Anyone know anything about an ebay buyer-seller [Archive]

Archive

06-01-2004, 09:37 AM

Posted By: Matt GoebelFirst of all, let me say thanks to Anthony, Joe and Nick for the kind words. I've been a long time lurker and have been meaning to jump into the fray at some point - so thank you Julie for the opening (and congrats on a great card!). I also met several board members at the National last year, and have had contact with many others via E-mail. What a great group! As mentioned, I am mainly into Cuban/Negro League material, and as such I have developed great frienships with Ryan, Andy and Kenny. That being said, I love all aspects of baseball history and can be easily tempted by many appealing pre-WWII cards as well as shiny objects. Hopefully I can add something to the mix. Matt

Archive

06-01-2004, 10:00 AM

Posted By: Andy BaranAlexander is also in the 1913 National Game and Tom Barker Game sets.

Archive

06-01-2004, 01:01 PM

Posted By: Joe P."Julie, That is a nice card. Although Alexander started pitching in 1911, I think the fatima card would be considered his Rookie card. Although, I think he has a CJ too for 14'. Nevertheless, a nice card. Nick" --------------------------------------- * * * Now if we can only convince the gringo's that Alejandro was one of the first Latino players to play in the Pro's - I think we would have something there. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

06-01-2004, 02:29 PM

Posted By: Julie2nd in shutouts, tied with Mathewson for 3rd in wins (273), 23 year career, very high in innings pitched (5th or 9th, I forget)-- a great work horse through part of his career. HOF 1938 (I thought they skipped from '36 to '39. Oh well...) ERA mid 2.00's (Matty's was 2.13! WOW. People talk about he he only won all those games because he played for a great team...). As for Joe's joke (? He's always making Latinos of us all!), my vague memory is that he was a white boy to the tips of his toes, physically and spiritually...but no evidence offered by me for attitude. Or ethnicity, for that matter! Hullo, Matt. Nice to meet you!

Archive

06-02-2004, 11:22 AM

Posted By: Julie.......I couldn't edit my post because I wasn't signed in...er, like NOW...

Archive

06-05-2004, 06:19 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognar <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1087873270.JPG">

Archive

06-06-2004, 09:23 AM

Posted By: J LevineLove that card...been on my Phillies list for awhile but for me to afford one it has to be a little more beat up than that... -J Levine

Archive

06-13-2004, 07:20 PM

Posted By: Scott MI've been working too much on my webpage out the past week or two and haven't been reading the board too closely. I've already congradulated Julie on her nice pickup but I thought, since Joe P. mentioned it, I'd share my CJ Alexander... <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1087175763.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1087175772.JPG">

Archive

06-14-2004, 03:09 AM

Posted By: Joe P.That's a great looking card of G. C. Alejandro, one of the first Latino pitchers to play Pro ball. Before I go any further, and before anyone might start believing that I'm serious about any of this. Let me just say that this is a fun thing with Nick in Vegas. It's a running put on between the two of us. There appears to be a slight difference of opinion as to who were the first Cubans or Latinos to play professional ball in the good old US of A. There are two schools of thought here. The term Major Leagues, is a term that evolved just like baseball evolved from townball to the first paid 1869 redstockings to the likes of the Troy Haymakers, Mutuals, Atlantics, Eckfords, Etc to the NL, then to the Jr Circuit of 1901, and so forth. It's still evolving. Now a days, the goal of a ball player is to want to play professionally for one of the teams of what we call the major leagues. Back in the late 1860's and '70's the goal of the pro ball player was to play for a team like the Troy Haymakers just like Bellan did in 1871. The early pro teams were not called the mayors, the terminology hadn't come into play yet, it evolved much later. Nick considers the Cuban or Latino pro ball players that started playing in the very early 1900's as the first major league ball player to play in this country. To a certain extent he's right, but he's having difficulties accepting the fact that when Bellan played for Troy in 1871, and Nava played for Providence in 1882 '83 '84, they were playing for what was recognized as top professional baseball teams of that time. The word and terminology of the majors was still in the future. In order not to get totally away from initial idea of this thread, I would love to get a thought on this from Ghost Marcelle, or anyone for that matter. Always interested in getting a view from the Bridge. Joe P.

