The color bar: discounting Babe Ruth's accomplishments
One of the more common arguments against Babe Ruth as the best player of all time is that, because of the color bar, he never had to face black pitchers. I’m not buying it, at least not at face value.
At first, it sounds pretty reasonable – there were many pitchers, better than those Ruth actually faced, who would have certainly been good enough to play in the American League, if not for segregation. But since Ruth didn’t have to face them, the pitchers he did face were a little worse, and his stats were inflated for that reason.
But by that logic, everyone’s stats are inflated. Sure, Ruth didn’t have to hit against black pitchers. But Rogers Hornsby never had to face Walter Johnson, arguably the best pitcher ever. That’s because, according to the rules at the time, Hornsby was segregated to the National League for all of Johnson’s career.
Morally, of course, there’s a big difference between segregation by race and segregation by league. But the question is not a moral one; it’s an empirical one. If we don’t discount Mike Schmidt’s career because he didn’t have to face American Leaguer Jim Palmer, why do we discount Hank Greenberg’s career because he didn’t have to face Negro Leaguer Satchel Paige?
If you consider the Negro Leagues like a third major league, equal in talent to the AL and NL, the parallel is exact. It doesn’t matter which pitchers are in which leagues, so long as the talent level is about the same. Schmidt didn’t have to face Palmer, but, because of that, he had to face Tom Seaver that much more. And since Greenberg didn’t have to face Paige, he had to face Lefty Grove a few more times. As long as the leagues are even, the segregation is irrelevant.
But the Negro Leagues were almost certainly worse than the majors. The highest percentage ever of major league players who were black was in 1974, when there were about one-third as many black players as non-black. But in the 30s, there were probably at least half as many Negro League players as white major leaguers (as far as I can quickly estimate). So the Negro Leagues were, proportionally, somewhat diluted.
And if the talent level in the Negro Leagues was worse than the majors, then the white players had it harder, not easier. To even out the talent, you’d have to send some of the better white players to the Negro Leagues, and bring some of the lesser black players to the majors. That would decrease the quality of play in the majors, which means that integration would inflate the white players’ stats.
Now, in fairness to those who make the Babe Ruth argument, they’re implicitly assuming that integration would lead to the elimination of the Negro Leagues, or their conversion into minor leagues. You’d pull Josh Gibson and Oscar Charleston into the majors, they would displace marginal major-leaguers, and the white stars would stay put. Under this scenario, yes, of course, integration would have made improved the major leagues. Dizzy Dean’s job would be harder, as he’d be pitching to better hitters overall.
But that’s simply an argument that the pre-integration leagues were worse than they would have been if you contracted high-level baseball (by eliminating the Negro Leagues) at the same time you eliminated the color bar. That’s trivially true. It doesn’t follow that the leagues were worse than today, significantly worse, worse enough that Babe Ruth’s stats have to be discounted.
Consider that in the last 30 years, the proportion of blacks in MLB has dropped from 27% to 9%, purportedly for cultural reasons. (Same link as above.) Blacks are segregating themselves out of baseball. Again, there is a huge moral difference between baseball rejecting blacks and blacks rejecting baseball. But as it impacts the issue of league quality, the effect is the same. What we have today is, for purposes of quality of play, the same as a two-thirds color bar. If Babe Ruth’s career is to be discounted, should we also discount Derek Jeter’s by 67% as much? Should we give three times as much credit to guys like Carl Yastrzemski and Joe Morgan, because they played in the era of maximum integration?
Perhaps we should, a little bit. But the race factor is one of many, many factors that affect the quality of play over time. Off the top of my head:
-- players today earn far more money than ever. This means more young athletes are likely to pursue a baseball career, which increases the pool of talent substantially.
-- on the other hand, other sports are now more competitive with baseball as a career choice for a talented athlete, which may act to reduce the talent pool.
-- baseball is dropping in relative popularity, because of an explosion of other recreational opportunities for children. Kids may be playing baseball less, which again reduces the quality of the talent.
-- expansion increases the number of players in MLB, which, all else being equal, reduces the talent level.
-- without question, players today have much better defensive skills than ever. This means that in the past, players’ batting averages would have been inflated by hits which would likely be turned into outs today.
-- players today have access to better medical procedures, which keeps more of today’s best players off the DL. Tommy John surgery has saved countless careers which would have been lost in the 30s.
-- more and more players are coming from countries other than the USA, for numerous reasons.
-- the pool of potential MLB players today includes players from Japan, a huge source of formerly-segregated talent.
And I’m sure you can think of more.
So compared to these, how important is the dropping of the color bar to the question of league improvement? It’s probably a drop in the bucket. Well, maybe it’s a cup in the bucket, or even a pitcher in the bucket – it would take a bit of research to know which. But in any case, to cite segregation as the only factor, or even the only important factor, while ignoring all the rest, doesn’t make sense. It attempts to answer the question by what feels good morally, rather than by a full accounting of the the evidence.
7 Comments:
Lots of comments at BTF here.
Sure, if the number of teams expanded is proportionate to the quality of players not in the league, then, you are right on that the "color bar" doesn't affect his accomplishments.
This is more notable in the NHL, where there are and have been 400 North American players since forever. The advent of the European wave simply allowed the NHL to expand so that the average talent level, per team, was the same.
Of course, things happen in stages, so there are periods where things are not in proportion.
You've listed quite a few absurdities in here...I can respect the effort, but the execution is problematic.
Take the notion that the quality of the Negro Leagues could be quantified by the percentage of Blacks permitted to join MLB. That's not logical. Subsequent to Rickie's gamble in the late 40's, many teams maintained strict quotas against Black players. As such, this quantitative measure cannot be used to actually measure quality since it was actually a measure of something far more sinister.
There is more, but perhaps you should develop a measure for determining the quality of the Negro League's more rigorously.
I understand you wrote this back in '06 and may have come up with something more rigorous since that time.
You wrote something to the effect of "Blacks segregating themselves from baseball." How is that working - exactly? Is there some place where folks are hiding out in order to avoid being compelled to play the game?
Surely you are familiar with the work that has been done to shift the economic burden of domestic baseball talent development to poorer nations with lower labor costs. It seems to me that you missed another significant piece of the puzzle.
Perhaps "segregation" is simply too strong a word that misses the point and seeks to conflate a choice/preference for different games by US-based CHILDREN with the prerogatives of white-supremacist ADULTS attempting to control a labor market.
In either case, you'd have been better served by taking a moment to find another word. I am assuming the best...that you were not actually seeking to place these two distinct phenomena on the same plane - either morally or operationally.
豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看A片 免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區
What nonsense. There weren't three major leagues. There were two. If the majors had been fully integrated in 1930, there would have been black players in each league. And they would have been the best black players, and they would've replaced the worst white players.
The level of play would have increased, and Babe Ruth's numbers would almost certainly have decreased. You cannot assume that Ruth would not have faced a top black pitcher because they'd all have pitched in the National League. In other words, your argument that "[i]f you consider the Negro Leagues like a third major league, equal in talent to the AL and NL, the parallel [to Mike Schmidt never having to face Jim Palmer] is exact" is pure bunkum.
Your post contains quite a bit more sophistry, but I'll leave that to someone else to call you on the carpet for.
Another thing: You say that integration, compared to other things, has had a very minor impact on upping the level of play in the majors.
This is obviously wrong. Think about it this way: Remove all nonwhite players from MLB today, and replace them with white players exclusively.
You don't think that without the likes of Felix Hernandez, David Price, C.C. Sabathia, Ubaldo Jimenez, et al., good players like Mark Reynolds wouldn't suddenly become very good or even great players? Give me a break.
Post a Comment
<< Home