According to baseball-reference.com, in Jackie Robinson's one year (1945) with the Kansas City Monarchs, he hit .414, with 24 hits in 58 at bats.

If you add those totals to his Dodgers stats (1,518 hits in 4,877 at bats, .311 average), his batting average will go up one point to .312.

Steve

Did you read my full post. There are leagues that are currently considered Major Leagues that were not on par with the American and National Leagues.

There were also eras in the American and National Leagues (like during WWII) where the caliber of player was significantly below "Major League" level. Unless you are arguing to remove some the 1800's leagues currently considered Major Leagues, and remove Hal Newhouser from the HOF (both his MVP awards and his 2 best seasons were against dimished WWII competition) then you aren't being consistent here.

Ted Williams and Babe Ruth no longer have top 10 batting averages. As a result, their cards will probably take around a 30% dive. I’ll help soften the blow. If anyone is interested, I’ll buy your cards at just a 25% discount. PM me. :D

You make valid points. As someone who is on the opposite side of this argument, I agree with nearly all of what you're saying here.

I would gladly see Hal Newhouser's HOF plaque relinquished, as well as removing some of the 19th century leagues (if it proves sensible after more continued study) if this latest decision was obliterated.

We all know how long it took Newhouser to be inducted. Frankly, it should never have happened. But then, from what you say, the superstars of the Negro Leagues were playing mostly against AAA caliber players. Should the same rules not apply to them? Who, then, was deserving of enshrinement and who wasn't? Imagine trying to apply logic and meagerly collected stats in an attempt to accurately award merit. Cobb, Ruth, Joe D., Gehrig and whoever else were not playing AAA players. In fact, guys like Ted Williams and Joe D. weren't really padding their stats playing against the diminished WWII players, either. It's all just a huge can of worms proving that everything should have been left as was.

The only thing that we can't do that much about is the diminished talent pool of the WWII-era MLB. It has to stand for the sake of continuity.

(Not that any of these things would ever happen, outside of perhaps the eventual exclusion of the 19th century leagues, but I'm doubtful of that as well.)

I don't have a big problem with that. Charleston, Paige, Gibson, Lloyd, Torriente, et al., were absolute studs. IMO, they were on par with their white counterparts. I dont think any cards will take a hit, nor do I think that NL cards go up much. There aren't enough of them to move the needle. This is not nearly the issue that some are making it out to be so far as I'm concerned. This should have happened years ago and it is to MLB's shame that it didn't.

Funny how many commentators think this decision is the greatest thing since sliced bread but never bothered to donate $78.32 to our Negro League Baseball Museum fundraiser challenge.

Fair enough. I can appreciate the perspective and consistency.

I'd argue though, that we need to take it further. After black players, despite being a tiny fraction of the overall players early on, they won the NL ROY in 1947, and every year in the 5 years from 1949-1953.

If we take the best players in baseball who played most of their career after WWII, there are at least as many elite black players as white players. Most top 10 lists include 5 players from after WWII: Musial and Williams are white, and Mays, Aaron and Bonds are black. Some lists add Mantle, which would make it even. As you go further down the list you have Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Ken Griffey Jr, Rickey Henderson, Bob Gibson, Roberto Clemente, Pedro Martinez, Roy Campanella etc.

If you don't believe that the Negro Leagues should be included, there's an argument that all of MLB before integration shouldn't either be. Since it is clear that at roughly 50% of the high of the greatest players likely were barred from playing.

Forgive me, but this only proves that the MLB clubs picked the freshest, best cream off the top of the Negro League milk bottle. That's neither fresh news nor relevant to the conversation, and purely coincidental that the award happened to be won by black players.


Sadly, that number can only ever be a guess. There will never be definitive proof of this; it can only be speculated. Also, does this not fly in the face of what you already wrote about the majority of Negro Leaguers only being of AAA caliber? Even with our better understanding and appreciation of overlooked Negro League stars who were finally inducted after so long, statistically, we're nowhere near 50%. Even after years of scrupulous study of (hopefully) rediscovered box scores, will Cooperstown be opening the floodgates to that many players to even come close to that figure? Highly doubtful.

Since Integration, we have 70 years where black players have been roughly half of the all-time greats. I can't say definitively that before that era the players would have been equally good, but it's reasonable to speculate. The elite talent has been sustained for 70 years since, and includes players that crossed over leagues (Jackie, Campanella, Aaron, Mays etc all played in the Negro Leagues.)

When you talk about picking the "cream of the crop" that's likely at least somewhat true. But in winning the ROY, these players were finishing on top of all the white players who were rookies (and subsequently the many MVP's won by Mays, Aaron, Frank Robinson, Campanella etc which means they were literally viewed as the best.)

Regarding my two comments, they are consistent. Research has shown that the elite of the Negro Leagues were on par with the elite in the Majors, but that the teams were overall thinner in talent.

Even if the number of stars missing from pre-integration was 30%-40% and not fully 50%, you are looking at the leagues missing large groups of the best players.

In my mind, if you don't count the Negro Leagues as a Major League because it didn't quite live up to the AL and NL (top to bottom), it's hard to compare stats from pre-integration with post-integration.

All that said, I know not everyone will agree (though I think most will disagree with less nuance than you have) and I appreciate the dialogue around this.

Then the NHL had better add WHA stats to the career totals of guys who played in both leagues. That would mean Mr. Hockey is again the all-time goal scoring leader I believe.

Jackie Robinson batted .384 in 26 league games for the KC Monarchs in 1945, his only year with them. Doesn’t sound like “garbage” to me.

In my estimation, there are at least 10 who deserve HOF consideration. Not saying that they should all be elected, but they should be looked at. I think that 5 would be no-brainers if they were white -- Lundy, Donaldson, Marcelle, Beckwith and Brewer. There are several more who should be looked at, including several who played before the cut-off date of 1920. I kind of get 1948, but 1920 is ridiculous IMO.

I think it's also pertinent to mention the huge upswing in Latin American talent that represents your post-integration demographic. It gives this discussion more points to consider. While there were certainly black Latinos playing in the Negro Leagues, it was statistically far from what's transpired in the integrated era. The great players of the last 30+ years with (at least some) African ancestry have more often than not been Latino.

And while there are a handful of black Latino HOFers from the Negro Leagues, there was never a Latino superstar who made it into pre-integration MLB.

That's a point I hadn't considered, but I'm not sure I agree for a couple of reasons.

1) All the players I mentioned were black except for Clemente, and I don't believe any were Latino. I didn't even mention Pujols, Arod etc.

2) There were many great players who because they couldn't play in the MLB, chose to play in Cuba, Puerto Rico and Mexico. Players like Alejandro Oms, Pedro (Perucho) Cepeda etc. Had those players had the chance to play in the MLB, with the increased salaries and opportunities, many if not all would have taken that opportunity. (Some players were explicit about not playing in the US because of the color barrier)

Yes and I take stats from the 1800s with a grain of salt, also considering all of the rule and equipment changes over the past 120+ years.

The war years created a circumstance that was unavoidable. Yes, the level of play dipped during those years. Same with the first couple of years after expansion.

But this is different - it is a conscious decision to elevate stats garnered against (by your own admission) Triple A competition to Major League status, across several decades.

You may take the 1800's stats with a grain of salt, but they are included in the baseball record books. And some of those leagues were also roughly at AAA level (not comparing to modern day, just comparing to the other leagues of the time).

The reality is that we've accepted a range of levels as Major Leagues for a very long time. And the elite in the Negro Leagues were clearly as good as the best in the Majors. We have barnstorming games as evidence. And we have the incredible play of the black players who played in the Majors after integration. Jackie won the ROY in 47 and MVP in 49. He wasn't remotely the best player in the Negro Leagues. Campanella won 3 MVP's. But there's a good chance he was no Biz Mackey, and he certainly was no Josh Gibson.

The MLB was diminished in those years because they didn't have the great black players (if the track record since integration is an indication, it's likely 30%-50% of the biggest stars in the game. Arguably those stats shouldn't be counted either along the same line of reasoning.

I agree with this. Where we disagree is whether their stats, accumulated against AAA level competition, should be equated to ML players of that era, who accumulated stats versus ML competition.

I also wonder if the NL had talent watered down during the war years.

He is; WHA ROCKS!

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...Howe%20raw.jpg

This. But it doesn't go far enough.

Any imposed change to social norms is messy and devisive. Sometimes the reaction is dramatic, like Civil War dramatic. But usually people share their opinions and feelings for a while then simmer down while life proceeds. Both sides of this issue have been intelligently presented, but I predict time will smooth things out and we'll soon be talking about something else.

I like how they cut it off at 1948 and dont include up to 1953 because it would have given Aaron the HR record again

IMO, the was just recognition that the Negro Leagues were, at that time, the absolute highest level of play for ANY BLACK player & THAT is the very definition of a Major League.
.

While the HOF is at it might want to include the women of baseball and include their stats and I don't mean that sarcastically. Include everyone

stats
 

I think it will make things more confusing

Exactly. How many for this would would also want to include the women??

I like it. Most of the criticisms I've read of it so far are based on assumptions that would be debunked by reading the original article or this one from MLB. I don't really buy the argument that imperfections in the tabulation of the stats are a good reason not to prefer some improvement over the status quo, and this particular method of synthesizing the Negro League stats with the extant MLB stats is certainly an improvement over the absolute segregation of the two.

This will become more than a straw man argument the day that a significant number of women are playing on modern-day MLB rosters.

