 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » A Random Major League Player Stats.
Ignite
[url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/lajoina01.shtml]Link[/url]
A Random Major League Player Stats.
September 18, 2004 at 05:41PM View BBCode
Quite Amazing Guy[url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/lajoina01.shtml]Link[/url]
happy
September 19, 2004 at 09:29PM View BBCode
one of the best 2Bmen of all time. had a whole team named after him (the Naps). Hornsby is better.
happy
September 19, 2004 at 09:30PM View BBCode
oh, also his 1910 batting title was given to him in the last 2 games of the season. Cobb deserved it, but the other team's manager hated cobb, so he got his 3Bman to play on the grass whenever Lajoie came up, so Lajoie noticed it and just bunted down the 3B line every time he came up.
Windward
Who's the best secondbaseman of all time?
Napolian Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Charlie Gehringer, Eddie Collins, Frankie Frisch, Jackie Robinson, Joe Morgan, any others?
Who would you take to build a team around?
September 20, 2004 at 03:04AM View BBCode
I'd take Lajoie over Hornsby, better defense and base running.Who's the best secondbaseman of all time?
Napolian Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Charlie Gehringer, Eddie Collins, Frankie Frisch, Jackie Robinson, Joe Morgan, any others?
Who would you take to build a team around?
youngallstar
September 20, 2004 at 03:06AM View BBCode
Hey Wind, I posted your team i.d in the "nothing for nothing" thread so the trade logo should be gone now.
happy
September 20, 2004 at 06:22AM View BBCode
why did you guys go complain about it. I wouldnt have gone and done it if i knew you people would complain. you arses (is that a cuss word too???).:rolleyes:
happy
you are totally wrong. Hornsby is LEAGUES ahead of Lajoie. the only reason i could see for taking Lajoie ahead of Hornsby is simply to cause debate.
September 20, 2004 at 06:26AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Windward
I'd take Lajoie over Hornsby, better defense and base running.
you are totally wrong. Hornsby is LEAGUES ahead of Lajoie. the only reason i could see for taking Lajoie ahead of Hornsby is simply to cause debate.
youngallstar
I didnt bring your name into it, I just said "someone". You arse hole
September 20, 2004 at 06:49AM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
why did you guys go complain about it. I wouldnt have gone and done it if i knew you people would complain. you arses (is that a cuss word too???).:rolleyes:
I didnt bring your name into it, I just said "someone". You arse hole
happy
September 20, 2004 at 06:58AM View BBCode
hmm... well the trade was offered to you from the washington vidros... and they are connected to happy's username..... hmmm......
youngallstar
September 20, 2004 at 07:01AM View BBCode
Matthewlee was the first to mention your name in the "nothing for nothing" thread, if you notice I was defending you throughout the thread.
happy
September 20, 2004 at 07:03AM View BBCode
ah, well i didnt care all that much anyway. i didnt even check it to see if someone was pissed. ive never cared if people got mad at me. If you ban me, screw you, i hope i would cause a mass exodus if that ever happens. that is basically my board policy. act as if there is no moderator.
farfetched
How 'bout Mr. "I've Got a League Named After Me" Sandberg? He was a decent hitter with pretty brilliant defense.
I was gonna say Knoblauch... But I know better.
As for Nap Lajoie, he has a lot working for him in the way of sheer hitting... a lot like Ted Williams. Hornsby, imho, was indeed leagues ahead of Lajoie in that category, being the only .400 hitter to snag a Triple Crown in the same season. I'd like to think that year was quite possibly the greatest individual season for any hitter in the history of baseball. Screw Barry Bonds.
September 20, 2004 at 02:24PM View BBCode
No love for Billy Martin, I see... :lol:How 'bout Mr. "I've Got a League Named After Me" Sandberg? He was a decent hitter with pretty brilliant defense.
I was gonna say Knoblauch... But I know better.
As for Nap Lajoie, he has a lot working for him in the way of sheer hitting... a lot like Ted Williams. Hornsby, imho, was indeed leagues ahead of Lajoie in that category, being the only .400 hitter to snag a Triple Crown in the same season. I'd like to think that year was quite possibly the greatest individual season for any hitter in the history of baseball. Screw Barry Bonds.
