Who is better, F. Robinson or Galvin?
Pud Galvin leads with a GOAT score of 89.1 against 88.9 for Frank Robinson — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Pud Galvin above Frank Robinson: 89.1 vs 88.9. Pud Galvin leads on Statistics, Peak, Longevity. Frank Robinson leads on Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Galvin wins: Peak, Longevity, Statistics
F. Robinson wins: Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/frank-robinson-vs-pud-galvin
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Galvin leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 F. Robinson | 0 | 0 | 38 | 67 | 134 | 291 |
| 🇺🇸 Galvin | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 177 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | F. RobinsonRetired | GalvinRetired |
|---|---|---|
| MVP awards | 2 | — |
| Triple Crowns | 1 | — |
| Home runs | 586 | — |
| World Series titles | 2 | — |
| All-Star selections | 14 | — |
| World Series MVP | 1 | — |
| Career wins | — | 365 |
| Career innings pitched | — | 6,003 |
| Career complete games | — | 646 |
| Career shutouts | — | 57 |
| Career strikeouts | — | 1,807 |
| Dominance w25% | 86 | 86 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 90 | 92 |
| Honours w20% | 88 | 82 |
| Statistics w15% | 92 | 96 |
Pud Galvin leads with a GOAT score of 89.1 against 88.9 for Frank Robinson — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
F. Robinson scores higher on honours. Galvin leads on peak, statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. F. Robinson: 88.9, Galvin: 89.1.
Make your case for F. Robinson vs Galvin. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.