As for the pictures, if you insist!
Posted on 11/06/2001 6:28:36 AM PST by NativeNewYorker
Edited on 04/29/2004 1:59:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Would you prefer the politically correct title of "Affirmative Action" rather than "quotas"? No matter how thin you slice it, it is still baloney...or haven't you noticed?
They do? Is this even true, or just an assertion?
To establish this point you would have to (a) define "qualified" (did Lloyd McClendon really count as "qualified" when he was hired as Pittsburgh's manager?); (b) define which positions you are considering "open positions" (does a position on the janitorial staff of the stadium count?); then (c) compile the following statistic: what percentage of People Who Get Interviews For These Open Positions are black vs. what percentage of Qualified People are black.
Then there is probably a correction term of some sort to take into account that, sometimes, a non-qualified black will get an interview (or even get hired, as was perhaps the case with McClendon!) I would think this would have to skew the statistic in the "not racist" direction...
Of course, until you have done this research and defined your terms, you cannot possibly make grandiose sweeping statements like you just did, at least not with any basis in truth.
Congress should step-in and force a restructuring of the League. NOT a contraction that the bloodsucking owner's are talking about, but drastic EXPANSION to 128 teams in 16 regional devisions. Have a true quarterfinal playoff system (patterned after NCAA basketball) leading up to an East vs. West World Series.
But the dang sport needs to get back to basics with some REAL competition.
I'm sick and tired of these whiney, crybaby multimillionaires. Both the players and the owners.
You're right. The main point here is not the "racism" in baseball, but the contraction issue.
What is most appalling now from Generalissimo Selig is the planned destruction of the Twins, one of the original American League teams (the original Washington Senators).
Why?
Was it because the Twins are a poor draw? No, they can draw over 3 million fans when they have a winning year.
Was it because the Twins are a bad team? Teams go bad, but get better, usually when some change in management is made. No, this isn't the reason, either.
Why contract them, then? As you pointed out, the good people of Minnesota who forked over megabucks not many years ago to build the Hubert H. Humphrey Homerdome are balking at building yet another -- unneeded -- stadium. Since they didn't go along with the extortion they'll now be made to pay for it with the possible cancelling of their team out of existence.
This is the lesson to all other teams: Your team won't move to another city anymore. It'll just be deleted from the league! Don't think that it can't happen to your city.
As for tradition, the Twins being the original Senators and all, well, Selig hates tradition almost as much as he hates baseball, which is rather quite a lot.
Thank you for clarifying that your statement was heavily qualified.
I wasn't aware I had to conduct such research to enter a discussion on this site.
To enter a discussion? You don't. To have your observations, of what "seems" (to you) to be true, taken seriously? Perhaps.
Maybe an extensive study is not required; however, your statements ought to have at least some grounding in fact. Agreed?
I also believe that the effects of years of racist decisions and behavior in pro sports has left behind something of a mess,
This is an autobiographical statement on your part, and of limited use to the rest of us when objectively evaluating the state of professional sports.
and I'm interested in discussing what, if anything, can be done about it.
About your beliefs regarding professional sports? I would suggest that what you can do about them is investigate the facts and discover or verify for yourself whether these beliefs of yours are grounded. If so, then maybe you could even explain why, to the rest of us. If not, you could alter your beliefs accordingly, to bring them into conformity with reality. Best,
But you have to understand something. I'm pretty damn sick and tired of hearing about how "racist" everything is, with no evidence whatsoever. Someone makes the charge "such-and-such seems racist" and we're all supposed to proceed upon that assumption, which is little more than a bubble fabricated out of vague impressions and innuendo in the first place.
Really ticks me off, is all. Can you understand that?
If you really take the charge seriously that professional baseball is "racist", then you would do well to start by explaining the hiring of (I believe his age was) 36-year-old mediocre journeyman ballplayer Lloyd McClendon, a black man, as the manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates after perhaps one (two?) years as a low-level manager in their farm system (if that) following his largely undistinguished career as a player.
If baseball is so tainted by the legacy of racism as you say, this hiring would seem inexplicable. Yet, it occurred. What is your explanation? You say you'd be glad to cite the "examples" you have. Well, no time like the present: what are you waiting for? Explain to me how a Lloyd McClendon gets hired in an atmosphere which is so tainted by racism as you imply.
Or don't (because you cannot).
But until you do, you're darn right your posts aren't worthy of discussion.
And do you happen to recall that Bosox-Yankee melee when Lee was hurt -- trampled on by Nettles, Piniella, and whoever else thought they could get a shot in?
BTW, the thought of the Rocket brushing back his wife during a wiffle-ball at bat is hilarious! Aaaw, come on -- Clemens pics -- especially the one where his wife charges the mound brandishing her wiffle-ball bat!
Now, by looking at the mangers employed currently (and recently) by various MLB organizations, we can assume that MLB no longer practices racism as a policy. Despite your potrayal of my posts as arguing that "baseball is racist," I never made any such claim. Even if I did, your citation of the hiring of one black manager doesn't make your case, any more than a citation of one white manger being hired without interviewing a black candidate proves racism. (BTW, McClendon worked in the Pirate's farm system for only two years, but was subsequently the major league batting coach for four. Batting coach to manager is not an unusual transition. The reverse is also true, of course, as the guy he replaced, Gene Lamont, was our third base coach last year!)
To stress again, I never stated that MLB is a racist organization. It's beyond argument that it was racist; and that as recently as two years ago, there were still racists in MLB (Marge Schott, arguably John Rocker). There were no black managers until 1975 - I'm sure you wouldn't argue that there were no qualified blacks before then. What other explanation could there be? But I'm not arguing for that being the case today.
On to recent times. The complaint against MLB, and the NFL, is that with an equal wealth of black and white talent in assistant coach roles, blacks are rarely considered for open head coach/manager slots. I am more familiar with NFL head coaches, and can cite several examples - Sherman Lewis, an assistant on five victorious Super Bowl teams, Marvin Lewis, architect of last year's Ravens defense, considered by some as one of the greatest of all time, Art Shell, a proven winner. All three of those men are more qualified for a head coaching position than at least twice as many head coaches hired in recent years. In fact, the 49ers chose to hire Stever Mariucci, who worked under Sherman Lewis in that organization, and did not even interview Lewis. I am not claiming that the reason for this is racist decision making by those doing the hiring. I would not argue that for baseball either. Rather, I am suggesting that the historical exclusion of blacks from managerial, not to mention athletic, roles is still hindering their ability to advance at the same pace as similarly qualified whites. Can I prove this? Not anymore than you can prove that there is equity in the hiring practices of MLB and the NFL. This is a somewhat subjective debate - there are numbers that seem to support my argument, but I consider them suspect and would rather not use them. If you have numbers, or arguments, to suggest the opposite, I'd be glad to consider them. Contrary to your implication, I have researched this matter, and my research is the basis for my belief. I wonder if you have done similar research, and would like to offer more substantial evidence than the hiring of one (apparently qualified) black manager.
To conclude: I am not suggesting that MLB or the NFL are racist organizations, or even that black candidates not interviewed or hired are victims of racism and discrimination. Evidence clearly shows that blacks can and do advance to the highest levels in both sports, and I see no evidence that there is any conspiracy or policy that is preventing others from doing so. I am suggesting that it does no harm, and could in fact do good, if those organization, and by extension the fans, discussed what (if anything) is going on here. I am not behind the NAACP, whose views on these matters are extreme and inflammatory. I would just like to see them discussed.
As for the pictures, if you insist!
Thanks for the pic -- my only complaint? Clemens target rounding first base ISN'T one of the D-Backs....;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.