Josh Gibson Did Not Hit 900 Homeruns

[Gregory Pratt]

And if he did, it's not that impressive. Why?

First: that's a request -- explain that to me.

I've heard -- 1. Negro Leagues = all top talent on 1 or 2 teams, everyone else is there to get whomped.

2. Ballparks not that impressive. Small.

3. "900" is an estimate. The "confirmed" numbers are like 180 or so.

Tell me more.

[cbenson5]

I think the 900 estimate includes various exhibitions and contests (even then it is probably not accurate). He clearly did not hit anywhere near that many home runs against decent competition. How many home runs did someone like Babe Ruth hit including contests and exhibitions. My guess would be well over 1000. The fact is that Josh Gibson died at 35, so many of the numbers that some people credit him with are ridiculous. I'm sure he was an excellent ballplayer, but I seriously doubt his actually ballplaying ability equals the hype.

Charles

[Brian McKenna]

I have the feeling that a lot more are confirmed than 180 but it just hasn't been published yet. But, don't let anyone ever tell you it was against ML-caliber pitching.

Teams weren't there to get whomped. Players followed the money. Certain A-level barnstorming clubs made a lot of money - as they traveled they played against some decent local/regional talented clubs, say B, C or D level. The As could offer the money to pluck the best talent from the B, C and Ds - and they did. So B, C and D got weaker and A got stronger.

The real story came when the As faced off or at least when an A faced an A-quality pitcher.

[Dodgerfan1]

Yes, I have always firmly believed that the number of homers Josh Gibson hit in the Negro Leagues was way distorted. If the number is even close to 900, then it's pretty obvious to me that either the fences were way shorter than normal or else the number has been greatly exaggerated. It's the same way I look at the number of wins Satchel Paige had in the Negro Leagues. I haven't seen any 'definitive' wins total for him. Does anyone know how many victories Paige supposedly had? Do you think it may have been embellished on a bit, for effect?

[jalbright]

Here's some data from the MLB research on Negro Leaguers published in Shades of Glory. Also, please note that Gibson played in a horrible HR park for much of his Negro League career, Griffith Stadium in Washington, DC.

Some hitting data from Shades of Glory, with career numbers modified to 550 AB. Average and slugging percentages come from the book rather than calculated from the converted numbers. Also, please note these stats come only from the American Negro Leagues, not winter leagues or Mexico.



Name AB runs hits 2B 3B HR RBI BB Sac SB avg obp slg Name
Josh Gibson 550 138 197 32 12 34 128 75 2 7 .359 .435 .648 Josh Gibson


Granted, the pitching wasn't MLB quality overall, but it wasn't that bad in the Negro Leagues. The man could flat out hit with almost anyone, anywhere, ever.

[anjo25]

I found this on Wikipedia, and believe I have read it elsewhere:

Based on research of historical accounts performed for the Special Committee on the Negro Leagues, Gibson hit 224 homers in 2,375 at-bats against top black teams, 2 in 56 at-bats against white major-league pitchers and 44 in 450 AB in the Mexican League. John Holway lists Gibson with the same home run totals and a .351 career average, plus 21 for 56 against white major-league pitchers.

[Mischa]

I found this on Wikipedia, and believe I have read it elsewhere:

BR Bullpen lists the same information - both articles have copied from one another it appears, so it's hard to tell which one listed it first. The BR Bullpen (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Josh_Gibson) also lists 2 homers in the Dominican Republic in 1937, 14 in Cuba in 1937-1939 (a then-record 11 in 1938-1939) and 19 homers in Puerto Rico in 1939-1941.

I don't see why the 224 in the Negro Leagues is considered low by so many. The Negro Leagues of Gibson's era had a much shorter schedule and his home run per game rate was impressive. Giving the accurate tallies for Gibson's home runs doesn't downplay his stardom. The man rewrote history books all over the baseball-playing world and routinely led the league in multiple categories - he wasn't just a power hitter, but also posted great averages and drew boatloads of walks.

[hellborn]

Here's some data from the MLB research on Negro Leaguers published in Shades of Glory. Also, please note that Gibson played in a horrible HR park for much of his Negro League career, Griffith Stadium in Washington, DC.
...

I believe that the park the Detroit Stars played in also had very distant fences (am I right that it was actually in Hamtramck?).
If you're talking about games played in the organized Negro Leagues, like the NNL, the quality of play is reputed to have been generally good, and bad teams would tend to drop out.
When they were barnstorming, which was a lot, I'm sure they would play any team that was financially worthwhile for them. I think that Negro League teams would play the House of David squads fairly often, and I'll bet that those HOD teams weren't half bad.

[jalbright]

I believe that the park the Detroit Stars played in also had very distant fences (am I right that it was actually in Hamtramck?).
If you're talking about games played in the organized Negro Leagues, like the NNL, the quality of play is reputed to have been generally good, and bad teams would tend to drop out.
When they were barnstorming, which was a lot, I'm sure they would play any team that was financially worthwhile for them. I think that Negro League teams would play the House of David squads fairly often, and I'll bet that those HOD teams weren't half bad.

The Stars played in Mack Park (I don't know where the site is), which I've usually seen described by words such as "cozy".

The stats I cited are, as stated earlier, strictly from the Negro Leagues.

Yes, they barnstormed a lot. They played ball nearly year round, whether it be the Negro Leagues, winter leagues (California, Puerto Rico and Cuba chief among them), or barnstorming. Negro League seasons roughly took as long as the majors to play, but they only played 60-90 games with rare exceptions. The rest of the time, they barnstormed. When winter leagues weren't playing, they barnstormed some more. Obviously, the quality of opposition in barnstorming varied greatly.

Jim Albright

[Dogdaze]

And if he did, it's not that impressive. Why?

First: that's a request -- explain that to me.

I've heard -- 1. Negro Leagues = all top talent on 1 or 2 teams, everyone else is there to get whomped.

2. Ballparks not that impressive. Small.

3. "900" is an estimate. The "confirmed" numbers are like 180 or so.

Tell me more.

Since you asked for it;

While stories have circulated that Gibson hit between 800 to 1000 HR's, nobody really knows exactly how many he hit and I doubt anyone ever will.

James A. Riley's, The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues says "Gibson was credited with 962 home runs in his seventeen-year career, although many of these were against non-league teams."

Even the Baseball Hall of fame says he hit almost 800 home runs.

While I do think it's possible Gibson hit around 800 jacks, most of those home runs came against inferior competition in barnstorming exhibition games which were mostly amateurs or semi pro teams.

Negro League historian John Holway credits Gibson with 224 HR's in Negro League play while others such as Macmillan baseball encyclopedia lists 146 in Negro league competition only.

The Baseball Think Factory has also done a great job disecting, and analyzing Gibsons known stats, factoring in park effects and quality of pitching, then estimating what they feel would be Gibsons Major League equvilancy in career statistics. they also mention how Gibson hit tape measure home runs out of Tropicana park in Cuba which is supposed to be around 500 feet. They estimate he hit 410 dingers with 180 OPS+, ranking him amoungst baseballs all time best. Here are their estimated MLE's for Gibson;

AB 6627 H 2165 S 1293 D 395 T 67 HR 410 W 1210 SB 39 BA .327 OPS+ 180

Well, as we all know The Negro Leagues did not keep good stats if any at all, thus what we do have is pretty sketchy. However, some, such as Holway and Riley have uncovered box scores of old newspapers and attempted to put together some stats. From these stats, we can get an idea of how well Gibson hit.

Below are some links to various websites (including sites I mentioned above) that offer some very good information on Josh Gibson, if you really want to know more, check them out.

Baseball Think Factory analyzes Josh Gibson’s stats to estimate his major league equvilantcy. They credits him with 410 HR’s with an OPS + of 180

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/josh_gibson

Baseball Library, a short bio on Gibson with a mention that some ball parks didn’t have an outfield fence. Stating Gibson might have hit more.

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Josh_Gibson_1911

Bio on Josh Gibson with some stats by Negro League historian James Riley

http://www.coe.ksu.edu/nlbemuseum/history/players/gibsonj.html

Article about how Gibson and Leonard hit more HR’s at Griffith Park then the entire AL in 1945

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/negleg/1945.html

HOF comparison of Home runs to Negro league historian John Holway’s research

http://baseballguru.com/jholway/analysisjholway60.html

Negro League historian John Holway’s ranking of home run hitters and where Gibson ranks

http://baseballguru.com/jholway/analysisjholway24.html

Wikipedia which includes Macmillan baseball encyclopedia stats for Gibson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Gibson

Baseball Hall of Fame with Gibsons plaque

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492568

[bryanac625]

And if he did, it's not that impressive. Why?

First: that's a request -- explain that to me.

I've heard -- 1. Negro Leagues = all top talent on 1 or 2 teams, everyone else is there to get whomped.

2. Ballparks not that impressive. Small.

3. "900" is an estimate. The "confirmed" numbers are like 180 or so.

Tell me more.

So what do we do with this information? Take him out of the HOF? I agree that if he did hit 800-1000 HRs, many of them were probably cheap. Perhaps the best way to guage his HR hitting ability is to guesstimate what he would have done had he been allowed to play in the majors.

Leading HR hitters from 1930-1946 (Gibson's years in the Negro Leagues) were averaging about 35 HRs a year. I think he was certainly capable of power hitting numbers. So if he hit and average of 35 a year for 14 years and we throw in two 45 HR seasons for good measure, that comes to 580. That would be quite a record and certainly HOF numbers.

I agree that to throw out an arbitrary 800 HRs really deceives the real story of Josh Gibson. But the bigger shame will always be that we will never know what he could have done on a major league team because idiots couldn't see past the color of his skin.

[Gregory Pratt]

I wasn't trying to discredit the man or his abilities. I wanted to know more, beyond the myth. Clearly he died young and never got a true chance. I definitely believe he belongs in the Hall, as many of the great Negro Leaguers who never got a chance did, and in fact I'm a little more liberal with my HOF than most.

