Quote:
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.
12-17-2020, 11:07 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode