Jackie Robinson Day
The importance of Jackie Robinson, and the things he helped make possible for millions upon millions of people, transcends baseball. Easily one of the most-- if not the most-- important cultural figures of the the twentieth century, in terms of helping the world progress toward becoming a freer, fairer, and more just place for all of its people, fans of baseball should never be without pride that he was part of our game-- and a pretty kick fucking ass player, to boot.
I know you know all that, but it genuinely is important to remember and honour it.
Today the Jays and Twins-- like every other team in the majors-- will all wear number 42, in honour of Robinson, on this the 62nd anniversary of his first ever game with the Dodgers. And I don't think it's too petty of us Canadians to take a little extra pride in the fact that his "professional" career began in our country, with the Triple-A Montreal Royals.
If anybody asks you why the hell they're all wearing the same number, don't hesitate to elaborate on what an important, impressive person he was, instead of responding with a simple "he was the first black player." It's much bigger than that.
MLB.com has some great resources dedicated to Jackie. And his Wikipedia page is well worth a read as well.
Now here's a video that, considering the site you're on, you'll probably find to be a fitting tribute.
Posts
28 rational and reasonable comments:
I find it great that you posted this considering you guys hate me and therefore hate black people.
and jews.
The terrible part is how long the barrier lasted. Besides the obvious fact that it was disgusting, we'll always wonder just how good Josh Gibson might have been in the majors.
And Oscar Charleston. And Satchel Paige at his best. Just to name a few....
It was only a matter of time before Cito found this place, and commented on the rampant racism.
Call me a racist fuck, but I am sick and tired of celebrating Jackie Robinson every fucking year, it gets a bit much. Just like all the Holocaust movies come Oscar time. Nobody is trivializing these periods of history and suggesting that we forget them, but do we really need to be force-fed these memories EVERY FUCKING YEAR. It gets tiresome at some point.
Cito Dorito 4 Prez
You are a racist fuck.
Look, somebody did something truly amazing and monumental in a much larger sense than hitting a bunch of home runs, and he did it through baseball. I'd say it's more than OK for the game to celebrate it. God knows there's more than enough shit in the game's past that ought not to be celebrated. This is a fantastic tradition to let continue as part of the game. And shit, it's one day a year. Get over it.
When I clicked through to his Wikipedia page, the first thing that caught me eye was "Member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, First Ballot, Vote: 77.5%". What the fuck were the other 22.5% thinking!?! I can understand a few racist assholes since this was back in '62, but 22% blows my mind. I also realize no one has ever been unanimous, but I would've expected that to be at least 90%. I hope guys who didn't vote for him are ashamed of themselves.
I'm as racist as everyone else is willing to admit they're not. But government policy has been training us not to be racist, because in order to stay competitive and keep our GDP growing, Canadians have to work together. Plus is makes people feel good, so fuck it
Happy Jackie Robinson day !
Great person, good article now get the comments back to as they were before you lose all your advertising revenue.
Manute Bol:
It's unfortunate you bring this up, but you asked. Far be it from me to minimize Jackie Robinson Day, because it is not about whether he was a Hall of Famer or not.
That said, just look at his stats. Very good batting average for a 10 year career, but otherwise ... one MVP season.
Jackie deserves to be in the Hall because of what he accomplished as a whole, but it is not surprising that many people might have decided that he did not have a HoF career. This would not necessarily make them racist. Far better career stats have been passed by on the first ballot never to resurface.
Manute, while I certainly don't want to discount the possibility of racism having an effect there, the percentages in previous generations seem to be less on the whole (though I say that anecdotally-- haven't bothered to go and look). You only in recent years started seeing guys getting close to being unanimous selections, because, I imagine, there's enough data now to have a better concept of what makes a hall-of-famer.
You guys are definitely right, it just seems insane to me to decide that Robinson doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. But I guess that has nothing to do with him as a player.
Even Babe Ruth only got 95%. It just makes no sense. Apparently some people just like to be contrarian.
The BBWAA is infamous for the amount of personal bias that the writers have allowed to cloud their awards process.
While I wouldn't chalk up all of his non-votes on the first ballot to blatant racism, i'd wager there were quite a few members that in their minds were not going to allow a black man to become the first person to be unanimous. You still see this mentality today among some of the more ancient members in that they make a point of purposely not allowing a unanimous first balloter just to avoid setting the precedent.
Whaddya think about that??????????????
Anon: WRONG.
39th among all HOFs in OPS and 21st in OBP. He didn't start his career until late (28) don't forget, and his first 8 years in OPS+: 111, 118, 152, 140, 154, 150, 139, 135.
That's nuts for a 2B. Ryne Sandberg's top 3 OPS years, for example were 146, 140 and 140. For his career: 114-- Robinson: 132.
I know people weren't using those stats back then, but I don't have time to go though counting stats right now and factor out what's what. But we can safely assume that Robinson was definitely HOF calibre.
For instance:
Joe Morgan: .271 .392 .427 .819 132
Jackie Robinson: .311 .409 .474 .883 132
I don't doubt that racism cost some votes for Jackie - perhaps more than any other HoFer or potential HoFer. It just seems unlikely that it's the only thing.
Look at Henderson most recently. You could say the racist vote kept him from 100%, but the one writer said he basically voted against Henderson's induction to maintain the fact that nobody gets in with 100%.
I don't like it, but it's sort of like the difference between whether the vote implies 1.) perfection, or simply 2.) unanimity that the player has achieved a certain level. I think it is the latter, but the former seems to be in the minds of some writers.
That makes it sort of like a university research paper in Social Sciences or Humanities - most profs won't give 100% because the paper can't be "perfect". It kind of makes sense, but it's still stupid.
Stoeten:
That's an awfully big WRONG for a comparison between a 10 year career and a 22 year career. Morgan has double most of the career stats that Robinson does. Even Sandberg's case is a complete career - though one could argue that Robinson should have started playing before his late 20s too.
In any case, I never said he wasn't HoF calibre (hell, if Jim Rice is HoF caliber, what isn't?). I said that it's not surprising a good number of writers wouldn't see his numbers as a hall of fame career.
Hey Stoet, this post was just for me wasn't it?
Fuck off Parkes
Fuck off Stoten
Call me a racist fuckYou're a racist fuck!! You're a racist and a fuck! A useless one at that.
Racism is a part of the culture. It gives us cheap labour in the form of immigrants with graduate degrees serving burgers to white bloggers...it is how we have stolen and exploited this land...and this "spot the racist" game is a tool to mask the continuity of racism and how essential it is to the function of our society. I'd think twice before auto-calling someone a racist when it is just a reverberation of the culture.
" though one could argue that Robinson should have started playing before his late 20s too."
Exactly, if he wasn't good enough to get in before 28, that is something that should be taken into consideration when voting for the HoF.
Mates, you know what i think of Dorito Cito head BUT Jackie Robinson was something else. They are pushing Jackie Robinson down our throats in hoping to lure in African American kids to start playing the sport, fine. It's getting to be too much with every player wearing 42 etc so on so forth.It's being done for political reasons and to attract young Black kids back to the sport. Even ,I Aryan rube head Supreme don't mind them doing that BUT the Mets naming the Rotunda in the new Shitti field is another thing. The Unryan Met owner has a Jackie obsession along with the Dodgers. The lowlife junkyard field Shitty Field(it is literally surrounded by junkyards) has a guy who never played for the freaking Mets as the main attraction as you walk in! Not Mays, not even one Negro player who played for the Mets BUT Robinson! WTF?!! I might love my race too much BUT what the fuck is a Jackie Rotunda doing in the new Shea? What next....a Cito Dorito rotunda in the Skydome? I perish the thought.
A true Blue , Jays Fan
PS People thrown around the word racist too much IMO. Come down to NYC and spend a week in the Bronx where those beasts called the Yankees play. Any Kanadian worth his salt will recoil in terror at the poverty, the nature of the people living there and basically call out the USA as a piece of shit country.The Bronx looks like Berlin after the Amerikan, Russian and British bastards blew up my glorious capital! That's why, I love Kanada, nice horny French girls, nice clean streets , and THE BEST TITTY BARS IN THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD!
Also Doritohead posted here? Doritohead, I appreciate the fact that you and Gino got the bloody team to hit, can you let Ms Butterworth manage the pitching changes? Pretty please? I will stop asking for your exile from Kanada back to your country, Texas!
Anon with the WRONG: point taken. You're definitely right that voters would have been looking at the lack of counting stats.
Hey Stoet, this post was just for me wasn't it?
Certainly not. We may be really white, but we're also young urban Toronto douche bags-- which, I think, means we at least have the right ideas when it comes to such things.
I'd think twice before auto-calling someone a racist when it is just a reverberation of the culture.
I'd think twice before taking anything in the comments section of a blog that seriously. Unless it's saying some argument I made was wrong-- then it's fucking DEADLY SERIOUS.
" though one could argue that Robinson should have started playing before his late 20s too."
Exactly, if he wasn't good enough to get in before 28, that is something that should be taken into consideration when voting for the HoF.
Um... you guys can't be serious, right? Heard of a thing called World War Two?
Call me a racist fuckYou're a racist fuck!! You're a racist and a fuck! A useless one at that.
Holy shit, me and bold-quoting anonymous commenter agree on something? Truly this is a monumental day.
Whoa - I never meant that he wasn't good enough to play before age 28. I meant that he was kept from playing before age 28. One could argue that Jackie clearly would have had the career stats (or likely would have) if he had started around his early 20s, and he probably was good enough. WW2 was on, but it's also likely that racism would have kept him out of the bigs till about that time anyway no matter how good he was (i.e. Satchel Paige etc.)
Anyway, the Hall is a crazy thing -- we shouldn't even discuss it as though it is a logical institution, because it barely is. HOwever, as Stoeten has pointed out, there is a degree of logic to it which is a bit clearer as it has a longer history.
Good points. Fair enough.
Post a Comment