Value of T206 E.Collins??

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think you guys are severely underestimating how good a player Molitor was. Rajah was clearly on his own level as second basemen in the game's history go. You will get no argument from me: Hornsby is on his own level, and nobody, really, is close. Rogers Hornsby hit over .400 multiple times, had incredible power. But Collins better than Molitor? Yes. Way better than Molitor? No way. You have to remember that Molly's early career was plagued with injuries. Before age 30, he only really had three healthy seasons - 1979, his second season, 1982, and 1983, which was a bit of a down year for him.

Look at how many games he played, season by season, before age 30:

1978: 125 of 162
1979: 140 of 162
1980: 111 of 162
1981: 64 of 109
1982: 160 of 162
1983: 152 of 162
1984: 13 of 162
1985: 140 of 162
1986: 105 of 162
1987: 118 of 162

total games played by team: 1,567
total games played by Molitor: 1,128
total games missed by Molitor: 439

That's nearly three full seasons of play, in his prime, that he missed due to injury, and that doesn't factor in when he played hurt.

1987 was his age 30 season. He was a .291 hitter before the '87 season started. Look what he did from age 30 on when he was healthy. The guy was a superstar. He hit .353 in 1987, .312 the next season, .315 in 1989. Then, he was hurt in 1990, and played in only 103 games, hitting .285. He was healthy then on, hitting .325 in 1991, .320 in 1992, .332 in 1993, .341 in 1994 (playing in all 115 games). In 1995, he missed 14 games, and hit .270, then hit .341 in 1996 with 225 hits and 113 RBI at age 39. He hit .305 at age 40.

That he was able to collect 3,300 + hits in his career, 600 doubles, and 500 + stolen bases, with as many games as he missed, and the injuries he dealt with, is simply incredible.

He didn't hit a lot of home runs for one simple reason. The majority of his career, he played at Milwaukee County Stadium. Yes, the Brewers hit an awful lot of home runs in the late 70s and early 80s, but that's because the guys they had on their team--Gorman Thomas, Cecil Cooper, Ben Oglivie, Ted Simmons, Robin Yount in his prime, before blowing out his shoulder--these guys all had substantial power. County Stadium was an aircraft carrier, and the winds coming in from Lake Michigan didn't have quite the same effect that the bay in San Francisco had on Candlestick, but it blew a lot of balls in. Balls went to die in the outfield. Had Hank Aaron played his home games in another stadium before the move to Atlanta, he'd have hit another 100 home runs.

Molitor was a spectacular baseball player. He was the second most disruptive player in the American League behind Rickey Henderson when he wasn't hurt. No, that's not overstating it. Pitchers were constantly throwing over to first base, because he was a threat to steal at any moment. Had he been healthy, he'd have been stealing 60 + every year, instead of 40 +.

How many hitters become better later in their career? If you look at the numbers, you'd say Molitor. From age 34 on (from 1991 to 1998, when he retired at age 41), he was a .316 hitter. Only Edgar Martinez, Frank Thomas and Paul O'Neil were better, and all of them were much younger than Molitor. And in the post season, there were few better hitters. He was a .368 lifetime hitter in the playoffs, including a .377 mark in two World Series. He was the first to have 5 hits in a World Series game, and only Albert Pujols has done it since.

Collins gets the nod over Molitor because he stayed healthy throughout his career, and he was better defensively. But they're a lot closer than the numbers show.

Molitor really gets hurt a lot by playing over 50% of his career as a DH though. Collins, by playing 2b, gathered a lot of defensive value. Also, Collins was an elite baserunner too gathering even more value. In terms of fWAR Collins sits at 120.3 (11th all time) and Molitor is 67.6 (71st all time)

In terms of hitting Collins has a career slash line of: .333/.424/.429 wOBA of .409 and a wRC+ of 144

Molitor's is .309/.369/.448 a wOBA of .361 and a wRC+ of 122


so yeah, Collins really is in an entirely different tier of player than Molitor. Now both players probably don't get the recognition they deserve because of the markets of their teams, but Collins is really one of the greatest players of all time, easily in the top 20.

[packs]

I really do think he's just cursed with a crappy looking card. His Goudey stinks too. His Cracker Jack sells for a pretty good premium though, but it's also an awesome looking card.

[the 'stache]

Collins was an elite base runner, but Molitor wasn't? Seriously? Why, because Collins stole more bases? For one, Molitor's number of attempts was hurt by his injuries, but he's a much better stealer than Collins ever was. Look inside the numbers.

Collins: 741 stolen bases, 195 caught stealing = 936 attempts. 79.166% success rate
Molitor: 504 stolen bases, 131 caught stealing = 635 attempts. 79.370% success rate.

And, the thing is, Cocky's caught stealing records are incomplete. He was a full-time player as of 1909. There is no record of his caught stealing figures for 1909, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1917, 1918, and 1919. He swiped 345 of his 741 steals in those seasons. How many times did he get caught? Look at his best base stealing seasons where full records are available: he stole 63 in 1912, and was caught 22 times. 74% success rate. In 1914, he swiped 58 bases, but got caught 30 times. That's a 66% success rate. In 1915, he swiped 46 bases, and got caught 30 times. That's a 60.5% success rate. In 1923, he stole 48 bases, leading the league. But he also led the league getting nailed 29 times. That's a 62.3% success rate. Molitor has a 79.4% career success rate, which is already slightly better than Collins' 79.2% rate without even considering all the times he got caught, for which there are no records. Take his four seasons where complete records are known, before he hit age 30: 1912, 1914, 1915 and 1916. He stole 207 bases in 310 tries. 66.7% success rate. Assume he's successful at that same rate for the seasons where no caught stealing records are available. That means he attempted to steal 517 times. So, that's another 172 times he was caught stealing. So, now he's stolen 741 bases....in 1,108 attempts. A 66.9% success rate for his career.

And that was assuming the best case scenario, by his complete seasonal records. He could have been thrown out more often, meaning his career rate dips further.

What about doubles and triples? Collins played half of his career in the dead ball era, when nobody hit home runs. Collins hit 438 doubles, and 187 triples in 2,826 games. Molitor hit 605 doubles, and 114 triples in 2,684 games. 812 extra bases for Collins by double or triple, 833 extra bases for Molitor from doubles and triples. That's a push.

In no way was Collins a better base runner than Paul Molitor. None. He stole more bases, yes. But he also got caught a hell of a lot more often, and what good is stealing if you're getting thrown out a high percentage of the time?

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Molitor really gets hurt a lot by playing over 50% of his career as a DH though. Collins, by playing 2b, gathered a lot of defensive value. Also, Collins was an elite baserunner too gathering even more value. In terms of fWAR Collins sits at 120.3 (11th all time) and Molitor is 67.6 (71st all time)

In terms of hitting Collins has a career slash line of: .333/.424/.429 wOBA of .409 and a wRC+ of 144

Molitor's is .309/.369/.448 a wOBA of .361 and a wRC+ of 122


so yeah, Collins really is in an entirely different tier of player than Molitor. Now both players probably don't get the recognition they deserve because of the markets of their teams, but Collins is really one of the greatest players of all time, easily in the top 20.

[the 'stache]

I think my top 5 second basemen would be:

1.) Hornsby
.
.
.
a chasm that would swallow a small moon

2.) Napolean Lajoie
3.) Eddie Collins
4.) Joe Morgan
5.) Jackie Robinson

Right behind them, I'd probably have Rod Carew, Charlie Gehringer, Ryne Sandberg and Robby Alomar.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think my top 5 second basemen would be:

1.) Hornsby
.
.
.
a chasm that would swallow a small moon

2.) Napolean Lajoie
3.) Eddie Collins
4.) Joe Morgan
5.) Jackie Robinson

Right behind them, I'd probably have Rod Carew, Charlie Gehringer, Ryne Sandberg and Robby Alomar.

Lajoie had a career batting average of .340 for 21 years, I personally don't think the gap between him and Hornsby is that great, not at all.....Also, Lajoie's batting average includes the last three years of his career where he was injured a lot, and they were very sub par by his standards (.257, .280, .244)...If you exclude those 3 years, his batting average was probably around .375 for 18 years, how do you argue that?

[the 'stache]

Ok, exclude those last three years. Lajoie is then a career .350 hitter with a career OPS of .883, and a 160 OPS +.

Hornsby was a career .358 hitter. 8 points might not seem significant, but when you consider Hornsby's power, he blows Lajoie out of the water. And, that's saying something, because Lajoie was a fantastic, elite hitter in the game's history. Hornsby had a lifetime 1.010 OPS. That's a spectacular season. But for a career mark, that's ridiculous. Hornsby had a 175 OPS +. Simply put, he was, for his career, 15% better than Lajoie. That's a significant gap.

Since we're allowing the removal of the very last couple of years when age and injury caught up with Lajoie, look at Hornsby under the same light. From 1932-1937, Hornsby played a combined 132 games. 305 PAs after age 35. He was a .291 hitter, with an .826 OPS. Chop that little bit of baseball off his career, and his numbers jump up. Now, Hornsby is a .361 career hitter with a 177 career OPS +.

Let's just think about that a second. Chop off roughly 300 plate appearances from the very tail of Hornsby's career, and his lifetime OPS + is two points lower than Lou Gehrigh's 179 OPS +. Gehrig is widely considered the greatest first baseman in the game's history, playing a position known for its great power hitters. Hornsby nearly equals him, and he was a second baseman.

In the history of the game, only Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds and Lou Gehrig have had higher career OPS + marks than Hornsby. Lajoie, as great as he was, is 35th all-time. Still one of the elite players of the game, but the fact remains that Hornsby had a career batting average that was 8-10 points higher than Lajoie, depending on how much of Lajoie's career is being compared. But Lajoie doesn't come close to matching Hornsby's power. Yes, he played his entire career in the dead ball era. But OPS + is measured against peers, and simply put, Hornsby was much better than Lajoie was, on that basis. Lajoie was capable of putting up the big numbers-he had a 1.106 OPS in 1901, leading the league with 14 home runs. But, while he came close, he never topped the 1.000 OPS plateau again. Hornsby's career OPS was 1.010. And, even though Hornsby played in the live ball era, he still had more triples than Lajoie, 169 to 163, in about 1,000 fewer plate appearances.

Lajoie went over 10.0 WAR once. Hornsby did it six times.

Both are elite Hall of Famers. But Hornsby is on his own level as far as the position is concerned.

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Lajoie had a career batting average of .340 for 21 years, I personally don't think the gap between him and Hornsby is that great, not at all.....Also, Lajoie's batting average includes the last three years of his career where he was injured a lot, and they were very sub par by his standards (.257, .280, .244)...If you exclude those 3 years, his batting average was probably around .375 for 18 years, how do you argue that?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Both are elite Hall of Famers. But Hornsby is on his own level as far as the position is concerned.

hit the nail right on the head, Hornsby is easily the greatest 2b of all time and one of the 4 or 5 greatest hitters of all time. The guy was a beast.

I remember this story about Hornsby from the HOF umpire Bill Klem " a rookie pitcher was facing RH and he threw a pitch or two that Klem called balls and the pitcher barked "those were strikes" , Klem took off his mask and said "son, when you throw a strike, Mr Hornsby will let you know"

[Yoda]

I read once that Hornsby refused to read a newspaper in the off-season for fear it would impair his batting eye. That's dedication to your craft.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Lajoie had a career batting average of .340 for 21 years, I personally don't think the gap between him and Hornsby is that great, not at all.....Also, Lajoie's batting average includes the last three years of his career where he was injured a lot, and they were very sub par by his standards (.257, .280, .244)...If you exclude those 3 years, his batting average was probably around .375 for 18 years, how do you argue that?

By saying that those three years don't even come close to dropping his average that far and that batting average is overrated?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Collins was an elite base runner, but Molitor wasn't? Seriously? Why, because Collins stole more bases? For one, Molitor's number of attempts was hurt by his injuries, but he's a much better stealer than Collins ever was. Look inside the numbers.

Collins: 741 stolen bases, 195 caught stealing = 936 attempts. 79.166% success rate
Molitor: 504 stolen bases, 131 caught stealing = 635 attempts. 79.370% success rate.

And, the thing is, Cocky's caught stealing records are incomplete. He was a full-time player as of 1909. There is no record of his caught stealing figures for 1909, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1917, 1918, and 1919. He swiped 345 of his 741 steals in those seasons. How many times did he get caught? Look at his best base stealing seasons where full records are available: he stole 63 in 1912, and was caught 22 times. 74% success rate. In 1914, he swiped 58 bases, but got caught 30 times. That's a 66% success rate. In 1915, he swiped 46 bases, and got caught 30 times. That's a 60.5% success rate. In 1923, he stole 48 bases, leading the league. But he also led the league getting nailed 29 times. That's a 62.3% success rate. Molitor has a 79.4% career success rate, which is already slightly better than Collins' 79.2% rate without even considering all the times he got caught, for which there are no records. Take his four seasons where complete records are known, before he hit age 30: 1912, 1914, 1915 and 1916. He stole 207 bases in 310 tries. 66.7% success rate. Assume he's successful at that same rate for the seasons where no caught stealing records are available. That means he attempted to steal 517 times. So, that's another 172 times he was caught stealing. So, now he's stolen 741 bases....in 1,108 attempts. A 66.9% success rate for his career.

And that was assuming the best case scenario, by his complete seasonal records. He could have been thrown out more often, meaning his career rate dips further.

What about doubles and triples? Collins played half of his career in the dead ball era, when nobody hit home runs. Collins hit 438 doubles, and 187 triples in 2,826 games. Molitor hit 605 doubles, and 114 triples in 2,684 games. 812 extra bases for Collins by double or triple, 833 extra bases for Molitor from doubles and triples. That's a push.

In no way was Collins a better base runner than Paul Molitor. None. He stole more bases, yes. But he also got caught a hell of a lot more often, and what good is stealing if you're getting thrown out a high percentage of the time?

baserunning is more than just stolen bases it's taking extra bases...etc

for Molitor's 12,160 PA's he has a baserunning rating of 46.6 runs above avg, Collins has a 42.3 in 12,037 PA's, so really they were pretty close in total baserunning value per plate appearance.

Collins played 2b, Molitor played 1b and DH, Collins was a 22% better hitter relative to league avg than Molitor (144 for collins 122 for Molitor) for his career as well, this is why he is an elite player and Molitor is not (well ,relative to other HOF'ers anyway)

using counting stats is kind of a waste of time when comparing across eras like that. rates and peripherals give us a much better picture. Molitor was a good player, but Collins is an all time elite player. It's not even close really. 60+ more pts of OBP really matters.(and Collins is tied for 12th all time in getting on base among all players with at least 3000 PA's all time (.424) , Molitor is 281st among the same with a .369)