- Email: [email protected]
Racism, racism everywhere: looking inside the hobby of baseball card collecting☆
Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
Racism, racism everywhere: looking inside the hobby of baseball card collecting夞 Robert Regoli Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0327, USA
Abstract Research examining the relationship between race and baseball card values has found the cards of Black players are less valuable than cards of White players. Unfortunately existing studies have not assessed whether the significance of race on baseball card values has changed over time. This study examines the importance of race and other salient factors on the value of baseball cards for Black and White members of the Hall of Fame for a 20 year period. The principal finding of the research is collectors have developed different systems for assigning value to cards– one for Black players and one for White players. The implications of this finding for maintaining a racist ideology in the United States are discussed. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The United States is a racist society. Racism is systemic across its social institutions and is structured into all aspects of everyday life. People are born, live, and die in a racist society. A racist ideology permeates the American culture. It has been the foundation for a long history of White-on-Black oppression that has produced many consequences, including anger, frustration, pain, and stress for Blacks (Feagin, 2000). Racism is manifested in different ways. Sometimes it is blatant and grotesque. The 1998 killing in Jasper, Texas of 49 year-old, James Byrd, Jr., a disabled, Black, by three White men who “chained him to their truck by his ankles and dragged him along until his body lay in bloody pieces on the road” is a recent, horrifying example (McGraw, 1998:24). More often
夞 Partial funding for this study was provided by the Council on Research and Creative Work at the University of Colorado. * Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹1-303-492-7088; fax: ⫹1-303-492-8878. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Regoli). 1090-9524/00/$ – see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 9 0 - 9 5 2 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 8 - 6
184
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
though racism is expressed in subtle ways. While covert racism does not attract media attention it does facilitate systemic racism by chronically reproducing inequality in all venues of social life. Perhaps even more so than overt racism, racism that is subtly expressed ultimately determines who people marry, gets the best medical care, lives the longest lives, attends the finest public schools, gains admission to and graduates from the most prestigious colleges and universities, and works in the best jobs (Feagin, 2000). Its subtle nature makes secret racism very difficult to document. Yet it takes place whenever judgments are made about who people are in relation to each other on the basis of their skin color. It occurs daily on countless occasions. It happens, for example, in the work place, in the classroom, at fitness clubs, in auto repair shops, and at grocery stores. It also takes place in the hobby of baseball card collecting. Baseball card collecting had an auspicious beginning. In the late nineteenth century tobacco entrepreneurs inserted a small piece of cardboard bearing a photo of a baseball player into the back of cigarette packages to stiffen them to prevent damage during shipping (Lipset, 1983). Consumers were so fascinated by the cardboard photos that smokers and nonsmokers alike bought “extra” packs in order to try and compile a complete set of cards. As tobacco sales soared throughout the century, there was a corresponding widespread interest in the cardboard pictures. As people started to accumulate and trade them, the hobby of baseball card collecting was born. In the early years, baseball cards were gimmicks used to sell other products, such as cigarettes, cookies, taffy, and chewing gum. Cards were “giveaways” and no one imagined the meaning they someday would hold for collectors worldwide. The popularity of baseball cards has exceeded every imaginable expectation. Today the business of baseball cards is valued at more $350 billion and contributes significantly to the sport industry in the United States (Bloom, 1997; Bonham, 2000; Green & Pearlman, 1989; Greene, 2000; Williams, 1995). Over the past 125 years, baseball card collecting has changed in dramatic ways. There are now more than one million collectors, thousands of card dealers, hundreds of monthly card shows, scores of card manufacturers, and numerous hobby publications.1 There even exists a stock market devoted exclusively to them.2 But one fairly recent extraordinary change in the hobby is now some baseball cards are worth a lot of money. Baseball cards, however, are not of equal value. Nor have they increased in value uniformly. Cards of some players are more valuable and have risen much more rapidly in value than cards of other players. This observation led to asking two questions: 1. What are the best predictors of baseball card values? 2. Have the salient predictors of baseball card values changed over time? Sociologists have generally ignored baseball cards and those who collect them. This is surprising inasmuch as roughly a million or more people are involved with them, spend enormous sums of money on them, and devote a great amount of their free time to them (Bloom, 1997). But one conclusion from existing studies is that a player’s race may affect the value of his baseball card (e.g., Anderson & LaCroix, 1991; Nardinelli & Simon, 1990). This finding has lead some collectors to conclude that price differentials for cards of Black and White players reflect an ever-present racism in the hobby (Green & Pearlman, 1989).
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
185
While this may be true, it also is likely that other factors in addition to race influence the value of cards (Regoli, 2000). Four additional variables have been identified in the literature: “on-the-field performance,” assessment of performance by significant others, card scarcity, and card age (e.g., Anderson & LaCroix, 1991; Regoli, 1991; Nardinelli & Simon, 1990). This study will examine the relationship between race and these “other” variables and baseball card values for Hall of Fame members during a 20 year period.
