Last week, at the Sports Economist blog, Brian Goff agreed and disagreed with Posnanski’s analysis. His agreement was that Posnanski got it right in terms of understanding why MLB did what it did with the expanded playoffs. His disagreement was that, while Posnanski thinks it’s a bad thing for the fans, Goff thinks it’s a *good* thing.
Why? Because Yankee-haters get a lot of satisfaction out of seeing the Yankees lose. And so MLB’s strategy is win-win. Yankee fans get to see their team in contention every year, which creates a lot more revenue for the league and utility for fans (since the Yankees have the largest fan base in MLB). And then, Yankee-haters get to see their least-favorite team defeated two years out of three, which makes *them* feel good and open their wallets. MLB deliberately designed the system this way to squeeze more money out of its fans.
That may be true, but I’m not so sure the strategy is still in baseball’s long-term interest. The sports economists I’ve read note that fans spend more money when their team is successful, and, from that, they conclude that it maximizes profit for the league to ensure the cities with the most fans win the most often.
I’m not convinced. That may work in the short run, when the fans still have memories of when payrolls were more even, and playoff berths were earned more by other means than money. But what happens longer term, when the Yankees make the playoffs for 28 of the next 30 years, and it becomes more and more obvious that the Pirates and Royals will seldom (if ever) be able to compete? And what happens when even Yankees fans start to get uncomfortable noticing that there’s a lot less to be proud of when your management is just buying all the best players, and a playoff berth is just being purchased every year?
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The dismissal of strong and concrete evidence because it doesn't come in the form of a number is a good way to be wrong about just about everything in life.
And it's particularly ironic in this case, because he's been given numbers, just not in the form of "some rigorous formulaic mathematical explanations or something," which is just another way of saying that he's not interested in any concrete evidence that points in a direction he doesn't like.
What makes you think I dismissed it? I just wanted to know if you had anything "rigorous". I clearly specified what it was I was asking for. Many definitely speak with an assurance born of mathematical certainty. Why are you and Jolly Old Whatever in such a dither? Not everyone is so sure of answers as some seem to be privleged to be without asking questions first.
I'm not really sure that's true. I routinely hear Latinos negros referred to as "black".
As they very well should be. If the term "black" in the racial sense doesn't include people of obviously significant African heritage, as exhibited by skin tone as well as hair/facial features, including people such as Carew and Clemente, who would with 100% certainty have been disallowed in US organized baseball pre-1947, then it ceases to have functional meaning.
You always got to find something to fight, don't you--even if it's your own shadow? Try not to hit yourself in the nose, Curley Howard. Don't worry, I'll be back. I would like to think about it, and see what you and others have to say. Try to keep the bloviating to a minnimum, though, why don't you? You, too, might even try thinking as a last resort. Your argument rests on assertions that, even if true, have their shortcomings. But I don't deny your religious tenets necessarily. I just wanted to know if you had anything else. So, why the huff, MacDuff? Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
What makes you think I dismissed it? I just wanted to know if you had anything "rigorous".
This reminds me of a character who used to frequent DC book shops. He'd come up to you with a book that had the price clearly marked, and shout "Yes, I can see your price---but what is MY price?"
At least this guy acknowledged the fact of the price. Morty hasn't even acknowledged the facts that underlie the case for NL superiority during the period in question.
Morty hasn't acknowledged the post-1953 World Series results. He hasn't noted the NL superiority in All-Star games and Spring training games. He hasn't acknowledged the lopsided NL representation in A-level Hall of Famers, or the even greater overrepresentation in black stars during the period in question. None of this seems to register with him. Instead we get this:
You always got to find something to fight, don't you--even if it's your own shadow? Try not to hit yourself in the nose, Curley Howard. Don't worry, I'll be back. I would like to think about it, and see what you and others have to say. Try to keep the bloviating to a minnimum, though, why don't you? You, too, might even try thinking as a last resort. Your argument rests on assertions that, even if true, have their shortcomings. But I don't deny your religious tenets necessarily. I just wanted to know if you had anything else. So, why the huff, MacDuff? Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
That curious little rant pretty much expresses the totality of what Morty has contributed to this discussion. I'm belatedly seeing what Srul has been talking about for the past few months. Too bad, as he seems to know a lot about movies.
For historical reasons that I don't fully understand, the term "black" in the U.S. is used to refer to African-Americans, which itself means the descendant of slaves which were brought to the U.S., be it before or after it became independent of England.
Latin American blacks (or for that reason, West Indian or even Sub-Saharan African Blacks) are not treated as "blacks" for U.S. purposes.
In fact, whenever there's an article posted on BTF mentioning how there's a dearth of blacks in the Majors, I tend to be the sole voice saying that this is just semantices, because a Vlad Guerrero or a David Ortiz is plenty black by any reasoning - but I get what they are saying, which is to tie into a narrative thread of players that includes Oscar Charleston, Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige, and then jumps to Jackie Robinson, Mays, Aaron, Morgan, etc.
Carew and Clemente are not part of that narrative thread, and I'm just saying, count them as Latin Americans, not as "blacks".
Carew and Clemente are not part of that narrative thread, and I'm just saying, count them as Latin Americans, not as "blacks"
Well of course they're both, with the emphasis depending wholly on the context.
(Lord, now I see the light, and it has made me free.) Then why bother? Somebody holding a gun to your head? You're like an old dog with a shoe--it don't fit you. Leave it alone. How many times have you averted to the same song and dance number. There is no water under that red rock, Prufrock. Are you that lacking in self-confidence when it comes to your position on this matter? I thought you might have something else supporting your opinion. You don't. Good. Now, I know. It's not like you, the Ken Burns, of these threads haven't beaten this to a pulp. The only question left seems to be: have you convinced yourself yet? This quaking and frothing indicates a high degree of insecurity as to the matter that it looks like can only be assuage by all and sundry making obeisance to your old bone.
Lamentations and Recriminations. Every attempt at a discussion with you ends the same way--with you taking umbrage for something, real or imaginary, that you prodded into being and then standing on your phantasmagorical sense of dignity--a precarious teeter-totter point to be sure, I'm force to conclude at this point. You went into this without one iota of good faith. Don't pretend to be the victim. It's laughable, and it's just too too tiresome. Yeah, you and Srul--the inedible and the unspeakable, the closed-minded and the vehemently brainless. He begins every contribution by calling someone a troll--you end it with whines and tears.
A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country.
Morty = Troll
Well, black, Afro-Caribbean and white.
I'm not really sure that's true. I routinely hear Latinos negros referred to as "black"
For historical reasons that I don't fully understand, the term "black" in the U.S. is used to refer to African-Americans, which itself means the descendant of slaves which were brought to the U.S., be it before or after it became independent of England.
- that is correct. the reason is that there is no other specific word/phrase which means - people born and raised in the USA who have at least some Negro ancestry, and at least one of those ancestors was a slave. we use the word "black" to mean that, but it isn't exactly a specific word, unfortunately. african-american is ambiguous. which is why so many of us have a problem with calling the president that, because he isn't, which sounds crazy, but isn't.
no one would deny that people born anywhere else also could have Negro ancestry. no one would deny that males who look like roberto clemente, livan hernandez and rod carew would be banned from playing MLB before 1947 even though they were not born in the USA, and males who look like bronson arroyo, rafael palmiero and ismael valdez would not be banned, even though they come from the same countries. (i've often wondered what they would have done with anyone from india/pakistan, but i digress....)
on the other hand, some people say quite seriously, that people from cuba/latin america who have no obvious Negro ancestry aren't latin/latino. shrug.
and srul, i agree 100%
i put that person on ignore (first time i had ever put anyone on ignore) after his defense of that film guy who drugged and assraped that 12 or 13 year old
I know exactly what you mean - there were some articles way back in 2007 by some "black" writers who questioned whether Obama was "black" or not.
I'd say by now that feeling has subsided, for two reasons (a) Michelle Obama IS "black", and when she became known to the public, that bought some credibility for Obama (I remember reading Dremas of my Father one or two years ago, and how Obama mentions that he sort of had a Jewish girlfriend for a while. Obama's rise is serendipitous on many levels, but I really don't think Obama would have gotten as far and as fast as he did with a non-"black" wife); (b) the loonies see black pigmentation and go after the guy, notwithstanding the fact that on his Kenyan side, he almost certainly has less in common genetically with U.S. "Blacks" than most loonies out there (and loonies can be of any type, so I won't just say "white").
They still probably would have been subject to some harrasment (especially Mexican players, especially Mexican players that look like Mexican "campesinos", like Fernando Valenzuela), but I know what you are saying.
Boy, you obviously have never deal with Argentineans (or Uruguayans), have you?
Listen, Latin America is a bit of aconstruct, and while there are things in common between the different regions of Latin America, there are also great differences.
Due to that, racial attitudes change from region to region, country to country and even within a country.
To get back to our original argument, of course Carew and Clemente are black. But they are not seen as "black" for some purposes, and that's what I was pointing out to - don't take away our sole HoFer, please!
As a final aside, I read somewhere that there's this informal club of "black" aces, which refers to African-American pitchers who have won 20 games in the Majors. For purposes of this informal club, Ferguson Jenkins - a African-Canadian - is grandfathered in, but Luis Tiant is pissed and has been complaining for years that he has been excluded, that he would have been just as kept out of baseball as the "black" aces and that he felt some discrimination in the Southern U.S. at the start of his career due to his skin color, regardless of place of origin.
So it's complicated.
sigh
LIFE is complicated.
me, i can't tell whether or not someone comes from ecuador, panama, argentina, mexico, cuba, puerto rico or spain only based on whether or not they speak spanish. if you showed me a picture or rod carew and asked me what country he came from, i couldn't tell you. if you showed me a picture or bronson arroyo and asked me what country he came from, i couldn't tell you.
it is an unfortunate part of human nature that we are obsessed with being part of some group that is not like THEMMMMM
Lamentations and Recriminations. Every attempt at a discussion with you ends the same way--with you taking umbrage for something, real or imaginary, that you prodded into being and then standing on your phantasmagorical sense of dignity--a precarious teeter-totter point to be sure, I'm force to conclude at this point. You went into this without one iota of good faith. Don't pretend to be the victim. It's laughable, and it's just too too tiresome. Yeah, you and Srul--the inedible and the unspeakable, the closed-minded and the vehemently brainless. He begins every contribution by calling someone a troll--you end it with whines and tears.
In truth, Morty, with you I end it by reaching for a dictionary. But keep it real.
-------------------
no one would deny that males who look like roberto clemente, livan hernandez and rod carew would be banned from playing MLB before 1947 even though they were not born in the USA, and males who look like bronson arroyo, rafael palmiero and ismael valdez would not be banned, even though they come from the same countries.
Well, I'll be....I always thought that Bronson Arroyo was born in a California Pizza kitchen with a spinach leaf sticking out of his ear. You learn something every day.
bronson DOES look like a california surfer boy. and i wouldn't mind it at ALL if he did a brad ausmus type photo shoot wearing only a surfboard
but he was born in florida to cuban parents
youneverknow
same with ismael valdez with his pale skin and blue eyes
Yes. Pretty much every study of league quality that works by comparing the statistics of players across seasons, has shown that the NL was substantially stronger in the 1950s and 1960s, and that that was by far the largest difference in league quality between about 1910 and 2000.
I can't remember links to specific studies. The first one I saw was in The Hidden Game of Baseball in 1983. I'm guessing guys like Davenport (who spend a lot of time looking at league quality and aging) have also found this.
On the subject of the varying definitions of "black", one of the very interesting things that managed to happen somewhere along the way is that in pretty much every American country other than the USA and Canada, colonial ideas somehow gave rise to a racial caste system, much more complicated than that witnessed in the United States, which (for better or worse) has and continues to adhere to the "one drop theory", by which persons such as Colin Powell and Harold Ford, Jr, who probably have as many European ancestors as African ones, are considered essentially as "black" as much darker-skinned African-Americans. In Jamaica, a person of light skin tone like Harold Ford or Colin Powell would be considered "coloured", which, until very recently, would have come with very explicit racial and cultural priviliges that had nothing to do with academic, financial, political or athletic achievements. In Spanish-speaking countries, the systems are even more labyrnthine, and trace their way back to times when there were different classes for people who had Spanish-only ancestry, part-Spanish part-Indian ancestry, part-Spanish part-African ancestry, and various other combinations thereof. In many respects these systems still exist, though they are not nearly as strict as they were during colonial times.
This, combined with the much more agressive heterogeneity of Caribbean cultures, with African, American Indian, Spanish, Asian Indian, and Chinese people both living in much closer quarters than those to which we in the US are accustomed, and mixing genetically (for lack of a better term) quite a bit, results in a racial picture that Americans have profound difficulty grasping -- that would be almost impossible for anybody not native to those countries to understand. Of course there is a meaningful distinction between a man like Rod Carew (or Carlos Lee, for instance, who is largely of Chinese extraction) and one like Reggie Jackson, who was born, raised, and always considered "black", in the broad American sense, despite his obvious European ancestry. Carew is an important Panamanian athlete, and I never meant to deny that in a broader sense -- it's just that, in the context of a discussion of the integration of Major League Baseball, what mattered was the tone of his skin. Had his ancestors comprised entirely Spaniards and Indians, he would have been able to find a job in the Major Leagues regardless of era, provided a scout had showed up in Panama to see him play; as it was, he was, by the American defintion, "black", and therefore was lucky to have been born late enough that this distinction no longer mattered -- at least inasmuch as finding a job was concerned.
In short, I didn't mean to seem like a dick before when I waved away the distinction between African-Americans and Latinos of African descent. I've been conditioned by people who contend that "black people can't pitch", and then counter my examples of Bob Gibson, Ferguson Jenkins, and above all Pedro Martinez, by saying, "Pedro Martinez isn't black". Yeah, that's a discussion I've actually had.
The troll got people to argue with him for dozens of post, on an issue that has actually long been settled, while he insulted and belittled them.
To a troll, that's what winning looks like.
Dormez bien.
The troll got people to argue with him for dozens of post, on an issue that has actually long been settled, while he insulted and belittled them.
To a troll, that's what winning looks like.
Yeah, this is the second time within about a week I've been suckered into thinking that this character actually wanted to have a serious discussion. Talk about dumb, and in this case I'm referring to myself. My only excuse is that the first time I ever noticed him was on one of those old time movie threads, where he actually contributed a fair amount that was worthwhile. Too bad I wasn't paying much attention to some of the other threads after that.
Me, I was kind of hoping for some Retardoish flair, but this was strictly amateur hour, at best a low grade parody of Newman.
No, Dudette, you overextended your claims. I made no argument. I asked some questions with regard to your claims, which left you and Jolly Old with nothing to do but gum regurgitated nutrient fodder. You admitted, not even forthrightly (since a degree of a sense of conscious honesty is needed for an expressed concession) that you had nothing in the nature of rigorous scientific studies. I'm willing to leave you there with your limp dick, but you insist on trying to Blanche Dubois your failure. It's understandable. That's what separates us from the lower animals--except the weasel.
Ah, Neighborhoo Watch meets Weiner Patrol.
The frantic fan dance of the flat-chested ecdysiast.
The frantic fan dance of the flat-chested ecdysiast.
Or Newman dressed up as William F. Buckley, Jr.
I loved the way you all begin every post by declaring victory first. Kind of like Viet Nam. Touching, really touching, but make sure you check those chads and watch that unregenerate court system. It can stymie you. Just because in your mind you're victorious doesn't mean it means anything to the Army and Navy of your enemy.
I'll just wait for that evidence, which I'm sure there are some here frantically searching for it right now--they'd love to think that if they find it, it would be like sticking a knife in me. Someone will cobble something together and present it with a flourish and a bright "Eureka!" So childish. You see, Jolly Old, the way it works, how it's supposed to work, is that, everything being provisional, if there's new evidence, there's no shame in reconsideration. You grasp that mystical concept, Jolly Old? No, what you do instead is just consider what supports your thesis, blythely wave away anything that doesn't as if waving at annoying gnats, and go your way. It's telling that you dig your heels when it comes to questions. But there's a fly in your ointment. You're very much like that "creationist" core of the Republican Party. You just know you're right. But you can't be happy just being God's envoy unless all and sundry bend their knee before you and your sacred dogma that cannot be questioned. All together now, "Wotsa Matta Torquemada"....
I breathlessly await this "new evidence" that you keep alluding to, that counters the overwhelming evidence of National League superiority. So far it's been all bluster and nothing else, but maybe you'll come up with something by 2020.
Not every theory has to be "proved" by an mathematical formula in order to be accepted by any but the most stubborn contrarians. The results of the actual games for the period in question (mid-50's through mid-60's); the overwhelming NL-to-AL imbalance of A-level HoF talent throughout that period; and the near monopoly that the NL had of black talent all throughout the 50's and 60's---all these indicators point to the same conclusion, and there is no (as in "zero") evidence that counters it. If it walks like a duck, etc. It's up to those who would deny the idea of NL superiority to produce any evidence that would act as a serious counterweight.
And it's not much of an argument simply to say "prove it", while at the same time totally ignoring the evidence that's already been presented.
Is there a definitive source for spring training results?
Aren't those two different ways of saying the same thing? The difference in A-level HOF players seems almost exclusively in the former NeL players. For every Eddie Mathews, there is a Mickey Mantle. That only breaks down with those who couldn't have played pre-Jackie.
I agree. I don't completely dismiss exhibition games, but I don't put much emphasis on them. I strongly suspect that one league exploiting the breaking of the color barrier lead to that league being stronger, but it certainly possible that the AL could have done a significantly better job scouting and signing white amatuers. Heck, if I really wanted to play devil's advocate, I'd suggest that the existence of truly standout players suggests that the underlying strength of the league is low rather than high as it is easier to dominate a weaker league than a stronger one. A couple of people have referenced studies of players crossing leagues and the Davenport translations. My google skills are pretty weak and I'm too lazy; I would welcome someone who is familiar with these studies providing links rather than the repeated invictive that wastes too many bytes.
Aren't those two different ways of saying the same thing?
Not exactly. The NL's advantage in top-level HOF talent is of course due to the fact that it integrated much more quickly, but it helps to establish that the AL doesn't have a corresponding advantage in great white players. And the integration effect isn't limited to A-level HOF talent; if I'm not mistaken, the NL also had considerably more black players who were "merely" very good regulars or occasional All-Stars rather than HOFers.
So, very similar and closely related points, but not strictly the same.
