The myth of the missing great black athlete in baseball

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How many times do I have to debunk this line of thinking?


My thoughts are that the game was the best it's ever been in the 1960s and 1970s. I once outlined the reasons for my thinking:

1.Interest in other sports-In the 1960s, baseball was still the nation's #1 sport, by a wide margin. Today, football has surpassed it for the whole country and basketball has in the black community. That means more young kids start playing football or basketball instead of baseball when they are younger, and great athletes may choose the other sports over baseball. There are also more sports for people to play today, which futher distributes the talent levels in every sport. But, it has especially effected baseball through history because it was the only true mainstream sport in this country until the 1960s. I think the larger interest in other sports today has dilluted the talent in the majors. I suppose that was a small factor in the 1960s, but not nearly as much a factor as it is today.
Baseball is not like football or basketball. Baseball requires far more learned "muscle-memory" skills than football or basketball. There is a difference between talent and skill. Talent is something that is innate. One is born with talent because it is based on genetics. Speed, strength, hand-eye coordination, intellegence, and quickness vary between people. One can train to increase these attributes but some people are just blessed with more talent than others. I can spend the next five years training like a world class sprinter but I will never be as fast as a world class because I simply do not have the necessary talent to run that fast. My upper limit of my footspeed is far lower than a world class sprinter.

Skill, on the other hand, is a learned trait. Batting, fielding, pitching, and catching are learned skills. One must spend thousands of hours practicing these skills to be able to perform at the major league. How many ABs does a player have before he reaches the majors? Most major leaguers started playing baseball in little league so if the reach the majors at say age 22-24, they literally have thousands of ABs, thousands of ground balls caught, thousands of fly balls caught, thousands of pitches thrown.

In basketball and especially in football, great size, strength, and great speed give a player a huge advantage. There is a direct link between speed and strength, size and height to these games. The more a player has these talents the more dominant a player will likely be. Football especially has a "survival of the fittest" element to it. There are many examples of great athletes with no football experience or hardly any football experience transitioning from other other sports. I mentioned these three in another thread:

1) Chrisitan Okoye- Running back, KC Chiefs
The Nigerian Nightmare didn't play any football until he was 23 years old in 1984. He was a football and track star in college. He was an amazing athlete, 6'-1", 260 pounds. He won seven national titles in the discuss, shotput and hammer throw. He had a brilliant, but short NFL career (knee injuries). He was a two-time Pro-Bowler and led the NFL in rushing one year. Okoye's athletic ability allowed him to play in the NFL with hardly any football experience all. He went to a small school, Azuza Pacific, hardly an NCAA football powerhouse.

2) Bob Hayes- Wide Receiver, Dallas Cowboys, gold medalist, 100-m World Record Holder
Hayes won the Gold medal in the 100 m in 1964 and is considered the greatest sprinter of all time. He was once clocked at 27.89 mph in a race. The Cowboys drafted him in the 7th round. The Cowboys thought his speed would be a great weapon. And it was. He changed how defenses play the game, creating all sorts of zone defenses to cover Hayes. He simply could not be covered man-to-man.

3) Renaldo Nehemiah, 110-m High Hurdles, World Record holder
Nehemaih was the greatest hurdler in history. From 1977-81 he utterly dominated his event. He then joined the 49ers and tried to make it as a wide receiver. He didn't play any college football. He wasn't not a great football player, he didn't have the hands to be a great receiver.

So what is the common theme here. Football coaches drool over athletic talent and these men all had it. This wouldn't happen in baseball. You can't take a 23 year old who has never played baseball and try to make him into a major leaguer.

So great athletic talent in baseball is vastly overrated. Who woud you rather have John Kruk or Bob Jackson, Tony Gwynn or Dion Sanders?



2.More Teams-This is pretty self explanatory. Obviously, the less teams there are, this more concetrated talent there is. Concentrated talent=higher league quality. So, this is a factor as well.
This doesn't take into account the large population increase from the 1960s-70s and the large influx of Latin players and, more recently, Asian players. Also what does "higher quality" really mean. The way I understand it is that the main argument is that if the best players can't separate themselves from the "average player" as much it is because the league has a higher quality. But for me "high quality" means something different. Just because there were fewer teams in the past doesn't mean that those teams could beat teams of today. For some one to assert that the league quality was higher in the past they would have to show me evidence that the teams of the past would be able to defeat present teams on a consistent basis. And I'm not just taking about the good teams. Can the 100 win teams of the past beat todays 100 win teams? Can .500 teams of the past beat today's .500 teams? Can 100 loss teams of the past beat today's 100 loss teams?



3.Declining Interest with African Americans-No knock on other races, but African Americans have had an extraordinary success rate in sports. They have probably been more successful in athletic competition than any other race, and for whatever reason they also seem to not be playing baseball nearly as much as they used to. The 1960s and 1970s (I think the best times for baseball) was the heyday of African American participation in baseball.

If you don't believe that African Americans tend to be a bit better at sports, then consider this:

1.How many great white sprinters are there today?
2.How many white running backs can you name in the NFL today?
3.How many American white superstars are there in the NBA today?
4.Think of as many black players as you can in the MLB today. Aren't almost all of them starters? Really, how many black bench players are there?

I'm not being a racist, I'm just stating facts.

That's my opinion. You don't have to agree with it. I've just studied the issue on my own and this is the conclusion I've came to. I know others have different thoughts.
The fact that black athletes dominate other sports is irrelavent. The other sports require different talents and different skill sets. Those other talents and skill do not necessarily transfer over to baseball. And let me mask you this. What current basektball and football players could have been major leaguers today? I don't consider a 6'10" power foward to be a good baseball prospect. There have been very few tall baseball players. A 6'4" baseball player is extremely tall but would be a small guard in the NBA. It's the same with football. Most of the larger football stars would not baseball stars at all. The 255 pound fullbacks and the 325 pound lineman would not be baseball prospects. I'll ask this also. Can you name me some of the great black baseball players for the 1960s-70s that concieveably could have been taken away by other sports? The only two that I can think of are Dave Winfiled and Rickey Henderson. Even Willie Mays for all his athletic talent was only 5'11" and 180 pounds in his prime. That's too short for basketball and a little light for football.

What happened when Bo Jackson tried baseball? He wasn't really that good. Yes, his fame greatly outpaced his actual baseball skills. He struck out a ton and didn't draw walks and was a terrible defensive player. Yes, he would do spectacular things once in a while but baseball is not a spectacle. He never was going to be a HoF baseball player. He just didn't have the necessay baseball talent.

Many decry the lack of black baseball players today. The percentage of blacks in baseball peaked in 1977 with 27%. Today it is 10%. But what players have been lost. Mostly the backups and pinch hitters have been lost. These black players (backups and pinch hitters) have ben replaced by white, Asian, and Latin backup backups and pinch hitters. So how does this lower the quality of the game of baseball if the major change has been mong the backup players?

I believe that there may be a new age for the African American baseball player in the near future. Right now in the minors and majors there are several outstanding young African American players:

B.J Upton
Justin Upton
Rickie Weeks
Prince Fielder
Delmon Young
Dontrelle Willis

...and several others. The Upton brothers, Weeks, Young, and Willis are all outstanding athletes. Somehow they managed to stay in baseball. The problem in the past 15 years is that the the black major leaguers did not promote the game. Bonds, Thomas, Sheffield, and Griffey, were some of the best players of the 1990s but they did nothing to promote the game. But hopefully, that will change.

[dgarza]

The fact that black athletes dominate other sports is irrelavent.
Anyone watch ice skating, diving, swimming, gymnastics, skiing, archery lately? Size is a detriment in some sports. Oh, and MLB, NFL, and NBA do not define athletics.

[Brian McKenna]

As the need for top-notch baseball talent increases, Major League Baseball has continually tapped new resources. There were 227 foreign-born players on major league rosters to start the 2004 season, comprising 27.3% of the slots. This figure is likely to increase since 47.6% of minor leaguers, to start 2004, were born outside the United States

[64Cards]

Honus, a very good and intelligent post. I think this whole issue of the decrease of blacks in MLB is mostly hogwash. To begin with, look at the color of the skin of the huge influx of players from the Caribbean, their ancestors were also from Africa. There are also more blacks playing professional sports than ever, it's just that many more of them are in the NFL and NBA than there were 40 years ago. Why did so many of them gravitate to football and basketball? Several reasons, the other sports do come across much better on tv. Also, before the 70's, the entire Southeast and Southwest Confrences were strictly white-meat leagues. So a talented black athlete in the south or Texas could hope that he may get noticed by a school from outside of that region or play at an all-black university in the school, where he would get little national attention. [Although some of those schools, like Grambling or Jackson State, turned out a lot of NFL players] But he didn't have any guys at Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, LSU, UT he could identify with, like he could with MLB then. But in the 70's, all of a sudden blacks were starring in football & basketball at these colleges after they opened the door.

I might also add that Title 9, which requires colleges to offer an equal number of scholarships for men and womens sports, also played a role. Colleges weren't going to eliminate full-rides for football and basketball, the two big revenue sports, but college baseball in a lot of places would take a hit. A talented black jock knew that football or basketball was his best chance of getting the full ride scholarship. Also, to that end, a very talented athlete is now pushed into concentrating on just one sport at an early age, rather than playing several sports. A very talented football or basketball player will play in summer leagues or in the case of football, will attend camps sponsored by big time coaches. No time for baseball in the summer.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Honus, a very good and intelligent post. I think this whole issue of the decrease of blacks in MLB is mostly hogwash. To begin with, look at the color of the skin of the huge influx of players from the Caribbean, their ancestors were also from Africa. There are also more blacks playing professional sports than ever, it's just that many more of them are in the NFL and NBA than there were 40 years ago. Why did so many of them gravitate to football and basketball? Several reasons, the other sports do come across much better on tv. Also, before the 70's, the entire Southeast and Southwest Confrences were strictly white-meat leagues. So a talented black athlete in the south or Texas could hope that he may get noticed by a school from outside of that region or play at an all-black university in the school, where he would get little national attention. [Although some of those schools, like Grambling or Jackson State, turned out a lot of NFL players] But he didn't have any guys at Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, LSU, UT he could identify with, like he could with MLB then. But in the 70's, all of a sudden blacks were starring in football & basketball at these colleges after they opened the door.

I might also add that Title 9, which requires colleges to offer an equal number of scholarships for men and womens sports, also played a role. Colleges weren't going to eliminate full-rides for football and basketball, the two big revenue sports, but college baseball in a lot of places would take a hit. A talented black jock knew that football or basketball was his best chance of getting the full ride scholarship. Also, to that end, a very talented athlete is now pushed into concentrating on just one sport at an early age, rather than playing several sports. A very talented football or basketball player will play in summer leagues or in the case of football, will attend camps sponsored by big time coaches. No time for baseball in the summer.

It is true that there are hardly any black baseball players in college baseball. A lot of school only give partial schoarships or no scholarships at all in baseball. Hopefully I can stir lively discussion on the quality of baseball issue. I find this topic quite fascinating.

[538280]

The big picture here is not whether of not athletic skill is as large a factor in baseball as it is in other sports-the picture is that baseball is missing out on a very large pool of athletes that it was getting before. And, yes, it is true that blacks percentage wise have more professional athletes in all the major sports (NBA, NFL, MLB). It is less so in baseball, but they still do much better than other races. It is my opinion that that has made the modern game worse than the game in the 1970s, because they are missing out of the black players.


The fact that black athletes dominate other sports is irrelavent. The other sports require different talents and different skill sets. Those other talents and skill do not necessarily transfer over to baseball. And let me mask you this. What current basektball and football players could have been major leaguers today? I don't consider a 6'10" power foward to be a good baseball prospect. There have been very few tall baseball players. A 6'4" baseball player is extremely tall but would be a small guard in the NBA. It's the same with football. Most of the larger football stars would not baseball stars at all. The 255 pound fullbacks and the 325 pound lineman would not be baseball prospects. I'll ask this also. Can you name me some of the great black baseball players for the 1960s-70s that concieveably could have been taken away by other sports? The only two that I can think of are Dave Winfiled and Rickey Henderson. Even Willie Mays for all his athletic talent was only 5'11" and 180 pounds in his prime. That's too short for basketball and a little light for football.

The lack of the black athlete is very, very relavent. It is the loss of over half of one of MLB's largest talent pools. And, it's not just the black bench players and pinch hitters we're losing, but also the stars. There aren't as many black stars today as they used to be. Make an all star team of black players from the 1960s and 1970s and I guarantee it would be much, much better than an all star team of blacks today.

[Blackout]

a good athlete is a good athlete

why you guys seem to think blacks are better than whites is beyond me, i'm sure Roger Clemens is just as good as whoever the best african american pitcher in baseball is (I guess Dontrelle)

[538280]

a good athlete is a good athlete

why you guys seem to think blacks are better than whites is beyond me, i'm sure Roger Clemens is just as good as whoever the best african american pitcher in baseball is (I guess Dontrelle)

But that's the whole point-blacks just don't seem to be as interested in baseball as they were in the past. If all the best black pitchers were in the league there may be a lot more good ones and maybe a few who are just as good as Roger is now.

[Ubiquitous]

What is a black athlete, what is a white athlete, and why is a black athletes genetics so much better then mine? Its all hogwash, there is no such thing as a black athlete or a white athlete. I'm white yet my entire family background is going to be completely different then yours. Races are not pure and they probably never were. Yet because we have the same skin color we are supposed to have the same genetic predisposition? Why? Life isn't that general. There are blacks straight from sub sahara africa that compete and have never mixed with any blacks or outside races from africa. There are North Africans who all they have done is mix with other races for millenias. There are west africans who have mixed with europeans, americans, north and south. Yet because they might all share the same pigment color they are supposed to have the same genetic advantage.

There is no such thing as the average white man or average black man. We are way too diverse to be speaking in these kinds of generalities, especially when it comes to genetics and breeding.

[Victory Faust]

It always cracks me up when someone says, "blacks dominate sports" -- especially when it's coupled with the ridiculous notion that blacks are somehow more gifted physically than other races.

First of all, which blacks are we talking about? How many pygmies dominate sports? Are pygmies not also black?

And how many black folks do you see dominating ping pong? Does the fact that the Chinese have traditionally dominated ping pong mean they have better reflexes that other races?

And what about the explosion of Latin players in baseball over the last decade or two? Have Latinos suddenly developed some physical trait that has propelled them into the baseball stratosphere?

Have Eastern Europeans suddenly developed some physical trait that is allowing them to infiltrate the NBA?

It is obvious to anyone who cares to look that sociology is the determining factor in why a particular race is drawn to a particular sport.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The big picture here is not whether of not athletic skill is as large a factor in baseball as it is in other sports-the picture is that baseball is missing out on a very large pool of athletes that it was getting before.
You are simply wrong. Chris. I am asserting that the "missing large pool of black athletes" has no higher basebal potential as a group than any other groups and they have been replaced by equally talented Latin star players.


And, yes, it is true that blacks percentage wise have more professional athletes in all the major sports (NBA, NFL, MLB). It is less so in baseball, but they still do much better than other races. It is my opinion that that has made the modern game worse than the game in the 1970s, because they are missing out of the black players.
Wll opinions are fine but where is your evidence? Mearly stating assertions is NOT evidence.


The lack of the black athlete is very, very relavent. It is the loss of over half of one of MLB's largest talent pools. And, it's not just the black bench players and pinch hitters we're losing, but also the stars. There aren't as many black stars today as they used to be.
I'll ask you again, please name me black players from the 1960s-70s that had real potential to be professional footbal and basketball players? The only ones that come to mind are Dick Allen, Dave Winfield, and Rickey Henderson. Can you also name modern football and basketball players today that could have been major leaguers?

Make an all star team of black players from the 1960s and 1970s and I guarantee it would be much, much better than an all star team of blacks today.

Oh, let's see, here's are a few off of the top of my head:
Barry Bonds
Gary Sheffield
Frank Thomas
Ken Griffey Jr.
Rickey Henderson (recently retired)
Dontrelle Willis
C.C Sabathia
Cliff Floyd
Mo Vaghn (before he got fat)
Cecil Fielder (before he got fat)
Tim Raines
Fred McGriff
Joe Carter
Eric Davis
Daryl Strawberry
Tony Gywnn


All these players have played since the 1980s and some are still active. You are also missing one thing-- The great Latin ballplayers:

Albert Pujols
Vlad Guererro
Alex Rodriguez
Miguel Tejeda
Alfonso Soriano
Manny Ramirez
Alex Cabrera
Johan Santana
Mariano Rivera
Pedro Martinez
Ivan Rodriguez
Bobby Abreu
Carlos Beltran
David Ortiz
Fancisco Rodriguez
Carlos Delgado

Who was the Pujols of the 1960s-70? How was the A-Rod of the 1960s-70s? Who was the Manny Ramirez, the I-Rod, the Pedro Martinez of the 1960s-70s? The 1960s-70s had no equivalent Pujols, Manny, A-Rod, Soriano, Ortiz, etc. The modern Latin power hitter has really come to the forfront in recent years. This is the key point I want to make. What ever black star player that may have been lost to other sports has been equally replaced by the new 21 century latin star players. Hence the loss of the so-called black star player has no effect of the quality of baseball.

And you still failed to address my issue with the phrase "higher quality". If the 1960s-70s baseball was of a "higher quality" than today can you show convincing evidence that the 1960s-70s teams would be able to defeat modern teams on a consistent basis.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

But that's the whole point-blacks just don't seem to be as interested in baseball as they were in the past. If all the best black pitchers were in the league there may be a lot more good ones and maybe a few who are just as good as Roger is now.

How do you know this? Have you conducted a poll of African Americans to determine what sports they'd rather play?

[538280]

You are simply wrong. Chris. I am asserting that the "missing large pool of black athletes" has no higher basebal potential as a group than any other groups and the yahave been replaced by equally talented Latin star players.

But it does have a higher potential. It is a fact that blacks do proportionally better at baseball than other races. Therefore, you can logically assume that the blacks the game is missing would be better than the replacements the game has, which is whites and hispanics.


Wll opinions are fine but where is your evidence? Mearly stating assertions is NOT evidence.

I don't have any evidence. But is there any evidence when we are talking quality of play? Not really. Quality of play in baseball is really something that there are only opinions on. We will never know the real answer, but we can use factors to come up with logical possibilities.



Oh, let's see, here's are a few off of the top of my head:
Barry Bonds
Gary Sheffield
Frank Thomas
Ken Griffey Jr.
Rickey Henderson (recently retired)
Dontrelle Willis
C.C Sabathia
Cliff Floyd
Mo Vaghn (before he got fat)
Cecil Fielder (before he got fat)
Tim Raines
Fred McGriff
Joe Carter
Eric Davis
Daryl Strawberry
Tony Gywnn

That's all good, but still, the blacks of the 1960s and 1970s were still better. I'm pressed for time right now, so I can't make up a list, but I'm very confident that the 1960s/70s blacks would beat those guys in a game.


All these players have played since the 1980s and some are still active. You are also missing one thing-- The great Latin ballplayers:

Albert Pujols
Vlad Guererro
Alex Rodriguez
Miguel Tejeda
Alfonso Soriano
Manny Ramirez
Alex Cabrera
Johan Santana
Mariano Rivera
Pedro Martinez
Ivan Rodriguez
Bobby Abreu
Carlos Beltran
David Ortiz
Fancisco Rodriguez
Carlos Delgado

Who was the Pujols of the 1960s-70? How was the A-Rod of the 1960s-70s? Who was the Manny Ramirez, the I-Rod, the Pedro Martinez of the 1960s-70s? The 1960s-70s had no equivalent Pujols, Manny, A-Rod, Soriano, Ortiz, etc. The modern Latin power hitter has really come to the forfront in recent years. This is the key point I want to make. What ever black star player that may have been lost to other sports has been equally replaced by the new 21 century latin star players. Hence the loss of the so-called black star player has no effect of the quality of baseball.

I've talked about this on another thread-the influx of Latin players in baseball has lots to do with the lack of an international draft and very little to do with increased interest from Hispanics.

Also, part of the reason there are more Latin players is because baseball in the US has taken a bit of a slide. They make up for each other, but based on history I think the lack of interest from Americans is a bigger factor.


And you still failed to address my issue with the phrase "higher quality". If the 1960s-70s baseball was of a "higher quality" than today can you show convincing evidence that the 1960s-70s teams would be able to defeat modern teams on a consistent basis.

I can't show you evidence. But, you can't show me evidence that a modern team would defeat a 1970s team on a consistent basis. This is all theoretical, we'll never be able to come up with any definitive proof.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

But it does have a higher potential. It is a fact that blacks do proportionally better at baseball than other races. Therefore, you can logically assume that the blacks the game is missing would be better than the replacements the game has, which is whites and hispanics.
Again you are mearly asserting a statement without any evidence. Black players at their peak contsituted about 27% of MLB. That's about how many latin players are in the majors today. In the minors it's well over 40% Latin. Black players never made up over 40% of the minors at any time in history.


I don't have any evidence. But is there any evidence when we are talking quality of play? Not really. Quality of play in baseball is really something that there are only opinions on. We will never know the real answer, but we can use factors to come up with logical possibilities.
So you admit you have NO evidence for your position. So why do you state i tso domatically as if it were some logical tautology. SABR Matt has a thread in the Sabermetrics forum dealing with the quality of play through the years. He at least trying to use a scientific methold to study the issue of quality of play.


That's all good, but still, the blacks of the 1960s and 1970s were still better. I'm pressed for time right now, so I can't make up a list, but I'm very confident that the 1960s/70s blacks would beat those guys in a game.
Again, another assertion without evidence. I'll wait for your list, though. And you can't use Aaron, Mays, or Robinson since these three players came up in the 1950s.


I've talked about this on another thread-the influx of Latin players in baseball has lots to do with the lack of an international draft and very little to do with increased interest from Hispanics.
Yes, I read that post but I do not agree. The lack of international draft allows for more opportunity for the Latin players and American prospects. MLB has established baseball academies in several countries. This allows them to scout the best Latin talent. The best of the best are signed at a very young age. They don't have to compete with American prospects for draft spots. Also this gives more opportunity for American prospects because since the latin players are not in the draft the American prospects have a better chance of being drafted.


Also, part of the reason there are more Latin players is because baseball in the US has taken a bit of a slide. They make up for each other, but based on history I think the lack of interest from Americans is a bigger factor.
If there is downward pattern of lack on interest in America that would mean the groups that lack interest in baseball simply won't have any "lost" potential ballplayers. Look at it this way. How many potental ballplyers are in Russia? Very very few. Until recently they had no baseball at. So since there was no baseball culture by definition there was no viable baseball talent.


I can't show you evidence. But, you can't show me evidence that a modern team would defeat a 1970s team on a consistent basis. This is all theoretical, we'll never be able to come up with any definitive proof.
I don't have to show you evidence. You are the one making the assertion that baseball of the 1960s-70s was stronger than today's game. The "burden of proof" is on you, not me, to present evidence for that claim.

[TonyK]

It was thought that the Irish were superior in baseball compared with other nationalities around a hundred years ago. Look at their numbers in the ML's back then and you would assume they had an edge in genetic ability.

I have noticed that more professional soccer teams around the globe have many players from Africa playing for them.

[mac195]

Honus, you make some good points but I don't think you have debunked anything. Your basic premise, that potentially great black baseball players have not been lost to other sports in the last 30 years, is not supported by the evidence.


The percentage of blacks in baseball peaked in 1977 with 27%. Today it is 10%. But what players have been lost. Mostly the backups and pinch hitters have been lost.
The % of black Americans in the top ranks of the game has also declined dramatically.


What current basektball and football players could have been major leaguers today? I don't consider a 6'10" power foward to be a good baseball prospect.
Obviously not, but what about all the guards, including all those who weren't quite quick or tall enough for the NBA, but might have had the hand/eye coordination to excell in baseball if they had played the sport from an early age.

[Bench 5]

Honus, you make some good points but I don't think you have debunked anything. Your basic premise, that potentially great black baseball players have not been lost to other sports in the last 30 years, is not supported by the evidence.


The % of black Americans in the top ranks of the game has also declined dramatically.


Obviously not, but what about all the guards, including all those who weren't quite quick or tall enough for the NBA, but might have had the hand/eye coordination to excell in baseball if they had played the sport from an early age.

Like Michael Jordan? Sorry that was too easy. :crazy Same goes for Danny Ainge although Ainge was much better than Jordan in baseball.

The original argument was essentially that blacks are better athletes because they dominate in track, basketball and to a lesser extent in football. And since blacks are better athletes under this line of thinking, you can infer that the athletic ability within any one sport can be measured by the % of the players that are black. So if the % of blacks in baseball is less than what it was 30 years ago, the level of play has gone down. That is ludicrous.

I could just as easily cherry pick a few sports, take a snapshot of the current demographics within those sports, use those sports to define athleticism, and then use that as a barometer. If I choose decathletes, weightlifting, tennis, and hockey, one can assert that caucasians are better athletes. But that's nonsense just like the original argument that blacks are better athletes because there's a high % that play in certain sports.

The bottom line is that the cream rises to the top. Individuals compete to make it to the majors, not races of people.

[mac195]

What is a black athlete, what is a white athlete, and why is a black athletes genetics so much better then mine? Its all hogwash, there is no such thing as a black athlete or a white athlete. I'm white yet my entire family background is going to be completely different then yours. Races are not pure and they probably never were. Yet because we have the same skin color we are supposed to have the same genetic predisposition? Why? Life isn't that general. There are blacks straight from sub sahara africa that compete and have never mixed with any blacks or outside races from africa. There are North Africans who all they have done is mix with other races for millenias. There are west africans who have mixed with europeans, americans, north and south. Yet because they might all share the same pigment color they are supposed to have the same genetic advantage.

There is no such thing as the average white man or average black man. We are way too diverse to be speaking in these kinds of generalities, especially when it comes to genetics and breeding.
You are setting up strawmen to knock down. No, nobody is a better athlete because they have dark pigmentation. And no, people with dark pigmentation don't all have the same genetic background. Nobody believes that.

However, ancestry does play a role in in athleticism. Every 100-meter finalist in the past 5 Olympics has had a substantial amount of West African ancestry. The chances of that being a coincidence are infintesimal. Athletes of West African heritage, including most black American and Carribean athletes, are faster on average. That isn't as important for baseball as it is for football or basketball, but it is important.

Say you have a group 1000 young baseball players, 500 white and Asian, and 500 blacks of West African ancestry. Scouts rate the two groups as identical in all skills - hitting, throwing, even temprement. But speed has not been evaluated. Which group are you going to build your team from? I think the obvious choice would be the black group because, without even testing them, you can be almost 100% certain that they are faster on average.

[mac195]

Like Michael Jordan? Sorry that was too easy. Same goes for Danny Ainge although Ainge was much better than Jordan in baseball.
Obviously not all NBA guards could have been Major League baseball players. Nobody thinks that. Nobody is arguing that.


The bottom line is that the cream rises to the top. Individuals compete to make it to the majors, not races of people.
Yes. And in sports where speed is important, a higher percentage of black athletes of West African ancestry will rise to the top than will athletes of other ancestral groups. And if blacks stop playing one of these speed-oriented sports, for whatever reason, the overall quality of play in that sport will go down, other factors being equal.

[mac195]

It is obvious to anyone who cares to look that sociology is the determining factor in why a particular race is drawn to a particular sport.

I've looked at the issue and it is obvious to me that both social/cultural factors and aptitude are important in determining who becomes a pro athlete and in which sport. There is no good non-PC reason to rule out the importance of natural apptitude entirely.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Honus, you make some good points but I don't think you have debunked anything. Your basic premise, that potentially great black baseball players have not been lost to other sports in the last 30 years, is not supported by the evidence.
No, my presmise is although baseball may have lost some "great athletes" to other sports this does not lower the quality of play because other great athletes from other nations have picked up the slack.



The % of black Americans in the top ranks of the game has also declined dramatically.
See reply above.



Obviously not, but what about all the guards, including all those who weren't quite quick or tall enough for the NBA, but might have had the hand/eye coordination to excell in baseball if they had played the sport from an early age.
But how do you quantify this? Can you name specific examples?

[Bench 5]

Obviously not all NBA guards could have been Major League baseball players. Nobody thinks that. Nobody is arguing that.

I think the vast majority of athletes that have the ability to play multiple sports do just that. And they stick with the sport that they either like the best or the sport that gives them the best chance to succeed at a higher level. If your assertion is correct, then name the NBA guards that had success in high school or college baseball. I don't think there's very many.

Yes. And in sports where speed is important, a higher percentage of black athletes of West African ancestry will rise to the top than will athletes of other ancestral groups. And if blacks stop playing one of these speed-oriented sports, for whatever reason, the overall quality of play in that sport will go down, other factors being equal.

Speed over what distances? West Africans are noted for running fast sprints but they are not noted for running long distances very well. Basketball is just as much a game of endurance as speed. But using your argument then why has the rest of the world caught up and arguably exceeded the NBA in basketball? Since 80% of the NBA is black and most of the recent "Dream Teams" have consisted of black players, based upon your argument they shouldn't lose to a team consisting of players of non-West African ancestry.

The number one factor for the quality of play is pitching. Good pitching will always beat good hitting. I don't think there's any doubt that the pitching today is as good as it's ever been. Most of the best pitchers are latins and white guys.

[Ubiquitous]

You are setting up strawmen to knock down. No, nobody is a better athlete because they have dark pigmentation. And no, people with dark pigmentation don't all have the same genetic background. Nobody believes that.

However, ancestry does play a role in in athleticism. Every 100-meter finalist in the past 5 Olympics has had a substantial amount of West African ancestry. The chances of that being a coincidence are infintesimal. Athletes of West African heritage, including most black American and Carribean athletes, are faster on average. That isn't as important for baseball as it is for football or basketball, but it is important.

Say you have a group 1000 young baseball players, 500 white and Asian, and 500 blacks of West African ancestry. Scouts rate the two groups as identical in all skills - hitting, throwing, even temprement. But speed has not been evaluated. Which group are you going to build your team from? I think the obvious choice would be the black group because, without even testing them, you can be almost 100% certain that they are faster on average.

Actually most people do think athletes are better based on skin color and those who think they are enlightened move past the pigment of the skin and says its genetics. You for one think west africans have superior athletic genetics, and I think I can assume that when you are talking about west africans you are not talking about whites who had family that moved there 200 years ago.

West African ancestry? White Athlete? Again what does that mean? So if some athlete has 5% west african in him he is better then some white guy who has spanish, itlian, and german in him? Saying the last world record holders had west african ancestry therefore west african are faster on average is meaningless without controlling factors, which are not present. Who trained them, where did they train, how long did they train, who did they compete against, what was there background, what other similarities did these world record holders have, what differences, what is their total ancestral background? What was their environment?

[mac195]

No, my presmise is although baseball may have lost some "great athletes" to other sports this does not lower the quality of play because other great athletes from other nations have picked up the slack.
That may be so. It's hard to say. But I think clearly the quality is lower than it would be if black American kids were still playing baseball as much as they did prior to about 1970.



But how do you quantify this? Can you name specific examples?
I don't know that citing individual cases would add much to an argument about groups. A lot of fast, strong, agile, black athletes are playing basketball and football. A certain number of them also have the necessary hand/eye coordination to be good baseball players, but will never develop high level baseball skills because they don't play the sport. Do you dispute any of that?

[mac195]

Speed over what distances? West Africans are noted for running fast sprints but they are not noted for running long distances very well.
That's true. I am talking about sprinting speed.


Basketball is just as much a game of endurance as speed.
Come on... you've got to be reasonably fit to play basketball, but world class endurance is certainly not required. If the NBA held a marathon race, I doubt if you'd see many players putting up good times. I'd be surpirsed if any of them could run it in under 3 hours. On the other hand, a lot of the guards could put up decent times in a 50 meter dash. And the big men are all pretty fast... for big men.



But using your argument then why has the rest of the world caught up and arguably exceeded the NBA in basketball? Since 80% of the NBA is black and most of the recent "Dream Teams" have consisted of black players, based upon your argument they shouldn't lose to a team consisting of players of non-West African ancestry.
The NBA is still far and away the best basketball league in the world. Maybe you mean to say that some other countries have caught up to the US in international competitions, and that is true. The athleticism advantage helps blacks of West African ancestry excel in basketball. But it isn't enough anymore to ensure that teams of black American all-stars will win every time, not now that large numbers of very well trained and practiced Europeans are playing the sport. Basketball is a game of skill and strategy (and height), not just quickness and jumping ability. But how can anyone who watches a lot of basketball question the obvious fact that the most athletic players on the court are black?

[mac195]

Actually most people do think athletes are better based on skin color and those who think they are enlightened move past the pigment of the skin and says its genetics. You for one think west africans have superior athletic genetics, and I think I can assume that when you are talking about west africans you are not talking about whites who had family that moved there 200 years ago.
Yes.


West African ancestry? White Athlete? Again what does that mean? So if some athlete has 5% west african in him he is better then some white guy who has spanish, itlian, and german in him?
Of course not. I'm talking about group tendancies, not individuals. Take a random group of 1000 black athletes of West African ancestry, and a random group of 1000 white athletes. Time them all for the 50 meter dash. The black average time will be lower, and blacks will put up the vast majority of the top overall times. However, if you take just one black and one white, you cannot predict with any certainty who will be faster.


Saying the last world record holders had west african ancestry therefore west african are faster on average is meaningless without controlling factors, which are not present. Who trained them, where did they train, how long did they train, who did they compete against, what was there background, what other similarities did these world record holders have, what differences, what is their total ancestral background? What was their environment?
This is like saying that we can't know how the weather is without a battery of meteorological instruments on hand. Just look out the window for crying out loud. Watch the Olympics and the other major track events. Look at the records. All the top sprinters come from the same populaiton group. Is there any reason to believe that black sprinters recieve better training, nutritional programs, practice facilities, etc.? No. Blacks of West African ancestry dominate the sprints because that population group produces athletes with body types most suited to sprinting.

[Ubiquitous]

Again though you have no idea what the population group really is. Nor do you really know if 1000 west african's are faster then 1000 "white" (whatever a white is). You are guessing at both. You are guessing that others things are equal or not important.

This is called an opinion, but it is not facts it is not scientific. Its anecdotal evidence, you see a black player winning or lots of blacks competing therefore they are the best because of genetics. But you haven't done any kind of real research into why they are there. You are just assuming it is because they are black.

[Bench 5]

That's true. I am talking about sprinting speed.


Come on... you've got to be reasonably fit to play basketball, but world class endurance is certainly not required. If the NBA held a marathon race, I doubt if you'd see many players putting up good times. I'd be surpirsed if any of them could run it in under 3 hours. On the other hand, a lot of the guards could put up decent times in a 50 meter dash. And the big men are all pretty fast... for big men.



The NBA is still far and away the best basketball league in the world. Maybe you mean to say that some other countries have caught up to the US in international competitions, and that is true. The athleticism advantage helps blacks of West African ancestry excel in basketball. But it isn't enough anymore to ensure that teams of black American all-stars will win every time, not now that large numbers of very well trained and practiced Europeans are playing the sport. Basketball is a game of skill and strategy (and height), not just quickness and jumping ability. But how can anyone who watches a lot of basketball question the obvious fact that the most athletic players on the court are black?

So all of the Euro- players are well-trained whereas the American black players are simply exceptional athletes? I watch a lot of basketball and I don't agree that the most athletic players are all black. You can go back throughout the history of the sport and there's never been a 7 footer that can ballhandle, shoot, and run the floor like Dirk Nowitski. Never. You see a lot of forwards and centers from the European countries that can dribble and shoot like a guard. That takes great athletic talent. How have the teams from West Africa done in basketball in the Olympics? Not very well.

You are taking a snapshot of the top runners from the sprinting events and using that as the basis for defining athleticism. If you took the same snapshot 30-40 years ago there were many top runners that were not of West African descent. Most of the weightlifting records are held by men of Europeans descent.

[Victory Faust]

I've looked at the issue and it is obvious to me that both social/cultural factors and aptitude are important in determining who becomes a pro athlete and in which sport. There is no good non-PC reason to rule out the importance of natural apptitude entirely.


So, please explain to me what "natural aptitude" Hispanics have developed over the past 30 years that has allowed them to dominate baseball.

And, once again: Do the Chinese have some natural aptitude that allows them to dominate ping pong?

Do whites have a natural aptitude to swim better than blacks?

[538280]

HWR,

I still think quality of play is a theoretical thing, not really a thing that you can provide any evidence for, just theories. But, I'll do the best I can to provide evidence for you. The evidence has to do with relative stats. Obviously, the more competitive the league is, the harder it would be to post superhuman relative stats. So, I took the top 100 years of all time in OPS+ and ERA+ and arranged them by year:


OPS+
Rank Player (age that year) Adjusted OPS+ Year Bats
Rank Player (age that year) Adjusted OPS+ Year Bats
Rank Player (age that year) Adjusted OPS+ Year Bats
3 Barry Bonds* (39) 260 2004 L
Barry Bonds* (38) 231 2003 L
1 Barry Bonds* (37) 275 2002 L
Jim Thome* (31) 191 2002 L
Manny Ramirez (30) 190 2002 R
2 Barry Bonds* (36) 262 2001 L
Jason Giambi* (30) 202 2001 L
Sammy Sosa (32) 201 2001 R
Barry Bonds* (35) 191 2000 L
21 Mark McGwire (34) 217 1998 R
Mark McGwire (32) 203 1996 R
Gary Sheffield (27) 190 1996 R
24 Jeff Bagwell (26) 213 1994 R
25 Frank Thomas (26) 212 1994 R
82 Albert Belle (27) 192 1994 R
36 Barry Bonds* (28) 206 1993 L
40 Barry Bonds* (27) 205 1992 L
Kevin Mitchell (27) 192 1989 R
Mike Schmidt+ (31) 199 1981 R
47 George Brett+* (27) 202 1980 L
55 Dick Allen (30) 200 1972 R
71 Hank Aaron+ (37) 194 1971 R
26 Willie McCovey+* (31) 211 1969 L
Carl Yastrzemski+* (27) 195 1967 L
Frank Robinson+ (30) 199 1966 R
Mickey Mantle+# (30) 196 1962 B
Mickey Mantle+# (29) 206 1961 B
Norm Cash* (26) 201 1961 L
9 Ted Williams+* (38) 233 1957 L
14 Mickey Mantle+# (25) 223 1957 B
Mickey Mantle+# (24) 210 1956 B
Ted Williams+* (35) 201 1954 L
Ted Williams+* (30) 192 1949 L
Stan Musial+* (27) 200 1948 L
Ted Williams+* (28) 205 1947 L
23 Ted Williams+* (27) 215 1946 L
Ted Williams+* (23) 217 1942 L
8 Ted Williams+* (22) 235 1941 L
Lou Gehrig+* (33) 190 1936 L
Arky Vaughan+* (23) 190 1935 L
32 Lou Gehrig+* (31) 208 1934 L
Jimmie Foxx+ (25) 200 1933 R
Jimmie Foxx+ (24) 205 1932 R
Babe Ruth+* (37) 201 1932 L
Babe Ruth+* (36) 219 1931 L
69 Lou Gehrig+* (28) 195 1931 L
Babe Ruth+* (35) 211 1930 L
45 Lou Gehrig+* (27) 203 1930 L
Babe Ruth+* (34) 194 1929 L
Babe Ruth+* (33) 208 1928 L
Rogers Hornsby+ (32) 200 1928 R
Lou Gehrig+* (25) 194 1928 L
13 Babe Ruth+* (32) 226 1927 L
17 Lou Gehrig+* (24) 221 1927 L
12 Babe Ruth+* (31) 227 1926 L
29 Rogers Hornsby+ (29) 210 1925 R
Rogers Hornsby+ (28) 222 1924 R
18 Babe Ruth+* (29) 220 1924 L
Babe Ruth+* (28) 239 1923 L
Harry Heilmann+ (28) 194 1923 R
Rogers Hornsby+ (26) 207 1922 R
6 Babe Ruth+* (26) 239 1921 L
Rogers Hornsby+ (25) 190 1921 R
4 Babe Ruth+* (25) 255 1920 L
19 Babe Ruth+* (24) 219 1919 L
Babe Ruth+* (23) 194 1918 L
79 Ty Cobb+* (31) 193 1918 L
31 Ty Cobb+* (30) 209 1917 L
Ty Cobb+* (27) 190 1914 L
Ty Cobb+* (26) 194 1913 L
Joe Jackson* (23) 192 1913 L
Ty Cobb+* (25) 200 1912 L
Joe Jackson* (22) 192 1912 L
66 Ty Cobb+* (24) 196 1911 L
Joe Jackson* (21) 193 1911 L
Ty Cobb+* (23) 206 1910 L
Nap Lajoie+ (35) 199 1910 R
Ty Cobb+* (22) 194 1909 L
Honus Wagner+ (34) 205 1908 R
George Stone* (28) 192 1906 L
Nap Lajoie+ (29) 205 1904 R
Nap Lajoie+ (26) 200 1901 R
Ed Delahanty+ (28) 190 1896 R
Denny Lyons (24) 194 1890 R
Tip O'Neill (29) 211 1887 R
Dan Brouthers+* (28) 206 1886 L
Bob Caruthers* (22) 200 1886 L
King Kelly+ (28) 191 1886 R
49 Dan Brouthers+* (27) 201 1885 L
Roger Connor+* (27) 201 1885 L
Dave Orr (25) 192 1885 R
95 Pete Browning (24) 190 1885 R
5 Fred Dunlap (25) 250 1884 R
Orator Shaffer* (32) 196 1884 L
Dave Orr (24) 192 1884 R
15 Pete Browning (21) 222 1882 R
62 Dan Brouthers+* (24) 199 1882 L
Ed Swartwood* (23) 193 1882 L
90 Cap Anson+ (29) 191 1881 R
Deacon White* (29) 191 1877 L
10 Ross Barnes (26) 231 1876 R
34 George Hall* (27) 207 1876 L


ERA+
Rank Player (age that year) Adjusted ERA+ Year Throws
16 Roger Clemens (42) 221 2005 R
Johan Santana* (25) 182 2004 L
Pedro Martinez (31) 212 2003 R
Jason Schmidt (30) 183 2003 R
Pedro Martinez (30) 196 2002 R
Randy Johnson* (38) 190 2002 L
76 Randy Johnson* (37) 184 2001 L
2 Pedro Martinez (28) 285 2000 R
9 Pedro Martinez (27) 245 1999 R
Randy Johnson* (35) 178 1999 L
Greg Maddux (32) 191 1998 R
12 Roger Clemens (34) 226 1997 R
Pedro Martinez (25) 221 1997 R
37 Randy Johnson* (33) 198 1997 L
Greg Maddux (31) 191 1997 R
22 Kevin Brown (31) 214 1996 R
Juan Guzman (29) 181 1996 R
Greg Maddux (29) 259 1995 R
39 Randy Johnson* (31) 196 1995 L
4 Greg Maddux (28) 273 1994 R
97 Kevin Appier (25) 178 1993 R
27 Roger Clemens (27) 211 1990 R
Bret Saberhagen (25) 178 1989 R
Dwight Gooden (20) 226 1985 R
John Tudor* (31) 183 1985 L
43 Nolan Ryan+ (34) 194 1981 R
29 Ron Guidry* (27) 208 1978 L
Steve Carlton+* (27) 182 1972 L
Tom Seaver+ (26) 193 1971 R
Wilbur Wood* (29) 188 1971 L
78 Vida Blue* (21) 183 1971 L
7 Bob Gibson+ (32) 258 1968 R
Luis Tiant (27) 184 1968 R
Sandy Koufax+* (30) 190 1966 L
35 Dean Chance (23) 200 1964 R
70 Sandy Koufax+* (28) 187 1964 L
Joe Horlen (26) 183 1964 R
73 Hank Aguirre* (31) 185 1962 L
Billy Pierce* (28) 201 1955 L
Warren Spahn+* (32) 188 1953 L
84 Harry Brecheen* (33) 182 1948 L
65 Hal Newhouser+* (25) 188 1946 L
Hal Newhouser+* (24) 195 1945 L
38 Spud Chandler (35) 197 1943 R
48 Mort Cooper (29) 192 1942 R
Lefty Grove+* (39) 185 1939 L
Monty Stratton (25) 192 1937 R
50 Lefty Gomez+* (28) 191 1937 L
88 Johnny Allen (31) 181 1937 R
Lefty Grove+* (36) 190 1936 L
Carl Hubbell+* (30) 193 1933 L
18 Lefty Grove+* (31) 219 1931 L
Dazzy Vance+ (39) 189 1930 R
Lefty Grove+* (30) 185 1930 L
Dazzy Vance+ (37) 191 1928 R
33 Dolf Luque (32) 201 1923 R
Walter Johnson+ (31) 214 1919 R
Walter Johnson+ (30) 214 1918 R
14 Pete Alexander+ (28) 225 1915 R
Walter Johnson+ (27) 191 1915 R
Joe Wood (25) 187 1915 R
Fred Toney (26) 181 1915 R
3 Dutch Leonard* (22) 279 1914 L
Russ Ford (31) 181 1914 R
5 Walter Johnson+ (25) 259 1913 R
72 Eddie Cicotte (29) 186 1913 R
10 Walter Johnson+ (24) 240 1912 R
93 Joe Wood (22) 180 1912 R
61 Vean Gregg* (26) 189 1911 L
Ed Walsh+ (29) 189 1910 R
Walter Johnson+ (22) 183 1910 R
Jack Coombs (27) 182 1910 R
15 Christy Mathewson+ (28) 222 1909 R
45 Mordecai Brown+ (32) 193 1909 R
Orval Overall (28) 178 1909 R
30 Addie Joss+ (28) 205 1908 R
Cy Young+ (41) 194 1908 R
19 Jack Pfiester* (29) 216 1907 L
25 Carl Lundgren (27) 212 1907 R
94 Mordecai Brown+ (30) 179 1907 R
8 Mordecai Brown+ (29) 253 1906 R
11 Christy Mathewson+ (24) 230 1905 R
28 Ed Reulbach (22) 209 1905 R
Rube Waddell+* (28) 179 1905 L
32 Jack Taylor (28) 202 1902 R
Ed Siever* (25) 191 1902 L
Rube Waddell+* (25) 179 1902 L
Cy Young+ (34) 216 1901 R
56 Clark Griffith+ (28) 190 1898 R
Billy Rhines (27) 188 1896 R
41 Al Maul (29) 195 1895 R
Amos Rusie+ (23) 189 1894 R
Billy Rhines (21) 183 1890 R
Jack Stivetts (21) 188 1889 R
36 Silver King (20) 199 1888 R
Henry Boyle (25) 181 1886 R
Charley Radbourn+ (29) 205 1884 R
21 Denny Driscoll* (26) 215 1882 L
Guy Hecker (26) 190 1882 R
1 Tim Keefe+ (23) 294 1880 R

Now, out of the data for OPS+, we have:

6 from the 1960s
2 from the 1970s
3 from the 1980s
8 from the 1990s
8 from the 2000s

That shows that there have certainly been more players separating from the league by huge margins in the present day. This obviously shows that there were less players who separated from league in the 1970s than the present day.

[mac195]

Again though you have no idea what the population group really is. Nor do you really know if 1000 west african's are faster then 1000 "white" (whatever a white is). You are guessing at both. You are guessing that others things are equal or not important.

This is called an opinion, but it is not facts it is not scientific.

Sigh...

This is my own hypothetical experiment Ubiquitous, meant illustrate a point of logic. Yes, within my hypothetical, all relavent variables are controled for.


You are just assuming it is because they are black
No. Nobody is anything because of their skin pigmentation. People who can run fast and jump high can do so primarily because they were born with a certain body type and musculature that are suited to those skills. These sorts of body types are more common in those of West African descent. All tests of athletic ability confirm that. Anyone who watches sports can see it.

[mac195]

So all of the Euro- players are well-trained whereas the American black players are simply exceptional athletes?
No, of course not. But that is the tendancy. Whites tend to excel in basketball skills which require lots of solitary practice time, like free throw and 3-point shooting. Blacks excel at dunking the ball.



I watch a lot of basketball and I don't agree that the most athletic players are all black.
No, not all. But again, that is the obvious tendancy.


You can go back throughout the history of the sport and there's never been a 7 footer that can ballhandle, shoot, and run the floor like Dirk Nowitski. Never. You see a lot of forwards and centers from the European countries that can dribble and shoot like a guard. That takes great athletic talent. How have the teams from West Africa done in basketball in the Olympics? Not very well.
I am not talking about learned skills like dribbling and shooting. I mean quickness and leaping ability. As for West Africans, most aren't all that tall, probably due to poor nutrition, and they don't play all that much basketball. Soccer is the sport of choice there. Lots of West Africans play first rate soccer, especially those who live in European countries.




You are taking a snapshot of the top runners from the sprinting events and using that as the basis for defining athleticism. If you took the same snapshot 30-40 years ago there were many top runners that were not of West African descent. Most of the weightlifting records are held by men of Europeans descent.
I am not saying that speed is the only kind of athleticism. Weightlifting obviously requires a completely different sort of body type than does sprinting. And there does seem to be a tendancy toward people of European decent having the best bodies for that sport.

[Bench 5]

HWR,

I still think quality of play is a theoretical thing, not really a thing that you can provide any evidence for, just theories. But, I'll do the best I can to provide evidence for you. The evidence has to do with relative stats. Obviously, the more competitive the league is, the harder it would be to post superhuman relative stats. So, I took the top 100 years of all time in OPS+ and ERA+ and arranged them by year:

Now, out of the data for OPS+, we have:

6 from the 1960s
2 from the 1970s
3 from the 1980s
8 from the 1990s
8 from the 2000s

That shows that there have certainly been more players separating from the league by huge margins in the present day. This obviously shows that there were less players who separated from league in the 1970s than the present day.

1) There are more players in the league than there were in the 60 - 80s so you'd expect that the % of players that excel will go up proportionately. I realize that the last two decades still have a greater % but that is a factor.

2) The majority of the non-pitcher seasons that exceeded the threshhold in the 90s and 00s were by players that have strong connections to performance enhancers. I don't want to start an argument about who is guilty and who is innocent but in my opinion most of those seasons can be explained by the clear advantage these players had using PEers. Even if 50% of the rest of the league used them as well, that leaves 50% that are at a competitive disadvantage.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

HWR,

I still think quality of play is a theoretical thing, not really a thing that you can provide any evidence for, just theories. But, I'll do the best I can to provide evidence for you. The evidence has to do with relative stats. Obviously, the more competitive the league is, the harder it would be to post superhuman relative stats.
This is a flaw in this line of thinking. You are confusing the term "competitive" with "quality". It assumes that the "average player" or baseline are the same for different eras. You have not provided evidence for this.

Let me explain. Let's say we two groups of weightlifters. In Group A the "average" lifter can lift 400 pounds. The strongest in group A can lift 500 pounds. In Group B, the "average" lifter can lift 500 pounds. The strongest of Group B can lift 650 pounds. Group A is more competive that Group B since the strongest of Group A hasn't distanced himself as much as the strongest from Group B. But Group B is of higher quality because they can lift more absolute weight than Group A. Just because the ballplayers from the 1960s-70s couldn't separate themselves for the "average player" than they can today is NOT evidence that their league was of "higher quality", only that it is more "competitive". It's quite possible that the skills of the best players form the 1960s-70s was not as much above the average player the the skills of the current best above the "average" of today. Also you have not established that the "average" player of the 1960s-70s was equal or better than the "average" player of today.


That shows that there have certainly been more players separating from the league by huge margins in the present day. This obviously shows that there were less players who separated from league in the 1970s than the present day.
See reply above.

[Ubiquitous]

Sigh...

