[Playoffs] Western Conference Finals
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Oh BS. The NBA is a game of runs and momentum. The NBA and their refs are great at managing games and killing one teams momentum to jump start the others momentum.
They made sure the Rockets weren’t gonna run away with that game when they easily could have in the 1st half and in first couple minutes of the 3rd quarter. Then GSW catches fire and the Rockets go cold and its all Houston’s fault? Sure, whatever. I’ve got 2 eyes and know what I saw.
The ratings and money is in a GSW v Cleveland series. Just like it was in 2002 with the Lakers getting in over the Kings.
You carve a potential 15 points away from one team and pretend like it doesn’t matter? In a matchup where the margin of error for each team is so small??
That 3rd quarter was an absolute joke. As was the protection calls GSW got in the 1st half to minimize the deficit.
Not so coincidentally, whenever there’s a game when one team seems to be on the wrong end of not just one or two pivotal calls but a series of them that helps the opposition weather a storm and stay close —- how come it’s never the favorite that’s on the wrong end of it? Why is it always the underdog or better yet the team w/o the marquee players that the majority of young fans want to see??
Harden has fans, but nothing near KD, Steph and Klay. The Kings had fans but nothing near Shaq and Kobe.
I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen a star studded team on the wrong end of a questionably officiated decisive playoff game against an opponent that didn’t have an equally star studded roster. I wonder why that is?
The NBA knows how to play this game. One team gets calls early on, but the game still stays somewhat close. But when it matters most, the favorite somehow gets the keys calls that enable them to get it done. Wash, rinse and repeat.
We’ve all seen this movie before. The officials gifted the Lakers a title in 2002 and they just gifted one to GSW tonight.
Kings Faithful
Starter
Thats how they rig it and get away with it... momentum swings. A conveiently missed call here and one there. Maybe a phantom call on what should've been a normal missed shot. A dramatic swing from calling touch fouls to swallowing the whistle. It feels so orchestrated some times.
Double-K
Starter
I agree, for the most part. They only need to favor one team for a few minutes during said time when the opposing team has the momentum. However, I feel that their ultimate motive isn't a bias towards one team or the other. It is just to make sure one team doesn't run away with the game early, which is sickening knowing that the league is controlling it. Again, I thought it might not have been that obvious back in 2002 because I was a diehard Kings fan, but looking at tonight, and knowing how NBA (just like NFL's recent controversial decision) is a complete corporation that is about profit margin first and foremost, I am 100% certain that they really do that and that makes me sick to my stomach.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Yep.
I understand that officials in all sports have a tough gig. And I further understand missing calls from time to time.
However, it's the amount of missed or 'ignored' calls that occur and the timing of when they occur that stand out and are unacceptable.
I already mentioned some of them.
Early on when Houston was up 9, they whistled Capela for a goaltend on Klay Thompson when it really wasn't close. There's 2 points gifted to help thwart an early run.
Then they refused to whistle 2 consecutive fouls when Harden was shooting 3's. On one of them, Jordan Bell clearly grabbed his elbow in plain view of everybody. Reggie and Chris even commented on the telecast. That's potentially 6 points erased.
Then during the pivotal 3rd quarter swing they don't give Harden continuation on a made 3 pointer (banked it in) when Klay fouled him in the act. They seemingly call that continuation 98% of the time and surely would have had Steph or KD been the shooter.
Then a few plays later they blatantly overlook about as obvious a moving screen as I've ever seen (on Jordan Bell) which allowed Steph Curry to hit an open 3 in the corner. There's another swing of potentially 7 points. And then the Warriors were off an running on a momentum change and the Rockets fell into an abyss.
In total, that's up to a 15 point swing against the Rockets. Putting it simply: That's HUGE!
For those arguing that the Rockets hurt themselves by missing what seemed like 100 three's in a row --- to me that's akin to excusing game 6 of the Kings-Lakers series by saying that the Kings still could have won in game 7. Sure, they could have but it shouldn't have even gone that far. The more chances an elite team gets, they are eventually gonna cash in.
I'm not convinced Houston misses all those three's still if they had a more comfortable lead or didn't lose momentum (and confidence) from the officiating. I do think they were idiots for continuing to jack up three's when they weren't falling and not opting to take it to the rim a few times in between ---- but that doesn't excuse all the non-calls that happened in such a short time span.
