Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?

[Joshchisox08]

This is bound to catch a lot of flack. And for the life of me I can't imagine why, though we live in PC America these days.

WHY is Jackie Robinson in the HOF? I may be mistaken but isn't an induction for a player based almost entirely on statistics?

Yes he endured a lot while playing. But that doesn't mean that he should be in the HOF over many other players with much better statistics.

His induction seems more like a charity induction to me. Just my opinion and wondering if there's anyone else that has at least questioned any of this.



The magical 3,000 hits --------- him 1,518
The magical 500 HRs ----------- him 137
The magical 1,500 RBIs -------- him 734

[4815162342]

#123 based on stats according to http://www.hallofstats.com

You might should've had that second cup of coffee before starting this thread.

[T206Collector]

You are going to take a lot of heat for the question, but I think it is fair to ask whether you could make a case for Robinson based only on his statistical performance in the Majors. To this question I answer yes. Simply put, he does not have the career longevity primarily because he didn't start his Major League career until 1947 when he was 28. Satchel Paige is also in the Hall of Fame for similar reasons.

Robinson was also sort of an early Kirby Puckett. A spectacular star in his short career. Puckett and Don Mattingly have the same "statistics" - but Mattingly isn't in the Hall of Fame. The same rationale for Puckett can be applied to Robinson.

Oh, and there's that whole integration thing, and the perennial MVP candidacy, and the stealing of home in the World Series, etc.

[rats60]

Roy
MVP
6x AS
6x NL Champ
1x World Champ
Recieved MVP votes 8/10 years
OPS + 132 4th all time, 1st among modern players for 2b

He only played 10 years because blacks were banned from baseball. So, he was not given time to accumulate stats. He did all that while fighting racism and discrimination. I'll take a player who is great for 10 years over a Craig Biggio who is good but not great for long enough to get 3000 hits.

[gnaz01]

WOW!! This may actually beat Frank's Monster thread...... SMH

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wonder how Peter Chao is doing.

[wolf441]

This is bound to catch a lot of flack. And for the life of me I can't imagine why, though we live in PC America these days.




We certainly didn't live in PC America when Robinson was elected to the HOF in 1962. He was a dynamic player whose career didn't get started until he was 28 because of that pesky little "gentleman's agreement" to bar an entire race of people from the game. He integrated the game, transcended the game, and did more for civil rights in this country than all but a handful of people throughout the late 1940's through the 1960's....

So, yeah, he belongs...

[Prince Hal]

Jackie Robinson a PC choice?!? That's just dumber than dumb. Watch the new Ken Burns documentary and get a little smarter please.

[Rich Klein]

Josh:

Most of today's stat whizzes say one's peak is completed even before age 28 or so. Age 27 is considered the best age for an athlete. If Robinson compiled these stats while moving around the diamond (1B, 2B 3B and OF) and bore the burden of being the 1st African-American baseball players of the 20th century then I will guarantee you if he had the way of coming up of a Mike Trout, without impediments, then his numbers would have been even better.

I have never heard of one person saying Robinson should not be a HOFer and guess what, he is a Hall of FAMER (note the word FAME) and was a great player during what is normally the 2nd half of his career

Skip any PC stuff, he is a HOFer.

Rich

[Cozumeleno]

I may be mistaken but isn't an induction for a player based almost entirely on statistics?

Not really. Stats probably have the biggest bearing for many voters but there are plenty of other factors at play here. The Hall of Fame's official criteria, in part, is as follows:

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

How those are weighted varies among voters, but the one thing that is clear is that a lot of other things go into voting outside of stats. That whole part about integrity and, in some cases character, is that pesky issue keeping stats-heavy steroids guys out, for example. In Jackie's case, he didn't only make a big contribution to his team, but the entire league. Those last four criteria are really key in his case (and, not to mention, he was a pretty good player).

We can argue how much stats should be a part of that, but again, it goes much deeper.

[Pilot172000]

Jackie Robinson a PC choice?!? That's just dumber than dumb. Watch the new Ken Burns documentary and get a little smarter please.

I believe its a fair question ask with out others getting snarky over it. I may not agree with him but its worth discussing. If you disagree, then "get a little smarter" and provide facts to support your argument. This is a question that will be asked by folks for years to come and having a supporting argument seems like a logical idea.

[Joshchisox08]

Roy
MVP
6x AS
6x NL Champ
1x World Champ
Recieved MVP votes 8/10 years
OPS + 132 4th all time, 1st among modern players for 2b


Rats ........ Since when do All-Star appearances count?
Also since when does being nominated for MVP count?


I believe its a fair question ask with out others getting snarky over it. I may not agree with him but its worth discussing. If you disagree, then "get a little smarter" and provide facts to support your argument. This is a question that will be asked by folks for years to come and having a supporting argument seems like a logical idea.

At least someone get's that I'm not trying to start anything. It's of my opinion, and if one does not agree as you don't no need to throw around insults. Thanks for understanding Dave.


Jackie Robinson a PC choice?!? That's just dumber than dumb. Watch the new Ken Burns documentary and get a little smarter please.


The whole PC thing needed to be addressed because as I figured, it would, and has turned into something other than my question. I just don't see it based on his statistics. They were also listed above to prove what I'm stating.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are a fair number of players with relatively low lifetime stats due to short careers that are in. Koufax comes to mind. Dizzy Dean. There is nothing PC about Jackie's induction, he hit .311 and was a stellar player for about a decade.

PS It is self-evident why all star appearances are relevant, and MVP consideration.

[Joshchisox08]

#123 based on stats according to http://www.hallofstats.com

You might should've had that second cup of coffee before starting this thread.


Bill Dahlen is listed at #73 certainly has more hits and RBI

[sbfinley]

Because he played the first two seasons of his career under arguably more pressure to perform than anyone else in the history of the game and was amazing. Had he buckled or shown weakness physically or mentally, he along with the others who played sparingly in 47' (Doby, Thompson, and Brown) would have likely not returned in 1948 and the integration movement would probably have been stifled for another decade. The entire history of postwar baseball would have to be rewritten. He is without question one of the three most important individuals in the history of the game and because of this his career stats, which are Hall of Fame worthy even in a protracted decade of playing, are immaterial.

[Joshchisox08]

There are a fair number of players with relatively low lifetime stats due to short careers that are in. Koufax comes to mind. Dizzy Dean. There is nothing PC about Jackie's induction, he hit .311 and was a stellar player for about a decade.

PS It is self-evident why all star appearances are relevant, and MVP consideration.

Ok shortened career. Plenty of other players already mentioned that had short careers. Mattingly.

All-Star games that fans vote for?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ok shortened career. Plenty of other players already mentioned that had short careers. Mattingly.

All-Star games that fans vote for?

Use the JAWS metric. Jackie ranks 10th at second base. Mattingly ranks 38th at first.

[Joshchisox08]

We certainly didn't live in PC America when Robinson was elected to the HOF in 1962. He was a dynamic player whose career didn't get started until he was 28 because of that pesky little "gentleman's agreement" to bar an entire race of people from the game. He integrated the game, transcended the game, and did more for civil rights in this country than all but a handful of people throughout the late 1940's through the 1960's....

So, yeah, he belongs...

Steve,
the PC America statement had nothing to do when he was playing and all of how people will and have reacted to my questioning his candidacy based on his statistics.

[Joshchisox08]

Use the JAWS metric. Jackie ranks 10th at second base. Mattingly ranks 38th at first.

I'm unfamiliar with the JAWS metric. Can you please refer me to a link or better yet explain what the acronyms mean?

[bbcard1]

I think in terms of peak value, Robinson was right up there. In addition to excellent stats during his best years, he was a disruptive force like few others. I don't see any problem with having him in the hall. I think (and this is pretty subjective) I'd rally only prefer Hornsby (though a cancer of a player) and Morgan on the field at their best over Robinson as an all-round player. He would probably not be in the top 10 for career value. I can live with that relative weakness with other factors considered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm unfamiliar with the JAWS metric. Can you please refer me to a link or better yet explain what the acronyms mean?

Look at baseballreference.com, they have a good explanation. It's based on wins above replacement.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think in terms of peak value, Robinson was right up there. In addition to excellent stats during his best years, he was a disruptive force like few others. I don't see any problem with having him in the hall. I think (and this is pretty subjective) I'd rally only prefer Hornsby (though a cancer of a player) and Morgan on the field at their best over Robinson as an all-round player. He would probably not be in the top 10 for career value. I can live with that relative weakness with other factors considered.

A couple of guys named Collins and Lajoie were pretty good at that position too.

[bn2cardz]

This is bound to catch a lot of flack. And for the life of me I can't imagine why, though we live in PC America these days.

WHY is Jackie Robinson in the HOF? I may be mistaken but isn't an induction for a player based almost entirely on statistics?

Yes he endured a lot while playing. But that doesn't mean that he should be in the HOF over many other players with much better statistics.

His induction seems more like a charity induction to me. Just my opinion and wondering if there's anyone else that has at least questioned any of this.



The magical 3,000 hits --------- him 1,518
The magical 500 HRs ----------- him 137
The magical 1,500 RBIs -------- him 734


Basing an argument against someone based off "magical" numbers shows a lack of historical knowledge and the understanding of what a long career can do for a player. As already stated his career was shortened by not being able to play in the majors at a younger age.

The magical 3,000 hits > Only 29 men have hit this number with the shortest career being 18 years. 24 of those 29 had 20 or more years in their career. With 1518 in a 10 year career, if he had played 20 years with the same pace he would have gotten 3,036 hits.

The magical 500 HRs ----------- him 137
The magical 1,500 RBIs -------- him 734
As far as RBIs and HRs Jackie wasn't a power hitter, he was hitter that turned regular hits into extra base hits with his speed.

In a 10 year career he had a top 10 WAR 6 years.

Basically you are trying to attribute career stats to a guy with a shortened season due to limitations outside his control. You have to look at season stats.

Season stats he was top 10 in the following categories:
SB 9 times
BA 6 times
2B 6 times
OBP 6 times
Runs 7 times
Total Bases 4 times (without ever leading HR!)

Though I do believe he was voted in by his stats I do believe player's impact on the game is a huge part of the voting process.

Voting rules per the BBWAA election rules:


5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted. (http://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/bbwaa-rules-for-election)

Based on your original argument you break rule 6 and ignore five of the six criteria listed in rule 5.

[ksabet]

delete

[Joshchisox08]

A couple of guys named Collins and Lajoie were pretty good at that position too.

Bahhahaha

[bn2cardz]

Bill Dahlen is listed at #73 certainly has more hits and RBI

...with a 21 year career. He never was in the top 10 in HITS. He led in RBIs only once while breaking the top 10 in this category only 4 times.

[Bliggity]

Ok shortened career. Plenty of other players already mentioned that had short careers. Mattingly.

Mattingly's career was shortened due to his physical limitations and inability to maintain excellence over a long period of time. Jackie's career was shortened because other people wouldn't let him play. No basis for comparison.

ETA - See also: Addie Joss.

[Prince Hal]

I just don't understand where a stats based review of Jackie Robinson's HOF worthiness even comes from.

His career in MLB was relatively short because he was discriminated upon based on his race and because was serving his country in WWII. He achieved at a high level in MLB under what had to be the worst possible circumstances. Imagine not even being able to eat in the same restaurant as your team mates or being intentionally spiked and thrown at only because of the color of your skin.

His election was politically correct, baseball correct and morally correct. It's actually kind of amazing that he was elected at a time when Jim Crow laws were still prevalent.

Bill James' book Whatever Happened to the Hall will give you plenty of fodder for discussion on folks who have no right to be enshrined. For example, the cronyism (if you believe James) of Frankie Fritch when he was on the selection committee is a sad testament.

I was snarky and I'll own that. In my opinion Jackie personifies what the Hall should be about and to question his worthiness based on stats alone is an insult to a great baseball player and a great man.

[Steve D]

Because he played the first two seasons of his career under arguably more pressure to perform than anyone else in the history of the game and was amazing. Had he buckled or shown weakness physically or mentally, he along with the others who played sparingly in 47' (Doby, Thompson, and Brown) would have likely not returned in 1948 and the integration movement would probably have been stifled for another decade. The entire history of postwar baseball would have to be rewritten. He is without question one of the three most important individuals in the history of the game and because of this his career stats, which are Hall of Fame worthy even in a protracted decade of playing, are immaterial.



+1

If Jackie Robinson had failed, Monte Irvin and Satchel Paige would have never gotten to the major leagues. Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente and Willie Mays, among others, would not have had the chance they did. He also was, arguably, the impetus for the entire Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

Add to the above, that he was one hell of a player, and the entire package exudes "Hall of Famer".

To me, Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth are the two most important players in the entire history of baseball.

Steve

[Pilot172000]

I just don't understand where a stats based review of Jackie Robinson's HOF worthiness even comes from.

His career in MLB was relatively short because he was discriminated upon based on his race and because was serving his country in WWII. He achieved at a high level in MLB under what had to be the worst possible circumstances. Imagine not even being able to eat in the same restaurant as your team mates or being intentionally spiked and thrown at only because of the color of your skin.

His election was politically correct, baseball correct and morally correct. It's actually kind of amazing that he was elected at a time when Jim Crow laws were still prevalent.

Bill James' book Whatever Happened to the Hall will give you plenty of fodder for discussion on folks who have no right to be enshrined. For example, the cronyism (if you believe James) of Frankie Fritch when he was on the selection committee is a sad testament.

I was snarky and I'll own that. In my opinion Jackie personifies what the Hall should be about and to question his worthiness based on stats alone is an insult to a great baseball player and a great man.

I can live with that.

[celoknob]

Why does the OP continue to argue that induction is only based on statistics when he has quoted the rules that state integrity, sportsmanship and character are all considerations? With all that, even if you are going to only consider stats how could you not consider the years he lost because he was not even allowed on the field. And then to call this PC? Yes, that will inflame people and it should.

If anything his induction to the HOF in 1962 was anti-PC. Ever heard of Selma, Freedom Rides, Birmingham bombings, Bull Conner, ravaging dogs and fire hoses, segregation, lynching. A black man could not even stay in most hotels or eat in a restaurant, get a taxi, a decent job etc. etc. Most of these things were still going on or were still in the future in 1962. JR was a hero and first rate HOFer for overcoming these overwhelming obstacles, not to mention still a great player.

His integrity, sportsmanship and character are second to none in the HOF and the Hall would be a joke if he was not there. And yes, I think it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise unless you simply have not learned anything about race in America, especially up through the 1960s and can then dismiss these powerful events as "PC".

[Pilot172000]

Why does the OP continue to argue that induction is only based on statistics when he has quoted the rules that state integrity, sportsmanship and character are all considerations? With all that, even if you are going to only consider stats how could you not consider the years he lost because he was not even allowed on the field. And then to call this PC? Yes, that will inflame people and it should.

If anything his induction to the HOF in 1962 was anti-PC. Ever heard of Selma, Freedom Rides, Birmingham bombings, Bull Conner, ravaging dogs and fire hoses, segregation, lynching. A black man could not even stay in most hotels or eat in a restaurant, get a taxi, a decent job etc. etc. Most of these things were still going on or were still in the future in 1962. JR was a hero and first rate HOFer for overcoming these overwhelming obstacles, not to mention still a great player.

His integrity, sportsmanship and character are second to none in the HOF and the Hall would be a joke if he was not there. And yes, I think it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise unless you simply have not learned anything about race in America, especially up through the 1960s and can then dismiss these powerful events as "PC".

Oh brother.....

[Joshchisox08]

Why does the OP continue to argue that induction is only based on statistics when he has quoted the rules that state integrity, sportsmanship and character are all considerations? With all that, even if you are going to only consider stats how could you not consider the years he lost because he was not even allowed on the field. And then to call this PC? Yes, that will inflame people and it should.

If anything his induction to the HOF in 1962 was anti-PC. Ever heard of Selma, Freedom Rides, Birmingham bombings, Bull Conner, ravaging dogs and fire hoses, segregation, lynching. A black man could not even stay in most hotels or eat in a restaurant, get a taxi, a decent job etc. etc. Most of these things were still going on or were still in the future in 1962. JR was a hero and first rate HOFer for overcoming these overwhelming obstacles, not to mention still a great player.

His integrity, sportsmanship and character are second to none in the HOF and the Hall would be a joke if he was not there. And yes, I think it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise unless you simply have not learned anything about race in America, especially up through the 1960s and can then dismiss these powerful events as "PC".

Guy, why don't you read what I wrote in previous posts. No indication of PC was brought up during his playing time.

PC was brought up for the people who would make comments such as you did bringing race into play as it was bound to happen.

Last time I heard everyone was entitled to their own opinion. I won't be swayed by people just because nobody is going to agree with mine. I simply made a debatable argument for curiosity sake as I figured it would get quite a few comments. And not many other subjects on the front page right now.

[the 'stache]

Sometimes, baseball players transcend simple statistical analysis. And Jackie Robinson is clearly one of those few men who do.

You don't seem to appreciate just how much pressure he was under. Death threats. Opposing players going out of their way to injure him during games. Fans, opposing players, coaches and managers calling him every vile name in the book. Of course, other team owners didn't want him to play, either. It was their "gentleman's agreement" that kept African Americans out of Major League Baseball. If the Jackie Robinson "experiment" didn't succeed, we might have never seen Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente and a slew of other black or dark skinned Latin players in the Majors. They would have become other footnotes in history, joining the likes of Cool Papa Bell, Josh Gibson, Buck Leonard, and Satchel Paige (he only made it to the Majors at the very end of his career; we never saw how truly great he was in his prime). Robinson was not just playing for himself, his team, and the people of Brooklyn. He was playing for a people. Most people would wilt under that pressure. Jackie Robinson thrived, and he did it while being forced to turn the other cheek for the first two years of his career.

And to go back to the statistics, not every player needs to achieve some benchmark statistic to get into the Hall of Fame. And not every player who gets close to a benchmark deserves to get in, either. There are a good number of players who came close to 3,000 hits, or 500 home runs, that won't ever make Cooperstown. Robinson, of course, never approached those career benchmarks. But he is quite clearly one of the best, most exciting players the game has ever seen. He was incredibly disruptive as a base stealing threat. He was a phenomenal hitter (one who didn't strike out), had good power, and was sensational defensively.

To simplify it, look at WAR. A single season WAR of 8.0 or higher is considered an MVP caliber season. Of the ten seasons he played, three were clearly at an MVP level, and a fourth was very close to it. He was the Rookie of the Year in 1947 (the first to ever win the award). He had only a 3.3 WAR that season, however. The next five seasons, 1948 to 1952, he put up a combined 40.6 WAR. That's an average of 8.1 WAR per season. He averaged an MVP season for five years.

Compare his play to other second basemen of the live ball era (starting in 1920). Robinson played six of his ten seasons primarily at second base. In the 96 years of the Live Ball Era, Major League second baseman have reached a 7.0 WAR or higher a total of 66 times. Robinson has four of them (http://tinyurl.com/z386ba5). And his best two seasons? He had a 9.7 WAR in 1951 (and was 6th in the MVP vote!). Among all Major League baseball players of the last century, only Rogers Hornsby (six times) and Joe Morgan (once) have had a better season. And in 1949, he had a 9.6 WAR, winning the MVP. Joe Morgan's 9.6 is the only other season to get into the same elite level.

One last thing to consider. Of all Major League second basemen in the Live Ball Era who played at least 700 games at the keystone corner, Rogers Hornsby is the only one with a higher OPS + than Robinson. Hornsby had a 182 OPS +. Robinson and Joe Morgan each have career 132 OPS + marks. But in the seasons where Robinson was a second basemen, excluding his later seasons, he had a 137 OPS +. Higher than Rod Carew. Higher than Ryne Sandberg, Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins, Tony Lazzeri, Dustin Pedroia, Robinson Cano and Jeff Kent.

Robinson was awesome on the field, and his courage changed the game for the better.

[drmondobueno]

Guy, why don't you read what I wrote in previous posts. No indication of PC was brought up during his playing time.

PC was brought up for the people who would make comments such as you did bringing race into play as it was bound to happen.

Last time I heard everyone was entitled to their own opinion. I won't be swayed by people just because nobody is going to agree with mine. I simply made a debatable argument for curiosity sake as I figured it would get quite a few comments. And not many other subjects on the front page right now.

Josh,

If you weren't around during Jackie's heyday and lived in the '50's and '60's then I don't know what to tell you, for many of us what Jackie accomplished was A BIG DEAL. BIG TIME. HUGE. Stats won't cover any of that.

Carry on.

[ajquigs]

I agree that Jackie is unquestionably a Hall of Famer for the various reasons that are well stated throughout this thread. I have a couple of thoughts that I hope are worth adding.

I think raising the question is completely fair in an open discussion forum such as this one. Debate - likely spirited - should be expected and I think the OP expected just that. I understand that people find it distasteful that it's being raised on April 15, but I think it's natural and inevitable that discussion is invited when subjects are broadly front of mind.

One personal thought on HOF selection. I enjoy going to the HOF and spending time reading the plaques. When thinking about selection I can't help but think ... "Would this Hall - the physical display itself - be diminished if this individual's plaque was not here?" For me, even if you cut the number of plaques by 90% I think Jackie should be one of the 10% that remain. Again, this is a personal view - not a workable criterion for election - but to me the HOF simply would not be the HOF without Jackie Robinson.

[trdcrdkid]

Guy, why don't you read what I wrote in previous posts. No indication of PC was brought up during his playing time.

PC was brought up for the people who would make comments such as you did bringing race into play as it was bound to happen.

Last time I heard everyone was entitled to their own opinion. I won't be swayed by people just because nobody is going to agree with mine. I simply made a debatable argument for curiosity sake as I figured it would get quite a few comments. And not many other subjects on the front page right now.

