AJC > Sports > Hawks > Blog > Archives > 2007 > May > 02 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USRacial bias? How about just plain bad?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It took a far-fetched academic study to bring your boy Blog-Z and the NBA’s mouthpiece on officials together.
With respect to the folks at the New York Times and Penn, the league’s lousy officiating results shouldn’t be blamed on race. That’s too easy. That’s the escape hatch I refuse to allow anyone to open in explaining away what is by far (in my eyes) the worst aspect of the pro game.
I like to take the We-Are-The-World approach when evaluating NBA referees. They don’t see color. Truth be told, they don’t see at all most of the time.
They’re simply horrendous. And they prove it most every night when they make calls that didn’t happen and then miss obvious calls that the camera angles make painfully obvious to those of us that spend our nights watching these games.
There was a time when I was convinced that the Boston Celtics got all the calls and my Lakers (hey, I grew up with a father that made sure it was Lakers or nothing so long as Magic and Showtime was on the floor) were consistently getting the shaft from the guys in stripes.
But now that I see the games up close and personal (depending on the arena) for a living, I know better. The officials, for reasons no one can understand since they’re protected better than Angelina Jolie on an adoption mission in Africa, foul up calls on everyone.
I was on the couch last night watching them ruin the end of the Mavs-Warriors game. There’s no doubt in my mind the Mavs were coming back to win the thing. And they deserved to, thanks to the Warriors’ refusal to finish the game off the same way they did when they climbed out of their 21-point hole. But that’s another topic for another day.
There were three calls, though, (all in the final three minutes) two of which the officials missed that certainly could have changed the way the game ended.
They missed a foul by Dirk Nowitzki on a Jason Richardson jumper from the corner. They called Baron Davis for a blocking foul in the air as he was shoved off by Devin Harris (Jimmy Clark motioned for a charge but must have been overruled by Ken Mauer, the guy with the slicked-back hair and the sawed-off Pat Riley look going). The third thing was Mauer’s foolish ejection of Stephen Jackson for clapping as he walked to the foul line late, when the game was already decided.
The officials continue to escape the public scrutiny that everyone else at the game, including the officials scoring crew, dance team girls and mascots, have to endure every night. I think it’s one of the most egregious mistakes the NBA continues to make (shielding their officials from postgame - public - scrutiny). Players can be fined for simply mentioning an official by name, yet the officials are excused from the scene when their mistakes have a direct impact on the outcome of games. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Racial bias, however, is a much too convenient of an explanation for the continuous human error that plagues the game. They’re just plain bad.
Worse yet, they’re threatening to ruin some of the best opening round playoff action I can remember in recent years.
Comments
By Mike K
May 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
I’ve seen this done more than once:
Player A drives the lane against Player B. There is contact and Player A shoots the ball. Ball rolls around rim and fall off. THEN the ref blows the whistle, as if he was waiting to see if Player A made the basket! C’mon-it’s either a foul or it isn’t a foul.
I also think the “Jordan Rules” (i.e. protect the superstar) is really irritating too.
By Jick
May 2, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this
Agreed. And why did Jackson get ejected but not Jason Terry, who knocked Davis to the ground while the ball was dead and both of them were out of bounds?
I hear all the time about the awful refs - Joey Crawford, Bennett Salvatore, and so on. When I know the name of a referee, that’s probably a bad sign. Do we never hear about the good ones because there aren’t any, or does David Stern just seem to keep the bad ones around for the big games?
By honest_abe
May 2, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
in the league’s effort to become less physical, they have encountered another problem, officiating. it used to be widely regarded that if the league cleans up on hand checking, holding, etc that plays will become more fluid and enjoyable to watch. so now we as fans are subjected to less bumping and bruising but now we have to hear a whistle every five seconds.
it just seems each official has their own guidlines as to what constitutes as a foul. they let shaq get away with murder along with 10 steps during his prime. and now he gets called if he turns around. we all know “his airness” got away with anything and everything. flagrant fouls have become a joke as the hawks were called for many which were merely touch fouls.
another factor in the inconsistency of calls is the inordinate amount of players trying to take charges. when you have players getting tangled up and hitting the floor you have to make a call one way or another.
sorry for the incoherent blabber, but i completely agree with sekou’s assessment the officials SUCK!
By Dan
May 2, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this
Preach on, Sekou!!
I could not possibly agree more with what you posted. I think NBA officials are the worst officials in any sport (college or pro). My biggest problem with them is their constant star treatment they give to the game’s top players. Go down to Philips Arena and watch the games when Kobe, LeBron, Dirk, or the Suns come to town. Christ….it is against the law to try and guard any of those guys. I think Josh Smith got called for a foul just for breathing on Amare Stourdamire this year.
Also, their attitudes kill me. I hate how they constantly call techs on guys who yell at them. Those techs can decide close games. Officials should just turn and walk away. I think techs should only be called in the most extreme situations. Instead, they are common elements of NBA games.
I am still shocked that David Stern saw fit to suspend Joe Crawford for the BS tossing of Tim Duncan this year. I figured he would just ignore the whole thing. Good for him.
Plus, how do you like how Crawford claims “I would kick him out again”. That comment is a perfect example to show what arrogant as*holes most of these officials are.
By David
May 2, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this
MMMMMM….duh. Their are more black players than white players. This study is worthless. Its like saying more whites go to the penalty box in the NHL than blacks.
By Dan
May 2, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this
honest_abe
The amount of players trying to draw charges just drives me nuts. Flopping is a part of Europeon Soccer, not NBA basketball. The charges that get called when the defender is clearly flopping are absurd. The officials should know by now that guys flop to draw calls. There are way too many charges given in the game today.
Officials should be seen and not heard.
