Best 2B ever

[sweaver]

I expect a lot of debate in this thread, because a good case can be made for most of these guys. Make your pick, defend it, and have at it!

[SmedIndy]

I cast my lot for Eddie Collins. Ultimate team player (even on the Black Sox). Hard worker. Intelligent. Did whatever was needed to win. Played great D.

The era obscures his offensive ability, IMHO. Runs were much scarcer in the teens.

[Golden Bear]

Who is Bingo DeMoss?

[ChicagoDave]

Wow, this is a hard one. I voted for Hornsby. He was incredible. Being a Cub fan, I almost voted for Sandberg. Ryno ruled 2nd base most of his career, fielding, avg., slg. But, I still feel Hornsby was the best.

[WiredTiger]

I have to go with Rogers Hornsby. His hitting is so overwhleming that it makes up for his mediocre fielding.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Lajoie gets my vote.

[pathogan]

Would have said hornsby or Nap ,but alomar seems to be thg only person on this list that does everything at a high level..i am more then willing to be proven wrong on this one....

[pathogan]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Who is Bingo DeMoss?

Negro lge 2ndbaseman, played from 1910-1930..prtotypical 2nd baseman of that era:line drive hitter, very fast,good fielder, excellent batsman[his contemps spoke glowingly of his bat control}

[SmedIndy]

I can't vote for Hornsby, mainly because:

A. He played in an era where offense was at its peak.
B. His teams didn't improve much, if at all, when he was there.
C. He was a horses patoot. (I know, that's personal, but...)

I say Morgan and Gerhringer are up there with Collins. Alomar and Biggio may be crashing the gate, but there careers aren't done yet.

Ask this in 10 years we may have another answer.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by pathogan


Negro lge 2ndbaseman, played from 1910-1930..prtotypical 2nd baseman of that era:line drive hitter, very fast,good fielder, excellent batsman[his contemps spoke glowingly of his bat control}

Thanks; had a hunch he was early Negro Leagues, but really didn't know.

[KCBOOMER]

I picked Hornsby for not the nest of reasons. I can't look at .424 and not be impressed. Also one of my favorite baseball stories involves Hornsby.

Seems like Hornsby came up to bat against some rookie pitcher. The rookie winds up and fires the ball toward the plate and the ump says "Ball One".

The rookie is clearly up set by this call. He winds up again and delivers the ball and the Umpire says, "Ball Two".

The rookie is really upset and stomps the ground for awhile and then proceeds to make the third pitch. "Ball Three", says the Ump.

The rookie yells at the Umpire, "No way! That was a strike."

The Ump replies, "Son, when you throw a strike Mr. Hornsby will let you know."

[moose]

despite his era, i still hornsby is tops, followed by morgan, and then perhaps even alomar.

obviously, robinson's value to the game cannot be measured in his statitics...

[Craig S.]

Hornsby was a bit of a jerk who played in an all-white era. However, he also hit .424 one year, and his career average is phenomonal.

Robbie Alomar is one of my favorite players, and I think Morgan and Lajoie are good candidates. However, even with his defensive shortcomings, I have to go with Rogers.

Another Hornsby story that I read once - When he was told early in his career that he might need some work on the farm (obviously meaning the minors), he went to work during the offseason on a farm. He got stronger, and it did help, so I guess things worked out.

[tenkevcardinal]

I'm going to vote for Morgan. I would vote for Hornsby but I just can't vote for someone who played when baseball was still in its preteen years and it was all cracka a@# crackers in his era.

[JamesI]

I voted for Hornsby. His numbers are just too impressive. After Rajah, I'd lean to Lajoie Morgan or Alomar.

[sweaver]

I admit to bias in voting for Morgan. After all, I grew up watching the guy. But he did everything well, even more so than Alomar. Roberto gets such praise for being a smart player, then keeps sliding into first base, the dumbbest play you can make if not a tag play. Morgan was a real smart player, a weak arm away from being perfect.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by tenkevcardinal
I'm going to vote for Morgan. I would vote for Hornsby but I just can't vote for someone who played when baseball was still in its preteen years and it was all cracka a@# crackers in his era.

'Scuse me, the pre-teen years for major league baseball would be 1871-1882 or 1876-1887, depending on if you count the NA as a major league or not.

And while it was unfortunate, wrong, unfair, and abhorrent that certain players were not welcome, Collins, Hornsby, and Gerhringer would have been elite players anyway.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by sweaver
I admit to bias in voting for Morgan. After all, I grew up watching the guy. But he did everything well, even more so than Alomar. Roberto gets such praise for being a smart player, then keeps sliding into first base, the dumbbest play you can make if not a tag play. Morgan was a real smart player, a weak arm away from being perfect.