Josh, we've all read what you wrote in your previous posts, or at least I have. The reason people are "bringing race into play" is because it's a central part of the reasons why Jackie Robinson is in the HOF, and if you don't understand that, then I don't know what else to say to you. You asked why Robinson is in the HOF given his career stats, and numerous people have explained why:
1) He did not debut in the major leagues until age 28, around the midpoint of most players' careers, because racial discrimination kept him and all other black players out;
2) When he did break the color barrier, he endured absolutely horrific abuse for several years, but he did it with grace and class, refusing to let it break him. As others have noted, it was far from a foregone conclusion that Robinson would be successful, and if he had allowed the racial abuse he endured to drive him out of baseball, the history of the postwar game might have been very different;
3) Robinson was a legitimately great player for the 10 years he did play in the major leagues. As others have noted, if he had played 20 years instead of 10, he would have probably gotten close to 3000 hits and some of the other milestones you mentioned.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion; I don't think anybody is denying that. But that doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to have their opinion accepted without question, if other people have legitimate reasons to think otherwise. Asking why Jackie Robinson is in the Hall of Fame, but then not wanting race to be part of the discussion (as you appear to be doing), is absolutely mind-boggling to me.

[darwinbulldog]

1947: Rookie of the Year.
1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953: Top 10 NL player every year (wins above replacement), including 4 consecutive years as one of the top 2 players in the NL

Who else had this good a 7-year run during Jackie's career?

Ted Williams and Stan Musial. That's the whole list. If you want to include players whose careers overlapped a bit but didn't do as much during Jackie's career per se, you can add Mantle, Mays, and Aaron. But then that's it.

So Jackie wasn't better than Williams, Musial, Mantle, Mays, and Aaron. You might say the same of DiMaggio and Gehrig. Why are they in the Hall of Fame? And I don't want any P.C. B.S. on account of my questioning the credentials of an Italian-American and a man with a debilitating disease.

[Rookiemonster]

What nobody is saying is this . Is Jackie Robinson was white would he be in the hall of fame ?


I do belive he is a hall of famer but not just because he was a good baseball player and great man .That being said how many great men are not in any type of hall of fame .

He got in for being a pioneer and a good baseball player . Jesse owns was great but his track numbers in today's world are for high school kids . You really can't compare athelites of today to yesterday's .A lot of people on this board have trouble understanding this . with players not really being that good but good for the time they played . Your views are all dangerously flawed if you truly believe that Cobb would be a great player today .

[ALR-bishop]

I just hate it when my flaws take a dangerous turn

[T206Collector]

I can live with that.

Me too!

[Cozumeleno]

Your views are all dangerously flawed if you truly believe that Cobb would be a great player today .

Rick Barry had a good interview earlier this year with Tony Kornheiser. He argued that if he played today, he would be a much better player because of easier travel, more advancements, etc.

I do think if you took a lot of older players and their abilities from that time, and plopped them into today's game, many would be overmatched. There's no denying players today are bigger, faster, etc. But I also believe that had they grown up with today's standards, advancements, improved physiques, etc., they would be great as well.

[Rookiemonster]

Rick Barry had a good interview earlier this year with Tony Kornheiser. He argued that if he played today, he would be a much better player because of easier travel, more advancements, etc.

I do think if you took a lot of older players and their abilities from that time, and plopped them into today's game, many would be overmatched. There's no denying players today are bigger, faster, etc. But I also believe that had they grown up with today's standards, advancements, improved physiques, etc., they would be great as well.

This is the best way to answer this question. And I absolutely agree !

[wolf441]

Steve,
the PC America statement had nothing to do when he was playing and all of how people will and have reacted to my questioning his candidacy based on his statistics.

I understand your questioning of his statistics. I was just making the point that he was voted into the HOF in 1962, when there were still Jim Crow laws and before LBJ signed his civil rights act into law. So for a country that was less than fair minded about race at the time, to elect him to the HOF says quite a bit about what they thought of him as a player...

[darwinbulldog]

What nobody is saying is this . Is Jackie Robinson was white would he be in the hall of fame ?


I do belive he is a hall of famer but not just because he was a good baseball player and a was a great man , that being said how many great men are not in any type of hall of fame .

He got in for being a pioneer and a good baseball player . Jesse owns was great but his track numbers in today's world are for high school kids . You really can't compare athelites of today to yesterday's .A lot of people on this board have trouble understanding this . with players not really being that good but good for the time they played . Your views are all dangerously flawed if you truly believe that Cobb would be a great player today .

I think most of us understand that, but being one of the best 5 players during his career (as Cobb certainly was) indicates he'd be doing fine in the majors today if he had been born 100 years later than he was. That is, 2016 Ty Cobb would in fact be better than 1916 Ty Cobb was if you cloned him -- unless you're suggesting that the genes for being a great athlete just mutated into the gene pool in the past few decades. And 1916 Mike Trout would have done just fine in 1916, but he wouldn't necessarily be better than Cobb. You have to take away weightlifting, year-round training in general, access to better healthcare and nutrition, more refined training methods starting even before Little League, etc. and see what's left for a fair comparison. If you put Trout today in a time machine and send him back, he would in all likelihood be even better than Ruth. If, on the other hand, you had put baby Mike Trout in a time machine and sent him back to develop in the early 20th century, he'd still grow up to be a great player, but I'm thinking more like Jimmie Foxx great rather than better than Ruth.

I can't imagine putting, say, Andres Galarraga into the Hall of Fame in place of Roger Connor, but that's what you'd have to do if you wanted a Hall of players who were the best regardless of cohort. I'm sure Galarraga was better at hitting a 95-100 mph fastball, but it's simply not a fair comparison because of the different environments in which they developed, and it makes for a less interesting Hall of Fame anyway.

[packs]

The elites would be stars in any era. Wagner, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Walter Johnson, Ty Cobb, these guys were the greatest players ever to play baseball, not just in their time. And I've said it before, but there were probably 10 times as many people playing baseball during their careers as there are now. So you had to beat out many many more peole to play your way on to a roster than you do today. I think that should be taken into consideration when you say that a player today is better than a player of yesterday.

[Bpm0014]

I think raising the question is clearly appropriate in an open discussion forum such as this one. Debate - likely spirited - should be expected and I think the OP made it clear he expected just that.

^^^What he said! The OP was just opening up a discussion and debate and after all that's what this forum is for. We need to relax....

[darwinbulldog]

The elites would be stars in any era. Wagner, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Walter Johnson, Ty Cobb, these guys were the greatest players ever to play baseball, not just in their time. And I've said it before, but there were probably 10 times as many people playing baseball during their careers as there are now. So you had to beat out many many more peole to play your way on to a roster than you do today. I think that should be taken into consideration when you say that a player today is better than a player of yesterday.

You actually have to beat out more people today to make a roster, just not as high a proportion of the white American male demographic.

[packs]

Do you think so? I might be wrong but it seems like there are less people playing baseball today than there were 100 years ago when it was unquestionably the dominant sport. I feel as though more people are playing football and basketball than baseball.

[Exhibitman]

Why does the OP continue to argue that induction is only based on statistics when he has quoted the rules that state integrity, sportsmanship and character are all considerations? With all that, even if you are going to only consider stats how could you not consider the years he lost because he was not even allowed on the field. And then to call this PC? Yes, that will inflame people and it should.

If anything his induction to the HOF in 1962 was anti-PC. Ever heard of Selma, Freedom Rides, Birmingham bombings, Bull Conner, ravaging dogs and fire hoses, segregation, lynching. A black man could not even stay in most hotels or eat in a restaurant, get a taxi, a decent job etc. etc. Most of these things were still going on or were still in the future in 1962. JR was a hero and first rate HOFer for overcoming these overwhelming obstacles, not to mention still a great player.

His integrity, sportsmanship and character are second to none in the HOF and the Hall would be a joke if he was not there. And yes, I think it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise unless you simply have not learned anything about race in America, especially up through the 1960s and can then dismiss these powerful events as "PC".

And he was on some really nice cards

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/1954%20Topps%20PSA%204%20Robinson%201.JPG

ETA: By most accounts baseball was JR's worst sport at UCLA. He would have been a great NFL running back. I think one of the most apt comparisons for JR would be Rickey Henderson. He made the majors at 20. Joe Morgan also has been mentioned. He made the show at 19 and stuck at 21. Some of that is WWII and while I don't believe in crediting players with speculative stats for military missing time I don't believe they are to be penalized in HOF consideration either as a result of service (far from it on the character part of the equation). He qualified without reservation on the eligibility test for consideration for the HOF: he had the ten seasons met. And he was voted in by the electors. End of story. But there is more to consider. One cannot ignore the race issue. He had to go to Hawaii in 1941 to play semi-pro ball in Honolulu, was on the KC Monarchs in 1945, and spent an unnecessary year in the minors in 1946, all due to race. If he'd come up in 1941 or 1945 and had his ROY caliber year and two more peak years would that have made a difference to the OP? How much accumulation is enough? The discussion is fair, the verdict against his induction is not. I can name a dozen really great players who were cut down in their primes by injury or death or military service who deserve to be in the Hall of FAME. Not the Hall of STATS. Would the HOF be complete without Robinson, Puckett, Koufax, Dean, etc., or would it be missing huge chunks of baseball history?

Is it better to burn out or to fade away?

[Rookiemonster]

I think most of us understand that, but being one of the best 5 players during his career (as Cobb certainly was) indicates he'd be doing fine in the majors today if he had been born 100 years later than he was. That is, 2016 Ty Cobb would in fact be better than 1916 Ty Cobb was if you cloned him -- unless you're suggesting that the genes for being a great athlete just mutated into the gene pool in the past few decades. And 1916 Mike Trout would have done just fine in 1916, but he wouldn't necessarily be better than Cobb. You have to take away weightlifting, year-round training in general, access to better healthcare and nutrition, more refined training methods starting even before Little League, etc. and see what's left for a fair comparison. If you put Trout today in a time machine and send him back, he would in all likelihood be even better than Ruth. If, on the other hand, you had put baby Mike Trout in a time machine and sent him back to develop in the early 20th century, he'd still grow up to be a great player, but I'm thinking more like Jimmie Foxx great rather than better than Ruth.

I can't imagine putting, say, Andres Galarraga into the Hall of Fame in place of Roger Connor, but that's what you'd have to do if you wanted a Hall of players who were the best regardless of cohort. I'm sure Galarraga was better at hitting a 95-100 mph fastball, but it's simply not a fair comparison because of the different environments in which they developed, and it makes for a less interesting Hall of Fame anyway.

Again I agree ! But not on the time machine it would more likely be a wornhole of sorts🤖 . Any how genetics have shown a gene that makes people a good athelite. And I'm sure all the old timers had it. It just we did not have the sophisticated methods of training and nutrition that we have today. Look how old and weathered Wagner looked in his 30s geez !! What was he doing to his self .


But back to Jackie , he was not even the first choice for integration . That honor goes to Monte Irvin (rip) . But the owner of the Eagles would not let him go . Now Irvin's numbers are not anywhere near jackies . But Willie Mays said he was the man . And he's a HOFer.

[irishdenny]

I wonder how Peter Chao is doing.

Peter Chao... "Where are You!?!?" :)
Now THaT Was an Interesting Dude!
Man How I Miss da Ole' Days...

[baseball tourist]

I agree that Jackie is unquestionably a Hall of Famer for the various reasons that are well-stated above. I have a couple of thoughts that I hope are worth adding.

I think raising the question is clearly appropriate in an open discussion forum such as this one. Debate - likely spirited - should be expected and I think the OP made it clear he expected just that.

One very personal thought on HOF selection. I enjoy going to the HOF and spending time reading the plaques. When thinking about selection I can't help but think ... "Would this Hall - the physical display itself - be diminished if this individual's plaque was not here?" For me, even if you cut the number of plaques by 90% I would want Jackie's to be one that remained. Again, what I'm describing here is purely personal - not a workable criterion for election - but to me the HOF would simply not be the HOF without Jackie Robinson.

Well said. Agreed.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Peter Chao... "Where are You!?!?" :)
Now THaT Was an Interesting Dude!
Man How I Miss da Ole' Days...

hmmm...

[darwinbulldog]

Do you think so? I might be wrong but it seems like there are less people playing baseball today than there were 100 years ago when it was unquestionably the dominant sport. I feel as though more people are playing football and basketball than baseball.

I do think so. There were something like 30 million white men in America 100 years ago. There are over 7 billion people in the world today. Even if you limit it to the males, I think far more than 30 million of them aspire to play in the major leagues. That said, there are also more roster spots today, but I still think a smaller % of the contenders make it to a big league roster today than 100 years ago.

[Joshchisox08]

What nobody is saying is this . Is Jackie Robinson was white would he be in the hall of fame ?


I do belive he is a hall of famer but not just because he was a good baseball player and great man .That being said how many great men are not in any type of hall of fame .

He got in for being a pioneer and a good baseball player . Jesse owns was great but his track numbers in today's world are for high school kids . You really can't compare athelites of today to yesterday's .A lot of people on this board have trouble understanding this . with players not really being that good but good for the time they played . Your views are all dangerously flawed if you truly believe that Cobb would be a great player today .

The rabbit is out of the hat now.

[packs]

You could be right. I thought I read not too long ago that a problem baseball is facing is keeping up participation though. And there was a real worry that the spaces needed and number of players needed to field a baseball team was a concern for a lot of areas where kids were playing basketball and football instead.

[Joshchisox08]

You could be right. I thought I read not too long ago that a problem baseball is facing is keeping up participation though. And there was a real worry that the spaces needed and number of players needed to field a baseball team was a concern for a lot of areas where kids were playing basketball and football instead.


Baseball is definitely getting out-shined by Basketball and Football.

The problem is baseball is trying to hard to appeal to people who flat out don't care about it.

All these new rules are absurd. The Buster Posey rule at home plate and now we have the Chase Utley play at second. I think it was the Blue Jays manager who said "what's next we play in skirts".

[sbfinley]

The rabbit is out of the hat now.

No it's not, because had been born white he would have likely played 5-7 years more at least. This topic, while you guys are free to debate it if you like, is horribly stupid.

[Joshchisox08]

No it's not, because had been born white he would have likely played 5-7 years more at least. This topic, while you guys are free to debate it if you like, is horribly stupid.

Then why are you commenting on it?

[sbfinley]

Occasionally I see stupid and I comment on it. It's a curse.

[RichardSimon]

Occasionally I see stupid and I comment on it. It's a curse.

And you can't change stupid.

[ALR-bishop]

Steve-- you may have one of those dangerous flaws :)

[bn2cardz]

The rabbit is out of the hat now.

Are you purposely avoiding the stats-driven arguments? I feel you don't really believe the argument you proposed and were just bored.

If you need a white guy that got in with a short career not to any fault of their own, and therefor doesn't have the career stats to support it, look at Addie Joss.

HOF voters judge by the talent of the player not the longevity driven stats that you used for your initial argument. His historical place in history due to breaking the color barrier adds to his impact on the game and society, but his stats, alone, were enough to put him in the HOF.

His statistical case for being in has been shown many times in this thread and ignored by you, while you peruse the thread to find anything about race to attack. If you want to leave the argument to stats, than rebuttal the stats that are being shown and play by your own rules.

Let's play it your way from the original post, why are any of these guys in they don't meet your statistical "magic numbers" for HITS, HR, and RBI:

Name H*▾ HR RBI
Joe Morgan*HOF 2517 268 1133
George Davis*HOF 2665 73 1440
Roger Connor*HOF 2467 138 1323
Charlie Gehringer*HOF 2839 184 1427
Dan Brouthers*HOF 2296 106 1296
Brooks Robinson*HOF 2848 268 1357
Ozzie Smith*HOF 2460 28 793
Johnny Bench*HOF 2048 389 1376
Luke Appling*HOF 2749 45 1116
Arky Vaughan*HOF 2103 96 926
Johnny Mize*HOF 2011 359 1337
Frankie Frisch*HOF 2880 105 1244
Ron Santo*HOF 2254 342 1331
Barry Larkin*HOF 2340 198 960
Bobby Wallace*HOF 2309 34 1121
Gary Carter*HOF 2092 324 1225
Ed Delahanty*HOF 2597 101 1466
Carlton Fisk*HOF 2356 376 1330
Fred Clarke*HOF 2678 67 1015
Ryne Sandberg*HOF 2386 282 1061
Roberto Alomar*HOF 2724 210 1134
Duke Snider*HOF 2116 407 1333
Joe Cronin*HOF 2285 170 1424
Pee Wee Reese*HOF 2170 126 885
Richie Ashburn*HOF 2574 29 586
Billy Williams*HOF 2711 426 1475
Billy Hamilton*HOF 2164 40 742
Lou Boudreau*HOF 1779 68 789
Jesse Burkett*HOF 2850 75 952
Home Run Baker*HOF 1838 96 991
Jackie Robinson*HOF 1518 137 734
Zack Wheat*HOF 2884 132 1248
Yogi Berra*HOF 2150 358 1430
Mike Piazza*HOF 2127 427 1335
Joe Torre*HOF 2342 252 1185
Hank Greenberg*HOF 1628 331 1274
Joe Gordon*HOF 1530 253 975
Bill Dickey*HOF 1969 202 1209
Luis Aparicio*HOF 2677 83 791
Joe Medwick*HOF 2471 205 1383
Enos Slaughter*HOF 2383 169 1304
Billy Herman*HOF 2345 47 839
George Sisler*HOF 2812 102 1178
Max Carey*HOF 2665 70 802
Bill Terry*HOF 2193 154 1078
Willie Keeler*HOF 2932 33 810
Joe Sewell*HOF 2226 49 1054
Gabby Hartnett*HOF 1912 236 1179
Jimmy Collins*HOF 1999 65 983
Elmer Flick*HOF 1752 48 756
Joe Tinker*HOF 1690 31 785
Harry Hooper*HOF 2466 75 816
Sam Rice*HOF 2987 34 1077
Bid McPhee*HOF 2258 53 1072
Mickey Cochrane*HOF 1652 119 830
Jim O'Rourke*HOF 2639 62 1208
Bobby Doerr*HOF 2042 223 1247
Kirby Puckett*HOF 2304 207 1085
Joe Kelley*HOF 2220 65 1194
Orlando Cepeda*HOF 2351 379 1365
Tony Lazzeri*HOF 1840 178 1194
Larry Doby*HOF 1515 253 970
Ralph Kiner*HOF 1451 369 1015
Nellie Fox*HOF 2663 35 790
Dave Bancroft*HOF 2004 32 591
Earl Averill*HOF 2019 238 1164
Johnny Evers*HOF 1659 12 536
Buck Ewing*HOF 1625 71 883
Jim Rice*HOF 2452 382 1451
Kiki Cuyler*HOF 2299 128 1065
Ernie Lombardi*HOF 1792 190 990
Heinie Manush*HOF 2524 110 1183
John McGraw*HOF 1309 13 462
Frank Chance*HOF 1274 20 596
Deacon White*HOF 2067 24 988
Edd Roush*HOF 2376 68 981
Sam Thompson*HOF 1988 126 1305
King Kelly*HOF 1813 69 950
Travis Jackson*HOF 1768 135 929
Chuck Klein*HOF 2076 300 1201
Hugh Duffy*HOF 2293 106 1302
Rabbit Maranville*HOF 2605 28 884
Earle Combs*HOF 1866 58 633
Red Schoendienst*HOF 2449 84 773
Hughie Jennings*HOF 1526 18 840
Roger Bresnahan*HOF 1252 26 530
Phil Rizzuto*HOF 1588 38 563
Hack Wilson*HOF 1461 244 1063
George Kell*HOF 2054 78 870
Pie Traynor*HOF 2416 58 1273
Bill Mazeroski*HOF 2016 138 853
John Ward*HOF 2107 26 869
Miller Huggins*HOF 1474 9 318
Jim Bottomley*HOF 2313 219 1422
Ross Youngs*HOF 1491 42 592
Chick Hafey*HOF 1466 164 833
Rick Ferrell*HOF 1692 28 734
Ray Schalk*HOF 1345 11 594
Freddie Lindstrom*HOF 1747 103 779
High Pockets Kelly*HOF 1778 148 1020
Lloyd Waner*HOF 2459 27 598
Billy Southworth*HOF 1296 52 561
Casey Stengel*HOF 1219 60 535
Ned Hanlon*HOF 1317 30 517
Al Lopez*HOF 1547 51 652
Tommy McCarthy*HOF 1493 44 732
Bucky Harris*HOF 1297 9 508
Wilbert Robinson*HOF 1388 18 722
Charlie Comiskey*HOF 1529 28 883
Leo Durocher*HOF 1320 24 567
Roy Campanella*HOF 1161 242 856

[Rookiemonster]

No it's not, because had been born white he would have likely played 5-7 years more at least. This topic, while you guys are free to debate it if you like, is horribly stupid. That's a assumption.many major leaguers don't get a chance until they are older. So let me ask this same exact career but he was white . Is Jackie Robinson a hall of famer?

[packs]

Jackie Robinson changed the entire landscape of major league baseball and American society in general. Even if you want to play the stats game, no single player has had the impact on the game that he had. So he's in no matter what.

[sbfinley]

That's a assumption.many major leaguers don't get a chance until they are older. So let me ask this same exact career but he was white . Is Jackie Robinson a hall of famer?

It's not the same career. At all. You can't change the most fundamental part of his career and then compare. If you don't understand how monumental what he accomplished was then you're not in an educated position to argue HOF induction IMO.

[Rookiemonster]

It's not the same career. At all. You can't change the most fundamental part of his career and then compare. If you don't understand how monumental what he accomplished was then you're not in an educated position to argue HOF induction IMO.

Haha so then you answered the question BOOM! Thanks

[Joshchisox08]

Are you purposely avoiding the stats-driven arguments? I feel you don't really believe the argument you proposed and were just bored.

If you need a white guy that got in with a short career not to any fault of their own, and therefor doesn't have the career stats to support it, look at Addie Joss.

HOF voters judge by the talent of the player not the longevity driven stats that you used for your initial argument. His historical place in history due to breaking the color barrier adds to his impact on the game and society, but his stats, alone, were enough to put him in the HOF.

His statistical case for being in has been shown many times in this thread and ignored by you, while you peruse the thread to find anything about race to attack. If you want to leave the argument to stats, than rebuttal the stats that are being shown and play by your own rules.