[bryanac625]

I wasn't trying to discredit the man or his abilities. I wanted to know more, beyond the myth. Clearly he died young and never got a true chance. I definitely believe he belongs in the Hall, as many of the great Negro Leaguers who never got a chance did, and in fact I'm a little more liberal with my HOF than most.

I understand why you would ask the question. I always imagine what it would have been like if Josh and Satch and all the reast had gotten their chance, if there had never even been segregation (Good Lord, this country would have been completely different then and very different today). Not only were some of the Negro Leagues "semi-pro," but in my opinion, so were the major Leagues. I mean, 100 years ago, how were players acquired by MLB? There was little to no professional scouting and no farm system. I think teams had some real bona fide stars but also some amateurs (this may explain in part how Cy Young won 511 games) . The same could be said of the Negro Leagues.

[SBBL]

I understand why you would ask the question. I always imagine what it would have been like if Josh and Satch and all the reast had gotten their chance, if there had never even been segregation (Good Lord, this country would have been completely different then and very different today). Not only were some of the Negro Leagues "semi-pro," but in my opinion, so were the major Leagues. I mean, 100 years ago, how were players acquired by MLB? There was little to no professional scouting and no farm system. I think teams had some real bona fide stars but also some amateurs (this may explain in part how Cy Young won 511 games) . The same could be said of the Negro Leagues.

Thank you for pointing out MLB was NOT superior to the Negro Leagues. Reading some of these posts made me very sad. For people to make the claim that the Negro Leagues were stocked with inferior players to make one or two stars look good is making a mockery of the game these men played. This, coupled with the constant refrain that the talent wasn't ML cailibur is blatent racism. Maybe they don't relize what they are saying, but ignorance is not a defense. Such arguments are vile and a disgrace.

Maybe Ruth would have only had 300-350 HR's if he had been playing against the best. He played in a diluted talent pool because so many of the best, the very good, and the good were locked out. Could Ruth have played under the conditions these men did ? I think his numbers would have suffered terribly.

We will never know what MLB records would look like today had baseball integrated ,say, 30 years earlier. Every Major League record set before 1947 deserves an *.

[MRamirez24]

Negro League historian John Holway’s ranking of home run hitters and where Gibson ranks

http://baseballguru.com/jholway/analysisjholway24.html

[


first.. i want to thank you for those links, it was kind of fun going through them and reading more about Josh Gibson.. Baseball is my sport and always has been and I feel i'm pretty knowledgeable when it comes to the game, but not so much on the "history" of the game.. In the past 2-3 years, I've read a lot more books and done a lot more researching on the game and it's fun to learn more and more every day.. so thank you again..

i highlighted this one link because i thought it was a very interesting piece, do you know if John Holway actually ended up making his own list? gotta check into that..

[Dogdaze]

Not only were some of the Negro Leagues "semi-pro," but in my opinion, so were the major Leagues.

I agree.

Had MLB integrated early on, many of the White MLB players would have been playing in the minor leagues.

BTW, when I mentioned Negro Leaguers such as Gibson playing against semi pro and amatuers it was not in League play, it was in barnstorming exhibitions against various teams throughout the country that were semi-pros and amatuers. Since the Negro Leagues played a short season, as Mr. Albright mentioned 60 to 90 games, this helped supplement their income. They'd travel around playing against the local factory team or some semi pro outfit. In addition, they would play winter league games in various locations such as the Carribean, California, Mexico and South America. Many of these leagues featured the local talent which wasn't always MLB caliber.

Here's a link that talks about barnstorming;

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/mlb_negro_leagues_story.jsp?story=barnstorming

IMO, most of the players in Negro League play were Major League caliber, but when Riley and others mention that Gibson hit 962 home runs, many of those HR's were against semi pro and amatuer teams. And when Holway says he hit 240 HR's that was in league play only. This was still quite impressive and I believe he averaged approximatey one home run per every 16/17 at bats.

When Baseball Think factory estimates he had a Major league equivelancy of a 180 OPS+, that puts him in the top 5 all time, extremely impressive.

IMO, had Gibson been allowed to play in the majors, it's possible that Gibson would have been among the all time home run leaders, if not the all time HR leader.

Unfortunately well never know for sure, but one thing that most people agree on, is that Gibson was one of the most talented hitters of all time.

[Dogdaze]

first.. i want to thank you for those links, it was kind of fun going through them and reading more about Josh Gibson.. Baseball is my sport and always has been and I feel i'm pretty knowledgeable when it comes to the game, but not so much on the "history" of the game.. In the past 2-3 years, I've read a lot more books and done a lot more researching on the game and it's fun to learn more and more every day.. so thank you again..

i highlighted this one link because i thought it was a very interesting piece, do you know if John Holway actually ended up making his own list? gotta check into that..

Your welcome. :nod:

Here is a link to John Holways website, I'm not sure if he has his own list other then what I posted, but here is a link to his website where you can do a search among his and others articles. http://baseballguru.com/

[bryanac625]

I agree.

Had MLB integrated early on, many of the White MLB players would have been playing in the minor leagues.

BTW, when I mentioned Negro Leaguers such as Gibson playing against semi pro and amatuers it was not in League play, it was in barnstorming exhibitions against various teams throughout the country that were semi-pros and amatuers. Since the Negro Leagues played a short season, as Mr. Albright mentioned 60 to 90 games, this helped supplement their income. They'd travel around playing against the local factory team or some semi pro outfit. In addition, they would play winter league games in various locations such as the Carribean, California, Mexico and South America. Many of these leagues featured the local talent which wasn't always MLB caliber.

IMO, had Gibson been allowed to play in the majors, it's possible that Gibson would have been among the all time home run leaders, if not the all time HR leader.

Unfortunately well never know for sure, but one thing that most people agree on, is that Gibson was one of the most talented hitters of all time.

Remember too, that dying in the prime of his life (35), imagine what he could have done with another 5-7 years. And with that, had he not been mentally ill or abused drugs, he would have most certainly made it to the majors.

Have you all seen Soul of the Game? I really enjoyed it, although there were some questions as to if Jackie Robinson and Josh Gibson knew each other.

[bryanac625]

I would also like to point out that that things can be misinterpreted when you challenge established numbers. I am absolutely not accusing anyone of racism or anything here, but I will say when you have a thread entitled "Josh Gibson Did Not Hit 900 Home Runs," which is certainly a fair allegation especially if you can back it up, then these days, it might make you look like a racist or something for trying to diminish a black man's achievements, especially in the tragic time of segregation.

It's very similar to diminishing the numbers of the holocaust. I have always heard 6 million (or even up to 16 million) but if I were to study the holocaust in detail and concluded that only 4 million people actually died, someone would allege that I am trying to diminish the tragedy, or even claim that I am a holocaust denier.

[Dogdaze]

Remember too, that dying in the prime of his life (35), imagine what he could have done with another 5-7 years. And with that, had he not been mentally ill or abused drugs, he would have most certainly made it to the majors.

Have you all seen Soul of the Game? I really enjoyed it, although there were some questions as to if Jackie Robinson and Josh Gibson knew each other.

Good point about Josh dying young. I believe he would have put up even bigger numbers, and yes, some MLB team would have taken him, he was just too talented. It's too bad he died so young. I just wish we had some records of Gibson playing MLB, I'd love to see what he would have accomplished, even if it was just a few years, though, if he was healthy, as talented as he was, even starting at 35, I bet he could have played 8 to 10 years in the majors, and I'll bet he would have been very productive.

I haven't seen "Soul of the Game" as yet, but I do plan on watching it sometime soon. I've heard it was a good movie. I'll look into renting it at blockbuster, hopefully they have it.

[Gregory Pratt]

I would also like to point out that that things can be misinterpreted when you challenge established numbers. I am absolutely not accusing anyone of racism or anything here, but I will say when you have a thread entitled "Josh Gibson Did Not Hit 900 Home Runs," which is certainly a fair allegation especially if you can back it up, then these days, it might make you look like a racist or something for trying to diminish a black man's achievements, especially in the tragic time of segregation.

It's very similar to diminishing the numbers of the holocaust. I have always heard 6 million (or even up to 16 million) but if I were to study the holocaust in detail and concluded that only 4 million people actually died, someone would allege that I am trying to diminish the tragedy, or even claim that I am a holocaust denier.

If somebody accused me of racism for that, I'd simply tip my cap and leave it at that.

[SamtheBravesFan]

If somebody accused me of racism for that, I'd simply tip my cap and leave it at that.

Darn right. I would too. It's not racism to state a fact. The fact is that Gibson's home run figure is just speculation based on stories and there is little recorded data to back it up.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I would also like to point out that that things can be misinterpreted when you challenge established numbers. I am absolutely not accusing anyone of racism or anything here, but I will say when you have a thread entitled "Josh Gibson Did Not Hit 900 Home Runs," which is certainly a fair allegation especially if you can back it up, then these days, it might make you look like a racist or something for trying to diminish a black man's achievements, especially in the tragic time of segregation.

It's very similar to diminishing the numbers of the holocaust. I have always heard 6 million (or even up to 16 million) but if I were to study the holocaust in detail and concluded that only 4 million people actually died, someone would allege that I am trying to diminish the tragedy, or even claim that I am a holocaust denier.

Who is trying to diminish a black man. The title and the poster is giving his opinion. The fact that the player involved is black has nothing to do with his belief that he did not hit 900 home runs.

Diminishing nothing, I don't believe it either. I have never seen and stats crediting Gibson with more than 200 to 240 home runs. I believe he did hit more than 240 but not 900 home runs. Do you believe that a hitter hit 100+ more home runs than Barry Bonds, 140+ more than Aaron and almost 200 more than Babe Ruth and he passed away before the age of 36. Was he from another planet.

I share the same feelings many others do, MLB baseball lost out on this one. The game and the fans were cheated, cheated out of watching Josh, Satch and other great black players simply because of skin color, a tragedy for the game. The history of the game would have been greatly enriched had blacks came into MLB in the early years.

The fact that some question some claims about Josh in no way diminshes him or his greatness, has nothing to do with skin color. We simply do not know enough about his stats because they are not available.

