Always Bet On … White?Will the Lakers benefit from racial discrimination in the NBA Finals?
Posted Thursday, June 5, 2008, at 11:33 AM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponBut the financial evidence for racial discrimination in the NBA has since diminished. And there's plenty of bias in professional sports that's both more pervasive and more pronounced than racial discrimination. The home-court advantage, for example, seems to stem in part from referees who are biased toward the home team. Much of the research in this area has focused on soccer referees, who tend to assign more injury time at the end of a game when the home team is losing and less when it's ahead. They also give out fewer red and yellow cards to the home team and make fewer calls in the lab when watching video with the crowd noise turned off. As a general rule, the bigger the crowd, the bigger the bias.
There are more surprising sources of bias, too. In 1988, a pair of social psychologists from Cornell named Mark Frank and Thomas Gilovich published a study on "Black Uniforms and Aggression in Professional Sports" (PDF). They looked at data from hockey and football and found there was a connection between the color of a team jersey and the number of fouls called on the player wearing that jersey. The teams that wore black (or near-black) tallied a disproportionate total of penalty yards or penalty minutes between 1970 and 1986. (In football, these black-shirts included the Raiders, Steelers, Bengals, Saints, and Bears; in hockey, the Flyers, Penguins, Canucks, Bruins, and Blackhawks.) Meanwhile, the teams wearing the most gentle colors—like the aqua-coral-and-white Miami Dolphins—seemed to get the fewest whistles.
It's possible that the owners of black-shirted teams tend to hire more aggressive players. But Frank and Gilovich found that the pattern held even when teams switched colors midseason. The Pittsburgh Penguins swapped their blue uniforms for black ones in the middle of the 1979-80 campaign, in solidarity with the hometown Steelers, who had just won Super Bowl XIV. The team logged 50 percent more penalty minutes after the change than they did before.
In the lab, Frank and Gilovich demonstrated that football referees were more likely to call a penalty on a player wearing black than one wearing white or grey, even on an identical play. This could be a weird offshoot of racial bias, with the uniform standing in for the color of a player's skin. Or maybe the racism uncovered by Price and Wolfers is actually an extension of this more essential bias against certain colors.
If Price and Wolfers are right, then—all other things being equal—the Lakers may have a very slight advantage over the Celtics in the NBA Finals. But all other things are rarely equal. The boisterous crowds might amplify Boston's home-court advantage. Perhaps the Celtic green will soothe the referees, in the same way that green placebos work best for treating anxiety. There will be bad calls in this championship series, and there will be biased calls. It's just hard to tell which way they'll go. Wait, did I mention that Pau Gasol has brown hair?
News of the World Hush-Money Scandal: How Much Did Rupert Murdoch Know?
Obama's Nominee for NIH Chief Is an Evangelical Christian. And That's OK.
It's Way Too Soon To Call the Stimulus a Failure
I'm Having a Dinner To Celebrate My Divorce
Can the Kid Who Settled Child-Abuse Claims With Michael Jackson Finally Speak Out?
Fake News You Can Dance To
Remarks from the Fray:
Why on earth would Vegas bet on the Lakers, you ask?
1) LA is better in the interior with the addition of Paul Gasol, thus making their perimeter shooting more effective, thus making them more dangerous offensively. They could be ranked amongst the top 5 teams of all time.
2) LA knocked off the defending champs in five games, making the Spurs look as though they didn't even have their starters on the floor most of the time.
3) Oh, here's the big one ... Boston played two seven game series and a 6 game series, and looked as though they were truly struggling at times. LA played a 4 game series, a 6 game series, and a 5 game series. The team to play a shorter number of games in the playoffs almost always wins the finals.
4) Kobe's won championships. Fisher has won championships. Phil Jackson? Won championships. The Celts? Well, I guess Sam Cassell has, but considering he's been riding the pine a lot of late, I'm not sure that counts for much. Vegas bets on history and experience, not intangibles.
Personally, I'm rooting for the Celts, but they've definitely got their hands full.
--morbo the great
(To reply, click here.)
Having lived in Vegas and known people in the Sports Books, I thought I'd take a moment to explain how the odds are set. It has nothing at all to do with who the oddsmaker thinks will win the game or a series. It's a function of how they expect the initial bets will be made Then if too much money is being bet on one team, the odds will change to make the other team a "better" bet. Over time the odds will change to reflect the betting trends you can watch this by noting what the odds are for say..the Celtics to win in 7, and then go back and check it at a later. The goal of the bookmaker is to get the monies split as close to 50/50 as possible, with the book making their money off the fee they charge, and in essence the betters just swapping money. The Lakers may be "favored" right now (which means the oddsmakers expect more money to be initially bet for the Celtics to win), but if the Celtics win the first two games, that will change for any new betters.
--damon2
(To reply, click here.)
It's logical that in a "one-and-done" playoff format, like NFL playoffs, the refs can have a big impact by butting their ugly heads into the game instead of letting the players decide the outcome. However, in a 7 game format, cannot think of a professional sports team that can rightfully say the refs cost them the series. Refs will always call a bad game, but that's the beauty of having to win four times against your opponent: Bad calls, plays, days, etc. even out, white or black. The best team wins. And if the two teams are so closely matched one cries foul in the seventh game, they should have gotten it done in six.
--jessecrismanassa
(To reply, click here.)
Gasol isn't only white. He's also a really good player. He's a post player who can pass really well on a team with the best cutter in the world. The Celts beat the Lakers during the reg. season but that was before they got Gasol. It's going to be close but I'd say advantage Lakers-white, black not withstanding. The article doesn't mention how many points this supposed bias is supposed to account for. Jordan was pretty dark and he got calls if anyone breathed on him. There are so many factors in a basketball game-it's part of what makes it Fantastic!-I really don't think the racial bias of the ref's counts much especially in games where most of the shots are taken by black guys anyway. Did brent Barry get the "benefit" of being white at the end of the last LA San Anton match up?
--TripleJ
(To reply, click here.)
The Mavericks and Heat teams of 2005-06 had the same amount of white players, but a large difference in the prominence of those players. Both teams had three white fellas, but the Mavericks of 2006 were seen as a very white team. Led by ubermensch Dirk Nowitzki, clearly the highest profile player on the team, the Mavericks also frequently used Keith Van Horn, as well as "light-skinned" Devin Harris and Doug Christie. The Heat, led by Dwayne Wade, the unduly anointed future of the NBA, only used Jason Williams on a regular basis, and had Jason Kopono occasionally off the bench. Although the ball was more often in white hands for the Mavericks, they seemed to get far less calls from the referees, the most notable, in Game 5, came against Nowitzki, himself – though the foul, if it did happen, likely should have been called on the "light-skinned" Devin Harris. I think the real, and undeniable, bias in the NBA is for superstars, for sneaker promoters, and Gatorade hawkers, and salesmen. All "superstars," regardless of race, get favorable calls, but, when it comes down to it, the bigger, more productive stars get the more beneficial calls. Let's be honest, not many people will buy shoes worn by Dirk Nowitzki, but people may buy shoes, shirts, sports drinks, phones, hats, watches, and The NBA from Dwayne Wade, or Kobe, or KG. Race is a factor is everything in America, but profile, and prominence, marketability and notability, are the dirty little influences of the league and its officials. Nash and Nowitzki won MVPs, and the league lost money, so it could be awhile until Shaq or Kobe, Price or Wolfers have as much reason to decry the "blatant" Caucasian bias of the NBA.
--Eagle2HB
(To reply, click here.)
(6/5)