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....

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:cool:

edited for spelling....

Reflections on Hotlanta
 

"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. :rolleyes:

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.

Imprinting Bias
 

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

So now the thread transitions from racists to sexists.

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.

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.

I wonder what the study would think of me. I almost never see a player of the same race as me when I work games.

Peace

It's interesting to note that statistical analysis was applied by 2 others venturing outside their own fields to come up with a completely opposite (and disgraceful IMO) view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

I'm wondering how many would defend the results of that work as quickly as they would Hamermesh's results?

According to the study you are terribly biased and mis-call 1 pitch a ball every game.

I know I missed more than one pitch a game and it had nothing to do with who was playing the game.

Peace

Illogical Relationships
 

What are the odds:
An umpire will call more balls than strikes in a MLB game.
Balls/strikes rate, or walks/strike outs rate, will identify facets of color discrimination bias.
This color bias will filter through pitch selection, filter through pitcher's ability or arm strength, filter through umpire's strike zone consistency, and deliver an absolutely clear causal-effect relationship.
Another econometric swing and a miss.

You miss my point.

You cannot argue the validity of both results based on the method. The methods used are essentially the same. Yet they provide (apparently) 2 different results.

Are you saying there's method to this madness?:D

Just because there's a method to it doesn't mean that it's not madness.

Which seems to be the consensus so far.......:)

Which brings up the point......if someone calls you a racist, is it possible to prove that you aren't?

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 <b>subjectively</b> 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?

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

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

If I had the Cash...
 

...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?

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

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.

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. :D

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

White Pollyanna
 

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!

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.

Call more "biased" strikes
 

Pitchers like the called strikes. :o
Pitchers love the swinging strikes. :p
Pitchers are not happy when batters foul off too many strikes. :confused:
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. :eek:
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!

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

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

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

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.:)

Hmm. I think that therein may lie the agreement [with Rut]. ;)

This is too broad of a discussion and too inflammitory for most to handle. I am not going to debate every single sitaution that someone might be offended. I can just tell you that because you have a Black (Jewish, Asian, Polish....) friend does not mean that your behavior is any less offensive to someone else that is not your friend. I feel that if you have a "Black" friend that you would realize that someone else might not see the world through just their eyes.

Black people can be as different as anyone. Your friend’s background and experiences does not tell the entire story of an entire group of people. My mother is a very educated woman who went to an All-Black College in the south (her state paid for her to attend colleges outside of the state because of her race BTW) for her Undergrad degree and later went on to two of the best schools in the country for her graduate degrees. I know for a fact that her perspective is very different than someone that is in their 20s and 30s that did not live in Jim Crow days or did not have parents that lived in those circumstances. There might be some general things that bind a lot of Black people together, but there are a lot of differences, especially when you talk about what offends them. So when people say they have a friend that is of a different race or ethnicity does not mean that everything you say to me would be accepted or would be a justification that I would accept. I do not care that they are from the South or what music they listen to.

Peace

Some people of color find it "uncomfortable" to be singled out by a statement like that. It doesn't necessarily label one a racists, but it can be seen as a curious statement. Why would one feel they have to make that statement in the first place, is a question many have asked.

Do you say that some of your best friends are white? Why not?

Why do we have to identify our friends by color, race or national origin?

Basically I think it an unnecessary comment. I have many friends. Period. I don't need to catagorize them for anyone.

I don't say that some of my best friends are white, because most of my TRUE friends happen to be black. To say that some of my best friends are white would not be factual. My internet friend, Tim, is white. My umpire friend from the internet who I met in person, Wayne (Roller Bowler), is white. These are about the only white guys I consider friends. Most other friends I have are black.

Rutledge keeps on talking about my "friend" singular. I never mentioned a singular black friend. I have quite a few.

My original comment was not meant to identify anybody by color, race or otherwise. It was meant to ask a question about why it was considered an automatic tag of being a racist to say that one has black friends. That was all it was meant to inquire about.

Let me put it to you this way. When you make a comment about the color of your friends, it does not justify anything that comes out of your mouth after that point. Garth is right; it is an odd comment to make and makes people wonder about you or the comments. Now if the person that is not your friend punches you in the jaw because you made a comment after saying what color friends you have, do not get made if it is broken OK. ;) That is my point. And no one called you a racist (Why are people so afraid of being called this when you have no control over what people are thinking about you. If someone feels you are racist you are not going to change their mind by the number of friends you have of that ethnicity anyway). I am just telling you just to be careful. If you think giving you a warning is a bad thing before someone gets offended, then all I can say is I tried to warn you.

Peace

"Venerable NY Times" is an oxymoron.

Yes, why is that?

Is there any good reason to describe or catagorize your friends by color? I don't believe so. That's one reason some people tag those who say that.

Yes.

Unless you are completely blind, people are going to see the color or race of most people they meet. I hate the term "color blind" because that means you still cannot see. I would rather see than not see.

Peace

The unblind always see skin color. There are no monochromatic, seeing people.

Great story.

Hey all,

OK, here is a reminder of my original statement:

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.

The key to this being a "racist identifier", is the racist action or spoken word before it. If, like you did, Steve, just come out and say that some/most of your friends are black, it is not a statement to justify a previous action. The statement by itself means nothing.

LomUmp:cool: