This is true. However, MLB and Baseball Reference also recognize the Union Association from 1884 and have been since 1969 when they also started recognizing the American Association, 1882–91; the Players’ League, 1890; and the Federal League, 1914–15
https://www.mlb.com/press-release/pr...14%E2%80%9315.

I think the recognition of some of these other Leagues (especially the Union Association) as Major Leagues is one reason why some people think the recognition of the best Negro Leagues is overdue.

Yikes! Imagine owning this viewpoint in 2024... Oof

I really enjoy all the discussions and points of view. Pictures do enhance the discussion, so here is my Negro League autographed bat, and yes, some Hall of Fame players on it including the "Say Hey Kid" as he noted. We should all be celebrating as this news about recognizing the Negro Leagues simply enhances and expands the hobby base. Yes, many are disappointed for a thousand different reasons and just as many are happy. I do think this - the accomplishments of any player in the Negro Leagues does not diminish the accomplishments of others.

It could have been worse, no? He could have suggested that we have two MLB Hall of Fames, one for the whites and one for the blacks and have their stats separated too.

Satchel Paige was inducted into the HOF in 1971. He played 5 seasons in the American League and pitched in one game in 1965.

He would not be eligible for the MLB HOF under the 10 season rule, but was elected anyway. MLB has been recognizing the significance of the Negro League and it's players since. Keeping the MLB and the Negro Leagues separate hasn't existed since then either. It would be impossible for Paige to get into the MLB HOF if that was the attitude.

I've mentioned this before, but it's probably worth noting here that I'm a statistician, since we're having a discussion about statistics. What I find most ironic about this conversation is that seemingly everyone wanting to overlook or downplay the accomplishments of the negro league players are somehow also operating under the assumption/delusion that the early MLB stars were playing in leagues that were every bit as competitive as the game is today or even during the golden era.

I've got news for you. If Josh Gibson's stats (or any other NL player's) shouldn't count because the overall skill level was lower, then Ty Cobb's stats shouldn't count either. If you think Ty Cobb would have put up numbers even remotely similar in the post war era, you're delusional.

That said, from a statistical theory viewpoint, there are very good reasons that minimum plate appearance rules are in place. Baseball statistics are extremely volatile and take a very long time to converge to represent a player's true skill level. So much so that most years in the MLB the player who wins the batting title usually wasn't the best hitter that season but rather was the luckiest of the 10 or so best hitters. Even a full season with 600 AB still has a significant amount of luck involved. And if you were to take 185 plate appearance samples from every player throughout history, you'd see some remarkable stats. Probably even multiple players hitting over 0.500 in those spans.

But if we're going to include deadball era stats with modern stats, then it's hard to argue that we shouldn't include NL stats as well. Everyone knows the games and circumstances were different. We don't place an asterisk next to Ty Cobb's name. Why place one next to Gibson's? People aren't stupid. They know Gibson wouldn't hit 0.450+ in today's game. And they also know Cobb wouldn't hit 0.400 either. But that doesn't take away from what they did. They all deserve their flowers. At least now they have a vase to put them in.

Lotta opinions in here but I'll post a fact this thread has proven

Speaker and Hornsby are undervalued

I don't see how anyone can doubt that the Negro Leagues was top baseball, or that the big stars would have been big stars in the major leagues. Was the quality of ball at a big league level, or AAA, AA, A, etc.? We'll never know. One factor to consider is that whites made up 90% of the population then, so they had a much bigger cohort to draw from. Same with 19th century ball, Latin American ball, Japanese ball, etc. So why don't we just have the separate records that were actually set for each of them and concede that some of their players would have been setting records in the majors had they been playing there instead. I just don't see trying to shoehorn them in together in a combined record books--Cooperstown and other honors, sure--as a productive exercise. Let's look at what they actually did in their own leagues and find amazement and inspiration in that.

I think people tend to group all of these into a bucket, and it's not proper. The National Association was, I think, quite deserving as a major league. It is the first real major league. The Players' League, though it lasted one year, also brought in a ton of the top talent and seems to me to have been and thought of as what constitutes a major league. The others I am either less informed on or doubtful of. The NA, the Players League, and even the Federal League certainly thought of themselves as major leagues. I think if we want to revise, taking a closer look at three of these and reconsidering might be a good place to start.

