Racial composition of the 2023 Phils (split--posts not in order)

[BostonRoss]

Italian names always end with a vowel.

That is usually the case, but not always. To use an example I'm not proud of as an Italian-American, DeSantis is an Italian name.

Castellano is a word and also a surname in both Italian and Spanish (the guy who played Clemenza in The Godfather was Richard Castellano). The plural in Spanish is castellanos, but in Italian it is castellani, and each is also a surname in its language.

[Philsmania]

Team is uncomfortably white. Enough to make you wonder at least.

Been thinking that. Turner is great, but I was hoping Bogaerts for this exact reason. I don't think there's anything nafarious, just don't like the optics.

Agreed about the optics, especialliy considering the Phillies' spotty history with Jackie Robinson, resisiting integration and not having Dick Allen's back. Plus, from hanging around on social media, it feels like the Latino players are always the least popular with the phanbase. Even a supposedly liberal city like Philadelphia fiercely clings to certain prejudices. In the Phillies defense, however, there aren't a lot of African-American players these days, period. Unfortunately, MLB's RBI program has probably been mostly a failure. Like our WS opponents, the Astros, our Latino contribution is concentrated in the pitching staff (Suarez, Alvarado and Dominguez) with new addition Taijuan Walker adding an African-American presence.

[Mac]

A bit of rational thinking!! Phinally, thank you.

[Mac]

Not at all. I'm suggesting you haven't come close to proving your assertions - or even really providing a compelling argument beyond "racism exists" (obviously) - which I find reductive and insulting to the current management of the organization and its fanbase.

You clearly think you are making a good argument supported by points that I'm just ignoring (I assure you, this is not the case - which is why I've addressed your points in specifics as opposed to generalities).

But what we do have - as plain as the eyes can see - are posters in this thread playing to their own biases, so much so that one individual wished the Phillies signed a clearly inferior talent so that the team makeup would be more diverse, whereas others are obsessing over racial makeup as opposed to celebrating what should be one of the best teams in franchise history. You saw that - in your own words - as simply "people noting the lineup is all white". Suuuuuuure.

This should be a time of pure celebration and joy - instead, people are focusing on identity politics in a game of athletic merit. It's a damn shame. Julio was absolutely right on this one.

[Mac]

Thinking that Kingery had a better bat than Crawford is part of the problem.

I agree - the Phillies are one of the worst orgs. in baseball at identifying good, young talent and developing it. And there is much more supporting evidence to say the preference of Kingery over Crawford is derivative of that organizational weakness rather than racial bias.

I mean, really, let's game out your theory....so the Phillies prefered Kingery over a first round pick due to racial bias.....

And then shipped him off to the Mariners for a latino player who had a history of different teammates and organizations accusing him of not being a "good team player" or playing winning baseball?

Not sure how you're able to square that logic.

Personally, I love Jean (he was my son's favorite Phillie) and I was incredibly happy for him that he got to play in the postseason this year and have his moments - but he absolutely had a "reputation", fair or unfair, prior to coming here. If what you're saying is true, the Phillies would never have made that trade. None of this adds up, I'm sorry.

[andyb]

I shared a bunch of links about unconscious bias. You just need to get past your simplistic idea that of course this sort of racism does not exist.

The point about Kingery is about their performance on the field and the perceptions of them in the clubhouse. It is not related to Segura at all. It is not related to their draft position. It is simply an incorrect decision made for whatever reason by the Phillies.that happened to elevate a white player over a player of color.

But all these cherry-picked examples are meaningless from both you and me. I am happy you like some non-white players. You just seem to dismiss the possibility that unconscious biases exist in these decisions. There is no way to prove that either way. One can only look at the result of a mostly white lineup and wonder if these biases contribute to that. It should not be controversial to do so. Nobody is accusing anyone of being consciously racist.

We all need to step back and look at results and the process that produced those results. That is the only way we can learn.

[Mac]

I shared a bunch of links about unconscious bias. You just need to get past your simplistic idea that of course this sort of racism does not exist.

Obviously, these things exist - which is why I didn't respond to you sharing the studies - they aren't relevant to what I'm actually challenging you on. Only you seem to be thinking that my position is racism and unconscious bias don't exist.

To be exceedingly clear, my position is you have not proven - or even stated a compelling argument for - how they are involved in the Phillies decision making whatsoever and that your assertions are reductive and insulting to the people involved.

You also don't seem to understand how your arguments for unconscious bias - and how they "potentially" manifested themselves in Phillies decision making and fan attitudes - are incongruent with other variables in the scenarios you're citing.

I mean, are you seriously arguing that the Phillies exhibited unconscious bias in elevating Kingery over Crawford (but that bias was NOT present in selecting Crawford in the first), and then that same bias was also not present in trading away Crawford for another player who's perception should also suffer the same results of that unconscious bias? How does that rationale possibly make sense.

You think THAT reasoning is involved with elevating Kingery over Crawford as opposed to the long and notorious track record of organizational ineptitude in drafting and developing talent that still plagues us to this very day? C'mon now. Let's call balls and strikes for what they are.

[andyb]

You don't seem to get it. None of the examples of individual players are meaningful. All we have is the result of a mostly white lineup. You just seem to categorically dismiss the possibility of unconscious bias being a factor.

Shouting "prove it, prove it" does nothing also. There are many studies that show these biases exist. We'll never be able to prove it in a small sample size of a team just trying to win. But it is possible that biases exist and shape these decisions. Look at my last sentence on the previous post. Just take a step back and ask if this is possible. Of course it is. This is not about calling balls and strikes at all. It is about looking at results and wondering how we unintentionally got there.

[Mac]

No, I totally get it - you feel within your right to accuse others of:

• Denying the existence of racism
• "Potentially" being guilty of racial bias - but ONLY in specific examples that support your argument, while ignoring incongruities elsewhere that undermine your logic.

An all-white lineup? Possible evidence of racial bias. Me pointing out the ridiculous logic of the Crawford / Kingery example and how it played out? Well.....let's just ignore the details undermining the rational of your prior implication and focus back on that lineup!

The fact that these things are possible does not mean you should imply others are guilty of it, especially when you can't provide any evidence to suggest it's occurring within the context you're suggesting.

You realize that by saying these things "are possible" adds nothing to the conversation without additional material - it's like saying it's possible today's game could be rained out because rain exists. Well, yes, obviously, but is it relevant or is there evidence that it's true?

And it's especially unnecessary when those implications lack serious evidence and are insulting to those involved (management and fans alike).

You think Dave Dombrowski would appreciate your suggestion that his signing of Trea Turner was possibly motivated by racial bias? Imagine how he would react to your casual implications of "potential" bias after landing arguably the top shortstop available in the market.

Good grief. I'm sitting here pointing out to you a poster who preferred Bogearts over Turner purely due to the color of his skin as a slam dunk example of the bias you reference cutting in the other way (and thus clouding judgment), yet you're still focused on how Phillies management is "potentially" being influenced.

And, to Julio's point, we find ourselves arguing identity politics and its various absurdities as opposed to celebrating an organization that seems to be putting all the right pieces together while taking the city along on a wonderful journey.

I agree - let's take a step back and look at the entire situation. Are we judging things accurately or are preconceived notions leading people to make statements that can't reasonably be defended?

[Austinfan]

As an economist, I go with "revealed preference."

Ex ante (everyone is brilliant ex post), was Kingery a worse choice than Crawford?
One factor with Harper was his willingness to commit long-term with a low AVV
Harper then leads to Turner, who also signed a low AVV deal.
Wheeler was an upside play.
SD basically replaced Neris.

What I don't see are any clear examples where they reduced value just to make the team whiter.

Abreu might be the only move that fits that description, and I contend that may simply reflect a team that was late to analytics and simply didn't appreciate how value Abreu was on the field.

They traded for Marsh and Sosa, that seems more a matter of what was available and fit their needs (defense, but young enough to have upside and balance the big contracts given the paucity of talent in the pipeline).

[andyb]

This is getting counterproductive so I'll stop with this. Your entire last post skips the word unconscious when discussing racism. That is very important. Bias can exist without racial intent. That is what you seem to be denying, asking for proof of things that are impossible to prove (other than noting the demographics). Your posts lack what you call serious evidence too. And you keep jumping to absurd individual examples that will never prove anything.

I actually think DD would appreciate somebody pointing this out to him. I am sure he made every single move without conscious bias. But he also is a smart person who probably realizes the cumulative nature of the roster he built. Sometimes we all need to step back and look at the big picture. He'd probably want to know if players perceive the Phillies as a tough place to play for players of color. Again, I am not saying that is true, but it is also not impossible given the history here.

And to AF - yes choosing Kingery over Crawford made us worse. Kind of obvious now isn't it?

[Austinfan]

Ex post. Ex ante they were pretty even, in fact, it's hard to make the case that Crawford is significantly better than Sosa ex post.
Kingery was a flop, but Crawford has been a disappointment. No power, good but not great defense, so-so OBP.

[andyb]

Crawford has been a disappointment.

8.2 WAR the last 3 years (really 2.4 years including the pandemic season). He is a 3 WAR player and pretty consistent. Not a star, but hardly a disappointment.

[mdougherty12]

Fun fact, J.P. Crawford is currently tied with Lucas Giolito for 11th place in the bWAR leaderboard for #16 overall draft picks:

16th Picks Overall in the MLB June Amateur Draft | Baseball-Reference.com

He won't crack the top 3, but he has a good chance at top 5 by the time he's done.

[Mac]

That is what you seem to be denying, asking for proof of things that are impossible to prove (other than noting the demographics).

So because it's impossible to prove, that also gives you carte blanche to accuse people of "potentially" having it impact their decision making without supporting evidence?

Convenient for the accuser, but also rude and dismissive to those having the charge levied against them. Casually implying someone is exhibiting unconscious racist tendencies shouldn't be done so flippantly.

And you keep jumping to absurd individual examples that will never prove anything.

As far as the 'absurd examples' - you originally brought up Kingery over Crawford as a 'potential' example of unconscious bias guiding organizational moves and then shifted the field goal posts once I challenged the supporting logic.

Imagine my surprise after logging onto this board, excited to talk about the Trea Turner signing with hardcore Phans, only to see people moaning about unconscious racial bias 'possibly' (I love that weasel word in this context) playing a determining role in the building of our most competitive roster in over a decade. A development that should be met with nothing but exuberance and appreciation for those involved in making it happen!

The "I wish they signed an inferior player because he's not white" comment from one of the posters above made me feel like I was in a present day Monty Python sketch satirizing modern society. I couldn't believe what I was reading.

At this point, it seems fairly clear we don't see eye to eye on this, but I think you should show a bit more restraint before levying these claims at others. Especially given the fact that you offered zero backing to support your argument other than "it exists, it's possible and you can't prove it isn't happening."

[andyb]

I never accused anyone of anything conscious. You seem to be the one lobbing accusations around. My logic around Kingery versus Crawford was always very sound (the team gave more chances to the white player even when the non-white player outperformed him). Not conclusive but sound. You just seem to be seeing victims all over the place. Everyone else's logic is unsound so of course you must be correct.

I actually don't think anyone ever said it would have been better to sign Boegarts because he is non-white. That wasn't my comment, but you are twisting the meaning of the original comment which likely was saying it would look better if we had signed the non-white player. That is a completely different sentiment than you implied.

There are places for nuanced discussions around this. You just don't seem to be interested in having that discussion.

[Mac]

Been thinking that. Turner is great, but I was hoping Bogaerts for this exact reason. I don't think there's anything nafarious, just don't like the optics.

You sure about that, Andy? "I was hoping for Bogaerts for this exact reason" - what reason? Optics.

He preferred a clearly inferior player purely due to the color of his skin because it made optics less problematic. Honestly, it's an outrageous way of thinking and it's exactly the kind of anti-merit based crap that leads people towards making regressive, unproductive policies.

I never accused anyone of anything conscious.

Oh, so it's not conscious, therefore let me levy all sorts of insulting charges and make accusations I can't back up - because hey, you can't disprove it either!

I am entirely interested in nuanced conversation - I wouldn't qualify your perspective in this matter as nuanced. To me, it seems relatively callous, unproductive and without merit or backing.

My logic around Kingery versus Crawford was always very sound (the team gave more chances to the white player even when the non-white player outperformed him). Not conclusive but sound

Boy, what a whopper.

Your hypothesis - the Phillies roster building is "possibly" guided by unconscious racial bias

The circumstance you presented as evidence suggesting this (which you later rebranded as my 'absurd individual example'):

• Phillies spend a first round pick on J.P. Crawford (not unconscious racial bias)
• Phillies then bury that player behind - in your eyes - a player who was inferior and white ( unconscious racial bias)
• Phillies then trade J.P. Crawford to the Mariners for......another player of color who has a history of different players and organizations questioning his team mentality & attitude...precisely the type of player who would suffer from the unconscious racial bias you're claiming "possibly" exists (bias when Crawford was traded...but no bias in acquiring Jean in return)

....and you characterize that logic as sound? Is John Cleese about to come on stage?

[andyb]

I said little of that and implied little of that. But that is counter your own narrative. Find the original Boegarts comment and stop twisting your version of it. And remember at all times I said UNCONSCIOUS. You seem to forget that. The Crawford logic is sound even if it is inconclusive. They downgraded the superior player for whatever reason (and made a really dumb trade).

[Mac]

I literally replied to the original comment in my previous post to serve it up for you - and quoted the specific text.

I said little of that and implied little of that.

I don't even know what this means. What are you referencing? I've been responding to your own words this entire time in quotes. You have an interesting definition of 'twisting' - like somehow twisting that Crawford logic into a pretzel so it supports your hypothesis. The whole thing is laughable.

[andyb]

For instance you completely twist the Crawford argument. It is meaningless where he was drafted and who he is traded for. It is meaningful to my case that he was not given chances other players were given even when those other players were less talented. It is meaningful that he was traded for $0.50 on the dollar of his true value.

Did I say it was definitely racism? No. Did I say there could not be alternate reasons for why this happened? No. Was it just an example of the team making a dumb decision without unconscious bias? Possibly yes.

You keep elevating these isolated examples as if they are supposed to prove something. It is just another incident in the dozen moves that have created the current roster the Phillies had.

Those are just facts, not conclusions. You seem to try to see some sort of reverse racism in anything. It is simply a fact that we have an almost white lineup and it is also a fact that we seem to acquire players we think will play well in Philly for whatever reason.

Could unconscious bias be part of how we got here? How can you simply dismiss that possibility completely? Just form your own conclusions and stop lobbing accusations around. And try to find the original Boegarts comment. I doubt you were quoting it correctly or completely.