Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?
 

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

I wonder how Peter Chao is doing.

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...

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

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

Jackie
 

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.

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.

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


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.



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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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:

Quote:

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.

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

delete

Bahhahaha

...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.

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.

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.

+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

I can live with that.

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.....

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

Flaws
 

I just hate it when my flaws take a dangerous turn

Me too!

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 !

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...

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

And he was on some really nice cards

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...binson%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?