Negro League Stats debunked

[Imapotato]

From a reliable source...who read it on the Denver Post, it seems baseball historians are delving into finding all stats associated with the myths of the Negro Leagues.

And this will surely cause an eyebrow raise amongst most of you, especially Mr. Burgess

Josh Gibson, was found that he DID hit 4 HRs in a game, but his 'career' Hrs? Just 200 folks

Satchel Paige, Mr. Mystique...only 126 wins.

Also it is found that most of the white teams they faced in exhibitions were hastily thrown together, with players out of position, plus many AAA or lower talent playing with the 'stars' of MLB.

And, its good to be back, got a new cpu since my hard drive crapped out...and my first post back, will surely be controversial ;) but most of you will find the stats when they come out into the general public...

Which ALSO reminds me, baseball reference is doing a survey, one of the mentiuoned additions is Negro League and All American Ladies stats...please take the survey and vote that for highest priority!

[catcher24]

Originally posted by Imapotato
baseball reference is doing a survey, one of the mentiuoned additions is Negro League and All American Ladies stats...please take the survey and vote that for highest priority

Sorry, I already took the survey, and my highest priority was the inclusion of Win Shares, Runs Created and several other of the newer stats. IMHO, that information is most important because it shelps to further evaluate the players who performed in the major leagues. I think no matter how much research is done, the Negro League stats will always be questionable at best. As far as the AAGPBL, I really haven't seen much discussion of that on this or any other site. Just my personal preference. ;)

[RuthMayBond]

From a reliable source...who read it on the Denver Post, it seems baseball historians are delving into finding all stats associated with the myths of the Negro Leagues.

And this will surely cause an eyebrow raise amongst most of you, especially Mr. Burgess

Josh Gibson, was found that he DID hit 4 HRs in a game, but his 'career' Hrs? Just 200 folks

Satchel Paige, Mr. Mystique...only 126 wins.

Also it is found that most of the white teams they faced in exhibitions were hastily thrown togetherI don't suppose this source is reliable enough to be named? Satch might have only got 126 wins since they sometimes removed him before the fifth to have others pitch. And you're tellng me the white players agreed to be hastily thrown together and play out of position?

[cubbieinexile]

If somebody came up to you and was willing to give you some money to play baseball, wouldn't you say yes? It is an exhibition.

[RuthMayBond]

If somebody came up to you and was willing to give you some money to play baseball, wouldn't you say yes? It is an exhibition.ML team owners representatives come up to players (ok, their agents nowadays) and are willing to give them some money to play baseball. Are you saying that the MLs are exhibitions, what's your point?

[AG2004]

It's not much of a surprise with Gibson - his home run totals depend on which games you count.

If you count just Negro League games, then his HR totals are that low. However, there just weren't that many games in a season. Eighty would be on the high side, and, as I recall, there were more games during the 1920s than there were in the 1930s (depression) and 1940s (war). Also, for a few years, there was no league to play in, hence no HRs in league games. This is the context that produced about 200 home runs; put Mel Ott in such a context (much shorter seasons, and occasionally no seasons at all) and he would hit about 200 home runs as well.

[cubbieinexile]

You seemed doubtful to the veracity of the claim that white players would allow themselves to be put on exhibition teams hastily and man positions they normally would not. I am saying that it does not seem odd that that would happen. If you are a minor league ball-player or even a major leaguer playing in 1920's, 30's, or 40's you are not making a whole lot of money so why would they balk at playing in exhibitions for money?

[Bill Burgess]

Imapotato,

When you say that Josh Gibson hit only 200 HRs in his career, I wish you would explain yourself. Are you referring to only NL games and excluding all of his Mexican L. games, and his Cuban L. games? Why would one want to exclude L. games in other leagues?

Here is an exceprt from Biographical Encyclopedia of Negro Baseball Leagues.

"Gibson was credited with 962 HRs in his 17 yr. career, algthough many of these were against nonleague teams. Many of the individual season marks that are accredited to him also are against all levels of opposition."

So, nobody is even trying to hide anything. So to say that he hit only 200 HRs, and hope that that explodes like a bombshell in the court of public opinion, is to ignore that the Mexican, Cuban Leagues were organized, had scheduled league games, set rosters, etc. And why exclude the exhibitions against the white MLers? Those games were not like Harlem Globetrotter exhibitions. They were hard fought, and they counted "for the record", as the NLers also like to say about when they beat ML white guys.

We will hopefully see if your predictions come true in the way you describe.

Bill Burgess

[Imapotato]

No, only exhibitions against white teams were eliminated.

RMB, I said it came from the Denver Post, I am not subscribed, but his name on another board is baseballMan, and he is quite knowledgable, I'd stake my house on his claim that this is exactly what he read.

As for white exhibition teams, yes many would play out of position, many went to Mexico to play in the offseason...they needed money, something today's ballplayers don't have to worry about.

Plus, consider that even Babe Ruth got fined, suispended and chastised by Landis for playing barnstorming tours, then it was only 'favorable' players (notice I did not say the BEST) that could get away with these exhibitions, and face the wrath of their owners and the commisioner w/o many problems.

If you were a higher level guy, say like, Pie Traynor, but were only making 5K a year...would you take the risk that if you played these exhibitions, that you could cover the fines if caught?

Just because a handful of well paid Yankees could play these games, many were filled with PCL guys or lower level minor guys from the American Association.

Doesn't put much stock in saying Pop Llyod was great, because he hit .300+ against Ruth, Gehrig, Grove and a bunch of bums is it?

They were good players, but the myth surrounding them irritates me, and then we look at Jackie Robinson, and he is not placed as an all time top 15 guy...bypassed by guys that played in a inferior league, it confounds me.

[eephus75]

Can someone recomend good sources for NeL info? I admit I don't know as much as I should about them.

As for the AAGPBL, since it was originated by MLB, why not have it's stats on a reference site? They played 12 years, and have been recognized for their contributions in Cooperstown. :gt

[Bill Burgess]

eephus75,

I given these often but here we go again.

1. The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues, by James A. Riley, 1994, 2002

2. Voices From the Great Black Baseball Leagues, by John Holway, 1975.

Bill Burgess

[The Only Nolan]

They were good players, but the myth surrounding them irritates me, and then we look at Jackie Robinson, and he is not placed as an all time top 15 guy...
I doubt even many of Jackie's Negro League contemporaries would put him as an all-time top 15 guy. Buck O'Neil said there were at least several Negro Leaguers in the late-40's who were better than Jackie. So if Jackie 1)wasn't on the short list of best Negro Leaguers during his own time, and 2)had such a short, if brilliant, career as a Major Leaguer, that definitely leaves him vulnerable to being passed by at least a couple (and probably more) Negro Leaguers who were considered on the short-list of greatest players ever, not just by NL contemporaries but by Major Leaguers, too.

[cubbieinexile]

So who were the several negro leaguers playing in the late-40's that were better then Jackie? AS of right now most of the negro-leaguers who became major leaguers at or around that time were not better then Jackie in my mind. The truly better player came in the 50's. Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Ernie Banks. None of them I believe would have been in a position to be considered better then Jackie in the late-40's.

Is it possible that Buck O'Neil might have been saying that to prop up interest in the Negro leagues at the time. A bit of promotion I guess you could say. Don't really know do not know when Buck said it or in what context he said it. I sort of take most negro leaguers comments on Jackie with a grain of salt. Jackie played part of one season in the Negro Leagues then went up to Canada and then played for Brooklyn. He did this in age that did not have satellite, tv in every house, and games broadcasted to every market every day.

I'm not saying that Jackie was the best of the best but just that without knowing more about how much info and exposure quoted people truly have I find it hard to believe them without some doubts.

[Imapotato]

and NONE of those 'better' players would have been in the ML if not for Jackie.

Jackie not only had phenominial stats because he was intelligent and an overachiever, but he was a leader amongst men, white or black.

Willie Mays, if he (pretty much a racist) became the 1st black ballplayer, desegregation would have been set back a decade if not more...Mays wouldn't have been able to handle it.

[Edgartohof]

From a reliable source...who read it on the Denver Post, it seems baseball historians are delving into finding all stats associated with the myths of the Negro Leagues.

And this will surely cause an eyebrow raise amongst most of you, especially Mr. Burgess

Josh Gibson, was found that he DID hit 4 HRs in a game, but his 'career' Hrs? Just 200 folks

Satchel Paige, Mr. Mystique...only 126 wins.

Also it is found that most of the white teams they faced in exhibitions were hastily thrown together, with players out of position, plus many AAA or lower talent playing with the 'stars' of MLB.

And, its good to be back, got a new cpu since my hard drive crapped out...and my first post back, will surely be controversial ;) but most of you will find the stats when they come out into the general public...

Which ALSO reminds me, baseball reference is doing a survey, one of the mentiuoned additions is Negro League and All American Ladies stats...please take the survey and vote that for highest priority!

Not to say that there was any lying, or even any bias in this story, and in the searching, but just because one group of people say something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.

I would first off like to know where and how they came up with all of this information, and if I could, try to look at it myself.

I personally do not like what they say in this finding, because I personally rank Negro League players higher than most. But I also try to look at several sources to form an opinion. I listen to people who are more knowledgeable than me (and even to those who are less so :laugh ).

But just as OPS mistakinglysays Mark Mcgwire is almost as good as Ty Cobb and Jimmie Foxx, and better than Stan Musial, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, Having one source say something does not mean it is true.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Let me start by saying, "what a shame", that Gibson, Paige and other great and very good black players did not play in MLB simply because of skin color. The history of MLB would have been greatly enriched had some of them been given the opportunity.

With that said, as far as ever getting reliable accurate stats from black baseball, I doubt it will ever happen. I myself have never seen Josh Gibson credited with more than 200+ home runs. Hard to believe that he hit 962 home runs. Thats over a hundred more than Aaron and Ruth, by a man who passed away before the age of 37. Myself, I believe he probably hit a lot more than 200+ home runs but how will we ever know the actual count. Black baseball did at times play seasons of close to 170-180 games so Josh did have plenty of oppertunities.
Even black newspapers that covered some games at times never gave an actual box score with the number of at bats and hits...doubles..triples..etc.Many gave a text, a game recap. Also, not to diminish what some of the great black hitters did but in some games due to lean pitching rosters, position players were used as starting pitchers. You might have a second baseman or an outfielder used as a starting pitcher.

One thing we can be sure of, there were some blacks not as good as some white players, some as good and some better than some white players.As far as ever seeing stats that could be termed as reliable, I don't think so.

[Bill Burgess]

I don't know who Buck O'Neil had in mind when he said that the Negro L. had better players in the late 40's.

But I just looked over my index of Negro players and came up with these names. In 1947, when Jackie was in the process of breaking the color line, the following NL players were in the Negro Leagues, but were aging, so Branch Rickey might well have not wanted to use them as models.

Monte Irvin, OF was 28 in 1947. Now in Hall of Fame.
Pee Wee Butts, SS was 28 in 1947.
Leon Day, Pitcher, was 32 in 1947. Now in Hall of Fame.
Ray Dandridge, 3B, was 34 in 1947. Now in Hall of Fame.
Jumbo Kimbro, OF was 35 in 1947.
Pat Patterson, 3B, was 36 in 1947.

Josh Gibson died suddenly and unexpectedly on Jan. 20, 1947. He was only 36 yrs. old. I don't know if Buck O'Neil was thinking of Josh, but who knows what he was thinking.

Also, some posters, and I as well, have wondered how a lot of new information suddenly come along. Well, I don't know. But I can say that in my case, as a researcher, the sudden availability of newspapers on digital, is making it a whole lot easier to find stuff, and that includes boxscores.

The Baltimore Afro-American newspaper is now available via Paperofrecord, 1902-76, and they are adding to it all the time. Is it possible that a black researcher can sit in his home, and simply sift throught such a resourch and record all the Negro L. games that that paper carried? Of course he could. And in so doing, compile a great number of games, that were unavailable before.

Before, one would have had to go to Baltimore, sit in front of their micro-film reader, and spent months, getting what he can now get in mere hours.

Is it possible that Proquest, is also making it possible to do the same thing. Simply sit at home in front of ones compurter, and sift through the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, and cherry pick Negro L. games, all the way back to the 1880's. Why would that not be possible? We know that these major newspapers carried boxscores from around the country.

So, I'm not saying that black researchers would avail themselves of these newly available resources, but what if they have, like I have, discovered these? All I'm suggesting is that these newly available resources have changed the way research is now possible. I know it's totally revamped and re-invented the stuff I can find.

I myself use the Baltimore Afro-American to locate the death dates of Negro Leaguers, such as Santop Loftin. Got his death date that way.

So to those who wonder how can such ancient, arcane stuff suddenly be found, the digital world is upon us. And what if other black papers are up online, with their entire runs. Hmm. Makes a difference. Just a thought.

Bill Burgess

[trosmok]

I'm shocked, Imapotato, that you would think all the records from some games you never saw with your own eyes would be suspect, simply because you don't want to believe them. Gibson hit seventy five home runs in one season, and led the Negro Leagues in that category for ten straight years, and you can look it up! I'm more than a little annoyed at revisionists that claim the concentration camps had cholera outbreaks that killed millions, and that forced labor, starvation, and torture had nothing to do with the holocaust. Same with crackpots trying to rewrite the history of the Negro Leagues; eliminating any statistical evidence that runs contrary to their presumed conclusions.

If you want definitive records for the games and the competitors, the players banned from MLB by virtue of their skin color, visit the NLBPA museum in K.C., visit their website at:

www.nlbpa.com/index.html

for the finest research website currently available, check:

www.outoftheshadows.net

be sure to check out all the links, there are literally years of reading available if you look for it, rather than rely on some fool with some vendetta against people of color.

[RuthMayBond]

You seemed doubtful to the veracity of the claim that white players would allow themselves to be put on exhibition teams hastily and man positions they normally would not. I am saying that it does not seem odd that that would happen. If you are a major leaguer playing in 1920's, 30's, or 40's you are not making a whole lot of money so why would they balk at playing in exhibitions for money?To avoid looking bad?

[cubbieinexile]

If avoiding looking bad was that important why would ballplayers play on bad teams?

[RuthMayBond]

If avoiding looking bad was that important why would ballplayers play on bad teams?That doesn't necessarily make them look bad, like playing out of position and gettting beat by Negro Leaguers can. But to answer your question, I'm guessing they want a main paycheck. But why look bad additionally?

[Imapotato]

I'm shocked, Imapotato, that you would think all the records from some games you never saw with your own eyes would be suspect, simply because you don't want to believe them. Gibson hit seventy five home runs in one season, and led the Negro Leagues in that category for ten straight years, and you can look it up! I'm more than a little annoyed at revisionists that claim the concentration camps had cholera outbreaks that killed millions, and that forced labor, starvation, and torture had nothing to do with the holocaust. Same with crackpots trying to rewrite the history of the Negro Leagues; eliminating any statistical evidence that runs contrary to their presumed conclusions.

If you want definitive records for the games and the competitors, the players banned from MLB by virtue of their skin color, visit the NLBPA museum in K.C., visit their website at:

www.nlbpa.com/index.html

for the finest research website currently available, check:

www.outoftheshadows.net

be sure to check out all the links, there are literally years of reading available if you look for it, rather than rely on some fool with some vendetta against people of color.


And I am shocked many of you would believe such outrageous claims based mainly on contemporaries accounts, like I stated they are 75% done with this ardous task, and the findings WILL change your mind.

I have stated over and over again, that even IF Satchel Paige played in the 20's in MLB...his ERA would be high 3.00, his K totals would be atrocious...he'd be just like Stan Coveleski, Teddy Lyons...et al. One of the best pitchers of the 20's, but one who would be forgotten on all time lists just because his era make his stats look horrible.

Many of you NEVER place Stan Coveleski in ANY pitcher lists yet he is the ONLY 1920 pitcher in ERA+ behind arguably the greatest pitcher that ever lived...Lefty Grove.

How many of you say Stan Coveleski is one of the top 20 pitchers of all time? 0

Paige would be known now as a good pitcher, very charismatic, and he and Dizzy Dean would probably be arm and arm as good pitchers with above average success and likable personalities, but none of you would rate him in your top 30 P list if he played.

I always seem to think the Negro Leagues are akin to people who believe in past life, everyone is always Joan of Arc, El Cid, Atilla the Hun...no one is Joe Schmoe, horse droppings custodian. So every moderately succesful Negro League player is always "one of the best", "HOFer for SURE" instead of just an above average player

I have seen those sites Trosmok...what I HAVEN'T seen is boxscores...and that is what these gentlemen are in the process of digging up...w/o the inflated stats of barnstorming/exhibition matches.

You seem to think I am ignorant of the Negro Leagues, when in fact I am quite diverse, I just hold a different opinion based on those findings (in contrast to Edgartohof with his "less knowledgable comment"

One thing I would really like answered, is why you have never noticed the 'great' players were almost always on the same teams? Does that not slight their reputation...that they played against vastly inferior teams, much like the National Associations Boston Red Stockings?

The National Association, btw, is the closest reference point you can use for the Negro Leagues of the 20's, 30's

As for Josh Gibson, I think he would have been a HOFer, but not in the mold of Cochrane or Hartnett....but more along the lines of Bill Dickey which isn't bad...he wopuld have came in an offensive HR packed era, and his decline would have been in a war depleted league, he very well could have finished with 450 Hrs.

As for the 75 HR season, until I see the ballpark factors, dimensions (most were probably smaller than MLB) and boxscores...it will be a myth

Now be honest if I said Pud Galvin and Roger Connor were the most overrated players of all time, despite their stats, who would argue with me with such veracity?

No tell me why it's different... just because I say Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson? Seems people can't get skin color out of the discussion, whether for good or bad...

[cubbieinexile]

Its an exhibition. Players have been barnstorming for years, heck decades. It was a way of life back then. A way to scratch out a living. If a job pays and you don't have anything else lined up you are going to take the job.

Yeah maybe the rascist and bigots would not play against the Negro Leaguers, but I don't think these guys were the majority. Even if they were it still would leave hundreds if not thousands of professional ballplayers still available to play against them.

I really don't understand the stigma that you are trying to attach to a ballplayer playing out of position. I just don't see that being a major deal.

Promoter: "Hey Freddy Rightfielder, we don't have a centerfielder go play Center"

Freddy: "Heck no, I'm a Right Fielder, if I can't play right field I'm not playing"

That may happen I just don't see that happening at an industry wide level.

[Imapotato]

^^^

I think it was more along the lines of fear....to be fined because the owners complained to Landis that their "property" might get hurt in said exhibitions...much like Aaron Boone and his contract stating no pickup basketball.

Thing is, when you are making $15,000 a year...a $5,000 fine is really felt...that's why many above average/average players played under assumed names in Mexico, rather than barnstorm with highly paid Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Lefty Grove

[cubbieinexile]

I don't think anybody in the world would rate Stan Coveleski is in the top 20 pitchers because he isn't. The guy had a short career and though he had a peak it wasn't enough to offset the fact that he only played 11 full seasons. Pitcher from hitters eras have shown up on top 20 lists. Pitchers like Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Lefty Grove, Pedro Martinez, and Carl Hubbell. That list is not even including pitchers that pitched in the 70's or 80's which was not a pitchers era, nor was it a hitters environment either. Pitchers like Seaver, Palmer, and Carlton.

So Pitchers who did not pitch in pitchers era do get their recognition and people do take environment into account.

[julusnc]

It is beyond belief that baseball archivist have been off track by so much for so long when tabulating Negro League stats.

I truly believe that the Negro League players that are enshrined in Cooperstown actually all belong there.

[RuthMayBond]

I have stated over and over again, that even IF Satchel Paige played in the 20's in MLB...his ERA would be high 3.00, his K totals would be atrocious...because when he was a million years old, he was still getting guys out?

[cubbieinexile]

^^^

I think it was more along the lines of fear....to be fined because the owners complained to Landis that their "property" might get hurt in said exhibitions...much like Aaron Boone and his contract stating no pickup basketball.

Thing is, when you are making $15,000 a year...a $5,000 fine is really felt...that's why many above average/average players played under assumed names in Mexico, rather than barnstorm with highly paid Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Lefty Grove


They played under assumed names because the Mexico Leagues were outlawed, if you played for them you were banned for life from the majors.

In the early 20's Landis cracked down on barnstorming because he was trying to clean up baseball and make it an "institution" again. Once the public bought into the PR that baseball was "saved" Landis loosened the reigns. Example being that he went light on Speaker, Cobb, and Wood and that he allowed players to play exhibitions and go on tours in the 30's.

[RuthMayBond]

I always seem to think the Negro Leagues are akin to people who believe in past life, everyone is always Joan of Arc, El Cid, Atilla the Hun...no one is Joe Schmoe, horse droppings custodian. So every moderately succesful Negro League player is always "one of the best", "HOFer for SURE" instead of just an above average player .And you have the gall to call Willie Mays a racist? Try this
"The Negro Leagues also produced five of [on many lists] the top 100 in seven years in their death spasms-Jackie Robinson and Roy Campanella (1946), Willie Mays (1949), Hank Aaron (1952), and Ernie Banks (1953). If those leagues could produce five players like that in seven years, what about the previous forty?"

