Bo Knows Now

On MLB Network Monday evening, contemporaries Dan Plesac and John Smoltz opined that Bo Jackson could have been a Hall of Famer, at least a regular All-Star, had he committed to baseball.

Jackson produced a career wRC+ of 111 and 7.7 WAR over parts of eight major-league seasons, hardly the stuff of bronzed immortalization in Cooperstown. But had Jackson fully committed to the sport, what could he have been? What could he have done?

Who is going to bet against a guy who can scale a wall?

Or accomplish this ….

The Bessemer, Ala., native was drafted by the Yankees in the second round of the 1982 draft but elected to attend Auburn. He did many impressive things at Auburn, starring in track and football, winning a Heisman Trophy. But he also posted a 1.364 OPS as a junior. He was drafted by the Royals in the fourth round of the 1986 draft after being selected first overall in the NFL draft. Jackson said publicly he would not sign with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

And he didn’t sign.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Months after being drafted by the Royals, Jackson played 25 games in the majors in 1986. In 1987, he hit 22 homers and posted a .750 OPS with the Royals. In context – Jackson played only 53 minor-league games and 89 games in college – Jackson’s rookie numbers are remarkable.

The next year, Jackson was selected again in the NFL draft – this time in the seventh round – by the Raiders, who offered him a lucrative contract. From 1987 to 1990, Jackson split his time between the majors and the NFL. A football-related injury truncated his playing career.

Jackson was the subject of that conversation on the MLB Network because his name appeared in the news last week, as he made an interesting revelation: the star of Tecmo Bowl told USA Today’s Bob Nightengale he wished he had “never played football.”

“I wish I had known about all of those head injuries, but no one knew that. And the people that did know that, they wouldn’t tell anybody.

“The game has gotten so violent, so rough. We’re so much more educated on this CTE stuff (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), there’s no way I would ever allow my kids to play football today.

“Even though I love the sport, I’d smack them in the mouth if they said they wanted to play football. I’d tell them, ‘Play baseball, basketball, soccer, golf, just anything but football.’”

Jackson is arguably the country’s greatest living athlete, certainly one of them. And perhaps at a time when many parents are questioning whether they should allow their sons to play football, Jackson’s thoughts can be influential. He could perhaps become a de facto ambassador for baseball.

Growing the game at the youth and amateur levels, making baseball more inclusive, is one of MLB commissioner Rob Manfred’s priorities. He should be applauded for identifying the issue and trying to implement change. Manfred is behind the push to unify youth, amateur and professional baseball through One Baseball. Under Manfred, baseball has launched its Play Ball initiative.

Baseball has gone from a game of the masses at the youth and amateur levels to an activity reserved for the upper middle class. This is in part due to costs of equipment, travel ball, and private instruction. Expanding the participation base is not just about attracting future players, but future customers. Those that play the sport at a youth level are more likely to continue to follow it in adulthood.

Many have noted the advantages a major-league career has over one in football: guaranteed contracts, longer careers, and lower risk of severe injury.

But reaching the majors is another thing entirely.

Amateur athletes are in part incentivized to play basketball and football because Division I baseball generally offers only partial scholarships.

Baseball is a high-skill, high-repetition sport and acquiring those reps, and necessary equipment, can be expensive and prohibitive.

Early in my writing career, about a decade ago, I was reporting on a story about the decline of African-American participation in baseball for the Myrtle Beach (S.C.) Sun News.

I traveled to Georgetown, S.C., to investigate one of the most extreme examples, locally, of the trend at Carvers Bay High School. About three-quarters of the student population of the rural school on the coastal plain remains African-American, but that spring about 80% of the varsity baseball team was white. The school had a football tradition with NFL alumni, but the baseball team’s demographics spoke to baseball’s struggles at the grassroots level to attract African-American players.

A decade later, the demographic trends remain largely stagnant. According to the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, 8.3% of players on Opening Day rosters last year were African-American. According to SABR, African-American participation in the majors peaked at 18.7% in 1981 and has generally declined since then, reaching as low a 7.1 % in 2009.

Last year Adam Jones called baseball a “a white man’s sport.”

In 2015, Andrew McCutchen wrote a piece for the Players Tribune about the challenges of playing the sport as a poor kid growing up in central Florida.

Only 2.9% of Division I baseball players in 2015 were African-American last year, according to the diversity study.

Reported Peter Gammons in his notebook last week:

“The U.S. Hockey team that last week beat Canada in the finals of the World Junior Championships had three African-American players, as many as last summer’s Team USA baseball team comprised of the best college players.”

Baseball is losing ground in all types of rural communities. Jordy Mercer’s high school in remote Taloga, Oklahoma, no longer sponsors baseball and its varsity field has become overgrown, which I reported for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in 2015. Mercer is white and from a middle-class background.

Of course, much has been written about the decline of African-American participation in the sport. What has changed in the last decade, though, is the knowledge of the dangers of participating in football, which has displaced baseball as the country’s most popular pro sport.

Baseball has its own youth participation issues according to an NFSH study of youths between 6 and 17, as baseball participation dropped 4.3% from 2009 to 2014. But tackle football participation declined 17.9%.

Bo knew football. Bo knew baseball. Bo knows what path he would choose today. But how does baseball compel the next Jackson to choose baseball?

Jackson’s words perhaps resonate with thousands of families. But if more and more parents are seeking sporting alternatives for their sons, baseball must present itself as a viable one. There’s much work to be done.





A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.

86 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hanstoneMember since 2020
9 years ago

Watched the 30 for 30 show (again) about Bo just last night. 220 pounds. Strong as an ox. Arm like the Grim Reaper and he ran the fastest 40 time ever in an NFL combine. I feel fortunate to have seen him play. We will never see anybody like him again. Thank God for baseball. Sad to say that football is a dying sport.

Joshua Miller
9 years ago
Reply to  hanstone

Funny thing about the 30 for 30 is bo and his coaches acknowledged he didn’t really have much interest in practice, a great football player and a all star caliber baseball player without practicing, it was all just natural to him.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  Joshua Miller

To be fair to those that might misunderstand, part of Bo’s lack of interest in practicing was that he did so many things, practice had a higher opportunity cost for him than it did others, especially when he was a pro dual-sport athlete.

hanstoneMember since 2020
9 years ago

Sounded to me like track was Bo’s first love, at least for a while when he also played football and baseball… He must have known very early, regardless of the sport, with little or no preparation, he could show up and expect to do well, if not dominate.

Damon G.
9 years ago
Reply to  hanstone

The fastest 40 time is probably folklore. But, yeah, he was quick.

vivalajeter
9 years ago
Reply to  Damon G.

Shouldn’t it be easy to figure out if it’s folklore or not? They should have his 40 time, to the tenth of a second. They should also have everybody else’s. Who had the lowest?

When we’re talking about how far Mickey Mantle hit a HR, that could be folklore. We don’t have exact numbers. But 40 time should be pretty exact.

Damon G.
9 years ago
Reply to  vivalajeter

The NFL Combine was not as formal as it is today back when Bo played, so its official records don’t go back that far.

Supposedly Bo ran his record-breaking 40 for some NFL scouts before track practice. He claims it was all legit, but it’s not part of any official record. In fact, based on Bo’s top times in official track and field events there is reason to be very skeptical of his claim.

The fastest official 40 time of the NFL Scouting Combine is Chris Johnson who ran 4.24 is 2006. However, there have been players who might have run faster for scouts in regional combines and pro days.

vivalajeter
9 years ago
Reply to  Damon G.

Interesting, thanks for the clarification! (to you, as well as SpencerLB below).

SpencerLBMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  vivalajeter

The issue with the 4.12 record is that at the time of Jackson’s combine, the 40 was still timed by hand, which is pretty imprecise. His other 40 at the time was logged as 4.22, which is still BLAZING, but a tenth of a second is a relatively gigantic spread for one person’s 40s done at the same event. When you look at the athletes at the combine now and the 40s they post, a 4.12 from a 220lb guy, even one who’s undeniably a generational athlete, WITH the imprecise timing and the giant spread between that and his other time from that day, casts a lot of doubt on how true the 4.12 is. What is definitely true is this: he was fast as all get-out.

hanstoneMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  Damon G.

Check this out! Bo on his actual 40 time. He says 4.13 recorded electronically. http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=14869826

mtsw
9 years ago

Adam Jones went to Patterson Park in Baltimore to visit a local youth baseball team in 2014 and donate money to them. http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/blog/bal-orioles-adam-jones-surprises-two-local-sports-teams-at-patterson-park-20140624-story.html Quoted from the article:

“When I was 5 to 16 or 17 [years old], everything was free or a very low cost,” Jones said. “Nowadays it’s $100 or more for the summer. Programs like this give the kids an opportunity.”

Youth baseball is rapidly becoming a sport for wealthy families only. As local governments and civic organizations are increasingly strapped for cash or uninterested in subsidizing recreation as a public good, the parents of the players are expected to pick up the cost. That excludes a lot of poor kids and a lot of rural areas where there’s not enough rich kids to field a team.

And that’s recreational leagues. Most college and pro talent from the USA comes out of the elite youth program industrial complex that’s emerged over the last 30 years which is extremely expensive to participate in.

If MLB wants baseball to thrive in the next 20 years, they’d spend more time pressuring the government to fund and maintain baseball fields and youth sports programs and less for fancy new major league ballparks with more luxury boxes.

Slappytheclown
9 years ago
Reply to  mtsw

I have to totally agree with this. You don’ t need a lot of equipment with baseball, just bats every 2-3 years or as needed, maybe some fungo bats which last forever, cleats, and most importantly gloves. And of course, a field in decent condition. If MLB wants to grow the sport they should invest more in youth baseball everywhere NOW, and also invest in technology to help leagues and/or groups organize. Why isn’t there an App to find a baseball game to participate in? Like, hey, meet me at the park in 30? Get people to sign up for email alerts to local pickup games? I don’t know, just seems like more could be done.

jianadaren
9 years ago
Reply to  Slappytheclown

The experience in the Dominican Republic is that you don’t really need any money really to play baseball.

For grassroots baseball to become more accessible, it may be best to simply make it less formal: why need cleats? gloves and bats can be shared (and in the case of gloves, occasionally foregone).

People play pickup football all the time with naught but a ball and a lawn. Baseball can be almost as simple.

kenai kings
9 years ago
Reply to  jianadaren

Yes. the important basic skills can be learned by simple playground sport. A tennis ball, a broom stick and two bases… with gloveless ‘fielders’. This is where the love for the game originates. And how can one argue that football is less expensive?… those helmets alone. The difference is the community support via $$… and I predict this will change.

CCSAGE
9 years ago
Reply to  jianadaren

Exactly. So by the author’s reckoning, the people of the DR must be wealthy since many of the kids there play baseball…which is obviously not the case. Baseball is ingrained in the culture in the DR, so they figure out a way to play with the resources they have. By extension, I would argue that the primary reason that inner-city kids here in the US don’t play is not financial, it’s cultural. They grab a ball and shoot hoops, it’s just what the kids do. They could just as easily play stick-ball on the basketball court, but it’s not in their consciousness.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  mtsw

I don’t know if baseball has the foresight to prioritize ensuring American youth participation instead of continuing to acquire talent from Latin America that requires less resources to develop.

It’s too bad, too, because baseball’s audience is old as hell, and it has an appeal with millennials that is disproportionate to its status in the hierarchy of major pro leagues.

I don’t know if they understand that investing millions more that will not be missed in fields, equipment, and competition for American youth participation will pay off immensely if generations of kids grow up playing baseball and wanting to be like the guys they see on TV and in stadiums across America.

DavidBowser
9 years ago
Reply to  mtsw

I live in a rural farming part of NJ that is mostly middle class with a good dose of rich folks in McMansions. I was shocked to find out the local little league baseball had fees of $100+, and that it is not even run by the town. My girls played softball, but quit as soon as the pressure from coaches to join the travel leagues started. All they wanted was to have fun with their friends and play. I was told by other parents that baseball is just as bad with parents and coaches pushing kids to join travel teams if they are good. My boys have thus far preferred soccer despite my teaching them with a tee in the back yard.

mtsw
9 years ago
Reply to  DavidBowser

The trend of having younger and younger kids compete in high-stakes, full-time travel circuits also seems very bad but I’m less sure about how the league could address that.

In some ways though, it’s what you’d predict would happen when the former public goods-model of kids sports collapsed. A for-profit program system where instead of a level playing field, it’s designed around the needs of the wealthiest (and therefore most profitable) kids.

Stuff like outrageous travel, coaching and equipment expenses end up being a feature, not a bug in this system, as they give a systematic advantage to wealthy kids in progressing in the sport, and a leg up for them in obtaining scholarships.

scooter262
9 years ago
Reply to  mtsw

All good points, and I would add one: Travis mentions college scholarships. MLB or its teams should sponsor a whole bunch of college scholarships. True, you need to get more youth involved first. But if an inner city or poor kid can get a full ride on a football scholarship but not for baseball, the choice is easy–despite the added risk of injury that comes with playing football.

CheeseballMember since 2016
9 years ago

Personally I find football a macabre sport to watch: a bunch of young black men with brain damage giving each other more brain damage while healthy, mostly white people egg them on. Ugh. Even in high school, more than half of the kids playing have significant brain damage. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-foodball-head-trauma-idUSKCN0S12AT20151007

SteveM
9 years ago

This piece addresses many far more important issues than this one, but I take issue with the comment that Bo Jackson is “arguably” the country’s greatest living athlete. Can anyone tell me who else might be in this argument? Bo Jackson may be America’s greatest athlete ever, living or otherwise, and I think he is clearly the greatest professional athlete, with nobody in second place. Looking at his vast array of talents and abilities in quite different sports, he is very much in a class by himself.

BubbaMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

It’s a hard thing to define. Lebron maybe? Whichever dude is the best decathlon guy?

obsessivegiantscompulsive
9 years ago
Reply to  Bubba

Plus how about the best decathlon athlete, perhaps ever: Caitlyn Jenner (when she was Bruce Jenner).

Warning Track Power
9 years ago

If late 80s Bo trains to be a decathlete, he wins Olympic gold.

JDX
9 years ago
Reply to  Bubba

I gotta think LeBron would have been an amazing football or baseball player, also, if he’d gone down that path. Maybe too tall for a position player, though.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  Bubba

I don’t think LeBron can hit but Bo famously said he was awful at basketball.

However, LeBron is a great all-around athlete. If he had decided to play football instead of basketball I have no doubt he’d be a HoF player.

Some guys’ athleticism and skills (in addition to their hard work) are just too much to prevent them from being elite.

kenai kings
9 years ago

“Some guys athleticism and skills [and desire]… are just too much” All the other factors toward success fall aside if the desire is not there.
Kirby Puckett comes to mind. It was only by his desire to play ball and practice his craft that he made it beyond the streets of South Side Chicago. Countless other stories fill the sports pages and inspire youngsters toward their dreams of success. Men, like Bo; and women, like Nadia Comaneci I’m thinking.

mtsw
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

I think you could throw LeBron James and Randy Moss into the argument. Both guys were among the best ever in their sports and good enough to play in the NBA and NFL simultaneously if the seasons didn’t overlap.

James was an all-state football player as a HS junior in Ohio and Moss was supposedly the best player on his HS basketball team that included future NBA player Jason Williams. Moss was a star baseball player in HS too.

dlowie
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

What about Jim Brown? Pretty sure he’s still alive, and while I know very little about the sport, at one time I believe he was regarded as perhaps the greatest lacrosse player ever, as well as in the conversation for best NFL player (or at least running back) too.

JimMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

At a Rays’ game a few years ago I was sitting behind home plate and asked a scout, “Who is the most talented player you have ever seen? Not the best, the most talented.” He thought for a moment, then responded, “Bo Jackson.”

chuckbMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

You could make an argument for a lot of people — Michael Jordan and Michael Phelps, to name just 2. Dave Winfield was all-Big 10 in 3 different sports at Minnesota and was drafted for at least 2, maybe all 3. Bo Jackson was tremendous, but he’s not clearly the best athlete with no room for debate.

JDX
9 years ago
Reply to  chuckb

Being good at a sport and being an athlete aren’t the same thing. I don’t think someone like Winfield was in the same class as Jackson from a pure speed+power perspective…and that is generally how scouts define ‘athleticism.’ Someone like Phelps is too specialized… he’s like an Ethiopian marathon runner. Their version of athleticism wouldn’t translate to the 3 major sports.

chuckbMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  JDX

Winfield was a tight end in football and played basketball and baseball. He stole bases. He hit for power. He had a tremendous arm from RF. He had tons of speed and power.

And it takes tremendous athleticism to excel as Phelps has, in short and long distances and in all the different strokes. I neglected to mention both Usain Bolt and Carl Lewis, 2 spectacular athletes.

It’s certainly not clear cut in Bo’s favor, and I’ve always been a huge Bo Jackson fan.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  chuckb

I don’t put Phelps in that category. I’ve seen no indication that Phelps is good at anything other than swimming. He has–even for a swimmer–an atypical body suited for swimming, with a long torso and relatively short legs for his height.

Boxkutter
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

What about Dave Winfield? He was drafted by four different teams in three different sports. Drafted as a pitcher, he ended up a hitter. But he was also drafted into the NBA and ABA, and he was also drafted by the Vikings even though he didn’t even play college football.

Boxkutter
9 years ago

Isn’t it amazing how many things in this country started going downhill once Trickle Down Economics became the norm? The only thing that has trickled down is poverty, and it’s pooling up at the bottom.

JimmieFoXX
9 years ago
Reply to  Boxkutter

Yes sir, and you will get nothing but a red box under your post here. This group are a collection of enemies of the people. MLB teams are owned by the same kind.

Ukranian to Vietnamese to French is back
9 years ago
Reply to  JimmieFoXX

Well, Mr. President, and you get nothing but the red box below your article here. This group has a collection of enemies of the people. MLB teams are owned by the same.

JimmieFoXX
9 years ago

“This is in part due to….”

The theft of the overwhelming majority of the wealth in the USA by a small group at the top geographically located in the northeast and California.

Jack Ma just addressed this issue as has Trump during his campaign.

chuckbMember since 2016
9 years ago

Tremendous article, Travis…as usual.

frangipardMember since 2026
9 years ago

“According to the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, 8.3% of players on Opening Day rosters last year were African-American.”

African-Americans are 13% of the general population, so that’s not some wildly out-of-whack number, especially when something like 1/3 of the players in MLB aren’t Americans at all, and moreover when one considers that African-Americans are overrepresented statistically in football and basketball. Not every statistical variation is due to some malign social dynamic.

“Baseball is a high-skill, high-repetition sport and acquiring those reps, and necessary equipment, can be expensive and prohibitive.”

True, and also explains why it’s a deeper problem than just funding. Even if a magical sky fairy were to supply an infinite number of balls, bats, gloves and cleats, baseball would still be fairly labor- and time-intensive game compared to soccer/basketball/football.

Baseball also simply requires a lot more players and a lot more space. Three-on-three is viable for basketball and soccer; you can get together a passable two-hand-touch football game with four or five to a side, and all of those can be played in backyard. There’s no way to play anything like baseball without a minimum of seven or so guys to a side and a big sandlot.

Baseball has some big structural disadvantages in making itself viable to urban & poor kids.

“Only 2.9% of Division I baseball players in 2015 were African-American last year, according to the diversity study.”

Title IX (and the NCAAs implementation of it), are a huge part of the problem here. The money that could go baseball scholarships for poor black boys is instead going into field hockey, softball and volleyball scholarships for upper-middle-class girls.

JimmieFoXX
9 years ago
Reply to  frangipard

Take your racial bulls…. and shove it up your hole.

JDX
9 years ago
Reply to  JimmieFoXX

Nothing he said was even close to racist…

Ukranian to Vietnamese to French is back
9 years ago
Reply to  JDX

Inventoried racists … and pushes it into the hole.

kenai kings
9 years ago
Reply to  JDX

True. just ignorant… of a lot.

Psychic... Powerless...
9 years ago
Reply to  JimmieFoXX

JimmieFoXX: I’ve had the misfortune of reading many of your comments over the past couple days, and they range from ignorant and troll-like to sick and hateful. (“55% of voters are human garbage.”) Please get help.

FanGraphs: I’m a paying customer, and this individual is detracting from the FG experience for me and many others. Please ban him or her.

vmx
9 years ago
Reply to  frangipard

Title IX has not affected black participation in the NBA or the NFL despite supposedly taking money from poor black boys so they can’t become pro athletes. Does Title IX mandate that only baseball scholarships are forcibly taken from poor black boys? You might want to elaborate your rationale.

frangipardMember since 2026
9 years ago
Reply to  vmx

Title IX mandates equal treatment hi and opportunity. The NCAA has interpreted that to mean roughly equal amounts of money spent on men’s and women’s sports. (This is not the only possible interpretation, but it is the one that best guarantees schools don’t get sued).

Since schools obviously aren’t going to mess with the high-profile football and men’s basketball programs (which generate revenue, and sometimes even a profit), the result has been generous funding — including scholarships — for women’s sports, and drastic cuts of non-revenue men’s sports. This is a widely-reported story, go look it up. For that matter, look at the athletic department website of any D1 football school you want, and count the number of men’s vs. women’s teams.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  frangipard

Title IX does have some unintended and unfortunate effects on boys’ and men’s sports, but you have not demonstrated a particular detriment to “poor black boys” as vmx questioned in his response, and which you completely ignore in yours, instead parroting the same points regarding what most would admit are unfortunate aspects of Title IX, which on the whole has done more good than harm.

I’m not a parent and I’m not a woman, but I’d rather live in a world there are a bit fewer opportunities to play sports and receive scholarships for my son than almost none for my daughter.

frangipardMember since 2026
9 years ago

I offered no opinion about Title IX in general. As you say it has done both good and harm; men’s non-revenue sports fall under the “harm” category.

clance
9 years ago

I think all frangipard meant was that there are fewer poor baseball players because why do that when you can get a full scholarship in basketball or football. And since the poverty rate is higher for African Americans it has a larger effect on their participation in the sport.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  clance

And yet again, that demonstrates harm to baseball, not to poor athletes, certainly not “poor black boys”.

If the scholarships went away from sports that had support and popularity in areas where there are “poor black boys”–like football and basketball–in favor of scholarships for sports that have almost no participation by “poor black boys” (or by poor boys of any color), like say, equestrian and water polo, then he’d have a point. But he can’t demonstrate that point. Which is why he has received the responses he has received.

dannm
9 years ago
Reply to  frangipard

I think a more reasonable approach than touching Title IX rules would be to further limit the max number of football scholarships to ~50 from the current 85 for DI FBS schools and 63 for DI FCS schools. That would open up 13-35 men’s scholarships without affecting women’s sports, which I’d argue are a net good. Increase baseball from 9-12 up to maybe 15. NCAA already allows scholarships to be split between players. So this change could up the allocation to non-football athletes and force football programs to split (or approach a stars and scrubs roster construction).

frangipardMember since 2026
9 years ago
Reply to  dannm

Yeah, but that would require caring more about their student athletes then their chances of making a bowl game. Not gonna happen.

obsessivegiantscompulsive
9 years ago
Reply to  frangipard

Regarding the number of players necessary, I would offer some examples from my youth that this wasn’t entirely true.

In my neighborhood, we would play with around a handful of players on each side, in the street. Often the offense would play pitcher, catcher, and, of course, batter. We had a 1B, of course, SS/MI, plus at least a CF, but usually two OF, then maybe a 3B if we got enough people.

When I played in SF, at the North Beach playground, they had a huge wall with strike zones painted on it, so you got your defense with pitcher and fielders, generally an infielder and outfielder, and we generally knew what were outs (anything the infielder got to or outfielders caught), and could judge whether single, double, or homer. This is findable in urban surroundings, at least in SF, but not so much, in my experience, in suburban areas.

Today, there are baseball fields easily found, I have found, so with combinations like my first example above, it is a matter of connecting the people who want to play. A baseball app makes sense except that pedophiles could find a way to use it to lure players to places, so that is a hurdle to establishing such an app. I would think that baseball would have to work with each school district in distributing the app and having each local PE teacher assist in coordinating players, plus work with each local youth league (Little, PONY, Babe Ruth, Connie Mack, etc.) so that those players can find each other when they just want to play.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  frangipard

The reference to Title IX is quite glib. The effect on scholarships would affect all males, not just “poor black boys”.

frangipardMember since 2026
9 years ago

The article mentions the fact that most college baseball scholarships are only partial. Middle class families are a lot better position to help pick up the slack, whereas for many poor kids it’s either a free ride or no college. To the extent poverty correlates with race, then, it will disproportionately affect black kids.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  frangipard

You describe an issue with scholarships for baseball, not scholarships for “poor black boys”. You have not and can not demonstrate how baseball being out of favor for full scholarships in favor of basketball and football harms or even disproportionately harms black kids. You know what it harms? *Baseball*.

frangipardMember since 2026
9 years ago

1) There are fewer full-ride baseball scholarships
2) Basketball and football do offer full rides
3) Poor kids are more likely to need full rides
4) African-Americans are disproportionately poor
5) Ergo, some black athletes that might have benefitted from college baseball scholarships either get steered toward other sports or else just miss out on the opportunity of college.
6) This is bad for those athletes AND bad for baseball.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  frangipard

1) you have not demonstrated that there are fewer full-ride scholarships overall for “poor black boys”.
2) Those sports are popular and generate revenue for universities fielding teams in top conferences.
3) Indeed.
4) Indeed.
5) Except that their participation in baseball is down and they tend to play the sports that do offer full scholarship rides–basketball and football. Your point is no more insightful because you can’t actually demonstrate that anything has occurred other than the chairs on the deck being shuffled.

While it may be true that such a characterization is inaccurate, you haven’t demonstrated it, except to say that boys have been harmed a bit by the increased opportunities for girls. This is problematic for several reasons.

a) Schools do not have unlimited resources for programs and scholarships. Once it become law and policy to support girls’ programs, it was inevitable that there would be some losses for boys. Except that unless you argue that boys somehow deserve scholarships and the opportunity to participate more than girls, this point lacks value. One only then can compare the situation for scholarships and programs *overall*–for both boys and girls–to the prior situation. You must then demonstrate that it is not improved *overall*. You haven’t.

b) You further need to demonstrate that “poor black girls”, as I suppose you would characterize them, do not benefit from the increase opportunities due to adherence to Title IX. You can’t, because they have.

6) It is harmful to athletes whom are only good at baseball and nothing else, as well as harmful to baseball, however your points only make sense if we

a) Prioritize baseball athletes as more worthy of athlethic scholarships than other athletes.

b) Prioritize male athletes over female athletes.

c) Prioritize athletes based upon ability to pay.

Dismissing a) and b) is easy for most of us. Dismissing c) is simple as well; schools primarily use athletic scholarships as a means to acquire the best athletes.

In the end your point rings hollow, and can be summarized as demonstrating a bias for baseball, for males, and for poor athletes–especially black ones–when the primary function (though not necessarily the primary purpose) of scholarships are to stock teams with the best available talent.

kenai kings
9 years ago
Reply to  frangipard

I take it you haven’t played stick ball… in the street between cars coming along “Car!” and/or stoop ball, whiffle ball and the various permutations. And I’d argue perfecting the play of basketball takes many hours of reps. Oh, and put the blame in part on Title IX implimentation… many of those girls I submit do not fall under the “upper middle class girls” label. Where have you been while womens basketball has gained so much of a following?

frangipardMember since 2026
9 years ago
Reply to  kenai kings

Just about nobody has played stickball since 1968.

brood550
9 years ago

Still wishing Bo would’ve given up his fall hobby. In the 30 for 30 he said he was a baseball player that and played football as a hobby.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  brood550

I coulda sworn I remember him saying years ago (or read in his autobiography) that he loved football and baseball was the hobby.

But I haven’t read that book in 25 years, and I haven’t seen the 30 for 30 in a couple, so I guess I’m misremembering.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  brood550

Yep. Misremembered. Thanks, brood550.

obsessivegiantscompulsive
9 years ago

Great article, really enjoyed it. I’ve been worried about the future of baseball as a sport, for the point made about how players tend to be fans of the sport. Less players = less fans, and it just spirals downward.

I saw firsthand how hard it is to cultivate a good player. My son participated in PONY League, and while he was a good player, to become a top player he would need to continue playing in the summer, plus join a travelling team, like I saw for all the players who were better than he was. While I would have done that for him, had he had my passion for baseball, he eventually chose to quit once he reached middle school, to focus on school. Still, I saw the burden of doing that, not just the money for everything, but the time spent/invested in driving him around. Huge time commitment that I saw as I helped out the main coaches at practices plus was the scorekeeper at games.

I agree that the MLB should invest more in helping the poorer players get the opportunity, but with so many players available for low cost in Latin America, I just don’t see them doing that. The fans will still pay to see MLB baseball as long as there are skilled players, whether they are American or not.

I recall that there was a program, RBI if I recall right, that was supposed to help, but I haven’t heard much about it in recent years. The SF Giants have sponsored a youth program to help disadvantaged youths get to play baseball, and they get donations via junk cars to help pay for the program. They have been doing it for decades now, Vida Blue when he was doing the pitch would ask people to donate their cars to help out (today it’s Kuiper, after Vida fell off the wagon again). I have no idea how successful it has been, or even if they keep any stats, but at least a team is doing something about it.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago

Good article.

I want to focus on the “What If…Bo?” part.

Bo was my favorite as a kid. I even abandoned my hometown Yankees for a time to become a Royals (and then White Sox) fan because I was a young enough kid to care more about the players than the laundry (and this is why I am not a fan of other New York sports teams–I became a fan of the team of my favorite players).

The biggest thing people just do not understand about Bo when they disagree with others when they say, “Bo woulda been a Hall of Famer in either sport if he has played it and it alone and never suffered a career-ending injury [that did not immediately end his career],” is that Bo did not get to do any of the things that other MLB (or NFL) players get to do–he didn’t get to rest because his offseason was the brief few weeks between the end of football and the beginning of spring training. He was a professional athlete over 300 days a year. He didn’t get a good opportunity to work on his mechanics, his routes, his footwork, his running, into getting into shaping his body into the optimal baseball body.

And in looking at his stats, including the absence of anything resembling minor league seasoning or a typical amount of playing time in college, he still managed to begin to increase his average, cut down on the strikeouts, begin to increase his walk rate, and increase his AB:HR.

By rWAR, he goes from being just a guy out there on the field, to a guy who is average in the several facts of the game, to above-average/all-star caliber above-average player before injury “ended” his career. And then after his career was “over” he came back to play a bit as a nearly average player even though rightfully *no one* plays anything professionally after the injury he suffered.

Is there anyone out there who really believes that a peak Bo who was singularly dedicated to baseball couldn’t blast his way to a Royals/Kauffman HR record while swiping 40 bags, and do it without having to use up a lot of outs?

Thinking about it now, especially given the HoF election results, I think the Bo we were robbed of in this universe would be what most people think Vlad was–a five-tool player who translated that into being an all-around player–when Vlad actually muffed the ball/had an errant throw lead to a baserunner grabbing an extra base too often to be a true plus fielder (by the metrics, at least), and Vlad wasn’t actually the plus baserunner he has the reputation of being. But I think the Bo that doesn’t love football and never takes a snap after high school, I think that Bo has a really good shot of being to Vlad as Rickey was to Raines.

jusparker
9 years ago

I think a Bo Jackson who goes straight into baseball from high school is the original Mike Trout or better

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  jusparker

An insane comparison, and yet I agree. The football player’s build for a baseball player, the speed, the way they swing the bat at low pitches…

Either way, no one is ever going to convince me that baseball-only Bo doesn’t end up in Cooperstown.

John Autin
9 years ago

Travis is having a Dick Allen-class “rookie” year at Fangraphs. This is a great and necessary column.

Now, let’s quibble about Bo:

The chosen videos are an irrelevant distraction, showing athletic abilities not needed in baseball. And that’s the general problem with dreaming on Bo’s baseball ceiling — or that of Jim Thorpe, Michael Jordan, or any other world-class athlete who decided late to give baseball a try: Eye-popping athletic gifts are less valuable in baseball than any other major sport.

