MLB changes record books..adds in Negro League stats

[SilverRocket]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

What about NBa stats in the 80s?

I'm not a basketball expert, is this about international players? I'm not aware of great players being artificially disallowed from the NBA in the 80s.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, SilverRocket said:

I'm not a basketball expert, is this about international players? I'm not aware of great players being artificially disallowed from the NBA in the 80s.

Yea it is..and it’s not that they weren’t allowed, just that it didn’t happen. In other words, they were always competing against the best.

Hell, the infusion of intl talent didn’t really happen until well after the original Dream Team.

The rules have also changed, game called differently, etc…does that mean things need an asterisk?

I guess my point is simple…no asterisk should ever be given. You play within the environment you play in at your given time. 
 

I don’t disagree with the point that your are perhaps making, that it allows for “water cooler” talk about who is truly the GOAT or something like that but if that’s how we are going to do it, you basically can always discount the past.

[SilverRocket]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

I guess my point is simple…no asterisk should ever be given. You play within the environment you play in at your given time. 
 

I don’t disagree with the point that your are perhaps making, that it allows for “water cooler” talk about who is truly the GOAT or something like that but if that’s how we are going to do it, you basically can always discount the past.

An asterisk to me doesn't mean the stats are worth zero. But there's an obvious piece of context to the stats in the segregated era that make me see Babe Ruth's 714 as different from Frank Robinson's or Jim Thome's count.

I think there's a real chance Josh Gibson was a better player than Babe Ruth... I'm just speculating but that's my guess. Gibson played within the environment that he could at his given time. I'm not going to treat his 1.474 OPS over 39 games like Barry Bonds' 1.472 over 147 games for multiple obvious reasons, but I think his stats should be part of the mix of flawed, old stats.

[Sports Guy]

Reading some stuff about this but it appears that we don’t know how officials scorers scored plays or if they even existed. We don’t know if the papers reported it correctly.

There is just so much unknown here.  Just can’t see doing it.

[Sports Guy]

Perfect example with the issue of this:

The #1 single season BA now belongs to Tetelo Vargas.,who had 136 PA. He hit 471 and we have no idea even how legit that was.

Lyman Bostock now had the 3rd highest single season BA…and he did it in 84 PA.

How is that legit?

Edited May 29 by Sports Guy

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

49 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Perfect example with the issue of this:

The #1 single season BA now belongs to Tetelo Vargas.,who had 136 PA. He hit 471 and we have no idea even how legit that was.

Lyman Bostock now had the 3rd highest single season BA…and he did it in 84 PA.

How is that legit?

If they want to add in Negro League stats fine, but the single season records needs to be based on 502 plate appearances or pro-rated that the player would still hold the record if you upped their plate appearances to 502.

This means for the player with 136 PA their next 366 PA's would be an 0 for 366.

Edited May 29 by OsFanSinceThe80s

[Chavez Ravine]

3 hours ago, SilverRocket said:

An asterisk to me doesn't mean the stats are worth zero. But there's an obvious piece of context to the stats in the segregated era that make me see Babe Ruth's 714 as different from Frank Robinson's or Jim Thome's count.

I think there's a real chance Josh Gibson was a better player than Babe Ruth... I'm just speculating but that's my guess. Gibson played within the environment that he could at his given time. I'm not going to treat his 1.474 OPS over 39 games like Barry Bonds' 1.472 over 147 games for multiple obvious reasons, but I think his stats should be part of the mix of flawed, old stats.

And that's why career and single season leader boards are always more points of discussion than awards. There are potential asterisks all over the place, and a wide range of opinions on how to treat them. Adding the Negro League stats doesn't seem any different to me. Plus its a way of acknowledging in a simple but profound way the great skill of those players (as well is the immense wrong that produced the giant asterisk). Much more so than sticking the stats in a museum.

[Sports Guy]

@DrungoHazewood what are your thoughts on this?

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

@DrungoHazewood what are your thoughts on this?

It's fine. I understand the sentiment. And if the official MLB records include some of the more wacky and primitive 19th century leagues (as they have forever) it would be hard to argue that the Negro Leagues weren't at least on that level. 

Career rate stats are okay here, Gibson had thousands of PAs. But a point that will be lost on many is that the official Negro League seasons were often very short. Like there are batting champs with 130 PAs in a season. Or ERA leaders with, I don't know, 50 innings. There's so much noise in those signals that you can't directly compare to 500+ PA seasons. It would be like recognizing Long Levi Meyerle as the all-time BA champ for his 1871 season where he hit .492 in 26 games.

But this does open up some other cans of worms. Like, if you're going to include both the 1884 Union Association (which was literally like A ball quality, even compared to primitive MLB of the time) and some of the more short-lived and chaotic Negro League seasons, then why not the Japanese Leagues? Or Mexico or Cuba or Korea? Many seasons from those leagues were just as competitive. I'd argue the NPB of the last 20 years is higher quality baseball than most MLB seasons prior to WWII.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's fine. I understand the sentiment. And if the official MLB records include some of the more wacky and primitive 19th century leagues (as they have forever) it would be hard to argue that the Negro Leagues weren't at least on that level. 

Career rate stats are okay here, Gibson had thousands of PAs. But a point that will be lost on many is that the official Negro League seasons were often very short. Like there are batting champs with 130 PAs in a season. Or ERA leaders with, I don't know, 50 innings. There's so much noise in those signals that you can't directly compare to 500+ PA seasons. It would be like recognizing Long Levi Meyerle as the all-time BA champ for his 1871 season where he hit .492 in 26 games.

