Article in the WSJ today

[bigj4194]

There is an article in the WSJ today proving Duke doesn't get all the calls...we are only #8. Cryolina was 2nd...haha. guess they need to STOP TALKING!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527673047217570.html#m od=todays_us_opinion

GTHC

[Bluedog]

There is an article in the WSJ today proving Duke doesn't get all the calls...we are only #8. Cryolina was 2nd...haha. guess they need to STOP TALKING!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527673047217570.html#m od=todays_us_opinion

GTHC

Uh, we're #6, but point taken. UConn almost always destroys everybody in this category. But it doesn't really prove that they "get all the calls" - simply, that they generally get fouled more often...I always found this argument dubious.

[Battierfan01]

Uh, we're #6, but point taken. UConn almost always destroys everybody in this category. But it doesn't really prove that they "get all the calls" - simply, that they generally get fouled more often...I always found this argument dubious.

Me too. Coach K has always said that we get a lot of fouls and foul calls because we play aggressive and drive to the basket.

[weezie]

"guess they need to STOP TALKING!"




Nahhh. The haters will just conclude that Duke planted graduates at the WSJ to skew the article and the survey numbers. We're that good....;)

[sagegrouse]

The reporting is suspect, although the Journal did not do the basic research. It omitted mention of the fact that trailing teams commit fouls at the end of the game to lengthen the contest and get a chance to trade 3-for-1 or 3-for-2. Ergo, teams that win most or all of the games will receive more fouls by leading at the end.

I suppose a superior methodology would be to count fouls only in the first half, although clearly getting the data for a large number of games would be a problem.

The point about better players is correct. Quicker (Grant Hill), stronger (Elton Brand) and more skilled players (Christian Laettner) can make a living at the foul line. Duh.

sagegrouse

[cspan37421]

Classic example of confusing cause and effect. Dave Odom's admonishing remarks at bottom did not seem to have sunk through Biderman's head - note his opening paragraph: "... about how all the big schools (read: Duke) get special treatment from the refs. But for once, there's actually some evidence to support such gripes."

Another example of the depths to which journalism has sunk.

[riverside6]

We follow foul differential for ACC teams here (http://www.scacchoops.com/FoulDifferential.asp).

You can find prior seasons here...

2008-9 (http://www.scacchoops.com/FoulDifferential.asp?season=2009)
2007-8 (http://www.scacchoops.com/FoulDifferential.asp?season=2008)
2006-7 (http://www.scacchoops.com/FoulDifferential.asp?season=2007)

You can also look at just conference games for any season.

[cspan37421]

As a follow up, the chart could have been just as - or more - accurately titled, "Most Fouled Teams"

[ice-9]

The reporting is suspect, although the Journal did not do the basic research. It omitted mention of the fact that trailing teams commit fouls at the end of the game to lengthen the contest and get a chance to trade 3-for-1 or 3-for-2. Ergo, teams that win most or all of the games will receive more fouls by leading at the end.

That's true but only for non-blow out games (e.g...within 10 points with under a minute to go?). For blow outs, the losing team won't bother to foul.

[rasputin]

It is not the officials' job to equalize the amount of fouls. They are supposed to call what they see. Some teams foul more than others, and some draw more than others, based on style of play.

[CDu]

It is not the officials' job to equalize the amount of fouls. They are supposed to call what they see. Some teams foul more than others, and some draw more than others, based on style of play.

Exactly. All this data shows is that these teams get more fouls called in their favor than other teams. It says nothing about what percentage of those foul calls are correctly (or more importantly INcorrectly) called in their favor.

As you note, some teams are more likely to be fouled and some more likely to commit fouls based simply on style of play. In addition, as has been noted, teams who are ahead generally draw more fouls as the trailing team fouls to try to catch up. And beyond that, more talented teams generally draw more fouls because they are better and more able to exploit the defense (and may be less likely to make mistakes on defense themselves).

[MChambers]

Exactly. All this data shows is that these teams get more fouls called in their favor than other teams. It says nothing about what percentage of those foul calls are correctly (or more importantly INcorrectly) called in their favor.

As you note, some teams are more likely to be fouled and some more likely to commit fouls based simply on style of play. In addition, as has been noted, teams who are ahead generally draw more fouls as the trailing team fouls to try to catch up. And beyond that, more talented teams generally draw more fouls because they are better and more able to exploit the defense (and may be less likely to make mistakes on defense themselves).

Or teams are better because they don't commit unnecessary fouls and put other teams on the line. Maybe coaching plays a role?