Ripped from the headlines of washingtonpost.com:

"Washington wins, 17-10, through a combination of good defense and good luck."

I realize that this is not a quick and easy answer, but compile a list of all the "1927 eligible" players of today, and then conduct an imaginary draft among 16 or 30 teams, your choice. Then shift some of the better players from the low-revenue teams to the high revenue teams, and see what you come up with. Whatever it might be, these teams wouldn't be competitive with the top teams as they really exist today, not even close.

And if you'd be choosing from a pool of all the white players of today, BTW, why wouldn't you have to divide by 30? With or without segregation, the overall population base would be roughly the same as it is now, meaning that baseball likely would have 30 teams.

No doubt that it would be a fairly hefty proposition. I think it would take quite a bit of time to just to iron out who would be an 1927-eligible player.

There are several reasons why I think 30 is too many teams (although 16 might be not enough):

1) According to Census data, whites as a percentage of the population are fewer in 1990 than in 1930 (and the percentage is dropping). US population in 1930: ~122.8M; US population in 1990: 248.7M. In that same span of time, whites as a percentage of the population has dropped from nearly 90% to around 80%.

2) Increase in popularity of other professional sports to dilute the modern talent pool. I'm not just talking about sports like golf and tennis, but the emergence of strong profession leagues in football, basketball, and hockey.

3) Overall population would likely be lower with a different racial policy. If the country continued to have the racial attitudes of the mid-twenties, there would probably be significantly less immigration over the years.

Correct. And McGraw tried to pass him off as an "Indian," since Native Americans were relatively common in the Majors at that time. It didn't work, since his features didn't make it past the race detectives of the time.

That doesn't help us much in figuring out how the race detectives would have responded to other ethnicities. They were particularly aggressive in searching out black ancestry. Was an Octaroon banned from MLB? IIRC my history correctly, that much black ancestry made a person considered to be black. Personal appearance didn't matter as much as having a black relative would.

And of course there were Japanese citizens in the country in 1927, but further immigration was severely restricted in 1908. And more crucially, the mores of 1927 would never, never have allowed a "Jap" to play in the Majors, regardless of citizenship status.

If this is true, there must have been some official policy or document that reflects the attitude, no? We can find specific examples of not only individual black players being banned from MLB, but also documents that spell out the no-black policy. Is there such documentation for Hispanics, Asians, etc.? The first Asian in baseball appeared in 1964 pitching for the Giants, but were Murakami and others held out as a matter of policy earlier to this?

The Cubans in MLB then had distinctly "European" features, meaning light skin and straight hair. ARod's are clearly "mixed," which would have aroused suspicion immediately. There is a small chance, considering his immense talent, that a McGraw might have tried to pass him off as "white" by the standards of 1927, but (especially for a player of his skill level) there would have been plenty of initial comments, and the race detectives (with plenty of motivation provided by the 15 other teams) would have quickly discovered ARod's "mongrel" background. The central point is not what we "think" ARod "looks like" today, but how a virulently racist society of 1927 would have constructed those same looks. Especially given the fact that 15 of the 16 teams would have rather not have had to compete against him.

I found this online. Does ARod's hair have a clear "black" look here? Most of the pics I've seen with longer hair look like he has some curl in his hair, but not the very tight curls. His hair is light brown and his eyes are green.

Photo of ARod

And Jeter's case would have been a slam dunk. His father is identifiably black. Jeter himself could have looked like Robert Redford and he still would have been "black" by the written laws of nearly every U.S. State in 1927, not to mention the informal standards. If his father had "disappeared" and left no photos or memories, and if Jeter had invented a new identity, he then would have slipped into the ARod category, but those "mixed" features of his would have inevitably led to the same sad ending of his MLB baseball career. The Negro Leagues had plenty of players who "looked" like Jeter and Rodriguez, and they knew better than to try to pass.

