Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?

[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.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by 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.

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".

[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.