One time, I was very excited to see a book on my library's shelves which was attempting to prove that the Negro Leagues were the equal of the "major leagues." I've always been very interested in determining the quality of the Negro Leagues. Considering how many all-time greats spent most or all of their career in the Negro Leagues, it is important to know the exact quality of the Negro Leagues, so you can properly rate them. Of course, that is not an easy thing to do. If you just compare the players who played in both the Negro League and the Major Leagues, that study would be subject to biases because of a small sample size, and also because the players would have been at different stages of their career.
In the introduction to the volume, it states "It should be added, however, that the contributors do not therefore see their subject [of whether the Negro Leagues were equal to the major leagues] through rose-tinted glasses. A frank discussion of the anomalies that haunt Negro Leagues box scores leads off the proceedings." The problem with the book, in my opinion, is that the contributors are looking at the issue through rose-tinted glasses. Whenever a statistic favors MLB, they explain it away, but whenever something favors the Negro Leagues, they present it like there are no biases.
I'll present some examples of that:
Most of the comparisons appear in "The Case for the Negro Leagues" by Todd Peterson, who edited the book.
In one part, Peterson compares the batting levels of the two leagues, as better leagues generally have lower offensive levels. There is a table comparing the batting averages, slugging percentages, and OPS of both leagues for each year from 1906-48. For almost all the years, MLB had higher levels of offense. That means the Negro Leagues were better, right? But something happens as you look closer. The NLB from 1906-1919 had higher averages in 10 of the years, higher OBPs in 7 of the years, and higher OPSs in 8 of the years. The Negro Leagues for the most part had higher offense. But from 1920 to 1942, MLB had higher levels in every year except for two.
So what happened? As everyone knows, MLB banned the spitball in 1920. But what you might not know is that NLB did not. NLB pitchers did what MLB pitchers did in the 1910s: They defaced the ball in every way they could. Combining that with the fact that NLB also embraced night ball, the hitters did not have an easy time. In 1930, there was a night game between Smokey Joe Williams and Chet Brewer, in which Williams struck out 27 over 12 innings to win 1-0, as Brewer struck out 19 in a losing effort. It is known as "The Battle of the Butchered Balls".
It is clear that the Negro Leagues only had lower offensive levels because of the spitball, but Peterson makes no note of this. I will repeat, Peterson completely ignores that, totally misleading the reader.
When he is not misleading the reader, Peterson also makes some questionable evaluations of the data. Comparing the pitching statistics, he points out that the Negro Leagues had way higher strikeout levels. In fact, from every year from 1909 to 1948, the Negro Leagues had a higher strikeout rate. In my opinion, the lower the league is, the more strikeouts there are. If you look at the backs of baseball cards, you will notice that in the low minor leagues, pitchers strike out a ton of players . And as the pitcher progresses through the system, even if they don't get more effective they'll strike out less batters. In Little League, there are tons of strikeouts. It seems obvious that the number of strikeouts in a league is inversely related to the quality of play. But Peterson makes the opposite conclusion. "The black hurlers annually allowed far fewer walks and hits than the big leaguers, and struck out many more batters." he writes, implying clearly that that is yet another pillar in his argument.
He also compares the Run, Stolen Base, and Error levels of the leagues. In every season from 1906 to 1948, NLB had a higher error rate, in 33 of the years they have a higher stolen base rate, and in every season there were more runs scored. That seems to make it clear that the Negro Leagues were worse. But Peterson dutifully writes "The disparity in errors can be attributed mostly to poorer playing conditions. There were few, if any, ground crews in the Negro Leagues, and baseballs and gloves were used until they fell apart. "That is certainly true to at least some degree, but the thing is, what he's saying kinda contradicts what he wrote earlier in the book: " Let's note that Negro League teams during this period played under the same ground rules as big leaguers, often in major league facilities... , and not corn fields as some dreamers have reported."
I enjoyed much of the book. When Peterson was not twisting the statistics to his own use, there were many enjoyable articles, such as articles on Rube Foster and John Donaldson. Actually, I really liked the one on Rube Foster. But the book lost a lot of credibility to me because it was biased. Ultimately, it made me less certain that the Negro Leagues were the equal of the majors ; or why else would he have to resort to questionable tactics to prove his case? I still think it is very possible the Negro Leagues were as good as the major leagues, but it is despite this book, not because of it.
My ratings for it:
Subject: ☆☆☆☆☆
Statistical analysis: ☆☆
Writing: ☆☆☆☆
Overall: ☆☆☆
I hope you enjoyed this book review, and found it helpful. I always love criticizing things. :)
