Take Note, Ty Cobb Fans

[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.

[Republicaninmass]

Amazing people are capable of rational thought and debate when discussing their opinion. There might be hope for this world after all

🍿

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by 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.

I completely agree with this. And it isn't just baseball, or black, or white, or zebra stripes. It's prevalent everywhere. If you aren't happy with historical fact, just make it go away, or revise it to fit your desires.

[packs]

What do you guys make of early baseball stats then? Cap Anson is credited with 3,435 hits in the MLB. But more than 400 of those hits came in the National Association. While playing against National Association teams, Anson would have been competing against teams that didn't even finish the season in some cases.

Are those credible stats?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

What do you guys make of early baseball stats then? Cap Anson is credited with 3,435 hits in the MLB. But more than 400 of those hits came in the National Association. While playing against National Association teams, Anson would have been competing against teams that didn't even finish the season in some cases.

Are those credible stats?

The National Association was the #1 highest quality of play professional league in the world at the time. I can't see why this wouldn't be the majors at the time.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

The National Association was the #1 highest quality of play professional league in the world at the time. I can't see why this wouldn't be the majors at the time.

Is it normal for major league baseball teams to shut down mid-season? I make the point only to demonstrate that if your opinion is that Negro League players weren't facing top competition, there are plenty of precedents in what is considered MLB for dubious competition as well.

Really I just think if you're going to suggest Negro League players paled in comparison to MLB players, there's really no basis for that opinion and you can't hold that opinion without recognizing that any player in MLB before 1947 could have potentially been out of baseball if black players were able to compete for their spot.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

The National Association was the #1 highest quality of play professional league in the world at the time. I can't see why this wouldn't be the majors at the time.

This is true. However, MLB and Baseball Reference also recognize the Union Association from 1884 and have been since 1969 when they also started recognizing the American Association, 1882–91; the Players’ League, 1890; and the Federal League, 1914–15
https://www.mlb.com/press-release/pr...14%E2%80%9315.

I think the recognition of some of these other Leagues (especially the Union Association) as Major Leagues is one reason why some people think the recognition of the best Negro Leagues is overdue.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Perhaps there should be a minimum plate appearances total for the single year rate records, rather than just a minimum of 3.1 Plate Appearances per team game played. But I for one will not lose any sleep about Josh Gibson now being listed as the single season slugging leader instead of Barry Bonds. Nor does it particularly bother me that Hugh Duffy's 1897 batting average of .4397 is no longer considered the highest single season batting average.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Perhaps there should be a minimum plate appearances total for the single year rate records, rather than just a minimum of 3.1 Plate Appearances per team game played. But I for one will not lose any sleep about Josh Gibson now being listed as the single season slugging leader instead of Barry Bonds. Nor does it particularly bother me that Hugh Duffy's 1897 batting average of .4397 is no longer considered the highest single season batting average.

I don't think anyone is arguing losing sleep. My argument is that this doesn't really make sense as a math decision. Whether that is good or bad up to the individual.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think anyone is arguing losing sleep. My argument is that this doesn't really make sense as a math decision. Whether that is good or bad up to the individual.

Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what would you have the minimum plater appearances (or whatever metric) for single season hitting rate statistics be?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what would you have the minimum plater appearances (or whatever metric) for single season hitting rate statistics be?

1, it should be a documented full season before we get to the games/ab/pa. Rate stats on a partial sample is interesting factoid but it’s not really valid. 2, it should be in the same general realm as the other leagues if it’s time. Football is what, 12-16, that’s fine for them because that’s what everyone was/is playing. It’s hard to compare 39 to 154 when that was the standard. It is not even remotely close, which is the issue. The difficulties of travel in the 19th century reduced their schedules too but even then it was a lot more than 39 games, and the different leagues played similar seasons of length for the most part.

[MuncieNolePAZ]

Lots of valid points on both sides. I find it interesting in how I personally view this argument based on my collecting and reading habits. In 2020 (when this was first discussed), I was mainly collecting Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson. I had read a ton of biographies on pre integrated MLB HOFs. I thought the idea of merging records was silly and should not happen. Today, my main focus is still Walter Johnson but also Negro League players. My last several biographies have been from Negro League players. I now am for integrating the records. I am not sure if my change in thoughts is based on my love of the Negro Leagues or my current collecting/reading habits or something else. Nothing ground breaking here or am I trying to say my view is more valid than anyone else's, just some random thoughts. I do enjoy the discussion.

Chad Paskiewicz

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by MuncieNolePAZ

Lots of valid points on both sides. I find it interesting in how I personally view this argument based on my collecting and reading habits. In 2020 (when this was first discussed), I was mainly collecting Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson. I had read a ton of biographies on pre integrated MLB HOFs. I thought the idea of merging records was silly and should not happen. Today, my main focus is still Walter Johnson but also Negro League players. My last several biographies have been from Negro League players. I now am for integrating the records. I am not sure if my change in thoughts is based on my love of the Negro Leagues or my current collecting/reading habits or something else. Nothing ground breaking here or am I trying to say my view is more valid than anyone else's, just some random thoughts. I do enjoy the discussion. Chad Paskiewicz

I don't see how anyone can doubt that the Negro Leagues was top baseball, or that the big stars would have been big stars in the major leagues. Was the quality of ball at a big league level, or AAA, AA, A, etc.? We'll never know. One factor to consider is that whites made up 90% of the population then, so they had a much bigger cohort to draw from. Same with 19th century ball, Latin American ball, Japanese ball, etc. So why don't we just have the separate records that were actually set for each of them and concede that some of their players would have been setting records in the majors had they been playing there instead. I just don't see trying to shoehorn them in together in a combined record books--Cooperstown and other honors, sure--as a productive exercise. Let's look at what they actually did in their own leagues and find amazement and inspiration in that.

[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/