[trosmok]

Think you are really missing the point, potato. The more statistical analysis that is completed using race blind information will prove, particularly to all the non-believers, that the level of competition between the Major and Negro Leagues is closer than ever suspected. The reason race comes up when looking at pre-Jackie days, is the simple fact that the wholesale banning of players based on the color of their skin is downright criminal, and worse than that, by jove, it is wrong. How can you not be mindful of the differences when they are as clear as the nose on your face? To artfully contradict what you seem to hope to find, namely that the records of Negro Leaguers are all overly inflated, check out this little gem from the guru:

www.baseballguru.com/jholway/analysisjholway43.html

[cubbieinexile]

Nice article Trosmok but I think writer fails to grasp that while both sets of players averages would probably go down it would be the Negro Leaguers marks that would go down the most. The Negro Leaguers would have to play a longer schedule and against on the average better pitching then they would in the Negro Leagues. Of the ten times he listed Negro Leaguers batted above .400 I would say at best it would only have happened twice if the leagues were integrated.

[J W]

It's all a matter of speculation, of course. But I've taken a look at Gibson and Paige in particular, and I believe that a) Gibson would've gotten his 450 HRs or more, and b) Paige would've reached 300 wins, in the majors.

There is a big variable for each; first, Gibson may not have had the mentality to shine in a racist MLB year-in, year-out, as he may have been severely mentally scarred... second, Paige may have landed on a terrible team, making wins less accessible.

Then, on top of the speculation, it comes down to a matter of opinion where those extrapolated stats would fit in MLB history. I don't think it's that big a deal, actually... the most important thing is that these people are recognized in the HOF as having been there, and great at what they did.

My line of reasoning is with RMB: when baseball became integrated, the best players in the game included blacks very quickly. Therefore I have no doubt the greatest NLers of yester-year would be great MLBers, given a fair environment to play in.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Gibson hit seventy five home runs in one season, and led the Negro Leagues in that category for ten straight years, and you can look it up!
.

As of this time you will not find all the box scores for that season, complete with every at bat and every home run that Josh Gibson hit in that supposed 75 home run season. If you have it, if it can be displayed ( every box score) show us or let us know where we can view it.

I for one realize the greatness of this man and I am sure he would more than hold his own in MLB if given his chance. Lets not be ruled by emotion or pity and substitute our feelings in place of actual statistics.

At this time, no where will you find any reliable stats that credit Gibson with near 900+ home runs. No one should attempt to diminish Josh or any of the great black players who were denied their chance but the simple fact is that we have at this time not enough stats to judge them with accuracy. That there were great black players, we know that, how great we don't know.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

? To artfully contradict what you seem to hope to find, namely that the records of Negro Leaguers are all overly inflated, check out this little gem from the guru:
]
Gem, what gem. Again can you or anyone show us the daily box scores, the total hits. Where are they?

[ElHalo]

At this time, no where will you find any reliable stats that credit Gibson with near 900+ home runs. No one should attempt to diminish Josh or any of the great black players who were denied their chance but the simple fact is that we have at this time not enough stats to judge them with accuracy. That there were great black players, we know that, how great we don't know.

No, you won't find reliable daily stats that credit Gibson with 900+ HR.

But, as to the original point of this thread, saying that a statistical history research has been done, and that shows that Gibson hit only 250ish... that's obviously short sighted. Just as you say here, stats weren't kept for all games of all seasons when Negro Leaguers played. So just because some researchers pored through every available daily box score and came up with a certain number doesn't mean that the actual number isn't far, far more. There's lots of games that don't show up in box scores.

[westsidegrounds]

It's all a matter of speculation, of course. But I've taken a look at Gibson and Paige in particular, and I believe that a) Gibson would've gotten his 450 HRs or more, and b) Paige would've reached 300 wins, in the majors.

There is a big variable for each; first, Gibson may not have had the mentality to shine in a racist MLB year-in, year-out, as he may have been severely mentally scarred... second, Paige may have landed on a terrible team, making wins less accessible.



Not unreasonable totals, maybe high-ish, maybe not. But, if Gibson & Paige are in MLB, then MLB's desgregated, no? So it's not a "racist MLB" anymore - no more so than everyday life back then, anyhow. And maybe Paige would've transcended a bad team, as Walter Johnson & Grover Alexander did.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

While there were some great hitters in black baseball I find batting averages of .563-.498-484, hard to swallow, not against competent pitching. Add to that no one has yet to display daily box scores that even verify those batting averages.

Black star Buck O'Neil himself stated while black hitters compared to white MLB hitters, black pitching, day to day was not on the same level as white MLB. Teams would "borrow" pitchers from another team. On any given day a second baseman or outfielder could be used as a starting pitcher, lean pitching staffs in black baseball.


Here are just a small number of stats, blacks playing in Negro leagues compared to how they performed in MLB.

This first stat may be skewed because of the far greater number of at bats in MLB. These totals are for the same 19 hitters in the Negro Leagues and MLB.

-------------------At bats--------Home run average-------Batting average
Negro Leagues-----7,592---------------13-------------------.332
MLB--------------51,492---------------18-------------------.281

Two of the hitters that had a comparable number of at bats in black and MLB.

Sam Jethroe Black ball-----AB. 1331-----HRs 20-----BA. .340
Sam Jethroe MLB----------AB. 1763-----HRs 49-----Ba. .261


Bob Boyd Black ball-------AB. 1129------HRs 11----BA. .362
Bob Boyd MLB------------AB. 1936------HRs 19----BA. .293

Again, only a small sample and other factors, difference in age while in the Negro leagues and MLB. These stats do not tell the whole story. I welcome others opinions that may find some faults with the above. Looking for answers myself.

In some other stats most of the black hitters had a higher batting average in the Negro leagues than they did in minor league baseball.

My point, not saying that the the lower level of day to day pitching in the Negro leagues " made" some black hitters great but the fact is they hit for lower averages in MLB and many hit for lower averages in the minor leagues.

[RuthMayBond]

Let's take a look at MVPs. MLB wasn't really integrated in 1951, but what percentage of blacks got MVPs from 1951 to the early 60s, compared to how many were allowed to play?

[RuthMayBond]

From a reliable source...who read it on the Denver Post, it seems baseball historians are delving into finding all stats associated with the myths of the Negro Leagues.

And this will surely cause an eyebrow raise amongst most of you, especially Mr. Burgess

Josh Gibson, was found that he DID hit 4 HRs in a game, but his 'career' Hrs? Just 200 folks

Satchel Paige, Mr. Mystique...only 126 wins.I had no idea Al Campanis wrote for the Denver Post :laugh

[ElHalo]

Obviously, that's true. Nobody's saying that Josh Gibson would have hit over .400 with 50+ HR every year in MLB, just because he did it in the Negro Leagues. I think something along the order of 35 HR, .340 would be more accurate. Still making him one of the best players of all time.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Let's take a look at MVPs. MLB wasn't really integrated in 1951, but what percentage of blacks got MVPs from 1951 to the early 60s, compared to how many were allowed to play?

Not sure what the point being made here. For sure most would agree blacks, in particular those not given their chance were the equal of some white players.

I just don't agree with those numbers thrown out by others, numbers that can't be verified. How can anyone come up with an accurate account, a season batting average or cumulative stats when dozens of box scores were never recorded, never in print even in many black newspapers.

I get the impression that some, not you think that those who disagree with them are not willing to give the great black players their due. Not so, only saying that their is no accurate account that we can judge them by.

Gibson for one. On my last trip to the library I saw these numbers in different books for Gibson's lifetime batting average, .358, 372, .384, his career home runs, 844, 892 and 962. That tells us something right there, which one is the correct number. Then I scanned some books that showed Gibson's career home run totals in a column, year by year and they were in the neighborhood of 200+. As I stated earlier, I'm sure he hit many more than tha 200+, how many we don't know. I've also seen articles that claim home some of his totals were from exhibition games.

I don't see the problem here, whats is wrong with the belief that totals from black baseball are not accurate, seems to rub some the wrong way. That belief does nothing to take away the fact that some of the best ball players years ago were black and would have been great in MLB if given their chance.

[mac195]

Here's what we know about Gibson. He was regarded as the greatest power hitter in Negro league history. He was the greatest black power hitter prior to 1947. What are the chances that the 1950s produced several black players who were better than Gibson. I would say slim to none. We may not have the stats to prove it, but logically we can assume that Gibson was in the same neighborhood with Aaron and Mays.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Here's what we know about Gibson. He was regarded as the greatest power hitter in Negro league history. He was the greatest black power hitter prior to 1947. What are the chances that the 1950s produced several black players who were better than Gibson. I would say slim to none. We may not have the stats to prove it, but logically we can assume that Gibson was in the same neighborhood with Aaron and Mays.

How do we know what Hank might have done if he were in black baseball hitting against black pitchers who were not on the same level as those who Hank faced in MLB. If Hank could put up the numbers he did against MLB pitchers would it be far fetched to assume he would have done much better against the lean pitchung staffs in the Negro leagues.

Don't jump the gun here. I am not here to say that white pitchers were superior to black pitchers in the negro leagues but there was no money in black baseball way back then. No incentive, not much of a talent pool to draw from to fill pitching rosters with a good number of quality pitchers.

Look at the majority of blacks entering baseball in the 1950s-1960s very small percentage were pitchers, mostly offensive players, hitters.

It's a sad tale, unfortunate but we can't just say what Gibson would have done in MLB. That he would have been great, I agree but lets not toss around numbers, projections. He never played MLB, it never happened, impossible to say he would have hit so many home runs or would have batted .340 or .350. It never took place, impossible to know.

BTW, still waiting for anyone to post that 962 home run total and prove it with a reliable source, box scores, year by year totals. I'm not cold, not insensitive to the injustice to the black players of long ago, just stating facts.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=william_burgess@usa.net]Baseball Analysis John Holway / Negro Leagues

HATS OFF TO BILL JAMES' NEGRO LEAGUES 100-BEST LIST

By John B Holway

.

I feel confident that if Josh had played in the white majors, both he and his rival, Mule Suttles (#43 on James' list) would have demolished Babe Ruth's 60-homer mark within a decade after Babe set it. If Roger Maris could do, why couldn't they? And don't forget: Josh played in Pittsburgh and Washington, where the leftfield foul lines were 350 and 408 feet respectively, compared to 257 feet and 296 for Babe's targets in New York. Put Josh in Fenway, Ebbetts, or the Polo Grounds, and how many would he have hit? Lifetime, Josh hit 42 homers per 550 at bats, the average for white big league kings. Babe averaged 48, Hank Aaron 30.
One might even argue that if Babe had faced the best black pitchers of his day, such as Satchel Paige, Bullet Joe Rogan (q.v.), Bill Foster et al, he would have hit a lot less than 60 homers. And if Suttles had been in the American League, Ruth might not even have been the league home run leader. In Cuba Mule hit one bomb a measured 598 feet.


Where does Gibson rate on the all-time list? Let's put it this way: Willie Mays (#4) averaged 33 homers per 550 and batted .302, about 50 points lower than Josh.

You might want Willie on defense, but he isn't in Josh's league at the bat.

Bill Burgess> Quote

Pardon the partial deletion Bill......but I have to zero in on what remains.

I really don't see how you can project or suppose that Gibson or Stearns would have demolished or even matched Ruth's 60, possible but your words seem to convey that it was quite probable. Again I stress the point that negro league pitching was not on the level as MLB, not just my thoughts but also black star Buck O'Neil. Just because an average hitter like Maris passed Ruth you can't just assume that better negro league stars would have hit 60+. For that matter there were a good number of black hitters, sluggers in MLB that never hit 60, Mays, Aaron, McCovey and more, not until the 1990s with the lower strike zone and livelier ball was it accomplished a number of times.

We've been down this road before with the short RF lines at the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium. I posted some numbers more than one time, on this board and some other boards in regards to Ruth at the Polo grounds in 1921. Ruth hit 59 at the Polo Grounds in 1921 27 on the road and 32 at the Polo Grounds. I gathered my information from the most accurate source, the N.Y.Times archives. When it's said Ruth hit 32 at the Polo Grounds it's assumed that he feasted on that RF line. The real story is told at the Times archives, I checked every one of those 32 HRs hit at the Polo Grounds. Only 4 were hit into the lower RF stands and the Times describes two of them as deep. The other 28 were a combination, two into dead center, four over the roof in right and right center, two into the upper deck in LF and all the rest into right center field where the Polo Grounds gets very deep, very fast away from that line.

Yankee Stadium, sure Ruth poked some down the line, but does that mean they just made the first few rows of seats. What about the rest of the park on the right side away from thar 296......deep right center 429... dead center 487 and just to the left of dead center 493. I think we could assume that Ruth had to lose a number in that vast space. Yankee Stadium over all was not a home run paradise, there is more to it than that RF line. Ruth hit as many on the road as he did in N.Y.

I think the fact that Ruth hit monster tape measure jobs in all parks shows he did not hit many "cheapies." He also hit one over the roof at Comiskey and a tired old Babe Ruth in 1935 was the first to hit one over the roof at Forbes Field, his last number 714.

I trust you put the numbers 42 home runs in every 550 at bats for Gibson in good faith but I have yet to see any record that shows Gibson's at bats and home runs over a whole career. Not fair to Mays who batted against MLB pitching and compare his batting average to Gibson's. Besides that I have seen at least 4 different figures for Gibson's career average. The bottom line, though no fault of his own Gibson faced pitching that most agree, day to day was not on the level of MLB.

I close again with that same line, simple logic, no way to know how Josh would have done in MLB, it never took place, how do we know.

[cubbieinexile]

Ichiro's line in Japan was .353/.421/.522. In America even after his year last year his line is .339/.384/443. His batting average is still there but he has almost no power. Basically all he is right now is a singles hitter. He doesn't walk and he doesn't get extra base hits. Before coming to America Ichiro hit a homer once out of every 31 at bats. Since coming over he hits a homer once out of every 74 at bats.

Japanese Stadiums have historically smaller then stadiums in America. If Oh had come over in the 60's he would have had to play at the height of the pitchers era in parks that were not favorable to home run hitting.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Taking nothing away from Sadaharu Oh, lots of home runs, in any league. but he is not on par with Ruth or Aaron, smaller parks. Lets not just compare Oh's home park 288 to Ruth's 296, all games are not played at home. MLB parks on average, bigger than those in Japanese baseball.

Just a few former MLB hitters, some who could not keep a job in MLB and how they did in Japan.

Randy Bass led league in home runs 1985-1986.
Rich lancelloti led league in home runs 1987.
Ralph Bryant led league in home runs 1989-1993
Orestes Destrade led league in home runs 1990-1992.

Do we need any more proof, that home runs in Japanese baseball are more plentiful. These former MLB hitters were no sluggers, not over here, but over there....

[RuthMayBond]

But just as OPS mistakinglysays Mark Mcgwire is almost as good as Ty Cobb and Jimmie Foxx, and better than Stan Musial, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, Having one source say something does not mean it is true.OPS says that McGwire's Onbase plus Slugging, adjusted for park factor and compared with his league, is roughly comparable to Cobb or Foxx's rates. It doesn't say McGwire's almost as good, says nothing about batting average, fielding, baserunning, positional difficulty, length of career or anything else. So let's try to not invent things.

[Edgartohof]

And I am shocked many of you would believe such outrageous claims based mainly on contemporaries accounts, like I stated they are 75% done with this ardous task, and the findings WILL change your mind.

I have stated over and over again, that even IF Satchel Paige played in the 20's in MLB...his ERA would be high 3.00, his K totals would be atrocious...he'd be just like Stan Coveleski, Teddy Lyons...et al. One of the best pitchers of the 20's, but one who would be forgotten on all time lists just because his era make his stats look horrible.

Many of you NEVER place Stan Coveleski in ANY pitcher lists yet he is the ONLY 1920 pitcher in ERA+ behind arguably the greatest pitcher that ever lived...Lefty Grove.

How many of you say Stan Coveleski is one of the top 20 pitchers of all time? 0

Paige would be known now as a good pitcher, very charismatic, and he and Dizzy Dean would probably be arm and arm as good pitchers with above average success and likable personalities, but none of you would rate him in your top 30 P list if he played.

I always seem to think the Negro Leagues are akin to people who believe in past life, everyone is always Joan of Arc, El Cid, Atilla the Hun...no one is Joe Schmoe, horse droppings custodian. So every moderately succesful Negro League player is always "one of the best", "HOFer for SURE" instead of just an above average player

I have seen those sites Trosmok...what I HAVEN'T seen is boxscores...and that is what these gentlemen are in the process of digging up...w/o the inflated stats of barnstorming/exhibition matches.

You seem to think I am ignorant of the Negro Leagues, when in fact I am quite diverse, I just hold a different opinion based on those findings (in contrast to Edgartohof with his "less knowledgable comment"

One thing I would really like answered, is why you have never noticed the 'great' players were almost always on the same teams? Does that not slight their reputation...that they played against vastly inferior teams, much like the National Associations Boston Red Stockings?

The National Association, btw, is the closest reference point you can use for the Negro Leagues of the 20's, 30's

As for Josh Gibson, I think he would have been a HOFer, but not in the mold of Cochrane or Hartnett....but more along the lines of Bill Dickey which isn't bad...he wopuld have came in an offensive HR packed era, and his decline would have been in a war depleted league, he very well could have finished with 450 Hrs.

As for the 75 HR season, until I see the ballpark factors, dimensions (most were probably smaller than MLB) and boxscores...it will be a myth

Now be honest if I said Pud Galvin and Roger Connor were the most overrated players of all time, despite their stats, who would argue with me with such veracity?

No tell me why it's different... just because I say Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson? Seems people can't get skin color out of the discussion, whether for good or bad...

First off, how do you KNOW that players such as Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson, etc... would have only been very good or barely good instead of great as everyone before has said? What gives you the insight that Satchel Paige would have only had a 3.00 ERA? Please tell, because no one else in the world knows that, so that is quite a feat!

But since there is no way that you can KNOW that, then you need to be careful of what you say. So just because you do not believe something, until you have proof contrary to this, do not say other people's OPINIONS are wrong.

And so what if great players played on the same team at the same time. Two of the greatest players (Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig) did jsut that, and nobody counts anything against them. And it would have been different if one of them had played on a different team, the "league" would have been "stronger" - more good players on more teams.

And about my "less knowledgable comment", all I said is that we should not necessarily take what one group of people say at face value, I would wish that others (including myself) look further into it. Because to totally change a certain belief, such as Satchel Paige being one of the greatest pitchers of all time, that has been held for a long time, one needs a bit of proof.

I have never said that I know a lot about the Negro Leagues, but I do not appreciate it when someone says that my own opinions are wrong. That is what they are, these things are not facts, it is all SUBJECTIVE! Just like you say Lefty Grove is the greatest pitcher ever, well most do not hold that opinion, yet I do not say you are wrong, because in your mind, it is not.
Just like your belief in Negro Leaguers not being great is an OPINION, not a fact. I do not say your belief is wrong, so do not say mine is. I do not say your belief is wrong, so do not say mine is.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

First off, how do you KNOW that players such as Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson, etc... would have only been very good or barely good instead of great as everyone before has said? What gives you the insight that Satchel Paige would have only had a 3.00 ERA? Please tell, because no one else in the world knows that, so that is quite a feat!

But since there is no way that you can KNOW that, then you need to be careful of what you say. So just because you do not believe something, until you have proof contrary to this, do not say other people's OPINIONS are wrong.

EDGAR, glad to see your finally seeing the light. You tell one poster that he has no way of knowing how Paige or Gibson might have done. What right does he have to say that they would have been very good or barely good.

Well, suirprise I agree no way can anyone prove that they might have been only very good or barely good.

Now stop and think, are those that say they might have been the greatest have the right to say that, can they prove it.

We don't know where they would have finished on the all time list, very good and maybe great, but we don't know.Those that put Gibson at the top of the list are also blowing hot air, they don't know either.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Still the non-believers can't fathom how oral history can be as useful as the scribbling on paper they're accustomed to using as the only definitive sources. So, just for them I have a website they may enjoy:


TROSMOK, Your posting a lot but you have nothing to back up what you believe. lets see some stats, some career stats, year by year before you anoint all the black players that you believe to be the greatest.

I've said it before and here it is again. The early black players were as good as some white MLB and better than many white MLB, but we have no reliable career stats for any of them. Add to that, some of Gibson's home run totals came from exhibition games. Does that take anything away from Josh, no just a fact. Do I believe he would have shined, left his mark in MLB if given a chance, I believe he would have, he was a great hitter, lots of power a great catcher. Paige, Joe Dimaggio said Paige was as tough to hit as any pitcher he ever faced.

Where we differ, I don't see how we could place Josh or Paige in a specific position on the all time list. We have no way of knowing where they would have ranked, I would say high on the list but we have no way of knowing where.

Those that have a different view than you are not denying the great negro league players their due, only saying hard to say where they would rank all time if they did play MLB.

[trosmok]

And about my "less knowledgable comment", all I said is that we should not necessarily take what one group of people say at face value, I would wish that others (including myself) look further into it. Because to totally change a certain belief, such as Satchel Paige being one of the greatest pitchers of all time, that has been held for a long time, one needs a bit of proof.