2. Methods Data were derived from the card values reported in the maximum or best condition listed in James Beckett’s annual Baseball Card Price Guide beginning in 1979 (when the first price guide was published), and every five years thereafter (1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998). The Beckett publication was used because of its reputation as an authoritative and accurate source of information. 2.1. The sample Since 1936 only 92 players have been elected into Baseball’s Hall of Fame (HOF) by the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA).3 Thirty (30) of these players constitute the sample for this study; 12 are Black and 18 are White.4 The following considerations guided the selection of players included in the sample. 1. Only HOF players retired from baseball in 1979 or earlier were included.5 This step was taken to control for the of current on-the-field performance on card values. (Card values of active players are more volatile than card values of retired players.) Implementation of this criterion excluded 15 of the original 92 players.6 2. Baseball became an integrated sport in 1947, when Jackie Robinson broke the BlackWhite color line by playing first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers.7 To have comparable samples of Black and White players, only HOF members who competed in the integrated baseball league were included in the study. This decision eliminated an additional 32 players.8 3. Prior to 1948, baseball cards were produced on an erratic basis. The value of cards manufactured prior to 1948 is often grossly exaggerated because of scarcity and sensitivity to condition. Only cards of players whose first appearance was in a regular issue set that was nationally distributed in 1948 or later were included in the study. The effect of applying this criterion was to eliminate nine more players.9 4. On the back of every baseball card is a number that indicates its placement in a set. Two of the most highly valued cards in a set are the first and last cards because they are prone to damage (Greene, 2000; O’Connell, 1997). This fact reflects how early collectors cared for their cards. In the 1950s and 1960s it was the custom to order cards by number and rubber band them together. Over time, the rubber band made a small “notch” on the edge of the cards. The cards most prone to damage were the top and bottom cards of the pile (Beckett & Eckes, 1979). Today, collectors believe a
186
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
“notched” card has a serious defect. It is very difficult to find the first or last card of a set from the 1950s and 1960s in mint condition. When one is found it commands a premium price. The rookie cards of two HOF members (Whitey Ford and Eddie Mathews) meet this criterion and were eliminated from the study. 5. With a sample as small as the one used in this study, it is imperative to guard against the card of any one player grossly affecting the analysis. To provide a conservative test of the research questions, the cards of players with the highest and lowest average card values over the 20 year period for the Black and White subsamples were removed. This decision reduced the sample size by four players.10 2.2. The variables Card values is the study’s dependent variable. They were obtained for each player in each time period from the annual Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide. The yearly values were standardized to 1998 dollars.11 Six independent variables were used in the study. Four were objective measures: (1) Total Baseball Ranking (TBR), (2) postseason performance, (3) card scarcity, and (4) card age. Two were subjective indicators: (1) race of player and (2) percentage of vote received from the BBWAA for entry into the Hall of Fame (HOF vote). Each variable and how it was operationalized is discussed below. 1. Total Baseball Ranking (TBR). The “MVP” of baseball statistics, this composite measure ranks players’ career performance in relation to each other by their total wins contributed in all their endeavors. This statistic is a measure of a player’s total performance in his career. (See Thorn et al., 2001) for a discussion of the procedures used to construct the TBR measure.) TBR is regarded by baseball purists as the “gold” standard for comparing player careers. Player TBR rating was treated as a continuous variable, ranging from 2.00 (Lou Brock) to 90.10 (Henry Aaron) with a mean score of 35.07 and a standard deviation of 17.49. 2. Postseason Performance. Baseball card values are tied to the memories players arouse in the minds of fans (Regoli, 1991). The memories fans have of players are related to their heroics in postseason games, especially World Series games. To establish a measure of postseason performance, a comprehensive content analysis of news stories written about every World Series game played between 1948 –1979 was completed. Each time a player was mentioned in a story as having contributed something exceptional to a game, he was awarded one point. The total points received was squared to construct a continuous variable that estimated playoff performance. For the sample of players, the range of points received was 0 to 90 (X⫽ 17.20; SD⫽ 23.42). 3. Card Scarcity. Baseball card values are affected by their rarity. No figures on the yearly production of baseball cards are available. However, collectors do know that some cards were produced in greater quantity than other cards. Between 1952 and 1973, card sets were distributed in issues of five series. Generally, the fewest number of cards were produced in the fifth series. The series a player’s card is in is easily determined by the card number. It is thus possible to estimate the relative scarcity of any specific
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
187
Table 1 Standardized coefficients from OSL regression models predicting card values for the total sample for each year (n ⫽ 30) Independent variables
Race TBR HOF vote Scarcity Card age Postseason R2 Adjusted R2 N
Year 1979 B
1983 B
1988 B
.001 .273 .283 ⫺.408 .504 ⫺.193 .44 .30 30
.012 .080 .429 ⫺.399 .425 .013 .41 .25 30
.045 .108 .570 ⫺.252 .393 ⫺.039 .46 .32 30
1993 B
1998 B
.169 .148 .496 .018 .353 .027 .46 .32 30
.236 .038 .453 .053 .387 .073 .41 .26 30
card in a set. Player cards were dichotomized into “not scarce” (code⫽ 0) and “scarce” (code⫽ 1) categories. 4. Card age. Baseball cards often increase in value with age. A continuous variable was constructed to represent a card’s age in relation to all other cards. The range for card age in the sample was from 30 years to 50 years old. The mean card age was 42.93 years (SD⫽ 5.88). 5. Race. A player’s race was determined by (1) a visual inspection of his card in The Complete Picture Collection of Topps Baseball Cards, 1951–1985 (Slocum, 1985), (2) secondary analysis of data in Crossing the Line: Black Major Leaguers, 1947–1959 (Moffi & Kronstadt, 1994), (3) the player’s surname and (4) his place of birth. Players were dichotomized into White (code⫽ 0) and Black (code⫽ 1) categories. 6. HOF Vote. This variable is the subjective counterpart of the TBR. The percentage of votes received from the BBWAA represents their opinion of a player’s impact on the game. The range on this continuous variable for the sample of players was 75.40% (Ferguson Jenkins) to 97.83% (Henry Aaron). The mean percentage HOF vote received was 84.59 (SD⫽ 6.31).
