20, Jason Giambi; 19, Keith Hernandez; 18, Todd Helton; 17, Rafael Palmeiro; 16, Cap Anson; 15, Dick Allen; 14, Harmon Killebrew; 13, Jim Thome; 12, Dan Brouthers; 11, Will Clark.
10) Mark McGwire, 1986-2001
For the purpose of ranking players, I judge them solely on what they did to help their team win games. McGwire cheated, but baseball had no penalty in place at that time. Until they go back and start taking away victories and championships, what he did on the field and in the clubhouse is all that matters.
Would you have wanted McGwire on your team? Of course. The antithesis is Dick Allen, who was about as good of a hitter as anybody on this list — but you wouldn’t necessarily have wanted him on your team.
McGwire was a one-dimensional player. It was a pretty valuable dimension.
9) Hank Greenberg, 1930-47
8) Eddie Murray, 1977-97
7) Willie McCovey, 1959-80
6) Frank Thomas, 1990-2008
5) Johnny Mize, 1936-53
4) Jeff Bagwell, 1991-2005
3) Albert Pujols, 2001-current
As Pujols moves to the Angels, he already stands as the third-best first baseman in major-league history. With a typical Pujols season this year, he will move into second; he’s probably four great seasons away from No. 1.
2) Jimmie Foxx, 1925-45
1) Lou Gehrig, 1923-39
Repoz
Posted: April 21, 2012 at 09:29 AM |
101 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
history
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Well, we certainly know what he did in the clubhouse, now don't we???
I think it's that he hasn't been retired long enough.
If Pujols is going to have a typical Pujols season, he'd better get started on that some time pretty soon.
My biggest issue with first-base rankings is that the guy who should be #1 is never mentioned, even though he played more games at first base than he did in left field, the position he is typically 'assigned'.
The highest one I have that isn't present there is Frank Chance at #9.
My system "privileges"* WAR per PA (or at least takes it into consideration, it's by far the least weighted factor), which I think explains most of the deviations. I'm not sure it makes sense to include the per PA value...but that's the system I've been using and I'm too lazy to change it now.
*In the parlance of our times.
Musial? But the problem with Musial is that he played far fewer games at 1B than in the outfield overall. He's 127th in lifetime games played at 1B, which doesn't jibe well with being an all-time #1 at the position. He won five of his seven batting titles as an outfielder, only two at first base.
Partly this is one of those "should we rank the whole career, or just the time at a position, on our positional lists" conundrums, which are fairly academic. But partly it's the nature of the sport, where first base is not a very hard position to play. You could even argue that Mickey Mantle was the best first baseman of all time, given that he would have been a damn good first basemen in his prime if he hadn't been such a great center fielder.
I've got
40 - Cecil Cooper
41 - Bill White
42 - Joe Judge
43 - Earl Torgeson
44 - Kent Hrbek
45 - Phil Cavarretta
46 - John Kruk
47 - Lu Blue
48 - Jake Daubert
49 - Steve Garvey
50 - Ripper Collins
If we're including active players (and not using DH as a position) perhaps David Ortiz squeezes in there somewhere
Any thoughts?
John - My analysis takes as a premise that plate discipline is a tool not a skill. That is, after all the whole sabermetrics guts of Moneyball, that one lousy point. But, if you're trying to claim that it is a "dimension'. I have to argue with that. I think it's a tool. - Brock Hanke
2819 G, 132 OPS+ which looks frighteningly similar to Palmeiro's
2831 G, 132 OPS+
Edit: Actually, it's not just Palmeiro under-ranked, Murray is over-ranked, too. Thome is clearly better than both, for instance.
Ditto (well, not 18, but nowhere near the top 10). I don't see Bagwell at 4 by any stretch of the imagination either.
I have Bagwell #3 (since Pujols isn't on my list yet). Simply by B-ref WAR he's higer than everyone except Gehrig and Foxx, by WAR in his best 3 seasons he's better than everyone but Gehrig, Foxx, and Allen. Best 5 seasons it's Gehrig and Foxx again. Obviously WAR's not everything, I'm not really arguing Bagwell is for sure top 4 (I'm by no means qualified to be making these kinds of claims), but who takes his place?
He's as good as Gehrig and Foxx with any kind of timelining, and he's still got some good years left in him.
Absurd list. Where the #### is High Pockets Kelly?
Pujols, Bagwell and Thome were all moved off 3B before they "had" to be. Also (arguably) Giambi, if you want to drop down the list a bit, and Eddie Murray, if you want to go back a few years. McGwire was a college 3B but was never going to really play there in the majors.
Not sure how that compares historically, but that's 3 of the top dozen or so, just in the last 20 years. Jimmie Foxx could've been a C or 3B, at least for a while, in some alternate universes. Other than that, the top old timers look more like career 1B than the modern guys. The guys in between, like Killebrew and Allen, got bounced around a lot more. It could be a trend, or it could be a series of highly specific situations depending on team needs, etc. The Indians and Cards could've moved Thome and Pujols around like the Twins did with Killebrew, but for whatever reason, they didn't.
Maybe it would have been better if the author's list greatest of first basemen had actually ranked players by their greatness at first base instead.
1. What are Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Harmon Killebrew and Dick Allen even doing on a list of "first basemen"? All started fewer than 50% of their games started at first base. At least Jason Giambi (and Tony Perez) played about 2/3 of their starts at 1B.
1a. Their presence on this list makes it IMO a list of "great hitters who spent some time at 1B regardless of whether they were good fielders or glorified DHs" oWAR accounts for over 100% of their WAR: 110% (Thomas), 105% (Thome), 117% (Allen), and 112% (Killebrew).
2. Keith Hernandez ranks 12th by WAR among players with more than 50% of their games started at first base, in other words, among first basemen.
2a. Among players on the author's list, plus John Olerud, Bill Terry, Norm Cash, George Sisler, Tony Perez and Fred McGriff, Keith Hernandez is the leader in dWAR at 1B.
2b. In fact, only Keith Hernandez got 20% of his WAR as dWAR at 1B.
2c. So, why does the author rank Hernandez 19th?
3. Where are John Olerud, Bill Terry, Tony Perez, Fred McGriff, and George Sisler, anyway?
4. Anson and Brouthers apparently get some sort of 19th century discount relative to their rank by WAR. They're 2nd and 4th by WAR among players with 50% of their starts at 1B, but the author ranks them 16th and 12th.
5. While finger-wagger Palmeiro gets a steroids discount, admitted user McGwire gets an apology. They're 9th and 11th by WAR among players with 50% of their starts at 1B, but the author ranks them 17th and 10th.
Just ridiculous IMO.
I created a statistic that calculates player won-lost records based on Retrosheet play-by-play data, tying them to team won-lost records (sorry for the self-promotion): tying their records to team results, I have Murray over Palmeiro pretty solidly. Neutralizing those records, so they don't tie to team results, Palmeiro beats Murray.
I will say, if you're ignoring steroids (and you must be to get McGwire #10 (not to mention, he explicitly says he is), he's ranking Palmeiro too low.
Here's how my stat ranks players in context-neutral won-lost records based solely on time at 1B. As I said above, I calculate these using Retrosheet play-by-play data, so these results only go back to 1948 (and are somewhat spotty for some teams/players in some of the earlier years).
Eddie Murray leads in wins (and losses), but is only 12th in wins over positional average (WOPA). Mark McGwire leads in positional average but is only 14th in total wins. McGwire beats Pujols, because Pujols didn't become a regular 1B until his 4th season. How much value you give to below-average play will determine your overall rankings. Eyeballing it, I'd probably have Bagwell (3rd in WOPA, 2nd in wins) at the top of my list (since 1948).
I don't have a problem with a list of the best utility players of all time. Pete Rose #1?
Feel free to replace one of them with Ernie Banks then.
Makes sense to me. If some great players didn't really have a primary position, just give them a separate category. Some guys are definitely first-basemen, and it makes sense to compare them to each other, but not everyone fits that model.
Dave Kingman was one dimensional.
Career/League
BA .236/.262
OBP .302/.329
SLG .478/.389
McGwire was not.
Career/League
BA .263/.262
OBP .394/.332
SLG .588/.409
OBP 80th all time (for contrast, to be 80th on the BA list requires hitting .313), his OBP is higher than A-Rod, Carew, Morgan, Wagner, Youkilis, Gwynn, Holliday, Grace, etc.
I think he's around 7th all time in walk percentage. Obviously he's #1 all time in walks as a % of OBP (and 2nd is not even close), which is a pretty nice book end to being #1 all time in AB/HR & PA/HR.
Thomas case for greatness comes from the years he spent at first. His extended prime (1991-97) puts him in the conversation for greatest hitting fist-basemen. The remainder of his career is nice if unremarkable for a DH. A simpler way to look at this -- though it might fail to capture changes in offensive context. He hit .337/.453/.625 as a first-baseman and .275/.394/.505
His offensive peak is behind only Gehrig and Foxx (though not that far ahead of Bagwell or Pujols and Pujols is obviously a better defensive player and has more value outside his peak)
It's nothing close to as dramatic for Thome, but he has hit .282/.412/.586 at 1B, .289/.404/.533 at 3B and .264/.392/.534 at DH. Yes, context matter. Still if you look at the heart of Thome's career it includes all of his time at first, bounded by the end of his time at third and part of his time at DH. Thome has a fairly broad prime without a monster peak.
I thought it was an early career thing but when I took a quick look, that didn't seem to be the case. The "annoying" thing in any era comparisons is expansion -- dilution of talent aside, the fact that we have nearly twice as many teams as we did before 1960 means career lists should be have about twice as many post-expansion as pre-expansion players. Kinda takes the fun out of it. :-)
It is still possible that teams are more likely to put a young player with "young man" skills player at 1B than they used to while playing the slugs at DH or LF but I don't know there's any evidence of that either.
Maybe it would have been better if the author's list greatest of first basemen had actually ranked players by their greatness at first base instead.
Mays bless you son!
I think the main problem with these positional disputes is you have to put everyone somewhere.
Why do you have to put them only one somewhere? Why do you have to assign their entire career to one position if their career is split among 2-3 positions?
Ernie Banks is the #3 or #4 SS peak/prime (Wagner, ARod and maybe Vaughan) but unfortunately he tore up his knee and had to be moved off SS (and the knee may well have screwed up his hitting too). Because of that, on the career SS list, he gets passed by lots of guys -- easily by Ripken and Jeter but maybe also Trammell, Ozzie and some of the earlier guys. Presumably an "all-time" SS list -- like an HoF or HoM decision -- is based on some weighting of career and peak value which would leave Banks somewhere in-between his peak and career rankings. Such a set of lists would be an accurate portrayal of Ernie Banks the SS.
Ernie Banks the 1B was mediocre and is so far down any 1B list as to not merit discussion. Ernie Banks the baseball player is a combination of a great peak SS and a mediocre decline 1B who is going to finish fairly far down a list of the greatest players. This is an accurate portrayal of his career.
Robin Yount is not particularly high on the SS peak/prime list -- clearly below Banks. Yount was moved of SS for health reasons and so is also ranked below Banks on any career SS list (Yount has more games but not enough to make up the difference). Therefore he should be below Banks on any all-time SS list. Yount had a worse peak as a SS than Banks and Yount had a worse career as a SS than Banks yet the HoM somehow puts Yount ahead of Banks on their all-time SS list. How Yount being a good-excellent CF while Banks was a mediocre 1B makes Yount a better SS is beyond me -- it is completely nonsensical.
Yount might well rank reasonably well on a CF peak list, won't rank well on a CF career list but might still be top 20 "all-time". Being top 20 all time at two positions is damned impressive and would be an accurate portrayal of Yount's career.
If you want to argue that Yount's career was better than Banks's, the place to do that is in an all-time overall ranking. When comparing, say, Roberto Clemente to Ernie Banks we don't pretend Clemente played SS so when comparing Yount the CF to Banks the 1B, why would we pretend they were both SS at the time? When comparing their time at SS, Banks wins; when comparing Yount the CF to Banks the 1B, Yount may have won by even more and there's your argument that Yount had the better career. That's how we would do it when comparing Yount the SS/CF to Thome the 1B/3B/DH or Schmidt the 3B so why not when comparing Yount to Banks?
In the grand scheme of great players, there are really only a handful for whom this is any sort of an issue. People feel embarrassed if Musial is low on all-time position lists. (Rose, Killebrew and a few others are significant "problem" cases as well.) There are a couple of ways of dealing with this. First, you point out that Musial ranks pretty high on the peak/prime list at 3 positions which is incredibly impressive. Second, you point out how high Musial is on the all-time overall list. Third, you could argue that DH/1B/LF and maybe RF are reasonably interchangeable positions defensively and rank all those positions together (and opens up the argument as to whether they are sufficiently interchangeable). But SS and C particularly are not interchangeable with other positions. 3B are moved to 1B (or the OF) only when baseball experts have decided the player can't handle 3B anymore. This stuff matters.
The main problem with the way most people put together such lists is that they insufficiently reward players who were able to remain at the more defensively demanding position. Banks and Yount were moved off SS because they were no longer able to play the position (or stay healthy doing so) so on any "all-time" positional ranking, they obviously have to "lose points" to Ripken and Jeter and Trammell and Larkin and Ozzie and Concepcion and Aparicio who did stay there. A lot of points.
George Brett stopped playing 3B at 34 and has less than 1700 career starts there. Wade Boggs still played the majority of his time at 3B through 41 (playing the position well through 40) and has about 500 more starts (30%) at 3B than Brett. Any argument that Brett should be ranked higher on the "all-time" 3B list is based on an argument that time at 3B doesn't matter in putting together a list of all-time 3B ... and that is simply nonsensical.
Note, I have no problem with listing Thome (for example) on a 1B list even if he didn't play half his games there as long as he's only listed based on his time at 1B (or seasons in which he was predominantly a 1B or chop up his value by proportion time at 1B or whatever approach you want to take). Thome's 40+ WAR as a 1B probably ranks pretty nicely on a peak/prime list (though that's a tough peak/prime list) and still puts him ahead of Konerko and many others on a career list.
And since I am sufficiently comfortable with the interchageability of DH/1B/LF (I'm not so sure about RF), I don't particularly object to a list of 1B like the above and feel free to put Musial wherever you want. I really only get worked up about this regarding the defensive positions. Joe Torre is not a C, he's a C/1B/3B; Tenace is not a C; ARod is not a SS.
I think this sums up the issue here, and as in most things points to people using the same terms to answer different questions.
On the one hand there's a list of the greatest SS of all time.
And on the other there's a compilation of the greatest players of all time, which is sub-divided into postions. The question being answered isn't "who was the better SS". It's "Who was the better baseball player of these guys grouped together because of positional similarities".
In this case, the ranking isn't saying Yount was a better SS than Banks, just that Yount had a better career and they're both in the SS pile because, hey they had to go in one of the piles and for each of them that one made the most sense.
From such a perspective it's equally nonsensical to list Yount under two positions, even if that is a more accurate portrayal of his career.