They were high end, played similar schedules, and don't have the historical contradiction. The Negro Leagues were not leagues even attempting to compete as major leagues - they existed entirely because the Major Leagues had a terrible policy. Their entire existence was predicated on the fact that they were not major leagues and nobody really thought that they were; their quintessential purpose was that they were not major leagues - which is why they fell apart so fast when the real majors finally adopted a meritocracy. Many Negro League players were obviously very high end, I have no doubt Josh Gibson would have been truly great in the real majors too and it is a historical tragedy he was not allowed too. That tragedy shouldn't be glossed over by rewriting it to pretend the negro leagues were the major leagues too.

I think it rather obvious he would not likely have posted these 'records' though. Time and place is everything, we know Radbourn couldn't win 60 today and Bonds wouldn't bash 73 in 1901, but pretending 39 games of Gibson is a record season seems to be a whole new issue of revisionism rather than the ebb and flow of history.

But Negro Leaguers were trying to compete against Major Leaguers and sought out the competition with their white counterparts. And when they were granted such competition, they performed very well. Josh Gibson desperately wanted to show that he could dominate the white MLB and was crushed that he never got the chance to do so. I don't think it is accurate to say that they "weren't even attempting to compete as major leagues". They did everything in their power to do so.

In any event, the addition of the Negro Leagues to the MLB statistical record was announced long ago, has already happened, and Net54 doesn't have any say in it. You can continue griping about it, but its done. I for one am glad I can see stats of the Negro Leaguers in a convenient way, even if they are incomplete.

No one is disputing that many of them were great players, or that it has happened. If you want to object to discussion about things... I mean, this is a forum :rolleyes:

I am objecting to you saying the Negro Leagues "weren't even attempting to compete as major leagues." This is a forum that is acting like this is the first time they heard about this and many seem outraged.

I’m slightly in favor of the decision but understand the other side of it. To me, Bonds rendered all time records a bit less interesting and meaningful anyway.

I think I missed the outrage part? Seems like people gave reasonable ideas for and against. I already wrote this was done in 2020.

Here is you objecting to discussion:

That a thing happened is not in dispute. People will express opinions for or against the topic at hand on a forum. We don't have to agree with everything that happens outside of our power.



I have a very hard time seeing as how the Negro Leagues were thought of or acted as major leagues in that time. You seem to be choosing to recast what I actually said as a criticism that they could not compete with whites. I have very specifically stated the opposite multiple times. I have said nothing but praise for Gibson.


Here's what I actually said.

Look no further than:

Now add Ty Cobb to the list (maybe even Ruth in another decade).
I’m really mad that Aaron didn’t retake being the all-time HR in this “pick and choose box scores” approach. Aaron is still 2 dingers shy.

Mlb.com still shows Aaron with 755 home runs. Aaron played for the Indianapolis Clowns in 1952, but the stats being included are only up through 1948 so his home run total won't be changing.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/sport...s/73892841007/

I believe many of the games were played in existing parks. The Yankees made a good chunk of change fitting in these teams.

Was it possible to have 150+ game seasons? They were paid well below market prices so they had to barnstorm to keep living standards.

-
And a card.
-

Honestly, the bigger issue to me is the decreasing number of Black players in MLB and the minor leagues.

This is suppose to help with that I assume.

Hank Aaron & Frank Robinson discussed the very decreasing topic in an Q&A in 2012 (Black Diamonds). They were concerned about the decreasing #s but thought / pondered better ways.

Amazing how this committee had the ability to pick & choose which boxscores & years to use.

I think this misses the point a bit. From what I have read, the star talent in the Negro Leagues may have even surpassed that of the MLB talent of that time, and barnstorming stats show that Negro League teams may have won 2 of every 3 games played against MLB teams.

The talent pool really isn't the point at all. It's simply that the Negro League teams and the MLB teams were two separate leagues, so there isn't any compelling reason to combine their stats except for the sake of wokeness and reparations.

Pretty sure it's as simple as righting a wrong and giving those players the recognition they deserve on lists that encompass the greats of our sports. Twist it to be about "wokeness" all you want. Pretty sure we won't ever agree so let's not engage further.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I guess there's always a chance that the extreme left takes it too far and demands trophys and awards back from the families in order to redistribute them.

Perhaps MLB got what they wanted....for fans to debate this issue and bring back the spotlight to stats and players who for the most part are long gone and not frequently talked about. We are talking about a time when baseball was still a classically perfect game played by people of all races, religions and all ages. At the same time it was no where near the perfect game as it kept a large part of the population away based solely on their skin color. Baseball NEEDS this discussion and there is no doubt debates such as the one we see here on these boards are happening everywhere.

I guess I look at the inclusion of the stats from the Negro leagues as more of a comparison and celebration of baseball during a complicated time in our history and not a rewriting of history. In my opinion there really is no right or wrong here and the best of the best deserve to be recognized regardless if their stardom was gained through the Negro leagues or MLB itself.

After all...in 100 years will any of this really matter anyway?

Somewhere I see in my minds eye ol' Buck O'Neil smiling proudly.

Seems like an unproductive comment. Missing the analogy here. Maybe you can give one.

Really? Take a look around you, notice how extremists take something honorable like the inclusion of NL players into ML record books for example, and push things to the point of dividing people instead of uniting people. It hasn't happened in this particular case but I can certainly see some knucklehead group demanding the trophys back since their family member no longer holds the record.

Thoughts:

• The question of the level of play in the Negro Leagues has been researched extensively. "Outsider Baseball" is one book that covers the topic. It seems quite safe to accept that the Negro Leagues were on par with the AL/NL or quite close.
• There are many sources of data to support this. Looking at the black players who integrated the league and their success is one of them. (It also points to the strength of the hitting but possible deficiency in the pitching). Throw in barnstorming games and other sources and the picture is pretty strong. The only places that might have had similar level of play were Puerto Rico and Cuba at times. (My view, I don't recall what the book says about those leagues.)
• The Major Leagues was already a conglomeration of different leagues, so adding a few more that did not play each other is not outside of what already existed. The National (which launched in 1876), the American (1901), the American Association (1882-1891), Union Association (1884), Players' League (1890) and Federal League (1914-1915). Throw in the fact that the AL and NL were entirely separate until the World Series. Players like Ernie Banks literally never played a game against a team in the American League.
• The move brings a lot more attention to the Negro Leagues and their players and for that alone this move might be worthwhile.
• I struggle to understand the logic of combining the stats. The differences between the leagues as far as games played etc is enormous even if the players were of similar caliber. I wonder whether having Josh Gibson first on some rate stats while having very pedestrian counting totals is a bigger gain or loss.
• Because of the point above, even as an avid Negro League fan and someone who believes that many more black players from before integration deserve to be enshrined in Cooperstown, I don't love the move which I think confuses the narratives by erasing the differences between them.

Jeff, that’s well stated.

If we’re going to combine stats like this for baseball, why not do it for other sports?

The NHL never had Russian players, yet the Russians were at least as good as the NHL, if not better. So by the same logic as MLB is using here, shouldn’t the Soviet Championship League - which lasted from 1946 to 1992 - have their stats combined with the NHL? After all, we know Soviet players were just as good as NHL players, and whenever the Soviets played the NHL they did very well. The Soviets weren’t allowed to play in the NHL for reasons out of the players’ control - much like Negro-leaguers.

Igor Larianov scored 204 goals while playing for Khimik Voskresensk and CSKA Moscow. Those goals should be combined with his NHL goals, right? But his NHL reference page does not include those stats. Where's the outcry for Igor, who was oppressed by his totalitarian government?

I would argue that whatever Baseball is stating as the reasons for this are not what they say. This is about something else. I think it’s known in academic circles as Social Justice. And you’re either for Social Justice or your not.

It seems to me that to say that the Negro Leagues (and certainly Puerto Rico and Cuban teams) were on a par with the white leagues ignores the tremendous differential in the demographic pools they were drawn from. I just don't understand how this is possible when the population was 90% white and less than 10% black, unless you want to take it a step much further to say that blacks were inherently or genetically much better ball players. I have no doubt that there were many terrific black players who would have excelled in the majors as they did when integration came, or that a black all-star team at any time probably could have beaten the white champions, but those leagues on a par generally speaking, I don't think so. It is undoubtedly also true that Josh Gibson and many others from the NL would hold MLB records today if they had been allowed to compete equally among white players, but I don't see how you can invent those records from what they did do in their separate leagues. I say keep the histories separate, as they were in their time, and don't try to pretend that it was all one big happy family playing together. It wasn't, it will forever be a stain on baseball that it wasn't, and no amount of imaginary numbers juggling will make that fact any prettier.

Have you seen the NBA and NFL?

Every time I've brought up the size difference in population and the fact that there was barely a size difference in the league, no one has wanted to hear about it, so I'm glad someone else realized this point. The NL/AL could also pull Native American players and Latin players who passed as European (even if it wasn't true in some cases such as Bobby Estalella and Tomas de la Cruz, who were Cubans of African descent), so you can't just throw in the Latin players in the Negro Leagues to help their case.

There's also the fact that the white/native/passing Latin players could go through the levels of the minors to get better, while the Negro League players didn't have that luxury. They had barnstorming teams. They had very few jobs available in baseball, so it wasn't an avenue most pursued.

Even when I point out that the best players will play in any league, so Josh Gibson would have been great anywhere, it doesn't help the common sense argument. It matters who plays around them for the level of competition. Satchel Paige didn't even play every season in the Negro Leagues. He spent plenty of time playing in other leagues, so those players weren't facing him. Josh Gibson played in Mexico in 1940-41. Oscar Charleston spent four seasons in leagues that aren't consider Major League. This list of greats missing time goes on and on.

The Negro League comparison would be similar to MLB just saying in 2024 that if you're born in Texas, you play in the 30-team Texas Major League. Players from the other 49 states can play in the Major Leagues. A Texas League All-Star team would compete with a team of quality 49 staters, but the quality of the league itself as a whole would be much lower.

Were Russian players ever explicitly banned from playing in the NHL because they were Russian? If not, what is the basis for comparison?

Yes!!! Their government did not allow their players to play in the NHL because they were Russian! They would not issue them passports to leave the country even after being drafted by an NHL team. It wasn't really until the fall of the USSR when they were allowed to play in the NHL. Watch the "Russian Five" documentary to see how it was.

It's Social Justice plain and simple. Like it or lump it.

So then what you're saying is that the NHL never banned them.

How does that relate to MLB, which did ban black players?

Social justice only applies to a certain ideology’s determination of victim groups, based on present day political needs and desires. This is fundamentally incompatible with the agenda, and so must be dismissed. Revisionism does not and can not apply to victims of the Soviets, whether or not a line is drawn at being blocked by a league or a state to reach the end point of not being allowed to play.

If the NHL allowed these players to be drafted, how can it be said that the NHL banned them from playing? Isn't that like saying MLB banned Cuban players? If you could get to the country, MLB was more than happy to let you play. I don't see what one thing has to do with the other.

I would only wonder about the stats coming out of the old Negro League. Who were the scorekeepers? Who checked the numbers for accuracy? We think we can agree that MLB stats pre-integration were pretty pure.

The purity test for stats on a part of the board dedicated to pre-war is a bit "okay, then."

Players defining their own strike zone...foul balls aren't strikes...7 balls for a walk...legal doctoring of the ball...erratically less games played depending on the era...umpires set up in weird positions on the field...the mound size (or lack of one in early cases)...lack of consistency in the actual baseball construction...extremely oddly dimensions on baseball parks...

I got more.

Let's just put an asterisk on everything and call it a day.

They weren't banned by the NHL, they were banned by the Soviet government. But what's the difference who banned them? Would it make any difference to you if the reason black players had been banned from MLB was because the Federal government had passed a law prohibiting black players rather than MLB banning them? Of course not! Either way, it was wrong!

The bottom line is Soviet hockey players were not allowed to play in the NHL by no choice of their own, and those players and their leagues were just as good as NHL players. Therefore, all the players who played in the Soviet leagues should have their stats included with their NHL stats. It's the same logic they're using for baseball. It's just that the Social Justice warriors haven't gotten around to disenfranchised ex-Soviet hockey players yet. Alas, perhaps one day.....

Something can be wrong and an entirely separate issue from another wrong. I don't see any commonality between a player being denied the ability to leave their home country and a player being denied the ability to play in a league because of their skin color.

What if Josh Gibson's batting average was substantially lower in the 50 percent or maybe it's higher of games for which there are no stats? Leaving aside all the equality arguments, the incompleteness of the stats makes comparisons dubious.

Debating with you is like debating my wife! You switch gears to avoid the main point of the argument. I give up, dear. You were right all along. Now what's for dinner?

I don't think I'm switching gears. You are, in my opinion. First you said the NHL banned Russian players and then you said they didn't.

How many times, when I make a point, her response is, what about the fact that .....?

I think I read that they believe about 75% of the NL games are accounted for in the stats that are now available, but your point is still valid. Especially for individual season records, another few games of 0-4 could easily drop batting average or slugging percentage below the values previously considered to be the records.

Should it get you a Cy Young? Trevor Bauer's 2020 CY is the only CY the Reds have in their entire history. As a Reds fan, I don't know how to feel about it.

As for the question at hand, I don't have a problem including NL records. When you are talking about the best all time, it's all an argument and subjective to variables anyway. Are hitters now more impressive because of the number of pitchers throwing 100 mph? Even though they don't have 4000 hits or 700 HR, does Miguel Cabrera or Albert Pujols become the best hitters of all time? Is Cabrera's Triple Crown season the best season all time because of the pitchers they faced?

Thus, the inclusion of NL records and reorganizing the best of the best isn't changing anything that we don't already argue about.

From a statistical perspective, it is highly unlikely that his batting average in the missing games is significantly different than that of the games we do have records for. My stats is a bit rusty since I haven’t used it since studying for my Lean Six Sigma Green Belt last year, but if we assume we only have details on 50% of his at bats, a sample size of 2526 yields a margin of error of 2.57% at a 99% confidence level. To put it in more colloquial terms, there is a 99% chance Gibson’s real batting average is within plus or minus .026 of the known average of .373

I am undoubtedly oversimplifying the math a bit here, so it is a darn shame we don’t have a credentialed data scientist around here to help.

Interesting statistical analysis. Maybe Snowman can verify?

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing as follows:

Given the enormous size difference in the white and black populations, it seems highly unlikely that a black league would have had the depth that a white league had, even if the best in one league would have been on par or better than the best in other leagues.

Am I understanding it correctly?

Here are my thoughts:

1) I don't think that as a starting point, there is anything wrong with raising this question. But it certainly is not a question that has no answer. To give one example... In low-income areas and among certain populations, a career in pro sports (or entertainment) is often viewed as one of the few options that children see as a way to escape their conditions, and therefore in these populations, the focus on sport is often far more widespread than in other communities. Such an approach shifts the math.

2) The arguments that the leagues were equal are from many different data points including black players who played afterwards, many, many barnstorming games, observers etc. While the question you raise does make one pause, once it is combined with empirical evidence, the question needs to change to, "given that black population was far smaller than the white population in the United States during that time, how is it that evidence points to the black baseball leagues being on par with white leagues?

3) The black leagues were a few teams smaller than the white leagues and so it is possible that the leagues in fact would not have had the depth, but because they were smaller, fewer Major League caliber players were needed.

4) I'm also not sure why you would assume that there is no statistical issue with saying that the best black team could stand up against the best white team. While it is not an identical question, it would seem that the smaller available pool would also impact the number of truly great players.

5) Whatever the reasons are, we see that the vast majority of elite athletes today are black. I don't know or care whether that is because they focus in this area more, if there are genetic components etc. but the question you asked could equally be asked about today's NBA and NFL. The fact that we find examples in modern times of a level of talent disprortionately coming from a black population means that some combination of factors makes this possible.

I think that the disparity in the available pool of players raises a question, and there are indications that the leagues may

All good points, and I am reconsidering my positions. I'm also wondering if there could come a time when the game has become truly global and more and more Japanese, Latin, and other players have proven themselves the equals of MLB players, if a similar attempt might not be mounted to go back and assign some similar records to the great players of those leagues. I don't know why not. And I do appreciate this discussion for providing some very interesting grist for the endless mill of the "Hot Stove Leagues."

I just want to acknowledge how refreshing it is to see civil discourse actually resulting in someone reconsidering a conviction. I feel like it is exceedingly rare, as people are usually so entrenched in their positions.

Great to see.

A concept I was struggling with is: Where is the data coming from, and how valid, accurate and complete is the data.

Years ago I tried to obtain stats for Satchell Paige. At the time, there wasn't much data, if any to be found. Chalk it up to go with the stories (decent amount of first account stories) and judge from there. Not much argument Paige was among the very best if not THE best, so I pencil him in at the top of my personal list. And assume he could easily give Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Koufax, Ryan, Seaver, Maddux, Randy Johnson a run for their money.

I found this morning some info about how the recently revealed numbers came to be.

"...bless those that spent more than 3 years digging through newspapers and other relics is search of the box scores to make it happen."

Ok, alright. Sounds like perhaps enough data has been recently been found to formulate some statistical legitimacy. But is it enough to warrant the new "set in stone" stats to be forever more regarded as gospel.

And the records - we are talking Major League Baseball MLB official records, are we not ? The Negro Leagues were not MLB. Kind of like in basketball, the ABA records are ABA records and not NBA records. To anoint an ABA record holder the now new king of an NBA stat record is not correct. There are different Leagues, different leagues have different records and different leagues have overall different talent levels. I am not a soccer guy, but professional soccer may also have different leagues. Again, is it appropriate we blend the leagues and their stats to come up with correct and official "together" records.

Although I can now better acknowledge and praise the accomplishments of Negro League players, I still find it difficult to incorporate the numbers we do have and rewrite the record books of MLB.

This is a big problem and MLB has started too late to try and correct it. Most great athletes of African-American decent lean basketball and football, not baseball. During the Negro Leagues era most leaned baseball.

Well said.

Start buying Oh and Ichiro cards. ")

Here's a column by Jay Jaffe that talks about what was done.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-day-...s/#more-438280

Congratulations to anyone holding some Josh Gibson 1974 Laughlin Old Time Black Stars cards. I was shocked when I was looked at some recent auctions several days ago. I am already stunned by a current one up for grabs.

I admit that I have never really followed that set too closely, but the whole set seems to have exploded from when I remember it being available for next to nothing.

Yes, I missed the boat. I was looking for one before I had any clue that Gibson would be in the news shortly. Now I'll be waiting a while.

I've done some newspaper research on the career of Dick "Cannonball" Redding using newspapers.com. There is a lot more out there than many people realize. Years ago this was only available through very tedious work at libraries looking up records on microfilm. Now an incredible number of newspapers have been scanned and are searchable (albeit not 100% perfectly.) This is a world of difference.

The rules of the game have literally changed and we include stats from times when the game was radically different. The early MLB games did not have great record keeping.

Additionally, these records are not presented as "MLB" records.

The problem with this argument is the fallacy that a contest that always ends in a scoreless tie should be considered a sport, let alone a professional one.

Confused - said not presented as MLB records. Just looked mlb.com website - now listed #1 lifetime batting avg. Josh Gibson.

I just wonder about a league like the PCL. According to the Baseball Hall Of Fame:

"The Pacific Coast League eventually would be regarded by many as “the third major league,” and prompt MLB to finally realize in 1958 that there was a geographic void to be filled, resulting in the relocation of the Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles and the Giants from Upper Manhattan to San Francisco.

It seems to be virtually forgotten by most folks today. But years before expanding west, these teams had many excellent players. Is there any push to recognize the PCL stats along with the regular Major League stats or to combine them for some of the players that performed there and in the Majors? I'm not trying to change the subject, but it seems like it might be a similar situation.

Some of those near-200 game PCL seasons would really do a number on some records.

Time to stock up on Arnold "Jigger" Statz cards!

The article I read in the Athletic indicated that there is a difference between MLB the brand (which is the AL and NL) and The Major Leagues. I don't know whether that will prove to be semantics or not. In light of what you are mentioning, it seems like it might be.

I really appreciate the response and the discussion as well and have also learned from the conversation.

I think it is an interesting question about whether baseball at some point in time will look to incorporate international records under one umbrella.

I do agree that the combining of the records, even if the players are of similar caliber, introduces other issues which make the issue far more complex.

I'd hesitate to say "Never" but It's something I believe when It comes to what I bolded.

The Negro leagues are a different entity. Yes the scheduling was inconsistent, but quite literally the only reason they existed was because Black people, weren't allowed to play in the Majors.

The Major Leagues is the pinnacle of baseball. We cannot count international records because of inferior competition. Every pro baseball player dreams of making the majors. I don't think the NPB, KBO etc is capable of hitting that level of talent.

Works for me.

https://photos.imageevent.com/kawika...z%20Coupon.jpg