Joe Nuxhall No Longer Recognized As The Youngest Player In MLB History

[westofyou]

If you want to pick nits here's another oddball thing that the Reds (andMLB) do every game. When an announcer mentions a NL record ( a Reds announcer mentions a Reds record) the only good thing back to 1893, even though the Reds were formed in 1882 and the NL in 1876.

Why do they do this?

Because Elias is the stats provider to the NL and their records only begin in 1893, leaving more than a decade of data on the floor, because they can and they did

[Ron Madden]

This is the story of a baseball prodigy who quickly flamed out, briefly stepped away from the game, toiled away in the Minors for years, eventually made it back to The Show and went on to become an icon in Cincinnati.

“I've told the story often,” Nuxhall said in an interview with the New York Times in 1976. “They were scouting my father. It was just playground ball in Hamilton [Ohio]. My father, who was about 36, was pitching for one team and I was on another. These two scouts came to Diamond No. 1 on this playground complex where we had a game already started.

“‘Where's Ox?’ they said. Everybody called my father Ox. ‘He's over on Diamond No. 3,’ somebody told them. ‘Who's that kid pitching?’ one of the scouts asked. 'That's Ox's son,' they told 'em.

“So they stayed and watched me and then they invited me to Cincinnati for a look. They offered my father a tryout, too, but he had five kids to feed and couldn't take the gamble. He was working in a plant that made locomotives and diesel engines.

Nuxhall, who was 14 at the time, attended a tryout at Crosley Field in the summer of 1943. Standing well over six feet tall and possessing a live left arm, he impressed Reds manager Bill McKechnie and was given an opportunity to travel with the team on a road trip to St. Louis.

“I pitched batting practice for three days in the Cardinal park at St. Louis,” Nuxhall later recalled.

Nuxhall didn’t sign with the club until February because he wanted to preserve his amateur standing for the basketball season.

“Nuxhall is a great prospect,” Cincinnati general manager Warren Giles told The Associated Press. “We are not signing him because of the war situation. Two other clubs wanted him, and he would have been signed, war or no war.”

Continue Reading Here
https://www.mlb.com/news/joe-nuxhall...-al-nl-history

[Mitri]

If Nuxhall is no longer the youngest to play MLB, then does that mean Jackie Robinson is no longer the first black person to play MLB?

Depends on of you can handle nuance as an adult with a brain.

[Bob Sheed]

Depends on of you can handle nuance as an adult with a brain.

Depends.

Can you you handle message board discussions without insults?

It's a fair question. Jackie Robinson was the first African American to play in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the modern era.

The modern era of baseball is generally considered to have started in 1901 with the establishment of the American League and its recognition as a major league, alongside the National League. This period marked the beginning of the structure and format of Major League Baseball as we know it today.

And Joe Nuxhall was the youngest person ever to play in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the modern era.

Nuxhall is most remembered for having been the youngest player ever to appear in a Major League game, pitching ⅔ of an inning for the Reds on June 10, 1944, at the age of 15 years, 316 days.

Negro leagues, any of the associations of African American baseball teams active largely between 1920 and the late 1940s, when Black players were at last contracted to play major and minor league baseball.

So... If Nuxhall is no longer the youngest to play MLB in the modern era, then how is Jackie Robinson still the first African American to play in Major League Baseball in the modern era?

[TRF]

Depends.

Can you you handle message board discussions without insults?

It's a fair question. Jackie Robinson was the first African American to play in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the modern era.



And Joe Nuxhall was the youngest person ever to play in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the modern era.





So... If Nuxhall is no longer the youngest to play MLB in the modern era, then how is Jackie Robinson still the first African American to play in Major League Baseball in the modern era?

More than a couple of posters answered this already.

[Chip R]

Wasn't there a guy who played in the old American Association debut at a slightly younger age than Joe?

[Bob Sheed]

More than a couple of posters answered this already.

Indeed they did, TRF. Indeed they did...

You can't just pick the answers you like though. Well... you can, and that absolutely tracks in 2024, but it doesn't lend well to message board discussion.

"Well, umm, because nuance" doesn't really cut it for me, or many others.

Honestly, it strikes me as yet another pseudo-Orwellian history rewrite, in a long line of pseudo-Orwellian history rewrites. And that's fine for the good feels, but doesn't lend well to any actual logic applied to it, nor wisdom gained from it. I illustrated one contradiction to that approach. There's more I'm sure.

My over-arching question, to which I am still waiting a generation or so to play out, is, if the history books, and all references to history, are rewritten to be more palatable and inclusive, did the bad things ever really happen? Stay tuned, I guess.

[westofyou]

Wasn't there a guy who played in the old American Association debut at a slightly younger age than Joe?

Fred Chapman, pitched for the the 1887 A's at age 15, one whole game... but then again, Elias doesn't do stats for the AA so we always hear about Joe.

[Roy Tucker]

I just wonder what they’re going to call the overarching name space of Major League baseball. MLB doesn’t really fit because that is/was the NL and the AL (although it wasn’t an official and legal and trademarked entity MLB till 1968). The Negro leagues weren’t part of that till the recent retrofit. Seems that there would be records that are AL, NL, MLB, Negro, and then the whole conglomeration.

From what I can tell, they will call it MLB but as a guy who had to worry about name space issues, if they call it MLB, then do the pre-merge MLB records get erased? Baseball-Reference calls them Major Leagues (plural). So maybe there are Major Leagues records, MLB records, Negro league records, NL and AL records, etc etc with Major Leagues being the umbrella under which they all exist? I dunno. I need to read up on this more.

[westofyou]

I just wonder what they’re going to call the overarching name space of Major League baseball. MLB doesn’t really fit because that is/was the NL and the AL (although it wasn’t an official and legal and trademarked entity MLB till 1968). The Negro leagues weren’t part of that till the recent retrofit. Seems that there would be records that are AL, NL, MLB, Negro, and then the whole conglomeration.

From what I can tell, they will call it MLB but as a guy who had to worry about name space issues, if they call it MLB, then do the pre-merge MLB records get erased? Baseball-Reference calls them Major Leagues (plural). So maybe there are Major Leagues records, MLB records, Negro league records, NL and AL records, etc etc with Major Leagues being the umbrella under which they all exist? I dunno. I need to read up on this more.

The term Major League Baseball leaks out of the group that formed "Organized Baseball" back in the early 20th Century. It essentially was the representatives of clubs that played in leagues across the nation that all agreed to operate under the same rules and to honor the contracts of other clubs and leagues. Often there are rogue leagues that don't play along (California League in the first decade of the 20th Century, the post-war Mexican League as well) Players that played for these leagues would be banned from the rest of the leagues that all were buddies (MLB) and would have to reapply if they wanted back in. Initially the Federal League was an outlaw league and decades after their demise it was decided that the numbers in that league would count (Hi Edd Roush, Reds hero and Fed League Carpetbagger)

[bucksfan2]

We know the upper levels of the Negro League, of course. Aaron, Mays, Minoso, Doby, Banks, Campanella, Jackie Robinson all belong among the greatest players in the history of the sport. They'd have been stars in the 1920s, 1940s, or 1960s. The guys just below that are often shortchanged, though. Junior Gilliam, Luke Easter, Al Smith, Elston Howard, even Monte Irvin (a deserving HoF, IMO) get short shrift. They were very good Negro Leaguers who ended up being very good major leaguers when given a chance. Often, they weren't given those chances until they were past their prime, of course. And they all had to tear down the minor leagues before being given that chance.

I find this fascinating. During the era of the Negro Leagues, baseball was the most popular sport in this country. Kids all over the country were playing baseball, I would imagine little leagues were popular as they have ever been. But you had an entire race that was not allowed to play in MLB. The top tier of the Negro Leagues was probably as good if not better than many of their counterparts over in MLB. The issue was the depth of talent, the investment in the league, the infrastructure of the league. Its a shame that a lot of the household names you hear today never had much of a shot to play in MLB until they were past their prime. What would have happened had Jackie Robinson been able to play in his early 20's? How about Josh Gibson given a shot to play in MLB? I am sure had the MLB players had to face Satchel Paige in his prime their numbers wouldn't look so good against him.

So what do we do with all the data from the Nergo Leagues? Do we apply a factor to that data because the Negro Leagues weren't as good as MLB? It sure would have been fun to see Ted Williams face off against Satchel Paige in their primes. We glorify guys like Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio, who rightfully deserved it, but we also ignore the fact that there was an entire race of people that they didn't compete against.

[TRF]

Indeed they did, TRF. Indeed they did...

You can't just pick the answers you like though. Well... you can, and that absolutely tracks in 2024, but it doesn't lend well to message board discussion.

"Well, umm, because nuance" doesn't really cut it for me, or many others.

Honestly, it strikes me as yet another pseudo-Orwellian history rewrite, in a long line of pseudo-Orwellian history rewrites. And that's fine for the good feels, but doesn't lend well to any actual logic applied to it, nor wisdom gained from it. I illustrated one contradiction to that approach. There's more I'm sure.

My over-arching question, to which I am still waiting a generation or so to play out, is, if the history books, and all references to history, are rewritten to be more palatable and inclusive, did the bad things ever really happen? Stay tuned, I guess.

So. If the history books exist. If MLB recognizes the Negro League as a top league, just as they did with other leagues like the AA, I'm not seeing your point.

No sane person looks at society today and ignores the sins of the past. The Civil Rights act didn't make it so slavery did not exist. it recognized the inherent value in all people as equal. At least that was the intent. Jackie Robinson breaking a very real color barrier in the 20th century does not mean he was necessarily the first person of color to play professional baseball. Here is an obvious example: https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...horpji01.shtml

Everyone can pick nits about excluding this, that or the other. The point is simple. Men in the Negro League were NOT allowed in MLB, not because of ability, but because of color. Many later were after Jackie Robinson. Some had HOF careers. It's weird to me you are making the argument that they should not be included because it waters down history, when their inclusion actually shines a light on it that was off for so long.

[RedsBaron]

The records of Major League Baseball, however defined, have seemed more meaningful to fans than the records of other pro sports. Most fans seem to accept that NFL rules have been so changed that you cannot really compare the passing ability of Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes to Sammy Baugh or Johnny Unitas by just looking at their respective passing percentages or TD passes thrown; it's a different game now than in the 1940s and 50s. Baseball is different-it is more stats driven than any other American pro sport. Fans seek a constancy that doesn't always exist.
I've long found it in a way funny that most fans do not recall the game in which Pete Rose broke Ty Cobb's career hits record. It was the game on September 8, 1985 at Wrigley Field when Rose broke Cobb's record with career hit no. 4,190. At the time, fans (including me) thought Cobb held the career mark with 4,191 hits. It was later discovered that Cobb actually had "only" 4,189 hits. When Pete later collected hit no. 4192 at Riverfront, he was already the career hits leader.
The records will always be imperfect. Josh Gibson now holds the career batting average instead of Cobb. It is and probably always will be impossible to state with any certainty which man would have had the higher career average had they played in the same era in the same ballparks against the same opponents and pitchers. Gibson and Cobb were both great players. I have no idea who was better.
Edit:
I read somewhere that Gibson was listed as the career leader in batting average. However, when I looked at Baseball Reference.com I saw it had Cobb in first at .366 with Oscar Charleston second at .365.

[Bourgeois Zee]

The records of Major League Baseball, however defined, have seemed more meaningful to fans than the records of other pro sports. Most fans seem to accept that NFL rules have been so changed that you cannot really compare the passing ability of Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes to Sammy Baugh or Johnny Unitas by just looking at their respective passing percentages or TD passes thrown; it's a different game now than in the 1940s and 50s. Baseball is different-it is more stats driven than any other American pro sport. Fans seek a constancy that doesn't always exist.
I've long found it in a way funny that most fans do not recall the game in which Pete Rose broke Ty Cobb's career hits record. It was the game on September 8, 1985 at Wrigley Field when Rose broke Cobb's record with career hit no. 4,190. At the time, fans (including me) thought Cobb held the career mark with 4,191 hits. It was later discovered that Cobb actually had "only" 4,189 hits. When Pete later collected hit no. 4192 at Riverfront, he was already the career hits leader.
The records will always be imperfect. Josh Gibson now holds the career batting average instead of Cobb. It is and probably always will be impossible to state with any certainty which man would have had the higher career average had they played in the same era in the same ballparks against the same opponents and pitchers. Gibson and Cobb were both great players. I have no idea who was better.
Edit:
I read somewhere that Gibson was listed as the career leader in batting average. However, when I looked at Baseball Reference.com I saw it had Cobb in first at .366 with Oscar Charleston second at .365.

I'd love to have seen it-- that, I suspect, is part of the allure of baseball. The same 90 feet from home to first, the same 60 feet, six inches from the pitcher's mound, the same ballpark dimensions means you can maybe make those comparisons across generations. (That they play longer as well also helps.)

[Wonderful Monds]

Depends on of you can handle nuance as an adult with a brain.

I mean there’s nuance, and then there’s what I agree with Bob feels like mental gymnastics or cognitive dissonance to say “Campanella was the first youngest player, but also Jackie Robinson is still a historical figure for breaking the segregation barrier.”

Again I don’t really care about any of this, it just kind of follows a general cultural pattern in the grand scheme that I’m not a fan of/sort of particularly hate.