Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best hitter of the 1920's

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Best hitter of the 1920's

    It seems obvious that any listing like this must begin with Babe Ruth. Many of us believe he was the best hitter in MLB history, and the 1920's was his time on center stage. But How do his stats compare with Rogers Hornsby for the same period 1920 thru 1929?

    In this 10-year period, Babe Ruth was the AL season leader in :
    * Batting Average: 1 time (1924)
    * Total hits: 0 (Ruth never led in hits)
    * Runs scored: 7
    * Homeruns: 8 (of his 12 career HR crowns)
    * Runs Batted In: 5
    * Slugging Pct: 9 (all but 1925)
    * On-Base Pct: 6
    * Total Bases: 5
    * OPS: 9 of 10

    Total of 50 season hitting titles.

    In the same 10-year span, Rogers Hornsby was the NL season leader in:
    * Batting Average: 7 times
    * Total hits: 4
    * Runs scored: 5
    * Homeruns: 2
    * Runs Batted In: 4
    * Slugging Pct: 8
    * On-Base Pct: 8
    * Total Bases: 6
    * OPS: 9 of 10

    Total of 53 season-leader "crowns".

    In this ten-year span, Ruth had two "bad" seasons: 1922 and 1925. In 1922 Ruth had just 35 homeruns and 99 RBI; and in 1925 the Babe played in just 98 games, hit 25 homeruns and drove in 66 runs.

    It just happens that 1922 and 1925 were Hornsby's two Triple Crown seasons. Rogers' two worst seasons of the '20's were probably 1923 (Ruth's MVP season) and 1926. In 1923 Hornsby appeared in 107 games, hit 17 homeruns and drove in 83 (while hitting .384 and winning a batting title). In 1926 Hornsby appeared in 134 games, hit 11 homeruns, drove in 93, and batted just .317.

    Compare their overall hitting totals for this 10-year period (1920 thru 1929):
    Batting Average: Hornsby averaged .382 in this period (Rank #1 in MLB). Harry Heilman was #2 with BA of .364. Ruth was #5 with BA of .355.

    Total Hits: Hornsby #1 with 2085. Sam Rice #2 with 1924. Ruth #6 with 1734.

    Runs Scored: Ruth #1 with 1365. Hornsby #2 with 1195.

    Homeruns: Ruth # 1 with 467 (of his career total of 714). Hornsby was #2 with 250 homeruns in the decade.

    RBI: Ruth #1 with 1328. Hornsby #2 with 1153. (Harry Heilmann a close #3 with 1133 RBI.)

    Slugging Average: Ruth #1 at .740. Hornsby #2 with .637. Gehrig is #3 at .621, but that is only for seven seasons in this period.

    On-Base Pct: Ruth #1 at .488, Hornsby #2 at .460. Tris Speaker was #3 with .441.

    Total Bases: Ruth #1 with 3613; Hornsby #2 with 3470. Both far ahead of Harry Heilmann (#3 with 2949 TB).

    For this 10-year period, Hornsby was the MLB leader in two departments (hits and BA) -- and was second in every other department listed. Ruth was the MLB leader in six of the eight departments, but ranked only sixth in hits and fifth in Batting Average.

    Overall I guess Ruth still wins, but it is closer than I expected. They were both far ahead of anyone else.

    Or do you disagree?
    Last edited by Appling; 06-01-2005, 05:44 PM.
    Luke

  • #2
    Originally posted by Appling
    It seems obvious that any listing like this must begin with Babe Ruth. Many of us believe he was the best hitter in MLB history, and the 1920's was his time on center stage. But How do his stats compare with Rogers Hornsby for the same period 1920 thru 1929?
    I think the AL of the 1920s was stronger than the NL . Ruth had to fight off better hitters than Hornsby. I'll have to check...
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 02-23-2006, 07:23 AM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    Comment


    • #3
      Farm Teams 1920's to 1940

      Not sure where to post this, so sorry if not relevant.. looking for help!

      I am doing some research on the first 20 years after introduction of the farm team system.

      Does anyone here know details on
      -how and why did the different major league teams change the SIZE of their farm team systems over time, after adoption of the system?
      -what were specific steps they took, once adopting the system, to experiment (if any) with details or different way to implement?

      I have been doing some historical research, but still looking for key references and facts on these specific questions.

      Any help wildly appreciated. MINERVA

      Comment


      • #4
        Minerva,

        You have the right section. This is historical. Look at the top of the different thread headings, and there is one small icon, which says, "New Threads". That is where you want to start. To have a thread of your own.

        Bill Burgess

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
          I think the AL of the 1920s was stronger than the NL . Ruth had to fight off better hitters than Hornsby. I'll have to check...

          I wouldn't say it was 'stronger'
          But in regards to power it had a high talent level, then bottomed out, where the NL had more average players and less dropoff

          Remember the NL was still playing deadball, because most of the managers were old school

          The AL had the more modern managers

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Appling
            It seems obvious that any listing like this must begin with Babe Ruth. Many of us believe he was the best hitter in MLB history, and the 1920's was his time on center stage. But How do his stats compare with Rogers Hornsby for the same period 1920 thru 1929?
            Ruth never had the opportunity to lead the league in hits due to him being walked 100+ times each year. His best year (205 hits) was still screwed over by his 170 walks that season.

            and considering Ruth is far ahead in the other catagories (HR, Slugging %, OPS% and total bases), I think that closes the window to any debate. Keep in mind that Ruth missed 42 and 57 games in 1922 and 1925, but yet still ranked in the top of the league in the HR department
            Last edited by Bill Burgess; 02-23-2006, 07:22 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Keep in mind that Ruth missed 42 and 57 games in 1922 and 1925, but yet still ranked in the top of the league in the HR department.
              No, no, no, not.
              Last edited by Bill Burgess; 02-23-2006, 07:24 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by [email protected]
                Keep in mind that Ruth missed 42 and 57 games in 1922 and 1925, but yet still ranked in the top of the league in the HR department.

                No, not.
                i should've worded it "ranked among the top", rather than "in"

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you use sabermetic stats, such as win shares, include fielding analysis, and take into account that the AL was stronger than the NL in that era, Hornsby and Ruth don't appear so close. Ruth's secondary average (secondary average is more important than BA) is much higher than Hornsby's, and although neither was a great fielder, Ruth is shone to be better than Hornsby by almost all fielding metrics.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 538280
                    If you use sabermetic stats, such as win shares, include fielding analysis, and take into account that the AL was stronger than the NL in that era, Hornsby and Ruth don't appear so close. Ruth's secondary average (secondary average is more important than BA) is much higher than Hornsby's, and although neither was a great fielder, Ruth is shone to be better than Hornsby by almost all fielding metrics.
                    Just don't really buy this that much. Yes, Ruth was obviously a better hitter. The AL was probably marginally stronger than the NL for the decade (and for most decades in history, 1950's excepted). Who was comparatively a better fielder is open to question.

                    However... Hornsby was a second baseman. That counts for all the world and more in my book. Hornsby was easily the second best hitter in the game in the decade, and nobody else in the history of baseball has given that kind of offensive output out of a middle infield positon (yes, that includes ARod and Honus). I'm very often tempted to bump Hornsby above Ruth as the greatest player of all time just for that simple fact (nobody else gets a glimmer of hope in my view of moving ahead of the Babe). The offense you get out of a second baseman is MUCH more valuable than the offense you get out of a corner outfielder... I can't see Ruth blowing Hornsby out by that much in the decade.
                    "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                    Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ElHalo
                      Just don't really buy this that much. Yes, Ruth was obviously a better hitter. The AL was probably marginally stronger than the NL for the decade (and for most decades in history, 1950's excepted). Who was comparatively a better fielder is open to question.

                      However... Hornsby was a second baseman. That counts for all the world and more in my book. Hornsby was easily the second best hitter in the game in the decade, and nobody else in the history of baseball has given that kind of offensive output out of a middle infield positon (yes, that includes ARod and Honus). I'm very often tempted to bump Hornsby above Ruth as the greatest player of all time just for that simple fact (nobody else gets a glimmer of hope in my view of moving ahead of the Babe). The offense you get out of a second baseman is MUCH more valuable than the offense you get out of a corner outfielder... I can't see Ruth blowing Hornsby out by that much in the decade.
                      ElHalo,

                      You want to dance to this music again? Hornsby would be the best offensive second baseman ever, if it wasn't for Joe Morgan!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
                        I think the AL of the 1920s was stronger than the NL . Ruth had to fight off better hitters than Hornsby. I'll have to check...
                        Could be looked at the other way around. AL's hitting stats were better than NL's, which could mean NL's pitching was better. Or not, I'm really just trying to be difficult.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 538280
                          ElHalo,

                          You want to dance to this music again? Hornsby would be the best offensive second baseman ever, if it wasn't for Joe Morgan!
                          Shouldn't those names be transposed in the above sentence

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ElHalo
                            Just don't really buy this that much. Yes, Ruth was obviously a better hitter. The AL was probably marginally stronger than the NL for the decade (and for most decades in history, 1950's excepted). Who was comparatively a better fielder is open to question.

                            However... Hornsby was a second baseman. That counts for all the world and more in my book. Hornsby was easily the second best hitter in the game in the decade, and nobody else in the history of baseball has given that kind of offensive output out of a middle infield positon (yes, that includes ARod and Honus). I'm very often tempted to bump Hornsby above Ruth as the greatest player of all time just for that simple fact (nobody else gets a glimmer of hope in my view of moving ahead of the Babe). The offense you get out of a second baseman is MUCH more valuable than the offense you get out of a corner outfielder... I can't see Ruth blowing Hornsby out by that much in the decade.
                            Oh I don't know, Both Honus and A-Rod had some monster seasons and were MUCH better defensive players. I believe quite strongly that had Honus been born 20 years later he would be have been a 500-700 HR guy.
                            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Not really close at all when you consider their numbers side by side. Ink doesn't mean much, especially when it comes to Babe's Hits and BA ink.

                              Then there's Rogers having 568 more AB for those 10 seasons. Basically he had an entire extra season to compile numbers and still came out well behind.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X