This makes more sense. The Mets need some history to tout, and their own, well…
Their own… what?
Mets history is a damn fine baseball story. Miracle Mets. 1986. A number of other fine teams.
Much as you want to bag on the Mets, the facts are these: New York is a small town, and a baseball town, and Jackie Robinson belongs to the people of New York, and the ballpark is the best place to honor him. What, you want a statue of him in front of the Guggenheim?
Who’s your favorite team? Or do you even like baseball at all? It doesn’t seem so.
Southern Yankee- why is it inappropriate for the Mets (a team Jackie Robinson never played for) to honor a Jackie Robinson, but NOT absurd for the Dodgers to put up to Jackie Robinson in Los Angeles, a city Robinson never played in?
Johnny Unitas never played for the Ravens, but he was a legend in Baltimore, and I’d have NO objection to the Ravens erecting a shrine to Johnny Unitas in their stadium.
Harmon Killebrew and Walter Johnson never played for the Nationals, but they were stars in Washington DC once upon a time, and I wouldn’t object if the Nationals erected statues of those guys.
Warren Spahn never played for the Brewers, but he was idolized by millions of people in and around Milwaukee. Would it REALLY outrage you if there were a Warren Spahn memorial outside the Brewers’ stadium?
MOST of the New Yorkers who cheered for Jackie Robinson in the Forties and Fifties eventually became ardent Mets fans. The oldest Mets fans in New York today are guys who grew up watching Jackie Robinson play. It seems only right that their team would honor him.
No, he’s Jackie Robinson. A player arguably more important than even the Babe. (I am not implying he was necessarily a better player, however.)
Well, I’m not sure about that fact.
Perfectly stated. Robinson was a New York player. He was never a California player. There is something honoring him in a New York stadium. I don’t see what the mystery is. Like someone said upstream, when MLB retired his number league wide the ceremony was at a Mets-Dodgers game. At Shea Stadium, not LA.
I’m a Yankee fan, I thought that was fairly obvious. And yes, I was bagging the Mets a little there.
As I said, I think it would be great if every stadium had a statue honoring Robinson. I grew up in the NYC area shortly after the Mets came to be and I’m fully aware of the connection to the Brooklyn Dodgers and National League baseball. I still think it’s a little odd to honor a player from another team in such a big way as they did with the rotunda.
Obviously, my opinion is the extreme minority here and your points are all well-taken.
Jackie Robinson was obviously incredibly important, but the truth is, if he wasn’t the first black player, someone else would have been shortly thereafter. This is no denigration of Robinson. What he went through and had to endure is well-known. He was amazingly courageous, and a great player.
Babe Ruth saved baseball after the Black Sox scandal. Maybe someone else could have instead, but look back at the '20s. Who would it have been? It wasn’t just his baseball ability, it was his larger-than-life personality that captured the country’s interest.
Just a nitpick here, but he was raised in the Los Angeles area and played baseball for a few years before ever playing in New York:
1935-36: John Muir High School, Pasadena, CA
1937-39: Pasadena Junior College
1939-41: Univ. of California, Los Angeles
The UCLA Bruins play their games in Jackie Robinson Stadium. BTW,although I’m a big LA Dodgers fan, I’m perfectly fine with his tribute in New York and the new stadium. 
California.
Babe Ruth was from Baltimore, and the site of his boyhood home is now covered by Camden Yards, but you won’t see a monument to him there. He was a New York player and that’s where the memories of him lie. Same for Robinson.
He was born in Georgia, but you’re right, he grew up in CA. Well, the Babe Ruth tributes are at Yankee Stadium, although I here the Mets are thinking about putting something up for him… (I kid, I kid.)
In fact, Robinson was a star athlete at UCLA. According to the NCAA
I think the should have said he “enlisted” and not “enrolled” 
You are correct , sir, and I thought of that after making the post… but didn’t see any real need to undermine my point.
Yes, Jackie was a multisport star at UCLA, and some who saw him play say that baseball was actually his WORST sport!
He was the Mark McGwire of his time.
Saying Babe Ruth was the Mark McGwire of his time is akin to saying that William Shakepeare was the Elizabethan answer to Dean Koontz.
Mark McGwire was a very good ballplayer who had a big season where he broke the home run record. He might be one of the 200 best players of all time. While his run of home runs seasons was most impressive, it was done at a time when record levels of homers were being hit. He didn’t change the game in any way. Despite what you have heard, it’s nonsense to claim McGwire’s home run record saved baseball. Baseball was doing just fine. Attendance was climbing.
Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time, full stop. He fundamentally changed the way baseball was played, elevated its status as a spectator sport to a higher level, and was the superstar that started the greatest dynasty in the history of professional team sports.
Thanks for saving me the effort, RickJay!
Mark McGwire was great, but even is his prime years, there were other sluggers ABOUT as good as he was.
When Babe Ruth was in his prime, he was miles above anybody else. He cometimes hit more homers than entire TEAMS.
Although Jackie Robinson was nowhere near THAT good, he’s one of those players that looks even BETTER now than he did in his prime, thanks to the revolution in stats. He was already an All-Star, and MVP and a Hall of Famer, but the new approach to stats indicates he was even BETTER than his contemporaries knew.
Would you find it strange if an NFL team honored George Halas or Jim Thorpe?
And his playing ability isn’t even what mattered about his career, anyway.