[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

Hornsby looks superficially better than Morgan, but overall, Morgan was better, I think. First, you have to adjust for eras. Hornsby had his best year in an era where extreme offensive performances were common. Morgan put his numbers up in an era where, relative to the early 30's, runs were MUCH harder to come by. Yes, Hornsby ahs a much higher batting average, but while not insignificant, that gives a very shallow indicator of a hitter's offensive performance. Joe got on bae--a lot. he hit for exceptional power, and he didn't just steal bases, he stole bases A LOT at remarkable level of efficiency. So, adjusting for eras and taking into account the runs each player created, Joe's not far from Hornsby in terms of production. Which isn't to say he's Hornsby's equal with the bat. I'm not crazy, I'm only saying Joe's not as far away as you think. Couple this with the fact Joe is FAR superior with the glove and had a longer career, I give the edge to Joe. It's not a huge edge, but it's an edge. It's no coincidence that every team Joe Morgan was on when he was healthy and productive was a good team. Just one hell of a ballplayer. A terrible broadcaster, tho, unfortunately. Come on Joe, quit hating my A's already!

--Chad