Let's play it your way from the original post, why are any of these guys in they don't meet your statistical "magic numbers" for HITS, HR, and RBI:

Name H*▾ HR RBI
Joe Morgan*HOF 2517 268 1133
George Davis*HOF 2665 73 1440
Roger Connor*HOF 2467 138 1323
Charlie Gehringer*HOF 2839 184 1427
Dan Brouthers*HOF 2296 106 1296
Brooks Robinson*HOF 2848 268 1357
Ozzie Smith*HOF 2460 28 793
Johnny Bench*HOF 2048 389 1376
Luke Appling*HOF 2749 45 1116
Arky Vaughan*HOF 2103 96 926
Johnny Mize*HOF 2011 359 1337
Frankie Frisch*HOF 2880 105 1244
Ron Santo*HOF 2254 342 1331
Barry Larkin*HOF 2340 198 960
Bobby Wallace*HOF 2309 34 1121
Gary Carter*HOF 2092 324 1225
Ed Delahanty*HOF 2597 101 1466
Carlton Fisk*HOF 2356 376 1330
Fred Clarke*HOF 2678 67 1015
Ryne Sandberg*HOF 2386 282 1061
Roberto Alomar*HOF 2724 210 1134
Duke Snider*HOF 2116 407 1333
Joe Cronin*HOF 2285 170 1424
Pee Wee Reese*HOF 2170 126 885
Richie Ashburn*HOF 2574 29 586
Billy Williams*HOF 2711 426 1475
Billy Hamilton*HOF 2164 40 742
Lou Boudreau*HOF 1779 68 789
Jesse Burkett*HOF 2850 75 952
Home Run Baker*HOF 1838 96 991
Jackie Robinson*HOF 1518 137 734
Zack Wheat*HOF 2884 132 1248
Yogi Berra*HOF 2150 358 1430
Mike Piazza*HOF 2127 427 1335
Joe Torre*HOF 2342 252 1185
Hank Greenberg*HOF 1628 331 1274
Joe Gordon*HOF 1530 253 975
Bill Dickey*HOF 1969 202 1209
Luis Aparicio*HOF 2677 83 791
Joe Medwick*HOF 2471 205 1383
Enos Slaughter*HOF 2383 169 1304
Billy Herman*HOF 2345 47 839
George Sisler*HOF 2812 102 1178
Max Carey*HOF 2665 70 802
Bill Terry*HOF 2193 154 1078
Willie Keeler*HOF 2932 33 810
Joe Sewell*HOF 2226 49 1054
Gabby Hartnett*HOF 1912 236 1179
Jimmy Collins*HOF 1999 65 983
Elmer Flick*HOF 1752 48 756
Joe Tinker*HOF 1690 31 785
Harry Hooper*HOF 2466 75 816
Sam Rice*HOF 2987 34 1077
Bid McPhee*HOF 2258 53 1072
Mickey Cochrane*HOF 1652 119 830
Jim O'Rourke*HOF 2639 62 1208
Bobby Doerr*HOF 2042 223 1247
Kirby Puckett*HOF 2304 207 1085
Joe Kelley*HOF 2220 65 1194
Orlando Cepeda*HOF 2351 379 1365
Tony Lazzeri*HOF 1840 178 1194
Larry Doby*HOF 1515 253 970
Ralph Kiner*HOF 1451 369 1015
Nellie Fox*HOF 2663 35 790
Dave Bancroft*HOF 2004 32 591
Earl Averill*HOF 2019 238 1164
Johnny Evers*HOF 1659 12 536
Buck Ewing*HOF 1625 71 883
Jim Rice*HOF 2452 382 1451
Kiki Cuyler*HOF 2299 128 1065
Ernie Lombardi*HOF 1792 190 990
Heinie Manush*HOF 2524 110 1183
John McGraw*HOF 1309 13 462
Frank Chance*HOF 1274 20 596
Deacon White*HOF 2067 24 988
Edd Roush*HOF 2376 68 981
Sam Thompson*HOF 1988 126 1305
King Kelly*HOF 1813 69 950
Travis Jackson*HOF 1768 135 929
Chuck Klein*HOF 2076 300 1201
Hugh Duffy*HOF 2293 106 1302
Rabbit Maranville*HOF 2605 28 884
Earle Combs*HOF 1866 58 633
Red Schoendienst*HOF 2449 84 773
Hughie Jennings*HOF 1526 18 840
Roger Bresnahan*HOF 1252 26 530
Phil Rizzuto*HOF 1588 38 563
Hack Wilson*HOF 1461 244 1063
George Kell*HOF 2054 78 870
Pie Traynor*HOF 2416 58 1273
Bill Mazeroski*HOF 2016 138 853
John Ward*HOF 2107 26 869
Miller Huggins*HOF 1474 9 318
Jim Bottomley*HOF 2313 219 1422
Ross Youngs*HOF 1491 42 592
Chick Hafey*HOF 1466 164 833
Rick Ferrell*HOF 1692 28 734
Ray Schalk*HOF 1345 11 594
Freddie Lindstrom*HOF 1747 103 779
High Pockets Kelly*HOF 1778 148 1020
Lloyd Waner*HOF 2459 27 598
Billy Southworth*HOF 1296 52 561
Casey Stengel*HOF 1219 60 535
Ned Hanlon*HOF 1317 30 517
Al Lopez*HOF 1547 51 652
Tommy McCarthy*HOF 1493 44 732
Bucky Harris*HOF 1297 9 508
Wilbert Robinson*HOF 1388 18 722
Charlie Comiskey*HOF 1529 28 883
Leo Durocher*HOF 1320 24 567
Roy Campanella*HOF 1161 242 856


Bored? Yes I was very. You must be even more bored to make that list.

Most of these players you listed have various "factors" if you will, that would suggest their statistics are HOF worthy. "Most" of these players are far far closer to the magical numbers than Robinson.

Catchers obviously get a break from the physical abuse they take during the season.

Some of the players with a lower numbers not so close the the magical numbers happened to play in the "DEAD BALL" era where well the ball was dead. There's a reason why their numbers weren't as good.

[Joshchisox08]

Haha so then you answered the question BOOM! Thanks

+ 1

[sbfinley]

I give up. Best wishes and happy collecting.

[rats60]

He got in for being a pioneer and a good baseball player . Jesse owns was great but his track numbers in today's world are for high school kids . You really can't compare athelites of today to yesterday's ..

You don't really think this do you?

In 1935 at the Big 10 championships, Jesse Owens set the world record in the long jump with 8.13 meters. Unlike today, he didn'the only long jump, but also ran the 100, 220 and 220 hurdles. During 45 minutes he also set world records in the 220 and 220 hurdles and tied the world record in the 100.

At the 2012 Olympics, the longest qualifying jump was 8.11 meters and Owens 8.13 meters would have won the bronze in the finals. Who knows how much further Owens could jump if he didn't run sprints. However, there is no doubt Owens would be a world class track athlete today.

[Rookiemonster]

You don't really think this do you?

In 1935 at the Big 10 championships, Jesse Owens set the world record in the long jump with 8.13 meters. Unlike today, he didn'the only long jump, but also ran the 100, 220 and 220 hurdles. During 45 minutes he also set world records in the 220 and 220 hurdles and tied the world record in the 100.

At the 2012 Olympics, the longest qualifying jump was 8.11 meters and Owens 8.13 meters would have won the bronze in the finals. Who knows how much further Owens could jump if he didn't run sprints. However, there is no doubt Owens would be a world class track athlete today.
I was referring to his sprinting time .
Bolt would have beaten American Thomas Burke, the first gold medalist ever, by more nearly 20 meters, or over 60 feet. Jesse Owens? About 21 feet behind.a in 1913 and died in Arizona in 1980 was the most impressive athlete in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. He won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long jump) and crushed the myth of Aryan supremacy in front of Hitler and the entire Nazi regime. One year before, at the 1935 Big Ten track, he managed to set three world records and tie another one in less than an hour.
Carl Lewis, also born in Alabama in 1961 was the first athlete to equal Owens record in a single Olympics: in 1984 he won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long Jump). He was able to win gold medals in 4 different Olympics, for a total of 9 golds in his carreer. During his career he set world records in 100m, 4x100m and 4x200m and he is still holding the world record for indoor long jump (established in 1984).
Usain Bolt, born in Sherwood Content (Jamaica) in 1986 is the first athlete ever to hold both 100m and 200m world records since fully automatic time measurement became mandatory in 1977. He is currently holding 3 world records (100m, 200m and 4x100m). He is the first athlete to win 6 golds medal in sprint (Carl Lewis won 5 in sprint and 4 in Long jump). Not only did he break records, but he did it by large margins. For example, in 2009 he broke his own world record of 100m (from 9.69 to 9.58, the highest margin since the start of fully automatic time measurements).

[bn2cardz]

Bored? Yes I was very. You must be even more bored to make that list.

Most of these players you listed have various "factors" if you will, that would suggest their statistics are HOF worthy. "Most" of these players are far far closer to the magical numbers than Robinson.

Catchers obviously get a break from the physical abuse they take during the season.

Some of the players with a lower numbers not so close the the magical numbers happened to play in the "DEAD BALL" era where well the ball was dead. There's a reason why their numbers weren't as good.

It takes very little time to make that list. Export the list from BaseballReference, then sort by hits deleting above 3000, sort by hr deleting all above 500, sort by RBI and delete all above 1500. Then copy and paste. Takes less time, than my typing of this post. No effort at all, just more effort than you are willing to do to research your own argument.


...And you are still avoiding any real debate but answering to the stats showing he does deserve to be in the HOF.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That's a assumption.many major leaguers don't get a chance until they are older. So let me ask this same exact career but he was white . Is Jackie Robinson a hall of famer?

Yes, obviously. Ya think as a player he might be a little better than Mazeroski and Schoendienst and Fox?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I was referring to his sprinting time .
Bolt would have beaten American Thomas Burke, the first gold medalist ever, by more nearly 20 meters, or over 60 feet. Jesse Owens? About 21 feet behind.a in 1913 and died in Arizona in 1980 was the most impressive athlete in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. He won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long jump) and crushed the myth of Aryan supremacy in front of Hitler and the entire Nazi regime. One year before, at the 1935 Big Ten track, he managed to set three world records and tie another one in less than an hour.
Carl Lewis, also born in Alabama in 1961 was the first athlete to equal Owens record in a single Olympics: in 1984 he won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long Jump). He was able to win gold medals in 4 different Olympics, for a total of 9 golds in his carreer. During his career he set world records in 100m, 4x100m and 4x200m and he is still holding the world record for indoor long jump (established in 1984).
Usain Bolt, born in Sherwood Content (Jamaica) in 1986 is the first athlete ever to hold both 100m and 200m world records since fully automatic time measurement became mandatory in 1977. He is currently holding 3 world records (100m, 200m and 4x100m). He is the first athlete to win 6 golds medal in sprint (Carl Lewis won 5 in sprint and 4 in Long jump). Not only did he break records, but he did it by large margins. For example, in 2009 he broke his own world record of 100m (from 9.69 to 9.58, the highest margin since the start of fully automatic time measurements).

Sprint times and track and field performances generally improve over time for a host of reasons. Take Usain Bolt at birth and project him back to the 1930s and he does not run these times, he is competing with Jesse Owens.

[the 'stache]

I give up. Best wishes and happy collecting.

I'm with you. Any position that holds Jackie Robinson is unworthy of the Hall of Fame is untenable.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

[bn2cardz]

Another interesting stat that sums up how good he was:

If you take the cumulative WAR/pos and divide by the number of years they played to get their WARpos average. Only 11 players have an average above 6, J.Robinson ranks 9th with a 6.15 .

Rk Name WARpos/years
1 Babe Ruth HOF 7.414
2 Willie Mays HOF 7.100
3 Lou Gehrig HOF 6.612
4 Ted Williams HOF 6.479
5 Ty Cobb HOF 6.292
6 Honus Wagner HOF 6.238
7 Hank Aaron HOF 6.200
8 Jackie Robinson HOF 6.150
9 Mickey Mantle HOF 6.094
10 Tris Speaker HOF 6.077
11 Joe DiMaggio HOF 6.008

...but of course if you want to stick with your "charity" argument because he didn't hit any of the 3 "magic number" milestones than nothing can convince you and aren't really interested in a real conversation.

[Eric72]

So let me ask this same exact career but he was white . Is Jackie Robinson a hall of famer?

Had Jackie Robinson been white, he simply could not have had the exact same career. Not even close.

[JMEnglish27]

I get the point you're trying to make...the longevity wasn't there for him to hit the milestone numbers.

Same could be said for Koufax. That said, Jackie's impact and courage...you can't deny him his place.

I get a little twitchy when we go overboard...his impact isn't greater than Ruth, and I think the number thing is silly, especially when you involve MiLB and put it on opening night for a bunch of them...but the HOF part of things, undeniable.

[mark evans]

I'm no statistics guru, simply too lazy to put out the time and effort. In Robinson's case, it appears that arguments can be made both for and against induction. BUT, when one factors in the other standards that are required to be considered by those who elect the players, I think his induction becomes a no-brainer. Having said that, I'm not in any way offended by the initial post which appears to have stimulated a healthy debate.

[rats60]

I was referring to his sprinting time .
Bolt would have beaten American Thomas Burke, the first gold medalist ever, by more nearly 20 meters, or over 60 feet. Jesse Owens? About 21 feet behind.a in 1913 and died in Arizona in 1980 was the most impressive athlete in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. He won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long jump) and crushed the myth of Aryan supremacy in front of Hitler and the entire Nazi regime. One year before, at the 1935 Big Ten track, he managed to set three world records and tie another one in less than an hour.
Carl Lewis, also born in Alabama in 1961 was the first athlete to equal Owens record in a single Olympics: in 1984 he won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long Jump). He was able to win gold medals in 4 different Olympics, for a total of 9 golds in his carreer. During his career he set world records in 100m, 4x100m and 4x200m and he is still holding the world record for indoor long jump (established in 1984).
Usain Bolt, born in Sherwood Content (Jamaica) in 1986 is the first athlete ever to hold both 100m and 200m world records since fully automatic time measurement became mandatory in 1977. He is currently holding 3 world records (100m, 200m and 4x100m). He is the first athlete to win 6 golds medal in sprint (Carl Lewis won 5 in sprint and 4 in Long jump). Not only did he break records, but he did it by large margins. For example, in 2009 he broke his own world record of 100m (from 9.69 to 9.58, the highest margin since the start of fully automatic time measurements).

So in his weakest event he would be destroyed by the greatest sprinter of all time. Is anyone surprised by that? You said he couldn't compete. That is false. Don't you think today that an athlete would be competing in their strongest event and maybe not in weaker ones. Owens would be a long jumper for sure. If he couldn't keep up with sprinters, he would concentrate on the long jump. Carl Lewis is an exception, not the norm, and he would be destroyed by Bolt in the sprint too.

[tschock]

Sprint times and track and field performances generally improve over time for a host of reasons. Take Usain Bolt at birth and project him back to the 1930s and he does not run these times, he is competing with Jesse Owens.

Training, conditioning, coaching, performance monitoring, equipment, etc etc have changed, which gets to your point of either needing to grow up in the same era for comparison. Just as with any sport.

Although... since there was no global warming back in the '30s, Jesse's times might have been artificially quicker due to less friction from the cooler air. ;)

[rats60]

That's a assumption.many major leaguers don't get a chance until they are older. So let me ask this same exact career but he was white . Is Jackie Robinson a hall of famer?

Ralph Kiner had a WAR of 49, played 10 years, over lapping 9 with Jackie. Robinson had a WAR of 61. Kiner was white and made the hof, so I don't see how you could argue Jackie wouldn't have.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Training, conditioning, coaching, performance monitoring, equipment, etc etc have changed, which gets to your point of either needing to grow up in the same era for comparison. Just as with any sport.

Although... since there was no global warming back in the '30s, Jesse's times might have been artificially quicker due to less friction from the cooler air. ;)

Probably true for all sports, but IMO most true for track and field where the performance is objectively measured in terms of time, distance, or height and there is no element of subjectivity.

[Rookiemonster]

Yes, obviously. Ya think as a player he might be a little better than Mazeroski and Schoendienst and Fox?

Well I believe most ball players need a eye test . You know if you just seen Ozzie smiths stats you might say this guy sucked . But when you see him play that's not the case at all . So I've never seen anyone the players mentioned play.

I know a lot of people question Bill Mazeroski as do I . But the other two seem to be more on the Ozzie smith side of things. With being outstanding defensively.

I rather compare to players I've seen like a Don mattingly or a will Clark. But let's compare him to a Jeff Kent from age 28 .

Jeff Kent from 28 to 37 year old . 1611 hits /HR 277 /2B 383/ RBI 1049
Jackie Robinson 28 to 37 years old . 1518hits/ HR 137/2B 273 / RBI 734

[Peter_Spaeth]

You need to adjust those stats for the era though. Jackie is fifth all time at 2B in WAR7 (best seven year stretch). Kent is 27th.

[TNP777]

Like others, I appreciate any discussion and debate.

Saying that, I'm somewhat dismayed that this particular thing is even debatable. Many, many excellent points have been made in support of Jackie's inclusion in the HOF.

* couldn't play until he was 28. That puts a guy like Bryce Harper 10 years ahead of him in compiling stats (yeah, Harper's an OF - just picked a name out of the air). If the OP wants to argue against inclusion based on stats, this single fact alone trumps his argument. Take the first 8-10 years away from any HOFer's career and see what his stats look like.
* hatred/taunts/death threats from damn near everyone around him, including the guys in his own dugout (maybe minus the death threats from teammates).
* opposing players openly trying to injure him
* had the temperament to deal with the above for two years before he was allowed to stand up for himself. Remained a man of character and restraint despite the intense opposition.
* hugely important in the Civil Rights movement.

[Rookiemonster]

So in his weakest event he would be destroyed by the greatest sprinter of all time. Is anyone surprised by that? You said he couldn't compete. That is false. Don't you think today that an athlete would be competing in their strongest event and maybe not in weaker ones. Owens would be a long jumper for sure. If he couldn't keep up with sprinters, he would concentrate on the long jump. Carl Lewis is an exception, not the norm, and he would be destroyed by Bolt in the sprint too. yes I do . But I was only comparing the fact that at the time his weakest event made him the fastest man in the world. And when compared by today or the middle marks. He would not be elite. Jumping is another story .

[Rookiemonster]

You need to adjust those stats for the era though. Jackie is fifth all time at 2B in WAR7 (best seven year stretch). Kent is 27th.
I'm not sure what you mean. The stats are the stats the played the same game and position.

[jmb]

I understand your questioning of his statistics. I was just making the point that he was voted into the HOF in 1962, when there were still Jim Crow laws and before LBJ signed his civil rights act into law. So for a country that was less than fair minded about race at the time, to elect him to the HOF says quite a bit about what they thought of him as a player...

Actually, LBJ and Al Gore Sr blocked the civil rights bill from passing when Eisenhower tried in the 50's.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm not sure what you mean. The stats are the stats the played the same game and position.

Statistics are relative to an era. If the average player in the 90s hit 30 HR, and the average player in the 50s hit 20 (hypothetical), then hitting 20 in the 50s is the same as hitting 30 in the 90s. Stats like WAR are compiled on an era-adjusted basis to account for these sorts of differences. Kent's numbers relative to the era in which he played are actually nowhere near Jackie's.

[turtleguy64]

if you are going to question Jackie's credentials,then start on Yaz.talk about a career of mediocrety(sorry about that spelling).One outstanding year ,two above average seasons,followed by what ? check his averages outside of those three years.Played a long time ,long enough to reach the 3000 hit mark.Carried the team on his back in 1967 but does that get you into the HOF ?

[FourStrikes]

Like others, I appreciate any discussion and debate.

Saying that, I'm somewhat dismayed that this particular thing is even debatable. Many, many excellent points have been made in support of Jackie's inclusion in the HOF.

* couldn't play until he was 28. That puts a guy like Bryce Harper 10 years ahead of him in compiling stats (yeah, Harper's an OF - just picked a name out of the air). If the OP wants to argue against inclusion based on stats, this single fact alone trumps his argument. Take the first 8-10 years away from any HOFer's career and see what his stats look like.
* hatred/taunts/death threats from damn near everyone around him, including the guys in his own dugout (maybe minus the death threats from teammates).
* opposing players openly trying to injure him
* had the temperament to deal with the above for two years before he was allowed to stand up for himself. Remained a man of character and restraint despite the intense opposition.
* hugely important in the Civil Rights movement.

+ a $hitload.

[vintagesportscollector]

When comparing running/track times, you can’t compare today’s athletes to yesterdays. As mentioned there are many reasons why today’s athletes are overall more fit, athletic, and faster. In 1954 Roger Bannister was the first to break the 4 minute mile. A feat that at the time seemed unacheivable by some, and made Bannister a global phenomenon. Since then almost 1500 people have broken the 4 minute mile – in 2015 there were 23 Americans alone who did it.

[rats60]

I'm not sure what you mean. The stats are the stats the played the same game and position.

You cherry picked a few stats. Why don't you compare batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, Ops, OPS+ and WAR?

Kent .290/.356/.500/.855 OPS +123 WAR 55 for 17 seasons

Robinson .311/.409/.474/.883 OPS+ 132 WAR 61 for only 10 seasons.

Robinson did more in 10 seasons than Kent in 17 despite the few stats you cherry picked.

[Rookiemonster]

Statistics are relative to an era. If the average player in the 90s hit 30 HR, and the average player in the 50s hit 20 (hypothetical), then hitting 20 in the 50s is the same as hitting 30 in the 90s. Stats like WAR are compiled on an era-adjusted basis to account for these sorts of differences. Kent's numbers relative to the era in which he played are actually nowhere near Jackie's.

Aaah thanks Pete I see what your saying. I don't want this to morph into best way to judge a player discussion.but I'm sure it's arguable . So does this mean that Cobb has more hits then Rose ? Or Ruth has more homeruns then Aaron ?

I get it I do but it's hard for me to get past the numbers . Kent was playing against roided up modern athletes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Aaah thanks Pete I see what your saying. I don't want this to morph into best way to judge a player discussion.but I'm sure it's arguable . So does this mean that Cobb has more hits then Rose ? Or Ruth has more homeruns then Aaron ?

I get it I do but it's hard for me to get past the numbers . Kent was playing against roided up modern athletes.

Look at the rankings on baseballreference.com to see how it all plays out.

[slipk1068]

I haven't read this thread. Doing so would probably take a couple hours. I have a pretty good idea of what opinions are likely expressed, so I will offer my opinion without reading this thread.

I felt similar to the OP when I was in my 20's. Jackie Robinson is only in the HOF because he is the first black ballplayer. I thought that was ridiculous.

In the last 30 years I have learned a lot and completely changed my opinion. He put up huge HOF worthy numbers in the short period of time he was allowed to play. The intangibles like the way he must have gotten into a pitchers head any time he was on base are immeasurable. I can't imagine any other person would have been able to endure the stuff he had to put up with.

I have learned a lot about base ball history and life in the last 30 years. Jackie Robinson is number 3 on my short list of human beings I admire most. I suspect if the OP continues to be a student of the game's history, in 20 years or so he will rank Jackie Robinson as a top-tier HOFer.

[Joshchisox08]

if you are going to question Jackie's credentials,then start on Yaz.talk about a career of mediocrety(sorry about that spelling).One outstanding year ,two above average seasons,followed by what ? check his averages outside of those three years.Played a long time ,long enough to reach the 3000 hit mark.Carried the team on his back in 1967 but does that get you into the HOF ?

Well I'm sure to agree with you there though I have a heavy biased opinion on any Red Sox player.

[bn2cardz]

Well I believe most ball players need a eye test . You know if you just seen Ozzie smiths stats you might say this guy sucked . But when you see him play that's not the case at all . So I've never seen anyone the players mentioned play.

I know a lot of people question Bill Mazeroski as do I . But the other two seem to be more on the Ozzie smith side of things. With being outstanding defensively.

I rather compare to players I've seen like a Don mattingly or a will Clark. But let's compare him to a Jeff Kent from age 28 .

Jeff Kent from 28 to 37 year old . 1611 hits /HR 277 /2B 383/ RBI 1049
Jackie Robinson 28 to 37 years old . 1518hits/ HR 137/2B 273 / RBI 734

I'm not sure what you mean. The stats are the stats the played the same game and position.

The other reason those need to be adjusted is because the number of games in a season has changed.

Kent played 1452 games in those 10 seasons compared to J.Robinson only playing in 1382. Look at those same stats as percentage of JRobinson's and JKent's AB and this is what you get:

eff Kent from 28 to 37 year old . 29.46% hits /HR 4.85% /2B 7%/ 3B 0.59%/ RBI 19.18%
Jackie Robinson 28 to 37 years old . 31.13% hits /HR 2.81% /2B 5.60%/ 3B 1.11%/ RBI 15.05%

Of course since you cherry picked as pointed out by someone else you also have to account for the fact that Kent was more of a power hitter than JRobinson as shown by SLG%.

The fact is Kent was only top 10 in hits twice in that time range, total bases 2 times, stolen bases 0 times.
JRobinson was top 10 in hits 5 times, total bases 4 times, Stolen bases 9 times.

In Kent's time of playing he never led an offensive statistical category giving him a Black Ink of 0. JRobinson has a Black Ink of 8.

I do believe Kent would be a fine fit in the HOF if it happened, but just putting the era of play into perspective.

[pariah1107]

OP could have started this thread any other day, and it may have been a reasonable discussion. In poor taste to stir this pot on the day Jackie Robinson is to be honored throughout Major League Baseball. His impact on the game cannot be tabulated in a boxscore (though his are HOF worthy in many metrics), if you do not understand this than further debate is pointless.

Ty Phelan

[Dewey]

This is bound to catch a lot of flack. And for the life of me I can't imagine why, though we live in PC America these days.

Translation: I'm going to stir the pot on the day of Jackie Robinson's commemoration and only the PC mental midgets would disagree with me. None of the disagreement to follow, therefore, will be my fault or legit and I will purposefully avoid responding intelligently to forthcoming evidence. My narrative about Jackie's induction is the right one, even though I will say I want open disagreement and argument. In fact I'll only respond with snide, not substantive, remarks.

WHY is Jackie Robinson in the HOF? I may be mistaken but isn't an induction for a player based almost entirely on statistics?

Translation: I won't take into consideration the actually criteria for induction. My magic numbers are the criteria. I have an agenda here, afterall. Don't get in my way.

Yes he endured a lot while playing. But that doesn't mean that he should be in the HOF over many other players with much better statistics.

Translation: Setting players in their historical and game era context is for suckers. Let's take out all those dead ball era bums! Actually they were white, so they must be okay. Let's just take out Jackie. I'm not PC like the rest of 'Merica. Understanding history is for PC wimps.

His induction seems more like a charity induction to me. Just my opinion and wondering if there's anyone else that has at least questioned any of this.


Translation: Jackie's hall induction is affirmative action charity and I HATE THAT. Don't you hate what I hate? As I've already assumed, I'm right, so don't tell me I'm not.

RESPONSE: Bro, you could have just asked:
Why is Jackie in the hall? His numbers don't seem measure up to my HOF expectations?

That would be a good question and conversation starter. In fact, I had that conversation with a friend and historian two weeks ago. Yet, you injected all this other nonsense followed by more snide nonsense.

[ALR-bishop]

[QUOTEWHY is Jackie Robinson in the HOF? [/QUOTE]

Because in 1962 the people responsible for Hall Of Fame inductions voted him into it

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTEWHY is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?

Because in 1962 the people responsible for Hall Of Fame inductions voted him into it[/QUOTE]

Sorta circular reasoning there counselor. :D

[ls7plus]

Purely from the objective side of it, he created 162% of league average runs created during his career, the (Bill James) stat I believe is most valuable in comparing players between eras, which places him in the top 3-5 of all second basemen of all time, and rates in that category with a very good slugging first baseman or outfielder; is rated the fourth second baseman of all time by Bill James and 10th by baseball-reference.com, based on JAWS, which goes by career and 7-year peak wins above replacement; won an MVP (as well as a batting title, .342) in 1949, despite the presence of Stan Musial and an awesome season by Ralph Kiner (54 HR's, 127 RBI, .310 BA), and placed consistently highly in the MVP voting in other years; was a six-time all-star and had a .311 lifetime batting average, .409 career on-base-percentage, and .883 OPS (which again, would be quite good for a slugging first baseman or outfielder); scored 100 runs 6 times; and, with Babe Ruth, was the most important player in the history of the game, opening the door to such greats as Mays, Aaron and all other great players of color. And he did all that despite coming into the league at age 28, undoubtedly missing out on a few prime years of production.

Personally, I think he was also the most heroic player of all-time by far, bar none. These should qualify as pretty good reasons. The original poster's comments are some of the silliest I have ever seen--best to do your homework before inviting ridicule!

Larry

[TNP777]

I haven't read this thread. Doing so would probably take a couple hours. I have a pretty good idea of what opinions are likely expressed, so I will offer my opinion without reading this thread.

I felt similar to the OP when I was in my 20's. Jackie Robinson is only in the HOF because he is the first black ballplayer. I thought that was ridiculous.

In the last 30 years I have learned a lot and completely changed my opinion. He put up huge HOF worthy numbers in the short period of time he was allowed to play. The intangibles like the way he must have gotten into a pitchers head any time he was on base are immeasurable. I can't imagine any other person would have been able to endure the stuff he had to put up with.

I have learned a lot about base ball history and life in the last 30 years. Jackie Robinson is number 3 on my short list of human beings I admire most. I suspect if the OP continues to be a student of the game's history, in 20 years or so he will rank Jackie Robinson as a top-tier HOFer.
Great post, David. I've done quite a bit of growing up in the past 30 years myself. A great many beliefs I thought were valid then seem pretty silly now.

As I type, I'm listening to a great monologue by Bomani Jones on ESPN. He's hitting many of the same points already brought up here, including how tough it was in his own clubhouse.

OP, did you happen to catch the 2-part documentary that just showed on PBS? If not, do yourself a favor and check it out. I think it might be enlightening. It certainly was to me.

[Dewey]

I can't wait until Dec. 30, Sandy Koufax's birthday, when the OP will argue that Sandy doesn't meet the 300 wins criteria.

As far as I can tell, the cultural significance and statistical arguments have been made. I learned about the Hall of Stats in this thread. Very cool.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I can't wait until Dec. 30, Sandy Koufax's birthday, when the OP will argue that Sandy doesn't meet the 300 wins criteria.

As far as I can tell, the cultural significance and statistical arguments have been made. I learned about the Hall of Stats in this thread. Very cool.

I believe he was elected as a token Jew. :eek:

[Eric72]

If nothing else, the OP was rather successful at trolling the board today.

[CW]

Not sure if anyone wants to tackle this one, but....

If Jackie still had the same career (length and numbers), but was NOT the one who broke the color barrier, would he still belong in the HOF? Would he have been voted in?

[JustinD]

Like others, I appreciate any discussion and debate.

Saying that, I'm somewhat dismayed that this particular thing is even debatable. Many, many excellent points have been made in support of Jackie's inclusion in the HOF.

* couldn't play until he was 28. That puts a guy like Bryce Harper 10 years ahead of him in compiling stats (yeah, Harper's an OF - just picked a name out of the air). If the OP wants to argue against inclusion based on stats, this single fact alone trumps his argument. Take the first 8-10 years away from any HOFer's career and see what his stats look like.
* hatred/taunts/death threats from damn near everyone around him, including the guys in his own dugout (maybe minus the death threats from teammates).
* opposing players openly trying to injure him
* had the temperament to deal with the above for two years before he was allowed to stand up for himself. Remained a man of character and restraint despite the intense opposition.
* hugely important in the Civil Rights movement.


+ 1 billion
This thread is nuts.

[arc2q]

If I had woken up with my head stapled to the carpet I would not be more surprised than I am right now. I never would have fathomed that there was even a debate about Jackie Robinson's worthiness for the Hall of Fame.

[Kenny Cole]

Not sure if anyone wants to tackle this one, but....

If Jackie still had the same career (length and numbers), but was NOT the one who broke the color barrier, would he still belong in the HOF? Would he have been voted in?

But he WAS the one. You can ask all sort of ifs and buts about anyone in the HOF, "but" they did what they did and were what they were. "If" Jackie Robinson hadn't broken the color barrier, would Mays and Aaron have done what they did? Don't know, doesn't matter. He did break the color barrier and he did pave the way for Mays, Aaron, and everyone else. That's not to forget Doby, Irvin, and several other players who also played a critical role.

I have to say that the very fact that this thread exists, particularly on this day, makes me sad. Some people really just don't get it at all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not sure if anyone wants to tackle this one, but....

If Jackie still had the same career (length and numbers), but was NOT the one who broke the color barrier, would he still belong in the HOF? Would he have been voted in?

There have been numerous posts in this thread justifying his election purely on the numbers.

[bcbgcbrcb]

WOW, 114 replies the same day a thread was started, a new record? Guess that tells you how strongly people feel about this subject....

[Peter_Spaeth]

But he WAS the one. You can ask all sort of ifs and buts about anyone in the HOF, "but" they did what they did and were what they were. "If" Jackie Robinson hadn't broken the color barrier, would Mays and Aaron have done what they did? Don't know, doesn't matter. He did break the color barrier and he did pave the way for Mays, Aaron, and everyone else. That's not to forget Doby, Irvin, and several other players who also played a critical role.

I have to say that the very fact that this thread exists, particularly on this day, makes me sad. Some people really just don't get it at all.

If Cecil Travis....:)

[Kenny Cole]

If Cecil Travis....:)

As much as I am a Cecil Travis fan, I think we would both have to agree that Jackie Robinson far transcended Cecil Travis on every level. All things considered, I would argue that he pretty much far transcended nearly everyone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As much as I am a Cecil Travis fan, I think we would both have to agree that Jackie Robinson far transcended Cecil Travis on every level. All things considered, I would argue that he pretty much far transcended nearly everyone.

My point was just to kiddingly remind you that you were willing to indulge in what ifs to justify Cecil Travis as a HOFer. Yes, Robinson is unquestionably in the very top echelon.

[ZenPop]

Why does the OP continue to argue that induction is only based on statistics when he has quoted the rules that state integrity, sportsmanship and character are all considerations? With all that, even if you are going to only consider stats how could you not consider the years he lost because he was not even allowed on the field. And then to call this PC? Yes, that will inflame people and it should.

If anything his induction to the HOF in 1962 was anti-PC. Ever heard of Selma, Freedom Rides, Birmingham bombings, Bull Conner, ravaging dogs and fire hoses, segregation, lynching. A black man could not even stay in most hotels or eat in a restaurant, get a taxi, a decent job etc. etc. Most of these things were still going on or were still in the future in 1962. JR was a hero and first rate HOFer for overcoming these overwhelming obstacles, not to mention still a great player.

His integrity, sportsmanship and character are second to none in the HOF and the Hall would be a joke if he was not there. And yes, I think it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise unless you simply have not learned anything about race in America, especially up through the 1960s and can then dismiss these powerful events as "PC".

+1

This Giants' fan thinks that Jackie Robinson was one of the two most important people in baseball history... Babe and Jackie. Do I think others were better? Sure. I'd take Willie Mays above anybody. But before Jackie, people like Josh Gibson (who would have been a lock to be a star player) were banished from the game. Jackie not only broke the barrier, but did it in a way to allow others to follow in his wake. He performed at a high level for his shortened career.

For these reason alone, it's a (forgive the cross-sport reference) slam dunk.

...and the reason there's more than the regular dose of passion, is that "pc" is often a code word for those that discriminate. I'm certainly not accusing the OP of that, but he should be aware that it's used often in more than an innocent context.

[vintagesportscollector]

WOW, 114 replies the same day a thread was started, a new record? Guess that tells you how strongly people feel about this subject....

The night is still young, but the 'Mastro list revealed' thread had 229 posts in the same day is was started.

[RichardSimon]

Jackie had a .609 winning percentage in games he started.
4th highest of post war players.
He made his teams much better and he was a winner.

[Kenny Cole]

My point was just to kiddingly remind you that you were willing to indulge in what ifs to justify Cecil Travis as a HOFer. Yes, Robinson is unquestionably in the very top echelon.

Not exactly, although that sometimes matters IMO. It simply doesn't with Robinson because he did the "what if" that was asked about. The question about "what if" he hadn't broken the color barrier is therefore completely irrelevant. "What if" Robinson or Ruth hadn't been born? I don't suppose they'd be in the HOF. So what?

I don't want to resurrect the Cecil Travis debate in this thread. I will simply say that you and I have a different perception about how the HOF should go about doing its job and who should be honored. That's fine. We will simply have to agree to disagree, as we have for years.

[rats60]

Not sure if anyone wants to tackle this one, but....

If Jackie still had the same career (length and numbers), but was NOT the one who broke the color barrier, would he still belong in the HOF? Would he have been voted in?

We have been doing that for 11 pages.

[pokerplyr80]

This debate makes about as much sense as the guy on the post war board who's trying to argue that Hank Aaron is over rated. Jackie Robinson earned his spot in the hall of fame. Even if you discount his breaking the color barrier and what he did for the game in that regard, his numbers were good enough during the time he was allowed to play.

[bbcard1]

A couple of guys named Collins and Lajoie were pretty good at that position too.

In context of their time, I would still take Jackie.

[guy3050]

Here's a stat , From 1913 to 1957 Brooklyn made it to the world series 9 times, Jackie was on 6 of those teams.

"Give me five players like (Jackie) Robinson and a pitcher and I'll beat any nine-man team in baseball." - Manager Charlie Dressen

[bbcard1]

I think Jackie is actually underrated as a great American and civil rights leader. I think he was much greater than someone like Ali in that he brought the nation together instead of drawing dividing lines. All that said, I'm a white guy who grew up in a white community and I don't know that I have a fair perception of how and African American might feel.

[tiger8mush]

I have to say that the very fact that this thread exists, particularly on this day, makes me sad. Some people really just don't get it at all.

Kenny, I respectfully disagree. Today is the PERFECT day for this thread. Many casual fans tuning in to a baseball game tonight might not understand why every player has #42 on their jersey. When they find out it is Jackie Robinson day, and that was his number, some may have preconceived notions that the only reason JR is in the HOF is because of race and not because his statistics alone merit consideration. Sure, he was good enough for the Major Leagues, but was he HOF worthy?

I think this thread helped many understand that YES, even if JR was born white, studied astronomy for the first 28 years of his life before succumbing to his true calling of playing professional baseball, and put up the stats that JR did, he would STILL make the HOF. The fact that JR put up those HOF-worthy stats in a openly hostile environment, makes it all the more impressive.

Its the perfect day for this thread!
:)

[bn2cardz]

I can't wait until Dec. 30, Sandy Koufax's birthday, when the OP will argue that Sandy doesn't meet the 300 wins criteria.

As far as I can tell, the cultural significance and statistical arguments have been made. I learned about the Hall of Stats in this thread. Very cool.

Based on his lack of knowledge in baseball history and ability to read stats or do any research, I am sure he doesn't know any player's birthday or how to look it up.

[jkray25]

Based on his lack of knowledge in baseball history and ability to read stats or do any research, I am sure he doesn't know any player's birthday or how to look it up.
Since when do we slam a guy CONTINUOUSLY for generating conversation on an open forum based on his opinion.

Just let it be; he has his thoughts you have yours, surely 13 pages has shown that. No need for continued comments like this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

[Enfuego]

Roberto Clemente is in the same boat regarding this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[68Hawk]

Kenny, I respectfully disagree. Today is the PERFECT day for this thread. Many casual fans tuning in to a baseball game tonight might not understand why every player has #42 on their jersey. When they find out it is Jackie Robinson day, and that was his number, some may have preconceived notions that the only reason JR is in the HOF is because of race and not because his statistics alone merit consideration. Sure, he was good enough for the Major Leagues, but was he HOF worthy?

I think this thread helped many understand that YES, even if JR was born white, studied astronomy for the first 28 years of his life before succumbing to his true calling of playing professional baseball, and put up the stats that JR did, he would STILL make the HOF. The fact that JR put up those HOF-worthy stats in a openly hostile environment, makes it all the more impressive.

Its the perfect day for this thread!
:)



Best thing I've read in forever.
Thank you.

[Iron Horse]

Beautifully written Rob :)

[CW]

We have been doing that for 11 pages.

Hey, you are right. I must've missed it when I skimmed through. :D

*slowly backs out of the room*

[vintagesportscollector]

Roberto Clemente is in the same boat regarding this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really. We all know he hit had 3000 hits, plus 317 BA, and a load of other honors...no real debate.

[Jason19th]

Candy Cummings is in the Hall of Fame because he might have invented the curve

Ross Youngs and Addie Joss are in the Hall of Fame because they died young and it was sad

Tinkers and Evers and Chance are in the Hall of Fame because their names sounded good in a poem

Don Drysdale is in the Hall of Fame because he was handsome and played near Hollywood

Jackie Robsinson is in the Hall of Fame because he was a great player for nearly ten years, brought speed and base stealing back into the game, played high quality defense at 4 positions AND he helped to end the game's greatest injustice

[darwinbulldog]

Addie Joss was truly great. Otherwise I agree.

[CMIZ5290]

Roberto Clemente is in the same boat regarding this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What???? There are some dumb people on this board....

[vintagesportscollector]

Kenny, I respectfully disagree. Today is the PERFECT day for this thread. Many casual fans tuning in to a baseball game tonight might not understand why every player has #42 on their jersey. When they find out it is Jackie Robinson day, and that was his number, some may have preconceived notions that the only reason JR is in the HOF is because of race and not because his statistics alone merit consideration. Sure, he was good enough for the Major Leagues, but was he HOF worthy?

I think this thread helped many understand that YES, even if JR was born white, studied astronomy for the first 28 years of his life before succumbing to his true calling of playing professional baseball, and put up the stats that JR did, he would STILL make the HOF. The fact that JR put up those HOF-worthy stats in a openly hostile environment, makes it all the more impressive.

Its the perfect day for this thread!
:)

Some very fair points, however the question could have been raised in a more sensitive manner. I find it unconscionable to question the worthiness of Robinson for the HOF, but I am not bothered by the thread or discussion. It did highlight for me how great a ballplayer he was, so in that regard served a positive purpose, even if that may not have been the OPs pretext behind raising the question.

The OP is entitled to an opinion, but what bothered me was the tone in which the question was raised and provactive choice of words, especially the statement..'for the life of me I can't imagine why'.

[CMIZ5290]

Candy Cummings is in the Hall of Fame because he might have invented the curve

Ross Youngs and Addie Joss are in the Hall of Fame because they died young and it was sad

Tinkers and Evers and Chance are in the Hall of Fame because their names sounded good in a poem

Don Drysdale is in the Hall of Fame because he was handsome and played near Hollywood

Jackie Robsinson is in the Hall of Fame because he was a great player for nearly ten years, brought speed and base stealing back into the game, played high quality defense at 4 positions AND he helped to end the game's greatest injustice

Sorry.... Don't get it. Addie Joss was one of the best pitchers ever......So whats your take on Koufax????

[sbfinley]

Since when do we slam a guy CONTINUOUSLY for generating conversation on an open forum based on his opinion.

Just let it be; he has his thoughts you have yours, surely 13 pages has shown that. No need for continued comments like this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

I'm sure Josh and Dustin, who seemingly defended the viewpoint, are great guys, but you cannot walk into a forum full of passionate baseball fans with such an ill-conceived argument and not expect to be the nail. The opposing viewpoint is very clear: Jackie wasn't Babe F'n Ruth. Yet, after plenty of evidence that backed up his induction not only by the monumental importance of his accomplishments, but also by his statistical achievements they continually circled the path of the debate and his merits to the color of his skin. The statement in the opening post: "His induction seems like a charity case to me" is horrific and an insult to not only the thousands of minority ballplayers who followed him at all levels of professional baseball, but also to the thousands before him who were never graced the privilege of staking a major league diamond because of something as pathetically trivial as the color of their skin. I would pray that the family of the man being debated here would never suffer the indignity of hearing him labeled a "charity case" being as he earned more on one April day in 1947 than any of us will earn in a lifetime. No, today is not the day to "debate" him. The point of this day is to educate people about the importance of his life and others through celebrating him. A debate of his merits is embarrassing to witness. If it takes hammering someone to make this evident, I'm for it. I won't hold this debate against anyone foolish enough to consider Jackie Robinson unworthy of any praise he has ever been bestowed, but I will also applaud anyone who will fight against him being marginalized in any way.

