meh...there are people who say that, no matter what, you have to put the ball in the basket more to win a game, no matter what's happening. You'll get people who point out particular refereeing mistakes/inconsistencies but realize that they're going to happen regardless of conspiracy theories. Then you have people that attribute all poor play/decision-making to refereeing inputs. I'd say your friend is in the last category, and one that I generally don't have much time for.
We were down 20 most of the game to SAS...yet he lumps that into "getting flat hosed by the refs 3 games in a row."
"We played damn hard with Nic on vacation and missing two centers". I agree...but that doesn't mean we're "prepared" or that the refs are out to get us, it means that down two starters and our best defensive backup we had problems stopping the other team from scoring way more than we did.
Like I said, not a fan of engaging hard in these areas. I'd rather ask why Stotts keeps starting Kaman, when he's obviously not playing as well or as freely with the starters. I'd ask why Crabbe's had >10mpg in one of the last 9 games. I'd ask (as you did) why the Clippers' double of Dame resulted in not many changes to the offense. But I wouldn't ask why there was a league-wide conspiracy to hose us through officiating. Even if you believe all that gambling stuff, what did the Blazers getting hosed win for anyone? Do you think there's some group of suckers in POR who are betting the spreads really hard, and the league wants the established/good teams to stay there?