History and Advocacy
Back in 2002, my dear departed friend Fred Ivor-Campbell wrote to the listserv of SABR’s 19th Century Baseball Research Committee. Newer members of this now venerable group occasionally argued that the committee, or SABR itself, should take a public stance on this issue or that, often regarding the merits of a candidate for the Hall of Fame or, say, whether statistics from the National Association of 1871–75 should be counted as major league records (see, e.g: http://goo.gl/PZYbnU).
As a co-creator, editor, and publisher of the encyclopedia Total Baseball, which had one final edition ahead in 2004, and as one who had wrestled with Major League Baseball over some of these issues and a great many others, I instantly concurred with Fred’s instructive and splendidly articulated view, offered below. Individuals may think what they please (“Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame!” or “The Federal League of 1913 was a major league!” or anything else argued with more vigor than reason), and they may even rally a consensus around their opinions. SABR and its committees, on the other hand, have correctly, in my view, listened to Fred and stayed out of the advocacy business. Let him take it from here:
The Nineteenth Century Committee has never advocated anything — as a committee — though individual members have of course regularly advocated this or that. In my view, this is the way it should be.
There are two types of objectives of advocacy: facts, and opinions. I think it is appropriate for SABR’s committees, as committees, to advocate for corrections of fact which are based on committee or committee members’ sound research, like Hack Wilson’s extra RBI. But I do not think it appropriate for committees to advocate for changes based on opinion, like whether the Union Association or the 1900 American League are major or minor leagues. Let individual committee members argue these issues as strongly as they can, in committee newsletters and elsewhere, but let the committees — as committees — keep silent.
Unfortunately, the distinction between fact and opinion is not always clear. Is it a fact, for example, that Charlie Radbourn(e) won 59 games in 1884 rather than the 60 he was formerly credited with? Well, yes and no. According to the guidelines for determining pitchers’ wins established by the Special Records Committee, Radbourn won 59 games, and since the SRC guidelines are what Major League Baseball has committed itself to, then it is appropriate for encyclopedias to record Radbourn’s 1884 total as 59. But the historic fact is that pitchers’ wins were not officially calculated in 1884, and were barely — and at most, informally — calculated at all until at least a season or few later.
So should [SABR’s] Nineteenth Century Committee or the Baseball Records Committee proclaim as committees that Radbourn won 59 (or 60, or some other number of) games in 1884? I say no. Let Major League Baseball and the encyclopedias make a definitive choice, as they must do, based on what they take to be the soundest evidence and reasoning, and let interested SABR committee members as individuals argue the matter back and forth and reach their own conclusions. But let not the committees proclaim as fact that Radbourn won X games in 1884. What they may proclaim as fact is the more qualified statement that, according to the Special Records Committee guidelines for determining pitching wins, Radbourn won 59 games that year.
As for the question of the major league worthiness of the Union Association and the 1900 American League, I’ve argued to my own satisfaction that, historically considered, the UA is and the 1900 AL is not a major league. If we want to argue on other than historical principles — on the quality of play in the league, for example — then we open all of baseball history up for endless revision and readjustment.
If we drop the UA, then we should probably drop the 1890–91 American Association. If we raise the 1900 AL to major league status, there are some mid-twentieth century Pacific Coast League seasons that should probably also be elevated. And for lots of AL and NL seasons, as many as half the teams in the league should probably be dropped — and the top two or three UA teams should be restored to major league status.
Our only satisfactory recourse, it seems to me, is to ask whether the leagues in question challenged the established major league(s) for equality, and whether that challenge was largely respected by the press and fans of the time. The Special Records Committee doubtless wrestled with issues like these, and, it seems to me, came up with as good a conclusion as any — except in their rejection of the National Association 1871–75 as fully “major.”
Who was Fred Ivor-Campbell, for whom the annual 19th Century Baseball Conference is named? See: http://sabr.org/content/sabr-salute-fred-ivor-campbell
