NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
Old Cardboard

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main PreWWII Forums > Net54baseball Vintage (Pre-WWII) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-12-2011, 01:30 PM
100backstroke 100backstroke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 274
Default Foxx vs Gehrig

Here are some obvious characteristics:

Gehrig played for the almighty Yankees - Foxx did not
Gehrig hit behing Babe Ruth - Foxx did not
Gehrig played only 1st base - Foxx played several positions
Gehrig played consecutive game streak (does that make him a better player?)
Foxx could hit 'em farther

What if the tables were turned - Foxx was the Yankee and Gehrig was not? How then would be the public perception of Foxx vs. Gehrig?

Which player drew more intentional BB's per at bat?

Which player was more feared by the pitchers of the era?

Which player would you take for your team?

Seems to me Gehrig could be overrated and Foxx underrated - Thoughts?


edited - I know O/T, but I value the opinions of Net54'ers - Thanks

Last edited by 100backstroke; 02-12-2011 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-12-2011, 01:45 PM
D. Bergin's Avatar
D. Bergin D. Bergin is offline
Dave
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 2,329
Default

I don't think Gehrig is over-rated, but I do think Foxx is under-rated.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-12-2011, 01:51 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,666
Default

Interestingly, Foxx amassed extremely impressive stats despite doing diddly after age 33, an age when many players are still in their prime.
__________________
When driving through Kansas City, do not stop.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-12-2011, 02:29 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,320
Default

Probably the two best first basemen in baseball history and playing during the same era no less.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2011, 02:47 PM
100backstroke 100backstroke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 274
Default From article...

In 1932, Foxx enjoyed his best season when he hit 58 home runs. That was a record for right handed hitters at the time although Ruth had the overall record with 60 homers in 1927. The most interesting statistic for Foxx's 1932 season, wasn't how many homers he hit, but how many he lost. Two home runs were taken away because of rain, and approximately 10 home runs taken away because of newly constructed outfield screens in Cleveland, St. Louis and Philadelphia, that were not erected until after Ruth hit 60. All in all, poor Jimmie lost 12 home runs, which would have givin him a total of 70. Does the number 70 sound familiar?

Many observers claim that Foxx hit more tape-measure homers than anyone in history including Ruth and Mantle. In fact, Foxx may have hit the longest home run in Yankee Stadium history, despite the fact that Mantle has received the accolades for the same feat. Mantle's blast, which is recognized as the furthest ball hit at Yankee Stadium, hit the facade at the top of the third deck in right field. Foxx hit his blast only three feet from the top of the third deck facade in left field which is considerably deeper than right field. No IBM "Tale of the Tape" existed when he needed it. Foxx was also the most versatile of the 500 home run club. He played every position except second base, and even pitched for the Philadelphia Phillies at the end of his career. Mr. Versatile pitched a total of 23 innings with an earned run average of only 1.57.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-12-2011, 03:03 PM
celoknob's Avatar
celoknob celoknob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
Probably the two best first basemen in baseball history and playing during the same era no less.
Maybe, and no doubt they are among the greatest, but they also played during the 1930s when offensive stats were inflated for everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-12-2011, 03:27 PM
Chesbro41's Avatar
Chesbro41 Chesbro41 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 195
Default

I'm sure I'm biased because (disclaimer) Gehrig happens to be my favorite player of all time.

I think you can take Ruth out of the equation because he seemed to perform better as Ruth declined ('34) and when he was no longer there through '38 (when the disease started impacting his play).

I personally think Gehrig was a better all around hitter because he walked more and K'd less. One has to wonder where his stats would be right now had he not had the terrible disease. (He probably only had another few years left but still).

Foxx had better power though.

Last edited by Chesbro41; 02-12-2011 at 03:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-12-2011, 03:47 PM
howard38 howard38 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 416
Default home/road

Foxx appears to have benefitted greatly from his home parks whereas despite the short LF porch of Yankee Stadium Gehrig actually hit better on the road.

Foxx home: .345 BA/.453 OBP/.663 SA road: .307/.405/.561
Gehrig home: .329/.436/.620 road: .351/.458/.644

I'm not sure how much batting behind Ruth helped except that it must have helped his RBI total a great deal. I'd think the arrangement would have been more beneficial to Ruth.

Obviously Foxx would be more famous if he had been a Yankee and I think Gehrig gets a little too much "credit" for his streak but it's also obvious (to me anyway) that Gehrig was the better hitter.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-13-2011, 05:29 AM
Jim VB's Avatar
Jim VB Jim VB is offline
Jim VB
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
Probably the two best first basemen in baseball history and playing during the same era no less.
I believe Albert Pujols may have something to say about that, before he is done.
__________________
Ruining humanity, since 1955.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-13-2011, 09:29 AM
MooseWithFleas MooseWithFleas is offline
Dave M
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 81
Default

1.) Pujols
2.) Gehrig
3.) Foxx
4.) Bagwell
5.) Thomas

Gehrig is rated pretty fairly, but Foxx is not talked about enough. Both are great players, but Gehrig gets the edge.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:51 PM.


ebay GSB