Gibson/Piazza

[Bill Burgess]

If Josh Gibson and Mike Piazza were starting their careers today, who would you rather have?

Do you think Josh could outhit Mike? Both built their careers on their offense, and Mike is considered the best hitting catcher ever.

Do you think Josh could have fulfilled his hitting reports, or do you write them off as legendary bunk? Or to what degree do you give Josh Gibson credibility?

Bill Burgess

Sidelight question: Was Gibson's rep as solid as the Japanese Oh's?

[jalbright]

Gibson would have been Piazza with more power and better defense. Of course I'd take Josh.

Jim Albright

[leecemark]

--I rank Gibson ahead of Piazza, but I don't think its a slam dunk. Gibson is reported to have had a strong arm, which is an edge over Piazza, but he wasn't really a good defensive catcher based on my interpretation of reading about him. Josh was also considered to be an amazing hitter and, with only a modest amount of specticism, I buy that. Mike is so much better a hitter than any other MLB catcher in history thats its hard to believe Gibson was much better. That would put him in an entirely different universe as a hitting catcher and arguably the best hitter ever period. That alot to buy into based on semi-reliable and often contradictory reporting.

[Bill Burgess]

Loaded question. Do either of you feel that Gibson's star would outshine that of Japanese legend Oh, if they were both playing in the MLs today?

Would Josh outpower the legendary Oh, in terms of HRs?

Bill

[leecemark]

--Gibson would probably have hit more in his best seasons. Oh was more durable and would probably have hit more in his career.

[Bill Burgess]

That's assuming that Josh didn't take better care of himself. If he had avoided liquor/possibly drugs, he might have lasted longer and hit more homers. Very speculative though.

[jalbright]

I'd agree with Mark on Oh versus Gibson. Even if Josh had not had his liquor/drug abuse issues, he was a catcher, and catchers never last as long as first basemen because the position is far more demanding physically. Gibson might have gotten to 500 HR, but the emphasis here is on might. Even so, that's what, over 100 more than any other catcher in history?

Jim Albright

[Blackout]

Josh was still playing catcher up to the end of his career, his durability at the position is very unique considering the fact he was still winning batting average titles in 1945

[Bill Burgess]

In addition to Gibson, I consider S. OH, Lloyd, Mackey, Santop, Charleston as the great questions of history. The what-ifs can kill you, if you let them.

Bill

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That's assuming that Josh didn't care better care of himself. If he had avoided liquor/possibly drugs, he might have lasted longer and hit more homers. Very speculative though.
How would have catching 130-140 games a year effected Gibson's hitting. For all of Piazza's greatness he still has less than 400 career HRs. I highly doubt Gibson would have been a 500 HR guy.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Josh was still playing catcher up to the end of his career, his durability at the position is very unique considering the fact he was still winning batting average titles in 1945
But how long were Josh's seasons?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I'm going with Mike, we know what he did in MLB, too many assume what Josh might have done, no way to tell. Too many go by word of mouth, handed down stories and numbers that came in some exhibition games and against some poor pitching. I am certainly not saying that there were not some good and great black pitchers, I refer to the overall level of pitching in black baseball.

Do I believe some of the stories and opinions of those who saw Josh, I do. I believe this guy to be a terrific slugger, one that would have certainly left his mark in MLB had he been given the chance.

It's a sad story that because of skin color many baseball fans never got to see this great player play. Sad that the history of the game could have been greatly enhanced if he had his chance.

I can only go by the facts, what did take place, not what I or others believe would have taken place. I think Josh would have been one of the best, but I don't agree with those who throw these 500 and 600 and higher "might have been" numbers around, only specuation, no one really knows.

The fact that it was no fault of his own that he did not play MLB does not change the fact, the cold and unfair fact he did not play MLB and thats what I go by, it never happened, no way to know what might have been.

[Bill Burgess]

I seem to recall the the Negro Leagues only featured around 70-80 scheduled league games per season, but I'm probably wrong by a little. Most of the rest were barn-storming pick-up games, which might have involved better money. Can anyone help me out?

Bill Burgess

[jalbright]

The winter leagues were fairly strong, and they lasted 20-30 games. The seasons in the Negro Leagues were often in the 60-70 range to leave time for the more lucrative barnstorming opportunities. The Negro Leaguers might have played 200 times a year, but half were against opposition of widely varying quality.

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

I believe I have read of some Negro Leaguers who played virtually all year round. Went to Cuba, Mexico. Don't know if many did it, but I read that some black ballplayers did play virtually year round.

Anyone else hear anything like that?

Bill Burgess

[jalbright]

I think a lot of the best of them did. Where else could a man of color make those kind of wages in the Americas? If you look at the careers of most of the best, they wintered in Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico or the California Winter League. There was also a "league" among resort hotels in Florida during the winter, but I haven't seen much documentation of this yet.

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

I didn't know that the California Winter league (Pacific Coast League) allowed blacks to play. I thought they were segregated. I know that Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth played there, as player/managers a little in the 1920's.

Sam Crawford also played there from 1916-21, after his ML career ended.

Bill Burgess

[jalbright]

The California Winter League wasn't the PCL. There's an interesting book on the league by William McNeil. In fact, the basic structure of the league was a strong all-Negro team and several white teams composed of major leaguers and PCL types. The black team played more often, but often won the league because the white teams' talent was a little more disbursed around the league.

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

Thank you, Jim, for clarifying that point. I learned something new today. I like that. Thanks.

Bill

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I believe I have read of some Negro Leaguers who played virtually all year round. Went to Cuba, Mexico. Don't know if many did it, but I read that some black ballplayers did play virtually year round.

Anyone else hear anything like that?

Bill Burgess


I did Bill. Don't recall the titles of the books but a while back I saw a number of books dealing with black baseball speak of many black players playing winter ball in Cuba and Mexico.

[jalbright]

Thank you, Jim, for clarifying that point. I learned something new today. I like that. Thanks.

Bill

Glad to be of service.

Jim Albright

[Brian McKenna]

Josh was still playing catcher up to the end of his career, his durability at the position is very unique considering the fact he was still winning batting average titles in 1945

where did he win that title in 1945?

in the negro national league he hit .323 - .107 points behind leader - he won the hr title with 11 - the season was only 45 games

[55 chmps]

Gibson, definately. What didn't he have like 932 home runs or something like that? Then he tragically died when he was 36. He could have hit 1,000 home runs if he stuck it out for a couple more years.

[Brian McKenna]

according to john holway's the complete book of baseball's negro leagues:

gibson hit 216 home runs 1931-46 in the negro national league and east-west lg

please explain the other 716

[Dontworry]

according to john holway's the complete book of baseball's negro leagues:

gibson hit 216 home runs 1931-46 in the negro national league and east-west lg

please explain the other 716

In recorded at-bats against big league pitching, Gibson batted .426. http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/gibson_josh.htm

Also - Satchel Paige, who was Gibson's teammate on the Pittsburgh Crawfords and later pitched for the Cleveland Indians, said, "He was the greatest hitter who ever lived." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/bio/news/story?page=gibson_josh

[Captain Cold Nose]

In recorded at-bats against big league pitching, Gibson batted .426. http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/gibson_josh.htm

Also - Satchel Paige, who was Gibson's teammate on the Pittsburgh Crawfords and later pitched for the Cleveland Indians, said, "He was the greatest hitter who ever lived." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/bio/news/story?page=gibson_josh
One man's biased opinion should never be taken as gospel.
And that still doesn't explain the other 716 home runs.

[Dontworry]

One man's biased opinion should never be taken as gospel.
And that still doesn't explain the other 716 home runs.

" One man's biased opinion should never be taken as gospel. "

I'd figure you'd stoop down to that level, So i'll post a quote from walter johnson.

"He hits the ball a mile," Hall of Famer Walter Johnson, the Washington Senators pitcher who won 416 games, said of Gibson.

As Far as Gibson's stats go - Satchel Paige won the ROY at 43 and had several productive season throughout his 40s, which to me, is proof that the Negro leagues were every bit as competitive as the Majors.

Infact - The Negro Leagues were winning about 2/3's of the games with the MLB, according to a documentary I saw on the Negro Leagues, when the comissioner of MLB decided that such a thing wasn't right and banned anymore games between the Negro Leagues and MLB

So I think it's fair to assume that he would have completely dominant in Major League baseball. His stats are just silly.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

"
Infact - The Negro Leagues were winning about 2/3's of the games with the MLB, according to a documentary I saw on the Negro Leagues, when the comissioner of MLB decided that such a thing wasn't right and banned anymore games between the Negro Leagues and MLB



So I think it's fair to assume that he would have completely dominant in Major League baseball. His stats are just silly.

A terrible shame, that MLB did not give some of the best ball players, or any black players their chance simply because of skin color, MLB lost out on that one, we all did.


B]Completely dominant, how can that statement by accepted. How can anyone say whith certainty what might have been, impossible, it never happened, no way to tell. For that matter many black players say that there were other black hitters who were better than Gibson. That he had the ablity, no doubt. That he probably would have been near the top, probably so, but to say he would have dominated how do you prove that.

[Bench 5]

" One man's biased opinion should never be taken as gospel. "

I'd figure you'd stoop down to that level, So i'll post a quote from walter johnson.

"He hits the ball a mile," Hall of Famer Walter Johnson, the Washington Senators pitcher who won 416 games, said of Gibson.

As Far as Gibson's stats go - Satchel Paige won the ROY at 43 and had several productive season throughout his 40s, which to me, is proof that the Negro leagues were every bit as competitive as the Majors.

Infact - The Negro Leagues were winning about 2/3's of the games with the MLB, according to a documentary I saw on the Negro Leagues, when the comissioner of MLB decided that such a thing wasn't right and banned anymore games between the Negro Leagues and MLB

So I think it's fair to assume that he would have completely dominant in Major League baseball. His stats are just silly.

The definition of the "major league" teams often consisted of a a few legit major leaguers and the rest minor leaguers. The top Negro League teams were competitive with major leaguers but the overall depth of talent wasn't nearly as strong as the major leagues. In many of those barnstorming games, position players for the major leaguers would pitch.

I agree with you that Satchel Paige was without a doubt one of the top 5 pitchers of all time.

I would rate Gibson as better than Piazza but I take Johnny Bench over both of them.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Lets turn it around. We keep focusing as to how would Gibson do against MLB pitching. Try this one, what would Piazza do playing in negro leagues and hitting against black pitchers of long ago.

There seems to be the perception that some posters are not giving black players who were not given their shot their due. Thats not the truth, only saying that over all black pitching was not on the level of MLB pitching.

Not to say white pitchers were superior. The fact that there was no money in black baseball to keep the best, there was very little scouting to search for good black pitchers. Lets put aside emotions and deal with the facts, not nice but those are the facts.

When we toss Gibson's numbers around consider the level of pitching he faced, some great ones but on a day to day basis not on the level of MLB.Imagine Piazza hit black pitching day to day.

[Blackout]

One man's biased opinion should never be taken as gospel.

Satchel Paige faced Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio and still said that about Gibson, that counts for something

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=blackout805]
I did see some stats a while back and saved them, I will search for them and post them. It was the batting averages of some who played in black baseball compared to how some did in white integrated minor league baseball and also compared to how they did in MLB.

While these stas may have some flaws I think it's appearant that it shows that MLB and even minor league baseball had "over all" pitching that was on a higher level than black baseball.

The flaws in those comparison..... the number of at bats that those blacks had in black baseball were much higher than they were in minor and MLB.

Another flaw, that some of them were older when they finally got to play in minor and MLB. Some were not that much older when they did play integrated minor and MLB. Some names Junior Gilliam, Sam Jethro, Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays and Elston Howard.

Going on memory the a high percentage of the blacks on that list ( around 20 hitters) if my memory serves me right.. most of the blacks hit for lower averages in MLB and even in minor league baseball.

The difference was significant, most hit for maybe 15 points lower in minor league baseball than they did in black baseball.

The batting average difference in MLB, most hit for a combined batting average that was 20+ points lower in MLB than they hit in black baseball.

Again that the way I recall it from memory, I will try to locate the actual figures and post them.

That should always be considered when we bring up batting averages of blacks that were compiled in black baseball.

Here is what I located, the difference between blacks batting averages was more than I stated above, I thought it was around 20 points but I was going on memory. These are the actual numbers. The total at bats and hits were computerized, calculated and this is what was projected, the batting average and average number of home runs based on a season of 550 at bats. These are the numbers and the comparison of some blacks, how they hit in black baseball compared to minor league baseball and how they hit in black baseball compared to integrated MLB

-----------------------BA.------------Home runs
Black baseball---------.336-------------12
Minor Leagues---------.312-------------16



--------------------Ba.-------------Home runs
Black baseball------.332--------------13
MLB----------------.281--------------18

You can see they averaged more home runs but hit for a lower Ba. in the minors and MLB.

There was a total of about 20 batters on that list. Some names, Jackie Robinson, junior Gilliam, Sandy Amoros, Roy Campanella, Sam Jetroe, Elston Howard, Monte Irvin, Minnie Minoso, Bob Boyd, Luke Easter, Willie Mays, Larry Doby and Ernie Banks.

[Brian McKenna]

i don't think anyone is denying that josh gibson was indeed a great player but you just can't make up stats - if they are not available - they are not available - it's a shame but that is how it is - please don't make up numbers especially something like 900 homers (why was 900 selected? because of painfully researched data or because no one else has hit 900 homers?)

if we just want to spit out numbers without any explanation attached to them then here is the greatest season in the history of the world (and these numbers are not made up) - In 1869 george wright scored 339 times with 49 home runs and a .629 batting average in a mere 57 games

not to take anything away from the top-notch negro league teams but these contests against major league clubs are exhibitions - my understanding of exhibition is that major leaguers have always taken them less seriously than league play - they may play out of position - they play with men they've never met from the minors or such - they may add local talent to the club - on the sports/entertainment scale it slides towards entertainment - it was all post season - it was for extra cash - cash made easy - a good time - not the live and die of a pennant race

another question: how many quotes have you ever read that said so-and-so was a terrible player? or a second rate player? or just a second tier player? - the wording people give in interviews is always glowing - that there is extremely biased and fails to represent a legitimate sample

it's not going out on a limb to say that piazza faced better pitching day in and day out than anyone in the negro leagues - i personally have a lot of respect for negro league ball and enjoy reading about it - but i am also under no delusions - there were top-notch/great ballplayers in the negro leagues - some would have done okay in the majors some would have excelled - at no time though was the overall quality of play in the negro leagues of major league caliber - the game is all about pitching and mr. gibson just didn't consistently face the best pitching - and the shame of the story here is that he was barred from doing so because of something to do with pigmentation

[Captain Cold Nose]

Satchel Paige faced Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio and still said that about Gibson, that counts for something
It counts for a lot, but, it's still one man's opinion, and a biased one at that. It's like Tony Dungy saying Peyton Manning is the greatest player of all time.
Uh-oh, shouldn't have stooped there.

[Brian McKenna]

the problem with first hand accounts is that they are so overwhelmingly positive and they are usually in hindsight with the ex-player far removed from his competitive days that things get romanticized

take for instance a parent talking about his/her adult child - if a reporter came in and talked about that child, the parent is going to remember good stories and events and speak glowingly of the child - later in the day that same parent remembers the same good points but talks with his/her spouse (someone who was actually there when the child was reared) - and now they prod each other's memory and realize that the child wasn't perfect nor were they themselves - they acknowledge the child's flaws and their own (though this may not even be spoken) - the end result is people convey what they want to convey when they want to convey it and under what circumstances - hence, we all have an agenda and we have to realize this

this is the same in baseball - take any event from history - read how it is summarized today - now jump on proquest and examine the actual details - and i mean the fine details of the event and results - you may/probably draw different conclusions in response - and i bet (almost guarantee) that things didn't actually occur as they have been so often repeated since and consequently believed as gospel today

i have been researching a specific individual through old accounts recently - we already have preconceived ideas about past events and have heard stories over and over again - i can tell you flat out that so many stories are either grossly fabricated, wholly inaccurate, slightly inaccurate or moderately inaccurate - people, places, circumstances, the actual event and results are often just dead off

[jalbright]

Lets turn it around. We keep focusing as to how would Gibson do against MLB pitching. Try this one, what would Piazza do playing in negro leagues and hitting against black pitchers of long ago.

There seems to be the perception that some posters are not giving black players who were not given their shot their due. Thats not the truth, only saying that over all black pitching was not on the level of MLB pitching.

Not to say white pitchers were superior. The fact that there was no money in black baseball to keep the best, there was very little scouting to search for good black pitchers. Lets put aside emotions and deal with the facts, not nice but those are the facts.

When we toss Gibson's numbers around consider the level of pitching he faced, some great ones but on a day to day basis not on the level of MLB.Imagine Piazza hit black pitching day to day.

Actually, I think there were two major problems with Negro league pitching: 1) the short rosters (due to money concerns) meant you could only carry a few pitchers, and 2) they played 200 times a year. Granted, those 200 games included lesser teams, so they could coast, but they pitched an awful lot--which wasn't good for their arms. I'm sure that Negro league pitchers habitually coasted unless the game was on the line in order to keep that better paying job as a ballplayer as opposed to what jobs they would hold outside of baseball.

Jim Albright

[Brian McKenna]

Actually, I think there were two major problems with Negro league pitching: 1) the short rosters (due to money concerns) meant you could only carry a few pitchers, and 2) they played 200 times a year. Granted, those 200 games included lesser teams, so they could coast, but they pitched an awful lot--which wasn't good for their arms. I'm sure that Negro league pitchers habitually coasted unless the game was on the line in order to keep that better paying job as a ballplayer as opposed to what jobs they would hold outside of baseball.

Jim Albright

i'm also sure that the best pitchers vastly outclassed many of the hitters they faced throughout the year (if a year even meant anything) - hence, they didn't have to give it their all in many exhibition games - just let the hitters win the game for them - my guess is also that they did get burned sometimes doing this but it was infrequent and probably was rectifiable most of the time

if satch came to town possesing top-notch speed and control - well he probably was only concerned with one or two hitters on a particular team - he didn't need to go all out, all day

[Blackout]

It counts for a lot, but, it's still one man's opinion, and a biased one at that. It's like Tony Dungy saying Peyton Manning is the greatest player of all time.
Uh-oh, shouldn't have stooped there.

Because Satchel coached Gibson?

[Dontworry]

The definition of the "major league" teams often consisted of a a few legit major leaguers and the rest minor leaguers. The top Negro League teams were competitive with major leaguers but the overall depth of talent wasn't nearly as strong as the major leagues. In many of those barnstorming games, position players for the major leaguers would pitch.

I agree with you that Satchel Paige was without a doubt one of the top 5 pitchers of all time.

I would rate Gibson as better than Piazza but I take Johnny Bench over both of them.

" The definition of the "major league" teams often consisted of a a few legit major leaguers and the rest minor leaguers. The top Negro League teams were competitive with major leaguers but the overall depth of talent wasn't nearly as strong as the major leagues "

What proof do you have of this ?

" In many of those barnstorming games, position players for the major leaguers would pitch "

Again proof ?

I could say the same for the negroleagues, doesnt mean it's true.

[Dontworry]

Every opinion counts, no matter what other think, no matter who disagrees. I don't know whats in Satchel's mind but it's at least reasonable to believe that his opinion "could be' biassed, choosing to pick a hitter who played in his leagues when he rates Gibson as the greatest hitter.

" I did see some stats a while back and saved them, I will search for them and post them. It was the batting averages of some who played in black baseball compared to how some did in white integrated minor league baseball and also compared to how they did in MLB. "

Jackie robinson hit .390 and slugged well over .600 In the negroleagues, He never did that In the white Intergrated league, But he STILL was elite.

So considering the fact that gibson was most likely MUCH better than robinson, I'm willing to bet his stats in the white league would of been incredible.


But using that same biased logic your using to aid your arguement for the white league being superior, how do you know players such as ruth would of dominated the way he did had the league not been segregated ?

Is it a " coincidence " that Nobody ( besides bonds) has matched the raw stats of ruth, cobb, williams, wagner, and a few others since that segregated era ?

Do you really think that ruth would of done Mike Mussina Impersonations In today's league of different cultures from all over the world ?

Just something to think about...

[Dontworry]

i don't think anyone is denying that josh gibson was indeed a great player but you just can't make up stats - if they are not available - they are not available - it's a shame but that is how it is - please don't make up numbers especially something like 900 homers (why was 900 selected? because of painfully researched data or because no one else has hit 900 homers?)

" don't think anyone is denying that josh gibson was indeed a great player but you just can't make up stats - if they are not available - they are not available - it's a shame but that is how it is - please don't make up numbers especially something like 900 homers (why was 900 selected? because of painfully researched data or because no one else has hit 900 homers?) "

The same could be said of babe ruth's pitching career. Granted, we do know what his raw stats were, But adjusting for era ( he pitched in the deadball era) they werent anything astromical, No better than the pitching numbers posted By Pat Hentgen.

Yet the casual fan, writer, Member of the media, etc, always falsely portrays ruth's pitching career as " Incredible ", and usually tends to use that arguement to aid his place in history.

" not going out on a limb to say that piazza faced better pitching day in and day out than anyone in the negro leagues - i personally have a lot of respect for negro league ball and enjoy reading about it - but i am also under no delusions - there were top-notch/great ballplayers in the negro leagues - some would have done okay in the majors some would have excelled - "

He probably did face better pitching than gibson.

He also faced better, stronger, more effective relief pitching than ruth or any player from that era.

[Blackout]

The same could be said of babe Ruth's pitching career. Granted, we do know what his raw stats were, But adjusting for era ( he pitched in the deadball era) they weren't anything astronomical, No better than the pitching numbers posted By Pat Hentgen.

Yet the casual fan, writer, Member of the media, etc, always falsely portrays Ruth's pitching career as " Incredible ", and usually tends to use that argument to aid his place in history.


are you saying Ruth wasn't astronomical when he was pitching? second to Walter Johnson, he was the best pitcher in baseball in his prime

[Bill Burgess]

are you saying Ruth wasn't astronomical when he was pitching? second to Walter Johnson, he was the best pitcher in baseball in his prime

Babe Ruth was a very excellent pitcher, while he did that. He led his L. in ERA in 1916, but came in 7th in ERA next season, and so we can say that for that one year, he had the best year, among the competing pitchers.

I do NOT think it is fair or just to say the if you lead your L in ERA for a year, or even several other stats, than you are the best pitcher in BB, even for that year. Even when Babe led in ERA in 1916, Walter Johnson was still the best pitcher in BB, followed by Alexander.

We must be exceedingly careful as to our language in these matters. Words do count. Language matters.

Bill Burgess

[Blackout]

someone on this board posted this once:

Ruth was a pitcher only in 1915-16-17 and here is how he compares in some stats, not only in the AL but in the NL as well, in all off baseball in 1915-16-17.

Base runners/9 innings pitched
1---Walter Johnson--------------9.08
2---Babe Ruth------------------10.13
3---Hooks Dauss----------------11.51

Batters faced
1---Walter Johnson-------------4038
2---Babe Ruth------------------3508
3---Hooks Dauss----------------3286

Hits/9 Inn.
1-- Babe Ruth-----------------6.64
2---Walter Johnson------------6.94
3---Hooks Dauss--------------7.96

Shutouts
1---Walter Johnson-----------18
2---Babe Ruth----------------16
3---Reb Russell---------------13

Strikeouts
1---Walter Johnson---------619
2---Babe Ruth--------------410
3---Dutch Leonard----------404

Strikeout/Walks
1---Walter Johnson--------3.00
2---Babe Ruth-------------1.32
3---Hooks Dauss-----------1.14

Walks
1---Joe Bush--------------330
2---Babe Ruth-------------311
3---Bill James--------------300

Walks/9 innings pitched
1---Walter Johnson-------1.80
2---Hooks Dauss----------3.18
3---Babe Ruth------------3.23

Strike outs
1---Walter Johnson-----619
2---Alexander----------608
3---Dave Davenport----458
4---Babe Ruth---------410

Walks
1---Babe Ruth---------311
2---Pete Schnieder----305
3---Davenport--------301

Wins
1---Alexander--------94
2---Walter Johnson--75
3--- Babe Ruth------65

Winning percentage
1---Alexander------.729
2---Ruth----------.663
3 ---Johnson------.605


forget who, but credit to them, not me

[SHOELESSJOE3]

someone on this board posted this once:

Ruth was a pitcher only in 1915-16-17 and here is how he compares in some stats, not only in the AL but in the NL as well, in all off baseball in 1915-16-17.

Base runners/9 innings pitched
1---Walter Johnson--------------9.08
2---Babe Ruth------------------10.13
3---Hooks Dauss----------------11.51


I posted those stats some weeks ago. I have always stated that there is no way to tell how Ruth would have done for a career had he remained on the mound. I have never said he was a great pitcher, he would have to prove that over the long haul.

But I will say and the numbers prove it, that he was one of the best in the only 3 seasons that he was a pitcher only. It's often brought up that he pitched in the dead ball era and had he remained a pitcher his ERA and some other stats would have suffered with the banning of trick deliveries, the practice of tossing out scuffed up balls and the livelier ball that came in the years 1920, actually that ball may have been improved, tighter wind in 1919.

I say to that, so what, all pitchers would have suffered with those changes, what does that have to do with how Ruth pitched before 1920. Didn't all pitchers pitch under the same conditions in the years 1915-16-17.

Lets face the facts, look at the only two pitchers that could be considered better than Ruth in the years 1915-16-17, Alexander and Johnson, two of the greatest ever and he was a lefty facing around 75 percent right handed batters

Only 3 left handers in the history of the game threw more shutouts in a season than Ruth's 9 shutouts in 1916, Sandy Koufax 11, Carl Hubbell and John Tudor.

They can say what they like, that Ruth could not be considered great, he was only a full time pitcher for 3 full seasons. They can't say he would not have been great, I can't say he would have. I can say and it can be proven he was amongst the best in the seasons of 1915-16-17.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=
But using that same biased logic your using to aid your arguement for the white league being superior, how do you know players such as ruth would of dominated the way he did had the league not been segregated ?
QUOTE]

I think you may have misread my post. I don't recall saying that white MLB was superior, I never said or thought that. I did say that overall white MLB pitching was at a higher level than that in black baseball which was also stated by some blacks who played at that time.

Again as I have said and posted before that I don't believe that was because white pitchers were superior to black pitchers. The reason was because there was not as much incentive to pitch in black baseball, not much money. Also black baseball did not have the resources to pay scouts to find black pitchers. Pitching staffs on black teams were lean, at times position players, outfielders, infielders would be used as starting pitchers. It was not uncommon for a pitcher to pitch a double header.

My point, those pitching conditions gave the hitters the better conditions and I think we have to remember that when we look at some hitting stats of blacks.

Because of these conditions I have come to respect those black players even more. No money, terrible travel conditions, poor training conditions and facilities..... they stuck it out, they played this game because they loved it.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

"

how do you know players such as Ruth would of dominated the way he did had the league not been segregated ?


I don't know that and I don't believe that Ruth would have been as dominant had MLB been integrated. I can't say his numbers would have been lower but he would have had more competition. The intro of blacks in the late 1940s early 1950s raised the level of the game.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

someone on this board posted this once:

Ruth was a pitcher only in 1915-16-17 and here is how he compares in some stats, not only in the AL but in the NL as well, in all off baseball in 1915-16-17.

An error in two of of those stats, that I noticed, Alexander with 36 shutouts.

Also strikeouts, Hippo Vaughn ahead of Ruth 487. I had two lists, one both leagues and one just the AL and got them mixed up, most of the above is correct, Ruth's standing in both leagues.

[Bench 5]

" The definition of the "major league" teams often consisted of a a few legit major leaguers and the rest minor leaguers. The top Negro League teams were competitive with major leaguers but the overall depth of talent wasn't nearly as strong as the major leagues "

What proof do you have of this ?

" In many of those barnstorming games, position players for the major leaguers would pitch "

Again proof ?

I could say the same for the negroleagues, doesnt mean it's true.

OK here's some examples. I've done a lot of research on ProQuest over the past couple months and I've looked up many games between negro league stars and major leaguers. I've seen box scores or game summaries that show a position player for the "major league" team pitch. Examples:


Frank Brower, an outfielder, pitching in a game against the Brooklyn Royal Giants for Joe Judge's All Stars in 1920.

George "Highpockets" Kelly was a 1st baseman for the Giants and pitched against the Cuban teams on a tour in 1920. This was the game where Torriente gained some notoriety for hitting 3 homers in one game. That's a great feat but keep in mind it was off a FIRST BASEMAN.

Babe Ruth pitched in the same series and this was a couple years after he stopped pitching. Ruth also pitched during his barnstorming tours in the 1920s which included games against Negro League teams.

When the Tigers went to Cuba in 1909 Ty Cobb didn't play. In Cobb's place they used a CATCHER named Breckeridge. It's clear to me from reading the accounst that they took a minimal team of 10-12 guys to play a dozen games and players had to play multiple positions.


Anyway, my only point is that these were just exhibition games.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=blackout805]
I did see some stats a while back and saved them, I will search for them and post them. It was the batting averages of some who played in black baseball compared to how some did in white integrated minor league baseball and also compared to how they did in MLB.

Here is what I located, the difference between blacks batting averages was more than I stated above, I thought it was around 20 points but I was going on memory. These are the actual numbers. The total at bats and hits were computerized, calculated and this is what was projected, the batting average and average number of home runs based on a season of 550 at bats. These are the numbers and the comparison of some blacks, how they hit in black baseball compared to minor league baseball and how they hit in black baseball compared to integrated MLB

-----------------------BA.------------Home runs
Black baseball---------.336-------------12
Minor Leagues---------.312-------------16



--------------------Ba.-------------Home runs
Black baseball------.332--------------13
MLB----------------.281--------------18

You can see they averaged more home runs but hit for a lower Ba. in the minors and MLB.

There was a total of about 20 batters on that list. Some names, Jackie Robinson, Junior Gilliam, Sandy Amoros, Roy Campanella, Sam Jethroe, Elston Howard, Monte Irvin, Minnie Minoso, Bob Boyd, Luke Easter, Willie Mays, Larry Doby and Ernie Banks.

Here are the numbers I spoke of earlier.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

OK here's some examples.
[LIST=1]
Babe Ruth pitched in the same series and this was a couple years after he stopped pitching. Ruth also pitched during his barnstorming tours in the 1920s which included games against Negro League teams.


I found only one reference of Ruth pitching. If I recall he was playing first base and decided to pitch at least one inning. Came off of first base in mid game. The first batter hit a long double off of him, he than struck out the next 3 hitters. It's been a while since I saw that, but I believe that it was Torriente that doubled off of Ruth.

[yanks0714]

according to john holway's the complete book of baseball's negro leagues:

gibson hit 216 home runs 1931-46 in the negro national league and east-west lg

please explain the other 716


Exactly. While I take the 900 HRs with a grain of salt, I don't doubt for a second that Josh Gibson hit a bunch more than the 216 listed. BUT we're counting what he hit in barnstorming, winter leagues, and against questionable oppostion and opposing pitchers.

While we're at it why don't we count Johnny Bench's Spring Training HRs as well as his post-season homers too? Afterall, we're counting Gibson's questionable HRs.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is a crying shame that this man and others of color were unable to display their considerable talents in MLB. It is a sheer embarrassment.

But like Shoeless said, we have no idea how he would have done against MLB pitchers bearing down in a regular season. We can't possibly know.

Therefore my vote goes to Mike Piazza. We KNOW what Mike has done. he's been the best offensive catcher in MLB history. We don't know precisely what Josh Gibson actually did do {or} how he would have done in MLB. Let's not get caught up in the hoopla of his reputed 900 HRS without looking at HOW he may have gotten them as well.

[yanks0714]

In recorded at-bats against big league pitching, Gibson batted .426. http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/gibson_josh.htm

Also - Satchel Paige, who was Gibson's teammate on the Pittsburgh Crawfords and later pitched for the Cleveland Indians, said, "He was the greatest hitter who ever lived." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/bio/news/story?page=gibson_josh

Against what pitchers? Top line hurlers? Don't forget it was exhibition games where the ML players may not have been bearing down. Plus I doubt the ML teams playing the exhibitions qualified as an All-Star team.

Of course, Ol' Satch isn't quite qualified to make that statement. he didn't pitch in the ML's either...so how could he really know?
A more accurate statement could have been, "He was the greatest Negro League hitter who ever lived."

It saddens me that Satch and Josh did not get to play in MLB (at least Paige got a taste of it albeit well after his prime). It also saddens me when I see well-versed baseball fans and historians 'accept' as gospel what cannot be proven through statistical record keeping and rely on what very well could be a degree of exaggeration.

[Mischa]

Against what pitchers? Top line hurlers? Don't forget it was exhibition games where the ML players may not have been bearing down. Plus I doubt the ML teams playing the exhibitions qualified as an All-Star team.


Even if it was an exhibition contest, why would one side be bearing down and the other not? Why would we assume that Josh Gibson took the games any less or more seriously than did Dizzy Dean? Would a white pitcher in the 1930s want to be outshone by a Negro League batter? The white players had just as much incentive to play well as did the black players.

I think the best study that could be done would be to look at the 1946 and 1941 Mexican Leagues - the former had about 20 big-league players so we can get a fair MLE. We can then compare players between the two years to get an MLE for '41. Then we can figure out what Josh Gibson (who destroyed the '41 Mexican) might have done in the majors.

[jalbright]

Even if it was an exhibition contest, why would one side be bearing down and the other not? Why would we assume that Josh Gibson took the games any less or more seriously than did Dizzy Dean? Would a white pitcher in the 1930s want to be outshone by a Negro League batter? The white players had just as much incentive to play well as did the black players.

I think the best study that could be done would be to look at the 1946 and 1941 Mexican Leagues - the former had about 20 big-league players so we can get a fair MLE. We can then compare players between the two years to get an MLE for '41. Then we can figure out what Josh Gibson (who destroyed the '41 Mexican) might have done in the majors.

While I generally am on your side in this, Mischa, the Negro Leaguers wanted to prove they belonged when they played those exhibitions, and the major leaguers were often just there to make a few extra bucks. I'm sure the competitive juices started flowing at some point in those games, but I can't deny that the Negro Leaguers came with their "game faces" on, while the whites often didn't.

Another place to look is the California Winter League, which was a competitive, sort of integrated league (there was a team of black stars which was a major focus of the league) with major leaguers and Pacific Coast League guys filling out the rosters of the white teams. Here, the exhibition argument is far, far weaker, as with some of the Mexican League seasons. William McNeil has written a nice book on the Calif Winter League, and it is stocked with stats.

Jim Albright

[yanks0714]

Even if it was an exhibition contest, why would one side be bearing down and the other not? Why would we assume that Josh Gibson took the games any less or more seriously than did Dizzy Dean? Would a white pitcher in the 1930s want to be outshone by a Negro League batter? The white players had just as much incentive to play well as did the black players.

I think the best study that could be done would be to look at the 1946 and 1941 Mexican Leagues - the former had about 20 big-league players so we can get a fair MLE. We can then compare players between the two years to get an MLE for '41. Then we can figure out what Josh Gibson (who destroyed the '41 Mexican) might have done in the majors.
An exhibition is just that...an exhibition. It counts for nothing other than a show for the fans and some $$$ in pockets of the players who are getting paid.
I haven't seen where there was a ML caliber team, emphasis on team, playing the NLs. Sure, some top stars barnstormed and played but much of the ML teams were patchwork the majority of the time.
Did Gibson and the other NL'ers bear down? I would think they did so I to show that they could be as good or better and to 'prove' they could play in MLB. I doubt that the ML'ers were bearing down as much.

As for the Mexican Leagues of '41 and '46 who were the ML'ers who were playing? Give me the names.

Don't get me wrong, I wish he had played in MLB. I strongly feel Josh Gibson could very well have been a star and possibly one of the greatest if not 'the' greatest catcher in MLB based on what I've read.

What I cannot agree with is the 'legend' and hoopla that surrounds certain players. The NL, were for the most part an inferior league, except for some amjor stars. The pitching was not as high a calber.

Let reverse the question for a change: How do you think Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Gehrig, Hornsby, Lajoie, and other MLB 'stars' would have done in the Negro Leagues? Facing the same sort of pitching, defense, depth, and so forth as Gibson, Charleston, Bell, and others were actually facing? Would their stats/performance be the same as they were in the MLs; would thay have done better; or would they have done worse?

I won't accept an answer that says, well, we'll never know because it didn't happen. We always 'imagine' how Gibson, Charleston, and company would have done in MLB, so let's just reverse it this time. I'm actually trying to get at something here.

[Brian McKenna]

An exhibition is just that...an exhibition. It counts for nothing other than a show for the fans and some $$$ in pockets of the players who are getting paid.
I haven't seen where there was a ML caliber team, emphasis on team, playing the NLs. Sure, some top stars barnstormed and played but much of the ML teams were patchwork the majority of the time.
Did Gibson and the other NL'ers bear down? I would think they did so I to show that they could be as good or better and to 'prove' they could play in MLB. I doubt that the ML'ers were bearing down as much.
What I cannot agree with is the 'legend' and hoopla that surrounds certain players. The NL, were for the most part an inferior league, except for some amjor stars. The pitching was not as high a calber.
.

good post and very accurate - this is how it was - the mexican league study won't produce anything but a lot of speculation

[Dontworry]

Against what pitchers? Top line hurlers? Don't forget it was exhibition games where the ML players may not have been bearing down. Plus I doubt the ML teams playing the exhibitions qualified as an All-Star team.

Of course, Ol' Satch isn't quite qualified to make that statement. he didn't pitch in the ML's either...so how could he really know?
A more accurate statement could have been, "He was the greatest Negro League hitter who ever lived."

It saddens me that Satch and Josh did not get to play in MLB (at least Paige got a taste of it albeit well after his prime). It also saddens me when I see well-versed baseball fans and historians 'accept' as gospel what cannot be proven through statistical record keeping and rely on what very well could be a degree of exaggeration.

" Against what pitchers? Top line hurlers? Don't forget it was exhibition games where the ML players may not have been bearing down. Plus I doubt the ML teams playing the exhibitions qualified as an All-Star team. "

Well then I guess it is pure speculation, we'll never know who he faced.

But did you read the comment walter johnson made of gibson ?

" Of course, Ol' Satch isn't quite qualified to make that statement. he didn't pitch in the ML's either...so how could he really know?
A more accurate statement could have been, "He was the greatest Negro League hitter who ever lived." "

Actually satch won ROY at age 43.

[jalbright]

the mexican league study won't produce anything but a lot of speculation

The Mexican League study alone might not, but if you add to that how Negro Leaguers who got into organized ball did in both places, maybe exhibitions, and how players did in any other integrated settings (most notably the California Winter League), you'd have a good deal of data to work with and base some conclusions on.

Jim Albright

[Mischa]

Another place to look is the California Winter League, which was a competitive, sort of integrated league (there was a team of black stars which was a major focus of the league) with major leaguers and Pacific Coast League guys filling out the rosters of the white teams. Here, the exhibition argument is far, far weaker, as with some of the Mexican League seasons. William McNeil has written a nice book on the Calif Winter League, and it is stocked with stats.


My problem with the Cal. Winter League is that the seasons were very short and McNeil doesn't list key stats such as batter walks (I have no idea if these were even tracked). Yes, it's nice to know that Willie Wells was 10 for 29 against Larry French and 10 for 27 with 3 homers against Bobo Newsom, but that doesn't tell us too much IMO other than what we already know - that Willie Wells would have been a Hall-of-Fame SS in the majors.

[Mischa]

I haven't seen where there was a ML caliber team, emphasis on team, playing the NLs.

You haven't looked closely then. They were playing such games in the 19th century already. Here are some match-ups from the 20th:
Brooklyn Dodgers vs. Philadelphia X-Giants, 1905 (2 games)
Philadelphia A's vs. Brooklyn Royal Giants (2 games) and Philadelphia Giants (3 games), 1906
Cincinnati Reds vs. Brooklyn Royal Giants, 1908
Chicago Cubs vs. Leland Giants, 1909 (3 games)
Philadelphia Phillies vs. Lincoln Giants, 1914
New York Giants vs. Lincoln Giants, 1915 (2 games)
Philadelphia Phillies vs. Lincoln Giants, 1915 (3 games)
St. Louis Cardinals vs. St. Louis Giants, 1920 (3 games)
Washington Senators vs. Brooklyn Royal Giants, 1920 (3 games)
Philadelphia A's vs. Hilldale Daisies, 1920
Philadelphia A's vs. Atlantic City Bacharach Giants, 1921 (4 games)
St. Louis Cardinals vs. St. Louis Giants, 1921 (5 games)
Detroit Tigers vs. St. Louis Stars, 1922 (4 games)
Cleveland Indians vs. Cleveland Tate Stars, 1922 (2 games)
St. Louis Browns vs. Detroit Stars, 1923 (3 games)
Detroit Tigers vs. Chicago American Giants, 1923 (3 games)

Then Commissioner Landis forbid white MLB teams from playing black teams, so "all-star" contingents were formed for future match-ups.



Did Gibson and the other NL'ers bear down? I would think they did so I to show that they could be as good or better and to 'prove' they could play in MLB. I doubt that the ML'ers were bearing down as much.

So in 1930 America a white guy wouldn't mind being beaten by a black guy? Come on. The white guys were trying just as hard to "save face."



As for the Mexican Leagues of '41 and '46 who were the ML'ers who were playing? Give me the names.

In 1946 -
Roberto Ortiz, Luis Olmo, Sal Maglie, Fred Martin, Tommy de la Cruz, Alex Carrasquel, Roland Gladu, Red Steiner, Roy Zimmerman, Bobby Avila, Nap Reyes, Sandy Consuegra, Adrian Zabala, Tony Ordenana, Chico Garcia, Bobby Estalella, Jorge Comellas, Bobby Herrera, Hector Rodriguez, Moe Franklin, George Hausmann, Rene Monteagudo, Red Hayworth, Chile Gomez, Lou Klein, Danny Gardella, Mickey Owen, Harry Feldman, Ace Adams, Max Lanier, Bus Clarkson and Chico Hernandez. So 32, not 20.

That's a large enough sample to figure out the MLE for the 1946 Mexican (I arrived at an 83/100, just shy of modern-day AAA). From the '46 Mexican we have many players who played in the '41 Mexican to figure out if the '41 Mexican was better (my opinion), equal or worse.



What I cannot agree with is the 'legend' and hoopla that surrounds certain players. The NL, were for the most part an inferior league, except for some amjor stars. The pitching was not as high a calber.

No arguments here. I can't stand the Gibson hit over 800 HR claims. But based on the existing stats, Gibson not only was an amazing power hitter, but also a great contact hitter and walk-drawer. I think we can judge quite a bit based on the existing data, while hoping that research sheds more light on his career.



Let reverse the question for a change: How do you think Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Gehrig, Hornsby, Lajoie, and other MLB 'stars' would have done in the Negro Leagues? Facing the same sort of pitching, defense, depth, and so forth as Gibson, Charleston, Bell, and others were actually facing? Would their stats/performance be the same as they were in the MLs; would thay have done better; or would they have done worse?

Obviously better. Whenever a player moves to a less advanced league they generally improve.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=blackout805]
The batting averages of some who played in black baseball compared to how some did in white integrated minor league baseball and also compared to how they did in MLB.

While these stas may have some flaws I think it's appearant that it shows that MLB and even minor league baseball had "over all" pitching that was on a higher level than black baseball.
The flaws in those comparison..... the number of at bats that those blacks had in black baseball were much higher than they were in minor and MLB.

Another flaw, that some of them were older when they finally got to play in minor and MLB. Some were not that much older when they did play integrated minor and MLB. Some names Junior Gilliam, Sam Jethro, Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays and Elston Howard.

Most of the blacks hit for lower averages in MLB and even in minor league baseball.

Here is what I located, the difference between blacks batting averages was more than I stated above, I thought it was around 20 points but I was going on memory. These are the actual numbers. The total at bats and hits were computerized, calculated and this is what was projected, the batting average and average number of home runs based on a season of 550 at bats. These are the numbers and the comparison of some blacks, how they hit in black baseball compared to minor league baseball and how they hit in black baseball compared to integrated MLB

-----------------------BA.------------Home runs
Black baseball---------.336-------------12
Minor Leagues---------.312-------------16



--------------------Ba.-------------Home runs
Black baseball------.332--------------13
MLB----------------.281--------------18

You can see they averaged more home runs but hit for a lower Ba. in the minors and MLB.

There was a total of about 20 batters on that list. Some names, Jackie Robinson, junior Gilliam, Sandy Amoros, Roy Campanella, Sam Jetroe, Elston Howard, Monte Irvin, Minnie Minoso, Bob Boyd, Luke Easter, Willie Mays, Larry Doby and Ernie Banks.


We can debate this one for all time and we still won't know how Gibson or other great black hitters would have done in MLB. How many time must we say " it never happened" how can we know something that never took place.

I think most of us agree that there were black hitters as good and better than some white hitters. I have a problem witht he one poster that makes the claim that Gibson would have been dominant in MLB.

Keep the war of the words going but I ask anyone with a reasonable mind to compare the stats posted and tell me that they still believe that over all black pitching was on the same level as MLB pitching. Not convinced, take a look and see that the blacks batting average even in minor leagues was lower than it was in black baseball, 24 points lower.
Thats all I and some others are saying, there were some great black hitters but when you throw around astronomical batting averages in black baseball, consider the over all pitching they faced day to day.

[Bench 5]

Let reverse the question for a change: How do you think Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Gehrig, Hornsby, Lajoie, and other MLB 'stars' would have done in the Negro Leagues? Facing the same sort of pitching, defense, depth, and so forth as Gibson, Charleston, Bell, and others were actually facing? Would their stats/performance be the same as they were in the MLs; would thay have done better; or would they have done worse?

I have dug up some box scores and read through John Holway's book and I put together a spreadhseet of Babe Ruth versus black competition. So far I have him at 29 for 66 (.439 BA) with 10 homers.

According to Henry Thomas, Walter Johnson posted 70Ks in 44 innings and gave up just 25 hits and 12 Runs versus black teams.

The only thing I take from this is that both of them were just as good against black teams as they were against major leaguers.

[leecemark]

--I don't think anyone (and certainly most of us) are saying the level of play was as high in the Negro Leagues as it was in MLB. I agree that the pitching was further away from MLB quality than the hitting as well. The best Negro League hitters would not have hit well over .400 in the majors as they did in the Negro Leagues. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have been amoung the best. The weight of evidence says the best Negro Leaguers were as good (or better) than the best MLB players, even if the league as a whole was not.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think the best study that could be done would be to look at the 1946 and 1941 Mexican Leagues - the former had about 20 big-league players so we can get a fair MLE. We can then compare players between the two years to get an MLE for '41. Then we can figure out what Josh Gibson (who destroyed the '41 Mexican) might have done in the majors.

With all due respect to Josh, the Mexican League was a hitter's heaven, more like wiffle ball. What caliber of pitching can there be when the entire league carried a .321 batting average, not for one season but over 59 years. You wont find not even one MLB team that could aveage that in modern times.

Some league averages.

Negro Leagues------------1930-1950--------.308
Japanese --------------- no years given-----.278
Cuban League------------1920-1960---------.284
Mexican League----------1938-1997---------.321
MLB---------------------1900-2004----------.262

Same old story, MLB has the lowest league batting average and thats with the DH in the AL since 1973.

Come to your own conlclusion, MLB hitters are inferior to Negro League, Japanese, Cuban, Mexican hitters. Or we can use common sense, MLB has always had the highest caliber pitching over all the rest.There may be some other factors but in the end, the pitching is the big one.

What are these guys doing in Mexico, from 1938 to 1997 the entire league hit .321.

So tossing Gibson's numbers around seem to mean more to some than to others. it's not disrespecting Josh, it's using common sense, evaluating the difference in the level of pitching not diminishing Josh.

I took the individual league leaders batting average from Negro leagues in the east division and compiled them, averages from 1923 to 1930.
Over all those 8 seasons the compiled batting average came out to .439, in orbit. I have considered that some of the seasons were very short, still that compiled batting average off the chart.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--I don't think anyone (and certainly most of us) are saying the level of play was as high in the Negro Leagues as it was in MLB. I agree that the pitching was further away from MLB quality than the hitting as well. The best Negro League hitters would not have hit well over .400 in the majors as they did in the Negro Leagues. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have been amoung the best. The weight of evidence says the best Negro Leaguers were as good (or better) than the best MLB players, even if the league as a whole was not.

Not a problem with that, thats been my thinking all along. Myself, I have never doubted the ability of the black hitters and have stated that more than once on this board. The problem comes in with the projections that Gibson or some others would dominate in MLB.It appears that some refuse to factor in the pitching level in the two leagues, don't want to hear it.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

"
The same could be said of babe ruth's pitching career. Granted, we do know what his raw stats were, But adjusting for era ( he pitched in the deadball era) they werent anything astromical, No better than the pitching numbers posted By Pat Hentgen.

Not sure I get this comparison. All I can say is that every pitcher who pitched in the only seasons that Ruth was a pitcher only 1915-16-17, pitched under the same conditions that Ruth did. Ruth had no advantage over any pitcher pitching in his time. Why was it only one pitcher, Babe Ruth that was right on the heels of Walter Johnson and Grover Alexander as the best pitcher in those three seasons.

Where were all the rest, Ruth was a young pitcher with little experience and yet he distanced himself from some who had been in the game longer than he was and was close to two of the greatest Johnson and Alexander.

He also faced the best the National League had to offer in the World Series and was 3-0 and still has the second lowest ERA amongst starting pitchers with 30 or more innings in the WS, .087.

If we're going to detract from Ruth for his numbers in the dead ball era, do we do the same with Johnson and Alexander.

Can we stop the nonsense, the so called reason why Ruth shined as pitcher and how he hit because of the era's he played in. All in the game played under the same conditions as Ruth did.

[Mischa]

With all due respect to Josh, the Mexican League was a hitter's heaven, more like wiffle ball. What caliber of pitching can there be when the entire league carried a .321 batting average, not for one season but over 59 years. You wont find not even one MLB team that could aveage that in modern times.

Some league averages.

Negro Leagues------------1930-1950--------.308
Japanese --------------- no years given-----.278
Cuban League------------1920-1960---------.284
Mexican League----------1938-1997---------.321
MLB---------------------1900-2004----------.262


Where did you get that figure? Even in 1986, perhaps the most extreme offensive season, the league hit .308. And there were many periods where sub-2 ERAs were common, such as the 1970s.



Same old story, MLB has the lowest league batting average and thats with the DH in the AL since 1973.

Come to your own conlclusion, MLB hitters are inferior to Negro League, Japanese, Cuban, Mexican hitters. Or we can use common sense, MLB has always had the highest caliber pitching over all the rest.There may be some other factors but in the end, the pitching is the big one.

I doubt that that's the reason (not that I doubt that better pitching is true). After all, you had many minor leagues where batting averages were in the .230s or lower - the Florida International, Georgia-Florida, etc. That doesn't mean that pitching was better in those leagues than in the majors. It means that environmental and park factors were more pitching-biased. Similarly, the regularly high offensive stats in the PCL did not mean it had worse pitching than the IL - it meant that the conditions were more conducive to offense.

The best way to compare leagues is to use MLEs, as I suggested, not to assume that leagues with lower batting averages are somehow better (or else you could say that the 1994 AA was better than the 1994 AL or that Japanese baseball in the 60s was better than US baseball in the 60s). Otherwise we're not controlling at all for many key factors.



What are these guys doing in Mexico, from 1938 to 1997 the entire league hit .321.

I'd love to see your source, as almost nobody in Mexican League history hit over .321 and I can't find any single season where the league hit that high.



So tossing Gibson's numbers around seem to mean more to some than to others.


I didn't toss around numbers. I suggested a statistical analysis based on how players did in the '46 Mexican vs. the major leagues. That's much more valid analytically than citing league batting averages as proof of skill level.



Over all those 8 seasons the compiled batting average came out to .439, in orbit. I have considered that some of the seasons were very short, still that compiled batting average off the chart.

With short seasons you'll have extreme stats. That doesn't negate any kind of MLE-style analysis.

[jalbright]

My problem with the Cal. Winter League is that the seasons were very short and McNeil doesn't list key stats such as batter walks (I have no idea if these were even tracked). Yes, it's nice to know that Willie Wells was 10 for 29 against Larry French and 10 for 27 with 3 homers against Bobo Newsom, but that doesn't tell us too much IMO other than what we already know - that Willie Wells would have been a Hall-of-Fame SS in the majors.

Maybe the walks can be figured out, though I agree I wish McNeil had included that data. The short seasons are always a problem, but when you have so many points of comparison, we are adding much more info to our analysis.

Jim Albright

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Where did you get that figure? Even in 1986, perhaps the most extreme offensive season, the league hit .308. And there were many periods where sub-2 ERAs were common, such as the 1970s.



Pehaps my wording was wrong, or misleading but certainly not intentional.
Those batting averages that I listed were based on the average number of hit based on 550 at bats, which is often used as the average number of at bats per season. So they may not be the actual league average but they are all measured on the same scale.

Still all the leagues are compared on the same scale, per 550 at bats per season. All are using the same yardstick of measurement so to speak. Regardless one can see that the MLB carries the lowest average, 61 points lower than the Mexican League and 48 points lower than in black baseball. those are hugh gaps and although we can't say that the quality of pitching was the only difference it was probably the biggest factor.


You ask where I got those figures. In a book at the public library a few years ago. Don't recall the name of the book but I did make a copy of that page, have it on a CD and would be happy to email that page to you, at your request.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I doubt that that's the reason (not that I doubt that better pitching is true). After all, you had many minor leagues where batting averages were in the .230s or lower - the Florida International, Georgia-Florida, etc. That doesn't mean that pitching was better in those leagues than in the majors. It means that environmental and park factors were more pitching-biased. Similarly, the regularly high offensive stats in the PCL did not mean it had worse pitching than the IL - it meant that the conditions were more conducive to offense.
.
Those comparisons that I listed batting average of blacks that played both black and minor league baseball were from AAA Minor League baseball only.
It's the upper echelon of the minor leagues, just below MLB.

That aside I think it's evident by some of the batting averages that often led the league in black baseball indicates that the over all quality of pitching was far below that of MLB.

Short season or not look at some of the batting averages of some league leaders for a season in black baseball.
.454-.470-.464-.547-.564, and there are many seasons of .400 plus.
Chino Smith led the league in 1929 with .461 and 29 home runs. With a total of 29 home runs he had to play a fair number of games and still hit for .461

There are only two hitters in the history of MLB with a career batting average of better than .350.
Here is one list of the top career batting averages.
Gibson---------------------------.379
Chino Smith----------------------.375
Jud Wilson-----------------------.370
0thers rounding out the top ten
--------------------------------.359
--------------------------------.359
--------------------------------.358
--------------------------------.353
--------------------------------.353
--------------------------------.352
--------------------------------.343

Three hitters .370 or higher
Six hitters over .350
MLB no hitters at .370 and only Cobb and Hornsby over .350

My view, this is an indication that over all pitching in black baseball was not on the same level as white MLB.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Much of the stats I have posted came from a book at the public library, I don't believe its still available for sale.
The Negro League Book
Edited by Dick Clark and Larry Lester.

[leecemark]

--I suspect those stats are not very reliable. Alot of data has been collected on the Negro Leagues in recent years and an out of print book, which FWIW I've never heard of, is almost certain to be behind the curve.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I didn't toss around numbers. I suggested a statistical analysis based on how players did in the '46 Mexican vs. the major leagues. That's much more valid analytically than citing league batting averages as proof of skill level.

I did not mean to and I don't believe I singled out you or any poster in particular, just a general observation.


With short seasons you'll have extreme stats. That doesn't negate any kind of MLE-style analysis.
I understand that but how short could they be. Compare them to the almost 100 years of World Series play, thats short, really short 4 to 7 games. Seldom will you see a batter in a WS with at least 25 at bats that can match some of those season batting averages in black baseball. I'm sure those seasons were longer than 7 games.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--I suspect those stats are not very reliable. Alot of data has been collected on the Negro Leagues in recent years and an out of print book, which FWIW I've never heard of, is almost certain to be behind the curve.
I'll be on the look for that one. In the mean time I stick to my view. All the evidence to this point looks clear to me, MLB pitching on a day to day basis was on a higher level than black baseball.

I gave some numbers on how blacks that played black and minor league baseball and over all they hit for 19 points lower in AAA ball than they did in black baseball.

I gave some numbers on how blacks that played both black and MLB and they hit for 40+ points lower in MLB than they did in black baseball.

I did note that the numbers may be skewed some because the difference in at bats in black baseball, minor leaugue baseball and MLB had some wide gaps, but still show some indication of the level of pitching.

Why would it be difficult to understand the gap in the level of over all pitching. We know that black teams had lean pitching staffs, hardly any scouts and at times used infielders or outfielders as starting pitchers. At times a pitcher would pitch one game early in the day take a bus ride to another site and then pitch another game.

Buck O'Neil who spent years in black baseball himself commented on this. His words, there were some black pitchers the equal of some white MLB pitchers but over all black pitching was not on the same level as MLB pitching.

[Bench 5]

--I suspect those stats are not very reliable. Alot of data has been collected on the Negro Leagues in recent years and an out of print book, which FWIW I've never heard of, is almost certain to be behind the curve.

I have John Holway's "Complete Book of Baseball's Negor Leagues" out from the library. The book was printed in 2001. Here are the all time NL hiiting leaders per his book:

Over 2,000 ABs
Jud Wilson .354
John Beckwith .352
Josh Gibson .351
Bullet Joe Rogan .348
Mule Suttles .341
Oscar Charleston .340
Pop Lloyd .337
Fats Jenkins .337
Cristobal Torriente .336
Buck Leonard .335

For Under 2,000 ABs
Chino Smith .434 (694)
Larry Doby .384 (581)
Lazaro Salazar .382 (338)
Artie Wilson .377 (863)
Pancho Coimbre .377 (616)

He has Monte Irvin with a .345 average (1045 Abs) and Roy Campanella at .307 (610 Abs).

[yanks0714]

[QUOTE=blackout805]
I did see some stats a while back and saved them, I will search for them and post them. It was the batting averages of some who played in black baseball compared to how some did in white integrated minor league baseball and also compared to how they did in MLB.

Interesting numbers. Some of those players were pretty darn good particularly that fellow named Mays. :-)

This is a case in point when I see some posters rating Oscar Charleston up there with Ty, Willie, Tris, Mick, and JoeD. I have no doubt that Charleston was an absolute talent. But rate him above some of those guys is stretching it a bit. He unfortunately never got his chance in integrated MLB. But the fact is that he compiled his numbers against what is considered by most to be lesser pitching than was in MLB.
I actually dislike taking this side of the discussion but some are buying into the 'legend' of these players who never got the chance to prove their worth in MLB, of whose stats are sketchy at best, who played year round in numerous leagues, and of whom have been a bit romanticized by time.
Josh Gibson hit 900+ HRs??? Where is the documented proof of this? Where?

[yanks0714]

" Against what pitchers? Top line hurlers? Don't forget it was exhibition games where the ML players may not have been bearing down. Plus I doubt the ML teams playing the exhibitions qualified as an All-Star team. "

Well then I guess it is pure speculation, we'll never know who he faced.

But did you read the comment walter johnson made of gibson ?

" Of course, Ol' Satch isn't quite qualified to make that statement. he didn't pitch in the ML's either...so how could he really know?
A more accurate statement could have been, "He was the greatest Negro League hitter who ever lived." "

Actually satch won ROY at age 43.
This was the text of my post:

Of course, Ol' Satch isn't quite qualified to make that statement. he didn't pitch in the ML's either...so how could he really know?
A more accurate statement could have been, "He was the greatest Negro League hitter who ever lived."

It saddens me that Satch and Josh did not get to play in MLB (at least Paige got a taste of it albeit well after his prime). It also saddens me when I see well-versed baseball fans and historians 'accept' as gospel what cannot be proven through statistical record keeping and rely on what very well could be a degree of exaggeration.

[yanks0714]

--I don't think anyone (and certainly most of us) are saying the level of play was as high in the Negro Leagues as it was in MLB. I agree that the pitching was further away from MLB quality than the hitting as well. The best Negro League hitters would not have hit well over .400 in the majors as they did in the Negro Leagues. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have been amoung the best. The weight of evidence says the best Negro Leaguers were as good (or better) than the best MLB players, even if the league as a whole was not.
I don't think anybody is saying that the 'stars' of the NLs wouldn't have been stars in MLB. I tend to believe that they would have been. But their stats would not have been nearly as gaudy as they were in the NLs.

The biggest problem I have is people taking the NL stars stats, compiled exclusively in the NLs, and using that draw conclusions of how good they were overall.

An example is the poster who claims Oscar Charleston was possibly ahead of Willie Mays and Ty Cobb. Based on what? Sketchy statistics compiled in the NLs against what is generally considered 'lesser' pitching and stories where people are quoted as saying they were "great". It's this type of 'legend' and hoopla that people run with where I have a problem.

Maybe Charleston was better than Willie and Ty. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was the 5th best. Or the 10th best. Or the 20th best. We simply don't know because he never got to display his skills in integrated MLB.

[leecemark]

--It seems we more or less agree on the quality of the Negro Leagues and its best players. I also agree we can't rate them with the same precision (which in itself is hardly precise) as major leaguers. I think its worth the effort anyway.
--I am a little more conservative than some though. I can't see Charleston higher than 4th - and as low as 6th amoung CFers. I've got Gibson 3rd amoung catchers and Lloyd 3rd amoung SS. I've got Stearnes 6th amoung LFers (and could see him a slot lower behind Delahanty) and only a few other Negro Leaguers as contenders for the all time top 10s at their positions. The Negro League pitchers I'm even more sceptical of, with only Paige and Williams in my top 25 (or possibly even top 50).

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I have John Holway's "Complete Book of Baseball's Negor Leagues" out from the library. The book was printed in 2001. Here are the all time NL hiiting leaders per his book:

Over 2,000 ABs
Jud Wilson .354
John Beckwith .352
Josh Gibson .351
Bullet Joe Rogan .348
Mule Suttles .341
Oscar Charleston .340
Pop Lloyd .337
Fats Jenkins .337
Cristobal Torriente .336
Buck Leonard .335

For Under 2,000 ABs
Chino Smith .434 (694)
Larry Doby .384 (581)
Lazaro Salazar .382 (338)
Artie Wilson .377 (863)
Pancho Coimbre .377 (616)

He has Monte Irvin with a .345 average (1045 Abs) and Roy Campanella at .307 (610 Abs).

Thats where the problem comes in, too many different numbers. This is why it's so difficult to make an accurate evaluation of black hitters.I have seen almost half a dozen different numbers for Gibson's career batting average and home runs. Some in the .370s, some in the .350s and one as high as .381, which one is correct. His career home runs, I've seen 932, 908, 881 and then some in the 700s. I have never seen any compilation of what is known at this point that gives him more than 230 to 250. Myself, I'm sure those 230-250 numbers are too low.

I'm getting away from the point I was trying to drive home, one that can be seen when comparing those blacks that played in black baseball, AAA minor leagues and MLB. The numbers show that on average there is significant difference, most, almost all hit higher in black baseball than MLB and even AAA minor league baseball. It's the pitching and thats the point that should always be considered when we speak of batting averages of the best in black baseball.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I have John Holway's "Complete Book of Baseball's Negor Leagues" out from the library. The book was printed in 2001. Here are the all time NL hiiting leaders per his book:

He has Monte Irvin with a .345 average (1045 Abs) and Roy Campanella at .307 (610 Abs).
This is what I have compiled by SABR

Irvin .345 and 850 at bats.
Campy .334 and 629 at bats.
Not a big deal, your source may be correct, any way they are close, but again, different numbers and the difference gets bigger when we go back further than those two who played black baseball near the half century mark

[leecemark]

--The 200 something HR are those documented in Negro League games for Gibson. The 800-900 are estimates based on his HR in all games. Since those include exhibitions against all levels of talent, some just town teams, as well as Mexican League and Winter Leagues the number is not very meanfull even if true. What does appear to be true is he was the best power hitter and perhaos the best hitter period of the Negro Leagues, Acheiving that from the catcher position is impressive whatever the actual numbers might be.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

On Gibson, think this one over.For those that believe he actually did hit 900+ home runs consider the following. Here is a player who hit more home runs than Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds who all hit the 700 club at the age of 39 and Gibson dided at the age of 35.

While he may have started playing at a young age, still to hard to believe, almost 150 more home runs than Aaron and almost 200 more home runs than Babe and Barry and never reached the age of 36.
Then we hear that he may have played 200 games in some seasons and that makes it possible, 900+ career home runs. When his high career batting average is taken to task we hear that it's possible because some seasons were so short.

It can't be both ways consider 200 game seasons and accept the fact thats why 900 is believable.

Accept some of his .370+ career batting average sources because of the short seasons and not that many career at bats.

This is the problem, too many different numbers, different sources we just don't know all the numbers, which are correct.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--The 200 something HR are those documented in Negro League games for Gibson. The 800-900 are estimates based on his HR in all games. Since those include exhibitions against all levels of talent, some just town teams, as well as Mexican League and Winter Leagues the number is not very meanfull even if true. What does appear to be true is he was the best power hitter and perhaos the best hitter period of the Negro Leagues, Acheiving that from the catcher position is impressive whatever the actual numbers might be.

Well I was writing up my previous post( post #84) and did not read this post of yours till I had already posted mine. I see we do agree that the number of home runs is not that meaningful since some were hit in games out of black baseball, exhibition and some in winter ball.

[leecemark]

--Nevermind then

[Sashag]

I am a Huge Mike Piazza fan/supporter, and have been ever since he started playing, but I have to take Josh Gibson over Piazza. Gibson could field, hit- do everything! If there was ever proof that Gibson was better, what other ballplayer was ever called, "the black Babe Ruth?"

[538280]

I am a Huge Mike Piazza fan/supporter, and have been ever since he started playing, but I have to take Josh Gibson over Piazza. Gibson could field, hit- do everything! If there was ever proof that Gibson was better, what other ballplayer was ever called, "the black Babe Ruth?"

I have Gibson over Piazza, but Gibson was never known as a great fielder and was a horrible runner for his whole career. Piazza probably would have received similar accolades to Gibson if he had played in the Negro Leagues.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Gibson or Piazza? This is a tough question. Since most of us have seen Piazza play it's tough because we see all of Piazza, his strengths and his weaknesses. We never hear about Gibson's weaknesses since very little is written about that. This has the effect on inflating Gibson's "value" somewhat. Also, I believe Piazza is underrated here at BBF. But the man was an awesome hitter. Check out his career line.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/piazzmi01.shtml

His 1997 season was simply awesome

.362/.431/.638, 40 HR, 124 RBI, 104 R, 201 H, 186 OPS+

Are you fricking kidding me! Yes, Piazza played in an offensive era but he played his prime years in extreme pitcher's parks. I have a hard time believing that Gibson could have had seasons that would have dwarfed Mike's 1997 season. I tend to believe Gibson could have had seasons simliar to Mike's 1997 season but certainly not significantly better.

[Blackout]

Gibson would've been the first catcher to ever slug .700 before

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Gibson would've been the first catcher to ever slug .700 before

Seems like a pretty safe prediction. How slow was he? Much of his SA would have had to come from running out doubles and triples regularly. Could he have stretched it?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Gibson would've been the first catcher to ever slug .700 before
I'm not so sure. Even Piazza never really got close to slugging .700. And I don't see Gibson being any better than Pizza as a hitter.

[538280]

Gibson could have definitely gotten lots of doubles, but he would have to have some real good luck and friendly scorekeeping (fielders misplaying the ball) to get a triple.

Gibson was probably very similar to Jimmie Foxx as a hitter, but he probably wouldn't have posted numbers quite like Foxx's because of the wear and tear catching gave to the body.

Piazza's 1997 is a real tough standard, but I could see Gibson matching it in his best seasons and his normal season being more like Piazza's 1995 and 1996. It also has to be remembered with the catching equipment of the time it would be hard for Gibson to play 125+ games consistently, which may be a positive in his quest for a .700 slugging season.

[Mischa]

Gibson could have definitely gotten lots of doubles, but he would have to have some real good luck and friendly scorekeeping (fielders misplaying the ball) to get a triple.

I love when people don't bother checking the statistical record before downplaying Josh's skills, but Gibson was a pretty darned good triples hitter, just like Foxx and Ruth (players with similar speed and strength). In 1932, he was second in the East-West League in triples, trailing only Oscar Charleston. In '33, he was second in the Negro National League in triples, behind Charleston. He tied for third in the NNL in 1934. In 1937, he tied Wild Bill Wright for the NNL triple lead. He also tied for the Dominican League lead in triples that year. In 1938, he was part of a five-way tie for the NNL triple lead. In 1939, he tied for third in the NNL. In bad physical shape at age 32, he still was tied for 5th in the NNL in triples in 1943 and then led the league in 1944 with 12, five more than anyone else. In 1945, he was still third in the NNL, only two off of the lead. In his last season, terribly out of condition and 35 years old, he tied for second in the league - only Larry Doby beat him, by 2. So we have three league leaderships in triples, counting only US-based leagues, another three times as the runner-up and another two times in the top 3. So we have 8 top-3 finishes in his 16 seasons. I think that shows that Gibson was an excellent triples hitter. Next time, will people please view the record before either blasting or lauding Gibson inappropriately.