In?Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner pointed out that asymmetries in payoffs could lead to?collusion in sumo wrestling.? But in the current NBA Finals, there is a different kind of asymmetry in payoffs that should lead the Lakers to try to have their own players called for technical fouls.? Specifically, the Lakers should try to instigate double technical fouls.
I have been a bit surprised that Lakers coach Phil Jackson hasn’t had his center, Andrew Bynum, try to get in the face of Celtics center Kendrick Perkins and start a clenching and shoving match.
Double technicals are routinely awarded to both players involved in such an altercation early in a game, regardless of who instigated the altercation.? (An example occurred in the first game when the refs called double techicals on Ron Artest and Paul Pierce.)
Double technicals for Bynum and Perkins would be disproportionately costly for the Celtics?because:
Celtics center?Kendrick Perkins is on the threshold of a one-game suspension after accruing six technicals — five of which are of the double-technical variety (two opposing players being called for technicals on the same play) . . .
The same tactic might also pay Laker dividends with respect to the Celtics bigs, Rasheed Wallace (who now has five technicals) and Kevin Garnett (who has four).? It’s not impossible to believe that with a little Laker help, these Celtics could be double-T’d into suspension.
In the second game, the referees in one sequence showed a reluctance to call double technicals involving Perkins. Still the instigation strategy seems like a risk worth taking. At worst, one of the Lakers would be called for a solo T and the Celtics would get to shoot a free throw. A 50% chance of that bad outcome might be worth a 50% chance of a suspension for the Celtics center.
The rationality of trying to get technical fouls called on your own team is an example of what Steve Salop and David Sheffman call “raising rivals’ costs.”? Sometimes it makes sense to increase your own cost of production, if you can raise the cost of your rival’s even more.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Oooh, “Machiavelli on Hoops”.
The risk is not only that the Celtics not draw a technical, but as has already happened with Perkins, is that the NBA can rescind a technical after the game. Which would likely happen if the Lakers became too obvious with that strategy
And for the conspiracy theorists, having the referees think you are trying to game the system could be the worst thing. . .
It’s just not cricket.
Additionally, the refs are loathe to call another technical on Perkins because they know it would result in an automatic suspension. He’s getting more leeway than he would in other times (something that was notable in the first half of last night’s game). It would have to be some serious provocation on the Lakers part to get Perkins to erupt enough to land a technical… and that could easily backfire if it is viewed as severe provocation.
If they are going to start playing like this why wouldnt the celtics counter by throwing some really hard penalties on Kobe, Pau etc, there by injuring them and taking them out of the game. I think the stat gurus that were on freako blog the other day pointed out that having one really good player can make a big difference in bball. So why not ensure that player cant play?
considering the thuggishness of garnet and rondo, a strategy like that would probably backfire. both of them are stupid enough to retaliate in a way that could end kobe’s or pau’s career.
however, if i were phil jackson, i would make sure artest spent large amounts of playing time near perkins. artest has a knack for irritating and frustrating players even moreso than dennis rodman.
Cheating sucks even if you do win
While this is an interesting idea for basketball, strategies like this are very prevalent in hockey. Strategies like these are likely in place as you write this, but the Lakers have to make sure that they don’t make it obvious.