ESPN Top 100

[obcbobd]

I note that a number of people have said Pedro Martinez is rated too high as is peak was not very long. Ditto for Trout, although his peak will likely grow considerably. So the total value for Pedro is quite less than say Tom Seaver or Walter Johnson. Still an argument can easily be made that Martinez is the best pitcher ever based on his talent and what he did 96-05. I draw the correlation to the Beatles. It is almost universally agreed that they were the greatest Pop/Rock band of all time by music fans. Few will say that the Stones or the Who or someone else should be considered the greatest of all-time as they were together for a much longer period of time.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

BobC, you are really going off the rails now.
The SABR demographic statistics show that African Americans made up 15% or more of MLB rosters from 1968 to 1977, which is about double what is today. I am not the only person who thinks this could be due to a waning in popularity of the sport among blacks. SABR also thinks this. If you look at the SABR article, it says right on the bottom: "The past 20 years has witnessed a decline in African American players in the game....The prevalent opinion seems to be that the cause of the decline in African Americans is external to major league baseball: that African Americans are focusing on other sports as youths, either by choice or because of fewer opportunities to play baseball. As far as we are aware, this issue has not been studied — it is reasoned speculation."

I never said, nor do I believe that African Americans could make up 50% to 70% of rosters. I am simply pointing out that current demographics are not a great metric for measuring African Americans ability to perform in the MLB.

Good, then maybe there is hope you will finally understand my point after all. I am fully aware of the thinking and supposition that black athletes seem not as attracted to baseball today as they may have once been, and have some of my own thoughts and opinions as to why this may be the case, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. But I especially like your reference to the "reasoned speculation" to such thinking, as that is sort of the same concept or impetus behind my point.

In my earlier posts I worked up what I referred to as an average annual number of players being recognized as major league level ballplayers each year to kind of get a sense of how many players one would normally expect to be replacing and supplanting the previously recognized MLB players whose talent level had maybe dropped below that elite, MLB talent level, due to age, injury, or otherwise. I believe the concept and thinking, or "reasoned speculation" as you referred to it, is that a certain percentage of a given population can normally be expected to be of such an elite athletic talent or status. But by suddenly increasing the number or percentage of such people deemed to be at this particular, elite talent level, it doesn't automatically make that statement true. It more likely means that you are somewhat arbitrarily now expanding the number of recognized elite athletes by suddenly including athletes you previously would not have recognized as elite. In other words, you've diluted down the overall talent level to be able to include and deem more athletes as elite, not actually have suddenly gained more elite level athletes.

I had said before that I purposely allowed some of the facts and figures I was using to be skewed against my argument. Specifically, in coming up with my average number of 136.8 new MLB players being recognized each year, I did so using the number of recognized MLB players of all-time from Baseball Almanac, 19,969 through today, and dividing it by the 146 years, since 1876, that MLB has now been in existence. That 19,969 figure apparently does not include any of the approximately 3,400 Negro League players that were recently added to the MLB ranks (haven't come across the exact number yet), except for the 45 or so black players that did end up playing in the major leagues and were part of that 3,400. I compared that 136.8 average to the average annual number of newly recognized MLB players from the Negro Leagues I came up with of 115.7. I got to that number by dividing the 3,355 players (3,400 - 45 players that did play in the majors) by the 29 years (1920-1948) over which the Negro Leagues are now recognized as the equivalent of MLB. I then pointed out how at the time of the Negro Leagues the black US population was only about 10%, and historically, black players had never at any time comprised more than 19%-20% of all MLB rosters. As such, you would think (and here I go using that "reasoned speculation" of yours again) these two averages, 136.8 versus 115.7, should have been much, much farther apart, with the average number of Negro League players being significantly less. The fact that these averages are so close though would seem to indicate that maybe we're granting MLB status to more black players than we should be, and thereby significantly diluting the talent level of MLB level players back then simply to include more blacks. And since at that time the leagues were segregated, the inclusion of all these additional black players, and subsequent severe dilution of the overall level of MLB talent, is going to fall mainly and squarely on the Negro Leagues.

