Isn't part of the gulf due simply to a reduction in the number of teams? From 30-32 to 16 as the NgLs collapse? What I mean is that to say 16-17 black players in the 22-39 period is apples/oranges to the 41-59 period since we're talking about two leagues instead of four.

1.
no, not simply.
That is a matter of debate.

I believe it's true that JoeD and other heavy lifters five years ago foresaw and welcomed a Hall of Merit with representation gradually increasing along the time line: more HOMers on the playing field in 1970 than in 1920 and more in 1920 than in 1870. Everyone here knows that is correlated with the numbers of major league teams, and with the 1:2:3 increase in numbers elected to the HOM each year. But there is no simple relation of cause and effect, or premise and consequence.

Should the number of HOMers on the field 1892-1899 be about 3/4 of the number on the field previously and thereafter? Should the number of HOMers on the field in the third quarter of the 20th century increase over time roughly in proportion to 16:20:24, the numbers of major league teams? That is a matter of debate.

When someone writes of league leaders that the Top 7 in Eddie Murray's AL is equivalent to the Top 4 in Ted Kluszewski's NL, or Roger Connor's NL, that is debatable.

According to Jim Riley, Ernie Banks played in the major Negro Leagues one season, 1950 only. Accepting that date, 1951-1960 is the 16-team period. Fifty years earlier the number is about 20 teams (as about four black teams are considered major). I don't know the particular years when the number is 32 (two eight-team Negro Leagues) or 33 (because the independent Homestead Grays are considered major).

It is challenging and controversial to put those counts to good use.
the 22-39 period is apples/oranges to the 41-59 period since we're talking about two leagues instead of four.

Some say it's apples and oranges, some say apples and pears, some say merely Red Delicious and Golden Delicious apples.

Now "2." isn't worth writing out, not to mention thinking through

>I'm sure you folks have addressed this many times before, but it does look like all players from that era have a harder time measuring up to players from other time periods, with the case being even tougher for blacks.

Kenn, thanks for looking at this. I've been saying this for many many years.

The "number of teams" is indeed relevant but the fall off that we're talking about is the fall off to *zero* NgL teams in the '50s. In theory this was balanced by the integration of black players into the MLs but we all know that this happened much much much more slowly than simple *talent* would have dictated.

So uniquely among ball players after about the time of WWI, blacks whose peaks coulda/woulda/shoulda been in the period from 1945-1955 had nowhere to show their stuff.

It takes a little imagination to decide about how many HoMers there should be from the various time periods in history as Paul discusses. (I lean more toward the belief that as long as there is one world championship available that the number of HoMers should be approximately equal from all times, but others have different valid opinions.)

But it takes a lot of imagination to provide black players 1945-1955 with a fair chance at immortality. I personally don't think Bus Clarkson is the answer though I don't object to his candidacy. I think that Elston Howard and Don Newcombe are the answer though as Kenn shows, as many as 8-10 more black players from this period should perhaps be honored. That isn't going to happen. But something should happen.

off that we're talking about is the fall off to *zero* NgL teams in the '50s.

This isn't really true. Negro League teams existed thru the late 50's/early 60's IIRC. They just were no longer in a 'formal' league in some cases (back to pre-1920 conditions) and the level of competition was decreasing rapidly.

I think my point holds true despite what is essentially a nit. Players of consequence did not play in the NgL after the latter '40s. Black players moved into "organized baseball" where there was the illusion that they were having "normal" careers when, because of quotas and etc., they (other than an elite few) did not have the opportunity for normal careers.

So unlike earlier generations of black players, they didn't really have the chance to fashion a "career" in the NgLs. And unlike the following generations, they were limited in their opportunity to play in the MLs. That is why the number of blacks in the HoM falls off a cliff relative to before and after, which is of course what matters, though it helps to know why in order to know what to do about it. It is my belief that "what to do" is some type of "adjustment," analogous to WWII credit for MLers, in order for pretty much an entire cohort to have a fair chance at immortality.

But of course as a group we (the HoM) has not really elected any MLers with the help of WWII credit that would not have made it without that credit, so even more so with this "cause" I am sure I am pissing into the breeze.

Ignoring the black players, mainly in ignorance,
Joe Gordon
Charlie Keller
Enos Slaughter probably
Pee Wee Reese maybe; it's hard to say without the debate

The three NeL HoMers for whom war credit may have mattered are

Monte Irvin
Larry Doby
Willard Brown

War credit might help Buck O'Neil. I mean not really, but what if he had won a couple more NNL (or NAL?) batting titles instead of going to Guam? Two batting titles is impressive, but four? hmm.

I can't say for sure what other voters were thinking though I vaguely remember the debates:

Gordon played only 11 years and so credit for the 2 years he was in the service, for a MLE total of 13, may have been a help. Of course he was OPS+ 79 the year he got back and I think some voters figured the 2 war years, therefore, might not have been stellar. To me he was a peak candidate and so 11 years or 13 didn't make a difference.

Keller was purely a peak candidate though I remember that a year's worth of MiL MLE credit seemed to be important to some people, so I guess MLE credit for the 1.5 years he missed during the war would also help.

Slaughter was a career candidate so he might be a case in point, but he played 15 years of >100 games anyway and we've elected career candidates with no more than that.

Reese played a stellar SS for 14 years without war credit so, yes, maybe is probably the best we can say.

Then there was Doerr, whom Paul might have mentioned, but what is interesting is that adding Doerr to the list, 3 of the 5 missed 2 years or less (1, 1.5 and 2). Only Slaughter and Reese, who had long-enough careers anyway, missed the full 3 years.

