BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Baseball Reference Adds Negro Leagues Statistics, Rewriting Its Record Book

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Baseball Reference Adds Negro Leagues Statistics, Rewriting Its Record Book

On Monday, Baseball Reference, the go-to source on the internet for such matters, would have told you that Stan Musial led the major leagues with a .357 batting average in 1943. It also would have said numerous pitchers took a turn leading the majors in strikeouts per nine innings between 1927 and 1945, and that the top three batters in career adjusted on-base-plus-slugging percentage were Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Barry Bonds.

A day later, all of that looks much different. Now, Tetelo Vargas of the New York Cubans (.471) and Josh Gibson of the Homestead Grays (.466) have both surpassed Musial in 1943. Satchel Paige, a dominant pitcher for more than 20 seasons, has taken over eight of those strikeout titles. And Oscar Charleston, perhaps the finest all-around player in Negro leagues history, has bumped Bonds for the third-best career mark in adjusted O.P.S.

“A lot of new books on baseball trivia will be coming out in the next few years,” Sean Forman, the founder and president of Sports Reference, joked on a video call ahead of his baseball site’s announcement on Tuesday that it had drastically changed and expanded its accounting of the Negro leagues. The move comes ahead of Major League Baseball’s own plans to incorporate the statistics into its historical record, which could happen in the next off-season.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 15, 2021 at 04:51 PM | 182 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: baseball reference, negro leagues

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

101. Jesse Barfield's Right Arm Posted: June 17, 2021 at 04:08 PM (#6024805)

This whole thing is a joke.

turning the record book into a Frankenstein's monster

Ted Williams is no longer the last player to hit .400.

It's almost as if systematically excluding players because of their skin color might have had consequences for the purity of the record books.

102. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: June 17, 2021 at 04:13 PM (#6024809)

Barfield, do you think assigning the "best single season batting average" to a guy with 30 games played improves the record book?

103. DL from MN Posted: June 17, 2021 at 04:24 PM (#6024818)

do you think assigning the "best single season batting average" to a guy with 30 games played improves the record book?

Batting average is overrated. Statistics without context are just numbers. My answer is I DON'T CARE who has the best single season batting average. It's a trivia question.

104. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: June 17, 2021 at 04:29 PM (#6024824)

In one breath you recognize that before this week the record book (in terms of BB-Ref single season BA leader list) was already a Frankenstein's monster

Huh? I said no such thing.

do you think assigning the "best single season batting average" to a guy with 30 games played improves the record book?

To me, this isn't even the real problem, although it's not exactly a good look. The problem is allowing an organization that, although it featured many great players, wasn't and isn't a major league, then or now. (You'll notice nobody is agitating to magically transform the old PCL, or the other high minors, nor the Japanese or Cuban or Mexican leagues into "major leagues". And we all know why.)

105. HGM Posted: June 17, 2021 at 04:36 PM (#6024827)

The whining about how baseball-reference's leaderboards apparently constitute "the record book" made me curious what the official MLB site has to say... but navigating their statistics/history page is a nightmare and every link just seems to take me to the current season leaderboard. Suffice it to say, I'm fairly certain that even though the MLB likewise announced that the Negro Leagues are now considered major leagues, they have not amended their official single season records to match the BB-Ref leaderboards. And even if they did.... so what? That just goes to show that "records" when it comes to this sort of thing are trivial. You're free to use your brain and properly contextualize the stats.

I will say, though, and I'm sure this is probably possible but it's not immediately apparent to me (and may be a paid feature if it's not public), that I think the leaderboards, both career and single-season, should have filters to include/exclude any of the major leagues. If I want to see the single-season or career records for just the negro leagues or just the AL or just the AL/NL combined, a simple check box should allow for that.

106. Kiko Sakata

Posted: June 17, 2021 at 05:07 PM (#6024833)

I will say, though, and I'm sure this is probably possible but it's not immediately apparent to me (and may be a paid feature if it's not public), that I think the leaderboards, both career and single-season, should have filters to include/exclude any of the major leagues. If I want to see the single-season or career records for just the negro leagues or just the AL or just the AL/NL combined, a simple check box should allow for that.

This can currently be done through Stathead (what used to be the Play Index and which costs a little something). You can select any range of seasons you'd like and include any group of leagues you'd like. You can also choose your own playing time minimums to make the lists (based on either games played or plate appearances).

107. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 17, 2021 at 05:20 PM (#6024838)

Statistics without context are just numbers.

This.

My answer is I DON'T CARE who has the best single season batting average.

I'm mildly interested, but it takes zero mental effort to figure out which players within those top rankings were Negro Leaguers. If BB-Ref. wants to add a non-paywalled filter to include/exclude any league or leagues, that should end all the kvetching.

It's a trivia question.

And this. And AFAIC the most interesting trivia questions are centered around games and biographical facts, since those questions usually require much more real baseball knowledge than individual statistics that can be looked up in 30 to 60 seconds by anyone with a computer.

108. pikepredator Posted: June 17, 2021 at 05:29 PM (#6024839)

If I want to see the single-season or career records for just the negro leagues or just the AL or just the AL/NL combined, a simple check box should allow for that.

Agreed. I'd rather have more information available than less and be able to pare it down as I see fit.

Barfield, do you think assigning the "best single season batting average" to a guy with 30 games played improves the record book?

I'm not Barfield, but I have no idea who the record should belong to. Definitely not somebody who played pre-1900. I can see why it shouldn't be somebody who played pre-integration (either way), but for now it's been determined that white pre-integration players can hold records, at least in part because complete data is more readily available.

I think *including* a guy for whom we only have 30 games worth of data improves the record book. But where to draw the line as far as what a "record" is . . . I don't care enough to care. I checked OPS and there are a bunch of guys who only played 113 games on that single-season leaderboard, so I'm sure there for every other stat - I wouldn't want them excluded just because they had the misfortune of excelling during a strike-shortened season. And if one of them happened to be at the top of that list, so be it.

109. Up2Drew Posted: June 17, 2021 at 05:37 PM (#6024840)

For what it's worth, my dad played in the minor leagues during the 1940's and they regularly faced Negro League (and prison) teams. He was a terrifically open-minded guy for his era. And he always told me that the better Negro League teams always had a couple of guys who could really play, but the back end of the rosters were high school kids and locals and whatnot.

The rosters were transient, the leagues were just short of barnstorming troupes, the records of the day are spotty, and they were drawing talent from less than 10% of the population.

However you feel about historical racial injustice, bestowing major league status to these statistics is ludicrous.

110. Mefisto Posted: June 17, 2021 at 05:44 PM (#6024841)

And he always told me that the better Negro League teams always had a couple of guys who could really play, but the back end of the rosters were high school kids and locals and whatnot.

Yeah, the 1948 Birmingham Black Barons had a high schooler on the bench. Willie Mays.

111. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 17, 2021 at 06:19 PM (#6024845)

I think one needs to separate the issues of league quality and sample size.

Including 40-60 game seasons on single-season leaderboards is problematic IMO. Maybe it's not quite comparing apples and oranges, but it's comparing oranges and clementines or something like that. This was already a bit of an issue with 2020 numbers being included, but the inclusion of the NeLs makes it more pronounced. Not sure that anyone really cares about the BB-Ref single-season leaders, but if you do care, then I'd think you might care about this point.

Setting aside the sample size issues, I don't take it for granted that the overall NeL quality was below that of MLB. I'm curious how the HoM treats NeL stats. I assume people use some sort of MLEs -- are those within the normal range of what you see in terms of differences between the AL and NL over time, or is it more like the difference between MLB and AAA? Does Oscar Charleston belong in the same breath as Ruth, Ted Williams, and Bonds as a hitter (he's now #3 on the career OPS+ leaderboard), was he more in line with Musial/Aaron/Mays, or was he actually better than any of them? I don't think any conclusion should or would be considered a slight against any of those guys. Maybe it's not important but again, if you're here then you probably find these questions at least a bit interesting.

To the extent that this change by BB-Ref raises these kinds of questions, I think it's great.

Another interesting question is whether the playing time requirements for the *career* leaderboards at BB-Ref should be reduced in light of the inclusion of NeL players. The 3,000 PA minimum is sensible when you're only considering players who can accumulate 600-700 PAs in a season. But it's high when you're considering guys who could typically only accumulate anywhere from 100-300 PA in a season, depending on how many games we have box scores from.

112. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 17, 2021 at 07:14 PM (#6024848)

I have recently run some numbers worth mentioning. I calculated wOBA on a .330 scale for the Majors and Negro Leagues. Then I looked at what percentage of PAs went to sub .330 wOBA hitters. The Negro Leagues gave a significantly higher number of PA to sub .330 players. I think it might have been as high as 10-20% more. It’s def true, IMO, that the Negro Leagues were, top to bottom, not MLB-level quality of play. This and small samples together probably explain most of the extreme rate stats we are discussing.

And yet, let’s not lose sight of why the leagues were that way: segregation. It’s far less likely that Cobb, Hornsby, Sisler, whoever would have hit .400 with the increased competition level of an integrated league. After all, no one has hit .400 since 1941, and integration is one important reason why. So all of those white ball player’s cherished records require a contextual asterisk just like Tetelo Vargas’ .471 batting average does.

113. Howie Menckel Posted: June 17, 2021 at 07:37 PM (#6024852)

per 111, back around 2008 Anno Domini, we in the offseason voted on each position as to where our HOMers should rank.

an inexact science, at best, but we tried.

I didn't find CF in a cursory search but I did find 1B

Gehrig
Foxx
Anson 19th century
Mize
Brouthers 19th century
Connor 19th century
Greenberg
Murray
McCovey
Leonard Negro Leagues
McGwire
Killebrew
Joe Start 19th century
WClark
Suttles Negro Leagues
KHernandez
Sisler
Terry
Beckley

obviously presented not as some infallible list (and of course we have elected many more 1B since), but as I say, we tried to give all a fair shot.

114. sanny manguillen Posted: June 17, 2021 at 07:43 PM (#6024854)

If I want to see the single-season or career records for just the negro leagues or just the AL or just the AL/NL combined, a simple check box should allow for that.

I doubt we'll see that on the main website soon. To integrate the term "MLB" while simultaneously offering an easy way to segregate it again would be organizational suicide.

115. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: June 17, 2021 at 08:55 PM (#6024862)

To integrate the term "MLB" while simultaneously offering an easy way to segregate it again would be organizational suicide.

Sean's kinda put himself in a bind here; if he backtracks even a little, he'll get cancelled faster than a show in the Friday night death slot. (Kids, ask your parents.) So, damn the torpedoes, I guess...

116. BDC

Posted: June 17, 2021 at 08:59 PM (#6024864)

Some thoughts:

a) Baseball is still just a game. Its record books contain fun information about the game. More information is better, as pikepredator says.

b) Taken as a whole, as Dr Chaleeko says, the Negro Leagues were probably not quite as good as contemporary white leagues. But as the lists that Howie and Andy have posted show, the top players in the Negro Leagues were beyond a reasonable doubt as good as contemporary white players. This wasn't a lower-tier league; again as Dr Chaleeko notes it was a segregated league and though that is obvious, it doesn't simply mean that it was unjust; it also means that it wasn't like current AAA or even the old more-independent white minors. The Negro Leagues mixed great players and lesser players. So did the white leagues; and they probably had somewhat better lesser players; but leaderboards are about the best players, anyway.

c) Given (b), the new single-season OPS+ board (for instance) is interestingly non-random. The top Negro-League players represented are now Josh Gibson, Mule Suttles, Oscar Charleston, and Buck Leonard – long since recognized by reputation and by developing statistical evidence as great players, Hall of Famers all. They are extremely likely candidates to have been great stars in early counterfactual integrated leagues.

d) And yes, the single-season OPS+ leaders now include a Negro Leaguer named Charlie Smith. But they also have long included a 19th-century white player named Fred Dunlap. This is cool. It offers a chance to learn more about Charlie Smith.

I am preaching to the choir for the most part, but there is enough pushback posted in this thread that I thought I should do so anyway. I think this is an entirely positive development from the perspective of baseball history, quite apart from any sort of political or social angle if that is possible.

I am also of course a raving white liberal and one can feel as free to adjust me for context as one would with any ballplayer :)

117. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 17, 2021 at 09:14 PM (#6024866)

If I want to see the single-season or career records for just the negro leagues or just the AL or just the AL/NL combined, a simple check box should allow for that.

I doubt we'll see that on the main website soon. To integrate the term "MLB" while simultaneously offering an easy way to segregate it again would be organizational suicide.

And yet every player who played in both the NeL and MLB has a separate stat line for his years in each of those leagues, as well as a combined overall line. I'm not sure why supplying that sort of option for leaderboards would be "suicidal".

