10,371/82)

Highest average, points per game, season
(minimum 70 games)
50.4-Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia, 1961-62 (4,029/80)

Most points, game
100-Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia vs. New York, at Hershey, Pa., March 2, 1962

Most consecutive games, 20 or more points
126-Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia, San Francisco, October 19, 1961-January 19, 1963

Most players, 40 or more points, game
2-Baltimore vs. Los Angeles, November 14, 1964 (Johnson 41, Bellamy 40)

Most players, 2,000 or more points, season
2-Los Angeles, 1964-65 (West 2,292, Baylor 2,009)

If the shot clock is speeding up the game, why does Wilt still hold so many scoring records? Shouldn't Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or (insert next NBA catered-to superstar) be breaking them? The NBA, specifically David Stern needs to stop trying to create superstars. For all the fans who pay attention to the Kobe's and the LeBron's, five times the number are absolutely sick of them. It isn't the players faults. It's the league. Most middle-aged "white" guys stopped watching basketball when the league created Michael Jordan because it lost Magic, Bird, Dr J. and the other players who drew fans. The thing is, those guys weren't created by the rules. They were created by being just that good.

Dude, scrapping the shot clock is a stupid idea, my dad is from the same era of basketball as you, I have an uncle who played on a Final Four team in the pre-shot-clock era, they both love the shot clock. If it were the case that no shot clock = higher scores, please explain why the top 150 scorers, are ALL in the shot clock era. Your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, because it's factually inaccurate. If you followed that link, not only will you note no pre-shot clock teams in the top 150, most of the high scoring teams are also from the "modern" era.

NBA primer
The 24-second shot clock is used to time possessions by the offensive team. If a team does not attempt a field goal within 24 seconds of gaining possession of the ball, a violation is committed and possession is awarded to the other team. The clock is also reset anytime the following occurs: illegal defense violation, personal foul, fighting foul, kicked ball, punched ball, ball hits the rim of the team which is in possession.

Danny Biasone, the late owner of the Syracuse Nationals, invented the shot clock following the 1953-54 season to try to speed up the game and prevent teams from stalling. The lack of pace in NBA games in the early 1950s was widespread, typified by a game between the Fort Wayne Pistons and the Minneapolis Lakers on Nov. 22, 1950. The Pistons defeated the Lakers 19-18 in the lowest scoring game in NBA history. Each team had only four baskets, and Fort Wayne outscored Minneapolis by the underwhelming margin of 3-1 in the fourth quarter.

Former Boston Celtics All-Star guard Bob Cousy was legendary for his ability to stall with the ball. "That was the way the game was played -- get a lead and put the ball in the icebox," said Cousy. "Teams literally started sitting on the ball in the third quarter. Coaches are conservative by nature to begin with, and it didn't make much sense to play a wide-open game.

Biasone chose the unusual number of 24 seconds by figuring that the average number of shots two teams would take during a game was 120. He divided that number into 48 minutes or 2,880 seconds, the length of a game, and ended up with the magical number of 24.

The 24-second shot clock debuted in the National Basketball Association on Oct. 30, 1954 as the Rochester Royals defeated the Boston Celtics, 98-95, in what would have been the seventh-highest scoring game of the previous season.

During the first season with the 24-second clock, NBA teams averaged 93.1 points per game, an increase of 13.6 points per game over the previous season. In 1954-55 the Boston Celtics became the first team in NBA history to average more than 100 points for an entire season; four years later every team in the league bettered that plateau.

Said Cousy: "Before the new rule, the last quarter could be deadly. The team in front would hold the ball indefinitely, and the only way you could get it was by fouling somebody. In the meantime, nobody dared take a shot and the whole game slowed up. With the clock, we have constant action. I think it saved the NBA at that time. It allowed the game to breathe and progress.

Said Maurice Podoloff, the NBA's first president: "The adoption of the clock was the most important event in the NBA."

You're the ONLY person, literally, I have ever heard advocate for the end of the shot clock. Even the HOFer who used the lack of a shot clock best thought it was stupid. Come on now. It slowed the game down, caused low scores and was boring as hell and that's according to the people who played in that era. Stop making things up.

edit: had to update the URL because NBA.com sucks

GSPODS wrote:Since I'm in the minority, let me throw a few records out that won't be broken with the three point line, the shot clock, and the hand-check foul:

Most points, both teams, game
370-Detroit (186) at Denver (184), December 13, 1983 (3 OT)

Most consecutive games, 100 or more points
136-Denver, January 21, 1981-December 8, 1982

Highest average, points per game, season
126.5-Denver, 1981-82 (10,371/82)

Highest average, points per game, season
(minimum 70 games)
50.4-Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia, 1961-62 (4,029/80)

Most points, game
100-Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia vs. New York, at Hershey, Pa., March 2, 1962

Most consecutive games, 20 or more points
126-Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia, San Francisco, October 19, 1961-January 19, 1963

Most players, 40 or more points, game
2-Baltimore vs. Los Angeles, November 14, 1964 (Johnson 41, Bellamy 40)

Most players, 2,000 or more points, season
2-Los Angeles, 1964-65 (West 2,292, Baylor 2,009)

If the shot clock is speeding up the game, why does Wilt still hold so many scoring records? Shouldn't Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or (insert next NBA catered-to superstar) be breaking them? The NBA, specifically David Stern needs to stop trying to create superstars. For all the fans who pay attention to the Kobe's and the LeBron's, five times the number are absolutely sick of them. It isn't the players faults. It's the league. Most middle-aged "white" guys stopped watching basketball when the league created Michael Jordan because it lost Magic, Bird, Dr J. and the other players who drew fans. The thing is, those guys weren't created by the rules. They were created by being just that good.

DUDE THE SHOT CLOCK WAS ADOPTED IN 1954 by the NBA, the ABA used it from the outset ... every SINGLE stat you cited is a SHOT CLOCK stat. And the thing about people being sick of Kobe or LeBron ... I mean, that's demonstrably false. Michael Jordan is, hands down, the best player ever. The league created him? 100% false man, if you're not even going to deal in reasonable arguments, I'm done with this.
Didn't mean for that to sound so angry but you're either badly misinformed or making things up.

Fios wrote:every SINGLE stat you cited is a SHOT CLOCK stat.

True. But not in combination with the three point line and the hand-check foul. What I am suggesting is to do away with the three point line and the hand check foul and to change the shot clock. Scoring is down because shooting 35% is not only acceptable, now it's the norm for many players.
And shooting the low percentage three is more appealing than shooting the high percentage two.

Michael Jordan either palmed or took three steps every time he touched the ball. He would have been a great player without the league helping him out. The league only assisted Jordan with the benefit of every call or non-call when he was their meal ticket. Notice how when he went to the Wizards he didn't get the benefit of every call. He was no longer the face of the league.

I'm positive we disagree on many things about basketball. And, as I often do, I mis-stated my position in the original post. But we do agree on one thing: Stern and his policies have to go.

Jordan, all time best ever. The reason I started watching.

I liked to watch Kobe and Shaq dominate when Shaq first went to LA. Back when Shaq was a rapper and movie star ya know. Never really had a "team". Mostly because I only watched BBall because it wasn't football season. So, I watched who ever I thought was most entertaining, which was Kobe and Shaq.

Then it just go old for me. No one else or any team has ever got me interested in basketball.

GSPODS wrote:

Fios wrote:every SINGLE stat you cited is a SHOT CLOCK stat.

True. But not in combination with the three point line and the hand-check foul. What I am suggesting is to do away with the three point line and the hand check foul and to change the shot clock. Scoring is down because shooting 35% is not only acceptable, now it's the norm for many players.
And shooting the low percentage three is more appealing than shooting the high percentage two.

Michael Jordan either palmed or took three steps every time he touched the ball. He would have been a great player without the league helping him out. The league only assisted Jordan with the benefit of every call or non-call when he was their meal ticket. Notice how when he went to the Wizards he didn't get the benefit of every call. He was no longer the face of the league.

I'm positive we disagree on many things about basketball. And, as I often do, I mis-stated my position in the original post. But we do agree on one thing: Stern and his policies have to go.

Save for the last graf, I have neither the time nor the inclination to demonstrate how wrong that is. The Jordan thing is 100% crap, you clearly stopped watching basketball at some point and I'd venture a guess that you've never played.

edit: realized you've admitted to something that would make your chances of playing nil, thus the switch to past tense

BnGhog wrote:Jordan, all time best ever. The reason I started watching.

I liked to watch Kobe and Shaq dominate when Shaq first went to LA. Back when Shaq was a rapper and movie star ya know. Never really had a "team". Mostly because I only watched BBall because it wasn't football season. So, I watched who ever I thought was most entertaining, which was Kobe and Shaq.

Then it just go old for me. No one else or any team has ever got me interested in basketball.

Become a Hornets fan ... Chris Paul will revitalize your love of the game

Fios wrote:you clearly stopped watching basketball at some point and I'd venture a guess that you've never played.

True and True. Does one have to play the game competitively to grasp it?
Your looking at the game from a sports perspective.
I know you have said before that you do play the game.
Undoubtedly, there are things about the game you feel add to the entertainment value and enjoyment of the game.
The lack of responses at THN indicates to me how many people either lost interest or never had any. The Redneck Rodeo, a.k.a. NASCAR and Golf have more fans.

