Hypothetical on Joe Jackson
 

Posted By: <b>Darren J. Duet</b><p>Had Shoeless not been banned from baseball would have he been an inaugural (sp.) hall of fame inductee had he continued to perform over a 18-20 yr career? If yes, which (if any) of the Five original inductees would have been left out?

Hypothetical on Joe Jackson
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i'd say no. he was not good enough to replace Cobb, Johnson, Mathewson, Ruth and Wagner. speaker,lajoie hornsby maybe, shoeless joe.no

Hypothetical on Joe Jackson
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I don't know if he would have made it on the first ballot or not, but he wouldn't have needed to replace any of the first five. There was no limit to the number of people who could be elected in the first year. It just so happens that exactly five players received enough votes.

Hypothetical on Joe Jackson
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>He has the third highest B.A. of all time, and...his fielding wasn't TOO shoddy! Wonder what he would have done with the lively ball? Maybe lifted it a few feet so it cleared the wall? What a good question!

Hypothetical on Joe Jackson
 

Posted By: <b>Darren J Duet</b><p>Look what the guy did in just 11 or so years. He was kicked out in his prime and he was the most popular player of his term--the most notorious was Cobb until joe screwed up and then they switched titles. It's fun to speculate.....would he have chased Ruth when Ruth decided to knock balls out of the park, joe certainly had the power....would he and Cobb compete so fiercely that each's game would rise even higher....would guys like Sisler & Heilmann although great ever have a chance at catching the turbo charged cobb and joe.....ruth and joe....or joe and the rest.....or would have joe just do what he always did and make another decade of kids happy. Oh yeah, he also could have had his best years behind him and end up in the HOF's 2nd class.<br /><br />I would love to own an authentic vintage 1933 Sport Kings Shoeless Joe or 1951 Topps Connie Mack's All-Stars Joe Jackson.<br /><br />That's what makes Joe's cards so coveted---WHAT IF?

Hypothetical on Joe Jackson
 

Posted By: <b>Shannon</b><p> My vote would be that he woulda been the 6th man on the first ballot, Id rather see him in then Pete Rose anyday.

Hypothetical on Joe Jackson
 

Posted By: <b>Kenny Cole</b><p>As I understand it from Bill James' books on the HOF, the way the HOF was originally set up, there was supposed to be a veterans group as well as a 1900's group. Cy Young wasn't elected the first year because he split the vote. Had Cy Young only had to contend with Matty and Walter Johnson, I think, based on what I know, that he probably would have supplanted Johnson because I think he had less votes than Matty - And yes, as I understand it, the original voting was limited to 5 members - 5 post 1900, 5 pre-1900. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.<br /><br />So, we get to Shoeless Joe. He was a tremendous hitter in the dead ball era -- hit a bunch of triples, had power even then. Allegedly, Ruth modeled his swing after him.<br /><br />Zack Wheat was a very good, not great, hitter in the dead ball era. Right or wrong, I tend to view his skill set as being somewhat comperable to, but much less than, Jackson's. Wheat took great advantage of the advent of the live ball. That's what got him elected to the HOF. I tend to think that Jackson would have taken much greater advantage. He was a touch older and may have faded earlier (although he played in semi-pro leagues into his '50s), but I'm guessing at least 10 more years absent the expulsion because he was a fitness fanatic. I have no reason to believe that his batting average would substantially decline during most of that period, so I can't downgrade him for that.<br /><br />As I recall, the initial voting placed Cobb first, Ruth and Wagner tied, Matty, then Johnson. Had Jackson continued to play at the level he played after the time he was banished, I think there is a fair argument to be made that he at supplants Johnson and kicks him to 1937. It's all academic and doesn't matter, but I really do think that Jackson was the sort of ballplayer, much more than Cobb or Speaker, who would have thrived in the 1920's. I don't think he supplants Cobb, Ruth or Wagner, but I'm not sure he doesn't move Matty or Johnson out of the way. Doesn't matter now. Too bad.<br />

Hypothetical on Joe Jackson
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Certainly we all have our opinions, but mine is that if Jackson played in the twenties nothing would have changed our current views of him. This is because Ruth and Hornsby own the twenties. Hornsby averaged over 200 hits per season fron '20-'29 (2085 total for the decade); while Ruth hit 516 HRs between 1920 - 1930. Joe could match neither of those performances.<br /><br />He therefore would not have improved his standing in the eyes of a fan, and could have hurt his position.