In its August 13 article, Time.com asks the question: "Are Baseball Umpires Racist?" As you can imagine, the title itself suggests the answer.
The article begins with this ominous opening:
Bad calls by the ump are as much a part of baseball as home run records, rabid fans and watery beer, but a new study shows that an umpire's decision may have a disturbing ulterior motive: racism.
The ammunition for this surprising claim is a recently-released study by Daniel Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Hamermesh, with the support of several economics professors, studied over two million pitches throw in Major League Baseball games from 2004 to 2006.
From the study, Hamermesh concluded that:
Major League Baseball umpires tend to call more strikes when the pitcher is of their same race; when they're not, umps call more balls. It doesn't happen all the time — in about 1% of pitches thrown — but that's still one pitch per game, and it could be the one that makes the difference. "One pitch called the other way affects things a lot," says Hamermesh. "Baseball is a very closely played game." What's more, says Hamermesh, a slight umpire bias affects more than just the score; it also has an indirect effect on a team's psyche. Baseball is a game of strategy. If a pitcher knows he's more likely to get questionable pitches called as strikes, he'll start picking off at the corners. But if he knows he's at a disadvantage, he might feel forced to throw more directly over the plate, possibly giving up hits.
Oh - but this just scratches the surface of the racism in Major League Baseball. As it turns out, the racism just happens to favor the white ballplayers.
Controlling for all other outside factors, such as the pitcher's tendency to throw strikes, the umpires' tendency to call strikes and the batter's ability to attract balls, researchers found evidence of same-race bias — and the data revealed that the bias benefits mostly white pitchers. Not surprising, since 71% of MLB pitchers and 87% of umpires are white.
The highest percentage of strikes were called when both the home-plate umpire and pitcher were white, and the lowest percentage were called between a white ump and a black pitcher.
And it also turns out that the umpires aren't merely racists, but they are cowardly racists who are less likely to exhibit their bias when lots of people are watching.
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.
As might be expected, the Time.com article cites few of the statistical findings from the study (which can be found on Hamermesh's University of Texas faculty page). The study itself shows that when the pitcher and umpire are of the same race - strikes are called 32.1% of the time. But when the pitcher and the umpire are of different races - strikes are called 31.5% of the time. Hmmm - hardly compelling. The study also finds that the race of the batter has no impact on the calling of balls and strikes, which would seem to undercut the rest of the conclusions.
On the one hand, these findings might be statstically significant. On the other hand, I am reminded of the Martin Lawrence character in the movie 'Boomerang' who found racism in every facet of his life - even while playing billiards, where he pointed out the game isn't won until the black ball is driven off the table by the white ball. You have to wonder if the analysis of the numbers compelled the conclusion - or whether the conclusion compelled the analysis of the numbers.
In any event, the bigger metaphor was too enticing for Time.com to pass up. The article provides a vehicle for the reader to infer a "baseball imitates life" scenario in which the cowardly racists oppress the minority, resulting in the need for independent oversight to correct the racism.
—Jason Aslinger is a private practice attorney in Greenville, Ohio.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
* 756
August 13, 2007 - 23:07 ET by Blazer* 756
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Controlling for all other
August 13, 2007 - 23:11 ET by motherbeltControlling for all other outside factors,
I hate that phrase and that tactic. Exactly how do you control for all other outside factors??? That seems impossible.
Of course it's not impossible!
August 14, 2007 - 00:21 ET by AtillaKahunaThe good professor simply told his TA's (Teaching Assistants) to give him ain itemized list of every possible unforseeable, unquantifiable, or impossible-to-control-for factor, and how to control for it.
Simple!
As a statistics professor once told me, you can get any result set you want ... you just need to know how to ask the question properly.
Kahuna
What?
August 14, 2007 - 10:39 ET by Dave in Texas"... and the batter's ability to attract balls ..."
How exactly does a batter "attract balls"?
I would really like to know how this study was funded. I would not be the least bit surprised if it came from my tax dollars.
"How exactly does a batter "attract balls"?"
August 14, 2007 - 10:54 ET by rob6677I think that part of the study was stumbled upon by researchers conducting the study on whether being gay is biological or a choice. I am sure that one was taxpayer funded though!
I could tell you more but I am trying my best to behave!
