Greatest 2B Ever

[Bill Burgess]

We've done Top 20 1st Basemen, and Top 20 Catchers. Thought it'd be cool to do Top 20 2nd Basemen. And with that in mind, here we go.

1. Eddie Collins - Overall excellence takes the cake.

2. Rogers Hornsby - Roger's bat rules all else.

3. Nap Lajoie - Great bat challenges top 2.

4. Charlie Gehringer - In mid-30's, he challenged Gehrig as best player in MLs.

5. Joe Morgan - All-Around greatness made his teams win much more than otherwise.

6. Ryne Sandberg - Nice blend of glove and bat. Screwed up retiring prematurely.

7. Frankie Frisch - Competitive firebrand/holler guy, nice bat.

8. Jackie Robinson - Another competitive firebrand, nicer bat.

9. Rod Carew - Great bingles slapper, moved to 1st mid-career.

10. Roberto Alomar - Nice glove/bat combo. Hasn't spit since.

11. Craig Biggio - Fine bat.

12. Bobby Grich - 4 time GG was a better fielder than a hitter.

13. Joe Gordon - Acrobatic Yankee Leather Wizard reigns. No one did it better. Was a Brooksie/Cox at 2nd.

14. Jeff Kent - His bat won him a MVP. Wouldn't defer to Barry in dugout/clubhouse, cost him his Giants uniform.

15. Nellie Fox - One of greatest bingle slappers, AND great glove. Great DP combo with Aparicio.

16. Red Schoendienst - Lasted forever, great glove.

17. Johnny Evers - Hysterical holler guy, very good glove. Fire was his calling card.

18. Tony Lazzeri - His team mates, era, made him an RBI's hitter deluxe.

19. Billy Herman - Glove man, hit & run guy.

20. Bill Mazeroski - Can you feel the glove tonight? GGs got him in the Hall. And that '60 WS homer.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

1. Hornsby
2. Lajoie
3. Collins (2 and 3 are fairly close, but both are a mile behind Hornsby in my book)
4. Gehringer
5. Barnes
6. Morgan
7. Frisch
8. Robinson
9. Alomar
10. Grantham
11. Mazeroski
12. Biggio
13. Sandberg
14. Gordon
15. Schoendeist
16. Doyle
17. Doerr
18. Lazerri
19. Childs
20. Richardson (Hardy, not Bobby)

[Steffo]

Here's my take on some of your choices...

1. Eddie Collins- Now nobody is more under rated than Collins. He was excellent with the bat, like the Sammy Sosa and Manny Ramirez of his day (without the homers. Same hype basicly) with the glove of Ryne Sandberg. But he isn't the best. Not at all. That slot belongs to Rpgers Hornsby. Yes, he was HORRIBLE with the glove, but does that really matter?? He had a bat good enough to keep him in the majors long even with his bad fielding. Which wasn't really as bad as people make it to be. Many people often underestimate the fact that hornsby was actually an average second basemen as of today. But when playing against such masters with the glove that he went against, he seemed like a Frank Thomas. He is first.
2. Morgan is third, behind Collins and Hornsby. Not often is it possible to find such a combination of speed, power, finess, and defense in one plyaer. 'Nuff said.
3. Jackie Robinson was COMPLETELY unestimated by you. Sure, he's famous for breaking the color barrier, but was an AMAZING player also. (In 1949 he hit .342 with 203 hits, 16 homers, 12 triples, 38 doubles and 134 RBI. That's nice)
4. Jeff Kent is just a second basemen playing in an offensive era. He shouldn't even be considered.

[Bill Burgess]

Steffo,

Thanks SO much for participating in one of my exercises! I love it when others join in and give their feedback. Just makes it all worthwhile. It's so boring talking to myself!

Collins/Hornsby:
You're just killing me here, Steffo. Pitting my 2 favorite 2B men against each other! I have Eddie on my A team & The Rajah on my B team. But as much as I love the Rajah, I love Eddie even more. He outfielded Rajah, ran circles around him, and hit fairly well also. The only dept. where Rajah outshone him was in power/ave. Now I also subscribe to the theory that hitting, fielding, running, in that order, are the most essential things.

But then we must also factor into that, that Rajah went out of his way to create dissention on his teams by his unnecessarily blunt mouth.

But the face-off gets even more complex, since Rogers' defense was much more credible that many suppose. Rogers started as a SS, which showed he had the great arm, which he took with him to 2nd, & the DP, could go to his left or right. His only defensive flaw was popups.

Although I've shown this often before, I'd like to post the following, where Sisler gives his analysis of 2nd basemen, in 1931. Here is is.

"At second base Lajoie was also passing when I broke in. I recall his beautifully graceful fielding and his forceful batting. He had slowed up somewhat, however, and didn't seem to cover much ground. Unfortunately, I did not see him in his prime. A number of fine second basemen have appeard in recent years. Frank Frisch is one, although he had a tendency to fumble the ball, which mars his work, in my opinion. Hugh Critz is a brilliant fielder, though possibly somewhat overrated. He is particularly good on ground covering. Hornsby has one or two weaknesses. He doesn't shine in going back after pop flies. But he has the best throw to first base that I ever saw. And he's also a good man on double plays. Horsby was never a base-stealer, but he's really a great base-runner. His speed has never been recognized by the public, but he was phenomenally fast, in his prime. As a hitter, Hornsby stands out. He is doubtless the greatest hitter the National League has produced since the days of Hans Wagner, if not beyond.

I would rate Hornswby somewhat above Eddie Collins, with due respect to Collins' all round ability. Collins was a better base-stealer, but I wouldn't say that he was a better base-runner than Hornsby. Collins was also a clever fielder, though his work impressed me as somewhat erratic. And he was, of course, a good hitter. But Hornsby's long range hitting far excelled anything that Collins ever showed, and I would prefer him on all-round form at second base"


Steff:
"2. Morgan is third, behind Collins and Hornsby. Not often is it possible to find such a combination of speed, power, finess, and defense in one plyaer. 'Nuff said."

(Bill - There is just no way I can rank Little Joe over Nap Lajoie. Good as Joe was in the batter's box, Nap had him completely eclipsed as a hitter. Joe ran circles around him true, and I can't rate either one too high with the glove, although I suspect Nap had a very slight edge there, depite my suspicions that he was slower than I'd like, and lacked range to his left or right. But Nap had more power, (in the context of their times, of course.)

Morgan/Gehringer:
Although I could go the other way with some solid persuasion, I think the Mechanical Man was as good a team player as was Joe, who was just great too. Joe had a 5 yr. peak as a very good player, but so did Charlie. In the mid-thirties, Baseball Magazine ran a poll around 1938, and asked who was the greatest player in the game. The players split between Gehringer and Gehrig. And bear in mind, that was in the days of Foxx, Simmons, Greenberg, and an early DiMag. So, Charlie really had his work cut out for him, with that level of quality competition.

But Joe also had his Schmidt, Bench, Rose, Yaz, B. Williams, Perez, etc. to push him.)


Steffo:
3. Jackie Robinson was COMPLETELY unestimated by you. Sure, he's famous for breaking the color barrier, but was an AMAZING player also. (In 1949 he hit .342 with 203 hits, 16 homers, 12 triples, 38 doubles and 134 RBI. That's nice)

(Bill - While Jackie was an exciting runner, and very good hitter, I just cannot subscribe to him as a truly great overall player. Excellence does not translate to greatness in Burgessville. I question whether we'd be talking of him had he not broken the color line.

Both Oscar Charleston AND Ed Bolden passed on Jackie as their all time 2nd basemen, either A or B teams. And both said that in the Negro Leagues, Jackie and Larry Doby were "just a couple of other players". Of course, Robinson only played the one yr., 1945, in the old NL. But still, both Charleston and Bolden made their choices for their all time all-star teams in 1949. (Sporting News, June 29, 1949, pp. 7, column 1)

It may be terribly politically incorrect for me to say this, but Morgan strikes me as a Robinson-type player, minus the fire. And while I can plainly see that both helped their teams to win lots of pennants, they both had a much more solid supporting cast than most of their peers, and hence, I think are somewhat over-rated players. Heresy, I know, but that's just the way it looks from my faraway seat, up in the knose-bleed country.

Bill Burgess

[nightal]

:D

1. Hornsby
2. Morgan
3. Collins
4. Lajoie
5. Gehringer
6. Sandberg
7. Carew
8. Frisch
9. Gordon
10.Biggio
11.Grantham
12.Doyle
13.Alomar
14.Robinson
15.Doerr
16.Schoendeinst
17.Lazerri
18.Grich
19.Myer
20.Herman

[ElHalo]

Surprised I'm the only one to name Barnes.

Sure, sure, there are arguments against him... but I guess a .359 BA, 166 career OPS+, and a 15th place finish in Black Ink (ahead of Willie Mays and, before this year, Barry Bonds) don't take you as far as they used to.

[leecemark]

-Must be the semi-pro competition he was playing against or the fact that his most outstanding skill is one that was outlawed 128 years ago.

--Anyway, I think there are 4 2B who standout from the rest. I shuffle the order periodically, but right now its..
1) Roger Hornsby
2) Eddie Collins - although I'm pretty sure I'd rather have Eddie on my team
3) Joe Morgan
4) Nap Lajoie
--The next two are pretty clear to me as well..
5) Charlie Gehringer
6) Jackie Robinson
--After that it gets alot harder and I wouldn't bet the farm I'm right. For sure most would disagree with a couple of my top 10..
7) Craig Biggio
8) Frankie Frisch
9) Joe Gordon - horribly underrated
10) Bobby Grich
11) Roberto Alomar - recently passed by Biggio
12) Rod Carew - early move to 1B hurts big with me
13) Ryne sandberg
14) Lou Whitaker
15) Bobby Doerr
16) Tony Lazzeri
17) Bid McPhee
18) Larry Doyle
19) Dick McAulliffe - an admittedly sentimental pick
20) toss up between Nellie Fox and Johnny Evers

[ElHalo]

Like I said, there are arguments against him... but he still dominated to an extent that few have in history.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

Pretty nice sequence. Very mainstream safe. In a good way. Only 2 cents I'd offer is that Sandberg/Carew look few couple notches low.

Question:
Were you the one who said that he'd move Hornsby above Morgan, when I moved Gehrig above Sizz? I did loosen up on Sizz/Gehrig, btw. I do give you much respect for being able to turn around. I see Morgan as a Robinson, minus the fire. Both great assets to their teams, although neither great players.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

Both great assets to their teams, although neither great players.

That actually perfectly describes the way I feel about Morgan. Great asset to his team; not a great player. Not a centerpiece type guy. None of the guys on those Reds teams really were... Bench is arguably the greatest C of all time, but he's not a true centerpiece guy (neither is Berra). A bunch of A- players without a true A player.

Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, and Gehringer I view as true A players.

[Steffo]

I really don't understand why you guys love gehringer and LaJoie much. LaJoie is over-rated. He hit well in a good offensive era for middle infielders. Gehringer is someone I've nevr understood. I really am not sure Gehringer is a top ten second baseman. He is just, guessy to me in a way.

[Bill Burgess]

Steffo,

"LaJoie is over-rated. He hit well in a good offensive era for middle infielders."

Larry Lajoie started in 1897, and until 1902, he escaped the foul-strike rule. So that is an advantage for him. But from 1902-10, he had the absolutely worse hitting conditions ever facing a MLer. Has come to be known as "Death Valley" by me for hitters. The ball had only a small rubber ball at the core. The cork cushion was introduced secretly during the '10 World Series. From 1902-10, the league BA. was somewhere between .240-.250. It bottomed out in 1908 with .238.

So his era was heinous offensively. I do agree with you that his defense is over rated. Slow.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

ElHalo,

I noticed a book in The Scholar's Bookshelf catalogue.

Called Pepper Martin: A Baseball Biography, by Thomas Barthel, 240 pp., illus. softcover, (McFarland), $28.50.

Do you have it? Is it good?

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

I don't have it, but I absolutely will get it soon. Most of my information on Pepper comes from a book called "The Gashouse Gang," by Robert Hood, published in 1976. Thanks for the tip.

[ElHalo]

Duplicate post deleted.

[nightal]

I don't have it, but I absolutely will get it soon. Most of my information on Pepper comes from a book called "The Gashouse Gang," by Robert Hood, published in 1976. Thanks for the tip.


Great book, BTW

[ElHalo]

I really don't understand why you guys love gehringer and LaJoie much. LaJoie is over-rated. He hit well in a good offensive era for middle infielders. Gehringer is someone I've nevr understood. I really am not sure Gehringer is a top ten second baseman. He is just, guessy to me in a way.

I'd be more than happy to go over that one when I'm less tired. Lajoie's got a better OPS+ than Honus Wagner, and his RF+ is astounding.

Gehringer... well, he was supposedly the slickest and most aesthetically pleasing defensive 2Bman ever, and he did have 8 top 10 MVP finishes to go with his .320/.404/.480 career line.

[Imapotato]

Nice list Bill

Hard to disagree

I wouldn't put Alomar in my list....but Bid McPhee belongs there.
Robinson I would put 6th.

and then for 20th...the BEST defensive 2b ever was a man named George Cutshaw of the Dodgers and Pirates

Cutshaw was voted the top defensive second baseman of 1910-20 by the Society for American Baseball Research. He led in putouts five times, assists four times, double plays twice, and fielding percentage three times. He batted cleanup and finished in the top ten in stolen bases seven years in a row (271 career). Cutshaw was tough to strike out, fanning only 10 times in 488 at-bats in 1920

Maseroski gets all this hype for a defensive 2B...but Cutshaw was better than anyone on that list

in the deadball era he had a range factor .50 ahead of anyone else and a .965 F%...which was .15% better than his peers

I would put Cutshaw 20th...purely on defense, he is 2nd only to McPhee (who should be top 10)


and Lajoie is NOT overrated...see Wganer had no one but Sherry Magee to contend with...Lajoie had Ed Delahanty, Elmer Flick...then Ty Cobb and Sam Crawford...alot better than Magee.

Lajoie is overshadowed...because it was LAJOIE not Wagner that played in the stronger league from 1901-1910...in 1901 75% of the NL talent...meaning ML ready talent jumped to the AL...the NL filled its roster with AAAA players.
in 1902 and 1903...the rest left....guys like Chesbro, Tannehill, Burkett, Wallace, Powell, Delahanty, Flick and Orth...oh and some guy named Wee Willie Keeler ;)

Honus Wagner was also on the strongest team up until Evers, Tinker and Modercai Brown arrived in ChiTown...and McGraw got some talent back....but the Reds, Cards, Phillies, Beaneaters and Superbas were HORRIBLE!

The AL was MUCH more balanced with the Browns and Senators being the doorstop and all other teams being able to compete



I do concur Gehringer is overrated....Cobb played in Bennet Park a terrible hitters park for anything but RH hitters and it was small...which was BAD during the deadball era (Sam Crawford is a HIGHLY underrated Slugger how did he hit triples with 345-380-360???) ...and when Gehringer came around they moved Navin Field's fences in RF went from 372 in 1930 to 367 in 1931 to 325 in 1936 then 315 in 1939!! With no 30 foot wall or anything...just 5 foot high concrete....conquerently LF was moved back and forth between 1930-1940 CF was always a god awful 450-460...which is why Gehringer got so many doubles....but whoever can't hit 20 Hrs with a 315 ft RF line and is a lefty...well he is OVERRATED

[Steffo]

Correct. When I said Lajoie's batting was overrated I meant his fielding.

And glad to see somebody who agrees with me on the gehringer issue.

[Bill Burgess]

While going through my files, I came across a couple of items which pertain to Joe Gordon, and Charlie Gehringer.

First the item on Joe. From an interview with Del Baker in 1942.

"I vote for Joe Gordon. In my mind, there is no contest. I know all about figures and records, and all that sort of thing. I vote for Joe Gordon.

"I am telling you about Gordon not so much in contrast with Doerr. I am talking about Gordon as one of the greatest infielders in the history of baseball.

"Joe Gordon is as great a second baseman as anybody I yet have seen."

"Okeh, I'll go on," Baker consented. "There is nothing tough for this Yankee second sacker. He can throw from any angle. It's the acrobat in him. They tell me that at the University of Oregon he was a great gymnast. I can see that now.

"Look, last season I saw him dive for a ball no second baseman who ever played the game had any business stopping. He stopped it, all right.

"He was lying on his back. Then he pitched a strike to first base and got his man. No other second baseamn would have had a chance to make that play.

"But right now, Gordon can do things which Gehringer could not accomplish. Today, Gordon is making playes Hornsby could not aspire to. Gordon is doing things Collins never could have achieved. . . I say Joe Gordon is the greatest play-maker baseball has produced." (Baseball Magazine, August, 1942, pp. 426, "Gordon Greatest Play-Maker Baseball Has Seen, Says Del Baker", by Daniel M. Daniel)

Bill Burgess

[Steffo]

First, there was no Charlie quote. All that is on Gordon. And as I've said before, I can't base every thing off quotes. I NEED statistical backup of some sort.

[Steffo]

Also, I can't undertsnad why you guys think Morgan was a nobody.


Over 22 years, Morgan averaged 154 hits, 27 doubles, 6 triples, 16 homers, 69 RBI, and 42 stolen bases. He had a .272 average, a .392 OBP, and a .427 SLG.

Now, he was NOT great at any one thing. What made him good was his all-roundness. 27 doubles and 16 homers are pretty good for power, in the '70s at least.He could hit with a .272, he could get on with a .392, and his sluggin was pretty good.

He had pretty nice speed too, with 6 triples and 42 SBs a year.

[nightal]

Two questions:

1.Is Joe Gordon the most underrated second baseman of alltime?
2.Why is Buddy Myer being overlooked by many of you?

[ElHalo]

Two questions:

1.Is Joe Gordon the most underrated second baseman of alltime?


Quite possibly. He certainly should have gone to the Hall ahead of Lazerri... but there was a general feeling that the 27 Yankees were too great a team to have just two HoF position players... so they let in Combs... then they let in Lazerri.


2.Why is Buddy Myer being overlooked by many of you?

Not really getting overlooked... he was a good defensive guy, but nothing special, and his OPS+ is only 108, with middling speed and no special traits to speak of.

[Bill Burgess]

Charlie Gehringer:

Players' Choice: Who is the Top Ranking Performer on the Diamond? Summing Up the Dope Without Statistics. by Harold Winerip, 1937

Marvin Owen ------ Charlie Gehringer
Vernon Kennedy -- Charlie Gehringer
Buddy Lewis ------ Charlie Gehringer
Johnny Kroner ---- Charlie Gehringer
Schoolboy Rowe -- Charlie Gehringer
Lou Finney -- ----- Charlie Gehringer
Fritz Ostgermueller -Lou Gehrig
Billy Werber ------ Lou Gehrig
Mike Kreevich ---- Lou Gehrig
Lou Chiozza ----- Lou Gehrig
Buck Ross --------Lou Gehrig
Chubby Dean -----Lou Gehrig
Tony Piet ------- Lou Gehrig
Jack Knott ------ Charlie Gehringer/Lou Gehrig
Eric McNair ----- Charlie Gehringer/Lou Gehrig
Stu Martin ------ Dizzy Dean
Lamar Newsome --Dizzy Dean
Elden Auker ----- Dizzy Dean
Johnny Lanning -- Dizzy Dean
Benny Frey -- ---- Dizzy Dean
Dick Bartell ------ Carl Hubbell
Harry Danning --- Carl Hubbell
Larry French ---- Carl Hubbell
Bill Lee ---------- Carl Hubbell
Burgess Whitehead Carl Hubbell/Dizzy Dean
Buck Jordan ----- Paul Waner(hitting), Hubbell(pitching), Billy Herman(all around)
Woody Jensen -- Paul Waner
Randy Moore ---- Paul Waner
Charlie Belbert -- Paul Waner
Augie Galan ----- Billy Herman
Rick Ferrell ------ Mickey Cochrane
Gilly Campbell --- Pepper Martin
Herman Fink ---- Wally Moses
Pat Malone ----- Joe DiMaggio
Danny MacFayden Joe DiMaggio
Buddy Hassett, Lefty Gromez, Jimmy DeShong, Johnny Stone -- Babe Ruth
Tex Carleton -- Ty Cobb

This unscientific poll simply shows how these players were regarded in their day. Not intened to "prove" a point. But peer's opinions have some authority.
(Baseball Magazine, 1937, pp. 397, "Player's Choice", by Harold Winerip)


Bill Burgess

[KHenry14]

As loathe as I am to say this (as a good Giants fan) I don't understand the lack of respect for Jeff Kent. Bill has him 14th, and nobody else has him anywhere. I am guessing that people just forgot about him, but in my book he has to be in the top 10, his hitting just demands that respect. In my view he clearly superior to Biggio just because of the power numbers, and by the time he's done he'll own pretty much all the 2B hitting stats except for average. Sure he's not great with the glove, but I'll take an average glove if I can have that big stick.

KH14<--who can't believe he said something nice about Kent. ;)

[leecemark]

--Bill, sorry to be so long answeriing your question. I had some computer issues that kept me offline - it actually crashed while responding to your post. I don't remember offering to demote Morgan in exchange to your demoting Sisler. Hornsby and Collins moved ahead of Morgan based on some indepth research on 2B's where Morgan just couldn't match Hornsby's peak or Collins' consistency. He isn't that far behind though and I'd feel much more comfortable arguing Morgan over Hornsby than Sisler over Gehrig. I could and have made some resonable arguements for Morgan over Hornsby and several people agree Morgan is #1. You can't make a reasonable arguement for Sisler over Gehrig. So far as I know you're the only person who would even try. I don't even have Sisler in my top 10 1B.
--KH, you're probably right about Kent belonging in the top 20. Consider him substituted for McAuliffe at 19 on my list.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

"I don't remember offering to demote Morgan in exchange to your demoting Sisler."

(Bill - Trust me. It happened. I will find it if you want to see it.)

Mark:
"Hornsby and Collins moved ahead of Morgan based on some indepth research on 2B's where Morgan just couldn't match Hornsby's peak or Collins' consistency. He isn't that far behind though"

(Bill - I'm happy for you, since it moves you in the appropriate direction.)

Mark:
"and I'd feel much more comfortable arguing Morgan over Hornsby than Sisler over Gehrig. I could and have made some resonable arguements for Morgan over Hornsby and several people agree Morgan is #1."

(Bill - No comment.)

Mark:
"You can't make a reasonable arguement for Sisler over Gehrig. So far as I know you're the only person who would even try. I don't even have Sisler in my top 10 1B."

(Bill - I am trying sincerely to mature and only make the right fights. I no longer feel that a sucessful fight can be made for George over Lou. Mark me well. A case can indeed be made, but not for the masses. Only for the truly most discerning. And I have other more promising fights to contest. There are far too few, even here, who can discern the subtleties of Sisler/Gehrig. But there is indeed a case. But why fight it, if there is no one to accept it, and no payoff. But for the tiny several Fever guys here, I'll make the case, in an abreviated form.

1. Gehrig wins, but only if the battle is contested in modern, post-1920 terms, where Lou benefits from the era-based windfall bonanza.

2. Lou's peak, '27-37, came when conditions made stars of a certain type of player. George's peak, '16-22, came when 3/4 of his time, was stiffled by limited era conditions.

3. Lou had superior team mates, who helped hit him in, and were often on base for Lou to gobble up RBIs.

4. Lou had 11 yrs. of peak ('27-37) to make his case, George had 7 ('16-22). Lou's era was premium, George's a little early, before the era really got rolling.

5. Lou had a half-season of decline, George had 7 yrs. of severe decline, as a merely good - sub-par player.

6. One of the arguments I have always made, is that for one player to be truly superior to another one, he should be so under all fair, similiar conditions.

7. So, in that light, let's MAKE the playing conditions level. Let's let Sisler be a Yankee from '26-38, and now let's let Lou be a St. Louis Brown from 1915-29. Within their new context, now guess who will shine to better advantage? Let's have Ruth bat after George for 9 seasons, and Ken Williams follow Lou in the order. Hmm. So, how does it suddenly look now?

You say I am the only person you know who would try to make a reasonable case for Sisler over Gehrig. How naive. Please allow me to show that I fight not alone, but surrounded by a phalanx of invisible warriors. Here are some others who fight alongside me.

George Sisler supporters------------Lou Gehrig supporters
Numbers following names indicates the yr. of opinion.

Christy Mathewson-22-------------John McGraw---31
Wilbert Robinson---22--------------Gordon Mackay--37
Ban Johnson-------29--------------Joe McCarthy,Best Ever-38
Bucky Harris-------31--------------John B. Foster--38
Jim Nasium----Dec,35--------------Fred Logan---38
-----------------------------------Dan Daniel---41
Jimmy Burke-------40--------------Joe Dugan---41
Jimmy Isaminger---41--------------Waite Hoyt--42
Hal Chase---------41--------------Ed Rumill----42
Joe Jackson-------42--------------Henry Edwards--42
Muddy Ruel--------42--------------Earl Combs--42
Grant Rice---------45--------------Duffy Lewis--=45
Duffy Lewis-------=45-------------Tom Yawkey---45
Red Smith----------50------------Connie Mack---50
Harry Salinger------50-------------Steve O'Neil---50
Eddie Collins--------50------------John Carmichael-50
Max Carey----------50------------John Kieran----50
J. Roy Stockton,Best Ever-52-------Billy Southwood--50
Frank Baker---------55-------------Max Carey----50
Ed Burkholder-------55--------------Ralph Kiner---50
Dazzy Vance--------61--------------Ed Barrow---51
Ty Cobb------------61-------------Clark Griffith--52
Mickey Cochrane----61-------------Bill McGowan--54
Rogers Hornsby------62------------Ed Walsh----57
Branch Rickey-------65-------------Ed Bang----62
Leonard Koppet------69-------------Tommy Holmes--64
Al Schacht----------71-------------Jimmy Austin---64
Arthur Daley--------73--------------Jimmy Dykes----67
Bob Shawkey-------77--------------Fred Lieb-------77
George Kelly--------84--------------Riggs Stevenson--85
Frank Ellerbe--------85--------------Mark Koenig-----85
Jocko Conlon--------85-------------Jocko Conlin-----85, chose both
Bill Rogell------------85-------------Joe Sewell-----87
Whitey Witt---------85-------------Whitey Witt---87
Luke Sewell---------87--------------Bill James----87
George Uhle---------88--------------Buck Leonard--87
Bob Broeg------7-19-98--------------Charlie Gehringer-87
-------------------------------------Bill Dickey--------87
-------------------------------------Babe Herman-----87
-------------------------------------Buck Jordan------87
-------------------------------------George Selkirk----87
-------------------------------------Whitey Wyatt----87
-------------------------------------Bill Wambsganss--87
-------------------------------------John McCarthy----94
-------------------------------------Shirley Povich-----97
So, I hope you can now realize that Lou's case isn't so open/shut, that many others didn't see the stuff I talked about above. And down through the decades, George has won his share of public opinion polls over Lou, and not just by fans either. Many sports writers opionion polls were won by George over Lou.

In his revised Historical Abstract, Bill James dropped Sisler from his top 100, along with Bill Terry. However, in his first edition, he said, pp. 349, "As to peak value, the choice between Sisler and Gehrig is not so simple,. . . It is possible that given a more careful consideration of defense and base running, given that it might later be established that Gehrig's superhuman RBI totals were a natural outcome of his productivity and position in the lineup, I might switch to Sisler."


But despite all these things, I'm not going to fight this fight any more. Too few are at that deep level.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Okay I stand corrected. I should have said I don't know of anyone else born in the 20th century or still lliving who thinks Sisler is in anyway comparable to Gehrig. At his best Sisler was not as good as Gehrig and his best did'n't ast nearly as long. Also, Ruth did not bat behind Gehrig it was the other way around. In the early 20s when Sisler was in his prime the Browns were a great offensive team and Sportsman Park was a great hitters park.
--I don't have a copy of the original abstract but if I remember correctly James was saying that it wasn't as clear a comparison between Gehrig-Sisler as it was between Gehrig-Foxx becasue Sisler was a different type of player and played part of his career in a different era while condtions were basically the same for Gehrig vs Foxx. Obviously as he studied the issue more deeply Sisler fell further and further behind to the point where he is not only not comparable to Gehrig, but not even a top 100 player. George Sisler has alot more in common with Don Mattingly than he does Lou Gehrig.

[nightal]

In his revised Historical Abstract, Bill James dropped Sisler from his top 100, along with Bill Terry. However, in his first edition, he said, pp. 349, "As to peak value, the choice between Sisler and Gehrig is not so simple,. . . It is possible that given a more careful consideration of defense and base running, given that it might later be established that Gehrig's superhuman RBI totals were a natural outcome of his productivity and position in the lineup, I might switch to Sisler."


But despite all these things, I'm not going to fight this fight any more. Too few are at that deep level.

Bill Burgess

My biggest problem with James' two books was this very subject. What Kool-Aid did he drink to come up with two so different opinions. :waving

[leecemark]

--I think it might have been the 15 years of research between books rather than his choice of beverage. There are plenty of things I believed 15 years (and some 15 days) ago that I've changed my view on as I learned new information or discovered new ways of looking at things. Anyone who hasn't learned enough to change a viewpoint or two over that long a period just isn't open to new information.

[ElHalo]

--I think it might have been the 15 years of research between books rather than his choice of beverage. There are plenty of things I believed 15 years (and some 15 days) ago that I've changed my view on as I learned new information or discovered new ways of looking at things. Anyone who hasn't learned enough to change a viewpoint or two over that long a period just isn't open to new information.

Completely true. There was a time when I ranked Bob Gibson in my top 5 all time starters. I've grown to know better.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

"There are plenty of things I believed 15 years (and some 15 days) ago that I've changed my view on as I learned new information or discovered new ways of looking at things. Anyone who hasn't learned enough to change a viewpoint or two over that long a period just isn't open to new information."

Perfect answer. One I'm certain no one can argue against. But Bill James is known for his wildly fluctuating rankings. Ironicly, I strongly agree with most of them. Here are a few I agree with, and a few I don't.

Bill James' changes in his rankings from 1988 to 2001.

---------Agree With------------------Disagree With----------------------
Gehrig, from 6 to 14-----------------Cochrane, --------20 to 72---------
Morgan, ----8 to 15-----------------Bench,----------- 26 to 44-----
Mays, -----11 to 3------------------Sisler, ------------28 to not in 100-
Cobb, -----14 to 5------------------Aaron, ------------33 to 12--------
Campanella, 15 to 53----------------B. Terry, ----------53 to not in 100--
Schmidt, ---16 to 21----------------Heilmann, ---------58 to not in 100-
Ernie Banks, 17 to 77----------------N. Ryan, ----------74 to not in 100--
J. Foxx,---- 18 to 29----------------Traynor, ----------75 to not in 100
J. Robinson, 19 to 29----------------F. Robinson, ------35 to 24----------
Speaker, ----22 to 11---------------Ott, --------------39 to 28-------
Kiner, -------24 to not in 100--------Clemente, --------50 to 74----
Killebrew, ----49 to 63--------------Joe Jackson, -------53 to 66------
E. Collins,---- 56 to 18------------------
McCovey,---- 59 to 69------------------
Lajoie,------- 61 to 40

Some of these are mild, but others like Collins, Kiner, Banks, Campanella, Heilmann, Terry, Sisler, Cochrane change something like 50 places.

Bill Burgess

But for breath-taking changes, Bill tops off his "growth" by dropping Buck Ewing, from a theoretical Top 10 All-Time, to not in the Top 100! Not that is a free fall, even in theory.

Bill Burgess

[Imapotato]

Two questions:

1.Is Joe Gordon the most underrated second baseman of alltime?
2.Why is Buddy Myer being overlooked by many of you?

20's hitters need to be taken with a grain of salt

That was the 2nd greatest hitters era ever...after 1890-1898
and I never saw anything special about Gordon except he had the "Yankee Bonus"

[ElHalo]

and I never saw anything special about Gordon except he had the "Yankee Bonus"

One: He's probably the greatest defensive second baseman of all time. McPhee and Mazeroski make a claim, but it's entirely possible that Gordon would win out.

Two: Find out how many other great second basemen have OPS+'s over 120.

Add those two things up, and come back to me.

[leecemark]

--I second Elhalo's coments on Gordon. It should also be pointed out that Gordon was a right handed power hitter whose best years were spent in a park that was death on them. His OPS+ probaly understates his offensive value by at least 10%.

[JACKIE42]

One: He's probably the greatest defensive second baseman of all time. McPhee and Mazeroski make a claim, but it's entirely possible that Gordon would win out.

Two: Find out how many other great second basemen have OPS+'s over 120.

Add those two things up, and come back to me.

Obviously you never saw Eddie Basinski play, now there was a second baseman, and he could also play shortstop.

[santotohof]

The love of old 257 Joe Morgan and the equivalent disdain for Ryno and kent baffles me. Sandberg and Kent are remarkable ,defensive as well as offensive powerhouses. I have heard all I can stomach about Morgan.he hit 250 or less in 8 full seasons. His only renowned years were spent hitting behind Ken Griffey,Pete Rose and in front of Bench,Perez ,Foster and the rest of the BIG RED MACHINE.Kent has been awesome.Quiet,deadly and effective.Ryno was the big stick and a MVP winner before the mid infielders were in vogue.

[Imapotato]

One: He's probably the greatest defensive second baseman of all time. McPhee and Mazeroski make a claim, but it's entirely possible that Gordon would win out.

Two: Find out how many other great second basemen have OPS+'s over 120.

Add those two things up, and come back to me.

Ok, I'm listening, tell me more.

OPS+, you know how much you overrate it...and I underrate it...so let's get some more proof.

I am open minded about him...

and I can add thank you very much ;)

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

I had stated that I no longer wanted to fight the Sisler/Gehrig matchup. But do you know how I feel when you bait/taunt me on that one. I feel like Al Pacinio in "Godfather III". Quote: "Just when I'm out, they pull me Back!"

I sincerely doubt if after you read my stuff, if you can hear. There is a huge difference between listening and hearing. You listen but cannot hear the arguments.


Mark:
"--Okay I stand corrected. I should have said I don't know of anyone else born in the 20th century or still lliving who thinks Sisler is in anyway comparable to Gehrig."

(Bill - What's the difference? Oh yeah. ONLY those who didn't see them both play, are qualified to judge. BTW - that line of logic is insane, mental illness. ONLY those who saw them are qualified to judge properly.)


Mark"
"At his best Sisler was not as good as Gehrig and his best did'n't last nearly as long. Also, Ruth did not bat behind Gehrig it was the other way around. (Oops.)

(Bill - As it occurred, true enough. If the 2 players had been switched, the results would have reversed. Look deeper, Mark.

Here is a favorite Bill James saying that is invalid. Quote: "It really doesn't matter what might have happened. It hard enough to make sense of what did happen." Sounds plausible, but completely, absolutely ludicrous and preposterous, and outrageously illogical.)


Mark:
"In the early 20s when Sisler was in his prime the Browns were a great offensive team and Sportsman Park was a great hitters park."


(Bill - I know quite well how good those Browns were, and yes they were quite talented. But let's not be naive. They came in 2nd in '22, but they could not be fairly compared with Lou's teams. Lou Gehrig was NEVER on a poor team except the '25 Yanks. Lou's teams were all great. Not merely very good. But great. So you are the very 1st person I've met, who feels that Lou's teams can be fairly compared to Sisler's teams, who won 1 pennant in '44, in their 50 yr. history.)


--I don't have a copy of the original abstract but if I remember correctly James was saying that it wasn't as clear a comparison between Gehrig-Sisler as it was between Gehrig-Foxx becasue Sisler was a different type of player and played part of his career in a different era while condtions were basically the same for Gehrig vs Foxx. Obviously as he studied the issue more deeply Sisler fell further and further behind to the point where he is not only not comparable to Gehrig, but not even a top 100 player. George Sisler has alot more in common with Don Mattingly than he does Lou Gehrig.

(Bill - You and Bill James now share the distinction of being the only 2 guys I know who don't rank Sisler in the top 10 of 1st basemen. All down through the decades, Sizz, not Foxx, not Greenberg, has challenged Lou for top honors in polls. I will show the verdict of history.

Sporting News staff, Jan. 20, 1938
17 voters
1B Gehrig 8, Sisler 7, Chase 2
2B Lajoie 8, Collins 4, Hornsby 3, Gehringer2
SS Wagner 17
3B Collins 9, Traynor 8
LF Cobb 17
CF Speaker 14, Jackson 1, Delehanty 1, Clarke 1
RF Ruth 17
C Cochrane 12, Bresnahan 6, Ewing 4, Kling 4
Harnett 3, Dickey 2, Schalk 2, M. Kelly 1
P Johnson 13, Mathewson 12, Grove 8, Young 4,
Alexander 4, Hubbel 4, Waddell 3, Plank 2, Coombs 1


1950 Christy Walsh Survey of 500 Sports Writers
Connie Mack, 7 spwr. Announced Jul.8, 1952
1B Sisler
2B Collins
SS Wagner
3B Traynor
LF Cobb
CF Speaker
RF Ruth
C Cochrane / Dickey
U IF Frisch, U OF DiMaggio
P Johnson, Mathewson, Young, Alexander
Hubbell, Grove


1952, Feb., Baseball Writers Ass. Of America, 164 spwr.
Big Time Baseball (Magazine), 164 Spwr. & 76 celebrities
1B Gehrig 124, Sisler 56, Terry, Chase, Foxx, Greenberg
2B Hornsby 107, Gehringer, Collins, Lajoie, Frisch, Gordon
SS Wagner 192, Marion, Cronin, Maranville, Rizzuto, Appling, Boudreau 27
3B Traynor 118, Collins 50, Baker, Rolfe, Dykes, Dugan
LF Cobb 224, Jackson
CF DiMaggio 107, Speaker 105
RF Ruth 234, Williams
C Dickey 109, Cochrane 92, Bresnahan 20, Schalk, Harnett, Kling
Ruel, Schang, Campanella
P Johnson 117, Mathewson 72, Alexander 16, Grove 11, Dean
Hubbell, Pennock, Waddell, Feller


Sport Magazine, May 1951
American League
1B Sisler
2B Lajoie
SS Boudreau
3B Collins
LF Cobb
CF DiMaggio
RF Ruth
C Cochrane
P Johnson


Complete Baseball (Magazine), Fall, 1951
AL, voted on by panel of 7 spwr.
1B Sisler, Gehrig, Foxx
2B Collins, Lajoie, Gehringer
SS Boudreau, Appling, Cronin
3B Collins, Baker, Kell
LF Cobb, DiMaggio, Keeler,
CF Speaker, Simmons, J. Jackson
RF Ruth, Simmons, Williams
C Cochrane, Dickey, Schalk
RHP Johnson
LHP Grove


Sporting News, Jan. 2, 1957
1B Sisler
2B Hornsby
SS Wagner
3B Collins
LF Cobb
CF Speaker
RF Ruth
C Cochrane
P Mathewson
Young
Johnson
Alexander


over 120 total votes
Sport Magazine, Sept., 1958
American League
1B Gehrig, Sisler
2B Collins
SS Cronin
3B Collins, Baker
LF Cobb 104
CF DiMaggio 48, Speaker 47
RF Ruth 107
C Dickey 59, Cochrane 50
P Johnson
Grove 105
M. McGraw 105, Stengel 53,
Mack 35, McCarthy 33, Huggins


Baseball Writers Ass. Of America, Jul. 6, 1958
238 total votes
1B Gehrig 124, Sisler 78
2B Hornsby 125, Collins 60, Gehringer, Lajoie, Frisch
SS Wagner 216, Cronin 7
3B Traynor 199, Collins 23
LF Cobb 211, Williams 40
CF Speaker 111, DiMaggio 52
RF Ruth 228, Musial
C Dickey 105, Cochrane 93, Harnett, Berra
P Grove 213, Johnson 196, Hubbell 173, Mathewson 135,
Mathewson 135, Young 56, Alexander 36, Feller 29


1969 Sporting News Centennial
1B Gehrig, Sisler, Musial
2B Hornsby, Gehringer, Collins,
SS Wagner, Cronin, Banks
3B Traynor, B. Robinson, J. Robinson
OF Ruth, Cobb, DiMaggio, T. Williams, Speaker, Mays
C Cochrane, Dickey, Campanella
RHP Johnson, Mathewson, Young
LHP Grove, Koufax, Hubbell


1936 --- Original Hall of Fame vote, Feb. 2, 1936, votes counted at the Commissioner's office in Chicago, IL. 226 Total Voters; Cobb 222, Wagner 215, Ruth 215, Mathewson 205, Johnson 189, Lajoie 146, Speaker 133, Young 111, Hornsby 105, Cochrane 80, Sisler 77, E. Collins 60, J. Collins 58, Alesxander 55, Gehrig 51 --


There. I just listed some of the many opinion polls, and Sizz was ALWAYS Lou's main competition. George won his share. I didn't leave out those polls Lou won. Even where Lou won, there were always lots of Sizz supporters.

So while I do realize that I value defense/running more than you, it is not within your power to invalidate the verdict of BB's long history.

But it's not merely a question of how many supported who, but the QUALITY OF SUPPORT. Sizz garnered the support of Cobb, Hornsby, Cochrane, Granny Rice, Eddie Collins, Branch Rickey; All heavy-weights in terms of BB smarts.

But to be perfectly fair, I must list the best of Lou's supporters: McGraw, Mack, McCarthy, John B. Foster, Dan Daniel, Yawkey, Barrow, Griffith, Dykes, Fred Lieb, Charlie Gehringer, Shirley Povich.

So with supporters so evenly divided, why the sarcasm, as if one isn't even close.

Summary:
Gehrig won the fight, but only because he had help. He had advantages. Team, era, healthy longer led to longer peak. George caught the lively ball wind, but Lou caught the 1930 live-ball, phase II, which was just as good.

But the real reason I will no longer be doing Sisler/Gehrig is one I haven't mentioned yet. Both gentlemen were such a credit to BB, true ornaments, and would have given much more if health had permitted.

Lou Gehrig was on schedule to break many power counting record on the books. Lou got sick spring, 1938, while only 35 yrs. old. If he had been allowed to play out his string, he would have blazed new trails, even while declining. So due to this, I'm retiring the Sisler/Gehrig fight.

Bill Burgess

[Steffo]

Bill has just convinced me to move Sisler from 12th place on my list to 3rd place, congratulations.

[ElHalo]

Ok, I'm listening, tell me more.

OPS+, you know how much you overrate it...and I underrate it...so let's get some more proof.


Ok; how about this:

Gordon only had 9 qualifying seasons out of 11 total. He missed 44 and 45 to the war, and enough games in 46 to prevent that from being a qualifying season. He played in 119 games his last year. Short career, ok; it would have been 13 years without the war. He played from age 23 to age 35. So a short career, but not a crazy short career.

Just keep in mind that he had only 9 qualifying seasons while I roll off these stats.

Top 10 in HR: 9 times
Top 10 in TB: 6 times
Top 10 in OPS: 4 times
Top 10 in SLG: 5 times
Top 10 in RBI: 5 times
Top 10 in R: 5 times
Top 10 in XBH: 6 times
Top 10 in Power/Speed: 8 times

162 game averages:

R: 95
RBI: 101
2B: 27
HR: 26
SB: 9
TB: 275

Pretty solid numbers from any middle infielder... add on the fact that he's one of a handful of players in the argument for greatest fielding second baseman ever...

[ElHalo]

Bill has just convinced me to move Sisler from 12th place on my list to 3rd place, congratulations.

Sounds reasonable to me. My first basemen normally go:

Gehrig
Foxx
Sisler
Greenberg
Thomas

[nightal]

--I think it might have been the 15 years of research between books rather than his choice of beverage. There are plenty of things I believed 15 years (and some 15 days) ago that I've changed my view on as I learned new information or discovered new ways of looking at things. Anyone who hasn't learned enough to change a viewpoint or two over that long a period just isn't open to new information.


Wow, I feel just like I did in Jr. High. Being taught by such a wise man.

[Steffo]

That's how my top three are.

And by Thomas is that FRANK Thomas?

[nightal]

One: He's probably the greatest defensive second baseman of all time. McPhee and Mazeroski make a claim, but it's entirely possible that Gordon would win out.

Two: Find out how many other great second basemen have OPS+'s over 120.

Add those two things up, and come back to me.


Nice! I've always thought Gordon was overlooked.

[ElHalo]

That's how my top three are.

And by Thomas is that FRANK Thomas?

Yeah, that'd be Frank Thomas, of the Chicago White Sox.

I'm thinking... who else goes there? Johnny Mize? I think it's pretty close between Mize and Thomas... they're both at the back end of the top 25 players all time in my book... I don't really think anybody else is close (After Mize, I'd probably fall to Hal Trosky, Mark McGwire, or Jeff Bagwell... pretty steep drop off to me). I might rank Thomas a bit higher than most.

[Imapotato]

Ok; how about this:

Gordon only had 9 qualifying seasons out of 11 total. He missed 44 and 45 to the war, and enough games in 46 to prevent that from being a qualifying season. He played in 119 games his last year. Short career, ok; it would have been 13 years without the war. He played from age 23 to age 35. So a short career, but not a crazy short career.

Just keep in mind that he had only 9 qualifying seasons while I roll off these stats.

Top 10 in HR: 9 times
Top 10 in TB: 6 times
Top 10 in OPS: 4 times
Top 10 in SLG: 5 times
Top 10 in RBI: 5 times
Top 10 in R: 5 times
Top 10 in XBH: 6 times
Top 10 in Power/Speed: 8 times

162 game averages:

R: 95
RBI: 101
2B: 27
HR: 26
SB: 9
TB: 275

Pretty solid numbers from any middle infielder... add on the fact that he's one of a handful of players in the argument for greatest fielding second baseman ever...



Nice...I concede

I will freely admit the 1940's are not my forte. With the war it's very hard to find any sort of semblance to talent level and consistency.

But he was def on top of his peers.

I'll have to remember to put him top 5 from now on

Thanks...and enjoy the moment of proving me wrong ;)

[Appling]

My top second basemen:
1. Eddie Collins (great all-around player)
2. Rogers Hornsby (mostly his bat)
3. Nap Lajoie
4. Charlie Gehringer
5. Nellie Fox
6. Joe Morgan
7. Bobby Doerr
8. Joe Gordon
9. Frankie Frisch
10. Red Schoendienst (his HR ruined the first ASG I ever attended)

I decided in advance I would use 3000 PO and 4000 Assists at second base as a minimum standard. Less than these numbers disqualifies the player as a second baseman. This disqualifies Rod Carew and Jackie Robinson.

Pretty big separation between number 4 and number 5 on my list.
For the last three on this list I had a hard time deciding between Frisch, Schoendienst and Ryne Sandberg.

[Appling]

Gordon only had 9 qualifying seasons out of 11 total. He missed 44 and 45 to the war, and enough games in 46 to prevent that from being a qualifying season. He played in 119 games his last year. Short career, ok; it would have been 13 years without the war. He played from age 23 to age 35. So a short career, but not a crazy short career.

Just keep in mind that he had only 9 qualifying seasons while I roll off these stats...


And Joe was the AL MVP in 1942, despite Ted Williams' Triple Crown season!

[santotohof]

The so called experts make Joe Morgan ,a guy who had 6 great years as the top 5. This slap hitiing ,lifetime hitting 271 hitter spent his only good years as the guy between Rose,Griffey, and in front of Bench,Perez,May and Foster.I then hear Lazzerri was overrated. BS. Sandberg WAS the offfense for good Cub teams. Morgan is the single most overrated player of all time

[leecemark]

--The "slaphitting" Morgan retired as the career leader in HR by a 2B. He led not just the Big Red Machine but the entire NL in slugging in 1976. Even aided by cozy Wrigley Field, Sandberg ended up with only 14 more HR and doesn't come close to Morgan in most other categories. Sandberg was a fine player, but he wasn't as good as Morgan.

[Windy City Fan]

Sandburg vs. Morgan

OPS
Morgan 132
Sandburg 114

Steals (%)
Morgan 689 (81%)
Sandburg 344 (76%)

BB/K
Morgan 1868/1015
Sandburg 761/1260

Fielding % (League)
Sandburg .989 (.981)
Morgan .981 (.977)

Range Factor (League)
Sandburg 5.10 (4.47)
Morgan 5.03 (4.69)

Offensively, its not much of a contest. Morgan has a better OPS+, he struck out less (in more at bats), walked way more, and ran better. Sandburg was a better slugger at his peak, but career wise their about the same in comparison to the league. (Sandburg declined badly his last 4 years, Morgan kept his SLG and OBP above the league average during all of his decline years, except the last). Morgan gets the nod for longevity too, but I must add that I always felt Sandburg's career was cut short by that spring training beaning that broke his wrist in 1993. He was never the same after that.

Sandburg was a better glove man, but not by enough to close the offensive gap.

[AG2004]

The so called experts make Joe Morgan ,a guy who had 6 great years as the top 5. This slap hitiing ,lifetime hitting 271 hitter spent his only good years as the guy between Rose,Griffey, and in front of Bench,Perez,May and Foster.I then hear Lazzerri was overrated. BS. Sandberg WAS the offfense for good Cub teams. Morgan is the single most overrated player of all time

I'd have to disagree with the "6 great years." I decided to use win shares as a standard. 30 is considered a great season, an MVP-type year. 25 is very good; 20 is a good, solid year. 40 is exceptional. To make things fair, I adjusted Morgan's record for the strike years, Hornsby's and Collins' records for 1918 and 1919 (when WWI ended one season early and caused the next one to start late), and Lajoie's record to make up for the time lost in 1902 when league wars led to a court order that prevented him from playing. I'm not adjusting for season length; Hornsby and Collins were playing shorter seasons than Morgan did, but Morgan was playing integrated ball, so it evens out.

Seasons with 40+ win shares (adjusted for games lost by strikes, wars, or court orders): Hornsby 4; Collins, Lajoie, Morgan each have 3. (Sandberg has 0).

Seasons with 30+ win shares: Collins 10; Hornsby 9; Morgan and Lajoie each have 8. (Sandberg has 4).

Seasons with 25+ win shares: Collins and Hornsby have 12 each; Morgan and Lajoie have 10 each. (Sandberg has 6).

Seasons with 20+ win shares: Collins 17; Hornsby 15; Morgan and Lajoie each have 14. (Sandberg has 9).

In 1999, Bill James also came up with a list of top ten secondary averages among 2Bs. Sandberg's .299 didn't make the list; neither did Lajoie's .222. (Deadball players are at a disadvantage; Cobb's secondary average was .333, while Joe Jackson's was .306).

10(tie): Eddie Collins .322
10(tie): Eddie Stanky .322
9: George Grantham .329
8: Bobby Grich .330
7: Tony Lazzeri .336
6: Davey Lopes .344
5: Joe Gordon .346
4: Jackie Robinson .355
2(tie): Robers Hornsby .362
2(tie): Max Bishop .362
1: Joe Morgan .431

Joe Morgan's batting average is low, but batting average is about half of offense; the other half consists of walks, power, and speed, and Morgan's far, far ahead of any other second baseman there.

[HDH]

Any one of these:

1 Rogers Hornsby 1922
2 Charlie Gehringer 1936
3 Eddie Collns 1920
4 Napolean LaJoie 1901
5 Frankie Frisch 1923


The Best I've seen in my lifetime so far:
Hitting and Fielding: Roberto Alomar

[Brad Harris]

Below is my updated list of second base rankings. Remember I've used James' original formula minus the timeline and subjective elements. The number in parenthesis after each name is their original ranking in The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.


Rogers Hornsby (3)
Eddie Collins (2)
Joe Morgan (1)
Nap Lajoie (6)
Craig Biggio (5)
Jackie Robinson (4)
Charlie Gehringer (8)
Ryne Sandberg (7)
Rod Carew (9)
Roberto Alomar (10)
Frankie Frisch (11)
Bobby Grich (12)
Kid Gleason (72)
Larry Doyle (20)
Billy Herman (14)
Jeff Kent (48)
Cupid Childs (26)
Joe Gordon (16)
Bobby Doerr (18)
Nellie Fox (15)
Edgardo Alfonzo (NR)
Lou Whitaker (13)
Johnny Evers (25)
Hardy Richardson (39)
Chuck Knoblauch (21)
Willie Randolph (17)
Tony Lazzeri (19)
Dick McAuliffe (22)
Eddie Stanky (34)
Buddy Myer (24)
Bid McPhee (30)
Davey Lopes (23)
Jimmy Williams (54)
Bret Boone (NR)
Bobby Avila (36)
Gil McDougald (33)
Lonny Frey (32)
Jim Gilliam (27)
Red Schoendienst (28)
Danny Murphy (51)
Fred Dunlap (89)
Tony Phillips (NR)
Miller Huggins (37)
Del Pratt (35)
Bill Doran (45)
Pete Runnels (38)
Steve Sax (44)
Tom Daly (55)
Max Bishop (43)
George Grantham (62)
Carlos Baerga (93)
Claude Ritchey (59)
Ray Durham (NR)
Ron Hunt (57)
Tony Cuccinello (53)
Dave Cash (50)
Davey Johnson (46)
Jose Vidro (NR)
Yank Robinson (86)
Robby Thompson (42)
Tommie Herr (40)
Fred Pfeffer (66)
Phil Garner (41)
Delino DeShields (74)
Bill Mazeroski (29)
Marty McManus (58)
Alfonso Soriano (NR)
Mark Loretta (NR)
Buck Herzog (75)
Juan Samuel (78)
Jim Delahanty (81)
Johnny Temple (52)
Johnny Ray (80)
Jerry Priddy (73)
Luis Castillo (NR)
Bobby Lowe (56)
Mike Andrews (91)
Frank White (31)
Billy Goodman (61)
Tony Taylor (47)
Jorge Orta (87)
Jim Lefebvre (84)
Horace Clarke (79)
John Morrill (107)
Felix Millan (60)
Don Blasingame (71)
Odell Hale (98)
Sparky Adams (97)
Bucky Harris (70)
Glenn Beckert (64)
Harold Reynolds (67)
Glenn Hubbard (88)
Eric Young (NR)
Lou Bierbauer (113)
Frank LaPorte (109)
Rennie Stennett (90)
Frank Bolling (65)
Aaron Ward (111)
Hughie Critz (83)
Jim Gantner (63)


Notable active players not making the cut include Mark Grudzielanek (102), Damion Easley (103), Marcus Giles (105) and Todd Walker (117).

[Brad Harris]

To assist with the Hornsby v. Morgan debates:

Career Component
33.60 Morgan
33.38 Hornsby

Best 3 Component
43.33 Hornsby
41.00 Morgan

Best 5 Consecutive Component
39.40 Morgan
38.00 Hornsby

Career per 162 games Component
36.00 Hornsby
31.31 Morgan

Morgan's slight edges in career value and best 5 consecutive seasons are easily erased by the additional 8 games on the schedule each year he played, as you can see for yourself by multiplying Hornsby's totals by the factor of 1.04. Even without any "adjustments," Hornsby comes out on top:

Sum of Components
150.71 Hornsby
145.31 Morgan

Even if you factor in James' timeline component - Hornsby was born in 1896, Morgan in 1943 - that still leaves the following:

Sum of All Components, except Subjective
160.31 Hornsby
159.61 Morgan

In the end, James ranked Morgan in first place because James, not the numbers, said so. I don't know that he's wrong, but I know that the math, as James reckoned it, doesn't agree with him.

[westsidegrounds]

<...>
In the end, James ranked Morgan in first place because James, not the numbers, said so. I don't know that he's wrong, but I know that the math, as James reckoned it, doesn't agree with him.

He didn't care for Rajah's personality. Many people felt/feel the same way.

On the other hand Billy Williams said RH was an OK guy, and that's good enough for me.

[538280]

Morgan absolutely deserves to go over Hornsby. His intangibles lift him over the top. There is no way anyone could possibly argue that Morgan's intangible advantage doesn't make up for 0.8 points.

[leecemark]

--I don't know that Win Shares is so precise that less than one point of 160 total is statisically meaninfull. Numerically it a push. That makes the intangibles very meaningfull in this comparison. They all go to Morgan. As for Williams, HE was a very nice guy and had good things to say about most everyone. Plus even Stalin must have had somebody who thought he was a good guy to work with.

[westsidegrounds]

[QUOTE=leecemark<...>even Stalin must have had somebody who thought he was a good guy to work with.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure Uncle Joe wouldn't have wanted anybody that stupid working for him.


..... maybe his gardener or something ....


But anyhow, the "Morgan or Hornsby?" thing is being done elsewhere in this very forum at this very moment, so -

why not discuss "Morgan or Collins?" over here

since they're more like one another than either is like Rogers.

[Ubiquitous]

Personally I think the timeline adjustment is absolutely essential to comparisons. Unfortunately he does so in a simple and probably not very accurate way. Without the era adjustment there is an assumption that a win and what it takes to get that win in say 1921 is the same as a win and its components in 1977. I don't agree with that or think that a simple 1 point every ten years is a very accurate way to measure league quality changes.

Another thing to consider is that by increasing Rogers Win Shares so that his team plays 162 games does not guarantee Rajah any more win shares. There is no guarantee that Rogers would have played 8 more games or any more additional games per season. So a straight assumption on that would probably be inaccurate.

