An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
WharfRat wrote:I'm skeptical this means anything. We're talking about one questionable call per game, at most. These variations seem relatively tiny...
buffalobillsrul2002 wrote:I see a bunch of problems with this study.
First of all, the white pitchers get the most called strikes from all the umps, which means that they are just better control pitchers. So there's no bias towards white pitchers.
The only race you could make a case for is Asian pitchers, where the white umps call 1-2% more of their pitches strikes that do black or hispanic umpires. Again, I would doubt this is racially based, especially once we consider that their are only a couple thousand pitches to base the hispanic/black ump vs. asian pitcher in the data....
Secret Avatar wrote:Gimme a break. This seems like an obvious ploy for a discrimination lawsuit or just another "study" by race advocates looking to score some points in the media. As someone already pointed out, there are absolutely no hard numbers supporting the finding of supposed discrimination. If the difference is miniscule or within the margin of error, the "study" is worthless on its face.
In addition, this "study" apparently did not take into account the race of the BATTER the pitcher was facing at the time of the call. This is a fatal flaw. What "bias" is there for a white ump to call a strike thrown by white pitcher to a white batter, or a ball from a "minority" pitcher to a minority player? In either case, the results of the "study" will reflect an increased bias on the call, but in reality there's no bias because the ump's fellow "white" hitter will be penalized (by the strike) and the minority hitter will benefit from the call being a ball. Without knowing which race the hitter was from, the "study" in meaningless.
The study also assumes that all pitchers are exactly the same in their approach to pitching. But it seems to be there are more older white "control" pitchers and more younger latin "power" pitchers right now, which would skew the results in favor of more called strikes by white pitchers without any bias at all.
What does the study define as a "minority" pitcher? In some cases, a pitcher is clearly white (Randy Johnson) or clearly a minority (Dontrelle), but what about guys like Andy Pettitte (who I believe is part Native American)? If Derek Jeter was a pitcher, what race would he be considered? Johnny Damon (he's half Thai)?
Also consider this doozy of a statement: "But, this behavior diminishes when the umpire's calls are more closely scrutinized—for example at ballparks with electronic monitoring systems, in full count situation where there are 3 balls or 2 strikes, or at well-attended games." Are they serious? These biased white umps actually consider how many people are attending the game before they indulge their racism? What about the tens of millions watching on TV? Do they count? This is too silly to take seriously.
AdvRider wrote:Think about it. To me it’s pretty telling of subconscious human nature.
IllinoisBandit wrote:An example of what happens when non-scientists try to draw scientific conclusions.
This study is absolutely ridiculous. Please tell me this was not someone's dissertation and actually earned a PhD from this garbage.
IllinoisBandit wrote:Ya, I read it. I think it's bogus. I really don't feel like spending the time to debate it, but I really think it's a bunch of statistical nonsense - "searching" for statistically significant differences.
My favorite graph:
So... umpires have a bias during most of the at bat for their race and then reverse their bias when there are two strikes.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 guests