Seriously? You don't find anything remotely convincing about the common sense argument that a league drawing from a greater pool of talent will be siginificantly better than one that ignores a large chunk of that talent? You find nothing striking about how easily the Yankees dominated their league? The fact that the National League won nearly every All Star game for 30 years? The fact that AL clubs were barely competitive in the World Series between 1953 and 1966?
Like I said, ignoring evidence simply because it doesn't come with a number attached is a way to be wrong pretty much all the time.
Well, there's a hell of an incentive for somebody else to do your work for you.
The problem for most of us is, this is old ground. We reviewed and debated these studies a long time ago. I'm sorry if you're late to the party, and are having a hard time catching up.
But as much as everyone seems to think it is, nothing is really ever definitively determined about open-ended questions of league superiority or, indeed, many of the questions that interest baseball fans and baseball historians. I for one have noticed a distinct increase in the number of times the word "troll" and synonyms have been aimed at obviously intelligent and curious people in recent months and a pronounced hardening of groupthink around "conventional wisdom" and questions "we" have already reviewed and debated. There's a right way and a wrong way to treat people and opinions you disagree with.
If the argument is so easy and straightforward, it should be easy to summarize in a few bullet points or a couple links for someone who's interested in the answer, and someone should have the courtesy to do it.
The NL went 36-31 in World Series games over that time. I wouldn't say that makes the AL "barely competitive" in the World Series between 1953 and 1966. I am not suggesting the NL wasn't a superior league.
Not an easy one that I know of, but if you have access to the Paper of Record (SABR members do), The Sporting News has the box scores and the team vs team totals. I have the original issues, and without having to slosh through them again, I've re-read them often enough to know that the NL won the majority of those games for many years, and often by quite convincing margins**.
**For the first few years of its existence, SI had the final Spring training standings on their "Scorecard" page. I don't have the entire run, but the April 23, 1956 issue shows that the NL won 144 out of 262 games that year, a .550 percentage. The incentive to go back to tally all the rest of those years, however, is considerably lessened when even totals like this are going to be dismissed as "exhibitions," as if somehow only the National League teams were "trying" to win those games. I went through enough of that with Holway's interracial barnstorming game results to fall into that trap.
-----------------------
But as much as everyone seems to think it is, nothing is really ever definitively determined about open-ended questions of league superiority or, indeed, many of the questions that interest baseball fans and baseball historians. I for one have noticed a distinct increase in the number of times the word "troll" and synonyms have been aimed at obviously intelligent and curious people in recent months and a pronounced hardening of groupthink around "conventional wisdom" and questions "we" have already reviewed and debated. There's a right way and a wrong way to treat people and opinions you disagree with.
Read back through this thread and see who instigated the invective, and see who's refused even to acknowledge the points that had been offered, at one point dismissing them as "sociology." I completely agree with your point about the evils of "groupthink," but merely saying "give me a mathematical formula that proves your point" or "give me a link" isn't what most people would view as an honest effort to establish a dialogue, especially if you're ignoring every bit of evidence that's been introduced prior to that.
But maybe I should throw it back in this way: Show me one (1) bit of serious evidence that demonstrates that the National League in that time frame (1954-64, IOW the last years of the original Yankee dynasty) was NOT clearly superior to the American League. We've given you game results, HoF members, and black stars and superstars. Surely the skeptics must have something to counter that---but where is it?
Where did I say that? I asked if you had anything. That you demand I respond on your trite terms to something that has been beaten to death totally totally leaves me cold at this time. Maybe later I can gin up some enthusiasm. There's a line in Cat Ballou that pretty much sums up Jolly Old and UnJolly New tactics here (a person asks a question, they can't comply, but frantic gestures of misdirection demand genuflection ipso facto pronto or else, and refusal justifies all sorts of wild surmises about questioner's character--it's la mode for too many hereabouts)in all this--"I've never seen a man get through a day so fast...."
Once you get something in your stupid head, you just quit listening, don't you?
Then why couldn't you just come out and forthrightly say that without all this folderol. You could have just said, there isn't any, and I don't think there has to be any to prove my opinion because.... And like I ended saying, "fine." Thank you. Good bye. Just dropped in to say I must be going. You approach argument and debate by presuming too many "plays" ahead. Relax and let it develop. You could actually learn something. You worry so much about the objections that might be raised to what you say, that you never even pause to acknowledge that there are objections. You want to squelch them before they're even uttered. You can be bigger than that, Jolly Old. You don't have to lynch your opponent. Give you adversary a chance to hang himself. What are you so afraid of?
And where did I say they had to? I simply asked if you had any.
It's not so much that I disagree with the substance, as with the "we've already discussed this, you're off the island for even raising it" mentality.
On the substance, why exactly is 1954-64 offered up as a unique "era" that purports to explain anything of import? Integration began in 1947 and the leagues expanded in different years in the second half of the time period. What happened in or around 1954 that separated it conceptually from what came before, and what happened in or around 1964 that separated it conceptually from what came after? (Beyond, of course, the Yankees becoming bad.) Unless there's an answer that makes sense, the "era" is just a random 11-year span plucked out of history for no particular reason.
