- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Study says basketball refs are biased
Posted on 4/2/12 at 10:11 am
Posted on 4/2/12 at 10:11 am
There is a new book out called Scorecasting: The Hidden Influence Behind How Sports Are Played And Games Are Won. It's by a U. of Chicago Econ Prof.
He studied statistics of American baseball, basketball, football, International soccer and English cricket. Basketball (both NBA and college) has the biggest difference in wins by the home team. And it's not even close to any other sport.
One might assume that the players try harder when supported by the home fans. But the conclusion says that is not the case. Referees in basketball are more intimidated by the home crowd as opposed to officials in other sports and they call more fouls against the visiting team.
He studied statistics of American baseball, basketball, football, International soccer and English cricket. Basketball (both NBA and college) has the biggest difference in wins by the home team. And it's not even close to any other sport.
One might assume that the players try harder when supported by the home fans. But the conclusion says that is not the case. Referees in basketball are more intimidated by the home crowd as opposed to officials in other sports and they call more fouls against the visiting team.
9
Posted on 4/2/12 at 10:15 am to Zach
quote:
Basketball (both NBA and college) has the biggest difference in wins by the home team. And it's not even close to any other sport.
Well, actually the difference in soccer is greater than the basketball. However, this is a terrific book.
It was also written by L. Jon Wertheim, senior writer at SI, who is one of my favorite sportswriters.
The theory was summed up something along the lines of:
We assert that the primary cause of the home field advantage is the due to social pressure placed on officials (or something like that).
Also, in basketball roughly 79% of the advantage is due to the refs and 21% is due to scheduling (back-to-back road games).
I highly recommend this book to everyone.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 10:22 am to Vicks Kennel Club
I've always thought that baseball was pretty much immune to umpire bias. By the time you get to the Majors you've had report cards turned in on you by a lot of managers. Even when umps miss a close call it's so spontaneous I don't think bias comes into play.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 10:52 am to Zach
quote:
There is a new book out called Scorecasting: The Hidden Influence Behind How Sports Are Played And Games Are Won. It's by a U. of Chicago Econ Prof.
He studied statistics of American baseball, basketball, football, International soccer and English cricket. Basketball (both NBA and college) has the biggest difference in wins by the home team. And it's not even close to any other sport.
One might assume that the players try harder when supported by the home fans. But the conclusion says that is not the case. Referees in basketball are more intimidated by the home crowd as opposed to officials in other sports and they call more fouls against the visiting team.
I haven't read the book, but I have read articles about his research. I think that his point also was that the Ref's are not trying to be bias, but it is just in the heat of the moment they want to see the home team win. The bad calls increase as the game gets closer. I think this is what happened with the Syracuse game in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. basketball is a close sport, even though there is so much scoring the difference is so little.
Think about it like this. 100 to 80 is a rout in basketball. however that is the same spread as a 20 to 25 football game. or a 4 to 5 hockey game. It really is close. So with most games being decided by 4 or fewer points with 2 minutes to go, only 1 or 2 bad calls drastically changes the score of the game.
This is why s ref in a basketball game is so vital.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 11:16 am to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:
I highly recommend this book to everyone.
I've heard nothing but great things about this book, sounds like stuff I'd really like.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 11:35 am to Zach
Basketball refs are extremely intimidated by home crowds. And they love to play up their calls to put on a little show for the home folks.. Like really getting into a charge call late and things like that.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 11:40 am to Zach
Great post.
I've mentioned this book about a million times on here, it's a great, great book.
The baseabll stuff is really great, with how indepth the studies go. It shows how, for example, when a "star" player(not exactly sure how that was quantified, but it was in a measureable way) has 2 strikes and he takes a pitch, the ump is less likely to call it a 3rd strike. It even shows graphs of the actual strike zone and how it much smaller it gets. Same thing but the opposite for a star pitcher with 3 balls and a batter takes the pitch.
It gets into stuff like how it's the wrong decision coaches usually make when they sit guys too early/too much when they get into foul trouble. Or the value of a blocked shot, how Dwight Howard always is at or near the lead in blocks in the NBA, but a value was assigned to each block, and Tim Duncan had the highest valued blocks almost every year, IIRC.
The best thing about the book is every last thing is quantified, it only factors in things that you could actually measure.
I've mentioned this book about a million times on here, it's a great, great book.
