Read today that Negro League will be merged with MLB stats….

[TheHeel]

Zero chill

[asujbl]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

Who was phone?

I don't know what this means?

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by Triple B

Baseball pre war was full of players that were mediocre to bad. There were no bullpens or pitch counts. Ty Cobb was hitting off of pitchers who got no rest or were forced workhorses. Asking if Josh Gibson could do anything in a fantasy situation is lame only because he was forced to play in a league made up for black players because of segregation.

Throwing it back, how many MLB players in that era would never have sniffed the majors if black players were allowed to play? MLB diluted their own product.

A lot considering black people have always made up a small percentage of MLB players. The high was 18.7% in 1981. Saying Gibson’s stats would’ve remained the same playing against better and deeper talent pools makes no sense and reeks of chasing a pat on the back.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by mc1

Talk about throwing away logic.

Are you discussing a batter who has a called third strike because of time clock violation having the same WAR value as the 22 Little League Home Runs hit that were scored as Force Outs in the majors ? All the batters received the same exact value though 22 batters reached home plate safely and had a negative WAR value with increasing the odds of winning. Are you referring to that Logic ?

Striking out in a time clock violation is analyzed as equal to scoring on a little league home run that the score keeper judges as a unsuccessful force out. Both are 0-1 in plate appearances. Don’t allow appearances to be valued more than RESULTS !

[80s Kid]

Originally Posted by Noles939913

A lot considering black people have always made up a small percentage of MLB players. The high was 18.7% in 1981. Saying Gibson’s stats would’ve remained the same playing against better and deeper talent pools makes no sense and reeks of chasing a pat on the back.

From the 1960's to 2002 black players represented a higher percentage of baseball players than their overall US population percentage. In the 1930's and 1940's the black population was less than 10% of the total US population.

The Negro Leagues also had latino players who currently make up over a quarter of MLB players.

If anything, your percentage shows a higher percentage of black players were good enough in 1981 to play in the MLB than white players, relative to population size.

[mjekase]

Originally Posted by Noles939913

A lot considering black people have always made up a small percentage of MLB players. The high was 18.7% in 1981. Saying Gibson’s stats would’ve remained the same playing against better and deeper talent pools makes no sense and reeks of chasing a pat on the back.

Black people have made up an even smaller percentage of the overall population (about 12%) since the beginning of the 20th century. The only way you'd be able to prove any correlation between that 18.1 number and the quality of the players is if you knew what percentage of each demographic actually played baseball, or tried to make it to the major leagues. Which is impossible.

Also, Ted Williams famously spoke about how great Gibson was in his Hall of Fame speech. I guess we wasn't making sense either.

[YouTheManNick]

The argument that NOW Josh Gibson can be in the conversation as one of the greats because of this is pretty ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about baseball history already know that he was.

Personally, my only concern with this is accuracy. I remember a line in the Ken Burns doc saying something like "we'll never know how many home runs Josh Gibson really hit since they didn't always track stats" or something like that.

Reading about the effort that went into the research makes me feel better about it, though.

The great players will always be great players. Baseball's past will always be muddied due to segregation. So why not combine it?

Side note; I was also shocked to see only 125 wins added for Satchel Paige. Woulda assumed many more.

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by mjekase

Black people have made up an even smaller percentage of the overall population (about 12%) since the beginning of the 20th century. The only way you'd be able to prove any correlation between that 18.1 number and the quality of the players is if you knew what percentage of each demographic actually played baseball, or tried to make it to the major leagues. Which is impossible.

Also, Ted Williams famously spoke about how great Gibson was in his Hall of Fame speech. I guess we wasn't making sense either.

What on earth are you rambling on about? I never said Gibson wasn’t great. I said there’s no way he hits .372 for his career if he got to play against everyone and not just a small portion of the population. You don’t think Larry Bird would’ve had better stats if only had to play against white people? It’s the same concept.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by Noles939913

What on earth are you rambling on about? I never said Gibson wasn’t great. I said there’s no way he hits .372 for his career if he got to play against everyone and not just a small portion of the population. You don’t think Larry Bird would’ve had better stats if only had to play against white people? It’s the same concept.

Everyone's stats would in theory be lower due to the better competition. How much we will never know, but the mlb stats are much larger samples. As others have pointed out this is all still very US centric with a scrap thrown to Canada. Its not like latin american players were allowed to play nor asian players.

[80s Kid]

Originally Posted by Noles939913

What on earth are you rambling on about? I never said Gibson wasn’t great. I said there’s no way he hits .372 for his career if he got to play against everyone and not just a small portion of the population. You don’t think Larry Bird would’ve had better stats if only had to play against white people? It’s the same concept.

Just as I can say Ted Williams doesn't hit over .400 in 1941 if he had to face pitchers such as Satchel Paige.

Your percentage of black players in the MLB in 1981 still doesn't mean anything to the argument since it shows they were overrepresented based on population, not underrepresented.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

It simply recognizes the accomplishments of those men as the equivalent of a Major League. Which they were already doing when they started inducting Negro Leaguers into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The fact they didn’t do this in 1969 when they elevated the Players League, Federal League, heck, the Union Association, etc, has always been puzzling. This is about 5 decades late. If they had done it then no one would think anything of it anymore than they think about the Union Association being a Major League.

And again, this was announced months ago.

+1 Agreed

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

I don't have a strong opinion on the change, but after seeing the comment thread on Facebook attacking anyone who even modestly disagreed with the change, it was an easy choice to keep my two cents out of it. It's the sad state of the climate in this country. People cannot agree to disagree. As such, many just bow out of tough conversations when we should be having them. Nixon called it the silent majority.

Yeah, the Facebook comments are even more brutal than this place.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by JRX

Its not like latin american players were allowed to play nor asian players.

Correction: The color line singled out African-Americans.

Native Americans, Latin Americans, Hawaiians, and southern/eastern European groups not considered "White" at the time all appeared on major league US rosters prior to Jackie Robinson.

In fact, it was somewhat common for teams to try to smuggled Black players into their dugouts by claiming they were Cuban or Native American. The first Black player to appear on a US baseball card was Jimmy Claxton—a Black pitcher who was allowed on the team because he told them he was Native American (which was true, he was basically half Native American and half Black). But once the team learned he was also half Black he was kicked out.

Also, the "exclusion" of Asian players was due to US immigration laws which placed strict quotas on the group until well past WWII, not a concerted effort by owners. In fact, if you compare the two parties' platforms from the 1880s to the 1940s, they only two things the Red team and Blue team agreed on were 1) doing more for military widows and 2) strictly limiting the arrival of Asians.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

Correction: The color line singled out African-Americans.

Native Americans, Latin Americans, Hawaiians, and southern/eastern European groups not considered "White" at the time all appeared on major league US rosters prior to Jackie Robinson.

In fact, it was somewhat common for teams to try to smuggled Black players into their dugouts by claiming they were Cuban or Native American.

What dark skinned latinos played in the majors prior to Jackie?

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by JRX

What dark skinned latinos played in the majors prior to Jackie?

Are we going to get into colorism by saying this guy doesn't count as a "latin american player"?

[80s Kid]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

Correction: The color line singled out African-Americans.

Native Americans, Latin Americans, Hawaiians, and southern/eastern European groups not considered "White" at the time all appeared on major league US rosters prior to Jackie Robinson.

In fact, it was somewhat common for teams to try to smuggled Black players into their dugouts by claiming they were Cuban or Native American. The first Black player to appear on a US baseball card was Jimmy Claxton—a Black pitcher who was allowed on the team because he told them he was Native American (which was true, he was basically half Native American and half Black). But once the team learned he was also half Black he was kicked out.

Mike Herrera even played in both the MLB and Negro Leagues in the 1920s. Shocker, his stats weren’t that different from one pro league to the other.

[theshowandme]

Is this card worthless now that he’s second in career batting average?

[rms13]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

Correction: The color line singled out African-Americans.

Native Americans, Latin Americans, Hawaiians, and southern/eastern European groups not considered "White" at the time all appeared on major league US rosters prior to Jackie Robinson.

In fact, it was somewhat common for teams to try to smuggled Black players into their dugouts by claiming they were Cuban or Native American. The first Black player to appear on a US baseball card was Jimmy Claxton—a Black pitcher who was allowed on the team because he told them he was Native American (which was true, he was basically half Native American and half Black). But once the team learned he was also half Black he was kicked out.

Also, the "exclusion" of Asian players was due to US immigration laws which placed strict quotas on the group until well past WWII, not a concerted effort by owners. In fact, if you compare the two parties' platforms from the 1880s to the 1940s, they only two things the Red team and Blue team agreed on were 1) doing more for military widows and 2) strictly limiting the arrival of Asians.

The irony is Japan is still very racist toward foreign players with strict quotas on how many can be on each team. Japan is also very racist/nationalist in general but for some reason they seem to get a pass. Actually every country that has racist culture but is not a predominatly white gets a pass.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Is this card worthless now that he’s second in career batting average?

Yes. Send it to me and I'll properly dispose of it.

[ThoseBackPages]

yes it is

[JRX]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

Are we going to get into colorism by saying this guy doesn't count as a "latin american player"?

When hasn't that been something in US? Many if not most of the players from the carribean were also descendants of slaves so I would be surprised if there were dark skinned latin players prior to Jackie. The higher classes look more Spanish which shouldn't come as a surprise. I don't know the history of the players, but I can easily see owners of that day being ok with a latin player that looks more spanish than a latin player that looks more like an african american.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

Are we going to get into colorism by saying this guy doesn't count as a "latin american player"?

Not dark enough for people here to accept Doesn't fit the narrrative

[theshowandme]

How drunk do I need to be to read this thread in its entirety so far?

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by 80s Kid

Mike Herrera even played in both the MLB and Negro Leagues in the 1920s. Shocker, his stats weren’t that different from one pro league to the other.

It's one of those historical things that's obvious to anyone who follows the game and its past, but which non-fans have zero clue about. There was a ton of face-to-face competition in the barnstorming era from 1890-1940. MLB players went toe-to-toe against Negro League teams, Japanese teams, Cuban teams, female pitchers, religious cults, etc. in thousands of exhibition games. The notion that pro baseball prior to Robinson was a hermetically sealed, Whites-only bubble is historical fiction.

Originally Posted by rms13

The irony is Japan is still very racist toward foreign players with strict quotas on how many can be on each team. Japan is also very racist/nationalist in general but for some reason they seem to get a pass. Actually every country that has racist culture but is not a predominatly white gets a pass.

Most non-US countries institute some kind of foreigner quota in their prize pro leagues. The CFL also strictly limits how many Americans can play.

The US obviously has some deep flaws in its history of race and sports, but we do deserve credit for being so accepting of foreign players across our leagues.

Originally Posted by JRX

When hasn't that been something in US? Many if not most of the players from the carribean were also descendants of slaves so I would be surprised if there were dark skinned latin players prior to Jackie.

I could go looking for the darkest-skinned player to suit up between 1887 and 1947, but the original statement was that "latin americans and asians" were barred from play.

If that's settled, I'm glad to move on.

Originally Posted by rms13

Not dark enough for people here to accept Doesn't fit the narrrative

It's a very messy topic that doesn't give us clean narratives one way or the other.

[ThoseBackPages]

jive talkin'