Reggie Jackson

[JimAbbott]

I recall after the '86 season I had a conversation with an older gent in a restaurant about baseball. He was absolutely emphatic that Reggie Jackson (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=jacksre01)was unworthy of the hall and would not be elected. I was flabbergasted and knew he was way off base and that Reg was a shoe-in. I was just wondering if anyone feels he is unworthy. I say he's absolutely worthy regardless of his 2600 Ks and .262 life avg

[STLCards2]

Of course Jackson is a Hall of Famer. Great power numbers, led the league in OPS+ 4 times, played a decent outfield (for the first half of his career at least), outstanding postseasons...

[KCGHOST]

He hit 500+ HR's when it really meant something. His RCAA of 565 is, also, in the Lock zone. Every player eligible for election to the HoF with 500+ RCAA is in the HoF except Dick Allen and Pete Browning.

[flash143817]

No doubt HOFer in my book.

[jalbright]

Finally, something JimAbbott and I actually agree on!

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

Finally, something JimAbbott and I actually agree on!

Jim Albright

Pretty amazing, yes.

Of course, Reggie is a HOF no-brainer.

[JimAbbott]

Miracles happen there dudes

[Captain Cold Nose]

It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistics. While Jackson's numbers alone are good enough, he was a consistent winner, always in the headlines, and one of the faces of the sport. In the pre-cable/Bill James boom, arguably Pete Rose and maybe Tom Seaver were more well known when they all were playing.

[honus14]

It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistics. While Jackson's numbers alone are good enough, he was a consistent winner, always in the headlines, and one of the faces of the sport.
I think Steve Howe qualifies under the "always in the headlines" standard . . .

anyway, yeah, Reggie is a no-brainer. (For the Hall, I mean! As far as I can tell, Reggie himself is a quite intelligent man.)

[Chisox]

It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistics. While Jackson's numbers alone are good enough, he was a consistent winner, always in the headlines, and one of the faces of the sport. In the pre-cable/Bill James boom, arguably Pete Rose and maybe Tom Seaver were more well known when they all were playing.
Jackson's #s aren't good enough?:eek: :eek: :eek: :confused: :confused: :confused: :hp :noidea
How on earth are Jackson's #s not good enough when he's among the all-time leaders, not top 100, but top 25 in numerous stats, despite playing in a era nowhere near as good as the current for hitting in a rather poor hitters park, especially for a hitter of his type with all that foul territory in the Coliseum?

[honus14]

Jackson's #s aren't good enough?:eek: :eek: :eek: :confused: :confused: :confused: :hp :noidea
How on earth are Jackson's #s not good enough when he's among the all-time leaders, not top 100, but top 25 in numerous stats, despite playing in a era nowhere near as good as the current for hitting in a rather poor hitters park, especially for a hitter of his type with all that foul territory in the Coliseum?

Uh, what Captain Cold Nose said was:
While Jackson's numbers alone are good enough

[Rose4theHall]

I recall after the '86 season I had a conversation with an older gent in a restaurant about baseball. He was absolutely emphatic that Reggie Jackson was unworthy of the hall and would not be elected.

I think that older gent must have bought a lemon from Reggie.

4 rings and a lethal .357/.457/.755 line in 27 WS games is reason enough. But then you look and see the lifetime OPS+ of 139, an MVP, 2 WS MVPs, 14 ASGs, 4 HR titles, his gray ink, black ink, HOF Standards and HOF Monitor all look good, oh....and his most similar player is Frank Robinson. Reggie is why they made the HOF, its just bogus that he went in as a Yankee.

[JimAbbott]

How about all of his Ks people? And his lame Angels years?

[leecemark]

--When Jackson broke the all time K record, he took it from Willie Stargell, who took it from Mickey Mantle. Mantle took it from Babe Ruth, who held the mark longer than anyone. That is not bad company to be in. Reggie did hang on a little too long, but lots of stars don't know when to hang up the spikes.

[Canibus]

Over rated due to his postseason heroics. A Whif King with solid homerun power. Worthy of the HOF, but over rated.

[ChrisLDuncan]

How about all of his Ks people? And his lame Angels years?

Being Mr. October helps a lot so does having 500+ jacks.

[STLCards2]

--When Jackson broke the all time K record, he took it from Willie Stargell, who took it from Mickey Mantle. Mantle took it from Babe Ruth, who held the mark longer than anyone. That is not bad company to be in. Reggie did hang on a little too long, but lots of stars don't know when to hang up the spikes.

Exactly. In order to get the all-time K record, you have to be very good at a lot of other stuff for the manager to keep you playing game after game, year after year. This is why Ruth, Mantle, Stargell, and Jackson held the records. Strikeouts are okay...if you can walk and hit for a lot of power, which Jackson did.

[hubkittel]

i remember the whole "jackson isn't a hall of famer" thing. the old timers were all hung up on the .262 ba and the k's. never mind the hr, rbi, world championships-ty cobb out hit him by over a hundered points over the course of their carrers. that .262 freaked em out.

[538280]

How about all of his Ks people? And his lame Angels years?

What is lame about his Angel years outside of 1983? Reggie wasn't a great player with the Angels, certainly, he may not have even been a good player. But he was a solid major leaguer. He got his OPS+ as high as 130. What Reggie really did was hung on a few years after he had already really lost his previous talent. He wasn't just horrendously bad except for 1983, which he got out of in '84 and '85.

[Fuzzy Bear]

i remember the whole "jackson isn't a hall of famer" thing. the old timers were all hung up on the .262 ba and the k's. never mind the hr, rbi, world championships-ty cobb out hit him by over a hundered points over the course of their carrers. that .262 freaked em out.

The 1980s were a time where a .300 BA was important to many. One of the complaints of the generation that grew up watching Ruth, Foxx, and Williams, was that the greatest ballplayers of those generations hit .300 or better lifetime (most of them, anyway). It took a long time for it to sink into people's heads that the 1960s was the worst hitters' era in modern baseball history, and the 1970s were not terribly better. It also took a long time for people to fully appreciate park effects. Reggie played many years at the Oakland Alemeda County Colesium (whatever they call it now) which had not only deep outfield fences, but a huge foul area.

We know better now. We know about secondary average. Perhaps there's a chance for Darrell Evans and Graig Nettles. Perhaps.

[hubkittel]

The 1980s were a time where a .300 BA was important to many. One of the complaints of the generation that grew up watching Ruth, Foxx, and Williams, was that the greatest ballplayers of those generations hit .300 or better lifetime (most of them, anyway). It took a long time for it to sink into people's heads that the 1960s was the worst hitters' era in modern baseball history, and the 1970s were not terribly better. It also took a long time for people to fully appreciate park effects. Reggie played many years at the Oakland Alemeda County Colesium (whatever they call it now) which had not only deep outfield fences, but a huge foul area.

We know better now. We know about secondary average. Perhaps there's a chance for Darrell Evans and Graig Nettles. Perhaps.

exactly (and well stated, fuzzy). you have to remember that at the time bob broeg was still alive and carrying frank frisch's water bucket. the new metrics had yet to gain wide acceptance. all the greatest players of all time (except for cobb and wagner and young) played between 1920-1950. if i remember correctly, wasn't there a similiar controversy surrounding mantle and his sub .300 career ba? not that they weren't going to put him into the hall but the old timers would never accept him among the all time greats because of the ba and k's. they just could never get past a guys ba.

[Fuzzy Bear]

exactly (and well stated, fuzzy). you have to remember that at the time bob broeg was still alive and carrying frank frisch's water bucket. the new metrics had yet to gain wide acceptance. all the greatest players of all time (except for cobb and wagner and young) played between 1920-1950. if i remember correctly, wasn't there a similiar controversy surrounding mantle and his sub .300 career ba? not that they weren't going to put him into the hall but the old timers would never accept him among the all time greats because of the ba and k's. they just could never get past a guys ba.

A book that was written about 1970 was Ted Williams' The Science of Hitting. It was a great book, but Williams bemoaned the lack of .300 hitters. "As great as Mantle was," said Williams, "he finished at .298." Of course, had Mantle retired just one season earlier, he'd have kept his .300; his last season was a season where the entire AL hit .230. Mantle's .237 in his last year was still 7 points above league, and his OBP was 82 points above league. Had 1968 magically turned into 2000, all else being equal, Mantle would have finished at .300.

[ElHalo]

Reggie's borderline in my opinion. He doesn't hit those WS homers, I probably would give him a no.

[Seattle1]

Reggie's borderline in my opinion. He doesn't hit those WS homers, I probably would give him a no.

I agree with that statement.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I agree with that statement.

So being 10th on the all time HR list does nothing for you?

[538280]

Reggie's borderline in my opinion. He doesn't hit those WS homers, I probably would give him a no.

I really don't even think you're being serious.

[Seattle1]

So being 10th on the all time HR list does nothing for you?

That's pretty cool, but he sure struck out a lot.

[538280]

Honestly, EH, what is your huge beef against Reggie Jackson? Contrary to what you seem to think, Reggie was NOT horrible BA guy prior to his Angels years. He was basically a .280 hitter when the league hit .255. He played in a horrible BA era and park. He obviously had the other hitting skills, the power and walks. He was a very fast runner in his younger days and could steal some bases. He was a very good RFer who could even handle CF if you needed him. He was a five tool, solid all around outfielder. Why exactly do you hate this player so much? Is it because he ended with his BA so low, and that is what the dominant image seems to be now?

