Announcement

**538280** · 08-06-2005, 08:46 AM

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** · 08-06-2005, 09:08 AM

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

**leecemark** · 08-06-2005, 09:15 AM

--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.

**Chadwick** · 08-06-2005, 09:40 AM

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** · 08-06-2005, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Chancellor

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** · 08-06-2005, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by 538280

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** · 08-06-2005, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by LouGehrig

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** · 08-06-2005, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Chancellor

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 Palmeiro

Clark over Thomas?
Giambi over Mize AND McGwire?
Mattingly over Anson AND Palmeiro?
In what universe?

**Chadwick** · 08-06-2005, 03:03 PM

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.

**Chadwick** · 08-06-2005, 03:09 PM

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** · 08-06-2005, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by NationalPastime1980

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** · 08-06-2005, 04:33 PM

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** · 08-06-2005, 04:46 PM

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

**abacab** · 08-06-2005, 05:09 PM

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

Announcement

First Basemen Rankings, Revisited

First Basemen Rankings, Revisited

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Ad Widget