Reggie Jackson, Mr October..................REALLY?
JoeBanzai
Posts: 12,854 ✭✭✭✭✭
I got thinking about a comment made in another thread "He was there when they needed him". I decided to look into the guy probably most known for that.
We've all seen the video; Game 7 1977 World Series 3 pitches, 3 swings and 3 Home Runs by Mr. October Reggie Jackson.
I looked into all of Reggie's post season performances. Here's what I found;
1971 ALCS, swept by the Orioles, but Reggie hit well. .333 BA, .917 SLG!
1972 ALCS, Oakland beats Detroit, Reggie doesn't do much; 5 hits in 18 at bats with 1 double. 2 RBI in the series.
1972 World Series, misses the WS with an injury.
1973 ALCS, A's beat the Orioles 3-2. Reggie is horrible 3 singles in 21 at bats, no RBI.
1973 WS, A's beat the Mets in 7. Reggie has a great series, batting .310, 6 RBI and .586 SLG.
1974 ALCS A's beat the O's in 4. Reggie nonexistent! .167 BA, .250 SLG. 1 RBI.
1974 WS, A's beat the Dodgers in 5. Reggie has good numbers, but drives in only 1 run on a game 1 HR. MEH.
1975 ALCS A's are swept by Boston. Reggie hits .417 and drives in 3 runs. Not enough. A's pitchers give up 18 runs in 3 games!
1977 ALCS Yankees beat the Royals. Reggie is nonexistent, 2 singles in 16 at bats and 1 RBI.
1977 WS Yankees beat Dodgers. Reggie explodes in game 6!
1978 ALCS, Yankees beat Royals. Reggie destroys KC pitching.
1978 WS, Yankees beat Dodges. Reggie hits .391, with a .696 SLG!
1980 ALCS Yankees swept by KC Reggie does nothing, .273 BA, no RBI. .364 SLG.
1981 ALDS, Yankees beat Brewers. Reggie is back! .300 BA, 2 HR and 4 RBI .600 SLG in the series.
1981 ALCS Yankees beat A's. Reggie goes hitless in the 2 games.
1981 WS, Yankees lose to Dodgers. Reggie doesn't play in games 1-3! He goes 3-3 in game 4 with a HR, but then goes 1-9.
1982 ALCS Angels lose to Brewers. Reggie hits a HR (his final in the post season) but bats only .111 in the series.
1986 ALCS Angels lose to Boston. Reggie has a bad series with one last good performance in game 6. 3-5 with 2 doubles.
Reggie's first 40 post season games, he hits .250 and slugged .420, not Mr. October.
THEN in his next 13 games, he hit .468 and slugged an incredible 1.106! MR, OCTOBER.
His last 24 games he hit .220 and slugged .396, not Mr. October.
13 great games in a row out of 77 total.
My vote not Mr. October, but that 13 game streak was superb.
Comments
My vote for Mr. October has always been George Brett -- check out his stats in the playoffs & world series -- beast!
Big Papi for me
He's a baseball hitter, and even the best go up and down, regardless of the day of the year. Some just catch the hot streak at the right time and get immortalized, and some catch the cold one at the wrong time and get vilified.
In the end, it is what they do in the 9,000 plate appearances in The Show that tells you the reality, as opposed to the very limited amount of post season at bats that don't give enough time to even out the nature of baseball hitting(and sports between elite players in general).
In short, its why they don't award batting titles in May.
If Reggie truly had that 'clutch gene' then he never would have allowed himself to be so bad in the ALCS and in many other WS games....you know, because 'he does it when it counts.'
if any hitter truly had the ability to be "there when they needed it," or 'produce when it counts' then they would hit .375 with 50 HR every year to get to the playoffs every year to begin with, instead of having a season hitting .285 with 15 HR and watching their teams NOT make the playoffs to begin with.
As for Brett, he had a few big ALCS hitting games...but made a lot of errors in the field in those ALCS to begin with...and in the WS he blew game 5 in 1980 in the field and then at the plate. Then in the 1985 series had a few meaningless singles to pad his stats, but was irrelevant otherwise. So it really was just a few big hitting games at the right time in the ALCS...that they may have won those series if he fielded the ball...but ultimately they lost anyway.
Reggie was the man. Mr. October? Absolutely!
You're batting 1.000 in the being wrong category!
GET A LIFE!
Mostly great! Only a couple of duds in 1981 & 1984.
Reggie Jackson got the nickname “Mr. October” during that 13 game run, it was fitting and stuck. The trouble with a nickname/reputation is that once you have it you’re pretty much defined by it.
He earned “Mr. October” and no group of chatroom weenies like us can ever take it away.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
An argument for Mantle as Mr October.
G Brett was awesome as well.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I guess that makes Billy Hatcher the best player of all time...nobody did it at a higher level than him in the World Series.
Lifetime World Series .750 batting average. 2.050 OPS.
@olb31 what is the best Hatcher rookie card...maybe put that one on your list.
I have no idea why George Brett is getting all the love when it was Brett's own teammate that showed who the man was in the 1980 World Series....you know "when it mattered most."
Willie Aikens .400 batting averge. .538 OB%. 1.100 SLG%
Aikens hit four home runs in six games and drove in 8 runs...while Brett was making the key defensive miscue in game 5 and then struck out in bottom of 9th in that same game to give away the most important game of his career..
"NOTHING is over until WE SAY it is!"
Interesting topic. I decided to use my AI buddy Grok using this question:
who are the greatest MLB post-season hitters in history, in your opinion and could you note their span of years and rationale you're using for determining the greatest?
In my view, the greatest MLB postseason hitters blend elite rate stats (like OPS, BA, SLG), volume of production over many games/series, clutch impact, and sustained excellence across deep playoff runs. I prioritize players with substantial plate appearances (to filter small-sample flukes), career postseason OPS/OPS+ equivalents where available, home runs/RBIs in high-leverage spots, and championship success. Longevity in October matters—volume leaders who performed well under pressure rank higher than short-burst phenoms.
Here’s my ranked top tier (not a strict 1-10, but standout groups), with career spans, key postseason windows, and rationale:
baseball-reference.com
Rationale: Highest (or tied-highest) career postseason OPS among players with real volume. Dominated in the live-ball era against strong competition, with consistent excellence across multiple titles. Small sample but unmatched efficiency and impact.
statmuse.com
Rationale: The Sultan of Swat elevated his game in October, with power and on-base skills that redefined the era. Multiple World Series wins and iconic moments make him foundational to "Mr. October" lore.
statmuse.com
Rationale: Unparalleled longevity and consistency in the most games/PA ever. "Captain Clutch" delivered hits, runs, and leadership across five titles (1996–2009 core). Volume + reliability in the modern era edges him high despite not having the highest rates.
mlb.com
Rationale: Pure power and run production in October across multiple teams and deep runs (including Boston's curse-breaker). Highest volume of elite power hitting; performed at an all-time level even late in his career (e.g., 2008 Dodgers).
Strong Contenders / Next TierBernie Williams (Yankees, 1991–2006): All-time leader in postseason RBI (80), 22 HR, .850 OPS in 121 games. Steady table-setter for dynasty teams.
statmuse.com
Reggie Jackson (A’s/Yankees, 1970s): "Mr. October"—18 HR, iconic 1977 WS (5 HR). High SLG and flair in big moments.
mlb.com
David Ortiz (Red Sox, 2004–2013 peaks): Multiple clutch heroics (2004 ALCS), strong rate stats, and leadership in titles.
Others worth noting: Jose Altuve (modern volume leader in hits/HR), Paul Molitor (highest BA min. 100 PA at .368), and peak performers like Randy Arozarena or George Springer in shorter but explosive runs.
My criteria summary:Rate stats (OPS, BA, SLG) for efficiency, adjusted for era where possible.
Volume to reward sustained success over many Octobers (Jeter/Manny/Bernie shine here).
Context: Championship impact, clutch moments (e.g., walk-offs, series MVPs), and quality of competition.
Avoid over-weighting tiny samples (e.g., some .400+ BA guys with <50 PA).
This is inherently subjective—postseason baseball has randomness, bullpens, and matchup variance—but these players rose above it most reliably. Ruth/Gehrig represent the mythic standard; Jeter/Manny the modern gold.
Erik
I wonder what Aikens World Series numbers would have looked like if Brett was out for the entire 1980 season? Would they still have been that good?
If you haven't read "All My Octobers" by Mickey Mantle/Mickey Herskowitz. I highly recommend it!
It surprised me when Mantle said he felt he "never led the team to a World Series title".
Some of that revolves around the 1960 series and his failure to hit in the close games they lost. Mantle was bitterly disappointed in that WS loss.
looks like a reasonable list @estang . one note. I recommend against grok for technical and personal reasons.
Good post @estang.
I was thinking Gehrig , but Ruth looks even better!
Google "best OPS career in World Series" and you get (from the AI): "Minimum 100 Plate Appearances: Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson holds the highest career OPS for players with extensive World Series experience at .755 (with a minimum of 116 plate appearances). Jackson slugged 10 home runs over his World Series career."
This tells us two things: first, don't ever trust AI. the .755 the AI refers to as Jackson's OPS is just his slugging average. His actual OPS is 1.212. The AI is also wrong about this being the highest career World Series OPS; both Ruth and Gehrig had an OPS of 1.214. Second, it tells us that Reggie has an outstanding claim to the title of "Mr. October".
My question to anyone who disagrees is, if not Reggie, then who? If you want to give the title to Ruth or Gehrig, OK, I won't object strongly. But if they had a way to calculate OPS+ for World Series play, Jackson would win, easily, and he was a better fielder and baserunner than Ruth or Gehrig. So the answer to the question "Who was the best player in World Series history?" is probably Reggie. It would be my answer if St. Peter asked me at the Pearly Gates and I needed to be right to get in.
I'm ignoring playoffs because they have nothing at all to do with why he was named "Mr. October", and because Ruth and Gehrig, his only serious competition for the title, didn't have playoffs so it's apples and oranges. Billy Hatcher, who was nominated to be intentionally funny, and George Brett, whose nomination I fear was not intentionally funny, are not serious answers. Does anyone have an answer, other than Reggie, that they would give to St. Peter, with eternity on the line?
I really can’t understand the silliness of this thread, but I blame it on boredom. The NBA is done, who watches soccer, the Twins are going nowhere fast and the NFL hasn’t started yet. The answer: let’s rag on Reggie Jackson!!
Nicknames are funny and I bet we all have one. My family’s roots are in Western Pennsylvania’s coal mines where everyone had a nickname. My Dad carried on the tradition and handed them out to his children at a young preschool age. We’re all in our 70’s now and still use them.
I guess I wore out pants quick at that age, there were always holes in the knees and the Old Man said I looked like a little Bum. Hence, my name became Bummy.
The thing about nicknames, once they stick they are yours for the long haul.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
This has always been one of the most classic pics
>
>
First of all, please show me where I "rag" on Reggie Jackson. I think I accurately summarized his October post season performances. In 64 of his 77 games in October post season play, he was not very good. In 13 games he was phenomenal.
I started the thread because of something said in the "Pitchers in the HOF" thread in the "Trading cards and memorabilia" forum. A comment about Jack Morris "being there when they needed him". Instead of hijacking that thread and having people whine about it, I thought it might be interesting to look into Reggie's actual production in the month of October in the post season. Instead of just looking (again) at the video from game 7 of the 1977 World Series.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Because of the way my last name is, I have had numerous nicknames. Some derogatory, some clever, some deserved, some I didn't like.
Reggie will be remembered as "Mr. October" because of 3 swings of the bat in 1 game out of 77.
Doesn't seem to be deserved to me.
Odd thing to say about someone who was WS MVP in 1973, could have been WS MVP in 1978, and would have been WS MVP in 1981 if the Yankees had won. Rag on Reggie all you want for his other shortcomings, but the one thing he can't be faulted for is his World Series play - he was the greatest in history. And while I certainly remember the 3 swings in the one game in 1977, the first thing I remember when I hear "Reggie" and "World Series" is Reggie breaking up a double play in 1978. Yeah, it was a less than legal play, but the quick thinking and timing required to pull it off was mind-blowing. And it threw Steve Garvey into a George Brett level temper tantrum, which made it doubly awesome.
>
>
Nice to hear from you! It's becoming almost an honor to get a response from you lately!
I immediately thought of Gehrig, as a hitter he had one bad WS and it was his final one, but I would say Babe Ruth. As a pitcher, he had 3 starts and won them all, giving up under a run a game. As a batter he was great in 6 of the 7 WS. In those games he had a .347 Ba, .497 OBP, .788 SLG and a 1.285 OPS. He was bad only in 1922.
