|
This is exactly how I feel
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Maybe you can explain why this needed to be done and all the anguish it has caused you for all these years. Maybe be happy today that it is done instead of insinuating things about a person you literally know zero about?
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
You directly quoted someone that talked about being confused and this process causing trouble. You then stated that was how you felt. I have trouble imagining how a person could have those feelings so I was inquiring for clarification. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Some current Hall level players have to humble themselves to play against players like Homer Bailey who carried a 6.00+ ERA for three straight seasons. I'm sure they hate this thinking that it taints their true hall of fame aspirations. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk |
So who is now the first black player to play in the majors ? Edited: I forgot about : Moses Fleetwood "Fleet" Walker (October 7, 1856 – May 11, 1924) was an American professional baseball catcher who is credited with being the first black man to play in Major League Baseball (MLB). May 1, 1884.
... |
It blows my mind that no one can take this as what it is: a token gesture to try to give a little bit of right back to something that was wrong with the sport for more than 75 years. No one is taking away any record held by anyone. God willing if someone ever chases .400 again it will be classic images of Ted Williams across every screen and every channel. Will they mention Gibson in 43? Probably, but stats and records are religious canon in the sport. No one is going to be forgotten or buried. It’s a gesture meant to elevate the accomplishments of one group of players to the same level as another group that they were not allowed to join because bigotry. Nothing more. They’re numbers on paper and computer screens. Some just became more meaningful in the eyes of a organized league, the rest mean just the same as they ever did.
|
Fair enough and sorry for the oversensitivity.
I believe it confuses and causes trouble because of the stats mainly. I also believe that it is a PC move so representative of 2020 and that it was not necessary. The HOF has recognized the Negro Leagues and inducted many into the HOF. Honestly some who have been inducted I had never heard of which may be my bad. I follow them on twitter and they have gone way above and beyond to tweet about minority players this year (which is fine) but it does not seem authentic to me. IMO this was totally unnecessary. I have met Buck O and a few others and they are proud of the league and the recognition it received. I actually think keeping it separate shows the prejudice and is a lesson from history. I know when I took my son to the hall it was powerful to see the separate exhibit. I have also read several articles today where people are insulted by this and view it as a "token" move and some who say it is 50+ years late. So overall I just believe it was a bad move but I don't get vote haha. Quote:
|
Quote:
(Although Ted's roots were definitely covered more than once and way back when, it still was not something most people were privy to. I think this would still be news to the majority of the population. The case of Teddy completely slipped my mind, as I was thinking of those who actually came from Latin American countries when I wrote what I did. It's a shame he wished to hide an entire half of his genes and to an extent, his family.) |
Look- if nobody has any opinions on this subject, perhaps the OP should just ask Leon to close the thread.
LOL - why so serious? . |
Quote:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk |
According to the "official" stats Josh Gibson hit 113 HR. I wonder how many he really hit.
|
Gibson's Hall of Fame plaque states he hit "almost 800 home runs in league and independent baseball during his 17-year career."
Other stats indicate he homered at a similar rate to the Babe. The guy had some mad hitting skills. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Did any Negro League players get 3,000 hits or 500 home runs?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I wouldn't be mad if MLB stopped recognizing Cap Anson's stats.
That guy was a terrible person and a big reason segregation happened in MLB. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
History is ugly, but if we are going to institute moral standard for Hall of Famers based on how we feel they should have lived their lives, I hate to break it to you, but some of the early Negro Leaguers would fall short as well. As society changes, we will be kicking out new guys every decade or so until eventually the only ones left are the boring ones nobody cares about anyways. |
Quote:
Grant, Gibson, Earl Wilson, Jenkins, Downing, Blue, Richard, Norris, Gooden, Stewart, and in 2005, Dontrelle Willis. In the 57 years since 1947, there were only 11 black 20 game winners. Of these 11, only 4 did it more than once (Gibson, Jenkins, Blue, Stewart.) So for all the talk about the great black hitters back in the day, the pitching, by Major League standards, was much less impressive. And that had to help the hitters. |
Don Newcombe won 20 games in 1951, 20 games in 1955, and 27 games in 1956.
|
Quote:
I think my point stands - the black hitters seem to have been well ahead of the pitchers. |
Quote:
There are many things that have impacted stats through the years that they all require an asterisks next to them when comparing. You can't compare steroid era, war years, dead-ball era, pre-integration, and Negro League to name a few. The stats deserve merit on their own. |
Quote:
History is what it is - why try changing it. Understand it, know the injustice occurred and try to find something positive. Why not look at people that tried to turn that injustice around. Guys like Branch Rickey or even Walter "Judge" McCredie. Erasing history by erasing Anson's stats because of his views serves no good purpose. For that matter, I'm sure there were plenty of players with bigoted views, even some that are in the HOF. It would be pretty strange to erase the stats of bigoted players because you can't erase what happened. |
Negro League to take World Series?
I wonder if the Negro League players had not been sold to MLB teams if they would have fielded a team(s) that would have won the World Series or multiple?
I think mlb remembered what happed when Jack Johnson was allowed to compete. When does the MLB allow the Japanese League to compete for the “World Series”? |
Jay Jaffe has a good article on FanGraphs about this. I haven't read this thread much so I don't know if someone else posted this.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/wrestlin...ues-as-majors/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It could be argued that there were some Major League players who lacked the talent to compete on a Negro League team. And, that Major League statics, pre-integration, were |
Makes me wonder about oriental players in the U.S., were they banned, too? Who was the first?
|
Quote:
I’m not expressing an opinion. This is how MLB would have handled a .450 average in 2020. From there it would be up to fans to decide whether to regard in same way as Hugh Duffy’s hard fought .440 average from 1894. We already have similar examples today with Bonds HR records and Astros 2017 WS. They are part of the MLB record book, though many fans don’t take them seriously. |
Quote:
None if we confine the stats to official league games, which is what MLB will recognize. |
Quote:
Not a strong take. Research the unwritten rules governing black pitchers in the early days of MLB integration. |
Quote:
So it hasn't happened yet. I don't think he had enough at bats to qualify for the batting title in any season, but the stats I can find vary a lot. Even the highest number isn't enough. |
Ted Williams was also Hispanic, so either way the last player to hit 400 was still a person of color.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
With fewer teams and far less scouting, the odds of a team being interested were lower. If you look at the lineups of many teams it's fairly obvious there just wasn't room on what we now call the depth chart. The teams at the bottom of the league most years had space, but where could someone break into the 1920's Yankees lineup? Or if you were say a second baseman, but the only scout that saw you was from the Red Sox between say 1938 and 1950 you were pretty much out of luck. |
Quote:
|
Poor Roger Maris will always have the asterick by his name. Probably should be a lot more astericks in the stats books. This will just add some more - with a whole lot of less reliable data. ��
|
Quote:
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/i1QAA...pn/s-l1600.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/zMEAA...qC/s-l1600.jpg |
Quote:
Works both ways, which is why the Negro Leagues should be considered a Major League. But comparing stats and performance between leagues is problematic at best. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Maybe you misunderstood my post or are reading something into my post that isn't there? |
Quote:
Negro Leaguers were facing major league quality and minor league quality talent. Same with Major Leaguers. These players were not excluded from the ML because they lacked talent, it's because they were black. And as Triwak put it, just because someone says they weren't good enough to be in the Majors, doesn't make it true. There is no metric out there right now that can tell us the 11th best player on a NL team was equal to the 15th best player on a ML team. A lot of people out there have opinions, but the only way to prove it is to let them play... oops, too late for that. |
Quote:
No. That is totally at odds with history. The MLB had every opportunity to play against everybody. If you will recall, they chose to ban players of color from the league. When you say "neither COULD play against the best of both" that is a stretch considering the reason MLB didn't play against the best competition of the era was due to their choice to exclude them. |
Quote:
The NA was really just a loose confederation of individual teams that agreed (in principle) to play each other on a semi-regular basis. It was closer to an organized league to what had existed before, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a major "league", with the emphasis on "league". Now, one can can certainly argue this point, and there are other questionable cases as well, especially the Union Association of 1884, which I think was less of a major league than the NA was, despite MLB's decision to the contrary in 1968. Lack of organizational structure is also why MLB is not recognizing pre-1920 black baseball organizations as "major leagues", though I've already seen some argument about that. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 AM. |