Precisely my point. Proof can be firsthand, second hand, or from some yellowed scorecards. Satchel Paige had the respect and admiration of all that saw him pitch including Dizzy Dean who offered:"If Satch and I were pitching for the same team, we'd have the pennant clinched by the Fourth of July and then go fishin' until the World Series." Joe DiMaggio said: "After I got that hit off Paige, I knew I was ready for the big leagues." "Best I ever saw."~Bob Feller "Satchel Paige was the greatest pitcher in baseball."~Ted Williams. I put a cigarette in the dirt for a plate, and Satchel threw over it four out of five times.~Bill Veeck . I was fortunate to have seen Satchel Paige pitch a couple innings for the Browns in the twilight of his career, and even if he was only a fraction of his form in his prime, he was awesome to behold. Besides, I would never be so presumptious to think all those guys I just quoted, and my own eyes were somehow mistaken, and that Paige was just ordinary at best. Guess you have more reliable sources, oh ye of little faith? ;)

[crouchingtiger]

Hey, why don't we add the home run totals of guys that used to play in Winterball and still do to their totals to make it seem like they hit 900+ HR? What about exhibition games like the all-star game? Better add those. And why not add their minor league totals to their stats as well?

And why is it limited to black players? Why no Japanese players who didn't come over to America? Why aren't they making these top 100 lists? If you're going to be race sensitive, why do you think its fair to exclude players with talent who weren't born into a situation where they could play the game here.

Some of you guys are unbelievable as to what you believe. A lot of you want so much for these stats to be legitimate and take biased quotes from baseball people and think that we're all going to buy this nonsense. Well I'm not buying. When I'm talking about the best players of all time, I'm talking about guys who played in the MAJOR LEAGUES. Guys who have verified stats and who played against the same quality of competition. It's always mentioned that white players stats benifited pre-integration years, but the real truth is that these Negro Leaguers benefited more with position players pitching and shoddy competition. Yeah, white players stats could look a little less impressive with some better hitters in the league, but how many black pitchers are there in the game? Their hitting stats wouldn't have dropped off much at all because there has always been very few black pitchers in the game. And what does that say for the stats of Negro Leaguers that most of the pitchers they were hitting off couldn't make it in the major leagues?

This stuff is all based on hype. It's like if I listened to some source like Baseball America who said Andruw Jones had the potential to compare with the all-time best players in the game, and his minor league stats back that up. Well you know what? What Andruw has done in the majors doesn't compare with the all-time best (on the offensive side). I am not buying. I'm sorry they weren't allowed to play and it was wrong that they weren't, however I don't think it's our job to make up our own version of the history of the best players in the game. No one has any idea where to place these guys on a list without a full record stats and facing minor league competition. To some of you, Andruw might just have been considered one of the all-time best players in the game based on hype had he not been allowed to play in the majors.

[RuthMayBond]

Some of you guys are unbelievable to what you believe. A lot of you want so much for these stats to be legitimate and take biased quotes from baseball people and think that we're all going to buy this nonsense.

Guys who have verified stats and who played against the same quality of competition.You want us to buy that all those quotes are biased.

And what quality of competition are you referring to, the "quality" in the 19th century and the AL at its inception?

[J W]

I have never said that I know a lot about the Negro Leagues, but I do not appreciate it when someone says that my own opinions are wrong. That is what they are, these things are not facts, it is all SUBJECTIVE! Just like you say Lefty Grove is the greatest pitcher ever, well most do not hold that opinion, yet I do not say you are wrong, because in your mind, it is not. Just like your belief in Negro Leaguers not being great is an OPINION, not a fact. I do not say your belief is wrong, so do not say mine is. I do not say your belief is wrong, so do not say mine is.

Thank you.

And it holds true with all these rankings as well... no one ranking system is the ultimate truth. How could it be?

[cubbieinexile]

Just to throw some fuel on the fire.

A poster said that their were and is so few quality black pitchers that stats would only go down a little. Or something to that effect.

My view is that you don't need a lot of black pitchers to have an effect on batting stats. Especially before expansion and the 5 man rotation. Before integration you are talking about 16 teams with around 64 slots. Now if only 10 black pitcher replace "inferior" whte pitchers then you just altered the starting pitching stats by 16%. A huge alteration. I think are Negro League "experts" could find ten black pitchers who were better then 10 white starters for every year before integration. 10 pitchers is all it takes to alter the land scape by 16%. 10 pitchers getting just 30 starts each and pitching 7 innings is 2100 innings. Around a team and a half of total pitching. 10 pitchers getting 32 starts each at 8 innings is 2560 innings. Two teams worth of pitching. That is just ten of the best black replacing the ten worst white starters. You don't think replacing the the ten worst white starters with the ten best black starters is going to have an effect on hitting stats?

[J W]

Where we differ, I don't see how we could place Josh or Paige in a specific position on the all time list. We have no way of knowing where they would have ranked, I would say high on the list but we have no way of knowing where.

This is why I feel comfortable placing Gibson and Paige high up on my personal list, wherever they end up:

Any all-time list is subjective, unless it deals ONLY with statistics (a.k.a. "Career wins, MLB, all-time"). Therefore I don't see it as a static system. Babe Ruth might be #1 on my list today, and Willie Mays #1 tomorrow. My line of reasoning? I couldn't even tell you; I haven't thought of it yet. So the slots these players land in are more of an approximation than truth.

Knowing I can always revise my list... knowing Baseball Fever can revise its own lists... Gibson and Paige, and Charleston and Lloyd and Leonard and Mackey and Stearnes and Suttles and Williams and Rogan (and Oh and Kaneda for that matter) are fine right where they are.

[Imapotato]

EDGAR, glad to see your finally seeing the light. You tell one poster that he has no way of knowing how Paige or Gibson might have done. What right does he have to say that they would have been very good or barely good.

Well, suirprise I agree no way can anyone prove that they might have been only very good or barely good.

Now stop and think, are those that say they might have been the greatest have the right to say that, can they prove it.

We don't know where they would have finished on the all time list, very good and maybe great, but we don't know.Those that put Gibson at the top of the list are also blowing hot air, they don't know either.

Thank you Shoeless for getting the whole point of that post and not taken it literally.

That whole post was to draw out the ones who would say...how can you say that? and then try and defeat it with exactly the terms Edgar used. Yet, they use those subjective theories in just the opposite manner...so tell me why? Guilt? Too many articles on elaborations?
Anyway, the post got teh response I wanted...personal feelings are clouding the visions of the most avid Negro League Supporters. Many of us have Charleston, Lloyd, Gibson and Paige up there in the annals of great ballplayers, but to throw out 30 NL players as better than their white counterparts is not only a slap in the face to men who played at the highest level of competition and whom we can measure from a statistical standpoint, but it is also reverse racism

I do believe I just got checkmate.

[Imapotato]

Obviously, that's true. Nobody's saying that Josh Gibson would have hit over .400 with 50+ HR every year in MLB, just because he did it in the Negro Leagues. I think something along the order of 35 HR, .340 would be more accurate. Still making him one of the best players of all time.

and there was this kid named Sidd Finch...

[Imapotato]

Precisely my point. Proof can be firsthand, second hand, or from some yellowed scorecards. Satchel Paige had the respect and admiration of all that saw him pitch including Dizzy Dean who offered:"If Satch and I were pitching for the same team, we'd have the pennant clinched by the Fourth of July and then go fishin' until the World Series." Joe DiMaggio said: "After I got that hit off Paige, I knew I was ready for the big leagues." "Best I ever saw."~Bob Feller "Satchel Paige was the greatest pitcher in baseball."~Ted Williams. I put a cigarette in the dirt for a plate, and Satchel threw over it four out of five times.~Bill Veeck . I was fortunate to have seen Satchel Paige pitch a couple innings for the Browns in the twilight of his career, and even if he was only a fraction of his form in his prime, he was awesome to behold. Besides, I would never be so presumptious to think all those guys I just quoted, and my own eyes were somehow mistaken, and that Paige was just ordinary at best. Guess you have more reliable sources, oh ye of little faith? ;)


Yea, and Ty Cobb owned Johnson and Waddell and had nothing but nice words to say about them.
Ted Williams NEVER said a bad thing about any player he faced...and if his quotes are to be taken to heart...20 pitchers were the best of all time that he faced.

Gheesh...these are athletes that have to be PC, when asked about a player specifically. Have you heard an old timer say "Bob Feller, damn he was overrated, we beat the snot out of him everytime he was on the mound, why is he a HOFer?"

Would never happen...

[Imapotato]

You want us to buy that all those quotes are biased.

And what quality of competition are you referring to, the "quality" in the 19th century and the AL at its inception?

:)
How glorious...RMB you dug your own grave...you state time and time again, many Negro Legaue players were great, yet you bash the 19th century...how can you pull a Kerry so well?

I place 19th century and Negro League, modern day hitters and some 1930-1940 PCL guys arm in arm with one another...against their peers they may have been great, but against the whole, they don't match up

As for the AL..it was stronger from 1901-1905 then the NL
75% of elite NL talent jumped to NL in 1901
25% of elite NL talent jumped to NL in 1902
The Pirates finally lose players as most of their team jumps to the Highlander sin 1903
NL filled those positions with AAAA talent

Nap Lajoie > Honus Wagner

simple

[westsidegrounds]

Just a personal viewpoint: When John Holway makes ridiculous statements <>, he begins to lose all credibility, regardless of his "credentials".<>
Mel Ott hit 511 seven-iron shots? Hell, 188 of them came on the road, which makes it obvious, although it seems beyond Mr. Holway's comprehension, that those were NOT hit at the Polo Grounds. And I find it extremely difficult to believe that the remaining 323 ALL went right down that short line into the overhang,<>

He is prone to such exaggerations, which weaken his case. But he's not all bad - for example he thinks Bobo Newsom belongs in the HOF. There's a bio and a bunch of short articles by him at baseballguru.com/holway

Entertaining, but exercise caution when using him as a reference.

[julusnc]

I have actually read the Joe DiMaggio comment in several SABR publications so Mr Holway meant every word he said.

[cubbieinexile]

:)
How glorious...RMB you dug your own grave...you state time and time again, many Negro Legaue players were great, yet you bash the 19th century...how can you pull a Kerry so well?

I place 19th century and Negro League, modern day hitters and some 1930-1940 PCL guys arm in arm with one another...against their peers they may have been great, but against the whole, they don't match up

As for the AL..it was stronger from 1901-1905 then the NL
75% of elite NL talent jumped to NL in 1901
25% of elite NL talent jumped to NL in 1902
The Pirates finally lose players as most of their team jumps to the Highlander sin 1903
NL filled those positions with AAAA talent

Nap Lajoie > Honus Wagner

simple

What about the AL dregs? It is not like the entire NL switched over to the AL. Who is manning the spots not held by the NL elite? Minor leaguers that is who is manning those spots. The hitters might have been elite players but the pitchers who got lit up so they could pad their stats most certainly were not. The worst pitching staffs had a lot of garbage and last year players taking up a lot of innings. I looked at the bottom 4 pitching staffs and hardly any of the pitchers were major leaguers.

[Edgartohof]

Thank you Shoeless for getting the whole point of that post and not taken it literally.

That whole post was to draw out the ones who would say...how can you say that? and then try and defeat it with exactly the terms Edgar used. Yet, they use those subjective theories in just the opposite manner...so tell me why? Guilt? Too many articles on elaborations?
Anyway, the post got teh response I wanted...personal feelings are clouding the visions of the most avid Negro League Supporters. Many of us have Charleston, Lloyd, Gibson and Paige up there in the annals of great ballplayers, but to throw out 30 NL players as better than their white counterparts is not only a slap in the face to men who played at the highest level of competition and whom we can measure from a statistical standpoint, but it is also reverse racism

I do believe I just got checkmate.


What is up with you continually bringing up race as an issue? True, it was the reason that the players who we are talking about here could not play in the MLB, but it has nothing to do with where people rank them all-time. It may give me concern, offend me, even mortify me that that is what happened, but that does not subconsciously make me want to rank Oscar Charleston as the greatest player of all time, in fact, Oscar Charlston is not even in my top 10 or even 15. I have him 17th, and could easily put him lower.

But it seems to me that you are the one bringing up race as an issue every time, now why is that? And as I said, all of these rankings are subjective, I have said it over and over, yet you do not seem to understand what it means. I can have my opinions, and you can have yours. You can look at all of the statistics all you want, and even those who may do the same will still come up with different answers and combinations. You may say Babe Ruth is the greatest just by looking at the numbers, well what if someone comes along and says Ty Cobb is the greatest? Would you say he (or she) is wrong? How could you, they used the same way of ranking that you did, they looked at the same numbers you did, and still they came out with something different.

I feel that there are many great Negro League players out there that deserve recognition, and I give it to them by putting them on MY all-time list. I do not try to "debunk" yours or anyone elses rankings.

You wonder why I get mad, and why I get offensive when you attack my opinions? And you could not even do this directly, you had to do so in posts to other people. Well this is not something to attack, baseball is meant to be fun, I do not like to have to write posts like this, but I am not going to just sit back and let you say anything that you want.

Now I do not mind having a discussion on why I believe certain things, I do not mind explaining things, but I do not like having to fend off attacks.

For your information, I have three Negro Leaguers in my top 30:

Josh Gibson - 9
Oscar Charleston - 16
Pop Lloyd - 28

And you know what, I am proud of it!

[RuthMayBond]

Yea, and Ty Cobb owned Johnson and Waddell and had nothing but nice words to say about them.
Ted Williams NEVER said a bad thing about any player he faced...and if his quotes are to be taken to heart...20 pitchers were the best of all time that he faced.

Gheesh...these are athletes that have to be PC, when asked about a player specifically. Have you heard an old timer say "Bob Feller, damn he was overrated, we beat the snot out of him everytime he was on the mound, why is he a HOFer?"

Would never happen...I heard Feller say Mays' catch was overrated

[RuthMayBond]

:)
How glorious...RMB you dug your own grave...you state time and time again, many Negro Legaue players were great, yet you bash the 19th century...how can you pull a Kerry so well?I learned from your non sequiturs :laugh

[RuthMayBond]

But he's not all bad - for example he thinks Bobo Newsom belongs in the HOF.You say that like it's a good thing :laugh

[trosmok]

Funny how some unenlightened souls think they can "win" an argument when what is being argued is opinion. My opinion just lost? Did it go extra innings, or did the box score not get published? :laugh ROFLMAO

Seriously, though, the point of the Denver Post article, if you read it in it's entirety, is not to debunk some legendary notions, but rather revise them with stricter scrutiny. The surviving NL players don't want their stories embellished or subject to wild exaggerations, as many less than astute folks assume they are, simply because box scores and firsthand accounts of their exploits are not as meticulously kept as MLB's have been since the 1880's.

One of the biggest problems with revisionist historians, as I mentioned in my first post, is they see and hear only what they want to. I have warned my students against accepting the written words of a few as gospel truth, and further encouraged them to seek other reliable sources such as the rich oral history that many cultures rely heavily, if not solely on, to preserve their particular peoples' legacy. Case in point: Idi Amin ruthlessly ruled Uganda from 1971-79 and was widely reported to have murdered 300,000-500,000 innocent citizens. He did not log the genocide by date executed, name, sex, occupation and method of termination, so researchers had to use acceptable methods of statistical extrapolation and first hand accounts. Thus the huge range of estimation. After his death in Saudi Arabia last year, there was a movement to fully account for all the lives lost during his brutal reign, but there simply isn't the money available to fund such a complete project; the nation's economy is still in the toilet some twenty five years after his ouster.

In sharp contrast, Cambodia suffered an era from 1975-79 under Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge that took the lives of nearly one quarter of the entire population. An internationally funded study that was released in 2001 contained 5922 pages of documents. It was originally believed that 1.7 million people died in the four year span, but after further research including the records of 167 former prisons, as well as identifying and examining 19,400 mass grave sites, the estimates were revised upwards. Most recent revelations show 2.25 million Cambodians were murdered in the killing fields.

Because of the differences in international outcry and funding, one country's mass executions are well identified and documented and another's is not, and that is my whole point in trying to educate those that have an excellent grasp of the obvious, but resist any attempt to let themselves see beyond what is in black and white. oral history can be subject to conjecture, opinion, embellishment and frequent exaggeration, but then, so too can the written word. So which is more reliable? :atthepc

[cubbieinexile]

From what I have read Feller got a little crotchety in his later years. I don't think he liked too many players that played after his career was over.

[Captain Cold Nose]

From what I have read Feller got a little crotchety in his later years. I don't think he liked too many players that played after his career was over.
I don't think that's limited to players. I've seen him at a couple autograph shows. While he is certainly amiable, he is very strongly opinionated. Which would mean he'd fit in perfectly well here.

He went off on Hillary Clinton the last time I saw him at a show. Lumped her and Pete Rose together.

[RuthMayBond]

I don't think that's limited to players. I've seen him at a couple autograph shows. While he is certainly amiable, he is very strongly opinionated. Which would mean he'd fit in perfectly well here.

No he wouldn't :laugh

>He went off on Hillary Clinton the last time I saw him at a show. Lumped her and Pete Rose together.

Pete was involved with some investments that had some irregularities (like Whitewater) :laugh

[westsidegrounds]

You say that like it's a good thing :laugh

Well, it's arguable ... one thing is, Bobo seems to have had as much fun playing baseball as anybody ever could. :)

Anyhow, I like Holway for standing up for him. (I just wouldn't say, "John Holway says the guy belongs in the HOF, so it must be true.")

[Bill Burgess]

In the past, some posters have brought up the issue of talent pools, with respect to the Negro Leagues, not having the same size of population to draw on as the white MLs. The MLs did indeed drawf the NLs in terms of having a lot more people to draw upon. And to make matters much worse for the old NLs, they could not draw upon their own talent pool at all for lack of proper financing. They couldn't even offer contracts to their players. They got paid on a game by game basis, based on attendance.

I'm not saying that population size doesn't have ANY effect at all. It often does. The huge population size of the US, and the former USSR had a lot to do with their winning a lot of Olympic medals.

When I break that down in my mind, I really don't think that population is the final determinant. It's possible it does, but I can think of so many exceptions that show it may not.

If population mattered, China and India would do better in soccer, gymnastics, and many other sports. I do realize that those governments don't put money into sports too much, but my government puts absolutely NOTHING into sports, and the US usually does quite well.

China does do well in ping-pong, bad mitton, diving, but not Track & Field, swimming, etc.

East Germany before reunification did amazingly well in sports, due to sports medicine science, which included steroids. Since reunification, they have done away with state-sponsored steroids, they do it naturally and can't compete well.

The country of Finland, with its tiny population, adopted the event of the javelin. And they have won many medals in the Olympics

Kenya, Morocco, Ethiopia do so well in distance running that people despair of ever catching up with them. And they are poor. Most of the great ones come from Kenya and a single high-altitude tribe at that. So they are a showcase example of a TINY population of highly-motivated, athletes with a singular purpose of mind can upset the form-charts. Imagine, a single tribe of people are KILLING China, US, Russia, Germany combined in distnace running!! Think about the implications of that.

In the 60's-70's, Japan, as a nation, went nuts for the marathon. They had tons of runners posting times from 2:30, but couldn't seem to win big races like Fukuoka, Boston, NYC, Chicago.

China is a classic case in point that population doesn't necessarily matter. How big your talent base is, doesn't matter. If the US population was the size of China's in 1900 wouldn't have mattered, unless you can DRAW ON IT, MILK IT.

That was one of the drawbacks of the negro leagues. They had a good size talent pool, but couldn't draw on it, couldn't milk it for lack of funding/financing. And yet, they drew some highly motivated players, who played for the love of the game. Pure passion for baseball.

Cuba did well against the white ML teams. Many pennant winners went down to Havan, Cuba in November-Dec. Few won against them.

The Federal L. didn't negativly impact the MLs since it didn't pull numerous upper level talent out of the MLs. The only 2 real good quality players I remember jumping to them were Eddie Roush and Benny Kaufmann. The other names were washed up, Mordecai Brown, Cheif Bender, Eddie Plank. The feds tried to lure the stars away with money, but failed utterly to get anyone good.

A vast population would not allow a nation to dominate another country with a small population, if the smaller one, had a few inspirational, charismatic individuals to galvanize its people. Such as Kenya.


A sport doesn't need to draw large numbers from its population, just the right individuals.



Bill Burgess

[mac195]

Bill, you are certainly on the right track there in your speculations. The quality of a population pool is just as important as the quantity. And the best sport to illustrate this is sprinting. Running short distances isn't particularly difficult or demanding, every school kid does this in every country in the world. Sprinting is pretty much a universal sport. If sprinting success were proportional to population size, China and India would produce more than a third of the champions. But they don't. Just about all world sprint champions are either from West African countries, or descended from people who lived there. In fact, out of the dozens of runners who have now gone under 10 seconds in the 100 meters, there has been only one exception to the West African rule. The West African diaspora has the ability to dominate any sport that requires sprinting ability and, to some extent, this includes baseball.

[Imapotato]

I learned from your non sequiturs :laugh

Must we always go back and forth so?

I have no problem saying Bell, Charleston, Gibson were as good as Frisch, Sam Rice, Bill Dickey...but to say they were as good as Cobb, Wagner, Lajoie, Ruth and Cochrane is a stretch.

IN 50 years since integration, no player white, black or hispanic has been better than those players...so why do the 1920's players get such praise?

No stats...but that will hopefully be corrected soon...and then I can actually say "Josh Gibson looks to be the 10th best Catcher of all time"
I just can't do that now, so I am not trying to change others opinions, just backing up my own, which are highly criticzed, because I don't follow the norm.

[mac195]

IN 50 years since integration, no player white, black or hispanic has been better than those players...so why do the 1920's players get such praise?

