Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What might have been . . .The Black Sox

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    It is odd that the Ruth led Yankees is considered by quite a few to be the greatest Yankee teams of all time and yet they won so few championships and if the Sox hadn't gotten kicked out of the game they would have even fewer.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mordeci View Post
      I know I'll get yelled at for this, but that's never stopped me:

      Shoeless Joe is James Dean.

      If it wasn't for the black sox scandal Jackson wouldn't be so highly rated and wouldn't be nearly as famous. Obviously he would be a HOFer, but in the 2nd tier. Below Cobb and Speaker, probably below Simmons and Sisler. Jackson was banished in his prime and never had a chance to play while his skills were eroding. His numbers (granted, in a different era) were similar to Wade Boggs through age 31 (except SBs). My guess is that Jackson's BA would have ended up south of .340.

      People talk about Jackson like he was on the same level with Cobb, but that's just not true:

      numbers through age 31:
      Cobb 2361 hits, 63 HRs, 1077 RBI, 703 SBs, .370 Avg
      Keeler 2115 hits, 23 HRs, 636 RBI, 400 SBs, .365 Avg
      Hornsby 2288 hits, 217 HRs, 1176 RBI, 126 SBs, .359 Avg
      Jackson 1772 hits, 54 HRs, 785 RBI, 202 SBs, .356 Avg
      Boggs 1597 hits, 64 HRs, 523 RBI, 14 SBs, .352 Avg

      I'm not bashing Jackson, just giving my impression of his place in history had the black sox scandal not happened.
      Although I agree with you regarding the fact that Joe Jackson's legacy has been (strangely) enhanced due to his role in the Black Sox scandal... I don't agree that his numbers would have suffered if he had been able to play 5-10 more years. Look at the numbers of any of his contemporaries, Harry Heilmann would be a good example, they all got a big boost from playing in the lively ball / no spitball era. Any penalty he would have gotten for playing through his decline would have been more than offset by the large bonus his numbers would have received from playing into the 20's.

      The funny thing is that, he would probably not be so revered these days, even with those better numbers, because people might just dismiss him as a guy who got a big boost from playing in the 20's.
      "(Van) Mungo and I get along fine. I just tell him I won't stand for no nonsense, and then I duck."
      Casey Stengel

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by SoxRule21 View Post
        Its nice to here all that stuff about what could of been. But the bottom line is that the White Sox are still the most cursed team in baseball. They are famous for things that you don't want to be famous for. This is a team that has thrown a world series since they last won one. And i don't see them winning one any time soon.
        Some day.

        Some day..
        Go go White Sox

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Eastvanmungo View Post
          Although I agree with you regarding the fact that Joe Jackson's legacy has been (strangely) enhanced due to his role in the Black Sox scandal... I don't agree that his numbers would have suffered if he had been able to play 5-10 more years. Look at the numbers of any of his contemporaries, Harry Heilmann would be a good example, they all got a big boost from playing in the lively ball / no spitball era. Any penalty he would have gotten for playing through his decline would have been more than offset by the large bonus his numbers would have received from playing into the 20's.

          The funny thing is that, he would probably not be so revered these days, even with those better numbers, because people might just dismiss him as a guy who got a big boost from playing in the 20's.
          This is so true. Joe Jackson has been romaticized by being a part of the Black Sox scandal. If he had played out his career, I'm sure he would have been elected to the HOF, but we might look at him more like an Al Simmons, Jesse Burkett, Yax type player. Good, sometimes great, definite HOF'er but rarely thought of as an absolute elite. He would surely not get as much play on these boards and others as he does now.

          I also question how well he would have done if his carerr hadn't ended so abruptly. Wasn't he 31 years old at the time of his banishment? Really, how many more productive years would he have had? Not sure players went well into their late 30's in those days. Those who did had some significant dropoffs in their production, which would be expected.

          Yankees Fan Since 1957

          Comment


          • #35
            I agree Jackson's reputation has probably been inflated by the scandal, and in fact the same is true of the Sox as a team. But Jackson was not a huge leap behind Speaker and Cobb, and both of them were still pretty productive players at 40, and in Cobb's case, beyond.

            I don't believe the White Sox would have been the team of the decade during the 1920's without the scandal, but they would have been far stronger. Comiskey had a large number of holes to fill. Even Risberg was an everyday player, and you don't just assume you can snap your fingers and cause a legitimate regular to appear.

            If something similar to the Black Sox scandal were to happen now, the silver lining for the team's management would be that they would be shedding a lot of salary and could reinvest some of the saved money by dipping into the free agent market to sign replacements. Comiskey did not have that option. He either had to make expensive player purchases or acquire players by trade, thereby opening new vacancies created by the loss of the men he was trading. Comiskey worked aggressively to acquire minor league stars, and I have seen complaints by him (as well as other teams) that they wanted Boston's players but Frazee would not deal with anyone but the Yankees. Some of Comsikey's acquisitions worked out quite well, but he just had too many holes to fill.

