Talk:History of baseball in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copy editing, a touch of plagiarism, and references

I'm going to run through this article and make a lot of copy editing/grammar fixes. That alone isn't really worthy a mention on the talk page, but I thought I should bring to the attention of other editors that a least one portion of the article is blatant plagiarism: the first paragraph of the Black Sox section is ripped from an article on the dead-ball era found at Sean Lahman's site (http://baseball1.com/content/view/51/74/). I'll keep an eye out for anything else that looks fishy. Also, for an article of this size and scope, it's in dire need of citations. I'd be glad if anyone could help out with that or anything else. MTR (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it appears that the entire dead-ball era section has been lifted from the Lahman article. MTR (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

older entries

Just wondering. Did the New York Knickerbockers wear knickers? Was that the origin of baseball's knickers? Ortolan88

Good question. Spalding's Americas National Game suggests so, saying "There is no photo of the players of that team on field, but one almost unconciously uniforms them..." Not compelling. The place to look, I'd guess is Bill James' wife's sections of the Historical Baseball Abstract. I'll have a look when I get home... -- User:GWO

OK, I've checked, and the answer is no. The Knickerbockers wore normal trousers, and their name derives from the fact that "Knickerbocker" was a generic term for New Yorkers, particularly those of Dutch descent. Kudos to Susie James... -- User:GWO

Thanks. Good to know that. Of course "knickers" are named after the kind of funny looking trousers the real Dutch Knickerbockers wore, but that would have nothing to do with the baseball team. Ortolan88

There's lots to be said about uniforms.

• Requirements in the rules, all alike, no flapping sleeves for pitchers
• Player discretion, Ted Williams tore off sleeves, how low can knickers go (Manny Ramirez practically covers his shoes!)
• History -- home and away, multi-colors, multi-uniforms (Pirates).

Probably an article, but I don't know any of this stuff. Ortolan88

The James' Historical Prospectus would be an excellent source of info here, too -- User:GWO

---

Gareth, saw your comment for your last edit. Maybe you could even split it into more articles, since the first part only seems to go about the MLB, except for the introduction. Anyway, it's very US-centered, so the "History of Baseball" would rather link to sub-articles on "History of MLB" and "History of Baseball at the Olympics" etc. Jeronimo

Yeah. Thats pretty much what I had in mind. -- User:GWO

---

Nice additions, seemingly-at-Berkeley editing person -- User:GWO

---

This text has been moved from Talk:Baseball/History:

Except for the first section, the article is more the history of baseball in the US (mostly MLB). I think at least a section could be devoted to development of the sport in other countries. It's quite popular in Japan and Korea, there's a long history of baseball in Europe as well (Italy and the Netherlands the dominant powers there) and in many Latin American countries (Cuba!). What about the World Championships for amateur teams, the inclusion in the Olympics? jheijmans

You're right. What are you waiting for? -- User:GWO

Well, the rest of the article looks like it was written by people with far greater knowledge of baseball than I have. I could write some very basic paragraphs about the topic mentioned above (which I might do), but I hoped to trigger the experts to do so. jheijmans

Mainly User:RjLesch and myself. But my "expertise" doesn't touch on the areas you mention, so theres no point leaving it to me. If you write your basic paragraphs, you might trigger the actual experts

OK, I've gone and added the Olympic history of baseball (that's where I know most of), will add more later (see subsections already added). Feel free to add or re-organise, of course. jheijmans

---

Paragraphs from Baseball origins can be incoporated here kt2 02:47, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

There is a link toward the end of the section on "professionalism..." that sends "Minneapolis" to "New York Yankees". The New York Yankees article claims no association with Minneapolis that I can discern. Thoughts? Chicago 20:47, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

---

When exactly did Baseball bcome a national game? There is a lot of information on its history, but I cannot find anything regarding the year it was recognized as a national game...

Bambino?

I presume that's "the Babe," but the title appears only in the heading, and a person who didn't know or couldn't infer that might wonder what it means. 170.35.224.63 21:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The earliest known reference to the game of baseball in America.

The reference to baseball is contained in a 1791 Pittsfield, Massachusetts bylaw, which states, “For the preservation of the Windows of the New Meeting House…no Person or Inhabitant of said town, shall be permitted to play at any game called Wicket, Cricket, Base Ball, Football, Cat, Fives or any other game or games with balls, within the Distance of Eighty Yards from said Meeting House.” More here: http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14343

Wasn't there something uncovered recently about a competitive game in what is now Greenwich Village, that predated the Hoboken game? I'll look for a link. --Chancemichaels 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

neutral?

this page seems pretty biased to me, especially in talking about the modern times, i think it needs to be rewritten so its not as biased against steroids and how "terrible" baseball is supposed to be right now Pinky 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Steroid Era or "Juiced Ball" Era?

• I myself think that a vast improvement would be made by changing the name of the "Steroid Era" section to "'Juiced Ball' Era". Even before the connotation of steroids, people were wondering if the ball itself was changed to make home runs more common, hence a "juiced ball". --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a whole myriad of factors that has led to the dominance of offense in today's game, steroids being only but a part of it. Everything from players having personal trainers and various fitness regiments, to smaller ballparks, to thinned pitching talent pools due to expansion and skewed free agency, the unbalanced schedule leading to batters seeing the same pitchers far more than they ever did previously, to the advent of widespread power pitching - to attribute the increase in offensive production solely to the use of performance enhancing drugs (which pitchers are just as likely, if not moreso, to use) is true ignorance of the game. To refer to the late 1980s, 1990s, and the first decade of the 21st Century as the "Steroid Era" is to indulge that ignorance. -- Fifty7 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

A new article, Major League Baseball Lore, has been created which is well-intended but appears to be 100% original research. If anything can be gleaned from it, please do before someone brings it to AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research? Just because there are no references, doesn't mean the research wasn't done. Information has been brought in from various wikipedia articles, as well as outside sources, videos, TV specials, and other moments. As I said, it is a work in progress, and no, I haven't gotten to cite references yet. If you wish, I can do some when I return from school this afternoon.

In this article, there is a lot of history, but there is no concentrated collection of famous baseball moments, such as the NFL has on this same Wikipedia. Hopefully, we can flesh out the article, as I have been trying to do, and, when that is done, there will be much more than can be merged in here without making the article too long.

Right now, baseball lore is a category, a loose confederation of articles, which is even missing some big moments. What I'm hoping to do here is bring it all together in an easily readable and accessable form. -- Silent Wind of Doom 11:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Two problems:

1. We already have an article for baseball lore — it's History of baseball in the United States. Your new one looks quite good at first glance anyway and you're welcome to merge it into this one but there's no point having two articles on the same subject. If you'd like specific moments in here, that seems acceptable to me as long as they're sourced.
2. When articles like these are unsourced, they become a magnet for people to add whatever they feel like. E.g., Yankees fans adding a paragraph or two every time the Yankees sweep the Red Sox or beat them in the bottom of the 9th. Or that great game they saw when they were a kid and Goose Gossage struck out Reggie Jackson on a fastball, etc., etc., etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

—Wknight94 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Silas “Si” Simmons

Is there a mention of him in baseball related article? The guy is still alive and will turn 111 next month. Vapour

A new study has come out[1] claiming to show that 1998 balls were "juiced". I think it's hooey personally as anyone with a 1998 foul ball could have just dissected it and exposed the big scandal. However I'm putting the article here if anyone wants to use it. Quadzilla99 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Accuracy?

Seems to me this page needs a new title, as it includes MLB teams in Canada. Eh?

Negro Leagues

I have tagged the section related to the Negro Leagues. There are entire paragraphs of uncited writing that don't read at all like an encyclopedia. Even if it is all true, it seems like very little can be verified. Youjane1 14:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Really the whole article needs a major overhaul...ugh. Youjane1 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vintage Games on Radio

How about adding a link to http://www.otr.net/?p=spor It has complete broadcasts of games from 1934 to 1958. Vgy7ujm 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I think that every player in the MLB is on some form of performance enhancing drugs. From Jose Reyes to Barry Bonds every is on something. Whether its legal or illegal. So we end with neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.200.149 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Western League Confusion

There seems to be some confusion between the Western League which became the American League prior to 1900 and the modern day Western League that began around 1994-95. Can someone who knows what they're talking about correct this error. I tried to track it down, but it wasn't clear to me which teams were when and when they changed names or locations.

The relevant erroneous paragraph falls under "Professionalism and the rise of the major leagues" and is thus: A number of other leagues, including the venerable Eastern League, threatened the dominance of the National League. The Western League, founded in 1893, became particularly aggressive. Its fiery leader Ban Johnson railed against the National League and promised to build a new league that would grab the best players and field the best teams. The Western League began play in April 1994 with teams in Detroit (the only league team that has not moved since), Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Sioux City and Toledo. Prior to the 1900 season, the league changed its name to the American League and moved several franchises to larger, strategic locations. In 1901 the American League declared its intent to operate as a major league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.52.120.185 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On the causes of the power era

A good analysis of the power era (and indeed, many other eras) is in Bill James' "Historical Baseball Abstract". He does not consider ball juicing to be a major factor, but cites several other factors not mentioned in the article, the most interesting of which is the use of aluminum bats in amateur baseball. Erniecohen (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with major league baseball. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently composed text-block on racial integration in U.S. baseball

The text below was recently composed by BillTunell. It was originally included in baseball, but it is not appropriate for that overview article on the general topic of the sport. The overview article already has a sizable section on the history of U.S. baseball, but all of its content—which already includes coverage of integration—must remain in summary style in order to maintain a reasonable length and proper focus. The massive addition also disrupts the chronological organization and flow of the summary history section.

The additional material Bill has provided is specifically relevant to and more appropriate for this well-established topical article. As detailed discussion of the major leagues' racial integration already exists here, I've moved Bill's material to the Talk page for the moment, so what's new and/or better written can be incorporated without creating redundancies. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about the summary nature of the main article. Below is my addition to the "History of baseball in the United States" page, which incorporates prior authoriship.BillTunell (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A good writeup, and of course way too detailed for a general history of the game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Racial integration in baseball

[[:File:Robinson-contract.jpg|thumb|left|240px|Robinson (left) with Branch Rickey, signing the famous contract that broke the baseball color barrier, August 28, 1945]]

The post-War years in baseball also witnessed the racial integration of the sport. Participation by African Americans in organized baseball had been precluded since the 1890's by formal and informal agreements, with only a few players surreptitiously being included in lineups on a sporadic basis.

Further information: [[:baseball color line]]

American society as a whole moved toward integration in the post-War years, partially as a result of the distinguished service by African American military units such as the Tuskegee Airmen, 366th Infantry Regiment, and others. During the baseball winter in 1943 meeting's, noted African American athlete and actor Paul Robeson campaigned for integration of the sport. After World War II ended, several team managers considered recruiting members of the Negro Leagues for entry into organized baseball. In the early 1920s, New York Giants' manager John McGraw slipped a black player, Charlie Grant, into his lineup (reportedly by passing him off to the front office as an Indian), and McGraw's wife reported finding names of dozens of Negro players that McGraw fantasized about signing, after his death. Pittsburgh Pirates owner Bill Bensawanger reportedly signed Josh Gibson to a contract in 1943, and the Washington Senators were also said to be interested in his services. But those efforts (and others) were opposed by Kenesaw Mountain Landis, baseball's powerful commissioner and a staunch segregationist. Bill Veeck claimed that Landis blocked his purchase of the Philadelphia Phillies because he planned to integrate the team. While this is disputed, Landis was opposed to integration, and his death in 1944 (and subsequent replacement as Commisisoner by Happy Chandler removed a major obstacle for black players in the major leagues.

The general manager who would be eventually successful in breaking the color barreir was Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Rickey himself had experienced the issue of segregation. While playing and coaching for his college team at Ohio Wesleyan University, Rickey had a black teammate. On one particular road trip through southern Ohio his fellow player was refused stay in a hotel. Although Rickey was able to get the player into his room for that night, he was taken back when he reached his room to find his fellow ballplayer upset and crying about this injustice. Rickey related this incident as an example of why he wanted a full de-segregation of the nation, not only in baseball.

In the mid-1940s, Rickey had compiled a list of Negro League ballplayers for a potential major league contract. Realizing that the first African American signee would be a magnet for prejudicial sentiment, however, Rickey was intent on finding a player with a distinguished personality and character that would allow him to tolerate the inevitable abuse. Rickey's sights eventually settled on Jackie Robinson, a shortstop with the Kansas City Monarchs. Although likely not the best player in the Negro Leagues at the time, Robinson was an exceptional talent, was college-educated, and had the marketable distinction of serving as an officer during World War II. More importantly, Robinson possessed the inner strength to handle the inevitable abuse to come. On April 15, 1947, Robinson broke the color barrier, which had been tacitly recognized for over 50 years, with his appearance for the Brooklyn Dodgers at Ebbets Field.

Further information: [[:Jackie Robinson]]

Eleven weeks later, on July 5, 1947, the American League was integrated by the signing of Larry Doby to the Cleveland Indians. Over the next few years a handful of black baseball players made appearances in the majors, including Roy Campanella (teammate to Robinson in Brooklyn) and Satchel Paige (teammate to Doby in Cleveland). Paige, who had pitched more than 2400 innings in the Negro Leagues, sometimes two and three games a day, was still effective at 42, and still playing at 59. His ERA in the Major Leagues was 3.29.

However, the initial pace of integration was slow. By 1953, only six of the sixteen major league teams had a black player on the roster. The Boston Red Sox became the last major league team to integrate their roster with the addition of Pumpsie Green and Ozzie Virgil on July 21, 1959. While limited in numbers, the on-field performance of early black major legaue players was outstanding. In the fourteen years from 1947-1960, black players won one or more of the Rookie of the Year awards nine times.

