Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

z28jd · #1 12-16-2020, 02:40 PM

I've also never heard anyone make the argument that it should be a Major League. If it was happening, it was on a very low level. The problem I have here is that MLB has so many issues with "Major League" recognition already for cases that seem cut and dry. Why do they not recognize American Association teams and at the same time recognize them? The league was a Major League but any team that played in it isn't the same team as it is now? For example, MLB swears that the Pirates came along in 1887 out of nowhere, ignoring everything else completely. Same for Cardinals and the Dodgers, but then they will say that the Reds have been around since 1869 when everyone here knows that today's Reds and the 1869 Reds are not a continuous team.

They pick and choose and no one really questioned if the AA was a Major League. They don't recognize the National Association, but some people do. Why not figure that one out first? Do things in order. Fix the stupid mistakes you make daily first, then go for new stuff like the Pacific Coast League and Negro Leagues. The PCL had players who preferred to stay on the west coast. It was not a Triple-A caliber league during ALL of those years. In fact, the Negro League news came today with the fact that they are just recognizing some of it. You do realize if they recognized all of it, there would be female MLB players right now?

Today's news came with the note that the Major Leagues were decided in 1968 and the Negro Leagues weren't even given consideration. So you're saying at the same time that this decision was right and wrong? Approximately 99% of the people commenting on it today have zero clue as to whether this is a good decision or not, and that includes the joke of a commissioner who changes things on a whim like the game hasn't been around longer than the teenagers he's trying to reach have been alive. Part of my rant here has nothing to do with MLB status of the Negro Leagues and more "What is Manfred going to do next without putting thought into it?"

Exhibitman · #2 12-16-2020, 02:52 PM

Setting aside the politics of it gentlemen, I wonder how they are going to do it. Deciding which stats to include is going to be a nightmare operation.

Jason19th · #3 12-16-2020, 03:02 PM

This is very interesting. I am assuming that they are only talking about the Negro League “majors” and only considering league games. There is actually a pretty good statistical record for those games, especially when you get into the later 30’s and 40’s. What needs to be considered however is that while there are good records these seasons where pretty short. I doubt if Josh Gibson ever got more then 300 official league at bats in a season so it’s going to be pretty hard to do real comparisons.

The player this may have the biggest impact on us Minnie Minoso. He has always been stuck catch 22 for the Hall in so much as the voters were either supposed to look only at his NL stats or his MLB stats. If you combine both I don’t see how you keep him out of the hall

packs · #4 12-16-2020, 03:02 PM

I think the major accomplishment here is that the players of the Negro Leagues will be included among players of Major League baseball, which hopefully means more attention paid to their careers re: the HOF. Otherwise there is only this special once in a while vote on any of their merits. If they are now considered among MLB maybe that means they can be voted on during any Veterans Committee vote.

Ricky · #5 12-16-2020, 03:14 PM

If you take a look at the website that Fred mentioned above - http://www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/index.php - you'll see that it has a pretty good database, and no, Satchel Paige doesn't have 1000 wins. But there is a drop-down on that site that lists all of the various leagues, and it's fairly easy to see which leagues should be included and which not.

Because of the shorter seasons, not many statistical lists will be affected - pretty much batting average, ERA and the like. Negro Leaguers didn't play enough games to challenge MLB numbers for career or season.

Tripredacus · #6 12-16-2020, 03:33 PM

Isn't there some player who would be in the top 3 in alltime hits if the negro league stats count? Maybe it isn't hits but some other offensive category. I can't remember who it was.

Jason19th · #7 12-16-2020, 03:40 PM

Die to the short season of official league games I don’t think any accumulation stats will be effected. People forget that Paige often went 7-2 or 9-3 in league games for a year and Gibson would lead in homers with 12

Pops Lloyd May become one of the highest average seasons. I think he had a 450+ season in the early 20’s

Steve D · #8 12-16-2020, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason19th

Die to the short season of official league games I don�t think any accumulation stats will be effected. People forget that Paige often went 7-2 or 9-3 in league games for a year and Gibson would lead in homers with 12

Pops Lloyd May become one of the highest average seasons. I think he had a 450+ season in the early 20�s

Here's ESPN's story about it:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...s-major-league

According to it, Josh Gibson would have the single-season batting average record at .441 in 1943.

Steve

BRoberts · #9 12-16-2020, 03:41 PM

What about a Negro League team that was called the Indians?

rhettyeakley · #10 12-16-2020, 04:01 PM

I totally understand what they are doing with this move but the statistics are going to be an absolute nightmare!

In the end I think they can only really include those games played between top professional Negro League teams which will not account for too many cumulative stats. There were so many exhibition games played by these teams to generate revenue that can never be included in any way (playing local pro/semipro/college/exhibition games will never be included in any meaningful accumulation of lifetime stats)

I think where it could get interesting is things like lifetime BA, Lifetime ERA, etc because there are some pretty crazy high numbers by several of the players that could boot people like Babe Ruth off the list of lifetime BA, which could get a little weird. Jud Wilson has a lifetime avg around .366 and there are some other ungodly number put up in some years by players that seem off if the competition was as good as reported (or they were just that good?)

Ricky · #11 12-16-2020, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

Isn't there some player who would be in the top 3 in alltime hits if the negro league stats count? Maybe it isn't hits but some other offensive category. I can't remember who it was.

Not that I saw. Check out that website. As far as lifetime averages, like batting average, ERA, etc., again, Negro Leaguers just didn't accumulate enough at bats or innings to qualify. You can't compare Ty Cobb, with 10,000 at bats and a .366 average to Josh Gibson, with 3500 at bats and a .365 average. MLB simply has to establish qualifying numbers to exclude some of the crazy averages. I really don't think the stats are going to be as much of an issue as some seem to.

Tripredacus · #12 12-17-2020, 01:49 PM

Thanks for the various replies I got to this question. I am thinking perhaps that I am thinking of a player who played in MLB and in another "major" league but in another country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky

Not that I saw. Check out that website. As far as lifetime averages, like batting average, ERA, etc., again, Negro Leaguers just didn't accumulate enough at bats or innings to qualify. You can't compare Ty Cobb, with 10,000 at bats and a .366 average to Josh Gibson, with 3500 at bats and a .365 average. MLB simply has to establish qualifying numbers to exclude some of the crazy averages. I really don't think the stats are going to be as much of an issue as some seem to.

Hankphenom · #13 12-16-2020, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I think the major accomplishment here is that the players of the Negro Leagues will be included among players of Major League baseball, which hopefully means more attention paid to their careers re: the HOF. Otherwise there is only this special once in a while vote on any of their merits. If they are now considered among MLB maybe that means they can be voted on during any Veterans Committee vote.

I'm for anything that tries to right the wrongs of segregation, but I don't see how you can compare a league in which only 10% of the population could play with one in which 90% of the population could play. Obviously, there were many Negro League players of Major League talent, but to try to equate and somehow merge the leagues as a whole defies logic. And there were no doubt some terrific NL teams that would have been competitive in the majors of their time, but I would guess that on average most NL teams would have been of some level of contemporaneous minor league quality. To try to cram them all into the history of the major leagues seems to me a fools errand.

packs · #14 12-16-2020, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I'm for anything that tries to right the wrongs of segregation, but I don't see how you can compare a league in which only 10% of the population could play with one in which 90% of the population could play. Obviously, there were many Negro League players of Major League talent, but to try to equate and somehow merge the leagues as a whole defies logic. And there were no doubt some terrific NL teams that would have been competitive in the majors of their time, but I would guess that on average most NL teams would have been of some level of contemporaneous minor league quality. To try to cram them all into the history of the major leagues seems to me a fools errand.

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

Jason19th · #15 12-16-2020, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

I agree. To bad MLB waited until every single player has passed

rhettyeakley · #16 12-16-2020, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

This seems like mere semantics if this is the case.

