Guy Berger

Weird... Guy

I remember loving this show when I was very young. Don't remember much except the large blob seems familiar. "Barba-aba" in Hebrew. Guy

When I was a kid growing up in Israel, I really dug "Rehov Soomsoom". ("Sesame Street" in Hebrew.) Guy

I'm not watching the game, but from yahoo sports it looks like Lamar Odom is almost single-handedly keeping the Lakers' playoff chances alive. edit: 2:05 left, Lakers not dead yet. Kobe putting in an Iverson-esque performance -- 34 pts on 13-33 shooting. Farmar's been solid tonight. edit2: OK, now they're dead. Props to Lamar Odom for putting in a monster game. I hope the Suns can beat the Spurs... but I'm not optimistic. Guy

Amen Larry, Jim's most recent posts on this thread are superb. Guy

The interview Phil is talking about:

Nellie says there is a good chance Matt Barnes won't play tomorrow due to injury. That could be huge. Guy

There's a post and thread on this article at the Marginal Revolution economics blog. One of the commenters says: Another says (re: Noj's comments on all-stars and Laker scrubs): Another good one: Guy

Ok... Jason Kidd. Black? or White? So we better ask the 'anonymous former referee'? Seriously... In the article it says that 12 players could fit into either racial group, and that their classification did not substantially change the conclusion. Guy

I remember reading about that. (Though I thought it was 10%?) Definitely appropriate -- obviously this study could be debunked by further research. I assume the first step will be to see if another academic can replicate the results. Guy

I think this a nice summary. Guy

The study uses what are called "player effects" -- that is, a variable for each player. So unless players' personalities change from game to game, I don't think what you suggest is a problem for the study. Guy

Bingo. That's the conclusion that can be drawn. Why? Because the only legitimate study would take the specific race of the referee making a specific call against a specific race of player. And according to the article, the NBA did that: Given a choice between an inexact measurement that shows "bias" and an exact measurement that shows no "bias", which do you think is a better designed study? The academic study has been publicly released and seems, at least on the surface, to have sound methodology. The NBA study has not -- we have no clue which (if any) econometric techniques they used. correction: Apparently the three economists mentioned the article (Ayres, Katz, Berri) saw both sets of studies. Ayres and Berri are the only ones quoted in the article, and they seem more convinced by the academic study.

Noj -- the study apparently controls for non-racial characteristics. In other words, if Mihm or Vujacic were black, they'd be called for even more fouls. Guy

Bingo. That's the conclusion that can be drawn. Why? BTW, the economists interviewed in the article don't question the methodology. Guy

Nuggets are toast. Finley is killing 'em. Guy

Why? What difference? Guy

No - the conclusion is a given white player is less likely than an identical black player to get called for a foul by a white ref. From the article: and: Guy

The study seems, to me, to be flawed if they rely on box scores for their data. Box scores do not specify which referee makes each call. How did they come to their conclusion if they cannot determine which ref makes the call? Presumably they used the racial breakdown of the ref team. I agree that this is not as perfect as using the racial identity of the ref, but I don't find it to be as problematic as others suggest. They explain their methodology in the NYT article. That's a good question! (Though I don't think it hurts their conclusions.) Though the data obviously doesn't exist, in an ideal world we'd analyze how non-calls break down. Guy

What's wrong with the 1997 versions? Guy

Leaving me out of this -- and please do -- if that "well known Coltrane-linked saxophonist" that Soul Steam cited is someone whose music you respect (BTW I don't know who that saxophonist is), would you still feel that there is no room at all for disagreement here? Yes. In that case I would lament that a talented musician is talking out of his ass. edit: Let me clarify my statement -- there's definitely room for disagreement about whether Murray is a good or bad saxophonist. But to suggest that the guy "can't play at all" is just plain ludicrous. Guy

FWIW -- I don't know if anybody else saw the final votes for coach of the year: -- who the fuck voted for Isiah Thomas? Guy

I think it's interesting that Miles used it in such an unconventional way -- it's never used (at least in the recordings I've heard) to actually lay down the rhythm. Guy

FWIW, Phil deserves some of the blame as well. Guy Maybe the recent failure of the Lakers is the result of the decision to build a "team" around Kobe Bryant as your focal point. I don't think he makes the players around him better. He is a skilled hot dog, and that's it. It seems like the only times they win are when he goes off and attempts to score 50/60 points. And then he's the hot dog, not the team guy. It's like the Iverson era in Philly. I think the problem is philosophical decisions that have been made, as much as any coaching and the players on the team itself. No doubt. But something clearly went wrong in the Lakers' meltdown during the 2nd half of the season -- and I don't think injuries account for all of it. BTW, the Lakers are lucky that Kobe is a better player than Iverson or they would be in real trouble. Guy

Guy