As Hitters: Gehrig vs. Hornsby

[Metal Ed]

Did we do this already? Discuss.

[Myankee4life]

I say Gehrig...Hornsby had a nice 5 year run but Gehrig did it for 13 years.

[StanTheMan]

Hornsby may have had the greatest 5 year run in the history of the game.... I give him the nod. Gherig was better over the long strech, but for a brief window, nobody was better than Hornsby. He gets my vote.

[Bill Burgess]

Hornsby/Gehrig:

Hornsby-----BA---Hits-2B---3B--HR----R--RBI---TB--OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league---8----4----4----2---7----7---3----7----9----9----0---3--12
2nd league---2----1----1----1---2----1---1----2----1----1----0---1---1
3rd----------1----1----1----1---3----0---2----0----1----1----0---0---0
4th----------1----3----4----0---1----2---0----0----0----1----0---2---0
5th----------0----0----0----0---5----0---0----0----0----1----0---0---0
6th----------0----0----0----1---1----0---1----1----1----0----0---2---1

Gehrig------BA---Hits-2B---3B---HR--Runs--RBI--TB---OBA-SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
Led league---1----1----1----4----2----4----4----2----4----2---0---3--3
2nd league---2----3----0----0----4----2----4----3----2----4---0---2--6
3rd----------3----0----0----1----3----3----2----2----3----1---0---3--3
4th----------0----1----0----0----1----2----2----0----0----3---0---0--0
5th----------2----1----0----0----1----0----0----1----1----0---0---0--0
6th----------1----0----1----0----1----0----0----1----0----0---0---1--0  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------BA-------------Onbase----------SLG.
Gehrig: Home ---.329-------------.436------------.620
Hornsby: Home - .359-------------.437-----------.565

Gehrig: Away - -.351-------------.458------------.644
Hornsby:Away -- .358-------------.431------------.565


-----------Rel.BA----Rel.Onbase-Rel.SLG.---OPS+---Black Ink----Grey Ink-----Plate Appearances
Gehrig:------1.19-------1.25------1.53-----179------75----------315-------------9,660
Hornsby------1.26-------1.27------1.47-----175-----125----------329-------------9,475



[B][COLOR=Red]2 Seasons of Epic Proportions:[/COLOR][/B]

---------Year Ag Tm  Lg  PA  Outs  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA    OBP   SLG  TB   SH  Rel.BA  Rel.onb  Rel.Slg  Black Ink  Grey Ink
Hornsby: 1922 26 STL NL 704  400  154  [COLOR=Red]623[/COLOR]  141  [COLOR=Red]250[/COLOR]  46 14  42  152  [COLOR=Red]17[/COLOR] 12  65  [COLOR=Red]50[/COLOR]  [COLOR=Red].401 [/COLOR] .459  .722  [COLOR=Red]450[/COLOR]  15   [COLOR=Red]1.35    [/COLOR] 1.30     1.76      [COLOR=Red]23       30[/COLOR]
Gehrig:  1927 24 NYY AL [COLOR=Red]717 [/COLOR] [COLOR=Red]395[/COLOR]  [COLOR=Red]155[/COLOR]  584  [COLOR=Red]149[/COLOR]  218  [COLOR=Red]52[/COLOR] [COLOR=Red]18[/COLOR]  [COLOR=Red]47  175  [/COLOR]10  [COLOR=Red]8 [/COLOR][COLOR=Red]109[/COLOR]  84  .373  [COLOR=Red].474  [/COLOR][COLOR=Red].765[/COLOR]  447  [COLOR=Red]21[/COLOR]   1.29     [COLOR=Red]1.32     [/COLOR][COLOR=Red]1.88       [/COLOR]6       28

Rogers played a more important position, and was probably a better fielder. But his teams were less quality than Lou's. So Lou's had advantages in quality team mates with respect to his Runs/RBIs, WS championships, NYC media ballyhoo, Yankee bounce, a more flexible personality to get along with.

Rogers was too blunt, which made him a traveler. He also had a problem with high fly popups.

I'm not sure if association with Babe was a benefit for Lou or not. Helped his stats, but obscured his personal greatness. Or not? Lou also benefitted by being a Yankee during their glory days. Remember DiMag's saying. It was good to be young and a Yankee.

If Lou had lived, he would have had maybe 3-4 good seasons, but then had maybe some decline seasons. So his OPS may or may not have moved up or down. Hard to say. Rogers was more versatile, but Lou more durable. Both charter members of Baseball's All-Time Infield, along with Wagner/Schmidt, so why does Lou receive all the intangible accolades? Babe, '27 Yankees, Big Apple, 20 newspapers, streak, early death legend? And finally - is it all fair?