The baseabll stuff is really great, with how indepth the studies go. It shows how, for example, when a "star" player(not exactly sure how that was quantified, but it was in a measureable way) has 2 strikes and he takes a pitch, the ump is less likely to call it a 3rd strike. It even shows graphs of the actual strike zone and how it much smaller it gets. Same thing but the opposite for a star pitcher with 3 balls and a batter takes the pitch.
It gets into stuff like how it's the wrong decision coaches usually make when they sit guys too early/too much when they get into foul trouble. Or the value of a blocked shot, how Dwight Howard always is at or near the lead in blocks in the NBA, but a value was assigned to each block, and Tim Duncan had the highest valued blocks almost every year, IIRC.
The best thing about the book is every last thing is quantified, it only factors in things that you could actually measure.
This post was edited on 4/2/12 at 11:42 am
Posted on 4/2/12 at 11:43 am to H-Town Tiger
You would like it a lot.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 12:54 pm to The Boat
quote:
And they love to play up their calls to put on a little show for the home folks.. Like really getting into a charge call late and things like that.
I think its more this than intimidation...
Posted on 4/2/12 at 1:53 pm to Zach
quote:
Study says basketball refs are biased
Did they do any research regarding star players in the NBA getting calls? That's always been my biggest beef regarding NBA refs.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 2:11 pm to Suntiger
quote:
That's always been my biggest beef regarding NBA refs.
I agree with this as well. MJ always got the call, but that was at home or the road IMO.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 2:37 pm to Suntiger
quote:That would be really hard to quantify though.
Did they do any research regarding star players in the NBA getting calls? That's always been my biggest beef regarding NBA refs
Posted on 4/2/12 at 2:40 pm to Zach
quote:
Basketball (both NBA and college) has the biggest difference in wins by the home team. And it's not even close to any other sport.
Don't see enough college games to know but this isn't breaking news for the NBA. Go watch any Lakers vs Celtics series from the 80's.
It's pretty much excepted as the rule for the NBA playoffs. Hence the outrage when Dewayne Wade got phantom fouls in the AAC during the 06 Finals. Ask Ghanzi.
It really is expected in the NBA, especially in the playoffs.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 2:48 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:
You would like it a lot.
It was one of the books I wanted to scoop up during the Border's fire sale last year, but couldn't find it
Posted on 4/2/12 at 2:50 pm to Suntiger
quote:
That would be really hard to quantify though.
shel, they quantified stars by using MVP votes or some other distinction. It was a pretty reasonable, but it was obviously arbitrary, but the best standard achievable. For example, the stars were Kobe, Lebron, etc. I cannot remember exactly who and how many were the superstars, but it was designated in a footnote or two.
quote:
Did they do any research regarding star players in the NBA getting calls? That's always been my biggest beef regarding NBA refs.
Yes, they did. Stars generally got more calls than non-stars. I believe a lot of the benefit of being a star was being less likely to foul out because the fans want them on the court. I forgot the specifics, but they do get calls.
Once again, the refs are not biased intentionally, but they are affected by social pressure. The Spanish soccer study with the taped games explains this pretty well.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 2:51 pm to H-Town Tiger
I rented it from the public library. Novel idea, huh?
Posted on 4/2/12 at 2:53 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:Gotcha. I knew it was something, just couldn't remember what it was.
shel, they quantified stars by using MVP votes or some other distinction
quote:Yea, I think that was it, but they didn't do it with offensive stars getting calls, I think. That's what is hard to quantify since the thought would be that a good offensive player is going to get called for fouls, which are subjective. Unlike the baseball example I gave, where you can actually see a graph of the strike zone for each scenario.
Yes, they did. Stars generally got more calls than non-stars. I believe a lot of the benefit of being a star was being less likely to foul out because the fans want them on the court. I forgot the specifics, but they do get calls.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 2:55 pm to shel311
quote:
That's what is hard to quantify since the thought would be that a good offensive player is going to get called for fouls, which are subjective.
This is precisely why the home court advantage is bigger in basketball compared to baseball. There is a larger excusable margin of error for the refs.
Posted on 4/2/12 at 2:55 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:
The Spanish soccer study with the taped games explains this pretty well.
I'm not a soccer fan. But I had a co-worker who got an invitation to referee at the Olympics. He was Italian by birth but a US citizen.
He accepted as a ref for the USA and he served. He was given a list of countries to 'strike off' as in "I don't want to officiate at this country's match."
He chose England. I asked him why he didn't want to officiate England. He said "If a riot breaks out it will involve the British and I don't want to be there."
Posted on 4/2/12 at 3:01 pm to Zach
quote:
Study says basketball refs are biased
I would have NEVER thought this.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News