Wow, a WARP sighting.

b-r WAR has him at 63 which, I note, is a lot higher than 42 ... which would seem to be WAAP, not WARP? But then b-r has him as still a ridiculously good 2B at 37 (+19!) which I gotta say seems a bit unlikely. Oh wait, I see, the 42 is just the WAR at 2B, good on ya son!

And I guess I never realized how little time he spent at 2B -- less than 60% of his starts came there. He is a tough one to rank overall but jiminy christmas 42 WAR in just 5 seasons at 2B. Morgan beats but yikes-a-monkey!

In addition to cliff-diving, 2B seem to have this strange thing where they (at least the HoF ones) go nuts from ages 28 to 33:

Hornsby 58 WAR
Morgan 57
Robinson 45
Collins 39
Gehringer 38
Biggio 38
Sandberg 34
Alomar 33

and although he missed my cutoff for games at 2B, Carew had 40. Even guys like Lopes, Durham and Polanco are 21-24 over those 6 years.

If you look at all-time WAR from ages 28 to 33, you have 2B at 2, 4, 12, 14 (Lajoie), 18 (Carew), 21, 23 and 25. That's 8 out of 25. Compared to 3 CF, 3 3B and only 1 SS.

I've never quite understood why the Dodgers sent Jackie to the minors for 1946. At some point during the season, in which he hit .349 with a .468 OBP, couldn't they have called him up? They had Ed Stevens at 1B who hit .242 with 10 homers and 33-year-old Cookie Lavagetto at 3B.

If you look at all-time WAR from ages 28 to 33, you have 2B at 2, 4, 12, 14 (Lajoie), 18 (Carew), 21, 23 and 25. That's 8 out of 25. Compared to 3 CF, 3 3B and only 1 SS.

I think you're in the sweet spot of a guy's physical and experience trajectories. At age 28, it usually means that you're just cresting over your peak physically, but mentally and in terms of experience most good to great players have been in the league for 6-8 years at that point. Maybe the decline point for SS defensively is at a younger age, whereas at 2b you're still not declining physically enough that it affects your fielding.

I've never quite understood why the Dodgers sent Jackie to the minors for 1946. At some point during the season, in which he hit .349 with a .468 OBP, couldn't they have called him up? They had Ed Stevens at 1B who hit .242 with 10 homers and 33-year-old Cookie Lavagetto at 3B.

That's a perfectly logical question to pose if only Robinson had been white. There were many other considerations in play at the time, one of which was that Rickey wanted a chance for the Dodgers to interact with Jackie during Spring training rather than suddenly adding the wild card factor of a "social experiment" into the heat of a red hot pennant race. He wanted to be as close to 110% certain as he could be that Jackie was 100% ready to make the leap.

yeah, I understand that there are sociological factors involved when dealing with Jackie Robinson.

The solution to that would have been to have him interact with the Dodgers in 1946.

That only works if they were certain he'd be a great player in 1946. Had he failed it would have given baseball owners all the excuse they were looking for to keep blacks out of the game. Might have set integration back a few years.

"Maury Allen had him as #2."

Was Maury's ranking pre-Morgan-greatness? His book written in the late 70s?

Had Jackie been white, he still would have been a late starter though. He would have played 1946, might have played a bit in 1945. Probably would have started in the minors and earned a spot later in the season. Before that he was fighting WWII, and before that he was in college and focusing more on other sports.

That only works if they were certain he'd be a great player in 1946.

Branch Rickey handpicked him, so we're starting from a pretty high standard to begin with. I'm pretty sure that intelligent baseball men were well aware that black players were just as good as white players, and that Jackie Robinson was a standard player. And Branch Rickey knew a thing or two about baseball players.

In any event, at some point on his way to demolishing the minors in Montreal they had to be pretty certain he could do better than a guy hitting .242 with no power and no walks.

Branch Rickey handpicked him, so we're starting from a pretty high standard to begin with. I'm pretty sure that intelligent baseball men were well aware that black players were just as good as white players, and that Jackie Robinson was a standard player. And Branch Rickey knew a thing or two about baseball players.

In any event, at some point on his way to demolishing the minors in Montreal they had to be pretty certain he could do better than a guy hitting .242 with no power and no walks.

Right, but as you know, there were those "sociological factors" that made Rickey delay the move until the following Spring. If Robinson had been white, he likely would've been drafted by the NFL or signed by a Major League team as soon as his college class had graduated, and if I had some ham, I could make a ham sandwich.

You can make a pretty good case for Jackie being the top American athlete of the past century.

"top" = ?? If you mean "best", he has Mt Everest to climb to get past the Thorpe/Jim Brown/many others. Most famous? That's got a pile of Ruth/Jordan/types too.

Had Jackie been white, he still would have been a late starter though. He would have played 1946, might have played a bit in 1945. Probably would have started in the minors and earned a spot later in the season. Before that he was fighting WWII, and before that he was in college and focusing more on other sports.

Yup. Robinson missed, at most, one season.

Born in 1919, which puts him in college until 1941, then the war. With no pro experience no way him claims an MLB job right away in 1945.

So, the best case scenario for a "no color-barrier" Robinson is that he crushes the minors in a half-season in '45, and wins a job in spring training of '46.

Somewhere in one of his abstracts, Bill James does a breakdown on Jack Robbie's impact on the defenses that he played with. James came to the conclusion that JR was one of the greatest defensive players of all time...at whatever position he was placed at.

Born in 1919, which puts him in college until 1941, then the war. With no pro experience no way him claims an MLB job right away in 1945.

This assumes that absent segregation, Robinson would have still gone to college rather than going directly to the minors as did almost all of the players of his stature until about two generations later.

Somewhere in one of his abstracts, Bill James does a breakdown on Jack Robbie's impact on the defenses that he played with. James came to the conclusion that JR was one of the greatest defensive players of all time...at whatever position he was placed at.

Is that really possible given that he never played SS or CF?

I'd have to imagine Ozzie Smith would have been a really spiffy fielder at 2B or 3B. Or any elite defensive SS for that matter.

This assumes that absent segregation, Robinson would have still gone to college rather than going directly to the minors as did almost all of the players of his stature until about two generations later.

He was a really good football player, and a very intelligent man. I imagine he goes to college in any case.

Given the salaries of the day, and the tiny % of people with college degrees, a UCLA education was worth a lot more then than a couple of extra years of a baseball career.

This assumes that absent segregation, Robinson would have still gone to college rather than going directly to the minors as did almost all of the players of his stature until about two generations later.

He wasn't primarily a baseball player back then. College was the destination for guys who played football and track & field. I'm not sure when Jackie Robinson became a big deal in baseball. His college stats were not good at all. Did he put himself on the baseball map playing in the military?

You can make a pretty good case for Jackie being the top American athlete of the past century.

"top" = ?? If you mean "best", he has Mt Everest to climb to get past the Thorpe/Jim Brown/many others. Most famous? That's got a pile of Ruth/Jordan/types too.

Forget "most famous", because that's going to change with every generation. The "most famous" American athlete in his time would almost certainly have been Ali or Jordan.

But Jackie's definitely in the discussion for "best", even if it's an impossible question to answer. He was the first four sport varsity athlete (baseball, football, basketball and track) ever at UCLA, where by all accounts baseball was his worst sport. He won the 1940 Men's NCAA long jump championship, and his football prowess was the subject of many a feature story in both black and white newspapers. Of the other major contenders (Thorpe, Brown, Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders), only the last two ever played more than one major pro sport on a high level, but there's little question that Jackie's only barriers to an NFL career were his race and the impending war.

A related side note to this is if you wanted to pick the most accomplished college backfield in history, you'd be hard pressed to top the 1939 UCLA trio of Jackie Robinson, Kenny Washington and Woody Strode. Jackie integrated the Majors in 1947, Kenny integrated the NFL in 1946, and Woody joined Kenny in integrating the NFL and then went on to have a long and successful acting career, winning a Golden Globe award in Sparticus, in addition to having many other substantial and acclaimed roles (such as Sergeant Rutledge, The Professionals, etc.) at a time when good roles for black actors were few and far between. Considering the barriers they faced, that was one hell of a group of college football players.

James came to the conclusion that JR was one of the greatest defensive players of all time...at whatever position he was placed at.

Is that really possible given that he never played SS or CF?

It is if you read the qualifier correctly; it just means that he was one of the best second basemen ever, one of the best third basemen ever, and one of the best left fielders ever. It comes from the Bill Mazeroski comment in the NHBA (which is a weird place to find it). Robinson is 5th all-time in win shares per 1000 innings, among players with at least 3000 innings at second. He played less than that at third, but his win shares/1000 is about 10% higher than the #1 figure among qualifiers at the position. And in left field, his win shares rate is roughly the same as Roberto Clemente's (win shares treat all outfield positions the same), and better than Al Kaline's and Dwight Evans's. The only position at which he doesn't grade out all that well is first base, which is odd... but then, he was playing first base when he was first breaking into the league, and there may have been some slight extenuating circumstances.

