Morganites Unite!!!!!!

[538280]

You are out of your mind, El Halo, Joe Morgan is 13th on my list of players, and first on my list of announcers, Bleacherbee!

Hey, ElHalo, at least we agree about Gary Carter.

[leecemark]

--Add one more to the Morganite column. He was the best player in baseball five years running in arguably the most competive period in the game's history. I can't defend his announcing though. Its almost enough to make me a Collinsite.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Morganite Clan:

1. Honus Wagner Rules
2. 538280
3. west coast orange and black
4. leecemark

[538280]

All right, after this we're stopping with Joe Morgan the announcer, but does anyone besides me think he's any good as an announcer, because I seriously think he's the best there is.

[The Commissioner]

Definitely count me as being nowhere near joining the Morganite party.

I realize how much the revsionists love to gloss over Hornsby's time as being a "hitter's era" with "inflated numbers". There is no arguing against either of those points. Hornsby also benefited greatly from his home ballpark. However, let us not forget just how dominant this man was in his prime. Look at some of the years that he led in the league in various categories. The margin of difference between him and second place isn't narrow. It's a huge gap.

Also, keep in mind that the man won two triple crowns, and another five batting titles on top of those. During one five year span (1921-25) he averaged .402. Added to his seven batting titles, at the time of his retirement, he was the second most prolific homerun hitter in history. That was a time when 300 homers meant something. Now, it can be argued that this fact was merely a product of his palying from the begining of the live ball era. However, still, no one in the NL hit for more power during that same time.

Joe Morgan is certainly amongst the all-time greats. However, even he doesn't come close to Horsnby as the all-time greatest second sacker.

[ElHalo]

Hitting for power: Tie. Hornsby's home run totals are a little bit larger, but Morgan's era included far less home runs than Hornsby's. The doubles are slightly in favor of Hornsby, Morgan would be a better triples hitter if he played in Hornsby's era.

The only part of this statement that is remotely true is that Morgan would be a better triples hitter if he played in Hornsby's era.

First off, the rediculous statement that more homers were hit in Hornsby's era. I don't have the time to go through an analysis of their entire careers, so I'll just pick a year at both of their respective peaks.

Hornsby's peak was from 20-25, so I'll split the difference and pick 1923. In 1923, 538 HR's were hit in the NL (112 of them by that team in the Baker Bowl), which equates to 0.873 HR's per league game.

Morgan's peak was from 1972 to 1976, so I'll split the difference and use 1974. In 1974, there were 1280 HR's hit, or 1.317 HR's per league game.

So, in Morgan's peak, the NL was hitting 51% MORE HR's than during Hornsby's peak. And still, Hornsby hit significantly more HR's than Morgan.

And the doubles aren't "slightly" in favor of Hornsby. Rajah averaged 39 doubles per 162 games. Morgan averaged 27. That's 44% more than Morgan.

Rajah's adjusted SLG% is 148. Morgan's is 111.

If it wasn't for the HUGE advantage in power hitting that Rajah had, I wouldn't be arguing so vociferously for him. To say it's a tie is absolutely ludicrous.

[ElHalo]

First off, ElHalo says that Hornsby had a much shorter career than Morgan. That is not true, Morgan's career was a little bit longer, but not that much.

Hornsby had 13 qualifying seasons. Morgan had 17. That's a significant chunk.

[ElHalo]

All right, after this we're stopping with Joe Morgan the announcer, but does anyone besides me think he's any good as an announcer, because I seriously think he's the best there is.

I don't think he's the very worst, but that's just because I have to listen to Michael Kay every day. He's certainly one of the worst I've ever heard.

[leecemark]

Hornsby had fewer "qualifying" season because he had more injuries and was washed up sooner. That should be advantage Morgan by any logical assesment.

[ElHalo]

Hornsby had fewer "qualifying" season because he had more injuries and was washed up sooner. That should be advantage Morgan by any logical assesment.

If you're talking overall value, then maybe, but we're talking "best" here. And my I wasn't just straight calling it an advantage for Hornsby, but I was saying that Hornsby's number of top 10's and titles is even more impressive because he did it in less chances than Morgan had (and that Hornsby's 7 fewer BB top 10's are largely a product of his 4 fewer qualifying seasons).

[ElHalo]

Now Morgan couldn't hit.

I didn't say he couldn't hit; I said he wasn't a decent contact hitter or a decent power hitter. His career BA is 11 points over league average, and his career SLG is 37 points over league average. Those are nice numbers to have from a middle infielder who bats sixth for a .500 team. For a guy people are talking about as a potential top 20 player, they're absolutely not nice at all.

[The Commissioner]

According to Bill James's win shares fielding analysis, Hornsby is the worst defensive second baseman ever, and Morgan is near the top.

No one would argue that Morgan was a much better fielder, but Hornsby as the "worst defensive second baseman ever"? I don't think so. The worst defensive second baseman ever could not have led the league in putouts twice, assists twice, and double plays three times. He had a reputation of being a bad fielder on pop flies, but certainly, by no means does that make him the "worst ever".

[Honus Wagner Rules]

No one would argue that Morgan was a much better fielder, but Hornsby as the "worst defensive second baseman ever"? I don't think so. The worst defensive second baseman ever could not have led the league in putouts twice, assists twice, and double plays three times. He had a reputation of being a bad fielder on pop flies, but certainly, by no means does that make him the "worst ever".

Yes, it does. According to James' Win Shares system James actually said that Hornsby is the worst defensive 2B who has played at least 10,000 (I think) defensive innings. He speaks on this at length in his Win Shares book. James also says that one main reason for thiu is that Hornsby was such a good hitter that his teams disregarded his poor defense. If Hornsby was just a good hitter he never would have logged over 10,000 defensive innings.

[iPod]

Yes, it does. According to James' Win Shares system James actually said that Hornsby is the worst defensive 2B who has played at least 10,000 (I think) defensive innings. He speaks on this at length in his Win Shares book. James also says that one main reason for thiu is that Hornsby was such a good hitter that his teams disregarded his poor defense. If Hornsby was just a good hitter he never would have logged over 10,000 defensive innings.

That's true, he does say that, but he also sneaks in there a little later in the book that Hornsby was actually about average per inning historically, but dead last for, like you said, someone with that many innings. The reason for that is probably that 2nd baseman only have careers that long if they're exceptionally good fielders. Players who are only average with the glove at second base never play that many innings in the first place, because second baseman historically have almost always been below average hitters. Hence, if you're a 2nd baseman, you're probably a below average hitter, so your only hope of lasting long enough to play 10,000 innings at 2nd base is if you're really good with the glove.

[csh19792001]

[QUOTE=The Commissioner]Definitely count me as being nowhere near joining the Morganite party.

I realize how much the revsionists love to gloss over Hornsby's time as being a "hitter's era" with "inflated numbers". There is no arguing against either of those points. Hornsby also benefited greatly from his home ballpark. However, let us not forget just how dominant this man was in his prime. Look at some of the years that he led in the league in various categories. The margin of difference between him and second place isn't narrow. It's a huge gap.
[QUOTE]

Just to edify this conversation, I'll take the time to re-type James' entire passage about the greatest second baseman here, apropos to just how inflated Hornsby's numbers really are. Since nobody usually vouches for Collins over Hornsby, I'll shed some light on Hornsby (in support of Collins) using the words of Bill James.

"(Eddie) Collins has better numbers than Rogers Hornsby. The ranking numbers I have, with the subjective element being even for all three players, are 243 for Morgan, 241 for Collins, and 239 for Hornsby. No other second baseman is higher than 209.

The claim that Eddie Collins has better numbers than Rogers Hornsby is, I would expect, surprising to most people, so let me explain why this is true as best I can, without burying you in decimal points. Rogers Hornsby's best season, 1922, is better than any season of Eddie Collins- not a lot better, but a little better. Hornsby in 1922 hit .401 with 250 hits including 42 homers, driving in 152 runs. Collins' best season, taking everything into account, did not have quite the same impact as that monster season, which was the best season every by a major league second baseman.

