So it's been a while since I've written anything to the blogging world. The Packers won Superbowl XLV, the SF Giants won the World Series and the Heat did not win the NBA Finals--I mean, the Mavericks won (which was pretty sweet to see Dirk hold the MVP while Kidd kisses his first Championship trophy) . But I didn't blog about any of that. Sorry. I might have been lazy, busy, or both. But today, I'm flushing the laziness out of my system and clearing my agenda just to bring up an important topic: racism in sports.
What sparks this? None other than Curtis Granderson, the Yankees' savior this season. Here's one of the articles about Granderson's observation, click here. I'm sure most of you have heard about it briefly being discussed on espn, Scott Van Pelt talked about it for a short bit.
Basically, Granderson sees a trend of an incredibly low number of black baseball fans. During games, he's played a meta-game with his fellow teammates where they count the number of black fans in the stadium (excluding the workers). The goal is to find 10 black fans. The average number of seats in a baseball park is 44,234. To be as realistic as possible, let's say that 38,000 persons attend a normal game Granderson goes to (keep in mind that the Yankee's always draw in a bigger crowd). If there are three decks in the stadium, I think it's safe to say about 15,000 fans are on the first deck around the entire field. From all of those fans, we'll say about 1/6th are visible behind and to the sides of the Yankee's dugout. That leaves us with about 2,500 fans that can be seen by the Yankee Center-fielder. Surely, he wouldn't be able to see all of these fans, and of course these figures are not accurate but the rough estimate would show that there is a fair-sized sample portion that Granderson has to work with. Yet when he turns his head and barely sees 10 black fans in the stands.
Sure, it depends what city you play in, New York and Chicago win this game over Texas any day; but there is (I'd like to unpack,) a potential deeper reason behind this trend.
On ESPN radio, Scott Van Pelt had an interesting debate on how it may be marketing. Apparently, baseball might just not be heavily advertised in the inner city areas, which is understandable. There are not nearly as much space to have a baseball field inside the city, especially when compared to suburbia. I'm not a Marketing Major, but I'm pretty sure it would be more advantageous to market a sport that's more accessible in the city--such as basketball. Here's where this gets interesting... On the Scott Van Pelt show, they discussed how there has been a sociological study done with ten Philly black kids. Of the ten, more than half (I believe it was seven) knew who Lou Williams was. For those who might not know, he's the 76'ers' 6th man. Those same ten kids were asked who Ryan Howard was, to which less than half knew the answer. Lou made less than 5 million last year while Howard is making 20 million, one is clearly much more valued than the other by their respective organizations. I highly doubt that Lou Williams is marketed more in the city more than Ryan Howard--regardless of the accessibility of baseball in urban settings. So there goes the marketing argument, down the drain with my laziness.
One of my good friends and I had a conversation about this and we attempted to attribute it to economy. For instance, all you need to play basketball is a basketball itself. The rims are provided in the parks. And not just one or two courts are available, millions of them. On any given day, there would be easily at least 50 people at the courts and only one person on each court needs a ball--it's accessible beyond belief. With baseball, a ball is needed (which normally gets lost so make that a few baseballs), a large area is needed, gloves, cleats, and a baseball bat--excluding batting gloves, helmets, hats, bases, plates, foul line, additional baseball luxuries and etc. The total cost of all of these items is far greater than an individual purchasing a basketball, isn't it? But my colleague brought up a great example of how kids in the Caribbean "play with sticks and cardboard mitts." Of course, this shows the determination and immense interest these kids have in playing baseball. I guess the argument would be, why can't our poorer inner city kids use milk carton mitts and find a good ol' branch? Well I think this fast forwards us to the next point of the lack of space.
Growing in Queens, I had the opportunity to play basketball all the time but it would be a rarity to play baseball--and if we did, it would be on asphalt, which everyone knows it not nearly as fun. To play baseball, a field is required with manicured grass and bases and foul lines, etc. Surely, kids play and make way without all of those details--but that would be like playing basketball with a free-throw line and a three-pointer, just not as fun. As kids, we have an urge to mimic our role models and grow into those figures. How can a kid try to act like Ray Allen when there's no 3-point line? How can a kid attempt to play like Derek Jeter when the ball takes dangerous hops because of the cement or asphalt? Then again, the inner-city areas might be more populated with black kids than suburbia, but it's not like all African-Americans live in urban areas.
But let's get back to the basic questions: is there a racial discrepancy in baseball? Why is baseball's black athletes down 8.5%? If 60% of the NFL players are African-Americans and over 80% of the NBA players are African-Americans, why the polar opposite in baseball?
It's not just money, it's not just marketing, it's not just context of their environment, I can't even firmly say it's all of the above. If it's a role model that black kids need to have in the sport, then what better role model than Griffey? Surely he's not the Michael Jordan of baseball (by that I don't mean how Michael Jordan played baseball, rather MJ's presence in basketball), but Griffey was the poster-boy of baseball selling more video games in his sport than any other player. Even if he is not seen on the field, he made guest appearances in shows, movies, you name it! No matter who you are or how old you are, you know Griffey. He was a famous black baseball player celebrity. But sure, kids nowadays might not remember Griffey because they were young, hell I was really young back then too but I know who had the most beautiful swing to ever play the MLB. But there are the Ryan Howards, CC Sabathias and Derek Jeters out there (Derek Jeter is still a black athlete to me regardless of his interracial background). The role models are there, but for some reason the interest isn't.
Ultimately, I can't definitively escort the blame for black disinterest in baseball. It may be attributed to numerous reasons, but I can say this... I don't think the MLB is at fault at all--if Jackie Robinson Day, Jackie Robinson's story, Griffey's popularity, Ryan Howard and Jimmy Rollin's presence in Philly (for those Philly kids) and Jeter's 3000th hit can't get black kids more into baseball, than what will other than parents forcing their children to participate in Little Leagues? The MLB has played their cards right, sometimes we just can't explain why things happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment