Value of T206 E.Collins??

[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.

[CMIZ5290]

Once again, I'm not disputing Hornsby as the greatest ever, he was. I'm simply saying the gap between him and Lajoie is much closer that Bill and Nick are indicating....Lajoie was an incredible player....

[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)