What Would Joe Jackson Have done?

[philipthegreat]

Joe Jacksons slugging and power numbers went up in three straight years in 1917, 1918, and 1920.

1917 1917
Slugging-.429 Home Runs-5
1919 1919
Slugging-.506 Home Runs-7
1920 1920
Slugging-.589 Homeruns-12

As you can see his numbers go up in these seasons.
The question is had Landis not put Jackson on his ineligible what might have Jackson done considering he was in the prime of his career.

[Blackout]

40-50 homers

[Afterglow]

40-50 homers

That's alot of homeruns.

But I don't know his power.

I always wondered what Cobb would have done in the 20's he he swung for the fences.

He did hit I think 5 in a 3 game span to show off once.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

40-50 homers

That's unlikely. If Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker didn't become elite HR hitters in the 1920s why would Jackson?

[TigerNation]

That's alot of homeruns.

But I don't know his power.

I always wondered what Cobb would have done in the 20's he he swung for the fences.

He did hit I think 5 in a 3 game span to show off once.

I'm pretty sure it was 5 in two games.

[EXCELSIOR]

That's unlikely. If Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker didn't become elite HR hitters in the 1920s why would Jackson?

Because of the majestic way he swang Black Betsy, all 48-oz of her, in a way that inspired Ruth.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Because of the majestic way he swang Black Betsy, all 48-oz of her, in a way that inspired Ruth.
Ok, I'm not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic? :) Did Jackson display power in the Dead Ball era the way Ruth did before 1920?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Because of the majestic way he swang Black Betsy, all 48-oz of her, in a way that inspired Ruth.

Except that early on, Ruth was hitting long bombs with a very similar stance and swing, that he would later use to hit 11, 29, 54, 59, etc....before he'd even seen Jackson play.

I would say Jackson would have thrived in the early to mid 20s. before tailing off and declining. He had good power, and I believe, the talent, to tweak his swing in order to take even more advantage of the rule changes. Something like 28-34 dingers while maintaining a high batting average is my guess.

[Chickazoola]

I expect he would have been more like Tris Speaker(who had a career high of 17) and hit about 17-20 per season.

[Afterglow]

I'm pretty sure it was 5 in two games.


O. ok. That is even more impressive.


Cobb could have been a serious live-ball slugger.

[Bill Burgess]

I think you guys all miss the point. It depends on one's hitting philosophy. Not every batter who strides to the plate is trying to accomplish the exact same things.

To compare Jackson to Cobb is not thinking right. Cobb once said that if he had swung like Jackson, he would have struck out twice every game. That only Jackson had the eye, timing, rhythm to swing so big/hard and not miss the ball.

Cobb was to Ruth what Sisler was to Hornsby. See?

Cobb/Sisler were just trying to get on anyway they could. Ruth/Jackson/Hornsby were trying to put some sting on the ball.

Hornsby hit 42 homers in 1922 because he swung big and hard. Sisler poked, slapped, bunted like Cobb, Speaker, Collins. Hornsby once said that Cobb handled a bat like a billiard cue.

Hornsby/Jackson wanted to drive hard line drives and both swung level, without the upper-cut that Ruth applied. It also depended somewhat on the dimensions of your park. Ruth was handicapped by Fenway.

So, it depended on their hitting philosophy. Jackson was much more susceptible to being persuaded to add some upper-cut, and his natural power was there, just like it was with Hornsby.

[brett]

With a normal decline, Jackson was already past his prime, and I think he was better at ages 21-23 than in 1920.

He was too old to become a great power hitter by then. He could have had 3-5 years in the 20-35 range by then. If he had been 5 year younger, he could have come close to matching Hornsby's hitting numbers.

[EXCELSIOR]

Because of the majestic way he swang Black Betsy, all 48-oz of her, in a way that inspired Ruth.

Serious as the 1919 World Series;), after which Jackson would have possibly closed his stance some, and uppercut a bit more and put more of those liners out of the park - likely making him an elite home run hitter for a few years in the early Twenties.

Of course, Sultan's right - he would not have hit like Ruth. When it came to home runs, Ruth was in a class all by himself. (see Red Smith's comments below.)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

O. ok. That is even more impressive.


Cobb could have been a serious live-ball slugger.

Him calling the homers before the games has been debunked I believe. In any case, I do think Cobb could have been a pretty good live-ball slugger if he had taken the approach. His batting average would suffer but 30-35 homers seems very likely for a few years at least.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

With a normal decline, Jackson was already past his prime, and I think he was better at ages 21-23 than in 1920.

He was too old to become a great power hitter by then. He could have had 3-5 years in the 20-35 range by then. If he had been 5 year younger, he could have come close to matching Hornsby's hitting numbers.

Why would you say Jackson was in decline? He did play in 1920 at age 30 and hit a career high in HRs with 12, hit .382/.444/.589, 172 OPS+.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Why would you say Jackson was in decline? He did play in 1920 at age 30 and hit a career high in HRs with 12, hit .382/.444/.589, 172 OPS+.

I don't know Adam, 30 is pretty old. Look what Bonds did after 1995 :shhh:

[EXCELSIOR]

Why would you say Jackson was in decline? He did play in 1920 at age 30 and hit a career high in HRs with 12, hit .382/.444/.589, 172 OPS+.



Which means, of course, that he was in ascent, not decline. And the new game would have favored his style greatly.*

* Of course, I guess there is the argument that, had his Sox not cheated, the game would not have changed fast enough for him to capitalize on the Ruth revolution.

[csh19792001]

I do think Cobb could have been a pretty good live-ball slugger if he had taken the approach. His batting average would suffer but 30-35 homers seems very likely for a few years at least.

At this point, buddy, I pretty much agree. Nearly 300 triples, 724 doubles....playing in those parks, at very least 150 of them would have been homers in today's parks which are 370 to the "power alleys" and 400 to center. Juxtaposed with 400 feet to the power alleys and 450-500 to center. Cobb was anything but a pull hitter and in the modern era the majority of his long hits would be gone today, as would Ruth's.

His batting average would drop some- probably considerably from his impossible .367- but his OBP and SLG would rise considerably, outweighing the relative loss in average.

Cobb's Power Case:

Drawn from the book Baseball's All-Time Best Sluggers:Adjusted Batting Performance from Strikeouts to Home Runs (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7932.html)

This adjusts everyone to a neutral offensive context in an attempt to level the playing field.

Adjusted Triples:
Cobb: 170 (#2 all time, behind Sam Crawford)

Adjusted Home Runs:
Cobb: 418 (#29 all time)

Adjusted RBIs:
Cobb: 1981 (#2 all time, behind only Hank Aaron)

Adjusted Total Bases:
Cobb: 6001 (#2 all time, behind only Hank Aaron)

Adjusted Slugging:
Cobb: .550 (14th all time, Cobb is #71 all time in real life)

[brett]

Why would you say Jackson was in decline? He did play in 1920 at age 30 and hit a career high in HRs with 12, hit .382/.444/.589, 172 OPS+.

Career best raw rates and totals but not relative rates and totals. 12 home runs with a livlier ball, and didn't they outlaw new spitballers before 1920? He was in a "second" prime if you will, but he was a better relative hitter in '10-'12. The historical prime for players throughout all time has been ages 24-27 with few exceptions. Some guys did gain power after age 30.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Career best raw rates and totals but not relative rates and totals. 12 home runs with a livlier ball, and didn't they outlaw new spitballers before 1920? He was in a "second" prime if you will, but he was a better relative hitter in '10-'12. The historical prime for players throughout all time has been ages 24-27 with few exceptions. Some guys did gain power after age 30.

Chapman didn't get beaned until August 16th, 1920.

1921 is when 17 spitballers were grandfathered.

[Second Base Coach]

According to another website, the most similar players (by age) to Joe Jackson were:

Sim Player From To Yrs G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Joe Jackson 1908-1920 13 1332 4981 873 1772 307 168 54 785 519 158 .356 .423 .517 202 61 170
928* Paul Waner 1926-1933 8 1205 4753 901 1643 337 128 67 695 538 156 .346 .415 .513 77 0 141
904* Heinie Manush 1923-1932 10 1343 5106 905 1716 347 109 86 814 334 247 .336 .383 .497 91 48 126
893* Tris Speaker 1907-1918 12 1485 5475 969 1872 357 136 43 742 672 104 .342 .420 .480 359 81 166
878* Joe Kelley 1891-1902 12 1333 5160 1150 1719 281 158 58 979 713 163 .333 .420 .483 388 0 141
877* Jesse Burkett 1890-1899 10 1218 5045 1170 1798 213 113 44 643 640 230 .356 .433 .470 265 0 141
876* Harry Heilmann 1914-1925 11 1433 5279 844 1775 327 111 112 992 546 379 .336 .402 .504 82 43 146
865* Ed Delahanty 1888-1898 11 1254 5214 1151 1762 343 135 71 996 506 244 .338 .404 .496 361 0 145
859* Elmer Flick 1898-1906 9 1237 4710 833 1500 240 142 44 674 498 0 .318 .394 .458 279 0 151
848* Fred Clarke 1894-1903 10 1215 4908 997 1610 221 120 50 608 438 85 .328 .397 .453 339 0 134
846 Joe Vosmik 1930-1940 11 1375 5380 816 1664 333 92 65 861 508 265 .309 .371 .442 23 24 105


