Biased towards Bias - What's with those NBA Refs?

The big non-playoff news in the NBA yesterday was the announcement that there may be a racial bias in how NBA officials referee games. Naturally, the minute that the words “race,” “bias,” and “sports” hit the front page of the New York Times, the sports media collectively had an orgasm at the thought of a juicy racial scandal to discuss. In short, the Times’ piece describes an upcoming study by a University of Pennsylvania professor which points to a racial disparity in fouls called during NBA games.

Oftentimes, the root of such potential controversies are sports columnists looking to stir the pot, but this story emerged - and was promptly leapt on - because of a certain authenticity associated with an academic conclusion (as opposed to some blabbering idiot’s opinion). Here’s the problem: while an academic study isn't the equivalent of a yammering columnist blindly pushing a race issue, it still seems like the media is flouting a finding for the sake of scandal-mongering. The main issue is that the media is running with the same headline and synopsis of Wolfers' study that the New York Times presented… but why isn't anyone delving in to the actual data? The immediate reaction has either been to embrace the study or point out superficial criticisms that don't apply when reading the actual study (i.e. assuming that the study is stating the obvious because there are more black players in the league when, in fact, that is accounted for).

I don't claim to be an economist/statistician – in fact, I left academia a year ago to avoid dealing with these kinds of studies in the first place - but I wanted to at least TRY and understand the findings. Why simply take a summary at face value? The first step to interpreting a finding is determining what went into the study in the first place, and it seems like most of the media threw an academic halo around the results without digging deeper.

Admittedly, I can't parse out all of the statistical data and manipulation because some of it is a bit dense and over my head, but there are some fundamental criticisms I took away from the study:

1. This isn't a criticism of the paper itself, but it's important to remember that this has NOT been published or peer reviewed. Warrants mentioning, because the people most qualified to interpret an academic paper are peers in the field. Personally, I’d like the counterpoints to be available before an orgy of media attention.

2. The study uses box scores to collect their referee/foul/player data. This means that individual calls are impossible to discern, so unless the officiating team was comprised of one ethnicity, it's hard to tell who's actually making the call. So while a scenario with an all-white or all-black team of refs is possible, it certainly isn’t the most prevalent combination. The box-score data compilation also removes ALL context of fouls, intentional or otherwise.

3. Most importantly, the heart of the data (which seems to then be extended and extrapolated into more detailed observations with more complicated analysis) does not seem to support the synopsis given by the Times.

Here’s how the finding is summarized by the Times:

"A coming paper […] 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."

But let’s take a look at claim a bit closer, shall we? Here’s a PDF of the study manuscript itself.

What caught my attention was the information presented in Table 3 (Page 36 of the Study). My impression is that most of the study’s farther reaching analyses are based on this initial presentation of foul rates. Simply put, the table shows the difference in rates of fouls called on white and black players by white and black referees. The term foul rate is defined as a player's fouls earned per minute times 48 (48*Fouls/Minutes Played).

Here’s what’s striking about the data in this table. First, there is NO difference in the foul rates for black players between black and white refs (4.33 vs 4.329). There IS a difference in the foul rate called against white players (4.954 called by White Refs, 5.023 by black refs). The second, more detailed part of Table 3 (which measures these changes by the percentage of white or black refs on an officiating team) shows the same finding.

This leads to one of two possible conclusions: either white refs favor white players by calling fouls less frequently, or black refs call more fouls on white players. It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine which one is actually at play.

In the authors' own words (PDF page 30):

"There are also two ways in which these own-race biases may emerge: they may reflect referees favoring players of their own race, or alternatively disfavoring those of the opposite race[…] Table 3 is instructive, showing that the rate at which fouls are earned by black players is largely invariant to the racial composition of the refereeing crew. By contrast the rate at which fouls are earned by white players responds quite strongly to referee race […] suggesting that the impact of the biases we document is on white players, who are either favored by white referees, or disfavored by black referees."

This is a far cry from what the New York Times article presented, but people ran with that interpretation for the story’s sake. In other words, what we may have on our hands is ridiculous case of rabble rousing, which is especially infuriating because it's veiled by a pretend shield of statistics. At this point several people have come out to criticize the study (PTI and ESPN.com's John Hollinger come to mind), but it almost seems like a fundamental piece of information isn't being given the light of day.

