I made this comment in the Ted Williams thread so I’ll copy it here to save the typing:
They’re added to the set of MLB stats because they’ve made the decision that the Negro Leagues were a “Major” league (at least that’s how I see it - not sure they’ve ever said that, so it’s my interpretation). The MLB “entity” is saying that it’s no longer just the NL and the AL (and the half dozen late 1800s and early 1900s non-AL/NL leagues that were previously added to the “Major” league record books in 1969).
People are welcome to slice and dice as they see fit. Hockey fans can similarly scour NHL, WHA, KHL, etc. and do what they want. Football fans can combine NFL, CFL, WLAF, USFL, XFL, yada yada yada and have a party. People can do what they want with stats - it doesn’t change anything that anyone’s heroes have done.
Why is this? I don’t know. Seems to be that MLB is considering itself to be “larger” than just the AL and NL and willing to consider all prior “major” leagues, while the NFL/NHL/NBA are limiting themselves to their current leagues. If the NHL or some other hockey entity wanted to combine every country’s top league’s stats into a single archive, great! Have at it. I know the league I watched and the players and history I care about well enough to put them in a silo and not bother with the others. But it would give me an opportunity to learn about players I’ve never heard of when I see their stats up against the players that I know.
@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.
first off, there are plenty of experts who would disagree that Negro League level of play was on par with MLB. yes, there were star players who most definitely were MLB quality and would have been stars in MLB. overall league quality, nope. once you move past the upper level of play, the mid and lower level players in the Negro Leagues were not at MLB level. Think about the numbers game. only about 10% of the population was black. they were trying to populate 8 teams with 1/10th of the population. not enough quality players to go around.
How in the world is adding fraudulent statistics into the MLB record book "righting wrongs?" of history? it is not righting any wrongs, it is just changing history by making the MLB statistical record fraudulent. we don't even know if the Negro league stats we are being presented are accurate or even close. I would say they are not accurate. considering that they have Josh Gibson only striking out 13 times in his ENTIRE CAREER.
@burghman said:
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.
no one who knows anything about baseball history considers 19th century statistics. also, If I could remove the FL statistics, I sure would. because past mistakes were made by adding non MLB teams/leagues into the statistical record, does that mean we should continue to make those same mistakes?
Who are the experts who would disagree? I’m not saying that the committee which recommended this in 2020 when MLB included the various Negro Leagues were necessarily experts, because I have no idea what would make someone an expert in this particular domain. What I want is to consider their opinion and what their basis is.
I’m also saying that no one has to promote their inclusion because it’s already done and it was done years ago.
Yes the inclusion of whatever stats they have certified has caused some uproar with records. Well maybe that’s good because the requirements for some of these records is stupidly arcane. From what I’ve read I expect more statistics to be certified and included.
Your population is sample is grossly oversimplified. I guess you could use the current racial demographics of various leagues or sports in general as your null hypothesis. If they are the same or similar percentage based on race as the larger population, then I stand corrected and the science of demographics can go away. But I bet that these heavily criterion-influenced professions do not track the larger population in a meaningful way.
By 1952 for example sake, most if not all of the Negro Leagues were closed, out of business, from what I've read. So that was 5 years after Jackie Robinson entered the league. Which was more than ample time for the Negro League players to assimilate into the major leagues, if they were good enough.
The fact that by 1952, MLB was still less than 3% black players, tells me that the statement, "But in 2020 MLB decided that there was enough evidence to support the thesis that the NN2 and MLB were close in skill given the performance of former NN2 players in MLB", is pure and simple revisionist history.
The Negro Leagues based on the facts, were probably equivalent to MLB minor league teams if that, which had a few major league caliber players on the teams.
@bgr said:
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.
I got no problem with the AFL being added in.
I don't know enough about the USFL but a some HOF'ers played in that league
But, like whether I agree with you or not, this is done.
The Negro Leagues were included in MLB, in the same way other leagues were added in the past to the "umbrella" that is MLB. As you say, they are now defunct, so they only exist in the history of the MLB. The NL and the AL persevere while all others have not.
Bringing all of the player stats from all of these leagues under this coalition of leagues shouldn't be an issue any more than having AL and NL statistics in the same bucket is. These are the AL leaders, and these are the NL leaders, and now we have NNL leaders and NN2 leaders. In 1915 when Babe Borton took his wares to the Florida Mudflaps (I don't know what the teams in the Federal League were other than maybe the Chicago team which was like the Whalers or something?) he was the Federal League leader in whatever he was good at (or not). His stats didn't impact NL or AL players achievement of any particular record that was measured. Because the FL was considered part of MLB, the stats he gained during his play in the FL were added to his career statistics. Because the FL has a season similar to the NL/AL it didn't cause any consternation when people wanted to figure out who was the best hitter, pitcher or whatever in baseball and have some numbers to throw around at the ballpark.
The only thing the inclusion of the stats has done is caused sites like fangraphs and bbref to present data in a way that has caused people to lose their minds as if the earth has shifted beneath their feet.
This all happened in 2020, and, as far as I can see, it was as I said it. I can speculate on the timing and why they did it and whether two wrongs make a right, but I guess it just didn't bother me at all. And... I figure that the records, which are just made up constructs produced by made up thresholds, to map production to what we see... I figure the criteria which produces those records will be adjusted so that we have a standard applied across the new leagues which were added. Let's also not forget that there is expectation that more data will be certified and included in the statistical record. So - I'm not trying to be revisionist... I'm trying to be a realist.
@SanctionII said:
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?
No, and the reason is pretty clear:
With the exception of the 1983-85 USFL, those other leagues do not/did not employ talent capable of playing in the leagues they aspired to, which clearly was not the case of players in the Negro Leagues.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@stevek said:
A criteria could be made that if a league merged with another league, then both leagues' stats should be combined.
The USFL went out of business. Should be no stats combined with NFL stats.
The Negro Leagues went out of business. Should be no stats combined with MLB stats.
This might be one of the most disingenuous takes in this entire thread, and that is saying something.
The USFL 'went out of business' because the owner of the New Jersey Generals, in an absolutely moronic move (as per usual for him), pushed to move the league from Spring to Fall, and the league had to file an antitrust lawsuit which took years to resolve and bankrupted the league. Had they remained a Spring league, there is a good chance it would have been a robust alternative.
The Negro Leagues ceased to operate once the color barrier was broken in MLB and all of the major league talent left, there was no need nor desire for the league to continue.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
This will be my last post in the thread, as it seems (inexplicably) that the naysayers have stuck their heads in the sand and will not listen to any reason, no matter how compelling. I will leave with two links which illustrate the reasons why it took so long for MLB to designate the Negro Leagues as a 'Major League' (no, it's not 'wokeism') and why the leagues have now rightfully been designated as the Major League they were.
"MLB officially designates the Negro Leagues as 'Major League'"
"This long overdue recognition is the product of evaluation throughout this year, which included consideration of: discussions with the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum and other baseball entities; the previous and ongoing studies of baseball authors and researchers; the 2006 study by the National Baseball Hall of Fame (the Negro League Researchers and Authors Group); and an overall historical record that has expanded in recent years"
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@stevek said:
A criteria could be made that if a league merged with another league, then both leagues' stats should be combined.
The USFL went out of business. Should be no stats combined with NFL stats.
The Negro Leagues went out of business. Should be no stats combined with MLB stats.
This might be one of the most disingenuous takes in this entire thread, and that is saying something.
The USFL 'went out of business' because the owner of the New Jersey Generals, in an absolutely moronic move (as per usual for him), pushed to move the league from Spring to Fall, and the league had to file an antitrust lawsuit which took years to resolve and bankrupted the league. Had they remained a Spring league, there is a good chance it would have been a robust alternative.
The Negro Leagues ceased to operate once the color barrier was broken in MLB and all of the major league talent left, there was no need nor desire for the league to continue.
Ah yes, the silly uncalled for dig on Trump. Now you've exposed yourself. 😆
You contradicted your own opinion in that paragraph.
Then your following paragraph makes no logical sense. As I posted earlier, by 1952, MLB was less than 3% black. In reality, not many players came from the Negro Leagues to MLB. Again you contradict yourself. The Negro Leagues could have easily survived without those stars, if there was a viable product with excellent baseball that the public wanted to patronize. There obviously wasn't.
Getting back on topic. It's crystal clear the Negro League stats should not be mixed with MLB stats. That is what is disingenuous. But your fellow wokesters decided otherwise, so that's that. You win. Fans of MLB stats and history lose.
@Mistlin said:
This will be my last post in the thread, as it seems (inexplicably) that the naysayers have stuck their heads in the sand and will not listen to any reason, no matter how compelling.
This made me laugh.
MLB did in fact designate the Negro Leagues as "major" leagues, and once they did that they had to combine the records. If there has been a "compelling" argument made that they did so for any reason other than "wokeism" then it's not in this thread.
Way back when, before the minor leagues became wholly owned subsidiaries of the major leagues, there were minor leagues such as the International League and the Pacific Coast League that fielded teams every bit as good as some of the major league teams. MLB teams would routinely shell out six-figure sums to acquire the contracts of "minor" league stars like Lefty Grove. There is no serious doubt that these leagues were stronger than the Negro Leagues, at least among people who know what they're talking about. And not only were these leagues stronger than the Negro Leagues, they played many more games per season. But, overall, these leagues have always fallen short of meeting MLB's definition of a "major" league. If the definition of "major" now includes the Negro Leagues but not the IL or the PCL, then something other than the quality of the players is now at play. Some appear offended when that "something other" is called "wokeism", but it simply can't be reasonably denied that there is "something other" at play. I understand that it can be, and is being, denied; my point is that it can't be REASONABLY denied, as this thread amply demonstrates.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Whose talking about Cobb as the greatest player of all time? Theres not big consensus of that and he would make the roster today skill wise if he grew up with todays training assuming he didnt do something to get canceled > @Mistlin said:
@SanctionII said:
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?
No, and the reason is pretty clear:
With the exception of the 1983-85 USFL, those other leagues do not/did not employ talent capable of playing in the leagues they aspired to, which clearly was not the case of players in the Negro Leagues.
USFL players, XFL players, Arena League players including Kurt Warner whose in the NFL Hall of Fame have all gone on to play in the NFL.
@Basebal21 said:
USFL players, XFL players, Arena League players including Kurt Warner whose in the NFL Hall of Fame have all gone on to play in the NFL.
My apologies since you aren't the first person to make this argument, but I want you to be the last. "Players" from thousands of leagues - including Pee-Wee leagues around the country - have gone on to play professionally. The issue isn't whether Kurt Warner, or some other random player from some other random league, went on to the top league. The issue is how many players - 1%?, 5%?, 25%?, 50%? - made it to the top. That, and whether the game they were playing was sufficiently the same as the game that was being played in the top league. The Negro Leagues fail both tests. A very low percentage of NL players - after the color line was broken - were good enough to play MLB, and the NL teams were playing too few games for their records to be meaningfully compared to MLB records. Add to that the fact that records (i.e., box scores, game logs, etc.) from the NL are more anecdotes than actual evidence, and mixing those stats with MLB stats is absurd.
And looking at the "new" single season batting average leaders, I see Lyman Bostock (Sr.) in third place with 0.466. Bostock came to the plate 84 times that season in 23 games. That's just silly, but more to the point, he played for Birmingham, and Birmingham played 45 games. To qualify for a BA title in MLB requires 3.1 plate appearances per game, or 140 in this case. So how does a guy with 84 PA make the list? MLB has made a mockery of the standards that have applied forever.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Basebal21 said:
USFL players, XFL players, Arena League players including Kurt Warner whose in the NFL Hall of Fame have all gone on to play in the NFL.
My apologies since you aren't the first person to make this argument, but I want you to be the last. "Players" from thousands of leagues - including Pee-Wee leagues around the country - have gone on to play professionally. The issue isn't whether Kurt Warner, or some other random player from some other random league, went on to the top league. The issue is how many players - 1%?, 5%?, 25%?, 50%? - made it to the top. That, and whether the game they were playing was sufficiently the same as the game that was being played in the top league. The Negro Leagues fail both tests. A very low percentage of NL players - after the color line was broken - were good enough to play MLB, and the NL teams were playing too few games for their records to be meaningfully compared to MLB records. Add to that the fact that records (i.e., box scores, game logs, etc.) from the NL are more anecdotes than actual evidence, and mixing those stats with MLB stats is absurd.
And looking at the "new" single season batting average leaders, I see Lyman Bostock (Sr.) in third place with 0.466. Bostock came to the plate 84 times that season in 23 games. That's just silly, but more to the point, he played for Birmingham, and Birmingham played 45 games. To qualify for a BA title in MLB requires 3.1 plate appearances per game, or 140 in this case. So how does a guy with 84 PA make the list? MLB has made a mockery of the standards that have applied forever.
I absolutely couldnt agree more that the stats should not be combined and that a leagues stats should be their own league stats.
I cannot understand how people can argue the Negro League and MLB stats should be mixed but that stats for other leagues shouldnt be included as well or that the NFL, NHL etc shouldnt be doing the same thing with other leagues around the world. I was just responding to that poster who said no for the NFL for other football leagues but believes MLB should be including the Negro League stats. MLB isnt the only sport that has leagues that put people into the highest leagues, and the Negro League wasnt/isnt the only league that puts some players into the MLB.
I dont believe that just because some players are good enough in one league that their numbers should be records for another league. If someone does believe the Negro League numbers should be merged they should also be arguing that the Japanese numbers which is a much more comparable season and the Mexican league which also plays over 100 games should be included as well. They should also be arguing it for all of the leagues. The Negro Leagues is arguably the worst league to be merging stats with given even within the league they had different season lengths and even the longest seasons were essentially half a year for MLB and the spotty record keeping
I’m not arguing for or against the inclusion - I’ve simply pointed out that the “MLB” isn’t just the AL and the NL. It’s a consortium of leagues that they have determined to be “major”. The NHL is the NHL. The NFL is the NFL. The National League is the NL. The American League is the AL. None of them are an umbrella over a set of leagues that they consider to be “the” highest level like the MLB has positioned itself as.
Another notable "outlaw league" was the Mexican League, which rapidly expanded in the years immediately after World War II, bringing it into conflict with organized baseball. Starting in 1946, players who "jumped" from their organized baseball clubs for more lucrative contracts in Mexico were blacklisted for having violated the reserve clause.[6] Faced with a lawsuit seeking to overturn the 1922 ruling, then-Commissioner of Baseball Happy Chandler offered amnesty to the jumpers in 1949, thus keeping organized baseball's antitrust exemption intact.[6][7] From then on, the Mexican League peacefully coexisted with organized baseball until 1955, when it was admitted as an affiliated minor league.
Major League Baseball (MLB) was officially created in 2000, centralizing governance of the National League and American League.[8] MLB considers several of the above-noted outlaw leagues as also having been "major", and recognizes the statistics of those leagues—such recognized leagues include the Federal League and several leagues within Negro league baseball
Folks arguing against this seem to be viewing MLB as “NL and AL”; I’ve been consistently saying that if you remove those boundaries and go with the MLB definition of themselves, all “major” leagues can be included without any effect on records, history, etc. of the NL and AL, either independently or as the combination of those 2 leagues.
I think those that are using percentage of negro league players that made it to mlb after the color barrier was broken by Jackie Robinson should just throw out those numbers.
There was still racism. MLB owners and GM’s were only going to take the cream of the crop from the negro leagues. You think if a GM sat down in 1950 and studied two players and decided they had very similar skills and one player was white and the other black that the black player is the one they would sign?
How many white 1950’s utility infielders could have been easily replaced by a former negro league player and that team would have been legitimately better?
That 10% number or whatever you guys are using isn’t valid. Still wasn’t a level playing field, sorry.
@burghman said:
I’m not arguing for or against the inclusion - I’ve simply pointed out that the “MLB” isn’t just the AL and the NL. It’s a consortium of leagues that they have determined to be “major”. The NHL is the NHL. The NFL is the NFL. The National League is the NL. The American League is the AL. None of them are an umbrella over a set of leagues that they consider to be “the” highest level like the MLB has positioned itself as.
The NFL is the AFC and the NFC and has absolutely positioned itself as the top football league. The NHL is the Eastern and Western conferences
MLB is just the AL and NL theres no consortium of leagues. They have minor league franchises that teams make agreements with for their prospects but thats it. MLB is over a 100 years old, legally separated entities for tax stuff is a different story. If a minor league deal falls through the MLB "assets" aka the players signed to that team get moved to the new minor league team. The NFL uses colleges as their minor leagues. The NHL lets players that are drafted still play in college and foreign leagues and can put that player on the roster at any time.
@Basebal21 said:
MLB is just the AL and NL theres no consortium of leagues.
The organization known today as "Major League Baseball" is not the same thing as what counts as a "major" league in the record books. What counts as a "major" league includes the American Association from the 1880s-1890s, the Union Association (1884), the Players League (1890), and the Federal League (1914-1915). The American Association was as strong, possibly stronger, than the National League and players often moved back and forth between the two leagues. The Players League wasn't as strong, but it did poach a substantial number of National League players. The Federal League and Union Association weren't nearly as strong and I, as do many others, think it was a mistake to call them "major" leagues. But those leagues, ironically, were so weak that including them had/has virtually no effect on the record books, so who cares?
It took the recent nonsense to place a man with 84 plate appearances in third place in the all-time single season batting average leaders. As strongly as I object to counting the Federal League as a "major" league, counting them makes 100 times more sense than counting the various Negro Leagues which played short, made up as they went, schedules and only occasionally kept an official boxscore.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@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
What does any of that have to do with awards like Cy Young and MVP?
@Darin said:
1946- no black players in mlb
1947- Jackie Robinson plays in mlb
1948- team owners and gm’s…… yay none of us are racist anymore 🤪
Maybe a little revisionist history there?
I mean, teams like Boston and Detroit didn't get their first black players until 1959 and 1958, respectively. It's not because there were no quality players to be found...
Well the first black players actually did play in the 1880s but thats beside the point. I'm sure teams were jumping up and down to sign Japanese/Asian players after Pearl Harbor. The first Japanese player wasnt until 1964. > @dallasactuary said:
@Basebal21 said:
MLB is just the AL and NL theres no consortium of leagues.
The organization known today as "Major League Baseball" is not the same thing as what counts as a "major" league in the record books. What counts as a "major" league includes the American Association from the 1880s-1890s, the Union Association (1884), the Players League (1890), and the Federal League (1914-1915). The American Association was as strong, possibly stronger, than the National League and players often moved back and forth between the two leagues. The Players League wasn't as strong, but it did poach a substantial number of National League players. The Federal League and Union Association weren't nearly as strong and I, as do many others, think it was a mistake to call them "major" leagues. But those leagues, ironically, were so weak that including them had/has virtually no effect on the record books, so who cares?
It took the recent nonsense to place a man with 84 plate appearances in third place in the all-time single season batting average leaders. As strongly as I object to counting the Federal League as a "major" league, counting them makes 100 times more sense than counting the various Negro Leagues which played short, made up as they went, schedules and only occasionally kept an official boxscore.
Agreed again. I pretty much ignore the pre-1900 stats in terms of records but understand that in the infancy of the game there were leagues that had to combine even though they were more of a mens league than a professional league and like you mentioned their records dont really matter. I'm fine with those guys being in the HOF for their contributions growing the sport like Candy Cummings who supposedly figured out the curveball.
I'm also fine with the Negro League players being in the HOF or even the hall of fame just being more of a baseball museum in general if its noted where the players played. I actually like the idea of it being more of a history of the whole sport around the world where other leagues can have their own sections.
It is nonsense though to combine the records especially when so many of them have so few at bats. Thatd be like saying Sosa was the HR leader because he once hit 20 HRs in a month. Players can and do get hot for a month or so and part of what makes the game so hard is doing it over a long period of time.
Even if we start saying records should be from "major leagues" (which I dont think they should) I really havent seen any good argument why Japan/Mexico/Winter league stats shouldnt then be included as well. Those are all certainly "major leagues".
Unfortunately it does take more effort now to sort records and as time goes on more and more people will start to think those were real MLB records
@Mistlin said:
This will be my last post in the thread, as it seems (inexplicably) that the naysayers have stuck their heads in the sand and will not listen to any reason, no matter how compelling.
This made me laugh.
MLB did in fact designate the Negro Leagues as "major" leagues, and once they did that they had to combine the records. If there has been a "compelling" argument made that they did so for any reason other than "wokeism" then it's not in this thread.
Way back when, before the minor leagues became wholly owned subsidiaries of the major leagues, there were minor leagues such as the International League and the Pacific Coast League that fielded teams every bit as good as some of the major league teams. MLB teams would routinely shell out six-figure sums to acquire the contracts of "minor" league stars like Lefty Grove. There is no serious doubt that these leagues were stronger than the Negro Leagues, at least among people who know what they're talking about. And not only were these leagues stronger than the Negro Leagues, they played many more games per season. But, overall, these leagues have always fallen short of meeting MLB's definition of a "major" league. If the definition of "major" now includes the Negro Leagues but not the IL or the PCL, then something other than the quality of the players is now at play. Some appear offended when that "something other" is called "wokeism", but it simply can't be reasonably denied that there is "something other" at play. I understand that it can be, and is being, denied; my point is that it can't be REASONABLY denied, as this thread amply demonstrates.
Even if we start saying records should be from "major leagues" (which I dont think they should) I really havent seen any good argument why Japan/Mexico/Winter league stats shouldnt then be included as well. Those are all certainly "major leagues".
It's possible no one has responded to this for the same reason I have not. This is a malfunction of logic. It's a fallacy referred to as 'denying the antecedent'.
You also, perhaps intentionally, promote the assumption that the leagues considered "Negro Leagues" and PCL and IL as equivalent without even attempting to establish that yourself without any evidence. This is probably the right place for that type of trick if you're doing it intentionally, but in a formal setting no one is going to give it much thought or argue your case(s) for you, whatever they might end up being.
"wokeism" seems like a white-flag word, to be used when you have run out of competitive thought and wish to surrender.
@bgr said:
"wokeism" seems like a white-flag word, to be used when you have run out of competitive thought and wish to surrender.
This is way more insightful than you think. Anyone using the word woke in an argument has run out of competitive thoughts but is too prideful to surrender.
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.
Even if we start saying records should be from "major leagues" (which I dont think they should) I really havent seen any good argument why Japan/Mexico/Winter league stats shouldnt then be included as well. Those are all certainly "major leagues".
It's possible no one has responded to this for the same reason I have not. This is a malfunction of logic. It's a fallacy referred to as 'denying the antecedent'.
You also, perhaps intentionally, promote the assumption that the leagues considered "Negro Leagues" and PCL and IL as equivalent without even attempting to establish that yourself without any evidence. This is probably the right place for that type of trick if you're doing it intentionally, but in a formal setting no one is going to give it much thought or argue your case(s) for you, whatever they might end up being.
"wokeism" seems like a white-flag word, to be used when you have run out of competitive thought and wish to surrender.
Again I have yet to see any actual argument why other "major leagues" should not be included. And you are right the Japanese and Mexican leagues arent equivalent, they were/are better
why is this confluence going down now? because it's 1,000% a woke move. 40 years ago no one in their right mind would have even thought about such an inexplicable convergence. know why? because no sentient human being would have been drunk enough to toss apples into a papaya pile. unfortunately for everyone with a pulse in the year 2024, we're subjected to a hypersensitive aura everywhere we turn.
and don't anyone dare call me racist. i'd place a sizable wager that i have more black friends than anyone in this forum. i'd give the shirt off my back for them, i'd go to war for them. but in the same breath, i'm also a common sense individual who cannot sit idly and allow incomprehensible things to happen without chiming in. and especially when it comes to aspects of my daily life where it should absolutely, positively NOT permeate.
bottom line: baseball has been circling the drain for a quarter century, and this brilliant decision just sped up the disintegration
@galaxy27 said:
why is this confluence going down now? because it's 1,000% a woke move. 40 years ago no one in their right mind would have even thought about such an inexplicable convergence. know why? because no sentient human being would have been drunk enough to toss apples into a papaya pile. unfortunately for everyone with a pulse in the year 2024, we're subjected to a hypersensitive aura everywhere we turn.
and don't anyone dare call me racist. i'd place a sizable wager that i have more black friends than anyone in this forum. i'd give the shirt off my back for them, i'd go to war for them. but in the same breath, i'm also a common sense individual who cannot sit idly and allow incomprehensible things to happen without chiming in. and especially when it comes to aspects of my daily life where it should absolutely, positively NOT permeate.
bottom line: baseball has been circling the drain for a quarter century, and this brilliant decision just sped up the disintegration
My only regret to your post is that because of the forum software, I can only give it one Like.
and don't anyone dare call me racist. i'd place a sizable wager that i have more black friends than anyone in this forum.
I would never judge anyone by a single off-handed comment, but this is one you might want to omit from the annals of history. Whether it's an "old trope" or a "rhetorical shield" or just "Dumb stuff a former President said" it doesn't even prove a point.
Here's what I learned aside from that.
This is a 1000% woke move.
40 years ago no one in their right-mind would have even thought about such an inexplicable convergence.
No sentient human being would have been drunk enough to toss apples into a papaya pile.
Everyone with a pulse in the year 2024 is subjected to a hypersensitive aura everywhere they turn.
You have more black friends than anyone else on this forum.
You cannot allow incomprehensible things to happen without chiming in.