Steven Finley

[CMIZ5290]

Roberto Clemente is in the same boat regarding this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This might be the dumbest post I have ever read. Clemente? Really??

[CMIZ5290]

Addie Joss quick stats... 160-95 W-L record, 45 shutouts, career ERA 1.89....Yeah, he's overrated:rolleyes:

[clydepepper]

I'm sure Josh and Dustin, who seemingly defended the viewpoint, are great guys, but you cannot walk into a forum full of passionate baseball fans with such an ill-conceived argument and not expect to be the nail. The opposing viewpoint is very clear: Jackie wasn't Babe F'n Ruth. Yet, after plenty of evidence that backed up his induction not only by the monumental importance of his accomplishments, but also by his statistical achievements they continual circled the path of the debate and his merits to the color of his skin. The statement in the opening post: "His induction seems like a charity case to me" is horrific and an insult to not only the thousands of minority ballplayers who followed him at all levels of professional baseball, but also the thousands before him who were never graced the privilege of staking a major league diamond because of something as pathetically trivial as the color of there skin. I would pray that the family of the man being debated here would never suffer the indignity of hearing him labeled a "charity case" being as he earned more on one April in 1947 than any of use will earn in a lifetime. No, today is not the day to "debate" him. The point of this day is to educate people about the importance of his life and others through celebrating him. A debate of his merits is embarrassing to witness. If it takes hammering someone to make this evident, I'm for it. I won't hold this debate against anyone foolish enough to consider Jackie Robinson unworthy of any praise he has ever been bestowed, but I will also applaud anyone who will fight against him being marginalized in any way.

Steven Finley




+1

Well said Steven! I hesitated contributing to this thread at all, since the very thought of debating the merit of Jackie Robinson's enshrinement so repulsed me.

However, your statements along with many others make clear the high esteem we all hold him in.

In starting this thread, the 'author' ignited a fire of support that might otherwise not have shown up to the degree it has. However, his very thought of questioning Jackie Robinson certainly deserves no praise even if he thinks he's a braver person for having done so.

It's not about political correctness ; it's about respect...and He most certainly earned that! - more than any other athlete I can think of.

Sometimes it is just better to keep such thoughts to yourself.

[Thromdog]

I didn't read through this thread so I'll just say Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski.

Intangibles and great gloves, stats be damned.

JR had good stats, but doing what he did and the inspiration he has been makes him HOF material in my mind.

Well deserved and beyond worthy.

[Kenny Cole]

Kenny, I respectfully disagree. Today is the PERFECT day for this thread. Many casual fans tuning in to a baseball game tonight might not understand why every player has #42 on their jersey. When they find out it is Jackie Robinson day, and that was his number, some may have preconceived notions that the only reason JR is in the HOF is because of race and not because his statistics alone merit consideration. Sure, he was good enough for the Major Leagues, but was he HOF worthy?

I think this thread helped many understand that YES, even if JR was born white, studied astronomy for the first 28 years of his life before succumbing to his true calling of playing professional baseball, and put up the stats that JR did, he would STILL make the HOF. The fact that JR put up those HOF-worthy stats in a openly hostile environment, makes it all the more impressive.

Its the perfect day for this thread!
:)

Rob, OK. I think we are on the same page, although we have perhaps approached it from different directions. If I understand things correctly, which is always problematic, your perspective is that the stats alone justify his induction, irrespective of all of his myriad other contributions which, simply to save a paragraph, I won't go into. If that is your position, we have no disagreement. If your argument is that Jackie Robinson day is the perfect day to educate people about the importance of Jackie Robinson to society as a whole, irrespective of his stats, which are HOF worthy without any other extraneous criteria. I am 100% with you. If I have misapprehended what you meant to say, please advise so that we can discuss further. Thanks and best,

Kenny

[1952boyntoncollector]

Jackie Robinson belongs in the Halll over any closer....closers pitched far less innings percentage wise than Starting pitchers than Jackie robinson played innings wise versus the longer careers of players with 'hof' magic numbers like 3000 hits...plus any HOF SP could of been a great closer...i think bob gibson or sandy koufax could of closed games pretty easily.......but closers being starting pitchers...thats a lot harder..in fact there are closers that are 'failed' starting pitchers who then became closers.

Jackie should be in the hall regardless...but if we are playing this game...get rid of the closers before bringing up the subject..

[Dewey]

Thanks, Steven. Nailed it.

[chaddurbin]

I shouldve listened to rob d and blocked op from the start...oh well better late than never.

[Jeffrompa]

Some people really need to watch PBS

[JTysver]

I will make an easy statistical argument for him...

He was a better player than Derek Jeter, who everyone would agree is a first ballot hall of famer. So if you can imagine Jeter not being a hall of famer, you would have to not admit Robinson. But if you see Jeter as being a Hall of Famer, Robinson goes in based upon how good he was.

Let's compare his career to Derek Jeter.

Jackie Robinson had a .311 Lifetime average, Derek Jeter had a .309 lifetime average.

Jackie Robinson averaged 5.42 WAR per season, Derek Jeter (despite the added benefit of playing a WAR rich position) averaged 4.775 per season.

Jackie Robinson had a lifetime OPS of .883. Derek Jeter had a lifetime OPS of .817

Now I will make an impact argument for him
He broke the color barrier and with his clear success, opened up other teams to adding black players as well.
He fundamentally changed the game. There have been only a handful of players who have fundamentally changed the game. Candy Cummings invented a curveball. Babe Ruth made the home run an integral part of the game and took us out of the station to station period of baseball. Jackie Robinson brought speed as part of the game into the game. Prior to this, speed was never used to pressure the opposition.
All are in the hall of fame because of their impact on the game.

Now I will make a human argument for him
Roberto Clemente was inducted into the hall of fame with a waiver of the wait rule because of his contributions to society. Jackie, also was considered for his contributions to society.
Jackie's stance on not sitting in the back of a bus was what inspired Rosa Parks to take her stance. His refusing to leave the lunch counter at Woolworths inspired the same stances some 20 years later. Jackie was the founder of the modern Civil Rights movement. Not a single historian would dispute that.

Now I will make a fame argument for him
In 1949, in a poll conducted, Jackie Robinson was voted the most popular man in America. That is despite there having been no civil rights movements at that time and that is despite there being complete segregation.


The hall does not have accumulation requirements other than you must have played 10 years and reached 4000 at bats. That is all that matters.

Lastly, Jackie Robinson is not a hall of famer because of the color of his skin. He is a hall of famer in every possible way that the hall of fame exists. To simply imply that he is lacking in any of the manners that the hall exists signifies nothing but a total lack of understanding of the game and its history. To assume that he could have only gotten into the hall because he was black or the first thereof is pure ignorance.
Let me put it this way, if there was a Mount Rushmore for the game you would have Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Jackie Robinson and either Mays or Mantle. Jackie is at that level of fame and importance to the game. In fact, of all of the other people I mentioned on this Baseball Mount Rushmore, Jackie is the only one who makes the hall in every possible way. Cobb, Ruth and Mantle lacked the character to make it and Mays really had little impact on our country and society.

[tiger8mush]

Rob, OK. I think we are on the same page, although we have perhaps approached it from different directions. If I understand things correctly, which is always problematic, your perspective is that the stats alone justify his induction, irrespective of all of his myriad other contributions which, simply to save a paragraph, I won't go into. If that is your position, we have no disagreement. If your argument is that Jackie Robinson day is the perfect day to educate people about the importance of Jackie Robinson to society as a whole, irrespective of his stats, which are HOF worthy without any other extraneous criteria. I am 100% with you. If I have misapprehended what you meant to say, please advise so that we can discuss further. Thanks and best,

Kenny

You said it much better than I did Kenny! :)

[JTysver]

I might also add that his WAR in 1949 and 1951 were 9.6 and 9.7 respectively. That is Mike Trout and Bryce Harper level. As well his WAR in other years of his prime hovered around that level as well.
Oh and since WAR is accumulative, he acquired his WAR in less games than they did. Given the additional 8 games it would be over 10 in both cases which are amongst some of the best seasons ever.
That is how good Jackie Robinson was as a player.

[egri]

Even if you throw everything but the stats out the window, Robinson still belongs. He might not have had some of the counting stats, but his other stats were all there. And there is something else; his ability to change a game. From the Summer of '49:

"The next day Preacher Roe beat Vic Raschi 1-0. Gil Hodges singled with Jackie Robinson on third for the game's one run in the third inning. Later Raschi told friends that it was not Hodges who had beaten him, it was Robinson, bluffing a break for home. "I had just never seen anything like him before," Raschi said, "a human being who could go from a standing start to full speed in one step. He did something to me that almost never happened: he broke my concentration and I paid more attention to him than to Hodges." The other Yankees, particularly the younger ones, watched Robinson with growing admiration. On the bench Jerry Coleman, who had turned down a Dodger contract before he signed with the Yankees, silently said a prayer of thanks that he had signed with the Yankee organization. The Dodgers, Coleman thought, were not going to need a light-hitting second baseman for a long, long time. Robinson was different from almost any player Coleman had ever seen. He was not a power hitter, but could change the tempo of the game nonetheless. Years later Coleman still thought Robinson was special. Some younger players with greater speed had arrived, and they had produced greater statistics, but Robinson remained apart; he had done everything with a purpose--to wake up his own team, to intimidate his opponents, to make the game different. What a player, Coleman thought."

[the 'stache]

if you are going to question Jackie's credentials,then start on Yaz.talk about a career of mediocrety(sorry about that spelling).One outstanding year ,two above average seasons,followed by what ? check his averages outside of those three years.Played a long time ,long enough to reach the 3000 hit mark.Carried the team on his back in 1967 but does that get you into the HOF ?

Wait, what?

One outstanding year? Carl Yastrzemski's 1967 was not just one great year. It was an historic year. Full statistics only go back to 1901 on Baseball Reference, and his 12.4 WAR in '67 is the third highest since 1901. Only Babe Ruth's 14.1 in 1923, and his 12.9 in 1921, are higher.

Look at the statistics: .326 AVG, 44 home runs, and 121 RBI. 112 runs scored, 189 hits, a .418 OBP, .622 SLG, 1.040 OPS, 193 OPS + 360 total bases. He won the Triple Crown, and every single stat I listed led the American League.

Look at the Triple Crown line again. .326 AVG, 44 home runs, 121 RBI. A really good season, to be sure, but historic? This is where context is so vitally important in statistical analysis, and why the Jeff Kent vs Jackie Robinson sub-debate looks so silly. You can't simply extrapolate these stats, and compare them to hitters from today, or say, the early to mid 2000s.

"Yastrzemski only hit 44 home runs. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs. Mark McGwire hit 70. Sammy Sosa hit 60 + multiple times. Those guys were much better power hitters than Yaz."

The game back in the late 60s was completely different than it is now. Yastrzemski was the hitter in 1967. His oWAR of 9.9 is off the charts. Since 1950, only Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds (three times each) and Mike Trout (in 2013) have had higher. Robin Yount's 9.8 in 1982 is right behind him.

But that was hardly the only great season Yaz had. Two above average seasons? He had two other tremendous seasons.

In 1968, he had a 10.5 WAR. An 8 + WAR is considered MVP level. Yaz far exceeded that. The second best player in the American League, Frank Robinson, had an 8.4 WAR. In simplest terms, Carl Yastrzemski, by WAR, was 25% better than any other player in the American League that year. That's a dominant performance. If you only casually look at Yastrzemski's numbers in 1968, using the eyes of a baseball fan in 2016, you won't be impressed by what you see. .301 AVG, 23 HR, 74 RBI. His slash line was .426 OBP/.495 SLG/.922 OPS. He had a 171 OPS +.

But again, context. Yaz led in batting, walks (119), on base, OPS and OPS +. Carl Yastrzemski was the only player in the entire American League to hit over .300 in 1968. Oakland's Danny Carter was second in the A.L. with a .290 AVG. Tony Oliva hit .289, Willie Horton .285, and Ted Uhalender .283. Nobody else in the A.L. even hit .280! That's how absolutely dominant the pitching was in 1968. '68 is the year Denny McClain won 31 games. Luis Tiant had a league-best 1.60 ERA, and four other pitchers (Sam McDowell, Dave McNally, McClain and Tommy John) had ERAs below 2.00. Another six starters had an ERA of 2.50 or better. Twenty-two starters with at least 20 starts and 154 IP had an ERA below 3.00. Yaz was by far the best hitter in the American League in 1968. So, no, that was not an "above average" season if you know how to accurately gauge statistics. His 9th place MVP vote was more a product of Boston's finishing 4th in the American League East than anything.

What about 1970? Again, Yastrzemski had the best WAR (9.5) in the American League. He was the best player in the A.L. that year, too. His 8.9 oWAR is the 34th best by any hitter in the American League since 1901. The second-best WAR in the American League that year was a 7.9 by pitcher Sam McDowell. By WAR, Carl Yastrzemski was 20% better than the next-best player in the American League that year. Yet he was only 4th in the MVP. His stat line clearly shows that he didn't have a merely above average season: 40 home runs, 102 RBI, .329 AVG. His slash line .452 OBP/.592 SLG/1.044 OPS was best in the AL. He led in all three metrics. He also led in runs scored (125), total bases (335) and OPS + 177. In fact, 1970 represented the fourth time in a six year span that Yaz led the A.L. in OPS + (in addition to 1967, 1968 and 1970, he also led with a 156 OPS + in 1965).

That's three seasons, 1967, 1968 and 1970, where Carl Yastrzemski was clearly the best player in the league, and by a wide margin.

In 1963, he had a 6.6 WAR, leading the A.L. in batting (.321), hits (183), doubles (40), walks (95), and on base (.418).

In 1965, he led the A.L. in doubles (45), on base (.395), slugging (.536), OPS (.932), and, again, OPS + (156).

Now, after hitting age 30, he was clearly not the same player. You could make an argument against some of his 11 All Star selections post 1970. But he still had some very good seasons. In 1974, he led the A.L. with 93 runs scored. 93 runs scored. That should tell you how difficult it was to score runs in that era, again, reinforcing how dominant pitching was. Only Yaz, Bobby Grich and Reggie Jackson even scored 90 runs that year. Compare that to 2015, when 13 players in the American League, alone, scored over 100 runs, and 28 players scored 90 or more.

Context.

Carl Yastrzemski had nine seasons, in total, with a WAR exceeding 5.0 or better. 5.0 WAR is an All Star level. And, he was one of the elite players in the American League for the decade of the 1960s. Only Frank Robinson's 53.8 WAR bested Yastrzemski's 53.2. But Yaz wasn't even a rookie until 1961. Had he played at all in 1960, he'd have been worth more wins than any player in the American League. Take away his -0.3 1961 rookie season, and his monster 1967 and 1968 seasons, and he still has a 30.6 WAR for the other six seasons, a 5.1 WAR average.

Yaz was a great player. He's one of only nine players in the history of baseball with over 3,000 hits, 400 home runs and 500 doubles. He was a great hitter, and a great fielder (good with the glove, great arm = 7 Gold Gloves). He's a deserving Hall of Famer.



Roberto Clemente is in the same boat regarding this topic.


No, he's not. What an absurd statement.

Clemente had 3,000 hits and a career .317 AVG. He won four batting titles, and finished in the top five six other times, including a pair of seconf place finishes. He was a twelve-time All Star, and won twelve consecutive Gold Gloves to close out his career. And, unlike most players, who see their productivity drop off at the end of their careers, Clemente was getting better. Had he not died in that plane crash, there's no telling how much longer he could have played. Clemente was in fantastic shape, and at the plate, he was lethal. Look at his last four seasons, 1969 to 1972. Between the ages of 34 and 37, Clemente batted a combined .339. He hit .345 in 1969, .352 in 1970, .341 in 1970, and .312 in 1971. He had a 153 OPS + for those four years. If he could have overcome a series of nagging injuries, he could have kept playing for another four years. He was still an elite hitter and fielder.

Please, educate yourself, because your statement is laughably bad.

[Dewey]

Love this forum. Phenomenal post stache.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm not sure Anthony was suggesting there was any argument Clemente should not be in the HOF based on his playing field accomplishments. Perhaps what he meant was that, like Jackie our perception of his greatness is further enhanced by externalities, in Clemente's case being the first great Hispanic major leaguer, and/or his premature death. For example, most people I think would immediately agree that Clemente was in the top 20 or 25 all time greats, but Bill James based purely on stats has him in the 70s.

Then again maybe Anthony has no clue. :D

[Marckus99]

Of course Jackie belongs in the HOF....and so does his wife too, right?
Hell #42 has been retired, how about #1947 as well.

Actually we should make 4/15 a national holiday as well.
Let's start a religion as well, I mean he did suffer as much as Jesus.
Correct?

Because no one else in the history of baseball suffered as much as poor Jackie.
None of the Latin ball players from the 1910s or 1920s or 1930s suffered at all.....right?

We know what this is about, let's not be so naive.

- Mark

[Dewey]

Now I know how Bill Murray felt in Groundhog Day.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Wait, what?

One outstanding year? Carl Yastrzemski's 1967 was not just one great year. It was an historic year. Full statistics only go back to 1901 on Baseball Reference, and his 12.4 WAR in '67 is the third highest since 1901. Only Babe Ruth's 14.1 in 1923, and his 12.9 in 1921, are higher.

Look at the statistics: .326 AVG, 44 home runs, and 121 RBI. 112 runs scored, 189 hits, a .418 OBP, .622 SLG, 1.040 OPS, 193 OPS + 360 total bases. He won the Triple Crown, and every single stat I listed led the American League.

Look at the Triple Crown line again. .326 AVG, 44 home runs, 121 RBI. A really good season, to be sure, but historic? This is where context is so vitally important in statistical analysis, and why the Jeff Kent vs Jackie Robinson sub-debate looks so silly. You can't simply extrapolate these stats, and compare them to hitters from today, or say, the early to mid 2000s.

"Yastrzemski only hit 44 home runs. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs. Mark McGwire hit 70. Sammy Sosa hit 60 + multiple times. Those guys were much better power hitters than Yaz."

The game back in the late 60s was completely different than it is now. Yastrzemski was the hitter in 1967. His oWAR of 9.9 is off the charts. Since 1950, only Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds (three times each) and Mike Trout (in 2013) have had higher. Robin Yount's 9.8 in 1982 is right behind him.

But that was hardly the only great season Yaz had. Two above average seasons? He had two other tremendous seasons.

In 1968, he had a 10.5 WAR. An 8 + WAR is considered MVP level. Yaz far exceeded that. The second best player in the American League, Frank Robinson, had an 8.4 WAR. In simplest terms, Carl Yastrzemski, by WAR, was 25% better than any other player in the American League that year. That's a dominant performance. If you only casually look at Yastrzemski's numbers in 1968, using the eyes of a baseball fan in 2016, you won't be impressed by what you see. .301 AVG, 23 HR, 74 RBI. His slash line was .426 OBP/.495 SLG/.922 OPS. He had a 171 OPS +.

But again, context. Yaz led in batting, walks (119), on base, OPS and OPS +. Carl Yastrzemski was the only player in the entire American League to hit over .300 in 1968. Oakland's Danny Carter was second in the A.L. with a .290 AVG. Tony Oliva hit .289, Willie Horton .285, and Ted Uhalender .283. Nobody else in the A.L. even hit .280! That's how absolutely dominant the pitching was in 1968. '68 is the year Denny McClain won 31 games. Luis Tiant had a league-best 1.60 ERA, and four other pitchers (Sam McDowell, Dave McNally, McClain and Tommy John) had ERAs below 2.00. Another six starters had an ERA of 2.50 or better. Twenty-two starters with at least 20 starts and 154 IP had an ERA below 3.00. Yaz was by far the best hitter in the American League in 1968. So, no, that was not an "above average" season if you know how to accurately gauge statistics. His 9th place MVP vote was more a product of Boston's finishing 4th in the American League East than anything.

What about 1970? Again, Yastrzemski had the best WAR (9.5) in the American League. He was the best player in the A.L. that year, too. His 8.9 oWAR is the 34th best by any hitter in the American League since 1901. The second-best WAR in the American League that year was a 7.9 by pitcher Sam McDowell. By WAR, Carl Yastrzemski was 20% better than the next-best player in the American League that year. Yet he was only 4th in the MVP. His stat line clearly shows that he didn't have a merely above average season: 40 home runs, 102 RBI, .329 AVG. His slash line .452 OBP/.592 SLG/1.044 OPS was best in the AL. He led in all three metrics. He also led in runs scored (125), total bases (335) and OPS + 177. In fact, 1970 represented the fourth time in a six year span that Yaz led the A.L. in OPS + (in addition to 1967, 1968 and 1970, he also led with a 156 OPS + in 1965).

That's three seasons, 1967, 1968 and 1970, where Carl Yastrzemski was clearly the best player in the league, and by a wide margin.

In 1963, he had a 6.6 WAR, leading the A.L. in batting (.321), hits (183), doubles (40), walks (95), and on base (.418).

In 1965, he led the A.L. in doubles (45), on base (.395), slugging (.536), OPS (.932), and, again, OPS + (156).

Now, after hitting age 30, he was clearly not the same player. You could make an argument against some of his 11 All Star selections post 1970. But he still had some very good seasons. In 1974, he led the A.L. with 93 runs scored. 93 runs scored. That should tell you how difficult it was to score runs in that era, again, reinforcing how dominant pitching was. Only Yaz, Bobby Grich and Reggie Jackson even scored 90 runs that year. Compare that to 2015, when 13 players in the American League, alone, scored over 100 runs, and 28 players scored 90 or more.