Finally Win Shares has its flaws and we really don't know how accurate these two players numbers really are. There is a lot of assumptions built into the runs created formulas and other things.

[ElHalo]

--I don't know that Win Shares is so precise that less than one point of 160 total is statisically meaninfull. Numerically it a push. That makes the intangibles very meaningfull in this comparison. They all go to Morgan.

Are we talking about the same guy here? The Joe Morgan on ESPN with the intelligence of belly lint and an unseemly hatred for all things not him? Compared to the guy who was such a fanatical student of the game that he refused to watch movies because it might damage his eyes, and knew enough to player/manage his way to the WS? Hornsby might not have been the nicest guy on the block, granted, but Morgan himself seems to have a bit of an overweening ego problem, and while Hornsby was a knowledgable student of the game, Morgan seems, in all seriousness, mildly retarded. I don't necessarily know that the intangibles swing in Morgan's favor.

[ElHalo]

For what it's worth, my top 10 2Bmen:

1. Hornsby
2. Lajoie
3. Collins
4. Gehringer
5. Morgan
6. Robinson
7. Frisch
8. Alomar
9. Gordon
10. Biggio (though I still have the urge to consider him a C rather than a 2B)

[leecemark]

--There are alot of very smart players and great team leaders who don't function as well in post-playing careers in baseball. Regrettably Morgan is a prime example of this.

[538280]

ElHalo,

To give Hornsby credit over Morgan because he was a manager is ridiculous. In Hornsby's era, it wasn't unusual at all for the best player on a team to also manage. If Morgan played in the 1920s, he would probably have been a manager too. Anyway, Hornsby wasn't a good manager, and he wore off his welcome almost everywhere he went. I don't think it makes much sense to give Hornsby intangible credit for managing.

[AcesDJD]

Whats with all the Morgan announcing hate? I never really focused on what he was saying that much until I read on here how terrible he was, but since then I've listened more closely, and it all his comments seemed to be pretty on target, with probably the worst I could say about the guy is that he may like the sound of his voice too much.

[Ubiquitous]

He says a lot of dumb stuff and he does a lot of second guessing. Unfortunately he does it in hindsight to make himself look smart and have no risk of being wrong. For instance in a Cub game the runner stole second base, because of that they intentionally walked Derrek Lee. Morgan didn't point out that the stolen base was bad until after it became obvious that they were going to IBB Lee. He waited until it happened before he started bashing the Cubs.

[sschirmer]

The thing that bothers me about Morgan is the fact that he won't give another second sacker any credit. Christ, to listen to him, you'd think Sandberg couldn't make a d-2 college team.

[NationalPastime1980]

Joe Morgan was never a very well liked player by fellow players or fans.The Astros traded him because he was a tumor in the clubhouse.

Jimmy Wynn was the main guy in Houston and The Big Red Machines main guys were always Bench and Rose as far as the fans were concerned.

[NationalPastime1980]

The thing that bothers me about Morgan is the fact that he won't give another second sacker any credit. Christ, to listen to him, you'd think Sandberg couldn't make a d-2 college team.

I agree and feel the same.

Joe Morgan was a great player but a true sign of greatness is allowing the rising stars of the future some credit.

I have always felt Sandberg and Morgan must have clashed in 1982 or 83 while both were on the Phillies.

[sschirmer]

Morgan's pretty small, I bet Ryno Stomped him.

[Ubiquitous]

I agree and feel the same.

Joe Morgan was a great player but a true sign of greatness is allowing the rising stars of the future some credit.

I have always felt Sandberg and Morgan must have clashed in 1982 or 83 while both were on the Phillies.

Morgan and Sandberg were never teammates. Sandberg was drafted by the Phillies in 1978 and trade in January of 82 to the Cubs. Morgan was traded to the Phillies in Decemeber of 82. They were never on the same team or in the same organization.

[Brad Harris]

Morgan and Sandberg were never teammates. Sandberg was drafted by the Phillies in 1978 and trade in January of 82 to the Cubs. Morgan was traded to the Phillies in Decemeber of 82. They were never on the same team or in the same organization.

Sandberg appeared in a Phillies uniform in 1981; Morgan, in 1983.

[SABR Matt]

Criticisms of win shares are of course well placed but I have a problem with any assumption that Joe Morgan was a heroically brilliant leader of men that created wins through intangibles...I don't really see any evidence that Morgan had a positive impact on his teams...as someone above pointed out...theAstros gavehim up for a reason.

[538280]

Criticisms of win shares are of course well placed but I have a problem with any assumption that Joe Morgan was a heroically brilliant leader of men that created wins through intangibles...I don't really see any evidence that Morgan had a positive impact on his teams...as someone above pointed out...theAstros gavehim up for a reason.

So, you're not one of the Morganites, I assume. Who does PCA favor as the #1 2B, Matt? Hornsby, Collins, someone else?

[Ubiquitous]

Sandberg appeared in a Phillies uniform in 1981; Morgan, in 1983.

Yes I know.

[Ubiquitous]

Criticisms of win shares are of course well placed but I have a problem with any assumption that Joe Morgan was a heroically brilliant leader of men that created wins through intangibles...I don't really see any evidence that Morgan had a positive impact on his teams...as someone above pointed out...theAstros gavehim up for a reason.


Yeah the Astros were stupid. That's why they traded him.

And no nobody is saying that Morgan won games through intangibles. What they said is that the numbers are so close that it comes down to intangibles, and that Morgan has better intangibles then Hornsby.

[Ubiquitous]

Joe Morgan was never a very well liked player by fellow players or fans.The Astros traded him because he was a tumor in the clubhouse.


Any actual proof of this?

Joe Morgan and Harry Walker didn't get along. Bouton in his book called Harry hot tempered. Joe in his book said not only was he hot tempered but that he didn't like blacks either. Must run in the family.

[538280]

Ubiquitous,

Would you like to become the newest member of the Morganite clan? Join if you think Morgan is the best 2B ever. If not, then we'll try to convince you.

[Ubiquitous]

Unless Joe Morgan is handing out money or I am getting something out of this deal besides a foolish title I will pass.

[538280]

Unless Joe Morgan is handing out money or I am getting something out of this deal besides a foolish title I will pass.

All right, you don't have to join the group. I agree that it is a rather foolish name (I didn't come up with it). But, what I am really asking you is if you believe Joe Morgan is the best 2B ever, and if you don't then who is?

[Ubiquitous]

I think that Nap Lajoie was the best 2B deadballer ever. I think that Eddie Collins and Rogers Hornsby were the best liveball second basemen ever. I think Charlie Gehringer was the best depression era 2B ever. I think Jackie Robinson was the best post integration 2B ever. I think Joe Morgan was the best 2B of the union fight era, and I think Craig Biggio was the best of the new generation of 2B'men.

[csh19792001]

I think that Nap Lajoie was the best 2B deadballer ever. I think that Eddie Collins and Rogers Hornsby were the best liveball second basemen ever. I think Charlie Gehringer was the best depression era 2B ever. I think Jackie Robinson was the best post integration 2B ever. I think Joe Morgan was the best 2B of the union fight era, and I think Craig Biggio was the best of the new generation of 2B'men.

You're probably correct, of course; it may be impossible to compare players from different eras. Doing so is fun, but is it more than well wishing to think we can reliably compare two guys who were born 56 years apart, playing in a completely different game? :confused:

[wrgptfan]

Criticisms of win shares are of course well placed but I have a problem with any assumption that Joe Morgan was a heroically brilliant leader of men that created wins through intangibles...I don't really see any evidence that Morgan had a positive impact on his teams...as someone above pointed out...theAstros gavehim up for a reason.

Well I like to use another of my "famous" quick and dirty methods for evaluating intangibles.

According to Bill James' Pythagorean Theorum, we should be able to fairly accurately estimate the number of games a team should win based on their runs scored and runs allowed. In fact a team's winning % should be fairly close to (RS = Runs Scored and RA = Runs Allowed):

RS ^ 1.89
Win % = ---------------------
RS ^ 1.89 + RA ^ 1.89

If we take the difference between the teams actual wins and expected wins and sum up this difference over the course of a player's career, it may give some indication of the player's intangibles.

Over the course of their careers, Hornsby was -8 and Morgan +40.

Here is the list of all players with their team's actual wins, expected wins and difference for all players whose teams have 2500+ decisions during seasons that they played with those teams. Note: If a player played for more than one team during a season, he gets credit (demerit) for the wins and losses for both team's entire season.


Player W L Exp W Diff
---------------------------------------------
Dave Winfield 1783 1818 1731 52
Ruben Sierra 1808 1833 1760 48
Pete Rose 2201 1781 2153 48
Jim Fregosi 1586 1641 1538 48
Dave Concepcion 1659 1353 1612 47
Duke Snider 1602 1200 1556 46
George Foster 1773 1403 1730 43
Jim Spencer 1311 1324 1269 42
Todd Zeile 1665 1652 1624 41
Aurelio Rodriguez 1607 1566 1566 41
Joe Morgan 1824 1680 1784 40
Frank Howard 1337 1368 1297 40
Johnny Bench 1502 1188 1463 39
Bobby Lowe 1545 1140 1507 38
Dave Collins 1286 1248 1249 37
Rickey Henderson 2382 2195 2346 36
Ty Cobb 1949 1686 1914 35
Don Slaught 1342 1342 1307 35
Randy Velarde 1457 1386 1422 35
John Vander Wal 1265 1262 1231 34
Marquis Grissom 1354 1168 1321 33
Jose Canseco 1567 1443 1534 33
Rusty Staub 1776 2040 1744 32
Hal McRae 1634 1377 1602 32
Gil Hodges 1531 1257 1499 32
Al Simmons 1681 1521 1650 31
Andres Galarraga 1656 1517 1625 31
Jimmie Dykes 1672 1641 1641 31
Tony Perez 2011 1646 1980 31
Tony Cuccinello 1182 1409 1152 30
Lloyd Waner 1665 1552 1635 30
Norm Cash 1471 1252 1441 30
Joe Kuhel 1494 1413 1464 30
Robin Ventura 1465 1220 1435 30
Tom Prince 1494 1353 1465 29
Hughie Jennings 1573 1213 1544 29
Terry Pendleton 1346 1177 1317 29
Bing Miller 1381 1210 1353 28
Tim McCarver 2039 1807 2011 28
Pie Traynor 1451 1155 1424 27
Gary Matthews 1295 1388 1268 27
Willie Keeler 1604 1223 1578 26
Willie Wilson 1583 1385 1557 26
Lee May 1559 1279 1533 26
Luis Polonia 1387 1279 1361 26
Carl Yastrzemski 1903 1753 1878 25
Doug DeCinces 1410 1117 1386 24
Alan Ashby 1329 1366 1305 24
Goose Goslin 1548 1359 1524 24
Willie Horton 1660 1728 1636 24
Greg Gross 1353 1343 1329 24
Jorge Orta 1259 1257 1235 24
Hal Chase 1222 1321 1199 23
Paul O'Neill 1495 1187 1472 23
Bill Dahlen 1584 1412 1561 23
Zack Wheat 1395 1469 1372 23
George Brett 1764 1577 1741 23
Jamie Quirk 1767 1574 1744 23
John Lowenstein 1295 1223 1272 23
Dan Driessen 1535 1323 1513 22
Ken Griffey Sr. 1884 1618 1862 22
Julio Franco 1716 1632 1694 22
Manny Trillo 1395 1463 1373 22
Miguel Dilone 1278 1250 1256 22
Dixie Walker 1753 1312 1732 21
Ozzie Smith 1485 1472 1464 21
Clete Boyer 1314 1233 1293 21
Joe Ginsberg 1282 1355 1262 20
Ken McMullen 1395 1348 1375 20
Jose Cardenal 1660 1730 1640 20
Rollie Hemsley 1678 1692 1658 20
Hank Severeid 1281 1274 1262 19
Oscar Gamble 1465 1381 1446 19
Ron Fairly 1843 1846 1824 19
Frank White 1526 1329 1507 19
Jack Clark 1433 1428 1414 19
Denny Walling 1560 1466 1541 19
Ed Brinkman 1255 1484 1236 19
Dave Parker 1709 1468 1690 19
Sam Crawford 1479 1362 1461 18
Hoot Evers 1336 1281 1318 18
Darrell Evans 1752 1747 1734 18
Buddy Myer 1381 1369 1363 18
Wally Joyner 1293 1234 1275 18
Dick McAuliffe 1402 1173 1384 18
Gary Gaetti 1658 1789 1641 17
Dave Philley 1798 1910 1781 17
Barry Bonds 1623 1387 1606 17
Chris Chambliss 1449 1396 1432 17
Ben Chapman 1574 1332 1557 17
Eddie Murray 1914 1678 1898 16
Paul Waner 1770 1595 1754 16
Doc Cramer 1677 1374 1661 16
Terry Crowley 1483 1035 1467 16
Gus Mancuso 1533 1224 1517 16
Eddie Joost 1264 1348 1248 16
Sam Rice 1618 1404 1602 16
Leo Cardenas 1349 1214 1333 16
Tito Francona 1523 1503 1508 15
Brooks Robinson 2013 1643 1998 15
Les Mann 1444 1413 1429 15
Donie Bush 1334 1232 1319 15
Willie McCovey 1919 1776 1904 15
Willie McGee 1575 1436 1560 15
Toby Harrah 1276 1402 1262 14
Willie Mays 1978 1659 1964 14
Rick Dempsey 2154 1815 2140 14
Bill Robinson 1388 1297 1374 14
Ossie Bluege 1450 1300 1436 14
Patsy Donovan 1299 1491 1285 14
Carlton Fisk 2027 1790 2013 14
Juan Gonzalez 1261 1265 1248 14
Barry Larkin 1515 1497 1502 13
Tony Taylor 1634 1719 1621 13
Kenny Lofton 1390 1133 1377 13
Stan Musial 1900 1504 1887 13
Bill Skowron 1477 1058 1464 13
Benito Santiago 1478 1532 1466 12
Ben Oglivie 1269 1255 1257 12
Ivey Wingo 1288 1274 1276 12
Jeff Reed 1490 1522 1478 12
Ed Kirkpatrick 1456 1448 1444 12
Willie Davis 1635 1420 1623 12
Leo Durocher 1443 1317 1431 12
Ron Hassey 1313 1211 1301 12
Wally Moses 1241 1508 1229 12
Jimmie Foxx 1751 1446 1740 11
Pat Borders 1801 1516 1790 11
Harold Baines 2195 2050 2184 11
Johnny Grubb 1294 1388 1283 11
Granny Hamner 1313 1466 1302 11
Dick Schofield 1983 1819 1973 10
Orlando Cepeda 1657 1375 1647 10
Roberto Kelly 1319 1300 1309 10
Cy Perkins 1253 1305 1244 9
Luke Appling 1374 1672 1365 9
Reggie Smith 1529 1328 1520 9
Cecil Cooper 1412 1276 1403 9
Shawon Dunston 1676 1653 1667 9
Ken Boyer 1334 1362 1325 9
Larry Gardner 1434 1124 1425 9
Frankie Frisch 1679 1220 1671 8
Zack Taylor 1418 1345 1410 8
George Burns 1441 1435 1433 8
Heinie Groh 1388 1174 1380 8
Alvin Dark 1365 1254 1357 8
Willie Montanez 1455 1663 1447 8
Sandy Alomar Jr. 1491 1355 1483 8
Frank Snyder 1314 1229 1306 8
John Warner 1186 1382 1179 7
Steve Braun 1351 1328 1344 7
Bob Bailey 1463 1444 1456 7
Jim Dwyer 1819 1843 1812 7
Johnny Evers 1694 1179 1687 7
Johnny Hopp 1571 1196 1564 7
Babe Ruth 1957 1369 1950 7
Derrel Thomas 1217 1313 1210 7
Mike Stanley 1505 1342 1498 7
Mike Schmidt 1455 1398 1448 7
Roy Sievers 1203 1616 1196 7
Elmer Valo 1542 2006 1535 7
Tommy Harper 1328 1252 1321 7
Larry Bowa 1377 1313 1370 7
Bobby Murcer 1465 1382 1459 6
Joe Adcock 1407 1252 1401 6
Eddie Miksis 1333 1286 1327 6
Lonnie Smith 1527 1442 1521 6
John Olerud 1472 1218 1466 6
Ken Henderson 1490 1413 1484 6
Rafael Palmeiro 1496 1511 1490 6
Ken Caminiti 1281 1246 1275 6
Billy Goodman 1424 1206 1418 6
Heinie Manush 1506 1401 1500 6
Jay Johnstone 1941 1722 1935 6
Jake Beckley 1498 1568 1492 6
Muddy Ruel 1481 1532 1475 6
Ted Williams 1606 1315 1600 6
Mitch Webster 1386 1299 1380 6
Mark McGwire 1391 1296 1385 6
Dwight Evans 1699 1473 1694 5
Val Picinich 1319 1551 1314 5
Sherry Magee 1324 1228 1319 5
Al Kaline 1815 1678 1810 5
Tommy Leach 1740 1233 1735 5
Gabby Hartnett 1706 1364 1701 5
Tim Wallach 1431 1360 1426 5
Glenallen Hill 1293 1393 1288 5
Dick Schofield 1255 1254 1250 5
Jimmy Austin 1259 1450 1254 5
Charlie Hayes 1264 1266 1259 5
Tom Brunansky 1239 1369 1234 5
Lenny Harris 1786 1709 1781 5
Darnell Coles 1315 1370 1310 5
George Hendrick 1587 1578 1582 5
Harry Hooper 1370 1184 1365 5
Jim Piersall 1453 1540 1448 5
Johnny Cooney 1363 1848 1359 4
Dick Bartell 1492 1413 1488 4
Gene Woodling 1514 1426 1510 4
Mark McLemore 1700 1472 1696 4
Jeff Burroughs 1122 1400 1118 4
Claudell Washingto 1684 1654 1680 4
Steve Finley 1398 1290 1394 4
Glenn Myatt 1279 1326 1275 4
Jay Bell 1418 1430 1414 4
Andre Dawson 1618 1656 1614 4
Duke Farrell 1475 1309 1471 4
Woodie Held 1420 1433 1416 4
Amos Otis 1403 1283 1400 3
George Scott 1319 1262 1316 3
Willie Jones 1299 1319 1296 3
Chad Kreuter 1426 1423 1423 3
Wally Schang 1435 1430 1432 3
Mark Belanger 1658 1178 1655 3
Rabbit Maranville 1697 1783 1694 3
Omar Vizquel 1319 1204 1316 3
Enos Slaughter 1914 1471 1911 3
Eddie Ainsmith 1331 1235 1328 3
Gary Sheffield 1511 1499 1509 2
Hank Majeski 1305 1308 1303 2
Roberto Alomar 1544 1466 1542 2
Ron Hansen 1319 1239 1317 2
Billy Jurges 1374 1227 1372 2
Sam West 1195 1399 1193 2
Dave Bergman 1480 1331 1478 2
Roger Bresnahan 1357 1293 1355 2
Jim Rice 1370 1161 1368 2
Darrell Porter 1371 1315 1369 2
Garry Maddox 1342 1186 1340 2
Tommy Corcoran 1314 1229 1312 2
Ellis Burks 1565 1451 1563 2
Charlie Jamieson 1458 1416 1457 1
Ray Hayworth 1348 1252 1347 1
Kirk Gibson 1410 1221 1409 1
Jimmy Sheckard 1489 1297 1488 1
Sandy Alomar Sr. 1449 1455 1448 1
Alfredo Griffin 1409 1441 1408 1
Eddie Yost 1190 1594 1189 1
Charlie Gehringer 1522 1397 1521 1
Del Unser 1204 1323 1203 1
Lou Piniella 1543 1302 1543 0
Del Rice 1688 1402 1688 0
Rocky Colavito 1307 1234 1307 0
Tris Speaker 1839 1484 1839 0
Joe Medwick 1670 1398 1670 0
Rick Monday 1559 1456 1559 0
Brian Downing 1586 1596 1586 0
Devon White 1364 1325 1364 0
Mark Grace 1248 1276 1248 0
Vic Wertz 1657 1613 1657 0
Tim Raines 1992 1769 1992 0
Lou Gehrig 1616 982 1616 0
Augie Galan 1506 1261 1507 -1
Joe Cronin 1652 1406 1653 -1
Frank Schulte 1479 1097 1480 -1
Harry Davis 1844 1800 1845 -1
Bernie Carbo 1357 1215 1358 -1
Mickey Vernon 1548 1678 1549 -1
Willie Randolph 1679 1335 1680 -1
Cliff Heathcote 1306 1265 1307 -1
Bob Kennedy 1715 1512 1716 -1
Wally Post 1293 1356 1294 -1
Mickey Mantle 1664 1165 1665 -1
Eddie Collins 2169 1598 2170 -1
Chet Lemon 1271 1257 1272 -1
Cal Ripken Jr. 1631 1642 1632 -1
Dave Bancroft 1283 1273 1285 -2
Buck Martinez 1419 1276 1421 -2
Cliff Johnson 1542 1467 1544 -2
Keith Hernandez 1502 1351 1504 -2
Luke Sewell 1574 1481 1576 -2
Darryl Strawberry 1505 1182 1507 -2
Dale Murphy 1335 1678 1337 -2
Lou Brock 1622 1601 1624 -2
Kiki Cuyler 1617 1294 1619 -2
Tony Gwynn 1561 1615 1563 -2
Cookie Rojas 1420 1324 1423 -3
Tom Herr 1303 1227 1306 -3
Dusty Baker 1550 1467 1553 -3
George McBride 1186 1356 1189 -3
Cap Anson 1544 1121 1547 -3
Jerry Grote 1372 1425 1375 -3
Bob Boone 1565 1451 1568 -3
Jim Hegan 1575 1351 1578 -3
Jose Cruz 1532 1486 1535 -3
Lou Finney 1232 1356 1235 -3
Wade Boggs 1481 1367 1484 -3
Eric Davis 1456 1410 1459 -3
Matt Williams 1400 1288 1403 -3
Rance Mulliniks 1382 1150 1386 -4
Red Schoendienst 1763 1490 1767 -4
Jimmy Wynn 1242 1341 1246 -4
John Mayberry 1208 1319 1212 -4
Will Clark 1311 1215 1315 -4
Larry Walker 1359 1328 1363 -4
Bill Almon 1232 1463 1236 -4
Hank Foiles 1267 1236 1271 -4
Pedro Guerrero 1321 1219 1325 -4
Rick Cerone 1380 1471 1384 -4
Vada Pinson 1466 1409 1470 -4
Bobby Wallace 1706 1930 1710 -4
Buddy Bell 1519 1643 1523 -4
Kevin Bass 1286 1241 1290 -4
George Thomas 1318 1254 1323 -5
Ken Griffey Jr. 1211 1312 1216 -5
Fred Merkle 1537 1181 1542 -5
Johnny Callison 1261 1290 1266 -5
Yogi Berra 1786 1168 1791 -5
Malachi Kittridge 1239 1438 1244 -5
Andy Pafko 1473 1300 1478 -5
Deron Johnson 1694 1687 1699 -5
Stan Javier 1688 1487 1693 -5
Lance Parrish 1557 1561 1562 -5
Edd Roush 1540 1331 1545 -5
Frankie Hayes 1111 1474 1116 -5
Steve O'Neill 1300 1267 1306 -6
Bill Madlock 1374 1481 1380 -6
Harry Heilmann 1259 1313 1265 -6
Mickey Rivers 1268 1253 1274 -6
Greg Myers 1743 1593 1749 -6
Joe Judge 1638 1532 1644 -6
Joe Quinn 1311 1360 1317 -6
Bud Harrelson 1234 1349 1241 -7
Jim Eisenreich 1215 1310 1222 -7
Roger Peckinpaugh 1395 1310 1402 -7
Rube Bressler 1536 1490 1543 -7
Ollie Brown 1282 1286 1289 -7
Ed Bailey 1309 1206 1316 -7
Kurt Bevacqua 1307 1379 1314 -7
Juan Beniquez 1478 1375 1485 -7
Jim Sundberg 1317 1374 1324 -7
Bill Dickey 1636 966 1643 -7
Jose Hernandez 1214 1312 1222 -8
Rogers Hornsby 1752 1882 1760 -8
Jose Vizcaino 1475 1368 1483 -8
Al Lopez 1504 1552 1512 -8
Hank Gowdy 1398 1491 1406 -8
Tony Phillips 1622 1553 1630 -8
Cesar Cedeno 1415 1439 1423 -8
Dave Martinez 1530 1639 1538 -8
Jerry Mumphrey 1251 1282 1260 -9
Ernie Lombardi 1215 1381 1224 -9
Rico Carty 1376 1523 1385 -9
Del Crandall 1391 1115 1400 -9
Jack O'Connor 1659 1412 1668 -9
Ozzie Guillen 1392 1291 1401 -9
Ken Oberkfell 1430 1582 1440 -10
Vern Stephens 1313 1298 1323 -10
Matty Alou 1449 1279 1459 -10
Otis Nixon 1453 1398 1463 -10
Jay Buhner 1286 1235 1296 -10
Roy Smalley 1221 1316 1231 -10
Ray Boone 1481 1294 1491 -10
Jesus Alou 1379 1203 1389 -10
Reggie Jackson 1843 1494 1853 -10
Nap Lajoie 1606 1628 1616 -10
Lou Whitaker 1520 1438 1531 -11
Paul Blair 1701 1195 1712 -11
Rob Ducey 1365 1340 1376 -11
Rick Ferrell 1481 1727 1492 -11
Juan Samuel 1439 1554 1450 -11
Candy Maldonado 1467 1312 1479 -12
Spud Davis 1302 1452 1314 -12
Charlie Grimm 1636 1395 1648 -12
Jerry Royster 1316 1376 1328 -12
Whitey Lockman 1340 1279 1352 -12
Tommy Davis 1967 1721 1979 -12
Luis Aparicio 1509 1357 1521 -12
Chili Davis 1499 1462 1511 -12
Frank Chance 1453 1079 1465 -12
Davey Lopes 1523 1330 1536 -13
Craig Biggio 1409 1280 1422 -13
George Kelly 1461 1282 1474 -13
Don Money 1207 1323 1220 -13
Bob Watson 1676 1659 1689 -13
Graig Nettles 1844 1652 1857 -13
Phil Garner 1494 1308 1507 -13
Nellie Fox 1573 1393 1586 -13
Tom Paciorek 1577 1599 1590 -13
Alan Trammell 1573 1547 1586 -13
Tom Goodwin 1299 1225 1312 -13
Jack Doyle 1429 1527 1443 -14
Gary Carter 1601 1417 1615 -14
Brady Anderson 1235 1286 1249 -14
Cy Williams 1191 1668 1205 -14
Kid Gleason 1592 1623 1606 -14
Terry Turner 1281 1265 1295 -14
Frankie Crosetti 1622 979 1637 -15
Phil Roof 1366 1523 1381 -15
Sammy Sosa 1315 1372 1330 -15
Fred Lynn 1426 1430 1442 -16
Phil Cavarretta 1728 1652 1744 -16
Don Kessinger 1329 1413 1345 -16
George Davis 1505 1332 1522 -17
Hank Aaron 1916 1738 1933 -17
Ray Schalk 1409 1311 1426 -17
Eddie Robinson 1296 1320 1313 -17
Jim Gantner 1374 1322 1391 -17
Alex Trevino 1155 1378 1172 -17
Mike Jorgensen 1499 1674 1516 -17
Charlie O'Brien 1319 1368 1336 -17
Boog Powell 1557 1176 1575 -18
Tony Pena 1504 1444 1522 -18
Dave Magadan 1344 1342 1362 -18
Chris Speier 1767 1729 1785 -18
Felipe Alou 1614 1427 1632 -18
Vic Davalillo 1609 1462 1627 -18
Sal Bando 1361 1165 1380 -19
Lee Maye 1252 1316 1271 -19
Brent Mayne 1267 1422 1286 -19
Stuffy McInnis 1420 1440 1440 -20
Roberto Clemente 1480 1372 1500 -20
Garry Templeton 1327 1365 1347 -20
Larry Parrish 1198 1334 1218 -20
Billy Herman 1468 1145 1488 -20
Rafael Belliard 1455 1230 1475 -20
Earl Torgeson 1497 1289 1518 -21
Amos Strunk 1451 1549 1472 -21
Ernie Banks 1371 1633 1392 -21
Frank Thomas 1293 1848 1314 -21
Frank Robinson 1897 1599 1919 -22
George Kell 1426 1493 1448 -22
Billy Williams 1389 1493 1411 -22
Paul Molitor 1663 1617 1685 -22
Mel Ott 1784 1575 1806 -22
Fred McGriff 1703 1631 1725 -22
Willie Stargell 1807 1525 1829 -22
Eddie Mathews 1558 1279 1581 -23
Tony Fernandez 1592 1418 1615 -23
Smoky Burgess 1627 1508 1650 -23
Johnny Groth 1265 1352 1288 -23
Dal Maxvill 1502 1237 1525 -23
Sherm Lollar 1480 1316 1504 -24
Harvey Kuenn 1325 1352 1349 -24
Bill Mazeroski 1420 1278 1445 -25
Dave Kingman 1421 1591 1446 -25
Walker Cooper 1680 1549 1706 -26
B.J. Surhoff 1545 1466 1571 -26
Ted Simmons 1635 1701 1661 -26
Greg Vaughn 1218 1308 1244 -26
Ed Kranepool 1257 1649 1283 -26
Edgar Martinez 1439 1407 1465 -26
Brett Butler 1387 1389 1413 -26
Luis Gonzalez 1256 1253 1282 -26
Joe Carter 1288 1402 1315 -27
Jose Pagan 1407 1157 1434 -27
Bill Buckner 2059 1920 2086 -27
Bobby Thomson 1369 1252 1396 -27
David Segui 1352 1476 1379 -27
Jim Busby 1288 1338 1315 -27
Robin Yount 1587 1595 1615 -28
Enos Cabell 1311 1222 1339 -28
Joe Rudi 1325 1201 1353 -28
Roy McMillan 1252 1413 1280 -28
Joe Torre 1485 1408 1513 -28
Bob O'Farrell 1916 1723 1945 -29
Andy Etchebarren 1426 1147 1455 -29
Bobby Grich 1446 1239 1475 -29
Milt May 1355 1335 1384 -29
Don Baylor 1749 1419 1779 -30
Tim Foli 1337 1511 1367 -30
Mike Gonzalez 1383 1340 1413 -30
Richie Hebner 1624 1391 1654 -30
Honus Wagner 1735 1397 1765 -30
Joe Kelley 1475 1207 1505 -30
Minnie Minoso 1504 1312 1534 -30
Bill Russell 1576 1280 1607 -31
Chuck Klein 1176 1728 1207 -31
Ron Cey 1461 1230 1492 -31
Charlie Maxwell 1309 1194 1340 -31
Bobby Bonilla 1496 1496 1527 -31
Ron Gant 1437 1456 1469 -32
Lave Cross 1564 1651 1596 -32
Harmon Killebrew 1722 1773 1756 -34
Max Carey 1629 1544 1663 -34
Bert Campaneris 1633 1541 1668 -35
Lee Lacy 1418 1267 1453 -35
Jimmie Wilson 1322 1580 1357 -35
Deacon McGuire 2003 2259 2038 -35
Fred Clarke 1635 1430 1670 -35
Steve Garvey 1633 1385 1669 -36
Cy Seymour 1365 1259 1401 -36
Chief Zimmer 1304 1412 1341 -37
Red Kress 1124 1476 1163 -39
Al Oliver 1710 1463 1751 -41
Rod Carew 1535 1475 1579 -44
Rey Sanchez 1306 1377 1351 -45
Joe Ferguson 1408 1234 1455 -47
Manny Mota 1827 1570 1880 -53
Joel Youngblood 1175 1358 1229 -54
Lee Mazzilli 1286 1406 1346 -60

[Ubiquitous]

Rogers could be playing on a team that without him is -40 but with him is only -8. Morgan could be playing on a team that without him is +80 but with him is +40. Knowing that a team under or over performed tells us nothing about the individual player and their contributions to the team. Nor does the pyth accurately pick up a lot of the little things that make individuals important. I know you said it was a quick and dirty look but it really doesn't answer anything.