While never prohibited in the same fashion as African Americans, Latin American players also benefitted greatly from the integration era. In 1951, two Chicago White Sox, Venezuelan-born Chico Carrasquel and Cuban-born (and black) Minnie Miñoso, became the first Hispanic All-Stars.

According to some baseball historians, Robinson and the other African American players helped reestablish the importance of baserunning and similar elements of play that were previously deemphasized by the predominance of power hitting.

From 1947 to the 1970s, African American participation in baseball rose steadily. By 1974, 27% of baseball players were African American. As a result of this on-field experience, minorities began to experience long-delayed gains in managerial positions within baseball. In 1975, Frank Robinson (who had been the 1956 Rookie of the Year with the Cincinnati Reds) was named player-manager of the Cleveland Indians, making him the first African American manager in the major leagues.

Although these front-office gains continued, Major League Baseball saw a lengthy slow decline in the percentage of black players after the mid-1970s. By 2007, black players made up less than 9% of the major leagues. While this trend is largely attributed to an increased emphasis on the recruitment of players from Latin America (with the number of hispanic players in the major leagues rising to 29% by 2007), other factors have been cited as well. Hall of Fame player Dave Winfield, for instance, has cited the fact that urban America places less emphasis and provides less resources for youth baseball than in the past. Despite this continued prevalence of hispanic players, the percentage of back players rose again in 2008 to 10.2%.

Arturo Moreno became the first hispanic owner of a MLB franchise when he purchased the Anaheim Angels in 2004.

In 2005, a Racial and Gender Report Card on Major League Baseball was issued, which generally found positive results on the inclusion of African Americans and Latinos in baseball, and gave Major League Baseball a grade of "A" or better for opportunities for players, managers and coaches as well as for MLB's central office. At that time, 37% of major league players were people of color: Latino (26 percent), African-American (9 percent) or Asian (2 percent). Also by 2004, 29% of the professional staff in MLB's central office were people of color, 11% of team vice presidents were people of color, and seven of the league's managers were of color (four African-Americans and three Latinos).

2001 Mariners and post season failure

needs more mention imo. 67.160.11.244 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It's one season for one team and not particularly notable. Wknight94 ^talk 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that it is just one of many seasons and may not warrant a huge discussion or anything, I disagree that it wasnt particularly notable. It was the greatest season any team has ever had. Only the 1906 Cubs posted as many wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.134.51 (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I honestly didn't notice it was the 116-win team. That might deserve a mention if the proper context is available. Wknight94 ^talk 04:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been a number of teams with the best record in baseball in a given year who nevertheless failed in the post-season. The 1906 Cubs, the 2001 Mariners, the 1954 Indians, the Orioles in 1971 if I recall correctly, and so on. On the other hand, a number of teams with the best record have gone on to win the Series (many of those teams wore pin stripes). Which only goes to show that there can be a significant difference between the regular season and the post-season. Luck and momentum are much bigger factors in 3 or 5 or 7 games than in 154 or 162. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Gyroball

I removed the couple sentences about the Gyroball possibly being a pitch that could change the game because it was mostly inaccurate (the gyroball has been revealed to not be the mythical pitch it was once thought to be) and also because it is was largely irrelevant to the section. You can make the same point without mentioning the Gyroball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.134.51 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Wknight94 ^talk 04:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Preface and Overview

The body of the article should begin at the beginning. The tiny preface should be expanded, perhaps using much of the so-called Overview, which should be scrapped. That is, everything in that overview should be used in the preface, or wherever it belongs in the history, or scrapped. --P64 (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

new era

What about the post steroid era, I mean the current one catagorized by a resurgence of pitching? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.175.202 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Babe Ruth and the end of the dead-ball era" section

Seems to me the whole part about whether Henry Frazee used the proceeds of Ruth's sale to finance theater shows (beginning with "The story that he did so..." to end of paragraph) is superfluous and argumentative. Suggest it be removed. Deriobamba (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's perhaps a bit too much detail for this particular article. It's well-covered elsewhere. Ruth's arrival in New York changed the course of the game's history, but how he got to New York was fairly conventional and is arguably not so important to the history of the game. His ability to demand and get a high salary might be more so - along with the fact that Frazee's dismantling his Red Sox also changed the course of history. The Red Sox and the White Sox were the major leagues' most powerful teams, and their follies contributed to the rise of other teams, most notably the Yankees. The details of Frazee's reasons for selling Ruth (and other players) are not particularly important, unless the why of it is considered important here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Collusion??

Article as a whole seems very biased. There is also no reference to the owners' collusion in the mid-80's. (There is a separate Wikipedia article on it.) Deriobamba (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased towards what? Wknight94 ^talk 13:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)