You were the first.....so what? What's so great about that? I understand folks want to invent & innovate, but simply being the first person to do something is completely unimportant 99.9% of the time, fellas. It really is. Picasso was the first douchebag to paint like an alcoholic retard, so what? He was just a drunk looking to make some easy money. Neil Armstrong, first man to step foot on the moon....? Who cares? If not him, someone else, right? Jackie Robinson, first black man in MLB. So what??... If not him, then it would've been Larry Doby, or Satchel Page or another guy. Don't get me wrong, Jackie was a great player, and I'm probably the only one who'll say this, but his career was completely over-shadowed by the fact he was the first black player in Major League Baseball. The guy legitimately put up Hall of Fame numbers, but all people care about is "breaking the color barrier.""He was the FIRST though!" "And being the FIRST is the most important thing in the world!"Its a complete disservice to him as a player.

Listen, being the "first" is only of any relevance if it wouldn't have otherwise been done, AND has a widespread positive impact on society. Otherwise, simply being the "first" is of little-to-no value. People don't seem to understand that. Once upon a time, some fool picked up a turd in the forest and ate it. The first man ever to do so. He's no hero. He's no champion. He's just some jackass. Nothing more than that. Some jackass with a turd in his mouth. One of you boyses ancestors no doubt. It just doesn't matter most of the time. And I hate when folks use that as a way to emphasize an individual's level of importance. Its usually a load of horse****. Being the "first" doesn't mean anything most of the time.

i was the first reply to this gay thread

I was first to bang your mom.

You watch your mouth, tough guy.

No he didn't. 140 HRs, 760 RBIs in his career. He hit for a good average. That's about the extent of it.

Jeff Kent also played 2B, put up 377 HRs, 1518 RBIs, .290 avg, and an .855 OPS.... also won 1 MVP award like Jackie as well. Kent only received 46% of votes in his final year on the ballot.

Sure Kent played a few more years, but he didn't play twice as many years as Robinson while he's more than doubled HRs and RBIs of him.


Robinson is literally in the HOF because he's black and no other reason dead ass srs

Actually super legit. Just be great. First doesn’t matter

Being the first is fine.

Being the first gay leprechaun with Hepatitis B on a Tuesday... not notable.

After the first first they just start adding extra criteria to create more firsts.

Fuk I thought we were rid of this retard years ago

This x100

Jackie didn't make it to the majors until his late 20s and was instantly one of, if not, the best second-basemen in the game. His career WAR is just under 70, and that's with only a 10-year career. Why would he not be a HOFer? Career totals are only one aspect when it comes to judging a player's value; and its not even the most important aspect.

For the record, I think Kent belongs in the HOF as well. Unfortunately, he played during a questionable era and was rumored not to be the most liked fella around.

The worst part of it all there was little adversity surrounding him

He spent 1 whole season in the negro leagues before some old white guy decided he wanted to make a statement.

There wasn’t some endless struggle for Jackie trying to break into the majors. It was basically just right place right time.

It honestly might be the most underwhelming story of breaking a barrier down that there is lol

based

The guy averaged a WAR just under 7.0/season over the course of a decade. If he wasn't in the Hall, he'd easily be the best clean player not in the Hall.

His career WAR doesn't make sense to be honest. I don't know what it's predicated upon. It must be vastly propped up by defense. The reality is WAR isn't perfect. It's a formula and it does a decent job but it's got some weird outliers in there too.

Bob Johnson who played around the same era also has a 55 career WAR to Jackie's 64 WAR, and played 13 seasons to Jackie's 11 seasons. Similarly, he posted some good but not great numbers. His line is 288 HRs, 1283 RBIs, .296 avg, and .899 OPS

Oh and he's also not in the HOF btw.


The reality is Jackie wasn't a HOFer. An All-star, sure. He was an All-star without question, but he wasn't a hall of famer. You talk about an 11 year career as well... first off if a guy comes up and has 3 amazing seasons and his career ends on an injury do you put him in the hall of fame? No. Sorry but the hall of fame is on your entire body of work. Didn't last long enough to put up hall of fame numbers? You don't get kudos for a good 11 years and get bonus points for what you could have been projected out to accumulate.

Here's the thing though, you could have given Robinson a 22 year career and doubled all of his stats and they're still pretty pedestrian by Hall of Fame standards. I already gave you Kent's line which more than doubles Robinson's. And yeah Kent probably should be in if I had a vote but he's on the fence I will also admit and he didn't get in. And Robinson falls short of that if we project him to play 22 seasons and just double it all for him as a gift.

Sorry but no bro, Robinson was a good player but not a great player. Not by a long shot. He's the most overblown player in the history of baseball.

Now I see why Robinson's WAR is inflated. He stole a couple bases.

Here's why WAR sucks. Billy Hamilton, a guy who is a career .230 hitter with a .292 OBP, never played a full season because he wasn't reliable enough to be a full time guy, managed to accumulate a career 12 WAR because he was basically a glorified pinch runner for roughly 6 full seasons in the Majors.

Yeah got some bad news, Jackie's WAR is bulsh*t and inflated. Time to stop parading that one stat around like it's the end all.

I don't think Robinson is a HOFer, but Billy Hamilton is not remotely 1/5th as good as Jackie Robinson, yet somehow WAR says he is.


/thread

cliffs:

The speaker is expressing their opinion that being the first at something is unimportant most of the time, citing examples such as Picasso and Neil Armstrong. They believe that if someone else had not done it first, someone else would have eventually.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, my good man. I try not to get into online arguments. Jackie ranks 3rd among second-base HOFers in both on-base & slugging. He played on some very good Dodgers teams as well. The fact that you're comparing inferior players, with more homeruns & RBI, in hopes of supporting your argument doesn't speak well for your stance. Are you against guys like Koufax, Kiner, & Dizzy Dean in the Hall? All short careers. Its not just about total homeruns & runs-driven-in, there's more to a career than that. If he's not in your top ten second-basemen of all time, then you simply aren't a baseball fan.

It was also "inflated" because he was a great defender. That's part of the game. That adds value to a player.


EDIT: Juan Pierre: 614 career steals, 14-year career,

Career WAR........17.3.

Theory doesn't really hold up well.

op I think you’re the first person to say that