Context.

Carl Yastrzemski had nine seasons, in total, with a WAR exceeding 5.0 or better. 5.0 WAR is an All Star level. And, he was one of the elite players in the American League for the decade of the 1960s. Only Frank Robinson's 53.8 WAR bested Yastrzemski's 53.2. But Yaz wasn't even a rookie until 1961. Had he played at all in 1960, he'd have been worth more wins than any player in the American League. Take away his -0.3 1961 rookie season, and his monster 1967 and 1968 seasons, and he still has a 30.6 WAR for the other six seasons, a 5.1 WAR average.

Yaz was a great player. He's one of only nine players in the history of baseball with over 3,000 hits, 400 home runs and 500 doubles. He was a great hitter, and a great fielder (good with the glove, great arm = 7 Gold Gloves). He's a deserving Hall of Famer.





No, he's not. What an absurd statement.

Clemente had 3,000 hits and a career .317 AVG. He won four batting titles, and finished in the top five six other times, including a pair of seconf place finishes. He was a twelve-time All Star, and won twelve consecutive Gold Gloves to close out his career. And, unlike most players, who see their productivity drop off at the end of their careers, Clemente was getting better. Had he not died in that plane crash, there's no telling how much longer he could have played. Clemente was in fantastic shape, and at the plate, he was lethal. Look at his last four seasons, 1969 to 1972. Between the ages of 34 and 37, Clemente batted a combined .339. He hit .345 in 1969, .352 in 1970, .341 in 1970, and .312 in 1971. He had a 153 OPS + for those four years. If he could have overcome a series of nagging injuries, he could have kept playing for another four years. He was still an elite hitter and fielder.

Please, educate yourself, because your statement is laughably bad.



What he said...

[bdk1976]

censored

[sago]

We know what this is about, let's not be so naive.

- Mark

I think you made it perfectly clear what you think it is all about.

[TNP777]

Of course Jackie belongs in the HOF....and so does his wife too, right?
Hell #42 has been retired, how about #1947 as well.

Actually we should make 4/15 a national holiday as well.
Let's start a religion as well, I mean he did suffer as much as Jesus.
Correct?

Because no one else in the history of baseball suffered as much as poor Jackie.
None of the Latin ball players from the 1910s or 1920s or 1930s suffered at all.....right?

We know what this is about, let's not be so naive.

- Mark
I really hope my sarcasm detector is broken beyond repair. The alternative is that you're every bit as despicable as your post suggests.

[the 'stache]

Of course Jackie belongs in the HOF....and so does his wife too, right?
Hell #42 has been retired, how about #1947 as well.

Actually we should make 4/15 a national holiday as well.
Let's start a religion as well, I mean he did suffer as much as Jesus.
Correct?

Because no one else in the history of baseball suffered as much as poor Jackie.
None of the Latin ball players from the 1910s or 1920s or 1930s suffered at all.....right?

We know what this is about, let's not be so naive.

- Mark


No contest - Cobb all the way.

10 million 54T cards made...
BTW, Hank Aaron, very overrated player.

You're on a roll.

[Leon]

To me trolls aren't known, he is known and you aren't (publicly). If you want to make that comment your name needs to be by your post. That goes for everyone in this thread and on the board. I see a few comments in this thread that need their name by them. Either the member can edit out their comment, put their full name next to it, or I will help.

This is at the top of each page for a reason and folks can take it to include snarky comments too.

If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post.

Make comments all you want to, but put your name next to your post. And don't follow members around the board making snarky comments. If you do it too often you will no longer be here.

I am with Brendan (post #47) with my thoughts on the question. I think it is a good question and a good debate in an open forum. Why not talk about it?


This thread is obviously a trolling attempt (that's working).

1) Jackie Robinson is a HOF-caliber player
2) There are plenty of players who don't belong in the HOF - Jackie is not one of them
3) I think the color-barrier issue should (and does) cement his legitimacy in the HOF if he was borderline (he isn't - I can put together a lot of names in the HOF that are 'borderline' - or lower - and he wouldn't be on it)
4) I do think it's important to remember history and his contributions to baseball and our country.
5) I also think some of the Jackie-worship these days is becoming borderline over the top
6) On a somewhat related note, I think #3 should be retired by the MLB and Marvin Miller should be in the HOF.

[mark evans]

Of course Jackie belongs in the HOF....and so does his wife too, right?
Hell #42 has been retired, how about #1947 as well.

Actually we should make 4/15 a national holiday as well.
Let's start a religion as well, I mean he did suffer as much as Jesus.
Correct?

Because no one else in the history of baseball suffered as much as poor Jackie.
None of the Latin ball players from the 1910s or 1920s or 1930s suffered at all.....right?

We know what this is about, let's not be so naive.

- Mark

What? Political correctness? I thought that notion was put to bed when it was noted that Robinson was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1962. I can tell you that I was growing up in the South in 1962 and political correctness was the furthest thing from anyone's mind.

[Terrier8HOF]

it is not purely based on stats. if it were, Pete Rose would be in, and so would McGwire, Clemens, Bonds and several others from "the steroid era".

[AustinMike]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshchisox08 View Post
This is bound to catch a lot of flack. And for the life of me I can't imagine why, though we live in PC America these days.
Translation: I'm going to stir the pot on the day of Jackie Robinson's commemoration and only the PC mental midgets would disagree with me. None of the disagreement to follow, therefore, will be my fault or legit and I will purposefully avoid responding intelligently to forthcoming evidence. My narrative about Jackie's induction is the right one, even though I will say I want open disagreement and argument. In fact I'll only respond with snide, not substantive, remarks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshchisox08 View Post
WHY is Jackie Robinson in the HOF? I may be mistaken but isn't an induction for a player based almost entirely on statistics?
Translation: I won't take into consideration the actually criteria for induction. My magic numbers are the criteria. I have an agenda here, afterall. Don't get in my way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshchisox08 View Post
Yes he endured a lot while playing. But that doesn't mean that he should be in the HOF over many other players with much better statistics.
Translation: Setting players in their historical and game era context is for suckers. Let's take out all those dead ball era bums! Actually they were white, so they must be okay. Let's just take out Jackie. I'm not PC like the rest of 'Merica. Understanding history is for PC wimps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshchisox08 View Post
His induction seems more like a charity induction to me. Just my opinion and wondering if there's anyone else that has at least questioned any of this.
Translation: Jackie's hall induction is affirmative action charity and I HATE THAT. Don't you hate what I hate? As I've already assumed, I'm right, so don't tell me I'm not.

RESPONSE: Bro, you could have just asked:
Why is Jackie in the hall? His numbers don't seem measure up to my HOF expectations?

That would be a good question and conversation starter. In fact, I had that conversation with a friend and historian two weeks ago. Yet, you injected all this other nonsense followed by more snide nonsense.

+1

[drcy]

He's in the Hall of Fame, and should be in the Hall of Fame, because he broke the color barrier. Stat arguments are beside the point.

If honoring the allowing of blacks to play in Major League Baseball is considered "PC," then I'll take being PC as a good thing.

For the record, I take no issue with someone questioning his statistical worthiness visa vie getting into the Hall of Fame. It's a legitimate question and topic. That I take a different route to my conclusion doesn't mean I find fault with someone bringing up the topic. Hall of Fame merits and stat debates for players is a regular topic on this and other boards.

[pclpads]

Let's start a religion as well, I mean he did suffer as much as Jesus.
Correct?

It's unfair to compare Jesus to Jackie. First, they existed in different eras. And Jesus never had to deal with bean balls and being called a "N" by Ben Chapman. Just wondering, but could Jesus hit a 98 mph fastball? :rolleyes:

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's unfair to compare Jesus to Jackie. First, they existed in different eras. And Jesus never had to deal with bean balls and being called a "N" by Ben Chapman. Just wondering, but could Jesus hit a 98 mph fastball? :rolleyes:

If he could walk on water, then probably.:)

[Rookiemonster]

He's in the Hall of Fame, and should be in the Hall of Fame, because he broke the color barrier. Stat arguments are beside the point.

If honoring the allowing of blacks to play in Major League Baseball is considered "PC," then I'll take being PC as a good thing.

For the record, I take no issue with someone questioning his statistical worthiness visa vie getting into the Hall of Fame. It's a legitimate question and topic. That I take a different route to my conclusion doesn't mean I find fault with someone bringing up the topic. Hall of Fame merits and stat debates for players is a regular topic on this and other boards.

This is I why I feel on the topic. What he did as a pioneer for every other player after him is why we know him so well.i always assumed he had better stats when I was younger. Purely just because they way he was revered.

I really never understood the color barrier anyway considering native Americans played from the 1800s on.with most full blood natives being just as dark as the African American players. If it was just African Americans that could not play. Then it should have a different name.

[Cmount76]

I think the overwhelming (and obvious) consensus is that Jackie is without question a HoFer.

So now what!?!?!

Show what ya got!!

[howard38]

This might be the dumbest post I have ever read. Clemente? Really??
The post was a little vague so it depends on what he meant. Clemente certainly got into the hall of fame at least five years early for reasons unrelated to stats and Robinson likely got in earlier than he otherwise would have based on his stats alone. Also, more than any other players, questioning their place among the all-time greats really seems to piss a lot of people off. They both definitely belong in the HOF though.

[CMIZ5290]

The post was a little vague so it depends on what he meant. Clemente certainly got into the hall of fame at least five years early for reasons unrelated to stats and Robinson likely got in earlier than he otherwise would have based on his stats alone. Also, more than any other players, questioning their place among the all-time greats really seems to piss a lot of people off. They both definitely belong in the HOF though.

Possibly his post was. But how in the World can anyone question Clemente as a HOFer? He had 3,000 hits, and the best arm in baseball that I've ever seen....As a young kid in Atlanta, I saw him throw out Ralph Garr of the Braves who was arguably the fastest man in the game. The ball was hit to the warning track and Clemente caught the ball and threw a bullet that did not even bounce! The catcher caught the ball standing on the plate and tagged Garr out...Everybody in the stadium buzzed about that play for 30 minutes...Milo Hamilton said it was the best throw he had ever seen or ever will see....Oh, and by the way, his rookie card just keeps going thru the roof!

[ajquigs]

I think the overwhelming (and obvious) consensus is that Jackie is without question a HoFer.

So now what!?!?!

Show what ya got!!

A welcome suggestion.

[Tabe]

It's unfair to compare Jesus to Jackie. First, they existed in different eras. And Jesus never had to deal with bean balls and being called a "N" by Ben Chapman. Just wondering, but could Jesus hit a 98 mph fastball? :rolleyes:

Go find the SNL skit featuring Jesus as a teenager :)

[steve B]

You actually have to beat out more people today to make a roster, just not as high a proportion of the white American male demographic.

Nope.

We had an oldtimer speak at the club, one who was in baseball in the prewar era and was still involved.

One question he asked us was about exactly this. How many players were in organized ball in say 1940 and how many are there now. The comparison was US and maybe Canada only, so can be adjusted a little for the international players.

The answer?
At the time, roughly 17,500 in organized pro ball.
in the late 30's - closer to 175,000 not counting semi pro and industrial leagues, some of which had a higher level of competition than some minor leagues.

His point was that unless you were Ted Williams or Joe D. you had to hit, field, and be a fairly agreeable sort of guy because someone mediocre and caustic could be replaced very easily.

Todays teams worry about replacing the number 5 long relief guy.


Steve B

[Enfuego]

I'm not sure Anthony was suggesting there was any argument Clemente should not be in the HOF based on his playing field accomplishments. Perhaps what he meant was that, like Jackie our perception of his greatness is further enhanced by externalities, in Clemente's case being the first great Hispanic major leaguer, and/or his premature death. For example, most people I think would immediately agree that Clemente was in the top 20 or 25 all time greats, but Bill James based purely on stats has him in the 70s.

Then again maybe Anthony has no clue. :D

You basically nailed it. Whoever this MIZE Character is, needs to read between the lines before opening his oxygen sucker. A lot of players today get into the HOF solely because of stats, accomplishments and records. Jackie and Roberto were acknowledged for their careers AND their contributions off the field.

[vintagesportscollector]

Nope.

We had an oldtimer speak at the club, one who was in baseball in the prewar era and was still involved.

One question he asked us was about exactly this. How many players were in organized ball in say 1940 and how many are there now. The comparison was US and maybe Canada only, so can be adjusted a little for the international players.

The answer?
At the time, roughly 17,500 in organized pro ball.
in the late 30's - closer to 175,000 not counting semi pro and industrial leagues, some of which had a higher level of competition than some minor leagues.

His point was that unless you were Ted Williams or Joe D. you had to hit, field, and be a fairly agreeable sort of guy because someone mediocre and caustic could be replaced very easily.

Todays teams worry about replacing the number 5 long relief guy.


Steve B

I think you have to adjust more than a little for the international players. Looking at the stats....over 25% of MLB rosters are international. Of the 9000 players under a pro baseball contract in the US, 45% are international, and that % could be higher if not for Visa restrictions.

[CMIZ5290]

You basically nailed it. Whoever this MIZE Character is, needs to read between the lines before opening his oxygen sucker. A lot of players today get into the HOF solely because of stats, accomplishments and records. Jackie and Roberto were acknowledged for their careers AND their contributions off the field.

Oxygen sucker? How polite and how stupid...I don't give a damn what you think about Clemente's off field accomplishments as being a big reason for HOF. They were tremendous attributes that he had, no doubt. He was a HOFer regardless of that based upon his value as a player...What exactly are you saying? That the HOF committee took in to account Clemente's off field achievements and the plane crash when they elected him? I'm just simply trying to understand what you are saying...Robinson as well??

[CMIZ5290]

You basically nailed it. Whoever this MIZE Character is, needs to read between the lines before opening his oxygen sucker. A lot of players today get into the HOF solely because of stats, accomplishments and records. Jackie and Roberto were acknowledged for their careers AND their contributions off the field.

I would love to chat with Bill James about Clemente being only in the top 70's, that's just idiotic....This guy won 4 batting crowns in 6 years, and had the best arm in the game...

[frankbmd]

Possibly his post was. But how in the World can anyone question Clemente as a HOFer? He had 3,000 hits, and the best arm in baseball that I've ever seen....As a young kid in Atlanta, I saw him throw out Ralph Garr of the Braves who was arguably the fastest man in the game. The ball was hit to the warning track and Clemente caught the ball and threw a bullet that did not even bounce! The catcher caught the ball standing on the plate and tagged Garr out...Everybody in the stadium buzzed about that play for 30 minutes...Milo Hamilton said it was the best throw he had ever seen or ever will see....Oh, and by the way, his rookie card just keeps going thru the roof (if it's in a PSA holder)!

:D

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would love to chat with Bill James about Clemente being only in the top 70's, that's just idiotic....This guy won 4 batting crowns in 6 years, and had the best arm in the game...

Bill Madlock won 4 batting titles. :D

[CMIZ5290]

OK, lets try this with the board. Pertaining Outfielder's, other than Ruth, Aaron, Mays, T. Williams, and Mantle, maybe a drug free Bonds, who would you rate higher than Clemente? Also, of these five who would you put Clemente over?

[Peter_Spaeth]

OK, lets try this with the board. Pertaining Outfielder's, other than Ruth, Aaron, Mays, T. Williams, and Mantle, maybe a drug free Bonds, who would you rate higher than Clemente? Also, of these five who would you put Clemente over?

This site ranks him 61. http://www.stevetheump.com/top_players.htm


I would probably rate Cobb higher.:D Maybe Ott and Henderson. Frank Robinson. Speaker. Griffey. DiMaggio. Musial.

[CMIZ5290]

Bill Madlock won 4 batting titles. :D

Agree Peter, but could he even compare to Clemente? Not even close....

[CMIZ5290]

This site ranks him 61. http://www.stevetheump.com/top_players.htm


I would probably rate Cobb higher.:D Maybe Ott and Henderson. Frank Robinson. Speaker. Griffey.

OMG, lights out on this thread....Ott, Henderson, Speaker over Clemente?? I know when I'm whipped...Good night

[Peter_Spaeth]

Agree Peter, but could he even compare to Clemente? Not even close....

No of course not.

[steve B]

The magical 3,000 hits --------- him 1,518
The magical 500 HRs ----------- him 137
The magical 1,500 RBIs -------- him 734

Ok, looking at just those numbers.

3000 hits.

Rafael Palmeiro is the only player over 3000 that I think is unlikely to make the hall. Still a chance with the veterans committee, or whatever they'll have in a few years, but he's dropped off the ballot. He's also over the other two numbers with 569 HR and 1835 RBI.
The others over 3000 but not in are Rose, Jeter, and Arod. I figure Jeter and Arod will get in, Jeter quickly, Arod maybe eventually. Rose......Lets not go there and make this even more confusing. Should be based on stats, isn't but maybe someday.

500 HR.

There's a few guys over 500 who aren't in. PEDs are the stumbling block for most of them. Others are either still active or aren't eligible yet. I think a few of them will eventually get in.
That number used to be 400.
And that makes it more interesting. It was only fairly recently that there were players with more than 400 HR who didn't make the hall.
Darrell Evans 414
Juan Gonzalez 434
Dave Kingman 442
Jeff Bagwell 449
Jose Canseco 462
Fred McGriff 493

Plus a bunch of guys who aren't eligible yet or are still on the ballot.
McGriff not being in sort of surprises me, but maybe the steroids era really made 500 the special number.
Bagwell may still be on the ballot? I thought there was a limit to how many years someone could be on, and he's been on 6 years.

The other guys all had other things keeping them out. Canseco was a truly bad fielder, and had PED issues, although I think some of the knock against him is that he's been open about that which makes some people uncomfortable. Most of the others simply were too one dimensional, not having much besides HR power. Especially Kingman who I liked as a player. He did almost become the first player to hit 40HR while batting under .200 but had a late season streak of normal hitting and "ruined" it ending up at 37/.204 :) I always wanted the RedSox to sign him. If they had we'd all be wondering if even steroids could beat the single season record of 90 - Short left field at Fenway, and the wall being no obstruction to a guy who hit a load of 360 ft popups. :D

1500 Rbi

Mostly the same guys above, plus
Harold Baines 1628

Again leaving out guys who could still get in.

Baines is an odd one, I'd think he should be in, but probably isn't because he wasn't really amazing, just a player who was average or above for 20 years with a few better seasons


I don't think most of those guys would be remotely close to Jackie Robinson, I haven't looked at comparing all the 162 game averages, but I'd bet there are very few that would even get close. Maybe Bagwell?174 hits /34/115/.297 Robinson 178 hits/16/86/.311 Ok, so he's close, more power, less average but pretty close. And I think Bagwell will eventually be in.


Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

OMG, lights out on this thread....Ott, Henderson, Speaker over Clemente?? I know when I'm whipped...Good night

Henderson is arguably top 25. Speaker is arguably top 10. Ott, not so high, but his numbers look very good.

[CMIZ5290]

I'm sorry, my feelings are getting the best of me and I was hoping that some other members would come to my rescue. I think Clemente is one of the best players of all time (top 10). When you factor in his defense (12 straight gold gloves), best arm in the game, along with his bat, I think it's hard to argue. He seems to get too much praise for great deeds he did off the field, and that maybe hurts him in the stats world. Great topic, let's move on....

[DeanH3]

No doubt Jackie deserves to be in the HOF. I also agree it's fair to debate whether or not his stats warrant induction.

We need more eye candy in this thread!

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=813&pictureid=19158

[bdk1976]

To me trolls aren't known, he is known and you aren't (publicly). If you want to make that comment your name needs to be by your post. That goes for everyone in this thread and on the board. I see a few comments in this thread that need their name by them. Either the member can edit out their comment, put their full name next to it, or I will help.

This is at the top of each page for a reason and folks can take it to include snarky comments too.

If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post.

Make comments all you want to, but put your name next to your post. And don't follow members around the board making snarky comments. If you do it too often you will no longer be here.

I am with Brendan (post #47) with my thoughts on the question. I think it is a good question and a good debate in an open forum. Why not talk about it?

Not sure why you quoted me and singled me out, but I've edited my post out so it hopefully meets your rules. Also not sure about the comment about following people around making snarky comments - please show me where I have been doing this and I'll gladly delete those too.

[sago]

Slightly O/T. Henderson is a tough one. If I was to put together my all-time best team, versus my all-time best lineup, I would include Henderson in the latter, but not the former.

Undeniably, the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time. Is he the best left fielder of all time? I would say no; that would have to be Ted Williams.

[the 'stache]

I'm sorry, my feelings are getting the best of me and I was hoping that some other members would come to my rescue. I think Clemente is one of the best players of all time (top 10). When you factor in his defense (12 straight gold gloves), best arm in the game, along with his bat, I think it's hard to argue. He seems to get too much praise for great deeds he did off the field, and that maybe hurts him in the stats world. Great topic, let's move on....

I love Clemente, and have since I was a kid. I'd say top ten is a bit too high, especially if we're considering all players (not separate lists for pitchers and position players); but definitely top 25 all-time.

The thing that normally gets Clemente downgraded on the list is his power numbers. But two things seem to get overlooked. One, until 1970, he played his home games at Forbes Field, which was a freaking aircraft hanger. Second, his attitude on his offensive approach.

"I am more valuable to my team hitting .330 than swinging for home runs."

Clemente had massive power. I've read several places that the line drives he hit were so hard, he actually scared some Major League infielders. I remember a quote from Ernie Banks, who said something to the effect of that when Clemente was at the plate, 100% of his focus was on the hitter, because if he wasn't paying attention, Clemente might take his head off. But when Clemente got some elevation on his hits, he hit some monstrous home runs, liked this one (http://www.hittrackeronline.com/historic.php?id=1964_10) that ESPN tracker shows Clemente hit off of Sandy Koufax off of Sandy Koufax at Forbes Field in 1964. It hit a light tower in left-center field, 457 feet from home plate. It estimates that with the velocity of the ball off the bat, and the given conditions, the ball would have traveled 492 feet.

Then there is the home run he hit at Wrigley Field (http://www.goldenagebaseballcards.com/showcase/roberto-clemente-wrigley.htm)on May 17, 1959. Many consider it the longest home run ever hit at Wrigley (though the Glenallen Hill home run which landed on the roof of the building behind Wrigly on Waveland Avenue might be longer now). Both Ernie Banks and Rogers Hornsby stated they never saw a ball hit farther at the park.

Banks on Clemente (http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1969/07/06/page/41/article/clemente-toughest-in-banks-opinion#text)

Clemente geared his style of hitting for Forbes field, whose left field walls are too far away for consistent production from right handed hitters: Roberto concentrated on hitting line drives into the spacious right center field section. Had he been a Cub, I'm sure he would have adopted a power style of swing- ing. Some of you fans may remember the ball he knocked out of Wrigley field a few seasons ago, just to the left field side of the scoreboard. That's the longest one I've seen hit there and we all agreed it must have traveled more than 500 feet on its trip into Waveland avenue.

More on Clemente's tremendous opposite field power (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Roberto_Clemente_1966_Timeline#Jun_05_Five_Hundred-Footer_Off_Farrell):

Roberto Clemente's third 500-footer in three months and his second in five days? Well, not quite. As Clemente himself says, "Sunday was the longer ball." Absent any eyewitness to this launch's landing, it may have travelled 450-, 460-, 470-plus feet or more. In any case, RC's five-day feast remains a Forbes Field first. TSN's Les Biederman, who's covered the Pirates since 1938, elaborates:

"This time the ball disappeared over the monument with Al Jackson of the Cardinals on the mound, and the fans gasped. Two titanic shots in less than one week. He became the first batter within memory to hit two home runs into the sector of right-center between the Barney Dreyfuss monument and the light tower at the exit gate." [19]
By way of corroboration, Cardinals beat writer Neal Russo enlists some sources with even more seniority:

"Forbes Field employees who have been watching baseball there 40 years could not recall any right-handed batter besides Clemente hitting more than one ball over the wall in dead center. In fact, only a few, including Rogers Hornsby [on April 24, 1926, off the flagpole by the 457-foot mark in left center] and Mickey Mantle (in the 1960 World Series) [on October 6th, between the 436-foot mark and the exit gate in right center, measured at 478 feet], have done it even once." [20]
St. Louis centerfielder Curt Flood speaks with Biederman:

"I thought at first I might catch it. Then I thought it might hit the wall and I'd get the bounce. I just didn't think any righthander could hit a ball that far." [21]
Flood's reaction echoes that of his Houston counterpart, Jimmy Wynn, just four days ago.

Clemente's power came from his phenomenal bat speed. He had some of the strongest hands, and wrists, of any Major Leaguer to ever play the game. His wrist snap is part of what gave him such incredible velocity on his throws from right field. And, He could hit the ball no matter where it was pitched. He was a great junk ball hitter. Clemente was known to have hit many upper deck home runs off of his front foot, such as this opposite field, second deck shot at the 1971 All Star Game at Tigers Stadium.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jwPvjK2mrsw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The closest player I have seen to Robby's skill set in my lifetime is Ichiro Suzuki. He didn't hit a lot of home runs, either, in fact, fewer than one-half of Clemente's 240. But, like Clemente, he put on power shows in batting practice, hitting one ball after another into the upper deck. He choose to be a high average hitter. And, he had a tremendous arm.

Speaking of arms...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0UUy65ZpSP0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MPAYQ0aqKC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Of course, Ichiro never hit a walk off, inside-the-park grand slam (http://lithub.com/the-greatest-forgotten-home-run-of-all-time/). Roberto Clemente did.

[Vintageclout]

I'm sorry, my feelings are getting the best of me and I was hoping that some other members would come to my rescue. I think Clemente is one of the best players of all time (top 10). When you factor in his defense (12 straight gold gloves), best arm in the game, along with his bat, I think it's hard to argue. He seems to get too much praise for great deeds he did off the field, and that maybe hurts him in the stats world. Great topic, let's move on....

Kevin,

Clemente is truly one of baseball's premier outfielders/players, and you need no support to justify this. However, I do feel from the late 50's thru the mid 60's he was the FIFTH best outfielder in baseball, falling somewhat short of Mays, Mantle, Aaron and Frank Robinson. His defensive excellence unfortunately gets trumped by those player's far superior power, and keep in mind they were all formidable defensive outfielders. Great story for you. When Tom Seaver was called upon for the save in the 1967 All-Star game during his rookie season, he stated one of his greatest bseeball moments ever was even before he through his first pitch. After his warmups, he stepped behind the mound to rub up the ball and looked at an outfield of Clemente in right, Mays in center and Aaron in left! How about that supporting cast for a rookie pitcher!

JoeT.

[the 'stache]

Kevin,

Clemente is truly one of baseball's premier outfielders/players, and you need no support to justify this. However, I do feel from the late 50's thru the mid 60's he was the FIFTH best outfielder in baseball, falling somewhat short of Mays, Mantle, Aaron and Frank Robinson. His defensive excellence unfortunately gets trumped by those player's far superior power, and keep in mind they were all formidable defensive outfielders. Great story for you. When Tom Seaver was called upon for the save in the 1967 All-Star game during his rookie season, he stated one of his greatest bseeball moments ever was even before he through his first pitch. After his warmups, he stepped behind the mound to rub up the ball and looked at an outfield of Clemente in right, Mays in center and Aaron in left! How about that supporting cast for a rookie pitcher!

JoeT.

Frank Robinson was not a formidable defensive player. Not by any stretch of the imagination. He had one season with a positive dWAR, a 1.1 in 1957. His next best season, defensively, he had a dWAR of 0.0 in 1961, meaning he was at the level of a replacement level outfielder. Every other season, he had a negative dWAR. And for his career, his dWAR is -15.0

Clemente, on the other hand, has a 12.1 dWAR for his career, and I think that metric is on the conservative side.

And, while Robinson had the power advantage, if you compare their career WAR head to head, Clemente is actually the better player. Much of that has to do with how they ended their careers. While Robinson was God awful his last four season (4.3 WAR combined), Clemente was sensational (25.0 WAR).

Robinson's career WAR is 107.2. He played 2,808 games. He represents one win per 26.19 games played over his career.
Clemente's career WAR is 94.5. He played in 2,433 games. He represents one win per 25.74 games played over his career.

It's close, but Clemente's versatility edges Robinson's power.

[tedzan]

Getting this thread back on the main topic......unlike most of you posting here, I grew up watching Jackie play for all his 10 years in the Majors.

I will tell you....Jackie was sensational ! He indeed deserves to be in the HOF. Statistics #'s don't tell the real story.

Anyone here who says otherwise is uninformed.

And, this is coming from an avid Yankees fan, whose nearby neighbor was Phil Rizzuto (1945 - 1965).


Jackie Robinson's 1st Major League BB card (1947 Bond Bread).

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/bondbread1947jdybtwjr.jpg
April 23, 1947 Dodgers Program & Scorecard
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1947DodgersPhilliiesProgram.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1947DodgersPhilliiesScorecardx.jpg



TED Z
.

[rats60]

I'm sorry, my feelings are getting the best of me and I was hoping that some other members would come to my rescue. I think Clemente is one of the best players of all time (top 10). When you factor in his defense (12 straight gold gloves), best arm in the game, along with his bat, I think it's hard to argue. He seems to get too much praise for great deeds he did off the field, and that maybe hurts him in the stats world. Great topic, let's move on....

You are right, but the problem is most people put zero value on defense.

Outfield Assists
Clemente 266
Aaron 201
Mays 195
Yaz 195
This despite those players playing longer and runners stopping trying to run on Clemente. The number of extra bases he prevented, turning doubles into singles, preventing runners going first to third, scoring from 2b on hits, 3rd base on fly out can't be ignored.

RF put outs
Clemente 4445
Evans 4247
Aaron 4154
Again despite playing fewer seasons, he still caught 200-300 more balls than the best RFS. His unmatched range can't be ignored. How many of those 200-300 or more balls that other RF couldn't get to went to the wall, 2b or 3b resulting in runs?

Total zone runs RF
Clemente 204
Karine 155
Aaron 98
Again players with more seasons, no where close to him.

When you add how much his defense added to what offense he produced despite playing in Forbes Field, the most difficult hitters park in the NL, he is easily top 10 all time.

[jason.1969]

I think the OP asks a very fair question and only differ with the PC angle he brings in. When Jackie was inducted, we were a long way from PC. And baseball wasn't exactly an island of PC within a broader racist ocean. Reading the book, "After Jackie," you can see just how hard baseball was for guys like Dick Allen and Curt Flood who came up more even with Jackie's election.

But if we limit ourselves only to to MLB stats (which also would exclude nearly all Negro League inductees), Robinson is certainly no Ruth.

I would guess that had a white ballplayer posted identical stats to Jackie Robinson in that same era, played similar positions, and enjoyed similar team success, he would have indeed made the HOF eventually but not as soon.

So yes, I believe that Jackie Robinson's being black impacted his HOF standing. However, I don't think voters were giving charity here; I think they recognized his being black carried legitimate X Factors that supported his case as a HOFer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Can't find Bill James online but this is similar.

Taking on an icon is always dangerous, and I apologize up front for any feelings I offend. Also, let me acknowledge the obvious--i.e., that Roberto Clemente was a tremendous humanitarian who died by far the most heroic death of anyone in the MLB Hall of Fame, and probably of anyone in the history of baseball.

But is he an "overrated PLAYER"? Absolutely. In fact, I think that by current standards, he's the most overrated player of all time. And I am more than ready to make my case.

As Bill James says in his recent magnum opus--which rates the Top 100 of all time at each position, and the Top 100 of all time total, including Negro Leaugers (see Oscar Charleston)--Clemente never hit 30 HR's in a season, made a ton of throwing errors and had horrible strikeout-to-walk ratios. Yes, his batting average was often very high, but he would not take a walk, so his lifetime on-base-percentage was a mediocre .359.

Do you have any idea how many players, including nobodies like Gene Tenace and Mickey Tettleton, had better lifetime on-base percentages than .359? If you made a list of everyone, it would be enormous... probably over 500. And since Clemente averaged fewer than 14 HR's per season in his 18-year career--he played over 100 games in every season, too--he didn't make up for his mediocre on-base percentage with great power stats. Indeed, although he had the second-highest career triples total since WWII (behind Musial), his career slugging percentage was .475, miles behind Mays, Mantle and Aaron, which makes those oft-heard comparisons frankly a little difficult to swallow for those of us who saw and remember Mays, Mantle and Aaron.

And it doesn't end there.

Most experts consider either runs scored and RBI's, or slugging percentage and on-base percentage, the two most important stats in baseball. If you add up the number of times Clemente led the National League in any of those four stats, do you know what number you get? Try zero. That's right: Clemente never led the NL in ANY of those categories. Not once.

Now, for those of you not old enough to remember Forbes Field, let me acknowledge it gave Clemente a lot of his triples and cost him a lot of HR's. It was second only to Griffith Stadium (Washington's home park) as a bad park for hitters. But if you compensate for that, Clemente gets what, maybe 60-80 more HR's, for a career total of 300-320, and loses a bunch of those triples. It will not significantly alter his career numbers, except to perhaps give him a slugging title--whereas it would have hugely altered the numbers of the more powerful Willie Stargell, probably giving him 600 HR's.

So I think I've pretty well established that "Clemente the fearsome slugger" is hugely overrated, as are his batting titles. Don't you agree, in light of everything I've shown? I mean, assume that all the facts I've set forth above are accurate--which they are--and how do you deny that Clemente was not that great offensively?

As for baserunning, yeah, Clemente got his 166 triples, but he got only 440 doubles, and his career ratio of stolen bases to caught stealings was 83-46, which is less than 2-1 and not worth the effort--a fact not understood then, but well understood now.

That leaves Clemente the right fielder. First off, NO right fielder can be worth as much to a team as people make Clemente out to have been. Bill James and others have conclusively shown that hitting is more important than fielding, even for middle infielders. Read them. I didn't believe it at first, either, but it's inarguably true. Second, at left field, right field or first base, it isn't even close. Take the hitter over the fielder every time.

And Clemente wasn't as phenomenal and flawless a fielder as people make him out to have been. In fact, he may only have been the third best defensive right fielder born in the year 1934. His career fielding percentage, .973, was 12.5% WORSE than the league average. Hank Aaron's was 16.7% higher than the same league's average. Al Kaline's was 30% higher than the AL's average.

Now, I was around and a rabid fan back then, and I can assure you that yes, a lot of people really did stop at second or stop at third because of Clemente's arm. It was well worth the extra 12.5% of errors he made, and then some. There is a good case to be made--and James accepts the case--that Clemente was a better fielder than Kaline or Aaron. But certainly not by much. And James himself explains, at length, how limited the value of a right fielder's arm is, in the context of runs prevented per year. Take that number, subtract the number of runs allowed by the excess throwing errors, and we're not talking about that big a deal.

Meanwhile, in the case of Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson and Mel Ott, we're talking about guys who created 5 to 10 times the number of extra runs on offense that Clemente saved in the field. It is my opinion that Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose (who played more games in RF than anywhere else), Reggie Jackson and Paul Waner were also clearly superior to Clemente as players, and that Dave Winfield and a couple of others probably were as well.

I will grant that Jackson, Waner and Winfield are matters about which reasonable baseball fans could disagree. I don't think Gwynn and Rose are, and I'm certain the first four aren't, and that's just in right field. In center field, not even counting some extremely talented current players, you have guys like Cobb, Speaker, Dimaggio, Mays and Mantle (chronologically arranged), none of whom Clemente was within 10 miles of as a player.

I hope someday I am as great a human being as Clemente was. I'm sure most people who read these things feel the same way about themselves. But the idea Clemente was one of the 10, 20 or 30 greatest players of all time is just silly, and a review of all relevant stats leaves no room for rational debate on the subject.

Was he a very good player? Yes. Does he belong in the Hall of Fame? Yes, but he's probably a below-average Hall of Famer, albeit nowhere NEAR as bad as Frankie Frisch's many pals, Lloyd Waner, Phil Rizzuto, etc., etc.

MLB has it right. They give an annual Roberto Clemente Humanitarian Award. That is as it should be. But if they are going to give awards for great right fielders, they must start with Ruth, Aaron, the greatly underrated Frank Robinson, Ott, at least a few others, and only then get to Clemente.

Sorry, but it's an inescapable fact.

Baseball History Nut

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank Robinson was not a formidable defensive player. Not by any stretch of the imagination. He had one season with a positive dWAR, a 1.1 in 1957. His next best season, defensively, he had a dWAR of 0.0 in 1961, meaning he was at the level of a replacement level outfielder. Every other season, he had a negative dWAR. And for his career, his dWAR is -15.0

Clemente, on the other hand, has a 12.1 dWAR for his career, and I think that metric is on the conservative side.

And, while Robinson had the power advantage, if you compare their career WAR head to head, Clemente is actually the better player. Much of that has to do with how they ended their careers. While Robinson was God awful his last four season (4.3 WAR combined), Clemente was sensational (25.0 WAR).

Robinson's career WAR is 107.2. He played 2,808 games. He represents one win per 26.19 games played over his career.
Clemente's career WAR is 94.5. He played in 2,433 games. He represents one win per 25.74 games played over his career.

It's close, but Clemente's versatility edges Robinson's power.

Clemente's on base percentage is pretty bad for a hitter of his statute, .359. His OPS is nothing to write home about either. On base percentage is always one of the arguments that Aaron was overrated, and while his wasn't spectacular, it was 15 points higher than Clemente's.

[Vintageclout]

Frank Robinson was not a formidable defensive player. Not by any stretch of the imagination. He had one season with a positive dWAR, a 1.1 in 1957. His next best season, defensively, he had a dWAR of 0.0 in 1961, meaning he was at the level of a replacement level outfielder. Every other season, he had a negative dWAR. And for his career, his dWAR is -15.0

Clemente, on the other hand, has a 12.1 dWAR for his career, and I think that metric is on the conservative side.

And, while Robinson had the power advantage, if you compare their career WAR head to head, Clemente is actually the better player. Much of that has to do with how they ended their careers. While Robinson was God awful his last four season (4.3 WAR combined), Clemente was sensational (25.0 WAR).

Robinson's career WAR is 107.2. He played 2,808 games. He represents one win per 26.19 games played over his career.
Clemente's career WAR is 94.5. He played in 2,433 games. He represents one win per 25.74 games played over his career.

It's close, but Clemente's versatility edges Robinson's power.

It is close but for my dollar, at PEAK VALUE, I'll take Robinson.

[Vintageclout]

Can't find Bill James online but this is similar.

Taking on an icon is always dangerous, and I apologize up front for any feelings I offend. Also, let me acknowledge the obvious--i.e., that Roberto Clemente was a tremendous humanitarian who died by far the most heroic death of anyone in the MLB Hall of Fame, and probably of anyone in the history of baseball.

But is he an "overrated PLAYER"? Absolutely. In fact, I think that by current standards, he's the most overrated player of all time. And I am more than ready to make my case.

As Bill James says in his recent magnum opus--which rates the Top 100 of all time at each position, and the Top 100 of all time total, including Negro Leaugers (see Oscar Charleston)--Clemente never hit 30 HR's in a season, made a ton of throwing errors and had horrible strikeout-to-walk ratios. Yes, his batting average was often very high, but he would not take a walk, so his lifetime on-base-percentage was a mediocre .359.

Do you have any idea how many players, including nobodies like Gene Tenace and Mickey Tettleton, had better lifetime on-base percentages than .359? If you made a list of everyone, it would be enormous... probably over 500. And since Clemente averaged fewer than 14 HR's per season in his 18-year career--he played over 100 games in every season, too--he didn't make up for his mediocre on-base percentage with great power stats. Indeed, although he had the second-highest career triples total since WWII (behind Musial), his career slugging percentage was .475, miles behind Mays, Mantle and Aaron, which makes those oft-heard comparisons frankly a little difficult to swallow for those of us who saw and remember Mays, Mantle and Aaron.

And it doesn't end there.

Most experts consider either runs scored and RBI's, or slugging percentage and on-base percentage, the two most important stats in baseball. If you add up the number of times Clemente led the National League in any of those four stats, do you know what number you get? Try zero. That's right: Clemente never led the NL in ANY of those categories. Not once.

Now, for those of you not old enough to remember Forbes Field, let me acknowledge it gave Clemente a lot of his triples and cost him a lot of HR's. It was second only to Griffith Stadium (Washington's home park) as a bad park for hitters. But if you compensate for that, Clemente gets what, maybe 60-80 more HR's, for a career total of 300-320, and loses a bunch of those triples. It will not significantly alter his career numbers, except to perhaps give him a slugging title--whereas it would have hugely altered the numbers of the more powerful Willie Stargell, probably giving him 600 HR's.

So I think I've pretty well established that "Clemente the fearsome slugger" is hugely overrated, as are his batting titles. Don't you agree, in light of everything I've shown? I mean, assume that all the facts I've set forth above are accurate--which they are--and how do you deny that Clemente was not that great offensively?

As for baserunning, yeah, Clemente got his 166 triples, but he got only 440 doubles, and his career ratio of stolen bases to caught stealings was 83-46, which is less than 2-1 and not worth the effort--a fact not understood then, but well understood now.

That leaves Clemente the right fielder. First off, NO right fielder can be worth as much to a team as people make Clemente out to have been. Bill James and others have conclusively shown that hitting is more important than fielding, even for middle infielders. Read them. I didn't believe it at first, either, but it's inarguably true. Second, at left field, right field or first base, it isn't even close. Take the hitter over the fielder every time.

And Clemente wasn't as phenomenal and flawless a fielder as people make him out to have been. In fact, he may only have been the third best defensive right fielder born in the year 1934. His career fielding percentage, .973, was 12.5% WORSE than the league average. Hank Aaron's was 16.7% higher than the same league's average. Al Kaline's was 30% higher than the AL's average.

Now, I was around and a rabid fan back then, and I can assure you that yes, a lot of people really did stop at second or stop at third because of Clemente's arm. It was well worth the extra 12.5% of errors he made, and then some. There is a good case to be made--and James accepts the case--that Clemente was a better fielder than Kaline or Aaron. But certainly not by much. And James himself explains, at length, how limited the value of a right fielder's arm is, in the context of runs prevented per year. Take that number, subtract the number of runs allowed by the excess throwing errors, and we're not talking about that big a deal.

Meanwhile, in the case of Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson and Mel Ott, we're talking about guys who created 5 to 10 times the number of extra runs on offense that Clemente saved in the field. It is my opinion that Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose (who played more games in RF than anywhere else), Reggie Jackson and Paul Waner were also clearly superior to Clemente as players, and that Dave Winfield and a couple of others probably were as well.

I will grant that Jackson, Waner and Winfield are matters about which reasonable baseball fans could disagree. I don't think Gwynn and Rose are, and I'm certain the first four aren't, and that's just in right field. In center field, not even counting some extremely talented current players, you have guys like Cobb, Speaker, Dimaggio, Mays and Mantle (chronologically arranged), none of whom Clemente was within 10 miles of as a player.

I hope someday I am as great a human being as Clemente was. I'm sure most people who read these things feel the same way about themselves. But the idea Clemente was one of the 10, 20 or 30 greatest players of all time is just silly, and a review of all relevant stats leaves no room for rational debate on the subject.

Was he a very good player? Yes. Does he belong in the Hall of Fame? Yes, but he's probably a below-average Hall of Famer, albeit nowhere NEAR as bad as Frankie Frisch's many pals, Lloyd Waner, Phil Rizzuto, etc., etc.

MLB has it right. They give an annual Roberto Clemente Humanitarian Award. That is as it should be. But if they are going to give awards for great right fielders, they must start with Ruth, Aaron, the greatly underrated Frank Robinson, Ott, at least a few others, and only then get to Clemente.

Sorry, but it's an inescapable fact.

