Greatest 2B

[SeanBerry]

Based on your nominations, here are the choices for second baseman for the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) Team.

You can make ONE selection.

Once the poll ends at Thursday at 11:59 PM EST, the leading vote-getter will be the starting second baseman.

The players not chosen will be put in the mix for the 2B/SS slot with the players who don't make the starting second baseman. The top 20 leftover second baseman and shortstop will be selected based on most votes.

This ballot is in order of most nominations to fewest.

Feel free to use this thread to discuss your choice or persuade others.

[alskor]

My vote would go Collins, then Morgan a close second. I wouldnt even consider voting for Hornsby.

3 of the first 5 votes are for Jackie Robinson... I would urge those people to look at the numbers again. The troika of Morgan, Collins and Hornsby stands miles ahead of the rest.

[SumnerH]

I think it's worth really looking at the timeline here. Discounting Hornsby entirely because of era in favor of Robinson is ludicrous--Robinson's career started literally _10_ years after Hornsby's last season, and certainly less than 20 after Hornsby was a high-impact full-time player.

I urge voters to really look at the fact that Hornsby was only 10 years earlier and think honestly about whether they'd discount stats from 1999 in comparison to current players to anywhere near the same degree that people are urging you to discount Hornsby's stats. Certainly there is a major impact from segregation, but at the same time it's not as though we're comparing Cy Young with Pedro Martinez--the time difference between Jackie Robinson and Rogers Hornsby is less than the time difference between Pedro signing with the Red Sox and today.

This post has been edited by SumnerH: 03 May 2009 - 11:55 PM

[mclusky]

SumnerH, on May 4 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

I think it's worth really looking at the timeline here. Discounting Hornsby entirely because of era in favor of Robinson is ludicrous--Robinson's career started literally _10_ years after Hornsby's last season, and certainly less than 20 after Hornsby was a high-impact full-time player.

I urge voters to really look at the fact that Hornsby was only 10 years earlier and think honestly about whether they'd discount stats from 1999 in comparison to current players to anywhere near the same degree that people are urging you to discount Hornsby's stats. Certainly there is a major impact from segregation, but at the same time it's not as though we're comparing Cy Young with Pedro Martinez--the time difference between Jackie Robinson and Rogers Hornsby is less than the time difference between Pedro signing with the Red Sox and today.

It's a little misleading to call "the time difference" between them only 10 years. Their debuts were 32 years apart, and their salad days were at least 20 years apart.

And integration was not the only influence on the game during the intervening years. The development of farm systems and scouting, which largely took place during that 1925 to 1945 period, effected even greater changes on the game, at least initially, in terms improving the caliber of the players. Even when Jackie was the only black player on the field, the whites he played against were far more skilled than those of Hornsby's era.

[SumnerH]

mclusky, on May 4 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

It's a little misleading to call "the time difference" between them only 10 years. Their debuts were 32 years apart, and their salad days were at least 20 years apart.

And integration was not the only influence on the game during the intervening years. The development of farm systems and scouting, which largely took place during that 1925 to 1945 period, effected even greater changes on the game, at least initially, in terms improving the caliber of the players. Even when Jackie was the only black player on the field, the whites he played against were far more skilled than those of Hornsby's era.

That's entirely fair--but even if you say their peaks were 20 years apart, you're talking about comparing Roger Clemens or Wade Boggs with modern players. It's not at all akin to trying to compare Babe Ruth with Barry Bonds. Yes, closers were in their infancy in the mid-1980s, international scouting wasn't nearly as sophisticated as it is now, modern sabermetrics weren't accepted, etc--the game evolves. But a 20-year difference still is only so large.

Now, with integration it's probably significantly larger than the average 20-year difference--but a lot of the conversation has intimated that Rogers Hornsby played in some Jurassic bygone era while Jackie played modern ball. It's incredibly misleading, IMO.

EDIT: FTR, I'm much more sympathetic toward the arguments that Jackie's peak was outside the majors. That certainly deserves due consideration. I'm simply objecting to the argument that Hornsby's stats should be thrown out or discounted almost completely because of era.

This post has been edited by SumnerH: 04 May 2009 - 01:02 AM

[GoJeff!]

My thinking on this:

Robinson: I want to pick him. He's one of my favorite players. He's a leader, a tremendous competitor and probably the most significant baseball player ever in terms of national impact. My problem is the lack of great years. If the first two years of his career were amazing, I could more easily extrapolate everything to his twenties. Without those two years, I feel like I was voting someone as GOAT for a excellent three-four year stretch.

Morgan: I can see picking him if you think the game was vastly more competitive by the 70s. Integration and bigger population help, the rise of other pro sports counteracts that a bit. He's right up there, but his offense is so much less than Hornsby without enough of a defensive boost.

Hornsby: an unbelievably dominant player who left a wake of crap everywhere he played. It is hard not taking him; the numbers are stupendous. But it's second base, and I don't want his lugo-ish defense screwing with this team. I'd take him as a RH pinch hitter if we're doing that.

Collins: Earliest of all these players, which makes everything more suspect, but seems to be the complete package. Great offensive numbers, in line with Morgan or Robinson but for more years, and a great defensive rep. In the end, my vote.

Everyone else: Alomar would be my choice if I believed the game was qualitatively better in the 90s than in the 70s.

[RingoOSU]

I liked Morgan, but I'm voting Robinson cause I really just don't like Hornsby.

Politics is fun!

[BoSox Rule]

I'm voting for Morgan, but Robinson was essentially the same player in half the time due to reasons beyond his control.

Greatest 2B

Player	WARP3	WARP3/162	EqA	RATE2 (2B)	JAWS	wOBA
Hornsby	128.6	9.22	0.337	99	102.6	0.459
Morgan	127.4	7.79	0.314	100	100.5	0.382
Collins	137.8	7.9	0.311	104	105.3	0.414
Lajoie	125.9	8.22	0.309	106	98.8	0.399
Robinson	67.9	7.96	0.308	109	62.7	0.412

[LahoudOrBillyC]

The right answer is either Robinson or Morgan--Morgan did it longer, and Robinson has the advantage of being the warrior you want on your side. I voted Robinson because I thought he'd have the best chance.

I think this is the pick where we could jump the shark. A Hornsby nod just says, "look at us, we know how to sort by OPS+." At which point we can quickly fill in the rest of the team.

[URI]

Well considering Morgan's reputation, I don't think its all that fair to say "Robinson is a warrior you want on your side" as a way to distinguish the two.

They were both famous for their competitiveness, and Morgan was a legitimate team leader in his own right.

Anyway, I voted for Morgan, with Rajah 2nd, and a coinflip between Collins and Robinson.

[AlNipper49]

LahoudOrBillyC, on May 4 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

The right answer is either Robinson or Morgan--Morgan did it longer, and Robinson has the advantage of being the warrior you want on your side. I voted Robinson because I thought he'd have the best chance.

I think this is the pick where we could jump the shark. A Hornsby nod just says, "look at us, we know how to sort by OPS+." At which point we can quickly fill in the rest of the team.

How do you know that he was a warrior? I'd rather select based on, in part, OPS+ rather than 60th-hand platitudes passed on by an overly politically-correct generation which have no place in an intellectually honest debate.

[AlNipper49]

damn your speedy typing URI

[SeanBerry]

LahoudOrBillyC, on May 4 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

I think this is the pick where we could jump the shark. A Hornsby nod just says, "look at us, we know how to sort by OPS+." At which point we can quickly fill in the rest of the team.

I voted for Hornsby and that sentence is total bullshit.

The guy totally dominated a league for a decade and did it playing second base.

He led the league in runs 5 times.
He led the league in OBP 9 times.
He led the league in SLG 9 times.

That's fucking amazing. And it's not like he was awful playing second. By all accounts, he was average. How the Hell does voting for a guy like that "jump the shark"?

You could make a case no one has ever dominated any league for any 4+ year stretch of time like he did from 1920-25... and that's SIX seasons.

[AlNipper49]

SeanBerry, on May 4 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

You could make a case no one has ever dominated any league for any 4+ year stretch of time like he did from 1920-25... and that's SIX seasons.

Or approximately as many seasons as Robinson played total at the position.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

A couple of things.

Yes, Morgan was also a warrior. The two are very difficult to tell apart since they did the same things well and were parts of extraordinary teams. I think there is a good chance that Morgan was the correct answer and it bothered me to have to decide.

People should not give credit to Hornsby because he "did it playing second base." In the early days of baseball, in fact until the 1940s, second base was often an offensive position--it was very often the best hitter amongst the infielders. Second base was the infielder without the arm, much like in slow pitch softball. You hid non-fielders at second base. This really did not change until the double play became a big factor on defense, at which point it became a skill position. Hornsby would not have played second base in the 1950s, he would have played 3rd base--though not well since he could not throw. The responsibility afforded Hornbsy on defense is not comparable to a modern second baseman.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

AlNipper49, on May 4 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

Or approximately as many seasons as Robinson played total at the position.

Yes, and Satchel Paige started 26 games in his career. I never understood what all the fuss was about.

[absintheofmalaise]

LahoudOrBillyC, on May 4 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

The right answer is either Robinson or Morgan--Morgan did it longer, and Robinson has the advantage of being the warrior you want on your side. I voted Robinson because I thought he'd have the best chance.

I think this is the pick where we could jump the shark. A Hornsby nod just says, "look at us, we know how to sort by OPS+." At which point we can quickly fill in the rest of the team.

I didn't use OPS+ to figure out who to vote for and I forgot to allow for the Warrior Code when I chose. I'll make sure to account for that on my next selections.
Anyone around here ever come up with how much better a player has to be defensively than an average defensive player to make up for a 30 run difference in offensive production?
I voted for Hornsby.

[brewdawg819]

absintheofmalaise, on May 4 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

I didn't use OPS+ to figure out who to vote for and I forgot to allow for the Warrior Code when I chose. I'll make sure to account for that on my next selections.
Anyone around here ever come up with how much better a player has to be defensively than an average defensive player to make up for a 30 run difference in offensive production?
I voted for Hornsby.

That's a great point. Was Hornsby so bad defensively that his defense would negate his 30 run difference in offensive production? I think not. His defense was, if anything, average, which is enough to suffice if he is putting up great offensive numbers.

[AlNipper49]

LahoudOrBillyC, on May 4 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

Yes, and Satchel Paige started 26 games in his career. I never understood what all the fuss was about.

.... and I'm sure that we'll take that into consideration when comparing him with Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Seaver, Mariano, Denton and others. What's your point?

[Toe Nash]

AlNipper49, on May 4 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

How do you know that he was a warrior? I'd rather select based on, in part, OPS+ rather than 60th-hand platitudes passed on by an overly politically-correct generation which have no place in an intellectually honest debate.

I voted for Morgan, but there's a lot more than 60th-hand evidence. The league retired his number. He played for a major New York team with a big media following and stood up to countless threats, name-calling and so on -- and this is documented. It's not like a negro league barnstorming team with no one writing anything down. He was one of the most important people in the history of race relations in this country, and it takes a warrior to do what he did.

If you think Hornsby was the better baseball player, fine, but I really don't think you can argue that Robinson gained his status through politically-correct platitudes.