The real tragedy is lack of participation of whites in MLB. Blacks are 1/8 of MLB rosters, larger than their demographic percentage, and Hispanics are also overrepresented. Maybe Wilbon should write an article about the tragedy of white athletes drawn into tennis and golf at the expense of baseball.

Jackie Robinson while at Pasadena City College and UCLA was a track star and a football player (in that order).

If Jackie Robinson lived today, indeed almost all the athletes of Robinson's caliber that do live today, he wouldn't have for one second thought about picking up a baseball.

Robinson probably would have had a long career in track, if it were possible to make a living at it as it is now.

Baseball became his athletic outlet cause that was the sport that paid best (besides boxing at the time).

Baseball was lucky to have Robinson. The lack of premiere African American athletes currently in baseball is a structural problem with the sport itself coupled with the multiplicity of other options athletes now have.

As a sport, baseball doesn't reward athleticism, but skill (baseball requires both, but skill is higher up on the matrix than in other major sports), so the best athletes find the sports that reward their athleticism (like football and basketball, but this isn't to say that African American athletes aren't 'skillful', but that if they show athletic prowess early on their skill will be developed in sports that reward their athleticism also).

Also, blame women, chicks dig football and basketball players more than they do baseball players (at least in high school and college). Guys always gravitate to activities that increase their appeal to the opposite sex.

(admit it Prof. Drezner, it's the sex appeal quotient of Econ Profs that attracted you to the job)

And there are plenty of people of African ancestry born in the Americas in beisbol, so I say that makes them 'African Americans' or at least close enough.

I think you are wrong to say baseball is equally as popular as football and basketball, I'm pretty sure that baseball is a distant third to those sports in the minds of anyone under the age of 35.

And what about Americans who give damn to Baseball, Football and Basketball? This American population is more likely to follow Soccer, Formula One Racing and Cricket and by the way this population is increasing at a faster rate.

So any nuanced or implicit attempt to 'see / read' America's racial harmony in terms of Baseball participation of Blacks is simply shallow and superficial. It is one more example where American elite is more occupied with the past than the future.

As long as there are no barriers to game participation along the racial or any other discriminatory grounds; we are fine. I believe that is the core message of Jackie Robinson's heroics. Baseball and specifics of the game are simply incidental details in that narrative.

And what about Americans who give damn to Baseball, Football and Basketball? This American population is more likely to follow Soccer, Formula One Racing and Cricket and by the way this population is increasing at a faster rate.

So here we see a difference between the storied (not to say mythologized) wave of Ellis Island immigrants and our new, post-1965 version. Back in the day there was some degree of wanting to be part of American culture, so Lou Gehrig and Joe Dimaggio and Hank Greenburg played baseball, a game with deep roots in the nation's traditions. Our newest arrivals seem to think the place was a tabula rasa when they got here (and not only in cultural matters, apparently America was a technological flop before 1965 too!) Our at least something that can be swept aside. So they've set about remaking the place, and cheering the Mexican national fútbol team over our side whenever they have a chance. Can't say I blame them, as most of our prefer to be thought of as cosmopolitans rather than Americans.

Interesting post. I think it's been clear now for a long time that baseball is the most American of sports in terms of its progress on racial inclusiveness. Jackie Robinson broke the color line, which was the athletic equivalent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But you've got to think back to all the turning points in the diversification of the sport. Fernando Valenzuela was one tremendous phenomenon at the time, in Los Angeles, of course, where the Hispanic population has been growing for decades. Latin American athletes -- especially Dominicans -- in many respects now dominate the sport. Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez, Vladimir Guerrero, Miguel Tejada, Alfonso Soriano, David Ortiz, Bartolo Colon, Moises Alou, Rafael Furcal, Adrian Beltre, Manny Ramirez, Albert Pujols, Aramis Ramirez, and many others a little lower on the radar. Their numbers are something over 30 percent of all players. This is the globalization of baseball, a topic (including other sports) to which you claim some expertise. What about the growing numbers of Japanese players -- Hideo Nomo, or Hideki Matsui and Ichiro Sukuki (just to name a few of the top off my head)? I don't know if it's a tragedy that less blacks are playing baseball. I agree with you on the opportunity angle -- people should shoot for the sports that will give them the best breaks. To the extent we worry about the number of blacks, or whites, in professional baseball, we reflect a nostalgia for the past, pre-civil rights era (mostly white) ethnic melting pot (where a Sandy Koufax wasn't as controversial as a Jackie Robinson). A Gallup poll awhile back showed football being the most popular of U.S. professional sports. But baseball is the nation's pastime. The ethnic face of the sport has changed, but I don't think the Norman Rockwell psychology of baseball will be replaced by rival games.

