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

[Chip R]

That's where I'm at.

Negro Leagues are similar to the others. As a result, they should count as much.

I disagree with Keefe Cato in terms of the amount of Black players who'd have been successful in MLB in the heyday of segregated baseball. I suspect, looking at the economics and numbers of the players who became above average, the Black hitter was nearly as good, on average, as his white counterpart in MLB. He had to contend with a dirtier ball. (Spitballs and scuffballs were both legal in the Negro Leagues, and balls were kept in play longer.) Parks were often far harder to hit HR out of as well, both because of the length of fences and the relative poor lighting.

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.

A guy like Cincinnati's own Bob Thurman is a good example, I'd argue, of a productive former Negro League ballplayer. Likely, only a handful of guys on this site-- a Reds' super site-- even know the name. But Thurman was a good Negro League ballplayer-- a first division guy for the Homestead Greys. He wasn't, however, an All-Star. Signed by the Yankees as a 32-year-old, he mashed in AAA, then eventually, at age 38, he ended up with the Reds. He struggled a bit his first season, but played 7 years beyond that with a 118 OPS+ and an 806 OPS. (He played professional baseball through age 45.) He and George Crowe were a pair of Redleg bench bats that were difference-makers in limited PAs. And for a number of seasons. They didn't get a real shot at becoming full-time starters for a variety of reasons (age, other players, bigotry), but both were extremely productive and remarkably long-lived (in terms of being productive MLB players). Neither was considered a great Negro League player; both were just as good (if not better) in limited PAs as Reds.

It is, IMO, the pitching where the Negro League is largely deficient. There are good reasons for this-- chief among them the amount of barnstorming innings put on incredibly small pitching staffs due to economic issues. As a result, the number of successful Negro League pitchers is far fewer than former Negro League hitters. (Only Don Newcombe, Toothpick Sam Jones, Connie Johnson, and Satchel Paige spring to mind. Maye Joe Black, if you're charitable.)

What I believe is the best evidence that the Negro Leagues belong in the discussion as a true top tier league is what happens in the next generation of Black ballplayers. We see the full explosion of exceptional Black MLB players in the next generation of players. By 1955, five years after the Negro Leagues had given up the ghost, 7 of the top 20 OPS+ bats were Black, with Aaron and Mays joining Mantle atop the league leaders and all-time greats. In 1960, it was 8. In 1965, it was 10 of 20, with Frank Robinson Cepeda, and Clemente joining them. Throughout that time, according to the US Census, Blacks accounted for around 10% of the US population. (By 1970, it was 11%.)

To go off on somewhat of a tangent to your point, not only would there be NL players excluded, if baseball had been fully integrated, but there would be a great deal of white players excluded as well. And it may not necessarily been because they weren't good enough. Only 16 teams from 1901 to 1961 so unless baseball expanded, there would have only been room for ~400 players whether they be Black, White or Hispanic. Would they have expanded? Baseball - both MLB and NL - was pretty much limited to the northeast and midwest. There was no regular air travel until the 50s and even then teams still took trains from city to city on occasion. But, if you assume baseball was integrated, then it stands to reason Jim Crow laws no longer existed. You also have to assume that the owners of the day wouldn't be racists. Assuming all that, either the upper minor leagues would have been stacked or there would have been expansion.

Based in part on 19th century baseball cities that didn't make it to the 20th and Federal League teams, I would think Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, Baltimore, Columbus, Atlanta, Louisville, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Houston, Nashville, Memphis, KC, Milwaukee and Minneapolis/St. Paul could have had teams. Perhaps not all but most of them would have to be included. But go down that rabbit hole of hypothetical baseball expansion. Who would have been the first team(s) to go to the west coast? Would the Browns stayed in StL? The A's in PHI? The Braves in BOS? Expansion means fewer places to move a team to. Perhaps the addition of Black players would have improved the fortunes of some of the sad sack teams. The 40s and 50s Reds certainly could have used all the help they could get. So could the Dodgers in the 20s and 30s. There are a lot of logical leaps you would have to take to bring this to fruition in your mind but it's interesting to think about what could have been and how that would affect the present and recent past.

[mgbrown66]

I was talking to my son a few days ago about Babe Ruth. He had heard about the babe’s called shot in the World Series.

It got me to thinking about the highest single season OPS in history, was it Bonds or Babe? When I checked baseball reference it shows Josh Gibson - with 183 PA that year. You have to go all the way down to #14 before Ted Williams season of 1941.

I’m not sure how to feel. Like I’ve lived 50 years of drooling over baseball stats and suddenly history has been rewritten. Almost Orwellian. I get it, but I don’t think I like it.

[westofyou]

I was talking to my son a few days ago about Babe Ruth. He had heard about the babe’s called shot in the World Series.

It got me to thinking about the highest single season OPS in history, was it Bonds or Babe? When I checked baseball reference it shows Josh Gibson - with 183 PA that year. You have to go all the way down to #14 before Ted Williams season of 1941.

I’m not sure how to feel. Like I’ve lived 50 years of drooling over baseball stats and suddenly history has been rewritten. Almost Orwellian. I get it, but I don’t think I like it.

You have to look at the PA's though that is a small sample compared to a full MLB season, so grain of salt I suppose. Great run of 39 games though.

As for Williams his 1953 season is Gibson like 110 PAs - .407/.509/.901/1.410

[757690]

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.

First, it absolutely is a question of nuance. Technically, Jackie Robinson is no longer considered the first African-American to play in the modern era of Major League Baseball. However, he is considered the player who broke the color barrier that existed in both the American and National Leagues in the modern era. That second achievement is more meaningful and noteworthy than the first. That’s the nuance.

Second, it is quite logical, and much wisdom is being gained from it. It’s logical to include the records of players who were unjustly excluded from playing in what had been considered the Major Leagues. It’s logical to believe that those records would have been similar if they had occurred in the Major Leagues, since so many of the players matched or exceeded those numbers once they were included.

Just reading this thread, immense knowledge and wisdom can be gained. Imagine how much more knowledge and wisdom will be gained by people now able to see the Negro League stats along with the Major League stats.

Finally, it’s completely illogical to conclude that including these records in anyway erase “the bad things that happened.” In fact, it’s more logical to conclude that including these records will emphasize the bad things that happened, make people learn and thinkk about them more.

[Bob Sheed]

These are stats. There should be no nuance. It's names, dates, numbers.

If Nuxhall isn't the youngest, then Robinson isn't the first African American. Simple as that.

The mental gymnastics applied in order to qualify one and not the other, is interesting to me.

Here, I'll apply the same logic to Nuxhall:

"Campanella was the youngest to ever play the game, but Nuxhall broke the youth barrier."


Should Ichiro have gotten more MLB opportunities? And many like him, if we're being honest. Absolutely. But he didn't. Nothing will ever change that. Unless we start rewriting the record books to include some league that had nothing to do with MLB.

There are a great many travesties throughout baseball history. But stats are stats. And grouping league stats in with MLB stats, "because feelings", to me, as a stats guy... well, it stinks of the clumsy Orwellian approach I mentioned earlier.

[redsrule2500]

Exactly, you can't learn from history if you're constantly rewriting it. Just call it the youngest player in a professional baseball league record instead of an MLB record.

That's literally what it was until last week.

Regardless, society holds the records that matter. Joe was the youngest in MLB and the Cincinnati Reds were the birth of professional baseball.

[Mitri]

This is not "Orwelian" lol. Talk about pearl clutching.

There's a lot of Orwellian crap happening in this world, MLB including adding another league into its statistical fold is not.

[westofyou]

This is not "Orwelian" lol. Talk about pearl clutching.

There's a lot of Orwellian crap happening in this world, MLB including adding another league into its statistical fold is not.

Is it a conspiracy against truth if an organization that created itself out of thin air by a cabal of owners that have a stake in the organizations lifeblood changes the parameters of who can be considered a part of the organization that they themselves created and control?

[Mitri]

Is it a conspiracy against truth if an organization that created itself out of thin air by a cabal of owners that have a stake in the organizations lifeblood changes the parameters of who can be considered a part of the organization that they themselves created and control?

I can't take this post seriously, I've been reading your stuff for 20 years and it's become clear with each passing day that you're controlled by the thought police.

[Tony Cloninger]

Weren’t the minors back between the early 1900s through the 1930s before Branch Rickey’s formula of making the minors a developmental area took more hold eveywhere else …. Considered just as good or close to the majors in regards to talent? I know the Baltimore Orioles who had Babe Ruth before being sold to the Red Sox and many other good players. They were considered major league caliber. A lot of the minors did not or were not developmental teams for the majors. The San Francisco Seals was another.

Are there stats for the games that the Negro League stars playing against the ML stars during barnstorming?

[westofyou]

Weren’t the minors back between the early 1900s through the 1930s before Branch Rickey’s formula of making the minors a developmental area took more hold eveywhere else …. Considered just as good or close to the majors in regards to talent? I know the Baltimore Orioles who had Babe Ruth before being sold to the Red Sox and many other good players. They were considered major league caliber. A lot of the minors did not or were not developmental teams for the majors. The San Francisco Seals was another.

Are there stats for the games that the Negro League stars playing against the ML stars during barnstorming?

All the ML had to be affiliated with "Organized Baseball" if they wanted to be sanctioned to do business with teams in other leagues. That means having the ability to sell a good player within a framework that assures a fair deal. Some of the upper echelon ML teams were rumored to be worthy of a slot in a league that had numerous franchises that were cheap, some... but not many, that includes the PCL which played 185 game seasons. The stats that are gathered do not have exhibition contests, like MLB vs NL stars

In the off season of 37,38 the Reds alumni team would play a NL AS team, Durocher played vs Gibson and said he'd easily make it in the white guys league

[Tony Cloninger]

I know Josh would have easily. John McGraw tried to slip through one player and pass him off as Native American.

[westofyou]

I know Josh would have easily. John McGraw tried to slip through one player and pass him off as Native American.

Charlie Grant

https://baseballhall.org/discover/Ch...he-big-leagues