Researchers' NBA officating study detects biases, but not necessarily the ones fans suspect
From the O:
"An academic study of NBA officiating found little to no evidence that referees favor teams from large media markets in the playoffs, a favorite conspiracy theory of skeptical fans.
But the same study found that NBA referees tend to favor home teams, teams trailing in a game and teams trailing in a playoff series.
The study, conducted by three economics researchers, fuels the perennial debate about the influence of NBA officials on games. It suggests that forces ranging from league executives to simple human psychology can influence calls in a measurable way -- though not always enough to affect a game's outcome."
Not sure I believe this but we'll see...
over 2 years ago
skywaker9
19 comments
1 recs |
Comments
Not quite the same thing but...
I’ve never bought the frequently recited maxim that refs favor the aggressor. That just doesn’t seem like human nature.
What does it say about superstar calls? Dang, am I going to have to read it?
They don't measure fouls
So it’s not exactly going to tell the whole picture. They’re really only talking about turnovers, so Superstar calls didn’t make the analysis.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
When I just started watching the NBA
and was a complete virgin to the ‘conspiracy theory’, I’ve always felt like the referees do favor the home team and the teams that is trailing. But then again it still depends on who is reffing the game. We all know certain refs have tendencies to make bad calls
"...Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
if all refs
consistently favored the home team..that’d be a good thing IMO. it’d create a true home court advantage, as well as boost home tix sales. no one wants to see the home team lose.
I got 6 years of playoff blue balls going on, and I'm ready to release. GO BLAZERS. ~Mortimer
by Philthyanimal on Jun 4, 2009 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions
crappy large market teams
I’m sure the Knicks and the Clippers drive down the averages a lot.
I got 6 years of playoff blue balls going on, and I'm ready to release. GO BLAZERS. ~Mortimer
That's a solid point.
I wonder if the analysis considered favoring large market teams with an otherwise decent chance to win.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
i agree with the trailing team
when a team is down by 25, then goes on a 22-2 run, they will get away with over-aggresive defense, especially when they are at home when the comeback is happening
bayless leaves over my dead body
sign mike bibby
Nah that was NFL Blitz
Pretty sure that game was coded to turn any team with a 2 digit lead into a fumble machine.
scientific research
Were these the same researchers that worked for the tobacco companies?
would it matter? the tobacco companies knew what they were selling they just kept it from the public
also i like how everyone decides to just reject a rational study just to prop up your particular conspiracy theory.
Truth never was or can be propagated by fire and sword - Albert Gallatin
Bayless sucks! Trade him; or at least stop the annoying bayless homerism. his best case is gilbert arenas which is something the blazers don't want and don't need. He was a KP mistake.
The NBA also issued an outright rejection
I like people from all sides reject it.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
Umm it looked like some of these guys were Oregon based
If anything they would TRY to find something that makes the officials look bad based on our series with the Rockets.
I thought it was interesting
and would like to see it peer reviewed. Some things may hold up, others might not.
One peer review:
Randy Bluffstone, professor of economics and department chair at Portland State, reviewed the study at The Oregonian’s request and found it to be generally rigorous and relevant, especially given the frequent fan discussions of NBA officiating.
“I think the work is, in the main, quite well done,” Bluffstone said. “The thing I just don’t see is big effects. We can be really sure that they exist, but they’re pretty small.”
The home-team advantage, for instance, would yield about one extra turnover every three games, Bluffstone said.
He also called the study’s detected advantage for a team trailing in a playoff series “statistically insignificant.”
Statistically insignificant doesn't necessarily mean insigificant
We’ve all see one obviously bad call change a game. It’d take more mustard to make the argument a sandwich, but it’s a possibility.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
If you're using .05 as your significance value...
And you get a .07, or even as bad as a .11, something is still probably up. You might not be hitting the significance level, but you’re also not looking at coincidence either.




