Archive

06-14-2004, 05:15 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisOld Pedro Alexander <img src="http://www.lewisbaseballcards.com/classes/baseBallCard/images/429Lg.jpg">

Archive

06-14-2004, 09:13 AM

Posted By: Matt GoebelFirst of all, let me say that I have been getting a kick out of your running gag with Nick. To answer your question though I would make the analogy to Jackie Robinson and Fleet Walker. Robinson was not the first black Major Leaguer, but he was the first Black Major Leaguer of the 20th century and, most importantly, he did break the color barrier. Marsans and Almeida were certainly pioneers and their accomplishments should not be diminished, but they were not the first latin Major Leaguers.

Archive

06-14-2004, 02:21 PM

Posted By: NickinvegasI am not disputing that Bellan played, the question is if the team he played for would be considered a Major Leage baseball club. In order to qualify as the first Latin Major League player you must first play for a major league team. The Troy Haymakers were not a Major league club. If you were to say they were a minor league professional ball team I would agree with that. The contribution of latin players is important to me beacuse: I love the history of baseball and I feel that there is little mention of the historical contributions of latin players. It suprising that a game that is so populated with latin players gives little attention to their history. I hope to bring more of that wonderful history to light. Regards, Nick

Archive

06-14-2004, 09:21 PM

Posted By: Joe P.I see that the situation begs for another approach. Let's look at it from another stand point. The horseless carriage: The Model T Ford, and the Ford Mustang. From two different era's, vastly different in structure and built from the known technology of their time. Both were different, and from a different time, but they were looked upon as cars that were the top of the line for their time. Just like the players that played for the known professional teams of the 1800's, you can't compare them to the ones that played in the early 1900's, or to ones that played in the continuous juiced up ball, and later juiced up players of our time. Regardless of the era, they were all Pro's. Call it whatever you want. From before and after town ball, the rules were changing, the equipment was changing, the ball parks were changing, the ball was changing, there was a time when walks were counted as a hit, what is now a ground rule double into the stands were once counted as a Home run. Nick, you're hung up on the word majors, that was also one of changes that came with the evolvement of the game. Nick, I'm very confused by your following quote. "The contribution of latin players is important to me beacuse: I love the history of baseball and I feel that there is little mention of the historical contributions of latin players. It suprising that a game that is so populated with latin players gives little attention to their history. I hope to bring more of that wonderful history to light." * * Nick, your above statement is a contradiction to your statement that Cubans, or other Latinos did not play what was known as the Pro ball of that era. .... Not only that, but you're discrediting the wonderful history that your talking about. It appears that as far as your concerned, the history of Pro ball started in the early 1900's. If that's the case, then you're right. There's no reason to talk about Joe Start, Bill Craver, Bellan, Nava, George Wright, Tom York, Charley Radbourn, Monte Ward, etc. The Model T Ford - Ford Mustang. Will the real car please drive off. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> BTW, Senor Hal Gator, that's a bery bery good looking card of Senor Grovero Clevelandero Pedrito Alejandro. Wan of zee best peloteros to eva com owt of La Habana Cuba. Sank you, Jose P.

Archive

06-14-2004, 09:55 PM

Posted By: scgaynorSince Bobby Estalella, who played from 1935-1949, had a black father and latin mother, isn't he actually the 1st black major league ballplayer? I had always thought that race was determined by the ethnic background of the father. I first heard this from a relative of Shriley Povich. I don't believe it was common knowlege among the public, but in the Washington Senators organization Estalella was considered by many to be black. Scott

Archive

06-14-2004, 09:58 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffMy vote goes to Bellan. Nava was a full decade later. While they were both definitely Hispanic, Bellan was born in Cuba, Nava in San Francisco. I realize the issue isn't about birthplace, but ethnicity, however. As far as the argument that the first Latino wasn't Bellan because the National Association wasn't a "Major" league, I just think this is incorrect. Take a look at the all-time leaders for shutouts. Obviously you've got Johnson at #1 with 110, followed by Alexander's 90 at #2. But Bob Gibson is listed at #13 with 56. According to Nick he should be tied with Pud Galvin at #12. But Galvin is actually tied with Ed Walsh in the #11 position with 57 shutouts. 56 in the National League, 1 in the National Association when he was 18 years old. Take away his 1 shutout in the National Association and Walsh stands alone at #11, Galvin now comes in at #12 but now he's tied with Gibson, who just moved a spot up. Following Nick's line of thought, not only do Marsans and Almeida become the 1st Latin Major Leaguers, but the record books need to be re-written. The best analogy is Fleet Walker and Jackie Robinson, which was mentioned earlier. Come to think of it, is the American Association a "Major" league using the same logic? If not, then Jackie Robinson was indeed the first black Major Leaguer. Not counting Roberto Estalella, of course. Nick, are you saying Jackie was the first black Major Leaguer? -Ryan Christoff

Archive

06-14-2004, 10:09 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffToo funny, Scott. I thought I was being so clever with by mentioning Estalella and you beat me to it. -Ryan

Archive

06-14-2004, 10:14 PM

Posted By: scgaynorNot the 1st time that I have had the same thought as someone else. I just recently heard that SABR recently found good evidence that there was an even earlier major league player who was black. I can't remember his name, but he only played a game or two. He pre-dates Fleetwood Walker. Scott

Archive

06-14-2004, 10:32 PM

Posted By: Matt GoebelDidn't some people believe that Alejandro Carrasquel(1939-1949) was black as well?

Archive

06-14-2004, 11:48 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognarbefore Jackie Robinson, with a big assist from Rickey, made it official. But in that case, why didn't they talk about it--after Jackie? I think Chief Myers looks part black--whereas Chief Bender doesn't. I don't mean "one drop of Negro blood" (figures in some awful ancient law)--I mean, like, half! Anyone else think so?

Archive

06-15-2004, 12:53 AM

Posted By: NickinvegasMy point in this whole matter is that the Haymakers were not a major league organization. The hayamkers and the rest of the teams that floated in and out of the National Association were not organized and therefore can not be considered. MLB agrees with my absurd opinion! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> If we are going to include the haymakers we may as well include all of the negro leagues. There must be a line drawn somewhere... I found this on the net, maybe it will help support my case: "Historical Major Leagues In 1969, the centennial of professional baseball, a commission chartered by Major League Baseball identified the following leagues as "major leagues". The list is sometimes disputed by baseball researchers. The MLB list included the following: 1876-present: National League of Professional Baseball Clubs 1882-1891: American Association 1884: Union Association 1890: Players League 1901-present: American League 1914-1915: Federal League Some researchers contend that the National Association (1871-1875), the Negro Leagues (primarily during the years from 1921-1946), and the first year of the American League (1900) deserve consideration as major leagues due to the caliber of player and the level of play exhibited. However, game and statistical records for these particular leagues were not kept in a consistent manner." Joe and Ryan I understand and respect your points, I think this is a subject that can be debated. And I am always up for a good debate. Regards, Nick

Archive

06-15-2004, 04:45 AM

Posted By: Joe P.Serious aficionados, I like the takes, I like the various views from the Bridge. First of all, let me say hello to Scott G. Matt, Julie, Nick, Ryan, and any other of my fellow crazies that might join in this session of the price of rice in China. Whether we realize it or not, we're touching on several different things. Such as the first Latin ball players to play on our shores. The first black ball players to play Pro ball. The terminology Major Leagues was a lattar day invention during the course of the evolution of baseball in the US. And also that the 1909 Model T and the Ford Mustangs were regarded as cars even though they were build decades apart. Let me touch on a common mistake that is made by some sellers and buyers of Latin baseball. The teams that played baseball in the northern part of South America, Central America and the Islands of the Caribbean, never considered themselves as the Negro Leagues. The teams, especially in the Islands were made up of all the colors of the rainbow. They were black, white with blue eyes, Taino indians, or players with a multi cultural mixture. In there minds, they were ballplayers. They played for Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, Venezuela, Columbia, Panama, Mexico etc. The Negro Leagues was a North American creation, that evolved and was derivative to people like Anson. It was our baggage and we had to carry it for a while. If it were not for the Latino leagues, we wouldn't have cards of the Negro League players. Now that we have established that Island teams were a rainbow team, the original question was who was the first Latino player regardless of pigmintation to play with the known northern professionals of that time? For a long time many of the talking heads of baseball believed that Abner Doubleday invented the game. You know something, let me get the hell out of here and go to bed. This program is now being returned to all my fellow crazies of The Twilight Zone. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Jose El Loco

