Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[packs]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I'm for anything that tries to right the wrongs of segregation, but I don't see how you can compare a league in which only 10% of the population could play with one in which 90% of the population could play. Obviously, there were many Negro League players of Major League talent, but to try to equate and somehow merge the leagues as a whole defies logic. And there were no doubt some terrific NL teams that would have been competitive in the majors of their time, but I would guess that on average most NL teams would have been of some level of contemporaneous minor league quality. To try to cram them all into the history of the major leagues seems to me a fools errand.

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

[Jason19th]

Originally Posted by packs

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

I agree. To bad MLB waited until every single player has passed

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by packs

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

This seems like mere semantics if this is the case.

I don’t think anyone was discounting them for the last 20-30 years at the minimum so I guess if the point isn’t to change statistics then what are they actually accomplishing? The players in the Negro Leagues were already included in the HoF and I guess I just didn’t see many (if any) people really discounting what they had accomplished. No players from the PCL for example from the 1910-20’s are in the HoF for their exploits there so the players in Negro Leagues were certainly held in higher company than even the most major of minor leagues?

Again, I get the point of the announcement but is it a real thing or something to make us feel better about ourselves?

[packs]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

This seems like mere semantics if this is the case.

I don’t think anyone was discounting them for the last 20-30 years at the minimum so I guess if the point isn’t to change statistics then what are they actually accomplishing? The players in the Negro Leagues were already included in the HoF and I guess I just didn’t see many (if any) people really discounting what they had accomplished. No players from the PCL for example from the 1910-20’s are in the HoF for their exploits there so the players in Negro Leagues were certainly held in higher company than even the most major of minor leagues?

Again, I get the point of the announcement but is it a real thing or something to make us feel better about ourselves?

I think you will see greater research into the stats and careers of the people who played. That is an accomplishment. Stats are not widely available because not many people thought they were worth keeping. The opposite is true of MLB, where serious attention to stats was placed. I would think recognizing the league grants legitimacy to it and it's stats and encourages further research and attention that extends beyond the hobbies of private individuals, which has so far been the origin of a lot of what we do know.

This was MLB's statement:

"All of us who love baseball have long known that the Negro Leagues produced many of the game's best players, innovations and triumphs against a backdrop of injustice," the statement read. "We are now grateful to count the players of the Negro Leagues where they belong: as Major Leaguers within the official historical record."

[clydepepper]

A BIG SHOUT-OUT to our own Graig Kreindler, whose magnificent work portraying Negro League players had to have had a guiding influence toward this decision.

Thank You Graig!

.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

In related earth-shattering news, congratulations to Toni Stone for becoming the first woman to cross the MLB gender line 67 years after the fact...

This is getting more laughable with each angle I consider.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

In related earth-shattering news, congratulations to Toni Stone for becoming the first woman to cross the MLB gender line 67 years after the fact...

This is getting more laughable with each angle I consider.

I think they are using 1948 as the cut-off so Toni Stone wouldn’t be included in the “major league” statistics she played after that. Still was a pretty cool accomplishment.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I think they are using 1948 as the cut-off so Toni Stone wouldn’t be included in the “major league” statistics she played after that. Still was a pretty cool accomplishment.

In the spirit of this politically correct inclusivity, this is flawed. If they're doing this, there shouldn't be a cutoff date. Someone will make the argument that there were several post-1948 Negro Leaguers who would have undoubtedly been Major Leaguers if not for the fact that the teams weren't taking each and every worthy Negro League player and stocking their clubs. Surely, teams such as Boston and Detroit could have grabbed a few more, yet didn't...

(I certainly understand the logic behind the cutoff date, but they're putting their feet in their mouths by having one.)

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by packs

I think you will see greater research into the stats and careers of the people who played. That is an accomplishment. Stats are not widely available because not many people thought they were worth keeping. The opposite is true of MLB, where serious attention to stats was placed. I would think recognizing the league grants legitimacy to it and it's stats and encourages further research and attention that extends beyond the hobbies of private individuals, which has so far been the origin of a lot of what we do know.

This was MLB's statement:

"All of us who love baseball have long known that the Negro Leagues produced many of the game's best players, innovations and triumphs against a backdrop of injustice," the statement read. "We are now grateful to count the players of the Negro Leagues where they belong: as Major Leaguers within the official historical record."

Much of what we know today of Major League statistics and information was gathered by private individuals pursuing their hobby of gathering information and not by professionals. The statistical hobbyists are also responsible for clearing up a lot of misinformation in the record books.

All this being said I am 100% on board with more information being gathered for about the Negro Leagues, that can only be a good thing!!!

