Why Does MLB Not Recognize The NAPBBP

[runningshoes]

Major League Baseball does not recognize The National Association of Professional Base Ball Players which was founded in 1871 and lasted through 1875.

Why is that?

[Brian McKenna]

Can't have a major without a minor:

The first two loosely-defined minor leagues were formed in 1877: the International Association and the League Alliance. These leagues developed in response to major league teams who intruded on their territories to play exhibition games without any regard for local scheduling. The major league teams would “steal” fan attendance and they had no qualms about raiding local rosters for the best talent.

A few years later the minors entered into contract, the National Agreement, with the National League and American Association in large part to protect themselves.

[hubkittel]

there are a couple of reasons mlb doesn't recognize the na. the official reason is that, based on the problems the na had with scheduling, it wasn't really an organized league. the second reason is that with the centenial of the nl coming up, mlb wanted to make a big deal out of the 100th anniversary of the "first major league" and they couldn't do that unless they stripped the na of that distinction. i know that sounds conspiritorial but look at the make up of the commision-it was made up mostly of people with pr backgrounds not history backgrounds.

the idea that the na was not a major league is fairly ridiculous. all you have to do is look at the make up of the nl in 1876. the nl was nothing more than a contracted na with different governing rules. if the na was not a major league in 1875 than the nl was not a major league in 1876.

as to the scheduling question, that's been blown out of proportion. the teams that folded and didn't complete their schedules were, for the most part, cooperative teams. the only reason for the inclusion of the co-op teams in the na was so that the "real" teams could save money on travel by scheduling multiple games in the same city. it's the reason you had multiple teams in multiple cities. 2 teams in stl, 3 in phil, 2 in new york, etc. an eastern team could travel west for two weeks and get in games against four teams in three cities. a western team could go east and play seven teams in four cities. the co-op teams, which are pointed to as a weakness in the na, were actually an overall economic positive for the league.

also, the league champion in the na was decided by who had the most wins. once a team (meaning boston) got an insurmountable lead in wins, there really was no incentive for teams to spend money on extended road trips. it's not that the league was disorganized or that teams quit on their seasons but rather, once the league champion was decided, the season just kind of died.

i believe that if a new records commission was formed today they would recognize the na as a major league.

[Brian McKenna]

if the na was not a major league in 1875 than the nl was not a major league in 1876.


That may very well be true. I could go either way on major status prior to 1877. Looking back with 2006 eyes we must realize that our concept of a major league today would not jive with reality for many decades in baseball history.

In actuality, some of the best teams and players of the 19th century may not have played in the majors at all. Many men played for comparable wages and for what they believed better circumstances elsewhere. Moreover, not all the teams in the majors deserve to be listed as such. Historians debate the quality of play in all four major leagues during the 19th century, especially the Union Association. They cast an eye to high quality “minor league” and barnstorming clubs and players, particular in the west which was not represented in any major league. The game was in its infancy; eventually the best players would funnel to the top.

A strict demarcation between the majors and minors probably didn’t exist in respect to quality until the truce between the National League and American League in 1903; though, Jack Dunn of the International League Baltimore Orioles and the Pacific Coast League were able to amass impressive lineups and pay their players major-league-comparable salaries. The advent of successful Negro league franchises in the 1920s-30s-40s would forever spawn a debate about the quality of play in both the white and black leagues.

If a major league is defined as a collection of top-notch players than perhaps the na is a major but it should be realized that the majors we know today with the funneling system of the best talent in the world to the American major leagues is not as old as one may think. Some steps along the way:
-inclusion of African-Americans
-significant welcoming of foreign-born talent
-development and refinement of the tiered minor league system.

[hubkittel]

i can't remember where i read the thing about the pr nature of the commission's decision. it might have been pete palmer but i'm not sure. i think all the people who were on the commission and their jobs within baseball can be found in an appendix in the baseball encyclopedia. the whole thing is just an interpretation by 19th cent bb/na efficianados.

on the point of there being better teams and players then those in the na, this is certainly true. the na did not have all the best teams or players in the nation. there are teams (and entire leagues) that in any given year would have a winning record against na opponents. this is a problem when arguing the case for the "major league" status of the na. however, the same could be said for the early nl. there are many "minor" professional teams that had winning records against nl opponents.

my argument is still that if the nl is recognized as a major league in 1876 and is made up mostly of former na teams and players, how do you deny the na major league status? my favorite quote about the na is something along the lines of "the na was full of major league players but it just wasn't a major league". i love that quote but i disagree with the second half of it.

one of the things that has to be considered when talking about the "major league" nature of the na is its geographical makeup. in its final year of existence, the na had teams in new york, boston, philly, dc, chicago, and stl (among other places). if you think about it, that's basicly the bondaries of mlb until the 1950's. the only thing it was missing are teams in michagan and ohio (and the na did have a team in cleveland in 1871/2). the na established the geography of major league baseball for the next 80+ years.

[Brian McKenna]

To the victor does go the spoils. The National League sees itself as the first major and this is paramount in the decision not to recognize a league prior to 1876 as a major.

After 1876, it really doesn't matter; in fact, the UA, AA, PL and FL represent interesting historical eras for the current major leagues.

Plus, as hubkittel has noted the decision in the late 1960s had something to do with statistics. I'll go even further and say that it has to do with what people are familiar with. First, no one that played in the NA was alive in 1969. Second, no one who had anything to do with the NA was in a position of power within or around MLB in 1969 and that includes the media and the Hall of Fame. In short, the NL dated all the way back to 1876 and it was still around. Ergo, time began in 1876.

BTW - the AA is the NL - they merged in 1892 and the new organization was renamed the National League and American Association of Baseball Clubs (or something close to that). Eventually (and actually quickly thereafter), the new league was just referred to as the NL.

For my money the UA and FL were not majors. One could also argue that it was the PL in 1890 that was a major and not the NL.

Even if the NL wasn't truly a major until 1877 with the subjection of the International Association and the League Alliance who wouldn't just lump it as such beginning in 1876?

[Brian McKenna]

The one thing that seems so Mickey Mouse to me about the NA is the domination of Boston for nearly the entire life of the organization. Sure teams have dominated in the NL and AL for some time but they have long histories.

The NA lasted only 5 years and was ruled the whole time by Boston - seems amateurish like the Red Stockings run in 1869-70. However, if the league lasted that long I wouldn't see it that way. Basically, this is the reason the NL was formed - Hulbert was tired of losing.

I also see scheduling as a big issue. If it wasn't profitable, some teams just wouldn't fulfill their requirements - reminds me of the problems many young leagues ran into - NL, Negro leagues, NFL. Again, it wouldn't be an issue so much if the league had survived to fix its own problems.

[SABR Steve]

The paramount reason for the formation of the NA was to have some sort of structure leading to a national champion, and the powers of the time did just that in the form of a tournament.

Before 1871, several clubs declared themselves "National Champions," which caused confusion in the world of sport. In 1871, a club had to prove they were champions by joining the NA and playing a schedule. However, the actual official standings, based on most victories, (or in the case of 1871 most series won) has to my knowledge never been published. Retrosheet, due to my prodding, has finally, placed the teams in the order by wins. SABR still ignores my prodding. Neither adds forfeited games, and their hesitation frustrates me.

I'm fairly but not completely sure that the best brand of baseball during this time existed in the NA. The problem for us in looking back is to what degree gambling had on the outcomes of many games, as well as a few other evils.

Without judging too harshly for their mistakes and realizing that this is where it all started for us baseball enthusiasts, I believe we can elevate the NA to a "major" status. There are too many modernists chained to their biases about the past, and it is left to historians of the era in question that can appreciate the NA's gift and force a final answer to Runningshoes question.

[hubkittel]

The paramount reason for the formation of the NA was to have some sort of structure leading to a national champion, and the powers of the time did just that in the form of a tournament.

i think the same can be said for the national league. the na formed, responding to the success and triumph of the professional game, in order to establish a recognized championship, set the rules under which the game was played, and regulate player contracts. the national league was formed to do all of those things better. the businessmen behind the better clubs of the na (and it's largely a myth that the na was a "players" league, an asylum run by the inmates) recognized the flaws in the na and took steps to correct them.

