Balls and strikes based on race??? Enough with "studies" about racial issues already...?

Question

Apparently umps call balls and strikes different based on pitchers skin color...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070814/sc_livescience/majorleagueumpscallmorestrikesforpitchersofsamerace

Read either this title or the whole article and try telling me this is "proof" it is happening.

A strike is usually a strike and a ball is usually a ball...they don't say close pitches are evaluated, just every single pitch except foul balls or hits. If a pitch is right down the middle, it'll be called a strike, if a pitch is over the catchers head, it'll be a ball.

Basically, I think this "study" was a huge waste of time...maybe even more so than the one that found white refs in basketball to call more fouls against black players (although this one is actually more valid than the basketball one, where they only looked at scorecards and not actual games)

You may be right Rob, this was probably created to ask questions...but in case you haven't noticed, it's "morphed" into a discussion forum more so than a Q & A site.

Answer 1

This "study" strikes me as bad science; it appears that the so-called researchers had an opinion that they wanted validated and did so, at least to their satisfaction. I have never noticed any racial bias in umpires, and I watch a lot of baseball. What I have noticed is that more experienced umpires have more consistent strike zones whereas less experienced umps will move the zone around within a single at-bat. Some umpires are really good at their jobs, some stink. This is just like any other profession. Newbies generally aren't as good as veterans.

And Rob, if you don't like the game, don't play.

Answer 2

I'd have to see more of the data to decide. I agree with you that unless you know how pitches were evaluated, you can't judge the study. Who, for instance, determined if an umpire missed it? Could it just be possible that they missed a call or two as well ? However, the study may do some good in the end because it may force MLB to look at how umpires are calling balls and strikes. It seems that each one of them has an interpretation of what the strike zone is, rather then calling it as it is written in the rule book. So while I think that perhaps this was a waste of time in some ways, perhaps some good may come out of it, even if the end result is just taking a long look at the umpire's consistency behind the plate.

Answer 3

I'll admit, I didn't read the entire article. I read about the first paragraph and, like you, decided it was bogus. What should be considered, and I'm pretty sure it is, is whether or not the balls and strikes are consistent throughout the game. The "strike zone" may change slightly from game to game by an ump, but as long as it's consistent throughout the entire game it shouldn't matter. We have enough discrimination in the world already; do we really need to create more?

Answer 4

The results of the study don't surprise me any more than the NBA study did, because those of one race tend to subconsciously favor those who look like them. I don't think it's in any way racist behavior, just natural instinct.

Now, if white umps decided to purposely squeeze the strike zone on black pitchers or vice versa, then I think there would be a serious problem.

Answer 5

This "study" makes no sense and it stupid. If you look at it, the majority of pitchers and umpires are white. So of course somebody is going to think that. It's just retarded. Some people apparently have to much time on their hands.

Answer 6

I wonder if they analyzed C.B. Bucknor as part of this study. That guy's strikezone is all over the place, no matter who's pitching.

Answer 7

I agree. Somebody has too much time on there hands. They need to do a study on the study of studying stupid stuff. LOL

Answer 8

The umpires are blind anyway, why wouldn't they also be color-blind?

Answer 9

this website is for posting questions, not ranting on and on about what you think is correct.....