Spurs vs Lakers (Western Conference Finals)

[elindholm]

If someone honestly believes that the league has pre-determined that the Suns will not win the championship, it makes no sense that they continue to watch and root for the Suns

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "predetermined." But the league has quite a knack for being self-fulfilling.

Now that it's clear the Suns won't win a title in my lifetime, I can look at things a bit more objectively. And what I see is that officials call fouls, or not, according to the kind of confidence that the players on the court project. It's as though every questionable call (of which there are literally hundreds per game) is, in almost all cases, subtly decided by the players. The referees respond to the players' body language and other signals.

I do remember now which series I saw ten minutes of -- it was the Lakers and Spurs. And I don't remember the circumstances, but Bowen was guarding Bryant out on the wing, and rode his hip, and Bryant reacted, and a whistle was blown. And my first thought was, "Bowen did that to Nash on every possession and was never called for it." So the question is, why?

The answer is that Bryant carries himself differently. He reacted just as someone would in street ball: He sort of hesitated for a bit, knowing that he was fouled, getting ready to say "Got it" and reset the ball at the top of the key. (Yes, I know Bryant didn't grow up playing street ball.) The official called the foul in response to Bryant's reaction, not in response to Bowen's contact.

Nash, on the other hand, would grit his teeth and try to play through it. He didn't declare the foul, so it wasn't called. We can criticize Nash for lacking self-confidence, but who can blame him? Once Bowen was getting away with fouling him dozens of times per game, Nash had to know that it was going to continue.

So, sure, we can commend Bryant for knowing how to work the officials. Players who expect to succeed have an unmistakable air, and they get rewarded with more calls. But how did he get that way? Through being placed in successful situations over and over. Once he started to realize, "Hey, I'm going to get more than my share of the calls," it just made everything easier.

Bryant isn't alone, of course. James is in that situation now too, to an even greater degree than Bryant, but he isn't nearly as good a player. Duncan's body language isn't nearly so convincing, but he had his greatness ushered in by Robinson, giving him time to develop his own successful schtick.

As for Stoudemire, it's abundantly obvious that he will never be in that category. Officials call almost everything against him, including utterly nonexistant fouls, to the point where he now expects to be whistled for the slightest contact -- which the officials read, which makes the situation worse. There is no way he can be rehabilitated from this malady. He'll never get enough of the benefit of the doubt for him to start having the confidence to sell his defense. On offense, of course, it's a completely different story: He goes to the line constantly and knows it, and, just as with Bryant, it's usually his reaction to being fouled that gets the referees' response.

Fans of winning teams are fond of the conceit that officiating doesn't make much difference, but that's utterly false. It makes all the difference. If I were officiating a game, I could completely control the outcome, all by making calls within the range of what is sometimes called.

There are literally hundreds of situations per game which test the levelness of the officiating playing field. How much will Bowen be allowed to foul on the wing? How much will Ginobili be allowed to travel? (I could only laugh when, during the ten minutes I watched, Gasol got called for a traveling violation that wouldn't even be close to a travel for Ginobili or James.) When is hitting the offensive player's forearm allowed and when isn't it? Why are some interior defenders allowed to jump straight up to challenge a shot and others aren't? It goes on and on and on.

So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Players and teams who know they can get away with things simply assert their right to do it. Those who have learned that they can't get those breaks keep waiting for justice to take over. Try to think of a player who struggled with the officials during his first several years in the league but later managed to earn their respect. You can't come up with one.

As I said at the beginning, "predetermined" is too strong. But there are obvious patterns to the question of who will be permitted to succeed, and it's all controlled by what the officials decide to call.

 

[AZ Native]

Look, I am a big time Suns fan and have been since they started here. That being said, Darth is right, Berry blew the play, he started to fake a shot and then lowered his shoulder and drove in to Fisher. You are NEVER going to get that call in that situation and you shouldn't. The Lakers won and they will dispose of SA. SA is DONE! I don't care for the Lakers, but I don't hate them. They have earned the position they are in. I will be cheering for them to win the NBA championship against the East. Like Kobe or not, you would want him on your team.

Before anyone starts.. Fisher didn't commit a foul. Fisher was in the air, Berry went up into him, then took a dribble, then took the shot. Spurs have no case anyway, they got every call in that one.

None the less, 3-1 Lakers, champs on the brink. I look forward to watching them close out the champs on Thursday. Huge win for the Lakers.

