i know the percentage of african americans in the MLB is down significantly from its height in the 70s, but so is the percentage of american born players. i'm wondering how well the proportion of african americans in baseball matches up to the number of african americans in the general population. if they're fairly similar, and a similar match is found with american born hispanics and caucasians, could it be that we've actually reached a level of racial equality regarding american born players?

Important topic aside, I liked the Robert Fick line.

LOL @ Honkeyball

Given that baseball is now investing in China to cultivate what might be untapped source of talent, one would think some teams might see the wisdom in making a similar investment in the United States, especially since it doesn't seem unreasonable that targeted outlays here could possibly produce an even greater yield of talent.

And in fact Rich, MLB IS investing in inner city baseball currently. That's been a focus the past few years, building better places to play for the youth there.

Anyhow, my comment in the other thread about economic decisions refered to the fact that the policy in recent years of U.S. teams funneling all of their into Latin America is the type of cynical opportunism that winds up damaging every group of people other than the group that follows is. That's not really racism, but it has the same effect. Teams want Latin players instead of U.S.-born players (white or black, they in most cases don't care, I strongly suspect), because the player development costs outside this country are so much lower than inside. That winds up putting U.S. players at a disadvantage in the development stages, since U.S. teams are less likely to sign a given teenager from Iowa or Oregon than they were thirty years ago. They're correspondinly more likely to sign a given teenager from the Dominican Republic, but only because of an exploitative attitude toward Latin America and Latin Americans. Everybody loses except the few who directly benefit.

In a way it seems to be an aspec of the "illegal" immigrant problem. Lower cost and cheaper wages (yes, I realize that here, specifically, "cheaper" has to be said with a grin).

But, it's also part of another, perhaps larger, context that is rarely considered steadfastly, and that is the detrimental, even destructive, effect of MLB's anti-trust exemption. That, perhaps more than anything else, has served to shrink markets and promote a restrictive economic feudalism.

Teams want Latin players instead of U.S.-born players (white or black, they in most cases don't care, I strongly suspect), because the player development costs outside this country are so much lower than inside. That winds up putting U.S. players at a disadvantage in the development stages, since U.S. teams are less likely to sign a given teenager from Iowa or Oregon than they were thirty years ago. They're correspondinly more likely to sign a given teenager from the Dominican Republic, but only because of an exploitative attitude toward Latin America and Latin Americans. Everybody loses except the few who directly benefit.

That's bullcrap on many levels. First, teams want Latin players not because of the lower cost, but because of the 30 fold potential gain. You develop a latin player, you get him. You develop a Iowan player, you get 1/30th of a chance to get him.

Second, the draft is what, 60+ rounds long? Any kid from Iowa or Oregon who has the slightest chance to be a big leaguer gets the opportunity.

Plus those kids from Iowa or Oregon have a good chance of getting a scholarship to go to College and play baseball.

As one of the few Latin Americans who reads and posts here on BTF, I have always found it bizarre that so-called African-Americans don't see the Papi Ortiz's and Carlos Delgado's as "BLACK".

Ok, I understand that the African-American definition of "BLACK" has a cultural connotation, but: a) Do any African-Americans think that Latin American blacks came over from Africa on a tourism charter? (FACT: They also came as slaves and they've also had it bad);

b) Do any African-Americans think that the Alfonso Soriano's and Roberto Kelly's of the world would have played in the Honkeyball era or would have been served at a lunch counter in Selma, Alabama in the 1950s?

Yeah, Right.

a) No.

b) No.

The point is that it's not just a difference in cultural connotation, but in generalized cultural experience. It's the same reason why despite the fact that people of all minorities including certain European immigrant groups have faced strong discrimination, people get angry when you try to lump all of that together.

Use your same analogies, but in the opposite direction--sure Irish Americans were treated like crap, buut do any Irish Americans really believe that their ancestors were treated as poorly as African slaves?

Slavery in Latin America and in the US were parallel, unspeakably awful, but not interchangeable systems. The experience of these communities over the last 200+ years has been widely divergent, even though they faced some analagous discrimination, and the discriminatory laws of the US did not practically distinguish between them.

The distinction between black Latinos and African-Americans is one of those distinctions that shows how historically contingent our categories of race are - in the 18th century, they were the same race, but now, given realities of historical change, linguistic division, immigration patterns, they generally view themselves and are viewed as racially distinct. As a sociological matter, race si quite real, even though its logic is bent and its biology is non-existent. In the case of African-Americans and baseball, we're dealing with a sociological matter, so we're dealing with race a lived reality.

I think pressure on baseball to work to get African-American youth ot play the game is a good thing - it's sort of analogous to how I think that the hysteria around Bonds served the pragmatic purpose of starting some of the engines to clean the game up - even if not all the arguments are sound and not all the invective is deserved.

I think pressure on baseball to work to get African-American youth ot play the game is a good thing - it's sort of analogous to how I think that the hysteria around Bonds served the pragmatic purpose of starting some of the engines to clean the game up - even if not all the arguments are sound and not all the invective is deserved.

Why is it good for African American's to play in MLB? I'd like to hear the argument. Is it good for African Americans? For white fans? Who does it serve?

I also don't see how the hysteria has accomplished anything a reasoned approach could not have done WRT to steroids.

Why is it good for African American's to play in MLB? I'd like to hear the argument. Is it good for African Americans? For white fans? Who does it serve?

(a) It's at least in part about opportunity, the opportunity to play baseball is not the same if you're poor, and it's not the same if you live in a city. The opportunity should be equal, and baseball should be helping to make it equal. Most of the efforts to bring african-american children the opportunity to play baseball are efforts to bring baseball to poor, urban areas, and secondarily to poor, rural areas. As in much of our society, race and class are deeply intertwined.
(b) I think the world is better when we have diversity and multiculturalism and all that stuff. Baseball is a part of the world.
(c) I think the world is better when the best baseball players possible are playing professional baseball, because I frickin' love baseball.

Jose Reyes is Blacker than Ty Wigginton, Reggie Willits, and Hunter Pence combined.

As in much of our society, race and class are deeply intertwined.

That's true to such a degree that in much of the country, poor whites are treated just as badly as poor blacks. Don't tell me it's not true--I've been there and seen it. For most Americans, it's the poverty that causes the maltreatment.

I don't think it's particularly useful to play the "who suffered more" game when discussing structural injustice. The lived experience of people who are grouped and group themselves into different racial categories are not interchangeable, and their lived experience of poverty is not interchangeable. Whether it's "just as bad" or not doesn't seem like a particularly valuable question to try to answer - working to end the structural injustice is what matters.

I don't think it's any less bizarre that African-American's don't think of Latino blacks as "black" than the fact that most American whites don't think of Latino whites as "white". To me it seems like the same thing.

(a) It's at least in part about opportunity, the opportunity to play baseball is not the same if you're poor, and it's not the same if you live in a city. The opportunity should be equal, and baseball should be helping to make it equal. Most of the efforts to bring african-american children the opportunity to play baseball are efforts to bring baseball to poor, urban areas, and secondarily to poor, rural areas. As in much of our society, race and class are deeply intertwined.
(b) I think the world is better when we have diversity and multiculturalism and all that stuff. Baseball is a part of the world.
(c) I think the world is better when the best baseball players possible are playing professional baseball, because I frickin' love baseball.

Ok, let's give this some context. We're talking about a sport (yes, the best sport in the world, but still).

We are not talking about access to computers, the internet and education.

If the point were that minorities, particularly African-Americans, are being deprived of their right to play ANY, or even, MOST sports, then I'd get more upset about this.

In any case, a problem with the argument that there's too few African-Americans in baseball is that it assumes that there is a number that's just right.

There is a realistic chance that the urban African-American community is not PRESENTLY inclined to baseball, for a number of reasons (it's an expensive sport to play, it's a sport that takes a lot of practice to master, pick-up games are not as available when you're a kid, there's peer pressure to play basketball and even football which does not exist for baseball, urban African-American populations often live in colder cities where the baseball playing part of the year is smaller vis-a-vis basketball and football).

That could be changed SOME, but unless you start a MASSIVE, sustained marketing effort to reach that sub-group, the uptick in urban African-American players will probably not be huge.

Spending money on the rural African-American community is probably a better bet, and spending money on Latin American players is a MUCH better bet (from a talent development standpoint).

Ok, let's give this some context. We're talking about a sport (yes, the best sport in the world, but still).

We are not talking about access to computers, the internet and education.

Right. That's why I think it's the responsibility of organized baseball to deal with these questions of inequality. I'm not calling for massive government aid to inner city little leagues at the expense of other anti-poverty programs, I'm saying that organized baseball should work to increase the opportunity for all children to play baseball. You seem to be arguing against me as if I'm calling for a much more wide-ranging set of fixes than I am.

I don't think it's any less bizarre that African-American's don't think of Latino blacks as "black" than the fact that most American whites don't think of Latino whites as "white". To me it seems like the same thing.

Except for the fact that American and Canadian whites and Latin American whites don't have a shared history of discrimination due to their skin color/race.

In any case, I suspect that with the huge growth of the Latin American population in the U.S., Americans will eventually stop lumping all Latin American groups into one, and start seeing the nuances within Latin American ethnicities.

Let me give you a cultural example: Daisy Fuentes.

Daisy Fuentes is of Cuban ancestry (born in Havana), but then lived in Spain, and ultimately went to New Jersey, where she grew up.

I don't know Ms. Fuentes' ethnic background, but with her being Cuban, I suspect it is mostly Spanish.

I think of Ms. Fuentes as White AND Latin, as opposed to just as Latin.

(As a side comment, Spain is now seen by the rest of Europe as a thoroughly European country. It wasn't seen that way 30+ years ago - the old French put-down being that Europe ended at the Pyrenees. I don't think Americans have yet to interiorize this, but I suspect that eventually they will see someone of Spanish ancestry as European vs. lumped together with Latin American ancestry).

One final example: Cameron Diaz.

Ms. Diaz's father is of Cuban ancestry.

Does anybody NOT think of Ms. Diaz as White? (you could do the same exercise with Christina Aguilera, since her father is Ecuadorean).

First, I totally agree with you that the term "Latino" covers over an incredible amount of real difference in lived experience, and I agree that America, generally, is just starting to grasp the complex differences that make up the culture(s) called Latin.

I'm confused, thoiugh, how this supports your claim that people shouldn't recognize the real differences between african-americans and blacks latinos. It seems like if you respect inter-Latin difference, you should also respect how different groups that have been lumped under the sub-heading of Latino are further to be differentiated from other groups that haven't.

Right. That's why I think it's the responsibility of organized baseball to deal with these questions of inequality. I'm not calling for massive government aid to inner city little leagues at the expense of other anti-poverty programs, I'm saying that organized baseball should work to increase the opportunity for all children to play baseball. You seem to be arguing against me as if I'm calling for a much more wide-ranging set of fixes than I am.

No, I'm arguing against the idea that this is an IMPORTANT issue (which is the position espoused by Sheffield, Hunter and the NAACP).

I don't think it is that important an issue, and while I think it's good that baseball aid the development of urban baseball (not necessarily the best investment of funds from a MLB standpoint, but a good long-term decision, in the sense that it will also ensure that some young urban baseball players will grow up to be baseball fans), this whole matter is a tempest in a teapot IMO.

"(a) It's at least in part about opportunity, the opportunity to play baseball is not the same if you're poor, and it's not the same if you live in a city. The opportunity should be equal, and baseball should be helping to make it equal. Most of the efforts to bring african-american children the opportunity to play baseball are efforts to bring baseball to poor, urban areas, and secondarily to poor, rural areas. As in much of our society, race and class are deeply intertwined."

There are many inequalities arising out of the life in our inner cities right now, but the fact that kids there don't play baseball could not rank among the top 50 problems. If this is the issue, the money could be spent in so many better ways.
"(b) I think the world is better when we have diversity and multiculturalism and all that stuff. Baseball is a part of the world."

Baseball is far more mixed than football or basketball. Go look at an NBA roster or a starting defense in the NFL, and tell me about the diversity of those squads. And by the way, they do not suffer in performance because of a lack of diversity.
"(c) I think the world is better when the best baseball players possible are playing professional baseball, because I frickin' love baseball."

But those kids are not chosing to play baseball, and that is their choice.

Do any African-Americans think that the Alfonso Soriano's and Roberto Kelly's of the world would have played in the Honkeyball era or would have been served at a lunch counter in Selma, Alabama in the 1950s?

Yeah, Right.

Though there actually were several instances in the late 50's and early 60's when robed African diplomats were served at otherwise "white only" restaurants along U.S. 40 in Delaware and northern Maryland, before I-95 was built between Baltimore and the Jersey Turnpike. And when African Americans pointed to their even darker skinned African "brothers" and wondered out loud what was going on, they were told, "That's different. You're n*gg*rs."

More Believe It Or Not: Several southern universities, including my alma mater (Duke) admitted African students before they admitted African Americans. The politics of skin color often works in mysterious ways that have nothing to do with internal consistency or logic.

In spite of those few cases, one of the reasons that the Kennedy Administration finally got interested in a public accommodations bill after more than two years of indifference, was the international embarrassment that the treatment of African diplomats along the New York - Washington corridor was causing. In the early part of the Kennedy Administration public face and expediency nearly always took precedence over simple justice.

the money could be spent in so many better ways

Again, I'm talking about major league baseball here. Sure, I'd love if if they took 20% of their profits and invested them in anti-poverty and anti-racism programs generally. But they ain't gonna. What they might do is put some money into programs to help increase the opportunities for poor children and poor black children to play baseball. So I'm pushing for that, because it's what might actually be accomplished.

Baseball is far more mixed than football or basketball.

When did I mention football or basketball? When did I say, what I want is for baseball be like football or basketball? I said I want baseball to be better.

But those kids are not chosing to play baseball, and that is their choice.

You just agreed with me above that there are inequities in the choices that different children have. I don't understand how you can quote me in agreement about opportunity and then fall back on platitudes about choice.

I'm confused, thoiugh, how this supports your claim that people shouldn't recognize the real differences between african-americans and blacks latinos. It seems like if you respect inter-Latin difference, you should also respect how different groups that have been lumped under the sub-heading of Latino are further to be differentiated from other groups that haven't.

Well, you should bear in mind that I was not answering you, but Kadomony's statement that "I don't think it's any less bizarre that African-American's don't think of Latino blacks as "black" than the fact that most American whites don't think of Latino whites as "white". To me it seems like the same thing"

I truly believe that Latin Americans can be two things at the same time: they can be black AND latin at the same time, in the same way as they can be white AND latin at the same time.

IMO, the differentiation between a black American and a black Latin American from a racial standpoint is specious. I can understand the idea that there are cultural differences, but certainly NOT a statement like C.C. Sabathia's: "I don't think people see the problem. They see players like [Jose] Reyes and [Carlos] Delgado and assume they're black."

(Really, Sabathia should have been asked if he saw Mr. Reyes and Mr. Delgado as Han Chinese or something).

Once you accept that Messrs. Reyes and Delgado ARE black, then the complaints of the Sheffields, Hunters and Sabathia's of the world stop being a complaint about racial exclusion of blacks and starts becoming a more complicated issue: mainly that a SPECIFIC group of black people, in this case, African-Americans, are not particularly represented in baseball.

I've read a number of articles here on BTF (and in other baseball web pages) to the effect that a material number of American born baseball players (regardless of race) are from the sunbelt of the U.S.

I'm waiting to read a bunch of articles from the Garrison Keillors of the world to the effect that Minnesotans are being excluded from baseball, and that baseball should do more to promote baseball there.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Great stories, Andy.

If you have a source, I'd love to read up about this.

Great stories, Andy.

If you have a source, I'd love to read up about this.

The source is my memory (I'm nearly 63 and was involved in the civil rights movement from 1963-65, and followed it closely before that), but I'm sure that if you spent a few hours in the NY Times archives you could find references to these incidents. Some of the better and more accessible books dealing with that period would be John Lewis's memoir, Walking With The Wind; Taylor Branch's Parting The Waters; Clayborne Carson's SNCC; and Juan Williams' Eyes on the Prize, which is the companion to the excellent PBS TV series that for some strange reason is unavailable on DVD. The Library of America also has a great two volume anothology, Reporting Civil Rights, which gives you a very accurate sense of what it was like to be there at the time, as opposed to hindsight.

