Originally Posted by t206fix (Post 2047091)

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.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2047096)

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.

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2046836)

I think a good argument can be made that the pitching in the NL wasn't great. After Jackie broke the color line in 1947, it took 18 years before a black pitcher won 20 games (Mudcat Grant and Bob Gibson in 1965.) It was so rare for a black pitcher to win 20 in the Majors that Grant wrote a book about them titled "The Black Aces." I have a signed copy.

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.

Originally Posted by tschock (Post 2047103)

Who is this "MLB" you are talking about? Players or owners? Who ran baseball? Especially back then. Players or owners? The PLAYERS played against the best they were allowed to play against. I'm sorry, not sure what you point is but it doesn't contradict what I saying.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2047116)

My issue is you’re equating the white experience with the black as though they were somehow equal re: who they were “allowed” to play against. That is extremely far from the truth and the idea that this exclusion or segregation was a shared experience is at odds with history.

That is the point. There was no shared experience when it came to excluding players of color from the major leagues.

Originally Posted by jason.1969 (Post 2047034)

Not a strong take. Research the unwritten rules governing black pitchers in the early days of MLB integration.

Originally Posted by t206fix (Post 2047144)

Jason, would love to hear more about this. Where do I look?

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid (Post 2047099)

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

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.

Originally Posted by BillyCox3 (Post 2046753)

Touche! :) You got me there, Chris.

(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.)

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2047174)

To be fair, counting Ted is kinda cheating. He hid his roots and, for lack of a better way to put it, didn't "look the part". He certainly wasn't an open Latino during his career or, really, his whole life.

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2047170)

When I read the headline of this happening, I really hoped it had more to it than just stats. I know people live and die by the stats, I am certainly not one of those folks. I guess there was a naive part of me that had hoped if MLB was going to make the gesture of inclusion, there would have been an extension of some percentage of pension or benefit extended to living players, or something comparable to what players of that time period collected (or what their families would collect). At the end of the day, if you are going to recognize the league as professional, you should commit to the financial commitments of "squaring the house." If not, it feels like an empty gesture trying to make up for a shameful part of the sport's history done solely for optics.

Originally Posted by Casey2296 (Post 2047186)

In 1997, the MLB executive council created a payment plan for about 85 black players who didn’t play in the majors long enough to qualify for a pension, or who did not have the opportunity to play in the majors at all. To be eligible for their payments, the black players had to either play in the Negro Leagues for at least one season before 1948 or play a combined four years in the Negro Leagues and the major leagues before 1979.

The price tag associated with this magnanimous gesture? It amounted to annual payments of between $7,500 and $10,000 per player. That future got even brighter for the veterans of the Negro Leagues in 2004, when MLB agreed to make payments to more of these ballplayers on the grounds that baseball had not been totally integrated until 1959, when the Boston Red Sox became the last team to field a black player.

The terms of the agreement weren’t exactly the same as with the 1997 group of ex Negro Leaguers. Players who never played in the major leagues were given the option of electing to choose pensions totaling $375 per month ($4,500 annually) for life or $10,000 a year for four years.

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2047170)

When I read the headline of this happening, I really hoped it had more to it than just stats. I know people live and die by the stats, I am certainly not one of those folks. I guess there was a naive part of me that had hoped if MLB was going to make the gesture of inclusion, there would have been an extension of some percentage of pension or benefit extended to living players, or something comparable to what players of that time period collected (or what their families would collect). At the end of the day, if you are going to recognize the league as professional, you should commit to the financial commitments of "squaring the house." If not, it feels like an empty gesture trying to make up for a shameful part of the sport's history done solely for optics.

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2047202)

Great info, thank you for sharing. Do you happen to know what compensations would look like for similar parameters in the same years for MLB players?

Originally Posted by BillyCox3 (Post 2047172)

Adam W:

Luque was good in the majors but not great.

Marsans doesn't even enter the equation.

Lopez was of Spanish, thus European, ancestry.

My comment was that there were no Latin American superstars pre-integration. I was quickly shot down about Ted Williams, to which I certainly conceded, despite Teddy clearly not showing the world his Latino pride.

"Now, Mr. Archive, you had better choose your battles wisely lest we sue you!" :) :) :) (Thought about that one for the first time in ages yesterday and have been looking for any excuse to use it!)

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole (Post 2047218)

Lefty Gomez was of Mexican descent although he was born in California.

Originally Posted by jason.1969 (Post 2047151)

One example relates to belief that Black men weren’t cerebral enough to pitch, catch, or manage. Here is Bob Kendrick on the topic—

——-

“Historically, pitchers and catchers did not transition from the Negro Leagues,’’ Kendrick said. “There were great arms in the Negro Leagues, and we had great catchers from Josh Gibson to Roy Campanella, but that was considered a cerebral position. And the general consensus back then was that these men weren’t smart enough to play in the major leagues.

———

Same line of racist thinking limited Black Quarterbacks in football and managers/GMs in several sports.

Additionally, Black pitchers were hesitant to throw inside vs white batters out of fear their lives or careers would be at risk if they injured a white player.

Originally Posted by BillyCox3 (Post 2047176)

Exactly why it slipped my mind in the first place. Thanks to your correction, though, I'm never likely to forget about it again! :)

Originally Posted by Scocs (Post 2047249)

I was going to bring that point up about black pitchers and double standards. If a black quarterback wasn’t accepted until 1988, what makes you think a black man throwing a baseball 90 mph at a white man’s head would have been accepted in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s?

Originally Posted by Casey2296 (Post 2047217)

Quite the opposite actually.

Professional baseball players who are retired and white players are not entitled to the pension benefits Major League Baseball bestowed on former Negro Leagues players, a federal appeals court ruled.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that MLB did not discriminate against about 1,000 white players when it gave medical benefits and $1,000 monthly pensions to dozens of elderly black players who didn't qualify for a pension.

Until 1979, all players had to be on a major league roster for at least four seasons to receive pensions. The lawsuit was brought by white players who didn't have four years tenure but alleged that not getting the same pensions as blacks was discriminatory.

The appeals court disagreed, saying the pension program created for black players who put in time with the Negro Leagues was "created to remedy specific discrimination."

Before 1947, blacks were not allowed into MLB. So the league changed the pension rules in 1997, saying tenure in the old Negro Leagues from 1947 and before counted toward an MLB pension if black players also had time in the majors.

The 27 players who were eligible for the pensions all played part of at least four seasons after Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier in 1947.

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid (Post 2047099)

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

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.

Originally Posted by Casey2296 (Post 2047217)

Quite the opposite actually.

Professional baseball players who are retired and white players are not entitled to the pension benefits Major League Baseball bestowed on former Negro Leagues players, a federal appeals court ruled.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that MLB did not discriminate against about 1,000 white players when it gave medical benefits and $1,000 monthly pensions to dozens of elderly black players who didn't qualify for a pension.

Until 1979, all players had to be on a major league roster for at least four seasons to receive pensions. The lawsuit was brought by white players who didn't have four years tenure but alleged that not getting the same pensions as blacks was discriminatory.

The appeals court disagreed, saying the pension program created for black players who put in time with the Negro Leagues was "created to remedy specific discrimination."

Before 1947, blacks were not allowed into MLB. So the league changed the pension rules in 1997, saying tenure in the old Negro Leagues from 1947 and before counted toward an MLB pension if black players also had time in the majors.

The 27 players who were eligible for the pensions all played part of at least four seasons after Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier in 1947.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2047304)

Gibby, who of course came along a whole decade later, related some stories about how he was excluded from meetings discussing how to pitch to the opposing team's lineup by Solly Hemus and perhaps others, the assumption being he wasn't smart enough to contribute. Unreal.

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte (Post 2047383)

The NA was part of the evolution of the organization of professional baseball and the best players of the time were involved. I think the key here is "paid" and "best of their time." This is the same argument that has been made in this thread regarding the Negro Leagues. If the best players are involved, the league should be considered "major." If we can not exclude black players for being denied the right to play in white major leagues through no fault of their own, we shouldn't punish early players for being born too soon. This distinction is important regarding HOF eligibility and the "ten year rule." Pioneer players have never received fair treatment from the HOF and are pitifully underrepresented in the HOF. Why aren't more baseball enthusiasts trying to right this wrong?

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid (Post 2047404)

Hemus was notorious for treating the black players like shit when he was the Cardinals’ manager, especially Gibson and Curt Flood. Years later he tried to apologize to both of them, but they neither forgave nor forgot. Hemus was a bigger prick than most, but racist attitudes like his were prevalent in the game into the 1960s and beyond.

Originally Posted by jason.1969 (Post 2046350)

best thing to happen in baseball my entire life!

Originally Posted by Hankphenom (Post 2047419)

Yes, "in the game," as in "in America," "and beyond," as in "and today." I was born in 1946, and would recommend not talking about it like it was ancient history. Things are better, tremendous progress has been made, but the last several years have shown us how much further we have to go. If anyone is really interested in atonement for our racist past, there's plenty to do about our racist present right now.

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid (Post 2047462)

Of course there is still racism in America, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I was talking about the kind of blatant, in-your-face racism that Solly Hemus practiced, which has become socially unacceptable in most public contexts, including MLB. If somebody called an opposing player a “black bastard” today, as Hemus did in 1959, it would rightly cause a furor. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that this means that racism is no longer a problem, but as the past few years have so painfully shown, that’s not the case at all.

Originally Posted by cammb (Post 2047467)

Please elaborate on our racist present?

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye (Post 2046312)

Another problem is guy's like Ken Burns think's every player in the Negro Leagues had enough talent to be in the major leagues.

Originally Posted by Scocs (Post 2047477)

Let’s just keep focused on the issue at hand: the Negro Leagues...

Originally Posted by cammb (Post 2047467)

Please elaborate on our racist present?

Originally Posted by t206fix (Post 2047244)

Thank you. I remember that bullshit from the 80s. "A black man can't quarterback."

PE : we about to watch the super bowl, we got a black quarter back, so step back.

Originally Posted by howard38 (Post 2047504)

Not just the 80's. After Russell Wilson's famous super bowl INT my former boss started off a statement with, "This is not racist, but...". Of course, I knew the next words out of his mouth would, in fact, be racist & he didn't disappoint finishing with "a black quarterback can't win a super bowl". Wilson himself had won it the previous season, but whatever.

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2046502)

Hank's point is valid and excellent.

Making some assumptions: During the period 1920-1948, the average black player and average white player were basically equal in ability. Also assume interest in playing baseball was basically equal between blacks and non-blacks. And finally, assume the number of teams in the NL and ML is the same.

If the population is comprised of 10% blacks and 90% non-blacks. It means, for every spot on a ML roster, there are 9 times as many non-black guys competing for it, compared to blacks trying to make it in the NL.

If there were only half as many teams in the NL as there were in the ML, then the non-blacks had 4.5 guys competing for a roster spot compared to blacks in their league.

Originally Posted by howard38 (Post 2047504)

Not just the 80's. After Russell Wilson's famous super bowl INT my former boss started off a statement with, "This is not racist, but...". Of course, I knew the next words out of his mouth would, in fact, be racist & he didn't disappoint finishing with "a black quarterback can't win a super bowl". Wilson himself had won it the previous season, but whatever.

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2048212)

I'll defend that call til the day I die. Besides the fact Lynch hadn't succeeded in any of those situations all year...Russ hesitated on the throw, threw it late, threw it inaccurately, and Ricardo Lockette ran his route half-speed and at the wrong angle. If EITHER guy executes properly, it's a touchdown.

Originally Posted by 71buc (Post 2048161)

Interesting thoughts, such discussion always tend toward murky and turbulent waters. Nonetheless, using your math how can it be explained that according to the most recent Census 76.3% of the country is white and 13.4% are black. Yet 81% of NBA players are black and 70% of NFL is black? Unfortunately only 7.7% of MLB is black. Baseball had little completion for athletes during the negro league era. Looking forward, how do we get the future Lebron James and Lamar Jacksons more interested in baseball? For that matter how do we draw the future Baker Mayfields to baseball? BTW I am not excluding the NHL for any other reason than it doesn’t interest me in the least. Also, as a Latino with a German last name it warms my heart that people acknowledge that Ted Williams is one of me only with a slightly better swing��

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2048212)

I'll defend that call til the day I die. Besides the fact Lynch hadn't succeeded in any of those situations all year...Russ hesitated on the throw, threw it late, threw it inaccurately, and Ricardo Lockette ran his route half-speed and at the wrong angle. If EITHER guy executes properly, it's a touchdown.

Originally Posted by Hankphenom (Post 2047419)

Yes, "in the game," as in "in America," "and beyond," as in "and today." I was born in 1946, and would recommend not talking about it like it was ancient history. Things are better, tremendous progress has been made, but the last several years have shown us how much further we have to go. If anyone is really interested in atonement for our racist past, there's plenty to do about our racist present right now.

Originally Posted by 71buc (Post 2048161)

Looking forward, how do we get the future Lebron James and Lamar Jacksons more interested in baseball? For that matter how do we draw the future Baker Mayfields to baseball?[emoji6]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2048339)

Come on, man. The best running back in football, ball on the one yard line, and you're defending a pass play? Your own analysis shows the problem -- too many things can go wrong.