By GT80
May 2, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this
Not all of the NBA refs are horrible but the majority have a tough time. There was a play in a Hawks game this year, I think it was Milwaukee, when a Bucks player received a pass near mid-court and proceded to take 5 steps before dribbling. Everyone on the court stopped expecting a travel call, even the Bucks players. When no call was made a Buck walked to the hoop and got a pass and easy bucket. Next the refs tried to make up for it with 5 travel calls in the next 10 minutes, most agains Zsazsa. What a joke. That’s my favorite, instead of just admitting they miss a call they try to make up for it with a bunch of other bad calls. It never evens out.
All that said, ref’ing an NBA game just might be the toughest officiating job there is.
By Jason
May 2, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
Sekou,
I’m a big fan of your blog and your work. You are one of the quickest writers around, a real joy to read, but this was a stupid post. The “far-fetched” academic study used regression analysis and a number of objective data to get at the bias. No where do you deal with the study itself. Did you read it? A serious post would have dealt with the specifics of what was done in the study. What was far-fetched about it? Do you have a problem with the data employed, with factors too heavily weighted or not weighted enough. It’s a complicated study, which is difficult for any layman to understand, so why not talk to some people who work in the field who could offer an objective critique? It’s silly to say that your personal experience is enough to dismiss out of hand a scientific study of over a decade worth of data. At least engage with the work itself if you are going to take it down. I don’t thing this is one of your finest moments. It seems lazy to me.
By Jason
May 2, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
David,
You guys are driving me nuts. The study took into account the different population levels of players along with a number of other factors. Regression analysis isolates single factor impacts by weighting for other biases. At least read the damn thing. Jeez.
By Kent
May 2, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
Do you ever think that more fouls are called on blacks because there are 10 times more of them ?
By get real
May 2, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
I hope that one day i can open the paper without seeing garbage like this. seriously save your time, ink, and paper this is ridiculous. I heard that there is a study to prove that more white nascar drivers get pentalized more than blacks ones and more white country music singers win awards than black country music singers. Who really sat down and thought to research this jesse or al?
By Jason
May 2, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this
KENT GET REAL!!
YOU GUYS HAVE FALLEN AND BUSTED YOUR HEADS OR SOMETHING!! READ THE PAPER!! IT CONTROLS FOR THE POPULATION DIFFERENTIAL!!
Sekou: If you had seriously dealt with the paper’s contents you wouldn’t be getting these moron comments.
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/research.shtml#NBARace
By EW
May 2, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this
Good grief, now we’re looking under rocks for racism. This is a stupid as it gets, and it gets very stupid.
By honest_abe
May 2, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this
ha you put a headline with race on it and you have all kinds of knuckleheads coming in to share their two bits. they didnt’ even take time to read your blog. heh
By Sekou K. Smith
May 2, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
Jason,
Read the story, read the study and any study that consists of studying box scores only (not game tapes), is far-fetched, homey.
I don’t need some study to tell me what my eyes have been telling me for years. I understand if science is your thing and you feel more comfortable in data you can analyze as opposed to something you can watch and analyze for yourself.
And you keep scientific data that in one set of hands tells one story and then tells a totally different story in another. Coming up with a theory that says NBA refs suck doesn’t require weighted numbers or regression analysis. What you see is what you get.
And once again, you missed my point. I wasn’t cracking the study. I’m [making fun of] the officials.
BTW, starting a post telling someone how big a fan you are and then calling him or her lazy and stupid doesn’t require scientific analysis to know that your kinds words were disingenuous.
If you want to disagree with what I said, fine. I can agree to disagree with anyone.
By Wedgie Evans
May 2, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this
I think some of you are missing the point of the study. Obviously if you just take raw numbers, black players are going to get called for more fouls because there are more black players. The study is saying that the rate at which black players are called for fouls is greater than the rate at which white players are called for fouls.
Even if it’s true that referees call fouls on black players more than white players, that’s still not evidence of racial bias. On average, black players in the NBA are more physical and more likely to contest shots than white players. Think about it… of all the white players in the league, how many of them actually attempt to challenge shots in the paint? Biedrins, Ilgauskas sometimes, Varejao (I don’t know if he counts as white or not)… but there’s really not a whole lot of others. You’re not going to see Dirk Nowitzki or Brad Miller take a hard foul on the weak side as often as, say, Jermaine O’Neal or Erick Dampier. There simply aren’t many white big guys who play enough defense to commit a lot of fouls. There are of course exceptions, but generally speaking most of the players who are willing to commit hard fouls around the league are black. If you don’t try to block the shot or help on the weakside, you’re not going to have a chance to commit a foul. But I’d think that on the perimeter, the rate of fouls being called on guards would be pretty even regardless of race.
By Wedgie Evans
May 2, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this
About the officials sucking, the explanation for that is pretty simple. When basically nobody is allowed to hold you accountable, what’s the motivation to do well? David Stern and Stu Jackson are quick to slap fines on any player, coach, owner, ball boy, or whoever else even dares to point out a wart on Steve Javie’s neck, but any official can miss a series-altering call at any time and there’s nobody holding them responsible publicly. If the refs were exposed to even 1/10 the public scrutiny that everyone else in the NBA has to deal with, they would probably clean up their act.
By Harry Hawk
May 2, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
Here’s a serious analysis:
If more black players play more minutes than white players and are more active than their white counterparts on the court, they will be called for more fouls. How many defensively active white guards are there in the NBA? How many defensively active white forwards are there in the NBA? I can’t think of many, which would account for fewer fouls being called on them. To look at another aspect, how many white centers in the NBA rarely play and just foul when they get into the game? Wouldn’t that skew the numbers in such a way that would allow for an even wider gap in the number of fouls called? It seems to me that a study like this would have to weigh all kinds of factors to have any chance of producing a true analysis.
