Of course not, but let’s not pretend the officiating has been close to good. There are what 200 possessions in a game? The fact that 78 of them were arguably miss called seems, on the surface insane.
Also, in this very space, earlier this week the post lamented the ref’s calls. The examples given were appropriate.
My point ultimately isn’t about the officiating, it’s about calling if victimhood. It’s only that, if the officiating isn’t bad. If you want to use a terms like that, you should explain why he was wrong. And free throw difference doesn’t cut it.
Yeah, fair enough. I thought Game 2 officiating was better than Game 1, FWIW. But Carlisle's conspiracy theory about "big market teams" sounds like victimhood. The Knicks haven't been to a conference finals in 25 years, and the only other big market teams in the playoffs are the Mavs and the Celtics. The western finals might be Timberwolves v. OKC.
Key point, they haven't been there in 25 years AND are the Largest market left. Game 1 was the one they weren't will to let the Knicks lose if possible and they did just that! Game 2 wasn't as bad, still bias but Knicks actually earned that one. Unlike Game 1 which robbed all of us fans for a true classic whatever the outcome would have been. Instead it'll always be about the refs which is actually a shame for both teams and fan bases.
I just don't agree with the idea that the NBA will influence games so that large market teams advance. That's different than arguing that the games have had poor officiating. Carlisle is arguing both. Again, I don't think the officiating in Game 1 was stellar, but if it was as bad as you and Carlisle say it was, why did the Pacers only submit 29 bad calls from Game 1 but 49 from Game 2? If the NBA wants it to go to 7 games, as the conspiracy theorists would allege, why not have New York lose one at home?
"Garbage defense"? The Knicks have allowed only 8 fewer points over 3 games - .666 of a point per quarter. So is their defense "garbage" too? I'm tired of blind fools not recognizing the effort BOTH teams are putting forth while giving NY extra credit for otherworldly shooting which is keeping them in the game while playing the Pacers' desired uptempo pace.
Yea did you watch Game 1? Everyone with eyeballs saw what happened there. All of twitter, TV analyst (Even Stephan A Smith) admitted it. Just to refresh you...
False "Kick Ball" that wasn't even close. Ref blew the whistle for what reason?
... Leads to the biggest shot in the game! (Knicks didn't score an actual bucket besides that)
Miles Turner Flop Pick Call
.... Worst call I've ever seen. Some people say well the situation doesn't matter. But it does, nobody wants to have the ref DECIDE the game in those moments. It wasn't like he blasted him. Especially when devinchinzo set a worse screen 45 seconds before. (You can try to hang your hat on this call though if you want) Just as a fan of basketball and of any team this SHOULD NEVER BE CALLED!
Then they call a tick-tack off ball call for Jalen Brunson to secure the win!
Literally handed the game to the Knicks. Robbed the fans of a great moment and if they get the stop a valid win in a classic. Now that game will always be remembered by controversy instead of an all time classic. Which as a fan is another shame.
Won't even get into the overturned called against Miles Turner where Brunson gets all body. And the other timely momentum call the refs made.
As a fan of basketball and the big moments this was just one word... A SHAME!!!
Fantasy sports and gambling in my opinion do take away from the emotions of sports fandom. They are fine for the individual. Do what you want. Watch how you want. They don’t enhance and probably detract from the collective joy of fandom (a group activity). I’m not high fiving anyone for hitting their over. I can’t share in your gambling joy. I do enjoy in sharing the highs and lows of my teams performance with others.
I also agree gambling will have negative impact on sports at some point.
But there's nothing genuine about it. Gambling is inherently mercenary, which is to say that there is nothing important about the teams or the game itself other than the numerals in certain statistical categories. It is emotionally empty, which serves to highlight the fact that the main point in gambling, if the least spoken about, isn't the winning or losing. It's about the hope of feeling something, anything, cost be damned.
I still root for the same teams that I did when I was five years old. These are not dynastic franchises in the least, Ohio State football excepted. I wouldn't bet on that team up north if the Buckeyes were 0-11 and sixty-point underdogs. The idea of it is disgusting because I am a fan, and have been my entire life. Winning the bet wouldn't be pleasurable in the least, and that's what Leitch is talking about when he talks about people who make sports great by participating emotionally in them, as opposed to your enjoyment being determined by a comparison of how deep your pockets are at the end of a game as opposed to when it started.
