Talk:Josh Gibson

From BR Bullpen

I've been meaning to get to this for some time to put actual numbers in place given the usual nonsense banter about "800 homers" and to show that Gibson was an all-around offensive threat like Ruth or Williams. But I never truly appreciated how awesome a player he was and the way he dwarved other greats like Doby, Campy, Irvin, Charleston, Leonard, Wells, Stearnes, Suttles, etc. The limited defensive statistics make him look even worse than Piazza, but there is now no doubt in my mind we're talking about the greatest catcher ever and maybe the greatest hitter. Wow. Hope others find the bio of value. - --Mischa 14:45, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

I see that you added a Salon de la Fama category. Should we add this to all the other members as well presumably? - --Mischa 18:17, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Josh Gibson Homers

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 64.131.205.111 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This same debate is going on at Wikipedia, stirred by the same anonymous editor. He wants to list the highest possible totals, and refuses to accept Macmillan or Shades of Glory as references, because he feels they are "biased". He is quoting hearsay stories about Gibson's exploits against all kinds of competition, and cannot understand that there is a good reason to use research instead of anecdotal evidence. We have tried to explain the the "nearly 800" on the HoF plaque was written in 1972, was based on no real research, and comprised an estimate of work against all levels of competition. I have seen statistical lines that quote almost as many home runs in some seasons for Gibson as he got hits, because the HR numbers were built from second- and third-hand reports that did not actually include box scores.

I urge BRB to hold on any changes he attempts until the debate on Wikipedia is finished. The goal here is have the most accurate information available, and and estimate of "nearly 800" home runs that make no distinction in the competitive levels does not meet that goal. -- Couillaud 10:38, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Should we just remove his edits then? Or is the list of the claims followed by the clarification that we have presently a better route? What do people think? Clearly, we shouldn't let unsubstantiated claims be considered the final answer, but the question is whether we acknowledge them and then show the facts or whether we just remove them altogether. - --Mischa 11:09, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

I believe that IF you keep the edits, they need to have a strong caveat that all such claims are based upon unsubstantiated numbers, and that the seemingly impossible numbers are based upon hearsay and estimate rather than bona fide research, and are frequently a matter of parroting earlier (and equally anecdotal) claims. Personally, I believe they should be removed until we have a consensus on Wikipedia, and either restored, amended, or ignored, and in that way we can avoid the same edit war here that we've experienced there. --- Couillaud 11:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

I think it is safest to remove them. I think the vast majority of baseball fans know the high claims and that we should support only proven research. - --Mischa 12:11, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Why not list them both? they are both referenced. 64.131.205.111 18:23, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

One is in older reference works and modern sites that don't bother to look at newer research. One is based on actual research and modern data available and is not the result of speculation. - --Mischa 20:19, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Here are a couple of examples of why the cited web sites should not be used as sources:

• From one: "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. "

The web site has incorrectly quoted Riley here. There were reports of 84 home runs in 1936, but those reports were not made in 1936 (the number was "reported" some years later), and they were not part of any published records of the 1936 NNL, as the NNL did not publish any official records of the season.

• From another: "Josh led the Negro National League in home runs for 10 consecutive years; credited with 75 home runs in 1931."

This according to the NLBPA; the problem here, as you know, is that Josh did not play 10 consecutive years in the NNL; his Negro Leagues career had a two-year interruption in 1940-41 when he played in the Mexican League; he could not have led the NNL in anything for 10 consecutive years because he did not play in the NNL for 10 consecutive years.

One of my arguments in Wikipedia is that such sites are not reliable; only a few of them quote an exact number (usually it's "nearly 800" from the 1972 HoF plaque, or "over 800"), and the ones that do show no source for the information. After quoting a number (or nearly a number) for so long that was pulled out of thin air, the myth becomes the only truth we know. It's not unlike the "Al Gore claims he invented the internet" lie that continues to make the rounds.

Could Gibson have hit 800 home runs in his career? It's quite possible, but irrelevant; he only played a handful of his games against top level competition, and the vast majority of those home runs would have been against terribly inferior competition, and it does no service to the man to exaggerate something that needs no exaggeration. The Hall's Negro Leagues Records project made their report, and the Hall has endorsed their findings. It doesn't mean that we have to ignore all the stories, but they have to addressed in context.

Is it fair to list Ruth with 714 HR and Gibson with 115? No, but then again it wasn't fair to keep Gibson out of the white majors just because of his skin color, and it does not "level the field" to give Gibson extra credit for amateur and semi-pro games, especially when such credit isn't given to Suttles and Stearnes.

-- Couillaud 11:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] "Official" Numbers

Where did we come up with the numbers listed by the Hall's Special Committee? I notice that the numbers cited here (under "Feats") are 224 HR in 2,305 AB, while the numbers released in Shades of Glory (said to be the official stats from the Hall) show 115 HR in 1,855 AB. Hogan's numbers in Shades are broken down season by season. I'd like to run down the discrepancy of 450 AB and 119 HR; the at bats perfectly match Gibson's Mexican League seasons, but he is credited with 44 HR in the Mexican League, so that would leave us with the exact same number of AB but 75 extra HR.

Can someone resolve this? Does Hogan have a typo or two that is robbing Josh of 75 HR, or is he getting extra credit?

--Couillaud 14:22, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

It looks like Sean put in the Special Committee bit in trying to clarify an uncredited source copied during the MTurk-Wikipedia experiment he tried. My guess is that he apparently cited the wrong authority when trying to source it. - --Mischa 11:43, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for adding in the research by Hogan. Should we make the text in the article reflect these changes? Or note both sets of numbers and their sources? - --Mischa 12:19, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I am uncertain where the numbers in the text came from. They may be left in, if they are prefaced with "According to . . .", to show the source, as we cannot tell yet from the compiled stats in which categories Gibson led. I'd say to leave the older text in, but reference it in the body, and put in an explanation of the new tables. -- Couillaud 14:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

The Negro League and Dominican stats in the text are from Holway's "Complete" Book of the Negro Leagues. The Mexican stats are from Pedro Treto Cisneros's Mexican League encyclopedia. The Cuban stats are from Figueredo's Cuban League book. Were there any other stats in the body that need to be sourced? - --Mischa 15:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Not sure which Municipal Stadium Gibson hit his 540 ft HR in. --Jeff 12:07, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Why bother with "official stats" for a guy like Gibson?

Everyone agrees he was one of the greatest hitters of all time, and almost inarguably the greatest offensive catcher ever. It seems like listing these "official" numbers seriously diminishes what he likely did, but listing the "unofficial" stats seems equally distasteful, as they're quite obviously inflated just enough to make him appear to be Ruth's superior. Neither seems like an acceptable solution. At least neither viewed in a vacuum. When I look at the numbers posted here for Gibson I see a "pretty good" hitter who by all anecdotal evidence listed is "the greatest hitter of all time". Those two things seem irreconcilable. I'm not expecting my word to mean anything, but I did feel I needed to drop my two cents. Gibson is a legend in a far more literal sense than Ruth could ever be... not because of the numbers that support him, but because he has the reputation he likely earned, although at a time/league where it seems like they barely even worried about keeping score. Lets just let the legend be the legend, and focus MORE on anecdotal evidence, instead of shunning it for its unreliability. Nothing is reliable about Negro League stat keeping, so why bother?

Except the official stats aren't inflated. - --Mischa 08:58, 19 December 2008 (EST)