This fine editorial by ESPN (and who knew they did editorials?) proposes an interesting award, to be named after the great Jackie Robinson.
Now, as the editorial points out, there already is a Jackie Robinson Award - the Rookie of the Year Award. But no one calls it the “Jackie Robinson”; it’s simply the Rookie of the Year Award. It surely can continue to be called such.
That Jackie Robinson was an extremely brave man, full of dignity and pride of self, is indisputable. MLB retired Robinson’s uniform number in 1997 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his entry into the big leagues; any player who was then wearing number 42 could do so at his own discretion, but no new players could wear the number.
As of now, only one man is wearing the number - Mariano Rivera of the Yankees. So when he retires, that’ll be it.
The editorial points out that delegating the number to hang from rafters or over an outfield fence somewhat marginalizes the immense impact Robinson had. Oh, we’ll remember, but it’s not quite the same as having the number be actually on the field. And that’s the impetus behind this proposal: The player (and it would be one player, not one from each league) who won the award, who was chosen as the best example of Robinson’s finest qualities, would wear the number 42 on his uniform for the duration of the season.
I can think of no better way to honor the strength, courage, and tenacity of Jackie Robinson.
Deeming a player to be Robinson’s successor or an embodiment of his effort in that manner seems very high-pressure and maybe a little trivial to me. Jackie Robinson worked and suffered a great deal so that future players wouldn’t have to. I don’t care how good a sport they are- nothing anybody in the majors is dealing with today is even close to what Robinson had to go through. And I shudder to imagine the controversy that would follow about the race of the winners. I’m fine with keeping the jersey retired as is. Nobody who is interested in baseball is going to forget who the guy was.
I think you’re giving too much credit to current major leaguers; there are many who are stunningly clueless - and willfully so - about the history of their sport, even of Jackie Robinson. In fact, it seems to me that each year the youngest players don’t know too much about their sport, and that those who do are the exception, not the norm.
Also, no one’s saying this person would be a successor to Jackie Robinson, just as no one says Roy Halladay is a successor of Cy Young simply because he won the award. Or, to be even more accurate, no one says the winner of the Lady Byng trophy is a successor to… Lady Byng. It’s all about the embodiment of perseverence in the face of tragedy or pressure, or both.
I don’t think Robinson’s widow would be bothered or offended by this award; rather, I think she’d approve.
I think it’s a neat idea, but it strikes me as being unnecessary and full of potential embarassment. How do you select an athlete who personifies “courage” or “dignity”? Who votes on it? What are the specific criteria? Is a player’s skill a critical factor or can you have a scrub wear “42” because he’s a great guy who does charity work? (They do have charity and community service awards, but I can’t help but notice that most of them go to guys who hit a lot of home runs.)
Consider this: if the award is voted on by sportswriters, who vote on most of the other awards, it will be given, every single year, to a player who’s well-spoken and gives a lot of inside tips to sportswriters. That is the basic test of “good guys” versus “Bad guys” to sportswriters; that the player gives good interviews and provides scoops. If a player is respected by his teammates and works hard all the time and is a class act but DOESN’T give good interviews, he will be portrayed by the media as a horrible man and a jerk (Eddie Murray, Steve Carlton.) If a player is an ass to his teammates but is gracious with the press and rats out everyone he can, they’ll portray him as a wonderful guy (a number of players I won’t name.) Having the sportswriters vote on it means that the basic criteria for the award will be giving good interviews, which obviously does not honor Robinson’s memory.
So I guess you’d have to have the players vote on it… but as dantheman points out, they aren’t professional baseball historians and might know nothing about Robinson. I am reminded of Don Mattingly, who when he joined the Yankees admitted than until he saw Babe Ruth’s monument in Yankee Stadium, he hadn’t known Babe Ruth had really existed. He thought Ruth was a cartoon character.
And what do you do when Slugger Smith is appointed the Robinson Award winner and is found in mid-June in a hotel room with a high school cheerleader and two grams of nose candy? It would bring shame on an award named after the great Jackie Robinson, which would be an insult to a great man and his family. The nice thing about just retiring his number is that sort of crap can’t happen.
I don’t think this award idea will much improve memory of Robinson. I am reminded of a column written by a journalist last year who decried a major league team for being racist because they were concentrating on drafting college players who drew walks, not high school players, and alleged that this would mean black kids wouldn’t get drafted, and went on to say that this policy of drafting college players with plate discipline meant the team would not want someone like Jackie Robinson. Jackie Robinson was a college player with plate discipline! He played ball at UCLA. If a journalist CITING JACKIE ROBINSON AS AN EXAMPLE can’t get his facts straight, will this “42” idea educate the public?
