Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post
    Umm no, that is not true. The actual size of the voting population is VERY relevant. Random sampling is of course a must but randomly asking millions of people WILL give you more valid data than just hundreds.
    Validity, iirc, corresponds to whether the actual results correspond to the stated results of the test. E.g., if I say that 1,000 random people voted 53% for X with a margin of error or +/- 3%, my result is valid if in fact that is what the test actually tested for and if the sample actually measured the population in the way I stated.

    OTOH, If I ask 300 million people a question and that question is phrased in such a way as to be confusing then my results are invalid. Or if I ask 100,000 people and they are not random my results are invalid if I claim that they are random. More counting does not mean more valid.

    However if the sample is properly sized and truly random, and the test structured properly, the result can be valid. The only thing you get if you take a larger random sample is a reduced margin of error and perhaps a slightly more accurate estimate of the underlying population. Unless you ask everyone, both measures will still have errors, but if your sampling and testing are done correctly both are valid.

    Statistics, again from memory, has no metric that indicates a result is MORE valid. E.g., you may have a 95% CI with a smaller sample or 99% CI with a larger sample. They can both still be equally valid.
    Last edited by drstrangelove; 02-15-2015, 02:46 AM.
    "It's better to look good, than be good."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stolensingle View Post
      Do you really think that no one in the history of the Negro Leagues would have been a top 10 hitter in MLB history? Because Gibson was the consensus best hitter in the NeL, and if he wasn’t better than Piazza, then I guess no one was, and that means no one was in the top 10.
      If you actually believe that they exist, you only need evidence to pinpoint who to choose. You only need enough proof to identify who among the players are the great ones.


      If I have a living room and 5 people are in it while I am out in the kitchen and I hear a lamp fall and come back into the room, barring aliens, earthquakes, invisible bees, sunspots etc., I know that one of the 5 knocked or threw the lamp down. I only need evidence as to who might have done it.

      1) I am told by each of the 4 people that the 5th person did it and he admits it. But I disregard that because....well, people's opinions are next to worthless (some people consider opinions from Wagner, Johnson, Campanella, Paige, Dean, Durocher's et al worthless)
      2) I am told that the 5th person is the only person whose DNA is on the lamp. But I disregard that because....well, DNA tests are not always conclusive because some one may have fabricated the evidence (some people claim that reporters "lied" about the games)
      3) I am told that there is a camera in the room and the video shows person # 5 tossing the lamp to the floor. But I disregard that because there is no sound on the video and the video has the wrong time stamp. It's got unacceptable errors. ("some" box scores are missing)

      In short, I claim to believe that one of the 5 broke the lamp, but I refute everything that in fact pinpoints exactly who the person is. In fact each piece of evidence matches each other piece of evidence, but I disregard that as well.


      All this says is that: I require absolute certainty. That's a pretty high standard. Absolute certainty for example dwarfs any standard used or ever used in any criminal courtroom. Absolute certainty dwarfs what investors use around the world when they invest. It dwarfs what doctors use when they operate and prescribe. It dwarfs what engineers use when they construct. It dwarfs what almost everyone uses in their personal lives when they date, get married, have children.

      "Absolute certainty is belief beyond any possible doubt (not just reasonable doubt, as in criminal trials in the U.S.)."

      'As Matt Dillahunty of the Austin television show The Atheist Experience points out, "absolute certainty is a red herring" because there are so few things (perhaps none) that can rise to that degree of belief.'
      http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...lute_certainty

      And the question is: why would a person who believed for a fact that great players were in the NeL use a standard so high that no player in the NeL could ever reach it? IMO, it's a red herring. Red herrings aren't always intentional and in fact often aren't. People use them sometimes without knowing that is what they are doing.

      The people who believe that there were great players in the NeL, pick the ones that they feel were the best (i.e., use their judgement.)


      "Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one."
      — Voltaire
      Last edited by drstrangelove; 02-15-2015, 04:23 AM.
      "It's better to look good, than be good."

      Comment


      • It was either Dick Allen or Hal Chase that broke the lamp. But you'd better ask Bill James why Pete Rose Couldn't have. A baseball setting for the game of Clue so to speak.


