- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
In Ruth's day, as now, African-Americans comprised only 12% of the total population. Unless you are willing to argue that African-Americans are much better "natural athletes", in the way that, say, 300-pounders have a natural advantage as linebackers, the fact that Ruth did not face any African-American competition is not significant.
It is in fact more than offset by the fact that:
--Negro League talent was more diluted. They had one-eighth the talent pool but fielded far more than one-eighth the number of white "major league" teams (16 in those days). While Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, and Satchel Paige were undeniably great players who would have made the Hall of Fame had they been allowed to play in the white leagues, I doubt if they would have racked up the same stats or have been as legendary for their achievements because they were facing, as a whole, weaker pitchers and weaker batters.
--Today, major league talent, even with all colors of skin participating, is far more diluted than it was in the white-only leagues of Ruth's day. In Ruth's day baseball had no serious competition as a major league team sport. It was the first, second, third, and fourth choice among young athletes who wanted to make money. Now, baseball comes in as maybe a weak third behind basketball and football. And this is not made up for by the increase in the general population. In Ruth's day the U.S. had one-third the population it has now. But there are now twice as many major league teams. And the percentage of athletes looking to baseball as a career is far less than it was then.