This isn't a moral issue in the least, and I am not one to moralize. Gambling is legal, one can participate or not. The fact that the hyper-availability of gambling services is likely to wreck at least one major sports league at some point, notwithstanding. (Which of the major four US leagues is most-likely to be the first to see a player or coach injured or killed by a sour gambler? My money, as it were, is on the NBA.)
I hope that you'll re-read the piece and that maybe it'll rekindle whatever non-financial joy brought you to organized athletics in the first place.
One can gamble responsibly just as one can drink responsibly, and in either case one shouldn’t be criticized if that is one’s pleasure. Moreover, I can imagine that betting on one’s team to win can enhance the fan experience. Sports gambling in general, however, is a game entirely separate from and in my view inconsistent with the fan experience for the reasons expressed by “sims”. If you’re a Celtics fan, you’re thrilled that they beat the Cavs by 25 points. If you’ve bet the “over” on Jason Tatum’s point total, however, you’re not very happy. Again, if gambling is one’s chosen form of recreation, that’s a legitimate choice (again as long as it’s done responsibly), but it’s different from the traditional fan experience. The reason that this is an appropriate topic of discussion, given that other people’s choice of entertainment is none of my or anyone else’s business, is the extent to which the NBA and other sports leagues have allowed gambling to be embedded into the economics of their sport despite the incompatibility of objectives of the two pursuits - another example of billionaires seeking to squeeze out as many dollars as they can to the detriment of the game.
As it happens, I hate fantasy sports, but that’s me. Certainly professional sports are for profit, but much of the appeal of sports for me (and surely others) is the admittedly irrational desire to identify with your team - that’s why so many fans refer to “their” team as “we”. Once it’s reduced to abstract numbers as a way for the fan to make a profit, the illusion is gone.
78 plays…. I wouldn’t call that professional victim hood.
Just because they've alleged 78 plays were miscalled does not mean they were actually miscalled
Of course not, but let’s not pretend the officiating has been close to good. There are what 200 possessions in a game? The fact that 78 of them were arguably miss called seems, on the surface insane.
Also, in this very space, earlier this week the post lamented the ref’s calls. The examples given were appropriate.
My point ultimately isn’t about the officiating, it’s about calling if victimhood. It’s only that, if the officiating isn’t bad. If you want to use a terms like that, you should explain why he was wrong. And free throw difference doesn’t cut it.
Yeah, fair enough. I thought Game 2 officiating was better than Game 1, FWIW. But Carlisle's conspiracy theory about "big market teams" sounds like victimhood. The Knicks haven't been to a conference finals in 25 years, and the only other big market teams in the playoffs are the Mavs and the Celtics. The western finals might be Timberwolves v. OKC.
Key point, they haven't been there in 25 years AND are the Largest market left. Game 1 was the one they weren't will to let the Knicks lose if possible and they did just that! Game 2 wasn't as bad, still bias but Knicks actually earned that one. Unlike Game 1 which robbed all of us fans for a true classic whatever the outcome would have been. Instead it'll always be about the refs which is actually a shame for both teams and fan bases.
I just don't agree with the idea that the NBA will influence games so that large market teams advance. That's different than arguing that the games have had poor officiating. Carlisle is arguing both. Again, I don't think the officiating in Game 1 was stellar, but if it was as bad as you and Carlisle say it was, why did the Pacers only submit 29 bad calls from Game 1 but 49 from Game 2? If the NBA wants it to go to 7 games, as the conspiracy theorists would allege, why not have New York lose one at home?
"Garbage defense"? The Knicks have allowed only 8 fewer points over 3 games - .666 of a point per quarter. So is their defense "garbage" too? I'm tired of blind fools not recognizing the effort BOTH teams are putting forth while giving NY extra credit for otherworldly shooting which is keeping them in the game while playing the Pacers' desired uptempo pace.
Yea did you watch Game 1? Everyone with eyeballs saw what happened there. All of twitter, TV analyst (Even Stephan A Smith) admitted it. Just to refresh you...
False "Kick Ball" that wasn't even close. Ref blew the whistle for what reason?
... Leads to the biggest shot in the game! (Knicks didn't score an actual bucket besides that)
Miles Turner Flop Pick Call
.... Worst call I've ever seen. Some people say well the situation doesn't matter. But it does, nobody wants to have the ref DECIDE the game in those moments. It wasn't like he blasted him. Especially when devinchinzo set a worse screen 45 seconds before. (You can try to hang your hat on this call though if you want) Just as a fan of basketball and of any team this SHOULD NEVER BE CALLED!
