Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[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.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by 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.

In 1997, the MLB executive council created a payment plan for about 85 black players who didn’t play in the majors long enough to qualify for a pension, or who did not have the opportunity to play in the majors at all. To be eligible for their payments, the black players had to either play in the Negro Leagues for at least one season before 1948 or play a combined four years in the Negro Leagues and the major leagues before 1979.

The price tag associated with this magnanimous gesture? It amounted to annual payments of between $7,500 and $10,000 per player. That future got even brighter for the veterans of the Negro Leagues in 2004, when MLB agreed to make payments to more of these ballplayers on the grounds that baseball had not been totally integrated until 1959, when the Boston Red Sox became the last team to field a black player.

The terms of the agreement weren’t exactly the same as with the 1997 group of ex Negro Leaguers. Players who never played in the major leagues were given the option of electing to choose pensions totaling $375 per month ($4,500 annually) for life or $10,000 a year for four years.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by 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.

I totally agree with this!

I think recognizing the NL is great, and preserving their history is very important. The above post nails it.

My sole objection is blending the stats with long established ML stats. For instance, will we now need to re-calculate who won the batting titles for each of those impacted years?

[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!)

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

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!)

Lefty Gomez was of Mexican descent although he was born in California.

[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.