Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

[JR Hart]

1) Position players inducted into the Hall of Fame that played in 1947 season or later -53
Position players inducted into the Hall of Fame that played in 1947 season or later that were not white-29
% of non white players = 29/53= 55%


2) MVP awards won by both leagues since 1947 - 137
MVP awards won by both leagues since 1947 won by non-white players-57
% of non white players = 57/137= 42%


3) spanning years played for 1947-2014, career OPS+ of 130 or higher for any player, 3000 or more PA - 95
% of non white players = 41/95= 43%


4) Top 20 Career HR hitters since 1947 - 20
% of non white players = 12/20 = 60%


5) Top 20 Career RBIs since 1947 - 20
% of non white players = 15/20 = 75%


6) Top 20 Career Batting Averages since 1947 - 20
% of non white players = 10/20 = 50%


7) Top 20 Career Hits since 1947 - 20
% of non white players = 10/20 = 50%


8) Top 10 WAR for Position players by year for 1947-2013

  	    Nonwhite	Total	Non white%
2000-13	     56	         140	  40.0%
1990-99	     50	         100	  50.0%
1980-89	     43	         100	  43.0%
1970-79	     52	         102	  51.0%
1960-69	     57	         100	  57.0%
1954-59	     23	          60	  38.3%
	    281	         602	  46.7%

% of non white players is 281/602 =47%

Let's see:

1) 55%
2) 42%
3) 43%
4) 60%
5) 75%
6) 50%
7) 50%
8) 47%

We could do this all day. Total bases, wRC+, RC, Rbat, Runs scored, ASG MVP awards, ASG appearances, MVP total votes, Black Ink, HoF Monitor scores, etc. White players were not 100% of the best players in 1930-1946, or even 1901-1946. They weren't 65%. They have at best been 50% the entire time. We can all debate this, but we already have facts (data posted above for example) and a butt load of corroborating opinions from people like Wagner, Ruth, Durocher, Williams, DiMaggio, Paige, Hack Wilson, Dean, Feller, Walter Johnson, et al.

Yea. I think we know 50% is correct.

Of course, one could argue that Black players couldn't have done this before 1947. After all, it's a fact that, ummm, hmmm, urggggh----aliens.

Incredible cherry picking and discretionary use of numbers. You are very good at presenting such deception. Of course you are ignoring all kinds of context, sociological factors, rise of latin players, ect. But you can put up the numbers to suit your argument.

But, you still can't prove that a population that was 9.9% of America in 1920 and 9.8% in 1930, would make up 50% of the best players in baseball in those decades, when baseball ruled the landscape. I'm not buying it.

And since when do you put stock the MVP voting? That's a laugh.

There's a great deal of thinly veiled accusations (and some not so lightly veiled) of racism, both latent and overt, on this site and that's unfortunate. I think this a reflection of projection, it's easy to demonize those who disagree with us by accusing them of something they are not.

Thank you for saying this. it's really too bad, when someone's opinion is dragged into this nonsense.

[drstrangelove]

It's obvious from the most cursory examination that most records of the Negro Leagues are notoriously inconclusive. No doubt Josh Gibson was great. I couldn't find any info of his dominance in his league.

I was able to go to Seamhead's statistical web page and find out that Gibson had:

1) the highest slugging average ever
2) the 2nd highest wOBA ever
3) was tied for the highest OPS+ ever

This took me exactly 3 minutes including typing this post....and I am a very slow typist.


So when you said

"It's obvious from the most cursory examination that most records of the Negro Leagues are notoriously inconclusive" did you mean that


You didn't look. That would be the most cursory examination. Or did you mean you didn't look longer than 10 seconds because you already "knew" that "most records of the Negro Leagues are notoriously inconclusive."

[bluesky5]

Incredible cherry picking and discretionary use of numbers. You are very good at presenting such deception. Of course you are ignoring all kinds of context, sociological factors, rise of latin players, ect. But you can put up the numbers to suit your argument.

But, you still can't prove that a population that was 9.9% of America in 1920 and 9.8% in 1930, would make up 50% of the best players in baseball in those decades, when baseball ruled the landscape. I'm not buying it.

And since when do you put stock the MVP voting? That's a laugh.

You're a laugh. This post is so cliche. You're like a caricature of yourself. JR just can't wrap his mind around early 20th c. negro's making it in the white majors. He doesn't have enough evidence. Hilarious. I'm waiting for a buoyancy comment ala Buzzie Bavasi. By the way black folks only make up 13% of the population now.

---

To follow up on a previous post HoFer Ray Dandridge also hit better in AAA in his late 30's than he did in the Negro League's in his 20's:

NeL [ages 19-30]
713 PA|691 AB|102 R|214 H|28 doubles|11 triples|2 HR|38 RBI|13 SB|20 BB|.310/.329/.391/.720

Minor - all AAA [ages 36-38]
2210 PA|2066 AB|311 R|656 H|97 doubles|8 triples|35 HR|286 RBI|10 SB|135 BB|110 K|.312/.353/.411/.764

[drstrangelove]

Incredible cherry picking and discretionary use of numbers.

Cherry picking really?

1) HoF inductions
2) MVP awards
3) OPS+
4) HR
5) RBI
6) BA
7) H
8) WAR

Really? MVP awards, HR, RBI, BA and H make up 75% of the pro-Garvey argument. I guess I need ASG and games played to get to 95%. Okay, fair enough. Anything else for hitters like sacrifices, GB/FO ratios?


Let's hit all the key metrics for everyone and see how it looks.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What does Babe Ruth's legacy have to do with anything?

Because at every turn, posters attack him, his legacy, and those who are amateur historians on the man....they knock him to prop others when it's not needed. Badge makes excellent points.

Why the need for either side to go too far.

One side is acknowledging certain things. Reasonable things. The other side keeps tugging away, wanting far too much.

[Herr28]

I was able to go to Seamhead's statistical web page and find out that Gibson had:

1) the highest slugging average ever
2) the 2nd highest wOBA ever
3) was tied for the highest OPS+ ever

This took me exactly 3 minutes including typing this post....and I am a very slow typist.


So when you said

"It's obvious from the most cursory examination that most records of the Negro Leagues are notoriously inconclusive" did you mean that


You didn't look. That would be the most cursory examination. Or did you mean you didn't look longer than 10 seconds because you already "knew" that "most records of the Negro Leagues are notoriously inconclusive."

Good work. There is ample evidence of Gibson's dominance in the leagues he played in, and badge even quoted from a site where it describes his record-setting dominance in a league outside of the US. Also, that very page from the baseball-reference bullpen describes his 3rd place standing in NeL career BA (3 pts behind the leader, 1 behind #2), his second place standing in career home runs, and his first place standing in HR/AB (10.6) ahead of Mule Suttles at #2 with 13.6.

[bluesky5]

Cherry picking really?

1) HoF inductions
2) MVP awards
3) OPS+
4) HR
5) RBI
6) BA
7) H
8) WAR

Really? MVP awards, HR, RBI, BA and H make up 75% of your Garvey argument. I guess I need ASG and games played to get to 95%. Okay, fair enough. Anything else for hitters like sacrifices, GB/FO ratios?


Let's hit all the key metrics for everyone and see how it looks.

As you well know the National League went 33-9-1 in all-star games from 1950-87. Here are some more facts about the impact of black players once they were allowed to play in the NL & AL...
*Warning: The following is a factual account.

An excerpt from: A Tale of Two Leagues (Part Two: 1956-2003) by Steve Treder of The Hardball Times

Link to Part 1
Link to Part 2

"1956-1972: Reaping Different Harvests

The two leagues entered the era of racial integration with very different degrees of enthusiasm. Many more National League than American League organizations eagerly went after the black talent pool, scouting, signing, and developing players of color. By 1955, as we saw last time, the AL was deploying 10 players of color in significant roles (defined as at least 50 games for batters, and at least 50 innings for pitchers), while the NL had 21.

This gap quickly intensified. By 1960, the AL was making use of 17 black players, and the NL featured 38. Over the next decade, the American League finally began to seriously integrate, but was still unable to catch up: in 1965 the tally was 42 players of color in the AL, 57 in the NL; in 1970 it was AL 63, NL 82.

Moreover, the distinction was much more than a matter of quantity. After Larry Doby and Satchel Paige were signed by the Indians in 1947-48, no AL organization developed a player of color who would go on to the Hall of Fame until Rod Carew (Twins) and Reggie Jackson (A’s), both of whom entered the league in 1967.

By that year, NL teams had already brought 18 black Hall of Famers to the majors, including several who are widely considered to be among the greatest players of all time: Roy Campanella, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, and Joe Morgan.

In both quantity and quality, such a staggering inequity in new talent infusion couldn’t help but have a significant impact on the overall caliber of play. From the mid-to-late 1950s through at least the early 1970s, there’s little question that the National League was presenting generally better players and better teams than the American League."

[1905 Giants]

Just as an aside, Campanella is one of my favorite MLB players of all-time and I would dearly love to know how he would have done without his injury or segregation.

OK OOC moment done.

[Badge714]

Super cursory from Baseball-Reference.com: Gibson slugged .907 in 97 at bats in 1937 and he slugged .865 in 74 at bats in 1939. Wow! I wonder how that would have worked out in over 500 at bats. Ruth slugged .900 at home at the Polo Grounds for a half season. I'm a slower typist and this took 30 seconds. Ruth is the only player in the 20th century to slug over .800 over the length of a season, not once, but twice.

I was able to go to Seamhead's statistical web page and find out that Gibson had:

1) the highest slugging average ever
2) the 2nd highest wOBA ever
3) was tied for the highest OPS+ ever

This took me exactly 3 minutes including typing this post....and I am a very slow typist.


So when you said

"It's obvious from the most cursory examination that most records of the Negro Leagues are notoriously inconclusive" did you mean that


You didn't look. That would be the most cursory examination. Or did you mean you didn't look longer than 10 seconds because you already "knew" that "most records of the Negro Leagues are notoriously inconclusive."

[bluesky5]

Great post from a couple years back. Bolded and highlighted stuff is his doing...

This is from a study done in 2007:

A quick league strength study for the 50s and 60s, and my preliminary results are absolutely jawdropping. I looked at every position player who switched leagues between 1951 and 1968 (Mantle's career), a sample of 249 players. I took their rate in each season of batting wins per year, baserunning wins per year, and fielding wins per year, and added 8.7 to turn them into wins created per year. I then weighted each player by the harmonic mean of his playing time in the two seasons before and after the switch, giving 87 full seasons' worth of sample (where a player who plays every game in both the year before and after the switch is counted as 1.00). Finally, I took the ratio of their weighted performances before and after the switch. The ratio for batting wins was 1.092, for baserunning wins it was 1.001, and for fielding wins it was 1.007. This is, astonishingly, on par with the gap between the major leagues of 1944 and those of 1942/46. Notable examples:

Frank Robinson went from a 151 OPS+ in the 1965 NL to a 198 in the 1966 AL
Pete Runnels went from a 130 OPS+ in the 1963 AL to an 88 in the 1964 NL
George Strickland went from a 67 OPS+ in the 1951-52 NL to a 98 in the 1952-53 AL
Harvey Kuenn went from a 118 OPS+ in the 1960 AL to an 86 in the 1961 NL
Earl Torgeson went from a 96 OPS+ in the 1954-55 NL to a 120 in the 1955-56 AL
Dick Stuart went from an 81 OPS+ in the 1962 NL to a 126 in the 1963 AL, and then back from a 118 in the 1964 AL to a 101 in the 1965 NL
Moose Skowron went from a 115 OPS+ in the 1962 AL to a 60 in the 1963 NL, and then back to a 108 in the 1964 AL
Tommie Agee went from a 105 OPS+ in the 1967 AL to a 69 in the 1968 NL
Frank Howard went from a 111 OPS+ in the 1964 NL to a 138 in the 1965 AL
Roy Sievers went from a 143 OPS+ in the 1961 AL to a 117 in the 1962 NL
Lee Thomas went from a 128 OPS+ in the 1965 AL to a 70 in the 1966 NL

...and the list goes on and on. Overall, 152 of the 249 players and 53 of the 87 seasons' worth of playing time sampled (both 61%) improved upon switching from the NL to the AL or deteriorated upon switching from the AL to the NL, while the remaining 39% did the opposite.

Super cursory from Baseball-Reference.com: Gibson slugged .907 in 97 at bats in 1937 and he slugged .865 in 74 at bats in 1939. Wow! I wonder how that would have worked out in over 500 at bats. Ruth slugged .900 at home at the Polo Grounds for a half season. I'm a slower typist and this took 30 seconds. Ruth is the only player in the 20th century to slug over .800 over the length of a season, not once, but twice.

No one was attacking Babe Ruth. It's bad enough Sultan has to make up derogatory things about the Negro League's as a whole just because Gibson was nicknamed the "Black Babe Ruth." I realize you guys see that as a threat to your god and will go above and beyond the call to make sure we all never forget everyone else is a distant second to him always and forever. There are plenty of threads you guys can worship him in.

[drstrangelove]

Ruth slugged .900 at home at the Polo Grounds for a half season. Ruth is the only player in the 20th century to slug over .800 over the length of a season, not once, but twice.

At first, I wasn't sure what your point was since this thread is about Piazza and Gibson and no one had attacked Ruth. Then I got it!

I think your point is that Gibson was so much better a hitter than Piazza, that you need to bring in the big boys. And for that I agree with you. Gibson was far better than Piazza and the better comparisons are up the ladder, not down.

[1905 Giants]

OK, here's an interesting question: how would Piazza have hit in the NeL?

[JR Hart]

You're a laugh. This post is so cliche. You're like a caricature of yourself.

personal attack

JR just can't wrap his mind around early 20th c. negro's making it in the white majors.

I didn't say that. I said that they wouldn't make up HALF of the good players, in the 1920s and 30s, as was asserted by another poster.

I'm waiting for a buoyancy comment ala Buzzie Bavasi.

Now that is accusing me of racism, which has no place here. Piazza is winning the poll handily. Are all of the Piazza voters racist?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

OK, here's an interesting question: how would Piazza have hit in the NeL?

Witnesses say he hit 600 foot homers and boulders simply broke apart when getting within 10 feet of his forearms.

On top of that, he hits 1000 homers in pickup games and the consensus opinion is that Ruth and Williams can't sniff his jock.

[Los Bravos]

I agree that BOTH leagues were weaker compared to the intergrated leagues of the 1970's.

This is my main point in any of these discussions over the last week or so (and on the earlier occasions when we've discussed this.)

For all of the claims to reasonableness that I've seen from the side arguing against taking NeLers as seriously as some of us do, that seemingly indisputable fact apparently just will not go down with them.