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.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

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.

[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.

[gnaz01]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wonder how Peter Chao is doing.

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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...

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by irishdenny

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

hmmm...

[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.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by 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

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

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

All-Star games that fans vote for?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

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.

[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.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

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.

[BBB]

Originally Posted by rats60

. 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 .

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by BBB

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.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[baseball tourist]

Originally Posted by ajquigs

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Pilot172000]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by 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.

+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

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by wolf441

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.

[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.

[Pilot172000]

Originally Posted by 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.

I can live with that.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

I can live with that.

Me too!

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

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...

[jmb]

Originally Posted by wolf441

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.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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

[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.

[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 ?

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

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.

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

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.

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

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.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Dewey

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.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

[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.

[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

[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....

[vintagesportscollector]

Originally Posted by 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....

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

[Enfuego]

Roberto Clemente is in the same boat regarding this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vintagesportscollector]

Originally Posted by Enfuego

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.