Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[riggs336]

Big news.

https://theathletic.com/news/negro-leagues-mlb/Bn7XLfWXu7br

[packs]

Put Perucho Cepeda and Francisco Coimbre in the HOF already.

[triwak]

Wow! Gonna be a statistician's dream (or nightmare, maybe). Will be interesting to see how this affects the Hall. Since they've already had two or three dedicated Negro League committees to consider and evaluate prospective nominees, I wonder? Might need to prepare my bank balance!??

[Fred]

Here's a great place to start:

http://www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/index.php

Bryant Gumbel had a really cool segment on this recently. The guy that put this together did a lot of research.

[riggs336]

Possible major shakeup of stats. Here's a paragraph from MLB.com:

Less clear at this stage, pending the discussions between MLB and Elias, is how rate statistics such as batting average or slugging percentage will be classified. For instance, Gibson (.365), Jud Wilson (.359), Charleston (.350) and Turkey Stearnes (.348) all had at least 3,000 career plate appearances and batting averages that would rank in the top 10 all-time, according to the Seamheads database. Their inclusion on that particular list would push the legendary likes of Ted Williams (.344) and Babe Ruth (.342) out of the top 10.

[steve B]

That will be a mess statswise.
My understanding has been that some of the competition was Major league, but some wasn't. I don't know what stats are counted and what aren't.

Are all the stats even known?

It's good to see the league get that recognition though.

[Fred]

There are a lot of missing stats. Not sure how anyone could quantify what is available. Should stats against lesser rated teams be considered as minor league stats and not considered? This is going to be a mess.

[tschock]

Regarding stat comparisons. We can't even come to agreement on the 'statistical correctness' for comparison of players among various eras within the same league. So I have no doubt they will be able to reconcile this to everyone's satisfaction when they do this between 2 different leagues. :rolleyes:

Should the Negro Leagues be considered a Major League? Most definitely. But comparing stats is a fool's errand.

[ramram]

I have several scorebooks that have games between Negro League teams and town teams, which were very competitive. Do we now need to include the town teams in the Major League record? I agree that many Negro Leaguers were capable of playing in the Majors but the vast majority were at the Minor League level at that time. I'm not sure how it should be handled but it sure muddies the water IMO.

Rob M

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Is it April 1 already?

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Again, appease, appease, appease. This time, I don't remember hearing of anyone fighting this non-battle.

We all know the impossibility of adding the woefully incomplete Negro (ahem, MAJOR) League stats to those of the much more comprehensive MLB.

A couple of things that sorely need pointing out:

Not every Negro Leaguer was of Major League caliber even if they had been welcome to play at the time. Anomalies like Gaedel and Faust aside, every single true major league player reached that level because a major league team felt they had enough talent to be there.

Let's not even get into the embarrassing lack of talent in the post-integration Negro Leagues. Are they Major Leaguers now, too?!

While we're at it, let's proclaim all those barnstorming games to be Major League! After all, the Sac City, Iowa Dry Cleaners are certainly of comparable talent to the traveling Satchel Paige All Stars. It will be incredible to see Satchel Paige with 10,000 career wins and second place Cy Young with a paltry 511. (Actually, Cy would be lower than second place!)

This is asinine. They need to leave it alone.

[Shoeless Moe]

The NBA presents The All-Time NBA Team:

Wilt Chamberlain

Michael Jordan

Meadowlark Lemon

Larry Bird

Curly Neal

[z28jd]

I've also never heard anyone make the argument that it should be a Major League. If it was happening, it was on a very low level. The problem I have here is that MLB has so many issues with "Major League" recognition already for cases that seem cut and dry. Why do they not recognize American Association teams and at the same time recognize them? The league was a Major League but any team that played in it isn't the same team as it is now? For example, MLB swears that the Pirates came along in 1887 out of nowhere, ignoring everything else completely. Same for Cardinals and the Dodgers, but then they will say that the Reds have been around since 1869 when everyone here knows that today's Reds and the 1869 Reds are not a continuous team.

They pick and choose and no one really questioned if the AA was a Major League. They don't recognize the National Association, but some people do. Why not figure that one out first? Do things in order. Fix the stupid mistakes you make daily first, then go for new stuff like the Pacific Coast League and Negro Leagues. The PCL had players who preferred to stay on the west coast. It was not a Triple-A caliber league during ALL of those years. In fact, the Negro League news came today with the fact that they are just recognizing some of it. You do realize if they recognized all of it, there would be female MLB players right now?

Today's news came with the note that the Major Leagues were decided in 1968 and the Negro Leagues weren't even given consideration. So you're saying at the same time that this decision was right and wrong? Approximately 99% of the people commenting on it today have zero clue as to whether this is a good decision or not, and that includes the joke of a commissioner who changes things on a whim like the game hasn't been around longer than the teenagers he's trying to reach have been alive. Part of my rant here has nothing to do with MLB status of the Negro Leagues and more "What is Manfred going to do next without putting thought into it?"

[Exhibitman]

Setting aside the politics of it gentlemen, I wonder how they are going to do it. Deciding which stats to include is going to be a nightmare operation.

[Jason19th]

This is very interesting. I am assuming that they are only talking about the Negro League “majors” and only considering league games. There is actually a pretty good statistical record for those games, especially when you get into the later 30’s and 40’s. What needs to be considered however is that while there are good records these seasons where pretty short. I doubt if Josh Gibson ever got more then 300 official league at bats in a season so it’s going to be pretty hard to do real comparisons.

The player this may have the biggest impact on us Minnie Minoso. He has always been stuck catch 22 for the Hall in so much as the voters were either supposed to look only at his NL stats or his MLB stats. If you combine both I don’t see how you keep him out of the hall

[packs]

I think the major accomplishment here is that the players of the Negro Leagues will be included among players of Major League baseball, which hopefully means more attention paid to their careers re: the HOF. Otherwise there is only this special once in a while vote on any of their merits. If they are now considered among MLB maybe that means they can be voted on during any Veterans Committee vote.

[Ricky]

If you take a look at the website that Fred mentioned above - http://www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/index.php - you'll see that it has a pretty good database, and no, Satchel Paige doesn't have 1000 wins. But there is a drop-down on that site that lists all of the various leagues, and it's fairly easy to see which leagues should be included and which not.

Because of the shorter seasons, not many statistical lists will be affected - pretty much batting average, ERA and the like. Negro Leaguers didn't play enough games to challenge MLB numbers for career or season.

[Tripredacus]

Isn't there some player who would be in the top 3 in alltime hits if the negro league stats count? Maybe it isn't hits but some other offensive category. I can't remember who it was.

[Jason19th]

Die to the short season of official league games I don’t think any accumulation stats will be effected. People forget that Paige often went 7-2 or 9-3 in league games for a year and Gibson would lead in homers with 12

Pops Lloyd May become one of the highest average seasons. I think he had a 450+ season in the early 20’s

[BRoberts]

What about a Negro League team that was called the Indians?

[Hankphenom]

I think the major accomplishment here is that the players of the Negro Leagues will be included among players of Major League baseball, which hopefully means more attention paid to their careers re: the HOF. Otherwise there is only this special once in a while vote on any of their merits. If they are now considered among MLB maybe that means they can be voted on during any Veterans Committee vote.

I'm for anything that tries to right the wrongs of segregation, but I don't see how you can compare a league in which only 10% of the population could play with one in which 90% of the population could play. Obviously, there were many Negro League players of Major League talent, but to try to equate and somehow merge the leagues as a whole defies logic. And there were no doubt some terrific NL teams that would have been competitive in the majors of their time, but I would guess that on average most NL teams would have been of some level of contemporaneous minor league quality. To try to cram them all into the history of the major leagues seems to me a fools errand.

[rhettyeakley]

I totally understand what they are doing with this move but the statistics are going to be an absolute nightmare!

In the end I think they can only really include those games played between top professional Negro League teams which will not account for too many cumulative stats. There were so many exhibition games played by these teams to generate revenue that can never be included in any way (playing local pro/semipro/college/exhibition games will never be included in any meaningful accumulation of lifetime stats)

I think where it could get interesting is things like lifetime BA, Lifetime ERA, etc because there are some pretty crazy high numbers by several of the players that could boot people like Babe Ruth off the list of lifetime BA, which could get a little weird. Jud Wilson has a lifetime avg around .366 and there are some other ungodly number put up in some years by players that seem off if the competition was as good as reported (or they were just that good?)

[packs]

I'm for anything that tries to right the wrongs of segregation, but I don't see how you can compare a league in which only 10% of the population could play with one in which 90% of the population could play. Obviously, there were many Negro League players of Major League talent, but to try to equate and somehow merge the leagues as a whole defies logic. And there were no doubt some terrific NL teams that would have been competitive in the majors of their time, but I would guess that on average most NL teams would have been of some level of contemporaneous minor league quality. To try to cram them all into the history of the major leagues seems to me a fools errand.

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

[Jason19th]

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

I agree. To bad MLB waited until every single player has passed

[rhettyeakley]

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

This seems like mere semantics if this is the case.

I don’t think anyone was discounting them for the last 20-30 years at the minimum so I guess if the point isn’t to change statistics then what are they actually accomplishing? The players in the Negro Leagues were already included in the HoF and I guess I just didn’t see many (if any) people really discounting what they had accomplished. No players from the PCL for example from the 1910-20’s are in the HoF for their exploits there so the players in Negro Leagues were certainly held in higher company than even the most major of minor leagues?

Again, I get the point of the announcement but is it a real thing or something to make us feel better about ourselves?

[Steve D]

Die to the short season of official league games I don’t think any accumulation stats will be effected. People forget that Paige often went 7-2 or 9-3 in league games for a year and Gibson would lead in homers with 12

Pops Lloyd May become one of the highest average seasons. I think he had a 450+ season in the early 20’s


Here's ESPN's story about it:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30531397/mlb-reclassifies-negro-leagues-major-league

According to it, Josh Gibson would have the single-season batting average record at .441 in 1943.

Steve

[Ricky]

Isn't there some player who would be in the top 3 in alltime hits if the negro league stats count? Maybe it isn't hits but some other offensive category. I can't remember who it was.

Not that I saw. Check out that website. As far as lifetime averages, like batting average, ERA, etc., again, Negro Leaguers just didn't accumulate enough at bats or innings to qualify. You can't compare Ty Cobb, with 10,000 at bats and a .366 average to Josh Gibson, with 3500 at bats and a .365 average. MLB simply has to establish qualifying numbers to exclude some of the crazy averages. I really don't think the stats are going to be as much of an issue as some seem to.

[Steve D]

Also, according to the ESPN article, MLB will only recognize stats from 1920-1948; so anything after that, such as Hank Aaron's Indianapolis Clowns stats, won't count.

Steve

[packs]

This seems like mere semantics if this is the case.

I don’t think anyone was discounting them for the last 20-30 years at the minimum so I guess if the point isn’t to change statistics then what are they actually accomplishing? The players in the Negro Leagues were already included in the HoF and I guess I just didn’t see many (if any) people really discounting what they had accomplished. No players from the PCL for example from the 1910-20’s are in the HoF for their exploits there so the players in Negro Leagues were certainly held in higher company than even the most major of minor leagues?

Again, I get the point of the announcement but is it a real thing or something to make us feel better about ourselves?


I think you will see greater research into the stats and careers of the people who played. That is an accomplishment. Stats are not widely available because not many people thought they were worth keeping. The opposite is true of MLB, where serious attention to stats was placed. I would think recognizing the league grants legitimacy to it and it's stats and encourages further research and attention that extends beyond the hobbies of private individuals, which has so far been the origin of a lot of what we do know.

This was MLB's statement:

"All of us who love baseball have long known that the Negro Leagues produced many of the game's best players, innovations and triumphs against a backdrop of injustice," the statement read. "We are now grateful to count the players of the Negro Leagues where they belong: as Major Leaguers within the official historical record."

[clydepepper]

A BIG SHOUT-OUT to our own Graig Kreindler, whose magnificent work portraying Negro League players had to have had a guiding influence toward this decision.

Thank You Graig!

.

[Hankphenom]

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

So anyone who ever played in the Negro Leagues is now a Major League player? From a pool of 10% of the population? Inclusion is great, but inclusion lacking merit, which would be the case for a large percentage of these men, only diminishes everybody concerned. There's a reason the term "major league" has meaning, and by including players who didn't meet that standard, you've cheapened it, IMO.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

In related earth-shattering news, congratulations to Toni Stone for becoming the first woman to cross the MLB gender line 67 years after the fact...

This is getting more laughable with each angle I consider.

[packs]

So anyone who ever played in the Negro Leagues is now a Major League player? From a pool of 10% of the population? Inclusion is great, but inclusion lacking merit, which would be the case for a large percentage of these men, only diminishes everybody concerned. There's a reason the term "major league" has meaning, and by including players who didn't meet that standard, you've cheapened it, IMO.

Pretty definitive statement when discussing the merits of players who, if you will recall, weren't allowed to play in the major leagues because of their skin color. Why does recognizing their play at the highest level available to them diminish anyone? And how could recognizing a fact like that diminish anyone anymore than the decisions to deny them the chance to play?

[rhettyeakley]

In related earth-shattering news, congratulations to Toni Stone for becoming the first woman to cross the MLB gender line 67 years after the fact...

This is getting more laughable with each angle I consider.

I think they are using 1948 as the cut-off so Toni Stone wouldn’t be included in the “major league” statistics she played after that. Still was a pretty cool accomplishment.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I think they are using 1948 as the cut-off so Toni Stone wouldn’t be included in the “major league” statistics she played after that. Still was a pretty cool accomplishment.

In the spirit of this politically correct inclusivity, this is flawed. If they're doing this, there shouldn't be a cutoff date. Someone will make the argument that there were several post-1948 Negro Leaguers who would have undoubtedly been Major Leaguers if not for the fact that the teams weren't taking each and every worthy Negro League player and stocking their clubs. Surely, teams such as Boston and Detroit could have grabbed a few more, yet didn't...

(I certainly understand the logic behind the cutoff date, but they're putting their feet in their mouths by having one.)

[rhettyeakley]

I think you will see greater research into the stats and careers of the people who played. That is an accomplishment. Stats are not widely available because not many people thought they were worth keeping. The opposite is true of MLB, where serious attention to stats was placed. <b>I would think recognizing the league grants legitimacy to it and it's stats and encourages further research and attention that extends beyond the hobbies of private individuals, which has so far been the origin of a lot of what we do know.</b>

This was MLB's statement:

"All of us who love baseball have long known that the Negro Leagues produced many of the game's best players, innovations and triumphs against a backdrop of injustice," the statement read. "We are now grateful to count the players of the Negro Leagues where they belong: as Major Leaguers within the official historical record."

Much of what we know today of Major League statistics and information was gathered by private individuals pursuing their hobby of gathering information and not by professionals. The statistical hobbyists are also responsible for clearing up a lot of misinformation in the record books.

All this being said I am 100% on board with more information being gathered for about the Negro Leagues, that can only be a good thing!!!

