Shoeless Joe Jackson

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Did Shoeless Joe ever play in the majors without shoes. If he did, how did he avoid getting spiked.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve f</b><p>from www.blackbetsy.com excellent (but biased) site<br />check it out!<br /><br />Back in 1908 Joe was playing for a team in his hometown of Greenville, South Carolina and he had bought a new pair of spikes. He had worn the spikes one day and the next day his team was playing the Anderson, South Carolina team. The new pair of spikes had rubbed blisters on Joe's feet, so he wanted to sit this game out, however his team was short some players and Joe had to play. Joe tried to play in the new spikes but they hurt his feet real bad. During one inning Joe took the spikes off and played in just his socks, he came up to bat and hit a triple and as he was pulling up at third an Anderson fan hollered "You shoeless son of a gun you!" It was the only day Joe played in his stockinged feet, but the name stuck forever. Joe did not like this handle he carried all his life, but that is how the world knew him......"Shoeless" Joe Jackson. <br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>He "never played without shoes". i have to go to a meeting, but I sure many people can chime in on his nick name, but no, he never once played without shoes. Very simple story realy.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Tell me you've seen "Field of Dreams", right???

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Mike, Guys<br /><br />My recollection is in Field of Dreams, Shoeless Joe did not have his shoes on. Is Joe Jackson the best prewar ballplayer that's not in the Hall of Fame.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>joe jackson is the BEST player not in the Hall from ANY era.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Justin</b><p>Surely the answer is Dave Kingman.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Pete Rose was better than Joe Jackson.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>dave- that is debatable...<br /><br />rose had greater endurance numbers (total hits), he played almost twice as long as jackson did...<br /><br />but check out joe's numbers each season (hits, avg, etc)...amazing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I agree, Rose was better... at domestic violence, crimes, a greater record of gambling for a longer time, Pete's in the Gambling Hall of Fame (I don't think Joe is), better at selling his signature. Pete was better than Joe at everything other than hitting a baseball, playing the game, and maybe reading.<br /><br />Pete was definitely better. But he shouldn't be proud of his "betterness".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Justin</b><p>Jackson's career was relatively short so it's difficult to know what he would have down in the live era. Would he have stated to hit for homeruns? When would he have declined.<br /><br />Rose was great for a long period of time and starred at four positions, and realistically 4256 hits puts him ahead of Shoeless Joe in my books. but I would be cool with either guy on my team. Despite Rose's many flaws, work ethic, tenacity and determination were not among them, and hs teams were better with him than without him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Shoeless Joe played for 13 years, if you doubled the number of years and doubled the number of hits, Joe would have still only gotten approximately 3,400 hits. Which is still almost a 1000 hits short of Pete's career total.<br /><br />There's no doubt in my mind that I would rather have Pete batting lead-off. But Shoeless Joe would be a much better No. 3 hitter than Pete Rose.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>guys, maybe it's just me, but in order to measure a great player (specifically a hitter), IMO, batting average has to be at the top of the list...Joe hit .356 lifetime! and that was during the deadball era...Pete (who i love, don't get me wrong), has a lifetime avg. of .303...of course he has so many more hits, but look at the "at bats":<br /><br />we should not be comparing how many years they played, rather: hits/at bats...<br /><br />Joe: 1,772/4,981...356<br /><br />Pete: 4,256/14,053...303<br /><br />even though Pete played twice as many years, he had almost exactly THREE times as many at bats...just some food for thought.<br /><br />so we are only left to wonder, given that many at bats...how many hits Joe would have had?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>So it was extremely hard when trying to decide whether or not to even collect a card of his....<br /><br />But in the end, this particular card issue helped me solve my disquiet.<br />Labelling him a Milk Dud has given me the freedom to both honor his playing abilities and mock/dismiss his personal charms in the one synergistic display. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Daniel<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1172264177.