I purposely skewed the overall average number of new MLB recognized players each year by using MLB's entire 146 year history. Since MLB expansion began back in 1961, the number of MLB teams has grown from 16 to 30. So naturally you would expect the average number of new MLB players each year since expansion to be much higher, and to have raised the overall annual average going back to the Negro League years. The point being, given the black percentage of the US population and historical representation of MLB players, 115.7 new MLB level Negro League players being recognized annually versus the 136.8 new MLB players being recognized annually overall is absurd enough, but it is actually much worse than that.

In going to Baseball Reference, I found you can look up the number of MLB players who made their major league debuts, by year. And it appears Baseball Reference now includes all the Negro League players in their stats. So going back to just the Negro League years of 1920-1948, I found that a total of 5,602 players made their MLB debuts during this time, of which approximately 3,400 were the recently recognized Negro League players. (I am not going to adjust that number this time by the 45 players who also made it into the major leagues eventually because I'm now restricting my comparison to just the Negro League years (1920-1948), and it is probably statistically insignificant for purposes of this argument anyway.) So that means that about only 2,202 (5,602 - 3,400) white players from the segregated major leagues became MLB level ballplayers during this time, versus 3,400 or so Negro League players. Or to compare them as averages, 75.9 white players per year (2,202 / 29 Yrs) versus 117.2 black players per year (3,400 / 29 Yrs) were being recognized as MLB level players during this time. Before I was looking at 136.8 to 115.7, whites to blacks, as the comparison, which was already absurd enough given the black US population % and MLB overall historical representation % of blacks. But now after focusing on just the specific years in question, I'm looking at 75.9 to 117.2, whites to blacks, which now turns things even more upside down and has MLB recognizing considerably more black players as major leaguers each year on average during this time than it does whites. Yet again, blacks only made up 10% of the US population back then.

And this is exactly why I asked if you believed that black athletes were overall so much better than white athletes, and that therefore you must have believed that had there been no segregation in baseball back during the time of the Negro Leagues that all the major league rosters would end up being 50%-60%-70% black then. To which you said NO! Well then, let's assume there was no segregation and bias back then. The number of MLB teams would likely have remained at 16 throughout this time, and thus they likely also wouldn't have needed anywhere near the 5,602 MLB players that debuted during these years. But all other things equal, and with no discrimination and bias, you would expect that of the entire 5,602 players that MLB considered as now being at the major league talent level from back then, whatever number of players they actually needed to keep filling the rosters at that time would likely have been somewhat along the same lines as the breakdown of white and black players now recognized as having MLB level talent, which according to actual historical data I'm presenting, would have been 60.5% black (3,400 / 5,602) versus 39.5% white (2,202 / 5,602). And as I mentioned earlier, players making their major league debuts are basically replacing aging and injured players, or others that for whatever reason(s) are primarily no longer able to perform at a MLB talent level. So, all other things equal and no discrimination and bias involved, if you go through 29 straight years averaging about 60.5% of the players making their major league debut with your team being black, want to hazard a guess as to what percentage of the team's roster is probably going to be made up of black ballplayers at the end of that 29th year?

I truly wasn't going to waste any more time responding to you, but your "off the rails" comment pissed me off. I have been presenting as much factual data and information as possible to support and prove the validity of my point, and have gone to the added trouble of explaining in detail how I used that information in my calculations. But it seems the main argument I am getting back from you and others includes really nothing in the way of factual data or detailed calculations, but mostly revolves around the "reasoned speculation" that today's black athletes don't like baseball as much anymore. No real proof, data, or facts, just commentary like there being 1,300 black athletes playing in the NBA and NFL now, and that is apparently all the explanation needed to account for the low percentage of blacks in MLB today. That kind of argument assumes that the 1,300 blacks currently in the NBA and NFL today could just have easily been playing MLB, if only they wanted to. (I wonder what Jordan would have to say about that?) And frankly, that kind of logic and thinking is a bit insulting to all black athletes as it kind of implies they only have a really small number of elite athletes that would otherwise be capable of making it into the majors.

So with this additional information I've now added, you are faced with a dilemma. You said that MLB would not be made up of rosters with 50%-60%-70% of the players being black. But if you go back to the Negro League years and look at the actual numbers of MLB players being recognized, and assume a somewhat equitable representation of the talent of players along racial lines, if there was no segregation and bias you would expect that MLB rosters would end up being mostly black, which you said they wouldn't! But if out of that pool of MLB recognized players back then, and without segregation and bias, you still ended up with MLB rosters being predominantly white, that would mean that a huge portion of those black players wouldn't have beaten out their white counterparts for all those MLB roster spots after all. And if that were the case, that would mean most of those Negro League players back then really didn't have MLB level talent and shouldn't have all just been arbitrarily added as major league players, and thereby let those Negro League players that did have MLB level talent get to pad their stats by playing against overall less talented players. But you didn't agree with that reasoning by me either, did you? Well, you can't have it both ways.

