Replies

Cobb played against a diluted talent pool due to the absence of blacks. But here is the question: once MLB was fully integrated, was its overall competitiveness measurably higher as a direct result, as you imply?

Was its overall competitiveness measurably higher? Yes, it was. As you said, it was a diluted talent pool before integration, implying that after integration, the talent pool was no longer diluted. At that point, the game was played at a higher level, although the level of competitiveness/improvement would be difficult to actually quantify/measure.

So, we can safely speculate and make all kinds of inferences, but lacking those “difficult” measurements they remain utterly without factual foundation. Yet a study quantifying the differences, if any, would be both possible and valuable. A doctoral thesis or a sabermetric book awaits the Voros McCracken willing to look past conventional wisdom, what “everyone knows,” to reality.

Bill James agrees with you as to the difficulty of measurement:

"When people talk about the greatest players of all time in MLB, some try to discount the players, such as Babe Ruth, who played before the breaking of the color barrier because they did not face the best competition. Do you think (1) this is a valid objection to those players (although obviously not their fault); and (2) there would be any way of evaluating the effect on performance of having played in an integrated system (e.g. how many home runs would Ruth have lost if black players have been in the majors)?

Asked by: Marc Schneider

Answered: 2/29/2020

It's not inappropriate to try to adjust for context, no matter how you do it. It's just tricky. Adjusting for context depends on (a) PRECISELY what question you are asking, and (b) whether or not you have made the adjustments precisely mirror the question you are trying to answer.