Negro League Stats included in official MLB records

[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.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

However, elevating the NA to major league would make an undeniable case for a player like Barnes. He would become the only player to hit .400 in four seasons and would be the winner of three batting titles. Those are pretty good credentials. Also, since Gibson is now the career batting average leader with less than 3000 ABs, wouldn't Barnes career .360 average be considered with a similar amount of ABs? I have another thought. Since there is a ten year rule, are black players whose careers began after 1920 (NLs first season), now ineligible for HOF consideration if they don't play ten seasons? The pioneer route would their only option, right? That's the same requirement for 19th century pioneers with less than ten major league seasons. Doing anything else would be inconsistent. I think MLB has opened up a can of worms on this point. The sad thing is that not enough people care about the early history of baseball to force action by the HOF and MLB.

[drcy]

I think the question of if the Negro League states belong in there is a legitimate question.

However, MLB has all sorts of apples-to-oranges juxtapositions. Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds, Cy Young and Clayton Kershaw lived in very different baseball periods.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by drcy

I think the question of if the Negro League states belong in there is a legitimate question.

However, MLB has all sorts of apples-to-oranges juxtapositions. Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds, Cy Young and Clayton Kershaw lived in very different baseball periods.

True but they are very different questions. One is horizontal -- do you assume talent is relatively constant over time, or at least that players should be judged relative to their era such that someone with a 10 WAR in 1920 was as "good" as someone with the same WAR in 2020?

The NL question is vertical -- IF the leagues were not equal, it doesn't make sense to consider the stats the same as MLB players of the same era. Today, for example, if the minor league champion had a higher batting average than the MLB champion, you would not say he led baseball in hitting, or if you did it would be meaningless. I am not commenting on the "IF" but just putting it in context.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

However, elevating the NA to major league would make an undeniable case for a player like Barnes. He would become the only player to hit .400 in four seasons and would be the winner of three batting titles. Those are pretty good credentials. Also, since Gibson is now the career batting average leader with less than 3000 ABs, wouldn't Barnes career .360 average be considered with a similar amount of ABs? I have another thought. Since there is a ten year rule, are black players whose careers began after 1920 (NLs first season), now ineligible for HOF consideration if they don't play ten seasons? The pioneer route would their only option, right? That's the same requirement for 19th century pioneers with less than ten major league seasons. Doing anything else would be inconsistent. I think MLB has opened up a can of worms on this point. The sad thing is that not enough people care about the early history of baseball to force action by the HOF and MLB.

Eligibility based on number of years played is certainly a bit confusing.
You have a bunch of guys who played in the Negro Leagues that do not have 10 years of major league experience. Martin Dihigo has 9 years, Jose Mendez has 7, and Louis Santop has only 4. I guess the idea is that in addition to their major league Negro League experience, they also have non-major league Negro League experience.

Still, it would be nice for Ross Barnes to be recognized for his popularization of the sport, but you are right, there may not be enough interest in the guys who played for the National Association in the 1870s.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Eligibility based on number of years played is certainly a bit confusing.
You have a bunch of guys who played in the Negro Leagues that do not have 10 years of major league experience. Martin Dihigo has 9 years, Jose Mendez has 7, and Louis Santop has only 4. I guess the idea is that in addition to their major league Negro League experience, they also have non-major league Negro League experience.

Still, it would be nice for Ross Barnes to be recognized for his popularization of the sport, but you are right, there may not be enough interest in the guys who played for the National Association in the 1870s.

But how come the same standards are not used for 19th century century players whose careers started before 1871/1876? Almost all played in the highest levels of baseball prior to open professionalism. The HOF exists or should exist to show the history of the game and honors ALL eras of that history. In fact, the HOF has the audacity to refer to pioneer players as "executives" on their own site, apparently not daring to call them pioneers for some unknown reason. George Wright is an executive. Yeah, right.

I just checked the HOF's site. There are forty executive/pioneers. Thirty-three were actually executives. Only seven were players, at least for part of their baseball careers. The list, with induction year: George Wright (1937), Candy Cummings (1939), Harry Wright (1953), Rube Foster (1981), Frank Grant (2006), Sol White (2006), Bud Fowler (2022). Probably, only George Wright, Candy Cummings, Frank Grant, and Bud Fowler were inducted as players.
Is it reasonable that only two white "pioneer" players have been elected to HOF in its history and these elections took place 85 and 87 years ago?
I'm all in favor of fairness, equity, or whatever else people want to call it today, but, as I've already said here, 19th century baseball players are the most underrepresented group in the HOF and it is a black eye on the HOF.