By John Considine
In addition to being America’s pastime, baseball could be labelled as the laboratory for economists looking at decision making. Two workers, with both opposing and similar interests, perform their task under the watchful eye of a third person designated with the task of quality control.
This laboratory got a significant upgrade in the early years of the 21st century. Technology was introduced that made it possible to evaluate the productivity and decision making of the quality controller. Economists availed of this opportunity. Mike Hsu’s recent paper in the Journal of Sports Economics is prime example. The paper is also a fine example of clear presentation.
The beauty of baseball is in the eye and mind of the controller. It is as close to the perfect natural experiment as one can get when it comes to examining biased decision making. It allows the researcher to clearly identify errors when it comes to the umpire’s call on ball location. If these errors are correlated with factors such as the skin colour of the players then there is a problem. In determining if there is a statistical relationship between these errors and other factors of interest the usual approach is to include all potential factors that might explain the errors. The beauty of baseball is that it allows the identification of errors on each individual play. The correlations are done separately. After identifying the errors, Hsu examines the statistical correlation with the location of the game. He shows evidence of home bias.
Many non-baseball papers are not able to identify the errors of the umpires or referees independently or individually. To some extent, VAR facilitates the identification of errors in soccer. However, even in the detection of offside errors, using technology to determine body position, it is accepted that there can be problems with the technology (see Robbie's post below). Some researchers attempt to re-officiate the game using other officials based in venue or by viewing broadcasts. These methods pale by comparison with baseball’s pitch tracking technology. As a result, much research seeks to identify bias in decision making statistically.
Gaelic games offer a different type of laboratory for the examination of home bias. A large proportion of games are played at neutral venues. This facilitates a statistical comparison of decisions made when one team is at home with decisions made at neutral venues. This is what myself and colleagues do in a paper in the online first section of the Journal of Sports Economics (here). We are primarily concerned with the statistical relationship between referee calls and the state of the scoreboard but we also test for home bias. We find no evidence of it.
Like many researchers, we test for potential biases using the statistical approach but without the clear identification of errors available to those using data from baseball. However, our results do support another finding in baseball. Tobias Moskowitz has shown that the errors made by baseball umpires favour the player behind in the count. Pitchers get the dodgy calls when they are behind in the count. Batters get them when they are behind. Our research on hurling is similar. The team behind on the scoreboard is more likely to get a favourable call.
This laboratory got a significant upgrade in the early years of the 21st century. Technology was introduced that made it possible to evaluate the productivity and decision making of the quality controller. Economists availed of this opportunity. Mike Hsu’s recent paper in the Journal of Sports Economics is prime example. The paper is also a fine example of clear presentation.
The beauty of baseball is in the eye and mind of the controller. It is as close to the perfect natural experiment as one can get when it comes to examining biased decision making. It allows the researcher to clearly identify errors when it comes to the umpire’s call on ball location. If these errors are correlated with factors such as the skin colour of the players then there is a problem. In determining if there is a statistical relationship between these errors and other factors of interest the usual approach is to include all potential factors that might explain the errors. The beauty of baseball is that it allows the identification of errors on each individual play. The correlations are done separately. After identifying the errors, Hsu examines the statistical correlation with the location of the game. He shows evidence of home bias.
Many non-baseball papers are not able to identify the errors of the umpires or referees independently or individually. To some extent, VAR facilitates the identification of errors in soccer. However, even in the detection of offside errors, using technology to determine body position, it is accepted that there can be problems with the technology (see Robbie's post below). Some researchers attempt to re-officiate the game using other officials based in venue or by viewing broadcasts. These methods pale by comparison with baseball’s pitch tracking technology. As a result, much research seeks to identify bias in decision making statistically.
Gaelic games offer a different type of laboratory for the examination of home bias. A large proportion of games are played at neutral venues. This facilitates a statistical comparison of decisions made when one team is at home with decisions made at neutral venues. This is what myself and colleagues do in a paper in the online first section of the Journal of Sports Economics (here). We are primarily concerned with the statistical relationship between referee calls and the state of the scoreboard but we also test for home bias. We find no evidence of it.
Like many researchers, we test for potential biases using the statistical approach but without the clear identification of errors available to those using data from baseball. However, our results do support another finding in baseball. Tobias Moskowitz has shown that the errors made by baseball umpires favour the player behind in the count. Pitchers get the dodgy calls when they are behind in the count. Batters get them when they are behind. Our research on hurling is similar. The team behind on the scoreboard is more likely to get a favourable call.
RSS Feed
