So since the All Star Game is being played in St. Louis, the past week has been dedicated to the hero worship of Albert Pujols. Listening to all of this begs the question, is Albert Pujols the greatest right-handed hitter of all time? Let's take a look:
Pujols leads all right-handed hitters in OPS and slugging %, and comes in 3rd in OB%, and is still in the prime of his career. Everyone points out that he's hit 30 HRs in each of his first 9 seasons, and has never topped 100 Ks in an era where 200 is usually within reach for power hitters. He seems to be humble, and plays the game with passion and intensity. He is a student of the game, and runs the bases well, and has a gold glove to his credit. There's not much he can't do. So is he the greatest right-handed hitter ever? No.
So if it isn't Pujols, it must be asked, who is it? The answer may be surprising. He hasn't played in the lifetime of anyone who is reading this blog, and most people probably wouldn't name him in their first 10 guesses, but Rogers Hornsby was the greatest right-handed hitter of all time. He played 6 of his 23 seasons in the dead ball era (most of his last seasons were short and unimportant, so really it's more like 6 of 18 in the dead ball era) and still finds himself near the top of almost every major statistical category. His career is littered with years that he led the league in numerous different categories, and was twice a triple crown winner (1922 and 1925). Hornsby was never a home run machine like Babe Ruth, and didn't steal bases like Lou Brock, but his all around game and especially his hitting prowess have yet to be matched by a righty. Not to mention, steroids didn't exist during his day, and even though I truly believe Pujols is clean, the suspicion is always present nowadays.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rogers Hornsby? Surely you jest. While I will be one of the first people to say that Rogers Hornsby was one of the greatest ever, he was not THE greatest right handed hitter ever. For the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1) The Dead Ball Era: Yes scoring was way down in the dead ball era, as were home runs. But stolen bases were through the roof, along with doubles and triples. Why? Because ballfields were literally acres across. Huntington Avenue Grounds in Boston was 635 feet to center field. Was anyone going to hit it out to dead center? No. Could anyone hit a ball into the left-center gap and score and inside-the-parker? Hell yes. The fact that Hornsby had 30 ITP home runs between 1916 and 1927 is proof of this.
2)Pitchers: Pitchers didn't use half of the pitches they have today. They had three: Fastball, spitball, and scuff ball. If you didn't spit on the ball or scuff the hell out of it, it was getting hit. The fact that nobody could hit the damn thing leads us to number three...
3) Overall Skill Level: There is no way that players back in the 1910s were as athletic as players today. I am willing to admit that Rogers Hornsby was an above average athlete for any era. But the fact that he has 541 doubles and 169 triples in an era where scoring was in the crapper tells me that nobody else on the team could hit. If the defense is covering an outfield like the Polo Grounds--where a ground ball to the power alleys should be an automatic double--and you can't score more than 3.4 total runs (both teams) per game then you need to review your lineup and find someone to swing a damn bat.
If not Hornsby, then who is the greatest right handed hitter ever? The answer is Hank Aaron. Aaron hit 755 legitimate home runs in an era where they had to lower the pitcher's mound to increase the scoring and the strike zone was from the knees to the letters. The man made 25 All-Star Game appearances, won the MVP in 1957, nearly 2300 RBIs, a career batting average of .305, and had 17 consecutive seasons with 150 or more hits. That's your guy, right there.
C'mon now Beav, you just about made my point for me with number 2 there. The spitball could have killed baseball, but Hornsby was able to not only hit that, but do it well. Just because he played in an era with different nutrition and workout regimens doesn't mean he should be taken down. Give him one of today's trainers and he's better than Pujols. I could also make the point that today's skill level by comparison is lacking due to the over expansion of the game, also a problem in Hank Aaron's era. When Hornsby came up there were 24 teams that were about to put players on the field and compete. By the time he retired that number was down to 16. Some of those players had to go somewhere, so teams had the ability to be stacked. Look at the Yankee teams of the 1920s. We remember them fondly, but they were loaded like the Steelers of the 1970s with talent that couldn't leave. When Aaron was at his peak there were also 16 teams, and he also played in the National League, but he never won the triple crown, and he was more a study in longevity than a study in great hitting. Don't confuse that statement, Aaron was great, but he never had a stretch of 10 years like Hornsby from 1920-1929. Aaron's career .305 is good, but even adjusted for the parks Hornsby's .359 would hold up. He hit over .400 3 times, not including the year he went 2-5 on the season. Adjusted OPS (or OPS+) on baseball reference puts Hornsby 5th overall, but first amongst rightys, while Aaron is 23rd overall, and 12th amongst rightys. That formula takes into consideration the era and ballparks used, so the math is there to back me up. Aaron was great, but the HRs make him important, his longevity makes him a legend, and his humility makes him an immortal in the baseball realm, but it doesn't make him a better righty than Hornsby.
ReplyDelete