Population and sports jobs.
jaxxr
Posts: 1,258 ✭✭
US population by Census 1901 76 Mill, 2000 281 Mill, increase of 3.7 TIMES
Professional team sport jobs 1901 400, today 2680, increase of 6.7 TIMES
No Soccer, Ice Hockey or Arena/Canada/Europe football included in today's numbers, nor golf, nor tennis, none of which was a well paying sport alternative to baseball back in 1901.
The NFL began in 1920, The NBA began in 1946, both needed TV, which became popular a bit later, to really get them on a level near baseball.
Seems much more likely the best athletes would play baseball in earlier times, than today with so many more choices.
Professional team sport jobs 1901 400, today 2680, increase of 6.7 TIMES
No Soccer, Ice Hockey or Arena/Canada/Europe football included in today's numbers, nor golf, nor tennis, none of which was a well paying sport alternative to baseball back in 1901.
The NFL began in 1920, The NBA began in 1946, both needed TV, which became popular a bit later, to really get them on a level near baseball.
Seems much more likely the best athletes would play baseball in earlier times, than today with so many more choices.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
0
Comments
And for the 2000 it was around 0.00095%. Of course some of todays professionals are foriegn born.
Also 2680 seems like a low total. Does it include the athletes on minor league teams in baseball, hockey,
and basketball?
<< <i>That means for 1901 around 0.00052% of the population had jobs with professional sports teams.
And for the 2000 it was around 0.00095%. Of course some of todays professionals are foriegn born.
Also 2680 seems like a low total. Does it include the athletes on minor league teams in baseball, hockey,
and basketball? >>
Piman, I'm with you. Where does the number 2680 come from??
With 32 NFL teams and a 53 man roster + 30 MLB teams with a 25 man roster= 2446.
If you add in hockey and basketball, you'd be well over 3000, and if you added all the minor league teams, hockey, golf, tennis, etc. (which you say you didn't add), it would be a lot more than 2680.
Either way, I wasn't good enough.
shawn
This is the players allowed per team, time teams, for the three major sports.
-------------PART 1)
Here is an example..
"The popularity of college football spread widely in the early 1900's. What began in 1869 with two teams grew to almost 90 major teams by 1920. The NCAA was founded in 1906 to organize and regulate the sport, and points for scores, size of the field, and penalties etc., were all standardized by 1912. But, the NCAA failed to address the one issue that burned in the hearts and minds of players, alumni, and fans of all ages, the question of "Who is No.1 ?" Perhaps if they had addressed it 100 years ago we would not have the controversy that we have today! American's thrive on competition. There is only one Grand Champion bull at the County Fair, one Best of Show at the AKC Dog Show and one Blue Ribbon Apple Pie, so there has always been a need for a college football poll. The problem lies in the fact that there has always been more than one poll and they don't always agree."
You probably need to do more research on life in the early 1900's. There were more choices than you think...and again THE SOCIOLOGICAL FACTOR OR WORK NEEDS, and the viewing a career as a baseball player as fools dreams(and often not permitted to be even attempted).
Another example...
"The game(basketball) quickly grew throughout America and aboard, by the YMCA, military and numerous colleges. In the early 1900's, the game was spread all over the country and colleges and universities formed different leagues and competitions were starting to take place. In 1915, several sports unions and organizations met to establish a single set of rules for all groups to follow. They also had regional conferences and organized games between different leagues. The 1st intercollegiate game was held in Kansas City. The unions disputed over control of the organization the NCAA wining. They set up districts and other formats for their games.
Professional basketball started in 1869 in New Jersey. Disputes between individuals at a YMCA led to a group forming their own team and playing for money. Later in 1898, a group of sports editor founded the NBL of the National Basketball League. Several league followed none lasting long."
By the way, you brought up T.V. and how it helped other sports later on. How exactly did T.V. then help baseball in 1910, if you are considering it a factor against modern times?
Another example...
"In North America, two openly professional leagues emerged: the National Hockey Association in 1910 and the Pacific Coast Hockey Association in 1911. Beginning in 1915, these two leagues competed for the Stanley Cup. The National Hockey League was formed in November of 1917, following a dispute between NHA team owners. The new league began play in December of that year with four Canadian teams. The NHA disbanded in 1918, and the PCHA followed it in 1924. By 1926, the NHL, with ten teams, took control of the Stanley Cup and formed a Canadian and an American division.[15]"
Another example...
A thing called the Olympics. If people were not training for other sports, then how the heck did America feature any Olympians? Did they just pull guys off the street in 1900 to compete? Based on your premise, they must have pulled them off the baseball field after the WHITES ONLY game was done.
-------FINALLY, the mouthpiece and the leading example of the time...
"Roosevelt as Symbol.
More than any athlete of the 1900s, Theodore Roosevelt epitomized the sporting character of the decade. In 1900, the year before he became the twenty-sixth president of the United States, he encouraged Americans to act aggressively and confidently but with a sense of fair play: "In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard: don't foul and don't shirk, but hit the line hard." Roosevelt believed that participation in "vigorous, manly sports" was so important in the development of character and the preparation of young men for leadership roles in business and politics that he called Ivy League presidents and athletic officials to the White House in 1905 to discuss ways to reduce the high rate of injury and death in college football. Although Roosevelt's football summit did not lead to immediate reform of the game—as injury and death continued to haunt the college game throughout..."
I find it quite odd that FOOTBALL was his metaphor! Also notice his support for the vigorous manly sports...certainly baseball is not at the top of that list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 2) A BETTER LOOK AT WHAT REALLY WAS AVAILABLE TO CHOOSE FROM.
While it is true that the athletes are spread out now more than ever, the population figures used to determine available talent have to be used a certain way.
It only matters to meaure playing age people. It doesn't help to count how many 58 year olds there are. People in general live longer now than before, so the population will be higher now, but not the playing age population.
What you need to see is the number of people born in a given time period, and figure how many would be available for professional use. Example...
From 1880-'85 there were appx 6.2 million American males born. Of prime playing age appx 1908
From 1953-'59 there were appx 10.3 million American males born. Of prime playing age appx 1982
From 1973-'77 there were appx 7.9 millions American males born. Of prime playing age appx 2000
Looking at the above, and using baseball, you have to understand two other big factors.
1) Infant mortality rate. The 1880's had a much worse infant mortality rate, and a higher percentage of those born at that time never made it past age two. The mortality rate stabilized after WWII and remained pretty constant from then till now. Those kids born in that time made it to adult hood at a higher rate than the turn of the century babies. This is a factor!!
2) Race. The 1908 era only drew from white people. That 6.2 million figure represents non white people too. So 6.2 million weren't really available. The 1982 era, and the 2002 era both had their pick of the best non white players. The percentage is similar, but more latins have replace african american players.
Lets look at a one year example on what it means for a specific year.
In 1883 appx 1.2 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 1910.
In 1956 appx 2.1 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 in 1983.
In 1975 appx 1.5 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 in 2002.
In 1910 there were 400 opening day roster spots to fill.
In 1983 there were 650 opening day roster spots to fill.
In 2002 there were 750 opening day roster spots to fill.
Without taking mortality rates into account, here are the appx number of 27 year olds per team available for MLB use in each of those three years.
# of 27 year olds available to draw from per team..
1910- 75,000 *If you figure in a 30% decrease due to non whites, then it is appx 52,500 per team.
1983- 80,769
2002- 50,000
You can see the vast difference between the available people available(compared to the jobs needed to fill) when looking at the eras.
When the term watered down is used now, just think that expansion added four more teams for 2002 compared to 1983, AND THERE WERE LESS PEOPLE TO DRAW FROM. 1983 had 80,000 27 year olds per team to choose from to fill their rosters. 2002 only had 50,000! THAT IS A LARGE DIFFERENCE! This is only 27 year olds. The numbers are pretty much the same for the ages before and after that age!
What about the other factors that would take athletes away from baseball?
1910 drew from kids/teens that played baseball as their choice of athletics to a very high degree.**
1983 drew from kids/teens that played baseball as their choice to a high degree, though less than 1910.
2002 drew from kids/teens that had more competition from other sports than any other time in history.
**Turn of the century exclusivity of baseball is probably offset by sickness/weakness of those kids that didn't die, and the fact that many strong able bodied kids/young adults were needed to work farms, factories, or business for families to make ends meat. Baseball wasn't even a viable choice for many, or even attempted. They didn't lose kids to other sports, but rather to life needs.
