Jackie Robinson overrated

[bjohn13]

Why's everyone picking on the infielders

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.

[LetsGoYanks]

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.

Want overrated? Phil Rizzuto...

[RickD]

Man...Oh Man...lets talk about someone truly overrated.....Barry Bonds!!!!!

[RickD]

Well I'd rather we debate Bonds then legends like Robinson and Smith.

[HoustonGM]

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

See, yeah, first basemen at shortstop wouldnt be aboveaverage because he'd be horrible ast fielding.

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.

[ohms_law]

Why is this in the mods forum?

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...

But, you're right. This doesn't really belong here, and I'm not sure that the OP could find the post again anyway.

[jcbarr]

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.

[dps]

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.

[ohms_law]

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

[Red Sox Fan 734]

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

[Wassit3]

Add on to that that he could hit at least as well as an average offensive player and he has outstanding value.

.311 is an average hitter???

[jcbarr]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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:

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.

Also see: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/jackie...ory?id=2836790

[HoustonGM]

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

First of all, what first basemen are you talking about? Second of all, stop looking at just batting average.

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!"

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.

He is good, he ranks #9 among 2B of all time, which is nothing to scoff at.

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?

[TexanBob]

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.