118. HGM Posted: June 17, 2021 at 09:15 PM (#6024867)

Sean's kinda put himself in a bind here; if he backtracks even a little, he'll get cancelled faster than a show in the Friday night death slot. (Kids, ask your parents.) So, damn the torpedoes, I guess...

The ability to view leagues individually would not be "backtracking" and certainly wouldn't get him "cancelled."

It looks like this is already a feature, just in the paid Stathead utility.

119. Jesse Barfield's Right Arm Posted: June 17, 2021 at 10:34 PM (#6024897)

Barfield, do you think assigning the "best single season batting average" to a guy with 30 games played improves the record book?

Yes. I think people will see Vargas and Gibson, possibly be confused, and then dig a bit more into the context and remember that the early years of baseball excluded hundreds of worthy players based solely on race, and that the pure numbers we think of were created in a context of discrimination and racism. I think that makes for a better record book.

Again, it should be remembered that the reason these numbers are the way they are are - all the complaints of confusion and dilution of purity - are not due to wokeness, but are the result of the fact that the NL and AL excluded people based on race for over a half century. Vargas did not play a 30-game season because he wanted to, but because the leagues that played longer and more consistent schedules systematically excluded people like him based on his physical characteristics. That's not his fault, and it's certainly not Sean Forman's fault. It is the fault of the NL and AL and the culture in which they existed. If you're mad about the records being mixed up, be pissed off about the historical context that created them.

120. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 17, 2021 at 11:32 PM (#6024918)

Here are the options in Stathead when you want to do a query.

I'm already learning something new as I had never heard of the East-West League, American Negro League, Negro Southern League, or the Eastern Colored League.

121. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: June 18, 2021 at 09:52 AM (#6024943)

yeah, the AL was, well, not so "major" in a way

And of those 10 PoC, all but Newcombe and Wills are Hall of Famers, whereas only one of the White players (Koufax) has a Cooperstown plaque.

Aw, c'mon. During that time frame, the AL had Ted Williams, Yogi Berra 3X, Mickey Mantle 3X, Brooks Robinson, Yaz, and Killebrew. All legit HOFers, plus Nellie Fox who's borderline.

122. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: June 18, 2021 at 10:33 AM (#6024948)

There are obvious differences in the reason for the formation of various leagues, but is there anything that we can learn from other sports who had leagues that were different from the original "major" league. For example, the NBA had the ABA; the NFL had the USFL; the NHL had the WHA. When I have read/watched histories of these leagues, one thing they all have in common was that the top of their talent pyramids were as good as anything the established league could offer, but that the depth of the teams is where the difference was really felt.

The WHA had the young version of Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier.
The USFL had Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Herschel Walker, and Reggie White.
The ABA had Dr. J, Dan Issel, George Gervin, Artis Gilmore, Moses Malone.
The Negro Leagues had Satchel Paige, Cool Papa Bell, Buck Leonard, Josh Gibson.

It seems to me that it's reasonable to say the best Negro League players were as great as the best players in the NL and AL, but that the back of the rosters were (due to the math of the talent pool as much as anything) lacking relative to the back of NL and AL rosters. I also think the small sample size of the seasons as they relate to rate statistics is problematic.

Tangentially: Considering the international nature of the sport, the sheer size of the population compared to 50 or 100 years ago, the obvious integration of the sport to include non-white players, and the amount of money in the game today, I would guess that one place where today's baseball is way ahead of anything 50-100 years ago is the back end of rosters. I don't know how much better the best players are today than they were 75 years ago on your favorite teams, but the 20th best player on each roster is probably much better, on balance, than the 20th-best player on each roster was 75 years ago.

123. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 18, 2021 at 12:37 PM (#6024960)

Tangentially: Considering the international nature of the sport, the sheer size of the population compared to 50 or 100 years ago, the obvious integration of the sport to include non-white players, and the amount of money in the game today, I would guess that one place where today's baseball is way ahead of anything 50-100 years ago is the back end of rosters. I don't know how much better the best players are today than they were 75 years ago on your favorite teams, but the 20th best player on each roster is probably much better, on balance, than the 20th-best player on each roster was 75 years ago.

This. A thousand times this. This holds true especially for the back end of the bullpens.

------------------

And of those 10 PoC, all but Newcombe and Wills are Hall of Famers, whereas only one of the White players (Koufax) has a Cooperstown plaque.

Aw, c'mon. During that time frame, the AL had Ted Williams, Yogi Berra 3X, Mickey Mantle 3X, Brooks Robinson, Yaz, and Killebrew. All legit HOFers, plus Nellie Fox who's borderline.

Care to rank a combined list of Black NL HoFers and White AL HoFers from that period? Here's a cheat sheet so you don't have to go back a page. You can use either peak or career value.

Willie McCovey
Bob Gibson
Orlando Cepeda
Roberto Clemente
Willie Mays
Frank Robinson
Ernie Banks
Hank Aaron
Don Newcombe
Roy Campanella
Jackie Robinson
Ted Williams
Yogi Berra
Mickey Mantle
Brooks Robinson
Yaz
Killebrew
Fox

124. BDC

Posted: June 18, 2021 at 01:43 PM (#6024965)

But Misirlou is right. It's an attenuated mirror image of the Negro League situation. Even if the AL was slightly weaker for 10-15 years after 1947, the very best white players in the AL were as good as the very best white and black players in the NL. You can make fine distinctions, but there's not a whole lot of difference between Mantle and Mays, Yaz and Frank Robinson, Berra and Campanella. The bigger distinctions would show up deeper in the rosters, not in whose HOFers were better.

As a corollary, the Yankees were slow to integrate but it's not like they were at some great World Series disadvantage against integrated clubs. They were pretty clearly as good as any NL team of that era.

125. Darren

Posted: June 18, 2021 at 02:31 PM (#6024975)

It's going to be weird seeing these new names at that top of the leader boards. But eventually, we'll get used to seeing them in context in the same way that we see the Pud Galvins and Kid Nichols of the world.

126. Darren

Posted: June 18, 2021 at 02:38 PM (#6024977)

What's more, this is introducing me to some very interesting players. Tetelo Vargas has a very interesting story, playing in numerous leagues around the world until his late 40s!

Maybe we should all consider this an opportunity for dialogue and education.

127. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: June 18, 2021 at 02:38 PM (#6024978)

You can make fine distinctions, but there's not a whole lot of difference between...Yaz and Frank Robinson

Oh please. Frank Robinson never got this kind of music tribute did he?

About the 12th inning of game five of the 2004 ALCS a couple of old timers in my section at Fenway belted this out between innings. When they finished with a flourish as the inning ended they got a nice hand from the folks in section 15.

128. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 18, 2021 at 04:30 PM (#6024991)

But Misirlou is right. It's an attenuated mirror image of the Negro League situation. Even if the AL was slightly weaker for 10-15 years after 1947, the very best white players in the AL were as good as the very best white and black players in the NL.

Once you get past Williams, Mantle and Berra, that's simply not true. Again, look at that combined HoF list. And in order fully to measure the gap between the leagues, you have to look even more at the 60's and the early 70's, when the NL's head start on integration had gone past the Dodgers/Giants/Braves and had filtered all the way down, while the AL was just beginning to sign Black HoF-level players. You can talk all you want about small sample size, but I don't think it was just random luck that let the NL win 19 of 20 All-Star games between 1963 and 1982.

You can make fine distinctions, but there's not a whole lot of difference between Mantle and Mays, Yaz and Frank Robinson, Berra and Campanella. The bigger distinctions would show up deeper in the rosters, not in whose HOFers were better.

Again, take it past those at the very top and see what you find. How many inner circle AL HoFers were at their peaks in the 50's through the early 70's? Mantle and Berra and Yaz and who else? Williams was still playing at inner circle levels, but his peak was in the 40's. OTOH the NL was loaded with such players, both Black and White.

As a corollary, the Yankees were slow to integrate but it's not like they were at some great World Series disadvantage against integrated clubs. They were pretty clearly as good as any NL team of that era.

But obviously the Yankees were the exception. Between 1949 and 1965, only two other AL teams even made it to the World Series. The first one (the 1954 Indians) got swept, while the other one (the 1959 White Sox) lost in 6 games to one of the weakest and flukiest NL pennant winners ever. OTOH during that same period, 7 of the 8 NL non-expansion teams won pennants (all but the Cubs), and 4 of them beat the Yankees at least once. The Yankees' success in the World Series during that period helped to mask what was going on under the surface between the two leagues.

------------

You can make fine distinctions, but there's not a whole lot of difference between...Yaz and Frank Robinson

Really? Not a whole lot of difference?

162 game average WaR: Yaz 4.7, Robinson 6.2

Number of seasons with OPS+ greater than 130: Yaz 8, Robinson 17.

Career OPS+: Yaz 130, Robinson 154

Overall OPS+ after age 30: Yaz 118, Robinson 154.

Number of seasons with OPS+ greater than 130 after age 30: Yaz 2, Robinson 9.

If that's "not a whole lot of difference", I'd like to know what constitutes "a lot". Once he hit 31, Yaz wasn't even a HoF level performer.

129. villageidiom Posted: June 18, 2021 at 05:06 PM (#6024997)

Huh? I said no such thing.

You said:

pre-1901 ball really shouldn't be considered "major leagues", either.

The top 20 list prior to the addition of Negro Leagues:

Rank Player (age that year)     BA  Year Bats
 1. Hugh Duffy+ (27)          .4397 1894 R
 2. Tip ONeill (27)           .4352 1887 R
 3. Ross Barnes (26)          .4286 1876 R
 4. Nap Lajoie+ (26)          .4265 1901 R
 5. Willie Keeler+ (25)       .4238 1897 L
 6. Rogers Hornsby+ (28)      .4235 1924 R
 7. George Sisler+ (29)       .4198 1922 L
 8. Ty Cobb+ (24)             .4189 1911 L
 9. Tuck Turner (27)          .4179 1894 B
10. Sam Thompson+ (34)        .4146 1894 L
11. Fred Dunlap (25)          .4120 1884 R
12. Jesse Burkett+ (27)       .4096 1896 L
    Ed Delahanty+ (31)        .4096 1899 R
14. Ty Cobb+ (25)             .4087 1912 L
15. Shoeless Joe Jackson (23) .4081 1911 L
16. George Sisler+ (27)       .4073 1920 L
17. Ted Williams+ (22)        .4057 1941 L
18. Jesse Burkett+ (26)       .4054 1895 L
19. Ed Delahanty+ (26)        .4049 1894 R
20. Ed Delahanty+ (27)        .4042 1895 R 

Four of the top 5, and 12 of the top 20, are from a group you think doesn't belong, for reasons similar to your Negro Leagues argument. For the inclusion of the latter you say it's a Frankenstein's monster. For the former you don't?

I'm giving you every opportunity to clarify your argument, to demonstrate you're not just trying to shift around to whatever evidence supports an argument of keep the darkies out. And, I mean, I get that you're really trying to shift around to whatever evidence supports an argument of don't let the libs win, but those two arguments overlap a lot more than you seem to realize.

130. GregD Posted: June 18, 2021 at 05:28 PM (#6024999)

Four of the top 5, and 12 of the top 20, are from a group you think doesn't belong

And as has been said in the thread already, I think, it's really all 5. Lajoie's 1901 doesn't belong on a list of modern batting average leaders.

131. Kiko Sakata

Posted: June 18, 2021 at 06:14 PM (#6025007)

the 20th best player on each roster is probably much better, on balance, than the 20th-best player on each roster was 75 years ago.

Negro League teams tended not to have a "20th best player on [the] roster". Their rosters tended to be more in the 15-18 range. In 1941, the 16 AL/NL teams used 546 unique players. Best as I can tell, the 12 NAL/NNL teams used almost exactly half as many that year (272).

132. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: June 18, 2021 at 06:20 PM (#6025009)

For the inclusion of (Negro League play) you say it's a Frankenstein's monster. For (the 19th century) you don't?

Again, not what I said. I think we need to take a hard look at the "record book" (however you want to define that); in my opinion, neither the 19th century nor the NeL should be called "major leagues". (Should probably throw out the Feds, too.)

And as I've said about a zillion times now, I want more stats, cuz MOAR STATZ GOOD. Give us all the stats of all the leagues, everywhere, ever. Come up with a reasonable Major League Equivalency formula (which will ultimately just be someone's opinion, but then so is WAR) so we can accurately measure how good everybody was. I want Oscar Charleston and Martin Dihigo and Hector Espino and Sadaharu Oh to get their due. That's my dream.

I'm giving you every opportunity to clarify your argument, to demonstrate you're not just trying to shift around to whatever evidence supports an argument of keep the darkies out.

You're an idiot, and a racist to boot.