I almost agree. His peak was probably the best.

However, can you just shut him the heck up now? He's not as bad as Dibble, but he says some inane things...

[hmrsf]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Lajoie gets my vote.

Seems to me I saw that coming. Surprised that I picked Morgan?

[hmrsf]

Joe Morgan was only five feet seven, but he covered the infield like he was at least 10 feet tall. He was famous for wearing a tiny glove but he won 5 gold gloves (72-77). During 2 seasons he had 91 consecutive games without an error. He leads the NL in putout assists by a second baseman (5,541).

Joe Morgan was not the rookie of the year in 1965. He won back to back MVP (75 + 76). He was elected 8 consecutive All-Star games('72 All-Star MVP). Only 2 players have had back to back Sporting News Player of the Year award 75+76 Joe Morgan and 41+42 Ted Williams.

He was a smart baserunner. He had 689SB only 162CS=.810 SB%

He also hold the most years as a 2B with 22yrs.(21 in the NL)On June 24,1984 he hit his 265 career home run as a 2B passing Roger Hornsby for the all time mark for that position.

In 1990 he went into the HOF on first ballot.

[pwdennis]

1) Joe Morgan - it has to be as Joe had it all - speed, power, strike zone judgment and intelligence plus he was a decent (but not great fielder). Joe did not gain any great advantage from his ballparks (the Astrodome, Oakland and Candlestick were adverse influences and Riverfront was nothing special).

I find it interesting that as great a player as Joe was, he is fairly clueless as an evaluator of historical talent. GIven a chance - Morgan would be the modern-day Frankie Frisch of the Veterans Committee. His championing of Concepcion for the HOF is silly, and Perez is not nearly the great player Morgan has represented him as being (now in the HOF but a pretty marginal selection). The 75-76 Reds were not the greatest team ever although to listen to (or read) Morgan you'd think this team would sweep the 27 & 98 Yankees

2) Eddie Collins - had all of Morgan's attributes except power - apparently a very good fielder - highly respected by his peers - a star in both the deadball era and the lively ball era

3) Rogers Hornsby - had about a 14 year career as a regular player. Helped tremendously by Sportsmans Park in St. Louis and Wrigley Field in Chicago, Hornsby' offensive numbers are inflated by both the era and the ballparks. Poor fielder, allegedly a poor influence in the clubhouse , but still a top notch player.

4) Napoleon Lajoie
5) Ryan Sandberg
6) Joe Gordon
7) Nellie Fox or Bobby Grich or Charlie Gehringer or someone

Of course Robbie Alomar will need to be injected into the discussion as his career progresses. I hesitate to interject active players until near career's end

[SmedIndy]

PW -

Gotta put Biggio in there too for active players.

But you're right about the 75 and 76 Reds. They were fine clubs, but they were all offense. I think they'd have trouble against the 29-31 A's, the classic Yankees lineups, or even the olden days Cubs and Giants teams.

I guess that I'll be in the self-righteous minority about good old Eddie. I'll take him and you take yourn and we'll see. (Oh, I wish we could do that....could you imagine Morgan in the deadball era, or Hornsby in Coors Field, but I digress.)

"I didn't want to be a squealer..."

[ChicagoDave]

Originally posted by pwdennis
3) Rogers Hornsby - had about a 14 year career as a regular player. Helped tremendously by Sportsmans Park in St. Louis and Wrigley Field in Chicago, Hornsby' offensive numbers are inflated by both the era and the ballparks.

I think you should take a look at his numbers during his time in Chicago.

Played 317 games with Chicago during a four year span. Of his 8173 AB, 1121 of them came during that time. He only had 392 hits as a Cub.

I don't feel that playing for the Cubs and having Wrigley as a home field made any difference in his play. Besides it was toward the end of his career. From 1932 to 1937 (the last year of his career) he averaged 22 games. The last year he played with the Cubs was in 1936 and he only had 19 games that year.

[johnny]

Very hard to choose between Rajah and Collins.

Hornsby put up amazing batting numbers, especially the run from '20 to '25.

But I go with Collins. Not quite the batting average, but close. I'll take the speed over the power, and better glove work.
You may think it is meaningless, but better post-season numbers, too.

I agree that Alomar or Biggio may make this a different situation when they are done.

[moose]

Originally posted by hmrsf
He was a smart baserunner. He had 689SB only 162CS=.810 SB%


This reminds me of Bill James' fun article on Baseball IQ in the NHBA. Morgan was a smarty-pants, bill says!

[and the best baseball color man in the biz, for my money.]

[Skip]

I'll go Morgan barely over Collins with Hornsby third. The Morgan/Collins decision is very tight, much tighter than I saw it last time this discussion came up. It's probably just the homer (not :homer: ) in me that pushes me to Morgan. I could not argue with a choice of Collins, but would argue that they both beat Roger.

[Slippery Pedro]

How about some love for Charlie Gehringer?

[pwdennis]

I am not sure that that Hornsby didn't get to play in the equivalent of Coors field during his years in Sportsmans Park. If you examine the Rajah's records you will note that he had been a regular for four years when the lively ball era rolled in and had been just another decent hitter but with bettter than average power (many triples and near double digits in home runs). Somtime in 1919 the Cardinals moved from Robinson Field to Sportsmans Park. In 1920 Hornsby's average soared to .370 and in 1921 his homer runs increased from 9 (his career high at the time) to 21 (then to 42 in '22).

I have examined Hornsby's years as a Cub. Hornsby may have nearing the end of his time as a great offensive player when he reached Wrigley but the decline started in 1930. In 1929 Hornsby put up some monster numbers as a Cub with hitting .380 with career highs in doubles and runs, and his second best RBI and home run totals.

Sportsmans Park may not have helped all hitters equally, but there were batters who were enormously aided by the park. One year Hornsby hit .505 in his home park, and he had some other amazing numbers there, too (as did George Sisler and Ken Williams). I don't have access to all the statistical data from the park (and somewhere down the line, it was modified to make it less of a hitters paradise) but I would bet that Sportsmans Park in the 1920s would be as skewed as Coors or The Park Formerly Known as Enron are today.

Biggio may well be up there when all is said and done but I don't see him as top three

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro
How about some love for Charlie Gehringer?

I think Charlie gets overrated because he played in a high-offense era. Don't get me wrong, he's definitely a Hall of Famer. I just don't think he has any claim to #1.

But I wasn't sure if someone else did.

[tenkevcardinal]

'Scuse me, the pre-teen years for major league baseball would be 1871-1882 or 1876-1887, depending on if you count the NA as a major league or not.

When I said the preteen years I didn't mean the actual age, but in terms of development as compared to a human it would be a preteen at that time. (Or atleast very young)

[sweaver]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
But you're right about the 75 and 76 Reds. They were fine clubs, but they were all offense. I think they'd have trouble against the 29-31 A's, the classic Yankees lineups, or even the olden days Cubs and Giants teams.


Offense AND defense. Those guys could cover some ground, especially up the middle. Gullett was the only good pitcher they had, though, and he was hurt half the time. Fred Norman was next best in stuff, but had lousy control.

[Duque]

I voted for Morgan - but Gehringer would come in #2. Next to Joe, probably the best all-around 2B. Hit for average, power, speed, good fielder, the whole game.

[Skip]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
But you're right about the 75 and 76 Reds. They were fine clubs, but they were all offense. I think they'd have trouble against the 29-31 A's, the classic Yankees lineups, or even the olden days Cubs and Giants teams.
Not all offense, but well rounded power and speed offense. Great defense too. Only sub-great on the pitching side and it wasnt bad.

Plus, they came in second in MLB.com's SimSeries to the '27 Yanks after leading 3-1 (in what was obviously rigged and <grrr> <grr> ......) :) If MLB says they're better than (almost) everyone, you almost have to believe it, right? :D

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by tenkevcardinal


When I said the preteen years I didn't mean the actual age, but in terms of development as compared to a human it would be a preteen at that time. (Or atleast very young)

I still disagree. By 1929 people have been playing baseball for money for 60 years. It's an ever evolving game, but by the time of Hornsby it definitely had the essence of the game we know.

I'd say it matured in the 1890's when they stopped messing with the rules and counts.

[Slippery Pedro]

2B, NUMBER OF SEASONS WHERE RUNS CREATED >= 100


1 Charlie Gehringer 12
2 Eddie Collins 11
3 Rogers Hornsby 9
T4 Craig Biggio 8
T4 Bid McPhee 8
T6 Joe Morgan 7
T6 Cupid Childs 7
T6 Roberto Alomar 7
T9 Ryne Sandberg 6
T9 Nap Lajoie 6
T9 Tony Lazzeri 6

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro
2B, NUMBER OF SEASONS WHERE RUNS CREATED >= 100


1 Charlie Gehringer 12
2 Eddie Collins 11
3 Rogers Hornsby 9
T4 Craig Biggio 8
T4 Bid McPhee 8
T6 Joe Morgan 7
T6 Cupid Childs 7
T6 Roberto Alomar 7
T9 Ryne Sandberg 6
T9 Nap Lajoie 6
T9 Tony Lazzeri 6

CG played in an easier offensive era than EC.

