My take on the second
basemen. I agree with you that Hornsby is the
obvious choice. I mean, he was such a good hitter
that some of his seasons look like misprints.
check this out
Avg 2b-3b-Hr
1922 .401 46-14-42
1925 .403 41-10-39
1924 .424 43-14-25
The 1920's were a
big hitting era, but Hornsby even stood out in
that crowd, especially in the National League,
because the biggest guns were in the AL. In 1922,
Hornsby had 450 total bases, just edging out
second place Irish Meusel, who had 314. For the
period from 1922 to 1925, Hornsby was the best
hitter in baseball, better even than Ruth, who
had his two off years in 1922 and 1925.
So what else is there to say?
Just this. The two best seasonal batting averages
of the twentieth century were both by second
basemen (!!), and Hornsby finished second. The
two most valuable fielders of the twentieth
century (in Total Baseball's rankings) were both
second basemen, and Bill Mazeroski finished
second. Both Hornsby's offense and Mazeroski's
defense finished second to the same guy. In fact,
according to Total Baseball, the second-best
overall player of all time, behind only the babe
himself, is a second baseman, and it isn't
Hornsby. It is a second baseman who edged out
guys like Cobb, Ted Williams and Mays for the #2
spot. Who could it be, and why didn't you think
of him? Because he played his entire career in
the comparative obscurity of the deadball era,
and his stats require study before they can be
truly appreciated. The man's name is Napoleon
Lajoie, and here's what he did in 1901, for
example.
He led the league in OBP
by 50 points
He led the league in
slugging by 120 points
He won the batting crown
by a narrow 86 point margin
He led the league in hits
by 42
He led the league in
Runs, RBI's, doubles, and homers.
Here's a story to help you
appreciate his hitting. You know how left-handed
hitters mysteriously catch strep throat when
Randy Johnson is scheduled to start against them
the next day? Well, the right-handed Lajoie had
the same impact on opposing third basemen. And
when they did play, they'd play way behind the
bag, out into left field, just so they had enough
time to react to his shots. This wasn't a
defensive strategy, but rather a survival tactic.
Yup, the man could play. According to Total
Baseball's year-by-year analysis, he should have
been a nine-time MVP! (Compared to only four for
Cobb, and seven for Hornsby, but also nine for
Honus Wagner, and eleven for Ruth.)
So, if you voted for Hornsby, you
got a helluva player, and I have no quarrel. But
the obscure Lajoie was his equal.
Interestingly and surprisingly to
me, Total Baseball lists four second basemen
among the 20 greatest players of all-time.
#2, Lajoie
#8, Hornsby
#15, Eddie Collins
#19, Joe Morgan
A vote for pretty much any of
them is a legitimate vote because of the
difficulty of comparing across eras. I don't know
if Morgan was more valuable in his time than
Lajoie or Hornsby in his own. Total Baseball
tries to level the playing field, but their
rankings are approximations, not absolute
certainties. Morgan was absolutely a great player
at his peak. In 1976 he stole sixty bases in 69
attempts, and led the National League in both
slugging average and OBP, the latter with an
outstanding .471. And leading the league in
slugging average is not an easy task for a guy
5'7" and 155 pounds. Mark McGwire could fit
Morgan in his pocket.
For the record, and because it is
an interesting list, here are the all-time
defensive leaders among twentieth century players
(ranked by their ability to prevent runs).
Technically, Mazeroski leads the 20th century,
since Lajoie played a small portion of his career
in the 1800's.
Lajoie
Mazeroski
Mike Schmidt (3B)
Tris Speaker (CF)
Ozzie Smith (SS)
(Mays and Clemente are also up
there - #4 and #5 among outfielders, with
Clemente the top rightfielder)
|