There are also scores of books written by segregationists that perhaps are even better at giving you an idea of what people were up against. Here's a pretty good graphic example of that mentality, a White Citizens' Council ad taken out in a Selma newspaper just two days before George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door.

Actually, I meant about the foreign diplomats and such....

Actually, I meant about the foreign diplomats and such....

Sorry about the extended riff, but that's from memory, although as I wrote, I'm sure the NY Times archives could provide you with that info.

No, I'm arguing against the idea that this is an IMPORTANT issue (which is the position espoused by Sheffield, Hunter and the NAACP).

I think Sheffield and Hunter think it's important because they love baseball and want other people who came from a similar background as themselves to be able to experience it. The NAACP just seems to opportunistic in this instance. I don't think anyone is credibly arguing that it's important in a larger public policy sense.

Really, Sabathia should have been asked if he saw Mr. Reyes and Mr. Delgado as Han Chinese or something

That would be Carlos Moran and Bruce Chen

BTW - Bruce Chen is Panamanian, Latin AND Chinese.

What is the reason for assuming inner-city blacks don't have access to baseball? Isn't it possible that they do, but that baseball interest among inner-city blacks has declined? I ask really out of ignorance. Inner-city blacks apparently have access to football and basketball, and the former is a much more expensive sport to run. They have access to track as well. Why do we think they don't have access to baseball: b/c there are fewer blacks playing MLB? Doesn't there seem to be a flaw in that analysis?

Inner-city blacks apparently have access to football and basketball, and the former is a much more expensive sport to run.

Football is less expensive on a per-athlete basis, though - you can handle twice the number of athletes for less than twice as much in terms of total expenses - and it's also an easier sport to play, because it doesn't require the hand-eye coordination to the extent that hitting a baseball does. Most young athletes can improve their strength and quickness with a series of relatively easy drills, compared to what it takes to improve pitch recognition and bat speed.

I'm not saying that football is easy to play - far from it - but I think it's easier to develop the skill set necessary to succeed in football than it is in baseball, with less up-front investment of time and money, for an athlete who has the skills to succeed in both sports. And I think that's part of the reason why inner-city athletes tend to have more access to football than they do to baseball.

-- MWE

Access, Mike, or success (or both, I guess)? I get your point, and it might explain why any particular athlete gravitates toward football or b-ball (b/c it's less frustrating and rewards come quicker), but does that mean less access? Or, does access decrease b/c programs close for want of athletes?

A related question which I've been thinking more about recently is why there was such hostility to integrating Major and minor League baseball, both by players and fans Consider that:

a)Blacks and Whites played on integrated teams in Winter ball and probably military ball
b)Whites barnstormed with Negro League players in the South as well as the North
c)Blacks and Whites were teammates in Northern high school baseball teams
d)The NFL which had been integrated, then segregated brought Blacks into the AAFC and NFL before Jackie Robinson
e) Pro basketball, in its infancy, had an all Black team as well as some Blacks
f) Boxing had integrated matches, and I bet that many Whites rooted for Joe Louis over Max Schmeling and maybe other White fighters
g) Track and Field was integrated, and Jesse Owens was a hero after the 36 Olympics

One argument was that there were so many Southern baseball players. I doubt that they made up more than half during the forties, and there were very few Southern players in the early 1900s when baseball became segregated.

What is the reason for assuming inner-city blacks don't have access to baseball?

When dealing with inner-city children, there has been overall issues with infrastructure for the last twenty to thirty years. Technologies such as automobiles, televisions, etc. pushed much of the work force outside the taxation arm of the cities themselves. Those persons still consume and use a good amount of city services. Although this occurred fifty to sixty years ago, it started to really become a crunch about thirty years ago. All efforts to remediate those concerns have been band aids, and any influxes in capital where probably spent on more important items.

Isn't it possible that they do, but that baseball interest among inner-city blacks has declined? I ask really out of ignorance.

Clearly there is some element of choice. Any kid anywhere that has athletic talent and speed can make a creative choice. They can use that talent to run in multiple approaches and vectors on a football field or basketball course, or they can use it to "take a walk" to first base, then be told to stand there, and hope some goofy lookin guy that can only hit a strike 69% of the time hits one over the fence so they can jog around the bases.

On the sociological choice aspect, you can see some commentary that baseball will always have a "straight lines" problem. The last decade and a half, this is probably exacerbated by the home run era. Chicks may dig the long ball, but its probably boring as the principal means of the game. "Small ball" is going to create more modes of athletic expression. "Fast and dexterous" lose both expressive and impact contributions. "Strong" is more useful in both other sports, and only recently has strong been a more selected for (or artificially developed) virtue.

Consequently, I think you are seeing less people with multi-sport ability choose baseball. The Big-Frank, Glavine, Bo, and Deion era of stars are either gone or hitting the end of their careers. I'm sure you still see some such players. Watching the Braves, I am aware that both Francoeur and DeRosa excelled highly at more than one sport, but you don't hear as much about the multi-sports anymore.

Inner-city blacks apparently have access to football and basketball, and the former is a much more expensive sport to run.

Is football more expensive to run than baseball from a parks and recreation standpoint? I don't know, but I don't think its true. My son started little league this year, and I know the general expenditures that are required for facility upkeep. Field maintenance requires more labor than football, and is more suspect and requires more engineering for grading to be usable. A football field is a multi-purpose field, that can be played on in multiple environmental conditions. You can run a lot of football games and soccer games on a big tract of land for early ages of the sport. Baseball requires a special purpose and usually single use facility.