3. Findings For each time period– 1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998 – card value was regressed on the independent variables for the total sample (N ⫽ 30), and separately for the Black (n ⫽ 12) and White (n ⫽ 18) subsamples. Our initial charge was to determine whether there existed any trend that identified changes in the value of baseball cards over the past 20 years. As shown in Table 1, the importance of a player’s race on the value of his baseball cards has steadily increased since 1979. This finding suggests that a player’s race may be exerting a more significant impact today on card values than it did in the past, thus, hinting at the prospect that racism in the hobby is
188
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
Table 2 Standardized coefficients from OSL regression models predicting card values for the white subsample for each year (n ⫽ 18) Independent variables
TBR HOF vote Scarcity Card age Postseason R2 Adjusted R2 N
Year 1979 B
1983 B
1988 B
1993 B
1998 B
⫺.052 .359 ⫺.731 .465 ⫺.166 .69 .56 18
.078 .246 ⫺.630 .319 .274 .65 .50 18
.073 .331 ⫺.484 .328 .341 .62 .47 18
.193 .103 ⫺.126 .293 .613 .55 .37 18
.262 .122 ⫺.205 .398 .519 .57 .38 18
increasing. No other variable examined registered a pattern of change similar to what was observed for race. Next, the Black and White subsamples were examined separately for evidence of any continuous or emerging trends. The six independent variables exerted differential effects on card values for the subsamples. For Whites, the importance of postseason performance and TBR has steadily increased (see Table 2). For Blacks, the significance of post performance and TBR has consistently declined and, more importantly, the influence of HOF Vote has substantially increased (see Table 3). These findings forced us to closely inspect the subsamples for evidence of the changing significance of the predictor variables within each time period. As shown in Table 2, for Whites, from 1979 through 1988, two factors– card scarcity and card age– were important predictors of card values. Beginning in 1993, the strongest predictor of card values for Whites became postseason performance. Something very different is found for Blacks. Returning to Table 3, for 1979 and 1983, the most powerful predictors of their card values were TBR and performance in postseason play. But starting in 1988, right about the time of the sport explosion and card prices skyrocketed, a dramatic shift took place (Larson, 1993). The only significant predictor of card values for Blacks became the percentage of Hall of Fame votes (HOF Vote) they had received from the BBWAA.
4. Discussion This study has examined the construction of a social hierarchy, or who players are in relation to each other among baseball card collectors. The research identified factors that affected the card values of Black and White members of the Hall of Fame. The impact of six independent variables was assessed. It was discovered there were two distinct systems of evaluation for determining card values – one for Black players and one for White players. Card values for white players were principally based on performance factors, such as career
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
189
Table 3 Standardized coefficients from OSL regression models predicting card values for the black subsample for each year (n ⫽ 12) Independent Variables
TBR HOF Vote Scarcity Card Age Postseason R2 Adjusted R2r N
Year 1979 B
1983 B
1988 B
1993 B
1998 B
.751 .019 .031 .390 ⫺.437 .69 .44 12
.511 .319 .203 .258 ⫺.306 .74 .53 12
.262 .607 .134 .239 ⫺.289 .74 .52 12
.067 .724 .181 .294 ⫺.160 .76 .57 12
⫺.417 .896 .220 .364 .094 .66 .38 12
statistics and heroics in World Series games. In striking contrast the values of cards for Blacks were largely related to “extra” performance factors, specifically, validation of their achievements and character by a group of predominately elite, white baseball writers (the BBWAA). The reason different methods exist for establishing card values for Black and White HOF members is because America is a racist society. Race is the primary criterion collectors rely upon when judging players in relation to each other. The racism inherent in baseball card collecting closely parallels Black-White relations in society generally. All such relations are grounded in the White-on-Black oppression that was started centuries ago. Today, the system of oppression has matured into one characterized by systemic racism where taken-forgranted patterns and practices infuse race into every aspect of social life, including those found in baseball card collecting (Feagin, 2000). The very unfortunate realization this research study hits us with is racism is everywhere. It is so pervasive in society that it even raises its repulsive head in an activity so benign as baseball card collecting. It is appalling that such a trite endeavor would somehow further a racial hierarchy that energizes a racist ideology that continuously oppresses Black people. That collectors feel the need to turn to a group of elite white “gatekeepers” to validate the achievements and character of Black HOF members before they value their baseball cards on par with Whites is to put it simply, shameful. The subtle racism practiced in baseball card collecting feeds the myths, prejudices, and stereotypes that have fueled notions of white supremacy and Black inferiority since the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The salient finding of this research shows to all those willing to see how deeply the river of racial hatred runs. This is not the last word on racism in the hobby. Future research should reexamine issues raised here with a larger sample, possibly examining price differences among a wider range of persons of color. Perhaps researchers will assess whether card values vary along a continuum of “Whiteness,” similar to what Du Bois described in 1920 in Darkwater. A second problem limiting the present research is it did not differentiate between position players and pitchers. There is some evidence they may be thought about differently; thus,
190
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
race may affect the card values of one group and not the other (Coakley, 2001). Third, the current study must be replicated using an alternative source of data for card values. While the Beckett publication is a stable guide, there are other well-established price guides that conceivably may yield different results. It is important to verify whether the principal finding of this research that there are distinct systems for establishing card values of Black and White players is an artifact of the price guide we used or is a reality in the hobby. Finally, researchers interested in extending this study might want to turn their attention to uncovering subtle forms of racism elsewhere in the hobby. For example, a player’s location in a card set is not a random occurrence. Some card numbers (e.g., 1, 50, 100, etc.) are reserved for elite players. How do card manufacturers determine who will be an elite player? Is the decision based on objective factors, such as on-field performance in the preceding year, or is it influenced by a player’s race? Is the decision today based on the same factors to the same degree that were used in the past? These are important questions to ask. The answers to them speak directly to the history and pervasiveness of institutionalized racism. This study has only scratched the surface of that deplorable phenomenon. Next time we will dig deeper.
Notes 1. Over 3000 baseball card dealers are listed in the current directory (Meckler, 1990). A recent issue of Sport Collectors Digest listed more than 300 card shows for the months of January and February, 2001 (Sports Collectors Digest, December 15, 2000:130 –137). Thirteen companies manufacturer sport cards (Hultman, 2000). 2. The Pit is a stock market for all types of sport cards. Visit it at: www.thepit.com. 3. There are two principal ways baseball players are inducted into the HOF. The most revered way is to receive 75% of the vote of the BBWAA. The second way to become a member of HOF is by a vote of Major League Baseball’s Veteran Committee. The Veteran’s Committee selects the most deserving players from among those no longer eligible for consideration by the BBWAA because they have been inactive for 20 or more years. 4. Three Latinos were included in the Black baseball player category. They were included with Blacks (and not Whites) because of the history of discrimination Latino baseball players have encountered in professional baseball (Thorn et al., 2001). 5. The first Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide was published in 1979. Five players retired from baseball between 1979 and 1984. These players (year of retirement in parentheses) were: Johnny Bench (1983), Ferguson Jenkins (1983), Willie McCovey (1980), Gaylord Perry (1983), and Willie Stargell (1982). In 1979, these players were near the end of their careers and played in only a few games. We calculated the change in the value of their cards between 1979 and their year of retirement from baseball. The percentage change was compared to the change in card values that took place for players who retired in 1979 or earlier for the same period. The cards of these late retirees had not appreciated in value at a higher rate than the cards of players who retired in 1979 or earlier. Therefore, these four players were included in the study. 6. The HOF players eliminated (year of retirement in parentheses) were: George Brett
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
7.
