Racists?
 

Here you go, folks.....

A few months ago there was a study out, supposedly showing that basketball officials were biased against other races. We had a loooooong thread on it over on the bball forum. Now comes a study on <i>beisbol</i> saying the exact same thing about umpires(also supposedly).

Thoughts?

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...652338,00.html

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.

That's the biggest crock of horse cacca I've seen in a long time.

A study such as this can be evaluated in anyway needed to gather "significant" evidence to support whatever your topic. 99% of statistics are biased in some way. There are very few truly unbiased studies. I'd venture to say that none of them are studies on human relations.

The people conducting this study started with a goal in mind, so that's what they looked for and that's what they found.

One pitch in a ball game making the difference - rarely.

Bogus study to stir up ****aki.

Of course that just my opinion.

JEEzus i got enough to worry bout behind the plate sides the color of the batter! criminy poeple where do these idiots come from?

So you're saying the fans might've actually had something on me when they called me racist? :rolleyes:

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!

Actually I've been a bigot longer than I have been an umpire! :D

But seriously, I have better things to worry about than if the pitcher is White, Black or Hispanic. I honestly don't even "see" the pitcher. I lock onto the ball and work pitch to pitch!

This BS from time.com is just another "bait" column. You all can argue about it if you want. I have better things to worry about than racial equality or profiling in baseball!

Regards

Yep. And all the pitchers are going to have identical outings for each umpire who works their games so that we can easily determine which of these umpires are biased on one pitch a game.

Soon we will be able to predict which pitch that will be. :rolleyes:

I find the stats a bit funky here - mainly because the study doesn't account for whether those pitchers are actually throwing more strikes. (Hell - maybe a black pitcher does better with a black backdrop of an umpire behind the plate. :rolleyes: )

If they really wanted to be accurate, they'd have to use said QuesTec data and compare called strikes/balls versus computer-determined strikes/balls.

From the article: 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.

Is it any wonder that Hamermesh (the author of the study) came up with the findings he did? Does anybody think that a guy "who has studied discrimination at all levels" is going to find anything other than discrimination everywhere he looks?

Hamermesh assumes that "we all have these subconscious preferences for our own group." On what basis does he make that blanket statement?

Does Hamermesh consider that some umpires might subconsciously favor a pitcher of a different race to assure themselves that they're being fair?

Whenever somebody says, "Studies show . . . ," prepare a shovelful of salt.

That was my original point, Mark. They can exert no control over the performance of the pitcher and which umpire works which game the pitcher pitches.

As one who worked in market research, designed studies and analyzed statistical data, my opinion is that this study is more than just fundamentally flawed.

Follow the dollar....
 

Enough funding to any University Department can net you a study which will find whatever statistics you want exposed.

Talk about bias!

:mad:

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.

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....