Was the NA (1871-75) a "Major" League?

[Brad Harris]

So we all know how much academic weight MLB's decisions carry on such things, but regardless of the "official" position, should the first professional baseball league, the National Association of 1871-1875, be considered a "major" league.

The following are considered major leagues, according to MLB:
American Association (1882-1891)
American League (1901-present)
Federal League (1914-1915)
National League (1876-present)
Players League (1890)
Union Association (1884)

Let's hear your best arguments, pro or con.

[TonyK]

1. More than 100 NL players came from the NA.
2. The NA consisted of most of the best players in the nation.
3. Contemporaries and researchers consider it a major league based on definitions of a major league.

MLB also tends to ignore the records and achievements of 19th Century players but that doesn't make it right.

[Brian McKenna]

To the victor go the spoils. Not sure why the NA isn't considered a major - probably has a lot to do with the fact that some think time began with the National League (propaganda probably pushed by NL officials many years ago).

The problem extends today. Just who today adjudicates things like this from the past? It can't be MLB - that's a business empire devoted to profits as it should be.

There is a sound argument for the NA being a major - more so than it not IMO. For one, it's talent level far exceeded that of the UA and FL.

[rrhersh]

The problem I always have with these discussions is that without a definition of "major league" it is meaningless to ask if any particular organization qualifies or not. You have rejected the official MLB definition (which can be summarized as "major leagues are the leagues we say are major"). That is fine, but without offerring an alternative, there isn't really any place to go.

What do you consider the characteristics of a major league? Is it quality of play? Compared to what? There were no minor leagues at that time, and all openly professional clubs were by definition members of the NA. Or the definition organizational? The modern system of a hierarchy of leagues with a defined relationship to one another kicks in with the 1883 National Agreement.

Often the subtext to the NA discussion seems to be whether or not we should consider stats from the NA. (The similar UA discussion has the corresponding subtext.) I have a hard time getting too excited by this consideration. Surely the answer depends on the specific question under study. For what it is worth, I can't think of a principled reason to ignore that portion of a professional player's career before the NL was founded.

A more interesting question, in my opinion, than was the NA major is was it a league? It had some but not all of the characteristic we associate with leagues. This period was the invention of the modern sports league, but it didn't happen in one step. The NA was a transitional stage.

[Beady]

Yeah, I agree about the frustratingly imprecise nature of these discussions, and about the subtext being "will these stats count." I happen to find the regard "what is a league" interesting and significant in itself. I regard a league as a body comprised of a fairly limited number of teams playing a set of round-robin series -- with, in its purest form, every team playing every other an equal number of times -- to determine a champion. That fits the NA.

A major league, to my mind, would be one that comes reasonably close to bringing together the best teams and players in the game to complete in the round robin format. By that criterion, I think the NA has a solid claim to major status. True, in comparison with later leagues, it included clubs and players across a wide range of the quality spectrum, the weakest of whom would hardly fit anybody's definition of major leaguers. As a practical matter, though, the weak teams tended to go belly up fast, so that the NA was dominated by the top clubs to a greater extent than a simple head count of strong clubs and weak one would suggest.

At any rate, what counts is the presence of a good sample of top talent in a structure that pits them against one another on the playing field on a regular basis. The fact that competition was somewhat diluted by the presence of weaker clubs is a secondary matter.

At its core the NA was a collection of about six to ten professional teams of the first rank, probably the best six to ten teams in the country or very close to that, playing one another about 40 to 60 games a year (except in 1871, when the teams as a group were strong but the schedules were shorter). In the late 1870's and early 1880's the NL comprised six to eight first-rank professional teams playing one another about 50 to 70 times a year. They continued to play teams in the second and third rank, but they did so as exhibition games, whereas in some cases those games had been at least nominally official in the NA. I don't think that makes a really large difference.

[ziggy29]

IMO, if you consider the UA a major league, then it's a no-brainer that the NA is as well in the talent department. You could probably also say that about the Federal League. I'm not sure the UA even deserved to be considered on par with today's AAA relative to, say, the NL in 1884.

I think the NA suffers from perception of having a weak central organization, teams that broke the rules with impunity, allegedly crooked play, many in-season "exhibition" games and the formation of a two-tiered "caste" system where the well-capitalized stock clubs could beat the tar out of the weak co-ops.

But in terms of having the top talent in the game, I think it's clear the NA was major-league caliber. It had organizational issues that hamper its recognition as a bona fide league, I think.

[spark240]

A major league, to my mind, would be one that comes reasonably close to bringing together the best teams and players in the game to complete in the round robin format.
...
True, in comparison with later leagues, it included clubs and players across a wide range of the quality spectrum, the weakest of whom would hardly fit anybody's definition of major leaguers. As a practical matter, though, the weak teams tended to go belly up fast, so that the NA was dominated by the top clubs to a greater extent than a simple head count of strong clubs and weak one would suggest.

This description would cover the early years of the National League as well--which, depending on your point of view, might further support the notion of the NA as "major," or reduce the standing of the early NL.

[Brad Harris]

I'll agree with the UA not being "major" league caliber, but the Federal League? Didn't the FL successfully raid A/NL rosters to a large extent? Between that and the funding of the clubs, I thought the FL "qualified" as one?

[Brian McKenna]

Didn't the FL successfully raid A/NL rosters to a large extent?

I'd like to see a list but I don't think "to a large extent" is an accurate phrase. Outside aging major leaguers and unproven younger talent, I'm not sure how many the Federal League raided the majors for. My guess would be few. The FL definitely had the funding.

So what are the main aspects of a major league?
1) They have to be a league with a relative few # of teams
2) They have to make an attempt at playing each other a relative amount of times
3) They have to have among the top geographical talent
4) Funding is a plus but not necessary
5) Any others?

The administrative troubles ("having a weak central organization, teams that broke the rules with impunity, allegedly crooked play, many in-season "exhibition" games") and the like don't disqualify the NA in my opinion. All groups have issues. The dominance of the Boston club is troubling but it's not like most of the other clubs didn't have talent. All this is just a part of the learning curve. Was a major league in 1874 supposed to be run like one in 2009?

[timmyj51]

Actually, this whole dispute comes down to our being brainwashed by
MLB into thinking what "major league" is. Observers and critics during the
NA period didn't think in those terms. Their thinking was: which clubs,
organizations, represent the game's highest competitive level? On
that basis the NA was clearly "major". The real difference between
the NA and NL was that the latter took it upon themselves to form a
closed circuit, while with the NA any club that paid their entrance fee
could get in. Don't think for one minute the NL, in its early years, had
the best clubs. Were numerous non-NL clubs just as strong and could
beat NL teams regularly. It all comes to do: where do you draw the
talent line? Today we have thirty ML clubs. What if the top dozen
NL clubs decided to break away and form a separate "major league" and refused to play with any other clubs? Would all
the pro clubs left out now be "non-major"? Even today Some triple AAA clubs are
probably good enough to be "major league". But the public never gets
a chance to know this. MLB is a monopoly. They warehouse all the
baseall talent in this country (and are trying to do it to the whole world)
and divy this talent up to their advantage. In this respect the old NA was
a much more free and democratic organization. Teams had to prove they were
"major" on the field against the best teams. Many failed but at least
they were given the opportunity. Free competition decided who was "major".

[Beady]

I'd like to see a list but I don't think "to a large extent" is an accurate phrase. Outside aging major leaguers and unproven younger talent, I'm not sure how many the Federal League raided the majors for. My guess would be few. The FL definitely had the funding.



I don't know about the FL in much detail, but the success of the UA in raiding the NL and AA has been greatly underestimated (okay, "has been underestimated" is a euphemism for "Bill James underestimated it"). For example, you could reasonably argue that the St. Louis Maroon roster included more established ML talent than all the 1882 AA teams combined -- bearing in mind that, with the exception of Cincinnati, there wasn't a single player of established ML caliber on any AA roster. The AA teams had lot of good but unproven young talent, but that's another matter.

However, the UA was exceptionally skewed in terms of talent, with a minority of legitimate ML players and strong teams sharing the field with minor leaguers and semipros. In line with rrhersh's comment about subtext driviing the discussion, I think it's fair to say that what really bothers people about the UA is not the poor quality of play, but rather the fact that among the bad players there were a substantial number of good ones, fattening their statistics by competing with the bad. If Henry Moore had led the UA with a .336 BA, nobody would object to it being counted as a major. It's seeing the extraordinary numbers put up by Charlie Sweeney, Orator George Shaffer and especially Fred Dunlap that gets people's attention and throws off their statistical studies.

[Macker]

If you count NA as major, what would you call the Western Association and the American League of 1900? I've always considered the NA as just a league. Not major. Just a league. There were good teams that opted not to join the NA.

Had the NA rounded up all of the best teams, and the public (and teams not in the NA) recognized the status of those teams in the league as something special, that would be another thing.

[rrhersh]

If you count NA as major, what would you call the Western Association and the American League of 1900? I've always considered the NA as just a league. Not major. Just a league. There were good teams that opted not to join the NA.

Had the NA rounded up all of the best teams, and the public (and teams not in the NA) recognized the status of those teams in the league as something special, that would be another thing.

This is rather misleading. The best clubs were all in the NA. There was a second tier of clubs, some of which were in the NA in any given year, while some were not. We can look at a club like the 1874 Eastons and reasonably suggest that they were better than some of the weak NA teams, but the top tier NA teams were clearly better than any non-NA team.

This two tier system is the source of much of the debate and the stats angst. My suggestion for the stats people, intended in all seriousness, is to follow the contemporary practice is disregard games in which one or both contenders failed to complete the season. Successfully completing the season correlates strongly with being in the top tier, so this eliminates most of the grossly unbalanced games.

As for the public perception of NA versus non-NA clubs, look at any newspaper of the day which covered baseball. Professional (i.e. NA) games received attention nationwide. Amateur (i.e. non-NA) might or might not receive local attention, but very rarely did they gain wider notice.

[Beady]

People tend to retroject the situation in the late 1870's back into the earlier part of the decade. I tend to take a fairly bearish view of the quality of the leading teams in the International Association, and their claim to parity with the NL, but there's no doubt that some relatively strong teams could be found outside the NL around 1877 and 1878. In large measure they were outside because their cities didn't fit into the NL circuit and the clubs hadn't been accepted for membership . That didn't apply before 1876, when the NA accepted anybody who wanted to join, and I don't believe there was any substantial number of top teams that stayed out.

I have done a simple and not particularly sophisticated study that tends to suggest that excluding games played by the bottom feeders would not grossly change the statistics for players on the strong teams. As I remarked earlier, the effect of the second-tier teams is minimized by the fact that they usually disappeared pretty quickly.

[Brad Harris]

I would certainly agree that all the top teams in professional baseball were not solely found in the early National League. That's not to say that there were a sufficient number of these teams bandied together in another league of their own at any team. The National League made a habit of bringing the best teams in the country into their fold over the succeeding two decades after its genesis. To the best of my knowledge, none of these other leagues (the AA excepted) were any more competitive than the UA was in '84. Were the teams like Detroit or Buffalo being plucked from a pool of tough competition within their own (non-NL) circles or were they just the only teams in inferior leagues that rose above because they had major league caliber talent where their competitors did not? I doubt there's much argument that some very strong unaffiliated (with the NL or AA) teams existed which were the equals or betters of a fair number of "major" league franchises. What I would question is whether there were a sufficient number of such teams playing a regular schedule against each other that a rival league was really close to the caliber of play seen in the NL/AA at that time.

I buy the argument that the NA (1871-75) is "major" because there simply wasn't another professional league in existence so, in effect, it was in fact the league in which the best teams played. If there was a team in a non-league town that was better than half the NA teams, again...that doesn't mean the league was not the top-tier showcase of baseball talent (on the whole) in the country at that time.

According to Brian's outline for defining a "major" league, I have to wonder if the Pacific Coast League didn't really qualify at some point in its history.

[beisbolfiebre]

Many of the NL's best players came from the NA although there is some dispute as to whether their career numbers from the earlier league were officially accepted. To me, it was the best league at the time, it had the best players and managers, and deserves ML status.

In fact, when the NL operated some of its best players jumped the league so that it may not have necessarily featured the best available talent at the time. Yet, it retained it ML status. I have read where some of the players were considered amateurs and that this jeopardizes the NA's claim to ML status. Well, we had amateurs in pro tennis and amateurs in the old NASL in the 60s. But that never diminished pro tennis or pro soccer's claim to major league status.

Of all the 19th century players in the HOF, how many were from the NA compared with other leagues from that century?

Yes, I realize some of the numbers from that era remain in dispute, but why not give the NA ML status? I think it deserves the designation.

[Beady]

Well, purely for the sake of playing devil's advocate, I'll say that the argument against the NA is that the game was still in a fairly primitive state in the early 1870's.

Underhanded pitchers who couldn't throw a breaking pitch, team game scores still frequently in double figures in the early years -- this isn't baseball as we know it. The top New York City teams clearly had the best players in the game around 1860 or 1866, yet we don't consider them major leaguers, so why should it be different for the NA?

It seems to me the fact of the matter, though, is that today there really aren't a lot of people who have much interest in the 19th century game and don't consider the NA a major league. The decision to exclude it from major status was made in the late 1960's for reasons peculiar to the day. If you look at baseball encyclopedias and guides published before that time, the NA is accepted as a major; and those published subsequently have pretty much done the same.

[TonyK]

Well, purely for the sake of playing devil's advocate, I'll say that the argument against the NA is that the game was still in a fairly primitive state in the early 1870's.

Underhanded pitchers who couldn't throw a breaking pitch, team game scores still frequently in double figures in the early years -- this isn't baseball as we know it. The top New York City teams clearly had the best players in the game around 1860 or 1866, yet we don't consider them major leaguers, so why should it be different for the NA?

It seems to me the fact of the matter, though, is that today there really aren't a lot of people who have much interest in the 19th century game and don't consider the NA a major league. The decision to exclude it from major status was made in the late 1960's for reasons peculiar to the day. If you look at baseball encyclopedias and guides published before that time, the NA is accepted as a major; and those published subsequently have pretty much done the same.

The average runs scored per game was 10.4 in 1871 and declined to 6.1 in 1875, and to 5.9 in 1876 in the initial NL season. It wasn't until 1894 when it rose to 7.36 that we see the offense gaining. Was it the annual changes in pitching rules or was it because the NA got better?

You are probably right that there isn't much interest in the 19th Century game. Yet if you look at the public's interest in the military and wars, the most interest seems to be with the Civil War. Some of us know who every Civil War general was and the number of casualties in every battle. People forget about the passion that baseball inspired back then. There aren't enough good books being written about that era in baseball.

[Brian McKenna]

Baseball was baseball whatever era we're talking about. Just because one era had/has different rules and nuances doesn't make it better or worse than any other era IMO. One era may not be baseball as we know it in 2009 but that means little - very little. Baseball will be significantly different in 2029 as it is today - as today is very different from 1989.

Using that logic, how can MLB baseball be truely deemed a major before the incorporation of African-Americans in the 1960s? In a few decades how will people view MLB prior to its mass inclusion of international players? What will then others think in say 60 years when other talent markets are opened up with the billions of people in India, China, Cuba and Africa?

If relatively few bother with studying 19th century baseball, how then is there some great widespread, sound reasoning for declaring the NA not a major? I'm guessing that the decision to not call it a major was done during the compilation of the MacMillan Encyclopedia. Much has changed and been changed since then. That's not an endorsement one way or the other but some writers/publishers making a call in the 1960s doesn't make it omnipotent or omnicient.

Just a quick purusal of BBF will tell you that few post in the forums:
- pertaining to female baseball history
- pertaining to international baseball history
- pertaining to minor league baseball history
- pertaining to Negro league history

Hence, one can infer that few are actually interested in any of those areas.

A more indepth probe will show that the History section is overwhelmingly dominated by discussions of the Hall of Famers. Do we then decide that our evaluation efforts and continued research would only be important if we stick to the masses who would rather discuss, study and evaluate and reevaluate only those selected elite?

New York City was clearly the dominant region in 1860. But then again, that's where the rules of the game as we use and understand them today originated. By 1866, this was clearly changing. That December the NABBP included 202 clubs representing 17 states plus DC who all decided they would play by those NYC rules. If the NABBP had limited their clubs significantly (including the top cities and players) and played some sort of championship season, then there might be an argument for calling the NABBP a major. It didn't and it's not of course but the its successor the NA did those things - whether they pitched underhand, wore gloves or didn't indicate a strike on foul balls.

[SilentKiller]

What will then others think in say 60 years when other talent markets are opened up with the billions of people in India, China, Cuba and Africa?

.

For what you're saying to happen that means baseball will become by far the most popular sport in the world. And that's also assuming that other major leagues don't open in Europe or other places. India is a cricket country, who knows if China wouldn't decide they won't let any of their top players leave the country assuming they start developing top quality major leaguers, and there are major hurdles for baseball to pass to even make a dent in Africa where soccer is king and basketball and cricket are popular in other countries.

[beisbolfiebre]

''If you look at baseball encyclopedias and guides published before that time, the NA is accepted as a major''


I remember reading a baseball encyclopedia back in the mid 60s (sorry, can't remember the exact title). To the best of my recollection, it did consider the NA as ML owing to the fact that so many of its players joined the NL in '76.

When the NFL incorporated the AFL teams into its fold, it accepted the career stats of the players and coaches. NBA Hall of Famer Larry Brown's wins in the ABA were recognized when the league tallied his career wins. And, I'm sure, this has been done in other sports and leagues. Therefore, MLB should at least consider doing the same.

[KCGHOST]

I simply cannot accept the logic that because the NA was the best league of its day that we should consider it a major league.

If MLB says it wasn't then it wasn't. None of its records count toward the official record books. If you want to count their records for your personal amusement have at it.

I think the only purpose to looking at NA data is to determine if a player needs some "pioneer" credit to push them over the top for HoF consideration. And let's face if you did it would solely for the benefit of one player: Ross Barnes.

[TonyK]

I simply cannot accept the logic that because the NA was the best league of its day that we should consider it a major league.

If MLB says it wasn't then it wasn't. None of its records count toward the official record books. If you want to count their records for your personal amusement have at it.

I think the only purpose to looking at NA data is to determine if a player needs some "pioneer" credit to push them over the top for HoF consideration. And let's face if you did it would solely for the benefit of one player: Ross Barnes.

Several reasons have been given as to why the NA should be considered a major league. The historian who wrote the book about the NA' s history made it a point to explain why it was a a major league by our modern definition.

If MLB had it's act together I might agree with your second point. I find NA stats interesting for they show how the game evolved from the amatuer/early professional era into the major league era.

[Beady]

I don't think that being the strongest organization active at a given time would in itself be sufficient qualification for major status. There needs to be a national market , or at least a very widespread market for talent, and the organization in question has to be among the dominant purchasers in that market. Simply being marginally stronger than other leagues isn't enough -- you have to do a reasonable job of bringing the very best players together.

To summarize, then, a league is an organization of teams competing in a round-robin format for a championship; a major league is a league that brings together a reasonable cross-section of the best talent available, competing with and against one another.

In practice, compromises to this definition will be necessary for a variety of reasons, but the definition itself seems an theoretically satisfactory and elegant way of defining a major league. Other considerations, such as the matter of financial support proposed by Brian, or the hodge-podge miscellany of criteria tossed out by Bill James at the end of his UA article, seem to me to be superfluous. My definition cannot be met unless an organization meets the other criteria that might be proposed.

So if "major league" has any value as a category for historical analysis -- and I really don't know whether it does -- then I think my definition is a good one. But if the real point of a discussion is simply to delimit which players and seasons are included in player registers and the MLB record book, or who deserves a place in the Hall of Kitschy Plaques, then it would be better to phrase the question more precisely in those terms, rather than using "major league" as a slightly more convenient but distinctly fuzzy shorthand for what you're actually talking about.

[timmyj51]

This discussion is getting kinda ridiculous. Just two questions have to
asked: (1) Did NA have the strongest clubs in the country at that time (2) Did it have the best players? It clearly did, so it was indisputably "major league". In fact, I say it was MORE "major league" than the NL because any club that had pretentions could join and prove itself on the field. Not so with NL which kept out clubs clearly as good, if not better, than its own teams. The truth has been revealed so, verily I say unto you, no longer walk
in error.

[beisbolfiebre]

''There needs to be a national market , or at least a very widespread market for talent, and the organization in question has to be among the dominant purchasers in that market.''


The NA had a franchise as as St Louis (ditto for the AL & NL) and were the top market. On that basis, it should meet your definition of a ML.


That era did not provide access for players from the Caribbean, West Coast, and Asia to the Northeast markets. Sadly, because of society's racism it did not allow Black players into their teams. Had those players been allowed or if others had more mobility thereby allowing access to the markets, then it would definitely have been a ML.



''If MLB says it wasn't then it wasn't.''

Granted. But the point of this thread is why it should be considered ML. That's why we are offering ideas.

Nothing wrong with that, I hope.

:)

[jjpm74]

The NA, PCL, and IA all have strong cases as Major Leagues. If the UA, why not these 3?

[rrhersh]

I regard a league as a body comprised of a fairly limited number of teams playing a set of round-robin series -- with, in its purest form, every team playing every other an equal number of times -- to determine a champion. That fits the NA.

It's the "fairly limited number of teams" bit that raises the question with me. The number of clubs was limited only by the number of clubs with the ten bucks and optimism to join. When the problem with this scheme because apparent, the NA went away. The counter-argument for league status is that the round robin championship is the defining characteristic, while limited membership is a secondary characteristic. A successful league will limit membership, but failure to limit membership does not disqualify the organization from being a league.

I'm not married to the idea that the NA ought not be counted as a league. The point of the discussion is to bring out the transitional status of the NA, which in turn is necessary to understand what was going on.


I simply cannot accept the logic that because the NA was the best league of its day that we should consider it a major league.

If MLB says it wasn't then it wasn't. None of its records count toward the official record books. If you want to count their records for your personal amusement have at it.

This is an interesting approach, in that it implicitly grants MLB the authority to separate the sheep from the goats throughout baseball and across history. William Hulbert somewhere is smiling. But why should we give MLB this power? It makes a certain amount of sense that the NL and AL, in their modern MLB incarnation, own their own statistical record. (It would make even more sense had they any sense of its being important to get things right.) But why should they have ownership of the records of league unconnected to them?


The NA, PCL, and IA all have strong cases as Major Leagues. If the UA, why not these 3?

Regarding the PCL, by that era major/minor league status was a defined relationship. Any league which chose to reject that status could roll the dice and declare itself major. The American League did this and pulled it off. The Federal League did this and failed. The PCL never took that step.

Regarding the IA (taking this to mean the International Association of 1877-1878) the argument for major status is not all that strong. The "was it a league?" question is relevant: it was a trade association, some members of which opted to play for its championship. The point of the association was much more about protecting player contracts than it was holding a pennant race.

Then there is the level of play question. Much is made of IA teams beating NL teams, but there is less here than meets the eye. Read contemporary accounts of these games and it comes through that the League teams treated these as meaningless exhibitions, played for a bit of extra revenue, while the non-League clubs regarded these as big deals: major attendance draws, with the potential for prestige from a victory.

This discussion goes back to Chadwick. He was cut out of the process when the NL formed, and it took him a few years to really reconicle himself to the League. He literally kept lists of League club losses to outside clubs, and made a point of publicizing them. (This is telling: no one publicized lists of IA club losses to outside clubs. Why not, if the NL and the IA were on the same level?) Harold Seymour picked this up from Chadwick, pretty much ensuring this as a perenniel topic. But these claims for non-League clubs being equal to League clubs look better from a distance than they do close up.

[SABR Steve]

I think William Hulbert wanted to create a more dignified game, one without gambling and a bunch of other sins. He thought eight teams were just about right for league play, designed with four western teams and four eastern teams.

Chicago, St. Louis, Louisville, and Cincinnati in the west
Hartford, Boston, Mutual (Brooklyn), and Athletic (Philadelphia) in the east.

Of course it didn't last, but the founding of the NL was probably necessary to get the professional game some respectability. It is the NL that is Pro Baseball's foundation, not the NA.

[rrhersh]

It is the NL that is Pro Baseball's foundation, not the NA.

Change "Pro Baseball" to "Major League Baseball" and you can make a sensible argument. But professional baseball? There were openly professional teams competing since 1869. I would hate to be tasked with constructing an argument that professional baseball was founded years after professional baseball was, umm..., founded.

[SABR Steve]

This discussion is getting kinda ridiculous. Just two questions have to
asked: (1) Did NA have the strongest clubs in the country at that time (2) Did it have the best players? It clearly did, so it was indisputably "major league". In fact, I say it was MORE "major league" than the NL because any club that had pretentions could join and prove itself on the field. Not so with NL which kept out clubs clearly as good, if not better, than its own teams. The truth has been revealed so, verily I say unto you, no longer walk
in error.

#1: Yes. Most of the clubs that vied for the National title in 1870 joined in.

#2: Yes.

However, in the words of Harold Seymour, "Its weak organization could not cope successfully with the cancerous evils of gambling, revolving, and hippodroming. As these became more flagrant, spectators began to stay away, and the clamor for reform grew louder."

Is that your idea of a major league?

[SABR Steve]

Change "Pro Baseball" to "Major League Baseball" and you can make a sensible argument. But professional baseball? There were openly professional teams competing since 1869. I would hate to be tasked with constructing an argument that professional baseball was founded years after professional baseball was, umm..., founded.

I disagree. Whether the NA is major or not, my point is that today's professional leagues of all levels has the NL of 1876 as its foundation. True the history of baseball had professionalism before that time, but what we have today, began with the National League. The NA is not the foundation upon what the current pro game is constructed on.

It's sort of like our country. We were here before 1776, but we claim our birth from that year.

[timmyj51]

"However, in the words of Harold Seymour, "Its weak organization could not cope successfully with the cancerous evils of gambling, revolving, and hippodroming. As these became more flagrant, spectators began to stay away, and the clamor for reform grew louder." "




...did the NL immunize itself against these? NA never had a Louisville scale
scandal nor did anyone steal players from other teams so flagrantly
as Hulbert's Chicago club.

[caribeño]

I don't know , but i think that we are viewing this subject with our 2009 eyes and understanding , and not with the prisma of the 1870's society . At the present we have all this bundle of info on our sport due to all the available communications systems . Back then , what do that people got ? Transportation from one site to another must have been a nightmare . Recruiting ? How could they deal with that ? Promotions ? Uniforms , meals , tickets , umpires , lack of electricity . How can we be talking about markets , scheduling , and whatever if getting to the ballpark in itself could be a great task .
What i see , is that those first organizers were trying their best under the existant conditions . And if we are going to state that the 1876 National League was the foundation stone , let's asked ourselves , Wasn't it the same NA with some modifications ?

[Beady]

#1: ... in the words of Harold Seymour, "Its weak organization could not cope successfully with the cancerous evils of gambling, revolving, and hippodroming. As these became more flagrant, spectators began to stay away, and the clamor for reform grew louder."

Is that your idea of a major league?

As a matter of fact, people say comparable things all the time about MLB, yet nobody denies it's still MLB.

[SABR Steve]

As a matter of fact, people say comparable things all the time about MLB, yet nobody denies it's still MLB.

Well, let me concede the point that the NA was by reason of being the only league around a major league. However, one can't compare the NA circus with the great game we have today.

[TonyK]

If the NA never came into being chances are the NL might have folded after five years too.

The NA navigated through the minefields inherent in running the first major league in a professional team sport. It's history and accomplishments are totally overlooked by today's fans.

What percentage of NL players in 1876 had played in the NA?

90%?
95%?
98%?

Whatever the figure is, it suggests to me that MLB ought to read up on it's own history.

Perhaps we need a poll of 19th Century ML players to find out from them what level of ball they were playing? ;)

[rrhersh]

If the NA never came into being chances are the NL might have folded after five years too.

The NA navigated through the minefields inherent in running the first major league in a professional team sport. It's history and accomplishments are totally overlooked by today's fans.

What percentage of NL players in 1876 had played in the NA?

90%?
95%?
98%?

Whatever the figure is, it suggests to me that MLB ought to read up on it's own history.

Perhaps we need a poll of 19th Century ML players to find out from them what level of ball they were playing? ;)

To expand on this a bit, the NA gets a bad rap. They literally were inventing how to run a professional sports league. No sport had been organized along anything like these lines before. They got some things wrong (principally the open membership) but they got other things spectacularly right. Most notable is the pennant race format. This is so fundamental that people tend to assume it existed all along. It didn't. The founders of the NA invented it.

On the other hand, the founder(s) of the NL get credit for stuff that came later. I see modern writers praising it for having a set schedule (actually instituted 1877), the reserve clause (first hint of which came 1879) and a professional umpire corps (actually instituted by the AA).

Then you get stuff like the criticism of the NA for being run by the players, as contrasted with the NL being run by the owners. This claim serves as a useful barometer: anyone making this claim immediately identifies himself as not having done his homework.

What about "revolving"? What about it? If by "revolving" we mean jumping contracts midseason, the NA was extremely effective at preventing it. If we mean free agency between seasons, see the earlier comment about the reserve. This is another useful barometer: anyone criticizing the NA for revolving and praising the NL for putting a stop to it is simply repeating stuff he doesn't understand.

Jumping ahead to the issue of continuity between 1875 and 1876, the serious competitors in the two pennant races were mostly the same clubs, with mostly the same players. As a counterfactual, suppose that instead of forming the NL, Hulbert had made a tactical decision to operate within the NA. Suppose he had arranged with the other stock clubs to ram through a new constitution, substantially like the NL we actually got. Had this counterfactual scenario taken place, it would never occur to modern observers that 1876 was the beginning of MLB. That the constitution was changed in 1876 would be an obscure factoid, with people like us discussing whether or not it was important in baseball history. We have the discussion we do because of Hulbert's tactical decision regarding parliamentary procedure. It is wonderous that we think such matters determine when the beginning of time is marked.

[SABR Steve]

RRHERSH makes some good points. From my perspective, Hulbert et al. wanted to start over with a clean break. It was certainly more exclusive.

I won't object to the Association being reclassified as a major league, but there is a lot of opposition, although not universal.

[TonyK]

To expand on this a bit, the NA gets a bad rap. They literally were inventing how to run a professional sports league. No sport had been organized along anything like these lines before. They got some things wrong (principally the open membership) but they got other things spectacularly right. Most notable is the pennant race format. This is so fundamental that people tend to assume it existed all along. It didn't. The founders of the NA invented it.
I agree that the NA did quite a good job. Detractors point out that the NA was not as good as the NL in some ways, but overlook all that the NA gave to professional sports. The league itself didn't fold in mid-season like so many other professional leagues did in the 19th Century. Players had well-paid careers and over 99% of them returned year after year hoping to play another season. This was a brand-new profession kind of like today's workers in the risky e-commerce and internet fields.

Nobody tried to organize a ML to rival the NA from 1871-1875.

[SABR Steve]

The whole idea of the NA was to create a fair system to crown a national champion. Rrhersh is right when he says the NA is getting a bad rap in one regard: the statistics.
I have yet to see any modern compilation of the correct standings for 1871 and maybe other years as well.

In the words of a retrosheet leader--
"History is the study of the past, and a by-product of that study is a
constant revision of how we view that past. Clearly, historians do not
simply record the perceptions and beliefs of the participants in past
events."

In terms of the NA's status, there may be some light for those who would like to see the NA elevated to a major league. Retrosheet, however, runs roughshod sometimes over statistical history.

[SABR Matt]

How do you define a major league. In terms of league quality...I don't think there is any legitimate case to be made for the NA as a major league...the skewness of run scoring per game per side was so extreme in those years (a sign of very lopsided competition against very inhomogeneous competition) that they defy even basic attempts to quantify that history. Not all games were correctly and officially documented and SABR Steve points out...Retrosheet, which does about as thorough a quality control process as NASA does when they pass parts for the next orbital flight (in fact their QA is so rigorous that many sabermetricians get very frustrated waiting for them to deliver data that could be used in high level analyses for many years while they very carefully error-check it!), can't find accurate records of those games...barnstorming was still a bigger part of the schedule than the league games.

If you define major league as the league of record for a sport...the league that is universally recognized as the very best around...then yes, the NA was the major league of its time. But the independent leagues were a lot closer to the NA than today's AAA is to today's MLB, so even there I'm dubious.

[rrhersh]

How do you define a major league. In terms of league quality...I don't think there is any legitimate case to be made for the NA as a major league...the skewness of run scoring per game per side was so extreme in those years (a sign of very lopsided competition against very inhomogeneous competition) that they defy even basic attempts to quantify that history.

I'm not sure how to interpret your orthography. It appears that you are using ellipses to separate clauses of a single sentence, intended as a single thought. Taking it this way, this seems rather a non sequitur. Balance is hardly all there is to quality of play. Six of the original eight NL clubs had played in the NA the previous season. The argument seems to be that the presence of lesser clubs so dragged down the NA that it cannot be considered "major".

What is not necessarily obvious from the modern perspective is that these lesser clubs were largely irrelevant at the time. The top clubs played them or ignored them as convenience and financial interest dictated. The practice of the day was to throw out from championship consideration games played which involved a club not completing the season. These lesser clubs frequently disbanded midseason, so they had little effect. The final standings for 1875 listed only eight clubs, six of which were the aforementioned founding members of the NL.

Much of the objection to considering the NA "major" seems to come from a concern for statistics, hence the concern for the imbalance. My suggestion for those considering the statistical record is to follow the practice of the day and only consider games played by clubs which completed the season. This may seem like a cheat, but it frequently is more useful to consider contemporary practice. In this case, it makes most of the problem go away.


Not all games were correctly and officially documented and SABR Steve points out...Retrosheet, which does about as thorough a quality control process as NASA does when they pass parts for the next orbital flight (in fact their QA is so rigorous that many sabermetricians get very frustrated waiting for them to deliver data that could be used in high level analyses for many years while they very carefully error-check it!), can't find accurate records of those games.

I'm not sure why period record-keeping practice is relevant. A muddled record is certainly inconvenient for statistical considerations, but to therefore make a clean record a defining characteristic of a "major" league seems rather to put the cart before the horse. Also, I think you will find that a steely-eyed look at early NL records will show less than ideal clarity.


...barnstorming was still a bigger part of the schedule than the league games.

This is factually incorrect. During this period an active top-level club such as the Bostons would play a total of about a hundred or so games in a season, about two thirds of which would be championship NA games. The ratio of championship to exhibition games was even greater among the lesser clubs. The 1873 Resolutes played 25 games: 23 championship and 2 exhibition.


If you define major league as the league of record for a sport...the league that is universally recognized as the very best around...then yes, the NA was the major league of its time. But the independent leagues were a lot closer to the NA than today's AAA is to today's MLB, so even there I'm dubious.

What independant leagues do you have in mind?

[Beady]

In the late 1870's relatively strong clubs operated outside the NL, and claims have been made -- exaggerated in my view, but certainly not negligible -- that the best of the outside teams were competitive with those in the NL.

The NL invited this situation, to a degree, because it limited its membership to a small and self-selected set of clubs. The NA did not do that, and for that and other reasons it would have been much strong teams outside the NA than the early NL. My impression is that people tend to retroject an argument that may apply to the late 1870's but really doesn't to the first half fo the decade.

At any rate, it seems axiomatic to me that what really matters in determining whether to count a league as major is the presence (or absence) of the top teams and players, rather than the exclusion (or inclusion) of lesser ones. The NA did match up the top six to ten professional teams, playing perhaps six to ten games against one another per year (except 1871, when the schedule was shorter but the teams in competition relatively well matched). The early NL matched up six to eight of the top professional clubs, playing eight to twelve games against one another per year. What's the difference?

I'll mention, by the way, that you would expect early baseball to produce less competitive balance just because one pitcher worked most of the games for most teams, and it was rarer for a weak team to pick up wins here and there by matching its ace againts somebody else's fifth starter. I'm sure statistical measures would show the NFL to be very low in competitive balance, yet I don't think anybody imagines it's not a major league.

[SABR Steve]

There has been talk that different parties or organizations representing baseball history may get together and iron out differences on statistics as well as other matters, perhaps including the NA's status. So rrhersh may get his wish.

But some consider the Association major right now.

Retrosheet has completed their numbers for 1872 & 1874 all through reconstructed box scores.

For my part, I've been doing a project on batting champs and started with Levy Meyerle in 1871, basing my starting year on the fact that the NA is considered "major" by some.

[TonyK]

I don't think there is any legitimate case to be made for the NA as a major league.

What would convince you that it was a major league?




Barnstorming was still a bigger part of the schedule than the league games.


At first glance this seemed like a good point. I checked the Encyclopedia of 19th Century ML Baseball and found something interesting. In 1875, there were at least five NA teams that played between 70 to 82 league games. In 1876, that figure dropped down to only one team in the NL that played 70 games.

So barnstorming was not the exclusive property of the NA during the 1870's. Barnstorming from spring training through October was done by many ML teams well into the 20th Century.

Here's an example from today's sports world of a league that barnstorms perhaps more than it plays league games. The English Premier League is considered by many to be the best soccer league in the world. Yet it's clubs play countless exhibition matches, Championship League games, and other games throughout the season. Players are yanked off the teams to go and play in World Cup qualifying games year after year. This doesn't seem to effect how the public views the league at all.

This leads me to the point that the NA players were the highest paid pro baseball players from 1871-1875. They were paid the most because they were the best players.

[SABR Steve]

TonyK, on page 125 of the 19th Century Encyclopedia, the picture of the two teams should reflect that Providence is on the right and Boston is on the left. Boston was never known as the Red Caps, at least as far as I was able to discover. I have a framed picture of it on my basement wall.

The book uses modern numbers derived from reconstructed box scores from various newspapers, and rejects certain rules that were in place at the time. The original score sheets are lost before 1902, I believe.

However, It's still a fine source.

[TonyK]

TonyK, on page 125 of the 19th Century Encyclopedia, the picture of the two teams should reflect that Providence is on the right and Boston is on the left. Boston was never known as the Red Caps, at least as far as I was able to discover. I have a framed picture of it on my basement wall.

The book uses modern numbers derived from reconstructed box scores from various newspapers, and rejects certain rules that were in place at the time. The original score sheets are lost before 1902, I believe.

However, It's still a fine source.

It is hard to tell if the players on the left have BOSTON on their jerseys. I recall the debate over the standings used in this encyclopedia. A book of this length is bound to contain some errors and not please everyone.

[SABR Steve]

As I said, I have a picture on my wall, and I've been able to identify several players.

Boston is definitely on the left. B-O-S-T-O-N is written on an arc on their chests. Providence doesn't have any identifying marks.

Standing left to right is: unidentified, Ezra Sutton, Tommy Bond, John O'Rourke, Jack Burdock, Charley Jones, and John Morrill.
On the ground left to right: Pop Snyder (99% sure), unidentified, and unidentified.

Harry Wright is seated in the middle of the suits in the dark suit with heavy beard. The other 2 suits are unidentified.

For Providence on the right:
Standing second from the left is Paul Hines, fifth from left is John M. Ward holding the ball. On the far right is Jim O'Rourke.

I think the guy lying on the ground with the sweater is Bobby Mathews, in the middle on the ground is George Wright.

By several modern sources Boston is referred as the "Red Caps" in 1879 when the photo was taken. However, their caps are whitish. According to old publications, they were known throughout the 19th Century as the Reds or Beaneaters or both.

BTW, errors in standings contained in various recent encyclopedias are due to an ignorance of rules. However, there has been an effort to rectify the errors.

[TonyK]

As I said, I have a picture on my wall, and I've been able to identify several players.

Boston is definitely on the left. B-O-S-T-O-N is written on an arc on their chests. Providence doesn't have any identifying marks.

Standing left to right is: unidentified, Ezra Sutton, Tommy Bond, John O'Rourke, Jack Burdock, Charley Jones, and John Morrill.
On the ground left to right: Pop Snyder (99% sure), unidentified, and unidentified.

Harry Wright is seated in the middle of the suits in the dark suit with heavy beard. The other 2 suits are unidentified.

For Providence on the right:
Standing second from the left is Paul Hines, fifth from left is John M. Ward holding the ball. On the far right is Jim O'Rourke.

I think the guy lying on the ground with the sweater is Bobby Mathews, in the middle on the ground is George Wright.

By several modern sources Boston is referred as the "Red Caps" in 1879 when the photo was taken. However, their caps are whitish. According to old publications, they were known throughout the 19th Century as the Reds or Beaneaters or both.

BTW, errors in standings contained in various recent encyclopedias are due to an ignorance of rules. However, there has been an effort to rectify the errors.

Either the author made the mistake or the editor did. Have you contacted David Nemec and pointed out this error?

A book over 800 pages in length likely contains several errors no matter how good the factchecker or proofreaders are. The last ten books I have read had between two to twenty two errors in them.

I don't know of many true 19th Century baseball scholars. Most knowledgable researchers of that era recognize they know very little about those times. Quotes from a small handful of books available provide most of our knowledge. There is a lot left to research.

[Beady]

TonyK, on page 125 of the 19th Century Encyclopedia, the picture of the two teams should reflect that Providence is on the right and Boston is on the left. Boston was never known as the Red Caps, at least as far as I was able to discover. I have a framed picture of it on my basement wall.

I take it this must refer to the first edition of the 19th C. Encyclopedia. I have the newer one, which came out a year or so ago, and it doesn't have any photographs on page 125. Thumbing quickly through that section of the book, I don't see a photo corresponding to this, so it has probably been omitted altogether.

[philliesfiend55]

1. More than 100 NL players came from the NA.
2. The NA consisted of most of the best players in the nation.
3. Contemporaries and researchers consider it a major league based on definitions of a major league.

MLB also tends to ignore the records and achievements of 19th Century players but that doesn't make it right.

I've always heard that 1876 was considered the start of major league baseball. However a baseball encyclopedia I own lists the year by year totals of the National Association and the American Association of the early 1870s as well. They don't include the totals of those leagues into a player's career totals however, but still they list the year-by-years.
Seems like they are hedging their bets: While not exactly considering those leagues major leagues they still present their yearly totals. If sentiment grows to count those leagues as major leagues then at least you have the yearly stats and the reader can add them into the career totals.

[rrhersh]

There has been talk that different parties or organizations representing baseball history may get together and iron out differences on statistics as well as other matters, perhaps including the NA's status. So rrhersh may get his wish.

It may be worth expanding on my take on this, as it isn't precisely my wish that the NA be included among the major leagues. My wish, inasmuch as I have one in this matter, is that the issues be better understood.

By my understanding of the NA, the question of major league status is meaningless. The system of major and minor leagues had not yet developed. To even ask the question is to impose an anachronistic interpretation on the facts. The major/minor system isn't unambiguously present until 1883. There are earlier organizations which can plausibly be considered proto-minor leagues, but not before 1877. The development of the major/minor system is a hugely interesting aspect of baseball history of this period. Worrying about which neat category to stick any given organization is at best irrelevant, and at worst distracting and obfuscatory: I don't care whether we pound this square peg into the round hole or the triangular one.

But that is approaching the question from the standpoint of organizational history. My sense is that much of the impetus for this discussion comes from the stats people. The not-so-hidden subtext is that the real question is whether we pay attention to the NA or ignore it. This is in the same way that any book with the words "encyclopedia" and "baseball" can be assumed to include only major league baseball unless explicitly stated otherwise: as if the minors and semi-pros and amateurs and schools and little leagues aren't playing baseball.

To the extent that I care about how the NA is classified, I prefer it be counted as major because that forces people to consider it at all. Some will notice that the NA differred from 20th century leagues, might wonder why this is, and learn something interesting about the development of early organized baseball.

As for the people interested in historical stats, I honestly don't understand why you care whether the NA is classed as major or minor or not classified at all. If you are interested in looking at the best batter of any given year, what does major/minor matter? For that matter, what does the NA matter? The best batter of any year from 1871 to 1875 will play in the NA, but obviously not the best batter or 1869 or 1870. I find bewildering the idea that we are interested in the best batter of each year, but only beginning with some externally imposed starting year, whether it is 1876 or 1871.

[rrhersh]

By several modern sources Boston is referred as the "Red Caps" in 1879 when the photo was taken. However, their caps are whitish. According to old publications, they were known throughout the 19th Century as the Reds or Beaneaters or both.

The vast majority of the time, from 1876 on, they were called the "Bostons". This banal fact of life gets overlooked in the quest for colorful nicknames. (In a similar vein, Robert Ferguson may or may not have been called "Death To Flying Things" but in actual practice his nickname was "Bob".) From 1871 to 1875 they were often quasi-formally called the "Red Stockings" but with the advent of the National League this practice was largely abandoned.

I have a hypothesis about the "Red Caps" fantasy. There in fact was as "Red Caps" club at that time, in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Red Caps of St. Paul won the League Alliance pennant in 1877. The Bostons won the National League pennant that year. I have a sneeking suspicion that some modern researcher (perhaps in connection with the creation of the Big Mac) stumbled across a reference to the pennant-winning Red Caps, didn't understand what he saw, and misinterpreted this as referring to the Bostons.

In any case, the underlying premise of the standard list of team nicknames is flawed, projecting late-20th century practice to the earlier era. The idea that the Brooklyn club was cycling through from one year to the next a list of three or four nicknames is patently ridiculous. Additional mistakes in detail such as the "Red Caps" debacle are almost beside the point.

[TonyK]

My sense is that much of the impetus for this discussion comes from the stats people. The not-so-hidden subtext is that the real question is whether we pay attention to the NA or ignore it.

As for the people interested in historical stats, I honestly don't understand why you care whether the NA is classed as major or minor or not classified at all. If you are interested in looking at the best batter of any given year, what does major/minor matter? For that matter, what does the NA matter? The best batter of any year from 1871 to 1875 will play in the NA, but obviously not the best batter or 1869 or 1870. I find bewildering the idea that we are interested in the best batter of each year, but only beginning with some externally imposed starting year, whether it is 1876 or 1871.

If the top pitchers and top hitters are from the 1871-1895 time period then something must be wrong with the formula you are using. Those guys can't possibly be that good. This leads to lengthy discussions over the quality of play back in the 19th Century. It is impossible for us to determine just how good ML baseball was from 1871 to 1900 for several reasons.

[Beady]

...If you are interested in looking at the best batter of any given year, what does major/minor matter... The best batter of any year from 1871 to 1875...

The point here has nothing to do with how players of the 19th century would compare with those of the 20th or 21st centuries, as a group -- in fact, precisely the opposite. He's simply saying that the best players of the early 1870's were, let's say, Deacon White and Ross Barnes, or whatever names you'd prefer to substitute, and whether the NA is counted as a major or not will not make any difference to that. The NA is what it is.

[ItsOnlyGil]

So we all know how much academic weight MLB's decisions carry on such things, but regardless of the "official" position, should the first professional baseball league, the National Association of 1871-1875, be considered a "major" league.



Yes, it should.

[Calif_Eagle]

Yes, it should.

I just finished reading the whole thread, found it fascinating... If the NA wasnt baseball's "major league" of 1871-1875... then what was? It HAD to be, even if only by default. Besides, the whole notion of "major league" had to start somewhere... it seems the NA and the NL of 1876 were pretty similar. I'd vote with those opting for 1871 and the NA.


Regardless of how limited the talent pool was, or the fact that todays notion of "major league" bears no resemblance to what they (the NA) were doing... the bulk of the best, & best known players were playing in the NA. It was the very top competitive situation that existed in & for the sport of baseball at that time. It HAD to be "major league" even if the caliber of play was probably pathetic compared to today, with players being drawn to MLB from all over the world vs the relatively few people even aware of the sport, let alone interested in playing the game, back then.

[ItsOnlyGil]

The National Association is some pretty old stuff. Heck, the National League did not occur until just before the Battle of Little Big Horn ("Custer's Last Stand"). So, the NA is not too far removed from the Civil War.

Thinking about transportation options at that time ..... I just don't know. I guess railroads were somewhat reliable in the more built up areas, but subject to attack, and other problems, elsewhere. So "is it a Major League" ?
Well, certainly. But did it include all worthwhile players? Not always practical.

[TonyK]

The 1968 Baseball Records Committee was made up of David Grote, NL Public Relations Director; Joe Reichler, MLB Public Relations Director; Bob Holbrook, AL Office; Jack Lane, BBWAA; and Lee Allen, of the National Baseball HOF.

While they researched ancient baseball records and made revisions to them, the committee recommended that the NA not be considered a major league due to it's erratic schedule and procedures. Researchers Bob Tiemann and Bob Richardson began the task of compiling Official NA records from old boxscores.

Marc Onigman, a writer for Sports Illustrated, on May 24, 1982 wrote a piece calling the committee's decision ridiculous. According to the ESPN Encyclopedia, 2006 Edition, the National Association was indisputably the major league of it's day. Numerous baseball websites incorporate NA records into their ML records sections. At one time it was common to have two sets of ML records...NA records followed by records from 1876 on. A modern trend is to focus on records from 1901 on and skip everything before that year.

I looked at writeups from the NY Clipper of 1879-80 and read over John Ward's book from 1889 to try and find out what they said about the NA back then. Ward devoted a chapter on the history of pro baseball yet wrote only one sentence about the change from the NA to the NL in 1876 as if it hardly mattered. I do know that the NL in the 19th Century was known by many people as simply "the League". If every ML from 1876 until now used the name Association (ex. Federal Association, American Association, Union Association) rather than League, would we be calling them Major Associations instead of Major Leagues?

[SABR Steve]

Either the author made the mistake or the editor did. Have you contacted David Nemec and pointed out this error?

A book over 800 pages in length likely contains several errors no matter how good the factchecker or proofreaders are. The last ten books I have read had between two to twenty two errors in them.

I don't know of many true 19th Century baseball scholars. Most knowledgable researchers of that era recognize they know very little about those times. Quotes from a small handful of books available provide most of our knowledge. There is a lot left to research.

I've communicated with Nemec in the past, but not on the picture. Pictures are mislabeled a lot.
I may be a little hard on David Nemec, but one of the problems with historians such as him is that they ignore the rules of the day.

[SABR Steve]

It may be worth expanding on my take on this, as it isn't precisely my wish that the NA be included among the major leagues. My wish, inasmuch as I have one in this matter, is that the issues be better understood.

By my understanding of the NA, the question of major league status is meaningless. The system of major and minor leagues had not yet developed. To even ask the question is to impose an anachronistic interpretation on the facts. The major/minor system isn't unambiguously present until 1883. There are earlier organizations which can plausibly be considered proto-minor leagues, but not before 1877. The development of the major/minor system is a hugely interesting aspect of baseball history of this period. Worrying about which neat category to stick any given organization is at best irrelevant, and at worst distracting and obfuscatory: I don't care whether we pound this square peg into the round hole or the triangular one.

But that is approaching the question from the standpoint of organizational history. My sense is that much of the impetus for this discussion comes from the stats people. The not-so-hidden subtext is that the real question is whether we pay attention to the NA or ignore it. This is in the same way that any book with the words "encyclopedia" and "baseball" can be assumed to include only major league baseball unless explicitly stated otherwise: as if the minors and semi-pros and amateurs and schools and little leagues aren't playing baseball.

To the extent that I care about how the NA is classified, I prefer it be counted as major because that forces people to consider it at all. Some will notice that the NA differred from 20th century leagues, might wonder why this is, and learn something interesting about the development of early organized baseball.

As for the people interested in historical stats, I honestly don't understand why you care whether the NA is classed as major or minor or not classified at all. If you are interested in looking at the best batter of any given year, what does major/minor matter? For that matter, what does the NA matter? The best batter of any year from 1871 to 1875 will play in the NA, but obviously not the best batter or 1869 or 1870. I find bewildering the idea that we are interested in the best batter of each year, but only beginning with some externally imposed starting year, whether it is 1876 or 1871.

A friend of mine said, "Actually, there was no need to differentiate between 'major" and "minor' until there was a minor league." That sounds rather good.

[SABR Steve]

The vast majority of the time, from 1876 on, they were called the "Bostons". This banal fact of life gets overlooked in the quest for colorful nicknames. (In a similar vein, Robert Ferguson may or may not have been called "Death To Flying Things" but in actual practice his nickname was "Bob".) From 1871 to 1875 they were often quasi-formally called the "Red Stockings" but with the advent of the National League this practice was largely abandoned.

I have a hypothesis about the "Red Caps" fantasy. There in fact was as "Red Caps" club at that time, in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Red Caps of St. Paul won the League Alliance pennant in 1877. The Bostons won the National League pennant that year. I have a sneeking suspicion that some modern researcher (perhaps in connection with the creation of the Big Mac) stumbled across a reference to the pennant-winning Red Caps, didn't understand what he saw, and misinterpreted this as referring to the Bostons.

In any case, the underlying premise of the standard list of team nicknames is flawed, projecting late-20th century practice to the earlier era. The idea that the Brooklyn club was cycling through from one year to the next a list of three or four nicknames is patently ridiculous. Additional mistakes in detail such as the "Red Caps" debacle are almost beside the point.

You're not entirely correct. Although nicknames were not really official they did exist contrary to what some historians have written. I have somewhere a list of nicknames published in The Sporting News in the 1890's. I also have access to George Tuohey's book, "The Boston Base Ball Club," published in 1897. That book refers to the team as "Reds." The nickname "Beaneaters" is not in the book but is referenced in The Sporting News a lot. I ran across a short item from 1890 that The Boston club of the Players League was christened "Red Stockings." They were in fact referred to as the Reds too.

I sort of like your sneaky feeling about where the Red Cap thing came from, but somewhere in my stuff I have notes about color schemes that were applied to positions and/or clubs at one time.

I had started a book about the Boston Brave franchise some years ago. My chapters were by year, so that my first chapter was "1871." Alas, I abandoned it after doing the 1912 chapter.

BTW, I also have a book entitled "Baseball, 1845 - 1881," by Preston Orem.

[SABR Steve]

As for the people interested in historical stats, I honestly don't understand why you care whether the NA is classed as major or minor or not classified at all. If you are interested in looking at the best batter of any given year, what does major/minor matter? For that matter, what does the NA matter? The best batter of any year from 1871 to 1875 will play in the NA, but obviously not the best batter or 1869 or 1870. I find bewildering the idea that we are interested in the best batter of each year, but only beginning with some externally imposed starting year, whether it is 1876 or 1871.

To answer your question, my quest was to list batting champions, original, intermediate, and posthumous. I also searched the statistics from original to the latest revised numbers. For instance, Ross Barnes was the champ for 1873, and discovered five different averages from different sources. The trouble with the years before 1871 is available numbers. There are some years containing disputes such as 1893 in which four different batters were declared the champion at one time or another. What you find bewildering, I find challenging and fun. It keeps me out of trouble.

[Beady]

It's all speculation as we stand now, but I don't find the St. Paul hypothesis very plausible. Now that I think about it, I'm more inclined to suspect that Red Caps reflects somebody's desire to distinguish Boston from the real Red Stockings after Cincinnati came back to big time baseball in 1876.

I believe I have seen the Red Cap nickname used for Boston in a work that substantially predates the Big Mac -- I believe it may have been the Orem book Steve mentions -- but I don't recall the Big Mac indulging in any foolishness about nicknames anyway. Boston was just "Boston" as far as they were concerned.

Nobody doubts teams had nicknames, but they were not only informal but ephemeral and irregular. If you read one paper for a city you may see one nickname for its team, while another paper uses a different one. I have read game accounts that refer to the Washington team as the Senators while the box score calls them the Nationals. Chicago had one of the most famous names, White Stockings, yet they changed their stocking color about 1886 or 1887 and simply threw away the nickname. Anyway, the team that played in Boston was most commonly called "Boston" or "the Bostons," and Cincinnati's team was generally called "Cincinnati" or "the Cincinnatis" and so on. The nicknames gradually came into more prominent usage and began to stabilize, but it was a very slow process. Imposing these nicknames on early teams is an artificial exercise, but it doesn't really do any great harm.

[ItsOnlyGil]

Anyway, the team that played in Boston was most commonly called "Boston" or "the Bostons," and Cincinnati's team was generally called "Cincinnati" or "the Cincinnatis" and so on. The nicknames gradually came into more prominent usage and began to stabilize, but it was a very slow process. Imposing these nicknames on early teams is an artificial exercise, but it doesn't really do any great harm.

The no nickname identification method (Boston Nationals or Bostons, for example) is the approach typically seen on baseball cards of the era.

[spark240]

Did it have the best players? It clearly did, so it was indisputably "major league".


the bulk of the best, & best known players were playing in the NA.

And how exactly do we know that?

Isn't it conceivable that the NA, and early NL, players are remembered today (well, in some circles), and believed to have been the best of their time, because those organizations eventually yielded what we know as the major league system?

This isn't to say that the best teams in those organizations weren't the best teams around--that's another matter--but given how many fine players were still spending much or all of their careers in the official minor leagues, two generations after the NA, it seems pretty likely to me that many of the best individual talents of the 1870's didn't necessarily need to be playing in those leagues.

[TonyK]

And how exactly do we know that?

Isn't it conceivable that the NA, and early NL, players are remembered today (well, in some circles), and believed to have been the best of their time, because those organizations eventually yielded what we know as the major league system?

This isn't to say that the best teams in those organizations weren't the best teams around--that's another matter--but given how many fine players were still spending much or all of their careers in the official minor leagues, two generations after the NA, it seems pretty likely to me that many of the best individual talents of the 1870's didn't necessarily need to be playing in those leagues.

Suppose you are correct and many of the talented players were playing outside of the NA from 1871 to 1875. They had to play somewhere and play against decent opponents. Do you know of any other teams or players who might be considered NA caliber?

I used figures of 90% to 98% of NL players who probably came straight from the NA. I'm assuming a few teenagers were brought up to the 1876 NL directly from their town teams or independent teams. It would be a good research project to obtain the actual numbers to see if I was correct.

[jalbright]

Doing a quick look at the top seven teams of the 1875 NA (the ones around all year) and the 8 teams of the 1876 NL, the starters of the NA were basically the starters of the NL. Few starters didn't make it to the new league, but a fair number of subs seem to have moved. Maybe a half-dozen starters didn't cross over (and Cap Anson moved from bench to starting), and about 27-28 backups from those seven teams didn't. In terms of playing time, I wouldn't be surprised if 85-90% NA players in the first year of the NL was on the mark. How much you count the guys from the teams that didn't play all season will affect your results. FWIW, there were 65-70 starters (no more than 2 pitchers would qualify per team in those days) and about 101 players overall considered from baseball-reference.com.

[jalbright]

In addition to the above, I think the NA definitely passes the simplest test for a "major league"--was there enough of a concentration of top talent to say that the best of that league was definitely among the top talent of the day? This is a test I use for blackball leagues, which on average weren't as good as the majors, for a number of reasons. However, their best talent matched up well with the best of the majors. Where enough of the best of blackball concentrated, you can see who the best were in that group at that time, and those who could consistently be in the best are the guys we have to pay attention to. I think I could add the requirement that it be a real league (round robin play against each team several times) to give the leader board some credibility, but the NA does that, too.

[timmyj51]

Cheez! This discussion is STILL going on! Just two questions: (1) Did NA
have the best players? (2) Did NA have the strongest teams? End
of discussion. Let's start a new topic....like how many angels can
sit on the head of a pin. Be a lot more interesting than this worked-to-death
topic.

[TonyK]

Cheez! This discussion is STILL going on! Just two questions: (1) Did NA
have the best players? (2) Did NA have the strongest teams? End
of discussion. Let's start a new topic....like how many angels can
sit on the head of a pin. Be a lot more interesting than this worked-to-death
topic.

Los Angeles or Anaheim?

[spark240]

Suppose you are correct and many of the talented players were playing outside of the NA from 1871 to 1875. They had to play somewhere and play against decent opponents. Do you know of any other teams or players who might be considered NA caliber?

No, I don't.

I believe there were many talented players--who could have been "major leaguers"--playing outside the NL/AL even into the 20th century. Wouldn't it be strange to assume that the early days of the proto-major leagues were more effective at talent concentration than the majors of a succeeding generation? I don't know.


I used figures of 90% to 98% of NL players who probably came straight from the NA.

From a field-level perspective, the top teams basically continued operations from one season to the next. The NA was likely as good as the early NL--and vice-versa.


I think the NA definitely passes the simplest test for a "major league"--was there enough of a concentration of top talent to say that the best of that league was definitely among the top talent of the day? This is a test I use for blackball leagues, which on average weren't as good as the majors, for a number of reasons. However, their best talent matched up well with the best of the majors.

I'm assuming that the term "top talent" refers to individual players, not teams.

With the bolded qualifiers, that's a really generous application of "major league." By that definition, I think you'd have to look at not only the Players and Federal but also certain periods of leagues like the Eastern, International and Pacific Coast. That suggests that the quality of being a major league isn't just a matter of having some top talents (though talent is essential). It's a structural question as well.

All these leagues (including the blackball circuits) did include some great talent and are worthy of study and appreciation, whatever they're termed.

The NA and the early NL were good leagues, the most that could be said in their day.


A friend of mine said, "Actually, there was no need to differentiate between 'major" and "minor' until there was a minor league." That sounds rather good.

Right. So which structure do we look to as drawing the meaningful or lasting distinction, and therefore the inception of both categories? The earliest "classifications" of the National Agreement of the 1880s? The establishment of the NAPBL following the 1901 season?

[jalbright]

What I call the "simplest" test of a "major league" is mostly aimed at how one deals with the greatest players of that league. If there's enough of a concentration of top talent of the day in that league, those players who can consistently lead such leagues deserve to be treated as the best of their time and then evaluated with that in mind.

[TonyK]

Los Angeles or Anaheim?

Nobody got this?

[Calif_Eagle]

Nobody got this?

Los Angeles... or California.... or Anaheim.... OR.... Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim...! God knows whats coming next.... ( I saw it the other day and didnt comment but did think it was clever :) )

[TonyK]

Los Angeles... or California.... or Anaheim.... OR.... Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim...! God knows whats coming next.... ( I saw it the other day and didnt comment but did think it was clever :) )

Your team has had more name changes than Elizabeth Taylor. It has to be a marketing ploy to get fans to buy new gear every four or five years.

[SABR Steve]

Speaking of "major" leagues, Harry Wright in his 1894 will, stated he was leaving his papers to the two major leagues and their successors. It's a mystery since the only recognized major league at the time was the NL.

[Macker]

Speaking of "major" leagues, Harry Wright in his 1894 will, stated he was leaving his papers to the two major leagues and their successors. It's a mystery since the only recognized major league at the time was the NL.

Maybe he saw great things in the future of the Western League.

[Rube Waddell]

Base on my readings, I totally regard the NA as a major league. The best players; the Ansons, Spaldings, Jones's and Matthew's were part of that league and IMO makes it a major. Even with all the NA faults such as gambling, teams dissapearing after 12 games, jumping, unstable scheduling and so on, the quality of play was better in the NA than anywhere else in the US.

[WolfSpear]

The National Association was more of a major league than the UA or PL ... come on, those only lasted one year, how are they major leagues? At least the National Association set up the basis for the National League if anything.

[Buzzaldrin]

Speaking of "major" leagues, Harry Wright in his 1894 will, stated he was leaving his papers to the two major leagues and their successors. It's a mystery since the only recognized major league at the time was the NL.

But it wasn't the National League- it was called the National League and American Assocoation of professional baseball after the merger; they comnoned names. That's unwieldy, so people just called it the National League, but if you look at newspapers from the early 1890s, they say "League Association" when referring to it. Actually, this brings up a question- was it ever officially shortened to just the National League, or is it still officially the whole shebang?

[Buzzaldrin]

The National Association was more of a major league than the UA or PL ... come on, those only lasted one year, how are they major leagues? At least the National Association set up the basis for the National League if anything.

The PL lasted one year because of financial issues, but it was stronger than the NL and the AA on the field and at the box office- length of service does not determine the status of major or minor.

I agree with you about the UA, the only problem is that it was recognized as major at the time- Henry Lucas was the most talked about man in American in 1884 for starting the UA. You don't get that kind of recognition for starting a minor league. Kind of hard where to go with this one- it did indeed suck in quality of play, but the other leagues recognized the challenge as legit (although they were very clear to put it down as inferior). They blacklisted players that jumped there- if it was a minor league, what would be the point of that? They would only come back since major leagues "should" have more money.