David,
How old is Choi?

I want to know who the Edgar-level players are who have had no chance at a career.

You are having an argument I wasn't making.

See p3 #4.

It's funny, earlier in the thread, teh point was made that Aaron and Mays (by extension Doby) had played *plenty* in teh Negro Leagues. Now, they were rookies!

Chris, there's no contradiction here, because I was citing this for a different point. Before we were discussing whether they needed the Negro Leagues in order to develop.

But here, I'm not discussing whether they were experienced, but how big an impact they could have. A player coming into the majors at 28, 29, just can't have as big an impact, no matter how good he is, as a similarly talented person coming in at age 21.

The black players could have more of an impact on the overall talent level of the majors than Japanese players because they could come in younger. How many good years _for MLB_ does Ichiro or Matsui have in him, compared to how many Aaron or Mays did?

The first seven years, there just wasn't any impact of significance on the quality of play - unless you were in Brooklyn.

Chris, I agree with this and I think Steve does too. In the earlier thread MNP mentioned, Steve argued that the big impact came in the late 50s, while I was prepared to say it was as early as 54. Whatever the precise date or adjective, we absolutely agree it was gradual.

Can I start plugging my stuff too? Its like the Leno show.

Maybe you can just snidely reference Google, as if other people are responsible for hunting down exactly what inanities you spouted on Primer a year or two ago.

I suppose if teh multiple endpoint were 1952, we'd have less.

Ya think? ;-)

Hey, you asked if I could name them off the top of my head, and so I named them off the top of my head.

Desegregation was a slow a tortured process.

It was tortured, and far slower than it could have been or should have been, but it wasn't all that slow.

Many of these first Negro Leaguers were 30+ when they got their "chance".

Actually, only a few were: Paige, Easter, Jethroe, Rodriguez, Clarkson, and Trouppe. The great majority were in their mid-to-late 20s.

Only after the 1953 season did the influx of black players really start to kick in - Mays came home from the war. Aaron came up.

Yes.

The first seven years, there just wasn't any impact of significance on the quality of play - unless you were in Brooklyn.

Or Cleveland, or the Polo Grounds. Comiskey Park and Braves Field were seeing some significant impact too.

Looking at the numbers ML-wide really doesn't capture the impact accurately. Integration in the early years wasn't an MLB-wide phenomenon; it was focused only on a few teams.

But in the few places integration did occur in those first few years, it had a substantial impact. The Dodgers were a [i[hugely improved team with the additions of Robinson, Campanella, Newcombe, and Gilliam (and Joe Black, for one year). The Indians were vastly better with Doby and Easter, and trading Minoso netted them Lou Brissie, who helped them for one year. Minoso had a tremendous impact on the White Sox. Jethroe was a major asset for the Braves. Satchel Paige was among the AL's better relievers for several of those years (if there had been a Fireman of the Year award in 1952, he would have deserved to win it). There's no way in the world the Giants would have pulled off their Miracle of Coogan's Bluff in 1951 without Irvin and Mays.

The net of all that can't reasonably be dismissed as insignificant, especially in the National League. And as you say, by 1954 with Mays back, and Banks and Aaron as regulars, the impact on the NL was clearly beyond minor.

In the earlier thread MNP mentioned, Steve argued that the big impact came in the late 50s, while I was prepared to say it was as early as 54. Whatever the precise date or adjective, we absolutely agree it was gradual.

It was obviously gradual, but as I said earlier in this thread, I think it's fair to conclude that the NL was enjoying a meaningful improvement on quality of competition by sometime in the early 50s, and the AL by sometime in the late 50s/early 60s -- by which time the NL had become more or less transformed.

How old is Choi?

In Korean years, or in Japanese years?

OK, BL, you "diverge from kevin's point slightly." Point taken. See below.

"Kevin's argument is logically complete. Kevin would be wrong if you could prove that the people choosing not to play baseball is normally distributed and does not slant toward having the best athletes. I don't think you can prove this in any way.

Now, I hate to say this, but I suspect it might be true; thus I do diverge from kevin's point slightly."

I didn't see it as an "accusation" in any case.