The certification of NNL and NN2 statistics impacts aspects of your daily life in a pervasive way.
Baseball since 1999 has been in the decline.
I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me. TTMF
and don't anyone dare call me racist. i'd place a sizable wager that i have more black friends than anyone in this forum.
I would never judge anyone by a single off-handed comment, but this is one you might want to omit from the annals of history. Whether it's an "old trope" or a "rhetorical shield" or just "Dumb stuff a former President said" it doesn't even prove a point.
Here's what I learned aside from that.
This is a 1000% woke move.
40 years ago no one in their right-mind would have even thought about such an inexplicable convergence.
No sentient human being would have been drunk enough to toss apples into a papaya pile.
Everyone with a pulse in the year 2024 is subjected to a hypersensitive aura everywhere they turn.
You have more black friends than anyone else on this forum.
You cannot allow incomprehensible things to happen without chiming in.
The certification of NNL and NN2 statistics impacts aspects of your daily life in a pervasive way.
Baseball since 1999 has been in the decline.
I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me. TTMF
i'm not omitting anything brother. all i'm saying is that you're choosing the wrong throat to ram something down.
edit: and it proves everything. look at the post above yours. sorry you're incapable of absorbing from your end of the spectrum.
The fact that they were somehow able to compile these Negro league stats with a high enough completion percentage (I don't know how else to describe it) that this kind of thing would even be possible is nothing short of a miracle, as I reckon those stats/records were not kept quite as carefully as the ones in MLB. And how do you know which of these Negro Leagues count as "major league" status? Come to think of it I always did think counting the one-year-wonder Union Association (1884) and Players League as "major" was rather silly...
@bgr said:
"wokeism" seems like a white-flag word, to be used when you have run out of competitive thought and wish to surrender.
This is way more insightful than you think. Anyone using the word woke in an argument has run out of competitive thoughts but is too prideful to surrender.
Instead of "woke", what word would you like others to use to describe arguments relying on false assumptions which are intended to promote a gender or race driven political agenda?
And you used the word "competitive" incorrectly. In order for someone to use the word "woke" in lieu of "competitive" thoughts, it must be in response to other thoughts. But the side that clutches its pearls over being called "woke" has offered no thoughts with which to compete. They have stated, not only without evidence but contradicting mountains of evidence, that the quality of the Negro Leagues was comparable to the National and American Leagues. But since that is false, it seems mean to call it a "thought" which would imply that those saying it are incapable of interpreting evidence. I don't know what leads a person to make such a bizarre claim, but it has nothing to do with "thought".
The argument that the Nego Leagues are a "major" league as that term has been defined until now is so facile and insulting to the intelligence of those forced to listen to it that it would have been great if nobody had stooped so low as to make it. But make it they did, unaware of how ignorant it made them appear. In all honesty, "woke" as it is being used in this thread should be looked at as the kindest word available. But if you insist, I will honor your wishes and use the much harsher words that more accurately describe the arguments being made.
On second thought, no, I won't. "Woke" is the correct word and I like to lead by example by using the correct words.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Woke isnt even a word, its 100% not the correct word. Most people read anti-woke sentiment as anti-black.
We already got SteveK expressing racism, transphobia and homophobia as well as a personal issue with DEI.
You can keep talking nonsense but don't expect respect.
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.
@galaxy27 said:
and stuff your little acronyms up your ass while you're at it
Quoting to save, as this should warrant a ban.
The fact people are getting this upset over the inclusion of Negro League statistics is proof of why it took this long to get them included in the first place.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
if you want to match wits i'll run you out of here
Were we matching wits and I lost? Bummer.
it sucks, but i have faith that your delicate sensibilities can overcome
very much looking forward to your next myopic post
OK. Not sure why you feel the need to personally attack people. TTMF
you wanna quote me like a tool and act like you're the foremost authority on this subject? you're most definitely gonna get attacked
are you absorbing now?
Which subject am I acting like an authority on? My opinion? I'm really sorry that you're offended.
no one is offended, i assure you. i was here long before you arrived, and i'll be here long after you (thankfully) depart
but here's the most salient point: i know this is going to probably going to greatly upset your delicate, woke-injected sensibilities, but you're not the smartest guy in the room as you portray yourself to be
since you seem to get off to acronyms, here's one for you: GFY
There is a lot of racism, homophobia, and transphobia being expressed by Stevek and seeminly Galaxy, who keeps cursing at people as well.
Do you mind setting an example of what is acceptable behavior? Please? Pretty Please.
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.
why don't you run along. you have contributed a grand total of 420 posts and approximately 400 of them possess little to no value
you wanna act like a 5-year old and drag the moderator into this when you have a history of inciting threads? go for it, pal, we'll play this game.
I'm not going anywhere, unlike you.
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.
Comments
I made this comment in the Ted Williams thread so I’ll copy it here to save the typing:
Why is this? I don’t know. Seems to be that MLB is considering itself to be “larger” than just the AL and NL and willing to consider all prior “major” leagues, while the NFL/NHL/NBA are limiting themselves to their current leagues. If the NHL or some other hockey entity wanted to combine every country’s top league’s stats into a single archive, great! Have at it. I know the league I watched and the players and history I care about well enough to put them in a silo and not bother with the others. But it would give me an opportunity to learn about players I’ve never heard of when I see their stats up against the players that I know.
Jim
first off, there are plenty of experts who would disagree that Negro League level of play was on par with MLB. yes, there were star players who most definitely were MLB quality and would have been stars in MLB. overall league quality, nope. once you move past the upper level of play, the mid and lower level players in the Negro Leagues were not at MLB level. Think about the numbers game. only about 10% of the population was black. they were trying to populate 8 teams with 1/10th of the population. not enough quality players to go around.
How in the world is adding fraudulent statistics into the MLB record book "righting wrongs?" of history? it is not righting any wrongs, it is just changing history by making the MLB statistical record fraudulent. we don't even know if the Negro league stats we are being presented are accurate or even close. I would say they are not accurate. considering that they have Josh Gibson only striking out 13 times in his ENTIRE CAREER.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
no one who knows anything about baseball history considers 19th century statistics. also, If I could remove the FL statistics, I sure would. because past mistakes were made by adding non MLB teams/leagues into the statistical record, does that mean we should continue to make those same mistakes?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Who are the experts who would disagree? I’m not saying that the committee which recommended this in 2020 when MLB included the various Negro Leagues were necessarily experts, because I have no idea what would make someone an expert in this particular domain. What I want is to consider their opinion and what their basis is.