[Slippery Pedro]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
CG played in an easier offensive era than EC.

What RC mark would you use then?

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro


What RC mark would you use then?

How about RCAA over a certain peg?

I know you want to give Charlie love, just as much I want to give Eddie love. But face it, we're outvoted here. I'm accepting and moving on...

[Baudib]

My two cents:

I don't think you can take Gehringer seriously as a contender for the best second baseman ever. He's in the top 10 and maybe in the top 6-7.

I do think you can make a case for Eddie Collins being the greatest ever, although I would probably take one or two guys over him.

[Slippery Pedro]

Originally posted by Baudib
I don't think you can take Gehringer seriously as a contender for the best second baseman ever. He's in the top 10 and maybe in the top 6-7.

Why?

[Baudib]

Because his offense isn't anywhere near Hornsby, Morgan, Collins.

[Slippery Pedro]

Originally posted by Baudib
Because his offense isn't anywhere near Hornsby, Morgan, Collins.

How?

[Golden Bear]

I don't think that's entirely true:

OPS, career:

Hornsby: 1.010
Gehringer: .884
Collins: .853
Lajoie: .847

Hornsby is in a class by himself; you really can only compare him offensively to outfielders and first basemen. Bur Gehringer compares quite favorably to the other two.

Caveats:

1) Gehringer played in the 30's; Lajoie played in the late 1800's and dead ball era, Collins played the dead ball era into the 1920's. While neither Lajoie or Collins are pure dead ball era players, they both spent the proponderance of their prime seasons then, while Gehringer played in the premier offensive era in history (until now). That helps the slugging portion of Gehringer's OPS; though you wouldn't call Charlie a HR hitter, he hit a lot more than the other guys, and that probably wouldn't have been true if they still had the dead ball.

2) Longevity: Collins played in significant portions of 20 seasons, Lajoie in 18 or 19 (depending on what you call significant). Gehringer played only 16 full years; he got a relatively late start and didn't play into his 40's. This accounts for his trailing the other two in counting stats like hits. (Cracking the 3000 mark -- he retired with 2839 -- would have done a lot for Charlie subjectively. He didn't enlist during WWII, did he? He was probably too old, but a fair number of guys in their late 30's did -- if so, I'd give him big props for that)

2) Styles: Collins was a pure leadoff hitter, though he would often hit 2nd or 3rd -- he had virtually no pop, but got on base a lot. Lajoie looks like more of a slugger in the dead ball era; I think he usually hit 3rd. Gehringer usually hit 2nd. Thus the rank ordering in runs scored goes Eddie, Charlie, Nap, while RBI are in the exact reverse order.

Someone can check my history on the lineup positions -- I'm going off memory.

Even with the caveats, I think Charlie compares well. If you want to penalize Rajah for defense, calling Gehringer #1 isn't at all unreasonable, which is surprising, because he's not usually put in that club.

Other HOF caliber 2b OPS (figuring in my head; check my math if you're concerned):

J. Robinson: .883 (#2 overall! You could make a case for him.)
G. Grantham: .853 (same as Collins! Didn't play much or long -- dreadful fielder)
T. Lazzeri: .847 (same as Lajoie!)
J. Kent: .846 (active -- when are people going to start talking about Kent as a possible HOF?)
R. Alomar: .833 (active)
B. Doerr: .823
J. Gordon: .823 (the old Doerr-Gordon dilemma)
R. Carew: .822
J. Morgan: .819
C. Biggio: .817 (active)
F. Frisch: .801
R. Sandberg: .796
B. Grich: .795
B. Myer: .795
C. Knoblauch: .793 (remember him? Still active; hoping for a rebound season as the LF for KC.)
L. Whitaker: .789
J. Franco: .784 (more games at SS; active again)
B. Herman: .774
L. Doyle: .765 (Doyle and Pratt below suffered by comparison to Nap and Eddie C. but were awfully good.)
Pete Runnells: .753 (career evenly split between 1b and 2b)
Del Pratt: .748
D. Lopes: .737
B. McPhee: .727
W. Randolph: .724 (Lopes & Randolph are to the late 1900's what Pratt and Doyle are to the early 1900's.)
R. Schoendienst: .724
N. Fox: .711
B. Harris: .706 (in HOF for managing)
J. Evers: .690 (in HOF for fielding)
F. White: .676 (considered for HOF for fielding)
B. Mazeroski: .666 (in HOF for fielding)

Looking at this list, it obviously doesn't take fielding, career length, baserunning, era, etc. into account, but it does kind of nicely separate players into clusters that make intuitive sense, as well as drawing attention to players who are surprisingly high or low.

[Slippery Pedro]

The Mechanical Man gets a bad rap for playing in an offensive era - but, regardless of the era, he was among the best hitters of his time. League Leadership (Top Ten) rankings for him by stat:

OPS
1929 AL 9TH .936
1932 AL 10TH .867
1933 AL 9TH .862
1934 AL 6TH .967
1935 AL 5TH .911
1936 AL 5TH .987
1937 AL 7TH .978
1939 AL 8TH .967

RUNS CREATED
1928 AL 7TH 112
1929 AL T5TH 142
1930 AL 7TH 133
1932 AL 8TH 117
1933 AL 4TH 121
1934 AL 5TH 148
1935 AL 6TH 133
1936 AL 4TH 162
1937 AL 4TH 144
1938 AL 7TH 130
1940 AL T10TH 111

RCAA
1929 AL T6TH 50
1934 AL 3RD 64
1935 AL 6TH 45
1936 AL 4TH 65
1937 AL 4TH 52

RCAP
1928 AL T6TH 35
1929 AL 4TH 51
1930 AL 8TH 36
1932 AL 9TH 30
1933 AL 10TH 27
1934 AL 2ND 73
1935 AL 6TH 52
1936 AL 2ND 78
1937 AL 3RD 70
1938 AL T7TH 43
1939 AL T9TH 36
1940 AL T7TH 36

OWP
1928 AL 10TH .609
1929 AL 9TH .687
1934 AL 3RD .740
1935 AL 7TH .682
1936 AL 5TH .719
1937 AL 7TH .692

RUNS CREATED/GAME
1928 AL 10TH 6.74
1929 AL 9TH 8.41
1933 AL 6TH 7.25
1934 AL 3RD 9.62
1935 AL 7TH 8.04
1936 AL 5TH 10.08
1937 AL 4TH 10.29
1939 AL 9TH 9.15
1940 AL 9TH 8.03

TOTAL BASES
1928 AL 7TH 272
1929 AL 4TH 337
1930 AL 8TH 326
1932 AL 6TH 307
1933 AL 4TH 294
1934 AL 6TH 311
1935 AL 6TH 306
1936 AL 6TH 356

EXTRA BASE HITS
1929 AL T4TH 77
1930 AL 7TH 78
1932 AL 4TH 74
1933 AL 7TH 60
1934 AL 6TH 68
1936 AL 4TH 87

ISOLATED POWER
1929 AL 10TH .192
1930 AL 8TH .205
1932 AL 8TH .199
1939 AL 8TH .219

SECONDARY AVERAGE
1929 AL 9TH .322
1930 AL 10TH .325
1934 AL 9TH .331
1935 AL 10TH .313
1938 AL 8TH .400
1939 AL 7TH .389

BPA
1929 AL 8TH .604
1930 AL 8TH .592
1934 AL 8TH .592
1935 AL 6TH .571
1936 AL 6TH .613
1937 AL 9TH .597
1939 AL 8TH .598

[Golden Bear]

Jackie Robinson's OPS gave me an excuse to vote with my heart.

I'm done for the day now; I have to go do my #@&$*%! taxes.

[wyvern37]

I go with Little Joe. He was a greater offensive player than most people realize. He was also an excellent defender. Hornsby was (near as I can tell) terrible afield. And every team that had him wanted to get rid of him. Morgan, on the other hand, was the best player on some amazing teams.

Alomar, in my opinion, is overrated defensively. He is an awesome hitter, but not on the level of Morgan and Hornsby.

Karim

[SmedIndy]

Golden Bear -

Collins didn't have a lot of pop, but who did in the teens. He hit double figures in triples 12 times. That was POP back then.

Gotta love 1915. 119 walks, 27 Ks.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro
The Mechanical Man gets a bad rap for playing in an offensive era - but, regardless of the era, he was among the best hitters of his time. League Leadership (Top Ten) rankings for him by stat:

OPS
1929 AL 9TH .936
1932 AL 10TH .867
1933 AL 9TH .862
1934 AL 6TH .967
1935 AL 5TH .911
1936 AL 5TH .987
1937 AL 7TH .978
1939 AL 8TH .967

RUNS CREATED
1928 AL 7TH 112
1929 AL T5TH 142
1930 AL 7TH 133
1932 AL 8TH 117
1933 AL 4TH 121
1934 AL 5TH 148
1935 AL 6TH 133
1936 AL 4TH 162
1937 AL 4TH 144
1938 AL 7TH 130
1940 AL T10TH 111

RCAA
1929 AL T6TH 50
1934 AL 3RD 64
1935 AL 6TH 45
1936 AL 4TH 65
1937 AL 4TH 52

RCAP
1928 AL T6TH 35
1929 AL 4TH 51
1930 AL 8TH 36
1932 AL 9TH 30
1933 AL 10TH 27
1934 AL 2ND 73
1935 AL 6TH 52
1936 AL 2ND 78
1937 AL 3RD 70
1938 AL T7TH 43
1939 AL T9TH 36
1940 AL T7TH 36

OWP
1928 AL 10TH .609
1929 AL 9TH .687
1934 AL 3RD .740
1935 AL 7TH .682
1936 AL 5TH .719
1937 AL 7TH .692

RUNS CREATED/GAME
1928 AL 10TH 6.74
1929 AL 9TH 8.41
1933 AL 6TH 7.25
1934 AL 3RD 9.62
1935 AL 7TH 8.04
1936 AL 5TH 10.08
1937 AL 4TH 10.29
1939 AL 9TH 9.15
1940 AL 9TH 8.03

TOTAL BASES
1928 AL 7TH 272
1929 AL 4TH 337
1930 AL 8TH 326
1932 AL 6TH 307
1933 AL 4TH 294
1934 AL 6TH 311
1935 AL 6TH 306
1936 AL 6TH 356

EXTRA BASE HITS
1929 AL T4TH 77
1930 AL 7TH 78
1932 AL 4TH 74
1933 AL 7TH 60
1934 AL 6TH 68
1936 AL 4TH 87

ISOLATED POWER
1929 AL 10TH .192
1930 AL 8TH .205
1932 AL 8TH .199
1939 AL 8TH .219

SECONDARY AVERAGE
1929 AL 9TH .322
1930 AL 10TH .325
1934 AL 9TH .331
1935 AL 10TH .313
1938 AL 8TH .400
1939 AL 7TH .389

BPA
1929 AL 8TH .604
1930 AL 8TH .592
1934 AL 8TH .592
1935 AL 6TH .571
1936 AL 6TH .613
1937 AL 9TH .597
1939 AL 8TH .598



Gehringer was a good hitter, but no better than Roberto Alomar or Craig Biggio. He was not anywhere near Collins' class.
You can talk about power all you want but in Gehringer's time, the real sluggers were hitting 50 homers a year.
Collins was in the top 10 in slugging nine times:
1908-.379-8
1909-.450-3
1910-.418-9
1911-.481-7
1912-.435-8
1913-.453-6
1914-.452-5
1915-.436-6
1920-.493-9

Total bases, seven times:
1909-257-3
1910-243-6
1912-236-9
1913-242-5
1914-238-5
1915-227-5
1920-297-7

These are more impressive than Gehringer's performances in these categories, and needless to say, Collins destroys Gehringer in the OBP/AVG/OPS categories.

G-man was in the top 10 in OPS eight times, top 5 just twice.
Collins:
1909-.866-2
1910-.800-4
1911-.932-4
1912-.885-5
1913-.894-5
1914-.904-3
1915-.896-3
1916-.802-5
1920-.932-5
1923-.909-7
1924-.896-8
1926-.900-9

Gehringer isn't really close to Collins as a hitter.

[SmedIndy]

I always thought Risberg and Gandil were jealous of him because of money, but he was 20 times the players they were.

I wonder what the conversations Collins, Cobb, and Speaker had on the bench for the 1928 A's? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Slippery Pedro]

Originally posted by Baudib
G-man was in the top 10 in OPS eight times, top 5 just twice.
Collins:
1909-.866-2
1910-.800-4
1911-.932-4
1912-.885-5
1913-.894-5
1914-.904-3
1915-.896-3
1916-.802-5
1920-.932-5
1923-.909-7
1924-.896-8
1926-.900-9

Gehringer isn't really close to Collins as a hitter.

But, who was the competition in the case of Collins and Charlie? Gehringer played when baseball had some of the best hitters ever. Can the same be said of Collins? It's easier to finisher higher when there's no competition.

Charlie played against Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Simmons, Cochrane, Averill, Dickey, Goslin, etc.

Collins had Cobb, Speaker, Joe Jackson, Heilmann, Sisler, Sam Crawford, and Home Run Baker.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro


But, who was the competition in the case of Collins and Charlie? Gehringer played when baseball had some of the best hitters ever. Can the same be said of Collins? It's easier to finisher higher when there's no competition.

Charlie played against Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Simmons, Cochrane, Averill, Dickey, Goslin, etc.

Collins had Cobb, Speaker, Joe Jackson, Heilmann, Sisler, Sam Crawford, and Home Run Baker.

You're really stretching things here. I don't see that Charlie's competition is any tougher. and, Collins also played against Ruth, Gehrig, was a teammate of Foxx, Simmons, Cochrane.

Collins was past his prime when the lively ball era hit in 1920. He was 33, the age where serious decline generally sets in, or when players fall completely off the cliff. Still, he hit .346 for the decade, finishing in the top 10 in OBP seven straight years:
1920-.438-5
1921-.412-9
1922-.401-10
1923-.455-5
1924-.441-3
1925-.461-3
1926-.441-3

OPS+
1920-146-5
1923-141-7
1924-134-7
1925-135-10
1926-139-8

He finished second in MVP balloting in 1923 and 1924 and fifth in 1922.

[b-ball-lunachik]

I voted for Collins -- he was my second baseman in the all time NDF contest ....rather than cut/paste the whole presentations, here's the link to the thread:

http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&postid=25316&highlight=Cobb#post25316

Morgan was chosen right before Collins, but I still would have taken him if Morgan was available at the time...I voted Morgan first only because I couldn't vote for my own guy....I also posted this from Ty Cobb's autobiography in which he chooses his all-time team and chose Collins....thought this was interesting:




from "Ty Cobb: My Life in Baseball" with Al Stump

Chapter 21: The Greatest in the Game as I Knew Them


One June day of 1939 at Cooperstown, NY, while we were dedicating the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, a group composed of Charlie Gehringer, Nap Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby and Eddie Collins gathered to one side for some old-fashioned fanning.

"Since when," said Casey Stengel, "did you ever see four second basemen as good as these fellows collected in one spot?"

"I never had. I never would see their like if I lived to be 200."

Of the four, I'll take Eddie Collins hands down as my all time, all star, middle basemen. Lajoie was the picture player and a fierce rival of mine; Gehringer, whom I managed and coached was a phenom; Hornsby batted .358 lifetime, the number two average in the book. None of them quite reached Collins' class and I'll tell you why.

Hornsby couldn't go in and out to bag those pop flies. He needed help from the short stop and the first baseman, a fatal weakness. Lajoie and Gehringer, great as they were, didn't match Edward Trowbridge Collins as a lightning thinker, strategist and leader. He was a manager on the field at all times .....

(gives scenario of 1917 WS game to prove out the thinker, manager and strategist that Collins was.)

.....Eddie Collins I admire deeply. He broke into Major League Baseball in 1907 and lasted until 1930 - 24 years. One of a small handful to make 3,000 lifetime hits. In fact, only Honus Wagner, Tris Speaker and myself collected more. Master of the sacrifice hit with a total of 514 -- the American Leage record -- scoffed at
homeruns -- some seasons didn't even hit one over the fence -- but look at that lifetime average -- .333 and those World Series clutch averages of .429, .409 and .421.

Sloppy and stupid playing drove Eddie wild. He'd blast a teammate who gave up easy. He wasn't flashy himself. "He looks like your Aunt Minnie out there", we'd say, "but since when did a ball get past him?" He was an uncanny diagnostician and probably suppressed more potential hit and runs, double steals and squeeze plays than any infielder who ever lived.

That's my second baseman on my All Star team -- the fellow who played his heart out with the White Sox in the 1919 World Series. Eddie was field Captain. He kept interupting the Series games to rally his fielders, consult with his pitchers, to call time to huddle with his catcher, Ray Schalk. He was puzzled that such a great team couldn't make the plays.

Of course, that was the "Black Sox" team which threw the Series in Cincinnati. It half broke Eddie Collins' heart when he found out what had happened all around him.

[Slippery Pedro]

I half want to say Cobb was a fan of the small ball, so, of course he would take Collins. But, he was there for Charlie, so, if he goes with Collins, I'd respect his view and would concede the nod.

Nice post Luna thanks.

[KCBOOMER]

Great post b-b-l! That was a good read.

I wonder how many people are picking Morgan first based on James' rating of him in the NHBA?

[WiredTiger]

I am surprised and pleased to see the Mechincal Man get so much love.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Collins didn't have a lot of pop, but who did in the teens. He hit double figures in triples 12 times. That was POP back then.

