blacks in baseball from 1947 to 1959.

Note: this is everybody even if they only played 1 game.

1947 5
1948 4
1949 9
1950 9
1951 19
1952 21
1953 25
1954 36
1955 46
1956 52
1957 53
1958 65
1959 72

"Where have African-American baseball players gone?"

They disappeared right along with the African-American father, beginning in the 1960s. Look at the vast majority of American players in the majors, black, white, Hispanic or Asian, and almost without exception they either learned the game from their fathers (or an adult male in their household who assumed the paternal role) or they grew up with a father who, though he might not have been a ballplayer, led them in the direction of baseball. More than any other sport, certainly more than any other team sport in the U.S., baseball is a father-son game. It starts with playing catch. Surely there are some exceptions to this, some single moms who pushed their sons into baseball. But in general if a sub-culture removes fathers and father figures from the scene, baseball playing will decline dramatically.

No doubt another factor is the rise in popularity of other sports. However, I think the fatherless society of African-Americans in general explains why the best U.S.-born and raised players are mostly whites, in that those whites could be playing other sports as well, but instead were directed to baseball by their dads.

Rich, your theory doesn't quite explain why there are any number of African-Americans playing college football and basketball (both sexes), and in the NFL, NBA, and WNBA. Getting a kid on a track to major sport success requires a lot of family involvement, plus middle-class expenditures in leisure and practice time. Clearly African-American families make that investment and involvement happen in the case of other sports. I'd reckon successful athletes tend to come from comfortable, well-organized families (headed by all sorts of different marital arrangements) of any color.

This is the umpteenth such thread, but I tend to think that we're just seeing a cultural preference at work.

No doubt another factor is the rise in popularity of other sports. However, I think the fatherless society of African-Americans in general explains why the best U.S.-born and raised players are mostly whites, in that those whites could be playing other sports as well, but instead were directed to baseball by their dads.

I don't know, Rich. In the absence of anything but anecdotal evidence, I'm not really buying this. I'm not persuaded that baseball is particularly unique among sports as starting with playing catch, as a father-son game. I stongly suspect that a very high proportion of football and basketball players were introduced to the sport as young children by their dads, and/or other male role models.

African-Americans in the past few decades have pursued football and basketball as professional careers at a far higher proportion than whites. I don't think there's necessarily anything more complicated than simple cultural fashion to explain this: football and basketball have become far more hip within African-American culture than baseball, just as baseball is far more hip within Latin American culture (for both black and white Latins) than any other sport except soccer in some countries.

EDIT: Coke to Dernier

Fans of racial equality will undoubtedly be pleased to note the recent uptick in white boxing champions. I don't think the heavyweight top-10 has been this white since Joe Louis was champ.

Stephen J. Gould pilloried evolutionary psychology for its promotion of adaptationist "just-so stories" to explain human behavior. I'd say #2 is some sort of racial just-so story.

MLB should outreach to African-American kids so we can get more of them in MLB and deter them from poor choices like a career in Congress.

I reread Rifkin's post to check if he was really saying what I thought he was. And he was.

I don't know, Rich. In the absence of anything but anecdotal evidence, I'm not really buying this.

Oh Treder, you're so tolerant. Just call the man a racist. The educated type who tries to use reasons.

There are still plenty of black players in baseball, but they mostly have Spanish names. The foreign labor force is cheaper to farm and easier to discard than an American one. I don't have the data, but I wonder how closely the rise in Hispanic players in MLB corresponds to the fall in black players.

Rich, your theory doesn't quite explain why there are any number of African-Americans playing college football and basketball (both sexes), and in the NFL, NBA, and WNBA.

It does, but perhaps not satisfactorily. I think baseball, more than all other U.S. team sports, is a father-son game. You take away the father and you take sons who would have participated from the game.

I have no problem with doubters. I'm not saying I can prove this, though the fact that very high percentage of black kids are born to single mothers and grow up in fatherless households is not in question.

I also notice, anecdotally, that the best African-American baseball players who came out of my region in recent years grew up with their fathers. CC Sabathia and Jermaine Dye come to mind, but there have been a number of other lesser lights. I have heard both Dye and Sabathia say that their dads taught them the game. I've heard endless other non-black American players say that, too.