[baseballPAP]

Thank you for pointing out MLB was NOT superior to the Negro Leagues. Reading some of these posts made me very sad. For people to make the claim that the Negro Leagues were stocked with inferior players to make one or two stars look good is making a mockery of the game these men played. This, coupled with the constant refrain that the talent wasn't ML cailibur is blatent racism. Maybe they don't relize what they are saying, but ignorance is not a defense. Such arguments are vile and a disgrace.

Maybe Ruth would have only had 300-350 HR's if he had been playing against the best. He played in a diluted talent pool because so many of the best, the very good, and the good were locked out. Could Ruth have played under the conditions these men did ? I think his numbers would have suffered terribly.

We will never know what MLB records would look like today had baseball integrated ,say, 30 years earlier. Every Major League record set before 1947 deserves an *.

Sorry to be the one to point this out, but this post is a bunch of crap. There, I said it. The statements alleged here were not in fact ever made. Here are some facts.....

MLB WAS superior to the NeLs. Probably not in top level talent, this is very true. However, the players just weren't quite as plentiful, and therefor the teams weren't as well stocked top to bottom. Furthermore, the only level of play in question is in the barnstorming games, which were DEFINITELY lower quality competition. These were mostly local teams...the equivalent of your American Legion team trying to take on a good AAA team. Blatant racism? Not even. Vile and disgraceful? Not unless you are making a false statement...no one did.

The major leagues would have been greatly influenced by the black players if they had been allowed in earlier. The NeL game was much more diverse, players utilized their legs at a time when MLB had gone completely away from the speed game, in favor of a boring brand of walk and HR baseball. How many bases would Cool Papa had stolen had he been in the MLB of the early 30s? Half the catchers in the league were used to throwing maybe 40 times a year to second...he could have given them that in a month!

If I had to make a guess, I'd say 2-3 black starters per team, plus several role players and yes, a scrub or 2(but these are scrubs in the best league anywhere remember). 1 or 2 starting pitchers, maybe a mopup guy...most NeL teams only carried 3 or 4 pitchers anyway due to their different schedules. Maybe 35% of the league in total, MUCH more than today. We can thank the NFL and NBA for that one.

Now, lets not forget the others that were left out...there were likely 8 or 10 Japanese good enough to play in the bigs, even back at the beginning of their league. Probably several players in the Latin leagues as well.

Everybody be sure to thank Cap Anson's plaque next time you go to Cooperstown...he slammed the door on a segregated league in the 1800s.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Sorry to be the one to point this out, but this post is a bunch of crap. There, I said it. The statements alleged here were not in fact ever made. Here are some facts.....

MLB WAS superior to the NeLs. Probably not in top level talent, this is very true. However, the players just weren't quite as plentiful, and therefor the teams weren't as well stocked top to bottom. Furthermore, the only level of play in question is in the barnstorming games, which were DEFINITELY lower quality competition. These were mostly local teams...the equivalent of your American Legion team trying to take on a good AAA team. Blatant racism? Not even. Vile and disgraceful? Not unless you are making a false statement...no one did.



Pap your telling it the way it really was but some on the board don't want to hear it. The problem with this board is the same problem I see on othe boards. When a poster puts up a statement as you did they are some times accused of being insensitive and worse in some cases.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you see this the same way as I do. Let me get this out of the way from the start. I don't think you are saying and I know I am not making the claim that white players were better or superior to black players. Black baseball did not have the scouting system to search out the best. They lacked the finances to afford good training facilities. They lacked the finances to pay players as white players were. For that matter the average white in MLB was playing for peanuts. Have to really admire these black players, their love for the game, practically playing for nothing.

As pointed out earlier, some of these games, some of these numbers come from exhibition games, some were local teams that were not even on the level of minor league baseball. In black baseball due to some lean pitching staffs a position player, outfielder or infielders were used as starting pitchers in some case as relief pitchers. Buck O'Neil commented on pitching in black baseball. His words, there were some black pitchers the equal of white pitchers but overall, day to day pitching in black ball was not on the level of MLB.

May I repeat, the overall level in black baseball was not on the level of MLB because white players were more talented, it was because the cash in black ball was not there to recruit and maintain a high level.

I wish some would not make judgements based on emotions here and do it the right way, deal with the facts. Too bad we have to go down this road and explain why some don't see things the way some others do and then be seen as defending the racists policy of early MLB.

[baseballPAP]

You got it Shoeless...
I'm as big a fan as anyone of the players. What I'm NOT a fan of is the embelished stories that go along with them. Riley's Encyclopedia was a great piece of work, until you realize that even part time utility IFers were all described like All-Stars.

The stars were stars, and everyone who wasn't too biased to go watch a game could see it, despite their sometimes low level of competition. But hey, I know who the stars are in my slow-pitch softball league, despite someone's overweight brother-in-law playing RF :)

I couldn't care less about a player's skin color. I care about what happened on the field, pure and simple.

[bryanac625]

Who is trying to diminish a black man. The title and the poster is giving his opinion. The fact that the player involved is black has nothing to do with his belief that he did not hit 900 home runs.

Diminishing nothing, I don't believe it either. I have never seen and stats crediting Gibson with more than 200 to 240 home runs. I believe he did hit more than 240 but not 900 home runs. Do you believe that a hitter hit 100+ more home runs than Barry Bonds, 140+ more than Aaron and almost 200 more than Babe Ruth and he passed away before the age of 36. Was he from another planet.

I share the same feelings many others do, MLB baseball lost out on this one. The game and the fans were cheated, cheated out of watching Josh, Satch and other great black players simply because of skin color, a tragedy for the game. The history of the game would have been greatly enriched had blacks came into MLB in the early years.

The fact that some question some claims about Josh in no way diminshes him or his greatness, has nothing to do with skin color. We simply do not know enough about his stats because they are not available.

SHOELESSJOE, you've taken what I've said out of context- way out of context. My comments in your bold read to say that I think any forum challenging Josh Gibson's 900 home run total is essentially a racist challenge; that unless you accept that astronomical number achieved by a black man by the time he was 36, then you're probably a racist.

What I said in my post (#19); my bold in black, with your bold in red:

I would also like to point out that that things can be misinterpreted when you challenge established numbers. I am absolutely not accusing anyone of racism or anything here, but I will say when you have a thread entitled "Josh Gibson Did Not Hit 900 Home Runs," which is certainly a fair allegation especially if you can back it up, then these days, it might make you look like a racist or something for trying to diminish a black man's achievements, especially in the tragic time of segregation.

And my point to the post was that it IS unfortunate that people too often cannot challenge established numbers, particularly those regarding oppressed minorities (like Gibson and like my example of the Holocaust) without being seen as offensive towards the subject. I question if Josh Gibson hit 900 home runs, too. I don't know who came up with that number. I don't know who he hit all those homers off of; for all we know, the number may include batting practice shots or hits off of children in a sandlot. It certainly is suspicious how Aaron and Bonds didn't hit 755 homers until they were in their 40s but this man hits 900 and dies at 36.

But on the other hand, posts to this forum have argued that MLB pre-1947 WAS superior to the Negro Leagues. I think there are some definite truths to that statement, but also some challenges. After all, what would you have rather seen in 1937- a late-season game between the Philadelphia A's and the St. Louis Browns, or Gibson in the box against Satchel Paige?

Explaining superiority of MLB over the NLs in one single statement is like trying to explain who invented baseball in a few words. I think MLB had superiority in record keeping, acceptance, enforcement of rules and control of its players. But I think the Negro Leagues did the best they could with what they had, and I think that was pretty good. I like the fact that instead of inaction after being rejected by whites, they went out and organized their own league. And if the Negro Leagues were in fact an inferior League, and Josh Gibson was an exceptional hitter, perhaps his home run total- or at least close to it- is not out of the realm of possibility. I mean, if Cy Young, Walter Johnson or Babe Ruth had pitched or played their whole careers in the "inferior" Negro Leagues, wouldn't their numbers be far greater?

Buck O'neil, certainly a trusted and wise source of baseball history, said Josh Gibson was "the best hitter I've ever seen. He had the power of Ruth and the hitting ability of Ted Williams." (from Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns' companion book Baseball, p. 229) I don't think anyone will ever know how many homers Gibson hit in competition comparable to MLB. But if he hit like Buck O'neil said, he IS worthy of the Hall of Fame. Period.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

SHOELESSJOE, you've taken what I've said out of context- way out of context. My comments in your bold read to say that I think any forum challenging Josh Gibson's 900 home run total is essentially a racist challenge; that unless you accept that astronomical number achieved by a black man by the time he was 36, then you're probably a racist.

What I said in my post (#19); my bold in black, with your bold in red:



And my point to the post was that it IS unfortunate that people too often cannot challenge established numbers, particularly those regarding oppressed minorities (like Gibson and like my example of the Holocaust) without being seen as offensive towards the subject. I question if Josh Gibson hit 900 home runs, too. I don't know who came up with that number. I don't know who he hit all those homers off of; for all we know, the number may include batting practice shots or hits off of children in a sandlot. It certainly is suspicious how Aaron and Bonds didn't hit 755 homers until they were in their 40s but this man hits 900 and dies at 36.

BRYAN, don't know where the 900 number came from but I have seen it more than a few times. I have also seen 862 and a couple of more that I don't recall the exact number of. I have also seen over the years different career batting averages for Josh.

It's plain and simple, there are no where, any solid number of stats that were recorded that would give us an accurate account of Josh and even more important what conditions or level of opposition the numbers were put up in or against.

From time to time you will see posts declaring that new info has come that will supply us with enough in the way of numbers, it's not true they are just not there because they were not all recorded. We do get some bits and pieces from time to time with some new numbers but never near a full account that would be of real use.

Even some black newspapers did not list all the game boxes or recaps on a daily basis. for that matter even if we had all the numbers which we don't, than there would be the question, were they gained from the league, exhibition or even at times local teams.

It's a shame but how do we get around or change the fact that we don't have all the numbers or conditions and opposing teams.

