Stan Musial vs Rogers Hornsby

[TomBodet]

Curious how this one will go, 2 Cards of diferent eras.

[BigRon]

I have them extremely close. I usually see Musial as about number 8 alltime among position players, Hornsby at 9 or 10 or 11. Musial gets the slight edge due to a longer run as a premier player. If Hornsby could have produced a couple more high level seasons after what- 1930?- didn't look it up- he'd be ahead. But, injuries and other factors took their toll.

[TomBodet]

Agreed. Would take Musial but Rajah was just that good. I don't think Musial's versatility gets the love it should.

[StanTheMan]

Musial for sure. What a peak for Honsby though!

Happy 92nd birthday to Stan!!!

[JR Hart]

Agreed. Would take Musial but Rajah was just that good. I don't think Musial's versatility gets the love it should.

I'm not sure that alternating between 1B and outfield makes a player versitile. no one thought that Willie Stargell or Frank Howard were versatile.

[pheasant]

Unlike my original blog where I had Musial ahead, I now have Hornsby ahead of Musial. Even after adjusting for era, I still have Hornsby ahead by a decent margin as hitters. Throw in Hornsby's positional advantage, and Hornsby pulls ahead comfortably. Musial's longevity nearly closes the gap.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Musial for sure. What a peak for Honsby though!

Happy 92nd birthday to Stan!!!

A bit late but I'll second that birthday greeting.
Up there in years and not in the public eye in years, but this is one guy that will be missed when he leaves.
All class, on and off the field.

[ol' aches and pains]

I'm not sure that alternating between 1B and outfield makes a player versitile. no one thought that Willie Stargell or Frank Howard were versatile.

However, Musial played 1B and the outfield competently, which I'm not sure is the case with Howard or Stargell.

[TomBodet]

Really JR? Guy plays all of spots really well, ditto first, that's not 'versatile' enough for you? And comparing Hondo and Pops to The Man is silly, you are talking dh time with either guy.

[leecemark]

--I don't think Musial was a great defensive player or anything, but he was a good one and certainly much better than Howard or Stargell. Stan the Man was playing wherever he could help the team the most. Pops and Hondo were playing wherever they would hurt the team the least. In the DH era thats where they get most of their time, but Musial wouldn't have Dhed much until his elder seasons. He could handle CF in his youth.
--Hornsby also moved around from position to position, but in his case he was being moved down the spectrum as the Cards decided he couldn't handle SS and then 3B. Of course being a marginal IF defensive talent doesn't put you in Stargell/Howard territory . I think even as a merely adequete 2B he would have as much or more defensive value as a very good LF/RF/1B. It is sustaining his ability much longer that puts Musial ahead for me. Well being one of the all time good guys in baseball history doesn't hurt either, especially in a comparsion with the Rajah.

[fenrir]

--I don't think Musial was a great defensive player or anything, but he was a good one and certainly much better than Howard or Stargell. Stan the Man was playing wherever he could help the team the most. Pops and Hondo were playing wherever they would hurt the team the least. In the DH era thats where they get most of their time, but Musial wouldn't have Dhed much until his elder seasons. He could handle CF in his youth.
--Hornsby also moved around from position to position, but in his case he was being moved down the spectrum as the Cards decided he couldn't handle SS and then 3B. Of course being a marginal IF defensive talent doesn't put you in Stargell/Howard territory . I think even as a merely adequete 2B he would have as much or more defensive value as a very good LF/RF/1B. It is sustaining his ability much longer that puts Musial ahead for me. Well being one of the all time good guys in baseball history doesn't hurt either, especially in a comparsion with the Rajah.

This sounds about right. Going with Musial here.

[westsidegrounds]

couldn't handle SS and then 3B.

Many would say that 2B is a more important and demanding position than 3B.

As for SS, during his only two years as a full-timer at those positions:

1917 - 2nd in assists, 4th in range factor/game, 4th in F%

1918 - 3rd in assists, 3rd in range factor/game, 4th in f%

So it doesn't seem entirely accurate to say he "couldn't handle" the position.

[leecemark]

--At the time 3B was considered a more important defensive position than 2B. I doubt he was moved off SS for no reason. I've read that he was quite slendor when he first came up, but bulked up his first couple years and lost the range expected of a SS.

[westsidegrounds]

--At the time 3B was considered a more important defensive position than 2B. I doubt he was moved off SS for no reason. I've read that he was quite slendor when he first came up, but bulked up his first couple years and lost the range expected of a SS.

"3B was considered a more important defensive position than 2B" Really? Huh, how about that. News to me, but then we're all here to learn. Any period quotes to that effect?

"I doubt he was moved off SS for no reason." Absolutely correct. He was replaced at SS by veteran Doc Lavan, who was something of a defensive ace for his time - career SS Range factor 5.40 (26th all time).

I still say "couldn't handle the position" isn't a very accurate description of Hornsby's work at 3B and SS.

[drstrangelove]

I'm going with Musial. He played most of his career in an integrated league and that counts for a lot. Barring integration and loss of a year to the war, he would have easily slipped past Cobb and right behind Ruth in career WAR. He was probably a MUCH better team mate and I have no doubt a much better person. I can't tell you how good a base runner Hornsby was, but on another thread, about Henderson, I did the numbers on Musial and he was quite good at taking extra bases.

There's a lot to say for playing your whole career with one team, too.