The Say Hey Kid, the Yanks and race in baseball
ByOver the weekend, The Times ran a piece on Willie Mays and the Yankees by John Klima, an author. Klima’s most recent book is entitled Willie’s Boys: The 1948 Birmingham Black Barons, The Last Negro League World Series, and the Making of a Baseball Legend, and Klima is a member of both the BBWAA and the Society for American Baseball Research.
Klima’s piece on Sunday explored how the Yankees passed on Willie Mays:
Black Barons visited the Brooklyn Bushwicks, a white semiprofessional team whose general manager, Joe Press, was a part-time scout for the Yankees. Press booked Negro leagues teams like the Black Barons to play the Bushwicks and had a feel for the talent available. He liked Piper Davis, Birmingham’s second baseman, but he loved center fielder Willie Mays.
Press pleaded with Paul Krichell, the Yankees’ head scout, to see Mays. In a letter to Krichell, Press raved about players but expressed dismay that the Yankees had chosen to ignore black prospects. “You could have had practically all of them, just for the asking,” Press wrote, naming several players, including Davis and Mays.
When the Black Barons returned to play the Cubans at the Polo Grounds on June 11, 1950, the Yankees sent a scout, Bill McCorry, but again decided to not pursue Mays, who signed with the Giants nine days later.
The Yankees, as Klima writes, weren’t too serious about integration. They were signing old players from the Negro Leagues who would never see the light of the Bronx. It was not until the team saw the impact of Willie Mays on the Giants that they went out and snatched up Elston Howard.
Bruce Markusen at the Banter riffed on the Mays revelation. What, Markusen, pondered could the Yankees have accomplished with Willie Mays on the team? Markusen speculates that a few more World Series would have been forthcoming during Casey Stengel’s amazing run, and he marvels over a potential outfield of Mays, Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris.
For me, Klima’s story about Willie Mays and integration led me to the current roster makeup of Major League Baseball teams across the country. Take a look at the Yankees. Only Derek Jeter, Jerry Hairston and CC Sabathia are black. The Red Sox, playing in a city not known for racial tolerance, have one black player: Joey Gathright. The Mets have Gary Sheffield. While rosters are replete with players from Venezuela, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, African Americans are wildly unrepresented in Major League Baseball.
Baseball has come along way since its days of segregation. Teams are now more integrated than every before with more countries represented on the baseball diamond than the players, manages and owners in the 1920s and 1930s would ever imagine. Yet, some obvious questions flow from an observation that been supported by annual studies about diversity in baseball: Is the relatively small number of African American players a problem for the game? Is it a problem for the game as America’s Pastime? As a popular sport with a huge economic component? I’m not in a position to answer these with any certainty, but it — along with the grand Willie Mays “What If a Yankee?” — is certainly something to ponder on a day without Yankee baseball.
Isn’t Jerry Hairston Jr. mixed race?
Ah, yes. You’re right. I knew I was forgetting someone.
Joey Gathright feels left out, in more ways than one.
Added.
There have been a rash of car jumps in Boston since Gathright arrived. In a related note, there have been a growing number of failed car jumps in Southie also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cySfw8f0beg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvzIsvRtA40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAoatO_kvz0
Robinson Cano isn’t black because he’s Dominican? I did not know that. What are the other rules for being black? Obviously, you have to be American. If you move to the US from another country and have African heritage such that your skin is dark, are you black, or do you have to be the descendant of American slaves? Because Cano moved to Newark when he was a kid so maybe he was black for a few years before he moved back and became Dominican again. Someone needs to tell Mariano Rivera about this.
In this context, I meant black as African American. Cano and Marte are Dominicans with African heritage. Perhaps that isn’t the right way to classify people, if there is a right way to do that.
Perhaps that isn’t the right way to classify people, if there is a right way to do that.
That’s the problem right now. These classifications have gotten so diluted and arbitrary over time that there’s barely any meaning to it.
I don’t think you can even really call it a racial issue. It’s a cultural issue.
Technically, Dave Matthews is African-American. Which I think proves your last point?
The way they write it on all those forms where you have to answer “race” is:
Black, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Of course, Hispanic isn’t PC either since this leaves out Brazilians. Technically they should all be referred to as Latinos. (Not that I actually care about any of this, just sayin)
Cano is Afro-Latino. As are Mariano and Marte.
Afro-Latino is not African American. There is a difference.
Well, they have african heritage and were born in America, although not in the US.
Frankly, the usual definitions of race used in the US are very strange. I’m 1/2 Morrocan, 1/4 lituanian, 1/4 polish, born and raised in Brazil, look whiter than non recicled paper. The only box I could check in forms is latino, which by the way should also include Italians, Spaniards, Portughese, Romanian, ….
I once checked white, which is just the designation I get here at home, and got a complain that I could not be white since I was born in Brazil.
When did black become just African American? Alfonso Soriano is black, but he’s from the Dominican. Is he not black because of that? Damaso Marte? David Ortiz? Jose Reyes?
People read too much into this. There’s still plenty of diversity in baseball.
No one is denying that the game isn’t diverse. But the game has relatively few African Americans in it. I’m just tossing this out there as a discussion point. I have no answers.
When did black become just African American?
Oh, I don’t know… a few millennia ago, I’d say. Is this a serious question?
you’re a serious question
im trying to figure that out as well.
As a fellow dark-skinned Hispanic, I can tell you that a lot of people, while showcasing a bit of ignorance, that fall under my said description do not really like being referred to as “black.” Based on personal experience, this is attributed to the fact of what Ben wrote about earlier: black = African-American. Therefore, they feel referring to them as “black” is disrespecting and disregarding their Hispanic heritage.
Also, I guess this is why the term “African-American” was created: as to avoid as much confusion as possible sans offense.
Yeah, but that shit’s inefficient. “Black” is one syllable. “African-American” is seven.
“People read too much into this. There’s still plenty of diversity in baseball.”
You’re the only one reading too much into this. Of course there’s plenty of diversity in baseball, but there’s also a particular ethnic group who traditionally made up a much larger percentage of the sport than it does today, and which traditionally was more supportive of baseball than it is today, that has largely lost interest in the sport and is now represented by much smaller numbers in MLB.
That’s all anyone is saying. We don’t have to be so sensitive about race that we can’t even discuss it in this context.
Fair enough. I popped off. The Tank is locked and loaded today.
The game also has far more international players today than it used to. If you’re going to restrict black to meaning “African American”, then of course the percentage of black players will be lower today than it used to be.
In these discussions, people always complain about the percent of African American players are in the game, but no one ever brings up the percent of American (any type) players in the game. You really need both numbers to have meaning to the African American numbers.
True, but while the percentage of American born baseball players has decreased, the percentage of African American baseball players has decreased at a greater rate and intensity. The globalization of the game is a contributing factor, but far from the central cause, IMO.