So here you have a good smattering of players. If you look at the guys who played in the same era, you are talking about Harry Heilmann and Tris Speaker for the most part.

If you want to look at Year of Birth, here are a list of guys you have heard of who were born about the same time as Joe Jackson, using Win Shares as a way to sort them. Note the players who had MORE Win Shares than Joe Jackson, and those are the fellas who probably have the records (read: stats) you would want to use in order to project Joe Jackson's statistics moving forward from 1920:

Name, Career Win Shares, Year of Birth, Position on Diamond

Ruth, Babe 756 1895 9
Cobb, Ty 722 1886 8
Speaker, Tris 630 1888 8
Collins, Eddie 574 1887 4
Wheat, Zack 380 1888 7
Heilmann, Harry 356 1894 9
Carey, Max 351 1890 8
Rice, Sam 327 1890 9
Hooper, Harry 321 1887 9
Roush, Edd 314 1893 8
Maranville, Rabbit 302 1891 6
Baker, Home Run 301 1886 5
Jackson, Joe 294 1889 7
Sisler, George 292 1893 3
Burns, George 290 1889 7
Doyle, Larry 289 1886 4
Konetchy, Ed 287 1885 3
Groh, Heine 272 1889 5
Judge, Joe 270 1894 3
Bancroft, Dave 269 1891 6
Milan, Clyde 266 1886 8
Veach, Bobby 265 1888 7
Gardner, Larry 258 1886 5
Schang, Wally 245 1889 2
Pratt, Del 242 1888 4
Peckinpaugh, Roger 239 1891 6
Williams, Cy 235 1887 8
Bush, Donie 232 1887 6
Fournier, Jack 231 1889 3
McInnis, Stuffy 227 1890 3
Fletcher, Art 218 1885 6
Zimmerman, Heinie 214 1887 5
Pipp, Wally 203 1893 3
Williams, Ken 202 1890 7
Burns, George 200 1893 3


Joe Jackson still ranks #13 on the Win Shares List. This list is "Most Win Shares by hitters who were born between 1885 and 1895". I chose those numbers as a rough guide to select his "peers".

Now we would have to consider the idea of him hitting like Heilmann and Speaker, and being able to keep playing like they did. I don't think it would be out of bounds to consider the idea that if he were allowed to keep playing, his records would look somewhat like those of Tris Speaker. And Speaker's three best home run years came after the age of 34, thanks to the conditions of the game itself, so we would expect Jackson't homer rate to climb as well.

But if you are talking about raw stats like homers, you would have to look at home park data. I would rather not, perhaps someone else will.

Eddie Collins was still great, and would have kept scoring in front of Jackson for at least five and a half more years, so I think the RBI would be there.

And what about those White Sox Teams??? How did they fare without him?

As a team, their home runs did NOT increase thru the 1920s. They hit 37 in 1920, they maxed out at 45 in the decade.

Triples? Down
Doubles? Up slightly in the late 1920s
Runs? All over the place, more of a down-up-down pattern
The park played as a slight pitchers park. Slight....
The team total bases were VERY steady.

So let's not get carried away with the rabbit ball arguement, and expect a huge jump just because the 1920s were a little more hitter friendly than the 1910s.

Looking at Speaker's numbers with Jackson's... just a 20 second look, Jackson at the same age and time was walking less, stealing fewer bases, driving in a few more runs while they played at the same time, and that trend probably would have continued. Players don't usually steal more bases in their 1930s, and walks are kind of hard to predict. Most hitters become better at learning the strike zone, but at that point in history, walks were not near as common as they are now. Even a ten percent increase would not have moved the meter that much.

Maybe Tris Speaker lite? Remember, Spoke put up his 1920s numbers while managing the team as well. But the park in Cleveland was a slight hitters park... so I think we found our comp!

Bold Statement from me: Joe Jackson's raw career numbers would have been within five percent (across the board) of Tris Speaker's if he were allowed to play just as long as Speaker