tl;dr — is apparently an NBA assist. No, but seriously, despite recent improvements, NBA stat keeping still has systemic issues that result in incorrectly recorded stats. Dive in to find out more.

As sports betting's pervasive grasp continues to strengthen its chokehold on America, there is an unspoken truth beneath the surface — in the NBA is an ongoing phenomenon.

Setting aside the concerning the and of the gambling industry's rising influence on sports, the NBA's stat keeping system is not up to par with what should be expected of an industry that's handled of American bettors' money to date.

Now, to be clear, the NBA has taken measures to produce more accurate stat keeping to support the growth of sports betting and the increasing number of eyes on the game. On a recent Pablo Torre show covering , Pablo Torre & Tom Haberstroh's found that the home-away disparity in blocks has dramatically converged from a high of +1102 in 1983-84 to +61 in 2023-24.

However, while the margin of error has been dramatically reduced, faulty stat keeping (intentional or not) is a not a thing of the past. No large scale audit (which would be a difficult task given the subjectivity of certain stats as we will discuss later) has been conducted to this point, but Alex Rucker suggests a on Torre's pod.

And while that number seems solid on the surface, we should remind ourselves of the implications of a ~5% error rate when it concerns a 320 billion dollar betting industry.

Unlike live time refereeing, the NBA has the power make retroactive corrections (along with game footage from multiple camera angles). In other words, the element of human error can theoretically be eliminated with enough effort. Yet, errors persist.

In this piece, I will identify three ways the NBA is coming up short in providing the most accurate & transparent stat keeping possible.

1. Total control over retroactively adjusting (or not adjusting) statistics without communication & transparency

For those that follow box scores, you may have noticed stats being changed mid-game (and sometimes post game). This is the result of a NBA's stat keeper's/auditor's manual adjustments. The vast majority of time, they are correctly changing errors they've made. However, there remain instances where

• Stats are uncredited

  • This (April 1 2023 DAL-MIA Q1 0:28) made rounds on NBA Twitter, elicited NBA support responses but was ultimately unfixed.

    • The whistle for a loose ball foul was blown well after the rebound was secured. Twitter user bamba_mih adeptly showed a near identical scenario resulting in a .

• Stats are mis-credited and unfixed

  • (Feb 15 2024 MIL-MEM Q1 0:00)

• Stats are originally corrected credited but later mis-credited

  • (Jan 3 2024 MIL-IND Q4 2:38)

    • Proof it was retroactively altered: , the ESPN game log still has it credited to Andre Jackson Jr. in the play-by-play log

• Stats are originally correctly credited but later rescinded

  • (Jan 21 2024 POR-LAL Q4 9:55) sparked controversy in the sports betting Twittersphere

Ultimately, it is up to the NBA's discretion whether or not to correct a call, with no clear time frame. Sometimes an error happens to affect a larger demographic resulting in , and sometimes they are simply unnoticed.

However, as the NBA is not currently obligated to provide a public report of changes or non-changes (like the L2M/Pool reports for officiating), there is no effective way to confirm what was/wasn't reviewed and no reliable channel of communication to report plays that need a closer look (contacting the nbastats account has shown to be mostly ineffectual).

2. Lack of clear definitions for stats create subjective interpretations of outcomes and plausible deniability

Wait a second, you might say. Those mis-credited steals are inexcusable but Lebron's assist arguably exists in a of the stat keepers' subjective interpretation (the pass looks to have been tipped by a defender).

Consider the existence of that grey area for a moment. What does it mean when certain stats (assists, steals, blocks and rebounds) can depend on the arbitrary decisions of stat keepers?

Unlike the , the NBA has not made its statistician's manual public. Meaning, the general public does not know the guidelines under which stat keepers operate and cannot refer to any hard rules in times of dispute. As it stands, there is no cut and dry definition of what constitutes an assist in the . The closest thing we have is this on the NBA's "":

“An assist is credited to the player tossing the last pass leading directly to a made field goal, but only if the player scoring the goal demonstrates an immediate reaction toward the basket after receiving the pass.”

This vague description leaves room for all sorts of interpretation. What constitutes an immediate reaction toward the basket? Physically moving towards the basket? Looking at the rim? A shot fake? A quick viewing through all the assists of (The NBA.com box scores have video clips of nearly every play) will reveal that this rule is constantly challenged by players who , and/or .

Now back to LeBron's tipped pass, with no guidelines to rely on, fans and sports bettors have had to speculate themselves. It seems as if the NBA has decided that passes that are tipped (even in the slightest way) cannot be recorded as an assist, despite ending up in the hands of the intended target.

