Okay, I need to get back tothe umpire racism bit
. Essentially, what I'm being told is I'm not looking at the forest, I'm looking at the leaves on the trees in the forest.
What the authors did was tabulate the pitches thrown. They put them into categories. The categories showed that white umps called more strikes for white pitchers than they did for Hispanic or Asian pitchers. The black umps called more strikes for black pitchers than they did for Hispanic pitchers, and the Hispanic umps called more strikes for the Hispanic pitchers.
I'm told the actual location of the pitch doesn't matter.
I understand the argument. I understand it, but I don't get it.
There are people out there claiming that the sample size of minority umpires is too small to make for a statistically valid survey, or that the one-percent bias is too small to be significantly valuable. There are people out there who are doing a better job than me of explaining why this bias isn't a bias, or how these numbers can't be correlated to prove a racial bias. And I encourage you to go read them, because they do a much better job than myself. In fact, this one says, "The raw numbers seem as close to non-biased as you can get."
But I've still got my one problem, and it was echoed by a commenter who was telling me about how wrong I was: it doesn't matter if the call was correct. It doesn't matter if the pitcher actually threw a strike. That the umpire called it a strike and that they're the same race is what matters.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
And that's just what I can't wrap my head around. There are others there out there questioning the basic research and the sample sizes and the actual results. I just can't understand how it doesn't matter if the umpire's call was correct, or not correct. If the umpire was getting the call wrong, that would be one thing.
But it just doesn't matter.
How could that not matter?