Spin control

The NBA is in full spin control and David Stern is sounding more and more like Roger Clemens in relation to the latest allegations from Tim Donaghy. Stern has been all bluster and no substance, attacking the character of the accuser while sidestepping any real comment on the claims themselves.

My guess is that Stern would like this to go away....probably as much, if not more than the NFL wants Arlen Specter to go away.

The problem is part of Stern's reasoning.

Sterns recent comments about Donaghy -

"Because a convicted felon said something about his colleagues in order to lower his time away, am I worried about that? I'm worried that someone is out there saying it, but you're the one who will either deal with it or not as part of the media. We've been as open and transparent as we can be...But we'll stay with it, and we have no doubt that Mr. Donaghy is the only one here that's guilty of criminal activity."

Those are made all the more interesting in light of this quote from 2006 when Donaghy was still on the league's payroll - "I think we have the best officials, the best-monitored officials, the best-developed officials in all of sports."

They have "the best-monitored officials" in all of sports? Yet a majority of the officials were, at the time, in violation of the league's gambling policy, and they knew nothing of Donaghy's violations?

Now Stern expects us to believe the denials the league is issuing?

That's the height of arrogance.

Of course, considering Donaghy's claims, in essence, are an indictment of Stern, he's going to deny the claims. Stern is telling us that the league has been transparent, and that the feds have found no violations beyond Donaghy's - but can anyone out there tell me exactly what the Feds were investigating? Were they investigating the league, or were they investigating Donaghy? Because if it was just Donaghy, it was out of the purview of their investigation, it was not an investigation into what other officials may have been doing. What did the league even investigate? Gambling?

What has really done by the league to look into this? I know they found that a whole bunch of other officials violated league rules and then were given a free pass. Hell, Stern suggested changing the rule to accommodate the violators. So why should I believe Stern on this? I mean, that could be construed as a payoff - a free pass in exchange for the silence of the violators...assuming that Donaghy is indeed telling the truth.

There are a lot of reasons that you could give for Donaghy lying about this, but Sterns reasons for possibly putting the fix on games has to do with a league whose net worth is in the billions. A lot of money is a lot of motivation to make sure the league continues netting maximum profits - and max profits are definitely not Sacramento making the finals over the Lakers.

Once again - I'm not saying I believe Donaghy. But I am saying that I don't think Stern is any more credible than Donaghy, and that Donaghy's claims have to be given at least enough weight to merit an investigation, if for no other reason than to put this to rest once and for all.

As for Stern - he might want to consider NOT taking a page from the Roger Clemens playbook on this one.

And let's just note - if an independent investigation reveals Donaghy to be correct - let's start talking about the validity of Phil Jackson's genius and post-season record.

Credibility and other things on my mind...

"I’ve never seen a game like that in all these years I’ve coached in The Finals"

-Phil Jackson on game two of the Finals when the Celtics went to the foul line by an almost 4 to 1 margin.

The same Phil Jackson whose Laker team benefited from a 28 to 10 margin in the fourth quarter of a semi-finals game against the Kings to get to a game 7. The same game that disgraced official Tim Donaghy implied was fixed to give the Lakers the win in order to get the team to game 7.

The same Phil Jackson whose Laker team, earlier in the playoffs, went to the line 43 times against the Jazz's 16.

Of course Jackson was going to point out the free-throw disparity, because the actual proportion of fouls called in that game - 4-3 (28 on L.A., 21 on Boston - which, of course, is more an indictment of the Lakers' play in that game than the officiating).

Game 3...

The third game is not a game that should have given the Lakers a lot of confidence. Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett played poorly and the Lakers could only win by six, and they couldn't score 90 on their home floor against Boston.

At this point, I'm thinking the C's win in six, giving the Boston faithful something to celebrate on the parquet.

The Fix is in...

For years pundits and fans alike have speculated that the fix may very well be in when it comes to the post-season in the NBA. Now it seems as though most of those pundits are very quick to come to the NBA's defense in regards to Tim Donaghy's allegations about fixing games.

Of course, this is also the same press that was quick to dismiss Jose Canseco's allegations of steroid use in Major League Baseball, in spite of the fact that others before him - including the late Ken Caminiti, a former MVP and steroid user - had already made the same claims.

Personally, I think Donaghy is on the level regarding this. Or at the very least, he believes he is on the level.

Let's consider two very important facts in regards to that particular year -

First - a game seven would generate significant additional revenue for the league and give the Lakers an extra shot at getting to the finals.

Second - what team is going to garner the most viewers? The Kings or the Lakers? As such, which team is going to generate the most advertising revenue?

Circumstantially, the evidence really does favor Donaghy, and not just in this instance.

Anyone else waiting to hear Arlen Specter crying foul? I mean, this isn't a team trying to break the rules - this is a league trying to fix games, if what Donaghy says has even an iota of truth.

This requires an independent investigation far more than any issues the NFL is currently facing.

Here's one final NBA thought to leave everyone with - How, exactly, did David Stern turn the league around? Adding games in the playoffs?

Dontrelle Willis...

Am I the only one that saw this one coming?

Willis, often billed as the second coming of Lefty Grove, has had only one ace-like season under his belt when he went 22-10 with a 2.63 ERA en route to the World Series. Only once has he won more than 14 games. His ERA has increased by one run or more in each of the last three seasons.

This season Willis is no longer in the hitters' B-league and only twice has lasted more than two innings and only once as long as five. In five appearances he has averaged two innings per appearance and is giving up over ten runs per nine innings.

Okay, this is worse than what I thought, but I didn't think the Willis trade and signing was that great a move by Detroit.

Composure

When I coached I was adamant with my kids - don't bitch about the officiating. Period.

I didn't want to hear it, and the officials sure as hell didn't want to hear it. I used to tell the kids that complaining about the officiating was the coach's prerogative - because, while annoying, I could live with it if I garnered us a 15-yard penalty. If one of my players cost the team by getting a 15 called on him for complaining to an official, then he was getting benched.

I only note this for Rasheed Wallace's skewed grip on reality as demonstrated in his profanity laced tirade about the called penalties and people flopping all over the place in Wednesday's game.

It's funny in as much the Pistons were regularly mugging Paul Pierce and not getting called. The refs gave the Pistons a gift flagrant against the C's P.J. Brown early in the game. The Pistons went to the line for 38 foul shots to the Celtics 30.

Wallace is only the tip of the ice-berg.

Detroit has made it to six consecutive conference finals. They've been there before. Which is what makes Wallace's teammates whining about the pleasantries between him and Kevin Garnett before and after each game puzzling.

While I'm sure they think they're trying to set an attitude throughout the team - all they're really doing is creating (at least the appearance of) a rift in the locker room.

Do his teammates really think that Wallace isn't playing his ass off from tip to horn? Do they expect him to put up Kevin Garnett numbers? Do they think that he should be able to completely neutralize Garnett? Garnett, the defensive player of the year, hasn't been able to neutralize Wallace.

The things happening in the Pistons locker-room are not indicative of a team that thinks it's going to win. Rather, it's indicative of a team looking for a scapegoat...reasons why they lost, rather than preparing for a game to win.

Don't get me wrong. I still feel as though Detroit is an extraordinarily dangerous team to the Celtics, and that they have a very good chance of winning given the fact that the Celtics have demonstrated time and again in these playoffs that they just don't have the cajones to go for the jugular when they have their opponents' backs to the wall.

But this is ridiculous.

Through every level of athletics I have participated in, I have had friends on opposing teams - youth, high school, college, club. On every level I have talked to those people before and/or after the games. Sometimes I've gone and a had a beer with them afterwards. Never have I gone easy because they guy I was against was someone I knew. If anything, I've typically been more intense if I've been matched up against a friend.

And I'm not getting paid.

I have a hard time believing that Wallace might be going easy on Garnett just because they're friends.

Unconvincing

It was nice to see the Celtics go ahead in the series with a 3-2 lead, but C's fans shouldn't be comfortable with that win. There was a lot of good to go with a lot of bad - let's take a look at the bad first...

The Celtics appear to lack a killer instinct. Up by 17 in the third quarter, the team got sloppy in the fourth, letting the Pistons get as close as one with little more than a minute to play. This didn't happen due to sterling play by the Pistons. Not to take anything away from Detroit, which capitalized when the Celtics got sloppy. And boy, was Boston a mess - passing in to traffic (Rajon Rondo, Kevin Garnett) when they had open jump shots, passing to the other team (Garnett), and turning over the ball with thoughtless penalties.

The fourth quarter was ugly and should inspire no confidence in Celtics fans.

The good? Ray Allen looked like...well, Ray Allen for the first time in the playoffs. Allen shot 60 percent and scored 29 points. Garnett, while having trouble protecting the ball at times, put up 33 points. But Kendrick Perkins might have been the biggest difference-maker for the Celtics.

Perkins played like a man possessed. Perkins had a double-double, putting up 18 points, had 16 rebounds (11 on the defensive boards), two steals, and two blocked shots.

I can't help but think that they need to close this out in Detroit, because a win in game seven is nowhere near a gimme.

Staying with the playoffs, I just need to comment on the following statement regarding the ending of the Lakers-Spurs playoff game -

"With the benefit of instant replay, it appears a foul should have been called," NBA spokesman Tim Frank said.

It took the league instant-freakin'-replay to figure out that one player landing on top of another constitutes a foul?! I'm sure that statement is a great consolation to Spurs fans everywhere. The Lakers get away with a blatant foul on an 87 percent free-throw shooter as time expires while up by only two. I keep hearing how the refs shouldn't decide the games, but let's face it, if they're not going to call that as time expires, then why shouldn't players body check shooters at the ends of playoff games? I commend the NBA for admitting the mistake - but trying to claim, by saying ""With the benefit of instant replay," that it was call that easily could have been missed...well that's just embarrassing and disgraceful.