IMMIGRATION: Immigratin isn't part of the births, but most immigrants were already over age 19 when they came, and if they had kids here, then those kids were part of the birth count. Basically, immigration doesn't change things much. The best players from other countries were available for the 1983 era, just as they are now. They weren't of course in the 1910 era. But we already discounted the minority figure in that. The one demographic that has changed considerable from 1983 to 2002 is a large increase in latin players...but it coincides with a large decrease in African American players. The addition of Pacific rim players hasn't really made an impact yet, as they have basically been role players. The good ones can be counted on one hand that have made an impact. This is at the very beginning stage of changing to a higher degree though.
UNKNOWN: Each of those three eras have an unknow element to people available. Injuries in young adulthood would be harder to fix for the 1910 youth then in the other eras. Those could cost some kids. Jail. I would say jail effects the later eras more than the earlier one. Between 1983 and 2002, it is probably equal, though jails keep getting larger. I already talked about life choices in the early era. I don't see that having much an effect on the othe two eras.
CONCLUSION: There is no question baseball is watered down comparing the number of people available and the number of jobs needed to fill in 2002 as opposed to 1983. Logic dictates that 1983 should have produced more better players than 2002 did. It is easier for the stars to beat up on lesser players in 2002, players that wouldn't be playing if the circumstances were the same as they were in 1983. In this instance, it would become harder to dominate because there would now be more people closer in ability to the best players.
Just imagine if baseball in 2002 chopped off four teams, AND THEN eliminated another 20% in order to mirror the circumstances of 1983 when there were more people to choose from. It wouldn't be quite so easy to knock out 50 home runs, or quite so easy to outdistance your peers when there are more like you...not to mention less scrub pitchers to feast off of. Star pitchers wouldn't have scrub ones blowing up the league ERA to make the stars look better than they actually are! It would create more vanilla looking players, players that don't look quite as good as they actually are...kind of like it was before. This is one of the reasons why an era adjustment is sorely needed, and the crazy numbers produced in this era should be taken with a grain of salt.
So in terms of number of better players, or the highest competitive era, 1983 would be first. 2002 and 1910 are very close, but clearly behind 1983.
Because of 2002's ability to draw the best of the best from other countries, it puts that ahead of 1910!
You have used well over a dozen different dates or date peroids, while not zeroing in on 1901 and 2000 ( last US Census )
You have not disputed nor disproved what i said;
The number of professional sport jobs has increased at a rate GREATER than the population increase from 1901 to 2000
<< <i>
You have not disputed nor disproved what i said;
The number of professional sport jobs has increased at a rate GREATER than the population increase from 1901 to 2000 >>
That statement is ture, but it means a hill of beans!
I already showed you why simply using population is totally invalid..i.e, you are not accounting for immigration. So the population rate increased, but for the love of GOD, THE AVAILABLE NUMBER OF ATHELTES FOR USE DOES NOT FIT YOUR PREMISE! See the figures!
Your statements that the best athletes chose baseball in 1910 isn't exactly true, but it also means a hill of beans. What you want to figure out is HOW MANY athletes of that stature of ability would be playing! YOu get that by looking at how many were avalable.
HOW CAN YOU CONSISTENTLY IGNORE THE FACT THAT BASEBAL WAS A WHITES ONLY GAME WHEN YOU PUT THOSE INVALID FIGURES UP?? YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS OVERWHELMING FACT!
Just because there were no other professional sports, WHICH IS NOT TRUE AS THERE WERE SOME BASKETBALL LEAGUES, there were a myriad of athletic endeavors that FORCED BASEBALL TO SHARE PREMIERE ATHLETES WITH. Good god. How the heck did the U.S. field an Olympic team in 1900? Did those guys just join with no training?
I POSTED THOSE SOME ABOVE, did you read them????
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACTS!
"In the early decades of the twentieth century, the numbers of child laborers in the U.S. peaked..."
Aside from using no minorities, high infant mortality rates, and simply less people being born then, YOU HAVE THIS FACTOR ABOVE!
Johnny is not going to be much of a hitter when he is spending hours at a factory, or on the farm, or helping his family live!! This factor totally negates the higher percentage of people choosing baseball. NO, I don't have a factual basis for that statement, but I have a brain, and can deduce!
The increase rate grew at a higher rate than the population, and the population of prime age males, that is also a fact.
In 1983 perhaps the poor Johnny you mentioned, may have had the chance to watch TV enlessly, experiment with pot, cocaine, heroin, maybe drag race his automobile, attend discos, bars, and night clubs, or a variety of things that the ubanization of the US population made much more likely than in 1910.
First and foremost, just because there weren't many other professional LEAGUES in early 1900's, IT does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that other sports were not taking players away from baseball. PLUS THE BIGGEST FACTOR THAT IS BEING IGNORED IS THAT BASEBALL WAS A WHITES ONLY GAME!! The figures being used are basically waaay off, even more so when SOCIOLOGICAL factors are taken into account(touched on a little below). Here are a few examples of the times of 1900. Then below that is a longer, and more valid way of juding the available talent.
-------------PART 1)
Here is an example..
"The popularity of college football spread widely in the early 1900's. What began in 1869 with two teams grew to almost 90 major teams by 1920. The NCAA was founded in 1906 to organize and regulate the sport, and points for scores, size of the field, and penalties etc., were all standardized by 1912. But, the NCAA failed to address the one issue that burned in the hearts and minds of players, alumni, and fans of all ages, the question of "Who is No.1 ?" Perhaps if they had addressed it 100 years ago we would not have the controversy that we have today! American's thrive on competition. There is only one Grand Champion bull at the County Fair, one Best of Show at the AKC Dog Show and one Blue Ribbon Apple Pie, so there has always been a need for a college football poll. The problem lies in the fact that there has always been more than one poll and they don't always agree."
You probably need to do more research on life in the early 1900's. There were more choices than you think...and again THE SOCIOLOGICAL FACTOR OR WORK NEEDS, and the viewing a career as a baseball player as fools dreams(and often not permitted to be even attempted).
Another example...
"The game(basketball) quickly grew throughout America and aboard, by the YMCA, military and numerous colleges. In the early 1900's, the game was spread all over the country and colleges and universities formed different leagues and competitions were starting to take place. In 1915, several sports unions and organizations met to establish a single set of rules for all groups to follow. They also had regional conferences and organized games between different leagues. The 1st intercollegiate game was held in Kansas City. The unions disputed over control of the organization the NCAA wining. They set up districts and other formats for their games.
Professional basketball started in 1869 in New Jersey. Disputes between individuals at a YMCA led to a group forming their own team and playing for money. Later in 1898, a group of sports editor founded the NBL of the National Basketball League. Several league followed none lasting long."
By the way, you brought up T.V. and how it helped other sports later on. How exactly did T.V. then help baseball in 1910, if you are considering it a factor against modern times?
Another example...
"In North America, two openly professional leagues emerged: the National Hockey Association in 1910 and the Pacific Coast Hockey Association in 1911. Beginning in 1915, these two leagues competed for the Stanley Cup. The National Hockey League was formed in November of 1917, following a dispute between NHA team owners. The new league began play in December of that year with four Canadian teams. The NHA disbanded in 1918, and the PCHA followed it in 1924. By 1926, the NHL, with ten teams, took control of the Stanley Cup and formed a Canadian and an American division.[15]"
Another example...
A thing called the Olympics. If people were not training for other sports, then how the heck did America feature any Olympians? Did they just pull guys off the street in 1900 to compete? Based on your premise, they must have pulled them off the baseball field after the WHITES ONLY game was done.
-------FINALLY, the mouthpiece and the leading example of the time...
"Roosevelt as Symbol.
More than any athlete of the 1900s, Theodore Roosevelt epitomized the sporting character of the decade. In 1900, the year before he became the twenty-sixth president of the United States, he encouraged Americans to act aggressively and confidently but with a sense of fair play: "In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard: don't foul and don't shirk, but hit the line hard." Roosevelt believed that participation in "vigorous, manly sports" was so important in the development of character and the preparation of young men for leadership roles in business and politics that he called Ivy League presidents and athletic officials to the White House in 1905 to discuss ways to reduce the high rate of injury and death in college football. Although Roosevelt's football summit did not lead to immediate reform of the game—as injury and death continued to haunt the college game throughout..."
I find it quite odd that FOOTBALL was his metaphor! Also notice his support for the vigorous manly sports...certainly baseball is not at the top of that list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 2) A BETTER LOOK AT WHAT REALLY WAS AVAILABLE TO CHOOSE FROM.