 

[Darth Llama]

As I said at the beginning, "predetermined" is too strong. But there are obvious patterns to the question of who will be permitted to succeed, and it's all controlled by what the officials decide to call.

While I disagree with your assesment, I respect your opinion and your logic. For what it's worth, I'm sorry you feel that way, I can only imagine how frustrating that must feel to believe your team is the constant victim of bias. It's funny though, because being a Laker fan, I often actually feel that the league doesn't want us to win. That sounds crazy considering we have 14 titles, and are 1 game from playing for #15, but believe it or not, the Lakers often get hosed on calls just like everyone else.

I will never say that I think NBA officiating doesn't suck. It does suck, it sucks ass from a straw, it's the worst officiating in the world bar none. But believe it or not, it really does suck for everyone. Every team gets screwed in games, and every team gets an occasional break. The biggest problem is refs aren't consistant in their calls. If it's a foul against Kobe Bryant, it should be a foul against Steve Nash, or any other player.

 

[elindholm]

If it's a foul against Kobe Bryant, it should be a foul against Steve Nash, or any other player.

Well, yes, of course, but we all know that that's not how it is. So what ends up happening is that the NBA becomes the only major sports league that is officiated by the players. Everyone knows the phenomenon in pickup games where some players carry themselves with more authority than the others, and they get to decide exactly how games are going to be called. The NBA is really the same, with the players' calls getting sanctioned by the guys with whistles.

In tennis, if some random schlub is playing against Federer and Federer hits the ball two inches out, it's two inches out and the schlub wins the point. You don't have a linesman watch Federer's reaction to see whether he thought it was out or what call he's anticipating, or thinking to himself, "Eh, I can't give a schlub that call against the world #1." Out is out.

What this kind of system really does is validate the greatness of a champion like Federer, because he earned his victories on a playing field that was objectively level. And keep in mind that I think tennis is incredibly boring and I virtually never watch it.

All the same, no one in the NBA can make that claim -- no past champion and no future champion, even if that list of future champions improbably ends up including the Suns, sometime far into the future. Every title team has been assisted by the skill its players have acquired at manipulating the officials. It's part of the game, so I don't begrudge anyone for being good at it (well, okay, I begrudge James and a couple of others, but not Bryant), but it definitely diminishes the league's integrity -- and with that, its appeal to anyone looking for genuine athletic competition.

 

[Irish]

Eric's theory abut body language is interesting. I'm not sure it differs from the "reputation" theory, but it's not unreasonable that some variation is at work.

I tend to think that some guys know how to cheat better than others. The reality is that refs can't be looking everywhere or at everything. For example, they seem to be pretty good about making sure the defender is not inside the circle when calling charges; but don't looke at whether the player was set before the offensive player left his feet. Also, by focusing on the circle, the official is not looking at how many steps the offensive player took. Some defenders get away with a lot of contact when challenging shots because they know how to ensure the ref's view is obstructed.

I'd like to see a complete re-evaluation of the officiating process. Clearly what the league is doing is not working.

 

[14 rings]

Forget the foul call, I don't give a damn about that.

Fishers shot HIT THE RIM. New 24 clock, 2 FTs for LA. Instead Spurs get a HUGE break.

Spurs NEVER should have been in that spot in the first place. Period. Huge blown call against the Lakers right before that.

IMO

Please NBA put some kind of replay system into place. 3 challenges a game like the NFL w/e, I don't care. Just something that allows them to get calls like the goaltending call and Fishers shot that are easily reversable upon replay correct.

Bottom line, Spurs never should have been in position to have a game winning shot. It's not even arguable, there were two blown calls against the Lakers in the last 30 seconds that almost cost LA the game.

 

[cobbler]

Exactly, but do you watch the same movie over and over and hope it ends different this time? Of course you don't. No matter how many times you watch Return of the Jedi, Yoda still dies. When people scream that it's all fixed and rant and rave about it every year it gets pretty silly.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea that the winners are pre-planned is ridiculous. Last year everyone said that the Spurs were Sterns favorite team, now that they are losing, the same people say the Lakers are his favorite team. Whoever wins, people like Squid just says that the NBA pre planned it, even if it's a different team. He insists that Stern hates the Suns, but continues to watch and hope they win it. It's the same logic as re-watching the same movie over and over and hoping that this one time, something different happens. The definition of insanity.

Yoda died? OMG... I'm so depressed now...

 

[cobbler]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "predetermined." But the league has quite a knack for being self-fulfilling.

