Talk:Josh Gibson

Home runs

User:Couillaud has done a good job of summarizing the various issues, and the article in turn does a good job of discussing the contradictory information at length. It presents both the statement of ca. 800 on the plaque, the presence of which on the plague is a verifiable fact. The figure itself is not. As various researchers have found and published (verifiably), the currently known totals, no matter how far the net is cast, fall short of that figure. Even at that, if you're trying to count every game Gibson ever played in professionally, then you're on a slippery slope. Part of the "about 800" figure was to try to claim Gibson as being equivalent to or "better than" Babe Ruth as a slugger. However, if you start to also count Ruth's appearances in unofficial games, then Ruth's figure comes out to around 1,100. So trying to cite 800 to out-Ruth the Babe does not work. However, the article also cites a very high home run percentage for Gibson in official games, apparently the highest in Negro Leagues history, and comparing favorably to the top handful of sluggers in the majors. While it's tragic that baseball had an apartheid system, you can't rewrite history. Instead, you do the best you can to cite and perhaps to celebrate verifiable accomplishments, and recognize that Gibson was one of the all-time great sluggers, regardless of the specific numbers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess ESPN, Negro League Player Association, MLB hall of fame plaque, Josh Gibson website weren't enough. Think of the hiroshima analogy that i used. Simply respond to the RFC. 64.131.205.111 00:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A few folks have been asked to give their opinions here. Can someone summarize the 46 KB of comments above so we can get up to speed more quickly? From reading quickly, the article could use some clean up but otherwise seems to do a decent job of explaining that Gibson's statistics are difficult to discern. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

One source is saying that because of their own original research as well as one book that Josh Gibson hit only 115 or so homeruns. (counting his achievements in only a few games). Other sources including ESPN, Sportingnews, Major league baseball hall of fame, Negro League Players Association state he hit over 800 homeruns. They argue that some of the games was not against the best of competition, but what they aren't underderstanding is that he played under different circumstances and in a different period. The MLB was segregated and players who couldn't play in those leagues played under a totally different set of circumstances.

Various places of citation include

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016050.html - almost 800 (which is what his MLB hall of fame plaque says. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/photos/2006-06-19/0619pGibson2-a.jpg

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Josh_Gibson_1911 "For the next five years the Crawfords dominated Negro League play. Gibson slugged long home runs -- 69 in 1934 -- and recorded astoundingly high batting averages. In 137 games with the Crawfords in 1933 he batted .467 with 55 home runs. " In 2 years , 1934 he hit 69 homers, and in 1933 he hit 55 homers. For a total of 126 home runs! http://www.toad.net/~andrews/josh.html "The records for the Negro National League show that in 1936 Gibson hit 84 home runs in 170 games, according to the Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Leagues. "

http://www.nlbpa.com/gibson__josh.html Negro Leagues "Josh led the Negro National League in home runs for 10 consecutive years; credited with 75 home runs in 1931." http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_458633.html http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-233289/Josh-Gibson " In a recorded 61 at bats against the likes of Dizzy and Daffy Dean, Johnny Vander Meer and others, Josh hit .426, including five home runs" http://www.psacard.com/articles/article4210.chtml http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06192/701548-341.stm http://z.lee28.tripod.com/sbnslegends/id1.html http://www.nlbm.com/s/player.htm http://www.coe.ksu.edu/nlbemuseum/history/players/gibsonj.html http://www.blackbaseball.com/players/joshgibson.htm http://library.thinkquest.org/3427/data/gibson.htm http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016050.html http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/05/SPGQNIL8UR1.DTL 64.131.205.111 00:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears Major League Baseball does not recognize any statistics for him, is that true? What are the sources saying that he hit only 115 home runs? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that he never played in major league baseball ; he played where he was allowed to play. Baseball didn't intergrate until 3 months after he had died. Almost all statistics made by minority players prior to integration are not counted. It was a different era. Major League baseball did recognize on his baseball hall of fame plaque that he hit over 800 homerun in negro league and independent league play . http://www.pittsburghlive.com/photos/2006-06-19/0619pGibson2-a.jpg 64.131.205.111 01:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good point. How about we include what you just said as well as what I said? I.e., Major League Baseball recognizes no official statistics for Gibson since he never played in Major League Baseball. Gibson died three months before the color barrier was broken, etc.? The National Baseball Hall of Fame lists Gibson as having hit over 800 home runs in negro league and independent league play. Those are all just facts with no POV in my opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree and that is all i've been stating. That is why I was going to file for an RFC because of the big disagreements going on. There are other sources including the Negro League Player association who say he hit over 800 homeruns, but stating the baseball hallf of fame is fine as well! 64.131.205.111 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I assume others will chime in here soon... —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

His plaque says "nearly" 800, not "over" 800. [1] The article attempts to cite specific information that details where his career home runs were hit, in addition to an overall (and possibly mythical) total that has no obvious basis. Citing, for example, the editions of The Baseball Encyclopedia that break down the figures for official games year by year, is by no means "original research". And citing information from other leagues, where available, adds to the picture. Supressing that information is factually misleading and also pushes the agenda I described earlier. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to ask Wknight94 to ask users:baseball bugs and users:coulliard to cease from there RV and tandem reversions as displayed here. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Josh_Gibson&diff=prev&oldid=156826916 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Josh_Gibson&diff=prev&oldid=156742767 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Josh_Gibson&diff=prev&oldid=156653428 until conversation is complete and agreements can be made. Comments like "As such, it is difficult to separate truth from myth in regards to Negro League stars such as Josh Gibson." are pure opinion and unverifiable. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Josh_Gibson&diff=156826916&oldid=156820092 64.131.205.111 02:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And you should likewise refrain from removing detailed facts that contradict the 800 estimate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have. i'm using the talk page to discuss it as well as filed an RFC. Request for Comment. What am i doing wrong ? 64.131.205.111 02:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you just reverted again. You need to leave it as-is until the content dispute is settled. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments like "As such, it is difficult to separate truth from myth in regards to Negro League stars such as Josh Gibson." are pure opinion and unverifiable. 64.131.205.111 02:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't type this message fast enough. Now the article is protected at The Wrong Version. Now let's all please try to relax and discuss. And give some time for all to respond - I'm a slow typist. I can see where the article may need a rewrite to get everything twisted into a form that everyone likes but it seems doable. Per Bugs, it looks like "nearly 800 home runs" is the HOF stance. Is everyone agreed on that? The http://www.nlbpa.com/gibson__josh.html page does not list any career number. Bugs, are you also saying that the Baseball Encyclopedia gives Gibson's stats? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some editions of the Encyclopedia have a Negro Leagues register, which I think is cited in the article. I recall how startled I was to see them only credit Gibson with a couple hundred or so homers. But they were trying to count only regulation games. The problem overall is that there is insufficient info to draw any valid conclustions, and that's why contradictory information necessarily has to be included in the article. The "separating truth from myth" is not POV-pushing, it's a summary of the factual situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How about just stating the fact exactly as you put it: "In an attempt to compile Negro League statistics using what it defined as "regulation games", the Baseball Encyclopedia credits Gibson with only X home runs"? It would be nice if we had an article about that encyclopedia where it could give more details about how it defined "regulation games", but unfrotunately we don't. It would also be nice to know how authoritative that encyclopedia is but again we don't have an article. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The basic problem is that there is no verifiable basis at all for the "nearly 800" home runs. Just because someone put it on the plaque doesn't make it so. But it needs to be stated that it is on the plaque (and it is stated). The various figures for various league and non-league games need to be discussed also, which they are. The varous researchers have tried in vain to come up with something that adds up to the mythical 800 number. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just state what we know? To start: Major League Baseball recognizes no official statistics for Gibson since he never played in Major League Baseball. Gibson died three months before the color barrier was broken. The National Baseball Hall of Fame lists Gibson as having hit over 800 home runs in negro league and independent league play. That's not saying that he actually hit 800 home runs or that anyone has substantiated 800 or any other number. This is hinting at one of the pervasive problems in baseball research. Things become "common knowledge" by word-of-mouth and little papers here and there but no conclusive finding is ever published by a reliable source. I don't know anything about Gibson. I actually believe Gibson hit over 800 home runs! Why not? Was it against almost entirely sub-par pitching? I don't think so. There were lots of Bob Gibsons and Fergie Jenkins and Dwight Goodens and Dave Stewarts in the Negro Leagues that weren't allowed in MLB either. But when researchers start whispering to each other in the Hall of Fame research room, suddenly rumors spread and Gibson could not have possibly hit 800 home runs. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the in those little rooms and then there begins ways to downplay the statistics by placing in only portions of the statistics to make the numbers even lower. I also wonder the place of comments like this of "As such, it is difficult to separate truth from myth in regards to Negro League stars such as Josh Gibson." are pure opinion and unverifiable. [2] 64.131.205.111 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The most reliable published statistics for Gibson's play in organized league games are shown on User:BRMo/testpage. When I tried to add these statistics to the article, User 64.131.205.111 removed them. As discussed above, the estimates that include non-league games are available for only a few seasons and the sources are anecdotal. The origin of the number '800' that appears on the Hall of Fame plaque is unknown, but is probably an estimate that was extrapolated from the few seasons for which anecdotal statistics were available. BRMo 02:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And for the last time Guapo (calling you 64.131.205.111 seems silly, so I'll call you by a shortened form of your other user ID), you are misrepresenting the facts. I have done no original research. The research is published in the book Shades of Glory, by Dr. Lawrence Hogan, published in February 2006 using data collected by SABR's Negro Leagues Research Committee under a grant from the Hall of Fame. It is the most accurate and verifiable information available to date. The "nearly 800" number that you quote is something that has been bandied about since Gibson died in 1947, and is an estimate of every game he played, no matter what the level of competition, including games against amateur and semi-pro teams, including games where it was reported "Josh hit two or three homers" without an accompanying box score, and 'it is unverifiable.

You quoted ESPN as a source, but it was actually a single article from one writer that was published on ESPN's website. You are pushing the envelope by saying that ESPN is your source. You quote Gibson's HoF plaque, insisting it is the best data available, but refusing to back that up with any logical argument. You ignore the fact that there are other published sources that disagree with you and claim that the lower numbers are all in my head.

The purpose of SABR's NLC is to create the best available body of statistics for the Negro Leagues, painstakingly going through every available box score and report and compiling them the way MLB has always done its statistics. We cannot retroactively make these men major leaguers; we can only find an accurate account of what they did against competition that was Major League caliber (like the leagues they played in). Josh Gibson hit 115 HR in Negro League competition. He hit another 50-100 in Mexican and Winter League competition, and a few more against Major League or high-minor league level competition. He hit an estimated 500+ home runs against amateur and semi-pro teams, many of whom were feeding him batting practice pitches just to please the crowd that came to see him hit one out; in games like that, he might hit four to six HR in a single game. Babe Ruth even more home runs against such low-level competitiono, and for the same reason: the crowd paid to see him hit one out. We still show Ruth at 714; he gets no extra credit for such games. It is a disservice to Gibson's legend to have to credit him with home runs hit against such poor competition in an effort to make him look better. For as limited as they are, his stats in the Negro Leagues look very good by themselves already. It's not like the committee missed a lot of Negro League home runs; it's that they did not count those HR Gibson hit against vastly inferior competition.

For the record, the stats that the Macmillan Encyclopedia used were from Negro Leagues researcher John Holway (you can look him up in in the BR Bullpen. He also published The Complete Book of Baseball's Negro Leagues, and has been a respected Negro Leagues researcher and writer for over 30 years. But you probably don't think his numbers are worth anything because they disagree with your beliefs.

You have accused me of original research, but your only "proof" to create your own definition of the term and claim that published data from a respected source is original research. You have accused me of a racially-based agenda without even knowing my race, and the only "proof" you offer in support of this slander is the fact that I have corrected a few statistics with the most accurate information, and it is a lower number than yours. You think that because I stated that whites were against integration, that was a racist effort; first, it was merely to point out that those with the power to enforce segregation were in favor of it (the opinions of an oppressed and generally powerless minority aren't an issue in such matters), and it was merely reverting to something that someone else had originally written. When I reverted some of your information here, it was because it doesn't matter if you had "some sources", they were inaccurate; it isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to list every inaccurate and unverifiable source; quite the opposite, it is to m. And after making baseless claims against me, you call any complaint made against you a "personal attack".

-- Couillaud 02:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is more factual basis for the "separating truth from myth" statement than there is for any assertion that he hit "nearly" (not "over") 800 home runs. I agree the article could be expanded to go into greater depth, listing the results of regulation Negro League games and other games he played. And once that's done, I'll go to the Babe Ruth article and start listing all the non-league games he hit home runs in, which brings his career total to around 1,100. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I knew more folks would show up eventually. 64.131.205.111, what do you say to the Shades of Glory reference? It appears to be a reliable source which was turned into a touring exhibit which included the president of the Negro League Baseball Players Association.[3] It certainly seems to warrant at least a mention. Bugs, I would have no problem with a line in this article saying that "Ruth would have 1,100 home runs if similar non-league games were included." Is that sourced? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have Shades of Glory, so I can't comment on it. Meanwhile, I was about to add that the nicely-arranged (and cited) figures on User:BRMo/testpage, showing Gibson with 115 homers in 510 regulation games with Homestead and Pittsburgh during 1930-1946, are on the same order of magnitude as the 1993 MacMillan Encyclopedia, which lists 146 home runs in 501 regulation games for Gibson during 1930-1946. Currently I'm checking the comments made about Gibson in Only the Ball Was White (p.158 and after), to see if he talks about "The 800" (or "nearly 800") anywhere. But just in the opening paragraphs of his chapter on Gibson, Peterson says this: "While it is relatively easy to separate fact from fancy in Ruth's legend, Gibson's suffers from the paucity of certified records about the quantity and quality of his home run production. Old timers credit Gibson with 89 home runs in one season and 75 in another; many of them, of course, were hit against semipro competition." Right there, in a nutshell, you have a summary by the pioneer of Negro League baseball research, that supports everything User:Couillaud has summarized: myth vs. fact, anecdotal vs. fact, and varying levels of competition. Ruth hit lots of homers in his endless exhibition games also. That's to be expected, as with Gibson, given the level of play. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Peterson stays away from trying to assign a career total to Gibson, but he appears to either be the source or is quoting some other source for some of the individual year figures that the IP address has brought up: "In 1931, Josh Gibson... was credited with 75 home runs that year as the Grays barnstormed around Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and into the southern reaches of New York state... In 1934 his record was 69 home runs, and in the other years his homer production, although not recorded [italics mine], was from all accounts Ruthian, or perhaps Gibsonian." In short - anecdotal, undocumented, mythical - and most importantly - many of them in exhibition games. Everything Couillaud and BRMo have stated is reinforced by the facts, or lack thereof. What we're seeing for the Negro Leagues parallels, and lags behind, the development of encyclopedias for the major leagues. Ernie Lanigan published just a list of players and anecdotal stats in his 1922 book, Baseball Cyclopedia. In essence, that's what Robert Peterson did in his 1970 book, Only the Ball Was White. Others built on both of those works. Turkin & Thompson's 1951 book, The Official Enyclopedia of Baseball, attempted to list every player plus minimal stats. The 1993 MacMillan Encyclopedia attempted to do the same. In both cases, further research has found more and more information (the 1969 MacMillan Encyclopedia, for example, enlarged upon the T&T book) and I expect that someday we will have better information on the records of Gibson and the other Negro League stars. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

One interesting footnote: Peterson states that "In 1944, he led the Negro National League in homers with 6 while batting .338 in 39 league games. The next year he was again home-run champion with 8 and boasted a league-leading .393 average in 44 games." There you have some actual facts that Peterson had access to. Those numbers don't square with either the 1993 figures nor the more-recent computations shown on BRMo's page, but they are the same order of magnitude. In the absence of any actual basis for the famous 800 figure, it's likely they took a guess at it, based on some of the numbers from his most productive years, and the figures certainly demonstrate that even if he did hit "nearly 800", most of them were as uncountable as the extra 400 or so that Ruth hit in his own barnstorming tours. But Peterson also speculates that Gibson, had he played in the majors, could have challenged Ruth. Since he doesn't have a firm handle on the numbers, that's a questionable conclusion. But Gibson only averaged about 31 games per season. Had he played a full 154, or 5 times his total, it could be reasonable to multiply his career home run total by 5, which would work out somewhere between 575 and 730 depending on whose figures you use. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wknight94's question about Ruth's 1,100 total home runs, that figure comes from Bill Jenkinson's 2007 book, The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs. The title refers to Ruth's 1921 season. Jenkinson researched everything he could find about Ruth's homers. The rounded-off 1,100 figure is mentioned on p.298. After that, for each season he lists every Ruth homer he could find, including spring training, mid-season exhibition games (a nearly unthinkable idea nowadays) and post-season barnstorming tours. All these are referred to as "unofficial" home runs, and applying the same standard to Gibson, if he really hit "nearly 800", the available evidence indicates that the large majority of them would also have to be considered "unofficial". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a hunch this was not the IP address' intention, but all this attention focused on Gibson's stats has potential to make this article much more useful. BRMo's page already has the stats nicely laid out, and that table, with its citations, would be a nice addition to this article... along with the anecdotal information that demonstrates, without any doubt, the verifiability of the statement "separating truth from myth" as a valid summary of the situation. The Jenkinson book lists every one of Ruth's homers individually. That would be a bit much for this article, but if there is a good source of Gibson's unofficial HR's, maybe there could be a supplementary table of that info. It's unlikely that specific numbers like 69, 75 and 84 came out of thin air, so that info might be available somewhere. Then the "nearly 800" can stand as "that's-what-the-plaque-says" (keep in mind the vaunted Hall used to claim that Abner Doubleday invented baseball, so they don't have any monopoly on the truth) and the actual numbers speak for themselves. Also, if a source could be found that "projects" Gibson's career home run totals, that could be entered (as opposed to us making it up, which is not valid). Jenkinson does just that with Ruth. He projects Ruth would hit 1,181 homers in modern conditions, rather than his actual 729 (regular season plus World Series), and adding his unofficial HR's raises his projected total to "nearly" (to coin a phrase) 1,600. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'll go to the Babe Ruth article and start listing all the non-league games he hit home runs in, which brings his career total to around 1,100." As long as he has verifiable sources i really don't care. You really have to consider though that Babe Ruth was an MLB player and subject to the rules regarding records by MLB. There are verified box scores for a Japanese baseball player named Sadaharu Oh who hit around 868 home runs in Japan in "official league play". [4] He never played in the major leagues like Josh Gibson, but there will be the continued argument that he played in smaller ball parks, he was against weaker competition, or that it isn't a major league record. All arguments that have be made against Gibson (except for smaller ball parks). You have to understand Gibson's record in his own time. Josh Gibson played in a different time and most black players didn't only just play in league competition. Black baseball wasn't as established as MLB (white baseball) and there was a different method for Negro teams to operate on. Finding one way or another to add an asterik to a ball players statistic (like Roger Maris), seems to be an agenda. Also noted that one of the debaters (Couillard) is using SABR as a reputable source, for which he is a member of.

I have 16 sources listed above that state that his homerun totals were over 800 up to 962.

http://www.nlbpa.com/8feb2003.html http://www.nlbpa.com/5march2003.html http://www.nlbpa.com/31oct2002.html http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/josh-gibson-hof.htm

There seems to be a consistant arguement that because someone stated that a box score didn't exist that even if a newspaper article states that he hit two homeruns it doesn't count as was done by Couillard "teams, including games where it was reported "Josh hit two or three homers" without an accompanying box score, and 'it is unverifiable." That's like saying George Mikan had 80 blocks in 1947 (and that informatino was gotten from newspapers writers), but because no blocks were kept on the record books until the early 1960's that those blocks were not verifiable. Counting only league games with box scores (which is rare in that most Negro League games didn't track statistics past what a few players did) only serves as a method of discounting numbers. It's funny when I see above statements like " Had he played a full 154, or 5 times his total, it could be reasonable to multiply his career home run total by 5, which would work out somewhere between 575 and 730 depending on whose figures you use." It is yet another way of discounting his achievements as a ball players because it doesnt fit into their definition of league play. League play for the Black baseball players included barnstorming. There was only a handfull of black teams in certain areas, but there were more nationwide. MLB was far more established with more money ; something that the Negro Leagues didn't have. As a result they played a different way and the teams were run differently. You can't judge one league and team based on the way another league is run. They were different rules and different methods of going about business. It's comparing apples to oranges (even though both are still fruits).

A 2007 article by Major League Baseball shows 962 homers.

http://www.mlb.com/mlb/history/mlb_negro_leagues_profile.jsp?player=gibson_josh and http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070802&content_id=2125626&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

I saw the test page of BRMO

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:BRMo/testpage  ; Those are based on a statistical study sponsored by Baseball hall of fame, not authenticated by the Hall of Fame or fully supported by the hall of fame. Just because they were given money by the Hall Of Fame doesn't mean the Hall of fame supports the findings. The numbers in the test page do not show one season with over 30 home runs, but he has other records showing seasons of over 70 and 80 home runs.

