Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Joe Jackson

Eligible in 1926.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 22, 2007 at 07:40 PM | 10 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 22, 2007 at 07:48 PM (#2316124)
The controversial shoeless one's case was made here in these threads:

1926 Ballot Discussion

1927 Ballot Discussion

Right Fielder Positional Thread

If you know of any others, please let me know.
   2. vortex of dissipation Posted: March 22, 2007 at 08:05 PM (#2316140)
Joe Jackson's BR list of similar players is interesting; it's not exactly the type of company you'd expect, given his reputation (it should be noted that none of the comparable players are in the 900 range):

1. Pete Browning (879)
2. Elmer Flick (871) *
3. Riggs Stephenson (854)
4. Earle Combs (853) *
5. Tip O'Neill (843)
6. Baby Doll Jacobson (840)
7. Joe Vosmik (839)
8. Ross Youngs (827) *
9. Bibb Falk (826)
10. John Stone (821)

* Hall of Famer

Only three HOFs, and of those, only Flick could be seen as an indisputable choice. Joe Vosmik and John Stone do not immediately come to mind as being directly comparable to Joe Jackson. Perhaps career length (or lack of it) has a major impact on the list?

Jackson played more career games in left field, than right, BTW.
   3. DavidFoss Posted: March 22, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2316148)
Only three HOFs, and of those, only Flick could be seen as an indisputable choice. Joe Vosmik and John Stone do not immediately come to mind as being directly comparable to Joe Jackson. Perhaps career length (or lack of it) has a major impact on the list?

The age 30 comps are interesting. Most guys with a career 170 OPS+ through age 30 play for at least four more years.

Vosmik shows up on that list as well. That's an artifact of the fact that similarity scores don't look at context. Vosmik had an OPS+ of just 105 through age 30 but his career AIR number was 115 (with individual years as high as 123) while Jackson's was 91 (with some years as low as 81).
   4. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: March 22, 2007 at 08:20 PM (#2316150)
Perhaps career length (or lack of it) has a major impact on the list?

Yes. Most similar by age (30) -

1. Paul Waner (927)
2. Heinie Manush (904)
3. Tris Speaker (893)
4. Joe Kelley (878)
5. Jesse Burkett (877)
6. Harry Heilmann (876)
7. Ed Delahanty (865)
8. Elmer Flick (860)
9. Fred Clarke (849)
10. Joe Vosmik (846)
   5. Buzzards Bay Posted: March 23, 2007 at 01:01 AM (#2316350)
Ted lobbied hard for him
   6. Paul Wendt Posted: March 18, 2008 at 04:40 AM (#2714505)
Midway in the voting for "Group 4" (special election), Howie Menckel commented regarding Joe Jackson, slotted 4th to 6th of 12 on several ballots and occasionally lower than that.

31. Howie Menckel Posted: March 16, 2008 at 09:16 PM (#2713905)
"no credit for 1919"

Jackson finishes 3rd in the AL in adj OPS+ behind Ruth and Cobb, with a top 10 in PA as well.
His team wins the pennant by only 3.5 games.

He hits .375 in the World Series (12 for 32) with 6 RBI. (yes, some curious baserunning/fielding, etc, tis said)

From a moral standpoint, do what you want with this guy.

But if we're trying to figure out the greatest baseball players, I don't get it.

That's a spectacular year.

Jackson has one of the better primes we've ever seen (top 5 adj OPS+ for 9 years, virtually all of those trailed are inner-circle HOMers), and I raise the question if voters (in general) angry with the Black Sox scandal are placing him best on his merits.


I believe the devaluation of Jackson's 1919 season is based on the judgment that that pennant is worthless. Although the group conspired to throw only the World Series, people respond by granting no credit to the conspirators for the pennant, and full credit as usual to their teammates.

Chicago White Sox fans do not proudly list 1919 in their email signatures as Red Sox fans list 1975. Beyond leaving the club with a black mark to be glossed over or explained away, 50 and probably 100 years later, other important consequences followed 1919 more immediately. When the scandal broke, it cost the team some probability of winning the 1920 pennant. Perhaps Chicago was still the league's marquee franchise in 1919. It appears that Comiskey spent money to field a strong team in the teens and didn't spend much thereafter.
   7. Paul Wendt Posted: March 18, 2008 at 04:46 AM (#2714509)
From the Transactions database:
Jackson moved from Philadelphia to Cleveland as a player to be named later.
He moved from Cleveland to Chicago for a player to be named later, two players named at the time, and $31500. (As I said, Comiskey was spending some money.)
Those were two midseason deals, 1910 July 30 and 1915 August 21.
   8. TomH Posted: March 20, 2008 at 03:06 PM (#2716306)
What Paul W said.

Chi may or may not have won the pennant without Jackson. They may or may not have won the World Series without him. What if an honest OFer hadn't taken the money; would they have had enough tankers to ensure the guys with the bucks bought in to the deal? So on the balance, I give Jackson no credit (nor a penalty) for 1919; it's like he didn't exist. Of course he DID exist and he played great for 6 months, but I think it's a fair penalty for someone who took money to toss a trophy.
   9. BDC Posted: March 20, 2008 at 03:16 PM (#2716321)
When the scandal broke, it cost the team some probability of winning the 1920 pennant

Not only that, but there were rumors that members of the 1920 Sox were still either on the take or susceptible to blackmail, and were therefore trying to manipulate the pennant race. Charles Alexander covers this aspect of the scandal in his recent book Spoke. The truth is impossible to get at, but at the very least it raises questions about Jackson's 1920 (on the face of it, an outstanding season).
   10. Paul Wendt Posted: March 20, 2008 at 11:42 PM (#2716765)
[excuse me, Joe Jackson]

Bob D,
Have you read the Tim Gay biography of Speaker as well?
Gay gave one of the best presentations I have seen at a SABR meeting a few years ago, soon after publication. But he is a superb presenter. I have read neither book.

Anyway, what do you think of the Alexander?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.2561 seconds
49 querie(s) executed