Ty Cobb vs. Rogers Hornsby

[Cowtipper]

Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby are two of the highest-ranked players of all time. Cobb had over 4,000 hits and over 2,000 runs scored, beating Hornsby in (among other things) batting average and WAR. But Hornsby, to his credit, did beat Cobb in on-base percentage and OPS+ while hitting over 300 home runs and nearly 550 doubles.

But...which one was better?

[fenrir]

Easily Cobb as an overall player, and arguably hitter as well. Hornsby was perhaps slightly better at his best offensively, but Cobb clearly has the edge in longevity. Plus, Hornsby was pretty much done by 33, where as Cobb was very productive until he retired.

[willshad]

I would say Hornsby's top 5 or 6 years were better than Cobb's top 5 or 6...but Cobb simple had too many good seasons. This is kind of similar to a Mays vs Mantle debate.

[redban]

Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby are two of the highest-ranked players of all time. Cobb had over 4,000 hits and over 2,000 runs scored, beating Hornsby in (among other things) batting average and WAR. But Hornsby, to his credit, did beat Cobb in on-base percentage and OPS+ while hitting over 300 home runs and nearly 550 doubles.

But...which one was better?

I wouldn't quite say that Cobb beat Hornsby in WAR.

Yes, Cobb finished with a higher career WAR, 144.9 vs 124.6. But that's because Cobb played 850 more games.

Cobb's top 5 seasons in WAR = 11.1, 10.6 10.1, 9.5, 9.3

Hornsby top 5 seasons in WAR = 12.0, 10.6, 10.3, 10.1, 10.0

Hornsby was a better player at his best, but he did nothing after age 35. Cobb, however, aged well and remained a good player in his late 30s.

I guess it's another peak vs longevity argument. I go with Hornsby on this one. Give the star that shines brightest over the star that shines longest.

[Bothrops Atrox]

I wouldn't quite say that Cobb beat Hornsby in WAR.

Yes, Cobb finished with a higher career WAR, 144.9 vs 124.6. But that's because Cobb played 850 more games.

Cobb's top 5 seasons in WAR = 11.1, 10.6 10.1, 9.5, 9.3

Hornsby top 5 seasons in WAR = 12.0, 10.6, 10.3, 10.1, 10.0

Hornsby was a better player at his best, but he did nothing after age 35. Cobb, however, aged well and remained a good player in his late 30s.

I guess it's another peak vs longevity argument. I go with Hornsby on this one. Give the star that shines brightest over the star that shines longest.

Over those 5 seasons, Hornsby leads 53 to 50.6. There could be up to a MOE of about 2.5 WAR, so the MOE and gap between their two WAR is almost the same. Point is, I am not confident enough that Horsnby's peak was really that much better-enough to ignore what we do know; his much superior longevity at a high level.

[BigRon]

Simply put, Cobb was too good for too long. Hornsby at his best was Cobb's equal- better as a hitter. If Hornsby had been able to play at- near his long-term performance level for about 3 more seasons this would be an extremely close race. But, injuries and weight gain basically ended his career as a great player by age 34.

[redban]

Over those 5 seasons, Hornsby leads 53 to 50.6. There could be up to a MOE of about 2.5 WAR, so the MOE and gap between their two WAR is almost the same. Point is, I am not confident enough that Horsnby's peak was really that much better-enough to ignore what we do know; his much superior longevity at a high level.

Well, if you stretch it out from top 5 seasons to top 10:

Hornsby: 12.0 , 10.6 , 10.3 , 10.1 , 10 , 9.9 , 9.7 , 9.4 , 8.7 , 6.7

TOTAL = 97.4

Cobb:: 11.1 , 10.6 , 10.1 , 9.5 , 9.3 , 8.9 , 7.8 , 7.1 , 6.6 , 6.4

TOTAL = 87.4

So 10 WAR. That's a substantial difference - a 10 WAR season is an MVP year.

Hornsby at his best was better than Cobb at his best. The only argument for Cobb is that he remained productive in the late 30s, and it's an argument I can understand.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

if WAR is the only measurement why have a debate at all ... just let a computer print out the results

[Cowtipper]

if WAR is the only measurement why have a debate at all ... just let a computer print out the results

I agree with this.

[Bothrops Atrox]

if WAR is the only measurement why have a debate at all ... just let a computer print out the results

It isn't - I was just responding to the post that was comparing them using WAR. In fact, by discussing the MOE involved, I am making the claim that one cannot just use WAR.
I agree with this too.

[drstrangelove]

Some how this is being treated as if Cobb cheated to get in more games or some divine force held Hornsby back (much like WW2 and Korea held back Williams.) This leads some to want to selectively use only the top 5 or top 10 years as if that is a good measure. I find it not to be. A player is measured for his career not key select moments. Why say your best 7 games and then conclude Nolan Ryan is the best pitcher because no one had a hit off him (for 7 games at least?)

Cobb's lifetime averages are lower if we include all his years that Hornsby missed or hardly played, which we use to compare, but then wring our hands because Hornsby more or less stopped playing after 35.


So through age 35:

Hornsby 2,127 games 177 OPS+ - 123 WAR
Cobb 2,306 games 179 OPS+ - 122 WAR

(Cobb played 121 more games as a teen when both earned tiny amounts of WAR)

Dead heat, imo.

But for who is better, I take Cobb hands down. Cobb could have played any outfield position, likely all 4 infield positions. Hornsby may have been able to play all 4 infield spots, but in the outfield likely a liability.

Cobb wreaked havoc at bat and on the bases, while Hornsby was a threat only at bat. In the modern era, we have all witnessed what Henderson did to other teams JUST on the base paths even without stealing. WAR does not measure your effect on other teams just by being on base, and I give that to Cobb hands down.

[KCGHOST]

This is Cobb by a substantial margin. Just too much quantity and positional value.

[leecemark]

--Peak may be a slight edge to Hornsby, but not nearly enough to make up Cobb's large edge in career value.