fear of the facts

[Impar Tiality]

We are part of the game. Do not underestimate your own influence on the outcome.
No,I'm not talking conspiracy.
But, we are human.
NBA ref's have it the toughest. The most publicity, the fewest players per team, and the most recognizable players.
What harm to them if their stats are published. I'm sure it would vindicate more than it would implicate. Maybe even shut down a lot of the whiners...
What are you afraid of? Why should any official be afraid to admit every call on paper?
Why so defensive? I knew better than to leave any information about myself. Sad but true that attacking my credintials is more important than actually considering my post. GROW UP.

[Mark Padgett]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Impar Tiality:
[ Sad but true that attacking my credintials is more important than actually considering my post. GROW UP.[/B]

---

We did consider your post. It was ridiculous. What stats would you publish anyway? How about percentage of correct calls? Or non-calls - that would be impossible to determine. Who would judge - coaches, players or the media?

Do you really think that if I called a game and someone kept track and published how many fouls a team committed that I happened to identify (which is what a foul call really is), that I would care and/or it would change the way I called a game?

Only if there was a evaluation by a panel of referees that I respected, would there even be a consideration by me.

I've watched NBA basketball for over 35 years. I would say that about 10% of the large number of announcers I have heard are consistently right in their assessment of the calls made by NBA officials. Replay has proven time and time again that those refs are as good as you can expect from humans.

[Tom Cook]

Ditto, Mark!

[jackgil]

Impar -

Why not be honest? If you are not an official, say that. That is why we questioned your credentials. Everybody dislikes a phoney.

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Impar Tiality:
I knew better than to leave any information about myself. Sad but true that attacking my credintials is more important than actually considering my post. GROW UP.

---

As Mark said, your post was ridiculous. And knowing at least something of your credentials (or lack thereof) helps us decide if your statements WARRANT any credibility and consideration. If you know nothing about officiating from first-hand experience, why should we deem your remarks anything but whining or the ramblings of a confused spectator who reacts to what he THINKS is going on rather than an actual UNDERSTANDING of what is going on? "Grow up?" Ignorance is bliss for those choosing to make wild statements under the cover of total anonymity.

[Brian Watson]

I call the game the way I see it. When I have a coach telling me the foul count is 9-2 or some other ridiculous number, it makes me laugh. Apparently he thinks I did it on purpose, but I know it is just how the game went. If you insist on being logical, and not have us attack your precious, mysterious cred, then let’s look at stats. Anyone who has ever worked with the stupid things knows they are the easiest item in the world to manipulate, yet everyone takes them for gospel.

Let’s look at a fictional example of Player A, and two separate newspapers, one from each city. Player A averages 25 points a game, shoots 60% from the floor, and 80% from the line. He runs into team B and has a terrible night. He shoots 4-14 from the field and 10-12 from the line. All told his states reflect that he scored 18 points with just under 30% from the floor and just over 80% from the line.

Now how do you look at these stats? Most people immediately jump to the conclusion that Player A had an off night. He was ice cold, injured, stayed out late at the hoochie bar, or some other cosmic occurrence prevented him from performing up to him average. This is how newspaper A reports the story.

But if you really look at the stats, could there be another explanation? Player A hit better than his average from the line (with no one in his face). If he was having an “off” night wouldn’t this stat have suffered as well? You see, could it actually be possible that Team B played great defense and just shut down Player A? That would be how newspaper B reports the story.

Same, stats two different stories. What if these were stats for refs? If I call 10 more fouls on a team is the game fixed, did that team actually commit more fouls, or did they foul near the end to stop the clock? There could be three stories in that stat, most would be wrong.

Just like the kids' attitude, what happens in the NBA will filter down to the HS level; like it, or not. If we do this in the NBA, it will happen for HS, and that would be wrong. If you truly are an official, then you know what it is like to have ignorant parents giving you an earful when you’re trying to administer a throw in. Or yelling for the infamous reach or over – the – back.

The point is, we are trained, spend many hours learning, attend multiple meetings every year, and pass tests to prove we belong on the floor. No one else has to do that. While I respect the fact most people think their $2 buys them the right to yell at the top of their lungs, we officials are above reproach. We owe no one an explanation, unless the state association wants to know what went down during a game. We are the only ones on the floor who actually know the rules, and keep up with the changes. Most parents and coaches only know what they were taught 15-20 years ago, or what they overhear someone else talking about. If you publish this garbage you will just throw gas on the fire of ignorance. If you are an official then you know you are not a “homer”, and that you are the one who hurts the worst after you blow a call. It happens, we are human, and my stomach is usually in a knot for a day or two after it happens. I feel the worst because I let the teams down. I don’t need the Sunday paper to tell me what kind of job I’m doing. I know, what kind of job I’m doing because I am a referee, and I am damn proud to say that.

[Duck1]

Not that I am going to take Impar’s side. He seems to have an agenda, and I don’t. And, in case any of you are wondering, I am not a pro, but I do occasionally wear stripes. But there is an interesting point here.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that stats were kept on which referees cited which player for fouls. The point above would be correct, that you could not examine those numbers on any given night and determine that a ref had too much zeal or any kind of bias. Just as though you couldn’t tell a good player from a bad one by looking at one game’s stats. But, you could look at a season’s worth of data and maybe find some interesting facts.

For instance, what if a particular ref called fouls on a certain player statistically higher than any other player? Well, the player could be a hack, but what if that player didn’t get nearly as many calls from any other ref? What if a ref makes a lot more calls on all players than the norm? What if the number of fouls that a ref was calling had a sudden spike up or down? We’re all human, which comes with the liability of bias. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there are sinister motives in play here. Perhaps the ref focuses too closely on that player or has a sub-conscious negative sentiment about the player. Perhaps the ref is going through some bad times and that is affecting his work.

I think that if such stats were kept, you’d find that for the most part the refs call a fairly consistent and fair season. Indeed, it would be valuable ammunition to refute claims of bias. But, and just as importantly, it would be able to highlight the rare instance of a ref who is not calling a even game. In my opinion, it is in the best interest of the officials and the game to have the ability to identify over zealous or biased refs.

Now, to be fair, I have little at stake here. I seriously doubt that the leagues in which I operate have the resources to track official’s stats. But, I am a fan of the game, and I am all for anything which improves the quality of the game. I am sure that you could find a lot of positive aspects of having your stats tracked, including being able to tell a coach, “hey, I have T’d you up the least of anyone calling this league, so count your blessings and get back to your bench!”

My $0.02

- Duck

[Bart Tyson]

Duck1, Just my opinion, but I have to disagree. We already have supervisors, camps and the coaches who review and judge our ability to work. We are not robots. I don't believe stats would help the game or the officials. So you have some officials that call more fouls on a player. I'm sure you will find another official who did't call many fouls on a player. You would have to analyze the position of the officials, the game flow, the attitudes of players and coaches and many other things that play into the official's decision to call or not call a foul or any other violation for that game. Officials can't decide to themselves to make foul calls or no calls on a player. If they did they can't concentrate on the game and they would screw it up. Then they wouldn't be working long. Our ability to call a good game depends on our ability to concentrate.

[This message has been edited by Bart Tyson (edited May 25, 2000).]

[Impar Tiality]

Well if one out of seven can continually be open-minded...
Of all the jobs I've held; Only my striped shirt peers show such alarming amounts of defensive stubborness.
It's no wonder fans see the stripes as enemies of both teams.
Thanks Duck for your consideration.
The rest of your replies sound as if you have all been brainwashed. A little openess will not hurt you, unless you have something to hide. Hardly any officials would, but not all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck1:
Not that I am going to take Impar’s side. He seems to have an agenda, and I don’t. And, in case any of you are wondering, I am not a pro, but I do occasionally wear stripes. But there is an interesting point here.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that stats were kept on which referees cited which player for fouls. The point above would be correct, that you could not examine those numbers on any given night and determine that a ref had too much zeal or any kind of bias. Just as though you couldn’t tell a good player from a bad one by looking at one game’s stats. But, you could look at a season’s worth of data and maybe find some interesting facts.

For instance, what if a particular ref called fouls on a certain player statistically higher than any other player? Well, the player could be a hack, but what if that player didn’t get nearly as many calls from any other ref? What if a ref makes a lot more calls on all players than the norm? What if the number of fouls that a ref was calling had a sudden spike up or down? We’re all human, which comes with the liability of bias. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there are sinister motives in play here. Perhaps the ref focuses too closely on that player or has a sub-conscious negative sentiment about the player. Perhaps the ref is going through some bad times and that is affecting his work.