• (May 27 2023 BOS-MIA Q2 4:20)

• (Jan 16 2024 OKC-LAL Q4 4:24)

• (Feb 8 2024 DEN-LAL Q1 9:38)

Although...that same rule is violated by their own stat keepers.

• (despite being tipped) (Dec 4 2017 PHO-PHI Q2 7:54)

• (despite being tipped) (May 29 2023 MIA-BOS Q4 3:28)

These inconsistencies run deep. For example, is in direct conflict with . And "assists" like and push the boundaries of what can be admissible. (Fun exercise: how many assists would you have credited Bruce Brown in his game ?)

Perhaps the biggest issue is the lack of clarity or consistency in stat keeping is the plausible deniability it gives stat keepers. With no clear definitions, stat keepers can record or alter certain statistics with the protective veil of subjectivity (and anonymity as discussed below).

In all, the NBA has done a poor job in reducing the subjectivity of certain stats, especially assists. Its reputation would stand to benefit greatly from establishing publicly available rules to record an objective, universally agreed-upon truth of outcomes on the basketball court.

3. Systemic issues leave the door open for bias (which plays get increased attention) and potentially bad actors

Remember on JJJ's inflated home stats last year? The rush to exonerate the NBA's name overshadowed revelations spawned in the aftermath. It was a sad example of how dominant narratives can drown out nuance, truth and perspective in today's popular discourse. Here are some overlooked things to consider (mostly from and ):

• The general process is as follows:

"Each game [has] a primary and secondary caller of the stat and a primary and secondary inputter, all of whom are game-night staff of the home team. There's also an overseer of the whole process — a stat auditor –who works for the NBA's basketball department. If there's a debatable entry...that needs review, it's looked at by in-arena statisticians and the stat auditors, who are located in the Game Operations Center in Secaucus, N.J."

• Although they are employed by the home team, the stat keepers decide which plays need double checking initially, thereby introducing the possibility of bias. For the purposes of auditing the JJJ scandal, unless someone carefully reviewed every minute of JJJ's play (not just the recorded stats), it is impossible have an objective measure of how accurate the scorekeepers were.

“[The home statkeepers] might be more diligent about double checking any instances where there might have been a tiny bit of contact that led to a block or steal that could have otherwise been missed.They might be more eager to go back and double check, whereas even an auditor might not, you know, pull up every angle and go slow in each one. That could certainly be a reason [for JJJ's inflated numbers].”

• The bar to become a NBA stat keeper does not seem exceedingly high, and measures to prevent bad actors are not wholly convincing (personal interpretation from the information I gathered, would be glad to learn more about the staffing process)

“None of them are full-time jobs. Most of the time, in my experience, that talent pool will come from sports information departments at nearby universities...each of the scorekeepers, we have to sign a pledge that no, we won’t gamble. They do background checks every year. So there’s a lot going into protecting the integrity of this stuff.”

• Stat keepers sometimes breach protocol and communicate with players and teams

“I suspect after some of those, [JJJ] has either motioned that he got a piece or said something. So [teams and players] are not supposed to talk to us about stats, and they normally kept with that. It was definitely more the players who would point things out. The (public relations staff) on both teams would sometimes say, “Hey, can you look at this just to make sure.” But that was even very rare because the teams are not supposed to converse with us.”

In summation, inherent flaws of the current stat keeping system include:

1. No system to eliminate "home court bias" for stat keepers like the NBA has for referees (who are not staffed locally). It would explain why the home/away block differential has always been in the positive since the tracking of blocks began.

2. The initial call of which plays get a closer look is subjective and up to the score keepers' discretion. Not all plays are treated equal when it comes to ensuring accuracy.

3. Lack of public record of who the stat keepers are for each game reduces accountability and potentially opens doors for bad actors.

4. Lax regulations pertaining to stat keeper communications with the team.

What's Next?

A with the way the industry was trending. It's ironic that today, that same article is flanked by ESPN sports betting articles.

To be clear, the NBA has improved its stat keeping accuracy significantly over the recent years (Torre and Haberstroh's findings show improvements since the publication of this in 2016). However, to prevent any chance of a catastrophic scandal, there are many further measures the NBA can take to improve accuracy, reduce speculation and promote trust.

Based on the above discussion, I believe 1) Increased transparency for stat revisions 2) Clearly defined rules for stats and 3) A publicly accountable stat keeping system would all go a long way in producing reliable, trustworthy records of the beautiful game of basketball.