[Flintboy]

Don’t agree with MLB on this one. This is the equivalent of adding Jim Kelley’s USFL passing yardage to his NFL stats or including Ichiros hits from the Japanese leagues to his MLB totals.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by packs

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

So anyone who ever played in the Negro Leagues is now a Major League player? From a pool of 10% of the population? Inclusion is great, but inclusion lacking merit, which would be the case for a large percentage of these men, only diminishes everybody concerned. There's a reason the term "major league" has meaning, and by including players who didn't meet that standard, you've cheapened it, IMO.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

So anyone who ever played in the Negro Leagues is now a Major League player? From a pool of 10% of the population? Inclusion is great, but inclusion lacking merit, which would be the case for a large percentage of these men, only diminishes everybody concerned. There's a reason the term "major league" has meaning, and by including players who didn't meet that standard, you've cheapened it, IMO.

Pretty definitive statement when discussing the merits of players who, if you will recall, weren't allowed to play in the major leagues because of their skin color. Why does recognizing their play at the highest level available to them diminish anyone? And how could recognizing a fact like that diminish anyone anymore than the decisions to deny them the chance to play?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by packs

Pretty definitive statement when discussing the merits of players who, if you will recall, weren't allowed to play in the major leagues because of their skin color. Why does recognizing their play at the highest level available to them diminish anyone? And how could recognizing a fact like that diminish anyone anymore than the decisions to deny them the chance to play?

It doesn't matter to you that a large percentage--I wouldn't want to put a number on it, but undoubtedly well north of half--of these players never would have made the major leagues whatever their color? Segregation in America is a tragic part of our past, and racism a continuing stain, I just don't see how pretending that all the teams and players in the Negro Leagues during that period now deserve to be considered Major League caliber serves to do anything to ameliorate that awful history. I perceive the analogies to such "outlaw" leagues as the USFL, ABA, to be imperfect but useful. If somebody wanted to do with the Negro Leagues as a whole what the HOF has done with individual players and do the research to try to cull those who might have made the Major Leagues and then include them in a history of "big league" baseball, I wouldn't have any objection to that. But throwing every Negro League player, the majority of whom would never have made it given the opportunity, into the same pot as those who did, defies common sense to me.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

But throwing every Negro League player, the majority of whom would never have made it given the opportunity, into the same pot as those who did, defies common sense to me.

Exactly what I've been saying (in other words) since my first comment.

The "Yay! Everyone's a winner!" mentality is the antithesis of athletic competition.

I prefer to play baseball by jumping on my pogo stick. I went to an open tryout with a big league club and was denied entry. Therefore, I should one day be inducted into the Hall of Fame? (Lots of sarcasm. Just trying to have some fun amidst this decision which, if applied to more important matters, may hold a dangerously troublesome outcome for the future.)

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

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.

[Joe Hunter]

I listened to an interview, today, on local radio (Kansas City) with Negro League Hall of Fame director Bob Kendrick. Of course, he was pretty excited about the inclusion of the Negro Leagues into MLB. He said that it had been in the works for about 2 years and that he had been involved in the discussions pretty extensively. He pointed out, as was mentioned earlier, that it will include only players from 1920-1948 and that only stats acquired through competition between true Negro League teams would be used. No barnstorming, exhibition, etc games will count.

[jboosted92]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

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.

i think the same would be said the other way around, no?

[timtass]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

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.

Not just Ken Burns.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

Exactly what I've been saying (in other words) since my first comment.

The "Yay! Everyone's a winner!" mentality is the antithesis of athletic competition.

I prefer to play baseball by jumping on my pogo stick. I went to an open tryout with a big league club and was denied entry. Therefore, I should one day be inducted into the Hall of Fame? (Lots of sarcasm. Just trying to have some fun amidst this decision which, if applied to more important matters, may hold a dangerously troublesome outcome for the future.)

Does it really make that much of adifference? It’s really not going to mess up the stats and its giving recognition to a group of baseball players who were wrongfully denied their opportunity. Unless you really want to argue the slippery slope theory...

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

So anyone who ever played in the Negro Leagues is now a Major League player? From a pool of 10% of the population? Inclusion is great, but inclusion lacking merit, which would be the case for a large percentage of these men, only diminishes everybody concerned. There's a reason the term "major league" has meaning, and by including players who didn't meet that standard, you've cheapened it, IMO.

Kind of like anyone who had one AB in the majors, sucked, and washed out. No difference at all, except that they didn't get the chance to get that one AB.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

How difficult is it to learn from our past, recognize humanity's mistakes, and move on in a more progressive direction? This is not progressive; in a way, it's revisionist history.

[samosa4u]

Some NL players over the years said that Jackie was garbage when he played for the Monarchs. So, how is this going to work then? Will those NL stats get carried over? Won’t they hurt his overall numbers or am I failing to understand something here?