Now that it's clear the Suns won't win a title in my lifetime, I can look at things a bit more objectively. And what I see is that officials call fouls, or not, according to the kind of confidence that the players on the court project. It's as though every questionable call (of which there are literally hundreds per game) is, in almost all cases, subtly decided by the players. The referees respond to the players' body language and other signals.

I do remember now which series I saw ten minutes of -- it was the Lakers and Spurs. And I don't remember the circumstances, but Bowen was guarding Bryant out on the wing, and rode his hip, and Bryant reacted, and a whistle was blown. And my first thought was, "Bowen did that to Nash on every possession and was never called for it." So the question is, why?

The answer is that Bryant carries himself differently. He reacted just as someone would in street ball: He sort of hesitated for a bit, knowing that he was fouled, getting ready to say "Got it" and reset the ball at the top of the key. (Yes, I know Bryant didn't grow up playing street ball.) The official called the foul in response to Bryant's reaction, not in response to Bowen's contact.

Nash, on the other hand, would grit his teeth and try to play through it. He didn't declare the foul, so it wasn't called. We can criticize Nash for lacking self-confidence, but who can blame him? Once Bowen was getting away with fouling him dozens of times per game, Nash had to know that it was going to continue.

So, sure, we can commend Bryant for knowing how to work the officials. Players who expect to succeed have an unmistakable air, and they get rewarded with more calls. But how did he get that way? Through being placed in successful situations over and over. Once he started to realize, "Hey, I'm going to get more than my share of the calls," it just made everything easier.

Bryant isn't alone, of course. James is in that situation now too, to an even greater degree than Bryant, but he isn't nearly as good a player. Duncan's body language isn't nearly so convincing, but he had his greatness ushered in by Robinson, giving him time to develop his own successful schtick.

As for Stoudemire, it's abundantly obvious that he will never be in that category. Officials call almost everything against him, including utterly nonexistant fouls, to the point where he now expects to be whistled for the slightest contact -- which the officials read, which makes the situation worse. There is no way he can be rehabilitated from this malady. He'll never get enough of the benefit of the doubt for him to start having the confidence to sell his defense. On offense, of course, it's a completely different story: He goes to the line constantly and knows it, and, just as with Bryant, it's usually his reaction to being fouled that gets the referees' response.

Fans of winning teams are fond of the conceit that officiating doesn't make much difference, but that's utterly false. It makes all the difference. If I were officiating a game, I could completely control the outcome, all by making calls within the range of what is sometimes called.

There are literally hundreds of situations per game which test the levelness of the officiating playing field. How much will Bowen be allowed to foul on the wing? How much will Ginobili be allowed to travel? (I could only laugh when, during the ten minutes I watched, Gasol got called for a traveling violation that wouldn't even be close to a travel for Ginobili or James.) When is hitting the offensive player's forearm allowed and when isn't it? Why are some interior defenders allowed to jump straight up to challenge a shot and others aren't? It goes on and on and on.

So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Players and teams who know they can get away with things simply assert their right to do it. Those who have learned that they can't get those breaks keep waiting for justice to take over. Try to think of a player who struggled with the officials during his first several years in the league but later managed to earn their respect. You can't come up with one.

As I said at the beginning, "predetermined" is too strong. But there are obvious patterns to the question of who will be permitted to succeed, and it's all controlled by what the officials decide to call.

Good post and i agree with most. It's been well known forever in the nba back to the 50's that the superstars play on a different field so to speak. Is it right, absoultely not. But it has pretty much always been that way. With all the current flopping and over exagerations it only makes it harder to call a game. Add to that the no hand checking rules and the flagrant fouls and you have taken a lot of the policing away from the players and put in in the decisions of the refs. Hopefully they make the proposed fines very large and maybe we will see some improvement.

With that said i have to ask. Are you suggesting that Nash doesn't get the star treatment? Im a big nash fan and i have always felt he got more this his fair share.

As for the naming one player.... Bynum comes to mind almost instantly. If he breathed in the wrong direction his first two years it was a foul. This year after his breakout, he clearly gets less of the socalled "rookie" calls.

IMO

 

[elindholm]

Wow. Right on cue, the league comes out with this amazing statement (L. A. Times):

(T)here are times during games when the degree of certainty necessary to determine a foul involving physical contact is higher. That comes during impact time when the intensity has risen, especially at the end of a game. In other words, if you're going to call something then, be certain.

This comes from league spokesman Brian McIntyre, who claims it is supported by the rule book.

