Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
This is fairly obviously true on at least some level (the level of coaching or willingness to be coached, first of all) - however, I think it's demonstrably false to say that there are 'better' black athletes 'sitting at home' while lower-caliber latinos take their spots.
I say this is demonstrable because baseball, partly due to its roster sizes and extensive minor league system, has long shown willingness to take on any player problems as long as production attends. In fact, Sheffield himself might be one of the best indicators of this phenomenon - in that way, MLB is much closer to football than other sports (see: TO).
We can name any number of similar scenarios, ranging from Julio Lugo's exile from Houston to Elijah Duke's voice mail proclivities - no matter how uncoachable or clubhouse-cancerous you're considered, someone will take a chance.
I love Sheff (now that he's off the NYY), but I think he's grasping here, looking for a simple explanation to a complex cultural phenomenon (ie what motivates people to play/improve in different parts of the world?).
|
Sheff's comments can't be proven or disproven either way.
But everything's political and based on a number of factors. There are always better people who aren't playing the sport, for whatever reason. Just like there are better basketball players than Lebron James who never got the opportunity. That could have to do with coachability or recruitment practices. It's only a touchy subject when people add race to the mix (i.e. arguing that there are better white players at home while black players like Lebron James get a shot because black players have fewer nonathletic alternatives, etc.).