MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1995583241 · doi:10.1353/nin.2012.0037

Managing Integration: Clemente, Wills, “Harry the Hat,” and the Pittsburgh Pirates’ 1967 Season of Discontent

2012· article· en· W1995583241 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
John N. Ingham

Notice bibliographique

RevueNine · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAmerican Sports and Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLeagueLas vegasOffensiveArt historyHistoryLawArtEngineeringOperations researchPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Managing IntegrationClemente, Wills, “Harry the Hat,” and the Pittsburgh Pirates’ 1967 Season of Discontent John N. Ingham (bio) The Pirates had a powerful team in 1966. Winning ninety-two games, they were in the pennant race to the end, battling the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Francisco Giants. A doubleheader sweep of the Phillies on September 28 put the Pirates just a game and a half behind the Dodgers entering the final weekend. The Bucs then lost three straight to the Giants in Pittsburgh to finish in third place. The Pirates, nonetheless, had one of the most powerful offensive teams in the 1960s, with a .279 team batting average and 759 runs scored. Roberto Clemente won the National League Most Valuable Player Award, Matty Alou led the league in batting, and second baseman Bill Mazeroski set a record for double plays. The two weaknesses of the team were pitching and at third base. The Pirates general manager, Joe L. Brown, addressed both issues in the off-season by trading for pitchers Juan Pizarro and Dennis Ribant and pulling off a blockbuster trade with the Dodgers for baseball’s stolen-base king, Maury Wills.1 Brown was euphoric about the Pirates’ chances in 1967, saying: “This is the best Pirate team since I became general manager in 1956. We’ve added three men since the season ended, and any one of them could have won the pennant for us last season.”2 Most baseball pundits, Las Vegas bookmakers, and other observers tended to agree. Arthur Daley of the New York Times stated that the Pirates were “overwhelming pennant favorites, assuming they get any decent pitching.”3 Yet, the 1967 season turned out to be a profound disappointment, as the team was mired in dissension and discord while struggling to finish in sixth place. What happened? It is not unusual for teams that are favored to win the pennant to falter as the Pirates did, and certainly the under-performance of Pirate pitchers, as Arthur Daley feared, was part of the problem. The cause, however, apparently lies elsewhere. Clubhouse dissent was a major factor and was commented on frequently by local sportswriters, despite constant denials from team officials [End Page 69] and players. What is not clear is the source of this conflict. This article contends that the Pirates were ultimately brought down by varying currents of racism pulsing through the nation in the 1960, as well as by interethnic and intraracial hostilities among American and Latino blacks that played out in the clubhouse and on the field. The story of integration in baseball, until very recently, has been bimodal, with African Americans struggling for acceptance and recognition from Major League Baseball and from white society, finally achieving success in the 1940s. It is an uplifting and dramatic story with Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey understandably at the center. Recently, however, scholars like Adrian Burgos Jr. have demonstrated that the story of the integration of baseball and, in fact, of American society, is more complex than previously believed.4 As he has demonstrated, complicating that earlier story is the nearly simultaneous entry of many Latinos and especially black Latinos into the national pastime. The 1967 Pirates provide an excellent place within which to view this complex story of race, culture, ethnicity, racism, and intraracial hostility. Of the twenty-seven players who spent the greatest amount of time on the team’s active roster in 1967, 48 percent were white, 29 percent were Latino, and 20 percent African American. The only major-league team with remotely similar percentages of these two minority groups on their roster was the San Francisco Giants, who were 75 percent white, 14 percent Latino, and 11 percent African American. The Dodgers, who had pioneered African American integration, had four American blacks on their roster, but no Latinos, and the team would not have a prominent Latin player until Fernando Valenzuela in the 1980s. In addition, the 1967 Pirates were managed by a white southerner with a reputation for racism against African Americans and a demonstrated affection for black Latinos. It was a potentially explosive combination. The city of Pittsburgh is also an interesting environment in which to...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,092
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,309

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0160,005
Communication savante0,0140,007
Science ouverte0,0020,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,011
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0920,026

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,214
Écart entre enseignants0,197 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNineMême sujetAmerican Sports and LiteratureTravaux en français237 207