I'm looking at the sport from a business perspective.
Everyone hates change, the owners, players and fans alike.
The current league is losing business.
That means change or fold.
The Kobe and LeBron fans alone can't support the entire league.
The league could also downsize. Does Memphis really need a team?

I should add here I'm really not trying to get under anyone's skin or to argue for argument's sake. Change is necessary. Outing David Stern is only the beginning.

BnGhog wrote:Jordan, all time best ever. The reason I started watching.

I liked to watch Kobe and Shaq dominate when Shaq first went to LA. Back when Shaq was a rapper and movie star ya know. Never really had a "team". Mostly because I only watched BBall because it wasn't football season. So, I watched who ever I thought was most entertaining, which was Kobe and Shaq.

Then it just go old for me. No one else or any team has ever got me interested in basketball.

Totally agree. At the time I don't think anyone had seen a player like Jordan in the league and now every kid on every playground wants to be like Mike. I don't want to say its ruined the game but it seems like the entire league is saturated with Jordan wannabees these days. Whats up with sports talk comparing Kobe to Jordan? Please. No contest. Jordan started the entire basketball shoe craze. Hell in reality, Jordan himself started the early 90's basketball in general craze. Jordan made every basketball player in the world want to dunk. Jordan made every basketball player in the world want to master fadeaway jumpers. Jordan held the league on his back for years. I don't think the NBA will ever be that good again.

Chris Paul is really fun to watch but he's about it. Iverson was also fun to watch, but moreso when he played for Georgetown. But I've seen players like Lebron, I've seen players like Kobe, I've seen players like Duncan and I've seen players like (insert stars name here) all before. The NBA needs another Jordan and the current crop of players just doesn't cut it.

---------------

Fios, what is your opinion on college ball? I personally find the game to be better paced and more interesting than the NBA. That may or may not have something to do with the 11 second difference in the shot clock. I'm not sure, it just seems like a more enjoyable game to watch.

Jordan held the league on his back for years. I don't think the NBA will ever be that good again.

Take it from a Knicks fan, it was not that good.

Sir_Monk wrote:

Jordan held the league on his back for years. I don't think the NBA will ever be that good again.

Take it from a Knicks fan, it was not that good.

Not only Knicks fans. Nobody except the fans of those teams wants to see the same teams in the playoffs and the Finals every season. Stern and company need to get a clue: Start with: Those of us who were around in the late 1970's and 1980's to see the Lakers and Celtics the first time are still sick of them. Reviving that dead horse won't bring back Magic and Birdman. Second Hint: 20 teams loaded with talent will result in more revenue than 30 teams mired in mediocrity.

The biggest problem with the NBA, in my opinion is this:
Every fan wants to believe when the season begins that his or her team has a chance of winning the Finals. The NBA doesn't have that Equal Opportunity Championship feeling to it. It hasn't had that feeling since around 1978-1979 when some team named the "Bullets" won it all.

one thing they could do to help with some of the awful calls in the games is to give each coach 2 challenges like in the nfl..

You know growing up I loved watching basketball. I was a hugh Lard Bird fan so I was a and still am a Celtics fan. However a few years ago I stopped watching basketball because of the crap calls in the league, the play of the game is constantly stopped because someone breathed to hard and David Stern is a sissy and needs to stand up to these refs and tell them they suck. But now this comes out David Stern doesn't want to admit that the refs not only were making crap calls but the games were fixed. The game is no longer enjoyable like it was back in the day

I just don't like that a player can initiate contact and draw a blocking foul. It's not new, but it is rampant. If a player jumps in the air, shoots with one hand while using his elbow to swing out and hit the defender just to get a three point play, it should be flopping penalty like they have in the NHL.

As for growing up, I was a huge basketball/Terp/Lenny Bias fan. His death killed my love for basketball in one fell swoop. It wasn't until the X-ree Hipp era that I started getting back into it. Bias not only killed basketball for me, but it robbed the world of the Jordan vs Bias rivalry. Yes, I think he was that good. t pretty much put the nail in the Celtics' coffin for years, as well.

EasyMoney wrote:Fios, what is your opinion on college ball? I personally find the game to be better paced and more interesting than the NBA. That may or may not have something to do with the 11 second difference in the shot clock. I'm not sure, it just seems like a more enjoyable game to watch.

I find it difficult to watch college basketball during the regular season but the NCAA tournament is an absolute thrill ride. What I enjoy about college ball is watching teams that are dedicated to running an offense on a consistent basis. What I dislike about it, or what it lacks, are the guys who can take over a game. They do exist but in much smaller numbers than they do in the NBA. I'm in a small breed that still watches NBA regular season basketball but I just find it to be more entertaining on a whole than college regular season ball.