Archive

06-15-2004, 07:24 AM

Posted By: NickinvegasRyan, I do not believe that Almeida and Marsans were the first latins to play in MLB, "Jud" Castro was: "According to the McMillan Encyclopedia, the official record of organized baseball, the first Latin American to enter the big leagues was Luis Castro, an infielder who played 42 games with the Philadelphia Athletics in the 1902 season." - 100 Years & Counting : The Latino Baseball Legacy The first Cubans were Almeida and Marsans. Although Almeida did bat first, so he would be considered "the first"; Marsans was the first to have a major impact on the game. He was a great ball player. And some would argue, because he was a dark skinned Cuban he should be considered the first black player to play baseball. Link for Casto: <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/castrlu01.shtml" target=_new>http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/castrlu01.shtml</a> Link for Marsans: <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/marsaar01.shtml" target=_new>http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/marsaar01.shtml</a>

Archive

06-15-2004, 07:48 AM

Posted By: Julie VognarFleet Walker was the first black guy to play for the Major Leagues--a whole year with the Toledo Blue Stockings of the American Association in 1883. The Blue Stockings then folded, and Fleet, his brother and several other black guys hung around the AAA, some very effectively, till Anson errected the Berlin Wall...oops, wrong artifact. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/V_B_C/1087360221.jpg"> Picture of marsans? [edited to crop photo]

Archive

06-15-2004, 09:32 AM

Posted By: NickinvegasJulie, Here is a picture of him hunting, I also have his T207 for sale under my ebay seller name Nickinvegas. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1087313420.JPG"> I purchased this great photo of Marsans from Ryan Christoff. Thanks again Ryan. Nick

Archive

06-15-2004, 09:38 AM

Posted By: Matt GoebelI was hoping that someone would bring up the argument that the Negro Leagues should be considered "Major". I have no doubt that the level of play was equivalent to the white Major Leagues at the time, maybe even better. If the reason given that opposes this argument is simply that there weren't accurate records kept, then that is quite ridiculous (if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it do the RBIs count as "official"). My personal belief is that in 50 years we will look back on the Negro Leagues as being "Major" and many more of the stars will have been recognized for their greatness.

Archive

06-15-2004, 09:17 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeMatt, I'm not sure I agree that the Negro leagues were of major league caliber, at least not across the board. I think it is obvious that many of the stars who played in the Negro leagues would also have been stars in the National or American Leagues, and that many of those stars have never received the recognition they are due. I also don't have a problem agreeing that the talent level of the Negro league stars was at least equal to that of the MLB stars at most equivalent periods of time. However, in most of the interviews with former Negro league players I have read, if the Negro league - MLB equivalence question is raised, the players say that the caliber of play in the Negro leagues was somewhere between AAA ball and the majors. The reasons most commonly given are that: (1) Negro league teams were generally far smaller than a MLB team (often consisting of 14-16 players), thus causing them to have far less bench strength than a MLB team; (2) their pitching depth was far poorer than MLB teams (at least back then - the current MLB depth is pretty weak in my opinion); and (3) many Negro league teams lacked much of a disciplined training regimine. On a most days, does a Negro league all star team beat a MLB all star team? The studies seem to say yes, although there have predictably been questions raised about the supposed absence of desire on the part of the MLB teams and the presence of extra desire on the part of the Negro league teams. I guess those questions are supposed to help explain why the MLB all star teams got whipped more often than not. When all is said and done, I personally have some difficulty concluding that a team composed of 14-16 persons is going to be competitive with a team composed of 24-25 people for very long. While they could win on any given day, I don't see it happening too much over the course of long season. Even in the days when pitchers actually pitched more than twice a week and generally completed their games, presumably allowing teams to get by with fewer pitchers, that is kind of a stretch for me. Overall, I tend to think that a ranking between AAA and the majors is probably fairly accurate. Insofar as the issue of the first Latin player in MLB is concerned, it seems to me that the answer is entirely dictated by how you define the major leagues. If the Haymakers are a major league team, Bellan is the guy. If they're not, he's not. I tend not to view the Haymakers as a MLB team, but others could certainly disagree and present valid arguments in support of their position. If you change the question to who is the first Latin player in "professional" baseball, Bellan may slide back in as the answer. However, Marsans was very clearly the first "impact" Latin player to play at the highest level. Consequently, I'd give the nod to him. Kenny

Archive

06-16-2004, 09:14 AM

Posted By: Matt GoebelKenny, I have to say that I agree with just about everything you said, I just spin it a little differently. When you say that the caliber of play was between that of the contemporary AAA and Major league level, I think you probably could have said the same thing about the Federal League (which is considered a major league) as well as the Union Association and the Players League. The white talent pool was clearly spread much thinner those years resulting in less bench strength and poorer pitching. Hell, you could say that about several Major League seasons in the expansion era - you hit upon this yourself. Additionally, I think this lack of depth in the Negro Leagues actually fostered one of their greatest strengths - the development of much more multi-dimensional players. Because of the limited roster size the pitchers were forced to be much better hitters and also be able to fill in at other positions, and a premium was placed on players who were adept at several positions and were able to man other functions from coaching/managing to groundskeeping (who knows?). Also, remember that Negro Leagues were representing only a small percentage of the American population, so it may not be fair to extrapolate that over the full Major League contingent of the time. I think the bottom line is that there were probably a couple of Negro League teams each year that would have challenged for the pennant in the AL or NL, probably another handful that would have matched up with the Major League also-rans, and several that were not of Major League caliber. Just my two cents.

Archive

06-16-2004, 05:23 PM

Posted By: Greg EcklundJulie, Funny - I just stumbled across this forum and I happened to be the one who sold you the T222 Alexander - hope you like it. That was a great card - I had designs on collecting the set, but lost my ambition to do so and turned my attention to finishing my half done T3 and BF2 instead. Still I was reluctant to part with it since Alexander has so few nice cards, but I recently picked up his BF2, so the Alexander void in my collection is now filled. The dealer I bought the Alexander from was actually quite funny. Originally the card was completely intact, but he accidentally took off that small piece in the corner when he was taking it out of its holder for a potential buyer. Needless to say, he was quite irritated and probably cost himself a couple hundred dollars.

Archive

06-16-2004, 06:34 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognarbrought his T222 Alexander to Berkeley when we got together for a card visit--I was very taken with its grace and intensity--not to mention its perfect condition! and remembered all my failed attempts to get a really attractive Alexander card, Alexander being arguably one of the 5 greatest pitchers of all time. Like Shoeless Joe, Pete didn't stay beautiful for very long...I didn't even ASK Bill the price , and have since found out that he has the set, so it probably wasn't for sale at any price. It was he, however, who pointed your auction out to me in the chatroom one night. When I won it, because I bid $200 higher than anyone else, everyone suddenly remembered how much they wanted one. I really love the card, and it will be one of the few 20th century cards on my new website, coming soon, relatively speaking. So thank you!

Archive

06-16-2004, 08:01 PM

Posted By: Bill Cornellfor no particular reason: <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/V_B_C/alex/a.jpg"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/V_B_C/alex/b.jpg"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/V_B_C/alex/c.jpg"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/V_B_C/alex/d.jpg">

Archive

06-16-2004, 08:36 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognar.....