Jackie's older brother Mack Robinson was a world-class sprinter (silver medalist behind Jesse Owens in the 1936 Olympic 200m). Mack went to the University of Oregon, and Jackie, just as good an athletics prospect, would absolutely have attended a major track program. (Jackie was NCAA long-jump champion in 1940, and might have been an Olympian himself had there been 1940 or 1944 Olympics.)

As to how he got into baseball . . . well, it wasn't like the NFL was any more integrated than baseball, at the time. Robinson's teammates Woody Strode and Kenny Washington broke the color line there in 1946. At that time, the NBA didn't really exist, and its precursor league the BAA was in its infancy, and segregated to boot. The chance to earn money and become famous in professional baseball was superior. And Jackie Robinson was the kind of athlete who picked up any sport easily. He was a junior tennis champion as a high-schooler. I've heard a story (can't locate it now) about Robinson learning table tennis in the Army, becoming obsessed for a while, winning his base or unit championship before moving on. His military baseball career was unremarkable, as was his baseball record at UCLA, but he had aptitude to spare – and coaches weren't as hung up in those days about players having come up through the culture or system of one particular sport.

Edit: passes Coke to Andy for various small sips :)

But Jackie's definitely in the discussion for "best", even if it's an impossible question to answer. He was the first four sport varsity athlete (baseball, football, basketball and track) ever at UCLA, where by all accounts baseball was his worst sport. He won the 1940 Men's NCAA long jump championship, and his football prowess was the subject of many a feature story in both black and white newspapers. Of the other major contenders (Thorpe, Brown, Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders), only the last two ever played more than one major pro sport on a high level, but there's little question that Jackie's only barriers to an NFL career were his race and the impending war.

Well, Jim Thorpe wasn't a great baseball player, but I hear he didn't alright in the Olympics....seriously, I wouldn't put a WR who ran sprints like Willie Gault in the same class, as those are similar talents, but in his time it's hard to see how you top Thorpe. The decathlon and pentathlon are tough; then he was the greatest football player of his era (and president of the NFL!), then he was a middling major league baseball player. There just aren't any what-ifs, the way there are for Bo Jackson (what if he wasn't hurt) or Jackie Robinson (what if he tried to make the NFL) or Deion (what if he played steadily enough to try to maintain his excellence in his early Braves years instead of letting his hitting go).

Bill James somewhere concludes that Jackie was a much better fielder at second base than his reputation at the time he played would dictate. Billy once ragged him (I guess in the context of a World Series), "Hey, fat boy, if I were on your team, I'd have your job." Which tells you something about Martin's propensity for delusion, maybe, but Jackie was not viewed as a good defensive player at the time he played, I don't think. He also tended to not stay in shape.

Somewhere in one of his abstracts, Bill James does a breakdown on Jack Robbie's impact on the defenses that he played with. James came to the conclusion that JR was one of the greatest defensive players of all time...at whatever position he was placed at.

Is that really possible given that he never played SS or CF?

I'd have to imagine Ozzie Smith would have been a really spiffy fielder at 2B or 3B. Or any elite defensive SS for that matter.

Well, JR did have HOF level players in front of him at SS(Pee Wee Reese) and CF (Duke Snider). That's a pretty good excuse not to play either position, especially when the Dodgers had larger needs elsewhere.

Anywho, James rated JR as the 3rd best defensive 2b of all time with between 3000-9999 innings with a ranking of 6.00 defensive win shares per 1000 innings (Maz is at 6.18).
An average (Post 1940) 3b comes in at 3.22 WS per 1000 with Clete Boyer having the post 1940 high of 4.97.
Jack Robby is at 5.52
James-"He's off the charts. Nobody else is even in the same zone."
In the OF?
"He played about 1,175 in the OF, mostly in LF. He rates as sensational there, for a LF"... with..."a per inning rate that wouldn't be bad if he was a CF."
"He also played about 1,665 innings at 1b, rating as just above average"
"Still, I think the record would suggest Robinson may in fact have been a far better defensive player than most folks think he was. If it's a statistical illusion of some kind, it's an illusion that chases him all over the diamond."


