Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best hitter of the 1920's

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

  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    My candidates for Greatest Hitters of the 1920's are:

    1. Babe Ruth
    2. Rogers Hornsby
    3. Harry Heilmann
    4. Ty Cobb
    5. Tris Speaker
    6. Eddie Collins
    7. Zack Wheat
    8. Eddie Roush
    9. Al Simmons
    10. Ken Williams/Hack Wilson
    Not a bad list, Bill. Goose Goslin and Sam Rice definitely should be on there though, certainly ahead of Collins, Wheat, and Wilson.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    My candidates for Greatest Hitters of the 1920's are:

    1. Babe Ruth
    2. Rogers Hornsby
    3. Harry Heilmann
    4. Ty Cobb
    5. Tris Speaker
    6. Eddie Collins
    7. Zack Wheat
    8. Eddie Roush
    9. Al Simmons
    10. Ken Williams/Hack Wilson

    Leave a comment:


  • Edgartohof
    replied
    I haven't made a list of my top hiters, but as it is, I would go with:

    Williams
    Ruth
    Cobb
    ...
    Hornsby


    Hornsby was great, but Cobb just had WAY too much power for Hornsby to overcome, even with positional adjustments. No amount of defense can make up those 200+ HR's that Ruth beats him by.

    Hornsby may be number 2 in BA, but Ruth is not that far behind, being 10th all-time himself, only 16 points behind. Now normally that would be considered a lot, but Ruth also has a 40 point lead in OBP, and an astounding 113 point lead in Slugging!!!

    So in the end, it isn't even close, Ruth wins by a mile.

    Leave a comment:


  • Myankee4life
    replied
    I say Ruth

    Leave a comment:


  • Tigerfan1974
    replied
    IMO, Hornsby!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • mordeci
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • ElHalo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackout
    replied
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackout
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X