So what are you right about and what are you wrong about? And please don't just tell me that blacks athletes don't like baseball is the answer to everything. And don't be afraid to maybe try throwing some actual facts and data in, as well as maybe showing your calculations and work. Who knows, you might get some extra credit if you do.

[cgjackson222]

BobC, if you expect anyone to read your diatribe, you are out of your mind.

[AndrewJerome]

BobC, I agree with you on many topics. But here the statistics are both difficult to follow and not realistic. It is impossible to know what exact % of negro league players had true MLB talent. Racial bias was still there in full force in the early stages of MLB integration. Some MLB teams didn’t have a single black player for something like 10-15 years after Jackie broke the color barrier. Surely these teams could have found at least one negro league player worthy of a MLB roster spot in 10+ years, correct? But they chose not to. So there is no way to actually know exactly what number of negro league players talent wise “should have” been in MLB. It is complicated beyond any statistical analysis.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AndrewJerome

BobC, I agree with you on many topics. But here the statistics are both difficult to follow and not realistic. It is impossible to know what exact % of negro league players had true MLB talent. Racial bias was still there in full force in the early stages of MLB integration. Some MLB teams didn’t have a single black player for something like 10-15 years after Jackie broke the color barrier. Surely these teams could have found at least one negro league player worthy of a MLB roster spot in 10+ years, correct? But they chose not to. So there is no way to actually know exactly what number of negro league players talent wise “should have” been in MLB. It is complicated beyond any statistical analysis.

Absolutely correct, and do not disagree at all. That is what makes this a virtually (and literally) impossible question to truly answer. The best we can do is look at what statistics, percentages, and so on that we do have from these more modern times to try and extrapolate what may have occurred back in the day. It is, I believe, agreed that in any given population you're going to expect a certain percentage of that population to have an elite athletic ability, be it running, jumping, hand/eye coordination, strength, size, or whatever. And I would think that the definition of someone having major league talent is that they ended up playing in the major leagues. And throughout the bulk of MLB's existence, this been defined as playing on an American or National League team. But because of segregation, black players were not allowed the opportunity to get spots on major league rosters. Had there been no segregation and bias back during the period 1920-1948, without a doubt there would have been many white players that would have been replaced by extremely talented black players, and therefore would have never seen the light of a major league roster. So yes, there a lot of white players that also do not truly deserve to be called major league players in my thinking.

And that is maybe the pivotal question, how many of those white players would have been replaced by blacks back during that 1920-1948 period? There is no way to ever truly know. So maybe the best we can do is look at the more current situation in baseball, and the representation of blacks in MLB today, to try and get a sense of what percentage of them would have made the major league back then. But in so doing I'm told I'm wrong because black athletes don't like baseball that much anymore, and supposedly the proof of that is how many blacks are currently playing in the NFL and NBA. So let's understand this, I'm told I'm wrong for trying to predict what may have taken place in the past by somewhat relying on modern facts and statistics by people who are also using, guess what, more modern facts and statistics. Please, how are those modern facts and statistics of my naysayers any more relevant to predicting what happened 70-100 years ago than mine were?

And also, rather than just disagreeing with me, when are one of the naysayers going to actually state what they think the proper percentage of blacks are that would have made the major league rosters back in 1920-1948, and at least try to back it up with some facts, numbers, logic, something other than just "reasoned speculation" BS!

I've already given everyone the other end of the spectrum when I did the work and research to show how MLB added 5,602 new major league players from 1920 to 1948, how that was more than twice the actual number of major leaguers that should have been recognized during this period, and that 60.5% of those new MLB players were black.

MLB, by adding all those Negro League players, severely diluted the overall pool of MLB level talent for the specific 29 year period from 1920 to 1948, and that is an irrefutable fact. So there were obviously players during this time that benefitted stat-wise from playing against overall inferior talent. And because throughout this period the leagues were segregated, the question comes down to whether it was the white or the black players who benefitted most. And even though there were a lot of great and talented black players back then, would they have really been able to take over 60.5% of all the MLB rosters as suggested by numbers of new black and white players being recognized during this specific 29 year period?

