Sign in to follow this  
oddball

Too much.

Recommended Posts

"Sure almost every player who has come close to him since has had there own controversies, but aren't Babe Ruth's record somewhat diminished because he was playing in a league that was functioning at half talent levels, because of the color bar."

I don't think this is necessarily true, but it has more to do with numbers and not race.

Obvioiusly there were Negro Leagues players who were at a level of the Major Leaguers, and a good number who surpassed that level. Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige and many others certainly would have starred on any Major League team. It's a crime that they were shut out.

But I don't think you can assume that the quality of play was the same in both. One league pulled talent from 90 percent of the population, and the other from 10 percent. Just the sheer numbers would tell you that there was a bigger pool of people to choose from. It's why for college and high school sports, you ideally have schools playings schools of similar size.

As for the players wearing 42, once you opened the door and let a couple wear it in tribute, you have to let them all do it. Otherwise you leave some open to criticism. "Hey, why aren't you honoring Jackie? You racist?"

If there was a mistake made, it was made last year when the door opened.

It's going to look kinda goofy, but I don't mind. It's one day. And if it gets more people talking about Jackie Robinson and the amazing man he was, then that's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Ruined baseball"? At that point, it's hard to take a post seriously.

Usually, whenever oddball's name shows up on the screen, it's hard for me to take that post seriously. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Sure almost every player who has come close to him since has had there own controversies, but aren't Babe Ruth's record somewhat diminished because he was playing in a league that was functioning at half talent levels, because of the color bar."

I don't think this is necessarily true, but it has more to do with numbers and not race.

Obvioiusly there were Negro Leagues players who were at a level of the Major Leaguers, and a good number who surpassed that level. Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige and many others certainly would have starred on any Major League team. It's a crime that they were shut out.

But I don't think you can assume that the quality of play was the same in both. One league pulled talent from 90 percent of the population, and the other from 10 percent. Just the sheer numbers would tell you that there was a bigger pool of people to choose from. It's why for college and high school sports, you ideally have schools playings schools of similar size.

I don't know what the numbers are in baseball, but I would imagine that more than 10% of the players in the MLB right now are non-white at least. Maybe I was over stating it by suggesting half talent pool levels, but certainly, through the color bar, the standard of play in MLB cannot have been as high in Ruth's day as it was after the bar was lifted.

How many of the great players of the last 60 years have been white? How many have been non white? Of the top 10 home run hitters in Baseball history, 3 are white. 8 of the top 20 are white. For whatever reason, African Amerians have made a contribution to all sports that is beyond the ratio of there population.

'Banned from Major League Baseball, black athletes played professional baseball in the Negro Leagues, which lasted until baseball integration in the late 1940?s. However, for over thirty years during the off season, Negro League teams played exhibition games against teams of white major league all stars. The pre eminent baseball historian, John Holway, has determined that Negro League teams won 268 of the 436 games played with their white counterparts.'

http://www.blackcommentator.com/122/122_ma...e_baseball.html

(So in inter racial play Negro teams had a winning pct of .615)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Sure almost every player who has come close to him since has had there own controversies, but aren't Babe Ruth's record somewhat diminished because he was playing in a league that was functioning at half talent levels, because of the color bar."

I don't think this is necessarily true, but it has more to do with numbers and not race.

Obvioiusly there were Negro Leagues players who were at a level of the Major Leaguers, and a good number who surpassed that level. Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige and many others certainly would have starred on any Major League team. It's a crime that they were shut out.

But I don't think you can assume that the quality of play was the same in both. One league pulled talent from 90 percent of the population, and the other from 10 percent. Just the sheer numbers would tell you that there was a bigger pool of people to choose from. It's why for college and high school sports, you ideally have schools playings schools of similar size.

I don't know what the numbers are in baseball, but I would imagine that more than 10% of the players in the MLB right now are non-white at least. Maybe I was over stating it by suggesting half talent pool levels, but certainly, through the color bar, the standard of play in MLB cannot have been as high in Ruth's day as it was after the bar was lifted.