        Small sample doesnt mean Bad sample size. Just not enough info. Give Josh Gibson or Suttles 400-500 at bats against Mlb. Would that be enough?

        Maybe we should ask 'could Piazza have thrown out Cool Papa Bell'. I think we know the answer to that.
        Last edited by Bucketfoot; 02-15-2015, 03:06 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
          All this says is that: I require absolute certainty. That's a pretty high standard. Absolute certainty for example dwarfs any standard used or ever used in any criminal courtroom. Absolute certainty dwarfs what investors use around the world when they invest. It dwarfs what doctors use when they operate and prescribe. It dwarfs what engineers use when they construct. It dwarfs what almost everyone uses in their personal lives when they date, get married, have children.

          "Absolute certainty is belief beyond any possible doubt (not just reasonable doubt, as in criminal trials in the U.S.)."
          But the thing is, with Piazza, we have absolute certainty, with Gibson we don't. So how can we make even a reasonably accurate comparison? Not to mention Piazza was probably juicing for at least part of his career. How does that skew the numbers?
          They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
            But the thing is, with Piazza, we have absolute certainty, with Gibson we don't. So how can we make even a reasonably accurate comparison? Not to mention Piazza was probably juicing for at least part of his career. How does that skew the numbers?
            For some reason, some just can't see the logic in that.
            So often we have seen on this board "some" claiming we can't really compare a great white MLB players from the early years to todays stars.

            The reason some state, baseball not integrated at that time, the game was different, the ball, other conditions, very little relief, very little not in competition with the best black players. Makes sense.
            Why is it different for Gibson, no fault of his own played in a league not integrated, not in competition with the best white players, different game, little relief pitching, different conditions.

            I could see a poll such as this, comparing Josh to one player.Even that is difficult.
            But some of the same making the claim, can't really compare early white MBL players for reasons above.
            But in the case of Gibson, some claim he is the greatest catcher ever.
            Where is the logic, early white greats, can't be compared, Gibson, he is the greatest catcher ever.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bucketfoot View Post
              It was either Dick Allen or Hal Chase that broke the lamp. But you'd better ask Bill James why Pete Rose Couldn't have. A baseball setting for the game of Clue so to speak.


              Small sample doesnt mean Bad sample size. Just not enough info. Give Josh Gibson or Suttles 400-500 at bats against Mlb. Would that be enough?

              Maybe we should ask 'could Piazza have thrown out Cool Papa Bell'. I think we know the answer to that.
              This is one of the great sublime posts in BB-F history.
              "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

              Comment


              • I think part of the problem here is that the term 'greater hitter' can be interpreted different ways. For instance, you can be a better rate hitter than another player, and yet he had longevity, so it's hard to say who was 'greater'. If Gibson had played one year in MLB and hit for a 200 OPS+ it would still be hard to say who was better, because Piazza was great for a full decade. Like I have said, it is difficult for anyone, let alone catchers, to maintain consistency and have longevity...and if you buy the stories that Gibson was playing 170 games per year for 15 years and hitting like Ruth consistently, then you are pretty gullible. Reality has to come into play at some point. Gibson might have been a 'better' hitter, but it is very unlikely he would have had the full offensive career that Piazza had...it takes luck as well as skill to do so.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
                  It's part of seamheads and BB-Ref's. conspiracy to elevate the NeL players. You should present at SABR. It would surely send shockwaves through the historical baseball community to find out that the two outlets most highly involved in the largest group historical research effort since the MacMillan encyclopedia are doing it under false pretenses, sly word play and outright lies. You can private message our own Brian McKenna and TonyK. They are involved. Surely once they know you're onto them the lies will stop.
                  Haha nice Blue. Love to sarcasm.

                  Seriously though. I've asked the same question to two different Negro League proponents, regarding to wording of "published" boxscores and no answer received.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bucketfoot View Post
                    Maybe we should ask 'could Piazza have thrown out Cool Papa Bell'. I think we know the answer to that.
                    The answer of course, is that Cool Papa would be standing on third already, while Piazza's throw is still on it's way to second. Duh.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                      For some reason, some just can't see the logic in that.
                      So often we have seen on this board "some" claiming we can't really compare a great white MLB players from the early years to todays stars.