I don’t know how much baseball Bo played as a boy, but I’ll guess not much, because his record shows no sign of great hand-eye coordination. In MLB, he struck out more often than any regular up to that time — 32% of career PAs, with Rob Deer 2nd at 30% — and he made little improvement over the years. In the field, he made lots of errors. In the NFL, he averaged one catch per game.

No one becomes a great baseball player without great hand-eye coordination. Had Bo played much more baseball at a very young age — well before high school — he might have developed that skill. But we’ll never know how much. Many have tried harder and longer, and still failed.

Speed has value, of course. But except for a handful, great players’ batting and/or fielding value dwarfs their speed value. And there’s no one of Bo’s size among the top 20 in career baserunning value.

Strength is good — if it’s coupled with sufficient contact ability. You can’t crush what you don’t touch.

Bo’s potential to become a great baseball player was inextricably tied to a skill that we can only guess that he might have ever developed to the necessary level.

To me, the potential that’s being lost to MLB — as youth baseball grows more costly and demanding, as college opportunities for the working class dwindle — isn’t really about the Bo-class athletes choosing other sports, but the potential Henry Aarons who just don’t choose to play baseball.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

You didn’t look at the improvements he made as a hitter year-by-year.

“In MLB, he struck out more often than any regular up to that time — 32% of career PAs, with Rob Deer 2nd at 30% — and he made little improvement over the years.”

Before his injury: 37.4% -> 36.4% -> 31.2% -> 30.7% -> 28.1%. He clearly demonstrated improvement.

As for making a lot of errors, Bo didn’t get to work on his baseball skills like others did, nor did he get have an opportunity to have an “optimal” baseball body, which probably would have been to be somewhat less of the bodybuilding he-man that suited his football career. And even if that isn’t persuasive, while by rWAR he rates as -6 in limited time his first year and -8 his second, he’s a combined -7 the rest of his non-injury career, including a -3 in 1990 when he played more CF than LF.

“And there’s no one of Bo’s size among the top 20 in career baserunning value.”

There’s no one who looks like Bo in the history of baseball. Guys like Trout and Puig are the nearest analogues, and of the two I’d give the nod to Trout, because he more than Puig looks and moves like a football player (to me–you may disagree) that wandered into a baseball locker room and stole a uniform.

“Bo’s potential to become a great baseball player was inextricably tied to a skill that we can only guess that he might have ever developed to the necessary level.”

That’s why it’s a what if.

JA, when did you turn into an old man yelling, “get off my lawn!”?

P.S. I understand the assertion in your last sentence but I disagree for two reasons: first, as I stated above, I don’t think you really understand the appropriate context of a Bo “what if?”, nor give him fair credit for his improvements, nor sufficiently recognize his handicaps compared to other players. Secondly, it’s not just that baseball is losing participants because of cost and lack of opportunity–it absolutely is that baseball has lost participants to other sports even where the opportunity to play baseball exists. Missing out on the Bo Jacksons is just as important as missing out on the Hank Aarons.

John Autin
9 years ago

Power, you’ve made some good counterpoints. I did understate the K% improvement. Your best point, I think, is that “there’s no one who looks like Bo in the history of baseball.” And in the same vein, I’ll add that no one before him had an OPS+ over 120 in a year with a 30% K rate, and just two had a year of 140 OPS+ with a 28% K rate. Whether he could maintain or even build on that is a question I won’t now belabor with my biases. I must at least admit that he was exceptional in many ways.

As to my crankiness, I don’t apologize for impatience over the popular fascination with abstract athletic ability in a sport whose essence is precision, and with the excess attention paid to “feats of strength.” That’s not against Bo, or Puig, or any player — they can stay on my lawn — but against those who overrate those players. Seeing Bo break the bat on his head was fun a few times, way back then, but that it’s become an icon just seems silly. And I was this way long before I got old.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

BO FOREVER, JA.

It’s not just skill that matters in our game of entertainment–spectacle matters too. Bo, if nothing else, embodied spectacle. We don’t remember Bo for his monster seasons, or his great longevity or consistency, or his grand postseason triumph. We remember him tomahawking a Rich Reuschel pitch to lead off the All-Star game. We remember him breaking bats. We remember him running up the outfield wall. We remember him gunning down Harold Reynolds from the warning track.

It may not be something that warrants the highest praise–Bo is no threat to Hank Aaron–but it is something we need.

Try having a conversation about Mike Trout with someone who doesn’t follow baseball, or is just a casual fan, who tunes into their team a few times a year. Try telling them about how great Trout is in the grand scheme of baseball history, that he is a Mantle or a Mays. That’s a difficult conversation.

But what Bo was and what Bo could have maybe perhaps sorta been if? You can have that conversation with lots of folks. A quarter-century later you can have a conversation (if brief) with casuals who don’t follow sport at all but remember the hype as well as with hardcore fans who were paying attention to baseball and football 25-30 years ago.

Yeah, Bo was hyped and overexposed, but he was also a fascinating spectacle, one whom inspired awe in his peers, in writers and fans, in us all. (Well, most of us.)

I know you’ve seen “Baseball”, so I know you remember Buck O’Neil talking about hearing the ball crack off the bat of Ruth, and then Gibson, and then not hearing that sound for decades, until he heard it crack off the bat of Bo. That matters. That’s the stuff of legends.

And Bo is a legend. Does he have baseball stats that divorced his narrative inspire much of anything? Of course not. But legends are never the sum of their stats. Legends have in their favor the aura of mythology, and leave in the memories of observers the remnants of brilliance and/or spectacle. If we’re lucky, it is preserved in some form.

