Joe Jackson Thread

[White Knight]

Some quotes on Joe Jackson by his peers.
-----------------
Ty Cobb

1945 - I'll tell you why Jackson belongs on top. Back in those years we not only had to swing at a dead ball but also a ball that was doctored in every known way. We had the spit ball, the emery ball, the fuzzed-up ball--a ball that would do a lot of queer things and come at you with odd dips and breaks. So the good hitters of that period had to choke the bat and go in for punch hitting.

All except Jackson. Joe still took his full swing and he was often up there from .380 to .410. I know I could never have hit above .300 with that type of swing. Only Jackson, old shoeless Joe, had the eye and the smoothness and the timing to do that.

I used to wonder why he didn't strike out at least twice a game, taking a full cut at the ball that flopped and ducked from the treatment it to, whether by emery or thumbnail or saliva."

1950 - The finest natural hitter in the history of the game was Shoeless Joe Jackson. He was batting against spit balls, shine balls, emory balls and all the other trick deliveries now outlawed. He never figured anything out or studied anything with the same scientific approach I gave it. He just swung. If he'd have had my knowledge of the intricacies of the batting art, his averages would have been truly phenomena." (Inside Baseball, by Arthur Daley, 1950, pp. 24.)

I find those quotes to be very interesting. I think Jackson is extremely under-rated here. Had he had the smarts of Cobb and Williams, and had he punched at the ball more like everyone else did back then, he may have been able to hit .500.

[bluesky5]

I'm not sure about the ROY rules and who qualifies as a "rookie." Joe played 5 games in each '08 and '09 then 20 in '10.

1911 - .408/.468 [LL]/.590, 193 OPS+, 233 H, 45 doubles, 19 triples, 7 HR, 83 RBI, 41 SB, 126 R in 147 games.

Outdone by only Cobb in BA/SLG, OPS+ H, doubles.

I'm not sure if it qualifies as a "rookie" season. If it does then it is surely one of if not the best ever.

[White Knight]

I'm not sure about the ROY rules and who qualifies as a "rookie." Joe played 5 games in each '08 and '09 then 20 in '10.

1911 - .408/.468 [LL]/.590, 193 OPS+, 233 H, 45 doubles, 19 triples, 7 HR, 83 RBI, 41 SB, 126 R in 147 games.

Outdone by only Cobb in BA/SLG, OPS+ H, doubles.

I'm not sure if it qualifies as a "rookie" season. If it does then it is surely one of if not the best ever.

I'd like to see the what the Trout lovers have to say about this. Seriously, those guys who worship his 2012 are so annoying.

[Bill Burgess]

Two of the 'rookie seasons' that may never be exceeded are Joe Jackson's 1911 season, and also Pete Alexander's 1911 season. What are the odds of that happening in the same seaaon?

The only objection is the technical issue of whether or not Jackson's previous smattering of games constituted 'a season'. Playing 20 games in 1910 hardly qualifies as 'a season'.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

What were the rules on "rookie status" at that time? Does anyone know?

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I always heard 1911 was his rookie season. Wouldn't the rules back then be the same as today for rookie of year?

[Macker]

There were no rookie rules during Jackson's career, but, generally, anyone having appeared in a previous season was not a rookie.

[White Knight]

There were no rookie rules during Jackson's career, but, generally, anyone having appeared in a previous season was not a rookie.

That's false.

[bluesky5]

According to MLB.com:

A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).

I wouldn't be surprised if what Macker said was the common interpretation of the times.

[Macker]

That's false.

You're joking, right? You need to keep in mind there were no rookie awards at the time, so there was no reason to have official criteria for being a rookie.

[White Knight]

You're joking, right? You need to keep in mind there were no rookie awards at the time, so there was no reason to have official criteria for being a rookie.

No. I was replying to your second part. You said "anyone having appeared in a previous season was not a rookie." We can use today's standards to apply, can't we?

[EdTarbusz]

No. I was replying to your second part. You said "anyone having appeared in a previous season was not a rookie." We can use today's standards to apply, can't we?

Why would today's standards apply to 1911?

[White Knight]

Why would today's standards apply to 1911?

"In order to qualify as a rookie in Major League Baseball, a player has to have had fewer than 130 at bats or 50 innings pitched in the majors, or 45 days on the active rosters of major league clubs (excluding time on the disabled list or any time after rosters are expanded on September 1), in their previous seasons."

Not sure when that was implemented, but let's just say it was 1950. Once it went into effect, wouldn't that make Jackson's official rookie year 1911?

[GiambiJuice]

"In order to qualify as a rookie in Major League Baseball, a player has to have had fewer than 130 at bats or 50 innings pitched in the majors, or 45 days on the active rosters of major league clubs (excluding time on the disabled list or any time after rosters are expanded on September 1), in their previous seasons."

Not sure when that was implemented, but let's just say it was 1950. Once it went into effect, wouldn't that make Jackson's official rookie year 1911?

We don't count sacrifice flies during years that the sac fly rule didn't exist. I'm not sure whether this would be any different. It's a good question.

[bluesky5]

His rookie year is never mentioned with the greatest of all-time. Despite the fact that it may very well be.