                      The reason some state, baseball not integrated at that time, the game was different, the ball, other conditions, very little relief, very little not in competition with the best black players. Makes sense.
                      Why is it different for Gibson, no fault of his own played in a league not integrated, not in competition with the best white players, different game, little relief pitching, different conditions.

                      I could see a poll such as this, comparing Josh to one player.Even that is difficult.
                      But some of the same making the claim, can't really compare early white MBL players for reasons above.
                      But in the case of Gibson, some claim he is the greatest catcher ever.
                      Where is the logic, early white greats, can't be compared, Gibson, he is the greatest catcher ever.
                      Second time I posted this thought, second time no one takes it on.
                      Talk to me, maybe you can convince me, why some can evaluate some black players and conclude Gibson is the greatest catcher ever.
                      But, same situation with the white MLB players from the past, no integration, different conditions, little relief pitching, different game. How could we ever conclude any one white MLB player was the greatest, even compared to today players.

                      Spare me the endorsments, the same is said by many about and Ruth and Cobb they were the greatest but it's still debated and I could understand that, the game is so different. But some how, Gibson is the greatest catcher ever, thats the claim some make. Don't dare have a different view.
                      Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 02-15-2015, 09:34 AM.

                      Comment


                      • For those who absolutely doubt the quality of the Negro Leagues, and who will forever hang on a "lack of stats" as a reason to cast these men aside, here is the introduction from John Holway's 1975 book, Voices From the Great Black Baseball Leagues. I couldn't care less who is a "greater" hitter, as anyone can tell by the fact I won't vote here. However, I have all I can take with the attitude toward black baseball legends from the Negro Leagues, the laughing at the stats, the zingers against the level of competition, and the general negative attitude towards that exciting, rich and wonderful part of American baseball history.

                        Oh yeah, and before I forget, I should point out that at no time have I called anyone a racist for making those types of comments or posts. Unfortunately, it seems that needs to be said around here, before somebody pops in from left field making baseless accusations.

                        For everyone out there, posters or lurkers, who love baseball history in this country, I recommend that you begin the glorious journey into studying the Negro Leagues. I have taken the dive, after a trip to the Negro Leagues museum in Kansas City a couple years ago, and I am loving every minute of it. I am an enormous fan of Depression Era major league baseball, as well as the WWII decade, and after discovering the Negro League histories I feel like I opened up new doors to that world. Doors I didn't even notice were right there in front of me. Even more exciting tales of great baseball back in the days of when the game was being played all over the country -- when summer days were ruled by baseball. I had come across mention of barnstorming tours by some of my favorite pitchers like Dizzy Dean in the 1930s and Bob Feller in the 1940s, but this is even better.

                        If you love, well, let me rephrase that. If you have an unquenchable thirst for great baseball history in the earlier part of the 20th century, you will absolutely love researching the great Negro League teams and players. If you love American history from that same period, you will also not be disappointed. Anyway, enough of my drooling. Here is John Holway's introduction (pages xix to xxiv):

                        ************************************************** ************************************************** ****************************
                        Voices From the Great Black Baseball Leagues
                        by John Holway

                        Introduction: The Invisible Men

                        "As I look back on my career -- and it was wonderful to me, and I'm thankful that I was given the chance to play baseball; it's about the only thing I could do -- and I've thought many a time, what would have happened to me if I hadn't had a chance to play baseball? A chill goes up my back when I think I might have been denied this if I had been black." -- Ted Williams, accepting a brotherhood award at Howard University, 1971

                        The first time I saw Josh Gibson was on a humid Tuesday night in May of 1945 in the old, green-painted, ad-studded but intimate confines of Washington's Griffith Stadium. I was fourteen then. The park was a long ride by bus from my home in Alexandria to Washington, where we changed from the segregated Virginia bus -- whites in front, blacks in back -- and boarded the integrated Washington trolley. The stadium, long since fallen under the wrecker's ball, seemed a long ride from downtown then. Today the site is deep inside "the inner city."

                        Gibson was wearing the pin-stripe uniform of the old Homestead Grays, who were then working on their eighth of nine straight pennants in the Negro National League. Their bitter rivals, the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro American League, were in town for an interleague game, and the great Satchel Paige himself would pitch the first two innings, as he generally did, to draw a crowd.

                        And it was a crowd. The white paper, the Washington Post, had devoted two paragraphs to the game, more than its usual ration of news about the Grays, since, after all, Paige was in town. But the park was swarming with black fans, and every now and then a pink face or two, out to watch these two greatest players in black baseball, Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige, renew their long-standing warfare.

                        I remember crowding against the railing beside the Monarchs' dugout with a swarm of scorecard-waving kids to watch Satchel warm up, his big windmill windup reminiscent of Joe E. Brown in Elmer the Great. Across the field Gibson, warming up his own pitcher, looked round-faced and cheery, a beardless black Santa throwing his head back and chuckling at a dozen things that had touched his funny bone.

                        Josh didn't hit any home runs that night. And that's all I remember about the game, frankly. I'm not even sure what the score was, although I think the Monarchs won. The only other player I knew by name was the Grays' hard-hitting first baseman, Buck Leonard, sometimes dubbed "the black Lou Gehrig." The rest of the names were a blank to me.

                        Did Cool Papa Bell roam center field for the Grays? Did he steal a base that night? Did Hilton Smith come in to relieve Satchel and sew the game up as he had done for so many years? Did the veteran Newt Allen cavort at second base for the Monarchs?

                        Later these men became friends of mine. But that night I looked right at them and didn't even see them. Their names meant nothing to me. Like most fans of that day, I considered them semipro's, maybe AA minor leaguers at best. Otherwise, why would they get so little attention in the papers?

                        Six months later, a Monarch rookie, Jackie Robinson, was signed by the Dodgers, the Monarchs were in town again, and I returned to see them in a Sunday doubleheader. I remember Buck Leonard hitting a fly ball high against the right field wall, close to the spot I had seen Charlie Keller of the New York Yankees reach just a few days earlier. Too bad, I thought idly, that Leonard and Keller couldn't play on the same field so we could really compare.

                        Then I forgot about the subject, until some twenty-five years later, when I happened to read Satchel Paige's book, Maybe I'll Pitch Forever. Perhaps the story of the long dead Josh Gibson would be just as fascinating, I mused. I began calling people in the Washington area who might have known Gibson. One of the first men I was referred to was Leonard, living in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. I grabbed my tape recorder and two sons and drove down there. Buck referred me to Cool Papa Bell in St. Louis and Hilton Smith in Kansas City, so on my vacation I took the boys out West for more recorded talks. From there the trail fanned out.

                        For what I had stumbled on by accident was a virtually unexplored continent. The world of black baseball history was not a mere footnote to baseball history -- it was fully half of baseball history!

                        And maybe -- the thought was stunning -- the bigger half.

                        Soon I was collecting interviews the way other people collect stamps. I traveled to Harlem, to Newark, to Philadelphia and Baltimore. When my article on Gibson came out in the Washington Post, I got a surprise call from an old teammate of his right in my home town of Manassas, Virginia. I journeyed to Chicago, to Pittsburgh and York, Pennsylvania, to Atlanta, Jacksonville, Birmingham, Memphis, and Houston. I flew to Los Angeles, where I found a large fraternity of ex-players.

                        In terms of time, the journey took me through five decades, from players who had begun their careers in 1914 or before, to men who were still playing baseball in the fifties. They ranged in age from forty-five to over eighty.

                        Sociologically, I traveled from the worst, most soul-destroying ghettos, where former players ushered me into tenements swarming with roaches, to beautifully landscaped split-levels in the suburbs. (Most if the veterans, I'm happy to say, live comfortably, if modestly, in neat-well-kept neighborhoods.) I interviewed players in dingy Harlem bars, in posh downtown hotels, in hermits' cabins in the woods, and on the lovely lawn overlooking Glimmerglass Lake at Cooperstown.

                        Day by day, month by month, miles of stories would onto my tape reels. In all, I interviewed more than seventy veterans of the old "blackball days." Some of them have since died. Seeing a new obit in the Sporting News hurts keenly. But in a sense these men have not died. Their voices live and their memories are as vibrant on mytapes as when I first met them.

