Take Note, Ty Cobb Fans

[marzoumanian]

Saw this in The Athletic (NY Times) today and thought Net54 members would find it most interesting. Tyler Kempner wrote the piece. He is one of the BEST baseball writers around nowadays.

Peace



As MLB changes its records, Josh Gibson, not Ty Cobb, is all-time batting leader


It has been an article of faith for nearly a century, as if chiseled onto a tablet by Abner Doubleday himself: The leading hitter in major league history is, and always will be, Tyrus Raymond Cobb.

But history evolves. We know that Doubleday did not, in fact, invent baseball. And as of Wednesday, Josh Gibson will replace Cobb as the leading hitter in the official records of the game. At .372, Gibson’s career batting average eclipses Cobb’s by six points.




Major League Baseball will announce on Wednesday the results of a newly integrated statistical database covering records from Negro Leagues that operated from 1920 to 1948. The formal acceptance of the data comes three-and-a-half years after MLB officially recognized the Negro Leagues as major leagues in December 2020.

“People will be, I don’t know if upset is the word, but they may be uncomfortable with some Negro League stars now on the leaderboards for career and seasons,” said Larry Lester, an author and longtime Negro Leagues researcher who served on the committee.

“Diehards may not accept the stats, but that’s OK. I welcome the conversations at the bar or the barbershop or the pool hall. That’s why we do what we do.”

Career batting average leaders
Josh Gibson
.372
Ty Cobb
.367
Oscar Charleston
.363
Rogers Hornsby
.358
Jud Wilson
.350
Turkey Stearnes
.348
Ed Delahanty
.346
Buck Leonard
.345
Tris Speaker
.345
Ted Williams
.344
John Thorn, MLB’s official historian, said that with the St. Louis Cardinals and San Francisco Giants playing a game at Rickwood Field in Birmingham, Ala., next month, the timing was right to release the committee’s findings. Thorn estimated that about 75 percent of all Negro Leagues box scores have been documented, and that MLB would update the records as more are uncovered.

To some extent, Negro League numbers will always be a work in progress. Barnstorming games, essential as a financial lifeline to Negro League teams, are not included in the statistics.

“For example, the Kansas City Monarchs travel to Chicago, and once they get into town, they play as many games as possible,” Lester said. “So instead of a three-game series, they play five — and on the way there, they might stop in Moline and play the local team to pick up some change.

“Based on players that I’ve interviewed, they say they played almost every day, sometimes two or three games a day and not in the same location. So they were playing probably 150 to 175 games a year, but only 60 to 80 games counted in the league standings.”




Those shorter official seasons, MLB noted in a release announcing the change, naturally lead to some “leaderboard extremes”. But the league verified a 60-game season during the COVID-19 pandemic, and with that as a recent precedent, Thorn said, it made sense to also verify Negro League seasons.

“The irregularity of their league schedules, established in the spring but improvised by the summer, were not of their making but instead were born of MLB’s exclusionary practices,” MLB said in the release.

The committee used the same statistical minimums for Negro League leaders as it does for the American and National Leagues: 3.1 plate appearances or 1 inning pitched per scheduled team game. The scheduled games range from 26 (Negro American League, 1942) to 91 (Negro National League I, 1927).

The new accounting gives Gibson not just the career batting average record, but also the single-season mark at .466 in 1943, followed by Chino Smith’s .451 in 1929. The previous record, Hugh Duffy’s .440 mark for Boston in 1894, drops to third.

Single-season batting average
Josh Gibson
.466 (1943)
Chino Smith
.451 (1929)
Hugh Duffy
.440 (1894)
Oscar Charleston
.434 (1921)
Charlie Blackwell
.432 (1921)
Ross Barnes
.429 (1876)
Oscar Charleston
.427 (1925)
Mule Suttles
.425 (1926)
Willie Keeler
.424 (1897)
Rogers Hornsby
.424 (1924)
At baseball-reference, however, Gibson’s .466 isn’t even listed in bold on his career ledger. That’s because another hitter in Gibson’s league, Tetelo Vargas of the New York Cubans, batted .471, which the website considers the career record.

Vargas is credited with 136 plate appearances that season. But MLB considers that league’s schedule to be 47 games long, so Vargas falls short of MLB’s minimum 146 plate appearances required for recognition as a league leader.

On baseball-reference’s single-season batting average leaderboard, Vargas and Gibson are followed by another .466 hitter — Lyman Bostock Sr., the father of the star outfielder for the Twins and Angels who was murdered after a game in Chicago in 1978.

Bostock Sr.’s .466 mark is recognized by baseball-reference as the top average in 1941 (which is why Ted Williams’ fabled .406 for the Red Sox in 1941 is not listed in italicized type on the site). But MLB does not recognize Bostock Sr.’s average on the new single-season leaderboard, because he did it in just 84 plate appearances.




“Here’s the difference,” said Sean Forman, the president of Sports Reference LLC. “Throughout the Negro League stats, there are games that are missing; maybe we have the score of the game that was played, but we have no box score for it.

“So I’m looking at Bostock in 1941. We have 23 games of records for him, and we have the Birmingham Black Barons (Bostock’s team) with 45 games that season. So Bostock, with 84 plate appearances, would be below the 45 times 3.1 (threshold). The thing is, he’s over 3.1 per game for those games that we have box scores. We use that number as how we set the minimum.

“We have certain reasons for making the choices we did, and MLB has certain reasons for making the choices they did.”


