Shoeless Joe Jax DIVERSION, why isn't he in any 1911-1917 major T or E-card sets ?

[T206DK]

this is kind of what I was talking about several posts ago. He was considered a "rube" and was discriminated against because of his southern roots and simple ways. This angle makes sense and is supported

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206DK

this is kind of what I was talking about several posts ago. He was considered a "rube" and was discriminated against because of his southern roots and simple ways. This angle makes sense and is supported

How do you explain the 48 southern league players that were included if it was a question of discrimination? The T206 set is full of "southern rubes."

The southern league players were selected from their previous seasons. The 34 included in the first run were selected from the 1908 season and printed in the summer of 1909. The 14 added were taken from the 1909 season and distributed in March of 1910.

IMO it wasn't discrimination, it wasn't an anti Joe campaign, it was timing. The facts I believe back that up.

As with any topic we can agree to disagree.

[jmk59]

But it's not just the T206 set. It's several important sets of the era.

If it's just timing and photos, then the absence of a significant player from the significant sets of a significant commercial activity (baseball cards as promos) would amount to "it just didn't work out".

I don't know jack from jackola about the dates of issue and any of that, so I realize that I don't have a real substantive leg to stand on here. But from a logic standpoint, it really seems to me that it would have had to have been something more affirmative than simply not working out. I do understand the thought that maybe they decided that Cobb, Johnson, Matty, etc, were enough. Still, there were images available, and players being added, removed or changed here and there over the course of the distribution of these sets.

Joann

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by jmk59

But it's not just the T206 set. It's several important sets of the era.

Joann

Of those sets that use the same images as the T206 set, was a new player included that didn't first appear in T206?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So if Jax was snubbed why isn't Alexander in any of the sets either?

[tedzan]

I think there is and I'll check it out.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Another big mystery.....perhaps he was also snubbed

Alexander and Jackson had parallel seasons in 1911 (their first full seasons in the majors). Jackson bats .408
and Alexander leads the NL by winning 28 games.

Alexander's pitching performance in 1911 is the greatest season by a rookie pitcher in the 20th Century........

28-13 with a 2.57 ERA


So, why were Jackson and Alexander "snubbed" ?

Regarding Jackson....a combo of predjudice against BB players from the deep South and his illiteracy.
Jackson was not a talker....he was a doer. He did his "talking" with his Black Beauty bat.

Whereas, in Alexander's case, a heavy drinker, who had bouts with epilepsy, and was very introverted.
Alexander was not a talker....he was a doer. He did his "talking" with his right arm.

Goodness, how do you NOT portray in a major BB card set, a pitcher who won 190 games from 1911-1917.


TRIVIA......There is a strange coincidence associated with Alex's name....can you tell me what it is ?


TED Z

[cfc1909]

"But there was another factor in those early days of BB......there was a strong predjudice against ballplayers from the
"Deep South" by the mostly Northern-bred players of that day. The best example of this was when Cobb started in BB"


I think I buy into the snub for JJ-along with Cobb being included in 206 but not included in the Rochester, factory 649 part of the set-snubbed.

I know Speaker is Texas and that is south but not "Deep South"-How many big time players are "Deep South"?

[cfc1909]

That Virginia State League photo is killer -thanks for sharing it on the board