Better hitter: Frank Thomas or Jimmie Foxx?

[fenrir]

I'm curious to see where people stand on this. Statistically Foxx beats him (not by a lot though), but does Thomas make up the difference with LQ?

[KCGHOST]

I'd say Foxx by a modest margin. Not sure the LQ argument has any merit here. They both played in high octane offensive eras.

[pheasant]

These two are close in hitting. However, Thomas was a rotten 1st baseman. I played better at first base in high school than Frank Thomas ever played first. Frank Thomas' thowing arm was no better than my grandma's. Thus, I give Foxx the edge, mainly due to defense. I have them pretty even at the plate, however.

[GiambiJuice]

These two are close in hitting. However, Thomas was a rotten 1st baseman. I played better at first base in high school than Frank Thomas ever played first. Frank Thomas' thowing arm was no better than my grandma's. Thus, I give Foxx the edge, mainly due to defense. I have them pretty even at the plate, however.

The question is who was the better hitter. Defense is irrelevant to the discussion.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I voted Foxx but I voted thinking defense was included. If I had to pick just on hitting it's pretty close, I suppose I would still go with Jimmy Foxx but it's a razor thin edge.

[pheasant]

I have Foxx ahead of Thomas as a hitter by a paper-thin margin. That was a tough one.

[Steven Gallanter]

I have Foxx ahead of Thomas as a hitter by a paper-thin margin. That was a tough one.

I have Thomas ahead of Foxx by a paper thin margin. Foxx played before the minors were farm teams for the majors and during segregation. Foxx also played day games. On the other hand he played without a bating helmet, video, nutritional knowledge...etc.

In general my inclination is that the level of talent in the 90s made Thomas a tiny bit better although Foxx had to overcome quite a bit as well.

This is a very close call and I would like to see some in-depth research on the topic.

Great question!

stevegallanter.wordpress.com

[pheasant]

Foxx vs Thomas

Offensive WAR: Foxx 93.2, Thomas 83.2
OPS+: Foxx 163, Thomas 156
MVPs: Foxx 3, Thomas 2
OPS titles: Foxx 5, Thomas 4
OPS+ titles: Foxx 5, Thomas 3
40+ HR seasons: Foxx 5, Thomas 5

However, Thomas had a better sustained peak.

Frank Thomas had 7 straight years of a 170+ OPS+. Foxx's best run was 4 straight.

Frank Thomas's best 7 year run was an OPS+ of 182 vs Foxx's best run of 179.


This is very, very close. Once could argue that Thomas had to compete against cheaters. And thus, his OPS+ is handicapped enough to cover the difference. That would be a valid argument.

Foxx nearly won back-to-back triple crowns in 1932-1933. His 1932 season is one of the best ever, but Alexander's fluke .367 avg cost Foxx the triple crown(58/169/.364). The following year, Foxx wins with the triple crown with another superb year(48/163/.356). 5 years later, Foxx goes for (50/175/.349), but Greenberg's 58 HR cost him the triple crown that year.

Foxx's 3 MVP years were historic seasons. He's the only player ever to have 3 seasons with 48+ HRs 160+ RBIs, and .349+ avg. These three top-heavy seasons has Foxx squeaking out the victory to me. However, Thomas had guys on steroids to compete against, which isn't fair. This poll will end up nearly tied, imho.

[fenrir]

This is very, very close. Once could argue that Thomas had to compete against cheaters. And thus, his OPS+ is handicapped enough to cover the difference. That would be a valid argument.

I've always argued that Thomas and Pujols monster numbers are actually underrated by some due to many of their peers being juiced and posting monster video game stats.

FTW, I voted Thomas. I think he dominated a league with stronger quality competition.

[pheasant]

I'm surprised that Foxx is up 11-6 so far. I have them as a toss-up. I did choose Foxx. Foxx had 3 historic seasons, yet Thomas had to compete against robots(ok, steroid freaks, but still). However, I have a new tiebreaker: A Beast is tougher than a man, even if that man can Hurt you Big.

[fenrir]

I thought I'd give this a bump to see if anyone else wants to vote or has anything to say.

[Yankillaz]

Thomas was well on the track of being the best RHH ever, but something happened in 1998 that derailed him. Since his career after 1998 is slightly above average, I'm going to give this one to Foxx.

[Ben Grimm]

I loved the Big Hurt. I found it amazing he could generate so much power with that follow-thru hanging off his lead foot.

But I have to give it to Jimmie. If nothing else, he may very well have set landmark numbers as the greatest hitting catcher ever had he not moved to 1B.

[Dude Paskert]

I loved the Big Hurt. I found it amazing he could generate so much power with that follow-thru hanging off his lead foot.

But I have to give it to Jimmie. If nothing else, he may very well have set landmark numbers as the greatest hitting catcher ever had he not moved to 1B.

Foxx's swing was similar to Hurt's in that way, tended to hit off his front foot. Hornsby was kind of like that, but also stepped in towards the plate. Must not be a bad thing if those guys did it!

[brett]

I'd say Foxx by a modest margin. Not sure the LQ argument has any merit here. They both played in high octane offensive eras.

The offensive setting is one thing. LQ can be high in a deep league but offense can be low.