[rhettyeakley]

In the spirit of this politically correct inclusivity, this is flawed. If they're doing this, there shouldn't be a cutoff date. Someone will make the argument that there were several post-1948 Negro Leaguers who would have undoubtedly been Major Leaguers if not for the fact that the teams weren't taking each and every worthy Negro League player and stocking their clubs. Surely, teams such as Boston and Detroit could have grabbed a few more, yet didn't...

(I certainly understand the logic behind the cutoff date, but they're putting their feet in their mouths by having one.)

I agree. I think this is simply a starting point and based on how this shakes out they could broaden what is included down the road very easily.

[Flintboy]

Don’t agree with MLB on this one. This is the equivalent of adding Jim Kelley’s USFL passing yardage to his NFL stats or including Ichiros hits from the Japanese leagues to his MLB totals.

[Hankphenom]

Pretty definitive statement when discussing the merits of players who, if you will recall, weren't allowed to play in the major leagues because of their skin color. Why does recognizing their play at the highest level available to them diminish anyone? And how could recognizing a fact like that diminish anyone anymore than the decisions to deny them the chance to play?

It doesn't matter to you that a large percentage--I wouldn't want to put a number on it, but undoubtedly well north of half--of these players never would have made the major leagues whatever their color? Segregation in America is a tragic part of our past, and racism a continuing stain, I just don't see how pretending that all the teams and players in the Negro Leagues during that period now deserve to be considered Major League caliber serves to do anything to ameliorate that awful history. I perceive the analogies to such "outlaw" leagues as the USFL, ABA, to be imperfect but useful. If somebody wanted to do with the Negro Leagues as a whole what the HOF has done with individual players and do the research to try to cull those who might have made the Major Leagues and then include them in a history of "big league" baseball, I wouldn't have any objection to that. But throwing every Negro League player, the majority of whom would never have made it given the opportunity, into the same pot as those who did, defies common sense to me.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

But throwing every Negro League player, the majority of whom would never have made it given the opportunity, into the same pot as those who did, defies common sense to me.

Exactly what I've been saying (in other words) since my first comment.

The "Yay! Everyone's a winner!" mentality is the antithesis of athletic competition.

I prefer to play baseball by jumping on my pogo stick. I went to an open tryout with a big league club and was denied entry. Therefore, I should one day be inducted into the Hall of Fame? (Lots of sarcasm. Just trying to have some fun amidst this decision which, if applied to more important matters, may hold a dangerously troublesome outcome for the future.)

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Another problem is guy's like Ken Burns think's every player in the Negro Leagues had enough talent to be in the major leagues.

[Kenny Cole]

So anyone who ever played in the Negro Leagues is now a Major League player? From a pool of 10% of the population? Inclusion is great, but inclusion lacking merit, which would be the case for a large percentage of these men, only diminishes everybody concerned. There's a reason the term "major league" has meaning, and by including players who didn't meet that standard, you've cheapened it, IMO.

Kind of like anyone who had one AB in the majors, sucked, and washed out. No difference at all, except that they didn't get the chance to get that one AB.

[Ricky]

Exactly what I've been saying (in other words) since my first comment.

The "Yay! Everyone's a winner!" mentality is the antithesis of athletic competition.

I prefer to play baseball by jumping on my pogo stick. I went to an open tryout with a big league club and was denied entry. Therefore, I should one day be inducted into the Hall of Fame? (Lots of sarcasm. Just trying to have some fun amidst this decision which, if applied to more important matters, may hold a dangerously troublesome outcome for the future.)

Does it really make that much of adifference? It’s really not going to mess up the stats and its giving recognition to a group of baseball players who were wrongfully denied their opportunity. Unless you really want to argue the slippery slope theory...

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

How difficult is it to learn from our past, recognize humanity's mistakes, and move on in a more progressive direction? This is not progressive; in a way, it's revisionist history.

[Joe Hunter]

I listened to an interview, today, on local radio (Kansas City) with Negro League Hall of Fame director Bob Kendrick. Of course, he was pretty excited about the inclusion of the Negro Leagues into MLB. He said that it had been in the works for about 2 years and that he had been involved in the discussions pretty extensively. He pointed out, as was mentioned earlier, that it will include only players from 1920-1948 and that only stats acquired through competition between true Negro League teams would be used. No barnstorming, exhibition, etc games will count.

[todeen]

I like the idea. There have been some real stinker teams throughout MLB history, but games against those teams still count. I imagine top level teams enjoyed playing these teams so as to pad the stats. Exp: Cincinnati Reds who regularly threw a starting rotation of minor leaguers a couple seasons ago.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[samosa4u]

Some NL players over the years said that Jackie was garbage when he played for the Monarchs. So, how is this going to work then? Will those NL stats get carried over? Won’t they hurt his overall numbers or am I failing to understand something here?

[shagrotn77]

Wow. I'm 1,000% AGAINST this if, for no other reason, the fact that Negro League stats were not kept nearly as precisely as MLB stats. Also, as previously pointed out, Negro League teams didn't always play "major league" competition. Why would MLB decide that this was a good idea? Should we also make Ichiro the new MLB hit king, or Sadaharu Oh the new MLB HR king? This is ridiculous.

[jason.1969]

Best thing to happen in Baseball my entire life!

[Topnotchsy]

A number of points that are in response to many of the comments made.

There is extensive research on the caliber of play in the Negro Leagues, and generally it is assumed that the stars were roughly equivalent to the best in the Majors, while the leagues overall were in the range of AAA (or between AAA and the Majors). This is based on a wide range of factors including barnstorming tours, common opponents etc along with seeing how players who transitioned leagues like Jackie, Campanella,Doby and others did.

Note that there were a number of leagues historically that are considered Major Leagues. Along with the American League and National League, there was also the Union Association, the Players' League and the Federal League. And the range of talent in those leagues varied significantly. Certainly, in some cases, they were no better than AAA, which means that we currently have official leagues that were on par with the Negro Leagues and likely were worse.

The stats that will be included are only from 1920-1948 which was when the leagues were more structured and established, and before integration largely impacted the caliber of the teams and players. And it is only for league games.

There has been extensive research on Negro League games and box scores. There is definitely still uncertainly around stats, but we have uncertainty around stats from the 1800's as well and that never stopped us from including them. We've had adjustments to major stars. An adjustment to Ty Cobb's total (which is now reflected in Baseball-Reference) is in the article below.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/how-many-hits-did-ty-cobb-make-in-his-major-league-career-what-is-his-lifetime-batting-average/

Regarding some comments about the push for this; while the average fan, who cares little about the Negro Leagues may not have heard anything about this, there has been a push for some time. I wasn't involved in the push, but think it is a good thing.

[Mark17]

A number of points that are in response to many of the comments made.

There is extensive research on the caliber of play in the Negro Leagues, and generally it is assumed that the stars were roughly equivalent to the best in the Majors, while the leagues overall were in the range of AAA (or between AAA and the Majors).

Stats accumulated against AAA level competition are not Major League stats.

I wonder what Ted Williams would've hit had he spent his career in Triple A leagues. Or any ML player for that matter.

[Steve D]

Some NL players over the years said that Jackie was garbage when he played for the Monarchs. So, how is this going to work then? Will those NL stats get carried over? Won’t they hurt his overall numbers or am I failing to understand something here?


According to baseball-reference.com, in Jackie Robinson's one year (1945) with the Kansas City Monarchs, he hit .414, with 24 hits in 58 at bats.

If you add those totals to his Dodgers stats (1,518 hits in 4,877 at bats, .311 average), his batting average will go up one point to .312.

Steve

[Topnotchsy]

Stats accumulated against AAA level competition are not Major League stats.

I wonder what Ted Williams would've hit had he spent his career in Triple A leagues. Or any ML player for that matter.

Did you read my full post. There are leagues that are currently considered Major Leagues that were not on par with the American and National Leagues.

There were also eras in the American and National Leagues (like during WWII) where the caliber of player was significantly below "Major League" level. Unless you are arguing to remove some the 1800's leagues currently considered Major Leagues, and remove Hal Newhouser from the HOF (both his MVP awards and his 2 best seasons were against dimished WWII competition) then you aren't being consistent here.

[Tyruscobb]

Ted Williams and Babe Ruth no longer have top 10 batting averages. As a result, their cards will probably take around a 30% dive. I’ll help soften the blow. If anyone is interested, I’ll buy your cards at just a 25% discount. PM me. :D

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

There were also eras in the American and National Leagues (like during WWII) where the caliber of player was significantly below "Major League" level. Unless you are arguing to remove some the 1800's leagues currently considered Major Leagues, and remove Hal Newhouser from the HOF (both his MVP awards and his 2 best seasons were against dimished WWII competition) then you aren't being consistent here.

You make valid points. As someone who is on the opposite side of this argument, I agree with nearly all of what you're saying here.

I would gladly see Hal Newhouser's HOF plaque relinquished, as well as removing some of the 19th century leagues (if it proves sensible after more continued study) if this latest decision was obliterated.

We all know how long it took Newhouser to be inducted. Frankly, it should never have happened. But then, from what you say, the superstars of the Negro Leagues were playing mostly against AAA caliber players. Should the same rules not apply to them? Who, then, was deserving of enshrinement and who wasn't? Imagine trying to apply logic and meagerly collected stats in an attempt to accurately award merit. Cobb, Ruth, Joe D., Gehrig and whoever else were not playing AAA players. In fact, guys like Ted Williams and Joe D. weren't really padding their stats playing against the diminished WWII players, either. It's all just a huge can of worms proving that everything should have been left as was.

The only thing that we can't do that much about is the diminished talent pool of the WWII-era MLB. It has to stand for the sake of continuity.

(Not that any of these things would ever happen, outside of perhaps the eventual exclusion of the 19th century leagues, but I'm doubtful of that as well.)

[Kenny Cole]

Ted Williams and Babe Ruth no longer have top 10 batting averages. As a result, their cards will probably take around a 30% dive. I’ll help soften the blow. If anyone is interested, I’ll buy your cards at just a 25% discount. PM me. :D

I don't have a big problem with that. Charleston, Paige, Gibson, Lloyd, Torriente, et al., were absolute studs. IMO, they were on par with their white counterparts. I dont think any cards will take a hit, nor do I think that NL cards go up much. There aren't enough of them to move the needle. This is not nearly the issue that some are making it out to be so far as I'm concerned. This should have happened years ago and it is to MLB's shame that it didn't.

[Casey2296]

Funny how many commentators think this decision is the greatest thing since sliced bread but never bothered to donate $78.32 to our Negro League Baseball Museum fundraiser challenge.

[Topnotchsy]

You make valid points. As someone who is on the opposite side of this argument, I agree with nearly all of what you're saying here.

We all know how long it took Newhouser to be inducted. Frankly, it should never have happened.

I would gladly see Hal's HOF plaque relinquished, as well as removing some of the 19th century leagues (if it proves sensible after more continued study) if this latest decision was obliterated.

The only thing that we can't do that much about is the diminished talent pool of the WWII-era MLB. It has to stand for the sake of continuity.

(Not that any of these things would ever happen, outside of perhaps the eventual exclusion of the 19th century leagues, but I'm doubtful of that as well.)

Fair enough. I can appreciate the perspective and consistency.

I'd argue though, that we need to take it further. After black players, despite being a tiny fraction of the overall players early on, they won the NL ROY in 1947, and every year in the 5 years from 1949-1953.

If we take the best players in baseball who played most of their career after WWII, there are at least as many elite black players as white players. Most top 10 lists include 5 players from after WWII: Musial and Williams are white, and Mays, Aaron and Bonds are black. Some lists add Mantle, which would make it even. As you go further down the list you have Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Ken Griffey Jr, Rickey Henderson, Bob Gibson, Roberto Clemente, Pedro Martinez, Roy Campanella etc.

If you don't believe that the Negro Leagues should be included, there's an argument that all of MLB before integration shouldn't either be. Since it is clear that at roughly 50% of the high of the greatest players likely were barred from playing.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I'd argue though, that we need to take it further. After black players, despite being a tiny fraction of the overall players early on, they won the NL ROY in 1947, and every year in the 5 years from 1949-1953.

Forgive me, but this only proves that the MLB clubs picked the freshest, best cream off the top of the Negro League milk bottle. That's neither fresh news nor relevant to the conversation, and purely coincidental that the award happened to be won by black players.



If you don't believe that the Negro Leagues should be included, there's an argument that all of MLB before integration shouldn't either be. Since it is clear that at roughly 50% of the high of the greatest players likely were barred from playing.

Sadly, that number can only ever be a guess. There will never be definitive proof of this; it can only be speculated. Also, does this not fly in the face of what you already wrote about the majority of Negro Leaguers only being of AAA caliber? Even with our better understanding and appreciation of overlooked Negro League stars who were finally inducted after so long, statistically, we're nowhere near 50%. Even after years of scrupulous study of (hopefully) rediscovered box scores, will Cooperstown be opening the floodgates to that many players to even come close to that figure? Highly doubtful.

[Topnotchsy]

Forgive me, but this only proves that the MLB clubs picked the freshest, best cream off the top of the Negro League milk bottle. That's neither fresh news nor relevant to the conversation, and purely coincidental that the award happened to be won by black players.



Sadly, that number can only ever be a guess. There will never be definitive proof of this; it can only be speculated. Also, does this not fly in the face of what you already wrote about the majority of Negro Leaguers only being of AAA caliber? Even with our better understanding and appreciation of overlooked Negro League stars who were finally inducted after so long, statistically, we're nowhere near 50%. Even after years of scrupulous study of (hopefully) rediscovered box scores, will Cooperstown be opening the floodgates to that many players to even come close to that figure? Highly doubtful.

Since Integration, we have 70 years where black players have been roughly half of the all-time greats. I can't say definitively that before that era the players would have been equally good, but it's reasonable to speculate. The elite talent has been sustained for 70 years since, and includes players that crossed over leagues (Jackie, Campanella, Aaron, Mays etc all played in the Negro Leagues.)

When you talk about picking the "cream of the crop" that's likely at least somewhat true. But in winning the ROY, these players were finishing on top of all the white players who were rookies (and subsequently the many MVP's won by Mays, Aaron, Frank Robinson, Campanella etc which means they were literally viewed as the best.)

Regarding my two comments, they are consistent. Research has shown that the elite of the Negro Leagues were on par with the elite in the Majors, but that the teams were overall thinner in talent.

Even if the number of stars missing from pre-integration was 30%-40% and not fully 50%, you are looking at the leagues missing large groups of the best players.

In my mind, if you don't count the Negro Leagues as a Major League because it didn't quite live up to the AL and NL (top to bottom), it's hard to compare stats from pre-integration with post-integration.

All that said, I know not everyone will agree (though I think most will disagree with less nuance than you have) and I appreciate the dialogue around this.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Then the NHL had better add WHA stats to the career totals of guys who played in both leagues. That would mean Mr. Hockey is again the all-time goal scoring leader I believe.

[trdcrdkid]

Some NL players over the years said that Jackie was garbage when he played for the Monarchs. So, how is this going to work then? Will those NL stats get carried over? Won’t they hurt his overall numbers or am I failing to understand something here?

Jackie Robinson batted .384 in 26 league games for the KC Monarchs in 1945, his only year with them. Doesn’t sound like “garbage” to me.

[Kenny Cole]

Forgive me, but this only proves that the MLB clubs picked the freshest, best cream off the top of the Negro League milk bottle. That's neither fresh news nor relevant to the conversation, and purely coincidental that the award happened to be won by black players.




Sadly, that number can only ever be a guess. There will never be definitive proof of this; it can only be speculated. Also, does this not fly in the face of what you already wrote about the majority of Negro Leaguers only being of AAA caliber? Even with our better understanding and appreciation of overlooked Negro League stars who were finally inducted after so long, statistically, we're nowhere near 50%. Even after years of scrupulous study of (hopefully) rediscovered box scores, will Cooperstown be opening the floodgates to that many players to even come close to that figure? Highly doubtful.

In my estimation, there are at least 10 who deserve HOF consideration. Not saying that they should all be elected, but they should be looked at. I think that 5 would be no-brainers if they were white -- Lundy, Donaldson, Marcelle, Beckwith and Brewer. There are several more who should be looked at, including several who played before the cut-off date of 1920. I kind of get 1948, but 1920 is ridiculous IMO.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Since Integration, we have 70 years where black players have been roughly half of the all-time greats. I can't say definitively that before that era the players would have been equally good, but it's reasonable to speculate. The elite talent has been sustained for 70 years since, and includes players that crossed over leagues (Jackie, Campanella, Aaron, Mays etc all played in the Negro Leagues.)



I think it's also pertinent to mention the huge upswing in Latin American talent that represents your post-integration demographic. It gives this discussion more points to consider. While there were certainly black Latinos playing in the Negro Leagues, it was statistically far from what's transpired in the integrated era. The great players of the last 30+ years with (at least some) African ancestry have more often than not been Latino.

And while there are a handful of black Latino HOFers from the Negro Leagues, there was never a Latino superstar who made it into pre-integration MLB.

[Topnotchsy]

I think it's also pertinent to mention the huge upswing in Latin American talent that represents your post-integration demographic. It gives this discussion more points to consider. While there were certainly black Latinos playing in the Negro Leagues, it was statistically far from what's transpired in the integrated era. The great players of the last 30+ years with (at least some) African ancestry have more often than not been Latino.

And while there are a handful of black Latino HOFers from the Negro Leagues, there was never a Latino superstar who made it into pre-integration MLB.

That's a point I hadn't considered, but I'm not sure I agree for a couple of reasons.

1) All the players I mentioned were black except for Clemente, and I don't believe any were Latino. I didn't even mention Pujols, Arod etc.

2) There were many great players who because they couldn't play in the MLB, chose to play in Cuba, Puerto Rico and Mexico. Players like Alejandro Oms, Pedro (Perucho) Cepeda etc. Had those players had the chance to play in the MLB, with the increased salaries and opportunities, many if not all would have taken that opportunity. (Some players were explicit about not playing in the US because of the color barrier)

[Mark17]

Did you read my full post. There are leagues that are currently considered Major Leagues that were not on par with the American and National Leagues.

There were also eras in the American and National Leagues (like during WWII) where the caliber of player was significantly below "Major League" level. Unless you are arguing to remove some the 1800's leagues currently considered Major Leagues, and remove Hal Newhouser from the HOF (both his MVP awards and his 2 best seasons were against dimished WWII competition) then you aren't being consistent here.

Yes and I take stats from the 1800s with a grain of salt, also considering all of the rule and equipment changes over the past 120+ years.

The war years created a circumstance that was unavoidable. Yes, the level of play dipped during those years. Same with the first couple of years after expansion.

But this is different - it is a conscious decision to elevate stats garnered against (by your own admission) Triple A competition to Major League status, across several decades.

[Topnotchsy]

Yes and I take stats from the 1800s with a grain of salt, also considering all of the rule and equipment changes over the past 120+ years.

The war years created a circumstance that was unavoidable. Yes, the level of play dipped during those years. Same with the first couple of years after expansion.

But this is different - it is a conscious decision to elevate stats garnered against (by your own admission) Triple A competition to Major League status, across several decades.

You may take the 1800's stats with a grain of salt, but they are included in the baseball record books. And some of those leagues were also roughly at AAA level (not comparing to modern day, just comparing to the other leagues of the time).

The reality is that we've accepted a range of levels as Major Leagues for a very long time. And the elite in the Negro Leagues were clearly as good as the best in the Majors. We have barnstorming games as evidence. And we have the incredible play of the black players who played in the Majors after integration. Jackie won the ROY in 47 and MVP in 49. He wasn't remotely the best player in the Negro Leagues. Campanella won 3 MVP's. But there's a good chance he was no Biz Mackey, and he certainly was no Josh Gibson.

The MLB was diminished in those years because they didn't have the great black players (if the track record since integration is an indication, it's likely 30%-50% of the biggest stars in the game. Arguably those stats shouldn't be counted either along the same line of reasoning.

[Mark17]

And the elite in the Negro Leagues were clearly as good as the best in the Majors.

I agree with this. Where we disagree is whether their stats, accumulated against AAA level competition, should be equated to ML players of that era, who accumulated stats versus ML competition.

I also wonder if the NL had talent watered down during the war years.

[Exhibitman]

Then the NHL had better add WHA stats to the career totals of guys who played in both leagues. That would mean Mr. Hockey is again the all-time goal scoring leader I believe.

He is; WHA ROCKS!

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/hockey/websize/1977%20OPC%20WHA%20Howe%20raw.jpg

[Kenny Cole]

You may take the 1800's stats with a grain of salt, but they are included in the baseball record books. And some of those leagues were also roughly at AAA level (not comparing to modern day, just comparing to the other leagues of the time).

The reality is that we've accepted a range of levels as Major Leagues for a very long time. And the elite in the Negro Leagues were clearly as good as the best in the Majors. We have barnstorming games as evidence. And we have the incredible play of the black players who played in the Majors after integration. Jackie won the ROY in 47 and MVP in 49. He wasn't remotely the best player in the Negro Leagues. Campanella won 3 MVP's. But there's a good chance he was no Biz Mackey, and he certainly was no Josh Gibson.

The MLB was diminished in those years because they didn't have the great black players (if the track record since integration is an indication, it's likely 30%-50% of the biggest stars in the game. Arguably those stats shouldn't be counted either along the same line of reasoning.

This. But it doesn't go far enough.

[riggs336]

Any imposed change to social norms is messy and devisive. Sometimes the reaction is dramatic, like Civil War dramatic. But usually people share their opinions and feelings for a while then simmer down while life proceeds. Both sides of this issue have been intelligently presented, but I predict time will smooth things out and we'll soon be talking about something else.

[yanks12025]

I like how they cut it off at 1948 and dont include up to 1953 because it would have given Aaron the HR record again

[clydepepper]

IMO, the was just recognition that the Negro Leagues were, at that time, the absolute highest level of play for ANY BLACK player & THAT is the very definition of a Major League.
.

[keithsky]

While the HOF is at it might want to include the women of baseball and include their stats and I don't mean that sarcastically. Include everyone

[ALBB]

I think it will make things more confusing

[Huysmans]

While the HOF is at it might want to include the women of baseball and include their stats and I don't mean that sarcastically. Include everyone

Exactly. How many for this would would also want to include the women??

[darwinbulldog]

I like it. Most of the criticisms I've read of it so far are based on assumptions that would be debunked by reading the original article or this one (https://www.mlb.com/news/negro-leagues-given-major-league-status-for-baseball-records-stats) from MLB. I don't really buy the argument that imperfections in the tabulation of the stats are a good reason not to prefer some improvement over the status quo, and this particular method of synthesizing the Negro League stats with the extant MLB stats is certainly an improvement over the absolute segregation of the two.

[darwinbulldog]

Exactly. How many for this would would also want to include the women??

This will become more than a straw man argument the day that a significant number of women are playing on modern-day MLB rosters.

[Mark17]

While the HOF is at it might want to include the women of baseball and include their stats and I don't mean that sarcastically. Include everyone

Since they've been calling it the "World Series" since 1903, isn't it time they include the Japanese Major Leagues too?

Looks like Sadaharu Oh is the REAL all time HR king.

Maybe it's a good idea to load up on Randy Bass cards since they're pretty cheap for a guy who hit 55 HRs in a single season.

[darwinbulldog]

Since they've been calling it the "World Series" since 1903, isn't it time they include the Japanese Major Leagues too?

Looks like Sadaharu Oh is the REAL all time HR king.

Maybe it's a good idea to load up on Randy Bass cards since they're pretty cheap for a guy who hit 55 HRs in a single season.

I can't be the only one who would like to see Ichiro ahead of Pete Rose.

[jason.1969]

I like it. Most of the criticisms I've read of it so far are based on assumptions that would be debunked by reading the original article or this one (https://www.mlb.com/news/negro-leagues-given-major-league-status-for-baseball-records-stats) from MLB. I don't really buy the argument that imperfections in the tabulation of the stats are a good reason not to prefer some improvement over the status quo, and this particular method of synthesizing the Negro League stats with the extant MLB stats is certainly an improvement over the absolute segregation of the two.


So what you’re saying is that decades of research by some of the top baseball historians in the country should overrule the opinions of baseball card collectors? You don’t think Rob Manfred should have checked here first? But, but, but...[emoji2962]

[packs]

I think what's most surprising to me is this notion that Negro League players somehow diminish the order of major league players. Like they're taking something away from somebody by being included. The only players who had anything taken away from them were the Negro League players.

And if your argument is going to be that it's not fair they be called major leaguers, I'd say it's not fair they weren't.

[Huysmans]

This will become more than a straw man argument the day that a significant number of women are playing on modern-day MLB rosters.

Some people - maybe women - would have a hard time accepting exclusion by gender when there are those who won't except exclusion by race.

Saying this, I fully understand and see a difference myself, but I think some will not.

[Mark17]

I think what's most surprising to me is this notion that Negro League players somehow diminish the order of major league players. Like they're taking something away from somebody by being included. The only players who had anything taken away from them were the Negro League players.

And if your argument is going to be that it's not fair they be called major leaguers, I'd say it's not fair they weren't.


If you're talking about the players who were good enough to be in the Major Leagues, agreed. If you are talking about the rest of the league, which in above posts was estimated to be AAA level, then no. If we're going to call those guys Major Leaguers, then why not call the Triple-A players of that day Major Leaguers too, since they were of similar caliber.

[packs]

If you're talking about the players who were good enough to be in the Major Leagues, agreed. If you are talking about the rest of the league, which in above posts was estimated to be AAA level, then no. If we're going to call those guys Major Leaguers, then why not call the Triple-A players of that day Major Leaguers too, since they were of similar caliber.


That argument is easily defeated by pointing out that the players in the major leagues who would have otherwise lost their jobs to superior Negro League players are still counted among major leaguers. It really isn't a position that can be defended.

[Mark17]

That argument is easily defeated by pointing out that the players in the major leagues who would have otherwise lost their jobs to superior Negro League players are still counted among major leaguers. It really isn't a position that can be defended.

If you consider the population percentages, there were many more non-black players and therefore much more competition for spots in the Major Leagues. That alone suggests the average player in the ML was better than the average player in the NL.

[packs]

If you consider the population percentages, there were many more non-black players and therefore much more competition for spots in the Major Leagues. That alone suggests the average player in the ML was better than the average player in the NL.

More than anything else, up until Jackie Robinson, the only real qualification you needed to have to play major league baseball was you had to be white. Talent was never first. And even if you want to go along with your line of thinking, there are a million guys who played a cup of coffee in the major leagues that would fall into your AAA and AA talent pool.

[Mark17]

More than anything else, up until Jackie Robinson, the only real qualification you needed to have to play major league baseball was you had to be white. Talent was never first. And even if you want to go along with your line of thinking, there are a million guys who played a cup of coffee in the major leagues that would fall into your AAA and AA talent pool.

Of course talent was first. Look at how extensive the farm systems were. Rookie League, Single A, Double A, Triple A. Some ML teams having more than one minor league team at the same level. Competition to get to the ML was pretty fierce, and there were many thousands of white players competing for those spots.

[campyfan39]

Wait...what?

This will become more than a straw man argument the day that a significant number of women are playing on modern-day MLB rosters.

[packs]

If talent was first why would you have to be white?

And what are you holding so dear, anyway? Victory Faust was in the right place at the right time. Eddie Gaedel was short. But there is nothing to be said about their inclusion over someone like Bruce Petway.

[pgconboy]

I didn't really expect so much opposition to acknowledging a group of athletes that competed at the highest level available to them while racism prevented them from furthering their careers and reaching their dreams.

Yet here we are.

As an NFL fan this sort of stuff has been grouped into the history of the sport as various leagues were born, went extinct, or merged, etc.

In 1961 Charley Hennigan had one of the most statistically dominating seasons for a WR ever. But we all know the competition in the very first years of the AFL wasn't the greatest and a rational human being can take that into account.

[packs]

It really is strange to me. This board is full of people who collect Negro League memorabilia and have nothing but good things to say about Jackie Robinson or Jackie Robinson Day but for some reason there is all this animosity toward recognition like this. This is a good thing. Why don't you want it to be?

[Mark17]

If talent was first why would you have to be white?

And what are you holding so dear, anyway? Victory Faust was in the right place at the right time. Eddie Gaedel was short. But there is nothing to be said about their inclusion over someone like Bruce Petway.

Charles Victory Faust and Eddie Gaedel were stunts, much like Minnie Minoso playing a few games at age 51, and again at 55.

My concern is the watering down of statistics. If you're Satchell Paige you're a ML caliber player, without doubt. But the stats you accumulate pitching against Triple A level competition are not Major League caliber stats.

[packs]

Charles Victory Faust and Eddie Gaedel were stunts, much like Minnie Minoso playing a few games at age 51, and again at 55.

My concern is the watering down of statistics. If you're Satchell Paige you're a ML caliber player, without doubt. But the stats you accumulate pitching against Triple A level competition are not Major League caliber stats.

Explain how they're watered down when they don't threaten any all time records or even advance Paige's reputation. His reputation is what it is without knowing any of his stats. How does he become watered down?

Again, if you extend your argument from before, the major league records are already watered down by virtue of excluding the best players from playing at all times. Pre-Jackie, everyone's stats are watered down. You cannot say that everything is equal and we are in the same place today if Oscar Charleston and players like him played major league baseball.

[jason.1969]

Explain how they're watered down when they don't threaten any all time records or even advance Paige's reputation. His reputation is what it is without knowing any of his stats. How does he become watered down?


Records WILL look different. For example the record for single season batting average, long held by the unquestionably great Hugh Duffy who clearly faced some of the toughest pitching ever, may soon go to Josh Gibson, who many esteemed collectors presume faced mainly AAA level chumps and hobos.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

In the 1930's there were many minor leaguers who, by first-hand accounts from Major Leaguers I knew, should rightly have been called up to the show. The issue was of course the lack of room on the rosters of the parent clubs. Therefore, due to space constrictions, many white players were also denied entry into the Major Leagues. Should we examine their records and proclaim those that meet a predetermined set of criteria to be Major Leaguers as well? According to some points being presented, we'd almost have to. Fair is fair.

[earlywynnfan]

Just curious, where would they be in line if they allowed black players to get in the same line?

In the 1930's there were many minor leaguers who, by first-hand accounts from Major Leaguers I knew, should rightly have been called up to the show. The issue was of course the lack of room on the rosters of the parent clubs. Therefore, due to space constrictions, many white players were also denied entry into the Major Leagues. Should we examine their records and proclaim those that meet a predetermined set of criteria to be Major Leaguers as well? According to some points being presented, we'd almost have to. Fair is fair.

[pgconboy]

In the 1930's there were many minor leaguers who, by first-hand accounts from Major Leaguers I knew, should rightly have been called up to the show. The issue was of course the lack of room on the rosters of the parent clubs. Therefore, due to space constrictions, many white players were also denied entry into the Major Leagues. Should we examine their records and proclaim those that meet a predetermined set of criteria to be Major Leaguers as well? According to some points being presented, we'd almost have to. Fair is fair.

So limited roster spaces for whites is the equivalent of the categorical and systematic racism of the Negro leaguers?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Just curious, where would they be in line if they allowed black players to get in the same line?

Unfortunately, that is not a question we will ever have a perfect answer to. It's a shame.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

So limited roster spaces for whites is the equivalent of the categorical and systematic racism of the Negro leaguers?

My obvious point was that both blacks and whites were denied entry due to circumstances they could not change.

[pgconboy]

My obvious point was that both blacks and whites were denied entry due to circumstances they could not change.

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

[packs]

My obvious point was that both blacks and whites were denied entry due to circumstances they could not change.

No white player was denied entry to organized professional baseball. The two things you are comparing are not at all alike and share no similarities.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

Definitely open and free competition, but also lack of space. That's all I'm trying to convey.

OK, I'll spin it a slightly different way:

Let's say expansion started not in the 1960's but 30 years prior. It's clear that many of the players who weren't able to make it beyond the minors up to this hypothetical point would be called up due to more job openings. All of a sudden, they're in the bigs where they should have been in the first place. Like many of their NL counterparts, we're not talking about incredible talents here, but rather enough talent to spend some time at the Major League level.

(I am not arguing anything to do with racism, but rather expanding on my
"can of worms" theory--as in, where does it end if history needs to be revised?)

[Hankphenom]

Kind of like anyone who had one AB in the majors, sucked, and washed out. No difference at all, except that they didn't get the chance to get that one AB.

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.

[Mark17]

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

My point is that Major League stats should be earned against Major League level competition, not Triple A level competition.

When you bring race into the discussion like that, it sounds more like affirmative action rather than holding every Major League player to the same standard - the standard of earning their stats against ML level competition.

[packs]

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.


But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

[Case12]

Why do we continue to rewrite history to feel better about ourselves. The Negro Leagues have already been recognized. as a league. HOF'rs have been voted in. I've met some of the greats and they were awesome and proud of their accomplishments. We were all happy that recognition was in place. I am very proud of the Negro Leagues and they deserve all the fame and attention deserved. Many of us would give up their firstborn for a Josh Gibson signed baseball. Then 2020 rolls around, and all history needs to be changed to be woke. Personally, this feels like a stunt that is fraught with error, confuses everyone and just causes trouble. Btw, Double Duty Radcliffe is one of my baseball heros. In the 90's he showed my little daughter his hands...as big as a catchers mitt! Signed a ball for her that is precious to us.

[Hankphenom]

But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

That makes no sense at all. You will never know which white players would have been "replaced," but you can try to distinguish between those NL players who appeared to have the talent to make the major leagues and those who didn't. HOF voters have been making those kinds of distinctions for many years. I'm happy to add those who qualify, but including the vast majority who would not just diminishes the whole, IMO. As I said, if you want to do that in the name of justice and be honest about that, I'd be more amenable.

[Mark17]

But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

Hank's point is valid and excellent.

Making some assumptions: During the period 1920-1948, the average black player and average white player were basically equal in ability. Also assume interest in playing baseball was basically equal between blacks and non-blacks. And finally, assume the number of teams in the NL and ML is the same.

If the population is comprised of 10% blacks and 90% non-blacks. It means, for every spot on a ML roster, there are 9 times as many non-black guys competing for it, compared to blacks trying to make it in the NL.

If there were only half as many teams in the NL as there were in the ML, then the non-blacks had 4.5 guys competing for a roster spot compared to blacks in their league.

[Hankphenom]

Btw, Double Duty Radcliffe is one of my baseball heros. In the 90's he showed my little daughter his hands...as big as a catchers mitt! Signed a ball for her that is precious to us.

I once met Double Duty and had a long chat with him, one of the great thrills of my life. He told me about seeing Walter Johnson pitch in an exhibition game in Florida, and how fast he was. A few years later, I just happened to be at a game at RFK when the Nationals played there, and there was Double Duty "throwing out" the first pitch on his 100th birthday. What a guy!

[packs]

But none of those things are relevant. This isn't mass induction into the HOF. It's mass recognition of playing at the highest level available to these players. You cannot simultaneously argue that every Negro League player shouldn't be recognized because not all of them would have played in the majors and say that everyone who did play in the majors belonged there.

[Mark17]

But none of those things are relevant. This isn't mass induction into the HOF. It's mass recognition of playing at the highest level available to these players. You cannot simultaneously argue that every Negro League player shouldn't be recognized because not all of them would have played in the majors and say that everyone who did play in the majors belonged there.

Recognize them for what they did, but don't water down the statistical integrity of those who actually competed at the ML level.

[GaryPassamonte]

Speaking of level of play at the highest level available at the time, why is the National Association of 1871-1875 not considered major league by MLB? The NA was the first professional league. The problem is that no one is pounding the drum for the NA. It seems all policy decisions today are dictated by political correctness and the loudest voices. See the Cleveland Indians for example. It's not the changes that are wrong. It's the underlying reasons why they are being made that is wrong.

[Jason19th]

This is going to be a long post. This is a topic I am passionate about and have studies for over two decades. I am going to cover a number of topics and I hope that you bear with me

1. Quality of the League

When we are talking about the quality of the league we have to separate the quality of the players from the overall quality of the league. I agree that if we look at the 1940 MLB and the 1940 NL the two leagues are not equal. A top NL team would have not been able to keep up in the MLB and probably would have had trouble in AAA. This however is not because of the talent of the players. Instead NL teams were disadvantaged by a number of economic and organizational factors. NL teams had very small rosters. It was not uncommon for an NL teams to travel with only 13 guys. There was not enough money to carry a 25 man roster. As a result it was common for position players to pitch, pitcher to play in the field and for players to play hurt. There was no platooning and their was no relief pitching. NL teams were also hurt by the fact that there was not a clear minor league feeder structure. There were lessor black teams but those were independant teams with no obligation to send a player up. This meant that even top teams would often play short handed or sign some local kid play a couple of games. As a result of these issues it would have been impossible for a 1940 NL team to play in the national league. They would have won some games but they would have been worn down over the course of the year.

If we think more broadly however what do the 1940 NL teams sound like. They sound like major league teams of the 00's and teens. Small rosters, no minors, first basemen pitching. I do believe that the 1940 Homestead Grays could have played in the 1910 National League. The 1940 Grays had 4 hall of famers on that teams and a number of other good players. How many national league teams in 1910 had four hall of famers on it.


2. Quality of the players

I will argue that, for many of the reasons listed above, all of the players who had real NL careers were MLB calibre players. I am not talking about some guy who got 20 at bats with the New York Cubans in 1933. I am talking about players that were full time on a roster for at least a couple of years. The same constraints discussed above meant that there was very little dead weight on a Negro League team. If you could not play you didn't ride the bench you road the train out of town. If you look at the players that played right around the years of integration you can see the quality of the players. For example in 1946 there were about 10 NL teams. Lets say that is 120 real players. Look at all of the black players who played in the early 1950's. I know that not all of these guys played in the Negro leagues but if there was not integration this is the group of talent that would have made up the negro league. Jackie, Campy, Montie Irvin, Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, Don Newcomb, Dan Bankhead, Hank Thompson, Sam Jones, Minnie Minoso, George Crowe, Jim Pendleton, Billy Burton, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente, Luke Easter, Sam Jethro. In addition a couple of older black players like Ray Dandrige pretty much crushed the high minors but never got to the majors.

It is also important to consider that not everyone who has a MLB stat line is really a MLB player. As a Milwaukee Brewer fan in the 1990 I saw a long string of players who are in the encyclopedia that were not really MLB players. I don't think we need to take them out, but at the same time we certainly are lowering the quality by letting a few marginal Negro league players in

3.Quality of the Stats

The Negro league are long on lore and I think sometimes that clouds the reality. We all heard stories about home runs that Gibson hit that didn't come down until the next day in a different story or Cool Papa Bell bunting for a triple. I fear that often these type of stories blind us to the fact that these were real leagues that kept real stats. Especially as we get into the later 30's and 40's the stats were actually very good for league games. I have a copy of the 1945 Negro league year book and it has a stats section that is just as good as an MLB year book from the same era. I have a run of newspaper articles from the Newark Eagles with full league stats just like in any other newpaper. Negro league stats are not all retrospective compilation done years later. many of the years have high quality contemporaneous stats


4. Comparison of the Stats

Lets all be honest. As much as we love to talk about history and the consistency of baseball we all know its really not possible to compare different leagues and different eras without adjustments. In the 1969 Yaz won the batting title by hitting 301. He didn't hit 301 because he wasn't great or because all of the pitchers were so good. He his 301 because the rules allowed the mound to be 10 feet high and the stroke zone was between the tops of your shoes and an inch over the top of your helmet. That was the game, those were the rules and you really cannot compare them to any other era without making adjustments. You cannot look at Babe Herman and go my god his hit 350 he must have been amazing, you have to look at him and say "oh he hit 350 when there were 20 outfielder who it higher then him. We have all learned to make these adjustments and it doesn't effect who we consider major league.

[clydepepper]

People Please!

Please read my previous post ( #72 - the highlighted one)...that's all that needs to be said.

.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

That makes no sense at all. You will never know which white players would have been "replaced," but you can try to distinguish between those NL players who appeared to have the talent to make the major leagues and those who didn't. HOF voters have been making those kinds of distinctions for many years. I'm happy to add those who qualify, but including the vast majority who would not just diminishes the whole, IMO. As I said, if you want to do that in the name of justice and be honest about that, I'd be more amenable.

I'm in agreement with what Hank has been saying and am glad he's been here to voice a few points that nobody else has touched upon.

We have to employ as much logic and as little emotion as possible to this discussion in an effort to be fair to all. Unfortunately, there is no precise solution and there never will be. Yes, this is due to the unfortunate ways of the past, but let's not start taking pencils and erasers to the book of time. After all, it was written in indelible ink; erasers are powerless. Recognize mistakes and leave them be in order for future generations to more easily see what went wrong. It's not a bad idea to leave those scars showing loud and clear.

[GaryPassamonte]

IMO, the was just recognition that the Negro Leagues were, at that time, the absolute highest level of play for ANY BLACK player & THAT is the very definition of a Major League.
.

I repeat, then why is the National Association not considered a major league?
The reason is that MLB and, for that matter, the HOF don't care about righting any wrongs. They only care about doing what they believe will perpetuate their existence and pad their pockets.

[Kenny Cole]

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.

Boy, you got me there. I can't answer an unanswerable question. The answer is no one knows because they didn't get that chance. What I can say is that in head to head competitions with MLB all-star exhibition teams, not the slouches, the Negro Leaguers won over 60% of the time. After integration, which was far too slow IMO, the black ballplayers dominated the sport, despite (or maybe because of), having to overcome tremendous obstacles. I guess you can argue that they were the cream of the crop, but weren't the people they were playing against supposedly also the cream of the crop?

The Union League is recognized as a major league. So too is the AA. No one I know believes that they were equivalent to the National League of that same period. And yet, they both drew from that wonderful 90% talent pool. For that matter, baseball in the 1880s to the early 1900s was a different game than it is now. Calling for a high or low pitch, throwing underhanded from a mound 45" away, 4 strikes, etc. But the numbers compiled during those time still count, are still venerated, and are still used as a basis of comparison to modern players.

Baseball has always compared apples to oranges in terms of statistics. At least in my estimation, this is no different, no better, and no worse than using numbers from a time when the game was substantially different than it is now to compare against current players. People can make their own judgments as to what the numbers mean, but having those numbers available to compare is, I believe, a good thing.

[packs]

All this talk of population and percentages counts for nothing when you examine reality.

15 of the top 24 on the all time home run list are non-white players of color. I know a fact like that doesn't fit the narrative of 4.5 players to whatever, but it is the most obvious reflection of what the major leagues missed while it excluded them from play.

When you review the all time hit list 10 of the 24 players are non-white players of color.

[Mark17]

All this talk of population and percentages counts for nothing when you examine reality.

15 of the top 24 on the all time home run list are non-white players of color. I know a fact like that doesn't fit the narrative of 4.5 players to whatever, but it is the most obvious reflection of what the major leagues missed while it excluded them from play.

When you review the all time hit list 10 of the 24 players are non-white players of color.

Now do that comparison for pitchers.

[packs]

Now do that comparison for pitchers.

Why? The point has been made. The level of play you assume is incorrect and it is reflected in where players ended up once they were allowed to play, despite being denied accumulation of any stats until 1947.

[steve B]

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

Except that open and free competition wasn't, even for white players.
With the reserve clause, a team that had a good player didn't need to look for or sign another for that position unless they thought they'd be much better.

One telling point to me was made years ago by an old time player who spoke to the club I was in.
He said that at the time there were about 17,000 people playing in organized leagues.
When he played, the estimated number of people in organized leagues was closer to 175,000
What this did was lead to good but not great players sticking around due to being agreeable. The holdouts, the surly, were simply replaced, unless they were spectacular like Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio. (Not saying either was, those were the two examples he used)

There were players who were probably major league caliber playing in industrial leagues, and a piece of why they never made it big could be that given the choice of playing a few years in the minors making very little, or staying on a career path that initially paid less, but had more long term stability and potential many wouldn't sign.

I suspect that given the available careers, the competition for spots on a top ML team was more than it was for a then major league team.

[Mark17]

Why? The point has been made. The level of play you assume is incorrect and it is reflected in where players ended up once they were allowed to play, despite being denied accumulation of any stats until 1947.

We are talking past each other I think. Let's just agree to disagree.

But what about my point about the Japanese Major League? Since we have the World Series, shouldn't we also include Japan's Major League too?

If not, why?

[packs]

Probably because the Japanese league wasn't created or played in America or started in response to systematic racial exclusion from Major League Baseball.

[steve B]

I'm glad they are getting the recognition.

The integration of their stats seems so far to be sensible. As the articles have said, the simplest are very easy, hits HR that sort of thing.

