Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[packs]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

My obvious point was that both blacks and whites were denied entry due to circumstances they could not change.

No white player was denied entry to organized professional baseball. The two things you are comparing are not at all alike and share no similarities.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

Definitely open and free competition, but also lack of space. That's all I'm trying to convey.

OK, I'll spin it a slightly different way:

Let's say expansion started not in the 1960's but 30 years prior. It's clear that many of the players who weren't able to make it beyond the minors up to this hypothetical point would be called up due to more job openings. All of a sudden, they're in the bigs where they should have been in the first place. Like many of their NL counterparts, we're not talking about incredible talents here, but rather enough talent to spend some time at the Major League level.

(I am not arguing anything to do with racism, but rather expanding on my
"can of worms" theory--as in, where does it end if history needs to be revised?)

[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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

My point is that Major League stats should be earned against Major League level competition, not Triple A level competition.

When you bring race into the discussion like that, it sounds more like affirmative action rather than holding every Major League player to the same standard - the standard of earning their stats against ML level competition.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Case12

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.

I once met Double Duty and had a long chat with him, one of the great thrills of my life. He told me about seeing Walter Johnson pitch in an exhibition game in Florida, and how fast he was. A few years later, I just happened to be at a game at RFK when the Nationals played there, and there was Double Duty "throwing out" the first pitch on his 100th birthday. What a guy!

[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.

[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. It seems all policy decisions today are dictated by political correctness and the loudest voices. See the Cleveland Indians for example. It's not the changes that are wrong. It's the underlying reasons why they are being made that is wrong.

[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.

[clydepepper]

People Please!

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

.

[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.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

IMO, the was just recognition that the Negro Leagues were, at that time, the absolute highest level of play for ANY BLACK player & THAT is the very definition of a Major League.
.

I repeat, then why is the National Association not considered a major league?
The reason is that MLB and, for that matter, the HOF don't care about righting any wrongs. They only care about doing what they believe will perpetuate their existence and pad their pockets.

[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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

Except that open and free competition wasn't, even for white players.
With the reserve clause, a team that had a good player didn't need to look for or sign another for that position unless they thought they'd be much better.

One telling point to me was made years ago by an old time player who spoke to the club I was in.
He said that at the time there were about 17,000 people playing in organized leagues.
When he played, the estimated number of people in organized leagues was closer to 175,000
What this did was lead to good but not great players sticking around due to being agreeable. The holdouts, the surly, were simply replaced, unless they were spectacular like Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio. (Not saying either was, those were the two examples he used)

There were players who were probably major league caliber playing in industrial leagues, and a piece of why they never made it big could be that given the choice of playing a few years in the minors making very little, or staying on a career path that initially paid less, but had more long term stability and potential many wouldn't sign.

I suspect that given the available careers, the competition for spots on a top ML team was more than it was for a then major league team.

[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?

[packs]

Probably because the Japanese league wasn't created or played in America or started in response to systematic racial exclusion from Major League Baseball.

[steve B]

I'm glad they are getting the recognition.

The integration of their stats seems so far to be sensible. As the articles have said, the simplest are very easy, hits HR that sort of thing.

Stuff like batting average is much tougher. The couple seasons I looked at were only about half as long as the National or American league season.
How many times have we seen players have great batting averages before the All-Star break, but fade in the last half of the season?

That to me is a bigger difference than a perceived difference in pitchers abilities.
It will be interesting to see how they handle including them.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Records WILL look different. For example the record for single season batting average, long held by the unquestionably great Hugh Duffy who clearly faced some of the toughest pitching ever, may soon go to Josh Gibson, who many esteemed collectors presume faced mainly AAA level chumps and hobos.

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'm glad they are getting the recognition.

The integration of their stats seems so far to be sensible. As the articles have said, the simplest are very easy, hits HR that sort of thing.

Stuff like batting average is much tougher. The couple seasons I looked at were only about half as long as the National or American league season.
How many times have we seen players have great batting averages before the All-Star break, but fade in the last half of the season?

That to me is a bigger difference than a perceived difference in pitchers abilities.
It will be interesting to see how they handle including them.

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.

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by steve B

Except that open and free competition wasn't, even for white players.
With the reserve clause, a team that had a good player didn't need to look for or sign another for that position unless they thought they'd be much better.

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

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.

To qualify for a batting title, a player needs 3.1 plate appearances for every game on his team's schedule.

Unless they are now going to change that, too.

[Fred]

From the LA Times: "Josh Gibson, a power-hitting catcher for Negro League teams, will likely be awarded baseball' single season record for batting average. Gibson hit .441 for multiple Negro League teams in 1943, surpassing the mark of .440 set in 1894".

Gibson had 342 plate appearances, 124 hits in 281 at bats in 1943. How can a comparison be made for a season with only 281 at bats to a season (Hugh Duffy's 1894 season) that ended up with a .440 average based on 616 plate appearances, 237 hits in 539 at bats?

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by Fred

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.

Somewhat related to this was when the NFL went from 12 game seasons to 14.

Records fell.

Then they went form 14 game seasons to 16 game seasons.

Records fell.

They are likely going to 17 game seasons in 2021 or 2022.

Records will fall.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Fred

From the LA Times: "Josh Gibson, a power-hitting catcher for Negro League teams, will likely be awarded baseball' single season record for batting average. Gibson hit .441 for multiple Negro League teams in 1943, surpassing the mark of .440 set in 1894".

Gibson had 342 plate appearances, 124 hits in 281 at bats in 1943. How can a comparison be made for a season with only 281 at bats to a season (Hugh Duffy's 1894 season) that ended up with a .440 average based on 616 plate appearances, 237 hits in 539 at bats?

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.

Hugh Duffy set his record in a year when the first 5 batters on the leaderboard hit over 400.

Since detractors have made such an issue over the level of play, it seems disingenuous to bring up Hugh Duffy.

[Exhibitman]

For single season records I don't think we can exclude a reasonable season like Gibson's--if we do, are we going to see 61* again??? Ugh.

Look on the bright side: if the NL stats range can be expanded to 1953 and Hank Aaron becomes the all-time HR king again, we get rid of Cheatin' Barry!

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.

More than likely we will see the standard criteria of 3.1 PA per league game. Similar to the recently concluded pandemic season of 60 games.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

Somewhat related to this was when the NFL went from 12 game seasons to 14.

Records fell.

Then they went form 14 game seasons to 16 game seasons.

Records fell.

They are likely going to 17 game seasons in 2021 or 2022.

Records will fall.

It's one thing when records fall because a player breaks it. It's quite a bit different when records fall because history is re-written.

Ted died knowing he was the last .400 hitter. Little did he know, the politics of MLB would decree he only held that distinction for 2 short years.

[jason.1969]

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.

Perhaps you will be happy to know it will not be Josh Gibson. More than likely it will be Artie Wilson in 1948 when there was no war at all.

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Ted died knowing he was the last .400 hitter. Little did he know, the politics of MLB would decree he only held that distinction for 2 short years.

I suspect we didn't hurt his feelings.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

I suspect we didn't hurt his feelings.

Based on what Ted said about the NL and its players, I wouldn't be surprised if he was proud to be bested by Gibson.

[packs]

Speaking of Ted Williams and his NL counterparts, and because every thread needs a card, here's what Satchel Paige had to say about Francisco Coimbre:

Satchel Paige stated “Coimbre could not be pitched to. No one gave me more trouble than anyone I ever faced, including Josh Gibson and Ted Williams.”

[Fred]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

More than likely we will see the standard criteria of 3.1 PA per league game. Similar to the recently concluded pandemic season of 60 games.

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).

[pgconboy]

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).

In 1982 the NFL experienced a strike season and had a 9 game season instead of 16 games.

During the abbreviated season Wes Chandler averaged an amazing 129 yards receiving per game. That record still stands.

No one cares about this because humans have the ability to understand context and put things in perspective.

Some guy hitting a few points higher in batting average over half as many games is obviously not as impressive as someone that did it on a much larger scale. That doesn't mean he didn't beat the record. And it doesn't mean it is more impressive.

[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!!

[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.

[pgconboy]

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!!

I always visit football reference and only occasionally baseball reference, but it looks like they made it extremely easy.

Buttons that toggle between majors, negros, foreign, minors. Absolutely fantastic. If there is similar functionality across various leader boards what's not to love?

[Exhibitman]

3.1 plate appearances per league game. Works for me as a way of equalizing things. Of course, I am deeply biased because the Dodgers won the 2020 Series and I don't want any damned * on that! Not when I waited 32 friggin' years for it.

[Hankphenom]

I've changed my mind, or I should say this forum has changed my mind. Bottom line for me now: it's the least we can do for those guys! Wonderful, civil, discussion, by the way, never got nasty or personal. Gives me great hope for the country, maybe things are about to get better in that respect.

[Fred]

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!!

Ken,

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. It's the apples to oranges comparison of stats that is being scrutinized.

[drcy]

I like that the top level Negro Leagues is being elevated to the states. Yes, the stats will be problematic, often comparing apples to oranges. However, it's the same comparing stats and records from the 1920s and 2010s. I don't know how you put Cy Young's or Hoss Radbourne's pitching stats in the same spreadsheet with Mariano Rivera and Justin Verlander. Especially, as baseball was THE sport many years ago, that makes the "talent pool" from eras sometimes like apples and oranges. Of course, there are many more international players in MLB today.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by Fred

Ken,

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. It's the apples to oranges comparison of stats that is being scrutinized.

+1

Understood. And I agree that this has been a useful and civil discussion, that will undoubtedly continue. Again, fun!

[brianp-beme]

Ted died knowing he was the last .400 hitter. Little did he know, the politics of MLB would decree he only held that distinction for 2 short years.

Originally Posted by pgconboy

I suspect we didn't hurt his feelings.

Let's defrost Ted's frozen head and ask him how he feels.

Brian

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Let's defrost Ted's frozen head and ask him how he feels.

Brian

That's cold.