It's time to continue this little game of mine. It's time to debate who do you think is the best second baseman of all time. Once again if I don't like the responce I will delete the message.

So let's make this look professional. Who do you think is the best second baseman of all time?

morgan. He could steal bases, hit for decent power, field at a high level, and get on base at a high %.

Joe Morgan in his prime as a total overall package was probably the equivalent to Lou Gehrig.

1. Rogers Hornsby - I'm ready to duke it out with any Morgan supporters here. Bring it on!

2. Nap Lajioe - Possibly the greatest slugger of the early 20th century. Could do it all with the bat. Great fielder, too.

3. Joe Morgan - Amazing base stealer, great hitter and great fielder.

4. Eddie Collins - Fastest 2B of all time.

5. Charlie Gehringer - A great all around hitter, could hit for power very well for a second baseman.

6. Rod Carew - Didn't hit for as much power as he could have, but who's to gripe? Greatest average hitting 2B of all time, second fastest and a good fielder.

7. Craig Biggio - So much consistency. A hit man.

8. Roberto Alomar - Greatest fielding second baseman of all time.

9. Jeff Kent - RBIs to go!

10. Jackie Robinson - Overcame so much, and still possibly the most lethal base stealer 2B ever. Knows how to make Yogi Berra mad

I already answered this on the Eddie Collins thread:

1. Joe Morgan

2. Eddie Collins

3. Rogers Hornsby

(big gap)

4. Jackie Robinson

I give no credit to Jeff Kent. He came to the great big drug lab that was the Bay Area, and suddenly became a much, much, MUCH better hitter than he had ever been. I'm not buying it. And I'm not giving any credit to stats I consider phony. The fact Kent has a loathsome personality makes it all the easier, but I wouldn't give Mother Teresa credit for baseball feats which, in my opinion, were flagrantly tainted by a huge, mid-career PED spike.

No debate on number one, what ever some subract from Hornsby in the field, his hitting even with era adjustments ( never conclusive) is overwhelming, puts him at the top. I just left one board where Hornsby trounced Joe Morgan in votes for the number one second basemen, 63 Hornsby and 8 for Morgan and I agree. This in no way should reflect on this board, different posters and we shall see what happens.

His fielding at second base, yes not the best but better than many of his critics give him credit for. Those who saw him play say his main weakness going back on pop fly balls.

Some fielding stats for second basemen in the years 1916-1931 with a minimum of 1500 games. I chose the years 1916 -1931 because Hornsby played his first game at second base in 1916 and after 1931 he played very little, 1932-1937 only 258 at bats.

Fielding second base 1916-1931 minimum 1500 games.

Only two second baseman in those years with 1500 games, but some stats on some with less than 1500.

-------------------------------Games----------Assists----------DPs------------Fielding Per.
Eddie Collins------------------1557-------------4548------------813---------------.973
Hornsby-----------------------1525-------------5088------------876---------------.965

Less than 1500 games
Frankie Frisch----------------1287-------------4605------------791----------------.973
Bucky Harris-----------------1254-------------3842------------801----------------.965

To be fair to Eddie Collins his first year was 1906 and he was in his decline while the others were not. Eddie was 40 years old in 1927 and played less than 150 games his last 4 seasons 1927-1930.

My point, Hornsby was not as bad in the field as some make him out to be and as I said earlier his hitting was off the chart, more than makes up for Morgan in the field or on the bases, Hornsby was a terror at the plate. True he did not play deep into his declining years but 17 strong years and his first 5 seasons in the dead ball era facing trick deliveries hitting a beat up scuffed ball that was left in the game for many innings.

It's Hornsby on top. I do differ with your number 2 and 3 choices.


1--- Hornsby
2--- Collins
3--- Morgan

"No debate on number one...." ?????

This is the kind of mindlessly didactic statement which turns people off to the study of baseball history in general, and to groups like SABR in particular. It's the reason I don't, and under any future circumstances won't, belong to SABR.

There is a VERY legitimate debate about who is #1 at 2B. Maybe you don't think Bill James' point of view constitutes a valid form of debate, but he offers a great deal more in the way of facts and reasoned analysis, not to mention skilled writing, than you do in the above pronouncement.

I spelled out many of the reasons for not rating Hornsby #1, though lord knows there are many others, in my essay on Eddie Collins. As I said there, I rate Hornsby #3 at 2B, narrowly behind Collins and not too far behind Morgan. I went into a lot of detail there, and I didn't do so as an advocate digging in his heels and selectively presenting a one-sided set of facts and point of view. I noted reasons why many feel that Hornsby, detestible personality and all, was simply too valuable with his great bat for better rounded players like Morgan and Collins to rate ahead of him. Nobody could ever call that point of view unreasonable, and I certainly won't.

But, as I explained at length in a balanced discussion, I don't embrace that point of view, and instead agree with James' ranking of the Top 4 2Bmen, though assuredly not with his rankings after that.

Instead a similarly thoughtful discussion advocating what I've already acknowledged to be a reasonable opposing point of view, we get "No debate on No. 1...." And no mention, for instance, of the fact Hornsby is dead last defensively among the 71 MLB 2Bmen who have played comparable amounts of innings at that position. That counts for something, you know? The fact he was better than short-term and part-time 2Bmen isn't really much by way of redemption. As Fred Lindstrom angrily told the peripatetic pariah, during his one-year stay with the Giants, when McGraw left him in charge of the club for a day and Hornsby presumed to give Lindstrom lectures about how to play 3B, "Who the hell do you think you are?! When you put down that bat, you're no bargain!" No kidding.

There is an old saying which seems particularly apposite here:

Some people use statistics the way drunks use lampposts: for support, rather than for illumination." Amen.

Reasoned discourse and an open-minded, honest evaluation of all relevant factors are how one reaches and presents respectable opinions--whether the bottom line comes out that Hornsby, Collins or Morgan is #1. This is a great game, and it deserves to have its history discussed and analyzed in a thoughtful, right-brain way that goes beyond tossing out a few stats and making an irresponsible statement that there's "no debate on number one" at 2B.

There's a very considerable debate on the subject, and it's one in which lots of history experts with fine left brains, fine right brains, open minds and good writing skills are involved. It's one thing to say there's "no doubt" or "no debate" who's #1 at SS (pending the end of A-Rod's career), or #1 at RF, or #1 at 1B (pending the end of Pujols' career). To say that about 2B is to betray a lot more than I think you intended to betray.

Now please don't respond with a post teeming with underscored print, bold-faced print, enlarged print, etc., etc. I realize that Calvin of "Calvin and Hobbes" fame once said, "If you can't win by reason, go for volume," but that's advice for and from a 6-year-old.

I really don't care what Bill James has to say on Hornsby. It's obvious he has an axe to grind when Hornsby is the subject. He has called him an ****.a horses **** and some other names. Do we need any more hints to at the least suspect that Bill might have some bias on the negative side when ranking Hornsby.

Not only does James think Hornsby was not the best second baseman but he says Hornsby was not even the best..............offensive second baseman ever. Many who do not rank Hornsby the best second baseman believe him to be at least the best offensive second baseman ever, what is Bill looking at.

Bill speaks of the two great hitters parks that Hornsby played in, valid point but one look at the numbers tells anyone that Hornsby hit great on the road also.

Hornsby hit .358 in his career. He hit .359 at home and .358 on the road.
For years he held the highest road batting average for a season in the NL, .419 in 1921, that may still be an NL record.
He held the NL record for road OBA with .505 in 1928. Bonds may have broken that one but who can look at that and take it seriously .
He held and may still hold the NL career road OBA with .430.

Some other numbers.
-----------------home -----------------road.
doubles--------266-------------------275
triples------ ---83---------------------86
home runs----164--------------------137
total bases---2373------------------2339
OPS-----------1.025------------------.996

Bill James, what was he looking at, he just can't stand Hornsby and his name calling doesn't help his credibility. Hornsby hit in all parks.


Your disputing my method for looking at Hornsby in the field. I looked at some fielding stats, fielding stats of those playing in Hornsby's time, on the same diamonds, using trhe best available mitts at that time, thats the way he should be evaluated, in his time.

You claim he ranks in the 70s in fielding. Are you comparing him to second basemen who came after him, some modern. Look at infielders and outfielders career fielding percentages and you find modern fielders dominate the top spots by a wide number. Better equipment, webbed mitts and bigger in size. Do you know where Tris Speaker ranks in career fielding percentage in the outfield. One of the greatest outfielders Tris and his .970 is 86th in career fielding percentages, get the point. Judge Hornsby against those playing in his time.

I haven't even got to Hornsby and his superior hitting yet, thats the clincher.

The above nonsense is the sort of one-sided presentation of discussion one gets from someone who is not a historian, but an advocate--someone who has dug his heels in, staked out a position, and will present one-sided discussions as necessary to justify his conclusion and only his conclusion. For purposes of comparison, I again invite people to read what I wrote under Eddie Collins.

As for Bill James' comments about Hornsby-the-person, so what? Everybody hated him in his lifetime. If you've come up with some revisionist history that makes him a nice guy, James isn't the one with the axe to grind. And in any event, did you read what James said about Ted Williams in his 2001 abstract? It's as brutal as anything he ever wrote about Hornsby, and he nonetheless ranks Williams as the #1 LF and #6 total player of all time, ahead of the much better rounded and infinitely more likable Musial. I agree with him about Williams, and rank Williams as the #4 total player of all time, but that's not the point. The point is you're wrong, and glaringly so, in saying James lets his personal antipathies color his rankings of players. But don't let being demonstrably wrong slow you down....

Rogers Hornsby was known to have just plain atrocious range at 2B. The idea he was a good 2Bman is something you should start a club over, because you could be president, vice president, treasurer and sole member. Comparing him with Speaker in CF is blasphemy. Read Timothy Gay's book about Speaker. Then apologize, if someone as parochial and stubborn as you has it in him to say, "Wow, I was almost insanely wrong!"

Hornsby the great 2Bman. Roflmao. I suppose Fred Lindstrom didn't know what he was talking about either, huh?

Good thing we have you around to set us straight with your result-driven conclusions.

" but he says Hornsby was not even the best..............offensive second baseman ever"

I don't remember him saying that.

Don't let the truth get in your way, Dude. You're talking to someone who thinks he knows more than all the guys who played against Collins and Hornsby, thinks he knows more than guys like Fred Lindstrom who played with Hornsby, thinks he knows more than the teams that unloaded Hornsby like hot potatoes year after year after year after year (and invariably improved), thinks he knows more than the preeminent living baseball historian, and, admittedly least important, thinks he knows more than someone who has studied baseball history for 48 years. Not only that, he'll dig in his heels and tout Hornsby even in such silly areas as fielding, instead of sticking with the more legitimate argument about Hornsby's tremendous hitting.

And it's not just that he disagrees with all these guys and facts. It's that he has the temerity to say it's "no contest," as though nobody with a brain could disagree with him. Maybe all of us who know how to write should chip in and help him with his posts, so his visionary brilliance has a lucid vehicle from which the rest of us could gain his wisdom and inspiration.

You know, I could do the same thing about Morgan, Collins, Hornsby and Lajoie, for sure (though I wouldn't embarrass myself with those remarks about Hornsby's defese), and I might be able to make arguments for Gehringer or Sandberg as the best 2Bman ever, too--if I picked my facts carefully enough, harped on only the things that support my predetermined position, and ridiculed a leading expert for disagreeing with me. I'd be embarrassed to do such a thing, but at least I'd do it with some veneer of reasoning, scholarship and eloquence. And I certainly wouldn't confuse "you're" with "your."