How many of the great players of the last 60 years have been white? How many have been non white? Of the top 10 home run hitters in Baseball history, 3 are white. 8 of the top 20 are white. For whatever reason, African Amerians have made a contribution to all sports that is beyond the ratio of there population.

'Banned from Major League Baseball, black athletes played professional baseball in the Negro Leagues, which lasted until baseball integration in the late 1940?s. However, for over thirty years during the off season, Negro League teams played exhibition games against teams of white major league all stars. The pre eminent baseball historian, John Holway, has determined that Negro League teams won 268 of the 436 games played with their white counterparts.'

http://www.blackcommentator.com/122/122_ma...e_baseball.html

(So in inter racial play Negro teams had a winning pct of .615)

I wasn't saying the quality of play today isn't better than it was in Ruth's day. It absolutely is, because there are more players available, hence a bigger pool to choose from. But I don't think the talent pool was diminished by half.

As for the barnstorming games, well, think about how much effort today's players put in games that don't count.

Again, I'm not saying there wasn't considerable talent in the Negro Leagues. Some of the greatest players of all time were in there, and it's horrible that we'll never know how Oscar Charleston, Cool Poppa Bell, Gibson and Paige and many others would have fared.

Kennesaw Mountain Landis did tremendous damage to the game, and his plaque in Cooperstown should reflect that.

Meanhile, Happy Chandler is a hero.

And, as an aside, Larry Doby came to Cleveland not too long after Jackie, and doesn't get the respect he deserves. Doby's a pioneer, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the color bar predated Landis, though he did much damage to the game beyond enforcing segregation in the game. And there were many pioneers during the 'desegregation' era in baseball. Which just adds to my point that the Negro Leagues produced a standard of play that suggests that the achievements of those who played before integration are diminished by not having had to play against some genuinely great players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this but Bud Selig has requested that all uniformed personnel wear 42 on Wednesday. I'm sorry, let me be the first to say that this is not what Jackie Robinson meant, or was about. This is just a 100% publicity ploy and an insult to what Jackie was about. I'm sorry, but as someone who's white, I would not wear 42 since it is retired for Jackie and the breaking of the color barrier. To me no way should a former owner, who has ruined baseball and by the way he's whiter than Casper, be telling anyone to wear a number retired for breaking the color barrier. It sounds to me like a slave driver. So what happens when the first guy says, "no". Is he racist? I don't think any white guy should wear 42 to honor Jackie. I'm sorry, but a person raised in a middle class white household probably knows little about breaking any barriers, let alone being persecuted for the color of his skin. If they wanted to do this right, they would have all teams wear a patch and that's it. The number needs to stay off the field except for the few players that still are allowed to wear it. If you think that Jackie did enough to have his number retired across all of baseball, then stop the joke that you've made it by allowing players to wear a supposedly "sacred" number. I'm sorry but white guys shouldn't wear the number, nor should the bench jockey. I will not watch any games on Wednesday at all. I will not give in to another Bud Selig stupid decision! I say this as a long time Dodger fan, and as someone who respected Jackie for what he did as I got plenty of history from one who knew Jackie and saw what Jackie went through, Vin Scully. Bud Selig did not. Dodger fans have respected and revered Jackie for years because what Vinny has taught us about him, Bud Selig has made his legacy just a publicity ploy to make himself look good.

how do you think us mets fans feel, the mets feel like they have to deicate the grand entrance to him instead of honoring our own team history, now that is taking it too far. a statue is fine but naming the whole rotunda and only have jackie robinson, ebbets field, and dodgers stuff in the grand entrance is not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, the color bar predated Landis, though he did much damage to the game beyond enforcing segregation in the game. And there were many pioneers during the 'desegregation' era in baseball. Which just adds to my point that the Negro Leagues produced a standard of play that suggests that the achievements of those who played before integration are diminished by not having had to play against some genuinely great players.

I don't recall the whole story, but from what I do recall, one time (Cleveland?) was prepared to sign a whole host of negro league talent to play only to be rejected by Landis. Can someone expound on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Veeck was looking to buy the Phillies franchise in 1942. He claimed that as soon as he bought the club, he would be putting several Negro League stars on the roster. When Landis got wind of this, he vetoed the sale to Veeck and ultimately the National League took control of the club.

In 1946 (two years after the death of Landis), Veeck became the owner of the Cleveland Indians, then became the first American League owner to have a black player on the roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do realize the magnitude of the event, but couldn't they pay respect with a patch worn by every team?

Is there a charity that benefits from the auction of these game worn jerseys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, as an aside, Larry Doby came to Cleveland not too long after Jackie, and doesn't get the respect he deserves. Doby's a pioneer, too.

Thank you, finally someone who thinks like I do. The Tribe wore #14 jerseys for him once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing some of the games today, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it is a really nice tribute to Jackie Robinson. On the other hand, the #42s might have been a bit overdone. Still, it is nice to remember #42 in a special way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that:

All 42s is a bit much. Maybe all second basemen - Robinson's old position.

Selig has, on the whole, been a success - there is partial revenue sharing, attendance is up, there are new ballparks and he avoided an inevitable folding of two teams

There is more baseball available on TV than ever, and that promotes the game

The World Baseball Classic needs tweaking but has promise

Not every decision has been great but he has a better average than, say, Ueberroth, who got baseball in legal troubles by supporting collusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So catching a glimpse of the Jays-Twins game between the NHL playoffs, Jays commentators Jamie Campbell and Pat Tabler couldn't figure out which Twins reliever was up throwing in the bullpen. That's a nice way to get into the commentators' heads, especially with the lesser known players of the opposing team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now warming up in the bullpen, #42...um....

EDIT after seeing the post above: It's pretty bad when I'm at the game and can't identify the guy warming up in the bullpen. I'm pretty sure the guy they were wondering about was Philip Humber though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issue with wanting to honor Jackie Robinson. However, in this day and age with the advent of Extra Innings and the ability for people who live out of market to watch any game on television the all players wear 42 makes it very difficult to figure out who the players are in whatever game you're watching. It's not fun to watch a game and try to figure out what player is who. It's made worse by the lack of names on those jerseys. If they want to honor Jackie Robinson they can either do it via pre-game ceremonies or a patch for the one game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think any white guy should wear 42 to honor Jackie. I'm sorry, but a person raised in a middle class white household probably knows little about breaking any barriers, let alone being persecuted for the color of his skin.

Players weren't wearing #42 to claim that they've suffered like Robinson and his contemporaries did; they were wearing it to honor the man and the sacrifices he made. While you might need to come from a similar background of oppression and victimization to truly understand what he went through, that's certainly not a prerequisite for celebrating his legacy. Jackie Robinson Day in MLB is no more a "blacks only" occasion than MLK Day is. It's about recognizing the contributions made by Robinson (and Doby, and others) to improving not only baseball but American culture and society.

I will not watch any games on Wednesday at all. I will not give in to another Bud Selig stupid decision! I say this as a long time Dodger fan, and as someone who respected Jackie for what he did as I got plenty of history from one who knew Jackie and saw what Jackie went through, Vin Scully. Bud Selig did not. Dodger fans have respected and revered Jackie for years because what Vinny has taught us about him, Bud Selig has made his legacy just a publicity ploy to make himself look good.

Part of what we learn from Robinson's legacy is that we need to move past personal prejudices for the greater good. You're entitled to your opinion of Selig, but letting that opinion prevent you from taking part in a lovely celebration is fairly petty, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to think that they're all just big fans of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What do you get when you multiply six by nine?!?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this