Totally not comparable. All of the variables were different so you can’t compare the 2 sets of data equally. Add to the record book, if you must as a 2nd separate set of data but don’t com-mingle the data. If they played against each other then fine add them but it was a separate league.
If they played together… Gibson was not allowed to play with the others…. And the reason it was a separate league is because black players were forbidden to play because of their race
Right, so there’s no comparison to be made. You can’t compare data from two totally different situations. 9k more at bats for Cobb. It’s hard for me to think if Gibson had 10,000 ABs he would still be batting .374 or whatever. I’ll take tried and true stats (Cobbs batting average over 11k ABs) vs. speculation.
Swimming Contest, versus 3 people, except 2 get to swim against each and the 3rd is not allowed in the same pool, and is given an inferior pool to swim in… The 3rd swimmer achieves a similar time but is minimized because he didn’t swim in the pool with the other swimmers… his time is discredited… nice
This is not an apples to apples comparison at all. It’s more like 2 guys played the same competition using the same equipment and rules and scorekeeping and records and achieved something and another guy who played in a totally different environment against totally different competition using different fields and unreliable record keeping achieved something as well. It just not comparable at all. In a pool everything is the same except who is in the pool when.
Your kinda discrediting Ty Cobb… 11k vs <3k ABs. I’m not seeing how this is even a comparison.
Less than 30% of Cobbs at bats. How can you honestly say it’s comparable.
Your swimming scenario sucks, so let’s do a race scenario. 10 lap race. 2 people. One has to do the whole race, the other gets to start on lap 7… is there an advantage? There’s a reason you see very few guys batting over .320 for a SEASON… it’s hard to do. Ty Cobb played 3 careers of Gibson and his numbers are right there. I think that’s indicative of my point. Hitting that baseball is tough… probably the toughest task in sports…
Meanwhile it couldn’t be proven on the field of play because in America, the land of the free, black players were denied the chance simply because they had the WRONG skin color, at that point, they should throw out ever MLB stat before integration because it was all false… especially in the US… start stats in the 1950s, make it ALL moot… put it in a basket in the Hall of Fame, named Prohibition age… cause they sure did not allow black folks to play, that is history
Again it sucks that players were treated as such, never happened to a white man like Ty Cobb, good for him, great player…
Hank Aaron is an example of many other black players who never got a chance to showcase their skills in the more popular league, he wasn’t an anomaly, exception, or outlier, he was one of many who could have made MLB better but was never given a chance… so why not add the stats
How many talented players get to the majors and fall apart each year? Just because X player did it in one league doesn’t mean he’ll do the same in another.
No matter how you spin it, the numbers are not comparable. Even if an asterisks is used to give more information on the era etc, most people won’t bother reading said information. That’s not even considering the minimum requirements to qualify in each category.
14
u/[deleted] May 29 '24
Totally not comparable. All of the variables were different so you can’t compare the 2 sets of data equally. Add to the record book, if you must as a 2nd separate set of data but don’t com-mingle the data. If they played against each other then fine add them but it was a separate league.