Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GarthB
There are more holes in that study than Barry Bond's testimoney. To begin with, there is no control of the primary factor and performances can not be exactly duplicated. If a student turned in a study with this many shortcomings, he get an F. An economics professor does it and the media takes it as gospel.
Sad.
|
C'mon Garth! According to the article we're talking about 1 pitch a game!!! LOL
But seriously, this part makes no sense to me.
"Though his research confirms that bias exists, Hamermesh says it can be easily reduced or eliminated. When a game's attendance is particularly high, when the call is made on a full count or when ballparks use QuesTec, an electronic system that evaluates the accuracy of umpires' calls after the game, the biased behavior disappeared, according to the study. "The umpires hate those [QuesTec] systems," Hamermesh says.
"When you're going to be watched and have to pay more attention, you don't subconsciously favor people like yourself. When discrimination has a price, you don't observe it as much." Right now, the QuesTec system is used in 11 of MLB's 30 ballparks, mostly in the American League."
If, as the author states, the biased behavior is buried in the umpire's subconscious mind, how can paying more attention reverse this trend? If it's 'subconscious' then I'm not aware of it. Paying more attention won't help.
Poppycock!