Sure. John and I are old friends; not trying to start trouble with him. I just can't see any rational argument to consider 19th baseball to be major league baseball.https://twitter.com/thorn_john/status/1321141571832614912 …
-
-
Replying to @billjamesonline
The criteria of the Special Baseball Records Committee in 1969 were institutional, unrelated to quality of play. The exclusion of the National Association, to then considered a major, was "due to its erratic schedule and procedures," despite the 1876 NL consisting of NA players.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @thorn_john
Both you and I know more about it than they did. Why should we honor an ill-informed committee decision a half-century ago?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @billjamesonline
Top o' the head: 1. To avoid present-centrism. To me, this is key. 2. To confirm that MLB is an institution independent of quality of play, or 1944 and 1945--or pre-1947-- might be excised. 3. To confirm MLB is a concept and league structure that all pro sports have modeled.
3 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @thorn_john
At essentially the same moment as early baseball morphed into major league baseball, horseless carriages morphed into automobiles. It is not "present-centrism" to state that one is pulled by a horse and the other is a car. It is reality.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
You use major league to mean "quality," or to separate what came after from what came before. Both horseless carriages and automobiles may be described as powered vehicles. Both early baseball and later may be called major league. Is an 1896 Duryea or an 1898 Winton not a car?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.