I'm going to do some simple math for everyone to further prove my point. I already showed that during the 29 years from 1929-1948, MLB only needed to add about 2,202 new MLB level players to keep the rosters full. And during that same time, about 3,400 Negro League players were also added to the MLB ranks. Now I was originally using 10% for my black player MLB talent level representation factor, based on the black US population % back then, along with the current % of black players in MLB being slightly under 10%. But I was called out and reminded how at some points blacks represented as much as 19% of current MLB players. But to appease and hopefully make the naysayers happy, for purposes of this exercise I'm going to assume blacks represented 50% of all the newly recognized MLB players during this time. So in that case, of the 2,202 new MLB players that were recognized, if 50% of them are now black, that means only 1,101 (2,202 X 50%) white players should have gotten in and been recognized as major leaguers during this time. It also means that 1,101 (2,202 - 1,101) white players were really not major league level players after all, and diluted the overall talent in the majors as a result. Now as for the Negro League players, that means 1,101 deserved to have entered the major league ranks, but that still leaves 2,299 (3,400 - 1,101) Negro League players that were not deserving of MLB status and also diluted the overall level of talent down. But that number for the Negro League players is more than twice the number for the white MLB players, so which league(s) looks like they had their overall MLB talent level diluted and watered down the most? And this has been my point all along, that maybe the star Negro League players have benefitted and padded their stats by having played against much more watered down talent throughout their careers than any other players in the history of MLB as a result.

The funny thing is, for the number of players between the segregated leagues to come to where they are equally diluted down with each ending up having recognized the same number of MLB players they otherwise shouldn't have, you would need to have the Negro League players besting their white counterparts for those MLB roster spots just over 77% of the time. That percentage is more on par with black representation in the NFL and NBA today, but still doesn't automatically mean MLB teams would have had anywhere close to that level of black representation back during the Negro League days. Very different skill sets and needs between the different sports. And being black and great at one sport doesn't automatically make you great at any of the others. As I'd said once before, go ask Michael Jordan.

My numbers, math, and logic aren't perfect, but at least I'm trying to use as much factual information and data as I can, along with a lot of logical, common sense, to make what I think may be a valid point. So if you're going to give me grief, at least have the decency and respect to try and do the same.

[perezfan]

“War and Peace” is jealous of this thread.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

BobC, if you expect anyone to read your diatribe, you are out of your mind.

No, I would expect someone with intelligence, an open mind willing to listen to actual facts and logical arguments, and who can comprehend and digest differing theories and concepts in making informed decisions, to follow what I'm saying. I only go into the long "diatribes", as you call them, when faced with people that apparently can't comprehend what I'm trying to say and convey, so I try to expand things in the hope that they finally get it. Sadly, they often still don't it.

For those who don't want to read what I'm saying, that is fine with me. I usually write my posts in direct response or rebuttal to another particular poster. I didn't necessarily write my "diatribes" for everyone. But as I've pointed out, it appears the only response to my point in this particular thread is that I'm somehow wrong because of anecdotal, reasoned speculation. I'm still awaiting some factual, intelligent response from that corner in rebuttal, but doubt that's ever going to happen.

There are some members on here who operate with very small, closed minds, have pre-formed ideas that they will never sway from or think about and/or listen to logical arguments that could prove their ideas may not be as accurate or true as they think. They tend to ignore facts and logical, informed discussions, and usually conduct any debates they get into by essentially just repeating over and over how they are right, and everyone else is wrong, with no facts, data, or logical arguments ever really given to back them up. Those are the people I expect to most likely not read one of my "diatribes". For others, if nothing else, I hope they at least get some entertainment out of them, if not some information or different ways to maybe view and think about things, as well.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BobC

No, I would expect someone with intelligence, an open mind willing to listen to actual facts and logical arguments, and who can comprehend and digest differing theories and concepts in making informed decisions, to follow what I'm saying. I only go into the long "diatribes", as you call them, when faced with people that apparently can't comprehend what I'm trying to say and convey, so I try to expand things in the hope that they finally get it. Sadly, they often still don't it.

