Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[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.

[timtass]

Even with this being worked on for two years. It sure seems like this was a rush. Biggest issue is finding those "league games" that were played on neutral fields. I know in my research a number of games were played in Fort Wayne, IN. Those games were two negro league teams. The coverage for these were OK sometimes. But not always covered. Worst part not covered with a box score. This situation will be a debated topic for years to come.

[packs]

Originally Posted by timtass

Not just Ken Burns.

Not to play Devil's advocate but couldn't the same be true for players who were major leaguers only because they weren't beaten out for their job by a superior Negro League player?

[Mungo Hungo]

Originally Posted by packs

Not to play Devil's advocate but couldn't the same be true for players who were major leaguers only because they weren't beaten out for their job by a superior Negro League player?

I don't think it's necessary to posit this as Devil's advocate. It's clearly true that some pre-1947 AL and NL players wouldn't have been in the majors if not for the color line (unless of course the owners had decided both to integrate and to expand either rosters or the size of the leagues).

But here's the thing: At any given time prior to 1947, for most of the regular season, there were 400 players in the AL and NL, not counting players on the DL. The White/Black racial breakdown in the U.S. during those years was always very close to 90%/10%. So if there were no racial discrimination, and if the makeup of the majors reflected the nation, the majors would have generally consisted of about 360 White players and about 40 Black players. But if you compare the number of AL/NL players to the number of Negro Leaguers in any given year, the ratio is vastly different. It was probably never 1:1, but it was generally far less than 9:1.

Of course, we can't assume that the racial breakdown of the majors in a non-discrimanatory world would have exactly mirrored that of the country. Still, given the numbers, it is very hard to see how the depth of the Negro Leagues could have matched that of the AL and NL.

I think almost everyone agrees that the best Negro Leaguers would also have been among the best players in the AL/NL had they been allowed in. But a true apples-to-apples comparison of the numbers is impossible, for the above reason, and any number of others.

[egri]

A thought I had the other day was that with this change, a lot of rookie of the year recipients, like Jackie Robinson, Sam Jethroe, and some others I can’t think of off the top of my head, weren’t rookies when they won the award. I’d like to see what the consensus is here about whether the awards should be left as-is or be redone? Certainly the winners today would be different than if the voting had been held in the late 1940/early 1950s under those circumstances; the writers today value different stats, including some that didn’t exist at the time.

[packs]

Originally Posted by egri

A thought I had the other day was that with this change, a lot of rookie of the year recipients, like Jackie Robinson, Sam Jethroe, and some others I can’t think of off the top of my head, weren’t rookies when they won the award. I’d like to see what the consensus is here about whether the awards should be left as-is or be redone? Certainly the winners today would be different than if the voting had been held in the late 1940/early 1950s under those circumstances; the writers today value different stats, including some that didn’t exist at the time.

I don't think that would be necessary. It's not a rewriting of history. The seasons played stand. The purpose is to recognize the players and highlight their achievements after ignoring them for so long. It's about inclusion in history, not rewriting it.

[peanuts]

Originally Posted by egri

A thought I had the other day was that with this change, a lot of rookie of the year recipients, like Jackie Robinson, Sam Jethroe, and some others I can’t think of off the top of my head, weren’t rookies when they won the award. I’d like to see what the consensus is here about whether the awards should be left as-is or be redone? Certainly the winners today would be different than if the voting had been held in the late 1940/early 1950s under those circumstances; the writers today value different stats, including some that didn’t exist at the time.

This same debate happened when Ichiro won RoY – at the end of the day, the award is given to someone in their rookie season in MLB and competing at the highest level of play. If writers are against awarding it to someone who spent considerable time in another league (which are almost certainly of a lesser average skill level) before hitting the Show, they're free to not vote for that person.

They earned the awards then and they should stand now.

[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...