Robinson’s memory is so cloaked in his impact as part of the civil rights movement that people don’t really remember him as a man or as a ballplayer anymore, beyond remembering that he was really fast. (For those who don’t know anything about him, his skills were sort of like Roberto Alomar’s, except Robinson was about 20% better at everything, and he was super-super-intense. But he had a short career because he didn’t get to the majors until he was 28.)
I thought the retiring of his number throughout baseball was a classy act. This new idea is fraught, IMHO, with the risk of embarassing his memory and harming the reputation of Major League Baseball.
I meant fans, not players. There don’t seem to be a lot of players who are very interested in the history and mythology of baseball.
True about the awards, Dantheman. Thing is that the Cy Young is an award for best pitcher of that year, because Young represented pitching excellence. If this is a sportsmanship/character type award, I think that becomes more of a direct comparison to Robinson. Other players have faced adversity, but I think very few have faced adversity that compare to Robinson’s. Hank Aaron was one, when he was chasing Ruth’s record. I’m not sure who I’d put on that list from more recent years.
It’s funny. When I tried to think of a major leaguer that came close to possessing the qualities outlined in the editorial, I came up with the guy already wearing number 42: Mariano Rivera.
The sportswriters and baseball executives would be my choice. Fans would pick whoever their favorite guy was, so that wouldn’t work.
I think you’re being incredibly unfair to sportswriters when you say
You honestly feel that sportswriters would only vote for the player who was nice to them personally? You honestly feel that that level of corruption exists? I’m curious to know your reasons for feeling so, if that’s the case. Do you feel that the vast majority of players who get awards now get them simply because they were nice and gave “inside tips” to a sportswriter? If so, I think you’re misinformed. While there have certainly been miscarriages of justice in terms of awards, I hardly think it’s an epidemic. Besides, if you think sportswriter bias would be a sound reason not to have this award, then you should be in favor of abolishing all other awards that are voted on by sportswriters. Are you?
Huh. And yet both are in the Hall, which is voted on by sportswriters. And Carlton won a few Cy Youngs. If they thought these guys were so horrible, then why’d they give them the awards and accolades? Oh, wait - I can see your response already. You’re going to say that the sportswriters in these cases overlooked the “horrible man” aspect and cast their votes based on the player’s other merits. Thanks for proving my point.
(By the way, it’s a misconception that Carlton was portrayed as a jerk for not being overly cooperative with the press. He was never portrayed as such, at least not by the local media. In Philly, he was considered an icon by fans and media alike, even more so than Schmidt.)
Ridiculous. I challenge you to name these players who are portrayed as wonderful guys (?) and yet are colossal assholes to everyone else. Who are they? Why are they being portrayed as wonderful?
Whenever you give a player an award, you take a risk. When a player wins the MVP and then sucks the next year, do you have the same argument? Of course not. The award’s for that one year.
Look at the Bill Masterton Trophy in the NHL. That award is awarded “to the NHL player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to hockey.”
It’s obviously not impossible for the NHL to do it, so why would it be so tough for MLB to do it?
Let’s face it. The chances of a player being that sportsmanlike and wonderful for a full year and then being an asshole after that are slim.
You’re taking the idiocy of one guy and placing it on all journalists. You must see the folly of that.
No one will have to face the sort of adversity that Robinson did - that’s the biggest impact he had, of course. He suffered so that others didn’t have to (at least not to the same extent he did). So let’s not compare how much he suffered to how much the players would suffer now - we know there’s no comparison, and that’s not the point of the award.
One problem in MLB is that we don’t have a firm grasp of who the good guys are. We know the bad ones - they’re the ones in the paper getting busted for this or that. But who’s good? This would accentuate some positive in MLB, which could surely use it.
There is a strong possibility that the award would never go to a white player regardless of how deserving he may be. The first year it will absolutely, positively, and without a doubt go to a non-white player – the public relations and PC types will insist on it. The destiny of the award will then depend on the next couple of years. IMO, two more non-white recipients and there will be no turning back. It will be considered a non white player award regardless of what the qualifications say on paper. Then, because it implicitly excludes a huge segment of the player population it will become meaningless. The non-white fan base will tenaciously defend it as “theirs” and cling to it with pride; the white fan base will roll their eyes at the mention of it. Jackie Robinson’s memory will, of course, be the biggest loser in the end.
Murray had the reputation of being a jerk for his entire career, solely because he didn’t talk to the press. Seems to happen to almost every player who makes a similar decision. He and Carlton are in the Hall because objectively it’s obvious they should be there. Murray had 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, and 15% of the sportswriters still voted against him. I think you can guess why.
I meant toi add that while selection to the HOF is a subbjective thing, there are numbers to rely on. There are none in the case of an award for class and integrity and such, so I think personal preferences would come to the fore.
