"Meet the Press" - By Popular Demand: Jackie Robinson and Other Baseball Highlights, 1860s-1960s | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Another blast from the past. The entire interview excerpted previously by seamheads.com.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/jackie-robinson-baseball/articles-and-essays/baseball-the-color-line-and-jackie-robinson/meet-the-press/

"Meet the Press"

Trascript of television and radio broadcast

Program produced by Lawrence Spivak for the National Broadcasting Company, Sunday, April 14, 1957.
Published by National Publishing Company, Washington, D.C., vol. 1, no. 15.
(Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Lawrence Spivak Papers)

For additional information on the Spivak Papers you can leave this site and read a summary catalog record for the collection.

Produced by: Lawrence E. Spivak
Guest: Jackie Robinson
Sunday, April 14, 1957

Panel:
William H. Lawrence, New York Times
Frank van der Linden, Nashville Banner
Jim Simpson, National Broadcasting Company
Lawrence E. Spivak, Regular Panel Member

Moderator:
Ned Brooks

Announcer: Now, MEET THE PRESS. The prize-winning program produced by Lawrence E. Spivak. Ready for this spontaneous, unrehearsed conference are four of America's top reporters. Please remember, their questions do not necessarily reflect their point of view; it is their way of getting a story for you. Here is the moderator of MEET THE PRESS, Ned Brooks.

Mr. Brooks: And welcome once again to MEET THE PRESS.

Another baseball season opens tomorrow. Our guest is one of baseball's all-time greats, Jackie Robinson, the first Negro to break the racial barrier in the major leagues. During his 10 years with the Brooklyn Dodgers, they won six pennants. His greatness lay in his versatility and his competitive spirit. He played the infield and the outfield with equal skill. He set records in fielding, batting and base running, and in 1949 he was voted the National League's Most Valuable Player.

Jackie Robinson's activities have extended beyond the baseball diamond into the field of race relations. He has devoted much of his spare time to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and last year he was awarded the organization's highest honor for achievement, the Spingarn Medal. From the beginning of his career Jackie Robinson was a center of controversy. His baseball association ended on a controversial note when he was traded to the New York Giants and when he announced his retirement in Look Magazine. Since retiring he has become a vice president of the Chock Full O'Nuts Company of New York, and he is on the staff of Look Magazine.

Now, seated around the press table ready to interview Jackie Robinson are Jim Simpson of NBC, William Lawrence of the New York Times, Frank van der Linden of the Nashville Banner and Lawrence E. Spivak, our regular member of the MEET THE PRESS panel. Now, Mr. Robinson, if you are ready we will start the questions with Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Robinson, for the first time in 10 years you are not in a Major League uniform finishing up the exhibition games before the pennant race opens tomorrow. How does it feel; do you have any regrets about retiring?

Mr. Robinson: None at all. I feel very, very good. I am awfully happy in my new job. I am with a bunch of fine people, and I like it very much.

Mr. Lawrence: Now that you are out of baseball, are you going to be a regular fan and root from the grandstand for your favorite team?

Mr. Robinson: My favorite team is the Dodgers, and I will root for them.

Mr. Lawrence: Will you be going to the games?

Mr. Robinson: I will occasionally, not too much.

Mr. Lawrence: Now that you are vice president in charge of personnel for a large concern in New York, what will your attitude be on Tuesday when a large number of your employees resort to that age-old dodge and report the sudden deaths of their grandmothers, so they can get the Opening Day off to see the season open?

Mr. Robinson: We are hoping that will not happen. I have had a very fine relationship with most of the people who are with us, and I do whatever I can to teach them or tell them the importance of being on the job all the time. We hope it is not going to happen.

Mr. Spivak: I would like to get to more serious matters. Congressman Celler recently made this remark: "The few who own the Major League clubs aren't trying to benefit the public but only to make all the money they can by moving players around like pawns and chattels." You were one of the players who was moved around. Do you think that statement is true or false?

Mr. Robinson: I can't say it is completely true, no. I think in most cases many of the club owners do have the thinking of the ball players in their hearts, but there are many, many instances where ball players are moved around. What the answer to eliminate it is, I don't know.

Mr. Spivak: Do you think the reserve clause which permits a ball club to exercise virtually monopolistic rights over a player is good, either for baseball or for the player?

Mr. Robinson: If there were some other means to handle the situation, I would think it should be handled, but I don't know of any other. If they didn't have the reserve clause, when we came down to the last month of the season where a ball club may need a good ball player to have them win the pennant, a club with a lot of money who would only be interested in a pennant could, by offering this ball player - if there wasn't some kind of a law to keep him from it - a lot of money, and I doubt very seriously if the player would refuse it.

Mr. Spivak: Isn't it true, though, that a team like the Yankees - that is, a club that is very rich - has been able to garner a great many of the best ball players simply by having money? Does the reserve clause stop that in any way?

Mr. Robinson: I don't think that is the reason why the Yankees are so successful. I think that, very frankly, a lot of ball players when they are young are very, very anxious to join the Yankee chain. I think that tradition that they hear about so much has a lot to do with it, and they get in the organization. I believe that is what it is, personally.

Mr. Spivak: Mr. Robinson, professional baseball is now, I think, the only professional sport which has specifically been held by the Supreme Court to be outside the anti-trust laws. Do you think baseball should be exempt on the grounds that it is a sport and not a business?

Mr. Robinson: I can't say that baseball is a sport, no, not if that is the reasoning. In my opinion, baseball is as big a business as anything there is. It has to be a business, the way it is conducted.

Mr. Spivak: Do you see any reason why it should be given special treatment when football, basketball and hockey have all been held to be monopolistic when they have special arrangements of the kind that baseball has?

Mr. Robinson: Since I don't know too much about the football and the basketball and the other situations, I would hate to get mixed up in it. I don't know what their situation is, actually. The only thing I know is that baseball, being the game that it is, there has to be some protection for them.

Mr. Simpson: Mr. Robinson, in this reserve clause, Robin Roberts, who is the representative of the National League Players, says that he feels there should be some kind of revision of the reserve clause. He did not say what it should be. He didn't like the idea that the player could be stuck in the minor leagues for 7 years before he could be drafted by some other club.

Affidavits evidently have been sent out to all players asking that they back up Major League baseball and its reserve clause. Eddie Yost of the American League feels that the players will be almost unanimous and back up the club owners and say the reserve clause is necessary.

As a former player and being just out of baseball, do you think it is necessary to run the sport, or business, of baseball?

Mr. Robinson: At the present time I would have to go along with it, because there has to be some sort of protection. Until they find some other way to handle all these situations, I think that - it is a personal observation, but I think they have to continue it. In all my years of baseball I have always expected to be traded. I never liked the idea. I expected it because that is the way baseball has been run all along, but I don't see at this time any way that they can handle the situation.

Mr. Simpson: Have you ever run across, aside from the obvious ones that have gone to court, anybody in baseball who is unhappy and dissatisfied because of the reserve clause? Specifically, can you tell us the case?

Mr. Robinson: Well, there have been - there is no need for me to mention any names - just fellows who feel they could be better off on another team, and because of the clause they can't display their abilities on another team. One ball club may be overloaded with talent. I have heard complaints that they can't show what they can do because they are on a team which has such good talent they sit on the bench, and, therefore, they are not able to do the things they would like to be able to do, at least insofar as their playing is concerned.

Mr. Van der Linden: Mr. Robinson, you are the Chairman of the Freedom Fund Campaign of the NAACP and, according to news reports, you are trying to raise $1 million.

Mr. Robinson: That is correct.

Mr. Van der Linden: If you get the $1 million, what will you do with it?

Mr. Robinson: Me personally, I am not going to do anything. It is going to be used in our efforts to secure first-class citizenship for all American citizens.

Mr. Van der Linden: As a leader of NAACP, would you use the money to hire lawyers, for instance, to press school segregation cases?

Mr. Robinson: I want to make one thing clear: I am not what you call a leader of the NAACP. I happen to be vice president of a restaurant firm. They have asked me if I would head the Freedom Fund for this year - their campaign - and I said yes. I just don't believe in being a person who signs his name to letters. If I am going to do something, I like to get in and do the job that I think can be done by actually applying myself.

So, if we are going to talk about, actually, the workings of - what the money is going to be used for, that is hard to say. I don't touch the money; I don't see it when it goes in. I have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Van der Linden: Of course, your name is being used to promote the campaign and secure money.

