Jackie Robinson Sucked

[Kermit]

LMAO shows how much of a nitwit you are.

That's a team accomplishment not an individual one.

Regardless, it is still an accomplishment that Robinson has that Asburn dos not.

[NYSportsGuy210]

Okay. I'll try and explain it to you slowly.

You're right. Ashburn and Maz were not inducted because of their race, they were inducted because of their numbers.

AND.

Robinson's NUMBERS ARE BETTER THAN BOTH ASHBURN AND MAZEROSKI.

Follow? Do you need it to be further explained to you?

lol.....don't bother. People from Philadelphia seriously are so stupid.

[PhillyFlyers]

lol.....don't bother. People from Philadelphia seriously are so stupid.

Says a NY fan LMFAO.

[Kermit]

You keep jammering on about who had more hits, well who had more RBI's? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the guy who played 5 more years.

Asburn 15 years 586 RBI's
Robinson 10 years 734 RBI's

You know, with the exception of hits, Robinson's numbers are better in just about every way.

[SamDiamond]

Says a NY fan LMFAO.

Didn't you admit to being a Yankee fan?

[PhillyFlyers]

You keep jammering on about who had more hits, well who had more RBI's? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the guy who played 5 more years.

Asburn 15 years 586 RBI's
Robinson 10 years 734 RBI's

You know, with the exception of hits, Robinson's numbers are better is just about every way.

You're an idiot. This post proves your ignorance in this matter.

Ashburn wasn't an RBI man, he was a singles hitter. You clearly have no understanding of their respective roles on their teams.

And no, Robinson's numbers weren't better.

Ashburn had more batting titles, more hits, more walks, more doubles, more triples, more stolen bases.

[SamDiamond]

You're an idiot.

It's somehow Ashburn's and Mazeroski's fault Robinson didn't get to the big leagues until he was 28?

You tried to say he had better numbers. He didn't.

What the fukk is the pointless point you're trying to make here moron?

Listen you simple fuktard. Robinson hit more HRs in his first 3 years in the league than Ashburn had in his entire career.

Do me a favor.

Other than hits and runs.----

Robinson had more a higher career batting average, a higher career OBP, Robinson had more HRs, more RBI, nearly the same number of stolen bases-- AND HE PLAYED 5 fewer seasons.

So, when you keep yapping about "better numbers"---- the only 2 categories you're talking about are hits and runs, because as was explained to you 10 fuking times, Robinson had a better career average, and OBP%.

[PhillyFlyers]

Listen you simple fuktard. Robinson hit more HRs in his first 3 years in the league than Ashburn had in his entire career.

Do me a favor.

Other than hits and runs.----

Robinson had more a higher career batting average, a higher career OBP, Robinson had more HRs, more RBI, nearly the same number of stolen bases-- AND HE PLAYED 5 fewer seasons.

So, when you keep yapping about "better numbers"---- the only 2 categories you're talking about are hits and runs, because as was explained to you 10 fuking times, Robinson had a better career average, and OBP%.

You're the biggest douche on SBR.

Ashburn wasn't an RBI guy. He wasn't a power guy. He was a singles hitter. Robinson had a shorter career, more than a thousand less hits, less stolen bases, less WALKS, less doubles, less triples, fewer batting titles.

Eat a dikk moron.

[SamDiamond]

You're an idiot. This post proves your ignorance in this matter.

Ashburn wasn't an RBI man, he was a singles hitter. You clearly have no understanding of their respective roles on their teams.

And no, Robinson's numbers weren't better.

Ashburn had more batting titles, more hits, more walks, more doubles, more triples, more stolen bases.

And 5 more seasons to get those numbers. You keep leaving that part out, and the obvious-- Robinson made Ashburn look average over the same number of seasons.

Ashburn averaged 23 doubles per season, Robinson averaged 32.

Ashburn averaged 79 BB/season, Robinson 87 BB per season.

Ashburn averaged 98 runs per season, Robinson 110 runs per season.

Ashburn averaged 17 SBs / season, Robinson 23 steals per season.

Do I need to keep doing this?

And my favorite part. You called Ashburn a "singles hitter", yet Ashburn struck out at a higher rate than Robinson did.

[PhillyFlyers]

And 5 more seasons to get those numbers. You keep leaving that part out, and the obvious-- Robinson made Ashburn look average over the same number of seasons.

Ashburn averaged 21 doubles per season, Robinson averaged 28.

Ashburn averaged 79 BB/season, Robinson 83 BB per season.

Ashburn averaged 98 runs per season, Robinson 110 runs per season.

Do I need to keep doing this?

You are a true moron.

Robinson was average compared to Ashburn.

The best season Robinson ever had hitting, he batted .342. Ashburn's best he batted .350

Robinson's best OBP was .440. Ashburn's was .449

Robinson's best years in hits he had 203 followed by 185 and then 175. Ashburn's best he had 221 followed by 215 and then 205.

Ashburn was also a better fielder even though they both had identical fielding percentages of .983. Ashburn played more years and never made more than 11 errors in a season. Robinson had 20 errors in 1952.

We can argue back and forth, but in the end Ashburn will always be the better player no matter how you slice it.

[SamDiamond]

You are a true moron.

Robinson was average compared to Ashburn.

The best season Robinson ever had hitting, he batted .342. Ashburn's best he batted .350

Robinson's best OBP was .440. Ashburn's was .449

Robinson's best years in hits he had 203 followed by 185 and then 175. Ashburn's best he had 221 followed by 215 and then 205.

Ashburn was also a better fielder even though they both had identical fielding percentages of .983. Ashburn played more years and never made more than 11 errors in a season. Robinson had 20 errors in 1952.

We can argue back and forth, but in the end Ashburn will always be the better player no matter how you slice it.

There is no convincing a mush he's a mush.

I'm waiting to see how you spin that Dominic Brown prediction. That's a thing of beauty.

I noticed you ignore the fact that Robinson had a higher career average and a higher career OBP.

CAREER. Have you been reduced to finding one fuking season where Ashburn's numbers were higher?

In 1953, Robinson played 6 different positions, including every infield position, and 2 outfield position.

1954, Robinson slacked off and only played 5 positions.

and he did the same in 1955.

Get back to me when you can show me Ashburn did the same.

I'll tell ya what. Give me another player in the last 60 years who played 5 or more positions in one year--- for 4 consecutive years.

I'll wait for your answer.

[PhillyFlyers]

There is no convincing a mush he's a mush.

I'm waiting to see how you spin that Dominic Brown prediction. That's a thing of beauty.

I noticed you ignore the fact that Robinson had a higher career average and a higher career OBP.

CAREER. Have you been reduced to finding one fuking season where Ashburn's numbers were higher?

In 1953, Robinson played 6 different positions, including every infield position, and 2 outfield position.

1954, Robinson slacked off and only played 5 positions.

and he did the same in 1955.

Get back to me when you can show me Ashburn did the same.

I'll tell ya what. Give me another player in the last 60 years who played 5 or more positions in one year--- for 4 consecutive years.

I'll wait for your answer.

Are you really this much of an idiot?

What point is arguing who had a higher career average and career OBP when Ashburn outproduced him by over a thousand more hits?

What a nitwit.

OK Robinson's .311 BA was light years ahead of Ashburn's .308.



What a nitwit.

[SamDiamond]

Are you really this much of an idiot?

What point is arguing who had a higher career average and career OBP when Ashburn outproduced him by over a thousand more hits?

What a nitwit.

OK Robinson's .311 BA was light years ahead of Ashburn's .308.



What a nitwit.

And back to square one. The ONLY reason Ashburn has more hits is because this country wouldn't allow Robinson to compete with white players.

That's it. That is the only reason.

You can't possibly think that Robinson-- in the prime of his life at 22-28, wouldn't have had another 900-1100 hits, considering he averaged 168 hits per year when he was already approaching middle age.

The best part about this is this-- you can't find a baseball writer anywhere that would rank Richie Ashburn ahead of Jackie Robinson. The only person that is dumb enough to try and make such a claim, just happens to be the only retard also posting about Bigfoot and Alient murders.

Obviously you're trying hard to troll. And you're seeking a reaction.

I suspect you know you're wrong, but you're too far gone to admit it.

Like I said, I am really looking forward to the day you comment about your Dominic Brown prediction, which-- as I pointed out to you then-- was retarded.

I'm guessing being wrong is just something you're used to.

[Kermit]

You're an idiot. This post proves your ignorance in this matter.

Ashburn wasn't an RBI man, he was a singles hitter. You clearly have no understanding of their respective roles on their teams.

And no, Robinson's numbers weren't better.

Ashburn had more batting titles, more hits, more walks, more doubles, more triples, more stolen bases.

Oh Yes his career numbers most certainly were.

[TheMetsSuck]

the new jackie robinson movie sucked

[Kermit]

Interesting factoid about Ashburn. He once hit the same woman twice in the same at bat with foul balls. The first foul ball broke her nose and the second one hit her while she was being carted off. That is one thing that Jackie Robinson never did.

[Andy117]

You are a true moron.

Robinson was average compared to Ashburn.

The best season Robinson ever had hitting, he batted .342. Ashburn's best he batted .350

Robinson's best OBP was .440. Ashburn's was .449

Robinson's best years in hits he had 203 followed by 185 and then 175. Ashburn's best he had 221 followed by 215 and then 205.

Ashburn was also a better fielder even though they both had identical fielding percentages of .983. Ashburn played more years and never made more than 11 errors in a season. Robinson had 20 errors in 1952.

We can argue back and forth, but in the end Ashburn will always be the better player no matter how you slice it.

No one, except for you, considers Ashburn to be a better player than Robinson. It actually isn't really all that close.

[Kermit]

"Ashburn was also a better fielder even though they both had identical fielding percentages of .983. Ashburn played more years and never made more than 11 errors in a season. Robinson had 20 errors in 1952."

This does sound better to the average Joe who doesn't know shit about baseball, but the reality is that less errors are likely to occur in the outfield.

[SamDiamond]

"Ashburn was also a better fielder even though they both had identical fielding percentages of .983. Ashburn played more years and never made more than 11 errors in a season. Robinson had 20 errors in 1952."

This does sound better to the average Joe who doesn't know shit about baseball, but the reality is that less errors are likely to occur in the outfield.

Right you are Kerm, and as I pointed out, Robinson played 4-5 positions, including every infield position.

[InTheDrink]

its amazing how much credence people give to phillys posts

im sure he really believes what he posts but holy christ is he just fukking stupid

he stands behind "opinions" that not only are they not even opinions, theyre blatantly wrong....every fukkin time!

[PhillyFlyers]

Ashburn was elected to the Hall on basis of what he did on the field alone. Robinson got in on the basis of his skin color.

1500 hits spread out over 10 seasons isn't worthy of the Hall no matter how you slice it.

Ashburn was the better and his numbers prove it.

[Kermit]

Ashburn was elected to the Hall on basis of what he did on the field alone. Robinson got in on the basis of his skin color.

1500 hits spread out over 10 seasons isn't worthy of the Hall no matter how you slice it.

Ashburn was the better and his numbers prove it.

Tell me more about the rabbits George