All-Decade Team: 2000s – First Basemen

[Freakshow]

I realize that the Current Events Forum has recently run polls on this. However, those ballots appeared to be drawn up somewhat unsystematically, the OF were all thrown together, and they weren’t even in alphabetical order. I think we can do this a bit better. Here’s my format:

• We’ll create a 25-man team, which will be the ballot for the final election.
• We’ll have ten preliminary polls, one for each position.
• We’ll vote for two players at each position (16 players total), plus five starting pitchers, plus four relievers. DH will not be listed separately, since only a handful of significant players played a majority of their games there.
• Data will be provided: total Win Shares 2000-2008 plus top 3 seasons in the decade; total WARP3 2000-2009 plus top 3 seasons; MVP award top 3 finishes in the decade. Other stats (OPS+, RC, etc.) are as of the 2009 all-star break.
• Players will be ranked only on their play in the decade 2000-2009; performance before 2000 should be ignored. Active players should be projected only to the end of this season; what you think they might do after this season is irrelevant.
• I’ll try and get the ten polls up fairly quickly. They’ll stay open for about a month.

We'll vote for two first basemen. If a 1B is one of the Top 2 in a stat among these players it's highlighted below.
Player 3MVP ASG OPS+ RC OBP SLG G GG WARP3 Top 3 WS Top 3
Carlos Delgado 2-4-6 2 144 1124 0.394 0.553 1368 47.8 (8.0-6.6-5.7) 220 (36-32-29)
Jason Giambi 1-2-5 5 152 1051 0.418 0.544 1283 49.7 (10.0-9.3-9.0) 211 (38-38-34)
Todd Helton 5-7-9 5 146 1318 0.436 0.575 1396 3 53.5 (8.5-8.1-7.1) 223 (35-30-29)
David Ortiz 2-3-4 5 137 996 0.380 0.556 1271 42.8 (8.5-7.8-7.7) 163 (30-27-27)
Albert Pujols 1-1-2 8 172 1299 0.427 0.630 1329 1 90.2 (11.7-11.6-11.5)276 (41-37-37)
Mark Teixeira 7-18-20 2 134 778 0.378 0.540 988 2 40.7 (9.9-7.9-6.2) 143 (33-28-25)
Jim Thome 4-7-7 2 148 1082 0.401 0.566 1316 50.2 (7.9-7.2-6.3) 200 (33-31-29)

[Senor Octobre]

Pujols and Helton.

[KCGHOST]

Pujols and Pick-One.

[Jsquared83]

Pujols and Thome. Helton just misses cause of Colorado and injuries.

[Domenic]

Albert Pujols and Todd Helton.

Pujols and Thome. Helton just misses cause of Colorado and injuries.

Thome played in some great hitter's parks too - Citizen's Bank and U.S. Cellular are quite favorable. I think the two are probably are near-equal footing overall (as Helton's OPS of .886 on the road is great) with the bat, and Helton is much better with the glove. I believe Park Factors are accounted for in WARP3 and Win Shares, anyway...

[Fielding Marshall]

Pujols and Helton.

Giambi looks good, but you have to give him a steroids discount...

[Jsquared83]

Albert Pujols and Todd Helton.



Thome played in some great hitter's parks too - Citizen's Bank and U.S. Cellular are quite favorable. I think the two are probably are near-equal footing overall (as Helton's OPS of .886 on the road is great) with the bat, and Helton is much better with the glove. I believe Park Factors are accounted for in WARP3 and Win Shares, anyway...

Agreed on the fielding, however Helton's 06-08 are pretty fractured offensively. To me, Thome's offensive production is more linear with more power, minus '04.

[jjpm74]

I'm just curious why DH David Ortiz who has the equivalent of 1.75 full seasons at 1B spread out over his entire career is lumped in here?

[dgarza]

Pujols & Helton

[538280]

I voted Pujols and Helton but I really think Giambi isn't that far off. He probably was a slightly better hitter than Helton over the decade and he has a few really great hitting seasons. Giambi's 2001 is probably the best AL hitting season of the decade, and is probably a better hitting season than any year of Pujols'. I ultimately did choose Helton though because he has played more games than Giambi and is a much better defensive player.

[CircleChange11]

Pujols and Helton.

Not all that close after these 2 IMO, not counting that some are actually DHs.

[STLCards2]

Freakshow: I prefer Steve Smith's WAR to BP's WARP3, but regardless, how does Berkman stack up with these guys for the decade in terms of WARP3?

[CircleChange11]

Freakshow: I prefer Steve Smith's WAR to BP's WARP3, but regardless, how does Berkman stack up with these guys for the decade in terms of WARP3?

Well, he has 5 seasons of top 7 in MVP voting, and is a .300-300-1000 guy and his career is basically the 2K decade, as well as, .300/.413/.558

He could very well top Helton as my #2. As a Cards fan, I try to forget he's in the league. Thanks for bringing *him* up.

My guess is Helton & Berkman are neck-n-nck for #2 on that list. *shrugs* Maybe the OP considers him an OF'er?

[Freakshow]

I'm just curious why DH David Ortiz who has the equivalent of 1.75 full seasons at 1B spread out over his entire career is lumped in here?From the lead post above: DH will not be listed separately, since only a handful of significant players played a majority of their games there.You can't even make a 7-man ballot for the "position": all players with 500+ games at DH 2000-09:

Jim Thome (played more games at 1B in the decade)
Travis Hafner
Edgar Martinez
David Ortiz
Frank Thomas

[Freakshow]

My guess is Helton & Berkman are neck-n-nck for #2 on that list. *shrugs* Maybe the OP considers him an OF'er?Yes, Berkman is with the decade's left fielders. While it's literally true that he played more at 1B than any other position, I combine together innings played at corner OF positions.

LF inn: 4058.2
RF inn: 2032.2
1B inn: 4795.2

So, in my mind, his primary position was corner-OF; he spent more time in LF so that's where we put him. Not saying it's necessarily right, but that's how I do it.

This is also the reasoning behind why we usually see Harry Stovey listed at LF rather than 1B.

[Freakshow]

Pujols unanimously! Helton a strong second.

[yankillaz]

Pujols and Helton. Two classy figures.

[tearforamariner]

I'm quite surprised the Derrek Lee's name is not on this list. In addition to having a WARP3 of 50 during those years (better than all names except for Pujols and Helton and about even with Thome), he's played in 1430 games, which is more than anyone but Helton. Defensively, he warrants discussion for the best defensive first baseman since 2000.

[Freakshow]

I'm quite surprised the Derrek Lee's name is not on this list.Which of the seven would you bump from the poll to include Lee? That's the problem. :shrug:

[tearforamariner]

Which of the seven would you bump from the poll to include Lee? That's the problem. :shrug:

Why can't there be 8? But if I was going to bump somebody off, it'd be Ortiz or Teixiera.

You look at your numbers, isn't top 2 in any category. Teixiera's only Top-2 in GG, which Lee has more GGs than he does.

[tearforamariner]

from 2000-2008, Derrek Lee racked up 185 Win Shares, which puts him well above Ortiz and Teixiera.

[Freakshow]

Why can't there be 8? But if I was going to bump somebody off, it'd be Ortiz or Teixiera.

You look at your numbers, isn't top 2 in any category. Teixiera's only Top-2 in GG, which Lee has more GGs than he does.The "top two" is more to separate who you might vote for from who is easily dismissed. Lee clearly is down among guys like Ortiz and Teixeira - guys quickly dismissed from vote consideration.

Which is also why we don't need 8 on the ballot; it's just more unnecessary ballot-filler.

You've identified Lee's claim to a possible ballot spot; he was very durable for the decade and has compiled high 10-year totals due to that. Well, durability over a 20-year span is impressive, something you point to in a HOF argument. But ten years? Not so much. His prime ages just happened to coincide nicely with the decade.

Peak matters a little more in this exercies. If Lee was close on peak to Teixeira and Ortiz he might have an argument over them.

Top 3 WARP3
25.8 Teixeira
24.0 Ortiz
19.5 Lee

[tearforamariner]

The "top two" is more to separate who you might vote for from who is easily dismissed. Lee clearly is down among guys like Ortiz and Teixeira - guys quickly dismissed from vote consideration.

Which is also why we don't need 8 on the ballot; it's just more unnecessary ballot-filler.

You've identified Lee's claim to a possible ballot spot; he was very durable for the decade and has compiled high 10-year totals due to that. Well, durability over a 20-year span is impressive, something you point to in a HOF argument. But ten years? Not so much. His prime ages just happened to coincide nicely with the decade.

Peak matters a little more in this exercies. If Lee was close on peak to Teixeira and Ortiz he might have an argument over them.

Top 3 WARP3
25.8 Teixeira
24.0 Ortiz
19.5 Lee


I think Ortiz in a thread about First Baseman is ridiculous in and of itself. If anyone of us were drafting a team right now and we needed someone to fill the First Base hole and it was between Ortiz and Lee, who picks Ortiz? He can't field the easiest position on the field. That's how bad his defense is. He's never played more than 45 games at that position in any one year.

[Freakshow]

I think Ortiz in a thread about First Baseman is ridiculous in and of itself. If anyone of us were drafting a team right now and we needed someone to fill the First Base hole and it was between Ortiz and Lee, who picks Ortiz? He can't field the easiest position on the field. That's how bad his defense is. He's never played more than 45 games at that position in any one year.Sure, but that's not the issue here.