Ty Cobb’s career average has long stood as MLB’s highest mark. (Photo Reproduction by Transcendental Graphics / Getty Images)
Baseball-reference uses Negro League statistics from the Seamheads database, a project that Lester said began with a grant from MLB in 2000. Researchers Gary Ashwill and Kevin Johnson searched exhaustively for verified box scores, and while both are on the committee, it took years for MLB and Seamheads to agree on the implementation of data.

“There were arduous negotiations,” Thorn acknowledged. “And part of the difficulty was not financial — that was almost to one side and agreed upon — it was how the stats would be used and what level of involvement Seamheads might have on a continuing basis. It took a long time to get to agreement, but once we got to agreement, we brought in Retrosheet as an additional statistical partner. And, of course, we had Elias on board already as our official statisticians, the ones responsible for auditing the data.”

Career OPS
Josh Gibson
1.177
Babe Ruth
1.164
Ted Williams
1.116
Lou Gehrig
1.079
Oscar Charleston
1.063
Barry Bonds
1.051
Buck Leonard
1.042
Jimmie Foxx
1.037
Turkey Stearnes
1.033
Mule Suttles
1.031
It took more than two years for those entities to come together. But once they did, it seems, the pace accelerated. Thorn said the committee was careful to rely only on box scores, not merely game accounts. Gibson was reported to have hit four homers in a game in 1938, for example, but with no box score, there’s no way to make all the numbers work.

“If a man hits a home run, he hits it off someone,” Thorn said. “So, absent the double-entry accounting that is required to provide balance to the entire historical record of Major League Baseball, we cannot make exceptions for anecdotal evidence.”

Career ERA
Ed Walsh
1.82
Addie Joss
1.89
Mordecai Brown
2.06
John Ward
2.1
Christy Mathewson
2.13
Rube Waddell
2.16
Walter Johnson
2.17
Dave Brown
2.24
Tommy Bond
2.25
Will White
2.28
Likewise, Thorn said, a game account from 1948 says that Willie Mays homered for Birmingham. But without a box score to verify it, Mays’ career home run total remains at 660 — all with the Giants and Mets.

The records are not full, but they are accurate for what they cover, as far as MLB is concerned. The painstaking research demands it.




“It takes me roughly 30 minutes to input one box score — line by line, number by number, and then I run data integrity checks at the end of the season,” Lester said. “I roughly have about 16,000 box scores in my database, so it took years to perform the task.

“But it’s fun. We welcome the critics, the doubters. But we know the numbers are solid.”

Decades ago, Lester said, people told him the numbers simply did not exist — “that African-Americans were apathetic about recording baseball history,” he said. He is proud to have helped upend that trope, to unearth the numbers that validate the achievements of Oscar Charleston, Bullet Rogan, Turkey Stearnes and others.

The revised records — even certified as official — will not sway everyone. Lester understands that. And for all the meticulous record-keeping, the what-ifs of segregation can never be resolved.

“Critics will say, ‘Well, (Gibson) only played against other Black teams,’” Lester said. “Well, Babe Ruth never hit a home run off a Black pitcher, and Josh Gibson never hit a home run off a white pitcher. So I guess my point is, the amount of melanin or the lack thereof does not indicate the greatness of a ballplayer.”

[Hxcmilkshake]

I'm old but I love the change, long overdue. And I appreciate the thought around it

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Casey2296]

Congrats to Gibson and the other NL players to finally be recognized.
-
Patiently waiting for Ty Cobb prices to come down now.
-

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Congrats to Gibson and the other NL players to finally be recognized.
-
Patiently waiting for Ty Cobb prices to come down now.
-

…and Babe Ruth.

[BigfootIsReal]

Becket, since he's God, just announced Cobb prices to decline by 47% and Ruth 41%

[z28jd]

I can't imagine Gibson would take over the career leader mark, he only has 2,526 plate appearances accounted for to come up with that career average. That's well off would should be the minimum to become an all-time leader. Baseball-Reference updated their stats two years ago and he's not even on their low standards for qualifying (3,000 PAs)

If they would allow the National Association to be among Major League stats, Levi Meyerle would take that top spot with his .492 average in 1871.

This is similar to when I tell people the Pirates career average leader is Jake Stenzel. He's #1 on BR, so you have "proof" that it is true, but how do you compare his .360 average over 1,755 ABs to Paul Waner hitting .340 over 8,429 ABs. You can't use 8,000+ ABs for a team leaderboard, barely anyone would qualify all around baseball, but 1,755 seems way too low.

[campyfan39]

I hate it personally.
The record keeping, competition, schedules etc. were all totally different. Seems no matter what has been done to try to recognize the accomplishments of the Negro Leagues, its not ever enough.

We going to add Japanese league or barnstorming or minor league stats? Dominican leagues?

[Bpm0014]

^^^^ Exactly this

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I hate it personally.
The record keeping, competition, schedules etc. were all totally different. Seems no matter what has been done to try to recognize the accomplishments of the Negro Leagues, its not ever enough.

We going to add Japanese league or barnstorming or minor league stats? Dominican leagues?

I don't like it only because they are working with partial stats to come up with these "records".

As far as the barnstorming part, I liked the inclusion of Negro League stats because that was one of the things people said about the National Association not being MLB. The schedule wasn't normal and they were playing exhibition games in between games. The people who want to keep the NA out of the majors didn't want to lower the bar, but their excuses don't hold water now. Those players should be officially recognized by MLB. At least with that league we have all of the stats available.

I say all that, but I don't really care what MLB "officially" recognizes. I do the research on topics and once I'm 100% convinced, then what they say doesn't matter to me. I call out the Pirates all the time for claiming that they have been around since 1887. I'll correct people who quote their year too. I recognize Paul Hines' unassisted triple play. If they don't agree, that's their problem. Do better research.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Too bad there aren't more Josh Gibson cards. Or all the big time black players of that era for that matter. Would have been so amazing if they played along side all the greats of that era to get true stats for everyone.