So we now officially know two things:

1. Not only do officials call the ends of close games differently, but they are actually supposed to.

2. In any "high intensity" situation -- which, let's face it, includes most of the duration of any playoff game -- referees are instructed to decide whether a foul is "enough of a foul" to "count." Something that everyone can see is a foul, but which isn't "intense" enough, is waved off.

This ties in directly with what I was just saying. Who decides whether a foul "counts"? The players, by their reactions, or sometimes the officials after watching the play's aftermath.

We're all well familiar with the situation in which a player is fouled on a shot attempt, but the officials wait to see if the shot goes in before deciding whether to blow the infamous "late whistle." The logic, which we now know is endorsed by the league, is that the foul isn't enough to count unless it sufficiently disturbed the shot.

But the more subtle kinds of situations I described above fall into the same category. When Bowen would repeatedly ride Nash's hip, it only sometimes resulted in a turnover. Some of those fouls would actually be called -- except, of course, during the particularly "intense" times at the ends of games. But usually, all Bowen's fouling would do is offset Nash's balance, throw off his momentum, or destroy his timing to deliver a critical pass. Those things were all below the threshold of what qualifies as a foul in the eyes of the referees, even though they were perfectly aware of the violations.

Again, body language is key. Bryant projects great intensity on the court, so when Bowen bumps him, Bryant's reaction practically screams, "WTF man, I'm Kobe Bryant, get off my damn hip!" And the official thinks, "Wow, that must have been some pretty disturbing contact there, I'd better call a foul." Similarly, a player like Duncan has mastered fouling opponents on rebounds while staring intently at the ball, so the officials think, "That might have been some illegal contact, but he was really just trying to rebound, so it wasn't really an intense foul."

Given that the league has just come out and admitted that they follow this system, I don't see how anyone can dispute it anymore.

 

[nashman]

Its almost comical watching these games as the refs or NBA seem to make sure they turn out the way they want. Detroit destroyed Boston in that 4th and should have one except a few calls or non calls make sure the C's take it. What a joke the NBA has become, the C's get away with all the smacking and borderline molesting without many calls and the Pistons graze someone at the wrong time and bam FOUL! If any unbiased person can watch a game like that and think its not fixed I am not sure what they are seeing. If I were a Pistons fan I would feel like my team had gotten hosed big time. The C's are now the Spurs of the east they are allowed to grab, hold, body check and just in general play rough without getting in foul trouble. I mean Perkins had how many boards, did you see him throw his guy to the floor multiple times to get those boards? Yeah apparently neither did the officials!!

 

[cobbler]

Its almost comical watching these games as the refs or NBA seem to make sure they turn out the way they want. Detroit destroyed Boston in that 4th and should have one except a few calls or non calls make sure the C's take it. What a joke the NBA has become, the C's get away with all the smacking and borderline molesting without many calls and the Pistons graze someone at the wrong time and bam FOUL! If any unbiased person can watch a game like that and think its not fixed I am not sure what they are seeing. If I were a Pistons fan I would feel like my team had gotten hosed big time. The C's are now the Spurs of the east they are allowed to grab, hold, body check and just in general play rough without getting in foul trouble. I mean Perkins had how many boards, did you see him throw his guy to the floor multiple times to get those boards? Yeah apparently neither did the officials!!

I watched that game and want the Pistons to win. I didn't see it as being all that lopsided. Boston outplayed the pistons the majority of the game. IMO

So you honestly feel the games are fixed? Again, i am baffled why anyone would support a league they see that way, but that is just me. I am also baffled thinking if they truly were fixed, and the refs are in on it, and they want LA to win, how Kobe could go 2 entire games with one free throw. ONE! Makes no sense at all. Of cousre we could go back a few years too and wonder if LA are the darlings and PHX are the little market team they conspire against then why did the refs allow the game to come to TT 3pt shot? Clearly they could have made a call or two there to nullify them getting the chance. And of course you have the age old argument of "why would the league want to see the spurs in the finals over the suns?". It's like choosing watching a shuttle liftoff over watching paint dry. Again, there are always going to be conspiricy theorists, but i am just not buying it. For every little incident that you could come up with some "fixed" theory in a game, i could show you ten fold in the same game to refute it. But if it makes you feel better to think you got screwed rather than just came up short, so be it.

I'm off to search for the 2nd and 3rd gunman.

 

[nowagimp]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "predetermined." But the league has quite a knack for being self-fulfilling.