[wrgptfan]

Rogers could be playing on a team that without him is -40 but with him is only -8. Morgan could be playing on a team that without him is +80 but with him is +40. Knowing that a team under or over performed tells us nothing about the individual player and their contributions to the team. Nor does the pyth accurately pick up a lot of the little things that make individuals important. I know you said it was a quick and dirty look but it really doesn't answer anything.

Of course you are correct. We cannot know how to attribute the excess or missing wins among the players. However, over the course of a long career these things will probably tend to even out.

Look at some of the groups of players though - the Big Red Machine, the Dodgers of the 50's etc. Players who played on these teams for a good portion of their careers are all on the plus side - and near the top. Maybe success breeds success. I would also suspect that a player who generally had a very good closer (at least in the past generation or so) would tend to rank a bit higher. Ty Cobb is huge on the positive side. Has there ever been a more competitive ball player?

This list was not meant to be an accurate representation of intangibles. I don't think that is possible. If it gives anyone food for thought, then I have achieved my objective.

[DoubleX]

I think Sandberg's career tends to go underrated. The guy could field (9 Gold Gloves), the guy could run (344 Stolen Bases, reached as high as 54 in a season), and the guy had great power for a secondbasemen, especially considering how much power numbers were depressed during the 80's. The fact that he also played and excelled against intergated and a higher level of competition than some of his predecessors in this discussion (Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Gehringer) should also be points in his favor. I really can't understand how anyone can rate Sandberg outside of the top 10, or even the top 6 or 7.

[SABR Matt]

I suspect some of what you've captured there in that pythagorean differential is team influence and some of it is failure of the Jamesian method to capture actual wins...and some of it is Win SHares' defensive metric failing (for a great many reasons I don't want to spend two hours encapsulating...but it is largely due to some gross assumptions on James' part about how important the defensive positions were to team run prevention)...I'm not sold on that meaning much as far as intangibles although the list you provided does spark some interest.

[SABR Matt]

BTW to answer the above question about PCA...Hornsby tops the list among second basemen despite poor defensive skill and the liveball era. Morgan is second (not quite as close as Win Shares suggests though close enough that I concede it's possible I'm missing something important that the numbers don't currently adequately depict..for instance bases advanced...(Morgan was a smart baserunner for most of his career...Hornsby was not. I would expect Morgan to make up some ground on Hornsby if I had complete records of extra bases taken on other peoples' hits for both players)

Collins is third and Lajoie is fourth.

[wrgptfan]

I suspect some of what you've captured there in that pythagorean differential is team influence and some of it is failure of the Jamesian method to capture actual wins...and some of it is Win SHares' defensive metric failing (for a great many reasons I don't want to spend two hours encapsulating...but it is largely due to some gross assumptions on James' part about how important the defensive positions were to team run prevention)...I'm not sold on that meaning much as far as intangibles although the list you provided does spark some interest.

The list provided was team wins (and losses), and Pyth wins and the difference between the two. Nowhere in this table was there anything to do with Win Shares.

For example, here is the calculation for Tyrus Cobb (you're welcome Bill):


Exp
Year Team W L R RA Wins Diff
-------------------------------------------
1905 DET 79 74 512 602 65 14
1906 DET 71 78 518 599 64 7
1907 DET 92 58 694 532 93 -1
1908 DET 90 63 647 547 89 1
1909 DET 98 54 666 493 97 1
1910 DET 86 68 679 582 88 -2
1911 DET 89 65 831 776 82 7
1912 DET 69 84 720 777 71 -2
1913 DET 66 87 624 716 67 -1
1914 DET 80 73 615 618 76 4
1915 DET 100 54 778 597 96 4
1916 DET 87 67 670 595 86 1
1917 DET 78 75 639 577 84 -6
1918 DET 55 71 476 557 54 1
1919 DET 80 60 618 578 74 6
1920 DET 61 93 652 833 59 2
1921 DET 71 82 883 852 79 -8
1922 DET 79 75 828 791 80 -1
1923 DET 83 71 831 741 85 -2
1924 DET 86 68 849 796 82 4
1925 DET 81 73 903 829 83 -2
1926 DET 79 75 793 830 74 5
1927 PHA 91 63 841 726 88 3
1928 PHA 98 55 829 615 98 0
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL 1949 1686 17096 16159 1914 35


Hmmm, there I was extolling his virtues, and I find out that 60% of his total was in his 1st two years.

Also I think you may be selling Defensive Win Shares short. Although they are far from perfect (as is any metric attempted with such little data to work from), he has identified many ways to measure defensive value that had not been published before.

[shlevine42]

Gentlemen:

I respect your superior knowledge of Win Shares, Pythagorean Theorems, PCA and other esoteric metrics, but let’s reduce this question to its most basic element.

(By the way, I nominate “metrics” as the most pretentious, overused term of the year)

As I see it, the object of the game is to win a championship.

So, if you were picking players who could best help your team achieve that goal, who would be your second baseman?

If your choice is anyone other than Jackie Robinson, then:

1. You obviously never saw him play

2. You’re being swayed by numbers alone, and paying too little attention to the only quality that matters:
the desire – coupled with the ability – to WIN.

[jalbright]

Gentlemen:

I respect your superior knowledge of Win Shares, Pythagorean Theorems, PCA and other esoteric metrics, but let’s reduce this question to its most basic element.

(By the way, I nominate “metrics” as the most pretentious, overused term of the year)

As I see it, the object of the game is to win a championship.

So, if you were picking players who could best help your team achieve that goal, who would be your second baseman?

If your choice is anyone other than Jackie Robinson, then:

1. You obviously never saw him play

2. You’re being swayed by numbers alone, and paying too little attention to the only quality that matters:
the desire – coupled with the ability – to WIN.

To the extent Jackie gets undervalued because of time missed to WW II and the color line, you're certainly on to something. Even with that, how many more seasons can you give Jackie than five or six to go with his 10 seasons actually in the majors? Joe Morgan had 22 years, Eddie Collins had 25. They were darned fine players and competitors (nobody can legitimately question either the desire or ability of either man)--and played for a much longer period of time. That means they had that many more opportunities to achieve the goal you are talking about. If you define the question in terms of one season in their prime, you may well be right, but if contributions over the course of a career is meaningful in the discussion, there are good reasons to prefer either of the two I've mentioned.

Jim Albright

[shlevine42]

I wasn't thinking of "giving" Robinson any more seasons.

Nor was I looking at just one season in his prime.

I was looking at what he accomplished over the course of the 10 seasons he did play. Any extrapolation beyond that is pure speculation.

While championships are primarily a "team" achievement, I don't think it's any accident that Jackie's team won six pennants in his 10-year career, and finished a close second on two other occasions.

In the simplest terms, that's a 60% success rate.

Collins and Morgan had many more opportunities to achieve that goal.

Collins made the post-season 6 times in his 25-year career; Morgan made it 7 times in his 22 years.

For what he accomplished in his brief career, Jackie's numbers impress me more.

Morgan would be my second choice.

[SABR Matt]

My bad to the guy posting win differentials...I thought you were basing your win differentials on WS...not on team wins...so...you're giving Morgan credit for his whole team outperforming expectations? Doesn't seem like a great way to go about seeing who's clutch...

[wrgptfan]

My bad to the guy posting win differentials...I thought you were basing your win differentials on WS...not on team wins...so...you're giving Morgan credit for his whole team outperforming expectations? Doesn't seem like a great way to go about seeing who's clutch...

If you bothered to read any of my previous posts....Ah forget it. If you can't be bothered, neither can I.

[leecemark]

--Clearly Morgan was not the ONLY factor in his teams exceeding their expected win totals - perhaps not even the primary one in some seasons. However, as wgrptnfan said, we are talking about men who played a long time with many different teamates. If those teams consistently over or underperformed then the one constant on those teams (Morgan and Hornsby) might reasonably be assumed to have had something to do with it. Giving them a small amount of positive or negative credit (a tie breaker as it were) doesn't seem inappropriate.

[Ubiquitous]

Gentlemen:

I respect your superior knowledge of Win Shares, Pythagorean Theorems, PCA and other esoteric metrics, but let’s reduce this question to its most basic element.

(By the way, I nominate “metrics” as the most pretentious, overused term of the year)

As I see it, the object of the game is to win a championship.

So, if you were picking players who could best help your team achieve that goal, who would be your second baseman?

If your choice is anyone other than Jackie Robinson, then:

1. You obviously never saw him play

2. You’re being swayed by numbers alone, and paying too little attention to the only quality that matters:
the desire – coupled with the ability – to WIN.

How did Joe Mrogan lack these qualities? How did Rogers Hornsby? How did almost any of them lack the qualities and desire?

[Ubiquitous]

--Clearly Morgan was not the ONLY factor in his teams exceeding their expected win totals - perhaps not even the primary one in some seasons. However, as wgrptnfan said, we are talking about men who played a long time with many different teamates. If those teams consistently over or underperformed then the one constant on those teams (Morgan and Hornsby) might reasonably be assumed to have had something to do with it. Giving them a small amount of positive or negative credit (a tie breaker as it were) doesn't seem inappropriate.


Actually we can assume nothing.

It could be because of the manager or managers, the GM or GM's or just different players. It could be because of one or two fluky seasons. It could be because someone else hit very well or very badly in the clutch.

For instance Joe Morgan's team the Reds in 1978 exceeded their pyth by 9 games. If you look at Joe's stats it is his worst year he ever had. So exceeding the pyth has little to do with Joe Morgan. Also Joe's best years in terms of pyth is in his decline years in the 80's when in 5 years his team exceeds pyth by 17 games even though Joe is clearly on the decline and not the reason for his team succeeding. Also it should be pointed out that I think Dave is giving Joe credit for Houstons exceeding pyth his first two years when he played a grand total of 18 games but Houston exceed expectations by 13 games. Remove those games and he only exceeds expectations by 30 (if you discount 1968 as well) games and 26 of those games came in his decline years. You would think that if someone were to transcend the numbers it would be in their peak when they are firing on all cyclinders not when they can barely get in the lineup. In the 14 seasons Joe was with houston and Cinci his team met pyth half of the time and was within one game 3 others times. So 10 out of 14 times pyth was very accurate. The other times it was under by 5 games, another over by 4 and another time by the already mentioned 9 games under, plus a 2 game under. It appears that Joe in his prime did little that one could say helped his team exceed pyth expectations. for the most part whatever he and his teammates did was captured almost perfectly by pyth.

[leecemark]

--Actually since we are looking at what happened outside the numbers then whether Morgan had an especially good statisical seasons or not is irrelevant. We already know the individual numbers. We're considering how much (if any) these players helped their teams win in ways not captured by their stats.

[ElHalo]

--Actually since we are looking at what happened outside the numbers then whether Morgan had an especially good statisical seasons or not is irrelevant. We already know the individual numbers. We're considering how much (if any) these players helped their teams win in ways not captured by their stats.

I just think that looking at in a team wins based context is a little disingenuous. Look at the 1998 NY Yankees... they exceeded their Pythagorean by 6 games in winning 114... so great intangibles guys like Paul O'Neill and Jeter would get credit, but so would terrible intangibles guys like Chuck Knoblauch and Chad Curtis... when the guys truly responsible for that Pyth difference were Mo Rivera, Darren Holmes, and Graeme Lloyd.

In 1982, Morgan's Giants exceeded their Pyth by 8 games. Morgan had a fine season, but the large part of that 8 game cushion can be laid on the feet of Gary Lavelle and Greg Minton.

I just think that differences from Pyth is too esoteric a thing to really give individual players credit for. If a team outdoes their Pyth, it's often a result of relief pitching, and if they underscore their Pyth, it's often a fact of having one or two black holes in an otherwise stellar pitching staff, or having an offense that relies too much on the long ball.

Intangibles are called that for a reason. It's the main reason why you'll never be able to get a true guage of how good a player is without seeing them... or listening to the guys who did.

[Ubiquitous]

--Actually since we are looking at what happened outside the numbers then whether Morgan had an especially good statisical seasons or not is irrelevant. We already know the individual numbers. We're considering how much (if any) these players helped their teams win in ways not captured by their stats.


So what is Joe doing in 132 games that would help the Reds exceed by 9 games in 1978? What is he doing in 134 games for the 1982 Giants that would help them exceed their pyth by 8 games?

And more importantly if he is helping those two teams by +8 and +9 while only playing 132 games and a 134 games and having well over 100 less PA why isn't he doing that in his prime? Why is it in his prime his teams match the pyth expectations and when he becomes less of a factor on the field does his team exceed expectations? Does he become a spiritual guru in his old age?

[Ubiquitous]

The 1982 Giants won 87 games because they got hot in August and September. The offense picked up in August while the pitching stay mediocre, then in September the offense stayed good while the pitching staff got hot and those pitchers who didn't get hot were replaced with those that did, except for Laskey who had a terrible September. It wasn't the relievers but the starters and the hitters who carried the club through September and their 20-7 run. Of course if the relievers were mediocre they wouldn't get the wins either but the starters except for an 11 day stretch for Laskey were very very good.

[ElHalo]

Does he become a spiritual guru in his old age?


Definitely not. Have you HEARD him on ESPN?

I was just thinking... what does Joe Morgan really bring to the table that Robbie Alomar doesn't? Plate discipline and longevity, I'll grant you. But other than that? Robbie's a much better defender, and a better hitter for contact. In the context of era, Morgan's got an edge in HR's, but Robbie's a significantly better doubles hitter. Other than plate discipline and longevity, I'd have to give Robbie the edge.

Is plate discipline and longevity really enough to lift someone from "not as good as Robbie Alomar" to "best 2Bman ever"? Darrell Evans had plate discipline and longevity, but the Hall ain't exactly barrelling down his door. I really, truly don't understand the Joe Morgan thing.

[Ubiquitous]

At their peaks Joe was the better hitter and better base runner. He stole more bases and at a better clip then Roberto. Roberto had the better average but Joe had the better OBP and SLG even if we don't compare it to their eras Joe is still better in both categories and looks even better when we compare it to their contemporaries.


And when I am talking about peaks I am not talking about 1 or 2 years but 5, 6, 7, and 8 years.

It's odd that you bring up longevity because Roberto is the one who has the more normal career path then Joe. Joe has a pair of .236 avg's bookending his best years while Roberto really doesn't have a truly embarassing year until about age 34 season. Joe stays decent because like you said he was always able to work a walk but like Roberto once his age 34 season came and went Joe lost his power and his average. AFter 1977 Joe is no longer an elite player.

[csh19792001]

I really, truly don't understand the Joe Morgan thing.

If you were to learn about Win Shares, Total Player Rating, and WARP, do you think you might then learn to appreciate how valuable Morgan was? Some measures that demonstrate how great he was in his best seasons and cumulatively? You just might, ElHalo. If you're still making that statement above, you must still be focusing on the peripheral statistics that are each parts of a larger whole. Also, you have to admit that his career batting average is making it almost impossible for you to deem him nearly as great as nearly everyone else here has...am I correct?

As a sidebar:

How did Joe Morgan do against the best of his era- and those he faced the most? Here's a cross section:

Pitcher AB H 2B 3B HR BB IBB SO HBP SH SF AVG OBP SLG

Steve Carlton 106 28 8 1 1 20 0 13 0 0 1 .264 .378 .387
Fergie Jenkins 94 27 7 1 1 6 0 11 1 1 0 .287 .337 .415
Bob Gibson 83 26 6 1 3 11 2 3 0 1 1 .313 .389 .518
Sandy Koufax 29 7 0 0 2 6 0 7 0 0 0 .241 .371 .448
Juan Marichal 93 24 6 0 3 10 0 14 0 1 0 .258 .330 .419
Phil Niekro 170 47 6 0 4 28 1 22 0 1 1 .276 .377 .382
Claude Osteen 115 31 7 2 1 9 0 9 0 0 0 .270 .323 .391
Gaylord Perry 99 19 3 3 3 12 0 12 0 1 3 .192 .272 .374
Tom Seaver 102 31 7 0 5 22 1 16 1 1 2 .304 .425 .520
Don Sutton 164 37 6 2 7 27 0 25 0 0 0 .226 .335 .415

[SABR Matt]

If you bothered to read any of my previous posts....Ah forget it. If you can't be bothered, neither can I.

??

Would you care to drop the attitude for a minute? If I didn't correctly grasp something explain it to me...don't snark at me for no damned reason.

[shlevine42]

How did Joe Mrogan lack these qualities? How did Rogers Hornsby? How did almost any of them lack the qualities and desire?

I saw Morgan play and of course he had those qualities. In abundance.

But I also saw Robinson, and I think he was a bit better. More of a "force."

Morgan is still my second choice.

[538280]

I wasn't thinking of "giving" Robinson any more seasons.

Nor was I looking at just one season in his prime.

I was looking at what he accomplished over the course of the 10 seasons he did play. Any extrapolation beyond that is pure speculation.

While championships are primarily a "team" achievement, I don't think it's any accident that Jackie's team won six pennants in his 10-year career, and finished a close second on two other occasions.

In the simplest terms, that's a 60% success rate.

Collins and Morgan had many more opportunities to achieve that goal.

Collins made the post-season 6 times in his 25-year career; Morgan made it 7 times in his 22 years.

For what he accomplished in his brief career, Jackie's numbers impress me more.

Morgan would be my second choice.

I have said this before, Jackie Robinson is Joe Morgan with a short career. He had basically the same skills as Morgan. He had plate discipline, speed, was a decent fielder, and played for great teams. However, his career was half the size of Morgan's, and I don't see any reason to say why Jackie was better in his half than Morgan was in his whole. Due to career length, I think it is foolsih to rate Jackie ahead of Morgan. I think Jackie is underrated as a player, however, I have him 4th among second basemen.

[jalbright]

I wasn't thinking of "giving" Robinson any more seasons.

Nor was I looking at just one season in his prime.

I was looking at what he accomplished over the course of the 10 seasons he did play. Any extrapolation beyond that is pure speculation.

While championships are primarily a "team" achievement, I don't think it's any accident that Jackie's team won six pennants in his 10-year career, and finished a close second on two other occasions.

In the simplest terms, that's a 60% success rate.

Collins and Morgan had many more opportunities to achieve that goal.

Collins made the post-season 6 times in his 25-year career; Morgan made it 7 times in his 22 years.

For what he accomplished in his brief career, Jackie's numbers impress me more.



But in your first post in this thread, you said:
As I see it, the object of the game is to win a championship.
So, by your standards, the goal then shouldn't be to get to the World Series, but to win it. Using that standard, Jackie got one World Series ring. Joe Morgan got two. Eddie Collins got six. OK, you can discount the 1929 and 1930 A's when he played very little--but that's still four times what Jackie got--and I don't think either of us ever saw Collins play (I sure didn't--I'm still young enough that even Jackie retired before I was born, indeed maybe even before my parents met).

My standard is more how much each man personally did to give his team a chance to win, day in and day out. By a single season or single game standard, I can certainly understand the argument for Jackie. But I look at the whole career, and the greater longevity of Morgan and Collins means to me that they personally did more to help their teams win over the sum of their careers than Jackie did, even if we give Jackie a sizeable amount of credit for time lost to WW II and the color line. That's absolutely nothing against Jackie, who performed brilliantly under more pressure than most people can imagine, much less tolerate. But I just can't call him the best second baseman ever over the sum of his career.

Jim Albright

[shlevine42]

I understand your standard, and of course Jackie can't compete with Morgan or Collins on longevity.

And of course he has only one WS ring to their two and six.

But the quality of what he did over his short career --helping his team win six pennants in 10 years -- compares, in my opinion, to the impressive accomplishments of Morgan and Collins over their longer careers.

I guess we see it differently. And since this is a forum of opinions, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Ubiquitous]

Jackie played 5 seasons as a secondbasemen and even if we give him his rookie season plus 5 or 6 more seasons as a second bagger he still only comes in around 12 seasons as a secondbasemen without segregation.

12 seasons for Jackie
18 seasons for Joe
18 seasons for Eddie

[Windy City Fan]

Second is a tough position to rank. Morgan, Collins, Hornsby, and Lajoie all have a strong claim to the top spot. After the big four and Robinson and Gehringer, its hard to seperate Alomar, Biggio, Sandburg, Gordon, and Frisch. Without bothering to go and double check, here's my list:

1. Collins - Excellent plate discipline, especially when taken into the context of his era. Strong baserunner and fielder, he wouldn't have stolen 744 in the modern era, but 10 finishes in the top 3 in steals show he was one of the best for his era. He wasn't known as a slugger, but he finished in the top ten in slugging 9 times.

2. Hornsby - The numbers are impossible to ignore. Hornsby may have been the best right handed hitter to ever play the game of baseball, and he was a middle infielder. Subpar fielding and baserunning, plus his poor reputation in the clubhouse knock him down a peg.

3. Morgan - Played against the deepest overall pool of the main contenders for the top spot. Strong fielder, baserunner, and he had excellent plate discipline.

4. Lajoie - If he had played in the live ball era, he might have been equal to Hornsby at the plate.

5. Robinson - Truly exciting player, if only he could've played more.

6. Gehringer

7. Sandburg

8. Biggio

9. Alomar

10. Gordon

[Ubiquitous]

I understand your standard, and of course Jackie can't compete with Morgan or Collins on longevity.

And of course he has only one WS ring to their two and six.

But the quality of what he did over his short career --helping his team win six pennants in 10 years -- compares, in my opinion, to the impressive accomplishments of Morgan and Collins over their longer careers.

I guess we see it differently. And since this is a forum of opinions, we'll have to agree to disagree.


Well Jackie did his 10 seasons from age 28 to age 37. Joe in that same stretch went to 6 playoffs series and his team won 2 world series. The same amount of playoffs series as Jackie but with one more World Series title.

[RuthMayBond]

Dave, your list is interesting, but any list that has Ruben Sierra second and Jim Spencer high but Bert Campaneris near the bottom, is suspect

[RuthMayBond]

I wasn't thinking of "giving" Robinson any more seasons.

Nor was I looking at just one season in his prime.

I was looking at what he accomplished over the course of the 10 seasons he did play. Any extrapolation beyond that is pure speculation.

While championships are primarily a "team" achievement, I don't think it's any accident that Jackie's team won six pennants in his 10-year career, and finished a close second on two other occasions.

In the simplest terms, that's a 60% success rate.Is it possible his teammates had anything to do with this?

[shlevine42]

Is it possible his teammates had anything to do with this?

If you weren't so intent on posting a smart-ass comment, you'd have noticed
my qualifier at the beginning of the fourth paragraph:

While championships are primarily a "team" achievement,

[RuthMayBond]

If you weren't so intent on posting a smart-ass comment, you'd have noticed
my qualifier at the beginning of the fourth paragraph:

While championships are primarily a "team" achievement, If you weren't so intent on trying to "prove" a questionable assertion in the first place :waving :crazy :( :rolleyes: :cool: :noidea ;) :ughh

[SABR Matt]

Robinson was a great player...on the basis of rate statistics, he comes out third all time among second basemen in productive rate...behind Joe Rogers Hornsby and Joe Morgan.

I don't think a legitimate case can be made that Robinson was the greatest second basemen of all time though....just food for thought.

Don't believe me...check out those three players' WARP3 and WS/162 G

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I wasn't thinking of "giving" Robinson any more seasons.

Nor was I looking at just one season in his prime.

I was looking at what he accomplished over the course of the 10 seasons he did play. Any extrapolation beyond that is pure speculation.

While championships are primarily a "team" achievement, I don't think it's any accident that Jackie's team won six pennants in his 10-year career, and finished a close second on two other occasions.

In the simplest terms, that's a 60% success rate.

Collins and Morgan had many more opportunities to achieve that goal.

Collins made the post-season 6 times in his 25-year career; Morgan made it 7 times in his 22 years.

For what he accomplished in his brief career, Jackie's numbers impress me more.

Morgan would be my second choice.

Jackie was an important part of the Dodgers but certainly not the only reason they won. The Dodgers of Jackie's era had Campy, Snider, Reese, Preacher Roe, Podres etc. Jackie had several HoF teammates that helped win all those pennants...

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Definitely not. Have you HEARD him on ESPN?

I was just thinking... what does Joe Morgan really bring to the table that Robbie Alomar doesn't? Plate discipline and longevity, I'll grant you. But other than that? Robbie's a much better defender, and a better hitter for contact. In the context of era, Morgan's got an edge in HR's, but Robbie's a significantly better doubles hitter. Other than plate discipline and longevity, I'd have to give Robbie the edge.

Is plate discipline and longevity really enough to lift someone from "not as good as Robbie Alomar" to "best 2Bman ever"? Darrell Evans had plate discipline and longevity, but the Hall ain't exactly barrelling down his door. I really, truly don't understand the Joe Morgan thing.

There are reasons that Morgan is considered better than Alomar. I don't necessarily agree with these reasons mind you:

1) Morgan won back-to-back MVP awards. Robbie won zero MVPs.

2) Morgan's HRs are worth more that Robbie's doubles.

3) Morgan and Alomar were equals as baserunners and basestealers. Joe had a 81.0% success rate, Robbie had an 80.6%.

4) Morgan had a six year run of greatness ('72-'77). Alomar's best six year run is not quite as dominant.

5) Morgan played for a very famous team, The Big Red Machine. Robbie also won two World series but the '92-'93 Blue Jays are pretty much the most forgotten back-to-back World Champions already.