Maybe I'm just color-blind, but in describing Alex Rodriguez, "black" isn't a word that comes to mind. Would ARod have to drink from a colored water fountain or sit in the back of the bus?

In reverse order,

ARod might pass in certain settings (as many light-skinned blacks in fact did), but the greater the public exposure, the greater the scrutiny, and at that point there would have been writers wanting to do feature stories in Baseball Magazine about ARod's family. I supposed it's remotely possible that he might have gotten away with passing for white, but to do that he would have had to have a very elaborate story, which he would have to back up 100%. "Keeping his lies straight" would likely have been an impossible task for a Major League baseball player. Again, what you or I think he "looks like" is really beside the point, though personally when I see ARod I see a mixed race human being. And if you scan a 1940's Baseball Register (where each player's "ancestry" was duly noted), the only "mixed races" you'll find will be along the lines of "Scotch-Irish."

A semi-amusing side note to this, which I've mentioned in another thread: After 1947, the Baseball Register first listed Roy Campanella as "American Negro," but when someone obviously pointed out that Campy's father was Italian, the Register just dropped all mention of his background. There was no thought of any "Italian-American Negro" ancestry category. Much too touchy a subject.

The Japanese exclusion in baseball never needed to be put down on paper, any more than the black exclusion did. In the case of the Japanese, it would hardly have been necessary, anyway, since there were no Japanese players considered of Major League caliber---unlike the many Negro Leaguers who were so thought prior to 1947.

And I brought up the Japanese immigration restrictions of 1908 only to reinforce my point about the social mores, not to argue that this was the reason for their exclusion from baseball. By 1962, the laws were still in effect, but since American public opinion had completely shifted about the Japanese, it would have been a dead letter as far as it might have related to baseball.

And about Octoroons: Under southern racial laws, it often took as little as 1/64 black ancestry to be considered "black." And in fact, "black" was whomever the lowest common denominator of white person decided to make an issue out of, at least if he could provide enough "proof" to back it up---and the "proof" was often the sort of proof that would convince few of us today.

As to whether dividing up today's whites into 30 or 16 teams would more closely correspond to the 1927 reality: I'd say logically it would have to be 30 (since baseball would expand in proportion to the U.S. population, whose size wouldn't be much affected by whether or not baseball was still segregated), but even with 16 or some other intermediate number, the point remains that the best all-white team out of 16 or 24 or 30 such teams wouldn't have a prayer of seriously competing with the best of the real world teams of today. And that's all I was really arguing, not their precise winning percentage or anything.

To elaborate on Andy's side point, I would imagine that there are several factors for the lack of Asian Americans in MLB in that era.

1) The oppressive immigration laws that he cites. (There were comparable laws for every Asian group that developed one after another. Basically, it progressed like this: Widespread immigration of one group-->racist backlash-->racist law-->labor shortage-->widespread immigration of the next group)

2) Aggressive anti-intermarriage law/intimidation. Anti-miscegnation laws were at least as aggressive against Asian/white couplings. Lynchings were not as common, but still affected Asian Americans.

3) Gender disparities: prior to complete restriction of immigration, male-only immigration was in effect for a long period. As a result, there were no suitable love interests for straight Asian American men, and spouses from Asia could not enter.

4) MLB sentiment: MLB would not have allowed anyone of Asian descent to play during Jim Crow. After all, the "which water fountain" scenario played itself out across the west coast in terms of school access, not to the benefit of Asian American school children (the few that there were). So if you think, "whites probably just hated charcoal colored people at the time" your compass is off. But yes, there was a documented situation that did come up:
McCredie Kicks on Color Line in Base Ball

5) General sentiment: As Andy mentions, "sundown towns" were not only in effect for blacks, but Asian Americans as well. The institutional machines of the time may have been designed to oppress those of African descent, but they were quickly widened to affect other colored folks.

