The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

18 July 2007

Take a swing at it

Regular readers will recall that I have been a registered Democrat for thirty-five years, and while I have had substantial differences with some of the party's stated goals recently, it has never quite occurred to me to bolt for the door.

But this analysis of the Designated Hitter rule [link to PDF file] makes me wonder:

[W]e find that self-identified Democratic Party members are more likely to support the DH rule than are either independents or Republicans; the odds ratio of 1.90 suggests that, on average, Democrats are 90 percent more likely to support the rule than are independents.

And why is this?

Social–psychological studies of political conservatism note that one of the central principles of that philosophy is reverence for tradition and a corresponding resistance to change. Conversely, those on the political left are typically more accepting — even welcoming — of change, particularly when those changes can be shown (or are believed) to yield tangible benefits. This line of reasoning suggests that those on the political right will be less likely to favor the DH rule, while those on the left will be more likely to support it.

Reinforcing our change-based rationale for the right's opposition to the DH rule is its effect (actual or perceived) on the culture of the game. Opponents of the DH often make the claim that the practice seems to condone a lack of personal responsibility from the very players who play a pivotal (if not the pivotal) role in the game — pitchers and sluggers. One of the bedrock Judeo-Christian values woven through American history and society, they argue, is the notion that individuals take responsibility for their own actions and fulfill their obligations to community and country. By allowing pitchers to avoid hitting, and some batters to avoid fielding, the DH rule is suggestive of a larger-scale decline in the culture of personal responsibility in America over the past several decades. To the extent that political conservatives are more likely than liberals to be receptive to this line of reasoning (cf. Feldman and Zaller 1922), it reinforces our expectation that it is political conservatives — including individuals who identify with the Republican party — who most strongly oppose the rule.

And what are these "tangible results"?

In nearly all circumstances, teams substitute pitchers — who, lacking the motivation to practice batting, are often notoriously poor hitters — with individuals who excel at the plate but who may be lacking in defensive skills. This means that, since 1973, teams in the American League have sent roughly 12.5 percent more true hitters to the plate (Freeman 2004, 94).

I must point out here that it's not how many hitters you have: it's how many runs you score.

Still, if ever I decide to become a one-issue voter, this is the issue.

(Via Rodger Payne at The Duck of Minerva.)

Posted at 7:43 PM to Base Paths , Political Science Fiction


I must point out here that it's not how many hitters you have: it's how many runs you score.

Oddly enough, the runs scored should be the tangible benefit sought, and it is conservative to point that out rather than simply to accept the notion that sending more "true hitters" to the plate is in and of itself a "tangible benefit."

Therein lies the real explanation for the political divide over the DH rule.

Posted by: McGehee at 10:05 PM on 18 July 2007

"Conversely, those on the political left are typically more accepting — even welcoming — of change, particularly when those changes can be shown (or are believed) to yield tangible benefits."

This is an extremely spurious observation that does not hold up to close (well, ANY) scrutiny. Note that the PDF has no footnote offering supporting evidence.

Certainly the left likes to think of itself as 'progressive'. It also like to think of itself as a fountain of truth, according to the names of various leftist sites and organizations: TruthOut, Joe Wilson's book, etc., etc. Pravda was the paper of Truth too, right? I mean that must have been the case - 'Truth' was the name of the paper, after all.

Is just 'claiming it is so' enough? Yes, if that's what you want to believe (usually because you already have something invested in that belief). No, if you demand that claims be backed up with substance (usually because you've already heard enough self-serving BS claims in your life, thank you).

This particular claim of the left's pure motivations is ludicrous and self-serving. I myself stop reading when I hit that first unsupportable claim. Saves me all kinds of time.

Posted by: Mister Snitch! at 2:29 PM on 19 July 2007

Well, here you go. Rodger Payne himself sums up the veracity of this thing in his comments section:

"My colleague pointed me to this article moments after talking about his long-term goal of publishing in the The Journal of Irreproducible Results."

Yeah, that's about right.

Posted by: Mister Snitch! at 2:51 PM on 19 July 2007

I assume everyone's motivations are impure until proven otherwise, and sometimes after that.

Posted by: CGHill at 3:34 PM on 19 July 2007