Quote:
Originally Posted by Topnotchsy
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.)[*]
|
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.