« "Conciliation" or "Persuasion"? | Main | The Real Question About Obama »
May 02, 2007
Working The Refs
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Three quick comments on the Warton-Price paper suggesting a slight racial bias in foul calls in the NBA:
- It's possible ... and I say this having not read the paper ... that fouls per 48 minutes is not the proper rate state to examine. It would be interesting to examine only fouls during the act of shooting, to see if black players are called for more
fouls in the act of shootingfouls against players in the act of shooting than white players. - It's also possible, though unlikely, that ... how to say this delicately ... African-American players and white players play the game differently, which accounts for the slight difference in foul rates.
- An increase in fouls of 2.5-4.5% per 48 minutes for African-American players is incredibly low. If state troopers only stopped black drivers 5% more often than white drivers we would be crowing about the incredible reduction of racial profiling.
Good reasons to read the paper when it's published. No one should take this study too seriously, lest we have some sort of reverse Bell Curve situation on our hands.
May 2, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I think you mean no one should take the study too seriously, yet, right? Because statistically supported accusations of racism seem fairly serious, and not something that should be compared to the racist pseudo-science of the Bell Curve.
Posted by: Sam L. | May 2, 2007 11:17:14 AM
the paper was reviewed by Larry Katz, whatever objections you may have thought of, Katz will have covered + 1000 more. you can be absolutely sure nothing major will escape him. I think one thing pundits forget is that in their area of expertise top guys like Katz are far smarter than guys like Beaudrot. pretending you can review a labor stats paper better than Katz is like pretending you can dunk better than MJ.
Also, I read it a different way, the fact that in a league that is dominated by AA, and where referees are rigorously judged for fairness in full public view, their is still a stat significant difference points to how bad problems are likely to be in areas where their is no effort to enforce fairness and AAs have little power.
Posted by: CalDem | May 2, 2007 11:51:31 AM
An increase in fouls of 2.5-4.5% per 48 minutes for African-American players is incredibly low.
According to the Times article, it translates into about 1 extra victory per additional white player over the course of the season. That can be pretty damn significant, believe it.
Posted by: Antid Oto | May 2, 2007 12:21:15 PM
The double standard is stark.
If this study had shown that more fouls are called against whites, it would never have surfaced. In fact, I can't think of one study in any venue that has shown racism against whites.
There are two possible reasons for this. 1) Minorities are perfect and there simply is no racism against whites, or 2) When it *is* discovered, it is not important because they're WHITE
I believe that many liberals here at Ezra's have openly indicated that they believe the latter. Whites don't have the same expectation of freedom from racism that they believe minorities should expect. There is a pervasive feeling that ol' whitey should take it in the neck, anyway. Hey, they're getting what they deserve. They're WHITE for God's sake!
Name one study that has surfaced showing racism toward whites.
Just one
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 2, 2007 12:28:39 PM
Note that their results are driven by the difference in foul calling behavior with respect to white players (white refs call fewer fouls on white players than black refs call on white players). Black and white refs call fouls on black players at roughly equal rates. So a perhaps more plausible interpretation is that the black refs are racist...
Posted by: Isaac | May 2, 2007 12:38:27 PM
According to the Times article, it translates into about 1 extra victory per additional white player over the course of the season. That can be pretty damn significant, believe it.
I'm not saying it's insignificant. But again, compared to, say, the unemployment rate, where blacks are twice as likely to be unemployed.
I think Isaac's interpretation of the data is a bit off ... it's more that both are "equally" plausible.
And no, I don't really think I can review a paper better than Katz, especially when I haven't reviewed the paper.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 2, 2007 12:47:15 PM
Whites generally play point and forward, and aren't as rough-and-tumble inside.
Accordingly, Fred could be right; mere disparity in foul calling by white & black refs only tells us that there may be a racial effect at work. It tells us zip about white refs or about black refs. We don't know who calls correctly, in other words.
Posted by: jpe | May 2, 2007 1:10:57 PM
I didn’t read the report, but my first thought was to attribute this to the difference in athleticism. You draw fouls on the post and by taking it to the basket, not by jump shooting, and the brother’s are more apt to take it to the rack (except if you’re a Warrior at the end of last night’s game!) Sure, you have some player like Nash who is aggressive, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of another white guy who penetrates.
I do recall from Marginal Revolution that black offices call more fouls on whites, but a smaller percentage, so this may throw my theory right out the window.
Posted by: DM | May 2, 2007 1:34:47 PM
I'm not sure I buy the "white players play more gently than black players" argument.
What about legendarily thuggish Bill Laimbeer? Kevin McHale's hall of fame elbows? And John Stockton's memorably vicious play?
Posted by: Brendan Sexton | May 2, 2007 1:39:34 PM
I didn’t read the report, but my first thought was to attribute this to the difference in athleticism.
Clicking the link is always a decent idea before commenting. If you do, you'll see that the authors of the study took that and a whole lot of other objections you could dream up into account.
We don't know who calls correctly, in other words.
I think that's revealing. See, in my opinion there is no Platonically perfect way to call a game. As both players and refs always say, you could in theory call a foul on every single play of a basketball game. It's a hugely subjective enterprise, which is exactly why unconscious racial bias can influence it. No need to call black or white referees bad people, though it is important to note that the referees are mostly white, the players mostly black.
I'm not saying it's insignificant. But again, compared to, say, the unemployment rate, where blacks are twice as likely to be unemployed.
Sure, in terms of life importance, who wins more basketball games is insignificant. The study is interesting mainly because it illustrates processes at work in all aspects of life--and shows quantitatively how those subtle processes can aggregate to a measurable difference in result. It can do that because there's a built-in data-scoring mechanism that allows differences to be revealed at a fairly fine level of detail.
Posted by: Antid Oto | May 2, 2007 2:27:45 PM
I suspect if you controlled for a couple of variables much of the difference would vanish.
For one thing my understanding is that European basketball is a little different than the kind they play on outdoor courts in Philly and Compton, much of the difference seen may be more European/American than white/black. Similarly you would have to control for socio-economic background. The kind of basketball they play in a suburban gym in an organized league is not the same as it is on an outdoor court in the inner city.
Is it rasist to say that street basketball is more physical than gym basketball? No I don't think so. Would I expect a strong correlation between players that predominantly grew up playing in inner city Philly and black players? Absolutely. Does that make the ref's racist? Well only if you control for overall style of play. Different players bring different things to the game, which may in turn bring about disparities in foul rates.
Posted by: Bruce Webb | May 2, 2007 2:35:01 PM
Antid,
Aren’t we quite jumpy today? It was my first thought and I didn’t have time to check out the paper, though I plan to today. I do agree that my first thought was wrong.
Posted by: DM | May 2, 2007 2:40:51 PM
DM,
Sorry, you picked one of my many pet peeves. Didn't mean to offend.
Posted by: Antid Oto | May 2, 2007 3:13:23 PM
I am glad my suggestion was taken to balance the health-care hegemony on this blog with basketball blogging. Much better.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 2, 2007 4:09:05 PM
White guys can't jump and they're too slow to get in anybody's face. You've got to work really hard to get fouled by a white guy!
Posted by: Ellen1910 | May 2, 2007 4:10:47 PM
Nicholas Beaudrot:
Right. There seems to be now way to distinguish between the two hypotheses...
Posted by: Isaac | May 2, 2007 4:16:48 PM
Why can't we legitimately ask whether black players simply play more physically and aggressively? Maybe there are more fouls called on black players because black players foul more. There's no need to "say this delicately."
Posted by: whody | May 2, 2007 4:26:05 PM
Maybe there are more fouls called on black players because black players foul more.
That misses the point. The study doesn't just ask the simplistic question "who gets called for more fouls, white players or black players?" It's about the fact that white refs call fewer fouls on white players than black refs do, and white refs call more fouls on black players than black refs do (albeit slightly). You could also phrase this the other way, as some above have noted: black refs call more fouls on white players than white refs do, etc. Overall, though, because there are many more white refs, the effect ends up benefiting white players.
Posted by: Antid Oto | May 2, 2007 4:46:16 PM
Whody:
The need to say this delicately arises from Mr. Beaudrot not wanting people to think he's a racist asshole like you and Fred.
See, if you're worried about the methodology of the study, that's fine. If you're proud to accuse black people of being too aggressive because (at least in Fred's case) you will never ever admit that racism has an impact on any part of an African American life in this country, you're probably a racist jackass. You speak delicately, if you're Nicholas, so that people understand the former, not the latter, is true about you.
Posted by: Sam L. | May 2, 2007 5:22:53 PM
And Fred, to substantively address your point (as if you could actually get over your racial hang ups) it doesn't really matter if the black refs are as biased against whites as the white refs are against blacks.
If the majority of refs are white, and the majority of players are black, and everyone is biased, guess what happens? White players' teams do better, white players are more valuable and make more money, and black players get fucked. That's bad. Now, maybe you'd support affirmative action in hiring so that the racial makeup of the refs mirrored that of the players? Oh, wait, no, you'd call that racist too, wouldn't you?
Not that you care, but in social justice circles racism is generally defined as personal bias coupled with institutional power. That's why, in most situations, minorities aren't accused of racism. Because a personal bias is meaningless. If all the Japanese people in the US set out to destroy whitey, the resulting detrimental effect on you or me would be minuscule. The reverse is not true. I don't really accept you to accept or even consider that definition, because its not designed for white guys who cling to their privilege and convince themselves they're victims, but there it is anyway.
Posted by: Sam L. | May 2, 2007 5:32:46 PM
What about legendarily thuggish Bill Laimbeer? Kevin McHale's hall of fame elbows? And John Stockton's memorably vicious play?
I think this proves the opposite of what you want it to: "look! A white guy! And he's physical!"
For every Lambeer there are 15 Craig Ehlo's.
Posted by: jpe | May 2, 2007 5:37:00 PM
Whites generally play point and forward, and aren't as rough-and-tumble inside.
White guys can't jump and they're too slow to get in anybody's face.
Alrighty, then....
So, it seems to be OK to make broad attributes based upon one's race. I guess those who associate blacks with fried chicken and watermelon were onto something afterall...
Not that you care, but in social justice circles racism is generally defined as personal bias coupled with institutional power. That's why, in most situations, minorities aren't accused of racism.
This is the standard "Let's change the definition so that we can favor who we want" technique. The sad truth is racism is treating others based upon their skin color. The real reason why mimorites are never accused of racism is because of political correctness, and little else. In other words, we tolerate black on white racism such as hip-hop nicely.
Basing your feelings and actions upon the color of a man's skin is either evil, or it's not. It's not evil when white people do it and not evil when black people do it.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 2, 2007 6:10:52 PM
The sad truth is racism is treating others based upon their skin color.
I guess my mom must have been a racist when she treated me to ice cream.
Posted by: Anarchy is still correct | May 2, 2007 7:00:45 PM
Say it ain't so
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 2, 2007 7:31:17 PM
I don't think the argument here is that its evil. It's that it disadvantages black players against whites. Which is unfair. It's not unfair in the same way even if black refs are equally biased, because it doesn't disadvantage white players. This is something a 7 year old could understand fairly easily.
Posted by: Sam L. | May 2, 2007 8:43:17 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
