Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?
 

This is bound to catch a lot of flack. And for the life of me I can't imagine why, though we live in PC America these days.

WHY is Jackie Robinson in the HOF? I may be mistaken but isn't an induction for a player based almost entirely on statistics?

Yes he endured a lot while playing. But that doesn't mean that he should be in the HOF over many other players with much better statistics.

His induction seems more like a charity induction to me. Just my opinion and wondering if there's anyone else that has at least questioned any of this.



The magical 3,000 hits --------- him 1,518
The magical 500 HRs ----------- him 137
The magical 1,500 RBIs -------- him 734

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

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

You are going to take a lot of heat for the question, but I think it is fair to ask whether you could make a case for Robinson based only on his statistical performance in the Majors. To this question I answer yes. Simply put, he does not have the career longevity primarily because he didn't start his Major League career until 1947 when he was 28. Satchel Paige is also in the Hall of Fame for similar reasons.

Robinson was also sort of an early Kirby Puckett. A spectacular star in his short career. Puckett and Don Mattingly have the same "statistics" - but Mattingly isn't in the Hall of Fame. The same rationale for Puckett can be applied to Robinson.

Oh, and there's that whole integration thing, and the perennial MVP candidacy, and the stealing of home in the World Series, etc.

Roy
MVP
6x AS
6x NL Champ
1x World Champ
Recieved MVP votes 8/10 years
OPS + 132 4th all time, 1st among modern players for 2b

He only played 10 years because blacks were banned from baseball. So, he was not given time to accumulate stats. He did all that while fighting racism and discrimination. I'll take a player who is great for 10 years over a Craig Biggio who is good but not great for long enough to get 3000 hits.

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

I wonder how Peter Chao is doing.

We certainly didn't live in PC America when Robinson was elected to the HOF in 1962. He was a dynamic player whose career didn't get started until he was 28 because of that pesky little "gentleman's agreement" to bar an entire race of people from the game. He integrated the game, transcended the game, and did more for civil rights in this country than all but a handful of people throughout the late 1940's through the 1960's....

So, yeah, he belongs...

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

Josh:

Most of today's stat whizzes say one's peak is completed even before age 28 or so. Age 27 is considered the best age for an athlete. If Robinson compiled these stats while moving around the diamond (1B, 2B 3B and OF) and bore the burden of being the 1st African-American baseball players of the 20th century then I will guarantee you if he had the way of coming up of a Mike Trout, without impediments, then his numbers would have been even better.

I have never heard of one person saying Robinson should not be a HOFer and guess what, he is a Hall of FAMER (note the word FAME) and was a great player during what is normally the 2nd half of his career

Skip any PC stuff, he is a HOFer.

Rich

Jackie
 

Not really. Stats probably have the biggest bearing for many voters but there are plenty of other factors at play here. The Hall of Fame's official criteria, in part, is as follows:

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

How those are weighted varies among voters, but the one thing that is clear is that a lot of other things go into voting outside of stats. That whole part about integrity and, in some cases character, is that pesky issue keeping stats-heavy steroids guys out, for example. In Jackie's case, he didn't only make a big contribution to his team, but the entire league. Those last four criteria are really key in his case (and, not to mention, he was a pretty good player).

We can argue how much stats should be a part of that, but again, it goes much deeper.

I believe its a fair question ask with out others getting snarky over it. I may not agree with him but its worth discussing. If you disagree, then "get a little smarter" and provide facts to support your argument. This is a question that will be asked by folks for years to come and having a supporting argument seems like a logical idea.

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


At least someone get's that I'm not trying to start anything. It's of my opinion, and if one does not agree as you don't no need to throw around insults. Thanks for understanding Dave.



The whole PC thing needed to be addressed because as I figured, it would, and has turned into something other than my question. I just don't see it based on his statistics. They were also listed above to prove what I'm stating.

There are a fair number of players with relatively low lifetime stats due to short careers that are in. Koufax comes to mind. Dizzy Dean. There is nothing PC about Jackie's induction, he hit .311 and was a stellar player for about a decade.

PS It is self-evident why all star appearances are relevant, and MVP consideration.

