Everybody's favorite Sports columnist weighs in:

quote:

---

2. Danny Crawford
Just the facts according to our guy Alok Pattani. Starting with the 2001 playoffs:

A. The Mavs are 2-16 in playoff games officiated by Crawford since 2001 (including Game 3 of the Spurs series, a loss) ... and 46-39 in all other playoff games. They won their first 2001 playoff game with him (Game 5 vs. Utah), so they've lost 15 of the past 16.

B. Against the spread, the Mavs are 4-14 with Crawford officiating ... and 45-40 in all other playoff games.

C. They averaged 21.9 free throws in the Crawford games; 27.1 free throws in the non-Crawford games.

So why does Danny rank so highly in the power rankings? Because any NBA official who can keep his job post-Donaghy with a documented history of bias against a particular team has to be commended. I'm being sarcastic. What a joke. The league could easily avoid these situations by admitting that, yes, from time to time, a team rubs an official the wrong way, and officials are human, and there's nothing we can do about this other than making sure the official and the team cross paths as little as possible -- like Crawford and Dallas, like Bill Kennedy and Boston, like Joey Crawford and San Antonio (1-4 in Crawford's five Spurs playoff games since he was suspended for ejecting Tim Duncan in 2007) -- but apparently it's easier to stick our heads in the sand and pretend this stuff isn't going on. You know, because Tim Donaghy's documented-by-the-FBI, staggeringly successful record of picking winners by playing on the biases of officials against certain teams didn't really happen. Even though it did. Let's just move on.

---

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 4/29/2010 3:51p).]

Terry doesn't flop like Dirk does, and he drives the basket. Like Ginobili, he goes for the And 1 if he flops. I just don't think Terry does it any more then the league norm to e considered a flopper.

I agree that the Mavs are not a physical team. We added Haywood and "tough juice" to the roster for that reason.

And sure we're mostly jump shooters but it doesn't forgive the fact that defense should be called consistently. Tightly or loosely is fine, just don't allow DC to have different philosophies at both ends.

quote:

---

I would love to see something really in depth be reviewed of all those games. I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Cuban didn't already do that. We know that he hired ex-officials to review calls and ***** to the league about it.

---

I could see this being the case but DC is good at what I just described above. Things like allowing one team to be more physical defensively, or no-calls in intentional foul territory. Things that don't show up on the stat sheet. I'm on the hook saying that superior play should outshine those things, because I don't want the calls of whining and conspiracy to come out. But I'll let 1-18 speak for itself.

quote:

---

Like Ginobili, he goes for the And 1 if he flops. I just don't think Terry does it any more then the league norm to e considered a flopper.

---

I agree with that.

But Terry also will pull a Josh Howard and sit back on jumpers rather than attacking the basket when things aren't going his way, too.

quote:

---

And sure we're mostly jump shooters but it doesn't forgive the fact that defense should be called consistently

---

I agree, and want things to be called consistently.

However, we both know that Dirk and Duncan are going to get more calls than Haywood and Blair. It is just the way the game is. Likewise, I think a good defensive team is going to get the benefit of the doubt more than a poor defensive team. It is the same thing. I think all refs do both these things.

quote:

---

I could see this being the case but DC is good at what I just described above.

---

I don't think there is any way that a ref could throw 15+ games and do it in such a way that it is not perceivable by going through every call and non-call in slow motion on video. I just don't think that is possible.

quote:

---

Things like allowing one team to be more physical defensively, or no-calls in intentional foul territory. Things that don't show up on the stat sheet.

---

All of that would be easily viewable through video.

We know JC blew the call on Brent Barry either intentionally or unintentionally, but that didn't show up on the stat sheet.

I think it needs to be viewed closely. I'd love to go through all those games and tally up calls/non-calls/blown calls.

anyone know what the hell happened to Steve Javie and Monty Mccutchen?

why are 2 of the NBA's best refs not reffing?

Monty is reffing. He reffed Dallas-SA game 5.

