Field of Dreams = Shoeless Joe Overrated?

[xcgrammer]

Before everyone goes crazy hear me out. This may have been asked before and if it has forgive me, but does anyone feel that the bulk of Shoeless Joe Jackson's card value is tied to him being immortalized in the movie? The story on its own is good, but I believe it is the movie that takes it to the stratosphere.

Please please don't get me wrong, I completely understand how good of a player he was. .356 career batting average. I get it. However, he didn't have the gradual decline that other greats have in their 30's because he was cut short. That batting average would have dropped. He probably would have been around 3,000 hits and 1,500 RBI's .940 OPS would have probably been closer to .850 - .900 still good, but his card values... To me his value is tied to the Movie and the Book by a LARGE amount.

I also understand that alot of his cards are in tough to find sets. But come on, his most similar players by age according to Baseball Reference are Paul Waner, Pete Browning and finally George Sisler (HOF greats but with reasonable card prices) this takes into account that his career was cut short since it is most similar by age, not career totals (that list by career is fairly unimpressive even more so).

He would have had 4-5 more good years but he was likely about to take a dramatic step down, as his great years were likely about to be behind him.

Great player, a Hall of Famer for sure, but he certainly was not Ty Cobb, Nap Lajoie, or Honus Wagner, and without the movie he would have likely been in the Tris Speaker or Eddie Collins range of card values I think.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think it's the Black Sox thing and "say it ain't so, Joe" and the Shoeless thing more than the movie -- he had a lot of notoriety and mystique before any of that came along. But I agree it's not just his merits.

[Shoeless Moe]

Field of Dreams inflated Moonlight Graham more than it did Jackson.

I think his nickname and the World Series incident had more to do with any inflated value.

Why is a Mathewson auto worth was more than a Cy Young or Walter Johnson.....cuz he died young.

Lots of factors play into the values of players items values. I think the movie may have helped a little, but with or without that movie Shoeless Joe is a legend.

[yanksfan09]

another reason is that there really aren't a lot of different issues of him from his playing days...

Basically all other stars from the era are featured in much more card issues I think.

[howard38]

/

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by yanksfan09

another reason is that there really aren't a lot of different issues of him from his playing days...

Basically all other stars from the era are featured in much more card issues I think.

this is the reason I think as well. There is just a more limited number of cards. And a very limited number for sale.

[brewing]

To say the movie has zero effect on his card prices is short sighted. You can add the movie Eight Men Out, too. It is similar to advertising, which is known to influence opinion.

You can sit there and say with your vast knowledge of baseball, you knew all about him. To think the American public isn't influenced by Hollywood productions, is foolish. Think about these movies and the way they blurred the truth; Cobb, JFK, The Babe, and very current The Butler.

Also, don't forget it's the American public that determines the value of his cards. The same public that determines the price of a PSA 10 common.

To what effect the added advertising has done to his card value is debatable.

[scooter729]

Do any of the old-timers recall (or maybe a price guide could help) - in the early / mid 1980s, before Field of Dreams came out - how did Jackson cards compare to Cobb or others?

A good comparison might be the CJ set - for example, a CJ Shoeless Joe might sell for 2x-3x what a CJ Cobb in the same condition would sell for now. (Of course, VCP is down right now as I try to get some evidence of that.) Was that the case in 1985? How about the E90-1? Was the Shoeless Joe rookie that superior vs. the Cobb from the same set back in the 1980s pre FOD?

[JamesGallo]

I don't think we can ever say what might have been. Since Ruth himself said Jackson was a better hitter and he hit more home runs then most during the period he played it's not possible to say that he would only have been a middle of the road HOF and not Cobb, he very well might have thrived in the live ball era, but who knows.

I think a lot of the value to his cards is tied into the limited number and even more limited availabilty of them. If you want a cobb card there are plenty to choose from Ruth and all the other greats same thing they are always available but Jackson cards just aren't always available like that and as a result the valued have inflated. That plus all the movie and black sox stuff certainly add to it all. I have alwasy been engrossed with the story and the movie didn't impact my desire to have a Jackson card the story did.

