|
I am not sure what relevant point this article makes. It was statistically improbable for Joe Dimaggio to hit in 56 consecutive games. That feat is made more improbable by the non-statistical factor of pressure that builds as a streak goes on. Yet we all know it happened and do not question it.
In statistics, if you repeat something thousands of times, statisitcal outliers have a very high probability of occurring. You just can't predict when and where they will occur. When you play thousands of games per year, the statistical outlier has a statistically high probability of occurring in one game. The article clearly suggests that the refs were off their rockers calling that many charges. It is quite possible that there was a series of out of control offensive plays, excellent defense, and good refs that refereed the defense, and a series of plays that defied the odds.
Also, the article relies on the adage that a block-charge is a 50-50 call, an assumption that only holds through for the close situations. Many others are much more obvious. The better statistic to examine would be, out of all fouls called, what ratio are charges? I think the probability of 9 in a row (with no other fouls) occurring is even lower than the article's flawed logic would suggest - probably 10,000-1 at a minimum. But remember, in all divisions of college basketball, mens and womens, there are probably more then 10,000 games played in just one year. That 10,000-1 chance will roll in sometime.
Also, were they all charges, or were they player control fouls, including those for a player pushing off while dribbling? If the refs are calling the latter tightly and teams don't adjust, they'll suffer the consequences. We had 4 of the latter in one game this weekend, 3 against the same player. She has bad habits, but rarely gets called. They called it tight, she didn't adjust.
So to me, it is an interesting event, but not unbelievable. And I won't listen to a homer paper blaming refs for calls that went against their team on the grounds that they aren't statistically probable, especially when the writer clearly demonstrates a flawed understanding of statistics and probabilities.
|