This is my own hypothetical experiment Ubiquitous, meant illustrate a point of logic. Yes, within my hypothetical, all relavent variables are controled for.

No. Nobody is anything because of their skin pigmentation. People who can run fast and jump high can do so primarily because they were born with a certain body type and musculature that are suited to those skills. These sorts of body types are more common in those of West African descent. All tests of athletic ability confirm that. Anyone who watches sports can see it.

But again what makes a person of West African descent and how much was in a person? What actual tests of athletic ability actually confirm it. I personally would love to see how some one or group is able to isolate and control all variables in human beings enough so that they could say with some confidence about our characteristics based on genetics. You put 10 blacks in a room and I guarantee you that there family trees are wildly divergent. You put 10 white guys in a room and I'm willing to bet the same. It isn't as simple as saying that people of west african descent are predisposed to better athletic traits because there are so many other things going on.

You are not saying its because of skin color directly but you are saying it is becuase they are west african. And again I don't think you are talking about White west africans. You are talking about virtually any black in the western hemisphere. So instead of saying that blacks are better athletes which is politically incorrect you say people of west african descent are better athletes. Which is simply the more polite and politically correct way of saying that blacks are better athletes.

[Joltin' Joe]

But again what makes a person of West African descent and how much was in a person? What actual tests of athletic ability actually confirm it. I personally would love to see how some one or group is able to isolate and control all variables in human beings enough so that they could say with some confidence about our characteristics based on genetics. You put 10 blacks in a room and I guarantee you that there family trees are wildly divergent. You put 10 white guys in a room and I'm willing to bet the same. It isn't as simple as saying that people of west african descent are predisposed to better athletic traits because there are so many other things going on.

You are not saying its because of skin color directly but you are saying it is becuase they are west african. And again I don't think you are talking about White west africans. You are talking about virtually any black in the western hemisphere. So instead of saying that blacks are better athletes which is politically incorrect you say people of west african descent are better athletes. Which is simply the more polite and politically correct way of saying that blacks are better athletes.

I don't know whether you just love to argue or you are trying to go out of your way to be incredibly "politically correct".

There has been plethora of studies done regarding genetic traits of the different human races. If one has been living under a rock and never read or heard of these studies, a simple googling of the internet should provide one with plenty of reading to catch up on. Caucasoids, Mongoloids, & Negroids are the official name for the three races. These studies do not state that Negroids are always the better athletes than the other two races. It however do find that there are certain traits that make the Negroid race superior in certain athletic activities as "most of us" are fully aware. It also states that the Negroid race is also inferior in certain activities due to their genetic trait. One of those activities is swimming. In general, the Negroid people have more bone density which makes them less buoyant. How many great Negroid swimmers can you name?
But in general, most of the "stereotyping" and "commonly held beliefs" are found to be true in these studies.
Yes there are always exceptions. For every Michael Jordan, Muhammed Ali, Edwin Moses & Willie Mays, there will always be a Steve Erkle. But in general these studies all pretty much come up with the same results.

[mac195]

But again what makes a person of West African descent and how much was in a person?
...a person with a substantial proportion of ancestors who lived in West Africa. It isn't necessary to specify the percise threshold. American "blacks" average about 80-85% West African ancestry, American "whites" about 1%, although most have none at all.


What actual tests of athletic ability actually confirm it.
Success in the world's most popular and lucrative speed-oriented sports (football, basketball, soccer, baseball) is probably the best overall test, success in track sprinting events the most percise test.


personally would love to see how some one or group is able to isolate and control all variables in human beings enough so that they could say with some confidence about our characteristics based on genetics.
Everything about the basic make-up of our bodies is determined by our genetic code. Maurice Green can run a lot faster than me because he has a combinaiton of genes that are better suited to sprinting than I do. There are no other non-genetic variables (training, nutriiton, etc.) that can even begin to explain the gap between his sprinting ability and mine.


You put 10 blacks in a room and I guarantee you that there family trees are wildly divergent. You put 10 white guys in a room and I'm willing to bet the same.
Sure, but you can also bet that the white people are more closely related to each other on average than they are to the black people, and that they share more genetic traits with each other. Races are very large extended families that are partially inbred.


It isn't as simple as saying that people of west african descent are predisposed to better athletic traits because there are so many other things going on.
What exactly do you think is going on that is more important than genetics in producing body types suited to sprinting? There is nothing. All world class sprinters are genetic freaks. No ordinary person can ever become a world class sprinter, no matter how well they train.


You are not saying its because of skin color directly but you are saying it is becuase they are west african.
No, I'm saying that body types suited to sprinting are more common in the West Africa descended population. Obviously there are lots of blacks who can't run fast at all. Nobody runs fast because they are black.

[digglahhh]

You know there are a lot of "studies" that propogated racist views under the auspices of science when the ulterior and primary motive was otherwise.

"Scientific" studies in early anthropology "proved" the "Negroids" to be governed by emotion and lacking in intellect.

IMO, much of this "science" is built upon assumptions that were manipulated in the first place in order to justify the subjigation of Africans into slavery. As the sabermetricians say, poor or incomplete data in- poor or incomplete data out.

Much of the evolution of athleticism and specific types of athletic skills is social. Are white people really better at equstrian, naturally, genetically. Or is it just more likely they are rich?

[Barnstormer]

Much of the evolution of athleticism and specific types of athletic skills is social. Are white people really better at equstrian, naturally, genetically. Or is it just more likely they are rich?

But do you think this applies to track and field? It's not as if there are no white sprinters at the college level, so you can't say that whites are socialized not to compete in track. How can you explain basically EVERY world record at every distance below 1000 meters is held by a person of West African descent and has been for 20 years? Do you realize the odds against that happening if race/genetics had nothing to do with it?

[digglahhh]

Well, to me track and field is only social on a small level. One, our society doesn't value glory in track and field the way it does in other major sports and as such there are probably a number of gifted athletes who never even participate in track and field. Two, there is a point where perception becomes reality. If the masses of white kids believe they are inferior to blacks in a particular sport, the prophecy is self fulfilled as the beliefs are codified through decreased participation and expectation.

Admittedly there is way more to this issue than that, but I did want to mention some social issues.

As to explaining the afforementioned phenomenon, if there are genetic/biological tendencies present in people from common lineages of certain geographical origins, this may offer an explanation for sprinting and such.

However, bringing the issue back to baseball- Baseball is a game of refined athleticism, while track and field is a lot more raw. Natural speed translates no more to the game of baseball as mere height does to basketball. A simple lack of "pure athleticism" in the MLB does not imply a direct causal relationship with a competitive standard that is below ideal. This is especially true as the game becomes further and further broken down and players' roles become more specific.

[digglahhh]

But in general, most of the "stereotyping" and "commonly held beliefs" are found to be true in these studies.

Partly because it was these types of studies which established and manufactured the stereotypes to begin with. Such findings are endemic in their legacy.

[538280]

This is a flaw in this line of thinking. You are confusing the term "competitive" with "quality". It assumes that the "average player" or baseline are the same for different eras. You have not provided evidence for this.

But isn't the whole point really to find out at what time the league was hardest to dominate? My whole reason for worrying about league quality is so that I can make adjustments to their relative stats or Win Shares. If we've determined that the 1970s were actually the toughest time to dominate, then hasn't that proven my point, that we should give 1970s players the biggest boost in league quality adjustments?


Let me explain. Let's say we two groups of weightlifters. In Group A the "average" lifter can lift 400 pounds. The strongest in group A can lift 500 pounds. In Group B, the "average" lifter can lift 500 pounds. The strongest of Group B can lift 650 pounds. Group A is more competive that Group B since the strongest of Group A hasn't distanced himself as much as the strongest from Group B. But Group B is of higher quality because they can lift more absolute weight than Group A. Just because the ballplayers from the 1960s-70s couldn't separate themselves for the "average player" than they can today is NOT evidence that their league was of "higher quality", only that it is more "competitive". It's quite possible that the skills of the best players form the 1960s-70s was not as much above the average player the the skills of the current best above the "average" of today. Also you have not established that the "average" player of the 1960s-70s was equal or better than the "average" player of today.

Yeah, that's true. But, the game has changed. Maybe 1970s players really weren't quite as fast or strong as today's, but we're comparing how they did in their own era, and then adjusting in some eras because it was harder to distance themselves from average. I'm not worried about how a player fromt the 1970s would do if "time machined" to today, I'm worried about how much they distanced from average and then adjusting because it was really hard to distance from average in their time. "Time machining" gets us nowhere. If you go by that method, then you'd probably come to the conclusion that all the best players ever played post 1950.

That said, though, I'm still not convinced the league today is really stronger than the league in 1975.

[Victory Faust]

How can you explain basically EVERY world record at every distance below 1000 meters is held by a person of West African descent and has been for 20 years? Do you realize the odds against that happening if race/genetics had nothing to do with it?


Okay, I'll ask this a third time:

Being that Asians dominate ping pong -- a sport where reflexes and hand-eye coordination are paramount -- does that mean Asians have superior reflexes and hand-eye coordination?

Why won't anyone address this? Maybe it's because it pokes holes in your argument?

[leecemark]

--Maybe it is because they take ping pong seriously there and we don't? When is the major league ping pong season? Its just something Americans do to kill some time in the basement.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

But isn't the whole point really to find out at what time the league was hardest to dominate? My whole reason for worrying about league quality is so that I can make adjustments to their relative stats or Win Shares. If we've determined that the 1970s were actually the toughest time to dominate, then hasn't that proven my point, that we should give 1970s players the biggest boost in league quality adjustments?
Yes, I agree. But you are interpreting data to mean one thing than may or may not be true. Again I go back to the issue of "competitiveness" and "quality". They are not the same thing. Competetiveness connotes an idea of how close in skill and production the elite players are with respect to the average player. Obviously, we can look at many different metrics to determined who had the most "value" in any given season. But it's another think to compare players from different era. Just because the 1970s elite players didn't distance themselves as much as current players is not, in itself, evidence that the 1970s leagues where stronger, but mearly more competitive. To determine which leagues were stronger you would have to match them up against modern teams. Would a 100 win team say from mid-1970s beat a modern 100 win team? Would a mid-1970s .500 team defeat a modern .500 team? Would a mid-70s 65 win team defeat a modern 65 win team. Another way would be to compare the average player of the 1970s with a modern average player.



Yeah, that's true. But, the game has changed. Maybe 1970s players really weren't quite as fast or strong as today's, but we're comparing how they did in their own era, and then adjusting in some eras because it was harder to distance themselves from average. I'm not worried about how a player fromt the 1970s would do if "time machined" to today, I'm worried about how much they distanced from average and then adjusting because it was really hard to distance from average in their time. "Time machining" gets us nowhere. If you go by that method, then you'd probably come to the conclusion that all the best players ever played post 1950.
OK, if we accept that the mid-70s average player was not as good as today's average player and the 1970s elite players did not distance himself as much as today's elite player, then is this not a point in favor for the modern elite being better and the modern league being stronger?

Again , the issue is "competitveness" vs "quality". They are not the same thing.



That said, though, I'm still not convinced the league today is really stronger than the league in 1975.
So what evidence would convince you?

[mac195]

Okay, I'll ask this a third time:

Being that Asians dominate ping pong -- a sport where reflexes and hand-eye coordination are paramount -- does that mean Asians have superior reflexes and hand-eye coordination?

Why won't anyone address this? Maybe it's because it pokes holes in your argument?
It might poke holes in someones' argument... if anyone here was saying that all success in sports is due to inborn genetic ability. But of course no one here is saying that. Does the Asian population tend to produce a higher proportion of people with good reflexes and hand/eye coordination? That's possible. But we can't know based on a sport like ping pong which is not lucrative, and is not played seriously anywhere in the non-Asian world outside of Scandinavia.

I would say, based on the relative lack of dominance displayed by East Asian baseball hitters, that there is not an Asian tendancy toward superior hand/eye coordination. If there were 100 Ichiros out there then you would have to wonder about that. But there is only one.

[mac195]

Well, to me track and field is only social on a small level. One, our society doesn't value glory in track and field the way it does in other major sports and as such there are probably a number of gifted athletes who never even participate in track and field.
You think there are lots of Americans who could have been world class sprinters, but don't bother to try? I find that extremely unlikely. Sprinting is easy... if you are genetically suited to it. It probably requires less training and practice time than any other major sport. Carl Lewis in his prime only trained 8 hours per week. Track is popular around the world, and the top people make quite a bit of money these days. Who is going to give up the chance to dash to victory in Stockholm or Tokyo, to the cheers of 50,000 screaming fans, because they didn't want to work 8 hours a week?




Two, there is a point where perception becomes reality. If the masses of white kids believe they are inferior to blacks in a particular sport, the prophecy is self fulfilled as the beliefs are codified through decreased participation and expectation.
True. I suspect that is an important factor in the lack of success of white Americans in the NBA.




However, bringing the issue back to baseball- Baseball is a game of refined athleticism, while track and field is a lot more raw. Natural speed translates no more to the game of baseball as mere height does to basketball. A simple lack of "pure athleticism" in the MLB does not imply a direct causal relationship with a competitive standard that is below ideal. This is especially true as the game becomes further and further broken down and players' roles become more specific.
No, speed obviously isn't as important for baseball as it is for track, or football. But it is important. Other skills being similar, a fast runner is much more likely to become a Major League player than a slow runner.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You think there are lots of Americans who could have been world class sprinters, but don't bother to try? I find that extremely unlikely. Sprinting is easy... if you are genetically suited to it. It probably requires less training and practice time than any other major sport. Carl Lewis in his prime only trained 8 hours per week. Track is popular around the world, and the top people make quite a bit of money these days. Who is going to give up the chance to dash to victory in Stockholm or Tokyo, to the cheers of 50,000 screaming fans, because they didn't want to work 8 hours a week?
Good point! :clapping


True. I suspect that is an important factor in the lack of success of white Americans in the NBA.
You'll notice that the white European NBA players do not have such a mindset. And they've had a strong presence in the NBA for the past 15 years.


No, speed obviously isn't as important for baseball as it is for track, or football. But it is important. Other skills being similar, a fast runner is much more likely to become a Major League player than a slow runner.
I don't agree. If this so were then most major leaguers would be "fast" runners. But most major leaguers are not "fast" runners.

[538280]

Yes, I agree. But you are interpreting data to mean one thing than may or may not be true. Again I go back to the issue of "competitiveness" and "quality". They are not the same thing. Competetiveness connotes an idea of how close in skill and production the elite players are with respect to the average player. Obviously, we can look at many different metrics to determined who had the most "value" in any given season. But it's another think to compare players from different era. Just because the 1970s elite players didn't distance themselves as much as current players is not, in itself, evidence that the 1970s leagues where stronger, but mearly more competitive. To determine which leagues were stronger you would have to match them up against modern teams. Would a 100 win team say from mid-1970s beat a modern 100 win team? Would a mid-1970s .500 team defeat a modern .500 team? Would a mid-70s 65 win team defeat a modern 65 win team. Another way would be to compare the average player of the 1970s with a modern average player.

I already have attempted to compare the average player of the 1970s to the average player today, and the answer I come up with is that there has been a decline in interest in baseball in the USA over the past 25 years, and thus the average player isn't as good. The influx of Hispanic players, which is often used to counter that argument, is more just because of the lack of US interest and the lack of an international draft.

Also (and this may play a part in the lack of US interest), other sports I think have been stealing some athletes from baseball.

[mac195]

But most major leaguers are not "fast" runners.
They aren't fast compared with track athletes or football players, but I think they are a lot faster on average than the general population.

[Joltin' Joe]

Okay, I'll ask this a third time:

Being that Asians dominate ping pong -- a sport where reflexes and hand-eye coordination are paramount -- does that mean Asians have superior reflexes and hand-eye coordination?

Why won't anyone address this? Maybe it's because it pokes holes in your argument?


Sorry I neve saw your post until now.
It certainly do not poke a hole in MY argument.
The answer is simple. The same reason equestrian is dominated by affluent Caucasoids. This has nothing to do with genes and everything to do with appeal to certain groups. Clearly Ping Pong and Equestrian does not draw from the finest gene pool on the planet. Neither do NASCAR, Formula One Racing, or Superbike Racing for that matter. Simply for the reason that it is not a sport that is taken up by everybody on the planet.
As far as ping pong goes, it is not the Mongoloid race that dominates this sport. It is the Chinese that do. So I would dismiss it as race dominated sport. The Chinese simply puts their heart and soul into it.
As for a sport that the Mongoloids excel at, I would say, Figure Skating(Women), Gymnastics(Men) and Martial Arts(Not Judo which is less Martial Arts and more Sport and is dominated by the Caucasoids).

[west coast orange and black]

mac195: Whites tend to excel in basketball skills which require lots of solitary practice time, like free throw and 3-point shooting. Blacks excel at dunking the ball.


ouch.
this reminds me of the "black quarterback" myth that, thankfully, was dispelled years ago:
blacks can not quarterback because they do not have the "brain skills"; they do better at the "grunt" positions.

[mac195]

Mine was a simple statement of facts... not sure why it would remind you of any myth. You don't believe that whites have excelled in free-thow and 3-point shooting % over the years, and blacks have dominated the dunking contests? Look it up.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

mac195: Whites tend to excel in basketball skills which require lots of solitary practice time, like free throw and 3-point shooting. Blacks excel at dunking the ball.


ouch.
this reminds me of the "black quarterback" myth that, thankfully, was dispelled years ago:
blacks can not quarterback because they do not have the "brain skills"; they do better at the "grunt" positions.
And it's not even true. Here are the NBA Top-10 all-time in three pointers and free throws. Lot's of black players (*) on these lists.


Top-10 3PT FG%
Steve Kerr .464
Hubert Davis .441*
Drazen Petrovic .437
Tim Legler .431
B J Armstrong .420*
Dana Barros .413*
Wesley Person .411*
Trent Tucker .408 *
Allan Houston .405 *
Glen Rice .405*

Top-10 3PT GF Made
Reggie Miller 1867*
Dale Ellis 1719*
Glen Rice 1353*
Mitch Richmond 1263*
Dan Majerle 1224
Vernon Maxwell 1222*
Chuck Person 1220*
Tim Hardaway 1219*
Dennis Scott 1214*
Hersey Hawkins 1209*


Top-10 Free Throw %
Mark Price .904
Rick Barry .900
Calvin Murphy .892*
Scott Skiles .889
Larry Bird .886
Bill Sharman .883
Reggie Miller .881*
Jeff Hornacek .877
Ricky Pierce .875*
Kiki Vandeweghe .872




Top-10 Free Throws Made:
Moses Malone 8,531*
Karl Malone 8,100*
Oscar Robertson 7,694*
Jerry West 7,160
Dolph Schayes 6,979
Adrian Dantley 6,832*
Michael Jordan 6,798*
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6,712*
Charles Barkley 6,349*
Bob Pettit 6,182

[mac195]

I said white players have "excelled" at making a high % of free throws and 3-point shots. I did not claim that all the people who have been successful at that are white.

Top-10 Free Throw %
Mark Price .904 - white
Rick Barry .900 - white
Calvin Murphy .892*
Scott Skiles .889 -white
Larry Bird .886 - white
Bill Sharman .883 - white
Reggie Miller .881*
Jeff Hornacek .877 -white
Ricky Pierce .875*
Kiki Vandeweghe .872 -white

That's 7 of the all-time top ten. Does that not qualify as excelling, especially when you consider that whites have been far less than half of the regular players in the league? Whites are much more successful at free-throw shooting than they have been as players in general.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I said white players have "excelled" at making a high % of free throws and 3-point shots. I did not claim that all the people who have been successful at that are white.

Top-10 Free Throw %
Mark Price .904 - white
Rick Barry .900 - white
Calvin Murphy .892*
Scott Skiles .889 -white
Larry Bird .886 - white
Bill Sharman .883 - white
Reggie Miller .881*
Jeff Hornacek .877 -white
Ricky Pierce .875*
Kiki Vandeweghe .872 -white

That's 7 of the all-time top ten. Does that not qualify as excelling, especially when you consider than whites have been far less than half of the regular players in the league? Whites are much more successful at free-throw shooting than than they have been as players in general.
You got me there mac195. The white guys sure can shoot that 15 foot free throw. :o

[TonyK]

On other baseball boards, knowledgable coaches have commented that the average ML baseball player is very fast. Speed is one of the major factors when scouts decide whether or not a player is good enough. If you can't run a 60-yard dash under a certain cutoff time, then you better have a 90+ MPH fastball.

Sports fans in other nations without pro basketball, pro football or pro hockey will devote more time to following soccer, ping pong, track & field, or weightlifting. At a mall in a Chinatown in Australia, I saw more people watching a ping pong match than were shopping in the stores. Ever see that here in the US?

I mentioned the Irish were assumed to be naturally more talented in baseball 100 years ago than other nationalities or races. I am surprised nobody mentioned the TV documentary hosted by Tom Brokaw about why Afro Americans were so successful in sports. One factor for their success according to the experts cited is their muscular structure in their legs. That could assist them when running fast, leaping high, or making quick cuts on a football diamond.

[Bench 5]

But do you think this applies to track and field? It's not as if there are no white sprinters at the college level, so you can't say that whites are socialized not to compete in track. How can you explain basically EVERY world record at every distance below 1000 meters is held by a person of West African descent and has been for 20 years? Do you realize the odds against that happening if race/genetics had nothing to do with it?

But let's look at the stats to back-up your argument in more detail. Looking over the list of Olympic champions for the past several years, here are some facts:

1) In the 800 meter men's run since 1996 it has been won by a Norwegian in 1996, German in 2000 and a Russian in 2004.
2) In the 400 meter run, an American white runner won the event in 2004.
3) In the 200 meters, a runner from Greece won in 2000 and going back from 1972-1980 it was won by white European runners 2 out of 3. Pitro Minnea from Italy held the world record for 17 years before Michael Johnson broke it in 96.
4) In the 100 meter run Valery Borzov was considered the fastest man on the planet for a few years in the 70s. I don't consider that to be ancient history.
5) The fastest WOMAN in the 2004 Olympics was a white European.
6) And by the way, a man or woman from West Africa has NEVER won a gold medal in the sprints in the Olympics. You would think that if the key to running fast was to have West African genes, runners from those countries would dominate.

Again, I think you guys are cherry-picking certain events and taking a snapshot of recent years for your argument that blacks are inherently better athletes. Things change over time. Go back 30-40 years and the landscape was different. 30 years from now maybe Asians or Latinos might dominate the sprinting events. I'm not trying to be politically correct but the facts don't support your theory in my opinion.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0007/23/bs.00.html

[Scoops]

Looking at that CNN piece 5 years on, there are flaws right in the opening statement.

In 2000, blacks did not dominate tennis or golf, nor do they today. One black guy (who's half asian) does dominate golf to some extent (and his dominance has declined). Two black women, who are sisters, are among the elite in women's tennis. There has been no black man considered to be close to elite in tennis since Arthur Ashe and no black woman in golf ever. The biggest prospect for a dominant woman golfer is Michelle Wie, an asian. The current most dominant is a white woman, Annika Sorenstam.

And then there's hockey...

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Well consider who was making that opening statement, Jesse Jackson.

The point is that different population groups are genetically predisposed to having an advantage in certain athletic events. Are there exceptions, of course. But by and large, the research and years of study has proven this to be true. Its not a "racial" issue unless you choose to make it one. And I would say that if you make it that, then you're doing a disservice to those who actually do experience racism.

This should be about truths, nothing more. Stereotypes come from truths, and as long as it's understood there are exceptions, all should be ok. I think our cultural preferences in terms of what sports to get involved with, has stemmed from years and years of development in terms of genetic disposition. East Africans are built for endurance, long distance running, and West Africans tend to be the football, basketball type athletes. A higher fast twitch fiber count and explosive reflexes with less endurance. Doesn't mean that one couldn't become the other, but more often than not, we stick with what we are genetically handed. Seems the best chance for success.

[digglahhh]

No, of course not. But that is the tendancy. Whites tend to excel in basketball skills which require lots of solitary practice time, like free throw and 3-point shooting. Blacks excel at dunking the ball.
.

Dude, this is blatantly racist, and it is similar to the black QB argument. It is not just the what you said but the condescending and dismissive connotation of the last statement. This is the Billy Ho, White Men Can't Jump Argument.

In sociological terms, one may rephrase this statement (assuming it is even tue) to something like this.

White basketball players seem to perform well in facets of the game which are more easily refined by having access to indoor gyms and spacious practice facilities.

Do white players from the inner city excel at three point shooting? This is about the style of game and resources available to players.

By the way the three pointers a guy like Steve Kerr took throughout his career don't really compare to the level of difficulty a player like Ray Allen takes.

Throughout this entire argument we have to remember that as long as use top level athletes as our examples, we are splitting hairs by comparing athletes who are in the top say, tenth of a percent in the entire world. Evaluating a bunch of average joes would probably be more profound.

[mac195]

1) In the 800 meter men's run since 1996 it has been won by a Norwegian in 1996, German in 2000 and a Russian in 2004.
The 800 is a middle distance event, not a sprint. And it does seem to be the distance where Euro-descended runners stand the best chance of winning.


2) In the 400 meter run, an American white runner won the event in 2004.
Yes, and it was big news because no white athlete had won the event in quite some time.



3) In the 200 meters, a runner from Greece won in 2000 and going back from 1972-1980 it was won by white European runners 2 out of 3. Pitro Minnea from Italy held the world record for 17 years before Michael Johnson broke it in 96.
The vast majority of winners in major championships at that distance have been black.



4) In the 100 meter run Valery Borzov was considered the fastest man on the planet for a few years in the 70s. I don't consider that to be ancient history.
Blacks dominate this event so completely that you have to go back 30 years to find a lone exception.



5) The fastest WOMAN in the 2004 Olympics was a white European.
Women's sports are not as competitive, as women in many countries and cultures hardly take part, but in any case, the 2004 winner was a rare exception... the norm has been the parade of black women's sprint champions.



6) And by the way, a man or woman from West Africa has NEVER won a gold medal in the sprints in the Olympics. You would think that if the key to running fast was to have West African genes, runners from those countries would dominate.
West African countries are poor. There are generally low nutrition and health care standards, and not a lot of money to invest in modern sport science. Still, West African sprinters have done pretty well recently.




Again, I think you guys are cherry-picking certain events
I think that is exactly what you are doing.




30 years from now maybe Asians or Latinos might dominate the sprinting events.
Wanna bet? Seriously. I would wager that blacks of West African descent will continue to be more disproportionately successfull in the sprints than runners from any other population group, and consider that just about the safest sports bet I could ever make. If the Chinese have runners among their 1.3 billion population who can win the sprints, we will see them in 2008, as China will be making an all out effort to impress the world when they host the Olympic games.

[mac195]

Dude, this is blatantly racist, and it is similar to the black QB argument. It is not just the what you said but the condescending and dismissive connotation of the last statement. This is the Billy Ho, White Men Can't Jump Argument.
Dude, its a simple statement of fact. You think it is insulting to blacks to point out the obvious fact that they excel at dunking the ball? Why is that?


White basketball players seem to perform well in facets of the game which are more easily refined by having access to indoor gyms and spacious practice facilities.
That probably is one factor in why the "black game" in basketball is so different from the "white game". There are lots of cultural factors as well.



Do white players from the inner city excel at three point shooting?

White players from the inner city... you could probably count them all on one hand.


This is about the style of game and resources available to players.
It's about the fact that white guys tend to spend a lot of time alone practicing their shooting, while black guys tend to like scrimmaging with other people.


Throughout this entire argument we have to remember that as long as use top level athletes as our examples, we are splitting hairs by comparing athletes who are in the top say, tenth of a percent in the entire world. Evaluating a bunch of average joes would probably be more profound.
Because...?

[Joltin' Joe]

Regarding the statement, Caucasoids are better at 3-point shooting than Negroids, and Negroids are better at dunking than Caucasoids.
I don't know if that is a true statement but why is that any more "racial" than me saying studies have shown that Negroids are better sprinters than Caucasoids, and Caucasoids are better swimmers than Negroids.
Why is the first statement so offensive to some? 3-point shooting and Dunking both require different athletic skills and it could very well be true that one race excels at it over another race.

[digglahhh]

A stereotype that attributes something to a race of people that can be considered positive is no less ignorant or irresponsible than one that attributes something negative.

Why don't people get this?

What the hell does whites like to practice alone and blacks like to scrimage mean. So now personality, being social or anti-social, and preferred methods of training are racially determined too...

[digglahhh]

Joe,

Regarding your question, I believe the key difference would be your use of the phrase "studies have shown." You have research based evidence in the form of studies (although I maintain reservations about the integrity and intentions of them) to back your assertion. You evidence is also based on physiology which is much easier to isolate and examine.

Mac is simply trying to pass of anedotal evidence as a fact.

The guys who win the slam dunk contest are black, so blacks are naturally inclined to dunk the ball well. Some of the best three point shooters are white so they are inclined to shoot well from the outside. This is a legitimate line of resoning and a logical conclusion?

Do you really think that if Ray Allen stood around the perimeter and waited to get kick outs from guys drawing double teams from penetrating, he wouldn't ba as "good" of a three point shooter as Tim Legler was. That is patently absurd

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

Certain humans are born with athletic ability. Of those certain humans, most are black. What sport they play and how hard they work depends on the man.

[mac195]

A stereotype that attributes something to a race of people that can be considered positive is no less ignorant or irresponsible than one that attributes something negative.

Why don't people get this?
Because it isn't true?


What the hell does whites like to practice alone and blacks like to scrimage mean.
It means exactly that.



So now personality, being social or anti-social, and preferred methods of training are racially determined too...
No, but there are racial tendancies... group average differences in behavior patterns. They may not fit your prefered notion of how the world should be, but they exist none the less.

[mac195]

[QUOTE]Mac is simply trying to pass of anedotal evidence as a fact.
What I am doing is making observations about reality. I'm telling you that the sky is blue. You are telling me, "Oh yeah? Well last Tuesday it was gray."


The guys who win the slam dunk contest are black, so blacks are naturally inclined to dunk the ball well. Some of the best three point shooters are white so they are inclined to shoot well from the outside. This is a legitimate line of resoning and a logical conclusion?
If we observe black individuals winning almost all the dunking contests, it is reasonable to think think that there may be something associated with being African American that leads to superior dunking ability. My theory is that, for some yet unknown reason, evolutionary forces and natural selection in West Africa produced a population with a high proportion of body types suited to running and jumping. I also think that black American culture places an realtively high value on impressive physical displays. Everything I have read about the "black game" of basketball, including observations by black NBA stars and playground legends leads me to believe that intimidating opponents and showing off is a higher priority than it is in the white game. What's your theory?

[digglahhh]

It is NOT reasonable to assume that because black players win the dunk contest that they are predisposed to, or naturally inclined to dunk.

While I would agree that the best dunkers in the game are, for the most part, black. Simply noting that those who win the dunk contest are black is far from sufficient evidence to make the afforementioned claim.

The best golfer is black, does that mean blacks are natually inclined to golf? If Manu Ginobli won this year's dunk contest would we be able to say that South Americans have innate abilities that translate to dunking a basketball? Are guys named Albert more likely to be good hitters?

What exactly is the "black game" or the "white game?" Which does Jayson Williams play? Steve Nash? Elton Brand? Ron Artest?

What do you make of the fact that the overall best player in the game is a black man who plays what I would assume you call the white game? Oh wait, Duncan shoots below 70% from the line- you must be right about everything...

[digglahhh]

Blacks are also disproportionately arrested for crimes. Would it be logical to assume that they are genetically predisposed to being criminals. By the way, that is what some of these "respected" studies concluded.

They drop out of high school at higher rates. Are they predisposed to devaluing education?

They score lower on standardized tests. Are they naturally stupid?

By the logic you have presented throughout the dunking argument you would be forced to agree with the conclusions from these statements. Do you?

Or is it possible that nature plays a significantly smaller role than nurture in these things? Is it possible that when we see black athletes we are seeing the end product of a person who has grown, evolved and developed as somebody who is not only biologically black, but understood socially as black and reflecting the black American experience as much as they are reflecting the black DNA strand?

Finally, if you were to take two men who had never heard of basketball before, one black and one white, and explained to them the rules of the game and then had them play eachother- do you think that the black guy would win over and over if we repeated this experiment? Do you think he would be throwing down Dominique windmills?

Would he win because the black game is more condusive to one on one play? Maybe the white guys would win if it was five on five:cool: :rolleyes:

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

This is quite off-topic but since we're talking about race, I recently knoticed that my rankings for the best player by position in MLB are all non-white, save one.

C Victor Martinez
1B Albert Pujols
2B Jeff Kent (the only exception)
SS Rafael Furcal
3B Alex Rodriguez (What is he?)
LF Barry Bonds
CF Andruw Jones or Jim Edmons
RF Vlad Guerrero or Gary Sheffileld

True that the black baseball superstar is a rarity these days, but hispanics are taking over quite quickly.

[digglahhh]

Yeah, but I guess it would be safe to say that Jeff Kent would win a three point shooting contest that involved all those guys, huh.:rolleyes:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What exactly are the two sides arguing about here. What IS there to argue about. Tons of money and time has been spent on research that clearly shows differences in racial populations. East Africans are built for long distance running, West Africans for sprinting/jumping. Big white dudes from Sweden and Finland are built for strongman competition type events. We are all given gifts to begin with because of our heritage, but it's what we choose to develop, and to what extent, that determines our success. We should embrace these differences and appreciate them. Not too hard to understand, and it's not racial, just fact.

[mac195]

Blacks are also disproportionately arrested for crimes. Would it be logical to assume that they are genetically predisposed to being criminals.
It is quite possible that some people are more genetically predisposed toward criminality than others. We know from studies of identical twins raised apart that genes have a big impact on personality and behavior patterns. We also know that the children of criminals are more likely to become criminals themselves. There is a very large gap beween the crime rates of various population groups. It seems reasonable to suspect that part of the gap is genetic in origin, although we don't know enough yet about the workings of genetics to say for sure.


They drop out of high school at higher rates. Are they predisposed to devaluing education?
I think that is a relatively minor factor. The biggest reason blacks, as a group, do worse in school is their average 85 IQ. When you have an IQ below 85, as half of all African Americans do, school is hard.




They score lower on standardized tests. Are they naturally stupid?
As a group, they are less intelligent on average, as intelligence is measured by IQ tests. (For a good overview of this topic see the entry at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence))


Or is it possible that nature plays a significantly smaller role than nurture in these things?
I think both nature and nurture play significant roles. It is impossible to build a good case for one or the other being all important.



Is it possible that when we see black athletes we are seeing the end product of a person who has grown, evolved and developed as somebody who is not only biologically black, but understood socially as black and reflecting the black American experience as much as they are reflecting the black DNA strand?
Yes.


Finally, if you were to take two men who had never heard of basketball before, one black and one white, and explained to them the rules of the game and then had them play eachother- do you think that the black guy would win over and over if we repeated this experiment? Do you think he would be throwing down Dominique windmills?
The person with more natural basketball-related athletic ability would win. With a sample just two, it would be impossible to predict with any certainty whether the black or the white person would win. But if you ran the test with hundreds of people, the black group would win more often.

[scribe114]

Myth? possibly, Uproar? hardly......

If you look at where most of the black kids playing Baseball are drafted from, it's the warm weather states, Florida, California, Arizona. I have wondered about the black atheletes exodus from Baseball over the past 20 years and this is what I have observed (By the way I'm a black dude if this helps)

The problem stemmed from the scouts not looking in their own back yards for talent. I grew up in Detroit and played Baseball in the Public School League at Chadsey High School which had one of the better Baseball programs in the city. By my Senior year of High School (1986) you could see the decline in interest among the kids, within 3 years this is what was going on...

1. Everybody wanted to be like Mike, Football and Basketball became the way out of the "hood" Baseball became a secondary sport for most kids, or a way to stay in shape "year-round"

2. Lack of funding for the sport

3. Coaches that could not teach the game, many of the good coaches left the Public Schools to teach and coach in the suburbs or retired.

4. Kids learning the game at the 9th Grade level in High School.

You are always going to have black athletes in the sport but they do not speak on these issues frankly because they dont relate to the kid in the inner-city programs.

Detroit has not produced a major-league player from the Public Schools since Todd Cruz played for the Orioles in the early 80's, the Public Schools had produced Hal Newhouser, Milt Pappas, Willie Horton, Alex Johnson, Bob Owchinko, Ted Sizemore, John Mayberry etc.....

Chicago? Kirby Puckett is the most recent and one of the only out of the Windy City.

Philadelphia? NONE

New York City? Shawon Dunston, Alex Arias and Manny Ramirez

There are Baseball players black and white in the inner cities. The scouts are not looking for kids in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis or even New York City (Find me a current Major Leaguer that came out of any of those city league H.S. programs), but they will go to the suburbs in a heartbeat.

Scouts stopped going into the cities because they feared for their safety, once they turned their backs on the talent in the inner city the kids turned their backs on the game.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Scouts stopped going into the cities because they feared for their safety, once they turned their backs on the talent in the inner city the kids turned their backs on the game.

Thats a bunch of crap, imo. Scouts will go wherever the talent is, no matter what. They'll travel across the world if they have a hot tip on a young kid. The inner cities stopped producing great baseball players because it's a cultural thing. Baseball isn't "cool" in the African American community the way hoops and football is. It's the chicken or the egg. You claim scouts stopped going, so blacks turned their back on baseball? It's the other way around, imo.

[Victory Faust]

Here's a question: Since there is a disproportionate number of blacks who are caught up in the criminal justice system, does this mean they have some inbred propensity toward criminality?

Of course not. It's ridiculous to even pose the question.

But, if you were to just look at the percentage of blacks behind bars and say, "the numbers are there, and numbers don't lie," then you would have to come to the same conclusion as some of you are coming to in the sports arena.

The answer to both questions is: Sociological factors are the difference. Blacks are not more gifted athletically than Chinese or Irish folks.


Hey, sorry digglahhh...I didn't see your post, which I repeated. And, Mack195, am I hearing you right? Are you saying black people are born with a propensity to commit crimes? I can't believe you're saying that, dude.

[Victory Faust]

I grew up in Detroit and played Baseball in the Public School League at Chadsey High School...


Hey, I went to Chadsey! Small world!

[scribe114]

Thats a bunch of crap, imo. Scouts will go wherever the talent is, no matter what. They'll travel across the world if they have a hot tip on a young kid. The inner cities stopped producing great baseball players because it's a cultural thing. Baseball isn't "cool" in the African American community the way hoops and football is. It's the chicken or the egg. You claim scouts stopped going, so blacks turned their back on baseball? It's the other way around, imo.

Exactly G.H. Ruth, it's just an opinion, if you scrolled back up you would see the 1st point I made mentioned football and basketball.

I'm just speaking as a city kid who was actually "there" and saw the change in mindset towards Baseball. When kids in the city are told from day one that MLB Scouts or DIV I College coaches are not going to come in the area because they have stereotyped these kids from the start as "lacking in fundamentals" the city programs have an "inferior product" etc.....kids are not going to put the work in because there is no payoff.

Scouts are looking for the kid in the suburbs that seems to be more polished, is playing on the manicured fields and getting 165 AB a year in a High School program or the kids in the Carribean that can play ball all year around.

Will discuss this more in a bit.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Myth? possibly, Uproar? hardly......

If you look at where most of the black kids playing Baseball are drafted from, it's the warm weather states, Florida, California, Arizona. I have wondered about the black atheletes exodus from Baseball over the past 20 years and this is what I have observed (By the way I'm a black dude if this helps)

The problem stemmed from the scouts not looking in their own back yards for talent. I grew up in Detroit and played Baseball in the Public School League at Chadsey High School which had one of the better Baseball programs in the city. By my Senior year of High School (1986) you could see the decline in interest among the kids, within 3 years this is what was going on...

1. Everybody wanted to be like Mike, Football and Basketball became the way out of the "hood" Baseball became a secondary sport for most kids, or a way to stay in shape "year-round"

2. Lack of funding for the sport

3. Coaches that could not teach the game, many of the good coaches left the Public Schools to teach and coach in the suburbs or retired.

4. Kids learning the game at the 9th Grade level in High School.

You are always going to have black athletes in the sport but they do not speak on these issues frankly because they dont relate to the kid in the inner-city programs.

Detroit has not produced a major-league player from the Public Schools since Todd Cruz played for the Orioles in the early 80's, the Public Schools had produced Hal Newhouser, Milt Pappas, Willie Horton, Alex Johnson, Bob Owchinko, Ted Sizemore, John Mayberry etc.....

Chicago? Kirby Puckett is the most recent and one of the only out of the Windy City.

Philadelphia? NONE

New York City? Shawon Dunston, Alex Arias and Manny Ramirez

There are Baseball players black and white in the inner cities. The scouts are not looking for kids in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis or even New York City (Find me a current Major Leaguer that came out of any of those city league H.S. programs), but they will go to the suburbs in a heartbeat.

Scouts stopped going into the cities because they feared for their safety, once they turned their backs on the talent in the inner city the kids turned their backs on the game.
Thank you for trying to being this thread back in line with it's intent. Yes, the percentage of African AMerican players in baseball has declined. The points I am trying to make are these:

1) The decline on Afican American ballplayers has not effected the overall quality of the game to any significant degree because the "great" African AMerican player has been equally replaced with he "great" Latin player.

2) THe skills needed to play football and basketball vs baseball at the highest levels require different skills. I believe that the number of "lost" athletes to other sports is actually very low.

2) In the mid 1970s when the percentage of black players peaked how many baseball black superstars could have concievably been lost to other sports? Other than perhaps Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield, Bob Gibson, or Dick Allen, I can't think of anyone one else.

[digglahhh]

HWR,

I agree with all three of your contentions.

Were baseball as heavily emphasized in the black community, I think it might be fair to assume that we could see an increase in the diversity of major league rosters, but to say that we are being denied superstars to the point that it negatively impacts the overall quality of play is a leap of logic, IMO. Swapping a bunch of average caliber white MLers for a bunch of average caliber black MLers wouldn't really change the overall quality of the game at all.


Mac,

I really don't know what to say except to ask about where you live and if you have ever met a black person. I proposed the statements as I did, in the hope that such hyperbole would lead you to notice your flawed logic. You in turn, went Cap Anson on us all. You are one step away from endorsing eugenics.

Believe me, IQ tests are not the be all end of intelligence testing anymore than win shares are be all end all of baseball debates.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Sorry... I just finished reading this thread and wanted to say a couple things...


"You can go back throughout the history of the sport and there's never been a 7 footer that can ballhandle, shoot, and run the floor like Dirk Nowitski. Never. You see a lot of forwards and centers from the European countries that can dribble and shoot like a guard. That takes great athletic talent. How have the teams from West Africa done in basketball in the Olympics? Not very well."

Toni Kukoc says hello... he was the first "Dirk" in the NBA really... although he's not European but Magic Johnson... although he was 6'9" or 6'10"... he was probably the first big man who could do what Dirk could...



Of course Danny Ainge was better in baseball than Michael Jordan...

"Talented in multiple sports, Ainge starred in high school on a football team that also included another future NBA star, Joe Dumars, and led North Eugene High School to back-to-back state basketball championships in 1976-77, earning all-state honors both years. He also was named to the 1977 Parade magazine High School All-America team.

Ainge played basketball at Brigham Young University, after which he was selected in baseball's 1977 amateur draft by Toronto. He made it to the majors with the Blue Jays in 1979, but was able to amass only modest numbers for that team. In 1981, after receiving the John R. Wooden Award as college basketball player of the year, Ainge was chosen in the 1981 NBA Draft by the Boston Celtics, who had to buy out Ainge's contract from the Blue Jays after enduring a legal battle over the rights to it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Ainge

so he was kept playing baseball till he drafted by the Celtics... meanwhile Jordan played in high school... quit for like 12 years and then he went back to baseball... If Jordan kept playing baseball like the way Ainge, I'm sure Jordan would've been a MLB player. Then again, good thing he didn't.

now to the myth... I agree with HWR's last post.
The number of "lost" athletes would be pretty low, but I bet african-american would have a high percentage of those "lost" athletes.

Again... a few of those "lost" athletes would be a pure, athletic, natural genetic freak... they can just pretty much do whatever... and do it well

[Bench 5]

Thank you for trying to being this thread back in line with it's intent. Yes, the percentage of African AMerican players in baseball has declined. The points I am trying to make are these:

1) The decline on Afican American ballplayers has not effected the overall quality of the game to any significant degree because the "great" African AMerican player has been equally replaced with he "great" Latin player.

2) THe skills needed to play football and basketball vs baseball at the highest levels require different skills. I believe that the number of "lost" athletes to other sports is actually very low.

2) In the mid 1970s when the percentage of black players peaked how many baseball black superstars could have concievably been lost to other sports? Other than perhaps Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield, Bob Gibson, or Dick Allen, I can't think of anyone one else.

Hans - I agree with #2 and 3 but not with #1. I think the inherent assumption in this argument is that the white players represent the mediocre subs and back-ups while the exceptional players are blacks or Latinos. Under this assumption, if there's a high % of blacks (or now latinos), the league is strong but otherwise the talent level is down.
Amongst non-pitchers I realize that the % of great white players is less than it was 20 years ago. But I think that underlies the same issue that we see with African American kids. Baseball isn't nearly as popular with America's youth, black, white, asian, etc as it was 30 years ago. Baseball was THE sport when I was a kid in the 70s. Now soccer is the most popular sport for little kids because it's so easy to play. There's so much more for kids to do nowadays in America that the overall talent pool has been diminished. I think that baseball should focus on making baseball more popular for all kids and not just target certain "races".

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Hans - I agree with #2 and 3 but not with #1. I think the inherent assumption in this argument is that the white players represent the mediocre subs and back-ups while the exceptional players are blacks or Latinos. Under this assumption, if there's a high % of blacks (or now latinos), the league is strong but otherwise the talent level is down.
Amongst non-pitchers I realize that the % of great white players is less than it was 20 years ago. But I think that underlies the same issue that we see with African American kids. Baseball isn't nearly as popular with America's youth, black, white, asian, etc as it was 30 years ago. Baseball was THE sport when I was a kid in the 70s. Now soccer is the most popular sport for little kids because it's so easy to play. There's so much more for kids to do nowadays in America that the overall talent pool has been diminished. I think that baseball should focus on making baseball more popular for all kids and not just target certain "races".

Some good points. One of my main points is that the majority of the "lost" black players are the backups and pinch hitters. Over the past 15 years the top black players are as good as the top black stars of the 1970s.


There is good news. MLB is opening up the first inner-city baseball academy in Los Angeles next year. Hopefully, this will be a model for many more baseball academies acros America.

[digglahhh]

Then again, good thing he didn't.



Not to us Knick fans! I must go cry now.

[csh19792001]

Believe me, IQ tests are not the be all end of intelligence testing anymore than win shares are be all end all of baseball debates.

Amen to that. And this is coming from someone has a masters in statistics, isn't so far from licensure, and administers the WISC-IV and WAIS-III on almost a daily basis.

To say that the average IQ of an African American is an 85 (that's an entire standard deviation below 100, btw) as a blanket statement (and drawing overarching conclusions from it) is bogus.

So Black people are just dumber than white people, Mac? First define "race" for us all. You'll have fun tripping over yourself on that one.

IQ is not a static trait, it's a fluid construct that is rife with cultural loading and subjective interpretation. You aren't born with an IQ; people seem to think IQ is like a fingerprint at birth or height as an adult- immutable and intransigent.

Nurture interrupts nature in the case of many Black American kids. MANY studies have been conducted showing that at 3 and 4, white and black kids are roughly equivalent in IQ according to standardized measures. That growth is stunted due to iniquities in schooling and other environmental correlates that impinge on development. It certainly has not been scientifically verified that any "race" is endemically more intelligent than another.

For anyone interested in intelligence, psychometrics, or the impact of culture on ability and achievement, I'd recommend reading anything by Jerome Sattler or Anastasiow & Urbina.

[mac195]

To say that the average IQ of an African American is an 85 (that's an entire standard deviation below 100, btw) as a blanket statement (and drawing overarching conclusions from it) is bogus.
Blanket statement? The one standard deviation gap is fact, nothing controversial for people who know anything about the topic. And I draw no overarching conclusions from it.


So Black people are just dumber than white people, Mac?
That would appear to be the case, at least in terms of the kind of intelligence that IQ tests measure. And this sort of intelligence does seem to be crucial to success in school.



First define "race" for us all. You'll have fun tripping over yourself on that one.
Races are very large extended families that are partly inbred.



IQ is not a static trait, it's a fluid construct that is rife with cultural loading and subjective interpretation.
Lots of "culture free" or "culture fair" IQ tests have been devised. These tests also point to large, consistant racial gaps.


You aren't born with an IQ; people seem to think IQ is like a fingerprint at birth or height as an adult- immutable and intransigent.
Experts in the field of human intelligence believe that it is 60-80% heritable, and IQ scores are fairly stable from age six on. To a large extent, you are born with an IQ.



Nurture interrupts nature in the case of many Black American kids. MANY studies have been conducted showing that at 3 and 4, white and black kids are roughly equivalent in IQ according to standardized measures.
Nurture is certainly important, but I have not heard of studies showing equal black/white IQs in early childhood. Please provide a link.



It certainly has not been scientifically verified that any "race" is endemically more intelligent than another.
I'm not claiming that anything is known for sure to be endemic. But there is evidence pointing in that direction.

[mac195]

HWR,

Mac,

I really don't know what to say except to ask about where you live and if you have ever met a black person.
Japan. Yes.



I proposed the statements as I did, in the hope that such hyperbole would lead you to notice your flawed logic.
Got a little more than you bargained for there, eh? It is quite a fascinating topic. If you really are interested, I'd suggest that you read the wikipedia entry and follow all the links.



You in turn, went Cap Anson on us all.
BS.




You are one step away from endorsing eugenics.
You are quite the muckraker, aren't you? I'd be happy to discuss eugenics with you as well. But not on this baseball board.



Believe me, IQ tests are not the be all end of intelligence testing anymore than win shares are be all end all of baseball debates.
Nobody is claiming that they are.

[64Cards]

Honus, I'll disagree a bit that MLB isn't losing that many potential black players to football and basketball. I think we can agree that in order to play MLB, an athlete must possess superb hand to eye coordination. Quite simply, if not born with this, you can do all the practicing in the world, but you won't be able to play MLB. In football, there are lineman who make it to the NFL by working their asses off, in the weight room and on their technique, and learn as much as possible in film sessions. There are also some basketball players who make it without as much talent, by learning and working their butts off on the defensive end of the game. This isn't to say that even with great hand to eye coordination, to make it as a star in MLB a guy doesn't have to constantly work and learn more about how to hit and play his position.

The point to this is, I think there are a lot of guys playing QB, WR or DB, or who are playing basketball, who are blessed with the superb coordination needed to play MLB, but make the decision in high school to just stick with one sport. I think Mays could have been a superb wr or even HB in the 50's and 60's, same thing with Aaron, Frank Robinson, Brock,Gibson [I'd say QB too, except the NFL wouldn't play a black QB then] a lot of other guys, but their wasn't much of an option to play football or basketball then for a lot of guys from the south, not to mention MLB payed FAR better at that time. I'll also add, it's not only blacks who MLB is losing to other sports, there are plenty of potential white ballplayers going to other sports in high school. Previous to the mid-60's, if a guy had the skills to play MLB, most of the time that would be the sport he'd try, if he wanted to be a pro athlete. As far as salary and prestige, there really wasn't any comparisons with the other sports.

That's all changed. Thank goodness for the Latin ballplayers.

[csh19792001]

Blanket statement?

Yep, lots of em.

