Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[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.

[Ricky]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Steve D]

Also, according to the ESPN article, MLB will only recognize stats from 1920-1948; so anything after that, such as Hank Aaron's Indianapolis Clowns stats, won't count.

Steve

[BRoberts]

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

[rhettyeakley]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[clydepepper]

A BIG SHOUT-OUT to our own Graig Kreindler, whose magnificent work portraying Negro League players had to have had a guiding influence toward this decision.

Thank You Graig!

.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

In related earth-shattering news, congratulations to Toni Stone for becoming the first woman to cross the MLB gender line 67 years after the fact...

This is getting more laughable with each angle I consider.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by packs

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."

Much of what we know today of Major League statistics and information was gathered by private individuals pursuing their hobby of gathering information and not by professionals. The statistical hobbyists are also responsible for clearing up a lot of misinformation in the record books.

All this being said I am 100% on board with more information being gathered for about the Negro Leagues, that can only be a good thing!!!

[Flintboy]

Don’t agree with MLB on this one. This is the equivalent of adding Jim Kelley’s USFL passing yardage to his NFL stats or including Ichiros hits from the Japanese leagues to his MLB totals.

[Hankphenom]

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]

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?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by packs

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?

It doesn't matter to you that a large percentage--I wouldn't want to put a number on it, but undoubtedly well north of half--of these players never would have made the major leagues whatever their color? Segregation in America is a tragic part of our past, and racism a continuing stain, I just don't see how pretending that all the teams and players in the Negro Leagues during that period now deserve to be considered Major League caliber serves to do anything to ameliorate that awful history. I perceive the analogies to such "outlaw" leagues as the USFL, ABA, to be imperfect but useful. If somebody wanted to do with the Negro Leagues as a whole what the HOF has done with individual players and do the research to try to cull those who might have made the Major Leagues and then include them in a history of "big league" baseball, I wouldn't have any objection to that. But throwing every Negro League player, the majority of whom would never have made it given the opportunity, into the same pot as those who did, defies common sense to me.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

But throwing every Negro League player, the majority of whom would never have made it given the opportunity, into the same pot as those who did, defies common sense to me.

Exactly what I've been saying (in other words) since my first comment.

The "Yay! Everyone's a winner!" mentality is the antithesis of athletic competition.

I prefer to play baseball by jumping on my pogo stick. I went to an open tryout with a big league club and was denied entry. Therefore, I should one day be inducted into the Hall of Fame? (Lots of sarcasm. Just trying to have some fun amidst this decision which, if applied to more important matters, may hold a dangerously troublesome outcome for the future.)

[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?

[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.

[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.