When one thinks of the old "Negro Leagues," names like Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson and Buck Leonard come to mind with some others. Certainly, serious quality talent came out of the leagues and it would have been great for many to have witnessed the action. However, questions have come up regarding just how good some of these players were and if Hall of Fame recognition is appropriate.

Listening to talk radio or reading some articles, one would think the Negro Leagues were the greatest thing since the creation of the telephone. Giddy callers yap about how Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig or any great white player from the pre-integration era might have been "overrated" due to the fact they did not play against black players in particular. Of course, much of this is said due to the safe, politically correct era we live in today where bashing white males is ok while saying something about any non-white person is deemed "evil, racist and dastardly." Even more putrid is the fact many of the people spewing such nonsense are often white. Of course, the host of such radio shows or the writer for a paper will go along with the charade because they don't want any trouble regarding their easy job. Thus, the "mush" approach is taken.

But the obvious must be asked. Were many of the Negro leaguers overrated? It seems the answer is yes. Looking at greats like Gibson or Monte Irvin( whom later played for the Giants), it is easy to say the pitching in the Negro Leagues was not at the top for the most part. Sure, you had Satchel Paige and others but the fact you had Gibson with at least 800 home runs and around a .350 career average for a catcher points to an obvious shaky pitching situation. Irvin, a darn good MLB player with a career .293 average and about 100 home runs literally "tore it up" in the Negro Leagues. He had outrageous years with averages of .422 and .396. Such stats. were not too uncommon for the upper-tier Negro League player. A little high, no?

For those questioning Ruth, a question must also be asked. What do black or any color ballplayers have to do with his home run prowess? He was bashing balls over the wall. The simple fact remains white pitchers dominated the game in Ruth's day and it continues to this very day. Of course there are others in the mix, but the fact still remains. Thus, how would an integrated game in Ruth's day affect his homer total? It would not.

On the other hand, what about Gibson's numbers? If he had to face the likes of Lefty Grove, Bob Feller, Dizzy Dean or Carl Hubbell on a consistent basis, would that affect his home run total and overall average? Absolutely. The same would go for Buck Leonard or anyone from the Negro Leagues.

Just like referring to Barry Bonds-if he beats Aaron's record-as the home run leader is a farce due to the steroid issue, tighter baseballs, smaller parks, etc., it is also a total farce to pretend white players would not be that good from the old days and that black players from the Negro Leagues would be just as good in an integrated game. As players like Jackie Robinson and Monte Irvin proved, they were darn good, but certainly not in the .350 batting average area. Few are.

The truth is this debate is more political than anything. Negro leaguers did face abuse and discrimination. But to now reverse everything and put down great white players( there were many) from the past to reflect the numbing brain-washing people receive on race in today's era is also pathetic and weak. Even baseball writer Bill Madden questions the amounts of Negro leaguers being put in the Hall of Fame. Great is great and no amount of cowardice, fear or weird politics will ever change that.