6) Many fans have "baseball memories" of Morgan, leading the Big Red Machine, hitting the HR against the Dodgers, leading the Wheez Kids to the 1983 pennant, etc. Robbie doesn't really have any defining "baseball moments".


I'm a huge Alomar fan (I have a soft spot for all players born in 1968).

[RuthMayBond]

There are reasons that Morgan is considered better than Alomar. I don't necessarily agree with these reasons mind you:

1) Morgan won back-to-back MVP awards. Robbie won zero MVPs.

2) Morgan's HRs are worth more that Robbie's doubles.

3) Morgan and Alomar were equals as baserunners and basestealers. Joe had a 81.0% success rate, Robbie had an 80.6%.

4) Morgan had a six year run of greatness (72-77). Alomar's best six year run is not quite as dominant.

5) Morgan played for a very famous team, The Big Red Machine. Robbie also won two World series but the '92-'93 Blue Jays are pretty much the most forgotten back-to-back World Champions already.

6) Many fans have "baseball memories" of Morgan, leading the Big Red Machine, hitting the HR against the Dodgers, leading the Wheez Kids to the 1983 pennant, etc. Robbie doesn't really have any defining "baseball moments".Those are pretty good reasons

<I'm a huge Alomar fan (I have a soft spot for all players born in 1968)>

Ya also got Frank & Bagwell

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Those are pretty good reasons

<I'm a huge Alomar fan (I have a soft spot for all players born in 1968)>

Ya also got Frank & Bagwell

1968 was a good year...

Alomar
Bagwell
Thomas
Piazza
Sosa
Sheffield
Kent
Mussina

[RuthMayBond]

I think Sandberg's career tends to go underrated. The guy could field (9 Gold Gloves), the guy could run (344 Stolen Bases, reached as high as 54 in a season), and the guy had great power for a secondbasemen, especially considering how much power numbers were depressed during the 80's. The fact that he also played and excelled against intergated and a higher level of competition than some of his predecessors in this discussion (Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Gehringer) should also be points in his favor. I really can't understand how anyone can rate Sandberg outside of the top 10, or even the top 6 or 7.Because his OPS+ was only 114 (he played in Wrigley) in a short career.

[RuthMayBond]

Gentlemen:

I respect your superior knowledge of Win Shares, Pythagorean Theorems, PCA and other esoteric metrics, but let’s reduce this question to its most basic element.

(By the way, I nominate “metrics” as the most pretentious, overused term of the year)

As I see it, the object of the game is to win a championship.

So, if you were picking players who could best help your team achieve that goal, who would be your second baseman?

If your choice is anyone other than Jackie Robinson, then:

1. You obviously never saw him play

2. You’re being swayed by numbers alone, and paying too little attention to the only quality that matters:
the desire – coupled with the ability – to WIN.Well, I guess it's your way or the highway :laugh :laugh :laugh

[538280]

This is the third installment of the positional polls. Please submit a list of your top 10 second basemen. Points will be awarded based on where you place the players. 12 points for 1st place, 9 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd, 7 for 4th, and so on. Have fun!

[leecemark]

1) Joe Morgan - could do it all and did it for a long time in very tough leagues
2) Eddie Collins - basically an earlier version of Morgan
3) Rogers Hornsby - the Piazza of 2Bs
4) Nap Lajoie - end of the first tier
5) Charlie Gehringer - similar to, but clearly behind Morgan/Collins
6) Jackie Robinson - Morgan/Collins without the longevity
7) Ryne Sandberg - kicks off a group that shifts alot
8) Frankie Frisch - 2nd best IF of the 20s
9) Craig Biggio - including play elsewhere
10) Roberto Alomar - could have made a burn at Gehringer if he hadn't crashed so fast
--Honorable mention; Rod Carew (would be 7th on this list just as a player, but spent half his career at 1B)), Grich, Whitaker, Gordon, Herman, McPhee, Doyle, Doerr, Fox and Randolph.

[Bill Burgess]

Form Chart:


2B - Ross Barnes, Jack Burdock, Fred Pfeffer, Cupid Childs, Bid McPhee, Jimmy Williams, Larry Doyle, Bobby Lowe, Nap Lajoie, Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, George Cutshaw, Charlie Gehringer, Frankie Frisch, Jackie Robinson, Rod Carew, Joe Morgan, Nellie Fox, Bobby Grich, Bill Mazeroski, Red Schoendiest, Ryne Sandberg, Robbie Alomar, Craig Biggio, Alfonso Soriano;

Negro Leagues: Elwood "Bingo" DeMoss

[Bill Burgess]

My slate of candidates for Top 20 2B.

1. Eddie Collins - 1907-28 - Overall excellence/longevity takes the cake.

2. Rogers Hornsby - 1915-37 - Roger's bat rules. Effective greatness over after '29. 14 effective yrs. of productivity.

3. Nap Lajoie - 1896-1916 - Great bat challenges top 2.

4. Charlie Gehringer - 1926-42 - In mid-30's, he challenged Gehrig as best player in MLs. All time glove/stern bat, potent combo. Even led in SB once.

5. Jackie Robinson - 1947-56 - Another competitive firebrand, nicer bat. Exciting baserunner/stealer. Benefits from serious historical significance. Arrived in ML at 27, denied his early yrs. Rookie of yr. ('47), MVP ('49), 6 all star teams, lead league in BA once, on-base once, Total BB gives him 2 SB and 3 TPR titles.

6. Joe Morgan - 1963-84 - All-Around excellence made his teams win much more than otherwise.

7. Ryne Sandberg - 1981-97 - Smooth blend of glove/ bat. Retiring after '94, cost him '95. Dumb screw-up. Led league in Runs 3 times, triples once and HRs once (40).

8. Frankie Frisch - 1919-37 - Competitive firebrand/holler guy, nice glove/bat combo. Led league in Runs once, hits once, and SB 3 times. Total BB gives him 2 FR titles and 1 TPR title.

9. Rod Carew - 1967-85 - Great bingles slapper, moved to 1st mid-career. 7 BA titles, 15 all star teams. Led league in Runs once, hits 3 times, triples twice, on-base 4 times, and Total BB gives him 3 TPR titles.

10. Elwood "Bingo" DeMoss - 1910-30. Unquestionably finest 2Bman Negro L. ever produced. Consumate player, excelling is all phases of the game. His style afield served as model for those who later played 2nd. Besides his impeccable defense, was line drive hitter, always above .300.

11. Joe Gordon - 1938-43, '46-50 - Acrobatic Yankee Leather Wizard reigns. Glove Magic made him amazing play-maker. 8 all star teams, led league in FR once, high totals 3 other yrs. A Brooksie/Cox with his small glove. War interrupted flow of career.

12. Craig Biggio - 1988-present - Fine bat, runs great. 400 SB.

13. Bobby Grich - 1970-86 - 4 time GG was a better fielder than a hitter. 6 All star teams. Led league once in HRs, SLG, OPS+. Total BB gives him 3 TPR titles. .266 career BA., .424 career SLG.

14. Roberto Alomar - 1988-present - Nice glove/bat combo. 12 all star teams. 1999 his career offensive yr. 2 Win Share titles. Hasn't spit since.

15. Jeff Kent - 1992-present - His bat won him a MVP in 2000. 3 All Star teams. Wouldn't defer to Barry in dugout/clubhouse, cost him his Giants uniform.

16. Nellie Fox - 1949-65 - One of greatest bingle slappers, AND great glove. Great DP combo with Aparicio. Led league in hits 4 times, triples once, Win Shares once, 12 All Star teams. Achieved 189 hits/season 8 times. Struck out 216 times out of 9232 ABs = every 42.7 ABs. Puts him in with Joe Seweel, Lloyd Waner class of sharp eye/plate discipline. .288 career BA.

17. Red Schoendienst - 1945-63 - Great glove. Led league in hits, doubles, SB once. 10 all star teams.

18. Johnny Evers - 1902-17 - Hysterical holler guy, great glove, walked well. Fire was his calling card. Led league once in on-base.

19. John "Bid" McPhee - 1882-1899 - Defined position defensively in 1800's. (Half his career, played gloveless?), Led league once in triples, HRs. Total BB gives him 2 TPR titles. Lots of Runs Scored, few RBIs. .277 career BA.

20. Bill Mazeroski - 1956-72 - GGs got him in the Hall. And that '60 WS homer. 7 All star teams. .260 career BA. Deluxe leather, terrible hitter.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Bill, Jeff Kent had slipped my mind. He isn't really close to making my top 10, but should have been amoung my honorable mentions. He is a similar player to Larry Doyle, but against better competition and with more staying power.
--Maz wasn't really a terrible hitter. Below average sure, but only a little behind Fox or Schoendienst. Outside by top 20, but withing the top 25-30 and better than DeMoss (who was also a slick glove, but marginal hitter).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

1. Hornsby
2. Lajoie
3. Collins
4. Morgan
5. Gehringer
6. Jackie
7. Biggio
8. Sandberg
9. Alomar
10. Frisch

[pretorius]

1) Rogers Hornsby
2) Eddie Collins
3) Joe Morgan
4) Nap Lajoie
5) Charlie Gehringer
6) Craig Biggio
7) Jackie Robinson
8) Ryan Sandberg
9) Roberto Alomar
10) Frankie Frisch

Slight revision by putting Gehringer above Biggio.

[Blackout]

1-Rogers Hornsby
2-Nap Lajoie
3-Eddie Collins
4-Joe Morgan
5-Rod Carew
6-Jackie Robinson
7-Craig Biggio
8-Roberto Alomar
9-Jeff Kent
10-Charlie Gehringer

[Dodger]

1 Rogers Hornsby
2 Eddie Collins
3 Joe Morgan
4 Napoleon Lajoie
5 Jackie Robinson
6 Charlie Gehringer
7 Rod Carew
8 Craig Biggio
9 Roberto Alomar
10 Ryne Sandberg
11 Frankie Frisch
12 Bobby Grich

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

1) Rogers Hornsby
2) Eddie Collins
3) Nap Lajoie
4) Joe Morgan
5) Rod Carew
6) Craig Biggio
7) Jackie Robinson
8) Charlie Gehringer
9) Roberto Alomar
10) Ryne Sandberg

[sweaver]

1. Eddie Collins
2. Joe Morgan
3. Nap Lajoie
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Jackie Robinson
6. Charlie Gehringer
7. Roberto Alomar
8. Craig Biggio
9. Bobby Grich
10. Ryne Sandberg

[john1972]

Ask Craig Biggio if he was a better second baseman than Alomar during their primes. LOL. Maybe if he had an army of sabremetricians to back him up at the time he'd sheepishly claim he was better with just a hint of reluctance in his tone of voice.

[Joltin' Joe]

1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Eddie Collins
3. Napoleon Lajoie
4. Joe Morgan
5. Jackie Robinson
6. Roberto Alomar
7. Craig Biggio
8. Charlie Gehringer
9. Frankie Frisch
10. Rod Carew

[538280]

1.Joe Morgan-Did everything very well in tough leagues. Had perhaps the best five year peak ever.
2.Eddie Collins-Great at everything, like Morgan. He was also considered the best heads up player of his day. Ty Cobb said so in his autobiography.
3.Rogers Hornsby-Tremendous hitter, but not much else. Mediocre fielder, a complete jerk, played in a very weak league.
4.Jackie Robinson-Morgan without the longevity
5.Nap Lajoie-Very dominant, but you must temper the domination by remembering when and where he played. TPR has him #2 all time, but they have greatly misread his fielding.
6.Charlie Gehringer-He had no real weakness. But, he also had no huge strength. Good at everything, not great at anything.
7.Bobby Grich-A lot like Biggio, but was a much, much better fielder and played in a better league.
8.Craig Biggio-Classic underrated player. He spent his whole career stuck in the Astrodome, and he had very balanced skills, which tends to make players underrated.
9.Rod Carew-All time great contact hitter without much else to offer. Moved to 1B halfway through his career, which hurts his defensive value and positional boost.
10.Roberto Alomar-Overrated fielder, but great offense in a time when 2B offense was a bonus. Not as good as Biggio

Honorable Mentions:

11.Ryne Sandberg
12.Lou Whitaker
13.Nellie Fox
14.Willie Randolph
15.Joe Gordon
16.Frankie Frisch
17.Billy Herman
18.Larry Doyle
19.Dave Lopes
20.Tony Lazzeri

[Bill Burgess]

6.Charlie Gehringer But, he also had no huge strength. Good at everything, not great at anything.

Very untrue. Always great glove from the very beginning. Could always go out and pick them up. Taught how to hit by the master. But could always field fantasticly. Just for the record.

[Cubsfan97]

Rogers Hornsby
Joe Morgan
Eddie Collins
Charlie Gehringer
Frankie Frisch
Ryne Sandberg
Rod Carew
Jackie Robinson
Nap Lajoie
Roberto Alomar


Any better?

[leecemark]

--Oh my God:( . This may be the worst list ever. Sandberg #2? Evers? Soriano:noidea . Its nice to have a young fan interested in baseball enough to participate here, but please do a little research before voting. Just a quick check at BB-ref comparing the guys you're including to the guys on other ballots you are leaving off might prove enlightening.

[csh19792001]

Collins
Morgan
Hornsby
Lajoie
Robinson
Gehringer
Biggio
Frisch
Alomar
Carew

[Wee Willie]

1. Collins
2. Hornsby
3. Morgan
4. Lajoie
5. Robinson
6. Gehringer
7. Biggio
8. Alomar
9. Carew
10. Sandberg

[Wee Willie]

Rogers Hornsby
Ryne Sandberg
Rod Carew
Jackie Robinson
Nap Lajoie
Johnny Evers
Joe Morgan
Alfonso Soriano
Craig Biggio
Eddie Collins

Johnny Evers over (gulp) Joe Morgan and Eddie Collins?

What's next??
Ron Santo over Mike Schmidt?
Ernie Banks over Honus Wagner?
Billy Williams over Ted Williams?
Hack Wilson over Ty Cobb?
Sammy Sosa over Babe Ruth?

Come on, now:)

[Bill Burgess]

Good Guys,

Why no notes? How about going back and making your ballots more interesting for us read.

And no Honorable Mentions? What gives? Fever is supposed to comprise the most informed fans on the web. Let's act that way! We must earn our rep each time out. No resting on our laurels!

Thank you Mark and Chris! Good work.

Bill Burgess

[Joltin' Joe]

Johnny Evers over (gulp) Joe Morgan and Eddie Collins?

What's next??
Ron Santo over Mike Schmidt?
Ernie Banks over Honus Wagner?
Billy Williams over Ted Williams?
Hack Wilson over Ty Cobb?
Sammy Sosa over Babe Ruth?

Come on, now:)

That would be Joe Tinker over Honus Wagner and Frank Chance over Lou Gehrig. :D

[538280]

Rogers Hornsby
Ryne Sandberg
Rod Carew
Jackie Robinson
Nap Lajoie
Johnny Evers
Joe Morgan
Alfonso Soriano
Craig Biggio
Eddie Collins

I agree with the other comments here. As the administrator of these polls, I would like to hear your justification for these selections (especially Johnny Evers over Joe Morgan :noidea)

[STLCards2]

1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Eddie Collins
3. Nap Lajoie
4. Joe Morgan
5. Charlie Gehringer
6. Jackie Robinson
7. Rod Carew
8. Roberto Alomar
9. Ryne Sandberg
10.Craig Biggio

[538280]

6. Joe Morgan - 1963-84 - All-Around excellence made his teams win much more than otherwise.


Bill, you say how I low rate your favorites-but of all people you downgrade my guys! You have Morgan 6th among 2B, Reggie doesn't crack your top 100, you hadn't even heard of Jimmy Wynn until I recently informed you. Bagwell isn't in your top 25 1B, and you say you value all-around skills there!

But, of course, they're no Sisler, Ewing, or Herman Long!

[538280]

I would like to copy/paste a post I made on the "Best Position Players of All Time-#8" thread:

I have Lajoie in the early 30s on my player list. I feel he is overrated by most. His best season was in by far the worst major league (excluding the FL) in the 20th century. Other than that one year, he had some other tremendous seasons but still against very suspect competition. His relative stats aren't that great, and they are greatly boosted by his era:

BA-127
OBP-116
SLG-135

He also suffers in my ratings from the jump of the defensive spectrum, making his offense considerably less impressive. He was a great offensive force, don't get me wrong, but he was only the 3rd best hitting 2B of the first quarter of the 20th century.

Another thing that raises a red flag to me is his plate discipline. I know PD wasn't very much appreciated in the deadball era, but even compared with others at that time his PD wasn't really very good. His Rel. IsoPD is 68. That is awful, and it is a huge problem to me.

I actually think Lajoie was the type of player who would have been better had he been born 20 years later. His skills didn't really fit the deadball style. He wasn't that fast, and didn't have great baserunning skills. What he did have is good power, and that skill would have been better applied in the live ball era when he could hit some out of the park.

I believe the absolute highest you can have Lajoie is 4th. I don't see how anyone could put him ahead of Morgan, Collins, and even Hornsby.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, you say how I low rate your favorites-but of all people you downgrade my guys! You have Morgan 6th among 2B, Reggie doesn't crack your top 100, you hadn't even heard of Jimmy Wynn until I recently informed you. Bagwell isn't in your top 25 1B, and you say you value all-around skills there!

But, of course, they're no Sisler, Ewing, or Herman Long!

Quite right about everybody except I will be moving Jeff Bagwell up next time I do my periodic adjustments. And I contend that my judgments concerning your men are not really outside the mainstream.

Of course, when I rank players, I do not stop to consider who your guys are. When I'm evaluating my Top 10, I generally am not aware of who your guys are. And lucky for them!!! (wink)

[Bill Burgess]

Chris,

You seem to enjoy pointing out my most egregious flaws in my rankings. I'd like to invite you to play a fun game. I offered this to Jeff James (RuthMayBonds), and he had fun. I invite you to rate the most serious, egregious mistakes in my perceptions. These are my most controversial, daring, risky, gutsy opinions. It's always an act of Faith/Courage when one pursues their sporting Muse.

Just put them in order of wackiness, according to your system, with notes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Ruth - 5th best ever, after Cobb, Wagner, Mays, Bonds.

2. Ewing - Best catcher ever, top 10 players ever.

3. Biz Mackay - Best defensive NL catcher ever, top 20th player ever.

4. Bill Lange - top 100 players ever.

5. Jimmie McAleer, Bill Lange - top defensive OFs of 1890's. Among top defensive OFers ever.

6. Charlie Bennett - Ranked with Ewing as top defensive catcher of pre - 1900's. Among top defensive catchers ever.

7. Martin Bergen - Among best defensive catchers, pre - 1900.

8. George Sisler - Best 1B ever. In top 10 players ever.

9. Jimmie Archer - Among best defensive catchers ever.

10. Roberto Clemente - 4th best player of 1950's-60's, after Mays, Mantle, Aaron. And above F. Robinson, Kaline.

11. Oscar Charleston - Among top 5 players ever.

12. Ned Williamson, Herman Long deserve to be ranked in the top 100 players.

13. Billy Cox was the greatest defensive 3B ever.

14. Richie Ashburn deserved to be considered the top defensive OF of the 1950's, not Willie Mays.

15. Tris Speaker outranks Wille Mays defensively, due to his ability to play so shallow, and still get back.

16. Glenn Wright, Ossie Bluege, Willie Kamm deserve to rank among the greatest glovemen ever.

[sweaver]

Well, I agree with #6 and #15. And there is a case to be made for #11. Other than that.....

[leecemark]

--I can agree with #6 also and 11, 15 and 16 aren't completely crazy. That gets you to 25% sane Bill;) . Good progress, keep it up:clapping .

[Bill Burgess]

Whew! For a moment I feared I had slipped below my 25% threshold. My psychiatrist will be so relieved. Keep up the prayers. Between those, my witchdoctor and luck, I may once again reach 50%, and I can fake the rest. Pop the champagne cork?

[538280]

All right, Bill, I'll do it:

1.Ewing - Best catcher ever, top 10 players ever.-Played in weak league, didn't catch nearly as much as other catchers of his time, wasn't great at getting on base (107 Rel. OBP). Granted, was great defensively, but for only 5413 innings. Not a top 100 player, nevermind top 10.

2.George Sisler - Best 1B ever. In top 10 players ever.-Good peak, but the peak still wasn't as good as Gehrig/Foxx. Sisler's top 3 WS seasons are 33, 29, 29, Gehrig is 44, 42, 41, Foxx is 41, 40, 34. Even Sisler's supposed great peak doesn't measure up. After peak had eye problems that made him average to below average player. Awful plate discipline, only good power hitter for 4 years, other than that not much power either. Reputed to be great fielder, but stats don't show it.

3.Ned Williamson, Herman Long deserve to be ranked in the top 100 players.-Both were tremendous on defense, but not worth much at all on offense. Williamson had one good offensive year, but that was a fluke because of a really, really short porch. Herman Long was tremendous on defense, but hitting is more important than fielding, and Long was below league average in BA, OBP, and SLG!

4. Billy Cox was the greatest defensive 3B ever.
-He of the 95 career Rel. range factor? Really, the RF doesn't do him justice (he had to be better than that), but if you have a 95 Rel. RF, you just can't be the best fielding 3B ever, even RF isn't that bad.

5.Richie Ashburn deserved to be considered the top defensive OF of the 1950's, not Willie Mays-Interesting you, of all people should believe this. Eyewitness accounts don't agree with you, but simple stat analysis does. Ashburn was great in the field, but the Phillies of that time were by far the biggest fly ball staff of all time. That inflated Ashburn's PO total into the sky. Defensive Win Shares, which adjusts for staff tendencies, calls Mays better.

6.Bill Lange - top 100 players ever.-Bill, I tend to favor peak over longevity, but even I can't get over the longevity here. He only played 7 full years. That just isn't enough, even though he was good on offense, great on defense, and played in a stronger league that people realize-although in a historical context still not strong.

7.Roberto Clemente - 4th best player of 1950's-60's, after Mays, Mantle, Aaron. And above F. Robinson, Kaline.-Clemente was overrated on offense and defense. On offense, he was great at contact hitting but not great at power, and had bad plate discipline. On defense, he had an outstanding arm, but limited range and a really high error rate.

8.Biz Mackay - Best defensive NL catcher ever, top 20th player ever.-The first part of that I agree with, and most probably will too, but the second part is over the top. I don't see how he is better than Gibson either.

9.Ruth - 5th best ever, after Cobb, Wagner, Mays, Bonds.-Ruth may not have had as good all-around skills, but hitting is the most important skill for a position player, and there Ruth has no equals. Ruth also played in a stronger leauge than Cobb/Wagner.

10.Martin Bergen - Among best defensive catchers, pre - 1900.-He may have been, but considering a player who played four years and 344 games one of the best at anything is stretching things.

All the other ones I don't consider to be that rash at all. I agree with you on Charleston. I also agree with you on Speaker over Mays, and most do too. That isn't a rash opinion at all.

[CTaka]

1. Joe Morgan - A bit overrated defensively, but still a great all-around 2B on chamionship teams. And during an era with high-level competition.
2. Eddie Collins - Better than Morgan with the glove but less power, even after the deadball era. Morgan's power advantage gives him a very slight edge over Cocky Collins.
3. Rogers Hornsby - we now about his bat, but also had a reputation of being a fast runner despite being a very poor percentage base stealer. If he could field like Mogan, Collins, Lajoie, Gehringer, Sandberg, etc., he'd be #1 on my list.
4. Jackie Robinson - Seems that most fans today think of him primarily as the trailblazer without giving him his proper due as a truly great player.
5. Nap Lajoie - A great player that may have been even greater if he'd been born 25+ years later.
6. Charlie Gehringer - Great fielder with seven seasons recording an OPS+ of over 130.
7. Craig Biggio - Alomar's peak may have been a tad higher, but I give Biggio the nod based on career value.
8. Roberto Alomar - In his prime, he could do it all. But he dropped off a cliff after the age of 33.
9. Ryne Sandberg - Like Alomar, he dropped off after the age of 33 (never recorded an OPS+ of 100 after that age). In his prime, the only thing separating Alomar and Ryno was that Alomar took a few more walks.
10. Jeff Kent - Yes, I realize no one else has him in their top ten. But his career OPS+ is higher than Gehringer, Biggio, Alomar, Sandberg or Frisch.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

1. Joe Morgan
2. Eddie Collins
3. Jackie Robinson
4. Rogers Hornbsy
5. Nap Lojoie
6. Charlie Gerhinger
7. Craig Biggio
8. Roberto Alomar
9. Ryne Sandberg
10. Rod Carew

[Chisox]

01.Charlie Gehringer-I know I'm going to get stuff on that, but his numbers are terriffic.
02.Nap Lajoie-I can't seperate 1-4.
03.Eddie Collins
04.Joe Morgan
05.Roberto Alomar-I know I'm really going to get it here, but his numbers a Morgan who was a better pure hitter, worse (slightly) baserunner, and who didn't walk as much. Then there's that D and probably the best post-season 2B ever.
06.Rogers Hornsby-I'm a big seasonal guy, and 13 HR/65-70 RBI just don't do it for me with those horrible SB numbers and his defense.
07.Craig Biggio
08.Frankie Frisch
09.Ryne Sandberg
10.Bobby Doerr

[Wee Willie]

01.Charlie Gehringer-I know I'm going to get stuff on that, but his numbers are terrific.
02.Nap Lajoie-I can't separate 1-4.
03.Eddie Collins
04.Joe Morgan

I don't think anyone denies that Gehringer's numbers are terrific - but when you put them into context, they aren't as terrific as some other guys. Why, specifically, does belong ahead of the 4 guys you have immediately below him?

I think you're kind of distorting Hornsby's production when you say Hornsby averaged 13 HR/65-70 RBI. He averaged 22 HR and 114 RBI per 162, and slightly lower per 154 (which were his scheduled # of games). He was managing in those last several years and wasn't anything close to a full-time player, so it makes no sense to give those seasons the same weight as say, 1922 when evaluating him.

It's one thing to not have Jackie in the top 5 - but to not have him in the top 10 is just unfathomable. I've heard your argument before, that "he didn't top 1,000 runs or RBI's". That's a little too arbitrary a criterion, especially in Jackie's case - where he easily would have passed both those numbers had he gotten an earlier start. Jackie's peak easily trumps his somewhat lower career value. But heck, even Jackie's career value is higher than that of Tony Lazzeri (who was a nice 2B, but nowhere near a top-10).

[538280]

01.Charlie Gehringer-I know I'm going to get stuff on that, but his numbers are terriffic.
02.Nap Lajoie-I can't seperate 1-4.
03.Eddie Collins
04.Joe Morgan

That's one of the weirdest lists I've seen as well. Sure, Gehringer's numbers were terrific, but so were Morgan, Collins', and Hornsby's, and even Jackie's at his peak, who you don't even have in your top 10. You'd need a huge bias towards career value over peak to leave him out.

Comparing Roberto Alomar to Joe Morgan is also ridiculous. What do you mean by a better "pure hitter"? Alomar has two differences to Morgan, and they're both huge-power and plate discipline. Look at their relative stats:

BA
Morgan-104
Alomar-112

OBP
Morgan-120
Alomar-110

SLG
Morgan-111
Alomar-106

OPS+
Morgan-132
Alomar-116

Morgan is only behind in BA. But, Morgan's numbers are dilluted by the decline phase even more than Alomar's. Morgan was actually a very good contact hitter in his prime, but became not very good in old age. Look at their top 5 Win Share seasons-44, 40, 39, 37, and 37 for Morgan, 35, 34, 31, 30, and 25 for Alomar. That's right-Alomar doesn't have one year as good as Morgan's 5th best year. Despite Morgan's long and ugly decline AND the huge difference in era and park (remember Morgan played a big chunk of his career in the Astrodome), Morgan still has a better career RC/27, 5.91 to 5.89.

I also think Morgan played in a stronger leauge, although some disagree with me there. If you're one of those, fine.

Alomar and Morgan may be somewhat similar in skill set, but Morgan had perhaps the greatest consecutive five year peak in history. Alomar doesn't have anything like that to his credit.

[Chisox]

I don't know who to quote Wee Willie or 538280, so I'll do neither directly.
BTW, Bill Burgess, what did you edit on their posts?

I don't think anyone denies that Gehringer's numbers are terrific - but when you put them into context, they aren't as terrific as some other guys. Why, specifically, does belong ahead of the 4 guys you have immediately below him?
I assume you meant 4/5 (disregarding Alomar).
It's tough. I was under the impression that Gehringer played in a pitcher's park since that's how I always thought of Tiger Stadium. If I'm wrong in that, let me know. Gehringer scores just slightly behind Hornsby on my non-adjusted ratings and takes the #2 spot on it. I know that the others were, that's why I have a really hard time ranking them and why I said "I can't seperate 1-4.

Comparing Roberto Alomar to Joe Morgan is also ridiculous. What do you mean by a better "pure hitter"? Alomar has two differences to Morgan, and they're both huge-power and plate discipline
I never meant to suggest Alomar was as good as Morgan, just somewhat similar. A better pure hitter I've always taken to mean higher BA, more hits, ect. Alomar was a threat for the batting title during his time. He also had power for 2B and was one of the best base-runners of his era. Like I said, Morgan gets huge props for his enormous walks, but Alomar is the greatest defensive 2B I've ever seen, and that goes along way with me. (I wish I could remember Sandberg in his prime.) I strongly disagree with you on peak. Hornsby had the the greatest peak of all-time, but Alomar's was every bit as impressive as Morgan's. I still say he should have won the MVP in '99 and was a very feared hitter in his day. He's also the best post-season 2B I can find, something I also weigh.

think you're kind of distorting Hornsby's production when you say Hornsby averaged 13 HR/65-70 RBI. He averaged 22 HR and 114 RBI per 162, and slightly lower per 154 (which were his scheduled # of games). He was managing in those last several years and wasn't anything close to a full-time player, so it makes no sense to give those seasons the same weight as say, 1922 when evaluating him.
I'm sorry, but he hit 301HR and 1,584RBI in 22 seasons playing in 98G/Seas. Those are the facts. I don't care if he managed or not, I'm evaluating him as a player only, and that's what he played. I simply cannot rank someone who averaged 98G, 13HR, 68RBI, 7SB in a great hitters era with NO competition in his league, and couldn't field his position well higher. He's one of the greatest offensive players % wise of all-time, easily the best % 2B, and probably the best totals 2B, too, but his seasonal numbers stink for an all-time great. He had the best peak of any 2B in history, but he also had the worst decline period of any prominent player in history, barely playing his last 8 seasons, and like it or not, they count just the same. What good is a PLAYer when he's NOT PLAYing?

It's one thing to not have Jackie in the top 5 - but to not have him in the top 10 is just unfathomable. I've heard your argument before, that "he didn't top 1,000 runs or RBI's". That's a little too arbitrary a criterion, especially in Jackie's case - where he easily would have passed both those numbers had he gotten an earlier start. Jackie's peak easily trumps his somewhat lower career value. But heck, even Jackie's career value is higher than that of Tony Lazzeri (who was a nice 2B, but nowhere near a top-10).
Why is it unfathonable? He didn't reach 1,000R or 1,000RBI, and he played in only 10 seasons. Those are the facts. I count only MLB accomplishments of what a player actually did, not what he could have done. He is one of the greatest seasonal 2B of all-time, possibly the best, and has nice %, too, but his totals kill him. I've got him 14th just behind Whitaker, but not top 10.

Lazzeri comes out about 10th on my offensive formula, so what am I doing wrong? From some of the information I've gotten so far on him on here, I probably will have to drop him from my top 10. Previously I had only heard good things about him, which factored heavily into my rankings.
Actually I just re-checked my rankings and I've got Lazzeri 11th and Doerr 10th followed by McPhee in 12. Gotta go back and edit my list:o

[Wee Willie]

I'm sorry, but he hit 301HR and 1,584RBI in 22 seasons playing in 98G/Seas. Those are the facts. I don't care if he managed or not, I'm evaluating him as a player only, and that's what he played.
I know you're rating him as a player only. But as I said before, you are distorting those facts by treating him as though he was a full-time player in all 23 of his seasons. It is simply unfair to penalize Hornsby for playing 2 games in 1936 (when he was basically not even a player, just a manager). You're basically saying you'd give him MORE credit if he'd just played ZERO games. Then his "games per season", as it were, would jump from 98 to 103. It was basically the same thing for years 1934, 1935, and 1937. He had, for all intents and purposes, retired as a player and was just managing. Instead, you're incorrectly treating it like Frank Thomas in 2001, when he actually was a full time player, got hurt, and actually missed 130-140 games that his manager/teammates were expecting him to play.

Or what about when a rookie is called up late in the season, is a star from day one, and goes on to Hall of Fame career? Based on your method, he should have waited til the next year - because his games/season would've looked better:rolleyes:


He had the best peak of any 2B in history, but he also had the worst decline period of any prominent player in history, barely playing his last 8 seasons, and like it or not, they count just the same. What good is a PLAYer when he's NOT PLAYing?

You need to examine the reason/context behind the NOT playing. Those seasons don't "count just the same" whatsover. Brooks Robinson, now there's someone who truly had one of the worst decline periods. He was a full-time player who didn't know when to quit.


Why is it unfathonable? He (Jackie Robinson) didn't reach 1,000R or 1,000RBI, and he played in only 10 seasons. Those are the facts. I count only MLB accomplishments of what a player actually did, not what he could have done.

As I told you, I heard your argument for the 1,000 R/RBI...it's just an arbitrary cutoff that conveniently overpenalizes Jackie. It makes me wonder if you give any weight to peak at all. Jackie's peak was in the top-5 of 2B. Sure, he only played 10-years, but he racked up more career value than Tony Lazzeri and some other HOF second basemen. Plus, you also have the context/difficulty under which he did it. Even if you don't consider that he would have been a very good major-league player years before his debut (which he would've been), Jackie's record, based on "what he actually did", easily puts him into the top 10.

[Chisox]

I know you're rating him as a player only. But as I said before, you are distorting those facts by treating him as though he was a full-time player in all 23 of his seasons. It is simply unfair to penalize Hornsby for playing 2 games in 1936 (when he was basically not even a player, just a manager).
I still don't know why I should give credit to someone who DOESN'T play just because he played part time. What does that player contribute to that team for that season by not playing that is positive for that player? The only reason I can figure is that there were better options available, so why should I give the worse option the same credit as the better?

As I told you, I heard your argument for the 1,000 R/RBI...it's just an arbitrary cutoff that conveniently overpenalizes Jackie. It makes me wonder if you give any weight to peak at all. Jackie's peak was in the top-5 of 2B. Sure, he only played 10-years, but he racked up more career value than Tony Lazzeri and some other HOF second basemen. Plus, you also have the context/difficulty under which he did it. Even if you don't consider that he would have been a very good major-league player years before his debut (which he would've been), Jackie's record, based on "what he actually did", easily puts him into the top 10.
Conviently overpenalizes? As opposed to underpenalizing someone who isn't good enough to start that season, but plays from the bench, but giving that person the same credit as the starter?
Why should I consider anything other than what that player contributed through his play?
I hate anything that factors peak. It's just another way to prop up those who weren't durable to rely on throughout their career. So Jackie had a great peak, so did Hack Wilson. Is he a top 5 CF of all-time? How about Kiner?

[Bill Burgess]

Chisox, (and others)

As a moderator, I do edit posts, but only in a certain context. I only trim down that portion of a post which "quotes" another post. It is extremely hard to get the flow of any conversation, when so many members abuse the "quote button" for long inches of text.

I have never changed another's post except for spelling.

Bill Burgess

[Wee Willie]

I still don't know why I should give credit to someone who DOESN'T play just because he played part time. What does that player contribute to that team for that season by not playing that is positive for that player? The only reason I can figure is that there were better options available, so why should I give the worse option the same credit as the better?

Chisox, who's asking you to give CREDIT to someone for playing part-time?That's not the issue here. You are penalizing Hornsby by misinterpreting his record, and treating him as though he were a full-time player who was beaten out by a so-called "better option that was available". The situation, as I pointed out before, is that Hornsby had basically retired from playing by the mid-30's. His team did not count on him to contribute as a player. Frank Thomas' (2001) actually MISSED time due to injury. There's an obvious difference.



Conviently overpenalizes? As opposed to underpenalizing someone who isn't good enough to start that season, but plays from the bench, but giving that person the same credit as the starter??

If you're referring to Hornsby - you've lost me there. Who is giving Hornsby the "same credit as the starter" for those years? I don't know how that's even remotely possible. But you, on the other hand, are dinging him as if he were an erstwhile starter in those years.

And you ignored the hypothetical question: if a rookie - who is good enough to start right after being drafted - begins his career midway through that season instead of being brought up at the beginning of the following year, he's penalized by your method because his games/season will be lower. And that would not make much sense.


Why should I consider anything other than what that player contributed through his play?
Well, because it gives you a more complete and accurate picture of what kind of player they actually were. Lajoie's early 1900's stats are inflated because of the AL being a minor-league prior...there's one. Some players who starred in the Negro League and then became Major League stars had better longevity than merely their major-league record. DiMaggio and Aaron were greatly hurt by their home parks (at least when Aaron was in Milwaukee). Ott and Chuck Klein were greatly helped by theirs. To not consider factors that would likely affect "what they actually did" is closed-minded.


I hate anything that factors peak. It's just another way to prop up those who weren't durable to rely on throughout their career. So Jackie had a great peak, so did Hack Wilson. Is he a top 5 CF of all-time? How about Kiner?
Well, for one thing, Hack Wilson had nowhere near the peak as a player that Jackie had. As for Kiner, he had a better peak than Hack, but still not on the level of Jackie as an overall player. Plus, neither Kiner nor Hack played in the Negro Leagues or had to delay their major-league debut because of discrimination. Completely different situations.
To not consider peak when evaluating is inconceivable, IMO. Listen - I love longevity and reward it. But I'm also cognizant of the impact a player can make in his heyday. Peak is not the be-all-and-end-all, but it certainly should be factored in.

[Chisox]

Chisox, who's asking you to give CREDIT to someone for playing part-time?That's not the issue here. You are penalizing Hornsby by misinterpreting his record, and treating him as though he were a full-time player who was beaten out by a so-called "better option that was available". The situation, as I pointed out before, is that Hornsby had basically retired from playing by the mid-30's. His team did not count on him to contribute as a player. Frank Thomas' (2001) actually MISSED time due to injury. There's an obvious difference.
If you're referring to Hornsby - you've lost me there. Who is giving Hornsby the "same credit as the starter" for those years? I don't know how that's even remotely possible. But you, on the other hand, are dinging him as if he were an erstwhile starter in those years.
In his last 8 seasons, starting in 1930, he played in a total of 274G (42+100+19+57+24+10+2+20), so I'm not sure what you mean by was retired as a player by the mid-'30s.
He was a manager at that time which means he had the chance to play himself everyday, but chose not to. That leads me the following question: either he was a good manager who understood that the team was better without him playing, or he was lousy manager who didn't understand he was one of the best players in the game. He controlled his own fate, and chose not to play himself after '29. There's got to be a reason.
I'm still not following your logic, let's rate Hornsby's seasons on a scale of -10-10, with 0 average.
By Decade, let's just assume they're correct.
1915-1919: 5 (-5, 2, 7, 0, 1)
1920-1929: 66 (8, 9, 10, 8, 9, 10, 5, 8, 9)
1930-1937: -20 (-1, 6, -6, 2, -1, -8, -9, -3)
So what you're saying is even though his value as a player went from 71 to 51 because of the '30s, I should ignore the '30s because his team wasn't counting on him as much, even though he controlled his playing time? Teams don't rely on bench players as much as starters, that's very obvious.

And you ignored the hypothetical question: if a rookie - who is good enough to start right after being drafted - begins his career midway through that season instead of being brought up at the beginning of the following year, he's penalized by your method because his games/season will be lower. And that would not make much sense.
Yes I did, you just didn't pay enough attention, even though you quoted it.
I really don't place any value on G/seas (except defensively), I place the value on production per season that comes along with the games. That's very mute, anyway, since over the course of their careers their seasonal numbers will still be on-top. Players usually miss time so everything evens out. Gehrig holds many AL seasonal records, despite his missed time. Thomas did before this century. Ruth's among the all-time seasonal leaders despite his 113G/Seas.
Again though, what value does that rookie have to the team by not playing? That's the question I want answered tha tyou haven't answered.

Well, because it gives you a more complete and accurate picture of what kind of player they actually were. Lajoie's early 1900's stats are inflated because of the AL being a minor-league prior...there's one. Some players who starred in the Negro League and then became Major League stars had better longevity than merely their major-league record. DiMaggio and Aaron were greatly hurt by their home parks (at least when Aaron was in Milwaukee). Ott and Chuck Klein were greatly helped by theirs. To not consider factors that would likely affect "what they actually did" is closed-minded.
Sure, you go from not playing to park and era adjustments. I knew you were going to sneak that in there. They accomplished the same thing for their teams, wherever they played. Their numbers would have been higher or lower, varying which, but the value still would have been the same.
How many times do I have to tell you, I AM ONLY COUNTING MAJOR LEAGUE ACCOMPLISHMENTS!!!


Well, for one thing, Hack Wilson had nowhere near the peak as a player that Jackie had. As for Kiner, he had a better peak than Hack, but still not on the level of Jackie as an overall player. Plus, neither Kiner nor Hack played in the Negro Leagues or had to delay their major-league debut because of discrimination. Completely different situations.
WHAT! Hack Wilson hit 56HR and 191RBI in one season, and had ecxellent numbers surrounding that season. I don't care how many era/home-park adjustments you make, Jackie NEVER had a season to compare with that. Hack's '30 is LEGENDARY and set RECORDS, SOME STILL STAND.
I'm am absolutely perplexed that you can sit there an tell me that THE ONLY PLAYER EVER TO LEAD HIS LEAGUE IN HR THE FIRST SEVEN SEASONS OF HIS CAREER HAD NO PRIME EQUAL TO JACKIE. That is absolutely assanine. Kiner hold the record with 36.9HR/Seas (min. 10Seas), hit over 1,000 RBI, and walked over 1,000 times playing in Forbes Field. What on earth does Robinson have to compare with that?[/quote]

To not consider peak when evaluating is inconceivable, IMO. Listen - I love longevity and reward it. But I'm also cognizant of the impact a player can make in his heyday. Peak is not the be-all-and-end-all, but it certainly should be factored in.
Why? Is Maris, Wilson, McGwire, or Sosa in the same class or anywhere near it (on face value) since they all had peaks equal or better to that of Henry Aaron? If a player hits 200HR in his 10 season career, but 150 of them come in three seasons, is that really any better than 20 in each?

BTW, will you please stop it with the Big Hurt remarks. You are obviously doing it because my name on here is Chisox, and it is ridicolous since I have said/done repeatedly on here that I rank him BELOW most others on here. Entering the year, I had Bagwell #24, Murray #43, and Thomas #49 of all-time players, so I have no clue what your point is regarding him. A big reason why Bagwell is ranked so highly by me is his seasonal #s, btw, and the main reason I've got him that much higher than Thomas.

[Wee Willie]

In his last 8 seasons, starting in 1930, he played in a total of 274G (42+100+19+57+24+10+2+20), so I'm not sure what you mean by was retired as a player by the mid-'30s.
Read my post again, Chisox. I said "for all intents and purposes, he was retired by the mid-30's." And you've conveniently lumped in early 1930's figures above when getting that total. Try 1934 thru 37 - that's what I'm talking about. 56 games in 4 years.

He was a manager at that time which means he had the chance to play himself everyday, but chose not to ... He controlled his own fate, and chose not to play himself after '29. There's got to be a reason.
That's not exactly correct. Being a player-manager doesn't necessarily mean you control your own fate as a player. If his body is telling him "no", he basically has no choice but to find someone better and play him. He even didn't control his own fate in '30 and '31, when he was still a full time player, because injuries (broken leg, heel spur) caused him to miss good chunks of those seasons.

So what if he chose not to play himself because he was no longer good enough? How is that hurting his team? If he was no longer capable of playing the field because of his bad wheels, then it was appropriate and better for the team for him to stay on the bench versus go out there everyday, hobble-around, and cost his team wins. Naturally, he chose someone to play everyday whom he felt could help the team better. You are making the erroneous assertion that Hornsby's staying on the bench is hurting his team (since you're assigning negative values for not playing). Based on that assumption, you're implying that Hornsby was good enough and was an idiot for not playing himself. Based on the injuries that befell him in the early 30's...I seriously doubt that.

Now if Hornsby actually played everyday and stunk it up for 3-4 more years, that likely would have hurt his team. But...and this is very important...even for a poor everyday player it's erroneous to assign any negative value to his performance. You simply just give him very little positive value (for instance, his Win Share total would be extremely low). Anyone who plays everyday is likely pretty decent, otherwise they wouldn't have earned the job. So an everyday player will end up contributing some positive value over the course of a season. The same applies for players on the bench...they aren't accumulating negative points, just not adding positives. I don't understand your logic here at all.

I'm still not following your logic, let's rate Hornsby's seasons on a scale of -10-10, with 0 average.
By Decade, let's just assume they're correct.
1915-1919: 5 (-5, 2, 7, 0, 1)
1920-1929: 66 (8, 9, 10, 8, 9, 10, 5, 8, 9)
1930-1937: -20 (-1, 6, -6, 2, -1, -8, -9, -3)
So what you're saying is even though his value as a player went from 71 to 51 because of the '30s, I should ignore the '30s because his team wasn't counting on him as much, even though he controlled his playing time? Teams don't rely on bench players as much as starters, that's very obvious.

:confused: That just isn't a good way to assign value, either for a season, or career. If you're going to use a 10-point scale, the best way is to rate Hornsby's seasonal values on a scale of zero to 10. Negative numbers would only distort the accumulation of a player's career value. Hornsby's 1922 would still be a 10, but 1935 and 1936 would be zero or 1, most likely, not a -8 or -9. That way, you're not taking away cumulative points already earned in previous seasonal performances. Any player, full or part-time, is adding positive value - it's just a question of degree & amount. Giving someone a negative value for not playing - when your team isn't expecting you to play - is the epitome of harshness. You're basically trying to take away nearly more than 20% of previously earned career valuejust because he played sparingly in the last few years. That is just ridiculous. He simply didn't add much of anything positive to his career in those years.

Again, his playing time was controlled by his health more so than his personal preference. No one's saying "ignore the 30's". I'm saying that you need to assign more proper values to the events that occurred.

Again though, what value does that rookie have to the team by not playing? That's the question I want answered that you haven't answered.

Well, it can range from zero to some positive figure, depending on when he was called up, his role on the team, and how well he performed in his limited action. You, on the other hand, assign an astronomically negative value. Gee, why don't I just assign Gehrig a -9 for missing over 140 games in 1923? :rolleyes: The correct thing to do, if you're going to assign things on a 10 pt. scale, is give Gehrig a zero or 1 for that year. How is it Gehrig's (or any other rookies) fault that he was called up mid-season? Why should he be given negative value for that? You still haven't addressed that very well. Wally Pipp was playing first, so it's not like Gehrig was letting his teammates down by joining the team to be his more-than-capable backup.

Sure, you go from not playing to park and era adjustments. I knew you were going to sneak that in there. They accomplished the same thing for their teams, wherever they played. Their numbers would have been higher or lower, varying which, but the value still would have been the same.!!!
Not necessarily. Many mitigating circumstances can give players different values, had they played for different home teams/different parks. Park "factors" don't tell the whole story in adjusting for value. Yankee Stadium's dimensions greatly hurt DiMaggio's value, and regular park-factor adjustments do not make up for it. My park/era reference was absolutely appropriate. Like I said, I consider as many factors as possible - if you limit yourself, you're not getting as accurate a picture.

How many times do I have to tell you, I AM ONLY COUNTING MAJOR LEAGUE ACCOMPLISHMENTS!!!
Whatever floats your boat, Chisox. When considering someone who split time between the Negro Leagues and Major Leagues, I think that to not even consider the Negro league career at all is an inaccurate way to assess a player's greatness.


WHAT! Hack Wilson hit 56HR and 191RBI in one season, and had ecxellent numbers surrounding that season. What on earth does Robinson have to compare with that?
For one thing, I don't consider just one-year when evaluating peak. For another, I don't just consider hitting when evaluating peak. For both a 3 and 5-year stretch, and even beyond that, Robinson was a better total ballplayer than Wilson. Period.


BTW, will you please stop it with the Big Hurt remarks. You are obviously doing it because my name on here is Chisox, and it is ridicolous since I have said/done repeatedly on here that I rank him BELOW most others on here.
Easy, man. I did not realize the connection til now, honest. I picked Thomas because he was the first great player I could think of who missed almost an entire season recently. I brought it up to illustrate the difference between a full-time player actually missing time and a part-time player filling-in like Hornsby. You're jumping to conclusions on that one.

[Wee Willie]

As a follow up - here are the Win Shares/WARP3 comparisons between Jackie, Hack, and Ralph Kiner - for both a 3 and 5-year peak:

Win Shares total, best 3 years:

Robinson - 108
Wilson - 98
Kiner - 102

Win Shares total, best 5 consecutive years:

Robinson - 162
Wilson - 152
Kiner - 155

WARP3 (Wins above replacement), best 3 years:

Robinson - 36.3
Wilson - 26.9
Kiner - 31.1

WARP3, best 5 consecutive years:

Robinson -55.4
Wilson - 42.5
Kiner - 47.4

While I prefer Win Shares to WARP3, both of them look to be solid testimony to Robinson being the better overall player at his peak. Kiner and Wilson were better hitters, but not nearly enough to overcome Jackie's lead in the field and on the bases. His league strength was basically equal to that of Kiner (same league, same years roughly) and certainly better than Wilson's. And it's not just WS or WARP3: there isn't a total player metric out there that will support Kiner or Wilson being better at their peaks.

[john1972]

:evil http://www.padresnation.com/oldschool/robertoalomar.JPG

[538280]

:evil http://www.padresnation.com/oldschool/robertoalomar.JPG

What is with your fascination with Roberto Alomar? You've made 12 posts on this site, and every one has had something to do with Alomar, or been on the "Biggio or Alomar" thread that you started. Not being insulting, just asking you why you like Alomar so much?

[csh19792001]

While I prefer Win Shares to WARP3, both of them look to be solid testimony to Robinson being the better overall player at his peak. Kiner and Wilson were better hitters, but not nearly enough to overcome Jackie's lead in the field and on the bases. His league strength was basically equal to that of Kiner (same league, same years roughly) and certainly better than Wilson's. And it's not just WS or WARP3: there isn't a total player metric out there that will support Kiner or Wilson being better at their peaks.

And if you go beyond the stats, you won't find too many that felt Ralph Kiner or Hack Wilson were better baseball players than Jackie Robinson, because they weren't. A few statheads might be able to distort the numbers enough to make the case that those guys were more statistically valuable than Robinson, but as you showed, even that would be a stretch.

Kiner could hit the baseball over the wall, and couldn't do jack squat besides that. Kiner was one of the weakest modern outfielders to actually last for a long time, his baserunning/basestealing was negligible, he couldn't hit for average, he struck out a ton for his day, and wasn't particularly good in the OBP department.

What's so wonderful about being unifaceted? How many guys have hit as many homers in a season as Kiner did? How many have 100 or even 200more than he did in his career? Homerun hitters who can't actually play the game of baseball well (otherwise) are horribly overrated by stat mongers.

They moved the fences in about 50 feet, and Forbes field actually became a GOOD park for homeruns for several years, before refurbishing once again made it a tomb for homerun hitters.

Kiner hit 23 homers in a full season before they drastically altered the park to boost attendance and augment the HR totals of an ailing Hank Greeenberg.

This is directly germane:
http://www.baseball-statistics.com/Ballparks/Pitt/Forbes.htm

Now, how many guys have stolen home 19 times in a 10 year career? How many modern players have been great enough to play 4 different positions in their career, and play them all well?? Jackie Robinson was universally regarded as a brillant tactician and one of the toughest guys to ever play. That's not even factoring in the historical/sociocultural ramifications of his actions.

[Wee Willie]

That's very interesting, Chris. If the left-center power-alley really was 355, Kiner was just licking his chops at home.

Kiner leading his league several consecutive times in homers is very overblown. It's a good achievement, but it isn't of much use when it comes to determining his value as a player at his peak.

[leecemark]

--It wasn't several, it was 7 years in a row. Kiner also did hit for fairly good average and had terrific OBP. He had 3 top 10 finishes in BA and 6 in a row in OBP, leading the league once (.398 for his career). That said, I agree he wasn't the ballplayer Robinson was.

[Chisox]

Read my post again, Chisox. I said "for all intents and purposes, he was retired by the mid-30's." And you've conveniently lumped in early 1930's figures above when getting that total. Try 1934 thru 37 - that's what I'm talking about. 56 games in 4 years.
I know what you said, I just wasn't sure what you meant when he was basically done after '30. (Are you talking age or seasons?)
Why is lumping the early '30s conviently a bad thing? You have to explain that to me. All I was showing is that his games took a nose dive.

That's not exactly correct. Being a player-manager doesn't necessarily mean you control your own fate as a player. If his body is telling him "no", he basically has no choice but to find someone better and play him. He even didn't control his own fate in '30 and '31, when he was still a full time player, because injuries (broken leg, heel spur) caused him to miss good chunks of those seasons.
Ding, ding, ding.
So why should I give him special consideration because he wasn't able to be a full-time player anymore. Do other rmanagers who played, some good players, go back and put themselves in the game, and should I give special consideration to those circumstances?

So what if he chose not to play himself because he was no longer good enough? How is that hurting his team? If he was no longer capable of playing the field because of his bad wheels, then it was appropriate and better for the team for him to stay on the bench versus go out there everyday, hobble-around, and cost his team wins. Naturally, he chose someone to play everyday whom he felt could help the team better. You are making the erroneous assertion that Hornsby's staying on the bench is hurting his team (since you're assigning negative values for not playing). Based on that assumption, you're implying that Hornsby was good enough and was an idiot for not playing himself. Based on the injuries that befell him in the early 30's...I seriously doubt that.
I never said he was an idiot for not playing himself. If you go back and look what I said,
"That leads me the following question: either he was a good manager who understood that the team was better without him playing, or he was lousy manager who didn't understand he was one of the best players in the game. He controlled his own fate, and chose not to play himself after '29. There's got to be a reason."
You've obvioiusly agreed with the first mark.


Now if Hornsby actually played everyday and stunk it up for 3-4 more years, that likely would have hurt his team. But...and this is very important...even for a poor everyday player it's erroneous to assign any negative value to his performance. You simply just give him very little positive value (for instance, his Win Share total would be extremely low). Anyone who plays everyday is likely pretty decent, otherwise they wouldn't have earned the job. So an everyday player will end up contributing some positive value over the course of a season. The same applies for players on the bench...they aren't accumulating negative points, just not adding positives. I don't understand your logic here at all.

:confused: That just isn't a good way to assign value, either for a season, or career. If you're going to use a 10-point scale, the best way is to rate Hornsby's seasonal values on a scale of zero to 10. Negative numbers would only distort the accumulation of a player's career value. Hornsby's 1922 would still be a 10, but 1935 and 1936 would be zero or 1, most likely, not a -8 or -9. That way, you're not taking away cumulative points already earned in previous seasonal performances. Any player, full or part-time, is adding positive value - it's just a question of degree & amount. Giving someone a negative value for not playing - when your team isn't expecting you to play - is the epitome of harshness. You're basically trying to take away nearly more than 20% of previously earned career valuejust because he played sparingly in the last few years. That is just ridiculous. He simply didn't add much of anything positive to his career in those years
Again, his playing time was controlled by his health more so than his personal preference. No one's saying "ignore the 30's". I'm saying that you need to assign more proper values to the events that occurred.
Again, even though you quoted it, you still missed it:
let's rate Hornsby's seasons on a scale of -10-10, with 0 average.
I NEVER said Hornsby hurt his team, only that I think an AVERAGE PLAYER could have done better in the seasons I assign him a below 0 grade.

Well, it can range from zero to some positive figure, depending on when he was called up, his role on the team, and how well he performed in his limited action. You, on the other hand, assign an astronomically negative value. Gee, why don't I just assign Gehrig a -9 for missing over 140 games in 1923? :rolleyes: The correct thing to do, if you're going to assign things on a 10 pt. scale, is give Gehrig a zero or 1 for that year. How is it Gehrig's (or any other rookies) fault that he was called up mid-season? Why should he be given negative value for that? You still haven't addressed that very well. Wally Pipp was playing first, so it's not like Gehrig was letting his teammates down by joining the team to be his more-than-capable backup.
I agree with you there, but you still haven't answered the question I asked,
"what value does that rookie have to the team by not playing?

Not necessarily. Many mitigating circumstances can give players different values, had they played for different home teams/different parks. Park "factors" don't tell the whole story in adjusting for value. Yankee Stadium's dimensions greatly hurt DiMaggio's value, and regular park-factor adjustments do not make up for it. My park/era reference was absolutely appropriate. Like I said, I consider as many factors as possible - if you limit yourself, you're not getting as accurate a picture.
You took I meant park factor ratings, which I didn't. I think Jackie's home park is a great example of what you mean. I evalute park factor on my own, without any aid of a homoginized number, as I do all adjustments.

