"You're OUTTA HERE!!"

When I think of Major League Baseball managers who had a reputation for getting ejected from the game for arguing with umpires, I think of the greats Earl Weaver, Billy Martin, and Lou Piniella.  So I was surprised to learn that the all-time leader in ejections was Atlanta Braves Hall of Famer Bobby Cox with 162 total ejections, which may be one of baseball's most unbreakable records!  Baltimore Orioles Hall of Famer Earl Weaver actually ranked fourth in the number of ejections, and Lou Piniella tied for thirteenth on the list.  Billy Martin, who managed the New York Yankees on five different occasions, wasn't even in the top twenty!  Oh well - perhaps I was just remembering some of the most epic manager ejections in history!

I realize that some managers just have a temper and cross the line because of it.  However, I also believe that some managers think that they are accomplishing something by getting ejected (for one of my all-time favorites, check out the scene from the 1986 movie Hoosiers where Coach Norman Dale for Hickory High School gets ejected on purpose so that his assistant can coach the rest of the game).  As a general strategy, I think yelling and cussing and losing your temper on purpose is flawed.  Or is it?  

A group of investigators from the University of Quebec analyzed over 153,000 pitches over ten Major League Baseball seasons (2010-2019) to see if there was any impact on the umpire's calls after someone, either the manager or a player, was ejected for specifically arguing about a called strike or ball (see "Verbal Aggressions Against Major League Baseball Umpires Affect Their Decision Making" published in the journal, Psychological Science).  They found that (1) umpires who experience verbal abuse resulting in an ejection do, in fact, tend to alter their decision-making when it comes to calling strikes versus balls; (2) the alteration in decision-making only occurs when the object of criticism involves whether a pitch was a ball or strike; and (3) the alteration in decision-making does not appear to be in an attempt to compensate the team for the loss of the ejected individual.

What I found particularly interesting about this study was that after ejecting a manager or player, umpires tended to call fewer strikes for the offending team (i.e. the one in which a manager or player was ejected) and more strikes for the opposing team!  The investigators suggest that the offending team (i.e. the team in which a player or manager was ejected) is responding to a perceived injustice, believing that the umpire is making the wrong call.  They further suggest that umpires change their decision-making in order to avoid further social punishment from the offending team.  What's also interesting is that the offending team argues in most cases is correct about the perceived injustice - in other words, prior to being ejected, most of the umpire's calls are going against them (and are actually the wrong calls).  

While the sport of baseball is a unique situation, the investigators do suggest that their findings can be generalized to other contexts.  Managers (not the baseball kind) and decision-makers should be cognizant of the tendency to bias their decisions after being aggressively criticized.  Managers should not reward bad behavior by changing their approach to decision-making, solely in an attempt to avoid further aggressive criticism.  It's an interesting perspective and an important suggestion, even if it's one that is difficult in practice.