James G

[the 'stache]

This is an interesting discussion, Jason.

I posted this in the topic I started about Shoeless Joe's cards:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

As far as the hobby is concerned, Shoeless Joe represents a perfect storm of sorts-a great baseball player, an enigmatic man, involvement in one of the most interesting moments in baseball history, and relative scarcity of pre-war collecting options.

I didn't even factor in the popularity of Field of Dreams.

I do think the movie has somewhat inflated his card prices, but to what degree is impossible to ascertain. It's like trying to predict what he might have done as a hitter had he been allowed to continue playing. He could have had a drop off in production, sure. Age typically slows baseball players down in their mid thirties, if not sooner. But if you look at his career stats, 1920 was probably his most complete season as a Major Leaguer. While his stolen base numbers were way down from his peak, he still had the speed necessary to tally 20 triples. He hit .382, and had career highs with 12 home runs and 121 RBI. He was a single base off his career high of 337 when he hit .408 in 1911. And Shoeless Joe, if you believe what was said by his contemporaries, was hardly a typical ball player. Ty Cobb himself called him the "perfect hitter". Walter Johnson said he was the "greatest natural player I've ever seen". So, it's possible that Joe's pure ability might have staved off father time's influence.

[auggiedoggy]

If anything I think the movie immortalized Moonlight Graham. Are there any photos of him during his "cup of coffee" in the bigs?

[MattyC]

No effing way are his card values due primarily to that movie. Rather I think the fact that some movies feature him is just reflective of his alluring, iconic stature. I'm sure those movies do in turn help sustain popularity to some unquantifiable degree, but I'd bet they aren't the largest part of the Jackson card value equation. Not everyone has seen the movies, and Field of Dreams is quite removed from the zeitgeist of today. In Shoeless we are talking about a player who...

1. Had one of the top career BA's of all time. A stat which many still value. A swing that Ruth admittedly modeled his own after-- a swing Cobb held in highest regard. So we are talking about an elite player.

2. A figure that transcends the game and enters the realm of iconic-- Shoeless is a character in movies. How many players are on that level? Ruth? Gehrig? "Say it ain't so, Joe," and the Black Sox scandal are part of American popular culture and history-- and few players have attained that mythic status, even if Shoeless' is a bit tragic as well.

3. A player with precious few playing-days issued cards, and the few he has are HIGHLY sought after by collectors.

These three points make the case for Shoeless Joe being a major subject of baseball card collections and a subject whose cards are highly prized and valued.

What makes one man an icon and legend and another with comparable stats not possessing of equal status? It is hard to say. But we know it happens. In all professions. Some men have the right stage, the right story, the right look or name or timing. Imagine Reggie without that one game.

Also-- baseball reference cannot be the barometer by which we try to establish values. Mantle is almost identical to Mays in many statistical ways, but his cards are in much higher demand. Eddie Murray has 3000 hits and 500 HR-- and his RC is a beast in good condition, and incongruously sells for a fraction of Schmidt or even Yount. Same with Carlton-- look at his Ks, and yet Ryan cards dominate Carlton cards. So mystique, personality, and prominence on the national stage play a huge part in a player's place among collectors-- aside from sheer stats. Musial and Hornsby also come to mind-- great players whose cards just don't get the respect as others. And as far as the film goes, I'll admit I've never seen it-- and yet I highly covet Shoeless cards because of the aforementioned three criteria.

With respect to the initial post-- statements like "that average would have dropped," "he wasn't Cobb," and "I know his cards are tough," are kind of problematic. He ended on like a .382. Cobb revered him. And if Cobb (and Ruth) did, then we should, because one's peers are a major respectable source. And yes, his cards are prett tough-- and that counts for a lot. No baseball reference stat-by-age-similarity can create equivalency between an Eddie Collins or relatively easy to find Goudey Gehrig and a Shoeless RC or Boston or CJ. One can be found on eBay every day and one surfaces so infrequently and the ask is insane.

Bottom line, I gotta agree with much of this article:

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...its-collect-it