Take Note, Ty Cobb Fans

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

Thoughts:
The question of the level of play in the Negro Leagues has been researched extensively. "Outsider Baseball" is one book that covers the topic. It seems quite safe to accept that the Negro Leagues were on par with the AL/NL or quite close.[*]There are many sources of data to support this. Looking at the black players who integrated the league and their success is one of them. (It also points to the strength of the hitting but possible deficiency in the pitching). Throw in barnstorming games and other sources and the picture is pretty strong. The only places that might have had similar level of play were Puerto Rico and Cuba at times. (My view, I don't recall what the book says about those leagues.)[*]

It seems to me that to say that the Negro Leagues (and certainly Puerto Rico and Cuban teams) were on a par with the white leagues ignores the tremendous differential in the demographic pools they were drawn from. I just don't understand how this is possible when the population was 90% white and less than 10% black, unless you want to take it a step much further to say that blacks were inherently or genetically much better ball players. I have no doubt that there were many terrific black players who would have excelled in the majors as they did when integration came, or that a black all-star team at any time probably could have beaten the white champions, but those leagues on a par generally speaking, I don't think so. It is undoubtedly also true that Josh Gibson and many others from the NL would hold MLB records today if they had been allowed to compete equally among white players, but I don't see how you can invent those records from what they did do in their separate leagues. I say keep the histories separate, as they were in their time, and don't try to pretend that it was all one big happy family playing together. It wasn't, it will forever be a stain on baseball that it wasn't, and no amount of imaginary numbers juggling will make that fact any prettier.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

It seems to me that to say that the Negro Leagues (and certainly Puerto Rico and Cuban teams) were on a par with the white leagues ignores the tremendous differential in the demographic pools they were drawn from. I just don't understand how this is possible when the population was 90% white and less than 10% black, unless you want to take it a step much further to say that blacks were inherently or genetically much better ball players. I have no doubt that there were many terrific black players who would have excelled in the majors as they did when integration came, or that a black all-star team at any time probably could have beaten the white champions, but those leagues on a par generally speaking, I don't think so. It is undoubtedly also true that Josh Gibson and many others from the NL would hold MLB records today if they had been allowed to compete equally among white players, but I don't see how you can invent those records from what they did do in their separate leagues. I say keep the histories separate, as they were in their time, and don't try to pretend that it was all one big happy family playing together. It wasn't, it will forever be a stain on baseball that it wasn't, and no amount of imaginary numbers juggling will make that fact any prettier.

Have you seen the NBA and NFL?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

It seems to me that to say that the Negro Leagues (and certainly Puerto Rico and Cuban teams) were on a par with the white leagues ignores the tremendous differential in the demographic pools they were drawn from. I just don't understand how this is possible when the population was 90% white and less than 10% black, unless you want to take it a step much further to say that blacks were inherently or genetically much better ball players. I have no doubt that there were many terrific black players who would have excelled in the majors as they did when integration came, or that a black all-star team at any time probably could have beaten the white champions, but those leagues on a par generally speaking, I don't think so. It is undoubtedly also true that Josh Gibson and many others from the NL would hold MLB records today if they had been allowed to compete equally among white players, but I don't see how you can invent those records from what they did do in their separate leagues. I say keep the histories separate, as they were in their time, and don't try to pretend that it was all one big happy family playing together. It wasn't, it will forever be a stain on baseball that it wasn't, and no amount of imaginary numbers juggling will make that fact any prettier.

Every time I've brought up the size difference in population and the fact that there was barely a size difference in the league, no one has wanted to hear about it, so I'm glad someone else realized this point. The NL/AL could also pull Native American players and Latin players who passed as European (even if it wasn't true in some cases such as Bobby Estalella and Tomas de la Cruz, who were Cubans of African descent), so you can't just throw in the Latin players in the Negro Leagues to help their case.

There's also the fact that the white/native/passing Latin players could go through the levels of the minors to get better, while the Negro League players didn't have that luxury. They had barnstorming teams. They had very few jobs available in baseball, so it wasn't an avenue most pursued.

Even when I point out that the best players will play in any league, so Josh Gibson would have been great anywhere, it doesn't help the common sense argument. It matters who plays around them for the level of competition. Satchel Paige didn't even play every season in the Negro Leagues. He spent plenty of time playing in other leagues, so those players weren't facing him. Josh Gibson played in Mexico in 1940-41. Oscar Charleston spent four seasons in leagues that aren't consider Major League. This list of greats missing time goes on and on.

