by Mark Kriegel

Updated: April 21, 2008, 8:03 PM EST 541 comments

add this RSS blog email print

The three white guys in the studio — Buck Showalter, John Kruk and host Karl Ravech — didn't look particularly comfortable trying to come up with an answer. Nor was I comfortable that the question had been asked in the first place. The permutations on this query — racial, ethnic and religious comparisons by sport and even position — are endless and, I fear, somewhat perilous.

Who's the best black swimmer?

The best white cornerback?

Best Mexican outfielder?

Japanese catcher?

Jewish golfer?

And so on.

And, why?

Finally one of them — I think it was Kruk — offered the name Derek Jeter.

After some discussion on the virtues of the Yankees' future Hall of Famer, Ravech felt obligated — and I'm not knocking him here — to mention that the Yankee shortstop is the product of a "mixed marriage." Of course, it was Jeter who'd been famously insulted by his former teammate, Gary Sheffield. Jeter, said Sheffield, "ain't all the way black."

For a moment, I found myself wondering if this was really 2008. But of course it is. Barack Obama hears the same crap. Actually, it occurs that if Hillary Clinton had any real talent for dirty tricks, she'd have hired Sheffield as a consultant.

As it happened, this low debate had been inspired by a great American. Tuesday was Jackie Robinson Day in Major League Baseball. The occasion was a way for the game to acknowledge both its debt to Robinson and its shameful past.

It was also an opportunity for the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports to release its annual analysis of baseball. According to the report, the major leagues have made laudable progress as it pertains to front office hiring, but the number of African-American players was just 8.2 percent, the lowest such number in at least 20 years.

"I'm very disappointed by that fact," said Jackie Robinson's widow, Rachel. "Competition from other sports is certainly a big factor, but there are many factors. We've got to work on ... getting younger children playing, into the game, and getting communities behind the programs like the RBI programs and the academies."

Dr. Richard Lapchick, the Institute's Director, was quoted as saying: "Baseball has probably lost a whole generation here. African-Americans just aren't playing it at this point. They're going to have to increase their efforts."

Rachel Robinson is understandably concerned about the sport her husband gave so much to. But should the rest of us be? (Kathy Willens / Associated Press)

Now I understand Rachel Robinson's disappointment, that she would want to see kids — especially those in predominantly black neighborhoods — playing a game for which her husband gave everything. I'm less convinced on the point made by Lapchick, one of the consistently insightful people in sports. No doubt the game owes a historical debt to African-Americans. MLB has established programs to "revive" baseball in the cities. But does the sport really need to increase its efforts?

In fairness to Lapchick, when I spoke to him he said that he was "much more concerned about who runs the games than who plays them." In other words, rosters are supposed to be color-blind, a true meritocracy.

Still, why can't we just let kids play the games they want to play, the sports they think are cool? If baseball is targeting what is euphemistically known as the inner-city, then shouldn't we also be trying to develop more Latin swimmers and Asian basketball players? See what I'm saying? Where does it end?

There's a particular subtext to the baseball argument, again provided by that genius Gary Sheffield. Last year he said that the numbers of Latin players had risen at the expense of African-American players because it is easier "to control them."

So this morning, wondering whether it was worth the indignity of citing Sheffield yet again, I called my colleague Jason Whitlock. He is black. I am white. I am obliged to say that.

Anyway, we went back and forth for a while before Whitlock offered what, to me, was a striking theory. "Baseball is a game of fathers and sons in America," he said. "You have to be taught the game, and taught an appreciation of the game. There's a crisis in the black community, a total collapse of our family structure and absence of fathers. It's not that surprising we have little interest in baseball."

I'd not thought of this. Though even if I did, as a white guy, I'm not sure I'd feel free to volunteer it in print.

As for the question posed on "Baseball Tonight," Whitlock brought up Barry Bonds.

Until recently, Bonds was the best African-American player in the game. He was taught by his father.

Before that, it was Ken Griffey Jr. He, too, had been taught the game by his father.

I guess I was lucky in this way. There was no little league in my neighborhood (what a deprived childhood was mine). But I recall my father taking me outside, telling me how to hold the bat, and tossing a ball at me underhanded. I apologize now, to my dad and to the great American pastime. But the truth is, I found the ritual a little boring.

It was a lot more fun going out to the schoolyard, playing 32 by twos and trying to dunk on 8-foot biddie rims.