Umpire Racism?!?

[AJtheUMP]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1652338,00.html

Found this article, I put it in funny stories because that's what it was to me, just plain funny. It seems people want to believe its the umpires fault so bad.....

As we all know its OUR fault little Billy isn't going to be able to play in the MLB after all.

[Umpire in Chief]

I haven't read the article.

These come in from time to time sometimes they they gain some traction. ESPN has a story like this about this about once a year.

[Replacematt]

http://www.time.com/...1652338,00.html

Found this article, I put it in funny stories because that's what it was to me, just plain funny. It seems people want to believe its the umpires fault so bad.....

As we all know its OUR fault little Billy isn't going to be able to play in the MLB after all.

A. The study does not conclude racism.

B. Many great discoveries in both the natural and applied sciences have come from someone thinking, "I wonder if..."

[mstaylor]

It is a stupid study with a stupid premise and no way to prove it.

[cbiesecker]

Sounds like someone with a preconceived notion who is looking for a way to make the data fit the hypothesis. That's critical thinking at its finest. :smachhead:

[LMSANS]

This story is over 4 years old. Are we that bored?

[mstaylor]

Sounds like someone with a preconceived notion who is looking for a way to make the data fit the hypothesis. That's critical thinking at its finest.

That's what I said, you just said it nicer.

[Replacematt]

Sounds like someone with a preconceived notion who is looking for a way to make the data fit the hypothesis. That's critical thinking at its finest.

Such as your post.

Look at the study.

[yawetag]

Such as your post.

Look at the study.

We have.

The first paragraph of the Time article says it all: "It doesn't happen all the time — in about 1% of pitches thrown — but that's still one pitch per game, and it could be the one that makes the difference."

In addition: "Controlling for all other outside factors, such as the pitcher's tendency to throw strikes, the umpires' tendency to call strikes and the batter's ability to attract balls, researchers found evidence of same-race bias — and the data revealed that the bias benefits mostly white pitchers." How are these tendencies controlled? In other words, it appears they may be saying "This pitcher doesn't tend to throw a lot of strikes, so we expect the umpires to miss at a different ratio." That's not fair, especially if that leans the wrong way.

[Replacematt]

Such as your post.

Look at the study.

We have.

The first paragraph of the Time article says it all: "It doesn't happen all the time — in about 1% of pitches thrown — but that's still one pitch per game, and it could be the one that makes the difference."

In addition: "Controlling for all other outside factors, such as the pitcher's tendency to throw strikes, the umpires' tendency to call strikes and the batter's ability to attract balls, researchers found evidence of same-race bias — and the data revealed that the bias benefits mostly white pitchers." How are these tendencies controlled? In other words, it appears they may be saying "This pitcher doesn't tend to throw a lot of strikes, so we expect the umpires to miss at a different ratio." That's not fair, especially if that leans the wrong way.

No, you didn't. The fact that you quoted the article instead of the study is telling. The study does not conclude that umpires of the same race as the pitcher are prone to favoring that pitcher. Not to mention, even absent any other controlling variable, the secondary conclusion (that white pitchers benefit) is foregone--there are a disproportionate number of both white umpires and pitchers in MLB.

There is a very illustrative example--as ice cream sales increase, so does crime. This is not a causal relationship, but one of an underlying correlative variable.

[Umpire in Chief]

I think it's all bunk.

There is no way racism is a factor. Maybe once upon a time, but not now.

Just from simple observation, since integration, there appears to be just as many black and Hispanic superstars as white, and now there is a growing cadre of Asian superstars.

If were truly racist, you would have to think Mays, Aaron and an endless list of others would have had their zones expanded on them, and they wouldn't have the legacy they have now. Same thing goes the other way too if the umps were squeezing Bob Gibson would we know and admire him as much as we do? It wouldn't take expanding or squeezing the zone too much to make a huge difference.

Now this is not an I don't see it so it doesn't exist argument. We're in the 21st century now and while many of these backwards ways of thinking have disappeared, they do still exist but now it is in individuals, not necessarily organizations and institutions. I have no doubt with all the K-zone technology if MLB thought they had an umpire who has more than a slight statistical anomaly they would addressing it swiftly.

[cuban]

I dislike everbody the same.

[AJtheUMP]

I dislike everbody the same.

Such as your post.

Look at the study.

We have.

The first paragraph of the Time article says it all: "It doesn't happen all the time — in about 1% of pitches thrown — but that's still one pitch per game, and it could be the one that makes the difference."

In addition: "Controlling for all other outside factors, such as the pitcher's tendency to throw strikes, the umpires' tendency to call strikes and the batter's ability to attract balls, researchers found evidence of same-race bias — and the data revealed that the bias benefits mostly white pitchers." How are these tendencies controlled? In other words, it appears they may be saying "This pitcher doesn't tend to throw a lot of strikes, so we expect the umpires to miss at a different ratio." That's not fair, especially if that leans the wrong way.

No, you didn't. The fact that you quoted the article instead of the study is telling. The study does not conclude that umpires of the same race as the pitcher are prone to favoring that pitcher. Not to mention, even absent any other controlling variable, the secondary conclusion (that white pitchers benefit) is foregone--there are a disproportionate number of both white umpires and pitchers in MLB.

There is a very illustrative example--as ice cream sales increase, so does crime. This is not a causal relationship, but one of an underlying correlative variable.

I just posted it because I thought it was ridiculous.... And I still do..... No need to get lexiphanic on me!

Yes my use of the word lexiphanic makes the sentence lexiphanic.

[yawetag]

No, you didn't. The fact that you quoted the article instead of the study is telling. The study does not conclude that umpires of the same race as the pitcher are prone to favoring that pitcher. Not to mention, even absent any other controlling variable, the secondary conclusion (that white pitchers benefit) is foregone--there are a disproportionate number of both white umpires and pitchers in MLB.

There is a very illustrative example--as ice cream sales increase, so does crime. This is not a causal relationship, but one of an underlying correlative variable.

I think we're arguing the same side. :)

[Mr Umpire]

Interesting about the timing of this thread.

[BT_Blue]

Interesting about the timing of this thread.

Agreed with everything coming out about the Jim Evans Academy.

[AJtheUMP]

I'm a little psychic.. My timings so good I call the play BEFORE it happens! Yeah, that's right, no fake timing mechanisms for me!

[justwin]

i dont whether the study is true.. the big name pitchers get the benefit of the doubt regardless of color or ethnicity...sabathia gets alot of high and outside strikes like does doc..gooden in his prime benefited from a big strike zone...and clemens had the biggest strike zone...but the big name pitchers regardless of color and ethnicity definetely get bigger strike zones...unless u get cb bucknor behind the plate and then u dont know what the hell is going to be called

[Pete Peterson Sr]

Why is an economics professor, rather than, say, a sociology professor making this study ? And, "OMG, he missed that pitch ! It MUST be because the pitcher is of a different race than himself !! " I'm really not sure I have ever heard anything a ludicrous as this alleged conclusion.

[Lindsay]

In writing my JEAPU article, I did a bit of research on the various "racist umpire" studies from 07, 10, and some others: most all of them were done by economics folks, namely because those people work with all-else-equal numbers while a sociology professor is more likely to incorporate external factors into their datasets, which would ultimately render the finding of "one pitch per game" statistically insignificant and basically meaningless. In fact, I have researched this arena before, as I distinctly recall writing another UEFL piece in the past about yet another one of these poorly executed studies.

As UIC Warren noted, these stories crop up on a fairly regular basis—and in sports other than baseball, too (NBA)—and rarely provide significant evidence to support their claim. They're generally meant to provide excuses as to why a team may have lost a particular game... not kidding...