"Dear Libs: Please remember that conservatives have guns, they are watching you, and know how to aim. Sincerely - rob6677"
Response to Controlling for Outside Factors
August 14, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Dr_LibertyControlling for outside factors is a very important practice in regression analysis. It helps to eliminate and/or identify problems with spurious correlation (collinearity for you techno geeks). A study that at least does not attempt to identify some outside factors would be subject to criticism of underspecification. Thus, controlling for outside factors is a standard practice.
I haven't read the study, but I can imagine that some of the outside factors are:
* Left/right handed batter
* Left/right handed pitcher
* Level of experience of the umpire
* National League vs. American League (probably an insignificant variable but one you might want to control for anyways)
* Early season game vs late season game
* Age/experience of batter (rookies may be given less leeway than "superstars" -- think "travelling in the NBA")
* Age/experience of pitcher
* Time of day (lighting may affect how balls/strikes are called).
etc.
<insert witty signature here>
32.1% vs 31.5%?
August 13, 2007 - 23:24 ET by QueasyThat has to be well within the margin of error for this study. How the heck did a paper even get written over such a difference?
-
August 14, 2007 - 07:59 ET by dahliatraversmargin of error
That was my first thought. So I went looking but found no reference to a margin of error per se in this analysis, although footnote 12 below refers to a slight variation of some kind in one of their data sets.
Question for the statisticians who visit NB: is it reasonable that there would be no margin of error for this sort of compilation?
---
12 As a check on this issue we re-estimated the model including sequentially the race/ethnic match between the first-, second- and third-base umpire and the pitcher. None of these extensions materially changes our conclusions.
Response to Margin of Error (MoE) question
August 14, 2007 - 10:48 ET by Dr_LibertyThis study supposedly has over one million data points (pitches). Any margin of error would be remarkably small given that the margin of error is determined by the standard deviation of the sample divided by square root of the sample size. With the square root of one million being in the denominator, the standard error is guaranteed to be small. Related, a small standard error pretty much guarantees statistical significance. (Most opinion polls with a margin of error of about 3% have roughly 1000 respondents.)
This situation is very similar to the infamous Linus Pauling study of Vitamin C on skiers. He had an enormous sample size. And he also found that a high dosage of C reduced the likelihood of getting a cold. However, the reduction was SUBSTANTIVELY small -- roughly a 1% reduction in the chance of getting a cold. There is an important lesson here between SUBSTANTIVE and STATISTICAL significance. Statistical significance refers to whether the result can be assumed to be different than the nul hypothesis (typically "no effect") and is based upon the standard error of the sample (related to sample size). Substantive significance refers to whether the observed difference adds up to a hill of beans. The difference in balls/strikes in this study is pretty neglible. (Note the authors try to save this by stating that baseball is a closely played game.)
There may be another reason why the margin of error is not reported. When you analyze the entire universe of a population (in this case pitches over the past X years), you don't really need to report a margin of error since technically the MoE only relates to samples. If you don't have a sample (a subset of the universe), then you don't have to report the MoE. However, given randomness in measurement error and data collection, it is usually "safe" to report a MoE.
<insert witty signature here>
-
August 14, 2007 - 21:29 ET by dahliatraversOh, I get it. Thank you. So if they took a poll of all declared presidential candidates to determine their stance on apple pie and the flag, again, the MoE would be zero.
Even without a margin of error, .6% in this case just doesn't strike me as something to get excited about.
Absolutely Right Dahlia
August 15, 2007 - 00:29 ET by Dr_Liberty0.6% is not much to get excited about.
Think of it this way. If Linus Pauling said he had a statistically significant result showing Vitamin C lowered your chance of getting a cold by 1%, but you would have to take about $5 of Vitamin C tablets a day, would you do it?
Most studies like this confuse statistical significance with substantive significance. Rarely do people assess the risk from a simple cost benefit vantage point. If they did, they would see how silly many of these media reports (scares) are.
Would you be willing to give up your Bush tax cut if it reduced your chance of having a bridge collapse by 0.0005%?!
<insert witty signature here>
So I can now say racism is
August 13, 2007 - 23:42 ET by saw the lightSo I can now say racism is why my St. Louis Cardinals won't repeat this year, right?
Wow, the Cubs must have had many opposite-race pitchers in their ILLustrious existence.
"There is a tendency for the world to say to America, 'the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,' and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." - Tony Blair
White Male Guilt
August 13, 2007 - 23:48 ET by exLibAnother example of White Male Guilt.
Someone tried this with Basketball Refs and got roasted by other African American players who said, if anything, they got more bad calls against them by Black Refs then by white refs.
This stuff is race baiting at best.
???
August 14, 2007 - 00:00 ET by Ryeguy5049So are the number of strikes called for every race of pitcher in baseball supposed to be exactly the same? Is the ump supposed to keep track of strikes for every race of pitchers in the game that day?? If he has not called enough strikes for white pitchers is he going to have to call balls strikes to get it even?
Didn't we already go
August 14, 2007 - 00:02 ET by zfDidn't we already go through this drivel earlier this year with the NBA being the target?
And don't worry, Jason, I won't hold you being an attorney against you. <g>
Hey thanks zf. The Time
August 14, 2007 - 00:08 ET by Jason AslingerHey thanks zf. The Time article did refer to the basketball study - which was supposedly less credible, since the calls were made by teams of 3 officials.
What about the races of the
August 14, 2007 - 04:23 ET by OIFveteranWhat about the races of the first and third base umpires when it came to appeals to see if the batter went around or held back from swinging?
Or what about the race of the first and third base umpires when it came to calling a ball fair or foul?
These professors are tools.
<insert something clever>
What a waste of time. I
August 14, 2007 - 00:14 ET by GalvanicWhat a waste of time. I sure hope the funding for this didn't come from a Federal research grant.
Here's a new race study for them:
For the next two NBA seasons, calculate how often (measured in game minutes) there are no white players on the court, and often there are no black players on the court. Then tell me the coaches are racists.
Crap "studies" like this is
August 14, 2007 - 00:15 ET by jdhawkCrap "studies" like this is why Time Magazine's circulation is down 17% since last year.
Meanwhile, Time's "news" is already a week old when published.
Racisn't
August 14, 2007 - 00:40 ET by SDSThe only racists are those conducting this research. The least likely place you’ll find racism is in sports which is why the libs keeps telling us it exists.
}}---> lies: lies, damned lies and statistics
August 14, 2007 - 01:27 ET by Cool ArrowAnd these 2 million pitches were reevaluated by whom?
In Texas, if it comes from Houston or Austin, the bias is most definitely bleedin' heart Liberal.
other brilliant studies
August 14, 2007 - 01:48 ET by tropicalreportAlso by this author: hot lawyers make more money than ugly ones...
http://findarticles....
"Because some of the photos were as much as 25 years old, the raters
were instructed to make allowances for the fact that styles and
fashions may have changed. More than 4,400 photographs were evaluated."
Just another....
August 14, 2007 - 02:15 ET by BarkerJunk Study: Balderdash by Hamermesh
"... Hamermesh, with the
August 14, 2007 - 03:42 ET by Rackie"... Hamermesh, with the support of several economics professors, studied over two million pitches..."
If this study kept Professor Knucklehead et al out the classroom and away from the students, I say "Bravo".
Simply Incredible! Our
August 14, 2007 - 03:43 ET by Gary P JacksonSimply Incredible!
Our tax dollars at work.
I can make $h!t up too!
August 14, 2007 - 04:46 ET by rob6677The only things that comes out of Texas is steers and ?ueers, since Hameresh doesn't have any horns......
What? I didn't say anything remotely racist!
"I may be crazy, but at least I'm not stupid" ME
Whoa there rob
August 14, 2007 - 08:09 ET by Cool ArrowNarrow your claim to the Austin State Capilol area, and I'll agree. Me and The President are proud manly Texans, and that ain't no sheeeyut.
*
August 14, 2007 - 08:25 ET by rob6677Yes, but many do think "His Grand Majesty The Big W" is Satan himself, so you see, I wasn't offending you guys, you apparently have horns!!!
That thar's ma story and I'm sticken to er'
"I may be crazy, but at least I'm not stupid" ME
Out of his mind
August 14, 2007 - 06:30 ET by Blogger Guy00001The United States has progressed a lot. Racism is very much less than in the past, and diminishing all the time. The race hucksters and guilty-white-alarmists now find so little racism that they have to work hard to convince people that racism exists where it doesn't.
The Duke false prosecutions and this "study" are examples of desperate liberals willing to say and do anything to prove something which is unproveable.
-
August 14, 2007 - 21:33 ET by dahliatraversnow find so little racism that they have to work hard to convince people that racism exists where it doesn't.
Yes, unfortunately. But this study actually proves the opposite of its stated conclusion.