Baseball History Nut


Hi Peter it's JoeT and one of your points struck home with me regarding the significance of offense vs. Defense. I have been coaching for nearly 30 years and have coached many professional ballplayers. During that tenure I have had the distinct honor of meeting and building relationships with a myriad of pro scouts and the consensus is ALWAYS THE SAME: "Show me a player who can crush the baseball and we will FIND a position for him"! There is no substitute for a world class slugger who can hit for average and power.

[Neal]

Not the MLB HOF, but the National Baseball HOF.

Jackie, and other Negro League players who played there entire career in those leagues, are well deserving.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not the MLB HOF, but the National Baseball HOF.

Jackie, and other Negro League players who played there entire career in those leagues, are well deserving.

I believe Jackie himself, interestingly, played only one season in the Negro Leagues.

[rats60]

-Clemente never hit 30 HR's in a season

Now, for those of you not old enough to remember Forbes Field, let me acknowledge it gave Clemente a lot of his triples and cost him a lot of HR's. It was second only to Griffith Stadium (Washington's home park) as a bad park for hitters. But if you compensate for that, Clemente gets what, maybe 60-80 more HR's, for a career total of 300-320, and loses a bunch of those triples. It will not significantly alter his career numbers, except to perhaps give him a slugging title--whereas it would have hugely altered the numbers of the more powerful Willie Stargell, probably giving him 600 HR's.


Willie Stargell hit 30 HRs once in Forbes Field, 33 in 1966. That season Clemente hit 29. That was the season that Harry Walker asked Clemente to try to hit home runs. Willie Stargell in his first full season in 3 Rivers Stadium hit 48 HRs and went on to hit more HRs than any other player in the 70s. The Pirates moved out of Forbes Field in the middle of 1970.

I agree that Stargell would have hit 600+ HRs if he had played in an average stadium his whole career. I think your estimate is very low for Clemente, I believe he could have hit 500. It has already been posted how far he could hit the ball. The HR of Sandy Koufax was the hardest hit ball and longest hit ball off Koufax, that is from Sandy himself. Clemente hit the only HR that really mattered, in game 7 of the 1971 World Series that led to a world championship. He could hit HRs when he wanted to.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Willie Stargell hit 30 HRs once in Forbes Field, 33 in 1966. That season Clemente hit 29. That was the season that Harry Walker asked Clemente to try to hit home runs. Willie Stargell in his first full season in 3 Rivers Stadium hit 48 HRs and went on to hit more HRs than any other player in the 70s. The Pirates moved out of Forbes Field in the middle of 1970.

I agree that Stargell would have hit 600+ HRs if he had played in an average stadium his whole career. I think your estimate is very low for Clemente, I believe he could have hit 500. It has already been posted how far he could hit the ball. The HR of Sandy Koufax was the hardest hit ball and longest hit ball off Koufax, that is from Sandy himself. Clemente hit the only HR that really mattered, in game 7 of the 1971 World Series that led to a world championship. He could hit HRs when he wanted to.

I forget if Bill James addressed the Forbes Field factor. The notion that he could hit HRs when he wanted to, though, strikes me as absurd. Who would NOT want to, ever?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Clemente hit 240 by the way. Changing parks does not get him to 500. No way.

[rats60]

I forget if Bill James addressed the Forbes Field factor. The notion that he could hit HRs when he wanted to, though, strikes me as absurd. Who would NOT want to, ever?

Why did Harry Walker have to ask Clemente to try to hit HRs? Clemente valued hitting for a high average over trying to hit HRs. Just because you think every player should try to hit HRs doesn't mean every player does. Clemente was quoted as saying he didn't want to hit HRs because it would hurt his average because of Forbes Field.

What I find absurd is saying that one player could hit 600 HRs and another only 300 when head to head it was 33 to 29. If Clemente could hit 29 HRs when he tried to in the most difficult park in the NL, why couldn't average that in an average park if he wanted to?

Also in regards to Clemente's fielding percentage, that same argument has been made against Ozzie Smith. Clemente made 23 more outfield errors than Hank Aaron. He also produced almost 300 more put outs and 65 more assists. When you are making that many more plays than other players, those plays are going to be difficult, those are balls Aaron couldn't even get to, and that is not counting hits Clemente fielded that Aaron didn't. That is tremendous value.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And Babe Ruth could have hit .750 if he weren't swinging for the fences. It's a meaningless argument. If Clemente intentionally sacrificed home runs for his batting average he was a very selfish player, and I don't believe that.

[Exhibitman]

I was referring to his sprinting time .
Bolt would have beaten American Thomas Burke, the first gold medalist ever, by more nearly 20 meters, or over 60 feet. Jesse Owens? About 21 feet behind.a in 1913 and died in Arizona in 1980 was the most impressive athlete in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. He won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long jump) and crushed the myth of Aryan supremacy in front of Hitler and the entire Nazi regime. One year before, at the 1935 Big Ten track, he managed to set three world records and tie another one in less than an hour.
Carl Lewis, also born in Alabama in 1961 was the first athlete to equal Owens record in a single Olympics: in 1984 he won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long Jump). He was able to win gold medals in 4 different Olympics, for a total of 9 golds in his carreer. During his career he set world records in 100m, 4x100m and 4x200m and he is still holding the world record for indoor long jump (established in 1984).
Usain Bolt, born in Sherwood Content (Jamaica) in 1986 is the first athlete ever to hold both 100m and 200m world records since fully automatic time measurement became mandatory in 1977. He is currently holding 3 world records (100m, 200m and 4x100m). He is the first athlete to win 6 golds medal in sprint (Carl Lewis won 5 in sprint and 4 in Long jump). Not only did he break records, but he did it by large margins. For example, in 2009 he broke his own world record of 100m (from 9.69 to 9.58, the highest margin since the start of fully automatic time measurements).

That argument is a fallacious one. Human beings do not evolve over a few decades; the tools they have to work with did. You cannot take athletes out of historical context and compare them across eras because training, medicine and nutrition have evolved so dramatically over the decades. In 1924 it was frowned upon to allow professional coaches to train Olympic athletes and the athletes were not full time athletes. Medical techniques were primitive and nutritional concepts were laughably wrong. Today, elite athletes do nothing but train and have access to a coterie of professional trainers, consultants and coaches. Strip Bolt of all of the advances of the last 70-80 years and see where he is; he might very well be the fastest man alive but I do not think that he would have blown by Jessie Owens Secretariat style.

[rats60]

And Babe Ruth could have hit .750 if he weren't swinging for the fences. It's a meaningless argument. If Clemente intentionally sacrificed home runs for his batting average he was a very selfish player, and I don't believe that.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/31/kallas-remembering-the-greatness-of-roberto-clemente/

On more than one occasion, Clemente told sportswriters about the absurdity of trying to hit home runs in Forbes Field. In 1964, for example, Clemente told a sportswriter that “As long as I’m in Forbes Field I can’t go for home runs; line drives, yes.”

Walker was the manager of the Pirates in 1966. Before the season started, he went to Clemente and told him (according to the Wagenheim bio) “Roberto, I wish this year you would go for power, hit 25 homers and get 115 runs batted in. We will need it for the pennant.”

This all started a few years ago when Hall of Famer Duke Snider was on a New York radio station talking about, among others, the great Clemente. Clemente has always been considered an all-time great player, EXCEPT for that one fact — he didn’t have power. When the interviewer said what everybody has repeated through the years – that Clemente didn’t have power, that he only hit 240 home runs – Snider interrupted and said, with surprise in his voice, “Clemente had power. HE PLAYED IN AN AIRPORT.”

Kiner played one year, his first, at Forbes Field when it was an airport (the year before Hank Greenberg came to Pittsburgh). In that first year (old dimensions), Kiner hit 23 home runs. Then, with the advent of Greenberg Gardens, Kiner hit 51, 40, 54, 47, 42 and 37 in his next six seasons.

Kiner, according to The Baseball Biography Project, only hit eight home runs (of his 23) at Forbes Field in 1946.

Let that last one sink in. Ralph Kiner who led the NL in Home Runs for 7 straight years could only hit 8 HRs playing in Forbes Field with the dimensions Clemente faced, but you think he should have tried to hit more home runs. Sorry, but I have to agree with Roberto Clemente.

[Rookiemonster]

That argument is a fallacious one. Human beings do not evolve over a few decades; the tools they have to work with did. You cannot take athletes out of historical context and compare them across eras because training, medicine and nutrition have evolved so dramatically over the decades. In 1924 it was frowned upon to allow professional coaches to train Olympic athletes and the athletes were not full time athletes. Medical techniques were primitive and nutritional concepts were laughably wrong. Today, elite athletes do nothing but train and have access to a coterie of professional trainers, consultants and coaches. Strip Bolt of all of the advances of the last 70-80 years and see where he is; he might very well be the fastest man alive but I do not think that he would have blown by Jessie Owens Secretariat style.
I think this is the absolute truth and reality of the matter. But like everything else in life it's in degrees. Look at old school boxers Jack Dempsey train like a beast and believe in it . He ate well with a lot of protein. I have no doubt that Dempsey would still be a world class champion today . Even with the same training and technics.

The Olympics do not put asterisks when the record is broke 5year from now. There is no statement saying well he train better. Or due to modern advance in sports science he won the gold. They keep the times and records for this reason. So we can compare and know who is the best. Not so we can say well if this or that. Whatever the reason is evolution , food,training,water quietly etc. the fact is the current record hold is better.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/31/kallas-remembering-the-greatness-of-roberto-clemente/

On more than one occasion, Clemente told sportswriters about the absurdity of trying to hit home runs in Forbes Field. In 1964, for example, Clemente told a sportswriter that “As long as I’m in Forbes Field I can’t go for home runs; line drives, yes.”

Walker was the manager of the Pirates in 1966. Before the season started, he went to Clemente and told him (according to the Wagenheim bio) “Roberto, I wish this year you would go for power, hit 25 homers and get 115 runs batted in. We will need it for the pennant.”

This all started a few years ago when Hall of Famer Duke Snider was on a New York radio station talking about, among others, the great Clemente. Clemente has always been considered an all-time great player, EXCEPT for that one fact — he didn’t have power. When the interviewer said what everybody has repeated through the years – that Clemente didn’t have power, that he only hit 240 home runs – Snider interrupted and said, with surprise in his voice, “Clemente had power. HE PLAYED IN AN AIRPORT.”

Kiner played one year, his first, at Forbes Field when it was an airport (the year before Hank Greenberg came to Pittsburgh). In that first year (old dimensions), Kiner hit 23 home runs. Then, with the advent of Greenberg Gardens, Kiner hit 51, 40, 54, 47, 42 and 37 in his next six seasons.

Kiner, according to The Baseball Biography Project, only hit eight home runs (of his 23) at Forbes Field in 1946.

Let that last one sink in. Ralph Kiner who led the NL in Home Runs for 7 straight years could only hit 8 HRs playing in Forbes Field with the dimensions Clemente faced, but you think he should have tried to hit more home runs. Sorry, but I have to agree with Roberto Clemente.

He played half his games on the road. What happens if you double his road home runs?

[CMIZ5290]

Peter, this is obviously one that we'll have to disagree on. I think Clemente was one of the best of all time. Also, just for kicks, I googled "best outfielders of all time". I don't recall the author but it was on the first page of the search and it was extensive. Anyone care to guess who was number #1? You got it, Clemente....

[trdcrdkid]

He played half his games on the road. What happens if you double his road home runs?

Clemente hit 138 of his 240 home runs on the road, so if you double that, you get 276.

[steve B]

Most experts consider either runs scored and RBI's, or slugging percentage and on-base percentage, the two most important stats in baseball. If you add up the number of times Clemente led the National League in any of those four stats, do you know what number you get? Try zero. That's right: Clemente never led the NL in ANY of those categories. Not once.



That whoever wrote that gives any play to runs scored and RBI as the most important stats really stretches my ability to give him much credibility. Both stats are very dependent on other players and to some extent a players place in the lineup. As I've learned more about some of the more complex stats I've come to regard RBIs and Runs Scored as almost irrelevant stats.

I could buy slugging percentage and on base percentage as important.

Steve B

[steve B]

I forget if Bill James addressed the Forbes Field factor. The notion that he could hit HRs when he wanted to, though, strikes me as absurd. Who would NOT want to, ever?

For what it's worth, there's a few sources that would make me believe it's was and is common to not try to hit home runs. Either by the players choice, or because of the attitude of the manager or the organization.

The biography I read of Hank Aaron (admittedly a 70's paperback so it may be a bit inaccurate) Said that one manager he had early on believed home runs were fortunate accidents and wanted the players to focus on line drives.

And more recently one of the bios of David Ortiz mentions that when he came to the Sox he was trying to hit opposite field line drives until Francona asked him why. The answer was that that's what the Twins wanted so he figured that's what every team wanted.

Steve B

[xplainer]

I promised myself, I would not post on this thread. But, I just couldn't take anymore. Without, at least, saying my two cents.

Roberto is a HOFer with out discussion. I was 10 win he was killed in the plane crash. I remember it said on the evening news (there was local news, then national news at 7pm). I knew his was a great player who had died. Later, as I grew older, I learned how and why it happened.

The same argument can be made about Mickey Mantle (though I don't support it). Hit didn't hit 300 for his average, and when he retired, held the record for most strike-outs.

I understand the OP. JR should be in the HOF. But MLB reached too far in retiring his number from all teams. That is ridiculous. Then, having a JR day were everyone wears 42. Just my opinion, that like your, means nothing.

[jason.1969]

Isn't there also a story about Cobb in his latter years wanting to show the world he could hit HRs if he wanted to...and then he hit 2 or 3 that very game?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Clemente hit 138 of his 240 home runs on the road, so if you double that, you get 276.

There you go. So much for Forbes Field being the reason.

[CMIZ5290]

Regardless of these posts (some of which make no sense), Clemente in my mind ranks as one of the top 10 players of all time overall that ever played.

[ullmandds]

Regardless of these posts (some of which make no sense), Clemente in my mind ranks as one of the top 10 players of all time overall that ever played....thanks

makes sense to me!

[CMIZ5290]

makes sense to me!

I figured as much from you....Ice fishing slow??

[the 'stache]

And Babe Ruth could have hit .750 if he weren't swinging for the fences. It's a meaningless argument. If Clemente intentionally sacrificed home runs for his batting average he was a very selfish player, and I don't believe that.

"I am more valuable to my team hitting .330 than swinging for home runs."--Roberto Clemente

Clemente clearly was thinking of his team. I think there is something to be said about a player being quite unselfish when they're going up there trying to get a runner home, and not going for the glory of a home run.

If you compare Clemente's productivity with runners in scoring position to the other names that have been mentioned: Aaron, Mays, Kaline, Mantle, Robinson, and Dimaggio...Clemente, for his career, was the best hitter with ducks on the pond (.327 AVG), and he had the third-best rate of driving in runners on a per plate appearance basis. He also had, by far, the best BAbip (AVG on balls in play). Yes, as has been alluded to, Clemente did not have the OBP that some of these other guys did. A career .359 OBP is good, but not great. But look how that hyper-aggressive approach at the plate paid off for the Pirates on the scoreboard.

Lifetime hitting performance with runners in scoring position.

http://i.imgur.com/wbSJOfw.png

That should actually be plate appearances per RBI, or PA/RBI. I goofed. :p

Compare his production to somebody like Mickey Mantle. They had basically the same number of plate appearances with runners in scoring position for their career (Clemente had 107 more PAs in total playing ten more games in his career than Mantle). Even though Mickey Mantle doubles his home run total with RISP, Clemente drove in 54 more runs. Mantle's OBP was better with RISP (.455 to .395), as was his SLG (.556 to .486). Yet, Clemente got more runners across.

Of these hitters, only Joe DiMaggio (whose teams had a spectacular .637 winning percentage) and Hank Aaron (the all-time RBI king) drove in RISP at a better clip than Clemente, who did it without the benefit of the home run ball.

Look at Clemente's career clutch stats.

http://i.imgur.com/ZZo5zyt.png"]http://i.imgur.com/ZZo5zyt.png

He became a better player when his team needed him most. With 2 outs and runners in scoring position, his productivity increased by 18% (tOPS +). In "late and close" situations, when the game was still in doubt, Clemente was a .341 lifetime hitter.

He rose to the occasion.

[BBB]

. I'll take a player who is great for 10 years over a Craig Biggio who is good but not great for long enough to get 3000 hits.


Agreed. To me, Biggio should be the bottom of the barrel for the HOF. But there's probably 20 or 30 questionable names.

And of course I agree that Jackies brief MLB stats combined with his negro league career make him a no brainier for the hall. Larry doby would be easier to pick on for statistical credentials.

Even if it isn't in the rules, I do prefer that the hall lets in a few outlier cases of players who's greatness extended beyond the numbers . There aren't many examples of this. But the ones that are in are pretty incredible and make the hall an even more interesting place to explore baseball history .

[Tabe]

And Clemente wasn't as phenomenal and flawless a fielder as people make him out to have been. In fact, he may only have been the third best defensive right fielder born in the year 1934. His career fielding percentage, .973, was 12.5% WORSE than the league average. Hank Aaron's was 16.7% higher than the same league's average. Al Kaline's was 30% higher than the AL's average.

You might want to double-check your math. If Clemente's .973 is 12.5% below average that would mean the average was 1.112 - not exactly possible.

[the 'stache]

And of course I agree that Jackies brief MLB stats combined with his negro league career make him a no brainier for the hall. Larry doby would be easier to pick on for statistical credentials.


Not sure exactly how 64 career plate appearances in the Negro Leagues enhances his Hall of Fame credentials.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You might want to double-check your math. If Clemente's .973 is 12.5% below average that would mean the average was 1.112 - not exactly possible.

Men were men in those days. Not my stat anyhow as was clear I cut and paste that opinion of Clemente.

[aljurgela]

Sometimes, baseball players transcend simple statistical analysis. And Jackie Robinson is clearly one of those few men who do.

You don't seem to appreciate just how much pressure he was under. Death threats. Opposing players going out of their way to injure him during games. Fans, opposing players, coaches and managers calling him every vile name in the book. Of course, other team owners didn't want him to play, either. It was their "gentleman's agreement" that kept African Americans out of Major League Baseball. If the Jackie Robinson "experiment" didn't succeed, we might have never seen Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente and a slew of other black or dark skinned Latin players in the Majors. They would have become other footnotes in history, joining the likes of Cool Papa Bell, Josh Gibson, Buck Leonard, and Satchel Paige (he only made it to the Majors at the very end of his career; we never saw how truly great he was in his prime). Robinson was not just playing for himself, his team, and the people of Brooklyn. He was playing for a people. Most people would wilt under that pressure. Jackie Robinson thrived, and he did it while being forced to turn the other cheek for the first two years of his career.

And to go back to the statistics, not every player needs to achieve some benchmark statistic to get into the Hall of Fame. And not every player who gets close to a benchmark deserves to get in, either. There are a good number of players who came close to 3,000 hits, or 500 home runs, that won't ever make Cooperstown. Robinson, of course, never approached those career benchmarks. But he is quite clearly one of the best, most exciting players the game has ever seen. He was incredibly disruptive as a base stealing threat. He was a phenomenal hitter (one who didn't strike out), had good power, and was sensational defensively.

To simplify it, look at WAR. A single season WAR of 8.0 or higher is considered an MVP caliber season. Of the ten seasons he played, three were clearly at an MVP level, and a fourth was very close to it. He was the Rookie of the Year in 1947 (the first to ever win the award). He had only a 3.3 WAR that season, however. The next five seasons, 1948 to 1952, he put up a combined 40.6 WAR. That's an average of 8.1 WAR per season. He averaged an MVP season for five years.

Compare his play to other second basemen of the live ball era (starting in 1920). Robinson played six of his ten seasons primarily at second base. In the 96 years of the Live Ball Era, Major League second baseman have reached a 7.0 WAR or higher a total of 66 times. Robinson has four of them (http://tinyurl.com/z386ba5). And his best two seasons? He had a 9.7 WAR in 1951 (and was 6th in the MVP vote!). Among all Major League baseball players of the last century, only Rogers Hornsby (six times) and Joe Morgan (once) have had a better season. And in 1949, he had a 9.6 WAR, winning the MVP. Joe Morgan's 9.6 is the only other season to get into the same elite level.

One last thing to consider. Of all Major League second basemen in the Live Ball Era who played at least 700 games at the keystone corner, Rogers Hornsby is the only one with a higher OPS + than Robinson. Hornsby had a 182 OPS +. Robinson and Joe Morgan each have career 132 OPS + marks. But in the seasons where Robinson was a second basemen, excluding his later seasons, he had a 137 OPS +. Higher than Rod Carew. Higher than Ryne Sandberg, Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins, Tony Lazzeri, Dustin Pedroia, Robinson Cano and Jeff Kent.

Robinson was awesome on the field, and his courage changed the game for the better.

I love this analysis. Thanks for teaching me something today. Very cool.

[Bruinsfan94]

Imagine if we had threads like this for every guy who actually probably shouldn't be in the Hall of Famer. I thinka lot of Goudey/ Diamond Star fans would be pretty disappointed in that.

[Bpm0014]

"Show me a player who can crush the baseball and we will FIND a position for him"! There is no substitute for a world class slugger who can hit for average and power.

Except for Pedro Alvarez....

[JTysver]

Not sure exactly how 64 career plate appearances in the Negro Leagues enhances his Hall of Fame credentials.
That is inaccurate. Many games have no recorded box scores. This is a function not only of there not being box scores but also some of the newspapers which kept the box scores simply were not archived in the same way other newspapers were.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That is inaccurate. Many games have no recorded box scores. This is a function not only of there not being box scores but also some of the newspapers which kept the box scores simply were not archived in the same way other newspapers were.

That said, it was still only one season.

[AgonyandIvy]

What nobody is saying is this . Is Jackie Robinson was white would he be in the hall of fame ?

I do belive he is a hall of famer but not just because he was a good baseball player and great man .That being said how many great men are not in any type of hall of fame .

First, yes - his name is Joe Gordon. And he is rated as #15 all time 2B. Robinson rated at #10. But maybe Gordon deserves it more since he had 12 more career hits.

Second, Robinson was more than "a great man." He was a monumental man, a transcendent man; his play, his impact, changed the game forever.