quote:
Your right,why even have a playoffs or World Series because we all know an a ONE GAME EXHIBITION is a far better measuring stick than 162 game regular season then a league championship and World Series.

Of course a one game exhibition isn't the most accurate measuring stick. But when one league dominates another to such an extreme extent (24-2 record over a 22 year period), it's pretty telling. And how is the World Series an accurate indicator of league quality? How do we know that the second best team in the winning league is also better than the second best team in the losing league or the third best team in the winning league is better than the third best team in the losing league and so on? The American League went 154-98 against the National League during interleague play in 2006. However, the 82-80 Cardinals beat the 95-67 Tigers in the World Series. In 2008, the American League went 149-103 against the National League yet the NL Phillies ended up beating the Rays in the World Series. And in 2012, the American League went 142-110 against the National League and the Giants ended up sweeping the Tigers in the World Series. Shouldn't that tell you that maybe the World Series isn't the best indicator of which league is superior over another? And I noticed that you completely ignored all of my points about the National League having more top-end talent than the American League because they were more progressive about signing top black and hispanic players. Since I'm not getting through to you, I'll quote an article from another source about this very topic and maybe it'll open up your mind a little bit. Maybe.

quote:
Returning to 1965 again, who were the best players, of any color, in the American League? According to Win Shares, the best players were Tony Oliva, Zoilo Versalles (who won the league’s MVP award), and Don Buford, three fine black players. Going down the list, the best AL white players that year were Rocky Colavito, Brooks Robinson, Curt Blefary and Jim Hall. How much better could they really have been than Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Pete Rose, Jim Bunning, and Ron Santo, each of whom had excellent seasons that year in the NL?

Admittedly, this is not proof. But I suggest we should all take with a grain of salt comparisons of, for example, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, which do not include a huge adjustment for the quality of the two leagues. According to Win Shares, Mickey Mantle deserved his third MVP Award in 1962, beating out Norm Siebern and Floyd Robinson. Meanwhile, Willie Mays competed with a large crop of superstars to win just two MVPs. He might have won every year had he changed leagues.

One argument often used in making the case to induct players from the Negro Leagues into the Hall of Fame is that there were just as many great black players playing before 1947 as there were afterwards. This argument, while not without holes, is a compelling one. There were players like Willie Mays and Frank Robinson playing in the 1930s, the theory goes, and they should be honored just as their successors were.

A parallel argument is to consider the game of the 1960s without its great black players. The baseball of the 1930s, I propose, was comparable to the baseball of the 1960s if all of the black players were somehow removed from the game. Had segregation continued for another generation, players like Harmon Killebrew, Ron Santo, and Norm Cash would have been the superstars and we would not have known that there were better players who were not able to play. Mays and Aaron and Clemente, those wonderful players who remade the game, would have remained in the shadows, and we would be wondering today whether they really could have competed in the great major leagues.

What would baseball have been like in 1965 without Willie Mays and the 27 other black stars? It would have been immeasurably worse. It would have been, I suggest, comparable to the baseball played in 1946.

LINK

This post was edited on 8/17/16 at 12:14 am