I should not on a personal level that I did not learn baseball from my father. My dad and I played catch a few times. He was in his day a very good baseball player. But he died when I was just 7 years old, and I grew up in a fatherless household. I learned the game playing with my neighborhood friends. However, all of my neighborhood friends had their dads in their households, and it was those fathers who taught them the game and coached our teams and so on. That contrasts with most African-American neighborhoods, where almost no homes have fathers.

My point ultimately is not that a kid cannot become a baseball player without a dad at home. I just think it greatly reduces the chances that he will be led to that very father-son type of game. And hence when you remove so many fathers, you make the odds very low for most black-American boys to become baseball players.

I don't have the data, but I wonder how closely the rise in Hispanic players in MLB corresponds to the fall in black players.

Well until all the percentages of different races are rising in the game of baseball, I will simply consider it another racist entity!

Oh Treder, you're so tolerant. Just call the man a racist. The educated type who tries to use reasons.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word racist.

Pointing out a negative characteristic of a group, if true, is not racist against that group. It is only racist if you ascribe the negative characteristics as being inherent to the group.

The meteoric rise and decline in African-American baseball has been staggering. Dark-skinned players, of course, were everywhere in the Series. They made up 40 percent of the players, but most came from the Caribbean or were Hispanic Americans. Few were U.S.-born blacks.

That’s a stunning reversal.

The NASDAQ composite index used to be over 5,000, now it's a little over half that. That's a stunning reversal.

Maybe NASDAQ 5000 and the number of black players in the 70's were both unsustainably high. Just because something was once at some level does not mean that is the natural order of things.

Pointing out a negative characteristic of a group, if true, is not racist against that group. It is only racist if you ascribe the negative characteristics to their nature as a race.

When you point out a negative characteristic of a group, aren't you inferring it is to their nature as a race? Otherwise, why even mention their race?

I've always thought its okay to ascribe a negative characteristic to a group, so long as you don't put those characteristics upon individuals within that group. Like green people aren't good at math, but if you meet a green person, don't expect them to be bad at math - that's racist.

I think baseball, more than all other U.S. team sports, is a father-son game.

And I don't think there's any particular logic, let alone any evidence, that supports this thought. I'm kind of doubting that many African-Americans now playing in the NFL were introduced to the sport by their moms, aunties, or older sisters.

There are a host of reasons, with the possibility that Rich's fatherlessness argument is even responsible for a small bit. More than that, I'd say it's cultural preferences, an absence of available space/opportunities in cities, and primarily, the game's increasing expensiveness in this country as the chief culprits. More and more it's become a suburban game, because those are the parents best able to afford the ridiculous expenses that accompany kids playing at higher levels.

And I don't think there's any particular logic, let alone any evidence, that supports this thought. I'm kind of doubting that many African-Americans now playing in the NFL were introduced to the sport by their moms, aunties, or older sisters.

not really subscribing to his entire theory, but I can see how baseball is different than other sports. Football is something that is organized by the schools, you don't really need to have developed talent in the actual sport to begin play(except maybe at quarterback) if you can't hit, catch and throw a baseball by the time you are ten years old, there is a pretty good chance you are never going to become skilled enough to be a major league player(exceptions exist of course, but for the most part you get your fundamental level of skill from playing catch and streetball when you are very young) football is a physical talent game, you just need to run, hit someone or catch a ball that is a lot easier to catch than a baseball, and has nothing on par as difficult as hitting a baseball. Basketball again is an easier game to play and it's a lot easier to find pickup games at the park/on the block, than it is to find baseball games.

I think the bigger reason is a combination of causes, the ease to which you are able to find pickup games in basketball, peer popularity of the sport or the fact that the schools really push football/basketball as a way out of poverty into college probably has more to do with blacks not picking up the game than fatherless families.

From the link:

In 1960 there were 38 American blacks on major league clubs.
In 1970 there were 97 American Blacks on major league clubs.
In 1980 there were 111 American blacks on major league clubs.

1960 had 59 black Hispanic and American ballplayers
1970 had 151 black Hispanic and American ballplayers.
I don't have 1980 but there was 175 black hispanic and American ballplayers/

Look at the vast majority of American players in the majors, black, white, Hispanic or Asian, and almost without exception they either learned the game from their fathers

Where's your data? "Almost without exception"? Really? You're confident enough to say that?

The _first_ thing you need to do is to show that African-American players as a percentage of all US-born players is declining. I don't know that I've ever seen anybody even try to address that. What we have seen is that the percentage of foreign-born players has increased over the last 40+ years. If the percentage of players born in the US has declined then of course the overall percentage of African-American players has declined ... just like the overall percentage of white US-born players has.

If you can establish there has been a substantial drop in African-Americans as a percentage of US-born players, THEN you start looking at issues of income/class, regional differences, access to facilities and high school/little league programs, cultural preferences, institutional racism by baseball and (sure, go for it) family structure. Without establishing that fact all you've got is the phenomenon of more foreign-born players.

But what is the point of explaining something that, as far as I know, nobody has actually established has happened or to what extent it has happened.

Note this is leaving aside all the thorny issues of defining and "measuring" who's "black" and who's "not black." Good luck with that.

"That contrasts with most African-American neighborhoods, where almost no homes have fathers."

Half of African-American children under 18 live in households with a father. Lu et. al., "Where Is The F In MCH? Father Involvement In African American Families" Ethnicity & Disease vol. 20, Winter 2010 at S2-50. Don't let the citation prevent you from continuing to blather your racist, corrosive ######## everywhere, though. You wouldn't be you without it.

"Unwed" ? "fatherless".

among unmarried fathers, African American men are most likely to sustain contact with their children when they do not coreside (Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Lerman & Sorensen, 2000), perhaps related to the longer history and more ingrained norms of nonmarital childbearing and nonresidential fathering (Coley, 2001) or to greater gender equality (King, Harris, & Heard, 2004) within this cultural community. Furthermore, research suggests that nonresident African American and Latino fathers may be more involved than their White counterparts in areas of parental involvement such as decision making and discussions with their adolescents (King et al., 2004; Seltzer, 1991).

And of course, one could co-reside and not be married (I hope to be one of those folks someday!), although I don't have stats on that.

Putting that together with the fact that this theory doesn't make a whole lot of sense even if the proposed correlation was that strong, I think treating "African-American" and "fatherless" as synonymous says more about the person with that opinion than about any external reality...

I don't buy this argument - Torii Hunter said the same thing and he was called a racist, so it must not be true.

There are still plenty of black players in baseball, but they mostly have Spanish names. The foreign labor force is cheaper to farm and easier to discard than an American one.

There's an idea, I'll check the article:

Latinos currently constitute 27 percent of all major leaguers and about half of those in the minors. African-Americans, no longer so prominent, now make up less than a tenth of big league rosters.

Problem #1: what's the definition of "Latino" here? Does this include US-born "hispanics"? I'm guessing it doesn't (or I'm badly remember the %age of DR-born players). What about other non-US born players? Problem #2: is that "half" heavily dominated by lower-level minors who are cheap roster filler?

After that ... there are numbers regarding college vs. high school draftees, basketball/football vs. baseball scholarships and baseball's popularity among African-Americans (this last not compared to the white number, nor broken down by age group).

The author sees it mainly as a combo of the destruction of the infrastructure (i.e. the Negro Leagues and the "sandlot teams") and a rational economic choice (few scholarships for baseball). While it's obvious why the Negro Leagues disappeared there's no obvious reason why sandlot teams wouldn't still be organized. He notes the presence of high school and AAU for basketball/football but doesn't address (the lack of?) Little League/American Legion/etc. in African-American communities.

The economic argument is not so easy to make however. There's nothing in there about graduation rates nor whether the college athletes who don't make the pros actually receive a decent education. What are the latter employment/income outcomes of the average African-American college scholarship athlete? How much better are they than the average African-American high school graduate? It probably is economically rational -- and it would even more likely appear to be economically rational to those making the choice -- to pursue a college scholarship in football/basketball than one in baseball (or draft signing bonus) but data would be good.

Anyway, if indeed half the players in the minors are "Latino", the "problem" is clearly with all US-born players (or more precisely with the replacement of US-born workers with foreign-born workers), not just African-Americans.

There is far more competition for the athletic talents of African-Aemricans from other professional sports, as well as increased, improved opportunities in non-athletic endeavors, as well as vastly increased competition from foreigners.

Other than anecdotally, I doubt any putative decline has anything very much at all to do with who cultural patterns regarding who lives with kids.

Anyway, if indeed half the players in the minors are "Latino", the "problem" is clearly with all US-born players (or more precisely with the replacement of US-born workers with foreign-born workers), not just African-Americans.

One item I saw said African Americans made up 27 percent of all roster spots in 1970. Today, it's about 1/3 of that (9 percent or so in 2010). In contrast, foreign-born players moved from about 5-8 percent in the early 70s to 28 percent today.

It looks like the percentage of white Americans has held fairly steady, with the foreign-born players and blacks flip-flopping, which is consistent with most of our observations.

One item I saw said African Americans made up 27 percent of all roster spots in 1970.

You may be recalling something from research that I did while writing an article on Horace Stoneham and the Integration of the Giants, that was published in the journal Nine in 2002. My research identified a percentage of 28% of the regular players in MLB during the 1970 season ("regulars" being loosely interpreted; I think it was something like 50+ games for position players and 50+ innings for pitchers) as being African-American OR black Latin -- an important inclusion that means the proportion of African-Americans only was significantly less than 28%.

In my research I was never focusing strictly on black players born in the US, but with the spread into MLB of all black players, whether US-born or Latin-born, who would have been barred from playing before 1947.

The percentage of African American players in MLB reached its peak in 1975, when it was 30 per cent. (Coincidentally, that was the year F. Robinson became the first black manager.) The number in 2010 was down to seven per cent. So that's a 23 per cent drop, a big number no matter how you slice it.

Dave Odgen, a university professor who has done a TON of research into this issue, says part of the problem is the RBI program. RBI starts African American kids in the program at the age of 12 or 13, I believe. Dave, and others I've talked to, say that RBI needs to attract black children of a younger age if it wants to develop some of them to play professionally.

In theory, RBI is a good thing. It just starts too late.

Dave Odgen, a university professor who has done a TON of research into this issue, says part of the problem is the RBI program. RBI starts African American kids in the program at the age of 12 or 13, I believe. Dave, and others I've talked to, say that RBI needs to attract black children of a younger age if it wants to develop some of them to play professionally.

Dave's a good guy who has indeed done a ton of painstaking research on US youth baseball in general, dealing with many themes in addition to the racial component.

The percentage of African American players in MLB reached its peak in 1975, when it was 30 per cent.

I'm a bit skeptical of that figure. I would be interested to know how carefully it was compiled, and whether black Latins were included or not.

You may be recalling something from research that I did while writing an article on Horace Stoneham and the Integration of the Giants, that was published in the journal Nine in 2002.

No, I'm not. Several different sources I found mentioned numbers similar to the ones Bruce listed (though, I suppose it's possible they have gotten their numbers from you).

No, I'm not. Several different sources I found mentioned numbers similar to the ones Bruce listed (though, I suppose it's possible they have gotten their numbers from you).

Fair enough. As one who has engaged in a lot of this sort of research, I can assure you that it isn't easy or straightforward to accomplish. Among the vexing issues are (a) what constitutes being a major league player -- is it being on a roster or is it appearing in some minimum number of games, and (b) just what constitutes being "black," and how is that hilariously vague and unscientific status verified.

Mark Armour and I collaborated on some of the accountings. Mark compiled what probably is the most thorough and authoritative list of "black" MLB players. I would be very interested to know his assessment of the correct figure of African-American players in MLB in 1970, 1975 or any other point in time.

I'm a bit skeptical of that figure. I would be interested to know how carefully it was compiled, and whether black Latins were included or not.

agreed, I get the feeling that they didn't separate the black latins from the numbers until relatively recently.

As one who has engaged in a lot of this sort of research, I can assure you that it isn't easy or straightforward to accomplish. .

Absolutely. Just my cursory look showed me that.