Kings Faithful
Starter
Don't forget about the moving screens. One in particular was so blatant that literally every person in the arena saw it except for the Ref. Reminded me of that disgusting Kings Clippers game from a few seasons ago.
chief bromden
Starter
Maybe one day, Harden will stop focusing so much on moves that are only intended to draw fouls. Often times in the playoffs, foul calls don't always happen like they do in the regular season. Time and time again, I've seen Harden make movements with the only intent being to draw the foul. If you want to put the game in the hands of the refs, so be it. That's his choice ... but if you are one the best players in the era, why not put the game in your own hands and make scoring moves?
burekijogurt
Starter
you should see the screens in europe..nba is adapting more and more of european offense concepts including moving screens 
that said, that "screen" on Harden for the Curry corner three was particulary egregious
that said, that "screen" on Harden for the Curry corner three was particulary egregious
Padrino
All-Star
The refs were missing some pretty obvious calls last night, but I’m surprised by the hyperbolic reaction in this thread. It was no 2002 WCF game 6. Not even close. The Rockets were their own worst enemy in game 7. They missed 27 straight three’s, for chrissakes. 27! In a row!! Wide open three’s. And WIDE OPEN three’s. They kept missing them. And they kept shooting them. Without adjustment. Missed calls should never impact a team’s mental state like that. They got soft and weak and they deserved to lose.
More to the point, I’ve always said that the increased rate of three-point shooting in the modern NBA is a regular season boon but a major playoff gamble. Sure, it’s great if you can shoot 37%+ as a team across 82 games. That efficiency justifies the volume. But what about when there’s just one playoff game in front of you, and it’s win-or-go-home? What if tired legs mean clank after clank off the rim from deep? What if your opponent’s defensive game plan wipes out your access to the corners? And what if you’re just missing wide open look after wide open look all over the arc, in defiance of both math and logic? Do you have recourse? Or is your instinct to just keep shooting until you’ve bricked more than 30 f***ing three’s, when it’s clear that your plan of attack should have changed long ago?
That approach doomed both the Celtics and Rockets in their respective game 7’s. They kept shooting, with the expectation that their efficiency would return to the mean as the game pressed on. But season averages don’t mean a damn thing once the playoffs arrive. Time and again we’ve seen this happen. The Warriors are a dynasty. They’re an exception. They’ll manage to find the bottom of the net when other teams won’t.
More to the point, I’ve always said that the increased rate of three-point shooting in the modern NBA is a regular season boon but a major playoff gamble. Sure, it’s great if you can shoot 37%+ as a team across 82 games. That efficiency justifies the volume. But what about when there’s just one playoff game in front of you, and it’s win-or-go-home? What if tired legs mean clank after clank off the rim from deep? What if your opponent’s defensive game plan wipes out your access to the corners? And what if you’re just missing wide open look after wide open look all over the arc, in defiance of both math and logic? Do you have recourse? Or is your instinct to just keep shooting until you’ve bricked more than 30 f***ing three’s, when it’s clear that your plan of attack should have changed long ago?
That approach doomed both the Celtics and Rockets in their respective game 7’s. They kept shooting, with the expectation that their efficiency would return to the mean as the game pressed on. But season averages don’t mean a damn thing once the playoffs arrive. Time and again we’ve seen this happen. The Warriors are a dynasty. They’re an exception. They’ll manage to find the bottom of the net when other teams won’t.
Telemachus
Starter
This was the same feeling I got watching the game. There is no doubt there were some missed calls, but Houston looked like they were playing for the foul and GS was trying to make shots.
Well, three of the Warriors' five best players weren't in the league ten years ago, and one of them was playing in a city that no longer has an NBA team, so them dominating for a decade already would have been a neat trick.
But let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that I thought you had a point with this whole "lirl, the leastern conference~!" tangent. I want to go back to where you started this whole exchange as a reaction to me saying that a team could have, if they were so inclined, build a winning team around a player who plays like Tyreke Evans, and examine why you felt the need to do that?
Also, since your point appears to be that you could only build a winning team around a player like that in the east, let me just remind you that Houston does not play in the eastern conference.
Right? People have been complaining for years for refs to stop giving Harden those calls. And then, when they finally do, it's because it's 'rigged'?
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
I agree with you on this point. While I said it reminded me of 2002 WCF’s, it wasn’t nearly as egregious as that GM6 was.
But I somewhat disagree on the 27 consecutive misses. I don’t know that things unfold the same had the Rockets had a much larger lead —- which they should have had. Nobody knows how things would have gone if you swing those 15 points back Houston’s way. Perhaps the Warriors miss more shots in desperation? Perhaps the Rockets make more shots due to confidence?
Point is, it’s easy to blame the Rockets in hindsight when we know how it all turned out. Just like it was easy to blame the Kings for missing all those FTA’s in GM7 against the Lakers and claim that they were their own worst enemy.
In a world where a tainted GM6 meant they had to overcome it all in GM7, they were their own worst enemy. But in a world where GM6 was fairly officiated, they likely never would have had to play GM7 and give the bad guys another chance.
Same could be said of the Rockets last night. The 27 misses might not have happened had earlier events in the same game unfolded more appropriately. And even if it did, the 15 point swing would have went a long way toward keeping them in a game they lost by 9.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
Houston also hasn't made it this far with Harden until CP joined the show. Do you honestly believe you could build a winning team with a Tyreke Evans led team? I'd love to know where you learned to build a team if that is true. If you are simply stating that you COULD, well sure, you could do anything you put your mind to but it doesn't mean that plan will succeed.
True but the game wasn't egregiously. The Rockets missed 27 straight 3 pointers, an NBA record so it's hard to say the officiating affected them that significantly. If anything, this game shows if you live by the 3, you die by the 3.
You and I are not working from the same threshold of "winning team." Could you build a title contender around Tyreke Evans? Probably not, but I do not consume sports-as-entertainment in such a way that I dismiss non-title-contenders as 'not winning' teams.
I think, with the right coach and the right supporting cast, an Evans-led team could get to the second round, maybe the conference finals, in a season where everything broke exactly perfect. And that would be good enough for me.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
there are only 2-3 title contending teams every season anyway, the rest are playoff contenders and with the chance of winning a series. So go ahead and break down the type of team you would put around Tyreke Evans to get to the second round, I'm assuming you mean for either conference. One more thing, what would perfection look like in your scenario?
It would pretty much look like a carbon copy of the 2016-17 Houston Rockets, or the 2016-17 Boston Celtics, swapping Harden and Thomas, respectively. I've already gone on record as saying that I consider James Harden to basically just be a Super Saiyan version of Evans so, yeah, I totally believe that Evans could have gotten that team to the playoffs. They may or may not have won a round, because I don't think they would have gotten the third seed but, depending on the matchup, I could see it.
And I didn't say "perfection," I said if "everything broke exactly perfect." Those two things don't mean the same thing. What do I mean by it? I mean that an Evans-led team could get to the conference finals in a season where they fought their way to the 4th or 5th seed, and then advanced to the second round in a year where the Number One seed was not the Warriors, and that team's best player got "Derrick Rose'd" in the first round.
And I didn't say "perfection," I said if "everything broke exactly perfect." Those two things don't mean the same thing. What do I mean by it? I mean that an Evans-led team could get to the conference finals in a season where they fought their way to the 4th or 5th seed, and then advanced to the second round in a year where the Number One seed was not the Warriors, and that team's best player got "Derrick Rose'd" in the first round.
Double-K
Starter
Hmm... where do I start?
First of all, assuming that I agree with your assessment that Harden "flops" a lot, just because a player had a tendency to, ahem... "flop", doesn't mean he should be treated differently. Maybe in real life, but not in a black and white ruling of a sport. That's the exact definition of 'favoritism".
Secondly, let's assume again that I agree that since Harden been "flopping" a lot, and people have been complaining about it for years for the refs to stop giving Harden those calls, does that now mean that the refs can selectively just stopped calling those fouls in the middle of the 3rd quarter in a Game 7 Playoff game?
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
as far as I can tell the SSJ level of Tyreke will be winning a MVP so that ought to count for something....I think you believe in Evans a bit more than anyone else on this board so the fact that you have bias towards his capabilities says it all
That's not a rebuttal. Just because I'm biased doesn't mean that I'm wrong.
This borders on the tautological. The 'favoritism' came in the form of him ever getting the calls in the first place. You're basically trying to claim that him not getting the calls is 'the real favoritism,' and I ain't falling for the banana in the tailpipe.
Well, First of All™, I'm not swayed by Appeal to Stakes: I don't think that he ever should have gotten that call, so the fact that it was a Game 7 has no impact on my opinion of them finally not calling it. Second of All, you say that they "selectively" just stopped calling it, but what's your counterfactual? Who was doing that move during the game, besides Harden, but still getting the calls?
You don't know if he's right...or wrong. All you know is that your opinion differs from his.