I don�t think anyone was discounting them for the last 20-30 years at the minimum so I guess if the point isn�t to change statistics then what are they actually accomplishing? The players in the Negro Leagues were already included in the HoF and I guess I just didn�t see many (if any) people really discounting what they had accomplished. No players from the PCL for example from the 1910-20�s are in the HoF for their exploits there so the players in Negro Leagues were certainly held in higher company than even the most major of minor leagues?

Again, I get the point of the announcement but is it a real thing or something to make us feel better about ourselves?

packs · #17 12-16-2020, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

This seems like mere semantics if this is the case.

I don’t think anyone was discounting them for the last 20-30 years at the minimum so I guess if the point isn’t to change statistics then what are they actually accomplishing? The players in the Negro Leagues were already included in the HoF and I guess I just didn’t see many (if any) people really discounting what they had accomplished. No players from the PCL for example from the 1910-20’s are in the HoF for their exploits there so the players in Negro Leagues were certainly held in higher company than even the most major of minor leagues?

Again, I get the point of the announcement but is it a real thing or something to make us feel better about ourselves?

I think you will see greater research into the stats and careers of the people who played. That is an accomplishment. Stats are not widely available because not many people thought they were worth keeping. The opposite is true of MLB, where serious attention to stats was placed. I would think recognizing the league grants legitimacy to it and it's stats and encourages further research and attention that extends beyond the hobbies of private individuals, which has so far been the origin of a lot of what we do know.

This was MLB's statement:

"All of us who love baseball have long known that the Negro Leagues produced many of the game's best players, innovations and triumphs against a backdrop of injustice," the statement read. "We are now grateful to count the players of the Negro Leagues where they belong: as Major Leaguers within the official historical record."

Hankphenom · #18 12-16-2020, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Recognizing people for playing at the highest level available to them isn't a fool's errand. To me this announcement is about recognition, not trying to compare stats. Or declare a new leader of any particular stat. Just the act of inclusion.

So anyone who ever played in the Negro Leagues is now a Major League player? From a pool of 10% of the population? Inclusion is great, but inclusion lacking merit, which would be the case for a large percentage of these men, only diminishes everybody concerned. There's a reason the term "major league" has meaning, and by including players who didn't meet that standard, you've cheapened it, IMO.

packs · #19 12-16-2020, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

So anyone who ever played in the Negro Leagues is now a Major League player? From a pool of 10% of the population? Inclusion is great, but inclusion lacking merit, which would be the case for a large percentage of these men, only diminishes everybody concerned. There's a reason the term "major league" has meaning, and by including players who didn't meet that standard, you've cheapened it, IMO.

Pretty definitive statement when discussing the merits of players who, if you will recall, weren't allowed to play in the major leagues because of their skin color. Why does recognizing their play at the highest level available to them diminish anyone? And how could recognizing a fact like that diminish anyone anymore than the decisions to deny them the chance to play?

Kenny Cole · #20 12-16-2020, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

So anyone who ever played in the Negro Leagues is now a Major League player? From a pool of 10% of the population? Inclusion is great, but inclusion lacking merit, which would be the case for a large percentage of these men, only diminishes everybody concerned. There's a reason the term "major league" has meaning, and by including players who didn't meet that standard, you've cheapened it, IMO.

Kind of like anyone who had one AB in the majors, sucked, and washed out. No difference at all, except that they didn't get the chance to get that one AB.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1937 Who's Who in the Major Leagues Book (Ends 10PM EST Sunday 4/10)	Thecafewha	Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once.	0	04-07-2016 12:06 PM
SOLD 1953 Viewmasters Baseball Stars Of the Major Leagues - HOFs!	t206blogcom	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	08-28-2014 09:35 PM
Break up of 1975 Broder Major Leagues The 1950s on Ebay	cardinalcollector	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	0	10-27-2010 09:21 PM
Anyone know the Negro Leagues?	Archive	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	5	10-30-2007 08:43 AM
Zeenut Players in Major Leagues	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	05-31-2005 09:12 PM