Now that it's clear the Suns won't win a title in my lifetime, I can look at things a bit more objectively. And what I see is that officials call fouls, or not, according to the kind of confidence that the players on the court project. It's as though every questionable call (of which there are literally hundreds per game) is, in almost all cases, subtly decided by the players. The referees respond to the players' body language and other signals.

I do remember now which series I saw ten minutes of -- it was the Lakers and Spurs. And I don't remember the circumstances, but Bowen was guarding Bryant out on the wing, and rode his hip, and Bryant reacted, and a whistle was blown. And my first thought was, "Bowen did that to Nash on every possession and was never called for it." So the question is, why?

The answer is that Bryant carries himself differently. He reacted just as someone would in street ball: He sort of hesitated for a bit, knowing that he was fouled, getting ready to say "Got it" and reset the ball at the top of the key. (Yes, I know Bryant didn't grow up playing street ball.) The official called the foul in response to Bryant's reaction, not in response to Bowen's contact.

Nash, on the other hand, would grit his teeth and try to play through it. He didn't declare the foul, so it wasn't called. We can criticize Nash for lacking self-confidence, but who can blame him? Once Bowen was getting away with fouling him dozens of times per game, Nash had to know that it was going to continue.

So, sure, we can commend Bryant for knowing how to work the officials. Players who expect to succeed have an unmistakable air, and they get rewarded with more calls. But how did he get that way? Through being placed in successful situations over and over. Once he started to realize, "Hey, I'm going to get more than my share of the calls," it just made everything easier.

Bryant isn't alone, of course. James is in that situation now too, to an even greater degree than Bryant, but he isn't nearly as good a player. Duncan's body language isn't nearly so convincing, but he had his greatness ushered in by Robinson, giving him time to develop his own successful schtick.

As for Stoudemire, it's abundantly obvious that he will never be in that category. Officials call almost everything against him, including utterly nonexistant fouls, to the point where he now expects to be whistled for the slightest contact -- which the officials read, which makes the situation worse. There is no way he can be rehabilitated from this malady. He'll never get enough of the benefit of the doubt for him to start having the confidence to sell his defense. On offense, of course, it's a completely different story: He goes to the line constantly and knows it, and, just as with Bryant, it's usually his reaction to being fouled that gets the referees' response.

Fans of winning teams are fond of the conceit that officiating doesn't make much difference, but that's utterly false. It makes all the difference. If I were officiating a game, I could completely control the outcome, all by making calls within the range of what is sometimes called.

There are literally hundreds of situations per game which test the levelness of the officiating playing field. How much will Bowen be allowed to foul on the wing? How much will Ginobili be allowed to travel? (I could only laugh when, during the ten minutes I watched, Gasol got called for a traveling violation that wouldn't even be close to a travel for Ginobili or James.) When is hitting the offensive player's forearm allowed and when isn't it? Why are some interior defenders allowed to jump straight up to challenge a shot and others aren't? It goes on and on and on.

So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Players and teams who know they can get away with things simply assert their right to do it. Those who have learned that they can't get those breaks keep waiting for justice to take over. Try to think of a player who struggled with the officials during his first several years in the league but later managed to earn their respect. You can't come up with one.

As I said at the beginning, "predetermined" is too strong. But there are obvious patterns to the question of who will be permitted to succeed, and it's all controlled by what the officials decide to call.

Well put, and its sad that the NBA has become this wrestling style entertainment. I have played more organized and un organized basketball than any sport, and the definition of an NBA foul/rule eludes me in basketball, but not football or baseball. With all the ticky tack "and one" calls that are awarded having very little or no contact, its just incomprehensible that an elbow to the back of the head of the shooter or a hack on the shooting arm is an acceptable noncall. Yeah hack on the arm, no foul, but jump into the defender and the whistle will blare for the right players who have favor with the refs. Some sort of consistency or standard is used in most other sports, NBA officiating is so subjective that no standard can possibly be applied. The degree of acceptable continuous contact between a larger defender and the ball handler seems much greater than it was 20 years ago in the jordan era. The ability to adjust games with suddenly calling those non calls cannot be overestimated. The potential for mischief is greater than any sport, even greater than boxing. Perhaps it is never done, perhaps only donaghy adjusted games, but the system as it is is rife for officiating "adjustments".

