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 journalArticlepeer-review

106 Scopus citations


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
Issue number11
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014


  • Bias
  • Decision making
  • Organizational studies
  • Status

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Strategy and Management
  • Management Science and Operations Research


Dive into the research topics of 'Seeing stars: Matthew effects and status bias in major league baseball umpiring'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this