Negro Leagues Recognized As Major

[riggs336]

Big news.

https://theathletic.com/news/negro-l...b/Bn7XLfWXu7br

[packs]

Put Perucho Cepeda and Francisco Coimbre in the HOF already.

[triwak]

Wow! Gonna be a statistician's dream (or nightmare, maybe). Will be interesting to see how this affects the Hall. Since they've already had two or three dedicated Negro League committees to consider and evaluate prospective nominees, I wonder? Might need to prepare my bank balance!??

[Fred]

Here's a great place to start:

http://www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/index.php

Bryant Gumbel had a really cool segment on this recently. The guy that put this together did a lot of research.

[riggs336]

Possible major shakeup of stats. Here's a paragraph from MLB.com:

Less clear at this stage, pending the discussions between MLB and Elias, is how rate statistics such as batting average or slugging percentage will be classified. For instance, Gibson (.365), Jud Wilson (.359), Charleston (.350) and Turkey Stearnes (.348) all had at least 3,000 career plate appearances and batting averages that would rank in the top 10 all-time, according to the Seamheads database. Their inclusion on that particular list would push the legendary likes of Ted Williams (.344) and Babe Ruth (.342) out of the top 10.

[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.

[Fred]

There are a lot of missing stats. Not sure how anyone could quantify what is available. Should stats against lesser rated teams be considered as minor league stats and not considered? This is going to be a mess.

[tschock]

Regarding stat comparisons. We can't even come to agreement on the 'statistical correctness' for comparison of players among various eras within the same league. So I have no doubt they will be able to reconcile this to everyone's satisfaction when they do this between 2 different leagues.

Should the Negro Leagues be considered a Major League? Most definitely. But comparing stats is a fool's errand.

[ramram]

I have several scorebooks that have games between Negro League teams and town teams, which were very competitive. Do we now need to include the town teams in the Major League record? I agree that many Negro Leaguers were capable of playing in the Majors but the vast majority were at the Minor League level at that time. I'm not sure how it should be handled but it sure muddies the water IMO.

Rob M

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Is it April 1 already?

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Again, appease, appease, appease. This time, I don't remember hearing of anyone fighting this non-battle.

We all know the impossibility of adding the woefully incomplete Negro (ahem, MAJOR) League stats to those of the much more comprehensive MLB.

A couple of things that sorely need pointing out:

Not every Negro Leaguer was of Major League caliber even if they had been welcome to play at the time. Anomalies like Gaedel and Faust aside, every single true major league player reached that level because a major league team felt they had enough talent to be there.

Let's not even get into the embarrassing lack of talent in the post-integration Negro Leagues. Are they Major Leaguers now, too?!

While we're at it, let's proclaim all those barnstorming games to be Major League! After all, the Sac City, Iowa Dry Cleaners are certainly of comparable talent to the traveling Satchel Paige All Stars. It will be incredible to see Satchel Paige with 10,000 career wins and second place Cy Young with a paltry 511. (Actually, Cy would be lower than second place!)

This is asinine. They need to leave it alone.

[Shoeless Moe]

The NBA presents The All-Time NBA Team:

Wilt Chamberlain

Michael Jordan

Meadowlark Lemon

Larry Bird

Curly Neal

[z28jd]

I've also never heard anyone make the argument that it should be a Major League. If it was happening, it was on a very low level. The problem I have here is that MLB has so many issues with "Major League" recognition already for cases that seem cut and dry. Why do they not recognize American Association teams and at the same time recognize them? The league was a Major League but any team that played in it isn't the same team as it is now? For example, MLB swears that the Pirates came along in 1887 out of nowhere, ignoring everything else completely. Same for Cardinals and the Dodgers, but then they will say that the Reds have been around since 1869 when everyone here knows that today's Reds and the 1869 Reds are not a continuous team.

They pick and choose and no one really questioned if the AA was a Major League. They don't recognize the National Association, but some people do. Why not figure that one out first? Do things in order. Fix the stupid mistakes you make daily first, then go for new stuff like the Pacific Coast League and Negro Leagues. The PCL had players who preferred to stay on the west coast. It was not a Triple-A caliber league during ALL of those years. In fact, the Negro League news came today with the fact that they are just recognizing some of it. You do realize if they recognized all of it, there would be female MLB players right now?

Today's news came with the note that the Major Leagues were decided in 1968 and the Negro Leagues weren't even given consideration. So you're saying at the same time that this decision was right and wrong? Approximately 99% of the people commenting on it today have zero clue as to whether this is a good decision or not, and that includes the joke of a commissioner who changes things on a whim like the game hasn't been around longer than the teenagers he's trying to reach have been alive. Part of my rant here has nothing to do with MLB status of the Negro Leagues and more "What is Manfred going to do next without putting thought into it?"

[Exhibitman]

Setting aside the politics of it gentlemen, I wonder how they are going to do it. Deciding which stats to include is going to be a nightmare operation.

[Jason19th]

This is very interesting. I am assuming that they are only talking about the Negro League “majors” and only considering league games. There is actually a pretty good statistical record for those games, especially when you get into the later 30’s and 40’s. What needs to be considered however is that while there are good records these seasons where pretty short. I doubt if Josh Gibson ever got more then 300 official league at bats in a season so it’s going to be pretty hard to do real comparisons.

The player this may have the biggest impact on us Minnie Minoso. He has always been stuck catch 22 for the Hall in so much as the voters were either supposed to look only at his NL stats or his MLB stats. If you combine both I don’t see how you keep him out of the hall

[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

[BRoberts]

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

[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.

[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?)

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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!

.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

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.

I think they are using 1948 as the cut-off so Toni Stone wouldn’t be included in the “major league” statistics she played after that. Still was a pretty cool accomplishment.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I think they are using 1948 as the cut-off so Toni Stone wouldn’t be included in the “major league” statistics she played after that. Still was a pretty cool accomplishment.

In the spirit of this politically correct inclusivity, this is flawed. If they're doing this, there shouldn't be a cutoff date. Someone will make the argument that there were several post-1948 Negro Leaguers who would have undoubtedly been Major Leaguers if not for the fact that the teams weren't taking each and every worthy Negro League player and stocking their clubs. Surely, teams such as Boston and Detroit could have grabbed a few more, yet didn't...

(I certainly understand the logic behind the cutoff date, but they're putting their feet in their mouths by having one.)

[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!!!

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

In the spirit of this politically correct inclusivity, this is flawed. If they're doing this, there shouldn't be a cutoff date. Someone will make the argument that there were several post-1948 Negro Leaguers who would have undoubtedly been Major Leaguers if not for the fact that the teams weren't taking each and every worthy Negro League player and stocking their clubs. Surely, teams such as Boston and Detroit could have grabbed a few more, yet didn't...

(I certainly understand the logic behind the cutoff date, but they're putting their feet in their mouths by having one.)

I agree. I think this is simply a starting point and based on how this shakes out they could broaden what is included down the road very easily.

[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

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.)

[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.

[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.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

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.)

Does it really make that much of adifference? It’s really not going to mess up the stats and its giving recognition to a group of baseball players who were wrongfully denied their opportunity. Unless you really want to argue the slippery slope theory...

[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.

[Joe Hunter]

I listened to an interview, today, on local radio (Kansas City) with Negro League Hall of Fame director Bob Kendrick. Of course, he was pretty excited about the inclusion of the Negro Leagues into MLB. He said that it had been in the works for about 2 years and that he had been involved in the discussions pretty extensively. He pointed out, as was mentioned earlier, that it will include only players from 1920-1948 and that only stats acquired through competition between true Negro League teams would be used. No barnstorming, exhibition, etc games will count.

[todeen]

I like the idea. There have been some real stinker teams throughout MLB history, but games against those teams still count. I imagine top level teams enjoyed playing these teams so as to pad the stats. Exp: Cincinnati Reds who regularly threw a starting rotation of minor leaguers a couple seasons ago.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[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?

[shagrotn77]

Wow. I'm 1,000% AGAINST this if, for no other reason, the fact that Negro League stats were not kept nearly as precisely as MLB stats. Also, as previously pointed out, Negro League teams didn't always play "major league" competition. Why would MLB decide that this was a good idea? Should we also make Ichiro the new MLB hit king, or Sadaharu Oh the new MLB HR king? This is ridiculous.

[jason.1969]

Best thing to happen in Baseball my entire life!

[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.

[Mark17]

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).

Stats accumulated against AAA level competition are not Major League stats.

I wonder what Ted Williams would've hit had he spent his career in Triple A leagues. Or any ML player for that matter.