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

[Mac]

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.

First off, I appreciate that you engaged on merit regarding the specifics of the conversation. Despite what you've said - I very much appreciate nuance and am eager to engage on that level without being spoken down to about cable news stations that I don't watch to begin with (anyone who watches cable news is actively feeding their brain garbage).

Secondly, you see it as meaningless where he was drafted and whom he was traded for - but I think it's very meaningful.

Your theory is that unconscious racial bias is potentially a hidden hand guiding the decisions the Phillies make in building their organization.

You contend that was possibly a force at work in the Phillies burying Crawford behind Kingery and then shipping Crawford out of town. Ok, I understand that perspective and, for argument's sake, let's go with it.

However, why wouldn't that same unconscious racial bias be at play in who the Phillies draft (especially with first round picks)? J.P. Crawford? Cornelius Randolph? Greg Golson? Justin Crawford?

Why wouldn't it then also be at play in their decision of who to accept back while shipping J.P. Crawford out of town?

No, the lack of any potential bias in those two things doesn't exclude the possibility that bias was at play in Crawford's benching, I hear you on that and it's a fair point. But the inverse certainly doesn't make an argument for it being a factor either, especially when injuries are involved and the Phillies are notorious for making poor decisions with drafting and development. I'm pointing to Occam's Razor on this one.

You keep elevating these isolated examples as if they are supposed to prove something.

Again, I didn't even choose the Crawford / Kingery thing as the example - you did. The entire time I've been asking for material evidence as to why you or anyone else would think the current regime of Phillies management has let unconscious racial bias determine their roster build.

I'm not dismissing the possibility bias was involved - I'm dismissing your argument and the circumstances being cited. Generally speaking, if you make a claim about something, there should be a reason for it, especially if you're suggesting other people's unconscious racist tendencies might be at foot. People generally don't appreciate a loose assertion of that type.

The Phillies farm system is not exactly bursting with talent. What superior players of color in the farm are going to take Bohm's job? What about Stott? Vierling? Were there better options in FA, both when taking into account skillset and cost?

It's not like they went out of their way to sign a white shortstop over a player of color - Turner was the obvious fit given position, skillset, relationships with critical members of the organization, his desire to play here, etc. etc.

For crying out loud, they let Zach Eflin walk and signed Tijuan Walker as his replacement for more money. Look, I'd rather have Walker over Eflin due to injury concerns, but if the white lineup is a reflection of bias, is the rotation and bullpen an argument against it?

I'm sorry, I just don't see the material to support this notion - and, to me, it's a damn shame that we are sitting here talking about players' skin color, "optics" and unconscious bias as opposed to celebrating the team for building this excellent roster and appreciating the amazing talent of the players on it.

To Julio's point (and others), focusing on these sorts of things, especially when they are such a stretch, helps keep racism alive.

[phillychuck]

My only reply to anything in this thread is that there is clearly no such thing as unconscious racism. People can't be racist when they are not conscious. Too busy trying to regain consciousness. Subconscious, maybe.

[zambonir]

lol, but also not really correct

Definition of UNCONSCIOUS

[phillychuck]

Sticklers still insist on subconscious,,,Merriam Webster is sort of known for stretching the limits of usage. Freud reportedly used the two terms interchangeably, and psychology now distinguishes them in terms of the depth below consciousness. I am having none of that!

"What does it mean to be unconscious?
Unconsciousness is when a person is unable to respond to people and activities. Doctors often call this a coma or being in a comatose state."

OED: "adjective. /ʌnˈkɒnʃəs/ /ʌnˈkɑːnʃəs/ in a state like sleep because of an injury or illness, and not able to use your senses."

[zambonir]

You do you But in addition to the 2nd and 3rd definition Webster provides, "unconscious bias" is not a term Andy invented (I think Harvard might have).

[phillychuck]

I'm aware. I was just sort of fooling around. I can't hear "unconscious" in any context without thinking of a person who has passed out. I probably know too many drunks...

[zambonir]

now you're just making me think of this

Conscious uncoupling: how Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin will bring...

(yes, no sooner did you create this breakout thread than we took it entirely off-topic as well. but also possibly just as well)

[andyb]

Your argument still boils down to "I have a Black friend" essentially. One can try to be neutral in all situations but still be biased towards people that think like they do or are comfortable in certain situations. It is very possible for the Phillies to be genuine in their desire to add the most talented players, but also find reasons to like a Harper versus a Machado. We have no idea whether Machado would play in Philly, but we also know he is the slightly better player (as Correa is slightly better than Turner).

Are you absolutely sure baseball reasons drove 100% of those decisions? Unconscious bias can occur in lots of venues. Just denying it probably makes one feel good, but it really does not explain big questions like why black football coaches with better coaching records get fired earlier and are less likely to get second chances than white coaches.

[phillychuck]

Andy, I think you're barking up the wrong tree in the case of the Phils, although I think you're right about the football coaches. Looking at all the decisions on the starting "9", Bohm, Hoskins, and Stott are here b/c they forced their way through the minors and on to the team, Realmuto is the best catcher in baseball, Marsh was the best/youngest CF who was available for O'Hoppe, Castellanos and Schwarber were the guys who were out there when Middleton took off the locks on the moneybox and there were no real alternatives who were people of color at the time. Harper instead of Machado? Best evidence is Harper is here b/c he was the one who wanted to play here. FA shopping is not picking the guy you want and that's it; it has to be two-way. And Turner is here despite Middleton and DD saying publicly they thought Bogearts was their #1 pursuit because Harper recruited him to want to be here (and he took less money to sign here). Occam's Razor comes down on the side of baseball decisions, not bias. At least in these cases. I'm all for trading Hoskins for Freddie Freeman, though. Straight up.

[allentown]

The history of the Phillies organization and their fans, although most of it fading in the rearview mirror, is always going to put this team under greater scrutiny in matters of racism. Maybe not fair to current PTB, but sort of in The Phillies Way DNA: treated Jackie Robinson the worst, didn't sign players from Negro League, late to have a Black player on MLB team, also a bit late to have a Latin American player of consequence and he wasn't signed/developed by them, the treatment of Richie Allen, Curt Flood retiring rather than coming to Philly because of team's rep on race, throwing away Ferguson Jenkins, basically giving control of the team to Giles who continued these traditions, the virtual dissolution of a successful DR operation, the different attitude of team-approved/paid radio and TV guys, the treatment of Abreu. And I don't agree that Abreu was simply downgraded because the non-analytical Phillies undervalued OBP. Abreu had five 100+ RBI seasons for the Phillies and was on track for a sixth when the Phillies included Lidle in a trade to give away Abreu. For other 'traditional' stats: his BA was always around .300 and usually higher, he had 30 HRs twice for Phillies, frequently had 70+ extra-base hits (although only 58 the year he was given away), and scored 100+ runs 7 of his Phillies seasons. He was given away by the Phillies the year after he finished 14th in MVP voting and was an All-Star OF. Abreu was a star based upon old-fashioned, back-of-baseball card stats. The Phillies organization was downright nasty to him, frequently complaining he was a coward.

Bogaerts wasn't my choice for FA signing; I prefer Turner, but my #1 choice was Correa -- despite injuries I think he's better, he's younger, and he was noncomp.

I think the Phillies past racism problems have been down to the owners, not the fans. The Eagles were a progressive team in with Black starting QBs when much of the league still shunned them and football 'experts' were still saying that Blacks lacked the 'necessaries' to be an NFL QB.

[Austinfan]

There's no question the Carpenters were racist.

However, given the composition of the 1980s teams, it's hard to claim their influence lasted in this organization.
They traded for McBride, Maddox in CF, Lonnie Smith, Manny Trillo, Ramon Aviles, Nino Espinosa,

[zambonir]

Harper instead of Machado? Best evidence is Harper is here b/c he was the one who wanted to play here.

That's not strictly true. The Phillies made a decision not to sign Machado (and to not outbid the Padres for him even though he wasn't that expensive). Even at the risk of losing Harper (had he picked LA or SF). Middleton did not fly out to meet with Harper until Machado was already a Padre. Obviously they had decided Harper was their guy (arguably months before, after Middleton soured on Machado's Utley-like performance in the World Series, wink-wink) but Machado would have taken their offer.

No, race was and is not a factor per se in building the roster for many years. The issues are more subtle, and far beyond the Phillies. But saying it would have been nice to see one member of the starting 9 be a person of color (i.e the "optics" comment) is not reverse racism, and saying it's bad that the fact that last year's Opening Day roster had no Black players is not the same thing as saying the Phillies did it on purpose. But historical racism is still a factor, and the above realities are still ultimately bad for the club in terms of growing the game, developing talent and being a cultural institution in a majority non-white city - including being competive with the Eagles and Sixers and even the Union in developing the fan base.

[andyb]

Andy, I think you're barking up the wrong tree in the case of the Phils, although I think you're right about the football coaches. Looking at all the decisions on the starting "9", Bohm, Hoskins, and Stott are here b/c they forced their way through the minors and on to the team, Realmuto is the best catcher in baseball

Everybody is basically missing the point I am trying to make (that is leading to all these dumb discussions). One can justify every individual decision the Phillies have made and still see that there is some unconscious bias at play. This does not make anyone a racist (the whole world really gets over sensitive trying to have these discussions, left and right). It just means that sometimes it is healthy to take a step back and wonder how we got here. There is nothing nefarious here. There are lots of organizations and companies that look around and see all white leadership and wonder how they got there when they did not try to do so.

My company went through this a decade ago when we realized that a bunch of requirements for our job made it really tough to attract non-white people to want to work there. Part of it was geography (Minnesota where it is cold....). Part was unreasonable job requirements (requiring lots of high end writing skills in addition to the actual job). Part was pay (the work was not high paid compared to some others in the private sector as it was mission driven so it was easier for wealthier applicants to do). And part was outreach (reaching out to others outside our social circles). The result was a company that really thought they were trying to be diverse and unintentionally ended up with a lack of diversity.

These are complicated questions and regarding the Phillies, questions where a simple answer of "Yes racism is real but it cannot possibly apply to me" just does not work. The Phillies have had a half dozen choices where they have went with the White player for whatever reason. Philly does have a reputation as a tough place to play and while they can love their non-white players, that love seems much more easily applied to white players. Remember Glenn Wilson. Perhaps the worst 100 RBI guy ever and a marginal starter was very well liked in his brief time. Others like Juan Samuel in that era got constant criticism even if a share of fans loved him as a player. It is just tougher for non-white players. It is getting better, but to dismiss all this is not realistic.

Maybe Bryce and Trea were the only top end choices that wanted to play here. But that could also be a consequence of the team's effort to court them, driven in part by the perceptions of players who would appeal to Philly fans. It is all related. I also stand by the fact that Machado and Correa were a bit better players and we did not try to get them. I am very happy we got both Bryce and Trea. But one could be happy and still see a decision process that unconsciously pushed them to the white players. We heard there might have been one meeting with Correa this year but there sure does not seem to have been any significant effort to compete for him. Maybe he would have wanted to play here if we actually tried. The Phillies were probably not responsible for all the free agency articles that pushed Trea as a perfect fit, but guessing they just rode with that sentiment.

This is all observational I agree with most of Atown's post also. There is history. I am sure the Phillies honestly want to move beyond that and field the best team regardless of color. I also think it is very possible some crusty old minor league coaches just did not like Crawford and were more comfortable with Kingery stylistically. They made 2 big mistakes with those players (something that is undeniable as Crawford is a 3 WAR major leaguer and Kingery is just biding his time getting $24 million to be mediocre in AAA). We'll probably never figure out why they made those mistakes.

[phillychuck]

Too each his or her own; I prefer not to multiply my hypotheses beyond necessity.

[zambonir]

I also think it is very possible some crusty old minor league coaches just did not like Crawford and were more comfortable with Kingery stylistically. They made 2 big mistakes with those players (something that is undeniable as Crawford is a 3 WAR major leaguer and Kingery is just biding his time getting $24 million to be mediocre in AAA). We'll probably never figure out why they made those mistakes.

I've said I find it mysterious, but it isn't that mysterious. Klentak and Kapler fell in love with Kingery more than they didn't like Crawford, and the contract kept him in the big leagues and on the roster long after he should have gone to AAA without actually having any affect on Crawford. Crawford never truly lost his job to Kingery because he was too hurt to actually play most of that season. Asdrubal Cabrera started 49 games for the Phillies in the second half of that season. Kingery only started 37. They buried Crawford, but he was on the DL from April 29 to June 6 and then again from June 20 to August 10. At that point it was reasonable to just keep him in AAA (he came back up in September). And the whole season was also flawed in that they'd decided to try to make the playoffs.

I also think they were going to hand 3B to him in 2019 but then Franco played pretty well. But regardless, it's not actually true that he ever lost his job or his roster spot to Kingery. He lost it to injuries and then he lost it to Segura, and we still don't know if they made that trade the way they did because they undervalued Crawford or overvalued shedding Santana's contract.

The Phillies were certainly worse without him, and also never would have had to sign Didi. Had Kingery worked out they also would have traded Segura (and they'd originally tried to move him to 3B).

[schillingfan]

I think people confuses racism with racial. Phillychuck is right about unconscious v. conscious. Racism is a harmful bias, which has adverse consequences. That is actually the point in Critical Race Theory as it was intended to be taught. Institutions, of which the Phillies and baseball are one can act in ways not intended, consciously to be racist, but have unintentional consequences of of figuratively putting a knee on the neck of a racial minority.

This was the reason for affirmative action and NFL coaching interview policies, to bring exposure and opportunities to minorities as those institutions denied access in the past.

Edit PC I think the difference between conscious and unconscious racism is whether you focus on the mind of the actor or the consequences of the act. Put legally, the mens rea of the crime could be racism, the actor was racist in his intentions, or in strict liability, their could be n racist intent, but the outcome was racist.

Obviously we haven’t gotten past racism. The backlash of Trumpism and white grievance groups is real. Discussing the racial make-up of the Phillies seems relevant. I don’t think there is any racism, but perhaps a non-malevolent racial bias. As Juli says, we all use distinguishing characteristics and color of skin is a pretty obvious one. Where it moves into racism is when we make generalizations based on race, like Latino baseball players are lazy and black quarterbacks aren’t smart eight to manage a game. Then it becomes malignant as we assign negative characteristics and engage in oppressive acts because of the racial bias. Of course the whole point of integration is exposure so minorities aren’t “the other” and don’t fit the generalizations and are a lot like us.

As Andy’s said, talking about racism is difficult, because it is critical. I can discuss my ancestors and my own acts without white guilt because, I always want to improve and d better, but it’s tough not to be defensive.

[Mac]

Your argument still boils down to "I have a Black friend" essentially.

I do not understand how you pulled something this simplistic out of what I wrote. I'd be curious to have you elaborate on this line of reasoning.

One can try to be neutral in all situations but still be biased towards people that think like they do or are comfortable in certain situations.

Obviously - but again, water is wet. It's nonsensical to make these claims about the Phillies with no reasonable argument to support it other than "it's possible".

As other posters have written in response to your argument - the burden of proof is on the accuser claiming these things exist, not on others to prove they don't (especially in response to no real evidence).

"I think it might be true because it's possible, but I can't prove it because it's unprovable" is not a compelling argument and really adds nothing to the conversation except to inject negativity. As I said earlier, a snake eating its tail.

We have no idea whether Machado would play in Philly

I would say by virtue of Machado choosing to play in San Diego, we know the answer to this question. Unless you meant "how he would be accepted" when you wrote "would play".

I think the answer to this is relatively simple math: bare minimum, if he performed well and the Phillies were successful during his time here, he would be appreciated. We've seen this play out time and time again in the city with athletes of all stripes.

Harper makes all sorts of ancillary efforts to connect with the fan base and the city - along with recruiting other stars - which obviously increases his standing with the fans above and beyond performance and winning.

Sure there are exceptions - like Michael Jack Schmidt. Guy performed and won during his time here - but had a frosty relationship with fans and media at times. Perhaps that was in response to the city's unconscious racial bias against a white superstar?!? (I can't prove it, but it's possible!!)

[phillychuck]

Yep--the average fan loved Bowa and disliked Schmidt. Despite our reputation for being perceptive fans, we often fail to recognize excellence in some players (Schmidt, Abreu, Burrell, etc.).

[Mac]

Abreu was a star based upon old-fashioned, back-of-baseball card stats. The Phillies organization was downright nasty to him, frequently complaining he was a coward.

Wow, is that so! A coward? Sheesh, talk about insulting. I mean, I know he wasn't exactly adored within the walls of the organization, but to call a man a coward is pretty overboard.

Do you have any links / references to elaborate further? This is interesting to me, but I wasn't able to find anything in my - admittedly - cursory online search.

Also - I'd be interested to know more about the "dissolution of the successful DR operation".

First off, because I know nothing about it, but secondly, I'm shocked that the Phillies at one point had a successful international scouting operation. I find that, in and of itself, hard to believe.

If you wouldn't mind telling me more, I'd appreciate that - I find the topic of organizational scouting & development really interesting, especially because the Phillies have always struggled with it (and are currently attempting an overhaul, as Matt Gelb wrote in his column recently).

I understand and appreciate the franchise's (and the sport's) sordid history with race and discrimination, even if I'm not aware of all the particular past details as you referenced, allentown.

That said, I don't believe any of the people involved in those examples are still making decisions for the organization in building this roster, nor have they given us any real reason to question that with their decisions.

As is said, don't assume malice when incompetence could be at play - and it's not as if Dave Dombrowski has ever hesitated in acquiring players of color and paying them massive contracts (Miguel Cabrera, David Price).

I think the current management group is purely interested in winning - which means finding the best players possible when accounting for talent and fit.

[andyb]

I do not understand how you pulled something this simplistic out of what I wrote. I'd be curious to have you elaborate on this line of reasoning.

About 50+ times you have argued that the Phillies can't be racist because they do things like draft Crawford and trade for Segura. Which is all besides the point and the equivalent of the "I have a black friend so I can't be racist argument",

When there is unconscious bias at play you can end up with a different result even if the intention is completely absent racism. Your whole argument is based on these isolated examples which do not address at all the points on unconscious racism. White players can be unpopular and black players can be popular at the same time unconscious racism exists. You keep asking for a burden of proof which is just a silly schoolyard argument. The proof is in the cumulative decisions over time. With the Phillies and with many MLB teams (and lots of facets of society from employment to schools, etc.).