I Could Be A Two-Time Felon...

(Does anyone know if breaking and entering one's own house is considered a crime?)

(And no, I will not elaborate.)

(Let's move on, shall we?)

So my new laptop will be here any day now, and I gotta get rid of this POS HDTV--a Sceptre 32" LCD HDTV with a couple slight problems, and by slight, you know what I mean. I gotta find a smaller (~26"), and more importantly, a cheaper alternative.

Random thought:

- Krunk and I (well, I, really) talked about what it means to "tangent" from one topic. We agreed that the definition is to change direction about a topic at hand, by switching to a related topic. For example, if I talked about Las Vegas, and then talked about the television show CSI, I would have made a successful tangent; since CSI is based in Las Vegas, there is a connection between the two topics.

Merriam-Webster.com seems to disagree with our definition. It defines a tangent as "an abrupt change of course; a digression (ex: the speaker went off on a tangent)", which is more severe, in my opinion, than a change to a related topic; in other words, m-w.com seems to define a tangent as an off-topic remark.

I think I'll continue using "tangent" the way I have it defined, even if it may be incorrect.

Anyway, this blog was going to be titled "Reading Comprehension FTW (For The Win!)," and you shall see why below.

- I'm having printer troubles at the moment, and a friend who shall remain nameless tried to help me out last night. I quit asking him for help after this exchange:

Me: I think my laser printer is having an identity crisis
Him: wth are u using a laser poitner for?
Me: um
Me: i'm using a printer to...um...print
Him: haha
Him: i so misread that ;p

(No prize if you figure out who the friend was).

(Disclaimer: The next topic is not meant to poke fun at the two studies mentioned, nor is it meant to elicit a debate over perceived race-based bias between NBA officials and black players. It is just merely to gloss over how important reading comprehension really is).

- An academic study, published in The New York Times, determined that black players are whistled for fouls more often than white players. The study, "conducted over a 13-season span through 2004, found that the racial makeup of a three-man officiating crew affected calls by up to 4½ percent." The researchers also found

"Player-performance appears to deteriorate at every margin when officiated by a larger fraction of opposite-race referees," Wolfers and Price wrote.

But the key finding was in regard to foul calls, saying "black players receive around 0.12-0.20 more fouls per 48 minutes played [an increase of 2½-4½ percent] when the number of white referees officiating a game increases from zero to three."

(The second paragraph is important to note, for the scope of my discussion below.)

The NBA was quick to denounce the study, pointing out that the study used data collected on officiating teams--each game is refereed by a three-person team--and not on individual referees. Also important to note is that the original study was not yet submitted for peer review as of the date The New York Times published their original article.

What brought my attention to these articles were not the stories themselves, but the comments left by ESPN readers. Take a look at some of these comments:

This article is ludicrous. One of the most idiotic article ever written. They called themselves graduate students? Anyone can figure that there are more black players in the NBA than white, so of course black players get called on more.

You can't be serious. The NBA is 95% black.

Agreed - Most Rediculous Study EVERS! This study would have some kind of basis in reality if a) the league was 50/50 black/ white; and b) refs were 50/50 black/whiteReality is that the NBA is a "black man's league", and without accurate figures, i'd venture to say that over 70% of the STARTERS (ie those who play the most minutes!) are black!

(That last one gave me a headache just copying and pasting it...I might pass out if I cho0se to try to decipher the whole thing).

Anyway, clearly these guys can't read! Look back at the second paragraph I quoted above, especially this part:

"But the key finding was in regard to foul calls, saying "black players receive around 0.12-0.20 more fouls per 48 minutes played"

This post pretty much sums up my feelings.

Dear Idiots complaining that since the NBA is 95% black...,The percentage of black/white players and black/white referees is factored into the statistics within the study, hence the "greater rate", not "greater number of fouls". Please do not focus on the fact that most players are black and instead focus on the fact that this is a ridiculously worthless study REGARDLESS!

Finally! Someone that can actually read! Let's not focus on the outcry of racism in the NBA. Let's focus on the fact that this study has little to no merit whatsoever, due to the fact that the study did not take into account individual referee performances. How can people allege a racial bias without knowing if the trio were all black, two and one, or all white? Also, one could argue that any study should also take these factors into account:

• The size of players: bigger players tend to draw more fouls than smaller players. Teams dominated with bigger players should draw fouls at a higher rate than teams that rely on smaller, quicker players.
• Home/road advantages: teams at home generally get the benefit of the doubt more so than the road team. Also, teams on the road have to deal with the hostile crowd, which may cause them to play more sloppily, and potentially incur more fouls.
• Breaks. Some teams just get more breaks than others. Some players (superstars mostly) get the benefit of the doubt more so than others.
  

Of course, with any statistical analysis, you hope to get a large enough set of data to rid yourself of some errors. On the other hand, one can always try to "mold" their data to fit a desired conclusion. Now, I'm not alleging that either scenario is occurring in this situation, but it's worth mentioning the problems with statistical tests (especially when the data-gathering methods appear flawed).

By the way, reading comprehension FTW! Also, kettle corn FTW! And sleep too!