Why is Jackie Robinson in the HOF?

the 'stache · #1 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 · #2 04-16-2016, 10:07 AM

Love this forum. Phenomenal post stache.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 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 · #4 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.

CMIZ5290 · #5 04-16-2016, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enfuego

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.

Oxygen sucker? How polite and how stupid...I don't give a damn what you think about Clemente's off field accomplishments as being a big reason for HOF. They were tremendous attributes that he had, no doubt. He was a HOFer regardless of that based upon his value as a player...What exactly are you saying? That the HOF committee took in to account Clemente's off field achievements and the plane crash when they elected him? I'm just simply trying to understand what you are saying...Robinson as well??

CMIZ5290 · #6 04-16-2016, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enfuego

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.

I would love to chat with Bill James about Clemente being only in the top 70's, that's just idiotic....This guy won 4 batting crowns in 6 years, and had the best arm in the game...

Peter_Spaeth · #7 04-16-2016, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I would love to chat with Bill James about Clemente being only in the top 70's, that's just idiotic....This guy won 4 batting crowns in 6 years, and had the best arm in the game...

Bill Madlock won 4 batting titles.

CMIZ5290 · #8 04-16-2016, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill Madlock won 4 batting titles.

Agree Peter, but could he even compare to Clemente? Not even close....

CMIZ5290 · #9 04-16-2016, 09:59 PM

OK, lets try this with the board. Pertaining Outfielder's, other than Ruth, Aaron, Mays, T. Williams, and Mantle, maybe a drug free Bonds, who would you rate higher than Clemente? Also, of these five who would you put Clemente over?

Peter_Spaeth · #10 04-16-2016, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

OK, lets try this with the board. Pertaining Outfielder's, other than Ruth, Aaron, Mays, T. Williams, and Mantle, maybe a drug free Bonds, who would you rate higher than Clemente? Also, of these five who would you put Clemente over?

This site ranks him 61. http://www.stevetheump.com/top_players.htm

I would probably rate Cobb higher.

Maybe Ott and Henderson. Frank Robinson. Speaker. Griffey. DiMaggio. Musial.

Marckus99 · #11 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 · #12 04-16-2016, 10:35 AM

Now I know how Bill Murray felt in Groundhog Day.

bdk1976 · #13 04-16-2016, 11:12 AM

censored

Leon · #14 04-16-2016, 11:50 AM

To me trolls aren't known, he is known and you aren't (publicly). If you want to make that comment your name needs to be by your post. That goes for everyone in this thread and on the board. I see a few comments in this thread that need their name by them. Either the member can edit out their comment, put their full name next to it, or I will help.

This is at the top of each page for a reason and folks can take it to include snarky comments too.

If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post.

Make comments all you want to, but put your name next to your post. And don't follow members around the board making snarky comments. If you do it too often you will no longer be here.

I am with Brendan (post #47) with my thoughts on the question. I think it is a good question and a good debate in an open forum. Why not talk about it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdk1976

This thread is obviously a trolling attempt (that's working).

1) Jackie Robinson is a HOF-caliber player
2) There are plenty of players who don't belong in the HOF - Jackie is not one of them
3) I think the color-barrier issue should (and does) cement his legitimacy in the HOF if he was borderline (he isn't - I can put together a lot of names in the HOF that are 'borderline' - or lower - and he wouldn't be on it)
4) I do think it's important to remember history and his contributions to baseball and our country.
5) I also think some of the Jackie-worship these days is becoming borderline over the top
6) On a somewhat related note, I think #3 should be retired by the MLB and Marvin Miller should be in the HOF.

bdk1976 · #15 04-16-2016, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

To me trolls aren't known, he is known and you aren't (publicly). If you want to make that comment your name needs to be by your post. That goes for everyone in this thread and on the board. I see a few comments in this thread that need their name by them. Either the member can edit out their comment, put their full name next to it, or I will help.

This is at the top of each page for a reason and folks can take it to include snarky comments too.

If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post.

Make comments all you want to, but put your name next to your post. And don't follow members around the board making snarky comments. If you do it too often you will no longer be here.

I am with Brendan (post #47) with my thoughts on the question. I think it is a good question and a good debate in an open forum. Why not talk about it?

Not sure why you quoted me and singled me out, but I've edited my post out so it hopefully meets your rules. Also not sure about the comment about following people around making snarky comments - please show me where I have been doing this and I'll gladly delete those too.

sago · #16 04-16-2016, 11:37 PM

Slightly O/T. Henderson is a tough one. If I was to put together my all-time best team, versus my all-time best lineup, I would include Henderson in the latter, but not the former.

Undeniably, the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time. Is he the best left fielder of all time? I would say no; that would have to be Ted Williams.

sago · #17 04-16-2016, 11:34 AM

Quote: