What inspires chit such as this, is the desire for bloated organizations to become even more bloated. Also known as patronage jobs or work.
The working beneficiaries of this, the countless cost and continuous cost needed to tabulate all this and constantly update it, sure does benefit somebody and perhaps a lot of somebodies. In my opinion, probably family, friends, or folks associated in some manner with those who made this ridiculous decision. IE: Follow the money, it will take you there.
I'd like to see the estimated cost and ongoing cost of doing this, and I'm sure it's higher than most may think. Oh well, just raise the price of parking, hot dogs, and beer at the ballpark. No big deal, right? Milk the fans a little bit more, they won't mind. 🙄
@craig44 said:
Oscar Charleston struck out 13 times in 3153 at bats.
Josh Gibson struck out 11 times in over 2200 at bats.
yup, these numbers are totally accurate and legit...
Those really do highlight that either the numbers are iffy or the talent on the mound was not very good overall.
Well, think about it - everybody can name a ton of great hitters from the Negro Leagues - Gibson, Charleston, Bell, Jackie, Mays, Aaron, and so on. Now ask them to name a great pitcher besides Paige. Don Newcombe who was just a kid?
As MLB put it in its press release, "Negro League stats may be viewed separately and/or jointly: player and pitcher pages, no matter how infrequently these individuals may have played; within a team's record in a given league year; within all MLB records for a given year; or by a given league season."
As MLB put it in its press release, "Negro League stats may be viewed separately and/or jointly: player and pitcher pages, no matter how infrequently these individuals may have played; within a team's record in a given league year; within all MLB records for a given year; or by a given league season."
is this to mean they are walking it back, at least halfway?
As MLB put it in its press release, "Negro League stats may be viewed separately and/or jointly: player and pitcher pages, no matter how infrequently these individuals may have played; within a team's record in a given league year; within all MLB records for a given year; or by a given league season."
is this to mean they are walking it back, at least halfway?
They are now Playing the middle
They absolutely regret destroying the record books now they are trying to put lipstick on the pig.
The idea is so ridiculous, it's actually funny that anyone or any group could get together and come up with such an epic disaster and go with it.
As MLB put it in its press release, "Negro League stats may be viewed separately and/or jointly: player and pitcher pages, no matter how infrequently these individuals may have played; within a team's record in a given league year; within all MLB records for a given year; or by a given league season."
is this to mean they are walking it back, at least halfway?
They are now Playing the middle
They absolutely regret destroying the record books now they are trying to put lipstick on the pig.
The idea is so ridiculous, it's actually funny that anyone or any group could get together and come up with such an epic disaster and go with it.
Gee, this might mean the idiot's brother-in-law might not get that cushy 150k a year job, sitting at a desk reading comic books and playing online poker all day long, while doing virtually no actual work.
#LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
I’m happy to use whatever words make people comfortable. It does seem strange though that “Negro”…which simply means black in Spanish…is bad when it was fine in the 1960s, and black is fine now. Similarly, “colored” is bad and “people of color” is good. I’m sure there are historical reasons, but it is a bit odd.
“Negro Leagues” is a reference to what the organization was called at the time. People still use the term “negro spirituals” for the same reason, I think, as a historical reference.
@PaulMaul said:
I’m happy to use whatever words make people comfortable. It does seem strange though that “Negro”…which simply means black in Spanish…is bad when it was fine in the 1960s, and black is fine now. Similarly, “colored” is bad and “people of color” is good. I’m sure there are historical reasons, but it is a bit odd.
The thing is you WILL find someone out there that will be offended no matter what though, I just stick to the basics and call it what it was "Negro Leagues" if someone is offended then that's their problem not mine
As MLB put it in its press release, "Negro League stats may be viewed separately and/or jointly: player and pitcher pages, no matter how infrequently these individuals may have played; within a team's record in a given league year; within all MLB records for a given year; or by a given league season."
is this to mean they are walking it back, at least halfway?
They are now Playing the middle
They absolutely regret destroying the record books now they are trying to put lipstick on the pig.
The idea is so ridiculous, it's actually funny that anyone or any group could get together and come up with such an epic disaster and go with it.