8.
9.
10. 11.
191
(1993), Rod Carew (1985), Steve Carleton (1988), Rollie Fingers (1985), Carleton Fisk (1988), Reggie Jackson (1987), Joe Morgan (1984), Phil Niekro (1987), Jim Palmer (1984), Tony Perez (1986), Nolan Ryan (1993), Mike Schmidt (1989), Tom Seaver (1986), Don Sutton (1988), and Robin Yount (1993) (Thorn et al., 2001). Jackie Robinson played second base for most of his 10 year career with the Brooklyn Dodgers. But in his rookie season (1947) he played first base; Eddie Stanky played second base (Thorn et al., 2001). The HOF players eliminated (with year of retirement in parentheses) were: Grover Alexander (1930), Ty Cobb (1928), Mickey Cochrane (1937), Eddie Collins (1930), Joe Cronin (1945), Bill Dickey (1946), Jimmie Foxx (1945), Frank Frisch (1937), Charley Gehringer (1942), Hank Greenberg (1947), Lefty Grove (1941), Gabby Hartnett (1941), Harry Heilmann (1932), Rogers Hornsby (1937), Carl Hubbell (1943), Walter Johnson (1927) Willie Keeler (1952), Nap Lajole (1916), Ted Lyons (1946), Rabbit Maranville (1935), Christy Mathewson (1916), Herb Pennock (1934), Babe Ruth (1935), Al Simmons (1944), George Sisler (1930), Tris Speaker (1928), Bill Terry (1936), Pie Trayner (1937), Dazzy Vance (1935), Honus Wagner (1917), Paul Waner (1945), and Cy Young (1911) (Thorn et al., 2001). The HOF players eliminated (with year of their first baseball card in parentheses) were: Luke Appling (1931), Lou Boudreau (1939), Dizzy Dean (1932), Joe DiMaggio (1937), Bob Feller (1937), Joe Medwick (1934), Mel Ott (1929), Red Ruffin (1925), and Ted Williams (1939) (Beckett, 1990). The four players deleted were: Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Catfish Hunter, and Billy Williams. Card values were standardized to 1998 dollars for each year (1979, 1983, 1988, and 1993). A multiplier was calculated by dividing the 1998 Consumer’s Price Index (CPI) by the CPI for each of the years. The year CPI’s were: 1979 (72.6), 1983 (99.6), 1988 (118.3), 1993 (148.2), and 1998 (163.0). For example, the multiplier for 1979 was calculated by dividing 163 by 72.6 which resulted in a multiplier of 2.25. Then, the card values for 1979 were multiplied by 2.25 to standardize them to 1998 dollars. This procedure was followed for each test period. The multipliers for each test period were: 1979 (2.25); 1983 (1.64); 1988 (1.38); 1993 (1.10), and 1998 (1.00) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999).
Acknowledgments I would like to thank Matt DeLisi, John Hewitt, Aileen Lucero, Bill Miller, David Pellow, George Rivera, Rick Rogers, Jules Wanderer, and two anonymous referees for Race&Society for their very helpful recommendations. References Anderson, T., & La Croix, S. (1991). Customer racial discrimination in major league baseball. Economic Inquiry 29, 665– 677.
192
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
Beckett, J., & Eckes, D. (1979). The sport americana baseball card guide, no. 1. Den’s Collector’s Den, Laurel, Maryland. Beckett, J. (1990). The sport americana baseball card alphabetical checklist, Number 4. Cleveland: Edgewater Book Company, Cleveland. Bloom, J. (1997). A house of cards. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Bonham, D. (2000). Youth sports, done right, serve society. Denver Rocky Mountain News, October, 22, 5.G. Coakley, J. (2001). Sport in society, 7th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. Deane, B. (2001). Awards and honors. In: J. Thorn et al. (Eds.), Total Baseball, 7th edition. Warner Books, New York, pp. 192–236. DuBois, W. E. B. (1969/1920). Darkwater: Voices from within the veil. Schocken Books, New York. Feagin, Joe. (2000). Racist America. Routledge, New York. Green, P., & Pearlman, D. (1989). Making money with baseball cards. Bonus Books, Chicago. Greene, J. (2000). Card game. Sports Illustrated, 42– 44. Hultman, T. (2000). Guide to collecting sports memorabilia on the Web. Krause Publications, Iola, Wisconsin. Larson, M. (1993). The sports card explosion. Krause Publications, Iola, Wisconsin. Lipset, L. (1983). The Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards, Volume 1. Lew Lipset, Centereach, New York. McGraw, D. (1998). A Texas town heals its wounds. U.S. News and World Reports, October, 26, 24. Meckler, A. (1990). Baseball card dealer directory. Meckler Books, Westport, Connecticut. Moffi, L., & Kronstadt, J. (1994). Crossing the line: black major leaguers, 1947–1959. McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina. Nardinelli, C., & Simon, C. (1990). Customer racial discrimination in the market for memorabilia. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 575–595. O’Connell, T. S. (1997). Playing the race card. Sports Collectors Digest, May, 23, 90. Regoli, B. (1991). Racism in baseball card collecting. Human Relations, 44, 255–264. Regoli. B. (2000). A demographic analysis of baseball card values. Paper presented at the southern demographic association meeting, New Orleans, October 26 –28. Slocum, F. (1985). The complete picture collection of Topps baseball cards, 1951–1985. Warner Books, New York. Sports Collectors Digest. (2000). Convention calendar. Sports Collectors Digest, December, 15, 130 –137. Thorn, J., Palmer, P., & Gershman, M. (2001). Total baseball, 7th edition. Total Sports, New York. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1999). Statistical abstract of the United States, 1999, 119th edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C. Williams, P. (1995). Card sharks. Macmillan, New York.