In other words, Sekou’s right. The refs just stink.
By honest_abe
May 2, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this
whoa nelly. although i’m disgusted with the performance of the officials. i think it’s more of a league problem than an individual referee problem. basketball is a very fast paced game, epecially at the highest level. seeing big bodies move at a very fast pace and sometimes the calls will be missed. i think the refs do the best job they can do.
i think the problem lies with the commish trying to push his product. what i mean is, the good teams need to win and the best players need to produce. this is the only bias that i see from the refs that i think they can change. they also need to stop making the game softer than they already have. a gentle tug is a foul, and a push is a flagrant and a laugh is an EJECTION!
By Anakin Joe
May 2, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this
Well, I would consider it “far-fetched” because I think it was a gross waste of time. Who cares if there is a racial bias in foul calls? If the study was to analyze the quality of overall officating, its just plain bad, regardless of race. If it was to look at the impact of race in the NBA, then, who cares? Was there ever a thought that the NBA was a utopian organization void of racism? It sounds like a few smart guys who are basketball fanatics picked some ridiculous theory to bring together their intellect and love of the game. Maybe we can ask them to analyze the impact of the Atlanta Spirit court proceedings on the day-to-day operations of the Atlanta Hawks. I’m sure that conclusion will also be supremely beneficial to the society at large. This is akin to a Pulitzer-worthy writer spending their time inking articles about a useless franchise. Oops, my bad, Sekou.
By Bushwacker
May 2, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this
Does the possible fact that the players who get fouls called on them do so because they are committing fouls mean anything to anyone?
It’s just like the thing about more blacks get convicetd of crimes than whites, does it matter if the person convicted actually committed a crime and derserves it.
By Harry Hawk
May 2, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
We need one of the many “Michael Gearon Jrs” from the Bradley column to come over here and chime in. That stuff was hilarious.
By former falcon fan
May 2, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this
i guess the nfl and the police are racist too because 39 of 41 players arrested in the nfl were black. im just glad that i live in a town where our football players fight and kill dogs. maybe to show we are dog friendly city can have pit bull night at the falcons game with ludacris and fifty cent performing at half time.
By Jason
May 2, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
Sekou,
Didn’t mean to be disingenuous. I only prefaced my comments with praise because I normally find myself nodding along with you and didn’t want you to think that I had a anti-Sekou ax to grind. I truly am a huge fan, but will definitely agree to disagree that the study constituted a piece of work to be engaged a bit more seriously than you chose too. It’s worth pointing out that your point doesn’t negate the study at all. Both propositions can be true. NBA refs can suck hard (which I agree they do) and their sucking can indicate a demonstrable bias. Since three independent academic study groups have confirmed the science and data and the NBA dismissed it without releasing ANY data to support its claim of no bias being evident, it appears to me that it is something worth taking seriously.
Again, it’s easy to throw up a blog post saying something is “far-fetched” and then excusing yourself from detailing what about it is so far-fetched. In your response you started getting at a reliance on box scores, which is, at least, a start.
Can you admit that your observation powers aren’t so sharply tuned to notice a 2.5-4% increase in race-based foul calling, which is what the study claims. I’m not sure how anyone could pick up that differential just from watching the games, but aggregated over an entire season and it has a real impact on wins and loses. “Stupid” and “lazy” are ill-considered blogging words of course, which I definitely regret. I’m just trying to get at the fact that the study has created some serious discussion and it would be nice to see that picked up by a talented writer who could do it justice such as yourself—-whether you wind up agreeing or disagreeing.
You’ll notice that most of the posts actually mis-represent the study entirely and everyone seems to think they dumbly added up fouls, there were more black players with fouls, and then published a work. At the very least you should make some effort to inform the mis-informed here about what it actually said…no?
By David
May 2, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
From Falcon Fan: i guess the nfl and the police are racist too because 39 of 41 players arrested in the nfl were black. im just glad that i live in a town where our football players fight and kill dogs. maybe to show we are dog friendly city can have pit bull night at the falcons game with ludacris and fifty cent performing at half time.
I really hope you aren’t talking about Vick? If that is the case do you get in trouble when your cousin gets in trouble?
By Anakin Joe
May 2, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this
Jason, sounds like you’re interested in this being the first blog in internet history that only contains informed opinions. Read before you comment? That would be akin to a GM working out a player before drafting him.
By SportsFan
May 2, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this
What a b/s study. Of course white officials call more fouls on black basketball players compared to white…the NBA is black.
By Jason
May 2, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this
Since I lost my mind earlier and acted like an a* let me thank WEDGIE EVANS!!
That’s a great point (and thanks for pointing out the rate issue, that says it better than I did). I think what you said undermines some of the study’s effectiveness. Can anyone think of physical white players who challenge the ball? I’m not sure what accounts for this, except for the generalized notion that white players are “soft”. It could be that culturally most white players are coming from Europe where the game isn’t as physical and it’s actually an American (mostly black players) European (mostly white players) distinction between game styles.
At any rate, this is the nerdy high-minded discussion I was longing for. I will slink back to my Ivy tower now and shut up.
By scooter11
May 2, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this
Jason: You said “the paper controls for the population differential”. Totally agree. I’ve been saying that about the AJC for years. And the officials sucking is only a subset of the nba sucking.
By Luther
May 2, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this
Basketball is absolutely the worst officiated game of the major three sports. That said, it has to be the most difficult of the three to call. The is something happening with all 10 players at every second. You have to watch feet, body positioning, arms+hands, and the ball amongst other things. And that could just be from the offensive player. The only thing I could compare it to would be the difficulty of whether or not to call holding every play. I can’t stand refs and think they do an especially horrible job in the NBA, but there has to be some reason for it.
