If sports didn’t exist, sports would have to be invented by social scientists.
Research in the social sciences is difficult since we do not often have data on worker productivity or data generated in a controlled environment. In sports, we have an abundance of data on worker productivity and the contest environment is much more controlled. Consequently, sports are a wonderful place to investigate human behavior.
The latest example of this wonder has been exhibited in today’s New York Times. Alan Schwarz penned an article entitled “Study of N.B.A. Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls.”
The study in question is co-authored by Joe Price and Justin Wolfers (you may remember that Wolfers was the author of a study of point shaving in the NCAA). The Price-Wolfers study – entitled “Racial Discrimination Among NBA Referees” – finds that “even conditioning on player and referee fixed effects (and specific game fixed effects)—that more personal fouls are awarded against players when they are officiated by an opposite-race officiating crew than when officiated by an own-race refereeing crew. These biases are sufficiently large that we find appreciable differences in whether predominantly black teams are more likely to win or lose, according to the racial composition of the refereeing crew.
In writing his article, Schwarz called upon three outside “experts.” As Schwartz reports: Three independent experts asked by The Times to examine the Wolfers-Price paper and materials released by the N.B.A. said they considered the Wolfers-Price argument far more sound.
These experts were Larry Katz (Professor of Economics at Harvard and editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics), Ian Ayres (Professor at Yale and author of more books and articles than I can count, including work in this specific area), and Dave Berri (some guy from California State). So maybe it was only 2.2 experts.
It is important to emphasize that Schwarz did not write this article last night on the back of a napkin. He began talking to the three of us a few weeks ago. We all reviewed the Price-Wolfers paper and the study by the NBA and we stand by the statement made by Schwarz in the article.
What Does this Mean?
It is also important to emphasize the story the article is telling. This is not about the NBA. It is about implicit biases in decision-making. I think the reaction Professor Ayres had to the study captures where the Price-Wolfers study falls in the literature:
“I would be more surprised if it didn’t exist,” Mr. Ayres said of an implicit association bias in the N.B.A. “There’s a growing consensus that a large proportion of racialized decisions is not driven by any conscious race discrimination, but that it is often just driven by unconscious, or subconscious, attitudes. When you force people to make snap decisions, they often can’t keep themselves from subconsciously treating blacks different than whites, men different from women.”
In sum, I do not think the Price-Wolfers study tells us that NBA referees are racists, or at least, they are not any more racist than anyone else. What it does tell us is that implicit biases exist and these biases can impact people’s decision-making.
The Value of Sports Economics
And of course this study once again highlights the value of sports economics. Ultimately we are not studying the value of a rebound or how best to evaluate an NFL quarterback. What we are doing is looking – as economists and social scientists – at how people process information and make decisions. I would argue that sports data makes such studies easier, certainly more fun, and also more informative. And hopefully, the work of Price and Wolfers will encourage more brilliant people to join the fun.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
anon
May 2, 2007
I actually think the study is interesting, but here’s my problem. Let’s say we could somehow figure out ex post which foul calls were good or bad (video obviously helps to some extent, but assume there was a more objective method) and we aggregate all this data and did regression analysis and figured out how many games a year bad calls cost the average team. At what point would this figure matter? Obviously, anything over 5 would be cause for concern. But under five, while statistically significant, just might not be sufficient to cause concern. The reason is that we know that refereeing is an imperfect science and there are bound to be errors. The critical issue then is whether the errors are so large that the indicate something is seriously amiss. And if not, if they are statistically significant but don’t suggest anything sinister, can we really improve over baseline.
I think this study is interesting in the larger sociological debate over how race colors our private and professional lives. That said, I’m not sure there’s anyway the NBA could really improve over the baseline. Ultimately, empirical studies are only as good as the positive policy they encourage (otherwise, what’s the point. You might as well be a theoretician). And in this case, I can’t see any way the NBA can somehow internalize this information to improve inherent bias above the baseline.
MT
May 2, 2007
I was puzzled by the extrapolation of the statistical data (which posits incremental fouls of 0.1 to 0.2 per player per 48 minutes being called based on race) to the proposition (which does not seem to be supported directly by the data) that the bias is large enough to cause a “predominantly black team” (to quote the authors) to lose a game refereed by an all-white crew. I had trouble getting from the first point to the second especially in today’s NBA. I guess you would have to assume the opposing team had several more white players, to get enough bias in its favor to generate an incremental number of fouls called, because nobody gets 0.1 foul shots in a game in the real world. And then you have to assume the incremental foul results in a made foul shot or converted turnover, and then there are assumptions about the talent of the teams being otherwise equal, playing time of the racially different members of the team, and so on. It seems like there are so many real world variables that can be held equal only in a hypothetical sense to generate the circumstances in which the extrapolation would be true. But if two teams playing each other had similar racial composition, which I imagine is pretty common in the NBA, the bias identified would not seem to affect the outcome at all.
If anyone wants an anecdote consistent with the authors’ point, watch the play where Chris Bosh picks up his fourth foul in last night’s Game 5 against the Nets, when the replay clearly showed it was Bargnani’s foul. But note the Raptors won anyway, which is consistent with my issue with the extrapolation. There was still a foul to be called.
Owen
May 2, 2007
Well, the study is getting killed by the player-commentators. Barkley went off on it at the start of the Spurs game, though he sounded unsophisticated, suggesting the study didnt control for the amount of time black players spent on the court. From what I can tell, black players, both past and present are unanimous in their rejection of the conclusions of the study. I dont know quite why they would reject it so vehemently, since I don think any of the players would suggest racism doesnt exist. Perhaps, they cherish the idea of the NBA as a meritocracy. Hardly surprising if so, since it has to be the most discrimination-free zone in the entire world for people of African descent.
The other thing i have noticed is the criticism that “all they did was look at the box score,” and “they didn’t even watch the games.” Like it or not, this may cast a shadow over box score approaches like the WOW. Or perhaps, it just reflects a popular distaste for the notion that box scores can capture what is going on out there.
JChan
May 2, 2007
I’m surprised that some people want to just dismiss this report out of hand. From what I have read today and heard on the radio, the conclusions made in the report are almost just common sense.
The only thing I highly disagree with is the phrase “racial discrimination”. In my eyes, this phrase implies that the white referees are purposefully calling more fouls on the black players. And I don’t think that is the case.
This seems to me to be a case of people making split-second decisions and being ever so slightly influenced by their subconscious. I don’t think I am a racist, but I would be a fool if I didn’t admit that I see white and black people differently.
All of us are slightly biased just by being human. Everyone feels a bit more comfortable with people who are similar to themselves. Whether it is religion, race, economic status or whatever, we identify with those who are like us.
Really what this study shows is that referees are human. I have never heard of anyone saying a bad call was made because of racism, and I sincerely hope that no one uses this to begin accusing our current referees of racism on tough calls. Heaven knows their jobs are hard enough as it is.