Stern must be pleased: Study of N.B.A. Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls

May 2, 2007

Study of N.B.A. Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls

By ALAN SCHWARZ

An academic study of the National Basketball Association, whose playoffs continue tonight, suggests that a racial bias found in other parts of American society has existed on the basketball court as well.

A forthcoming paper by a University of Pennsylvania professor and a Cornell University graduate student says that, during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players.

Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School, and Joseph Price, a Cornell graduate student in economics, found a corresponding bias in which black officials called fouls more frequently against white players, though that tendency was not as strong.

They went on to claim that the different rates at which fouls are called “is large enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew assigned to the game.”

N.B.A. Commissioner David Stern said in a telephone interview that the league saw a draft copy of the paper late last year, and was moved to conduct its own study this March using its own database of foul calls, which specifies which official called which foul.

“We think our cut at the data is more powerful, more robust, and demonstrates that there is no bias,” Mr. Stern said.

Three independent experts asked by The Times to examine the Wolfers-Price paper and materials released by the N.B.A. said they considered the Wolfers-Price argument far more sound. The N.B.A. denied a request for its underlying data, even with names of officials and players removed, because it feared that the league’s confidentiality agreement with referees could be violated if the identities were determined through box scores.

The paper by Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price has yet to undergo formal peer review before publication in an economic journal, but several prominent academic economists said it would contribute to the growing literature regarding subconscious racism in the workplace and elsewhere, such as in searches by the police.

The three experts who examined the Wolfers-Price paper and the N.B.A.’s materials were Ian Ayres of Yale Law School, the author of “Pervasive Prejudice?” and an expert in testing for how subtle racial bias, also known as implicit association, appears in interactions ranging from the setting of bail amounts to the tipping of taxi drivers; David Berri of California State University-Bakersfield, the author of “The Wages of Wins,” which analyzes sports issues using statistics; and Larry Katz of Harvard University, the senior editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

“I would be more surprised if it didn’t exist,” Mr. Ayres said of an implicit association bias in the N.B.A. “There’s a growing consensus that a large proportion of racialized decisions is not driven by any conscious race discrimination, but that it is often just driven by unconscious, or subconscious, attitudes. When you force people to make snap decisions, they often can’t keep themselves from subconsciously treating blacks different than whites, men different from women.”

Mr. Berri added: “It’s not about basketball — it’s about what happens in the world. This is just the nature of decision-making, and when you have an evaluation team that’s so different from those being evaluated. Given that your league is mostly African-American, maybe you should have more African-American referees — for the same reason that you don’t want mostly white police forces in primarily black neighborhoods.”

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.

But they said they continued to find the same phenomenon: that players who were similar in all ways except skin color drew foul calls at a rate difference of up to 4 ½ percent depending on the racial composition of an N.B.A. game’s three-person referee crew.

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and a vocal critic of his league’s officiating, said in a telephone interview after reading the paper: “We’re all human. We all have our own prejudice. That’s the point of doing statistical analysis. It bears it out in this application, as in a thousand others.”

Asked if he had ever suspected any racial bias among officials before reading the study, Mr. Cuban said, “No comment.”

Two veteran players who are African-American, Mike James of the Minnesota Timberwolves and Alan Henderson of the Philadelphia 76ers, each said that they did not think black or white officials had treated them differently.

“If that’s going on, then it’s something that needs to be dealt with,” Mr. James said. “But I’ve never seen it.”

Two African-American coaches, Doc Rivers of the Boston Celtics and Maurice Cheeks of the Philadelphia 76ers, declined to comment on the paper’s claims. Rod Thorn, the president of the New Jersey Nets and formerly the N.B.A.’s executive vice president for basketball operations, said: “I don’t believe it. I think officials get the vast majority of calls right. They don’t get them all right. The vast majority of our players are black.”

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price spend 41 pages accounting for such population disparities and more than a dozen other complicating factors.

For the 1991-92 through 2003-4 seasons, the authors analyzed every player’s box-score performance — minutes played, rebounds, shots made and missed, fouls, and the like — in the context of the racial composition of the three-person crew refereeing that game. (The N.B.A. did not release its record of calls by specific officials to either Mr. Wolfers, Mr. Price or The Times, claiming it is kept for referee training purposes only.)

Mr. Wolfers said that he and Mr. Price classified each N.B.A. player and referee as either black or not black by assessing photographs and speaking with an anonymous former referee, and then using that information to predict how an official would view the player. About a dozen players could reasonably be placed in either category, but Mr. Wolfers said the classification of those players did not materially change the study’s findings.

During the 13-season period studied, black players played 83 percent of the minutes on the floor. With 68 percent of officials being white, three-person crews were either entirely white (30 percent of the time), had two white officials (47 percent), had two black officials (20 percent) or were entirely black (3 percent).

Mr. Stern said that the race of referees had never been considered when assembling crews for games.

With their database of almost 600,000 foul calls, Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price used a common statistical technique called multivariable regression analysis, which can identify correlations between different variables. The economists accounted for a wide range of factors: that centers, who tend to draw more fouls, were disproportionately white; that veteran players and all-stars tended to draw foul calls at different rates than rookies and non-stars; whether the players were at home or on the road, as officials can be influenced by crowd noise; particular coaches on the sidelines; the players’ assertiveness on the court, as defined by their established rates of assists, steals, turnovers and other statistics; and more subtle factors like how some substitute players enter games specifically to commit fouls.

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price examined whether otherwise similar black and white players had fouls-per-minute rates that varied with the racial makeup of the refereeing crew.

“Across all of these specifications,” they write, “we find that black players receive around 0.12-0.20 more fouls per 48 minutes played (an increase of 2 ½-4 ½ percent) when the number of white referees officiating a game increases from zero to three.”

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price also report a statistically significant correlation with decreases in points, rebounds and assists, and a rise in turnovers, when players performed before primarily opposite-race officials.

“Player-performance appears to deteriorate at every margin when officiated by a larger fraction of opposite-race referees,” they write. The paper later notes no change in free-throw percentage. “We emphasize this result because this is the one on-court behavior that we expect to be unaffected by referee behavior.”

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price claim that these changes are enough to affect game outcomes. Their results suggested that for each additional black starter a team had, relative to its opponent, a team’s chance of winning would decline from a theoretical 50 percent to 49 percent and so on, a concept mirrored by the game evidence: the team with the greater share of playing time by black players during those 13 years won 48.6 percent of games — a difference of about two victories in an 82-game season.

“Basically, it suggests that if you spray-painted one of your starters white, you’d win a few more games,” Mr. Wolfers said.

The N.B.A.’s reciprocal study was conducted by the Segal Company, the actuarial consulting firm which designed the in-house data-collection system the league uses to identify patterns for referee-training purposes, to test for evidence of bias. The league’s study was less formal and detailed than an academic paper, included foul calls for only 2 ½ seasons (from November 2004 through January 2007), and did not consider differences among players by position, veteran status and the like. But it did have the clear advantage of specifying which of the three referees blew his whistle on each foul.

The N.B.A. study reported no significant differences in how often white and black referees collectively called fouls on white and black players. Mr. Stern said he was therefore convinced “that there’s no demonstration of any bias here — based upon more robust and more data that was available to us because we keep that data.”

( NBA "science" = Repug "science =" corporate "science" = you get the results you pay the whores to produce! :lol )

Added Joel Litvin, the league’s president for basketball operations, “I think the analysis that we did can stand on its own, so I don’t think our view of some of the things in Wolfers’s paper and some questions we have actually matter as much as the analysis we did.”

Mr. Litvin explained the N.B.A.’s refusal to release its underlying data for independent examination by saying: “Even our teams don’t know the data we collect as to a particular referee’s call tendencies on certain types of calls. There are good reasons for this. It’s proprietary. It’s personnel data at the end of the day.”

The percentage of the black officials in the N.B.A. has increased in the past several years, to 38 percent of 60 officials this season from 34 percent of 58 officials two years ago. Mr. Stern and Mr. Litvin said that the rise was coincidental because the league does not consider race in the hiring process.

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price are scheduled to present their paper at the annual meetings of the Society of Labor Economists on Friday and the American Law and Economics Association on Sunday. They will then submit it to the National Bureau of Economic Research and for formal peer review before consideration by an economic journal.

Both men cautioned that the racial discrimination they claim to have found should be interpreted in the context of bias found in other parts of American society.