Archive

06-16-2004, 08:48 PM

Posted By: Greg EcklundJulie, Glad you like the Alexander - this is a great little forum, I'm glad I came across it. Looking forward to talking with you and all the others on this forum Greg

Archive

06-17-2004, 09:57 AM

Posted By: Tom L.Kenny, I think that your arguments are somewhat off base for excluding the Negro Leagues from consideration as Major Leagues. I don't think that numbers on a team (not that many in the 1800s), training methods (looked at Ruth lately?), or pitching depth (seen the Orioles' current AAA depth on their major league roster?) are factors. However, I think the two major arguments against including the Negro leagues are these: 1. The quality of each team overall was all over the boards. Obviously not the fault of the Negro League teams for a variety of historical, social and economic reasons, but you might have a AA quality SS playing next to a HOF 3d baseman. I think that the "average" player was probably high minors rather than major league. I don't have any facts to back this up other than what I've read. It's not fair, but that's what it was. An analogous situation is probably the Japanese League today. Obviously some of their players are high major league caliber (I assume Ischiro will one day be a US HOFer, provided that he has a few more years of 200+ hits), but the average caliber of play is closer to AAA than Major League. 2. From a practical standpoint, the need to decide which leagues were "Major League" was driven by statistics. Baseball is just a little kids game without statistics (to poorly paraphrase Chadwick), and so, for example, I think that even if the National Association from baseball's early years was Major League caliber (it was, after all, the 'primary' league of its era, even though players were selected by membership rather than ability), it still wouldn't be included for the simple reason that there are no reliable statistics from the era. Sadly, I think that the same thing applies to the Negro Leagues. Even if you could make the argument that the Negro Leagues were Major League caliber, the lack of reliable or consistent statistics would probably keep them out of the record books anyway. [For similar reasons, I think that the records of McGuire, Bonds, Conseco, and others need to be modified somehow to account for steroid use.] Just my two cents, Tom

Archive

06-17-2004, 10:24 AM

Posted By: BenNot much too add here, but I just wanted to say that that was a great post Tom, I am in full agreement, and also that this has been a very pleasant thread to follow over the past coupla days. Thanx.

Archive

06-17-2004, 12:04 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeTom, I don't think we really disagree that much. Neither do Matt and I. With respect to the level of Negro League play, you are correct that there was often a player of HOF caliber playing next to a player of far lesser ability. I suppose to some degree the same type of thing can be said of MLB. For example, while I don't particularly like Bonds, in my opinion he is so far ahead of anyone else on the Giants talent-wise that there is no comparison. That's why he's walking so much and hurting my roto-league stats. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> My statement about caliber of Negro League play was based upon reading a number of interviews with various Negro Leaguers. Many of them said the quality of Negro League team play OVERALL was between AAA and MLB, citing a lack of bench strength, pitching depth and training as reasons why. That's just not my opinion, its what they flat-out said. Since they played in the very league they're talking about, I presume they have knowledge and insight that I do not and will not ever possess. Therefore, I must also conclude that they are probably correct. As previously stated, I also believe that many Negro League stars would have been stars regardless of whether they played in MLB or any other league. I'm also not as worried about the statistical aspect of things as you seem to be. Many people are working on that issue as I write this. Information about the Negro Leagues is being unearthed daily. We probably will never have a complete statistical record, and mistakes may be made, but the same can be said of 19th Century baseball stats. So it goes. I can live with that. When all is said and done, I think your analogy to Japanese baseball if probably fairly accurate. However, if someone wants to define some of the Negro Leagues as being of major league caliber, it isn't going to cause me any heartburn. I don't necessarily agree with such a characterization, but I do think that valid arguments can be made either way. That's my two cents. Kenny

Archive

06-17-2004, 12:26 PM

Posted By: Tom L.Kenny, You're probably right - doesn't sound like our arguments are that far apart. But still, the stats are the things that drive everything about baseball [HOF consideration, MVP voting, All Star appearances, bonuses, demotion to the minors, arbitration, contract negotiations, excitement over records or achievements (e.g. .400, 61/70/75, 7 no-hitters, 20/25/30 wins, 56 games, 2131, etc.), rotisserie leagues, 27 batters without reaching base, as well as comparison to other eras and other major leagues]. All of that necessitates having fairly complete and accurate records - something significantly lacking from the National Association (pre National League) and Negro Leagues. All of that is academic, I suppose, if the caliber of Negro League play was not major league level (which I guess is definitely up for debate). Tom