Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[campyfan39]

This is exactly how I feel

Originally Posted by Case12

Why do we continue to rewrite history to feel better about ourselves. The Negro Leagues have already been recognized. as a league. HOF'rs have been voted in. I've met some of the greats and they were awesome and proud of their accomplishments. We were all happy that recognition was in place. I am very proud of the Negro Leagues and they deserve all the fame and attention deserved. Many of us would give up their firstborn for a Josh Gibson signed baseball. Then 2020 rolls around, and all history needs to be changed to be woke. Personally, this feels like a stunt that is fraught with error, confuses everyone and just causes trouble. Btw, Double Duty Radcliffe is one of my baseball heros. In the 90's he showed my little daughter his hands...as big as a catchers mitt! Signed a ball for her that is precious to us.

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

This is exactly how I feel

Can you expand on how adding these stats confuses and causes you trouble?

[campyfan39]

Maybe you can explain why this needed to be done and all the anguish it has caused you for all these years. Maybe be happy today that it is done instead of insinuating things about a person you literally know zero about?

Originally Posted by pgconboy

Can you expand on how adding these stats confuses and causes you trouble?

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Maybe be happy today that it is done instead of insinuating things about a person you literally know zero about?

I wasn't being condescending or confrontational.

You directly quoted someone that talked about being confused and this process causing trouble.

You then stated that was how you felt. I have trouble imagining how a person could have those feelings so I was inquiring for clarification.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

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.

Ted Williams says hello.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

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?

There are always big fish and small fish in every league. Even today, due to budgets, there are always multiple replacement level players on every team. If we look at MLB superstars, I'm sure many of them will tell you they consider the small fish of MLB to be no different than a AAA replacement. The argument that stats are padded in the Negro Leagues is absurd when MLB's brightest stars are able to rip apart opposition. Barry Bonds and Mike Trout did and are doing absolutely phenomenal things, yet they weren't/aren't lucky enough to only face only other superstars like Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz so that their stats might be more Hall worthy.

Some current Hall level players have to humble themselves to play against players like Homer Bailey who carried a 6.00+ ERA for three straight seasons. I'm sure they hate this thinking that it taints their true hall of fame aspirations.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[insidethewrapper]

So who is now the first black player to play in the majors ? Edited: I forgot about : Moses Fleetwood "Fleet" Walker (October 7, 1856 – May 11, 1924) was an American professional baseball catcher who is credited with being the first black man to play in Major League Baseball (MLB). May 1, 1884.
...

[sbfinley]

It blows my mind that no one can take this as what it is: a token gesture to try to give a little bit of right back to something that was wrong with the sport for more than 75 years. No one is taking away any record held by anyone. God willing if someone ever chases .400 again it will be classic images of Ted Williams across every screen and every channel. Will they mention Gibson in 43? Probably, but stats and records are religious canon in the sport. No one is going to be forgotten or buried. It’s a gesture meant to elevate the accomplishments of one group of players to the same level as another group that they were not allowed to join because bigotry. Nothing more. They’re numbers on paper and computer screens. Some just became more meaningful in the eyes of a organized league, the rest mean just the same as they ever did.

[campyfan39]

Fair enough and sorry for the oversensitivity.
I believe it confuses and causes trouble because of the stats mainly. I also believe that it is a PC move so representative of 2020 and that it was not necessary. The HOF has recognized the Negro Leagues and inducted many into the HOF. Honestly some who have been inducted I had never heard of which may be my bad. I follow them on twitter and they have gone way above and beyond to tweet about minority players this year (which is fine) but it does not seem authentic to me.

IMO this was totally unnecessary. I have met Buck O and a few others and they are proud of the league and the recognition it received. I actually think keeping it separate shows the prejudice and is a lesson from history. I know when I took my son to the hall it was powerful to see the separate exhibit.

I have also read several articles today where people are insulted by this and view it as a "token" move and some who say it is 50+ years late. So overall I just believe it was a bad move but I don't get vote haha.

Originally Posted by pgconboy

I wasn't being condescending or confrontational.

You directly quoted someone that talked about being confused and this process causing trouble.

You then stated that was how you felt. I have trouble imagining how a person could have those feelings so I was inquiring for clarification.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Ted Williams says hello.

Touche! You got me there, Chris.

(Although Ted's roots were definitely covered more than once and way back when, it still was not something most people were privy to. I think this would still be news to the majority of the population. The case of Teddy completely slipped my mind, as I was thinking of those who actually came from Latin American countries when I wrote what I did. It's a shame he wished to hide an entire half of his genes and to an extent, his family.)

[clydepepper]

Look- if nobody has any opinions on this subject, perhaps the OP should just ask Leon to close the thread.

LOL

- why so serious?


.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Look- if nobody has any opinions on this subject, perhaps the OP should just ask Leon to close the thread.



LOL



- why so serious?





.

Lol +1

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to the "official" stats Josh Gibson hit 113 HR. I wonder how many he really hit.

[Fred]

Gibson's Hall of Fame plaque states he hit "almost 800 home runs in league and independent baseball during his 17-year career."

Other stats indicate he homered at a similar rate to the Babe. The guy had some mad hitting skills.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

This is going to be a long post. This is a topic I am passionate about and have studies for over two decades. I am going to cover a number of topics and I hope that you bear with me

1. Quality of the League

When we are talking about the quality of the league we have to separate the quality of the players from the overall quality of the league. I agree that if we look at the 1940 MLB and the 1940 NL the two leagues are not equal. A top NL team would have not been able to keep up in the MLB and probably would have had trouble in AAA. This however is not because of the talent of the players. Instead NL teams were disadvantaged by a number of economic and organizational factors. NL teams had very small rosters. It was not uncommon for an NL teams to travel with only 13 guys. There was not enough money to carry a 25 man roster. As a result it was common for position players to pitch, pitcher to play in the field and for players to play hurt. There was no platooning and their was no relief pitching. NL teams were also hurt by the fact that there was not a clear minor league feeder structure. There were lessor black teams but those were independant teams with no obligation to send a player up. This meant that even top teams would often play short handed or sign some local kid play a couple of games. As a result of these issues it would have been impossible for a 1940 NL team to play in the national league. They would have won some games but they would have been worn down over the course of the year.

If we think more broadly however what do the 1940 NL teams sound like. They sound like major league teams of the 00's and teens. Small rosters, no minors, first basemen pitching. I do believe that the 1940 Homestead Grays could have played in the 1910 National League. The 1940 Grays had 4 hall of famers on that teams and a number of other good players. How many national league teams in 1910 had four hall of famers on it.


2. Quality of the players

I will argue that, for many of the reasons listed above, all of the players who had real NL careers were MLB calibre players. I am not talking about some guy who got 20 at bats with the New York Cubans in 1933. I am talking about players that were full time on a roster for at least a couple of years. The same constraints discussed above meant that there was very little dead weight on a Negro League team. If you could not play you didn't ride the bench you road the train out of town. If you look at the players that played right around the years of integration you can see the quality of the players. For example in 1946 there were about 10 NL teams. Lets say that is 120 real players. Look at all of the black players who played in the early 1950's. I know that not all of these guys played in the Negro leagues but if there was not integration this is the group of talent that would have made up the negro league. Jackie, Campy, Montie Irvin, Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, Don Newcomb, Dan Bankhead, Hank Thompson, Sam Jones, Minnie Minoso, George Crowe, Jim Pendleton, Billy Burton, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente, Luke Easter, Sam Jethro. In addition a couple of older black players like Ray Dandrige pretty much crushed the high minors but never got to the majors.

It is also important to consider that not everyone who has a MLB stat line is really a MLB player. As a Milwaukee Brewer fan in the 1990 I saw a long string of players who are in the encyclopedia that were not really MLB players. I don't think we need to take them out, but at the same time we certainly are lowering the quality by letting a few marginal Negro league players in

3.Quality of the Stats

The Negro league are long on lore and I think sometimes that clouds the reality. We all heard stories about home runs that Gibson hit that didn't come down until the next day in a different story or Cool Papa Bell bunting for a triple. I fear that often these type of stories blind us to the fact that these were real leagues that kept real stats. Especially as we get into the later 30's and 40's the stats were actually very good for league games. I have a copy of the 1945 Negro league year book and it has a stats section that is just as good as an MLB year book from the same era. I have a run of newspaper articles from the Newark Eagles with full league stats just like in any other newpaper. Negro league stats are not all retrospective compilation done years later. many of the years have high quality contemporaneous stats


4. Comparison of the Stats

Lets all be honest. As much as we love to talk about history and the consistency of baseball we all know its really not possible to compare different leagues and different eras without adjustments. In the 1969 Yaz won the batting title by hitting 301. He didn't hit 301 because he wasn't great or because all of the pitchers were so good. He his 301 because the rules allowed the mound to be 10 feet high and the stroke zone was between the tops of your shoes and an inch over the top of your helmet. That was the game, those were the rules and you really cannot compare them to any other era without making adjustments. You cannot look at Babe Herman and go my god his hit 350 he must have been amazing, you have to look at him and say "oh he hit 350 when there were 20 outfielder who it higher then him. We have all learned to make these adjustments and it doesn't effect who we consider major league.

This is excellent. Thank you.

[riggs336]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Look- if nobody has any opinions on this subject, perhaps the OP should just ask Leon to close the thread.

LOL

- why so serious?


.

I'm the OP but all I did was state the fact in the thread title. Little did I suspect that people on Net54 would have opinions.

[The Nasty Nati]

Did any Negro League players get 3,000 hits or 500 home runs?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Fred

Gibson's Hall of Fame plaque states he hit "almost 800 home runs in league and independent baseball during his 17-year career."

Other stats indicate he homered at a similar rate to the Babe. The guy had some mad hitting skills.

If you look at some of those great photos of him in those old flannel uniforms, he just LOOKS like a hitter.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

Did any Negro League players get 3,000 hits or 500 home runs?

Willie Mays

[The Nasty Nati]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Willie Mays

I meant besides the players that eventually played in the MLB. I believe there aren't any.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

I meant besides the players that eventually played in the MLB. I believe there aren't any.

But the stats are woefully incomplete, see discussion just above of Gibson.

[The Nasty Nati]

I wouldn't be mad if MLB stopped recognizing Cap Anson's stats.

That guy was a terrible person and a big reason segregation happened in MLB.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

According to the "official" stats Josh Gibson hit 113 HR. I wonder how many he really hit.

Actually, according to the numbers on Seamheads, which are the most complete available, Gibson hit 238 home runs in league games, i.e. games played against another team in the same league. But most Negro League teams only played around 50-70 league games in a season, the rest of their games being exhibition games on barnstorming tours and the like. A better basis for comparison is HR per 162 games. Gibson hit 42 HR per 162 (league) games in his Negro League career, higher than Hank Aaron's 37 and Barry Bonds's 41, but not as high as Babe Ruth's 46. That gives you an idea of the company he's in.

[prewarsports]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

I wouldn't be mad if MLB stopped recognizing Cap Anson's stats.

That guy was a terrible person and a big reason segregation happened in MLB.

Segregation happened in baseball because America was segregated. Cap Anson had little to do with this except for his status as the most famous player in America. Octavius Catto could not get a team into white baseball long before Anson was in grade school and Kennesaw Landis was pushing segregation for nearly three decades after Anson was dead.

History is ugly, but if we are going to institute moral standard for Hall of Famers based on how we feel they should have lived their lives, I hate to break it to you, but some of the early Negro Leaguers would fall short as well. As society changes, we will be kicking out new guys every decade or so until eventually the only ones left are the boring ones nobody cares about anyways.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

I meant besides the players that eventually played in the MLB. I believe there aren't any.

I think a good argument can be made that the pitching in the NL wasn't great. After Jackie broke the color line in 1947, it took 18 years before a black pitcher won 20 games (Mudcat Grant and Bob Gibson in 1965.) It was so rare for a black pitcher to win 20 in the Majors that Grant wrote a book about them titled "The Black Aces." I have a signed copy.

Grant, Gibson, Earl Wilson, Jenkins, Downing, Blue, Richard, Norris, Gooden, Stewart, and in 2005, Dontrelle Willis. In the 57 years since 1947, there were only 11 black 20 game winners. Of these 11, only 4 did it more than once (Gibson, Jenkins, Blue, Stewart.)

So for all the talk about the great black hitters back in the day, the pitching, by Major League standards, was much less impressive. And that had to help the hitters.

[Kenny Cole]

Don Newcombe won 20 games in 1951, 20 games in 1955, and 27 games in 1956.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Don Newcombe won 20 games in 1951, 20 games in 1955, and 27 games in 1956.

You're right. Looking again at the index of Grant's book, Sam Jones also did it in 1959. So that makes 13 in 57 years, 5 doing it more than once.

I think my point stands - the black hitters seem to have been well ahead of the pitchers.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I think my point stands - the black hitters seem to have been well ahead of the pitchers.

I could make a pretty decent argument that the best hitter of each decade from the 1960s onward, when integration really took hold, was a person that had a skin pigmentation other than white. (I'll give it to Trout over the last decade) Does this delegitimize all Major League statistics prior to integration? The Negro League hitters may have been ahead of the Negro League pitchers, but wouldn't it make sense that the Negro League hitters were likely ahead of Major League pitchers before integration as well?

There are many things that have impacted stats through the years that they all require an asterisks next to them when comparing. You can't compare steroid era, war years, dead-ball era, pre-integration, and Negro League to name a few. The stats deserve merit on their own.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

I wouldn't be mad if MLB stopped recognizing Cap Anson's stats.

That guy was a terrible person and a big reason segregation happened in MLB.

History is what it is - why try changing it. Understand it, know the injustice occurred and try to find something positive. Why not look at people that tried to turn that injustice around. Guys like Branch Rickey or even Walter "Judge" McCredie.

Erasing history by erasing Anson's stats because of his views serves no good purpose. For that matter, I'm sure there were plenty of players with bigoted views, even some that are in the HOF. It would be pretty strange to erase the stats of bigoted players because you can't erase what happened.

[Aj-hman]

I wonder if the Negro League players had not been sold to MLB teams if they would have fielded a team(s) that would have won the World Series or multiple?

I think mlb remembered what happed when Jack Johnson was allowed to compete.

When does the MLB allow the Japanese League to compete for the “World Series”?

[Wanaselja]

Jay Jaffe has a good article on FanGraphs about this. I haven't read this thread much so I don't know if someone else posted this.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/wrestlin...ues-as-majors/

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Aj-hman

When does the MLB allow the Japanese League to compete for the “World Series”?

"Oh" boy, that's an interesting thought.

[t206fix]

Originally Posted by triwak

The equivalence of Negro League talent with AAA talent was simply someone's opinion, way back on the first page of this thread. Quit quoting it, folks! Geez, I don't understand any of the push-back with this. I for one, think this is wonderful news, and WAY overdue! More awesome baseball players and statistics to pour over - AS WE COLLECT THEIR CARDS??? This is gonna be great fun!!

This!

It could be argued that there were some Major League players who lacked the talent to compete on a Negro League team.

And, that Major League statics, pre-integration, were watered down inflated due to the fact that they were not facing the best talent of their generation.

[Hankphenom]

Makes me wonder about oriental players in the U.S., were they banned, too? Who was the first?

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Fred

I couldn't imagine if someone hit .450 in the 2020 shortened season that it would be the new bench mark for batting average in a season (based on the 3.1 PA per league game).

I’m not expressing an opinion. This is how MLB would have handled a .450 average in 2020. From there it would be up to fans to decide whether to regard in same way as Hugh Duffy’s hard fought .440 average from 1894.

We already have similar examples today with Bonds HR records and Astros 2017 WS. They are part of the MLB record book, though many fans don’t take them seriously.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

I meant besides the players that eventually played in the MLB. I believe there aren't any.

None if we confine the stats to official league games, which is what MLB will recognize.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You're right. Looking again at the index of Grant's book, Sam Jones also did it in 1959. So that makes 13 in 57 years, 5 doing it more than once.

I think my point stands - the black hitters seem to have been well ahead of the pitchers.

Not a strong take. Research the unwritten rules governing black pitchers in the early days of MLB integration.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Well, it used to be common knowledge the last .400 hitter was Teddy Ballgame. Not any more. Now, it's Josh Gibson's .441 in 1943, aided no doubt by the Triple A level pitchers he was facing, plus attrition due to WW2.

Nobody could top Ted's achievement with the bat, but the PC crowd did, by re-writing history.

All the articles say that how to integrate the stats is still being discussed.
So it hasn't happened yet.

I don't think he had enough at bats to qualify for the batting title in any season, but the stats I can find vary a lot. Even the highest number isn't enough.

[packs]

Ted Williams was also Hispanic, so either way the last player to hit 400 was still a person of color.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Speaking of level of play at the highest level available at the time, why is the National Association of 1871-1875 not considered major league by MLB? The NA was the first professional league. The problem is that no one is pounding the drum for the NA.

Agree. I will join you, in pounding this drum! I never understood why the 1969 committee didn't include the NA. I mean... they were the top players in the world, competing against each other in an organized, professional league. What the hell??

[steve B]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

Sounds like a whole lot of opportunity to me compared to what the alternative was up against.

I'm mostly saying that all baseball players had limited opportunity, and that in many if not most cases there was no opportunity to compete for a position.

With fewer teams and far less scouting, the odds of a team being interested were lower. If you look at the lineups of many teams it's fairly obvious there just wasn't room on what we now call the depth chart.

The teams at the bottom of the league most years had space, but where could someone break into the 1920's Yankees lineup?
Or if you were say a second baseman, but the only scout that saw you was from the Red Sox between say 1938 and 1950 you were pretty much out of luck.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'm mostly saying that all baseball players had limited opportunity, and that in many if not most cases there was no opportunity to compete for a position.

With fewer teams and far less scouting, the odds of a team being interested were lower. If you look at the lineups of many teams it's fairly obvious there just wasn't room on what we now call the depth chart.

The teams at the bottom of the league most years had space, but where could someone break into the 1920's Yankees lineup?
Or if you were say a second baseman, but the only scout that saw you was from the Red Sox between say 1938 and 1950 you were pretty much out of luck.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but it loses some lustre when Cedric Durst plays 65 games for the 1927 yankees while the best Oscar Charleston could do was buy a ticket to watch them.

[Case12]

Poor Roger Maris will always have the asterick by his name. Probably should be a lot more astericks in the stats books. This will just add some more - with a whole lot of less reliable data. ��

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

Touche! You got me there, Chris.

(Although Ted's roots were definitely covered more than once and way back when, it still was not something most people were privy to. I think this would still be news to the majority of the population. The case of Teddy completely slipped my mind, as I was thinking of those who actually came from Latin American countries when I wrote what I did. It's a shame he wished to hide an entire half of his genes and to an extent, his family.)

[tschock]

Originally Posted by t206fix

And, that Major League statics, pre-integration, were watered down due to the fact that they were not facing the best talent of their generation.

And, that Negro League statistics, pre-integration, were watered up due to the fact that they were note facing the best talent of their generation?

Works both ways, which is why the Negro Leagues should be considered a Major League. But comparing stats and performance between leagues is problematic at best.

[packs]

Originally Posted by tschock

And, that Negro League statistics, pre-integration, were watered up due to the fact that they were note facing the best talent of their generation?

Works both ways, which is why the Negro Leagues should be considered a Major League. But comparing stats and performance between leagues is problematic at best.

I don't think that's a logical way to look at it. The Negro League players were playing against the highest competition available to them. The MLB players were not.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think that's a logical way to look at it. The Negro League players were playing against the highest competition available to them. The MLB players were not.

No. THAT doesn't make sense. Both leagues' PLAYERS were playing against the highest competition available to them (the players). Neither could play against the best of both, nor the worst of both, leagues' players. Post integration the lower caliber of players would have been removed (ideally) and we can only estimate the comparison of stats pre-integration.

Maybe you misunderstood my post or are reading something into my post that isn't there?

[t206fix]

Originally Posted by tschock

And, that Negro League statistics, pre-integration, were watered up due to the fact that they were note facing the best talent of their generation?

Oops, that's what meant. ML statistics were "watered up". I meant to convey they were inflated.

Negro Leaguers were facing major league quality and minor league quality talent. Same with Major Leaguers.

These players were not excluded from the ML because they lacked talent, it's because they were black. And as Triwak put it, just because someone says they weren't good enough to be in the Majors, doesn't make it true. There is no metric out there right now that can tell us the 11th best player on a NL team was equal to the 15th best player on a ML team. A lot of people out there have opinions, but the only way to prove it is to let them play... oops, too late for that.

[packs]

Originally Posted by tschock

No. THAT doesn't make sense. Both leagues' PLAYERS were playing against the highest competition available to them (the players). Neither could play against the best of both, nor the worst of both, leagues' players. Post integration the lower caliber of players would have been removed (ideally) and we can only estimate the comparison of stats pre-integration.

Maybe you misunderstood my post or are reading something into my post that isn't there?

No. That is totally at odds with history. The MLB had every opportunity to play against everybody. If you will recall, they chose to ban players of color from the league. When you say "neither COULD play against the best of both" that is a stretch considering the reason MLB didn't play against the best competition of the era was due to their choice to exclude them.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by triwak

Agree. I will join you, in pounding this drum! I never understood why the 1969 committee didn't include the NA. I mean... they were the top players in the world, competing against each other in an organized, professional league. What the hell??

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

The NA was really just a loose confederation of individual teams that agreed (in principle) to play each other on a semi-regular basis. It was closer to an organized league to what had existed before, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a major "league", with the emphasis on "league". Now, one can can certainly argue this point, and there are other questionable cases as well, especially the Union Association of 1884, which I think was less of a major league than the NA was, despite MLB's decision to the contrary in 1968. Lack of organizational structure is also why MLB is not recognizing pre-1920 black baseball organizations as "major leagues", though I've already seen some argument about that.