Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?

Kenny Cole · #1 04-15-2016, 11:44 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 04-16-2016, 12:05 AM

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 · #3 04-16-2016, 12:10 AM

Thanks, Steven. Nailed it.

chaddurbin · #4 04-16-2016, 12:30 AM

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

Jeffrompa · #5 04-16-2016, 12:56 AM

Some people really need to watch PBS

tiger8mush · #6 04-16-2016, 06:31 AM

Quote:

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 · #7 04-16-2016, 06:39 AM

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 · #8 04-16-2016, 08:44 AM

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 · #9 04-16-2016, 08:51 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Dewey · #10 04-16-2016, 10:07 AM

Love this forum. Phenomenal post stache.

Peter_Spaeth · #11 04-16-2016, 10:19 AM

I'm not sure Anthony was suggesting there was any argument Clemente should not be in the HOF based on his playing field accomplishments. Perhaps what he meant was that, like Jackie our perception of his greatness is further enhanced by externalities, in Clemente's case being the first great Hispanic major leaguer, and/or his premature death. For example, most people I think would immediately agree that Clemente was in the top 20 or 25 all time greats, but Bill James based purely on stats has him in the 70s.

Then again maybe Anthony has no clue.

Enfuego · #12 04-16-2016, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm not sure Anthony was suggesting there was any argument Clemente should not be in the HOF based on his playing field accomplishments. Perhaps what he meant was that, like Jackie our perception of his greatness is further enhanced by externalities, in Clemente's case being the first great Hispanic major leaguer, and/or his premature death. For example, most people I think would immediately agree that Clemente was in the top 20 or 25 all time greats, but Bill James based purely on stats has him in the 70s.

Then again maybe Anthony has no clue.

You basically nailed it. Whoever this MIZE Character is, needs to read between the lines before opening his oxygen sucker. A lot of players today get into the HOF solely because of stats, accomplishments and records. Jackie and Roberto were acknowledged for their careers AND their contributions off the field.

Marckus99 · #13 04-16-2016, 10:19 AM

Of course Jackie belongs in the HOF....and so does his wife too, right?
Hell #42 has been retired, how about #1947 as well.

Actually we should make 4/15 a national holiday as well.
Let's start a religion as well, I mean he did suffer as much as Jesus.
Correct?

Because no one else in the history of baseball suffered as much as poor Jackie.
None of the Latin ball players from the 1910s or 1920s or 1930s suffered at all.....right?

We know what this is about, let's not be so naive.

- Mark

Dewey · #14 04-16-2016, 10:35 AM

Now I know how Bill Murray felt in Groundhog Day.

bdk1976 · #15 04-16-2016, 11:12 AM

censored

sago · #16 04-16-2016, 11:34 AM

Quote: