Seeing stars: Matthew effects and status bias in major league baseball umpiring

Jerry W. Kim*, Brayden G. King

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper tests the assumption that evaluators are biased to positively evaluate high-status individuals, irrespective of quality. Using unique data from Major League Baseball umpires' evaluation of pitch quality, which allow us to observe the difference in a pitch's objective quality and in its perceived quality as judged by the umpire, we show that umpires are more likely to overrecognize quality by expanding the strike zone, and less likely to underrecognize quality by missing pitches in the strike zone for high-status pitchers. Ambiguity and the pitcher's reputation as a "control pitcher" moderate the effect of status on umpire judgment. Furthermore, we show that umpire errors resulting from status bias lead to actual performance differences for the pitcher and team.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2619-2644
Number of pages26
JournalManagement Science
Volume60
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014

Fingerprint

Major League Baseball
Evaluation
Perceived quality
Evaluator

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Decision making
  • Organizational studies
  • Status

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Strategy and Management
  • Management Science and Operations Research

Cite this

@article{2b987fe29e654ffaa96f55c5383c9181,
title = "Seeing stars: Matthew effects and status bias in major league baseball umpiring",
abstract = "This paper tests the assumption that evaluators are biased to positively evaluate high-status individuals, irrespective of quality. Using unique data from Major League Baseball umpires' evaluation of pitch quality, which allow us to observe the difference in a pitch's objective quality and in its perceived quality as judged by the umpire, we show that umpires are more likely to overrecognize quality by expanding the strike zone, and less likely to underrecognize quality by missing pitches in the strike zone for high-status pitchers. Ambiguity and the pitcher's reputation as a {"}control pitcher{"} moderate the effect of status on umpire judgment. Furthermore, we show that umpire errors resulting from status bias lead to actual performance differences for the pitcher and team.",
keywords = "Bias, Decision making, Organizational studies, Status",
author = "Kim, {Jerry W.} and King, {Brayden G.}",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1287/mnsc.2014.1967",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "2619--2644",
journal = "Management Science",
issn = "0025-1909",
publisher = "INFORMS Inst.for Operations Res.and the Management Sciences",
number = "11",

}

Seeing stars : Matthew effects and status bias in major league baseball umpiring. / Kim, Jerry W.; King, Brayden G.

In: Management Science, Vol. 60, No. 11, 01.11.2014, p. 2619-2644.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Seeing stars

T2 - Matthew effects and status bias in major league baseball umpiring

AU - Kim, Jerry W.

AU - King, Brayden G.

PY - 2014/11/1

Y1 - 2014/11/1

N2 - This paper tests the assumption that evaluators are biased to positively evaluate high-status individuals, irrespective of quality. Using unique data from Major League Baseball umpires' evaluation of pitch quality, which allow us to observe the difference in a pitch's objective quality and in its perceived quality as judged by the umpire, we show that umpires are more likely to overrecognize quality by expanding the strike zone, and less likely to underrecognize quality by missing pitches in the strike zone for high-status pitchers. Ambiguity and the pitcher's reputation as a "control pitcher" moderate the effect of status on umpire judgment. Furthermore, we show that umpire errors resulting from status bias lead to actual performance differences for the pitcher and team.

AB - This paper tests the assumption that evaluators are biased to positively evaluate high-status individuals, irrespective of quality. Using unique data from Major League Baseball umpires' evaluation of pitch quality, which allow us to observe the difference in a pitch's objective quality and in its perceived quality as judged by the umpire, we show that umpires are more likely to overrecognize quality by expanding the strike zone, and less likely to underrecognize quality by missing pitches in the strike zone for high-status pitchers. Ambiguity and the pitcher's reputation as a "control pitcher" moderate the effect of status on umpire judgment. Furthermore, we show that umpire errors resulting from status bias lead to actual performance differences for the pitcher and team.

KW - Bias

KW - Decision making

KW - Organizational studies

KW - Status

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908596954&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908596954&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1967

DO - 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1967

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84908596954

VL - 60

SP - 2619

EP - 2644

JO - Management Science

JF - Management Science

SN - 0025-1909

IS - 11

ER -