Stuff like batting average is much tougher. The couple seasons I looked at were only about half as long as the National or American league season.
How many times have we seen players have great batting averages before the All-Star break, but fade in the last half of the season?

That to me is a bigger difference than a perceived difference in pitchers abilities.
It will be interesting to see how they handle including them.

[Ricky]

Records WILL look different. For example the record for single season batting average, long held by the unquestionably great Hugh Duffy who clearly faced some of the toughest pitching ever, may soon go to Josh Gibson, who many esteemed collectors presume faced mainly AAA level chumps and hobos.

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.

[Mark17]

I'm glad they are getting the recognition.

The integration of their stats seems so far to be sensible. As the articles have said, the simplest are very easy, hits HR that sort of thing.

Stuff like batting average is much tougher. The couple seasons I looked at were only about half as long as the National or American league season.
How many times have we seen players have great batting averages before the All-Star break, but fade in the last half of the season?

That to me is a bigger difference than a perceived difference in pitchers abilities.
It will be interesting to see how they handle including them.

Well, it used to be common knowledge the last .400 hitter was Teddy Ballgame. Not any more. Now, it's Josh Gibson's .441 in 1943, aided no doubt by the Triple A level pitchers he was facing, plus attrition due to WW2.

Nobody could top Ted's achievement with the bat, but the PC crowd did, by re-writing history.

[pgconboy]

Except that open and free competition wasn't, even for white players.
With the reserve clause, a team that had a good player didn't need to look for or sign another for that position unless they thought they'd be much better.

Sounds like a whole lot of opportunity to me compared to what the alternative was up against.

[Mark17]

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.

To qualify for a batting title, a player needs 3.1 plate appearances for every game on his team's schedule.

Unless they are now going to change that, too.

[Fred]

From the LA Times: "Josh Gibson, a power-hitting catcher for Negro League teams, will likely be awarded baseball' single season record for batting average. Gibson hit .441 for multiple Negro League teams in 1943, surpassing the mark of .440 set in 1894".

Gibson had 342 plate appearances, 124 hits in 281 at bats in 1943. How can a comparison be made for a season with only 281 at bats to a season (Hugh Duffy's 1894 season) that ended up with a .440 average based on 616 plate appearances, 237 hits in 539 at bats?

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.

[pgconboy]

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.

Somewhat related to this was when the NFL went from 12 game seasons to 14.

Records fell.

Then they went form 14 game seasons to 16 game seasons.

Records fell.

They are likely going to 17 game seasons in 2021 or 2022.

Records will fall.

[packs]

From the LA Times: "Josh Gibson, a power-hitting catcher for Negro League teams, will likely be awarded baseball' single season record for batting average. Gibson hit .441 for multiple Negro League teams in 1943, surpassing the mark of .440 set in 1894".

Gibson had 342 plate appearances, 124 hits in 281 at bats in 1943. How can a comparison be made for a season with only 281 at bats to a season (Hugh Duffy's 1894 season) that ended up with a .440 average based on 616 plate appearances, 237 hits in 539 at bats?

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.


Hugh Duffy set his record in a year when the first 5 batters on the leaderboard hit over 400.

Since detractors have made such an issue over the level of play, it seems disingenuous to bring up Hugh Duffy.

[Exhibitman]

For single season records I don't think we can exclude a reasonable season like Gibson's--if we do, are we going to see 61* again??? Ugh.

Look on the bright side: if the NL stats range can be expanded to 1953 and Hank Aaron becomes the all-time HR king again, we get rid of Cheatin' Barry!

[jason.1969]

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.


More than likely we will see the standard criteria of 3.1 PA per league game. Similar to the recently concluded pandemic season of 60 games.

[Mark17]

Somewhat related to this was when the NFL went from 12 game seasons to 14.

Records fell.

Then they went form 14 game seasons to 16 game seasons.

Records fell.

They are likely going to 17 game seasons in 2021 or 2022.

Records will fall.

It's one thing when records fall because a player breaks it. It's quite a bit different when records fall because history is re-written.

Ted died knowing he was the last .400 hitter. Little did he know, the politics of MLB would decree he only held that distinction for 2 short years.

[jason.1969]

Well, it used to be common knowledge the last .400 hitter was Teddy Ballgame. Not any more. Now, it's Josh Gibson's .441 in 1943, aided no doubt by the Triple A level pitchers he was facing, plus attrition due to WW2.

Nobody could top Ted's achievement with the bat, but the PC crowd did, by re-writing history.


Perhaps you will be happy to know it will not be Josh Gibson. More than likely it will be Artie Wilson in 1948 when there was no war at all.

[pgconboy]

Ted died knowing he was the last .400 hitter. Little did he know, the politics of MLB would decree he only held that distinction for 2 short years.

I suspect we didn't hurt his feelings.

[earlywynnfan]

I suspect we didn't hurt his feelings.

Based on what Ted said about the NL and its players, I wouldn't be surprised if he was proud to be bested by Gibson.

[packs]

Speaking of Ted Williams and his NL counterparts, and because every thread needs a card, here's what Satchel Paige had to say about Francisco Coimbre:

Satchel Paige stated “Coimbre could not be pitched to. No one gave me more trouble than anyone I ever faced, including Josh Gibson and Ted Williams.”

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48236111441_4778f0c308_w.jpg

[Fred]

More than likely we will see the standard criteria of 3.1 PA per league game. Similar to the recently concluded pandemic season of 60 games.

I couldn't imagine if someone hit .450 in the 2020 shortened season that it would be the new bench mark for batting average in a season (based on the 3.1 PA per league game).

[pgconboy]

I couldn't imagine if someone hit .450 in the 2020 shortened season that it would be the new bench mark for batting average in a season (based on the 3.1 PA per league game).

In 1982 the NFL experienced a strike season and had a 9 game season instead of 16 games.

During the abbreviated season Wes Chandler averaged an amazing 129 yards receiving per game. That record still stands.

No one cares about this because humans have the ability to understand context and put things in perspective.

Some guy hitting a few points higher in batting average over half as many games is obviously not as impressive as someone that did it on a much larger scale. That doesn't mean he didn't beat the record. And it doesn't mean it is more impressive.

[triwak]

The equivalence of Negro League talent with AAA talent was simply someone's opinion, way back on the first page of this thread. Quit quoting it, folks! Geez, I don't understand any of the push-back with this. I for one, think this is wonderful news, and WAY overdue! More awesome baseball players and statistics to pour over - AS WE COLLECT THEIR CARDS??? This is gonna be great fun!!

[Tripredacus]

Thanks for the various replies I got to this question. I am thinking perhaps that I am thinking of a player who played in MLB and in another "major" league but in another country.

Not that I saw. Check out that website. As far as lifetime averages, like batting average, ERA, etc., again, Negro Leaguers just didn't accumulate enough at bats or innings to qualify. You can't compare Ty Cobb, with 10,000 at bats and a .366 average to Josh Gibson, with 3500 at bats and a .365 average. MLB simply has to establish qualifying numbers to exclude some of the crazy averages. I really don't think the stats are going to be as much of an issue as some seem to.

[pgconboy]

The equivalence of Negro League talent with AAA talent was simply someone's opinion, way back on the first page of this thread. Quit quoting it, folks! Geez, I don't understand any of the push-back with this. I for one, think this is wonderful news, and WAY overdue! More awesome baseball players and statistics to pour over - AS WE COLLECT THEIR CARDS??? This is gonna be great fun!!

I always visit football reference and only occasionally baseball reference, but it looks like they made it extremely easy.

Buttons that toggle between majors, negros, foreign, minors. Absolutely fantastic. If there is similar functionality across various leader boards what's not to love?

[Exhibitman]

3.1 plate appearances per league game. Works for me as a way of equalizing things. Of course, I am deeply biased because the Dodgers won the 2020 Series and I don't want any damned * on that! Not when I waited 32 friggin' years for it.

[Hankphenom]

I've changed my mind, or I should say this forum has changed my mind. Bottom line for me now: it's the least we can do for those guys! Wonderful, civil, discussion, by the way, never got nasty or personal. Gives me great hope for the country, maybe things are about to get better in that respect.

[Fred]

The equivalence of Negro League talent with AAA talent was simply someone's opinion, way back on the first page of this thread. Quit quoting it, folks! Geez, I don't understand any of the push-back with this. I for one, think this is wonderful news, and WAY overdue! More awesome baseball players and statistics to pour over - AS WE COLLECT THEIR CARDS??? This is gonna be great fun!!

Ken,

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. It's the apples to oranges comparison of stats that is being scrutinized.

[drcy]

I like that the top level Negro Leagues is being elevated to the states. Yes, the stats will be problematic, often comparing apples to oranges. However, it's the same comparing stats and records from the 1920s and 2010s. I don't know how you put Cy Young's or Hoss Radbourne's pitching stats in the same spreadsheet with Mariano Rivera and Justin Verlander. Especially, as baseball was THE sport many years ago, that makes the "talent pool" from eras sometimes like apples and oranges. Of course, there are many more international players in MLB today.

[triwak]

Ken,

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. It's the apples to oranges comparison of stats that is being scrutinized.

+1

Understood. And I agree that this has been a useful and civil discussion, that will undoubtedly continue. Again, fun!

[brianp-beme]

Ted died knowing he was the last .400 hitter. Little did he know, the politics of MLB would decree he only held that distinction for 2 short years.

I suspect we didn't hurt his feelings.

Let's defrost Ted's frozen head and ask him how he feels.

Brian

[Mark17]

Let's defrost Ted's frozen head and ask him how he feels.

Brian

That's cold.

[campyfan39]

This is exactly how I feel

Why do we continue to rewrite history to feel better about ourselves. The Negro Leagues have already been recognized. as a league. HOF'rs have been voted in. I've met some of the greats and they were awesome and proud of their accomplishments. We were all happy that recognition was in place. I am very proud of the Negro Leagues and they deserve all the fame and attention deserved. Many of us would give up their firstborn for a Josh Gibson signed baseball. Then 2020 rolls around, and all history needs to be changed to be woke. Personally, this feels like a stunt that is fraught with error, confuses everyone and just causes trouble. Btw, Double Duty Radcliffe is one of my baseball heros. In the 90's he showed my little daughter his hands...as big as a catchers mitt! Signed a ball for her that is precious to us.

[pgconboy]

This is exactly how I feel

Can you expand on how adding these stats confuses and causes you trouble?

[campyfan39]

Maybe you can explain why this needed to be done and all the anguish it has caused you for all these years. Maybe be happy today that it is done instead of insinuating things about a person you literally know zero about?

Can you expand on how adding these stats confuses and causes you trouble?

[pgconboy]

Maybe be happy today that it is done instead of insinuating things about a person you literally know zero about?

I wasn't being condescending or confrontational.

You directly quoted someone that talked about being confused and this process causing trouble.

You then stated that was how you felt. I have trouble imagining how a person could have those feelings so I was inquiring for clarification.

[Tabe]

And while there are a handful of black Latino HOFers from the Negro Leagues, there was never a Latino superstar who made it into pre-integration MLB.
Ted Williams says hello.

[todeen]

But then, from what you say, the superstars of the Negro Leagues were playing mostly against AAA caliber players. Should the same rules not apply to them? Who, then, was deserving of enshrinement and who wasn't?

There are always big fish and small fish in every league. Even today, due to budgets, there are always multiple replacement level players on every team. If we look at MLB superstars, I'm sure many of them will tell you they consider the small fish of MLB to be no different than a AAA replacement. The argument that stats are padded in the Negro Leagues is absurd when MLB's brightest stars are able to rip apart opposition. Barry Bonds and Mike Trout did and are doing absolutely phenomenal things, yet they weren't/aren't lucky enough to only face only other superstars like Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz so that their stats might be more Hall worthy.

Some current Hall level players have to humble themselves to play against players like Homer Bailey who carried a 6.00+ ERA for three straight seasons. I'm sure they hate this thinking that it taints their true hall of fame aspirations.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[insidethewrapper]

So who is now the first black player to play in the majors ? Edited: I forgot about : Moses Fleetwood "Fleet" Walker (October 7, 1856 – May 11, 1924) was an American professional baseball catcher who is credited with being the first black man to play in Major League Baseball (MLB). May 1, 1884.
...

[sbfinley]

It blows my mind that no one can take this as what it is: a token gesture to try to give a little bit of right back to something that was wrong with the sport for more than 75 years. No one is taking away any record held by anyone. God willing if someone ever chases .400 again it will be classic images of Ted Williams across every screen and every channel. Will they mention Gibson in 43? Probably, but stats and records are religious canon in the sport. No one is going to be forgotten or buried. It’s a gesture meant to elevate the accomplishments of one group of players to the same level as another group that they were not allowed to join because bigotry. Nothing more. They’re numbers on paper and computer screens. Some just became more meaningful in the eyes of a organized league, the rest mean just the same as they ever did.

[campyfan39]

Fair enough and sorry for the oversensitivity.
I believe it confuses and causes trouble because of the stats mainly. I also believe that it is a PC move so representative of 2020 and that it was not necessary. The HOF has recognized the Negro Leagues and inducted many into the HOF. Honestly some who have been inducted I had never heard of which may be my bad. I follow them on twitter and they have gone way above and beyond to tweet about minority players this year (which is fine) but it does not seem authentic to me.

IMO this was totally unnecessary. I have met Buck O and a few others and they are proud of the league and the recognition it received. I actually think keeping it separate shows the prejudice and is a lesson from history. I know when I took my son to the hall it was powerful to see the separate exhibit.

I have also read several articles today where people are insulted by this and view it as a "token" move and some who say it is 50+ years late. So overall I just believe it was a bad move but I don't get vote haha.

I wasn't being condescending or confrontational.

You directly quoted someone that talked about being confused and this process causing trouble.

You then stated that was how you felt. I have trouble imagining how a person could have those feelings so I was inquiring for clarification.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Ted Williams says hello.

Touche! :) You got me there, Chris.

(Although Ted's roots were definitely covered more than once and way back when, it still was not something most people were privy to. I think this would still be news to the majority of the population. The case of Teddy completely slipped my mind, as I was thinking of those who actually came from Latin American countries when I wrote what I did. It's a shame he wished to hide an entire half of his genes and to an extent, his family.)

[clydepepper]

Look- if nobody has any opinions on this subject, perhaps the OP should just ask Leon to close the thread.

LOL

- why so serious?


.

[todeen]

Look- if nobody has any opinions on this subject, perhaps the OP should just ask Leon to close the thread.



LOL



- why so serious?





.Lol +1

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to the "official" stats Josh Gibson hit 113 HR. I wonder how many he really hit.

[Fred]

Gibson's Hall of Fame plaque states he hit "almost 800 home runs in league and independent baseball during his 17-year career."

Other stats indicate he homered at a similar rate to the Babe. The guy had some mad hitting skills.

