Pick Four - (First Base)

[Appling]

Many of us have discussed in this forum that there seems to be a wide variation in the qualifications of players elected to the Hall of Fame.
Rogers Hornsby and Johnny Evers are both second-basemen voted to the HOF, but most of judge Hornsby to be far superior.
Center-Fielders in the HOF include Ty Cobb and Willie Mays, but they also include Hack Wilson and Lloyd Waner. Are they really similar players?

For those who wish for a more exclusive Hall of Fame, let's suppose that the "Elite Hall of Fame" limited its rolls to just four players at each position. Choosing only from the list of players already enshrined at Cooperstown, who would you choose at each position?

Let's begin with a poll question for first base: If the Hall of Fame were limited to four players at each position, which players would you select for First Base?

(My guess is that it will be easy to pick your first two or three, but the next one or two after that will be harder to decide.)

[soberdennis]

It is hard to stop at four. But I picked
Gehrig
Anson
Foxx
Greenberg

[Myankee4life]

Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, Mccovey...

[538280]

My four would include someone who is not on this poll-Dick Allen. My top 4 includes two active players-Thomas and Bagwell, and my next two are Foxx and Allen....

My top 10 1B:
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

Considering Allen's little problems of divisiveness, I may take Murray over him for HOF worthiness, but he would be my #4 for just the best guys.

[1905 Giants]

Foxx, Greenberg, Gehrig, Mize
Any of them great to have on your team.

[PhillyA_man]

Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, Murray

[KCGHOST]

Connor, Brouthers, Gehrig, and Foxx.

[1905 Giants]

Man, why is Sisler without a vote?

[yankillaz]

This is somewhat polemic...

The Iron Horse, Double X, Pop and Roger Connor.

[bama50]

I hope Lou Gehrig is ahead. How could someone not vote for him?

[ElHalo]

1. Gehrig
2. Foxx
3. Sisler
4. Mize

And that's pretty darned easy. If he were eligible, I'd nab Thomas.

[EvanAparra]

1. Gehrig
2. Foxx
3. Sisler
4. Mize

And that's pretty darned easy. If he were eligible, I'd nab Thomas.

Easy not to pick Foxx?... oops.

[ElHalo]

Easy not to pick Foxx?

Read that part that you quoted again. Especially the part after the number 2, where it says "Foxx."

[EvanAparra]

Read that part that you quoted again. Especially the part after the number 2, where it says "Foxx."

I guess i read it wrong, thanks for the sarcasm. Very necessary.

[brett]

Pretty easy for Gehrig, Foxx and Anson. I took McCovey over Greenberg.

[AG2004]

1. Gehrig
2. Foxx
3. Sisler
4. Mize

And that's pretty darned easy. If he were eligible, I'd nab Thomas.

Thomas isn't even the best first baseman to have been born somewhere in the original thirteen states on May 27, 1968. He may have better rate stats than Bagwell, but, while Bagwell was a good defensive player, Thomas has played more games at DH than at 1B.

The four players I would pick are:
1. Gehrig
2. Foxx
3. Oh
4. Mize

Number 4 is hard - Mize, Murray, Killebrew, Greenberg, McCovey, Leonard, Brouthers, and Anson were all in contention for the final slot. Personally, I'd leave it at two first basemen and fill the remaining two slots with the number five and six players at center field.

Yes, I know that Oh is ineligible for Cooperstown. After looking at Oh's reputation, his evaluations by contemporary major leaguers, his actual performance in Japan and against major league competition, and Jim Albright's number-crunching, I would have to go with Oh as the third-best first baseman of all time.

And, for the record, Leonard is enshrined in Cooperstown; he ought to have been listed as a choice, just like Gibson, Santop, and Mackey should have been listed as choices as catcher. If they aren't eligible for election to our elite hall, then neither should any pre-1947 major leaguer.

[The Commissioner]

Wow, finally a category where I appear to have voted with the majority... that's rarely a good sign.

[538280]

Thomas isn't even the best first baseman to have been born somewhere in the original thirteen states on May 27, 1968. He may have better rate stats than Bagwell, but, while Bagwell was a good defensive player, Thomas has played more games at DH than at 1B.

The four players I would pick are:
1. Gehrig
2. Foxx
3. Oh
4. Mize

Number 4 is hard - Mize, Murray, Killebrew, Greenberg, McCovey, Leonard, Brouthers, and Anson were all in contention for the final slot. Personally, I'd leave it at two first basemen and fill the remaining two slots with the number five and six players at center field.

Yes, I know that Oh is ineligible for Cooperstown. After looking at Oh's reputation, his evaluations by contemporary major leaguers, his actual performance in Japan and against major league competition, and Jim Albright's number-crunching, I would have to go with Oh as the third-best first baseman of all time.

And, for the record, Leonard is enshrined in Cooperstown; he ought to have been listed as a choice, just like Gibson, Santop, and Mackey should have been listed as choices as catcher. If they aren't eligible for election to our elite hall, then neither should any pre-1947 major leaguer.

I've been reading some of your other posts and I realize you put much stock in Win Shares. Knowing that, why don't you consider Dick Allen? Bill James' Win Shares rating system has him the 2nd best 1Bman of all time, behind only Gehrig

I know his clubhouse diviseiveness is considered a problem, but I think it has been blown way out of proportion by certain authors (can you say Bill James?). Craig Wright once wrote an excellent article in which he interviews the managers and GMs of the teams Allen played on-their comments about him are nothing but positive.

[AG2004]

I've been reading some of your other posts and I realize you put much stock in Win Shares. Knowing that, why don't you consider Dick Allen? Bill James' Win Shares rating system has him the 2nd best 1Bman of all time, behind only Gehrig

The four win share measures James uses in his rating system are only a part of what I use to evaluate a player, and they aren't the only ways I use win share measures.

Let's compare Allen to Mize in some of the other measures I use.

MVP voting - Allen won one MVP award in 1972, and placed 4th in 1966. Mize never won an award, but he finished second in 1939 and 1940, and third in 1947. Mize is ahead in MVP shares, 2.46 to 1.62.

I also look at seasons of 30+ win shares. Mize has 6; Allen 5.

If we look at All-Star appearances, Mize had 10 against Allen's 7. If we look at All-Star-type seasons, with 20+ win shares, Mize had 10, while Allen had 9.

But this doesn't account for the seasons Mize missed during World War II. If we give Mize war credit, he would have about 7 or 8 MVP-candidate-type seasons and 12 or 13 All-Star-type seasons. That's a fairly substantial gap over Allen. (For the curious, Albright's calculations indicate that Oh had 7 or 8 seasons which were equivalent to MLB MVP-candidate-type seasons. That's part of the reason Oh made the cut.)

Also, according to the ink tests, Allen had 27 points of black ink, and 159 points of gray ink. Mize is at 50 points of black ink, and 202 points of grey, and that's even though he missed those three years during the war.

Yes, I know that McCovey, Allen, and Will Clark had higher peaks than Mize. However, the ink tests and the two types of seasons I mentioned above indicate that Mize was able to sustain his level of play for a longer period of time.

From 1937 to 1948, Mize was averaging 30 win shares per season, and he reached that level in both 1937 and 1948. In short, he was able to sustain an MVP-candidate level of greatness over a twelve-year period, which is something none of the other twentieth-century first basemen for I considered for fourth place came close to. That is why I chose Mize for the final slot.

[538280]

The four win share measures James uses in his rating system are only a part of what I use to evaluate a player, and they aren't the only ways I use win share measures.

Let's compare Allen to Mize in some of the other measures I use.

MVP voting - Allen won one MVP award in 1972, and placed 4th in 1966. Mize never won an award, but he finished second in 1939 and 1940, and third in 1947. Mize is ahead in MVP shares, 2.46 to 1.62.

I also look at seasons of 30+ win shares. Mize has 6; Allen 5.

If we look at All-Star appearances, Mize had 10 against Allen's 7. If we look at All-Star-type seasons, with 20+ win shares, Mize had 10, while Allen had 9.

But this doesn't account for the seasons Mize missed during World War II. If we give Mize war credit, he would have about 7 or 8 MVP-candidate-type seasons and 12 or 13 All-Star-type seasons. That's a fairly substantial gap over Allen. (For the curious, Albright's calculations indicate that Oh had 7 or 8 seasons which were equivalent to MLB MVP-candidate-type seasons. That's part of the reason Oh made the cut.)

Also, according to the ink tests, Allen had 27 points of black ink, and 159 points of gray ink. Mize is at 50 points of black ink, and 202 points of grey, and that's even though he missed those three years during the war.

Yes, I know that McCovey, Allen, and Will Clark had higher peaks than Mize. However, the ink tests and the two types of seasons I mentioned above indicate that Mize was able to sustain his level of play for a longer period of time.

From 1937 to 1948, Mize was averaging 30 win shares per season, and he reached that level in both 1937 and 1948. In short, he was able to sustain an MVP-candidate level of greatness over a twelve-year period, which is something none of the other twentieth-century first basemen for I considered for fourth place came close to. That is why I chose Mize for the final slot.

Thanks for the explanation. You can use whatever you want for criteria, but I myself am opposed to using black/gray ink for just about anything-it was created in the first place as more of a HOF predictor than to evalute a player, and the weightings it gives to certain categories are just flat out wrong-most weight to the triple crown categories and such. Not to mention that it isn't fair to well rounded players (look up Morgan, Joe for example A on black ink's uselessness in measuing value).

I guess I give some credence to the MVP vote when evaluating a player-but it's very hard for me to do so. I look at the horrible and just plain ignorant choices they make year in and year out (as well as the same group's HOF votes), and I question sometimes why I should place ANY stock in ANYTHING they do.

Another thing Allen has going for him in my system is the leagues he played in. I feel Allen played in some of the strongest leagues of all time. Win Shares makes no adjustment for this, but I feel it's absolutely necessary to do something about it-otherwise we conclude that like 75% of all time greats played very long ago. My rating system (explained here (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=589464&postcount=1)) has Allen the 6th best 1Bman of all time.

[AG2004]

Well, it's tough for me to use a formula with that much math involved, so I just try to look at a lengthy list of things and see how players stack up. I also tend to use the list as a whole for comparing players who played the same position; I make further adjustments for defensive positions.

Here's a list of what I include for position players:

* Career WS, with wartime adjustments. For Negro League players, I rely on the analysts at baseballthinkfactory; for Japanese players, I rely on Jim Albright's calculations. At first base, we have:

Gehrig: 489
Oh: 450+
Murray: 437
Foxx: 435
Mize: 418+ (338 plus at least 80 for wartime adjustments)
McCovey: 408
Killebrew: 371
Leonard: about 350
Allen: 342
Clark: 330

* Best three seasons in WS. We have to remember that the Negro League numbers are leveled out a bit, so the peaks aren't as high (and the valleys aren't as low) as they would be for major league players.

* Best five consecutive seasons in WS.

* OPS+ and career length. We remember that a lengthy decline phase will reduce one's lifetime OPS+, and keep that in mind.

* Ink tests. Somewhat useful when comparing players at the same position, but much less so, and sometimes worthless, when comparing players on different ends of the defensive spectrum.

* Gold Gloves (actual and win share). This isn't that helpful at first base, but it plays more of a role at other positions.

* Positional adjustments. This and the gold glove standard makes up for the advantages 1B and OF have over 2B, 3B, SS, and C

* MVP vote results. As noted above, the voters sometimes come up with horrible decisions.

* Seasons with 30+ win shares. This is what I call a "Great Season," and has the added advantage over MVP vote results of voters being unable to foul this one up. Also, it works with players who competed before there were regular MVP votes. Additionally, it measures how long a player was a great player, and not just very good, and is thus a combination of peak and career measures. Here's a list of how many seasons that the first basemen represented above had at least 30 win shares.

Gehrig: 12
Foxx: 8
Oh: 7 or 8
Mize: 7 or 8 (six plus wartime credit)
Allen: 5
Leonard: 4 or 5
Killebrew: 4
McCovey: 4
Clark: 3
Murray: 3

James doesn't use this criterion for his rankings. However, it is another way I use win shares to evaluate players.

* All-Star appearances. Again, these can be affected by outside factors.

* Seasons with 20+ win shares. This indicates how long a player was able to play at an All-Star level. Here's the list of how the players stack up:

Foxx: 14
Murray: 14
Oh: 13+
Gehrig: 13
Leonard: 12 to 14
Mize: 12 or 13 (10 plus wartime credit)
Killebrew: 12
Allen: 9
McCovey: 9
Clark: 7 (counting the 19-win share season in 1994)

* League Quality. This helps in close cases, as the more recent player gets a boost.

* Impact on pennant races and postseason performance. This comes into play only in the close cases.

* Impact on baseball history/innovations. This would boost Jimmy Collins at third base, for example, as he changed the way defense at third was played.

* Leadership or disruptive behavior. Again, this is helpful in the close cases.

As I noted earlier, Mize has an advantage over Allen, McCovey, and Clark in the "how long were they great (or at least very good)" categories and in the career WS measures. That would, in my view, make up for the advantages of Allen, McCovey, and Clark over Mize in the peak categories.

[538280]

It seems like a pretty good system to me. My only problems would be I definitely would have a formal methology to adjust for league quality, and would actually apply it to the Win Shares and such, rather than making it subjective, and I would not include ink tests at all (I made a thread on that once-I just think they're completely useless, useless things and should really have no role). MVP voting maybe not either.