Mr. Robinson: That is right.

Mr. Van der Linden: And, of course, it would be of public interest to someone who is going to contribute to know whether the money would be used to hire lawyers, or to press for lobbying, say, for civil rights bills. I assume you favor the civil rights bill?

Mr. Robinson: I certainly do. The money, the way I see it, is going to be used in our fight to achieve first-class citizenship. We have had to, through legal means all of these years, go through the courts to get the things that are rightfully ours under the Constitution. We haven't picked up arms to do anything to achieve the rights that belong to us; we have done it legally through the courts. Money is needed to hire lawyers to handle these specific cases. I would imagine they are going to use a considerable amount of money. I don't know whether the Freedom Fund is used for lawyers or whether it goes through the other branch that they have.

Mr. Lawrence: I would like to return, if I might, to this reserve clause business a moment. In defending it, or saying it was necessary as you saw it, you cited the case of the closing days of a pennant race where a club with a chance to win might buy up all the players. Isn't that handled rather by the deadline on buying and trading players rather than by the reserve clause?

Mr. Robinson: If the reserve clause wasn't there, I think that they would be able to do so. I think that is one of the protections that the club owners are using the reserve clause for.

Mr. Lawrence: Doesn't the league lay down the date beyond which you may not buy a player and use him, or you may not trade after a certain date?

Mr. Robinson: Buying, I don't know - it is September 30 for buying of players; that is correct.

Mr. Lawrence: If that kind of control could be exercised so that you would avoid this problem of one club buying up all the talent, you know, towards the end of the season, what would be the defense of the reserve clause in the winter time when a ball player would have a better chance to move from some eighth place outfit that isn't making any money to a club that is in the contention and is drawing enough patrons that it can afford to pay him a decent salary?

Mr. Robinson: It is just simply that there are a lot of club owners, in my opinion, who could not compete in that market if they threw it open for actually bidding for services of all ball players. I think most clubs in the American League today have enough trouble competing with the Yankees without worrying about their finances, too.

In the National League where you have a ball club like Milwaukee, if they could get one man that would insure them the pennant, they draw so very, very well that they could do so - I am just using this as an example. I do not say they would do this, but they could in the winter time. They start figuring "How can we improve our ball club during the winter?" They would bid for ball players during the winter that would virtually assure them of a pennant during the next year, whereas, a ball club that hasn't been going well and hasn't been taking in money couldn't compete in that market, and fellows who are in baseball for the love of the game - I know very few of them.

Mr. Lawrence: Let's translate that to the player, though. We can't get much out of it as long as he is stuck with - I won't use the name, but the 8th place club that frequents this town - why shouldn't he have a chance to go out?

Mr. Robinson: I agree. I wish that there was some way that they could do something about it, but I doubt very seriously if everybody tried to get on the Yankee ball club that many people would come out the next year to see the ball game, if they were going to run away with it any more than they do now.

Mr. Spivak: Mr. Robinson, before your trade was announced, did the Dodgers discuss this with you at all? Were you sold and then told, or was this discussed with you, or were you just treated as a chattel and told where to go?

Mr. Robinson: I was told where to go.

Mr. Spivak: No discussion?

Mr. Robinson: No.

Mr. Spivak: Nobody discussed this with you; nobody asked you whether you would like to go or anything?

Mr. Robinson: No.

Mr. Spivak: Do you think that is a good system?

Mr. Robinson: I think it is until something better comes along. I don't know what the answer would be there. Frankly, I haven't given it too much thought because we, as ball players, have been under this rule for so long that we have accepted it in most part. I agree that if there was a vote taken that most of them would probably go along until something came along that was better.

Mr. Spivak: Why should baseball be any different from life? If you make a contract in business, and you are not satisfactory, and your company is not satisfactory, after the period of your contract you can go where you want and do as you please? Why shouldn't there be a system like that? A contract, yes - if a baseball club wants to sign a man up for five years and pay him a certain amount and take that obligation, fine.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Spivak, I don't know why I'm defending this reserve clause; really, I don't know why I am doing it, so, I will just say here, for the players' benefit certainly something should be done, but I hope it doesn't have to be done through the courts. I hope that the baseball owners will think enough of the ball players themselves to say, "Well, I'm going to do something for the players besides selling them whenever I can - maybe giving them a piece of the money when they are sold." I hope it's done that way rather than through the courts.