For those who don't want to read what I'm saying, that is fine with me. I usually write my posts in direct response or rebuttal to another particular poster. I didn't necessarily write my "diatribes" for everyone. But as I've pointed out, it appears the only response to my point in this particular thread is that I'm somehow wrong because of anecdotal, reasoned speculation. I'm still awaiting some factual, intelligent response from that corner in rebuttal, but doubt that's ever going to happen.

There are some members on here who operate with very small, closed minds, have pre-formed ideas that they will never sway from or think about and/or listen to logical arguments that could prove their ideas may not be as accurate or true as they think. They tend to ignore facts and logical, informed discussions, and usually conduct any debates they get into by essentially just repeating over and over how they are right, and everyone else is wrong, with no facts, data, or logical arguments ever really given to back them up. Those are the people I expect to most likely not read one of my "diatribes". For others, if nothing else, I hope they at least get some entertainment out of them, if not some information or different ways to maybe view and think about things, as well.

If you would like to read my response, you can see what I already posted on the subject 5 years ago on this thread in posts 30-37.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by perezfan

“War and Peace” is jealous of this thread.

I was thinking the same thing.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

“War and Peace” is jealous of this thread.

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I was thinking the same thing.

Add me to the list. I was thinking the Epic of Gilgamesh.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

If you would like to read my response, you can see what I already posted on the subject 5 years ago on this thread in posts 30-37.

Thanks Glenn. That was an informative, logically thought out, and well explained back and forth between you and some others. And you seem to go along with what I've been trying to say. Looking at the number of black versus white HOFers is another measure to potentially help determine how many Negro League players really were deserving off MLB status recognition.

In an attempt by MLB to make amends to Negro League players and elevate them to MLB status, they obviously couldn't just cherry pick the star players like Gibson and Charleston, and only grant such status to some. MLB would never have lived that down given the way things are today. But in doing so, they obviously have created way more MLB players during that 29 year period than would have been recognized otherwise, and that just means the overall MLB talent level was diluted down. And because the leagues were unfortunately segregated, the much larger number of Negro League players making the major league ranks back then makes it look like more of them would not have been of true MLB caliber as opposed to their white counterparts, thus making the Negro Leagues way more watered down.

I'm just trying to explain in looking at players on this All-Time Greatest list how the stats for some of them may need to be viewed with a big grain of salt. Instead, I feel I'm sort of being accused of saying none of these Negro League players belong in the majors at all. That is the furthest thing from the truth. Beginning to feel like Whoopi Goldberg. LOL

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

If you would like to read my response, you can see what I already posted on the subject 5 years ago on this thread in posts 30-37.

Thanks Glenn. That was an informative, logically thought out, and well explained back and forth between you and some others. And you seem to go along with what I've been trying to say. Looking at the number of black versus white HOFers is another measure to potentially help determine how many Negro League players really were deserving off MLB status recognition.

In an attempt by MLB to make amends to Negro League players and elevate them to MLB status, they obviously couldn't just cherry pick the star players like Gibson and Charleston, and only grant such status to some. MLB would never have lived that down given the way things are today. But in doing so, they obviously have created way more MLB players during that 29 year period than would have been recognized otherwise, and that just means the overall MLB talent level was diluted down. And because the leagues were unfortunately segregated, the much larger number of Negro League players making the major league ranks back then makes it look like more of them would not have been of true MLB caliber as opposed to their white counterparts, thus making the Negro Leagues way more watered down.

I'm just trying to explain in looking at players on this All-Time Greatest list how the stats for some of them may need to be viewed with a big grain of salt. Instead, I feel I'm sort of being accused of saying none of these Negro League players belong in the majors at all. That is the furthest thing from the truth.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by John1941

I'm far from PC, and don't think the Negro Leagues were the equal of the major leagues, but I think the low rating for Negro League greats is ridiculous. Oscar Charleston 53rd? He should, at the very least, be in top 20, and there's a good argument for him being in the top 5. Josh Gibson behind Derek Jeter? Whaaaa???

And I agree -- Bryce Harper is nowhere near the top 100. Needs three to five more great seasons.

slap in the face

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by aljurgela

slap in the face

Yeah, and it's inexplicable given the recent efforts to elevate the Negro Leagues and sensibilities these days in general.