Racism, racism everywhere: looking inside the hobby of baseball card collecting夞 Robert Regoli Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0327, USA
Abstract Research examining the relationship between race and baseball card values has found the cards of Black players are less valuable than cards of White players. Unfortunately existing studies have not assessed whether the significance of race on baseball card values has changed over time. This study examines the importance of race and other salient factors on the value of baseball cards for Black and White members of the Hall of Fame for a 20 year period. The principal finding of the research is collectors have developed different systems for assigning value to cards– one for Black players and one for White players. The implications of this finding for maintaining a racist ideology in the United States are discussed. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The United States is a racist society. Racism is systemic across its social institutions and is structured into all aspects of everyday life. People are born, live, and die in a racist society. A racist ideology permeates the American culture. It has been the foundation for a long history of White-on-Black oppression that has produced many consequences, including anger, frustration, pain, and stress for Blacks (Feagin, 2000). Racism is manifested in different ways. Sometimes it is blatant and grotesque. The 1998 killing in Jasper, Texas of 49 year-old, James Byrd, Jr., a disabled, Black, by three White men who “chained him to their truck by his ankles and dragged him along until his body lay in bloody pieces on the road” is a recent, horrifying example (McGraw, 1998:24). More often
夞 Partial funding for this study was provided by the Council on Research and Creative Work at the University of Colorado. * Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹1-303-492-7088; fax: ⫹1-303-492-8878. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Regoli). 1090-9524/00/$ – see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 9 0 - 9 5 2 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 8 - 6
184
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
though racism is expressed in subtle ways. While covert racism does not attract media attention it does facilitate systemic racism by chronically reproducing inequality in all venues of social life. Perhaps even more so than overt racism, racism that is subtly expressed ultimately determines who people marry, gets the best medical care, lives the longest lives, attends the finest public schools, gains admission to and graduates from the most prestigious colleges and universities, and works in the best jobs (Feagin, 2000). Its subtle nature makes secret racism very difficult to document. Yet it takes place whenever judgments are made about who people are in relation to each other on the basis of their skin color. It occurs daily on countless occasions. It happens, for example, in the work place, in the classroom, at fitness clubs, in auto repair shops, and at grocery stores. It also takes place in the hobby of baseball card collecting. Baseball card collecting had an auspicious beginning. In the late nineteenth century tobacco entrepreneurs inserted a small piece of cardboard bearing a photo of a baseball player into the back of cigarette packages to stiffen them to prevent damage during shipping (Lipset, 1983). Consumers were so fascinated by the cardboard photos that smokers and nonsmokers alike bought “extra” packs in order to try and compile a complete set of cards. As tobacco sales soared throughout the century, there was a corresponding widespread interest in the cardboard pictures. As people started to accumulate and trade them, the hobby of baseball card collecting was born. In the early years, baseball cards were gimmicks used to sell other products, such as cigarettes, cookies, taffy, and chewing gum. Cards were “giveaways” and no one imagined the meaning they someday would hold for collectors worldwide. The popularity of baseball cards has exceeded every imaginable expectation. Today the business of baseball cards is valued at more $350 billion and contributes significantly to the sport industry in the United States (Bloom, 1997; Bonham, 2000; Green & Pearlman, 1989; Greene, 2000; Williams, 1995). Over the past 125 years, baseball card collecting has changed in dramatic ways. There are now more than one million collectors, thousands of card dealers, hundreds of monthly card shows, scores of card manufacturers, and numerous hobby publications.1 There even exists a stock market devoted exclusively to them.2 But one fairly recent extraordinary change in the hobby is now some baseball cards are worth a lot of money. Baseball cards, however, are not of equal value. Nor have they increased in value uniformly. Cards of some players are more valuable and have risen much more rapidly in value than cards of other players. This observation led to asking two questions: 1. What are the best predictors of baseball card values? 2. Have the salient predictors of baseball card values changed over time? Sociologists have generally ignored baseball cards and those who collect them. This is surprising inasmuch as roughly a million or more people are involved with them, spend enormous sums of money on them, and devote a great amount of their free time to them (Bloom, 1997). But one conclusion from existing studies is that a player’s race may affect the value of his baseball card (e.g., Anderson & LaCroix, 1991; Nardinelli & Simon, 1990). This finding has lead some collectors to conclude that price differentials for cards of Black and White players reflect an ever-present racism in the hobby (Green & Pearlman, 1989).
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
185
While this may be true, it also is likely that other factors in addition to race influence the value of cards (Regoli, 2000). Four additional variables have been identified in the literature: “on-the-field performance,” assessment of performance by significant others, card scarcity, and card age (e.g., Anderson & LaCroix, 1991; Regoli, 1991; Nardinelli & Simon, 1990). This study will examine the relationship between race and these “other” variables and baseball card values for Hall of Fame members during a 20 year period.