[Klrdds]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I hate it personally.
The record keeping, competition, schedules etc. were all totally different. Seems no matter what has been done to try to recognize the accomplishments of the Negro Leagues, its not ever enough.

We going to add Japanese league or barnstorming or minor league stats? Dominican leagues?

Well stated Campyfan39 .
I agree 100%

[anchorednw]

This won't do anything to prices. Especially Cobb, Ruth and all-time greats.

[BeanTown]

My biggest question, how was the competition? We’re teams struggling to find quality teams to play and field? Too bad everyone wasn’t playing since 1869. I know some amazing players came out of the Negro, Japanese, and many South American leagues. All all being honored?

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by marzoumanian

Saw this in The Athletic (NY Times) today and thought Net54 members would find it most interesting. Tyler Kempner wrote the piece. He is one of the BEST baseball writers around nowadays.

Peace



As MLB changes its records, Josh Gibson, not Ty Cobb, is all-time batting leader


It has been an article of faith for nearly a century, as if chiseled onto a tablet by Abner Doubleday himself: The leading hitter in major league history is, and always will be, Tyrus Raymond Cobb.

But history evolves. We know that Doubleday did not, in fact, invent baseball. And as of Wednesday, Josh Gibson will replace Cobb as the leading hitter in the official records of the game. At .372, Gibson’s career batting average eclipses Cobb’s by six points.




Major League Baseball will announce on Wednesday the results of a newly integrated statistical database covering records from Negro Leagues that operated from 1920 to 1948. The formal acceptance of the data comes three-and-a-half years after MLB officially recognized the Negro Leagues as major leagues in December 2020.

“People will be, I don’t know if upset is the word, but they may be uncomfortable with some Negro League stars now on the leaderboards for career and seasons,” said Larry Lester, an author and longtime Negro Leagues researcher who served on the committee.

“Diehards may not accept the stats, but that’s OK. I welcome the conversations at the bar or the barbershop or the pool hall. That’s why we do what we do.”

Career batting average leaders
Josh Gibson
.372
Ty Cobb
.367
Oscar Charleston
.363
Rogers Hornsby
.358
Jud Wilson
.350
Turkey Stearnes
.348
Ed Delahanty
.346
Buck Leonard
.345
Tris Speaker
.345
Ted Williams
.344
John Thorn, MLB’s official historian, said that with the St. Louis Cardinals and San Francisco Giants playing a game at Rickwood Field in Birmingham, Ala., next month, the timing was right to release the committee’s findings. Thorn estimated that about 75 percent of all Negro Leagues box scores have been documented, and that MLB would update the records as more are uncovered.

To some extent, Negro League numbers will always be a work in progress. Barnstorming games, essential as a financial lifeline to Negro League teams, are not included in the statistics.

“For example, the Kansas City Monarchs travel to Chicago, and once they get into town, they play as many games as possible,” Lester said. “So instead of a three-game series, they play five — and on the way there, they might stop in Moline and play the local team to pick up some change.

“Based on players that I’ve interviewed, they say they played almost every day, sometimes two or three games a day and not in the same location. So they were playing probably 150 to 175 games a year, but only 60 to 80 games counted in the league standings.”




Those shorter official seasons, MLB noted in a release announcing the change, naturally lead to some “leaderboard extremes”. But the league verified a 60-game season during the COVID-19 pandemic, and with that as a recent precedent, Thorn said, it made sense to also verify Negro League seasons.

“The irregularity of their league schedules, established in the spring but improvised by the summer, were not of their making but instead were born of MLB’s exclusionary practices,” MLB said in the release.

The committee used the same statistical minimums for Negro League leaders as it does for the American and National Leagues: 3.1 plate appearances or 1 inning pitched per scheduled team game. The scheduled games range from 26 (Negro American League, 1942) to 91 (Negro National League I, 1927).

The new accounting gives Gibson not just the career batting average record, but also the single-season mark at .466 in 1943, followed by Chino Smith’s .451 in 1929. The previous record, Hugh Duffy’s .440 mark for Boston in 1894, drops to third.

Single-season batting average
Josh Gibson
.466 (1943)
Chino Smith
.451 (1929)
Hugh Duffy
.440 (1894)
Oscar Charleston
.434 (1921)
Charlie Blackwell
.432 (1921)
Ross Barnes
.429 (1876)
Oscar Charleston
.427 (1925)
Mule Suttles
.425 (1926)
Willie Keeler
.424 (1897)
Rogers Hornsby
.424 (1924)
At baseball-reference, however, Gibson’s .466 isn’t even listed in bold on his career ledger. That’s because another hitter in Gibson’s league, Tetelo Vargas of the New York Cubans, batted .471, which the website considers the career record.

Vargas is credited with 136 plate appearances that season. But MLB considers that league’s schedule to be 47 games long, so Vargas falls short of MLB’s minimum 146 plate appearances required for recognition as a league leader.

On baseball-reference’s single-season batting average leaderboard, Vargas and Gibson are followed by another .466 hitter — Lyman Bostock Sr., the father of the star outfielder for the Twins and Angels who was murdered after a game in Chicago in 1978.

Bostock Sr.’s .466 mark is recognized by baseball-reference as the top average in 1941 (which is why Ted Williams’ fabled .406 for the Red Sox in 1941 is not listed in italicized type on the site). But MLB does not recognize Bostock Sr.’s average on the new single-season leaderboard, because he did it in just 84 plate appearances.




