Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?

[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]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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]

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 ?

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.

Originally Posted by Enfuego

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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]

Originally Posted by Marckus99

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by Marckus99

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?

Originally Posted by bdk1976

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

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.

[pclpads]

Originally Posted by Marckus99

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pclpads

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?

If he could walk on water, then probably.

[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.

[Cmount76]

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

So now what!?!?!

Show what ya got!!

[howard38]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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]

Originally Posted by howard38

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]

Originally Posted by Cmount76

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]

Originally Posted by pclpads

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?

Go find the SNL skit featuring Jesus as a teenager

[steve B]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by steve B

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]

Originally Posted by Enfuego

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]

Originally Posted by Enfuego

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]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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)!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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


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

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill Madlock won 4 batting titles.

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

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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


I would probably rate Cobb higher. 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]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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

No of course not.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

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.

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]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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!

[bdk1976]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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....

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 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 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

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:

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.



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...





Of course, Ichiro never hit a walk off, inside-the-park grand slam. Roberto Clemente did.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by 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....

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]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

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).


April 23, 1947 Dodgers Program & Scorecard




TED Z
.