Seperate Categories

[Tony Robbins]

Interesting thought, is it fair to compare pre and post intergration players numbers at face value?

When comparing Let's say, Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth, is it fair to assume that Ruth was the better hitter because the numbers say so?

After all, Mantle played in an intergrated league, years later, when the players were stronger. He got to face minority players, where as Ruth didn't.

Now my question is, should players pre and post intergration be listed in seperate categories?

Is this the way to be the most fair to greats like Mantle or Mays?

Your feedback is appreciated.

[CTaka]

When comparing Let's say, Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth, is it fair to assume that Ruth was the better hitter because the numbers say so?

Yes, because even making an LQ adjustment would still leave Mickey trailing the Babe.

After all, Mantle played in an intergrated league, years later, when the players were stronger. He got to face minority players, where as Ruth didn't.

The AL of the 1950's was barely an integrated league, trailing far behind the NL in those years. And neither league was nearly as integrated as today's leagues, particularly factoring in the Latin and Asian players in today's game. Again, an LQ adjustment needs to be made comparing players from the Mantle/Mays era compared to today's players. Now, how much of an LQ adjustment should be made when comparing different eras is where most people here seem to disagree. But my guess is that the majority of posters would feel that some type of an LQ adjustment is warranted.

I voted that separate lists aren't needed but LQ adjustments are needed. I'm not a fan of separate lists. My guess is that it is possible that more people would feel that separate lists are more justified in ranking 19th century players compared to 20th (and 21st) century players than integrated vs non-integrated leagues. Regardless of the color of one's skin, the rules were essentially the same regardless of whether it was Ruth's era, Mantle's era, or Pujol's era. But the rules in the 19th century were markedly different from today's game (7 balls for a walk, pitchers could not throw from above the shoulder, advancing 2 bases on a single counted as a stolen base, pitching from a mound 50 feet from home, etc). I'm still not convinced of using separate lists for 19th century players, but I can see more of an argument for that than integrated vs non-integrated leagues when the rules were essentially the same.

Now if only we could agree on how much of an LQ adjustment should be made...:noidea

[jalbright]

I know what you're getting at, and I appreciate the point. But I don't think Balkanizing the HOFers into various lists (pre integration, post integration, 19th century, Negro Leagues, etc.) is good for the Hall or even baseball itself.

Jim Albright