Are the Blazers Getting Screwed?

There's a simmering sentiment that the Portland Trail Blazers might be getting shafted by the referees. Mike Barrett, the TV play-by-play voice (and, err, face) of the Blazers, discussed that nagging issue on his blog. The excellent Dave Deckard of Blazers Edge followed up with sage, sober analysis of why the Blazers have suffered a noticeable foul deficit in the series.

In fairness, these fellows aren't whining. This is as calm as playoff referee analysis can possibly get. But the questions deserve a deeper look: should the Blazers have expected this sort of foul disparity?

First, we need to look at what has actually happened out there: the Blazers have taken 79 free throws, and the Rockets have taken 106. That's a bit eye-grabbing.

But all season, Houston was one of the most stingy teams in terms of fouling -- second to only San Antonio, in fact, in the standard measure of "opponent FTM per FGA." Portland -- not exactly a foul-drawing team, as Barrett notes -- drew free throws at a below-average rate over the course of the season.

On the other end, Houston draws fouls at a roughly average rate, and Portland itself fouls at roughly an average rate. Take all these together, and Houston would be expected to have some additional free throws. But 27 additional free throws over four games?

I used regular season own and opponent FTM/FGA figures to suss out in which series games each team fell below, met or exceeded its expected number of free throws. In Game 1 -- a blow-out, if you'll recall -- our regular season numbers would have predicted about 23 FTAs for Portland and 19 FTAs for Houston. Instead, Portland shot 16 free throws and Houston shot 28. But again, this game was a blow-out, and that could very well have affected the final numbers.

In Game 2, Portland took 36 free throws and Houston took 32. Our expectations machine would have predicted 21 for each. Obviously, the teams either racheted up the physicality, or the refs called this game tighter.

In Game 3, Portland took 10 FTAs and Houston had 24. Expectations would have given Portland 21 and Houston 20. Based solely on expectations derived from regular season action, Houston shot more than would be expected and Portland far less.

Game 4 provided a tighter alignment with expectations: Portland shot 17 FTAs, Houston 22. Expectations pegged it at 19 and 18 respectively.

Now, this is a math exercise meant to show whether a macro-based red flag should be raised about the foul-calling in this series. Based on the statistical expectations going in, the data would indicate Game 3 should shoot up a substantial red flag, and Game 4 should offer a minor one.

As noted, Game 1 has other mitigating factors due to the early margin, and Game 2 featured an equally high number of free throws for both teams. But the FTAs in Games 3 and 4 are far enough from expectations that a case-by-case analysis should -- and likely will -- be undertaken by the league.

This is not definitive proof the refs are being too quick on the whistle with regard to the way Greg Oden and Joel Przybilla have guarded Yao Ming, or that Yao is getting away with contact. Far from it. This is -- again -- a math exercise to figure out whether the data suggest we should have expected such a disparity based on the types of teams Houston and Portland are. The data suggests we should not have expected the disparity to this degree.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

4-28-2009 @ 5:58PM

zionic1 said...

Statistical analysis is nice and all, but to write an article using only statistical measures to explain a series without any reference to the games or specific plays is a bit like reducing basketball to Dungeons and Dragons or World of Warcraft. Have you watched the games or merely crunched the stats?

As a nba fan who rooted for the Kings in the early part of the decade I can say that while Sac and its fans had a legit beef. The Blazers community does not have such a beef. But I fear its heading down the same road from criticism to outright paranoia. They are a young exciting team that is fun to watch but this is their first playoff series. At some point they have to go out and play without excuses. The Kings teams that I loved so much could never get over the refs and it wrecked the team. Blazers fans dont let it happen to you.

4-28-2009 @ 6:24PM

ty185 said...

with all due respect, this seems to be a classic "details lost due to the researcher only looking at the raw numbers" case in statistical research.

with game 2,3,4 all decided in the last minute, any research about foul disparity needs to take account into the last minute intentional fouls committed by the trailing team.

I don't have the exact numbers, but I suspect the foul numbers would look substantially closer for those three games once we deduct those last minute noises out of the analysis...

4-28-2009 @ 6:20PM

Albert said...

you said that extra free throw attempts were expected for houston based on the rate at which both teams foul and get fouled. however, in the game by game estimates of how many free throw attempts each team should have shot, portland consistently has higher expected free throw numbers. how is that possible?

4-28-2009 @ 6:53PM

john said...

I find it extremely funny that people would use the foul NUMBERS to make a point of the officiating being fair or not. So that means if a team actually does commit more fouls, the refs are supposed to have the numbers even no matter what? Do they call phantom fouls on the other team or do they ignore some of the fouls so the numbers equal out?

After the game 1 whipping, it was obvious that Nate McMillian decided they were going to get rough with Yao, pretty much as the entire league has dealt with him from the beginning. And the foul numbers have reflected that (nevermind that Joey Crawford fiasco in game 2).