Can you point to anything that backs that claim? I’m legitimately curious, as I’ve never once seen the issues I brought up addressed by the press or in any of the racial studies.
Also, a greater decline doesn’t necessarily mean there’s really a problem. The stats I’ve seen for the 90’s generally showed the percentage of African American players being greater than the percentage of African American people in the US population, which would imply a regression was due anyway.
Thinking that out further, I suppose the second part of my comment there indirectly supports what I was asking you to support.
I guess my question is – is there something to support the claim that there’s less African American baseball players than you would expect from just population figures? Clearly there’s a regression, but it may just be a regression to the mean.
Not sure. Now we’re venturing into the real of demographic analysis that is above my pay grade.
Bob Stone found what I was looking for:
link
Totally not what I expected to see, and really throws off this whole thread.
Well, hot dog, then!
Just doing my job as a diligent RAB commenter.
The question we may want to ask, is the percentage of African American players smaller because of the what kids are choosing to play? I know plenty of African American kids and many choose not to play baseball. Their playing basketball or football. For those on here who are African American, why do you think this is? I know some it may have to do with economics although when you think about football uni’s and equipment aren’t much cheaper then baseball equipment.
Man Dave how white are you? Believe it or not people in central and south American countries don’t just lump themselves into one easy category for you. Cuba, Puerto Rico, DR, etc all have unique histories and cultures. And they actually have pride in their country over others…regardless of their complexion…I’m Italian, I have a few cousins who are dark, are they black to you? But to make things easier on you feel free to use the following categories…
American – white people
Black – all the people your too scared to live near
this is why it is extra good to see guys like cc, ryan howard, dontrelle willis (although no one prob wants to end up like him) and insert anyone else here do lots of community stuff and try tog et kids into baseball in poorer neighborhoods. Didn’t cc just donate a bunch of equipment to his old school? one way to get african american kids interested in baseball is to have current ml players who are of the same race be active within the community.
baseball is diverse, but ben is right, there is a lack of african american players. who knows why, it could be any number of reasons.
Some reasons that have been suggested. Here’s one that strikes me as significant: Baseball is not a popular inner city game, and African Americans have historically (that is, for much of the 20th century) been concentrated in American cities. There are fewer baseball fields for space reasons, and instead basketball became the street game.
Exactly.
And, as many have said below, baseball is an expensive sport as well. There are fewer Little Leagues organized in the inner city as opposed to wealthier, whiter areas, and inner city high schools are less likely to have baseball teams than high schools in wealthier neighborhoods.
I’d think playing football is more expensive than playing baseball, no?
True. I’d surmise that while there’s a financial barrier to football just like there is to baseball, there’s one big countermanding factor that keeps African American kids interested in football, and that’s college.
Football is seen as a path to a college scholarship in a way that baseball is not, for good reason. And, while baseball had it’s great integration period in the 50’s and 60’s, college football really wasn’t integrated into the 60’s and 70’s, so it’s growth cycle is still further from the end. There’s more colleges willing to pay for more educations of more black teenagers if they play college, so you haven’t yet seen a decline in the black NFL pipeline like you have with baseball.
that’s a great point that I hadn’t really thought about.
Along the of thinking for the college stuff… aren’t something like 2/3 of players picked in the MLB draft coming out of high school? 100% of NFL draftees are coming from college.
If you try for a pro football career and don’t make it, you’re probably in a better position to end up with a decent career (assuming you took school seriously).
baseball is an expensive sport as well.
Yes. And this is why you don’t see many “African Americans” playing hockey, skiing, or owning yachts…because they are all relatively expensive and/or they weren’t raised doing any of those activities.
I’ll be happy when we can stop focusing on everyone’s skin color. Are there less non-Latino white people in baseball today? Has anyone ever suggested the NBA had a problem because the number of white players was proportionally much lower than the population at large?
Someone wake me up when we wake up and stop focusing on this and stirring up problems which don’t exist.
YOU LIE!
Pssstttt….you forgot to throw your shoe!
Yeah… no.
I’d say more beyond that, but I can’t venture any further off topic.
Just because you are not interested in it does not make it a non-problem. Basically, an entire race of people are not playing the second-most popular sport in the country; and seeing as how African-Americans make up more than 13% of this nation’s population, yeah, I think it’s just a bit of a problem.
What, specifically, do you think is the problem. Is it a problem that the NBA is not 87% non-African American? It must be, following your logic.
I think it’s important for people who believe there is a problem to state what the problem is. There are jillions of completely innocent reasons why fewer African Americans might be choosing to play baseball.
Instead, any time the race issue comes up, the question is dangled in the air, and the implication is always, white people are being racist against non-whites.
Not saying that’s what you believe, Jamal. Maybe you think there are other issues that have nothing to do with racism. If so, I’d be interested to know what they are. Your opinions, or anyone’s, for that matter.
Instead, any time the race issue comes up, the question is dangled in the air, and the implication is always, white people are being racist against non-whites.
Actually, no, Tank.
The issue here is almost always expressed in terms of “Why are black people not gravitating towards baseball anymore?”
Not “Why are evil white people pushing blacks out of baseball?”
The current dearth of blacks in baseball is not frequently portrayed in a lens of white racism. In the 1940s? Sure. In the 2000s? No, not any more.
“Instead, any time the race issue comes up, the question is dangled in the air, and the implication is always, white people are being racist against non-whites.”
Oh this is just too perfect. Ok, here we go…
No, Tank, the problem here is that any time anything having to do with race comes up, some people seem to think the implication is always that white people are being racist when really nothing of the sort was said or really insinuated by anyone in the discussion, because some white people are overly-sensitive about race issues and can’t discuss them like adults without falling back to an incredibly defensive stance. And, you know what? Even if someone did bring up racism as an issue here, why could that not be, at the very least, discussed as a reason? Don’t be so scared of being called a racist, and don’t be so offended by some white people being called racist, that you can’t even participate in a discussion about racial issues. Racial issues exist, and racial biases exist. Burying our heads in the sand because we’re afraid to confront those issues and talk about them like adults gets us nowhere.
Mondesi, I’m sorry, but race issues are raised over and over and over again, and yes, the implication is frequently white racism against non-whites. Please. The Cambridge cops, Jimmy Carter’s commentary on the tea party protestors, it never stops.
And how exactly do you know I’m white?
“Mondesi, I’m sorry, but race issues are raised over and over and over again, and yes, the implication is frequently white racism against non-whites. Please. “
If you have your own hangups about how racial issues are treated in general, that’s your own problem. But NOBODY here has pointed to racism as the reason for the lower percentage of African American players in MLB. The only people who have brought up racism have been the people who have the same knee-jerk reaction that you had, the reaction that someone is being called a racist. I’m pretty sure the implication of having an historically low percentage of African Americans in MLB is seen by MLB and most observers as being primarily the result of a lack of outreach into African American communities as opposed to some sort of institutional racism directed towards black people.