That people hold such an irrational belief cuts to the heart of the problem with the position player poll.

[Edgartohof]

No stats...but that will hopefully be corrected soon...and then I can actually say "Josh Gibson looks to be the 10th best Catcher of all time"
I just can't do that now, so I am not trying to change others opinions, just backing up my own, which are highly criticzed, because I don't follow the norm.

We are not (all) trying to criticize you for your opinion, in fact, I personally like that everybody has different opinions here, it would not be fun if it didn't. I wouldn't want to come here everyday, just to agree with everyone here (except for my opinion on Edgar :laugh ).

If there were not so many diverging opinions on this site, there is a lot that I would not have learned. I now have a better appreciation for the game, by talking to everyone here, and learning from you all.

And just as my opinion on other subjects and players have changed since coming here to BBF (such as Cobb being my number 2 - thanx Bill!), my mind still could be changed on this subject. Unlikely, but still possible.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Pete was involved with some investments that had some irregularities (like Whitewater) :laugh

You sound like Michael Sokolove now. :laugh

[RuthMayBond]

I have no problem saying Bell, Charleston, Gibson were as good as Frisch, Sam Rice, Bill Dickey...but to say they were as good as Cobb, Wagner, Lajoie, Ruth and Cochrane is a stretch.

IN 50 years since integration, no player white, black or hispanic has been better than those players...Um, there might be at least three catchers who are better than Cochrane (if we're not talking about peak), and there's at least one non-Negro League 2B who is better than Lajoie.

[Imapotato]

Um, there might be at least three catchers who are better than Cochrane (if we're not talking about peak), and there's at least one non-Negro League 2B who is better than Lajoie.

I never see a nice debate where Berra, Bench and Piazza had the overall expertise in the "Tools of Ignorance" the Cochrane, nor the bat (Piazza is playing HR Derby Modern Baseball)

And he was also a great manager

As for Morgan...I think he is behind Lajoie...way behind, but you know my differing view on the AL-NL from 1901-1905

[RuthMayBond]

I never see a nice debate where Berra, Bench and Piazza had the overall expertise in the "Tools of Ignorance" the Cochrane, nor the bat (Piazza is playing HR Derby Modern Baseball)

And he was also a great manager

As for Morgan...I think he is behind Lajoie...way behind, but you know my differing view on the AL-NL from 1901-1905I wasn't necessarily referring to Piazza, although he is still outhitting HR Derby Modern Baseball at a better clip than you'd believe. Manager has nothing to do with what kind of a player you are. How far behind Lajoie do you think Morgan is? (I guess Bill James is allowed to be wrong about something)

[RuthMayBond]

I never see a nice debate where Bench had the overall expertise in the "Tools of Ignorance" the Cochrane, nor the batOk,
Cochrane vs. Bench
OPS+ 128 126
PA - 6026 8549
PO - 6414 9249 (C only)
A -- 840 -- 850 (C only)
We don't know Cochrane's % of SB attempts thrown out but he'd have to go a long way to beat Bench. The rates that Bench was able to keep up for a much longer time is incredible.

[Bill Burgess]

Jeffrey,

"Manager has nothing to do with what kind of a player you are."

I disagree. Mickey was a player/manager, and it was so obvious that he was the driving spark of that 1934 Tiger team winning the pennant. And they won the next season too, and won in '35, due to Cochrane's fiery leadership.

So his combo of skills had everything to do with his team winning. I'd also credit Cochrane with the A's '29-31 pennants to a great deal. His handling of Grove was extraordinary, and Earnshaw/Walberg too.

Same for Cobb, '21-26. To try to achieve a clean separation of player/manager is not truly possible. They were making managerial decisions while on-field. I fully realize that you disagree that a manager who didn't win a pennant was a good manager, but that is only because you refused to read the full text of my Ty as Manager file. Too bad too, cause it would have surgerically corrected your perceptional flaw.

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

Jeffrey,

"Manager has nothing to do with what kind of a player you are."

I disagree. Mickey was a player/manager, and it was so obvious that he was the driving spark of that 1934 Tiger team winning the pennant. And they won the next season too, and won in '35, due to Cochrane's fiery leadership.

So his combo of skills had everything to do with his team winning. I'd also credit Cochrane with the A's '29-31 pennants to a great deal. His handling of Grove was extraordinary, and Earnshaw/Walberg too.

Same for Cobb, '21-26. To try to achieve a clean separation of player/manager is not truly possible. They were making managerial decisions while on-field. I fully realize that you disagree that a manager who didn't win a pennant was a good manager, but that is only because you refused to read the full text of my Ty as Manager file. Too bad too, cause it would have surgerically corrected your perceptional flaw.

Bill Burgess1) I'm not saying Cochrane wasn't a good manager, but we're comparing playing skills (Greenberg, Gehringer, Bridges & Rowe might have had *something* to do with them winning in '34 :laugh
2) I'd appreciate it if you didn't spread lies that I think that a manager who doesn't win a pennant isn't a good manager.
3) It's not good to put a text file in a spreadsheet

[Bill Burgess]

Chris,

Although Charles Alexander did indeed write that the US black players did play only 6 games in the series between the Detroit Tigers and the Cubans, Nov. - Dec., 1910, I do not believe that that is accurate. I have looked up those games via Proquest, and no where does it indicate that they didn't play the full 12 series.

After the Tigers left Havana around Dec. 20, the Philadelphia Athletics arrived in Havana, without Eddie Collins or Jack Barry. The Cubans, again bolstered by the 4 US black stars, Pop Lloyd, Pete Hill, Bruce Petway, "Home Run" Johnson, beat the A's, 4 games to 6 games.

The Cubans won 1 more series from the Philadelpia Philles.

Finally, John McGraw's Giants won convincingly again the Cubans. The very 1st white ML team to do so. They won 9 of 12 games against Havana & Almendares.

Did someone once post the records of the Almendares Cuban team? I thought I saw it in a link.

Bill Burgess

[csh19792001]

Chris,

Although Charles Alexander did indeed write that the US black players did play only 4 games in the series between the Detroit Tigers and the Cubans, Nov. - Dec., 1910, I do not believe that that is accurate. I have looked up those games via Proquest, and no where does it indicate that they didn't play the full 12 series.

And someone asked how the Phil. A's did after the Tigers left Havana. The A's lost to the Cubans, bolstered by the 4 US black stars. Eddie Collins and Jack Barry didn't go on that visit. (Pop Lloyd, Pete Hill, Bruce Petway, "Home Run" Johnson).

I've been looking to find how many games the A's won-lost. Did someone once post the records of the Almendares Cuban team? I thought I saw it in a link.

Bill Burgess

Check his citations. He could be inaccurate, but he gives two, with dates and pages.

[Bill Burgess]

Jeff,

I don't lie. Don't need to. In the Ancient Wars, when we did Babe/Ty to the death, I included his value as a manager.

You came back with that it had nothing to do with his playing. I came back and said he was a brilliant manager. You came back with, "Yeah, he was so good he never won a pennant." I can do a search if you'd care to see your exact quote.

That's not a lie. Just the flow of the conversation. How else could I interpret your response? If you'd like to repudiate your assertion, you may recant. That is always allowable.

Why is it a bad idea to put a text file in a spreadsheet?

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

Jeff,

I don't lie. Don't need to. In the Ancient Wars, when we did Babe/Ty to the death, I included his value as a manager.

You came back with that it had nothing to do with his playing. I came back and said he was a brilliant manager. You came back with, "Yeah, he was so good he never won a pennant." I can do a search if you'd care to see your exact quote.

That's not a lie. Just the flow of the conversation. How else could I interpret your response. If you'd like to repudiate your assertion, you may recant. That is always allowable.

Why is it a bad idea to put a text file in a spreadsheet?

Bill BurgessYou were telling me Ty was the best manager ever. I mostly wondered why they only let him manage for six? years. I think Ty was probably a good manager but not the best.
Text files in spreadsheets are DIFFICULT to read.

[Bill Burgess]

Jeff,

"You were telling me Ty was the best manager ever. I mostly wondered why they only let him manage for six? years. I think Ty was probably a good manager but not the best.
Text files in spreadsheets are DIFFICULT to read."

If you would re-read my Ty as Manager file, I wouldn't have to explain the Cobb/manager thing. He was good as McGraw/Hanlon/Mack.

Got fired when his former pitcher accused him of fixing a game in '19.

Spreadsheets might be hard to read, but I don't know how to put my files into any other format. But you're right. A spreadsheet is very condensed lettering.

Bill Burgess

[Imapotato]

Ok,
Cochrane vs. Bench
OPS+ 128 126
PA - 6026 8549
PO - 6414 9249 (C only)
A -- 840 -- 850 (C only)
We don't know Cochrane's % of SB attempts thrown out but he'd have to go a long way to beat Bench. The rates that Bench was able to keep up for a much longer time is incredible.

Arghhh!

I had a link to a catcher's page on my old hard drive RMB...
I made a post previously, one that broke down I think Win Shares...Cochrane was #1

Did we have a best C thread here, I probably posted it in there...he was also #2 in defensive win shares behind the unbelievable Schalk who had a career 9+ WS

I'll look it up tomorrow, that would be my main criteria on why I think Cochrane is the best C of all time (used to be Hartnett)

For 2b there's Hornsby, Lajoie...then a huge dropoff to Morgan, Lazzari and then many who interchange...2b I haven't looked into and studied as much as C and SS...two positions that have drastically changed over the years

[cubbieinexile]

If you like Win shares then here is a list of secondbasemen ranking based on a win share formula through 2002.

1 Eddie Collins 133.1
2 Joe Morgan 125.61
3 Rogers Hornsby 123.98
4 Jackie Robinson 121.53
5 Nap Lajoie 117.68
6 Craig Biggio 108.37
7 Ryne Sandberg 105.03
8 Roberto Alomar 104.42
9 Rod Carew 101.2
10 Charlie Gehringer 98.89
11 Bobby Grich 96.44
12 Jeff Kent 95.01
13 Joe Gordon 94.07
14 Frankie Frisch 92.96
15 Larry Doyle 91.61
16 Billy Herman 91.27
17 Nellie Fox 90.39
18 Chuck Knoblauch 90.18
19 Lou Whitaker 89.42
20 Bobby Doerr 89.41
21 Dick McAuliffe 86.8
22 Cupid Childs 85.18
23 Willie Randolph 84.83
24 Tony Lazzeri 84.26
25 Dave Lopes 84.21
26 Johnny Evers 83.19
27 Jim Gilliam 81.26
28 Buddy Myer 77.76
29 Red Schoendienst 76.83
30 Bill Mazeroski 73.38
31 Bid McPhee 72.92

[Bill Burgess]

Someone asked how the Phil. A's fared in 1910, after the Tigers left.

After the Tigers left Havana around Dec. 20, the Philadelphia Athletics arrived in Havana, without Eddie Collins or Jack Barry. The Cubans, again bolstered by the 4 US black stars, Pop Lloyd, Pete Hill, Bruce Petway, "Home Run" Johnson, beat the A's. The Cubans won 6 of 10 games.

The Cubans won 1 more series from the Philadelpia Phillies in 1911.

Finally, John McGraw's Giants won convincingly from the Cubans, in 1911. The very 1st white ML team to do so. They won 9 of 12 games against Havana & Almendares.

[RuthMayBond]

Arghhh!

I had a link to a catcher's page on my old hard drive RMB...
I made a post previously, one that broke down I think Win Shares...Cochrane was #1

Did we have a best C thread here, I probably posted it in there...he was also #2 in defensive win shares behind the unbelievable Schalk who had a career 9+ WS

I'll look it up tomorrow, that would be my main criteria on why I think Cochrane is the best C of all time (used to be Hartnett)

For 2b there's Hornsby, Lajoie...then a huge dropoff to Morgan, Lazzari and then many who interchange...2b I haven't looked into and studied as much as C and SS...two positions that have drastically changed over the yearsThe unexplainable Win shares, great. If Lazzeri ahead of Collins is an example of your "proof" ...

[J W]

Cubbie, what is that Win Share formula you have the list for? I can't seem to figure it out from career WS and WS/162.

RMB, I don't see how any list involving WS would rank Lazzeri ahead of Collins. I'm sure imapotato simply didn't list him alongside Hornsby and Lajoie.

There are five 2Bmen who have career WS/162 over 30: Hornsby (36.0), Collins (32.9), Lajoie (32.4), Morgan (31.3), and Robinson (30.1). Hornsby, Collins, and Morgan are the only three 2Bmen with over 500 career WS (Lajoie has 496). Robinson of course has much less (257).

Lazzeri has 252 career WS, at a clip of 23.5 WS/162.

[Imapotato]

The unexplainable Win shares, great. If Lazzeri ahead of Collins is an example of your "proof" ...

That's another paragraph, Sherlock

My 2b rating was NOT based on win shares
but I did forget Collins and Robinson....although the top 2 are Hornsby and Lajoie...

[RuthMayBond]

If you like Win shares then here is a list of secondbasemen ranking based on a win share formula through 2002.

1 Eddie Collins 133.1
2 Joe Morgan 125.61
3 Rogers Hornsby 123.98
4 Jackie Robinson 121.53
5 Nap Lajoie 117.68Lajoie behind Robinson, HOrnsby behind Morgan, interesting

[cubbieinexile]

That Win share rating was based on several factors. Basically about a year ago in the Stat section of Fever there was a group of us that got to discussing Bill James and his rankings in his abstract. I believe most of us did not think that James used a very good method or at least one that could not be easily followed. I came up with a new formula that was based on win shares but it was different then the abstract.

Here is a brief description:
I changed the formula so that now to get the rankings I use a players top 4 season average plus best 8 consectutive year average as well as Total Win Shares/Total Games*162. Plus I changed the subjective part, taking out the clutch and defensive aspect since I have no way of knowing either of these. Bill's formula was a 3 year average plus 5 year consecutive average plus the Harmonic mean of career winshares divided by ten and 25. I removed the last part. Plus for the age bonus I set the cutoff at 1950. Meaning any player born after 1950 can only get a maximum age bonus of 12.

Unfortunately for me when I got a new computer I failed to transfer over the files I had in my old hard drive. So the excel files that I had used to make these rankings are lost so I cannot update them or do further studies. Very very upset at this when I discovered it a couple of days ago.

Anyway here is the SS rankings also based on the formula through 2002.
1. Honus Wagner 149.66
2. Alex Rodriguez 115.88
3. Cal Ripken Jr 112.30
4. Arky Vaughn 111.57
5. Robin Yount 109.24
6. Barry Larkin 106.91
7. Derek Jeter 104.30
8. Lou Boudreau 103.96
9. Nomar Garciaparra 103.39
10. Pee Wee Reese 101.66
11 Alan Trammell 99.72
12. Joe Cronin 98.88
13. Luke Appling 98.36
14. Johnny Pesky 95.04
15. Jim Fregosi 94.06
16. Ernie Banks 93.88
17. Phil Rizzuto 93.86
18. Vern Stephens 93.21
19. Hughie Jennings 92.51
20. Ozzie Smith 91.66
21. George Davis 91.61
22. Rico Petrocelli 89.68
23. Bill Dahlen 87.94
24. Tony Fernandez 87.65
25. Joe Sewell 86.76
26. Cecil Travis 85.92
27. Dave Concepcion 85.07
28. Maury Wills 84.81
29. Joe Tinker 84.56
30. Al Dark 84.36
31. Bert Campaneris 84.18
32. Herman Long 82.51
33. Jay Bell 81.97
34. Dave Bancroft 81.26
35. Dick Groat 78.40
36. Bobby Wallace 77.50
37. Luis Apararicio 75.79

[Bill Burgess]

Cubbie,

Please excuse me for intruding onto a stat discussion. I know little of high-powered stats. But still . . . It looks as if the long career guys are really maxing out here, while the shorter career men aren't.

Might not a good way to measure them is to rate the quality of their 10 best yrs? And possibly award a modest bonus for longevity? Just asking.

And I don't understand what you mean when you say, you took out the defensive component.

"taking out the clutch and defensive aspect since I have no way of knowing either of these."

I'm perplexed as to the real meaning of that. Could you please explain that to a non-stat guy? Thanks.

Bill Burgess

[cubbieinexile]

In Bill's original formula after he got done crunching the numbers bases purely on Win Shares he added a subjective element. The subjective element had to do with the playoffs, clutch hitting, defense (in terms of if he thinks Win shares gave too much value or too little value to a players win share total), and leadership. Bill does not tell us how he weighted only that he may or may not have given points to players. I took this part out because we have no real way of knowing these qualities for all players. Do we know how clutch Dan Brouthers was? Actually I just found the subjective criteria here it is:
The subject element...is a number between one and fifty, chosen to...adjust for:

1. Statistically undocumented portions of a player's career.
2. Inequalities in the caliber of competition.
3. World Series performance.
4. Positive or negative leadership.
5. Clutch performance.
6. Special contributions of the player undefined by the statistics.
7. Defensive value beyond that accounted for in the win shares system.

The problem with this system is that it is very hard to move the final outcome by a few points. Afterall we are talking about players that played a long time so to improve by a few points takes a lot. Bill can add up to 50 points which is a huge total for things that might not be true. In otherwords it is impossible to follow in his footsteps because Bill does not leave a guide. He does not break down Win shares between defense and offense so we have no way of knowing if it is under or over valued. We have no idea if he viewed someone as a leader or anti-leader. SEveral players in history have gotten both labels by different sets of people.

For instance we broke down first base rankings without the subjective element and according to his Bill's formula Dick ALlen was the second greatest first basemen of all time. Bill knocks him down to 15th for his final list. Basically Bill penalizes or give bonuses to others enough so that Dick loses 20 points. Which is a huge amount to lose, virtually impossible to lose that much in a career.

Then we looked at CF and found that without the subjective element Ty Cobb has a 10 point lead over Willie Mays for the honors of #1 CF.

This happens basically for all rankings in the abstract.

Now for the list question.
As I discussed in the original thread I value long term greatness over short peaks. If you have a 4 great years you will do well, if you play well for 8 years in a row you will do well. But I should point out that in no part of the equation does total win shares enter into the picture, in fact hanging around and playing badly hurts your score not helps it. If anything a player with say an 8 year run with no decline would probably score the highest in this setting. An example would be if Albert Pujols would play only 8 years at the level he is at and then retire. That would be a short career but in the end he would probably rank the highest of all players because he has no decline phase. The original formula rewarded players with even shorter peaks then my 3yr/5yr, I personally think that is too short when discussing the greatest of the greats. Also I should point out that is why Dick Allen showed up so high in the original rankings.

[RuthMayBond]

Cubbie,

Please excuse me for intruding onto a stat discussion. I know little of high-powered stats. But still . . . It looks as if the long career guys are really maxing out here, while the shorter career men aren't.
Then explain (as of ONLY 2002) ARod, Vaughan, Jeter, Boudreau, Garciaparra

[RuthMayBond]

Anyway here is the SS rankings also based on the formula through 2002.
1. Honus Wagner 149.66
2. Alex Rodriguez 115.88
3. Cal Ripken Jr 112.30
4. Arky Vaughn 111.57
5. Robin Yount 109.24
6. Barry Larkin 106.91
7. Derek Jeter 104.30
8. Lou Boudreau 103.96
9. Nomar Garciaparra 103.39
10. Pee Wee Reese 101.66
11 Alan Trammell 99.72
12. Joe Cronin 98.88
13. Luke Appling 98.36
14. Johnny Pesky 95.04
15. Jim Fregosi 94.06
16. Ernie Banks 93.88
17. Phil Rizzuto 93.86
18. Vern Stephens 93.21
19. Hughie Jennings 92.51
20. Ozzie Smith 91.66
21. George Davis 91.61
22. Rico Petrocelli 89.68
23. Bill Dahlen 87.94
24. Tony Fernandez 87.65
25. Joe Sewell 86.76
26. Cecil Travis 85.92
27. Dave Concepcion 85.07
28. Maury Wills 84.81
29. Joe Tinker 84.56
30. Al Dark 84.36
31. Bert Campaneris 84.18
32. Herman Long 82.51
33. Jay Bell 81.97
34. Dave Bancroft 81.26
35. Dick Groat 78.40
36. Bobby Wallace 77.50
37. Luis Apararicio 75.79This has GOT to be Banks stuff ONLY when he played SS, right? But Larkin does not beat GDavis

[Imapotato]

Here is a pretty good analysis for Catchers from the Baseball Catcher Encyclopedia

The Overall Ranking of the 157 catchers who caught 800 or more games are shown in the below table, ordered by the Overall score.

The SCORES for both Offense and defense are Normalized Distributions (i.e. from 0.001 to 0.999) of the relative standing in each category. The Total Offense (and Defense) Score is an Average of the six selected percentile measures. This methodology is best suited when handling different categories of standardized scores (i.e. comparing Batting Average and Errors per Game).

The OFFENSIVE Categories used were: Batting Average (AVG), On-Base-Percentage (OBP), Slugging Average (SLG), Secondary Average (SECA), Runs Created (RC), Runs Created per 27 Outs Minus League Average RC27 (RC-LRC).

The DEFENSIVE Categories used were: Games Caught as a Percentage of Team's Games Played (GC), Assists per Game (A/G), Errors per Game (E/G), Fielding Average Minus League Fielding Average for Catchers (F-LFLD%), Doubleplays per Game (DP/G), and Passed Balls per Game (PB/G).

The GRAND TOTAL is an Average of the 6 Offensive and the 6 Defensive Categories.

To see the interactive spreadsheet display of the various components, just CLICK HERE FOR EXCEL SPREADSHEET
Catchers in RED are Hall-Of-Famers. Catchers in BLUE are Currently Active.





NickName LastName G OFF DEF TOT
BILL DICKEY 1708 0.962 0.683 0.822
GABBY HARTNETT 1793 0.957 0.673 0.815
MICKEY COCHRANE 1451 0.985 0.627 0.806
YOGI BERRA 1699 0.914 0.630 0.772
ROY CAMPANELLA 1183 0.900 0.610 0.755
JOHNNY BENCH 1742 0.877 0.615 0.746
MIKE PIAZZA 1317 0.993 0.487 0.740
GARY CARTER 2056 0.798 0.658 0.728
IVAN RODRIGUEZ 1427 0.837 0.569 0.703
JASON KENDALL 913 0.803 0.591 0.697
WALLY SCHANG 1435 0.883 0.493 0.688
SPUD DAVIS 1282 0.799 0.570 0.685
JOE TORRE 903 0.910 0.458 0.685
ROGER BRESNAHAN 974 0.842 0.518 0.680
CARLTON FISK 2229 0.851 0.507 0.679
BILL FREEHAN 1581 0.753 0.591 0.672
CHIEF MEYERS 911 0.667 0.673 0.670
SHERM LOLLAR 1571 0.757 0.577 0.667
RICK FERRELL 1806 0.737 0.591 0.664
CHARLES JOHNSON 943 0.587 0.724 0.656
CHRIS HOILES 819 0.784 0.525 0.655
ERNIE LOMBARDI 1544 0.861 0.445 0.653
CHARLIE BENNETT 954 0.692 0.592 0.642
TED SIMMONS 1771 0.852 0.424 0.638
RAY SCHALK 1727 0.454 0.806 0.630
JACK CLEMENTS 1073 0.782 0.472 0.627
DARRELL PORTER 1506 0.764 0.477 0.621


Ok so let's say Bill Dickey and Cochrane, plus Piazza need to have their offensive eras taken into account

As for defense Schalk blows ALL out of the water...Charles Johnson with little decline is second....but Johnny Kling is #2 all time with a .707 (way down the list)

And Jack Clements the old Philly is the best 19th century C

I can see the aviod Bench and Berra supporters...but look at that name and number of games less then the others...

Where's the love for Roy Campanella?

[RuthMayBond]

NickName LastName G OFF DEF TOT
BILL DICKEY 1708 0.962 0.683 0.822
GABBY HARTNETT 1793 0.957 0.673 0.815
MICKEY COCHRANE 1451 0.985 0.627 0.806
YOGI BERRA 1699 0.914 0.630 0.772
ROY CAMPANELLA 1183 0.900 0.610 0.755
JOHNNY BENCH 1742 0.877 0.615 0.746
MIKE PIAZZA 1317 0.993 0.487 0.740
GARY CARTER 2056 0.798 0.658 0.728
IVAN RODRIGUEZ 1427 0.837 0.569 0.703
JASON KENDALL 913 0.803 0.591 0.697
WALLY SCHANG 1435 0.883 0.493 0.688
SPUD DAVIS 1282 0.799 0.570 0.685
JOE TORRE 903 0.910 0.458 0.685
ROGER BRESNAHAN 974 0.842 0.518 0.680
CARLTON FISK 2229 0.851 0.507 0.679
BILL FREEHAN 1581 0.753 0.591 0.672
CHIEF MEYERS 911 0.667 0.673 0.670
SHERM LOLLAR 1571 0.757 0.577 0.667
RICK FERRELL 1806 0.737 0.591 0.664
CHARLES JOHNSON 943 0.587 0.724 0.656
CHRIS HOILES 819 0.784 0.525 0.655
ERNIE LOMBARDI 1544 0.861 0.445 0.653
CHARLIE BENNETT 954 0.692 0.592 0.642
TED SIMMONS 1771 0.852 0.424 0.638
RAY SCHALK 1727 0.454 0.806 0.630
JACK CLEMENTS 1073 0.782 0.472 0.627
DARRELL PORTER 1506 0.764 0.477 0.621


As for defense Schalk blows ALL out of the water...Charles Johnson with little decline is second....I can see the aviod Bench and Berra supporters...but look at that name and number of games less then the others...

Where's the love for Roy Campanella?No surprise about Schalk, EXACTLY what the stats say, but you gotta be kidding about CJohnson. Love for Campy is on the Brooklyn forum!

[prof93]

I for one am not surprised to see Berra rank ahead of Bench here, after all most people who are in the know, realize Berra is the better catcher overall!!!

[Bill Burgess]

A little more cleaned up, makes it a little more intelligable/coherent. Thanks, Imapotato. We're back on track. 10-4, good buddy.

BILL DICKEY--------- 1708---0.962---0.683---0.822
GABBY HARTNETT----1793---0.957---0.673---0.815
MICKEY COCHRANE---1451---0.985---0.627---0.806
YOGI BERRA----------1699---0.914---0.630---0.772
ROY CAMPANELLA-----1183--0.900----0.610---0.755
JOHNNY BENCH-------1742---0.877----0.615---0.746
MIKE PIAZZA---------1317---0.993----0.487---0.740
GARY CARTER--------2056----0.798----0.658--0.728
IVAN RODRIGUEZ-----1427-----0.830---0.569--0.703
JASON KENDALL-------913-----0.803---0.591--0.697
WALLY SCHANG------1435-----0.883---0.493--0.688
SPUD DAVIS---------1282-----0.799---0.570--0.685
JOE TORRE-----------903-----0.910---0.458---0.685
ROGER BRESNAHAN---974-----0.842---0.518---0.680
CARLTON FISK------2229-----0.851---0.507---0.679
BILL FREEHAN-------1581-----0.753---0.591---0.672
CHIEF MEYERS-------911-----0.667---0.673---0.670
SHERM LOLLAR------1571-----0.757---0.577---0.667
RICK FERRELL-------1806-----0.737---0.590---0.664
CHARLES JOHNSON---943-----0.587---0.724---0.656
CHRIS HOILES--------819----0.784---0.525---0.655
ERNIE LOMBARDI----1544-----0.861---0.445---0.653
CHARLIE BENNETT----954----0.690---0.592----0.642
TED SIMMONs-------1771----0.852---0.424---0.638
RAY SCHALK---------1727----0.454---0.806---0.630
JACK CLEMENTS-----1073-----0.782---0.472---0.627
DARRELL PORTER----1506-----0.764----0.477--0.621

[cubbieinexile]

No those are Banks complete numbers for all season in consideration. Larkin according to Win Shares and the formula I used and the formula Bill used was better. Here is why:
Larkin according to Win Shares had better peak seasons, Larking according to win shares had a better consecutive run. Larkin as of 2002 has more win shares per 162 then does George. So even if we take the timeline adjustment out of the equation Larkin would still be considered the better SS according to Win Share and the two formulas.


As for the rest I will state again that this formula actually favors the shorter and higher peak year type players then the consistently good players that played a long time. I just increased the years needed so that at least these players would be great for a long time. Here is why they favor shorter careers:
The three big components of the formula are:
1) 4 best year average Win shares. This quite naturally will be the highest number in the equation and therefore the most important number. The higher the peak the more total points the player will have.

2) 8 consecutive years totals. This will be the next highest total and will likely contain at least two of a players 4 best seasons.

3) Career win shares per 162 games. This is the final major component and this is the component that looks at a players entire career. This one will also be the lowest number of three and thus the least important number, and in actuality a player that does not hang around at a mediocre level will benefit more then a player who hangs around to rack up some counting stats.

You can see that this is true by looking at the lists and see players that are still active and in there prime high on the list. These players compared to the others have played a short career and have yet to suffer there decline phase. Originally before I used the 2002 win shares Chuck Knoblauch was rated one spot higher in the list but then he had his dreadful 2002 season which actually drove his Win Shares per 162 down and cause to fall a spot.

[RuthMayBond]

I for one am not surprised to see Berra rank ahead of Bench here, after all most people who are in the know, realize Berra is the better catcher overall!!!I wonder if they realize that Bench had a better OPS+ (despite more plate apps), more PO & A as a catcher, and a verifiable excellent percent of runners thrown out.

[prof93]

I wonder if they realize that Bench had a better OPS+ (despite more plate apps), more PO & A as a catcher, and a verifiable excellent percent of runners thrown out.


We know what the real answer is, and its Berra

Berra V (Bench)

TPR-36.2-(24.3)
Winshares -375-(356)
RCAA-312-(247)
RCAP-430-(347)
HOF MONITOR-220.5-(214.0)
HOF STANDARD-50.8-(45.7)
GRAY INK-138-(93)
MVPs-3-(2)
TOP 10 MVP VOTING-7-(5)

Another thing, Berra played on 14 pennant-winning teams; 10 of which went on to win the World Series. If that stat stood alone, I would be willing to rest my case. But it doesn't; the thing that sets Berra apart from all others is that, in the period from 1952-58, both dates inclusive, the Yankees had a complete turnover of pitching personnel. Literally; nobody pitched for the Yankees in both of those seasons. Berra handled that transition so deftly that, even though Cleveland had the league's best pitching staff through most of that period, the Yankees won six pennants and four World Series.


In other words, Berra's team won more pennants and more World Series during a total makeover of their pitching staff than Bench's team did during his entire career
He led the American League in games caught and chances accepted eight times, and led the league in double plays six times. He is one of only four catchers to ever field 1.000 in a season (1958), and between July 28, 1957, and May 10, 1959, Berra set major league records by catching in 148 consecutive games and accepting 950 chances without making an error.



Bench only caught 118 more games in his 3 remaining full seasons plus 1 strike/injury-shortened season, representing about 7% of his total as a catcher. Berra, after his age-31 season, still caught 470 games (28% of his career total) over 7 additional seasons, 5 in which he saw more or less regular action as a catcher/OF. Both players maintained their OPS in the .800 range after age 31, but Berra did it longer, and while playing catcher more often, than Bench.
Berra is better, always has been always will be.

[Imapotato]

Thanks Bill

I can never get that CODE thing right

One thing about the Games played shown...from what I gather and I could be wrong, the less games the mor impressive the score...so Roy Campanella seems to blow all catchers out of the water in regards to defense and offense (a more 'normalized pitcher/hitter era)

[RuthMayBond]

We know what the real answer is, and its Berra

Berra V (Bench)

TPR-36.2-(24.3)
Winshares -375-(356)
RCAA-312-(247)
RCAP-430-(347)
HOF MONITOR-220.5-(214.0)
HOF STANDARD-50.8-(45.7)
GRAY INK-138-(93)
MVPs-3-(2)
TOP 10 MVP VOTING-7-(5)

Another thing, Berra played on 14 pennant-winning teams; 10 of which went on to win the World Series. If that stat stood alone, I would be willing to rest my case. But it doesn't; the thing that sets Berra apart from all others is that, in the period from 1952-58, both dates inclusive, the Yankees had a complete turnover of pitching personnel. Literally; nobody pitched for the Yankees in both of those seasons. Berra handled that transition so deftly that, even though Cleveland had the league's best pitching staff through most of that period, the Yankees won six pennants and four World Series.


In other words, Berra's team won more pennants and more World Series during a total makeover of their pitching staff than Bench's team did during his entire career
He led the American League in games caught and chances accepted eight times, and led the league in double plays six times. He is one of only four catchers to ever field 1.000 in a season (1958), and between July 28, 1957, and May 10, 1959, Berra set major league records by catching in 148 consecutive games and accepting 950 chances without making an error.



Bench only caught 118 more games in his 3 remaining full seasons plus 1 strike/injury-shortened season, representing about 7% of his total as a catcher. Berra, after his age-31 season, still caught 470 games (28% of his career total) over 7 additional seasons, 5 in which he saw more or less regular action as a catcher/OF. Both players maintained their OPS in the .800 range after age 31, but Berra did it longer, and while playing catcher more often, than Bench.
Berra is better, always has been always will be.TPR (with its fielding runs)? Not that impressed. Winshares, RCAA, RCAP? Who understands that gobbledygook? Of course Berra will get more MVP voting being on better teams. I don't know that that kind of pitching turnover is that unusual. Berra did tend to be among league-leaders more (maybe a poor league?)

[RuthMayBond]

Thanks Bill

I can never get that CODE thing right

One thing about the Games played shown...from what I gather and I could be wrong, the less games the mor impressive the score...so Roy Campanella seems to blow all catchers out of the water in regards to defense and offense (a more 'normalized pitcher/hitter era)Campy has better rates but that's easier to maintain in a shorter career with less decline phase

[Sashag]

Just to let you guys know. During the summer of 2003, the HOF announced that it was starting to do an extensive research on the real negro league statistics. I haven't read all of the posts here, so please let me know if that Denver Post article has been posted here. Also, once everything has been finalized I would be interested in reading the report. -Sasha

[Bill Burgess]

Sasha,

I went to another thread and brought these posts here just for you. Several posts actually. So you can look them over, and see what we have here so far. Hope this helps a little.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Negro League players feel forgotten
With no pension from MLB, many growing old, dying poor
By Dan Steinberg and Dave Sheinin
THE WASHINGTON POST

BUT THE FORMER NEGRO League players — one as old as 101 — say that while they are glad for the newfound attention and the applause, they are also getting very old, becoming sick and many of them, and their wives, are dying poor. They get little or no revenue from the merchandise sales or from a museum that honors them. Most of the living former players are not eligible for a $10,000 Negro League pension that has been offered by Major League Baseball since 1997.

“You have to put this in perspective; these players, many of them were playing baseball in the prime of their lives,” said Larry Lester, a co-director of a three-year research project on Negro League baseball sponsored by the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, N.Y. “When they turned 65, there was no money available for them except a minuscule Social Security check. Many of them live in destitution.
“I’ve been in their homes, I’ve seen how they live. Generally speaking, they’re a proud group of men and they don’t want any handouts, but they could use some help.”

Professional baseball was segregated until 1947, when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. But the last team to integrate, the Boston Red Sox, did not do so until 1959. In 1953, half of the 16 teams denied black players the opportunity to earn a major league salary and the pension that went with it, leaving open the question of whether anyone should be responsible for their financial well-being now.

An undisclosed number of former Negro Leaguers and their families have gotten help from the Baseball Assistance Team (BAT), an MLB-funded charity that helps former players, umpires, coaches and scouts.

The NAACP last month passed a resolution supporting the pension-plan expansion at its annual convention last month in Miami Beach.
Selig said through a spokesman yesterday that he would be open to meeting with Nelson when their schedules allow it. Selig declined to comment on Nelson’s arguments, saying he is not interested in getting into a public debate regarding the pensions. Baseball officials argue that they already are doing more than they are required to do.

“There is no other employer anywhere — I defy you to find another — that voluntarily provides pensions or health insurance to people who never worked for them,” said Robert Manfred, MLB’s executive vice president for labor relations and human relations and its point man on the pension issue.

Former players with a minimum four years of Negro League and/or Major League Baseball service qualify for the MLB pension, and they had to begin playing in the Negro Leagues by 1947. But documenting when and where someone played in the Negro Leagues can be difficult because records are hard to find.

Different groups have different opinions on the number of living Negro Leaguers. Lester’s database, which includes Negro League teams and black barnstorming teams and is culled from box scores and newspaper clippings, puts the figure at approximately 280. The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, which counts players through 1960, says it’s about 200. And the Negro League Baseball Players Association, whose members must have played for at least three years prior to 1950, says it’s about 45.

What is certain, however, is that with documentation scarce, especially in the 1950s, determining the details of careers that were often nomadic is a challenge.
Last December, using names and addresses provided by Lester and former Negro Leaguer Bob “Peach-Head” Mitchell, MLB sent more than 20 letters to former players explaining the pension’s qualification requirements and asking anyone who believed they qualified to submit documentation. Jonathan Mariner, MLB’s senior vice president and chief financial officer, said “six or eight” former players were added to the pension plan and given pension money retroactive to 1997, when the program began.

One of the greatest points of contention is that baseball chose 1947 as the latest start date of an eligible player’s career. Mariner said that as many as 50 former players meet the tenure requirement but began their careers after 1947; Mitchell said the number is closer to 30.
Nelson and Mitchell have petitioned baseball to provide financial aid to all former Negro League players through 1957, regardless of tenure, with more money going to the longer-tenured players. But in a January 2002 letter to Nelson, Selig argued “that in 1947, when Jackie Robinson made his historic walk to the batter’s box, the days of segregation in Major League Baseball were officially over.”

It’s an argument Nelson emphatically rejects. “Major League Baseball said the league was integrated [in 1947], but in fact it was not, it was not fully integrated until 1959,” Nelson said. “I would say that this is a matter of redressing wrongs due to racial segregation, and Major League Baseball is in a very good position to make right those past wrongs.”

It would cost about $2.75 million — between $50,000 and $60,000 in retroactive pension pay for each player — to add the 50 players who started after 1947 and played four years, and another $500,000 annually, or the price of a utility infielder, to support them all for one year.
Mitchell proposes one-time payments, based on service time, for players with fewer than four years. According to his list of players, that could cost up to $3 million. That would cover the players who left the Negro Leagues with three or fewer years of service for the promise of higher pay in Canada or Latin America. Others failed to meet the service requirement because they served in World War II or the Korean War or began playing in major league farm systems.

“It’s a meager amount of money that has to be paid to settle the thing once and for all,” Mitchell said. Major League Baseball is open to changing the parameters of the Negro League pension plan, but the four-year requirement will not change, because it is consistent with the regular pension plan for pre-1947 MLB players, said Mariner, who has spoken often with Nelson. Other than BAT and the MLB pension program, there are few sources of financial aid for Negro Leaguers.



The NLBPA, a locally based non-profit group that organizes fundraisers and appearances for ex-players, recently entered into several licensing agreements to sell merchandise bearing the NLBPA logo. Association leaders hope to bring in more revenue that can be distributed to members and widows in need, although they complain that they continue to be undermined by unlicensed merchandise dealers.

The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, which opened in 1991 in Kansas City, signed a licensing deal with Major League Baseball Properties in 1993 stipulating that 50 percent of its MLB Properties merchandise sales would be distributed to former players.
Many players say the MLB Properties checks were so small that they were insulting, not even worth cashing.

As of the first quarter of 2002, MLB Properties stopped issuing the checks altogether because the licensing deal didn’t generate enough revenue, said a baseball spokesman. MLB Properties is exploring ways to generate future royalties for former players, said Ethan Orlinsky, senior vice president and general counsel for MLB Properties.

The Negro Leagues museum also has contracts with 24 companies to make a variety of collectibles and apparel, the money from which goes to the museum’s operating costs. And with the museum taking in more than $1 million in yearly revenue, according to its most recent available tax filings, some of the players see it as an organization that has abandoned them.

“We don’t get a damned cent of it,” said Wilmer Fields of Manassas, the president of the NLBPA. who played for the Homestead Grays. “They sell merchandise hand over fist, and we get nothing. Nothing.”

Don Motley, executive director of the museum, said the museum’s sole purpose is to “preserve, research and disseminate the history of African American baseball.” Besides, he said, the museum has enough difficulty just “keeping our doors open.” Merchandise revenues from its gift shop, he said, are negligible. “Our job is not to take care of the ballplayers,” Motley said. “You look at any museum; their job is to preserve the history.”

Said Bob Kendrick, the museum’s director of marketing: “Believe me, the museum is very sensitive to the financial situation of all those players, but the museum should not have to bear the burden of funding. It’s difficult for us, because we understand that there are a number of these players who are struggling, but it’s just too difficult a situation for us to get into a disbursement of revenue. We would never satisfy everyone, even if we had the resources, which obviously we don’t.”


Stats cover the bases, shed light on careers

By Robert Sanchez
Denver Post Staff Writer




The work, a three-year, first-of-its-kind project funded with a $250,000 grant from Major League Baseball, used thousands of newspaper box scores to identify and compile statistics on more than 3,000 men who played in often-forgotten black baseball leagues from 1920 to 1948.

The 5,000-page volume - which shows more conclusively that the quality of Negro Leagues play equaled white baseball at the time - is more in-depth than past statistical studies on black players prior to integration.

The research will be given later this month to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, N.Y.

Eventually, it will become part of the hall's statistical and narrative history of black baseball since the Civil War.

"This isn't just about baseball and numbers, it's about how this game related to society at the time, how baseball was such a rich part of black culture," says Jim Gates, the Hall of Fame's library director who wants the statistics published.

"At the same time, having these statistics is going to make it easier to argue about the greatest players of all time," he says. "It has brought the comparison between Negro Leagues and Major League Baseball from apples to oranges to McIntoshes versus ruby reds."

While historians undoubtedly will debate the merits of 60-plus-year-old box scores found in 570 newspapers across the country, former players say the research validates careers that so far have been only a footnote in American history.

Negro Leagues play continued through 1960, featuring six leagues during its 80-year history and more than 100 teams - from Kansas City, Mo., to Birmingham, Ala., all the way to Philadelphia and New York.

The leagues were salvation for black athletes during a time of segregation and outright racism. The biggest draws were flamboyant players such as pitcher Satchel Paige, who sometimes purposely walked the bases loaded, only to strike out the next three batters.

The teams and the players are an often-romanticized, sometimes-satirized yet tragically little-known piece of Americana.

But these days, only 300 or so former Negro Leagues players are alive to retell their baseball tales.


"All we've wanted is to be recognized for what we did. You know, make sure every guy gets his due," says Buck O'Neil, 93, a former player and coach who is chairman of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, Mo.

"We don't want Hollywood stories told about us," he says. "We want the truth."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wayne Stivers visited dozens of cities and combed through hundreds of newspapers in his quest for box scores.

Most every morning at his Evergreen home, Wayne Stivers pulls his body from bed, turns on his basement computer and saves black ballplayers' careers one keystroke at a time.

Stivers, 65, will flip through hundreds of photocopied box scores that he keeps in a neat pile.

He will trace his index finger down scores and game statistics roughly the size of a felt pen's tip, methodically recording each hit, error and run on a yellow notepad. He will then transfer the information to a database made especially for his project.

One million statistical lines. Nearly 3 million different data entries covering 29 seasons.

"You could go blind doing this," says Stivers, a retired sports memorabilia dealer who volunteered for the work in 2001 and now carries a magnifying glass to study the scores. "It's harder than anyone could imagine."

In a way, Stivers and the rest of the men in the Negro Leagues Researchers/Authors Group are trying to perfect an imperfect system.

The men have lived out of hotels and libraries from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., modern-day gold miners sifting through muck for their treasure.

When Stivers heard that Gibson hit four home runs during a game in Zanesville, Ohio, he traveled to the town and found a story in newspaper archives. The paper confirmed Gibson's feat.

The ultimate reward in his post-retirement work, Stivers says, was getting pieces of information that could change views about black baseball.

From Negro Leagues hyperbole: Paige - a showman long considered the best black pitcher of his time - actually had several peers.

To confirmation: Bell did score from first base on a bunt at least once.

To legend: Gibson, the slugger, might have hit only 200 home runs - not 1,000 - during his Negro Leagues career.

The statistics confirm, though, that Gibson is one of the top home run hitters in baseball history when averaging the number of at-bats per home run.

"I was blessed to have played with some of the greatest players ever," says Johnson, the Negro Leagues player from Denver.

Johnson was a shortstop in the 1938 East-West All-Star Game, played against Gibson's teams and learned to hit a curveball from Hall of Famer "Bullet" Rogan.

"Some of those critics never wanted to believe that we were as good as whites," he says. "We knew better."

Even with the statistical work, players' career numbers are hardly complete. Roughly 75 percent of the box scores have been found.

Among a host of problems, Negro Leagues box scores from the 1920s, '30s and '40s didn't always record at-bats, batters who got walks, pitchers who got wins and how many innings they pitched.

Earned runs - runs scored without the aid of errors - had to be painstakingly re-created through a complicated formula that took into account average errors and runs per game. Walks and total bases - a marker of hitting ability - also had to be reconstructed at times.

"There will be holes, but every day we're trying to patch them," says Larry Lester, a Kansas City computer programmer and Negro Leagues author who is one of the research group's leaders. "Something new pops up all the time. I guess that's the fun of it."

Another technique that will probably be questioned is the group's strict rule limiting statistical research only to Negro Leagues games. The limitation omitted thousands of "barnstorming" matches between black clubs and smaller, less-talented semiprofessional teams across the country.

Regular Negro Leagues schedules had only 60 to 80 games, in part because players made more money barnstorming en route to their regular games.

"Back East, we'd play three games in one day," says O'Neil, the former Negro Leagues star. "No one should take those games from us."

But researchers such as Stivers and Lester say the games are nearly impossible to find and could lead to inflated statistics, such as Gibson's often-repeated 800-1,000 home-run tally.

"There's no way that this cheapens anything that these men have done," Lester says. "If anything, it makes them more real and kicks out all those stories that made the Negro Leagues so hard to believe for some people.

"They were pioneers, and that can't be refuted."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I hope this was a little helpful, Sasha.

Bill Burgess

[Sashag]

Bill, Thank you so much! That helped a lot and I learned tons as well. Thank you again. -Sasha

[dreifort]

good reading if you can find the book:

http://thediamondangle.com/books/negroleagues.html

quote from review of book:

"...a complete statistical Negro Leagues encyclopedia is impossible at
present, and won't become possible for many years...*Official Negro
Leagues figures are limited to a few years...*Published season or career
statistics in newspapers have more often than not proven unreliable...
*Most black newspapers were weeklies, and, since no wire services existed
for black baseball, they relied on teams to send boxscores in. If information
didn't arrive on time, it wasn't printed...*Neutral-site games add to
researcher's headaches...*Common stats‹RBIs and earned runs, for
example‹often weren't supplied in the boxscores."...we have to construct
Negro Leagues statistics day by day. This is a mammoth task, and it is
nowhere near complete."






...and on the same topic of "debunked" stats...

Hal Newhouser...HOF pitcher for Det Tigers in 40s...

His 3 best seasons (which made him HOF worthy) were during the WWII ravaged years of baseball. So his opponent batters were either 39+yr old vets or scrub 20 yr olds. Majority of the prime young players were off to war.

knowing that, does that make him HOF worthy? his stats were inflated by facing low-calibur players.

before the War and a few yrs after the war was over, his stats are mid-high 3.50 era or higher. During the war-time it's sub 2.50 era.

I'm not certain, but it seems the weaker leagues helped his stats.

I'm sure Barry Bonds could have hit 90 HRs in a season if he faced Eric Milton every game for 162 games (Miltion have up a league high 34 HRs as a pitcher in 2004). If you haven't noticed, most negro league teams carried 1 pitcher, maybe 2. 2 pitchers for a season? easy to get adjusted to them as a batter :/

Steroids, Scrubs, Equipment, Outfield distances, Spitballs....etc.
Everything has effect on record books. 74 or 84 HRs in a season in any league. Doesn't really matter. What matters is how they played when it came down to crunch time. Going 31-6 with 1.80 ERA means nothing if you go 0-3 7.84 ERA in the world series.

just my 2 cents.

[RuthMayBond]

What matters is how they played when it came down to crunch time. Going 31-6 with 1.80 ERA means nothing if you go 0-3 7.84 ERA in the world series.

just my 2 cents.Bobby Brown and Jack Billingham for the Hall :laugh

[dreifort]

Jack Billingham, SP for Reds?

WS stats:
2-0 0.36 ERA 25.1 IP 19 Ks

His best yr ('73) stats:
19-10 3.04 293.1 155 Ks

:clapping

[RuthMayBond]

What matters is how they played when it came down to crunch time. Going 31-6 with 1.80 ERA means nothing if you go 0-3 7.84 ERA in the world series.

just my 2 cents.Does this mean we can kick Cobb out of the Hall? :laugh

[cubbieinexile]

Yes him and Willie Mays could walk out together.

[dreifort]

I say put Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds in a cardboard box and let them fight it out. Winner get's Hall.

Bonds gets a fly swatter and Cobb gets a "I can't believe it's not..." butter -basted steroid-injected chocolate-covered weight-gaining protein bar.

[Bill Burgess]

dreifort,

You need be very careful when you say a Negro L. team had but one pitcher. That just isn't true. Very often, the entire team had put in some time on the mound. That is how "Double Duty" Radcliffe got his nick-name. He caught one game, pitched the next.

However, in the pre-1900 era, teams often had only 2 pitchers per team. And maybe a 3rd, who didn't see action, unless the top 2 got in trouble.

Bill Burgess

[Sashag]

Bill is correct, we are all either avid or pro baseball historians and have more than enough resources to get the facts straight.

Here is some information to support one of your points:
"Ted was born July 7, 1902 in Mobile, Alabama. "Nicknamed "Double Duty" because he would pitch the first game of a double header and catch the second game, Radcliffe was one of the most colorful players in black baseball.

Ted Radcliffe earned his nickname by performing as both catcher and pitcher. New York sportswriter Damon Runyan applied the title "Double Duty" after watching Radcliffe catch the first game of a double-header and pitch the second game. It is fitting that Double Duty appeared in six East-West All-Star games - three as pitcher and three as catcher." -source NLBPA.

Here is some proof of your other point:
"So in the spring of '36 i hooked up with Welch and his players in Monroe. The Crawfords were also there, and they had Satchel back, which gave them five future Hall of Famers: Paige, Gibson, Bell, Johnson and Charleston." Buck O'Neil's autobiography, I Was Right on Time, P.64
and
"[Frank Duncan] had a wonderful pitching staff at his disposal: Satchel Paige and Hilton Smith and Connie Johnson and Cannonball McDaniels and Lefty LaMarque and Jack Matchett" -Buck O'Neil's autobiography, I Was Right on Time, p120

-Sasha

[mac195]

...and on the same topic of "debunked" stats...

Hal Newhouser...HOF pitcher for Det Tigers in 40s...

His 3 best seasons (which made him HOF worthy) were during the WWII ravaged years of baseball.


Newhouser's 1946 season was certainly one of his best three. That was after the war.

[dreifort]

dreifort,

You need be very careful when you say a Negro L. team had but one pitcher. That just isn't true. Very often, the entire team had put in some time on the mound. That is how "Double Duty" Radcliffe got his nick-name. He caught one game, pitched the next.

Bill Burgess


that's my point. can you hit 80+ home runs in a season IF you are facing players who are NOT dedicated pitchers? Ruth could not be an ALL-Star as BOTH a pitcher and batter consistently, he had to dedicate himself to just 1.

my point is it may be possible to hit 84 HRs in 1 season if you are facing RF's with strong arms as your opposing pitchers. :noidea




Newhouser's 1946 season was certainly one of his best three. That was after the war.


The HR leader in '46 was Greenberg (just back from the War) with 44. The BA leader Mickey Vernon with .353...Mickey Vernon?? yr before hit .268, next yr hit .265? lol

Your primary offensive power houses in AL were Greenberg, Joe DiMaggio, Charlie Keller and .... not much competition.

I think Newhouser was a great pitcher, but I hope it wasn't just his stats that got him into the HOF.

[Bill Burgess]

dreifort,

"that's my point. can you hit 80+ home runs in a season IF you are facing players who are NOT dedicated pitchers? Ruth could not be an ALL-Star as BOTH a pitcher and batter consistently, he had to dedicate himself to just 1.

my point is it may be possible to hit 84 HRs in 1 season if you are facing RF's with strong arms as your opposing pitchers."


I feel as though Babe was able to hit HRs and play part-time OF and pitch part-time for the 2 seasons that he did. I feel that if Babe Ruth had tried to do both for longer, than he would have gotten MUCH worse at both. Not because of the strictly physical demands, but of the psychological strains on him.

Bill Burgess

[catcher24]

Dreifort: Ted Williams, Johnny Pesky, Bobby Doerr - I would consider those three some competition. And those were only the Red Sox players in 1946. Most everybody was back, and there were many good players. And granted Mickey Vernon's career year occurred in 1946, but he was a pretty decent hitter. Batted .286 for his career, won another batting title in 1953. So 1946 wasn't a total fluke.

[dreifort]

I also find it odd that Bob Feller (who I have met and think is deserving of the HoF...if not just for his character) had his best career ERA yrs from '41-'46?

hmmmm....

[catcher24]

Probably because he was at his peak in 1941, and was still near the peak when he returned from four off years (in the war). BTW, your research is a tad faulty. He had better ERA's in 1939,1940,1947 and 1954 than he had in 1941. Also, his ERA+ (which as you know compares to league norm) for 1946 was only his third best, and the ERA+ for 1941 is only his ninth best. So I'm a little confused how 1941 or 1946 were his best years. He did strike out the 348 batters in 1946, so perhaps that would somewhat support your argument for weaker batters in 1946?

BTW, no disagreement that he is a valid HOF'er. One of the all-time best, IMHO. The four missing years probably cost him more than most others who went off to war (except maybe Ted Williams).

[cubbieinexile]

and the ones who died or were injured in war.

[dreifort]

Some players also suffered "mental injuries" from the war.

They came back and realized that there is more to life than baseball. :cool:


my point about "debunked stats" is...how can you vote someone into the HoF or Record Books if they hit their record setting homerun off of Tim Wallach?

lol...no 1 did hit one off Wallach in the 80s that I know of, but like everyone is saying...players in the Negro Leauges played multi pos. :rolleyes:

[Bill Burgess]

dreifort,

While I see your good point, and agree to a very limited extent, I'm not sure you understand the points others here are making.

Yes, the NLs, due to their lack of funding, had to make do in many ways. They probably played with old balls, old equipment, old everything really.

Their players had to learn many positions, in order to make themselves cost-effective. Their value, with respect to their incomes had to be - in line.

But I think there is a huge difference between a specialized pitcher, who played elsewhere as needed, and a specialized position player, who pitched on occasions, as needed.

The established NL pitchers, who had name recognition in their circles, like Paige, Joe Williams, Joe Rogan, John Donaldson, Willie Foster, Dave Brown, Cannonball Dick Redding, Nip Winters, Dizzy Dismukes, Don Newcombe, Leblanc Western, Pat Doherty & Rube Foster were in the category that you're describing. So I think one needs to make that distinction very clear. The NL DID produce outstanding pitchers, who could have held their own quite nicely in the big time, if given the chance. And I'm not only referring to their top 5 pitchers in 50 yrs. of existence.

At least one of the reasons of keeping them out, was the fear of whites looking bad against blacks. Sad but true.

[dreifort]

I agree the NL's produced some amazing and talented pitchers with great skill.

But it's the batters that seem to get too much fan-fare for their offensive acheivements. If there werwe only a dozen REALLY talented pitchers in the NL's worthy of MLB....what about the other 2 (3,4 or 5) dozen who filled in and pitched for their teams? Tim Wallachs? lol.

[Bill Burgess]

Dreifort,


That is my point. I disagree with you that the NL, from the 1880's-1950, could produce so few good pitchers. Even agreeing with you that the NL could not draw on their own talent pool due to the lack of investment in the leagues, they would still be expected to produce good pitchers.

And what's the argument that they could not? One of the arguments that they were not ML level is that they were denied the chance to compete with ML players. The improved competition would have brought them up to that level.

When a white minor league player is brought up to the big time, do many of them not improve as a result of "sink or swim." Necessity requires improvement.

I'm not saying that all minor leaguers make good. They don't. But the more competitive ones normally find a way. And that way is to get better. When Willie Mays 1st came up, under Durocher, Willie went hitless his 1st 21 times at bat! But he improved. If he had remained in the NL all his career, does anyone really believe he would have gotten as good as he did in the big time?

So, a lot of the inferior level of play in the NLs, resulted from a lack of being able to face the best. If Arky Vaughan had suddenly been dumped into the NLs and played his career there, wouldn't we expect his level of play to subside, due to the lack of need to play better? Probably so.

Bill Burgess

[WJackman]

Couple of points from this thread.

1. Ted Williams and Bob Feller lost nothing to the war. They answered their country's call in its time of need, like millions of others. It is only the bean-counting stats heads of our generation who lament "their loss."

Williams and Feller were famous at time and with that went certain privileges.

The biggest loss suffered by a pitcher associated with the Cleveland club was minor league hurler Joe Pinder who won the Congressional Medal of Honor (posthumously) after making three trips between the beach and his landing craft dragging vital radio parts ashore during a critical point in the landing on Omaha Beach. A little military research will tell you what Cleveland pitcher was the biggest hero.

The biggest loss suffered by a Red Sox hitter who was a Navy fighter pilot was Jake Jones, a legit power-hitter who debuted for the White Sox before going into the service. Yes, politics put Williams in harm's way in the Korean War, but the same politics likely kept him out of danger in WW II. Jones, though, saw extensive combat in the Pacific flying fighters off of the second USS Yorktown, and was a highly decorated ace with seven ariel victories to his credit. He also brought back a severe case of PTSD from the war and basically lost his baseball career.

2. As I work researching a book on Will Jackman, the greatest pitcher that nobody has ever heard of, I find that the Philadelphia Colored Giants, Jackman's New England barnstorming team that took on all comers during the 1920s and 1930s, always had at least four recognizable Negro League pitchers on their club. Jackman was the stud and saved for the best white semi-pro and professional teams.

Don't look back, Satch, because Big Bill Jackman is right behind you.

[mac195]

I also find it odd that Bob Feller (who I have met and think is deserving of the HoF...if not just for his character) had his best career ERA yrs from '41-'46?

hmmmm....

Not sure what your point is here... Feller was 22 to 27 years old so you would expect that period to be his peak. Feller's best ERA+ years were '39 and '40, he was so so in '41, gone during the war years ('42-'45), and came back to have a great year in 1946 (post war).

[catcher24]

WJackman: I never meant to imply that no one lost more to the war than Feller/Williams. As to players who returned, their stats probably took the biggest hits, IMHO, because each was in the peak years of a career. Anyone with a grey cell in their head is aware that many players never came back and made the ultimate sacrifice. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research things as exhaustively as others can, due to having to earn a living and support a family. I think it is wonderful that you can research and write a book and have the time to do it. BTW, I was always under the impression that Williams flew combat during WW2 as well as in Korea. Perhaps I am wrong on that point. However, Feller certainly served in combat and served his country most honorably.

[WJackman]

Catcher,

No apologies needed on your part. Having worked for the Veterans Administration for 30 years, I am probably just more in tune with contributions made by veterans as a whole.

Williams and Feller certainly have the right to be proud of their service. But they were just doing their patriotic duty. I look to Feller as baseball's representative/spokesman for the WW II service.

I doubt that many are aware, but in President Bush's address last summer, made at Omaha Beach, on the 60th anniversary of D-Day, he mentioned just two veterans by name. One was John J. "Joe" Pinder.

[catcher24]

WJackman: I put up my baseball calendar today and noticed that this week (January 6) is the anniversary of the date Bob Feller became the first major leaguer to enlist, in 1942. Good luck with the book. ;)

[nightal]

WJackman: I never meant to imply that no one lost more to the war than Feller/Williams. As to players who returned, their stats probably took the biggest hits, IMHO, because each was in the peak years of a career. Anyone with a grey cell in their head is aware that many players never came back and made the ultimate sacrifice. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research things as exhaustively as others can, due to having to earn a living and support a family. I think it is wonderful that you can research and write a book and have the time to do it. BTW, I was always under the impression that Williams flew combat during WW2 as well as in Korea. Perhaps I am wrong on that point. However, Feller certainly served in combat and served his country most honorably.


No need to apologize for what you meant with your comments. Most people fully understood what you were saying.

[rich]

WJackman, could you let us know who the other person mentioned by the President.

[HackWilson]

And I am shocked many of you would believe such outrageous claims based mainly on contemporaries accounts, like I stated they are 75% done with this ardous task, and the findings WILL change your mind.

I have stated over and over again, that even IF Satchel Paige played in the 20's in MLB...his ERA would be high 3.00, his K totals would be atrocious...he'd be just like Stan Coveleski, Teddy Lyons...et al. One of the best pitchers of the 20's, but one who would be forgotten on all time lists just because his era make his stats look horrible.

Many of you NEVER place Stan Coveleski in ANY pitcher lists yet he is the ONLY 1920 pitcher in ERA+ behind arguably the greatest pitcher that ever lived...Lefty Grove.

How many of you say Stan Coveleski is one of the top 20 pitchers of all time? 0

Paige would be known now as a good pitcher, very charismatic, and he and Dizzy Dean would probably be arm and arm as good pitchers with above average success and likable personalities, but none of you would rate him in your top 30 P list if he played.

I always seem to think the Negro Leagues are akin to people who believe in past life, everyone is always Joan of Arc, El Cid, Atilla the Hun...no one is Joe Schmoe, horse droppings custodian. So every moderately succesful Negro League player is always "one of the best", "HOFer for SURE" instead of just an above average player

I have seen those sites Trosmok...what I HAVEN'T seen is boxscores...and that is what these gentlemen are in the process of digging up...w/o the inflated stats of barnstorming/exhibition matches.

You seem to think I am ignorant of the Negro Leagues, when in fact I am quite diverse, I just hold a different opinion based on those findings (in contrast to Edgartohof with his "less knowledgable comment"

One thing I would really like answered, is why you have never noticed the 'great' players were almost always on the same teams? Does that not slight their reputation...that they played against vastly inferior teams, much like the National Associations Boston Red Stockings?

The National Association, btw, is the closest reference point you can use for the Negro Leagues of the 20's, 30's

As for Josh Gibson, I think he would have been a HOFer, but not in the mold of Cochrane or Hartnett....but more along the lines of Bill Dickey which isn't bad...he wopuld have came in an offensive HR packed era, and his decline would have been in a war depleted league, he very well could have finished with 450 Hrs.

As for the 75 HR season, until I see the ballpark factors, dimensions (most were probably smaller than MLB) and boxscores...it will be a myth
Now be honest if I said Pud Galvin and Roger Connor were the most overrated players of all time, despite their stats, who would argue with me with such veracity?
No tell me why it's different... just because I say Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson? Seems people can't get skin color out of the discussion, whether for good or bad... The Sporting News of June 3, 1967 credits Gibson with a home run in a Negro League game at Yankee Stadium that struck two feet from the top of the wall circling the center field bleachers, about 580 feet from home plate.

[WJackman]

Rich,

Here is President Bush's speech.

ttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040606.html

[Bill Burgess]

Brothers,

Thought some of you guys might like to see this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm working on the first full-scale biography of William Ellsworth "Dummy" Hoy, the pioneering deaf major-leaguer.