Selection to the Hall is most certainly not subjective. If it were, then there’d be no need to vote people in, would there? All of the criteria for inclusion would be based on solid numbers, such as 250 wins. This is not the case; each voter makes his or her own decision using the numbers as supporting evidence, but not the only evidence.
(The only Hall I can think of that IS subjective is the PGA (or is it LPGA) Hall; after winning a certain number of tournaments, a player is automatically in the Hall.)
Now, regarding Carlton, I can guess why 15% voted against him - it’s the same reason seemingly no one is unanimous anymore: There are voters who refuse to allow a player to get in on the first ballot. 15% is quite a low number, and it’s pretty much meaningless, since 85% did vote for his inclusion in the Hall.
In fact, here’s another reason those people may have voted against his inclusion - they looked at the final two seasons of his career and decided that they lessened his impact or his Hall chances. If you’ll recall, he didn’t go out with a bang and flitted from team to team just hanging on.
There can be any number of reasons why a player’s not voted in. I think by and large, writers don’t vote against a player simply because they dislike him personally; they don’t usually want to open themselves up to widespread criticism.
In the case of an award designed to measure things like “sportsmanship” and “courage” and such, I am absolutely certain of it. A great many sportswriters would vote only for players who were cooperative with the press.
I know this because the last 40 years of baseball history says so. Just look up the story of Steve Carlton and his relationship with the press if you don’t believe me. Or Eddie Murray. Or Rickey Henderson. Look at how they turned on Gary Carter when Carter refused to spill the beans on his teammates about drug abuse, talking about how Carter was a phony and a jerk when in fact he simply wasn’t willing to bring the team’s problems to the public.
As to the issue of Carlton making the Hall of Fame and winning various awards, those awards are clearly handed out on the basis of PLAYING accomplishments. Carlton won four Cy Young Awards (three after the press turned on him) but the criteria of that award has nothing to do with character and is entirely based on how good a pitcher you are. The MVP Award (which neither Murray or Carlton won, although they got votes) is mostly based on how valuable you are as a player. But had there been a Robinson Award during Carlton’s (or Eddie Murray’s) career, the likelihood of either gentleman winning that award would have been exactly zero. The fact that Murray is by all independent accounts a prince of a man, highly respected by his teammates, a clubhouse leader, and a participant in many charities would have been squat. the fact that Carlton was absolutely the hardest-working, most dedicated player of his generation would not have garnered him a single vote. There’s absolutely no way in hell the press would have given Murray or Carlton an award for CHARACTER, because they didn’t like their characters. And they didn’t like their characters for exactly one reason: because Murray and Carlton were not cooperative with the press.
If you examine who the press identifies as “good guys” and who they identify as “Bad guys,” you will find he “Good guys” always, without a single exception, are players who are very good at handling the press and give good interviews. The “Bad guys” are always, without exception, men who aren’t good at interviews and don’t handle the reporters well. Don Baylor was great at handling reporters, so he was a Good Guy, though aside from his being good with a quote I really don’t understand why anyone liked him. Barry Bonds is of course famously bad at speaking to reporters, so he’s a Bad Guy. Alan Trammell was very well spoken so he was a hero; Lou Whitaker, who was virtually the same player, was shy and poorly spoken, so he was portrayed as a flake. Cal Ripken, great with reporters, so held up as a God (The streak helped.) Eddie Murray, bad with reporters, portrayed as a jerk. But between Murray and Ripken, which player refused to travel with his teammates and stayed in separate hotels for much of his career? Hint; his last name rhymes with “Bipgen.”
Or take Pete Rose. Please. Rose was a scumbag, was a scumbag for much of his career, was a CRIMINAL for God’s sake, but he could do an interview like nobody’s business, so the press always worshipped him, at least until 1989. Rickey Henderson, another great leadoff man, is so far as anyone is aware an honest man, is not a felon, pays his taxes and doesn’t bet on baseball. But he’s a poor interview and has difficulty speaking in public, so guess what? He’s always been a bit to the left of the Jerk Line.
You have totally, utterly missed my point. I am not saying some guys get jobbed more than others in awards voting NOW. I am saying that an award based on the characteristics described in the OP would become a travesty. The current slate of major awards are usually handed to a deserving candidate because they’re based on how well the player plays. An award based on PERSONALITY would be a completely different story.
It would be silly of me to engage in the sort of character assassination I’m accusing the press of. You are free to disbelieve me.
Talk about missing the point completely. Christ almighty. If you give a player the MVP Award, and he sucks the next year, that doesn’t call the MVP vote into question. It’s obvious to everyone the MVP Award is for the year you voted for it.
READ THE OP. The suggestion is that the recipient of the Robinson Award wear Robinson’s number THIS YEAR - AFTER he recieves the award! Obviously, if the player is found to be s cumbag while he is wearing Robinson’s number in Robinson’s memory, that’s a completely different situation, is it not?
I never said anything about MVP Awards or Cy Young Awards. I wasn’t TALKING about those things, you were. They’re totally irrelevant. The issue here is this proposed Jackie Robinson Award, which is - it is quite obvious to me - a completely, completely different thing.
Who gives a crap what the NHL does? I sincerely doubt most hockey fans know who Bill Masterton was or what this award is for anyway, so it doesn’t seem to be serving the purpose proposed for the Robinson award.
Of baseball problems, the lack of awards isn’t one of them. I’d rather they go back to calling the Rookie of the Year award the Jackie Robinson Award rather than making up a award for a player’s “courage, etc.” No offense to any of today’s players, and not to deny that standing up to a 95 mph fastball takes courage, but to me the idea of a new award is just a waste of time.
To the extent the players do contribute to the community, well, good for them, but such conduct is supposed to be the normal course of conduct and its own reward. Next MLB will be giving out plaques to fellows who stay out of jail or who pay their child support on time.
I’m a little fuzzy on its details (precisely because it doesn’t get the attention that the on-the-field, performance-based awards receive) but doesn’t the Roberto Clemente award already honour some of the attributes outlined in the ESPN article?
RickJay, I honestly don’t get why you’re so grouchy about this. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or something?
This is a bold assertion. I know you can’t substantiate it, and it’s your opinion, nothing more… but are you sure you don’t wish to qualify it in some way? “A great many”?
It’s completely irrelevant how Murray and Henderson spilled the beans on Carter. They were creeps to people other than the press. The press didn’t like them for good reasons.
They certainly didn’t dislike Carlton. I don’t know where you grew up, but it was obviously not anywhere near Philadelphia where he was - as I mentioned before - revered.
Really. Again, I am taken aback. Murray is “highly respected” but apparently by everyone but the press? Nonsense. Carlton is “absolutely the hardest-working, most dedicated player of his generation” but the press would ignore this? Hogwash.
I’m not sure what planet you live on, but your shrill hysteria about how players couldn’t possibly get a fair shake unless they pandered to the press is illogical and insulting.
And let me remind you - there’s no reason to think only the press would be voting on this award. There’s no reason to think that baseball executives wouldn’t be doing so as well.
Bonds has huge detractors and supporters in the press; he’s one that can polarize a newsroom. He’s made a conscious effort in recent years to stop being so damn surly to people - and this includes fans.
Baylor, by the way, was a player who consistently gave up his body for the team. That is why he was popular. The fans don’t give a shit if a player gives a good interview. This isn’t the WWF.
Whitaker was revered as half of one of the most dynamic keystone combos of the time. I’d never heard about him being a flake - do you have anything to back up that assertion?
And of course, Ripken was revered only because of his willingness to talk to reporters and his streak, right? I mean, the rest of his game must have been pretty sad.
Wrong on both counts. Rose was Public Enemy Number One in New York because of what happened with Harrelson and with a lot of people from 1970 on because of what happened to Fosse. I don’t think anyone ever thought of him as a NICE guy. He was ultracompetitive, sure, but he was an insufferable prick to just about anyone.
So comparative awards in other sports are meaningless and are travesties? I mean, there is precedence. Surely it’s worked out fine in other sports.
You brought it up. Forgive me if I’m not blindly buying everything you say.
You’re losing it, RickJay. I wrote the OP. Don’t lecture me on it, okay?
It’s obvious this has struck a nerve with you and that you are having a tough time discussing it rationally.
Yes, if a player does something scummy while wearing Robinson’s memory, that would dishonor his memory. My point is that giving the award would be a calculated risk - a calculated one. Play along with me for a moment, here. Let’s say they give this award - the press and execs vote on it - to a guy who in their opinions best exemplified courage, perseverence, sportsmanship, and valor. They’re going to give it to someone who has shown all of those qualities for an entire baseball season. Now, anyone can be a screwup. Anyone can do something that immediately rains dishonor on them and their sport. What I’m saying is that the likelihood isn’t terribly great; that a person who won the award would be most likely to be that kind of great person 24 hours a day/7 days a week. Yes, it’s possible they could throw an M-80 at kids (like Vince Coleman did), but it’s not terribly likely.
Fine. Let’s talk about another award that’s already being given - the Comeback Player of the Year Award. It’s not done in anyone’s honor, true, but it IS awarded based purely on subjective criteria. Has that one not worked out well?
Now you’re just being ignorant. Who cares? I do. There’s an obvious precedent to this kind of award, and I provided it. You can ignore it, but IMO you’re only cementing your own intractable position.
You’re not providing much to this discussion other than hysterical ranting. I think you’ve completely forgotten what forum this is in.