When You Have Two Poor Coaches Against One Another In The Finals - Somebody Has To Win

112288 wrote:OutSide,

No problem. I do not take any posters comments personal. That is why this is a great Forum. It's just my thoughts and beliefs on the subject. You can accept, or reject .........it's your prerogative!

About sour grapes.......if what I pointed out or referenced had no truth or validity ......then it becomes sour grapes.........however......if what i had pointed out is backed up by others including experts in the game or covering the game..........then there could be some truth to it .........then you cannot call it sour grapes.

Otherwise thanks for the complements......my check to you is on its way!

Just to add, I just want the NBA to get it right! Do not care about anything else. The Integrity of the game is being called into question especially the Celtics game #1 against the Heat. The experts, coaches, sports writers were questioning the calls in game #1. Go back to Boston.com/ Boston Herald/ Hoops World/ ESPNBOSTON.com and you will see comments from across the country. I'll reference Doc as a starting point on this subject!

As far as conspiracy goes..........I have live long enough to know anything is possible...it's when you do not raise the eye brow and question....is what leads to the cancer spreading! Hey who thought NBA ref's fixed games until Tim Donaghy surfaced! BELOW IS AN INTERESTING ARTICLE

Are NBA Basketball Games Fixed?
By Allen Moody, About.com Guide

Are NBA Basketball Games Fixed?

Former NBA official Tim Donaghy has caused quite a stir with his allegations that Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Sacramento Kings and the Los Angeles Lakers was fixed to ensure a seventh game. Even if his claims turn out to be unprovable there are plenty of people who will give Donaghy the benefit of the doubt, as fix or not, the game is widely recognized as the worst officiated game in recent memory. The game was called so poorly it prompted a letter from Ralph Nader to NBA Commissioner David Stern.

In wake of Donaghy's allegations, a number of people have wondered about the integrity of basketball games and are asking if the games are really fixed. If you ask Jonathan Gibbs, a graduate student at the Stanford University, the answer is that it's highly likely.

Gibbs' Research

Gibbs drew on the research of Justin Wolfers, a professor of business and public policy at Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, who did a similar paper on the possibility of point-shaving taking place at the college level. (See Are NCAA Basketball Games Fixed?) Gibbs looked at NBA point spread tendencies to determine if there were any unnatural occurrences taking place. Just as Wolfers found that large favorites in college basketball didn't cover the point spread a disproportionate number of times, Gibbs found similar findings in the NBA in his paper titled "Point Shaving in the NBA: An Economic Analysis of the National Basketball Association's Point Spread Betting Market.

"The premise of this paper was to empirically examine the NBA betting market to test, if in spite of the large monetary compensation NBA players earn, whether there is evidence of cheating through point shaving. Generally, the informed bettors participating in the NBA betting market are efficient in allocating point spreads to reflect differing abilities between teams," Gibbs stated in his thesis. "However, the asymmetric incentives, caused by the act of setting the betting line, are being exploited.
"Both data sets provide strong statistical evidence to suggest that this phenomenon, traditionally associated solely with unpaid college basketball players, exists in the professional ranks. The importance of this finding is that through publicizing point shaving's existence, the probability of its detection increases, correspondingly increasing its costs, and decreasing its incidence."

Gibbs studies NBA point spread date from 1993-94 to 2006-07 and found that underdogs covered the spread 50.05-percent of the time, winning 7822 times, losing 7805 times and there were 232 pushes. But larger underdogs, where it's generally considered easier to fix games, covered the point spread at a higher rate. Underdogs of 10 or more points covered the spread 52.15-percent of the time (1,372-1,259-39), while 13-point and greater underdogs covered the spread 53.04-percent of the time (462-409-20).
112288

112288 wrote:No

KB...You man on LA...He does everything LJ cannot!

112288