MLB changes record books..adds in Negro League stats

[elextrano8]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think we have all the stats from Cal Ripken's career.  I think we have all the stats from Ted Williams' career.  

If you're equating to someone finding an extra hit for Ty Cobb in the 80s, or someone getting a base hit instead of an error that's corrected later that evening after the game, or a rushing yard adjusted the next morning, that's not the same thing as what we're discussing.  

It is very much the same thing. The statistical record is never closed.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, elextrano8 said:

It is very much the same thing. The statistical record is never closed.

Okay, fine.

Explain to me how finding one extra hit for Ty Cobb in 1984 is the same as adding stats that are, admittedly, 80-85% complete other than just saying "the statistical record is never closed."

One is an centimeter, the other is a mile and you're saying they're equal.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I pretty much agree with this, though I'd add that, mathematically, it'd be pretty hard for the Negro Leagues to have the same talent level as MLB. In 1930, the USA was 88.7% white. For ease of use, we'll call everyone else "black" which gets us to 11.3%. This means MLB had nearly eight times as many people to draw talent from as the Negro Leagues. This doesn't mean that there weren't players in the Negro Leagues who would have/did have great MLB careers, there are many examples of players who did. But unless you believe blacks are eight times better at baseball than whites or eight times more likely to seriously pursue a career in baseball (I don't believe this, or the reverse. I imagine they are/were pretty much equal, or at least not nearly different by a factor of 8.), then the Negro leagues were likely a significantly lower level of competition than the MLB.

Not trying to deny that these men were done a great injustice by not being given the opportunity to play in MLB. Just saying most of their numbers wouldn't directly translate.

As for making up for past injustices, I imagine most, if not all the men who played in the Negro Leagues are dead or soon will be. The ability to make restitution to these men has largely passed. And I don't think it appreciably helps modern black youth like baseball more by adding the Negro League stats to MLB (though, I could be wrong about this.).

Years ago, my dad befriended Leon Day. The Babe Ruth Museum did a lot for Negro League awareness, at least locally, in the early 90s.

That was recognition they deserved. 
 

The Negro League museum is a must see from what I understand.

I would guess that these types of things would mean more to them than being in the record books but yea, I could be wrong about that.

Edited May 29 by Sports Guy

[ChosenOne21]

6 minutes ago, elextrano8 said:

It is very much the same thing. The statistical record is never closed.

If one kid has a pile of half-built LEGOs, and another kid has a fully built LEGO set, these are not the same thing. Even if the first kid sneaks a piece off the second kid's model. I guess at that point they're both technically "incomplete" models, but the situations are so different it's incredibly pedantic and not really useful to keep insisting both models are incomplete, even if it's technically true.

Edited May 29 by ChosenOne21

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Okay, fine.

Explain to me how finding one extra hit for Ty Cobb in 1984 is the same as adding stats that are, admittedly, 80-85% complete other than just saying "the statistical record is never closed."

One is an centimeter, the other is a mile and you're saying they're equal.

It’s just how they argue…they don’t want logic and reason..just narrative.

[Moose Milligan]

7 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I pretty much agree with this, though I'd add that, mathematically, it'd be pretty hard for the Negro Leagues to have the same talent level as MLB. In 1930, the USA was 88.7% white. For ease of use, we'll call everyone else "black" which gets us to 11.3%. This means MLB had nearly eight times as many people to draw talent from as the Negro Leagues. This doesn't mean that there weren't players in the Negro Leagues who would have/did have great MLB careers, there are many examples of players who did. But unless you believe blacks are eight times better at baseball than whites or eight times more likely to seriously pursue a career in baseball (I don't believe this, or the reverse. I imagine they are/were pretty much equal, or at least not nearly different by a factor of 8.), then the Negro leagues were likely a significantly lower level of competition than the MLB.

Not trying to deny that these men were done a great injustice by not being given the opportunity to play in MLB. Just saying most of their numbers wouldn't directly translate.

As for making up for past injustices, I imagine most, if not all the men who played in the Negro Leagues are dead or soon will be. The ability to make restitution to these men has largely passed. And I don't think it appreciably helps modern black youth like baseball more by adding the Negro League stats to MLB (though, I could be wrong about this.).

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree here.

Population density doesn't equal skill level or athleticism, although I can see why you'd make this case based on the numbers to draw from.  

[elextrano8]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Okay, fine.

Explain to me how finding one extra hit for Ty Cobb in 1984 is the same as adding stats that are, admittedly, 80-85% complete other than just saying "the statistical record is never closed."

One is an centimeter, the other is a mile and you're saying they're equal.

If the statistical record is never closed, what more do you need?

If we look at statistics as numerical records of historical events, they are always updated when we have more information. We never have ALL the information, but we include as much as we have to the best of our ability.

That is what this is an example of, including the information to the best of our ability.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree here.

Population density doesn't equal skill level or athleticism, although I can see why you'd make this case based on the numbers to draw from.  

But it does make it less likely you are playing the same level of competition and thus the divide is even further in terms of saying the stats should count the same.

Plus, what about things like official scorers?  Was it regulated? I don’t know but how generous or strict were they for stuff like that?

[ChosenOne21]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree here.

Population density doesn't equal skill level or athleticism, although I can see why you'd make this case based on the numbers to draw from.  

You're right that population density doesn't equal skill level or athleticism. But are you more likely to be able to field, say, an NBA basketball team out of a group of 1,000,000 randomly selected people or 100,000? And assuming you can do it from both groups, which team is likely to be better?

To believe the leagues were anywhere equal in talent level, you'd have to believe that blacks were many times better at baseball (on average) or many times more likely to try to make a career out of it. I see no evidence that this is the case.

And to be crystal clear, I'm not saying the best Negro Leagues player was eight times worse than the best MLB player. I'm talking about groups, not individuals. Heck, Willie Mays was better at baseball than the overwhelming majority of humans of every race.

[Moose Milligan]

3 minutes ago, elextrano8 said:

If the statistical record is never closed, what more do you need?

If we look at statistics as numerical records of historical events, they are always updated when we have more information. We never have ALL the information, but we include as much as we have to the best of our ability.

That is what this is an example of, including the information to the best of our ability.

Because adding one hit isn't the same as saying "we don't have 15-20% of the box scores we need."

Sure, that falls under the umbrella of "the statistical record is never closed" but if you're looking at everything from a 35,000 view, everything looks like an ant, too.

[SilverRocket]

I already had an asterisk next to any MLB stats before the Jackie Robinson era, and I'll have the same for this. There are already a lot of imperfect MLB stats from the old days for a variety of reasons. This is just adding to the list.

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, SilverRocket said:

I already had an asterisk next to any MLB stats before the Jackie Robinson era, and I'll have the same for this. There are already a lot of imperfect MLB stats from the old days for a variety of reasons. This is just adding to the list.

 

11 minutes ago, SilverRocket said:

I already had an asterisk next to any MLB stats before the Jackie Robinson era, and I'll have the same for this. There are already a lot of imperfect MLB stats from the old days for a variety of reasons. This is just adding to the list.

Do you do the same for all sports?

[SilverRocket]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Do you do the same for all sports?

I mean I don't put much stock in NBA stats from the 1940s if that's what you're asking. Stats always have to be looked at with context.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, SilverRocket said:

I mean I don't put much stock in NBA stats from the 1940s if that's what you're asking. Stats always have to be looked at with context.

What about NBa stats in the 80s?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, SilverRocket said:

I mean I don't put much stock in NBA stats from the 1940s if that's what you're asking. Stats always have to be looked at with context.

By the 40's you mean 1949 right?

George Mikan was still the man.