Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[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.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

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.

Great info, thank you for sharing. Do you happen to know what compensations would look like for similar parameters in the same years for MLB players?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by yanks87

Great info, thank you for sharing. Do you happen to know what compensations would look like for similar parameters in the same years for MLB players?

Quite the opposite actually.

Professional baseball players who are retired and white players are not entitled to the pension benefits Major League Baseball bestowed on former Negro Leagues players, a federal appeals court ruled.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that MLB did not discriminate against about 1,000 white players when it gave medical benefits and $1,000 monthly pensions to dozens of elderly black players who didn't qualify for a pension.

Until 1979, all players had to be on a major league roster for at least four seasons to receive pensions. The lawsuit was brought by white players who didn't have four years tenure but alleged that not getting the same pensions as blacks was discriminatory.

The appeals court disagreed, saying the pension program created for black players who put in time with the Negro Leagues was "created to remedy specific discrimination."

Before 1947, blacks were not allowed into MLB. So the league changed the pension rules in 1997, saying tenure in the old Negro Leagues from 1947 and before counted toward an MLB pension if black players also had time in the majors.

The 27 players who were eligible for the pensions all played part of at least four seasons after Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier in 1947.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Quite the opposite actually.

Professional baseball players who are retired and white players are not entitled to the pension benefits Major League Baseball bestowed on former Negro Leagues players, a federal appeals court ruled.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that MLB did not discriminate against about 1,000 white players when it gave medical benefits and $1,000 monthly pensions to dozens of elderly black players who didn't qualify for a pension.

Until 1979, all players had to be on a major league roster for at least four seasons to receive pensions. The lawsuit was brought by white players who didn't have four years tenure but alleged that not getting the same pensions as blacks was discriminatory.

The appeals court disagreed, saying the pension program created for black players who put in time with the Negro Leagues was "created to remedy specific discrimination."

Before 1947, blacks were not allowed into MLB. So the league changed the pension rules in 1997, saying tenure in the old Negro Leagues from 1947 and before counted toward an MLB pension if black players also had time in the majors.

The 27 players who were eligible for the pensions all played part of at least four seasons after Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier in 1947.

Again, great info, I had no idea. Thank you for filling this in.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Quite the opposite actually.

Professional baseball players who are retired and white players are not entitled to the pension benefits Major League Baseball bestowed on former Negro Leagues players, a federal appeals court ruled.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that MLB did not discriminate against about 1,000 white players when it gave medical benefits and $1,000 monthly pensions to dozens of elderly black players who didn't qualify for a pension.

Until 1979, all players had to be on a major league roster for at least four seasons to receive pensions. The lawsuit was brought by white players who didn't have four years tenure but alleged that not getting the same pensions as blacks was discriminatory.

The appeals court disagreed, saying the pension program created for black players who put in time with the Negro Leagues was "created to remedy specific discrimination."

Before 1947, blacks were not allowed into MLB. So the league changed the pension rules in 1997, saying tenure in the old Negro Leagues from 1947 and before counted toward an MLB pension if black players also had time in the majors.

The 27 players who were eligible for the pensions all played part of at least four seasons after Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier in 1947.

I shouldn’t be surprised that the Ninth Circus came up with that logic.

[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.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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

I had to go back and double-check on this, as something was nagging at me that like Al Lopez, Vernon was of Spanish descent. Apparently, his father was indeed of Spanish-Portuguese ancestry and his mother's familial background was Welsh-Irish.

[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.