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.
|