Football equipment costs more, but all that cost is not always bore by the league. Moreover, flag football has neglible equipment cost. When the kids are young, its a lot easier to stick them on a football field or soccer field or basketball court, then it is a baseball field. As an example, my son has access to about four different soccer leagues, basketball leagues, and flag football leagues that are in close proximity and comparable entry fees. He has access to one baseball league.

Why do we think they don't have access to baseball: b/c there are fewer blacks playing MLB? Doesn't there seem to be a flaw in that analysis?


I honestly think the decision process is reversed, but out here, rhetoric can cause some conflation.

We know as a fact that African American representation per capita is declining in MLB. The decline looks disproportionate to the decline of whites and the influx of foreign talents. When you see a decline in representation of any group of people that share a relevant commonality it should be a concern. The question of whether is David Ortiz "black" is totally irrelevant.

I would opine that if you looked and came up with a relevant distinction of "inner-city", you would see an even greater drop in representation across all races. I think you can see that representation is also starting to drastically shift from cold weather climates to warmer weather climates where baseball can be played year round.

As MCoA stated, a panacea for baseball fans would be that baseball can select "the best athletes" worldwide and the other sports are left fighting for the scraps. As a fear point, you don't want the baseball population to be reduced to those persons living on one of a few islands, and across a narrow strip of the US (should they not choose football or basketball). You also don't want baseball to become a country club sport like tennis or golf, when it becomes a major news story when you have a Tiger Woods or Mai Vai Washington.

If you examine the factors for the African American decline, you reasonably see infrastructure and choice as being two likely (and not necessarily independent causes). An investment in inner-city infrastructure for baseball seems to be a good remediation measure and a good first step. It will take a decade to see any payoff and probably two to three decades to see any type of real rewards.

You also don't want baseball to become a country club sport like tennis or golf

This is already happening, at least in my neck of the woods. Most of the top-level baseball players don't play in organized leagues any more; they play on traveling teams, and spend most of their summer weekends on the road to one tournament or the other. This is very much like what has happened to soccer over the past decade or so, and what has always been the case in tennis and golf.

-- MWE

Or, does access decrease b/c programs close for want of athletes?


Occasionally, you will read about a program closing, and its probably overly-sensationalized. I don't think the issue is with closing, per se. The issue is that I doubt program expansion in baseball has kept pace with population gains. I think programs have kept pace in other sports.


Another example (and some encouraging and discouraging news). Most after-school care programs up here for young kids will have a range of activities the child can choose. Arts, crafts, games, and most sports are well represented. On the sporting side, you can play a game of kickball, soccer, 2 hand touch football, or kick ball--- you usually cannot play baseball.

Now last year that changed a little. MLB has set up some grant money, and has bought a number of pitching machines (and other equipment) that they make available to youth groups and care facilities. IIRC, they also do some "train the trainer" courses for baseball skills development. Now, my son has the ability to choose some baseball activity in three seasons as a day-to-day (rather than the one season league) activity. They can run those skill clinics in a regular multi-purpose indoor gymnasium.

To me, that type of thing is a positive expenditure by MLB. Now, the only problem is those skill clinics are still "for pay" options. That works fine for my family that can afford it. It doesn't work well across the entire city.

29. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: July 04, 2007 at 11:41 AM (#2428734)

Actually, I meant about the foreign diplomats and such....

This 1961 Time article gives details about African diplomats being turned away from restaurants and similar businesses:

"Most Embarrassing"

A related question which I've been thinking more about recently is why there was such hostility to integrating Major and minor League baseball, both by players and fans Consider that:

a)Blacks and Whites played on integrated teams in Winter ball and probably military ball
b)Whites barnstormed with Negro League players in the South as well as the North
c)Blacks and Whites were teammates in Northern high school baseball teams
d)The NFL which had been integrated, then segregated brought Blacks into the AAFC and NFL before Jackie Robinson
e) Pro basketball, in its infancy, had an all Black team as well as some Blacks
f) Boxing had integrated matches, and I bet that many Whites rooted for Joe Louis over Max Schmeling and maybe other White fighters
g) Track and Field was integrated, and Jesse Owens was a hero after the 36 Olympics

One argument was that there were so many Southern baseball players. I doubt that they made up more than half during the forties, and there were very few Southern players in the early 1900s when baseball became segregated.

That list is a mixed bag, with a few half truths or misleading implications mixed in with the indisputable statements, but its overall point is well taken.

But the truth is that opposition to integration in baseball, at least from about the mid-30's to the mid-40's, was mostly the result of inertia, opposition from nervous owners afraid of offending their bigoted customers, and a vocal minority of rednecks among the players, who had the same sort of disproportionate influence as groups like the NRA and various other pressure groups have always had in other areas of public life. Many polls of players taken during that period showed that a majority was willing to let blacks play in the Majors.

This is already happening, at least in my neck of the woods. Most of the top-level baseball players don't play in organized leagues any more; they play on traveling teams, and spend most of their summer weekends on the road to one tournament or the other. This is very much like what has happened to soccer over the past decade or so, and what has always been the case in tennis and golf.

-- MWE


Yes, I was specifically thinking of your neck of the woods. As you are probably aware, almost all of my family lives about an hour away from you. Most of my first cousins are significantly younger than I am. They lived that exact lifestyle, including one cousin that is a four season baseball player. (incidentally on another primer subject, he also had to have shoulder surgery at 16 due to complications of pitching overuse)

I guess what I'm driving at is that I, at least, don't feel like I've heard remotely enough information that leads to a policy recommendation. For instance, is there a per capita decline among black baseball players that is not compensated by their disproportionate representation in other sports? Over the time we've seen a decrease in baseball, haven't we also seen an increase of black participation in basketball, track, soccer, and football? Is there perhaps also an increased number of blacks in the middle class who are finding different career options than sports?

Mike: there's a kid I used to play b-ball with who got drafted by the Royals (I think), out of Mount St. Mary's I believe, named Ivor (or Iver). Any reports on him?

guess what I'm driving at is that I, at least, don't feel like I've heard remotely enough information that leads to a policy recommendation. For instance, is there a per capita decline among black baseball players that is not compensated by their disproportionate representation in other sports?

Probably not. In fact, I am not suggesting that public policy be changed at all. I think that P&R;departments need to probably find cheaper methods to serve the community than baseball. I don't think P&R;departments should be setting up special facilities and training for team handball, curling, motoball or any other sport where the US has not done well. Any such growth in infrastructure should be with private money.

From MLB's standpoint though, I think that private money is well spent. I think its a good spending policy and a good public relations policy.

Absolutely I agree with that, BL. As I've said before, I run my parish's CYO (catholic youth organization, a sports league) and we cannot get enough boys to play baseball. It's all soccer and b-ball and lax. The few kids who want to play scrape together a team and play County league or travel, as you and Mike described.

IIRC, they also do some "train the trainer" courses for baseball skills development.

I think this is an absolutely critical factor. My experience with youth baseball coaches is that the vast majority of them don't really know how to teach kids to play the sport, let alone help them improve their skills. It's not because they aren't motivated to do so, mind you - it's because they don't have the basic grounding or training to do so.

-- MWE

(Disclaimer: haven't read all of the above posts, so perhaps this has already been mentioned)

On the flip side of this argument, perhaps the relatively small amount of white Americans playing in the NBA is not only a result of black players being significantly better on average, but in addition to that, white American athletes are aware of this disadvantage and thus pursue other interests instead of giving basketball a chance.

Meanwhile, black athletes perhaps see that they indeed have a significant advantage in basketball and football, and more so than for baseball, so they pursue careers in those two sports rather than baseball.

Also, with basketball and football, if you're an excellent player, you join the ranks of the elite at the top level immediately after college, while baseball players toil in the minors for at least a year or two, and many more if starting right out of high school. If you're coming from a poor neighborhood with not much opportunity to succeed in other careers, this immediate jump to the top level might be more enticing. The advantage of a career in baseball, however, is that there's more of an opportunity to keep playing baseball (at least in the states or nearby) for a living even if one doesn't succeed at the top level, while football (and perhaps basketball) careers are considerably shorter.

I know that I'll be nudging my children to play baseball, to swim, and to pursue any sport other than basketball and football. Unless, of course, they're freakin' huge.

The few kids who want to play scrape together a team and play County league or travel, as you and Mike described.

And that travel represents a private cost to the player further pushing it out of socio-economic hands. Baseball, even baseball subsidized by public or private money, still has a cost to the player. Every player is going to have to bring gloves and cletes. Basketball there is usually no private cost. I can walk up to a basketball court and find a game going anytime.

I haven't spent any time in the DR, but I imagine baseball may have that virtue there. You can wonder onto a field, find kids with balls and bats already there, and switch off gloves. You can't do that in US organized baseball.

Moreover, you aren't going to be able to find those "pick up games" either. I've heard several people extol the "pick up games" they played, or another that claims they played "all hours into the night." I'm highly skeptical that it occurred at these frequencies. I don't doubt that it occurred more than today. I remember baseball and pseudo-baseball (500, pepper, tennis ball, cup ball) being played a lot more than I see it today, but a few things have changed.

First, supervision of children has changed. Go back two generations and quite often only one member of the family worked. Today that is exceedingly rare. Go back one generation, and we would be bombarded with story after story about the problems with "latch key" kids. Today if you leave a kid at home unsupervised, it can have public ramifications, and if it does not, its certainly going to rear its head in those cases of divorce. Therefore, you are going to have a lot more kids in a situation where there is adult supervision and organization to their activities. You will also have adult liability, which means baseball isn't likely to be played unless there are facilities and proper and safe equipment.

And in burgoning inner-city economies, you are going to have problems getting enough tracts of open areas. That land is going to be multi-million dollar property--somebody is going to want to stick condos on it or a new office park. I imagine you can find more open areas in the DR than you can in NYC.

As for rural kids, well you got together enough kids to play, which has always been the problem.

I know that I'll be nudging my children to play baseball, to swim, and to pursue any sport other than basketball and football. Unless, of course, they're freakin' huge.

I'd suggest auto racing and ultimate fighting; those seem to be the fastest rising sports.

I've heard several people extol the "pick up games" they played, or another that claims they played "all hours into the night." I'm highly skeptical that it occurred at these frequencies.

It didn't, but in summer we were always out on the street doing something with a ball until the sun set, and sometimes even later (we had street lights, which a lot of newer developments don't have any more).

supervision of children has changed.

When I was a kid, parents in a neighborhood watched everyone's kids, not just their own, and were willing to both take responsibility for, and be held accountable by other parents if anything happened. If I did something I wasn't supposed to do at a friend's house, I was in trouble there as well as at home. Today, many parents don't feel that they are responsible for - and don't want to be held accountable for what happens to - anyone's kids other than their own (and sometimes not even their own). In large part because of that, there are fewer opportunities for unstructured play - people retreat to planned activities (scheduled fun) because the lines of responsibility and accountability are clearly drawn.

