Umpires Show Bias for Stars and Strikes
Baseball's expanded review system excludes ball and strike calls, which a study finds to be biased in favor of star players, especially late in games. Larry Greenemeier reports
By Larry Greenemeier
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Tech
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Now research reveals that even top-notch umps are subject to decision-making bias, often in a game’s most important moments. That’s according to a study to appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Management Science. [Jerry W. Kim and Brayden G. King, Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring]
A team of Northwestern and Columbia university researchers analyzed more than 700,000 pitches thrown during the 2008 and 2009 seasons. They found that umpires called about 14 percent of nonswinging pitches wrong. And umps were least accurate when the game was on the line in the ninth inning and when calling a strike would end an at-bat. They also tended to favor All-Star pitchers, especially those with a reputation for good control.
Of course, there’s no way to know how challenging a handful of the hundreds of pitches thrown in any given game would affect the outcome. And you might create a different umpire bias—against managers who demand too many replays.
—Larry Greenemeier
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
