Mr. October Watch Spotting

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

That is my suggestion exactly. I have no idea what person he was or is or if that's changed.

If you think Curt Flood's killing of the reserve clause didn't impact how the next generation of black players was treated, I (or Occam's Razor) certainly can't change your mind.

Read about what Al Campanis thought. Then look at how he acted relative to the signing of young players and how he changed the Dodgers and the industry as a result of those views.

He was proud of those changes and was open about why he made them.

To view that in a vacuum and think that it didn't impact that generation in the ways now commonly accepted is to choose to be misinformed.

Baseball has changed more in the last 10 years than it did in the 85 preceeding. But the fans who stopped caring 11 years ago or more still cling to the same tropes (in this case, the black man didn't hustle in the outfield so should be judged as a man).

You do tend to leave out people like Pete Rose and Ty Cobb. Although there is the school of thought that in the case of Ty Cobb he really wasn’t nearly the monster people seem to believe he was. More of a creation of someone who got it wrong in the late fifties early sixties.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by dddrees

You’re right typically we don’t know these people and many people for that matter that well. But I do know what I saw him do and what I heard him say over and over again and from that bit of what I saw and heard I didn’t like him as a man nor a person.

People make judgements all the time, and yes my judgement can only be based on what I saw and heard.

No, actually, you could confirm or debunk your current thinking by cracking a book or two on the subject. So, you have plenty more on which to base things but you actively choose to stick to what you think you remember that someone said or wrote more than four decades ago.

Who wrote it? Who said it? What specific plays in the OF are you referring to? You can't answer any of those questions because you've settled on your shallow and vapid judgement as personal gospel.

But kudos to you for essentially admitting that. I couldn't help but research a bit if I were you, but you stay confident in your judgements!

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

No, actually, you could confirm or debunk your current thinking by cracking a book or two on the subject. So, you have plenty more on which to base things but you actively choose to stick to what you think you remember that someone said or wrote more than four decades ago.

Who wrote it? Who said it? What specific plays in the OF are you referring to? You can't answer any of those questions because you've settled on your shallow and vapid judgement as personal gospel.

But kudos to you for essentially admitting that. I couldn't help but
research a bit if I were you, but you stay confident in your judgements!

I’m strictly going by what Reggie did and said. Reggie had one hell of a mouth, and it kind of went on non-stop.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

That is my suggestion exactly. I have no idea what person he was or is or if that's changed.

If you think Curt Flood's killing of the reserve clause didn't impact how the next generation of black players was treated, I (or Occam's Razor) certainly can't change your mind.

Read about what Al Campanis thought. Then look at how he acted relative to the signing of young players and how he changed the Dodgers and the industry as a result of those views.

He was proud of those changes and was open about why he made them.

To view that in a vacuum and think that it didn't impact that generation in the ways now commonly accepted is to choose to be misinformed.

Baseball has changed more in the last 10 years than it did in the 85 preceeding. But the fans who stopped caring 11 years ago or more still cling to the same tropes (in this case, the black man didn't hustle in the outfield so should be judged as a man).

So, you think I didn’t like, or judged harshly, Reggie Jackson because he was black?…and I’m over 40?

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

Consider the totality of the reserve clause, the rise of Latin American camps (invented by the Dodgers), the international draft rules, and the resultant significant decline in African American population in MLB, and it could be said that my focus on demographic might seem more placed.

When the reserve clause was overturned, the percentage of Black, American born players was nearing 20%. It is now hovering around 6%.

The African American talent pool did not get smaller or less talented in that time period. Something happened. What was it?

MLB focused on signing international players who they could control longer and for cheaper, and not only because of the economics. Those players also happened to be far more reliant (due to language and culture) on teams than did American born players.

Modern baseball fans have come to understand that. Older fans still have their head in the sand. Demographic matters in baseball, especially as things like the WBC make the game international.

Without realizing it, focusing on (purported) 40+ year old personality traits of someone you don't know brings the demographic into play as much as anything else.

It’s also my understanding due to many African Americans economic status they just simply find it more beneficial to play in other sports where the economic reward occurs much quicker as baseball can take more time to payoff. I think this too is plausible as well. Not saying it’s the only reason, just a part of the overall picture.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by dddrees

You do tend to leave out people like Pete Rose and Ty Cobb. Although there is the school of thought that in the case of Ty Cobb he really wasn’t nearly the monster people seem to believe he was. More of a creation of someone who got it wrong in the late fifties early sixties.

The two greatest singles hitters of all time (Rose and Cobb). Cobb once went into the stands to beat a disabled man...during a game. His teammates, alleged to despise him, somehow had his back and refused to play until he was reinstated. You never know.

Rose was Rose. In my mind, he bet on games, even the ones he managed. But his peers and teammates loved him, despite it all. I was once having dinner with a former teammate of his who was reported widely to hate him. The guy's phone rang and he took the call. It was Pete Rose, and it sure sounded like they were good friends. When pressed after the call, the former player said, "there's no better friend than Pete Rose."

Who am I to judge Pete Rose or Ty Cobb?

Rose would be a great one to ask. He's vilified by fans and loved by the HOFers and the journeymen alike. Just like Reggie, which is probably why they remain tight.

In fact, he leads the Reggie documentary talking to Reggie on the phone. Rose is one of the smartest baseball minds to ever live. And Rose also worked as hard as anyone in the game at that time to bridge the racial gaps...as player, as player manager, and as manager.

Rose made his bed by going where everyone knows you can't go, and his story is widely known. The life story of Cobb is one of the most intriguing in American history (great movie too).

But "Charlie Hustle" was the persona needed for an average-sized guy to succeed without all of the normally expected skills. Rose was slowfooted and had no real defensive position. Since fans could relate, his style became lionized.

In reality, though, baseball managers tell their best prospects to be more selective about "all out." In a 162 game season, eye wash hustle brings injuries.

Cobb was a mega-talent and by all accounts always angry. His bad press largely was a product of his unwillingness to engage. Rose was every writer's favorite player until 1989. Tough to compare them to each other, let alone to Reggie.

The more apt comparison might be Mickey Mantle. He played drunk (where he often dogged it in the outfield because of "a bad knee"), was handsy to all women he met, was Billy Martin's best friend and drinking partner, and was as ribald and uncooth as a man of his era could be. He hit cleanup for the Yankees and won multiple MVPs and WS titles.

And the writers loved him.

Reggie, who was one of the best RB in America when he went to ASU, exploded his knee twice (once to end his football career...baseball was second choice) and once in baseball while hustling, ironically, on the home side of a double steal. He hit cleanup for the Yankees and, won 5 WS titles, and served as the Yankees' Mantle of his generation.

And the writers hated him. What was the difference between Mantle and Jackson?

Why is one an American hero and the other a favorite punching bag?

Race was probably just a coincidence.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by dddrees

I’m strictly going by what Reggie did and said. Reggie had one hell of a mouth, and it kind of went on non-stop.

One quote as evidence shouldn't be tough then.

Louis CK does a great but about this kind of thinking.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by pickettt

So, you think I didn’t like, or judged harshly, Reggie Jackson because he was black?…and I’m over 40?

I think you have judged Reggie on what others said and wrote about him, much of which was racially motivated (subconscious or otherwise). Whether you read and believed it in real time or whether you relied on an older generation is immaterial.

You don't have to be of a generation to think like them, or else I'd not be taking the position(s) I do. I am a baseball OG. I played the game through college and played with and against many players who ended up in the MLB. I shepherded my own son through his playing days.

I am just old enough to have seen some of my black teammates see some shit. I have basis for this.

My guesses as to your age or yours to mine can't be relegated to a zinger here.

You're framing old thoughts regardless of your chronological age.

I'm tapping these replies with my thumbs on my phone without consulting research. Genuine student of the game and can make these points for days.

[Blansky]

Incredibly good documentary.

Seems so much in this discussion is about his attitude, which has to go hand in hand with his ability to be a "money player". A lot of money players are not necessary your go- along-to-get-along types and he was no exception. To be his kind of great you need something of a FU attitude, I think.

Being exposed to the overt and then covert racism of his life must be soul destroying, and I have no mechanism to gauge what that must feel like.

But his anger, his disappointment, his disgust of being "expected to just be happy to be here" and later on while getting lip service for change from the powers that be, that he was just basically a hood ornament is all a part of that equation.

It also has to be said that most people evolve as they go through life, and he certainly seemed to do that as well.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Incredibly good documentary.

Seems so much in this discussion is about his attitude, which has to go hand in hand with his ability to be a "money player". A lot of money players are not necessary your go- along-to-get-along types and he was no exception. To be his kind of great you need something of a FU attitude, I think.

Being exposed to the overt and then covert racism of his life must be soul destroying, and I have no mechanism to gauge what that must feel like.

But his anger, his disappointment, his disgust of being "expected to just be happy to be here" and later on while getting lip service for change from the powers that be, that he was just basically a hood ornament is all a part of that equation.

It also has to be said that most people evolve as they go through life, and he certainly seemed to do that as well.

Great perspective...and not just because I agree.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

I think you have judged Reggie on what others said and wrote about him, much of which was racially motivated (subconscious or otherwise). Whether you read and believed it in real time or whether you relied on an older generation is immaterial.

