Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom: "I was born in 1946, and would recommend not talking about it like it was ancient history."

You're so old you qualify for the early round of the COVID vaccine...

[Kenny Cole]

I thought it was a terribly stupid call then, and I think it was a terribly stupid call now. If it had worked, it would have been simply unconventional. But it didn't work, so it remains terribly stupid IMO.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Originally Posted by Hankphenom: "I was born in 1946, and would recommend not talking about it like it was ancient history."

You're so old you qualify for the early round of the COVID vaccine...

Missed it by a few months, actually, if you do the math.

[benge610]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

A number of points that are in response to many of the comments made.

There is extensive research on the caliber of play in the Negro Leagues, and generally it is assumed that the stars were roughly equivalent to the best in the Majors, while the leagues overall were in the range of AAA (or between AAA and the Majors). This is based on a wide range of factors including barnstorming tours, common opponents etc along with seeing how players who transitioned leagues like Jackie, Campanella,Doby and others did.

Note that there were a number of leagues historically that are considered Major Leagues. Along with the American League and National League, there was also the Union Association, the Players' League and the Federal League. And the range of talent in those leagues varied significantly. Certainly, in some cases, they were no better than AAA, which means that we currently have official leagues that were on par with the Negro Leagues and likely were worse.

The stats that will be included are only from 1920-1948 which was when the leagues were more structured and established, and before integration largely impacted the caliber of the teams and players. And it is only for league games.

There has been extensive research on Negro League games and box scores. There is definitely still uncertainly around stats, but we have uncertainty around stats from the 1800's as well and that never stopped us from including them. We've had adjustments to major stars. An adjustment to Ty Cobb's total (which is now reflected in Baseball-Reference) is in the article below.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/how...tting-average/

Regarding some comments about the push for this; while the average fan, who cares little about the Negro Leagues may not have heard anything about this, there has been a push for some time. I wasn't involved in the push, but think it is a good thing.

Thank you Jeff. I evolved through this thread and landed, pretty much; in agreement with your comments here.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Is that evidence of systemic racism, or is he just your common, garden variety idiot?

I hear people say ignorant things all the time, about all sorts of things. On the topic of Russ Wilson, he is undeniably very successful at his profession, he's paid quite well, he's wildly popular in Seattle, and he seems like a genuinely nice guy and very hard working. Personally, he's my favorite guy on that team.

That interception that lost the Super Bowl is 100% on the coach. Give the ball to The Beast, 3 times if you have to, and you win. But no, Sherman has to get cute and call a risky play.

Neither, just evidence that some people still think that way.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Come on, man. The best running back in football, ball on the one yard line, and you're defending a pass play? Your own analysis shows the problem -- too many things can go wrong.

I mean, other than the fact that they were 0-for-the-season in that situation and that he wasn't the best RB in football (DeMarco Murray)...

When guys don't execute, things can go wrong. Wilson could have not taken the snap properly, could have botched the snap, guys could have missed their blocks, blah blah blah. Again, if your supposedly all-world quarterback does his job, it's not even an issue.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Why do "WE" have to manipulate other people? If the future Lebron James wants to play basketball, as a free American, that's his choice. "WE" shouldn't be trying to steer him away from what he wants to do.

I attribute the disparities you mention to free will - people preferring one sport over another. The fact that it's easier to play basketball in a more confined area (like in a city neighborhood) and with fewer players might be a factor too.

Mark, I love baseball. I wasn’t looking to manipulate anyone. I was a local scout for the Reds and Indians for a number of years. I saw so many talented athletes who were disinterested in baseball it pained me. There were Point guards who looked like centerfielders, and quarterbacks who could have been power pitchers. Call me crazy but I think baseball is better now than it ever has been. Nonetheless, I wish more young athletes were drawn to it. Imagine if Rickey Henderson had picked football, imagine if Bo had not. I selfishly wish that young athletes of every color chose baseball over the other sports.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Mark, I love baseball. I wasn’t looking to manipulate anyone. I was a local scout for the Reds and Indians for a number of years. I saw so many talented athletes who were disinterested in baseball it pained me. There were Point guards who looked like centerfielders, and quarterbacks who could have been power pitchers. Call me crazy but I think baseball is better now than it ever has been. Nonetheless, I wish more young athletes were drawn to it. Imagine if Rickey Henderson had picked football, imagine if Bo had not. I selfishly wish that young athletes of every color chose baseball over the other sports.

