Ranking Joe Jackson

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

At the Ft Washington show this weekend I had the pleasure of spending some time talking to Derek Grady. One of the things that we talked about for a while was where Joe Jackson ranks on the all time list of great hitters. I was looking on baseball reference.com today where they statistically analyze hitters and here is their ranking:

First, their top 10 are Cobb, Musial, Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Bonds, Gehrig, Hornsby, Williams and Foxx. Where do they rank Jackson--#108 behind Yaz, I-Rod, Rickey Henderson and such 19th century stars as Delahanty, Anson, Brouthers, Thompson, Hamilton and Duffy.

What do you people think of this? I've always thought of Jackson as Wade Boggs with better hair but questionable morality. This site ranks Boggs much higher so maybe I was overranking Shoeless Joe.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

Morality?.. Joe did it for the money, Wade did it for a Honey.

Strange this thread begins just prior to hearing our M101-2 Jackson was GAI authenticated (after near a month at the grader). Beetlejuice is watchin the boards.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

after all, you can always get money but how hard is it sometimes to get honey?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

baseball has been around for 132 years. I can't imagine that almost every year, someone entered the league that was a better hitter than Joe Jax. He's certainly overhyped today, but I'd imagine he is at least in the top 50.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: dd

I agree Jay,,,Joe is in my top 25,,,,,stats are a big part of the picture, but not the whole.

I weigh being great for a few years heavier than being good (and never great)for many years.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Joe hit .356 lifetime (number three all-time) and remarkably played only one season (1920) in the live ball era. That's mighty impressive. You can keep him out of the Hall of Fame (although I personally would like to see him enshrined), but you can't keep him off the list of the greatest hitters who ever lived. Are there even 10 hitters out there who matched him?

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Didn't Wade do it for the chicken?

As for Joe's ranking, what list are you referring to on http://www.baseballreference.com? (a great site, btw, for those who haven't visited).

Intuitively, I would rank Joe higher than 108, but my intuition is often faulty and belied by any sort of statistical analysis.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: dd

Hey Max,

Wade did it with the chicken,,,,I mean he did it with the help of chicken in his diet

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

If that is the case, then we have a better idea why the chicken crossed the road!

Or are we talking about the San Diego chicken??

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Joe Jackson hit .356 lifetime. How many times did he lead the league in batting average? None!

All things being relative - does it count whether or not someone with the 3rd highest lifetime average wins a batting title? I guess he was going against Ty Cobb in those days but winning a batting title or two would have done a lot to solidify his place in the rankings of all time greatest. He did happen to come in second 3x and third place 3x (in the hunt for a batting crown) out of 13 seasons so that should count for something. He probably deserves a higher ranking than beyone 100th place... but I wouldn't put him in the top 10, perhaps he'd break the top 10 for his era. Leading in statistical categories (BA, RBI, 2B, 3B, etc) has to have a little weight in determining his place in the pecking order.

Heck, even though Lefty O'Doul hit .349 (w/ 2 batting titles and about 1700 at bats less than Joe Jackson) I don't rank him that high overall.

Lets face it, Joe has a cult following. Does he deserve to be in the HOF? - based on his lifetime stats - yes!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I would always opt for slow and steady over fast and furious. One of the keys to success is to be consistently good. I see too many flashes in the pan...one or two great years and fizzle........The fact Joe never won a batting crown doesn't matter to me.....

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

When you hit .400 and don't win a batting title, you can't hold that against the guy. It's not like he finished second to Yaz in 1968.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Max-Go to Leaders and then near the bottom of the page click on HOF Monitor. It ranks players, both HOF and non-HOF, according to several categories, including batting.

Just to make sure that this site wasn't somehow biased I checked a few other sources. Bill James'Historical Baseball Abstract ranks Joe Jackson as the sixth greatest left fielder after Ted williams, Stan Musial, Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson and Yaz. Finally, Total Baseball ranks Jackson as the 49th greatest player ever just behind--guess who--Wade Boggs.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

jackson played in the dead ball era so all we can do is rank him with his peers of that era.(1901-1920) then he would be in my opinion top 5 with the likes of wagner, cobb, speaker, lajoie, c collins . i think to rank hitters (or pitchers) it must be done within specific eras.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

You can add Josh Gibson and Oscar Charleston to the top 10 list. Maybe Pop Lloyd, too.

To the top 25 you can add Jud Wilson and Turkey Stearnes. I would add Tetelo Vargas as well.