6) Finally, and potentially most important, there was the lack of opportunity for Asian Americans for all but a couple of professions, including being a ballplayer. I don't know of the quality of the Asian leagues of which there was at least some semblence of organization post-1870, but without a secure place to play in the states, it's far less likely for immense talents to have developed. But I really haven't done the research--it's possible that some kind of semi-pro/informal teams grew up around Chinatown. After all, once the color-barrier came down, Asian American players soon began appearing...

That's one amazing article you linked to, Eraser-X. I hadn't heard of this incident. And I doubt if that manager's comments made The Sporting News at the time!

BTW, I notice that the Chicago Defender is now available to SABR members through Pro-Quest. You can learn more about the racial realities of the U.S. under Jim Crow from that paper than from the entire white press of the time put together. Not that you wouldn't know that, being a teacher.

Actually, I didn't know that about Pro-quest, Andy. Thanks a ton! I have been using the Defender for a number of units (the articles on the Chicago race riots/massacres are amazing primary sources), but I had been just scrambling for articles online or going to archives. I'm completely unknowledgable on a lot of the electronic access, so I really appreciate the heads-up!

But I really haven't done the research--it's possible that some kind of semi-pro/informal teams grew up around Chinatown. After all, once the color-barrier came down, Asian American players soon began appearing...

There was a fairly extensive network of semi-pro Japanese-American leagues in California in the 1920s/30s. The internment of WWII shut it down, obviously, but Japanese-Americans played ball quite a bit in the camps.

I believe there were a few Japanese-American pro players in West Coast minor leagues (perhaps as high as the PCL, but I'd have to research it) in the 1920s.

Baseball was, I believe, much more an element in the Japanese-American culture in that period than it was in the Chinese-American culture.

I believe there were a few Japanese-American pro players in West Coast minor leagues (perhaps as high as the PCL, but I'd have to research it) in the 1920s.

I just went through the Reach Guides from 1920 to 1930 and couldn't find any names in the PCL which seemed "Japanese" by any stretch. I should add that in some years they only list players who appeared in fifteen or more games.

It's also noteworthy that while at the beginning of the 1920's there were virtually no Italians in the PCL, by the end of that decade they were plentiful. Other ethnic groups also seemed far more represented then as well. But no Asians that I could see, though again, this was just the PCL and not any other West Coast leagues.

Didn't Babe Ruth have a black grandmother? I remember hearing that, though I am not sure if it is true or not. And when seeing pictures of him, the shape of his nose and forehead suggest that that might be true.

Didn't Babe Ruth have a black grandmother? I remember hearing that, though I am not sure if it is true or not. And when seeing pictures of him, the shape of his nose and forehead suggest that that might be true.

Bench jockeys on teams opposing Ruth made much of his appearance, and readily taunted him with cries of "###### lips," "jungle bunny," and other such loveliness. Quite a bit of historical research has since been conducted on Ruth's ancestry, and it's something close to 100% certain that he was the product of entirely German-American and German forebears. Robert Creamer's biography Babe addresses this issue in some depth.

Thanks for clearing that up, Steve.

Thanks for clearing that up, Steve.

Spike Lee was set to take on the task in 2001, after uncovering evidence that Ruth did have African American heritage. IIRC, he was told by a geneaologist he would need a DNA sample to provide any more definitive information than the conflicting anecdotal accounts that were part of historians earlier work.

Again, what you or I think he "looks like" is really beside the point, though personally when I see ARod I see a mixed race human being.

I do as well, although I think he more strongly resembles a mix of caucasian and native american (mestizo, sp?) than caucasian and african (mulatto). My question was more about whether mestizos (sp again?) would have been discriminated against, seeing as Cubans, Mexicans, etc were playing in MLB.

