Quote:
Originally Posted by diesel230
Pelican, i don't think anyone is challenging the idea that the players weren't talented. It's the amount of games, the talent level of some of these barnstorming teams they played and the fact that a lot of these games were exhibition in nature. On top of of all that, the statistics and record keeping were shoddy at best. Saying "Seamheads" for some reason seems to mean with 100% certainty that Hoss Walker went 1 for 4 in August of 1941, even though a quick search will show that even the people accumulating the Negro League Stats say its not very accurate.
The new ERA season leader is based off of 28 innings. You know that small a sample size throws the whole thing off.
|
Okay, understood. BTW I did not mean to be "snarky" or those other things you said - if that was directed to me. My apologies to you and others on the forum, if I came off that way. It was not my intent to belittle anyone or to lose my sense of humor. You make valid points, and I don't mean to question your sincerity or integrity or sense of humor, either!
My understanding is that the stats against barnstorming teams are not included in those now deemed official by BaseRef and MLB. There was an effort to limit the stats to games played between the various Negro League teams, even though the schedule was not balanced, and (like MLB at the time) there was a considerable difference between good and bad League teams.
If the barnstorming stats were included, there would be plenty of games played, but games played against semi-pro and town teams would be misleading and not equivalent in quality of opposition to MLB schedules. So we have the limited sample size of League games against equivalent opposition.
With respect, I think you underestimate the value of the painstaking work that has been done in accumulating stats from various sources, and thus the ultimate reliability of the stats compiled by Seamheads. Actually, for Negro League games, it is possible to know that a given player went 1 for 4 in a League game, and who the opposing pitcher was, where the game was played, lineups, pitchers. Records include doubles, triples, stolen bases, total errors. It becomes harder to calculate fielding chances, assists, putouts, errors by player. That's a weakness.
Was the Negro League record keeping up to MLB standards of the time? Of course not. Hence the effort to sift through box scores and accounts in the newspapers of the day and team records. And there are still some gaps, particularly in the early days. Point taken. We work with what we have found.
Agreed 100% that a sample size of 28 innings is too small for calculated stats like ERA. The same would hold true for batting averages in only 28 games. Sure, those figures provide a window into how good (or not) players were; but over a limited period. Anyone, with the possible exception of me in middle school, can go on a hot streak. In a long season, everybody regresses to the mean. Career stats are more meaningful, due to the large sample size. And of course Negro League players suffer by comparison for cumulative stats, due to far less games played. We all could debate a long time about how to make the comparison. Which is part of the fun, for me.
For example, this debate has motivated me to work on a database of post-season head-to-head matchups between/among MLB and Negro League players, including Winter Leagues with mixed teams. For some years, we have dozens of games with good box scores played in MLB stadiums before large crowds. To me it's a great, largely untold, story. Those involved (some white stars refused to play blacks) simply shelved the prevailing racism for a month or so. Money, I would imagine, prevailed over bigotry.
These matchups continued over decades, from the early 1920's to the late 1940's. They are the only "crossover" evidence of head-to-head competition we have. Yes, the sample size is small, compared to a MLB (or Negro League) regular season. But this evidence can't be ignored, as it provides a statistical "check" on how these players measured up versus one another.
I hope you'll forgive me for questioning your motives. I actually don't think we are far apart on this. I'm overjoyed to see the available stats recognized; but even I would take them with a grain of salt. The HTH evidence suggests that grain would be small; but we will never really know for sure. So we'll keep talking about it, right?