Mr. Spivak: You do feel that something ought to be done about it.

Mr. Robinson: Definitely, I think something should be done.

Mr. Spivak: I would like to switch, if I might, to another subject. You have become one of the leaders of your race. The rate of crime in the Negro race is much greater than the rate in the population as a whole. I know a good deal of the responsibility is on the white people, who have treated the Negro the way they have during these past years, but what do you see as the responsibility of the Negro himself and, maybe, of the NAACP in this area?

Mr. Robinson: It is a question that certainly should be pressing in the minds of all of us. I hope that the NAACP and all groups that are interested in that, not only in the Negro but in America, will try to do something for this particular problem.

I think, and I agree with you, if I can interpret what you are saying, that the Negro himself has a responsibility, here. As you say - and I agree also - a lot of it is due to the lack of opportunities that we have had, but I think it is the obligation of the Negro leaders, not only to seek their rights as first-class citizens, but, also, to impress upon all of our people that it is very important that they cut down anything that brings discredit to us.

Mr. Spivak: How do you answer those people who insist that the NAACP is moving very, very fast to get the rights for the Negro but seems to be doing not enough to impress upon the Negro his own responsibility as he gets these rights?

Mr. Robinson: When they say that the NAACP is moving too fast - you know, I heard that, Mr. Spivak, when I was out in Pasadena, California, trying to get into the YMCA: Take your time. Be patient. Patience is fine. I think if we go back and check our record, the Negro has proven beyond a doubt that we have been more than patient in seeking our rights as American citizens. "Be patient," I was told as a kid. I keep hearing that today, "Let's be patient; let's take our time; things will come." It seems to me, the Civil War has been over about 93 years; if that isn't patience, I don't know what is.

I agree, also, that perhaps we should emphasize the importance of cutting down upon the rate of crime. There is too much, but again we've got to understand that a lot of people are oppressed, and they run into these situations because of their surroundings. It is our responsibility as much as it is anyone else's, but I must remind - this is my own opinion - I think it is not only the Negro's obligation, but it is every American citizen's obligation, that if the Negro rate of crime is to great, then we should try to do something about it, not as Negroes but as Americans.

Mr. Simpson: You have been quoted several times as saying that you do not miss baseball. Is that because you have such a wonderful position and everything, or did you have any bad moments in baseball, or was baseball at the end of your career just a chore for you?

Mr. Robinson: Now, which one do we want to start with first?

Mr. Simpson: Let's start at the end: Did you enjoy your baseball career?

Mr. Robinson: I enjoyed my baseball career tremendously up through the years. I enjoyed it very much.

Mr. Simpson: In other words, you would recommend it as a career for someone else in spite of this reserve clause and all the rest of it?

Mr. Robinson: My little boy wants to play baseball, and I am going to help him in every way that I possibly can. I think it is a great game for youngsters. It gives them a chance to meet and know people of all faiths, and I think that is something that everyone should get an opportunity of doing.

Mr. Simpson: You were the first Negro in baseball. Now that you are out, are you satisfied with the Negro's position in baseball and in professional sports?

Mr. Robinson: Oh, no, I am never satisfied; let's face it.

Mr. Simpson: What are you facing now, if you are not satisfied? What do you think should be done, or must be done, that is not being done?

Mr. Robinson: Well, I don't know -

Mr. Simpson: Do you think anyone is being denied playing in professional sports?

Mr. Robinson: Not today; not in baseball; I will put it that way - not in baseball. I think they are in golf, but in baseball I think if a person has the ability to make the major league, he will be able to get there on ability alone. I think that is what nine out of ten of the major league owners are looking for, ability and ability alone.

Mr. Simpson: Golf is the only sport that you would put your finger on as one that does not allow an equal chance?

Mr. Robinson: I would say golf. In the over-all picture there are cases where Negroes are allowed to participate in the golf tournaments, but in the great majority of tournaments they are not allowed.

Mr. Brooks: You mentioned the circumstances under which you were notified that you were to be traded to the New York Giants. Hadn't you at the time made up your mind that you were going to retire this year?

Mr. Robinson: I had. As a matter of fact, I had placed a call to Mr. Bavasi, I got his secretary two days before I made my decision, or my final decision. My reason for calling Mr. Bavasi was to tell him not to get rid of Randy Jackson, that I wasn't sure what I would do the next year.

Mr. Brooks: But you had certain commitments that didn't enable you to tell the Dodgers that you were going to retire, isn't that true?

Mr. Robinson: That is correct.

Mr. Van der Linden: Mr. Robinson, you said a few minutes ago that you favored the Civil Rights Bill. There have been some amendments offered to the bill. Do you know of any reason why Congress should not adopt the proposed amendment which would give a jury trial to anyone who is accused under that bill?

Mr. Robinson: I know very little about that bill, Mr. Van der Linden.

Mr. Van der Linden: As an individual, yourself, if you should happen to be accused in any court case, on any matter, would you prefer to have a jury trial?

Mr. Robinson: I think I would, yes, as an individual, yes.

Mr. Spivak: Mr. Robinson, the Brooklyn Dodgers hired a clown, recently, for this season. Is that an indication that they don't think their ball team is going to keep the people interested?

Mr. Robinson: I hope not. I think that the Brooklyn Baseball Club will be a very, very interesting one this year. I think their pitching is as good as there is in baseball, and when you have good pitching, you have an interesting ball team.

Mr. Spivak: Sports Illustrated, I think, last week referred to them as a "team of old and ailing players." Do you think they are not too old and too ailing to win this pennant again, as you predicted?

Mr. Robinson: I certainly don't think so. I think when you have fellows on the ball club like Pee Wee Reese, for instance - I think Pee Wee is perhaps the oldest player outside of the pitchers on the ball club - even when he is ailing and hurting, he is out there playing better baseball than a lot of the younger fellows, so, therefore, he is able to do a good job. I think his leadership will enable them to do a good job again.

Mr. Spivak: May I ask you a personal question?

Mr. Robinson: Indeed.

Mr. Spivak: You seen so calm and gentle here today. How did you get your reputation for being so "tart-tongued" and "terrible-tempered?"

Mr. Robinson: I don't know, Mr. Spivak, very frankly. I am calm; I like to be calm. When I am playing baseball, I give it all that I have on the ball field. When the ball game is over, I certainly don't take it home. My little girl who is sitting out there wouldn't know the difference between a third strike and a foul ball. We don't talk about baseball at home. I finish any game, give it all I have, but I don't take it home.

Mr. Spivak: Is it the game itself that stirred up the competitive spirit or was it partly the way you were treated as the first Negro in baseball that resulted in your so-called tart tongue and terrible temper?

Mr. Robinson: Oh, indeed not. Mr. Spivak, I can say this honestly; things weren't as bad as a lot of people would have liked to have made them out to be. I received very, very fine treatment in most cases. So, therefore, my activities on the ball field had absolutely nothing to do with the way that I conducted myself at any time.

Mr. Brooks: I am sorry to have to interrupt, but I see our time is up.

Our sincere thanks to Jackie Robinson, and before closing I would like to call your special attention to next week's program. Our guest will be Vladimir Poremsky, the head of the Russian underground called the NTS, and it is known by Soviet intelligence agents as the most dangerous enemy to the Soviet regime.

Again, thank you very much, Jackie Robinson, for being with us; now here is our announcer.

Sent from my iPhone

Jackie Robinson: Revisiting an Interview With a Baseball and Civil Rights Legend | Seamheads.com

Interesting interview with a baseball and cultural icon.

from seamheads.com
http://seamheads.com/blog/2018/03/02/jackie-robinson-revisiting-an-interview-with-a-baseball-and-civil-rights-legend/?ref=digest

Jackie Robinson: Revisiting an Interview With a Baseball and Civil Rights Legend

March 2, 2018 by Andrew Martin · Leave a Comment 

The age of the internet is a blessing in that it allows for the preservation of so many primary sources—the collection of video, audio and written materials from our past. This is particularly important to baseball history, where there is so much to keep track of.

On April 14, 1957, legendary player and civil rights activist Jackie Robinson appeared on a radio/television broadcast of Meet the Press, less than a year removed from his final major league game. The Library of Congress has a transcript of his appearance, which covered a number of topics. I will share some of the parts I found most interesting, along with some of my own commentary in italics.