[darwinbulldog]

This is going to be a long post. This is a topic I am passionate about and have studies for over two decades. I am going to cover a number of topics and I hope that you bear with me

1. Quality of the League

When we are talking about the quality of the league we have to separate the quality of the players from the overall quality of the league. I agree that if we look at the 1940 MLB and the 1940 NL the two leagues are not equal. A top NL team would have not been able to keep up in the MLB and probably would have had trouble in AAA. This however is not because of the talent of the players. Instead NL teams were disadvantaged by a number of economic and organizational factors. NL teams had very small rosters. It was not uncommon for an NL teams to travel with only 13 guys. There was not enough money to carry a 25 man roster. As a result it was common for position players to pitch, pitcher to play in the field and for players to play hurt. There was no platooning and their was no relief pitching. NL teams were also hurt by the fact that there was not a clear minor league feeder structure. There were lessor black teams but those were independant teams with no obligation to send a player up. This meant that even top teams would often play short handed or sign some local kid play a couple of games. As a result of these issues it would have been impossible for a 1940 NL team to play in the national league. They would have won some games but they would have been worn down over the course of the year.

If we think more broadly however what do the 1940 NL teams sound like. They sound like major league teams of the 00's and teens. Small rosters, no minors, first basemen pitching. I do believe that the 1940 Homestead Grays could have played in the 1910 National League. The 1940 Grays had 4 hall of famers on that teams and a number of other good players. How many national league teams in 1910 had four hall of famers on it.


2. Quality of the players

I will argue that, for many of the reasons listed above, all of the players who had real NL careers were MLB calibre players. I am not talking about some guy who got 20 at bats with the New York Cubans in 1933. I am talking about players that were full time on a roster for at least a couple of years. The same constraints discussed above meant that there was very little dead weight on a Negro League team. If you could not play you didn't ride the bench you road the train out of town. If you look at the players that played right around the years of integration you can see the quality of the players. For example in 1946 there were about 10 NL teams. Lets say that is 120 real players. Look at all of the black players who played in the early 1950's. I know that not all of these guys played in the Negro leagues but if there was not integration this is the group of talent that would have made up the negro league. Jackie, Campy, Montie Irvin, Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, Don Newcomb, Dan Bankhead, Hank Thompson, Sam Jones, Minnie Minoso, George Crowe, Jim Pendleton, Billy Burton, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente, Luke Easter, Sam Jethro. In addition a couple of older black players like Ray Dandrige pretty much crushed the high minors but never got to the majors.

It is also important to consider that not everyone who has a MLB stat line is really a MLB player. As a Milwaukee Brewer fan in the 1990 I saw a long string of players who are in the encyclopedia that were not really MLB players. I don't think we need to take them out, but at the same time we certainly are lowering the quality by letting a few marginal Negro league players in

3.Quality of the Stats

The Negro league are long on lore and I think sometimes that clouds the reality. We all heard stories about home runs that Gibson hit that didn't come down until the next day in a different story or Cool Papa Bell bunting for a triple. I fear that often these type of stories blind us to the fact that these were real leagues that kept real stats. Especially as we get into the later 30's and 40's the stats were actually very good for league games. I have a copy of the 1945 Negro league year book and it has a stats section that is just as good as an MLB year book from the same era. I have a run of newspaper articles from the Newark Eagles with full league stats just like in any other newpaper. Negro league stats are not all retrospective compilation done years later. many of the years have high quality contemporaneous stats


4. Comparison of the Stats

Lets all be honest. As much as we love to talk about history and the consistency of baseball we all know its really not possible to compare different leagues and different eras without adjustments. In the 1969 Yaz won the batting title by hitting 301. He didn't hit 301 because he wasn't great or because all of the pitchers were so good. He his 301 because the rules allowed the mound to be 10 feet high and the stroke zone was between the tops of your shoes and an inch over the top of your helmet. That was the game, those were the rules and you really cannot compare them to any other era without making adjustments. You cannot look at Babe Herman and go my god his hit 350 he must have been amazing, you have to look at him and say "oh he hit 350 when there were 20 outfielder who it higher then him. We have all learned to make these adjustments and it doesn't effect who we consider major league.

This is excellent. Thank you.

[riggs336]

Look- if nobody has any opinions on this subject, perhaps the OP should just ask Leon to close the thread.

LOL

- why so serious?


.

I'm the OP but all I did was state the fact in the thread title. Little did I suspect that people on Net54 would have opinions.

[The Nasty Nati]

Did any Negro League players get 3,000 hits or 500 home runs?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Gibson's Hall of Fame plaque states he hit "almost 800 home runs in league and independent baseball during his 17-year career."

Other stats indicate he homered at a similar rate to the Babe. The guy had some mad hitting skills.

If you look at some of those great photos of him in those old flannel uniforms, he just LOOKS like a hitter.

[Casey2296]

Did any Negro League players get 3,000 hits or 500 home runs?

Willie Mays

[The Nasty Nati]

Willie Mays

I meant besides the players that eventually played in the MLB. I believe there aren't any.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I meant besides the players that eventually played in the MLB. I believe there aren't any.

But the stats are woefully incomplete, see discussion just above of Gibson.

[The Nasty Nati]

I wouldn't be mad if MLB stopped recognizing Cap Anson's stats.

That guy was a terrible person and a big reason segregation happened in MLB.

[trdcrdkid]

According to the "official" stats Josh Gibson hit 113 HR. I wonder how many he really hit.

Actually, according to the numbers on Seamheads, which are the most complete available, Gibson hit 238 home runs in league games, i.e. games played against another team in the same league. But most Negro League teams only played around 50-70 league games in a season, the rest of their games being exhibition games on barnstorming tours and the like. A better basis for comparison is HR per 162 games. Gibson hit 42 HR per 162 (league) games in his Negro League career, higher than Hank Aaron's 37 and Barry Bonds's 41, but not as high as Babe Ruth's 46. That gives you an idea of the company he's in.

[prewarsports]

I wouldn't be mad if MLB stopped recognizing Cap Anson's stats.

That guy was a terrible person and a big reason segregation happened in MLB.

Segregation happened in baseball because America was segregated. Cap Anson had little to do with this except for his status as the most famous player in America. Octavius Catto could not get a team into white baseball long before Anson was in grade school and Kennesaw Landis was pushing segregation for nearly three decades after Anson was dead.

History is ugly, but if we are going to institute moral standard for Hall of Famers based on how we feel they should have lived their lives, I hate to break it to you, but some of the early Negro Leaguers would fall short as well. As society changes, we will be kicking out new guys every decade or so until eventually the only ones left are the boring ones nobody cares about anyways.

[Mark17]

I meant besides the players that eventually played in the MLB. I believe there aren't any.

I think a good argument can be made that the pitching in the NL wasn't great. After Jackie broke the color line in 1947, it took 18 years before a black pitcher won 20 games (Mudcat Grant and Bob Gibson in 1965.) It was so rare for a black pitcher to win 20 in the Majors that Grant wrote a book about them titled "The Black Aces." I have a signed copy.

Grant, Gibson, Earl Wilson, Jenkins, Downing, Blue, Richard, Norris, Gooden, Stewart, and in 2005, Dontrelle Willis. In the 57 years since 1947, there were only 11 black 20 game winners. Of these 11, only 4 did it more than once (Gibson, Jenkins, Blue, Stewart.)

So for all the talk about the great black hitters back in the day, the pitching, by Major League standards, was much less impressive. And that had to help the hitters.

[Kenny Cole]

Don Newcombe won 20 games in 1951, 20 games in 1955, and 27 games in 1956.

[Mark17]

Don Newcombe won 20 games in 1951, 20 games in 1955, and 27 games in 1956.

You're right. Looking again at the index of Grant's book, Sam Jones also did it in 1959. So that makes 13 in 57 years, 5 doing it more than once.

I think my point stands - the black hitters seem to have been well ahead of the pitchers.

[oldeboo]

I think my point stands - the black hitters seem to have been well ahead of the pitchers.

I could make a pretty decent argument that the best hitter of each decade from the 1960s onward, when integration really took hold, was a person that had a skin pigmentation other than white. (I'll give it to Trout over the last decade) Does this delegitimize all Major League statistics prior to integration? The Negro League hitters may have been ahead of the Negro League pitchers, but wouldn't it make sense that the Negro League hitters were likely ahead of Major League pitchers before integration as well?

There are many things that have impacted stats through the years that they all require an asterisks next to them when comparing. You can't compare steroid era, war years, dead-ball era, pre-integration, and Negro League to name a few. The stats deserve merit on their own.

[Fred]

I wouldn't be mad if MLB stopped recognizing Cap Anson's stats.

That guy was a terrible person and a big reason segregation happened in MLB.


History is what it is - why try changing it. Understand it, know the injustice occurred and try to find something positive. Why not look at people that tried to turn that injustice around. Guys like Branch Rickey or even Walter "Judge" McCredie.

Erasing history by erasing Anson's stats because of his views serves no good purpose. For that matter, I'm sure there were plenty of players with bigoted views, even some that are in the HOF. It would be pretty strange to erase the stats of bigoted players because you can't erase what happened.

[Aj-hman]

I wonder if the Negro League players had not been sold to MLB teams if they would have fielded a team(s) that would have won the World Series or multiple?

I think mlb remembered what happed when Jack Johnson was allowed to compete.

When does the MLB allow the Japanese League to compete for the “World Series”?

[Wanaselja]

Jay Jaffe has a good article on FanGraphs about this. I haven't read this thread much so I don't know if someone else posted this.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/wrestling-with-mlbs-move-to-designate-negro-leagues-as-majors/

[Fred]

When does the MLB allow the Japanese League to compete for the “World Series”?

"Oh" boy, that's an interesting thought.

[t206fix]

The equivalence of Negro League talent with AAA talent was simply someone's opinion, way back on the first page of this thread. Quit quoting it, folks! Geez, I don't understand any of the push-back with this. I for one, think this is wonderful news, and WAY overdue! More awesome baseball players and statistics to pour over - AS WE COLLECT THEIR CARDS??? This is gonna be great fun!!

This!

It could be argued that there were some Major League players who lacked the talent to compete on a Negro League team.

And, that Major League statics, pre-integration, were watered down inflated due to the fact that they were not facing the best talent of their generation.

[Hankphenom]

Makes me wonder about oriental players in the U.S., were they banned, too? Who was the first?

[jason.1969]

I couldn't imagine if someone hit .450 in the 2020 shortened season that it would be the new bench mark for batting average in a season (based on the 3.1 PA per league game).


I’m not expressing an opinion. This is how MLB would have handled a .450 average in 2020. From there it would be up to fans to decide whether to regard in same way as Hugh Duffy’s hard fought .440 average from 1894.

We already have similar examples today with Bonds HR records and Astros 2017 WS. They are part of the MLB record book, though many fans don’t take them seriously.

[jason.1969]

I meant besides the players that eventually played in the MLB. I believe there aren't any.


None if we confine the stats to official league games, which is what MLB will recognize.

[jason.1969]

You're right. Looking again at the index of Grant's book, Sam Jones also did it in 1959. So that makes 13 in 57 years, 5 doing it more than once.

I think my point stands - the black hitters seem to have been well ahead of the pitchers.


Not a strong take. Research the unwritten rules governing black pitchers in the early days of MLB integration.

[steve B]

Well, it used to be common knowledge the last .400 hitter was Teddy Ballgame. Not any more. Now, it's Josh Gibson's .441 in 1943, aided no doubt by the Triple A level pitchers he was facing, plus attrition due to WW2.

Nobody could top Ted's achievement with the bat, but the PC crowd did, by re-writing history.

All the articles say that how to integrate the stats is still being discussed.
So it hasn't happened yet.

I don't think he had enough at bats to qualify for the batting title in any season, but the stats I can find vary a lot. Even the highest number isn't enough.

[packs]

Ted Williams was also Hispanic, so either way the last player to hit 400 was still a person of color.

[triwak]

Speaking of level of play at the highest level available at the time, why is the National Association of 1871-1875 not considered major league by MLB? The NA was the first professional league. The problem is that no one is pounding the drum for the NA.

Agree. I will join you, in pounding this drum! I never understood why the 1969 committee didn't include the NA. I mean... they were the top players in the world, competing against each other in an organized, professional league. What the hell??

[steve B]

Sounds like a whole lot of opportunity to me compared to what the alternative was up against.

I'm mostly saying that all baseball players had limited opportunity, and that in many if not most cases there was no opportunity to compete for a position.

With fewer teams and far less scouting, the odds of a team being interested were lower. If you look at the lineups of many teams it's fairly obvious there just wasn't room on what we now call the depth chart.

The teams at the bottom of the league most years had space, but where could someone break into the 1920's Yankees lineup?
Or if you were say a second baseman, but the only scout that saw you was from the Red Sox between say 1938 and 1950 you were pretty much out of luck.

[earlywynnfan]

I'm mostly saying that all baseball players had limited opportunity, and that in many if not most cases there was no opportunity to compete for a position.

With fewer teams and far less scouting, the odds of a team being interested were lower. If you look at the lineups of many teams it's fairly obvious there just wasn't room on what we now call the depth chart.

The teams at the bottom of the league most years had space, but where could someone break into the 1920's Yankees lineup?
Or if you were say a second baseman, but the only scout that saw you was from the Red Sox between say 1938 and 1950 you were pretty much out of luck.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but it loses some lustre when Cedric Durst plays 65 games for the 1927 yankees while the best Oscar Charleston could do was buy a ticket to watch them.

[Case12]

Poor Roger Maris will always have the asterick by his name. Probably should be a lot more astericks in the stats books. This will just add some more - with a whole lot of less reliable data. ��

[Exhibitman]

Touche! :) You got me there, Chris.

(Although Ted's roots were definitely covered more than once and way back when, it still was not something most people were privy to. I think this would still be news to the majority of the population. The case of Teddy completely slipped my mind, as I was thinking of those who actually came from Latin American countries when I wrote what I did. It's a shame he wished to hide an entire half of his genes and to an extent, his family.)

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ilcAAOSwc-df2jDG/s-l1600.jpg
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/i1QAAOSwFFxectpn/s-l1600.jpg
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/zMEAAOSw5XVf03qC/s-l1600.jpg

[tschock]

And, that Major League statics, pre-integration, were watered down due to the fact that they were not facing the best talent of their generation.

And, that Negro League statistics, pre-integration, were watered up due to the fact that they were note facing the best talent of their generation?

Works both ways, which is why the Negro Leagues should be considered a Major League. But comparing stats and performance between leagues is problematic at best.

[packs]

And, that Negro League statistics, pre-integration, were watered up due to the fact that they were note facing the best talent of their generation?

Works both ways, which is why the Negro Leagues should be considered a Major League. But comparing stats and performance between leagues is problematic at best.

I don't think that's a logical way to look at it. The Negro League players were playing against the highest competition available to them. The MLB players were not.

[tschock]

I don't think that's a logical way to look at it. The Negro League players were playing against the highest competition available to them. The MLB players were not.

No. THAT doesn't make sense. Both leagues' PLAYERS were playing against the highest competition available to them (the players). Neither could play against the best of both, nor the worst of both, leagues' players. Post integration the lower caliber of players would have been removed (ideally) and we can only estimate the comparison of stats pre-integration.

Maybe you misunderstood my post or are reading something into my post that isn't there?