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

Because he played the first two seasons of his career under arguably more pressure to perform than anyone else in the history of the game and was amazing. Had he buckled or shown weakness physically or mentally, he along with the others who played sparingly in 47' (Doby, Thompson, and Brown) would have likely not returned in 1948 and the integration movement would probably have been stifled for another decade. The entire history of postwar baseball would have to be rewritten. He is without question one of the three most important individuals in the history of the game and because of this his career stats, which are Hall of Fame worthy even in a protracted decade of playing, are immaterial.

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

All-Star games that fans vote for?

Use the JAWS metric. Jackie ranks 10th at second base. Mattingly ranks 38th at first.

Steve,
the PC America statement had nothing to do when he was playing and all of how people will and have reacted to my questioning his candidacy based on his statistics.

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

I think in terms of peak value, Robinson was right up there. In addition to excellent stats during his best years, he was a disruptive force like few others. I don't see any problem with having him in the hall. I think (and this is pretty subjective) I'd rally only prefer Hornsby (though a cancer of a player) and Morgan on the field at their best over Robinson as an all-round player. He would probably not be in the top 10 for career value. I can live with that relative weakness with other factors considered.

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

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

Basing an argument against someone based off "magical" numbers shows a lack of historical knowledge and the understanding of what a long career can do for a player. As already stated his career was shortened by not being able to play in the majors at a younger age.

The magical 3,000 hits > Only 29 men have hit this number with the shortest career being 18 years. 24 of those 29 had 20 or more years in their career. With 1518 in a 10 year career, if he had played 20 years with the same pace he would have gotten 3,036 hits.

The magical 500 HRs ----------- him 137
The magical 1,500 RBIs -------- him 734
As far as RBIs and HRs Jackie wasn't a power hitter, he was hitter that turned regular hits into extra base hits with his speed.

In a 10 year career he had a top 10 WAR 6 years.

Basically you are trying to attribute career stats to a guy with a shortened season due to limitations outside his control. You have to look at season stats.

Season stats he was top 10 in the following categories:
SB 9 times
BA 6 times
2B 6 times
OBP 6 times
Runs 7 times
Total Bases 4 times (without ever leading HR!)

Though I do believe he was voted in by his stats I do believe player's impact on the game is a huge part of the voting process.

Voting rules per the BBWAA election rules:

Quote:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. 6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

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

delete

Bahhahaha

...with a 21 year career. He never was in the top 10 in HITS. He led in RBIs only once while breaking the top 10 in this category only 4 times.

Mattingly's career was shortened due to his physical limitations and inability to maintain excellence over a long period of time. Jackie's career was shortened because other people wouldn't let him play. No basis for comparison.

ETA - See also: Addie Joss.

I just don't understand where a stats based review of Jackie Robinson's HOF worthiness even comes from.

His career in MLB was relatively short because he was discriminated upon based on his race and because was serving his country in WWII. He achieved at a high level in MLB under what had to be the worst possible circumstances. Imagine not even being able to eat in the same restaurant as your team mates or being intentionally spiked and thrown at only because of the color of your skin.

His election was politically correct, baseball correct and morally correct. It's actually kind of amazing that he was elected at a time when Jim Crow laws were still prevalent.

Bill James' book Whatever Happened to the Hall will give you plenty of fodder for discussion on folks who have no right to be enshrined. For example, the cronyism (if you believe James) of Frankie Fritch when he was on the selection committee is a sad testament.

I was snarky and I'll own that. In my opinion Jackie personifies what the Hall should be about and to question his worthiness based on stats alone is an insult to a great baseball player and a great man.

+1

If Jackie Robinson had failed, Monte Irvin and Satchel Paige would have never gotten to the major leagues. Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente and Willie Mays, among others, would not have had the chance they did. He also was, arguably, the impetus for the entire Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

Add to the above, that he was one hell of a player, and the entire package exudes "Hall of Famer".

To me, Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth are the two most important players in the entire history of baseball.

Steve

I can live with that.

Why does the OP continue to argue that induction is only based on statistics when he has quoted the rules that state integrity, sportsmanship and character are all considerations? With all that, even if you are going to only consider stats how could you not consider the years he lost because he was not even allowed on the field. And then to call this PC? Yes, that will inflame people and it should.

If anything his induction to the HOF in 1962 was anti-PC. Ever heard of Selma, Freedom Rides, Birmingham bombings, Bull Conner, ravaging dogs and fire hoses, segregation, lynching. A black man could not even stay in most hotels or eat in a restaurant, get a taxi, a decent job etc. etc. Most of these things were still going on or were still in the future in 1962. JR was a hero and first rate HOFer for overcoming these overwhelming obstacles, not to mention still a great player.

His integrity, sportsmanship and character are second to none in the HOF and the Hall would be a joke if he was not there. And yes, I think it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise unless you simply have not learned anything about race in America, especially up through the 1960s and can then dismiss these powerful events as "PC".

Oh brother.....

Guy, why don't you read what I wrote in previous posts. No indication of PC was brought up during his playing time.

PC was brought up for the people who would make comments such as you did bringing race into play as it was bound to happen.

Last time I heard everyone was entitled to their own opinion. I won't be swayed by people just because nobody is going to agree with mine. I simply made a debatable argument for curiosity sake as I figured it would get quite a few comments. And not many other subjects on the front page right now.

Sometimes, baseball players transcend simple statistical analysis. And Jackie Robinson is clearly one of those few men who do.

You don't seem to appreciate just how much pressure he was under. Death threats. Opposing players going out of their way to injure him during games. Fans, opposing players, coaches and managers calling him every vile name in the book. Of course, other team owners didn't want him to play, either. It was their "gentleman's agreement" that kept African Americans out of Major League Baseball. If the Jackie Robinson "experiment" didn't succeed, we might have never seen Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente and a slew of other black or dark skinned Latin players in the Majors. They would have become other footnotes in history, joining the likes of Cool Papa Bell, Josh Gibson, Buck Leonard, and Satchel Paige (he only made it to the Majors at the very end of his career; we never saw how truly great he was in his prime). Robinson was not just playing for himself, his team, and the people of Brooklyn. He was playing for a people. Most people would wilt under that pressure. Jackie Robinson thrived, and he did it while being forced to turn the other cheek for the first two years of his career.

And to go back to the statistics, not every player needs to achieve some benchmark statistic to get into the Hall of Fame. And not every player who gets close to a benchmark deserves to get in, either. There are a good number of players who came close to 3,000 hits, or 500 home runs, that won't ever make Cooperstown. Robinson, of course, never approached those career benchmarks. But he is quite clearly one of the best, most exciting players the game has ever seen. He was incredibly disruptive as a base stealing threat. He was a phenomenal hitter (one who didn't strike out), had good power, and was sensational defensively.

To simplify it, look at WAR. A single season WAR of 8.0 or higher is considered an MVP caliber season. Of the ten seasons he played, three were clearly at an MVP level, and a fourth was very close to it. He was the Rookie of the Year in 1947 (the first to ever win the award). He had only a 3.3 WAR that season, however. The next five seasons, 1948 to 1952, he put up a combined 40.6 WAR. That's an average of 8.1 WAR per season. He averaged an MVP season for five years.

Compare his play to other second basemen of the live ball era (starting in 1920). Robinson played six of his ten seasons primarily at second base. In the 96 years of the Live Ball Era, Major League second baseman have reached a 7.0 WAR or higher a total of 66 times. Robinson has four of them. And his best two seasons? He had a 9.7 WAR in 1951 (and was 6th in the MVP vote!). Among all Major League baseball players of the last century, only Rogers Hornsby (six times) and Joe Morgan (once) have had a better season. And in 1949, he had a 9.6 WAR, winning the MVP. Joe Morgan's 9.6 is the only other season to get into the same elite level.

One last thing to consider. Of all Major League second basemen in the Live Ball Era who played at least 700 games at the keystone corner, Rogers Hornsby is the only one with a higher OPS + than Robinson. Hornsby had a 182 OPS +. Robinson and Joe Morgan each have career 132 OPS + marks. But in the seasons where Robinson was a second basemen, excluding his later seasons, he had a 137 OPS +. Higher than Rod Carew. Higher than Ryne Sandberg, Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins, Tony Lazzeri, Dustin Pedroia, Robinson Cano and Jeff Kent.

Robinson was awesome on the field, and his courage changed the game for the better.

Josh,

If you weren't around during Jackie's heyday and lived in the '50's and '60's then I don't know what to tell you, for many of us what Jackie accomplished was A BIG DEAL. BIG TIME. HUGE. Stats won't cover any of that.

Carry on.

I agree that Jackie is unquestionably a Hall of Famer for the various reasons that are well stated throughout this thread. I have a couple of thoughts that I hope are worth adding.

I think raising the question is completely fair in an open discussion forum such as this one. Debate - likely spirited - should be expected and I think the OP expected just that. I understand that people find it distasteful that it's being raised on April 15, but I think it's natural and inevitable that discussion is invited when subjects are broadly front of mind.

One personal thought on HOF selection. I enjoy going to the HOF and spending time reading the plaques. When thinking about selection I can't help but think ... "Would this Hall - the physical display itself - be diminished if this individual's plaque was not here?" For me, even if you cut the number of plaques by 90% I think Jackie should be one of the 10% that remain. Again, this is a personal view - not a workable criterion for election - but to me the HOF simply would not be the HOF without Jackie Robinson.

Josh, we've all read what you wrote in your previous posts, or at least I have. The reason people are "bringing race into play" is because it's a central part of the reasons why Jackie Robinson is in the HOF, and if you don't understand that, then I don't know what else to say to you. You asked why Robinson is in the HOF given his career stats, and numerous people have explained why:
1) He did not debut in the major leagues until age 28, around the midpoint of most players' careers, because racial discrimination kept him and all other black players out;
2) When he did break the color barrier, he endured absolutely horrific abuse for several years, but he did it with grace and class, refusing to let it break him. As others have noted, it was far from a foregone conclusion that Robinson would be successful, and if he had allowed the racial abuse he endured to drive him out of baseball, the history of the postwar game might have been very different;
3) Robinson was a legitimately great player for the 10 years he did play in the major leagues. As others have noted, if he had played 20 years instead of 10, he would have probably gotten close to 3000 hits and some of the other milestones you mentioned.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion; I don't think anybody is denying that. But that doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to have their opinion accepted without question, if other people have legitimate reasons to think otherwise. Asking why Jackie Robinson is in the Hall of Fame, but then not wanting race to be part of the discussion (as you appear to be doing), is absolutely mind-boggling to me.

1947: Rookie of the Year.
1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953: Top 10 NL player every year (wins above replacement), including 4 consecutive years as one of the top 2 players in the NL

Who else had this good a 7-year run during Jackie's career?

Ted Williams and Stan Musial. That's the whole list. If you want to include players whose careers overlapped a bit but didn't do as much during Jackie's career per se, you can add Mantle, Mays, and Aaron. But then that's it.

So Jackie wasn't better than Williams, Musial, Mantle, Mays, and Aaron. You might say the same of DiMaggio and Gehrig. Why are they in the Hall of Fame? And I don't want any P.C. B.S. on account of my questioning the credentials of an Italian-American and a man with a debilitating disease.

What nobody is saying is this . Is Jackie Robinson was white would he be in the hall of fame ?


I do belive he is a hall of famer but not just because he was a good baseball player and great man .That being said how many great men are not in any type of hall of fame .

He got in for being a pioneer and a good baseball player . Jesse owns was great but his track numbers in today's world are for high school kids . You really can't compare athelites of today to yesterday's .A lot of people on this board have trouble understanding this . with players not really being that good but good for the time they played . Your views are all dangerously flawed if you truly believe that Cobb would be a great player today .

Flaws
 

I just hate it when my flaws take a dangerous turn

Me too!

Rick Barry had a good interview earlier this year with Tony Kornheiser. He argued that if he played today, he would be a much better player because of easier travel, more advancements, etc.

I do think if you took a lot of older players and their abilities from that time, and plopped them into today's game, many would be overmatched. There's no denying players today are bigger, faster, etc. But I also believe that had they grown up with today's standards, advancements, improved physiques, etc., they would be great as well.

This is the best way to answer this question. And I absolutely agree !

I understand your questioning of his statistics. I was just making the point that he was voted into the HOF in 1962, when there were still Jim Crow laws and before LBJ signed his civil rights act into law. So for a country that was less than fair minded about race at the time, to elect him to the HOF says quite a bit about what they thought of him as a player...

I think most of us understand that, but being one of the best 5 players during his career (as Cobb certainly was) indicates he'd be doing fine in the majors today if he had been born 100 years later than he was. That is, 2016 Ty Cobb would in fact be better than 1916 Ty Cobb was if you cloned him -- unless you're suggesting that the genes for being a great athlete just mutated into the gene pool in the past few decades. And 1916 Mike Trout would have done just fine in 1916, but he wouldn't necessarily be better than Cobb. You have to take away weightlifting, year-round training in general, access to better healthcare and nutrition, more refined training methods starting even before Little League, etc. and see what's left for a fair comparison. If you put Trout today in a time machine and send him back, he would in all likelihood be even better than Ruth. If, on the other hand, you had put baby Mike Trout in a time machine and sent him back to develop in the early 20th century, he'd still grow up to be a great player, but I'm thinking more like Jimmie Foxx great rather than better than Ruth.

I can't imagine putting, say, Andres Galarraga into the Hall of Fame in place of Roger Connor, but that's what you'd have to do if you wanted a Hall of players who were the best regardless of cohort. I'm sure Galarraga was better at hitting a 95-100 mph fastball, but it's simply not a fair comparison because of the different environments in which they developed, and it makes for a less interesting Hall of Fame anyway.

The elites would be stars in any era. Wagner, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Walter Johnson, Ty Cobb, these guys were the greatest players ever to play baseball, not just in their time. And I've said it before, but there were probably 10 times as many people playing baseball during their careers as there are now. So you had to beat out many many more peole to play your way on to a roster than you do today. I think that should be taken into consideration when you say that a player today is better than a player of yesterday.

I think raising the question is clearly appropriate in an open discussion forum such as this one. Debate - likely spirited - should be expected and I think the OP made it clear he expected just that.

^^^What he said! The OP was just opening up a discussion and debate and after all that's what this forum is for. We need to relax....

You actually have to beat out more people today to make a roster, just not as high a proportion of the white American male demographic.

Do you think so? I might be wrong but it seems like there are less people playing baseball today than there were 100 years ago when it was unquestionably the dominant sport. I feel as though more people are playing football and basketball than baseball.

And he was on some really nice cards

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...binson%201.JPG

ETA: By most accounts baseball was JR's worst sport at UCLA. He would have been a great NFL running back. I think one of the most apt comparisons for JR would be Rickey Henderson. He made the majors at 20. Joe Morgan also has been mentioned. He made the show at 19 and stuck at 21. Some of that is WWII and while I don't believe in crediting players with speculative stats for military missing time I don't believe they are to be penalized in HOF consideration either as a result of service (far from it on the character part of the equation). He qualified without reservation on the eligibility test for consideration for the HOF: he had the ten seasons met. And he was voted in by the electors. End of story. But there is more to consider. One cannot ignore the race issue. He had to go to Hawaii in 1941 to play semi-pro ball in Honolulu, was on the KC Monarchs in 1945, and spent an unnecessary year in the minors in 1946, all due to race. If he'd come up in 1941 or 1945 and had his ROY caliber year and two more peak years would that have made a difference to the OP? How much accumulation is enough? The discussion is fair, the verdict against his induction is not. I can name a dozen really great players who were cut down in their primes by injury or death or military service who deserve to be in the Hall of FAME. Not the Hall of STATS. Would the HOF be complete without Robinson, Puckett, Koufax, Dean, etc., or would it be missing huge chunks of baseball history?

Is it better to burn out or to fade away?

Again I agree ! But not on the time machine it would more likely be a wornhole of sorts🤖 . Any how genetics have shown a gene that makes people a good athelite. And I'm sure all the old timers had it. It just we did not have the sophisticated methods of training and nutrition that we have today. Look how old and weathered Wagner looked in his 30s geez !! What was he doing to his self .


