Subscribe!
CourtIntelligence powered by kenpom.com

The good stuff


At other venues...
  • ESPN.com ($)
  • Deadspin
  • Slate

  • Strategy
  • Whether to foul up 3 late
  • The value of 2-for-1’s

  • Philosophy
  • Brady Heslip’s non-slump
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • A treatise on plus-minus
  • The preseason AP poll is great
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • The lack of information in close-game performance
  • Why I don’t believe in clutchness*

  • Fun stuff
  • The missing 1-point games
  • Which two teams last lost longest ago?
  • How many first-round picks will Kentucky have?
  • Prepare for the Kobe invasion
  • Predicting John Henson's free throw percentage
  • Can Derrick Williams set the three-point accuracy record?
  • Play-by-play Theater: earliest disqualification
  • Monthly Archives

  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003

  • RSS feed

    Just how crazy was the Pacquiao/Bradley decision?

    by Ken Pomeroy on Monday, June 11, 2012


    Even if you have no interest in boxing (like me) you’ve heard about the bizarre decision by the judges of the Manny Pacquiao/Tim Bradley fight on Saturday night. Despite nearly everybody believing Pacquiao won the 12-round fight convincingly, two of the three judges gave the fight to Bradley prompting disbelief among observers. This caused me to wonder just how unlikely such a decision was. (Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about boxing and didn’t watch the fight. If I henceforth sound completely ignorant regarding the sport, you know why.)

    In order to determine this I wanted to get an estimate of how likely it was for the rational judge to score a particular round for either fighter. I found 18 reporters of varying reputation that scored the fight round-by-round. Here’s how many of those people gave each round to Bradley.

    Rd  1:  8
    Rd  2:  2
    Rd  3:  0
    Rd  4:  0
    Rd  5:  2
    Rd  6:  1
    Rd  7:  3
    Rd  8:  7
    Rd  9:  4
    Rd 10: 11
    Rd 11:  4
    Rd 12:  8

    This gives us a rough idea of the chances that a random, somewhat informed, observer would score each round for Bradley.  I’m going to estimate that chance using (Bradley+1)/(18+2) because I don’t think it’s fair to assume there’s truly no chance that a rational judge would score either round 3 or 4 for Bradley. Doing this results in the following chances that a judge would score each round for Bradley.

    Rd  1: 45%
    Rd  2: 15
    Rd  3:  5
    Rd  4:  5
    Rd  5: 15
    Rd  6: 10
    Rd  7: 20
    Rd  8: 40
    Rd  9: 25
    Rd 10: 60
    Rd 11: 25
    Rd 12: 45

    Treating the judges as robots that will adhere to these percentages when judging each round, we can calculate the chances that Bradley would be judged the winner purely by random bad judging, thus answering the question posed in the title of this post.

    Pacquiao wins: 99.38%
    Draw:           0.59%
    Bradley wins:   0.03%

    If the judging were truly random and the percentages calculated for each round are accurate - which, keep in mind, are more generous to Bradley’s chances than what was observed by those who bothered to post their scorecards online - Pacquiao had about a 0.6% chance of getting screwed out of the decision and Bradley had a 1-in-3300 chance of winning outright.

    The figure for Bradley is so low that it forces me to reexamine the assumptions. The fact is that judging the winner of a particular round is probably not independent from what was judged in previous rounds. For instance, the eight amateur judges that gave the first round to Bradley gave an average of 2.6 remaining rounds to him. The ten that gave the first round to Pacquiao gave just 2.1 remaining rounds to Bradley. The sample size is pretty small, so it’s tough to read too much into this, especially when you consider that two of the three ringside judges gave the first round to Pacquiao. But it stands to reason that judges might have a small unconscious bias towards a fighter for various reasons.

    The other issue is whether to accept the calculated estimate of a judge’s chance of favoring Bradley in each round. It’s possible that the scorecards used to produce these estimates weren’t exactly independent either. While the judges themselves are insulated from live commentary and opinion, folks in the media are not, and this may produce a slight tendency towards groupthink.

    Of course, this all assumes that the judges are trying their best. I don’t buy into conspiracy theories, but I do understand that boxing has been prone to corruption from time to time. Depending on what you read, this was either the best thing to happen to promoter Bob Arum, or the worst thing.

    Boxing apparently has a history of controversial decisions. There’s a simple way to fix this: Use more judges. While it’s not feasible to use seven judges in all fights, it’s doable for title fights given the money they generate, and it would greatly reduce the chance of a bad decision. I simulated a million cases using seven judges, and none had Bradley winning on at least four of the cards. (In the three-judge simulation, Bradley was favored by at least two judges in 304 cases.)

    If boxing wanted fair decisions more often, they would increase the number of judges. Sure, this would make Michael Buffer’s job more difficult at the end of the fight, but I think it’s a worthy trade in order to reward the better fighter more often. However, given the amount of publicity the sport gets for controversial decisions, this isn’t in its best interest. Fewer people would have been talking about the Pacquiao decision on Sunday and Monday had the proper decision occurred, and I definitely wouldn’t have written about it.