Perhaps the most important consideration to come out of the debate regarding the incorporation of Negro League statistics into the major league record book is the need for context. Many have cited the brevity of the Negro Leagues schedules as a prime reason not to include those statistics. In other words, Negro League numbers were not amassed in the same seasonal context as the 154 or 162 game schedules of the major leagues. The context in which any baseball statistic exists has changed and evolved on a number of levels over the years and, therefore, comparing historical eras is just as confounding as comparing the Negro Leagues to the major leagues.

There were myriad changes to the rules and the diamond in the 19^th century. John McGraw of the old Baltimore Orioles changed the game with the Baltimore chop and the hit and run. Babe Ruth moved the game from the deadball era to the live-ball era. Consider still further the changes not often considered: Major League Baseball has gone from playing on race-track infields, to dedicated fields, to well-groomed fields, to outdoor carpeting on concrete, to today’s synthetic turf. Lighting and drainage have improved dramatically in that time.

Training, diet, and overall health have also improved tremendously. (To put the exclamation point on that statement, here’s a video of Don Larsen being interviewed in the dugout after his perfect game, smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer!)

 Another totally under-appreciated context is the evolution of the baseball glove. It has gone from little more than padding for the hand to a catching machine.

Context is not limited to grounds or equipment. Think of how the approach to the game has changed and I’m not referring merely to strategy. Obviously, the batter from any era is trying to hit the ball as hard as he can and physics tells us that momentum equals mass times velocity. (p=m x v) In baseball’s beginnings, the emphasis was very much on mass; hence long, heavy bats. Somewhere in baseball’s history—and I’d love to read a study tracing the roots of this change—velocity became the most important part of the equation; hence the emphasis on bat speed. That change has altered the way the game is played and which players are signed. Teams don’t look for big strong guys such as Jimmie Foxx who can wield those old war clubs, but for guys such as Gunnar Henderson who clearly possesses a body full of fast-twitch muscles.

The only way to measure the greatness of any player is not by raw, unfiltered statistics, but to examine how good he was compared to his peers. Yes, there are now statistics based on league averages, but these are neither easily calculated nor easily understood. The concept of peer comparison needs a simple, new metric: the Peer Batting Number (PBN) and the Peer Pitching Number (PPN).

I define the Peer Number for hitters as OPS minus the league average. Simple. And it takes into account ball striking ability, judgment of the strike zone, and power. For example, if the American League average OPS was .732 in 1927, which it was, Babe Ruth’s 1927 OPS of 1.258 would result in a Batting Peer Number (BPN) of .509. The leads his peer and teammate Lou Gehrig by a little and almost everyone else by a lot.

The Pitching Peer Number (PPN) is calculated by applying the same idea to WHIP and ERA, i.e. the pitcher’s seasonal or career total minus the league average in the respective categories, then adding the two results. WHIP, of course, is the most direct, and perhaps accurate measurement of a pitcher’s ability to get outs. While ERA has its flaws, it is still a reasonable measure of runs allowed. The Pitching Peer Number sheds interesting light on two extreme seasons: 1930, known as the greatest offensive season ever and 1968, known as the “Year of the Pitcher.” The PPN suggests that in the context of the respective seasons Lefty Grove in 1930 had a better year than Bob Gibson in 1968. Gibson’s 1.12 ERA plus his 0.853 WHIP results in a PPN of 539. Lefty Grove registered a 2.54 ERA and a 1.144 WHIP, both significantly higher than Gibson’s totals. However, Grove’s PPN is 590. For that matter, the Dodgers’ Dazzy Vance wasn’t far behind Grove with a 583 PPN based on a WHIP identical to Grove’s and an only slightly higher ERA at 2.61. Upon reflection, it should not be surprising that the best pitcher(s) in the greatest offensive season of all-time had a better season relative to his peers than the best pitcher in the Year of the Pitcher. It is also interesting to note that Gibson’s WHIP was not the lowest in the majors that year, a distinction that went to the Orioles’ Dave McNally at .842. That number and McNally’s 1.95 ERA produced a PPN of 452, by the way.

The BPN and the PPN formulas can be easily adjusted by fans more versed in mathematics than I, perhaps with the use of OPS+ and ERA+, which adjusts for the influence of the home ballpark. Perhaps, home run totals or strikeout totals would be desired as part of the formula. It is also important to note that the major league averages for a season or for the length of career can be easily substituted for league averages to judge against the entirety of a player’s peers.

It is impossible to compare Mike Trout to Mickey Mantle to Babe Ruth to Josh Gibson to Ty Cobb based on career totals because of the eras and/or leagues in which they played. We can, however, compare the performances over a season or over a career in the context of that player’s peers’ performances. When and if the Negro League records are completed we will have a much better idea of just how good some of those numbers really are.