I’m also saying that no one has to promote their inclusion because it’s already done and it was done years ago.
Yes the inclusion of whatever stats they have certified has caused some uproar with records. Well maybe that’s good because the requirements for some of these records is stupidly arcane. From what I’ve read I expect more statistics to be certified and included.
Your population is sample is grossly oversimplified. I guess you could use the current racial demographics of various leagues or sports in general as your null hypothesis. If they are the same or similar percentage based on race as the larger population, then I stand corrected and the science of demographics can go away. But I bet that these heavily criterion-influenced professions do not track the larger population in a meaningful way.
https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseball-demographics-1947-2016/
By 1952 for example sake, most if not all of the Negro Leagues were closed, out of business, from what I've read. So that was 5 years after Jackie Robinson entered the league. Which was more than ample time for the Negro League players to assimilate into the major leagues, if they were good enough.
The fact that by 1952, MLB was still less than 3% black players, tells me that the statement, "But in 2020 MLB decided that there was enough evidence to support the thesis that the NN2 and MLB were close in skill given the performance of former NN2 players in MLB", is pure and simple revisionist history.
The Negro Leagues based on the facts, were probably equivalent to MLB minor league teams if that, which had a few major league caliber players on the teams.
(was also posted in the Ted Williams thread)
I got no problem with the AFL being added in.
I don't know enough about the USFL but a some HOF'ers played in that league
Then you can start talking CFL ect..
It's a can of worms that shouldn't be opened
A criteria could be made that if a league merged with another league, then both leagues' stats should be combined.
The USFL went out of business. Should be no stats combined with NFL stats.
The Negro Leagues went out of business. Should be no stats combined with MLB stats.
But, like whether I agree with you or not, this is done.
The Negro Leagues were included in MLB, in the same way other leagues were added in the past to the "umbrella" that is MLB. As you say, they are now defunct, so they only exist in the history of the MLB. The NL and the AL persevere while all others have not.
Bringing all of the player stats from all of these leagues under this coalition of leagues shouldn't be an issue any more than having AL and NL statistics in the same bucket is. These are the AL leaders, and these are the NL leaders, and now we have NNL leaders and NN2 leaders. In 1915 when Babe Borton took his wares to the Florida Mudflaps (I don't know what the teams in the Federal League were other than maybe the Chicago team which was like the Whalers or something?) he was the Federal League leader in whatever he was good at (or not). His stats didn't impact NL or AL players achievement of any particular record that was measured. Because the FL was considered part of MLB, the stats he gained during his play in the FL were added to his career statistics. Because the FL has a season similar to the NL/AL it didn't cause any consternation when people wanted to figure out who was the best hitter, pitcher or whatever in baseball and have some numbers to throw around at the ballpark.
The only thing the inclusion of the stats has done is caused sites like fangraphs and bbref to present data in a way that has caused people to lose their minds as if the earth has shifted beneath their feet.
This all happened in 2020, and, as far as I can see, it was as I said it. I can speculate on the timing and why they did it and whether two wrongs make a right, but I guess it just didn't bother me at all. And... I figure that the records, which are just made up constructs produced by made up thresholds, to map production to what we see... I figure the criteria which produces those records will be adjusted so that we have a standard applied across the new leagues which were added. Let's also not forget that there is expectation that more data will be certified and included in the statistical record. So - I'm not trying to be revisionist... I'm trying to be a realist.
No, and the reason is pretty clear:
With the exception of the 1983-85 USFL, those other leagues do not/did not employ talent capable of playing in the leagues they aspired to, which clearly was not the case of players in the Negro Leagues.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
This might be one of the most disingenuous takes in this entire thread, and that is saying something.
The USFL 'went out of business' because the owner of the New Jersey Generals, in an absolutely moronic move (as per usual for him), pushed to move the league from Spring to Fall, and the league had to file an antitrust lawsuit which took years to resolve and bankrupted the league. Had they remained a Spring league, there is a good chance it would have been a robust alternative.
The Negro Leagues ceased to operate once the color barrier was broken in MLB and all of the major league talent left, there was no need nor desire for the league to continue.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
This will be my last post in the thread, as it seems (inexplicably) that the naysayers have stuck their heads in the sand and will not listen to any reason, no matter how compelling. I will leave with two links which illustrate the reasons why it took so long for MLB to designate the Negro Leagues as a 'Major League' (no, it's not 'wokeism') and why the leagues have now rightfully been designated as the Major League they were.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/40276419/negro-leagues-stats-mlb-leaderboards-legends-history
"With Negro League stats, MLB links legends like never before"
https://www.mlb.com/press-release/press-release-mlb-officially-designates-the-negro-leagues-as-major-league
"MLB officially designates the Negro Leagues as 'Major League'"
"This long overdue recognition is the product of evaluation throughout this year, which included consideration of: discussions with the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum and other baseball entities; the previous and ongoing studies of baseball authors and researchers; the 2006 study by the National Baseball Hall of Fame (the Negro League Researchers and Authors Group); and an overall historical record that has expanded in recent years"
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Ah yes, the silly uncalled for dig on Trump. Now you've exposed yourself. 😆
You contradicted your own opinion in that paragraph.
Then your following paragraph makes no logical sense. As I posted earlier, by 1952, MLB was less than 3% black. In reality, not many players came from the Negro Leagues to MLB. Again you contradict yourself. The Negro Leagues could have easily survived without those stars, if there was a viable product with excellent baseball that the public wanted to patronize. There obviously wasn't.
Getting back on topic. It's crystal clear the Negro League stats should not be mixed with MLB stats. That is what is disingenuous. But your fellow wokesters decided otherwise, so that's that. You win. Fans of MLB stats and history lose.
This made me laugh.
MLB did in fact designate the Negro Leagues as "major" leagues, and once they did that they had to combine the records. If there has been a "compelling" argument made that they did so for any reason other than "wokeism" then it's not in this thread.
Way back when, before the minor leagues became wholly owned subsidiaries of the major leagues, there were minor leagues such as the International League and the Pacific Coast League that fielded teams every bit as good as some of the major league teams. MLB teams would routinely shell out six-figure sums to acquire the contracts of "minor" league stars like Lefty Grove. There is no serious doubt that these leagues were stronger than the Negro Leagues, at least among people who know what they're talking about. And not only were these leagues stronger than the Negro Leagues, they played many more games per season. But, overall, these leagues have always fallen short of meeting MLB's definition of a "major" league. If the definition of "major" now includes the Negro Leagues but not the IL or the PCL, then something other than the quality of the players is now at play. Some appear offended when that "something other" is called "wokeism", but it simply can't be reasonably denied that there is "something other" at play. I understand that it can be, and is being, denied; my point is that it can't be REASONABLY denied, as this thread amply demonstrates.
Whose talking about Cobb as the greatest player of all time? Theres not big consensus of that and he would make the roster today skill wise if he grew up with todays training assuming he didnt do something to get canceled > @Mistlin said:
USFL players, XFL players, Arena League players including Kurt Warner whose in the NFL Hall of Fame have all gone on to play in the NFL.
Missouri 14 OSU 3
My apologies since you aren't the first person to make this argument, but I want you to be the last. "Players" from thousands of leagues - including Pee-Wee leagues around the country - have gone on to play professionally. The issue isn't whether Kurt Warner, or some other random player from some other random league, went on to the top league. The issue is how many players - 1%?, 5%?, 25%?, 50%? - made it to the top. That, and whether the game they were playing was sufficiently the same as the game that was being played in the top league. The Negro Leagues fail both tests. A very low percentage of NL players - after the color line was broken - were good enough to play MLB, and the NL teams were playing too few games for their records to be meaningfully compared to MLB records. Add to that the fact that records (i.e., box scores, game logs, etc.) from the NL are more anecdotes than actual evidence, and mixing those stats with MLB stats is absurd.
And looking at the "new" single season batting average leaders, I see Lyman Bostock (Sr.) in third place with 0.466. Bostock came to the plate 84 times that season in 23 games. That's just silly, but more to the point, he played for Birmingham, and Birmingham played 45 games. To qualify for a BA title in MLB requires 3.1 plate appearances per game, or 140 in this case. So how does a guy with 84 PA make the list? MLB has made a mockery of the standards that have applied forever.
I absolutely couldnt agree more that the stats should not be combined and that a leagues stats should be their own league stats.
I cannot understand how people can argue the Negro League and MLB stats should be mixed but that stats for other leagues shouldnt be included as well or that the NFL, NHL etc shouldnt be doing the same thing with other leagues around the world. I was just responding to that poster who said no for the NFL for other football leagues but believes MLB should be including the Negro League stats. MLB isnt the only sport that has leagues that put people into the highest leagues, and the Negro League wasnt/isnt the only league that puts some players into the MLB.
I dont believe that just because some players are good enough in one league that their numbers should be records for another league. If someone does believe the Negro League numbers should be merged they should also be arguing that the Japanese numbers which is a much more comparable season and the Mexican league which also plays over 100 games should be included as well. They should also be arguing it for all of the leagues. The Negro Leagues is arguably the worst league to be merging stats with given even within the league they had different season lengths and even the longest seasons were essentially half a year for MLB and the spotty record keeping
Missouri 14 OSU 3
I’m not arguing for or against the inclusion - I’ve simply pointed out that the “MLB” isn’t just the AL and the NL. It’s a consortium of leagues that they have determined to be “major”. The NHL is the NHL. The NFL is the NFL. The National League is the NL. The American League is the AL. None of them are an umbrella over a set of leagues that they consider to be “the” highest level like the MLB has positioned itself as.
I know Wikipedia isn’t the best source, but check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_baseball. It explains several things that have been repeatedly been brought up here…
Folks arguing against this seem to be viewing MLB as “NL and AL”; I’ve been consistently saying that if you remove those boundaries and go with the MLB definition of themselves, all “major” leagues can be included without any effect on records, history, etc. of the NL and AL, either independently or as the combination of those 2 leagues.
Jim
I think those that are using percentage of negro league players that made it to mlb after the color barrier was broken by Jackie Robinson should just throw out those numbers.
There was still racism. MLB owners and GM’s were only going to take the cream of the crop from the negro leagues. You think if a GM sat down in 1950 and studied two players and decided they had very similar skills and one player was white and the other black that the black player is the one they would sign?
How many white 1950’s utility infielders could have been easily replaced by a former negro league player and that team would have been legitimately better?
That 10% number or whatever you guys are using isn’t valid. Still wasn’t a level playing field, sorry.
1946- no black players in mlb
1947- Jackie Robinson plays in mlb
1948- team owners and gm’s…… yay none of us are racist anymore 🤪
Maybe a little revisionist history there?
The NFL is the AFC and the NFC and has absolutely positioned itself as the top football league. The NHL is the Eastern and Western conferences
MLB is just the AL and NL theres no consortium of leagues. They have minor league franchises that teams make agreements with for their prospects but thats it. MLB is over a 100 years old, legally separated entities for tax stuff is a different story. If a minor league deal falls through the MLB "assets" aka the players signed to that team get moved to the new minor league team. The NFL uses colleges as their minor leagues. The NHL lets players that are drafted still play in college and foreign leagues and can put that player on the roster at any time.
Missouri 14 OSU 3
The organization known today as "Major League Baseball" is not the same thing as what counts as a "major" league in the record books. What counts as a "major" league includes the American Association from the 1880s-1890s, the Union Association (1884), the Players League (1890), and the Federal League (1914-1915). The American Association was as strong, possibly stronger, than the National League and players often moved back and forth between the two leagues. The Players League wasn't as strong, but it did poach a substantial number of National League players. The Federal League and Union Association weren't nearly as strong and I, as do many others, think it was a mistake to call them "major" leagues. But those leagues, ironically, were so weak that including them had/has virtually no effect on the record books, so who cares?
It took the recent nonsense to place a man with 84 plate appearances in third place in the all-time single season batting average leaders. As strongly as I object to counting the Federal League as a "major" league, counting them makes 100 times more sense than counting the various Negro Leagues which played short, made up as they went, schedules and only occasionally kept an official boxscore.
What does any of that have to do with awards like Cy Young and MVP?
You're arguing against a point I never made.
I mean, teams like Boston and Detroit didn't get their first black players until 1959 and 1958, respectively. It's not because there were no quality players to be found...
Well the first black players actually did play in the 1880s but thats beside the point. I'm sure teams were jumping up and down to sign Japanese/Asian players after Pearl Harbor. The first Japanese player wasnt until 1964. > @dallasactuary said:
Agreed again. I pretty much ignore the pre-1900 stats in terms of records but understand that in the infancy of the game there were leagues that had to combine even though they were more of a mens league than a professional league and like you mentioned their records dont really matter. I'm fine with those guys being in the HOF for their contributions growing the sport like Candy Cummings who supposedly figured out the curveball.