By Jason
May 2, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this
Anakin Joe,
I’m completely chastened. My academic-stats-geek side got the best of me on this one. The 90% of the blog committed to uninformed-ranting please accept my apologies and return to your cognitively-challenged rage.
I’ll be quiet. I promise.
By doc
May 2, 2007 5:58 PM | Link to this
jason my scientific inquiry tells me there are too many uncontrolled variables to make this a meaningful study and certainly the numbers suggest only a slight bias. is it valid i.e. it also doesnt take into consideration maybe whites dont play a style that gets close to fouling settling for boxing out after a shot rather than contend it or just not wanting to scrap. maybe it says whites in the league dont want to do the durty work or play the euro style game.
it is a really moot point since the white guys are the guys that are on the bench most of the time anyway. what is the racial mix of the game now anyway? just dont think there are enough white guys on the floor at any one time to make this a difference.
sekou is right this is ony good for the fodder of poor offficiating and that i the best forum for this discussion not the bias bit, that goes way over the top. agree with honest and many that it looks like figure skating at times where certain teams and individuals are protected to satisfy the money.
look only to cuban’s own study to know where the problem is with the officials or the higher ups deciding games for ratings. however, now that his team is on top i bet he isnt declaring a foul for the warriors after last night just calling it a long overdue “make up call”.
By Jason
May 2, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this
Doc,
Looking at the numbers in the study I think there’s a significant sample size of white players with plenty of minutes to make valid comparisons. I also think the basic available data looks reliable. The thing up for grabs is the explanation for the bias. I think something like a large white player base from europe where there’s less emphasis on physical play in player development might be the thing that undermines the race bias argument. You’d need to control for American white players vs. european white players to see if there’s a difference.
What is true is that over the course of a season an all-white team of equal-talent level would win two more games based on foul calls alone. The equal-talent level is the catch obviously. So, since there’s a little underlying racism here all the time any way, who wants to nominate the starting five for the All-White Team!! No bi-racials. The whites have to be lilly-white!
By roan st
May 2, 2007 7:14 PM | Link to this
I didn’t know there were enough white guys in the league to even do a study.
People wonder why there is tension between races and then some a*******hole does a study like this with a million holes in it. Who would even take the time to do such stupid research. If you want to do a study on biased officiating do it on allstars versus non-allstars. Please don’t try and tell me that some third rate white player is getting better calls than D wade. Thats complete hogwash.
By roan st
May 2, 2007 7:36 PM | Link to this
This study has what I would call several confounding variables that could discredit the research. Did the study break the fouls down by positions. In other words you could be comparing a black centers figures versus a white shooting guard. Everyone knows that interior players protecting the paint are going to get more fouls called regardless of their race. Also the point that wedgie brought up about black players possibly being more physical. I guarantee a good researcher could find a bunch of holes in this study.
By Chris D'
May 2, 2007 10:39 PM | Link to this
The results are rather clear as they state on page 3…
“Applying a Beckerian taxonomy to our findings, this own race-race preference falls under the banner of taste-based discrimination. “
Come on guys it is all right there. You can start arguing with Beckerian taxonomy.
By Samuel
May 2, 2007 10:44 PM | Link to this
I agree that the study is stupid. I however, don’t agree that the officiating is necessarily all that bad. I say again, who here has ever tried it on any level. Until you do, please don’t criticize.
I watch the NFL and one play they call holding and the next the guy body slams the defense. No call.
Same thing with MLB. Remember the Maddox and Glavine days in Atlanta. Get the ball within a foot of the plate, ring em up.
I say again. The rec leagues need plenty of officials. Give it a whirl, then, holla back!!
By Jason
May 2, 2007 11:02 PM | Link to this
roan st.
From the Times…
“To investigate whether such bias has existed in sports, Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price examined data from publicly available box scores. They accounted for factors like the players’ positions, playing time and All-Star status; each group’s time on the court (black players played 83 percent of minutes, while 68 percent of officials were white); calls at home games and on the road; and other relevant data.”
I think they’ve accounted for a lot of the variables you mentioned. The cultural—-european vs. american style games seems to me the best explanation for the “bias”. Still, I’ve looked over the data and it’s not “stupid” at all. There’s a clear differential in the calls. I think this is recording a very real phenonmenon.
By Chris D'
May 2, 2007 11:22 PM | Link to this
I just read through this research as much as I could handle. And I can say, I don’t have a very good understanding of what they are talking about and how they are trying to prove their thesis. But I did find the excerpt I quoted below interesting.
Quote from page 7
” In each case we simply noted whether a player or referee appeared black, or not. (Hispanics, Asians and other groups are not well represented among either NBA players or referees and throughout the paper we refer to non-blacks somewhat imprecisely as “white”).
Tonight the Spurs are playing the Denver Nuggets. Based on the above stated criteria how you would you classify in the case of the Spurs three crucial players on their team Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili? In a census I don’t think any one of them would be classified as African American or Caucasian.
For the Nuggets Najera the Mexican player referred to as “white” for the Denver Nuggets picked up 3 fouls tonight. Nene fouled out, I guess he appears black.
By Jason
May 2, 2007 11:58 PM | Link to this
Here’s my All-White Team. I invite yours as well.
Okur David Lee Dirk Nowitzki Nash Ginobili
Of course, after I put it together with the explicit purpose of never getting called for fouls the refs would probably CALL EVERYTHING just to make me look stupid.
By mavid
May 3, 2007 12:02 AM | Link to this
I’ve actually reffed a lot in both Bball and soccer. I genuinely think I can do a better job than many of these so-called professionals. But, thats just me.
I mean, to me, it seemed like the refs REALLY didn’t want GS to win. Ejecting Jackson for clapping, and only T-ing Terry up for that BS on Baron. THATS ridiculous. Not to mention the other stuff Sekou wrote about.
Also, I think its safe to say that GS is an example of what BK wanted in theory. The problem is, ALL their guys can shoot the 3-ball well, and we only have Joe.
I will admit that their offense with 4 athletic guys 6’6 and above, all who can hit 3s regularly, is pretty deadly when its going.
By MannyT
May 3, 2007 12:24 AM | Link to this
This is great, amusing stuff for the quasi-geeky. Sports guys all over are helping these guys get the visibility he needs to move up the academic ladder faster. The dude is an economist who uses statistics. His cohort is a PhD candidate. If you look at the prof’s broader body of work, he’s in the next wave of Freakonomics professors (who also happened to blog on this as it is right in their academic sweet spot.) [http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/]
Don’t get worked up because black NBAers get fouls called on them faster by white refs. They do mention how it relates to real life on p.2 of the executive summary.
To tie this blog to that article in one sentence—the refs would suck a little less if the ref crews were more consistently diverse. I would say the same about the work force in general.
When he writes his book and comes to the ATL, I’ll make sure Blog-Z knows so he can post it for all y’all to get an autographed copy.
By the way, if you hit snooze before getting through the 40 page version, try the 4 page executive summary. If you don’t love mathematical statistics, skip that part. The words should be enough. [http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/NBARaceSummary.pdf]
Jason—get your geek on! The world needs more math analysis freaks!
By MALONE
May 3, 2007 2:12 AM | Link to this
Just a thought…
If we got the #1 and #11 picks, what about trading some combination of them for Dwight Howard?
If we got Oden and Conley, we’d just make the youngest team in the NBA younger and, it seems to me, that Howard (a local product with some NBA experience) would fit great with Joe J, Josh, and Marvin. Ok, Speedy too if he’s healthy.
Just something to ponder.
By Samuel
May 3, 2007 6:19 AM | Link to this
mavid,
If you have then you should know better. You should know that 100% of the time you suck to 50% of the fans and players. Nuff Said
Golden State gave that game away. I have never seen and official determine the outcome of an NBA game, period. They lived all night by the 3 ball and ultimately died by that same 3 ball. Period.
That being said, I got my red bulls ready for tonight. I BELIEVE
By Jason
May 3, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
I’ll embrace the freak I guess. To Sekou’s point about box scores. Because they were unable to determine foul calls by individual referees they looked at make-up of the crews. An all-white crew was more likely to have a race-bias in foul calling, a mixed crew of refs less so, and an all black crew (only happens in 3% of all games) is actually more likely to make calls against white players, although to such a small extent that it is essentially insignificant. This demonstrates a telling trend line. The cultural “style of play” argument can have a leveling effect, but you’d still have to account for why all black ref-crews didn’t call the same rate of fouls and showed slight bias against white players. I suppose you could say that the all white crews are responding to the style of play thing and not calling fouls against soft white players (this would be the “fair” baseline) and it’s actually black refs that are the bias ones calling more unnecessary fouls against white players who don’t deserve it!
At any rate, this pattern fits into a lot of economic literature on similar subjects. As was mentioned on the Freakonomics Blog “when police departments hire more White officers, arrests of minorities rise, but not arrests of Whites. The opposite is true when more minority officers are hired.”
That paper is here for people who are really nuts about this stuff.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittDonohueTheImpactOfRace2001.pdf
Since race bias shows up in so many other kinds of contexts it would actually be really surprising if the NBA didn’t show the same tendencies.
Shouldn’t we also be really suspicious that the NBA claims to have data that debunks the thesis, but is refusing to release it? Even to independent academics to confirm it?
By Jason
May 3, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
One more geek comment and I’ll get off the soap-box. Sekou and others who have been dismissive of the study have used the trope—-“hey statistics can be used to prove anything” or as Sekou said one set of numbers says something in one hand and says something else in another. It’s true that data has to modeled in a way to account for variables and, if you wanted to, you could use stats to create false and biased conclusions. What I think is wrong is to assume that ANY economic or statistical analysis is on its face wrong simply because data is being employed. The danger of that is that we refuse to learn anything using studies of these types, which can actually prove quite effective.
Obviously, you have to get into the tall weeds and work through the studies to get at what is valid and what isn’t, but my criticism of Sekou and a lot of the news coverage has been this tendency to say “this is stupid” or “far-fetched” or “numbers lie” without doing the work of saying what’s wrong with the study in question. When a lot of very smart peers start to confirm the conclusions, which is happening, I think you have to take it seriously enough to say why it is bunk. Otherwise you create an anti-intellectual, reactionary mood where any “academic study” is immediately suspect because economic models which don’t confirm our prejudices are being used.
And thanks to MannyT and all the smart posts that have disagreed with the conclusions in an interesting and whip-smart kind of way. I think that’s the worthwhile conversation to be having.
Also, worthwhile, creating our super-foul-proof all-white-mega team destined for Championship glory!! Come on people. Great White Hopes. The revenge of the Washington Generals!! Nominate your starting five!!
By Brian
May 3, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
Jason, you bring up the salient point that this study is comparing the rate at which black refs call fouls on black players to the rate at which white refs call fouls on black players. That more or less accounts for every other variable out there, doesn’t it? So black players may be more physical than white players. But then how come the white refs are calling a higher foul rate against the physical black players than white refs are? In addition, black refs are calling a higher rate of fouls against white players than white refs are. If there was some other confounding variable, would we likely see the racial bias cutting both ways like that? It appears to be a serious piece of research to me that is not easily debunked.
Having said that, I consider it very irresponsible for the study’s authors to seek PR like this before their paper has been peer reviewed. None of us are stats experts, and until it is reviewed by an anonymous group of stats experts, we don’t know what holes may or may not be in the paper.
I also consider the NBA’s counter-claim meaningless unless they release their study and have it peer-reviewed as well.
By Jason
May 3, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Brian,
I completely agree with you about the PR issue. I think it’s actually a breach of professional ethics to release something like this before it has gone through the full peer review process. In their defense, there’s normally a kind of pre-peer review process where the study will go out to a select group of experts in the field to clean it up before it goes out for the larger peer review. My guess is that after it was reviewed favorable by the three groups who looked at it, someone leaked it to the press and then they were forced to answer questions about it and it got out that way. Obviously, it will get a full-going over now.
What worries me is that when a smart economist notices a fatal flaw six months from now and the academic work gets discredited it probably won’t get much press at all beyond the people who work in the field. So, whatever initial public impression that this is “proven” will likely remain.
Though my surprise has been how dismissive the media has been though. They were laughing it off on the “hot seat” on SportsCenter while misrepresenting the work’s findings in a way that made it easy to dismiss. The Times is really the only place that is treating it seriously.
I think probably this idea of ingrained racial bias makes people uncomfortable and it’s maybe easier to blow it off than deal with the implications of it. You’d think sports writers would be losing their s**t demanding that the NBA release the data that they “claim” proves the lack of bias. Instead they seem to be getting a complete pass.
So, come on, Sekou a withering show-us-the-numbers-column taking Stern to the woodshed!! You’ll p** off the reactionary whites on the blog, be a hero to conspiracy-minded blacks, and liberal-white-guilt guys like me will stand up and cheer!!
By Jason
May 3, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
Oh and Brian excellent point about the ratio differences. Unfortunately, we don’t have data on black ref on black/white players and white ref on black/white players. Because it was based on crew make up it’s studied in terms of all white officiating crews, mixed race officiating crews, and all black crews. What it shows is that the whiter the refing crews the more fouls called on blacks and the fewer calls on whites. In mixed crews that fouls on blacks drop and the fouls on whites increase and in the all black crews white players have the highest rate of fouls called against them and blacks the fewest. It’s like a perfect inverse proportion scale, which is difficult to explain any other way than that there is a racial bias in the calling.
It’s fodder for race war here, but the worst bias deferential is in the all-white crews. The all black crews show a slight bias against white players, but it’s on the border of being statistically insignificant. As I said before you COULD argue that there is an inherent cultural (probably american/europe) difference in style of play and that the all-white crew is calling the game fairly. More fouls against black players and a few against white and that the unfair, biased calling is happening in the mixed race and all-black crews who are giving blacks a pass and penalizing soft, non-fouling white players based on race.
Somewhere Bill Laimbeer is organizing a march to protest the terrible injustices done to him!!
By Jason
May 3, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this
Probably doesn’t need to be spelled out quite so obviously, but if you buy the notion that in an average game in which fouls are called fairly (at least racially speaking) blacks will be getting more foul calls and whites fewer you will still have to account for a bias overall because the fouls called based on the crews’ racial make-up is so off.
Holding this position DEMANDS that you argue that black refs or people serving in mixed-race crews are inherently MORE racially biased than an all-white crew.
Does anyone actually believe that?
By honest_abe
May 3, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this
charlie rosen’s (who i never agree with, except this time) take on jordan farmar. he has only strengthened what i’ve said all along about the guy. thought you guys might like to read. ya i know who gives a rat A** about jordan farmar………
Jordan Farmar The rookie made good initial contact in defense of Steve Nash, but was always left in the dust whenever Nash changed direction. Also, Farmar was nailed by every screen set in his vicinity. Still, the kid was tough, determined, and able to deliver the right passes to the right players in the right spots. His third quarter lob to Odom on a fast break was surprisingly adroit.
Farmar wasn’t afraid to drive the ball into the lane, nor to post up Nash. He’s an okay finisher and his jumper is adequate. His primary deficiency is his inferior athleticism.
At best, Farmar could develop into a pint-sized Luke Walton.
Even so, he’s not the difference-maker the Lakers need at the point-guard position.
Verdict: A keeper as a second or third string point guard.
By AC
May 3, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
I would like to see one of the many pundents that have given applause to Sekou strap up their boots and put on the referees shirt and do a better job. It is real easy to sit on the sofa or sit in the stands and get every call right. It is even easier to get them right in replay. Get out there and run up and down for 48 minutes, 82 plus games and then come back with your comments. The game is much harder to break down up close, personal and at full speed.
By Samuel
May 3, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this
Thank You AC,
As I said earlier. The rec leagues need plenty. There’s nothing more comical than to see a person strap on that whistle for the first time. I don’t care if they are a HOF player or coach. It’s a whole nother ball game.
By Billy Knight still stinks
May 3, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this
Reagrdless of the refs, the Hawks still need a new GM.
By Anakin Joe
May 3, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this
AC, so let me get this right, we can criticize GMs, Head Coaches, players and even cheerleaders, but referees are off limits? Hey, I don’t know how to develop a Middle East policy, but that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize a bad plan. I don’t know how to build a car, but I know a hoopty when I drive it. I can’t throw a pitch for a major league team, but I know there is a BIG difference between Redman and Glavine. I may drop dead after my second trip up and down that floor, but I know when referees are making or missing bad calls.
By honest_abe
May 3, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
you’re killing me with all these analogies…heh
By Samuel
May 3, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this
Whoever said that a ref has to get every call right. Do the players make every shot? Tell me any profession that gets it right all the time. Point being, sure you can see the mistakes but you’re not qualified to truely evaluate if you’ve never done it or knows what it takes to get it done.