FuriousGiorge
One thing people have to realize about all those old second basemen is that the position itself has changed its MO over the last 100 years. When Lajoie and Hornsby played, 2nd base was generally considered an offense-first position. As the game progressed and the double play grew in importance, the position shifted to a defense-first position. Hornsby and Lajoie played there not because they were good enough to play 2nd, but because they weren't good enough to play a key defensive position. Further, neither one was a great defender. Everyone knows Hornsby was terrible at defense and base running (and a dick to boot) but Lajoie was a mediocre defender himself. The perception of Lajoie has shifted as people have recognized that his defensive totals were more about the respect he was given by his teammates in the field, and less about his actual prowess. If a pop fly was hit in the infield, Lajoie took it. It was his team, and they deferred to him.
I say you can toss both of them back, give me Joe Morgan, and I'll beat your ass 9 out of 10 times.
September 20, 2004 at 02:49PM View BBCode
Which one, 1922 or 1925? Of course neither one of them was actually the greatest hitter's season ever, but I'm just curious with which one you like better (I'd take 1922 personally).One thing people have to realize about all those old second basemen is that the position itself has changed its MO over the last 100 years. When Lajoie and Hornsby played, 2nd base was generally considered an offense-first position. As the game progressed and the double play grew in importance, the position shifted to a defense-first position. Hornsby and Lajoie played there not because they were good enough to play 2nd, but because they weren't good enough to play a key defensive position. Further, neither one was a great defender. Everyone knows Hornsby was terrible at defense and base running (and a dick to boot) but Lajoie was a mediocre defender himself. The perception of Lajoie has shifted as people have recognized that his defensive totals were more about the respect he was given by his teammates in the field, and less about his actual prowess. If a pop fly was hit in the infield, Lajoie took it. It was his team, and they deferred to him.
I say you can toss both of them back, give me Joe Morgan, and I'll beat your ass 9 out of 10 times.
Meathead44
September 20, 2004 at 03:10PM View BBCode
I would think that Charlie Gehringer would get some mention here as well. No, he wasn't the best either, but he deserves his name being mentioned.
farfetched
In his prime, Hornsby as a hitter was to the NL what Ruth was to the AL at the time. His homerun total that season bested #2 (Cy Williams) by 16, his average was tops by nearly 50 points, his RBI total best by 20, and no one else came CLOSE to slugging anywhere near .600, let alone .700.
Even in terms of universality in addition to the dominance relative to the field of talent at the time, I'd say that was pretty damn great.
September 20, 2004 at 03:10PM View BBCode
I was speaking of 1922, specifically. .401/.459/.722 isn't phenomenal? With 42 homers and 152 RBIs to boot , not to mention 250 hits, easily one of the top 5 single-season totals in history.In his prime, Hornsby as a hitter was to the NL what Ruth was to the AL at the time. His homerun total that season bested #2 (Cy Williams) by 16, his average was tops by nearly 50 points, his RBI total best by 20, and no one else came CLOSE to slugging anywhere near .600, let alone .700.
Even in terms of universality in addition to the dominance relative to the field of talent at the time, I'd say that was pretty damn great.
FuriousGiorge
And that's why I would take Joe Morgan over anyone else. Rogers Hornsby has the nice triple crown numbers, but Morgan did everything else better: more walks, better baserunning, better fielding, better leadership (yep, I said it. Believe me, when you're comparing guys to Hornsby, leadership matters). Hornsby hit. Morgan played baseball. Moreover, Morgan did this in the 60's and 70's, when it was fairly tough (historically) for hitters.
I have to say this though - I dislike Rogers Hornsby. He represented everything that's wrong with professional athletes, and he did it 50 years before Terrell Owens was born. He was egotistical, and he was thin-skinned. He was surly, he was self-absorbed, and he was not afraid to tell everyone else why they weren't as good as him. Honus Wagner was famous for not smoking (although he did drink some, not to excess) but he never made it his life goal to force other people to copy his behavior. He was a decent human being with good morals and a live and let live attitude. I bring up Wagner because Hornsby was essentially his funhouse mirror reflection. Hornsby didn't drink or smoke, and bullied everyone around him into doing as he did. He would never stop telling you how his way to live was the only way. He was a dick, pure and simple. Maybe my opinion of him as a person colors my opinion of him as a ballplayer. But I'll take Joe Morgan every time, and I'll never be sorry about it.