“There’s bias on the basketball court,” Mr. Wolfers said, “but less than when you’re trying to hail a cab at midnight.”



Pat Borzi contributed reporting from Minneapolis and John Eligon from East Rutherford, N.J.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/sp...02refs.html?hp

Very, very interesting. Not surprising. But good data, and the data doesn't lie. You can interpret how you want, but the most logical conclusion would be that the way to avoid racism affecting foul calls is to hire more black refs, since the league is mostly black, but to make sure every game has 2 black refs and 1 white ref - so the white players don't wind up getting bum calls, either.

"White men can't jump" -Socrates

All calls are based upon this truth and they go from there.

well there are more black players and they are all thugs so it makes sense at the end

Guess Yao is screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorCal510

well there are more black players and they are all thugs so it makes sense at the end

---

excellent logic, idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by picnroll

Guess Yao is screwed.

---

:lol

ummm... 80% of the nba is black... not surprising more fouls are called on blacks. what a stupid survey... :rolleyes

There's more black players then white, and they are on the court more than the white guys.

I wonder if Cuban funded this "scientific" research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I wonder if Cuban funded this "scientific" research.

---

I doubt it, for in the land of White basketball players the German is king

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

There's more black players then white, and they are on the court more than the white guys.

---

That's what the multi-variable regression accounts for moron.

Regardless of trainwreck's obvious lack of intelligence in making his comment, I do see a potential "variable" for which no regression can be run, the variable that (of all people) NorCal pointed out: what if black players are in fact more "physical" or "foul prone" than white players?

Seriously, not in some Republican apologist kinda way.

If the African American basketball culture emphasizes more physical play than the Anglo American basketball culture, this study is shot to hell. That's not a variable you can "control" for, because it's "racist" to make that claim, but also impossible to quantify.

I'm not saying that's the way it is, but it's worth considering, and from what I can gather from this article and the reality of statistics, that possibility was not accounted for at all.

No stone left unturned indeed. Apparently, when all you've got is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

How about bias towards teams that send in a DVD of every 'unfair' call after every game and hire ex-refs to work for them after they hang up the whistle? Hmmm....

Oh, and BTW, this study surely doesn't take into account any personal biases which a particular referee might have against a particular player.

Take Joey Crawford and Tim Duncan, for instance.

Perhaps the animus is race-based, and I'm not sure what Crawford's statistics are for calling fouls against blacks. But Tim Duncan is about as white as any black player can be, yet there was still a clear bias he had against TD. Of course, all of those fouls were factored into the study, and all of them were made by a WHITE ref against a BLACK player, but any other underlying bias that could account for those figures was categorically ignored.

We all know refs play favorites. This study assumes race is the only possible reason for whatever "bias" the statistics reveal, when, in some cases, it has more to do with the personalities of the players and refs and NOT the color of their skin.

so a 3-man white ref team calls 0.20 more fouls per game on a black player than a 3-man black ref team? That's one foul per five games! Given all the variations in players, teams, schedules, referees, arenas, fans, etc... they can pinpoint that this tiny variation of one whistle in five games is exactly due to the skin colors of the refs and the player? I am very skeptical. This sounds like junk statistics which is purpose-built to reach a desired conclusion by an agenda-driven group.

To Ryu's point - it's considered almost a fact that white players are softer on average then black ones. When you think of white players you think of shooters or bigs who are finesse-type players. So I would like to see a study on the rates that players get fouls called in the favor. Maybe black players get fouled more than white ones in addition to getting more fouls called on them. That would back up Ryu's point that it's possible that black players in the NBA are, on average, more physical and aggressive on both ends of the court. Which is a good thing, by the way, but even though it's really a complement some will consider it to be racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YoMamaIsCallin

so a 3-man white ref team calls 0.20 more fouls per game on a black player than a 3-man black ref team? That's one foul per five games! Given all the variations in players, teams, schedules, referees, arenas, fans, etc... they can pinpoint that this tiny variation of one whistle in five games is exactly due to the skin colors of the refs and the player? I am very skeptical. This sounds like junk statistics which is purpose-built to reach a desired conclusion by an agenda-driven group.

---

That's a good point too. 2.5%-4.5% really isn't that much.

It could be true--but I'm gonna bet that these 'unbiased' professors went into the study expecting to find what their conclusions turned out to be.

There's no news and consequently no additional money if you find out that things are hunky-dory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildbill2u

It could be true--but I'm gonna bet that these 'unbiased' professors went into the study expecting to find what their conclusions turned out to be.

There's no news and consequently no additional money if you find out that things are hunky-dory.

---

Consider also that Penn and Cornell professors, just like most people in academia, are most likely politically liberal. Is it that surprising that they came to a "liberal" conclusion with regards to racial bias?

Even though this comment obviously belongs in the political forum, I'm going to make it anyway: boutons' interjection ( NBA "science" = Repug "science =" corporate "science" = you get the results you pay the whores to produce! ) reveals that he doesn't really view things with an open mind, but instead looks at the conclusion, and if it fits his predetermined agenda, supports it almost religiously, and demeans any dissent (like Stern's retort) as "Republican" and not worthy of consideration.

And you people wonder why American is such a mess right now...just look at the electorate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildbill2u

There's no news and consequently no additional money if you find out that things are hunky-dory.

---

That's a good reason to be skeptical every time there's a study that comes to a doom and gloom conclusion about anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryu

But Tim Duncan is about as white as any black player can be

---

Ryu:

You've had many interesting things to say on this topic; I was therefore surprised to see you say the above quote.

Is there, in your mind, a certain ethinc standard of behavior black people should adhere to? It reminds me of a black guy I went to school with who was called "oreo" because he didn't "act black enough". (The guy calling him "oreo" had a Hispanic father and an Anglo mother, FWIW)

That sort of thinking is ridiculous. People should be free to behave in whatever ways they will. To me, Tim Duncan is as black as Chris Wilcox, Grant Hill, Darius Miles, Jerome James, Gilbert Arenas, Chris Webber, Kobe Bryant, Richard Jefferson, Ben Wallace, and on and on and on. These men are black men, but their backgrounds and life experiences have imparted each with their own unique personality and worldview. To suggest any of them don't act black is insulting at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRJ

Ryu:

You've had many interesting things to say on this topic; I was therefore surprised to see you say the above quote.

Is there, in your mind, a certain ethinc standard of behavior black people should adhere to? It reminds me of a black guy I went to school with who was called "oreo" because he didn't "act black enough". (The guy calling him "oreo" had a Hispanic father and an Anglo mother, FWIW)

That sort of thinking is ridiculous. People should be free to behave in whatever ways they will. To me, Tim Duncan is as black as Chris Wilcox, Grant Hill, Darius Miles, Jerome James, Gilbert Arenas, Chris Webber, Kobe Bryant, Richard Jefferson, Ben Wallace, and on and on and on. These men are black men, but their backgrounds and life experiences have imparted each with their own unique personality and worldview. To suggest any of them don't act black is insulting at best.

---

I'll untroll myself for a minute here.

I agree that people should be free to behave in whatever ways they will. And while Tim Duncan may be as physiologically as black as Michael Finley and Jason Kidd, he's certainly not "black" like Allen Iverson is. I guess what I mean by that is that he doesn't fit in to the stereotypes of black urban culture. He is, for lack of a better description, an "Uncle Tom" (I mean that in the least derogatory way possible). He doesn't get busted carrying guns or drugs. He doesn't beat his wife. He doesn't make rap albums. He doesn't get into fights or feel the need to egotistically laud his own achievements.

True, those are all stereotypes, but it's surprising how many NBA players fill them out so well. IMO, when people with racial biases look at a physiologically black man, they associate him with some or all of those stereotypes. However, there are certain black men that, despite their skin tone, are NOT associated with those stereotypes. Tim Duncan is one, and I think David Robinson is a good example of another. White people with racial biases look at these black men and see someone who "seems" white...just like Uncle Tom.

Obviously everyone has their own unique personality due to the vicissitudes of life. But there are certain qualities which pertain among members of various cultures, and racially biased people are likely to see those cultural tendencies in a stereotypical way, applying them indiscriminately to all people of a particular race. I don't think it's insulting to say that Tim Duncan doesn't act like the "stereotypical" black man in the NBA, someone like Iverson, for instance (irony alert).