MLB and the fans of the game lost out on this one. I would love to be reading about Josh and other blacks in the early years of MLB but for he simple and tragic fact that skin color kept them out of the game.

[jalbright]

Shoeless,

In many respects I agree with what you're saying. However, I would like to add something I wrote before to this discussion:


I think it is a mistake to insist that a lack of comprehensive stats is fatal. Certainly, it causes problems. However, the gaps are more or less random, so it isn't like those stats were edited to make these guys look better. While we must recognize the difficulties presented by incomplete data in short seasons, I think we must also take the opportunity to examine what data we do have to see what it tells us. Doing otherwise prefers no data to some data, which is as much a mistake as treating incomplete data as if it were complete. If that flawed data squares with the subjective accounts, the two pieces help confirm each other. If they don't, we have a problem which may be insoluble. But why let the times they conflict affect the times they don't? Let's face it, the cases of Negro Leaguers are exercises in circumstantial evidence--but sometimes the combination of circumstantial evidence can result in a very convincing case. Let's build as many convincing cases we can--pro and con. If we can't make the case, it's probably best if we put it aside to see if someday we come up with enough missing pieces to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a similar vein in another thread, I posted this:

There's no doubt the case for Negro Leaguers is circumstantial--but circumstantial evidence can support a criminal conviction which uses the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. So the question is, how much evidence is there, and how is it presented? By now, I submit there's plenty of evidence to support the notion many of these players were greats. However, when it comes to presentation, the case for Negro Leaguers has far too often been lacking. There's been too much reliance on tall tales, and too few people have taken the time to organize the information and then present it cogently in a manner which would quiet many people who have developed an understandable skepticism about the topic due to the way it has been presented to them. Of course, some skeptics don't want to believe in Negro Leaguers and others at least are unwilling for whatever reason to consider even cogently organized and presented information.

[bryanac625]

BRYAN, don't know where the 900 number came from but I have seen it more than a few times. I have also seen 862 and a couple of more that I don't recall the exact number of. I have also seen over the years different career batting averages for Josh.

It's plain and simple, there are no where, any solid number of stats that were recorded that would give us an accurate account of Josh and even more important what conditions or level of opposition the numbers were put up in or against.

From time to time you will see posts declaring that new info has come that will supply us with enough in the way of numbers, it's not true they are just not there because they were not all recorded. We do get some bits and pieces from time to time with some new numbers but never near a full account that would be of real use.

Even some black newspapers did not list all the game boxes or recaps on a daily basis. for that matter even if we had all the numbers which we don't, than there would be the question, were they gained from the league, exhibition or even at times local teams.

It's a shame but how do we get around or change the fact that we don't have all the numbers or conditions and opposing teams.

MLB and the fans of the game lost out on this one. I would love to be reading about Josh and other blacks in the early years of MLB but for he simple and tragic fact that skin color kept them out of the game.

And let's not discount the fact that the Negro Leagues is very much to blame in this for not keeping faithful records on its players. Why that was, I do not know. Just because Josh Gibson was not allowed to play for the Giants or the Cardinals does not mean that somebody in his own established organization couldn't keep his stats.

I trust Buck O'neil as a source. He said Gibson hit as well as Ruth and Williams, and I believe him. Put him in the HOF for that and let's not worry about some arbitrary homer total.

[jalbright]

And let's not discount the fact that the Negro Leagues is very much to blame in this for not keeping faithful records on its players. Why that was, I do not know. Just because Josh Gibson was not allowed to play for the Giants or the Cardinals does not mean that somebody in his own established organization couldn't keep his stats.

Cut them a break. They were small operations, with "front offices" composed of a manager who got players to games, coached them, and supervised them. They counted money after the games, and often distributed it to the players almost as quickly. They rode buses from town to town, playing almost every day, often two and three times on weekends and holidays. They often had to deal with segregation in terms of where to eat, sleep, and even simply get a drink of water or use the restroom. Often, "front office" types drove the buses. In short, few Negro League teams had the money to have someone dedicated to such a purpose, and for that reason it is unsurprising that the job fell to black newspapers. They in turn were not always dailies and sports was somehow often not at the top of their list of priorities. It's a shame, but considering the situation, I don't think it should be a surprise they didn't keep nice neat stats for posterity.

Jim Albright

[SHOELESSJOE3]

SHOELESSJOE, you've taken what I've said out of context- way out of context. My comments in your bold read to say that I think any forum challenging Josh Gibson's 900 home run total is essentially a racist challenge; that unless you accept that astronomical number achieved by a black man by the time he was 36, then you're probably a racist.

What I said in my post (#19); my bold in black, with your bold in red:



And my point to the post was that it IS unfortunate that people too often cannot challenge established numbers, particularly those regarding oppressed minorities (like Gibson and like my example of the Holocaust) without being seen as offensive towards the subject. I question if Josh Gibson hit 900 home runs, too. I don't know who came up with that number. I don't know who he hit all those homers off of; for all we know, the number may include batting practice shots or hits off of children in a sandlot. It certainly is suspicious how Aaron and Bonds didn't hit 755 homers until they were in their 40s but this man hits 900 and dies at 36.

But on the other hand, posts to this forum have argued that MLB pre-1947 WAS superior to the Negro Leagues. I think there are some definite truths to that statement, but also some challenges. After all, what would you have rather seen in 1937- a late-season game between the Philadelphia A's and the St. Louis Browns, or Gibson in the box against Satchel Paige?

Explaining superiority of MLB over the NLs in one single statement is like trying to explain who invented baseball in a few words. I think MLB had superiority in record keeping, acceptance, enforcement of rules and control of its players. But I think the Negro Leagues did the best they could with what they had, and I think that was pretty good. I like the fact that instead of inaction after being rejected by whites, they went out and organized their own league. And if the Negro Leagues were in fact an inferior League, and Josh Gibson was an exceptional hitter, perhaps his home run total- or at least close to it- is not out of the realm of possibility. I mean, if Cy Young, Walter Johnson or Babe Ruth had pitched or played their whole careers in the "inferior" Negro Leagues, wouldn't their numbers be far greater?

Buck O'neil, certainly a trusted and wise source of baseball history, said Josh Gibson was "the best hitter I've ever seen. He had the power of Ruth and the hitting ability of Ted Williams." (from Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns' companion book Baseball, p. 229) I don't think anyone will ever know how many homers Gibson hit in competition comparable to MLB. But if he hit like Buck O'neil said, he IS worthy of the Hall of Fame. Period.

My apology on taking those few words out of your post which when presented by me were misleading. Not my intention, I just shot from the hip on that one.

As for your words in this post that I put in bold letters, I agree. If Ruth and some others played in an inferior league their numbers would be fay greater. Thats my whole point with Gibson he played in a league where I think most would agree had overall a lower level of pitching and probably some batters.

Not to take anything away from Josh who at that time could have more than held his own had he been in MLB.

Yes that 900 is a possibilty but as we know we have not seen any stats that show any thing close to that number. Either way Josh will appear to come up in a less than favorable position. Most don't believe he hit 900 and if he did hit 900 it would have to be assumed it was performed against inferior play, some exhibition and local teams. Could we see it any other way, compare 900 to Ruth, Aaron and Bonds by a player who paased away before the age of 36.

[bryanac625]

Cut them a break. They were small operations, with "front offices" composed of a manager who got players to games, coached them, and supervised them. They counted money after the games, and often distributed it to the players almost as quickly. They rode buses from town to town, playing almost every day, often two and three times on weekends and holidays. They often had to deal with segregation in terms of where to eat, sleep, and even simply get a drink of water or use the restroom. Often, "front office" types drove the buses. In short, few Negro League teams had the money to have someone dedicated to such a purpose, and for that reason it is unsurprising that the job fell to black newspapers. They in turn were not always dailies and sports was somehow often not at the top of their list of priorities. It's a shame, but considering the situation, I don't think it should be a surprise they didn't keep nice neat stats for posterity.

I most certainly cut them a break. As I said, I think they did the best the could with what they had. All things considered I think they did a tremendous job.

I don't know what statisticians got paid at that time, but it's too bad that the lack of stat keepers does contribute to the mystery of exactly how many HRs Gibson hit. Maybe they didn't even want to keep detailed stats and records, instead opting for their players to be known in legend instead of documented fact.

This 1935 picture of the Pittsburgh Crawfords (not the best quality of the original, unfortunatley) in front of their team bus says it all about the organized professionalism of the Negro Leagues. The players' faces exhibit confidence and enjoyment. Their uniforms are clean (the high socks would certainly make those on the Dress Code discussions happy) and the bus is in excellent shape. I would take the best of the Negro Leagues over the worst of their MLB contemporaries any day.

[Walt Zink]

And let's not discount the fact that the Negro Leagues is very much to blame in this for not keeping faithful records on its players. Why that was, I do not know. Just because Josh Gibson was not allowed to play for the Giants or the Cardinals does not mean that somebody in his own established organization couldn't keep his stats.

I trust Buck O'neil as a source. He said Gibson hit as well as Ruth and Williams, and I believe him. Put him in the HOF for that and let's not worry about some arbitrary homer total.

we have to remember that early on in the majors, also, that some records are quite hazy. so we could easily have distorted numbers by many late 1800's/early 1900's players.

as far as the claims made, one thing people sometimes don't understand is that racism is always going to be an undercurrent to discussions like these. personally, i think there's merit to say that it's a bit far-fetched to say the majors were a runaway winner in regards to talent as compared to the negro leagues. i agree that there are plenty of white major leaguers who would be part-time players had the majors not been harboring such racism for so long.

do you think that players like hack wilson would've been major stars had certain black players been allowed? wilson was a marginal player that had a few good (and one freakishly outrageous) seasons, and did so in an era when pitching was just godawful. that is certainly a separate argument in its own right, but to say with certainty "it's hogwash to think the NeL had better talent than the majors" has certain undertones to it that can elicit the replies i've seen.

and none of us can sit here and say they were just a bunch of slobs any easier than we can claim gibson had 900 home runs. and the biggest reason for that? none of us were there watching these guys, and none of these guys had a chance to prove themselves simply because of certain people that felt this silly insecurity about allowing equality to someone else simply because of pigmentation that was different. we have to be very careful to make claims like i've seen here, because no matter what, race is always going to be bigger than everything - including this game.

