Nap Lajoie or Eddie Collins 2nd base? Who would you take?

[clydepepper]

On a windy day, I'll take Lajoie.


Collins was far too aerodynamic with those milk-jug handles he called ears.

Too much lift would make him miss all the grounders.



On a calm day, Lajoie for offense, Collins for defense.

[brianp-beme]

Eddie Collins, because he had more cards issued. If based on looks, Lajoie wins, as his cards are typically more attractive. The guy knew how to strike a baseball pose, as if he were model in the Sears Roebuck catalog.

Brian (card-centric, to say the least. And never one afraid of not just mentioning Sears, but throwing in the Roebuck as well)

[darwinbulldog]

Eddie Collins.

Here are all the 2nd basemen I rank among my top 100 players.
1. Hornsby
2. Collins
3. Lajoie
4. Morgan
[big drop-off]
5. Gehringer
6. Robinson
7. Carew
8. Grich

[bbcard1]

There's really not a dime's worth of difference between the two. Take your pick and you won't go wrong either way.

[packs]

I'd take Collins. He played later and still raked. The guy led the league in stolen bases at 37 years old. I think he would have been a star in any era whereas I think Lajoie's career is a product of his era, though who knows all those doubles he hit might have been bombs 10 years later.

[z28jd]

Didn't want to start a new thread for this, but since people have mentioned Hornsby, I'll share an interesting thing I read today. If you're a Phillies fan, stop reading now.

The Phillies had three players holding out for more money in early March of 1917. They were Bert Niehoff, Possum Whitted and Milt Stock. There were talks of trading those three players (two separate deals) and taking on more salary while picking up Dots Miller, Rogers Hornsby and Zack Wheat.

I have a feeling if those deals happened as rumored, the Phillies wouldn't have gone almost 100 years before their first World Series title