Player notes: Rogers Hornsby is one of the best-known players in the history of the game, yet he has always been a bit of a controversial figure, so I thought I'd address some of the issues surrounding his career.

Hornsby's credentials as a hitter are unquestionable. He is regarded by many as the greatest right-handed hitter the game has produced, and his statistics back that up. He won seven NL batting championships (six of them in a row), two triple crowns, and his .424 average in 1924 was the best this century in the National League. (Nap Lajoie batted two points higher in the fledgling American League in 1901, but that was certainly against weaker pitching than the well-established NL offered in 1924.) His place in the game's history is secure- he was (and was generally regarded at the time) the National League's premier player in the 1920s, the NL counterpart to Babe Ruth. And many rank him among the top ten players in history The Sporting News, for example, rated him eight among the the 20th century's 100 greatest players.

Yet, some observers question his credentials as an all around ballplayer. Such critics usually point to two factors: his allegedly weak defensive skills, and the fact that he was generally disliked during his days as a player and a manager. I think both criticisms are overblown.

Defensively, Hornsby was certainly not spectacular. He played second base during his peak years (1920-1930), but also played shortstop (mostly at the beginning of his career), and every other position except catcher and pitcher. As a second baseman, he lacked great range but did not commit an inordinate number of errors, and was better than average at turning double plays. Most of the quotes by contemporaries criticizing his fielding came from later in his career, when he was hobbled by a foot injury and was truly awful in the field. In his early career, he was certainly more than adequate as a fielder, especially considering what he brought to the table offensively.

Critics of Hornsby's personality often point to the fact that he was traded annually in the late 20s (1927-29), when he was still a highly productive superstar. Why would this happen, they argue, unless he was a disruptive presence in the clubhouse? Hornsby was inarguably not a very likable person. He was aloof, blunt, and a loner. But, while most teammates would not call him a friend, neither did they especially dislike him. Where Hornsby had trouble was with managers and team owners, with whom he came into conflict over his willingness to second-guess and criticize management decisions. "I've never been a yes man", Hornsby himself said. The fact that he had managed a team to a world championship himself (in 1926) I think gave him the boldness to speak his mind about how other men managed a baseball team. Thus, Hornsby was often coming into conflict with managers (who feared that he might take their job), certain players (who were loyal to the current manager), and owners (who disliked having such an outspoken employee).

So, yes, Hornsby was not a great fielder: but in his best years he was more than adequate. And, yes, he was a cantankerous fellow who would never have won a popularity contest. But he was not necessarily a disruptive force on a team. All of this pales beside his accomplishments. His run from 1920 to 1925 was one the the greatest (if not the greatest) string of years ever put together by a major league hitter. He managed the Cardinals to their first World Series title in 1926, beating the mighty Yankees in one of the best World Series ever. He put up numbers that still rank him among the top batters ever. He was the best player in the National League in the 20s, he was one of the best right-handed hitters ever, and he was of of the two or three greatest second basemen ever. It doesn't get much better than that, no matter now many critics you have.