[Chickazoola]

Ultimately the main descrepancy between the Majors and the Negro Leagues was the depth of each. The Negro Leagues were not very deep, and teams like the 1935 Pittsburgh Crawfords, and the 1930's-40's Homestead Grays are the exception not the rule. Basically they culled the very best players in Negro baseball and made dominant teams. This left the rest of league scrambling to field teams.

Having read alot of accounts by Negro Leaguers most of them believe that the best players were MLB-capable, but they acknowledge most teams didn't have enough depth to compete at that level. I have read that most teams didn't have more than 1-2 good pitchers, and often had to fill spots with marginal talent because player movement was so common. Just because the Monarchs had Hilton Smith, Satchel Paige, and Chet Brewer on one staff, it doesn't mean that every team had such talent.

The very best Negro League players would have been great in the Majors, there was likely quite a few more who could have been starters-bench players, but that being said the quality of the Negro Leagues at any given time was not very good because there was not enough talent to field 8-10 really strong teams.

The reasons for this are as such: the Negro Leagues had a much smaller population of people to draw players from, the Negro Leagues were constantly in flux in regards to having teams that could sustain themselves financially, and finally they were constantly being raided by semi-pro teams, and by Latin American teams.

The Major Leagues in contrast were much deeper and more stable for the opposite reasons: they had a much larger population to draw from, overall league stability, an extensive farm system that provided talent with great regularity, and due to the reserve clause overall team stability.

Jost Gibson is likely a top-5 catcher, Satchel Paige probably wasn't even the best pitcher in the Negro Leagues, and he is considered an all-time great, Oscar Charleston is like Mantle and Mays combined, among many other great players, but these players are freakish talents, and they don't represent the overall quality of the Negro Leagues any better than A-Rod and Barry Bonds represent the quality of the Major Leagues.

[Brian McKenna]

In what world is one man anywhere near the combined talent/actuality of Mantle and Mays?

[bryanac625]

Obviously, you would have MLB-caliber players on the black teams because they were not allowed to play with whites. Had they been white, or even light enough to pass (and I wonder how many "passed" to get into the majors), they would have been in MLB.

So in a situation like the Negro Leagues you will have the best teams (Pittsburgh Crawfords and Homestead Grays) or best individual stars (Gibson, Paige, Charleston, Cool Papa Bell, etc). Very good point to say they had a smaller talent pool to work from. But no way you can say the Crawfords were collectively worse than the Philadelphia Phillies or A's.

And it was the same situation in MLB: the best always rose to the top (Cardinals, Yankees, Tigers) and the worst (Phillies, A's, Browns, Bees) always went straight to the bottom.

[Chickazoola]

In what world is one man anywhere near the combined talent/actuality of Mantle and Mays?

In the world of Oscar Charleston, actually he just had a fully polished skillset, taking the best facets of both players, and combining them into a singular package.

[Chickazoola]

Obviously, you would have MLB-caliber players on the black teams because they were not allowed to play with whites. Had they been white, or even light enough to pass (and I wonder how many "passed" to get into the majors), they would have been in MLB.

So in a situation like the Negro Leagues you will have the best teams (Pittsburgh Crawfords and Homestead Grays) or best individual stars (Gibson, Paige, Charleston, Cool Papa Bell, etc). Very good point to say they had a smaller talent pool to work from. But no way you can say the Crawfords were collectively worse than the Philadelphia Phillies or A's.

And it was the same situation in MLB: the best always rose to the top (Cardinals, Yankees, Tigers) and the worst (Phillies, A's, Browns, Bees) always went straight to the bottom.


I wasn't saying that the Pittsburgh Crawfords weren't very good, I was saying that they were an all-star team and there weren't many teams of that top to bottom quality in the Negro Leagues, or the Major Leagues for that matter. So people often list them as being an example of why the Negro Leagues would have been equal to the majors, when in truth they were the exception.

In any given year you probably had 2-3 Negro League teams who had more than a few ML-calibre players(and may have competed well against MLers), leaving between 5-8 teams who were not anywhere close to ML-calibre. That's what I was saying.

The Crawfords of 1935, the Grays, and the Monarchs amongst a few other earlier black teams(Rube Foster's American Giants, the Cuban X Giants et al) would have been very good on the Major League level I think, but they represent all-star teams comprising many of the most talented players in black baseball. The New York Black Yankees were not of this quality, and there were far more teams like the Black Yankees than there were like the Crawfords.

[metrotheme]

That round number of Gibson's might be a bit of truth and a bit of urban legend being passed on. Mind you, if you factor in all of the barnstorming games, all of the double / triple-headers and then all of the winter ball that he played, I'm sure the number is larger than what is documented. These guys played more baseball than their major league equivalents with all of the non-league games.

Gibson hit one of the longest shots ever at Yankee Stadium. You can't be a slouch hitter to do that. To have everyone talk about him with such great regard also affirms what a great hitter he was.

Fact of the matter is that stats for the Negro Leagues are sparse and the longer that time passes and that the men who played with and against him pass away, the more people will be there to challenge it because there will be nobody to defend it.

Can't we just celebrate the man instead of being so skeptical. If he were in the majors (all other conditions being equal) he would have surpassed his negro league totals easily.

[Chickazoola]

That round number of Gibson's might be a bit of truth and a bit of urban legend being passed on. Mind you, if you factor in all of the barnstorming games, all of the double / triple-headers and then all of the winter ball that he played, I'm sure the number is larger than what is documented. These guys played more baseball than their major league equivalents with all of the non-league games.

Gibson hit one of the longest shots ever at Yankee Stadium. You can't be a slouch hitter to do that. To have everyone talk about him with such great regard also affirms what a great hitter he was.

Fact of the matter is that stats for the Negro Leagues are sparse and the longer that time passes and that the men who played with and against him pass away, the more people will be there to challenge it because there will be nobody to defend it.

Can't we just celebrate the man instead of being so skeptical. If he were in the majors (all other conditions being equal) he would have surpassed his negro league totals easily.

What do you base this on? I don't think anyone is arguing that Josh Gibson wasn't a great player, and wouldn't have been a great major league player. But how can you possibly know that he would have surpassed his Negro League totals(whatever they were)?

No one is diminishing his legacy by asking questions about it. We are trying to discover the facts within the myths. And the legacy of the Negro Leagues and the players who played it will live on because hundreds of first hand accounts exist from the players who played both with and against Josh.

[jalbright]

What do you base this on? I don't think anyone is arguing that Josh Gibson wasn't a great player, and wouldn't have been a great major league player. But how can you possibly know that he would have surpassed his Negro League totals(whatever they were)?

No one is diminishing his legacy by asking questions about it. We are trying to discover the facts within the myths. And the legacy of the Negro Leagues and the players who played it will live on because hundreds of first hand accounts exist from the players who played both with and against Josh.

At least with respect to his home run total, I agree with the poster you are questioning. As to average and OBP, probably not. Gibson's Negro League stats are for about 15 seasons of approximately 80-90 games each. He was playing every day, but there were a lot of games that weren't against Negro League opponents. He wound up with 200-something Negro League homers--but had he had the opportunity to play in the majors, 154 game seasons and better conditions, he would have easily surpassed those marks, as great players of the time did. Furthermore, many of his homers came in a Death Valley of a ballpark, Griffith Stadium. Major leaguers hit about half as many in Griffith as they did in other parks in games involving the Senators. So Josh was fighting his ballpark as well. Had he played in the majors, he really couldn't have played in a more difficult park, since he was already in the worst homer park in the majors.

Jim Albright

[metrotheme]

You add in the better playing conditions, better travel, better equipment, better health care available to the MLB players, even at that time and I think you would have seen better numbers. Before you go and say that MLB was a longer season, outside of the Negro League schedule, if you add in all of the barnstorming games they played, I'm sure it was as many or more than their MLB counterparts during the season.

What do you base this on? I don't think anyone is arguing that Josh Gibson wasn't a great player, and wouldn't have been a great major league player. But how can you possibly know that he would have surpassed his Negro League totals(whatever they were)?

No one is diminishing his legacy by asking questions about it. We are trying to discover the facts within the myths. And the legacy of the Negro Leagues and the players who played it will live on because hundreds of first hand accounts exist from the players who played both with and against Josh.

[bryanac625]

At least with respect to his home run total, I agree with the poster you are questioning. As to average and OBP, probably not. Gibson's Negro League stats are for about 15 seasons of approximately 80-90 games each. He was playing every day, but there were a lot of games that weren't against Negro League opponents. He wound up with 200-something Negro League homers--but had he had the opportunity to play in the majors, 154 game seasons and better conditions, he would have easily surpassed those marks, as great players of the time did. Furthermore, many of his homers came in a Death Valley of a ballpark, Griffith Stadium. Major leaguers hit about half as many in Griffith as they did in other parks in games involving the Senators. So Josh was fighting his ballpark as well. Had he played in the majors, he really couldn't have played in a more difficult park, since he was already in the worst homer park in the majors.

Jim Albright

I think I would be more convinced of a 800-900 HR total had he ended his career a healthy man at 46, rather than a guy whose life ended at 36.

[jalbright]

I think I would be more convinced of a 800-900 HR total had he ended his career a healthy man at 46, rather than a guy whose life ended at 36.

Please read what I said, and you quoted. I said nothing about 800-900 homers--I said more than the 200-something he had in Negro League games. In the right conditions (starting with a move outside of Griffith Stadium), he certainly could have reached 500 in his lifetime in the majors--but I wouldn't contend that even that figure is certain.

Jim Albright

[bryanac625]

Please read what I said, and you quoted. I said nothing about 800-900 homers--I said more than the 200-something he had in Negro League games. In the right conditions (starting with a move outside of Griffith Stadium), he certainly could have reached 500 in his lifetime in the majors--but I wouldn't contend that even that figure is certain.

Jim Albright

Jim,
My post was actually more of a general response to the whole discussion, not necessarily to your comments. Why I quoted your post I cannot recall. Sorry for any confusion. BTW, good point about Griffith Stadium. Believe it or not, the Senators hit only one homer there for the entire 1945 season, an inside-the-park job. But that same year, they led the league in triples with 63.

[bryanac625]

I just found this quote by James "Cool Papa" Bell in the book The All-Century Team, p. 40. However, It doesn't indicate what year he and Gibson played together. Take it for what you will, I figure it should add some interesting thought to this discussion.

We didn't always keep accurate records. Some days we would have a guy who kept score, some days we wouldn't. That year, I played with Josh Gibson and they were talking about what a great hitter he was and how many home runs he hit. So I said I was going to keep track of how many he hit and he hit 72 that year. But, in the records, you'll only see 55. Like when I stole all those bases, they only have a record of 91. Sometimes we played in parks that weren't fenced in. Josh would hit a ball 450 feet, but somebody would be standing out there, and they would catch it. If we had played in the major league parks that were fenced in, Josh probably would have hit more than 100 home runs.

BTW, Gibson was not voted to this All-Century team (Johnny Bench and Yogi Berra got the nod as the cathcers). He is mentioned, but is not on the roster. I have the companion video to this book and no Negro League pitcher or player is mentioned at all.

[jalbright]

Jim,
My post was actually more of a general response to the whole discussion, not necessarily to your comments. Why I quoted your post I cannot recall. Sorry for any confusion. BTW, good point about Griffith Stadium. Believe it or not, the Senators hit only one homer there for the entire 1945 season, an inside-the-park job. But that same year, they led the league in triples with 63.

It happens. Anyway, here's some hard data on Griffith Stadium I've posted before:

While Josh Gibson may not have faced pitching that was quite at the level of the major leagues over the course of a season, he had at least one thing that if he had played in an average MLB park—he wouldn’t have spent such a high percentage of his home games in an absolutely terrible home run park like Griffith Stadium. How bad was it? Here's the home runs home and away for the Washington Senators and their opponents, 1930-1945 (when Gibson played). Note: Home/away is in terms of the Senators:


year home away
1930 32 77
1931 37 85
1932 47 87
1933 30 94
1934 40 85
1935 33 88
1936 43 92
1937 44 99
1938 60 117
1939 30 89
1940 47 98
1941 32 89
1942 24 66
1943 23 72
1944 22 59
1945 7 62
551 1359

Source: MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia, 10th edition

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Griffith was a tough stadium especially for RH hitters but Josh also played in other parks. True he may have hit more playing more games away from Griffith but to get back to the main theme, hard sell to believe that any hitter could hit 900, 800 maybe even 700 and be dead by age 36.

And if any human could do that, the conditions he played under would have to be in question. Just for the record, don't know if they were all hit left field but Joe Dimaggio had a 3 homer game at Griffith.

How is it possible that one hitter in black baseball could possibly hit 900 or I'll make it easier 800 home runs in that short life span and all the MLB player white, black, Hispanic hundreds of hitters could not hit 900 home runs, or 800 Bonds possible but playing in to his 40s.

[bryanac625]

Griffith was a tough stadium especially for RH hitters but Josh also played in other parks. True he may have hit more playing more games away from Griffith but to get back to the main theme, hard sell to believe that any hitter could hit 900, 800 maybe even 700 and be dead by age 36.

And if any human could do that, the conditions he played under would have to be in question. Just for the record, don't know if they were all hit left field but Joe Dimaggio had a 3 homer game at Griffith.

How is it possible that one hitter in black baseball could possibly hit 900 or I'll make it easier 800 home runs in that short life span and all the MLB player white, black, Hispanic hundreds of hitters could not hit 900 home runs, or 800 Bonds possible but playing in to his 40s.

Good question... I wonder how it was possible for Cy Young to win 511 games, even losing over 300. How did he achieve this? How come no one else did?

How did Joe DiMaggio hit safely in 56 straight games?

How did Ruth Aaron and Bonds hit over 750 home runs each?

Your question on Gibson is fair. I would seriously believe 800 if he ended his career at 46 rather than his life at 36. But, I really wonder sometimes how these other people did what they did, so far out in front of the crowd.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Good question... I wonder how it was possible for Cy Young to win 511 games, even losing over 300. How did he achieve this? How come no one else did?

How did Joe DiMaggio hit safely in 56 straight games?

How did Ruth Aaron and Bonds hit over 750 home runs each?

Your question on Gibson is fair. I would seriously believe 800 if he ended his career at 46 rather than his life at 36. But, I really wonder sometimes how these other people did what they did, so far out in front of the crowd.

It was a whole different game when Cy Young pitched for some years started in 1890.

Dimaggio, there were some challengers. Two hitters with 44 games, one at 41 and one at 40.

Ruth, Aaron and Bonds, there were 3 in a range not that far apart.

The biggest difference is for what ever reason the above did what they did, we know it happened it was recorded. With Gibson we are asked to just believe it, even though there is no proof, no recorded or written record. Did he hit 450, 575, 600+, 700+ who can say, we don't know. Don't understand the other side of this debate asking those who question with good reason to just believe it.

I'm giving the only honest answer, I don't know, who here can say they do and prove it. I might add that that Young, Dimaggio, Ruth, Aaron and Bonds accomplishments pale when compared to what we are asked to believe. That one hitter could hit 800 or 900 home runs before the age of 36.

The big three at 35 years of age.

Ruth ---565
Aaron--554
Bonds--494

At 900 for Josh he hit 335 more than Ruth, 346 more than Aaron and 406 more than Bonds.

800 for Josh, 235 more than Ruth, 246 more than Hank and 306 more than Barry.

They, three of the heavy hitters in the game look puny to put it mildly compared to Josh.

I think sentiment is is creeping into this debate. I'm not insensitive to what took place with Josh. It was a terrible injustice that Josh was dealt, denied his chance because of skin color. But I choose to deal with the facts, we don't know.

[bryanac625]

It was a whole different game when Cy Young pitched for some years started in 1890.

Dimaggio, there were some challengers. Two hitters with 44 games, one at 41 and one at 40.

Ruth, Aaron and Bonds, there were 3 in a range not that far apart.

The biggest difference is for what ever reason the above did what they did, we know it happened it was recorded. With Gibson we are asked to just believe it, even though there is no proof, no recorded or written record. Did he hit 450, 575, 600+, 700+ who can say, we don't know. Don't understand the other side of this debate asking those who question with good reason to just believe it.

Of course the records of these players are well documented. What I meant was I wonder how they humanly achieved these numbers. For instance, I don't think every batter Cy Young faced on his road to 511 wins was big-league material; much the same as others have alleged about the quality of the Negro Leagues. Whatever Gibson's real HR total was, perhaps many of those dingers came from pitches thrown by minor-league quality pitchers.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Of course the records of these players are well documented. What I meant was I wonder how they humanly achieved these numbers. For instance, I don't think every batter Cy Young faced on his road to 511 wins was big-league material; much the same as others have alleged about the quality of the Negro Leagues. Whatever Gibson's real HR total was, perhaps many of those dingers came from pitches thrown by minor-league quality pitchers.

I think get what your saying, the level of talent in Cy Youngs time but it still goes back to the fact that what ever the level of talent we know it happened, it's in the books. If one wants to say the level of talent in Young's time was low, they can say that, they can say it was terrible but we still have proof of numbers. The issue to me in this case is now what is the number and can it be proven. I have yet to see any reliable stats that show Gibson's total home runs that is even close to 900, 800 or even 400. Do I think he hit more than 400, I do but how many no one seems to know.

This could go on for all time and in the end it ends up with the same conclusion, no one has the proof, the answer.

[bryanac625]

I think get what your saying, the level of talent in Cy Youngs time but it still goes back to the fact that what ever the level of talent we know it happened, it's in the books. If one wants to say the level of talent in Young's time was low, they can say that, they can say it was terrible but we still have proof of numbers. The issue to me in this case is now what is the number and can it be proven. I have yet to see any reliable stats that show Gibson's total home runs that is even close to 900, 800 or even 400. Do I think he hit more than 400, I do but how many no one seems to know.

This could go on for all time and in the end it ends up with the same conclusion, no one has the proof, the answer.

In the case of what I am discussing in my last three posts (# 50, 52 and this post) what I am saying- all I am saying, and perhaps it is a digress from the original discussion- is that it is incredible how these people (Young, DiMaggio, Ruth, the 750+ homer guys) did what they did when most players in the game have not even come close. Was Cy Young an immortal? I don't know, but I would say he was helped by the "dead" ball, the spitball, all-daytime games over only a portion of the country, and actually being able to pitch an entire game as opposed to being limted by a pitch count.

Or what did DiMaggio do to hit in 56 games, which would have been 73 if that Indians 3B not played so deep in game #57? How come no one else has achieved that feat? Could it even be done again?

I am fully aware of the records that are documented. After the Red Sox won it all in 2004, I thought about the fact that someone could go back and look at every out of game 4 of the WS and prove the Cardinals lost that game and the Sox won it. Now, in Gibson's case, the argument is whether or not anyone can prove he hit almost 800 HRs.

Forget for a moment the "almost 800" HR total. Ask yourself this: was he an incredible hitter? Isn't he the only man ever to hit a ball out of Yankee Stadium? Is it true that he really did hit 72 homers in one season, according to Cool Papa Bell? Many people in the Negro Leagues said he had an incredible swing and incredible power. What, were they all on a conspiracy to lie about a mediocre hitter who was served up really fat pitches by a pitcher told to give up the home run ball?

Was Josh Gibson a credit to the game, or a liabilty? If the Yankee Stadium thing was true, if Buck Oneil's comments about the power of Ruth and the control of Ted Williams is true, and if he really did hit 72 homers as Papa Bell said, he was a credit to the game. I don't know what kind of a person he was, but I would say he was more a credit to the game than Ty Cobb. I agree with Dan Okrent that Cobb "in his totality was an embarrassment to baseball." I would take Gibson on my team (albeit the younger Gibson) any day over a creep like Cobb. But hey, I'm a black man and Cobb wouldn't play with me anyway.

[baseballPAP]

The biggest difference is for what ever reason the above did what they did, we know it happened it was recorded. With Gibson we are asked to just believe it, even though there is no proof, no recorded or written record. Did he hit 450, 575, 600+, 700+ who can say, we don't know. Don't understand the other side of this debate asking those who question with good reason to just believe it.

This very much reminds me of a "discussion" I had with my college roommate, who was failing freshman biology at Ohio State. See, he was a dedicated catholic, and refused to believe in anything based on evolution. I kept asking him how he explained obvious evidence to the contrary, he kept saying because it says so in the Bible. Just believe indeed. :)

[Calif_Eagle]

The key to how many HR Gibson hit in his life is, how many games did he play & who did he play against? It would seem from previous posts in this thread, his appearances in Negro League, & various Latin American Winter leagues are pretty well documented. At least they give resonably close approximate numbers to work with. Previous posts give 224 NeL HR, 2 barnstorming against white MLB pitchers, 44 in the Mexican League, 2 HR in the Dominican Republic, 14 in Cuba and 19 in Puerto Rico. Thats 305 right there. The key is barnstorming. Who did Gibson's clubs play while barnstorming & in exhibitions? How many games a year? What was the level of competition? The non-elite teams of Negro baseball? The local (probably white) clubs of cities they visited? ("the town teams") If they played enough baseball, & more to the point, played enough low quality clubs, he might have really reached 800 or 900. Its going to take a LOT more mining of old newpapers ancient box scores & game write ups to determine it, with many probably lost to history permanently. But... no way did he hit anything like 800 or 900 against good quality top flight competition. It doesnt diminish him as a hitter at all to say that either. There is a recent thread on long HRs over on the history forum btw, that disproves rather conclusively the idea that Gibson hit one out of Yankee Stadium. Saying that doesnt detract from the man either. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the man could flat out hit & play at the level of an MLB HOF superstar. That should be more than enough credit for anyone, regardless of race. We dont need to give him a red cape & blue tights. The genuine truth should more than suffice. Wasnt it Clark Griffith who wanted to sign him for the Senators? Its too bad he couldnt have brought himself to do it. Perhaps Judge Landis would have stopped him, I dont know. Perhaps Landis DID stop him. I wonder if he (Griffith) ever floated the idea to Landis, or if any other owner did so (on the QT) about signing other top black talent of the day?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The key to how many HR Gibson hit in his life is, how many games did he play & who did he play against? It would seem from previous posts in this thread, his appearances in Negro League, & various Latin American Winter leagues are pretty well documented. At least they give resonably close approximate numbers to work with. Previous posts give 224 NeL HR, 2 barnstorming against white MLB pitchers, 44 in the Mexican League, 2 HR in the Dominican Republic, 14 in Cuba and 19 in Puerto Rico. Thats 305 right there. The key is barnstorming. Who did Gibson's clubs play while barnstorming & in exhibitions? How many games a year? What was the level of competition? The non-elite teams of Negro baseball? The local (probably white) clubs of cities they visited? ("the town teams") If they played enough baseball, & more to the point, played enough low quality clubs, he might have really reached 800 or 900. Its going to take a LOT more mining of old newpapers ancient box scores & game write ups to determine it, with many probably lost to history permanently. But... no way did he hit anything like 800 or 900 against good quality top flight competition. It doesnt diminish him as a hitter at all to say that either. There is a recent thread on long HRs over on the history forum btw, that disproves rather conclusively the idea that Gibson hit one out of Yankee Stadium. Saying that doesnt detract from the man either. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the man could flat out hit & play at the level of an MLB HOF superstar. That should be more than enough credit for anyone, regardless of race. We dont need to give him a red cape & blue tights. The genuine truth should more than suffice. Wasnt it Clark Griffith who wanted to sign him for the Senators? Its too bad he couldnt have brought himself to do it. Perhaps Judge Landis would have stopped him, I dont know. Perhaps Landis DID stop him. I wonder if he (Griffith) ever floated the idea to Landis, or if any other owner did so (on the QT) about signing other top black talent of the day?


Thats exactly what I have said and posted. If he did hit 900 how many games did he play and more important what was the level of those he played again. Do I have to say it again..... I guess so... no one is taking anything away from Josh. If he didn't hit 900... if he did against "some" a lower calber pitching.... it takes nothing away from his greatness... why can't we get that one out of the way. He was still a great player and if given the chance he would have proved it in MLB.

There seems to be a problem here because of the skin color of Josh... as though some who question anything about the man.... the talk about that out of Yankee Stadium home run or the 900 home runs....as though I and some others are not giving him a fair shake. There are a great number of others MLB player who have their numbers questioned because ot the times they played in and for other reasons, conditions in the game the ball, rule changes and other reasons. no different then the case dealing with Josh. It has nothing to do with skin color.

[bryanac625]

But... no way did he hit anything like 800 or 900 against good quality top flight competition. It doesnt diminish him as a hitter at all to say that either. There is a recent thread on long HRs over on the history forum btw, that disproves rather conclusively the idea that Gibson hit one out of Yankee Stadium. Saying that doesnt detract from the man either. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the man could flat out hit & play at the level of an MLB HOF superstar. That should be more than enough credit for anyone, regardless of race. We dont need to give him a red cape & blue tights. The genuine truth should more than suffice.

We say he was a great HOF-caliber hitter, but that he did not hit 800-900 homers "against good quality top flight competition." Then we say the Negro Leagues were not as good as MLB. That's the part that I don't get.

Wasnt it Clark Griffith who wanted to sign him for the Senators? Its too bad he couldnt have brought himself to do it. Perhaps Judge Landis would have stopped him, I dont know. Perhaps Landis DID stop him. I wonder if he (Griffith) ever floated the idea to Landis, or if any other owner did so (on the QT) about signing other top black talent of the day?

Clark Griffith was opposed to integrating the Senators, but not for the same reasons as Judge Landis. Griffith decided he could make more money hosting both the Senators and the Grays at Griffith Stadium. Unfortunately, another moment in the long history of bad decisions in Washington, DC baseball. The team did not integrate until 1954, signing Carlos Paula.

[Brian McKenna]

Griffith attended more Negro league games than every other man in organized baseball combined. Griffith did show some interest, cursory or not, in signing Gibson and others but D.C. was a segregated city and Griffith never pushed the issue for more reasons than that.

Griffith always said he wasn't going to be pushed into signing a black player - he was going to do it on his schedule - whatever that meant (he probably didn't know). IMO he should have integrated sooner and the fact that he didn't just shows the contradictory aspects of a person's decision making. He had worked out Charlie Grant in 1901 with McGraw. He was the first to sign Cuban players and he kept signing Spanish-speaking players when in all liklihood he and everyone else questioned their Castillan heritage.

As mentioned he attended many Negro league games at Griffith Stadium and he was deeply involved in the African American community in D.C. He was also organized baseball's point man when it came to discussing issues with black baseball and reporters (simply because Landis wouldn't). Eventually, Griffith received some flack after supposedly "shining on" Sam Lacy and others but it is obvious now that Griffith really wasn't an innovator when it came to incorporating black Americans into the majors. He was also merely the face of organized baseball (which wasn't progressive in the area) in the matter.

Griffith did make a lot of money from renting Griffith Stadium but the cash flow was seriously waning by 1944-45. He wanted to find a way to increase that revenue - not destroy it altogether. He also had a rapport with Negro league owners (particularly Cum Posy) and that partially lies at the heart of his conflict with Rickey (who sided with Posey's foe Greenlee) in 1945.

Rickey's actions were a serious threat to black baseball. He lied to and manipulated all of the leaders of black baseball (including Greenlee). In the end Rickey used the connections he made and knowledge he learned to take players who were under contract to others. He did this banking on the fact that black owners would have little recourse because it would actually set back the cause in general.

Black owners knew that they would lose one day when black were included into organized baseball. Deep down, they all accepted this. They also knew all about financial troubles, losing players, disbanding and rebuilding. The essence of the problem for them was how Rickey did his deeds. White men had traditionally been a major controlling factor over black teams simply because white promoters owned the fields. Obviously, this caused resentment and left an after-taste. Then, a white man from the Dodgers comes in a takes their players without compensation and threatens to destroy their very existence. And, he does this with contempt - telling the leagues that they were just charlatans and didn't garner his respect. Now that's duplicity at its finest.

[Calif_Eagle]

We say he was a great HOF-caliber hitter, but that he did not hit 800-900 homers "against good quality top flight competition." Then we say the Negro Leagues were not as good as MLB. That's the part that I don't get.

When I counted up his documented 305 homers, based on the totals given by other posters in this thread, in my mind I considered all 305 as having been against top flight competition, giving the Negro Leagues and the Winter Leagues the benefit of the doubt. Some might disagree about the caliber of pitching in the NeNL & NeAL, I tend to think more or less that he faced a high enough standard for those HR's to meet the "top flight" standard. In those days baseball was the King sport by far, with college & pro football & basketball not siphoning off tremendous quantities of top flight black athletes as they do today. Not only did both of those sports discriminate, but they were also very much shoestring operations compared to the MLB of the 1st half of the 20th Century. College Football was big time, but was making very few spots available to blacks. So, if a young black man of those days wanted to play a sport professionally, it would seem to me that the Negro Leagues were the top of the hill for that era. As for the barnstorming HR's well... I tend to think they played a lot of teams out there on the road that were not of high level caliber, black and white teams alike. But I am always open to be persuaded by evidence that I am wrong.

[metrotheme]

I don't think Gibson played enough "league" games to have 800-900 homers against the top flight competition at the time available to Negro Leaguers. The Negro Leaguers might have played 150-200 games per season if you factor in the doubleheaders / barnstorming trips and league games. After interviewing some Negro League players this past month, this was more of the case of their schedule. Every player I spoke to that played alongside Gibson only had marvelous things to say about him. The truth is, we'll never know, but there were plenty first hand accounts to document the prodigious power he had.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Thank you for pointing out MLB was NOT superior to the Negro Leagues. Reading some of these posts made me very sad. For people to make the claim that the Negro Leagues were stocked with inferior players to make one or two stars look good is making a mockery of the game these men played. This, coupled with the constant refrain that the talent wasn't ML cailibur is blatent racism. Maybe they don't relize what they are saying, but ignorance is not a defense. Such arguments are vile and a disgrace.

Maybe Ruth would have only had 300-350 HR's if he had been playing against the best. He played in a diluted talent pool because so many of the best, the very good, and the good were locked out. Could Ruth have played under the conditions these men did ? I think his numbers would have suffered terribly.

We will never know what MLB records would look like today had baseball integrated ,say, 30 years earlier. Every Major League record set before 1947 deserves an *.

I know that it's already been said, but the above post is a pile of ignorance (even when the rampant misspellings are ignored). No one on this thread has said anything vile or disgraceful and none of us are racists. We are simply serious baseball fans who don't believe a tall tale about a man on whom accurate statistics were not kept when the evidence brings it's validity into question. I don't question Josh Gibson's HR total because he was black - that would be racist. I question his alleged 800-900 HR total because records indicate that he hit 180-240 HR in official Negro League games (which, for the sake of the debate, I will consider equal in the level of play to Major League games at the time). The rest of them were hit against barnstorming teams that no one can convince me played at a Major League level. Oh yeah, and HE DIED AT AGE 35! Do I think Josh Gibson would've been a star player in the Major Leagues had he had the opportunity to play? Absolutely. Do I think ANYONE could hit 900 legit Major League worthy HR by the age of 35? NO! That's all I have to say about that. As for Babe Ruth and the level of play in the Major Leagues during that era...Babe Ruth started hitting 50 HR when a typical league leading total was 15. Granted he was swinging for the fences more than others, but he wasn't sacrificing batting average points - he was hitting upwards of .350. You can't convince me that anyone who could hit 50 HR and drive in 150 without losing points on their average would consciously not do it, thus I believe Babe Ruth was far and away the best hitter of the era and of all time. If you think that letting black pitchers pitch to him would've limited him to 350 career HR, well then I don't think I can even reason with you enough to convince you otherwise. The fact that non-white players (who now make up 40% of MLB) weren't allowed to play in the Major Leagues would've diluted the talent...if not for the fact that there were only 16 teams (as opposed to 30 today). Thus there were many fewer spots available on MLB rosters and guys who make it as a middle reliever or utility infielder today weren't making it back then. No records set before 1947 deserve asterisks. As awful as segregation was, we can't hold it against the players who played during it's reign. It is part of the game's history, just like extending the schedule from 154 to 162 games. We haven't tagged records set after 1960 with asterisks. The only reason Maris' record was almost given one was that he set it in the first year after the schedule was extended and he was a quiet guy from North Dakota. But Ichiro's 262 hits didn't get one, even though the previous record was set before 1961. Barry Bonds' 232 walks didn't get one, even though the previous record was set pre 1960 AND Bonds was likely on steroids. Simply put, there are no asterisks in baseball. I'm off of this soap box.

[JohnHenry]

There are many contributing factors to every record -and non-record in both leagues, and many have been pointed out well on this thread.

I think it bears keeping in mind that Negro League teams could not carry 20+ players on a roster, and that to stay on one, you had to be versatile and one of the best available. When you can only carry ~15 or so players on the bus, if you didn't perform consistently you were let go for an up-and-comer who was anxious to prove himself. Thus, to say the NeLs were watered down is rather dubious. There weren't that many viable 1st-tier teams, true, but there were only 16 MLB teams during the segregation era as well.

As far as developing talent, black town teams and semi-pro circuits were plenty ubiquitous then just as white ones were, and this was where the NeL major teams found their talent. Considering the playing and traveling conditions and the number of openings on the payrolls of Negro majors, one would have to conclude that breaking into a major NeL lineup was as tough as it was in MLB - one had to be pretty doggone determined and talented to make the Grays, the Crawfords, the Monarchs, American Giants, Eagles, etc.

I also think the points made about MLB's talent of the time are credible - take Ruth's list of 1927 homers (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats12c.shtml), for example. He hit 4 of those off of Milt Gaston (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=gastomi01), a journeyman who was basically an 11-year mediocrity at best. (4.55 career ERA, W-L 97-164). You can go down the list of the Babe's 1927 season and see a lot of this. This is not to disparage the Babe, mind you, who would have been a big-time hitter on any field, but it does beg the question of whether a lot of these nobody pitchers would have had a MLB job had the league been integrated in, say, 1920 or '25. With indisputably dominating guys like Paige, Joe Williams, Leon Day, Ray Brown, etc., excluded, I think it's safe to say that Ruth was swinging against a 'watered down' pitching stable through much of his career. Likewise, some of the dominant MLB pitchers might not have fared as well had they had to face the likes of Charleston, Leonard, Bell, Wells, Gibson, Mackey, Suttles, etc.

In the same way some speculate about Ruth's numbers had he been moved to OF before 1920, or May's #s had he not lost a year to the Army at his peak, it is certainly credible to believe that a Gibson may have rivaled Ruth, or a Joe Williams may have rivaled Walter Johnson, or that Paige may have been the Bob Gibson of his time. We'll never know, because of the way things were - and that's a shame. Whether Gibson hit 900 home runs, against whom, and where, is certainly interesting fodder, but it's just as fair game to question the records of guys like the Babe, for the very same reasons.

IMHO....

I think it's accurate to say that both league's records from that era are disproportionate since neither league included all of the best players on the same fields.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There are many contributing factors to every record -and non-record in both leagues, and many have been pointed out well on this thread.

I think it bears keeping in mind that Negro League teams could not carry 20+ players on a roster, and that to stay on one, you had to be versatile and one of the best available. When you can only carry ~15 or so players on the bus, if you didn't perform consistently you were let go for an up-and-comer who was anxious to prove himself. Thus, to say the NeLs were watered down is rather dubious. There weren't that many viable 1st-tier teams, true, but there were only 16 MLB teams during the segregation era as well.

As far as developing talent, black town teams and semi-pro circuits were plenty ubiquitous then just as white ones were, and this was where the NeL major teams found their talent. Considering the playing and traveling conditions and the number of openings on the payrolls of Negro majors, one would have to conclude that breaking into a major NeL lineup was as tough as it was in MLB - one had to be pretty doggone determined and talented to make the Grays, the Crawfords, the Monarchs, American Giants, Eagles, etc.

I also think the points made about MLB's talent of the time are credible - take Ruth's list of 1927 homers (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats12c.shtml), for example. He hit 4 of those off of Milt Gaston (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=gastomi01), a journeyman who was basically an 11-year mediocrity at best. (4.55 career ERA, W-L 97-164). You can go down the list of the Babe's 1927 season and see a lot of this. This is not to disparage the Babe, mind you, who would have been a big-time hitter on any field, but it does beg the question of whether a lot of these nobody pitchers would have had a MLB job had the league been integrated in, say, 1920 or '25. With indisputably dominating guys like Paige, Joe Williams, Leon Day, Ray Brown, etc., excluded, I think it's safe to say that Ruth was swinging against a 'watered down' pitching stable through much of his career. Likewise, some of the dominant MLB pitchers might not have fared as well had they had to face the likes of Charleston, Leonard, Bell, Wells, Gibson, Mackey, Suttles, etc.

In the same way some speculate about Ruth's numbers had he been moved to OF before 1920, or May's #s had he not lost a year to the Army at his peak, it is certainly credible to believe that a Gibson may have rivaled Ruth, or a Joe Williams may have rivaled Walter Johnson, or that Paige may have been the Bob Gibson of his time. We'll never know, because of the way things were - and that's a shame. Whether Gibson hit 900 home runs, against whom, and where, is certainly interesting fodder, but it's just as fair game to question the records of guys like the Babe, for the very same reasons.

IMHO....
I think it's accurate to say that both league's records from that era are disproportionate since neither league included all of the best players on the same fields.

Agreed, these points have been debated for the longest time. Not just Ruth and Gibson...............Ruth...Aaron..............Rut h...........Bonds and thoughts on how Gibson may have performed if given his chance at MLB, quite well I am sure and barring injury a HOF player, a disgrace he and other blacks never had their chance simply because of skin color.

The thing with the 900 home runs is there is no way to ever know the real number. I doubt it, hard to believe any hitter could hit 100 + more home runs than Barry Bonds and almost 150 more than Hank Aaron and he died at the age of 35. We have valid numbers on Ruth, Aaron and Bonds.

As for Ruth feasting on certain pitchers "cousins" I would think that most home run hitters in any era took it out on the lower level of pitchers.......the same pitchers all other hitters in their time batted against.

Now we get into other areas again. Is it true that Ruth faced so much inferior pitching, in some cases yes. He did also hit 10 home runs off of Walter Johnson and Ruth did not become a regular outfielder until his 6th season. He did hit 9 home runs off of one of the best Lefty Grove and the first time Ruth faced Grove was in Ruth's 12th season.
Ruth also lost one against Grove in 1930, hitting a ball that cleared the wall at Shibe but struck speakers, Ruth was given a double.
I do believe the overall pitching is better in todays game but that is some what tempered by the fact that there are some in the game who would not be here if not for expansion.

If we are to accept 100 percent the claim by some that todays pitching is so superior to those in Ruth's time we would have to conclude the following. Any of todays hitters who can hit 50 or close to 60 if hitting against the 1920s pitchers would have to be capable of hitting 70 or more.

On the other hand if Ruth was hitting against todays pitching maybe he would hit in the high 40's and possibly a 50 plus season. That just doesn't make sense.

How it be any other way if we accept the claim that todays pitcher are so superior to those of long ago. If thats true todays sluggers 60+ not out of reach if they played back then and Ruth, it would be a struggle for him to get to the 50s' in todays game.

I think your last paragraph wraps it up neatly............neither league included the best players......................