It’s like the case of Mark Fidrych. He had a great season. But it’s easy to look at his stats and see that it’s more likely than not that he was just a guy having an awesome run who–statistically, at least–was likely to be maybe an above-average pitcher if he could continue to generate a lot of grounders and weak contact; he certainly wasn’t missing bats. But Mark Fidrych isn’t preserved in our memory because we feel like one of the greatest pitchers of all time get taken out of the game too soon. He’s there because he was an amazing and awesome spectacle.

He remains a legend, remembered whilst other one-season stars are forgotten, forever relegated to being a hyperlinked name in someone else’s Wikipedia entry, to being one of tens of thousands of names in a comprehensive baseball almanac.

The spectacles matter. The legends matter. And they’re not always such because they were great. Sometimes they’re that because they were greatly entertaining, and awe-inspiring, and sometimes because we wonder what parallel universe out there got the fullest of what they could be, instead of the glimpse or tease to which we were limited.

kenai kings
9 years ago

Well said. thinking one-season stars… Joe Charboneau. He couldn’t carry Bo’s jock strap(as we used to say)!

John Autin
9 years ago

I enjoy your passion!

But don’t get me started on the canard of Fidrych’s “fluke” season — I can give you 5,000 words without batting an eye. 🙂

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Exactly. I fully believe Fidrych was a fluke as well.

But he was an amazing fluke. An entertaining one. And that is his legacy (in addition to apparently being an actual wonderful guy in his community).

After my last response to you I was thinking I know why a “What If?” for someone like Bo doesn’t strike you as well.

If I recall correctly, you’re a Mets fan (and a Tigers fan?) As a Mets fan, your imagination gravitates toward The Darkest Timeline. I don’t know when you started watching, but I gather you saw the ascension of the mid-80s Mets, and their failure to capitalize on what should have been a dynastic run. You saw The Worst Team Money Could Buy. You saw Saberhagen finally break his odd-even brilliance/mediocrity streak by just being mediocre and injured every year. You saw grown men with a childish affinity for firecrackers and little concern for the safety of fans. You saw HoFs and overrated corner men playing cards in the clubhouse during a playoff game. You saw a manager stand by sputtering platitudes while the team folded like a card table in consecutive playoff chases. You saw a good core that was this close crumble into dust almost a decade ago after the injury bug became pandemic in Queens. You saw a team run into outs at third approximately 9000 times in one season. You finally saw your team get off the schneid and get their first no-hitter while it was also maybe the thing that ended the career of a coulda-been HoF. You saw a former wannabe starter formerly heralded as part of the future before the future showed up in Harvey, Syndergaard, et al, go from solid bullpen arm to banished for life in 10 months.

How could you imagine a guy like Bo having a great career if he had ignored football? He was hyped and overexposed and then he got injured and that was the end of that. Probably seems like the appropriate reality for a Mets fan.

P.S. If I misremembered and you’re not a Mets fan, pretend like you are; paint a bullseye on the wall where my arrow landed.

kenai kings
9 years ago

I loved Buck O”Neal’s reference to Bo Jackson.
Some thing to the affect…”heard that sound twice, of that ball meeting bat, first was Josh Gibson. Then years later, Bo Jackson” Then he smiles and shakes his head, “man”.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  kenai kings

“I heard Ruth hit the ball. I’d never heard that sound before, and I was outside the fence but it was the sound of the bat that I had never heard before in my life. And the next time I heard that sound, I’m in Washington, D.C., in the dressing room and I heard that sound of a bat hitting the ball — sounded just like when Ruth hit the ball. I rushed out, got on nothing but a jockstrap, I rushed out — we were playing the Homestead Grays and it was Josh Gibson hitting the ball. And so I heard this sound again.

Now I didn’t hear it anymore. I’m in Kansas City. I’m working for the Cubs at the time, and I was upstairs and I was coming down for the batting practice. And before I could get out there I heard this sound one more time that I had heard only twice in my life. Now, you know who this is? Bo Jackson. Bo Jackson swinging that bat. And now I heard this sound… And it was just a thrill for me. I said, here it is again. I heard it again. I only heard it three times in my life.

But now, I’m living because I’m going to hear it again one day, if I live long enough.”

Boxkutter
9 years ago

Buck was such a great ambassador for the game!

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  Boxkutter

Buck was great.

It’s a shame that the Hall so often fails to immortalize and honor guys until after they die. The honor that they gave Buck was immense, but it would have been awesome to give it to him while we still had him, so we could maybe hear him talk about his life in baseball once more, on the grandest stage.

chuckbMember since 2016
9 years ago

One thing that isn’t specifically related to this article but is an interesting tangent is that, right around the time Bo was excelling at 2 sports, 2 more tremendous athletes were essentially trying to do the same thing. Brian Jordan and Deion Sanders were spectacular athletes in their own right and very good in both sports as well.

Warning Track Power
9 years ago
Reply to  chuckb

Yeah, it was a special era.

Deion is the one that hit the ball that ended up being an inside-the-park homerun when Bo dived for it and injured his shoulder in the game that Bo hit three homers in three PAs at Yankee Stadium.

Then Bo went on the DL for 28 days. Came back, hit a homer first PA, tied the record.

Boxkutter
9 years ago

I remember reading about Bo’s unconventional four straight homers somewhere before. Maybe the back of a baseball card, but I can’t say for sure.

Boxkutter
9 years ago
Reply to  chuckb

And as someone else pointed out above, there was another athlete in the 80s and 90s who should be mentioned: Carl Lewis.