But back to Jackie , he was not even the first choice for integration . That honor goes to Monte Irvin (rip) . But the owner of the Eagles would not let him go . Now Irvin's numbers are not anywhere near jackies . But Willie Mays said he was the man . And he's a HOFer.

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

Well said. Agreed.

hmmm...

I do think so. There were something like 30 million white men in America 100 years ago. There are over 7 billion people in the world today. Even if you limit it to the males, I think far more than 30 million of them aspire to play in the major leagues. That said, there are also more roster spots today, but I still think a smaller % of the contenders make it to a big league roster today than 100 years ago.

The rabbit is out of the hat now.

You could be right. I thought I read not too long ago that a problem baseball is facing is keeping up participation though. And there was a real worry that the spaces needed and number of players needed to field a baseball team was a concern for a lot of areas where kids were playing basketball and football instead.

Baseball is definitely getting out-shined by Basketball and Football.

The problem is baseball is trying to hard to appeal to people who flat out don't care about it.

All these new rules are absurd. The Buster Posey rule at home plate and now we have the Chase Utley play at second. I think it was the Blue Jays manager who said "what's next we play in skirts".

No it's not, because had been born white he would have likely played 5-7 years more at least. This topic, while you guys are free to debate it if you like, is horribly stupid.

Then why are you commenting on it?

Occasionally I see stupid and I comment on it. It's a curse.

And you can't change stupid.

Flaw
 

Steve-- you may have one of those dangerous flaws :)

Are you purposely avoiding the stats-driven arguments? I feel you don't really believe the argument you proposed and were just bored.

If you need a white guy that got in with a short career not to any fault of their own, and therefor doesn't have the career stats to support it, look at Addie Joss.

HOF voters judge by the talent of the player not the longevity driven stats that you used for your initial argument. His historical place in history due to breaking the color barrier adds to his impact on the game and society, but his stats, alone, were enough to put him in the HOF.

His statistical case for being in has been shown many times in this thread and ignored by you, while you peruse the thread to find anything about race to attack. If you want to leave the argument to stats, than rebuttal the stats that are being shown and play by your own rules.

Let's play it your way from the original post, why are any of these guys in they don't meet your statistical "magic numbers" for HITS, HR, and RBI:

Name H*▾ HR RBI
Joe Morgan*HOF 2517 268 1133
George Davis*HOF 2665 73 1440
Roger Connor*HOF 2467 138 1323
Charlie Gehringer*HOF 2839 184 1427
Dan Brouthers*HOF 2296 106 1296
Brooks Robinson*HOF 2848 268 1357
Ozzie Smith*HOF 2460 28 793
Johnny Bench*HOF 2048 389 1376
Luke Appling*HOF 2749 45 1116
Arky Vaughan*HOF 2103 96 926
Johnny Mize*HOF 2011 359 1337
Frankie Frisch*HOF 2880 105 1244
Ron Santo*HOF 2254 342 1331
Barry Larkin*HOF 2340 198 960
Bobby Wallace*HOF 2309 34 1121
Gary Carter*HOF 2092 324 1225
Ed Delahanty*HOF 2597 101 1466
Carlton Fisk*HOF 2356 376 1330
Fred Clarke*HOF 2678 67 1015
Ryne Sandberg*HOF 2386 282 1061
Roberto Alomar*HOF 2724 210 1134
Duke Snider*HOF 2116 407 1333
Joe Cronin*HOF 2285 170 1424
Pee Wee Reese*HOF 2170 126 885
Richie Ashburn*HOF 2574 29 586
Billy Williams*HOF 2711 426 1475
Billy Hamilton*HOF 2164 40 742
Lou Boudreau*HOF 1779 68 789
Jesse Burkett*HOF 2850 75 952
Home Run Baker*HOF 1838 96 991
Jackie Robinson*HOF 1518 137 734
Zack Wheat*HOF 2884 132 1248
Yogi Berra*HOF 2150 358 1430
Mike Piazza*HOF 2127 427 1335
Joe Torre*HOF 2342 252 1185
Hank Greenberg*HOF 1628 331 1274
Joe Gordon*HOF 1530 253 975
Bill Dickey*HOF 1969 202 1209
Luis Aparicio*HOF 2677 83 791
Joe Medwick*HOF 2471 205 1383
Enos Slaughter*HOF 2383 169 1304
Billy Herman*HOF 2345 47 839
George Sisler*HOF 2812 102 1178
Max Carey*HOF 2665 70 802
Bill Terry*HOF 2193 154 1078
Willie Keeler*HOF 2932 33 810
Joe Sewell*HOF 2226 49 1054
Gabby Hartnett*HOF 1912 236 1179
Jimmy Collins*HOF 1999 65 983
Elmer Flick*HOF 1752 48 756
Joe Tinker*HOF 1690 31 785
Harry Hooper*HOF 2466 75 816
Sam Rice*HOF 2987 34 1077
Bid McPhee*HOF 2258 53 1072
Mickey Cochrane*HOF 1652 119 830
Jim O'Rourke*HOF 2639 62 1208
Bobby Doerr*HOF 2042 223 1247
Kirby Puckett*HOF 2304 207 1085
Joe Kelley*HOF 2220 65 1194
Orlando Cepeda*HOF 2351 379 1365
Tony Lazzeri*HOF 1840 178 1194
Larry Doby*HOF 1515 253 970
Ralph Kiner*HOF 1451 369 1015
Nellie Fox*HOF 2663 35 790
Dave Bancroft*HOF 2004 32 591
Earl Averill*HOF 2019 238 1164
Johnny Evers*HOF 1659 12 536
Buck Ewing*HOF 1625 71 883
Jim Rice*HOF 2452 382 1451
Kiki Cuyler*HOF 2299 128 1065
Ernie Lombardi*HOF 1792 190 990
Heinie Manush*HOF 2524 110 1183
John McGraw*HOF 1309 13 462
Frank Chance*HOF 1274 20 596
Deacon White*HOF 2067 24 988
Edd Roush*HOF 2376 68 981
Sam Thompson*HOF 1988 126 1305
King Kelly*HOF 1813 69 950
Travis Jackson*HOF 1768 135 929
Chuck Klein*HOF 2076 300 1201
Hugh Duffy*HOF 2293 106 1302
Rabbit Maranville*HOF 2605 28 884
Earle Combs*HOF 1866 58 633
Red Schoendienst*HOF 2449 84 773
Hughie Jennings*HOF 1526 18 840
Roger Bresnahan*HOF 1252 26 530
Phil Rizzuto*HOF 1588 38 563
Hack Wilson*HOF 1461 244 1063
George Kell*HOF 2054 78 870
Pie Traynor*HOF 2416 58 1273
Bill Mazeroski*HOF 2016 138 853
John Ward*HOF 2107 26 869
Miller Huggins*HOF 1474 9 318
Jim Bottomley*HOF 2313 219 1422
Ross Youngs*HOF 1491 42 592
Chick Hafey*HOF 1466 164 833
Rick Ferrell*HOF 1692 28 734
Ray Schalk*HOF 1345 11 594
Freddie Lindstrom*HOF 1747 103 779
High Pockets Kelly*HOF 1778 148 1020
Lloyd Waner*HOF 2459 27 598
Billy Southworth*HOF 1296 52 561
Casey Stengel*HOF 1219 60 535
Ned Hanlon*HOF 1317 30 517
Al Lopez*HOF 1547 51 652
Tommy McCarthy*HOF 1493 44 732
Bucky Harris*HOF 1297 9 508
Wilbert Robinson*HOF 1388 18 722
Charlie Comiskey*HOF 1529 28 883
Leo Durocher*HOF 1320 24 567
Roy Campanella*HOF 1161 242 856

That's a assumption.many major leaguers don't get a chance until they are older. So let me ask this same exact career but he was white . Is Jackie Robinson a hall of famer?

Jackie Robinson changed the entire landscape of major league baseball and American society in general. Even if you want to play the stats game, no single player has had the impact on the game that he had. So he's in no matter what.

It's not the same career. At all. You can't change the most fundamental part of his career and then compare. If you don't understand how monumental what he accomplished was then you're not in an educated position to argue HOF induction IMO.

Haha so then you answered the question BOOM! Thanks

Bored? Yes I was very. You must be even more bored to make that list.

Most of these players you listed have various "factors" if you will, that would suggest their statistics are HOF worthy. "Most" of these players are far far closer to the magical numbers than Robinson.

Catchers obviously get a break from the physical abuse they take during the season.

Some of the players with a lower numbers not so close the the magical numbers happened to play in the "DEAD BALL" era where well the ball was dead. There's a reason why their numbers weren't as good.

+ 1

I give up. Best wishes and happy collecting.

You don't really think this do you?

In 1935 at the Big 10 championships, Jesse Owens set the world record in the long jump with 8.13 meters. Unlike today, he didn'the only long jump, but also ran the 100, 220 and 220 hurdles. During 45 minutes he also set world records in the 220 and 220 hurdles and tied the world record in the 100.

At the 2012 Olympics, the longest qualifying jump was 8.11 meters and Owens 8.13 meters would have won the bronze in the finals. Who knows how much further Owens could jump if he didn't run sprints. However, there is no doubt Owens would be a world class track athlete today.

I was referring to his sprinting time .
Bolt would have beaten American Thomas Burke, the first gold medalist ever, by more nearly 20 meters, or over 60 feet. Jesse Owens? About 21 feet behind.a in 1913 and died in Arizona in 1980 was the most impressive athlete in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. He won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long jump) and crushed the myth of Aryan supremacy in front of Hitler and the entire Nazi regime. One year before, at the 1935 Big Ten track, he managed to set three world records and tie another one in less than an hour.
Carl Lewis, also born in Alabama in 1961 was the first athlete to equal Owens record in a single Olympics: in 1984 he won 4 gold medals (100m, 200m, 4x100m and Long Jump). He was able to win gold medals in 4 different Olympics, for a total of 9 golds in his carreer. During his career he set world records in 100m, 4x100m and 4x200m and he is still holding the world record for indoor long jump (established in 1984).
Usain Bolt, born in Sherwood Content (Jamaica) in 1986 is the first athlete ever to hold both 100m and 200m world records since fully automatic time measurement became mandatory in 1977. He is currently holding 3 world records (100m, 200m and 4x100m). He is the first athlete to win 6 golds medal in sprint (Carl Lewis won 5 in sprint and 4 in Long jump). Not only did he break records, but he did it by large margins. For example, in 2009 he broke his own world record of 100m (from 9.69 to 9.58, the highest margin since the start of fully automatic time measurements).

It takes very little time to make that list. Export the list from BaseballReference, then sort by hits deleting above 3000, sort by hr deleting all above 500, sort by RBI and delete all above 1500. Then copy and paste. Takes less time, than my typing of this post. No effort at all, just more effort than you are willing to do to research your own argument.


...And you are still avoiding any real debate but answering to the stats showing he does deserve to be in the HOF.

Yes, obviously. Ya think as a player he might be a little better than Mazeroski and Schoendienst and Fox?

Sprint times and track and field performances generally improve over time for a host of reasons. Take Usain Bolt at birth and project him back to the 1930s and he does not run these times, he is competing with Jesse Owens.

I'm with you. Any position that holds Jackie Robinson is unworthy of the Hall of Fame is untenable.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Another interesting stat that sums up how good he was:

If you take the cumulative WAR/pos and divide by the number of years they played to get their WARpos average. Only 11 players have an average above 6, J.Robinson ranks 9th with a 6.15 .

Rk Name WARpos/years
1 Babe Ruth HOF 7.414
2 Willie Mays HOF 7.100
3 Lou Gehrig HOF 6.612
4 Ted Williams HOF 6.479
5 Ty Cobb HOF 6.292
6 Honus Wagner HOF 6.238
7 Hank Aaron HOF 6.200
8 Jackie Robinson HOF 6.150
9 Mickey Mantle HOF 6.094
10 Tris Speaker HOF 6.077
11 Joe DiMaggio HOF 6.008

...but of course if you want to stick with your "charity" argument because he didn't hit any of the 3 "magic number" milestones than nothing can convince you and aren't really interested in a real conversation.

Had Jackie Robinson been white, he simply could not have had the exact same career. Not even close.

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.