But then again, I'm not black, so I'm not prone to be offended by something like that. If I offended any blacks by saying that Tim Duncan is not very "black," I'm sorry, and I hope the explanation above clarifies that I think Tim Duncan isn't "ghetto" black, whatever that means.

As a Penn alumnus, I'm glad to see my donations aren't being wasted on pointless research.

Oh, wait....

Gimme a break. The league has enough trouble finding credible referees. Now it has to worry about racial bias? Here's a scoop: most of the NBA officials are TERRIBLE. That's the bias.

maybe the thugs should get the hint and face that no one likes them. they can go to hell

This explains why Dirk shoots so many free throws. :spin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Brickowski

This explains why Dirk shoots so many free throws. :spin

---

:toast :p: :p: :p: :p: :cry :cry

Great use of somebody's money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildbill2u

It could be true--but I'm gonna bet that these 'unbiased' professors went into the study expecting to find what their conclusions turned out to be.

There's no news and consequently no additional money if you find out that things are hunky-dory.

---

As a friend of mine likes to say.... "That's a fact, Jack..!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryu

That's what the multi-variable regression accounts for moron.

Regardless of trainwreck's obvious lack of intelligence in making his comment, I do see a potential "variable" for which no regression can be run, the variable that (of all people) NorCal pointed out: what if black players are in fact more "physical" or "foul prone" than white players?

Seriously, not in some Republican apologist kinda way.

If the African American basketball culture emphasizes more physical play than the Anglo American basketball culture, this study is shot to hell. That's not a variable you can "control" for, because it's "racist" to make that claim, but also impossible to quantify.

I'm not saying that's the way it is, but it's worth considering, and from what I can gather from this article and the reality of statistics, that possibility was not accounted for at all.

No stone left unturned indeed. Apparently, when all you've got is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

---

THe problem with this logic is that only the white referees are calling this, while the black referees aren't.
The analysis did not state that black players commit more fouls, or are called for more fouls, it states that black players are called for more fouls by white referees vs. black referees, and white players are called for more fouls by black referees vs. white referees, after taking into account home court, seniority, all-star status, and minutes.
Personally, I don't see it, but I would love to see how the NBA talks itself out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRJ

Ryu:

You've had many interesting things to say on this topic; I was therefore surprised to see you say the above quote.

Is there, in your mind, a certain ethinc standard of behavior black people should adhere to? It reminds me of a black guy I went to school with who was called "oreo" because he didn't "act black enough". (The guy calling him "oreo" had a Hispanic father and an Anglo mother, FWIW)

That sort of thinking is ridiculous. People should be free to behave in whatever ways they will. To me, Tim Duncan is as black as Chris Wilcox, Grant Hill, Darius Miles, Jerome James, Gilbert Arenas, Chris Webber, Kobe Bryant, Richard Jefferson, Ben Wallace, and on and on and on. These men are black men, but their backgrounds and life experiences have imparted each with their own unique personality and worldview. To suggest any of them don't act black is insulting at best.

---

One mistake people make is over-attributing group tendencies to individuals.

It's easy to identify people in skin color groups -- generally, you just look at their skin color and you instantly know what group they belong to (although there are exceptions). Then, a whole set of assumptions (call them "biases" if you wish) about that group gets applied to the individual, whether warranted or not. The individual has to prove to you that they do not have those tendencies before you will even start to consider that they may not be like the "group average".

Another mistake is seeing patterns that aren't there. The human mind is built to see patterns, even if they don't really exist. If you are playing the slots in Las Vegas, you will start thinking "this machine is hot" or "this machine is cold" based on what you perceive as patterns in the random spins. Similarly, you will see patterns of behavior and attribute them to racial characteristics.

The reality is that individual variation is much, much greater than racial variation -- if racial variation even exists (which is debatable). When I say "much, much greater" I mean like 1000 times greater, conservatively.

So, the intelligent thing to do when evaluating an individual is to, well, evaluate them as an individual and ignore the skin color issue. This is easier said than done -- we are genetically programmed to identify people by their "tribal association" so that we can instantly tell "friend from foe". You have to rise above your caveman tribalistic heritage to be color-blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

THe problem with this logic is that only the white referees are calling this, while the black referees aren't.
The analysis did not state that black players commit more fouls, or are called for more fouls, it states that black players are called for more fouls by white referees vs. black referees, and white players are called for more fouls by black referees vs. white referees, after taking into account home court, seniority, all-star status, and minutes.
Personally, I don't see it, but I would love to see how the NBA talks itself out of it.

---

Not that I've taken the time to read the report, but the actual variation seems quite small (like one foul call per five games, or less). It's hard for me to see how you can take box scores and statistically figure out that that tiny variation is exactly due to racism, vs. any other factor that doesn't show up in the box score.

It's like trying to measure player effectiveness based on statistics -- and we all know how controversial and unsettled that is.

It would be like someone saying they can demonstrate that player X scores one more basket per game than player Y exactly because they are one inch taller. There are so many other factores to consider that don't even show up in the box scores that that assertion would be laughed at. Yet we take this one seriously, because it's not about height, it's about race.

Fortunately, the dress code will eventually fix this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

THe problem with this logic is that only the white referees are calling this, while the black referees aren't.
The analysis did not state that black players commit more fouls, or are called for more fouls, it states that black players are called for more fouls by white referees vs. black referees, and white players are called for more fouls by black referees vs. white referees, after taking into account home court, seniority, all-star status, and minutes.
Personally, I don't see it, but I would love to see how the NBA talks itself out of it.

---

I guess the part I wasn't originally clear about is that the possible more-physical nature of black basketball culture applies both to black PLAYERS and black REFEREES. Following that logic through, what a white referee sees as excessive contact is less than what a black referee sees as excessive contact because they often come from distinct basketball cultures. Hence, blacks don't call fouls on black at the same rate that whites do.

That's an explanation for the statistics that's at least plausible and has nothing to do with racial bias whatsoever. Here is kinda my basic point: just because there is a correlation between the race of a person and some particular outcome does NOT mean that that outcome was the result of racial bias. If it were the case, then we'd have to abandon any notion of cultural, psychological, or physiological differences between the races. While there is a strong "altruistic" movement to eliminate such distinctions in the name of racial equality, I think true racial equality is being open to the possibility of inherent difference but not having it effect you judgment of the inherent worth of a person.

However, even if black basketball culture is more physical in a game whose physicality is decided by a committee of referees consisting of 2/3 people from white basketball culture, there are three possibilities which do incorporate racial bias. First, white referees call the game by applying their cultural standards (non-race-based), but black referees hate whites and apply a stricter, race-based standard to them. Second, white referees hate blacks and apply a stricter, race-based standard to them, which black referees recognize and feel bad about, so they try to not call fouls on blacks as much. Third, both white referees and black referees are racially biased, both perceive problems with the basketball culture of the other and opposite race's refereeing reaction to that culture, and both over-compensate trying to "make up" for the opposite race referees perceived racist foul-calling. So it's either blacks are racist, whites are racist, or both are racist.

I'm kind of a misanthrope, so I'd like to say that both black refs and white refs favor their own kind, but honestly, with very few exceptions, I think it would be very difficult for a racist white man to work in a black man's world while still harboring enough racial prejudice to overcome the most important component of his career: objectivity. It just doesn't seem to fit, but that's more of an intuitive thing than a logic thing.

I feel like people here want to make this into some kind of affirmative-action, "victicrat"/policy agenda" thing.

first off, a mis-understanding that I saw:

an all-white ref. crew would call .2 more fouls PER BLACK PLAYER. Thus, 7-8 black players on one side, all white players on the other, turns out to be 3 foul call difference. That could easily be the difference on games. Of course, most teams are mixed, but you get the idea that you have to add up the .2 per player.

NOw, the answers to the "problems" with this study:
1) Peer review! 3 different professors from different places all agreed this study was well done methodoligcally. If you have done research, or if you have checked peer review articles before, that means this was very well done.