Probably because (a) by 1954 the NL was essentially completely integrated while the AL was not and (b) the first-year player draft was introduced in 1965, altering the player acquisition and development landscape. It's probably more appropriate to look at 1947 through 1968, but I don't think that the conclusion changes much if you do; the 1947-1953 period saw the NL ramping up, and the 1963-1968 period saw the AL make strides toward closing the gap between the leagues; 1969 expansion and separation into divisions changed the landscape again.
-- MWE
When did I say the AL was stronger than the NL? Actually, I early went on record as stating that it was my impression, too, that the NL probably was superior. I also told that person that it was your assertion--you and some others here--and therefore the burden of proof rests with you. I made no positive claim as to either league (although, yes, I gave my impression, which I reserve the right to revisit, too). I'm not going to play the mug's game of trying to prove negatives. I'll leave that to you and yours. As our late unlamented president once said, I'm not negotiating with myself.
I wanted to know what you had that made you so damn sure the whole case was an open and shut one. You babble about this, conjecture about that, surmise about something else, but the fact is you have no hard proof, nor even a rigorous protocol for your conclusion--you have only argument based on things that would only indirectly go toward proving your point, and then only if interpreted in the way you want, and then only to a limited degree. This doesn't mean it's ignorable; it does mean, though, that the warp and woof of your conclusions can be revisited, and that the constituents and elements of your argument in support of them, are discussable, can be analyzed, and they can be hopefully without the threat of being banished to some nether region of society. Or, if they can't, then kiss my ass. (And to top it off, I had the unpardonable audacity to want think about it, first.)
Now, any other questions?
Whether that has great weight or not, it's both amusing and telling how the usual suspects can't even countenance queries along these lines. We might also consider, what would happen, in their opinion, if, say, two or three or more players, like, for instance, Al Rosen and Roger Maris and Herb Score, had had those long careers that injuries curtailed—careers that all indicators indicate would have been excellent. Would that alter the “race” factor? How much would that go toward militating against the "integration" made the NL obviously better (now-let-us-never-mention-the-shortcut-again)? Not sure why having great players with great long careers means a "league" at any one time is better or worse than another. Stephen Jay Gould argued in that essay I referenced somewhere else earlier that he thought what Williams did was more impressive than what Ruth did because Williams didn’t have the good fortune to be the optimum predator in a vast eco change. Can’t that be applicable here, too?
Let’s say every player in a league was average. Every hitter and every pitcher has the exact same stats (let’s assume everything’s equal for the purposes of this little thought experiment, or assume they are equal under the most state of the art sabermetrics you can imagine). While in the other league there was variation just as there is in reality. This is all you know—forget about sociology or the tactics and practices of teams in the way they choose players, etc. All you know is this. Which is the better league? Do you have a foolproof way of telling? Do you have a scientifically rigorous way of telling? If you don’t, how would you tell? By the fact that it has stars? That one league went after the players in the Eastern Bloc countries with more alacrity than the other? How about those guys who aren’t stars—who are way below average? How do they fit into your calculated determination of the issue? Because if you have big stars, that means relative to that league’s average, you are going to have negative stars. In baseball, you can get away from math.
But my point was about precision--how much of it can we claim to have?
Now, we can all get back to Andy's Mazola Party approach of how you just assume these things have been demonstrated to an unquestionable degree and along only path.
Yes, if you want to define league superiority by which wins the all-star games the most, has the most “stars”, etc., then you have your answer at hand—only thing you have to show now is on what basis do you think that shows what you think it does.
The bus to pick you up to bring you back to the Home will be here shortly. Be patient. Spoon some more pablum.
Just as an aside on this fugleman to the Insane Clown Posse: Anyway to track how many times Srul has, in a totally kneejerk fashion, called someone a troll. Or used the term in an essentially substance-less post. Just in the last few days alone, it’s a significant number, I'd bet.
As of 1953, seven teams had black players. At this point, integration is fairly evenly spread across leagues -- four NL clubs and three AL clubs have black players. Some are stars, like Robinson and Minoso. Some are regulars, like Sam Jethroe, but not stars. One, Hank Thompson, played part of a season with the Browns before moving to the Giants and becoming a minor star in New York.