2. Methods Data were derived from the card values reported in the maximum or best condition listed in James Beckett’s annual Baseball Card Price Guide beginning in 1979 (when the first price guide was published), and every five years thereafter (1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998). The Beckett publication was used because of its reputation as an authoritative and accurate source of information. 2.1. The sample Since 1936 only 92 players have been elected into Baseball’s Hall of Fame (HOF) by the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA).3 Thirty (30) of these players constitute the sample for this study; 12 are Black and 18 are White.4 The following considerations guided the selection of players included in the sample. 1. Only HOF players retired from baseball in 1979 or earlier were included.5 This step was taken to control for the of current on-the-field performance on card values. (Card values of active players are more volatile than card values of retired players.) Implementation of this criterion excluded 15 of the original 92 players.6 2. Baseball became an integrated sport in 1947, when Jackie Robinson broke the BlackWhite color line by playing first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers.7 To have comparable samples of Black and White players, only HOF members who competed in the integrated baseball league were included in the study. This decision eliminated an additional 32 players.8 3. Prior to 1948, baseball cards were produced on an erratic basis. The value of cards manufactured prior to 1948 is often grossly exaggerated because of scarcity and sensitivity to condition. Only cards of players whose first appearance was in a regular issue set that was nationally distributed in 1948 or later were included in the study. The effect of applying this criterion was to eliminate nine more players.9 4. On the back of every baseball card is a number that indicates its placement in a set. Two of the most highly valued cards in a set are the first and last cards because they are prone to damage (Greene, 2000; O’Connell, 1997). This fact reflects how early collectors cared for their cards. In the 1950s and 1960s it was the custom to order cards by number and rubber band them together. Over time, the rubber band made a small “notch” on the edge of the cards. The cards most prone to damage were the top and bottom cards of the pile (Beckett & Eckes, 1979). Today, collectors believe a
186
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
“notched” card has a serious defect. It is very difficult to find the first or last card of a set from the 1950s and 1960s in mint condition. When one is found it commands a premium price. The rookie cards of two HOF members (Whitey Ford and Eddie Mathews) meet this criterion and were eliminated from the study. 5. With a sample as small as the one used in this study, it is imperative to guard against the card of any one player grossly affecting the analysis. To provide a conservative test of the research questions, the cards of players with the highest and lowest average card values over the 20 year period for the Black and White subsamples were removed. This decision reduced the sample size by four players.10 2.2. The variables Card values is the study’s dependent variable. They were obtained for each player in each time period from the annual Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide. The yearly values were standardized to 1998 dollars.11 Six independent variables were used in the study. Four were objective measures: (1) Total Baseball Ranking (TBR), (2) postseason performance, (3) card scarcity, and (4) card age. Two were subjective indicators: (1) race of player and (2) percentage of vote received from the BBWAA for entry into the Hall of Fame (HOF vote). Each variable and how it was operationalized is discussed below. 1. Total Baseball Ranking (TBR). The “MVP” of baseball statistics, this composite measure ranks players’ career performance in relation to each other by their total wins contributed in all their endeavors. This statistic is a measure of a player’s total performance in his career. (See Thorn et al., 2001) for a discussion of the procedures used to construct the TBR measure.) TBR is regarded by baseball purists as the “gold” standard for comparing player careers. Player TBR rating was treated as a continuous variable, ranging from 2.00 (Lou Brock) to 90.10 (Henry Aaron) with a mean score of 35.07 and a standard deviation of 17.49. 2. Postseason Performance. Baseball card values are tied to the memories players arouse in the minds of fans (Regoli, 1991). The memories fans have of players are related to their heroics in postseason games, especially World Series games. To establish a measure of postseason performance, a comprehensive content analysis of news stories written about every World Series game played between 1948 –1979 was completed. Each time a player was mentioned in a story as having contributed something exceptional to a game, he was awarded one point. The total points received was squared to construct a continuous variable that estimated playoff performance. For the sample of players, the range of points received was 0 to 90 (X⫽ 17.20; SD⫽ 23.42). 3. Card Scarcity. Baseball card values are affected by their rarity. No figures on the yearly production of baseball cards are available. However, collectors do know that some cards were produced in greater quantity than other cards. Between 1952 and 1973, card sets were distributed in issues of five series. Generally, the fewest number of cards were produced in the fifth series. The series a player’s card is in is easily determined by the card number. It is thus possible to estimate the relative scarcity of any specific
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
187
Table 1 Standardized coefficients from OSL regression models predicting card values for the total sample for each year (n ⫽ 30) Independent variables
Race TBR HOF vote Scarcity Card age Postseason R2 Adjusted R2 N
Year 1979 B
1983 B
1988 B
.001 .273 .283 ⫺.408 .504 ⫺.193 .44 .30 30
.012 .080 .429 ⫺.399 .425 .013 .41 .25 30
.045 .108 .570 ⫺.252 .393 ⫺.039 .46 .32 30
1993 B
1998 B
.169 .148 .496 .018 .353 .027 .46 .32 30
.236 .038 .453 .053 .387 .073 .41 .26 30
card in a set. Player cards were dichotomized into “not scarce” (code⫽ 0) and “scarce” (code⫽ 1) categories. 4. Card age. Baseball cards often increase in value with age. A continuous variable was constructed to represent a card’s age in relation to all other cards. The range for card age in the sample was from 30 years to 50 years old. The mean card age was 42.93 years (SD⫽ 5.88). 5. Race. A player’s race was determined by (1) a visual inspection of his card in The Complete Picture Collection of Topps Baseball Cards, 1951–1985 (Slocum, 1985), (2) secondary analysis of data in Crossing the Line: Black Major Leaguers, 1947–1959 (Moffi & Kronstadt, 1994), (3) the player’s surname and (4) his place of birth. Players were dichotomized into White (code⫽ 0) and Black (code⫽ 1) categories. 6. HOF Vote. This variable is the subjective counterpart of the TBR. The percentage of votes received from the BBWAA represents their opinion of a player’s impact on the game. The range on this continuous variable for the sample of players was 75.40% (Ferguson Jenkins) to 97.83% (Henry Aaron). The mean percentage HOF vote received was 84.59 (SD⫽ 6.31).
3. Findings For each time period– 1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998 – card value was regressed on the independent variables for the total sample (N ⫽ 30), and separately for the Black (n ⫽ 12) and White (n ⫽ 18) subsamples. Our initial charge was to determine whether there existed any trend that identified changes in the value of baseball cards over the past 20 years. As shown in Table 1, the importance of a player’s race on the value of his baseball cards has steadily increased since 1979. This finding suggests that a player’s race may be exerting a more significant impact today on card values than it did in the past, thus, hinting at the prospect that racism in the hobby is
188
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
Table 2 Standardized coefficients from OSL regression models predicting card values for the white subsample for each year (n ⫽ 18) Independent variables
TBR HOF vote Scarcity Card age Postseason R2 Adjusted R2 N
Year 1979 B
1983 B
1988 B
1993 B
1998 B
⫺.052 .359 ⫺.731 .465 ⫺.166 .69 .56 18
.078 .246 ⫺.630 .319 .274 .65 .50 18
.073 .331 ⫺.484 .328 .341 .62 .47 18
.193 .103 ⫺.126 .293 .613 .55 .37 18
.262 .122 ⫺.205 .398 .519 .57 .38 18
increasing. No other variable examined registered a pattern of change similar to what was observed for race. Next, the Black and White subsamples were examined separately for evidence of any continuous or emerging trends. The six independent variables exerted differential effects on card values for the subsamples. For Whites, the importance of postseason performance and TBR has steadily increased (see Table 2). For Blacks, the significance of post performance and TBR has consistently declined and, more importantly, the influence of HOF Vote has substantially increased (see Table 3). These findings forced us to closely inspect the subsamples for evidence of the changing significance of the predictor variables within each time period. As shown in Table 2, for Whites, from 1979 through 1988, two factors– card scarcity and card age– were important predictors of card values. Beginning in 1993, the strongest predictor of card values for Whites became postseason performance. Something very different is found for Blacks. Returning to Table 3, for 1979 and 1983, the most powerful predictors of their card values were TBR and performance in postseason play. But starting in 1988, right about the time of the sport explosion and card prices skyrocketed, a dramatic shift took place (Larson, 1993). The only significant predictor of card values for Blacks became the percentage of Hall of Fame votes (HOF Vote) they had received from the BBWAA.