I'm also fine with the Negro League players being in the HOF or even the hall of fame just being more of a baseball museum in general if its noted where the players played. I actually like the idea of it being more of a history of the whole sport around the world where other leagues can have their own sections.
It is nonsense though to combine the records especially when so many of them have so few at bats. Thatd be like saying Sosa was the HR leader because he once hit 20 HRs in a month. Players can and do get hot for a month or so and part of what makes the game so hard is doing it over a long period of time.
Even if we start saying records should be from "major leagues" (which I dont think they should) I really havent seen any good argument why Japan/Mexico/Winter league stats shouldnt then be included as well. Those are all certainly "major leagues".
Unfortunately it does take more effort now to sort records and as time goes on more and more people will start to think those were real MLB records
Missouri 14 OSU 3
this right here. Dallas gets it 100% correct.
game. set. match.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It's possible no one has responded to this for the same reason I have not. This is a malfunction of logic. It's a fallacy referred to as 'denying the antecedent'.
You also, perhaps intentionally, promote the assumption that the leagues considered "Negro Leagues" and PCL and IL as equivalent without even attempting to establish that yourself without any evidence. This is probably the right place for that type of trick if you're doing it intentionally, but in a formal setting no one is going to give it much thought or argue your case(s) for you, whatever they might end up being.
"wokeism" seems like a white-flag word, to be used when you have run out of competitive thought and wish to surrender.
This is way more insightful than you think. Anyone using the word woke in an argument has run out of competitive thoughts but is too prideful to surrender.
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.
Man I still remember the good old days when Aaron Rodgers used the word’s woke mob and cancel culture in the same sentence. 🤓
By the way my post was 100% spot on. You know you’re right when nobody even bothers to argue with it.
Again I have yet to see any actual argument why other "major leagues" should not be included. And you are right the Japanese and Mexican leagues arent equivalent, they were/are better
Missouri 14 OSU 3
why is this confluence going down now? because it's 1,000% a woke move. 40 years ago no one in their right mind would have even thought about such an inexplicable convergence. know why? because no sentient human being would have been drunk enough to toss apples into a papaya pile. unfortunately for everyone with a pulse in the year 2024, we're subjected to a hypersensitive aura everywhere we turn.
and don't anyone dare call me racist. i'd place a sizable wager that i have more black friends than anyone in this forum. i'd give the shirt off my back for them, i'd go to war for them. but in the same breath, i'm also a common sense individual who cannot sit idly and allow incomprehensible things to happen without chiming in. and especially when it comes to aspects of my daily life where it should absolutely, positively NOT permeate.
bottom line: baseball has been circling the drain for a quarter century, and this brilliant decision just sped up the disintegration
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
My only regret to your post is that because of the forum software, I can only give it one Like.
I would never judge anyone by a single off-handed comment, but this is one you might want to omit from the annals of history. Whether it's an "old trope" or a "rhetorical shield" or just "Dumb stuff a former President said" it doesn't even prove a point.
Here's what I learned aside from that.
I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me. TTMF
i'm not omitting anything brother. all i'm saying is that you're choosing the wrong throat to ram something down.
edit: and it proves everything. look at the post above yours. sorry you're incapable of absorbing from your end of the spectrum.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Gross
your brain is gross
tweak it
if you want to match wits i'll run you out of here
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
The fact that they were somehow able to compile these Negro league stats with a high enough completion percentage (I don't know how else to describe it) that this kind of thing would even be possible is nothing short of a miracle, as I reckon those stats/records were not kept quite as carefully as the ones in MLB. And how do you know which of these Negro Leagues count as "major league" status? Come to think of it I always did think counting the one-year-wonder Union Association (1884) and Players League as "major" was rather silly...
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Were we matching wits and I lost? Bummer.
it sucks, but i have faith that your delicate sensibilities can overcome
very much looking forward to your next myopic post
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
OK. Not sure why you feel the need to personally attack people. TTMF
you wanna quote me like a tool and act like you're the foremost authority on this subject? you're most definitely gonna get attacked
are you absorbing now?
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Which subject am I acting like an authority on? My opinion? I'm really sorry that you're offended.
What about the big acronyms? Where should I put those?
Instead of "woke", what word would you like others to use to describe arguments relying on false assumptions which are intended to promote a gender or race driven political agenda?
And you used the word "competitive" incorrectly. In order for someone to use the word "woke" in lieu of "competitive" thoughts, it must be in response to other thoughts. But the side that clutches its pearls over being called "woke" has offered no thoughts with which to compete. They have stated, not only without evidence but contradicting mountains of evidence, that the quality of the Negro Leagues was comparable to the National and American Leagues. But since that is false, it seems mean to call it a "thought" which would imply that those saying it are incapable of interpreting evidence. I don't know what leads a person to make such a bizarre claim, but it has nothing to do with "thought".
The argument that the Nego Leagues are a "major" league as that term has been defined until now is so facile and insulting to the intelligence of those forced to listen to it that it would have been great if nobody had stooped so low as to make it. But make it they did, unaware of how ignorant it made them appear. In all honesty, "woke" as it is being used in this thread should be looked at as the kindest word available. But if you insist, I will honor your wishes and use the much harsher words that more accurately describe the arguments being made.
On second thought, no, I won't. "Woke" is the correct word and I like to lead by example by using the correct words.
Woke isnt even a word, its 100% not the correct word. Most people read anti-woke sentiment as anti-black.
We already got SteveK expressing racism, transphobia and homophobia as well as a personal issue with DEI.
You can keep talking nonsense but don't expect respect.
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.
Quoting to save, as this should warrant a ban.
The fact people are getting this upset over the inclusion of Negro League statistics is proof of why it took this long to get them included in the first place.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
no one is offended, i assure you. i was here long before you arrived, and i'll be here long after you (thankfully) depart
but here's the most salient point: i know this is going to probably going to greatly upset your delicate, woke-injected sensibilities, but you're not the smartest guy in the room as you portray yourself to be
since you seem to get off to acronyms, here's one for you: GFY
have a good evening sweet cheeks
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
promise?
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
@PCGS_Moderator
There is a lot of racism, homophobia, and transphobia being expressed by Stevek and seeminly Galaxy, who keeps cursing at people as well.
Do you mind setting an example of what is acceptable behavior? Please? Pretty Please.
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
why don't you run along. you have contributed a grand total of 420 posts and approximately 400 of them possess little to no value
you wanna act like a 5-year old and drag the moderator into this when you have a history of inciting threads? go for it, pal, we'll play this game.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I'm not going anywhere, unlike you.
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.