“Here’s the difference,” said Sean Forman, the president of Sports Reference LLC. “Throughout the Negro League stats, there are games that are missing; maybe we have the score of the game that was played, but we have no box score for it.

“So I’m looking at Bostock in 1941. We have 23 games of records for him, and we have the Birmingham Black Barons (Bostock’s team) with 45 games that season. So Bostock, with 84 plate appearances, would be below the 45 times 3.1 (threshold). The thing is, he’s over 3.1 per game for those games that we have box scores. We use that number as how we set the minimum.

“We have certain reasons for making the choices we did, and MLB has certain reasons for making the choices they did.”


Ty Cobb’s career average has long stood as MLB’s highest mark. (Photo Reproduction by Transcendental Graphics / Getty Images)
Baseball-reference uses Negro League statistics from the Seamheads database, a project that Lester said began with a grant from MLB in 2000. Researchers Gary Ashwill and Kevin Johnson searched exhaustively for verified box scores, and while both are on the committee, it took years for MLB and Seamheads to agree on the implementation of data.

“There were arduous negotiations,” Thorn acknowledged. “And part of the difficulty was not financial — that was almost to one side and agreed upon — it was how the stats would be used and what level of involvement Seamheads might have on a continuing basis. It took a long time to get to agreement, but once we got to agreement, we brought in Retrosheet as an additional statistical partner. And, of course, we had Elias on board already as our official statisticians, the ones responsible for auditing the data.”

Career OPS
Josh Gibson
1.177
Babe Ruth
1.164
Ted Williams
1.116
Lou Gehrig
1.079
Oscar Charleston
1.063
Barry Bonds
1.051
Buck Leonard
1.042
Jimmie Foxx
1.037
Turkey Stearnes
1.033
Mule Suttles
1.031
It took more than two years for those entities to come together. But once they did, it seems, the pace accelerated. Thorn said the committee was careful to rely only on box scores, not merely game accounts. Gibson was reported to have hit four homers in a game in 1938, for example, but with no box score, there’s no way to make all the numbers work.

“If a man hits a home run, he hits it off someone,” Thorn said. “So, absent the double-entry accounting that is required to provide balance to the entire historical record of Major League Baseball, we cannot make exceptions for anecdotal evidence.”

Career ERA
Ed Walsh
1.82
Addie Joss
1.89
Mordecai Brown
2.06
John Ward
2.1
Christy Mathewson
2.13
Rube Waddell
2.16
Walter Johnson
2.17
Dave Brown
2.24
Tommy Bond
2.25
Will White
2.28
Likewise, Thorn said, a game account from 1948 says that Willie Mays homered for Birmingham. But without a box score to verify it, Mays’ career home run total remains at 660 — all with the Giants and Mets.

The records are not full, but they are accurate for what they cover, as far as MLB is concerned. The painstaking research demands it.




“It takes me roughly 30 minutes to input one box score — line by line, number by number, and then I run data integrity checks at the end of the season,” Lester said. “I roughly have about 16,000 box scores in my database, so it took years to perform the task.

“But it’s fun. We welcome the critics, the doubters. But we know the numbers are solid.”

Decades ago, Lester said, people told him the numbers simply did not exist — “that African-Americans were apathetic about recording baseball history,” he said. He is proud to have helped upend that trope, to unearth the numbers that validate the achievements of Oscar Charleston, Bullet Rogan, Turkey Stearnes and others.

The revised records — even certified as official — will not sway everyone. Lester understands that. And for all the meticulous record-keeping, the what-ifs of segregation can never be resolved.

“Critics will say, ‘Well, (Gibson) only played against other Black teams,’” Lester said. “Well, Babe Ruth never hit a home run off a Black pitcher, and Josh Gibson never hit a home run off a white pitcher. So I guess my point is, the amount of melanin or the lack thereof does not indicate the greatness of a ballplayer.”

Josh Gibson is said to have hit over 800 career home runs. Don't they have the stats for that as well?

I have read multiple books about the Negro Leagues and their stars. but the fact is that the Negro Leagues are not and never have been Major League Baseball. I know they had a high caliber of play and players and teams which may have even been on par with the MLB players and teams of their day. However, I have never liked the idea of just grandfathering them and integrating their stats as though they were part of MLB history. Why not just keep them separate and have a separate Hall of Fame and everything else for them? Because of political correctness, that's why. The powers in MLB have simply decided that keeping the two leagues separate is somehow akin to modern-day segregation. Thus, the findings of that committee, is their method of issuing official reparations for the sin of having a color barrier in place for around 75 years.

[brunswickreeves]

Thrilled for many reasons, including that the position of Catcher will finally have representation in a top 10 all time greatest category. Typically don’t see a player who played that (on such lists like baseball almanac) until Jimmie Foxx.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Josh Gibson is said to have hit over 800 career home runs. Don't they have the stats for that as well?

I have read multiple books about the Negro Leagues and their stars. but the fact is that the Negro Leagues are not and never have been Major League Baseball. I know they had a high caliber of play and players and teams which may have even been on par with the MLB players and teams of their day. However, I have never liked the idea of just grandfathering them and integrating their stats as though they were part of MLB history. Why not just keep them separate and have a separate Hall of Fame and everything else for them? Because of political correctness, that's why. The powers in MLB have simply decided that keeping the two leagues separate is somehow akin to modern-day segregation. Thus, the findings of that committee, is their method of issuing official reparations for the sin of having a color barrier in place for around 75 years.