Martin Dihigo, then Rose, then Jackie ("J-Rob") Robinson.
Sorry to nitpick, but this kind of thing annoys me.
It's not 'nonsensical.' It just isn't. You don't agree with the reasoning, but there is a difference (a pretty important one actually) in our language between 'I do not agree with those reasons' and 'there ARE no reasons.' This is just a case where people have different conceptions of the value in creating a list of the greatest players at each position. And that's fine. It may be the case that there really is a good reason to think that it makes the most aesthetic sense to structure the list the way you do. But it just can't be an absolute thing.
It's quite different from someone who said that Mark Whiten is the best centerfielder because he had the best single game at centerfield. That really is nonsensical because it wildly misunderstands the meaning of the words. To say that Robin Yount goes higher on the list than Ernie Banks does not misunderstand in remotely the same way. It just says 'these lists are best when they rank the overall contribution of the player - sorting them into categories based on where they accrued the most value.' If it helps, you might say that it's a list of the greatest players who were shortstops, rather than as a list of the greatest shortstops.
IMO Thomas being one of the "greatest hitting first-basemen" does not make him one of the greatest first basemen. (I do not view DH/1B/LF as interchangeable.) Thomas was basically done as a first baseman after 1997, in eight seasons, having generated two-thirds of his career WAR.
Year PA WAR oRAR oWAR dWAR 1990-1997 4790 48.9 551 54.7 -5.8 1998-2008 5285 27.0 290 28.5 -1.5Year GS@1B GS@DH 1990-1997 837 230 1998-2008 132 1147If I may nitpick, I would go a step further and say "it's a list of the greatest players who are thought of as shortstops" (or something along those lines) since just saying "were" shortstops would then include, say, Mickey Mantle on the list. One can't say "spent the majority or plurality of their time at short", because that would then exclude Ernie Banks. Finding an exact phrasing that works is tough, that's for sure, but I do agree with the idea that some people are merely divvying up the players a little bit arbitrarily and then ranking those players by their overall careers (which is perfectly okay in my mind). Thus, Yount ranks higher than Banks on such lists, that is, the list of greatest players whose careers we associate with the shortstop position, whereas a list of greatest shortstops that ranks player strictly by what they did at the position might very well rank Banks higher than Yount (and that is perfectly okay, too). As long as each list explains what method they are using, what is the problem?
Good point. However, those are two very different lists, almost like the difference between "peak" and "career" value. The playing time required as a shortstop to merit inclusion on the former is arguably a lot less than to merit inclusion on the latter.
That's true, but I think a lot of people are implicitly considering the "greatest SS of all time" to be the "the greatest players players who are most widely associated with position". I'm going to include Thome on a 1B list. It's where most of his value was created and where his prime was.
Another aspect of the exercise is that I'm doing it for the fun of comparing players. Not every comparison is going to be entirely fair or accurate. Joe Torre is problematic to rank because of his C/1B/3B status. But if you put him in a C/1B/3B group you're comparing him to what? 8 other guys...all of whom he's far better than. How fun is that? Or DHs. If you treat David Ortiz as a DH and exclusive from 1B you don't get to compare him to anyone before the 1970s. I guess I'm sacrificing accuracy for the sake of fun...but really these lists are supposed to be entertaining anyway, or else why do them?
Strictly as a third baseman, Evans is clearly behind someone like Ron Cey. But then he put up five years at the end of his career when he was basically Ken Phelps.
Because if you split everyone's career based on value accumulated at the various positions they played, you come to the conclusion that Stan Musial, who is arguably one of the 10 best players ever, is probably not one of the 10 best players ever at any single position, possibly not among the 20 best. (A 5-minute attempt to split his value positionally estimates him with less than 40 WAR at each position he played - 38.3 at first, 37.7 in right, 35.5 in left, 16.3 in center.) I can understand if you're OK with that, but surely you can understand just as well why someone else might not be, right?
Sum of single seasons, From 1901 to 2012, Played 75% of games at SS, (requiring At least 100 games)
Note: Top 5 by WAR per 1000 PA
Wagner 12.4 Rodriguez 11.3 Banks 10.8 Boudreau 9.1 Ripken 8.3Greatest players who are most widely thought of as shortstops
Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2012, Played 40% of games at SS
Most seasons with 7+ WAR and 75 g at 1B
Rk Yrs From To Age1 Lou Gehrig 12 1926 1937 23-34
2 Albert Pujols 7 2004 2010 24-30
3 Jimmie Foxx 7 1929 1939 21-31
4 Jeff Bagwell 4 1994 1999 26-31
5 Todd Helton 3 2000 2004 26-30
6 Jason Giambi 3 2000 2002 29-31
7 Johnny Mize 3 1939 1947 26-34
8 Hank Greenberg 3 1935 1938 24-27
9 Dan Brouthers 3 1886 1892 28-34
10 Roger Connor 3 1885 1888 27-30
Most all star-type seasons as 1B.
Most seasons with 4.5+ WAR and 75 g at 1B
Rk Yrs From To Age1 Lou Gehrig 12 1926 1937 23-34
2 Jeff Bagwell 11 1991 2001 23-33
3 Johnny Mize 10 1936 1948 23-35
4 Jimmie Foxx 10 1929 1940 21-32
5 Cap Anson 10 1880 1890 28-38
6 Roger Connor 9 1885 1893 27-35
7 Dan Brouthers 9 1882 1892 24-34
8 Albert Pujols 8 2004 2011 24-31
9 Mark McGwire 8 1987 1999 23-35
10 Keith Hernandez 8 1977 1986 23-32
At the time of his retirement, Musial stood almost unquestionably as the NL's greatest player. He was the all-time league leader in hits, runs, doubles, RBIs, total bases, second in homers. But he had already been eclipsed in the public's mind by guys he played against -- Mays and eventually Aaron -- not to mention being overshadowed by Mantle and Williams in the other league.
This confused the crap right out of me until I realized that you probably meant .400.
Not if he gets hit by a bus this afternoon he doesn't.
DB
Sum of single seasons, From 1901 to 2012, Played 75% of games at 1B, (requiring At least 100 games)
Note: Top 5 by WAR per 1000 PA
Gehrig 12.3 Pujols 12.1 Foxx 10.3 Mize 10.0 Greenberg 9.4Greatest players who are most widely thought of as first basemen:
Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2012, Played 39% of games at 1B, sorted by greatest WAR Position Players
The first list makes more sense to me as a ranking of first basemen.
Would it help the second one if you cross out Carew as well? Because everyone ranks him as a second baseman, and rightfully so.
No, but maybe if you also cross out Thomas, Thome, Killebrew and Allen.
I do not see Thomas and Thome as the 5th and 6th best first basemen since 1901, or Allen and Killebrew as first basemen. (Palmeiro is too high on the second list IMO--despite his 3 :) Gold Gloves.)
Except that really isn't the case. Sometimes it's because the team has someone else it thinks can play 3B better. In Thome's case the Indians got Matt Williams -- obviously you're going to play the Gold Glover at 3B and move Jim Thome, especially when you have Omar Vizquel at SS. In Bagwell's case the Astros had Ken Caminiti as the incumbent, again a superior defender. Killebrew moved back and forth between 1B, LF, & 3B depending who else was on the Twins' roster. Rose was probably still a competent 3B in 1979, but keeping Mike Schmidt there was the obvious choice for the Phils.
Basically, I think Walt's position always wins these arguments, though as I said above, it's largely academic.
I have him 10th among 1B who have had at least 4000 PA since 1990. So as long as there was only one great 1B who played in the 120 years before that, he's ok.
I don't know about the other guys mentioned in #21, michaelplank, but Albert Pujols was not moved off of third base before necessary. He had developed an elbow problem that kept him from throwing hard. The Cardinals then moved him to LF, where he promptly came up with a case of plantar fasciitis, a foot problem that causes you great pain if you try to run a lot. That got him moved to first base. His good defensive rankings at first are due to having skills that most 1B do not, but if he went back to third, his arm would get exposed, and he'd lack raw range in the OF. Michaelplank's other cases look good to me, but I'm not nearly as familiar with the other players as I am with Albert.
I'm from St. Louis, so it's not like I have anything but worship for Albert Pujols. But I do not think that he has caught up yet to Gehrig or Foxx. The main reason is all the walks they took. Albert takes good walks, in the Stan Musical range. Lou and Jimmy took walks in the Ted Williams range. Albert's amazing consistency will eventually catch the other two, if he can keep it up, but I do not think that he's there yet.
I also do not understand why the Yankees moved ARod to third base when they got him. He was a better defensive shortstop than Jeter. You'd think that Jeter would get moved. Other than making personal accusations against Jeter's ego that I can't back up, the best reason I could guess would be that Jeter doesn't have the arm or quickness or something to play third. I'm afraid that I will always think of ARod as a shortstop, because that was where most of his value is, and because I think he is, right now, a SS playing out of position to accommodate a lesser player. Not that Jeter doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame / Merit, but he isn't ARod.
- Brock Hanke
Will The Thrill isn't a good nickname? I'd say it's right on par with Stan The Man.
But yeah, Clark's voice bugged me.
Thanks for the correction. I had half-remembered that 1B opened up when McGwire retired, and they got Rolen around that time. I think your explanation is the better one.
Edit:
Checking BBRef, I see that's the year he also hit .359 with 51 doubles, so he was surely running a lot. :)
Well, he better put up those 30 WAR fast, b/c I'm not going to give credit for tack-on 2-3 WAR seasons at 38 and 39 vs. Gehrig, who never had that chance.
And bundling players into tiny groups of "this bundle of multi-positions" and "that bundle of multi-positions" is non-sensical because at no time in MLB history has a manager ever penciled a player into a lineup at "C/1B/3B" or whatever. Players are best evaluated career-wise or any other way at real positions, however you arrive at them.
Tony Phillips begs to differ.
But he is the exception that tests the rule.
That sissy mary should have rubbed some dirt on that DNA and gotten back out there.
