Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?

[CW]

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

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

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by CW

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

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

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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

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

If Cecil Travis....

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If Cecil Travis....

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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

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

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

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

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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

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

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

Its the perfect day for this thread!

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Dewey

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

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

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

[jkray25]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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

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

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

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jkray25

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

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

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

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

Steven Finley

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

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

Steven Finley

+1

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

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

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

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

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

[Iron Horse]

Beautifully written Rob

[68Hawk]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

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

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

Its the perfect day for this thread!

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

[vintagesportscollector]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

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

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

Its the perfect day for this thread!

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

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

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

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

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

Its the perfect day for this thread!

Rob, OK. I think we are on the same page, although we have perhaps approached it from different directions. If I understand things correctly, which is always problematic, your perspective is that the stats alone justify his induction, irrespective of all of his myriad other contributions which, simply to save a paragraph, I won't go into. If that is your position, we have no disagreement. If your argument is that Jackie Robinson day is the perfect day to educate people about the importance of Jackie Robinson to society as a whole, irrespective of his stats, which are HOF worthy without any other extraneous criteria. I am 100% with you. If I have misapprehended what you meant to say, please advise so that we can discuss further. Thanks and best,

Kenny

[1952boyntoncollector]

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

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

[Dewey]

Thanks, Steven. Nailed it.

[chaddurbin]

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

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Rob, OK. I think we are on the same page, although we have perhaps approached it from different directions. If I understand things correctly, which is always problematic, your perspective is that the stats alone justify his induction, irrespective of all of his myriad other contributions which, simply to save a paragraph, I won't go into. If that is your position, we have no disagreement. If your argument is that Jackie Robinson day is the perfect day to educate people about the importance of Jackie Robinson to society as a whole, irrespective of his stats, which are HOF worthy without any other extraneous criteria. I am 100% with you. If I have misapprehended what you meant to say, please advise so that we can discuss further. Thanks and best,

Kenny

You said it much better than I did Kenny!

[JTysver]

I might also add that his WAR in 1949 and 1951 were 9.6 and 9.7 respectively. That is Mike Trout and Bryce Harper level. As well his WAR in other years of his prime hovered around that level as well.
Oh and since WAR is accumulative, he acquired his WAR in less games than they did. Given the additional 8 games it would be over 10 in both cases which are amongst some of the best seasons ever.
That is how good Jackie Robinson was as a player.

[egri]

Even if you throw everything but the stats out the window, Robinson still belongs. He might not have had some of the counting stats, but his other stats were all there. And there is something else; his ability to change a game. From the Summer of '49:

"The next day Preacher Roe beat Vic Raschi 1-0. Gil Hodges singled with Jackie Robinson on third for the game's one run in the third inning. Later Raschi told friends that it was not Hodges who had beaten him, it was Robinson, bluffing a break for home. "I had just never seen anything like him before," Raschi said, "a human being who could go from a standing start to full speed in one step. He did something to me that almost never happened: he broke my concentration and I paid more attention to him than to Hodges." The other Yankees, particularly the younger ones, watched Robinson with growing admiration. On the bench Jerry Coleman, who had turned down a Dodger contract before he signed with the Yankees, silently said a prayer of thanks that he had signed with the Yankee organization. The Dodgers, Coleman thought, were not going to need a light-hitting second baseman for a long, long time. Robinson was different from almost any player Coleman had ever seen. He was not a power hitter, but could change the tempo of the game nonetheless. Years later Coleman still thought Robinson was special. Some younger players with greater speed had arrived, and they had produced greater statistics, but Robinson remained apart; he had done everything with a purpose--to wake up his own team, to intimidate his opponents, to make the game different. What a player, Coleman thought."

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by turtleguy64

if you are going to question Jackie's credentials,then start on Yaz.talk about a career of mediocrety(sorry about that spelling).One outstanding year ,two above average seasons,followed by what ? check his averages outside of those three years.Played a long time ,long enough to reach the 3000 hit mark.Carried the team on his back in 1967 but does that get you into the HOF ?

Wait, what?

One outstanding year? Carl Yastrzemski's 1967 was not just one great year. It was an historic year. Full statistics only go back to 1901 on Baseball Reference, and his 12.4 WAR in '67 is the third highest since 1901. Only Babe Ruth's 14.1 in 1923, and his 12.9 in 1921, are higher.

Look at the statistics: .326 AVG, 44 home runs, and 121 RBI. 112 runs scored, 189 hits, a .418 OBP, .622 SLG, 1.040 OPS, 193 OPS + 360 total bases. He won the Triple Crown, and every single stat I listed led the American League.

Look at the Triple Crown line again. .326 AVG, 44 home runs, 121 RBI. A really good season, to be sure, but historic? This is where context is so vitally important in statistical analysis, and why the Jeff Kent vs Jackie Robinson sub-debate looks so silly. You can't simply extrapolate these stats, and compare them to hitters from today, or say, the early to mid 2000s.

"Yastrzemski only hit 44 home runs. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs. Mark McGwire hit 70. Sammy Sosa hit 60 + multiple times. Those guys were much better power hitters than Yaz."

The game back in the late 60s was completely different than it is now. Yastrzemski was the hitter in 1967. His oWAR of 9.9 is off the charts. Since 1950, only Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds (three times each) and Mike Trout (in 2013) have had higher. Robin Yount's 9.8 in 1982 is right behind him.

But that was hardly the only great season Yaz had. Two above average seasons? He had two other tremendous seasons.