I believe that Shades of Glory is a book written by one man who only counts certain types of statistics. If I write a book and I have a different methodology does that make me correct? Just because the President of the NLBPA attended does not make him a supporter of all that is written. I would think that the NLPBA president would support most books written about Negro Leagues players b/c it would stir up at least controversy and bring interest back to the negro leagues.

I guess it's funny how no one wants to downplay the statistics of MLB players because they didn't barnstorm or play competition that was integrated. There are no asteriks or quotes stating that this was no minority players. The stats are accepted point blank. When the opposite is happening with Negro League players, things must fit a certain criteria (which only serves as a method of taking away stats). 64.131.205.111 12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

64.131.205.111 12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're essentially making a political argument for including exhibition games, against weaker competition, in counting Gibson's home run totals, to somehow try to make up for baseball's segregation. That doesn't work. You can't count exhibition games. The numbers in Gibsons' truly competitive games, i.e. established Negro League games, speak for themselves, and they speak well of Gibson's ability to hit for power and average. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, as User:Couillaud has pointed out, many of those articles merely parrot the words of the plaque, so they don't add any weight to the arguments. And the others sources simply give a total number, with no basis. What's needed is a year-by-year breakdown of where all the known home runs came from, separating the various leagues from the exhibition games played in the barnstorming circuit. See if you can find a source that does that, and then you'll have something useful to add to the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

what you're going for is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Which is not what wikipedia is about. You're failing to take into account that black teams are apples and oranges when compared against white teams. Different situations. Barnstorming held weight for those black teams. MLB teams did not engage in that! 64.131.205.111 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your statement that "MLB teams did not engage in that!", presumably meaning barnstorming, is demonstrably (verifiably) false. And your statement that "Barnstorming held weight for those black teams" has no basis that you've cited. In short, it's your opinion, i.e. it's "original research" on your part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My worry here is skirting the boundary of the WP:UNDUE part of WP:NPOV. If you include all the well-researched data by BRMo and give a year-by-year breakdown, 90% of the article will suddenly be spent debunking the home run totals. You all have me convinced (and yes, my expertise level is probably the lowest in this conversation) that the nearly 800 home runs is almost impossible to compare to Ruth's total. Turning the entire article into an exhibit of that fact is still violating WP:NPOV in my opinion. State the HOF total, explain that further research has been done and summarize their findings - giving fair coverage to both sides (yes he only hit 120 HR but the seasons were only a fraction of the length, etc.) - and then move on. That would be my preference. I once gutted most of the Steve Garvey article because it had become inundated with all of the troubles he ran into after his retirement. Sure, all of it was probably true, but there was almost no mention of the spectacular career the man had on the field! So I removed tons of verifiable content simply because it all violated WP:NPOV. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This vaguely reminds me of the statement in the Ty Cobb article that Cobb supposedly held 90 records or some such. Trouble is, no one could find a list, nor anything that would verify such a number. So after wrestling with that, the editors had to settle for stating it as a cited but vague and unsubstantiated claim. The same holds true for the "nearly 800" and/or "more than 800". It's fair to say that some make the claim. It's unfair to let it stand unchallenged in the article, because it contradicts the detailed evidence. And it's curious that the IP address, in his conspiracy-theory approach, claims people are trying to downplay his numbers. It's actually the opposite: Those who want to try to claim every home run he ever hit as being valid somehow, are trying to puff up the numbers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see the 120 homerun total in league play being included, but in remembering that he played under different circumstances than white players should be noted and that Barnstorming was the norm for black players. 800 is the HALL total, 962 is the total for other sources. I think that 120 or so total must be shown to include only certain games and that games that didn't have a box score were excluded or didn't fit a given critirea. 64.131.205.111 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All I'm looking for is a fair representation. It seems like folks are being fair in talking here - yes he only hit 120 HR in full test conditions but those full test conditions only applied 20% as often as for white people - so why can't we get that fairness over to the article itself? Who wants to take a stab at creating a more well-balanced article in general? In a temp area perhaps? It seems edit wars break out too easily to unprotect the article itself. But if folks could agree not to revert war, we could try things out there. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What determines full test conditions. It was totally different criterea for black and white players? Barnstorming was natural for black players. Not for white players. Different situations. Your placment of Hall Total of 800+ with high estimates being 962 and from newer research based on box scores 122 homeruns have been accounted for in negro league play (30 game seasons) seems fine. I would say keep the article fully protected until agreements can be made. There seems to be a tandem Reversions going on. 64.131.205.111 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that could be generalized - basically the way I did. "Since Gibson was not allowed to play in the white Major League Baseball, the conditions in which he would have achieved nearly 800 home runs is impossible to compare to that of Major League Baseball players." That's probably a bit wordy but something along those lines seems sufficiently neutral, don't you think? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that barnstorming results somehow count more heavily in black baseball than in white baseball is, near as I can tell, strictly the IP address' opinion. Even if barnstorming was "natural", i.e. that it was done a lot, that doesn't make its results any more legitimate than those of the white barnstormers, unless the IP address is prepared to present evidence that every little podunk team the barnstormers played against was of major league caliber, or Negro League caliber for that matter. That's why it's necessary for someone to find out more about the year-by-year and the specific numbers that feed those high numbers. The notion that we should just let those unaccounted-for career numbers stand, like some kind of untouchable religious taboo, which is what the IP address seems to be arguing for, does not add up to good encyclopedic content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again you're making criterea of what should be included. Wikipedia has set it's own standards. Wikipedia isn't a compilation of information (stats) nor is it forum for original research. Information that has multiple sources is more than fine. Especially if the sources are considered to be fine. His homerun totals were documented by eye witness accounts and written in various papers. You can't make a criterea of what is considered to be a good team and a bad team if you never saw them play. All we have these days are records. Am analagous situation occurred in the movie Amistad they told about how people were thrown off of ships. Since there is no recorded number does that mean they didn't occur? Are multiple eye witness false ? 64.131.205.111 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And we as editors have the right to make the judgment of what is to be included. I'm trying to include as many facts as possible, and you're trying to exclude facts selectively, based on your personal opinion that all these games are somehow of comparable competitive level. The article should list his totals in the NNL, and also his totals in other leagues and other kinds of games. You can omit the value judgment if you want (although I'm sure there is no shortage of information on the matter), but leaving out the facts, in favor of a few alleged (and contradictory) career totals with no detailed basis given for them, is insufficient, misleading, and POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, what "original research" are you referring to? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And I say again, that your arguments that we should just blindly accept these career totals based on their supposedly being from eyewitness accounts (and apparently not very reliable ones, given the wide range of numbers), has a religious-taboo quality to it, and that is an unacceptable approach in wikipedia or any other reliable reference work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And there in a nutshell lies the problem. IP Address insists that published data from reputable sources is "original research" and that "multiple sources" that can be found by any Google search and all simply repeat same original faulty source qualify as "multiple eyewitness" accounts. The rest of us disagree.

wknight94, it would be extremely helpful if you could step in at this point and help define "original research" for the purposes of this discussion. Until you or some admin can decide whether using published data from the MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia or Shades of Glory is "original research" or not, we will remain at this impasse.

From what I've read of the Wikipedia concept of "No Original Research", IP Address is much closer to violating that rule than anyone else in this discussion, as I believe that his contention that "the 'nearly 800' number is the best data" uses no primary or reliable source, presumes its own definition of pre-existing terms, and is attempting a synthesis of ideas and arguments to build its case.

There is no available primary source for the "nearly 800" number; it is an estimate made by (in the words of Robert Peterson) "Old Timers". It was used in 1972 when the Hall of Fame made Gibson's plaque, but it has been discredited by later, more disciplined research.

IP Address has made his own definition of "documented" records; my definition (in regards to baseball records) is a paper trail that can show each one of the home runs, the date and place it was hit, and the opponent against which it was hit. This is the standard for Major League records, and is the standard for Negro Leagues records that have been reconstructed from painstaking research. His definition of "documented" (which may be seen in his earlier arguments) is that it's been written down. His most recent argument is that his home run totals "were documented by eye witness accounts and written in various papers." He has not proven that, and in fact, cannot prove his assertion of eye witness accounts.

IP Address has tried to ignore the accepted fact that most of the home runs of the "nearly 800" were against vastly inferior competition. Gibson hit 115 in bona fide Negro League competition, and another 100-200 in Mexican and winter league games plus exhibitions against Major and minor league all-star teams. That's it. Any others were against semi-pro or amateur competition, and no one gets credit for those statistics. To forward his case, IP Address has attempted to synthesize an argument that Gibson deserves extra credit for his games vs. the inferior competition. He has on at least three occasions during this discussion tried to use unrelated analogies (the American Civil War, Hiroshima, and the movie "Amistad") to forward his argument.

I rest my case for now.

--Couillaud 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The way I interpret things, original research is basically a very low notch on the scale of reliability when it comes to sources. I've lost track of what 64.131.205.111 is calling original research but Shades of Glory and MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia certainly would not qualify as original research. At the same time, I wouldn't say that the Hall of Fame and other sources that show 800 home runs would qualify as original research either. In the interest of neutrality, I urge folks to simply present the facts and let the readers decide what is more reliable. I think 64.131.205.111's main fear is that the article will end up sounding like the 800 home run theory was completely torpedoed as pure fiction by the far superior minds of SABR and other current researchers. I agree that the article should not read like that and should simply say what the facts are - without any slant or undue weight given to either "side". —Wknight94 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

None of us know what 64.131.205.111 was calling "original research"; he made the claim a number of times but refused to clarify. He discounted both published works more than once, but never made it clear whether he was calling them "original research".

As I tried to point out, the Hall of Fame does not endorse the "nearly 800" number; it's what was put on Gibson's plaque in 1972, and HoF plaques have only been changed in two instances, and not for statistical reasons. The Hall endorses the numbers in the book Shades of Glory; it lent its imprint to the book and provided the statistics within.

The facts are that there are sources that claim anywhere from 750 to 962 home runs for Gibson, but that they cannot be considered reliable or verifiable because there is no actual count or breakdown, most do not list an exact number, and there are so many different counts that vary by 100 or more from each other. The only verifiable fact is that they made such a statement, not the veracity of the statement itself.

I understand 64.131.205.111's fear, but I take great offense at his methods in pushing his beliefs; he accused me of having a racially motivated agenda for my wanting to have accurate statistics, and has not backed down from his accusation. His last word was to insist that I had "downplayed minority numbers". I resent the suggestion earlier that it was getting "too personal" in this discussion when it had already gotten much too personal long before that.

BTW, the "800 home run theory" basically was torpedoed, but not the "the superior minds of SABR". While not pure fiction, it was created by giving Gibson every possible credit for games against any level of competiton (if he'd hit a homer off of me, it would have counted), double counting some games (usually not as a deliberate act, but still doubled). In short, no one, no matter how much they have searched, has ever been able to document anywhere near 800 home runs by Gibson. While not pure fiction, it was certainly exaggeration. Even when the number was put on his plaque, it was considered questionable; it was put there because they never expected at that time that anyone would actually research it.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "neutral" article; do you mean that equal weight should be given all counts? If I were to rewrite this, I would have to put in a section that documents what the accepted Negro League numbers are (generally using BRMo's table), and a section detailing the earlier claims. I would have to state that most of those numbers were not based on verifiable research, explain how they were originally created, and that they should be taken with a grain of salt. I would have to explain somewhere why the raw numbers are so seemingly small, and offer sources if the reader wants further analysis of Gibson's career and its significance.

My fear is that the "neutrality" that 64.131.205.111 seeks is the kind of "neutrality" that would give the Flat Earth Society equal time with NASA.

--Couillaud 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cute attack with the flat earth society. I'm past that. The comments like downplaying came about as a result of things like this [5] and the rationale behind it as well as [6] and the rationale behind it (there does exist others). Anyway, the original research that I was speaking about wasn't SABR nor was it shades of Glory. There is no official total in regards to Gibson. Almost everything says unofficial totals because stats weren't consistantly taken with the Negro Leagues as they were with MLB players. I was speaking about the stats box that was created that put together the alleged totals by 3 different books. (from what is considered in their eyes to be official). It then makes totals and claims them to be legit. (and factual) that is original research.

It is said that "Gibson had 800+ homeruns (i am not even going to mention the 962 tally that exists on many sources) in all levels of play." How is that as a compromise? More sources anyone?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_458633.html http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492568 http://www.explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=20 http://www.amazon.com/Josh-Gibson-Life-Negro-Leagues/dp/1566632951/ref=dp_return_1/104-0249862-2980752?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books Book published in 2000 http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/josh-gibson-hof.htm http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/1346/Josh_Gibson_one_of_baseballs_greatest_hitters The Negro Baseball Leagues A Photographic History By Phil Dixon with Patrick J. Hannigan Copyright 1992 http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761582302/Josh_Gibson.html http://www.baseballhistorian.com/html/american_heroes.cfm?page=30 "In 1933, while playing for the Pittsburgh Crawfords, Josh Gibson batted 512 times, hit 55 homers and drove home an awesome 239 runs. " www.negro-league.columbus.oh.us/gibson.htm http://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/99_00/BH/jg/jg_bio.htm http://blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/Baseball_20/Past_Meets_Present_Washington_Unveils_The_Josh_Gibson_Exhibit.shtml http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06192/701548-341.stm http://sports.jrank.org/pages/1649/Gibson-Josh.html http://www.tradingcardcentral.com/news/2005/06/16_001.php http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-GibsonJosh.html http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/gibson-joshua-josh-1911-1947 http://www.ironcladauthentics.com/baseball/joshgibson/index.asp http://z.lee28.tripod.com/sbnslegends/id1.html http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4547/gibson.html http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_513337.html http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/arena/5866/gibson.html http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=4596&universeid=314 http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020301.html http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492568 If you go to the baseball hall of fame website and cilck on career stats you'll see that "Official major league statistics verified by Elias Sports Bureau" not SABR http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/02/022502_negroleagues.jhtml http://aol.bartleby.com/65/gi/GibsonJosh.html http://aol.bartleby.com/65/gi/GibsonJosh.html An opinion http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/basn_they_stand_alone/ http://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/BASN_BLACKBOX_54/They_Stand_Alone_Josh_Gibson_Hank_Aaron.shtml http://www.helium.com/tm/339282/there-arguments-greatest-baseball

64.131.205.111 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have many tasks to do right now, so let's cut to the chase. Which of those sites, if any, lists a year-by-year breakdown of Gibson's home runs? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A few sites list a few years and numbers. Most sites list the 800 + home run totals YoSoyGuapo 00:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC) = 64.131.205.111

How come the MLB retired template doesn't have a field for stats of player that played in the Negro League? since that was the MLB equivalent to everyone who wasn't white during that time the stats of that league should be recognized as if they were MLB players back then. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to check every site that YoSoyGuapo (alias 64.131.205.111) listed. He listed the Hall of Fame and a couple of other links twice, listed a user book review on Amazon of a book that said nothing of "800", cited more than one commercial site that was trying to sell Negro Leagues merchandise. As for citing a book review, YoSoyGuapo complained that Baseball Bugs had done exactly that earlier, and now does the same to help his own cause.

Not a single site lists a specific number of homeruns by Gibson (other than "nearly 800" or "over 800"), not a single site lists specific year by year breakdown of his career (so we can know how many of those "nearly 800" were hit in 1939 and 1940), and not one states any source of the information. The "800" number is simply a repeat of an old error. They all go back to the same original estimate. There are not "many accounts" of Gibson's accomplishments; they are all just a handful of stories, repeated endlessly.

When he pointed out that the Hall's stats are "verified by Elias Sports Bureau not SABR", he failed to point out one very significant fact: Elias HAS NO STATS for Josh Gibson. Elias didn't count Josh's numbers.

In short, no one knows whether Josh Gibson hit anywhere near 800 home runs by actually counting them; it is just a number someone came up with after his death without any documentation. There is no way to verify or confirm the number except that a lot of people heard the same story.

It's an interesting ploy to throw out dozens of badly formatted links (some of which are virtually identical to each other, some of which are exactly identical to each other, and none that have a definite number) and then call it "proof".

His offer of "compromise" to go with "nearly 800" and leave alone the "962" number that shows up on two sites (he says "many" but only showed two) is to offer to go with an inaccurate, disprovable number instead of a worse, even more disprovable number. That is no compromise; it's just threatening to yell louder unless we give you what you want.

These are (as I said earlier) just sites that could be pull from a quick Google search, without regard to whether or not they are reliable. YoSoyGuapo has yet to provide a single verifiable and reliable source of the number. He claims the HoF plaque is, but Hall plaques have notorious inaccuracies, including getting a first name wrong in at least one case.

It was long one of the curses of the Negro Leagues that hard statistical evidence of its players did not exist, and anecdotal evidence was all that existed. The problem with anecdoal evidence is that it is easy to exaggerate (and stories have been exaggerated), making it easy for critics to dismiss even the statistical information as baseless.

I don't believe that we need to uncritically include incorrect and unverifiable information into the article and exaggerate Gibson's greatness. His relative numbers look great by themselves. His On Base Plus Slugging is third best compared to MLB, behind only Ruth and Williams; when adjusted for its era, it would likely improve by comparison. He doesn't need us counting all his homers against amateur teams to try to make him look better than he was.

We should not ignore the anecdotal stories as having never existed, but we also need to show that as more accurate information has come in, a clearer and more believable picture of the ballplayer has emerged and show them in their proper context. We can discuss the old stories,how they came about, and what they mean.

We now have a much better, though still not perfect picture of Negro Leagues statistics. When someone insists that we count the games where a top-level beat some small town picked nine by a count of 25-0, and insist on using numbers that cannot even be traced, it's a wasted effort. It's like letting Henry Aaron bat against a college team's pitching staff in a band box park, and counting the 27 homers he hit in four games as legitimate.

Wikipedia is dealing with a bad reputation from the recent stories about how many of its articles have been edited by the article's subject, and allowing disproven hearsay information just because a single editor shouts loudly enough is a cause for despair.

My "Flat Earth Society" analogy was not meant to be "cute", nor was it an attack. It was a true statement of how I view this. We are proposing to uncritically allow discredited information into an article in the name of "neutrality".

Hell's bells. I've seen an offer of what someone called "compromise", but no consensus toward that yet. And it's yet to be shown that the "nearly 800" figure is in any way verifiable.

--Couillaud 03:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The are further issues in the article, for example this statement:"The commonly-cited home run totals in excess of 800 are not indicative of his career total in "official" games because the Negro League season was significantly shorter than the major league season; typically consisting of less than 60 games per year. The additional home runs cited were most likely accomplished in "unofficial" games against local and non-Negro League competition of varying strengths, including the oft-cited "barnstorming" competitions. Though these numbers are still based on incomplete evidence, this study does at least provide concrete proof that Josh Gibson was a power hitter of very high caliber." is completely unsourced speculation and the tone in it reeks of pov. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carribean about the unsourced and POV. There does exist a number and that number is 962. This is verified by http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/05/SPGQNIL8UR1.DTL http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_511371.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20060507/ai_n16483067 http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_458633.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n35_v14/ai_21157150 http://library.thinkquest.org/3427/data/gibson.htm http://www.blackbaseball.com/players/joshgibson.htm http://www.coe.ksu.edu/nlbemuseum/history/players/gibsonj.html http://rhilton4ujournal.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!6AEEB4FD9F1112F8!448.entry http://www.psacard.com/articles/article4210.chtml http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070802&content_id=2125626&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/321988/new_homerun_king_josh_gibbons_hidden.html http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050128&content_id=936666&vkey=news_pit&fext=.jsp&c_id=pit http://www.mlb.com/mlb/history/mlb_negro_leagues_profile.jsp?player=gibson_josh http://www.wvu.edu/~physed/blacksports/jgibson.htm

Notice how many of these are either MLB endorsed articles. (major league baseball) or blackbaseball articles. Not articles based off of one book. YoSoyGuapo 19:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the most important concepts in Wikipedia is that information cited be verifiable. None of these badly-formatted links quoted identify a source; they simply state a number an ask the reader to believe. They all derive from a single source, but do not identify it. A lie repeated a thousand times is still a lie. None of these citations can or will verify where the number came from, and none can show a season by season breakdown for each of Gibson's 17 seasons.

Awhile back, YoSoyGuapo was saying that "nearly 800" was the best number, but now he's going with 962, which shows he's abandoning those earlier fiercely stated claims. This is the problem with unverifiable numbers. We can probably find a few other figures and tons of links that quote them, but there will again be the same problem: verifiability.

As for "MLB endorsed articles", all articles that appear on MLB.com have the following disclaimer at the bottom: "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs" Tom Singer, who covers the LA Angels for MLB.com, is not a reliable source for such information.

I call for a consensus here. I propose a rewrite of the article to reflect the best known, most verifiable numbers, with caveats about other numbers (and nearly numbers) cited. We need to know what is accurate, and the numbers currently provided by the Hall of Fame (.359 BA, 115 HR in Negro League play) are the most accurate.

--Couillaud 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think there is confusion over WP:RS. The source doe snot have to tell you its own source, if its WP:RS. For instance you should not be quoting a MLB statistics chart as its not a third party source. The article from the San Fran Chronicle [7] is actually all that is needed to present the home run number. If you wish to produce a counter source stating alternate information, then one can be presented with the alternate third party source. The Pittsburd Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle etc. all meet WP:RS. We trust a WP:RS source to have proper editorial oversight and fact checking, which is why they do not need to cite their source. Hope this helps. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, proper editorial oversight applies to major and minor league stats, and stories about games and seasons, because they can be looked up from authoritative sources and verified in that manner. Newspapers don't have to worry about a writer quoting I-Rod's current batting average or Jim Thome's HR total, or even Ty Cobb's total number of hits, as there are official sources for them. But when it comes to articles on the Negro Leagues, definitive numbers were hard to find until the recent study commissioned by the Hall of Fame. The number 115 in Negro League play comes from a reliable, verifiable, and official source; the number 962 and its companion "nearly 800" do not. No one knows where the number originally came from. The Chronicle and Tribune themselves are reliable sources in most cases, but printing a feature article (as opposed to news reporting) does not automatically confer endorsement by the newspaper, nor does it mean the author used a reliable source.

I keep reading in the Kansas City Star how Buck O'Neil managed the Monarchs to five pennants and two world titles, when the actual number was two pennants and no world titles (there was only one league, and no championship series). Repeating myth does not make it reliable -- Couillaud 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, no one said the Reliable Source, made the information reliable. Oddly Wikipedia is not about "truth," we should be writing what the reliable sources say. As such there should be a section regarding the home runs, listing the sources that pass WP:V and WP:RS that state the higher number, then the same reliable sources stating the lower number, and if anyone has done it in a newspaper or other reliable source, an analysis of why they vary. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

proposal by Coulliard [8]

I'm going on the soapbox for awhile, an uncomfortable position in a baseball game (sliding runners tend to knock it out from under you). I want to explain my position without us getting personal. If you take offense, apologies in advance. And apologies for being so wordy. Genetic defect.

I am a baseball researcher by hobby (computer programmer by trade), and I take everything about baseball's history seriously, especially the Negro Leagues, which have become my area of expertise. Segregation in Baseball remains the absolute worst scar on its face.

In my opinion (emphasis on it being my opinion), Josh Gibson, Pete Hill, Satchel Paige, Bullet Rogan, Oscar Charleston, Andy Cooper, José Méndez, Cristobal Torrienté, and many others men would have easily been Hall of Famers long, long ago had it not been for segregation. It's my belief that given current evidence Gibson wouldn't have hit much more than 500 or so home runs playing a full schedule, given the HR rates of the 30s and 40s (not nearly as high as today), given his truncated career (he died after his 17th season), and given the position he played (catchers just don't play full schedules because of the extreme wear and tear; on the other hand, he might have been converted into an outfielder or first baseman in an integrated Majors, and 600+ would have been a possibility.

Babe Ruth hit 714 Major League HRs; had he had to face Bullet Rogan, Andy Cooper, Satchel Paige, and other pitchers of color, his totals might have tailed down toward 650 or so, and that in a 22-year career compared to Gibson's 17.

What we know is that Gibson is credited with 115 verifiable HR in Negro League play, plus 44 in Mexican League play, which was a bit lower level competition than MLB. Gibson hit .359 against Negro League competition, which would be second highest of all time (behind Cobb) had he done so in an integrated majors, and Cobb's .366 might have lost a few points as well had he had to face Negro pitchers like Lefty Cooper and Willie Foster.

The raw numbers are still small. We can't do anything about that. 115 compares very badly to 714, much less 762. But it's still important to know those numbers, because it's what he did against major league-level competition. What he did against amateur and semi-pro competition in exhibition games is fun to know (if we truly did know), but it is not the true measure of his worth, and (IMO) it insults the man's memory to artificially pad his numbers. Understanding that Babe Ruth hit HIS home runs in a league that played 154 games per season, that homers were easier to hit in Ruth's league than Gibson's (livelier baseballs in the AL), the relative numbers make Gibson look like Ruth's peer.

With few exceptions, there are no researchers who do not believe that Josh Gibson was one of the two or three best pure power hitters in the game, and no exceptions among serious Negro League researchers. We can (and in fact should) report that there have been various reports of his accomplishments in earlier days, but these numbers, taken without any context present a superman as unbelievable as that X-Files episode ("The Unnatural").

You have to trust that the reason for putting up Gibson's reduced stats has a noble purpose. Telling people that Gibson hit 800+ HR and batted .384 against all levels of competition tells nothing really, because he could have in reality hit .200 with no HR against top-level Negro League teams, but fattened up by counting 1,000 games against Little League comptetition. Telling them he hit .359 and had a home run every sixteen at bats in a career that included many games in Griffith Stadium tells them something of importance -- it gives us an excellent clue as to how he would have hit in the Majors, had he been allowed to play.

The "nearly 800" and "962" numbers give us no way of being able to separate them and understand their meaning. An official scorer counted every one of Babe Ruth's HR in his major league career, and we can go back to sources from that day and find it. In Gibson's case, someone reported (sometimes months later) numbers that no one even at that time could verify, because a lot of the numbers were based on hearsay, and some were just plain made-up. We can't tell how many he hit over a 150-foot fence against a 17-year-old kid with a 60 MPH fastball, because we can't separate them.

There's plenty of space on the internet for repeating urban legend as fact. Wikipedia should not be one of them.

My proposal is that we rewrite the article to include the latest official numbers, and make sure it is understood why Gibson only managed to play 510 Negro League games in his career. It will include some the most oft-repeated stats that have been used over time, though will also mention that they cannot be verified. We can try to quote some of the speculation by experts about what his career might have been like:

A catcher normally missed 10-20 games per season, so figuring Gibson as playing 2380 games in his career (140 * 17), he could be projected to 536 HR (which would have been second-best at the time). Assuming he go switched to the outfield and played 150 games per season (2550 game career), that puts him up to 575. Adjusting for the fact that he played in a league with fewer HR than the white majors, we can add another 5-10%, jumping that to about 620 HR with a career shortened by early death.

That's what I come up with, and I'm not an expert.

Let's compromise on this, what say?

--- Couillaud 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

what is going on with this situation? 149.68.100.42 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Batting average

Another slippery slope is the issue of his NNL batting averages. The more games you play, the more your average tends to "even out" over time. It's a lot harder to maintain a .300 average in 162 games than in 30. So while his home runs can arguably be projected, his batting average in official games cannot be. That doesn't mean someone might not have tried. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok that honestly doesn't hold weight. While it might be the case that they tend to even out (baseball average; there is no formula that makes this a law). NNL players hit high consistantly over different their negro league and independent league play. It just seems like another way to discount their achievements. 64.131.205.111 12:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Shorter seasons tend to yield more statistical extremes on matters of percentages. And the good hitters are going to tend to hit better than the not-so-good hitters, regardless of the length of season. In a longer season, the percentage differences are not going to be so extreme. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is becoming obvious that the consensus is solidly toward using the more recent and reliable numbers.

IP address is offering three basic arguments:

(1) He continually quotes individual articles that either repeat the old estimates that were made in a time when serious statistical research did not exist (the recently stated "962" number that two articles have show no source for their claim; their number could have been drawn from a hat, and it should be noted that each article contains the disclaimer, "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs", which is to say that the claims are the responsibility of the individual writers, and are not endorsed by MLB);

(2) Without having read books like Shades of Glory, he has set himself up as an "expert" on the subject of Negro Leagues baseball, and gives his opinion that such work is unreliable. He has stated that he knows that Hogan's book was the work of one man, and that it was not "authenticated" by the Hall. The book was written by one man, but the statistics are from the committee, and yes, this book has the imprint of the Hall of Fame. The project from which the statistics were derived was a part of the Hall's recent selection of 17 Negro League greats (to complement the 18 who had been previously inducted) in 2006. The book was released to coincide with the announcement of the selections. He has "downplayed" (to quote another phrase) the status of SABR in baseball research, while making it obvious that he does not know (nor does he care) what SABR is.

(3) He keeps making political arguments to justify using unreliable data. He has shown by his lack of familiarity with such common baseball reference sources as Macmillan and SABR that he lacks a certain level of discipline and expertise that is necessary to debate these matters; the necessary background comes from more than visiting websites. He argues from the heart, and I believe he's sincere, but he's resorted to sophistry and personal attacks to try to make his points. I don't wish to sound condescending here (I know, that runner has already scored), but I've been a baseball researcher for 25 years, and a Negro Leagues researcher for 15, and I feel confident in my sources.

--Couillaud 15:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're free to your opinion. 3-2 isn't a consensus. SABR aren't the god's in baseball records. They don't determine what counts and doesn't count!

The majors did plenty of barnstorming also, for the same reason as the black leagues, as an extra source of revenue. And your understanding of what constitutes "original research" is incorrect. The other writers here are citing published sources, which squares with the rules for citations. Your sources merely give total numbers, with no explanation or context, so they are not really helpful, but they can be noted in the article (except for the ones that obviously copycat the plaque number of "nearly 800"). As far as what "counts", you need to find sources that list the totals year-by-year, and separated out by league, and barnstorming, and let the reader understand the full picture. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"You're free to your opinion."

As are you to yours. However, my position is backed up by research, logic, and experience. Yours is backed up by . . . well, we're still trying to work that one out. It is certainly not backed up by any real research. It is backed up by Google, which doesn't have a responsibility to check sources.

"3-2 isn't a consensus."

Of course it isn't a consensus. Anyone can tell you that 3-2 is a full count.

And BTW, it's 3-1. The admin has not yet weighed in with a definitive position.

"SABR aren't the god's in baseball records"

First of all, SABR is a singular, not plural. And while is not the "god's" of baseball records, it is a much better source than any you have cited.

--Couillaud 16:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do like the 3-2 full count. That was pretty witty. 3-1 are great betting odds. My opinion is backed up by many references. Many more than you've even attempted to make for your opinions. SABR is a group thus it is plural. 64.131.205.111 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

SABR is singular. It is the Society for American Baseball Research. It is one organization, singular. Its members are plural. In fact, they're almost legion.

Further thought: IP address actually had a very good idea over on the Satchel Paige entry, setting up an infobox template for Negro League data; at the moment it seems that all we have is a template for MLB players, current and retired. I'm not real good with such things, and the template only shows up as a line instead of a box. Paige might not be the best subject to start this with, as he'd have two infoboxes, one for Negro Leagues and one for MLB, but it's a good idea nonetheless.

--Couillaud 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool Papa Bell uses another template (Template:Infobox baseball player), which is probably better suited for Negro league players. I recommend substituting it for the MLB template that is currently used in this article. Longer term, an infobox specifically designed for Negro league players would be a better solution. BRMo 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So where's the season-by-season breakdown of his totals? Which of your many references has that information? Also, as noted above, SABR is a society. Society is a singular word. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to break in here and say that arguing over whether SABR is singular or plural is really not helping anything. Similarly, the increasingly personal nature of this section in general is not helpful either. Let's stick to trying to improve the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the Cool Papa Bell template (Template:Infobox baseball player). Can we all agree with that one? 64.131.205.111 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright I created something that may work. I'm going to have to do further edits to move further on. [9] YoSoyGuapo 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

old info box and new info box

Since Josh Gibson was never an MLB player he shouldn't be using an MLB retired template. I have created a new one. Feel free to fix it and update it.

Josh Gibson
Catcher
Batted: Right Threw: Right
debut
1930, for the Pittsburgh Crawfords
Last appearance
1946, for the Homestead Grays
Teams
As Player Pittsburgh Crawfords (1930–1937) Homestead Grays (1937–1946)
Career highlights and awards
Leading home run hitter in Negro League history (according to most sources) 18th greatest player ever according to The Sporting News Member of the Salón de la Fama (Mexican Baseball Hall of Fame)
[[{{{hoflink}}}|Member of the {{{hoftype}}}]]
[[{{{hoflink}}}|Baseball Hall of Fame]]
Induction	1972

Josh Gibson

Personal Info
Birth:	December 21, 1911 , Buena Vista, Georgia
Height:	6-foot-1
Weight:	256 pounds
Residence:	Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Family:	Wife, Son Josh Gibson, jr.
Professional Career
Turned Pro:	1996
Joined Pro Ball:	Pittsburgh Crawfords (1930)
College:	N/A
Batting Average:	.359.
Hits:	47
Homeruns:	Record books show up to 962 but his Hall of Fame Plaque Shows 800
Walks:
Teams:	-	Retired:	1946
Principal Sponsor:	N/A

New template and old consensus

Upon the invitation of YoSoyGuapo, I did try to fix and update the new infobox. It needs some reformatting, has entries that probably aren't needed ("Residence", as he lived in more than one city during his playing career, and "Principal Sponsor", which makes no obvious sense), inaccurate information (Gibson started his career with Homestead, not Pittsburgh), and an apparent violation of the consensus we came to awhile back (go with the official numbers, but mention the anecdotal ones within context), and YoSoyGuapo reverted all the edits without comment.

The infobox needs work, if only for reformatting and which data to include or exclude. I did some of that, and YoSoyGuapo has reverted it without explanation.

The Pittsburgh Crawfords went pro in 1932 and signed Gibson away that same year from the Homestead Grays (with whom he had started in 1930), which I changed the infobox to reflect the correct information (which is already listed correctly further down in the article), and YoSoyGuapo reverted it without explanation.

I tried to make the box more readable and more accurate with verifiable data, and YoSoyGuapo reverted it without explanation.

After a long argument in which YSG kept shifting his reasoning for insisting that "about 800 homeruns" was the best number for Gibson, we came to a consensus that we would report the numbers currently recognized as official by the Hall of Fame while noting the anecdotal information separately. YSG apparently agreed to that, but has now apparently decided that the consensus is to do the opposite.

Is there a reasonable explanation for these reversions? --Couillaud 05:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi Protection

I have semi-protected this page for a week due to a sharp uptick in vandalism since the recent MLB decision to integrate Negro League records into MLB records. This article will likely have a lot of edits over the next few days but there were too many instances of violations to allow the page to go unprotected. Valley2city (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)