The Negro League comparison would be similar to MLB just saying in 2024 that if you're born in Texas, you play in the 30-team Texas Major League. Players from the other 49 states can play in the Major Leagues. A Texas League All-Star team would compete with a team of quality 49 staters, but the quality of the league itself as a whole would be much lower.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

It seems to me that to say that the Negro Leagues (and certainly Puerto Rico and Cuban teams) were on a par with the white leagues ignores the tremendous differential in the demographic pools they were drawn from. I just don't understand how this is possible when the population was 90% white and less than 10% black, unless you want to take it a step much further to say that blacks were inherently or genetically much better ball players. I have no doubt that there were many terrific black players who would have excelled in the majors as they did when integration came, or that a black all-star team at any time probably could have beaten the white champions, but those leagues on a par generally speaking, I don't think so. It is undoubtedly also true that Josh Gibson and many others from the NL would hold MLB records today if they had been allowed to compete equally among white players, but I don't see how you can invent those records from what they did do in their separate leagues. I say keep the histories separate, as they were in their time, and don't try to pretend that it was all one big happy family playing together. It wasn't, it will forever be a stain on baseball that it wasn't, and no amount of imaginary numbers juggling will make that fact any prettier.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing as follows:

Given the enormous size difference in the white and black populations, it seems highly unlikely that a black league would have had the depth that a white league had, even if the best in one league would have been on par or better than the best in other leagues.

Am I understanding it correctly?

Here are my thoughts:

1) I don't think that as a starting point, there is anything wrong with raising this question. But it certainly is not a question that has no answer. To give one example... In low-income areas and among certain populations, a career in pro sports (or entertainment) is often viewed as one of the few options that children see as a way to escape their conditions, and therefore in these populations, the focus on sport is often far more widespread than in other communities. Such an approach shifts the math.

2) The arguments that the leagues were equal are from many different data points including black players who played afterwards, many, many barnstorming games, observers etc. While the question you raise does make one pause, once it is combined with empirical evidence, the question needs to change to, "given that black population was far smaller than the white population in the United States during that time, how is it that evidence points to the black baseball leagues being on par with white leagues?

3) The black leagues were a few teams smaller than the white leagues and so it is possible that the leagues in fact would not have had the depth, but because they were smaller, fewer Major League caliber players were needed.

4) I'm also not sure why you would assume that there is no statistical issue with saying that the best black team could stand up against the best white team. While it is not an identical question, it would seem that the smaller available pool would also impact the number of truly great players.

5) Whatever the reasons are, we see that the vast majority of elite athletes today are black. I don't know or care whether that is because they focus in this area more, if there are genetic components etc. but the question you asked could equally be asked about today's NBA and NFL. The fact that we find examples in modern times of a level of talent disprortionately coming from a black population means that some combination of factors makes this possible.

I think that the disparity in the available pool of players raises a question, and there are indications that the leagues may

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing as follows: Given the enormous size difference in the white and black populations, it seems highly unlikely that a black league would have had the depth that a white league had, even if the best in one league would have been on par or better than the best in other leagues. Am I understanding it correctly?
Here are my thoughts:
1) I don't think that as a starting point, there is anything wrong with raising this question. But it certainly is not a question that has no answer. To give one example... In low-income areas and among certain populations, a career in pro sports (or entertainment) is often viewed as one of the few options that children see as a way to escape their conditions, and therefore in these populations, the focus on sport is often far more widespread than in other communities. Such an approach shifts the math.
2) The arguments that the leagues were equal are from many different data points including black players who played afterwards, many, many barnstorming games, observers etc. While the question you raise does make one pause, once it is combined with empirical evidence, the question needs to change to, "given that black population was far smaller than the white population in the United States during that time, how is it that evidence points to the black baseball leagues being on par with white leagues?
3) The black leagues were a few teams smaller than the white leagues and so it is possible that the leagues in fact would not have had the depth, but because they were smaller, fewer Major League caliber players were needed.
4) I'm also not sure why you would assume that there is no statistical issue with saying that the best black team could stand up against the best white team. While it is not an identical question, it would seem that the smaller available pool would also impact the number of truly great players.
5) Whatever the reasons are, we see that the vast majority of elite athletes today are black. I don't know or care whether that is because they focus in this area more, if there are genetic components etc. but the question you asked could equally be asked about today's NBA and NFL. The fact that we find examples in modern times of a level of talent disprortionately coming from a black population means that some combination of factors makes this possible. I think that the disparity in the available pool of players raises a question, and there are indications that the leagues may

All good points, and I am reconsidering my positions. I'm also wondering if there could come a time when the game has become truly global and more and more Japanese, Latin, and other players have proven themselves the equals of MLB players, if a similar attempt might not be mounted to go back and assign some similar records to the great players of those leagues. I don't know why not. And I do appreciate this discussion for providing some very interesting grist for the endless mill of the "Hot Stove Leagues."

