@old_school I totally hear what you are saying which is why, if you read my post, I'm not complaining. I'm noting it as interesting and something to consider. Here's the thing, raw fails to provide the full picture. One could even argue it was not accurate--we hadn't paid for formal private lessons but the number of hours he's dedicated to baseball from age 7 on is...I'm sure everyone on this page gets it. By focusing on raw you miss other present tools that are more important to long-term success. My husband has a fair amount of contacts in the coaching world and we know for a fact that some schools overlooked him, seeing him as one-dimensional, and regretted it later. FYI: They have stopped using raw in the last 6 month. In the end, it helped make his college decision easier because, God willing (he's not there yet--we feel very strongly that we made a great decision but knowing what we know about college athletics and after reading the thread on attrition we are very humbly aware that the hardest days are ahead), we want him to go where the coaches appreciate everything he brings to the table. I've also noted that biases can cut more than one way which is why I think this conversation is so healthy. If it makes one person think twice before they attach a label to someone, I think it's important. Sometimes we only see what we want to see or what's easy to see on the surface and we miss out on what's truly there. FYI, I mentioned this board, and how great it is, to my son and I told him about this thread as an example. Before I even got past the title, he blurted out "raw" in a disgusted tone.
@old_school posted:So I really don't mean to be difficult buy my question is what is the proper way to describe a 2 sport who athlete, who is obviously physically gifted to the very top of any chart, who has never had a private lesson being scouted and described in the sport that has the finest small motor skills of any game out there?
Why is raw an insult or racist? Why would it not be considered just accurate?
It's not that the term "raw" is racist. The issue is that there is a good bit of evidence that, other things being equal, black athletes are much more likely to be described using adjectives like "raw," while objectively similar white athletes are not. White athletes more frequently get descriptors that suggest their skills are the result of a great work ethic or intelligence, while black folks are more likely to be described as having natural or instinctive talent.
Again, it is not necessarily an insult to say one person has natural talent while another is a grinder who has maximized lesser God-given abilities (and the descriptions may well be correct in particular cases). But it does sell someone short to attribute their achievements to natural talent when they have worked just as hard and long as their competition. Scouts and coaches appear to have tendencies slot people into certain categories based on race. The argument is not that evaluators intentionally do this, but that like all humans their thinking often is affected by unconscious assumptions and biases.
I disagree. My twitter is filled with baseball and nothing but, so I read lots of analysis on players I don't even know. I mostly see raw used with guys who throw hard but have recently started pitching and have no finesse. I don't see it as a slight in the least. To me, I read that the kid has tons of potential but he's not there yet. The fact of the matter is, if he was there, they wouldn't say raw. That's ok, you know what to work on. Especially now, you can be offended by anything, or you can use it to improve your game. I would never have equated raw to race, because most the time I've seen it used, it was white athletes.
baseballhs, As the old saying goes, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” 1) You are reporting what you recall, not actual research, and not any sort of systematic sampling. 2) There are systematic studies out there (including by MLB teams—see the link that started this thread), and those find black athletes are described differently (as a group—the issue is not whether any particular athlete could in fact fairly be described as “raw”).
I have read thousands of write-ups. Raw to me means a player is not polished. I think when you look at players you can tell who have been trained and who are just blessed with the ability. I have never seen raw as a downplay and never racist. It describes a player who can play the game but needs refined in his skills. that is always a good sign to a coach or recruiter. A player who is greatly refined has a ceiling. I have used it to describe white players a lot more than black players. Pure is a similar word. Pure talent is used a lot to describe the player who has the talent but does not have the teaching normally. You see this if you know baseball. The shortstop who rounds the ball great and is what I call the showcase shortstop has a ceiling. The kid who attacks the ball and just mans it across the infield is the one who can be made better. I think the racism is the black player who steps in the box and the coach who has never seen him says great speed get rid of it quick assuming he is going to be fast. That will never go away. Or the white kid who runs really fast in 60 times and the coaches put surprising speed.
@PitchingFan posted:I have read thousands of write-ups. Raw to me means a player is not polished.
***
I have never seen raw as a downplay and never racist.