And, I mean, I get that you're really trying to shift around to whatever evidence supports an argument of don't let the libs win

If the "libs" are you, then, yes. But with childish "arguments" like yours, defeating you won't be all that difficult.

133. Howie Menckel Posted: June 18, 2021 at 06:54 PM (#6025013)

I don't think it was just random luck that let the NL win 19 of 20 All-Star games between 1963 and 1982.

the bulk of it was NL players being terrified of what Pete Rose might do to them if they lost. I guess one set of players found out.

134. DL from MN Posted: June 18, 2021 at 07:49 PM (#6025017)

Negro League teams tended not to have a "20th best player on [the] roster". Their rosters tended to be more in the 15-18 range. In 1941, the 16 AL/NL teams used 546 unique players. Best as I can tell, the 12 NAL/NNL teams used almost exactly half as many that year (272).

This is a good point. When I meant 4-5 full rosters of black players above replacement level I meant MLB roster sizes. Spreading out the talent helps keep the league quality higher.

135. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 18, 2021 at 09:59 PM (#6025060)

I don't think it was just random luck that let the NL win 19 of 20 All-Star games between 1963 and 1982.

the bulk of it was NL players being terrified of what Pete Rose might do to them if they lost. I guess one set of players found out.

Rose was a terror, but just for example this was the AL's starting lineup in 1963, the year that stretch began. One solid HoFer, one marginal HoFer, and the rest of them not even in the HoVG.

1 Nellie Fox 2B
2 Albie Pearson CF
3 Al Kaline RF
4 Frank Malzone 3B
5 Leon Wagner LF
6 Earl Battey C
7 Joe Pepitone 1B
8 Zoilo Versalles SS
9 Ken McBride P

136. DL from MN Posted: June 18, 2021 at 10:35 PM (#6025075)

For some reason the AL All-Star game starters didn't include Mantle, Yaz, Killebrew, Aparicio or Brooks Robinson but they all were on the roster. Jim Bunning was on the pitching staff too.

Billy Pierce and Minnie Minoso are AL stars from the 50s who probably should be in the Hall of Fame. Bill Freehan and Dick Allen from a little later.

137. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: June 19, 2021 at 08:00 AM (#6025135)

the bulk of it was NL players being terrified of what Pete Rose might do to them if they lost. I guess one set of players found out.

#sayhisnamerayfosse

138. BDC

Posted: June 19, 2021 at 08:18 AM (#6025138)

139. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 19, 2021 at 08:46 AM (#6025139)

For some reason the AL All-Star game starters didn't include Mantle, Yaz, Killebrew, Aparicio or Brooks Robinson but they all were on the roster. Jim Bunning was on the pitching staff too.

Well, here were some of the NL backups: Cepeda, Maz, Santo, Torre, Musial, Clemente, McCovey, and Wills (the reigning MVP), along with Drysdale, Koufax, Marichal and Spahn. Do you want to continue this comparison?

140. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 19, 2021 at 08:53 AM (#6025140)

Yes, I think if you move the frame to 1963-82, you have to invoke the Pete Rose Terror Factor to explain the ASG. By 1973, to cherry-pick, there were five players of color in the AL starting lineup vs. four in the NL, and both leagues had several nonwhite players come off the bench (while Allen didn't play for whatever reason; Tommy Harper and Reggie Smith weren't even on the AL team, etc.) And the AL still lost miserably.

The AL indeed began to catch up in the 70's, but here's another little exercise: See how many inner circle HoFers there were at their peak in the 70's, and then break it down by league. Then take it down to the remaining HoFers who peaked during that decade. I haven't performed this exercise myself, but I'd bet that while the gap narrowed from the chasm in the 50's and 60's, when you could drive a truck through it, it still would favor the NL as a whole.

141. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: June 19, 2021 at 09:24 AM (#6025143)

Rose was a terror, but just for example this was the AL's starting lineup in 1963, the year that stretch began. One solid HoFer, one marginal HoFer, and the rest of them not even in the HoVG.

1 Nellie Fox 2B
2 Albie Pearson CF
3 Al Kaline RF
4 Frank Malzone 3B
5 Leon Wagner LF
6 Earl Battey C
7 Joe Pepitone 1B
8 Zoilo Versalles SS
9 Ken McBride P

I'm not surprised you didn't mention the NL roster. Are we to assume it was chock full of all time greats?:

Tommy Davis
Hank Aaron
Bill White
Willie mays
Ed Bailey
Ken Boyer
Dick Groat
Julian Javier
Jim O'Toole

142. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: June 19, 2021 at 09:37 AM (#6025144)

PA/IP by HOFers in the 1963 ASG:

NL - 12/2
AL - 12/2

143. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: June 19, 2021 at 09:55 AM (#6025147)

AL future HOFers went 3-12 with no walks and no XBH, and 2 IP with no hits, 1 walk, and 1 UER. The NL went 2-11 with 1 walk and no XBH, and 2 IP with 1 H, 0 BB, and 0 R.

144. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 19, 2021 at 10:32 AM (#6025151)

Feel free to take the entire rosters of the two leagues and compare the quality of their respective HoFers. You can do it by instinct or by any other way you wish. The NL is always going to come out on top.

How many inner circle and other non-borderline HoFers do you see, and at what point in their careers were they in 1963?

Starting Lineups
NL All-Stars
1 Tommy Davis LF
2 Henry Aaron RF
3 Bill White 1B
4 Willie Mays CF
5 Ed Bailey C
6 Ken Boyer 3B
7 Dick Groat SS
8 Julian Javier 2B
9 Jim O'Toole P

Reserves
Orlando Cepeda 1B
Bill Mazeroski 2B
Ron Santo 3B
Johnny Edwards C
Joe Torre C
Stan Musial LF
Roberto Clemente OF
Willie McCovey OF
Duke Snider OF
Maury Wills SS
Ray Culp P
Don Drysdale P
Larry Jackson P
Sandy Koufax P
Juan Marichal P
Warren Spahn P
Hal Woodeshick P

AL All-Stars

1 Nellie Fox 2B
2 Albie Pearson CF
3 Al Kaline RF
4 Frank Malzone 3B
5 Leon Wagner LF
6 Earl Battey C
7 Joe Pepitone 1B
8 Zoilo Versalles SS
9 Ken McBride P

Reserves
Norm Siebern 1B
Bobby Richardson 2B
Brooks Robinson 3B
Elston Howard C
Don Leppert C
Mickey Mantle CF
Harmon Killebrew LF
Bob Allison OF
Tom Tresh OF
Carl Yastrzemski OF
Luis Aparicio SS
Steve Barber P
Jim Bouton P
Jim Bunning P
Mudcat Grant P
Bill Monbouquette P
Juan Pizarro P
Dick Radatz P

145. TJ Posted: June 19, 2021 at 12:16 PM (#6025158)

I guess I just don’t understand why Sean felt the need to lump apples and oranges together. Wer the Negro Leagues A major league? Yes, in the same regard that the ABA was a major basketball league. They had some great players, some established franchises, and enough longevity to qualify. We’re they THE major leagues? No. That would have been MLB, much as the NBA was in the 1970’s. I think a more detailed and accurate statistical record of the Negro Leagues would be great (just as I would love to see more accurate statistics from the Cuban leagues, Mexican leagues, Japanese leagues, etc). I firmly believe that recognizing the Negro Leagues (and the others I mentioned) as “major leagues” is the historically accurate thing to do. But none of them were the MLB. To lump the Negro League stats in with the MLB stats is combining apples and oranges.

146. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: June 19, 2021 at 12:17 PM (#6025159)

Fox, Aparicio, Maz and Cepeda were borderline. Musial and Snider were finished. Musial was a lifetime achievement choice and I assume Snider was the token Met. That leaves:

NL:
Aaron
Mays
Santo
Clemente
McCovey
Drysdale
Koufax.
Marichal
Spahn

AL:
Kaline
Yaz
Killebrew
Brooks
Mantle
Bunning

Look, I am no way taking issue with the notion that the NL was the stronger league at the time, due in large part to their early adoption of integration. I do, and will continue to take issue with your "tell half the story and drop the mic" style of presenting an argument.

147. Kiko Sakata

Posted: June 19, 2021 at 02:43 PM (#6025167)

We’re they THE major leagues? No. That would have been MLB, much as the NBA was in the 1970’s.

The analogy of the Negro Leagues to the ABA has one obvious problem. Players in the ABA were free to ply their trade in the NBA instead if they so desired. The same did not apply to Negro Leaguers. Honestly, I think the more correct thing to do with respect to the Negro Leagues vis-a-vis the pre-integration AL and NL is to recognize that both were sub-optimal leagues that require an asterisk when evaluating the statistics compiled there. The lesson of "who was the last .400 hitter" should be that the correct answer is "No player has ever hit .400 in an integrated MLB".

148. vortex of dissipation Posted: June 19, 2021 at 03:01 PM (#6025169)

I think a more detailed and accurate statistical record of the Negro Leagues would be great (just as I would love to see more accurate statistics from the Cuban leagues, Mexican leagues, Japanese leagues, etc).

Accurate stats are available for NPB since the beginning of play there.

149. TJ Posted: June 19, 2021 at 06:05 PM (#6025189)

We’re they THE major leagues? No. That would have been MLB, much as the NBA was in the 1970’s.

The analogy of the Negro Leagues to the ABA has one obvious problem. Players in the ABA were free to ply their trade in the NBA instead if they so desired. The same did not apply to Negro Leaguers. Honestly, I think the more correct thing to do with respect to the Negro Leagues vis-a-vis the pre-integration AL and NL is to recognize that both were sub-optimal leagues that require an asterisk when evaluating the statistics compiled there. The lesson of "who was the last .400 hitter" should be that the correct answer is "No player has ever hit .400 in an integrated MLB".

Kiki, you are obviously correct when comparing the Negro Leagues to the ABA in a sociological context. From a “Was it a major league?” point of view, I feel the analogy is sound. As far as the stat records are concerned, the records are for “MLB” performance. The Negro Leagues were not the MLB. Their records should stand alone and apart from MLB marks.

(Note I am not making a value judgment on the records of either league. The Negro League records are just as valid in their context as the MLB marks are in theirs.)

150. Howie Menckel Posted: June 20, 2021 at 12:04 AM (#6025297)

"No player has ever hit .400 in an integrated MLB".

..... and qualified for a batting title per MLB rules.

that's obvious, but not just Roger LaFrancois and John Paciorek hit over .400 in a season since 1947. there has to be a minimum number of plate appearances - except when there doesn't. hence this conundrum.

(Hurricane Hazle hit .403 for the Milwaukee Braves in 41 G and 155 PA in 1957.)

151. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 20, 2021 at 09:03 AM (#6025322)

Misirlou,

I apologize if sometimes I come off too strong, but I grew up during that period as an AL fan, and I could see first hand just how mediocre and lackluster the AL was once you got past the Yankees.

Everyone at the time knew it. Some yearbooks I had of NL teams promoted the concept with ads that said "The Stars Are In The National". SPORT magazine ran a story in the mid-50's, "Has The American League Gone Minor?" The dominance of the Yankees was constantly brought up as a way of highlighting the parsimony and / or incompetence of their rival AL organizations. The continuing racism of the Red Sox and the Tigers organizations, and to a lesser extent the Senators, was obviously holding them back. Whereas other than the Phillies, who were the NL's sole counterpart to the Red Sox, every NL franchise by the late 50's not only was integrated, but featured homegrown future African American inner circle Hall of Famers. The first such player the AL had (Reggie Jackson) didn't come along until 20 years after Jackie Robinson, and the contrast for an AL fan was painful to see.

152. TomH Posted: June 21, 2021 at 08:14 AM (#6025507)

Wade Boggs hit .400 in "one year"; problem was, it was June 198X to June 198(X+1)

153. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 21, 2021 at 08:46 AM (#6025511)

Sort of like a tennis "Grand Slam" that begins with Wimbledon and ends with the French Open.

Didn't Tony Gwinn also do that at one point in the 90's?

154. villageidiom Posted: June 21, 2021 at 09:10 AM (#6025512)

And, I mean, I get that you're really trying to shift around to whatever evidence supports an argument of don't let the libs win

If the "libs" are you, then, yes.

I'm not, but thanks for confirming.

155. sanny manguillen Posted: June 21, 2021 at 09:17 AM (#6025514)

The Maris asterisk depended on the additional 8 games being added at the end of the season. If they were instead inserted at the beginning, he hit 61 with a couple games to spare.

156. Mr. Hotfoot Jackson (gef, talking mongoose) Posted: June 21, 2021 at 09:37 AM (#6025519)

The Maris asterisk

Which never existed.

157. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 21, 2021 at 10:51 AM (#6025527)

The Maris asterisk

Which never existed.

Right, the only change was that TSN's One For the Book, which served as the unofficial repository of baseball records, began inserting a new line for season counting stats that differentiated between 154 game and 162 game seasons, a perfectly logical move that recognized Maris's record while acknowledging that he reached it in a longer season. If he'd reached 60 or 61 within 154 games, he would've been credited with both records.

158. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: June 21, 2021 at 06:00 PM (#6025616)

If he'd reached 60 or 61 within 154 games, he would've been credited with both records.

Are you sure about that? It took a lot of pushback for Randy Johnson's 20 K in 9 IP of a 10 inning game to be recognized as on par with Clemens and Wood.

159. JJ1986 Posted: June 21, 2021 at 07:06 PM (#6025634)

Why does every team record now list ties? Is that related to this? The Mets, for example, are listed 36-29-0.

160. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: June 21, 2021 at 08:37 PM (#6025648)

thanks for confirming.

That you're a racist idiot? Sure, pal. Anytime.

The Negro Leagues were not the MLB. Their records should stand alone and apart from MLB marks.

Not being the Major Leagues is hardly a disgrace. The NeL (and the minors, and the foreign leagues) had/have their own proud traditions, traditions that should be celebrated.

161. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 21, 2021 at 10:05 PM (#6025661)

If [Maris had] reached 60 or 61 within 154 games, he would've been credited with both records.

Are you sure about that? It took a lot of pushback for Randy Johnson's 20 K in 9 IP of a 10 inning game to be recognized as on par with Clemens and Wood.

That's an interesting and pretty good comparison, but in Maris's case, yes, I'm sure about it. There was an incredible buildup to Maris's last three "old schedule" games in Baltimore that ended with #59 and a warning track fly ball, but after that was over the breathless coverage stopped, and Maris even took a day off after hitting #60, though that left him with but three games to get #61. The press was pretty much of one opinion on the subject: Maris needed to get to #60 in 154 games** to match Ruth's record, even though that "asterisk" was only a metaphor, and not a literal designation in the record book.

** Actually 155 games, as #155 was a makeup of a rain-shortened April tie game in Baltimore. So Maris was ironically given a "bonus" game that nobody complained about----but then Ruth had a similar "bonus" game in 1927.

162. sunday silence (again) Posted: June 21, 2021 at 10:32 PM (#6025666)

Are you sure about that? It took a lot of pushback for Randy Johnson's 20 K in 9 IP of a 10 inning game to be recognized as on par with Clemens and Wood.

Similar to what Andy said. It seems accepted wisdom at the time, that it would be recognized if he got there in 154 games. In fact, didnt the Commissioner issue some statement that said if Maris gets to it in 154 games, its the record but if he doesnt it wont be? Or something like that? Growing up a few years after all this, that seemed to be the accepted wisdom.

163. TJ Posted: June 22, 2021 at 08:21 AM (#6025683)

The Negro Leagues were not the MLB. Their records should stand alone and apart from MLB marks.

Not being the Major Leagues is hardly a disgrace. The NeL (and the minors, and the foreign leagues) had/have their own proud traditions, traditions that should be celebrated.

Agreed and exactly my point. The NeL was a major league and should be considered as such. It just was not the MLB.

164. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 22, 2021 at 09:33 AM (#6025689)

Here's what Ford Frick said in a press conference on July 17, 1961, at a point when Maris had hit 35 home runs:

"Any player who may hit more than 60 home runs during his club's first 154 games would be recognized as having established a new record. However, if the player does not hit more than 60 until after his club has played 154 games, there would have to be some distinctive mark in the record books to show that Babe Ruth's record was set under a 154-game schedule ..."

In the wake of Barry Bonds' 73rd home run in 2001, Allen Barra had a column called "The Myth of Maris' Asterisk", in which he wrote this:

[W]hat escaped most of the baseball writers present at Frick's press conference, was that Major League baseball has no "official" record book and didn't have until Total Baseball got the job a few years ago. So, in essence, Frick was telling publishers over whom he had absolutely no authority whatsoever that they change their books to suit him.

It's possible that little or nothing would have come out of the press conference if not for the crusty and acerbic sports columnist Dick Young, then writing for the New York Daily News. According to a Maris biographer, Maury Allen, who was present at the meeting, Young said out loud, "Maybe you should use an asterisk on the new record. Everybody does that when there's a difference of opinion." Of course, there was no "difference of opinion"; the issue didn't exist until Ford created it, and it wouldn't have lasted unless Young had kept it alive. Indeed, there are those in the journalistic community who suspect that Frick and Young set up the scene together. But publishers never really took the hint. When the 1962 record books appeared, there was no asterisk and no distinctive mark of any kind. Some, such as the the Sporting News' record book,** simply listed Ruth's record and Maris' record on separate pages. It could be said that this was in itself a form of anti-Maris discrimination, but in any event after a few years all record books came around to giving Maris sole credit for the single-season record. Today there is no more question that Roger Maris held the record for home runs in one season from 1961 through 1998 (when Mark McGwire set the new record) than there is that Hank Aaron surpassed Ruth's career record for home runs.

** Then called One For The Book

165. sanny manguillen Posted: June 22, 2021 at 10:19 AM (#6025693)

Major League baseball has no "official" record book and didn't have until Total Baseball got the job a few years ago.

The Baseball Encyclopedia had the stamp of approval, didn't it? And wasn't there some coordination with MLB about scoring decisions, which leagues would be included, and such?

166. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 22, 2021 at 10:50 AM (#6025696)

The Baseball Encyclopedia had the stamp of approval, didn't it?

I just looked at my first edition of the Macmillan Encyclopedia, which came out in 1969, and you're right: It calls itself Complete and Official. But before that there wasn't any Official record book, although in practice The Sporting News' One For The Book served the same purpose, and TSN's annual Baseball Guides did get the "Official" imprimatur from MLB.

I have no idea how Barra could have overlooked the Macmillan, but that wouldn't have affected Maris in 1961.

167. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: June 22, 2021 at 11:55 AM (#6025700)

Checking on deGrom's amazing season so far, I went and looked to see what the lowest single-season whip is now. Hilton Smith, 1944, 6 games, 22.2 ip, 0.618 whip. That's just silly.
The KC Monarchs show as playing 68 games that year (30-38). How does 22.2 ip qualify for any single season records? deGrom has pitched 72 innings in 75 games and he is not even listed among the league leaders.

168. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 22, 2021 at 01:20 PM (#6025711)

When BB-Ref says it's "rewriting the record book" they're not kidding:
I couldn't figure out who this slugger "Charlie" Smith was, turns out they're simply pretending "Chino" Smith never happened.
(likewise with "Billy" Hoy and "Jay" Clarke in the white major leagues)

169. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2021 at 01:28 PM (#6025714)

I received a copy of that 1969 Macmillan Encyclopedia as a wee lad - and the joy it produced defies description.

170. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 22, 2021 at 01:48 PM (#6025719)

For a long time the original 1969 edition was considered the one to get, because it was the only edition to include batting stats for all pitchers, not just a selected few "good hitting pitchers".

---------------

When BB-Ref says it's "rewriting the record book" they're not kidding:
I couldn't figure out who this slugger "Charlie" Smith was, turns out they're simply pretending "Chino" Smith never happened.
(likewise with "Billy" Hoy and "Jay" Clarke in the white major leagues)

BB-Reference's go-to names are all over the lot. Besides Trotskying the likes of Dummy Hoy, Chief Bender / Chief Meyers And Three Finger Brown,** they have Goose Goslin, but Rich Gossage, and "Pete" Alexander instead of Grover Cleveland Alexander. Very little rhyme or reason once you get past erasing the obvious ethnic or disability-related names.

** But at least they've let Oil Can Boyd and Catfish Hunter alone.

171. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: June 22, 2021 at 02:49 PM (#6025729)

BB-Reference's go-to names are all over the lot. Besides Trotskying the likes of Dummy Hoy, Chief Bender / Chief Meyers And Three Finger Brown,** they have Goose Goslin, but Rich Gossage, and "Pete" Alexander instead of Grover Cleveland Alexander. Very little rhyme or reason once you get past erasing the obvious ethnic or disability-related names.

Actually no one's gotten Trotskied or close to it. In fact, if you type in Dummy Hoy or Chief Bender to the search bar on BBRef you get taken to that player's page where it fairly clearly explains who the player was.

As for the rest of it, I imagine that's not a simple thing. If I were putting those names up I think Goslin and Alexander would be listed as they are and Gossage, well I can go either way on that one.

172. Tom Nawrocki Posted: June 22, 2021 at 03:03 PM (#6025733)

Real baseball fans always called him Rich Gossage, until Yankee fans started calling him Goose. Also, check out this signature.

173. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2021 at 03:35 PM (#6025741)

none of Gossage's Topps baseball cards as an active player ever called him Goose (though there was a Donruss card and a Fleer that did).

174. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 22, 2021 at 05:20 PM (#6025764)

The ability to view leagues individually would not be "backtracking" and certainly wouldn't get him "cancelled." It looks like this is already a feature, just in the paid Stathead utility.

If one were a bit cynical, it might be suggested that driving traffic to the revenue-producing part of the site might be part of the motivation for the change. Given the difference in schedules, there are certainly times when one would want to look at just the players who played against each other, without paying extra for the privilege. Whatever happened to “The Internet should be FREE”?

175. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: June 22, 2021 at 05:23 PM (#6025766)

Real baseball fans always called him Rich Gossage, until Yankee fans started calling him Goose.

I take it that IYHO Yankee fans aren't real fans. (smile) But I'll let Goose reply to that. And here's his signed HoF plaque. Note both the cap and the signature.

176. Rally Posted: June 22, 2021 at 05:50 PM (#6025775)

I have my childhood baseball glove hanging right near me. It’s a Gossage model, and is signed “ Goose Gossage”

177. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 22, 2021 at 11:00 PM (#6025860)

The KC Monarchs show as playing 68 games that year (30-38). How does 22.2 ip qualify for any single season records?

They show the Monarchs as playing 68 games but it looks like they only have individual player stats for 29 of them (the combined pitcher records are 19-10). I’m still not sure how 22.2 innings qualifies him, even with only 29 team games, but I have found this to be the answer to a lot of my other questions along these lines.

178. Rally Posted: June 23, 2021 at 11:13 AM (#6025915)

They show the Monarchs as playing 68 games but it looks like they only have individual player stats for 29 of them (the combined pitcher records are 19-10). I’m still not sure how 22.2 innings qualifies him, even with only 29 team games, but I have found this to be the answer to a lot of my other questions along these lines.

A similar question is how they have player records for more games than the team record. For example, Oscar Charleston's 1921 St Louis Giants. Their record is 43-31-1, so 75 games. But Charleston is shown playing 77, and his teammate Charlie Blackwell played 79. If these are based on game logs, how can we have Oscar's stats for a game but we don't even know if they won, lost, or tied? Actually, the manager's record is shown for 80 games, 47-32-1, and he's the only manager listed, so not sure why the team's record isn't the same as his.

179. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 23, 2021 at 12:04 PM (#6025927)

Rally, the Negro League team pages on BB-Ref have the following language:

Negro League team records include only league games. Player stats include league games, interleague games (against major Negro League competition), and games against select top-level independent Black Baseball teams. Player stats do not include the extensive amount of exhibitions and barnstorming games Negro League teams often played. Negro League data is not complete. Research is still ongoing and we’ll continue to publish updates as more information becomes available.

So I assume those extra games by Charleston and Blackwell are "interleague games (against major Negro League competition), and games against select top-level independent Black Baseball teams".

180. Rally Posted: June 23, 2021 at 02:48 PM (#6025959)

Thanks

181. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: June 23, 2021 at 02:58 PM (#6025961)

Research is still ongoing and we’ll continue to publish updates as more information becomes available.

I think this is really the issue. It just seems premature to be listing guys on the all-time season leaderboards when we do not have anywhere close to their full season stats yet. Even then, the seasons are really short, but, I guess if b-ref is going to count last year's silly little season in those lists, Negro League seasons should be there as well.

182. HGM Posted: June 23, 2021 at 04:31 PM (#6025986)

They show the Monarchs as playing 68 games but it looks like they only have individual player stats for 29 of them (the combined pitcher records are 19-10). I’m still not sure how 22.2 innings qualifies him, even with only 29 team games, but I have found this to be the answer to a lot of my other questions along these lines.

They confirmed to me on both Twitter and Reddit that qualification is based on the number of "team games" that they "have logs for" - so while they may have the full season record, they don't have logs for that many games, and the leaderboard qualification is based on the latter figure. I haven't figured out how this explains cased like this one though - the qualification should be based off 29 games, but 22.2 innings is ~7 shy of that figure anyway.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Baseball Reference Adds Negro Leagues Statistics, Rewriting Its Record Book

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics