Is the NBA Fixed?

With fresh allegations coming out from Tim Donaghy that the NBA "fixed" games and with the free throw-advantage in the Finals markedly shifting to whoever's at home, I find myself suddenly wondering whether the NBA is fixed. ESPN touts the success of the (not very popular) Spurs in recent years and the fact that random teams have won the draft lottery to challenge Donaghy's allegations. But Donaghy did not allege that the entire season is fixed, nor that the draft lottery is fixed, rather he stated that individual games are manipulated by referees.

After watching Game 6 of the 2002 NBA semi-finals between Sacramento and L.A., I remember leaving my friend's house and telling my brother that the Kings just got "hosed." The announcers fell back on the usual "Shaq is the hardest guy to call" excuse, but the refs clearly bailed the Lakers out of that game. A classmate of mine recently told me that the Kings had had similar FT advantages when they were at home, and that the Kings "choked away" their one chance at a title. Maybe so, but if home court advantage bestows upon you a dramatic free throw advantage that: a) puts the other teams' players in foul trouble thus limiting their minutes and b) gives you at least the opportunity to score more points, then you might as well let NBA teams have Macho Man Randy Savage run onto the court and clunk their opponents on the head with a steel chair while the refs back is turned.

I searched online for stats on free throw disparities linked to home-court, but couldn't find any. But the evidence from the first three games of the Finals is striking. In Game 1, the Lakers shot 28 free throws, the Celtics shot 35. The Celtics won by 10 and had an FT advantage of 7. In Game 2, the Lakers shot 10 free throws (and made them all) and the Celtics shot 38. The Celtics won by 6 with an FT advantage of a whopping 28. I watched Game 2 and thought nothing fishy was going on, but then in Game 3 the Celtics shot 22 FTs and the Lakers shot 34. While in Game 2 Kobe was hit with a few quick fouls at the beginning of the game that helped the Celtics build a lead, in Game 3 Pierce was hit with 5 fouls, played only 32 minutes and never got into the flow of the game. The free throw disparity alone didn't decide these games, it was also the fact that fouls on key players called early made those players more hesitant. The refs set the tone for the visiting team losing early by hitting their stars with fouls that made the visitors' more hesitant. A more hesitant team draws less fouls, thus the effect exacerbates itself as the game progresses.

I am not saying that refs DID fix these games, but they clearly COULD have. All you have to do is hit the other team's star or big man with 2 fouls in the first or 3 quick fouls in the first half. Then you've essentially taken the teeth out of the opposing team. It wasn't like either the Lakers or Celtics went out in either game trying to draw fouls on Pierce or Kobe (that would be hard to do; you can draw fouls on a big man by driving at him, but its much harder on a wing player), so you've got to give the refs' some of the credit for skewing the games. Now, Game 2 the Lakers were clearly the worse team, but the refs treated Leon Powe like a superstar in that game and Kobe drew 3 quick fouls. It wasn't until the end of the game that the Lakers got themselves going again. In Game 3, I wondered where Pierce was. He scored only 6 points (on 2-14 shooting)! Could he have been hurt or just having a bad game or was he taken out of the game by the refs? A little of both is probably true......

To test the effect of the refs, let's look at two series that shifted wildly from home to away, and then one of the Lakers' series. First, let's look at Spurs-Hornets, where the teams looked completely different at home and abroad. In Game 1, the Hornets crushed, but the Spurs had a slight FT advantage (21-15). in Game 2 the Hornets crushed the Spurs again but this time the Hornets had a slight FT advantage (24-19). In San Antonio, the Spurs won Game 3 by 11 and the FTs were equal and the Spurs won Game 4 by 20 and had an FT advantage of 8. Game 5 was back in NO and the Hornets won by 22 taking 13 more FTs than the Spurs. Note that the FT advantage is increasing as the series progresses. Game 6 was in SA, the Spurs won by 19, took 6 more free throws, but didn't make any more than the Hornets. Game 7 the Spurs won by 9 in NO. San Antonio had a four FT advantage, but made 7 more FTs than the Hornets. Conclusion: No evidence in this series of refs disproportionately affecting home court advantage.

Now let's look at Celtics-Cavs. In this series, Cleveland won its home games, the Celtics won theirs. LeBron James (the NBA's darling) and the Celtics (a team the NBA promoted all year) were fighting for survival. If there was a series where the refs would want to prolong things, this would be it. Let's look at the stats. In Game 1, the Celtics won by 4, but Cleveland took 8 more FTs (10 by LeBron). In Game 2, the Cavs took 27 FTs, the Celtics took 38. The Celtics won by 16. In Cleveland, the Cavs won Game 3 by 24 taking 9 more FTs than the Celtics and won Game 4 by 11 taking 8 less FTs than Boston. Game 5 was back in Boston. The Celtics won by 7 even though the Cavs took 41 FTs; 18 more than the Celtics. LeBron and Delonte West each went to the line 13 times. Game 6 was back in Cleveland, the Cavs won a low-scoring ugly game by 5. But the free-throw disparity was HUGE. Twenty-one of Cleveland's 74 points came from FTs. Only 11 of the Celtics' 69 points came at the line. The Cavs took twelve more FTs (25-13), and 15 of those were taken by LeBron. Already, we see that the Cavs were clearly favored in this series and that home court had little to do with things. Game 7 was back in Boston, Cleveland took 35 FTs, the Celtics took 34 and the Celtics won. LeBron James took 19 FTs. Conclusion: Home court did not affect the free throw advantage; Cleveland pretty consistently took more FTs. Evidence can be interpreted two ways: 1) LeBron gets special treatment by the refs/NBA or 2) LeBron is very hard to cover and thus draws a ton of fouls. 2 is definitely true, but 1 is also probable.

Now let's look at a Lakers series. The Spurs-Lakers. This was supposed to be a blockbuster series, but the Lakers won in 5 with the league admitting that the refs should have called a foul on Derek Fisher at the end of Game 4. The first two games were at LA. Game 1 the difference was about even; the Lakers took one more FT than the Spurs and won by 4. Game 2 the Lakers won by 30 taking 20 FTs to the Spurs 10. Game 3 the Spurs won by 19 taking 6 more FTs than the Lakers. Then came Game 4 with the non-call at the end, which actually would've been b.s. were it called. The Spurs took 7 more FTs and lost by 2. Finally, in LA the Lakers won by 8 with the FT count even. Note that in the last games of series, the FT disparity is minimal or even. Coincidence? There's a small sample size here, but the evidence could point to either: 1) the refs having no incentive to manipulate the final game of a series (though how do they know its a final game unless its Game 7?), 2) the teams knowing each other well enough by late in a series, or 3) the players trying to draw fouls in close-out games.

From the above analysis, it decidedly does NOT seem like the NBA is fixed. Free throw disparities were, for the most part, rather tame. LeBron James did go to the line a lot, but he is a special player so that does not seem to be a coincidence or manipulation of the game. Having watched Game 2 of the Finals, you could see that the Lakers were playing soft. They played soft in Game 3 too, but Kobe decided to take over--and, yes, he got some calls. Home-court does not seem to bestow a free throw advantage on a team even in the playoffs. That said, in the NBA, refs have a great opportunity to affect games. The mere appearance of favoritism can skew a game and the perception of the fans and even the players. The visual evidence of Games 2 and 3 of the Finals supercedes the statistical data. The home teams did hold a strong FT advantage but the team that lost generally played worse. Referees can skew NBA games, but it does not seem like they do so on a regular basis at least. More statistical research needs to be done and, hopefully, the Donaghy scandal and gross FT disparities in the Finals will soon be behind us. On the Finals, I think that there was some favoritism in Games 2 and 3 that heightened differences between the teams. That said, the team that played better won each game. Hopefully, more scrutiny on refs will lead to an NBA where superstar-treatment and home-court FT-advantage no longer become part of fans' perceptions.