Nap Lajoie vs. Jimmie Foxx

[Cowtipper]

Let's compare two different types of players. Nap Lajoie hit .338 by whacking a lot of singles, doubles and triples. He had 3,242 hits in his career, of which 657 were for two bases and 163 were for three. Foxx, obviously, hit a lot of home runs--he had 2,646 hits, including 534 dingers, 458 doubles and 125 triples.

...but which one was better?

[pheasant]

Another good comparison, Cowtipper. Keep them coming!

Jimmie Foxx seems like the obvious answer. But upon further review, I pick Lajoie. Lajoie's game had no weakness: I guess one could say that this power was his weakness. But with 4 slugging titles, a triple crown, and 5 doubles titles, he wasn't a weakling. He also stole a decent amount of bases. But the reason I put Nap ahead of Foxx is his great fielding. From what I've read, Lajoie was very sure handed and had good range for a big guy. He was probably the best fielding 2nd baseman during the first quarter of a the 20th century. I rank Lajoie around 17th overall, which is higher than most people rank him.

[Cowtipper]

I went with Lajoie as well.

[BigRon]

Let's compare two different types of players. Nap Lajoie hit .338 by whacking a lot of singles, doubles and triples. He had 3,242 hits in his career, of which 657 were for two bases and 163 were for three. Foxx, obviously, hit a lot of home runs--he had 2,646 hits, including 534 dingers, 458 doubles and 125 triples.

...but which one was better?

Were they really different types of players? Lajoie played in the deadball era, Foxx in the emerging power era. But, Lajoie was a very big man for his time- 6'1", 200 lbs, and strong. By the standards of his time he was a real power hitter- leading the league in doubles and extra base hits numerous times. My guess is, that had Lajoie played 30 years later, he would have been a traditional elite power hitter, not too unlike Foxx. Maybe not a 50 homer guy, but a 30+ type of guy.

[brett]

Were they really different types of players? Lajoie played in the deadball era, Foxx in the emerging power era. But, Lajoie was a very big man for his time- 6'1", 200 lbs, and strong. By the standards of his time he was a real power hitter- leading the league in doubles and extra base hits numerous times. My guess is, that had Lajoie played 30 years later, he would have been a traditional elite power hitter, not too unlike Foxx. Maybe not a 50 homer guy, but a 30+ type of guy.

I always figured he and Wagner as well as probably Speaker would have had Musial type numbers, though Lajoie with fewer walks.
On the downside, I don't think Lajoie was an above average base runner. I think his steals are in line with a guy who got on base a lot in the deadball era for a long time.
And I place the importance of second base a little lower in that period-still a plus position but comparable to third base and centerfield rather than maybe half way between third and SS in the value department.

This one is tough for me. Morgan, Dimaggio, Foxx, Ott and Lajoie hang out in my 19-23 range. I've trended toward moving Dimaggio up to the 15-19 range, but the other 4 could go in any order. I also don't have A-Rod or Pujols placed at this point.