Inetersting response by ESPN's JHollinger on today's chat

[coco]

Nick (Chicago): Celtics in 5? Did you make that one before the Atlanta series?

  John Hollinger: (3:08 PM ET ) Instead of 4-3, look at this number: +84. Boston had an average scoring margin of +12, the best of any team in the first round -- even better than LA did in a four-game sweep of Denver. Boston's four wins were blowouts and the three losses they easily could have won. The first round did very little to change my impression of the Celtics.

Danny (New Mexico): So the Celtics can't win close games is essentially what you are trying to say?

  John Hollinger: (3:10 PM ET ) No, I'm saying the Celtics lost three 50-50 games. If a coin lands on heads three times in a row, do you assume it's weighted?

...he sure sounds like someone implying that maybe - just maybe - the NBA office wanted to make the series a lot closer than it really was??   

[liam]

It sure looked that way to me. Atlanta got some sick calls at home but when they didn't get them in Boston they were lost.

[Jeff]

don't think that's what he's implying at all

he's trumping up his point differential stat to prove that he knew all along that the Celtics would win

his point is that the C's are far superior when you add up all the points

the close games could have gone either way

so if they played 700 times and the trend continued, and 300 of them are close, then the could Celtics win 50% of those (150) and the rest won't be close, they'll be the Celtics large wins (400)

at least that's what I think he was trying to get across

[Chris]

Nick (Chicago): Celtics in 5? Did you make that one before the Atlanta series?

  John Hollinger: (3:08 PM ET ) Instead of 4-3, look at this number: +84. Boston had an average scoring margin of +12, the best of any team in the first round -- even better than LA did in a four-game sweep of Denver. Boston's four wins were blowouts and the three losses they easily could have won. The first round did very little to change my impression of the Celtics.

Danny (New Mexico): So the Celtics can't win close games is essentially what you are trying to say?

  John Hollinger: (3:10 PM ET ) No, I'm saying the Celtics lost three 50-50 games. If a coin lands on heads three times in a row, do you assume it's weighted?

...he sure sounds like someone implying that maybe - just maybe - the NBA office wanted to make the series a lot closer than it really was??   

Well, I don't know if the league purposely "wieghted the coins", but there definitely was a difference in the way the games were reffed in Boston versus Atlanta. 

The refs did not seem biased at all.  They were certainly not calling things one way, and not the other.  However, in Atlanta, they were calling the games much tighter than they were in Boston.  When the games were in Boston (especially game 7), both teams were allowed to play physical.  They could bump each other on defense, and they could actually make contact with the body without it being called every time, whereas in Atlanta, neither team was allowed to touch the other team.

Unfortunately for the C's, their defense is incredibly mediocre if they can't play physical.  So if the league knew this, they certainly could have put ref crews on in Atlanta that were known as guys who didn't "let them play".  But would the league risk losing a potential Boston-LA finals for a couple extra first round games??

[indeedproceed]

don't think that's what he's implying at all

he's trumping up his point differential stat to prove that he knew all along that the Celtics would win

his point is that the C's are far superior when you add up all the points

the close games could have gone either way

so if they played 700 times and the trend continued, and 300 of them are close, then the could Celtics win 50% of those (150) and the rest won't be close, they'll be the Celtics large wins (400)

at least that's what I think he was trying to get across

Your point is the central point in Hollinger's response but you gotta believe he was injecting the scandal there.

[BASSTHUMPER]

so all yall sayin that the games are rigged...?...fixed..?..

[Jeff]

has JB been handing out tinfoil caps again? 

[Hoops]

...he sure sounds like someone implying that maybe - just maybe - the NBA office wanted to make the series a lot closer than it really was??   

Methinks you're reading WAY too much into Hollinger's comments. As Jeff said, Hollinger wasn't trying to imply anything at all. YOU can read whatever you want into it, but Hollinger wasn't attempting to do so.

[indeedproceed]

haha...I just read it aloud to myself and I take back my scandal comment

What he's saying is just because a coin lands on heads 3 times in a row do you automatically believe its weighted and the chances are no longer 50-50? No, sometimes a coin just does that. Not most times, but sometimes. I totally get it now. Im taking off my tinfoil hat.

[liam]

The Refs calls are part of home court advantage. The Refs almost always favor the home team. That's why you fight for the home court advantage.

[crownsy]

Unfortunately for the C's, their defense is incredibly mediocre if they can't play physical.

all defense is mediocre if you can't be physical. That's the essence of good defense, especially in the paint.

[EnP24]

Many of you are missing the point here.

He is simply saying that those games could have went either way. No one would check to see if a quarter if it landed on heads three times in a row. That is something completely feasible.

[hwangjini_1]

Many of you are missing the point here.

He is simply saying that those games could have went either way. No one would check to see if a quarter if it landed on heads three times in a row. That is something completely feasible.

agreed. and he seems more concerned with showing that his initial prediction about the celtics being the better team is still valid, even though atlana won 3 games.

it seems to me to be more a case of his ego than anything else.

[nickagneta]

I think Hollinger's point was that his stats said before the Hawks series that the Celtics were an excellent team, maybe the best team in the league. He's inferring that just because the series went 7 games it should not effect people's opinions on just how good a team the Celtics are. He then tries to validate the point with, big surprise here, more of his stats saying they had the highest point differential even though it went 7 games. Bigger even than LA's overwelming sweep of Denver.

His explanation is that the Hawks got lucky in 3, 50-50 percent chances of winning close games by having their side of that 50-50 coin coming up their way.

I don't think Hollinger is trying to say anything about the league, the refs, or anything else creating the 7 game series, that it just was one of those lucky things that went the Hawks way.

[Andy Jick]

these conspiracy theories are a bunch of bunk...

David Stern would want nothing more than a Celtics vs. Lakers NBA finals...the ratings and interest would be out of this world.