Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?

[Rookiemonster]

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 .

[ALR-bishop]

I just hate it when my flaws take a dangerous turn

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Your views are all dangerously flawed if you truly believe that Cobb would be a great player today .

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.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

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 !

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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 a was a 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 .

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.

[packs]

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.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[packs]

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.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[packs]

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.

[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

[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.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

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.

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.

[Bpm0014]

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....

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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 .

The rabbit is out of the hat now.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

The rabbit is out of the hat now.

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.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

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?

[sbfinley]

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

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

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

And you can't change stupid.

[ALR-bishop]

Steve-- you may have one of those dangerous flaws

[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.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

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.

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?

[packs]

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.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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?

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.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

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

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Haha so then you answered the question BOOM! Thanks

+ 1

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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?

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

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Well I believe most ball players need a eye test . You know if you just seen Ozzie smiths stats you might say this guy sucked . But when you see him play that's not the case at all . So I've never seen anyone the players mentioned play.

I know a lot of people question Bill Mazeroski as do I . But the other two seem to be more on the Ozzie smith side of things. With being outstanding defensively.

I rather compare to players I've seen like a Don mattingly or a will Clark. But let's compare him to a Jeff Kent from age 28 .

Jeff Kent from 28 to 37 year old . 1611 hits /HR 277 /2B 383/ RBI 1049
Jackie Robinson 28 to 37 years old . 1518hits/ HR 137/2B 273 / RBI 734

[Peter_Spaeth]

You need to adjust those stats for the era though. Jackie is fifth all time at 2B in WAR7 (best seven year stretch). Kent is 27th.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

So let me ask this same exact career but he was white . Is Jackie Robinson a hall of famer?

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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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?

Ralph Kiner had a WAR of 49, played 10 years, over lapping 9 with Jackie. Robinson had a WAR of 61. Kiner was white and made the hof, so I don't see how you could argue Jackie wouldn't have.

[TNP777]

Like others, I appreciate any discussion and debate.

Saying that, I'm somewhat dismayed that this particular thing is even debatable. Many, many excellent points have been made in support of Jackie's inclusion in the HOF.

* couldn't play until he was 28. That puts a guy like Bryce Harper 10 years ahead of him in compiling stats (yeah, Harper's an OF - just picked a name out of the air). If the OP wants to argue against inclusion based on stats, this single fact alone trumps his argument. Take the first 8-10 years away from any HOFer's career and see what his stats look like.
* hatred/taunts/death threats from damn near everyone around him, including the guys in his own dugout (maybe minus the death threats from teammates).
* opposing players openly trying to injure him
* had the temperament to deal with the above for two years before he was allowed to stand up for himself. Remained a man of character and restraint despite the intense opposition.
* hugely important in the Civil Rights movement.

[FourStrikes]

Originally Posted by TNP777

Like others, I appreciate any discussion and debate.

Saying that, I'm somewhat dismayed that this particular thing is even debatable. Many, many excellent points have been made in support of Jackie's inclusion in the HOF.

* couldn't play until he was 28. That puts a guy like Bryce Harper 10 years ahead of him in compiling stats (yeah, Harper's an OF - just picked a name out of the air). If the OP wants to argue against inclusion based on stats, this single fact alone trumps his argument. Take the first 8-10 years away from any HOFer's career and see what his stats look like.
* hatred/taunts/death threats from damn near everyone around him, including the guys in his own dugout (maybe minus the death threats from teammates).
* opposing players openly trying to injure him
* had the temperament to deal with the above for two years before he was allowed to stand up for himself. Remained a man of character and restraint despite the intense opposition.
* hugely important in the Civil Rights movement.

+ a $hitload.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by TNP777

Like others, I appreciate any discussion and debate.

Saying that, I'm somewhat dismayed that this particular thing is even debatable. Many, many excellent points have been made in support of Jackie's inclusion in the HOF.

* couldn't play until he was 28. That puts a guy like Bryce Harper 10 years ahead of him in compiling stats (yeah, Harper's an OF - just picked a name out of the air). If the OP wants to argue against inclusion based on stats, this single fact alone trumps his argument. Take the first 8-10 years away from any HOFer's career and see what his stats look like.
* hatred/taunts/death threats from damn near everyone around him, including the guys in his own dugout (maybe minus the death threats from teammates).
* opposing players openly trying to injure him
* had the temperament to deal with the above for two years before he was allowed to stand up for himself. Remained a man of character and restraint despite the intense opposition.
* hugely important in the Civil Rights movement.

+ 1 billion
This thread is nuts.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

The rabbit is out of the hat now.

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

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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

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.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

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.

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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 ..

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.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by rats60

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).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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).

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.

[bn2cardz]

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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Training, conditioning, coaching, performance monitoring, equipment, etc etc have changed, which gets to your point of either needing to grow up in the same era for comparison. Just as with any sport.

Although... since there was no global warming back in the '30s, Jesse's times might have been artificially quicker due to less friction from the cooler air.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tschock

Training, conditioning, coaching, performance monitoring, equipment, etc etc have changed, which gets to your point of either needing to grow up in the same era for comparison. Just as with any sport.

Although... since there was no global warming back in the '30s, Jesse's times might have been artificially quicker due to less friction from the cooler air.

Probably true for all sports, but IMO most true for track and field where the performance is objectively measured in terms of time, distance, or height and there is no element of subjectivity.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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).

So in his weakest event he would be destroyed by the greatest sprinter of all time. Is anyone surprised by that? You said he couldn't compete. That is false. Don't you think today that an athlete would be competing in their strongest event and maybe not in weaker ones. Owens would be a long jumper for sure. If he couldn't keep up with sprinters, he would concentrate on the long jump. Carl Lewis is an exception, not the norm, and he would be destroyed by Bolt in the sprint too.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by rats60

So in his weakest event he would be destroyed by the greatest sprinter of all time. Is anyone surprised by that? You said he couldn't compete. That is false. Don't you think today that an athlete would be competing in their strongest event and maybe not in weaker ones. Owens would be a long jumper for sure. If he couldn't keep up with sprinters, he would concentrate on the long jump. Carl Lewis is an exception, not the norm, and he would be destroyed by Bolt in the sprint too.

yes I do . But I was only comparing the fact that at the time his weakest event made him the fastest man in the world. And when compared by today or the middle marks. He would not be elite. Jumping is another story .

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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).

That argument is a fallacious one. Human beings do not evolve over a few decades; the tools they have to work with did. You cannot take athletes out of historical context and compare them across eras because training, medicine and nutrition have evolved so dramatically over the decades. In 1924 it was frowned upon to allow professional coaches to train Olympic athletes and the athletes were not full time athletes. Medical techniques were primitive and nutritional concepts were laughably wrong. Today, elite athletes do nothing but train and have access to a coterie of professional trainers, consultants and coaches. Strip Bolt of all of the advances of the last 70-80 years and see where he is; he might very well be the fastest man alive but I do not think that he would have blown by Jessie Owens Secretariat style.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That argument is a fallacious one. Human beings do not evolve over a few decades; the tools they have to work with did. You cannot take athletes out of historical context and compare them across eras because training, medicine and nutrition have evolved so dramatically over the decades. In 1924 it was frowned upon to allow professional coaches to train Olympic athletes and the athletes were not full time athletes. Medical techniques were primitive and nutritional concepts were laughably wrong. Today, elite athletes do nothing but train and have access to a coterie of professional trainers, consultants and coaches. Strip Bolt of all of the advances of the last 70-80 years and see where he is; he might very well be the fastest man alive but I do not think that he would have blown by Jessie Owens Secretariat style.

I think this is the absolute truth and reality of the matter. But like everything else in life it's in degrees. Look at old school boxers Jack Dempsey train like a beast and believe in it . He ate well with a lot of protein. I have no doubt that Dempsey would still be a world class champion today . Even with the same training and technics.

The Olympics do not put asterisks when the record is broke 5year from now. There is no statement saying well he train better. Or due to modern advance in sports science he won the gold. They keep the times and records for this reason. So we can compare and know who is the best. Not so we can say well if this or that. Whatever the reason is evolution , food,training,water quietly etc. the fact is the current record hold is better.

[AgonyandIvy]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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 .

First, yes - his name is Joe Gordon. And he is rated as #15 all time 2B. Robinson rated at #10. But maybe Gordon deserves it more since he had 12 more career hits.

Second, Robinson was more than "a great man." He was a monumental man, a transcendent man; his play, his impact, changed the game forever.