When asked if he thought baseball team owners were interested only in money and if they treated players like “pawns and chattel”: “I can’t say it is completely true, no. I think in most cases many of the club owners do have the thinking of the ball players in their hearts, but there are many, many instances where ball players are moved around. What the answer to eliminate it is, I don’t know.”

This may well be a generous take by Robinson, who was traded to the New York Giants following the 1956 season after a decade with the Brooklyn Dodgers. The deal was never consummated, as he elected to retire from playing in lieu of taking a position with Chock full o’ Nuts coffee company. It is hard not to imagine that the ability to control his own destiny and not take on a new team and a new challenge at the age 37 appealed to him.

Speaking on whether or not he thought the Reserve Clause was good: “If there were some other means to handle the situation, I would think it should be handled, but I don’t know of any other. If they didn’t have the reserve clause, when we came down to the last month of the season where a ball club may need a good ball player to have them win the pennant, a club with a lot of money who would only be interested in a pennant could, by offering this ball player – if there wasn’t some kind of a law to keep him from it – a lot of money, and I doubt very seriously if the player would refuse it.”

It’s interesting, to say the least, to see Robinson seemingly come down on the side of maintaining the “purity” of the game over the individual rights of the players.

On whether the New York Yankees and their money was stopped in any way by the Reserve Clause: “I don’t think that is the reason why the Yankees are so successful. I think that, very frankly, a lot of ball players when they are young are very, very anxious to join the Yankee chain. I think that tradition that they hear about so much has a lot to do with it, and they get in the organization. I believe that is what it is, personally.”

The popularity of the Yankees was no doubt a factor in helping them attract many good young players in the years before and since Robinson. However, it is foolish to overlook the impact of their ability to purchase players—especially from second-division teams who sold off their fledgling talent as a way to stay financially afloat. At one point, the Kansas City Athletics were practically a farm team for the Bronx Bombers. Hello, Roger Maris!

Was Robinson satisfied at the time of his retirement over the place of African Americans in baseball?: “Oh, no, I am never satisfied; let’s face it.”

With three major league teams yet to field a black player during a regular season game at the time of this interview (not to mention the many other problems associated with racism and segregation) there is little surprise here. Even today, African Americans face unfair and unjust challenges within baseball.

At the time of this interview, what sport did Robinson think gave black athletes the least chance at equal treatment?:  “I would say golf. In the over-all picture there are cases where Negroes are allowed to participate in the golf tournaments, but in the great majority of tournaments they are not allowed.”

This was obviously a terrible question, with blacks in the throes of segregation in jobs, sports and society in 1957. The fact that Robinson had to and could successfully identify which sport was most racist is an incredibly sad commentary on the state of things at that time.

Did unfair treatment that Robinson received as the player who broke baseball’s color line contribute to his supposed so-called “tart tongue and terrible temper?”: Oh, indeed not. Mr. Spivak (interviewer Lawrence Spivak), I can say this honestly; things weren’t as bad as a lot of people would have liked to have made them out to be. I received very, very fine treatment in most cases. So, therefore, my activities on the ball field had absolutely nothing to do with the way that I conducted myself at any time.

Robinson’s reluctance to back down to anyone was allegedly one of the attributes that made him a desirable candidate to integrate baseball. Although he undoubtedly had his allies and moments of endearment (although not all apparently exactly as remembered) there is no denying the abuse he took from those who wanted no part of him in the game. His unflappability and not allowing individuals or their negative actions to change his demeanor or how he conducted himself is a reflection on his immense strength and character. These were hallmarks of his legend as a player and person and helped him become such a titan in sports and humanity.

Andrew Martin is the founder of “The Baseball Historian” blog where he posts his thoughts about baseball on a regular basis. You can also reach him on Twitter at @historianandrew or on Facebook.

Sent from my iPhone

Sad news for Giants fans | RIP Monte Irvin

He was to the Giants what Jackie Robinson was to the Dodgers. A pioneer and a great Giant. RIP Monte Irvin.

	SF Giants Rumors (@SFGiants_Rumors)
1/12/16, 3:05 PM We are saddened to learn that Hall of Famer and civil rights pioneer Monte Irvin has passed away at 96. #RIPMonte fb.me/2atlAZEF6

Download the Twitter app

Sent from my iPhone

2015 Franchise Four - The Other Ballots

from mlb.com

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/all_star/y2015/franchise_four.jsp?c_id=greatest_players

This is not fair to Giants fans to vote for the Greatest Living Player because by limiting us to four players we cannot fill out a proper ballot which would include:

• Willie Mays
• Barry Bonds
• Buster Posey
• Will Clark
• Willie McCovey 

I had to write in Buster Posey, thereby leaving off Will Clark and Willie McCovey. 

A real travesty. 

Tom Seaver gets a vote he was not entitled to, so if he wins, you know why. 

There is also a ballot for Baseball Pioneers:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/all_star/y2015/franchise_four.jsp?c_id=pio

It's not what you think. I'm thinking Jackie Robinson, Minnie Minoso and then some others of merit. But NO!!!. Cap Anson, a widely acknowledged racist. Buck Ewing? instead of Buck O'Neill? 

I wrote in Jackie Robinson and left the rest of the ballot blank. I don't even know what the other folks pioneered and I consider myself a reasonable student of baseball history. Perhaps I'm missing something here. 

At least I found Buck O'Neil here, 

Top Players in Negro League History:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/all_star/y2015/franchise_four.jsp?c_id=nl

Here, I voted for 

• Josh Gibson
• Cool Papa Bell
• Satchel Paige
• Buck O'Neill 

MLB deserves whatever adverse attention and publicity they may receive for folks having to write Jackie Robinson in on a ballot, like he was some sort of after-thought in baseball history. Are you serious?!?!  This is MAJOR LEAGUE DUMB!!!

Jackie Robinson Day - Baseball reflects America's racial diversity like no other major sport

I'm not sure that baseball gets the credit that it is due for reflecting our nation's racial breakdown almost to a tee across the board. White, black, Hispanic, Asian. No other sport comes close and when TIDES grades the sports it gives A grades to the NBA and the NFL when they don't come close to our national demographic breakdown. Makes you wonder.......

Baseball, still America's pastime and always will be America's Greatest Game.

from Giants Extra:

POSTGAME NOTES: Sanchez was “the man” for Giants, and he took the best kind of beating – Giants Extra:

— Jackie Robinson day is always a cool one at the ballpark, and the Giants and Dodgers added a twist tonight. Jon Miller and Vin Scully took turns introducing the starting lineups over the PA system, with each player getting a “Wearing No. 42″ from two of the broadcasting greats. Scully, by the way, received a half-standing ovation and loud cheers. That might have been a first for a Dodger at AT&T Park.

'via Blog this'



Dr. Mark Perry explains the absurdity of this type of "racial grading" better than I can.....

from Carpe Diem:
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/should-the-nba-wnba-and-nfl-get-race-letter-grades-of-a-for-the-racial-diversity-of-their-players-vs-us-population/?

Should the NBA, WNBA and NFL get race letter grades of A+ for the racial diversity of their players vs. US population?

Mark J. Perry | April 4, 2014, 11:32 am

	US POPULATION	NBA	WNBA	NFL
% White	63.0%	19.0%	20.0%	31.0%
% Black	13.1%	76.3%	73.0%	66.6%
% Hispanic	16.7%	4.4%	0%	0.7%
% Asian	5.1%	0.2%	0%	1.1%

MP: There seems to be some rather inconsistent and twisted “diversity logic” here that TIDES is using for assigning its “race grades” for racial diversity in professional sports. The NBA, WNBA and NFL all get “race grades” of A+ for the racial diversity of their players, even though blacks are significantly overrepresented relative to their share of the US population (13.1%) in all three sports (76.3%, 73% and 66.3%, respectively), and all three of the other racial categories (whites, Hispanics and Asians) are significantly under-represented relative to their share of the US population in all three sports leagues.

By any realistic metric or concept of “racial diversity” that reflects America’s racial representations in the general population (e.g. the racial diversity standard that is usually applied to university student populations, etc.), it would sure seem that the NBA, WNBA and NFL all deserve letter grades of F for racial diversity, which I have assigned above. Apparently, the only minority group that matters to TIDES is blacks, since the NBA, WNBA, and NFL all get letters grades of A+ for racial diversity, even with the significant under-representation of other minority groups like Hispanics and Asians. This seems like a pretty Orwellian approach in the sense that apparently according to TIDES, “all racial and gender groups are equal and important for purposes of diversity in professional sports, but one group is apparently more equal than all of the others.”

Bottom Line: Does this type of mechanistic, head counting of professional athletes by race/skin color, and then assigning race letter grades to professional sports leagues for their racial diversity, really move us further in the direction of Martin Luther King’s vision of a colorblind society? I really can’t see how it does. Am I the only one who finds this “racial head counting” and assigning of “race letter grades” to professional sports both simplistically childish and offensive? Does anybody else object to the fact that this institute is probably funded at least in part by the taxpayers of Florida, and the students paying tuition at the University of Central Florida?

Baseball Historical Insight: Revisiting Major League Integration: Meaningful Numbers

Bryan Soderholm has illustrated statistically what a good number of African American athletes of the era have previously stated. Their observation was that unless the black athlete was clearly and demonstrably, far and away the superior player, he wasn't on the team. Equal wasn't quite good enough. A little bit better, not enough. Had to be clearly and convincingly.

I'm not sure there aren't other factors that describe the more recent decline in participation demonstrated by the Business Insider graphic shown above. There we may be seeing the more recent effects of such things as travel ball and the enormous expenses involved in playing and getting exposure to college and professional scouts. Baseball runs the risk of being considered almost an elitist, affluent, country club sport similar to golf, tennis and polo. Imagine that!! 

The lack of full scholarships available in baseball at the Division I level comparable to football and basketball would also be high on the list. 

Baseball Historical Insight: Revisiting Major League Integration: Meaningful Numbers:

Third:  By 1960, of 125 position players who had been in major league starting line-ups for at least five years since Jackie Robinson's 1947 debut, only 16 (a mere 13 %) were blacks. But the more significant number is that 10 of those 16 were "elite" players whose cumulative wins above replacement (WAR) for their five best years put them among the 10 best position players in their league between 1947 and 1960 or whose career arc wound them up in the Hall of Fame.  

See the following earlier post: 

http://brysholm.blogspot.com/2013/04/continuing-reflections-on-42-great.html.

That means nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of black position players who were regulars for at least five years were elite players, compared to 18 percent of white position players.  Robinson, Doby, Campanella, Irvin, Minoso, Mays, Aaron, Banks, Clemente, and Frank Robinson were all exceptional players proving they could indeed play with the best players in major league baseball, but integration could not be considered consolidated until black players of more modest abilities were given the opportunity to realistically compete for starting big league jobs.

Finally, by 1964, as shown in the table above, blacks accounted for nearly a quarter of the 247 players who were regulars on (now) 20 major league teams by the criteria mentioned earlier.  Indicative of there no longer being any doubt about blacks in major league baseball, nearly 35 percent of the total number of position players who were regulars in starting line-ups for at least five years between 1961 and 1970 were African American or black Latinos.  However, while only 13 percent of the white position players were elite players as defined above, more than one-third (35 percent) of the black players were elite in that context.  And that does not even include the likes of Reggie Jackson and Rod Carew, whose careers started in the late 1960s but did not reach the five-years-as-a-regular threshold until the early 1970s. While it was now a certainty that black players with superior ability would find a place in major league starting line-ups, it appears that even in the 1960s when it came to players of more average major league ability competing for big league jobs, which is the majority of players, the odds still favored the white player.

Starting Position Players, Comparative Summary

1947-1960 STARTING POSITION PLAYERS (5 years)
	White Players			Black Players
	Regulars	Elite	% Elite	Regulars	Elite	% Elite
NL	53	9	17 %	11	8	73 %
AL	56	11	20 %	5	2	40 %
MLB	109	20	18 %	16	10	63 %
1961-1970 STARTING POSITION PLAYERS (5 years)
	White Players			Black Players
	Regulars	Elite	% Elite	Regulars	Elite	% Elite
NL	40	4	10 %	32	14	44 %
AL	53	8	15 %	17	3	18 %
MLB	93	12	13 %	49	17	35 %

'via Blog this'