2)Psychology research backs the prevalence of racial bias. I have seen other studies saying essentially the same thing: subtle, unconscious workings effect us all, and we don't even notice it. But it is there. Did you see the study that got the Supreme Court to overturn Seperate but equal? Black kids said the black dolls were "bad", and they wanted to be like the white dolls. Look it up, the preponderance of psychological studies backs this up. A young girl last year replicated this as a high school project, and guess what? The video shows the little black kids doing the same thing.


most important, though:
3) Black ref's biased against white players, white refs biased against black players answers the chief "conservative concern"; it is not a conspiracy against blacks, no there is no "victim" here. But the refs need to be alerted to their own subtle biases so they can be self-aware. It will only help them to better their play calling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by study

“There’s a growing consensus that a large proportion of racialized decisions is not driven by any conscious race discrimination, but that it is often just driven by unconscious, or subconscious, attitudes. When you force people to make snap decisions, they often can’t keep themselves from subconsciously treating blacks different than whites, men different from women.”

---

The problem I have with this "growing consensus" is that, while I find it completely plausible that people subconsciously discriminate, I think it's unfair to attribute a disparate racial impact solely to this "implicit association." Again, you cannot control for non-race-based bias in any study, let alone a statistical one, so even multiple-regression studies like this one (and the famous Baldus study that found that blacks receive the death penalty for capital offenses much more often than whites do) are inherently suspect. (For more on the Baldus study, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCleskey_v._Kemp, and this from the left: http://www.aclu.org/capital/unequal/...b20030226.html, and this from the right: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#C.Race)

I've taken the implicit association test multiple times with various races (the one where they show you pictures of blacks and whites interspersed with value statements like "happy" and "lazy" and "evil" and shit), and I always come out as favoring the non-white race. I think the test is bullshit because, when I look at myself and see a man struggling to be color blind, I recognize that I still tend to favor my own culture, just like all but the most self-loathing humans do. In the end, I think there is a tendency for some people to want to find racism where it has not been previously found before, not because of the headlines or acclaim, but because they are over-zealous about our societal goal to completely eliminate all forms of race-consciousness. These people are so focused on eliminating the vestiges of slavery that they quickly apply race-based discrimination to actions that could very well be racially benign or even racially neutral.

Hence, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

Can anyone give me a logical reason why in a league that is probably 90% black men in their 20s that the officials are 90% white and mostly 50 or older?

There is no logical reason. The makeup up of the officials should match the makeup of the league.....if you fired every white guy over 50 (Bernie Fryer, Bavetta, Joey Crawford, Bennett The Rat Salvatore, Bob Delaney, Jess Kersey, etc.) and replaced them with black refs in their 20s and 30s the quality of the officiating would likely improve immensely.

[QUOTE=conqueso]I've taken the implicit association test multiple times with various races (the one where they show you pictures of blacks and whites interspersed with value statements like "happy" and "lazy" and "evil" and shit), and I always come out as favoring the non-white race. I think the test is bullshit because, when I look at myself and see a man struggling to be color blind, I recognize that I still tend to favor my own culture, just like all but the most self-loathing humans do..[/QUOTE]

Dude, you just recognized yourself that most people subconsciously favor their own group...hence, if those in power tend to be a certain group, they are going to maintain the power/economic position of their own group, knowingly or not.

Then you go on and say the opposite. how do you conclude the opposite to your own, contrary, key point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LakerLanny

The makeup up of the officials should match the makeup of the league.....if you fired every white guy over 50 (Bernie Fryer, Bavetta, Joey Crawford, Bennett The Rat Salvatore, Bob Delaney, Jess Kersey, etc.) and replaced them with black refs in their 20s and 30s the quality of the officiating would likely improve immensely.

---

OK, I'll go ahead and ask. Why?

Younger people tend to be less ingrained in the past...the past was more racist...therefore...

logical falacy. Just because younger tends to be less x does not gurantee when hired the younger refs will in fact be less biased.

better than this would be giving a test to refs before they are hired to see how neutral they are in foul calling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YoMamaIsCallin

Not that I've taken the time to read the report, but the actual variation seems quite small (like one foul call per five games, or less). It's hard for me to see how you can take box scores and statistically figure out that that tiny variation is exactly due to racism, vs. any other factor that doesn't show up in the box score.

It's like trying to measure player effectiveness based on statistics -- and we all know how controversial and unsettled that is.

It would be like someone saying they can demonstrate that player X scores one more basket per game than player Y exactly because they are one inch taller. There are so many other factores to consider that don't even show up in the box scores that that assertion would be laughed at. Yet we take this one seriously, because it's not about height, it's about race.

---

But if there is a correlation shown that the height of a player does come into play on his scoring, you would expect the exact same person, if he was an inch taller, to score more. This would not work in the sense that people will always score more if taller, just that if all other variables remain the same, the taller player has an advantage.
This study is similar in that there was a multiple regression that was ran, and for all things people equal, a white referee will call more fouls on a black athlete, and vice versa.
That is to say, if say, Tracy McGrady was playing in Houston against the Spurs, he would expect to get 0.2 more fouls called on him if it was called by an all-white ref crew vs. an all-black ref crew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRJ

OK, I'll go ahead and ask. Why?

---

No inherent biases from too many years on the job, being younger helps them run the floor and be in better position (watching guys like Joey Crawford struggle up and down the floor is ridiculous) and most will have played basketball at some level in the modern era and likely not reward soft white player tactics like flopping constantly.

Right now, it is more of a thing where how good of an actor you are gets you the call....particularly if you are a white darling of the league like Nowitzki or Nash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

NOw, the answers to the "problems" with this study:
1) Peer review! 3 different professors from different places all agreed this study was well done methodoligcally. If you have done research, or if you have checked peer review articles before, that means this was very well done.

---

Yeah, I saw that. I'm not challenging the veracity of the original researchers or anything like that, but in a field that accepts multiple-regression studies as scientifically-sound and has a tendency to want to uncover subconscious racism in all aspects of life, it's no surprise that three "independent" professors, consulted by the Times, believed the study was done well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

2)Psychology research backs the prevalence of racial bias. I have seen other studies saying essentially the same thing: subtle, unconscious workings effect us all, and we don't even notice it. But it is there. Did you see the study that got the Supreme Court to overturn Seperate but equal? Black kids said the black dolls were "bad", and they wanted to be like the white dolls. Look it up, the preponderance of psychological studies backs this up. A young girl last year replicated this as a high school project, and guess what? The video shows the little black kids doing the same thing.

---

FWIW, Clark's own data showed that black kids picked the white doll and called it "better" far more often in the North than in the South. If the reason for disassociating with a doll symbolizing one's own race were based on segregation, don't you think the study would show that the segregated Southern blacks picked the white doll more often?

But more to your point, I agree that there is some subconscious racial bias in everyone. I don't agree that any racially disparate impact is explained by that subconscious racial bias however, and I don't really think that this bias can ever truly be eliminated, and I question whether or not it would even be a good idea to try to eliminate it. If it's not based in animus or hatred and instead is just a structural byproduct of the way the human mind works, what hope to we have of changing it, even if we are able to conclude that it is bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

most important, though:
3) Black ref's biased against white players, white refs biased against black players answers the chief "conservative concern"; it is not a conspiracy against blacks, no there is no "victim" here. But the refs need to be alerted to their own subtle biases so they can be self-aware. It will only help them to better their play calling.

---

I agree that refs should be alerted to their own subtle biases, but...

Given that humans have subconscious racial biases, and given data that reflects that interracial foul-calling is not exactly equal, we still have a large gap to bridge between showing that the first given is a cause of the effect mentioned in the second given. The multiple regression tries to account for other factors which may be causes, but I can probably come up with multiple factors they did NOT consider, some because they didn't want to, some because they can't be quantified, and some because they are just too ephemeral to be "scientific."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

Dude, you just recognized yourself that most people subconsciously favor their own group...hence, if those in power tend to be a certain group, they are going to maintain the power/economic position of their own group, knowingly or not.

Then you go on and say the opposite. how do you conclude the opposite to your own, contrary, key point?

---

Again, you have a problem associating that cause to that effect. I recognize there is a subconscious bias. That doesn't necessarily mean people act on it.

In other words, just because those in power tend to be a certain group, and just because the people in that group tend to be biased towards other members of that group, does NOT necessarily mean they are going to maintain the power/economic position of their own group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

This study is similar in that there was a multiple regression that was ran, and for all things people equal, a white referee will call more fouls on a black athlete, and vice versa.

---

I guess this is my biggest problem. People mistakenly think that because a multiple regression was run, "all things are equal." But that's just not true. It seems as if this study accounted for many important variables like All-Star status and length in the league, etc. But there are many DETERMINATIVE factors it probably did not and scientifically could not account for. The one example I gave was personal bias, i.e. when a ref loves/hates a player not because of their race but because of their personality. As colleagues and coworkers, it's pretty clear that some players and referees are closer than others. If I were trying to find a subconscious bias, I think it would exist THERE more prevalently than with race. But you can't account for Joey Crawford hating Tim Duncan in a study. And because Joey Crawford (like most refs) is white, and because Tim Duncan (like most NBA players) is black, the biased calls he made against Tim skew the data some. In other words, this study attributes to subconscious racism something that is presumptively (and probably) NOT subconscious racism. Therefore, this study is flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LakerLanny

No inherent biases from too many years on the job,

---

Well, yes and no. First of all, everyone has inherent biases, even those who haven't been reffing for thirty years. Second, consider that if an official has a problem with a particular player, it's not going to last if that bias becomes apparent (O'Donnell, Jake; Crawford, Joey).

Quote:

---

being younger helps them run the floor and be in better position

---

I won't argue that except to say that most basketball games are played in halfcourt sets, thus negating the need to run the floor much. In fastbreak situations, the trailing official from the previous play is usually in good enough position to observe the play.

Quote:

---

and most will have played basketball at some level in the modern era and likely not reward soft white player tactics like flopping constantly.

---

Yeah, only white players flop. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Right now, it is more of a thing where how good of an actor you are gets you the call....particularly if you are a white darling of the league like Nowitzki or Nash.

---

Nowitzki and Nash get calls because they are among the best players in the league. All of the other elite players get calls.

Like it has been said before in the thread, if the only tool you have is a hammer, you're a total tool.

Interesting conclusions the study draws up, and I'm sure it must have been well researched (Cornell), but how come I just don't buy it? Seems like another racial item to get people all roiled up again and keep them watching/reading the dailies.

I call bullshit.

Good point; there could be other causes that end up looking like racial bias. Lets look at personal bias.

First off, we could say that the "race" bias subsumes this; those that the ref "likes personally," if influenced by unconscious bias, will TEND to be those of the same race.

For instance, some character traits considered "personality" might be bundled together with cultural/racial tendencies...for instance, my fiancee commented on how the "asians" in her finance dept. work long and hard, and tend to be quiet. They manage more though getting the work done themselves than through relationship. They black guys in her office are a total of 2 guys (analysts), and one is loud and funny, and the other is a programmer who "acts like the white guys." These are stereotypes, but they play themselves out often enough to have currency with many people.

Second, I wonder how this could play out. Example; you are saying the white refs just happen to be friends more often with the white players, and more often personally dislike the black players. Of course, this tendency has nothing to do with their race; if it were not about race at all, then the fact that there are so many more black players would lead us to conclude they should in fact be friendly with a proportionally even number of them.

Unless my first point were correct, which I think is the case. "race" subsumes this "personal bias" claim; the same subconscious effects that we are calling here "racism" informs those that we "like"...

The whole study/article is basically junk. You can apply the same logic to any sport/activity and it will give you more or less the same bias. It only proves by statistical analysis that we, as humans, have a racial bias, even if minuscule.
The study is junk simply because there's nothing you can do to correct that inherent bias. Whoever was the brainiac in this thread that said they should hire more black refs, the sole act of hiring based on color *IS* racism, and illegal.

So, to sum it, the study proves we're human after all. Nothing we didn't know before.

Now, to the second point, arguing that the causality is questionable; my answer is, OF COURSE.

NO STUDY EVER PROVES causality. NONE. We are talking sociology here not biology or physics. How can we prove something that is going on in the mind like this?

The most we can do is show strong associations. Strong correlations. These are all we have to work with (in the social sciences, at least.) And these are more than enough to help us make policy decisions. Otherwise, I guess we should just throw out social science studies altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRJ

Well, yes and no. First of all, everyone has inherent biases, even those who haven't been reffing for thirty years. Second, consider that if an official has a problem with a particular player, it's not going to last if that bias becomes apparent (O'Donnell, Jake; Crawford, Joey).

I won't argue that except to say that most basketball games are played in halfcourt sets, thus negating the need to run the floor much. In fastbreak situations, the trailing official from the previous play is usually in good enough position to observe the play.

Yeah, only white players flop. :rolleyes

Nowitzki and Nash get calls because they are among the best players in the league. All of the other elite players get calls.

Like it has been said before in the thread, if the only tool you have is a hammer, you're a total tool.

---

If you really think Joey Crawford's act is just now becoming apparent, you are even more clueless than your weak posts would indicate.

Officials don't have to run the floor? OK Jack, I guess that only players have to do that! Do you even think about what your write first, that is just a stupid statement.....next you are going to tell me fat little white guys in their 50s and 60s are as good as keeping up with the best athletes in the world as black guys in their 20s and 30s would be? OK, good take. :rolleyes

White players are the ones who brought the flop into the league and continue to be the biggest benefactors and proponents of that strategy. Your own Manu Ginobili is one of the biggest floppers in the league, he literally falls to the ground on every single contact and gets rewarded for it.

That is pussy basketball and a prime reason why much of the sporting public has completely turned off to the American professional version of the sport. It is very flawed, in part due to the fact that white guys who cannot defend their position have become thespians to try and trick refs with poor position, bias and track records into making bad calls in their favor. And guess what? It's working!

As far as Nash and Nowitzki being among the best players in the league, I would agree. But that doesn't excuse all the flopping they do, to really be considered the best it would be nice to see them stay on their feet and do their best to defend like guys like George Gervin, Magic Johnson and Oscar Robertson did in the past. But I guess that is too much to expect when you can just fall to the floor and look over at a fellow pale face and get the whistle.

Your last insult about the hammer is too stupid to even comment on.

Stick to football Tex, it might be more your speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

Good point; there could be other causes that end up looking like racial bias. Lets look at personal bias.

First off, we could say that the "race" bias subsumes this; those that the ref "likes personally," if influenced by unconscious bias, will TEND to be those of the same race.

For instance, some character traits considered "personality" might be bundled together with cultural/racial tendencies...for instance, my fiancee commented on how the "asians" in her finance dept. work long and hard, and tend to be quiet. They manage more though getting the work done themselves than through relationship. They black guys in her office are a total of 2 guys (analysts), and one is loud and funny, and the other is a programmer who "acts like the white guys." These are stereotypes, but they play themselves out often enough to have currency with many people.

Second, I wonder how this could play out. Example; you are saying the white refs just happen to be friends more often with the white players, and more often personally dislike the black players. Of course, this tendency has nothing to do with their race; if it were not about race at all, then the fact that there are so many more black players would lead us to conclude they should in fact be friendly with a proportionally even number of them.

Unless my first point were correct, which I think is the case. "race" subsumes this "personal bias" claim; the same subconscious effects that we are calling here "racism" informs those that we "like"...

---

I agree with all of this. Hence my original comment (that I took some heat for) about Tim being "less black" than other NBAers.

If Joey Crawford's personal bias against TD was in fact motivated by a more deep-seeded racial bias, I don't understand why Tim, a black man who does NOT fulfill the racial stereotypes held by whites against blacks, would be the object of his ire. In other words, if Joey Crawford hates certain people because he's racially biased, why hate someone who doesn't fit in with his likely racial stereotypes?

I agree in some instances personal bias is caused by racial bias. But it's also self-evident that in many cases, a white guy hates a black guy because they hate their personality; they'd hate them the same even if they were the same race. I won't discount subconscious racial bias entirely, but it would be wrong to say that this racial bias is the impetus for ALL hatred of anyone who happens to be a different race than you. And that is what this study clearly assumes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conqueso

I guess this is my biggest problem. People mistakenly think that because a multiple regression was run, "all things are equal." But that's just not true. It seems as if this study accounted for many important variables like All-Star status and length in the league, etc. But there are many DETERMINATIVE factors it probably did not and scientifically could not account for. The one example I gave was personal bias, i.e. when a ref loves/hates a player not because of their race but because of their personality. As colleagues and coworkers, it's pretty clear that some players and referees are closer than others. If I were trying to find a subconscious bias, I think it would exist THERE more prevalently than with race. But you can't account for Joey Crawford hating Tim Duncan in a study. And because Joey Crawford (like most refs) is white, and because Tim Duncan (like most NBA players) is black, the biased calls he made against Tim skew the data some. In other words, this study attributes to subconscious racism something that is presumptively (and probably) NOT subconscious racism. Therefore, this study is flawed.

---

Perhaps all things being equal is the wrong phrase, and it should have been all accounted variables being equal. Your example does show bias, and when each of the 60 referees have personal bias towards 450 NBA players, you would expect the biases to even out, and racial argument cannot come in. For example, Dan Crawford will have biases against a white player as much as a black player, and same with Dick Bavetta, but if the referees showed a bias in favour of people of their own race, this by defintiion is racism. Is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LakerLanny

White players are the ones who brought the flop into the league and continue to be the biggest benefactors and proponents of that strategy. Your own Manu Ginobili is one of the biggest floppers in the league, he literally falls to the ground on every single contact and gets rewarded for it.

---

Woah there Nelly. "White players are the ones who brought the flop into the league?" The only possible way that statement is defensible is if you also admit "white players are the ones who brought the JUMP SHOT into the league" and "white players are the ones who brought the REBOUND into the league," because flopping has been around ever since there have been subjective fouls called, and that was at the very inception of the game, back when the only people who played it were white.

In other words, "blaming" white people for flopping is retarded.

Furthermore, while some of the best "floppers" have indeed been white (e.g. Manu Ginobili, Dirk Nowitzki, and Vlade Divac), there are plenty of excellent black "floppers" (e.g. Devin Harris and Dennis Rodman, the King of the Flop).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LakerLanny

But that doesn't excuse all the flopping they do, to really be considered the best it would be nice to see them stay on their feet and do their best to defend like guys like George Gervin, Magic Johnson and Oscar Robertson did in the past.

---

Wait, did you just call George Gervin someone who from the past "who did their best to defend?"

That's it, it's settled; you're a moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LakerLanny

If you really think Joey Crawford's act is just now becoming apparent, you are even more clueless than your weak posts would indicate.

Officials don't have to run the floor? OK Jack, I guess that only players have to do that! Do you even think about what your write first, that is just a stupid statement.....next you are going to tell me fat little white guys in their 50s and 60s are as good as keeping up with the best athletes in the world as black guys in their 20s and 30s would be? OK, good take. :rolleyes

White players are the ones who brought the flop into the league and continue to be the biggest benefactors and proponents of that strategy. Your own Manu Ginobili is one of the biggest floppers in the league, he literally falls to the ground on every single contact and gets rewarded for it.

That is pussy basketball and a prime reason why much of the sporting public has completely turned off to the American professional version of the sport. It is very flawed, in part due to the fact that white guys who cannot defend their position have become thespians to try and trick refs with poor position, bias and track records into making bad calls in their favor. And guess what? It's working!

As far as Nash and Nowitzki being among the best players in the league, I would agree. But that doesn't excuse all the flopping they do, to really be considered the best it would be nice to see them stay on their feet and do their best to defend like guys like George Gervin, Magic Johnson and Oscar Robertson did in the past. But I guess that is too much to expect when you can just fall to the floor and look over at a fellow pale face and get the whistle.

Your last insult about the hammer is too stupid to even comment on.

Stick to football Tex, it might be more your speed.

---

Way to dance around everything I said in a futile effort to look better. (BTW LakerFan, "futile" means...ah, forget it)

What are you doing in a thread that requires insight, intelligence, and critical thinking anyway? There's nothing in this thread about flashiing lights and bright colors. Off you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

Now, to the second point, arguing that the causality is questionable; my answer is, OF COURSE.

NO STUDY EVER PROVES causality. NONE. We are talking sociology here not biology or physics. How can we prove something that is going on in the mind like this?

The most we can do is show strong associations. Strong correlations. These are all we have to work with (in the social sciences, at least.) And these are more than enough to help us make policy decisions. Otherwise, I guess we should just throw out social science studies altogether.

---

Yes, but this study actually PURPORTS to prove causality. That is how they reach their conclusion of racial bias. They say racial bias CAUSES disparate foul calls.

It's true, NOTHING in this world is certain beyond any shadow of a doubt, even the "laws" of physics which have changed innumerable over human history.

But your response to my argument evades the issue. I'm not invoking the "uncertainty" argument as one of extremes, but of degrees. Yes, nothing is totally certain, but even studies in social science can be REASONABLY certain, or PARTIALLY certain. But this study is not absolutely, it's not reasonably certain, and it's not partially certain, based on the aforementioned criticisms. But it is at least TRYING TO BE partially certain. Therefore, it's conclusions must be discounted, since the methods it uses to reach it's partially certain conclusion are flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conqueso

Woah there Nelly. "White players are the ones who brought the flop into the league?" The only possible way that statement is defensible is if you also admit "white players are the ones who brought the JUMP SHOT into the league" and "white players are the ones who brought the REBOUND into the league," because flopping has been around ever since there have been subjective fouls called, and that was at the very inception of the game, back when the only people who played it were white.

In other words, "blaming" white people for flopping is retarded.

Furthermore, while some of the best "floppers" have indeed been white (e.g. Manu Ginobili, Dirk Nowitzki, and Vlade Divac), there are plenty of excellent black "floppers" (e.g. Devin Harris and Dennis Rodman, the King of the Flop).



Wait, did you just call George Gervin someone who from the past "who did their best to defend?"

That's it, it's settled; you're a moron.

---

Your missing my point, but again arguing with people who can't compete on the coasts is a losing battle usually anyway.

The flop really came about in a big way from the college game. The Bobby Hurley Duke teams were the first ones who really took it to this new level, as in I have no chance in hell of guarding Anderson Hunt or Greg Anthony or Jalen Rose if I play real defense, so instead I will just fall to the floor every time they touch me and look over to the ref for a whistle.

Seeing that, Sloan, Malone and most importantly John Stockton then made it a staple in the NBA in the mid 90's. Now it has morphed to the point that even studs like Amare Stoudemire look to dive to the ground, why try and block a shot when you can just fall down right?

My point about Gervin, Magic and Robertson wasn't that they were good defenders. Other than Oscar, they weren't. But I don't remember guys like Gervin, Magic, Walt Frazier, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Rick Barry falling to the floor like little girls every time they are touched on the basketball floor.

Did they get beat on defense? Sure they did at times. But at least they played the game with a certain level of respect for it and sportsmanship by not resorting to cowardly tactics like falling down every single time you are touched because you aren't quick enough/good enough/tough enough to guard your assigment legitimately.

Go back to spewing regression analysis about a study that hasn't even been released yet Einstein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

Perhaps all things being equal is the wrong phrase, and it should have been all accounted variables being equal. Your example does show bias, and when each of the 60 referees have personal bias towards 450 NBA players, you would expect the biases to even out, and racial argument cannot come in. For example, Dan Crawford will have biases against a white player as much as a black player, and same with Dick Bavetta, but if the referees showed a bias in favour of people of their own race, this by defintiion is racism. Is it not?

---

Again, I don't think it's an all-or-nothing thing. I am readily willing to admit that some referees in the NBA, white and black, have subconscious racial biases. What I am challenging, however, is the principle that the figures they arrive at are ALL caused by this subconscious racial bias.

Consider this point: since the majority of referees in the L are white, and the vast majority of the players in the L are black, any instance of personal bias against a player by a referee is far more likely to be white-against-black. Assuming that in most of these cases, the personal bias is not just an outgrowth of racial bias, we have a significant portion of data which is NOT attributable to racial bias but shows up IN THIS STUDY as racial bias.

Now, we can argue all day about what role, big or small, personal bias plays in referees' foul-calling. I personally believe it plays a HUGE roll, but I'm in the minority there. The recent incident between TD and Crawford at least reveals that it certainly does exist on some level, though. And since this study couldn't and didn't try to account for it, explaining the disparate foul statistics by means of racial bias is irresponsible and scientifically invalid, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LakerLanny

Seeing that, Sloan, Malone and most importantly John Stockton then made it a staple in the NBA in the mid 90's. Now it has morphed to the point that even studs like Amare Stoudemire look to dive to the ground, why try and block a shot when you can just fall down right?

---

Nice job back-pedaling. Remember when you made the following comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LakerLanny

That is pussy basketball and a prime reason why much of the sporting public has completely turned off to the American professional version of the sport. It is very flawed, in part due to the fact that white guys who cannot defend their position have become thespians to try and trick refs with poor position, bias and track records into making bad calls in their favor. And guess what? It's working!

---

You enter a discussion about racial bias in refereeing by stating that "white guys who cannot defend" trick refs who are biased in their favor into making calls they shouldn't make. But then you say that black players (like Amare Stoudemire) do it too.

So which is it? Sucky white defenders flopping to take advantage of refereeing biases, or sucky white AND black defenders flopping to take advantage of idiotic (but not racially biased) refereeing?

Or is the far more likely conclusion that EVERY SINGLE REF in the NBA is biased against the Lakers, and that's why they haven't won all of the titles in the last 10 years?

I didn't know Devin Harris and Reggie Miller were white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conqueso

Again, I don't think it's an all-or-nothing thing. I am readily willing to admit that some referees in the NBA, white and black, have subconscious racial biases. What I am challenging, however, is the principle that the figures they arrive at are ALL caused by this subconscious racial bias.

Consider this point: since the majority of referees in the L are white, and the vast majority of the players in the L are black, any instance of personal bias against a player by a referee is far more likely to be white-against-black. Assuming that in most of these cases, the personal bias is not just an outgrowth of racial bias, we have a significant portion of data which is NOT attributable to racial bias but shows up IN THIS STUDY as racial bias.

Now, we can argue all day about what role, big or small, personal bias plays in referees' foul-calling. I personally believe it plays a HUGE roll, but I'm in the minority there. The recent incident between TD and Crawford at least reveals that it certainly does exist on some level, though. And since this study couldn't and didn't try to account for it, explaining the disparate foul statistics by means of racial bias is irresponsible and scientifically invalid, IMO.

---

I am not saying that this study conclusively say that refs are racist, what I am saying that race does show as a statistically significant factor in the study. The cause is not known, but this study DOES take into effect the racial makeup for the refs and the players. It does not look at sheer numbers and say "A white ref calls more fouls on a black player." What it does say is that past data shows that A black player is more likely to be called on a foul by a white referee than a white player is.
For example, if there are 100 refs and 1000 players, with 70% of the refs white and 30 % black, and 70% of the players black and 30% white, and there was 100,000 fouls called in the seaon (I changed the numbers to make it easier for me to calculate) with their seniorty, all-star status the same, and same number of home games (which is really the case). In an absolutely unbiased situation, 70,000 fouls will be called by white refs, with 49,000 of them on black players, and 21,000 on white players, and 30,000 fouls will be called by black refs, with 21,000 on black players, and 9,000 on white players.
As you can see, white refs would have called more fouls on a black players than on white players, but there is no bias because the number has been normalized.
However, If there were 70,000 fouls called by white refs, but 50,000 was on black players, and only 20,000 was on white players, someone will look at the data and go "Hmmmm ... I wonder why that is ..."

If the same study, using the same evidence, had come to the conclusion that white players were better defenders and were more likely to follow the rules, the outcry would be severe. Race baiting is shameful, no matter who does it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I didn't know Devin Harris and Reggie Miller were white.

---

they're close enough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

I am not saying that this study conclusively say that refs are racist, what I am saying that race does show as a statistically significant factor in the study. The cause is not known, but this study DOES take into effect the racial makeup for the refs and the players. It does not look at sheer numbers and say "A white ref calls more fouls on a black player." What it does say is that past data shows that A black player is more likely to be called on a foul by a white referee than a white player is.

---

Yeah, I with your sentiment. Race is definitely a statistically significant factor, just based on the raw data. Now, there could be many different causes for that disparity, assuming it's not just random or accidental. What this study aims to demonstrate, however, is that all of those potential causes except for racial bias have been controlled for, and therefore, the disparity is in fact caused by racial bias. That is the conclusion I take issue with.

All this study conclusively shows is that race is a factor, even when you take into account player seniority, superstar treatment, etc. But it doesn't take into account any "personal" biases that may exist. I'm not sure if it takes into account the fouls called in close games where one team uses the intentional-foul strategy; in that event, since the league is mostly black and the refs are mostly white, most intentional fouls (which by definition are not called based on subjective refereeing and thus could not be due to racial bias) will be called by white refs on black players. Maybe they did control for that, even though that would be insanely difficult to statistically render.

Regardless, it's important for people to realize that just because there is data showing that one race "benefits" more than another, there must be another step in the analysis to causally link racial bias with the disparate result. The whole purpose of multi-variable regression statistics is to bridge this gap, but in this case, at least one factor which has critical significance is not (and cannot) be accounted for. This study is the result of the bad kind of inductive reasoning, where the conclusion is supported by the facts, but doesn't necessarily follow from them. If you're going to take the multi-variable regression route, you have to take everything that could be a meaningful factor and eliminate it. That couldn't have been done here.

Unfortunately, there isn't a more direct and effective mode of analysis for things like subconscious racial bias, since obviously you can't go around surveying refs asking "Do you ever subconsciously and without knowing call fouls based on racial bias?" But when you try to prove a conclusion by process of elimination, saying "Here are the facts, and they can't be caused by x, y, and z," you always end up missing other potential causes which could meaningfully impact the conclusion.

So why hasn't Utah won some titles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

If the same study, using the same evidence, had come to the conclusion that white players were better defenders and were more likely to follow the rules, the outcry would be severe. Race baiting is shameful, no matter who does it.

---

I think this is a good point. Using the same evidence with the same study and assuming all of it to be fair and true, two conclusions could be reached:

1) Whites are biased against blacks; or
2) Whites are better than blacks.

There is really no reason, based on the terms of this study, that one of these solutions should be favored over the other. But the way that this Times article portrays it, the second possibility wasn't even considered as a possibility.

And of course I understand why it wasn't: the second conclusion immediately brands someone a "racist." In our society, you aren't allowed to make a claim like that without being fired from you job and vilified in the press, despite the fact that in some situations, that conclusion is just as logically sound as the conclusion that whites are racist.

I don't mean to get preachy, but this study would mean a lot more to me if they didn't force the racism issue on it, and instead addressed it with an open mind, reflecting on the possible causes for the disparity and didn't immediately jump to bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YoMamaIsCallin

so a 3-man white ref team calls 0.20 more fouls per game on a black player than a 3-man black ref team? That's one foul per five games! Given all the variations in players, teams, schedules, referees, arenas, fans, etc... they can pinpoint that this tiny variation of one whistle in five games is exactly due to the skin colors of the refs and the player? I am very skeptical. This sounds like junk statistics which is purpose-built to reach a desired conclusion by an agenda-driven group.

---

And *poof* goes the premise of the study. Every basketball fan on here should know that if the refs are thinking about the color of the players the numbers would work out to way more than one call every five games.

Last word from me on this (hopefully):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

For the 1991-92 through 2003-4 seasons, the authors analyzed every player’s box-score performance — minutes played, rebounds, shots made and missed, fouls, and the like — in the context of the racial composition of the three-person crew refereeing that game. (The N.B.A. did not release its record of calls by specific officials to either Mr. Wolfers, Mr. Price or The Times, claiming it is kept for referee training purposes only.)

---

So they don't even know WHO made calls against whom. Therefore, they couldn't control for factors such as which referees tend to call more overall fouls than others. Let's say there's one ref, who happens to be black, who tends to call lots of fouls. Since only 1/3 of the refs in the L are black, more often than not he's going to be on a crew with 2 white refs. On a given night, perhaps those other refs are ones who typically don't call many fouls. For that game, the high number of fouls called by that one black ref against teams playing mostly black players will look like racial bias on the part of the white refs: a mostly white ref crew called a large number of fouls against mostly black teams. Since the refereeing tendencies were not controlled for, and since the individual ref who called a foul on an individual player is not known, the data for this hypothetical game becomes extremely misleading.

I really want to read this study...I hope they publish it on the internets and I can get a copy of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

If the same study, using the same evidence, had come to the conclusion that white players were better defenders and were more likely to follow the rules, the outcry would be severe. Race baiting is shameful, no matter who does it.

---

But if that was the case, why would the same white players be called for more fouls by black referees, however slightly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

But if that was the case, why would the same white players be called for more fouls by black referees, however slightly?

---

Someone who was race baiting would probably claim that the black refs are racist, right?

:lol

Kudos to the grad student!! Probably a big basketball fan who convinced his mentoring professor to let him do his PhD research on some NBA related subject.

Awesome!!

(Meaningless results IMO, but props to the grad student!)

