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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ty Phelan

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.

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.

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.

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.

why
 

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

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

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

Sorta circular reasoning there counselor. :D

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

Great post, David. I've done quite a bit of growing up in the past 30 years myself. A great many beliefs I thought were valid then seem pretty silly now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ 1 billion
This thread is nuts.

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

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

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

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

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

If Cecil Travis....:)

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have been doing that for 11 pages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its the perfect day for this thread!
:)

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

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

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

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

Roberto Clemente is in the same boat regarding this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

Beautifully written Rob :)

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

*slowly backs out of the room*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addie Joss was truly great. Otherwise I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Finley

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intangibles and great gloves, stats be damned.

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

Well deserved and beyond worthy.

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

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

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

Thanks, Steven. Nailed it.

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