Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

If talent was first why would you have to be white?

And what are you holding so dear, anyway? Victory Faust was in the right place at the right time. Eddie Gaedel was short. But there is nothing to be said about their inclusion over someone like Bruce Petway.

Charles Victory Faust and Eddie Gaedel were stunts, much like Minnie Minoso playing a few games at age 51, and again at 55.

My concern is the watering down of statistics. If you're Satchell Paige you're a ML caliber player, without doubt. But the stats you accumulate pitching against Triple A level competition are not Major League caliber stats.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Charles Victory Faust and Eddie Gaedel were stunts, much like Minnie Minoso playing a few games at age 51, and again at 55.

My concern is the watering down of statistics. If you're Satchell Paige you're a ML caliber player, without doubt. But the stats you accumulate pitching against Triple A level competition are not Major League caliber stats.

Explain how they're watered down when they don't threaten any all time records or even advance Paige's reputation. His reputation is what it is without knowing any of his stats. How does he become watered down?

Again, if you extend your argument from before, the major league records are already watered down by virtue of excluding the best players from playing at all times. Pre-Jackie, everyone's stats are watered down. You cannot say that everything is equal and we are in the same place today if Oscar Charleston and players like him played major league baseball.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by packs

Explain how they're watered down when they don't threaten any all time records or even advance Paige's reputation. His reputation is what it is without knowing any of his stats. How does he become watered down?

Records WILL look different. For example the record for single season batting average, long held by the unquestionably great Hugh Duffy who clearly faced some of the toughest pitching ever, may soon go to Josh Gibson, who many esteemed collectors presume faced mainly AAA level chumps and hobos.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Records WILL look different. For example the record for single season batting average, long held by the unquestionably great Hugh Duffy who clearly faced some of the toughest pitching ever, may soon go to Josh Gibson, who many esteemed collectors presume faced mainly AAA level chumps and hobos.

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.

To qualify for a batting title, a player needs 3.1 plate appearances for every game on his team's schedule.

Unless they are now going to change that, too.

[Fred]

From the LA Times: "Josh Gibson, a power-hitting catcher for Negro League teams, will likely be awarded baseball' single season record for batting average. Gibson hit .441 for multiple Negro League teams in 1943, surpassing the mark of .440 set in 1894".

Gibson had 342 plate appearances, 124 hits in 281 at bats in 1943. How can a comparison be made for a season with only 281 at bats to a season (Hugh Duffy's 1894 season) that ended up with a .440 average based on 616 plate appearances, 237 hits in 539 at bats?

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by Fred

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.

Somewhat related to this was when the NFL went from 12 game seasons to 14.

Records fell.

Then they went form 14 game seasons to 16 game seasons.

Records fell.

They are likely going to 17 game seasons in 2021 or 2022.

Records will fall.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Fred

From the LA Times: "Josh Gibson, a power-hitting catcher for Negro League teams, will likely be awarded baseball' single season record for batting average. Gibson hit .441 for multiple Negro League teams in 1943, surpassing the mark of .440 set in 1894".

Gibson had 342 plate appearances, 124 hits in 281 at bats in 1943. How can a comparison be made for a season with only 281 at bats to a season (Hugh Duffy's 1894 season) that ended up with a .440 average based on 616 plate appearances, 237 hits in 539 at bats?

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.

Hugh Duffy set his record in a year when the first 5 batters on the leaderboard hit over 400.

Since detractors have made such an issue over the level of play, it seems disingenuous to bring up Hugh Duffy.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.

More than likely we will see the standard criteria of 3.1 PA per league game. Similar to the recently concluded pandemic season of 60 games.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

More than likely we will see the standard criteria of 3.1 PA per league game. Similar to the recently concluded pandemic season of 60 games.

I couldn't imagine if someone hit .450 in the 2020 shortened season that it would be the new bench mark for batting average in a season (based on the 3.1 PA per league game).

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by Fred

I couldn't imagine if someone hit .450 in the 2020 shortened season that it would be the new bench mark for batting average in a season (based on the 3.1 PA per league game).

In 1982 the NFL experienced a strike season and had a 9 game season instead of 16 games.

During the abbreviated season Wes Chandler averaged an amazing 129 yards receiving per game. That record still stands.

No one cares about this because humans have the ability to understand context and put things in perspective.

Some guy hitting a few points higher in batting average over half as many games is obviously not as impressive as someone that did it on a much larger scale. That doesn't mean he didn't beat the record. And it doesn't mean it is more impressive.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Fred

I couldn't imagine if someone hit .450 in the 2020 shortened season that it would be the new bench mark for batting average in a season (based on the 3.1 PA per league game).

I’m not expressing an opinion. This is how MLB would have handled a .450 average in 2020. From there it would be up to fans to decide whether to regard in same way as Hugh Duffy’s hard fought .440 average from 1894.

We already have similar examples today with Bonds HR records and Astros 2017 WS. They are part of the MLB record book, though many fans don’t take them seriously.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

In the 1930's there were many minor leaguers who, by first-hand accounts from Major Leaguers I knew, should rightly have been called up to the show. The issue was of course the lack of room on the rosters of the parent clubs. Therefore, due to space constrictions, many white players were also denied entry into the Major Leagues. Should we examine their records and proclaim those that meet a predetermined set of criteria to be Major Leaguers as well? According to some points being presented, we'd almost have to. Fair is fair.

[earlywynnfan]

Just curious, where would they be in line if they allowed black players to get in the same line?

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

In the 1930's there were many minor leaguers who, by first-hand accounts from Major Leaguers I knew, should rightly have been called up to the show. The issue was of course the lack of room on the rosters of the parent clubs. Therefore, due to space constrictions, many white players were also denied entry into the Major Leagues. Should we examine their records and proclaim those that meet a predetermined set of criteria to be Major Leaguers as well? According to some points being presented, we'd almost have to. Fair is fair.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Just curious, where would they be in line if they allowed black players to get in the same line?

Unfortunately, that is not a question we will ever have a perfect answer to. It's a shame.

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

In the 1930's there were many minor leaguers who, by first-hand accounts from Major Leaguers I knew, should rightly have been called up to the show. The issue was of course the lack of room on the rosters of the parent clubs. Therefore, due to space constrictions, many white players were also denied entry into the Major Leagues. Should we examine their records and proclaim those that meet a predetermined set of criteria to be Major Leaguers as well? According to some points being presented, we'd almost have to. Fair is fair.

So limited roster spaces for whites is the equivalent of the categorical and systematic racism of the Negro leaguers?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

So limited roster spaces for whites is the equivalent of the categorical and systematic racism of the Negro leaguers?

My obvious point was that both blacks and whites were denied entry due to circumstances they could not change.

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

My obvious point was that both blacks and whites were denied entry due to circumstances they could not change.

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

Definitely open and free competition, but also lack of space. That's all I'm trying to convey.

OK, I'll spin it a slightly different way:

Let's say expansion started not in the 1960's but 30 years prior. It's clear that many of the players who weren't able to make it beyond the minors up to this hypothetical point would be called up due to more job openings. All of a sudden, they're in the bigs where they should have been in the first place. Like many of their NL counterparts, we're not talking about incredible talents here, but rather enough talent to spend some time at the Major League level.

(I am not arguing anything to do with racism, but rather expanding on my
"can of worms" theory--as in, where does it end if history needs to be revised?)

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

My point is that Major League stats should be earned against Major League level competition, not Triple A level competition.

When you bring race into the discussion like that, it sounds more like affirmative action rather than holding every Major League player to the same standard - the standard of earning their stats against ML level competition.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

Except that open and free competition wasn't, even for white players.
With the reserve clause, a team that had a good player didn't need to look for or sign another for that position unless they thought they'd be much better.

One telling point to me was made years ago by an old time player who spoke to the club I was in.
He said that at the time there were about 17,000 people playing in organized leagues.
When he played, the estimated number of people in organized leagues was closer to 175,000
What this did was lead to good but not great players sticking around due to being agreeable. The holdouts, the surly, were simply replaced, unless they were spectacular like Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio. (Not saying either was, those were the two examples he used)

There were players who were probably major league caliber playing in industrial leagues, and a piece of why they never made it big could be that given the choice of playing a few years in the minors making very little, or staying on a career path that initially paid less, but had more long term stability and potential many wouldn't sign.

I suspect that given the available careers, the competition for spots on a top ML team was more than it was for a then major league team.

[packs]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

My obvious point was that both blacks and whites were denied entry due to circumstances they could not change.

No white player was denied entry to organized professional baseball. The two things you are comparing are not at all alike and share no similarities.

[Case12]

Why do we continue to rewrite history to feel better about ourselves. The Negro Leagues have already been recognized. as a league. HOF'rs have been voted in. I've met some of the greats and they were awesome and proud of their accomplishments. We were all happy that recognition was in place. I am very proud of the Negro Leagues and they deserve all the fame and attention deserved. Many of us would give up their firstborn for a Josh Gibson signed baseball. Then 2020 rolls around, and all history needs to be changed to be woke. Personally, this feels like a stunt that is fraught with error, confuses everyone and just causes trouble. Btw, Double Duty Radcliffe is one of my baseball heros. In the 90's he showed my little daughter his hands...as big as a catchers mitt! Signed a ball for her that is precious to us.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Case12

Btw, Double Duty Radcliffe is one of my baseball heros. In the 90's he showed my little daughter his hands...as big as a catchers mitt! Signed a ball for her that is precious to us.

I once met Double Duty and had a long chat with him, one of the great thrills of my life. He told me about seeing Walter Johnson pitch in an exhibition game in Florida, and how fast he was. A few years later, I just happened to be at a game at RFK when the Nationals played there, and there was Double Duty "throwing out" the first pitch on his 100th birthday. What a guy!

[GaryPassamonte]

Speaking of level of play at the highest level available at the time, why is the National Association of 1871-1875 not considered major league by MLB? The NA was the first professional league. The problem is that no one is pounding the drum for the NA. It seems all policy decisions today are dictated by political correctness and the loudest voices. See the Cleveland Indians for example. It's not the changes that are wrong. It's the underlying reasons why they are being made that is wrong.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Speaking of level of play at the highest level available at the time, why is the National Association of 1871-1875 not considered major league by MLB? The NA was the first professional league. The problem is that no one is pounding the drum for the NA.

Agree. I will join you, in pounding this drum! I never understood why the 1969 committee didn't include the NA. I mean... they were the top players in the world, competing against each other in an organized, professional league. What the hell??

[campyfan39]

This is exactly how I feel

Originally Posted by Case12

Why do we continue to rewrite history to feel better about ourselves. The Negro Leagues have already been recognized. as a league. HOF'rs have been voted in. I've met some of the greats and they were awesome and proud of their accomplishments. We were all happy that recognition was in place. I am very proud of the Negro Leagues and they deserve all the fame and attention deserved. Many of us would give up their firstborn for a Josh Gibson signed baseball. Then 2020 rolls around, and all history needs to be changed to be woke. Personally, this feels like a stunt that is fraught with error, confuses everyone and just causes trouble. Btw, Double Duty Radcliffe is one of my baseball heros. In the 90's he showed my little daughter his hands...as big as a catchers mitt! Signed a ball for her that is precious to us.

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

This is exactly how I feel

Can you expand on how adding these stats confuses and causes you trouble?