Gibson has 166 homers accounted for in Negro League games. The actual number is slightly higher because they are missing stats for some games. The "800" number you hear for him includes exhibition games in season, as well as homers hit on barnstorming tours. The problem with quoting that number seriously is that it is likely he was seeing 75 MPH fastballs down the middle.

When Babe Ruth played those same type of games, the opposing team knew what the fans wanted to see. Even the writers covering the game would talk about it. The players also knew that Ruth hitting homers makes them more money. If you could find all of Ruth's exhibition/barnstorming games and total them, he would probably have a 2.000 slugging percentage. You can safely assume, unless they were very poor businessmen, that Gibson was getting the same exact treatment. Paige was the big draw for pitchers, so he would pitch 2-3 innings each game instead of going nine innings every third game. Gibson was the big draw for hitters, so the fans wanted to see him hit dingers. He was getting the same pitches Ruth saw to help pad those numbers for the crowd enjoyment.

Gibson probably hit close to 800 homers give or take, but around 75% of them wouldn't be included in actual stats because they weren't league games.

[cgjackson222]

It perhaps should be noted that if you look on BaseballReference.com that Ty Cobb is still the career Batting Average leader. This is because Baseball Reference has different minimum standards than Major League Baseball, and Josh Gibson's 2,526 Played Appearances does not meet their 3,000 minimum PA threshold.

As for the argument that the Negro Leagues were not Major Leagues, you may wish to consult the collection of essays titled "The Negro Leagues are Major Leagues" by Baseball Reference and SABR. It can be found online in its entirety here: https://www.baseball-reference.com/articles/

The essays explain how there are 7 Negro Leagues that have been deemed on par with the white MLB and therefore stats are considered only from those 7 Leagues.

As the essays detail, "Between 1866 and 1948, top-flight African American clubs played over 7,000 games with White semi-pro, college, minor league, and major league teams and beat them nearly 65 percent of the time....From the first year of the American League in 1900 through the last year of the second Negro National League in 1948, African American teams posted a record of 316-283-21 (.527) against White major league clubs and big-league All-Star aggregations. Against intact National, American, and Federal League teams, black squads posted a record of 47-60-8 (.443) However, from the inception of the Negro National League in 1920 through 1924, African American teams went 29-31-2 (.484) in head-to-head competition. Because the White mainstream press was often reluctant to print Black clubs’ successes, the Negro Leaguers’ overall tally is likely far better than what was recorded."

"n 1922, responding to the Black teams’ continued success against American and National League squads, Commissioner of Baseball Kenesaw Mountain Landis forbade big leaguers from appearing as under their team names or wearing their own uniforms, and insisted that they advertise themselves as All-Star teams, with only three individual teammates allowed to play together at any one time. Between 1900 and 1948, Black clubs defeated the best White batters, pitchers, and teams they were allowed to play nearly 55 percent of the time. The All-Star squads included in this tally were composed of five or more players with big league experience (including the starting pitcher) and at least three players who had appeared in the majors that particular season. The number of big leaguers involved in many of these games was actually higher as the major leaguers often resorted to the use of aliases to avoid detection. As for the farfetched notion that the big leaguers were not giving their all, it should be noted that between 1900 and 1948, White major league squads racked up a record of 2640-897-71 (.742) against minor league, semi-pro, college and military teams—Only the Negro Leaguers had their number"

"While Negro League teams more than held their own while playing major league squads, they absolutely dominated bush leaguers. From the turn of the twentieth century through 1948, Blackball clubs played well over 1400 games with minor league teams and All-Star outfits, beating them nearly 60 percent of the time."

[Seven]

I have zero issue with recognizing the Negro League stats, as an avid fan of the various leagues before integration I think it's very important to recognize the history and the roll that these men played into getting the game integrated. There were some supremely talented players in that league. Charleston, Leonard, Gibson, Paige, Stearnes, etc I can go on and on.

All that being said though. It's a little disingenuous and it kind of feels like we're whitewashing history. It's important to recognize that yes it was equivalent to the major leagues in terms of talent level. It's also equally important to recognize that these players were put into this situation because of the racial attitudes of commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis. Separate Leaderboards encourages more of a discussion. We can discuss why they are separate. the racial climate of the sport back then and the struggles that so many of these men had to go through to become recognized.

Combining the leaderboard, in my opinion at least, kind of takes away from that. I think it's pandering at this point. Because the average Joe that's not interested in this history will just see Gibson's name up there and just accept that he's the All Time Leader. Seeing the men on separate leaderboards, would encourage more discussion and maybe encourage people to look into why the leagues were separated and what these men had to go though.

I might be doing a poor job of wording this, but I hope people understand what I am saying.

[ALBB]

I dont like it

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Seven

I have zero issue with recognizing the Negro League stats, as an avid fan of the various leagues before integration I think it's very important to recognize the history and the roll that these men played into getting the game integrated. There were some supremely talented players in that league. Charleston, Leonard, Gibson, Paige, Stearnes, etc I can go on and on.

All that being said though. It's a little disingenuous and it kind of feels like we're whitewashing history. It's important to recognize that yes it was equivalent to the major leagues in terms of talent level. It's also equally important to recognize that these players were put into this situation because of the racial attitudes of commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis. Separate Leaderboards encourages more of a discussion. We can discuss why they are separate. the racial climate of the sport back then and the struggles that so many of these men had to go through to become recognized.

Combining the leaderboard, in my opinion at least, kind of takes away from that. I think it's pandering at this point. Because the average Joe that's not interested in this history will just see Gibson's name up there and just accept that he's the All Time Leader. Seeing the men on separate leaderboards, would encourage more discussion and maybe encourage people to look into why the leagues were separated and what these men had to go though.

I might be doing a poor job of wording this, but I hope people understand what I am saying.

I see your point, and I think it is a good point. I think that some people thought that unless Major Negro League data was integrated with MLB data, that little of that NL data would ever have been seen. I think it was about giving recognition, and you do that by putting the data in the same place where everyone is looking for it. Similarly, if you kept Negro Leaguers out of Cooperstown, they would have a lot less exposure.

[Leon]

It doesn't seem like the stats from the Negro Leagues are completely accurate. Not a fan of doing this.
.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Woke, revisionist bullshit.

But history evolves. We know that Doubleday did not, in fact, invent baseball.

Yes, but Ty Cobb played Major League baseball. Josh Gibson did not. So there's that.

Do I resepct Gibson's ability? You'd better believe it! But he didn't play against MLB players in official games. Sorry. Negro League baseball is NOT Major League baseball and never will be to me.

If all of these updates truly make any sense, then I demand that Sadaharu Oh be considered the all-time MLB HR leader. Japanese players couldn't help that they played on another continent! It wasn't their fault! It would be wrong to exclude anybody for any reason!

I can't wait for the updated versions of all other aspects of history!

[packs]

I really don't see eye to eye with people who have an issue with this. The Negro Leagues should be recognized by Major League baseball in all ways because it was Major League baseball's refusal to let them play that necessitated the Negro League in the first place. Major League baseball is directly responsible for their inception and the only way to right that wrong is to include the players in Major League baseball.

So I suggest people get over it. It's been done and you can take solace in knowing it won't be undone. It's no more ridiculous to recognize Josh Gibson's single season stats than it is to recognize Hoss Radbourn winning 60 games in a season. Gibson's stats are just as married to his time as Radbourn's and both will not be repeated under the modern game.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Woke, revisionist bullshit.

But history evolves. We know that Doubleday did not, in fact, invent baseball.

Yes, but Ty Cobb played Major League baseball. Josh Gibson did not. So there's that.

Do I resepct Gibson's ability? You'd better believe it! But he didn't play against MLB players in official games. Sorry. Negro League baseball is NOT Major League baseball and never will be to me.

If all of these updates truly make any sense, then I demand that Sadaharu Oh be considered the all-time MLB HR leader. Japanese players couldn't help that they played on another continent! It wasn't their fault! It would be wrong to exclude anybody for any reason!

I can't wait for the updated versions of all other aspects of history!

The argument that if Negro Leagues should be considered Major Leagues, then so should Japanese baseball, or other Leagues misses the point. There were hundreds of games played between Negro League teams and MLB players, and these games show that the 7 Major Negro Leagues were the equal to their white MLB counterpart. You simply can't say that about Japanese baseball or other Leagues.

[calvindog]

I agree with both sides of this issue. The negro leaguers were kept out of MLB because of racism and MLB has stats that are the result of segregation.

But as a purist I don’t like the idea of mixing stats from different leagues. However, aren’t Federal League stats included in official records? Did that league have the same quality of play as MLB at the time?

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

The argument that if Negro Leagues should be considered Major Leagues, then so should Japanese baseball, or other Leagues misses the point. There were hundreds of games played between Negro League teams and MLB, and these games show that the 7 Major Negro Leagues were the equal to their white MLB counterpart. You simply can't say that about Japanese baseball or other Leagues.

I'm with you. This doesn't bother me in the least. And for all the purists who want to keep the stats segregated, they can create a separate almanac with asterisks next to Negro League players and suspected steroid users.

[MattyC]

60 games played or 156 at bats should not get you a single season record.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I agree with both sides of this issue. The negro leaguers were kept out of MLB because of racism and MLB has stats that are the result of segregation.

But as a purist I don’t like the idea of mixing stats from different leagues. However, aren’t Federal League stats included in official records? Did that league have the same quality of play as MLB at the time?

Baseball Reference recognizes stats from the National Association, Players League, American Association, Federal League, and even the Union Association, and the 7 Major Negro Leagues.

I can see the argument that purists have, but I can understand how recognizing the 7 Major Negro Leagues is respectful from a recognition standpoint as well.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by MattyC

60 games played or 156 at bats should not get you a single season record.

This should go without saying.

[packs]

Didn't they award MVPs, Cy Youngs, and a World Series championship in 2020? How many games did they play?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

Didn't they award MVPs, Cy Youngs, and a World Series championship in 2020? How many games did they play?

They played exactly 60 games.

[JustinD]

Is it unquestionable revisionist history... of course. Any argument to the contrary (I will preface with "in my logic") is delusional. I think also those stating Asian or South American baseball is not as strong as Negro Leagues as talent have been hiding for decades. The WBC has shown that numerous other leagues are more competitive currently than the Negro Leagues ever were. Yes some of these players are in the league, but I would be happy to place Non-MLB Dominican, Korean, and Japanese All-stars against the MLB any day.

However, I really can't see this having the slightest effect to pricing and if so it would be decades into the future. The records are poorly researched, supported and suspect, the comparison of competition (in most games) is suspect, and the intention is suspect. Any current historian of sport would say the same and the greats will continue to hold the pure records in the minds of fans.

On the flip side, the youth and the future youth will see these records with
a fresher eye and research. The players will be likely better known in the future than now and that is a win in my book. Beyond small circles would Josh Gibson effect pricing even then? Never, as there are so few issues to collect...how would that pricing creep even begin?

I see it as a double sided sword, in the short term it will be ignored and disliked by many as another rewrite of history. In the long run it will bring more knowledge to these players and a time in history. As an impact on records...I see the shadow of these records on MLB stats having a similar effect as Sadaharu Oh did on Aaron. So negligible.

This will be a big blip on the sports channels for the next 6 months as an item of interest (we all know that ESPN will jump all over it), I see that fading after the season so I really will reserve my final judgment on lasting impact for a bit.

In summary, seems like there were likely better ways to do this but it is what it is.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Leon

It doesn't seem like the stats from the Negro Leagues are completely accurate. Not a fan of doing this.

+1. For me, the issue isn't accuracy, it's just that the situations under which the respective records were made are so very different that makes them apples and oranges. While recognizing that there would have surely been many MLB records set by black, latin, and Japanese players had they been allowed to play alongside the white players, trying to extrapolate specific numbers to compare them seems like a fool's errand to me. An analogy can be made to 19th century numbers: nobody accepts Radbourne's 60 wins as the record, the game was too different then. There is no doubt in my mind, though, that eventually all records and stats prior to 2000, say, will come to be viewed with suspicion and some disregard due to the fact that it wasn't a level playing field before then. And at some point, 2100, perhaps, everything before then might be taken with a grain of salt because women and transgender persons weren't taken seriously as potential major league players--who knows? Why can't we just accept the true history, including the numbers, made by these various groups within their own glorious incarnations without trying to shoehorn them in with each other in disregard of the fact they never got to compete against each other in an environment that would allow for truly rigorous comparisons. That doesn't make a lot of sense, statistical or otherwise, to me, as well as unnecessary.

[JackR]

Hmmm…kinda like Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education?

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by mattyc

60 games played or 156 at bats should not get you a single season record.

100%

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by JustinD

The WBC has shown that numerous other leagues are more competitive currently than the Negro Leagues ever were. Yes some of these players are in the league, but I would be happy to place Non-MLB Dominican, Korean, and Japanese All-stars against the MLB any day.

I agree with you that the MLB recognizing Negro League stats will have little to no effect on pricing, especially since Baseball Reference and SABR already integrated the stats years ago.

But to say the "WBC has shown that numerous other leagues are more competitive currently than the Negro Leagues ever were" is an odd point and impossible to prove. Are you saying that the cream of the crop from the Dominican, Korean and Japanese Leagues were better than the average Negro League? That may be the case, but it is not really relevant. What MLB is saying that on the whole, the 7 Major Negro Leagues were basically as good as white MLB as demonstrated by a fairly large sample size over many years. I don't think you can take the tiny sample size of the WBC and extrapolate a ton of information.

Furthermore, you are missing the point of the integration of the data. The best players from around the world are able to join the MLB in the USA. Blacks didn't have that opportunity until 1947.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by MattyC

60 games played or 156 at bats should not get you a single season record.

+1

To use a complete one-off statistical anomaly like a shortened season due to a worldwide pandemic as justification for an across the board change of acceptance does seem completely ridiculous. As well as a move of desperation to show some semblance of logistical argument in the absence of any support.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

+1. For me, the issue isn't accuracy, it's just that the situations under which the respective records were made are so very different that makes them apples and oranges. While recognizing that there would have surely been many MLB records set by black, latin, and Japanese players had they been allowed to play alongside the white players, trying to extrapolate specific numbers to compare them seems like a fool's errand to me. An analogy can be made to 19th century numbers: nobody accepts Radbourne's 60 wins as the record, the game was too different then. There is no doubt in my mind, though, that eventually all records and stats prior to 2000, say, will come to be viewed with suspicion and some disregard due to the fact that it wasn't a level playing field before then. And at some point, 2100, perhaps, everything before then might be taken with a grain of salt because women and transgender persons weren't taken seriously as potential major league players--who knows? Why can't we just accept the true history, including the numbers, made by these various groups within their own glorious incarnations without trying to shoehorn them in with each other in disregard of the fact they never got to compete against each other in an environment that would allow for truly rigorous comparisons. That doesn't make a lot of sense, statistical or otherwise, to me, as well as unnecessary.

I don't think this analogy works, because Radbourn IS recognized as the single-season wins leader, even though whatever they played in the 1880s barely resembled baseball as we know it.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/l...W_season.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ngle%2Dseason.

Like every other stat, it's up to the individual to contextualize it. If you think a Chief Wilson triple is worth more than an Oscar Charleston triple, you're free to ignore the latter. If you think Hank Aaron is the true homerun king, does it really matter that Baseball Reference puts Bonds' total in bold and italics?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

And at some point, 2100, perhaps, everything before then might be taken with a grain of salt because women and transgender persons weren't taken seriously as potential major league players--who knows? Why can't we just accept the true history, including the numbers, made by these various groups within their own glorious incarnations without trying to shoehorn them in with each other in disregard of the fact they never got to compete against each other in an environment that would allow for truly rigorous comparisons. That doesn't make a lot of sense, statistical or otherwise, to me, as well as unnecessary.

We should never accept the past segregation, but we should leave it be, as that is what truly took place. The best way to learn from the mistakes of the past is to leave the past as it was, (especially) warts and all.

Imagine if we could go back and ask any Negro Leaguer if they were Major Leaguers (of course, only from 1920-48, because some people 100 years later came up with that timeframe). They'd laugh in our faces and tell us they were Negro Leaguers.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

We should never accept the past segregation, but we should leave it be, as that is what truly took place. The best way to learn from the mistakes of the past is to leave the past as it was, (especially) warts and all.

Imagine if we could go back and ask any Negro Leaguer if they were Major Leaguers (of course, only from 1920-48, because some people 100 years later came up with that timeframe). They'd laugh in our faces and tell us they were Negro Leaguers.