I have not yet found any documentation that Ty Cobb and Hoy ever met in person. However, around May 16, 1958, just before he turned 96, Hoy received a long letter from Cobb. I believe that this was mentioned in an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer. That's where I got the information.

Although I've been in contact with several members of Hoy's family, and have specifically asked about this letter, I have never received any definite information. No one I've asked has seen it. I still have no idea what it said, or even if it still exists. Still, I haven't relinquished hope.

A number of Hoy's holograph letters have survived, including those he sent to Garry Hermann and historians Joseph M. Overfield and Ralph LinWeber. I have seen a couple of originals, and several photocopies. While not a prolific letter-writer, Hoy wrote some intriguing letters to family, friends, and baseball colleagues. His descendants still cherish a couple of letters that Hoy's parents sent him. So he did save some valued letters and papers. At least a few of his letters ended up on the memorabilia market and were purchased from estate sales by Hoy's modern-day fans.

That said, I'm wondering if, by any chance, you might have any information on the Ty Cobb letter of May 1958. I realize that it's a long shot, but figured I might as well ask.

Let me know. Every bit of information helps.

Thanks for your time.

Matthews. Moore
President, "Dummy" Hoy Committee
MSM Productions, Ltd.
1095 Meigs Street
Rochester, NY 14620-2405

585-442-6371 (fax)

[BaseballHistoryNut]

WJackman: I never meant to imply that no one lost more to the war than Feller/Williams. As to players who returned, their stats probably took the biggest hits, IMHO, because each was in the peak years of a career. Anyone with a grey cell in their head is aware that many players never came back and made the ultimate sacrifice. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research things as exhaustively as others can, due to having to earn a living and support a family. I think it is wonderful that you can research and write a book and have the time to do it. BTW, I was always under the impression that Williams flew combat during WW2 as well as in Korea. Perhaps I am wrong on that point. However, Feller certainly served in combat and served his country most honorably.

Pardon me for coming into this conversation so late, but didn't Feller and Greenberg both lose an immense amount of time to WW II--well more than the 3 years most players lost? That's my understanding.

BHN

[WJackman]

BNH,

This is an old post and I have not gone back to reread it. I believe the point I was trying to make is that Williams, Greenberg, Feller, etc, in the big picture lost nothing. Nothing because they came back intact, not like the millions of people who died in WW II. The world was a different place and I have never heard any of the three players mentioned above moaning their "loss." It is only today's generation of stat geeks (all of us) who lament the loss of the statistics. In the overall picture, though they were big stars, Williams, Greenberg and Feller made little overall military contribution. Baseball historians are quick to talk about Williams (who had no WW II combat experience though he did in Korea) but never talk about Joe Pinder, a minor leaguer posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his pivotal role on Omaha Beach, or Jake Jones, Williams' post WW II teammate who was a legit WW II fighter ace, dowing seven enemy planes in the Pacific and likely losing much of his career to post traumatic stress.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

It's not much of a surprise with Gibson - his home run totals depend on which games you count.

If you count just Negro League games, then his HR totals are that low. However, there just weren't that many games in a season. Eighty would be on the high side, and, as I recall, there were more games during the 1920s than there were in the 1930s (depression) and 1940s (war). Also, for a few years, there was no league to play in, hence no HRs in league games. This is the context that produced about 200 home runs; put Mel Ott in such a context (much shorter seasons, and occasionally no seasons at all) and he would hit about 200 home runs as well.


I have read two books on Gibson. Both indicated he hit not one, but TWO balls over the left field bleachers in Griffith Stadium, and completely out of the park. At any other site, I'd have to explain what all of that signifies, but I'm sure all of you know that Mickey Mantle's famous blast off Chuck Stobbs was the only other ball thus hit.

If only 40% of the things they say about Gibson are true, he's still a Top 20 player and easily the greatest catcher ever. I don't, however, think he's the greatest Negro Leaguer. Pretty much everyone who's looked into it agrees Oscar Charleston--Willie Mays, plus left-handed and much stronger--gets that title.

BHN

[Blackout]

If only 40% of the things they say about Gibson are true, he's still a Top 20 player and easily the greatest catcher ever. I don't, however, think he's the greatest Negro Leaguer. Pretty much everyone who's looked into it agrees Oscar Charleston--Willie Mays, plus left-handed and much stronger--gets that title.

BHN

I don't know, a Babe Ruth/Lou Gehrig hitter playing at the catcher position is (slightly) better to me than a stronger, left-handed Willie Mays.

[jalbright]

I don't know, a Babe Ruth/Lou Gehrig hitter playing at the catcher position is (slightly) better to me than a stronger, left-handed Willie Mays.
If you're talking peak, I can certainly see that point of view. Thing is, Charleston had a much longer career (typical for OF/1B versus a catcher), so if you put career length into the mix, it's hard not to go for Oscar over Josh.

Jim Albright

[csh19792001]

BNH,

This is an old post and I have not gone back to reread it. I believe the point I was trying to make is that Williams, Greenberg, Feller, etc, in the big picture lost nothing. Nothing because they came back intact, not like the millions of people who died in WW II. The world was a different place and I have never heard any of the three players mentioned above moaning their "loss." It is only today's generation of stat geeks (all of us) who lament the loss of the statistics. In the overall picture, though they were big stars, Williams, Greenberg and Feller made little overall military contribution.

Eddie Grant says hi. ;)

However, have you read about Feller's experience in the Marianas Turkey Shoot and on the USS Alabama in general? That battle wasn't the only action he saw, and to say he "made little overall military contribution" (especially in light of the fact that he was a prima donna and one of the biggest stars in the world) is inaccurate. Feller saw as much action as most did in WWII.

Gary Bloomfield remembers both Feller and Spahn's service as meritorious in WWII in his book, "Duty, Honor, Victory".

Here's an excerpt from an interview on the subject:

"Spahn fought in the Battle of the Bulge. He also participated in the taking of the key Rhine crossing bridge at Remagen, Germany, and received a Bronze Star as well as a Purple Heart. Spahn was almost killed there, Very luckily a lot of his troops were going across the bridge and just as he got across, the bridge collapsed. It had been detonated previously by the Nazis who were hoping to blow up the bridge. But we were able to get a lot of our units across. And like I say, we almost lost him. He was seriously wounded in the foot with shrapnel."

Spahn later reflected on the experience, and was quoted as saying:

"The Army taught me something about challenges and about what's important and what isn't. Everything I tackle in baseball and in life I take as a challenge rather than work." (Bedingfield, Baseball in World War II Europe).

PHILLIPS: "Well, speaking about pitchers, Bob Feller. I thought it was sort of ironic that they called him "Bullet Bob" because not only was he such a great pitcher but he was an anti-aircraft gunner and did amazingly well on the USS Alabama. BLOOMFIELD: Yes, he served in both conflicts, both Europe and Pacific. He volunteered immediately after Pearl Harbor. He is one of those who actually stayed in condition on the ship, would do, you know, pull-ups on the overhead pipes, would run on the deck, actually conducted classes and so forth. So he was really quite an amazing fellow. He was offered the chance to play recreation ball in the service and he turned it down and said, no, he wanted to go fight. So I respect him very highly."

Feller gunned down many, many Japanese fighters during the Turkey Shoot. He was never sick at sea, as the expression goes (with the pun partially intended). :)

Juxtaposed with the 600,000 we lost, no, they didn't lose anything, however their contributions were certainly not signficant, nor was their service "very little". Both served valiantly, and Feller (as well as Greenberg) enlisted the day after Pearl Harbor, if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure Barry Bonds would do the same if the US were to be ensnared in a real world conflict today. ;)

[RuthMayBond]

I'm sure Barry Bonds would do the same if the US were to be ensnared in a real world conflict today. ;)And you do know everything he has done and would do. At least you've found someone to dis other than me :clapping

[wamby]

The biggest loss suffered by a Red Sox hitter who was a Navy fighter pilot was Jake Jones, a legit power-hitter who debuted for the White Sox before going into the service. Yes, politics put Williams in harm's way in the Korean War, but the same politics likely kept him out of danger in WW II. Jones, though, saw extensive combat in the Pacific flying fighters off of the second USS Yorktown, and was a highly decorated ace with seven ariel victories to his credit. He also brought back a severe case of PTSD from the war and basically lost his baseball career.

.

Saying that Ted Williams was out of danger in WWII is a little disingenous. It's true that Williams did not see combat in WWII, but he graduated near the top of his flight school class and spent much of the war serving as an instructor pilot. This was a risky job and the risk of becoming a casualty was high. Politics of the day did not keep Williams chained to a desk or perpetually playing ball during the war.

[Old Mike]

The point is that Ted Williams, the WW II serviceman, was no different than the other 15 million American servicemen who were also in uniform. He was nothing special and not a hero. He would, were he here, be the first man to tell you that. He was a hero as a baseball player, a man who did his part as a veteran, and, sad to say, a dysfunctional parent. Hold him on a pedestal as the greatest hitter (top two or three, anyway) but there was nothing outstanding about the rest of his life.

[RuthMayBond]

The point is that Ted Williams, the WW II serviceman, was no different than the other 15 million American servicemen who were also in uniform. He was nothing special and not a hero. He would, were he here, be the first man to tell you that. He was a hero as a baseball player, a man who did his part as a veteran, and, sad to say, a dysfunctional parent. Hold him on a pedestal as the greatest hitter (top two or three, anyway) but there was nothing outstanding about the rest of his life.I bet he could beat you fishing :D

[Old Mike]

I would not be one to cast any doubt on Mr. Feller as I consider him a spokeman for his generation. STILL, there is nothing extraordinary in the WW II service of Feller, Williams or Greenberg that distinguishes them from MILLIONS of others.

[Old Mike]

I bet he could beat you fishing :D

How's this for a story. I play golf in Lakeville, Massachusetts, the town in which Ted had his 1960s baseball camp. He was very visable around town in that era and could often be spotted in the local diner. I rember seeing him when I was about 10. He was all by himself, just sitting there eating a bowl of soup. I didn't have the nerve to talk to him.

Years later I had my hair cut by a local barber whose shop looked like an antique fishing store with old fly rods mounted on the way. Needless to say, Ted and this barber were big buddies. The barber told me on one incident were he and Ted, while Ted was getting a haircut, got into it about who could outcast who. Eventually everyone in the shop ended up out in the parking lot where Ted wagered his caddillac on the furthest distance. the contest went on for a spell before it was called a draw.

The barber also told me a story about Ted fishing in Australia for an episode of the American sportsman. The story had something to do with a blonde and a hotel swimming pool but that is all I am allowed to repeat.

Years ago I purchase a ball autographed by Bill Terry. I had it for years, thinking to that if I could only get Ted's, then I would have the last AL and NL .400 hitters. I told that story to the barber. I left the ball with him. I went in for a haircut a couple of months later and he had gotten Ted to sign it.

So he was a great fisherman as well as a hitter, but he wasn't a war hero.

Actually I believe a new book out soon called "Ted Williams, at War." It is by Bill Nowlin.

[Blackout]

If you're talking peak, I can certainly see that point of view. Thing is, Charleston had a much longer career (typical for OF/1B versus a catcher), so if you put career length into the mix, it's hard not to go for Oscar over Josh.

Jim Albright

I tend to be a guy who favoris a peak over a long career (unless your talking about a situation like Nomar Garciapara vs Pete Rose or something), so I guess we agree to disagree.

Either way, both could've/would've/should've been .300/40-50 home run guys in the majors :(

[Captain Cold Nose]

I would not be one to cast any doubt on Mr. Feller as I consider him a spokeman for his generation. STILL, there is nothing extraordinary in the WW II service of Feller, Williams or Greenberg that distinguishes them from MILLIONS of others.
While it is indeed a slap in the face to the millions in service during to war to say what the ballplayers did was special, they do deserve credit for not taking the easy way out, as many celebrities enlisted did. No, they are not heroes for that specifically, but they didn't see fit to hide behind who they were, which is at least honorable.

[Brian McKenna]

obviously many ballplayers and other celebs had a relatively easy chores in the service but for the most part it was not of there own choosing - it was a military policy to exploit their talent for whatever purpose the brass seemed fit

[Captain Cold Nose]

obviously many ballplayers and other celebs had a relatively easy chores in the service but for the most part it was not of there own choosing - it was a military policy to exploit their talent for whatever purpose the brass seemed fit
Right, but some, such as Clark Gable or Jimmy Stewart, who retired as a Brigadier General, I believe, in the Air Force didn't want to be held aside for their talent.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I don't know, a Babe Ruth/Lou Gehrig hitter playing at the catcher position is (slightly) better to me than a stronger, left-handed Willie Mays.

Well, first, I wouldn't compare Lou Gehrig to Babe Ruth... not by a mile. And second, while I do think Gibson was Gehrig's equal, I sure don't think he was Ruth's. If he HAD been the equal of Babe Ruth, and played what is arguably the most important defensive position on the field, then of course I would put him ahead of Mays, unless he'd been a Lombardi on defense. But I don't agree with any of those premises. I do, however, put him in my top 10 or 12 players ever, at least on a par with Gehrig.

The "stronger, left-handed Willie Mays" I'm referring to is not Josh Gibson. It's CF Oscar Charleston.

BHN

[Blackout]

Well, first, I wouldn't compare Lou Gehrig to Babe Ruth... not by a mile. And second, while I do think Gibson was Gehrig's equal, I sure don't think he was Ruth's. If he HAD been the equal of Babe Ruth, and played what is arguably the most important defensive position on the field, then of course I would put him ahead of Mays, unless he'd been a Lombardi on defense. But I don't agree with any of those premises. I do, however, put him in my top 10 or 12 players ever, at least on a par with Gehrig.


Josh was called the Black Babe, which is why I threw Babe in there, but I think Gibson was probably more similar to Lou Gehrig as a hitter.

The "stronger, left-handed Willie Mays" I'm referring to is not Josh Gibson. It's CF Oscar Charleston.

BHN

I didn't refer to Gibson as Willie Mays either

I said I'd prefer Gibson (a Gehrig-esqe type of hitter at the catcher spot) over Charleston (a Mays with even more power, LH)

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Oh, my misread. And we obviously disagree. I have Mays far ahead of Gehrig, as in no contest. Gehrig doesn't make my Top 10 players, but he might make my #10 MLB player (with Charleston and Gibson, definitely in that order, removed).

It is my opinion that Gehrig, to a greater degree than statistics can ever show, benefited enormously from having Babe Ruth bat in front of him... as well as from having those other guys in front of Ruth. Even in Ruth's last two years with the Yankees, his OBP's were very respectable. There's no system I know of which adequately can reflect how much that helped him. And, of course, then there was DiMaggio.

On the other hand, I'm always telling people who bash Lefty Grove's w-l records that they can't take away his NINE e.r.a. titles in 17 years, with 4 after his 35th b-day in Fenway. (All of which is true.) Well, Gehrig won a Triple Crown, and while Ruth came close to that a couple of times, Mays never did, and even with some big adjustments for the eras in which they played, their respective OBP's and slugging percentages might put Gehrig way ahead of Mays. It's debatable whether that gap can be closed, I realize, by: (1) the difference between a spectacularly great CF and a poor, clumsy first baseman (poor, but not terrible by any means); and (2) a great baserunner (not just base stealer) and a lousy one.

On the other hand, Mays played many of his years in an atrocious run environment, while Gehrig played in the greatest ones and, for a tragic and macabre reason, "avoided" the decline phase of his career.

I have Mays and Cobb in a wrestling match for #2 all-time, with an asterisk saying it's impossible to rate Charleston with precision. It does NOT escape me that I may be unfair to Gehrig. On the other hand, even the biggest Gehrig fan must accept the fact an awful lot of those RBI's were ones which even a mediocre hitter would have gotten, in that heavenly situation (Earle Combs' excellent OBP, BABE RUTH in front of Gehrig, 344 to RF, etc.).

Gehrig is one of the relatively few greats with whom I remain open to the possibility I have him seriously underrated. But I don't think so.

BHN

[Bill Burgess]

Ted Williams, was sad to say, a dysfunctional parent.
And in that, he had NOTHING on DiMaggio/Cobb. Both were terrible parents.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Gibson being a catcher is just so intriguing. How to measure that is impossible, but I am just so intrigued.

Since Ruth began as a catcher at St. Mary's, I am also tantalized with how much value he would have had if he had remained there. I wonder how much value he would have sacrificed if he had caught.

I feel he would have had a shortened career, and maybe 15% of his value off his stats, but overall, would have raised his total value more than 15%, especially if he was great defensively at it. He would have had the gun to cut off the running game. He was built a little like Hartnett / Campanella/ Mackey.

Am I out of my mind?

Bill Burgess

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Gibson being a catcher is just so intriguing. How to measure that is impossible, but I am just so intrigued.

Since Ruth began as a catcher at St. Mary's, I am also tantalized with how much value he would have had if he had remained there. I wonder how much value he would have sacrificed if he had caught.

I feel he would have had a shortened career, and maybe 15% of his value off his stats, but overall, would have raised his total value more than 15%, especially if he was great defensively at it. He would have had the gun to cut off the running game. He was built a little like Hartnett/Campanella/Mackey.

Am I out of my mind?

Bill Burgess

Interesting Bill. We know that Ruth was able to pitch and play everyday in the field with much success. Granted, over time it wore him out to the point where him and Barrow locked horns, but just catching and playing everyday I think would be something he would have thrived in. With his personality, and his lack of attention span, I think catching would have suited him very nicely. Skills wise, there wouldn't have been a problem. I need to think about this some more, this was just a fast-twitch response. The notion of him remaining a catcher, even though left handed, has always intrigued me.

[MutOofd]

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0803820070&id=1HiIR2RMxqsC&pg=PA475&lpg=PA471&printsec=8&dq=baseball&as_brr=1&hl=nl&sig=rOLhlmF38jqJKbVFj71W-ZalY3s


You see, nobody is debating the official records since these are known for quite a longtime, so no: no stats are debunked here

[Blackout]

those stats certainly don't make Charleston look like the black Babe Ruth

however, I bet those are still missing plenty of games

[Blackout]

also, if you go to page 476, it has Gibson hitting 2 homers in 56 at-bats vs. white pitchers

the Baseball hall of fame book has him hitting 5 homers in 64 at-bats vs white pitchers (and hitting at a clip of .464)

sadly, we'll never know the truth :(

[W_Marone]

was it gibson or someone else who is believed to have some 800+ homeruns?

[Bill Burgess]

was it gibson or someone else who is believed to have some 800+ homeruns?
Josh Gibson is the one.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Josh Gibson is the one.


Charleston also well could have hit 800 HR's. More than one player said Charleston hit a HR every night, and several compared his hitting to that of Babe Ruth. They certainly had the same kind of build (i.e., he and the young Ruth, not the end-of-the-line fat Ruth).

With that said, I'll believe that ANYONE else had Babe Ruth's ability to annihilate baseballs without the help of steroids and/or other such garbage when I see it, and not one second before then.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I have yet to see any listing of career home runs that credits Josh Gibson with more than 250 home runs. Now, do I believe he hit more, I certainly do. The question how many, 400+-600+, it's my view thatwe will never know. There are not enough box scores from black baseball to give an accurate count.

To believe that Josh hit the 800 or the 900 figure we keep seeing would mean that he hit way more than Ruth, Aaron, Bonds possibly a hundred more and the man passed away before the age of 37, anyone buying that.

It's been said that at times he played more than 180 to 190 games a season and some of his number came from exhibition games. If thats true why would we except them as valid numbers.

This is no put down of the great Josh. A shame he did not get to play MLB because of skin color.The history of MLB would have been greatly enriched had Josh and other blacks took part. My only point, I don't accept the home run figures, never proven.

[jalbright]

I have yet to see any listing of career home runs that credits Josh Gibson with more than 250 home runs. Now, do I believe he hit more, I certainly do. The question how many, 400+-600+, it's my view thatwe will never know. There are not enough box scores from black baseball to give an accurate count.

To believe that Josh hit the 800 or the 900 figure we keep seeing would mean that he hit way more than Ruth, Aaron, Bonds possibly a hundred more and the man passed away before the age of 37, anyone buying that.

It's been said that at times he played more than 180 to 190 games a season and some of his number came from exhibition games. If thats true why would we except them as valid numbers.

This is no put down of the great Josh. A shame he did not get to play MLB because of skin color.The history of MLB would have been greatly enriched had Josh and other blacks took part. My only point, I don't accept the home run figures, never proven.
The key part of your post is the third paragraph. I could come close to doubling his Negro League total by counting homers hit in some fairly tough leagues: California Winter, Cuban Winter, Puerto Rican Winter, 1937 Dominican and Mexico. There's good reason to give those homers almost as much credence as those hit in the American Negro Leagues. I believe he probably did add 300-500 more in the numerous contests against all manner of competition--sometimes major league pitchers in barnstorming games, sometimes top notch semipro teams, sometimes lesser semipro teams. Some of those guys were good, some weren't. I think it fair to say the talent opposing him in those games was far more uneven than he faced in the American Negro Leagues and other leagues I've enumerated--and it makes it very hard to accept all of them as being against the caliber of at least top minor league of the time talent.

Jim Albright

[WJackman]

I believe this is why the recent HOF backed statistical project will only count games played between official clubs in the Negro Leagues. This probably will upset some people but it is really the only way to do it. How can one quantify Gibson's possible 800+ home runs. I currently have Bill Jackman - baseball's great unknown - at 130 wins and 56 losses and I haven't even scratched the surface. I can possibly project 500-700 wins for him and 200 home runs, but what does that really mean considering that 80% of his record is versus semipro and town teams.

Waite Hoyt on Gibson: "Gibson has earned his clouting reputation. He has one of the greatest throwing arms in any league. He is deadly in nipping base runners."

Ex-Pittsburgh Pitate Eppie Barnes on Fats Jenkins: "His smooth playing resembles Joe DiMaggio's. His big league ability is obvious to those who have seen him in action."

Ex-Brooklyn Dodger Overton Tremper on Buck Leonard: "There are no better fielders in the game."

Ex-Yankee Bots Nekola on Ran Dandridge: "is easily as good as Mel Ott, at his best."

Ex- Red Sox Ed Connelly: "Satchel Paige is one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history. He's as good as Dean ever was."


Negro League legend Schoolboy Johnny Taylor bested Paige with a no-hitter in the Polo Grounds in 1937. In 1938 he that wasn't his greatest game, nominating his 22-inning, 5-4 victory over Bill Jackman a few years earlier instead. Taylor called Jackman a "smarter" pitcher than Paige.

[Bill Burgess]

RE: Josh Gibson

I think the Legend of Josh has several components, and that they all can fit neatly in a box.

1. He had a great gift for hitting the long ball.

2. He hit only a fair number of HRs in scheduled Negro League games.

3. He hit a huge number in the Cuban, Mexican, Dominican L., semi-pro games.

4. He hit a huge number in exhibition games, and many had credible competition.

5. The Negro L. featured a very inferior level of pitching. Despite the existence of great pitchers, like Paige, Williams, Rogan, Mendez, Dihigo, etc., the Negro L., like the pre-1900 MLs, lacked the specialization of the later MLs. They, like the pre-1900 MLs, often drafted position players to pitch, and pitchers to play positions. I also suspect this because of the comparative lack of success of the black pitcher in the MLs, post 1947.

I think #1 & #5 were huge reasons why Josh was able to accumulate such a vast number of HRs.

Bill Burgess

[Mischa]

RE: Josh Gibson

2. He hit only a fair number of HRs in scheduled Negro League games.



Uh, Josh hit 51 HR/550 AB in scheduled Negro League games. I don't see how this can be listed as "only a fair number." Gibson hit lots of homers in just about every level of competition. The 2 in 56 against white MLB pitchers is the only "low" number, but he also hit .375 in those games, so it's not as if he was overwhelmed by white MLB hurlers. And 56 AB doesn't mean much in terms of sample sizes. And it's not as if Gibson was solely a long-ball threat - he drew boatloads of walks, posted very high averages and rapped lots of doubles and triples. He was simply an amazing offensive threat.

[WJackman]

RE: Josh Gibson

I think the Legend of Josh has several components, and that they all can fit neatly in a box.


3. He hit a huge number in the Cuban, Mexican, Dominican L., semi-pro games.

4. He hit a huge number in exhibition games, and many had credible competition.

5. The Negro L. featured a very inferior level of pitching. Despite the existence of great pitchers, like Paige, Williams, Rogan, Mendez, Dihigo, etc., the Negro L., like the pre-1900 MLs, lacked the specialization of the later MLs. They, like the pre-1900 MLs, often drafted position players to pitch, and pitchers to play positions. I also suspect this because of the comparative lack of success of the black pitcher in the MLs, post 1947.
Exhibition and semipro games cannot be dismissed with just a wave of the hand. The 1920s and 1930s often is knocked as a time period for weak competition. I disagree. During the Depression, when many minor leagues failed, often, at least in New England, semi-pro team rosters were often made up completely with players with major and or minor league experience; making competition below the major league level higer than at any other time. Teams like the East Douglas team in the Blackstone Valley League in Massachusetts and Rhode Island reportedly, over the years, used 75 players who had big league time. In 1927 alone, its pitching staff had five guys who had or eventually would have big league time. Many players - both black and white - freelanced their talent, going where the money was. It wasn't unusal for big league stars like Grove, Ruth, Gehrig, etc., to show up just about anywhere in the post season in order to earn a few bucks.

[jalbright]

RE: Josh Gibson

I think the Legend of Josh has several components, and that they all can fit neatly in a box.

1. He had a great gift for hitting the long ball.

2. He hit only a fair number of HRs in scheduled Negro League games.

3. He hit a huge number in the Cuban, Mexican, Dominican L., semi-pro games.

4. He hit a huge number in exhibition games, and many had credible competition.

5. The Negro L. featured a very inferior level of pitching. Despite the existence of great pitchers, like Paige, Williams, Rogan, Mendez, Dihigo, etc., the Negro L., like the pre-1900 MLs, lacked the specialization of the later MLs. They, like the pre-1900 MLs, often drafted position players to pitch, and pitchers to play positions. I also suspect this because of the comparative lack of success of the black pitcher in the MLs, post 1947.

I think #1 & #5 were huge reasons why Josh was able to accumulate such a vast number of HRs.

Bill Burgess

Just a clarification on #3--Mexico and Cuba and Puerto Rico's Winter League and the California Winter League were all fine quality leagues.

On #2, Josh is #1 or #2 depending on which expert you consult in which book for career Negro League homers. I'd hardly call that just a "fair" performance.

On #5: There are several reasons why Negro League pitchers didn't succeed as well as Negro League hitters upon the arrival of integration. First is the factor of pitching a lot, year round--it just burnt out arms. Second is that major league scouts as a group doubted the baseball smarts of Negro League pitchers as a group, so they only wanted guys with the blazing fastballs. Negro League pitchers had to be smart to survive, so in fact they often were like Luis Tiant in 1975--lots of guile wrapped around adequate fastballs. Also, being smart meant coasting if you had a big lead to save your arm (and probably when you were way behind as well). So, while Negro League pitching wasn't as good as major league pitching, the conditions in which Negro League pitchers plied their trade makes them look worse than they really were. And don't tell me about those eye-popping high .400 or higher averages, because they were obtained in seasons of less than 100 games, sometimes as few as 30-40. It's a lot easier to have a hot streak in league games make those averages look so gaudy in a short season when there isn't as much time for things to even out.

Interestingly, William McNeil compared players who met certain minimums in both the majors and the Negro Leagues and found the rates of homers was actually higher in the majors, but averages were 15% lower. This would fit with the coasting idea--if you're coasting, the only thing to do is stay away from their power. Now, McNeil's group was only 15 players, and his methods weren't perfect. I even reran it with methods I am happier with, but the results to the extent I'm representing them here held up--and, most interestingly, while only two were more than -10% in homers in my revision to the study, and maybe two more were lower at all, most of the rest hit just a few more homers, though two hit a lot more. The effect on average was similarly uniform.

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

Nice posting, Jim, as usual. But we are still left with questions. Why hasn't the black pitcher met with better success, subsequently in BB history. If black participation peak in the mid 70's, and black hitters did so well, why were there not many more black pitchers doing well too.

I don't know if we'll ever know the real answers to these questions. Even today, we have a few stud black pitchers, like Pedro/Mariano, and then the drastically extreme drop off. Why not more black journeymen on the mound?

This is what bothers & beguiles me concerning the Negro Leagues.

Bill

[Blackout]

Nice posting, Jim, as usual. But we are still left with questions. Why hasn't the black pitcher met with better success, subsequently in BB history. If black participation peak in the mid 70's, and black hitters did so well, why were there not many more black pitchers doing well too.

I don't know if we'll ever know the real answers to these questions. Even today, we have a few stud black pitchers, like Pedro/Mariano, and then the drastically extreme drop off. Why not more black journeymen on the mound?

This is what bothers & beguiles me concerning the Negro Leagues.

Bill

Satchel Paige, Smokey Joe, Bullet Joe, Jose Mendez, Cannonball Redding

there were some stud blacks in the negro leagues

[jalbright]

Nice posting, Jim, as usual. But we are still left with questions. Why hasn't the black pitcher met with better success, subsequently in BB history. If black participation peak in the mid 70's, and black hitters did so well, why were there not many more black pitchers doing well too.

I don't know if we'll ever know the real answers to these questions. Even today, we have a few stud black pitchers, like Pedro/Mariano, and then the drastically extreme drop off. Why not more black journeymen on the mound?

This is what bothers & beguiles me concerning the Negro Leagues.

Bill
Bill, you are older than I, so you were in your teens during much of the sixties. Remember the Civil Rights Movement and race riots? Open racism was being treated, but it was a nasty process. That's when the 70's pitchers were developing. Is it such a surprise that many white coaches and scouts still had Al Campanis-type views? And if they did, don't you think it would have an impact? And remember, the Al Campanises were very much around until 10-15 years ago, if not even more recently. Don't you think that if people in positions like that doubted the smarts of people of color (regardless of the fact that such doubts are a bunch of crap) that it could show up in much the same way we've seen? The Al Campanises still respect a good fastball, so those kids have always gotten their shots. But the Afro-American kids who didn't have those fastballs need smarts to get by, as any pitcher with that second-rate fastball does--and if the powers that be have it in their heads that Afro-Americans aren't good at the cerebral part of the game. . . .

Since then, many urban American Afro-Americans became less and less exposed to baseball as their sport of choice. Basketball and football have come to rule the roost there. Let's face it, today non-Latino Afro-Americans see a lot more guys like them in the NBA or NFL than in MLB. Which way do you think those kids will lean if baseball isn't clearly their best sport?

[jalbright]

Bill,

I'll add this observation I've made before on the same topic:

If Negro League pitching was so darned weak, how could the Negro League hitters have made such a comparatively smooth transition? IMO, they may not have all measured up to major league standards, but there were enough good ones that Negro League hitters knew how to hit top notch pitching when they saw it.

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

Those are all valid theories, but still . . . Over time, things should balance out. Today, Latin blacks seem to be displacing home-grown blacks in BB.

Despite the appeal of Football/Basketball, don't you think the Big Money should serve to counter-act that, and bring more blacks into a non-contact sport?

Even though blacks are now great hitters, a proportional % are not finding equal success on the mound. And I just don't know why that is.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

Bill,

I'll add this observation I've made before on the same topic:

If Negro League pitching was so darned weak, how could the Negro League hitters have made such a comparatively smooth transition? IMO, they may not have all measured up to major league standards, but there were enough good ones that Negro League hitters knew how to hit top notch pitching when they saw it.

Jim Albright
And that is quite an intelligent question, which regretably, I haven't a clue to answering. I just don't know. But I would like to know. I remember that Willie Mays had a heck of a time when he first played in the white minors, and then again when he finally arrived in the MLs. Both times, he went something like 0-22. But he did finally get the hang of it.

Bill

[jalbright]

Jim,

Those are all valid theories, but still . . . Over time, things should balance out. Today, Latin blacks seem to be displacing home-grown blacks in BB.

Despite the appeal of Football/Basketball, don't you think the Big Money should serve to counter-act that, and bring more blacks into a non-contact sport?

Even though blacks are now great hitters, a proportional % are not finding equal success on the mound. And I just don't know why that is.

Bill
But there's big money in those contact sports, too. Haven't you heard of baseball's program to reestablish itself in the inner cities? If the cities don't maintain those big grassy expanses that are ballfields, who's going to want to play on them? Where's the support structure (coaches, primarily) for the game in the cities? Playgrounds with a few hoops are good enough for basketball, and there's plenty of coaches around for that. Football is a big staple in so many high schools that programs sprout to ensure a supply of talent for that sport--so there's coaches.

I don't know how into football you are, but in the pro game, we're just getting to a real supply of Afro-American starting quarterbacks. Much of it is over the same issue of the old guard seeing players of color as "athletes", and white boys as "brainy" quarterbacks for so many years. Over the last 20 years or so, that idea has been being eased out of existence, but until we get an Afro-American QB to lead a few Super Bowl champs, I'm not sure we'll completely push such thinking into the sewer holes where it belongs. Just a couple of years ago, Rush Limbaugh made a big splash by mouthing such an idea about Donovan McNabb. I live in the Philly area, and I am thrilled to have such a classy, talented man at the helm of my team. He may have some flaws, but stupidity is not among them. Yet, because of his skin color, it is acceptable to some idiots to question his intelligence largely on that basis, though they cover their tails by citing the fact he hasn't yet won a Super Bowl and using code words like saying he's an "athlete" but not a "quarterback".

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

And that is quite an intelligent question, which regretably, I haven't a clue to answering. I just don't know. But I would like to know. I remember that Willie Mays had a heck of a time when he first played in the white minors, and then again when he finally arrived in the MLs. Both times, he went something like 0-22. But he did finally get the hang of it.

Bill
But Willie only had about two years in the Negro Leagues before he went into "organized ball" and hadn't even established himself as much more than an adequate starter (if that) when he did so. Of course, he was quite young yet, so I think the real answer with Willie is he needed some time to develop--but not a lot.

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

But there's big money in those contact sports, too. Haven't you heard of baseball's program to reestablish itself in the inner cities? If the cities don't maintain those big grassy expanses that are ballfields, who's going to want to play on them? Where's the support structure (coaches, primarily) for the game in the cities? Playgrounds with a few hoops are good enough for basketball, and there's plenty of coaches around for that. Football is a big staple in so many high schools that programs sprout to ensure a supply of talent for that sport--so there's coaches.

I don't know how into football you are, but in the pro game, we're just getting to a real supply of Afro-American starting quarterbacks.
I only know of those FB players whose fame has transcended their sport a little. Wasn't there a a black quarterback a while back in Philly?

It's good to know that racial stereo-types are breaking down. When I was a teen, I was up against the belief that one had to be black to rock dance great. After a few years, I got good enough to work in a New York dance club, and could win most of our challenges. And now, blacks are no longer steered to modern dance, away from ballet in pro companies. Race does play a big role in our thinking. Also, when I was young in the 60's, it was thought blacks could sprint well, but were not suited to long distances. The big distance running countries were the US, Russia and England. But now, African tribes have proven the fallacy of that flawed thinking, REAL BIG.

Bill

[jalbright]

I only know of those FB players whose fame has transcended their sport a little. Wasn't there a a black quarterback a while back in Philly?

Bill

Uh, Bill, please read the rest of the post you quoted part of (#200). It talks about that very QB and the issue of race.

Jim Albright

[SHOELESSJOE3]

No one can say that there were not some good and great pitchers in black baseball but across the board it was not on the level of MLB at that time. Black star Buck O'neil himself made that observation. Some good and great but overall not on the level of MLB. Certainly not to day white pitchers were superior to black pitchers. The pay was low, traveling and training conditions terrible and little scouting to find good black pitchers.

Another note in regard to some of the offensive numbers put up by Josh and some others. Due to lean pitching staffs and times when a pitcher would pitch two games in the same day a position player would be used as a starting pitcher. It could be an infielder, outfielder or even catcher in the role of a starting pitcher. We have no way of knowing what the level of pitching was day to day in black baseball but the above words tell us at times it was not conistently good.

For sure there were black hitters who were quite capable of hitting the best whete MLB pitchers but that in no way changes the fact that often in black baseball the high level pitching day to day was sparse.

[Bill Burgess]

Uh, Bill, please read the rest of the post you quoted part of (#200). It talks about that very QB and the issue of race.

Jim Albright
Wasn't there a guy before the one you cite. Cunningwood or Cumminghem. I just can't bring it up. I never really followed football, but was pleased a black was being allowed to quarterback at all. Made me feel good.

I can't debate too many sports. Maybe track and Field, but definitely not Football or Basketball at all.

Bill

[Blackout]

Randall Cunningham you mean?

[Bill Burgess]

Randall Cunningham you mean?
That's the one. Good going.

Bill

[jalbright]

No one can say that there were not some good and great pitchers in black baseball but across the board it was not on the level of MLB at that time. Black star Buck O'neil himself made that observation. Some good and great but overall not on the level of MLB. Certainly not to day white pitchers were superior to black pitchers. The pay was low, traveling and training conditions terrible and little scouting to find good black pitchers.

Another note in regard to some of the offensive numbers put up by Josh and some others. Due to lean pitching staffs and times when a pitcher would pitch two games in the same day a position player would be used as a starting pitcher. It could be an infielder, outfielder or even catcher in the role of a starting pitcher. We have no way of knowing what the level of pitching was day to day in black baseball but the above words tell us at times it was not conistently good.

For sure there were black hitters who were quite capable of hitting the best whete MLB pitchers but that in no way changes the fact that often in black baseball the high level pitching day to day was sparse.
I agree that for a number of reasons, the pitching in the Negro Leagues wasn't as good as in the majors. As I've indicated, I'm sure many times even the best pitchers didn't bear down, especially when the game wasn't competitive. Position players would pitch, but generally in blowouts or against barnstorming opponents. The Negro Leagues played 2-3 games on the weekends, and had 2-3 good/decent starters. They'd pitch some in the barnstorming games during the week, but unless there was big money to be made, they'd be saved for another time. Even if the big guns pitched during the week, they'd often start a game and move to the field after 3-4 innings. Negro League teams usually carried 13-14 players, so versatility was valued.
The majors had much more depth in pitching, so they'd go at it with strong effort almost all the time.

But if a game was close late, I think the pitching would have been rather good then in the Negro Leagues. Even lesser teams needed some pitching, if for no other reason than to be able to draw fans to their games. And winning tough games at home against good opponents would get you good word of mouth in your home base.

Jim Albright

[MutOofd]

Over the last 20 years or so, that idea has been being eased out of existence, but until we get an Afro-American QB to lead a few Super Bowl champs, I'm not sure we'll completely push such thinking into the sewer holes where it belongs. Just a couple of years ago, Rush Limbaugh made a big splash by mouthing such an idea about Donovan McNabb. I live in the Philly area, and I am thrilled to have such a classy, talented man at the helm of my team. He may have some flaws, but stupidity is not among them. Yet, because of his skin color, it is acceptable to some idiots to question his intelligence largely on that basis, though they cover their tails by citing the fact he hasn't yet won a Super Bowl and using code words like saying he's an "athlete" but not a "quarterback".

Jim Albright
Doug Williams led the Washington Redskins to the SuperBowl in the 87-88 season.

Facing legendary Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway, Williams engineered a 42-10 rout, in which the Redskins set an NFL record by scoring five touchdowns in the second quarter. Williams completed 18 of 29 passes for 340 yards, with four TD passes, and was named Super Bowl MVP.

Oh and as a sidenote, the man was alledgedly asked "How long have you been a black quarterback?" ...

[jalbright]

I know about Doug Williams. Note the use of the plural in what you highlighted. I don't think this claptrap dies at least until some Afro-American QB gets a couple of rings as a starter . Did wonders for the public perception of Terry Bradshaw's IQ, that's for sure.

Jim Albright

[trosmok]

Doug Williams led the Washington Redskins to the SuperBowl in the 87-88 season.

Facing legendary Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway, Williams engineered a 42-10 rout, in which the Redskins set an NFL record by scoring five touchdowns in the second quarter. Williams completed 18 of 29 passes for 340 yards, with four TD passes, and was named Super Bowl MVP.

Oh and as a sidenote, the man was alledgedly asked "How long have you been a black quarterback?" ...

The real question was slightly more sensible, but still perplexing for it to have been asked in the late eighties. Considering how far we had come since the strife of the late fifties and early sixties known as the Civil Rights movement, it seems the blathering and scribbling idiots love the taste of their own size twelves, even to this day. Here's the link:

http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/williams.asp

For my part, I'm a big fan of the rich tradition of word of mouth, and anecdotal evidence to tell of great feats from times gone by. I also trust most of the reporters of these tales to be truthful, as best they know, which is why you must take them for what they are worth. That is, possibly unverifiable, but still the best evidence of certain accomplishments or phenomena of which no written record is known to exist.:atthepc

[MutOofd]

The real question was slightly more sensible, but still perplexing for it to have been asked in the late eighties. Considering how far we had come since the strife of the late fifties and early sixties known as the Civil Rights movement, it seems the blathering and scribbling idiots love the taste of their own size twelves, even to this day. Here's the link:

http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/williams.asp

For my part, I'm a big fan of the rich tradition of word of mouth, and anecdotal evidence to tell of great feats from times gone by. I also trust most of the reporters of these tales to be truthful, as best they know, which is why you must take them for what they are worth. That is, possibly unverifiable, but still the best evidence of certain accomplishments or phenomena of which no written record is known to exist.:atthepc

That's why I said "alledgedly" :)

[MutOofd]

I know about Doug Williams. Note the use of the plural in what you highlighted. I don't think this claptrap dies at least until some Afro-American QB gets a couple of rings as a starter . Did wonders for the public perception of Terry Bradshaw's IQ, that's for sure.

Jim Albright

You might want to rephrase that as:

until a couple of Afro-American QBs get a ring as a starter

which might be more sufficient to ban these crazy thoughts, since one case in a statistical set might be an outlier

[Blackout]

my boy Eli Manning will make it harder for afro-american qb's to win superbowls :D

[jalbright]

You might want to rephrase that as:

until a couple of Afro-American QBs get a ring as a starter

which might be more sufficient to ban these crazy thoughts, since one case in a statistical set might be an outlier
Maybe. But my thinking is that it's easier for one QB to win a couple than for enough to win single rings to make those idiots go away. Either way, it's going to take a couple of Super Bowl championships in the space of a decade or so to make it happen.

Jim Albright