Time.com: Are Baseball Umpires Racist ?

[DontTreadOnMe]

By Jason Aslinger | August 13, 2007 - 22:59 ET

In its August 13 article, Time.com asks the question: "Are Baseball Umpires Racist?" (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1652338,00.html)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. Hameresh, 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, Hameresh 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 (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Hamermesh/Baseball4Authors.pdf) (which can be found on Hamermesh's University of Texas faculty page (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Hamermesh/)). 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.
_______________________________________________________________
end

[robinhoodnik]

Without reading that study I'd say that a half of one percent variation isn't bad at all. When you take into account the percentages of white and black players it's even less pronounced. Did they also take into account that at the end of a long game an ump will often loosen up his strike zone a little or any of the million other variables?

[RickD]

Oh Please. This is too much. What a waste of tax payer dollars! Now before I get smacked down for that I realize there is racism in life. I just think studying umpire calls looking for racism is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.

[ltt]

you know, if you're gonna post articles like this, a little less knee-jerk sensationalism and mischaracterization of the the stuff you're quoting would be nice.

you might also want to understand the actual study instead of Time's headline.

[petrel]

So let me see.

Assume that a pitcher throws 125 pitches in a game.

If the pitcher and umpire are of the same race, there are 40 strikes (32.1 percent) which will be called by the umpire -- the other strikes will come from foul strikes, etc.

If the pitcher and umpire are of different races, there are 39 strikes called (31.5 percent). That amounts to one less strike per pitcher per game.

If the pitcher is a reliever, this difference is even smaller, say one theoretical "rase-based" strike call over two games.

We don't even know which call this is. Is this the strike on a 1-1 count, which might be the most significant call an umpire makes, as batters become almost different players on a 2-1 count versus a 1-2 count? Is it a first strike? A strike on a 3-0 count? What?

I won't even go into the fact that baseball has two black umpires, maybe two Hispanic umpires, and no Asian umpires, which sort of throws doubt into any black umpire/white pitcher conclusions.

--Pet

[robinhoodnik]

The part about the questec system is laughable. It means that the ump has to do his job better, just like when a supervisor is in an area at a factory. Same exact thing. Stating that unconscious racism is consciously controlled........ HAHAHAHAHAHA (pant, pant,pant) HAHAHAHAHhahahahahaaaaaa!

[robinhoodnik]

Print media sucks. That's all you can really say about it.

[varybarry]

That article is pathetic. It's sensationalism at it's best. It's disturbing that Time would stoop this low to get a little attention to its magazine. The QuesTec argument verifies nothing about racism. It merely shows that umps are more careful when they are being watched.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Yeah it seems to me that the study would fall within the margin of error so why even print it in the first place.

FYI, Im not the author of this article or the person quoting the study.

Jason Aslinger is, I guess its from his blog after he read the study.

I just found his take on the study interesting.

[ltt]

what I find interesting are the defensive reactions to a statistical analysis that merely says the same thing that happens everywhere in the world happens in baseball as well.

[petrel]

Actually, if baseball umpires are only one percent more biased when dealing with their own race as opposed to other races, the study should be lauded...by the umpires. "Hey, we worked our bias down to one percent!"

Those are a lot better numbers than you'd find in other industries.

--Pet

[RickD]

Well I think we should not turn this thread into a wholesale argument about racism today. THis thread would quickly go the steroid route. Racism happens but this thread was about a study about umpires and racism based on statistical data which shows a miniscule difference in calls. THe study I think was just not a true reflection of basesball and a Time magazine sensationalist decided to get some press for their print media.

[ltt]

thread was about a study about umpires and racism based on statistical data which shows a miniscule difference in calls.

a statistically significant difference.


THe study I think was just not a true reflection of basesball

It is, however, a statistical FACT of baseball.

and it's not really about racism per se, it's about the subtle effects of racial affinity.

[RickD]

1% is not a significant difference. It would probably fall within any margin of error in most studies. A professor of economics talking about racism in baseball based on a low % difference is to me not a FACT. No more than me saying I have studied the length of green lights to red lights at a cetain traffic stop being fact. It was a study which can be proven or disproven by future studies based on new info.

[HoustonGM]

Does anybody thing that the exact percentage of stirkes would be called given the two situations? There's so many other factors there than race....1% difference is um nothing.

[robinhoodnik]

I don't think any umpire cares what the race of either the batter or the pitcher is. I think that their main goal is to get the job done and over with, and quickly. They don't want to be standing around in Fenway when it's 98 degrees with humidity so high that you sweat from the effort of breathing. They just want to get back to the hotel.

[JayC]

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.
So the conclusion could just as easily be: pitchers are racist. They throw strikes more often when the umpire is of the same race they are.


You have to wonder if the analysis of the numbers compelled the conclusion - or whether the conclusion compelled the analysis of the numbers.
Exactly.

[Wassit3]

The part about the questec system is laughable. It means that the ump has to do his job better, just like when a supervisor is in an area at a factory. Same exact thing. Stating that unconscious racism is consciously controlled........ HAHAHAHAHAHA (pant, pant,pant) HAHAHAHAHhahahahahaaaaaa!

now Robin you KNOW darn well it is all about racism, why do you think Barry Bonds NEVER gets a call and almost NEVER walks while guys like McGwuire almost never struck out and walked all the time!?!?! Can you even REMEMBER the last time Bonds even got a walk or the benefit of a call?? Must be all that racsism keeping his walk totals down! (Tongue planted firmly in cheek)

[RickD]

Wow it sounds like we all agree this Article is bogus......can we seal the thread now so that won't change and it can go down in SM history?

[robinhoodnik]

now Robin you KNOW darn well it is all about racism, why do you think Barry Bonds NEVER gets a call and almost NEVER walks while guys like McGwuire almost never struck out and walked all the time!?!?! Can you even REMEMBER the last time Bonds even got a walk or the benefit of a call?? Must be all that racsism keeping his walk totals down! (Tongue planted firmly in cheek)

Well, Dunn is clearly being treated differently. His buddy's in black don't even want him to have to bother to run the bases. They just let him go sit down and make Griffey do all of the running. :D

[robinhoodnik]

Man, there's no white guys at all on this list (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/histrk2.shtml)! Call Jesse and Rev. Al, the dynamic duo got some work to do!

[ltt]

Does anybody thing that the exact percentage of stirkes would be called given the two situations? There's so many other factors there than race....1% difference is um nothing.

2,100,000 * .01 = 21,000 pitches unexpectedly called balls/strikes in 3 years.

Statistical significance is determined by methodology and sample size, not how big a number sounds to you, me, or some ***** who thinks global warming is a liberal conspiracy...

[HoustonGM]

What is "unexpectedly called"? Umpires have different strike zones from each other. Umpires are human, they make mistakes, bad calls should be expected. To throw it up to RACE?! is insane.

[dupont24]

The numbers say it is racially based though, I find it weird you would argue numbers. Also, they are consistent.

However, I don't think it would be fair to say the umpires are intentionally doing this.

Hrm, on second thought - did it say the actual % of strikes that blacks throw as a baseline? Maybe blacks happen to throw 1% less strikes anyway...

Regardless - 1% doesn't really seem convincing...

[dupont24]

Perhaps it's the black umpires who are calling 1% more strikes for their same race pitchers... of course that would be racist too...

[HoustonGM]

The numbers say it is racially based though, I find it weird you would argue numbers. Also, they are consistent.

However, I don't think it would be fair to say the umpires are intentionally doing this.

Hrm, on second thought - did it say the actual % of strikes that blacks throw as a baseline? Maybe blacks happen to throw 1% less strikes anyway...

Regardless - 1% doesn't really seem convincing...
The numbers say that strikes are called 32.1% when the pitcher and umpire share a race, and 31.5% when they don't share a race, a difference of .6%. This is not significant enough to say that it is racially based. Such a difference can easily be explained by just random variation. It's completely crazy to expect the exact percent of strikes to be called when looking at two situations such as same-race umpire-pitcher and different-race umpire-pitcher.

I mean, if I look at the numbers, (made up example here, these arent true numbers_ you can find that the average ERA of white pitchers is 4.34 while the average era of black pitchers is 4.28. Does this mean that blacks are better pitchers than whites? No. Just like 32.1% of pitches are strikes when the umpire's race is the same as the pitcher and 31.5% of pitchers are strikes when the race's differ doesn't mean that umpires call strikes based on the color of the pitcher's skin.

If it was something like 40% to 30%, I'd be more inclined to believe it. But a .6% difference? I expect such a difference given that you're looking at two totally different groupings of pitchers and umpires.

[ltt]

The numbers say that strikes are called 32.1% when the pitcher and umpire share a race, and 31.5% when they don't share a race, a difference of .6%. This is not significant enough to say that it is racially based.

yes it is.


Such a difference can easily be explained by just random variation.

not it can't.


It's completely crazy to expect the exact percent of strikes to be called when looking at two situations such as same-race umpire-pitcher and different-race umpire-pitcher.

no it's not.

I have now refuted all your arguments using the same method you've presented. If you have any specific disputes with the facts of the study, feel free to present them, otherwise this is just an "Uh-huh! Nuh-uh!" argument.



If it was something like 40% to 30%, I'd be more inclined to believe it. But a .6% difference? I expect such a difference given that you're looking at two totally different groupings of pitchers and umpires.

again, your common-sense objection is completely wrong. You don't get to decide what's "big enough" to be significant, what you are analyzing, and how your are analyzing it determine statistical significance empirically.

I'm not even sure why anyone would be so eager to reject something they obviously haven't even bothered to read on such poorly reasoned grounds as "it doesn't look big enough for me, therefore it's stupid."

at least try to present an argument.

[ltt]

Perhaps it's the black umpires who are calling 1% more strikes for their same race pitchers... of course that would be racist too...

Perhaps some of you should read the study.

[HoustonGM]

The facts of the study aren't disputable, unless I'm prepared to call the people who did it liars. But I'll take their word for it - umpires called strikes at rate .6% higher for members of their own race than they did for members not of their race. That's not disputable. But if you really wanna go on believing that race is completely the cause of the .6% difference, and you really wanna believe that given two entirely different samplings of pitcher/umpire combinations, the exact same percentage of strikes should be called....go ahead.

[HoustonGM]

Also, glancing over the study, the number of minority subjects is really low. Is 5 black umpires enough of a sample size to say that black umpires favor black pitchers? Is 27 black pitchers, against 85 white umpires, really a fair assessment of whether or not race is a factor when calling balls or strikes?


It'd be ignorant to believe that there are no umpires that call in favor of a certain type of player, because I'm sure there are some umpires who do have some, if even minor, discriminatory feelings, and I wouldn't doubt that sometimes, those feelings come in to play. Can race be an issue in some calls? Certainly. Is it fair to say that umpires, as a whole, tend to call strikes simply based on skin color? No.

[nuzzy62]

"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."

What's even more absurd is that these umpires are subconciously racist.

Or that there are less 'racist' calls at well attended games. I guess that that would mean there's hardly any of those type of calls at Yankee or Dodgers games.

[RickD]

Allow me to quote some lines from the article:
but a new study shows that an umpire's decision may have a disturbing ulterior motive: racism Note the word May. They are not saying this is a fact.


The study also found that minority umpires judged Asian pitchers more unfairly than they did white pitchers They are not just saying whites are racist. The racism is equally distributed.


Interestingly enough, Hamermesh's research found that the race of the batter didn't seem to matter — the correlation was only between the pitcher and the home-plate ump. So if you have a white pitcher, white batter and a white ump and a strike is called how is that racism? 1 bad strike call in every game and the ump is perfect if he gets that right but getting that one wrong is evidence of racism! :eek:

Apparently though umps can make mistakes this study lists no margin of error and states all "evidence" as unequivical fact.

We are talking about 1 bad call a game! ONE! So is every bad call in the NFL racism?

[robinhoodnik]

If the ball were a foot outside and given to a same race pitcher consistently I'd worry. I'm tired of reading sensationalistic crud on the subject of race. .06%! How exactly were the "bad calls" judged, and by whom? Were those results also cross checked? Was an even sampling done? Did they try their study at at all levels and in all leagues, Japan, Australia, etc. included?

[HoustonGM]

I think it was just...what percent of pitches were called strikes, not necessarily "bad strikes."

[dupont24]

Perhaps some of you should read the study.

I read the ****ing study....

[ltt]

Also, glancing over the study, the number of minority subjects is really low. Is 5 black umpires enough of a sample size to say that black umpires favor black pitchers? Is 27 black pitchers, against 85 white umpires, really a fair assessment of whether or not race is a factor when calling balls or strikes?


It'd be ignorant to believe that there are no umpires that call in favor of a certain type of player, because I'm sure there are some umpires who do have some, if even minor, discriminatory feelings, and I wouldn't doubt that sometimes, those feelings come in to play. Can race be an issue in some calls? Certainly. Is it fair to say that umpires, as a whole, tend to call strikes simply based on skin color? No.


The study doesn't claim any of the things you're saying, though - it's using baseball to examine what I'll call "racial affinity bias" - the subconscious tendency of ALL human beings to react more favorably toward those they perceive as similar to themselves than to those they perceive as different.

Normalizing for other factors, the statistical reality deviates in a significant way from statistical predictions.

That's all - there's nothing saying "white umps are out to get black pitchers," or "umps base their strike zone on skin color."

Mischaracterizing the study does nothing to further your argument.

[ltt]

I read the ****ing study....

I posted that because the questions/observations in your previous post were actually addressed in the study.

Now I have to ask - If you read the study, why didn't you know this?

[RickD]

This study though does not talk about racism on subconcious levels. It talks about racial bias in play calling in the midst of a chaotic game when all other factors are needing to be decided by Umps.

[ltt]

This study though does not talk about racism on subconcious levels. It talks about racial bias in play calling in the midst of a chaotic game when all other factors are needing to be decided by Umps.

Racial affinity on the subconscious level is exactly what the study is about.

To the extent possible, the study normalized for the other factors you're referring to.

[dupont24]

I posted that because the questions/observations in your previous post were actually addressed in the study.

Now I have to ask - If you read the study, why didn't you know this?

Because we aren't all geniuses like you, you mud-flinger. That good enough of an answer?

Besides, the study didn't even answer the questions I had asked...

[HoustonGM]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/are-umpires-racist/

[RickD]

Look at this line from the link HGM gave:


Accepting the raw percentages, the most discriminated set of pitchers are Asian by black umpires

Not blacks and not by whites......I just thought I would point that out. I am not saying it doesn't happen but I think this whole study is still hogwash.

[robinhoodnik]

I think this whole study is still hogwash.

My exact sentiments.

[HoustonGM]

Yep. That's what the link concludes:


Is a number of this magnitude even worth discussion? Can a pitcher really tell that an opposite race umpire is penalizing him with a tighter strike zone? I don't know about you but in my book one called strike out of 300 is indiscernible. If that one strike is converted into a ball the swing in run expectancy is somewhere around 0.1 runs, which if you add it all up is about a win every 30 years or so.

[RickD]

1 strike out of 300 is indiscernible. Wow I like that. That is what makes the whole thought of an ump being racist hogwash.