If it weren't for his early death, Chino Smith would be in the top 10.

If it weren't for being shot in the leg by his psycho girlfriend, Dobie Moore would be top 25.

I would put Joe Jackson in the top 50. Not sure about top 25.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Lindholme

The best way to "rate" a player is to look at what he has done, not what could have been.
In the Major Leagues they keep records just for that reason...to show the facts (at least as good as they can when pertaining to the older years)

Take the Herb Scores , Lyman Bostocks, Ken Hubbs (even Kirby Pucketts) and save them for the discussions about hypothetically who was best.

I'd rather look at the numbers, the facts and throw in some era-specific historical context (like rules changes,equipment etc)

Heck, if it weren't for a run of bad luck and poor choices there was a kid in my old neighborhood who could have, should have , might have been a HOFer.

Longevity should definitely mean something to the discussion of "the best evers".
Here's another way of looking at it...the best companies in business are generally based on how much money they have made...not by how much they
MIGHT have made. The companies who peaked for a few years during the DOT COM era then fizzled are not considered.

Joe Jackson was obviouly talented...others have accomplished more.

My nickel's worth
familytoad

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

All I can say is since I have been watching the sport..roughly 35 years...Tony Gwynn was the greatest hitter I saw during this time. I won't spew stats or legend...only what I saw. It seems the less we actually saw of certain hitters, the more the myth grows about their place in history. Tony would of hit .400 at least one year during our era if you gave the infielders those hoaky gloves and he played on the unkept infields of the early part of the century.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

How do you rank Cobb?

Jackson was an equivalent fielder, and slugger; who batted ten or so points lower, stole less bases, and played half the career that Cobb had.

Im not as familiar with the careers of Ryan's candidates as I will soon be, but I rank Jackson exactly where many would regarding a player with a .350+ career batting average.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Cobb played 24 years and had 1937 RBIs or 81 per year. Jackson played 13 seasons and had 785 RBIs or 60 per year. I don't know about you but 60 RBIs per year, even in that era, is not very impressive to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I have to agree with that, Jay. However, I am uncertain what to conclude. Perhaps some research would indicate whether Jackson was less of a clutch hitter, whether Cobb more frequently had runners in scoring position, or whether some other factors were in play.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

The first place I look when comparing players of different time periods is OPS+. While certainly not perfect, I find it more meaningful in comparing players than counting stats, etc.

Without any commentary, here is the top 10 OPS+ players in the history of baseball with a minimum 3000 plate appearances (source: http://baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml)

Rank Player (age) Adjusted OPS+ Bats
1. Babe Ruth+* 207 L
2. Ted Williams+* 190 L
3. Barry Bonds* (40) 184 L
4. Lou Gehrig+* 179 L
5. Rogers Hornsby+ 175 R
6. Mickey Mantle+# 172 B
7. Dan Brouthers+* 170 L
Joe Jackson* 170 L
9. Albert Pujols (25) 169 R
10.Ty Cobb+* 167 L



OPS+ tells us that after adjusting for park effects, Babe Ruth was 107% better than his peers in OPS. Ted Williams was 90% better than his peers in OPS -- and so on...

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Jay: Of Jackson's 13 seasons, 4 were partials (amounting to 180 ABs for the four years combined). If you look at only his complete seasons, Jackson's RBIs are similar per year to those of Cobb. 83/yr. Jackson, 81/yr Cobb

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

To take that point a bit further:

Cobb RBI/5.9AB Jackson RBI/6.3AB

Cobb was a bit more efficient in the RBI category but all things considered somebody could debate that Jackson had less opportunities for RBI because of his place in the batting order or because he played on teams that didn't score as often as Cobbs teams...

Something to consider is that those totals include Cobbs whole career which was played from the time he was 18 to 42. Jackson played from ages 18 to 31. That means all of Cobbs totals would include his last years which are typically the declining years for a player. Funny thing is that Cobbs declining years would be considered career years for others, I guess that's why Cobb is rated so high.

Longevity and consistency. It would be difficult to compare Cobb and Jackson's careers because of the difference in the amount of time played. Nobody will ever know if Jackson would have put up great numbers for another 10 years? Perhaps he could have had a higher lifetime average than Cobbs if he were allowed to play, maybe his average would have dropped to the .340 level (still great, but that would have put him below Ruth).

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Woulda been nice to see Jackson in the AL vs. Hornsby in the NL. As it was, the AL could only come up with Ruth.