You constantly rave about players like Frankie Frisch, Pie Traynor, and Chick Hafey who were .320 hitters when the league hit .290. Reggie was basically a .280 hitter when the league hit .255, the difference being his other skills were good enough that he could still play after his BA skill had eroded. What's your problem with him?

[yanks0714]

Reggie's borderline in my opinion. He doesn't hit those WS homers, I probably would give him a no.

I've been off BBF for some time (work and health related). I come back to find EH still making off-the-wall remarks.

Reggie is a no-brainer for the HOF The WS homers just add luster to and already HOF career.

Yes, Reggie could be a jerk, which I suspect is the real reason you don't like him, but otherwise he is clearly HOF material and one of the Top 10 RF'ers of all time, probably right around the 5 to 7 ranking.

[538280]

I've been off BBF for some time (work and health related). I come back to find EH still making off-the-wall remarks.

Reggie is a no-brainer for the HOF The WS homers just add luster to and already HOF career.

Yes, Reggie could be a jerk, which I suspect is the real reason you don't like him, but otherwise he is clearly HOF material and one of the Top 10 RF'ers of all time, probably right around the 5 to 7 ranking.

Wow, nice to see you back yanks.

[Catfish27]

4 rings and a lethal .357/.457/.755 line in 27 WS games is reason enough.
Actually, Reggie was on five World Series winning teams. He didn't play in the '72 series because he tore a hamstring stealing home in the ALCS against Detroit, but he still received a ring (1). He was MVP of the '73 series (2), and was also a member of the '74 series winning Oakland A's (3). Reggie was not on the '76 Yankee team that lost to the Reds--Reggie played in Baltimore that year--but I recall him being a guest analyst in the TV booth. Reggie was back on the field the next year when the Yankees won in '77 (4), and again in '78 (5).

[brihev]

Reggie had some big guns on him. Are we sure he didn't juice?

[maximum jack]

Reggie was the superstar when I first starting playing baseball and began to collect baseball cards circa the mid 70s. I chose to ally myself with the Red Sox, so I always "hated" Reggie. I put it in quotes, of course, because if he had been a Red Sock he would have been one of my faves. He really was otherworldly . . . I mean he had his own candy bar for cryin' out loud. So yeah, he gets my unwaivering vote for immortatlity.

[Defense Counts!]

And how was he on defense? Or does that not matter?

[rugbyfreak]

Reggie's borderline in my opinion. He doesn't hit those WS homers, I probably would give him a no.

But...the fact is, he DID hit those WS homers, and they represent a large part of his greatness. So what exactly is your point?

As for "lame Angel years," they signed a 36-year-old slugger in 1982, knowing he was on the downside. So what happens his first year ('82): He leads the AL with 39 homers, the Angels make the ALCS for only the second time, and should have won that, hands down. Granted, '83 was mediocre (injury-plagued), but instead of phoning it in from there, he picked himself up and had two more very solid years as an aging DH. His winning aura, if you will, rubbed off on the Angels once more, as they advanced again to the ALCS, in '86, where, of course, they engineered yet another epic collapse.

And all of this was well past his prime.

Funny, isn't it--and maybe even a coincidence--that the Angels never got near the post-season again until that '02 season?

Some things cannot be measured strictly by numbers. But if you're a strict numbers guy, Reggie's got those, too. And this from a Yankee fan who was never his greatest fan.

Thanks for listening!

freak

[antihipster]

Anyone saying Jackson is not a hall of famer has got to be smoking some really potent weed.

Jackson is a shoe in for hall of fame. His stats were high for a low hitting era, could steal early on, and had lots of circles around his fingers for his post season rewards.

[538280]

And how was he on defense? Or does that not matter?

He was very good in his younger years, but not so good as he aged. Overall he was a very good but not all time great type defensive OFer. Of course it counts, though in Jackson's case (and for all RFers), hitting is of course much more important.

[four tool]

The arguments against Reggie were also used on Killebrew, but they both deserve THE HALL. The hall is not only for five tool players .

[538280]

The arguments against Reggie were also used on Killebrew, but they both deserve THE HALL. The hall is not only for five tool players .

Reggie was a five tool player up until his Yanks days. Why does Reggie get lumped in with players like Killebrew and Rob Deer? Reggie was NOT like that AT ALL until he was with the Angels and maybe a little bit like that with the Yanks.

[UTforever22]

Anyone saying Jackson is not a hall of famer has got to be smoking some really potent weed.

Jackson is a shoe in for hall of fame. His stats were high for a low hitting era, could steal early on, and had lots of circles around his fingers for his post season rewards.

couldn't agree more