However, from your research, would you think it fair to say that American-born blacks representation at the big league level is actually declining, and not, as Walt wondered, if it's simply in proportion to the similar overall decline in American-born players in MLB?

Edit: Fixed quote.

However, from your research, would you think it fair to say that American-born blacks representation at the big league level is actually declining, and not, as Walt wondered, if it's simply in proportion to the similar overall decline in American-born players in MLB?

It's obviously actually declining (or, has actually declined), but it isn't nearly so obvious whether it's declined more, or significantly more, than the proportion of American-born players of other ethnicities. And if it has declined significantly more, it isn't in any way obvious how this in itself would constitute a problem for anyone, most especially including the African-American community.

And if it has declined significantly more, it isn't in any way obvious how this in itself would constitute a problem for anyone, most especially including the African-American community.

Personally, I don't think a declining share of American-born black players in the big leagues is a problem. I do think a declining share of American-born black players at the little league and high school levels is a problem, because baseball is great, and I hate to see any group miss out on that (particularly in cases where it is expenses/availability that is the cause of the decline, not interest from the group itself).

Moreover, from MLB's standpoint, I do think losing a percentage of Americans as potential fans is a concern.

I do think a declining share of American-born black players at the little league and high school levels is a problem, because baseball is great, and I hate to see any group miss out on that (particularly in cases where it is expenses/availability that is the cause of the decline, not interest from the group itself).

Fine, but isn't basketball great? Isn't football great? Aren't any number of other pursuits, athletic and otherwise, that young African-Americans might choose great?

Fully agreed that if we're presented with evidence that there is, or has been, a significant portion of young African-Americans who prefer to play baseball instead of other sports/activities, and are being/have been prevented from doing so by forces beyond their control, then that would be a terrible wrong. But I don't believe we've ever seen any such evidence.

I never understood these commentators cries about the disappearing African-American baseball player. They aren't being discriminated against. There are plenty of players of African descent playing the game, so the quality of the game is not being affected. African-Americans want to play football and basketball. It's a free country, so let them.

Fine, but isn't basketball great? Isn't football great?

Great? No, they're OK. They're not baseball.

Fully agreed that if we're presented with evidence that there is, or has been, a significant portion of young African-Americans who prefer to play baseball instead of other sports/activities, and are being/have been prevented from doing so by forces beyond their control, then that would be a terrible wrong. But I don't believe we've ever seen any such evidence.

Isn't this kind of a chicken-egg thing? Is the decreasing number of opportunities (for instance, in my neighboring city of Gary, which has the highest percentage of blacks of any city in the U.S., there is almost no youth baseball played) caused by a lack of interest, or is the lack of interest creating the absence of opportunities. And if the opportunities cease to exist, how would we even know if future kids might be interested in playing the game?

Anecdotally, as a parent of a little league-aged ballplayer, I can tell you that baseball has become very expensive, particularly for those who want to excel. I can't imagine this isn't a limiting factor on participation by a large percentage of blacks (or any lower income group).

So, can ANYONE tell me WHY this article WASN'T liked from BASN????

Because I can THINK of one REASON.

The percentage of African American players in MLB reached its peak in 1975, when it was 30 per cent.

Just fiured that I'd speculate on this, since I'm not terribly well versed in the history, but it seems like there might be some connection between the peaking and decline of African Americans in baseball and the dissolution of the Negro Leagues. It may not be a coincidence that black participation in MLB peaked right at the point that pre-integration Negro League play starts to fade out of the "living memory" of active MLB-aged players. Without African American teams playing in areas with large black populations, baseball loses a major tool of promotion in the black community, particularly as expansion and team movement landed more black players in areas with a relatively meager African American population.

To extend the numbers I listed at the beginning here are the numbers as provided by Ebony. Note that these numbers got posted during the early to middle of each season so it obviously wouldn't count any debuts after they published the article for that year.

B&T stands for "black and tan" as Ebony called them at the time. The % is a simple comparison between B&T vs roster spots of 25 per team. Basically it is the highest possible % allowable per season. In otherwords if every single B&T player was on a major league roster at the same time this would be the % of players that were B&T that season.

Year B&T %
1960 59 14.8%
1961 77 17.1%
1962 85 17.0%
1963 97 19.4%
1964 93 18.6%
1965 106 21.2%
1966 120 24.0%
1967 127 25.4%
1968 124 24.8%
1969 159 26.5%
1970 151 25.2%
1971 145 24.2%
1972 164 27.3%
1973 169 28.2%
1974 150 25.0%
1975 168 28.0%
1976 148 24.7%
1977 185 28.5%
1978 175 26.9%

Afterwards Ebony discontinued this feature and didn't pick it up again until 1992 and by then they only counted Black American ballplayers

1992 142 21.8%
1993 149 21.3%
1994 127 18.1%
1995
1996 121 17.3%
1997
1998
1999 108 14.4%
2000 106 14.1%
2001 103 13.7%

From William Rasberry (2005):

In 1890, 80 percent of black American households were headed by husbands and wives. That's just 25 years after the end of the Civil War.

In 1900, the percentage was mostly unchanged, and so it remained -- between the high 70s and the low 80s -- for 1910, 1920, 1930, for every decennial census report until 1970, when it was down to 64.

For the 2000 Census, the percentage of black families headed by married couples was 38. The only good news is that it was also 38 percent in 1990, suggesting that the trend may have stopped getting worse.

The 2000 Census showed that only 69 percent of all American children were born into two-parent households -- 65 percent for Hispanics and 77 percent for whites.

I don't know if the data exists on major league players and the households in which they were raised. But I would not be surprised to find that a much higher percentage of them were raised in intact families than that subset of Americans on the whole.

I grant that does not quite prove my theory. It's possible that having dad at home results in much less poverty; and that the driving forces which propel talented boys into baseball greatness in the American system of training for that game benefit from a lack of poverty (i.e., it takes money to go to summer baseball camps and play in some leagues and so on) and other factors which normally go along with a two-parent household. Insofar as many great black players of the past came from poor American families, and if poverty as such is a great barrier now, that suggests that high training costs could be a part of the explanation for the decline.

If it turns out that today's black-American players come from female-headed households in roughly equal percentages as do non-baseball players, then my theory would be proved wrong.

FWIW, the first person who suggested a variation of this theory to me was an African-American classmate of mine who had a cup of coffee in the major leagues and ever since his career ended has run camps to teach advanced baseball skills to young players in the Bay Area, where he grew up in an intact family. His theory had to do with what was perceived as a dearth of blacks playing college baseball in the mid-1980s when we were in school. I don't know if that situation in college ball has changed since I was an undergrad. (I should make clear that I was not nearly good enough to play D-1 ball). But even back then it was pretty clear that there were very few African-Americans in major college baseball and many people were asking why, especially since we had a mostly black basketball team led by this guy.

if indeed half the players in the minors are "Latino", the "problem" is clearly with all US-born players (or more precisely with the replacement of US-born workers with foreign-born workers), not just African-Americans.

I think the "problem" is most likely in the dataset. I would guess that the author is including the DSL and VSL (and maybe the Mexican League) which are almost exclusively Latin, listed amongst the minor leagues by MLB, and filled mostly with large numbers of youths who will never play in the US. I don't think those players are particularly useful to this discussion.

Great? No, they're OK. They're not baseball.

Well, that's your opinion (and mine). But surely you'll grant that the notion that because some group exercises a preference for some different sport, that must constitute a problem, and in particular a problem for them, can be construed as elitist and/or patronizing. Not too make too much of it, but could it be that a baseball-is-the-greatest-sport-and-all-other-sports-must-be-perceived-as-inferior attitude presented by baseball nerds might be something that contributes to alienating young athletes considering it along with other sports?

Isn't this kind of a chicken-egg thing? Is the decreasing number of opportunities (for instance, in my neighboring city of Gary, which has the highest percentage of blacks of any city in the U.S., there is almost no youth baseball played) caused by a lack of interest, or is the lack of interest creating the absence of opportunities. And if the opportunities cease to exist, how would we even know if future kids might be interested in playing the game?

No doubt. But I'd say that issue is a good example of the lack of solid data we have on this issue. And in the absence of solid data, leaping to elaborate causal conclusions seems a bad idea.

Anecdotally, as a parent of a little league-aged ballplayer, I can tell you that baseball has become very expensive, particularly for those who want to excel. I can't imagine this isn't a limiting factor on participation by a large percentage of blacks (or any lower income group).

Dave Ogden's excellent series of articles explores this issue. It is the case, however, that the economic barriers to elite youth baseball participation apply to any number of ethnic groups as well as African-Americans.

EDIT: Spelling correction

The percentage of African American players in MLB reached its peak in 1975, when it was 30 per cent.

Just fiured that I'd speculate on this, since I'm not terribly well versed in the history, but it seems like there might be some connection between the peaking and decline of African Americans in baseball and the dissolution of the Negro Leagues.

---When did the percentage of blacks in pro football and basketball take off and be spoken of in terms of near dominance of African American players? Right about at the same time (mid to late 70's) that the percentage of African Americans in baseball began to decline. Since those EBONY "black and tan" figures include black Latinos, I think it's safe to say that by the late 70's and early 80's the number of African American ballplayers had already started its downward trend.

---With these intersecting graphs in mind, IMO it's also not so coincidental that the relative decline of black baseball players and the rise of black football and basketball players** came at the same time that college recruitment of black football and basketball players began to be widespread all over the country, specifically in the South. Talented black high school players from the South who previously would have had to find a school up North were now attending their local state universities in infinitely greater numbers than they were before. Compare the racial makeup of the rosters of nearly any college football or basketball team today with the rosters of 35 or 40 years ago, and it's like night and day. First you had a few black stars, then the majority of the starters, and finally the emergence of the black benchwarmers, as the barriers began to fade away and unspoken and informal quota systems for whites were quietly dropped.

---And since there were relatively few baseball scholarships being offered to anyone back then, it's not surprising in the least that the respective African American talent pools for baseball vs football / basketball would meet while going in opposite directions. Talented black multi-sport athletes who didn't get drafted to play baseball out of high school were being channeled into football or basketball by the colleges.

---Little or none of this has to do with any sort of racial stereotypes or prejudice, other than the dropping of those stereotypes and prejudices by college football and basketball recruiters. And the decline of the Negro Leagues by the time all this started to happen was virtually no factor at all.

**which was already high by the early 70's but which took off like a rocket shortly thereafter

Aside from the cost factor, when black kids are younger there are many more enticements for them to go into hoops. AAU is notorious for "creating" avenues for young black kids from stereo-typical broken homes to have access to the more expensive facilities.

If a young black child has real talent in hoops, the enablers come out of the woodwork. Not so in baseball. (Can't speak to football as I have no involvement with it.)

Baseball scholarships (I have heard) are much more difficult than football or hoops.

I also buy the fatherless factor.

We play black teams all the time in basketball and there are rarely fathers there. Usually the team is headed up by a community coordinator or one father out of 8 or nine kids.

Not too make too much of it, but could it be that a baseball-is-the-greatest-sport-and-all-other-sports-must-be-perceived-as-inferior attitude presented by baseball nerds might be something that contributes to alienating young athletes considering it along with other sports?

You've already made too much of it. I doubt young athletes have any idea of our existence, let alone our degree of patronization about our sport's superiority.

No doubt. But I'd say that issue is a good example of the lack of solid data we have on this issue. And in the absence of solid data, leaping to elaborate causal conclusions seems a bad idea.

Do you know what seems like a worse idea, shrugging one's shoulders and saying "eh, who knows?" If the sport loses most of a population (of any ethnicity), it's going to be damn hard to win them back.

Dave Ogden's excellent series of articles explores this issue. It is the case, however, that the economic barriers to elite youth baseball participation apply to any number of ethnic groups as well as African-Americans.

No offense, but I don't need Dave Ogden's excellent series of articles to tell me this. That the process of pricing families out of the game can touch folks of every race is not a good thing, but something that should concern us all.

We play black teams all the time in basketball and there are rarely fathers there. Usually the team is headed up by a community coordinator or one father out of 8 or nine kids.