World Series Record:

Rogers Hornsby-2 World Series:

1926 7x28=.250
1929 5x21=.238
12x49=.244


Lou Gehrig-7 World Series:

1926 8x23=.348
1927 4x13=.308
1928 6x11=.545
1932 9x17=.529
1936 7x24=.292
1937 5x17=.294
1938 4x14=.286
43x119=.361
-------------------------------------------------
I also submit that Rogers created the greater peak. Rogers consolidated his best years, while Lou scattered his. Behold below.

Rogers Hornsby - 1921-1925------202 OPS+
Lou Gehrig ------1927-1934------193 OPS+
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the main Hornsby books of which I'm aware.

My Kind of Baseball, by Rogers Hornsby, with R. Roy Stockton, 1953.
My War With Baseball, by Rogers Hornsby, with Bill Surface, 1962

Rogers Hornsby, by Jack Kavanagh, 1991
Rogers Hornsby, by Charles Alexander, 1995
Rogers Hornsby: A Biography, by Jonathan D'Amore, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hallenbeck's contribution:

WARP3:
Gehrig: 142.3
Hornsby: 151.6

Win Shares:
Gehrig: 489
Hornsby: 502

Win Shares per 648 PA (per season, roughly)
Gehrig: 34.33
Hornsby: 32.80

(Below are offensive prowess stats only)
EqA:
Gehrig: .344
Hornsby: .333

Runs Created:
Gehrig: 2367
Hornsby: 2108

OPS+
Gehrig: 179
Hornsby: 175

My gut says Gehrig, since Hornsby was a bad teammate, a selfish person, and selfish player. Gehrig was also a team leader and a humble, self effacing guy. I'll wait to hear what people have to say.

[Blackout]

i'd say the early 20s NL was probably easier to get black ink in than in the AL in the late 20s and the 30s

[Pghfan987]

Bill:

I am a little confused. Aren't we voting strictly in terms of offense? Defense, position, and character do not matter in this poll, do they?

Strictly as a slugger, I choose Gehrig. As a player, I choose Hornsby (because he played second base). As a person, I chose Gehrig!

Mark

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I voted for Gehrig. Gehrig never pee'd in the showers...:o

[RedSoxVT92]

Its closer than most people would assume. But on a long term bases Lou Gehrig was better and I would say a better slugger. But Hornsby was better in a shorter peroid of time (batting .400 in 3 out of 4 years!). But overall as a hitter I have to go with Gehrig.

[538280]

Gehrig. Hornsby was a great hitter, but he's on my big time overrated list.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm not sure if association with Babe was a benefit for Lou or not. Helped his stats, but obscured his personal greatness. Or not?

I think it helped him greatly Bill. Gehrig's personality wasn't meant to be outfront and in the limelight. It suited him best to just go about his business. He learned a lot about hitting from Babe, and a lot about how to handle certain situations and fame in general.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill:

I am a little confused. Aren't we voting strictly in terms of offense? Defense, position, and character do not matter in this poll, do they?

Strictly as a slugger, I choose Gehrig. As a player, I choose Hornsby (because he played second base). As a person, I chose Gehrig!

Mark

I guess I didn't actually vote. I just dragged that old post out, and it was then based on overall. As strictly a hitter, I'd go with The Rajah. If Rogers had played on Lou's teams, his Runs/RBIs would have went WAY up.

Bill

[DoubleX]

I voted for Gehrig, but Hornsby's peak does make it close. Had Gehrig been able to have a decline period including a few more good seasons to add to his already prodigious number, I believe ther would be little debate as to whether Gehrig's bat deserves mention with Ruth and Williams.

[SABR Matt]

Ooh I have a better one...

As hitters...who do you like more, Joe Morgan or Mark McLemore!



Gehrig vs. Hornsby? You guys are slipping...

[Pghfan987]

Ooh I have a better one...

As hitters...who do you like more, Joe Morgan or Mark McLemore!



Gehrig vs. Hornsby? You guys are slipping...

I voted for Gehrig, but I think it is a lot closer than you think. Their OPS+ are 179 and 175 respectively. Hornsby's likely would have been higher than Gehrig if Gehrig had kept playing until he was 41. You could also say that Gehrig's slightly better numbers were the caused by the luxury of hitting in the Yankees lineup. Hornsby was the better contact hitter.

And, as stated by someone else, if Rogers had been in the Yankees lineup, his RBIs and runs would have exploded. If you include the fact that Hornsby was a 2Bman, I think that he has more value than Gehrig.

I did not include the position as a factor in my vote. I was strictly thinking in terms of who was the better hitter, and I think it is close, but Gehrig by a smudge.

Mark

[SABR Matt]

Hornsby played in a much more favorable hitter's park...(although I believe that's accounted for in OPS+...sort of)...but if Hornsby had been in the Yankees line-up..he wouldn't have been the hitter he was in the NL...because the NL was a girly-man league as Arnold would say...the AL was SIGNIFICANTLY more competitive in Hornsby's era.