As to whether dividing up today's whites into 30 or 16 teams would more closely correspond to the 1927 reality: I'd say logically it would have to be 30 (since baseball would expand in proportion to the U.S. population, whose size wouldn't be much affected by whether or not baseball was still segregated)

It would be affected in the sense that in such an inhospitible environment, immigration would be affected. Without the history of addressing civil rights, as imperfect as it has been in the US, it seems likely that we'd have a significant difference in immigration numbers and also in emigration numbers.

but even with 16 or some other intermediate number, the point remains that the best all-white team out of 16 or 24 or 30 such teams wouldn't have a prayer of seriously competing with the best of the real world teams of today. And that's all I was really arguing, not their precise winning percentage or anything.

If it was 16, I don't know that I'd agree with that statement at all. With the 2005 Yankees having a payroll so far above all the other franchises (and practically a factor of ten when compared to the cheapest teams), it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that the Yankees in our alternate reality world could be signing 6-7 of the top 20 white players in a sixteen team league. Could a roster with Giambi, Randy Johnson, M. Giles, B. Giles, Schilling, Wagner, and Roy Halliday and a bunch of mediocre other players be competitive in 2005 MLB? That team has to compare pretty favorably to the fairly recent WS Champion Diamondbacks, especially in an 8 team league with two or three teams that get the single unworthy All-Star because of the per-team rule. (This being without considering the influx of hispanic players like Palmeiro, Beltran, Santana, etc.)

The point remains that the best all-white team out of 16 or 24 or 30 such teams wouldn't have a prayer of seriously competing with the best of the real world teams of today. And that's all I was really arguing, not their precise winning percentage or anything.

The Red Sox did it every year (with ususally one or two exceptions -- Jim Rice comes to mind) until about 10-15 years ago. So did the Celtics. Remember the White Jays who played .500 a few years ago -- of course they did have 6 hispanics.

Again, what you or I think he "looks like" is really beside the point, though personally when I see ARod I see a mixed race human being.

I do as well, although I think he more strongly resembles a mix of caucasian and native american (mestizo, sp?) than caucasian and african (mulatto). My question was more about whether mestizos (sp again?) would have been discriminated against, seeing as Cubans, Mexicans, etc were playing in MLB.

The Cubans in MLB (Dolf Luque) in that era had distinctly European features, in some cases virtually indistinguisable from North American whites. It would all come down to
whether or not ARod could get past the racial police of his day, at a time when the presumption was that anyone who didn't look obviously "white" (meaning of Anglo or other European stock) was going to have to face a lot of scrutiny about his background. Looking at ARod, I doubt if he would have passed that kind of litmus test, granting of course that this isn't provable one way or the other.

But be assured that one way or the other, you would have known a lot more about ARod's family background than you do today. If that background showed that he had no "black" blood in him, then this would have been well publicized for the purpose of reassurance---a thought both nasty and comical, but assuredly in line with 1927 reality. But if that background showed that he had any "black" blood in him, then it would have been goodbye ARod, and his name would now be known mainly to viewers of either a 1930's Hollywood melodrama along the lines of "Imitation of Life", or later, the inevitable Ken Burns PBS documentary.

As to whether dividing up today's whites into 30 or 16 teams would more closely correspond to the 1927 reality: I'd say logically it would have to be 30 (since baseball would expand in proportion to the U.S. population, whose size wouldn't be much affected by whether or not baseball was still segregated)

It would be affected in the sense that in such an inhospitible environment, immigration would be affected. Without the history of addressing civil rights, as imperfect as it has been in the US, it seems likely that we'd have a significant difference in immigration numbers and also in emigration numbers.

This is a valid point, and in fact would almost require a whole separate thread to deal with. But OTOH, this only serves to remind us just how impoverished baseball would have been had it remained all-white. I'd actually thought about this before, but didn't raise it because of the sheer impossibility of being able to quantify the effects of racism upon population growth in any realistic way.

but even with 16 or some other intermediate number, the point remains that the best all-white team out of 16 or 24 or 30 such teams wouldn't have a prayer of seriously competing with the best of the real world teams of today. And that's all I was really arguing, not their precise winning percentage or anything.