You don't have to be of a generation to think like them, or else I'd not be taking the position(s) I do. I am a baseball OG. I played the game through college and played with and against many players who ended up in the MLB. I shepherded my own son through his playing days.

I am just old enough to have seen some of my black teammates see some shit. I have basis for this.

My guesses as to your age or yours to mine can't be relegated to a zinger here.

You're framing old thoughts regardless of your chronological age.

I'm tapping these replies with my thumbs on my phone without consulting research. Genuine student of the game and can make these points for days.

Thanks for the lesson on baseball and race relations.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...5&postcount=76

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...&postcount=104

[Cloudchaser]

Thanks for the lesson on baseball and race relations.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...5&postcount=76

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...&postcount=104

No problem (though I do get the joke attempt).

Regardless, I stand by my primary point; Reggie was treated differently than his white peers by the press of the day. The press of that day created the impression that persists to this day.

If one's impression was that he dogged it in the outfield, that's what was said and written but I've yet to see video evidence or mention of a specific play that would establish that as fact. The play that resulted in the dugout fight with Martin is the closest anyone has. And no amount of hustling on that play could have changed the outcome of the play. Martin was out to get him and that play was Martin's red herring. And it worked, to this day apparently.

But on the note of baseball and race relations, I'd venture to guess that your dad must have been among the most talented arms of his generation in order for them to put him on the mound in those days. That was exceedingly rare. Coaches still want to put every black kid in CF!

The game was slow to change and then Campanis worked very hard to change that change, if you will. And the reporters of the day, predominantly white and underpaid, did influence history.

As a young fan, I could have never guessed that I'd only see a decline in the percentage of black players in the game. As an adult fan, I'm dumbfounded by how low that percentage became. All of the factors I have mentioned have certainly played a role, but to me, one of the most damaging is carrying forward the old opinions that were based on incomplete data at best, stark racism at worst. (To be clear, it's the original narrative that had racist overtones, not those who accidentally carry those narratives today.)

I'm just a passionate baseball fan who wants the game as good as it can be. And I think we can all help get it there.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

I'm just a passionate baseball fan who wants the game as good as it can be. And I think we can all help get it there.

Well in that, we certainly see eye to eye.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

The two greatest singles hitters of all time (Rose and Cobb). Cobb once went into the stands to beat a disabled man...during a game. His teammates, alleged to despise him, somehow had his back and refused to play until he was reinstated. You never know.

Rose was Rose. In my mind, he bet on games, even the ones he managed. But his peers and teammates loved him, despite it all. I was once having dinner with a former teammate of his who was reported widely to hate him. The guy's phone rang and he took the call. It was Pete Rose, and it sure sounded like they were good friends. When pressed after the call, the former player said, "there's no better friend than Pete Rose."

Who am I to judge Pete Rose or Ty Cobb?

Rose would be a great one to ask. He's vilified by fans and loved by the HOFers and the journeymen alike. Just like Reggie, which is probably why they remain tight.

In fact, he leads the Reggie documentary talking to Reggie on the phone. Rose is one of the smartest baseball minds to ever live. And Rose also worked as hard as anyone in the game at that time to bridge the racial gaps...as player, as player manager, and as manager.

Rose made his bed by going where everyone knows you can't go, and his story is widely known. The life story of Cobb is one of the most intriguing in American history (great movie too).

But "Charlie Hustle" was the persona needed for an average-sized guy to succeed without all of the normally expected skills. Rose was slowfooted and had no real defensive position. Since fans could relate, his style became lionized.

In reality, though, baseball managers tell their best prospects to be more selective about "all out." In a 162 game season, eye wash hustle brings injuries.

Cobb was a mega-talent and by all accounts always angry. His bad press largely was a product of his unwillingness to engage. Rose was every writer's favorite player until 1989. Tough to compare them to each other, let alone to Reggie.

The more apt comparison might be Mickey Mantle. He played drunk (where he often dogged it in the outfield because of "a bad knee"), was handsy to all women he met, was Billy Martin's best friend and drinking partner, and was as ribald and uncooth as a man of his era could be. He hit cleanup for the Yankees and won multiple MVPs and WS titles.

And the writers loved him.

Reggie, who was one of the best RB in America when he went to ASU, exploded his knee twice (once to end his football career...baseball was second choice) and once in baseball while hustling, ironically, on the home side of a double steal. He hit cleanup for the Yankees and, won 5 WS titles, and served as the Yankees' Mantle of his generation.

And the writers hated him. What was the difference between Mantle and Jackson?

Why is one an American hero and the other a favorite punching bag?

Race was probably just a coincidence.

