Take Note, Ty Cobb Fans

[JustinD]

Is it unquestionable revisionist history... of course. Any argument to the contrary (I will preface with "in my logic") is delusional. I think also those stating Asian or South American baseball is not as strong as Negro Leagues as talent have been hiding for decades. The WBC has shown that numerous other leagues are more competitive currently than the Negro Leagues ever were. Yes some of these players are in the league, but I would be happy to place Non-MLB Dominican, Korean, and Japanese All-stars against the MLB any day.

However, I really can't see this having the slightest effect to pricing and if so it would be decades into the future. The records are poorly researched, supported and suspect, the comparison of competition (in most games) is suspect, and the intention is suspect. Any current historian of sport would say the same and the greats will continue to hold the pure records in the minds of fans.

On the flip side, the youth and the future youth will see these records with
a fresher eye and research. The players will be likely better known in the future than now and that is a win in my book. Beyond small circles would Josh Gibson effect pricing even then? Never, as there are so few issues to collect...how would that pricing creep even begin?

I see it as a double sided sword, in the short term it will be ignored and disliked by many as another rewrite of history. In the long run it will bring more knowledge to these players and a time in history. As an impact on records...I see the shadow of these records on MLB stats having a similar effect as Sadaharu Oh did on Aaron. So negligible.

This will be a big blip on the sports channels for the next 6 months as an item of interest (we all know that ESPN will jump all over it), I see that fading after the season so I really will reserve my final judgment on lasting impact for a bit.

In summary, seems like there were likely better ways to do this but it is what it is.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by JustinD

The WBC has shown that numerous other leagues are more competitive currently than the Negro Leagues ever were. Yes some of these players are in the league, but I would be happy to place Non-MLB Dominican, Korean, and Japanese All-stars against the MLB any day.

I agree with you that the MLB recognizing Negro League stats will have little to no effect on pricing, especially since Baseball Reference and SABR already integrated the stats years ago.

But to say the "WBC has shown that numerous other leagues are more competitive currently than the Negro Leagues ever were" is an odd point and impossible to prove. Are you saying that the cream of the crop from the Dominican, Korean and Japanese Leagues were better than the average Negro League? That may be the case, but it is not really relevant. What MLB is saying that on the whole, the 7 Major Negro Leagues were basically as good as white MLB as demonstrated by a fairly large sample size over many years. I don't think you can take the tiny sample size of the WBC and extrapolate a ton of information.

Furthermore, you are missing the point of the integration of the data. The best players from around the world are able to join the MLB in the USA. Blacks didn't have that opportunity until 1947.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I agree with you that the MLB recognizing Negro League stats will have little to no effect on pricing, especially since Baseball Reference and SABR already integrated the stats years ago.

But to say the "WBC has shown that numerous other leagues are more competitive currently than the Negro Leagues ever were" is an odd point and impossible to prove. Are you saying that the cream of the crop from the Dominican, Korean and Japanese Leagues were better than the average Negro League? That may be the case, but it is not really relevant. What MLB is saying that on the whole, the 7 Major Negro Leagues were basically as good as white MLB as demonstrated by a fairly large sample size over many years. I don't think you can take the tiny sample size of the WBC and extrapolate a ton of information.

Furthermore, you are missing the point of the integration of the data. The best players from around the world are able to join the MLB in the USA. Blacks didn't have that opportunity until 1947.

I am not missing the point, I am simply stating it is not apples to apples. The statistics you cite are not traditionally clean numbers. These games used statistically by authors like Holman were often Negro Teams consisting of the best barnstormers they could get and some of the best Cuban players. The traveling teams from MLB only needed 5 players with MLB experience to count and were whomever the promoters could afford and some semi-pro players to fill. Some tours even contained not a single major league pitcher in the tour, so for me these numbers do not show depth of everyday players.

There are very few entries of data in which a complete NL team played a complete Major league team. Without that history, the statement of competitive equality is unproven and assumed. It was was most commonly groups of players vs players, not team vs team. I don't see a fair comparison to anything other than WBC.

Please don't mistake this as a downplaying of the Negro League. It of course had numerous players that in the best of worlds would have been playing with the majors. I am only stating that the statistics would have been better done in another way that was less confusing and yet still honored the league.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I am not missing the point, I am simply stating it is not apples to apples. The statistics you cite are not traditionally clean numbers. These games used statistically by authors like Holman were often Negro Teams consisting of the best barnstormers they could get and some of the best Cuban players. The traveling teams from MLB only needed 5 players with MLB experience to count and were whomever the promoters could afford and some semi-pro players to fill. Some tours even contained not a single major league pitcher in the tour, so for me these numbers do not show depth of everyday players.

There are very few entries of data in which a complete NL team played a complete Major league team. Without that history, the statement of competitive equality is unproven and assumed. It was was most commonly groups of players vs players, not team vs team. I don't see a fair comparison to anything other than WBC.

Please don't mistake this as a downplaying of the Negro League. It of course had numerous players that in the best of worlds would have been playing with the majors. I am only stating that the statistics would have been better done in another way that was less confusing and yet still honored the league.

All fair points. But I think it is difficult to honor the Negro Leagues in a substantive way other than they way they are doing it. It's not perfect, but I don't know that there is a perfect way to recognize the talent of the Negro Leagues.

[Leon]

+1

As the postcard below states, this organized, and well resourced team, was looking to play local teams across the country. I don't know how all the stats were vetted but it seems to me these almost-professional teams outclassed the teams they played. I am not sure if these are types of teams included in statistics though.

Originally Posted by JustinD

I am not missing the point, I am simply stating it is not apples to apples. The statistics you cite are not traditionally clean numbers. These games used statistically by authors like Holman were often Negro Teams consisting of the best barnstormers they could get and some of the best Cuban players. The traveling teams from MLB only needed 5 players with MLB experience to count and were whomever the promoters could afford and some semi-pro players to fill. Some tours even contained not a single major league pitcher in the tour, so for me these numbers do not show depth of everyday players.

There are very few entries of data in which a complete NL team played a complete Major league team. Without that history, the statement of competitive equality is unproven and assumed. It was was most commonly groups of players vs players, not team vs team. I don't see a fair comparison to anything other than WBC.

Please don't mistake this as a downplaying of the Negro League. It of course had numerous players that in the best of worlds would have been playing with the majors. I am only stating that the statistics would have been better done in another way that was less confusing and yet still honored the league.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Leon

+1

As the postcard below states, this organized, and well resourced team, was looking to play local teams across the country. I don't know how all the stats were vetted but it seems to me these almost-professional teams outclassed the teams they played. I am not sure if these are types of teams included in statistics though.

Cool postcard!

Only games between teams of the 7 Major League Negro teams are included in the stats. Hence, Josh Gibson only has 166 Home Runs.

I wish more people would learn more about what the MLB and Baseball Reference/SABR are actually doing.

[packs]

That's right. No need to wonder how or why they included the stats they did. It is all explained so that we can all share in the information available.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Cool postcard!

Only games between teams of the 7 Major League Negro teams are included in the stats. Hence, Josh Gibson only has 166 Home Runs.

I wish more people would learn more about what the MLB and Baseball Reference/SABR are actually doing.

My only small issue with SABR is Peter Nash. How can an organization have such ties to a known hobby fraudster and criminal?

Other than that, I think SABR is a great organization.
.

[G1911]

It feels difficult to believe this decision was made on statistical grounds and not because every organization and company was eager to show their support for a political and protest movement in 2020 when this decision was made. Sometimes you come to the right answer anyways, but I am always highly dubious of decisions made to show support for whatever the cause of the moment is. I am also always highly dubious of revisionist history that seems to have more to do with a current desired view than history.

It's even worse than 60 games. The slugging percentage 'record' is now achieved in 183 plate appearances in 39 games. These 39 games are not even a complete record, just the box scores they were able to find. Now I have no doubt that Josh Gibson was a truly great ballplayer, and he should absolutely be held up as one of the greatest players of all time, but pretending he had the best slugging season in MLB history is..., well, highly dubious at best.

History is often uncomfortable. Revising it to suit modern sensitivity does not do anyone a service. There was no perception that these leagues were major leagues at all in that time - the entire reason they existed is because they were not the major leagues and the majors had ridiculous and racist rules preventing deserving black players from playing. I love the Negro League Museum, their plaques in Cooperstown (19th century white ball and the negro leagues are where I want to see more inductions), the great work that has been done documenting them, and efforts by MLB to remember, record their history, and honor them. But pretending X is Y because that makes people more comfortable now is silly.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am actually not a huge SABR fan for a variety of reasons. Reason #1. Peter Nash. How can an organization have such ties to a known hobby fraudster and criminal?
.

Is Peter Nash particularly influential at SABR? I don't know much about him.

https://sabr.org/authors/peter-nash/