I can see both sides, but I think that there is great risk in keeping stats. On the plus, it would possibly help show the lack of bias. With the NBA, you have enough repetition that a particular game would not be used to determine if a ref was making excessive calls against a particular team (we can all do the math on one game anyway). You could conceivably get a feel for whether or not there was true bias, and hopefully put most of this talk to rest. Maintaining stats could eliminate the TV, player and coach sniping at specific refs for bias toward or against specific teams or players.
However, a refs tendencies in how they call a game could cause the appearance of a bias. A ref that calls more fouls may hit a physical team harder than a non-physicial team, yet harbor no specific bias against one particular team. The physical team needs to adjust to the game as it is called on the court. Yet all they would do is gripe every time they see a ref who statistically appears to be biased against them. We would never hear about the game as played, but only about the referees. Ref stats would be the next factor examined in pre-game analysis ( imagine this commentary -Joe Blow calls 4.6 fouls per game against Ewing and only 3.2 against Smits - this could be a factor down the stretch - the ref advantage goes to the Pacers on this one Tommy)
Also, I would hate to see the NBA using these stats to try to modify how an individual ref calls games. Thats what evaluators are for, let them do their jobs. It would tend to undermine the authority of the officals and perhaps make them more tentative if they had to think about how each call affects their overall stats. That kind of scenario would do nothing to improve the quality of refereeing or the basketball we see on the court. It is about the basketball after all, isn't it?
|