Negro League Stats included in official MLB records

[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.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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

Yes! It's time to stop ageism!
While they're at it, why not add the AAGPBL stats to the MLB record books as well?

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Yes! It's time to stop ageism!
While they're at it, why not add the AAGPBL stats to the MLB record books as well?

And the Stats from the baseball leagues in Guam and American Samoa.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Yoda

And the Stats from the baseball leagues in Guam and American Samoa.

Don't forget Japan. Why isn't Oh in the HOF??

[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.

[cgjackson222]

Gary, sounds reasonable. Just out of curiosity, which players from the NA would you like to see in the HOF as players? I don’t know a ton about the NA players.

[GaryPassamonte]

On my list I have players like Cal McVey, Al Reach, Dicky Pearce, and, my favorite Ross Barnes. There are also earlier pioneers such as Doc Adams and Jim Creighton, although Adams is more of a contributor. Interestingly, I don't believe making the NA major would help any I've listed. I'll have to take a closer look.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

On my list I have players like Cal McVey, Al Reach, Dicky Pearce, and, my favorite Ross Barnes. There are also earlier pioneers such as Doc Adams and Jim Creighton, although Adams is more of a contributor. Interestingly, I don't believe making the NA major would help any I've listed. I'll have to take a closer look.

Interesting list. But I think you are right that having the NA recognized as a major league would still not allow them to get into the HOF because they didn’t play 10 years.

[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

[insidethewrapper]

I thought it was called MLB Stats. The Negro Leagues may have been better, the same or below the Major Leagues during 1920-1948 but it should not be included in the MLB Stats since they were not. It should be as it is, The Negro Stats from 1920-1948 showing the greatest players from those leagues during that time ( best average, single single season,career etc. I think putting them together just doesn't seem right to me.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

I thought it was called MLB Stats. The Negro Leagues may have been better, the same or below the Major Leagues during 1920-1948 but it should not be included in the MLB Stats since they were not. It should be as it is, The Negro Stats from 1920-1948 showing the greatest players from those leagues during that time ( best average, single single season,career etc. I think putting them together just doesn't seem right to me.

The MLB is considered the AL/NL after they joined up.

All others (7 major negro leagues, American Association, Players League, etc) are considered major leagues, but not MLB. Yeah, its somewhat convoluted.

[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.

[Misunderestimated]

I'm in favor of including the Negro League numbers.

Some stray thoughts about these numbers:
The stats that people have trouble with are (from my reading) all rate statistics -- high averages and percentages -- not counting stats. My sense is that Negro League's best players would have been as good/better than their AL/NL counterparts. This is what the anecdotal evidence says and it's supported by the level of excellence of the first waves of integrated players who include many of the greatest national Leaguers ever (Aaron, Mays, et al)

I'm not as sure if the Negro leagues as a whole -- I mean the hypothetical replacement players too -- were on par with the AL and NL at the same time. This may help account for the staggeringly high rate stats that the Negro League's best players (almost all hitters by the way) put up.

The Negro Leagues as a whole were definitely superior to the lesser leagues in the 19th Century and probably the Federal League in 1914-15. The Union Association of 1884 was far worse that any league and it's considered a major league... Look at how good that league made Fred Dunlap look. (BTW the National Association circa 1871-75 belongs as a major league unless we are going to bounce the UA and maybe a few years of he American Association when it was at its weakest)

I don't think the incompleteness of Negro Leagues data should exclude them from major league status. it is interesting that the numbers may be moving over the next few years -- e.g. Josh Gibson's BA could go up or down.

Many of the record-breaking seasons were during a particularly weird time in baseball history --> the WWII era when many American males (of all colors) were fighting the war. It stands to reason that this more limited pool of players would make ir easier for the best to stand out even more. Think of this: what would Ted Williams have hit if he had gotten to feast on the AL pitching in 1943-45 ? He hit .406 in 1941 -- I'm guessing he gets to .420 with a lot of BB if he plays those years although Hal Newhouser was pretty awesome in 1945-46. Of course, Josh Gibson may have been suffering from a brain tumor in the 1940's and he still put up those numbers.

--

Finally, the impact and import of baseball stats as an arbiter of greatness suffered a body blow during the PED era that it hasn't recovered from... Since Bonds, McGwire, and Clemens (and company) stats lost their allure to many people. This says nothing about the Negro Leaguers -- they weren't juicing. But it does make all of this less meaningful than it would have been if this decision had been made in 1997. Maybe it should have been made then, although I don't know how much data was available back then.

[Casey2296]

"There is a certain justice in Ty Cobb's .366 BA record being broken by a Negro Leaguer. While Cobb was not been as bad at the end of his life he had a history of racism during his playing years."

Other than Al Stumps debunked sensationalistic biography, can you give me some examples of Cobbs racism?

100% agree that after Bonds, stats really lost their significance.

[Tomi]

Buck O'Neil said Cobb used to barnstorm in Cuba with Cuban and Negro League players. Not something a racist would do.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=l7zYopq-...y0Lty8Qreg6yhf

[Misunderestimated]

The Stump (and Alexander and Tommy Lee Jones) versions of Cobb are unfair. The revisionist account by Leerhsen paints a fairer and far more flattering picture of the man. (Perhaps it "overcorrects?") By the end of his life Cobb was positively progressive on race. But my understanding is that his fury as a young man (a very very southern young man in the early 20th century who lived and worked in the north) often had a racial edge.... The incident with the handicapped heckler comes to mind. I can't think of anything else off-hand though -- maybe I'm remembering things from the Alexander bio although I read the Leershen book more recently.
Perhaps I'm overstepping in calling the young Cobb racist... I'll retract that.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

I'm in favor of including the Negro League numbers.

Some stray thoughts about these numbers:
The stats that people have trouble with are (from my reading) all rate statistics -- high averages and percentages -- not counting stats. My sense is that Negro League's best players would have been as good/better than their AL/NL counterparts. This is what the anecdotal evidence says and it's supported by the level of excellence of the first waves of integrated players who include many of the greatest national Leaguers ever (Aaron, Mays, et al)

I'm not as sure if the Negro leagues as a whole -- I mean the hypothetical replacement players too -- were on par with the AL and NL at the same time. This may help account for the staggeringly high rate stats that the Negro League's best players (almost all hitters by the way) put up.

The Negro Leagues as a whole were definitely superior to the lesser leagues in the 19th Century and probably the Federal League in 1914-15. The Union Association of 1884 was far worse that any league and it's considered a major league... Look at how good that league made Fred Dunlap look. (BTW the National Association circa 1871-75 belongs as a major league unless we are going to bounce the UA and maybe a few years of he American Association when it was at its weakest)

I don't think the incompleteness of Negro Leagues data should exclude them from major league status. it is interesting that the numbers may be moving over the next few years -- e.g. Josh Gibson's BA could go up or down.

Many of the record-breaking seasons were during a particularly weird time in baseball history --> the WWII era when many American males (of all colors) were fighting the war. It stands to reason that this more limited pool of players would make ir easier for the best to stand out even more. Think of this: what would Ted Williams have hit if he had gotten to feast on the AL pitching in 1943-45 ? He hit .406 in 1941 -- I'm guessing he gets to .420 with a lot of BB if he plays those years although Hal Newhouser was pretty awesome in 1945-46. Of course, Josh Gibson may have been suffering from a brain tumor in the 1940's and he still put up those numbers.

--

Finally, the impact and import of baseball stats as an arbiter of greatness suffered a body blow during the PED era that it hasn't recovered from... Since Bonds, McGwire, and Clemens (and company) stats lost their allure to many people. This says nothing about the Negro Leaguers -- they weren't juicing. But it does make all of this less meaningful than it would have been if this decision had been made in 1997. Maybe it should have been made then, although I don't know how much data was available back then.

I didn't want to truncate your quote, as I feel it would diminish it. This conveys my opinion nearly completely.

The only thing I would add is that I would be against this move 25 years ago. Why? Not because I believed the NL didn't deserve the recognition, but because the method of baseball stats delivery was via BOOKS and rudimentary sort features! I was calculating 162 game comparables back in the mid 70's. The DH rocked my world, as it created a disparity in comparing AL/NL. It annoyed me (and to some extent, still does) when playoff 'records' were broken and didn't account for playoff expansion. I loved reading old contemporary news story accounts, recollections, and biographies of past players. I was fascinated by the challenge of trying to accurately gauge how a deadball vs. liveball vs. WWII vs. Negro League vs. post expansion player would fare against one another. As I know now, it is a fruitless folly. Just watch a game from the 80's on youtube. The level of play (NOT the 'game') now is tremendously greater. And that is within my lifetime.

Now do I believe that the greats would be great regardless? Yes. Just not as great.

My point is , stats are stats. They give insight, not proof of superiority across generations. Inclusion of the Negro League stats are fine with me. As long as I can sort them, just as I did with the 18th century players decades ago.

P.S. If I recall correctly they were italicized

[Deertick]

Duplicate