We're trying to put on the ballot anyone who might be considered one of the two most valuable first basemen for the period 2000-2009. Ortiz, with five Top-5 MVP finishes, would usually be considered closer to being that than the guy with the 2nd most games at the position while being an occasional gold-glover.

If you want to know why Ortiz is placed here, at 1b, read #14 above.

[tearforamariner]

Sure, but that's not the issue here.

We're trying to put on the ballot anyone who might be considered one of the two most valuable first basemen for the period 2000-2009. Ortiz, with five Top-5 MVP finishes, would usually be considered closer to being that than the guy with the 2nd most games at the position while being an occasional gold-glover.

If you want to know why Ortiz is placed here, at 1b, read #14 above.

I read it already, still I disagree. As you said, the purpose is to find the two most valuable first basemen. Ortiz's lack of value falls on the fact that he is not a first baseman.

[Freakshow]

I read it already, still I disagree. As you said, the purpose is to find the two most valuable first basemen. Ortiz's lack of value falls on the fact that he is not a first baseman.Both the baseball writers and WARP disagree with you. They see Ortiz as having had tremendous value in his best years, more than Derrek Lee ever had, despite not having his glove.

Do you think Edgar Martinez deserves to be in the Hall? Or are all DH's automatically out for you?

[tearforamariner]

Both the baseball writers and WARP disagree with you. They see Ortiz as having had tremendous value in his best years, more than Derrek Lee ever had, despite not having his glove.

Do you think Edgar Martinez deserves to be in the Hall? Or are all DH's automatically out for you?

First of all, I NEVER said Ortiz wasn't valuable. I said he wasn't a valuable First Baseman. That's not the position he plays. He's a DH. There's nothing wrong with being a DH and in his best years, Ortiz was one of the BEST DHs. The only reason why DH gets thrown in with First Base is because it's considered the easiest fielding position. But by doing that, you demean any defensive contribution a first baseman makes because you are basically saying "well, we can slap a glove on anyone's hand and he can field first okay." That's not true, and the living proof is David Ortiz. If you were to make a thread and ask who the best DH of the 2000's was, I would say hands down, David Ortiz.

Second of all, Edgar is a deserving HoFer in my opinion. And part of that is because he was the greatest at his POSITION, which is Designated Hitter, not First Base.

[dgarza]

Yeah, Ortiz deserves to be on this poll as much as Raffy deserved his 1999 GG. Niether were 1B.

A 6 player ballot could be made of DHs with 500+ games.
An 8 player ballot could be made of DHs with 400+ games.
And considering that about half the teams do not have a DH, having only 6-8 players should not be unexpected.
No decade had more than 10 anyway.

[Freakshow]

First of all, I NEVER said Ortiz wasn't valuable. I said he wasn't a valuable First Baseman. That's not the position he plays. He's a DH. There's nothing wrong with being a DH and in his best years, Ortiz was one of the BEST DHs. The only reason why DH gets thrown in with First Base is because it's considered the easiest fielding position. But by doing that, you demean any defensive contribution a first baseman makes because you are basically saying "well, we can slap a glove on anyone's hand and he can field first okay." That's not true, and the living proof is David Ortiz. If you were to make a thread and ask who the best DH of the 2000's was, I would say hands down, David Ortiz.

Second of all, Edgar is a deserving HoFer in my opinion. And part of that is because he was the greatest at his POSITION, which is Designated Hitter, not First Base.I see. Semantic garbage, IMO.

David Ortiz has played only one position on a major league field: first base. For most of his career he has been a DH, rather than playing a position. If the DH was not available for him, he would play first base. To me, you want to dock him for what might have happened in a different reality.

So, yes, he was/is first and foremost a DH. This is not his position, it's his role. I'll only go so far down that road, by splitting the pitchers into starters and relievers. But so few players play a majority of their games DHing that I don't consider it separately. I prefer to deal with these players with whatever value they contributed, while assigning them the position they would have manned throughout most of the game's history. YMMV.

[dgarza]

I see. Semantic garbage, IMO.
But isn't this semantics too?
So, yes, he was/is first and foremost a DH. This is not his position, it's his role.
So what position did Ron Wright play?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wrighro02-field.shtml

[Freakshow]

A 6 player ballot could be made of DHs with 500+ games.
An 8 player ballot could be made of DHs with 400+ games.
And considering that about half the teams do not have a DH, having only 6-8 players should not be unexpected.Compared to any actual position it's ridiculous. Drawing a ballot from the entire population of eligible candidates is hardly the same as drawing a ballot from the seven best candidates. Even at catcher there are 38 players with 500 games since 2000.

BTW, it's 6 with 500+ games if Sweeney makes it.

[Freakshow]

But isn't this semantics too?Yes, writing tends to involve semantics.:hide:

[dgarza]

BTW, it's 6 with 500+ games if Sweeney makes it.What do you mean "if Sweeney makes it"?
I have 6 without Sweeney:

Cnt G From To
+----+-----------------+-----+----+----+----+
1 Frank Thomas 951 2000 2008
2 David Ortiz 1319 2000 2009
3 Edgar Martinez 668 2000 2004
4 Travis Hafner 807 2002 2009
5 Brad Fullmer 548 2000 2004
6 Erubiel Durazo 572 2000 2005


8 players with 450+ games"

Cnt G From To
+----+-----------------+-----+----+----+----+
1 Frank Thomas 951 2000 2008
2 Josh Phelps 465 2000 2008
3 David Ortiz 1319 2000 2009
4 Edgar Martinez 668 2000 2004
5 Travis Hafner 807 2002 2009
6 Brad Fullmer 548 2000 2004
7 Erubiel Durazo 572 2000 2005
8 Ellis Burks 450 2000 2004

[tearforamariner]

I believe (and it's possible I'm mistaken, as it has been a while), but I believe Rule 6.10 created a position for American League teams, allowing one player to be designated a hitter. I see your point and respect your opinion, but don't call mine semantic garbage merely because you disagree. And then, as dgarza pointed out, you yourself use semantics. Find me one piece of evidence that indicates David Ortiz has been anything but a Designated Hitter since 2000? Do his playing cards list him as a First Baseman in the Role of a Designated Hitter? What's his position as listed by the MLB? This is the last I'm going to say on the subject, as I'm growing tired of the circular argument. I will respect your opinion, and you can just respect mine.

[Freakshow]

What do you mean "if Sweeney makes it"?
I have 6 without Sweeney:

Cnt G From To
+----+-----------------+-----+----+----+----+
1 Frank Thomas 951 2000 2008
2 David Ortiz 1319 2000 2009
3 Edgar Martinez 668 2000 2004
4 Travis Hafner 807 2002 2009
5 Brad Fullmer 548 2000 2004
6 Erubiel Durazo 572 2000 2005


8 players with 450+ games"

Cnt G From To
+----+-----------------+-----+----+----+----+
1 Frank Thomas 951 2000 2008
2 Josh Phelps 465 2000 2008
3 David Ortiz 1319 2000 2009
4 Edgar Martinez 668 2000 2004
5 Travis Hafner 807 2002 2009
6 Brad Fullmer 548 2000 2004
7 Erubiel Durazo 572 2000 2005
8 Ellis Burks 450 2000 2004
We're talking 500 games played as DH. Fullmer has 464 this decade; Durazo has 303.

[dgarza]

I believe (and it's possible I'm mistaken, as it has been a while), but I believe Rule 6.10 created a position for American League teams, allowing one player to be designated a hitter. As far as I can tell, Rule 6.10 uses the term "role".
I had a hard time finding any official MLB definition(s) for "position" nor for any specific position. Are there any? Is there an official MLB definition of, say "shortstop" or "left fielder"? I would guess not. It would complicate the Ted Williams Shift.

[dgarza]

We're talking 500 games played as DH. Fullmer has 464 this decade; Durazo has 303.I see what you were going for.

[Freakshow]

I believe (and it's possible I'm mistaken, as it has been a while), but I believe Rule 6.10 created a position for American League teams, allowing one player to be designated a hitter. I see your point and respect your opinion, but don't call mine semantic garbage merely because you disagree. And then, as dgarza pointed out, you yourself use semantics. Find me one piece of evidence that indicates David Ortiz has been anything but a Designated Hitter since 2000? Do his playing cards list him as a First Baseman in the Role of a Designated Hitter? What's his position as listed by the MLB? This is the last I'm going to say on the subject, as I'm growing tired of the circular argument. I will respect your opinion, and you can just respect mine.I don't see where Rule 6.10 refers to the DH as a position. Indeed, the rule sets up restrictions on the role that normal positions don't have. However, common usage calls the DH a position so I guess that makes it one.

[tearforamariner]

I don't see where Rule 6.10 refers to the DH as a position. Indeed, the rule sets up restrictions on the role that normal positions don't have. However, common usage calls the DH a position so I guess that makes it one.

Freakshow, I want to apologize for hijacking your thread. It was not my intent.

[Freakshow]

Freakshow, I want to apologize for hijacking your thread. It was not my intent.
No problem. It takes two to tangle.

I think the bottom line is that every position is a role, but every role is not a position. Something like that. :coffee