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

[conqueso]

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.

[ambchang]

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 Bavetta, but if the referees showed a bias in favour of people of their own race, this by defintiion is racism. Is it not?

[conqueso]

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 re ed.

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).

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.

[SRJ]

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.

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.

[conqueso]

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.

[LakerLanny]

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 re ed.

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 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.

[conqueso]

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 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.

[conqueso]

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:

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 les in the last 10 years?

[Obstructed_View]

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

[ambchang]

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 ..."

[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.

[monosylab1k]

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

they're close enough

[conqueso]

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.

[picnroll]

So why hasn't Utah won some les?

[conqueso]

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.

[Obstructed_View]

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.

[conqueso]

Last word from me on this (hopefully):

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.

[ambchang]

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?

[Obstructed_View]

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?

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

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!)

[timvp]

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

[ashbeeigh]

correlation doesn't equal causation.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

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

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

[ambchang]

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.

[ajh18]

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 ac ulate 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 ins utional 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