Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222
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. |
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.