Baseball is the thread that has held together the fabric of America. Other than the American military, it is baseball which has been at the forefront in making Inclusion an enduring American goal. Note, wherever the American Army has gone to war, baseball usually becomes one of the national sports.

Every sport has its heroics, hence their eternal appeal. But one player standing in alone against nine opponents--one armed with a lethal projectile--is about as heroic as sports can be.

We're a better country because of '42.' And, yes, our literature and culture reflect it.

The declining number of blacks in baseball is really part of a larger trend: the declining popularity of baseball among younger Americans. Football and basketball are passing baseball among whites just as it has among blacks. It won't be long until half the players in MLB are be foreign-born Latinos.

The declining number of blacks in baseball is really part of a larger trend: the declining popularity of baseball among younger Americans. Football and basketball are passing baseball among whites just as it has among blacks. It won't be long until half the players in MLB are be foreign-born Latinos.

Just to expand on xwl's very good point, Robinson was probably pushed to baseball because pro football was also not integrated. It was left to Robinson's UCLA running mate, Kenny Washington to do that. Washington played a few years of semi pro ball before becoming the first black NFL player (I can't recall the exact year). I also believe, though am not certain, that the Negro leagues were much better established than any football equivalent so even if even if baseball never integrated Robinson could look forward to at least a living wage in the Negro Leagues. As far as track goes, Robinson's other contemporary, Jesse Owens, was running races against horses to make ends meet. Baseball, though only a dream at the time, was the only athletic option.

It is important to consider the cultural significance of the game of Baseball in America. It is the national past time and certainly more connected to major events in American history than any other sport. Recall the importance that Baseball had in the national healing post September 11, 2001 in a way that the other major sports did not, and could not.

But, look at the development and expansion of what some label the "hip-hop" culture. The sport of choice there is Basketball. Urban youth today mythologizes the court, not the baseball diamond, and heroes are made by dunking and draining 3's, not by hitting home runs and strike outs. Basketball is "the ticket" and "the game."

I also think that in some small part, you can't take Kobe, Garnett, LeBron, McGrady, and the like out of the equation--stars with such incredible skill that they could go straight to the pro's-- no need to ever waste time in college. Get paid. It increases the mythology that Basketball is the ticket-- you can go right into the league and if you've got game, you can strike it rich. And the game is easy, accessible, and there are courts in every park in urban, suburban, and rural America.

A few scattered thoughts vis-a-vis the post and its comment thread:

- while I agree that baseball holds a special position as the 'national pastime', it's no insight to point out that baseball was an import / adaptation of a foreign sport (cricket) back in the day. Same thing with football (rugby). So why any concern about more recent immigrants playing their sports without as much crossover into American sports? The immigrant influence on American culture (sports included) is a long-standing tradition in American history and I'm certain that American culture / sports landscape has the strength and flexibility to adapt, incorporate and evolve.

- The individual choice / free-market concepts that form the core of the American experiment seem to me to be nearly perfectly expressed on the playing fields of American professional sports. The whole 'out of balance' represenatation gets simply no traction whatsoever, unless one really wants the focus to be 'American' rather than 'professional sports'.

- I especially don't get the point (though I do detect a relatively ugly undercurrent) in the comments on the proportion of Latins in baseball. May I presume that this same 'concern' extends to the proportion of Canadians playing in the NHL (and more recently Russians, Czechs, & Finns)? I think not. Along the same line, any more 'concern' about the number of NBA All-Stars from China, Canada, France, etc.?

- Finally, what possible difference can it make in any rational sense whether a baseball star is white, black, Latin, Japanese or whatever? If the guy's skilled, admire him for his skills. If the sport's open to anyone based on their skill level and their desire to play the game, not the color of their skin or their national origin, then market forces will produce valid outcomes. Just as it should be. Just as, as another poster pointed out above, Jackie Robinson's real legacy would have it. Any arguments with that legacy, in my view, have more than a strong hint of racism attached to them.

Cheers,

A few scattered thoughts vis-a-vis the post and its comment thread:

- while I agree that baseball holds a special position as the 'national pastime', it's no insight to point out that baseball was an import / adaptation of a foreign sport (cricket) back in the day. Same thing with football (rugby). So why any concern about more recent immigrants playing their sports without as much crossover into American sports? The immigrant influence on American culture (sports included) is a long-standing tradition in American history and I'm certain that American culture / sports landscape has the strength and flexibility to adapt, incorporate and evolve.

- The individual choice / free-market concepts that form the core of the American experiment seem to me to be nearly perfectly expressed on the playing fields of American professional sports. The whole 'out of balance' represenatation gets simply no traction whatsoever, unless one really wants the focus to be 'American' rather than 'professional sports'.

- I especially don't get the point (though I do detect a relatively ugly undercurrent) in the comments on the proportion of Latins in baseball. May I presume that this same 'concern' extends to the proportion of Canadians playing in the NHL (and more recently Russians, Czechs, & Finns)? I think not. Along the same line, any more 'concern' about the number of NBA All-Stars from China, Canada, France, etc.?

- Finally, what possible difference can it make in any rational sense whether a baseball star is white, black, Latin, Japanese or whatever? If the guy's skilled, admire him for his skills. If the sport's open to anyone based on their skill level and their desire to play the game, not the color of their skin or their national origin, then market forces will produce valid outcomes. Just as it should be. Just as, as another poster pointed out above, Jackie Robinson's real legacy would have it. Any arguments with that legacy, in my view, have more than a strong hint of racism attached to them.

Cheers,

A few scattered thoughts vis-a-vis the post and its comment thread:

- while I agree that baseball holds a special position as the 'national pastime', it's no insight to point out that baseball was an import / adaptation of a foreign sport (cricket) back in the day. Same thing with football (rugby). So why any concern about more recent immigrants playing their sports without as much crossover into American sports? The immigrant influence on American culture (sports included) is a long-standing tradition in American history and I'm certain that American culture / sports landscape has the strength and flexibility to adapt, incorporate and evolve.

- The individual choice / free-market concepts that form the core of the American experiment seem to me to be nearly perfectly expressed on the playing fields of American professional sports. The whole 'out of balance' represenatation gets simply no traction whatsoever, unless one really wants the focus to be 'American' rather than 'professional sports'.

- I especially don't get the point (though I do detect a relatively ugly undercurrent) in the comments on the proportion of Latins in baseball. May I presume that this same 'concern' extends to the proportion of Canadians playing in the NHL (and more recently Russians, Czechs, & Finns)? I think not. Along the same line, any more 'concern' about the number of NBA All-Stars from China, Canada, France, etc.?

- Finally, what possible difference can it make in any rational sense whether a baseball star is white, black, Latin, Japanese or whatever? If the guy's skilled, admire him for his skills. If the sport's open to anyone based on their skill level and their desire to play the game, not the color of their skin or their national origin, then market forces will produce valid outcomes. Just as it should be. Just as, as another poster pointed out above, Jackie Robinson's real legacy would have it. Any arguments with that legacy, in my view, have more than a strong hint of racism attached to them.

Cheers,

A few scattered thoughts vis-a-vis the post and its comment thread:

- while I agree that baseball holds a special position as the 'national pastime', it's no insight to point out that baseball was an import / adaptation of a foreign sport (cricket) back in the day. Same thing with football (rugby). So why any concern about more recent immigrants playing their sports without as much crossover into American sports? The immigrant influence on American culture (sports included) is a long-standing tradition in American history and I'm certain that American culture / sports landscape has the strength and flexibility to adapt, incorporate and evolve.

- The individual choice / free-market concepts that form the core of the American experiment seem to me to be nearly perfectly expressed on the playing fields of American professional sports. The whole 'out of balance' represenatation gets simply no traction whatsoever, unless one really wants the focus to be 'American' rather than 'professional sports'.