Maybe this is why the Spurs and the Jazz always seem to be at the top of the standings . . .

correlation doesn't equal causation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Maybe this is why the Spurs and the Jazz always seem to be at the top of the standings . . .

---

:lol


White guys don't play D so why would anyone call a foul on a white guy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Someone who was race baiting would probably claim that the black refs are racist, right?

---

The study did insinuate that, but to a lesser degree.
Again, I am not saying that the study is true and the conclusion correct, but I am still struggling to find the reason for the statistical difference.

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it's John Hollinger's commentary (ESPN INSIDER) on the study. He makes some interesting points here that I thought might contribute to this discussion.

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...hollinger_john


Closer look at ref study
by: John Hollinger
posted: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 | Feedback | Print Entry

The basketball world is buzzing today over an academic study on racial discrimination by NBA referees, which states that the racial composition of a three-man officiating crew can have an impact on a game's outcome.

In particular, the study states that the difference between how white referees treat black players and how they treat white players is "large enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew."

Predictably, the NBA has launched a PR offensive defending its officials' work and saying its own study, which looked at individual refs who made a call rather than the results of a three-man crew, showed no bias by the officials.

But the bigger point that everyone is missing is that, in fact, this study showed remarkably little bias as well. Maybe I'm a cynic here, but I had expected there would be some level of bias by both black and white officials -- refs are human too, after all, and when they step on the court they unwittingly bring their life experiences and values with them.

Yet the affect is almost totally insignificant. The study reports that a black player will rack up an added 0.16 fouls per 48 minutes with an all-white officiating crew, as compared to an all-black one.

In other words, if he plays 3,190 minutes in a season -- the league-leading total posted by LeBron James this year -- he would pick up 11 extra fouls. Eleven.

Even that scenario depends on the difference between all-black and all-white crews, which isn't realistic -- in reality most games will be officiated by a mixed crew (32 percent of the league's officials are black), so the effect will be much smaller. Thus, the difference between a black player and white player of similar skills and abilities would be something like six or seven fouls all year, out of the 200 or more that most players accumulate in a season. That's if you lead the league in minutes, mind you -- it would be much less for anyone else.

So when the authors talk about a noticeable impact on results, I guess it depends on what they mean by "noticeable." The authors chose to play up the fact that a bias was found, but to me it's even more of a story that it was found to be so small.

That said, I'm sure the league is unhappy about the study and the implications, and obviously we'd like to see the difference become zero. But let's not lose sight of the microscopic impact we're talking about. Thus, don't expect Gregg Popovich to walk on the court tonight, see three white refs, and decide Beno Udrih and Matt Bonner will get the bulk of the minutes.

While we're talking about this study, one other item in it drew my attention: the finding that during the 13-year study period, teams with the greater share of playing time by black players won 48.6 percent of games. The authors seemed to imply some kind of mild institutional racism against black players by this result.

In fact, there's a much more obvious explanation -- the league imported a bunch of talent from Europe during the study period, almost all of it white, and the poorly-run teams were the last ones to figure out there were good players on other continents. Thus, by default they ended up with more black players on their roster.

Look back on the drafts of the mid-to-late-'90s and you'll see what I mean. Players like Peja Stojakovic, Arvydas Sabonis, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Manu Ginobili, Dirk Nowitzki, Andrei Kirilenko and Mehmet Okur were all basically stolen in the draft by smart, forward-thinking teams. That their teams won more games than average is an effect of their superior front offices, not the officiating.

Finally, let's get to the real juicy stuff -- I was a little disappointed they didn't look at technical fouls and ejections. If there were a pattern of bias, wouldn't we expect it to come out most often when emotions already were running high? Based on some recent high-profile events involving white referees and black players (Crawford vs. Duncan, Salvatore vs. Davis, etc.) I can't be the only one who wishes this had been part of the study.

ESPN Conversation

Here a few essential twists.

Firstable, it would be EXTREMELY interesting to separate charging fouls from all other fouls and correlate with race.
Those are usually the most questionable calls.

57 players on the active rosters of playoff teams are non-american citizens (plus Bell and Duncan).
The vast majority are whites (38).
Overall, this is 25/28% of active rosters of playoff teams.
How does that very impressive 4.5% of additional fouls called on black players apply to the "international" players?
Is there a bias in favor of international players?
Or against?
Is it fair to have international players BUT american-only referees?

Next, it is absolutely mandatory to calculate the travelling and three seconds violations and correlate both with international/white, international/black, american/black and american/white. Unless the latter cohort is too skinny to have robust data on.

Last, but definitely not the least, is there a correlation between laughing on the bench, technicals and race. I guess this can be limited to international players that have a -valid- american passport.

There is work for AT LEAST two PhDs, 3 years fellowships at $50000/year funded by the generous donations of the MCNCAFF (Mark Cuban Numbers Come Always First Foundation).

Anybody interested?
It would be fascinating.

Interesting take by Hollinger - what do you bet that Mr. Stats is figuring a way to do some of this analysis himself?

of course it does.

Now i see why Manu doesnt get that many calls and don´t go to the line like other guards in the league.

They should study on fouls and ejections vs square feet of tatoos and corn-rows. :hungry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

The study did insinuate that, but to a lesser degree.
Again, I am not saying that the study is true and the conclusion correct, but I am still struggling to find the reason for the statistical difference.

---

Well, since the difference in fouls amounts to significantly fewer than one per game, let's just think about when the most fouls occur in a game, and that's at the end of a game when one team is trying to come back. Since the statistical majority of players on the floor at that time are going to be black and the statistical majority of officials are going to be white then it stands that most of the legitimate, intentional fouls whilstled will be by white officials on black players. That is WAY more than enough to tip the results of the study; do you think Lebron James has more than 11 intentional fouls over the course of the regular season?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Well, since the difference in fouls amounts to significantly fewer than one per game, let's just think about when the most fouls occur in a game, and that's at the end of a game when one team is trying to come back. Since the statistical majority of players on the floor at that time are going to be black and the statistical majority of officials are going to be white then it stands that most of the legitimate, intentional fouls whilstled will be by white officials on black players. That is WAY more than enough to tip the results of the study; do you think Lebron James has more than 11 intentional fouls over the course of the regular season?

---

I believe it is 0.2 fouls per player per 48 minutes, so that amounts to 0.2 fouls x 5 players = 1 foul per game.
The statistical majority of the player on the floor at any time is mostly black, and refs mostly black, and I still fail to see how your scenario will affect how the black and white refs will play out. The thing is, if Lebron James commits 11 intentional fouls per game over the course of the season, so will Nash in the same situation, and those should be 11 intentional fouls regardless of whether a black or a white ref is calling it. Refs do not substitute, and calls throughout the 48 minutes.
Correlation != Causation, but somebody better find a cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

I believe it is 0.2 fouls per player per 48 minutes, so that amounts to 0.2 fouls x 5 players = 1 foul per game.
The statistical majority of the player on the floor at any time is mostly black, and refs mostly black, and I still fail to see how your scenario will affect how the black and white refs will play out. The thing is, if Lebron James commits 11 intentional fouls per game over the course of the season, so will Nash in the same situation, and those should be 11 intentional fouls regardless of whether a black or a white ref is calling it. Refs do not substitute, and calls throughout the 48 minutes.
Correlation != Causation, but somebody better find a cause.

---

No. Don't get sidetracked. Lebron leads the league in minutes, and he's just used as an example of how small the numbers are; it has nothing to do with what color his skin is.

It is a statistical certainty that there are going to be numerically more intentional fouls called by white refs on black players at the end of games due to the fact that that's who is on the floor at the end of the games. That is enough to skew the stats by 0.8 fouls per game. 1.6 does not equal 2.

This study is GARBAGE.

They don't know WHICH ref called the fouls, so in about 2/3 of the games (those in which there are black and white refs together) we don't know if a black ref or white ref called the foul...

GARBAGE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LEONARD

This study is GARBAGE.

They don't know WHICH ref called the fouls, so in about 2/3 of the games (those in which there are black and white refs together) we don't know if a black ref or white ref called the foul...

GARBAGE

---

And that's the real killer. Since they had to get all their information from box scores, which don't indicate who blew the whistle, they had to just guess how many whistles went to each ref. That sufficiently muddies the numbers in and of itself.

Most everyone in this thread has made great points and rendered the study completely meritless.