Negro League Stats included in official MLB records

[Exhibitman]

I think the only real world lab we have to test the quality of Negro League play is what happened in the first ten years of integration.

ML ROY 1947: Robinson
NL ROY:
--1949: Newcombe
--1950: Jethro
--1951: Mays
--1952: Black
--1953: Gilliam

NL MVP:
--1949: Robinson
--1951, 1953, 1955: Campanella
--1954: Mays
--1956: Newcombe
--1957: Aaron

Notable black players who came into the game from 1947-56 and had an impact at the MLB level:
--Jackie Robinson
--Campanella
--Mays
--Irvin
--Minoso
--Doby
--Banks
--Aaron
--Frank Robinson
--Clemente
--Elston Howard
--Jim Gilliam
--Newcombe
--Joe Black
--Hank Thompson
--Luke Easter
--Satchel Paige

Probably some others who don't come to my mind readily (I usually see their cards in my head and remember who was who that way). There were also a number of NL players who got very short trials in MLB and were cut down immediately if they were not spectacular off the bat. Mays was one of the lucky ones in working with Durocher, who was not quick to pull that demotion trigger on him after he went 1 for 25 to start, yet the Giants kicked Artie Wilson back down to the PCL after 24 at-bats produced 4 hits.

My point is that the black players who entered the Bigs in that first decade comprised an all-star team that could have beaten any white team of the era. Carrying NL stats as MLB stats, I don't see a good argument for not doing that given the quality of the players who were or would have been in the NL had there not been integration. Bottom line for me is that if NL stats are MLB stats, you can't make distinctions between seasons given how the game was played at a time of segregation. The NL players played the game they had available to them.

Oh, and a card:

[Republicaninmass]

Well throw your RoY analogy out the window because they "had been playing MLB" for year prior.


People now clamorimg to have their Roy's removed from history and awarded to 2nd best

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Well throw your RoY analogy out the window because they "had been playing MLB" for year prior.


People now clamorimg to have their Roy's removed from history and awarded to 2nd best

Who is clamoring?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Who is clamoring?

Scores of protesters today marched with torches and pitchforks to MLB stadiums against the championship title of "world series". MLB has decided they would be changing the title of their trophy, as well as going back through all records and removing the title of world champions. Also, new trophies will be awarded to Zimbabwes Tigers who went 160-2 in 1975, as well as many other baseball teams around the world for their compelling records. More to follow on this breaking story.

[GaryPassamonte]

The ironic issue with MLB's decision re: integrating the NL stats into current MLB stats AND changing the various leaders in season stats is that, by doing this, they are doing exactly what they have failed to do with the National Association of 1871-1875. The argument used to not recognize the NA as a major league included, in large part, the small number of "league" games played each season and an erratic schedule. Apparently, in 2024 this is a good idea for the NL, but still not a good idea for the NA. It is popular today to call early black players and players of the NL pioneers and they are. But what about the white pioneer players of the 1840s-1870s that laid the groundwork for professional baseball and are almost completely left out of any HOF conversations. This is wrong. You can't have it both ways and be right in what you are doing.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

That definitely dawned on me too, Gary.

If something similar was done with the Association, then it would finally make Steve Bellan the first Cuban MLB player by a long shot.

[bnorth]

I am all for it. This makes my little league stats one step away from being included now.

On a serious note I dislike it because it was a different league. It would be like adding CFL stats to the NFL.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

The ironic issue with MLB's decision re: integrating the NL stats into current MLB stats AND changing the various leaders in season stats is that, by doing this, they are doing exactly what they have failed to do with the National Association of 1871-1875. The argument used to not recognize the NA as a major league included, in large part, the small number of "league" games played each season and an erratic schedule. Apparently, in 2024 this is a good idea for the NL, but still not a good idea for the NA. It is popular today to call early black players and players of the NL pioneers and they are. But what about the white pioneer players of the 1840s-1870s that laid the groundwork for professional baseball and are almost completely left out of any HOF conversations. This is wrong. You can't have it both ways and be right in what you are doing.

You can take solace in the fact that SABR does consider the NA a major, it is treated as such within the databases of Baseball Reference and FanGraphs, and the plaques of Hall of Famers with NA experience, such as Deacon White and Pud Galvin, list the NA teams for which they played along with those in the majors.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You can take solace in the fact that SABR does consider the NA a major, it is treated as such within the databases of Baseball Reference and FanGraphs, and the plaques of Hall of Famers with NA experience, such as Deacon White and Pud Galvin, list the NA teams for which they played along with those in the majors.

Yes, but MLB and the HOF don't. There are at least a dozen players whose careers started prior to 1876 and prior to 1871 for that matter, who are only technically eligible for the HOF as pioneers since they are not eligible because of the ten year rule. Making the NA a major league would allow some of these players to qualify based on the ten year rule. Does it make any sense to make it near impossible for pioneer players to to be elected to the HOF for being born too soon. In fact, these players are excluded because recognized major league baseball didn't exist when they they started playing. This is not dissimilar, not from a ethical/equality standpoint, but logically, to the argument used to advocate for the inclusion of pre-integation black players in the HOF. That argument being that it's not black players fault they couldn't play in the major leagues due to the segregationist policies, and this is true. It is also true that early players couldn't play in the major leagues through not fault of their own since the major leagues didn't exist prior to 1876, as it now stands. As I said, making the NA major would be a start towards opening the HOF door to some players and being consistent. If you look at the number of players in the HOF by decade/era, the least represented group is from early baseball. You wouldn't have the baseball of today without these players and they are not given their due by MLB or the HOF.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Also, new trophies will be awarded to Zimbabwes Tigers who went 160-2 in 1975, as well as many other baseball teams around the world for their compelling records. More to follow on this breaking story.

Interesting, since Zimbabwe didn't exist as a country until 1980.

Any reason you chose Zimbabwe specifically as an example instead of any North American, South American, European, Australian, or Asian countries?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Interesting, since Zimbabwe didn't exist as a country until 1980.

Any reason you chose Zimbabwe specifically as an example instead of any North American, South American, European, Australian, or Asian countries?

Technically the Rhodesia Tigers.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Interesting, since Zimbabwe didn't exist as a country until 1980.

Any reason you chose Zimbabwe specifically as an example instead of any North American, South American, European, Australian, or Asian countries?

Quoting this as reference to the low level, gaslightimg, virtue signaling, scumbag piece of $hit you are.

[rjackson44]

I dnjoy reading about this subject so im happy this is happening

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Quoting this as reference to the low level, gaslightimg, virtue signaling, scumbag piece of $hit you are.

A) I'm not sure you understand what gaslighting is, and
B) Honestly ask yourself why you chose that specific country as an example when composing your 'hot take'. It may help you grow as a human being.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

the black players who entered the Bigs in that first decade comprised an all-star team that could have beaten any white team of the era.

Well, yeah, because the creme de la creme of Negro League players were naturally selected to integrate first. Your statement is accurate, but the obvious has to be kept in mind.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Well, yeah, because the creme de la creme of Negro League players were naturally selected to integrate first. Your statement is accurate, but the obvious has to be kept in mind.

I agree but I am not sure what that proves or disproves. If you want to see how the best of the NL stacked up against MLB under league game conditions and you don't want to compare stats between NL and MLB because of differences in play and conditions, tracking that pioneer group in MLB is the best we can do.