Doby was a prime candidate based on the ML career he actually had; he might become a career candidate with NgL and military credit. It's hard for me to believe war credit was decisive.

Ditto Willard Brown whose NgL career was eminently qualified with or without war credit. Besides, in his case, his NgL MLE translations are just as "theoretical" or rather "hypothetical" anyway, if you know what I mean.

Irvin is a harder guy to pigeon-hole. Given the speculation involved in his case, too, it is hard to believe that military credit was much of a factor.

I mean, your point is taken, Chris and Paul. You'd probably have to go back and look at who voted for them and what they said in their ballot comments or what they have to say about it now to really have a firm hypothesis. I guess from where I sit, however, it really looks like all of these 7 guys had very strong cases without war credit. I supported all of the players mentioned and while I do give war credit, it to some degree doesn't really matter. (Though I understand that a career voter might not agree.)

But even as a peak voter, I see some guys for whom war credit is absolutely essential--Rizzuto and Pesky, to me, are the poster boys for WWII, along with Dom DiMaggio. Dom would absolutely need that credit--he's at 220 WS without it, but at best he could be 292 with. Those are guys for whom significant support would be better evidence that war credit is making a difference.

For Korea, it's Don Newcombe and maybe Elston Howard.

I guess from where I sit, however, it really looks like all of these 7 guys had very strong cases without war credit. I supported all of the players mentioned and while I do give war credit, it to some degree doesn't really matter. (Though I understand that a career voter might not agree.)

It's my impression generally that voters are more willing to extrapolate war credit in career value terms than in peak terms. Irvin, Doby, Brown, Gordon, Keller, and Slaughter all have at least five peak seasons in their playing records. For peak voters, these players didn't need war credit. For career voters, they may have needed war credit, but the kind of credit they needed was the kind voters are more likely to extend.

Pesky and Rizzuto need extrapolated peak and career credit, and voters have been less willing to give peak.

For Newcombe and Howard, it's more that they need war credit and MiL credit, though in Newcombe's case he probably needs a bit more peak credit from both sources. I'd be very curious to know what sort of credit voters are giving these two beyond their major-league careers, but they would probably have to break the top 10 for that to be revealed. I give both MiL credit and war credit to both, and they still fall a little short for me. Newcombe is very close to my in-out line, however. I could imagine supporting him, and he's close enough that I ought to revisit my numbers for him at some point. Howard is harder for me to imagine supporting.

Hank Greenberg and Johnny Mize probably both benefited from War credit. Not in the "in versus out" way, but I suspect they both moveed up in some people's 1B rankings because the war credit established a bigger career basis for them. This is perhaps more true for Greenberg than Mize?

Rabbit Maranville's case, such as it is, could be helped by a year or more of war credit.

This same idea could, however, be used to a lesser extent with a player such as Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, Ozzie Smith, Andre Dawson---fellows who missed about 120 games due to strikes. Not to the same degree as with the war, since they missed but 3/4 of a year, of course.

For a peak voter, of course, the strikes are non-issues--at least, for me and, I would guess, for others, anyway. And even for career voters I would guess that Raines, Trammell and Ozzie don't/didn't need another 3/4 of a year. Dawson might, however, so I'll just ask--is everybody adjusting him for that? Who else is on the borderline who could possibly use another 120 games?

Dawson juuuuust makes my ballot from his 'prime credit' I give for '81.

Just in case anyone wonders about Dick Redding. He was in military service sometime 1918-19 (bold below).

Gary A later provided some data from Cuba and from the Hall of Fame project that persuaded many to knock Redding down a level or two.

Chris Cobb #23
Here’s my best projection of his seasonal pitching win shares

1911 27
1912 11
1913 5
1914 14
1915 40
1916 33
1917 27
1918 6
1919 4
1920 19
1921 21
1922 19
1923 13
1924 5
1925 8
1926 2
1927 7
1928 6

267 total

Your guess is as good as mine as to the number of batting ws Redding would have earned, most likely between 2 and 7, I think.

You should set WWI credit as you see fit. I think he missed about one full season: I’m giving him 18 additional win shares for that time.

David Foss, "2004 Ballot"
6. Dick Redding -- Great fireballer of the 1910s. His weak 1920s NeL numbers should not take away from his fine early play. I don't know why his support hasn't held up.

One point, WWI service immediately followed his very best seasons rather than intervening, so no one routinely grants him any extra time (credit) as a top star.

By the way, did John Donaldson face many of the same teams Redding faced?
Apparently Bullet Rogan did not. Riley has him in the military 1911-1919, although shortstop with the 1917 All Nations team; major career otherwise from the 1920 Kansas City Monarchs where Mendez was shortstop.

Although Mendez essentially preceded Rogan as a pitcher (shades of Rusie and McGinnity) Williams, Mendez, Rogan, Redding, and Donaldson were contemporary, born 1885, 87, 89, 91, 92. Foster and Paige 1904 and 1906.

Are seasonal IP and ERA+ available for Redding, or just career totals?

Back to the comment on 30 being too many Negro Leaguers - we've now elected everyone but Redding (that's 29) plus Larry Doby and we're going crazy for Dick Lundy and Bus Clarkson. Ben Taylor is finding his way onto ballots. That would be 32+.

Pitching Data for Eric C:



Observations on pitchers:

1. The George Scales of this group looks to be Hilton Smith. Smith doesn't have much data because there is less of the 40's data than 1920's & 30's.

2. Williams, Mendez, Redding and Donaldson have missing prime years.

3. Again, karlmagnus should love Bullet Rogan.

4. Satchel was as awesome on the pitching side as Gibson was on the hitting side.