Robinson only played 10 seasons. He had 1518 hits, 137 home runs and 734 RBIs. These are the stats of a mediocre baseball player.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/robinja02.shtml
Printable View
Robinson only played 10 seasons. He had 1518 hits, 137 home runs and 734 RBIs. These are the stats of a mediocre baseball player.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/robinja02.shtml
Jim, Baseball Mogul Online is a completely different game from the CD/download version of Baseball Mogul. Please keep all the Baseball Mogul specific content in the Baseball Mogul: {whatever} forums.
Anyway, the ratings that the game uses are calculated from stats loaded from the Lahman database, which are the stats that are shown on Baseball-Reference. There's no specific players that receive bonuses or penalties specifically for that player, so if you believe that Jackie Robinson specifically is overrated then every player in the game who has had similar performance to Robinson are also overrated.
Perhaps he's talking in general, not about the ratings the game gives him.
In which case, I have a bone to pick. You quoted three counting stats, therefore, they are dependant on playing time. One by one now.
Hits - Hits mean nothing if not put into context. Sure he had "only" 1518 hits, but it came out to a .311 batting average. Pretty good. When Barry Bonds batted .370, he had 149 hits that season. Players that walk more also have less hits due to less at bats ending on contact.
Home runs - He averaged about 14 per season, decent output, considering he's a second basemen...
RBI - He averaged 73 per season, again, very good considering he's a second basemen. Also, RBI are highly dependent on who bats in front of you, and where you are in the lineup.
Now, look beyond those three stats. His career batting line (avg/obp/slg) was .311/.409/.474, VERY good. It comes out to an OPS+ of 132. OPS+ is OPS adjusted for the league and park, where average is 100. He was a very above average hitter considering his league and park.
He hit for average and he drew walks. He was incredibly difficult to strike out. He either put the ball in play or drew a walk. That's a VERY good palyer.
Even given all that, you have to consider his position. Second base is and always has been weak offensively. Robinson was a good hitter independent of position. Factor in position, and Robinson was truly a great hitter.
I would tend to agree with you that he is a little overrated in the history books, but to most that is personal opinion.
Yes he was one of the better 2B that we have seen, but I personally don't think that means he is a hall of famer, but then again, that is personal opinion. Just because you are the best hitter at a position that is filled with nothing but mediocre hitters doesn't mean all that much to me.
You can't deny he was very talented and meant a lot to his team, those are things that you can't really measure with "ratings". I haven't looked at him in the game so I'm not sure how he is rated, but I would tend to think he is rated fairly against others with similar stats.
10 seasons, 6 of which were over a .900 OPS. His total career OPS of .884 leaves him in the top 100 of all time. Though he only played 10 years, if you take his average stats and figure he could've played 20, then you're looking at a guy who probably finished with over 3000 hits and 300+ home runs
He was a very good hitter, compare him today with someone like Derek Jeter (career OPS .852), a guy who's only cracked the .900 barrier twice.
Though the very fact that you're using HRs and RBIs to rate ball players shows that you've got a lot to learn about rating players.
He was a good hitter no matter what position you compare him too.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
I don't get this reasoning though. The up-the-middle positions (c,2b,ss,cf) are notoriously weaker on offense than the corner positions. A first basemen who hits .280 with 20 home runs is going to be one of the weaker offensive first basemen. Play him at short stop, and he's an above-average guy. Position definitely has to be taken into account when looking at a player's offensive output.
See, here's the thing. While another player could have Jackie's exact career and not make it, Robinson made it not only on the virtue of his outstanding (but short) career, but also because he broke the color barrier. Here's another thing to keep in mind - if it wasn't for blacks not being allowed to play baseball, Robinson might've started 5 or 6 years earlier...
Some outstanding players don't have long careers. Sandy Koufax is an example. You can't judge Robinson just by his hitting stats. Every time he got on base he was a threat to steal, even home. This of course made it easier for those who followed him to hit. He was an exciting player who deserves the accolades.
:eek: :eek: :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
Overrated in the History books.....The Man Broke The Major League Ban of Players of Color!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
That has absolutely nothing to do with the level at which he played the game. With that thinking the guy could have been a career .220 hitter and yet you would still call him one of the greatest players to ever play the game. Doesn't make much sense there.
Okay, now explain one reason why they can't hit at the same level as the other positions? Play a 1B at Shortstop and he isn't above average because he probably can't field the ball. I know the argument is that there is much more strain put on these guys defensively and that is why they don't put up the numbers, but then again hitting is hitting. I don't care what position you play, the rules are the same for everyone that steps in to the batter's box, at least they were the last time I checked :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yes it does. While you can't overrate him for it, going up to the plate every day and having 'you know what' said to you at every at-bat. Being treated like a 2nd class citizen by the fans can and I'm sure did affect how he played the game. It wasn't just your usual razzing of opposing players.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
I lived in Brooklyn in the 40's and 50's.
I saw Jackie Robinson play at Ebbets Field.
He was the most exciting baseball player I ever saw or have seen to this day.
The only one who was up there with him was Willie Mays.
Jackie did things on the ball field that can not be set down in "statistics".
The electric feeling that went through the park when he was on the bases, particularly third base was incredible.
Given the conditions he was forced to play under his statistics are remarkable.
1st....Jackie Robinson the man was not overrated in the history books. Period. What he did, what he went through as a person deserves every ounce of respect and is not overrated.
2nd....Jackie Robinson the player....He brought something to the game. He was a part....a vital part of 4 WS championships. He united his team. His stats should not be compared to players of today. My personal opinion is that each player being considered for the Hall should only be compared to players of his generation. In that respect Jackie Jackie was the 1947 ROY, 1949 National league MVP and a 6 time All Star in a 10 year career. He led in OBP in 1952 and SB in 1947 and 1949!
His lifetime .311 BA most players would kill for!
Why is this in the mods forum?
Jackie Robinson was 28 years old when he broke into the Majors in 1947. He still managed six years with more than 100 runs scored (a 7th with 99) and six years with an OBP over .400. He also hit over .300 six times including a batting championship, and he twice led the National League in Bill James's statistical category Total Player Rating.
Did I mention that he only played in more than 125 of his team's games 7 times?
If you want an overrated HOFer, I give you Ozzie Smith.
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by bjohn13
Why's everyone picking on the infielders :confused:
Don't get me wrong. Ozzie belongs in the Hall, but I'd say that about any shortstop with 13 Gold Gloves. But come on. I hear people say he's the best shortstop of all time. I just can't buy something like that about a career .262 hitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
Want overrated? Phil Rizzuto...Quote:
Originally Posted by bjohn13
Man...Oh Man...lets talk about someone truly overrated.....Barry Bonds!!!!!
Well I'd rather we debate Bonds then legends like Robinson and Smith.
See, yeah, first basemen at shortstop wouldnt be aboveaverage because he'd be horrible ast fielding.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
Each position has a different average offensive player. Okay, I'm kind of in a foggy state of mind right now, but let me try to put this into words best I can.
Take two hitters who both hit .290/.360/.450. Say the average shortstop hits .270/.330/.420, and the average first basemen hits .275/.370/.510. Now, those two hitters, one plays shortstop, one plays first base. The guy playing shortstop is more valuable because he's way above average for his position. you're not going to find many guys better than him at shortstop. The first basemen, you could find many better first basemen.
See what I'm getting at?
Take Chase Utley. He's an extremely valuable player. His bat would play anywhere, thats how good it is. Why is he EVEN MORE valuable than if he played right field? Because he's so far and away the best hitting second basemen, that you're getting way more out of that position than any other team. If he was a right fielder, he'd still be an outstanding hitter, but he'd be much easier to replace.
I debated where to put this for a long time, but I finally settled on the mods forum because it seemed as though the OP was asking for a way to change him...Quote:
Originally Posted by eecheerow
But, you're right. This doesn't really belong here, and I'm not sure that the OP could find the post again anyway.
So if we moved Jackie to the outfield he would have had a .330 average and hit 30 homeruns every year?
That is the point I am trying to make. I don't see how you can give them a free pass unless you can also say that if you moved them to a different position that they would become a better hitter.
