NBA '08 Playoff Thread

I would agree with you, but between the Lakers nearly coming back to win Game 2 and the Celtics' historic comeback last night, I sure wouldn't call a game after 20 minutes in this series.

 

That's a good point -- but my thought on that was that we'll find out how much L.A. has left mentally after the first 20 minutes. Blowing that lead at home in the finals is going to be incredibly difficult to overcome just from the mental standpoint.

 

Boobie:

Perceptions of referees have nothing to do with Donaghy's allegations. It's the nature of all fans, in all sports, to cry, "We wuz ROBBED!!!!!!!!" after a tough loss. Fans, a biased and often uninformed lot, usually blame the guys with the whistles for their team's downfall.

Now they just have the words of a disgraced gambler to cling to as "proof."

 

If your looking at individual talent, I believe Kobe is just as good as Jordan was and when he retires, he'll go down as one of the top 5 player of all time imo. He's just that good. But like you said, his teammates couldn't hit thse clutch shots last night. Part of that is because this team is still a young team and they'll learn(people also forget that Andrew Bynum is hurt and will be back next year).
But coming back to the Jordan thing. I think we should stop saying things like "well Jordan would've never done that". We should just let Kobe do it his own way. They both had different stories. Jordan came into the league from college as a great player but had a crappy team. After he became more of a team player and the Bulls added good solid players around him, he won 6 championships and rode off into the sunset. Kobe came straight outta high school, was a average player as a rookie but then worked his ass off, became Shaqs "little bro", and ended up getting 3 rings by the time he was 24(Yeah he had Shaq, but lets not act like he was some type of "role" player or anything. He was one of the best players in the league during those years). See what I'm saying? Two completely different stories.
My point is, yeah, we should compare Kobe and Jordan's individual talents. But when you start talking about finals wins or whether or not Jordan's team would've won that game and what not, we start making impossible comparasions because both players were in different situations at different times in their respective careers. Lets just let Kobe do it his own way.

 

You can compare their offensive games. I don't think, at this point, you can compare the total package. We can revisit the topic three titles from now.

 

I'm not saying they're right -- like I said I had to point out to my friend how ridiculous the comment was last night -- but I also can't say fans aren't justified in that gripe in the wake of this scandal. It's a huge black eye for the sport and it's not going to go away.

 

We'll see, Boobie. I think the fact that fans already whine about calls lessens the impact, barring a true smoking gun (and "The (glamour team playing at home) got all the CALLS!!!!!!!!!" doesn't wash. I mean documents, inter-office memos, etc.). The NBA will smile and make it go away. They went through the drug scandals, etc. Stern is likely amused by what he regards as bullcrap.

While I have never, and will never, think Kobe is on par with Jordan . . . .

Number of titles as criteria for superiority?

Tell me: is Bird better than Magic, in your eyes? Why or why not?

 

As I said in the other thread, McNamee was viewed by the public with a lot of skepticism when the info came out that he kept needles, syringes and the like from years and years ago. And when his story came out, it seemed so unbelievable. And then Pettitte, Clemens' wife and everyone short of Clemens himself came out to verify that what McNamee told was the truth. Like McNamee months ago, he's in a position where lying wouldn't help any, given what's hanging over his head already.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the words of a disgraced gambler, even if it's not proof in itself, simply because it's an on-going process that's yet to play out completely yet.

 

"Hey man . . . that OTHER guy, in that OTHER sport, on a completely different issue, was misjudged to be lying! So this guy, in this sport, on this totally unrelated issue, might be telling the truth!!!!!!!"

This is something that has been brought up in the thread before. It's a bit of a leap, a stretch in logic. I understand what its proponents are getting at, and I agree that this whole thing has yet to play out. But it is easy to assume that when a dude is in trouble or backed into a corer, that dude will try to say things to save his ass or "take them down with ME!!!!!!", correct?

As one of the two sports where an official can clearly affect the game the most, basketball - on all levels - always has people eager to believe conspiracy theories about officiating.

(The other, of course, is soccer. The rules of the game basically give the dude with the whistle absolute power, even over the clock).

 

Incorrect. Because if he's lying to the feds, then tack on however many more years before bars to what he's already facing now. There's really no reason to lie here, he's got nothing to gain from lying in this situation.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-sternref061108&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Hence my note about trying to "Take them down with ME!!!!!!!"

Without documents that can completely disprove his allegations (and the burden of proof, based on public and media opinion and the "We wuz ROBBED!!!" mentality of the average fan, is on the NBA), he has plenty to gain by dropping embellishments in there. They cannot prove he is lying, and he has just slapped the NBA in the face, PR-wise.

 

A good read, and it certainly makes sense. But who's to say those are "embellishments" he told the feds? Maybe that was the truth to him? There's no reason for Donaghy to lie in that situation. I wouldn't put too much stock in his words, but on the other hand, I still wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them until there's a reason to dismiss them.

After all, didn't Stern say the NBA did a thorough investigation of this, only to find they never actually talked to Donaghy? How thorough could that investigation have been without talking to him?