***
I worry I'm just repeating myself, but I am going to take another swing at this:
No commenter here is arguing that scouts or coaches intend labels such as "raw" in a racist or insulting way, or that the words themselves necessarily are negative. What several studies have shown (as documented in some links in this thread) is that black players as a group who are otherwise similar to white players as a group are more likely to be labeled with words that describe them as having "natural" talent. This is not a bad thing per se--except that white players are more likely to be labeled with words that attribute character or intelligence to them ("high baseball IQ," "great work ethic," etc.). The point is not that black athletes are described in overtly negative terms, but rather in terms that are rooted at least in part in subconscious stereotypes. There is some evidence this leads to black athletes being steered away from positions thought to require particular intelligence (QB, for example).
This evidence is about trends across large samples--the fact that a particular player really is "raw" actually has a very high baseball IQ doesn't disprove anything. And frankly, it doesn't mean much to argue that you have read lots of evaluations and haven't noticed this phenomenon. One of the main takeaways is that these kinds of subconscious stereotypes are difficult to perceive. The issue is not that racist scouts are intentionally downgrading black athletes, but that the scouts are human beings acting in human ways.
If you go back and actually count the adjectives used in a few thousand scouting reports you have read, do some statistical regressions to eliminate the effects of other variables, and don't find the kinds of trends other studies have found, that would be an important data point. But I mean no disrespect to you, your baseball experience, or your views on people of other races when I say that telling me you haven't noticed this phenomenon doesn't really refute the statistical evidence.
We are starting to live in a world where intent means nothing. I have typed out a few responses but I am so concerned that they might be misconstrued that I just delete them. We are becoming a world that is going to be paralyzed by the fear of offending.
@baseballhs I'd be happy to continue to conversation either here or in private messages. I don't believe anyone has gotten offended or even misconstrued anything yet. I think it has been a great conversation.
@old_school posted:So I really don't mean to be difficult buy my question is what is the proper way to describe a 2 sport who athlete, who is obviously physically gifted to the very top of any chart, who has never had a private lesson being scouted and described in the sport that has the finest small motor skills of any game out there?
Why is raw an insult or racist? Why would it not be considered just accurate?
As far as the gap to gap approach not being appreciated, for better or worse in todays game a child with the size you describe is going to be expected to pull and lift the ball, few will care about anything else. It is going to be the same way if he gets serious looks from the next level as well. I have a lefthanded gap to gap hitter with some power who is a couple years older then yours, he isn't the talent you describe but trust me I know what I speak of on this one.
Saying a player is raw isn't racist if it is true but it is at least lazy if the player isn't raw.
Many comps and judgements are just a bit lazy, player comps are usually a same colored skin guy (true for white basketball players too of course).
Also nobody would really call a hitter with a refined gap to gap approach raw. You would maybe say he isn't getting to as much power as he should be you wouldn't call him raw. Raw is a guy who chases balls in the dirt and around his neck , takes wild off balance hacks causing swing and miss and bad contact and generally has not much of a plan.
That doesn't mean a player might not benefit from pulling more but still that is not the definition of raw, most coaches would love to have a guy with a good gap to gap approach and then teach him to pull a few more.
@baseballhs posted:We are starting to live in a world where intent means nothing. I have typed out a few responses but I am so concerned that they might be misconstrued that I just delete them. We are becoming a world that is going to be paralyzed by the fear of offending.
I'd say most of the conversations on this forum have been honest without over the top judgements/arguments. One thing I like about it here.
One thing about implicit bias that I didn't see mentioned (sorry if I missed it), is that it affects nearly all people, regardless of skin color or gender. There actually is not a significant gap in how people see things. It is a part of who we are, and there are even test online you can take to see if you have it. I certainly do (and I didn't think I did), and the best thing to do about it is to acknowledge it, and to double check that when evaluating people, they are accounted for. Baseball is probably ahead of the curve in comparison to many other sports as they use so many metrics.
@baseballhs posted:We are starting to live in a world where intent means nothing. I have typed out a few responses but I am so concerned that they might be misconstrued that I just delete them. We are becoming a world that is going to be paralyzed by the fear of offending.
I share your concern about being misunderstood. I'm a middle-aged white guy and I teach college classes part-time. My field is constitutional law, so I routinely lead class discussions touching on abortion, race, religion and other touchy subjects. I ask my students to assume everyone (including me) speaks with good intentions and to react accordingly--that makes a big difference in my experience.
But nothing we've discussed in this thread is about labeling anyone as having bad intent. By definition, we're talking about actions not taken with any particular intention. We all make snap judgments about people based on factors like appearance, manner of speaking, and also race or ethnicity--and lots of research shows we sometimes make those judgments without being conscious of them. If it were my job to evaluate baseball players and I knew there were evidence that people in my field were systematically making mistakes in how they assess a particular category of athletes, I'd want to know that. If you have read Moneyball, think about Billy Beane pushing back against Oakland's scouts' reliance on whether a prospect had a "good body." That was an explicit, rather than implicit, bias, but Beane used stats to show that prospects who didn't fit the standard physical profile were undervalued. The scouts resisted this insight, because they were sure their experience proved their way of doing things was correct. The data showed something different. Implicit racial bias is similar in some respects: People with real expertise may think it is not affecting their judgments, but solid statistical analysis suggests it is a problem. Working to overcome that just makes sense (from a business perspective, but even more because it's just the right thing to do). (And by the way, there is similar research out there about hiring and promotion practices in the business world.) The point isn't to label anyone as a villain. Really.
I agree. I think generally when we know people, we can measure intent, it’s harder online. My thoughts were based on assumptions, like the fact that a heavy kid coming up to the plate on a good team. You assume he probably crushes it but is likely slow. Assumption but based on an educated guess that is typically right but not always. Seeing an athletic looking black athlete walks up to the plate and assumptions are made that he is fast. But there is some actual data/studies that supports that. Is that a racist assumption? If a kid has speed. But not great base running knowledge wouldn’t that be raw? I just wish we could all take things at face value but I realize intent isn’t always the same and again, intent does matter less and less.
@baseballhs Great question and totally fair. I think the distinction is if that if the heavy kid lays down a bunt and beats it out to first, legs a double into a triple and walks but you still write that he hits for power. That's an obvious example and the biases we are talking about are more subtle but it becomes problematic when folks are unable to objectively trust their eyes to see what they're really seeing. Or if they are so busy waiting for the heavy kid to hit it out of the park or the black kid to be fast or the white basketball player to hit threes that they miss the best parts of their games. Or worse, they pigeon-hole them or get it wrong.
I get that, and I do think it happens. I don't think its all about race. It is likely about a predetermined expectation. I've honestly seen it happen with my own kid at PG. He has always been pretty highly ranked, so even when he does have a bad game, he somehow gets a pretty good write up with the negatives downplayed and the positives played up. I guess I just never considered "raw" a negative, but if they have already predetermined a player is raw, they may not notice the areas he has worked on and still just see the God given talent.
The premise of this article seems like someone projecting their own assumptions of scouting. I just went back and read the "scouting" report from two guys ranked #1 in their HS classes by Perfect Game. BJ Upton and Clint Frazier. Granted it is only an N of 2, but read for yourself and see if it sounds like "racial bias".
Justin Upton is one of the top tools guys ever. He has high hips, an extremely MLB type 6'2/187 body. He's a shortstop just like his older brother BJ who was the 2nd pick of the 2001 draft and already in the Big Leagues. While Justin shows high SS grades his tools might be graded higher than anyone in history as a center fielder. Upton’s 6.23 speed in the 60 is unsurpassed in Perfect Game Showcase history and the ball comes off his bat with a different sound than other hitters this age. Upton looked smooth and polished at shortstop and didn’t play any centerfield, as has been talked about at times. He scores big in all departments. He even threw another wrinkle into his tools package, touching 94 mph in a quick inning on the mound. He exceeded all expectations as the #1 ranked player for 2005. Justin was selected to the AFLAC All American Team and received the Jackie Robinson award as the top player in High School. baseball.
Clint Frazier is a 2013 OF/3B with a 6-0 190 lb. frame from Loganville, GA who attends Loganville HS. Extremely strong tightly wound body, 100% quick twitch fiber. Right handed hitter, straight stance, short rock back load, late quick hand hitch to start swing, extraordinary bat speed, very short swing arch, plus/plus raw power without length or effort, patient hitter who sees the ball and explodes on it. 6.42 runner, former third baseman now in the outfield, centerfield tools, has had a tender arm but still showed plus raw arm strength. Five-tool talent and can use them. Good student, verbal commitment to Georgia.
