Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

packs · #1 06-24-2021, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timtass

Not just Ken Burns.

Not to play Devil's advocate but couldn't the same be true for players who were major leaguers only because they weren't beaten out for their job by a superior Negro League player?

Mungo Hungo · #2 06-25-2021, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Not to play Devil's advocate but couldn't the same be true for players who were major leaguers only because they weren't beaten out for their job by a superior Negro League player?

I don't think it's necessary to posit this as Devil's advocate. It's clearly true that some pre-1947 AL and NL players wouldn't have been in the majors if not for the color line (unless of course the owners had decided both to integrate and to expand either rosters or the size of the leagues).

But here's the thing: At any given time prior to 1947, for most of the regular season, there were 400 players in the AL and NL, not counting players on the DL. The White/Black racial breakdown in the U.S. during those years was always very close to 90%/10%. So if there were no racial discrimination, and if the makeup of the majors reflected the nation, the majors would have generally consisted of about 360 White players and about 40 Black players. But if you compare the number of AL/NL players to the number of Negro Leaguers in any given year, the ratio is vastly different. It was probably never 1:1, but it was generally far less than 9:1.

Of course, we can't assume that the racial breakdown of the majors in a non-discrimanatory world would have exactly mirrored that of the country. Still, given the numbers, it is very hard to see how the depth of the Negro Leagues could have matched that of the AL and NL.

I think almost everyone agrees that the best Negro Leaguers would also have been among the best players in the AL/NL had they been allowed in. But a true apples-to-apples comparison of the numbers is impossible, for the above reason, and any number of others.

egri · #3 06-25-2021, 04:39 AM

A thought I had the other day was that with this change, a lot of rookie of the year recipients, like Jackie Robinson, Sam Jethroe, and some others I can�t think of off the top of my head, weren�t rookies when they won the award. I�d like to see what the consensus is here about whether the awards should be left as-is or be redone? Certainly the winners today would be different than if the voting had been held in the late 1940/early 1950s under those circumstances; the writers today value different stats, including some that didn�t exist at the time.

packs · #4 06-25-2021, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by egri

A thought I had the other day was that with this change, a lot of rookie of the year recipients, like Jackie Robinson, Sam Jethroe, and some others I can�t think of off the top of my head, weren�t rookies when they won the award. I�d like to see what the consensus is here about whether the awards should be left as-is or be redone? Certainly the winners today would be different than if the voting had been held in the late 1940/early 1950s under those circumstances; the writers today value different stats, including some that didn�t exist at the time.

I don't think that would be necessary. It's not a rewriting of history. The seasons played stand. The purpose is to recognize the players and highlight their achievements after ignoring them for so long. It's about inclusion in history, not rewriting it.

peanuts · #5 06-25-2021, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by egri

A thought I had the other day was that with this change, a lot of rookie of the year recipients, like Jackie Robinson, Sam Jethroe, and some others I can�t think of off the top of my head, weren�t rookies when they won the award. I�d like to see what the consensus is here about whether the awards should be left as-is or be redone? Certainly the winners today would be different than if the voting had been held in the late 1940/early 1950s under those circumstances; the writers today value different stats, including some that didn�t exist at the time.

This same debate happened when Ichiro won RoY � at the end of the day, the award is given to someone in their rookie season in MLB and competing at the highest level of play. If writers are against awarding it to someone who spent considerable time in another league (which are almost certainly of a lesser average skill level) before hitting the Show, they're free to not vote for that person.

They earned the awards then and they should stand now.

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