First Basemen Rankings, Revisited

[Brad Harris]

As I did with the catchers from the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, I've just completed an update of the first basemen.

Keep in mind that rankings published in James' Abstract ranked players thru the 2000 season, using win shares to establish the following values:

(1) Career value - harmonic mean between 1/10th career value and 25
(2) True peak value - average of best 3 seasons
(3) Consistent peak value - average of best 5 consecutive seasons
(4) Seasonal average value - career value averaged per 162 games played
(5) Era adjustment value - year of birth minus 1800 then divided by 10
(6) Subjective value - miscellaneous category worth 0-50 points

I can't replicate the 6th one and I've chosen not to replicate the 5th one, but here are the rankings. I've taken James' original list of 125 plus any active players with significant playing time, adding the 1-4 value scores and updating active players thru the 2004 season.


Lou Gehrig
Dick Allen
Jimmie Foxx
Jeff Bagwell
Will Clark
Frank Thomas
Willie McCovey
Jason Giambi
Dan Brouthers
Johnny Mize
Mark McGwire
Albert Pujols
Roger Connor
Harmon Killebrew
Hank Greenberg
Eddie Murray
Frank Chance
Jim Thome
Bill Terry
Don Mattingly
Tony Perez
Cap Anson
Keith Hernandez
Norm Cash
Rafael Palmeiro
Todd Helton
Orlando Cepeda
John Olerud
George Sisler
Carlos Delgado
Fred McGriff
Jack Fournier
Dolph Camilli
Boog Powell
Jim Bottomley
Ed Konetchy
Gil Hodges
Bob Watson
Mickey Vernon
Cecil Cooper
Steve Garvey
John Mayberry
Mark Grace
Hal Trosky
Harry Davis
Dave Orr
Ted Kluszewski
Roy Sievers
Mo Vaughn
Frank McCormick
Bill White
Phil Cavaretta
Elbie Fletcher
Rudy York
Jake Daubert
Jake Beckley
Mike Hargrove
Henry Larkin
Fred Tenney
Joe Adcock
Kent Hrbek
Ripper Collins
Andres Galarraga
Wally Joyner
George Kelly
Ron Fairly
Joe Judge
Lee May
Ferris Fain
John Kruk
Norm Siebern
Tino Martinez
Glenn Davis
Stuffy McInnis
Richie Sexson
George Scott
Alvin Davis
Hal Chase
Joe Kuhel
Jim Gentile
Piano Legs Hickman
Lu Blue
Cecil Fielder
Andre Thornton
Long John Reilly
Dan McGann
Mike Epstein
Gus Suhr
Zeke Bonura
Fred Merkle
George H. Burns
Fred Luderus
Earl Torgeson
Jason Thompson
Tommy Tucker
Chris Chambliss
Don Mincher
Wes Parker
Sean Casey
Wally Pipp


You're probably as surprised as I am about some of these rankings. Food for thought, though.

[538280]

Wow, Dick Allen second. That just shows how talented he really was. Too bad he was such a jerk. He could be right with Foxx and Gehrig. It also shows that James' rating are a little peak heavy. He should give more credit to career win shares.

[Yankee Legend]

How is Bagwell 4th and Mattingly 20th????

[leecemark]

--Because Mattingly only had about 4 really good years? I agree that a little high for Bags and a little low for Donnie, but not by that much in either case.

[Brad Harris]

Career Win Shares
385 Jeff Bagwell
263 Don Mattingly

Best Three Seasons
41, 37, 32 Jeff Bagwell
34, 32, 29 Don Mattingly

Best Five Consecutive Seasons
163 Jeff Bagwell
146 Don Mattingly

Win Shares per 162 Games Played
29.55 Jeff Bagwell
23.87 Don Mattingly

Bagwell beats Mattingly handily in every individual element of these rankings.

[LouGehrig]

You're probably as surprised as I am about some of these rankings. Food for thought, though.

A ranking system that rates Dick Allen as the second best first baseman of all time, and John Olerud ahead of George Sisler is a ranking system that

a) must be re-examined.
b) must have its validity questioned.
c) thrown in the garbage.

Who in his right mind would rank Dick Allen as the second best first baseman of all time?

[mordeci]

It also shows that James' rating are a little peak heavy.
I agree. Allen is way too high. Bagwell, Clark, Thomas and Giambi are too high. Greenberg is too low, as are Sisler, Killebrew, Terry, Hodges, Frank McCormick and Chris Chambliss. Just my opinions obviously.

Ron Fairly is #66? Ron Fairly?

Does anyone else find it humerous that Gehrig is #1 and Wally Pipp is #100?

[NationalPastime1980]

A ranking system that rates Dick Allen as the second best first baseman of all time, and John Olerud ahead of George Sisler is a ranking system that

a) must be re-examined.
b) must have its validity questioned.
c) thrown in the garbage.

Who in his right mind would rank Dick Allen as the second best first baseman of all time?

Bill James is all about numbers.He adds this way and minus this way until he finds the right numbers to back the player list the way he wants.

I agree with many of his finding but Dick Allen was just a Dick.Alot of talent wasted.

I laugh when he places him over Foxx.Plain crazy.

[RuthMayBond]

As I did with the catchers from the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, I've just completed an update of the first basemen.

Keep in mind that rankings published in James' Abstract ranked players thru the 2000 season, using win shares to establish the following values:

(1) Career value - harmonic mean between 1/10th career value and 25
(2) True peak value - average of best 3 seasons
(3) Consistent peak value - average of best 5 consecutive seasons
(4) Seasonal average value - career value averaged per 162 games played
(5) Era adjustment value - year of birth minus 1800 then divided by 10
(6) Subjective value - miscellaneous category worth 0-50 points

I can't replicate the 6th one and I've chosen not to replicate the 5th one, but here are the rankings. I've taken James' original list of 125 plus any active players with significant playing time, adding the 1-4 value scores and updating active players thru the 2004 season.

[list=1]
Will Clark
Frank Thomas

Jason Giambi
Johnny Mize
Mark McGwire

Don Mattingly
Cap Anson
Rafael PalmeiroClark over Thomas?
Giambi over Mize AND McGwire?
Mattingly over Anson AND Palmeiro?
In what universe?

[Brad Harris]

First of all, Bill James certainly didn't decide he wanted to make a system that ranked Dick Allen second and then set about devising one to do just that. James created a system. The numbers speak for themselves.

If you've got specific disagreements about win shares, fine. Take it up in that fashion. Although you're getting into a much more technical discussion, debating win shares vs. linear weights or WARP3 is equally valid. Using these same elements, but with that data rather than win shares probably isn't going to yield drastically different results.

If you've got specific disagreements with the "elements" of this ranking system, offer your own in return. I'm certainly not going to quibble if someone else thinks these rankings should be weighted differently.

If you just don't like the results? I think that's pretty disingenuous.

As to specific individuals:

Dick Allen was a far better ballplayer than he's given credit for. Imagine if Albert Belle had played in a pitcher's era and been a victim of institutionalized racism. Among peak performance, upon which this system gives greater weight to (than career performance), Allen is one of the top first basemen in history any way you slice it. As far as James' actual rankings, in his book, he no doubt gives Foxx a heavy dose of "subjective" credit and Allen none. In my mind, Foxx played in a whites-only league in (what was until recent years) the greatest offensive era in history. Allen played in an integrated league in the greatest pitching era since Babe Ruth came along. I'm not going to debate Allen vs. Foxx - who are practically indistinguishable with this system (133.23 to 132.68) - but Allen is certainly one of the greatest first basemen in history, a fact well accounted for in this system. Gehrig, by the way, at 150.63, is miles ahead of the next best first baseman, whomever he is.

Olerud (107.87) and Sisler (107.29) are also practically indistinguishable. Olerud's career value is a little better, though Sisler's ws/162 games is better by a similar margin. Where Olerud shines is his peak years. Olerud hasn't had many, but his best season (1993) was worth 37 win shares. Sisler, on the other hand, had a 33 win share in 1920. In the context of their home parks and the seasons/eras they played in, that's the relative value of their contributions. The facts are that (a) Sisler wasn't as great as generations of baseball fans have been led to believe and (b) Olerud was better than most of us remember him as.

Regarding Jeff Bagwell (4th), Will Clark (5th), Frank Thomas (6th), and Jason Giambi (8th): I don't know too many reasonable fans who don't already consider Bagwell and Thomas among the ten greatest first basemen in history. I, personally, count Bagwell among the 3-5 greatest. As for Will Clark, like Allen, James used the subjective element in his book to put others (like Don Mattingly) ahead of him, but the numbers don't lie. If you take Clark's performance in the context of that performance, it's much better than we remember it. All of these guys rely heavily, in the system, on peak numbers. Three are still active - so their ranking could drop if their "per season" average drops faster than their career totals rise. Finally...no matter what we know - or think we know - about steroid usage by Giambi (among others), the system certainly doesn't take any such thing into account. Giambi has had some monster seasons in his prime, pushing him this high up the list. A similar reason for Pujols rating so highly (12th) already, though I don't hear complaints about that.

As for Harmon Killebrew (14th), Hank Greenberg (15th), Bill Terry (19th), Sisler (29th), Gil Hodges (37th), Frank McCormick (50th), and Chris Chambliss (96th) being rated "too low," what can I say? I didn't say you had to like how the system rates players. The futher any such rankings get away from the top ten or twenty, the slimmer the distinctions between spots on the list. Such is the nature of any list of this kind. Whether Chambliss rates 96th or 76th...who cares? His mother? Suffice it to say Chambliss was good enough to crack the top 100 first basemen in history, but not good enough to crack the top 50. Frank McCormick? Might make my personal top 50, but then again I'm not personally knowledgeable enough on 50 candidates to rank above him, either. Killebrew (no defense) and Greenberg (shorter career) have nothing to be ashamed of. Terry and Sisler both fare just fine. Hodges ranks about the same as Jim Bottomley and Ed Konetchy, which seems right to me.

A lot of this appears to be a case of some long-cherised myths being dispelled. What interested me is just how good Will Clark and Frank Chance really were, that Don Mattingly (short career, high peak) and Tony Perez (opposite value placement) had approximately the same value to the system, that Rafael Palmeiro was rated 25th thru last year, or that George Kelly - the worst first baseman in the Hall of Fame - had about the same value in this system as Wally Joyner.

I may not like that Steve Garvey is rated lower than Gil Hodges, or that Keith Hernandez isn't in the top 20, or whatever, but I don't have a better system to offer and I think this one does a nice job of covering the various dimensions of a player's value.

I enthusiastically await a better system.

[Brad Harris]

Recapping the catchers:


Mike Piazza
Johnny Bench
Yogi Berra
Mickey Cochrane
Gary Carter
Bill Dickey
Joe Torre
Roy Campanella
Carlton Fisk
Bill Freehan
Gabby Hartnett
Ted Simmons
Ivan Rodriguez
Gene Tenace
Roger Bresnahan
Buck Ewing
Elston Howard
Jorge Posada
Thurman Munson
Lance Parrish
Darren Daulton
Mickey Tettleton
Tom Haller
Darrell Porter
Jason Kendall


Other notables:
Javy Lopez, 26th
Wally Schang, 29th
Ernie Lombardi, 32nd
Ray Schalk, 39th
Johnny Kling, 40th
Deacon White, 42nd
Charlie Bennett, 43rd
Rick Ferrell, 49th
Paul Lo Duca, 50th

[LouGehrig]

Bill James is all about numbers.He adds this way and minus this way until he finds the right numbers to back the player list the way he wants.

I agree with many of his finding but Dick Allen was just a Dick.Alot of talent wasted.

I laugh when he places him over Foxx.Plain crazy.

You make great points, especially about James.

A researcher cannot manipulate numbers to find the right numbers to back the player the way he wants. That is NOT empirically creating a measurement.

[abacab]

In James's book, he lists Allen at #15, NOT #2. The point Chancellor is trying to make is that a strict, objective application of the formula would put Allen at #2. Maybe the formula could be improved... in fact, there's no "maybe" about it... but there is no "manipulation" going on here.

[westsidegrounds]

Ted Kluszewski over Frank McCormick? No way!!!!!!!

[abacab]

Piano Legs Hickman over Lu Blue?! What the heck is James thinking?!?!?!

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[RuthMayBond]

Recapping the catchers:


Bill Freehan
Ivan Rodriguez

Buck Ewing


Freehan over IRod?
And all of them over Ewing?
Interesting

[westsidegrounds]

Seriously, if this is what Bill J's system results in, then it's wrong. It's wrong, and being "the best we have at the moment" isn't good enough. The most that can be said is that it is of some interest as showing the results of one set of subjectively-arrived-at evaluations and formulae. Per se, it's no more determinant than plain old-fashioned BA or W.

Look up Don Mincher's career, and compare it to Wally Pipp's. There's just no way their relative rankings, per James, are correct. Just one example, out of so many. Allen over Thomas ... ...

Hopefully this will be an eye-opener for those who believe there is one single absolute indisputable quantifying stat.

[538280]

Seriously, if this is what Bill J's system results in, then it's wrong. It's wrong, and being "the best we have at the moment" isn't good enough. The most that can be said is that it is of some interest as showing the results of one set of subjectively-arrived-at evaluations and formulae. Per se, it's no more determinant than plain old-fashioned BA or W.

Look up Don Mincher's career, and compare it to Wally Pipp's. There's just no way their relative rankings, per James, are correct. Just one example, out of so many. Allen over Thomas ... ...

Hopefully this will be an eye-opener for those who believe there is one single absolute indisputable quantifying stat.

It is not the Win Shares stat that is messed up, it is the rating system. That's why James included a subjective element in his player rankings, to change any crazy results that his system spits out. It's his rating system that is messed up, not his stats.

[DoubleX]

Will Clark 5th? Wow. In light of the Palmeiro scandal, I've been wondering lately about Clark's chances for the Hall? I'm sure he won't sniff the place, but he certainly deserves a longer look than he's likely to get.

[DoubleX]

Hmm, just noticed that Giambi is ranked 8th here. Don't know now how seriously I can take Bill James' rankings. It appears that he is ennamored with high peaks, in which case George Sisler should be much higher than 29th. Not sure if there is any consistency to James' line up thinking on that one.

[leecemark]

--As Chris mentioned this isn't so much a problem with Win Shares as it is in the way its components are weighted for the ranking system. Career value is only 1/4 of the parts listed here. Peak is double counted and weighted toward shorter peak periods. The fourth leg is WS per 162 which favors guys with big years and shorter careers/little or no decline. Guys with many good years, but less than awesome peaks or who played long enough that their peak is a smaller percentage of their career, are going to be consistently underrated in this format. Guys with high peaks and short careers are going to be overrated. As for Sisler, his peak wasn't quite as great as many like to think and he had as many average/below average years as he did good/great ones.
--Why James stuck with this system I don't know. He choose to fix the problems via his subjective component instead of choosing a better mix of numbers and opened himself up to lots of (justifiable) criticism from people who actually look at what the hard numbers of the system yield.

[RuthMayBond]

--As Chris mentioned this isn't so much a problem with Win Shares as it is in the way its components are weighted for the ranking system. Career value is only 1/4 of the parts listed here. Peak is double counted and weighted toward shorter peak periods. The fourth leg is WS per 162 which favors guys with big years and shorter careers/little or no decline.So the short-term guys get THREE-FOURTHS vs. one-fourth career value. Yeah, that's fair :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[Brad Harris]

What weight should career value be given in a rating system?

Does anyone here really think that Don Sutton was a greater pitcher than Sandy Koufax? Or Bernie Williams better than Kirby Puckett? Carlton Fisk had 50% more time accumulating the same value as Gary Carter.

How important are the various elements? How should they be rated?

Personally...I think James made a mistake in making the career component the product of the harmonic means between 1/10th of their career win shares and 25. Why not just leave it at 1/10th of their career win shares?

[RuthMayBond]

What weight should career value be given in a rating system?

Does anyone here really think that Don Sutton was a greater pitcher than Sandy Koufax?Other than six years?

<Or Bernie Williams better than Kirby Puckett?>

I don't know how Bernie's decline will end, but Bernie is already a better hitter, a HIGHER OPS+ with MORE plate apps.

[Brad Harris]

I've tweaked the system, for kicks.

I turned the career component into a simple 1/10th of career win shares. I then completely eliminated the 3 peak season component. What I'm left with is the following:

Career Value Component - Career win shares divided by 10.
Peak Value Component - Average of best 5 consecutive seasons.
Playing Time Component - Career win shares per 162 games played.

Here's the top 25 with the tweaked results:


Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Foxx
Jeff Bagwell
Dick Allen
Willie McCovey
Dan Brouthers
Eddie Murray
Frank Thomas
Roger Connor
Johnny Mize
Will Clark
Mark McGwire
Harmon Killebrew
Cap Anson
Rafael Palmeiro
Jason Giambi
Hank Greenberg
Tony Perez
Fred McGriff
Jim Thome
Keith Hernandez
Bill Terry
Frank Chance
Norm Cash
Orlando Cepeda
Don Mattingly
George Sisler
Albert Pujols
John Olerud
Ed Konetchy


With the 138 first basemen in my database, each of the three components averages a 1/3rd weighting. Here are the most extreme weightings for individuals on the list:

Highest % of total ranking dependant on career value
46% Eddie Murray (46% of Murray's total "value" is anchored by his career value)
45% Rafael Palmeiro
44% Jake Beckley
42% Cap Anson
42% Tony Perez
42% Bill Buckner
41% Jimmie Foxx
41% Willie McCovey
41% Harmon Killebrew
41% Fred McGriff
41% Mickey Vernon

Highest % of total ranking dependant on peak value
49% Richie Sexson
41% Derrek Lee
40% Todd Helton
40% Nate Colbert
40% Willie Upshaw
39% Jason Giambi
39% Ted Kluszewski
39% Jim Gentile
39% Pete O'Brien
39% Eddie Robinson

Highest % of total ranking dependant on seasonal avg. value
46% Albert Pujols
45% Dave Orr
44% Babe Young
42% Joe Harris
42% Joe Start
41% Zeke Bonura
41% Sean Casey
40% Mike Epstein
39% Charlie Hickman
39% Jim Gentile

One aspect of any rating system I would like to see is one in which a player's ranking can only go up because of his current/future performance, not down.

In James' system, a current player who would decline long and slow would drop significantly in these rankings. When discussing "all-time" rankings, I don't think that's appropriate. Any more than it is to say that someone with 4 years of MLB service deserves to rank in the top 30 all-time.

[RuthMayBond]

I've tweaked the system, for kicks.

I turned the career component into a simple 1/10th of career win shares. I then completely eliminated the 3 peak season component. What I'm left with is the following:

Career Value Component - Career win shares divided by 10.
Peak Value Component - Average of best 5 consecutive seasons.
Playing Time Component - Career win shares per 162 games played.

Here's the top 25 with the tweaked results:


Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Foxx
Jeff Bagwell
Dick Allen
Willie McCovey
Dan Brouthers
Eddie Murray
Frank Thomas
Roger Connor
Johnny Mize
Will Clark
Mark McGwire
Harmon Killebrew
Cap Anson
Rafael Palmeiro
Jason Giambi
Hank Greenberg
Tony Perez
Fred McGriff
Jim Thome
Keith Hernandez
Bill Terry
Frank Chance
Norm Cash
Orlando Cepeda
Don Mattingly
George Sisler
Albert Pujols
John Olerud
Ed Konetchy

And people continue to insist how Sisler is top 20 of ALL position players

<One aspect of any rating system I would like to see is one in which a player's ranking can only go up because of his current/future performance, not down.>

Not sure if I agree with this

<Any more than it is to say that someone with 4 years of MLB service deserves to rank in the top 30 all-time.>

True, yet you rate Brouthers fairly high, and McGriff fairly low

[abacab]

Dick Allen rates so high because

1. His first five years were tremendous, giving him a great "five-year peak" - with the exception of his 1972 MVP season, Allen never came close to those first five years.

2. Allen has great rate stats - but he had almost no decline phase and (with the exceptions of his first five plus '72 seasons) he was very injury prone, missing large portions of several seasons. WS/162 does not take that into account.

What this shows is that more variables are needed, because some players are going to be favored if their career is shaped in a certain way. I would do it something like this:

1. Career WS / 10
2. Best 3 seasons - average
3. Best 3 consecutive seasons -average
4. Best 5 seasons -average
5. Best 5 consecutive seasons - average
6. Best 7 seasons - average
7. Best 7 consecutive seasons - average
8. Best 10 seasons - average

[Blackout]

Recapping the catchers:


Mike Piazza
Johnny Bench
Yogi Berra
Mickey Cochrane
Gary Carter
Bill Dickey
Joe Torre
Roy Campanella
Carlton Fisk
Bill Freehan
Gabby Hartnett
Ted Simmons
Ivan Rodriguez
Gene Tenace
Roger Bresnahan
Buck Ewing
Elston Howard
Jorge Posada
Thurman Munson
Lance Parrish
Darren Daulton
Mickey Tettleton
Tom Haller
Darrell Porter
Jason Kendall


Other notables:
Javy Lopez, 26th
Wally Schang, 29th
Ernie Lombardi, 32nd
Ray Schalk, 39th
Johnny Kling, 40th
Deacon White, 42nd
Charlie Bennett, 43rd
Rick Ferrell, 49th
Paul Lo Duca, 50th

no veritek in the top 50?

[Brad Harris]

no veritek in the top 50?

Nope. A guy with 78 career win shares surely isn't going to rate in the top 50 at any position. Varitek has never had more than 17 win shares in a single season. He has neither sustained excellence nor clustered greatness. Varitek presently rates, by my calculations at 116th all-time, essentially tied with Sandy Alomar, Jr.

[Brad Harris]

1. Career WS / 10
2. Best 3 seasons - average
3. Best 3 consecutive seasons -average
4. Best 5 seasons -average
5. Best 5 consecutive seasons - average
6. Best 7 seasons - average
7. Best 7 consecutive seasons - average
8. Best 10 seasons - average

This would seem to only compound what most of the complaints are about; this system would place an even greater emphasis on "peak" value.

[Brad Harris]

True, yet you rate Brouthers fairly high, and McGriff fairly low

I have to admit you've lost me here. What I was trying to say is that it makes no sense to rank an active player in the top 20 or 30 if he only has 4-5 seasons under his belt. It's not an impossibility, but I would think in a system designed only to allow active candidates to increase their ranking through their own performance, this wouldn't happen.

There's something un...couth(?) about a system where Albert Pujols could rate 30th this year, but 58th next year just because he has a bad season.

[RuthMayBond]

I have to admit you've lost me here. What I was trying to say is that it makes no sense to rank an active player in the top 20 or 30 if he only has 4-5 seasons under his belt. It's not an impossibility, but I would think in a system designed only to allow active candidates to increase their ranking through their own performance, this wouldn't happen.

There's something un...couth(?) about a system where Albert Pujols could rate 30th this year, but 58th next year just because he has a bad season.I'm saying this because Brouthers didn'thave the longevity that McGriff did. But I have no problem dropping a guy's rank if he has a bad season

[leecemark]

--Better not to rank a guy prematurely than to be shifting his rank up and down. Pujols looks like he is going to be an all time great, but I wouldn't call him one yet. His grade is incomplete rather than A-. For the most part I'm not interested in ranking a guy until he has 10 years in and then only so high as he has already earned. If he continues to play well you can always elevate him further, but only an early and ugly decline might cause me to move a guy down.

[mordeci]

True, yet you rate Brouthers fairly high

That's not politically correct. You should say "you rate african-american gentlemen fairly high".

[RuthMayBond]

That's not politically correct. You should say "you rate african-american gentlemen fairly high".British ones, at that :laugh

[Brad Harris]

It's pronounced BROO-thers. :rolleyes:

[RuthMayBond]

It's pronounced BROO-thers. :rolleyes:
I knou that

[Brad Harris]

--Better not to rank a guy prematurely than to be shifting his rank up and down....His grade is incomplete rather than A-. For the most part I'm not interested in ranking a guy until he has 10 years in and then only so high as he has already earned. If he continues to play well you can always elevate him further, but only an early and ugly decline might cause me to move a guy down.

Whether for purposes of Hall of Fame potential or just for "all-time great" lists, I agree...10 years is just right as the time to start considering these guys among retired greats. 10 years is half a career for a long-time player, it's also plenty of time (99% of the time) to have seen some of the player's very best seasons. Players with less than 10 years in the major leagues aren't even eligible for the Hall of Fame, not matter how long they've been retired, so it's pointless to speculate on the chances a guy with less than 10 years has of eventually making it to Cooperstown; especially when in the same breath people will talk about "if he retired today."

[abacab]

This would seem to only compound what most of the complaints are about; this system would place an even greater emphasis on "peak" value.

Maybe, but to an extent, that depends on how peak is defined. This system would give a higher rank to players who were able to sustain their peak over a longer period, rather than players who had three great years and then disappeared.

But if it still isn't giving the results we want, we can always tweak it by giving different weights to the components. That's the nice thing about WS (or any "uberstat").

[Sockeye]

Allen at #2 is laughable to say the least. I have him ranked #46 among 1B's but that is due in large part to him playing less than half of his career games at 1B. Even without penalizing him for his lack of playing time at the position I'd still rank him no higher than 24th.

[RuthMayBond]

Allen at #2 is laughable to say the least. I have him ranked #46 among 1B's but that is due in large part to him playing less than half of his career games at 1B. Even without penalizing him for his lack of playing time at the position I'd still rank him no higher than 24th.Well we can't WAIT to hear this list of 45 or even 23.

[538280]

Allen at #2 is laughable to say the least. I have him ranked #46 among 1B's but that is due in large part to him playing less than half of his career games at 1B. Even without penalizing him for his lack of playing time at the position I'd still rank him no higher than 24th.

I agree rating him #2 is not right at all but rating him #24 (not to mention #46) is just as bad. Allen was short on longevity, but while he was playing he was about as good as hitter as there's ever been in the history of the game. His 200 OPS+ in 1972 is the highest in the 1970s, and his 156 career mark is tied with Willie Mays for the highest between Mantle and Bonds. My rating system has him #6 at 1B, I'd say that's where he deserves to be.

[Sliding Billy]

It seems to me that these discussions of overrall ratings are premature because these master stats incorporate so many widely differing assumptions, not least about the relative importance of career and peak value. A lot of time and effort (I feel) gets wasted in compilers' defending their rankings rather than trying to take them apart themselves and make better ones.

Why not try to reach a range of consensus about one of them first: Say, comparing lists for career value alone and asking: What stats are the most accurate measures? How should the value of cumulative vs average stats be divided up? etc. Then, or at the same time, do something similar with peak value: How long is a peak (huh)? How much higher does a 4-year peak have to be than a five-year peak to mean something? What if a player's peak years are distributed through his career? Is a late peak better than an early one? etc.

Then you can figure out how to combine the two, or whether they are incommensurable and you just have to agree to differ or keep two lists. After that you can get into adjustments for era strength.

Otherwise--again, it just seems to me--it's just going to be, "Dick Allen burned Watts" vs "George Sisler stole the Lindbergh baby" forever.

[Sockeye]

Dick Allen only played 807 of his 1725 career games at first base (46.8%) and didn't play a single game at first base until the 69 season. The majority of his best seasons came prior to the 69 season while he was playing 3B. The majority of his black and gray ink came prior to the 69 season. He had one GREAT season in 1972 and won the MVP award for it. After that his next best season in MVP voting was 1974 when he finished 23rd and 1973 when he was 35th. He only managed to play in as many as 130+ games twice after moving to 1B. So while he was extremely productive while in the lineup his inability to stay healthy especially after his move to 1B prevents him from being an all time great player especially at the 1B position.

[yankillaz]

Dick Allen only played 807 of his 1725 career games at first base (46.8%) and didn't play a single game at first base until the 69 season. The majority of his best seasons came prior to the 69 season while he was playing 3B. The majority of his black and gray ink came prior to the 69 season. He had one GREAT season in 1972 and won the MVP award for it. After that his next best season in MVP voting was 1974 when he finished 23rd and 1973 when he was 35th. He only managed to play in as many as 130+ games twice after moving to 1B. So while he was extremely productive while in the lineup his inability to stay healthy especially after his move to 1B prevents him from being an all time great player especially at the 1B position.

Good point Sockeye. Ummm. In my current experiment, i have him as the 19th best First Basemen, but he's going to climb to a better position.

[538280]

Dick Allen only played 807 of his 1725 career games at first base (46.8%) and didn't play a single game at first base until the 69 season. The majority of his best seasons came prior to the 69 season while he was playing 3B. The majority of his black and gray ink came prior to the 69 season. He had one GREAT season in 1972 and won the MVP award for it. After that his next best season in MVP voting was 1974 when he finished 23rd and 1973 when he was 35th. He only managed to play in as many as 130+ games twice after moving to 1B. So while he was extremely productive while in the lineup his inability to stay healthy especially after his move to 1B prevents him from being an all time great player especially at the 1B position.

My rankings are based on what a player does in his WHOLE career, regardless of what positoin it is done at. They are classified at a certain position, but what they do at other positoins also counts to their credit.

If you're judging him on just what he did as a 1B, I could definitely see him around #25. So we're not in total disagreement here.

[ElHalo]

My rankings, just for fun:

1. Gehrig
2. Foxx
3. Sisler
4. Thomas
5. Mize
6. Greenberg
7. Brouthers
8. Bagwell
9. Connor
10. Terry
11. Pujols
12. Allen
13. McCovey
14. Trosky
15. Hernandez
16. Murray
17. Killebrew
18. Anson
19. Chance
20. McGriff

If you rank Ernie Banks as a 1Bman, which you probably should, he'd go in at number 13.

Two comments. One... Here's a complete list of everyone ever, in the history of baseball, with career /162 averages of at least 100 R, 100 RBI, 40 2B, 20 HR, a .300 BA, and a .500 SLG.

Lou Gehrig
Hank Greenberg
Albert Pujols
Hal Trosky

Trosky doesn't get anywhere near the respect he probably should. Not much in longevity, but I don't really blame him for it... his career was completely derailed by WWII. He had slipped a notch or two going into the war, but he had a 139 OPS+ in 1940 and was hitting .294 with a .383 OBP in half a season in 1941 before going off.

Two... I don't see how people can put that great a distance between Eddie Murray and Kieth Hernandez. They were essentially the same hitter... Hernandez was better at getting on base, Murray was better at power... Kieth was the FAR superior fielder, and Murray had better longevity. In my mind, it's a complete wash between the two.

[leecemark]

My rankings are based on what a player does in his WHOLE career, regardless of what positoin it is done at. They are classified at a certain position, but what they do at other positoins also counts to their credit.

If you're judging him on just what he did as a 1B, I could definitely see him around #25. So we're not in total disagreement here.

--That is my approach too. Otherwise you've got Allen around 25th at 1B and 18th at 3b or something like that. And Killebrew in the second 10 at 1b/3B and Carew the same at 2B/1B etc..... and Rose about 50th at 4 different spots:eek: .

[leecemark]

If you rank Ernie Banks as a 1Bman, which you probably should, he'd go in at number 13.

--The problem with that is Banks had all his best years as a SS. The back half of his career at 1B he was only slightly above average (and that may be a generous assesment). I suppose if he had been playing 1B his whole career then 13th might be about right. He is a clear top 10 SS though.

[The Commissioner]

My rankings, just for fun:

1. Gehrig
2. Foxx
3. Sisler
4. Thomas
5. Mize
6. Greenberg
7. Brouthers
8. Bagwell
9. Connor
10. Terry
11. Pujols
12. Allen
13. McCovey
14. Trosky
15. Hernandez
16. Murray
17. Killebrew
18. Anson
19. Chance
20. McGriff

If you rank Ernie Banks as a 1Bman, which you probably should, he'd go in at number 13.

Two comments. One... Here's a complete list of everyone ever, in the history of baseball, with career /162 averages of at least 100 R, 100 RBI, 40 2B, 20 HR, a .300 BA, and a .500 SLG.

Lou Gehrig
Hank Greenberg
Albert Pujols
Hal Trosky

Trosky doesn't get anywhere near the respect he probably should. Not much in longevity, but I don't really blame him for it... his career was completely derailed by WWII. He had slipped a notch or two going into the war, but he had a 139 OPS+ in 1940 and was hitting .294 with a .383 OBP in half a season in 1941 before going off.

Two... I don't see how people can put that great a distance between Eddie Murray and Kieth Hernandez. They were essentially the same hitter... Hernandez was better at getting on base, Murray was better at power... Kieth was the FAR superior fielder, and Murray had better longevity. In my mind, it's a complete wash between the two.

El Halo, you have Greenberg and Sisler ahead of Will Clark? You sir, are no Bill James!!!

[538280]

Two... I don't see how people can put that great a distance between Eddie Murray and Kieth Hernandez. They were essentially the same hitter... Hernandez was better at getting on base, Murray was better at power... Kieth was the FAR superior fielder, and Murray had better longevity. In my mind, it's a complete wash between the two.

Murray looks like the same hitter because his career was about 50% as long. It's that simple. Take off the last 1000 games (which would give him a career roughly the same length as Hernandez's), and his hitting appears far superior. Hernandez was a better fielder, he was probably the best 1B fielder of all time, but Murray was really good himself (3 GGs). The difference between an all time great and very good fielding first baseman is just not nearly enough to make up for a 50% longer career, nevermind the hitting advantage Murray has when taking that into account. I'm a big Hernandez fan and would certainly advocate him for the Hall, but he's nowhere near Eddie Murray.

[ElHalo]

El Halo, you have Greenberg and Sisler ahead of Will Clark? You sir, are no Bill James!!!

I don't get the Will Clark thing. I admit. I watched him play, and always thought of him as one of those guys who might have been pretty good, but could never really live up to his potential... a J.D. Drew, say, or a Phil Nevin. If you're feeling particularly charitable, a Ryan Klesko. A hole plugger, in other words. And looking at his numbers in hindsight, that impression doesn't change all that much. His ink totals are unremarkable, he was an ok fielder but not really worth worrying about, he could NEVER stay healthy, he only hit 30 homers once, only drove in 100 four times, only scored 100 twice, never got 200 hits, wasn't a base stealer... he was a pretty good average hitter who could draw a few walks. If he was putting up his numbers from CF, he'd be in my top 20 CF's of all time. For a journeyman 1B who played more than 130 games once after age 30, and 150 games only four times in his career, he's not that interesting.

[538280]

I'll show my list now...

1.Lou Gehrig
2.Frank Thomas
3.Willie McCovey
4.Jeff Bagwell
5.Jimmie Foxx
6.Dick Allen
7.Eddie Murray
8.Johnny Mize
9.Buck Leonard
10.Harmon Killebrew
11.Roger Connor
12.Dan Brouthers
13.Will Clark
14.Hank Greenberg
15.Mark McGwire
16.Fred McGriff
17.Keith Hernandez
18.Cap Anson
19.Tony Perez
20.Orlando Cepeda
21.Norm Cash
22.Boog Powell
23.Rafael Palmeiro
24.Bill Terry
25.George Sisler

That's changed around from where it used to be with input from my new system. My system showed Jimmie Foxx to be if not the most probably one of the most overrated players in baseball history. I'm curious as to why with you guys he's absolutely the #2 1Bman.

Let's look at Foxx versus Willie McCovey. McCovey had a longer career. Both were the dominant hitters in their leagues for a period of time. McCovey, applying my LQ adjustments (which do a good job normalizing history, BTW, my system has been proven to be fair to all eras), comes out with a slightly better peak.

Foxx had more years at or near the level of his peak, but McCovey isn't too thin there either. Willie had 8 seasons OPS+ of 160 or better, the same amout as Foxx. Foxx had that year to year consistency, but still ended up with a shorter career, and by my measures less career value. I'm aware most people see this comparison being a Foxx blowout, I'm just interested in why. My system gives Foxx his consistency advantage (the consistency component, 20+ WS seasons, has Foxx with 28 points for 14 such seasons and McCovey with 18 for 9 such seasons), and yet still has McCovey ahead.

[ElHalo]

Murray looks like the same hitter because his career was about 50% as long. It's that simple. Take off the last 1000 games (which would give him a career roughly the same length as Hernandez's), and his hitting appears far superior. Hernandez was a better fielder, he was probably the best 1B fielder of all time, but Murray was really good himself (3 GGs). The difference between an all time great and very good fielding first baseman is just not nearly enough to make up for a 50% longer career, nevermind the hitting advantage Murray has when taking that into account. I'm a big Hernandez fan and would certainly advocate him for the Hall, but he's nowhere near Eddie Murray.

I guess I disagree. I see Hernandez as a borderline HoF'er who I really wouldn't be bothered by having him out or having him in. Same way I look at Eddie Murray, who is definitely one of the worst players with 3000 hits (along with Brock, Winfield, and Molitor).

[538280]

I don't get the Will Clark thing. I admit. I watched him play, and always thought of him as one of those guys who might have been pretty good, but could never really live up to his potential... a J.D. Drew, say, or a Phil Nevin. If you're feeling particularly charitable, a Ryan Klesko. A hole plugger, in other words. And looking at his numbers in hindsight, that impression doesn't change all that much. His ink totals are unremarkable, he was an ok fielder but not really worth worrying about, he could NEVER stay healthy, he only hit 30 homers once, only drove in 100 four times, only scored 100 twice, never got 200 hits, wasn't a base stealer... he was a pretty good average hitter who could draw a few walks. If he was putting up his numbers from CF, he'd be in my top 20 CF's of all time. For a journeyman 1B who played more than 130 games once after age 30, and 150 games only four times in his career, he's not that interesting.

This is the anti-Koufax syndrome, what happens when players have their big years at the beginning of their career and then have a good rest of a career, but somewhat dissapointing in light of their early accomplishments. Koufax went out on top of the world, and his reputation exceeds that. I bet if you switched Koufax's career, made his awesome years occur 1955-1961 and his not so great ones 1962-1966, his reputation would be MUCH different.

Clark was an awesome player in the late 80s/early 90s with the Giants. He was traded to Texas later, was somewhat of a dissapointment there, and drifted around the rest of his career. People forgot about Will Clark the great player. 138 OPS+ is very impressive, as is his early peak (44 WS in 1989. That overstates his season, but it was an awesome season hidden by the modern eye because offense was so low in the late 80s, outside of '87).

[leecemark]

1) Lou Gehrig - not a tough call



2) Jimmie Foxx - not as clear as most think
3) Cap Anson - career totals awesome when short seasons taken into account
4) Eddie Murray - another gteat career man
5) Harmon Killebrew - with bonus points for playing 3B
6) Willie McCovey
7) Jeff Bagwell
8) Frank Thomas
9) Dan Brouthers
10) Hank Greenberg
11) Johnny Mize
12) Dick Allen

--Sadaharu Oh and Buck Leonard probably belong somehwere in the above group

13) Roger Conner
14) Mark McGwire
15) Orlando Cepeda
16) Kieth Hernandez
17) George Sisler
18) Don Mattingly
19) Will Clark
20) Fred McGriff
21) Raffy Palmerio
22) Jake Beckley
23) Bill Terry
24) Tony Perez
25) Norm Cash

--Quite a few other guys close to interchangable with the bottom of this group

[ElHalo]

Let's look at Foxx versus Willie McCovey. McCovey had a longer career. Both were the dominant hitters in their leagues for a period of time. McCovey, applying my LQ adjustments (which do a good job normalizing history, BTW, my system has been proven to be fair to all eras), comes out with a slightly better peak.

Where to begin...

We could start with the 55 point BA advantage, and the 8 top 10's and 2 batting titles vs. 2 top 10's, none higher than fifth (we could end there, too, but I'll keep going just for argument's sake). Then we could meander over to the 12 OBP top 10's to 7 for McCovey, three titles to one. The fifteen point PARK ADJUSTED (yes, that's been done already, so don't bring his parks up again) OPS+ advantage. I suppose you could argue that McCovey's 1969 was better than Foxx' 1932, and I wouldn't really quibble (though, hate to say, there's not enough league quality and offensive environment adjustment in the world to make 101 runs and 126 RBI anywhere near as impressive as 151 and 169). But McCovey was NEVER that good at any other point, while Foxx drove in and scored at least 120 runs seven other times (McCovey had one other season over 100 R, and one other over 105 RBI's).

Their peers certainly agreed. Foxx is twelfth all time in MVP shares; McCovey is 119th. Foxx comes three black ink points shy of DOUBLING McCovey in both black and grey ink. And this despite being essentially washed up by age 33.

Sorry. Not remotely close.

[leecemark]

--McCovey had a real problem with the MVP voters for much of his career...until it was more than half over he wasn't the best player on his own team. Being a teammate of the best player ever will have that effect. For that matter, for the first third another could have been an all time great was keeping McCovey from playing 1B everyday. Orlando Cepeda would be a top 10 all timer 1B if he hadn't blow out his knees and is a top 20 anyway.

[538280]

Where to begin...

We could start with the 55 point BA advantage, and the 8 top 10's and 2 batting titles vs. 2 top 10's, none higher than fifth (we could end there, too, but I'll keep going just for argument's sake). Then we could meander over to the 12 OBP top 10's to 7 for McCovey, three titles to one. The fifteen point PARK ADJUSTED (yes, that's been done already, so don't bring his parks up again) OPS+ advantage. I suppose you could argue that McCovey's 1969 was better than Foxx' 1932, and I wouldn't really quibble (though, hate to say, there's not enough league quality and offensive environment adjustment in the world to make 101 runs and 126 RBI anywhere near as impressive as 151 and 169). But McCovey was NEVER that good at any other point, while Foxx drove in and scored at least 120 runs seven other times (McCovey had one other season over 100 R, and one other over 105 RBI's).

Sorry, league leaderships just aren't persuasive to me. McCovey was playing against a lot more teams, more competition for league leads. And leading the league has little inherent value anyway, you could actually post a better relative figure yet just not happen to lead the league. I personally put close to no stock in black/gray ink, or league leaderships in general. League leaderships are an informal methology, and not a very good one at that, they extremely favor old time players. Place the player's numbers in league/park context.

McCovey played in an extreme pitcher's league and in pitcher's parks his whole career. Foxx got to play in Shibe/Fenway his whole career, and has one of the most extreme home/road splits in history. I'm going with my system on this one. McCovey was probably better at his peak and had a longer career. Foxx was more consistent and durable, but they two previously mentioned categories are more important.

[ElHalo]

McCovey played in an extreme pitcher's league and in pitcher's parks his whole career. Foxx got to play in Shibe/Fenway his whole career, and has one of the most extreme home/road splits in history. I'm going with my system on this one. McCovey was probably better at his peak and had a longer career. Foxx was more consistent and durable, but they two previously mentioned categories are more important.

Sorry, I just can't imagine the thought process behind this. Foxx needs to take a hit for his park splits, sure, but this is just silly.

Saying that McCovey is better than Foxx because he had a better peak than him and lasted longer is like saying Doc Gooden is better than Carl Hubbell because he had a better peak and lasted just as long. Yes, ok, Gooden in '85 was better than Hubbell ever was. And, yes, technically, Gooden pitched 16 years in the majors, same as Hubbell. But Hubbell had about a solid decade where he was WORLDS better than the non-1985 Gooden, just like Foxx had a decade where he was WORLDS better than the non-1969 McCovey. Sorry about this one, it's not close. Probably just about as far apart as Hubbell and Gooden.

[538280]

Sorry, I just can't imagine the thought process behind this. Foxx needs to take a hit for his park splits, sure, but this is just silly.

Saying that McCovey is better than Foxx because he had a better peak than him and lasted longer is like saying Doc Gooden is better than Carl Hubbell because he had a better peak and lasted just as long. Yes, ok, Gooden in '85 was better than Hubbell ever was. And, yes, technically, Gooden pitched 16 years in the majors, same as Hubbell. But Hubbell had about a solid decade where he was WORLDS better than the non-1985 Gooden, just like Foxx had a decade where he was WORLDS better than the non-1969 McCovey. Sorry about this one, it's not close. Probably just about as far apart as Hubbell and Gooden.

Gooden had a better ONE YEAR than Hubbell. I define peak as a hybrid between three and five year peaks. I don't say Gooden had a peak anywhere near Hubbell's. Gooden lasted the same amount of years but didn't pitch nearly as many innings. My system would not see Hubbell/Gooden as even close. My system does see McCovey ahead of Foxx.

[ElHalo]

Gooden had a better ONE YEAR than Hubbell. I define peak as a hybrid between three and five year peaks. I don't say Gooden had a peak anywhere near Hubbell's. Gooden lasted the same amount of years but didn't pitch nearly as many innings. My system would not see Hubbell/Gooden as even close. My system does see McCovey ahead of Foxx.

Right. And, much the same way, you can argue that McCovey's 1969 season was better than any of Foxx's. But, then Foxx had at least SIX seasons better than any other of McCovey's seasons. Not close.

[538280]

Right. And, much the same way, you can argue that McCovey's 1969 season was better than any of Foxx's. But, then Foxx had at least SIX seasons better than any other of McCovey's seasons. Not close.

By my system Foxx's second best season was better, but McCovey has better 3rd, 4th, and 5th best seasons. I've already said it, my system has McCovey with the better peak. The same would not be true of Gooden.

[rsuriyop]

Interesting how Hal Chase doesn't even crack the top 100...

[leecemark]

Interesting how Hal Chase doesn't even crack the top 100...

--Why would he? No power, no paitiece and actively working to see his team lose on numerous occasions.

[brett]

I agree that Bagwell should be near the top at first. I also agree that Allen may be as high as #2 based on peak value-ahead of Foxx due to extreme differences in league numbers.

I do NOT agree with the extreme weighting of peak value. There is NO justification for it. I have a suspicion that if you take the top 25 players of all time, that their teams did not win more games on average in their 4-6 best seasons as in their 1-3 best seasons.

Consistent, solid performance for a long time gives the franchise a long stretch during which to put together a championship year. A game is a game and I do not put ANY extra value on a player's peak, except that if a player performs at a hall of fame level long enough to deserve it, I would not penalize him for additional seasons which drop his value, because his team wouldn't have continued to use him if there was not some value in it.


Career Win Shares
385 Jeff Bagwell
263 Don Mattingly

Best Three Seasons
41, 37, 32 Jeff Bagwell
34, 32, 29 Don Mattingly

Best Five Consecutive Seasons
163 Jeff Bagwell
146 Don Mattingly

Win Shares per 162 Games Played
29.55 Jeff Bagwell
23.87 Don Mattingly

Bagwell beats Mattingly handily in every individual element of these rankings.

[brett]

You may not remember but Murray was regularly voted the most feared hitter in the American League. Yes, he peaked in '81-'85, but he already had 9 seasons in going into '86. Here are the stretches consecutive 100+ OPS years for Murray and Mattingly:

Murray OPS+
'77---123
'78---140
'79---131
'80---138
'81---156
'82---156
'83---156
'84---156
'85---149
'86---135
'87---120
'88---136
'89---114
'90---159
DROP-OFF

Mattingly
'84---156
'85---156
'86---161
'87---146
'88---128
'89---133
DROP-OFF

In other words, Murray had a 14 year hall of fame career through '90. You can do whatever you want with what came after that. Murray's top 4 year stretch '81-'84 is better than Mattingly's '84-'87, and Matty's '88 and '89 seasons would not crack Murray's top 10.




I guess I disagree. I see Hernandez as a borderline HoF'er who I really wouldn't be bothered by having him out or having him in. Same way I look at Eddie Murray, who is definitely one of the worst players with 3000 hits (along with Brock, Winfield, and Molitor).

[soberdennis]

Allen may have been a jerk. But he was a good player. Based on his play, I have no problem ranking him high. I don't know about number 2, though.

[Blackout]

i think roger connor should be in most peoples top 10s

[ElHalo]

I do NOT agree with the extreme weighting of peak value. There is NO justification for it. I have a suspicion that if you take the top 25 players of all time, that their teams did not win more games on average in their 4-6 best seasons as in their 1-3 best seasons.

People always rag on this tactic of mine, but it perfect sense, so I'll use it again, as I am wont to do:

Two players. Player A makes 32 starts his rookie year, and throws complete game shutouts every single game. Just for fun, let's say that in each one of those games, he tosses a perfect game, striking out 27 straight on 81 pitches. After leading his team to an inevitible World Series Championship, he retires.

Player B has a rubber arm, and exceptional longevity. He's also remarkably consistent. Every year he pitches, he pitches 1% better than league average, and he never misses a start, over the course of 50 season career. Starts at age 20, retires at 70.

Player B has much more overall value than player A. But he's also very, very replacable during the entire tenure of his career... it's never hard to find a pitcher who's 1% better than average. Conversely, it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to find a pitcher who'll throw a perfect game every time out. So even though Player A only pitched for one year, while Player B pitched for 50, Player B was far, far more replacable than Player A, making Player A the better pitcher. Savvy?

[ElHalo]

Interesting how Hal Chase doesn't even crack the top 100...

Best defensive first baseman of all time. But I draw a line at players who CONSTANTLY threw games, to the point where John McGraw couldn't even take it any more. John McGraw.

[538280]

i think roger connor should be in most peoples top 10s

I have him right outside the top 10. I think he's one of the most underrated players of all time really....I don't understand why more people don't rate him the #1 19th century 1B, ahead of Anson and Brouthers. Brouthers was a better hitter, but is lacking longevity, and he was not a good fielder (Connor was one of the best of all time). Anson has longevity on both of them, but was much worse while he was playing and wasn't nearly as good at his peak. I've posted the numbers before, while they were both in the league Connor absolutely DOMINATED Anson.

[brett]

I agree in part, but it depends on how you define seasonal value. If a player is 1% above average he is only worth about one percent of 1/18 of 81 wins per season. That would be 1/20 of a win per season. Even for 50 years that's only 2.5 extra wins (or +5 above .500).

A player who threw 32 shutouts would be worth about 16 more wins to his team than an average pitcher (or +32 above .500).

As long as you only give a player positive game value for game value ABOVE the average, I don't like to consider peak value any more.

I would greatly prefer weighting the season value of a player-for example, a season twice as much above the league average would score 4x more, or using a pythagorean adjustment, or even calculating value in terms of the likelyhood of the players win share value contributing to a championship season.


People always rag on this tactic of mine, but it perfect sense, so I'll use it again, as I am wont to do:

Two players. Player A makes 32 starts his rookie year, and throws complete game shutouts every single game. Just for fun, let's say that in each one of those games, he tosses a perfect game, striking out 27 straight on 81 pitches. After leading his team to an inevitible World Series Championship, he retires.

Player B has a rubber arm, and exceptional longevity. He's also remarkably consistent. Every year he pitches, he pitches 1% better than league average, and he never misses a start, over the course of 50 season career. Starts at age 20, retires at 70.

Player B has much more overall value than player A. But he's also very, very replacable during the entire tenure of his career... it's never hard to find a pitcher who's 1% better than average. Conversely, it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to find a pitcher who'll throw a perfect game every time out. So even though Player A only pitched for one year, while Player B pitched for 50, Player B was far, far more replacable than Player A, making Player A the better pitcher. Savvy?

[ElHalo]

As long as you only give a player positive game value for game value ABOVE the average, I don't like to consider peak value any more.

If one player is consistently better than another player for fifteen years, by a significant amount, every year, and then retires... and the other player hangs on as a slightly above average player for six or seven more years and pulls ahead in total career value... wouldn't the fact that the better guy was ALWAYS better give you pause? Wouldn't the fact that the tail end of the other guy's career, slightly above average and thus fairly easily replacable, was the difference in their career value cause you to maybe think about putting the first guy ahead?

[Dodgerfan66]

how is hodges 37th :eek:

he hit 20+ hr's 11X
drove in 100+ rbi 7 straight years
he did this during the segregated era of the 50's

and during his career he averaged 29 Hr and 100 RBI

plus he became a good manager

[leecemark]

how is hodges 37th :eek:

he hit 20+ hr's 11X
drove in 100+ rbi 7 straight years
he did this during the segregated era of the 50's

and during his career he averaged 29 Hr and 100 RBI

plus he became a good manager


--and he was a Dodger!

[Dodgerfan66]

--and he was a Dodger!

he helped them win in 55

[leecemark]

--Paul Konerko was a more important part of the White Sox winning last year than Hodges was the Dodgers winning in 1955. Does that make him an all time great too?

[ElHalo]

A lot of us have team loyalties. I'm a huge Yankee fan. However, we usually try to avoid having that interfere with our objectivity. You seem to be lacking a bit in that department.

[Blackout]

A lot of us have team loyalties. I'm a huge Yankee fan. However, we usually try to avoid having that interfere with our objectivity. You seem to be lacking a bit in that department.

sandy koufax > walter johnson

and

gil hodges > lou gehrig

;)

[AstrosFan]

I did a Win Shares-based ranking of first basemen, with a system designed to adjust Bill James's system where more credit is given to career and less to peak. I won't post the results, because the method is lacking in so many areas: adjusting to 162 games, wartime, league quality, etc., and I couldn't find 2002 Win Shares (Baseball Truth has shut down), so I didn't do any players who played beyond 2001. The point I wanted to make is that even after shifting credit from peak to career value, Dick Allen ranks third. I think the system outside of the necessary factors to make it useful makes sense. It seems that Dick Allen really was that good.

[baseball junkie]

Wow, Will Clark ranked fifth. And he'll probably never get into the Hall of Fame. That is totally awful. Not the ranking, Clark's omission from the HOF.

By the way, I used to hate Will Clark when he was a player. He'd always kill my team -- the Mets.

[RuthMayBond]

Wow, Will Clark ranked fifth. And he'll probably never get into the Hall of Fame. That is totally awful. Not the ranking, Clark's omission from the HOF.Will Clark's not 5th any more than I am. OK, he's a LOT closer :rolleyes:

[RuthMayBond]

People always rag on this tactic of mine, but it perfect sense, so I'll use it again, as I am wont to do:

Two players. Player A makes 32 starts his rookie year, and throws complete game shutouts every single game. Just for fun, let's say that in each one of those games, he tosses a perfect game, striking out 27 straight on 81 pitches. After leading his team to an inevitible World Series Championship, he retires.

Player B has a rubber arm, and exceptional longevity. He's also remarkably consistent. Every year he pitches, he pitches 1% better than league average, and he never misses a start, over the course of 50 season career. Starts at age 20, retires at 70.Yes, using examples that will never be possible makes "perfect sense" :laugh

[Captain Cold Nose]

he helped them win in 55
One less title than Kent Hrbek led his team. Be thankful Hodges is 37th.

[RuthMayBond]

One less title than Kent Hrbek led his team.Talk to me when he catches up with Charlie Silvera ;)

[iPod]

how is hodges 37th :eek:

he hit 20+ hr's 11X
drove in 100+ rbi 7 straight years
he did this during the segregated era of the 50's

and during his career he averaged 29 Hr and 100 RBI

plus he became a good manager

Pssh... he's not even a Hall of Famer.

[ElHalo]

Yes, using examples that will never be possible makes "perfect sense" :laugh

Of course it does. Did you ever take high-school physics? To do any Newtonian physics calculation short of graduate level, you make stupid assumptions that could never actually exist... assume away friction, assume away gravity, etc... to prove a point. In economics, to prove an abstract concept, you always use the term ceterus parabus... all else being equal, which they of course never are. Using SABRmetric statistics, you try to account for what should have happened resulting from a player's individual numbers, regardless of situation... which of course doesn't follow what actually happened in reality (regardless of why it happened, the fact remains that Joe Carter drove in a whole lot more runs than he "should have"). With pretty much every single thing that you do in life, you have to parallel your thought process to some ideal that's stripped away from what reality actually is / was... it's necessary to engage in any kind of intellectual conversation. I really, REALLY don't get why people have a problem with this.

[RuthMayBond]

Of course it does. Did you ever take high-school physics? To do any Newtonian physics calculation short of graduate level, you make stupid assumptions that could never actually exist... assume away friction, assume away gravity, etc... to prove a point. In economics, to prove an abstract concept, you always use the term ceterus parabus... all else being equal, which they of course never are. Using SABRmetric statistics, you try to account for what should have happened resulting from a player's individual numbers, regardless of situation... which of course doesn't follow what actually happened in reality (regardless of why it happened, the fact remains that Joe Carter drove in a whole lot more runs than he "should have"). With pretty much every single thing that you do in life, you have to parallel your thought process to some ideal that's stripped away from what reality actually is / was... it's necessary to engage in any kind of intellectual conversation. I really, REALLY don't get why people have a problem with this.1) You might assume away things at the high school level but you realize they are still there
2) If you're comparing two things at least they both have the same wrong assumptions in the same direction (unlike your examples)
3) Yes, we can't always simulate reality, but we can try to get as close as possible. I hope you're not telling me that a guy throwing 32 ultimate perfect games in a year, and a guy pitching for 50 years in the bigs, are as close to reality as possible. I REALLY don't get why you can't understand this