However Collins' best season (1909) and his second best (1914) are both better than any other season in Hornsby's career, in my opinion. In addition, Collins had more which are at or near the level of his best years.

Why is this true? Hornsby's numbers, without looking at the context, are better. Eddie Collins in 1909 created 118 runs; Hornsby in 1929 hit .380 with 29 homers, creating 178 runs. But the relationship between 1909 baseball and 1929 baseball is like the relationship between 1960’s baseball and 1990’s baseball. Many, many hitters in the 90’s have better numbers than any hitter posted during the 1960’s, not because the players have gotten better, but because the conditions of the game have sung in the hitter’s favor. Same thing then: many hitters from 1929 have better numbers than any hitter from 1909. This doesn’t prove that they were all better hitters.

In the American League in 1909, when Eddie Collins created 118 runs, the average team scored 3.44 runs per game. Collins, then created all the runs that would normally be scored by a team in 34 games- actually, 34.3.

In the National League in 1929, when Rogers Hornsby created 178 runs, the average team scored 5.36 runs per game. Hornsby’s offense, then represents all the runs that would normally be scored by a team in 33 games-actually, 33.2.

In context, who is the better hitter? Who had more impact on the games that he was playing? It’s close, but Collins did.

Looking at the 1914 season, same thing; Collins created 128 runs (most in the AL) in a league where the average team scored 3.66 runs per game. Collins, then, created all of the offense that would normally be scored by a team in 35 games.

Horsnby in 1921 (which matches 1929 as his second-greatest seasons) created 152 runs, in a league in which the average team scored 4.59 runs per game. Hornsby’s 1921 season thus represents all the runs a team would normally score in 33 games.

The Park Factors for the two players in the seasons I am comparing them are almost the same. (there is more but I’m cutting it for brevity).

The other factors that I would register on Collins’ behalf, things that I would suppose most people would generally accept; defense and consistency. The Win Shares systems shows Collins to be a better defensive second baseman than Hornsby. We have Collins with 7.7 Win Shares for his defense in 1909, 5.8 in 1914, and Hornsby with 6.2 WS for defense in 1929, and 5.1 in 1921. Thus, we give Collins an edge of about one Win Share per season for his defense. Most people who aren’t emotional about would agree, I suspect, that Collins was a better defensive player than Hornsby, and that this is a reasonable and modest advantage for Collins.

The Win Shares system actually does not see Hornsby as a terrible defensive second baseman. The Win Shares system sees Hornsby as a more or less average defensive second baseman- but also as the worst defensive second baseman who had a long career at the position. There are 71 second basemen in baseball history who played an estimated 10,000 innings or more at second base. Among those 7 players, Hornsby rates dead last in terms of Win Shares per defensive inning.

The other statement in Collins’ support- that he had more seasons which are near the level of his best seasons0 is obvious. Consideration of external factors- leadership, performance of the team, etc.- certainly would not argue that we should reconsider the idea that Collins might have been the better player. Over the course of his career, Collins’ teams had far, far better won-lost records than Hornsby’s teams. Collins was a regular on six teams that went to the World Series (winning four of them), and played on seven other teams that won 90 or more games. Hornsby went to the World Series twice, and played on three other teams that won 90 or more games, but two of those were years in which Hornsby was injured and missed almost the entire season. Collins played on only three bad teams, and no team that lost more than 92 games; Hornsby played on several teams that were absolutely terrible." (pages 481-482, Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract)

There is a GREAT deal more lauding Collins for everything he did on the baseball diamond. An outstanding analysis of the recondite portions of Eddie Collins the baseball player, and Eddie Collins the man.

I didn't retype the paragraph on how Hornsby was able to stay at second base despite being poor defensively (because of his offense) for obvious reasons- it's self implicit.

Whether or not one ranks Morgan or Collins #1 alltime depends on whether (or not) a timeline adjustment overwhelms Collins’ statistical edge.