Racists?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Sure, but not by arguing; by the example you set in what you do and what you say.

Same thing as when a coach says: "You're horrible." You don't prove him wrong by arguing that you're not. You prove it with your performance.

The problem is that your performance is still being subjectively evaluated by the person judging you. Case in point.....Gary Sheffield and Joe Torre.

How can you prove anything through performance if the person evaluating that performance still insists that it's racist?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

if someone calls you a racist, is it possible to prove that you aren't?

I thought you answered, "Hey, some of my best friends are (fill in blank)."

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The problem is that your performance is still being subjectively evaluated by the person judging you. Case in point.....Gary Sheffield and Joe Torre.

How can you prove anything through performance if the person evaluating that performance still insists that it's racist?

You're thinking short term, I'm advocating long term.

[jkumpire]

...I would sue this clown and fry his methodology until it was extra crispy.

I cannot wait for the econ grad student's analysis of what his methodology. I'd also love to read the guy's paper. He is a classic example of what is wrong with higher education in America today. You find some complicated statistical model, speak in a specialist language that a regular person doesn't have access to, then massage the data to say what you want it to say. It gets done with crime stats, so-called global warming, so why not with baseball?

[Lawrence.Dorsey]

I have some statistics training and still use it from time to time in my job. What bothers me most about the article is that they mention terms like "statisitical power", "statistically significant', etc. yet they provide no degrees of freedom or probability values for their tests. In the field that I work, there's a standard convention for reporting statisitical results. Anytime you mention the word "significant" in a scientific paper, you should cite your results in some manner. I think any journal editor in my field would have torn this paper up simply on that alone.

Lawrence

[Dave Reed]

Here's the link to the paper and an associated FAQ. Note that the paper is unpublished (meaning it hasn't undergone peer review) yet.

http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Ha...istpapers.html

I find the raw data of the paper to be interesting. For example, there are 25% more white batters than pitchers, 76% more hispanic batters than pitchers, and 570% more black batters than pitchers. I wonder what can drive such a disparity? (And I'm pretty sure it isn't umpires!)

I can't comment on the utility or applicability of their econometric models, but the graphs which show the differences in pitcher performance (strikeouts, homeruns, hits, walks, runs, Bill James' Game Score, wins, ERA) depending on whether pitcher/umpire ethnicity matches or is different are provocative. These are just raw data; you can form your own opinion of the statistical validity.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I find the raw data of the paper to be interesting. For example, there are 25% more white batters than pitchers, 76% more hispanic batters than pitchers, and 570% more black batters than pitchers. I wonder what can drive such a disparity? (And I'm pretty sure it isn't umpires!)

If pitchers are the dumbest players on the field, then the data seem to suggest that hispanics are slightly and blacks quite significantly smarter than whites.

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If pitchers are the dumbest players on the field, then the data seem to suggest that hispanics are slightly and blacks quite significantly smarter than whites.

I hear that the PC police have issued a warrant for your arrest !

[SAump]

The stats are in.
85 white umps called strikes 329826 times.
3 latin umps called strikes 10681 times.
5 black umps called strikes 20302 times.

85 white umps were assumed to be perfect.
3 latin umps called strikes 959 less times than an equal number of their perfect white counterparts.
5 black umps called strikes 900 more times than an equal number of their perfect white counterparts.

The latin umps wanted to please everyone to prove they were up to the task.
The black umps wanted to show everyone proof they were up to the task.
The psychological theory behind these explanations are beyond the scope of post.

Latin and black umps, taken together, were "sepera-typed" from white umps by a total of 59 called strikes.
As a minority group, latin and hispanic umps perform up to the par with white umps.
59 pitches out of 30,983 pitches is roughly a 0.190% difference.

The stats and methodology used in this study were perfect.
There is NO racial evidence of discrimination by MLB umpires.
Everyone is happy!

[sri8527]

just for the sake of argument here, take race out of the equation, and focus on the "bias" used in the study. i am a proud red sox fan, thus i do not like the yankees. i show up at my 15/16 yr. old game, yankees/red sox does anyone really think my "bias" will kick in? I like Reebok, hate nike, that pitcher has nike head too toe, gonna get him? we all have some bias toward something, but to say one pitch, per game shows anything relevant, is trying too get your article published. IMHO.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by sri8527

just for the sake of argument here, take race out of the equation, and focus on the "bias" used in the study. i am a proud red sox fan, thus i do not like the yankees. i show up at my 15/16 yr. old game, yankees/red sox does anyone really think my "bias" will kick in? I like Reebok, hate nike, that pitcher has nike head too toe, gonna get him? we all have some bias toward something, but to say one pitch, per game shows anything relevant, is trying too get your article published. IMHO.

Pitchers like the called strikes.
Pitchers love the swinging strikes.
Pitchers are not happy when batters foul off too many strikes.
Pitchers wonder if putting the ball "in play" should be considered a strike.
Pitchers have heart aches over 360809 called strikes versus 771314 called balls.
Pitchers feel that umpires should end this type of discrimination.

Benefits include:
More "biased" strike calls would also shorten game.
Young pitchers' stats would dominate game and appear closer to softball counterparts.
The numbers of hits, hrs, and rbis would drop the "juice numbers" back below normal.
There would be no steroid discussion.

Huh? More money is needed to determine whether umpires are repsonsible for steroid scandal!

[Jurassic Referee]

The venerable NY Times has now discovered the story.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sp...ml?refs=sports

[SanDiegoSteve]

Some of my very best friends really are black. This fact, or my mentioning it, in no way makes me a racist. There are good and bad people in all races, why single out any one particular race? I have some Mexican friends, and a female Korean friend. I hope this doesn't make me a racist. I don't know how saying "some of my best friends are black" qualifies one automatically as a racist, unless it is an untrue statement.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Some of my very best friends really are black. This fact, or my mentioning it, in no way makes me a racist. There are good and bad people in all races, why single out any one particular race? I have some Mexican friends, and a female Korean friend. I hope this doesn't make me a racist. I don't know how saying "some of my best friends are black" qualifies one automatically as a racist, unless it is an untrue statement.

The reason people might take offense to that kind of statement is basically the fact that people use that as a justification of their behavior. Just because you have a friend of a particular race or background, does not mean that others might not find a statement or behavior offensive. So in other words if you use certain language toward your "friend" that that person finds OK, that does not mean it would be OK with another person of the same racial or ethnic background.

Being a racist or being perceived as being racist has a lot more to do with your deeds, behavior and understanding rather than just one comment.

Peace

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The reason people might take offense to that kind of statement is basically the fact that people use that as a justification of their behavior. Just because you have a friend of a particular race or background, does not mean that others might not find a statement or behavior offensive. So in other words if you use certain language toward your "friend" that that person finds OK, that does not mean it would be OK with another person of the same racial or ethnic background.

Being a racist or being perceived as being racist has a lot more to do with your deeds, behavior and understanding rather than just one comment.

Peace

So, there are people who use this kind of statement to justify their behavior? What behavior specifically please? I think I understand what you mean. Are you saying that there are people who say that they have a black friend, so they think they can say offensive things to others of that race? I can see that.

I don't just have "a" black friend. I have lots of black friends, party with mostly black people, listen mostly to Crunk, Dirty South, NoCal rap and generic gangsta rap, and I sing along. I don't use the phrase "most of my friends are black" to say anything other than "most of my friends are black." But I also know not to open up my mouth around strangers and act a fool. Therein may lie the difference.