Gotta love 1915. 119 walks, 27 Ks.

I rate Collins over Hornsby and Lajoie because of defense, and, in Hornsby's case, because of his personality, which, I believe, impacted his teams in the standings.

As for Joe Morgan, I have always sensed a lot of revisionist history being written about him. I think I'll start another thread on Joe Morgan to discuss this.

[Gibby]

Though way before my time, Rogers Hornsby's record
speaks for itself. Also being a Cardinal did not hurt
him in my eyes either.

[ChicagoDave]

I am really having a hard time believing that so many people are picking Joe Morgan over Hornsby. I believe Morgan was one of the greats, no doubt, but not the greatest 2 Bagger ever.

[pwdennis]

It would be interesting to see the home vs road splits for Hornsby's years playing in Sportsman's Park. From the limited data I've seen, it appears there is a lot of "air" to be deflated from the Rajah's batting stats. Playing alongside DiMaggio in Yankee stadium or Teddy Ballgame in Fenway I suspect that Hornsby's lifetime average would be in the .325-.333 range.

Remember, too, that night baseball didn't arrive until late in Hornby's career. In most parks the ball carries better during the day.

[Sound2TheBay]

No Bret Boone?!?!?! :D


I voted for Joe Morgan. :cool:

[gyb13]

Originally posted by pwdennis
In most parks the ball carries better during the day.
Why is that?

[sweaver]

Well, it's usually warmer during the day, so the air would be less dense, and the ball would theoretically carry better. Same reason it carries better in humidity, humid air is actually less dense than dry air, although it doesn't feel like it.

I've never seen a study on the ball carrying in day vs. night, though. It is generally regarded as easier to hit during the day because you can see better in the daylight.

[TimmyB]

I voted for Robinson.

I debated with myself (and read a lot about what everyone else had to say) between Robinson, Morgan, Hornsby and Collins. It is a tough choice.

My usual tie-breaker is what a guy does to help his team reach "the next level" (which I usually define as taking teams into the post-season). In this case though, the intangible was different, and everyone knows what it is.

While his numbers don't measure up to Hornsby, he probably faced the most difficult existence in the history of MLB. While wondering how he would have fared had he not been the breaker of the color barrier is like wondering how Ted Williams would have fared if he hadn't missed 5 seasons to wars or how Satchel Paige would have played in MLB in his prime, we DO KNOW that he excelled. Under any other circumstance we might remember him first as one of the game's greatest impact players.

I would argue that no player has performed at such a high level, for such a long period, under such adverse conditions as Robinson. Imagine what Roger Maris went through the final half of '61, and try that on for 10 seasons.

One could make the argument that Robinson fed off the pressure the way Cobb fed off his anger. Cobb's demons were internal (though they led to just about everyone hating him). Robinson carried the weight of his race, his nation and his club on his shoulders, and, along the way, had the second best OPS of any 2nd baseman, and created havoc on the basepaths.

After Robinson, I'd take:
Horsnby
Collins
Morgan
Gehringer
and Denny Doyle (oh, wait, wrong list)

[spitball]

I had to go with "Little Joe". Back when I was a Dodger fan I HATED him. He was so clutch.And he loved beating the Dodgers.
The big Red Machine were awesome and to me he was the catalyst.

[Skip]

Originally posted by spitball
I had to go with "Little Joe". Back when I was a Dodger fan I HATED him. He was so clutch.And he loved beating the Dodgers.
The big Red Machine were awesome and to me he was the catalyst.
Cool memory spitball. I hated Garvey and other Dodgers over the years the same way. They just seemed to always find a way to beat my Reds.

[Throwback]

Rogers Hornsby, without a doubt, people! For a specific argument, go back to the draft thread, but Rogers Hornsby is a better player than everybody in history, save for Babe Ruth.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Throwback
Rogers Hornsby, without a doubt, people! For a specific argument, go back to the draft thread, but Rogers Hornsby is a better player than everybody in history, save for Babe Ruth.

We'll just have to disagree on that. And some of us didn't follow the draft thread because we weren't in on that reindeer game.

[sweaver]

I see Morgan, Collins, and Hornsby as just about even, but my personal preference is Little Joe.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by sweaver
I see Morgan, Collins, and Hornsby as just about even, but my personal preference is Little Joe.

Really, we're fighting about the best players of all time. It's not like we're trying to drop in Homer Bush or Ron Oester here.

But all of these learned minds, and there's a huge debate on second base, while first was a landslide and catcher wasn't as close as I'd thought it would be. It'll be interesting to see the others.