Negro League Stats included in official MLB records
 

I thought this happened quite some time ago.

Hmmm, we'll see how this affects some prices

Major League Baseball will officially incorporate Negro Leagues statistics into MLB's historical records on Wednesday, reports USA Today. MLB elevated the Negro Leagues to "Major League" status in 2020 and recognized the "statistics and records" of approximately 3,400 players who played in seven leagues between 1920-48. Now they are part of the official record.


…What is the difference between recognizing the stats and records and being part of the record?

This won't affect anyone's prices. Cobb, Ruth or any of the all-time greats.

+1
It will probably increase some of the Negro League players prices.

Not so much Cobby etc....

The last player to hit .400 in a season is no longer Ted Williams
 

... I think that it is Artie Wilson now....

Ty who? Gibson now has the highest batting average ever. I think this is ridiculous--the competition was not the same. This is just a botched attempt to atone for past injustices.

Given the sparsity of the stats, how could he have enough at bats to qualify?

You can see and sort all the stats here:
Batting
https://www.mlb.com/stats/batting-av...ll-time-totals

Pitching
https://www.mlb.com/stats/pitching/wins/all-time-totals

I think a bigger concern is the incompleteness of the stats. In some cases it seems to pick up only a small fraction of the games an individual played.

The legend of Satchell Paige is full of amazing stories. I want to believe he may have been the best ever. I cherish the couple Paige cards I own ('48 Bowman & Exhibit)) It seems appropriate, based on the stories, to include him in the discussion of greatest pitcher ever.

A few years ago I tries to get a handle on Satchell's stats. Unfortunately, with whatever research I could find on the internet, I came to the conclusion that there just is extremely minimal concrete stats. There simply wasn't enough meat to be found that could justify his legendary status. So you live with the stories, accept the fact not much in the way of stats and move on.

So now, how in the world is MLB able to come up with enough detail and solid stats, comparable to actual MLB player stats, to start including all the amazing, fully worthy HOF caliber players that played in the Negro Leagues ?

Immaculate Grid's about to get REAL interesting!

I just think comparing Negro League stats to MLB stats is comparing apples and oranges. I don't know with 100% certainty which league was better, but I do know that they were not the same and calling the stats equivalent doesn't seem correct to me.

I dislike that guys who have been identified as using or most likely using PEDs are in the record books with those who did not. Also is the guy who hit .300 in the 19th century as great a hitter as the guy who hit .300 in the 21st century?

Immaculate Grid has been counting Major Negro League Stats for the entirety of its existence, as Baseball Reference had made the integration of Negro League stats long ago.

But it gets tricky. I once chose Hank Aaron as a Negro League player and it come up as wrong, because he has no stats with any of the 7 Major Negro Leagues.

I'm not sure about this. Let's say you had a ticket or program from Willie Mays' first hit 2 days ago. You likely had a ticket or program for the MLB game in which he got his first hit. But now a ticket or program for his first hit game would technically have to come from a Birmingham Black Barons game. If such a program or ticket exists, then that piece of memorabilia just soared in value, while perhaps the pieces from his first MLB hit game become a little less valuable. Card prices might not change much, but perhaps prices for other memorabilia might.

I don't think prices will do much of anything. When the NL numbers were initially canonized, prices on a lot of guys spiked, Wilson among them. That cat is already out of the bag.

Oh, and a few Wilsons:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...Wilson%201.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...Wilson%202.jpg

A snapshot too, taken on opening day 1949 in San Diego:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...er%20photo.jpg

Love these Artie Wilson cards

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Always thought no one would break Cobb's lifetime BA record....Someone (Gibson) did many years ago but we just found out.

And you think Ty Cobb's competition was the same as post-war players? lol

Comparing players across eras is not the same as comparing contemporaneous leagues. Your point seems irrelevant to the one Jay raised. His point (and not commenting on its merit) would be as if MLB decided to include this year's minor league stats in determining leaders.

I posted essentially the same thing that snowman did to Jay's comments. And I have never thought of MLB stats by era being relevant but when people are opposing the stats of a group of people who were outright denied the chance to play in the MLB, not because they were not good enough but because of the color of their skin, the argument comparing eras has some merit.

There is no perfect solution to this...sorta like the ML auction debate (though some very esteemed members did not see it as a debate)...I think most who look at stats take into account the era as well as the guys who are suspected of using PEDs.

In my personal opinion, having the stats included with MLB stats does not make those players any more legit than they already were. And at least our hobby shares that view if we take the prices alone for what the NL players' cards, postcards, etc sell for.

I don't know enough about the Negro Leagues to have a meaningful opinion re the statistics issue. But, from the FWIW department, below are the first few paragraphs from a piece by Kevin Blackistone that appears is the Sports Section of today's Wash. Post. If anyone cares to read this entire piece, here's the link to it: https://wapo.st/3RaqMGu


"A chapter inside the 1991 edition of “Total Baseball” written by sports scholar Jules Tygiel, whom I interviewed a few times for his seminal research on the Negro Leagues, recounts offseason whistle-stop games in which White baseball stars played against their counterparts in the Black leagues.

