Talk today is about the foul-happy refs in the Virginia Tech-Duke game. Folks were upset that most of Virginia Tech’s best players were in foul trouble all night, with Malcolm Delaney playing much of the second half with four fouls.
No surprise. People have thought that Duke gets all the calls since time immemorial.
For what it’s worth, I have no idea whether last night’s game was called poorly; I was watching the Millercle on Ice. Certainly, though, referees are capable of calling, and do call, miserable, one-sided games from time to time. (I’m sure you all remember this great day in ACC refereeing history. “Forty-three shining moments / It’s Duke at the line … “)
It’s still only one game, though. On a macro level, Duke doesn’t get all the calls, at least not this year. The difference between Duke’s foul differential and Virginia Tech’s in ACC play is 0.2 per game.
In place of that claim, however, a new claim has risen. It’s not that Duke gets all the calls; it’s that Duke gets all the no-calls, particularly at Cameron Indoor.
Is it true? Do the refs hold their whistles, not over one game but on a systemic basis, when they look over and see K prowling the sidelines and the desperate nerds who are destined to one day lead another Wall Street crash Cameron Crazies howling in the stands?
Obviously, this isn’t a question that stats can answer. The NCAA, as far as I know, doesn’t track “crappy no-calls.” We can, however, muse.
Two thoughts.
First, the claim that Duke gets more no-calls is functionally equivalent to the claim that Duke fouls more than its opponents. Simple enough, really. If the number of fouls called on Duke opponents is roughly equal to the number of fouls called on Duke … and if Duke commits more infractions that don’t get called … then Duke must foul more than its opponents.
That doesn’t jibe with what happens on the court, though. Duke has scaled back its traditional pressure-heavy perimeter defense, in part because of a small backcourt rotation and in part because Jon Scheyer, in particular, has a tough time staying in front of quick players. I’m not saying that Duke is running zone, but it’s hardly 40 minutes of hell out there. The numbers bear this out; Duke steals the ball this year on 10.2 percent of opponents’ possessions, easily the lowest figure in Pomeroy’s database, which dates back to 2004.
If you’re playing off guys, there’s logically less chance of you reaching in, less chance of you getting called for a foul on a hedge, and less chance that you’ll get called for stopping a guy as he blows by you (because you’re giving him space so that he can’t get by you).
That doesn’t prove anything, of course, and it addresses only this season instead of looking at the issue in a more historical context. Yet it’s worth thinking about.
My second thought is simply that it’s really easy to see whether Duke gets the benefit of no-calls. Track them. Tape the games, note egregious no-calls, write some details about them (the situation, time/score), and present your data to the world for review.
Except I suspect that a Virginia Tech guy would have a totally different list than a Duke guy. Hell, I suspect two completely unbiased observers would have totally different lists.
What’s simpler? What makes more sense? People think Duke gets away with murder because they don’t like Duke? Or people think Duke gets away with murder because it was Kyle Singler in the basement with the wrench? Remember, Dean Smith used to get all the calls, too.
I will grant that it’s more or less impossible to say with certainty that Duke doesn’t get a bunch of no-calls. But hell, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, either.
(Not that Seth Greenberg has ever wanted for things to complain about.)
