I wasn't offering anyone as "the best white LF", just that Brady Anderson was a poor choice. Lance Berkman? Jason Bay? Heck, Shawn Green is better than Brady Anderson.

Shawn Green has played less than 100 games in LF. Lance Berkman's as good a candidate as anyone.

So there. Barry Bonds is the black Lance Berkman.

Shawn Green has played less than 100 games in LF

That's a nice nitpick, but as I stated about 100 posts ago - it is just OF.

That's a nice nitpick, but as I stated about 100 posts ago - it is just OF.

But that was under the wrong assumption that center fielders would be playing left or right. I know you've never nitpicked though, so my apologies.

Ks, IMO, have little to do with plate discipline. So we aren't operating with the same definition. Big Hurt's career walk rate is closer to Greenberg's than it is to Williams'.

Greenberg .313/.412/.605
F.Thomas .303/.422/.561
Williams .344/.482/.634

Seems like Greenberg is really similar to Thomas in OBP and BBs.

Sorry, but I made at least three references to Thomas "as a young player" or Thomas in the 1990s or the first couple years of his career.

Andy, I'm talking about significant improvement from the 20s and 30s (and WWII).

OK, it's clear now, and I should have remembered your opinion that the immediate postwar brought about most of the jump in quality, and that there hasn't been much improvement since then. I was thrown off by interpreting this quote of yours...

My point is that three generations of integrated baseball have led to the quality of black players in present day baseball.

...to mean improvements since the 1950's, not merely from the 20's and 30's (and WWII) up through that time.

We don't agree on this, but at least I'm now sure what we don't agree about. And thanks for clarifying it so quickly so I can get some sleep.

Because since Branch Rickey, whites have, for a much longer period, benefitted from significant investment in player development. blacks didn't have that, so that was a large change.

How much did whites benefit? How much are blacks benefiting?

Sorry, but I made at least three references to Thomas "as a young player" or Thomas in the 1990s or the first couple years of his career.

As noted, Hank Greenberg is Thomas' most similar hitter for ages 23-29. That covers the 1990s.

...to mean improvements since the 1950's, not merely from the 20's and 30's (and WWII) up through that time.

In general;, there were very very few black players in teh majors in the before 1950.

How much did whites benefit? How much are blacks benefiting?

From 1900 to 1930, the quality of MLB improved dramatically. That's certainly linked to the organization of scouting and development. Black baseball didn't have anything like MLB in that respect. The addition of that to improve the scouting/development of black players would lead to landing more good balck players (those that might never had even thought about the NeL) mand developed their skills technically better.

So not so much indiviually, I'm speaking, but of black players in genreal.

As noted, Hank Greenberg is Thomas' most similar hitter for ages 23-29. That covers the 1990s.

And, as noted, Greenberg is similar to Thomas in everything EXCEPT plate discipline, however you want to measure it. Since we are talking specifically about plate discipline, the fact that Greenberg has a similar BA or HR total isn't particularly relevant.

As noted, Hank Greenberg is Thomas' most similar hitter for ages 23-29. That covers the 1990s.

What the hell does this have to do with Ichiro? :)

On a more serious note, I think Chris is overestimating the advantage of infrastructure white baseball had over black baseball. The Negro Leagues were in constant flux do to economics, but every black community east of the Missisippi had a serious semi-pro team and the best talent was constantly being funneled upwards. Buck Leonard, Satchel Paige, Willie Wells etc etc etc. All these guys were developed by a de facto minor league system and were taught by lifelong baseball men even if we don't know their names. Arguing that white ballplayers prior to integration somehow had better instruction or training seems a flimsy plank on which to build an argument of MLB's inherent superiority.

From 1900 to 1930, the quality of MLB improved dramatically. That's certainly linked to the organization of scouting and development. Black baseball didn't have anything like MLB in that respect. The addition of that to improve the scouting/development of black players would lead to landing more good balck players (those that might never had even thought about the NeL) mand developed their skills technically better.

So not so much indiviually, I'm speaking, but of black players in genreal.

How is it that MLB is landing good black players who would never even think about the NeL? MLB's record in landing black players isn't particularly impressive. Surely this is at least countered by the better options that young black men have today.

Since we are talking specifically about plate discipline, the fact that Greenberg has a similar BA or HR total isn't particularly relevant.

A similar BA and OBP is similar plate discipline IMO.

How is it that MLB is landing good black players who would never even think about the NeL? MLB's record in landing black players isn't particularly impressive. Surely this is at least countered by the better options that young black men have today.

Because they don't have better options in the DR and PR and elsewhere, and moreover, we're talking about since integration.