Then they call a tick-tack off ball call for Jalen Brunson to secure the win!
Literally handed the game to the Knicks. Robbed the fans of a great moment and if they get the stop a valid win in a classic. Now that game will always be remembered by controversy instead of an all time classic. Which as a fan is another shame.
Won't even get into the overturned called against Miles Turner where Brunson gets all body. And the other timely momentum call the refs made.
As a fan of basketball and the big moments this was just one word... A SHAME!!!
Fantasy sports and gambling in my opinion do take away from the emotions of sports fandom. They are fine for the individual. Do what you want. Watch how you want. They don’t enhance and probably detract from the collective joy of fandom (a group activity). I’m not high fiving anyone for hitting their over. I can’t share in your gambling joy. I do enjoy in sharing the highs and lows of my teams performance with others.
I also agree gambling will have negative impact on sports at some point.
Not trying to knock Leitch’s sports viewing experience but, when done responsibly, gambling can REALLY accentuate the euphoria of a win.
But there's nothing genuine about it. Gambling is inherently mercenary, which is to say that there is nothing important about the teams or the game itself other than the numerals in certain statistical categories. It is emotionally empty, which serves to highlight the fact that the main point in gambling, if the least spoken about, isn't the winning or losing. It's about the hope of feeling something, anything, cost be damned.
I still root for the same teams that I did when I was five years old. These are not dynastic franchises in the least, Ohio State football excepted. I wouldn't bet on that team up north if the Buckeyes were 0-11 and sixty-point underdogs. The idea of it is disgusting because I am a fan, and have been my entire life. Winning the bet wouldn't be pleasurable in the least, and that's what Leitch is talking about when he talks about people who make sports great by participating emotionally in them, as opposed to your enjoyment being determined by a comparison of how deep your pockets are at the end of a game as opposed to when it started.
This isn't a moral issue in the least, and I am not one to moralize. Gambling is legal, one can participate or not. The fact that the hyper-availability of gambling services is likely to wreck at least one major sports league at some point, notwithstanding. (Which of the major four US leagues is most-likely to be the first to see a player or coach injured or killed by a sour gambler? My money, as it were, is on the NBA.)
I hope that you'll re-read the piece and that maybe it'll rekindle whatever non-financial joy brought you to organized athletics in the first place.
First of all: O-H…
You’re making a lot of assumptions about my relationship between gambling and sports.
Can’t I just enjoy the game in my own way? Just as I would want for you.
“Rekindle my joy”? Would you say the same to someone who has a drink or a smoke while watching a game?
One can gamble responsibly just as one can drink responsibly, and in either case one shouldn’t be criticized if that is one’s pleasure. Moreover, I can imagine that betting on one’s team to win can enhance the fan experience. Sports gambling in general, however, is a game entirely separate from and in my view inconsistent with the fan experience for the reasons expressed by “sims”. If you’re a Celtics fan, you’re thrilled that they beat the Cavs by 25 points. If you’ve bet the “over” on Jason Tatum’s point total, however, you’re not very happy. Again, if gambling is one’s chosen form of recreation, that’s a legitimate choice (again as long as it’s done responsibly), but it’s different from the traditional fan experience. The reason that this is an appropriate topic of discussion, given that other people’s choice of entertainment is none of my or anyone else’s business, is the extent to which the NBA and other sports leagues have allowed gambling to be embedded into the economics of their sport despite the incompatibility of objectives of the two pursuits - another example of billionaires seeking to squeeze out as many dollars as they can to the detriment of the game.
Well, it’s professional basketball, it’s always been for profit. So, I don’t really see how they’re so divergent.
I may want the Celtics to cover the spread but my understanding is that the book would like for there to be even money on both sides.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.
Do you feel the same way about fantasy sports?
As it happens, I hate fantasy sports, but that’s me. Certainly professional sports are for profit, but much of the appeal of sports for me (and surely others) is the admittedly irrational desire to identify with your team - that’s why so many fans refer to “their” team as “we”. Once it’s reduced to abstract numbers as a way for the fan to make a profit, the illusion is gone.
I get it. (I rarely bet on my CLV teams b/c it comes in conflict with my desire to just root for them and try and enjoy this weird Cavs team).