@Pedaldad posted:The premise of this article seems like someone projecting their own assumptions of scouting. I just went back and read the "scouting" report from two guys ranked #1 in their HS classes by Perfect Game. BJ Upton and Clint Frazier. Granted it is only an N of 2, but read for yourself and see if it sounds like "racial bias".
Justin Upton is one of the top tools guys ever. He has high hips, an extremely MLB type 6'2/187 body. He's a shortstop just like his older brother BJ who was the 2nd pick of the 2001 draft and already in the Big Leagues. While Justin shows high SS grades his tools might be graded higher than anyone in history as a center fielder. Upton’s 6.23 speed in the 60 is unsurpassed in Perfect Game Showcase history and the ball comes off his bat with a different sound than other hitters this age. Upton looked smooth and polished at shortstop and didn’t play any centerfield, as has been talked about at times. He scores big in all departments. He even threw another wrinkle into his tools package, touching 94 mph in a quick inning on the mound. He exceeded all expectations as the #1 ranked player for 2005. Justin was selected to the AFLAC All American Team and received the Jackie Robinson award as the top player in High School. baseball.
Clint Frazier is a 2013 OF/3B with a 6-0 190 lb. frame from Loganville, GA who attends Loganville HS. Extremely strong tightly wound body, 100% quick twitch fiber. Right handed hitter, straight stance, short rock back load, late quick hand hitch to start swing, extraordinary bat speed, very short swing arch, plus/plus raw power without length or effort, patient hitter who sees the ball and explodes on it. 6.42 runner, former third baseman now in the outfield, centerfield tools, has had a tender arm but still showed plus raw arm strength. Five-tool talent and can use them. Good student, verbal commitment to Georgia.
The plural of "anecdote" is (still) not data.
@Chico Escuela posted:The plural of "anecdote" is (still) not data.
If trying to make a point, it is better to use words that you actually know. Did you read the part where I acknowledged an N of 2, before you commented? There are enough real problems in the world without this crap.
Since you are an admitted academician, let me help you out and clarify the difference between anecdotes and facts. See those two samples that I gave you, those are called facts not anecdotes. Anecdotes are recollection of events or stories. What you told about Billy Beane and talking about research, but not actually citing it, well those are examples of anecdotes.
Below are the a decades worth of "scouting" reports for PG's #1s, from Harper in 2011 through Veen in 2020 (Frazier's is in the post above). The reports are full of lots of fun words called adjectives. Adjectives (along with descriptive phrases) are used to describe things, in this case to describe the players in the report. Anyone who claims the language in these scouting reports is biased with respect to skin color or ethnicity simply does not understand the words being used.
Bryce Harper is a 2011 C/P/SS with a 6'3'', 195 lb. frame from Las Vegas, NV who attends Las Vegas high school. Then comes this one from Las Vegas. We did a story a while back about young Bryce Harper. It's all true! He is the #1 prospect in the 2011 class and that's not likely to change. Plus arm, no plus plus arm! Quickness and agility. Only a 2011 but probably the best high school hitting prospect in the country right now. Extreme power. Unlimited ceiling! Not sure there has been anyone to compare him to at the same age.
Carlos Correa is a 2012 SS with a 6-4 190 lb. frame from Santa Isabel, PR who attends PR Baseball Academy. Outstanding athletic build, inevitable comparisons with Alex Rodriguez at same age. Unparalleled infield arm strength, PG record 97 mph in drills, does it with game actions and footwork, smooth quick soft hands, could work through ball more aggressively but doesn't need to with arm strength. Big improvement with bat, showed plus leverage and bat speed, long loose extension, back spins the ball with plus carry, consistent hard contact, can make swing adjustments and pull hands in but wants to extend. Huge BP and game home runs to left centerfield. Keeps getting better! Excellent student, signed with Miami
Brady Aiken is a 2014 LHP/OF with a 6-4 205 lb. frame from Cardiff by the Sea, CA who attends Cathedral Catholic HS. Outstanding athletic build, strong, loose and projectable. Well paced high leg raise delivery, stays balanced very well, high 3/4's arm slot, works downhill, medium arm length and hides the ball well, good lower half use, low effort release. Fastball topped at 92 mph, has run and sink to both sides of the plate, commands fastball very well. Flashes plus curveball potential, hard spin and bite. Present feel for change up with proper arm speed. Three present pitches with command and feel and plenty of projection. Very good all around athlete, very aggressive to the ball in the outfield with plus arm strength, accurate throws. Left handed hitter, quiet hands, gets to his front side well, swings hard and creates bat speed, stays short and hits hard line drives. Good student, verbal commitment to UCLA. Selected for the Perfect Game All-American Classic
