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.
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?
Keep the Houston Press Free... Since we started the Houston Press, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Houston, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Houston with no paywalls.