You might call this one "Sentences to Ponder." It only applies, however, when the batter is white.
Here are various pathways to the source article, gated in differing ways.
Pitchers from the South are more likely to hit batters
Previous post: Jeff Ely on torture and commitment
The title made me think of something happening in a kitchen, rather than in baseball.
“Pitchers were more likely to hit batters in situations that allowed them to restore justice and protect valued social identities.”
It’s official: we have hit rock bottom as a society when someone publishes a sentence like that.
According to this article, whites are less aggressive to blacks, except when the whites are angry:
http://books.google.com/books?id=rhBFnQJUwn8C&pg=PA359&lpg=PA359&dq=aggression+race+aronson&source=bl&ots=NPTsOtBCiG&sig=D8Hja1Wq7r9fKhONQL4RYh98b8c&hl=en&ei=5qNgS5HoIY3SlAfy5JTtCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
My instinct is to say that it’s completely correct.
It’s entirely consistent with a long line of studies by Richard Nisbett and Dov Cohen at the University of Michigan and others. The “culture of honor” thesis referenced is there. Start with their book.
Southerners are, true to stereotype, nicer and more polite in default situations but much more aggressive when their honor is threatened. Southerners have higher rates of “crimes of passion” but lower rates of regular premeditated crimes. Southerners are also more likely to forgive someone who committed a crime of passion or a crime to uphold his honor.
Randall Collins’ book “Violence: A Microsociological Theory” is great in many ways, and one of them is his analysis of violence in sports. Retaliation is a major part of violence in baseball. Baseball is less violent than football or hockey because less padding is worn. Soccer is even less violent (and has lots of faked injuries), although there is a subculture of violence among soccer FANS.
I agree with Nathan. You could argue all day about how blacks/Hispanics/Southerners/players who grew up poor/etc. are more likely to do steroids/hit batters/issue intentional walks/etc.
You could. Or you could read the experimental studies that Nisbett and Cohen have performed that I linked to. They’re pretty reasonable studies.
I suppose ignorance is easier, though.
Jim is correct. Intentionally hitting a batter is a tactic of the game. It is about unnerving the hitter. And it is the catcher who tells the pitcher what pitch to throw, remember? This is as true for bean balls as it is for sliders.
To see how that translates into political terms, just compare the whole Democratic filibuster vs. Republican “nuclear option” thing back in 2005 to the mirror-image situation today.
OK, let’s compare them.
Then: Democrats filibuster, some Republicans threaten to get rid of the filibuster for certain things, back down.
Now: Republican filibuster, some Democrats threaten to get rid of the filibuster for certain things, back down.
Hmm. Seems pretty similar to me.
I don’t believe that where someone comes from can determine that they are more likely to hit a batter. This can’t be determined by where someone is born or raised. This is like saying since someone is from the north than they are more likely to get walked. There are many more scenarios that you could play out due to the geographic location of where they live. This makes no sense to me that just based on where somewhere lives can determine any statistic to any sport including baseball. Pitchers are out there to play the game, not to restore justice and protect valued social identities. I believe they want to pitch well for the team, so that they can put the team in the best chance of winning. Of course there are times when batters get hit, but I would link that to balls getting away from the pitchers and not to some theory of aggression.
Comments on this entry are closed.