Since they've been calling it the "World Series" since 1903, isn't it time they include the Japanese Major Leagues too?

Looks like Sadaharu Oh is the REAL all time HR king.

Maybe it's a good idea to load up on Randy Bass cards since they're pretty cheap for a guy who hit 55 HRs in a single season.

I can't be the only one who would like to see Ichiro ahead of Pete Rose.

So what you’re saying is that decades of research by some of the top baseball historians in the country should overrule the opinions of baseball card collectors? You don’t think Rob Manfred should have checked here first? But, but, but...[emoji2962]

I think what's most surprising to me is this notion that Negro League players somehow diminish the order of major league players. Like they're taking something away from somebody by being included. The only players who had anything taken away from them were the Negro League players.

And if your argument is going to be that it's not fair they be called major leaguers, I'd say it's not fair they weren't.

Some people - maybe women - would have a hard time accepting exclusion by gender when there are those who won't except exclusion by race.

Saying this, I fully understand and see a difference myself, but I think some will not.

If you're talking about the players who were good enough to be in the Major Leagues, agreed. If you are talking about the rest of the league, which in above posts was estimated to be AAA level, then no. If we're going to call those guys Major Leaguers, then why not call the Triple-A players of that day Major Leaguers too, since they were of similar caliber.

That argument is easily defeated by pointing out that the players in the major leagues who would have otherwise lost their jobs to superior Negro League players are still counted among major leaguers. It really isn't a position that can be defended.

If you consider the population percentages, there were many more non-black players and therefore much more competition for spots in the Major Leagues. That alone suggests the average player in the ML was better than the average player in the NL.

More than anything else, up until Jackie Robinson, the only real qualification you needed to have to play major league baseball was you had to be white. Talent was never first. And even if you want to go along with your line of thinking, there are a million guys who played a cup of coffee in the major leagues that would fall into your AAA and AA talent pool.

Of course talent was first. Look at how extensive the farm systems were. Rookie League, Single A, Double A, Triple A. Some ML teams having more than one minor league team at the same level. Competition to get to the ML was pretty fierce, and there were many thousands of white players competing for those spots.

Wait...what?

If talent was first why would you have to be white?

And what are you holding so dear, anyway? Victory Faust was in the right place at the right time. Eddie Gaedel was short. But there is nothing to be said about their inclusion over someone like Bruce Petway.

I didn't really expect so much opposition to acknowledging a group of athletes that competed at the highest level available to them while racism prevented them from furthering their careers and reaching their dreams.

Yet here we are.

As an NFL fan this sort of stuff has been grouped into the history of the sport as various leagues were born, went extinct, or merged, etc.

In 1961 Charley Hennigan had one of the most statistically dominating seasons for a WR ever. But we all know the competition in the very first years of the AFL wasn't the greatest and a rational human being can take that into account.

It really is strange to me. This board is full of people who collect Negro League memorabilia and have nothing but good things to say about Jackie Robinson or Jackie Robinson Day but for some reason there is all this animosity toward recognition like this. This is a good thing. Why don't you want it to be?

Charles Victory Faust and Eddie Gaedel were stunts, much like Minnie Minoso playing a few games at age 51, and again at 55.

My concern is the watering down of statistics. If you're Satchell Paige you're a ML caliber player, without doubt. But the stats you accumulate pitching against Triple A level competition are not Major League caliber stats.

Explain how they're watered down when they don't threaten any all time records or even advance Paige's reputation. His reputation is what it is without knowing any of his stats. How does he become watered down?

Again, if you extend your argument from before, the major league records are already watered down by virtue of excluding the best players from playing at all times. Pre-Jackie, everyone's stats are watered down. You cannot say that everything is equal and we are in the same place today if Oscar Charleston and players like him played major league baseball.

Records WILL look different. For example the record for single season batting average, long held by the unquestionably great Hugh Duffy who clearly faced some of the toughest pitching ever, may soon go to Josh Gibson, who many esteemed collectors presume faced mainly AAA level chumps and hobos.

In the 1930's there were many minor leaguers who, by first-hand accounts from Major Leaguers I knew, should rightly have been called up to the show. The issue was of course the lack of room on the rosters of the parent clubs. Therefore, due to space constrictions, many white players were also denied entry into the Major Leagues. Should we examine their records and proclaim those that meet a predetermined set of criteria to be Major Leaguers as well? According to some points being presented, we'd almost have to. Fair is fair.

Just curious, where would they be in line if they allowed black players to get in the same line?

So limited roster spaces for whites is the equivalent of the categorical and systematic racism of the Negro leaguers?

Unfortunately, that is not a question we will ever have a perfect answer to. It's a shame.

My obvious point was that both blacks and whites were denied entry due to circumstances they could not change.

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.