I know you meant it in a positive way, but it reminded me of my junior high baseball coach, who told all of us how disappointed he had been because a pretty good left handed baseball player in the class ahead of us (high school class of 1976) had decided to quit baseball. This coach went on and on, basically telling us the kid had made a big mistake.

The kid's name was Steve Christoff, who had quit baseball to focus on hockey. A few years after that he was a star hockey player at the University of Minnesota, then he won a gold medal with the Miracle on Ice Olympic team in 1980, and then he played in the NHL. And, the Hobey Baker award was even modeled after him. How cool is that??

https://www.hobeybaker.com/making-trophy

The design of the Hobey Baker trophy is a classic in sports awards. At 16 inches high and comprised of 40 pounds of bronze and etched acrylic, it is notable for its rich detail work, including a stitched jersey and lettered hockey stick.

Sculptor Bill Mack was the designer. A Minnesota native, Mack is an internationally known artist whose work can be seen in venues like the National Basketball Association Hall of Fame, where his sculpture of basketball great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar greets visitors in the museum's entryway.

Mack began the lengthy process of designing the Hobey Baker trophy with a search for a model—a search that ultimately led to Steve Christoff. Christoff was a star player for Minnesota's Richfield High School and the University of Minnesota, and later played for the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey Team and the National Hockey League.

More than 50 skating poses were analyzed with practical (trophy weight and sturdiness) and artistic considerations taken into account. The final choice was a picture of a skater stopping quickly, with ice shavings flying and stick and skates forming a three-point base.

Christoff was photographed in that pose from a variety of angles, and the photos were broken down in painstaking detail. A charcoal drawing of the proposed trophy was presented on April 1, 1980 at the East-West All Star Hockey Game luncheon in the St. Paul Civic Center, at which time the Decathlon Club publicly announced its award intentions.


So the coach, who personally loved baseball, and for selfish reasons hated to lose a good player from the baseball program, in the final analysis was wrong. The kid's instincts were right.

So, just to let you know where I'm coming from, and why your initial post had me slightly triggered.

[alaskapaul3]

Just went onto Basesball-reference.com and it looks like they have incorporated the stats into their MLB database!!!!!!!!!

Looks like they have Bullet Rogan as top WAR guy.

Lots to see!

-Paul

[Exhibitman]

Tetelo Vargas is now credited with the highest single-season batting average .4711.



Which suits me just fine. He was a pretty remarkable player:

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/juan-tetelo-vargas/

[marzoumanian]

Just read an article on this this morning. One of the guys interviewed joked that there's now going to be a brand new market for baseball trivia books. Brace yourself!

[John1941]

Recently, I've been researching the Brooklyn Bushwicks, a semi-pro team in the 1920s and 1930s. What struck me is that the Bushwicks would consistently post a .500 winning percentage versus Negro League teams. If the Negro Leagues were equal to the Major Leagues, and the Brooklyn Bushwicks were equal to the Negro Leagues, why aren't the Brooklyn Bushwicks Major League too? I know that that will never happen, because the Bushwicks were a semi-pro team, but when you think about it, isn't that what the Negro Leagues were? They played irregular schedules, all over the country, against varying opponents, with small rosters, and no reserve clause. That's semi-pro, and at the time they were viewed as some of the best semi-pro teams. With the Brooklyn Bushwicks. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'd enjoy Buck Lai being counted as a major leaguer.

[packs]

I think that's over simplifying the Negro Leagues and their organization as an established major league. I would equate the Bushwicks to a town team. They were not invited to play in the Negro League and were kind of a gimmicky team with a hodge podge roster and not part of any one league I don't think.

[John1941]

Maybe I should have explained: The Bushwicks were a white team, they were part of the Metropolitan Baseball Association, and their roster was both strong and stable. Marius Russo, who threw the most innings for the 1941 Yankees, pitched for several years with the Bushwicks before going pro, a decent amount of their players played in organized ball, and they were known as the kings of white semi-pro baseball.

[packs]

I realize that but if that was the case the players worthy of Major League competition were able to compete, right?

[John1941]

They were able to play in organized ball, but when you consider how measly baseball salaries were back then, a player would make just as much money or more by working 5 days a week, and then playing semi-pro ball on the weekends.

[packs]

I think that's a separate issue and one that could be raised with the old PCL too. But I think the spirit behind the Negro League stat inclusion is to make up for the fact that these players were expressly barred from accumulating MLB stats in their time.

[Jason19th]

I think that this is very exciting. The player who may be the most impacted is Minoso. The official stats now have him as 13 time all star, with over 2100 hits and a 299 career batting average ( it’s s but if a shame that he came back in 77 for a couple of abs because he is literally one ab away from a 300 average). He now has an added triples leader in 47 and a slugging leader in 48 so his black in is up to 19 and his grey ink is now well over 200. His War is now also a couple points to 53.5. I would argue that this will be very compelling to the golden era committe when they meet this year

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by steve B

That will be a mess statswise.
My understanding has been that some of the competition was Major league, but some wasn't. I don't know what stats are counted and what aren't.

Are all the stats even known?

It's good to see the league get that recognition though.

Do you make the same claims about 19th century players? If not why not? All their stats aren’t complete.

[Seven]

I think BBREF should atleast have filters to toggle whether or not we can see the NBL stats. I mean zero disrespect to any of the NBL players, as I can only imagine the hardships they went through, nor am I questioning their talent, but having Vargas leapfrog so many players is a tad ridiculous especially considering how much shorter the single season was.

Are we counting Japanese stats next? Is Oh going to be considered the Home Run King over Bonds?

[packs]

I'm sure if you thought about it you will see there are no similarities between the Japanese League and the Negro League. And I think if you delved further into the reasoning behind the inclusion you will find further differences between the two.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I think that this is very exciting. The player who may be the most impacted is Minoso. The official stats now have him as 13 time all star, with over 2100 hits and a 299 career batting average ( it’s s but if a shame that he came back in 77 for a couple of abs because he is literally one ab away from a 300 average). He now has an added triples leader in 47 and a slugging leader in 48 so his black in is up to 19 and his grey ink is now well over 200. His War is now also a couple points to 53.5. I would argue that this will be very compelling to the golden era committe when they meet this year

Go Minnie Go!

[Seven]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm sure if you thought about it you will see there are no similarities between the Japanese League and the Negro League. And I think if you delved further into the reasoning behind the inclusion you will find further differences between the two.

I admit that comment was a bit pedantic, but It's just to bring up a point. As someone that has read and researched an awful lot about the Negro Leagues I'm glad they're finally getting their recognition, some extremely talented men played in that league that would have done well in baseball. They deserve to be recognized. We don't get Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays or Hank Aaron if guys like Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston didn't set the table.

But the entire face lift the leaderboards has gotten is ridiculous. I'm sorry if this is an unpopular opinion. Artie Wilson is labelled as the 6th highest single season batting average in a season that he had 95 At Bats. Josh Gibson is now considered to have the single season record for Slugging % in a season where he had 163 at bats. He dethrones Bonds' 811%. Eugene Bremmer is the single season ERA leader in a season where he threw 6 games. It's apples and oranges, the Negro League seasons were noticeably shorter than the MLB ones, there should be some sort of distinction. They played professionally, it's part of baseballs history but there needs to be a separating marker.

Do I wish there was a way to reverse time, and make it so there was never a color barrier and that all of these men had an opportunity to play in the MLB? Of course I do, but that's impossible. The Negro Leagues were different than the Majors, though, I'm not talking about from a talent perspective, but strictly speaking the amount of games being played.

[packs]

I understand what you're saying about the stats but I don't think they should be viewed in a vacuum. Jake Chesbro won 41 games in 1904 and almost no one knows his name. But if you win 30 games in 2021 you'd be a legend. There's an understanding of how the game has changed and numbers mean more or less depending on that understanding.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Do you make the same claims about 19th century players? If not why not? All their stats aren’t complete.

Yes, it's a similar situation, where some teams were excellent and consistent, and others.... not so much, largely due to sketchy financing.

What I'd previously read about the negro leagues was that the stats known at the time (which was admittedly quite some time ago) included known stats from barnstorming games against random town teams.

It seems things have improved a lot, and the known stats have been limited to games against league competition, which makes it nearly identical to some 19th century stuff.
It will take a lot of getting used to.

[mq711]

The next MLB record book update will include Helen Fox as having the greatest pitching year ever, 31 wins and an era under one. Why no push for her induction into the hall of fame? Played in organized league, excluded from MLB because of gender and I guess the the stats are as accurate as NLB.

[Jason19th]

[QUOTE=mq711;2115031]The next MLB record book update will include Helen Fox as having the greatest pitching year ever, 31 wins and an era under one. Why no push for her induction into the hall of fame? Played in organized league, excluded from MLB because of gender and I guess the the stats are as accurate as NLB.[/

Her exclusion wasn’t based on her gender but her skill. From Ada Weiss to the Bloomer girls, Lizzie Murphy to Mamee Johnson, while there have been many highly skilled female players I don’t think anyone is seriously arguing that they were MLB players. The game that the women played in the 40’s profession League was closer to modern fast pitch softball then baseball. This is not to say that I don’t believe that there will not eventually be a female player. In nearly all sports the gaps between female and male performance is shrinking. I would not be surprised if a women plays in the next twenty years. Especially if the game goes back to valuing on base and manufactured runs

[Clutch-Hitter]

[QUOTE=Jason19th;2115041]

Originally Posted by mq711

The next MLB record book update will include Helen Fox as having the greatest pitching year ever, 31 wins and an era under one. Why no push for her induction into the hall of fame? Played in organized league, excluded from MLB because of gender and I guess the the stats are as accurate as NLB.[/

Her exclusion wasn’t based on her gender but her skill. From Ada Weiss to the Bloomer girls, Lizzie Murphy to Mamee Johnson, while there have been many highly skilled female players I don’t think anyone is seriously arguing that they were MLB players. The game that the women played in the 40’s profession League was closer to modern fast pitch softball then baseball. This is not to say that I don’t believe that there will not eventually be a female player. In nearly all sports the gaps between female and male performance is shrinking. I would not be surprised if a women plays in the next twenty years. Especially if the game goes back to valuing on base and manufactured runs

That's great news!

[Kevin]

My dad grew up in Glendale. Born in 1940, his father wrote for the Sun as a criminal reporter (no byline) and his brother covered the NY baseball and football Giants from 1951-57, the Yankees through 65 and then the Pirates from 66-86.

I heard all about the Bushwicks as they were so close to Glendale. Dad saw them way more often than the Dodgers ( I was absolutely floored when he told me that he went to Ebbets field maybe 15-20x and spent way more time at the Polo Grounds - which makes sense because he tagged along with his brother while he was covering games).

So, Dexter Park...site of Franklin K Lane High School today. What a wonderful little history. Thanks for posting...

[timtass]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

Another problem is guy's like Ken Burns think's every player in the Negro Leagues had enough talent to be in the major leagues.

Not just Ken Burns.

[timtass]

Even with this being worked on for two years. It sure seems like this was a rush. Biggest issue is finding those "league games" that were played on neutral fields. I know in my research a number of games were played in Fort Wayne, IN. Those games were two negro league teams. The coverage for these were OK sometimes. But not always covered. Worst part not covered with a box score. This situation will be a debated topic for years to come.

[packs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[timtass]

Seamheads will only use a box score from a league game. Those are difficult to come by since a lot of times those newspapers are long gone. Typically minority owned newspapers were the only ones covering the games with any regularity. The Negro leagues did use Howe Sports for statistics. But the debate has always been with them. Did they include games played against "town teams".

One of the most difficult things is going to be finding league games played on neutral sites. I am from Indiana and my state hosted a number of league games with neither team being local.