[t206fix]

And, that Negro League statistics, pre-integration, were watered up due to the fact that they were note facing the best talent of their generation?


Oops, that's what meant. ML statistics were "watered up". I meant to convey they were inflated.

Negro Leaguers were facing major league quality and minor league quality talent. Same with Major Leaguers.

These players were not excluded from the ML because they lacked talent, it's because they were black. And as Triwak put it, just because someone says they weren't good enough to be in the Majors, doesn't make it true. There is no metric out there right now that can tell us the 11th best player on a NL team was equal to the 15th best player on a ML team. A lot of people out there have opinions, but the only way to prove it is to let them play... oops, too late for that.

[packs]

No. THAT doesn't make sense. Both leagues' PLAYERS were playing against the highest competition available to them (the players). Neither could play against the best of both, nor the worst of both, leagues' players. Post integration the lower caliber of players would have been removed (ideally) and we can only estimate the comparison of stats pre-integration.

Maybe you misunderstood my post or are reading something into my post that isn't there?


No. That is totally at odds with history. The MLB had every opportunity to play against everybody. If you will recall, they chose to ban players of color from the league. When you say "neither COULD play against the best of both" that is a stretch considering the reason MLB didn't play against the best competition of the era was due to their choice to exclude them.

[trdcrdkid]

Agree. I will join you, in pounding this drum! I never understood why the 1969 committee didn't include the NA. I mean... they were the top players in the world, competing against each other in an organized, professional league. What the hell??

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

The NA was really just a loose confederation of individual teams that agreed (in principle) to play each other on a semi-regular basis. It was closer to an organized league to what had existed before, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a major "league", with the emphasis on "league". Now, one can can certainly argue this point, and there are other questionable cases as well, especially the Union Association of 1884, which I think was less of a major league than the NA was, despite MLB's decision to the contrary in 1968. Lack of organizational structure is also why MLB is not recognizing pre-1920 black baseball organizations as "major leagues", though I've already seen some argument about that.

[tschock]

These players were not excluded from the ML because they lacked talent, it's because they were black. And as Triwak put it, just because someone says they weren't good enough to be in the Majors, doesn't make it true. There is no metric out there right now that can tell us the 11th best player on a NL team was equal to the 15th best player on a ML team. A lot of people out there have opinions, but the only way to prove it is to let them play... oops, too late for that.

Totally agree. Not that we can't estimate 'greatness', just it's hard to make a direct comparison. I love the way it's done in baseball reference (I believe) which was posted earlier, showing the league affiliation.

I think it's great that the HOF is accepting the NL as another "Major League", just a lot of thought and effort will need to be put into the stats for any meaningful comparison. And even then it will obviously be an estimate of 'greatness'. Jeez, we can't even agree on who the best picture was in a single league within a given year, for one example.

As far as anecdotal/opinions. I've read enough books were 'Joe Dirt said Milt Pappas was the toughest pitcher he ever faced, even tougher than Koufax', that individual opinions mean little. But taken in aggregate they could be meaningful.

[tschock]

No. That is totally at odds with history. The MLB had every opportunity to play against everybody. If you will recall, they chose to ban players of color from the league. When you say "neither COULD play against the best of both" that is a stretch considering the reason MLB didn't play against the best competition of the era was due to their choice to exclude them.

Who is this "MLB" you are talking about? Players or owners? Who ran baseball? Especially back then. Players or owners? The PLAYERS played against the best they were allowed to play against. I'm sorry, not sure what you point is but it doesn't contradict what I saying.

[Ricky]

I think a good argument can be made that the pitching in the NL wasn't great. After Jackie broke the color line in 1947, it took 18 years before a black pitcher won 20 games (Mudcat Grant and Bob Gibson in 1965.) It was so rare for a black pitcher to win 20 in the Majors that Grant wrote a book about them titled "The Black Aces." I have a signed copy.

Grant, Gibson, Earl Wilson, Jenkins, Downing, Blue, Richard, Norris, Gooden, Stewart, and in 2005, Dontrelle Willis. In the 57 years since 1947, there were only 11 black 20 game winners. Of these 11, only 4 did it more than once (Gibson, Jenkins, Blue, Stewart.)

So for all the talk about the great black hitters back in the day, the pitching, by Major League standards, was much less impressive. And that had to help the hitters.

Juan Marichal? I know he was a Latin pitcher but segregation would have kept him out too.

[packs]

Who is this "MLB" you are talking about? Players or owners? Who ran baseball? Especially back then. Players or owners? The PLAYERS played against the best they were allowed to play against. I'm sorry, not sure what you point is but it doesn't contradict what I saying.

My issue is you’re equating the white experience with the black as though they were somehow equal re: who they were “allowed” to play against. That is extremely far from the truth and the idea that this exclusion or segregation was a shared experience is at odds with history.

That is the point. There was no shared experience when it came to excluding players of color from the major leagues.

[Ricky]

Here's another point of view from a prominent Black sportswriter, Howard Bryant, who penned Henry Aaron's autobiography:
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30540089/mlb-add-negro-leagues-official-records-never-change-did-black-players

[Seven]

I don't have an issue with stats from the Negro League's being counted. I don't think there's much winning with the MLB's declaration of this though. Either way they are angering someone or some group of people. I did appreciate Bryant's take on the situation, and I do think he's right to a degree, this recognizes Black Ball Players but at the same time does not paint the full picture.

Baseball, to my knowledge at least, practiced De Facto segregation. There was never anything prohibiting owners signing people of color, other than the unwritten code all of them were willing to uphold, along with the opinions Kennesaw Mountain Landis who ruled the game with an iron first. More or less, it didn't have to be written, what he said usually applied.

I think Baseball is trying to right a wrong. It's a wrong that is very complex, and there's really no proper way to do it. Because regardless of how it is handled someone, somewhere will detract from it. I think the MLB is trying to provide a spotlight to the Negro Leagues, to recognize it's history by including all of these players into the official MLB record books. I think baseball does need to recognize the fact that these players didn't choose not to play in the MLB, but that they simply weren't allowed. However I do think what baseball is doing is more than a lot of the other sports out there does. I do not want to overstep my bounds on this forum by talking politics but lets just say the NBA and the NFL aren't exactly the poster-children for justice with many of their practices.

And again any decision of this magnitude will anger some group of people in some way.

[tschock]

My issue is you’re equating the white experience with the black as though they were somehow equal re: who they were “allowed” to play against. That is extremely far from the truth and the idea that this exclusion or segregation was a shared experience is at odds with history.

That is the point. There was no shared experience when it came to excluding players of color from the major leagues.

So your point is to make a point about something I never really said or implied? Ok, got it.

[t206fix]

Not a strong take. Research the unwritten rules governing black pitchers in the early days of MLB integration.

Jason, would love to hear more about this. Where do I look?

[jason.1969]

Jason, would love to hear more about this. Where do I look?


One example relates to belief that Black men weren’t cerebral enough to pitch, catch, or manage. Here is Bob Kendrick on the topic—

——-

“Historically, pitchers and catchers did not transition from the Negro Leagues,’’ Kendrick said. “There were great arms in the Negro Leagues, and we had great catchers from Josh Gibson to Roy Campanella, but that was considered a cerebral position. And the general consensus back then was that these men weren’t smart enough to play in the major leagues.

———

Same line of racist thinking limited Black Quarterbacks in football and managers/GMs in several sports.

Additionally, Black pitchers were hesitant to throw inside vs white batters out of fear their lives or careers would be at risk if they injured a white player.

[triwak]

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

The NA was really just a loose confederation of individual teams that agreed (in principle) to play each other on a semi-regular basis. It was closer to an organized league to what had existed before, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a major "league", with the emphasis on "league". Now, one can can certainly argue this point, and there are other questionable cases as well, especially the Union Association of 1884, which I think was less of a major league than the NA was, despite MLB's decision to the contrary in 1968. Lack of organizational structure is also why MLB is not recognizing pre-1920 black baseball organizations as "major leagues", though I've already seen some argument about that.

Interesting. Thank you for the perspective.

[yanks87]

When I read the headline of this happening, I really hoped it had more to it than just stats. I know people live and die by the stats, I am certainly not one of those folks. I guess there was a naive part of me that had hoped if MLB was going to make the gesture of inclusion, there would have been an extension of some percentage of pension or benefit extended to living players, or something comparable to what players of that time period collected (or what their families would collect). At the end of the day, if you are going to recognize the league as professional, you should commit to the financial commitments of "squaring the house." If not, it feels like an empty gesture trying to make up for a shameful part of the sport's history done solely for optics.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Adam W:

Luque was good in the majors but not great.

Marsans doesn't even enter the equation.

Lopez was of Spanish, thus European, ancestry.

My comment was that there were no Latin American superstars pre-integration. I was quickly shot down about Ted Williams, to which I certainly conceded, despite Teddy clearly not showing the world his Latino pride.

"Now, Mr. Archive, you had better choose your battles wisely lest we sue you!" :) :) :) (Thought about that one for the first time in ages yesterday and have been looking for any excuse to use it!)

[Tabe]

Touche! :) You got me there, Chris.

(Although Ted's roots were definitely covered more than once and way back when, it still was not something most people were privy to. I think this would still be news to the majority of the population. The case of Teddy completely slipped my mind, as I was thinking of those who actually came from Latin American countries when I wrote what I did. It's a shame he wished to hide an entire half of his genes and to an extent, his family.)

To be fair, counting Ted is kinda cheating. He hid his roots and, for lack of a better way to put it, didn't "look the part". He certainly wasn't an open Latino during his career or, really, his whole life.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

To be fair, counting Ted is kinda cheating. He hid his roots and, for lack of a better way to put it, didn't "look the part". He certainly wasn't an open Latino during his career or, really, his whole life.

Exactly why it slipped my mind in the first place. Thanks to your correction, though, I'm never likely to forget about it again! :)

[Casey2296]

When I read the headline of this happening, I really hoped it had more to it than just stats. I know people live and die by the stats, I am certainly not one of those folks. I guess there was a naive part of me that had hoped if MLB was going to make the gesture of inclusion, there would have been an extension of some percentage of pension or benefit extended to living players, or something comparable to what players of that time period collected (or what their families would collect). At the end of the day, if you are going to recognize the league as professional, you should commit to the financial commitments of "squaring the house." If not, it feels like an empty gesture trying to make up for a shameful part of the sport's history done solely for optics.

In 1997, the MLB executive council created a payment plan for about 85 black players who didn’t play in the majors long enough to qualify for a pension, or who did not have the opportunity to play in the majors at all. To be eligible for their payments, the black players had to either play in the Negro Leagues for at least one season before 1948 or play a combined four years in the Negro Leagues and the major leagues before 1979.

The price tag associated with this magnanimous gesture? It amounted to annual payments of between $7,500 and $10,000 per player. That future got even brighter for the veterans of the Negro Leagues in 2004, when MLB agreed to make payments to more of these ballplayers on the grounds that baseball had not been totally integrated until 1959, when the Boston Red Sox became the last team to field a black player.

The terms of the agreement weren’t exactly the same as with the 1997 group of ex Negro Leaguers. Players who never played in the major leagues were given the option of electing to choose pensions totaling $375 per month ($4,500 annually) for life or $10,000 a year for four years.

[yanks87]

In 1997, the MLB executive council created a payment plan for about 85 black players who didn’t play in the majors long enough to qualify for a pension, or who did not have the opportunity to play in the majors at all. To be eligible for their payments, the black players had to either play in the Negro Leagues for at least one season before 1948 or play a combined four years in the Negro Leagues and the major leagues before 1979.

The price tag associated with this magnanimous gesture? It amounted to annual payments of between $7,500 and $10,000 per player. That future got even brighter for the veterans of the Negro Leagues in 2004, when MLB agreed to make payments to more of these ballplayers on the grounds that baseball had not been totally integrated until 1959, when the Boston Red Sox became the last team to field a black player.

The terms of the agreement weren’t exactly the same as with the 1997 group of ex Negro Leaguers. Players who never played in the major leagues were given the option of electing to choose pensions totaling $375 per month ($4,500 annually) for life or $10,000 a year for four years.

Great info, thank you for sharing. Do you happen to know what compensations would look like for similar parameters in the same years for MLB players?

[Mark17]

When I read the headline of this happening, I really hoped it had more to it than just stats. I know people live and die by the stats, I am certainly not one of those folks. I guess there was a naive part of me that had hoped if MLB was going to make the gesture of inclusion, there would have been an extension of some percentage of pension or benefit extended to living players, or something comparable to what players of that time period collected (or what their families would collect). At the end of the day, if you are going to recognize the league as professional, you should commit to the financial commitments of "squaring the house." If not, it feels like an empty gesture trying to make up for a shameful part of the sport's history done solely for optics.

I totally agree with this!

I think recognizing the NL is great, and preserving their history is very important. The above post nails it.

My sole objection is blending the stats with long established ML stats. For instance, will we now need to re-calculate who won the batting titles for each of those impacted years?

[Casey2296]

Great info, thank you for sharing. Do you happen to know what compensations would look like for similar parameters in the same years for MLB players?

Quite the opposite actually.

Professional baseball players who are retired and white players are not entitled to the pension benefits Major League Baseball bestowed on former Negro Leagues players, a federal appeals court ruled.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that MLB did not discriminate against about 1,000 white players when it gave medical benefits and $1,000 monthly pensions to dozens of elderly black players who didn't qualify for a pension.

Until 1979, all players had to be on a major league roster for at least four seasons to receive pensions. The lawsuit was brought by white players who didn't have four years tenure but alleged that not getting the same pensions as blacks was discriminatory.

The appeals court disagreed, saying the pension program created for black players who put in time with the Negro Leagues was "created to remedy specific discrimination."

Before 1947, blacks were not allowed into MLB. So the league changed the pension rules in 1997, saying tenure in the old Negro Leagues from 1947 and before counted toward an MLB pension if black players also had time in the majors.

The 27 players who were eligible for the pensions all played part of at least four seasons after Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier in 1947.

[Kenny Cole]

Adam W:

Luque was good in the majors but not great.

Marsans doesn't even enter the equation.

Lopez was of Spanish, thus European, ancestry.

My comment was that there were no Latin American superstars pre-integration. I was quickly shot down about Ted Williams, to which I certainly conceded, despite Teddy clearly not showing the world his Latino pride.

"Now, Mr. Archive, you had better choose your battles wisely lest we sue you!" :) :) :) (Thought about that one for the first time in ages yesterday and have been looking for any excuse to use it!)

Lefty Gomez was of Mexican descent although he was born in California.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Lefty Gomez was of Mexican descent although he was born in California.

I had to go back and double-check on this, as something was nagging at me that like Al Lopez, Vernon was of Spanish descent. Apparently, his father was indeed of Spanish-Portuguese ancestry and his mother's familial background was Welsh-Irish.

[t206fix]

One example relates to belief that Black men weren’t cerebral enough to pitch, catch, or manage. Here is Bob Kendrick on the topic—

——-

“Historically, pitchers and catchers did not transition from the Negro Leagues,’’ Kendrick said. “There were great arms in the Negro Leagues, and we had great catchers from Josh Gibson to Roy Campanella, but that was considered a cerebral position. And the general consensus back then was that these men weren’t smart enough to play in the major leagues.