Question: Conceding that it would be very difficult if not impossible to quantify, do you think Ruth's numbers would have been affected if MLB and the minors had been integrated in 1917 as opposed to 1947?

I want to know who the Edgar-level players are who have had no chance at a career.

You are having an argument I wasn't making.

It's easier to win them that way.

My point is, if the impact of poor decision-making is that Edgar Martinez loses a season or three, or Wade Boggs loses a season, I can't see that as having a dramatic impact on overall player quality. Yes, it's too bad, but like I said, these guys are still turning in full-length careers.

In order for bad decisions to really have an impact on the level of play, I would think that there have to be whole careers lost. Otherwise, it's no more of an impact than injuries.

Question: Conceding that it would be very difficult if not impossible to quantify, do you think Ruth's numbers would have been affected if MLB and the minors had been integrated in 1917 as opposed to 1947?

As before, I suspect this is true. I suspect the opportunity afforded by MLB would be attractive enough where the better athletes would have been willing to take the risk of making the pros, and they would have had an increase opportunity to hone their craft.

I however cannot prove this, and I don't think its as overtly obvious because Kevin makes good points to suggest otherwise.

Maybe you can just snidely reference Google, as if other people are responsible for hunting down exactly what inanities you spouted on Primer a year or two ago.

Lets see: there was the WMD's in Iraq, Barry taking steroids, and the A's losing in the playoffs. Google away Nieporent.

Okay, David, they aren't completely contradictory. But most Negro Leaguers were old too.

And Choi came over when he was 23. Kaz Tadano was 24. Mac Suzuki was 21.

I count 36 from the Far East between the years of 1995 to 2003(including the Philippines), but not Australia. 23 active in 2003 (Japan, South Korea, S Vietnam, Taiwan.

My point is, if the impact of poor decision-making is that Edgar Martinez loses a season or three, or Wade Boggs loses a season, I can't see that as having a dramatic impact on overall player quality. Yes, it's too bad, but like I said, these guys are still turning in full-length careers

Okay, but if you stiff Sam Jethroe those 2-3 seasons, he can't play.

In order for bad decisions to really have an impact on the level of play, I would think that there have to be whole careers lost. Otherwise, it's no more of an impact than injuries.

Well, injuries that last 2 seasons, sure.

Who asked about teh level of SS play? I said it was better in 1984 than 2004.

Are today's players a lot better than the 1984 group?

But most Negro Leaguers were old too.

Huh?

Age upon entering MLB:

28 Jackie Robinson
23 Larry Doby
42 Satchel Paige
32 Willard Brown
21 Hank Thompson
27 Dan Bankhead
26 Roy Campanella
22 Don Newcombe
26 Minnie Minoso
30 Monte Irvin
34 Luke Easter
32 Sam Jethroe
25 Harry Simpson
20 Willie Mays
30 Artie Wilson
32 Rafael Noble
25 Luis Marquez
31 Dave Pope
39 Quincy Trouppe
31 Sam Hairston
25 Sam Jones
25 Bob Boyd
31 Hector Rodriguez
28 Joe Black
31 George Crowe
37 Buzz Clarkson
22 Sandy Amoros
24 Jim Gilliam
27 Bill Bruton
26 Carlos Bernier
27 Dave Hoskins
25 Al Smith
22 Ernie Banks
28 Gene Baker
27 Bob Trice

Not many of them were kids, but it's not at all accurate to descrive most of them as "old."

Well, injuries that last 2 seasons, sure.

Lots of injuries last two seasons or more. Steve Busby's, for one. Mario Soto. Robb Nen. Ray Fosse. Rennie Stennett. Tony Oliva.

Okay, but if you stiff Sam Jethroe those 2-3 seasons, he can't play.

But even the major league baseball of the late 1940s and early 1950s, which was blindly stupidly racist enough to leave Jethroe in AAA all year in 1949 while he hit .326 with 19 triples and 17 homers and set an International League record with 89 stolen bases wasn't blindly stupidly racist enough to keep stiffing him. He was able to play 3 seasons in the majors, and make a non-trivial positive impact on the quality of competition for those 3 years.

Sorry that wasn't clear, Steve.

Old in baseball years.

As old as the Japanese import (Avg 28 median 27)

As old as the Japanese import (Avg 28 median 27)

Okay, but 27-28 isn't very "old in baseball years," either. It's pretty much prime age, in fact.

Not to *start* your career.

See Nieporent's post.

Maybe they don't replace the 10 "worst" guys, but who cares? The point is that, as a group, they are superior to the 10 guys they replace. Logic dictates that teams are going to sign guys who help the team more than the guys they don't sign. Hence, overall, the black players who were signed increased the level of play by replacing inferior players. I think the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

This illustrates the faulty assumption with Kevin's original position. To say that integration would not have raised the general level of competition, you have to assume that scouting was so poor as to be random. That is, that both the minorities signed and the whites not signed would be randomly distributed in their eventual skill. Even factoring in improvements in scouting, I don't think this assumption is reasonable.

What abut this:
Ted Williams was great from 1939-1946. He was great from 1947-1960.

Were the AL pitchers from 1947-1960 better as a function of desegregation?

How much? How many PAs did Williams even have against a black pitcher?

Not to *start* your career.

A player moving from one system to another isn't *starting* his career. He's *continuing* his career.

Were the AL pitchers from 1947-1960 better as a function of desegregation?

Not particularly, since precious little desegregation of AL pitching occurred between 1947 and 1960.

How many PAs did Williams even have against a black pitcher?

A few, but not many. He undoubtedly faced Satchel Paige several times in 1948-49, 51, and perhaps 53. He undoubtedly faced Connie Johnson several times, perhaps in 1953, and then in 1955-58. He probably faced Mudcat Grant a few times in 1958-60. He might have had a smattering of at-bats against some the few other black AL pitchers of the era, such as Hoskins, Trice, or Beamon. But for all practical purposes, Ted Williams faced whites-only pitching staffs for his entire career.

Chris, I must admit I'm confused as to what exactly it is you're driving at.

I have a question for Steve Treder:

When did replacement-level blacks start making rosters? I remember in "The Long Season", Brosnan wrote about Solly Hemus maunfacturing, in Brosnan's opiniion, a run-in with Bennie Daniels of Pittsbugh, who was far from a great P. There is the old "two of them, the star and his roomie" line. But I would like to know at what point did we see black guys who were no better than most white guys in the league make teams. Sort of a trivia/sociological/history question: who was the first crappy black player to have a career?

I ask this because I think it's relevant, tangentially at least, to the issue of speculating intelligently about the league's competition level being affected by integration. And, of course, there is a corollary question: did integration raise replacement level?

When did replacement-level blacks start making rosters?

In a systematic fashion, across the breadth of MLB? Not until the 1970s.

As Jim Bouton observed in Ball Four: "Look at the Tigers. Three black players: Willie Horton, Earl Wilson, and Gates Brown. Two stars, and the best pinch-hitter in baseball."

He wasn't precisely correct (the Tigers also employed utilityman Ike Brown), but he was generally correct. It wasn't until the 1970s, probably even the late 1970s, that all MLB teams were truly color-blind in their roster choices.

When did replacement-level blacks start making rosters?

Let me just add to Steve's point that of course there were a few replacement level black players even early on. Some clubs (infamously, the Red Sox) seemed to prefer replacement level black players. But Steve is right that real, true integration occurred in the 70s at the earliest.

Some clubs (infamously, the Red Sox) seemed to prefer replacement level black players.

There were indeed a few black replacement players from early on: Luis Marquez, Nino Escalera, Rafael Noble, Chuck Harmon.

But very few. Clearly, beyond any question, the pattern through the 50s and 60s was that once teams integrated, they were eagerly searching black stars, but not at all interested in black role players.

The Red Sox didn't prefer replacement level black players. They thought Pumpsie Green had star potential (and I'm not sure they weren't correct in that judgment). Earl Wilson did have star potential, he just didn't fulfill it until he left the Red Sox.

The Red Sox, though the last team of all to integrate, had no more interest in black scubeenies than anyone else.

Steve,
Nieporent and someone else said that teh Ngro League influx was different than the Asian Invasion because the Negro League players were already here and younger/less experienced.

Today's Asian players are roughly the same as the early desegregation.

You aren't argung with me; you are arguing with my pointng out teh similarities

Nieporent and someone else said that teh Ngro League influx was different than the Asian Invasion because the Negro League players were already here and younger/less experienced.

Today's Asian players are roughly the same as the early desegregation.

Okay. I agree, then, that on an age basis, there isn't much difference between the two incoming groups.

There are differences, though. Within a very few years, the very best Negro League players were all either already in integrated baseball (Irvin, Jethroe, Campanella) or going there before they even had a chance to develop into mature Negro League stars (Mays, Banks, Aaron). This fundamentally killed the Negro Leagues by the mid-to-late 1950s.

This hasn't happened with Japanese players, at least not yet. The very best Japanese stars haven't all come to the US, nor are all the best Japanese prospects here. Japanese ball continues to thrive, although there is reason to be concerned about its continuing viability.

Still, it's pretty clearly the case that over the past 10 years, the US has gotten a continually better share of the best Asian talent, and this cannot help but have had a positive influence on the quality of MLB competition (and a detriment to the quality of Asian ball). It hasn't been nearly as dramatic as the impact of the first 10 years of racial integration, though.

So, does anyone think Williams' stats are "suspect" like they do Ruth's?

THat's rhetorical.

I've never heard anyone suggest Williams' career wasn't up to snuff(like Ruth's), whne for most intents and purposes, Ted played in a segregated league.

He was a fine pitcher for the Red Sox. He got his regular shot in the rotation and was either the #1 or #2 starter for a few years. The team wasn't all that good and that hurt him a lot.

He was good but quite erratic, and generally gave up quite a few too many walks. And he was #1 or #2 in the rotation primarily because the Red Sox didn't have very good rotations.

He meaningfully improved upon his trade to the Tigers, for whatever reason. It might simply have been getting away from the wondrous influence of Red Sox pitching coach Sal Maglie, who dismissed Wilson as "just another .500 pitcher" just before Wilson blossomed in Detroit.

But the best thing about Wilson was always his hitting!!!

I've never heard anyone suggest Williams' career wasn't up to snuff(like Ruth's), whne for most intents and purposes, Ted played in a segregated league.

While I don't think the "suspect" or "not up to snuff" terminology is the appropriate way to think of it, I've made the assertion many times that the stats that Williams compiled (as well as those of Mantle in the '50s) need to be understood as occurring within an essentially segregated environment. The AL of the 1950s and for quite a while thereafter was not as good a league as the NL. It's a factor that needs to be taken into account, although I really don't have a good idea of how to quantify it.

But it was just that one year afer he left that he was really outstanding. The other years in Detroit he wasn't all that much different than his best years in Boston.

No, he was meaningfully better in both '66 and '67 for sure, and slightly better in '68 and '69. The combination of slightly better ERA+ and a greater innings workload adds up to a meaningfully better pitcher.

Green was supposed to be a pretty good prospect. If you examine his stats, they aren't bad for a young player.

I'm in the odd position of disgreeing with Steve and kevin on this. I admit to lacking 2 important items of data (scouting reports and minor league stats for Green), but

Green was 25, almost 26, when he made his first appearance. Either he was held back due to racism (quite possible), or the Sox never felt he had the chance to be a star. JMHO, but I think the Red Sox were comfortable with that.

I guess it all depends on what you consider meaningfully better.

He wasn't night-and-day better (except for '66), but let's consider:

With Boston:

Yr IP ERA+
62 191 106
63 211 100
64 202 86
65 231 94
66 101 99

With Detroit:

Yr IP ERA+
66 163 134
67 264 100
68 224 106
69 215 113

Even in his best run prevention years with the Red Sox, he was leaving at least 25 innings on the table for someone else to have to pick up.

Green was 25, almost 26, when he made his first appearance. Either he was held back due to racism (quite possible), or the Sox never felt he had the chance to be a star. JMHO, but I think the Red Sox were comfortable with that.

I'll look up his minor league stats when I get the chance, and post them here. I could be wrong, but I think they were pretty good; he was a very good OBP guy with some pop for a middle infielder. I don't think he was a good defensive shortstop, however.

The Red Sox in those years were a pretty thoroughly dysfunctional organization. They only called him up in mid-1959 in reaction to public protests over their last-remaining-whites-only-team status, and they never really seemed to have a plan of what to do with him. But he had talent.

Green's minor league record ...

Green, like so many other players of his era, fibbed about his age. The birthdate listed in Who's Who in Baseball is a year younger than that now listed on bb-ref.com. The age I'll use here is the younger age, which though incorrect is the age he was passing himself off as, and thus presumably the age the Red Sox thought he was.

He was signed by the Red Sox org at age 18, in 1953, and assigned to Wenatchee of the Class B Western International League. Playing third, short, and first, he hit .245 with 2 HR and 15 SB in 88 games, 303 AB.

They left him with Wenatchee the next year, and as the full-time shortstop at age 19 in '54 here was his line:

AB:482 R:96 2B:17 3B:9 HR:6 SB:24 BA:.297

This got him a promotion to Stockton of the Class A California Leage for 1955, at age 20, again as the full-time shortstop:

AB:514 R:133 2B:31 3B:11 HR:12 SB:31 BA:.319

So it was up to the AA Eastern League for 1956, again as the regular shortstop:

AB:481 R:78 2B:14 3B:7 HR:3 SB:13 BA:.274

This performance kept him in AA for 1957, now in the Texas League:

AB:519 R:78 2B:30 3B:7 HR:3 SB:10 BA:.258

This impressed the org enough to bring him up to AAA San Francisco for a late-season trial, in which he went 11-for-33 (.333) in 9 games.

In 1958, at age 23, he was the regular shortstop for the Red Sox' AAA franchise (now transferred to Minneapolis for obvious reasons):

AB:526 R:90 2B:27 3B:5 HR:6 SB:8 BA:.253

In 1959, again with Minneapolis, he was converted to second base, and here is the line he put up through late July, when the Red Sox promoted him to the majors:

AB:350 R:77 2B:16 3B:3 HR:7 SB:11 BA:.320

I haven't taken the time here to consult all the Baseball Guides and look up his BB's and K's. But given his high runs-scored totals, and the excellent BB rates he showed in the majors, it's very safe to assume he was walking a lot in the minors.

Overall it's safe to call this minor league record something that promised a solid major league career, but not stardom. He was the kind of guy who was pretty good at everything, but not great at anything. It's rather apparent the Red Sox were in no great hurry to bring him up through the system, which of course is what so aggravated observers at the time (and is the pattern that Earl Wilson, for one, has been outspokenly critical of).

I looked at the Red Sox roster at the time and Pete Runnels was blocking him. Runnels was almost certainly a better player.

Of course Runnels was a vastly better hitter, although by the late 50s Runnels was a pretty bad defensive second baseman. It isn't clear that Don Buddin was any better at shortstop than Green might have turned out to be.

What is confusing though is the decision to move Runnels to 1st base and hand the job to Chuck Schilling, even though Green was having a fine year. Schilling was supposed to be a glove man and his defensive statistics were excellent as a rookie but I can imagine how discouraging that must have been for Green.

An article I've had on my going-to-do-list for a long time is an examination of the Red Sox of the mid-50s to mid-60s; essentially the era between their great Williams-Stephens-Doerr-Parnell team, and the emergence of the fine young Yaz-centered Impossible Dream team. The Sox in that period were weird in many ways, the reluctance to integrate only one of them. They made decision after decision in roster and lineup construction that are difficult to fathom. Guys like Dick Gernert, Ted Lepcio, Billy Klaus, Faye Throneberry, and Norm Zauchin were jerked around all over the place: up, down, in the lineup, out of the lineup.

The organization seemed to have a very hard time making decisions and sticking with them. As a result I think they squandered a core of terrific talent (Williams, Jensen, Runnels, Malzone, Piersall, Sullivan, Monboquette, Radatz, etc.) and spent much of the time wallowing in second-division mediocrity.

This discussion motivates me to make that article a reality one of these weeks!