As to Williams vs Musial, I don't think it's as big of blowout as mentioned, yes Williams is clearly ahead of Musial, and is the better hitter, but Musial gains ground on the little things, better defense(by a lot) better baserunning, better attitude(team chemistry) probably in a tougher league for about half his career.
As to the claim that Williams was the same hitter at 42 as he always was but couldn't stay in the lineup. That is bs. He was a platooner in his last three years, couldn't hit lefties to save his life, he wasn't in the lineup, because against lefties he was a decent hitting shortstop.
Mind you, Williams is the greatest pure hitter of all time, Ruth is the best of all time, Bonds is the greatest ballplayer of all time.
Just using BBRef-WAR:
Gehrig - 118.4 in 9660 AB
Pujols - 88.7 in 7433 AB
Pujols is performing at a near-identical rate, but against tougher competition. Any timelining at all would give Pujols a better rate of WAR/AB than Lou Gehrig - or, at least, a 3% total adjustment over 75 years doesn't seem like some kind of crazy-go-nuts thing. There should be some consideration of the players getting better over time, shouldn't there? I don't expect Pujols to put up another 40 WAR, but then I also don't think Cap Anson was better than Jimmie Foxx (or Pujols).
Problem with this is that Pujols has to match the greatest first baseman of all time for another 3-4 seasons to maintain that rate.
Gehrig's best seasons are considerably better: 12.0 10.7 10.1 10.0 9.8. 9.6 9.2. Pujols: 10.9 9.6 9.4 8.8 8.3 8.3 8.2.
In short, Gehrig was pretty good.
... Sure, if you completely ignore everything I said about timelining.
Maybe I can try another tack: let's say Pujols plays another 5 years, at exactly 5 WAR a year, then quits the game abruptly.
Everything else about the same - not as good a hitter as Gehrig (relative to league), much better fielder, better baserunner.
So Pujols ends up with slightly a slightly lower career WAR than Gehrig - but does what he does 75 years later, with integration, pitching specialization, all that stuff.
When Pujols retires, is his career better than Gehrig's?
If not: why not?
If so: what about if he only played 4 years, at 5 WAR a year? Three more? How much more would Pujols have to do?
How you rank players is largely subjective. If you want to timeline Pujols past Gehrig, that's perfectly fine. But you are acting as if they are starting at equal points and "Any timelining at all" would get Pujols past him.
Gehrig at a similar point in his career as Pujols now had 96.1 WAR through 7,522 PA, Pujols 88.7 in 7,433. That's larger than a 3% difference. However you want to measure peak -- best year, best 3 years, best 5 consecutive, best 8-year prime, 10 years, etc., Gehrig generally has a consistent 1-win per year edge, which again is more than 10%.
At this point of competition -- all-time best -- there's not really any amount of "tacking on" that is going to push Pujols past Gehrig IMO without heavy timelining (more than 3%). If he plays another 10 years and adds another 60 WAR or something, then fine.
Gehrig played in a slightly shorter seasons and amassed massively higher peak war.
Gehrigs top five. 12.0/10.7/10.1/10.0/9.8 vs Pujols 10.9/9.6/9.4/8.8/8.3.... Only reason Pujols career rate is close or on par, is that Pujols was Pujols out of the gate, Gehrig took a couple of years to become Gehrig, and had a slight decline phase. Gehrig from his 24-33 year put up 104 war in 7700 plate appearances. That is not a near identical pace. Pujols wins on consistency and never having a less than great year.
because for the most part, baseball post 1930 is pretty much an established sport, and you only can legitimately compare the players to his contemporaries.
Is it really that "heavy timelining" to say Pujols is playing against a significantly higher level of competition (integrated leagues, international player development, colleges developing players, minor leagues completely controlled by MLB so no MLB quality players [or very rarely] held back by a minor league club) and in a, perhaps, tougher environment (more demanding travel? night games? interleague games so more pitchers to deal with? modern bullpen usage so more pitchers to deal with?)?
And besides all of the above, it appears WAR was easier to accumulate (not sure if that's really the right way to say it) in Gehrig's era. If you look at the highest WAR totals by season, the top of the list is dominated by pre-integration baseball (and Barry Bonds). 7 of the top 10 are pre-integration and 3 are Bonds. 8 of the next 10 best seasons(11 to 20) are pre-integration, as are 8 of the next 10 best seasons (21 to 30). It's not until you're looking at the 31st to 40th best seasons you get a majority of post-integration players, and then it's only 6 of 10.
Seems to me you may have to do some "heavy timelining" if you're relying on WAR to compare a player from the 1920's and 1930's to one from the 2000's.
I think the travel is less demanding (longer, but the flights have to be preferable to train rides over the course of a season). And a steady diet of night games, rather than playing every day in the heat of the day, seems an advantage. I'm not sure there's an advantage either way to IL games (or more teams/pitchers). I do think the deeper, more effective bullpens is a definite disadvantage to the current hitter.
Night versus day is interesting, too. How much did playing in the hot sun of the dog days of summer in those heavy uniforms take out of a player versus the poorer visibility of being under the lights (at least my understanding is visibility is not as good under artificial lights as it is under natural light, I could be mistaken)?