Correlation without causation
August 14, 2007 - 07:08 ET by fosstenThe logical flaw in this entire study is that it assumes that each and every call is based entirely on the umpire's decision and not at all on the quality of the pitch. They could not possibly have controlled for all pitches that were, say, borderline balls that were called strikes, or pitches that were clearly outside the strike zone that were called strikes. There's no possible way they viewed the video on each of two million pitches and determined the accuracy of each call. This study is completely bogus.
Controlling for all other outside factors, such as the pitcher's tendency to throw strikes, the umpires' tendency to call strikes and the batter's ability to attract balls, researchers found evidence of same-race bias — and the data revealed that the bias benefits mostly white pitchers. Not surprising, since 71% of MLB pitchers and 87% of umpires are white.
Oh, so we're playing that game, are we? So how do you explain the ratio of black players to white players in the NBA? The NFL? I guess the NHL must be a KKK front, right?
Maybe they are pointing the racist finger at the wrong people. Maybe the white pitchers are just throwing more strikes to the black players. That would PROVE that ALL the pitchers are racist, right? What amazing conclusions we can come to if we only try hard enough.
Really, folks, 87% of the umpires are white and there is only one pitch per game difference? That's not even a statistically real number. What a bunch of idiots.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
Fossten, "There's
August 14, 2007 - 16:55 ET by JoeBobFossten,
"There's no possible way they viewed the video on each of two million pitches and determined the accuracy of each call."
Exactly. And where the ability existed to review the caliber of every strike/ball decision (the QuesTec system), magically the racism disappears. But that's explained by those cowardly, racist umps calling the game straight when the QuesTec system is used. There's no racism if all the balls/strikes are called correctly, regardless of the proportion of balls/strikes called. There's one huge ASS-umption hanging out there.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
Don't you see, it's Rove!
August 14, 2007 - 07:28 ET by RagnarDanneskjoldDon't you see, it's Rove! Rove did this at Bush's direction. The umps are Republican Rangers in Bush's back pocket. Why else would Rove leave?
"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst." JG
Good lord
August 14, 2007 - 08:57 ET by EmmyjuneGive me a freakin' break!
I don't know about the
August 14, 2007 - 09:03 ET by BrillianceI don't know about the umpires, but I can almost assure you that the "African-American" bat swingers at the plate are racist.
2 million pitches, and they
August 14, 2007 - 09:06 ET by Hero Squad2 million pitches, and they estimate that 1% of the calls are racially motivated, perhaps one per game?
Sounds to me like baseball is almost the model of racial tolerance based on this study.
But just to be sure, someone should ask Al Sharpton if he thinks that more or less than 1% of our population is what he would consider "racist."
*****
"Some people have a way with words. Other people, er, I don't know. Not have way, I guess." - Steve Martin
To me, baseball is
August 14, 2007 - 09:37 ET by oorampTo me, baseball is still perceived as the white mans game. That is why only baseball has a steroid problem. We know steroids won't help football or basketball players. This is nothing more than the deadhead hippies of the sixties, tearing white people down with more ridiculous racism attacks, nothing more, nothing less. Only the democrats can attack with less evidence than this.
please visit : www.changethemedia.com
I guess it's true...
August 14, 2007 - 09:45 ET by Winger55Torture numbers long enough and they'll confess to anything.
Looks like we have a new
August 14, 2007 - 10:20 ET by Subsailor599Looks like we have a new baseball stat to keep track of now.
Tim's Circulation Plummets
August 14, 2007 - 12:58 ET by kwWith stories like this, do you wonder about the circulation results? Time's circulation plummets! Will these losers ever learn. Nobody except the extreme left wants to read ultra-liberal propaganda.
Can we please do a study to
August 14, 2007 - 13:10 ET by drillanwrCan we please do a study to see how many are blind?
I vote for a study of how
August 14, 2007 - 13:30 ET by rob6677I vote for a study of how many of us are sick of hearing anything about baseball. The amounts of money everyone is making (including umps) should be right next to their names so we can care that much less when they make headlines. (my theory applies to studies as well, only they have to show who paid for this rediculousness (taxpayers etc.) When everyone involved is making millions who %^&@#)* cares if there is a possibility of racism? The rest of us would gladly smile all the way to the bank while being "unfairly" targeted.
"Dear Libs: Please remember that conservatives have guns, they are watching you, and know how to aim. Sincerely - rob6677"