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Justin</b><p>I think you have to take into consideration longevity. Shoeless Joe didn't really leave his peak, so no one knows how he would have looked at age 37. Also Pete won multiple batting titles, while Joe won exactly zero. Admittedly beating Ty Cobb is no easy feat, but you figure he would have wone at least one. Rose dominated his era as a hitter probably to a greater extent than Joe in his if one looks solely at batting averages.<br /><br />also I dig the milk dud card. very cool.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />There's a reason why Pete Rose made the All-Century Team and Joe Jackson didn't. Pete would have made a great utility player, as far as I know shoeless Joe could only play the outfield.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I was offering my opinion that Rose was a better player than Jackson. I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't debatable, or that it was wrong to disagree with me.<br /><br />Though, I still think Rose's career was better. And it's a testement to how great Ty Cobb was. Cobb had a significantly higher lifteime batting average than 'perfect swing' Joe Jackson, and Jackson retired at his peak at 31, while Cobb retired at 41. Cobbs' astonishingly high lifetime batting average includes all those sore joint old man years. In his last year, the umpire had to wipe the dribble from Cobb's chin and turn him so he was facing the pitcher, and Cobb still hit .328. His average would have been even higher, except his cane kept getting caught in his adult diaper when he ran to first base.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Good Lord! Pete Rose isn't even in the same league as Joe Jackson. Jackson's lifetime OPS (on base % + Slugging) is .940 - Rose's is .782. <br /><br />Rose should have been nicknamed the Out King. He was rarely the best player on his own team.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />Now that you brought it up that's the other reason why Pete was a better player. Him and Joe Morgan they were the sparkplugs to the Big Red Machine of the late 60's and early 70's. Without Pete they would have never won a World Series.<br /><br />The only reason Pete wasn't the best player on his team was because of all the other Hall of Famers on the team.<br /><br />I don't recall Shoeless Joe being on a World Champion team.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>i agree Dan.<br /><br /><br />Peter said- "The only reason Pete wasn't the best player on his team was because of all the other Hall of Famers on the team"...<br /><br />ummm, who might they have been? i assume you are not refering to johnny bench and joe morgan, right? <br /><br /><br />p.s. i'll take one of the best hitting outfielders of all time anyday, over an endurance hitting "utility player"...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Ummmmm.....??? 1917 The Chicago White Sox beat the New York Giants in the World Series.<br /><br />And just because Rose was surrounded by great players doesn't make him better than Joe Jackson. I don't follow your logic here.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>How much do you recall at all about Shoeless?<br />I think this is absolutely a case of never saw it so you won't rate it.<br />When all you have is statistics (well that, and the fact his contemporaries - including the legends, thought he was a marvel) it's pretty unlikely you are going to do any justice to evaluating his game.<br />Many of us saw Pete Rose and thought he was a fierce competitor who willed himself to get hits as much as owning a great stroke of any sorts. Awesome player maybe, but here's what Shoeless' contemporaries said about him:<br /><br /><br />"Everything he hit was really blessed. He could break bones with his shots. Blindfold me and I could still tell you when Joe hit the ball. It had a special crack." - Ernie Shore<br /><br />"He (Shoeless Joe Jackson) was the finest natural hitter in the history of the game." - Ty Cobb<br /><br />"I copied (Shoeless Joe) Jackson's style because I thought he was the greatest hitter I had ever seen, the greatest natural hitter I ever saw. He's the guy who made me a hitter." - Babe Ruth<br /><br />"(Shoeless Joe) Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning." - Connie Mack<br /><br /><br /><br />Perhaps he's actually even better than most give him credit for when the debates about him arise.......and some of us think he was a pretty fine player!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Joe Jackson is one of the top 10 greatest hitters who ever played. Rose doesn't even rank in the top 100.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />I suppose for one game I would rather have Joe Jackson on my team, but for an entire 162 game season and playoffs, I would rather have Pete Rose.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>i'll buy seats above the dugout for that game...<br /><br /><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe Jones</b><p>You would think that being a farm boy from that time period, Joe would know how to hussle and work just as much as Rose could.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Pete, I still don't get it. Jackson was far more important to his team over the entire season. Why would you still want Rose for the season?