Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[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.

[steve B]

I'm glad they are getting the recognition.

The integration of their stats seems so far to be sensible. As the articles have said, the simplest are very easy, hits HR that sort of thing.

Stuff like batting average is much tougher. The couple seasons I looked at were only about half as long as the National or American league season.
How many times have we seen players have great batting averages before the All-Star break, but fade in the last half of the season?

That to me is a bigger difference than a perceived difference in pitchers abilities.
It will be interesting to see how they handle including them.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'm glad they are getting the recognition.

The integration of their stats seems so far to be sensible. As the articles have said, the simplest are very easy, hits HR that sort of thing.

Stuff like batting average is much tougher. The couple seasons I looked at were only about half as long as the National or American league season.
How many times have we seen players have great batting averages before the All-Star break, but fade in the last half of the season?

That to me is a bigger difference than a perceived difference in pitchers abilities.
It will be interesting to see how they handle including them.

Well, it used to be common knowledge the last .400 hitter was Teddy Ballgame. Not any more. Now, it's Josh Gibson's .441 in 1943, aided no doubt by the Triple A level pitchers he was facing, plus attrition due to WW2.

Nobody could top Ted's achievement with the bat, but the PC crowd did, by re-writing history.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Well, it used to be common knowledge the last .400 hitter was Teddy Ballgame. Not any more. Now, it's Josh Gibson's .441 in 1943, aided no doubt by the Triple A level pitchers he was facing, plus attrition due to WW2.

Nobody could top Ted's achievement with the bat, but the PC crowd did, by re-writing history.

Perhaps you will be happy to know it will not be Josh Gibson. More than likely it will be Artie Wilson in 1948 when there was no war at all.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Well, it used to be common knowledge the last .400 hitter was Teddy Ballgame. Not any more. Now, it's Josh Gibson's .441 in 1943, aided no doubt by the Triple A level pitchers he was facing, plus attrition due to WW2.

Nobody could top Ted's achievement with the bat, but the PC crowd did, by re-writing history.

All the articles say that how to integrate the stats is still being discussed.
So it hasn't happened yet.

I don't think he had enough at bats to qualify for the batting title in any season, but the stats I can find vary a lot. Even the highest number isn't enough.

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by steve B

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.

Sounds like a whole lot of opportunity to me compared to what the alternative was up against.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

Sounds like a whole lot of opportunity to me compared to what the alternative was up against.

I'm mostly saying that all baseball players had limited opportunity, and that in many if not most cases there was no opportunity to compete for a position.

With fewer teams and far less scouting, the odds of a team being interested were lower. If you look at the lineups of many teams it's fairly obvious there just wasn't room on what we now call the depth chart.

The teams at the bottom of the league most years had space, but where could someone break into the 1920's Yankees lineup?
Or if you were say a second baseman, but the only scout that saw you was from the Red Sox between say 1938 and 1950 you were pretty much out of luck.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'm mostly saying that all baseball players had limited opportunity, and that in many if not most cases there was no opportunity to compete for a position.

With fewer teams and far less scouting, the odds of a team being interested were lower. If you look at the lineups of many teams it's fairly obvious there just wasn't room on what we now call the depth chart.

The teams at the bottom of the league most years had space, but where could someone break into the 1920's Yankees lineup?
Or if you were say a second baseman, but the only scout that saw you was from the Red Sox between say 1938 and 1950 you were pretty much out of luck.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but it loses some lustre when Cedric Durst plays 65 games for the 1927 yankees while the best Oscar Charleston could do was buy a ticket to watch them.

[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??

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by triwak

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??

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

The NA was really just a loose confederation of individual teams that agreed (in principle) to play each other on a semi-regular basis. It was closer to an organized league to what had existed before, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a major "league", with the emphasis on "league". Now, one can can certainly argue this point, and there are other questionable cases as well, especially the Union Association of 1884, which I think was less of a major league than the NA was, despite MLB's decision to the contrary in 1968. Lack of organizational structure is also why MLB is not recognizing pre-1920 black baseball organizations as "major leagues", though I've already seen some argument about that.

[Seven]

I don't have an issue with stats from the Negro League's being counted. I don't think there's much winning with the MLB's declaration of this though. Either way they are angering someone or some group of people. I did appreciate Bryant's take on the situation, and I do think he's right to a degree, this recognizes Black Ball Players but at the same time does not paint the full picture.

Baseball, to my knowledge at least, practiced De Facto segregation. There was never anything prohibiting owners signing people of color, other than the unwritten code all of them were willing to uphold, along with the opinions Kennesaw Mountain Landis who ruled the game with an iron first. More or less, it didn't have to be written, what he said usually applied.

I think Baseball is trying to right a wrong. It's a wrong that is very complex, and there's really no proper way to do it. Because regardless of how it is handled someone, somewhere will detract from it. I think the MLB is trying to provide a spotlight to the Negro Leagues, to recognize it's history by including all of these players into the official MLB record books. I think baseball does need to recognize the fact that these players didn't choose not to play in the MLB, but that they simply weren't allowed. However I do think what baseball is doing is more than a lot of the other sports out there does. I do not want to overstep my bounds on this forum by talking politics but lets just say the NBA and the NFL aren't exactly the poster-children for justice with many of their practices.

And again any decision of this magnitude will anger some group of people in some way.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

The NA was really just a loose confederation of individual teams that agreed (in principle) to play each other on a semi-regular basis. It was closer to an organized league to what had existed before, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a major "league", with the emphasis on "league". Now, one can can certainly argue this point, and there are other questionable cases as well, especially the Union Association of 1884, which I think was less of a major league than the NA was, despite MLB's decision to the contrary in 1968. Lack of organizational structure is also why MLB is not recognizing pre-1920 black baseball organizations as "major leagues", though I've already seen some argument about that.

Interesting. Thank you for the perspective.

[yanks87]

When I read the headline of this happening, I really hoped it had more to it than just stats. I know people live and die by the stats, I am certainly not one of those folks. I guess there was a naive part of me that had hoped if MLB was going to make the gesture of inclusion, there would have been an extension of some percentage of pension or benefit extended to living players, or something comparable to what players of that time period collected (or what their families would collect). At the end of the day, if you are going to recognize the league as professional, you should commit to the financial commitments of "squaring the house." If not, it feels like an empty gesture trying to make up for a shameful part of the sport's history done solely for optics.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Adam W:

Luque was good in the majors but not great.

Marsans doesn't even enter the equation.

Lopez was of Spanish, thus European, ancestry.

My comment was that there were no Latin American superstars pre-integration. I was quickly shot down about Ted Williams, to which I certainly conceded, despite Teddy clearly not showing the world his Latino pride.

"Now, Mr. Archive, you had better choose your battles wisely lest we sue you!" (Thought about that one for the first time in ages yesterday and have been looking for any excuse to use it!)

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

The NA was really just a loose confederation of individual teams that agreed (in principle) to play each other on a semi-regular basis. It was closer to an organized league to what had existed before, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a major "league", with the emphasis on "league". Now, one can can certainly argue this point, and there are other questionable cases as well, especially the Union Association of 1884, which I think was less of a major league than the NA was, despite MLB's decision to the contrary in 1968. Lack of organizational structure is also why MLB is not recognizing pre-1920 black baseball organizations as "major leagues", though I've already seen some argument about that.

The NA was part of the evolution of the organization of professional baseball and the best players of the time were involved. I think the key here is "paid" and "best of their time." This is the same argument that has been made in this thread regarding the Negro Leagues. If the best players are involved, the league should be considered "major." If we can not exclude black players for being denied the right to play in white major leagues through no fault of their own, we shouldn't punish early players for being born too soon. This distinction is important regarding HOF eligibility and the "ten year rule." Pioneer players have never received fair treatment from the HOF and are pitifully underrepresented in the HOF. Why aren't more baseball enthusiasts trying to right this wrong?

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

The NA was part of the evolution of the organization of professional baseball and the best players of the time were involved. I think the key here is "paid" and "best of their time." This is the same argument that has been made in this thread regarding the Negro Leagues. If the best players are involved, the league should be considered "major." If we can not exclude black players for being denied the right to play in white major leagues through no fault of their own, we shouldn't punish early players for being born too soon. This distinction is important regarding HOF eligibility and the "ten year rule." Pioneer players have never received fair treatment from the HOF and are pitifully underrepresented in the HOF. Why aren't more baseball enthusiasts trying to right this wrong?

I don’t disagree with anything you said here. I was trying to explain the rationale for excluding the NA from “major league” status, which I think is coherent but arguable. I wouldn’t have a problem with officially recognizing the NA as major, and the fact that baseball-reference treats NA stats the same as NL ones is a pretty significant unofficial recognition. I am 1000% on board with giving more recognition to pioneer players, especially the HOF.

[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?

[campyfan39]

Maybe you can explain why this needed to be done and all the anguish it has caused you for all these years. Maybe be happy today that it is done instead of insinuating things about a person you literally know zero about?

Originally Posted by pgconboy

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

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Maybe be happy today that it is done instead of insinuating things about a person you literally know zero about?

I wasn't being condescending or confrontational.

You directly quoted someone that talked about being confused and this process causing trouble.

You then stated that was how you felt. I have trouble imagining how a person could have those feelings so I was inquiring for clarification.

[campyfan39]

Fair enough and sorry for the oversensitivity.
I believe it confuses and causes trouble because of the stats mainly. I also believe that it is a PC move so representative of 2020 and that it was not necessary. The HOF has recognized the Negro Leagues and inducted many into the HOF. Honestly some who have been inducted I had never heard of which may be my bad. I follow them on twitter and they have gone way above and beyond to tweet about minority players this year (which is fine) but it does not seem authentic to me.

IMO this was totally unnecessary. I have met Buck O and a few others and they are proud of the league and the recognition it received. I actually think keeping it separate shows the prejudice and is a lesson from history. I know when I took my son to the hall it was powerful to see the separate exhibit.

I have also read several articles today where people are insulted by this and view it as a "token" move and some who say it is 50+ years late. So overall I just believe it was a bad move but I don't get vote haha.

Originally Posted by pgconboy

I wasn't being condescending or confrontational.

You directly quoted someone that talked about being confused and this process causing trouble.

You then stated that was how you felt. I have trouble imagining how a person could have those feelings so I was inquiring for clarification.