Racists?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Toadman15241

I have to comment on this. I am an economics graduate student and am currently writing my thesis on the same exact topic (using a different data set, and looking at the pitches being called on batters, not for pitchers). I got interested in the topic because as an umpire I keep seeing studies that state there is a bias with officials and I just do not believe it.

I have not yet read the study, just the story, but if the story is accurate the econometrics behind the study seem to be solid. I will post a detailed look at the study.

Lawrence Kelin lamented and warned against the practice of attempting to apply econometrics to such subjets as this. He would disagree with your assessment.

[ChucktownBlue]

I'll be the first here to admit it.

I miss more than one pitch per game. If I have a black pitcher (I'm white), and I only miss one pitch per game, I'm doing a better job for him than his counterparts. Where's the racism there?

Study's an absolute joke, and now it's one more thing to have to listen to at the ballpark....

[LomUmp]

Hey all,

I believe, from what I have seen through my life time of 39 yrs, that ANYONE who takes their time to point out "blatant" racism with such little supporting evidence, are themselves the racist P.O.S. and are trying to cover it up by pointing out the unbelievable inequities of other people's actions. If you take a look, these types of people are in every race.

Example: According to SOME blacks, because I am white, I am a racist just because what happened with slavery many years ago.
A black that looks tough will get labelled as a criminal type or gang banger because of his/her looks. etc, etc....

I would bet that, if asked, the author of this article, if he is white, would say something like, " I can't be racist, some of my best friends are black." Or if not white, would say something like, "I can't be racist because I am a minority." I have found that these, among other things, are some of the bigest giveaways to someone being an open or a closet racist.

LomUmp

edited for spelling....

[SAump]

"Those 4 white guys throw more strikes than their opposing pitchers combined." I came to that conclusion while the Atlanta Braves amassed 13 consecutive NL league championships. My data showed a significant difference between winning and losing pitchers.

There was a time when journalists were suppose to question the results of a study before printing the info. Not surprised the editors of "time/cnn" would allow this crap to be published; simple economics. Economics doesn't make any of it true.

[SAump]

That was the study that spurred Hamermesh to look at the issue in baseball, and he thinks his findings are even more revealing — in basketball, fouls are called by an entire officiating crew, but in baseball most calls are made exclusively by the home-plate umpire. "In the NBA you don't always know who is making the calls, whereas in baseball it's the home-plate umpire," Hamermesh says.

I know girls with a better understanding of basketball officials.
Edited:
I know girls with a better understanding of basketball officiating.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SAump

I know girls with a better understanding of basketball officials.

So now the thread transitions from racists to sexists.

[Dan_ref]

Hamermesh, who has studied discrimination at all levels, says that bias is instilled in infancy — much like enduring personality traits such as shyness or high self-esteem — as an essential part of human behavior. "We all have these subconscious preferences for our own group," he says.

It would have been nice if the article revealed how a professor of economics is qualified to speak as an expert in the fields of (at least) biology, genetics, psychology, early childhood behavioral sciences, development and neurology.

I guess since they didn't we can safely assume he knows as much about these areas as the OP does.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

It would have been nice if the article revealed how a professor of economics is qualified to speak as an expert in the fileds of (at least) biology, genetics, psychology, early childhood behavioral sciences, development and neuorology.

Some time back, economists, in particular, as well as pychologists theorized that the rules, observed behavior and "models" of their fields applied to all other areas of life. Despite being warned against this trend by some of the greats of their fields, off they went yelling, "Stats are stats."

Unfortunately, even though the results of many such studies have been debunked by the real experts in the field and the fact that many leading and Nobel winning economists continue to disown the practice, it is now being taught in some Universities that "econometrics" can be applied to every behavior in every field, and, as we have seen in this thread, graduate students of econonmics are writing their theses on most any subject but economics.