Live from Milwaukee ...

Live from Milwaukee on a day when Barry Bonds didn’t even play. This chase is going just great so far. Anyway, I was thinking about something ...

I did something the other day on this blog that I normally try not to do … I sort of dismissed someone else’s opinion without fully expressing my own. I despise when people do that. The other day, for instance, I wrote a column about how, with only a little empathy, we all could probably have a pretty good understanding of how Hank Aaron feels now that Barry Bonds is so close to breaking his record.

I received this not unfriendly email from a semi-regular responder:

Joe,
How many at-bats did Aaron, Ruth and Bonds have? That tells the whole story.
Terry

That’s the whole email. Now, in the first place, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. But my point here is that it drives me absolutely batty when people simply dismiss an opinion without bothering to give you something to shoot at. You know, when the argument goes like this:

Player 1: “I think education is good and crime is bad.”
Player 2: “You’re wrong.”
Player 1: “You think education is bad and crime is good?”
Player 2: “I just think you’re wrong.”
Player 1: “So what do you think?”
Player 2: “You’re wrong, that’s what I think.”

I mean, let’s just say (as I’m guessing Terry assumed) that I believe Aaron and Bonds were better players than Ruth. Does it really tell the WHOLE STORY to look at their number of at-bats? I mean that’s it? That’s the argument? They played ball in different eras, in different parks, different strike zones, different bat types, different ball types, different pressures, different pitching styles, different pitches, different travel plans, different salaries, different media coverage, they were different people playing a different game …

Number of at-bats:
Babe Ruth, 8,398 (714 homers)
Barry Bonds, 9,736 (753 homers)
Hank Aaron, 12,364 (755 homers)

I mean is this really where any and all arguments begin and end?

The other day I wrote a little bit about my friend Rick Morrissey’s column in the Chicago Tribune, one where he challenged Jesse Jackson’s contention that Babe Ruth’s numbers, because he did not face black players, are enhanced. Rick’s argument, as I understood it, is that black players never did dominate baseball the way they have basketball, and so while it's certainly a great injustice that black players were not kept out, they would not likely have had a big effect on the statistics and greatness of pre-1947 players.

I really did not want to argue his point – I had something entirely different I wanted to point out – so I just said, “I’m not sure I entirely agree with him,” which I now realize was both insincere (I REALLY disagree with him) and about as dismissive as “How many at-bats did Aaron, Ruth and Bonds have?” I have a strong opinion here, one that is as pointed as Rick’s, and I just didn’t get into it. I don’t think that’s fair play.

So, here’s my opinion on the subject: I think Babe Ruth’s numbers are certainly artificially inflated because he did not play against men of color. And I think if there was ever fair reason in the history of baseball to put an asterisk on statistics, it is to denote:

*This record was set pre-1947, when baseball’s unspoken rule prevented men of color from playing in the Major Leagues.

Understand, that I’m not suggesting such an asterisk. I don’t think it belongs. I don’t think there should be any asterisks – baseball is baseball, it is constantly changing and evolving, and if you want to keep records, then I think you keep them unedited through the game’s history.

But I also do think Jesse Jackson’s point has merit. For one thing, nobody should underestimate just how good Negro Leagues baseball players were. I often make this point in interviews when discussing The Soul of Baseball, but I don’t believe I’ve made it on this blog yet: If you want to appreciate just how good Negro Leagues baseball was, take a look at the first, say, ten years after the color line was broken.

1947: Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers. He won rookie of the year, an MVP award, and was the heart and soul of the Boys of Summer. He went into the Hall of Fame.

1947: Larry Doby joined the Indians. He twice led the league in homers, once in RBIs, once in OPS, started in five All-Star Games. He went into the Hall of Fame.

1948: Roy Campanella joined the Dodgers. He won three MVP awards. He went into the Hall of Fame.

1949: Don Newcome joined the Dodgers. He won the rookie of the year award, a Cy Young award, won 20 games three times, led the league in strikeouts, shutouts, and wins.

1949: Monte Irvin joined the Giants. He was of an advanced age when he arrived, but even so in 1951 he had double figures in doubles, triples, homers, stolen bases and he led the league in RBIs. He went into the Hall of Fame.

1951: Minnie Minoso joined the Chicago White Sox. He would probably have made the American League all-decade team; he led the league in triples three times, stolen bases three times and hit-by pitch 10 times.

1951: Willie Mays joined the Giants. He’s perhaps the greatest all-around player in baseball history. He went into the Hall of Fame.

1953: Ernie Banks joined the Chicago Cubs. He became Mr. Cub. He hit 500 home runs in his career. He went into the Hall of Fame.

1954: Hank Aaron joined Milwaukee. He’s the Home Run King. He went into the Hall of Fame.

1955: Roberto Clemente joined the Pirates. He got exactly 3,000 hits. After dying in a heroic effort to help victims of an earthquake in Nicaragua, he went into the Hall of Fame.

1955: Elston Howard joined the Yankees. He won an MVP award, two Gold Gloves at catcher and was a nine-time All-Star (if you don’t count twice those years when he played in both All-Star games).

1956: Frank Robinson joined the Reds. He won two MVPs, a triple crown and hit 586 home runs. He went into the Hall of Fame.

There were others of course, good players, Sam Jethroe, Jim Gilliam, Vic Power, Connie Johnson, Toothpick Sam Jones, Hank Thompson, the aging Satchel Paige, Vic Power, and so on and so on, I know I’m missing some people here, probably some obvious ones. But the point is that within 10 years of Jackie Robinson breaking through, some of the very best players in baseball history joined the Major Leagues out of the shadows of the Negro Leagues. Every single one of these players – Mays, Aaron, the Robinsons, Clemente, Banks – would be mere rumors and myths alongside Willie Wells, Ray Dandridge and Slim Jones had they been born even 20 years earlier.

Based on this, is it fair to say that it would have had a dramatic effect on baseball and it’s heroes had dark-skinned players – because, remember here, dark-skinned Latin Americans were part of the ban – been included pre-1947? I think so. I’m not saying that would have turned Babe Ruth into Mendy Lopez. I’m not saying that Walter Johnson would have been banged around like Jim Bibby on a bad day. I suspect greatness in sports always finds its way to the top.

I am saying that Babe Ruth, through no fault of his own, played in an era when black players were kept out. It’s part of his context. It HAS to be parf of his context, just as baseball’s non-existent steroid rules are part of Barry Bonds’ context (I realize that Bonds was a more active participant in this – he actually used steroids – but please don’t miss the point I’m trying to make, this isn’t about Bonds). Just as Hank Aaron dealing with thousands of racist letters and spending the latter part of his career in home-run-happy Atlanta Fulton County Stadium is part of his context. And so on.

People have been arguing for many years about which players in which era had it hardest. I’m not really looking to argue that point here. I am throwing out this question, though: Take a player, any player. He has two choices:

1. He can take as many performance enhancing drugs – steroids, human growth, amphetamine, Ritalin, whatever – as he likes.
2. He can play in a league where, say, one quarter to one third of the eligible and most talented players are banned from play.

Which of those two things alone is most likely to help that player become a star?