I'm not giving a personal opinion, just passing on BJ's comments.
Source
The new historical abstract pg 502 (Under the Maz comments of all places)http://books.google.com/books?id=3uSbqUm8hSAC&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=bill+james+new+historical+abstract+jackie+robinson&source=bl&ots=1ln5md4Kyi&sig=oa5i_jkC8q1UnZAARlFCyC-Y7gE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dSqMT--WA4idgQex6ZjQCQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f;=false


Edited to add-Coke or carbonated beverage of his choice to Bob Dernier

Greg (#22),

I'm not claiming that any of these athletes under discussion were the all-time greatest, but only that Jackie Robinson belongs in the discussion. A lot of it depends on whether you consider well above average accomplishment in two major sports more significant than winning a decathlon. By the former standard, it's hard to beat even Bo Jackson's injury-riddled career, but by the latter standard it's probably Thorpe. Robinson and several others jump up a notch if your consider what they accomplished within the framework of their constrictions, both racial and / or war-related.

But if you put them all in a neutral arena or playing field and had them all demonstrate their talents over a wide variety of sports, my money would be on Jim Brown to show the highest level of skill in the greatest number of events. That's purely based on instinct, of course, and there's no way of proving it.

He also tended to not stay in shape

Robinson was not in great shape by his mid-30s, but: in 1957 he was diagnosed with Type II diabetes, which shortened his life – and, given that he was probably playing through the onset of the condition in the mid-1950s, shortened his athletic career as well.

If Jackie Robinson were playing now, he'd be known as "J-Rob," right?

As a player, I see him as kind of "Chase Utley, but with slightly better D, a slightly better peak, and far greater versatility." Which is pretty darn good indeed.

If Jackie Robinson were playing now, he'd be known as "J-Rob," right?

Thanks for sharing that (groan), and I'm afraid it's all too true. And it's a good thing he didn't go to Seton Hall instead of UCLA. "J-Rob from The Hall" would've been too much even for me.

Edited to add-Coke or carbonated beverage of his choice to Bob Dernier

(Clears throat)

Didn't mean to diss ya Eric. Would you care for a cold beverage or a hot cuppa?

But if you put them all in a neutral arena or playing field and had them all demonstrate their talents over a wide variety of sports, my money would be on Jim Brown to show the highest level of skill in the greatest number of events. That's purely based on instinct, of course, and there's no way of proving it.

I agree with this hypothetical--who else gets called the greatest ever at two different sports (lacrosse and football)? I'm sure this hyperbole there--and it's hard to compare people of Brown's era to ours but as a pure talent, surely he'd be up there.

But if you put them all in a neutral arena or playing field and had them all demonstrate their talents over a wide variety of sports,

What if they were on Proton playing The Game?

Hell, Jim Brown is probably the greatest athlete alive - and I don't mean in the abstract, I mean right the very second.

An interesting thought game. Did Brown dominate football in his era as much as Ruth did in his? I'd have to say probably not,

If Jackie Robinson were playing now, he'd be known as "J-Rob," right?

If Jackie Robinson were playing now, would he get a $300 million contract next season? Would he be known as the "Rod Carew with power?"

No, Jim Brown did not dominate football in his time as much as Ruth did baseball. But that's because he didn't put in 5 years of All-Pro quarterback before he started out at RB. As a running back, I have never seen the like. He was the size of an offensive guard at the time (230-240), but could run as fast as any WR or DB. Oddly enough, he was not a trailblazer at the position. Marion Motley preceded him with the Browns, before the Browns were in the NFL. Motley was even bigger, but not quite as fast. Still, he had the same steamroller effect. You couldn't outpower him or outrun him. Brown took what Motley had been doing and ran it all the way up the flagpole. - Brock Hanke

Brown also didn't dominate on Ruth's level for the simple reason that football is a team game, and the Browns from 1957 to 1965 were a good team but not nearly as good as the Browns teams during the 1946-55 Otto Graham / Marion Motley era, when they won 7 championships in 10 years and played for the title in the other 3. During the late 50's the Giants had Sam Huff key on Brown with remarkable effectiveness**, but just giving such an assignment to your middle linebacker was a testament to just how much Brown was feared.

**In the 1958 Eastern Conference playoff game the Giants held him to (IIRC) 13 yards in 10 carries, a continuation of what they'd done in the last 59 minutes of the previous week's matchup, which was the game that forced the playoff.

Did Brown dominate football in his era as much as Ruth did in his?

No, but he could score more goals than Wayne Gretzky

in his time it's hard to see how you top Thorpe. The decathlon and pentathlon are tough; then he was the greatest football player of his era (and president of the NFL!), then he was a middling major league baseball player.

A couple years ago I saw a show on PBS where they uncovered the fact that Thorpe also played basketball professionally, barnstorming around the northeast in the late 1920's with a team named after himself. Who knows how good he was but it's still ridiculous that he played all 3 major North American sports professionally and was the Olympic champion in the 2 events that most showcase versatility.

Jolly - I remember that 1958 playoff game. It's the first football game I remember (I was ten years old), and the only reason I remember it was that my dad, who had played in high school, pointed out to me how there was one game being played by ten guys on each side, and also another game being played by Huff and Brown, at about 1 1/2 times the speed of the main game. My dad said the only reason the tactic worked was that Huff was the only linebacker in the league who could either catch Brown or tackle him one on one. Paul Brown (the owner/coach) tried to use the other parts of his offense, but some way the Giants had figured out how to deal with not having their "best linebacker in the game" actually doing anything but chasing Jim Brown. It was really funny watching Brownie linemen trying to get to Huff before Huff could get to Brown. Sort of like watching a single offensive tackle, without a double-team, try to deal with Big Daddy Libscomb (who weighed 288 in a day where that probably was 15 pounds more than anyone else at any position, and could outrun scrambling quarterbacks like Fran Tarkenton). - Brock

I've actually looked into Brown's lacrosse career. I think his dominance at the game is somewhat overstated. I mean he was a second team all-American as a junior and a first team all-American as a senior.

He was second in the nation in goals scored as a senior. More impressive than this sounds because he was a midfielder. It's kind of like Bobby Orr's contending for the scoring title as a defenseman.

Except Orr was a contender at the highest level whenever he was healthy. Brown had a single great year in what was basically a man against boys situation. Plus he had a specific move that's now no longer permitted (used to thumb the ball into his stick and just run through the defense):

Withholding Ball from Play SECTION 13. When a loose ball is on the ground, a player may not lie on the ball, trap it with his crosse longer than is necessary for him to control the ball and pick it up with one continuous motion, or withhold the ball from play in any other manner. A player, players or team may not deliberately withhold the ball from play. Repeated actions of this nature may be ruled unsportsmanlike conduct. (See 5-10-d.) Note: A player in possession of the ball who holds his crosse against any part of his body, thus preventing the normal dislodgment of the ball, is illegally withholding the ball from play. The glove hand cannot grasp any portion of the head of the crosse. This is intended to cover faceoffs and a player in possession of the ball who is “thumbing” the ball or choking up and grasping the plastic portion of the crosse.

(Sometimes called the Jim Brown rule)

One thing I didn't know before today. Brown also kicked in college.

As for versatile athletes there's also Lionel Conacher. A good enough boxer to get knocked out by Jack Dempsey (supposedly only an exhibition but ...). Played for a Grey Cup winner (Canadian Football) in 1921. Played baseball as high as the IL (played for a championship winner in 1926), played for two Stanley Cup winners (and was a first team all-star in 1934), won the Ontario lightweight wrestling championship at 16, and at 20 won the Canadian amateur light-heavyweight boxing championship. Was the top scorer in his only season of box lacrosse (playing in the off-season during his hockey career) . Gave that up to wrestle professionally.

(He played some rugby -- successfully. It's hard to separate his football and rugby careers because the ORFU was transitioning from rugby to football around this time)

I've actually looked into Brown's lacrosse career. I think his dominance at the game is somewhat overstated. I mean he was a second team all-American as a junior and a first team all-American as a senior.

He was second in the nation in goals scored as a senior. More impressive than this sounds because he was a midfielder. It's kind of like Bobby Orr's contending for the scoring title as a defenseman.

Except Orr was a contender at the highest level whenever he was healthy. Brown had a single great year in what was basically a man against boys situation. Plus he had a specific move that's now no longer permitted (used to thumb the ball into his stick and just run through the defense):

A lacrosse-playing friend told me about the same thing, that Brown was as successful as he was because he found a way to play lacrosse like a running back. It certainly fits with the image of Jim Brown that I have more than slinging the ball around like Gretzky would.

In the 1958 Eastern Conference playoff game the Giants held him to (IIRC) 13 yards in 10 carries, a continuation of what they'd done in the last 59 minutes of the previous week's matchup, which was the game that forced the playoff.

jeez Andy--you just HAD to remind me, dincha?

One thing I didn't know before today. Brown also kicked in college.

One more reason I think a team of eleven Jim Browns beats a team of eleven anybody-elses.

I've actually looked into Brown's lacrosse career. I think his dominance at the game is somewhat overstated.

He was no Bunk Moreland.