The section came to mind this week after MLB’s Negro Leagues Statistical Review Committee, led by official MLB historian John Thorn, concluded that the achievements of Black players during the 60-year segregated era should be included in the official statistics of what, despite that racist history, has been celebrated as America’s pastime.

“Postseason tours against big league stars offered an opportunity for black players to prove their equality on the diamond,” Tygiel wrote in 1991. “Matchups between the Babe Ruth or Dizzy Dean ‘All-Stars’ and black players became frequent. The most famous of the interracial barnstorming tours occurred in 1946, when Cleveland Indians pitcher Bob Feller organized a major league all-star team and toured the nation accompanied by the Satchel Paige All-Stars.

“Surviving records reveal that blacks won two-thirds of all interracial games,” Tygiel pointed out.

In other words, as I argued Wednesday on “Around the Horn”: “The Negro Leagues were never less than major. They weren’t minor leagues.”

That was my initial thought. Gibson played in 600 games lifetime….compared to Ruth’s 2500. The whole thing is silly, but whatever.

I think the only real world lab we have to test the quality of Negro League play is what happened in the first ten years of integration.

ML ROY 1947: Robinson
NL ROY:
--1949: Newcombe
--1950: Jethro
--1951: Mays
--1952: Black
--1953: Gilliam

NL MVP:
--1949: Robinson
--1951, 1953, 1955: Campanella
--1954: Mays
--1956: Newcombe
--1957: Aaron

Notable black players who came into the game from 1947-56 and had an impact at the MLB level:
--Jackie Robinson
--Campanella
--Mays
--Irvin
--Minoso
--Doby
--Banks
--Aaron
--Frank Robinson
--Clemente
--Elston Howard
--Jim Gilliam
--Newcombe
--Joe Black
--Hank Thompson
--Luke Easter
--Satchel Paige

Probably some others who don't come to my mind readily (I usually see their cards in my head and remember who was who that way). There were also a number of NL players who got very short trials in MLB and were cut down immediately if they were not spectacular off the bat. Mays was one of the lucky ones in working with Durocher, who was not quick to pull that demotion trigger on him after he went 1 for 25 to start, yet the Giants kicked Artie Wilson back down to the PCL after 24 at-bats produced 4 hits.

My point is that the black players who entered the Bigs in that first decade comprised an all-star team that could have beaten any white team of the era. Carrying NL stats as MLB stats, I don't see a good argument for not doing that given the quality of the players who were or would have been in the NL had there not been integration. Bottom line for me is that if NL stats are MLB stats, you can't make distinctions between seasons given how the game was played at a time of segregation. The NL players played the game they had available to them.

Oh, and a card:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...4%20Easter.jpg

Well throw your RoY analogy out the window because they "had been playing MLB" for year prior.


People now clamorimg to have their Roy's removed from history and awarded to 2nd best

Well, yeah, because the creme de la creme of Negro League players were naturally selected to integrate first. Your statement is accurate, but the obvious has to be kept in mind.

I agree but I am not sure what that proves or disproves. If you want to see how the best of the NL stacked up against MLB under league game conditions and you don't want to compare stats between NL and MLB because of differences in play and conditions, tracking that pioneer group in MLB is the best we can do.

Who is clamoring?

Stats
 

Jay - I agree 150%. An absolute joke!

Your new single-season batting average leader, Tetelo Vargas .471:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...20Vargas_1.jpg

Highest on base percentage


Eddie Gaedel. 1.000

single season batting leader -Not mine.



.

Scores of protesters today marched with torches and pitchforks to MLB stadiums against the championship title of "world series". MLB has decided they would be changing the title of their trophy, as well as going back through all records and removing the title of world champions. Also, new trophies will be awarded to Zimbabwes Tigers who went 160-2 in 1975, as well as many other baseball teams around the world for their compelling records. More to follow on this breaking story.

The ironic issue with MLB's decision re: integrating the NL stats into current MLB stats AND changing the various leaders in season stats is that, by doing this, they are doing exactly what they have failed to do with the National Association of 1871-1875. The argument used to not recognize the NA as a major league included, in large part, the small number of "league" games played each season and an erratic schedule. Apparently, in 2024 this is a good idea for the NL, but still not a good idea for the NA. It is popular today to call early black players and players of the NL pioneers and they are. But what about the white pioneer players of the 1840s-1870s that laid the groundwork for professional baseball and are almost completely left out of any HOF conversations. This is wrong. You can't have it both ways and be right in what you are doing.

That definitely dawned on me too, Gary.

If something similar was done with the Association, then it would finally make Steve Bellan the first Cuban MLB player by a long shot.

With 30 games played that year. What a joke.

I am all for it. This makes my little league stats one step away from being included now.:eek::D:rolleyes:

On a serious note I dislike it because it was a different league. It would be like adding CFL stats to the NFL.

You can take solace in the fact that SABR does consider the NA a major, it is treated as such within the databases of Baseball Reference and FanGraphs, and the plaques of Hall of Famers with NA experience, such as Deacon White and Pud Galvin, list the NA teams for which they played along with those in the majors.

Yes, but MLB and the HOF don't. There are at least a dozen players whose careers started prior to 1876 and prior to 1871 for that matter, who are only technically eligible for the HOF as pioneers since they are not eligible because of the ten year rule. Making the NA a major league would allow some of these players to qualify based on the ten year rule. Does it make any sense to make it near impossible for pioneer players to to be elected to the HOF for being born too soon. In fact, these players are excluded because recognized major league baseball didn't exist when they they started playing. This is not dissimilar, not from a ethical/equality standpoint, but logically, to the argument used to advocate for the inclusion of pre-integation black players in the HOF. That argument being that it's not black players fault they couldn't play in the major leagues due to the segregationist policies, and this is true. It is also true that early players couldn't play in the major leagues through not fault of their own since the major leagues didn't exist prior to 1876, as it now stands. As I said, making the NA major would be a start towards opening the HOF door to some players and being consistent. If you look at the number of players in the HOF by decade/era, the least represented group is from early baseball. You wouldn't have the baseball of today without these players and they are not given their due by MLB or the HOF.

Gary, sounds reasonable. Just out of curiosity, which players from the NA would you like to see in the HOF as players? I don’t know a ton about the NA players.

On my list I have players like Cal McVey, Al Reach, Dicky Pearce, and, my favorite Ross Barnes. There are also earlier pioneers such as Doc Adams and Jim Creighton, although Adams is more of a contributor. Interestingly, I don't believe making the NA major would help any I've listed. I'll have to take a closer look.

Interesting list. But I think you are right that having the NA recognized as a major league would still not allow them to get into the HOF because they didn’t play 10 years.

However, elevating the NA to major league would make an undeniable case for a player like Barnes. He would become the only player to hit .400 in four seasons and would be the winner of three batting titles. Those are pretty good credentials. Also, since Gibson is now the career batting average leader with less than 3000 ABs, wouldn't Barnes career .360 average be considered with a similar amount of ABs? I have another thought. Since there is a ten year rule, are black players whose careers began after 1920 (NLs first season), now ineligible for HOF consideration if they don't play ten seasons? The pioneer route would their only option, right? That's the same requirement for 19th century pioneers with less than ten major league seasons. Doing anything else would be inconsistent. I think MLB has opened up a can of worms on this point. The sad thing is that not enough people care about the early history of baseball to force action by the HOF and MLB.

I think the question of if the Negro League states belong in there is a legitimate question.

However, MLB has all sorts of apples-to-oranges juxtapositions. Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds, Cy Young and Clayton Kershaw lived in very different baseball periods.

True but they are very different questions. One is horizontal -- do you assume talent is relatively constant over time, or at least that players should be judged relative to their era such that someone with a 10 WAR in 1920 was as "good" as someone with the same WAR in 2020?

The NL question is vertical -- IF the leagues were not equal, it doesn't make sense to consider the stats the same as MLB players of the same era. Today, for example, if the minor league champion had a higher batting average than the MLB champion, you would not say he led baseball in hitting, or if you did it would be meaningless. I am not commenting on the "IF" but just putting it in context.

I do not think including the Negro League's stats to be included with MLB stats is a correct decision.
I can acknowldge the significant injustice done to these players while at the same time understand the the MLB is not just a category, ie a Major League, but it is a specific league. Japan, Mexico, Cuba, and other places had major leagues of baseball play for many many years, but we don't consider them the same and are not considering including the as well.
This is a quote from the website Trib live that I think shows what I mean about it being different.
"In 1943, when Gibson hit his “record-setting” .466, his Homestead Grays finished first in the Negro National League with 53 wins, 14 losses and a tie. The Harrisburg Stars finished third with a record of 8-8. Must have been a lot of rainouts."
The full article... https://triblive.com/sports/mark-mad...lly-incorrect/

So he hit 466 in about 70 games. That's a lot different than hitting that for 140 games. Do we even know how many abs he had? Would he have qualified for the title based on that if he was in the MLB?
Again, I am in no way saying Gibson was less of a great player. I am saying that comparing records played in different leagues, even in the same time period, is not an accurate comparison.
I mean how can you really compare records of a player who has 2100 at bat's over 14yrs(150/yr) to a player who has over 11000 at bat's in 24 yrs(458/yr) and say their records are equal. In no single year did Gibson have over 250ab. He would have never qualified for any single year batting title accolades. (BTW, I used baseball reference website for those stats).

I am sorry they were left out of the MLB for so long. I wish BB had been integrated sooner. Imo, adding those records to official MLB records does not make up for anything. It just confuses and changes well established standards of excellence with data that is incomplete, at best, only partially verifiable, and played against different competition.

It would have been great to see them compete day in day out vs Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, etc, etc, but we didn't. Trying to make up for old injustices should not be done in a way that creates new ones, imo.

Sent from my SM-F946U using Tapatalk

Interesting, since Zimbabwe didn't exist as a country until 1980.

Any reason you chose Zimbabwe specifically as an example instead of any North American, South American, European, Australian, or Asian countries?

Technically the Rhodesia Tigers.