I would definitely say there is a disadvantage for hitters playing against more teams and more pitchers. A hitter's biggest advantage comes from pitch recognition. The more times a batter faces a pitcher, the better opportunity he has to gain that advantage. It's not just that a starting pitcher may lose effectiveness due to fatigue as the game goes on, but the 3rd, 4th or 5th time a batter faces them in a game gives the batter a chance to adjust their timing, gauge the speed of pitches, determine release points so they can better and sooner pick up the pitch, and perhaps recognize what pitch is coning sooner, too. If a modern player is seeing about twice as many pitching staffs, who use more starting pitchers, and then periodically faces 3 or 4 more staffs who he only sees once every few years, it's going to be much harder to gain an advantage than it would be for a player from the 20's or 30's, IMO.
I don't even know what "heavy timelining" is. Fred Lynn brought up timelining and suggested that a conservative, acceptable by all (presumably) level would be 3%. 3% doesn't get Pujols past Gehrig.
FWIW I don't think that deeper bullpens are a disadvantage. It was probably tougher in the 1970s when you always faced a quality pitcher in a tight game -- i.e. going from Vida Blue to Fingers, Knowles or Lindblad, or Carlton to McGraw, Garber, Reed.
By and large, most teams are using 14-15 or so pitchers a year (minimum 30 innings). The bottom 5 guys on each team aren't making things more difficult for modern hitters.
Since dWAR is simply runs above/below average, this is true of every player who CHONE rates as below average defensively at his position.
Gehrig - 118.4 in 9660 PA (career)
Pujols - 88.7 in 7433 PA (through 2011)
I get Gehrig producing WAR at a 2.7% greater rate than Pujols (actual rate x 7433 PA = 91.1 WAR, or Pujols' total x 1.027).
I'm sure there are some reverse-split guys out there, but don't nearly all hitters do better in day games?
Pujols' OPS is 3.5% better in day games over his career so far (1.057 day vs. 1.021 night), and he's played almost twice as many night games as day games.
Gehrig never played at night at all. Or in an integrated game, or on the West Coast, or against a lefty relief specialist (at least not routinely).
I get that it's difficult to compare players across eras so far apart. But Pujols has been nearly as good a hitter, relative to league (178 vs. 169 OPS+), a much better fielder, and a better baserunner - resulting in a similar level of dominance (best player in the league seven times in eleven years), in a league and time that are harder to dominate.
So, what would Pujols have to do, to be considered "better" than Gehrig?
Assume his peak is behind him. Does it really come down to "fewer WAR than the guy 75 years ago = not better, nohow"?
And that is if you are basing it upon career numbers. Gehrigs peak dwarfs Pujols. He had a few years in the beginning and the end that drag him down to Pujols's level. Pujols is the more consistent great player, but I don't know of anyone who strictly rates players based upon career cumulative value, with no regards to peak.
I was on the other end of this argument previously, but when you really look at Gehrigs numbers, Pujols just isn't as good. Even assuming that Pujols gets bonus's for everything else, he really can't close the gap.
How about have at least one season as good as Gehrig's third best(or more accurately a second season that would break Gehrigs top five)? Or if Pujols puts up 4 more seasons in the 8 war range, then he might catch Gehrig.
The arguments for timelining are convincing, but I just don't see a reason to put Pujols over Gehrig without it. I don't see a real reason for Musial over Gehrig either. Longevity doesn't convince me when the guy with better seasons died. I'm a little biased though since Gehrig is probably my favorite historical player.
Of course, Pujols is going to have to start resembling Pujols again for this to even be a discussion.
Day/night stats - Discussed by Tango at http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/do_hitters_and_pitchers_perform_better_during_the_day_or_at_night/
Looks like the overall stats are basically the same, very very slight edge during day games. Interestingly it seems that offense peaks the closer it is to the early evening, with early at bats being better in night games and later at bats better in day games.
Exactly. It is hard for me to consider 4 players who were below average defensively at 1B and started fewer than 50% of their games at 1B to be the 15th, 14th, 13th and 6th (6th?!) greatest first basemen ever.
But does it? I certainly don't believe so. Pujols was the best player, by WAR, in his league 7 times. Gehrig 3 times and 4 times second to Ruth, so pretty comparable. Yet Pujols, by the same measure, WAR, is a better defender and baserunner by a huge margin. So is Gehrig that much better of a hitter? No, replacement level is higher, the players Pujols is competing against are playing at a higher level. There's just no way, IMO, you could drop Gehrig into 21st Century MLB and expect him to put up 4 double digit WAR seasons while being essentially a zero in the field and on the bases. Would he still be great? Absolutely. Would he dominate to the same extent he did in the 20's and 30's? No.
Does it really make sense that about 80% of the Top 40 seasons by WAR took place before integration? Over 50% before 1950? 32.5% took place just in the 20's and 30's? I don't believe that it does. It was simply easier to dominate at that time becasue the level of competition, or depth, if you prefer, was lower.