Robinson was a very good hitter, but probably not a truly great hitter. Making a positional adjustment to hitting stats is not as great an idea as it seems at first glance. It makes more sense to evaluate defense separately, and give players who play the more important defensive positions their due credit there. Fobinson was probably a better defensive player than most people think.
In Robinson's case, though, there is an adjustment that we do have to make, which is that he is missing roughly the first half of his career, including the normal peak years at age 26 & 27. Some people do this by trying to figure out when he would have made the majors if not for the color barrier, and then calculating what he would have hit during those missing years. I would suggest that it would be better to simply compare his stats to those of other great players during their age 28-37 seasons, and see where he ranks then.
No, if Robinson were moved to the outfield he would hit exactly as he did. His value if he were playing on the corners (first, third, left or right) would be significantly reduced, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
There's no need for adjustments or anything though. The fact is that he could play, and apparently play well, as an up the middle defender. Add on to that that he could hit at least as well as an average offensive player and he has outstanding value. Great defensive players who can also hit at least as well as an average player are worth their weight in gold because you're not loosing anything either at the plate or on the field by playing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
One thing that people tend to loose sight of by simply looking at offensive stats in isolation is that, aside from the designated hitter, players need to play both defensively and offensively. One example that immediately comes to mind is the criticism that's commonly leveled at Jeter. He's a good (possibly even great, depending on you're definition) hitter. However, as valuable as that is, he also plays a key defensive position. As much as he's helped the Yankees through his career, there's plenty of arguments that have been made that he's also hurt the Yankees on the field almost as much as he's helped at the plate.
Anyway, Jackie Robinson isn't great specifically for his hitting or fielding. He accomplished something far more valuable than anything that he ever actually did on the field simply by being present. That being the case, all of this is rather silly in my opinion.
Robinson was a great player. Not only did he have great stats like HGM(and many other people)was saying, he also had great speed and the most important thing, he broke the color barrier
.311 is an average hitter???Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
The Ted Williams argument holds no water, because that isn't even in the same ballpark as what I am talking about.
I just don't understand why a 2B who hits .300 is considered a god while a 1B who hits .325 can't make the hall because he was a weak 1B. Weak 1B, but by far a better hitter than the 2B who hit .300
That is what I am saying. There are guys who aren't in the hall that put up far better numbers and were just as valuable in the lineup and the clubhouse as Mr. Robinson. When you look at a lineup do you really care what position the guy is that is hitting leadoff? No, you just want him to get on base and steal a few every now and then and let the meat drive him in. When a manager makes their lineup they don't hit Robinson 4th because "Wow, he's a great hitter for a second baseman!"
Robinson was a good player, no disputing that, but he isn't as great as everyone seems to make him out all the time. He was a great "man" and he did a lot for the game, but his actual play on the field, while at a high level, was not as outstanding as many would say.
He is good, he ranks #9 among 2B of all time, which is nothing to scoff at.
No, he'd hit the same wherever he played. My point is, he's MORE VALUABLE because he plays a key defensive position and is way above average hitter for a second basemen. When you're getting more from your second basemen than the average team, THATS VALUABLE. I don't see what is so hard to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
Again, Chase Utley. Why is he such a valuable player? Because he provides you with .300 average, .380 obp, 30 home runs, out of a position where the average player is gonna give you maybe a .270 average, a .330 obp, and 10 home runs. If Utley played right field, he'd still be a good hitter, but he wouldn't be an absolute superstar that he is.
Joe Mauer, Victor Martinez, Brian McCann. Why are they so valuable? Because they give you outstanding hitting from a position that is weak on hitting.
I'm really not sure what is hard to understand about that.
In other Jackie Robinson news, Rob Neyer wrote an article about him today. With some help from Diamondmind Baseball, he attempted to translate jackie robinson into today's environment.
His conclusion:
Also see: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/jackie...ory?id=2836790Quote:
Clearly, there's no one player today who does everything that Robinson did. But let's start with Miguel Cabrera; take away a few home runs per season, and you've got Robinson as a hitter. But then we've got to take Cabrera, who's merely adequate with the glove at third base, move him across the diamond to second base, and give him Hudson's (or, more precisely, Pokey Reese's) defensive skills. And finally, to our Cabrera-Hudson amalgam we must add the running speed and instincts of Figgins, who not only steals bases but was -- according to a study in "The Bill James Handbook" -- the best baserunner in the majors last year.
How good was Jackie Robinson? If he played in 2007, he would rank among the very best hitters and baserunners in the National League, and he would deserve a Gold Glove at a key defensive position. That's how good he was.
First of all, what first basemen are you talking about? Second of all, stop looking at just batting average.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
Nobody's talking about where he's put in the lineup. WE're talking about his value relative to the other available players at his position.Quote:
That is what I am saying. There are guys who aren't in the hall that put up far better numbers and were just as valuable in the lineup and the clubhouse as Mr. Robinson. When you look at a lineup do you really care what position the guy is that is hitting leadoff? No, you just want him to get on base and steal a few every now and then and let the meat drive him in. When a manager makes their lineup they don't hit Robinson 4th because "Wow, he's a great hitter for a second baseman!"
So he's the 9th best second basemen of all time (according to what, by the way?), and you don't think he's a great player?Quote:
He is good, he ranks #9 among 2B of all time, which is nothing to scoff at.
Robinson's candidacy breaks down into two strata:
If judged solely on the numbers and disregarding the historical situation, his candidacy would be borderline.
Go down to "Compare Stats" at Baseball-Reference.com http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/robinja02.shtml
and you'll see him compared to Jeff Cirillo, Joe Randa and Edgardo Alfonso.
He deserves to be in the HOF for his iconic status, for what he had to endure and overcome and what he meant to the game of baseball and for America. Certainly, far less deserving players are in who didn't have to deal with the obstacles he did.
Look at how those are calculated. You can't trust his comparables because of his short career. Similarity scores actually take into account number of games played and number of at bats, and are mostly based on counting stats, which are directly dependant on playing time. They also don't even adjust for on-base percentage...Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
This is crude, but just look at it:
Jackie Robinson - .311/.409/.474, 197 stolen bases, 5 top 3 finishes in OBP, 8 times in the top 16 in MVP voting (in 10 seasons),
Jeff Cirillo - .298/.368/.432, 61 stolen bases, 0 MVP votes
Edgardo Alfonzo - .284/.357/.425, 53 stolen bases, 3 top 15 finishes in MVP in 12 seasons
Joe Randa - .284/.339/.426, 42 stolen bases, 0 MVP votes
Though I agree that Rizzuto might be a tad overrated, he was the starting shortstop on 9 pennants and 7 world champions.Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGoYanks
The point is that if you were to remove Robinson from the lineup, you would have to replace him with another second baseman. So, the only fair comparison would be to compare him to that other second baseman, not the outfielders against whom he is not competing for his lineup spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
Simpy put, you can't compare a second baseman's bat to a first baseman's bat because they are not competing for the same job. If the average production among players was equal among all positions, then you probably could. The fact is, since second base is a position that has historically provided less offense than other positions, we can't use the same criteria to determine what makes a good second baseman as we use to determine what makes a good first baseman.
Argue with BR about the comparisons, not me. I didn't choose them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Besides, weren't you the one telling me you were able to judge ANY player's worthiness on stats alone, even those before you were born? BR seems to be saying that if you put Jackie's stat lines on a sheet of paper and didn't tell anyone first who the player was, they'd see Edgardo Alfonso, not Joe Morgan.
Plus now you're throwing out subjective things like MVP awards? When I bring up MVP awards for Andre Dawson you sniff "doesn't count, it's subjective". Now you use it to justify Robinson? Which is it?
This is pretty simple to explain, really. First, third, left and right field aren't difficult positions to play, so pretty much anyone on the team can play them on the field. With that being the case, through high schools, colleges, and the minor league system managers tend to put their weaker fielders into those positions. Players like that, that can't really play up the middle, had better have a big bat otherwise why play them? Therefore, it's pretty common to find batters who have good offensive skills playing the corners, while there are only average bats playing up the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
Each player is required to take a position in the batting order though, so an up the middle player with great batting skills is much more valuable than a corner position player who can hit well, since their much rarer.
That's not at all what similarity scores are about.Quote:
BR seems to be saying that if you put Jackie's stat lines on a sheet of paper and didn't tell anyone first who the player was, they'd see Edgardo Alfonso, not Joe Morgan.
See the rest here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/ab...milarity.shtmlQuote:
Similarity Scores
Similarity scores are not my concept. Bill James introduced them nearly 15 years ago, and I lifted his methodology from his book The Politics of Glory (p. 86-106). To compare one player to another, start at 1000 points and then you subtract points based on the statistical differences of each player.
13 Gold Gloves. 4-1 SB-CS ratio. 2-1 BB-SO ratio. Widely held as "The greatest Defensive Player of all time?" Not overrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by bjohn13
I love how a discussion of baseball and a particular player can go in so many different directions. So this thread could go on and on and on forever. Let's declare Robinson worthy of the hall and leave it at that!
Jackie Robinson is, if anything, underrated as a player.
Consider the following:
1. He is 6th all time in OBP by a second baseman behind only Hornsby, Collins, Bishop, Childs, and Stanky.
2. He is 5th all time in SLG by a second baseman behind only Hornsby, Soriano, Kent, and Gehringer.
3. He is tied for 5th all time in OPS+ for a second baseman with Joe Morgan behind Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins, and Fred Dunlap (a 19th century player with a short career who had his best year in the Union Association). Overall, he had a 311/409/474 BA/OBP/SLG line.
As well, he was an excellent baserunner, played until he was 37 years old, retired when he was still a very good player, was very versatile (excelling at several positions), and most importantly was an excellent fielder.
The last point is an especially important one, because it shows why Robinson was so great. There are many players who are excellent hitters, or excellent fielders. However, it is rare to have a player be a great fielder and a great hitter.
Additionally, if you want to consider 'counting stats', add about 4 or 5 years worth of stats to his 'totals' based on the concept of age 25-29 peak to consider what he would have done without segregation and the war.
On a BM point, could there be a way to include Negro League players who didn't get into MLB in the historical amateur drafts, as if the color line never existed. Players like Josh Gibson, I'm sure could be given ratings that reflect their talent and entered into the draft in the appropriate year. It seems possible because BM already has some Japanese players listed as minor leaguers in some years for teams that actually signed them from Japan a few years later.
I'm just saying. He's not in line with Jeff Cirillo and Edgardo Alfonzo.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
I said that you can largely tell how good a player is based on his stts.Quote:
Besides, weren't you the one telling me you were able to judge ANY player's worthiness on stats alone, even those before you were born?
Yes, because Joe Morgan played 20 years, and Jackie Robinson palyed 10. Pure counting stats, Jacke Robinson is right in line with Alfonzo and them.Quote:
BR seems to be saying that if you put Jackie's stat lines on a sheet of paper and didn't tell anyone first who the player was, they'd see Edgardo Alfonso, not Joe Morgan.
First, I qualified my statement with "This is crude." Secondly, MVP voting can be used as a crude way to determine where a player stood in relation to the rest of his league. Jackie Robinson's continual finishing in the top of the MVP voting shows that he was an excellent player, whereas Cirillo and what not, they never were good enough to even garner one mvp vote. Andre Dawson was a very good player, I don't think he's worthy of the Hall of Fame, but he was very good. Jackie Robinson's MVP voting and what not aren't the reason I think he is in the hall of fame. I wasn't using that to show why he shold be in the HOF, but rather, using it to compare him to lesser players.Quote:
Plus now you're throwing out subjective things like MVP awards? When I bring up MVP awards for Andre Dawson you sniff "doesn't count, it's subjective". Now you use it to justify Robinson? Which is it?
My point is, saying he's on par with Jeff Cirillo and Edgardo Alfonzo really diminishes him. The similarity scores are based purely on counting stats (okay, with adjusting for batting average and slugging, im still boggled by how they dont even adjust for on-base percentage...), and since Jackie only played 10 years, he's going to have players on his similar players list according to B-R that put up similar counting stats, and that's a very bad way to evaluate a player.