ESPN Top 100

[cgjackson222]

BobC, if you expect anyone to read your diatribe, you are out of your mind.

[AndrewJerome]

BobC, I agree with you on many topics. But here the statistics are both difficult to follow and not realistic. It is impossible to know what exact % of negro league players had true MLB talent. Racial bias was still there in full force in the early stages of MLB integration. Some MLB teams didn’t have a single black player for something like 10-15 years after Jackie broke the color barrier. Surely these teams could have found at least one negro league player worthy of a MLB roster spot in 10+ years, correct? But they chose not to. So there is no way to actually know exactly what number of negro league players talent wise “should have” been in MLB. It is complicated beyond any statistical analysis.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AndrewJerome

BobC, I agree with you on many topics. But here the statistics are both difficult to follow and not realistic. It is impossible to know what exact % of negro league players had true MLB talent. Racial bias was still there in full force in the early stages of MLB integration. Some MLB teams didn’t have a single black player for something like 10-15 years after Jackie broke the color barrier. Surely these teams could have found at least one negro league player worthy of a MLB roster spot in 10+ years, correct? But they chose not to. So there is no way to actually know exactly what number of negro league players talent wise “should have” been in MLB. It is complicated beyond any statistical analysis.

Absolutely correct, and do not disagree at all. That is what makes this a virtually (and literally) impossible question to truly answer. The best we can do is look at what statistics, percentages, and so on that we do have from these more modern times to try and extrapolate what may have occurred back in the day. It is, I believe, agreed that in any given population you're going to expect a certain percentage of that population to have an elite athletic ability, be it running, jumping, hand/eye coordination, strength, size, or whatever. And I would think that the definition of someone having major league talent is that they ended up playing in the major leagues. And throughout the bulk of MLB's existence, this been defined as playing on an American or National League team. But because of segregation, black players were not allowed the opportunity to get spots on major league rosters. Had there been no segregation and bias back during the period 1920-1948, without a doubt there would have been many white players that would have been replaced by extremely talented black players, and therefore would have never seen the light of a major league roster. So yes, there a lot of white players that also do not truly deserve to be called major league players in my thinking.

And that is maybe the pivotal question, how many of those white players would have been replaced by blacks back during that 1920-1948 period? There is no way to ever truly know. So maybe the best we can do is look at the more current situation in baseball, and the representation of blacks in MLB today, to try and get a sense of what percentage of them would have made the major league back then. But in so doing I'm told I'm wrong because black athletes don't like baseball that much anymore, and supposedly the proof of that is how many blacks are currently playing in the NFL and NBA. So let's understand this, I'm told I'm wrong for trying to predict what may have taken place in the past by somewhat relying on modern facts and statistics by people who are also using, guess what, more modern facts and statistics. Please, how are those modern facts and statistics of my naysayers any more relevant to predicting what happened 70-100 years ago than mine were?

And also, rather than just disagreeing with me, when are one of the naysayers going to actually state what they think the proper percentage of blacks are that would have made the major league rosters back in 1920-1948, and at least try to back it up with some facts, numbers, logic, something other than just "reasoned speculation" BS!

I've already given everyone the other end of the spectrum when I did the work and research to show how MLB added 5,602 new major league players from 1920 to 1948, how that was more than twice the actual number of major leaguers that should have been recognized during this period, and that 60.5% of those new MLB players were black.

MLB, by adding all those Negro League players, severely diluted the overall pool of MLB level talent for the specific 29 year period from 1920 to 1948, and that is an irrefutable fact. So there were obviously players during this time that benefitted stat-wise from playing against overall inferior talent. And because throughout this period the leagues were segregated, the question comes down to whether it was the white or the black players who benefitted most. And even though there were a lot of great and talented black players back then, would they have really been able to take over 60.5% of all the MLB rosters as suggested by numbers of new black and white players being recognized during this specific 29 year period?

I'm going to do some simple math for everyone to further prove my point. I already showed that during the 29 years from 1929-1948, MLB only needed to add about 2,202 new MLB level players to keep the rosters full. And during that same time, about 3,400 Negro League players were also added to the MLB ranks. Now I was originally using 10% for my black player MLB talent level representation factor, based on the black US population % back then, along with the current % of black players in MLB being slightly under 10%. But I was called out and reminded how at some points blacks represented as much as 19% of current MLB players. But to appease and hopefully make the naysayers happy, for purposes of this exercise I'm going to assume blacks represented 50% of all the newly recognized MLB players during this time. So in that case, of the 2,202 new MLB players that were recognized, if 50% of them are now black, that means only 1,101 (2,202 X 50%) white players should have gotten in and been recognized as major leaguers during this time. It also means that 1,101 (2,202 - 1,101) white players were really not major league level players after all, and diluted the overall talent in the majors as a result. Now as for the Negro League players, that means 1,101 deserved to have entered the major league ranks, but that still leaves 2,299 (3,400 - 1,101) Negro League players that were not deserving of MLB status and also diluted the overall level of talent down. But that number for the Negro League players is more than twice the number for the white MLB players, so which league(s) looks like they had their overall MLB talent level diluted and watered down the most? And this has been my point all along, that maybe the star Negro League players have benefitted and padded their stats by having played against much more watered down talent throughout their careers than any other players in the history of MLB as a result.

The funny thing is, for the number of players between the segregated leagues to come to where they are equally diluted down with each ending up having recognized the same number of MLB players they otherwise shouldn't have, you would need to have the Negro League players besting their white counterparts for those MLB roster spots just over 77% of the time. That percentage is more on par with black representation in the NFL and NBA today, but still doesn't automatically mean MLB teams would have had anywhere close to that level of black representation back during the Negro League days. Very different skill sets and needs between the different sports. And being black and great at one sport doesn't automatically make you great at any of the others. As I'd said once before, go ask Michael Jordan.

My numbers, math, and logic aren't perfect, but at least I'm trying to use as much factual information and data as I can, along with a lot of logical, common sense, to make what I think may be a valid point. So if you're going to give me grief, at least have the decency and respect to try and do the same.

[perezfan]

“War and Peace” is jealous of this thread.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by perezfan

“War and Peace” is jealous of this thread.

I was thinking the same thing.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

“War and Peace” is jealous of this thread.

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I was thinking the same thing.

Add me to the list. I was thinking the Epic of Gilgamesh.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

BobC, if you expect anyone to read your diatribe, you are out of your mind.

No, I would expect someone with intelligence, an open mind willing to listen to actual facts and logical arguments, and who can comprehend and digest differing theories and concepts in making informed decisions, to follow what I'm saying. I only go into the long "diatribes", as you call them, when faced with people that apparently can't comprehend what I'm trying to say and convey, so I try to expand things in the hope that they finally get it. Sadly, they often still don't it.

For those who don't want to read what I'm saying, that is fine with me. I usually write my posts in direct response or rebuttal to another particular poster. I didn't necessarily write my "diatribes" for everyone. But as I've pointed out, it appears the only response to my point in this particular thread is that I'm somehow wrong because of anecdotal, reasoned speculation. I'm still awaiting some factual, intelligent response from that corner in rebuttal, but doubt that's ever going to happen.

There are some members on here who operate with very small, closed minds, have pre-formed ideas that they will never sway from or think about and/or listen to logical arguments that could prove their ideas may not be as accurate or true as they think. They tend to ignore facts and logical, informed discussions, and usually conduct any debates they get into by essentially just repeating over and over how they are right, and everyone else is wrong, with no facts, data, or logical arguments ever really given to back them up. Those are the people I expect to most likely not read one of my "diatribes". For others, if nothing else, I hope they at least get some entertainment out of them, if not some information or different ways to maybe view and think about things, as well.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BobC

No, I would expect someone with intelligence, an open mind willing to listen to actual facts and logical arguments, and who can comprehend and digest differing theories and concepts in making informed decisions, to follow what I'm saying. I only go into the long "diatribes", as you call them, when faced with people that apparently can't comprehend what I'm trying to say and convey, so I try to expand things in the hope that they finally get it. Sadly, they often still don't it.

For those who don't want to read what I'm saying, that is fine with me. I usually write my posts in direct response or rebuttal to another particular poster. I didn't necessarily write my "diatribes" for everyone. But as I've pointed out, it appears the only response to my point in this particular thread is that I'm somehow wrong because of anecdotal, reasoned speculation. I'm still awaiting some factual, intelligent response from that corner in rebuttal, but doubt that's ever going to happen.

There are some members on here who operate with very small, closed minds, have pre-formed ideas that they will never sway from or think about and/or listen to logical arguments that could prove their ideas may not be as accurate or true as they think. They tend to ignore facts and logical, informed discussions, and usually conduct any debates they get into by essentially just repeating over and over how they are right, and everyone else is wrong, with no facts, data, or logical arguments ever really given to back them up. Those are the people I expect to most likely not read one of my "diatribes". For others, if nothing else, I hope they at least get some entertainment out of them, if not some information or different ways to maybe view and think about things, as well.

If you would like to read my response, you can see what I already posted on the subject 5 years ago on this thread in posts 30-37.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

If you would like to read my response, you can see what I already posted on the subject 5 years ago on this thread in posts 30-37.

Thanks Glenn. That was an informative, logically thought out, and well explained back and forth between you and some others. And you seem to go along with what I've been trying to say. Looking at the number of black versus white HOFers is another measure to potentially help determine how many Negro League players really were deserving off MLB status recognition.

In an attempt by MLB to make amends to Negro League players and elevate them to MLB status, they obviously couldn't just cherry pick the star players like Gibson and Charleston, and only grant such status to some. MLB would never have lived that down given the way things are today. But in doing so, they obviously have created way more MLB players during that 29 year period than would have been recognized otherwise, and that just means the overall MLB talent level was diluted down. And because the leagues were unfortunately segregated, the much larger number of Negro League players making the major league ranks back then makes it look like more of them would not have been of true MLB caliber as opposed to their white counterparts, thus making the Negro Leagues way more watered down.

I'm just trying to explain in looking at players on this All-Time Greatest list how the stats for some of them may need to be viewed with a big grain of salt. Instead, I feel I'm sort of being accused of saying none of these Negro League players belong in the majors at all. That is the furthest thing from the truth. Beginning to feel like Whoopi Goldberg. LOL

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

If you would like to read my response, you can see what I already posted on the subject 5 years ago on this thread in posts 30-37.

Thanks Glenn. That was an informative, logically thought out, and well explained back and forth between you and some others. And you seem to go along with what I've been trying to say. Looking at the number of black versus white HOFers is another measure to potentially help determine how many Negro League players really were deserving off MLB status recognition.

In an attempt by MLB to make amends to Negro League players and elevate them to MLB status, they obviously couldn't just cherry pick the star players like Gibson and Charleston, and only grant such status to some. MLB would never have lived that down given the way things are today. But in doing so, they obviously have created way more MLB players during that 29 year period than would have been recognized otherwise, and that just means the overall MLB talent level was diluted down. And because the leagues were unfortunately segregated, the much larger number of Negro League players making the major league ranks back then makes it look like more of them would not have been of true MLB caliber as opposed to their white counterparts, thus making the Negro Leagues way more watered down.

I'm just trying to explain in looking at players on this All-Time Greatest list how the stats for some of them may need to be viewed with a big grain of salt. Instead, I feel I'm sort of being accused of saying none of these Negro League players belong in the majors at all. That is the furthest thing from the truth.