Even Polls About Baseball...

05/10/2007 10:40 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011
  • Mark Blumenthal Mark Blumenthal is the Head of Election Polling at SurveyMonkey.

Let's take a break from political polling controversies and
focus on something of hopefully broader interest. A controversy involving a
poll on baseball.

Larry Brown, who blogs MLB Clubhouse on AOL, posted scathing
a few days ago of a poll on Barry Bonds
released over the weekend by ESPN and ABC News (hat tip to alert reader David
Pinto of Baseball
). Brown sees evidence of a cooked poll:

If anyone actually bothered to read
the poll, it says an oversample of 203 African-Americans were questioned out of
799 baseball fans. Considering only 12.8% of the
population is African-American
(according to the U.S. Census Bureau), and
potentially a far lower percentage of baseball fans are African-American, I
would say that the 25% mark of African-Americans used to conduct the study is
designed to mislead the public and generate racially charged results.

Not exactly.

Pollsters sometimes "oversample" a
survey sub-population in order to increase the reliability of the results
for that group. More interviews means less potential random sampling error. Before
tabulating the data for the full sample, however, they "weight" back the
oversample its correct proportion with the larger sample.

I checked with Gary Langer, the director of polling at ABC News, and he
provided a few additional details. The ABC Polling Unit started with a nationally
representative sample of 1,803 randomly selected adults interviewed between
March 29 and April 4. Of these, 660 described themselves as baseball fans
(on the survey's first question). Of these, 64 were African-American.

The pollsters wanted a bigger and more reliable sampling of African-Americans. So they
continued calling from April 5 to April 22 and interviewed another 476 randomly
sampled African Americans, of whom 139 were self-described baseball fans.

Thus (adding everything up), the ESPN/ABC survey interviewed 799 baseball
fans, including 203 among African Americans. Before tabulating the data, however,
they weighted the combined sample of 2,279 (the original 1,803 plus the
oversample of 476 blacks) in a way that reduced the proportion of
African-Americans to its correct value as determined by the U.S. Census.**

This practice is not at all unusual. The intent is to generate more statistically reliable results by
race, not -- as Brown puts it -- to "generate racially charged results."

One thing I will say in Larry Brown's defense. The two-sentence methodology
blurb at the end of the ESPN was not entirely clear. For one thing, it said
that the total sample of 799 baseball fans included "an oversample of 203
African-Americans." Technically, it included an oversample that increased the
sample of African American to 203 interviews.

More important - and here is a message for all who write poll releases - it
included the term "oversample" without any description of the weighting
procedure. A sentence like this one (quoting from Gary Langer's email reply to
me) would help reduce the confusion:

The combined sample (1,803 gen pop, oversample of
476 blacks) was weighted to Census norms, reducing the proportion of
African-Americans to its correct population value.

**The US Census reports African-Americans as 11% of all adults. Browns 12.% statistic is the percentage African Americans among the full population, including children.

P.S.: And speaking of ABC Polling Director Gary Langer, the site Freakonomics
posted some intriguing comments
from Langer yesterday on the subject of whether polls have historically
overstated support for minority candidates. It includes this accurate and
well-deserved compliment from Freakonomics author Steven Dubner:

is a force of nature. He not only runs ABC's polling but has become the
network's top cop for keeping bad data off the air, vetting many of the
surveys, studies, and polls that producers and reporters plan to use in their
stories. I don't know of any other news organization that has such a resource.
I am sure he is occasionally a thorn in the side of a reporter who's dying to
cite some sensationalistic study from some biased organization ... but as
consumers of news, we are all the better for it.