Many Negro Leaguers knew they were the talent equivalent of white MLB. They actively sought to play white MLB players and join the MLB. I don't understand why they'd laugh in the face of the idea of having their stats being considered comparable to the rest of the MLB.

[ChasingPaper]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I hate it personally.
The record keeping, competition, schedules etc. were all totally different. Seems no matter what has been done to try to recognize the accomplishments of the Negro Leagues, its not ever enough.

We going to add Japanese league or barnstorming or minor league stats? Dominican leagues?

100% this.

[packs]

I just find that viewpoint bizarre. Major league Baseball made a very deliberate decision to include Negro League stats. Why would people take that deliberate, measured, and well thought out decision, and decide that MLB would lose all sight of what they're doing and recognize stats from barnstorming games?

I find it equally bizarre that people would suggest the Negro League talent level was sub-par but not make the same general point about MLB players not competing against Negro League players. You can't say that the Negro League had sub-pro level players without making the same point about the MLB not competing against them.

[Moonlight Graham]

I say keep the stats separate. The same way you have separate museums-one in Cooperstown and one in Missouri. Each museum details the story of each particular baseball history.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

I say keep the stats separate. The same way you have separate museums-one in Cooperstown and one in Missouri. Each museum details the story of each particular baseball history.

You do realize that there are many players that solely played in the Negro Leagues enshrined in Cooperstown, right?

Cooperstown gets a lot more visitors than the Negro League Hall of Fame in Kansas City.

Similarly, by integrating the stats of the 7 Major Negro Leagues with the MLB you are providing a lot more recognition of the talent in the Negro Leagues than if you kept them separate.

[gonefishin]

Just wondering if we will now have 3 women that have played in MLB; Toni Stone, Connie Morgan and Peanut Johnson?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I agree with you that the MLB recognizing Negro League stats will have little to no effect on pricing, especially since Baseball Reference and SABR already integrated the stats years ago.

But to say the "WBC has shown that numerous other leagues are more competitive currently than the Negro Leagues ever were" is an odd point and impossible to prove. Are you saying that the cream of the crop from the Dominican, Korean and Japanese Leagues were better than the average Negro League? That may be the case, but it is not really relevant. What MLB is saying that on the whole, the 7 Major Negro Leagues were basically as good as white MLB as demonstrated by a fairly large sample size over many years. I don't think you can take the tiny sample size of the WBC and extrapolate a ton of information.

Furthermore, you are missing the point of the integration of the data. The best players from around the world are able to join the MLB in the USA. Blacks didn't have that opportunity until 1947.

I am not missing the point, I am simply stating it is not apples to apples. The statistics you cite are not traditionally clean numbers. These games used statistically by authors like Holman were often Negro Teams consisting of the best barnstormers they could get and some of the best Cuban players. The traveling teams from MLB only needed 5 players with MLB experience to count and were whomever the promoters could afford and some semi-pro players to fill. Some tours even contained not a single major league pitcher in the tour, so for me these numbers do not show depth of everyday players.

There are very few entries of data in which a complete NL team played a complete Major league team. Without that history, the statement of competitive equality is unproven and assumed. It was was most commonly groups of players vs players, not team vs team. I don't see a fair comparison to anything other than WBC.

Please don't mistake this as a downplaying of the Negro League. It of course had numerous players that in the best of worlds would have been playing with the majors. I am only stating that the statistics would have been better done in another way that was less confusing and yet still honored the league.

[Moonlight Graham]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You do realize that there are many players that solely played in the Negro Leagues enshrined in Cooperstown, right?

Cooperstown gets a lot more visitors than the Negro League Hall of Fame in Kansas City.

Similarly, by integrating the stats of the 7 Major Negro Leagues with the MLB you are providing a lot more recognition of the talent in the Negro Leagues than if you kept them separate.

I do realize that, but history is history.

Joe K.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Just wondering if we will now have 3 women that have played in MLB; Toni Stone, Connie Morgan and Peanut Johnson?

I don't think any of those 3 women played in any of the 7 Major Negro Leagues prior to integration. I think they all played in the 50's after integration, and after what is considered Major Negro League play ceased.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I am not missing the point, I am simply stating it is not apples to apples. The statistics you cite are not traditionally clean numbers. These games used statistically by authors like Holman were often Negro Teams consisting of the best barnstormers they could get and some of the best Cuban players. The traveling teams from MLB only needed 5 players with MLB experience to count and were whomever the promoters could afford and some semi-pro players to fill. Some tours even contained not a single major league pitcher in the tour, so for me these numbers do not show depth of everyday players.

There are very few entries of data in which a complete NL team played a complete Major league team. Without that history, the statement of competitive equality is unproven and assumed. It was was most commonly groups of players vs players, not team vs team. I don't see a fair comparison to anything other than WBC.

Please don't mistake this as a downplaying of the Negro League. It of course had numerous players that in the best of worlds would have been playing with the majors. I am only stating that the statistics would have been better done in another way that was less confusing and yet still honored the league.

All fair points. But I think it is difficult to honor the Negro Leagues in a substantive way other than they way they are doing it. It's not perfect, but I don't know that there is a perfect way to recognize the talent of the Negro Leagues.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Just wondering if we will now have 3 women that have played in MLB; Toni Stone, Connie Morgan and Peanut Johnson?

I had never heard of these women and was curious. Since they all played in what was left of the Negro Leagues in the 1950's, and since the recognition of the Negro Leagues as major leagues only covers 1920-1948, I don't think they would be considered as having played in MLB.