Rampant Speculation About Donaghygate
By Mike Godsey
Joe Duffy (
Everyone, this author
included, has theories on the precise details of how rebel NBA ref Tim Donaghy may
have affected the outcome of games in which he officiated. Theories by
definition are conjecture. They need
only be plausible using the known facts. Even reasonable suppositions may not
prove to be 100 percent correct.
There are many rational
hypotheses on the scandal and then again, there is other guesswork that can
easily have holes poked through it. There are a small number of postulators who,
to their credit, have been able to gravy train this scandal into purporting
themselves as gambling experts. Unfortunately, to the more seasoned and
authentic authorities in sports gambling, too often the notions of the
squeakier wheels may get the oil even if the views rarely hold water.
At the very least the
more seasoned are much less apt to scream proof in the crowded theatre of
nattering nabobs. The USA Today’s Danny
Sheridan correctly observes, “You can make all kind of cases with numbers. But
if you have the exact games, then it’s like black and white.”
As an example, an
“expert” often quoted on ESPN.com asserts that 13 games last year in which
Donaghy officiated were within one-point of the spread.
same ESPN.com, the number is actually 11, not 13. But fudging the number by
more than 18 percent makes a much sexier story.
Thanks for proving
the oddsmakers are adept, damn savvy in fact.
Any two bit gambler was aware of this bombshell.
mediocre genius.
though some gullible media saps bought it hook, line and sinker as man bites
dog.
If even a higher
percentage of games were going down to the pointspread wire with Donaghy, this
would be evidence that he likely did not, repeat not affect the outcome.
me.
However, if a
forensic statistician found that Donaghy had the highest percentage of games
that were not even close to the pointspread, that would be a potential straw in
the wind unlike the polar opposite (non) finding.
But wait, the “betting
expert” has all his bases covered. He
found that in games Donaghy officiated in 2007, the average number of points
was 13 point higher than the average posted total.
So the “smoking gun”
is too many games were too close to the pointspread, but then again, the other
smoking gun is that too many over/unders were not close to the pointspread. The
ghost of Joe McCarthy lives and the legacy of Mike Nifong thrive.
The so-called
gambling experts seem to be missing the point, though cynics will tell you the
only point is that the worst publicity is no publicity
for wannabes. After all, no purported conclusive evidence means no real story
and no media exposure.
Granted, we still do
not know every detail, and perhaps never will regarding the Tim Donaghy scandal.
However, from what we have seen so far, it appears point shaving was likely not
as commonplace and may not even be part of the criminal allegations against
him.
We do know for a fact
that he supplied “inside information”. As a gambler who handicaps games
legitimately, I
can assure you that we are always, always looking for an “edge”—any and all
major advantages—over the long-run.
Getting “inside information” does not mean we bet the mortgage on a
particular sporting event, but it can increase our long-term winning percentage.
Examples are the
injury status of a key player. Shaquille
O’Neal, Dwayne Wade and Pau Gasol are instances of star players whose game time
status was often uncertain to the gambler.
However, Donaghy would have access to unpublished injury information,
the type of privy data that would give a gambler a huge upper hand.
As another example,
perhaps a team was playing five contests in seven nights and their flight into
town was delayed four hours, they got to town at
Knowing when situations like this occur would also provide bettors with
a huge edge.
Simply “if”, any
player, coach or ref were involved in point shaving, it is highly doubtful if his
chicanery would result in the final scores being disproportionately close to
the spread. It would be quite the
opposite.
So of the two bodies
of evidence thrown against the wall by the err “betting expert,” one that says
too many games were close to the number and the other that says too many games
were not close to the number, the latter is much more likely to stick.
My educated estimation,
based on what I heard so far, is that Donaghy supplied the gamblers version of
“insider trading” as illustrated above.
holy grail for sharp players, and it appears that is exactly what Donaghy
supplied.
When the specific contests that Donaghy bet on comes out,
of course an inordinate percentage will be in matches he officiated.
there is the damning evidence they knew was coming.
Not so fast. Of
course Donaghy is going to have access to inside information on a game when
he’s already on site. How can he do
undercover work on a matchup that is 400 miles from his own two eyes and ears?
While even those of us who refuse to jump to rash
conclusions will appropriately muse, “How could he possibly be objective in a
game in which he has five dimes riding?” this is far from proof that he
consciously influenced the outcome.
Don’t get me wrong, Donaghy is clearly guilty of going
well over the line of any and all codes of conduct, but I am quite confident
those hell bent in proving a made-for-television conspiracy will only continue
to make leaps of faith that may not be
backed by the evidence. A scenario in
which he acquired inside information on games other those he was to officiate
would be a shocking turn of events to the true “betting experts”.
Reasonable speculation is human nature.
is irresponsible. ESPN.com proves to be the worldwide leader in tittle-tattle.
Joe Duffy is CEO of
He has written hundreds of
articles on sports gaming, published on many of the top websites and in leading
publications around the world and has been an expert guest on several national
radio shows including Sporting News Network.