Some suggested reading:

Assessment of Children: Cognitive Applications (Fourth Edition)
Jerome Sattler

Best Practices in School Psychology IVby Alex Thomas, Jeff Grimes

Intelligence: A Brief History
Robert Sternberg

Psychological Testing (7th edition)Anastasi & Urbina

Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education (7th edition)
Thorndike (perhaps the father of the field)

Sorry I can't cover two years of grad coursework here... unfortunately for this conversation, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not going to waste any more of my time on someone espousing utter racism borne of sheer ignorance on this particular topic.

Have fun with him, Diglahh. :rolleyes:

[mac195]

Wow, Chris. You come off a little arrogant and dogmatic at times in baseball discussions (I probably do too, I realize.) But I never would have guessed that you were capable of producing something like the above post.

And BTW, I'm still waiting for that link to studies you have claimed show that there is no IQ race gap in early childhood. I am sincerly interested in the topic.

[csh19792001]

Wow, Chris. You come off a little arrogant and dogmatic at times in baseball discussions (I probably do too, I realize.) But I never would have guessed that you were capable of producing something like the above post.

Nor I the completely ignorant, uninformed, racist statements you've made throughout this thread.

[mac195]

If you want to call me names... fine. Sticks and stones. But realize that that is all you are doing. You certainly have not demonstrated any superior knowledge of this topic. Your I-studied-this-in-grad-school-so-you-can't-tell-me-nothin' schtik is laughable.

[TonyK]

Myth? possibly, Uproar? hardly......

If you look at where most of the black kids playing Baseball are drafted from, it's the warm weather states, Florida, California, Arizona. I have wondered about the black atheletes exodus from Baseball over the past 20 years and this is what I have observed (By the way I'm a black dude if this helps)

The problem stemmed from the scouts not looking in their own back yards for talent. I grew up in Detroit and played Baseball in the Public School League at Chadsey High School which had one of the better Baseball programs in the city. By my Senior year of High School (1986) you could see the decline in interest among the kids, within 3 years this is what was going on...

1. Everybody wanted to be like Mike, Football and Basketball became the way out of the "hood" Baseball became a secondary sport for most kids, or a way to stay in shape "year-round"

2. Lack of funding for the sport

3. Coaches that could not teach the game, many of the good coaches left the Public Schools to teach and coach in the suburbs or retired.

4. Kids learning the game at the 9th Grade level in High School.

You are always going to have black athletes in the sport but they do not speak on these issues frankly because they dont relate to the kid in the inner-city programs.

Detroit has not produced a major-league player from the Public Schools since Todd Cruz played for the Orioles in the early 80's, the Public Schools had produced Hal Newhouser, Milt Pappas, Willie Horton, Alex Johnson, Bob Owchinko, Ted Sizemore, John Mayberry etc.....

Chicago? Kirby Puckett is the most recent and one of the only out of the Windy City.

Philadelphia? NONE

New York City? Shawon Dunston, Alex Arias and Manny Ramirez

There are Baseball players black and white in the inner cities. The scouts are not looking for kids in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis or even New York City (Find me a current Major Leaguer that came out of any of those city league H.S. programs), but they will go to the suburbs in a heartbeat.

Scouts stopped going into the cities because they feared for their safety, once they turned their backs on the talent in the inner city the kids turned their backs on the game.

I think you have hit this one out of the park as they say. What do the black HS athletes play during the spring in Northern cities? Outdoor track, AAU basketball, or baseball? Meanwhile most of the best athletes in their school are getting scholarships in other sports.

My son's Junior High team last year played a team from a larger city school that had a good share of hispanic and black athletes on it. Their field was in need of repair, their coach looked like he was right out of college, and several players had never played the sport before from the way they played. They were enjoying themselves playing, but I wondered where the talented kids were...playing lacrosse or running track maybe?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Honus, I'll disagree a bit that MLB isn't losing that many potential black players to football and basketball. I think we can agree that in order to play MLB, an athlete must possess superb hand to eye coordination. Quite simply, if not born with this, you can do all the practicing in the world, but you won't be able to play MLB. In football, there are lineman who make it to the NFL by working their asses off, in the weight room and on their technique, and learn as much as possible in film sessions. There are also some basketball players who make it without as much talent, by learning and working their butts off on the defensive end of the game. This isn't to say that even with great hand to eye coordination, to make it as a star in MLB a guy doesn't have to constantly work and learn more about how to hit and play his position.

The point to this is, I think there are a lot of guys playing QB, WR or DB, or who are playing basketball, who are blessed with the superb coordination needed to play MLB, but make the decision in high school to just stick with one sport. I think Mays could have been a superb wr or even HB in the 50's and 60's, same thing with Aaron, Frank Robinson, Brock,Gibson [I'd say QB too, except the NFL wouldn't play a black QB then] a lot of other guys, but their wasn't much of an option to play football or basketball then for a lot of guys from the south, not to mention MLB payed FAR better at that time. I'll also add, it's not only blacks who MLB is losing to other sports, there are plenty of potential white ballplayers going to other sports in high school. Previous to the mid-60's, if a guy had the skills to play MLB, most of the time that would be the sport he'd try, if he wanted to be a pro athlete. As far as salary and prestige, there really wasn't any comparisons with the other sports.

That's all changed. Thank goodness for the Latin ballplayers.

I agree that some great athletes have been lost but I argue the effect is mimial and it doesn't effect the overall quality of baseball. There seems to be some bizarre perception that baseball today is losing hundreds of Willie Mays and Hank Aarons to other sports and I think that is completely unfounded. Mays and Aaron were unique players and athletes. They were NOT common in the 1950s and 1960s. How many other baseball players of the 1950s were of the caliber of athlete as Willie Mays? Mickey Mantle, and ummm...Mickey Mantle. Even in the 1950s-60s the NFL already had, on average, superior, athletes to baseball. Jim Brown, Marion Motley, Doak Walker, Night Train Lane, Sam Huff, Bob Hayes, Gale Sayers, etc. were some of the most gifted athletes of their time. When baseball was still king they still chose football.

[mac195]

There seems to be some bizarre perception that baseball today is losing hundreds of Willie Mays and Hank Aarons to other sports and I think that is completely unfounded.
Not hundreds, but probably 2 or 3, along with a handful of Dick Allens, and a dozen Bob Watsons and Willie Wilsons.

[Victory Faust]

Baseball isn't nearly as popular with America's youth, black, white, asian, etc as it was 30 years ago. Baseball was THE sport when I was a kid in the 70s.


You're right, of course. I live in mixed-race neighborhood in Detroit, where there are lots of white and Hispanic kids. My son LOVES baseball, but all his friends sneer and tell him "baseball is boring."

This summer, I coached for one of our local park-league teams, and we had a hard time getting up enough kids to play the game. Half the time only 5-6 kids would show up for games -- for both teams -- and we would end up having a practice instead of an actual game.

So even American Hispanic children don't seem to be playing ball -- at least, not in my neighborhood. Most of the Hispanic superstars at the Major League level come from other countries.

I think the lack of kids playing ball is an American problem. One incident that happened at a friend's house a few years ago sums it up:

It was a gorgeous summer day, and my buddy's kid was sitting in front of the TV playing a Madden football video game. I shook my head. When I was a kid, we'd be outside actually PLAYING the game, not slouched in front of a TV set pushing buttons.

That's why so many American kids are obese. They just vegetate in front of the TV set. And, who can blame them? They're learning from their parents.

Most adults I know flop down on the couch when they get home and stick their faces in the TV set for four hours before going to bed. If parents would set better examples -- or, God forbid, actually take the time out to actually DO SOMETHING with their kids -- maybe things wouldn't be so bad.

Of course, there are a lot of American basketball and football players. But those games have strong school support, so many kids play those games in high school. It's just not cool being on the baseball team any more.

That's my five minutes on the sociological soapbox.

[mac195]

MANY studies have been conducted showing that at 3 and 4, white and black kids are roughly equivalent in IQ according to standardized measures.

...still waiting for info on these studies, Chris.

From page one of "The Black-White Test Score Gap" (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:S_rNfpItdAgJ:www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html+IQ+black+white+childhood&hl=en), a very mainstream collection of academic writing on the subject published in 1998:


AFRICAN AMERICANS currently score lower than European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and mathematics tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence. This gap appears before children enter kindergarten (figure 1-1), and it persists into adulthood.

There is lots of debate... over how much this gap has closed, and how much it might close in the future... over how much of an effect schools have on the gap... over whether or not gains made closing it with children can last into adulthood, etc. But there is no debate over the existance of a significant gap from early childhood.

[csh19792001]

...still waiting for info on these studies, Chris.

From page one of "The Black-White Test Score Gap" (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:S_rNfpItdAgJ:www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html+IQ+black+white+childhood&hl=en), a very mainstream collection of academic writing on the subject published in 1998:

There is lots of debate... over how much this gap has closed, and how much it might close in the future... over how much of an effect schools have on the gap... over whether or not gains made closing it with children can last into adulthood, etc. But there is no debate over the existance of a significant gap from early childhood .

And what is that gap a result of? You originally made the blanket statement "race". That's patently false.

Just your of curiosity (and to see what you're coming into this conversation with) what is your educational background, Mac? Your specific degrees/schooling?

Among other statements, you wrote:


Lots of "culture free" or "culture fair" IQ tests have been devised. These tests also point to large, consistant racial gaps..

Where'd you pull this one from? Well it's also false. I've administered, scored, interpreted, and studied the psychometric validity and reliability of many nonverbal, "culture free" tests like the C-TONI, the PPVT, and the Key Math R/NU. You can look at the nomative sampling data in any technical/interpretive manual or any of the Mental Measurements Yearbooks in print. They point to nothing remotely resembling the statement above. The less cultural loading a test carries, the more attenuated any differences in mean scores become.


The biggest reason blacks, as a group, do worse in school is their average 85 IQ. When you have an IQ below 85, as half of all African Americans do, school is hard.

There is NO scientifically sound, verified, reputable, replicated evidence or exigent literature studies in the psychological community suggesting that African American people are innately less intelligent than Euro American people. That is the statment that you originally made. When you say "blacks have an average IQ of 85", you're ascribing their scores to their race ony.

In reality, much of it has to do with the disparity in what Cattell and others have called insufficient "g" loading often occuring in black children due to environmental contributors prevalent between ages 2 and 5.

During the first two years of life, meta analyses have not shown African American Children and Euro American children to be significantly disparate in terms of intellectual functioning. At 3 or 4 years of age, however, race and social class differences arise that remain stable during the school years.

Ceci (1991), Brody (1992), Jensen (1975) and others have demonstrated the strong correlation between school quality and intellectual ability. Good schools promote attitudes that help children learn how to take tests; attending to questions, monitoring responses, sitting still, establishing rapport, and fostering motivation. Memory, reasoning, deductive inference, for example, are all promoted in good schools and are measured by intelligence tests. And this glaring disparity in school quality is, well, patently obvious in the United States.

The present overwhelming consensus is that we absolutely cannot draw valid inferences about genetic differences between races in their cultural patters and in their physical environment. These disparities influcence the development of cognitive skills in complex ways, and no one has succeeded in either estimating or eliminating their effects. Centuries of iniquities and discrimination and the growth of a massive cultural divide have made meaningless direct comparisons of the IQ scores of African Americans and Euro Americans.

-Assessment of Children, Cognitive Applications (Sattler, 2001)

I provided you with several textbooks from my coursework, each of which dealing with the issues of cultural loading, differential contruct validity, differential content validity, content bias, cross cultural assessment and invervention, etc (all in copious detail). Chap 20 of Sattler deals exclusively with these issues and the requisite supreme court legislation of the past 3 decades.

I'd also recommend the Journal of Educational Psychology (you can use ebscohost or psychinfo) if you want peer reviewed, academically verified empirical reserach on the topic.

Did they permit the use of wikipedia as a viable source for your research papers in college? For your thesis (if you wrote one)? Christ, google searches and you expect to find consistenty scholarly, reputable results?

Man, I hope not. :ughh

[mac195]

Chris, I was going to take your post point by point. But seeing this...


In reality, much of it has to do with the disparity in what Cattell and others have called insufficient "g" loading often occuring in black children due to environmental contributors prevalent between ages 2 and 5.

... I just shake my head in amazement. For those who may not be familiar with the term "g", it is shorthand for "general intelligence", or "the general factor of intelligence" (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html). Many believe that "g" is about the physical functioning of the brain, the number, speed and efficiency of the neurons and synapses. It is thought to be the essence of what IQ tests are trying to measure. The term "g loading" refers to the degree to which a particular test measures "g", as opposed to specific learned abilities. Tests can be "g" loaded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Validity_and_g-loading_of_specific_tests), or not. It is meaningless to talk about people being "g" loaded.

[Joltin' Joe]

What exactly are the two sides arguing about here. What IS there to argue about. Tons of money and time has been spent on research that clearly shows differences in racial populations. East Africans are built for long distance running, West Africans for sprinting/jumping. Big white dudes from Sweden and Finland are built for strongman competition type events. We are all given gifts to begin with because of our heritage, but it's what we choose to develop, and to what extent, that determines our success. We should embrace these differences and appreciate them. Not too hard to understand, and it's not racial, just fact.

This may be the most sensible post in the entire thread.

The genetic makeup of the three races are different. This is not an opinion, a racist comment, or an ignorant statement. It is a FACT. Anyone that thinks otherwise is out of their mind, in denial, or going out of their way to be "politically correct".
The three races are different, right down to the bones. If someone murdered you and dumped your body in the mountain and your skeletal remains were discovered a year later, a forensic scientist would be able to instantly identify if you were a Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid. End of story!

[Sultan_1895-1948]

This may be the most sensible post in the entire thread.

The genetic makeup of the three races are different. This is not an opinion, a racist comment, or an ignorant statement. It is a FACT. Anyone that thinks otherwise is out of their mind, in denial, or going out of their way to be "politically correct".
The three races are different, right down to the bones. If someone murdered you and dumped your body in the mountain and your skeletal remains were discovered a year later, a forensic scientist would be able to instantly identify if you were a Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid. End of story!

Exactly. I was trying to understand what the point is here. If it's wondering why MLB rosters aren't made up of more than 9% blacks, then you'd get into a whole sociological, economical, and cultural discussion. Which would probably inspire more bickering, with people pointing out exceptions rather than the rules, rendering the whole thing pointless.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Scouts stopped going into the cities because they feared for their safety, once they turned their backs on the talent in the inner city the kids turned their backs on the game.
I think you can rule this one reason out completely.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Is it at all possible that many of today's blacks choose other sports over baseball for what ever reason they choose to. We can complictate the issue by discussing all other "possible" reasons, social issues, genetics and any others and the answer may be a simple one, they choose other sports.

[Jidge708]

Is it at all possible that many of today's blacks choose other sports over baseball for what ever reason they choose to. We can complictate the issue by discussing all other "possible" reasons, social issues, genetics and any others and the answer may be a simple one, they choose other sports.

Some times simple will do, I agree. Your statement may not be the whole answer but I believe a part of it, less blacks in todays game.
Lets remember baseball was the biggest game in town from the early 1900s up to around 1950s-60s. Interest in football and basketball came in much later than baseball it just took a while for more blacks to take a great interest in the other sports.

I respect and welcome other ideas, reasons for the decline of blacks in baseball but I think we are digging too deep when the answer could be simple.

[64Cards]

I thought I might revive this thread after watching Vince Young, the QB for Texas, turn in a performance last night in the Rose Bowl that was greatest I've seen from any athlete in a champioship game. UT won their first national championship since 1970 [actually,1969 season] and I don't know how many of you know this, but that team that won it in 69 was the last all-white team to win the college football national title. UT's team last night had, I believe, 17 of 22 starters who were black, including all the players at the skill positions. In a nutshell, this is why there are less American blacks in MLB that there were in the late 60's and 70's.

[538280]

I thought I might revive this thread after watching Vince Young, the QB for Texas, turn in a performance last night in the Rose Bowl that was greatest I've seen from any athlete in a champioship game. UT won their first national championship since 1970 [actually,1969 season] and I don't know how many of you know this, but that team that won it in 69 was the last all-white team to win the college football national title. UT's team last night had, I believe, 17 of 22 starters who were black, including all the players at the skill positions. In a nutshell, this is why there are less American blacks in MLB that there were in the late 60's and 70's.

That and the emergence of basketball to an almost equal level as baseball. 100% agreed.

[west coast orange and black]

texas had 17 of 22 starters who are black...
bingo.

the emergence of basketball
bango.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I thought I might revive this thread after watching Vince Young, the QB for Texas, turn in a performance last night in the Rose Bowl that was greatest I've seen from any athlete in a champioship game. UT won their first national championship since 1970 [actually,1969 season] and I don't know how many of you know this, but that team that won it in 69 was the last all-white team to win the college football national title. UT's team last night had, I believe, 17 of 22 starters who were black, including all the players at the skill positions. In a nutshell, this is why there are less American blacks in MLB that there were in the late 60's and 70's.

I've already addressed this many times. Greatness in football doesn't mean greatness in baseball. How is a 300 pound linemen a good baseball prospect. The 1969 UT was an anachronyism. As early as the 1950s blacks started to make inroads in football. By 1969, Jim Brown, O.J. Simpson, Gale Sayers, Night Train Lane, and a host of other great football players had already made headlines in college football.

We can't assume that if Vince Young would have been around in a previous era that he would have automatically went into baseball instead of football.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That and the emergence of basketball to an almost equal level as baseball. 100% agreed.
Why do people have this belief that football and basketball were nothing in the 1950s-60s? They were huge sports even back then. Yes, baseball was number one but not by a great amount as most people think. If you took the best athletes in football and baseball at the time, they were much better athletes than the black players in baseball. Quick, name some great athletic black baseball players of the 1950s-60s other than Willie Mays?

Great athletes like Jim Brown, Oscar Roberston, Eljain Baylor, Gale Sayers, OJ Simpson, Night Train Lane, Bob Hayes, etc. chose football and basketball over baseball.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I thought I might revive this thread after watching Vince Young, the QB for Texas, turn in a performance last night in the Rose Bowl that was greatest I've seen from any athlete in a champioship game. UT won their first national championship since 1970 [actually,1969 season] and I don't know how many of you know this, but that team that won it in 69 was the last all-white team to win the college football national title. UT's team last night had, I believe, 17 of 22 starters who were black, including all the players at the skill positions. In a nutshell, this is why there are less American blacks in MLB that there were in the late 60's and 70's.

Perfect example is West Virginia's quarterback. I only know of him because I had money on the game and he cost me 100 bucks, but his last name is White and he was like the third string QB at the beginning of the year. He destroyed Georgia with his cannon and quickness. He was apparently drafted by MLB as a pitcher, yet he is playing third string QB in college? This would not have happened many decades ago. You chose to do something and stuck with it. FAR too many options today.

[mac195]

I've already addressed this many times. Greatness in football doesn't mean greatness in baseball. How is a 300 pound linemen a good baseball prospect.

You aren't arguing with anybody but yourself, Honus. Nobody is claiming tht all black football players would have been good baseball players. But it is a safe bet that some of them would.


Why do people have this belief that football and basketball were nothing in the 1950s-60s?
Again, nobody believes this. People think that football and basketball were much less popular relative to baseball then they are now, especially among blacks, and that is pretty much indisputable.

[Appling]

It is obvious to anyone who cares to look that sociology is the determining factor in why a particular race is drawn to a particular sport.
This single sentence may deserve a post of its own. Anyway, I agree with it.

Immigrant people dominated baseball at the turn of the 20th Century -- especially Irish. But not many Irish in MLB today -- probably too comfortable.

As a teenager (early 1950's) I worked with a middle-aged immigrant from Ireland who was the company's top "piecework" producer, getting paid a penny or two for each empty 50-gallon barrel he could load in a railcar (by hand!). He out-produced everyone else by a wide margin, yet he also starred on a semi-pro Rugby team which played on Sunday. Anyone born in this country would be too tired to even play that kind of game on the weekend.

I would expect "superior genetics" to produce results like thoubred race horses -- star players should produce star athlete sons. Yet before 1950 very few "star players" had sons who also made it to the majors: no Babe Ruth Jr. or Ty Cobb Jr. or Honus Wagner, Jr. -- nothing like that. George Sisler's son Dick Sisler made it to the majors, but I can't think of many others. Yogi Berra's son Dale Berra? (Until the greatest superstars of the last 20 years appeared on the scene: Ken Griffey, Jr. and Barry Bonds, each the son of an MLB All-Star. I wonder what happened to cause THAT "process change"! And these sons of MLB stars are still very much the exception.)

Young men who were raised in near-poverty conditions (regardless of race) seem to have a better chance of making it to stardom in MLB -- or in the NBA. Or at least that's my opinion.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You aren't arguing with anybody but yourself, Honus. Nobody is claiming tht all black football players would have been good baseball players. But it is a safe bet that some of them would.
Yes, and as I stated before many times. The loss of some great black athletes has not lowered the quality of the baseball. They have been replaced with equally great latin ballplayers. This is the main point of this entire thread when I started it.


Again, nobody believes this. People think that football and basketball were much less popular relative to baseball then they are now, especially among blacks, and that is pretty much indisputable.
And this effects the quality of baseball how?

[mac195]

I would expect "superior genetics" to produce results like thoubred race horses -- star players should produce star athlete sons.
Champion race horses probably aren't much more successful than MLB greats in producing champion offspring.

In the succeeding years, Secretariat's offspring would do better than average at the races, and several would excel. Still, though mated to the world's best mares, Secretariat never approached the same greatness as a sire of racehorses that he displayed on the track. In turn, nearly all of his sons would be unexceptional sires. Secretariat died in 1989, and as his last, aging runners go into retirement, the book is closing on a stud career that has often been described, in light of the initial expectations, as a disappointment.
http://www.horseweb.com/client/jv/equus.htm


And these sons of MLB stars are still very much the exception.)
Sons of great athletes usually aren't as great as their fathers, but they are much more likely than the average person to become pro athletes. Athletic talent does run in families.


Young men who were raised in near-poverty conditions (regardless of race) seem to have a better chance of making it to stardom in MLB -- or in the NBA. Or at least that's my opinion.
Race is a bigger factor than economic circumstance. Poor American blacks are much more likely than poor whites or Asians to grow up and make money playing sports.

[runningshoes]

Got a little more than you bargained for there, eh? It is quite a fascinating topic. If you really are interested, I'd suggest that you read the wikipedia entry and follow all the links.

Wilkipedia ia well know for the holes in it's content and fact.

[mac195]

Feel free to point these holes out for us, as they relate to the discussion, runningshoes53. I'd be interested in knowing what they are.

[Redondos]

I've already addressed this many times. Greatness in football doesn't mean greatness in baseball. How is a 300 pound linemen a good baseball prospect. The 1969 UT was an anachronyism.

Oh, I have to take exception to that last statement.

The phenomenom of Blacks being excluded from participation in bigtime collegiate sports in the South was all too much a reality in the 1960s, sad to say.

You think the 1969 Longhorn football team was an aberration of some sort? Unfortunately, it was all too prevalent! The #2 team of that year was Arkansas. That team also had no Blacks. Neither did any of Bear Bryant's mythical national title teams of 1964-65.

In fact, there were no Black athletes in the *entire* SEC conference all the way up to 1967. This was true, not only in football, but in basketball as well. (Vanderbilt basketball player Perry Wallace being the first to break the SEC's color barrier.)

And lest anyone think that the rest of the collegiate landscape during the 1960s was a harmonious Rainbow Coalition that welcomed Black athletes with open arms, there were the stories of some wealthy athletic boosters of Big 10 schools who put pressure on their coaches to cap the number of Blacks allowed to play on the team. In his autobiography, Duffy Daugherty of Michigan St. recalled an ugly episode he had with a booster who threatened to cut off his support if Duffy started more than 2 Blacks in the backfield.

So even if you want to argue the relative popularities of baseball versus football and basketball, then and now, a realist would have to admit that when it came to bigtime NCAA football and basketball competition, a lot of talented Black athletes faced a lot of roadblocks prior to the 1970s. And because the NFL and the NBA relied almost exclusively on colleges as their farm system back then, it made it that much harder for Blacks to aspire toward an NFL or an NBA career.

Baseball, of course, was different.

When I consider these circumstances, it is hard for me to believe that these things didn't have a factor in directing and pushing more Black athletes into pursuing a baseball career prior to the 1970s. But when intercollegiate opportunities opened up in the years that followed, this led more Blacks into careers in other sports.

[runningshoes]

Feel free to point these holes out for us, as they relate to the discussion, runningshoes53. I'd be interested in knowing what they are.

Sorry man, I have no desire to go where your mind does and I'm not about to reference, digest or spew information that it's users can edit...know what I mean? I'm just letting you know and the others who might buy into your garbage that it's not taken seriously by scholars, news agencies and the like so, perhaps you can start referencing sources that are.

Perhaps you've been living in one of the most racist cultures in the world for a bit too long.

[mac195]

I'm not citing Wikipedia as an authority. I mearly suggested it as a source of information on the topic for people who are genuinely interested. The entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence) I mentioned provides a good balanced overview, with plenty of links to authoritative sources.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Oh, I have to take exception to that last statement.

The phenomenom of Blacks being excluded from participation in bigtime collegiate sports in the South was all too much a reality in the 1960s, sad to say.

You think the 1969 Longhorn football team was an aberration of some sort? Unfortunately, it was all too prevalent! The #2 team of that year was Arkansas. That team also had no Blacks. Neither did any of Bear Bryant's mythical national title teams of 1964-65.
What about the other powerhouses? What about the schools from the Northeast and the West? Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan State, etc.



In fact, there were no Black athletes in the *entire* SEC conference all the way up to 1967. This was true, not only in football, but in basketball as well. (Vanderbilt basketball player Perry Wallace being the first to break the SEC's color barrier.)
See above reply. How many black players did John Wooden's UCLA dynasty have?



And lest anyone think that the rest of the collegiate landscape during the 1960s was a harmonious Rainbow Coalition that welcomed Black athletes with open arms, there were the stories of some wealthy athletic boosters of Big 10 schools who put pressure on their coaches to cap the number of Blacks allowed to play on the team. In his autobiography, Duffy Daugherty of Michigan St. recalled an ugly episode he had with a booster who threatened to cut off his support if Duffy started more than 2 Blacks in the backfield.
And yet they did allow black athletes to compete. Why? Because winning, making, money, and fame trumps even racism. When so called "racist boosters" started to see that black athletes were helping their school win championships they changed their tune didn't they.


So even if you want to argue the relative popularities of baseball versus football and basketball, then and now, a realist would have to admit that when it came to bigtime NCAA football and basketball competition, a lot of talented Black athletes faced a lot of roadblocks prior to the 1970s. And because the NFL and the NBA relied almost exclusively on colleges as their farm system back then, it made it that much harder for Blacks to aspire toward an NFL or an NBA career.

Of course blacks faced a lot of road blocks. No one denies that. But even with these road blocks, Great black athletes still got through. Jim Brown, Ernie Davis, Gale Sayers, OJ Simpson wer some of the greatest football players of the 1960s.



Baseball, of course, was different.
You mean before or after 1947?



When I consider these circumstances, it is hard for me to believe that these things didn't have a factor in directing and pushing more Black athletes into pursuing a baseball career prior to the 1970s. But when intercollegiate opportunities opened up in the years that followed, this led more Blacks into careers in other sports.
This isn't the issue. The whole point of this thread is even though baseball today is lose some great black athletes, this loss does not effect the quality of play.

Yes, the South was way behind in recruiting black athletes. I will give you that. But the South is not the entire USA! My point was in regards to all of America, not just the South. As for rankings, the polls are not always good indicators as to who actually ar the best college football teams. And when did the South finally start recruiting black athletes? When they started to get beat consistently by integrated teams from the Northeast and the West. They realized that if they want to continue to compete at the highest level they must recriut black athletes. Also a small number of Southern teams were pushing the envelope. What NCAA basketball team fielded the first all black starting five in the NCAA Basketball Championship game in 1965? None other than Texas Western (now UTEP), a Southern team.

[janduscframe]

Appling, I'm interested by your statement. It does seem that so many people who achieve fame or success in whatever field often start out at the bottom.
Refusing rejection or at least getting used to dusting one's boots off,getting back up and back in the fight does appear to be a common thread for success in not only sports but other fields as well. I noticed a long time ago that the most successful sales people I worked with were of average intellect...In 30 some years I can only recall two out of who knows how many sales people that would have tested high on an SAT or any intelligence test.
My line of thought was and still is,one of average or maybe a bit below average in intelligence is used to getting rejected and has learned that to succeed they must get right back in the battle and keep plugging away.Things don't come easy..
Those blessed with intelligence are often used to achieving things easily and once they meet an obstacle, they try to think their way through or give up and try a different avenue. Can't one relate this to baseball or any sport?
One cannot give up.. One WILL face failure... One must forget the failures and move forward to achieve success.( either that or maybe the smart people are smart enough not to get into sales in the first place:laugh )

You guys sure have some interesting discussions..

[Honus Wagner Rules]

OK, I think I need to refocus this thread to its original purpose. It's gotten off track with several conversations going on about the intelligence of black people and the state of college football and basketball back in the 1960s. :rolleyes:

The position that I stated in my original post is that baseball has lost some great black athletes to football and baseball. However I make these points:

1) The loss of these great black athletes has not lowered the quality of baseball in any significant way, mainly because of the large influx of Latin ballplayers.

2) Many of the great black athletes today would not necessarily would have been great baseball players.

3) I believe a new wave of great black players is potentially upon us. There are a group of young and exciting black players on the rise:

Dontrelle Willis, Carl Crawford, Grady Sizemore, C.C. Sabathia, Vernon Wells, Prince Fielder, Rickie Weeks, BJ Upton, Justin Upton, Delmon Young are some of the best young players and prospects in the game.


I've asked this various times and no one has responded. I look at the great black baseball players of the 1960s-70s. How many of these players could have potentially been "stolen" by other sports if they were playing today? I can think of only a few:

Dave Winfield (Football)
Rickey Henderson (football)
Bob Gibson (basketball)
Dick Allen

Interestingly baseball has stolen some athletes from other sports:

Bo Jackson
Deion Sanders
Brian Jordan
Kenny Lofton

So let the debate continue...;)

[west coast orange and black]

"greatness in football means greatness in baseball" is not my argument, honus. rather, it seems that today's kids in america are more interested in sports other than baseball and the american baseball pool is shrinking.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

"greatness in football means greatness in baseball" is not my argument, honus. rather, it seems that today's kids in america are more interested in sports other than baseball and the american baseball pool is shrinking.
Somewhat it has but by how much and how does that effect the overall quality of the game?

[west coast orange and black]

your thread is "the myth of the missing great black athlete in baseball", and your initial post i think is right on the mark... mostly.

your purpose of debunking the myth omits the fact that when other sports do siphon off baseball's otherwises, and then those kids discover that they do not excel in them, it is too late to now dedicate themselves to baseball.

in other words, wags, kids by and large hafta start at baseball when they are young if they are to excel at it.

the overall quality of the game is still strong because of the influx of other fantastic, non-american athletes.

[Ubiquitous]

Again though kids don't just play one sport growing up. They almost never have. And nowadays like never before if a kid chooses one sport over another and then finds out that he doesn't have enough to make it to the next level he still has a chance to try the other sport. In the last 20 or 30 years we have seen plenty of minor leaguers who cannot get into the majors leave and make it on pro rosters of other sports.

[redmask]

I'll make this quick on a list. ( Don't bother me with the resources, most of this is 1st chapter info in most intro social-psychology and biology books.)

1. Genetics are different in different races. But the difference is so minicule that very few test can provide the public community with clues to advantages/disadvantages certain people would have over others.

2. Genetics are actually more related to location
2a. The cultural activity for a group of people is usually community-based. I say this because people forget that although there are genetic difference that allow very small advantages of people over another, its less on the point of race than it is on geographic location (there are people who are white that are more closely genetically related to african-americans regardless of skin color since skin color represents so little of genetic information, whereas the geographical area is a better medium to find relations between people). Since sports is a cultural activity, its basis in a community is heavily relevant in order that a person receives expertise in the game. The influx of dominicans is analogous to how important the game is to their culture and young. The influx of black americans in sports is misleading; what should be looked at is the influx of SOUTHERN & MIDWESTERN players playing in the game (which you will see a more striking difference in geography than race dynamics). This relates to how important sports may be in these geographical regions.

3. Sports do not define genetic advantages.

People have to remember that sports was a game that were created to show off unique talents of players. But these talents aren't directly correlative to genes; sports isn't a test to determine who has better genes. Instead of naming players who are of a certain race, what about the players who don't have the physical, mental, or psychologyical makeup for the game and still have the ability to be prolific?

Manu Ginobli, Andrei Kirilenko: These guys seem to be the most unorthodox players to ever play basketball, yet they have an uncanny ability to just be able to play. The complexity of their genetic values, combined with their training and their perception of the game creates a complex system of performance that can't just be defined by "good" or "bad" genes.

jamie moyer: He throws low 80's and loses command at given times, terry mulholland from a mile away looks better than moyer. But who has won 100 games the last 6 years?

Marvin Harrison: 6"0 170 lbs. my mother is bigger than he is. plays wide receiver with the size that high school receivers can barely make a team with. best WR in football.

tim wakefield: he perfected a goof pitch. has made 30 mil off it the last ten years. I dont think white genes give an advantage of goof pitches.

curtis pride: he was deaf. i know you dont have to hear to play baseball, but a disadvantage nonetheless.

My list can go on forever, but my point is sports is a very young medium that as people play they will find different ways to excel regardless of pure physical or physiological talent/intelligence derived from genes. This argument about race is bull since skin color is a horrible ( maybe the worst) genotypic value to differentiate separate people. This gets confusing since homogeneous skin colors exist in many communities in the world (which is relative to politics and culture, not genetics). I think this conversation can progress but lets leave the sexy race card out of it (since we talked about it for 100,000 posts already).

[west coast orange and black]

Ubiquitous: In the last 20 or 30 years we have seen plenty of minor leaguers who cannot get into the majors leave and make it on pro rosters of other sports.

this sounds like good news, everywhereman. any names drop off your tongue right now?

[Ubiquitous]

Drew Henson
Chad Hermanson or Hutchinson forget which, minor league Cub, QB for Dallas
Ricky Williams
Danny Ainge
Theres a couple others but I'm forgetting

On the flipside Danny Kanell went from pro football to minor league baseball

[west coast orange and black]

while that's not exactly "plenty", i see your point that it can and does happen.

[Ubiquitous]

Like I said that was just off the top of my head and recent ones.

NFL DB John Lynch

Dan Marino played Federation league baseball while playing college football
It was Quincy Carter that played minor league baseball then Football.

Cedric Benson played a year of minor league ball

[west coast orange and black]

that makes "lots", which is pretty close to "plenty". :waving

[Redondos]

What about the other powerhouses? What about the schools from the Northeast and the West? Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan State, etc.

They obviously allowed Black student-athletes. But as I also said, even some of those "supposedly" integrated schools had unwritten quotas on the number of Blacks they could take in.



See above reply. How many black players did John Wooden's UCLA dynasty have?.

UCLA was liberal when it came to admitting Blacks. Doesn't change the fact that in the 1950s and '60s, the total number of opportunities for Blacks to compete in intercollegiate competition was more limited back then than it is today.



And yet they did allow black athletes to compete. Why? Because winning, making, money, and fame trumps even racism. When so called "racist boosters" started to see that black athletes were helping their school win championships they changed their tune didn't they..

They did, but that didn't mean they would have invited them to home for a family dinner. That didn't mean they would have wanted a Black player (no matter how talented) to be in a position of leadership, like QB.



Of course blacks faced a lot of road blocks. No one denies that. But even with these road blocks, Great black athletes still got through. Jim Brown, Ernie Davis, Gale Sayers, OJ Simpson wer some of the greatest football players of the 1960s..

Truly great ones got through. But as I said, those that were pretty good, those that were just considered average,.... what about them?



You mean before or after 1947?.

Can't you figure that one out for yourself?


This isn't the issue..

I think it is. It certainly goes a long way towards explaining why there were more athletically inclined Blacks entering baseball in the 1950s and '60s, and why there was a decline starting in the 70s, and beyond.


Yes, the South was way behind in recruiting black athletes. I will give you that. But the South is not the entire USA!

And for the umpteenth time, no, it's not! I never said that the attitudes in the south was a reflection on the nation as a whole, so give up that strawman, will ya?

All I'm saying is that, even if colleges in the west, east, and midwest allowed opportunities for Blacks in athletics during the 1950s-60s, there was still the problem of schools in an entire region that shut their doors on them. This STILL represents a decrease in the total number of opportunities for Blacks, whether they are great athletes or not, doesn't it?



My point was in regards to all of America, not just the South. As for rankings, the polls are not always good indicators as to who actually ar the best college football teams. And when did the South finally start recruiting black athletes? When they started to get beat consistently by integrated teams from the Northeast and the West. They realized that if they want to continue to compete at the highest level they must recriut black athletes.

Do you want to know the truth? Can you handle the truth?:laugh

The MAIN reason why schools in the SEC began slowly opening their doors to Blacks wasn't because of losing to schools from other regions, my friend. Actually, it happened because an all lily-white Alabama team went UNDEFEATED and UNTIED in 1966. This was a season in which the Tide were coming off 1964 and '65 season in which they were voted the national title by the AP. And despite an undefeated/untied season in '66, they finished in the same poll at #3! Media speculation abounded that many AP voters did not give Alabama the top spot, despite the Tide being the TWO-TIME defending national champs, because of the team's exclusionary policies. So even though Alabama went undefeated and untied, they had to settle for finishing below Notre Dame and Michigan St., both of whom were unbeaten, but had one TIE against themselves.

Read this article, and enlighten yourself.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10216551/

And so, Alabama and the rest of the SEC got the message. And within a few years, they started integrating. As I said, it really wasn't because of losing. Heck, the first SEC football team to start a black player (Tennessee in 1968) finished with a 9-2 record and an Orange Bowl bid the season before.



Also a small number of Southern teams were pushing the envelope. What NCAA basketball team fielded the first all black starting five in the NCAA Basketball Championship game in 1965? None other than Texas Western (now UTEP), a Southern team.

Make that 1966. And yes, UTEP's success did open the eyes of many in the South, including the all-white team they did beat for the national title, Kentucky. However, the Wildcats won an awful lot of games to get to the NCAA finals. In fact, they were 27-1 before falling short to the Miners. I certainly wouldn't classify that as "getting beat consistently."

[Scoops]

Like I said that was just off the top of my head and recent ones.

NFL DB John Lynch

Dan Marino played Federation league baseball while playing college football
It was Quincy Carter that played minor league baseball then Football.

Cedric Benson played a year of minor league ball

Florida State University hs produced two QBs who played another sport professionally. Charlie Ward who went to the NBA and Chris Weinke who quit baseball (he was a 1B in the Jays organization in the Delgado days) to go back to school. Both won the Heisman trophy and a national championship.

[west coast orange and black]

ok, so that makes "plenty", in my book. :waving

[Honus Wagner Rules]

your thread is "the myth of the missing great black athlete in baseball", and your initial post i think is right on the mark... mostly.

your purpose of debunking the myth omits the fact that when other sports do siphon off baseball's otherwises, and then those kids discover that they do not excel in them, it is too late to now dedicate themselves to baseball.

in other words, wags, kids by and large hafta start at baseball when they are young if they are to excel at it.

the overall quality of the game is still strong because of the influx of other fantastic, non-american athletes.

The myth I am trying to debunk is since baseball has lost some great black athletes, baseball has suffered a downward trend in quality.That is simply not true.

[west coast orange and black]

"because baseball has lost some great black athletes, baseball has suffered a downward trend in quality".

i do not believe that to be the case, wags. so sorry that i did not grasp your position, wags.
consider me to be in your corner.

[64Cards]

Again though kids don't just play one sport growing up. They almost never have. And nowadays like never before if a kid chooses one sport over another and then finds out that he doesn't have enough to make it to the next level he still has a chance to try the other sport. In the last 20 or 30 years we have seen plenty of minor leaguers who cannot get into the majors leave and make it on pro rosters of other sports.
I would disagree, because a kid who has the great ability is now pushed into concentrating on just one sport once he gets into HS, so he can get the scholarship. They have summer basketball leagues and camps. There are also summer football camps hosted by big name college coaches. In Texas, and I might guess some other football crazy states, they have spring football practice, just like big colleges do. I don't know that much about Vince Youngs bio, but I would imagine growing up in Houston, he went to spring football practice, which I would also guess that a number of college coaches would drop by for a visit. In the summer I imagine he attended the Mack Brown or Bob Stoops Football Camp, rather than play baseball.

As West Coast pointed out, baseball is a sport than takes years of training, no matter how great an athletes hand-eye coordination is.

And Honus, I'll agree that the influx of the great Latin ballplayers has kept the talent level up in MLB. I'll also agree that 300 lb. lineman aren't going to be MLB players. But they great majority of QB's and quite of few of the wr's, db's and rb's have the hand-eye coordination to become very good baseball players, but it's not something they can take up at age 22 after not playing the game for 6 years.

I'd bet there are thousands of black kids in TX who are dreaming of someday being the next Vince Young and leading the Horns to anothe Natinal Title. I doubt that in 1969, very many black kids saw themselves as James Street, the UT QB. That option wasn't open to them. Maybe they idolized Astros players like Joe Morgan, Jimmy Wynn and Don Morgan.

As far intergrating the SEC in football, what really pushed the door open was when Bama played USC, around 72, I believe. USC had a bunch of great black players, I think Sam Cunningham and Anthony Davis were on that roster and after coming to Bama and kicking the crap out of the Tide, Bear Bryant got the Board of Reents and some big time alumni together after the game and referring to SC 's black players and said "I want me some of those n......" Once Bear began recruiting blacks, the walls fell down.

[Ubiquitous]

How old are you 64cards? I imagine you are in at least your 40's with a moniker like that.

I went to high school in the 90's and have since then worked with kids who either got scholarships to a variety of sports or drafted by baseball teams, and a good chunk of them played multisports.

For instance you mentioned Vince Young. Well in high school he was a two time all-district performer in baseketball, won two district championships in the 400 meter relay, and played outfield and pitched for two years.

Reggie Bush was on his high school track team

[Ubiquitous]

Carson Palmer played Basketball in high school and some organization named him to their All-American second team.

Chris Weinke played baseball in high school and even played minor league baseball for the Blue Jays for 6 years before going back to college and winning the Heisman

Ron Dayne won state titles in shotput and discus two years in a row. He even qualified for Olympic trials.

Ricky Williams played baseball as we all know

Charlie Ward played basketball as well an even played it at the NBA level.

[64Cards]

How old are you 64cards? I imagine you are in at least your 40's with a moniker like that.

I went to high school in the 90's and have since then worked with kids who either got scholarships to a variety of sports or drafted by baseball teams, and a good chunk of them played multisports.

For instance you mentioned Vince Young. Well in high school he was a two time all-district performer in baseketball, won two district championships in the 400 meter relay, and played outfield and pitched for two years.

Reggie Bush was on his high school track team
Interesting information. Didn't Reggie also play football in HS? And to think of them of the same team...it's frightening!!!

But mentioning that Young played baseball for 2 years, I'd be curious to know what years, if he gave it up after his sophomore season, cause I'd bet that college recruiters and his HS football coach told him to concentrate on football.

BTW, I'm 50.:o

[digglahhh]

Great post Redmask.

Why bother to do research, even 101, intro to social-psych level research when we can just make sweeping and innaccurate generalizations based upon stereotyping. This is like the Dave Chapelle psychic hotline skit where he predicts people's futures based upon racial stereotypes.

BTW, Lebron James was also recruited by top level colleges to play football. But apparently, Lebron could be the greatest bass fisherman in history if he chose, that is one gifted man.

Speaking of which, if we are going to take seriously anecdotal examples, how come Michael Jordan couldn't thrive, or even arrive at the top level of the game. Granted, Double A is no cake walk, and above and beyond any level of ball most of us could fathom playing, but this is Michael freaking Jordan, one of the most skilled athletes in the history of sports?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Baseball's minor league system doesn't appeal to a lot of athletes, plain and simple.

I agree with HWR, the game has not suffered greatly because of the lack of African Americans on rosters (I think it was 9% last year). Scouts find talent, and more and more they are going to where baseball is treated like it used to be. A place where kids grow up playing ball year round, and a place where there aren't as many options as America provides.

It's definately a cultural/environmental issue, along with an opportunity issue.

[leecemark]

--Wasn't Micheal Jordan 30 years old and a dozen years removed from playing any kind of baseball when he signed up for his minor league trial? If Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb or Willie Mays had spent their 20s playing another sport and then tried to play baseball they would have failed as miserably as Jordan. Had Jordan chosen baseball as a teenager I think its likely, although not certain, that he would have been very good and possibly an all time great.

[Redondos]

I'd bet there are thousands of black kids in TX who are dreaming of someday being the next Vince Young and leading the Horns to anothe Natinal Title. I doubt that in 1969, very many black kids saw themselves as James Street, the UT QB. That option wasn't open to them. Maybe they idolized Astros players like Joe Morgan, Jimmy Wynn and Don Morgan.

By the same token, I wonder how many outstanding Black athletes born and raised in the South would have entered organized baseball had colleges in the region offered them football or basketball scholarships. I could easily imagine Willie Mays and Henry Aaron playing football or basketball for some SEC school had they been offered athletic scholarships. And then you wonder if baseball history as we know it, might have been changed drastically.


As far intergrating the SEC in football, what really pushed the door open was when Bama played USC, around 72, I believe. USC had a bunch of great black players, I think Sam Cunningham and Anthony Davis were on that roster and after coming to Bama and kicking the crap out of the Tide, Bear Bryant got the Board of Reents and some big time alumni together after the game and referring to SC 's black players and said "I want me some of those n......" Once Bear began recruiting blacks, the walls fell down.

No, I'm afraid that story is NOT accurate on several counts. First of all, the game you are referring to happened during the 1970 season, when USC beat Bama, 42-21. (Sam "Bam" Cunningham played in that game. Anthony Davis was still in high school.) Before the 1970 football season even started, before that game was even played, Bear Bryant had *already* awarded a scholarship to his first Black player, Wilbur Jackson.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Speaking of which, if we are going to take seriously anecdotal examples, how come Michael Jordan couldn't thrive, or even arrive at the top level of the game. Granted, Double A is no cake walk, and above and beyond any level of ball most of us could fathom playing, but this is Michael freaking Jordan, one of the most skilled athletes in the history of sports?

When I think of Michael Jordan's baseball "vacation" I found his performance quite impressive. One think that we must remember. Jordan played only high school baseball. So he went 13 years without playing any baseball to playing at Double-A. He hit .202 if I remember. How many guys can play high school baseball then not play for 13 years then hit .200 at Double-A? That fact that he was such a gifted athlete and an extremely hard worker allowed him to play Double-A. Jordon simply didn't have major league ability.

[64Cards]

When I think of Michael Jordan's baseball "vacation" I found his performance quite impressive. One think that we must remember. Jordan played only high school baseball. So he went 13 years without playing any baseball to playing at Double-A. He hit .202 if I remember. How many guys can play high school baseball then not play for 13 years then hit .200 at Double-A? That fact that he was such a gifted athlete and an extremely hard worker allowed him to play Double-A. Jordon simply didn't have major league ability.
Honus, help me, I didn't quite understand your post. I'll agree that MJ, coming back after 13 years and then hitting .200 at Double A baseball is impressive. He was one of the greatest athletes ever, no doubt, But how does that translate in to him not "having major league ability?" I would think that indicates he had incredible ability and that playing at a MLB level takes years of work, regardless of talent level. I think if MJ had appiled himself to baseball, the way he did roundball he certainly could have been a starter in MLB, although it's a huge jump to say he would have been a superstar the way he was in basketball.

[Bench 5]

Honus, help me, I didn't quite understand your post. I'll agree that MJ, coming back after 13 years and then hitting .200 at Double A baseball is impressive. He was one of the greatest athletes ever, no doubt, But how does that translate in to him not "having major league ability?" I would think that indicates he had incredible ability and that playing at a MLB level takes years of work, regardless of talent level. I think if MJ had appiled himself to baseball, the way he did roundball he certainly could have been a starter in MLB, although it's a huge jump to say he would have been a superstar the way he was in basketball.

From watching him play baseball I was quite unimpressed with his ability to play. When he played in high school he only hit .300. Most major leaguers dominate when they are at that level.

Despite the fact that he was quick on the basketball court he was considered to be only average speed on the baseball diamond. He had long loping strides and was not very quick on the field. His swing was similar to a softball player - long and slow. He had almost no power for a big man. His arm was rated at below average. Now I say this as a Chicago fan and one of his biggest admirers.

You're right that he was at a disadvantage not having played for many years but once he decided to play he got the top coaching available and access to play minor league ball since the owner of the Bulls also owned the White Sox. He received some of the best training and coaching for several months before he reported to camp just BECAUSE he was Michael Jordan. Other minor leaguers didn't get the same advantages. Also, he was a 30 year old professional athlete in his athletic prime playing minor league ball against 19 and 20 year olds and he he could barely hit .200.

During the middle of his attempt to play in the majors as he was struggling to play ball, he told some reporters to look at his arms and then compare them to major leaguer Warren "the Deacon" Newsome's arms. Jordan had long, slender forearms which helped make him a great basketball player. Newsome was 5'7" but had short, thick, powerful forearms like Popeye. Jordan's point was that Newsome had the type of build that gave him an advantage hitting over Jordan. I think he realized that he wasn't cut out for the game. I don't think he would have even made the minors if he concentrated on baseball as a high schooler.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Honus, help me, I didn't quite understand your post. I'll agree that MJ, coming back after 13 years and then hitting .200 at Double A baseball is impressive. He was one of the greatest athletes ever, no doubt, But how does that translate in to him not "having major league ability?" I would think that indicates he had incredible ability and that playing at a MLB level takes years of work, regardless of talent level. I think if MJ had appiled himself to baseball, the way he did roundball he certainly could have been a starter in MLB, although it's a huge jump to say he would have been a superstar the way he was in basketball.
What I meant was that at age 30 MJ didn't have major league ability. He misses all those years of development so whatever potential as a major leaguer was long lost.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

From watching him play baseball I was quite unimpressed with his ability to play. When he played in high school he only hit .300. Most major leaguers dominate when they are at that level.

Despite the fact that he was quick on the basketball court he was considered to be only average speed on the baseball diamond. He had long loping strides and was not very quick on the field. His swing was similar to a softball player - long and slow. He had almost no power for a big man. His arm was rated at below average. Now I say this as a Chicago fan and one of his biggest admirers. You're missing my point. Jordon only played high school baseball and then didn't play any baseball for 13 years. Then he jumps into Double-A and hits .202 as a 31 year old. How many men could possibly do that?


You're right that he was at a disadvantage not having played for many years but once he decided to play he got the top coaching available and access to play minor league ball since the owner of the Bulls also owned the White Sox. He received some of the best training and coaching for several months before he reported to camp just BECAUSE he was Michael Jordan. Other minor leaguers didn't get the same advantages. Also, he was a 30 year old professional athlete in his athletic prime playing minor league ball against 19 and 20 year olds and he he could barely hit .200.

Getting that extra help doesn't come close to making up for 13 years of lost practices and games. Also I bet the 19-20 year olds, though much younger than Jordan, had more actual baseball experience under their belts than Jordan did. I'm sure most of them played baseball from Little League, Pony League, Babe Ruth League, AA, and high school ball.


During the middle of his attempt to play in the majors as he was struggling to play ball, he told some reporters to look at his arms and then compare them to major leaguer Warren "the Deacon" Newsome's arms. Jordan had long, slender forearms which helped make him a great basketball player. Newsome was 5'7" but had short, thick, powerful forearms like Popeye. Jordan's point was that Newsome had the type of build that gave him an advantage hitting over Jordan. I think he realized that he wasn't cut out for the game. I don't think he would have even made the minors if he concentrated on baseball as a high schooler.
I'm not sure I buy Jordan's argument. There was once a baseball player about the same age as Jordan (11 months older than Jordan) who was exactly the same height (6'6") and the same body type as Jordan. He had the same long slender arms and legs as Jordan did. And he did quite well in the majors. He was NL RoY, made eight All-Star teams, hit 335 career HRs and at one point was considered the one of the best players in baseball. Can you name this former major leaguer?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Darryl Strawberry :)

[64Cards]

What I meant was that at age 30 MJ didn't have major league ability. He misses all those years of development so whatever ptential s a major leaguer was long lost.
Gotcha. Complete agreement.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bump- Just didn't want this thread to be deleted. :)

[Gee Walker]

There's an interesting parallel between the number of African-Americans in the U.S. (about 10% or roughly 30 million people) and the total population of Canadians, which is also a bit more than 30 million. And to this I ask the question: "Where are all the Canadians in MLB?"

There's a rich baseball history here going back to the days of the National Association, a good all-round team of Canadians that features a Hall of Famer (Fergie Jenkins) and a couple MVP's (Larry Walker and Justin Morneau). But seriously, could Canada send up an all-time MLB team that could match California, or Texas, or Pennsylvania? Is there something lacking in the genetics of Canadians that makes them incapable of swinging a bat or throwing a fast pitch?

The reason is hockey, of course. Every athletic 10-year old boy in Canada is steered into hockey. In small towns it's the only game in town. I lived in a town with just over 1,000 people, and it had a two-pad arena. This is a town too small to have a drug store, a police detachment, a high school, or garbage pickup - but it had a full-fledged minor hockey program that started with 6 year olds and continued into leagues where the average guy was over 50.

Up until around 1970, the NHL was 99% Canadian. It's still about 2/3 Canadian. So I guess we've just got the genetics for hockey - strong ankles, insensitivity to pain, tolerance to cold. There's a hockey announcer in Canada called Don Cherry that actually believes that...

There are only so many great athletes out there, and only so many years to hone your skills until you reach your early 20's and realize whether you'll make it or not. Hockey absorbs about 90% of the Canadian talent pool here. If Wayne Gretzky had grown up in California, I'm pretty sure a guy his size (about 5'10") and incredible instincts would be a Hall of Fame middle infielder, assuming he would have started playing baseball at age 5 or so. Any NHL game will show you guys that look like they could be awesome pitchers (Chris Pronger), power-hitting outfielders (Jerome Iginla) or gritty catchers (Roberto Luongo).

So the great Canadian baseball tragedy really comes down to all the likely candidates taking another route to sports fame. That's what's really happening to the African-Americans too, of course. Spend 20 hours in a gym every week starting when you're 10 years old, and there's no surprise that when you try playing a pickup game of baseball, you can't hit, catch, or throw.

[Ubiquitous]

An interesting article today in the Wall Street Journal. In the article they explain that the supposed 27% of ballplayers are black is/was a myth. The study that pushed that number was badly done.

In reality the number probably never got as high as 20% at its peak. In fact the high water mark of 27% in 1975 is thought to be 18% in reality.

the link to the article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122357337870719657.html)

[108stitches]

Up until around 1970, the NHL was 99% Canadian. It's still about 2/3 Canadian. So I guess we've just got the genetics for hockey - strong ankles, insensitivity to pain, tolerance to cold. There's a hockey announcer in Canada called Don Cherry that actually believes that...

He is a Charasmatic character alright, but hardly speaks for all. From my experience growing up in Canada, hockey IS the number 1 sport. However, I was always a baseball nut but most children were hockey oriented. I liked and played hockey as well, but baseball was and is my passion. One very disturbing fact that I learned last year is that in my city, only 140 children registered for baseball. The local soccer association saw 1,400 children register. Wow. Soccer was a non-issue when I was a boy and didn't even have an organized league. Baseball was the number 2 sport, but times have changed. This country is very multi-cultural and traditonal sports (other than hockey) have fallen off in popularity. It's a crying shame. The percentage of Canadians in MLB will decline in the 20 years.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Wow, a blast from the past. :happy: This thread chased all kinds of rabbits.

[dl4060]

There's a hockey announcer in Canada called Don Cherry that actually believes that...
.

Don Cherry is so priceless and classic it almost cannot be quantified. I love how his blatant dislike of Europeans and Russians often makes it into his commentary.

One I remember from a number of year ago, I can't remember the player but the quote was something like:

"Did you see that? He hooked him. That sneaky little Russian really got away with one there. You really can't trust those folks."

Last year during the Stanley Cup playoffs he had another great comment. I don't remember the exact words, but he mentioned that only one European captained team had ever won the Stanley Cup, and that "that really tells us something right there."

I also love his suits. The guy is always good for a soundbite, which is a refreshing change from all the vanilla politically correct analysts out there.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

A good read about the Upton brothers.



Upton brothers look to reverse trend

By Bomani Jones
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Page 2, ESPN

When Manny Upton was growing up, his father called him Bossman. The nickname was so closely attached to him that his high school coach suggested he name his first son B.J. -- Bossman Junior.

So the Tampa Bay Devil Rays' starting second baseman goes by B.J., even though his birth certificate says his name is Melvin. B.J. Upton got more than a cool nickname from his father. He got a love of baseball and a successful work ethic from Manny and Yvonne Upton, too; and those lessons still fuel B.J. and his brother, Justin, the two highest-drafted brothers ever. B.J. was the second overall pick in the 2002 draft. Arizona took Justin with the first pick in 2005.

B.J. is off to a hot start with the Devil Rays, hitting .385 with a home run and five RBIs through the team's first eight games. Justin started 2007 with the Visalia Oaks in the Class A California League, a step up from his pro debut last year when he was a midseason All-Star with South Bend in the Midwest League.

They are bright faces of baseball's future in a time when fewer black players are reaching the majors. African-American players comprised 27 percent of big league rosters in 1974, according to the University of Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, while this season they make up only 9.2 percent.

The Uptons are aware of the numbers. With the same love he showed his sons on their way to professional baseball careers, Manny "Bossman" Upton continues to share his passion and insight with other young players back home in Cheseapeake, Va., in the hope of re-heating the relationship between blacks and baseball.

The love of baseball is passed down from father to son, perhaps more than any other sport. When Spike Lee received the Beacon Award at the Civil Rights Game in Memphis two weeks ago, he discussed how his father cultivated his affection for the game.

Bob Kendrick, the director of marketing of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, understands.

"It's the most romanticized game of all the sports. People tend to mark events in their lives with baseball. The late Buck O'Neil once said, 'You never hear anyone saying their daddies took them to their first basketball game.' But you hear it all the time with baseball."

Manny Upton picked up baseball the same way. Growing up in the Tidewater town of Chesapeake, his father passed the game along to him. All his uncles played baseball.

He became a very good player. In 32 years of coaching baseball at Great Bridge High School in Chesapeake, Martin Oliver gave starting jobs to only five freshmen. Manny was one of them, before he went on to play college football and baseball at Norfolk State University. Later, he worked as a scout for the Kansas City Royals.

"I could never remember a kid that had that great work ethic and great attitude," Oliver says from his office at Hickory High School in Chesapeake, where he serves as athletics director. "Bossman always did things the right way."

So do his sons. Steve Gedro coached B.J. at Hickory through his sophomore year, when little brother Justin served as the team's manager. Gedro sees how they learned the game's intangibles.

"Outside the lines, Manny is a laid-back individual," he says. "Inside the lines, he's very competitive."

Manny made sure to share this outlook with his sons. His father passed away when he was 15, making it imperative that he be active in his sons' lives.

Yvonne Upton says her sons loved every minute of Manny's attention, and B.J. and Justin loved playing baseball with him.

"Oh god, I tell everybody that my sons always thought the sun would rise and set with daddy," she says. "I could remember B.J. sitting in the window. He had an internal clock and knew when he'd come home, and he had his glove."

Justin wasn't far behind.

"I always made him come and play," B.J. said at his locker in spring training. With a smirk that showed humor and a dash of pride, he says, "Everything he knows, he knows from me."

Looking back, Justin didn't find much humor in those days. He remembered being on the short end of the sibling rivalry, a feeling little brothers all over can relate to. "He was always a step up, always better. He always beat up on me."

He did, however, appreciate having his older brother. Though baseball keeps them from seeing each other very often, their relationship is strong. "I did referee a lot of fights," Yvonne says between chuckles. "But that closeness between them is always there."

They battled like all brothers do, but B.J. served as another in-house role model. Unlike Manny, B.J. was Justin's contemporary, someone he could measure his progress against and aim to surpass. "To have an older brother to try to catch up to just added a little more fire under my butt. That's what drove me to be a great baseball player," Justin said.

On his way to the Devil Rays, B.J. climbed quickly through the system, reaching the majors in August of 2004 when he was still just 19 years old. Justin was the 2005 national high school player of the year and is widely considered one of the top prospects in baseball.

But their steps up the baseball ladder haven't been totally smooth. B.J. struggled defensively in the minors, even committing a whopping 53 errors at shortstop in 2005 at Triple-A Durham. Justin hit a serviceable but unspectacular .263 at South Bend.

B.J.'s struggles in the field left the Devil Rays unsure of where he would play in the big leagues, so he wore several gloves in spring training. Upton was just as confused. When asked in March what position he would play, he shook his head, took a deep breath and said "I don't know" in an exasperated tone.

"He's gonna be fine with it," Manny says before mentioning his appreciation for Tampa Bay's attempts to make his son comfortable. "He's happy at second. He'll do whatever it takes to be good."

Manny is also at ease about Justin, with no concern that being the top pick will burden the 19-year-old.

"If he proves himself at A ball, he'll move to Double-A. If he doesn't, he doesn't deserve to move," Manny says. "The added pressure isn't being No. 1. The added pressure is from getting better."

Manny Upton suggests that one of the reasons baseball seems to have lost the interest of the black community is the financial burden demanded of grooming the game's best young players. It takes money to get into the AAU programs that produce many of the top-notch high school players.

Without the wildly successful AAU summer program the late Towny Townsend founded in Chesapeake, which in recent years has produced first-round picks Michael Cuddyer, John Curtice, David Wright, Ryan Zimmerman, the Uptons would not have gotten so far.

"The more you play, the better you get," Justin says. "Playing all those games in the summer really helped."

But the summer games don't come to the players. Players have to get to the games. Parents have to be able to make time and put forth the cash to cover expenses and supplies.

"We're both working parents. They had to be where they had to be," Yvonne says. "It was a financial sacrifice. There's hotel rooms, food, etc."

Manny works as a mortgage broker and officiates college basketball. Yvonne worked as a teacher before retiring two years ago. For the Uptons, the sacrifice was manageable.

Wiley Lee is the varsity baseball coach at Great Bridge High School, where he coached Justin. He believes less fortunate black players are forced by costs to specialize in one sport, and the sport of choice in the black community is usually not baseball.

"It's a tremendous financial obligation to [play two sports]," he says. "Because of the financial obligations and the travel that you do playing AAU, it's difficult to do two at the same time."

He believes that leads kids away from baseball and toward football and basketball, games that are more prevalent and easier to pick up. That's different than baseball, which leaves those that choose to leave it.

"After 8, 9, 10 years old, you can't miss a year. After that, the kids are too advanced," Manny says. "I picked up football as a 10th-grader. I don't care how talented you are at baseball. You can't leave."

The Upton brothers were both talented football players, so they understand the lure of football and basketball. So their concerns about decreasing numbers of blacks in baseball is tempered.

"I'm not sure it's frustrating," B.J. says. "[Black kids] see guys like Michael Vick [instead of baseball players]. You just try to give them someone to look up to, to catch their eye."

Says Justin: "It's not so much disappointing. But it's to the point where we've got to pick it up again."

Wiley Lee and Manny Upton work together to encourage more black kids around Chesapeake to play baseball. Through Great Bridge High School, they provide young black athletes opportunities to play in more games and hold camps each winter, spring and summer. "We try to work with a lot of black kids and show them, not that basketball is bad, but baseball is good," Lee says.

"We have to somehow keep them involved," Manny says. "The hard part is that winters are tough. We don't have enough indoor facilities where we can keep them here all the time. Our good black athletes are good football and basketball players. We're trying to get them to start playing baseball a little bit more."

Lee says Manny's dedication is invaluable.

"He does whatever he can to help," Lee says. "We tell Upton we've got a great kid with good grades, and he comes to help. Even if he's a disciplinary problem, he helps."

B.J. and Justin also pitch in with funding for the program and help when they can.

"They come to help the kids," Lee says. "They show their faces and help motivate the kids and show it's not just a check they're willing to donate. They really spend time instructing them."

That's another example of the Bossman's mark on his kids. As proud as he is, there is one thing Manny Upton's waiting for, the one thing his sons that would please him more than anything.

"When my boys are on TV, I want them to say, 'Hi, Mom and Dad.'"

Or maybe even, "Hi, Bossman."

[Victory Faust]

I don't give a crap what color the players are, as long as they can play. Why do so many others care about something so trivial? So there were only 18 percent blacks in baseball in 1975 instead of 27 percent -- who frigging cares?

As far as that "dandy ol' man" Don Cherry is concerned: How is he any different than John Rocker? He isn't. The difference is, he's prejudiced against Europeans/Russians. So it's okay.

Let him spout off his garbage against blacks and/or Hispanics and see how quickly he's allowed to comment on ESPN.

Cherry, like Rocker, is an idiot. Only one, however, is allowed a microphone.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't give a crap what color the players are, as long as they can play. Why do so many others care about something so trivial? So there were only 18 percent blacks in baseball in 1975 instead of 27 percent -- who frigging cares?
As far as that "dandy ol' man" Don Cherry is concerned: How is he any different than John Rocker? He isn't. The difference is, he's prejudiced against Europeans/Russians. So it's okay.

Let him spout off his garbage against blacks and/or Hispanics and see how quickly he's allowed to comment on ESPN.

Cherry, like Rocker, is an idiot. Only one, however, is allowed a microphone.

I might use a different tone and different words but I am in agreement with your thought. Less blacks in the game, is this really an issue of concern, so what.

[Victory Faust]

I might use a different tone and different words but I am in agreement with your thought. Less blacks in the game, is this really an issue of concern, so what.



I'm more concerned with how many Scorpios were in the game during the 1960s.

Just kidding -- but I'm kidding to make a point. The players' zodiac signs are about as much concern to me as their skin color.

When Willie Horton came to the plate, I didn't think, "here comes a black ballplayer." To me, the only thing that was important was that Olde English D on his chest.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think Victory Faust makes a valid point. Why is no one concerned over the lack of white players in the NBA? Look at all the lost Bob Pettites, Larry Birds, Bob Cousys, Pete Marnovichs, George Mikans, Gail Goodrichs, Jerry Wests, Kevin McHales. John Havliceks, Dave Cowens', and Rick Berrys. Why doesn't the NBA have white players like these NBA greats anymore?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Interesting article on Melvin "Bossman Junior" Upton...




The true meaning of B.J. Upton

By Scoop Jackson
Page 2, ESPN
Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Be real: Evan Longoria, regardless of what happens to the Rays, is the new face and future of baseball. He's everything the game needs, everything it's supposed to be about. David Wright should be ticked.

Sitting 15 to 20 feet away from him in the dugout during a game is Longoria's teammate who may be more important to the game than Longoria is destined to be. But little does B.J. Upton know that just as Longoria must realize the game's future is in his possession, the same tag applies to him. As one of the central players in the Rays' remarkable turnaround, Upton has elevated himself during these playoffs as the face and future of "urban" baseball. A face that has been slowly disappearing in the game.

To be considered the future of a sport is a gift and a curse no athlete really wants placed on them. With it comes a quasi-responsibility to "save" something that may or may not be on its way to dying. In Upton's case, he has unknowingly become the one player that Torii Hunter and Joe Morgan have been looking to who can bring the game back to the hood in a way no other young black player in the game has been able to do.

He has put on display both the feel for the game and the look of the game that resonates with those "young'ns" who have decided that basketball and football provide a brighter future. His Mohawk (which almost the whole team -- including manager Joe Maddon -- is sporting, but there's something about B.J.'s), his style, his slight build, his mannerisms, his persona, his presence, his swag.

The beauty in Upton is that he comes across as both untouched and unforced. Raw organic professionalism is what it is. Polished realness, something Madison Avenue can't create. He's the player the kids who have lost interest in baseball -- or who never had an interest at all -- can see themselves in. The one they can see themselves as.

Maybe not on the same level, but with similar reverence, Upton might become to African-Americans in baseball what Dice-K has to Asian players or what Papi has to players in the Dominican Republic. The player who corresponds with a culture; a player who may not be mentioned by a player in next year's College World Series, but if a team from East St. Louis or Oakland makes it to the Little League World Series five years from now every one of the players will claim they were witnesses to B.J. Upton instead of LeBron.

The fact that Upton's not perfect makes him perfect. His propensity to be lazy (as witnessed in August when he "decided" not to run hard on three different occasions), the fact that Maddon literally pulled him off the field after not running out a double-play ground ball, the meaningless error in the seventh inning of Game 4 that allowed questions about his lack of focus to surface. All display a flaw in him that almost works to his advantage when kids and wannabe baseball players look at him and say "I'm not perfect either, but look, he's still standing."

And he's standing in a way and in a place that no other young homegrown player of African-American descent has stood on this stage at this age since Ken Griff or D. Straw in their primes. And it's happening without Upton's saying he wanted to be the one to make it happen. The kid's simply playing ball and being true to who he is, and he's connecting in a way that could help raise the percentage of black players in the major leagues from a single-digit percentage to double digits in a few years.

Crack. Another one leaves the yard. That one was No. 5 in the postseason. Crack. Another one finds grass. That one made it seven games in a row in these playoffs when he's hit safely. The glide he possesses in center field, the distance he covers, the Willie Mays remix style he has in those over-the-shoulder catches, the arm, the extra.

"He roamed well," Maddon said after the out-of-nowhere 13-4 Game 4 victory that placed the Rays one win away from the World Series. "And we got to see his arm strength." Meaning: In an unnecessary time in the game, Upton showed off his skills for the heck of it.

So hood.

The .294 batting average and .794 slugging percentage this October have become a part of his sway instead of his résumé. In a sport that has almost reached the desperation point in trying to figure out how it will get urban youth back, Upton's postseason coming-out party couldn't be better-timed than a 936 Dow Jones bounce. And even though Longoria's latest heroics have overshadowed the contagious impact of Upton's Game 2 (a third-inning home run that began a 31-14 run over the last three games, and his 11th inning game-winning sacrifice fly that tied the series), it's Upton who may do more for the game in the long run. He's the role model, he's the torchbearer, he's the savior.

Jackie Robinson should be proud.

While the world outside of baseball is now paying attention to and falling in love with the Tampa Bay Rays, don't let a player of this possible significance pass by without notice. Because as much as Evan Longoria will dominate in the years ahead, Upton's emergence can help rewrite the game, preserving a part of a history on the verge of being lost.

When he steps up to the plate against Daisuke Matsuzaka in Game 5, this is yet-to-be-seen or realized. You don't see what he's become, or the possibilities he brings to the sport. No one watching him does. The beautiful thing about B.J. Upton is: neither does he.

Scoop Jackson is a columnist for ESPN.com.

[Victory Faust]

Jackie Robinson should be proud.


No, Jackie would put his foot up a player's ass who didn't run out a ground ball.

That article was ridiculous. So Upton is good because of his "propensity to be lazy" and because he is "so hood"???

Scoop Jackson is an idiot. It shows here.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

No, Jackie would put his foot up a player's ass who didn't run out a ground ball.

That article was ridiculous. So Upton is good because of his "propensity to be lazy" and because he is "so hood"???

Scoop Jackson is an idiot. It shows here.

I'm going with this, Upton's brand of play at times is the exact opposite of Jackie. Then the author says some of Upton's flaws almost work to his advantage when kids look at him, how is that.

Not hustling all the time is not a flaw, it's worse than that.
I was not aware of his not always running hard. Thought I was imagining one play against the Bosox, there was one game in the playoffs on a routine ground ball that he didn't seem to be running hard. Routine or not..............in the playoff, you never know, you have to run hard.

Lots of talent here, maybe he can change some of his ways.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

No, Jackie would put his foot up a player's ass who didn't run out a ground ball.

That article was ridiculous. So Upton is good because of his "propensity to be lazy" and because he is "so hood"???

Scoop Jackson is an idiot. It shows here.

Actually, Jackson responded to his use of the word "lazy".



In my column about B.J. Upton, I wrote something that sparked a reaction.

The paragraph read: "The fact that Upton's not perfect makes him perfect. His propensity to be lazy (as witnessed in August when he 'decided' not to run hard on three different occasions), the fact that [Joe] Maddon literally pulled him off the field after not running out a double-play ground ball, the meaningless error in the seventh inning of Game 4 that allowed questions about his lack of focus to surface. All display a flaw in him that almost works to his advantage when kids and wannabe baseball players look at him and say 'I'm not perfect either, but look, he's still standing.'"

For some readers, my choice of words created a misunderstanding. When the word "lazy" appeared in the context of a story about black youth, some concluded I was implying African-American kids would find the flaw of Upton being "lazy" acceptable and endearing.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Upton has survived and triumphed despite numerous flaws. I mentioned several, in an attempt to show that it is his collection of imperfections that make him so publicly "human" -- something not always so clearly visible with athletes today. That is also why I chose to finish the paragraph with the image of a kid -- any kid, regardless of race, color or creed -- who might identify with that humanity, realizing "I'm not perfect either, but look, he's still standing." My point is to highlight that we -- as humans -- can often identify with somebody through both their strengths and flaws, both of which are apparent in the new "hero." And regardless of the color of any kid's skin, flaws can be overcome.

--Scoop Jackson

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Actually, Jackson responded to his use of the word "lazy".


Well, who would know, we only saw the original, first article. The fact that he had to respond to criticizm shows his choice of words in the original were not very well accepted. Sounds like a politician, he comes back and tells us what he "actually" meant by his words.

[Victory Faust]

Well, who would know, we only saw the original, first article. The fact that he had to respond to criticizm shows his choice of words in the original were not very well accepted. Sounds like a politician, he comes back and tells us what he "actually" meant by his words.


Exactly. And "Poop" Jackson also gave us this gem:


In an unnecessary time in the game, Upton showed off his skills for the heck of it.

So hood.


Well, guess what, gangsta hood playa? Jackie Robinson frowned on that kind of showboating, too.

From everything I've read about him, Jackie was no-nonsense out there: Play your butt off from first pitch to last. Grit your teeth and play to win. None of that "hey, look how cool I am" crap. He thought it made black people look like shuffling clowns -- at least, that's what I've read.

It's obvious what Jackson was going for in his article: That BJ Upton would appeal to the hip-hoppers because he thumbs his nose at authority and is "hood" because he shows up the other opponent.

As I said in the first place: Jackson is an idiot.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

With the debate of league equality on in the Glavine vs Koosman thread I thought I'd bump this up.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The Aaron vs Bond thread reminded me of this thread. A bump for the BBF newbies. :happy:

[dominik]

Do black latin players count?:)

If yes there are tons of them in the MLB.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Lots of concern over nothing. So the percentage of blacks in the game has dropped, what about it. All the nonsense about MLB being at fault, not doing a better job of promoting the game, getting into the inner city, reaching out to the blacks.

How about keeping it simple, the game of baseball was more attractive to blacks years ago, add that to the great number of slots in the game being filled in by Latinos, Asians and other ethnic groups.

What sounds better, coming out of college and signing a big contract and going into the big league in basketball or football or going to baseball and spending who knows, how much time in the minors.

In the 1960s I grew up not far from the inner city, as teen and young adult, we played lots of baseball with blacks in the black section. There were far less playing fields back then. There are more diamonds maintained by the city now than there was years ago, suburbs and inner city, lack of places to play ball for blacks in the city have nothing to do with the drop in MLB. They had nothing years ago in the way of playing fields to play ball and there were more blacks in the game then.

There is no problem in MLB today because the percentage of blacks has dropped. I never saw a player as black, white, Latino, Asian, I saw a ballplayer, that was it.

[EdTarbusz]

. None of that "hey, look how cool I am" crap. He thought it made black people look like shuffling clowns -- at least, that's what I've read.

.

This was one of the reasons (the showboating) that MLB executives thought the Negro Leagues offered an inferior brand of baseball and why blacks wouldn't make it in the big leagues back in the pre-integration era.

[csh19792001]

Dear Honus Wagner Rules,
Re: Your thread title? It isn't a myth.


By my math, Black batters had 29+% of the NL PAs in 1954-74, had an OPS+ of 113, versus non Black batters of 84. In case this is missed and someone wants to say this is too small a sample, this data covering 1.3 million PA.

Since there were Black players in the AL, the estimate that 20% would be replaced is good. (FYI, I calculated 11% of the 1956 PA in the AL were for Black players, so yes, the 20% average is really good.)

However, the lowest 20% in OPS+ (in 1927) were not 80% of average. They were 57%. And the replacements would not have been average, as 1954-74 data would suggest. The replacements would be 135% of average. We can do this in other stats, but that is just for direction.

What does that do to the overall adjustment?

[csh19792001]

Another tremendous post in support of African American exodus from baseball.


Agreed.

The mindset back then is not be excused, but rather understood. In a perfect world we would not be having this discussion, but it wasn't and we are. It is too convenient to assume that every white player should be adjusted downward because of segregation. Research and careful analysis points to the upper elites not being impacted much, if at all, and usually those are the players being discussed on here.

The 95% number is not scientific but looking at society and the landscape of sports today, I don't think it is far off. Black children do not have the space, time, or desire to participate in baseball the way they once did. There are just too many options out there. The reasons are certainly less despicable than in the past, but remove emotion and look at the issue for what it is.

"The number of African-American players in the majors has been on a steep, steady decline for two decades as young black stars have gravitated to other sports. The Houston Astros did not have a single black player in the 2005 World Series. A one-time urban powerhouse program such as Belmont Heights has seen its participation at the Little League level cut in half." - Mark Kiszla, Denver Post

"The goal of baseball in the city isn't to produce the next Dwight Gooden," Gambrell says. "What we're trying to do with baseball is to help give young men a chance to grow up believing they can find success in anything they do in life. You hope this next generation is ready to turn the page and get back into baseball." - Artis Gambrell

“There's a perception among African-American kids that they're not welcome here, that baseball is not for inner-city kids. It's not true, and I hate that the perception is out there.” - Joe Morgan

“Make no mistake about it, we lost a generation of inner-city players along the way. I think that starting today, with the opening of the field here in Compton, we will stop the erosion of inner-city players.” - Joe Morgan

"Teams draft mostly college players now, ... and a black kid from a poor family can't go to college unless he gets a scholarship. He can get one in basketball or football, but not in baseball." - Joe Morgan

Morgan and others see the problem is not that baseball fails to find black players, but that the black athletes from the inner city and elsewhere are failing to choose baseball. While only 6% of top college teams are made up of blacks, half of the players on those same college basketball teams are black.

Many inner city youth see sports as a way out of the inner city and basketball is the sport of choice.

Joe Morgan suggested that baseball should hold clinics in the inner city like the NBA does.

[csh19792001]

A few more.


As a high school umpire in the Newark area I can tell you that the schools that have mainly black students are awful in baseball and have been for over a decade. Young black kids are not very interested in baseball. When one of those schools plays against a good suburban program the game is like a joke. The white team scored 12 or 15 runs and then starts making outs on purpose to get the game over with. If they wanted to they could score 50 runs against the worst city teams.

The few black kids who are good usually get scooped up by a parochial school like Don Bosco or Delbarton.

When you have a sure fire great athlete he's more likely to go to football or basketball where you go right to the pros after a year or two of college, rather than go play minor league baseball.



Joe is right on. Told this story before, as a kid played baseball, in the inner city, Buffalo N Y and Rochester NY.
We had nothing, at times taped up bats and balls, played in parking lots, open fields, poorly kept playgrounds and baseball diamonds, blacks and whites, we played all the time.
Today in the inner city there are more well kept playgrounds and diamonds, they are empty, more so in the black section, it's all about basketball in that section.
So spare me the BS line shot out from some guy sitting behind a desk and often passed on here at BBF, as though it is fact, no facilities, black youth being ignored, thats not what I've seen.

I saw the inner city long ago 1950's-60's-70's and witnessed a dramatic drop in black interest in baseball, even though there are more playgrounds diamonds then when I grew up there. Some of the city playgrounds even loan out balls and bats, returned after using.............no takers.

There is no problem fellow posters, no one is being ignored, lets not make a problem where there is none.
Simple, over the years black interest in the game of baseball has gone way down, I've seen it first hand in the city I lived all my life

[TomBodet]

Agreed. It is a lousy trend.

[csh19792001]

MLB Racial and Gender Report Card: 2012 (http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2012/2012%20MLB%20RGRC.pdf)

Players

At the start of the 2012 season, the total percentage of players of color in the MLB was 38.2 percent. The opening day rosters were 61.2 percent white, 27.3 percent Latino, 8.8 percent African-American, 1.9 percent Asian, 0.1 percent Native American or Native Alaskan, and 0.1 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.

The percentage of African-American players increased to 8.8 percent of total players for the 2012 opening day rosters, up from 8.5 percent in 2011. Although this was a slight increase of 0.3 percentage points, it was still the second lowest percentage since 2007.

The percentage of Latino players increased from 27 percent in 2011 to 27.3 percent on 2012 opening day rosters.

The percentage of Asians slightly decreased from 2.1 percent to 1.9 percent, down by 0.2 percentage points.

The percentage of African-American players in MLB has decreased from 19 percent in 1995 to 8.8 percent on 2012 opening day rosters. The debate on why African-Americans seem to be abandoning baseball continues to be a concern for MLB, which has significant Urban Youth initiatives to address this such as Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities (RBI) and Major League Baseball’s Urban Youth Academy.

Since 1997, the percentage of white players in Major League Baseball has been remarkably consistent, remaining between 58 and 61.6 percent, with the exception of 63 percent in 2004.

The percentage of international players in MLB on 2012 opening day rosters was 28.4 percent, spanning 15 countries and territories. The percentage of international players in MLB in 2011 was 27.7 percent, an increase of 0.7 percentage points.

[TomBodet]

Just something Wrong with that, you know? Think of those Red and Pirates teams in the 70s, then look at the report. Egads.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The real myth are the reasons given, why there are less blacks in the game, the drop off in passing years.

That myth is that inner city blacks are being overlooked, not being recruited, MLB is not doing the job, promoting the game..... and not funding inner city baseball.
How about using some common sense, black youth does not have the interest in baseball, not like before.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Some interesting reading.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://64.62.200.70/PERIODICAL/PDF/InTheseTimes-1998may02/16-19/

[bluesky5]

The real myth are the reasons given, why there are less blacks in the game, the drop off in passing years.

That myth is that inner city blacks are being overlooked, not being recruited, MLB is not doing the job, promoting the game..... and not funding inner city baseball.
How about using some common sense, black youth does not have the interest in baseball, not like before.

Exactly, if black folks were being kept out of baseball somebody would have spoken out about it.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Of course. I agree with this, and everything about genetic propensity and capacity. It was simply that I wasn't reading anything on this thread about nurture- everyone focused only on nature.

I'll play devil's advocate with myself, since I've thought about this at length:

I grew up in a town where 1-3% of the population was African American. I also went to a college where I'd guess at least 95-98% of the kids were a race other than "Black". I played baseball and basketball competitively against at very least thousand kids from the time I was 6 till the end of college. This included modified, CYO, and playing for both the school district and college.

Three kids (that I know of) out of that pool became successful professional athletes. Two in the NBA, and one in the NFL (and the kicker is that this guy, who I was fairly close with in HS, didn't even played football till his senior year- he was a track star. All three were black. The two true "superstar" local white athletes that were touted the most from my area played at D-I schools, and did very well, but they didn't make the NBA. They ended up with short unsuccessful careers playing in Europe. The knock on both was deficiencies in raw speed and athleticism.

In basketball we were one of the best teams in our conference and could never really keep up with the almost exclusively African American urban teams, for the same reasons those incredibly hyped white guys that didn't even make the pros. Their 5th best player was usually about as good as our best player.

How likely is it that this is completely random and meaningless? Not sure what we can draw from this example but felt like throwing it out there.

From this thread http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?92655-Why-are-there-so-few-good-black-pitchers/page4

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Dear Honus Wagner Rules,
Re: Your thread title? It isn't a myth.

Wow, a blast from the past! I started this thread back in 2005!

The theme of my thread is NOT that there are not fewer great black players in the majors. That is is obviously true. The theme of the thread is that the significant drop in black players has not caused a drop in the quality of the majors because other groups has stepped in and taken up the slack.

I posted this seven years ago.


Thank you for trying to being this thread back in line with it's intent. Yes, the percentage of African AMerican players in baseball has declined. The points I am trying to make are these:

1) The decline on Afican American ballplayers has not effected the overall quality of the game to any significant degree because the "great" African AMerican player has been equally replaced with he "great" Latin player.

2) The skills needed to play football and basketball vs baseball at the highest levels require different skills. I believe that the number of "lost" athletes to other sports is actually very low.

2) In the mid 1970s when the percentage of black players peaked how many baseball black superstars could have conceivably been lost to other sports? Other than perhaps Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield, Bob Gibson, or Dick Allen, I can't think of anyone one else.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Why is there this great concern that there are few black major leaguers? Why is that a concern?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Why is there this great concern that there are few black major leaguers? Why is that a concern?

Thats what I thought, right at the start..................is there a problem because there are less blacks in the game in recent years.

[bluesky5]

By overwhelming majority, not in general, not by a slim margin, young black Americans don't like baseball. They don't. It isn't even debatable.

Another thing, the Native American influence in the game is a lot larger than people think. Light skinned latino's are of indigenous descent: A-Rod, Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, etc. Surely many other dark skinned latino's have native blood too. The Carribean is a racial melting pot. Latino is a 'made up' term to describe an otherwise indescribable mixed-ethnic group of people. Like the 'Byzantines' [difference being the 'Latino's' actually use the term]. But whatever. People play baseball. The best people are going to play. The best people who want to play. Black people don't want to play. So what?

[Los Bravos]

I've pointed this out before but the idea that an overwhelming majority of African Americans live in (northeastern and midwestern) inner cities, one that seems almost taken for granted around here, isn't borne out by census data.

According to the 2000 census, 58% of the population lived in what they defined as a metropolitan area. That still leaves a significant number of people living in smaller, less populated areas.

Additionally, cities like Atlanta and Memphis are part of the 54% of the population that lives in the south.

I only point this out because when this discussion crops up, it's almost inevitably centered around things like the RBI program which, while necessary and wholly worthy, only addresses a part of the issue.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Why is there this great concern that there are few black major leaguers? Why is that a concern?

I don't think there is great concern, or at least there shouldn't be. People will choose what they will and so be it; time marches on. It only becomes an issue when agenda driven posts are made, attempting to slam pre-integration players, as if they had a choice. This is an ignorant way of thinking and completely ignores the modern day issues that we are talking about. The best have never been in baseball, no matter the era.

[Los Bravos]

Your posts are getting more and more ad hominem.

[Afterglow]

Why is there this great concern that there are few black major leaguers? Why is that a concern?

I think most of the concern is simply white guilt.

It's as if there is something wrong with a sport that is mostly white.

And if it is, it must have something to do with racism. Because when they see the NFL and NBA, it's mostly dominated by black males, and since baseball isn't, then there must be some evil force stopping them from dominating it.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with them not being interested in it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think most of the concern is simply white guilt.

It's as if there is something wrong with a sport that is mostly white.

And if it is, it must have something to do with racism. Because when they see the NFL and NBA, it's mostly dominated by black males, and since baseball isn't, then there must be some evil force stopping them from dominating it.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with them not being interested in it.
Good points Afterglow. You are correct. No one is "concerned" with the lack of white NBA players. In fact recently the Minnesota Timberwolves have been criticized for having too many white players! How stupid is that?!! Some people are implying that the Timberwolves are trying to get more white fans to attend Timberwolves games, thus the team is stockpiling white players. :laugh

http://nesn.com/2012/10/minnesota-civil-rights-activists-think-timberwolves-roster-is-too-white/

http://www.businessinsider.com/black-leader-says-timberwolves-white-players-is-calculated-2012-10

[drstrangelove]

I think most of the concern is simply white guilt.

It's as if there is something wrong with a sport that is mostly white.

And if it is, it must have something to do with racism. Because when they see the NFL and NBA, it's mostly dominated by black males, and since baseball isn't, then there must be some evil force stopping them from dominating it.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with them not being interested in it.

This makes a lot of sense. I would also suggest that we not look at 'counts' of people and rather look at participation such as IP or PA. A different look might be $ earned in salary.

Point being: there are many ways to measure penetration in a system, whether that is government, higher education or baseball. Head count is the simplest but not necessarily the most relevant.

[Captain Cold Nose]

If one lives in a baseball vacuum this is an actual issue.

I don't think this is an issue, ultimately, because it boils done to the availability of choices.

Baseball may be harmed because some of the arguably best players are not going to baseball. That's not exactly race-specific, though. -But as integration was bigger than baseball so to is the opening up of avenues, athletic and otherwise, than are available to young athletes, black and otherwise, regardless of location.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If one lives in a baseball vacuum this is an actual issue.

I don't think this is an issue, ultimately, because it boils done to the availability of choices.

Baseball may be harmed because some of the arguably best players are not going to baseball. That's not exactly race-specific, though. -But as integration was bigger than baseball so to is the opening up of avenues, athletic and otherwise, than are available to young athletes, black and otherwise, regardless of location.

Good points CCN. For most oft he 20th century Italian-American boxers were very successful. But it seems since the late 1980's the great Italian-American boxer has vanished.

[Badge714]

I think your comment about white guilt is valid. I have friends that despise Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Wagner, Johnson and the rest because they didn't have to face the great black players of their day. True, but the great black players didn't have to face Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, etc., either. Give it a rest. History is a record of things as they actually were, not how they should have been from the vantage point of 2013. Besides which, Jenkinson pretty well obliterated the idea that Ruth wouldn't have excelled against the great black players. In fact, he did (barnstorming and in various exhibition games). Ruth would have excelled against any players in any venue anywhere on earth. He was playing 200 games a year at St. Mary's as a teen. Couple that with super human reflexes and an indomitable will and you get the greatest there ever was. Enough with the racist crap.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Good points CCN. For most oft he 20th century Italian-American boxers were very successful. But it seems since the late 1980's the great Italian-American boxer has vanished.

Let's see, there was Vinnie Pazienza, and, uh, uh . . . .

Jewish boxers, too. For every Tony Canzoneri and Carmen Basilio there was a Barney Ross and Benny Leonard. Sport diversity, as well as increased diversity in the athletes performing the sport, cut into such perceived dominance.

The best will always rise to the top regardless of race, and, for the best of the best, greatness is a constant IMHO. Great skilll sets translate.

[dominik]

I think most of the concern is simply white guilt.

It's as if there is something wrong with a sport that is mostly white.

And if it is, it must have something to do with racism. Because when they see the NFL and NBA, it's mostly dominated by black males, and since baseball isn't, then there must be some evil force stopping them from dominating it.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with them not being interested in it.

It is also a Marketing issue for the MLB. People often associate black players with superior athleticism. When we talk about the greatest athletes people don't talk about braun or pujpls but about lebron or MJ. I'm not saying blacks are indeed superior athletes but the black mega athlete brings a certain young "coolness" factor that could help baseball.

Many kids today associate baseballers as fat guys that stand around a lot and are generally inferior to guys like lebron. A new black super athlete like Mays or griffey might give baseball some respect in the young urban population.

That is why baseball is searching for a new black superstar.

[Ben Grimm]

When I first started my job back in '92, I passed by two inner-city little league baseball fields while on the train. Once spring came around, they were groomed and kids were playing games as I cruised by. By 2000 or so, never saw any more kids. The grass grew over with weeds and you could see the reflection of broken glass everywhere. I haven't taken the train since '05, but I doubt much has changed since.

Baseball, to me, simply isn't part of the african-american culture. What do kids do today? They play video games and watch music videos - neither of which are heavily influenced by baseball. The NBA, and even the NFL to a lesser point, adopted the hip-hop world and it's been in music vidoes for years.

Baseball, also is a more cerebral game in which the downtime can be just as intriguing as live-action. That's not the case with football or basketball. That's not directed to the A-A community as much as it is towards the younger generation in general. These kids were born with access to get instant gratification when it comes to news and events. Attention span may not be as necessary as it once was, and the more helter-skelter nature of footbal/basketball might be more satisfying. NFL's Redzone is a huge success, but I don't hear anybody requesting one for baseball anytime soon.

There are some groups that have been trying to push for inner-city baseball (Tony Gwynn talked about and org he was involved with), but I simply don't think it'll do much across America simply because the NFL & NBA embraced and directed their "gimmicks" towards the hip-hop world. Baseball's behind the times in virtually everything as it is, and by the time the even consider going that route, I'll be long buried.

* I just did a quick scan to make sure I typed everything so as not to sound offensive. If there is anything that one of you may find insulting, please let me know and I'll immediately remove it.

[bluesky5]

NFL's Redzone is a huge success, but I don't hear anybody requesting one for baseball anytime soon.

MLB Network has a pretty sweet thing going during the season where they put on big at-bats or play the half of an inning where a no-hitter is happening, someone is going for the cycle, a career milestone, etc.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It is also a Marketing issue for the MLB. People often associate black players with superior athleticism. When we talk about the greatest athletes people don't talk about braun or pujpls but about lebron or MJ. I'm not saying blacks are indeed superior athletes but the black mega athlete brings a certain young "coolness" factor that could help baseball.

Many kids today associate baseballers as fat guys that stand around a lot and are generally inferior to guys like lebron. A new black super athlete like Mays or griffey might give baseball some respect in the young urban population.

That is why baseball is searching for a new black superstar.

I would think the way baseball and basketball are played has something to do with that.
Even some of the past most exciting baseball players some to bat 3 or 4 times a game. Mays, Henderson and some others.
We see him for a few minutes at a time. Compared to star baskeball player, running, jumping and passing off the ball, dozens of times a game. Even when they don't score they get in on the action, handling the ball.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I would think the way baseball and basketball are played has something to do with that.
Even some of the past most exciting baseball players some to bat 3 or 4 times a game. Mays, Henderson and some others.
We see him for a few minutes at a time. Compared to star baskeball player, running, jumping and passing off the ball, dozens of times a game. Even when they don't score they get in on the action, handling the ball.

That's a good point Shoeless.

You know, baseball has been very reluctant to implement technology that could enhance the television experience. Heck, even FOX tried the glowing hockey puck for NHL games. Didn't turn out so well, but at least they were trying something.

Remember when Spider Man first came out (the new one), there was talk of putting small advertisements on the bases, so close up shots would show it. There was a huge uproar from the traditionalist baseball crowd. Even instant replay, which is used in all other sports, has been met with hostility. You're going to slow down an already slow game? Huh?

Back to your point, players in the action at all times, and thinking about a better television experience. MLB could put tiny cameras on certain fielders caps. They could mic them up. They could install cameras in unexpected places, so fans see the game from a different perspective. Not every idea will work out. I just think MLB needs to get a bit more progressive.

[Afterglow]

Good points Afterglow. You are correct. No one is "concerned" with the lack of white NBA players. In fact recently the Minnesota Timberwolves have been criticized for having too many white players! How stupid is that?!! Some people are implying that the Timberwolves are trying to get more white fans to attend Timberwolves games, thus the team is stockpiling white players. :laugh

It's political correctness.

It's politically correct to complain about the lack of black players, but not white ones.

If you complain about the lack of white ones, then that means your being racist. LOL

I personally don't care what they look like, as long as I enjoy watching them.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It's political correctness.

It's politically correct to complain about the lack of black players, but not white ones.

If you complain about the lack of white ones, then that means your being racist. LOL

I personally don't care what they look like, as long as I enjoy watching them.
Feeling the same way, there are some terrific, exciting white, black, Latino, Asian players in the game, more diversity now than ever in the game.
And because many blacks in recent years have decided, have chosen other sports, it's a big issue.
It's their choice, what do you do about that, there is no issue.
This closes this thread out for me, almost sorry I wasted so much time trying to prove the obvious.

[Afterglow]

It is also a Marketing issue for the MLB. People often associate black players with superior athleticism. When we talk about the greatest athletes people don't talk about braun or pujpls but about lebron or MJ. I'm not saying blacks are indeed superior athletes but the black mega athlete brings a certain young "coolness" factor that could help baseball.

Here is the thing, baseball doesn't market individual players.

They don't need or want to do that.

The NBA has been in such bad shape for the last decade or so because they only market stars and not teams.

It only worked with Jordan, and hasn't worked since

It only works for a short time in baseball, and that is only when a player is chasing a record. And once that record is over with, things go back to how they were beforehand. .


Many kids today associate baseballers as fat guys that stand around a lot and are generally inferior to guys like lebron. A new black super athlete like Mays or griffey might give baseball some respect in the young urban population.

That is why baseball is searching for a new black superstar.

What effect did Griffey have on black players entering baseball? Not much at all did he?

It's not going to work.

[Afterglow]

Feeling the same way, there are some terrific, exciting white, black, Latino, Asian players in the game, more diversity now than ever in the game.
And because many blacks in recent years have decided, have chosen other sports, it's a big issue.
It's their choice, what do you do about that, there is no issue.
This closes this thread out for me, almost sorry I wasted so much time trying to prove the obvious.

Yep, they just have decided to be involved in other sports.

Sadly, this search for more black players and fans will not stop.

The only way we are going to see more black players is if more parents become concerned with the possiblity of head injuries in football and steer their kids towards other sports.

I think that will happen eventually.

[dominik]

Here is the thing, baseball doesn't market individual players.

They don't need or want to do that.

The NBA has been in such bad shape for the last decade or so because they only market stars and not teams.

It only worked with Jordan, and hasn't worked since

It only works for a short time in baseball, and that is only when a player is chasing a record. And once that record is over with, things go back to how they were beforehand. .



What effect did Griffey have on black players entering baseball? Not much at all did he?

It's not going to work.

how is the NBA in bad shape?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

how is the NBA in bad shape?

Some teams can't sell out games even when giving out free tickets. Some teams dim the lights over the "upper deck" seats so those watching on TV can't see how empty the arena is.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/why-t-nba-teams-fill-arenas-even-giving-193354981--nba.html

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It is also a Marketing issue for the MLB. People often associate black players with superior athleticism. When we talk about the greatest athletes people don't talk about braun or pujpls but about lebron or MJ. I'm not saying blacks are indeed superior athletes but the black mega athlete brings a certain young "coolness" factor that could help baseball.

Many kids today associate baseballers as fat guys that stand around a lot and are generally inferior to guys like lebron. A new black super athlete like Mays or griffey might give baseball some respect in the young urban population.

That is why baseball is searching for a new black superstar.

The Upton brothers were supposed to be the great superstar ballplayers. You have these two guys, very talented ballplayers, great athletes, who chose baseball over other sports. But B.J. never really panned out and Justin, though he's had some very good seasons, hasn't busted out like many thought he would. At age 20 he looked like a 20 year old Hank Aaron.

[Afterglow]

how is the NBA in bad shape?

About two years ago the NBA had to take out like 180 million dollars in loans for teams just to keep them afloat.

I posted that in a thread last year at some point.

The Hornets are in worse shape than any MLB team.

[csh19792001]

Some teams can't sell out games even when giving out free tickets. Some teams dim the lights over the "upper deck" seats so those watching on TV can't see how empty the arena is.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/why-t-nba-teams-fill-arenas-even-giving-193354981--nba.html

Yeah, the league sucks. Seriously. Haven't watched it since the 90's- AT ALL. The overall quality is garbage compared to what it was 15-20 years ago.

In fact? I watch better played games in person at the small D-I Schools here.

[csh19792001]

Double post

[GiambiJuice]

The Upton brothers were supposed to be the great superstar ballplayers.

Jason Heyward too. I remember reading some article a couple years ago about how Atlanta, which is one of the blackest major cities in the country, was going to embrace their black superstar and that it would generate a lot of interest in MLB among the urban youth.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Jason Heyward too. I remember reading some article a couple years ago about how Atlanta, which is one of the blackest major cities in the country, was going to embrace their black superstar and that it would generate a lot of interest in MLB among the urban youth.

Well, if black Braves fans are to embrace Heyward they could start by actually going to Braves games. I also remember how Heyward was hyped back in 2010. Didn't he catch the first pitch on Opening Day with Hank Aaron?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Yeah, the league sucks. Seriously. Haven't watched it since the 90's- AT ALL. The overall quality is garbage compared to what it was 15-20 years ago.

In fact? I watch better played games in person at the small D-I Schools here.

The NBA has too many teams. They should really contract about 6 teams. And all these teenagers coming out earlier lack basic basketball skills.

[Los Bravos]

So...Heyward and the Uptons are all failures?

[Victory Faust]

I, for one, am concerned about the dearth of Sagittarius players in recent years. MLB is doing nothing to recruit them, and the media doesn't seem interested in picking up the story.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I, for one, am concerned about the dearth of Sagittarius players in recent years. MLB is doing nothing to recruit them, and the media doesn't seem interested in picking up the story.

No one can be as good as Joe D. Simple as that, the torch bearer is gone and it just doesn't seem right to try to replace him.

[ol' aches and pains]

So...Heyward and the Uptons are all failures?

Andrew McCutcheon, anyone? Curtis Granderson?

[Afterglow]

Jason Heyward too. I remember reading some article a couple years ago about how Atlanta, which is one of the blackest major cities in the country, was going to embrace their black superstar and that it would generate a lot of interest in MLB among the urban youth.

He was also suppose to be the next Hank Aaron. HAHA

It's sad that he got so much hype simply because of his skin color.

That stuff should never matter.

[Afterglow]

The NBA has too many teams. They should really contract about 6 teams. And all these teenagers coming out earlier lack basic basketball skills.

Them coming out early isn't the issue.

The issue is the want to be on the big highlights on ESPN.

It's really hurt the game.

[Captain Cold Nose]

He was also suppose to be the next Hank Aaron. HAHA

It's sad that he got so much hype simply because of his skin color.

That stuff should never matter.

In terms of cultural identification it matters very much and there shouldn't be a problem with people of one culture rooting for its own. Outside of that, no, it should not matter.

[Afterglow]

In terms of cultural identification it matters very much and there shouldn't be a problem with people of one culture rooting for its own. Outside of that, no, it should not matter.

Sorry, but i'm not a fan of group think.

Nobody should care what someone looks like when it comes to who you root for.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Sorry, but i'm not a fan of group think.

Nobody should care what someone looks like when it comes to who you root for.

Sorry, I'm not a fan of cold armchair detached judgements.

It's a bit beyond caring about what someone looks like, but that would require more than mere hand sweeping dismissal and base-level condemnation.

[GiambiJuice]

Sorry, but i'm not a fan of group think.

Nobody should care what someone looks like when it comes to who you root for.

One could argue that in this day in age, it's group think NOT to care.

[Los Bravos]

Andrew McCutcheon, anyone? Curtis Granderson? Excellent examples.


In terms of cultural identification it matters very much and there shouldn't be a problem with people of one culture rooting for its own. Outside of that, no, it should not matter. Yes. I'll have a big bowl of this.

[Afterglow]

One could argue that in this day in age, it's group think NOT to care.


That doesn't make alot of sense, considering I don't see alot of individual think in this day and age.

If there was alot of individual think, there wouldn't be people desperately trying to determine why black males aren't in baseball. All the while iginoring the fact that they don't care about the game.

Thay refuse to see the truth.