 

[cobbler]

Well put, and its sad that the NBA has become this wrestling style entertainment. I have played more organized and un organized basketball than any sport, and the definition of an NBA foul/rule eludes me in basketball, but not football or baseball. With all the ticky tack "and one" calls that are awarded having very little or no contact, its just incomprehensible that an elbow to the back of the head of the shooter or a hack on the shooting arm is an acceptable noncall. Yeah hack on the arm, no foul, but jump into the defender and the whistle will blare for the right players who have favor with the refs. Some sort of consistency or standard is used in most other sports, NBA officiating is so subjective that no standard can possibly be applied. The degree of acceptable continuous contact between a larger defender and the ball handler seems much greater than it was 20 years ago in the jordan era. The ability to adjust games with suddenly calling those non calls cannot be overestimated. The potential for mischief is greater than any sport, even greater than boxing. Perhaps it is never done, perhaps only donaghy adjusted games, but the system as it is is rife for officiating "adjustments".

No arguments here, well put. As you know i absolutely think the conspiricy issue is total BS. With that said, there is so much room for improvement. Not sure on your Jordan era theory though. I felt it was way rougher then with the hand checks etc. I too have played at many many levels and have found officiating to be shaky at best in most of them. Just too inconsistant. I have always considered being able to decipher how the game was being called on any given day and adjusting was as important a skill as passing, dribbling, or shooting. Not unlike adjusting to the strike zone that seems to change daily and between umps in baseball. But as you said, it's nearly impossible to put standards to. Hopefully the non flopping rules, if they even get that right, will be a good start.

 

[Proteus]

What a great start by the Lakers...down 28-15 after 1 quarter.

Spurs are shooting 63% with 3/4 3 pointers, Lakers 29% with 1/4 3 pointers. Ugh.

 

[KOBEMVP1]

Take your little conspriacy with LA and BOS and stick it up your ass, you guys are idiotic

 

[Treesquid PhD]

b

Well put, and its sad that the NBA has become this wrestling style entertainment. I have played more organized and un organized basketball than any sport, and the definition of an NBA foul/rule eludes me in basketball, but not football or baseball. With all the ticky tack "and one" calls that are awarded having very little or no contact, its just incomprehensible that an elbow to the back of the head of the shooter or a hack on the shooting arm is an acceptable noncall. Yeah hack on the arm, no foul, but jump into the defender and the whistle will blare for the right players who have favor with the refs. Some sort of consistency or standard is used in most other sports, NBA officiating is so subjective that no standard can possibly be applied. The degree of acceptable continuous contact between a larger defender and the ball handler seems much greater than it was 20 years ago in the jordan era. The ability to adjust games with suddenly calling those non calls cannot be overestimated. The potential for mischief is greater than any sport, even greater than boxing. Perhaps it is never done, perhaps only donaghy adjusted games, but the system as it is is rife for officiating "adjustments".

I think you are right, the NBA is more of an entertainment event than a pure sporting event, just look at the Hornets and how much they value acting like classless monkeys, even at the last moments of game 7 before being eliminated their PA was spewing nonsense to get the fans hyped up. There is music, sound effects, fire anything a 13 year old would want except bare tities...it's a complete Ritalin fest. I think the whole circus like atmosphere in general with the massive amount of subjectivity in calls make the NBA what it is, not all that serious as a pure sport and thus subject to a lot of consipracy theories from real sports fans.

 

[Joe L]

Take your little conspriacy with LA and BOS and stick it up your ass, you guys are idiotic

Dude, ease it up a bit...no need for that!

 

[Proteus]

Spurs up 48-42 at the half. Spurs were up by as many as 17 points in the 2nd quarter.

Spurs shooting 51% with 5/9 3 pointers, Lakers 39% with 2/10 3 pointers.

 

[dodie53]

only a 6pt lead by the spurms

 

[mojorizen7]

Come on LAKERS!!!
Put your foot down on the floppy necks of the SPURS and knock 'em out.

 

[KOBEMVP1]

Come on LAKERS!!!
Put your foot down on the floppy necks of the SPURS and knock 'em out.

Thats a nice signature

 

[Proteus]

Lakers 64-63 at the end of the 3rd quarter.

Spurs shooting 47% with 5/11 3 pointers, Lakers 42% with 4/15 3 pointers.

 

[Proteus]

Lakers 83-81 with 4:22 left in the 4th.

It'd be nice if the Lakers could play some defense in the 4th as the Spurs have hit 6/9 field goals so far in the 4th.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

The Lakers are a good team, I still hate their fans.

 

[mojorizen7]

Come ON!!!
Stick a fork in their asses!