Jackie Robinson overrated

[HoustonGM]

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.

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...

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

[bjohn13]

Want overrated? Phil Rizzuto...

Though I agree that Rizzuto might be a tad overrated, he was the starting shortstop on 9 pennants and 7 world champions.

[bjohn13]

So if we moved Jackie to the outfield he would have had a .330 average and hit 30 homeruns every year?

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.

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.

[TexanBob]

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...

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

Argue with BR about the comparisons, not me. I didn't choose them.

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?

[ohms_law]

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

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.

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.

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.

That's not at all what similarity scores are about.

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.

See the rest here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/ab...milarity.shtml

[Pavelb1]

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.

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.

[RickD]

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!

[Llama Josh VII]

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.

[Dwright5]

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.

[HoustonGM]

Argue with BR about the comparisons, not me. I didn't choose them.

I'm just saying. He's not in line with Jeff Cirillo and Edgardo Alfonzo.

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?

I said that you can largely tell how good a player is based on his stts.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[michaelg123789]

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

Is this THE Jim Colyer from San Diego, SD?

[ohms_law]

I hope not...

[jcbarr]

Okay apparently no one is arguing the same point and barely anyone is on the same page with the argument.

I'm not looking at just batter average, I'm talking about many other things. Debates like this are pointless though, because no one is ever going to change anyone elses mind. You can present all the evidence or reasoning behind any argument and someone is always going to have a reason for why that thought is wrong.

I have never said he wasn't a great player, I never said he couldn't hit, all I am saying is that I think he is overrated.

Compared to other players from his time and even his position, I feel that he his overrated by many people, but who really cares anyway...

[ohms_law]

If you remove race and the situation that he was playing in completely, and look at just the stats... sure, he's a marginal Hall Of Famer. Doing that though, you may as well completely ignore everything and use a computer to make HOF selections. Set a standard based on some specific criteria, and every player that ever played either meets it or doesn't.
*shrug*

[RickD]

I agree with that Ohms...my biggest beef was with the statement that he was overrated in the history books. That wasn't true. As a player only I still think he was the top side of marginal...he had that intrinsic value like a Derek Jeter.