September 20, 2004 at 03:29PM View BBCode
First, everyone hit in the 20's and 30's. Yes, Hornsby was better than just about everyone else anyway, but don't make the mistake of thinking that Hornsby was dominating some sort of pitcher's league. His 1922 and 1925 campaigns were great, absolutely, but not the best ever. I'd argue, in fact, that Joe Morgan's 1975 and 1976 campaigns were better than Hornsby's '22 and '25 seasons, given context and breadth of skills.And that's why I would take Joe Morgan over anyone else. Rogers Hornsby has the nice triple crown numbers, but Morgan did everything else better: more walks, better baserunning, better fielding, better leadership (yep, I said it. Believe me, when you're comparing guys to Hornsby, leadership matters). Hornsby hit. Morgan played baseball. Moreover, Morgan did this in the 60's and 70's, when it was fairly tough (historically) for hitters.
I have to say this though - I dislike Rogers Hornsby. He represented everything that's wrong with professional athletes, and he did it 50 years before Terrell Owens was born. He was egotistical, and he was thin-skinned. He was surly, he was self-absorbed, and he was not afraid to tell everyone else why they weren't as good as him. Honus Wagner was famous for not smoking (although he did drink some, not to excess) but he never made it his life goal to force other people to copy his behavior. He was a decent human being with good morals and a live and let live attitude. I bring up Wagner because Hornsby was essentially his funhouse mirror reflection. Hornsby didn't drink or smoke, and bullied everyone around him into doing as he did. He would never stop telling you how his way to live was the only way. He was a dick, pure and simple. Maybe my opinion of him as a person colors my opinion of him as a ballplayer. But I'll take Joe Morgan every time, and I'll never be sorry about it.
Windward
I'd take Eddie Collins. Good defense, range, speed and average. Nice guy to put at the top of the order. I'll get RBI's from an outfielder and Homeruns from a firstbaseman. Lots of those guys around.;)
September 20, 2004 at 06:50PM View BBCode
Furious, I like the thinking on how the second base position has changed. Everyone knows how baseball changed from the dead ball era to a livlier baseball and how it impacted homeruns. The double play makes sense. With ground balls getting to the middle infielder faster, more double plays could be turned.I'd take Eddie Collins. Good defense, range, speed and average. Nice guy to put at the top of the order. I'll get RBI's from an outfielder and Homeruns from a firstbaseman. Lots of those guys around.;)
happy
Defense, baserunning, leadership, and speed all put together arent as important as hitting. Hornsby was a much much better hitter than collins.
And Furious. I know Hornsby played in a hitters era, and he isnt an amazing defender, but it doesnt make up for 40 points OBP difference, and 150 points SLG difference.
Times Hornsby lead the majors in OBP: 9. Morgan: 4. SLG, Hornsby: 9, Morgan: 1. OPS: Hornsby: 11, Morgan: 2.
you are all just plain wrong.
September 20, 2004 at 08:29PM View BBCode
... windward... you crazy...Defense, baserunning, leadership, and speed all put together arent as important as hitting. Hornsby was a much much better hitter than collins.
And Furious. I know Hornsby played in a hitters era, and he isnt an amazing defender, but it doesnt make up for 40 points OBP difference, and 150 points SLG difference.
Times Hornsby lead the majors in OBP: 9. Morgan: 4. SLG, Hornsby: 9, Morgan: 1. OPS: Hornsby: 11, Morgan: 2.
you are all just plain wrong.
hobos
September 20, 2004 at 09:03PM View BBCode
To a sabremetric, Furious is wrong. Problem is, we're not all sabremetrics (or is it sabremetricians? either way, I don't care...). Hornsby was the better hitter and the era he played in has little context (he had an OBP of .093 over the league average and a SLG of .187 over the league average, whereas Morgan had an OBP of .066 over the league average and a SLG of .043 over the league average). Morgan was the better fielder. Also happy, remember Hornsby's OBP ws very inflated because of hits. Morgan walked a lot more than Hornsby
FuriousGiorge
1) A lot of Hornsby's value was tied to batting average. This isn't a bad thing in terms of his value, but it does tend to make him look better to those who prefer traditional stats as opposed to those who use more modern, value-oriented statistics.
2) The baserunning, defense and leadership all count for something. Every one of those things Morgan wins in, and every one of the them contributed some wins over the course of his career. Even though I have repeatedly railed against leadership, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Hornsby's divisiveness in the clubhouse harmed his teams. Maybe those things don't add up to Morgan being more valuable than Hornsby, but they bring them a lot closer than the numbers would suggest.
3) The bottom line in baseball is, how many runs do you create/prevent and how many wins do you contribute to. Joe Morgan was a part of 7 postseason teams, 4 pennant winners and 2 World Champions. Hornsby was a part of 2 pennant winners, 1 World Champion. THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. Next to Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby was possibly the most divisive player in the history of major league baseball (maybe throw in Dick Allen too). He was not a love him or hate him guy like Barry Bonds supposedly is. He was just a hate him guy. What he added with his bat to a team he helped take away with his lackadaisical approach to everything else, his surly demeanor and his egomaniacal attitude.
Like I said before, I don't like the guy. This probably affects my rating of him in terms of sheer value. But my all-time team has Joe Morgan at 2nd base, and I'm happy with that.
September 20, 2004 at 09:24PM View BBCode
I'm a sabermetrics guy, and I like Joe Morgan over Rogers Hornsby. Hitting is the biggest thing in baseball, and whether you do it or not can make or break you in terms of contributing to your team. But if you take all the other little things and you add them up you can sometimes beat the guy with the nice-looking numbers.1) A lot of Hornsby's value was tied to batting average. This isn't a bad thing in terms of his value, but it does tend to make him look better to those who prefer traditional stats as opposed to those who use more modern, value-oriented statistics.
2) The baserunning, defense and leadership all count for something. Every one of those things Morgan wins in, and every one of the them contributed some wins over the course of his career. Even though I have repeatedly railed against leadership, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Hornsby's divisiveness in the clubhouse harmed his teams. Maybe those things don't add up to Morgan being more valuable than Hornsby, but they bring them a lot closer than the numbers would suggest.
3) The bottom line in baseball is, how many runs do you create/prevent and how many wins do you contribute to. Joe Morgan was a part of 7 postseason teams, 4 pennant winners and 2 World Champions. Hornsby was a part of 2 pennant winners, 1 World Champion. THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. Next to Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby was possibly the most divisive player in the history of major league baseball (maybe throw in Dick Allen too). He was not a love him or hate him guy like Barry Bonds supposedly is. He was just a hate him guy. What he added with his bat to a team he helped take away with his lackadaisical approach to everything else, his surly demeanor and his egomaniacal attitude.
Like I said before, I don't like the guy. This probably affects my rating of him in terms of sheer value. But my all-time team has Joe Morgan at 2nd base, and I'm happy with that.
hobos
September 20, 2004 at 09:33PM View BBCode
It sounds like your definition of "leadership" more closely resembles attitude. Morgan obviously had the edge in attitude, but that's not to say Hornsby sucked at leading. Look who was a mangaer (albeit not a very good one) and who is a crap analysist
happy
Maybe Hornsby was an ass, but he was MUCH better.
the fact is, leadership DOESNT MATTER VERY MUCH in baseball.
Maybe Hornsby is overrated, but having most of his OBP wrapped up in hits is a GOOD thing. Hits are BETTER than walks. they are just less predictable season to season, but if you had a lot over the course of your career, then you are good.
September 20, 2004 at 09:43PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
:lol: NIIIIICCEEE. that was one serious blow for furious's point.
Maybe Hornsby was an ass, but he was MUCH better.
the fact is, leadership DOESNT MATTER VERY MUCH in baseball.
Maybe Hornsby is overrated, but having most of his OBP wrapped up in hits is a GOOD thing. Hits are BETTER than walks. they are just less predictable season to season, but if you had a lot over the course of your career, then you are good.