- I especially don't get the point (though I do detect a relatively ugly undercurrent) in the comments on the proportion of Latins in baseball. May I presume that this same 'concern' extends to the proportion of Canadians playing in the NHL (and more recently Russians, Czechs, & Finns)? I think not. Along the same line, any more 'concern' about the number of NBA All-Stars from China, Canada, France, etc.?

- Finally, what possible difference can it make in any rational sense whether a baseball star is white, black, Latin, Japanese or whatever? If the guy's skilled, admire him for his skills. If the sport's open to anyone based on their skill level and their desire to play the game, not the color of their skin or their national origin, then market forces will produce valid outcomes. Just as it should be. Just as, as another poster pointed out above, Jackie Robinson's real legacy would have it. Any arguments with that legacy, in my view, have more than a strong hint of racism attached to them.

Cheers,

Apologies for the multiple posts. No idea how it happened. Hope it doesn't happen with the apology.

I teach at a high school in Central Texas with a student population that is about 30% black, 30% Hispanic, and 30% Anglo. I have a couple comments that haven't been made here so far.

First, organized baseball is inherently a suburban sport. It takes a tremendous amount of space to put in baseball fields, especially if you want to put in a cluster of fields, even for little league. And, perhaps most importantly, baseball takes the most space for kids to play by themselves in pickup games. I grew up in suburban Oregon where there were plenty of large yards and vacant lots where baseball could be played. You don't find such spaces many places in the inner cities. Basketball hoops? Yes, they're everywhere you have a vacant spot of asphault. And football? Well, it doesn't take THAT much space to play football and it's much easier to play on the street than baseball because its a lot easier to aim passes than it is to aim swings at a baseball. Show me where all those base ball fields are in any inner-city black neighborhood? Even the SCHOOLS often don't have baseball fields anymore.

In any event, what you see around here is the black kids dominating basketball as you would expect. And to some extent, dominating football but with much more white participation. The Hispanic kids mostly play soccer. During the baseball season in the spring, most of the best athletes do track, especially the best black athletes. Why? Because it's a much better off-season sport to play if your primary interest is football or basketball. Here in Texas, college football recruiters are not going to care one whit about how good of a center fielder some kid is. But if he lays down a 10.1 hundred meters they are all giddy.

it's no insight to point out that baseball was an import / adaptation of a foreign sport (cricket) back in the day. Same thing with football (rugby).

Well, no. Baseball and American football are organic developments of uncodified games that were played in Britain since the Middle Ages. Baseball is actually closer to a game called rounders than to cricket, and football started life as a village vs. village free-for-all that involved carrying a ball across a goal, a sort of reverse capture the flag.

It is precisely the organic development of baseball and its connection with American history (not some abstract 'experiment') that makes the Jackie Robinson story resonate, whereas most people don't really care about the first African American in pro-basketball or football.

In, say, 1930 immigrants and blacks saw being included in big league baseball as a sign of inclusion in America. Nowadays, apparently, some immigrants 'give a damn' and want to import their own sports. Wrong or right, who is to say? But certainly a difference in attitude the Ellis Island immigrants (at least the mythology surrounding them).

I think the world has changed enough after 9/11 and recent Globalization that people are mature enough to go beyond certain traditional symbolism - the symbolism of inclusion of diverse social elements in some historical sport. Our problems surely are not solved by having more ethnic participation in certain games or more ‘respect’ by new immigrants towards storied games like Baseball. Baseball has been storied because it played certain social roles for those past generations. It may or may not be playing that role for today’s many generations. But what is foolish is to insist that it should play equally important social role for many of these new immigrants with diverse backgrounds. The litmus test of ‘assimilation in the new land’ can never be how well new immigrants play Baseball! What about those same immigrants who toil their a***s to grow America’s crops and feed Americans; or those same immigrants work hard with all financial risks to build America’s successful tech companies or even die in Bush’s Iraq war? Come on, we all got to go beyond ‘baseball participation’ in determining the dynamic nature of American Society. We all are past the stage where manifestation of our ‘rainbow social harmony’ is only in Baseball.

What matters is people participate in games which they want to play and there is no discrimination.

Of course, all the nuances in the posts of ‘Mitchell Young’ are well understood by new immigrants. They are not dumb. But at the end of the day what is important is no discrimination and freedom to play the game you choose. Everything else is noise, does not matter how nostalgic it is.

Umesh,

Well said.

Cheers,