The Book the NBA Doesn't Want You to Read

Call me crazy, but I believe every word Donaghy's book.

http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-fr ... ou-to-read

That's just frightening. I'll probably get his book but I have a feeling it'll change the way I think about the NBA completely (on-court).

Sordid to say the least, though I think most fans will have already come to the conclusion that star players get treated differently so that bit didn't hold too many surprises. As for the rest of it, it's kind of funny in a twisted sort of way considering the recent labour dispute between the league and the officials and the fact that some players have expressed their approval that the dispute is resolved and that the referees are back in time for the regular season. I suppose some enjoy the benefit of star treatment, but if I were an NBA player I wouldn't be thrilled to hear what else is going on.

Hey Andrew - Kings/Lakers, 2002 playoffs - 'nuff said.

And the 'superstar' treatment has been going on for decades. I've seen stars travel, palm the ball, foul, and most of the time the refs look the other way.

Too bad it was canceled. I would have loved to read it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4603209

They should add a "be a referee" mode to NBA Live.

interesting read in that article though

The NBA is denying that they sued to stop the publication of the book and I expect that'll draw a lot of skepticism and eye-rolling, but I'm not so sure. It's not like it's hard to buy the NBA as being two-faced or eager to hide their dirty laundry, but if there are things in the book that can't be corroborated then I'm not surprised that Random House would back out on what would have been (and could still be) a very controversial book.

I hope he finds another publisher.

The NBA is denying that they sued to stop the publication of the book and I expect that'll draw a lot of skepticism and eye-rolling, but I'm not so sure. It's not like it's hard to buy the NBA as being two-faced or eager to hide their dirty laundry, but if there are things in the book that can't be corroborated then I'm not surprised that Random House would back out on what would have been (and could still be) a very controversial book.

Why would they back out on what would have been a very popular book due to said controversy?

Other than fantasy books for tweens and losers, basically the only book market that makes guaranteed money is "tell-all's" due to a guaranteed media circle jerk over it. ("60 Minutes had plans to interview Donaghy in conjunction with the book's publication.")

"When you publish controversial books, as we often do, it is not unusual for interested parties to contact us with their opinion about our prospective publication," Applebaum told USA TODAY. "We always listen to what's being said. The decision as to whether we publish a book is always our own decision based on the manuscript and its veracity and accuracy."

Applebaum would not say if the NBA contacted Random House.

Which means they did.

The possibility of libel, I suppose.

The NBA would be stupid to bring a libel case in the US. It would open up so many things it'd destroy the institution.

That's why you almost never hear of celebrities bringing it. Discovery alone will likely do more damage than winning the case can gain you. Especially since Stern, despite his hardcore Democrat leanings would be scared to death of Congress ruining his industry like they have MLB.

And we know the truth is likely between Donaghy and the NBA's versions. And I'd lean towards Donaghy considering how insane the NBA is denying the obvious over the years. There's an ESPN Magazine article I have from like 1999 in my archives where the refs basically admit they screwed up a ton of calls in the 1998 and 1999 playoffs and one name in particular keeps coming up with the Knicks. The real question is, was there money involved in this? A lunatic believes the NBA's investigations of itself, a realist says of course something was involved in these insane calls. Refs are human, there is no reason to believe they make calls completely out of their own interest. The NBA has refused to adequately investigate if their refs are gambling and has managed every single investigation on their own. (As they've done with everything since Stern came to power.)

A ref, coach, or a single player, etc. these cannot truly swing games (and why I don't give a shit about Pete Rose's HoF deal) on an individual basis. So outside of Game Six in 2002, these aren't deciding champions, but overtime you can profit off of this. Same concept for all gambling. You properly manage enough games and you can make money, even if you lose on a majority of hands. Anyone who watches the NBA can recall at least two handfuls (and maybe some feet) of lousy close games decided on shit calls that make zero sense. At least half of which everyone but the refs (who never have to answer to it publicly) admit were wrong. Even fundamentalists for either team.

Hey Andrew - Kings/Lakers, 2002 playoffs - 'nuff said.

And the 'superstar' treatment has been going on for decades. I've seen stars travel, palm the ball, foul, and most of the time the refs look the other way.

Best not to bring that series up. It brings up bad memories fo us

I've read half the article and I'm shocked already. Really interesting read.

And we know the truth is likely between Donaghy and the NBA's versions. And I'd lean towards Donaghy considering how insane the NBA is denying the obvious over the years. There's an ESPN Magazine article I have from like 1999 in my archives where the refs basically admit they screwed up a ton of calls in the 1998 and 1999 playoffs and one name in particular keeps coming up with the Knicks. The real question is, was there money involved in this? A lunatic believes the NBA's investigations of itself, a realist says of course something was involved in these insane calls. Refs are human, there is no reason to believe they make calls completely out of their own interest. The NBA has refused to adequately investigate if their refs are gambling and has managed every single investigation on their own. (As they've done with everything since Stern came to power.)

I agree. I don't want to dismiss Donaghy's version of the events with an argumentum ad hominem (and let's face it, his stories would confirm what we've known/suspected for years anyway) but I still think he's got to be taken with a grain of salt. As you said, somewhere in between his version and the NBA's version is the truth and at the end of the day Donaghy's is probably closer. I wouldn't go so far as to call the NBA rigged as some like to, but it's a sorry state of affairs with the referees.

Nobody cares about the Bucks, but Donaghy made claims about Bavetta, and this seems relevant: http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... 1&t=814760

I have records going back to the 1991-92 season of every Bucks game (except 2 I cant find boxscores from) played with the final score, free throws, fouls called ect. I have records of who reffed each game as well. Since all this broke on Bavetta, and since Ive always thought he was the main game fixer in the NBA, I took a look at his records and stats when he reffed Bucks games. Some of it is interesting.

Record by year (Playoffs included):

91-92: 1-5
92-93: 3-2
93-94: 1-5
94-95: 3-3
95-96: 1-2
96-97: 0-2
97-98: 2-1
98-99: 1-2
99-00: 3-6
00-01: 0-7
01-02: 1-5
02-03: 3-2
03-04: 1-5
04-05: 1-5
05-06: 0-1
06-07: 2-2
07-08: 1-1

Overall: 24-56
Playoffs: 1-5

Notice how Bavetta's "worst" year was also the Bucks best percentage wise. The Bucks had a 16 game losing streak in games reffed by Bavetta. This happened from 2000-2002 (playoffs included). Keep in mind what the Bucks record was during that time (especially in 2000-01). Its not like that was a 16 game losing streak when the Bucks were horrible.

The Bucks are 31-48-1 against the spread in games reffed by Bavetta.

The Bucks are 13-20 Straight Up when they are favored in a Bavetta reffed game.

12-29 Overall on the road
12-27 Overall at home.

Whether the situation with gambling is part of a plan by Bavetta or merely coincidence, stats that like certainly make it look like he's got it in for the Bucks for one reason or another.

A defensive specialist throughout his career, Bell had a reputation for being a "star stopper." His defensive skills were so razor sharp that he could shut down a superstar, or at least make him work for his points

That there are people who actually like Isiah Thomas?

lol

Wow, good read.