Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[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

[ALBB]

I think it will make things more confusing

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by 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

Exactly. How many for this would would also want to include the women??

[darwinbulldog]

I like it. Most of the criticisms I've read of it so far are based on assumptions that would be debunked by reading the original article or this one from MLB. I don't really buy the argument that imperfections in the tabulation of the stats are a good reason not to prefer some improvement over the status quo, and this particular method of synthesizing the Negro League stats with the extant MLB stats is certainly an improvement over the absolute segregation of the two.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I like it. Most of the criticisms I've read of it so far are based on assumptions that would be debunked by reading the original article or this one from MLB. I don't really buy the argument that imperfections in the tabulation of the stats are a good reason not to prefer some improvement over the status quo, and this particular method of synthesizing the Negro League stats with the extant MLB stats is certainly an improvement over the absolute segregation of the two.

So what you’re saying is that decades of research by some of the top baseball historians in the country should overrule the opinions of baseball card collectors? You don’t think Rob Manfred should have checked here first? But, but, but...

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Exactly. How many for this would would also want to include the women??

This will become more than a straw man argument the day that a significant number of women are playing on modern-day MLB rosters.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

This will become more than a straw man argument the day that a significant number of women are playing on modern-day MLB rosters.

Some people - maybe women - would have a hard time accepting exclusion by gender when there are those who won't except exclusion by race.

Saying this, I fully understand and see a difference myself, but I think some will not.

[campyfan39]

Wait...what?

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

This will become more than a straw man argument the day that a significant number of women are playing on modern-day MLB rosters.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by 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

Since they've been calling it the "World Series" since 1903, isn't it time they include the Japanese Major Leagues too?

Looks like Sadaharu Oh is the REAL all time HR king.

Maybe it's a good idea to load up on Randy Bass cards since they're pretty cheap for a guy who hit 55 HRs in a single season.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Since they've been calling it the "World Series" since 1903, isn't it time they include the Japanese Major Leagues too?

Looks like Sadaharu Oh is the REAL all time HR king.

Maybe it's a good idea to load up on Randy Bass cards since they're pretty cheap for a guy who hit 55 HRs in a single season.

I can't be the only one who would like to see Ichiro ahead of Pete Rose.

[packs]

I think what's most surprising to me is this notion that Negro League players somehow diminish the order of major league players. Like they're taking something away from somebody by being included. The only players who had anything taken away from them were the Negro League players.

And if your argument is going to be that it's not fair they be called major leaguers, I'd say it's not fair they weren't.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

I think what's most surprising to me is this notion that Negro League players somehow diminish the order of major league players. Like they're taking something away from somebody by being included. The only players who had anything taken away from them were the Negro League players.

And if your argument is going to be that it's not fair they be called major leaguers, I'd say it's not fair they weren't.

If you're talking about the players who were good enough to be in the Major Leagues, agreed. If you are talking about the rest of the league, which in above posts was estimated to be AAA level, then no. If we're going to call those guys Major Leaguers, then why not call the Triple-A players of that day Major Leaguers too, since they were of similar caliber.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If you're talking about the players who were good enough to be in the Major Leagues, agreed. If you are talking about the rest of the league, which in above posts was estimated to be AAA level, then no. If we're going to call those guys Major Leaguers, then why not call the Triple-A players of that day Major Leaguers too, since they were of similar caliber.

That argument is easily defeated by pointing out that the players in the major leagues who would have otherwise lost their jobs to superior Negro League players are still counted among major leaguers. It really isn't a position that can be defended.