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />It has to do with team dynamics, the Big Red Machine with Rose and Morgan setting the table. You knew that Pete hustled and would do anything to get on base...the rest of the team would also be more committed to winning. As a consequence you would have a better team.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>peter- with that said...<br /><br />since Joe had a better Avg, better OPS%, etc...doesn't that impy that Joe was on base more than Rose (if one compared the same amout of at bats)?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>MVSYNC,<br /><br />I know that Shoeless Joe had a bit on-base percentage, but Pete was the leader of the Big Red Machine, and over the course of a season the fact that he could play a number of positions would be very helpful.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>Peter- do you happen to live in Cinci, by any chance? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I think the point being missed here is that Shoeless Joe never had to play past his prime, he never declined, so it's impossible to say with complete certainty how he would have fared. I am guessing George Sisler career numbers looked pretty phenomenal at age 33, but he fell off pretty dramitically. Longevity counts here. I will concede that Jackson's peak value was greater than Rose's.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Joe Jackson was a phenom the first 13 years of his career, it would be difficult for him to keep up that pace for another 13 years. Most players are not a Ty Cobb or a Pete Rose.<br /><br />Actually, I think of myself as a SF Giants fan, I don't identify with the NY Giants at all. As a SF Giants fan your almost in the same shoes as a Cubs fan.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Sorry, but that last post doesnt make sense. You admit that Jackson was a phenom - meaning a person of remarkable talent or ability - and then argue that there is no reason to believe that after 13 years of great play, its unlikely he could keep it going ala Rose and Cobb? Wouldnt a phenom be exactly the type of player you would expect to keep it going?<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Pete Rose played about 4-5 years too long - he was a detriment to his team in those final years. Benching better players and inserting himself into the lineup to chase a hit record. No doubt he was a great punch and judy hitter with a lot of hustle in his younger days - he just can NOT be mentioned in the same breath with Joe Jackson when it comes to being a GREAT hitter. It's not even close - Pete Rose should be compared to Tony Oliva, not Cobb or Jackson or any other of the all time greats.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Jackson:<br /><br />Career G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG <br />13 Years 1,332 4,981 873 1,772 307 168 54 785 519 158 .356 .423 .517 <br /><br /><br />Rose (first 13 years):<br /><br />Totals G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG <br />1st 13 Years 2022 8221 1329 2547 441 99 124 775 871 773 .309 .376 .433<br /><br />Jackson had approximately .61 as many at bats as Rose after 13 years. Here are Roses numbers x .61 to make this more of an apples to apples comparison (ignoring the fact that Jackson played in the deadball era and ignoring any flaws in this less than scientific comparison):<br /><br /> Totals G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG <br />61% of 13 yr. totals 1233 5015 811 1554 269 60 76 473 531 472 .310 .376 .433<br /><br />Granted, this "analysis" doesnt take into account Rose's longevity or consider whether Jackson would have been able to keep it going at a consistently high level for an additional 13 years. Nevertheless, it certainly shows that even playing in the deadball era, Jackson outpaced Rose in nearly every statisical catagory, including hits (1772 to 1554), 2b (307 to 269), 3b (168 to 60), RBI (785 to 473), SO (158 to 472). As to the power numbers, again, comparing a deadball hitter to Rose, Jackson outpaced Rose in every category except HRs (54 to 76). The difference in Avg, OBP and SLG is simply ridiculous.<br /><br /> <br />Edited to note that for some reason, I cant get the categories to line up correctly after I post.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe Pelaez</b><p>He was one of the special ones of the deadball era, and he would have been special during the Rose era. ... no comparison.<br /><br />Did you see where he only struck out 158 times in 13 years?<br />Some guys do that in one year. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Whereas Rose struck out 773 in 13 years. ... no comparison.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>like i said 3 days ago...<br /><br />jackson...<br /><br />hands down

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Wikipedia is great, according to Shoeless Joe himself he was playing in the minors in 1908 in Greenville and had bought a new pair of shoes. The shoes were causing blisters on his feet so he went to bat in his stocking feet. By chance he lined a triple and as he was coming into 3d base, a fan shouted, "you shoeless sonuvagun." The nickname Shoeless Joe Jackson stuck and he never played shoeless again.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John Kalafarski</b><p> Someone will help me with this. I've seen a brief clip of Joe swinging the bat: he swung so hard that his follow through nearly cast him to the ground. Kind of like Gary Sheffield times ten. I just finished listening to The Glory of Their Times tape again and someone spoke of Joe's swing as being particularly vicious. Also, wasn't his outfield post known as "the place where doubles went to die." Ted Williams was a huge booster of Joe for the Hall. See his essay on Joe in Ted Williams, My Life in Pictures.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>George Dreher</b><p>Joe Jackson continued to play semipro baseball until 1939!<br />What would his stats have looked like in MLB after more than 20 years?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>peter-<br /><br />steve f. told the same story in the first response to this thread.<br /><br />john-<br /><br />"...where TRIPLES go to die."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Joe Jackson's lifetime OPS+ is 170. This means Joe was 70% better than the league he played in. Pete Rose's lifetime OPS+ is 118. This means Pete was 18% better than the league he played in. Joe dominated his league 3 1/2 times more than Pete dominated his -- over the course of a career.<br /><br />Joe's best five season OPS+ were 193, 192, 192, 175, 172. Pete's best five season OPS+ were 158, 146, 141, 138, 134. Joe's peak seasons were head and shoulders better than Pete's peak seasons.<br /><br />Joe Jackson ranks 9th in career OPS+. Pete Rose isn't even in the top 100. Players ahead of Pete Rose in career OPS+ include Reggie Smith, Pedro Guerrero, Jack Clark, Jeff Heath, Al Rosen. Players that rank ahead of Joe Jackson in career OPS+ include Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby. You get the picture, right?<br /><br />Comparing Joe Jackson to Pete Rose is like comparing Albert Pujols to Ryan Klesko. Not really, because Ryan Klesko has a lifetime OPS+ 13 points higher than Rose, but you get the picture, right?<br /><br />Pete might get minor consideration for position flexibility and even more consideration for longevity, but certainly not nearly enough to make up this huge difference in OPS+.<br /><br />I'd much rather have an absolutely dominant player for 10 years than painfully average player for 33 years.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>Guys<br /><br />I think we all have to think about what might have been if the fix hadn't happened. The White Sox would have dominated the league for a few more years and would have won the 1919 series hands down.<br /><br />Instead of talking about Babe Ruth we might be talking about shoeless and the babe and the original home run race.<br /><br />Even with all that could have been jackson did win in 1917 and he played with the following<br /><br />Eddie Collins HOF<br />Ray Schalk HOF<br />Eddie Cicotte would have been in the hall.<br /><br />We may have also seen great things from Weaver and Williams.<br /><br />Rose was a determined player and great in his day but there is a reason why you don't hear him mentioned in the same sentence as Williams, Mantle and DiMaggio. <br /><br />He was great, he just didn't become bigger then the game in his playing days. <br /><br />Jackson did, he was the best in his day and I believe if he had continued playing he would still be tops in the record books.<br /><br />For the record, I think both should be in the HOF.<br /><br /><br />James Gallo <br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>James,<br /><br />Shoeless Joe was a great ballplayer, but let's not get carried away. In 1920 Joe had 12 home runs which was the most he ever hit. In 1920 Babe Ruth had 54 home runs. It's unlikely that Joe would have ever gotten into a home run race with the Babe.<br /><br />Also, it is doubtful that even if the Chicago White Sox had kept their team together, it's unlikely that they would have stopped the rise of the Yankee steam roller led by Babe Ruth.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Based on the one year Joe jackson played in the live ball era (.382/12HR/121RBI) I'd say he was a good candidate to put up huge numbers for a few more years. He might even have raised his career BA as did Tris Speaker post 1919. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike Snyder</b><p>You know, even though Joe Jackson and Pete Rose are not officially inducted in the to Baseball hall of fame, their careers are certainly both honored.<br /><br />One of my favorite exhibits at the Hall is Shoeless Joe's uniform. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1174921691.JPG"> <br /><br />Pete Rose is honored for, among other things, his role in the Big Red Machine in 1976. <br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1174921908.JPG"> <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Is Joe leaning on a bat or is he just happy to see us?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike Snyder</b><p>I believe that piece of wood is known as Black Betsy!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>I don't see how Shoeless Joe can go an entire season using Black Betsy without cracking the wood or otherwise damaging the bat. Did the ballplayers do something to the bat to make it last longer.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p><I>Did the ballplayers do something to the bat to make it last longer.</I><br /><br />Yes, Joe reportedly used Viagra for all his "bats."<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>the bats were heavier then so there were less bats broke. i believe they use ash now and the bats are very light also, the handles are much thinner (as compared to the bats thru the 1980s) ruths bats were 49 ounces (i believe). now i think bats weigh about 30 oz. im sure someone here knows more about this than me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>"Shoeless Joe was a great ballplayer, but let's not get carried away. In 1920 Joe had 12 home runs which was the most he ever hit. In 1920 Babe Ruth had 54 home runs. It's unlikely that Joe would have ever gotten into a home run race with the Babe."<br /><br />Yeah let's not get carried away with the .358 batting average, or for that matter with Cobb's .367, I would put them squarely behind Bobby Bonds and Griffey Sr. in my hall of fame.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Peter,<br /><br />Your getting to be a real pain in the...anyway, you forget that the Babe also pitched and batted .342, so as great as Shoeless Joe was he wasn't in the same ballpark as the Babe. That's all I was saying. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>I agree with Spaeth. <br /><br /><br />You didn't even know Jackson was on the 1917 White Sox and you started this thread? Plus, there's nothing to say the Sox wouldn't have dominated in the early 20s. They were a force, had the best pitching ,defense and hitting. 3 HOFers on the 1917 and 1919 teams, and with the reserve clause, there is no basis to say "if the team would have been together."<br /><br />I miss the pizza thread.<br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark Lutz</b><p>How did Jackson's bat survive uncracked? I agree with Dennis about the thick handles and the more durable wood. When those bats cracked, they were so sturdy that a bat boy would drive in some nails and the bat would be be as good as new. From what I understand, Jackson used numerous bats with black barrels. In their book,Dave Bushing and Dan Knoll quote a craftsman from the Louisville Slugger factory that Jackson insisted that "all" his bats be blackened with a flame. I would speculate that the black betsy that he kept with him was one of the few betsies that never cracked.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>guys- the flame-treatment supposedly strengthened his bats, and provented cracking (as well as turned them black)...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>MVS - and don't forget all the tobacco juice that he spit on the<br />bat to protect it w/ a thicker coating.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>that gave it a nice heavy texture... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ed</b><p>Ray Liotta as shoeless joe? Batting righty and talking in a yankee (almost Jersey) accent? C'mon. Ruined an otherwise touching movie.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You know, Gary Cooper batted right handed, so when they made "Pride of the Yankees" they just reversed the negative. He wore a backward "4" on his jersey so it would show up positive in those scenes.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>Barry, that was also done in Billy Crystal's movie 61*<br />Anthony Micheal Hall portrayed Whitey Ford and was a right hander<br />so they too reversed the shot to make it look authentic.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Thanks Jay. 61* is one of my alltime favorite baseball movies.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>We all get tired of the Yankees once in a while. When you get a chance watch Damn Yankees again. Yankee haters unite. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>"Ray Liotta as shoeless joe? Batting righty and talking in a yankee (almost Jersey) accent? C'mon. Ruined an otherwise touching movie"<br /><br />And he threw left handed. I found this interesting, as in the movie it appeared Liotta had difficulting catching and throwing.<br /><br />Of course, Joe threw right handed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>ray liotta movie flubs?<br /><br />how about the fact that joe died 25 years before the movie was made? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />it's just a fictional movie guys, stop criticing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>MVSYNC,<br /><br />They actually treated Black Betsy with flames, hard to believe they could do that without severely burning the wood. You would think that present day major leaguers would try to get their bats treated in order for them to be more durable in games.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Clint</b><p>Here's a picture of a flame treated bat from around Joe's time. This was just done in spots on this bat.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1175299003.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Even today many wood bats are flame tempered by the manufacturer so apparantly Shoeless Joe knew what he was doing.