Record Books To Be Rewritten As MLB Adopts Negro League Stats

Superior players stats posted.
Not entirely true. That would mean that every player in the Negro Leagues were many times better than the then Major Leagues. A percentage could have made the Major Leagues from that era. So those stats could be padded. Of course, it does not matter anymore as the sport destroyed the sanctity of old men talking about who was great when they started with the strikes and free agency turned it into rent a player.
 
Fine...but where is the consistency in the keeping of the statistics? Who kept the stats for the Negro League games as opposed to the MLB games?
what does it matter?.....their stats were no different than MLB with as many games played which was around 70 games give or take some,no outrageous stats.......and the league ended like 70 years ago....
 
what does it matter?.....their stats were no different than MLB with as many games played which was around 70 games give or take some,no outrageous stats.......and the league ended like 70 years ago....
Records are recorded in different leagues to be kept separately. No records should ever be combined like this, its oil and water. That is what matters.
MLB has accepted this farce, that is what matters.
 
Last edited:
Gibson now replacing the racist Ty Cobbs record is priceless.
No one questions how great a player Josh Gibson was, or the systemic racism that kept Black players from playing in the Majors 100 years ago. But this is an absurd rewriting of history. Why not make Sadaharu Oh the all-time home run leader with 868 home runs even though he only played in the Japanese leagues? That would be just as ridiculous.
 
No one questions how great a player Josh Gibson was, or the systemic racism that kept Black players from playing in the Majors 100 years ago. But this is an absurd rewriting of history. Why not make Sadaharu Oh the all-time home run leader with 868 home runs even though he only played in the Japanese leagues? That would be just as ridiculous.
Exactly.
 
so what, the Baseball Reference guide lets you know where and when they played and who they played for....and in spite of what skewy says when you look at the guide you can see how many games they played....and any baseball fan will say 3,000 games trumps 600 games....for the top number.....
At only 600 or so games, would they even realistically qualify for a place in the record books? You do have to have a minimum number of at bats, plate appearances, etc.
 
At only 600 or so games, would they even realistically qualify for a place in the record books? You do have to have a minimum number of at bats, plate appearances, etc.
no ...they are doing what they did with the old timers from the 1800's.....they shouldnt be there for the same reason....most dont have enough games played.....its all done for comparisons......cobb for the amount of games he played is still number one.....and you can see all this in the registers stats....
 
no ...they are doing what they did with the old timers from the 1800's.....they shouldnt be there for the same reason....most dont have enough games played.....its all done for comparisons......cobb for the amount of games he played is still number one.....and you can see all this in the registers stats....
It's classic over compensation for the way things were centuries in the past.
 
444481154_969069978557640_3250492088675154927_n.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top