While it is true that the athletes are spread out now more than ever, the population figures used to determine available talent have to be used a certain way.
It only matters to meaure playing age people. It doesn't help to count how many 58 year olds there are. People in general live longer now than before, so the population will be higher now, but not the playing age population.
What you need to see is the number of people born in a given time period, and figure how many would be available for professional use. Example...
From 1880-'85 there were appx 6.2 million American males born. Of prime playing age appx 1908
From 1953-'59 there were appx 10.3 million American males born. Of prime playing age appx 1982
From 1973-'77 there were appx 7.9 millions American males born. Of prime playing age appx 2000
Looking at the above, and using baseball, you have to understand two other big factors.
1) Infant mortality rate. The 1880's had a much worse infant mortality rate, and a higher percentage of those born at that time never made it past age two. The mortality rate stabilized after WWII and remained pretty constant from then till now. Those kids born in that time made it to adult hood at a higher rate than the turn of the century babies. This is a factor!!
2) Race. The 1908 era only drew from white people. That 6.2 million figure represents non white people too. So 6.2 million weren't really available. The 1982 era, and the 2002 era both had their pick of the best non white players. The percentage is similar, but more latins have replace african american players.
Lets look at a one year example on what it means for a specific year.
In 1883 appx 1.2 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 1910.
In 1956 appx 2.1 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 in 1983.
In 1975 appx 1.5 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 in 2002.
In 1910 there were 400 opening day roster spots to fill.
In 1983 there were 650 opening day roster spots to fill.
In 2002 there were 750 opening day roster spots to fill.
Without taking mortality rates into account, here are the appx number of 27 year olds per team available for MLB use in each of those three years.
# of 27 year olds available to draw from per team..
1910- 75,000 *If you figure in a 30% decrease due to non whites, then it is appx 52,500 per team.
1983- 80,769
2002- 50,000
You can see the vast difference between the available people available(compared to the jobs needed to fill) when looking at the eras.
When the term watered down is used now, just think that expansion added four more teams for 2002 compared to 1983, AND THERE WERE LESS PEOPLE TO DRAW FROM. 1983 had 80,000 27 year olds per team to choose from to fill their rosters. 2002 only had 50,000! THAT IS A LARGE DIFFERENCE! This is only 27 year olds. The numbers are pretty much the same for the ages before and after that age!
What about the other factors that would take athletes away from baseball?
1910 drew from kids/teens that played baseball as their choice of athletics to a very high degree.**
1983 drew from kids/teens that played baseball as their choice to a high degree, though less than 1910.
2002 drew from kids/teens that had more competition from other sports than any other time in history.
**Turn of the century exclusivity of baseball is probably offset by sickness/weakness of those kids that didn't die, and the fact that many strong able bodied kids/young adults were needed to work farms, factories, or business for families to make ends meat. Baseball wasn't even a viable choice for many, or even attempted. They didn't lose kids to other sports, but rather to life needs.
IMMIGRATION: Immigratin isn't part of the births, but most immigrants were already over age 19 when they came, and if they had kids here, then those kids were part of the birth count. Basically, immigration doesn't change things much. The best players from other countries were available for the 1983 era, just as they are now. They weren't of course in the 1910 era. But we already discounted the minority figure in that. The one demographic that has changed considerable from 1983 to 2002 is a large increase in latin players...but it coincides with a large decrease in African American players. The addition of Pacific rim players hasn't really made an impact yet, as they have basically been role players. The good ones can be counted on one hand that have made an impact. This is at the very beginning stage of changing to a higher degree though.
UNKNOWN: Each of those three eras have an unknow element to people available. Injuries in young adulthood would be harder to fix for the 1910 youth then in the other eras. Those could cost some kids. Jail. I would say jail effects the later eras more than the earlier one. Between 1983 and 2002, it is probably equal, though jails keep getting larger. I already talked about life choices in the early era. I don't see that having much an effect on the othe two eras.
CONCLUSION: There is no question baseball is watered down comparing the number of people available and the number of jobs needed to fill in 2002 as opposed to 1983. Logic dictates that 1983 should have produced more better players than 2002 did. It is easier for the stars to beat up on lesser players in 2002, players that wouldn't be playing if the circumstances were the same as they were in 1983. In this instance, it would become harder to dominate because there would now be more people closer in ability to the best players.
Just imagine if baseball in 2002 chopped off four teams, AND THEN eliminated another 20% in order to mirror the circumstances of 1983 when there were more people to choose from. It wouldn't be quite so easy to knock out 50 home runs, or quite so easy to outdistance your peers when there are more like you...not to mention less scrub pitchers to feast off of. Star pitchers wouldn't have scrub ones blowing up the league ERA to make the stars look better than they actually are! It would create more vanilla looking players, players that don't look quite as good as they actually are...kind of like it was before. This is one of the reasons why an era adjustment is sorely needed, and the crazy numbers produced in this era should be taken with a grain of salt.
So in terms of number of better players, or the highest competitive era, 1983 would be first. 2002 and 1910 are very close, but clearly behind 1983.
Because of 2002's ability to draw the best of the best from other countries, it puts that ahead of 1910!
Being a sports nut, and a long time history teacher, this topic is of interest to me, so why not post #1 on it.
Dear Mr. Jaxxr,
To equate the mere distractions of watching T.V., to the real life hardships that the child laborers had to endure at the turn of the century, is a slap in the face to the very generation you are touting. Shame on you for doing that. I intimately knew people that lived during that time, and I am very disheartened to see you take that aspect of their life so flippantly.
Skinpinch, you seem to have a good grasp on this topic, and on life at the turn of the century. It is good to see a broader scope of understanding on our society, than just sports alone. I was actually taken back a bit when I saw your reference to Dr. Joseph Warren in another topic. It is good to see people bring up items of importance such as these. History is being lost on the young of our society, and it is a shame.
As for life of the children of the 1880's(that would be of age to play professional baseball in the early 1900's), realize that the United States was not the same type of society as it has been these last fifty years. This was a time when Geronimo and the Apaches, and Sitting Bull were still figures in the western states. For goodness sake, Geronimo was still living while Ty Cobb was playing for the Tigers! Wyatt earp didn't die until 1929!
When your talking kids of 1885-1905, most obligations were to family survival. This was a large factor. Many people would not think of baseball as something realistic enough to provide a living, and certainly not enough to put practicing it as a priority in the family. A lot of the strong kids were important for use as labor, whether in a factory, or for the own family business. So I think it is fairy safe to suggest that a good number of good strong kids never even got the chance to play, let alone practice or excel in it. That is a shame. Luckily many did, and we saw some wonderful players emerge.
Excellent topic.
Ok. What else? Is this the premise of this thread? Seems like a lot of typing for a simple premise.
That is the last line from the first post on this thread, and the basic premise.
I am not trying to make an earth-shattering relevation, nor find something totaly brand new, merely pointing out a fact which many may find fault with, but nevertheless it is true.
I do feel the professional baseball players from the era of roughly 1901-1925 do not get the credit properly due them.
There are always external factors, whether economic, social, moral, or othewise, which come into account when a young man gifted enough to be able to earn a living at sports, makes his choices. I merely think the amount of choices is far greater today, and therefore the "cream of the crop" is more LESS likely to choose baseball.
It is obvious life in the 1900's was more difficult than today, and by no mean do I mean excess TV viewing is comparable to a true hardship, however it is one of many variables which are present today , non-existent in 1910, that can also contribute to the prevention of one from attaining a goal of being a paid athlete.
Your assessment is very scholarly. It could be a foundation for a nice masters thesis or even a doctoral dissertation. Its also a topic that I am sure can be marketed to some extent to the public at large as well like Bill James did with his work of similar nature. This could be in a wide variety of disciplines such as sociology, anthropology or perhaps history. I just enjoy reading what you bring to the table.
I get your basic premise: young able-bodied men in the early 1900s were not all available to play baseball because they had to work on the family farm or business (sociological factor). Other sports were not pulling these youngsters away necessarily, it was the family obligations. Plus, only white able bodied youngsters were considered for baseball. Also, the infant mortality rate of the late 1800s was far higher than after WWII, so even though many babies were born not all survived till adulthood. All these factors deminish the pool of potential athletes baseball has to choose from.
Conclusion: competition to get into MLB baseball in 1910s was not so intense as the early 1980s.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee