Read today that Negro League will be merged with MLB stats….

[rms13]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

That's like saying no one will know California existed before 1850 because we made it a state.

History isn't being re-written and no one is pretending these guys played in the MLB. They are saying these guys played baseball against a similar level of competition. Which they already acknowledged when they began inducting them into the Hall of Fame.

It's more like saying California exists and always has and has always been part of the United States which has also always existed.

[80s Kid]

Originally Posted by mjekase

It does not. It says they played Major League baseball. "MLB" - the precious, apparently sacred organization - classified the Negro Leagues as "Major League" 4 years ago, and they were referred to as "Major" before. If you're worried about people who know nothing about baseball considering the Negro Leagues "Major League", then educate them and tell them they were.

And as has been mentioned quite a few times in this thread the MLB recognizes stats from what are considered major leagues from prior to its creation.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

What’s kinda’ funny is, several of you have made me the bad guy in this Thread….. do you realize how absurd that is? This whole mess is because the White MLB power players before 1947 wouldn’t let African Americans play in their League. I wish this whole thing never happened, and MLB was color blind from day one!

Somoene has to be the bad guy snd you can't have a good story without one. It's a very important role so be proud!

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by no10pin

Cobb will still be seen as what he always was.

Relieved.

[jplarson]

I'm curious why there is umbrage to the Negro Leagues getting included but the American Association (1882-91), Union Association (1884), Players’ League (1890) and Federal League (1914-15) gets a pass.

[JohnnyHatesJazz]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

What’s kinda’ funny is, several of you have made me the bad guy in this Thread….. do you realize how absurd that is? This whole mess is because the White MLB power players before 1947 wouldn’t let African Americans play in their League. I wish this whole thing never happened, and MLB was color blind from day one!

I don’t see you as a bad guy. I like the discussion and enjoyed reading both sides of the discussion.


We seemed to have lost our way as a society when it comes to having an open discussion and unfairly labeling people.

[fulltritty]

Can we at least stop falsely proclaiming the MLB as "white only" prior to Jackie Robinson. There were at least around 50 Latin American players in MLB prior to Jackie Robinson. And the first Native American debuted 50 years prior to Jackie Robinson. Calling it a "white only" league is an insult to all of them.

[80s Kid]

Originally Posted by rms13

It's more like saying California exists and always has and has always been part of the United States which has also always existed.

MLB has stats from 1876 but didn't exist in 1876 so its pretty apt.

[Giroux]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHatesJazz

I don’t see you as a bad guy. I like the discussion and enjoyed reading both sides of the discussion.





We seemed to have lost our way as a society when it comes to having an open discussion and unfairly labeling people.

I think OP's post history and his tendency to delete old posts are the reasons people here aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt. There is definitely a real discussion to be had about the topic.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by jplarson

I'm curious why there is umbrage to the Negro Leagues getting included but the American Association (1882-91), Union Association (1884), Players’ League (1890) and Federal League (1914-15) gets a pass.

What MLB statistic did adding those change? What player now no longer was the best MLB player or had a record no longer theirs because of those changes? Yesterday Ty Cobb had the highest MLB average. Today, it's Josh Gibson when the stats that put him there were never accumulated in what traditionally is the MLB. Not only that, but the record keeping of those leagues was so poor that we may never know what Josh Gibson's real stats were.

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

How drunk do I need to be to read this thread in its entirety so far?

I'm skimming for posts by only certain people at this point. The rest: skip.

In other news, I heard Ichiro might be the new hit king. I hope he adds that inscription to his repertoire.

[JohnnyHatesJazz]

Originally Posted by Giroux

I think OP's post history and his tendency to delete old posts are the reasons people here aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt. There is definitely a real discussion to be had about the topic.

Yeah I remember the “thug” discussion and didn’t think much of it. Don’t recall his other controversial takes. Deleting comments is weak sauce though. Stick to your guns.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

What MLB statistic did adding those change? What player now no longer was the best MLB player or had a record no longer theirs because of those changes? Yesterday Ty Cobb had the highest MLB average. Today, it's Josh Gibson when the stats that put him there were never accumulated in what traditionally is the MLB. Not only that, but the record keeping of those leagues was so poor that we may never know what Josh Gibson's real stats were.

I also think most people are not that interested with pre 1900 baseball.

[Crosby 87]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHatesJazz

Yeah I remember the “thug” discussion and didn’t think much of it. Don’t recall his other controversial takes. Deleting comments is weak sauce though. Stick to your guns.

OP weighs in on CJ stroud's dad.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1572239

[Bunny Hop]

Folks come from the other forums and remark about how boring and unfun the baseball forum is but ... :: points to ALL THIS ::

Eh? Eh??

[JohnnyHatesJazz]

Originally Posted by Crosby 87

OP weighs in on CJ stroud's dad.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1572239

Yeah it’s a weird take but I reserve my disdain for the truly awful people. I have a Big Lebowski attitude towards life for better or for worse.

[jplarson]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

What MLB statistic did adding those change? What player now no longer was the best MLB player or had a record no longer theirs because of those changes? Yesterday Ty Cobb had the highest MLB average. Today, it's Josh Gibson when the stats that put him there were never accumulated in what traditionally is the MLB. Not only that, but the record keeping of those leagues was so poor that we may never know what Josh Gibson's real stats were.

I think I understand. The problem wasn't the inclusion of the Negro Leagues but that their stats caused players to be at the top of a number of categories that were previously held by MLB-only players.

I think having side-by-side lists similar to what the NBA/ABA does - https://www.basketball-reference.com...ts_career.html - or a note similar to what PFR does - https://www.pro-football-reference.c...cks_career.htm - for player sacks from 1960-81 would help resolve things to more people's satisfaction.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by jplarson

I think I understand. The problem wasn't the inclusion of the Negro Leagues but that their stats caused players to be at the top of a number of categories that were previously held by MLB-only players.

I think having side-by-side lists similar to what the NBA/ABA does - https://www.basketball-reference.com...ts_career.html - or a note similar to what PFR does - https://www.pro-football-reference.c...cks_career.htm - for player sacks from 1960-81 would help resolve things to more people's satisfaction.

Basically they're saying the major leagues were the american, national, AND negro league, but the latter never got to play either of the other two. Now given the lack of free agency and the fact that the only interleague was the world series, maybe they should each have their own records. Was there any difference in the rules between the american and national leagues prior to the dh? MLB history is always going to be a mess.

[BC Hunt]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

What’s kinda’ funny is, several of you have made me the bad guy in this Thread….. do you realize how absurd that is? This whole mess is because the White MLB power players before 1947 wouldn’t let African Americans play in their League. I wish this whole thing never happened, and MLB was color blind from day one!

it's ok to embrace your role, as a wise man once said...




but seriously, I hope we all agree on your post in bold

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHatesJazz

Yeah it’s a weird take but I reserve my disdain for the truly awful people. I have a Big Lebowski attitude towards life for better or for worse.

Perhaps IQ’s here have suddenly dropped in the past 15 minutes, or are you trying to link my thoughts on CJ Stroud and his Father, with thoughts on the merger of Negro League and MLB stats?

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by JRX

I also think most people are not that interested with pre 1900 baseball.

True. I couldn't tell you one player from the leagues jplarson posted about.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by jplarson

I think I understand. The problem wasn't the inclusion of the Negro Leagues but that their stats caused players to be at the top of a number of categories that were previously held by MLB-only players.

I think having side-by-side lists similar to what the NBA/ABA does - https://www.basketball-reference.com...ts_career.html - or a note similar to what PFR does - https://www.pro-football-reference.c...cks_career.htm - for player sacks from 1960-81 would help resolve things to more people's satisfaction.

This would be a much better solution that I think would be approved by most people on both sides of the debate.

[awz50]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

Can we at least stop falsely proclaiming the MLB as "white only" prior to Jackie Robinson. There were at least around 50 Latin American players in MLB prior to Jackie Robinson. And the first Native American debuted 50 years prior to Jackie Robinson. Calling it a "white only" league is an insult to all of them.

It was heavily white to almost all white. Before Jackie Robinson, there were some non-white players in Major League Baseball, but their numbers were very limited due to segregation. Policies restricted the participation of Black, Latino, and other non-white players in the MLB. It was very close to an all white league and saying it was not is an insult.

[awz50]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

True. I couldn't tell you one player from the leagues jplarson posted about.

I mean they did have 4 hofers come from those leagues so no slouches

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by awz50

It was heavily white to almost all white. Before Jackie Robinson, there were some non-white players in Major League Baseball, but their numbers were very limited due to segregation. Policies restricted the participation of Black, Latino, and other non-white players in the MLB. It was very close to an all white league and saying it was not is an insult.

Do you know for a fact that all of the Latin American and Native American players wouldn't construe this as an insult? It seems like people are insulted by everything now, so there's a good chance they would be insulted.