PDA

View Full Version : Vote for most outstanding player in Sox history


cbrownson13
07-19-2006, 03:10 PM
MLB.com has a hometown heroes vote where you can vote for the greatest player in each team's history.

They have highlight package for all teams, which is cool.

White Sox players are: Luke Appling, Minnie Minoso, Harold Baines, Frank Thomas, and Nelly Fox

Linky: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/fan_forum/dhl/2006/vote.jsp

CubsfansareDRUNK
07-19-2006, 03:13 PM
What about Shoeless Joe?

Baby Fisk
07-19-2006, 03:15 PM
What about Shoeless Joe?
He's not the most outstanding player in Sox history. I'm not being a jerk, but would you really select Joe Jackson before Frank Thomas?

EDIT: I thought Jackson may have been left off because of his ban from baseball, but Pete Rose is on the ballot for Cincinnati...

TheDarkGundam
07-19-2006, 03:18 PM
Today's The Dugout (http://www.progressiveboink.com/dugout/) had some words on this thing.

credefan24
07-19-2006, 03:21 PM
He's not the most outstanding player in Sox history. I'm not being a jerk, but would you really select Joe Jackson before Frank Thomas?

EDIT: I thought Jackson may have been left off because of his ban from baseball, but Pete Rose is on the ballot for Cincinnati...

Yes, I'd take Jackson any day over Frank Thomas. No doubt about it.
Jackson was a more complete player. Given they played different positions, Jackson was a great fielder, and awesome hitter. Third highest lifetime average.

Frank was great, I take nothing away from him. But Joe Jackson was the best to wear a Sox uniform.

Fenway
07-19-2006, 03:26 PM
some teams will be easy for example Boston = Ted Williams, New York = Babe Ruth

My guess is Frank will win a closer vote with the White Sox.

Baby Fisk
07-19-2006, 03:39 PM
Yes, I'd take Jackson any day over Frank Thomas. No doubt about it.
Jackson was a more complete player. Given they played different positions, Jackson was a great fielder, and awesome hitter. Third highest lifetime average.

Frank was great, I take nothing away from him. But Joe Jackson was the best to wear a Sox uniform.
Then I guess DHL's poll is flawed already. (While we're at it, where is the option for Pudge Fisk?)

spiffie
07-19-2006, 03:56 PM
Yes, I'd take Jackson any day over Frank Thomas. No doubt about it.
Jackson was a more complete player. Given they played different positions, Jackson was a great fielder, and awesome hitter. Third highest lifetime average.

Frank was great, I take nothing away from him. But Joe Jackson was the best to wear a Sox uniform.
He also only wore it for four and a half total seasons. And even in those seasons his numbers were not as good as Thomas. Yes he had a huge batting average. But most of that came with Cleveland. With the White Sox he put up the following:
Batting Avg: .339
OBP: .410
His slugging percentages with the Sox in his full seaons were: .495, .429, .506, .589.

Thomas put together a 5 season run where the lowest slugging percentage he had was .606. His OBP dropped below .414 only one time from 1990-2000. His batting average only once dropped below .300 during that same time frame. If you are comparing whole careers you might be able to make a strong case for Jackson as he had hellacious numbers with Cleveland, though even with his last few years dragging the numbers down some Thomas still has better OBP and slugging. But his 4.5 years with us definitely do not compare with what Frank Thomas put up in this uniform.

StockdaleForVeep
07-19-2006, 04:00 PM
What about Shoeless Joe?



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/1999/06/24/twins_whitesox/t1_caruso_ap_01.jpg
"ME!? LOOK AT MY SOX STATS!"

eriqjaffe
07-19-2006, 04:16 PM
What about Shoeless Joe?I imagine his lifetime ban has something to do with it. I wonder if Pete Rose is on the Reds' ballot...

TDog
07-19-2006, 04:52 PM
He also only wore it for four and a half total seasons. And even in those seasons his numbers were not as good as Thomas. Yes he had a huge batting average. But most of that came with Cleveland. ....

Joe Jackson was a better hitter than Thomas. Jackson's stats are dead-ball stats. Power was measured not by home runs, which were less common, but by doubles and triples. Twice, in four full seasons with the Sox, he hit more than 40 doubles and 20 triples. With the Sox he never struck out more than 25 times in a season. But his brief time with the White Sox is the reason you can't consider Jackson the greatest White Sox player.

Considering Joe Jackson over Frank Thomas would be like considering Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton over Ed Walsh as the greatest Sox pitcher. You can debate, for example if Hank Aaron was greater than Babe Ruth, but you can't debate that Aaron was the greatest player for the Braves' franchise, even though Babe Ruth hit six home runs in a Braves uniform.

spiffie
07-19-2006, 05:10 PM
Joe Jackson was a better hitter than Thomas. Jackson's stats are dead-ball stats. Power was measured not by home runs, which were less common, but by doubles and triples. Twice, in four full seasons with the Sox, he hit more than 40 doubles and 20 triples. With the Sox he never struck out more than 25 times in a season. But his brief time with the White Sox is the reason you can't consider Jackson the greatest White Sox player.

Well, despite being a giant of a man Thomas had 30 or more doubles in a season 9 times with the Sox, along with being able to hit 30-40 HR per season. He also had amazing plate discipline with the ability to draw more walks than pretty much anyone else. It's difficult to make comparisons between eras, but one thing I would say is that at no time was Jackson the best hitter in his league, which would imply that some of his stats may sound better than they truly are. To use two marks to compare with Thomas, and again these include the last few years where he is obviously diminished) has a career OBP that is .089 higher than the league average for his career, as opposed to Jackson who is .080. In OPS (which translate quite well actually, league leaders in 1911 had OPS of around 1.05, just like Thome is around now), Thomas is .236 higher than the league average. Jackson is .161 above the league average for his career. Unrelated but amazing, Babe Ruth's career OPS is .409 higher than the league average for his career. That is unheard of dominance before or since.

digdagdug23
07-19-2006, 05:12 PM
And Fisk, where might he be on this list?

Pete Rose is on the list for the Reds.

TDog
07-19-2006, 05:20 PM
... but one thing I would say is that at no time was Jackson the best hitter in his league, which would imply that some of his stats may sound better than they truly are. ...

Joe Jackson is the only player to hit .400 and not lead the league in hitting. The balls weren't juiced. The pitchers weren't weak. If you look up the league batting average, it was probably lower than it would be in the 1930s when no one hit .400. Jackson didn't lead the league in hitting because Ty Cobb led the league in hitting.

People might want to think Frank Thomas was a better hitter than Joe Jackson. But Babe Ruth considered Jackson to be the best hitter he ever saw. If it's a tossup, you have to consider that Jackson played great defense with less leather on his hand.

the point is moot, because Jackson isn't (and shouldn't be) on the Sox ballot.

Edit: In 1969 when fans were voting on the best franchise players to celebrate 100 years of professional baseball, I was surpised Luke Appling beat out ... Carlos May. I was just a kid.

spiffie
07-19-2006, 05:47 PM
Joe Jackson is the only player to hit .400 and not lead the league in hitting. The balls weren't juiced. The pitchers weren't weak. If you look up the league batting average, it was probably lower than it would be in the 1930s when no one hit .400. Jackson didn't lead the league in hitting because Ty Cobb led the league in hitting.

People might want to think Frank Thomas was a better hitter than Joe Jackson. But Babe Ruth considered Jackson to be the best hitter he ever saw. If it's a tossup, you have to consider that Jackson played great defense with less leather on his hand.

the point is moot, because Jackson isn't (and shouldn't be) on the Sox ballot.

Edit: In 1969 when fans were voting on the best franchise players to celebrate 100 years of professional baseball, I was surpised Luke Appling beat out ... Carlos May. I was just a kid.
Babe Ruth saw hitters up close and personal through about 1938. Just saying is all.

In Jackson's best year, 1911, where he put up a line of 408/468/590, the league averages were 282/349/371. In 1935, Babe Ruth's final year in the majors (since Ruth seems to be the bridge between the dead and live ball eras) the averages were 275/330/393. In 1996, Frank's best non-strike year the league average were 271/343/435. One thing to note though is the two earlier numbers come from eras where the pitchers had to hit for themselves, and for every Babe Ruth, there was a Vean Gregg, the pitcher with the most AB's for Joe Jackson's Cleveland Nats in 1911, who hit a whopping .165. For a slightly fairer comparison the NL league averages in 1996 were 265/334/415.

Rounding_Third
07-19-2006, 05:51 PM
Jackson only played 5 years for the Sox. He played the same for Cleveland. Should he also be on their list with similar stats? How can he even be considered with the 5 mentioned especially Appling, Thomas, and Fox? I'm a big fan of SJ but Sox career-wise, the 5 listed all have it over him.

TDog
07-19-2006, 06:00 PM
Babe Ruth saw hitters up close and personal through about 1938. Just saying is all. ...

Babe Ruth considered Joe Jackson a better hitter than Babe Ruth.

Would you like to argue that Frank Thomas is a better hitter than Babe Ruth was?

hold2dibber
07-19-2006, 06:11 PM
Babe Ruth considered Joe Jackson a better hitter than Babe Ruth.

Would you like to argue that Frank Thomas is a better hitter than Babe Ruth was?

C'mon, even if you really believe that Ruth thought Jackson was a better hitter than Ruth himself (and for all we know, Ruth was exagerrating, drunk or just being nice when (if) he said this), that doesn't make it so. You can make a very compelling argument that Frank is among the best hitters in baseball history (http://www.baseballbeat.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_baseballbeat_archive.html#1059372019664 05036). I don't think the same argument can be made on Jackson's behalf. I of course have no idea if Jackson was a good defender, but as good as Jackson was, I don't think he ever dominated offensively in the way that Frank has.

Fenway
07-19-2006, 06:12 PM
The question I am about to ask a lawyer could drive Selig crazy with.

Landis gave Jackson and the others "a lifetime ban from baseball"

Wouldn't the ban end with their deaths?

Think about it.

hold2dibber
07-19-2006, 06:19 PM
MLB.com has a hometown heroes vote where you can vote for the greatest player in each team's history.

They have highlight package for all teams, which is cool.

White Sox players are: Luke Appling, Minnie Minoso, Harold Baines, Frank Thomas, and Nelly Fox

Linky: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/fan_forum/dhl/2006/vote.jsp

I'd vote for either Frank or Fox. But I think they missed a guy who definitely should be in the discussion -- Eddie Collins (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/collied01.shtml). He's all over the White Sox career leadboard (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/leaders_bat.shtml) (as an aside, I was shocked to see that Jose Valentin is 10th all-time on the Sox career HR list!). I'd take him over Minoso and Baines (although I'm a huge fan of both of those two).

digdagdug23
07-19-2006, 06:21 PM
The question I am about to ask a lawyer could drive Selig crazy with.

Landis gave Jackson and the others "a lifetime ban from baseball"

Wouldn't the ban end with their deaths?

Think about it.

I truly have never thought of it this way before. Get Selig on the phone.

TornLabrum
07-19-2006, 06:22 PM
The question I am about to ask a lawyer could drive Selig crazy with.

Landis gave Jackson and the others "a lifetime ban from baseball"

Wouldn't the ban end with their deaths?

Think about it.

It's not a lifetime ban. Jackson is "permanently ineligible." Permanent does not mean "lifetime."

digdagdug23
07-19-2006, 06:27 PM
It's not a lifetime ban. Jackson is "permanently ineligible." Permanent does not mean "lifetime."

Aack, I hate it when facts get in the way.

Fenway
07-19-2006, 06:36 PM
It's not a lifetime ban. Jackson is "permanently ineligible." Permanent does not mean "lifetime."

But that wasn't done until 1991 when they finally wanted to make sure he was banned from the HoF. When Landis banned him, there was no Hall of Fame.

Viva Medias B's
07-19-2006, 07:13 PM
I was at Busch Stadium last night when these ballots first came out. I cast a write in vote for Fisk. I'll probably vote for Frank on future votes.

Daver
07-19-2006, 07:27 PM
I am appalled that Billy Pierce is not on that list.

RKMeibalane
07-19-2006, 07:31 PM
The question I am about to ask a lawyer could drive Selig crazy with.

Landis gave Jackson and the others "a lifetime ban from baseball"

Wouldn't the ban end with their deaths?

Think about it.

Someone could argue that "lifetime" applies to the lifespan of Major League Baseball.

TDog
07-19-2006, 11:36 PM
C'mon, even if you really believe that Ruth thought Jackson was a better hitter than Ruth himself (and for all we know, Ruth was exagerrating, drunk or just being nice when (if) he said this), that doesn't make it so. You can make a very compelling argument that Frank is among the best hitters in baseball history (http://www.baseballbeat.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_baseballbeat_archive.html#1059372019664 05036). I don't think the same argument can be made on Jackson's behalf. I of course have no idea if Jackson was a good defender, but as good as Jackson was, I don't think he ever dominated offensively in the way that Frank has.

Wow, it sounds like you are comparing Frank Thomas to Babe Ruth. Did you notice Thomas never led the league in home runs? Leave it to someone else to suggest that his power numbers might be inflated.

Actually, more people consider Joe Jackson among the greatest hitters in baseball history than consider the same for Thomas. Fortunately that isn't the issue.

If I voted in this, I would probably vote for Thomas. I can see why people would vote for Carlton Fisk, Nellie Fox, Harold Baines or Luke Appling.

DSpivack
07-20-2006, 12:14 AM
Shoeless Joe played only 5 1/2 seasons with the White Sox, but played the same with the Indians. I think he identifies mostly as a White Sox than as an Indian over his career, thus I have no problem in including him as a top Sox player ever, despite his short tenure. Taking that into account, I don't think anyone else is even close to the conversation after Frank Thomas or Joe Jackson. They both rank as Top 25 hitters, ever. Shoeless Joe getting the nod in the field, for obvious reasons. I think it's a close call, but I'll take the Big Hurt.

CommanderPudge72
07-20-2006, 12:25 AM
Fisk.......Iron Man catcher, Great hitter for his position, top 5 (I believe) in club homeruns, Team Captain, played hard as nails with a great work ethic through some bad teams....and....

He $%&#$ed out Neon Deon Sanders for lagging when it wasn't SHOWTIME....

nuff said...

My Hero.

hold2dibber
07-20-2006, 12:13 PM
Wow, it sounds like you are comparing Frank Thomas to Babe Ruth. Did you notice Thomas never led the league in home runs? Leave it to someone else to suggest that his power numbers might be inflated.

Actually, more people consider Joe Jackson among the greatest hitters in baseball history than consider the same for Thomas. Fortunately that isn't the issue.

I didn't compare Thomas to Ruth at all - not sure where you got that. I was comparing Thomas to Jackson. Ruth was, without a doubt (IMHO) the best hitter in MLB history. When I have some time later today, I'll more closely compare Thomas and Jackson and post what I find.

TDog
07-20-2006, 02:18 PM
I didn't compare Thomas to Ruth at all - not sure where you got that. I was comparing Thomas to Jackson. Ruth was, without a doubt (IMHO) the best hitter in MLB history. When I have some time later today, I'll more closely compare Thomas and Jackson and post what I find.

Home run and slugging comparisons -- and statistics that include them -- mean next to nothing because Jackson didn't play after 1920. it is difficult to compare any statistics at all. It wasn't just a dead ball when Jackson played. Before Carl Mays killed Ray Chapman in August 1920, balls weren't tossed out of the game when they became difficult for the hitter to pick up. Sometimes a single ball, covered with tobacco juice, would be used in a single game. Yet Jackson averaged .375 from 1910 through 1915 in Cleveland. Ballparks, certainly in Chicago and Cleveland, were much bigger. It took 60 years of play in old Comiskey before a White Sox player cold hit at least 30 home runs in a season. This year The White Sox had a player with 30 home runs at the All-Star break. Jackson also was an excellent defender at a time when hitters had to field their positions well because the emphasis was on pitching and defense. As of this year, Frank Thomas has played more games as a DH than he has in the field.

Thomas was the greatest hitter in White Sox history, but Joe Jackson, in his time, was the more outstanding baseball player.

spiffie
07-20-2006, 02:41 PM
Home run and slugging comparisons -- and statistics that include them -- mean next to nothing because Jackson didn't play after 1920. it is difficult to compare any statistics at all. It wasn't just a dead ball when Jackson played. Before Carl Mays killed Ray Chapman in August 1920, balls weren't tossed out of the game when they became difficult for the hitter to pick up. Sometimes a single ball, covered with tobacco juice, would be used in a single game. Yet Jackson averaged .375 from 1910 through 1915 in Cleveland. Ballparks, certainly in Chicago and Cleveland, were much bigger. It took 60 years of play in old Comiskey before a White Sox player cold hit at least 30 home runs in a season. This year The White Sox had a player with 30 home runs at the All-Star break. Jackson also was an excellent defender at a time when hitters had to field their positions well because the emphasis was on pitching and defense. As of this year, Frank Thomas has played more games as a DH than he has in the field.

Thomas was the greatest hitter in White Sox history, but Joe Jackson, in his time, was the more outstanding baseball player.
But yet you accept batting averages, despite the fact that those same parks being so large made it much easier for hitters to drop hits in to various parts of the park? Either batting average was an inflated stat back then, or there have just been no great hitters in the last 60 years.

If anything OPS has proven to be remarkably consistent over the decades, especially as relates to the best players ever. The AL leader in 1910 was Ty Cobb with 1.008. The AL leader in 1920 was Babe Ruth with 1.382 in one of the greatest years ever (376/533/849, 36 doubles, 54 homers). The AL leader in 1950 was Larry Doby who had a .986 in a rather low year offense wise in the AL. 1970 was Carl Yastremzski with a 1.044. And in 1997 Frank Thomas had his fourth and final AL OPS leading season with a 1.067. Yes slugging has been influenced by the gigantic parks. However, the changes in the game that have made 30 triple seasons no longer viable also have influenced slugging downwards. Hits that nowadays get cut off in the gap by an outfielder for a single would roll to a 450 foot fence for a triple back then.

I am not arguing the fielding aspect, that one is pretty obviously in Jackson's favor. But in terms of pure hitting, the only thing I see is a higher batting average in an era where high batting average were the norm. In OBP, SLG, OPS, and surpassing one's peers Thomas is ahead in every one of those. And it is the last of those that to me is the most important. Babe Ruth's stats are amazing, but they are all the more impressive because we know that he was out-homering entire teams. He was the most dominant force in the history of baseball because he was so ahead of everyone around him. Joe Jackson was an incredibly gifted batter. And I agree with the premise that it is difficult to judge players from such disparite eras (though the numbers suggest a certain commonality that would allow such comparison), but if you are able to make such absolute statements as "Joe Jackson was a better hitter than Thomas" then I think there needs to be some way of proving that beyond anecdote and one rather limited decontexualized stat.

TDog
07-20-2006, 03:50 PM
But yet you accept batting averages, despite the fact that those same parks being so large made it much easier for hitters to drop hits in to various parts of the park? Either batting average was an inflated stat back then, or there have just been no great hitters in the last 60 years.....

Read accounts of players who played in the first two decades of the 20th century. It was a different game. Hits did not fall in the way they would today because outfielders played much shallower. The ball didn't carry. Outfielders generally weren't playing if they were not by today's standard superior defensively. They were running back on balls that were hit over their heads.

It was a different game from 1900 to 1920. It was a different game from 1920 to to 1947 etc. If Frank Thomas had played at his prime in 1968, I believe Carl Yastrzemski still would have led the league with a .301 batting average. In fact, Rod Carew, who hit .328 for his career, did play in 1968 and hit under .280. Tony Oliva whose lifetime batting average ended up falling to .304 when he was forced to retire, was third in batting average in 1968 at .289. I love Frank Thomas, but before pre-injuries Tony Oliva was a better all-around player than pre-injuries Frank Thomas.

Be satisfied Thomas is the best hitter in Sox history.

DumpJerry
07-20-2006, 03:53 PM
Shoeless Joe, Shoeless Joe, Shoeless Joe. He was a great fielder as well as hitter. Frank never really shined on the field.

spiffie
07-20-2006, 04:20 PM
Read accounts of players who played in the first two decades of the 20th century. It was a different game. Hits did not fall in the way they would today because outfielders played much shallower. The ball didn't carry. Outfielders generally weren't playing if they were not by today's standard superior defensively. They were running back on balls that were hit over their heads.

It was a different game from 1900 to 1920. It was a different game from 1920 to to 1947 etc. If Frank Thomas had played at his prime in 1968, I believe Carl Yastrzemski still would have led the league with a .301 batting average. In fact, Rod Carew, who hit .328 for his career, did play in 1968 and hit under .280. Tony Oliva whose lifetime batting average ended up falling to .304 when he was forced to retire, was third in batting average in 1968 at .289. I love Frank Thomas, but before pre-injuries Tony Oliva was a better all-around player than pre-injuries Frank Thomas.

Be satisfied Thomas is the best hitter in Sox history.
I have to say the snide references about age difference or lack of knowledge of baseball's past are kind of unnecessary. Especially considering this discussion is about a player not one person on this board ever saw in person.

Let's look at Jackson's home field. He played in a park where the LF line was 385', Left-center was 415', Center was 420', R-CF 317' and RF was 290' wth a 60 ft. wall in RF (23 feet higher than the Green Monster for reference purposes). Every year that Jackson played there the park played as an offensive park. Sadly there do not appear to be box scores for Cleveland during Jackson's tenure on Retrosheet, and no sign of his splits on the web, but I think it is a safe assumption that his numbers were likely better by more than a neglible number in his rather quirky home park.

An interesting read found on Wikipedia [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_average#The_decline_of_the_.400_hitter]The decline of the .400 hitter[/quote]

This has pretty much become just about opinion though at this point, so there's not much more to be said.

Scottzilla
07-20-2006, 07:03 PM
Just wondering what Sox fans thought about the choices we were given? Who are you voting for or do ya not care?

TDog
07-25-2006, 06:21 AM
Downey has a column in Tuesday's (I think) Tribune in which he complains that Joe Jackson is the best player in Sox history. There are a few good points to be made in the column, which someone might link.

Or maybe someone will start a new thread after reading the column.

He makes some interesting points. Some of it could have been posted in this thread, but he goes beyond the White Sox. (Ron Santo, and not Sammy Sosa, seems to be on the Cubs ballot.)

I disagree with him about Joe Jackson belonging on the Sox ballot though. Babe Ruth played longer for Red Sox than Joe Jackson played for the White Sox. Babe Ruth has to be the top Yankee of all time, but Ted Williams ranks ahead of him in Red Sox history. (And Hank Aaron beats out Ruth in Braves history.)