Foxx vs Gehrig

[Touch'EmAll]

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

[D. Bergin]

I don't think Gehrig is over-rated, but I do think Foxx is under-rated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Interestingly, Foxx amassed extremely impressive stats despite doing diddly after age 33, an age when many players are still in their prime.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Probably the two best first basemen in baseball history and playing during the same era no less.

[Touch'EmAll]

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.

[celoknob]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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.

[Chesbro41]

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.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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.

[MooseWithFleas]

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.