I only question why he is considered top 100 or whatever. Compare his numbers please. I'm not saying that having the day is a bad thing, but my goodness it was way overdone.Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
|
|
|
|
|
I only question why he is considered top 100 or whatever. Compare his numbers please. I'm not saying that having the day is a bad thing, but my goodness it was way overdone.
He is definitely deserves to be in the hall of fame.
Robinson was a disciplined hitter and a versatile fielder. He had a .311 career batting average and substantially more walks than strikeouts and was an outstanding base stealer. No other player since World War I has stolen home more than Robinson, who did it 19 times in his career.[24] During his career, the Dodgers played in six World Series and Jackie played in six All-Star games. He is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame and a member of the All-Century Team.
good average, look at everything else. 6 world series, lost 5 of them. There are many ROY's and one time MVP's that wouldnt be considered HOF'ers. Stealing home is nice, but it has more to do with the way the game has changed in that time, not in the quality of players today compared to him.
From baseball-reference.com:
Similar Batters
Compare StatsI'm not saying the guy was bad by any means, but do you honestly think this guy would be given this credit if he wasn't black? Breaking the color barrier, yes, its a big deal. But this big of a deal? I think its a little overblown right now. Just seems like baseball over apologizing in my opinion. Its been 60 years, you would figure we would be over it by now.
- George Grantham (930)
- Denny Lyons (880)
- Edgardo Alfonzo (878)
- Freddie Lindstrom (874) *
- Jeff Cirillo (868)
- Mike Greenwell (863)
- Irish Meusel (855)
- Joe Randa (849)
- Gregg Jefferies (845)
- Bruce Campbell (844)
When you become KING (AKA Commissioner of Baseball) you can ask baseball writers to consider a re-vote on Jackie Robinson and/or all HOF'ers. Maybe you could hire computer programmers to write programs based on your view of important statistics to compare players; you could eliminate those in the HOF you find lacking. Those that you don't consider worthy could be removed.
On second thought, I don't think you should be KING. I like the present system of voting by the baseball writers. The baseball writers considered him worthy to be in the HOF. It's OVER, i.e. FINAL. There is no recall procedure. What's the point in discussing it further?
I'm only asking the question. Can you please tell me why I am wrong? So much for a discussion on a discussion board, eh?When you become KING (AKA Commissioner of Baseball) you can ask baseball writers to consider a re-vote on Jackie Robinson and/or all HOF'ers. Maybe you could hire computer programmers to write programs based on your view of important statistics to compare players; you could eliminate those in the HOF you find lacking. Those that you don't consider worthy could be removed.
On second thought, I don't think you should be KING. I like the present system of voting by the baseball writers. The baseball writers considered him worthy to be in the HOF. It's OVER, i.e. FINAL. There is no recall procedure. What's the point in discussing it further?
I can't believe I'm dignifying this garbage by responding, but questioning Jackie Robinson's legitimacy as a Hall of Famer is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of.
He's in the Baseball Hall of Fame because of what his introduction into the league signified for the Game of Baseball. Stats have absolutely no importance in this discussion.
"Man, I'm so sick and tired of everyone overrating that Mahatma Gandhi. All he ever did was starve himself! Where's the talent in that?!"
Now, if you want to argue that the man that brought Jackie Robinson into MLB deserves more mention, I'll agree with you. But to discredit JACKIE ROBINSON because his stats might not be Hall of Fame worthy is ridiculous.
And if this thread gets any more off of the topic of baseball, I recommend it be moved to the Pawlitics board, so that I don't have to be reminded it of it when I want to talk about sports.
The questioning of his numbers is not ridicualous. If you want to stand by the statement that his stats mean nothing as to why he is in the Hall, then go ahead. It proves my point, so thank you. See below:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/robinja02.shtml
Politics board? This is one fo the few true baseball discussions this board has had in a while. It amazes me how much people shun actual discussion on this board, but of course, that proves a past point of mine as well.
His stats mean nothing, and he unquestionably still belongs in the Hall. This doesn't prove "your point" at all, because the one you're trying to make is asinine.
I can't wait on your dissertation on why James Naismith doesn't belong in the basketball Hall of Fame because he had a terrible jump shot.
That comparison does not make sense. Did Jackie invent baseball? My point is that Jackie was put in the HOF for the one reason that he was against. Different treatment because of the color of his skin. So when you mention that stats mean nothing for him, then yes, you do prove my previously stated point. He was given preferential treatment that others may not have gotten. I, for one, feel bad for the Eddie Alfonzo's and Gregg Jeffries' that will not make the HOF with the same numbers that Jackie had.
Farright, you must also consider the fact there are many guys who dont have Hall of Fame numbers that made it in from days of yore. Richie Ashburn, Larry Doby, Sandy Koufax, Luis Aparicio, Dizzy Dean, Mickey Cochrane, Luke Appling, etc. do I need to go on? You can look up all of these guys. All, either had mediocre careers or didnt play very long although they played very well during their short span. Gone are the days of just dominating for 4-5 years (a la Sandy Koufax) or playing mediocre will get you in. You have to have a 15-20 year career and meet some major milestones to even be considered nowadays.
Jackie's numbers were also cut short by 5-6 prime years, considering he wasnt able to join the League until he was 28. If not for that, you are talking more like 2,500 hits and 1,500 runs in a career in a time not riddled with unbelievable batting stats like it is now. He was definitely given favorable consideration for what he meant to the game, that cannot be denied. Rather you think that is right or not is your own opinion. I happen to think it should be part of the consideration. Much like Koufax's legendary status helped propel him more than actual numbers
If you look at many of Jackie's contemporaries, you wont be so quick to think it was only about his skin color. Take a gander at Pee Wee Reese's 19 year career stats, not very impressive.
Check out Phil Rizzuto, wow, if not a Yankee, no one would care. Stats barely better than a glorified utility man. Do you think he got more favorable consideration because he served in the war from 1942-1945? Is that right?
George Kell, worse in every major statistical category than Jackie, yet played 15 years. Is he a HOFer? Of course.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