[Jason19th]

This is going to be a long post. This is a topic I am passionate about and have studies for over two decades. I am going to cover a number of topics and I hope that you bear with me

1. Quality of the League

When we are talking about the quality of the league we have to separate the quality of the players from the overall quality of the league. I agree that if we look at the 1940 MLB and the 1940 NL the two leagues are not equal. A top NL team would have not been able to keep up in the MLB and probably would have had trouble in AAA. This however is not because of the talent of the players. Instead NL teams were disadvantaged by a number of economic and organizational factors. NL teams had very small rosters. It was not uncommon for an NL teams to travel with only 13 guys. There was not enough money to carry a 25 man roster. As a result it was common for position players to pitch, pitcher to play in the field and for players to play hurt. There was no platooning and their was no relief pitching. NL teams were also hurt by the fact that there was not a clear minor league feeder structure. There were lessor black teams but those were independant teams with no obligation to send a player up. This meant that even top teams would often play short handed or sign some local kid play a couple of games. As a result of these issues it would have been impossible for a 1940 NL team to play in the national league. They would have won some games but they would have been worn down over the course of the year.

If we think more broadly however what do the 1940 NL teams sound like. They sound like major league teams of the 00's and teens. Small rosters, no minors, first basemen pitching. I do believe that the 1940 Homestead Grays could have played in the 1910 National League. The 1940 Grays had 4 hall of famers on that teams and a number of other good players. How many national league teams in 1910 had four hall of famers on it.


2. Quality of the players

I will argue that, for many of the reasons listed above, all of the players who had real NL careers were MLB calibre players. I am not talking about some guy who got 20 at bats with the New York Cubans in 1933. I am talking about players that were full time on a roster for at least a couple of years. The same constraints discussed above meant that there was very little dead weight on a Negro League team. If you could not play you didn't ride the bench you road the train out of town. If you look at the players that played right around the years of integration you can see the quality of the players. For example in 1946 there were about 10 NL teams. Lets say that is 120 real players. Look at all of the black players who played in the early 1950's. I know that not all of these guys played in the Negro leagues but if there was not integration this is the group of talent that would have made up the negro league. Jackie, Campy, Montie Irvin, Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, Don Newcomb, Dan Bankhead, Hank Thompson, Sam Jones, Minnie Minoso, George Crowe, Jim Pendleton, Billy Burton, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente, Luke Easter, Sam Jethro. In addition a couple of older black players like Ray Dandrige pretty much crushed the high minors but never got to the majors.

It is also important to consider that not everyone who has a MLB stat line is really a MLB player. As a Milwaukee Brewer fan in the 1990 I saw a long string of players who are in the encyclopedia that were not really MLB players. I don't think we need to take them out, but at the same time we certainly are lowering the quality by letting a few marginal Negro league players in

3.Quality of the Stats

The Negro league are long on lore and I think sometimes that clouds the reality. We all heard stories about home runs that Gibson hit that didn't come down until the next day in a different story or Cool Papa Bell bunting for a triple. I fear that often these type of stories blind us to the fact that these were real leagues that kept real stats. Especially as we get into the later 30's and 40's the stats were actually very good for league games. I have a copy of the 1945 Negro league year book and it has a stats section that is just as good as an MLB year book from the same era. I have a run of newspaper articles from the Newark Eagles with full league stats just like in any other newpaper. Negro league stats are not all retrospective compilation done years later. many of the years have high quality contemporaneous stats


4. Comparison of the Stats

Lets all be honest. As much as we love to talk about history and the consistency of baseball we all know its really not possible to compare different leagues and different eras without adjustments. In the 1969 Yaz won the batting title by hitting 301. He didn't hit 301 because he wasn't great or because all of the pitchers were so good. He his 301 because the rules allowed the mound to be 10 feet high and the stroke zone was between the tops of your shoes and an inch over the top of your helmet. That was the game, those were the rules and you really cannot compare them to any other era without making adjustments. You cannot look at Babe Herman and go my god his hit 350 he must have been amazing, you have to look at him and say "oh he hit 350 when there were 20 outfielder who it higher then him. We have all learned to make these adjustments and it doesn't effect who we consider major league.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

This is going to be a long post. This is a topic I am passionate about and have studies for over two decades. I am going to cover a number of topics and I hope that you bear with me

1. Quality of the League

When we are talking about the quality of the league we have to separate the quality of the players from the overall quality of the league. I agree that if we look at the 1940 MLB and the 1940 NL the two leagues are not equal. A top NL team would have not been able to keep up in the MLB and probably would have had trouble in AAA. This however is not because of the talent of the players. Instead NL teams were disadvantaged by a number of economic and organizational factors. NL teams had very small rosters. It was not uncommon for an NL teams to travel with only 13 guys. There was not enough money to carry a 25 man roster. As a result it was common for position players to pitch, pitcher to play in the field and for players to play hurt. There was no platooning and their was no relief pitching. NL teams were also hurt by the fact that there was not a clear minor league feeder structure. There were lessor black teams but those were independant teams with no obligation to send a player up. This meant that even top teams would often play short handed or sign some local kid play a couple of games. As a result of these issues it would have been impossible for a 1940 NL team to play in the national league. They would have won some games but they would have been worn down over the course of the year.

If we think more broadly however what do the 1940 NL teams sound like. They sound like major league teams of the 00's and teens. Small rosters, no minors, first basemen pitching. I do believe that the 1940 Homestead Grays could have played in the 1910 National League. The 1940 Grays had 4 hall of famers on that teams and a number of other good players. How many national league teams in 1910 had four hall of famers on it.


2. Quality of the players

I will argue that, for many of the reasons listed above, all of the players who had real NL careers were MLB calibre players. I am not talking about some guy who got 20 at bats with the New York Cubans in 1933. I am talking about players that were full time on a roster for at least a couple of years. The same constraints discussed above meant that there was very little dead weight on a Negro League team. If you could not play you didn't ride the bench you road the train out of town. If you look at the players that played right around the years of integration you can see the quality of the players. For example in 1946 there were about 10 NL teams. Lets say that is 120 real players. Look at all of the black players who played in the early 1950's. I know that not all of these guys played in the Negro leagues but if there was not integration this is the group of talent that would have made up the negro league. Jackie, Campy, Montie Irvin, Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, Don Newcomb, Dan Bankhead, Hank Thompson, Sam Jones, Minnie Minoso, George Crowe, Jim Pendleton, Billy Burton, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente, Luke Easter, Sam Jethro. In addition a couple of older black players like Ray Dandrige pretty much crushed the high minors but never got to the majors.

It is also important to consider that not everyone who has a MLB stat line is really a MLB player. As a Milwaukee Brewer fan in the 1990 I saw a long string of players who are in the encyclopedia that were not really MLB players. I don't think we need to take them out, but at the same time we certainly are lowering the quality by letting a few marginal Negro league players in

3.Quality of the Stats

The Negro league are long on lore and I think sometimes that clouds the reality. We all heard stories about home runs that Gibson hit that didn't come down until the next day in a different story or Cool Papa Bell bunting for a triple. I fear that often these type of stories blind us to the fact that these were real leagues that kept real stats. Especially as we get into the later 30's and 40's the stats were actually very good for league games. I have a copy of the 1945 Negro league year book and it has a stats section that is just as good as an MLB year book from the same era. I have a run of newspaper articles from the Newark Eagles with full league stats just like in any other newpaper. Negro league stats are not all retrospective compilation done years later. many of the years have high quality contemporaneous stats


4. Comparison of the Stats

Lets all be honest. As much as we love to talk about history and the consistency of baseball we all know its really not possible to compare different leagues and different eras without adjustments. In the 1969 Yaz won the batting title by hitting 301. He didn't hit 301 because he wasn't great or because all of the pitchers were so good. He his 301 because the rules allowed the mound to be 10 feet high and the stroke zone was between the tops of your shoes and an inch over the top of your helmet. That was the game, those were the rules and you really cannot compare them to any other era without making adjustments. You cannot look at Babe Herman and go my god his hit 350 he must have been amazing, you have to look at him and say "oh he hit 350 when there were 20 outfielder who it higher then him. We have all learned to make these adjustments and it doesn't effect who we consider major league.

This is excellent. Thank you.

[The Nasty Nati]

Did any Negro League players get 3,000 hits or 500 home runs?

[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.