If it was 16, I don't know that I'd agree with that statement at all. With the 2005 Yankees having a payroll so far above all the other franchises (and practically a factor of ten when compared to the cheapest teams), it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that the Yankees in our alternate reality world could be signing 6-7 of the top 20 white players in a sixteen team league.

I dunno, do the Yankees now have 30-35% of the top 20 players in baseball? Maybe on a career basis, but certainly not off their recent form. And don't discount the luxury tax as a deterrent to just piling up all the best players.

The sort of talent stockpiling you envision was actually much easier to do in the days of the reserve clause, and also before the draft, which are two of the main reasons why the talent now is far more spread out than it was then---as evidenced by looking at an all-time ranking (by W-L pct.) of the best teams and the worst teams, and seeing how relatively few post-1965 teams make these two lists, especially the list of worst teams.

Hell, Babe Ruth alone might have put the Yanks into the Land of the Luxury Tax....though if he'd taken his indulgences in the direction of Dwight Gooden or Keith Hernandez, "The Curse of the Bambino" might have taken on an entirely new meaning.

The point remains that the best all-white team out of 16 or 24 or 30 such teams wouldn't have a prayer of seriously competing with the best of the real world teams of today. And that's all I was really arguing, not their precise winning percentage or anything.

The Red Sox did it every year (with ususally one or two exceptions -- Jim Rice comes to mind) until about 10-15 years ago. So did the Celtics. Remember the White Jays who played .500 a few years ago -- of course they did have 6 hispanics

Of course for the better part of a decade Jim Rice was the best player on the Red Sox.

As for the Celtics, you beg the question of how a Larry Bird can affect a team's fortunes in basketball to a much greater extent than any one baseball player. But in any case, take away Robert Parish and Dennis Johnson from the mid-80's Celtics and what are you left with?

Spike Lee was set to take on the task in 2001, after uncovering evidence that Ruth did have African American heritage. IIRC, he was told by a geneaologist he would need a DNA sample to provide any more definitive information than the conflicting anecdotal accounts that were part of historians earlier work.

Is this something that we can get from his daughter? IIRC, she's still alive. Or, we could dig Babe up.

The Cubans in MLB (Dolf Luque) in that era had distinctly European features, in some cases virtually indistinguisable from North American whites.

Yes. They were "white," that is, they were entirely or nearly entirely of Spanish descent, and had little or no Native American or African blood.

Looking at ARod, I doubt if he would have passed that kind of litmus test, granting of course that this isn't provable one way or the other.

No chance ARod would have been able to play in organized baseball under Jim Crow. None. He'd have been able to play in Cuba or Mexico, but not in the US.

The Red Sox did it every year (with usually one or two exceptions -- Jim Rice comes to mind) until about 10-15 years ago. So did the Celtics. Remember the White Jays who played .500 a few years ago -- of course they did have 6 hispanics

Of course for the better part of a decade Jim Rice was the best player on the Red Sox.

But I guess the point is that they could have had George Brett instead of Jim Rice and they would have been a good team without any or much non-white input (after Tiant left anyway). I happen to be on your (Andy) side of the debate, I'm just saying that even with the desegregation of the majors almost 60 years ago, there can be competitive all white teams with only a few plausible changes from actual active teams. Pick the whitest good team in the league and make a handful of even trades and there you have it -- a Jim Crow team competing on an even keel in today's environment.

In fact, I don't have to go much farther than my hometown 2006 Blue Jays. Trade Vernon Wells and Gustavo Chacin for Brian Giles and trade Rios for Mench (actual rumours this year, sort of), and you have an all white team that should win 85-90 games.

I'd just like to say that the censoring of the critical word in Steve's post 1010 is yet another reason to eliminate the cybernanny.

I see what you are saying Daryn, but isn't it the existence of all of the minority players that makes it possible to build a nearly all-white talented team in this day and age? There's no way that those teams would have been able to get all of those players in a league where there's so much less talent to choose from.

I see what you are saying Daryn, but isn't it the existence of all of the minority players that makes it possible to build a nearly all-white talented team in this day and age? There's no way that those teams would have been able to get all of those players in a league where there's so much less talent to choose from.

You beat me to the punch on that one, Eraser.

I see what you are saying Daryn, but isn't it the existence of all of the minority players that makes it possible to build a nearly all-white talented team in this day and age? There's no way that those teams would have been able to get all of those players in a league where there's so much less talent to choose from.

Of course that's true, but we were talking above about the quality of an all white team in a 16 team universe.

Andy said this earlier:

As to whether dividing up today's whites into 30 or 16 teams would more closely correspond to the 1927 reality: I'd say logically it would have to be 30 (since baseball would expand in proportion to the U.S. population, whose size wouldn't be much affected by whether or not baseball was still segregated), but even with 16 or some other intermediate number, the point remains that the best all-white team out of 16 or 24 or 30 such teams wouldn't have a prayer of seriously competing with the best of the real world teams of today. And that's all I was really arguing, not their precise winning percentage or anything.

I think that happens to be wrong. At 30, the only test that really matters, Andy would likely be right, but it wouldn't be as much of a cakewalk as it may seem.

As an analogy, when I grew up 95% of the NHL was Canadian. Now it is closer to 55%. Still, if you took a hypothetical league of 30 NHL teams made up of only Canadians versus the 30 existing NHL teams (I've lost track of the real number), the real teams would obviously have to be better, but they wouldn't wipe the floor with the all-Canadian teams. Similarly, it is the view up here that if you took away all the guys who made the Canadian Olympic team this year and fielded a B team, that the B team wouldn't be vastly inferior to the actual team and would have a good chance of winnig the Olympics. The whole point of this being that there is still a tremendous amount of depth among Canadian hockey players and white ballplayers.

I'm going to stop participating in this particular part of the debate because I have been brought up so politically correctly that it makes my stomach churn a bit to be making distinctions between people that are no more significant than eye colour.

Speaking of which I'm reading Gun, Germs and Steel and have come to the conclusion that it is virtually impossible to conduct an unbiased study of why certain socities have progressed and others haven't because either the author is going out of his way to ignore race or is going out of his way to prove that race is a significant factor. Either conclusion may be right, but it doesn't lead to healthy analysis.

I'm going to stop participating in this particular part of the debate because I have been brought up so politically correctly that it makes my stomach churn a bit to be making distinctions between people that are no more significant than eye colour.

I can certainly sympathize with this sentiment; just remember that it wasn't Eraser-X and I who were deciding that these idiotic distinctions should form the basis for an entire political and social system. We're just trying in our own flailing way to determine how it all played out in the quality of the game which the fans of 1927 were exposed to.

On the other point, Eraser-X was simply observing that in practice, teams like the Red Sox and the Blue Jays wouldn't have been able to gather in that much white talent if the talent pool were restricted to "1927 eligible" whites, and they had to compete with all the other teams for the best white players.. That seems to me to be pretty unassailable as a matter of logic.

I'm going to stop participating in this particular part of the debate because I have been brought up so politically correctly that it makes my stomach churn a bit to be making distinctions between people that are no more significant than eye colour.

I certainly understand that sentiment, but I do think this reads on one of E-Xs points regarding race relations. If the subject itself has become such taboo, if we cannot talk about the mistakes of the past, if we aren't even willing to talk about our own biases and how they manifest themselves, then we may never progress toward solving the still existing problems.

Making some broad determination of whether ARod is Cuban, Dominican, Latin, White, or a non-white-excluded race might not solve the inequity of society. Nevertheless it does raise awareness of the fact that society is likely to make such distinctions, and is not above making such distinctions in the future. Moreover, it does provide a specific illustration of the harm to society b/c no matter what you think of Arod the player or the person, there is no doubt he has serious baseball ability.

I'd hate if you bow out, because this is, if true, a cogent point

As an analogy, when I grew up 95% of the NHL was Canadian. Now it is closer to 55%. Still, if you took a hypothetical league of 30 NHL teams made up of only Canadians versus the 30 existing NHL teams (I've lost track of the real number), the real teams would obviously have to be better, but they wouldn't wipe the floor with the all-Canadian teams. Similarly, it is the view up here that if you took away all the guys who made the Canadian Olympic team this year and fielded a B team, that the B team wouldn't be vastly inferior to the actual team and would have a good chance of winnig the Olympics. The whole point of this being that there is still a tremendous amount of depth among Canadian hockey players and white ballplayers.

And I think its likely true. If you fielded an "all star" team based on any broad racial category, they would probably be very competitive. If you define the set too small, e.g. Blond Haired natives of Outer Mongolia, they probably wouldn't have the population depth to field a competitive team. But if you did a "Latin All Stars" or "Whitebread all stars" or "African American All Stars" those teams are going to be pretty damn good. But I don't think that diminishes Andy's point of:

On the other point, Eraser-X was simply observing that in practice, teams like the Red Sox and the Blue Jays wouldn't have been able to gather in that much white talent if the talent pool were restricted to "1927 eligible" whites, and they had to compete with all the other teams for the best white players.. That seems to me to be pretty unassailable as a matter of logic.

That is: if the majority of the teams are playing with no restrictions, then the teams that have non-performance based restrictions aren't going to be that competitive. Because Randy Johnson is going to cost the same amount in either system, and you can't afford 5 Randy Johnsons.

Moreover, IMHO, if teams have biases that read Performance Based Restrictions into matters which are racial bias, they also would have trouble competing. That problem still manifests itself from time to time in most elements of society, and possibly even baseball. Moreover, that problem manifests itself innocently. Many people that make these false determinations (and I'm sure that I'm not without sin here, e.g. my observation about size probably had me ignoring people quite innocently) may not even be aware this is occurring unless we are willing to discuss the subject matter.

I'll let EX speak for himself, but I read some of these sentiments into his posts.

That problem still manifests itself from time to time in most elements of society, and possibly even baseball.

Where it manifests itself most (or at least quite a lot) is in business, and my field of business, law. Business and law are dominated by white males. Even the most politically aware and consciously unracist people tend to hire people who look act like themselves. That should put them at a competitive disadvantage, but as BL says, when the pool of talent is so large, the disadvantage can be close to unnoticeable.

To try to combine my point and Backlasher's comment:

If you fielded a true "All-Star" team from the entire pools of either white, black, or Latino Major League players, then of course you'd not only compete with any existing team of today, you'd dominate them.

But this was never the question.

The point is that if you spread any of these 3 respective talent pools out over 30 teams (or even 16), and if you restricted the "draft" to that one talent pool, and then let the "Yankee advantage" of money and market size work its wonders, even the "Yankee advantage" wouldn't be able to overcome their disadvantages.

Now if they could gather in the same proportion of white talent in 2006 as they did in 1927, they might be able to do a bit better. But they can't do this today. The modern Yankees' winning percentage only approached the 1927 team's in that one year (1998), and quickly reverted to a much more ordinary one in the next seven years. No reserve clause and a player draft can have its effects.

And that best of all possible all-white Yankee teams (or all-black; or all-Latino teams) would almost certainly flounder somewhere around the middle of the pack of the real world ALE of 2006.

Thanks BL--I was contemplating posting on that very point, only in all probability far less eloquently.

There are two main schools of history study. Those whose passion for the subject is rooted in a sort of love for trivia (often about those similiar to themselves) and those who believe that understanding humans in the past with help us solve the problems of today. I fall squarely in the second camp, especially on issues that we try to avoid discussion of in the mainstream discourse of today such as class, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

I like the model that BL explains in his post because it answers the question of "Why should I care about ______ social prejudice?" Basically, it not only hurts those who suffer discrimination, but it also hurts anyone interested in the most effective, productive society.

If right now, for a wide number of reasons (the vast majority non-intentional) a profession favors a particular group, it absolutely results in poorer production. Does that mean that the people currently in the profession are bad at their jobs? Perhaps to at least a certainly degree. But as Elias says (in not so many words), baseball lends insights into American society. Greater equal opportunity in baseball has undoubtedly taken jobs away from very good white ballplayers, but it has also led to expansion and much, much better baseball.

So what this means is that when I look at pre-integration baseball, I DO take pride in Ruth, Young, Wagner, and the others. But I also am filled with deep regret. Racism has robbed us of a great portion of our national pastime's history. I don't expect everyone to share my perspective, but I do think that it is a very reasonable way to express my deep love of game and nation. I don't get to look at the record books and see Oscar Charleston's contribution to the game. I don't get to look at our nation and see the contribution of folks who have been excluded from other professions. Isn't it natural to feel sorrow and some anger at this reality?

On a less broad note, I did some research and could not have been more wrong about Asian American baseball. As Treder said, Japanese American leagues and teams were plentiful in California. In fact, the hate and prejudice had the opposite effect on their interest in the national game. In the same way many reacted when placed in the concentration camps, exclusion only fueled Japanese Americans' desire to be recognized as American because they knew that they were as American as one could get. Baseball was a way to express this.

Kerry Yo Nakagawa has led most of the research on the subject. Offline, his book "Through a Diamond" and articles are good resources. Online, check out the website him and Gary Mukai at SPICE have put together. Nisei Baseball

Post #4... great link...the atmospherics of the day contrast so richly against the managers designs for the best ball club he can put together...

I dunno, do the Yankees now have 30-35% of the top 20 players in baseball? Maybe on a career basis, but certainly not off their recent form. And don't discount the luxury tax as a deterrent to just piling up all the best players.

30% of the top 20 is a little high. Instead of saying 6-7 of the top 20, how about 4-6 of the top 30 and a above-average players at nearly every starting position?

The 2005 Yankees have 4 players in the top 30 in offensive VORP (ARod, Jeter, Sheffield, Giambi). They had Randy Johnson, one of the very best starting pitchers in baseball, and Rivera, likely the best reliever. Gordon wasn't too shabby either.

Position by position, it looks more dominating. Where in the lineup, other than CF and one of 1B/DH, did the 2005 Yankees not have a top-20% player?

And this isn't close to the best Yankee team either. The rotation has major holes (although the Yankees could have agressively pursued better pitchers in the offseason).

Okay, but of course the limited (white only) pool is much smaller. Of your mentioned players, only Giambi and Johnson would be eligible for selection. Take away the non-whites and that talent thins out very quickly, when you have to divide it up 16 to 30 ways, even if the Yankees get the same ("4-6 of the top 30") proportion of that white pool that they do of the current multiracial one. They'd have to do a lot better than that to compete against the team we saw last year.

This also begs the point that even the "real" 2005 Yanks barely squeaked into the postseason and made a quick and not so glorious exit in the first round. They were a lot better on paper than in action.

And when you write "although the Yankees could have aggessively pursued better pitchers in the offseason," what makes you think that the hypothetical all-white Yankee team would do any better than the current team has? You've still got the luxury tax and Steinbrenner's often curious whims.

Now take everything we've discussion and direct it towards the great Negro League teams. They didn't have the talent distribution constraint because the very best players were often "free" (yes, irony woo-hoo) to jump to the team of their choice. As a result, you get what are arguably higher concentrations of talent than you got on the very best all-white teams. I still don't believe that they are anywhere near as good as current teams, but several inner circle HoFers at key defensive positions are pretty impressive.

Finally, I don't particularly like these arguments (as we've explored in the Koufax discussions), but the Negro League players played on much smaller rosters. If you believe in such arguments, that could suggest greater durability, etc. It certainly meant that the best players were on the field for more innings/PAs/plays in the field.