4. Discussion This study has examined the construction of a social hierarchy, or who players are in relation to each other among baseball card collectors. The research identified factors that affected the card values of Black and White members of the Hall of Fame. The impact of six independent variables was assessed. It was discovered there were two distinct systems of evaluation for determining card values – one for Black players and one for White players. Card values for white players were principally based on performance factors, such as career
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
189
Table 3 Standardized coefficients from OSL regression models predicting card values for the black subsample for each year (n ⫽ 12) Independent Variables
TBR HOF Vote Scarcity Card Age Postseason R2 Adjusted R2r N
Year 1979 B
1983 B
1988 B
1993 B
1998 B
.751 .019 .031 .390 ⫺.437 .69 .44 12
.511 .319 .203 .258 ⫺.306 .74 .53 12
.262 .607 .134 .239 ⫺.289 .74 .52 12
.067 .724 .181 .294 ⫺.160 .76 .57 12
⫺.417 .896 .220 .364 .094 .66 .38 12
statistics and heroics in World Series games. In striking contrast the values of cards for Blacks were largely related to “extra” performance factors, specifically, validation of their achievements and character by a group of predominately elite, white baseball writers (the BBWAA). The reason different methods exist for establishing card values for Black and White HOF members is because America is a racist society. Race is the primary criterion collectors rely upon when judging players in relation to each other. The racism inherent in baseball card collecting closely parallels Black-White relations in society generally. All such relations are grounded in the White-on-Black oppression that was started centuries ago. Today, the system of oppression has matured into one characterized by systemic racism where taken-forgranted patterns and practices infuse race into every aspect of social life, including those found in baseball card collecting (Feagin, 2000). The very unfortunate realization this research study hits us with is racism is everywhere. It is so pervasive in society that it even raises its repulsive head in an activity so benign as baseball card collecting. It is appalling that such a trite endeavor would somehow further a racial hierarchy that energizes a racist ideology that continuously oppresses Black people. That collectors feel the need to turn to a group of elite white “gatekeepers” to validate the achievements and character of Black HOF members before they value their baseball cards on par with Whites is to put it simply, shameful. The subtle racism practiced in baseball card collecting feeds the myths, prejudices, and stereotypes that have fueled notions of white supremacy and Black inferiority since the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The salient finding of this research shows to all those willing to see how deeply the river of racial hatred runs. This is not the last word on racism in the hobby. Future research should reexamine issues raised here with a larger sample, possibly examining price differences among a wider range of persons of color. Perhaps researchers will assess whether card values vary along a continuum of “Whiteness,” similar to what Du Bois described in 1920 in Darkwater. A second problem limiting the present research is it did not differentiate between position players and pitchers. There is some evidence they may be thought about differently; thus,
190
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
race may affect the card values of one group and not the other (Coakley, 2001). Third, the current study must be replicated using an alternative source of data for card values. While the Beckett publication is a stable guide, there are other well-established price guides that conceivably may yield different results. It is important to verify whether the principal finding of this research that there are distinct systems for establishing card values of Black and White players is an artifact of the price guide we used or is a reality in the hobby. Finally, researchers interested in extending this study might want to turn their attention to uncovering subtle forms of racism elsewhere in the hobby. For example, a player’s location in a card set is not a random occurrence. Some card numbers (e.g., 1, 50, 100, etc.) are reserved for elite players. How do card manufacturers determine who will be an elite player? Is the decision based on objective factors, such as on-field performance in the preceding year, or is it influenced by a player’s race? Is the decision today based on the same factors to the same degree that were used in the past? These are important questions to ask. The answers to them speak directly to the history and pervasiveness of institutionalized racism. This study has only scratched the surface of that deplorable phenomenon. Next time we will dig deeper.
Notes 1. Over 3000 baseball card dealers are listed in the current directory (Meckler, 1990). A recent issue of Sport Collectors Digest listed more than 300 card shows for the months of January and February, 2001 (Sports Collectors Digest, December 15, 2000:130 –137). Thirteen companies manufacturer sport cards (Hultman, 2000). 2. The Pit is a stock market for all types of sport cards. Visit it at: www.thepit.com. 3. There are two principal ways baseball players are inducted into the HOF. The most revered way is to receive 75% of the vote of the BBWAA. The second way to become a member of HOF is by a vote of Major League Baseball’s Veteran Committee. The Veteran’s Committee selects the most deserving players from among those no longer eligible for consideration by the BBWAA because they have been inactive for 20 or more years. 4. Three Latinos were included in the Black baseball player category. They were included with Blacks (and not Whites) because of the history of discrimination Latino baseball players have encountered in professional baseball (Thorn et al., 2001). 5. The first Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide was published in 1979. Five players retired from baseball between 1979 and 1984. These players (year of retirement in parentheses) were: Johnny Bench (1983), Ferguson Jenkins (1983), Willie McCovey (1980), Gaylord Perry (1983), and Willie Stargell (1982). In 1979, these players were near the end of their careers and played in only a few games. We calculated the change in the value of their cards between 1979 and their year of retirement from baseball. The percentage change was compared to the change in card values that took place for players who retired in 1979 or earlier for the same period. The cards of these late retirees had not appreciated in value at a higher rate than the cards of players who retired in 1979 or earlier. Therefore, these four players were included in the study. 6. The HOF players eliminated (year of retirement in parentheses) were: George Brett
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
7.
8.
9.
10. 11.
191
(1993), Rod Carew (1985), Steve Carleton (1988), Rollie Fingers (1985), Carleton Fisk (1988), Reggie Jackson (1987), Joe Morgan (1984), Phil Niekro (1987), Jim Palmer (1984), Tony Perez (1986), Nolan Ryan (1993), Mike Schmidt (1989), Tom Seaver (1986), Don Sutton (1988), and Robin Yount (1993) (Thorn et al., 2001). Jackie Robinson played second base for most of his 10 year career with the Brooklyn Dodgers. But in his rookie season (1947) he played first base; Eddie Stanky played second base (Thorn et al., 2001). The HOF players eliminated (with year of retirement in parentheses) were: Grover Alexander (1930), Ty Cobb (1928), Mickey Cochrane (1937), Eddie Collins (1930), Joe Cronin (1945), Bill Dickey (1946), Jimmie Foxx (1945), Frank Frisch (1937), Charley Gehringer (1942), Hank Greenberg (1947), Lefty Grove (1941), Gabby Hartnett (1941), Harry Heilmann (1932), Rogers Hornsby (1937), Carl Hubbell (1943), Walter Johnson (1927) Willie Keeler (1952), Nap Lajole (1916), Ted Lyons (1946), Rabbit Maranville (1935), Christy Mathewson (1916), Herb Pennock (1934), Babe Ruth (1935), Al Simmons (1944), George Sisler (1930), Tris Speaker (1928), Bill Terry (1936), Pie Trayner (1937), Dazzy Vance (1935), Honus Wagner (1917), Paul Waner (1945), and Cy Young (1911) (Thorn et al., 2001). The HOF players eliminated (with year of their first baseball card in parentheses) were: Luke Appling (1931), Lou Boudreau (1939), Dizzy Dean (1932), Joe DiMaggio (1937), Bob Feller (1937), Joe Medwick (1934), Mel Ott (1929), Red Ruffin (1925), and Ted Williams (1939) (Beckett, 1990). The four players deleted were: Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Catfish Hunter, and Billy Williams. Card values were standardized to 1998 dollars for each year (1979, 1983, 1988, and 1993). A multiplier was calculated by dividing the 1998 Consumer’s Price Index (CPI) by the CPI for each of the years. The year CPI’s were: 1979 (72.6), 1983 (99.6), 1988 (118.3), 1993 (148.2), and 1998 (163.0). For example, the multiplier for 1979 was calculated by dividing 163 by 72.6 which resulted in a multiplier of 2.25. Then, the card values for 1979 were multiplied by 2.25 to standardize them to 1998 dollars. This procedure was followed for each test period. The multipliers for each test period were: 1979 (2.25); 1983 (1.64); 1988 (1.38); 1993 (1.10), and 1998 (1.00) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999).
Acknowledgments I would like to thank Matt DeLisi, John Hewitt, Aileen Lucero, Bill Miller, David Pellow, George Rivera, Rick Rogers, Jules Wanderer, and two anonymous referees for Race&Society for their very helpful recommendations. References Anderson, T., & La Croix, S. (1991). Customer racial discrimination in major league baseball. Economic Inquiry 29, 665– 677.
192
R. Regoli / Race & Society 3 (2000) 183–192
Beckett, J., & Eckes, D. (1979). The sport americana baseball card guide, no. 1. Den’s Collector’s Den, Laurel, Maryland. Beckett, J. (1990). The sport americana baseball card alphabetical checklist, Number 4. Cleveland: Edgewater Book Company, Cleveland. Bloom, J. (1997). A house of cards. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Bonham, D. (2000). Youth sports, done right, serve society. Denver Rocky Mountain News, October, 22, 5.G. Coakley, J. (2001). Sport in society, 7th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. Deane, B. (2001). Awards and honors. In: J. Thorn et al. (Eds.), Total Baseball, 7th edition. Warner Books, New York, pp. 192–236. DuBois, W. E. B. (1969/1920). Darkwater: Voices from within the veil. Schocken Books, New York. Feagin, Joe. (2000). Racist America. Routledge, New York. Green, P., & Pearlman, D. (1989). Making money with baseball cards. Bonus Books, Chicago. Greene, J. (2000). Card game. Sports Illustrated, 42– 44. Hultman, T. (2000). Guide to collecting sports memorabilia on the Web. Krause Publications, Iola, Wisconsin. Larson, M. (1993). The sports card explosion. Krause Publications, Iola, Wisconsin. Lipset, L. (1983). The Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards, Volume 1. Lew Lipset, Centereach, New York. McGraw, D. (1998). A Texas town heals its wounds. U.S. News and World Reports, October, 26, 24. Meckler, A. (1990). Baseball card dealer directory. Meckler Books, Westport, Connecticut. Moffi, L., & Kronstadt, J. (1994). Crossing the line: black major leaguers, 1947–1959. McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina. Nardinelli, C., & Simon, C. (1990). Customer racial discrimination in the market for memorabilia. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 575–595. O’Connell, T. S. (1997). Playing the race card. Sports Collectors Digest, May, 23, 90. Regoli, B. (1991). Racism in baseball card collecting. Human Relations, 44, 255–264. Regoli. B. (2000). A demographic analysis of baseball card values. Paper presented at the southern demographic association meeting, New Orleans, October 26 –28. Slocum, F. (1985). The complete picture collection of Topps baseball cards, 1951–1985. Warner Books, New York. Sports Collectors Digest. (2000). Convention calendar. Sports Collectors Digest, December, 15, 130 –137. Thorn, J., Palmer, P., & Gershman, M. (2001). Total baseball, 7th edition. Total Sports, New York. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1999). Statistical abstract of the United States, 1999, 119th edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C. Williams, P. (1995). Card sharks. Macmillan, New York.