“And how exactly do you know I’m white?”
Fair enough. I assumed you’re white because you’re taking a position on this that is much more frequently taken by white people than non-whites. But hey, maybe you’re not white. Are you?
http://instantcrickets.com/
I’d say the Cambridge Cops and the tea party protesters are probably not the examples you want to cite if you’re building a case that active white racism against non-whites is unfairly blamed for being at the root of an issue involving race.
Unlike the current dearth of blacks in baseball, white racism against non-whites is MOST DEFINITELY at the root of the Henry Louis Gates arrest and the tea party protests.
Most definitely. Got it.
“The Cambridge cops, Jimmy Carter’s commentary on the tea party protestors, it never stops.”
PS: Those are issues about which people disagree. You think they’re examples of false claims of racism, I think they’re pretty decent examples of racial problems. This isn’t the appropriate forum to discuss those issues, though.
“Someone wake me up when we wake up and stop focusing on this and stirring up problems which don’t exist.”
Everyone needs to stop freaking out over this. Nobody’s saying Robinson Cano and David Ortiz aren’t black or that there is some sort of problem with racism in baseball. But, those players are not African American, there is a much lower percentage of African Americans in MLB today and less interest in baseball in African American communities than there was in the past, and MLB is (rightly) trying to figure out why and to bring a community that historically was very supportive of baseball, and made up a much larger percentage of the players, back into the fold. That is all.
Maybe we could drum up some interest by giving non-white players their own league.
http://sadtrombone.com/
You know why I find your comment ironic, Tank?
You’re the one who’s frequently complaining about the modern game being too homer/walk centric and not enough speed/defense centric, and that there are ways to fix that and make the game more exciting.
I wonder what would happen if there were more black players in baseball? Hmmm…
Are you suggesting that black players are ATHLETES?!?!?!
Tell me the next time you’re going to a game so I can beat you up, you racist.
I think what we’re really missing here is the central issue: black people grow terrible gritbeards. At best, they rock shady pornstaches like Tom Gordon.
or fernando perez from the rays
Huh? I see…you think I should want more black players in baseball, because they are faster than white guys. Is that what you’re saying? Are black people faster than white people?
I think tsjc is yanking your chain a little at this point.
No, TSJC’s actually a racist. It’s true.
think tsjc is yanking your chain a little at this point.
No, I’m not.
tsjc thinks he’s The Judge of racial matters.
No, TSJC just has an opinion on things he’s willing to back up with useful information, and he’s not afraid to speak his mind. Nothing more.
Well, saying MOST DEFINITELY that racism involved the Gates case isn’t an opinion backed up by any useful information. It’s a declarative statement which you didn’t substantiate in any way.
No, it’s not an opinion that I can’t back up with useful information, it’s an opinion that will venture into realms of racial and political discussion that are too far removed from the baseball-centric commentary of RAB to be worthwhile.
If you want to have that convo ex-parte, that’s fine with me. But I’m not going to open up any more cans of worms than have already been opened up, out of respect to Mike, Ben, and Joe.
You went off topic, I responded off topic, we should let it end there. But, like I said, if you want to have the convo with me, my email isn’t hard to find.
Huh? I see…you think I should want more black players in baseball, because they are faster than white guys.
Yes.
Is that what you’re saying? Are black people faster than white people?
Yes. No, seriously, I am. The athletic black guy/scrappy white guy line is bullshit, because it’s attempting to use false narratives about whites and blacks to imply shit that isn’t true, like that player X “tries harder” or “plays the game the right way” or “cares more” or crap like that..
But, yes, the average black elite athlete is faster than the average white elite athlete. Brett Gardner is the exception to the rule. That’s not a controversial statement. If there were more blacks in baseball and fewer whites in baseball, baseball players would probably have more average speed. Doesn’t mean they’d be better defenders, but more speed can lead to better defense if coached properly.
So yes, Tank, making the game blacker probably would lead to more steals, better defense, and less power.
“But, yes, the average black elite athlete is faster than the average white elite athlete. Brett Gardner is the exception to the rule. That’s not a controversial statement.”
Are there any modern studies that have addressed this question? I guess in the absence of any such study the racial composition of the US track team is pretty decent evidence. It’s not like whites don’t have access to the means to get themselves on that team, so they seemingly don’t get on the team because they’re just not as fast.
Are there any modern studies that have addressed this question? I guess in the absence of any such study the racial composition of the US track team is pretty decent evidence.
Nevermind the US track team: Look at all track teams across the world.
Look at the Olympic results from our lifetimes. Sure, there’s the occasional Peter Norman or Yuliya Nesterenko; nobody is saying whites are genetically incapable of being fast.
But the overwhelming majority of the fastest people in the world (at least sprint-wise) are descendants of the African Diaspora that came to the New World via the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
There’s a valid truth behind the incorrect stereotype that blacks are great athletes: Blacks in the New World endured a genetic weeding out process. Physically weaker blacks were shunned, killed, or not brought over at all. It’s similar to thoroughbred racehorse husbandry.
It’s only a stereotype when you take it too far to state that ALL blacks are great athletes (and that all whites are NOT great athletes). That’s obviously not true. But it is true that the genetic residue of the trans-Atlantic slave trade has created a black population that is a little taller, stronger, faster, healthier, etc. And, once you get to the tail end of the bell curve (where the elite athletes reside), it’s not surprising that there’s more black elite sprinters and more black 6′10 power forwards that run like gazelles and more black wide recievers and cornerbacks and the like.
Seriously, is this stuff considered controversial? I thought most people accepted this well-worn anthropological precept.
Dude, anything concerning race is considered controversial by some people. Just look at this thread.
Touché.
It’s not that anyone (well, me, anyway) is saying that you are alleging anything strange. I want to know your sources. Is it just something you read in a college anthropology text? Sports medicine literature? A friend in the business?
Eh, more sources than I can remember. All of the above.
I was an undergraduate psychology major. There is a psychologist we read about in college, I believe named Spencer, but I can’t remember, who did dozens of studies on the difference between caucasians and blacks. The conclusions of his studies were often not “flattering” towards blacks, and he was made a pariah in the scientific community. Even though the studies were reasonably well designed and properly analyzed statistically. He was alleged to be a racist simply for reporting his data – sound data – and his conclusions. I don’t know what his particular race is/was.
Meh, people who make statements about race are often portrayed as pariahs at first; some of them are deserved, some are not.
Look at what got Jimmy the Greek fired. It got him fired because it shocked the sensibilities, but anthropologically, he was pretty much right. He kinda got a bum rap.
You don’t find the “breeding” stories a bit iffy? I’m not saying that there weren’t slave owners trying to breed their strongest slaves with one another, or slave traders looking for large, strong people to take from Africa as slaves.
What I’m saying is do you really buy the argument that those measures were actually biologically successful? You mentioned thoroughbred race horses. As scientific as they try to get in that field, trying to determine, beforehand, what stallions and what mares will breed fast or durable racehorses is little more than a roll of the dice. Small horses who had terrible records in racing have become great sires; many champions have been disappointments in the stud barn.
Suggesting that a bunch of 18th and 19th century slave traders and cotton farmers were successful in engineering a physically advanced strain of homo sapiens is a big stretch to me.
The differences are probably ancient, deeply embedded genetic differences that are present in all blacks from that region of the world and not something artificially selected. Furthermore, with over one hundred years since slavery ended, “natural” breeding behavior and natural genetic variations would surely have diluted out, by now, any genetic advantage that might have been exacted by slave traders.
What Mondesi said. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I want to know the source backing up your answer, or whether you just “figure” black people are faster.
I think you might misunderstand my response just a tad. In the absence of a modern study on this issue, I’d still be inclined to believe TSJC is probably right about it.
By saying you want to see if he “just ‘figures’ black people are faster” you’re insinuating that there’s no reasoning behind his opinion, but that’s not fair. I gave one possible reason in my response. That may not be dispositive on the issue, but my point is just that the lack of a scientific consensus does not mean the holder of that opinion feels that way just because he just has a feeling about it or something like that. There’s plenty of reason to think black athletes are faster than white athletes in general even in the absence of scientific proof..
Come on. You know, someone makes a statement about a baseball issue here without quoting a stat, and 43 people jump down his throat and ask him to back it up. I ask tsjc to give me his source, and you go after me for “insinuating” something.
I give up.
Can anyone be critical of tsjc – or just ask him to come up with some proof of what he says – without being “rebuked”?
And for the record (see my response below), I think he’s probably right, too. But I just wanted to know where he got the idea. That’s allllllllll.
Just see his response, posted above before you posted these responses, which already answers your concerns.
And that thing about being critical of TSJC is silly. I’ve had a few arguments with him and so have plenty of other commenters here.
And you know what? You’re right, there’s nothing wrong with asking for backing evidence, and that is, in fact, the way most people operate around here in the comments section. But you know what else? You can ask for that back-up reasoning without insinuating that the original statement was based on the person just “figuring” something. And that’s what I did, above, when I asked why he held the opinion he had stated.
My answer – which you probably don’t care about – is that the only study I’m aware of was an anatomical one which showed black people had a greater proportion of fast-twitch (type 2) muscle fibers than caucasians did. I’ve never heard of a study on actual speed….
See above.
So yes, Tank, making the game blacker probably would lead to [. . .], and less power.
This is a bizarre statement, unless you’re going to assert a) that whites are stronger than blacks or b) that Joey Gathright is a good representative of black baseball players.
I think it was Carl Crawford who said during a story on ESPN a year or two ago that baseball isn’t doing a good enough job showing/telling black kids coming out of HS that baseball is where the money is rather than in basketball and football. Perhaps that’s an issue?
It’s most likely the area I grew up in, but I could probably count on two hands the amount of black kids I played ball with/against–aside from three Bridgeport teams–while growing up.
Baseball is expensive. It’s also not an easy sport to pick up if you come to it later in your youth. If you don’t play baseball at early age, you probably never will. Football and basketball are much easier sports to pick up.
Yeah. It’s tough to reduce such a complex issue to one factor, but I see the economics as the main issue. Maybe an expansion of RBI would help?
However, this raises the question: what is the “right” representation of each racial group in baseball? I’m a selfish fan — I want the best players, regardless of racial makeup.
However, this raises the question: what is the “right” representation of each racial group in baseball? I’m a selfish fan — I want the best players, regardless of racial makeup.
I think this is kind of the point of RBI: if you really do want the best players, regardless of racial makeup, you should make a concerted effort to reach out to and attract black players, because the dearth of black players probably (note: probably) means you’re not getting the best players, because some of those great athletes who would be playing baseball are now not playing baseball. Meaning lesser players are taking spots that could have been filled by greater players who are playing other sports instead.
See also: Pat White.
Agreed. I’ll go one step further. I would like ALL sports to be accessed in poorer neighborhoods. Soccer is a great fit for a lot of areas.
+1
while i agree, with sports like hockey and lacrosse for example the equipment is very expensive and needs to be replaced often and can break sometimes rather easily. This is why these 2 sports especially are more of a middle-upper class sport.
anyone can get a soccer ball/basketball and find somewhere to play with a group. the next hardest is baseball but all you really need is one bat and ball and a mitt for every kid. then you have the sports out of many people’s reach economically. Imagine if kids had to purchase their own pads and such for football like most do for lacrosse and hockey. or if football used a $100+ dollar instrument like a hockey/lax stick.
and to add i would think that a good amount of people (esp from poorer neighborhoods) who play football do not play until they are older and have already played soccer/basketball/baseball to some degree first and only gravitate towards football because a coach sees them and convinces them. meaning, until they are somewhere that provides equipment for them.
What do you mean by RBI in this context?
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/officia.....ty/rbi.jsp
Thank you Matt. I was aware that a MLB inner city initiative program existed but did not know it was called RBI.
how is baseball more expensive than football? My high school added a football team when I was a junior, and it was MASSIVELY expensive. There’s far more equipment, it takes more space, and there are more players. And you hear plenty of stories about guys like Vlad and Melky playing “baseball” with a broomstick and rocks when they were children. If it’s a part of your culture, kids find ways to play.
I do think that this is a cultural issue, and not one that has to do with actual skin tone; there is less of a dearth of dark-skinned men in baseball, but they’re mostly afro-latino or afro-caribbean.
I think it’s a problem for baseball because the sport is losing out on another source of athletes, and also losing potential marketing dollars because it’s hard to tap the african-american market.
I think it’s a problem for the african-american community because they are losing out on some opportunities. You get a LOT more protection in the MLBPA than in the NFL players’ union, you can play a lot longer, and you’re a lot more likely to make it out with your health intact. And you don’t have to be 6′5″ or taller. The question is whether african-american kids are being _denied_ these opportunities due to biases in the system, or if they aren’t playing baseball because they don’t have access to the facilities, or if they just aren’t taking advantage of the opportunity because baseball isn’t really on their radar, or if they choose against it because you usually don’t hit it big until you’re 28 or so. The sport has to attack each of these issues in different ways.
you make a good point re:
The question is whether african-american kids are being _denied_ these opportunities due to biases in the system, or if they aren’t playing baseball because they don’t have access to the facilities, or if they just aren’t taking advantage of the opportunity because baseball isn’t really on their radar, or if they choose against it because you usually don’t hit it big until you’re 28 or so. The sport has to attack each of these issues in different ways.
part of the allure of football and basketball is that 9 times out of 10 you go right to the show. you don’t have to work your way up through a minor league system and “pay your dues” in a way.
This might be a large contributing factor to the lack of african americans (or any type of american) who is trying to use sports as an escape or comes from a poorer neighborhood. If you’re good at football/basketball the length of career is shorter, the paydays average out to be less even if you are top flight superstar quality the health implications are poorer but the payout is fast and quick and it could be blinding.
Good point.
And you hear plenty of stories about guys like Vlad and Melky playing “baseball” with a broomstick and rocks when they were children. If it’s a part of your culture, kids find ways to play.
I do think that this is a cultural issue, and not one that has to do with actual skin tone; there is less of a dearth of dark-skinned men in baseball, but they’re mostly afro-latino or afro-caribbean.
But there’s a huge difference between African Americans here in the US and Afro-Latinos in Latin America.
Basketball and football don’t have a cultural foothold in Latin America like baseball and soccer. So, while baseball is a more expensive sport, kids in Latin America are still more likely to gravitate towards it than kids here because there’s fewer real palatable alternatives.
Basketball and football are like afterthoughts in the world south of Miami, Texas, and California. That changes the equation a lot.
I still don’t buy that baseball is more expensive to play than football, especially with aluminum bats. But I’ll give you basketball.
I guess my thought process is this:
I do not believe there is institutional bias in MLB against signing african-american kids, which is good.
I believe that organized baseball is cheaper to run than football, though perhaps if it is the teams that provide all the football gear, then maybe the familial burden for baseball is more. I dunno.
Football fields are no more prevalent in inner cities than baseball fields, so it can’t be merely a lack of access to places to play that’s causing this phenomenon.
Thus, I conclude that it’s some combination of factors, including TSJC’s point about college scholarships, the delayed payday in baseball relative to NFL/NBA, and a vicious cycle of lower popularity in the community leading to fewer players leading to lower popularity.
and a vicious cycle of lower popularity in the community leading to fewer players leading to lower popularity.
That’s an excellent point that can’t be understated.
The increasing scarcity of black star baseball players results in fewer black star baseball players going forward.
Just like the increasing amount of black star basketball and football players similarly increases the numbers going forward.
Kids emulate what they see and find similarity in.
everyone wants to be adrian peterson. who wants to be ryan howard?
its weird, its about flashiness too. minnesota isnt a huge market yet here’s this guy adrian peterson who has bcome a national celebrity (and reggie bush too, who isnt even that good) while baseball players, since they arent flashy because of the needs of the sport, are at a disadvantage even when playing in a major major market.
The increasing scarcity of black star baseball players results in fewer black star baseball players going forward.
Do you think that MLB does not do a good enough job marketing its black players? They’ve clearly tried with the “Beyond Baseball” ads focusing on the Upton brothers and Ryan Howard, but at the same time, I think they could be doing better. It’s more likely because he plays in Arizona, but I doubt even casual fans realize just how awesome the Justin is.
Meh, I think they’re doing what they can.
There’s only so many Uptons and Howards to go around, though. Like whozat said, it’s a vicious cycle.
Football fields are no more prevalent in inner cities than baseball fields, so it can’t be merely a lack of access to places to play that’s causing this phenomenon.
but you have to realize with football they just need a flat area. the shape is a giant rectangle, which is much easier to find then a baseball diamond. how many of us have just played a pickup football game of 5 on 5, sometime tackle where 3 receptions was a first down or the field was short enough where you had to score in 4 downs? it is not so easy with baseball.
organized football is much more expensive than baseball unless the equipment is being supplied. but to play football in the sense of pickkup games such as basketball ansd soccer it is just a ball and some kids crazy enough to let them tackle the shit out of eachother.
this might not be relevant, just saying.
oh, come on. You never played a game of stickball using your sweatshirt as home plate? Obviously it’s easier to play a pickup game of 5-on-5 football than it is to play a regulation game of baseball, but compare apples to apples. Pickup football, stickball, pickup basketball…they’re all pretty comparable. In one you need a hoop, one you need more space, one you need a stick and a ball.
Football fields are no more prevalent in inner cities than baseball fields, so it can’t be merely a lack of access to places to play that’s causing this phenomenon.
This makes sense for organized sports – school teams and so on.
But just horsing around requires lots less space for football than baseball. You can throw passes, play touch, etc., in a space much narrower and shorter than a football field. But you can’t play baseball that way. Along similar lines, football, like basketball, lends itself well to versions that require fewer than the standard number of players on a side. This less so with baseball.
Mays, Mantle, and Maris. All in the same outfield.
http://sceneddl.net/wp-content.....-SNO-3.jpg (safe)
I came across this study on team racial composition and attendance. From the abstract: “Team racial composition has no discernible impact upon the level of attendance. Several interaction hypotheses are considered, but when these more complex propositions are evaluated, player race still has no noticeable effect upon attendance.” Data was only through ‘83.
To steer the conversation in a slightly different direction, even from a non-racial stand point, baseball seems to be losing popularity in general. Even in my hometown, which is usually a pretty good baseball town, interest in the sport is beginning to dwindle a bit. Having gone through this town’s baseball system as a player, and now being “recycled” back into it as an umpire, there is a definite gap in talent, and numbers, from the time I was playing.
obv everyone during your era was on steroids and now that the game has cleaned up numbers will drop.
Clearly.
You have touched upon a much larger problem for baseball. It is losing popularity relative to the NFL and to a lesser extent to the NBA.
The source of the problem, I believe, stems fom an overal cultural shift to “instant” everything and an addiction to constant sensory stimulis. Kids are so hooked on instant messages, texting, blogging, action videos and violent action movies that something as pastoral as baseball is just plain boring.
Football and basketball (hockey, soccer and Lacrosse as well) have constant high-intensity action. Baseball does not. And there is no way to make baseball more action-packed. Sure, we could lower the mound to boost offense like was done in 1968 or make other changes but it won’t make a difference. The game doesn’t offer, by its very nature, the same level of action and sensory stimuls.
It’s a real problem with no solution that I can see.
The source of the problem, I believe, stems fom an overal cultural shift to “instant” everything and an addiction to constant sensory stimulis. Kids are so hooked on instant messages, texting, blogging, action videos and violent action movies that something as pastoral as baseball is just plain boring.
See also: my burrito in my microwave.
Bob, you are right. I don’t know if baseball could ever be as instant and exciting as basketball and football, but it could definitely be more exciting than it is. Minor thread hijack here, but modern baseball “calculus” states that you win by getting on base and hitting homers. This has given us an ever-slower paced game. If homers were impossible, instantly hitting skill – batting average, line drive ability – and speed would become the most important skill in the game. Walks would plummet, because pitchers would be far less fearful of contact if homers were impossible. We would have more contests between fielders and baserunners, and athletic ability overall would become more important. Of course, homers are also very popular, so one might win the battle and lose the war if one eliminated homers. I’m not suggesting that. But a good way to make baseball much more exciting would be to take steps to reduce homers, perhaps by as much as 30-50%, and to reduce walks by a similar amount.
It would have to be done gradually, very gradually, and it might not be possible. But if baseball doesn’t do something, they will eventually start having serious problems with waning popularity.
Very interesting theory – but too progressive for the baseball powers-that-be to ever consider, let alone experiment with.
Baseball doesn’t have a diversity problem. It’s the most diverse of the 4 major sports in America. Look at NHL and NBA if you want to see a lack of diversity. It’s annoying when this discussion gets brought up every year.
I agree completely. You never hear of any white advocacy groups complaining that caucasians are under-represented in the NBA and that they are the subject of racism or bias in the process of gaining access to NBA jobs.
You guys both missed the point. Read some of the discussion above…no one’s complaining that there’s a bias against non-white players. The point is that MLB is missing out on a source of talented athletes, and also missing out on a large demographic to whom they could be marketing stuff. This is a concern for MLB, as it should be.
I didn’t miss the point. There are really two issues here. The first, and most important to me, is the decline in popularity of baseball relative to other American sports. The second is publicity regarding the number of African Americans in baseball.
On the first point, see the comment above by Matt ACTY/BBD and my response.
On the second point. There are black advocacy groups and black demagogues (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et. al.)that constantly dig up any issue they can to allege racism. Their actions often look more motivated to enhance their image, prestige or standing than in obtaining true justice and racial equality. I’m tired of Tawana Brawley and Imus/Rutgers Women’s BB type inquisitions.
The civil rights movement and Affirmative Action were crucial to improving the lot of African Americans against a horrible history of slavery, subjugation and racial bias/hatred. But I am tired of the allegation that some statistical anomaly like 8% blacks in MLB realtive to 13.4% US population is the result of some racial inequality or worse, that it results from racial bias. While it is usually unspoken, the racial bias issue is often implied.
Additionally, on the second point, I don’t particularly care if baseball increases or decreases popularity within one or more racial groups as long as it keeps increasing it’s popularity overall. So if, for example, MLB lost 2 million white fans and 1 million black fans but picked up 1 million latino fans, 1 million Asian fans and 2 million fans from other races, I’m happy with the increase. That is not to say that the MLB marketing experts shouldn’t look at demographic trends, but there is too much publicity about the issue.
On the second point. There are black advocacy groups and black demagogues (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et. al.)that constantly dig up any issue they can to allege racism. Their actions often look more motivated to enhance their image, prestige or standing than in obtaining true justice and racial equality. I’m tired of Tawana Brawley and Imus/Rutgers Women’s BB type inquisitions.
The civil rights movement and Affirmative Action were crucial to improving the lot of African Americans against a horrible history of slavery, subjugation and racial bias/hatred. But I am tired of the allegation that some statistical anomaly like 8% blacks in MLB realtive to 13.4% US population is the result of some racial inequality or worse, that it results from racial bias. While it is usually unspoken, the racial bias issue is often implied.
Point #1: That’s one massive ad hominem.
Point #2: Today’s “Is there an issue with the declining number of African Americans in baseball?” has been brought to you by Ben Kabak, John Klima, and Bruce Markusen, a bunch of white guys.
Point #1: That’s one massive ad hominem.
What? He was answering another poster…to be an ad hominem he’d have to be attacking the poster. He was using Sharpton et al as examples of the broader point that the racism debate gets trotted out frequently in our society, often for no apparent reason.
Point #2: Today’s “Is there an issue with the declining number of African Americans in baseball?” has been brought to you by Ben Kabak, John Klima, and Bruce Markusen, a bunch of white guys.
And why can’t white guys be guilty of improperly implying anti-black racism. One could interpret your reference to the white guys as having racist implications.
Tank – thanks for the comment.
It’s an ad hom because he’s implying that the whole topic of “Are there enough blacks in baseball?” should be irrelevant because Sharpton, Jackson, and black advocacy groups are not to be trusted. That it doesn’t matter what they’re saying, all that matters is they’re “demagogues”.
And, Point #2 stands because his ad hom attack in Point #1 doesn’t even apply here, because the speakers in question are not the aforementioned people being attacked ad hominem.
I don’t understand your comment on Point #1.
I understand your comment on Point #2 but it doesn’t take away from the argument I made.
Answered above.
i dont think the intent was to say baseball itself isnt diverse, but to the extent that kids play sports (and maybe by extension adults watch sports), baseball is losing popularity amongst
blacksafricannon-hispanic non-asian non-whites, as evidenced by the fewer (smaller percentage?) of african-americans playing baseball at the mlb level.i know race is always a touchy subject, and there’s always (deserved or undeserved) guilt, anger, frustration and disdain for this topic, but if we focus on it as a statistic that helps us understand our game (life!), we can use it as a tool to further our understanding of what’s going on, despite what we see with our own eyes…
The highpoint of African-Americans represented in MLB was in 1975 at 27%. Today, that number is approximately 9%.
Seeing that, my question is: Why was the percentage so high in 1975 ?
Earlier someone said 13% of the US population is African American. Based off of that number, the 27% raises far more questions than the 9% number.
The 9% number is reasonable if 69% of the MLB player pool is American. Anyone know how far off that 69% is?
According to this (http://www.ncasports.org/Artic.....GRC_PR.pdf), 28% of players on Opening Day rosters were born outside the US. I think this whole argument may be entirely baseless.
Why was the percentage so high in 1975? I’ll take a shot at this:
1) Integration was a great source of pride as African-Americans aspired to be like Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Willie Mays, etc.
2) Basketball & Football were only starting to take over Baseball as more popular sports with African-Americans.
3) The family unit had yet to completely breakdown, women don’t look at sports as a priority that men do.
i’m not too lazy to look it up (please dont make the joke here today!), but i’m not sure where to start my google…
what are the percentages of major race categories (white, black, hispanic, asian) in the USA, and what are those percentages in the MLB and (streeeetch) MiLB?
and if those exist on an historical basis, looking back 50 years would be great–i think that would give us a great framework for who made up what percentages and how they progressed.
going to make some incorrect assumptions for the sake of brevity:
every race is equally adept at playing baseball
(before you start extrapolating, i offer yao ming as my super super small sample size that is also horribly invalid)
the ‘people’ of that race have an equal chance to have the skills for baseball
(**I** might not have what it takes to make it past college, but every black/hispanic/white/asian has what it takes at the moment of birth, and those percentages decline as that individual ages)
…hmmm…if anybody’s got any ideas for constraints or restrictions here, shoot them too me–this may have just gotten integrated in an economics thesis
timrandlerv10@yahoo.com
(powers that be: feel free to edit or delete if this is too off topic or etc)
do him a favor and delete/reformat his email address, at least
The US Census of 2006 lists African Americans as 13.4% of the population and baseball records this year show that there African Americans comprise 8% of players (those two data sets are 3 years apart but I am sure that the overall US % hasn’t changed significantly in three years). So African Americans are presently under-represented relative to the overall population.
By the way, the search I used was “Population by race in the United States”.
Your reasoning only holds if 100% of the player base is American. A large percentage of the player pool comes from other countries, so you have to adjust for that before you can come to a conclusion.
You’re right. I overlooked that.
According to MLB 27.4% of MLB players are foreign born. According to the Washington Post, African Americans are 10.2% of the MLB total in 2009, so their representation is 16.3% of the American born MLB players relative to 13.4% of the American population.
African American players are actually OVER-represented as a percentage of American born players relative to the overall US population.
Thanks for finding that. I’ve noticed that every discussion of this subject leaves out that statistic, which I’ve always felt was a necessary part of it.
That number totally changes the discussion.
Thanks to you too for making me realize the whole discussion is invlaid.
No hat tip for me? http://riveraveblues.com/2009/.....ent-578691
My 3 cents
1- Americans in general are becoming less and less interested in baseball. The most popular sport in the USA is football followed by Basketball and Baseball.
2 – Great athletes tend to be good at more than one sport. These days, more often than not, a kid who is a good at football and baseball is going to choose football if he’s pursuing a career as a pro athlete.
3 – I don’t view the decrease in African-American baseball players as a problem for the sport. I want to see my favorite team field the best players they can get whether they be black, white, latino, or asian.
Perhaps the reason for fewer blacks in baseball today is related to tsjc’s statements above about racial differences between blacks and non-blacks. It is probably true that football, soccer, and basketball place more of a premium on strength and speed than does baseball. I can’t prove this, but it seems that eye-hand coordination accounts for a greater proportion of the skill needed to succeed in baseball than in other sports. Maybe the increased “demand” for athletes in these more, uh, athletic sports, at the collegiate level especially, is draining black players away from baseball.
I think there must be fewer whites in baseball, too, proportionally, meaning non-Latino whites. To me, honestly, I wonder if it’s sort of a global issue, where baseball is becoming less popular overall in the US, and retaining more popularity in the Latino world. It’s a ticket to financial prosperity for Latino kids in poor countries, and with all the Latino stars, there is the fan base. In the US, baseball is less and less popular….Oh, I know, attendance is at all time highs, but really there are 3-4 hotbeds of baseball in the US, and the rest of the country couldn’t care less. Football is THE game in the US.
I’ll agree with that.
This is a total non issue if you do the math correctly. From my comment above:
“According to MLB 27.4% of MLB players are foreign born. According to the Washington Post, African Americans are 10.2% of the MLB total in 2009, so their representation is 16.3% of the American born MLB players relative to 13.4% of the American population.
African American players are actually OVER-represented as a percentage of American born players relative to the overall US population.”
Personally, I’m far more disgusted by the lack of short people in the NBA.
Laugh of the day! Thank you crotch, from the bottom of my Tankly crotch.
ietcvm. They dont’ have a large (tall) enough lobby supporting their interests and or SHORTfalls in the sport.
I’m jealous I didn’t figure that out first, Bob.
Yes but a lot of the best african american athletes are opting for other sports. Just look at the percentage of afro amer. in the 70’s and 80’s who played in MLB. I believe it was like 30-40 percent.
Just an unscientific comment from one of the more, shall we say, interesting cities in America when it comes to race:
I coached youth baseball in the Jamaica Plain area, which is one of the most diverse areas in the city – projects on one end, million dollar homes in the middle, large Hispanic mix on the other. By my rough count, we had half a dozen African-American players in our league. The league by far and away was Hispanic, which is not really surprising when you think that many children are first and second generation children of immigrants.
I was at the park that the local youth baseball and football leagues share the other day. The local football league is almost entirely African-American; I saw one or two “lighter-skinned” players who might be Hispanic/Asian/White/etc.. None of the coaches were white. Our baseball league had one African-American coach.
The intimation behind Klima’s Mays story (and I guess what he hopes will sell his book in part) is that the Yanks passed on Mays for racial reasons (this notion, that the Yankee front office/George Weiss were pretty racist in those days, is not a particularly new one and one I’ve pretty much accepted over the years without too much probing). What I found interesting about the blurb above was that the Yanks did, in fact, scout Mays (maybe he just had a bad day) and that the Yanks, in fact, were signing older Negro League players “who would never see the light of the Bronx”. If that is true, it sounds to me that signing older veteran types is consistent with a strategy befitting a championship squad that maybe needed one or two holes to fill (look at the succcess those early 50’s Yankee teams had picking up older veterans like Johnny Mize, Enos Slaugther etc.) rather than evidence of a nefarious plot to appear to sign black players with the intention of never bringing them to the Bronx.
No offense, but it sounds like you’re selectively twisting the evidence to fit the narrative that you prefer. The Yankees during that time regularly found and signed the best amateur talent, but clearly did not do so when it came to African American talent. It’s pretty tough, and kind of strains the limits of credulity, to argue that they chose not to sign the best African American talent, and only signed older African American players with lower ceilings and little chance of making the MLB team, because that was somehow a better team-building strategy.
Given a choice between a rational reason for doing something and an irrational reason (no matter how “sexy”) I prefer to go with a rational one. What sparked my comment was that the Yanks apparently did, in fact, sign the older Negro League players (something I did not previously know). It’s incredible to me that the Yanks would go through with such a ruse when basically they did not have to sign any black players (at least by 1950) to avoid being viewed as racist as baseball integration was still in its infancy at that point and when a seemingly plausible valid baseball reason for doing what they did exists. The Yanks were clearly and historically not on the forefront of integration in baseball but maybe they were not as bad as they’ve been apparently portrayed in Klima’s book and elsewhere.
“Given a choice between a rational reason for doing something and an irrational reason (no matter how ’sexy’) I prefer to go with a rational one.”
I agree, the rational reason is more likely to be the actual reason, but the rational reason for the Yankees to pass on signing the best African American talent is certainly, definitely, without a reasonable doubt NOT that they thought that passing on the best players was the way to acquire the best baseball players. That’s the very definition of irrationality.
And it’s not irrational in the least to think that a baseball team during that time period had some reservations about putting African American players on the field, and was slow to, in fact, do so, because they were African American. In fact, it’s more rational to think that they would have had reservations about putting African American players on the field than to think the opposite. You’re talking about an entire sport that until very recently at that time had been segregated. All things being equal, today, is it rational to think a team would choose a white player over a black player simply because of the color of their skin? Probably not. In 1950, is it rational to think a team would have chosen a white player over a black player simply because of the color of their skin? Without a fucking doubt.
“The Yanks were clearly and historically not on the forefront of integration in baseball but maybe they were not as bad as they’ve been apparently portrayed in Klima’s book and elsewhere.”
Just as as point of clarification, I don’t think anyone says that the Yankees were any worse, or much worse, than most other organizations when it came to integration. So don’t worry, nobody’s singling out the Yankees as the only, or the biggest, bad guy in this whole thing.
Just to your last point the Yanks and Red Sox have been always been singled out as “worse” than the other teams because they were the last teams to have black major leaguers (Ellie Howard for the Yanks and Pumpsie Green for the Red Sox). When the Yank dynasty collapsed in 1964 and National League dominance rose it was often attributed to the Yanks (mostly and other AL teams generally) failure to scout/pursue/sign blacks and Latinos. Against that historical backdrop its easy to lob stuff against the Yanks. Some of it will stick but the fact they were signing black players (albeit older ones) as early as 1950 (again something I did not know before today) made me re-think a bit the conventional wisdom on this topic but I appreciate your take on the foregoing as well. Thanks.
“Just to your last point the Yanks and Red Sox have been always been singled out as ‘worse’ than the other teams because they were the last teams to have black major leaguers (Ellie Howard for the Yanks and Pumpsie Green for the Red Sox).”
This is just false, the Yankees were not the second-to-last team to put an African American player on the field. You’re being overly sensitive to what you perceive as criticism of the Yankees and twisting facts to fit your false narrative that the Yankees are unfairly persecuted.
“When the Yank dynasty collapsed in 1964 and National League dominance rose it was often attributed to the Yanks (mostly and other AL teams generally) failure to scout/pursue/sign blacks and Latinos.”
Right. But… That’s probably right. The failure of the successful AL teams (like the Yankees, Tigers and Red Sox) to integrate probably did contribute to the fall of those teams and their league in comparison to other teams, and the NL, which were quicker to integrate and play the best African American players. It wasn’t the only reason, but I think it’s pretty much accepted and established that it was a contributing factor.
“Against that historical backdrop its easy to lob stuff against the Yanks.”
Nobody here is lobbing anything at the Yankees. You’re defending them against phantom detractors.
Look… The Yankees were slow to integrate, and they passed on some of the best African American talent when they should have signed them (like, for example, per the post above, Willie Mays). The whole league was plagued with racism back then, nobody’s singling out the Yankees as the symbol of all that was wrong with baseball during that time period (and to try to do so would be ridiculous). But nobody’s making the arguments that you’re responding to.
You’re right, I should have said the Yanks were among the last teams to integrate (12 of the 16 teams integrated before the Yanks). Your wrong though in saying that no one is lobbing things against the Yanks; that is the point of this whole conversation!!!! Some author (not a “phantom”) is trying to sell a book and generate publicity by saying the Yanks, for racial reasons, passed on Mays. How do you not see that?
First of all: No, to all of that. Now let’s look at it in more detail.
“Your wrong though in saying that no one is lobbing things against the Yanks; that is the point of this whole conversation!!!!”
No. The post we’re all responding to is about a VERY short excerpt from a book that notes that the Yankees could have signed Willie Mays but decided to pass. Nobody’s saying the Yankees were the most racist organization in baseball. The Yankees passed on Willie Mays, and that’s a fact. Find me one quote on this page where someone said something about the Yankees being more responsible for their role in segregation/integration than they actually were. Actually, don’t bother, because I can just tell you what you’ll find: Nothing.
“Some author (not a “phantom”) is trying to sell a book and generate publicity by saying the Yanks, for racial reasons, passed on Mays.”
No. Again, you’re twisting facts to fit your false narrative that the Yankees are unfairly persecuted. The book is called: “Willie’s Boys: The 1948 Birmingham Black Barons, The Last Negro League World Series, and the Making of a Baseball Legend.” It’s not about the Yankees and how horribly racist they were, it’s about Willie Mays and has a very short part about the Yankees declining to sign him. The part about the Yankees passing on Mays is all of 150 words long. Go to the Amazon.com page for the book, and tell me that’s a book about the Yankees. This author isn’t causing some sort of sensational controversy by saying the Yankees failed to sign Willie Mays when they had the chance, and by doing research leading him (and any reasonable person) to believe that Mays’ race may have been a significant factor in that decision. Nothing about that conclusion is new or controversial or unfair to the Yankees.
“How do you not see that?”
Because it didn’t happen.
PS: The book also discusses how/why the Dodgers, Indians, Braves, White Sox and Red Sox declined to sign Mays.
Here are the exact words form Klima’s Times article that are meant to be inflammatory against the Yanks (my comments are in parentheses).
1) The story of how he (Mays) got away is a window into a time when the Yankees (no other team is mentioned) resisted baseball integration with discriminatory policies…
2) Their scouts (Giants) were astonished at his advanced skills. That was also the first time the Yankees chose to ignore Mays.
3) The tactics of Weiss’s scouts and the relationships in the front office demonstrated the team’s institutuionalized discrimination (pretty damning claim).
4) When the Yankees did explore the Negro Leagues market, they did so with the help of Tom Baird, a white man who owned the Kansas City Monarchs and was a registered member of the Kansas Ku Klux Klan. Baird felt such kinship with the Yankees that he once wrote to their farm director, Lee MacPhail, “I feel like I am part of the Yankee organization.” (what can you take away from that statement other than that the author is trying, not so subliminally to say, that there was a link between the Klan and the Yanks; how “unfair to the Yankees” is that).
Bottom-line is Klima’s entire Times article was meant as an advertisement for his book and he chose to do it in the most sensational way he could; by “lobbing” some racial based bombs against the Yanks. While the “Yankee” portion of the book may be minor the author’s Times article was all about the Yanks. I guess we’d both would have to read his book to see if other teams “institutionalized discrimination” “Klan connection” or “resistance to integration” is mentioned but I doubt it.
I’m not going to bother going through your comment point by point or discussing this further in any detail, this is it for me. The book is about Willie Mays, not the Yankees. The Yankees are mentioned in the book, as are other teams. The article in particular mentions the Yankees, because the article is in the New York Times, and the Yankees are the most important team and play in New York. It’s an anecdote that’s interesting and historically significant. That’s all. Nobody is unfairly shitting on the Yankees and nobody is making the claims you’re arguing against.
If the article had instead highlighted some other team, say, the White Sox, and their decision to pass on signing Mays, would White Sox fans have reason to freak out about being treated unfairly? Good grief. The Yankees passed on Willie Mays, likely because of race issues. Deal with it.
Well here’s another question, how is it that kids from some of the poorest countries in the world are playing baseball while kids from the poorest neighborhoods in the US(many inner city neighborhoods are the poorest) aren’t? The equipment for baseball is expensive in either case. Some of these kids play with milk cartons as gloves as Mo has said several times he played.
In those countries, people generally don’t play basketball or football at all. They’re probably just playing either baseball or soccer. So if throwing a ball appeals to you, baseball it is.
In the US you have more options.
I understand that the other two sports are not popular in those countries. If it is just about economics wouldn’t soccer be king in DR just like basketball is here?
I am sorry I missed this convo but I find it interesting that before I read the comments I already knew what was going to be said. SMH.