[shagrotn77]

Wow. I'm 1,000% AGAINST this if, for no other reason, the fact that Negro League stats were not kept nearly as precisely as MLB stats. Also, as previously pointed out, Negro League teams didn't always play "major league" competition. Why would MLB decide that this was a good idea? Should we also make Ichiro the new MLB hit king, or Sadaharu Oh the new MLB HR king? This is ridiculous.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Some NL players over the years said that Jackie was garbage when he played for the Monarchs. So, how is this going to work then? Will those NL stats get carried over? Won’t they hurt his overall numbers or am I failing to understand something here?

According to baseball-reference.com, in Jackie Robinson's one year (1945) with the Kansas City Monarchs, he hit .414, with 24 hits in 58 at bats.

If you add those totals to his Dodgers stats (1,518 hits in 4,877 at bats, .311 average), his batting average will go up one point to .312.

Steve

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Some NL players over the years said that Jackie was garbage when he played for the Monarchs. So, how is this going to work then? Will those NL stats get carried over? Won’t they hurt his overall numbers or am I failing to understand something here?

Jackie Robinson batted .384 in 26 league games for the KC Monarchs in 1945, his only year with them. Doesn’t sound like “garbage” to me.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Kind of like anyone who had one AB in the majors, sucked, and washed out. No difference at all, except that they didn't get the chance to get that one AB.

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.

But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by packs

But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

That makes no sense at all. You will never know which white players would have been "replaced," but you can try to distinguish between those NL players who appeared to have the talent to make the major leagues and those who didn't. HOF voters have been making those kinds of distinctions for many years. I'm happy to add those who qualify, but including the vast majority who would not just diminishes the whole, IMO. As I said, if you want to do that in the name of justice and be honest about that, I'd be more amenable.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

That makes no sense at all. You will never know which white players would have been "replaced," but you can try to distinguish between those NL players who appeared to have the talent to make the major leagues and those who didn't. HOF voters have been making those kinds of distinctions for many years. I'm happy to add those who qualify, but including the vast majority who would not just diminishes the whole, IMO. As I said, if you want to do that in the name of justice and be honest about that, I'd be more amenable.

I'm in agreement with what Hank has been saying and am glad he's been here to voice a few points that nobody else has touched upon.

We have to employ as much logic and as little emotion as possible to this discussion in an effort to be fair to all. Unfortunately, there is no precise solution and there never will be. Yes, this is due to the unfortunate ways of the past, but let's not start taking pencils and erasers to the book of time. After all, it was written in indelible ink; erasers are powerless. Recognize mistakes and leave them be in order for future generations to more easily see what went wrong. It's not a bad idea to leave those scars showing loud and clear.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

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.

[packs]

But none of those things are relevant. This isn't mass induction into the HOF. It's mass recognition of playing at the highest level available to these players. You cannot simultaneously argue that every Negro League player shouldn't be recognized because not all of them would have played in the majors and say that everyone who did play in the majors belonged there.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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.

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��

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.

Boy, you got me there. I can't answer an unanswerable question. The answer is no one knows because they didn't get that chance. What I can say is that in head to head competitions with MLB all-star exhibition teams, not the slouches, the Negro Leaguers won over 60% of the time. After integration, which was far too slow IMO, the black ballplayers dominated the sport, despite (or maybe because of), having to overcome tremendous obstacles. I guess you can argue that they were the cream of the crop, but weren't the people they were playing against supposedly also the cream of the crop?

The Union League is recognized as a major league. So too is the AA. No one I know believes that they were equivalent to the National League of that same period. And yet, they both drew from that wonderful 90% talent pool. For that matter, baseball in the 1880s to the early 1900s was a different game than it is now. Calling for a high or low pitch, throwing underhanded from a mound 45" away, 4 strikes, etc. But the numbers compiled during those time still count, are still venerated, and are still used as a basis of comparison to modern players.

Baseball has always compared apples to oranges in terms of statistics. At least in my estimation, this is no different, no better, and no worse than using numbers from a time when the game was substantially different than it is now to compare against current players. People can make their own judgments as to what the numbers mean, but having those numbers available to compare is, I believe, a good thing.

[packs]

All this talk of population and percentages counts for nothing when you examine reality.

15 of the top 24 on the all time home run list are non-white players of color. I know a fact like that doesn't fit the narrative of 4.5 players to whatever, but it is the most obvious reflection of what the major leagues missed while it excluded them from play.

When you review the all time hit list 10 of the 24 players are non-white players of color.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

All this talk of population and percentages counts for nothing when you examine reality.

15 of the top 24 on the all time home run list are non-white players of color. I know a fact like that doesn't fit the narrative of 4.5 players to whatever, but it is the most obvious reflection of what the major leagues missed while it excluded them from play.

When you review the all time hit list 10 of the 24 players are non-white players of color.

Now do that comparison for pitchers.