-- MWE

For instance, is there a per capita decline among black baseball players that is not compensated by their disproportionate representation in other sports?

How does that compensate the baseball fan? From our perspective, we want to see the best players. The wider the pool, the higher the level of play. The increase in international players is a good thing, but we are greedy, and see no reason not to be. We reasonably believe that there is a population of African-American athletes who would raise the level of play and entertainment in the major leagues, but who are not now considering that sport for the variety of reasons set forth above. We would like to tap into that pool. We would like to do so on MLB's nickel.

We would also like free ponies and ice cream.

I've heard several people extol the "pick up games" they played, or another that claims they played "all hours into the night." I'm highly skeptical that it occurred at these frequencies.

I'm 52, and was never blessed with particularly good hand-eye coordination. But still, I played a lot of pick-up baseball. In my suburban neighborhood, from the mid 1960's to the early 1970's, in the spring, I and the other baby boomers would meet at the local field after school or on week-ends and play pick up baseball three or four times a week. In the summer, in NY, during DST, it stayed light pretty darn late. There was also organized little leagues. If there were only two or three of us, we would grab a spaldeen and a broomstick, go to the back of the movie house, chalk a square "strike zone" on the wall, and play home run derby.

Yes, we also played pick up football and basketball and such. But the baseball was always the best.

I really don't understand the "best players" argument.

For twhoever made the Brandon Inge comment, you do realize that if you added 20 great players to the league, there still would be someone who hits .220 and who looks to be failing, relatively to the best players in the league. Someone will still be the worst player in the league.

Is someone really arguing that the quality of MLB just isn't good-that it is apparant that there are players in the league who do not have great skills? I just think that is nonsense.

Remember, before answering, that even if you add 20 people to the top of the league, there will be someone at the bottom, who looks awful, relative to the group that is there.

When we talk about black athletes gravitating toward football (or basketball), we're talking about the athletes that would be playing the "skilled positions", (RB, WR, QB, DB and S). There are very few 300lb players in MLB. Re: basketball, there are very few guys over 6 feet 4 or 6 feet 5 in MLB, so we're talking about guys who would be guards in the NBA staying away from baseball. Given that there are more positions for the average sized athlete to compete for in baseball than there are in football or basketball, it's puzzling why black kids may not view baseball as a possible profession.

It ties into the discussion we've had about kids in general not playing as much baseball as they used to 40 years ago. (That one gets hung up on the claim itself...some here think all the evidence is anecdotal, and therefore unconvincing.)

Inner-city blacks apparently have access to football

How true is this?

I remember a few years back an article in the Globe on Boston city high schools and how some/many had dropped football. (There was a tie-in to Jerome Wiggins when he was on the Pats, he's from East Boston...maybe the article was on Wiggins on only peripherally on Boston high schools.) Perhaps someone with a better memory has a better recollection of the article.

a)Blacks and Whites played on integrated teams in Winter ball and probably military ball

I take it that that this is not the greatest thread to be bringing up question with regard to US Military Recruitment Policy.

Better than the Joan Jett thread.

here we go again

i can't believe that basically no one understand or is even TRYING to understand what cc and torii and sheff are saying - at least with THIS gang

ok let me try like this

not one of us would look at ortiz or reyes would say that he is not a Negro. ok? not one of us would say that minnie minoso could have played MLB before jackie. not one of us would say that the KKK would want reyes as a member even if he wasn't catholic

ok?

"black" means american born black. it means one of us. black cuban or white cuban is STILL cuban. and it sure is true that guys who look like ismael valdez is called "latin" and not "white"

talking about few brothas in baseball is not a question of is MLB tring to keep males of Negro ancestry out of baseball

can all yall please try TRY to understand?

suppose you talking about hockey (do american white guys even play) and someone says - there are no americans playing hockey and i say so they are all canadians or russians so what all whites are the same.

it is missing the point.

the problem is that kidz don't play baseball because unless you belong to some league there is no baseball. and if you are a single mother and you got to work it is TOUGH to get kids to a league. even if it is free to enter. and a lot of times the field is a long way away and you got to find transportation. and in case yall didn't know it, most city schools don't even got any baseball programs so guys couldn't play even if they wanted to. and travel teams? you kidding me? you got to travel with your kid and who is supposed to take care of your other kids? and how you supposed to go to work? not gonna happen unless you rich.

and of course you have to have someone to teach your kidz and it is not like in the old days when the older kidz could teach the younger ones

and of course if your kid is big seems everyone try there best to shove him into football. it is happening with my youngest and he not even 4 yet. he sure likes hitting balls off a tee and he sure hits them a long way. think big hurt

"black" means american born black. it means one of us. black cuban or white cuban is STILL cuban. and it sure is true that guys who look like ismael valdez is called "latin" and not "white"

This has been my exp in dealing with people. Here is what I posted in yesterday's thread:

This is clever and everything, but the only "dark-skinned" people I have met who call themselves "black" are native-English-speaking African-Americans. Others may have different experiences, of course. Other "dark-skinned" people I have met have called themselves "Brazilian" or "Sudanese" or "Dominican" or whatever.

I have known a couple of British and French people who were "negro" but the issue of what they called themselves never came up; they were French and British.


i can't believe that basically no one understand or is even TRYING to understand what cc and torii and sheff are saying - at least with THIS gang

I think a lot of us understand this basic point, probably even Calcaterra. Calcaterra is just twitchy about it.

the problem is that kidz don't play baseball because unless you belong to some league there is no baseball. and if you are a single mother and you got to work it is TOUGH to get kids to a league. even if it is free to enter. and a lot of times the field is a long way away and you got to find transportation. and in case yall didn't know it, most city schools don't even got any baseball programs so guys couldn't play even if they wanted to. and travel teams? you kidding me? you got to travel with your kid and who is supposed to take care of your other kids? and how you supposed to go to work? not gonna happen unless you rich.