I think that if such stats were kept, you’d find that for the most part the refs call a fairly consistent and fair season. Indeed, it would be valuable ammunition to refute claims of bias. But, and just as importantly, it would be able to highlight the rare instance of a ref who is not calling a even game. In my opinion, it is in the best interest of the officials and the game to have the ability to identify over zealous or biased refs.

Now, to be fair, I have little at stake here. I seriously doubt that the leagues in which I operate have the resources to track official’s stats. But, I am a fan of the game, and I am all for anything which improves the quality of the game. I am sure that you could find a lot of positive aspects of having your stats tracked, including being able to tell a coach, “hey, I have T’d you up the least of anyone calling this league, so count your blessings and get back to your bench!”

My $0.02

- Duck

---

[Mark Padgett]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Impar Tiality:
Of all the jobs I've held; Only my striped shirt peers show

You mean you're an official after all? I highly doubt it. If so, why don't you identify yourself? Answer: you're gutless.

>The rest of your replies sound as if you have all been brainwashed.

---

At least we have brains that can be washed.

Go ahead - flame me now. You're in the big leagues here.

[steve gillies]

OK, I"m a newbie here,not to officiating but to this post.I"ve read most all the posts for the past month or so and like all the comments and feedback.(by the way Mark Padgett,your humor kills me!)
We"ve got to put this topic of "ref-stats"
to rest.The only stat. I want to see is the one from my evaluator and or "Qualified"
offical.They usually ask me why I made a certain call in that certain situation.
Most refs no that calls are not just black and white according to the rule book. but that the rules are applied in situations and
all situations are different..(adv./disadv.)
REF-STATS c"mon get real..and who will evaluate these stats.
Coach?.....hmm the same coach that yells 3 sec. in the key during non-control tip drills from a rebound....NO I dont think so
Players?....hmm the same players that blame us for loseing the game for them even though
they mist numerous 6 ft jumpers and lay-ups
during the game and wouldn"t understand
adv/disadv if you explained it to them for the 5th time....NO I dont think so
Fans?.....hmm the same fans that sit in the second balcony 15th row seat 12 and scream
3 seconds in the key or he got hacked or pushed or "you gotta call it even ref"
or etc etc etc........NO i dont think so
Media?....hmm..see above def. for fans
All of the above have NO CLUE about basket ball..oh sure the ball has to go threw that metal thingie to win. All good refs.go to class, clinics, summer leagues, and past tests to earn there court time. lets keep it that way.......

[Brian Watson]

Duck - If we kept stats you know what would happen. Stud boy player A looks at the stats at the end of the year and sees that he had 11% more fouls called against him than anyone else in his league, conf. etc. Will he say, "oh, that must mean I hack too much" or " It's a conspiracy, the refs don't want to see succeed"?

Any one who guesses number two would be correct.

And, for Impar, who has the closed mind? I made the effort to show you both side of the story. If you choose to ignore viewpoints other than your own, be my guest, just don't come into our house and start dumping. By any chance were you a co-author or just a follower of that shameful, UofM study that officials are gamblers, and therefore are biased?

I find it increasingly funny that outsiders are making broad, sweeping, negative accusations against officials as a whole, and then have no proof to back themselves up with. When we dismiss the claims (becuase they are not true), we get accused of hiding something! Last time I checked the majority of us lived in the USA. Until you can prove me guilty...get off my back.



[This message has been edited by Brian Watson (edited May 26, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Brian Watson (edited May 26, 2000).]

[jackgil]

Impart -

Like I said....nobody likes a phoney. You are DEFINITELY not an official..at least not from this planet.

[Hawks Coach]

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?

[JoeT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Watson:
I call the game the way I see it. When I have a coach telling me the foul count is 9-2 or some other ridiculous number, it makes me laugh.

---

Great post, Brian!

I got that comment from a player a few weeks ago - the "they only had 2 fouls while we had 9." The player even said, "now how do you explain THAT?" I just said calmly, "you fouled more" and kept walking.

You are exactly right about the interpretation of stats.

The worst part of the whole "refs are the problem" line of reasoning is that it hurts the players' games by allowing them to focus on something other than their own successes and failures. As long as a player has someone else to blame, he doesn't need to focus on improving. As a matter of fact, that's the *primary* way that I have personally seen refs "affect the outcome" of games. A player doesn't like a call or two, feels persecuted, and stews about it rather than playing on. The good players seem to accept most of what happens and get over the rest pretty quickly.