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

All good points, and I am reconsidering my positions. I'm also wondering if there could come a time when the game has become truly global and more and more Japanese, Latin, and other players have proven themselves the equals of MLB players, if a similar attempt might not be mounted to go back and assign some similar records to the great players of those leagues. I don't know why not. And I do appreciate this discussion for providing some very interesting grist for the endless mill of the "Hot Stove Leagues."

I just want to acknowledge how refreshing it is to see civil discourse actually resulting in someone reconsidering a conviction. I feel like it is exceedingly rare, as people are usually so entrenched in their positions.

Great to see.

[Touch'EmAll]

A concept I was struggling with is: Where is the data coming from, and how valid, accurate and complete is the data.

Years ago I tried to obtain stats for Satchell Paige. At the time, there wasn't much data, if any to be found. Chalk it up to go with the stories (decent amount of first account stories) and judge from there. Not much argument Paige was among the very best if not THE best, so I pencil him in at the top of my personal list. And assume he could easily give Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Koufax, Ryan, Seaver, Maddux, Randy Johnson a run for their money.

I found this morning some info about how the recently revealed numbers came to be.

"...bless those that spent more than 3 years digging through newspapers and other relics is search of the box scores to make it happen."

Ok, alright. Sounds like perhaps enough data has been recently been found to formulate some statistical legitimacy. But is it enough to warrant the new "set in stone" stats to be forever more regarded as gospel.

And the records - we are talking Major League Baseball MLB official records, are we not ? The Negro Leagues were not MLB. Kind of like in basketball, the ABA records are ABA records and not NBA records. To anoint an ABA record holder the now new king of an NBA stat record is not correct. There are different Leagues, different leagues have different records and different leagues have overall different talent levels. I am not a soccer guy, but professional soccer may also have different leagues. Again, is it appropriate we blend the leagues and their stats to come up with correct and official "together" records.

Although I can now better acknowledge and praise the accomplishments of Negro League players, I still find it difficult to incorporate the numbers we do have and rewrite the record books of MLB.

[tjisonline]

Well said.

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

A concept I was struggling with is: Where is the data coming from, and how valid, accurate and complete is the data.

Years ago I tried to obtain stats for Satchell Paige. At the time, there wasn't much data, if any to be found. Chalk it up to go with the stories (decent amount of first account stories) and judge from there. Not much argument Paige was among the very best if not THE best, so I pencil him in at the top of my personal list. And assume he could easily give Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Koufax, Ryan, Seaver, Maddux, Randy Johnson a run for their money.

I found this morning some info about how the recently revealed numbers came to be.

"...bless those that spent more than 3 years digging through newspapers and other relics is search of the box scores to make it happen."

Ok, alright. Sounds like perhaps enough data has been recently been found to formulate some statistical legitimacy. But is it enough to warrant the new "set in stone" stats to be forever more regarded as gospel.

And the records - we are talking Major League Baseball MLB official records, are we not ? The Negro Leagues were not MLB. Kind of like in basketball, the ABA records are ABA records and not NBA records. To anoint an ABA record holder the now new king of an NBA stat record is not correct. There are different Leagues, different leagues have different records and different leagues have overall different talent levels. I am not a soccer guy, but professional soccer may also have different leagues. Again, is it appropriate we blend the leagues and their stats to come up with correct and official "together" records.

Although I can now better acknowledge and praise the accomplishments of Negro League players, I still find it difficult to incorporate the numbers we do have and rewrite the record books of MLB.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

A concept I was struggling with is: Where is the data coming from, and how valid, accurate and complete is the data.

Years ago I tried to obtain stats for Satchell Paige. At the time, there wasn't much data, if any to be found. Chalk it up to go with the stories (decent amount of first account stories) and judge from there. Not much argument Paige was among the very best if not THE best, so I pencil him in at the top of my personal list. And assume he could easily give Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Koufax, Ryan, Seaver, Maddux, Randy Johnson a run for their money.

I found this morning some info about how the recently revealed numbers came to be.

"...bless those that spent more than 3 years digging through newspapers and other relics is search of the box scores to make it happen."

Ok, alright. Sounds like perhaps enough data has been recently been found to formulate some statistical legitimacy. But is it enough to warrant the new "set in stone" stats to be forever more regarded as gospel.

And the records - we are talking Major League Baseball MLB official records, are we not ? The Negro Leagues were not MLB. Kind of like in basketball, the ABA records are ABA records and not NBA records. To anoint an ABA record holder the now new king of an NBA stat record is not correct. There are different Leagues, different leagues have different records and different leagues have overall different talent levels. I am not a soccer guy, but professional soccer may also have different leagues. Again, is it appropriate we blend the leagues and their stats to come up with correct and official "together" records.