                        The tape recorder has revolutionized historical writing. Here is history come alive. The language is direct. Sentences are declarative and short. Adjectives are few. Similes abound. Humor is droll. The language is gentlemanly, in contrast to much modern-day sports reporting. No expletives were deleted, because few if any were used. Many of the stories are confirmed -- more drily, to be sure -- in the microfilm files of old Negro newspapers (and in some white papers) in the Library of Congress, where I also spent days upon days searching out the record. But the men themselves conjure up the past with a liveliness that no journalist could duplicate. When Ted Williams read Buck Leonard's interview in the Washington Star, he told Buck, "I knew that was a ballplayer talking, I knew it wasn't a writer."

                        What a pity I didn't start just five years earlier. I could have met, and preserved the priceless memories of, such legendary old-timers as John Henry "Pop" Lloyd, Raleigh "Biz" Mackey, Mule Suttles, Jud Wilson, Bullet Joe Rogan, Dick Lundy, and many more whose deaths had only recently stilled their tongues.

                        In 1970 I made a pilgrimage to Cooperstown, some twenty-four years after my first, boyhood visit. But it all seemed different this time. After strolling through the plaques of the gods -- Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson -- I climbed to the second floor office of Ken Smith, the curator. I told him I could no longer look at the Hall of Fame as I had as a boy because, I said bluntly, "You only have half a Hall of Fame here. It won't be complete until the great black players before Jackie Robinson are admitted."

                        I'm afraid I shocked him. It shocks all devout believers to be told that a fundamental article of faith is built on error. But I had learned what Smith, a longtime New York sportswriter, had not: The blacks were playing probably the most exciting -- yes, and very possibly the best -- baseball seen in America before 1947. Certainly they beat barnstorming white big leaguers more often than they lost. Between 1886 and 1948 I have uncovered newspaper box scores of 445 games between them. The blacks won 269, lost 172, and tied 4!

                        From Smith's office I strolled around the corner to the National Baseball Library, filled with row upon row of books on baseball history, and asked historian Clifford Kachline to see what material he had on black baseball. He led me to a bank of filing cabinets, opened a drawer marked "N" and pulled out one thin manila folder marked "Negro." Inside were half a dozen random newspaper paragraphs and my own article on Josh Gibson. That was all, except for a scorecard of the old Indianapolis Clowns (Hank Aaron's first team) illustrated with various comic costumes and poses.

                        In America's national baseball library, half the history of baseball was missing!

                        Even the much heralded Encyclopedia of Baseball, with over 2,000 pages and 100,000 lines, devoted not a single line to the hundreds of black men who were playing -- and beating -- the best of the white big leaguers. Men like Rube Foster, Oscar Charleston, Pop Lloyd, Smokey Joe Williams, Cool Papa Bell, and all the rest are simply not there.

                        Slowly this has changed. Kachline compiled a voluminous biographical file of Negro Leaguers. The Hall of Fame has admitted 11 Negro Leaguers -- although many more remain outside. It has given a corner of the museum to exhibits of the history of black baseball. The Society of American Baseball Research has a lively committee on the Negro Leagues, which is tracking down more interviews and new stats. The Macmillan Encyclopedia, the "complete and official record" of major league baseball, now includes lifetime stats on leading Negro Leaguers. Many books have now been written on the subject, including three more of my own, plus several TV documentaries. And Cooperstown welcomed several dozen black old-timers to a huge reunion in the summer of 1991, although it is still slow to admit them to the pantheon.

                        The fan who wants to know the full story of baseball in America must go beyond the voluminous but conventional histories and explore the rich and exciting new story of black baseball. Fans both black and white, young and old, will grasp, as I did, at their first glance at this as yet largely uncharted moonscape. Yet, like Tranquility Base, it has been there all the time, just waiting to be discovered.

                        Of course, the black vets got no pensions for their long service to the game. A few are still in baseball as scouts, but most were forced to start new careers after their playing days were over and have at least earned comfortable, if modest, retirement.

                        All are confident that they could have been big-league stars. "You just knew you were better than the major leaguers," says peppery little Jake Stephens, shortstop on the old Philadelphia Hilldales -- "you just knew it. Why, Chick Galloway of the Athletics didn't have anywhere near the range I had at shortstop. He couldn't carry my glove."

                        Should the black stars have raised black fists and demanded integration? Would such a tactic have worked? Probably not -- not given the world of thirty to forty years ago, not with the stern and unbending Kenesaw Mountain Landis in the baseball commissioner's chair. Instead of speeding integration, they might have set it back by decades. So they bit their lips and waited, and when the door was finally opened, they stepped back like Moses on Pisgah and watched the rookie, Jackie Robinson, walk through, while they remained outside, cheering him on.

                        Robinson, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron -- these and many more learned their baseball from the black stars of the past who had been their coaches. When they reached the majors, they were better prepared than most white rookies who had come up through the minors.

                        None of the black old-timers show any bitterness, however. But they all would agree with ex-catcher Joe Greene's quiet statement:

                        "I still say we did a lot for the game, even if nobody knows about us. They say Jackie Robinson paved the way. He didn't pave the way. We did."
                        "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                          Haha nice Blue. Love to sarcasm.

                          Seriously though. I've asked the same question to two different Negro League proponents, regarding to wording of "published" boxscores and no answer received.
                          Sorry, Sultan, I didn't see the posts from yesterday after I went to class. Then, my damn Triumph stranded me on the road forever with a busted throttle cable. That was not the way I envisioned wasting my Valentine's evening. . .

                          I don't know what the word "published" means in their account. I would agree with bluesky, but with using less sarcasm, to ask Brian McKenna. I haven't seen him around much lately, but he has been a great resource for me when I have tried to dig into some aspects in the game's history. He has a bunch of stuff, and can help direct us to answers, which is a researchers best friend! McKenna was even mentioned in the credits in one of the links badge posted about the Negro League stats. I would start with McKenna, if you are looking for a serious answer, he may know or be able to direct you to the answer. Also, I think it is TerryB (bluesky put TonyK) down in the Negro League Forum here who has been tracking a lot of the Seamheads advances in their research and posting of NeL stats.

                          That is the best I can do, help to direct you to some guys who may have answers -- or are at least much more knowledgeable about the stats research than I am. I hope you can find your answer.
                          "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                          Comment


                          • Herr, thats your opinion, that black players are being cast aside.
                            It's called a difference of opinion, thats not casting any player aside, not dismissing anyone.
                            It's evident to me, most members on the board and also my view, that some of the best and greatest players never had their chance because of skin color.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                              Herr, thats your opinion, that black players are being cast aside.
                              It's called a difference of opinion, thats not casting any player aside, not dismissing anyone.
                              It's evident to me, most members on the board and also my view, that some of the best and greatest players never had their chance because of skin color.
                              Yes, it is my opinion, and the opinion of others here too. I have never seen you put down the old black players, in fact you posted a very fine article and I for one would be happy to see more if you had the time. Those things are appreciated, and go a long way in increasing our shared knowledge of baseball history as well as increase the overall quality of the site. I have always liked the stuff you have brought in.

                              Opinions are opinions, and ranking games or "vs" threads like this one are not that important. Sometimes I play the games, sometimes I don't. This is a game that I am not playing. However, there have been discouraging remarks here about the Negro Leagues, the quality of payers, the stats and it is the same thing that keeps getting brought up. The tone in many of those posts is also quite obvious and unfortunate. This is a forum for discussing baseball history, and shouldn't be a place where we see such negativity.

                              To be honest, and I think most know this, I really don't care who wins these silly little games. My focus is on the history, and I find it hard to swallow some of the comments that have been made in this thread that cast the Negro Leagues and many of the players in such a bad light. That is why I took an hour or so to type out that introduction, hopefully to provide a resource or some motivation for some more people (our members here or those visitors interested in baseball history or the Negro Leagues) to expand their knowledge of baseball history. That can be done without all the negativity.
                              "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
                                This is one of the great sublime posts in BB-F history.
                                Thank you, I guess?

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X