Arguing that white ballplayers prior to integration somehow had better instruction or training seems a flimsy plank on which to build an argument of MLB's inherent superiority.

We'll have to disagree on that one. It's a big plank in the Branch Rickey as great description; good systematic building of a farm system (and lots of farms). Why that wouldn't also apply to the NeL would be surprising to me.

A similar BA and OBP is similar plate discipline IMO.

And Greenberg does not have a similar OBP as a young Thomas.

Because they don't have better options in the DR and PR and elsewhere, and moreover, we're talking about since integration.

Pre- or post-integration is irrelevant; you said MLB is now getting young black players who would have never thought about the NeL. Incidentally, I don't consider the majority of Puerto Ricans to be black.

you said MLB is now getting young black players who would have never thought about the NeL. Incidentally, I don't consider the majority of Puerto Ricans to be black.

Yes, the Latin American players. PR generates some of both, but I first think of Carlos Delgado, but Javy Lopez is certainly the other side of that.

And Greenberg does not have a similar OBP as a young Thomas.

From ages 23 to 29, Greenberg is Thomas' best comp.

Yes, the Latin American players. PR generates some of both, but I first think of Carlos Delgado, but Javy Lopez is certainly the other side of that.

Sure. Clemente, too.

And Greenberg does not have a similar OBP as a young Thomas.

From ages 23 to 29, Greenberg is Thomas' best comp.

Repeating this, or finding a new section of their careers to compare, does not make Greenberg's plate discipline comparable to Thomas during the ages in question.

Through age 29
Greenberg .326 .418
Thomas .330 .452

Walks per year
Thomas
age 22 44 (60 games)
age 23 138
age 24 122
age 25 112
age 26 109 (strike year)
age 27 136 (strike year)

Greenberg
age 22 46 (117 games)
age 23 63
age 24 87
age 25 9 (injury)
age 26 102
age 27 119

See the difference?

If I understand NgL history correctly, a lot of the MiL seasoning that young white guys got in the minors was done at the top level in a variety of ways. The NgL teams took on very young players in many instances (Gibson, for example). Because the teams played so many games each year (and often double and triple headers), they had ample opportunity to season young players on the spot through non-league games against a wide variety of opponents (black and white semipro teams, exhibitions against other black teams, barnstorming games, etc...). Young players were traveling with the team, and even if they didn't play regularly, they were being broken in by veterans and managers of the top NgL squads.

If you look at Clark and Lester's Negro Leagues Book, there's lots of instances where guys like Bus Clarkson or Monte Irvin are missing stats for their earliest seasons. While it's possible that those missing figures are simply data gaps, I've also wondered if those gaps are actually showing us that young players didn't play league games but rather played non-league contests to get their seasoning.

It's also worth noting a couple other quick items. Judy Johnson, IIRC, played for non-league teams loosely affiliated with Hilldale to get seasoning in his earliest days. As mentioned elsewhere, he was funneled up from local ball to the affiliate team, and finally to the big league club. The Negro Southern League also performed functions like this. Hilton Smith, for instance, spent several years in the mid 1930s in it, then emerged later in the decade as an ace for KC. There were numerous independent teams, semipro leagues/teams, barnstorming outfits, and other groups where players could cut their teeth against good competition that was often a mix of older and younger players.

This is all interesting in that it reflects a notion that you hear about young players today: that the more quickly a player can arrive in MLB, the higher his ceiling will be. The intensive nature of a very young player's apprenticeship in the blackball system of the pre-integration era may well have challenged him through initation-by-fire to sink or swim and perhaps hastened his development.

This is speculation, of course, but it's worth thinking about since we're comparing farm systems versus less formal player-development models.

Big Hurt's career walk rate is closer to Greenberg's than it is to Williams'.

Greenberg .313/.412/.605
F.Thomas .303/.422/.561
Williams .344/.482/.634


Doing the math in my head, so forgive me if I'm off by a smidge. That's an IsoW (OBP - BA) of .099 for Greenberg, .119 for Thomas, and .138 for Williams. So Frank beats Hank by .120 and Ted beats Frank by .119. That makes it look like Big Hurt's career walk rate is closer to Williams' than to Greenberg's. (not that I have the slightest idea what the argument is here; I stopped reading this thread closely when it shifted to NeL MLEs)

Fine - you want his 22-24 seasons? How about Charlie Keller?