No clue on Javie.

interesting, how did i not notice monty the whole time

i havent seen javie in months, but, maybe i just missed him.

oh...

quote:

---

Javie, says a league spokesperson, has been out since December 2 with a leg injury, and will not be back this season.

---

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/15290/steve-javie-not-refereeing-the-playoffs

[This message has been edited by Simplebay (edited 4/29/2010 4:17p).]

Or you just started listening to the SportsGuy podcast where he mentions Javie and Wunderlich not reffing the playoffs.


Javie blew out his knee. Don't know about Wunderlich.

quote:

---

All of that would be easily viewable through video.

We know JC blew the call on Brent Barry either intentionally or unintentionally, but that didn't show up on the stat sheet.

I think it needs to be viewed closely. I'd love to go through all those games and tally up calls/non-calls/blown calls.

---

I'd like to as well, but NBA ref calls are so subjective I'm willing to bet a guy like JC or DC could explain away everything. Even if Cubes hired an outside source the subjectivity of certain calls would be plausible defense.

At some point jumping through hoops to complain about officiating would probably do just as much harm as good for Cuban.

Officiating aside, I really hate that you can't criticize NBA referees. Cases where excessive criticism occurs should be fined, but for the people who can have a serious impact on the game to be completely immune to criticism from the people they officiate is ludacris.

[This message has been edited by Judge (edited 4/29/2010 4:26p).]

Simplebay has been stealing Simmons' material quite a bit lately.

quote:

---

I don't think there is any way that a ref could throw 15+ games and do it in such a way that it is not perceivable by going through every call and non-call in slow motion on video. I just don't think that is possible.

---

well nobody is saying that the Mavs would have won every single one of those games if DC wasnt the ref. I think the Mavs are (give or take) about a .500 playoff team. In those 19, if you replace DC with any other run-of-the-mill ref, Mavs go about 9-10 or 10-9.

So while I agree with your statement that there's no way a ref could throw 15+ games and not be noticed, it is conceivable that DC only "threw" ~8 of those games. I think it's very possible that a ref could "throw" ~8 games over the course of a decade and not be noticed.

[i don't like the term "throw" in this context, but GS used it so i'll stick with it. i think something like "substantial negative impact" might be more appropriate.]

dont listen to simmons podcast

i read his articles though.

someone on clutchfans pointed out javie was gone from the playoffs. that's where i heard

and Mass, simmons has been stealing MY material for years

Simmons has his Rodman schtick in print. I only heard yours just today.

He wins.

lol didn't even know he had a rodman schtick. linkies?

quote:

---

I'd like to as well, but NBA ref calls are so subjective I'm willing to bet a guy like JC or DC could explain away everything. Even if Cubes hired an outside source the subjectivity of certain calls would be plausible defense.

---

Maybe they could. But Joey sure couldn't explain away the Brent Barry call. He couldn't explain away the Duncan ejection, either.

But you could easily produce a video full of clips of DC calling things differently for and against the Mavs, if he truly was.

quote:

---

At some point jumping through hoops to complain about officiating would probably do just as much harm as good for Cuban.

---

I think it already has done more harm than good. I am listening to the Marc Stein/Bill Simmons podcast after someone here mentioned it, and Stein (I think) said that no one is really paying attention to the Mavs-DC thing because Cuban and the Mavs are the boy who cried wolf when talking about the refs. No one cares what they say now.

quote:

---

Officiating aside, I really hate that you can't criticize NBA referees. Cases where excessive criticism occurs should be fined, but for the people who can have a serious impact on the game to be completely immune to criticism from the people they officiate is ludacris.

---

I wish the NBA would admit more when they are wrong. You only see it in major cases like the Duncan ejection or the Barry/Fisher foul.

quote:

---

So while I agree with your statement that there's no way a ref could throw 15+ games and not be noticed, it is conceivable that DC only "threw" ~8 of those games. I think it's very possible that a ref could "throw" ~8 games over the course of a decade and not be noticed.

[i don't like the term "throw" in this context, but GS used it so i'll stick with it. i think something like "substantial negative impact" might be more appropriate.]

---

Not sure what the best term would be. But even if he did screw them over, I think it would be easily asertainable through video evidence. I don't think anyone is smooth enough to hide it that well.

And if a team - especially a team like Dallas - gets hot enough, a ref calling them tighter really isn't going to kill them. We've seen that before.

Lets go through some of those games with DannyC:

5/4/03 - Dallas won, so we don't care, right? Dallas won game 7 at home with DC reffing. Mavs won FTA 26-19.

5/6 - Kings @Dallas. Kings have a 7 day break after beating Utah in 5 games, while Dallas just went to 7 games against Portland. Dallas had won the first three, then Portland won the next three, and Dallas broke that 3-game losing streak by winning game 7 with Danny reffing.
Possible that this was a letdown game after the tough game 7 win against portland, and you are playing a Kings team with 7 days of rest.
The Kings hit 55% of this shots and 43% of their threes (9-21) . Mavs lost 125-113 and lost the FT differential 33-18.
The Kings started out on a 15-2 run. That sounds a whole lot like Dallas was beat after the 7-game series and Sacramento had fresh legs after a 7 day break and really attacked. Not sure the reffing had much to do with that. But there is that FT differential.

5/15: Dallas up 3-2. Playing in Sacramento, where the Kings were 35-6 in 2003. Pretty significant home court advantage.
Dallas shot 48% and was 10-26 from three, but only shot 22 FTs to Sacramento's 32 FTs. Sacramento made 31 of 32 from teh line. Dirk was 11-12 from the line and put up 21/12. Obviously a must-win game for Sacramento, being down 3-2 at home. Don Nelson wore earplugs because of how loud the arena was in Sacramento. The ESPN game recap doesn't mention any bad calls either way, but talks about how much hustle and grit Doug Christie showed. The review also didn't talk about the horrible job rebounding Dallas had - they allowed 15 offensive rebounds, including 7 by Jim Jackson.
That sounds like an interesting game to review. Sac had some advantages with the home court and the need to win, but Dallas shot well and still didn't win. This would be a very interesting one to review.

I will go through more box scores later.

1 in 200 chance. Whenever you want to argue, just remember that statistic. 1 in 200

It's really not that complicated to influence a game negatively. And you don't need to pour over boxscores to find it. You could find plenty of evidence on the video, but alone it wouldn't be convincing.

You mention the Barry play. That's a very obvious mistake. Was it intentional? Probably. But it's easy to find. Danny Crawford doesn't make glaring mistakes that will harped on for years. It's subtle.

Josh Howard slashes to the bucket. It's a charge/block play. He makes the layup so it should be 3pt play. It's a basket that will pull Mavs even and get the crowd going. Oops DC calls it an offensive foul. Defender was sliding feet, it's a bad call. Howard has to sit with 3rd foul. Mavs lose 3 pts. Mavs lose momentum. Some Mavs lose composure. How much was that single bad call worth?

I'm not remembering a specific incident, just inventing your typical Danny Crawford move. If you looked at replay eight years later, you'd say "block/charge are tough to call". And it was early in 3rd quarter, not a buzzer beater. And you think it probably evens out over the course of game. But it doesn't.

When Mavs are making a run, DC will spike it. Damp will get called for three seconds. Howard gets called for charging. Dirk gets hit in the face but doesn't get the call. And so on. Same thing when the opponent makes a run.

That's why you won't find a youtube video of Crawford mistakes. They're all subtle 50/50 plays. But if you pay attention, the Mavs don't win 50% of the calls. And the fishy calls come at critical junctures in the game.

[This message has been edited by birdman (edited 4/29/2010 6:48p).]

quote:

---

1 in 200 chance. Whenever you want to argue, just remember that statistic. 1 in 200

---

That isn't a statistic. That is a ratio that you made up.

quote:

---

That isn't a statistic. That is a ratio that you made up.

---

It's actually a probability. And it's not made up.

Assume the Mavs win 50% of their playoff games. What is probability that they go 1-17? About 1 in 200.

Go ahead and start flipping coins. What are the odds that you get 17 heads and 1 tail? About 1 in 200.