Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[Kenny Cole]

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.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

How difficult is it to learn from our past, recognize humanity's mistakes, and move on in a more progressive direction? This is not progressive; in a way, it's revisionist history.

[samosa4u]

Some NL players over the years said that Jackie was garbage when he played for the Monarchs. So, how is this going to work then? Will those NL stats get carried over? Won’t they hurt his overall numbers or am I failing to understand something here?

[shagrotn77]

Wow. I'm 1,000% AGAINST this if, for no other reason, the fact that Negro League stats were not kept nearly as precisely as MLB stats. Also, as previously pointed out, Negro League teams didn't always play "major league" competition. Why would MLB decide that this was a good idea? Should we also make Ichiro the new MLB hit king, or Sadaharu Oh the new MLB HR king? This is ridiculous.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Some NL players over the years said that Jackie was garbage when he played for the Monarchs. So, how is this going to work then? Will those NL stats get carried over? Won’t they hurt his overall numbers or am I failing to understand something here?

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

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Some NL players over the years said that Jackie was garbage when he played for the Monarchs. So, how is this going to work then? Will those NL stats get carried over? Won’t they hurt his overall numbers or am I failing to understand something here?

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.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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.

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.

But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by packs

But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

That makes no sense at all. You will never know which white players would have been "replaced," but you can try to distinguish between those NL players who appeared to have the talent to make the major leagues and those who didn't. HOF voters have been making those kinds of distinctions for many years. I'm happy to add those who qualify, but including the vast majority who would not just diminishes the whole, IMO. As I said, if you want to do that in the name of justice and be honest about that, I'd be more amenable.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

That makes no sense at all. You will never know which white players would have been "replaced," but you can try to distinguish between those NL players who appeared to have the talent to make the major leagues and those who didn't. HOF voters have been making those kinds of distinctions for many years. I'm happy to add those who qualify, but including the vast majority who would not just diminishes the whole, IMO. As I said, if you want to do that in the name of justice and be honest about that, I'd be more amenable.

I'm in agreement with what Hank has been saying and am glad he's been here to voice a few points that nobody else has touched upon.

We have to employ as much logic and as little emotion as possible to this discussion in an effort to be fair to all. Unfortunately, there is no precise solution and there never will be. Yes, this is due to the unfortunate ways of the past, but let's not start taking pencils and erasers to the book of time. After all, it was written in indelible ink; erasers are powerless. Recognize mistakes and leave them be in order for future generations to more easily see what went wrong. It's not a bad idea to leave those scars showing loud and clear.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

Hank's point is valid and excellent.

Making some assumptions: During the period 1920-1948, the average black player and average white player were basically equal in ability. Also assume interest in playing baseball was basically equal between blacks and non-blacks. And finally, assume the number of teams in the NL and ML is the same.

If the population is comprised of 10% blacks and 90% non-blacks. It means, for every spot on a ML roster, there are 9 times as many non-black guys competing for it, compared to blacks trying to make it in the NL.

If there were only half as many teams in the NL as there were in the ML, then the non-blacks had 4.5 guys competing for a roster spot compared to blacks in their league.

[packs]

But none of those things are relevant. This isn't mass induction into the HOF. It's mass recognition of playing at the highest level available to these players. You cannot simultaneously argue that every Negro League player shouldn't be recognized because not all of them would have played in the majors and say that everyone who did play in the majors belonged there.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

But none of those things are relevant. This isn't mass induction into the HOF. It's mass recognition of playing at the highest level available to these players. You cannot simultaneously argue that every Negro League player shouldn't be recognized because not all of them would have played in the majors and say that everyone who did play in the majors belonged there.

Recognize them for what they did, but don't water down the statistical integrity of those who actually competed at the ML level.

[clydepepper]

People Please!

Please read my previous post ( #72 - the highlighted one)...that's all that needs to be said.

.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Hank's point is valid and excellent.

Making some assumptions: During the period 1920-1948, the average black player and average white player were basically equal in ability. Also assume interest in playing baseball was basically equal between blacks and non-blacks. And finally, assume the number of teams in the NL and ML is the same.

If the population is comprised of 10% blacks and 90% non-blacks. It means, for every spot on a ML roster, there are 9 times as many non-black guys competing for it, compared to blacks trying to make it in the NL.

If there were only half as many teams in the NL as there were in the ML, then the non-blacks had 4.5 guys competing for a roster spot compared to blacks in their league.

Interesting thoughts, such discussion always tend toward murky and turbulent waters. Nonetheless, using your math how can it be explained that according to the most recent Census 76.3% of the country is white and 13.4% are black. Yet 81% of NBA players are black and 70% of NFL is black? Unfortunately only 7.7% of MLB is black. Baseball had little completion for athletes during the negro league era. Looking forward, how do we get the future Lebron James and Lamar Jacksons more interested in baseball? For that matter how do we draw the future Baker Mayfields to baseball? BTW I am not excluding the NHL for any other reason than it doesn’t interest me in the least. Also, as a Latino with a German last name it warms my heart that people acknowledge that Ted Williams is one of me only with a slightly better swing��

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Interesting thoughts, such discussion always tend toward murky and turbulent waters. Nonetheless, using your math how can it be explained that according to the most recent Census 76.3% of the country is white and 13.4% are black. Yet 81% of NBA players are black and 70% of NFL is black? Unfortunately only 7.7% of MLB is black. Baseball had little completion for athletes during the negro league era. Looking forward, how do we get the future Lebron James and Lamar Jacksons more interested in baseball? For that matter how do we draw the future Baker Mayfields to baseball? BTW I am not excluding the NHL for any other reason than it doesn’t interest me in the least. Also, as a Latino with a German last name it warms my heart that people acknowledge that Ted Williams is one of me only with a slightly better swing��

Why do "WE" have to manipulate other people? If the future Lebron James wants to play basketball, as a free American, that's his choice. "WE" shouldn't be trying to steer him away from what he wants to do.

I attribute the disparities you mention to free will - people preferring one sport over another. The fact that it's easier to play basketball in a more confined area (like in a city neighborhood) and with fewer players might be a factor too.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Why do "WE" have to manipulate other people? If the future Lebron James wants to play basketball, as a free American, that's his choice. "WE" shouldn't be trying to steer him away from what he wants to do.

I attribute the disparities you mention to free will - people preferring one sport over another. The fact that it's easier to play basketball in a more confined area (like in a city neighborhood) and with fewer players might be a factor too.

Mark, I love baseball. I wasn’t looking to manipulate anyone. I was a local scout for the Reds and Indians for a number of years. I saw so many talented athletes who were disinterested in baseball it pained me. There were Point guards who looked like centerfielders, and quarterbacks who could have been power pitchers. Call me crazy but I think baseball is better now than it ever has been. Nonetheless, I wish more young athletes were drawn to it. Imagine if Rickey Henderson had picked football, imagine if Bo had not. I selfishly wish that young athletes of every color chose baseball over the other sports.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Looking forward, how do we get the future Lebron James and Lamar Jacksons more interested in baseball? For that matter how do we draw the future Baker Mayfields to baseball?

Andrew McCutcheon has had multiple interviews about this topic. Not sure where to dig those up though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.

Boy, you got me there. I can't answer an unanswerable question. The answer is no one knows because they didn't get that chance. What I can say is that in head to head competitions with MLB all-star exhibition teams, not the slouches, the Negro Leaguers won over 60% of the time. After integration, which was far too slow IMO, the black ballplayers dominated the sport, despite (or maybe because of), having to overcome tremendous obstacles. I guess you can argue that they were the cream of the crop, but weren't the people they were playing against supposedly also the cream of the crop?

The Union League is recognized as a major league. So too is the AA. No one I know believes that they were equivalent to the National League of that same period. And yet, they both drew from that wonderful 90% talent pool. For that matter, baseball in the 1880s to the early 1900s was a different game than it is now. Calling for a high or low pitch, throwing underhanded from a mound 45" away, 4 strikes, etc. But the numbers compiled during those time still count, are still venerated, and are still used as a basis of comparison to modern players.

Baseball has always compared apples to oranges in terms of statistics. At least in my estimation, this is no different, no better, and no worse than using numbers from a time when the game was substantially different than it is now to compare against current players. People can make their own judgments as to what the numbers mean, but having those numbers available to compare is, I believe, a good thing.

[packs]

All this talk of population and percentages counts for nothing when you examine reality.

15 of the top 24 on the all time home run list are non-white players of color. I know a fact like that doesn't fit the narrative of 4.5 players to whatever, but it is the most obvious reflection of what the major leagues missed while it excluded them from play.

When you review the all time hit list 10 of the 24 players are non-white players of color.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

All this talk of population and percentages counts for nothing when you examine reality.

15 of the top 24 on the all time home run list are non-white players of color. I know a fact like that doesn't fit the narrative of 4.5 players to whatever, but it is the most obvious reflection of what the major leagues missed while it excluded them from play.

When you review the all time hit list 10 of the 24 players are non-white players of color.

Now do that comparison for pitchers.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Now do that comparison for pitchers.

Why? The point has been made. The level of play you assume is incorrect and it is reflected in where players ended up once they were allowed to play, despite being denied accumulation of any stats until 1947.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

Why? The point has been made. The level of play you assume is incorrect and it is reflected in where players ended up once they were allowed to play, despite being denied accumulation of any stats until 1947.

We are talking past each other I think. Let's just agree to disagree.

But what about my point about the Japanese Major League? Since we have the World Series, shouldn't we also include Japan's Major League too?

If not, why?