Brendan Rodgers is a 2015 SS/2B with a 6-2 185 lb. frame from Longwood, FL who attends Lake Mary HS. Outstanding athletic build, long and lean with present strength and room for more. 6.77 runner, very athletic actions at shortstop, smooth and well coordinated, big arm strength with plus carry, charges and works through the ball well, mature footwork, no reason he can't stay at shortstop for a long time defensively. Right handed hitter, smooth load, easy big bat speed, big power from a relatively short swing, easy carry off the barrel, whippy barrel coming through, has consistently shown plus barrel feel in games in addition to his raw power. Very rare overall package, premium offensive potential in a pure shortstop. Good student, verbal commitment to Florida State. Selected for the Perfect Game All-American Classic
Jason Groome is a 2016 LHP with a 6-6 180 lb. frame from Barnegat, NJ who attends IMG Academy. Very long and lean build, broad shoulders, beginnings of some present strength with plenty of room for more, super projectable. Clean well paced delivery, long and loose arm action, 3/4's arm slow, very easy and low effort coming through, big extension out front. Fastball to 95 mph, velocity comes easily and effortlessly, fastball pretty straight, throws strikes with his fastball and can spot it glove side, scary how hard he could throw with physical maturity. Mid to upper-70's curveball has good sweeping shape with tight spin and some bite, best when thrown at harder velocities. Developing change up, tends to slow arm at release but flashes good deception. Still 16 years old with years of physical development ahead of him but present stuff is already highest level. Number one prospect in the 2016 class at present. Verbal commitment to Vanderbilt.
Hunter Greene is a 2017 SS/RHP with a 6-4 197 lb. frame from Stevenson Ranch, CA who attends Notre Dame HS. Extremely athletic build with long arms and legs, very projectable physically. Highest level two-way prospect. Very easy delivery on the mound with a long and loose whippy arm action, extreme hand speed coming through. Fastball topped out at 96 mph with little effort, hard slurve type breaking ball with plus spin and sharpness. Shows very easy actions at shortstop with advanced footwork and balance, big arm strength, makes it look easy on defense. Right handed hitter, long and fluid swing, big extension through contact, showed big loft power, times the ball up well and stays on plane a long time. Top player in the 2017 class, maybe on both sides of the ball, and is still only 16 years old. Has the potential to be a generational player. Good student, verbal commitment to UCLA. Selected for the Perfect Game All-American Classic.
Matthew Liberatore is a 2018 LHP with a 6-5 200 lb. frame from Peoria, AZ who attends Mountain Ridge HS. Very long and slender athletic build, extremely projectable physically. Easy low effort delivery with a 3/4's arm slot. Fastball topped out at 92 mph, gets consistent running and sinking action, works his fastball around the zone, velocity has improved from 85-88 most of last summer. Mid-70's curveball with tight spin and some sharpness, fading change up in the low 80's. Has the ability to mix his pitches up and get hitters off balance, hitters have never seen his stuff well, high performance pitcher. Excellent student, verbal commitment to Arizona. Selected for the 2017 Perfect Game All-American Classic.
Bobby Witt Jr is a 2019 SS/RHP with a 6-1 185 lb. frame from Colleyville, TX who attends Colleyville Heritage HS. Tall and lean athletic build with lots of wiry strength and plenty of room for more. 6.40 runner, has outstanding defensive tools in the infield and has proven equally adept at all the infield positions. Very soft and quick hands, outstanding at tags, very smooth and clean through the ball, plus arm strength with the ability to throw from all angles. Right handed hitter, very loose hands in his swing, can get extended and put a charge into balls, fluid swing with very high exit velocities, will occasionally get too middle/oppo oriented in games and lose his leverage and raw bat speed. All the physical tools are there and loves to play. Very good student, verbal commitment to Oklahoma. Son of former MLB right hander Bobby Witt. Selected to play in the 2018 Perfect Game All-American Classic.