Dont forget these are the same people that gave players faulty see through uniforms this year, think that the first series of the season should be overseas, and that the As with the cheapest owner in the league deserves the Vegas market.
I post in some political forums, and using the word "negro" in a post, their software bot will automatically delete the entire post.
It's sort of hilarious because some of them picked up this MLB story, and of course Negro Leagues was used in the news story. But in a reply post, using Negro Leagues would get the post automatically deleted.
Multiple pitchers have won the Cy Young pitching well under 162 innings
The 502 At bats isnt necessary either. They add at bats to the stats counting them as outs and if the player is still the highest average they still win the batting title like Tony Gwynn in 1996
@Basebal21 said:
Multiple pitchers have won the Cy Young pitching well under 162 innings
Nobody was talking about awards.
The 502 At bats isnt necessary either. They add at bats to the stats counting them as outs and if the player is still the highest average they still win the batting title like Tony Gwynn in 1996
@Basebal21 said:
Multiple pitchers have won the Cy Young pitching well under 162 innings
Nobody was talking about awards.
Those benchmarks only apply to awards
The 502 At bats isnt necessary either. They add at bats to the stats counting them as outs and if the player is still the highest average they still win the batting title like Tony Gwynn in 1996
It's still 3.1 per team game.
Tony Gwynn had 498 plate appearances in 1996 and won the batting title. They added the 4 needed as outs and he was still the leader so he won.
Theres no hard line. You could theoretically have 200 hits in 200 at bats and still win the batting title. It wont happen but it is possible with how its calculated
@Basebal21 said:
Multiple pitchers have won the Cy Young pitching well under 162 innings
Nobody was talking about awards.
Those benchmarks only apply to awards
They apply to official champions for stuff like ERA and batting average. I have idea why you think they apply to stuff like Cy Young Awards. The only one with anything like that is Rookie of the Year but that's a fixed amount of playing time, not 3.1 PA per (team) game or 1 IP per (team) game.
@Basebal21 said:
Multiple pitchers have won the Cy Young pitching well under 162 innings
Nobody was talking about awards.
Those benchmarks only apply to awards
They apply to official champions for stuff like ERA and batting average. I have idea why you think they apply to stuff like Cy Young Awards. The only one with anything like that is Rookie of the Year but that's a fixed amount of playing time, not 3.1 PA per (team) game or 1 IP per (team) game.
Again they do not apply as hard lines. If you fall below the "threshold" they add the at bats as outs and recalculate the average for the batting title. It doesnt change the players actual average. 1996 Tony Gwynn could have never won the batting title which he officially did if it was some hard standard.
I'm not sure how to explain it better other than go look up how many plate appearances Gwynn had in 1996 and who officially won the batting title which is the highest average Gywnn had a .353 batting average, the 4 hittless at bats were added and his average dropped to .349 which was still higher than Ellis Burks who was the next highest and had a .344 average so Gywnn won the official batting title despite not having 502 plate appearances
In 1948 the new official batting average leader that year is Artie Wilson with a .433 batting average...making him the new last player to hit over ,400.
Artie Wilson had 122 plate appearances in 1948.
With the inclusions of these stats, from 1920 to 1948 the highest seasonal batting average title in MLB now goes to a Negro league player 26 times and to a MLB player three times.
In 1938 Jimmie Foxx once had the highest batting average with a .349 average. Now, his .349 average has him outside of the top ten that year. The top 10 in batting average comprises players entirely from the Negro Leagues.
Since other leagues count the last players to hit .400 are from college this year where 15 of them did it while Carlie Condon lead the league a .443 and 36 Hrs. And yes all those players are getting paid in NIL which means they arent actually amateurs
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
In 1948 the new official batting average leader that year is Artie Wilson with a .433 batting average...making him the new last player to hit over ,400.
Artie Wilson had 122 plate appearances in 1948.
With the inclusions of these stats, from 1920 to 1948 the highest seasonal batting average title in MLB now goes to a Negro league player 26 times and to a MLB player three times.
In 1938 Jimmie Foxx once had the highest batting average with a .349 average. Now, his .349 average has him outside of the top ten that year. The top 10 in batting average comprises players entirely from the Negro Leagues.
In 1980 George Brett hit .408 the last 5 months of the season, 161-395.
So the first month now doesn’t have to count and George is the official last .400 hitter in mlb.
It has been said that a statistician can create statistics that will support and prove anything.
Thus if someone wants to have a certain result (i.e. sea levels have risen 20 feet world wide since the first oil well in the USA was drilled in Pennsylvania in the late 1850s' solely because humans have been consuming fossil fuels) become generally accepted a statistician can come up with numbers to support that result.
Past points of view and/or historical accuracy do not matter to many persons. Instead many persons believe that what they are FEELING at the moment must be reality for all.
@SanctionII said:
It has been said that a statistician can create statistics that will support and prove anything.
Thus if someone wants to have a certain result (i.e. sea levels have risen 20 feet world wide since the first oil well in the USA was drilled in Pennsylvania in the late 1850s' solely because humans have been consuming fossil fuels) become generally accepted a statistician can come up with numbers to support that result.
Past points of view and/or historical accuracy do not matter to many persons. Instead many persons believe that what they are FEELING at the moment must be reality for all.
Who said that about statisticians? It doesn’t make any sense.
The NL and AL did not start interleague play until 1997, yet we accept without question the integration of those record books, despite no direct play between the leagues.
To sit in judgement and claim the Negro Leagues' players were not MLB caliber is both folly and ignorant of the history of the game. There were most certainly MLB-caliber players in the Negro Leagues (proven by the number of players who went on to play MLB after desegregation began) that were simply denied the ability to play in MLB because of their race, not their ability. Conversely, the same number of MLB players at the time would have had their roster spots filled by black players and were not MLB-caliber players.
This is not 'wokeism', 'social justice' or any of the other culture war terminology you want to utilize. It simply is an attempt to right the wrongs of the racism in MLB's past while at the same time bringing attention to the incredible history of the Negro Leagues which apparently still has a long ways to go.
I asked in the other thread and will ask it here: in what possible world does the merging of the record books affect YOUR perception of MLB and its history? Will you suddenly look at the history any differently? Will you suddenly put aside your favorite players of the past simply because their records existing alongside players from the Negro Leagues?
Of course, it will not - you will still hold in your hearts and minds the players you have always done.
Agree with Mistlin.
You people are arguing to maintain segregated baseball statistics because the leagues were segregated? It's beyond offputting. Especially you Stevek.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
@Mistlin said:
The NL and AL did not start interleague play until 1997, yet we accept without question the integration of those record books, despite no direct play between the leagues.
To sit in judgement and claim the Negro Leagues' players were not MLB caliber is both folly and ignorant of the history of the game. There were most certainly MLB-caliber players in the Negro Leagues (proven by the number of players who went on to play MLB after desegregation began) that were simply denied the ability to play in MLB because of their race, not their ability. Conversely, the same number of MLB players at the time would have had their roster spots filled by black players and were not MLB-caliber players.
This is not 'wokeism', 'social justice' or any of the other culture war terminology you want to utilize. It simply is an attempt to right the wrongs of the racism in MLB's past while at the same time bringing attention to the incredible history of the Negro Leagues which apparently still has a long ways to go.
I asked in the other thread and will ask it here: in what possible world does the merging of the record books affect YOUR perception of MLB and its history? Will you suddenly look at the history any differently? Will you suddenly put aside your favorite players of the past simply because their records existing alongside players from the Negro Leagues?
Of course, it will not - you will still hold in your hearts and minds the players you have always done.
Okay and let's also combine the stats of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. That would be almost as silly as what was just done.
It's not a racial or gender thing keeping the stats separate, it's simply common sense.
If the league was segregated by race then how is it "not a racial or gender thing keeping the stats separate"
It was racism that forces separate leagues and segregated statistics.
I think you are giving yourself way too much credit by claiming you have the common sense here. All I see is some old white men being unbelievable annoyed that anyone is touching their precious segregated baseball statistics.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
@RiveraFamilyCollect said:
Agree with Mistlin.
You people are arguing to maintain segregated baseball statistics because the leagues were segregated? It's beyond offputting. Especially you Stevek.
The leagues were segregated. Fortunately, that wrong was righted.