These guys supposedly the best at their professions, are they not?
The NBA is different from all other basketball and the officials call it differently. So, unless we are infact saying that their calls are biased(racially or otherwise),then we need to shut up and watch the best team win. Always.
By Ryder
May 3, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
The refs aren’t racists, they’re just incompentent. They’ll either attempt to be the show by showing up a player, by giving certain stars preferential treatment, or by making every call against the road team because they are swayed by the emotion of the home crowd.
Enough of them, ponder this thought if you will Sekou…in case the Hawks were unable to secure a top 3 pick but still get the 11th, what are the thoughts of perhaps making a trade to get Kwame Brown from LA? His contract expires afer next year and at 9 million it will do wonders for the Hawks salary cap. Also they can actually get someone who can at the very least play the 4, and he won’t be under pressure to succeed since Atlanta is not as high pressured as DC or LA. I doubt BK’s going after any point guards, determined to prove that Speedy wasn’t a mistake. Might as well get something out of this offseason by picking up someone who can play one of the big spots. Trade the 11th pick, Salim and Shelden to make it work.
If it doesn’t work, then he, Woodson and BK will all be gone. It’s a win-win for everyone.
By honest_abe
May 3, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this
kwame? no no no! i’d much rather have our 5 ft center in the “slumlord” than sorry a** kwame. he has no passion, he hasn’t gotten any better since he got drafted #1 overall, he’s hurt way too much and he has horrific hands.
although i can’t put it past bk to make another boneheaded pick, it’s hard to justify not picking a pg in the yr’s draft. they signed speedy but if last year taught us anything it was he isn’t very reliable. the hawks get select a franchise pg with the 11th pick. there’s no way in hell they shoudl trade that along with one a great piece in salim and a serviceable one in sheldon for a underachieving, softie in kwame. hell no!
By Sekou K. Smith
May 3, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this
No one said the refs had to get all the calls right. Some of us would just like to see them held up to public scrutiny like everyone else on the planet is these days. That’s all.
By Anakin Joe
May 3, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
Ryder, trading the #11 pick, Shelden and Salim for Kwame Brown would be the second dumbest trade in Hawks history. Please tell me what you see in Kwame that virtually no one else has seen in his 6-7 years in this league. He is a younger, bigger and more expensive version of Lorenzen Wright. Why would we want to give up 3 rotational players for one ineffective big man who makes almost $10M/year? I’d rather sign Darko to a comparable offer sheet, at least he will block a shot.
By MannyT
May 3, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
I would agree that being a ref in basketball or hockey are probably harder than any other major sport because of the flow of the action. The stopping points are far less predictable than in baseball or football. Reffing ain’t easy…but it does pay well for someone who has to be very fit but not a gifted athlete.
However, I really want to know how many of us are ready to have our work video taped every day and reviewed nationwide? I’ll pass on that one unless I get a ref’s check for doing it.
I don’t think the PR shot was accurate. The academics shared their preliminary info with the NBA last year to allow them time to do their own study. The paper posted on the professor’s website says it is a draft. I think the buzz came from the media picking it up during the playoffs.
Maybe a diverse ref crew is a better ref crew. No need to get too worked up because there is bias in the world. There always will be at some level. That is why we have preferences.
It is just very amusing for me to hear media types ask a bunch of talented sports people who have probably never considered taking statistics evaluate an academic thesis based on regression analysis. This is like me telling my doctor about the best techniques to do surgery on me, because I am the patient.
I prefer that the Hawks get better this offseason, so my game experience is better. I have a bias that oddly has me root for the Hawks more than other teams that are clearly better.
If we don’t get that top 3 pick, maybe BK will ask the profs to analyze the ping pong balls. I will bet you there will be some small variances in them. Maybe we can use that for a do over!
By Jason
May 3, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this
I’m with MannyT. Something about how you can’t create exact spherical objects that maintain precise dimensions and that has an impact on velocity of ping-pong travel.
We need a physicist and a lawyer ready to go the moment we get screwed.
By Samuel
May 3, 2007 5:36 PM | Link to this
I thought we were the public and doing a pretty good job of scruitinizing.
Bottom line is no matter who you get to call games, they are all gonna make bad calls. If there are better refs out there, they have a chance to work their way up to the NBA and get it right. Until then,they’re the best we’ve got.
Now, on tonight’s game. I hope that Golden State can biuld a comfortable lead. They are not too good at protecting a small one.
By Clyde
May 3, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this
D-day is just 19 days away.
FIRE BILLY AND WOODY
By Brian
May 3, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this
Fair enough, MannyT. I don’t know how word of the paper got to the press. I assumed it was leaked by the authors, but that may be untrue.
I also agree with Jason’s earlier point that the refs stinking and the refs being subconsciously racist are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true.
Jason, I also agree with your point that people are made so uncomfortable by the idea that the arbiters of fairness (such as NBA referees) in our world could be racist, even subconsciously, that they immediately reject such a suggestion without even looking at the evidence. Is it really so unfathomable that white refs might make one extra foul call per game on black players than black refs would do? Would ANY of you pick up on one extra foul a game? Nobody could notice that with their bare eyes, but if you think about how many games are decided by one possession, one extra foul a game can make a big difference over an 82 game schdule. That’s why this study is useful.
So Sekou, I don’t want to detract from your original point. I agree that NBA refs miss a lot of calls. But I think the more elegant (and correct) way of making your point would be to say that while NBA referees may very well have a slight racial bias, the more significant issue we need to tackle is that the referees stink. Jason’s original point about you calling the study “far-fetched” was right on. There’s nothing far-fetched about a slight sub-conscious racial bias in NBA referees, the paper seems to be well-grounded, and you undermine the credibility of your argument when you start by dismissing an academic paper with no real reasons for dismissing it.
By dog
May 3, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this
We just had a study about MLB not having enough black players. Now there is officiating bias in the NBA. How about a study of why there are not moe white basketball players. I think people create way more racism than exists.
By PHilip
May 3, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this
In the grand scheme of life. Prosecutors get it wrong all the time and some guy does 20 years. When they finally agree that the wrong person was convictd, rarely do you hear the prosecutor say I made a mistake and I am sorry for ruining this persons life. As far the refs go, lower you expectations and they won’t seen so incompetent
By Awesome
May 3, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this
This is great on the Hawks post we have “racial bias”
On the Falcons post we have bigotry and hate.
Who needs the games - seems that the race war is the big event we’re all holding out for. All we need is a vegas line.
By Wedgie Evans
May 4, 2007 1:10 AM | Link to this
Three words: Worst. MVP. Ever.
By Edo River
May 4, 2007 6:13 AM | Link to this
Mr. Smith, You are right. as usual. However in order to correct the big picture, the effective way to improve the big picture is to divide the picture into smaller sections. One section, not the largest segment, but one that is statistically valid and the focus of the study and its analysis, is, race as a factor in referee judgements over time, a long period of time, that is statistically important.
By doc
May 4, 2007 7:09 AM | Link to this
where has al harrington gone in these playoffs? his numbers have dwindled to nothing.
huge upset by the warriors is my understatement. can they continue it in the next round will be fun to consider?
just think what dirk would be doing if he didnt get the preferential treatment from the refs?
i am sure this article now explains the complete dominance of nash in his prime. gee, i used to think it was his ability; jason now confirms through the research of others i might have pause to reconsider my obvious unscientific explanation for his prowess on the court. my bad!
to continue the topic at hand, someone did a similar study for determing whether someone is guilty in a side by side of two faces, one black the other white. you had only a second to push a button on who was guilty. the black face lost a higher percentage of the time. the kicker was it was true for both whites and blacks as the judges. our prejuduces are ingrained at a very unconcious level based on experience thereby belief. one has to really become very concious and really inspect every action to really discern if his actions are based on belief or actual circumstances. this is the supreme expression of conciousness. for the most part, only those that become enlightened or begin to meditate can probably begin to get it. “religion” as it is practiced may not allow it as it is based on a belief structure that has too many rules some based in fear which ultimately and probably gets in the way of true discernment.
By Toby Cash
May 4, 2007 7:37 AM | Link to this
I knew it was just a matter of time before race came up. If over 90% of the players are Black, then I guess most of the calls will be against Black players. Race bias, don’t think so. Just another excuse.
By Samuel
May 4, 2007 7:50 AM | Link to this
How in the world did GS win last night with a crew of all white referees.
I was so confident that I went to bed at half time. My boy Monta played better last night. He held it down while BDiddy was out during the first half. I can really see this GS vs PHX Western Finals shaping up. I think GS beats either Houston or Utah and the Suns will likewise be too fast for an aging Spurs team.
I’m just glad that the Euro Poster Boy Dirk choked again.
By JD
May 4, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this
I do not see racial bias, just ineptitude as SS writes.
The officials of today seem to seek a position in the spot light. They allow their personal differences with coaches or players to affect their calls and their body language and facial expressions often incite the players.
The worst offenders are Bob Delaney, Joe Crawford and Ed Rush. Each of these has an ego that far over shadows their ability as officials. Ron Olesiak is almost as bad.
The NBA seems to measure the officials “technical ability” but ignores their management of the emotional aspect of the game. This to me is more important than 100% accuracy on the calls for even if the call is correct half the people involved in the game are likely to disagree.
Being a confidant, assertive official does not mean the official must be arrogant. The arrogance of an offical is more irritating to the coaches and players than an occasional missed call.
By JD
May 4, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
Samuel,
Racism goes both ways.
By Statistics Rule
May 4, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
Paraphrase from Mushnick:
…Fouls to stop the clock, fouls because the team on defense still has one to give, fouls in the hope that the offensive team will miss a free throw or two as opposed to scoring a field goal, fouls to prevent 3-point shots and lay-ups ….
….Of course, the margin of error in such studies - typically two-to-five percent - is such that the conclusions reached may be erroneous, but who cares? It was on Page 1 of the New York Times. White NBA refs are minimally subtle racists while on the job. And black NBA refs are anti-white, but statistically less racist than white refs.
…. During the late 1960s, near the end of the first half or close to the ends of games, Knicks coach Red Holzman would send in a white guard, Mike Riordan, just to give a foul or two. It’s what Riordan did for a living. During the 1968-69 season, Riordan, in 397 minutes, committed 93 fouls.
….Of course, it’s possible that Smits three times led the NBA in fouling out only because he fouled a lot. But why think in such terms?
… And all those times when teams spent two centers per game fouling Shaquille O’Neal, playing “hack-a-Shaq?” Here I thought that was because O’Neal was a rotten foul shooter. Shows how wrong you can be.
That O’Neal has missed half of the more than 12,000 NBA free throws he has taken - that opponents preferred to allow him to score one point per possession rather than two - had nothing to do with it.
By boycott basketball
May 16, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
Amazing! There are only 91 white guys in the NBA and they go after the REFs? Is Rainbow/Push behind this too? Instead of complaining about the white referees-why not complain about too many blacks in the league. Maybe a quota should be instituted? I still don’t understand that with all the anti white presented by the players and their thuggery, white’s still buy tickets to this disgrace. Get a life people. Don’t buy the tickets-just read about it in the paper if you must. Better yet-support a sport that THANKS their fans and not HIT them.