Baseball Racism: The Irish in 1880

Professional baseball is one of the purest meritocracies in the American job market: if someone possesses baseball talent, odds are that they will be tendered a job offer. But baseball reflects American society, and like all other sectors of American society, baseball has a history of discrimination which it still has to deal with. In previous columns for Fangraphs, I’ve discussed homophobia in the context of the anti-discrimination language in the new CBA; sexism in the context of Kim Ng’s move to the commissioner’s office, as well as the increasing presence of women in all levels of the game; and racism in the context of Milton Bradley’s retirement. I recently came across a scholarly article that used data from the 1880 census to examine anti-Irish discrimination in baseball in the late 19th century. It offers interesting parallels with the recent history we’re more familiar with. As the author, E. Woodrow “Woody” Eckard, an economics professor at the UC Denver Business School, concludes:

First, Irish players had to display superior performance to earn regular positions. Second, they generally were relegated to less important field positions. Regular Irish players were also more likely to be assigned to fill in at field positions other than their regular ones. Last, the Irish were underrepresented as managers. The evidence also suggests fan discrimination, with the presence of Irish players positively correlated with their cities’ Irish populations. These patterns, again with the exception of pitcher, mirror those observed for African Americans in the first decade or two after Jackie Robinson broke the MLB “color line” in 1947.

Eckard notes that this discrimination did not prevent Irish players from getting jobs in baseball: “Roughly one-third of players were Irish, similar to the proportion of Irish in the general populations of cities with major-league ball teams.” There was no anti-Irish color line. Rather, the discrimination against Irish players was more subtle. But that very subtlety helps to make the history of the 1880s all the more applicable to the tensions of the present day.

Indeed, as a commenter pointed out on the Milton Bradley story, the portrayal of Irish at the end of the 19th century was very similar to that of African Americans in the middle of the 20th century. As Eckard writes: “The basic elements of the stereotype were innate low intelligence, unreliability, laziness, and (for males) a penchant for drunkenness and fighting. Newspaper and magazine cartoonists of the era often portrayed the Irish with simian features.”

Eckard then develops a number of hypotheses to measure possible anti-Irish discrimination in baseball. Most of these hypotheses have been substantiated with regard to African American players in the decades following baseball’s integration in 1947.

  1. 1. Irish players might have a higher mean performance: due to discrimination, given a choice between an Irish player and a non-Irish player of comparable value, a racist owner would choose the non-Irish player, which would mean that only standout Irish players would be employed.
  2. 2. Teams with Irish players might have a higher winning percentage: a team unwilling to employ Irish players would be disadvantaging itself with regard to the talent pool compared to a team that was willing to use Irish players.
  3. 3. Irish players might have less desirable positions on the diamond, as racist teams reserved the more desirable positions for non-Irish players, who would also be paid a higher wage.
  4. 4. For similar reasons, Irish players might be forced to change positions more often so that the positional preferences of non-Irish players could be accommodated.
  5. 5. There would be fewer Irish managers in baseball, to placate racist players who wouldn’t want to play for an Irish manager.
  6. 6. Because racist fans might not want to watch Irish players, Irish players might only be employed by teams in cities with a high Irish population.

Eckard compares the triple slash lines of Irish players compared to non-Irish players, as well as the proportion of Irish players at each position and the number of Irish players on each team, and demonstrates these hypotheses to be largely correct. Irish players did have demonstrably better performance but were less prevalent at premium positions and as managers. Cities with larger Irish populations had more Irish players on their teams. Despite the fact that the number of Irish players in baseball was higher than the Irish proportion of the U.S. population, Irish-American ballplayers appear to have faced demonstrable discrimination.

(The second hypothesis, about team winning percentage, is not statistically significant at the 5% level, but is significant at the 10% level.)

Eckard determined Irish ethnicity by examining player records in ancestry.com to determine whether they or their father were born in Ireland; the author then established a probability of Irishness for all other white players by comparing the number of people with their surname to the number of people with their surname who also had a father born in Ireland. He repeated this process with players of German ancestry and English ancestry to determine whether any similar discrimination could be discerned, and found that there appeared to be a statistically significant anti-German bias in managers, but could not find support for the other discrimination hypotheses listed above.

The author is careful to note that his analysis reveals subtle results, and that discriminatory outcomes are different from overt racism:

It is not clear that contemporary baseball owners and players were even aware of the relatively subtle manifestations of discrimination revealed in the above statistical analysis. The popular modern image of the game in the late 1800s as a (European) ethnicity-blind meritocracy might require only a minor revision.

I enjoy looking at baseball history because our game has the richest history of any American professional sport. It’s frankly awesome that a tenured professor can conduct meaningful research using the OBP and slugging percentage of Hall of Famers like Ned Hanlon and King Kelly. But history can also help us better understand baseball today. (I remain fascinated by the history of performance-enhancing drugs in the 19th century.) The stereotypes that followed Irish players later dogged African Americans, as did the discriminatory practices. Moreover, those practices were not merely as simple as barring them from the profession. Much as integration did not end racism in American society, it did not prevent discrimination in baseball.

Nor, I daresay, has racism ended in society, though it is also almost certainly true that the most important color in baseball is green. In modern American usage, the word “racism” tends to apply to relations between African Americans and whites, but the history of racism is much broader. It also, perhaps just maybe, offers hope for the future. After all, the amount of anti-Irish discrimination in modern society is vanishingly low. Of course, there are a few major differences between Irish-Americans and African Americans. There are few subjects more fraught than skin tone, which seems to be one of the more universal marks of discrimination around the world. But the Irish experience demonstrates that discrimination is neither necessary nor permanent. In a hundred years, it may all simply seem like ancient history.





Alex is a writer for The Hardball Times, and is an enterprise account executive for The Washington Post.

newest oldest most voted
McNulty
Guest
McNulty

Alex, you forgot the part where you stir up a controversy and put the entire FG commenting community into a frenzy.

Mike
Guest
Mike

can there be controversy when the thesis is “racism is bad”?

jim
Guest
jim

how can white people be racist against other white people?

tcnjsteve
Guest
tcnjsteve

Whiteness at the time was construed differently that it is today. In fact, so was race in general. In the early 1900s people looked at definitions like Teutonics, Alpines, Mediterraneans, and Slavs as valid races as much as Caucasian, Hispanic, or Asian today

M.Twain
Guest
M.Twain

Hispanic is not a race.

JimNYC
Guest
JimNYC

Jim: I’m not quite sure where you grew up, but I grew up in New York City. And in New York, b linguistic convention there really isn’t such a thing as a “white” person. I’m Irish — even though my ancestors have been living in and around New York for over 150 years — and there are Italians, and Jews, and Croatians, and Russians, and Poles, but nobody really considers the term “white” as a cohesive racial identifier. My grandmother’s brother, growing up in Brooklyn in the 1920’s, got physically assaulted because he went to the movies with an Italian girl — and like it or not, when I was growing up my family would never approve of any girl I was dating unless she was Irish. I still find it bewildering when people from the South refer to themselves as “white” instead of “German” or “English” or whatever.

James
Guest
James

JimNYC – My bewilderment was the exact opposite: being from the South and living in NYC for a while and being asked what race I was all the time. I think one reason there’s such a difference is that most white people with Southern families are the descendants of people who came over during earlier waves of immigration (please don’t take that the wrong way and think I’m saying that in some kind of condescending way – currently doing ancestry research, and my oldest ancestor on my mom’s side was an indentured servant who came over from Ulster and lived as a servant on a plantation for x years before gaining his freedom).

I think there are a couple reasons that people who’s ancestors came here from England, Scotland, or Ulster, Germany, or France prior to the American Revolution would have stopped identifying themselves as England/Scottish/Scots-Irish/German/Huguenot by, say the Civil War or 1900: 1) in the case of the people from England, Scotland, or Ulster, why would they want to emphasize their ethnicity when their new country had been founded by rebelling against Britain? 2) In the case of some of those groups, religious discrimination in their former countries had been a reason for leaving, so you can imagine why they might abandon the old nationality for a new one that guaranteed religious freedom* (* – limited to religious freedom for the various forms of Christianity – which is obvious a big asterisk, but was still a big step forward, given the times). 3) As race became the main dividing line in US society (especially in the South, but also to a less extreme extent in the rest of the country), their national origin became less important than their whiteness. One thing I’ve come across again and again in reading about race in US history is the extent to which the country became more racist between 1790 and the 1830’s-1840’s. Which isn’t to say things were ideal in the American Revolution era, but it actually got worse between then and the Civil War (free blacks who had enjoyed some rights increasingly found them being stripped away, especially during the 1830’s.) 4) Unlike, say, Irish or Italian immigrants who moved to an Irish or Italian neighborhood in NYC or Boston, which helped preserve their heritage, the people in these groups were often moving to rural/frontier areas. 5) Combine the other reasons with the fact that, over time, the various white groups intermarried, so it became hard to characterize oneself with just one ancestry.