In 1968, he had a 10.5 WAR. An 8 + WAR is considered MVP level. Yaz far exceeded that. The second best player in the American League, Frank Robinson, had an 8.4 WAR. In simplest terms, Carl Yastrzemski, by WAR, was 25% better than any other player in the American League that year. That's a dominant performance. If you only casually look at Yastrzemski's numbers in 1968, using the eyes of a baseball fan in 2016, you won't be impressed by what you see. .301 AVG, 23 HR, 74 RBI. His slash line was .426 OBP/.495 SLG/.922 OPS. He had a 171 OPS +.

But again, context. Yaz led in batting, walks (119), on base, OPS and OPS +. Carl Yastrzemski was the only player in the entire American League to hit over .300 in 1968. Oakland's Danny Carter was second in the A.L. with a .290 AVG. Tony Oliva hit .289, Willie Horton .285, and Ted Uhalender .283. Nobody else in the A.L. even hit .280! That's how absolutely dominant the pitching was in 1968. '68 is the year Denny McClain won 31 games. Luis Tiant had a league-best 1.60 ERA, and four other pitchers (Sam McDowell, Dave McNally, McClain and Tommy John) had ERAs below 2.00. Another six starters had an ERA of 2.50 or better. Twenty-two starters with at least 20 starts and 154 IP had an ERA below 3.00. Yaz was by far the best hitter in the American League in 1968. So, no, that was not an "above average" season if you know how to accurately gauge statistics. His 9th place MVP vote was more a product of Boston's finishing 4th in the American League East than anything.

What about 1970? Again, Yastrzemski had the best WAR (9.5) in the American League. He was the best player in the A.L. that year, too. His 8.9 oWAR is the 34th best by any hitter in the American League since 1901. The second-best WAR in the American League that year was a 7.9 by pitcher Sam McDowell. By WAR, Carl Yastrzemski was 20% better than the next-best player in the American League that year. Yet he was only 4th in the MVP. His stat line clearly shows that he didn't have a merely above average season: 40 home runs, 102 RBI, .329 AVG. His slash line .452 OBP/.592 SLG/1.044 OPS was best in the AL. He led in all three metrics. He also led in runs scored (125), total bases (335) and OPS + 177. In fact, 1970 represented the fourth time in a six year span that Yaz led the A.L. in OPS + (in addition to 1967, 1968 and 1970, he also led with a 156 OPS + in 1965).

That's three seasons, 1967, 1968 and 1970, where Carl Yastrzemski was clearly the best player in the league, and by a wide margin.

In 1963, he had a 6.6 WAR, leading the A.L. in batting (.321), hits (183), doubles (40), walks (95), and on base (.418).

In 1965, he led the A.L. in doubles (45), on base (.395), slugging (.536), OPS (.932), and, again, OPS + (156).

Now, after hitting age 30, he was clearly not the same player. You could make an argument against some of his 11 All Star selections post 1970. But he still had some very good seasons. In 1974, he led the A.L. with 93 runs scored. 93 runs scored. That should tell you how difficult it was to score runs in that era, again, reinforcing how dominant pitching was. Only Yaz, Bobby Grich and Reggie Jackson even scored 90 runs that year. Compare that to 2015, when 13 players in the American League, alone, scored over 100 runs, and 28 players scored 90 or more.

Context.

Carl Yastrzemski had nine seasons, in total, with a WAR exceeding 5.0 or better. 5.0 WAR is an All Star level. And, he was one of the elite players in the American League for the decade of the 1960s. Only Frank Robinson's 53.8 WAR bested Yastrzemski's 53.2. But Yaz wasn't even a rookie until 1961. Had he played at all in 1960, he'd have been worth more wins than any player in the American League. Take away his -0.3 1961 rookie season, and his monster 1967 and 1968 seasons, and he still has a 30.6 WAR for the other six seasons, a 5.1 WAR average.

Yaz was a great player. He's one of only nine players in the history of baseball with over 3,000 hits, 400 home runs and 500 doubles. He was a great hitter, and a great fielder (good with the glove, great arm = 7 Gold Gloves). He's a deserving Hall of Famer.

Originally Posted by Enfuego

Roberto Clemente is in the same boat regarding this topic.

No, he's not. What an absurd statement.

Clemente had 3,000 hits and a career .317 AVG. He won four batting titles, and finished in the top five six other times, including a pair of seconf place finishes. He was a twelve-time All Star, and won twelve consecutive Gold Gloves to close out his career. And, unlike most players, who see their productivity drop off at the end of their careers, Clemente was getting better. Had he not died in that plane crash, there's no telling how much longer he could have played. Clemente was in fantastic shape, and at the plate, he was lethal. Look at his last four seasons, 1969 to 1972. Between the ages of 34 and 37, Clemente batted a combined .339. He hit .345 in 1969, .352 in 1970, .341 in 1970, and .312 in 1971. He had a 153 OPS + for those four years. If he could have overcome a series of nagging injuries, he could have kept playing for another four years. He was still an elite hitter and fielder.

Please, educate yourself, because your statement is laughably bad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CW

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

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

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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by CW

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

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

We have been doing that for 11 pages.

[pokerplyr80]

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

[guy3050]

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

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

[bbcard1]

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

[CW]

Originally Posted by rats60

We have been doing that for 11 pages.

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

*slowly backs out of the room*

[Jason19th]

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

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

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

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

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

[darwinbulldog]

Addie Joss was truly great. Otherwise I agree.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

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

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

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

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

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

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