Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[Topnotchsy]

A number of points that are in response to many of the comments made.

There is extensive research on the caliber of play in the Negro Leagues, and generally it is assumed that the stars were roughly equivalent to the best in the Majors, while the leagues overall were in the range of AAA (or between AAA and the Majors). This is based on a wide range of factors including barnstorming tours, common opponents etc along with seeing how players who transitioned leagues like Jackie, Campanella,Doby and others did.

Note that there were a number of leagues historically that are considered Major Leagues. Along with the American League and National League, there was also the Union Association, the Players' League and the Federal League. And the range of talent in those leagues varied significantly. Certainly, in some cases, they were no better than AAA, which means that we currently have official leagues that were on par with the Negro Leagues and likely were worse.

The stats that will be included are only from 1920-1948 which was when the leagues were more structured and established, and before integration largely impacted the caliber of the teams and players. And it is only for league games.

There has been extensive research on Negro League games and box scores. There is definitely still uncertainly around stats, but we have uncertainty around stats from the 1800's as well and that never stopped us from including them. We've had adjustments to major stars. An adjustment to Ty Cobb's total (which is now reflected in Baseball-Reference) is in the article below.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/how...tting-average/

Regarding some comments about the push for this; while the average fan, who cares little about the Negro Leagues may not have heard anything about this, there has been a push for some time. I wasn't involved in the push, but think it is a good thing.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

A number of points that are in response to many of the comments made.

There is extensive research on the caliber of play in the Negro Leagues, and generally it is assumed that the stars were roughly equivalent to the best in the Majors, while the leagues overall were in the range of AAA (or between AAA and the Majors).

Stats accumulated against AAA level competition are not Major League stats.

I wonder what Ted Williams would've hit had he spent his career in Triple A leagues. Or any ML player for that matter.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Stats accumulated against AAA level competition are not Major League stats.

I wonder what Ted Williams would've hit had he spent his career in Triple A leagues. Or any ML player for that matter.

Did you read my full post. There are leagues that are currently considered Major Leagues that were not on par with the American and National Leagues.

There were also eras in the American and National Leagues (like during WWII) where the caliber of player was significantly below "Major League" level. Unless you are arguing to remove some the 1800's leagues currently considered Major Leagues, and remove Hal Newhouser from the HOF (both his MVP awards and his 2 best seasons were against dimished WWII competition) then you aren't being consistent here.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

There were also eras in the American and National Leagues (like during WWII) where the caliber of player was significantly below "Major League" level. Unless you are arguing to remove some the 1800's leagues currently considered Major Leagues, and remove Hal Newhouser from the HOF (both his MVP awards and his 2 best seasons were against dimished WWII competition) then you aren't being consistent here.

You make valid points. As someone who is on the opposite side of this argument, I agree with nearly all of what you're saying here.

I would gladly see Hal Newhouser's HOF plaque relinquished, as well as removing some of the 19th century leagues (if it proves sensible after more continued study) if this latest decision was obliterated.

We all know how long it took Newhouser to be inducted. Frankly, it should never have happened. But then, from what you say, the superstars of the Negro Leagues were playing mostly against AAA caliber players. Should the same rules not apply to them? Who, then, was deserving of enshrinement and who wasn't? Imagine trying to apply logic and meagerly collected stats in an attempt to accurately award merit. Cobb, Ruth, Joe D., Gehrig and whoever else were not playing AAA players. In fact, guys like Ted Williams and Joe D. weren't really padding their stats playing against the diminished WWII players, either. It's all just a huge can of worms proving that everything should have been left as was.

The only thing that we can't do that much about is the diminished talent pool of the WWII-era MLB. It has to stand for the sake of continuity.

(Not that any of these things would ever happen, outside of perhaps the eventual exclusion of the 19th century leagues, but I'm doubtful of that as well.)

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

You make valid points. As someone who is on the opposite side of this argument, I agree with nearly all of what you're saying here.

We all know how long it took Newhouser to be inducted. Frankly, it should never have happened.

I would gladly see Hal's HOF plaque relinquished, as well as removing some of the 19th century leagues (if it proves sensible after more continued study) if this latest decision was obliterated.

The only thing that we can't do that much about is the diminished talent pool of the WWII-era MLB. It has to stand for the sake of continuity.

(Not that any of these things would ever happen, outside of perhaps the eventual exclusion of the 19th century leagues, but I'm doubtful of that as well.)

Fair enough. I can appreciate the perspective and consistency.

I'd argue though, that we need to take it further. After black players, despite being a tiny fraction of the overall players early on, they won the NL ROY in 1947, and every year in the 5 years from 1949-1953.

If we take the best players in baseball who played most of their career after WWII, there are at least as many elite black players as white players. Most top 10 lists include 5 players from after WWII: Musial and Williams are white, and Mays, Aaron and Bonds are black. Some lists add Mantle, which would make it even. As you go further down the list you have Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Ken Griffey Jr, Rickey Henderson, Bob Gibson, Roberto Clemente, Pedro Martinez, Roy Campanella etc.

If you don't believe that the Negro Leagues should be included, there's an argument that all of MLB before integration shouldn't either be. Since it is clear that at roughly 50% of the high of the greatest players likely were barred from playing.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

I'd argue though, that we need to take it further. After black players, despite being a tiny fraction of the overall players early on, they won the NL ROY in 1947, and every year in the 5 years from 1949-1953.

Forgive me, but this only proves that the MLB clubs picked the freshest, best cream off the top of the Negro League milk bottle. That's neither fresh news nor relevant to the conversation, and purely coincidental that the award happened to be won by black players.

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

If you don't believe that the Negro Leagues should be included, there's an argument that all of MLB before integration shouldn't either be. Since it is clear that at roughly 50% of the high of the greatest players likely were barred from playing.

Sadly, that number can only ever be a guess. There will never be definitive proof of this; it can only be speculated. Also, does this not fly in the face of what you already wrote about the majority of Negro Leaguers only being of AAA caliber? Even with our better understanding and appreciation of overlooked Negro League stars who were finally inducted after so long, statistically, we're nowhere near 50%. Even after years of scrupulous study of (hopefully) rediscovered box scores, will Cooperstown be opening the floodgates to that many players to even come close to that figure? Highly doubtful.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

Forgive me, but this only proves that the MLB clubs picked the freshest, best cream off the top of the Negro League milk bottle. That's neither fresh news nor relevant to the conversation, and purely coincidental that the award happened to be won by black players.



Sadly, that number can only ever be a guess. There will never be definitive proof of this; it can only be speculated. Also, does this not fly in the face of what you already wrote about the majority of Negro Leaguers only being of AAA caliber? Even with our better understanding and appreciation of overlooked Negro League stars who were finally inducted after so long, statistically, we're nowhere near 50%. Even after years of scrupulous study of (hopefully) rediscovered box scores, will Cooperstown be opening the floodgates to that many players to even come close to that figure? Highly doubtful.

Since Integration, we have 70 years where black players have been roughly half of the all-time greats. I can't say definitively that before that era the players would have been equally good, but it's reasonable to speculate. The elite talent has been sustained for 70 years since, and includes players that crossed over leagues (Jackie, Campanella, Aaron, Mays etc all played in the Negro Leagues.)

When you talk about picking the "cream of the crop" that's likely at least somewhat true. But in winning the ROY, these players were finishing on top of all the white players who were rookies (and subsequently the many MVP's won by Mays, Aaron, Frank Robinson, Campanella etc which means they were literally viewed as the best.)

Regarding my two comments, they are consistent. Research has shown that the elite of the Negro Leagues were on par with the elite in the Majors, but that the teams were overall thinner in talent.

Even if the number of stars missing from pre-integration was 30%-40% and not fully 50%, you are looking at the leagues missing large groups of the best players.

In my mind, if you don't count the Negro Leagues as a Major League because it didn't quite live up to the AL and NL (top to bottom), it's hard to compare stats from pre-integration with post-integration.

All that said, I know not everyone will agree (though I think most will disagree with less nuance than you have) and I appreciate the dialogue around this.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Then the NHL had better add WHA stats to the career totals of guys who played in both leagues. That would mean Mr. Hockey is again the all-time goal scoring leader I believe.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

Forgive me, but this only proves that the MLB clubs picked the freshest, best cream off the top of the Negro League milk bottle. That's neither fresh news nor relevant to the conversation, and purely coincidental that the award happened to be won by black players.




Sadly, that number can only ever be a guess. There will never be definitive proof of this; it can only be speculated. Also, does this not fly in the face of what you already wrote about the majority of Negro Leaguers only being of AAA caliber? Even with our better understanding and appreciation of overlooked Negro League stars who were finally inducted after so long, statistically, we're nowhere near 50%. Even after years of scrupulous study of (hopefully) rediscovered box scores, will Cooperstown be opening the floodgates to that many players to even come close to that figure? Highly doubtful.

In my estimation, there are at least 10 who deserve HOF consideration. Not saying that they should all be elected, but they should be looked at. I think that 5 would be no-brainers if they were white -- Lundy, Donaldson, Marcelle, Beckwith and Brewer. There are several more who should be looked at, including several who played before the cut-off date of 1920. I kind of get 1948, but 1920 is ridiculous IMO.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

But then, from what you say, the superstars of the Negro Leagues were playing mostly against AAA caliber players. Should the same rules not apply to them? Who, then, was deserving of enshrinement and who wasn't?

There are always big fish and small fish in every league. Even today, due to budgets, there are always multiple replacement level players on every team. If we look at MLB superstars, I'm sure many of them will tell you they consider the small fish of MLB to be no different than a AAA replacement. The argument that stats are padded in the Negro Leagues is absurd when MLB's brightest stars are able to rip apart opposition. Barry Bonds and Mike Trout did and are doing absolutely phenomenal things, yet they weren't/aren't lucky enough to only face only other superstars like Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz so that their stats might be more Hall worthy.

Some current Hall level players have to humble themselves to play against players like Homer Bailey who carried a 6.00+ ERA for three straight seasons. I'm sure they hate this thinking that it taints their true hall of fame aspirations.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[insidethewrapper]

So who is now the first black player to play in the majors ? Edited: I forgot about : Moses Fleetwood "Fleet" Walker (October 7, 1856 – May 11, 1924) was an American professional baseball catcher who is credited with being the first black man to play in Major League Baseball (MLB). May 1, 1884.
...

[sbfinley]

It blows my mind that no one can take this as what it is: a token gesture to try to give a little bit of right back to something that was wrong with the sport for more than 75 years. No one is taking away any record held by anyone. God willing if someone ever chases .400 again it will be classic images of Ted Williams across every screen and every channel. Will they mention Gibson in 43? Probably, but stats and records are religious canon in the sport. No one is going to be forgotten or buried. It’s a gesture meant to elevate the accomplishments of one group of players to the same level as another group that they were not allowed to join because bigotry. Nothing more. They’re numbers on paper and computer screens. Some just became more meaningful in the eyes of a organized league, the rest mean just the same as they ever did.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

Did you read my full post. There are leagues that are currently considered Major Leagues that were not on par with the American and National Leagues.

There were also eras in the American and National Leagues (like during WWII) where the caliber of player was significantly below "Major League" level. Unless you are arguing to remove some the 1800's leagues currently considered Major Leagues, and remove Hal Newhouser from the HOF (both his MVP awards and his 2 best seasons were against dimished WWII competition) then you aren't being consistent here.

Yes and I take stats from the 1800s with a grain of salt, also considering all of the rule and equipment changes over the past 120+ years.

The war years created a circumstance that was unavoidable. Yes, the level of play dipped during those years. Same with the first couple of years after expansion.

But this is different - it is a conscious decision to elevate stats garnered against (by your own admission) Triple A competition to Major League status, across several decades.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Yes and I take stats from the 1800s with a grain of salt, also considering all of the rule and equipment changes over the past 120+ years.

The war years created a circumstance that was unavoidable. Yes, the level of play dipped during those years. Same with the first couple of years after expansion.

But this is different - it is a conscious decision to elevate stats garnered against (by your own admission) Triple A competition to Major League status, across several decades.

You may take the 1800's stats with a grain of salt, but they are included in the baseball record books. And some of those leagues were also roughly at AAA level (not comparing to modern day, just comparing to the other leagues of the time).

The reality is that we've accepted a range of levels as Major Leagues for a very long time. And the elite in the Negro Leagues were clearly as good as the best in the Majors. We have barnstorming games as evidence. And we have the incredible play of the black players who played in the Majors after integration. Jackie won the ROY in 47 and MVP in 49. He wasn't remotely the best player in the Negro Leagues. Campanella won 3 MVP's. But there's a good chance he was no Biz Mackey, and he certainly was no Josh Gibson.

The MLB was diminished in those years because they didn't have the great black players (if the track record since integration is an indication, it's likely 30%-50% of the biggest stars in the game. Arguably those stats shouldn't be counted either along the same line of reasoning.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

And the elite in the Negro Leagues were clearly as good as the best in the Majors.

I agree with this. Where we disagree is whether their stats, accumulated against AAA level competition, should be equated to ML players of that era, who accumulated stats versus ML competition.

I also wonder if the NL had talent watered down during the war years.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

You may take the 1800's stats with a grain of salt, but they are included in the baseball record books. And some of those leagues were also roughly at AAA level (not comparing to modern day, just comparing to the other leagues of the time).

The reality is that we've accepted a range of levels as Major Leagues for a very long time. And the elite in the Negro Leagues were clearly as good as the best in the Majors. We have barnstorming games as evidence. And we have the incredible play of the black players who played in the Majors after integration. Jackie won the ROY in 47 and MVP in 49. He wasn't remotely the best player in the Negro Leagues. Campanella won 3 MVP's. But there's a good chance he was no Biz Mackey, and he certainly was no Josh Gibson.

The MLB was diminished in those years because they didn't have the great black players (if the track record since integration is an indication, it's likely 30%-50% of the biggest stars in the game. Arguably those stats shouldn't be counted either along the same line of reasoning.

This. But it doesn't go far enough.

[riggs336]

Any imposed change to social norms is messy and devisive. Sometimes the reaction is dramatic, like Civil War dramatic. But usually people share their opinions and feelings for a while then simmer down while life proceeds. Both sides of this issue have been intelligently presented, but I predict time will smooth things out and we'll soon be talking about something else.

[yanks12025]

I like how they cut it off at 1948 and dont include up to 1953 because it would have given Aaron the HR record again

[clydepepper]

IMO, the was just recognition that the Negro Leagues were, at that time, the absolute highest level of play for ANY BLACK player & THAT is the very definition of a Major League.
.

[keithsky]

While the HOF is at it might want to include the women of baseball and include their stats and I don't mean that sarcastically. Include everyone

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

IMO, the was just recognition that the Negro Leagues were, at that time, the absolute highest level of play for ANY BLACK player & THAT is the very definition of a Major League.
.

I repeat, then why is the National Association not considered a major league?
The reason is that MLB and, for that matter, the HOF don't care about righting any wrongs. They only care about doing what they believe will perpetuate their existence and pad their pockets.

[Casey2296]

Funny how many commentators think this decision is the greatest thing since sliced bread but never bothered to donate $78.32 to our Negro League Baseball Museum fundraiser challenge.

[Tyruscobb]

Ted Williams and Babe Ruth no longer have top 10 batting averages. As a result, their cards will probably take around a 30% dive. I’ll help soften the blow. If anyone is interested, I’ll buy your cards at just a 25% discount. PM me.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Ted Williams and Babe Ruth no longer have top 10 batting averages. As a result, their cards will probably take around a 30% dive. I’ll help soften the blow. If anyone is interested, I’ll buy your cards at just a 25% discount. PM me.

I don't have a big problem with that. Charleston, Paige, Gibson, Lloyd, Torriente, et al., were absolute studs. IMO, they were on par with their white counterparts. I dont think any cards will take a hit, nor do I think that NL cards go up much. There aren't enough of them to move the needle. This is not nearly the issue that some are making it out to be so far as I'm concerned. This should have happened years ago and it is to MLB's shame that it didn't.

[benge610]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

A number of points that are in response to many of the comments made.

There is extensive research on the caliber of play in the Negro Leagues, and generally it is assumed that the stars were roughly equivalent to the best in the Majors, while the leagues overall were in the range of AAA (or between AAA and the Majors). This is based on a wide range of factors including barnstorming tours, common opponents etc along with seeing how players who transitioned leagues like Jackie, Campanella,Doby and others did.

Note that there were a number of leagues historically that are considered Major Leagues. Along with the American League and National League, there was also the Union Association, the Players' League and the Federal League. And the range of talent in those leagues varied significantly. Certainly, in some cases, they were no better than AAA, which means that we currently have official leagues that were on par with the Negro Leagues and likely were worse.

The stats that will be included are only from 1920-1948 which was when the leagues were more structured and established, and before integration largely impacted the caliber of the teams and players. And it is only for league games.

There has been extensive research on Negro League games and box scores. There is definitely still uncertainly around stats, but we have uncertainty around stats from the 1800's as well and that never stopped us from including them. We've had adjustments to major stars. An adjustment to Ty Cobb's total (which is now reflected in Baseball-Reference) is in the article below.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/how...tting-average/

Regarding some comments about the push for this; while the average fan, who cares little about the Negro Leagues may not have heard anything about this, there has been a push for some time. I wasn't involved in the push, but think it is a good thing.

Thank you Jeff. I evolved through this thread and landed, pretty much; in agreement with your comments here.