Negro League stats

[JuggernautJ]

NFL stats are NFL stats.

Then what about the (1960-69) AFL?

[JohnTurney]

Then what about the (1960-69) AFL?

That's just it ... there difference is an agreed merger rather than teams being absorbed. I don't particularly care one way or another -- not up to me -- but with HOF using them all these years and NFL doing something else ... always found it inconsistent.

[Sonny9]

From the article, and spot on with my thinking:

This need to try erasing that injustice, to whitewash and sugarcoat segregation and act like it never happened, is offensive to me and every other person that looks like me. These things happened in our history, and all of these institutions like Major League Baseball have done since 2020 would love to make us forget.

We won’t, nor should we we act like Major League Baseball’s history is suddenly cleansed because of this silly revision of history.

The thing is, no ones trying to whitewash anything or act like it never happened. And the ones against the inclusion of records are not doing it to cleanse baseball history. Not including their records makes people forget it happened? The records were not being included before this and no one forgot.

It's about the overall quality of play and the lack of games played.

[Ken Crippen]

I think of the options available (inclusion, continued exclusion or a "Separate but Equal" category) the proper choice was made.

It'd be great to see the NFL include AAFC stats as "official."
It is really difficult to appreciate the totality of some folks careers without including the AAFC in their resume.
Is there any chance that'll every happen?

I do not see it happening. The NFL always said that since the official score sheets were never turned over, they will not officially incorporate them into the NFL stats. The official score sheets were thrown in the trash when the league folded. They were pulled out of the trash by someone who thought they should be kept. However, they are not complete. Of what remains, three people hold them in their possession: Pete Palmer, Joe Horrigan/HOF, and myself. We purchased them from the person who pulled them from the trash.

Pete, Ken Pullis and others have tried to re-create the missing pieces, but there are still a few games where they have not been able to officially verify compared to published stats out there (which probably came from AAFC record books). There have been a few instances where the stats do not line up with the record books, so you cannot just blindly trust them.

[Jay Z]

There is no logic behind including Negro League stats into the MLB record book. Its just pandering, IMO. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it."

To me there is no purity in any of these leagues and any of these stats. They decided to start keeping stats at some point and we all pretend that it makes sense.

There certainly was an MLB from 1876-1900 and it wasn't particularly stable. But they kept stats and the records still exist.

There was an NFL from 1920-1932. They weren't particularly great at keeping stats. If they had kept better stats, they would be recognized more, only because the stats existed. The St. Louis Gunners are a "real" NFL team because more stats were kept. But they're no different than any of the briefly existing prior teams. Just one that came into being after the stats started being kept better. The firm lines people want typically don't actually exist.

Then there's stuff like the teams playing an equal number of games in a season. Which didn't happen for a number of years after stats started being kept. Ignored because we have stats. Sensible schedules by modern standards. Also ignored. We pretend that the Dallas Texans had nothing to do with the Baltimore Colts, and the AAFC/1950 NFL Baltimore Colts actually had something to do with today's Colts. Because the team wants it that way.

I have no doubt that the 1946 Browns would have kicked the asses of the 1960 Oilers. Yet one team is "officially" NFL and one isn't. Even though neither were NFL at the time, and both continued to exist.

A lot of the "official" record is frankly bullshit.

[Bryan]

NFL stats are NFL stats.

Then what about the (1960-69) AFL?

AFL/NFL stats are NFL stats.

But in all honesty, its all weird. I think the 1960 - 1964 AFL stats are kind of video gamish. So you get someone like George Blanda making the HOF. But...I've always thought it was weird that later in the 60's teams like Baltimore and Dallas put up some monster stats, yet they really weren't 'great' IMO. They kind of preyed on the lower class of the NFL teams. So, what if the AFL was stronger than the NFL in 68 and 69? Do we count NFL stats from 1960 -67 and then AFL stats from 68-69? I don't have a good answer.

[RichardBak]

NFL stats are NFL stats.

Then what about the (1960-69) AFL?

AFL/NFL stats are NFL stats.

But in all honesty, its all weird. I think the 1960 - 1964 AFL stats are kind of video gamish. So you get someone like George Blanda making the HOF. But...I've always thought it was weird that later in the 60's teams like Baltimore and Dallas put up some monster stats, yet they really weren't 'great' IMO. They kind of preyed on the lower class of the NFL teams. So, what if the AFL was stronger than the NFL in 68 and 69? Do we count NFL stats from 1960 -67 and then AFL stats from 68-69? I don't have a good answer.

This is why beer was invented.

[JWL]

A lot of the "official" record is frankly bullshit.

Although the NFL and some people in this forum pretend otherwise, the 1946-1995 Browns and Ravens are the same franchise. The 1999 to current Browns is a different franchise. That is reality.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

In all honesty, and I'm guessing that there are others on this forum who feel the same way, the fact whether MLB recognizes Negro League stats or the NFL recognizes AAFC doesn't change my opinion about the quality of the Negro Leagues or the AAFC. Both have always been on par in my book - meaning they both had exceptional players who would have been stars no matter what league they played in.

[Citizen]

Although the NFL and some people in this forum pretend otherwise, the 1946-1995 Browns and Ravens are the same franchise. The 1999 to current Browns is a different franchise. That is reality.

Wasn't giving the "new" Browns the old Browns' name/uniform/history a condition of Cleveland ponying up for an expansion club? Sort of a "we're sorry" gift from the league to the city?

Whatever the reason, I agree it was nonsensical. The new Washington Senators began play the same season the old Senators began playing in Minnesota. The new team (now the Rangers) just started from scratch, as it probably should be.