Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Update 5/15 - (Confirmed?) Study of N.B.A. Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls « previous next »
Page: 1 2

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21113
Offline
#15 : May 09, 2007, 03:36:14 PM

They have, as far as it goes, a fairly rigorous method but they ignore differing factors in how the players play. The difference of 2.5% - 4.5% is significant but their study means 10 fouls in 82 games can sway their study.

There are fewer falls called on Steve Nash than Ron Artest. Racial bias or the fact that Nash is a sissy level defender? By their logic Nash was grossly underfouled because, "as defined by their established rates of assists, steals, turnovers and other statistics" would make him seem like the more aggressive player than Artest but we all know that simply isn't true. Anyone think Artest isn't 4.5% more aggressive than Nash?

They talk about the more heavily white center position but although 5 of the top 5 scorers are white only 4 of the top rebounders are white so that is a 20% drop in the activity most likely to generate a foul on the player getting the stat. Worse only 3 of the top 10 blockers are white so again, the activity that has a high incidence of fouls isn't borught out. Andrew Bogut might be an "active" player but he's not a player doing things, at least not as well as others, that lead to him having fouls called.

Maybe they break this out and account for it but this is a nasty proposition of a study becuase players with simialr stats and positions might be very different types of players.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
If you think Manziel is the best QB in this draft I can safely assume you are an idiot and will treat you as such.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28688
Online
#16 : May 09, 2007, 03:40:49 PM

They say that they account for different types of players. I guess we'll know when it's accepted or
rejected by peer review.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21113
Offline
#17 : May 09, 2007, 03:47:22 PM

They say that they account for different types of players. I guess we'll know when it's accepted or
rejected by peer review.

I'd question the method they used to define "similar" players. The definition in this article where they use an aggregation of their stats (points+boards+steals+blocks) isn't going to cut it. A player could have 30 aggression points by being a 27 pt 2 rebound, 1 steal guys. Another might be 30 aggression points of 10 pts, 10 boards, 5 blocks and 5 steals. The latter player is clearly more likely to foul someone than the former. Now, if they managed to filter that out and to a more granular level you'd have something.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
If you think Manziel is the best QB in this draft I can safely assume you are an idiot and will treat you as such.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28688
Online
#18 : May 15, 2007, 01:48:17 PM

What I really want to see is the Home team vs. Away team data...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2870260

Even NBA study might confirm racial bias in officiating
By Lester Munson
Special to ESPN.com

The Wharton School professor whose study started a controversy about possible racial bias in foul calls in the NBA has now seen the NBA's own data about its officiating, and is more convinced than ever that he's right.

"Their own study agrees with our conclusion: A referee is more likely to blow the whistle and call a foul against a player of another race," Justin Wolfers said after he reviewed the information in work done by an NBA contractor.

The league initially had refused to allow Wolfers to examine its study, but finally sent it to him last week after a series of blistering criticisms of Wolfers and his work.

Responding to Wolfers' conclusions that officials were guilty of "own-race bias" in enough foul calls to affect the outcomes of games, a league spokesman said that Wolfers was "wrong," that he was "disingenuous" and that his work was "sloppy and ludicrous." Commissioner David Stern and league president Joel Litvin attacked Wolfers in numerous broadcast appearances.

"After refusing my requests for weeks, the NBA was unexpectedly gracious enough to share its material with me," Wolfers said. "And I am now able to say that their critical statements are contradicted by the league consultant's own statistical output."

Why did the NBA suddenly give Wolfers its study?

Sam Cassell
AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian
It's academic, yes. But it just might be correct that a racial bias exists in NBA officiating.

"I believe they were tired of the criticism that they had not given it to us," he said. "And I don't think they really knew what their study said."

An independent analysis of the two conflicting studies requested by ESPN.com confirms Wolfers' findings that referees favor their own race when they blow their whistles. Thomas Miles, who has a Ph. D. in economics from the University of Chicago and is a graduate of Harvard Law School, dissected the massive study completed by Wolfers, and compared it with the smaller study by an NBA consultant.

"I believe [Wolfers] has the better points," said Miles, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "His study focused on the interactions of the race of the referee and the race of the player. The NBA was more concerned with the number of fouls called on black players and comparisons with the number of fouls called on white players."

Miles reviewed Wolfers' study of more than 600,000 foul calls made in regular-season games between 1991 and 2004, along with an additional study of the last three seasons, the NBA's analysis of 148,000 calls made in the last three seasons, and Wolfers' own look at the NBA study.

An NBA spokesman declined to respond to Miles' observations.

"It's done. It's over. We have nothing to add to what we have said already," the spokesman said.

Wolfers' study was made public in a front-page New York Times article in early May. The Times also submitted the data from both studies to independent experts, who found the Wolfers study to be more credible than the NBA's analysis. Miles' examination of the two studies supports Wolfers' contention that the NBA's numbers actually support rather than contradict his results.

"It is remarkable how [Wolfers] was able to use the NBA's own data set and show that it supported what he said at the beginning," Miles said. Wolfers used the NBA's own categories of minutes played in his response to the NBA's study, and showed that there is evidence of discrimination even with the NBA's own data.

The most significant gap in Wolfers' study is that he was unable to identify the race of the specific referee who made each call. The NBA refused to give him that information, so he used the racial makeup of each three-official crew and put it through rigorous and complex statistical tests.

"If he had the race of each ref for each call, his conclusions would have been even stronger," Miles told ESPN.com. "The evidence of own-race bias would have been more conclusive."

"Own-race bias" is a social science term for decisions made in favor of one's own race, unconscious decisions made without the malice of intentional bigotry.

The NBA study, performed by the Segal Company, used 148,000 foul calls over three seasons beginning in 2003 to answer 14 questions called "models," reworking the data in response to each question.

"Only four of their models addressed our question," Wolfers said. "The others determine things like whether black players earn more fouls than white players or whether black referees blow the whistle more often for fouls than white officials. They also compared the number of fouls playing at home or on the road. Our question is whether there is 'own-race bias' among NBA officials when they call fouls."

Wolfers said that three of the four NBA models that address the bias issue yield statistically significant estimates of own-race bias.

The fourth model, Wolfers said, does not produce any conclusions that meet the basic tests of statistical validity.

The NBA's statisticians also didn't consider important variables, according to Wolfers, such as the time in a game when fouls were called.

"A starter who accumulates fouls early in the game plays differently later in the game," he said. "We are able to account for this variable. The NBA did not."

After the NBA attacked his findings, Wolfers added the last three seasons of calls to his database and concluded that "all of our findings are statistically significant."

"It is always difficult to present these studies in the media, but the flaws in the NBA study cause its analysts to draw incorrect inferences from their data," he said.

Lester Munson is a Chicago journalist and lawyer who has been reporting on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry for 18 years.

doobiedoright

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3223
Offline
#19 : May 15, 2007, 02:49:26 PM

Is the thug league still around?Heck I thought it was dead!

Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Update 5/15 - (Confirmed?) Study of N.B.A. Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools