Do Major League Baseball owners, GMs, and scouts tend to favor a specific type of race over another when in the draft room? Gary Sheffield says yes. Not only have Latin players replaced African-Americans as the largest minority group in the MLB since the 1980s, but the gap is rather large. In 2005, it was reported that 28.7% of the league was latino and only 8.5% were black [Sheffield says Latin players easier to control than blacks]. Sheff opines that this is due to organizations wishing to control its players.
Personally, I think that it is a tough duty to try to attack bigotry by being a bigot yourself. If Sheffield wants to expose some sort of racism and help the cause of his own ethnicity, he should probably shy away from putting down another minority group in the same article. Are Latin players easy to control? Michael Barrett sure doesn’t think so. Does Sheff know a lot of players that are home now can outplay a lot of the Latin players in the league? Maybe, but that does not really prove his point. I know someone who can do a better job than Rosie O’Donnell on The View…oh wait, she got fired.
Anyway, there is one small area that baseball agents can take away from the ESPN article. And it has nothing to do with black baseball players. I would still recommend representing future black prospects, because black players will forever be a part of the game in the future. I think that a telling statistic is that a majority of the league is still made up of white players. 59.5% of the MLB is white, which I find surprising. It seems like we hear about all of the imported players from China, Japan, South Korea, Dominican Republic, etc., but there is still a lot of space for white players. Players will continue to be brought in from oversees, and the rate will probably expand, however white and black players should maintain a powerful position in America’s pastime. So do not be afraid to represent such a player while the landscape changes a little bit!