Whatever floats your boat, Chisox. When considering someone who split time between the Negro Leagues and Major Leagues, I think that to not even consider the Negro league career at all is an inaccurate way to assess a player's greatness.
I agree with that, but I am limiting it to MLB only since I know nothing of the Negro Leagues, and therefore is more fair. Let those that know rank/rate them and take it into consideration, and it will be far more accurate than anything I could contrive. I do know JAckie only spent 1 year in them, though.

For one thing, I don't consider just one-year when evaluating peak. For another, I don't just consider hitting when evaluating peak. For both a 3 and 5-year stretch, and even beyond that, Robinson was a better total ballplayer than Wilson. Period.
I wasn't doubting that Robinson was as good or better than those, I was questioning how Robinson was FAR better than those at their peaks. That's like saying Alomar was FAR better than Manny at their respective peaks. I might agree with the better, but not far better.

Easy, man. I did not realize the connection til now, honest. I picked Thomas because he was the first great player I could think of who missed almost an entire season recently. I brought it up to illustrate the difference between a full-time player actually missing time and a part-time player filling-in like Hornsby. You're jumping to conclusions on that one.
But, you gotta admit, it was a pretty easy conclusion to jump to. I think this illustrates the difference in what we've been saying. You assume I'm giving negative points for hurting his team. I'm not; I'm simply not giving as much positive credit for helping his team. I don't know if that's a breakthrough, though.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

And if you go beyond the stats, you won't find too many that felt Ralph Kiner or Hack Wilson were better baseball players than Jackie Robinson, because they weren't. A few statheads might be able to distort the numbers enough to make the case that those guys were more statistically valuable than Robinson, but as you showed, even that would be a stretch.
Though I agree that Robinson was the better all around player, Kiner did have a career .398 OBP. He had seassons of 137, 122, 117, 112, 110, 100, and 98 walks. Also didn't they use the "balata" ball through 1946? Kiner hit only 23 HRs in 1946 but that led the league! The balata ball was like a softball.

[Chisox]

Though I agree that Robinson was the better all around player, Kiner did have a career .398 OBP. He had seassons of 137, 122, 117, 112, 110, 100, and 98 walks. Also didn't they use the "balata" ball through 1946? Kiner hit only 23 HRs in 1946 but that led the league! The balata ball was like a softball.

Wow! I misread that.
I just got done saying in my post he quoted that Kiner AVERAGED OVER 100BB/Seas (1011 in 10 seas).
His OBP was .398 for his CAREER
Robinson's was .409

BTW, I think Robinson was the better all-around player for his career, as well, although that's not the point of my post.

[Wee Willie]

I know what you said, I just wasn't sure what you meant when he was basically done after '30. (Are you talking age or seasons?)
Why is lumping the early '30s conviently a bad thing? You have to explain that to me. All I was showing is that his games took a nose dive.
Again...go back and read my first post in our discussion. I was referring to the mid-1930's. I talked about 1936 and reffered to '34, '36, and '37. When that is the point of my reference...that is why you don't lump in '30 and '31. I know the games took a dive...he went from being a full-time player to spot player/manager.


So why should I give him special consideration because he wasn't able to be a full-time player anymore. Do other rmanagers who played, some good players, go back and put themselves in the game, and should I give special consideration to those circumstances?
How many times do I have to say this... No one's asking you to give special treatment/consideration/credit to player/managers. That is not the issue here. The issue is you giving NEGATIVE value to a situation where no positive value is occurring. You can deny it, but I think that's what you're doing until you give me a better explanation.


I never said he was an idiot for not playing himself. If you go back and look what I said,
"That leads me the following question: either he was a good manager who understood that the team was better without him playing..." You've obvioiusly agreed with the first mark.
I know what you said. But when you're taking career value off because he didn't play himself, it makes it look like he's bringing negative value and being a major liability. And for some reason you think I'm giving Hornsby points for not playing - which I'm not.


Again, even though you quoted it, you still missed it:
let's rate Hornsby's seasons on a scale of -10-10, with [b]0 average.
I NEVER said Hornsby hurt his team, only that I think an AVERAGE PLAYER could have done better in the seasons I assign him a below 0 grade..
No, I didn't miss it. I saw the zero being average. It's still an ineffective way to evaluate perfomance. When you add up all those positives and negatives and then use that figure as a cumulative figure for career value, it can look pretty wacky. When you said Hornsby's "value as a player went from 71 to 51 because of the 30's", you're saying he lost nearly 30% of his value that was above-average. (20 points lost/71 total points = 28%). That's just way too much an amount to penalize him.

If you're going to base something on an average, it's better to add up the figures and divide by your unit of measure (in this case seasons) to get a total average for a career.

For something that's cumulative, like career value, I think it's much more accurate to assign zero as the worst-case. If you don't play, you're not contributing or accumulating value. You just stay still - you don't head off in a negative direction. Everybody who plays at least part of the time ends up contributing something. However, for rate stats, their total contribution is going to be divided by the games played (or plate-appearances, whatever you wish to use). If a guy is not playing in those games, he still doesn't have value ... but for rate stats, it's not right to divide his total contribution by games in which he didn't play. And that's essentially what you (Chisox) are doing when you are dividing Hornsby's contributions by "season". That's overpenalizing. His not accumulating value (by not playing) is penalization enough.


I agree with you there, but you still haven't answered the question I asked,
"what value does that rookie have to the team by not playing?

You need to read my responses a little more carefully. I answered it, mentioning the factors a rookie's value depends on.


I agree with that, but I am limiting it to MLB only since I know nothing of the Negro Leagues, and therefore is more fair. Let those that know rank/rate them and take it into consideration, and it will be far more accurate than anything I could contrive. I do know JAckie only spent 1 year in them, though.
I don't know the Negro Leagues as well as some other people on the board, either. The ranking of a player - in the end - carries some subjectivity. And I think Jackie not getting his shot til late (when he was good enough to have) give him a little bump - though not much of one. Even on his major-league record alone, he built up more career value than many people realize (257 Win Shares, Lazzeri had 252). Combine that with his terrific peak, and you have a top-10 second baseman, without a doubt.


I wasn't doubting that Robinson was as good or better than those, I was questioning how Robinson was FAR better than those at their peaks. That's like saying Alomar was FAR better than Manny at their respective peaks. I might agree with the better, but not far better.
He wasn't far better than Kiner. But the WS and WARP3 numbers have him comfortably in front of Wilson, so I think Jackie's considerably better in that head-to-head matchup. I think Morgan, Hornsby, Collins, and probably Lajoie were better at their peaks than Jackie ... but I can't think of any others.


You assume I'm giving negative points for hurting his team. I'm not; I'm simply not giving as much positive credit for helping his team. I don't know if that's a breakthrough, though.
The -10 to 10 rating system you have is adding negatives to his value, though...whether it's based on an average or not. That's my point. And the dividing of Hornsby's stats per "season" still presents a less accurate picture when evaluating his performance...sorry, but that's how I see it.

[Chisox]

Again...go back and read my first post in our discussion. I was referring to the mid-1930's. I talked about 1936 and reffered to '34, '36, and '37. When that is the point of my reference...that is why you don't lump in '30 and '31. I know the games took a dive...he went from being a full-time player to spot player/manager.
O.K.

How many times do I have to say this... No one's asking you to give special treatment/consideration/credit to player/managers. That is not the issue here. The issue is you giving NEGATIVE value to a situation where no positive value is occurring. You can deny it, but I think that's what you're doing until you give me a better explanation.
I was giving an example only. It is NOT how I determine value.

I know what you said. But when you're taking career value off because he didn't play himself, it makes it look like he's bringing negative value and being a major liability. And for some reason you think I'm giving Hornsby points for not playing - which I'm not.
So you're just giving him more points than normal for when he did?

No, I didn't miss it. I saw the zero being average. It's still an ineffective way to evaluate perfomance. When you add up all those positives and negatives and then use that figure as a cumulative figure for career value, it can look pretty wacky. When you said Hornsby's "value as a player went from 71 to 51 because of the 30's", you're saying he lost nearly 30% of his value that was above-average. (20 points lost/71 total points = 28%). That's just way too much an amount to penalize him.
It doesn't matter since I made it up as an example anyway. It has nothing to do whatsoever with where I did rank him before.

For something that's cumulative, like career value, I think it's much more accurate to assign zero as the worst-case. If you don't play, you're not contributing or accumulating value. You just stay still - you don't head off in a negative direction. Everybody who plays at least part of the time ends up contributing something. However, for rate stats, their total contribution is going to be divided by the games played (or plate-appearances, whatever you wish to use). If a guy is not playing in those games, he still doesn't have value ... but for rate stats, it's not right to divide his total contribution by games in which he didn't play. And that's essentially what you (Chisox) are doing when you are dividing Hornsby's contributions by "season". That's overpenalizing. His not accumulating value (by not playing) is penalization enough.
You're confusing me by saying that because it comes off contradictary.
Are you saying that a guy who puts up 100RBI over 10 Seas is as valuable as a guy who puts it up over 1 in the same amount of ABs? The second guy is a force who is a major contribution on the year, the first guy is not.

You need to read my responses a little more carefully. I answered it, mentioning the factors a rookie's value depends on.
Where do you answer it? I can find where you say what value a rookie has when he does play, but not when he doesn't.

I don't know the Negro Leagues as well as some other people on the board, either. The ranking of a player - in the end - carries some subjectivity. And I think Jackie not getting his shot til late (when he was good enough to have) give him a little bump - though not much of one. Even on his major-league record alone, he built up more career value than many people realize (257 Win Shares, Lazzeri had 252). Combine that with his terrific peak, and you have a top-10 second baseman, without a doubt.
I never meant to say that Negro League accomplishments shouldn't be factored in, just that I don't know enough to do them. I know MLB and that's it.

He wasn't far better than Kiner. But the WS and WARP3 numbers have him comfortably in front of Wilson, so I think Jackie's considerably better in that head-to-head matchup. I think Morgan, Hornsby, Collins, and probably Lajoie were better at their peaks than Jackie ... but I can't think of any others.
I was under the impression that you thought Jackie was far better than both. I guess with Wilson it matters on what you think of as peak. I'll take Wilson's '30 season over any of Jackie's, but Jackie gets the advantage past that.

The -10 to 10 rating system you have is adding negatives to his value, though...whether it's based on an average or not. That's my point. And the dividing of Hornsby's stats per "season" still presents a less accurate picture when evaluating his performance...sorry, but that's how I see it.
The -10-10 system is a mute point on that anyway since I was only doing it to present an example to understand your point.
I guess the seasonal thing is where we will never agree. If I were to rate Hornsby on performance alone, I wouldn't take seasonal averages into account all. I take in into account only because I think the more you contribute per season, the more valueable you are to your team.

[Wee Willie]

So you're just giving him more points than normal for when he did?

For when he played? No, not at all.


Are you saying that a guy who puts up 100RBI over 10 Seas is as valuable as a guy who puts it up over 1 in the same amount of ABs? The second guy is a force who is a major contribution on the year, the first guy is not.
Well, RBI's necessarily wouldn't be the best stat - value wise - for me. To humor me, let's use Win Shares instead, since that encompasses everything. The answer is YES, basically. If one guy played one season, for 150 games, and earned 20 win shares - and then another guy played 150 games over any number of seasons, and earned 20 win shares - then both guys would have the same career value. Even though the first guy started and was a force, he was a force for just that one year and did nothing subsequently. The second guy, more than likely, is a backup. He's just as valuable to me because 1)he's healthy enough to keep coming back (assuming health is the most likely the first guy's career is cut short), and 2) he's being thought of by managers to be good enough to come back year-after-year and help a team. Both are equal in value due to the games played. The second guy just spaced it out over more seasons.


Where do you answer it? I can find where you say what value a rookie has when he does play, but not when he doesn't.

You're right - sorry about that. But on the other hand, I never actually said that a rookie has value when he doesn't play. If he plays some, he has some positive value. If he doesn't play a lick, he has no value. At no point, however, do I believe he has a statistically negative value. And now that I see your explanation, it looks like you don't, either.


I never meant to say that Negro League accomplishments shouldn't be factored in, just that I don't know enough to do them. I know MLB and that's it.
And I appreciate your knowledge. I need to learn much more about the Negro League, and I know zilch about Japanese ball. I'm probably screwing Sadaharu Oh by not having him in the top 10 1B.


The -10-10 system is a mute point on that anyway since I was only doing it to present an example to understand your point.

No problem. I always appreciate examples to clarify points. I probably have gotten too comfortable with my own value systems.


If I were to rate Hornsby on performance alone, I wouldn't take seasonal averages into account all. I take in into account only because I think the more you contribute per season, the more valueable you are to your team.
To an extent I see what you're saying, but I just look at it as "the more you contribute, period, the more valuable you tend to be". I'd be glad to PM you with my method for determining career and peak value - if you'd like. It's pretty straightforward, but I don't always follow it to the letter when ranking players.

[john1972]

:radio What is with your fascination with Roberto Alomar? You've made 12 posts on this site, and every one has had something to do with Alomar, or been on the "Biggio or Alomar" thread that you started. Not being insulting, just asking you why you like Alomar so much?


He was the best I ever saw. Hands down. I've only seen random excerpts of Morgan or Sandberg, either one not having impressed me much.

Reading many of the opinions on this board provides proof that Alomar is one of the most underrated players to ever play the game. No doubt about it. People who only focus on stats are blinded to the actuality of how the player in question played the game. You have to witness first hand how the player performed. People who rank Hornsby as the best secondbaseman ever are clueless since they only base their opinion on stats. I'd bet my right arm Alomar would have made him look like a fool in today's game.

You have to remember that back in the day, second baseman were considered the way present day third baseman are considered. If you want to compare players between eras at the second base position you can't just look at offensive production since it's not fair to the contemporary players. When you consider best overall second baseman, Alomar HAS to be in the top five along with maybe Morgan, Robinson(although I believe he's overrated since he was able to only perform during his prime years), and possibly a couple of the old-timers like Collins and Gehringer.

[Blackout]

shouldnt we do the #2 thing by now?

[538280]

shouldnt we do the #2 thing by now?

There is no #2. We're just doing consensus positional polls. The next poll in this series will be for thrid basemen.

I like to keep the polls going for one week, so this poll will be closed tommorrow and the next poll will probably begin the day after.

[eddiejc1]

This is the third installment of the positional polls. Please submit a list of your top 10 second basemen. Points will be awarded based on where you place the players. 12 points for 1st place, 9 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd, 7 for 4th, and so on. Have fun!

Maybe this would be best in another thread, but I was thinking about Jackie Robinson's assets as a player. His plaque for the Hall of Fame only lists his qualifications as a player and says nothing about his role in desegregating baseball. That was probably the last time Robinson was not referred to as an icon. We've almost forgotten he was a great player, too. Anybody want to talk about him?

Eddie Cunningham

[538280]

Maybe this would be best in another thread, but I was thinking about Jackie Robinson's assets as a player. His plaque for the Hall of Fame only lists his qualifications as a player and says nothing about his role in desegregating baseball. That was probably the last time Robinson was not referred to as an icon. We've almost forgotten he was a great player, too. Anybody want to talk about him?

Eddie Cunningham

As I've said many times, as a player, Jackie was Joe Morgan without the longevity. He was a better fielder than Morgan, but he also played in a weaker league. I rate him 4th among second basemen.

[sweaver]

And I rate Jackie 5th. In addition to his inestimable value as a pioneer and breaker of the "color line," Jackie was the best player in the NL save perhaps only Stan Musial from 1949-52. Jackie could have won four straight MVPs, and deserved every one of them.

[538280]

This poll is now closed. I'll get the results up and start the third base poll as soon as I can.

[538280]

The results are now in. In a very close poll, Rogers Hornsby retains his spot as the BBF #1 second basemen. He received a very close push from Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan. Here are the final results out of the 17 ballots submitted (first place votes in parenthesis):

Rogers Hornsby-165 (8)
Eddie Collins-161 (4)
Joe Morgan-146 (4)
Nap Lajoie-122
Charlie Gehringer-92 (1)
Jackie Robinson-89
Craig Biggio-54
Roberto Alomar-43
Rod Carew-33
Ryne Sandberg-31
Frankie Frisch-22

No one else received more than 20 points.

[Bill Burgess]

I think the Morganites can take great heart from the results here. Their man took 3rd place, ahead of Lajoie, Gehringer and Jackie Robinson. A very great victory for Little Joe, I'd say.

[leecemark]

--He was 3rd last year too, but I think gained a little ground on Hornsby/Collins. It was a more distant 3rd last time.

[Wee Willie]

Somehow, the final voting agreed exactly with the order of my top 10 - except that I had Collins #1 and Hornsby #2.

[Bill Burgess]

Chris,

Note for the future. It is so much more interesting to post the entire scoring, regardless of how few votes someone received. Could you report the entire voting record here for this poll/survey.

[Sockeye]

I've noticed where many members here have put together a ranking of players at each position. I've decided to put together my own list of players at each position. This is my first time. I'm going to try for the top 50 second basemen. Before doing so I'd like to get some imput from other members and see your lists.

Along with your rankings please include a note as to why you have certain second basemen ranked so high or low on your list. Here is your chance to influence me. I will digest all the information and opinions provided and hopefully be able to generate pretty solid top 50 second basemen list.

[baseballPAP]

1 Rogers Hornsby
2 Eddie Collins
3 Joe Morgan
4 Nap Lajoie
5 Charlie Gehringer
6 Jackie Robinson
7 CRAIG BIGGIO
8 Rod Carew
9 Roberto Alomar
10 Bobby Grich
11 JEFF KENT
12 Ryne Sandberg
13 Cupid Childs
14 Bingo DeMoss
15 Frankie Frisch
16 Bid McPhee
17 Lou Whitaker
18 Larry Doyle
19 Nellie Fox
20 Joe Gordon
21 Bobby Doerr
22 Willie Randolph
23 Davey Lopes
24 Tony Lazzeri
25 Billy Herman
26 Buddy Myer
27 Hardy Richardson
28 Del Pratt
29 Miller Huggins
30 Ross Barnes
31 Chuck Knoblauch
32 Red Schoendienst
33 George Grantham
34 Johnny Evers
35 Bill Mazeroski

As you can see, I rank Carew as a 2Bman....all his good work was done there IMO. I rank Banks as a SS for the same reason. This list is fairly concrete....I have recently edited it, and it seems to work about the way I'd like it to.

[john1972]

Biggio(overrated) and Carew are too high in the list, while Sandberg and Whitaker are too low. Jeff Kent two slots below Alomar?

[baseballPAP]

Biggio(overrated) and Carew are too high in the list, while Sandberg and Whitaker are too low.
Imagine that....and, I had the nerve to rank Alomar below #1 too. :rolleyes:

You're so adamant in your own opinions, where is your own list?

[KamBam]

Just up to 10
1 Rogers Hornsby
2 Eddie Collins
3 Joe Morgan
4 Nap Lajoie
5 Charlie Gehringer
6 Craig Biggio
7 Jackie Robinson
8 Rod Carew
9 Roberto Alomar
10 Ryne Sandberg

[john1972]

Imagine that....and, I had the nerve to rank Alomar below #1 too. :rolleyes:

You're so adamant in your own opinions, where is your own list?

Joe Morgan
Eddie Collins
Rogers Hornsby
Nap Lajoie
Jackie Robinson
Roberto Alomar
Charlie Gehringer
Ryne Sandberg
Bobby Grich
Craig Biggio
Rod Carew
Lou Whitaker
Frankie Frisch
Bobby Doerr
Billy Herman
Willie Randolph
Tony Phillips
Joe Gordon
Red Schoendienst
Nellie Fox

[baseballPAP]

At least you bring the goods ;)

I obviously don't agree with your list entirely, but it is consistent with your posting. So....good list.

[john1972]

I made an adjustment. I moved Biggio ahead of Carew. Biggio has been a mainstay at second moreso than Carew.

I must say, I didn't compile the list. It's based on someones study from Baseball America using, I believe, Davenport statistics. I posted it once before. It happens to line up better with my personal opinion.

[baseballPAP]

No Jeff Kent john?

[john1972]

I would never object to any list bypassing the one dimensional contributions of Mr. Kent. Lovely moustache, though.

[baseballPAP]

One dimensional might be accurate, but its a great dimension.....
He'll finish with these totals, plus some:
350 HR
500 2B
1400 RBI
.280/.350/.500

Not many (any?) second basemen can claim a line like that.

[baseballPAP]

More on Kent.....
His ranks in several major categories among career 2Bmen (this leaves out guys like Carew who actually played more games at another position).

Doubles-7th, probably finish 5th(needs 25 more or so)
HR- 1st
OPS- 4th, clould slip to 8th if he hangs on too long
RBI-4th, could take over 3rd with about 90 more
SLG-2nd

Hard to leave the guy out completely....especially when you consider Hornsby is the only guy hitting in the same league, power wise.

[538280]

1.Joe Morgan
2.Eddie Collins
3.Rogers Hornsby
4.Jackie Robinson
5.Nap Lajoie
6.Charlie Gehringer
7.Rod Carew
8.Bobby Grich
9.Craig Biggio
10.Roberto Alomar
11.Lou Whitaker
12.Ryne Sandberg
13.Willie Randolph
14.Frankie Frisch
15.Jeff Kent
16.Bid McPhee
17.Joe Gordon
18.Nellie Fox
19.Billy Herman
20.Davey Lopes
21.Larry Doyle
22.Cupid Childs
23.Tony Phillips
24.Bill Mazeroski
25.Jim Gilliam

[RuthMayBond]

I made an adjustment. I moved Biggio ahead of Carew.I give ya credit, never thought I'd see the day :eek:

[yankillaz]

1. Roger Hornsby
2. Eddie Collins
3. Nap Lajoie
4. Charlie Gehringer
5. Rod Carew
6.Joe Morgan
7. Roberto Alomar
8. Craig Biggio
9. Jackie Robinson
10. Ryne Sandberg
11. Jeff Kent
12. Billy Herman
13. Frankie Frisch
14. Joe Gordon
15. Bobby Doerr
16. Nellie Fox
17. Bid McPhee
18. Red Schoendienst
19. Tony Lazzeri
20. Lou Whitaker
21. Buddy Myer
21. Willie Randolph
23. Julio Franco
24. Bobby Grich
25. Davey Lopes
25. Cupid Childs
27. Chuck Knoublauch
28. Larry Doyle
29. Hardy Richardson
30. Bret Boone
31. George Grantham
32. Frank White
33. Ray Durham
34. Steve Sax
35. Del Pratt
36. Juan Samuel
37. Bill Mazeroski
38. Davey Johnson
39. Johnny Evers
40. Luis Castillo
41. Ross Barnes
42. Jose Vidro
43. Mark Loretta
44. Johnny Ray
45. Carlos Baerga
46. Harold Reynolds
47. Manny Trillo
48. Julian Javier
49. Bobby Richardson
50. Tony Phillips

[KCGHOST]

Rogers Hornsby
Eddie Collins
Nap Lajoie
Joe Morgan
Charlie Gehringer
Craig Biggio
Roberto Alomar
Lou Whitaker
Jeff Kent
Cupid Childs
Larry Doyle
Fred Dunlap
Bobby Grich
Tony Lazzeri
Jackie Robinson
Rod Carew
Ryne Sandberg
Chuck Knoblauch
Joe Gordon
Hardy Richardson
Billy Herman
Tom Daly
Frankie Frisch
Willie Randolph
Bid McPhee
Buddy Myer
Eddie Stanky
Julio Franco
Davey Lopes
Bobby Doerr

[soberdennis]

1 Rogers Hornsby
2 Eddie Collins
3 Joe Morgan
4 Nap Lajoie
5 Charlie Gehringer
6 Jackie Robinson
7 CRAIG BIGGIO
8 Rod Carew
9 Roberto Alomar
10 Bobby Grich
11 JEFF KENT
12 Ryne Sandberg
13 Cupid Childs
14 Bingo DeMoss
15 Frankie Frisch
16 Bid McPhee
17 Lou Whitaker
18 Larry Doyle
19 Nellie Fox
20 Joe Gordon
21 Bobby Doerr
22 Willie Randolph
23 Davey Lopes
24 Tony Lazzeri
25 Billy Herman
26 Buddy Myer
27 Hardy Richardson
28 Del Pratt
29 Miller Huggins
30 Ross Barnes
31 Chuck Knoblauch
32 Red Schoendienst
33 George Grantham
34 Johnny Evers
35 Bill Mazeroski

As you can see, I rank Carew as a 2Bman....all his good work was done there IMO. I rank Banks as a SS for the same reason. This list is fairly concrete....I have recently edited it, and it seems to work about the way I'd like it to.
Putting Knoblauch on your list IMO is a joke. He was a defensive liability and his hitting was not quite enough to make up for it. He couldn't make an accurate throw to first base if his life depended on it, which is sad expecially when you are talking about 2b. He waws a weak link on Yankee teams that didn't have too many.
A players I might consider adding to your list.
Bobby Richardson-steady player who was almost impossible to k(unless you are Koufax.) One of the original Mr. Octobers.

[SABR Matt]

My top 50...FWIW
First Last HOF Ps-Rk CAREER RATE MASTERY TOTAL
Rogers Hornsby Y 1 219.49 220.93 197.22 637.65
Eddie Collins Y 2 250.74 224.79 150.3 625.83
Nap Lajoie Y 3 211.82 200.22 158.45 570.49
Joe Morgan Y 4 215.36 198.62 148.59 562.57
Rod Carew Y 5 170.86 164.41 135.98 471.25
Charlie Gehringer Y 6 165.24 159.98 99.48 424.7
Frankie Frisch Y 7 156.73 151.61 110.13 418.47
Bobby Grich N 8 140.72 154.09 119.09 413.91
Bid McPhee Y 9 149.51 150.75 102.07 402.34
Lou Whitaker N 10 149.43 147.07 92.81 389.31
Roberto Alomar A 11 148.77 141.82 91.83 382.42
Jackie Robinson Y 12 110 148.38 123.89 382.27
Ryne Sandberg Y 13 138.36 141.77 95.68 375.81
Craig Biggio A 14 143.4 133.65 93.79 370.84
Johnny Evers Y 15 120.18 143.28 103.76 367.21
Billy Herman Y 16 125.85 136.56 92.81 355.22
Cupid Childs N 17 107.69 138.67 105.65 352.02
Larry Doyle N 18 114.95 137.87 93.66 346.48
Willie Randolph N 19 128.82 130.59 83.43 342.85
Nellie Fox Y 20 128.88 121.65 82.02 332.55
Bobby Doerr Y 21 112.61 128.25 89.62 330.48
Joe Gordon N 22 100.87 131.95 93.99 326.81
Chuck Knoblauch N 23 100.63 126.75 99.39 326.77
Del Pratt N 24 107.75 127 87.23 321.99
Lonny Frey N 25 91.68 126.23 91.37 309.28
Tony Phillips N 26 106.03 112.73 90.06 308.82
Buddy Myer N 27 103.52 119.52 83.26 306.3
Hardy Richardson N 28 89.07 124.1 91.22 304.38
Danny Murphy N 29 88.59 123.5 91.18 303.27
Kid Gleason N 30 99.62 111.85 91.79 303.26
Davey Lopes N 31 97.19 122.66 83.11 302.96
Jeff Kent A 32 98.95 121.62 78.64 299.21
Bill Mazeroski Y 33 103.9 113.16 81.13 298.19
Red Schoendienst Y 34 105.28 110.75 80.68 296.72
Eddie Stanky N 35 79.53 125.06 91 295.6
Miller Huggins N 36 95.06 124.33 75.9 295.3
Tom Daly N 37 85.09 114.96 92.95 293
Fred Dunlap N 38 71.54 127.98 91.97 291.49
Fred Pfeffer N 39 88.57 113.07 84.31 285.94
Claude Ritchey N 40 90.71 117.49 77.6 285.8
Gil McDougald N 41 75.98 118.24 89.3 283.52
Dick McAuliffe N 42 85.97 110.91 83.39 280.28
Jimmy Williams N 43 82.3 116.48 81.17 279.95
George Grantham N 44 79.96 116.9 82.83 279.68
Bobby Lowe N 45 85.48 103.29 86.68 275.45
Jim Gilliam N 46 89.33 103.34 82.06 274.73
Max Bishop N 47 72.85 115.36 81.56 269.77
Tony Lazzeri Y 48 87.49 111.18 70.68 269.35
Davey Johnson N 49 72.89 114.85 79.02 266.76
Ron Hunt N 50 75.79 112.95 72.81 261.56

[yankillaz]

Putting Knoblauch on your list IMO is a joke. He was a defensive liability and his hitting was not quite enough to make up for it. He couldn't make an accurate throw to first base if his life depended on it, which is sad expecially when you are talking about 2b. He waws a weak link on Yankee teams that didn't have too many.
A players I might consider adding to your list.
Bobby Richardson-steady player who was almost impossible to k(unless you are Koufax.) One of the original Mr. Octobers.

C'mon. Before we talked about the whole A-Rod-Nomar-Jeter three-headed monsters at SS, there was the Alomar-Knoublauch-Biggio thing at second. He just forgot how to play late in his career.

[soberdennis]

C'mon. Before we talked about the whole A-Rod-Nomar-Jeter three-headed monsters at SS, there was the Alomar-Knoublauch-Biggio thing at second. He just forgot how to play late in his career.
I never put Knoblauch in the same class as Biggio and Alamar. I certainly wouldn't put him in the same class as Morgan and Carew( I will always consider him a 2bman.) or many of the others I have seen.

[SABR Matt]

Knoblauch was absolutely every bit as good as Alomar and Biggio in his prime...the only thing that held him back was that his prime was way too short.

[soberdennis]

OK But IMO any 2bman who cannot accurately make the short throw to 1b does not belong on the list of greatest 2bmen of all time.

[RuthMayBond]

Yankillaz & KCghost, thanx for a few suggestions I forgot about :clapping

[yankillaz]

OK But IMO any 2bman who cannot accurately make the short throw to 1b does not belong on the list of greatest 2bmen of all time.

From 1991-1999 only Roberto Alomar posted better 2b numbers. That's a decade long. Biggio was a full time 2b since 1993. Baerga had a big dropoff. Yes, Knoblauch has to be on the list.

[SABR Matt]

Knoblauch couldn't make the throw from from second to first for only 1.5 seasons of his 13 year career...DQing him for that lapse is not fair.

[RuthMayBond]

OK But IMO any 2bman who cannot accurately make the short throw to 1b does not belong on the list of greatest 2bmen of all time.Then you need to DQ Sax too (and Garvey on the 1B list?)

[SABR Matt]

Knoblauch >>>>>>>>> Sax

[soberdennis]

Knoblauch >>>>>>>>> Sax
I have no problem with that. Sax was a defensive liability too. Garvey was not a liability. He probably saved a lot of errors from a mediocre defensive infield and actually had a better FA than Hernandez.

[Roy31]

Why are people putting Biggio ahead of Robbie Alomar? Thats just silly, come on now!

[john1972]

Why are people putting Biggio ahead of Robbie Alomar? Thats just silly, come on now!

Welcome to THIS board. Come on man, he's clearly better! Just check out his winshares. Despite the fact nearly every manager during the nineties would have chosen Alomar without a second thought, I think we'll twist the numbers a bit (secondary stats?) to show how Biggio was superior. Besides, look at his versatility and longevity.

Alright, if were free to discuss such aspects how about we mention Biggio's arm protection? One of the greatest injustices exercised in baseball in recent history. Yes, there are other offenders but few have benefitted as much as Biggio.

My opinion. Alomar was a pure ballplayer. The best secondbaseman of our generation.

[leecemark]

1) Joe Morgan
2) Eddie Collins
3) Rogers Hornsby
4) Nap Lajoie
---------------------end of first tier
5) Jackie Robinson
6) Charlie Gehringer
7) Rod Carew
------------------end of inner circle hall of famers
8) Ryne Sandberg
9) Frankie Frisch
10) Craig Biggio
11) Roberto Alomar
----------------------end of no doubt hallof famer
12) Joe Gordon
13) Bobby Grich
14) Lou Whitaker
15) Jeff Kent
16) Larry Doyle
17) Billy Herman
18) Nellie Fox
19) Bobby Doerr
20) Bid McPhee
21) Johnny Evers
22) Red Schoendienst
23) Hardy Richardson
---------------------end of maybe hall of famers
24) Willie Randolph
25) Del Pratt
26) Dick McAuliffe
27) Tony Lazzeri
28) Chuck Knoblauch
29) Bill Mazeroski
30) Davey Lopes
31) Buddy Myer
32) Cupid Childs
33) Jim Gilliam
34) Bobby Avila
35) Ross Barnes
36) Frank White
37) ah who am I kidding....there are a bunch of guys who could rank anywhere between here and 60 or 70. They either had a few good years or a bunch of decent years or something, but we're definately past anything resembling a true star at this point.l
28)
25) Red Schoendiesnt

[Sockeye]

Thank you all. With your help I've been able to put together what I think is a pretty solid list.

1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Nap Lajoie
3. Charlie Gehringer
4. Eddie Collins
5. Roberto Alomar
6. Joe Morgan
7. Frankie Frisch
8. Ryne Sandberg
9. Craig Biggio
10. Billy Herman
11. Nellie Fox
12. Rod Carew
13. Jeff Kent
14. Ross Barnes
15. Jackie Robinson
16. Lou Whitaker
17. Bobby Doerr
18. Tony Lazzeri
19. Joe Gordon
20. Buddy Myer
21. Red Schoendienst
22. Willie Randolph
23. Bid McPhee
24. Cupid Childs
25. Larry Doyle
26. Chuck Knoblauch
27. Bingo DeMoss
28. Bobby Grich
29. Bret Boone
30. George Grantham
31. Jose Vidro
32. Del Pratt
33. Frank White
34. Alfonso Soriano
35. Gil McDougald
36. Steve Sax
37. Fred Dunlap
38. Davey Johnson
39. Davey Lopes
40. Hardy Richardson
41. Johnny Evers
42. Michael Young
43. Carlos Baerga
44. Eddie Stanky
45. Bill Mazeroski
46. Ray Durham
47. Danny Murphy
48. Jimmy Williams
49. Luis Castillo
50. Jim Gilliam

[soberdennis]

Top ten I've ever seen
1. Joe Morgan
2.Rod Carew
3.Ryne Sandberg
4. Roberto Alamar
5. Willie Randolph
6. Bobby Grich
7. Dave Lopes
8. Jeff Kent
9. Dave Johnson
10. Dave Cash

To Me , Carew will always be a 2bman.

[baseballPAP]

Thank you all. With your help I've been able to put together what I think is a pretty solid list.

1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Nap Lajoie
3. Charlie Gehringer
4. Eddie Collins
5. Roberto Alomar
6. Joe Morgan
7. Frankie Frisch
8. Ryne Sandberg
9. Craig Biggio
10. Billy Herman
11. Nellie Fox
12. Rod Carew
13. Jeff Kent
14. Ross Barnes
15. Jackie Robinson
16. Lou Whitaker
17. Bobby Doerr
18. Tony Lazzeri
19. Joe Gordon
20. Buddy Myer
21. Red Schoendienst
22. Willie Randolph
23. Bid McPhee
24. Cupid Childs
25. Larry Doyle
26. Chuck Knoblauch
27. Bingo DeMoss
28. Bobby Grich
29. Bret Boone
30. George Grantham
31. Jose Vidro
32. Del Pratt
33. Frank White
34. Alfonso Soriano
35. Gil McDougald
36. Steve Sax
37. Fred Dunlap
38. Davey Johnson
39. Davey Lopes
40. Hardy Richardson
41. Johnny Evers
42. Michael Young
43. Carlos Baerga
44. Eddie Stanky
45. Bill Mazeroski
46. Ray Durham
47. Danny Murphy
48. Jimmy Williams
49. Luis Castillo
50. Jim Gilliam

Not bad Sockeye....I think Alomar over Morgan is pretty extreme. Billy Herman at #10 seems WAY high, as does Fox at 11 and Schoendienst at 21....but overall pretty solid.

[Sockeye]

Not bad Sockeye....I think Alomar over Morgan is pretty extreme. Billy Herman at #10 seems WAY high, as does Fox at 11 and Schoendienst at 21....but overall pretty solid.

Thank you for the praise. I'm glad you approve. :)

Joe Morgan IMO is vasty overrated. He had a nice peak and good longevity. Morgan's peak was short. Roberto Alomar's peak was every bit as good as Morgan's and he was better defensively. He didn't have the longevity so it is very close. Alomar still played 2320 games at 2B so I really can't count lack of longevity against him.

Billy Herman: Had no idea I was going to rate him this high until researching him and then realized just how good he was. A bit of a short career. Lost 2 years due to the war (still played 1813 games at 2B) and his 112 OPS+ is good for a 2B but not eye catching. Definitely in the same class as the players just ahead of him though (Biggio 116, Sandberg 114, Frisch 111). He was a 10 time allstar from 34-38 and 40-43 likely would have been more if not for losing 44-45 due to the war. While not spectacular defensively he did have good range and excelled at turning the double play.

Nellie Fox: Great defensively and underrated offensively. He gets overlooked because of his 94 OPS+. But in his prime was actually a very good offensive player. He batted .300 or better 6 times and was nearly impossible to strikeout. 100+ runs and 190+ hits 4 years in a row. Was an iron man and a catalyst for the go go sox. 600+ AB's 12 straight years. a 12 time allstar and the MVP in 1959. 3 time gold glove winner. 2nd among 2B's in double plays.

Red Schoendienst: Hard to say that an 11 time allstar is ranked to highly at #21. Similar to Fox. Excellent defensively, underrated offensively. Gets overlooked because of his 93 OPS+ Batted .300 or better 5 times and seldom struck out. Solid pick at #21

[yankillaz]

Thank you for the praise. I'm glad you approve. :)

Joe Morgan IMO is vasty overrated. He had a nice peak and good longevity. Morgan's peak was short. Roberto Alomar's peak was every bit as good as Morgan's and he was better defensively. He didn't have the longevity so it is very close. Alomar still played 2320 games at 2B so I really can't count lack of longevity against him.

Billy Herman: Had no idea I was going to rate him this high until researching him and then realized just how good he was. A bit of a short career. Lost 2 years due to the war (still played 1813 games at 2B) and his 112 OPS+ is good for a 2B but not eye catching. Definitely in the same class as the players just ahead of him though (Biggio 116, Sandberg 114, Frisch 111). He was a 10 time allstar from 34-38 and 40-43 likely would have been more if not for losing 44-45 due to the war. While not spectacular defensively he did have good range and excelled at turning the double play.

Nellie Fox: Great defensively and underrated offensively. He gets overlooked because of his 94 OPS+. But in his prime was actually a very good offensive player. He batted .300 or better 6 times and was nearly impossible to strikeout. 100+ runs and 190+ hits 4 years in a row. Was an iron man and a catalyst for the go go sox. 600+ AB's 12 straight years. a 12 time allstar and the MVP in 1959. 3 time gold glove winner. 2nd among 2B's in double plays.

Red Schoendienst: Hard to say that an 11 time allstar is ranked to highly at #21. Similar to Fox. Excellent defensively, underrated offensively. Gets overlooked because of his 93 OPS+ Batted .300 or better 5 times and seldom struck out. Solid pick at #21

I agree in agreeing with your comments. Take a look at my list, and see if you notice something disagreable.

[Sockeye]

I agree in agreeing with your comments. Take a look at my list, and see if you notice something disagreable.

I think your list is very solid. Now that I look it's quite similar to mine.

Probably the biggest difference would be Ross Barnes. I have him 14th and you have him 41st. That's entirely understable though due to his extremely short career (only 346 games at 2B) most people have him ranked lower if they have him ranked at all. I just couldn't get past that incredible 166 OPS+ and since he played more games at 2B than any other position (about 69% of his total games) I felt obligated to rank him without too much of a knock due to his lack of longevity. Teams in the 1870's didn't plays that many games either so it's hard to fault him for that. He was also steller defensively given the time in which he played.

Juan Samuel might also be ranked a bit high at #36. He didn't make my top 50 and would probably clock in around 58th if I continued the list that far.

The biggest ommission from your list would likely be Jose Vidro IMO. I have him at #31 and probably moving up after this season.

[yankillaz]

I think your list is very solid. Now that I look it's quite similar to mine.

Probably the biggest difference would be Ross Barnes. I have him 14th and you have him 41st. That's entirely understable though due to his extremely short career (only 346 games at 2B) most people have him ranked lower if they have him ranked at all. I just couldn't get past that incredible 166 OPS+ and since he played more games at 2B than any other position (about 69% of his total games) I felt obligated to rank him without too much of a knock due to his lack of longevity. Teams in the 1870's didn't plays that many games either so it's hard to fault him for that. He was also steller defensively given the time in which he played.

Juan Samuel might also be ranked a bit high at #36. He didn't make my top 50 and would probably clock in around 58th if I continued the list that far.

The biggest ommission from your list would likely be Jose Vidro IMO. I have him at #31 and probably moving up after this season.

Thank you very much.

If you didn't mentioned Vidro, i wouldn't have noticed. I paste my list all wrong, skipping him. Thanks. You can see now, that i have him in the 41st spot. For players like him, they will have to go up in the list, but not yet, due to short careers thus far.

[yankillaz]

As for Samuel, he had a great four year period from 1984-1987, that i will rank higher than any secondbaseman not named Sandberg, and perhaps Whitaker. A 30 double, 10 triple, 20 homerun, 40 stolen base threat in second base is not shabby at all.

[Sockeye]

Thank you very much.

If you didn't mentioned Vidro, i wouldn't have noticed. I paste my list all wrong, skipping him. Thanks. You can see now, that i have him in the 41st spot. For players like him, they will have to go up in the list, but not yet, due to short careers thus far.

Another active player worth considering is Alfonso Soriano. Granted he's only played 762 games at 2B and is playing LF this year but the numbers he put up the past 5 years IMO are deserving of a place on this list even if he never plays another game at 2B.

[yankillaz]

Another active player worth considering is Alfonso Soriano. Granted he's only played 762 games at 2B and is playing LF this year but the numbers he put up the past 5 years IMO are deserving of a place on this list even if he never plays another game at 2B.

Yes, but if you notice, i don't put players that haven't played 10 or more seasons in the position. Soriano has played second base in only 5 seasons, making him not eligible. This doesn't helps Pujols or Suzuki either.

[Sockeye]

As for Samuel, he had a great four year period from 1984-1987, that i will rank higher than any secondbaseman not named Sandberg, and perhaps Whitaker. A 30 double, 10 triple, 20 homerun, 40 stolen base threat in second base is not shabby at all.

While it's true that Samuel had a decent 4 year peak from 84-87. Good power numbers for a 2B and a lot of steals. His value would have been greatly increased if he would have taken some walks. From 84-86 his OBP .307, .303, and .302. That is poor for any player but for a leadoff man that is horrific. In 1987 he finally started taking some walks (60) which increased his OBP to .335 (still 8 points below the league average) and not good for a leadoff man. His numbers after that year tailed off. He was also quite poor defensively.

[Sockeye]

Yes, but if you notice, i don't put players that haven't played 10 or more seasons in the position. Soriano has played second base in only 5 seasons, making him not eligible. This doesn't helps Pujols or Suzuki either.

How about Ross Barnes then? He only played 9 seasons or Julio Franco? He only played 2B in 9 of his 21 seasons.

[yankillaz]

I was forced to put Ross Barnes, since he was WAY to dominant in his time. As for Franco, i place him here, because he played the many games in this position. Although he played more in SS, he was more recognized as a 2b, his best seasons were in 2b.

[Sockeye]

I was forced to put Ross Barnes, since he was WAY to dominant in his time. As for Franco, i place him here, because he played the many games in this position. Although he played more in SS, he was more recognized as a 2b, his best seasons were in 2b.

But Julio Franco only played 663 games at 2B and Alfonso Soriano has played 762 games at 2B. So if you make exceptions for some shouldn't an exception be made for Soriano?

[yankillaz]

Good point Sockeye, but i'm considering CAREERS. While Soriano has played more games in the position, he still has to pass the 10 year mark. While Franco was my choice at second, as he could've been at short. I compare him with other 2b's and have him in this slot.

[Bill Burgess]

My slate of candidates for Top 20 2B.

1. Eddie Collins - 1907-28 - Overall excellence/longevity takes the cake.

2. Rogers Hornsby - 1915-37 - Roger's bat rules. Effective greatness over after '29. 14 effective yrs. of productivity.

3. Nap Lajoie - 1896-1916 - Great bat challenges top 2.

4. Charlie Gehringer - 1926-42 - In mid-30's, he challenged Gehrig as best player in MLs. All time glove/stern bat, potent combo. Even led in SB once.

5. Jackie Robinson - 1947-56 - Another competitive firebrand, nicer bat. Exciting baserunner/stealer. Benefits from serious historical significance. Arrived in ML at 27, denied his early yrs. Rookie of yr. ('47), MVP ('49), 6 all star teams, lead league in BA once, on-base once, Total BB gives him 2 SB and 3 TPR titles.

6. Joe Morgan - 1963-84 - All-Around excellence made his teams win much more than otherwise.

7. Ryne Sandberg - 1981-97 - Smooth blend of glove/ bat. Retiring after '94, cost him '95. Dumb screw-up. Led league in Runs 3 times, triples once and HRs once (40).

8. Frankie Frisch - 1919-37 - Competitive firebrand/holler guy, nice glove/bat combo. Led league in Runs once, hits once, and SB 3 times. Total BB gives him 2 FR titles and 1 TPR title.

9. Rod Carew - 1967-85 - Great bingles slapper, moved to 1st mid-career. 7 BA titles, 15 all star teams. Led league in Runs once, hits 3 times, triples twice, on-base 4 times, and Total BB gives him 3 TPR titles.

10. Elwood "Bingo" DeMoss - 1910-30. Unquestionably finest 2Bman Negro L. ever produced. Consumate player, excelling is all phases of the game. His style afield served as model for those who later played 2nd. Besides his impeccable defense, was line drive hitter, always above .300.

11. Joe Gordon - 1938-43, '46-50 - Acrobatic Yankee Leather Wizard reigns. Glove Magic made him amazing play-maker. 8 all star teams, led league in FR once, high totals 3 other yrs. A Brooksie/Cox with his small glove. War interrupted flow of career.

12. Craig Biggio - 1988-present - Fine bat, runs great. 400 SB. Led L. twice in R, doubles 3 times; once in SB. 7 All-Stars, 4 GG,
; 2 Top 10 BA, 4 Top 10 onbase, 9 Top 10 Runs, 6 Top 10 Hits, 5 Top 10 Walks, 5 Top 10 SB.

13. Bobby Grich - 1970-86 - 4 time GG was a better fielder than a hitter. 6 All star teams. Led league once in HRs, SLG, OPS+. Total BB gives him 3 TPR titles. .266 career BA., .424 career SLG.

14. Roberto Alomar - 1988-present - Nice glove/bat combo. 12 all star teams. 1999 his career offensive yr. 2 Win Share titles. Hasn't spit since.

15. Jeff Kent - 1992-present - His bat won him a MVP in 2000. 3 All Star teams. Wouldn't defer to Barry in dugout/clubhouse, cost him his Giants uniform.

16. Nellie Fox - 1949-65 - One of greatest bingle slappers, AND great glove. Great DP combo with Aparicio. Led league in hits 4 times, triples once, Win Shares once, 12 All Star teams. Achieved 189 hits/season 8 times. Struck out 216 times out of 9232 ABs = every 42.7 ABs. Puts him in with Joe Seweel, Lloyd Waner class of sharp eye/plate discipline. .288 career BA.

17. Red Schoendienst - 1945-63 - Great glove. Led league in hits, doubles, SB once. 10 all star teams.

18. Johnny Evers - 1902-17 - Hysterical holler guy, great glove, walked well. Fire was his calling card. Led league once in on-base.

19. John "Bid" McPhee - 1882-1899 - Defined position defensively in 1800's. (Half his career, played gloveless?), Led league once in triples, HRs. Total BB gives him 2 TPR titles. Lots of Runs Scored, few RBIs. .277 career BA.

20. Bill Mazeroski - 1956-72 - GGs got him in the Hall. And that '60 WS homer. 7 All star teams. .260 career BA. Deluxe leather, terrible hitter.

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

My slate of candidates for Top 20 2B.

1. Eddie Collins - 1907-28 - Overall excellence/longevity takes the cake.

2. Rogers Hornsby - 1915-37 - Roger's bat rules. Effective greatness over after '29. 14 effective yrs. of productivity.

3. Nap Lajoie - 1896-1916 - Great bat challenges top 2.

4. Charlie Gehringer - 1926-42 - In mid-30's, he challenged Gehrig as best player in MLs. All time glove/stern bat, potent combo. Even led in SB once.

5. Jackie Robinson - 1947-56 - Another competitive firebrand, nicer bat. Exciting baserunner/stealer. Benefits from serious historical significance. Arrived in ML at 27, denied his early yrs. Rookie of yr. ('47), MVP ('49), 6 all star teams, lead league in BA once, on-base once, Total BB gives him 2 SB and 3 TPR titles.

6. Joe Morgan - 1963-84 - All-Around excellence made his teams win much more than otherwise.

Maz over Whitaker and Randolph? :ughh

[Sockeye]

Good point Sockeye, but i'm considering CAREERS. While Soriano has played more games in the position, he still has to pass the 10 year mark. While Franco was my choice at second, as he could've been at short. I compare him with other 2b's and have him in this slot.

It's your list and if that's your criteria then who am I to knock it. Overall still a very good list.

My criteria is this.

A player must have either played 1000+ games at the position to qualify OR have played more games at that position than any other position. If a player has played more games at that position than any other but still has played less than half of his total games played at that position (in otherwords the player bounced around from position to position or DHed a-lot) then I penalize the player for that. Torre, Banks, Carew are some of the players who have been lowered in my rankings due to this. Frank Thomas is currently 3rd on my 1st base list but instead of moving up will likely move down after this season due to his number of games at DH passing the number of games he played at 1B.

I consider active players like this. If the player retired today would they deserve to make the list and if so where at. There is no minimum on tenure. The shorter the player's career the more productive they must have been to be ranked on the list.

[Erik Bedard]

I couldn't find one of these in the first five pages, so here goes:

In the All-Time Fantasy Draft thread, we had a dispute over who was better: Nap Lajoie or Joe Morgan? I decided to expand that into the Top 10 of all time. So, who do you think gets it?

[ElHalo]

This is easy.

1. Hornsby
2. Lajoie
3. Collins
4. Gehringer
5. Carew
6. Morgan
7. Robinson
8. Frisch
9. Alomar
10. Biggio
10-A. Gordon

[538280]

Another Joe Morgan debate? I"m up for it, don't worry, I'm always up for one of those. Just to start off, my top 10 2Bmen go like this:

1.Joe Morgan
2.Eddie Collins
3.Rogers Hornsby
4.Jackie Robinson
5.Nap Lajoie
6.Charlie Gehringer
7.Rod Carew
8.Bobby Grich
9.Craig Biggio
10.Roberto Alomar

Why is Morgan ahead of Lajoie? A combination of many factors. Lajoie probably does have better raw stats than Morgan, looking at career totals and such. I think if you interpret the statistics the proper way, though, Morgan is the clear choice.

1.Positional Adjustments-The defensive spectrum shifed in about 1935, Lajoie's career was already over by then. What happened is that second base shifted from a neutral position to a defensive position, third base switched from a defensive position to a neutral one. 2B and 3B shifed on the spectrum. This makes fielding from second base more important post 1935 than it was pre 1935. This makes them about even in fielding value. Morgan was playing a more important position.

This also effects their offense, because in Morgan's time the second basemen hit less. Since value is defined as being above replacement level, positional adjustments are necessary. The replacment level 2Bman in Lajoie's time would hit better, because the position was more for hitters, rather than fielders. As an example, replacment level 2B in Lajoie's time may create 60 runs, in Morgan's more like 45 (that is assuming eras are of the same run context, just to make the example simple).

So, I think the only appropriate way too look at their offensive value is to do it by looking at their value above the level of the position they were playing. When we look at it this way, Joe Morgan clearly did more for his offense than Nap Lajoie. Morgan had 854 career RCAP (runs created above position), good for 10th all time. In case you're wondering, this is the top 10:

1 Babe Ruth 1634
2 Ted Williams 1357
3 Ty Cobb 1146
4 Honus Wagner 1078
5 Rogers Hornsby 1065
6 Stan Musial 1034
7 Mickey Mantle 1010
8 Lou Gehrig 939
9 Hank Aaron 860
10 Joe Morgan 854

No Lajoie in sight. In case you're wondering, Lajoie is at 686, 168 runs behind. That's a LOT of runs to make up, and I don't see where he makes it up. The other Morgan advantages are ones that most people I think would accept. Absolutely dominating the league (Morgan, IMO, was the best player in the league every year 1972-1976), baserunning, longevity, durability (Nap never gets knocked for this as much as he should. I undestand he was playing 154 games a year, but he had several seasons when he was playing less than 140 games, meaning he was missing over 10% of his teams games. That's not what you want from your star player), and , league quality. Indeed, those 168 runs, a significant advantage in of itself, is widened by the time I'm done factoring in everything.

A knock against Joe is that he wasn't a great player outside of his six year peak, 1972-1977. I completely disagree with that. Before his peak when he was in Houston, Joe was playing second base, a fielder's position, and posting OPS+ of about 125. A 125 OPS+ from second base is a very good number, in fact when he had figures of 130, 132, and 130 1965-1967 he topped the career highs of such HOF 2Bmen as Frankie Frisch and Billy Herman. Those aren't horrible HOF selections either, they're both legit. How could Joe not be a great player then if he was a better hitter than those guys were at their best, and they're in the HOF, meaning they are considered great?

In his decline phase 1978-1984, Morgan produced runs per out at a .204 clip (from The Diamond Appraised). The 2B average was .148. In his decline phase, Joe was 38% more productive than the average 2B.

Morgan was also known as one of the smartest players in his day, and as a team leader. Bill James calls him the best percentage player in baseball history. He was known to always read when the pitchout was coming, a skill that helped him be one of the best basestealers of all time. I once saw a video of Joe Moragn stealing bases, he always got a tremendous jump, and always was in perfect position to steal the bag. It leaves me wondering how he was ever caught.

No offense to Lajoie, who was a tremendous player, but he was not, in context of era and position, quite the hitter Morgan was. He was not the electrifying player at his peak Morgan was. Think to yourself-what exatcly couldn't Morgan do 1972-1977? He was a GG 2Bman, he stole 60 bases a year, he got on base at a .450 clip, slugged about .500, hit over .320 twice, he was pretty close to the perfect ballplayer, and I do mean that with all sincerity.

[ElHalo]

Another Joe Morgan debate? I"m up for it, don't worry, I'm always up for one of those. Just to start off, my top 10 2Bmen go like this:

1.Joe Morgan
2.Eddie Collins
3.Rogers Hornsby
4.Jackie Robinson
5.Nap Lajoie
6.Charlie Gehringer
7.Rod Carew
8.Bobby Grich
9.Craig Biggio
10.Roberto AlomarWell, we've got nine of the same players in our top ten, so I guess that's something. Gotta say I can't see a case for Grich over Frisch, but he did have a terrible BA and walk too much, so I guess he's your kind of player.

[538280]

Well, we've got nine of the same players in our top ten, so I guess that's something. Gotta say I can't see a case for Grich over Frisch, but he did have a terrible BA and walk too much, so I guess he's your kind of player.

Are you aware that if Grich had the same relative BA he had in his era, but played at the same time as Frisch, he would have hit exactly .300? With a small 2% LQ adjustment, he would have hit .306? Frisch is not nearly as good a contact hitter as his raw BA leads you to believe. On the other other side of the spectrum, doing the same for Frisch, his translated BA would be .275....Just something for you to think about.

Then when you have the fact Grich got on base far more, had more power, and was at least equal as a fielder (I'd say far more than equal because of the spectrum jump), and you have a player who IMO is far superior to Frankie Frisch. The ONLY thing Frisch has is the BA, but that advantage is mainly context driven, and isn't all that important anyway because Grich's OBP is so much better. You'd probably disagree with the latter point, but please think about the former. Somehow I think if Frisch played in Grich's era and posted that .275 mark you (and many others) wouldn't consider him much of a a player at all, and he probably wouldn't have made the HOF either.

[dgarza]

Not in this for the Morgan debate at all.

1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Napoleon Lajoie
3. Eddie Collins
4. Charlie Gehringer
5. Rod Carew
6. Ross Barnes
7. Joe Morgan
8. Frankie Frisch
9. Roberto Alomar
10. Ryne Sandberg
--------------------
11. Billy Herman

[yankillaz]

Dido dgarza...

1. Roger Hornsby
2. Eddie Collins
3. Nap Lajoie
4. Charlie Gehringer
5. Rod Carew
6.Joe Morgan
7. Roberto Alomar
8. Craig Biggio
9. Jackie Robinson
10. Ryne Sandberg

[KCGHOST]

Why would anyone cite RCAP when it is a generally discredited stat??

Rogers Hornsby
Eddie Collins
Joe Morgan
Nap Lajoie
Charlie Gehringer
Craig Biggio
Roberto Alomar
Jackie Robinson
Hardy Richardson
Lou Whitaker

All I really know about the great "Joe Morgan Debate" is that his proponents are willing to absolutely torture the numbers to tell them what they want to see.