I'm fairly but not completely sure that the best brand of baseball during this time existed in the NA. The problem for us in looking back is to what degree gambling had on the outcomes of many games, as well as a few other evils.

cap anson wrote that the boston red stockings were, at the time, the best collection of baseball talent ever assembled and that the athletics were the second best. while accepting the fact that anson might have been a little biased, i don't think his statement is too far off the mark. it's probably safe to assume that the best teams in the nation were in the na. it's also safe to assume that there were countless teams (professional, semipro, and amateur) better then the bottem tier teams in the na. it would be a long time before the worst team in "major league" baseball would be better than all of the teams outside of it.

gambling was a problem. so was alcoholism, unsportsmanlike conduct, the quality of the umpires, rowdyism among players and fans, etc. but the same can be said for the nl, the al, the aa, the ua, the fl, and baseball in general well into the 20th century. these weren't problems that were unique to the na and shouldn't detract from the na's claim to "major" league status.

[Brian McKenna]

Not so sure about all these paramount altruistic reasons for forming for-profit leagues??

What is the position on the International Association formed in 1877? They fared well in head-to-head competition with the NL. Did the IA sign a pact with the NL like the League Aliiance did?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

there are a couple of reasons mlb doesn't recognize the na. the official reason is that, based on the problems the na had with scheduling, it wasn't really an organized league. the second reason is that with the centenial of the nl coming up, mlb wanted to make a big deal out of the 100th anniversary of the "first major league" and they couldn't do that unless they stripped the na of that distinction. i know that sounds conspiritorial but look at the make up of the commision-it was made up mostly of people with pr backgrounds not history backgrounds.

the idea that the na was not a major league is fairly ridiculous. all you have to do is look at the make up of the nl in 1876. the nl was nothing more than a contracted na with different governing rules. if the na was not a major league in 1875 than the nl was not a major league in 1876.

as to the scheduling question, that's been blown out of proportion. the teams that folded and didn't complete their schedules were, for the most part, cooperative teams. the only reason for the inclusion of the co-op teams in the na was so that the "real" teams could save money on travel by scheduling multiple games in the same city. it's the reason you had multiple teams in multiple cities. 2 teams in stl, 3 in phil, 2 in new york, etc. an eastern team could travel west for two weeks and get in games against four teams in three cities. a western team could go east and play seven teams in four cities. the co-op teams, which are pointed to as a weakness in the na, were actually an overall economic positive for the league.

also, the league champion in the na was decided by who had the most wins. once a team (meaning boston) got an insurmountable lead in wins, there really was no incentive for teams to spend money on extended road trips. it's not that the league was disorganized or that teams quit on their seasons but rather, once the league champion was decided, the season just kind of died.

i believe that if a new records commission was formed today they would recognize the na as a major league.
Wow hubkittel! You know your 19th century baseball! I'm impressed.

[hubkittel]

Wow hubkittel! You know your 19th century baseball! I'm impressed.

that's kind of funny because i was just thinking to myself last night how little i really know about the game in the 19th century. :laugh i still have a lot to learn.

[Buzzaldrin]

One problem with recognizing the NA as a major league is the way the numbers work. There are so many arguments all over this site about why certain years and certain parks confer advantages to players that must be taken with a grain of salt or just disregarded entirely (George Sisler's enormous home road splits come readily to mind). I don't quite buy into this so much, frankly, I mean, if a guy like Mel Ott can take advantage of the situation of his home park to achieve feats he could not have done otherwise, than more power to him.

But a league in which the top team wins 71 games and fully half of the other teams in the league win 7 or less, then- no, this is not a league, it is a tournament, and they are two different things. How do I look at a guy's NA career and judge him by any remotely objective standards when he has a .900 winning percentage playing many of his games against teams that were often just "the good ol local boys." It's just impossible. The NL, from its first season had a schedule of games that the teams adhered to reasonably closely- nobody went 1 and 12 then dropped out of the league- they had compressed and compacted the talent and the organization to the point where it made sense and wasn't just the NA Open. The organization and not merely the talent were definitely the key there. Believe me, no one (as many of you know) is a bigger fan of 19th c ball- and that includes the NA, but I can't consider it as a major league because- major as it may have been- it wasn't really a league.

[hubkittel]

But a league in which the top team wins 71 games and fully half of the other teams in the league win 7 or less, then- no, this is not a league, it is a tournament, and they are two different things. How do I look at a guy's NA career and judge him by any remotely objective standards when he has a .900 winning percentage playing many of his games against teams that were often just "the good ol local boys." It's just impossible. The NL, from its first season had a schedule of games that the teams adhered to reasonably closely- nobody went 1 and 12 then dropped out of the league- they had compressed and compacted the talent and the organization to the point where it made sense and wasn't just the NA Open. The organization and not merely the talent were definitely the key there. Believe me, no one (as many of you know) is a bigger fan of 19th c ball- and that includes the NA, but I can't consider it as a major league because- major as it may have been- it wasn't really a league.

i understand what you're saying buzz and i'm not going to say that you're wrong. you pretty much nailed all the weaknesses of the na. maybe the problem in the end is one of semantics-what's "major", what's a "league".

i'd say that the na was at the very least an attempt to form a "major league"-they just happened to fail in their attempt. but there are plenty of failed "major leagues" and they all get their stats and records in the baseball encyclopedia. the na, because of its historical importance, should at least be treated the same as the aa, the ua, and the fl.

the scheduling problem and the lack of league depth i think are still a bit overstated. the na wasn't that far removed from the days of challenge matches and their attempt at scheduling represented a major step forward in the evolution of baseball. baseball was still in the process of figuring out how to schedule league games and a leason was learned from the na's failure. as far as league depth, it's undeniable that the bottom half of the league was annually uncompetative. but, again, the na was an attempt at getting the best teams to play each other and decide a national championship. i think they got that part right and it's the reason the bottom half of the league took it on the chin. how many teams in the country could have walked into the na and been competative? to be competative in the na, you had to go out and find the best professional players you could. the league was good enough that you couldn't succeed with a group of local amateurs.

i'm pretty much a pessamist by nature and i find it strange that what i'm doing here is making the argument that the glass is half full. i realize how easy it is to make the opposite argument.

[SABR Steve]

One problem with recognizing the NA as a major league is the way the numbers work. There are so many arguments all over this site about why certain years and certain parks confer advantages to players that must be taken with a grain of salt or just disregarded entirely (George Sisler's enormous home road splits come readily to mind). I don't quite buy into this so much, frankly, I mean, if a guy like Mel Ott can take advantage of the situation of his home park to achieve feats he could not have done otherwise, than more power to him.

But a league in which the top team wins 71 games and fully half of the other teams in the league win 7 or less, then- no, this is not a league, it is a tournament, and they are two different things. How do I look at a guy's NA career and judge him by any remotely objective standards when he has a .900 winning percentage playing many of his games against teams that were often just "the good ol local boys." It's just impossible. The NL, from its first season had a schedule of games that the teams adhered to reasonably closely- nobody went 1 and 12 then dropped out of the league- they had compressed and compacted the talent and the organization to the point where it made sense and wasn't just the NA Open. The organization and not merely the talent were definitely the key there. Believe me, no one (as many of you know) is a bigger fan of 19th c ball- and that includes the NA, but I can't consider it as a major league because- major as it may have been- it wasn't really a league.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I got to thinking. If the NA can't qualify as a major for the reasons given, then it would follow that it can't qualify as a minor either. You covered that by defining the NA as a tournament and not a league. But to me, the National League was really the same thing. The difference being that stronger teams in larger cities made up the NL, which resulted in a successful enterprise that has grown to what we have today. Originally, as I see it, the 1876 NL season was a tournament, a tournament to give the country a legitimate baseball champion.

[TonyK]

A definition of a Major League: The most important league in any sport.

A definition of a League: An association of sports teams that organizes matches for it's members.

Does anyone know whether or not the W-L records of NA teams vs outside teams exists? I would be surprised if NA teams on the whole didn't squash other competition.

In support of the NA being a "major" league I'd also add that Total Baseball considers it to be the first ML, and Baseball-Reference includes NA players' stats in their careers.

According to TB, NA teams ranged in games played in 1871 from 27 to 35, and in 1874 from 47 to 71 games. Those two years came fairly close to what the NL of 1876 and 1879, and the UA of 1884 experienced.

William Ryczek in Blackguards and Red Stockings wrote at the beginning of his history of the NA that it was the first major league, and ends his book with this sentence:

But it was the first major league, a noble experiment that served a necessary function in baseball's awkward transition from an amatuer to a professional sport.

He even considers this ancient league to probably be the most interesting of all of baseball's major leagues! The problem was nobody in the world knew how to run a major league in any team sport back in 1871.

[hubkittel]

i read something recently (and i can't remember whether it was in ryczek's book or goldstein's playing for keeps or somewhere else) about how one of the goals of the na was, as we know, to establish a format for deciding the national championship. the book pointed out how disputed the championship actually was. all it took to claim that year's championship was to defeat the previous year's champ in a three game series. it didn't matter what your record was or how many other series you lost, if you got hot and defeated the previous year's champ in a series, you were the official champion.

naturally problems arose when team x defeated last year's champ but then lost a series to team y. you ended up having disputed champions much like you have had in college football. team x would be the official champ but team y would claim the championship based on their series win against team x, a better record, etc. it was a mess.

the na, for all its flaws, solved this problem.

[Brian McKenna]

Seems logical to me that the NA was the first professional major league.

What else was out there of its magnitude? As TonyK says:

A definition of a Major League: The most important league in any sport.

[hubkittel]

another thing i would add about the na is that it was, i believe, the first attempt at forming a professional sports league in the history of the world. the football association was formed in 1863 but i don't believe that professional clubs were allowed to compete until the summer of 1871.

as certainly the first attempt at forming a professional baseball league, the na was plowing new ground. the things that it's critics point out (the scheduling problems, the inferiority of the bottom teams in the league, etc) are all valid but i think that they're missing the bigger picture. how many people in the country, besides harry wright, knew how to put together a schedule for a baseball team on a "nationwide" basis? how many people knew how to run a team on a profitable basis? how many knew how to get the best players on their team? how many knew how to identify the best players? the people in the baseball "establishment" were learning their way in the brave new world of professional sports. they were pioneers.

so their first crack at organizing professional baseball didn't go according to plan. so what? they took the things that they learned and applied it to the creation of the national league. but just because they failed in their first attempt, i don't think that's a good enough reason to sweep the na into the dustbin of history and deny the players in the na their rightful place in baseball history beside other players in other major leagues.

[TonyK]

i read something recently (and i can't remember whether it was in ryczek's book or goldstein's playing for keeps or somewhere else) about how one of the goals of the na was, as we know, to establish a format for deciding the national championship. the book pointed out how disputed the championship actually was. all it took to claim that year's championship was to defeat the previous year's champ in a three game series. it didn't matter what your record was or how many other series you lost, if you got hot and defeated the previous year's champ in a series, you were the official champion.

naturally problems arose when team x defeated last year's champ but then lost a series to team y. you ended up having disputed champions much like you have had in college football. team x would be the official champ but team y would claim the championship based on their series win against team x, a better record, etc. it was a mess.

the na, for all its flaws, solved this problem.

hub: I think you nailed it by comparing this situation to the playoff fiasco in college football every single year. Baseball teams wanted to be the Official US Champion for that season. To uncomplicate things, the NA had teams put up the money ("put up or shut up"), and agree to then face EVERY single team that also wanted to be champions.

Unlike the NCAA college basketball tournament where you only play a team once, the NA used a league format and a series of games vs every other team. That way you couldn't duck a top team in order to become champion. It sounded good in theory but, as we know, the flaws didn't appear until the season was underway. Ryczek's book explains why the NA never tweaked the system to make itself a stronger league. For example, Harry Wright was ill and missed the annual meeting one March. As a result, his proposed changes were never considered or adopted.

The NA League President, Bob Ferguson, was also a player, a manager, and an umpire! Can you think of anyone who could have done all of those jobs adequately?

[Brian McKenna]

as certainly the first attempt at forming a professional baseball league, the na was plowing new ground. the things that it's critics point out (the scheduling problems, the inferiority of the bottom teams in the league, etc) are all valid but i think that they're missing the bigger picture. how many people in the country, besides harry wright, knew how to put together a schedule for a baseball team on a "nationwide" basis? how many people knew how to run a team on a profitable basis? how many knew how to get the best players on their team? how many knew how to identify the best players? the people in the baseball "establishment" were learning their way in the brave new world of professional sports. they were pioneers.


This is typical of all new endeavors - problems abound and challenges need to be worked through. Opening a new industry like this on the multi-state level is no easy task. Problems are to be expected - and plenty of them.

The NA really took the hit for the NL - someone had to go first before perhaps a more-successful league gained a foothold. There were a lot of challenges to face. Some:

1) Had to bring together teams that may not be natural rivals. Each team arose and prospered by battling local clubs; hence, their traditional base was hard to break free from. It was only natural that scheduling issues arose as teams sought profitable exhibition contests outside the NA framework.

2) Many owners were hesitant to fully back the NA not really knowing if going that route would ultimately be the best path for their franchise. This is overlooked today with all the favorable cash and benefits a new MLB franchise can expect from MLB, the media and the home state.

3) Gambling and the thirst for it was bigger than baseball. Not hard to see why the NA struggled here. It is hard to monitor and administer a slew of men if they are intent on defrauding the fans - a la recent events.

4) A more-established league may have been able to weather the dominance of one team (Boston) for a time but I guess it was just easier to steal their players and jump ship.

5) As others have noted the industry was in its infancy. No new massive undertaking proceeds smoothly.

[SABR Steve]

One of the things to consider was that not all the games played between the members were counted as "official" and so were not counted in the official standings.

Also there was confusion in 1871 as to whether series (best of five) or total wins determined the champion. Harry Wright assumed it was most series won, but that assumption was not shared by everyone.

I've communicated with the aforementioned William Ryczek about his disregard for the rules of the day. His book, "Blackguards and Red Stockings," contains the year-to-year standings using percentages rather than total wins. Not only that, but he didn't use the individual statistics of the day, opting for the recounts that began in the 1960's. Mr. Ryczek, as he told me, wanted to keep from confusing the reader. However, I have to applaud his work overall.

Finally, I was able to receive copies of Bob Tiemann's and Bob Richardson's unpublished work regarding the true standings from 1871 through 1900. The study includes series records for 1871, forfeitures, notes, and other data.

[hubkittel]

One of the things to consider was that not all the games played between the members were counted as "official" and so were not counted in the official standings.

Also there was confusion in 1871 as to whether series (best of five) or total wins determined the champion. Harry Wright assumed it was most series won, but that assumption was not shared by everyone.

I've communicated with the aforementioned William Ryczek about his disregard for the rules of the day. His book, "Blackguards and Red Stockings," contains the year-to-year standings using percentages rather than total wins. Not only that, but he didn't use the individual statistics of the day, opting for the recounts that began in the 1960's. Mr. Ryczek, as he told me, wanted to keep from confusing the reader. However, I have to applaud his work overall.

Finally, I was able to receive copies of Bob Tiemann's and Bob Richardson's unpublished work regarding the true standings from 1871 through 1900. The study includes series records for 1871, forfeitures, notes, and other data.

trying to figure out the standings in 1871, on a day to day basis, is almost comical. if you use series wins, you get one set of standings. if you use total wins, you get another. if you use only wins until a series was decided, you get another. if you only count those games in which legal players were used, you get another. if you count games which one team claimed were exibitions, etc ad nauseum. no one, then or now, could figure it all out.

[SABR Steve]

trying to figure out the standings in 1871, on a day to day basis, is almost comical. if you use series wins, you get one set of standings. if you use total wins, you get another. if you use only wins until a series was decided, you get another. if you only count those games in which legal players were used, you get another. if you count games which one team claimed were exibitions, etc ad nauseum. no one, then or now, could figure it all out.

I agree with your comments on day-to-day standings. However, Philadelphia would win the pennant using any method that's been mentioned. I also want to say that even if it is yet incomplete, a lot of work has already been done in this area. Not to down play 1872-75, but 1871 is the most interesting, mysterious, and "comical" season ever played.