Actually I'd say his plate discipline was more similar to Jud Wilson. :D

The comparisons between Dickey and Gibson are interesting because they were very common in the late-30s and early-40s. But while writers of that time, both Black and White, were certainly impressed with Gibson, the comparison was hardly one-sided. I read The Power and the Darkness: The Life of Josh Gibson in the Shadows of the Game, by Mark Ribowsky, several years ago, and it's chock full of contemporary quotes. And the one I remember most is one that said that while Josh Gibson was a great hitter, he wasn't as good as Dickey, because Dickey was a better defensive catcher. And if I remember correctly, that article was by a Black writer!

I realise that this is anecdotal evidence about anecdotal evidence, but I thought I'd throw it out there. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to get the book back from the library and give the exact quote...

Then that's a different argument. Given that premise, I have no problem believing that Mike Piazza is a good deal better than Josh Gibson,

If you mean that if the Gibson born 95-something years ago had been teleported to our time, who knows? But I think a Gibson born the same year as Piazza would be top dog compared to Mike, since he wouldn't be the same player that he was in reality due to all of our contemporary advantages.

Indeed, John -- I was just provisionally accepting Chris's premise of great leaps in improvement by all players. I don't buy it myself, though. Unless the human species has evolved markedly in the past century, I think you could teleport any of the great athletes of the past forward to the 21st century, and they'd do just fine, given modern equipment and medicine.

Indeed, John -- I was just provisionally accepting Chris's premise of great leaps in improvement by all players. I don't buy it myself, though. Unless the human species has evolved markedly in the past century, I think you could teleport any of the great athletes of the past forward to the 21st century, and they'd do just fine, given modern equipment and medicine.

I think the serious argument isn't that the human species has improved so much as the talent pool has exploded, more than making up for the diminishing interest in baseball among the native born younger generation here in the U.S., both black and white. What that means is that the lower end of the Major League rosters of days past would be stuck in the minors of today---that's where your improvement really kicks in. That, plus conditioning, better training, etc.

Though as Jimmie Foxx could tell you, a cow can give you a pretty good workout even if you're not into crimes against nature. Meaning that robinred's point about manual labor being much more prevalent back in the day is not to be dismissed.

I'd summarize it this way:

The game is far superior today than it was in Gibson's time. Talent is much deeper, and the worst teams in particular are far superior to the perennial (and often near bankrupt) second division teams of the 20's through the 50's. None of the historically great teams of that period would be likely to win any pennants in the 21st century, though a couple of them might be able to give it a three or four month fight.

But Gibson, like Ruth, would not find the adjustment all that difficult, and with those adjustments they'd rise to the top, approaching or into the A-Rod and Bonds class, and somewhat above the Piazzas.

Of course when you factor in the time zone jumping, the night games and the longer schedules, you might want to add that they'd both have to lay off the sauce.

Unless the human species has evolved markedly in the past century, I think you could teleport any of the great athletes of the past forward to the 21st century, and they'd do just fine, given modern equipment and medicine.

I don't think any argues that the human species has evolved, only that sports has started to recruit from larger areas. That with the improved training, medicine is the difference.

Or what Andy said

the serious argument isn't that the human species has improved so much as the talent pool has exploded

True enough; and certainly in any sport (baseball, track & field, soccer) that has adherents around the globe, the best athletes of one ethnicity do roughly as well as the best athletes of another. Which nobody is seriously debating, I know, but is good to reiterate in a thread which has been about how to compare African-American, Asian, and white athletes of various eras and histories.

I think people often leave strategically advances in the analysis of sports that have developed over time.

I would like to think, and there is ample evidence, that--grumpy old man "the athletes don't know the history" moaning aside--players know more about how to succeed at the game than they used to.

If they didn't, that would be truly depressing.

I would like to think, and there is ample evidence, that--grumpy old man "the athletes don't know the history" moaning aside--players know more about how to succeed at the game than they used to.

If they didn't, that would be truly depressing.

Those athletes who demonstrate identifiable talent at a young age certainly have more people than ever before who are willing to show them how to maximize that talent, and maximize the money to be made by exploiting it. Some kids can effectively "begin" their pro careers before they get out of grade school (think Pete Maravich or Tiger Woods), and in some sports a few of them might even be ready in many ways for the Majors by the time they're seniors in high school.

OTOH there are also far more ways for a player to get sidetracked and distracted these days, since all that fame and publicity at a young age---not to mention visions of big bucks---attracts more and more hangers on who may or may not be beneficial to the athlete's career. For every sincere mentor there may well be three or four leeches.

Not to mention that being pampered at such a young age can easily lead to the sort of character flaws that eventually result in all kinds of crashouts and burnouts. You've gotta be lucky to be born with talent, but in many ways you have to be just as lucky to be born and raised among people who can keep you focused. In many cases the people behind the athlete have to be almost as exceptional as the athlete himself.