However combining the stats isn't just wrong, it is ludicrous.
How was it made right? Did they go back in time and unracism the situation? Or do you just want to move on because it hasn't affected you until now.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
@RiveraFamilyCollect said:
How was it made right? Did they go back in time and unracism the situation? Or do you just want to move on because it hasn't affected you until now.
@RiveraFamilyCollect said:
How was it made right? Did they go back in time and unracism the situation? Or do you just want to move on because it hasn't affected you until now.
@RiveraFamilyCollect said:
How was it made right? Did they go back in time and unracism the situation? Or do you just want to move on because it hasn't affected you until now.
The wrong was righted in 1947. Thank goodness for that.
Combining the stats of two totally different leagues, one of the silliest things I've ever seen, only opens up old wounds for no reason.
Never forget the past. However wishing to erase MLB records is only for the sake of woke, and you know it.
And from that day in 1947 all the racist segregation was forgiven and like it didn't even happen. What racism?
You have an extremely shallow read of that situation.
"Clemente was not shy about calling out discrimination. Even up to his last interview in October 1972, he talked about being racially profiled at a New York furniture store, where employees initially refused to show him their best merchandise before they found out who he was. He also described how he fought against the indignity that Black players faced – like when he refused to have food brought to him on the team’s bus because he and his other Black teammates couldn’t dine with their White teammates at segregated restaurants."
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
@RiveraFamilyCollect said:
And from that day in 1947 all the racist segregation was forgiven and like it didn't even happen. What racism?
You have an extremely shallow read of that situation.
"Clemente was not shy about calling out discrimination. Even up to his last interview in October 1972, he talked about being racially profiled at a New York furniture store, where employees initially refused to show him their best merchandise before they found out who he was. He also described how he fought against the indignity that Black players faced – like when he refused to have food brought to him on the team’s bus because he and his other Black teammates couldn’t dine with their White teammates at segregated restaurants."
Your point is too political for this forum. Sorry but I'm not going there.
My points were targeted towards the two leagues' stats should not be combined. For painfully obvious common sense reasons.
@Mistlin said:
The NL and AL did not start interleague play until 1997, yet we accept without question the integration of those record books, despite no direct play between the leagues.
To sit in judgement and claim the Negro Leagues' players were not MLB caliber is both folly and ignorant of the history of the game. There were most certainly MLB-caliber players in the Negro Leagues (proven by the number of players who went on to play MLB after desegregation began) that were simply denied the ability to play in MLB because of their race, not their ability. Conversely, the same number of MLB players at the time would have had their roster spots filled by black players and were not MLB-caliber players.
This is not 'wokeism', 'social justice' or any of the other culture war terminology you want to utilize. It simply is an attempt to right the wrongs of the racism in MLB's past while at the same time bringing attention to the incredible history of the Negro Leagues which apparently still has a long ways to go.
I asked in the other thread and will ask it here: in what possible world does the merging of the record books affect YOUR perception of MLB and its history? Will you suddenly look at the history any differently? Will you suddenly put aside your favorite players of the past simply because their records existing alongside players from the Negro Leagues?
Of course, it will not - you will still hold in your hearts and minds the players you have always done.
Okay and let's also combine the stats of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. That would be almost as silly as what was just done.
It's not a racial or gender thing keeping the stats separate, it's simply common sense.
Its also common sense that the fact is that the stats happened in a different league and its just silly to try and argue that every player from that league would have been able to be in MLB. Could some no questions, could most no. The current Mexican league is full of tons of guys that have spent time on big league rosters, Japan has some guys that succeed when they come over and a lot that dont, the Cuban professional league has a lot of busts that have come to the league.
When people try and make it a racial issue theyre just moving the goal posts and trying to shape the argument. Its not a racial issue. Its a historical accuracy issue and there is no argument that says those stats happened in MLB.
I didn't know taking a strong moral stand against racism is too political. Sorry you feel this way.
Your point however doesn't rely on common sense and just relies on a sense of cultural outrage in support of historical racial segregation.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
Just throwing this out there to show that this isn’t an unprecedented move… the record books have contained stats from multiple varied leagues for 50+ years:
Previous major leagues recognized as of the Special Baseball Records Committee (SBRC) rulings of 1969 included the National League, 1876 to the present; the American League, 1901 to the present; the American Association, 1882–91; the Union Association, 1884; the Players’ League, 1890; and the Federal League, 1914–15.
Very few people consider records from the 1800s to be relevant when the game was in its infancy. I dont know anyone that would say Jim O'Rourke was one of the best of all time for what he did in the 1870s and 1880s. There wasnt a league back in its infancy that ended up building to a league. Thankfully those leagues existed and gave us the great sport but the MLB was well established by the time these "new records" occurred in a different league
Whats the argument for excluding the Mexican league, Japanes league, South Korea, minor leagues etc if all records should be combined?
If the NNL and the NN2 or the Mexican League or Japanese League, South Korean League, or Minor League -- any individually are equivalent in skill and have accurate statistical record for the period(s) considered, then there's no reason to not include them.
I knew there were a few different Negro Leagues, but I had to look it up... then I learned there were 7.
Negro National League (I) (1920-31)
Eastern Colored League (1923-28)
American Negro League (1929)
East-West League (1932)
Negro Southern League (1932)
Negro National League (II) (1933-48)
Negro American League (1937-48)
As I understand it, everything before 1933 is considered NNL and everything 1933 and after is considered NN2.
If their seasons were significantly different, such as they were, with the NNL and NN2 Leagues, and there are insufficient criteria for the establishment of meaningful records, then you would need to adopt new or modify existing criteria for inclusion of metrics in these statistical functions.
What I am not clear on is. This happened in 2020. And then recently, they apparently had cobbled together enough statistical information from wherever and were ready to introduce the "first batch" of metrics into the official record. Then all of the stat-sites went nuts and now we're talking about it.
While the usefulness of statistics which measure performance across 20,30,60 game seasons vs. performance across 140+ games are subject to debate, I have less of an issue with the quality of the NN2 vs MLB, which I think were not as far apart as people seem to indicate by trying to include the Minor Leagues. People still talk about Ty Cobb as being the "Greatest Baseball Player of All Time"... but he might not make the White Sox this year.
It's silly to compare things that shouldn't be compared. I think the record stuff will all get sorted out so that the accomplishments can be compared, but if it doesn't, it doesn't bother me, because I still get to look at the numbers and consider everything in context and form my own opinion and then argue with everyone here. I'd buy that for a dollar!
Would the proponents of adding to MLB statistics the statistics of other leagues (including leagues in which black persons played) also seek to have the NFL add the statistics of the multiple other professional football leagues (i.e. AFL, USFL, WFL, XFL, UFL, World League of American Football, Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, etc.) to the NFL statistics?
The “NFL” statistics include the AFL and whatever the other one was. You could make a case for the USFL right because there were a ton if NFL players and stars. The other leagues are not similar enough in my opinion. Others might disagree and this is a wonderful thought experiment but the other thing is already done. So is this about how to put the genie back in the bottle or what cause I was looking at it from the perspective of how do we make this not as ridiculous.
Comments
What inspires chit such as this, is the desire for bloated organizations to become even more bloated. Also known as patronage jobs or work.
The working beneficiaries of this, the countless cost and continuous cost needed to tabulate all this and constantly update it, sure does benefit somebody and perhaps a lot of somebodies. In my opinion, probably family, friends, or folks associated in some manner with those who made this ridiculous decision. IE: Follow the money, it will take you there.
I'd like to see the estimated cost and ongoing cost of doing this, and I'm sure it's higher than most may think. Oh well, just raise the price of parking, hot dogs, and beer at the ballpark. No big deal, right? Milk the fans a little bit more, they won't mind. 🙄
Well, think about it - everybody can name a ton of great hitters from the Negro Leagues - Gibson, Charleston, Bell, Jackie, Mays, Aaron, and so on. Now ask them to name a great pitcher besides Paige. Don Newcombe who was just a kid?
I'll stick to my college sports. This kind of pandering garbage by pro sports organizations is ridiculous.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Pasted:
As MLB put it in its press release, "Negro League stats may be viewed separately and/or jointly: player and pitcher pages, no matter how infrequently these individuals may have played; within a team's record in a given league year; within all MLB records for a given year; or by a given league season."
is this to mean they are walking it back, at least halfway?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
They are now Playing the middle
They absolutely regret destroying the record books now they are trying to put lipstick on the pig.
The idea is so ridiculous, it's actually funny that anyone or any group could get together and come up with such an epic disaster and go with it.
it also said that "no matter how infrequently these individuals may have played"
does that also continue forward? could a current player win an ERA title having pitched 20 innings?
I would still like to hear their explanation of the wildly inaccurate strikeout totals for so many hitters.
pretty amazing that oscar charleston only struck out 13 times in 3153 at bats. man, he must have been better than tony gwynn!!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yep, sounds like word salad to me.
Idiots.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Gee, this might mean the idiot's brother-in-law might not get that cushy 150k a year job, sitting at a desk reading comic books and playing online poker all day long, while doing virtually no actual work.
Although that doesn't sound like a bad idea. 😆
I'm surprised they're still calling it the "Negro" Leagues.
I thought that word was taboo?
I am waiting for my great season in 1984 in the slo-pitch softball league to be included.
I never had the opportunity to play in the majors in baseball......wasn't good enough.
Our country has devolved into a bunch of idiotic pea brained morons.
I know, I was thinking the same. they still call it the NAACP as well.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It's a noun vs. adjective thing.
I struggle to see a difference over time... anywhere, but point taken.
I’m happy to use whatever words make people comfortable. It does seem strange though that “Negro”…which simply means black in Spanish…is bad when it was fine in the 1960s, and black is fine now. Similarly, “colored” is bad and “people of color” is good. I’m sure there are historical reasons, but it is a bit odd.
“Negro Leagues” is a reference to what the organization was called at the time. People still use the term “negro spirituals” for the same reason, I think, as a historical reference.
The thing is you WILL find someone out there that will be offended no matter what though, I just stick to the basics and call it what it was "Negro Leagues" if someone is offended then that's their problem not mine
I’m still trying to figure out if it was offensive when George Jefferson always called his white neighbor honky. 🤔
Stupid list…. Mistlin
No. But we have professional victims now so prepare to be cancelled.
Dont forget these are the same people that gave players faulty see through uniforms this year, think that the first series of the season should be overseas, and that the As with the cheapest owner in the league deserves the Vegas market.
I post in some political forums, and using the word "negro" in a post, their software bot will automatically delete the entire post.
It's sort of hilarious because some of them picked up this MLB story, and of course Negro Leagues was used in the news story. But in a reply post, using Negro Leagues would get the post automatically deleted.
I never even heard of the name Josh Gibson until I joined this forum.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
The criteria for rate stats like average and ERA are unchanged - 3.1 PAs per team game, 1 IP per team game.
Multiple pitchers have won the Cy Young pitching well under 162 innings
The 502 At bats isnt necessary either. They add at bats to the stats counting them as outs and if the player is still the highest average they still win the batting title like Tony Gwynn in 1996
Nobody was talking about awards.
It's still 3.1 per team game.
Those benchmarks only apply to awards
Tony Gwynn had 498 plate appearances in 1996 and won the batting title. They added the 4 needed as outs and he was still the leader so he won.
Theres no hard line. You could theoretically have 200 hits in 200 at bats and still win the batting title. It wont happen but it is possible with how its calculated
The only thing with a hard line is service time
They apply to official champions for stuff like ERA and batting average. I have idea why you think they apply to stuff like Cy Young Awards. The only one with anything like that is Rookie of the Year but that's a fixed amount of playing time, not 3.1 PA per (team) game or 1 IP per (team) game.
Again they do not apply as hard lines. If you fall below the "threshold" they add the at bats as outs and recalculate the average for the batting title. It doesnt change the players actual average. 1996 Tony Gwynn could have never won the batting title which he officially did if it was some hard standard.
I'm not sure how to explain it better other than go look up how many plate appearances Gwynn had in 1996 and who officially won the batting title which is the highest average Gywnn had a .353 batting average, the 4 hittless at bats were added and his average dropped to .349 which was still higher than Ellis Burks who was the next highest and had a .344 average so Gywnn won the official batting title despite not having 502 plate appearances
In 1948 the new official batting average leader that year is Artie Wilson with a .433 batting average...making him the new last player to hit over ,400.
Artie Wilson had 122 plate appearances in 1948.
With the inclusions of these stats, from 1920 to 1948 the highest seasonal batting average title in MLB now goes to a Negro league player 26 times and to a MLB player three times.
In 1938 Jimmie Foxx once had the highest batting average with a .349 average. Now, his .349 average has him outside of the top ten that year. The top 10 in batting average comprises players entirely from the Negro Leagues.
Since other leagues count the last players to hit .400 are from college this year where 15 of them did it while Carlie Condon lead the league a .443 and 36 Hrs. And yes all those players are getting paid in NIL which means they arent actually amateurs
In 1980 George Brett hit .408 the last 5 months of the season, 161-395.
So the first month now doesn’t have to count and George is the official last .400 hitter in mlb.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
It has been said that a statistician can create statistics that will support and prove anything.
Thus if someone wants to have a certain result (i.e. sea levels have risen 20 feet world wide since the first oil well in the USA was drilled in Pennsylvania in the late 1850s' solely because humans have been consuming fossil fuels) become generally accepted a statistician can come up with numbers to support that result.
Past points of view and/or historical accuracy do not matter to many persons. Instead many persons believe that what they are FEELING at the moment must be reality for all.
Who said that about statisticians? It doesn’t make any sense.
The NL and AL did not start interleague play until 1997, yet we accept without question the integration of those record books, despite no direct play between the leagues.
To sit in judgement and claim the Negro Leagues' players were not MLB caliber is both folly and ignorant of the history of the game. There were most certainly MLB-caliber players in the Negro Leagues (proven by the number of players who went on to play MLB after desegregation began) that were simply denied the ability to play in MLB because of their race, not their ability. Conversely, the same number of MLB players at the time would have had their roster spots filled by black players and were not MLB-caliber players.
This is not 'wokeism', 'social justice' or any of the other culture war terminology you want to utilize. It simply is an attempt to right the wrongs of the racism in MLB's past while at the same time bringing attention to the incredible history of the Negro Leagues which apparently still has a long ways to go.
I asked in the other thread and will ask it here: in what possible world does the merging of the record books affect YOUR perception of MLB and its history? Will you suddenly look at the history any differently? Will you suddenly put aside your favorite players of the past simply because their records existing alongside players from the Negro Leagues?
Of course, it will not - you will still hold in your hearts and minds the players you have always done.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
Agree with Mistlin.
You people are arguing to maintain segregated baseball statistics because the leagues were segregated? It's beyond offputting. Especially you Stevek.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
Okay and let's also combine the stats of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. That would be almost as silly as what was just done.
It's not a racial or gender thing keeping the stats separate, it's simply common sense.
If the league was segregated by race then how is it "not a racial or gender thing keeping the stats separate"
It was racism that forces separate leagues and segregated statistics.
I think you are giving yourself way too much credit by claiming you have the common sense here. All I see is some old white men being unbelievable annoyed that anyone is touching their precious segregated baseball statistics.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
The leagues were segregated. Fortunately, that wrong was righted.
However combining the stats isn't just wrong, it is ludicrous.
How was it made right? Did they go back in time and unracism the situation? Or do you just want to move on because it hasn't affected you until now.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
The wrong was righted in 1947. Thank goodness for that.
Combining the stats of two totally different leagues, one of the silliest things I've ever seen, only opens up old wounds for no reason.
Never forget the past. However wishing to erase MLB records is only for the sake of woke, and you know it.
And from that day in 1947 all the racist segregation was forgiven and like it didn't even happen. What racism?
You have an extremely shallow read of that situation.
"Clemente was not shy about calling out discrimination. Even up to his last interview in October 1972, he talked about being racially profiled at a New York furniture store, where employees initially refused to show him their best merchandise before they found out who he was. He also described how he fought against the indignity that Black players faced – like when he refused to have food brought to him on the team’s bus because he and his other Black teammates couldn’t dine with their White teammates at segregated restaurants."
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
Your point is too political for this forum. Sorry but I'm not going there.
My points were targeted towards the two leagues' stats should not be combined. For painfully obvious common sense reasons.
Its also common sense that the fact is that the stats happened in a different league and its just silly to try and argue that every player from that league would have been able to be in MLB. Could some no questions, could most no. The current Mexican league is full of tons of guys that have spent time on big league rosters, Japan has some guys that succeed when they come over and a lot that dont, the Cuban professional league has a lot of busts that have come to the league.
When people try and make it a racial issue theyre just moving the goal posts and trying to shape the argument. Its not a racial issue. Its a historical accuracy issue and there is no argument that says those stats happened in MLB.
I didn't know taking a strong moral stand against racism is too political. Sorry you feel this way.
Your point however doesn't rely on common sense and just relies on a sense of cultural outrage in support of historical racial segregation.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
Just throwing this out there to show that this isn’t an unprecedented move… the record books have contained stats from multiple varied leagues for 50+ years:
Previous major leagues recognized as of the Special Baseball Records Committee (SBRC) rulings of 1969 included the National League, 1876 to the present; the American League, 1901 to the present; the American Association, 1882–91; the Union Association, 1884; the Players’ League, 1890; and the Federal League, 1914–15.
That’s from https://www.mlb.com/press-release/press-release-statistics-of-the-negro-leagues-officially-enter-the-major-league-record. Why would the inclusion of the Negro League stats be any different than those other leagues that have been in there since 1969?
Jim
Very few people consider records from the 1800s to be relevant when the game was in its infancy. I dont know anyone that would say Jim O'Rourke was one of the best of all time for what he did in the 1870s and 1880s. There wasnt a league back in its infancy that ended up building to a league. Thankfully those leagues existed and gave us the great sport but the MLB was well established by the time these "new records" occurred in a different league
Whats the argument for excluding the Mexican league, Japanes league, South Korea, minor leagues etc if all records should be combined?
If the NNL and the NN2 or the Mexican League or Japanese League, South Korean League, or Minor League -- any individually are equivalent in skill and have accurate statistical record for the period(s) considered, then there's no reason to not include them.
I knew there were a few different Negro Leagues, but I had to look it up... then I learned there were 7.
Negro National League (I) (1920-31)
Eastern Colored League (1923-28)
American Negro League (1929)
East-West League (1932)
Negro Southern League (1932)
Negro National League (II) (1933-48)
Negro American League (1937-48)
As I understand it, everything before 1933 is considered NNL and everything 1933 and after is considered NN2.
If their seasons were significantly different, such as they were, with the NNL and NN2 Leagues, and there are insufficient criteria for the establishment of meaningful records, then you would need to adopt new or modify existing criteria for inclusion of metrics in these statistical functions.
What I am not clear on is. This happened in 2020. And then recently, they apparently had cobbled together enough statistical information from wherever and were ready to introduce the "first batch" of metrics into the official record. Then all of the stat-sites went nuts and now we're talking about it.
While the usefulness of statistics which measure performance across 20,30,60 game seasons vs. performance across 140+ games are subject to debate, I have less of an issue with the quality of the NN2 vs MLB, which I think were not as far apart as people seem to indicate by trying to include the Minor Leagues. People still talk about Ty Cobb as being the "Greatest Baseball Player of All Time"... but he might not make the White Sox this year.
It's silly to compare things that shouldn't be compared. I think the record stuff will all get sorted out so that the accomplishments can be compared, but if it doesn't, it doesn't bother me, because I still get to look at the numbers and consider everything in context and form my own opinion and then argue with everyone here. I'd buy that for a dollar!
Would the proponents of adding to MLB statistics the statistics of other leagues (including leagues in which black persons played) also seek to have the NFL add the statistics of the multiple other professional football leagues (i.e. AFL, USFL, WFL, XFL, UFL, World League of American Football, Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, etc.) to the NFL statistics?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
The “NFL” statistics include the AFL and whatever the other one was. You could make a case for the USFL right because there were a ton if NFL players and stars. The other leagues are not similar enough in my opinion. Others might disagree and this is a wonderful thought experiment but the other thing is already done. So is this about how to put the genie back in the bottle or what cause I was looking at it from the perspective of how do we make this not as ridiculous.