[ukce1861]

They're generally meant to provide excuses as to why a team may have lost a particular game... not kidding...

Wait, so fans look for reasons to blame the umpires for their team's poor performance? I never knew...

Saturday, I had a call at third that I may or may not have blown (I still think I saw the ball on the ground, but anyway). Upshot is, pitcher walks the next two and the batter hits a bases loaded triple with one out. Only one of the runs counted because the team got mercied on the first run that scored. As we're walking off the field, a fan goes, "That was terrible. Just terrible. Terrible, terrible, terrible." to me. Literally, my call had zero impact on the game, but it was still my fault!

[Lindsay]

Wait, so fans look for reasons to blame the umpires for their team's poor performance? I never knew...

Well, we all knew that. I meant to highlight that several "academic studies" calling umpires racist were being used as excuses for why a team might have lost a game.

[Replacematt]

]Well, we all knew that. I meant to highlight that several "academic studies" calling umpires racist were being used as excuses for why a team might have lost a game.

Again, it's not the studies calling umpires racist.

[Lindsay]

The study does not conclude that umpires of the same race as the pitcher are prone to favoring that pitcher.

"Our first observation is that pitchers who match the race/ethnicity of the home- plate umpire appear to receive slightly favorable treatment, as indicated by a higher probability that a pitch is called a strike, compared to players who do not match."

"From the starting pitcher’s perspective, a racial/ethnic match with the umpire helps his earned runs (fewer), hits (fewer), walks (fewer), and home runs (fewer)."

Johan Sulaeman, Christopher Parsons, Michael Yates, and Daniel S. Hamermesh, “Strike Three: Discrimination, Incentives and Evaluationâ€, The American Economic Review Volume 101, Issue 4, June 2011

You tell me how those quotes do not conclude that umpires of the same race aren't prone to favoring a same-race pitcher.

When the authors of the study write, "In MLB, as in so many other fields of endeavor, power belongs disproportionately to members of the majority — white — group," with, "Major League Baseball umpires express their racial/ethnic preferences when they evaluate pitchers. Strikes are called less often if the umpire and pitcher do not match race/ethnicity," that conclusion screams discrimination, which is a manifestation of racism.

"The type of discrimination that we have demonstrated is disturbing."

These quotes are directly from a study you believe does not conclude discrimination based on race.

[Replacematt]

The study does not conclude that umpires of the same race as the pitcher are prone to favoring that pitcher.

"Our first observation is that pitchers who match the race/ethnicity of the home- plate umpire appear to receive slightly favorable treatment, as indicated by a higher probability that a pitch is called a strike, compared to players who do not match."

"From the starting pitcher’s perspective, a racial/ethnic match with the umpire helps his earned runs (fewer), hits (fewer), walks (fewer), and home runs (fewer)."

Johan Sulaeman, Christopher Parsons, Michael Yates, and Daniel S. Hamermesh, “Strike Three: Discrimination, Incentives and Evaluationâ€, The American Economic Review Volume 101, Issue 4, June 2011

You tell me how those quotes do not conclude that umpires of the same race aren't prone to favoring a same-race pitcher.

When the authors of the study write, "In MLB, as in so many other fields of endeavor, power belongs disproportionately to members of the majority — white — group," with, "Major League Baseball umpires express their racial/ethnic preferences when they evaluate pitchers. Strikes are called less often if the umpire and pitcher do not match race/ethnicity," that conclusion screams discrimination, which is a manifestation of racism.

"The type of discrimination that we have demonstrated is disturbing."

These quotes are directly from a study you believe does not conclude discrimination based on race.

And taken out of context. "The type of discrimination that we have demonstrated is disturbing" refers to the economic impact on minority pitchers, given their relative scarcity, which is a point I have already addressed.

At no point is does a causative declaration exist. The study does no more than demonstrate a correlative relationship.

Of course, maybe mine differs from yours. My version doesn't have the same wording as yours in several ways.