I don't think it's worth anything becasue it's not a question of deeper bullpens, it's a question of modern bullpen usage. For example, from 1901 to 1940 there were about 628 seasons where a pitcher appeared 70% of the time as a reliever and pitched at least 20 games druing the season. From 1970, more or less the beginning of modern bullpen usage, to 2011 there were over 10 times as many such seasons. Hitters in the 20's and 30's, would routinely face the same pitcher 4 or 5 times a game, even when the pitcher was struggling. Modern hitters almost never see a pitcher that often, unless he's at the very top of his game, and will frequently face 2 different relievers in addition to their PA's against the starter.
It's much easier to hit against a guy the 3rd, 4th and 5th time around than it is to go from a RH throwing fastballs, change ups and curves, to a lefty throwing 90% sliders and then back to a RH throwing all cutters. Each of them has a different tempo to their windup and a different release point. Modern bullpen usage is a huge disadvantage to a hitter.
I already demonstrated why this is wrong.
Since WAR is being used as the point of comparison, this is the key. It is the result of most of the factors mentioned above -- integration, captivity of the minors, college, international scouting, etc. The effect is evident in the dominance of pre-integration players on the top seasonal WAR lists, also mentioned above.
I just wanted to show that it wasn't completely pulled out of my rear end, not that it's dead-bang accurate.
WAR is already an estimate of an estimate, based on an estimate; I wouldn't want to lean on it that hard.
You mean have to have done those things already, right? I don't think Albert Pujols has to turn into Barry Bonds now, just to have a chance of catching up with Gehrig.
I feel like I'm not communicating this well, and I think it's because I went hyperbolic claiming Pujols has already had a better career than Gehrig. Maybe he hasn't, yet.
I am much more sure Pujols is already, at worst, #2, and that there is at least a reasonable argument he's already surpassed Gehrig.
However, alilisd seems to be making that argument better than I am, so I think I'll leave it there. And I'm sorry I was rude in #74.
I agree with that. But you could have also said, at best number 2 and I would have agreed with it also. I understand the timelining arguments, don't agree with them, the only timelining I do is to acknowledge prior to 1920, that it was a completely different game. After that, there wasn't another Babe Ruth type of player that redefined how the game was played, the second baseman finished the transition to become more valuable defensively than third baseman and the game pretty much resembles the same game we have now, the only other significant change in how the game has been played is the increased acceptance of the strikeout by the batter. (yes different eras had different scoring environments which changed some strategy, but fundamentally the knowledge of how to play the game optimally was there)
To me, the quality of the player is how he compared to his peers after the game settled into the familiar game. Gehrig put up 190-200 ops+ multiple times, the only other person on the planet that was his peer at the time was the guy who redefined the game. And even accepting the perfectly logical premises of 1. improved quality of player(which doesn't really matter to me, to be honest) 2. closing of the gap between the best and less than best players(which is a viable point) I just don't see Pujols making up that relatively big gap between their peaks.
...
Jesus.
A couple other guys came close though. Foxx topped a 200 OPS+ twice as a direct contemporary of Gehrig and had 4 other seasons over 180. Hornsby posted four 200 OPS+ seasons, 3 of which were during Gehrig's career span and the other was just 1 season earlier (also 3 more seasons of at least 185).
Does it really make sense that about 80% of the Top 40 seasons by WAR took place before integration? Over 50% before 1950? 32.5% took place just in the 20's and 30's? I don't believe that it does. It was simply easier to dominate at that time because the level of competition, or depth, if you prefer, was lower.
That both frames the question properly and makes it impossible to answer at the same time. It's total vanity to think we can rank Major Leaguers who competed against all-white competition and starting pitchers who stuck around deep in the game, to those who competed against talent from all over the world and specialized relief pitchers**. You can make a semi-educated guess, but it's a bit analogous to trying to predict which #1 draft choice is going to wind up a superstar and which one is going to wind up a very good but not great player. I personally have little doubt that Pujols would have destroyed the pitchers of Gehrig's era to an even greater extent than Gehrig, but I also know that there's no way I can prove it one way or the other.
**How many David Robertsons and Mariano Riveras did Lou Gehrig ever face in his career? Does anyone seriously think that escaping pitchers like that for 14 years didn't pad Gehrig's averages considerably? How can you omit that factor alone and still try to call it an honest comparison?
* I agree that this IS a god argumnet for timelining, or at least measurin gplayers against their peers, as opposed to merely by best OPS+ or WAR. Which is why I say Musial>Gehrig>Pujols>Foxx at 1B.
Does it really make sense that exactly 15% of the Top 40 seasons by WAR took place in a 5-year span, 2000-2004? Maybe it was easier to put up dominant ##s in the brief silly-ball era as well.
* and this is why Pujols doesn't pass Gehrig, IMHO.
When 4 of those seasons came from arguably the greatest player of all time at his roided up peak, yes it does. In a 5 year span, one super great player can skew the numbers a lot.
No, the only other person in MLB who was his peer was Ruth. There were very likely other persons in the USA who could have been his peer had they had the opportunity, and there were certainly other people on the planet who could have been.
Thanks. Yes, it is impossible to prove one way or the other, but it's fun to think about and discuss.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main