Ty Cobb, this is worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjbPzoboilM

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by pickettt

Well in that, we certainly see eye to eye.

I really only brought the documentary up here because so many people here seem to love both watches and cars, like Reggie. The feelings about "Jax" were a surprise. I really didn't know that your view (not hustling in the outfield) was rather common. I never intended to be Reggie's defender (but I'm clearly hustling).

And I was honestly suggesting the documentary without a care in the world if anyone watched it. Then you engaged me as part of thread and threw a few links my way and now I genuinely care. I want you to watch it, if for no other reason than to see Reggie's connection with Dave Stewart and how it came about, and the relationship it became. Your dad's career may very well have indirectly influenced some scout to consider a young kid from Oakland as a pitcher.

There was a passion with which the black Oakland fans of the 70's supported Reggie. And those 70's A's, largely because most had been in Birmingham with Reggie prior, are a great example of what you referred to as the lengths white teammates would go to support their segregated teammates.

There are too few Dave Stewarts being developed in the game today. The omission is the last blatant vestige of the Campanis era. I think we probably agree on that point too.

Given your dad's place in the game, your baseball fandom, and your Rolex obsession, please do not miss this documentary...yes, I'm begging you now. Do you have a son or daughter? Watch it with them. I don't care about what you think of Reggie, but I'd love for you to not miss out on the truly meaningful elements that are touched on within.

It's not just race, it's baseball and society, both of which race can't help but impact.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

I really only brought the documentary up here because so many people here seem to love both watches and cars, like Reggie. The feelings about "Jax" were a surprise. I really didn't know that your view (not hustling in the outfield) was rather common. I never intended to be Reggie's defender (but I'm clearly hustling).

And I was honestly suggesting the documentary without a care in the world if anyone watched it. Then you engaged me as part of thread and threw a few links my way and now I genuinely care. I want you to watch it, if for no other reason than to see Reggie's connection with Dave Stewart and how it came about, and the relationship it became. Your dad's career may very well have indirectly influenced some scout to consider a young kid from Oakland as a pitcher.

There was a passion with which the black Oakland fans of the 70's supported Reggie. And those 70's A's, largely because most had been in Birmingham with Reggie prior, are a great example of what you referred to as the lengths white teammates would go to support their segregated teammates.

There are too few Dave Stewarts being developed in the game today. The omission is the last blatant vestige of the Campanis era. I think we probably agree on that point too.

Given your dad's place in the game, your baseball fandom, and your Rolex obsession, please do not miss this documentary...yes, I'm begging you now. Do you have a son or daughter? Watch it with them. I don't care about what you think of Reggie, but I'd love for you to not miss out on the truly meaningful elements that are touched on within.

It's not just race, it's baseball and society, both of which race can't help but impact.

I actually intended to watch it last night, but practice ran late last night. We had Angels/Dodgers tickets last night but we gave them away in favor of an impromptu practice session. My son is 10 and plays little league. His coach would like him to pitch, catch, play the hot corner, short, and first all at the same time if he could.
Another dramatization of this very topic is called “The Bronx is Burning.” This certainly paints Reggie in a negative light. A lot of my opinions are from personal anecdotes as my dad knew a lot MLB players, not from TV. I will certainly watch the doc though

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by dddrees

Ty Cobb, this is worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjbPzoboilM

i am such a baseball nerd that I had already seen it.

In a similar (though less concrete) vein: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/a...-cobb-baseball

There will always be different narratives, in that case, even within the same article.

When I wrote, "you never know," I meant that I was also reserving judgement on Cobb. As a student of the game, his stats make his place undeniable to me.

The only thing I ever held against Cobb was his criticism of Ted Williams ("he demands a perfect pitch"), when Williams was actually so far ahead of his time that he was actually accidentally predicting the future perspective of the best hitters of this era ("he demands a perfect pitch").

And even if it turns out that Cobb was Jack The Ripper (AND dogged it in the outfield), my baseball opinion of him wouldn't change. Just like I doubt Michael Jordan is anything but what he appeared to be at his HOF induction speech, yet I'm no less appreciative of his talent or history.

But if you study Ty Cobb, one thing becomes certain fairly quickly; he was arrogant, antagonistic, angry, and constantly eager to turn the conversation or interview toward himself. And in his elder years, he was often the voice of the old baseball guard griping about the way the current guys played the game.

Sounds a bit like Reggie, no?

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by pickettt

I actually intended to watch it last night, but practice ran late last night. We had Angels/Dodgers tickets last night but we gave them away in favor of an impromptu practice session. My son is 10 and plays little league. His coach would like him to pitch, catch, play the hot corner, short, and first all at the same time if he could.
Another dramatization of this very topic is called “The Bronx is Burning.” This certainly paints Reggie in a negative light. A lot of my opinions are from personal anecdotes as my dad knew a lot MLB players, not from TV. I will certainly watch the doc though

i think Billy Martin's drinking death and Thurman Munson's tragic airplane death combined to help cement some of the negativity relating to the Yankees (in regard to Jackson), Munson especially.

Had normal life progressed, Thurman the hard ass would have given way to Thurman the nostalgic and the relationship could have evolved. Thurman vs. Reggie was overplayed. It's like the Beatles...Paul is still alive and it's tough when the other narrative stopped evolving.

And at some point, probably as one of twelve steps, Billy Martin would have alologized to Reggie publicly. But Billy kept at the bottle instead.

But they all won two titles together which implies mutual respect. Reggie was with Steinbrenner in his last days, too watching old Gene Autry movies in Steinbrenner's bedroom. That says alot. And Reggie's place among the 1990s/2000s Yankees is legendary, too, so there seems more evidence that Reggie buoyed the Yankees than that he dragged them down.

The Bronx burned under Winfield and Mattingly and Steinbrenner. Reggie has a ring from every year the Yankees have won a WS title post Mantle.

Two hour doc might be a tall order for a 10 year old, but I look forward to you watching it!

Thanks for the exchanges; I appreciate it. If you're an Angel season ticket holder, find Grich. Ask him about Reggie. They were teammates in Baltimore and Anaheim.

And if you're a Dodger fan instead....GO ANGELS!

[AzPaul]

I never cared much for Jackson but at least I had a legitimate reason.
He was a Sun Devil.

Actually, poor college choice aside, I always liked Reggie, and certainly liked watching his at bats. Whether you wanted him to succeed or fail, he made you want to watch.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by AzPaul

I never cared much for Jackson but at least I had a legitimate reason.
He was a Sun Devil.

Actually, poor college choice aside, I always liked Reggie, and certainly liked watching his at bats. Whether you wanted him to succeed or fail, he made you want to watch.

Baseball's gain was football's loss. He was some kind of RB!

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

i am such a baseball nerd that I had already seen it.

In a similar (though less concrete) vein: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/a...-cobb-baseball

There will always be different narratives, in that case, even within the same article.

When I wrote, "you never know," I meant that I was also reserving judgement on Cobb. As a student of the game, his stats make his place undeniable to me.

The only thing I ever held against Cobb was his criticism of Ted Williams ("he demands a perfect pitch"), when Williams was actually so far ahead of his time that he was actually accidentally predicting the future perspective of the best hitters of this era ("he demands a perfect pitch").

And even if it turns out that Cobb was Jack The Ripper (AND dogged it in the outfield), my baseball opinion of him wouldn't change. Just like I doubt Michael Jordan is anything but what he appeared to be at his HOF induction speech, yet I'm no less appreciative of his talent or history.

But if you study Ty Cobb, one thing becomes certain fairly quickly; he was arrogant, antagonistic, angry, and constantly eager to turn the conversation or interview toward himself. And in his elder years, he was often the voice of the old baseball guard griping about the way the current guys played the game.

Sounds a bit like Reggie, no?

I’m just trying to figure out the reason you linked this article when the writer I linked to supposedly debunked not only the assumption that Cobb was not a racist but also that he wasn’t an Anti-Semite? In fact this article originates from the very author called Stump that the writer claims and has documentation to prove he made stuff up. I have to admit I didn’t read this writers book but supposedly he provides footnotes to everything he claims.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by dddrees

I’m just trying to figure out the reason you linked this article when the writer I linked to supposedly debunked not only the assumption that Cobb was not a racist but also that he wasn’t an Anti-Semite? In fact this article originates from the very author called Stump that the writer claims and has documentation to prove he made stuff up. I have to admit I didn’t read this writers book but supposedly he provides footnotes to everything he claims.

Because, within the body of the article lays the same premise as we've been discussing; that we actually don't know because even some of those that have suggested reasons for viewing him in a less harsh light also are quick to label him "filled with hate."

Hate for what or whom? Nobody precisely knows. Some people are just angry, and Cobb labeled himself as such.

The indicent with his own Jewish teammate is a perfect example. He was supporting his teammate at best, crafting a strategic advantage by leveraging a hateful slur at worst.

Cobb is on record as supporting the breaking of baseball's color barrier. And he did not oppose playing with the Jewish players on his team that pre-dated the arrival of Jackie Robinson. He was also supportive of the umpire that threatened (in the 1935 WS) to eject any player slurring Hank Greenberg.

At the same time, Greenberg played for Cobb's own Tigers and was kept at more than a distance throughout his career. He was the greatest Tiger since Cobb, and Cobb had nothing to do with him. So "debunking" is a strong word for revising debatable history.

That is to say that Cobb was human, so he was complex. Hey, just like Reggie!

The more appropriate question might honestly be, why have you taken a conversation about a black man playing during a complicated time and turned it into a pointed defense of Ty Cobb?

That's, even if unintentional, an interesting progression for this particular discussion.

If you'd give half the benefit of doubt to Reggie's "debunking" as you do to Cobb's, you might end up liking them both.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by dddrees

It’s also my understanding due to many African Americans economic status they just simply find it more beneficial to play in other sports where the economic reward occurs much quicker as baseball can take more time to payoff. I think this too is plausible as well. Not saying it’s the only reason, just a part of the overall picture.

Sorry...missed this one before. But yes, those are certainly factors.

Chicken and egg a bit, in a way, too. The declining percentages in baseball contributed to the culture shifting toward basketball and football. So too did the specialization nature of baseball, along with the fact that football provides the equipment needed to play the game.

But only baseball money is guaranteed, and no other sport pays in advance for young prospects quite like baseball, so financial factors favor baseball.

Fact is, in the 50's- early '70's it was baseball that captured the attention of all athletic American kids. And it remains the last professional sport in America where an averaged-size man can excel, so it should be a fall back sport on that basis alone. But it isn't currently.

Curt Flood challenged the reserve clause and it cost him his career. To think that that animosity ended just because they blacklisted Flood is to ignore Campanis' words and actions over the next 15 years.

That period also coincided with a young, brash Reggie Jackson arriving on the scene. The same writers that failed to support Flood (and there were many) started writing about Jackson with similar animosity.

What Reggie actually said that still pervades conversation about him is, essentially, "show me the money!"

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

Because, within the body of the article lays the same premise as we've been discussing; that we actually don't know because even some of those that have suggested reasons for viewing him in a less harsh light also are quick to label him "filled with hate."

Hate for what or whom? Nobody precisely knows. Some people are just angry, and Cobb labeled himself as such.

The indicent with his own Jewish teammate is a perfect example. He was supporting his teammate at best, crafting a strategic advantage by leveraging a hateful slur at worst.

Cobb is on record as supporting the breaking of baseball's color barrier. And he did not oppose playing with the Jewish players on his team that pre-dated the arrival of Jackie Robinson. He was also supportive of the umpire that threatened (in the 1935 WS) to eject any player slurring Hank Greenberg.

At the same time, Greenberg played for Cobb's own Tigers and was kept at more than a distance throughout his career. He was the greatest Tiger since Cobb, and Cobb had nothing to do with him. So "debunking" is a strong word for revising debatable history.

That is to say that Cobb was human, so he was complex. Hey, just like Reggie!

The more appropriate question might honestly be, why have you taken a conversation about a black man playing during a complicated time and turned it into a pointed defense of Ty Cobb?

That's, even if unintentional, an interesting progression for this particular discussion.

If you'd give half the benefit of doubt to Reggie's "debunking" as you do to Cobb's, you might end up liking them both.

I brought Pete Rose and Ty Cobb into this discussion because it appears that it's possible you might believe only African American players were those who have been hated. That has been the primary focus of yours at least initially after all and I wanted to see if that was your belief. Nothing wrong with your belief that they have been unfairly treated and I actually believe you made some excellent points and I know racism exists in the United States but there have been some white players that have been hated as well so I wanted to see what your response might be. I also wanted to see how you reacted to the possibility that Cobb may actually have been unjustly treated for things he never did. He's actually a good test considering. You said Jesse Jackson was so I wanted to establish how you felt about Cobb. I stumbled onto that awhile back myself and found it pretty fascinating.

I don't know you from Adam before this discussion began and I am just trying to figure out what kind of person you are and where your coming from. This just all goes into me determining whether or not having further meaningful discussion with you is worth having and whether I should take you seriously or not. Don't get me wrong I would do some of the same even after getting to know you to determine a more complete picture how you feel about any given subject we might discuss. Just a little push and pull is all or give and take if you like. What and how you state your position or make your points goes a long way, but determining who you are and what your like that sir is the last bit that gets you home.

It's a discussion, and the more it encompasses the better the discussion the greater the chance someone derives something meaningful from it. I mean those things I brought into it weren't a completely different subject after all. Granted only two white players compare to how many black players of which were still the minority but I wanted to see what your responses might be.

I'm not necessarily vigorously supporting Cobb, but since the article did borrow material from the author that supposedly made stuff up and I'm not actually aware of as many things evidently about Cobb that you are I had to ask.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

Sorry...missed this one before. But yes, those are certainly factors.

Chicken and egg a bit, in a way, too. The declining percentages in baseball contributed to the culture shifting toward basketball and football. So too did the specialization nature of baseball, along with the fact that football provides the equipment needed to play the game.

But only baseball money is guaranteed, and no other sport pays in advance for young prospects quite like baseball, so financial factors favor baseball.

Fact is, in the 50's- early '70's it was baseball that captured the attention of all athletic American kids. And it remains the last professional sport in America where an averaged-size man can excel, so it should be a fall back sport on that basis alone. But it isn't currently.

Curt Flood challenged the reserve clause and it cost him his career. To think that that animosity ended just because they blacklisted Flood is to ignore Campanis' words and actions over the next 15 years.

That period also coincided with a young, brash Reggie Jackson arriving on the scene. The same writers that failed to support Flood (and there were many) started writing about Jackson with similar animosity.

What Reggie actually said that still pervades conversation about him is, essentially, "show me the money!"

Yeah, I thought about the guaranteed salary as well, however what I heard seemed to make sense. Besides for some reason your not even considering Basketball in the equation?

Their point was that in baseball it often took longer to get your pay day, and with the other sports you see money immediately. For those and their families who are economically challenged and need money now that would make something that doesn't pay off immediately less attractive, That would be even true if over your lifetime you might and I say you might make more money.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by dddrees

Yeah, I thought about the guaranteed salary as well, however what I heard seemed to make sense. Besides for some reason your not even considering Basketball in the equation?

Their point was that in baseball it often took longer to get your pay day, and with the other sports you see money immediately. For those and their families who are economically challenged and need money now that would make something that doesn't pay off immediately less attractive, That would be even true if over your lifetime you might and I say you might make more money.

Basketball is funny in that it has become the cultural touchstone for virtually all American kids. But the table stakes are, basically, being freakishky tall or, if averaged-sized, have an atheticism so freakish as to be unrelatable.

As for immediate payouts, the winner is baseball, hands-down. Each summer, the first 4 rounds of players taken (about 125 players), are offered "slot money" that, unless they're from a moneyed family, changes their life (exceeds $1M at minimum at the bottom and about $10M at the top).

Now, slot money has changed in recent years (in part due to the pandemic and in part due to the consolidation in the number of minor league teams), but no other game provides as much immediate money to as many athletes. And it's not even close.

The real problem might just be that MLB prospects who are not drafted out of high school, end up at big time D1 universities, where they're considered to be BLESSED to get a 50% athletic scholarship.

Compounding the problem, baseball has different rules for the domestic and international drafts. This means that a team can sign a young international player out of his hometown (typically depressed economically and often in the third world) at 16 years old and then control him contractually for far longer than domestically drafted players.

Campanis et al rigged the system toward international players by building baseball complexes (for pennies on the dollar) in poverty stricken regions in order to harvest generations of talent (for pennies on the dollar). That was seen as a more suitable alternative to developing young American player for a shorter term before losing him to free agency. Teams take "flyers" on those kids instead of a similarly less polished American 18 year old.

Meanwhile, in the NBA, only 40-50 players each draft year make that type of immediate money. And the NBA prospects are no longer allowed to be drafted out of high school, so opt for 100% university scholarships.

And in the NFL, even fewer drafted players see immediate money. And nobody is drafted out of high school. But you guessed it, D1 NCAA football scholarships (all of them) are 100%.

College football rosters are in excess of 50 players, on full scholarship. College baseball has 11.7 scholarships for a roster of (usually about) 40.

Baseball could make changes from college through professional that shifted this tide. But they don't. The reasons for the low percentages are many.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by dddrees

I brought Pete Rose and Ty Cobb into this discussion because it appears that it's possible you might believe only African American players were those who have been hated. That has been the primary focus of yours at least initially after all and I wanted to see if that was your belief. Nothing wrong with your belief that they have been unfairly treated and I actually believe you made some excellent points and I know racism exists in the United States but there have been some white players that have been hated as well so I wanted to see what your response might be. I also wanted to see how you reacted to the possibility that Cobb may actually have been unjustly treated for things he never did. He's actually a good test considering. You said Jesse Jackson was so I wanted to establish how you felt about Cobb. I stumbled onto that awhile back myself and found it pretty fascinating.

I don't know you from Adam before this discussion began and I am just trying to figure out what kind of person you are and where your coming from. This just all goes into me determining whether or not having further meaningful discussion with you is worth having and whether I should take you seriously or not. Don't get me wrong I would do some of the same even after getting to know you to determine a more complete picture how you feel about any given subject we might discuss. Just a little push and pull is all or give and take if you like. What and how you state your position or make your points goes a long way, but determining who you are and what your like that sir is the last bit that gets you home.

It's a discussion, and the more it encompasses the better the discussion the greater the chance someone derives something meaningful from it. I mean those things I brought into it weren't a completely different subject after all. Granted only two white players compare to how many black players of which were still the minority but I wanted to see what your responses might be.

I'm not necessarily vigorously supporting Cobb, but since the article did borrow material from the author that supposedly made stuff up and I'm not actually aware of as many things evidently about Cobb that you are I had to ask.

Important to note again...

Pete Rose, during his playing days, was BELOVED. He was "Charlie Hustle" (a nickname given derisively that stuck) and was among sports' highest paid endorsers. He was a key member of the Reds' and Phillies' WS titles and was probably (along with teammate Johnny Bench) the most recognized player in the game.

Only after his gambling controversy did he become an American sports pariah. For the entirety of his playing career, he was a fan and writer's favorite player, usually. He found the blacklist as a manager, not even as a player-manager.

I mentioned Ted Williams earlier as a white player who was reviled. Interestingly, though, Williams is actually, and quietly, the greatest Mexican-American baseball player who ever lived.

None of my efforts are to be racially focused intentionally, tbough. And none of what I write is personally directed. I have all along assumed that the narratives of then have spilled into today and the lines blurred. The malicious stuff was baked into the baseball system so well it is lasting into the now.

But re-addressing in the now could help build a better, and fairer, future for the game that, in my opinion, shapes young men better than any other sport. Just my opinion (like all of it).

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

Important to note again...

Pete Rose, during his playing days, was BELOVED. He was "Charlie Hustle" (a nickname given derisively that stuck) and was among sports' highest paid endorsers. He was a key member of the Reds' and Phillies' WS titles and was probably (along with teammate Johnny Bench) the most recognized player in the game.

Only after his gambling controversy did he become an American sports pariah. For the entirety of his playing career, he was a fan and writer's favorite player, usually. He found the blacklist as a manager, not even as a player-manager.

I mentioned Ted Williams earlier as a white player who was reviled. Interestingly, though, Williams is actually, and quietly, the greatest Mexican-American baseball player who ever lived.

None of my efforts are to be racially focused intentionally, tbough. And none of what I write is personally directed. I have all along assumed that the narratives of then have spilled into today and the lines blurred. The malicious stuff was baked into the baseball system so well it is lasting into the now.

But re-addressing in the now could help build a better, and fairer, future for the game that, in my opinion, shapes young men better than any other sport. Just my opinion (like all of it).

I'm not so sure Ty Cobb was actually reviled during his career either. In fact that's one thing that writer said as well. From the sounds of it that happened more after that purported book was written in 1961.

[White Collar Boy]

Wow, Cloudchaser. I’ve been periodically dropping in on this thread and am amazed by your energy and passion for talking about baseball. I like your social justice (not using that pejoratively) lens, too. I don’t think anything Dan said was vapid though and think it’s admirable how civilly he has engaged with you here. I mean yes, ideology suffuses everything but also, without deriding your excellently articulated and contextualised points about systemic racism, I think it’s fine to say a guy was a dick.

Thank you for posting all of this, everyone really, as I lap up any baseball banter. Feel free to PM me with any more links or recommended reading. I’ll try to find a way to watch this documentary, but I’m so hopeless with technology that I can’t even download anything.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by White Collar Boy

Wow, Cloudchaser. I’ve been periodically dropping in on this thread and am amazed by your energy and passion for talking about baseball. I like your social justice (not using that pejoratively) lens, too. I don’t think anything Dan said was vapid though and think it’s admirable how civilly he has engaged with you here. I mean yes, ideology suffuses everything but also, without deriding your excellently articulated and contextualised points about systemic racism, I think it’s fine to say a guy was a dick.

Thank you for posting all of this, everyone really, as I lap up any baseball banter. Feel free to PM me with any more links or recommended reading. I’ll try to find a way to watch this documentary, but I’m so hopeless with technology that I can’t even download anything.

I would never would have bothered if I thought there wasn't a chance for civil dialogue! TRF is an incredible community!

You're right about my baseball passion. The game shaped me and gave me an outlet during my own angry years. I have watched my son benefit from the game and have been amazed by the lessons he gleaned from the game and the team environment/structure. Failure, humility, teamwork, so many lessons in the most humbling of the sports!

In a timely development, too, MLB reached a CBA with minor leaguers today; every minor leaguer (not on a 40 man roster) just received a raise of MORE THAN DOUBLE their previous salary. Even a single-A player now makes a livable wage. About damn time! This helps, to some degree, address the problems mentioned earlier.