The 100 Greatest in 100 Days: #17 Rogers Hornsby

Lighting up the list at #17 is Rogers Hornsby. While Babe Ruth was putting on a nightly fireworks display in the American League in the roarin’ 20s, The Rajah was lighting up the scoreboard in the National League. Although Hornsby’s numbers aren’t quite at the Babe’s level, Hornsby’s frequency atop the league leaderboard is unprecedented. No player led the league in offensive WAR and OPS+ more often. He also led the league in Baseball Reference’s adjusted runs, adjusted batting wins, and offensive win percentage more than any other player in history. Hornsby’s .358 career batting average is the second-highest of all-time and his 175 OPS+ is the 5th highest in history. Hornsby led the league in on-base percentage and slugging percentage nine times, runs created eight times, and batting average and total bases seven times. He is one of only five players in history with at least a .434 on-base percentage and a .577 slugging percentage, and the company he shares that with—Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, and Lou Gehrig—speaks for itself. In 1922, Rajah produced the only season in history with a .400 batting average and 450 total bases. Hornsby won the 1925 and 1929 NL MVPs and should’ve won in 1924 when he produced the only season ever with at least a .424 batting average and a .507 on-base percentage (min. of 100 at-bats). He also became the only player since Major League Baseball formed in 1903 to lead the league in runs, doubles, home runs, RBIs, hits, on-base percentage, batting average, slugging percentage, OPS+, and total bases in the same season. Hornsby won the Triple Crown in 1922 and 1925 joining Ted Williams as the only two-time triple crown winners.

Leave a Reply

Hi (hopefully) awesome reader! I welcome your comments. However, please be aware that I make all of my arguments using facts, statistics, and logic. Unfortunately, the average comment on a top-100 list goes something like this:

"UR StooPid. (Insert player) is trash. I've watched (pick a sport) for (pick a number of years) and (pick a player) is better than everyone. UR DUMB. HAHA6969."

–Some Jabroni

As cognitively stimulating as this species of comment is, it ends up being a missed opportunity to share a nuanced perspective. I reply to all comments that show even the most basic levels of thought and humility. The people who make the comments like the example above are under the assumption that the three seconds of thought that popped into their brains after reading the list is more than the 1000s of hours that I put into creating and maintaining the lists. I would be happy to defend any placement, or make an adjustment if one is warranted. If you are a jabroni, like the one above, then your comment will die in the lonely void of the unpublished comments section.

For everyone else, I look forward to your comments!

P.S. The theme of this site and the top-100 lists is that athletes from previous generations have historically been grossly overrated by sports publications in a way that is statistically improbable. Click on the "About" dropdown menu to see just how badly the average top-100 list disproportionately favors athletes from older generations when leagues were smaller, race quotas existed, and globalization wasn't a thing. Also, please consider reading "The History" section of the sport you are commenting on.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *