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.]
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