———

Same line of racist thinking limited Black Quarterbacks in football and managers/GMs in several sports.

Additionally, Black pitchers were hesitant to throw inside vs white batters out of fear their lives or careers would be at risk if they injured a white player.

Thank you. I remember that bullshit from the 80s. "A black man can't quarterback."

PE : we about to watch the super bowl, we got a black quarter back, so step back.

[Scocs]

I was going to bring that point up about black pitchers and double standards. If a black quarterback wasn’t accepted until 1988, what makes you think a black man throwing a baseball 90 mph at a white man’s head would have been accepted in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s?

[Tabe]

Exactly why it slipped my mind in the first place. Thanks to your correction, though, I'm never likely to forget about it again! :)

Don't worry, if you do, I'll be here to berate you endlessly. :D

[Peter_Spaeth]

I was going to bring that point up about black pitchers and double standards. If a black quarterback wasn’t accepted until 1988, what makes you think a black man throwing a baseball 90 mph at a white man’s head would have been accepted in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s?

Gibby, who of course came along a whole decade later, related some stories about how he was excluded from meetings discussing how to pitch to the opposing team's lineup by Solly Hemus and perhaps others, the assumption being he wasn't smart enough to contribute. Unreal.

[yanks87]

Quite the opposite actually.

Professional baseball players who are retired and white players are not entitled to the pension benefits Major League Baseball bestowed on former Negro Leagues players, a federal appeals court ruled.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that MLB did not discriminate against about 1,000 white players when it gave medical benefits and $1,000 monthly pensions to dozens of elderly black players who didn't qualify for a pension.

Until 1979, all players had to be on a major league roster for at least four seasons to receive pensions. The lawsuit was brought by white players who didn't have four years tenure but alleged that not getting the same pensions as blacks was discriminatory.

The appeals court disagreed, saying the pension program created for black players who put in time with the Negro Leagues was "created to remedy specific discrimination."

Before 1947, blacks were not allowed into MLB. So the league changed the pension rules in 1997, saying tenure in the old Negro Leagues from 1947 and before counted toward an MLB pension if black players also had time in the majors.

The 27 players who were eligible for the pensions all played part of at least four seasons after Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier in 1947.

Again, great info, I had no idea. Thank you for filling this in.

[GaryPassamonte]

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

The NA was really just a loose confederation of individual teams that agreed (in principle) to play each other on a semi-regular basis. It was closer to an organized league to what had existed before, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a major "league", with the emphasis on "league". Now, one can can certainly argue this point, and there are other questionable cases as well, especially the Union Association of 1884, which I think was less of a major league than the NA was, despite MLB's decision to the contrary in 1968. Lack of organizational structure is also why MLB is not recognizing pre-1920 black baseball organizations as "major leagues", though I've already seen some argument about that.


The NA was part of the evolution of the organization of professional baseball and the best players of the time were involved. I think the key here is "paid" and "best of their time." This is the same argument that has been made in this thread regarding the Negro Leagues. If the best players are involved, the league should be considered "major." If we can not exclude black players for being denied the right to play in white major leagues through no fault of their own, we shouldn't punish early players for being born too soon. This distinction is important regarding HOF eligibility and the "ten year rule." Pioneer players have never received fair treatment from the HOF and are pitifully underrepresented in the HOF. Why aren't more baseball enthusiasts trying to right this wrong?

[egri]

Quite the opposite actually.

Professional baseball players who are retired and white players are not entitled to the pension benefits Major League Baseball bestowed on former Negro Leagues players, a federal appeals court ruled.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that MLB did not discriminate against about 1,000 white players when it gave medical benefits and $1,000 monthly pensions to dozens of elderly black players who didn't qualify for a pension.

Until 1979, all players had to be on a major league roster for at least four seasons to receive pensions. The lawsuit was brought by white players who didn't have four years tenure but alleged that not getting the same pensions as blacks was discriminatory.

The appeals court disagreed, saying the pension program created for black players who put in time with the Negro Leagues was "created to remedy specific discrimination."

Before 1947, blacks were not allowed into MLB. So the league changed the pension rules in 1997, saying tenure in the old Negro Leagues from 1947 and before counted toward an MLB pension if black players also had time in the majors.

The 27 players who were eligible for the pensions all played part of at least four seasons after Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier in 1947.

I shouldn’t be surprised that the Ninth Circus came up with that logic.

[trdcrdkid]

Gibby, who of course came along a whole decade later, related some stories about how he was excluded from meetings discussing how to pitch to the opposing team's lineup by Solly Hemus and perhaps others, the assumption being he wasn't smart enough to contribute. Unreal.

Hemus was notorious for treating the black players like shit when he was the Cardinals’ manager, especially Gibson and Curt Flood. Years later he tried to apologize to both of them, but they neither forgave nor forgot. Hemus was a bigger prick than most, but racist attitudes like his were prevalent in the game into the 1960s and beyond.

[trdcrdkid]

The NA was part of the evolution of the organization of professional baseball and the best players of the time were involved. I think the key here is "paid" and "best of their time." This is the same argument that has been made in this thread regarding the Negro Leagues. If the best players are involved, the league should be considered "major." If we can not exclude black players for being denied the right to play in white major leagues through no fault of their own, we shouldn't punish early players for being born too soon. This distinction is important regarding HOF eligibility and the "ten year rule." Pioneer players have never received fair treatment from the HOF and are pitifully underrepresented in the HOF. Why aren't more baseball enthusiasts trying to right this wrong?

I don’t disagree with anything you said here. I was trying to explain the rationale for excluding the NA from “major league” status, which I think is coherent but arguable. I wouldn’t have a problem with officially recognizing the NA as major, and the fact that baseball-reference treats NA stats the same as NL ones is a pretty significant unofficial recognition. I am 1000% on board with giving more recognition to pioneer players, especially the HOF.

[Hankphenom]

Hemus was notorious for treating the black players like shit when he was the Cardinals’ manager, especially Gibson and Curt Flood. Years later he tried to apologize to both of them, but they neither forgave nor forgot. Hemus was a bigger prick than most, but racist attitudes like his were prevalent in the game into the 1960s and beyond.

Yes, "in the game," as in "in America," "and beyond," as in "and today." I was born in 1946, and would recommend not talking about it like it was ancient history. Things are better, tremendous progress has been made, but the last several years have shown us how much further we have to go. If anyone is really interested in atonement for our racist past, there's plenty to do about our racist present right now.

[cammb]

best thing to happen in baseball my entire life!

wow!!!!!!

[trdcrdkid]

Yes, "in the game," as in "in America," "and beyond," as in "and today." I was born in 1946, and would recommend not talking about it like it was ancient history. Things are better, tremendous progress has been made, but the last several years have shown us how much further we have to go. If anyone is really interested in atonement for our racist past, there's plenty to do about our racist present right now.

Of course there is still racism in America, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I was talking about the kind of blatant, in-your-face racism that Solly Hemus practiced, which has become socially unacceptable in most public contexts, including MLB. If somebody called an opposing player a “black bastard” today, as Hemus did in 1959, it would rightly cause a furor. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that this means that racism is no longer a problem, but as the past few years have so painfully shown, that’s not the case at all.

[cammb]

Of course there is still racism in America, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I was talking about the kind of blatant, in-your-face racism that Solly Hemus practiced, which has become socially unacceptable in most public contexts, including MLB. If somebody called an opposing player a “black bastard” today, as Hemus did in 1959, it would rightly cause a furor. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that this means that racism is no longer a problem, but as the past few years have so painfully shown, that’s not the case at all.

Please elaborate on our racist present?

[Scocs]

Let’s just keep focused on the issue at hand: the Negro Leagues...

[sbfinley]

Please elaborate on our racist present?


Gonna be honest, I mentally tackled this sidebar discussion from every possible angle and I really don’t see how it could go horribly, terribly, dumpster fire wrong. So sure, have fun with that.

[jboosted92]

Another problem is guy's like Ken Burns think's every player in the Negro Leagues had enough talent to be in the major leagues.


i think the same would be said the other way around, no?

[Hankphenom]

Let’s just keep focused on the issue at hand: the Negro Leagues...

If you say so.

[trdcrdkid]

Please elaborate on our racist present?

Uh, no thanks.

[howard38]

Thank you. I remember that bullshit from the 80s. "A black man can't quarterback."

PE : we about to watch the super bowl, we got a black quarter back, so step back.
Not just the 80's. After Russell Wilson's famous super bowl INT my former boss started off a statement with, "This is not racist, but...". Of course, I knew the next words out of his mouth would, in fact, be racist & he didn't disappoint finishing with "a black quarterback can't win a super bowl". Wilson himself had won it the previous season, but whatever.

[71buc]

Nice article by Tom Boswell

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/12/18/satchel-paige-negro-leagues/

[Mark17]

Not just the 80's. After Russell Wilson's famous super bowl INT my former boss started off a statement with, "This is not racist, but...". Of course, I knew the next words out of his mouth would, in fact, be racist & he didn't disappoint finishing with "a black quarterback can't win a super bowl". Wilson himself had won it the previous season, but whatever.

Is that evidence of systemic racism, or is he just your common, garden variety idiot?

I hear people say ignorant things all the time, about all sorts of things. On the topic of Russ Wilson, he is undeniably very successful at his profession, he's paid quite well, he's wildly popular in Seattle, and he seems like a genuinely nice guy and very hard working. Personally, he's my favorite guy on that team.

That interception that lost the Super Bowl is 100% on the coach. Give the ball to The Beast, 3 times if you have to, and you win. But no, Sherman has to get cute and call a risky play.

[71buc]

Hank's point is valid and excellent.

Making some assumptions: During the period 1920-1948, the average black player and average white player were basically equal in ability. Also assume interest in playing baseball was basically equal between blacks and non-blacks. And finally, assume the number of teams in the NL and ML is the same.

If the population is comprised of 10% blacks and 90% non-blacks. It means, for every spot on a ML roster, there are 9 times as many non-black guys competing for it, compared to blacks trying to make it in the NL.

If there were only half as many teams in the NL as there were in the ML, then the non-blacks had 4.5 guys competing for a roster spot compared to blacks in their league.

Interesting thoughts, such discussion always tend toward murky and turbulent waters. Nonetheless, using your math how can it be explained that according to the most recent Census 76.3% of the country is white and 13.4% are black. Yet 81% of NBA players are black and 70% of NFL is black? Unfortunately only 7.7% of MLB is black. Baseball had little completion for athletes during the negro league era. Looking forward, how do we get the future Lebron James and Lamar Jacksons more interested in baseball? For that matter how do we draw the future Baker Mayfields to baseball? BTW I am not excluding the NHL for any other reason than it doesn’t interest me in the least. Also, as a Latino with a German last name it warms my heart that people acknowledge that Ted Williams is one of me only with a slightly better swing��

[Tabe]

Not just the 80's. After Russell Wilson's famous super bowl INT my former boss started off a statement with, "This is not racist, but...". Of course, I knew the next words out of his mouth would, in fact, be racist & he didn't disappoint finishing with "a black quarterback can't win a super bowl". Wilson himself had won it the previous season, but whatever.

I'll defend that call til the day I die. Besides the fact Lynch hadn't succeeded in any of those situations all year...Russ hesitated on the throw, threw it late, threw it inaccurately, and Ricardo Lockette ran his route half-speed and at the wrong angle. If EITHER guy executes properly, it's a touchdown.

[Exhibitman]

I started out skeptical of this whole thing but after reading the arguments against it on N54 I have changed my tune. I view it as an act of contrition on the part of MLB towards the men who were not enshrined in Cooperstown. They deserve respect as Major League players, not back of the bus status as Negro League players.

As far as parity goes, we routinely ignore the statistics from the 19th century game, especially every season pitching stat, because it was a totally different game played under totally different conditions. Designating Artie Wilson as a .400 hitter doesn't diminish Ted Williams one iota.

[Mark17]

I'll defend that call til the day I die. Besides the fact Lynch hadn't succeeded in any of those situations all year...Russ hesitated on the throw, threw it late, threw it inaccurately, and Ricardo Lockette ran his route half-speed and at the wrong angle. If EITHER guy executes properly, it's a touchdown.

It's first and goal at the 5 yard line. They give it to Lynch and he gains 4. Now it's second and goal from the one. I'm thinking, if Lynch and that O-line can get 4 yards on the first play down there, they can get one more with 3 more stabs at it.

[Mark17]

Interesting thoughts, such discussion always tend toward murky and turbulent waters. Nonetheless, using your math how can it be explained that according to the most recent Census 76.3% of the country is white and 13.4% are black. Yet 81% of NBA players are black and 70% of NFL is black? Unfortunately only 7.7% of MLB is black. Baseball had little completion for athletes during the negro league era. Looking forward, how do we get the future Lebron James and Lamar Jacksons more interested in baseball? For that matter how do we draw the future Baker Mayfields to baseball? BTW I am not excluding the NHL for any other reason than it doesn’t interest me in the least. Also, as a Latino with a German last name it warms my heart that people acknowledge that Ted Williams is one of me only with a slightly better swing��

Why do "WE" have to manipulate other people? If the future Lebron James wants to play basketball, as a free American, that's his choice. "WE" shouldn't be trying to steer him away from what he wants to do.

I attribute the disparities you mention to free will - people preferring one sport over another. The fact that it's easier to play basketball in a more confined area (like in a city neighborhood) and with fewer players might be a factor too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'll defend that call til the day I die. Besides the fact Lynch hadn't succeeded in any of those situations all year...Russ hesitated on the throw, threw it late, threw it inaccurately, and Ricardo Lockette ran his route half-speed and at the wrong angle. If EITHER guy executes properly, it's a touchdown.

Come on, man. The best running back in football, ball on the one yard line, and you're defending a pass play? Your own analysis shows the problem -- too many things can go wrong.

[todeen]

Yes, "in the game," as in "in America," "and beyond," as in "and today." I was born in 1946, and would recommend not talking about it like it was ancient history. Things are better, tremendous progress has been made, but the last several years have shown us how much further we have to go. If anyone is really interested in atonement for our racist past, there's plenty to do about our racist present right now.+1

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[todeen]

Looking forward, how do we get the future Lebron James and Lamar Jacksons more interested in baseball? For that matter how do we draw the future Baker Mayfields to baseball?[emoji6]

Andrew McCutcheon has had multiple interviews about this topic. Not sure where to dig those up though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[todeen]

Come on, man. The best running back in football, ball on the one yard line, and you're defending a pass play? Your own analysis shows the problem -- too many things can go wrong.Im a Seahawks fan. That was heartbreaking to watch. My son was 2 or 3, barely knew how to talk, but he knew the word touchdown. As the whole party crowd was crying, he was standing in the middle of us all jumping up and down celebrating shouting "Touchdown! Touchdown! Touchdown!"

I've come to grips with the play over the years by believing that the Patriots player just made a nice play on the ball.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk