Negro League Hall of Fame

[Yoda]

On one of my many metaphysical musings, I started to think about the recent move to incorporate Negro League stats into official MLB stats, giving, as we all now know, the highest lifetime batting average title to Josh Gibson, leaving the Georgia Peach in the dust. It got me wondering that, if this is the new reality, then why not integrate those already inducted in NL HOF into the real Hall. It would achieve full integration instead of this halfway measure.
Be interested in what others think.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Yoda

On one of my many metaphysical musings, I started to think about the recent move to incorporate Negro League stats into official MLB stats, giving, as we all now know, the highest lifetime batting average title to Josh Gibson, leaving the Georgia Peach in the dust. It got me wondering that, if this is the new reality, then why not integrate those already inducted in NL HOF into the real Hall. It would achieve full integration instead of this halfway measure.
Be interested in what others think.

Dumb question--are there actually NL HOF members, or is it just a general museum? Like, do they have their own room full of plaques?

Are you referring to the members of the NL HOF (assuming they exist) as the "halfway measure."

I have not been to the Negro League Hall of Fame in Kansas City, but am hoping to go next year.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Dumb question--are there actually NL HOF members, or is it just a general museum? Like, do they have their own room full of plaques?

Are you referring to the members of the NL HOF (assuming they exist) as the "halfway measure."

I have not been to the Negro League Hall of Fame in Kansas City, but am hoping to go next year.

Charles, I believe there is a room in the HOF dedicated to HOF'ers from the NL, plaques and all. Others please correct. I haven't been to the Hall in 30 years.
By 'halfway there', I meant that if Negro stats are now being compared to already enshrined HOF'er, shouldn't the players themselves be admitted also?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Charles, I believe there is a room in the HOF dedicated to HOF'ers from the NL, plaques and all. Others please correct. I haven't been to the Hall in 30 years.
By 'halfway there', I meant that if Negro stats are now being compared to already enshrined HOF'er, shouldn't the players themselves be admitted also?

Are you talking about the Negro League players enshrined in Cooperstown already?

If so, they are in the National Baseball Hall of Fame just like anyone else enshrined. Satchel Paige's plaque is right between Joe Kelley and Yogi Berra. There has never been any separation since I've been going as a little kid slightly more than 30 years ago. There's no difference. There was a category separation in the old yearbooks I have, but that was only because they didn't have stats available, so they didn't fit in the stats section. However, when the bios were broken down into sections, you would find them alongside others at the position.

If you're talking about the Negro League Museum in Kansas City, then you wouldn't combine them because different people vote on them. It would be odd to have a process in place and not follow it. I would also assume it should be easier to get into the Negro League Museum as a player, similar to players being in team Hall of Fames, but not Cooperstown.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Are you talking about the Negro League players enshrined in Cooperstown already?

If so, they are in the National Baseball Hall of Fame just like anyone else enshrined. Satchel Paige's plaque is right between Joe Kelley and Yogi Berra. There has never been any separation since I've been going as a little kid slightly more than 30 years ago. There's no difference. There was a category separation in the old yearbooks I have, but that was only because they didn't have stats available, so they didn't fit in the stats section. However, when the bios were broken down into sections, you would find them alongside others at the position.

If you're talking about the Negro League Museum in Kansas City, then you wouldn't combine them because different people vote on them. It would be odd to have a process in place and not follow it. I would also assume it should be easier to get into the Negro League Museum as a player, similar to players being in team Hall of Fames, but not Cooperstown.

When I was there they made it very clear they are a museum and not a HOF. Definately worth a visit for anyone who has not been there.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Charles, I believe there is a room in the HOF dedicated to HOF'ers from the NL, plaques and all. Others please correct. I haven't been to the Hall in 30 years.
By 'halfway there', I meant that if Negro stats are now being compared to already enshrined HOF'er, shouldn't the players themselves be admitted also?

John, As z28jd mentioned, the Negro League players in Cooperstown have plaques in the same place as all of the other players--the Plaque Gallery.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

John, As z28jd mentioned, the Negro League players in Cooperstown have plaques in the same place as all of the other players--the Plaque Gallery.

Then I am off base here. I mistakenly thought there was a separate gallery for Negro League HOF'ers in Cooperstown. Glad they are now integrated. So is KC considered the Negro Hall of Fame? Tks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Then I am off base here. I mistakenly thought there was a separate gallery for Negro League HOF'ers in Cooperstown. Glad they are now integrated. So is KC considered the Negro Hall of Fame? Tks.

As was said before, it's a museum, not a HOF.

[Misunderestimated]

According the internet there are 37 Negro Leaguers inducted in the HOF in Cooperstown -- they are not separate from the other HOFers... Most of these players/mangers/executives of color were selected primarily for their accomplishments in the Negro Leagues and its' antecedents --> some of them were great before the Negro League existed -- e.g Bud Fowler and Pete Hill...
I don't know how much consideration was given to the Negro League players international accomplishments in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Mexico etc.
Willard Brown was exceptional in the Puerto Rican League in the 1950's and
Martin Dihigo is the only player inducted into five baseball halls of fame: the American, Cuban, Mexican, Dominican, and Venezuelan Baseball Halls of Fame
This 37 does not include those who started in the Negro League and went on to star in the "major leagues" -- Jackie Robinson, Banks, Aaron, Mays etc.
I guess Monte Irvin is for his "major league" career while Willard Brown is in for his career before he played in the majors (and maybe afterwards?)
As someone accurately noted above, the Negro League Museum is not a Hall of Fame --> it's a museum. My understanding is that it does not induct or select individuals as Hall of Famers.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Yoda

On one of my many metaphysical musings, I started to think about the recent move to incorporate Negro League stats into official MLB stats, giving, as we all now know, the highest lifetime batting average title to Josh Gibson, leaving the Georgia Peach in the dust. It got me wondering that, if this is the new reality, then why not integrate those already inducted in NL HOF into the real Hall. It would achieve full integration instead of this halfway measure.
Be interested in what others think.

John, here's what I think and I don't believe in that "new reality". I'd also like to read what others think.

Josh Gibson was a great player, however I'm not sure how he becomes the MLB lifetime batting average leader based on incomplete stats. The available stats have a .373 lifetime average based on 2168 at bats. I get it, it's not Gibson's fault that the stats for his career are not complete, but because he happens to have a high average in the at bats that were logged, that shouldn't automatically make him the lifetime batting leader.

Could you imagine if Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, and a host of other NL players were allowed to play in MLB with Ruth, Cobb, Johnson, Matty, et al. It would have been awesome.

Too bad Branch Rickey wasn't able to do what he did at least 30 years earlier, or better yet, too bad there was all the racial biases in the past to begin with.

What were left with are two sets of stats, one very complete, the other, unfortunately not near complete. The two sets of stats are difficult to integrate and frankly, near impossible to compare.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Fred

John, here's what I think and I don't believe in that "new reality". I'd also like to read what others think.

Josh Gibson was a great player, however I'm not sure how he becomes the MLB lifetime batting average leader based on incomplete stats. The available stats have a .373 lifetime average based on 2168 at bats. I get it, it's not Gibson's fault that the stats for his career are not complete, but because he happens to have a high average in the at bats that were logged, that shouldn't automatically make him the lifetime batting leader.

Could you imagine if Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, and a host of other NL players were allowed to play in MLB with Ruth, Cobb, Johnson, Matty, et al. It would have been awesome.

Too bad Branch Rickey wasn't able to do what he did at least 30 years earlier, or better yet, too bad there was all the racial biases in the past to begin with.

What were left with are two sets of stats, one very complete, the other, unfortunately not near complete. The two sets of stats are difficult to integrate and frankly, near impossible to compare.

Not to open this can of worms again, but there are so many reasons that MLB should have never combined the stats. They had to twist their own rules they made up just to get Gibson records.

Here are some major issues I have with it.

I consider the National Association to be Major League. They don't. The main reasoning I've heard from people who had some say in the decision is that teams didn't complete schedules sometimes. The Negro Leagues literally have a much worse track record in that area. How does it help one league and keep another from being a Major League?

They eliminated the 5,000 plate appearance mark for career records that has stood for as long as they made these leader charts, just to include Negro League players, saying that they were based now on league games played to figure out if they qualified with a lower number. They have left off plenty of 19th century players from the leaderboard all of these years (and still to this day), who came up with shorter schedules. If you gave those players credit for shorter schedules, they would be listed on the leader board for the MLB page too. It's cherry picking.

They didn't include two years of Gibson's stats by saying that the league wasn't the same quality, but those two years are two of his worst hitting stats. If he was the greatest player and doing much worse in the league, then how do you explain the league not being quality? They had Gibson, Judy Johnson, Oscar Charleston, Satchel Page, etc etc in the league! Take those two years away and Cobb still has the title (he obviously still has the title now, I don't accept any of their backwards rules to strip him and Barry Bonds of titles)

The stats are incomplete. Self-explanatory.

Gibson was handed the single season batting record and didn't even lead the league in average that year! They made up a rule, then twisted it just so he got the title and Tetelo Vargas didn't.

As I have said to others, you can blindly accept Gibson as a record holder with far fewer times at the plate, or you could just use common sense and say no, it doesn't work like that. He's the Negro League all-time leader. MLB is run by clowns right now for so many reasons. Adding Negro League stats was not one of those reasons. It ranks up there with the best thing they have done in the last five years. Calling guys with incomplete stats and 2,500 plate appearances all-time leaders qualifies as a clown decision. It's insulting to historians of the sport.

[Peter_Spaeth]

One can certainly accord the appropriate recognition to the Negro League players and the league itself without a fundamentally flawed retroactive merger of the statistics.

[drmiraculous]

1947: MLB "Dang those Negro Leaguers are good, I wish they were ours. Lets take em."
2024: MLB "Dang those Negro Leaguers are good, I wish they were ours. Lets take em."