            By the late 1920's, my impression is that Comiskey was getting discouraged by his failure to rebuild the team. His bankroll may have been getting depleted, too, and he certainly was aging and within a few years of death. Meanwhile, the Cubs had developed a very strong organization, and the Sox settled in for a long spell as Chicago's second team.
            “Money, money, money; that is the article I am looking after now more than anything else. It is the only thing that will shape my course (‘religion is nowhere’).” - Ross Barnes

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by yanks0714 View Post
              This is so true. Joe Jackson has been romaticized by being a part of the Black Sox scandal. If he had played out his career, I'm sure he would have been elected to the HOF, but we might look at him more like an Al Simmons, Jesse Burkett, Yax type player. Good, sometimes great, definite HOF'er but rarely thought of as an absolute elite. He would surely not get as much play on these boards and others as he does now.

              I also question how well he would have done if his carerr hadn't ended so abruptly. Wasn't he 31 years old at the time of his banishment? Really, how many more productive years would he have had? Not sure players went well into their late 30's in those days. Those who did had some significant dropoffs in their production, which would be expected.
              Yaz > Simmons > Burkett.

              Yaz is upper-middle tier in my opinion. Simmons is middle tier, Jesse Burkett is middle tier as well but a notch below Simmons. It's very close.

              And Joe Jackson? He WOULD have been better than all of them, I think. However, even though he was only 31 when he was kicked out of baseball, his best seasons had come 7 years ago.
              Originally posted by Cougar
              "Read at your own risk. Baseball Fever shall not be responsible if you become clinically insane trying to make sense of this post. People under 18 must read in the presence of a parent, guardian, licensed professional, or Dr. Phil."

              Comment


              • #37
                Why does everybody assume that the Sox would have won the 1919 Series if they hadn't thrown it? It certainly seems to me that the Reds were the better team. Even though the NL was a bit weaker than the AL- the Reds had an all-time great pitching staff with a team ERA+ of 124 and incredible depth, and were also second in the NL in hitting. Heck even their pitchers could hit- four of their five starters had OPS+ over 50, and three over 80. The team was also first in the NL in OBP and second in slugging. They finished 96-44, way better than the White Sox did, won by 9 games over second place New York, and 21 games over third place Chicago. Edd Roush and Heinie Groh were nearly as good as Shoeless Joe that season, and way better than any other Chicago hitter, and the Sox had nowhere near the pitching depth the Reds had.

                I just don't think the Sox were a better team.
                "Here's a crazy thought I've always had: if they cut three fingers off each hand, I'd really be a great hitter because then I could level off better." Paul Waner (lifetime .333 hitter, 3,152 lifetime hits.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by yanks0714 View Post
                  This is so true. Joe Jackson has been romaticized by being a part of the Black Sox scandal. If he had played out his career, I'm sure he would have been elected to the HOF, but we might look at him more like an Al Simmons, Jesse Burkett, Yax type player. Good, sometimes great, definite HOF'er but rarely thought of as an absolute elite. He would surely not get as much play on these boards and others as he does now.
                  I don't know if he'd have been as high up as Yaz, who's in a different class than Simmons and Burkett, but through age 30 he was better than any of those three.

                  Though age 30:
                  Jackson: 170 OPS+, .815 OWP, 60.1 WARP3, -33 FRAA
                  Yaz: 142 OPS+, .724 OWP, 52.9 WARP3, 23 FRAA
                  Simmons: 148 OPS+, .762 OWP, 49.1 WARP3, 25 FRAA
                  Burkett: 141 OPS+, .741 OWP, 40.4 WARP3, -6 FRAA

                  And that's without giving him any credit for losing a year to WW1.


                  There's no reason to assume he'd have had the longevity that Yaz had, but he certainly had the better peak. Even if Jackson would have suffered a rapid decline after age 30, he still had assured his place in the teir all-time greats right below guys like Jimmie Foxx and Frank Robinson and Johnny Bench, well above the level of guys like Simmons and Burkett. And a rapid decline starting at age 31 seems unlikely, given that he was coming off his best offensive year since he was 23.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Buzzaldrin View Post
                    Why does everybody assume that the Sox would have won the 1919 Series if they hadn't thrown it? It certainly seems to me that the Reds were the better team. Even though the NL was a bit weaker than the AL- the Reds had an all-time great pitching staff with a team ERA+ of 124 and incredible depth, and were also second in the NL in hitting. Heck even their pitchers could hit- four of their five starters had OPS+ over 50, and three over 80. The team was also first in the NL in OBP and second in slugging. They finished 96-44, way better than the White Sox did, won by 9 games over second place New York, and 21 games over third place Chicago. Edd Roush and Heinie Groh were nearly as good as Shoeless Joe that season, and way better than any other Chicago hitter, and the Sox had nowhere near the pitching depth the Reds had.

                    I just don't think the Sox were a better team.
                    They lost the series 5-3 with Dickie Kerr who nobody expected anything out of winning 2 games. Cicotte wins his third game. That leaves the White Sox needing to win 2 games out of the 5 games they lost with at least 4 of them fixed games. Is it really unreasonable to assume that had the White Sox not thrown all those gamese they would have picked up those two games?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
                      That's been done, though, many times over.

                      One thing I'd like to see around here is more historical speculation like this. It's interesting, if indeed presented in a manner such as this. It's very easy to say "Sandy Koufax would have broken every pitching record possible if he didn't have arm troubles" or throw out statistics 10 years down the line for him. There's no way to prove anything there.
                      For those of you interested in these sort of discussions, there's a newsgroup out there that specializes in these and has guidelines posted that should be useful for conversations here as well.

                      Obviously as it's a newsgroup there's a few things particular to it, but this addresses requirements for "good" AH (Alternative History) as well. Not a long read, hope some find it interesting.

                      http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/history/what-if.html

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                        They lost the series 5-3 with Dickie Kerr who nobody expected anything out of winning 2 games. Cicotte wins his third game. That leaves the White Sox needing to win 2 games out of the 5 games they lost with at least 4 of them fixed games. Is it really unreasonable to assume that had the White Sox not thrown all those gamese they would have picked up those two games?
                        I don't think it's reasonable to assume anything. The Reds won the first game 9-1 by rocking Cicotte. If Eddie bore down would the Sox necessarily have won? I don't think so. Even without the 6 Cicotte gave up, the Reds scored more. And were the Sox hitters throwing it? Hard to tell- Shoeless Joe scored the Sox only run, and Gandil, Weaver, and McMullin (all in on the fix) had four of the Sox 6 hits with Gandil driving in Jackson.

                        Game two the Reds beat Lefty Williams, who was in on the fix too. Game three Kerr throws a three hitter. Game four Cicotte loses again- but who's to say he would've won if he'd been straight. The Sox were shutout, but all of their hits came from Black Sox. How can we say they still wouldn't have been shutout? Game five the Sox are shutout again- the Reds had awesome pitching all year, they may quite likely have still happened with no fix. You can't win without scoring runs. Game six, Chick Gandil drives in Weaver in the top of the tenth- obviously played straight, but certainly a game that could have gone either way. Game seven, Cicotte bests Sallee. Game eight, Williams blows it in the first, but James and Wilkinson, not in on the fix, still give up more runs than the Sox score- quite likely the Reds would've won it anyhow.

                        Although you can't (of course) assume anything with certainty, it seems fairly like that three or more of the Sox losses would've still been losses without the fix and that it would've been a very close series whoever won. I just don't think it correct to assume that 1) the Sox would've won, and 2) that they were a better team.

                        The Reds had the best NL single season wpct between 1912 and 1942. They were a hell of a good team, and very much underrated by posterity because of the scandal.
                        "Here's a crazy thought I've always had: if they cut three fingers off each hand, I'd really be a great hitter because then I could level off better." Paul Waner (lifetime .333 hitter, 3,152 lifetime hits.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The Reds won the first game by 9-1 because the Sox were throwing the game, all of them.

                          GAme two is a game that could have definitely gone the Sox way, so that is one win right there. So now the series goes 9 at least and the Sox either have to win that 9th game or pick up one more win elsewhere before that.

                          Game 4 the Sox lose and the Sox get their cash, they lose 2-0. Is this a game the Sox could have won? Sure.

                          Game 5 the Sox get blanked and Williams is pitching. They just got paid after the last game we really shouldn't expect anything out of the crooked players for this game and they don't do anything.

                          Final game: Yes the relievers gave up more runs then the Sox scored but the relievers wouldn't have been in there if Williams wasn't throwing the game. Do the Reds score 10 runs if Williams isn't throwing the game? Do they score 6 if Williams isn't throwing the game? In Williams' two other games, games in which he was throwing it he only allowed 8 runs over 17 innings. It certainly doesn't look likely that Williams playing it on the level would suddenly give up 6 runs to the Reds in that final game if he wanted to actually play to win.

                          Obviously nothing is an absolute certainty but it certainly looks to me like the Sox could have won that series if they had wanted to.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Ed Roush always said the 1919 Reds were better than the White Sox and the "fix" took all the attention off their team. He believes the Sox would have lost, fix or no fix.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Iron Jaw View Post
                              Ed Roush always said the 1919 Reds were better than the White Sox and the "fix" took all the attention off their team. He believes the Sox would have lost, fix or no fix.
                              I don't think the Roush opinion says much. What was he supposed to say? 'It's a good thing the White Sox weren't trying or they would have wiped the field with us?'

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Iron Jaw View Post
                                Ed Roush always said the 1919 Reds were better than the White Sox and the "fix" took all the attention off their team. He believes the Sox would have lost, fix or no fix.
                                Ed Roush is certainly an unbiased source.
                                Originally posted by Cougar
                                "Read at your own risk. Baseball Fever shall not be responsible if you become clinically insane trying to make sense of this post. People under 18 must read in the presence of a parent, guardian, licensed professional, or Dr. Phil."

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X