>
>
>
>
I'm ignoring playoffs because they have nothing at all to do with why he was named "Mr. October", and because Ruth and Gehrig, his only serious competition for the title, didn't have playoffs so it's apples and oranges. Billy Hatcher, who was nominated to be intentionally funny, and George Brett, whose nomination I fear was not intentionally funny, are not serious answers. Does anyone have an answer, other than Reggie, that they would give to St. Peter, with eternity on the line?
>
>
Not surprising that you ignore a huge part of my post, it's what you often do.
Reggie's nickname is not "Mr. World Series" it's "Mr. October" and all of the games I referred to were played in October.
P.S. How would you rate Mantle's WS performance in 1960?
@JoeBanzai said: First of all, please show me where I "rag" on Reggie Jackson.
“Reggie will be remembered as "Mr. October" because of 3 swings of the bat in 1 game out of 77.
Doesn't seem to be deserved to me.”
I think the above qualifies as a ragging. 😜
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
>
That's true isn't it? He was better in 1978, nobody mentions that.
>
>
>
It doesn't. Just an opinion, not a criticism to me.
>
>
Because Brett was a vastly better player than Aikens....no argument from me. However, when people vault certain players over others due to a couple hot streaks(or cold streaks) in a handful of playoff games, then per that method, it would vault Aikens over Brett. That is what you and others do, not me. I am just using your method to show how silly it is.
So yes, in case there is any confusion, Bret was an elite deserved first ballot HOFer, much better than Aikens...even if Brett did choke away the 1980 WS in game 5 (per your criteria...you know, the biggest moment garbage). I don't hold that against Brett in any way shape or form....but your method(along with a few other posters) does indeed hold that against Brett. Of course you will say, "but, but, but, the ALCS". First they lost those. Second the ALCS is nothing compared to the WS (per your method), just like you claim the regular season performance is nothing compared to the ALCS.
>
>
Good thing he showed up for the WS. He sucked against the Orioles in the ALCS.
>
>
could have been WS MVP in 1978,
>
>
Yes, he should have won that time.
>
>
and would have been WS MVP in 1981 if the Yankees had won.
>
>
Willie Randolph was better.
>
>
Rag on Reggie all you want for his other shortcomings, but the one thing he can't be faulted for is his World Series play - he was the greatest in history.
>
>
Reggie has plenty of shortcomings, I haven't mentioned any of them. Ruth and Gehrig were BOTH better. You said so yourself!
>
>
And while I certainly remember the 3 swings in the one game in 1977, the first thing I remember when I hear "Reggie" and "World Series" is Reggie breaking up a double play in 1978. Yeah, it was a less than legal play, but the quick thinking and timing required to pull it off was mind-blowing. And it threw Steve Garvey into a George Brett level temper tantrum, which made it doubly awesome.
>
>
So you remember him for a play where he cheated?
Fine if that's what YOU remember him for. NO ONE else does.
It's a semantic point, but a critical one. When Reggie first won WS MVP, the concept of "playoffs" was less than 5 years old, and when he became "Mr. October" it was still less than 10 years old. The title of "Mr. October" was bestowed on Reggie for his World Series play; it had absolutely nothing to do with his performance in the playoffs. To take a meaning that was never intended and use it instead of the intended meaning, and then to tear down the unintended meaning is the textbook definition of a straw man argument. You win the straw man argument, Reggie is Mr. October.
And no, I didn't say Ruth and Gehrig were better, I said I wouldn't strongly object if you want to pick one of them. But I also said my pick would be Reggie.
And Mickey Mantle was great in 1960, but he was no Bill Mazeroski!
Probably a stikeout!
>
>
Well, we're looking at it NOW! It's been 50 years since he won his first WS MVP.
>
>
>
>
>
Your choice only makes any sense if you ignore the playoffs and Ruth was better even then, when you add his pitching.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mantle himself didn't agree. He said this was his worst WS memory and he felt he let his team down.
His overall numbers look great. In the games the Yankees won, he hit fantastic, but in the 4 losses he was 3 for 12 with 3 singles. Oh NO, now I'm "ragging" on MANTLE!
Good to hear from you!
Also, if you want to change the meaning of "Mr. October" to fit your narrative, you might want to check out Babe Ruth's awesome pitching performance in 1918. I'm not denying he was a great pitcher in that series, but I am going to point out that it took place in September. So, by your definition, it doesn't count. Yes, I think it's beyond silly to not count it, but it's your rule, not mine.
This got good. Happy 4th.
5 Rings.
When he was dubbed "Mr. October" it was deserving.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
But is Derek Jeter Mr November.
Mr. ALDS for shure!> @dallasactuary said:
Hard to excel in October when the WS is already decided.
WEAK.
Yogi Berra has 10 rings, maybe he should get a vote!
I agree it's silly, but you're the one who insists on interpreting "October" literally. Reggie is "Mr. October" to honor his exceptional performance in multiple World Series; that's just a fact. But you came along and said "wait, shouldn't ALL of October count?" Then you gave Ruth credit for games he pitched in September. You can't have it both ways. It's weak to try.
Reggie just wasn't that good in October. A few times he was fantastic. Mostly he was below average.
If believing that makes you happy, then go in peace. Your parents must have dreaded the day they had to tell you about Santa Claus; you do not give up your fantasies easily, no matter how silly they are.
100% lol
Still a great pic though!!
Let me rephrase this in case the reason it made me laugh isn't obvious.
Harmon Killebrew was supposedly a great hitter, and sure maybe 40% of his at bats he was fantastic. Mostly, though, he was terrible.
The "a few times" / "mostly" paradigm is nonsensical in this context. Add this to the people who somehow missed the careers of Joe Morgan or Mike Trout. You got to watch the greatest WS performer in history, and I'm sorry you missed it. I saw all of it, and it was amazing!
They say Reggie was the Straw that stirs the Drink. He wasn’t a paper umbrella and definitely not a lemon twist.
>
You can fail 70% of the time and be considered a great hitter".
LESS than 40% of Killebrew's at bats were fantastic. About 9% resulted in an extra base hit. Nearly identical to Reggie's regular season numbers 9.18 to 9.17.
Reggie just wasn't that good in October. A few times he was fantastic. Mostly he was below average. The numbers do not lie.
Many referred to him as a "hot dog"!
The guy NEVER got cheated!
Regular season sure. But Reggie got an extra base hit almost twice as often in the World Series. So your argument comes down to this: Killebrew was a great hitter ===> Reggie was nearly twice as good as Killebrew when Reggie was in the World Series ===> Reggie wasn't that good in the World Series.
I am going to stop. I am embarrassed for you. It's gotten so bad as to be uncomfortable. I will tell myself that you were joking and it is on me for not getting the joke. Perhaps someday you will explain it to me.
You are REALLY off your game.
reggie did not get cheated when he swung, did he!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I have a Reggie Jackson story.
In the 1983-1984 time period I lived and worked in So. Cal. I was in Newport Beach with friends one night and we went to a nightclub. I struck up a conversation with a young woman, talked with her a while, then left her to go to the restroom. When I returned to resume my conversation with her I found out that her attention had shifted away from me to another man who saw an opening and took it.
She upgraded her conversation from me to Mr. October. Reggie took advantage of my absence, swooped in and took my place.
There was nothing I could do, except tell myself that next time I need to make sure my bladder is empty
.......................or develop a better line of banter!!
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
in 73 with Oakland you can probably say the A's don't win without Reggie. in 74 when the A's won again he wasn't nearly as impressive, but that was the end of the three-peat for the A's and that team was pitching first and defense second. in 77 though in that series against the Dodgers - I think many still consider this to be the single greatest individual World Series performances ever. followed up in 1978. Yankees showed in 1981 that without him they couldn't win it.
The subjectivity of who is most deserving of that moniker aside, the concept of Reggie being a "mostly below average" contributor in the World Series is just ignorant. And to continue to sit on that position in the face of historical fact is willful ignorance. Making the argument for Ruth or Gehrig or Mantle or Berra - even a modern guy like Ortiz perhaps... that's a useful comparison - those guys also have cool nicknames - making that argument makes sense. Mostly below average? Between MLB archives and ESPN classic you can find these original broadcasts online and watch them.
Reggie probably just walked up to her and took a straw and stirred her drink and she forgot all about you.