A couple of people, notably Rifkin, have said that they think young black men growing up without fathers in large numbers is a contributing factor since a lot of boys play baseeball with their dads to start. I did, for example. Do you agree?

think big hurt

Yeah, but the Astros won't be interested, because they'll be scouting Eric Bruntlett, Jr.

I don't know who that person is.

Re: basketball, there are very few guys over 6 feet 4 or 6 feet 5 in MLB, so we're talking about guys who would be guards in the NBA staying away from baseball. Given that there are more positions for the average sized athlete to compete for in baseball than there are in football or basketball, it's puzzling why black kids may not view baseball as a possible profession.


Again, with the caveat that my posts apply to more than just "black kids", the problems are that:

(1) You don't know how tall or how big you are going to be when you choose the sport initially; and
(2) There is a problem with access to baseball.

But let's say you are a stud athlete at your high school. You are over six feet tall and weigh at least 175. You get two choices: a scholarship to the Univ. of Florida to play in the secondary or drafted in the 30th round, which do you take?

Now there are counter-examples, the cousin I referred to earlier-- he has a teammate that was offered a scholarship to some lower tiered univ to play running back, and was drafted in the 5th round by an MLB team. I highly expect he is going to take the signing bonus and go play baseball. If that doesn't work, he still can retain some football eligibility, IIRC.

robin

by the way, happy birthday. a little late. sorry.

and yeh, a lot of boys played baseball with their dads, grandads, older brothers. some guys even played baseball with their mothers - like john brattain.
and casey candaele

and pretty soon it is going to only be rich kids in america who play ball. which is a real shame.

well, the astros just might could possibly be interested in my kid if i can convince them he's really panamanian...

(1) You don't know how tall or how big you are going to be when you choose the sport initially; and

To the extent this is the case, it reflects a chance in amateur sports practices. Formerly, one didn't have to choose the sport initially. One played both. Or all three. So you didn't have to decide until you knew how you fit into each sport.

To the extent this is the case, it reflects a chance in amateur sports practices

I think this is the case. AAU teams in basketball, traveling teams in baseball, skills camps in all sports during the summer, off-season leagues, etc.

When I was a child, we heard about this with tennis stars or gymnasts. Connors and Chrissy were the poster children. Now, I think there is four season participation in single sports and its much more prevelent. The age where it occurs keeps creeping back to younger ages each year.

Some of the best natural athletes may not be choosing until college, but the vast majority or choosing earlier. Those that try to go at two many sports in college usually get killed. There are very few Samardzas. In fact, the new multi-sport stars tend to be the Peppers and Gonzalez that are able to play hoops and gridiron. Even then it seems to carry a cost.

I'm drawing a blank, but there seem to be a lot more people like the kid at UNC a few years ago. He was a standout hoops and gridiron star. Most thought he could have been a pro in either. He tried both at PG and QB no less. He ended up short on skills in both endevors.

I'm drawing a blank, but there seem to be a lot more people like the kid at UNC a few years ago. He was a standout hoops and gridiron star.

Ronald Curry.

robin

by the way, happy birthday. a little late. sorry.

Thank you--did I mention it on here? Must have.

some guys even played baseball with their mothers - like john brattain.

That's cool. Just keep him away from my mother.

Formerly, one didn't have to choose the sport initially. One played both. Or all three. So you didn't have to decide until you knew how you fit into each sport.

To make a connection between one (twitch! twitch!) controversial subject and another, we could probably add this fact to the list of factors other than steroids such as smaller ballparks, hard baseballs, etc., that have contributed to greater offensive output. Major leaguers are probably seeing practically double the development time as kids than their predecessors did, likely leading to a greater mashing ability. From the pitching side, it could be a big factor leading to the epidemic of arm injuries despite the lowering of professional workloads. I mean, how many pitches has little Johnny traveling league thrown by the time he was 18? Way more than Warren Spahn did, I'd wager.

I mean, how many pitches has little Johnny traveling league thrown by the time he was 18? Way more than Warren Spahn did, I'd wager.


It's because Americans are a bunch of cowards. Asian pitchers all throw 1000 pitches in a week as part of their manning-up process. *ducks*

Seriously though, most of the "successful" Asian pitchers were #2 on their respective amateur squads, or complete unknowns (Wang, Hasegawa, Nomo, etc.) It's because all the #1's usualy blow their arms out by 19, or have lingering arm problems for the rest of their careers (Tsao, Kuo).

Matsuzaka is special though, because he is so man and his testicles so large he can throw 256 pitches in one game, come back out for relief the next day, and not blow his arm out.

Formerly, one didn't have to choose the sport initially.

But now, one does. At the elite amateur levels, sports in the US are year-round; you play in-season, and go camping or do some other form of skill development out-of-season.

-- MWE

Hi!

I'm British. Just to confuse people, we had the opposite trend in the eighties, where "black" came to mean non-white. By the 1980s definition, Icihro! is black.

In more recent years, the distinction between black (= of African descent, mostly Afro-Caribbean, and some Somalis) and Asian (= from "South Asia", ie India/Pakistan) has become more prominent, but I think that's more to do with a perception that Asian=Muslim=Terrorist, and hence a comparatively positive view of blacks as compared to "Asians" than any kind of recognition of the distinctive situation of slave-descendants.