I need to reiterate that I am NOT a statistician, so my ultimate goal would be to see an explanation by someone more qualified than I. Nevertheless, I’m simply trying to point out that the very root of this “scandal” shouldn’t have to do with whether white refs call more fouls on black players than on white players; it’s how they call these fouls compared to black refs. This is the logical apples-to-apples comparison, a common test for one group of referees compared to another. If the study’s most fundamental data shows that there is an ambiguous discrepancy between officials calling fouls (i.e. are white refs under-calling fouls on white players or are black refs over-calling them?), why aren’t we discussing THAT finding instead of immediately pointing a finger of blame?

Now that question I don’t have an answer for.

read more | digg story

Breakup in the Bronx, A Norv for All Seasons, and Pippen's Pipe Dream

I never thought I'd find myself writing these words. I thought they'd go the distance. I thought they were stronger than this... stronger than Andre and Steffi, stronger then Mia and Nomar. And yet, this President's Day weekend, the earth-shattering news broke: Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter are no longer best friends forever. You read that correctly, folks - A-Rod and Jeter are BFFs no more. How will we go on? How will we cope? Can the Yankees even bring themselves to compete in light of the biggest of big chills?

Right.

Look, I know that football just ended and that we're still a month away from March Madness, but there's no need to flip our lids over the first non-story of pre-preseason baseball. Chemistry is vital in most team sports, but baseball involves so much player autonomy that unless A-Rod were to sleep with Jeter's mother, I somehow doubt that a petty rift could disrupt the Yankee clubhouse and make any kind of difference in their season. This isn't a feud, this isn't a scandal; this is a simple case of two players having a strictly professional relationship. Wake me up when the steroid witch-hunts resume.

---

Speaking of break-ups and their resolutions, the newly coach-divorced AJ Smith and his San Diego Chargers have announced that the coach to take their team to the lofty heights that Martyball could not attain is... Norv Turner. That's right, legendary Norv Turner - owner of a stellar career record (52-82-1) and an impressive one playoff appearance in nine seasons as a head coach - is the man who will replace the post-seasonally impotent Schottenheimer. In other words, a team that went 14-2 last season went out and hired a coach who, at his best, won 10 games in a season. An inspiring choice if there ever was one... was Rich Kotite not available?

At the end of the day, the Chargers decided to join the head-coach hunt...well, at the end of the day. So what was the rush to sack Marty? Sure, if it were possible to land a big-name assistant coach or a well-established veteran coach, we wouldn't be talking about this as a gaffe - but when your team has the league's best record, anything but a serious coaching upgrade is probably a downgrade. The drama between Smith and Schottenheimer should have been the football equivalent of "Let's stay together for the kids," but, instead, Smith decided to marry a two-time divorcée with a history of failed marriages. You stay classy, San Diego.

---

Lastly, 41-year-old Scottie Pippen has made it known that he's ready to contribute to a playoff contender despite having been absent from pro-basketball for some three years. Unretirement. Scottie Pippen. There's a reason `unretirement' isn't a real word, people, and it's because it doesn't work. Ever. Seriously, not-counting "in-prime" retirements where athletes leave and return to a sport while still at their physical peaks, can someone name me more than one comeback attempt by an over-the-hill athlete that has worked out well? There is a point where veteran leadership is trumped by lack of ability, and I'm pretty sure that a post-40 basketball player is at that point regardless of what he once was capable of doing. If Scottie really wants to be relevant again, he needs to pull an Emmitt and compete on "Dancing with the Stars."

Now, if this act of comeback lunacy doesn't rate high enough on the insanity meter for you, consider this recent gem by Pippen: "The fans who understand the game, the GMs and coaches... I think they'd rather have a Scottie than a Michael." Um, Scottie...are you high? It isn't a stretch to call you an all-time great, but one thing is very clear: you will always be Robin to MJ's Batman. This isn't a discussion, it's a simple fact, so let's just take a few deep breaths and promise to think before we speak from now on.

---

End Rant, over and out.