When did this phenomenon of fathers attending games begin? I played organized baseball (Walter Johnson League, high school varsity, American Legion, Clark Griffith League) from the 4th grade through the Summer after my freshman year in college, and I can recall exactly one parent in all that time attending our games, no matter what day of the week or what time of day. To be honest, back then it would have been looked upon as kind of girlish to have your parents hanging around watching you play, other than maybe in a championship game. Of course this was also at a time when parents of 10 year old kids didn't freak out at the thought of their offspring taking a bus downtown to go see a baseball game on their own. They had their world and we had ours, and it didn't bother either of us that these worlds rarely intersected outside the home.

I can buy that basketball has taken away a great percentage of the tallest young black kids. But the vast majority of black males (who I see mostly on my university campus and in my community) are, well, average in height, give or take a couple of inches. So it seems strange to suggest that the major factor keeping them from taking up baseball is that they are choosing a different sport in which they have a difficult to overcome handicap--that is, they are 5' 10" or 6 feet tall.

Youth football is interesting when it comes to the African-American community in my region. (This is probably not true in other places.) As a general rule, the worst football programs are the inner-city schools with majority black student bodies. My understanding is that there are three reasons why these programs are so uncompetitive: 1) it takes a lot of private resources (fundraisers and so on) to afford the best equipment and facilities, and inner-city schools have a much harder time obtaining those resources; 2) without good facilities and the like, good coaches don't want to stay with those programs. They might start out at an inner-city school, but if they are good, they will flee to a suburban school which pays them better and provides much better equipment, fields, locker rooms, weight training equipment and so on; and 3) to succeed, a team needs a lot of good players, not just a couple of stars (as in basketball). Because of the very high drop out rate among boys at inner-city schools, it's hard to field a competitive team.

All that said, the best football program in the Sacramento region over the last 15-20 years is an inner-city school, Grant High School, which is in a mostly poor neighborhood called Del Paso Heights. DPH is not a black ghetto, or a ghetto of any one ethnic group. It has poor whites, Hispanics, blacks and a large number of Polynesians. (The whites tend to get bused out of there to attend a mostly white high school in the same district. Sad, but true.)

The reason Grant is so good is almost entirely because they have this region's best coach, a man named Mike Alberghini. The day he retires will be the day that program, which has been rated No. 1 in the US a number of times, goes down like all of the other inner-city schools in our area.

Yet despite the general lack of success of the mostly black schools, it remains the case that a large share of the scholarship football players from Sacramento area high schools are African-Americans. They are just succeeding as individuals, not because of the programs they play in. Their native talent and individual work ethic seems to usually win out. Rae Carruth, the homicidal wide receiver for the Carolina Panthers is a good example of that. He went to Valley High School, a mostly poor, mostly black institution which, despite many good athletes, rarely wins in football. Carruth, before he started orchestrating murders, was good enough as an individual to win a scholarship to play for the University of Colorado.

I actually studied the growth of African-American players in MLB extensively a few years ago, and published by results in SABR's Baseball Research Journal. I counted and classified every person who played in the majors from 1947 to 1986. I can tell you quite confidently that the percentage of American born blacks in MLB has never exceeded 20%.

This error has been propagated for three principal reasons. First, people often include dark-skinned Latins in the totals. Second, Richard Lapchick has often used "opening day starting lineups" as his data set, and blacks have always been over-represented in starting lineups (or underrepresented on benches). Third, I believe that some people use different definitions at the two datapoints to deliberately make the point they are trying to make.

Here is the best data I know of on-line through 2002. I did my research independently, but got nearly identical results:
http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist490/finalclass/racial_composition.htm

As you can see, the number of white players has also been dropping. I would love to see the data for the past eight years, but I suspect the trends have continued.

One of the issues, by no means the largest issue, is the changes in the game in the past 30 years. Much larger pitching staffs (there have never been many black pitchers in baseball). Less premium placed on speed.

Gerald Early was asked about this issue a few years ago and he said something like, "yes, and there are more black doctors and lawyers". His point was that black people have many more choices than they had in the 1970s, and they are exercising their choices.

Gerald Early was asked about this issue a few years ago and he said something like, "yes, and there are more black doctors and lawyers". His point was that black people have many more choices than they had in the 1970s, and they are exercising their choices.

my favorite line so far in this whole issue. (or at least my favorite sentiment)