As of 1953, the Dodgers and Indians were the most comprehensively integrated teams, though it's worth noting that most of the Indians' players other than Doby were bit players, while the Dodgers had several stars who would not have been allowed to play Major League ball before 1947. The Braves, Giants and White Sox are the only teams to really follow the lead of the Dodgers & Indians very aggressively. At this point, the NL has the Dodgers, Braves, Giants, and Cubs as integrated squads; the AL has the Indians, White Sox, and Browns. There is a small gap in the number of teams, but already the NL has the advantage in both the number of players, and the number of good players, of African ancestry: the Dodgers, Giants and Cubs are fielding major, major stars on the order of Campanella, Mays, and Banks, while most of the AL players are either sideshows -- like the aging Satchel Paige, restricted mostly to relief work with the Indians and Browns -- or bit players, like pretty much every Indians player other than Doby or White Sox player other than Minoso. There is a small gap in quantity, and an enormous gap in quality. If you look at the linked page, it really doesn't begin to open up until 1951 or '52, when the Giants join the Dodgers in aggressively pursuing and promoting black players.
It wasn't really until the early '50s that the difference becomes notable, except in the Dodgers' greater success in finding black players who can actually contribute than the Indians. Through chance or design, over the early 50s, this is replicated on a league-wide level, though it should still be noted that we're still talking about a small fraction of all baseball players. At this point, about a third of MLB teams are fielding black players at all; there is an advantage to the NL teams, but it has not yet begun to open up.
In 1953, Bill Bruton, a speedy centerfielder, joins the Braves; there's no record of his ever having played in the Negro Leagues, and he's a harbinger of the fact that the reservoir of ready-made black stars that was hanging around to be plucked up by MLB clubs was drying up. Though other players would debut later who had played in the Negro Leagues, eventually they would fold up shop, leaving teams to scout amateur and semipro black players, just like they had always done with white players.
In 1954, Willie Mays became WILLIE MAYS. Four teams integrated -- the Redlegs, Pirates, Cardinals, and Senators. The NL clubs all did it at the start of the season. The Senators waited until September. For most of 1954, as a practical matter, the NL had 7 integrated clubs to the AL's 3. All of these integrations are done with minor players, none of whom would be playing within a few years; but the Pirates and Reds would have major black stars by 1956 (Clemente in '55, Robinson in '56), and the Cards, the NL's "southern" team, would have Bob Gibson in the majors by 1959. The Senators were mired in ther "first in war, first in peace, last in the American League" doldrums that would send them to Minnesota in 1961, and had no stars of any kind in that period.
Expansion happened in 1961. In the years between 1954, when Willie Mays made it the goal of almost every NL club to find their own black star, and the year the AL expanded, the NL added (among others) Henry Aaron, Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Bob Gibson, Ernie Banks, Maury Wills, Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, and Willie McCovey, while the AL had . . . well, it still had Minnie Minoso and Larry Doby for most of that time.
I don't think that 1964 represents an endpoint to this at all, as it continued through the end of the 60s. The difference is that some AL teams had finally started to catch on, and by the late 60s, the difference was waning quickly, to the point that I think it was all but nonexistent by the mid-70s. The 1966 Balitmore Orioles, the first AL team other than the Yankees to win a World Series since integration, were led Frank Robinson, a black man, and Luis Aparicio, who almost certainly wouldn't have found an MLB job before integration aided in the explosion of Latin players in MLB. The dynastic early-70s A's had Reggie Jackson, Blue Moon Odom, and Vida Blue, among others. By then, I think it's fair to say that the leagues had evened out, and good AL teams featured black stars as prominently as good NL teams. But it took a long-ass time.
What the hell is the matter with you? Grow up.
See, e.g., Posts 105, 110, 112 and 121
Not really accurate. The 1960 Senators sent to Minnesota at least Killebrew, Battey (African-American), Allison, Kaat, Versalles (not white), and Jim Lemon.
Expansion happened in 1961. In the years between 1954, when Willie Mays made it the goal of almost every NL club to find their own black star, and the year the AL expanded, the NL added (among others) Henry Aaron, Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Bob Gibson, Ernie Banks, Maury Wills, Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, and Willie McCovey, while the AL had . . . well, it still had Minnie Minoso and Larry Doby for most of that time.
And Aparacio, and probably others. The broader point, though, is that it only matters if (a) the AL didn't make up for it with white players; and (b) the relative differential was because of a lack of devotion to integration. If anything, the timeline you were kind enough to write out disproves the "lack of effort" hypothesis.(**) The NL might have been better at signing and developing non-white stars, but that's a different argument than saying the NL was likely better because they were getting players from a broader talent pool than the AL. Even the latter wouldn't prove that the NL was better, which can be shown by proving only ... well, that the NL was better.
(**) And as you noted, 1964 wasn't an endpoint or inflection point for anything important. The draft kicked in in 1965, but that didn't mean anything; if a team didn't want to integrate it could avoid non-white players in the draft as well as it could avoid them in the pre-draft free-for-all scramble for talent.
But then he couldn't masturbate.
I think the timeline shows a pretty fair "lack of effort"; when there are 7 integrated teams in the NL and only 3 in the AL, it seems likely to me that AL teams are not pursuing the matter. That the Red Sox, Tigers and Yankees were all among the heel-draggers -- three teams comprising a large part of the league in those days -- speaks to this as well. I it seems to me that the likely explanation for both the quantity and quality of black players that the NL had is that they were, in fact, scouting these players more thoroughly, reaching corners of the world unplumbed by most, if not all, AL teams. I mean, it didn't take a great genius to see that many of these men who ended up in the NL were going to be great players; in the 50s, at least, we're not talking about a scenario in which the Dodgers, Giants, and Braves are simply finding diamonds in the rough that AL clubs aren't seeing -- they're finding Campanella, Mays, and Aaron, men who were either (like Campy) already in their primes by the time they signed with MLB clubs, or were stars at a very young age. The overwhelming bulk of star-level talent in the NL speaks to me of the fact that most AL clubs just weren't seeing the players hardly at all, or weren't making any effort to sign them if they did.
I think the idea that it was even possible to make up for this talent gap using only white players is -- well, it's a stretch. It's not as though NL clubs ceased to have white stars, either; Eddie Matthews, Stan Musial, Duke Snider, and many others continued to excel alongside black players. If the NL were getting an inferior quality of white player to make up for the superior quality of black players, you wouldn't see that. Though it cannot be proven totally and beyond a reasonable doubt, there's lots of compelling evidence that the NL simply had more good players, period.
Within the context of this thread, I used that period after Morty had claimed that the Yankees had "dominated" the World Series for 40 years. Here are his words:
Here's what I replied to that:
Up through 1953 that's true. But from 1955 through 1964 they lost 5 out of 9 Series, and with the exception of 1961 (when they won in 5) and 1963 (when they got swept) all of them went to 7 games. I'm not saying that the Yankees wouldn't have won a few NL pennants during that period**, but the competition in the NL would have been far tougher for them then it was in the AL once the Red Sox and the Tigers started slipping down the ladder the way they did in the early 50's, and then when the Indians followed suit after 1955. The only two AL teams who beat them in the period I'm talking about (the 54 Indians and 59 White Sox) were basically humiliated in the Series, the latter by a team that won 88 games.
Again, none of that applies to the period up through (roughly) the early 50's, when the effects of NL-only integration hadn't really taken hold.
**1956 and 1961 in particular, and possibly a few others, but don't let their regular season records fool you into thinking that their success could have been automatically transferred into a far superior league.
As for the more substantive reason for choosing that time frame, Voxter just answered it above in #150. Just between 1954 and 1956 the NL saw the debuts of Ernie Banks, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Frank Robinson, and the blossoming of Willie Mays. Plus Don Drysdale and Sandy Koufax, although the latter didn't make much of a mark at the time. During that same period, the AL came up with Al Kaline, Rocky Colavito and Herb Score, who might very well have been another Koufax, but it didn't turn out that way---and you could have said the same thing about the Dodgers' Karl Spooner, who threw two shutouts with 27 K's to begin his career, and then ruined his arm in Spring training the next year. This trend continued well into the 60's, and didn't really show signs of reversal until, as Voxter says, the AL got wise and started pursuing black talent much more aggressively.
I've never claimed any NL superiority before this period, though its roots were being established in the late 40's. And after 1964 the picture becomes a lot more muddled, despite the All-Star games and the decline of the Yankees. For the first time since 1948, the AL finally came up with more than one team that could compete with the best of the NL on an equal basis.
Those are all facts that are easily verifiable, and point in an obvious direction, as do the Spring training results, which anyone can look up with a little effort. My only point is that when all the known evidence points in one direction, the burden of proof lies upon those who would argue that these results (and those lopsided future HoF rosters) don't imply what they seem to. I'm not a mathematician, and to require some sort of "formula" which incorporates all this diverse information is something that I'll leave to others. Not every baseball question has to be expressed in that manner.
Not really accurate. The 1960 Senators sent to Minnesota at least Killebrew, Battey (African-American), Allison, Kaat, Versalles (not white), and Jim Lemon.
To that you could also add Camilo Pascual, possessor of one of history's greatest drop curves, and Pedro Ramos, a workhorse who at the time was a pretty decent second starter. The Nats went from a weak last in 1959 to a much more respectable 5th in 1960, and by 1962 had become a semi-serious contender. Of course Walter O'Griffith ditched Washington at the very moment that his team was about to rise from the ashes. Too many of the wrong kind of people in DC for his taste, as he frankly admitted once he was safe in Minnesota.
When I wrote that earlier, I forgot to note that this .550 percentage included intra-league games. Removing those from the picture and tallying only the interleague games, the NL's winning percentage would have been even higher. Small bit of trivia, but it adds to the overall evidence of NL superiority.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main