Although I can now better acknowledge and praise the accomplishments of Negro League players, I still find it difficult to incorporate the numbers we do have and rewrite the record books of MLB.

I've done some newspaper research on the career of Dick "Cannonball" Redding using newspapers.com. There is a lot more out there than many people realize. Years ago this was only available through very tedious work at libraries looking up records on microfilm. Now an incredible number of newspapers have been scanned and are searchable (albeit not 100% perfectly.) This is a world of difference.

The rules of the game have literally changed and we include stats from times when the game was radically different. The early MLB games did not have great record keeping.

Additionally, these records are not presented as "MLB" records.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

I am not a soccer guy, but professional soccer may also have different leagues. Again, is it appropriate we blend the leagues and their stats to come up with correct and official "together" records.

The problem with this argument is the fallacy that a contest that always ends in a scoreless tie should be considered a sport, let alone a professional one.

[Touch'EmAll]

Confused - said not presented as MLB records. Just looked mlb.com website - now listed #1 lifetime batting avg. Josh Gibson.

[GasHouseGang]

I just wonder about a league like the PCL. According to the Baseball Hall Of Fame:

"The Pacific Coast League eventually would be regarded by many as “the third major league,” and prompt MLB to finally realize in 1958 that there was a geographic void to be filled, resulting in the relocation of the Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles and the Giants from Upper Manhattan to San Francisco.

It seems to be virtually forgotten by most folks today. But years before expanding west, these teams had many excellent players. Is there any push to recognize the PCL stats along with the regular Major League stats or to combine them for some of the players that performed there and in the Majors? I'm not trying to change the subject, but it seems like it might be a similar situation.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Confused - said not presented as MLB records. Just looked mlb.com website - now listed #1 lifetime batting avg. Josh Gibson.

The article I read in the Athletic indicated that there is a difference between MLB the brand (which is the AL and NL) and The Major Leagues. I don't know whether that will prove to be semantics or not. In light of what you are mentioning, it seems like it might be.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

All good points, and I am reconsidering my positions. I'm also wondering if there could come a time when the game has become truly global and more and more Japanese, Latin, and other players have proven themselves the equals of MLB players, if a similar attempt might not be mounted to go back and assign some similar records to the great players of those leagues. I don't know why not. And I do appreciate this discussion for providing some very interesting grist for the endless mill of the "Hot Stove Leagues."

Start buying Oh and Ichiro cards. ")

[jayshum]

Here's a column by Jay Jaffe that talks about what was done.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-day-...s/#more-438280

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Start buying Oh and Ichiro cards. ")

Congratulations to anyone holding some Josh Gibson 1974 Laughlin Old Time Black Stars cards. I was shocked when I was looked at some recent auctions several days ago. I am already stunned by a current one up for grabs.

I admit that I have never really followed that set too closely, but the whole set seems to have exploded from when I remember it being available for next to nothing.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

Congratulations to anyone holding some Josh Gibson 1974 Laughlin Old Time Black Stars cards. I was shocked when I was looked at some recent auctions several days ago. I am already stunned by a current one up for grabs.

I admit that I have never really followed that set too closely, but the whole set seems to have exploded from when I remember it being available for next to nothing.

Yes, I missed the boat. I was looking for one before I had any clue that Gibson would be in the news shortly. Now I'll be waiting a while.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

All good points, and I am reconsidering my positions. I'm also wondering if there could come a time when the game has become truly global and more and more Japanese, Latin, and other players have proven themselves the equals of MLB players, if a similar attempt might not be mounted to go back and assign some similar records to the great players of those leagues. I don't know why not. And I do appreciate this discussion for providing some very interesting grist for the endless mill of the "Hot Stove Leagues."

I really appreciate the response and the discussion as well and have also learned from the conversation.

I think it is an interesting question about whether baseball at some point in time will look to incorporate international records under one umbrella.

I do agree that the combining of the records, even if the players are of similar caliber, introduces other issues which make the issue far more complex.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

I really appreciate the response and the discussion as well and have also learned from the conversation.

I think it is an interesting question about whether baseball at some point in time will look to incorporate international records under one umbrella.

I do agree that the combining of the records, even if the players are of similar caliber, introduces other issues which make the issue far more complex.

I'd hesitate to say "Never" but It's something I believe when It comes to what I bolded.

The Negro leagues are a different entity. Yes the scheduling was inconsistent, but quite literally the only reason they existed was because Black people, weren't allowed to play in the Majors.

The Major Leagues is the pinnacle of baseball. We cannot count international records because of inferior competition. Every pro baseball player dreams of making the majors. I don't think the NPB, KBO etc is capable of hitting that level of talent.