Zac Veen is a 2020 OF/1B with a 6-4 190 lb. frame from Port Orange, FL who attends Spruce Creek. Tall and extremely projectable athletic build. Loose and fluid athlete, clean through the ball in the outfield with soft hands, shows good arm strength with a smooth arm stroke that projects more strength in the future. Left handed hitter, hits from a spread and open stance, has quick hands and a very loose swing, nice extension out front and a fluid path to the ball with lift out front, fast hips fire on time, has present power and lots of potential for more. Type of tools and body that a scout can dream on. Very good student, verbal commitment to Florida. Named to play in the Perfect Game All-American Classic.
Pedaldad, first off: my initial response was snarky and I sincerely apologize for the tone. It was motivated in part by the fact that I know from prior exchanges with you that you understand statistics at least as well as I do (and likely better), so I'm hard-pressed to understand why you offered either of your posts. The thread proffers some studies of large populations of athletes that find blacks are described significantly more often using terms that suggest implicit bias. You responded by offering some specific examples. As I think you know, that is like responding to a study that shows black folks in a particular job are paid less than white folks doing similar work by saying "but here are five black workers who make more than their white colleagues." Even if correct, it doesn't disprove the initial contention--in fact, it's not really relevant to it.
Your second post offers a larger sample, but still too small a group from which to draw substantial conclusions. It also seems likely that any kid rated #1 in the country is going to get a strongly positive evaluation that may not be typical of any group to which that player belongs.
So what is the point you are trying to make? That some black players' evaluations don't seem to reflect to kind of implicit bias discussed in this thread? Sure--but no one is arguing that every player is negatively affected. Driving drunk makes you more likely to have an auto accident; you don't disprove that conclusion by pointing out that ten guys drove drunk and made it home safely.
As I said in one of my earlier posts in this thread, I don't claim to be an expert in this area. But a quick Google search pulled up some examples of systematic studies in this area: A study of "draft profiles hosted on the NFL’s website for all quarterbacks who participated in the NFL combine between 2008 and 2016" found some disturbing differences in how white and black prospects were described ( https://www.washingtonpost.com...erbacks-get-drafted/   ). A study of medical students' performance evaluations found "significant differences based on race and gender" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549898/  
. Are these studies vulnerable to criticisms of their methods? I honestly haven't delved deep enough to know. I do know there are numerous studies that find similar results in various areas. I'm willing to be convinced they are wrong--but describing a few examples that don't seem to fit the patterns in the overall data isn't much of a critique (as you know).
So I toss it back to you: What is the point you want to argue? That implicit bias doesn't exist? That it is less prevalent than X or Y analysis finds? That the article RJM linked to at the start of this thread isn't very rigorous? (If the latter, then I agree--the article is by a sports writer calling attention to the issue, and by itself doesn't offer much to go on. But I think RJM's point was to start a discussion.)
[Edited to remove auto-inserted emojis]
I wonder what is the reason for the positional biases in mlb that infielders are very often Latinos and black star players tend to be outfielders. Not everyone of course but most of the really well known black players of the last two decades has been outfielders (griffey, bonds, mccutchen, betts) and not many middle infielders or catchers at least among all star players. Derek Jeter really is the only really famous african american middle infielder I know in the last two decades.
Is that a bias? Maybe thinking outfield defense requires more raw speed than refined actions (not totally true of course)?
@Dominik85 in my specific example it was a case of Daddy ball, nothing more and nothing less (and I say Daddy ball with all the affection in the world because those coaches are family to us!). My husband was my girls' basketball coach while I was baseball Mom so he never coached baseball. My son played with the same team from 7-15 and the INFs were always the coaches' kids. One of my sons HS coaches swore he has the hands to be an infielder but by HS he loved playing in the outfield and at this point, at 6'6" (he was 6'2" or so when he got to HS), that ship has sailed. Speaking of stereotypes, I will say, when we were looking at colleges, we looked at the size of the OFs to see if the coach had a track record for putting big guys in the OF. We know it doesn't guarantee anything but we wanted to see some history of not just using tall guys as 1B or DH.
All this to say...I don't think the article or this discussion was ever intended to say race, unconscious bias or racism determines everything or is even the most important factor in an athlete's success or where they play. But I believe it is naive to say it doesn't exist at all and that it has no impact on opportunity or perception.
Finally, it was interesting that @Pedaldad mentioned the Uptons because they and their father actively work to provide opportunity and exposure to young players of color, including co-founding and coaching in an exposure tournament after WWBA 17U. They have personally given my son advice on some of the pitfalls and stereotypes around being a black american baseball player...and how to combat them...and they have openly discussed the steep cost of playing baseball, particularly at an elite level.
@Dominik85 posted:I wonder what is the reason for the positional biases in mlb that infielders are very often Latinos and black star players tend to be outfielders. Not everyone of course but most of the really well known black players of the last two decades has been outfielders (griffey, bonds, mccutchen, betts) and not many middle infielders or catchers at least among all star players. Derek Jeter really is the only really famous african american middle infielder I know in the last two decades.
Is that a bias? Maybe thinking outfield defense requires more raw speed than refined actions (not totally true of course)?
I would say it has more to do with training. More Latino kids (that I know of) only train for baseball. The black players I know typically train for multiple sports.
FWIW, Betts came up as a 2b and only moved to the OF because there was a future HOF in front of him.
@baseballhs posted:We are starting to live in a world where intent means nothing. I have typed out a few responses but I am so concerned that they might be misconstrued that I just delete them. We are becoming a world that is going to be paralyzed by the fear of offending.
Another reminder that we've been hearing about recently. What is acceptable present day does not mean 20-30-40 years from now you won't suffer the repercussions of your thoughts, actions and words by the new future standards. FWIW, i am relieved back in the 60's/70's there was no such thing as the internet and social media as we know it today.
@Chico Escuela posted:Pedaldad, first off: my initial response was snarky and I sincerely apologize for the tone. It was motivated in part by the fact that I know from prior exchanges with you that you understand statistics at least as well as I do (and likely better), so I'm hard-pressed to understand why you offered either of your posts. The thread proffers some studies of large populations of athletes that find blacks are described significantly more often using terms that suggest implicit bias. You responded by offering some specific examples. As I think you know, that is like responding to a study that shows black folks in a particular job are paid less than white folks doing similar work by saying "but here are five black workers who make more than their white colleagues." Even if correct, it doesn't disprove the initial contention--in fact, it's not really relevant to it.
Your second post offers a larger sample, but still too small a group from which to draw substantial conclusions. It also seems likely that any kid rated #1 in the country is going to get a strongly positive evaluation that may not be typical of any group to which that player belongs.
So what is the point you are trying to make? That some black players' evaluations don't seem to reflect to kind of implicit bias discussed in this thread? Sure--but no one is arguing that every player is negatively affected. Driving drunk makes you more likely to have an auto accident; you don't disprove that conclusion by pointing out that ten guys drove drunk and made it home safely.
As I said in one of my earlier posts in this thread, I don't claim to be an expert in this area. But a quick Google search pulled up some examples of systematic studies in this area: A study of "draft profiles hosted on the NFL’s website for all quarterbacks who participated in the NFL combine between 2008 and 2016" found some disturbing differences in how white and black prospects were described ( https://www.washingtonpost.com...erbacks-get-drafted/   ). A study of medical students' performance evaluations found "significant differences based on race and gender" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549898/ 
So I toss it back to you: What is the point you want to argue? That implicit bias doesn't exist? That it is less prevalent than X or Y analysis finds? That the article RJM linked to at the start of this thread isn't very rigorous? (If the latter, then I agree--the article is by a sports writer calling attention to the issue, and by itself doesn't offer much to go on. But I think RJM's point was to start a discussion.)
[Edited to remove auto-inserted emojis]
Very insightful and thoughtful response.
@Trust In Him posted:Another reminder that we've been hearing about recently. What is acceptable present day does not mean 20-30-40 years from now you won't suffer the repercussions of your thoughts, actions and words by the new future standards. FWIW, i am relieved back in the 60's/70's there was no such thing as the internet and social media as we know it today.
I will respectfully flip all future generation the bird for attempting to apply future BS standards...just like I do to current people who attempt to apply our current snowflake feelings toward our past.
I am very certain our founding fathers, their kids and every generation in our great history agrees.
@old_school posted:I will respectfully flip all future generation the bird for attempting to apply future BS standards...just like I do to current people who attempt to apply our current snowflake feelings toward our past.
I am very certain our founding fathers, their kids and every generation in our great history agrees.
At the risk of going very far afield from baseball...
I'm being only gently sarcastic when I point out that it isn't very "old school" at all to argue that fundamental values are relative matters...
Future generations will make their own assessments (of our past and of us). It was ever thus.