But this does open up some other cans of worms. Like, if you're going to include both the 1884 Union Association (which was literally like A ball quality, even compared to primitive MLB of the time) and some of the more short-lived and chaotic Negro League seasons, then why not the Japanese Leagues? Or Mexico or Cuba or Korea? Many seasons from those leagues were just as competitive. I'd argue the NPB of the last 20 years is higher quality baseball than most MLB seasons prior to WWII.

What about the validity of the stats themselves?  Stuff I have read questions that. Where are you with that?

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

What about the validity of the stats themselves?  Stuff I have read questions that. Where are you with that?

I think there's been a ton of work done to get the best data they can. No, it's not quite on the level of the Majors of the same era, but I wouldn't let that bother me too much. It's not like official scoring decisions are going to change Oscar Charleston into a .725 OPS guy. 

And if we're going to invalidate Negro League stats for some incompleteness or inconsistently or scoring sketchiness, then the same argument applies to at least some degree to many leagues that have been called Major for a long time. And actually, the (officially non-MLB) National Association of 1871-75 has more complete stats that the NL of a few years later. 

In my mind the Negro Leagues are pretty comparable to the NL of the 1876-1899 period. Most of the arguments against them could be applied equally effectively to Cap Anson and Willie Keeler and Ed Delehanty's leagues.

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think there's been a ton of work done to get the best data they can. No, it's not quite on the level of the Majors of the same era, but I wouldn't let that bother me too much. It's not like official scoring decisions are going to change Oscar Charleston into a .725 OPS guy. 

And if we're going to invalidate Negro League stats for some incompleteness or inconsistently or scoring sketchiness, then the same argument applies to at least some degree to many leagues that have been called Major for a long time. And actually, the (officially non-MLB) National Association of 1871-75 has more complete stats that the NL of a few years later. 

In my mind the Negro Leagues are pretty comparable to the NL of the 1876-1899 period. Most of the arguments against them could be applied equally effectively to Cap Anson and Willie Keeler and Ed Delehanty's leagues.

Fair enough. Thanks for the input.

 

I think it’s fair to say that they should be included when you consider what Drungo is saying here.

I do think saying something with 136 at bats is now the all time single BA leader is wrong but using overall numbers probably makes sense.

Edited May 30 by Sports Guy

[Frobby]

15 hours ago, Chavez Ravine said:

And that's why career and single season leader boards are always more points of discussion than awards. There are potential asterisks all over the place, and a wide range of opinions on how to treat them. Adding the Negro League stats doesn't seem any different to me. Plus its a way of acknowledging in a simple but profound way the great skill of those players (as well is the immense wrong that produced the giant asterisk). Much more so than sticking the stats in a museum.

I used to treat the various statistical records with great reverence, but the steroids era blew a gaping hole in that.  So, I don’t really care if Ty Cobb or Josh Gibson had the highest “major league” BA.  They were both great players in the environment in which they played.  And I’m glad I don’t have to guess how Frank Robinson would have done if he’d been allowed to play in the AL/NL.   It’s a crying shame we have to wonder that about Josh Gibson and countless others.

It was interesting to me, when I researched how the offensive environment in the Negro National League II compared to the AL/NL at the time, to realize that in that period the AL scored about a half-run per game more than the NL.  So even if you’re comparing AL or NL lifers from that era, you have to remember that the conditions they played in were different. 
 

[jabba72]

A player with 2600 career PA's is now the all-time BA and slugging leader. It doesn't feel like something he should qualify for.  Gibson was voted in the HOF in 1972 with those 2600 career PA's. Gibson was without a doubt a great player for his time, but those aren't many PA's IMO.

[DrungoHazewood]

34 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I used to treat the various statistical records with great reverence, but the steroids era blew a gaping hole in that.  So, I don’t really care if Ty Cobb or Josh Gibson had the highest “major league” BA.  They were both great players in the environment in which they played.  And I’m glad I don’t have to guess how Frank Robinson would have done if he’d been allowed to play in the AL/NL.   It’s a crying shame we have to wonder that about Josh Gibson and countless others.

It was interesting to me, when I researched how the offensive environment in the Negro National League II compared to the AL/NL at the time, to realize that in that period the AL scored about a half-run per game more than the NL.  So even if you’re comparing AL or NL lifers from that era, you have to remember that the conditions they played in were different. 
 

Context is everything. Or at least more important than it's usually thought of. Before the consolidation of the league offices in the 1990s the AL/NL often did things differently, including the selection of baseballs and having separate umpiring crews. The 1930s were probably the biggest run context split between leagues in history, and if I recall correctly it was in response to the 1930 season when league batting averages eclipsed .300 and each league tweaked their baseball selection. The NL definitely went with a little deader ball.

When I first started getting into baseball and reading the McMillian Encyclopedia I was astonished how good players were from different eras compared to the 1980s. People would hit .400, or 30 triples or 257 hits in a single season! They were incredible. 511 wins! 40 or 50 or 60 by one pitcher in a single season?! It was only after much reading and thought that it became clear that these players weren't supermen, but just good players in a very different context. Similar thing with the Negro League stats. 1930s NNL games often saw almost six runs a game. Quite a few players have hit .450 or .470 in month, but it just so happened that Tetelo Vargas did it in a year where his NY Cuban Giants only played 33 games and he qualified for that bating title.