Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Statistics are relative to an era. If the average player in the 90s hit 30 HR, and the average player in the 50s hit 20 (hypothetical), then hitting 20 in the 50s is the same as hitting 30 in the 90s. Stats like WAR are compiled on an era-adjusted basis to account for these sorts of differences. Kent's numbers relative to the era in which he played are actually nowhere near Jackie's.

Aaah thanks Pete I see what your saying. I don't want this to morph into best way to judge a player discussion.but I'm sure it's arguable . So does this mean that Cobb has more hits then Rose ? Or Ruth has more homeruns then Aaron ?

I get it I do but it's hard for me to get past the numbers . Kent was playing against roided up modern athletes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Aaah thanks Pete I see what your saying. I don't want this to morph into best way to judge a player discussion.but I'm sure it's arguable . So does this mean that Cobb has more hits then Rose ? Or Ruth has more homeruns then Aaron ?

I get it I do but it's hard for me to get past the numbers . Kent was playing against roided up modern athletes.

Look at the rankings on baseballreference.com to see how it all plays out.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

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

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

I'm not sure what you mean. The stats are the stats the played the same game and position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ty Phelan