I don't care if you want to say they are talking about it calmly or not, it's still whining. We all think NBA reffing sucks a lot of the time, but you know they wouldn't be saying a thing if their "getting rough" with Yao was working and they were winning these games. All 4 games so far have been different refs and different results every game, so I don't buy the argument at all.

4-28-2009 @ 6:56PM

mcjesus666 said...

whenever things go wrong for a team fans start to blame the refs. I have been guilty of this too, but if you look at a game call for call, these things usually average out.

4-28-2009 @ 7:00PM

Tom said...

For goodness sake, friends. Please re-read the last three paragraphs. I am not saying the refs are in the tank. I'm saying there's a large enough difference in what we saw and what we could expect to see based on data that a closer look should be taken!

4-28-2009 @ 7:24PM

Michael gifford said...

while others have talked about how stats don't show the story, here's the undelying element why a transfer of stats from regular season to playoff conditions will not give a true picture...the stakes are higher in playoffs...that's it..it changes everything! There is a different level of intensity that occurs which has a whole new range of ancillary effects. Effects like regular season superstars 'disappearing' during the playoffs, or average players 'stepping up'...It's not beyond possibility that a young team, with minimal experience in playoffs would play a little more out of control and thereby engender more fouls...just an extra bit of adrenalin here, there and everywhere, since EVERY play is meaningful, could easily result in about 7 more fouls per game..roughly the average...add to that players' inexperience in playoffs and the added desperation that can come in some games and you can have disparity. The test will be if Houston gets a bucket load of calls against Lakers (IF they move on) or Portland gets the "same treatment" if they move on. Until then, it's still fan griping...

infinitesnowboy said...

Tom, I'd like it if you responded to the points Albert and ty185 brought up because I immediately thought the same things. Also, does this properly account for non-shooting fouls while not in the bonus? Oden's off the ball fouls on Yao seems to be one of the Blazer's issues with the officiating.

4-28-2009 @ 8:15PM

Juan said...

No they just keep losing in the playoffs... which is what you're NOT supposed to do. Get the fudge outta here with such a bologna story.

4-28-2009 @ 8:55PM

MEK said...

You need to understand the limitations of statistics before you start applying them. Those problems include the following:
1. Four games is an extremely small sample size. For example, in roulette, over 1000 spins, it is reasonable to assume red will come up about 500 times. But over four spins, anything can happen.
2. Comparing how Portland and Houston fared against all teams during the regular season is different from comparing how they did against each other in the regular season. Player match ups largely dictate how a team fares.
3. Free throws also depend on when and where the fouls are committed. A team can commit four non-shooting fouls in a quarter with the result that no free throws are awarded. Alternatively, a team can commit 4 shooting fouls in a quarter with the result that that team shoots 8 free throws. And as was pointed out by others, this analysis doesn't take into account intentional fouls at the end of the game.
4. A similar analysis would be to say that Portland scored on average 99 points per game in the regular season and Houston scored 98, so something is wrong when each of the four games hasn't ended in a score of 99 to 98.

4-28-2009 @ 8:59PM

alknetjak said...

Ziller, you've gone and written the moron's article.

"Now, this is a math exercise meant to show whether a macro-based red flag should be raised about the foul-calling in this series. Based on the statistical expectations going in, the data would indicate Game 3 should shoot up a substantial red flag, and Game 4 should offer a minor one."

No, what you have is an exercise grounded soundly in stupidity. Without looking at the context of the fouls, just matching up FT numbers means precisely NOTHING.

Now maybe you've closed off your mind, but it's mind-bogglingly easy to completely destroy your argument. A rational person would realize after reading what I have to write, that you have absolutely no logical ground to hold your stated position. Ready?

Oh no, "Game 4 provided a tighter alignment with expectations: Portland shot 17 FTAs, Houston 22."

But wait... "What's this!?" says the guy who watched the game, "Wasn't Portland INTENTIONALLY giving up FTs at the end of the game to stop the clock? I wonder if those account for the blip?"

So our curious reader heads over and looks at the 4th quarter to see how many FTs the Blazers ASKED THE REFS TO GIVE THE ROCKETS.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=290426010&period=4

Answer: 6.

Meaning the FT disparity isn't Houston 22 - Portland 17.

It's Portland 17 - Houston 16.

BOMBSHELL.

OMG. Houston shot less called FTs than Portland. It's so, so hard to win in this league when you're only shooting one more FT than the opposing team, isn't it, Tom?

Game 3: 8 intentional FTs given at the end of the game AND a technical FT given up by Pryzbilla. Final tally:

Houston 15 FTs - Portland 10.

Oh my word. How will the guys from Portland EVER cope when the refs are causing such horrible skews in distribution.

Your so-called math exercise is worthless, because it fails to take even the simplest of context (Technical and Intentional fouls into account.) As the popular counter to "figures don't lie" says, "But liars do figures."

Jazz fans were crying about this last year while giving up 10FTs in the final minute. OMG LA shot 13 more FTs than us! UNFAIR! Well don't give LA 10 FTs for fun, and you'll only have a 3 FT differential.

Maybe if these teams STOPPED INTENTIONALLY FOULING the fans would have a gripe.

Now, Mr. Ziller, you obviously feel that you're a cut above the random guy posting comments on a blog, (the pay alone should indicate that.) so you've gotta be held to a higher standard. I'd expect a blogger to have some pathetic snipe back, but I expect someone who's ostensibly a paid journalist to man up, admit their mistakes, and post a humble correction.

So what's it going to be?

4-29-2009 @ 12:44PM

Eric said...

You're an insecure retard.

4-29-2009 @ 12:11PM

kully said...

alknetjak, good post.

This article was pretty poorly researched.

4-28-2009 @ 10:05PM

nomadchevs said...

Anyone notice Yao sets moving picks over and over and it's never called. Watch the Rockets high pick with Yao. I have never seen a better example of a moving pick. It is no wonder the Rockets are getting such open shots. It is physically impossible for players to get around Yao when the man keeps moving.

Yao also camps out in the key far longer than 3 seconds. It is beyond me why it is not called. It's not like you can miss seeing the guy. Next time you watch him play watch his high picks and time in the Key.

4-29-2009 @ 10:14AM

Well next time I suppose I need to put all my references to THIS IS JUST A BOX SCORE BASED MACRO LOOK AT WHETHER THE GAMES SHOULD EVEN BE LOOKED AT CLOSER in all caps, maybe blinking letters.

I said the free throw disparities ON PAPER raise a few red flags, especially Game 3 and to a lesser extent Game 4. At that point, the league should look at individual fouls and circumstances. They'd see the intentional fouls in Game 4. They could judge which Game 3 fouls were correct, which were touchy, which were bad. This is a jumping off point. We can assume -- BASED ON THE NUMBERS -- Game 2 was evenly called (tight on both ends), but that in Game 3 Portland got more FTs than expected. That is ALL I looked at here.

I don't understand how a fairly simple point can be so easily misinterpreted.

4-29-2009 @ 1:08PM

No, Tom, YOU'RE missing the point.

The point is that your flag-raising macro, is meaningless without better data. If you only use the box score, it's a completely worthless macro. THAT is the point. You may as well use a macro that raises flags based on the margin of victory. That's how pointless your macro flags would be!

The play-by-play is ON PAPER. The technical fouls are ON PAPER. It wouldn't take much to create a macro that makes a reasonable judgment on intentional fouls (fouls delivered in the last 2 minutes when the game's within 10, occurring < 5 sec. after a possession change.) and you could then use THAT macro to raise some legitimate flags.

Your macro, as has been pointed out to you, would be almost, if not entirely, useless. Don't get all whiny and defensive, you wrote a bad article based on a bad premise. Man up and accept your criticism.

4-29-2009 @ 4:18PM

Dave D. said...

Tom,

I read this and immediately said "I bet there's 30 angry posts below this one."

People go into a post with preconceived notions, and whether or not Portland is getting jobbed is one of them. When you take a stance one way or the other, and it's based on partial information, people are going to get riled up. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to know it's coming.

Also, it's better to put warnings at the top, not the bottom. At the bottom it feels like backtracking; at the top it feels like thesis.

4-29-2009 @ 5:05PM

Dave D:

The thing is, very few of the people here are actually angry at the notion that Portland's getting jobbed.

Most of the commentors are angry at the completely illogical methodology of his article. You want to make a case that Portland's getting jobbed? Go for it. But don't try and tell me you're doing a "mathematical exercise" that fails at the most fundamental of levels. Why even bother doing the exercise if you're not going to care to follow-through on the most basic levels of diligence?

If you run a macro on bad data, you absolutely KNOW that your end result will always be the same: garbage.

"Garbage In, Garbage Out", it's a fundamental axiom of computer science.

4-29-2009 @ 7:44PM

I agree with alknetjak. Tom's contention that red flags are being raised by the box scores shows a complete misunderstanding of statistics. He is making at least four basic errors in statistical analysis, including:
1. Using too small of a sample size.
2. Comparing apples and oranges (by looking at all games that each team played during the regular season rather than just games between Portland and Houston)
3. Failing to take into account major impacts on the statistics (like intentional fouls at the end of the games).
4. Looking only at the "mean" averages and not the "standard deviation" which is absolutely necessary in any statistical analysis.

5-23-2009 @ 3:54AM

Arlentcolvin.copp said...

There is a different level of intensity that occurs which has a whole new range of ancillary effects. http://www.pspconverter.com Effects like regular season superstars 'disappearing' during the playoffs, or average players 'stepping up'..