Examining the Bill James Greatest First Basemen List in 2017 (Part 1)

I have been enjoying the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (the 2003 first Free Press trade paperback edition).  This is the baseball reference for people who love the game.  There are three main parts to the book.  Part one examines each decade of baseball starting in the 1870s and culminating in the 1990s.  The second part ranks the 100 greatest players of all time and creates a Top 100 list of players for each position.  The third part is a general reference for the James statistic Win Shares.  Although each component is excellent in its own right, I have been drawn to Part 2 which creates the Top 100 lists.  There are a number of reasons that I keep coming back to Part 2 but I think that any attempt to create a single list from culling through the entire history of a sport has the ability to drive conversation and debate and creates the most enjoyment for those of us who enjoy talking baseball.

Bill James referenced six resources while formulating his own 100 Greatest Players of All Time.  These were: The Sporting News Selects Baseball’s Greatest Players (1998), The SABR list (1999), The Total Baseball list, The Faber List published by Charles Faber (1985) which excludes pitchers, The Maury Allen List from Baseball’s 100 (1981), and The Ritter/Honig List from The 100 Greatest Baseball Players of All Time (1981).  Although James does not state that he used these lists while developing his positional Top 100 rankings, because he used it for his overall 100 best players, I would assume these six lists played a large role in his creation of the ‘by position’ lists as well.

The problem with James’s extraordinary book is that it was last updated in 2001.  James, perhaps the greatest thinker/writer the game has ever known was scooped up by the Red Sox in 2003 and has remained with the organization.  This has made him unable to share statistical information and developments or even his personal thoughts and opinions about professional baseball players.  Sabermetrics has continued to evolve and has changed the way the game is measured and played as well as what is valued by teams.  Additionally, there is a large number of modern players whose career trajectories substantially changed since the 2001 publication/rankings.  Similarly, many players that were unknown in 2001 are now perennial all-stars whom many consider to be some of the best talent in decades, if not ever.  This makes the Top 100 positional lists in need of a major overhaul.

I am far from qualified to take on the herculean task of a historical re-rank.  Rather, than try take on that job, I thought it would be more interesting to examine some of the players that were not ranked on James’s published lists and give a rough estimate regarding whether they should be included on a positional Top 100 list circa 2017.  There are a number of ways to measure a player’s career which makes this task, by itself, difficult enough.

In an attempt to hone my focus, I used the JAWS rankings on baseball-reference.com.  This measure created by Jay Jaffe attempts to gauge a player’s Hall of Fame worthiness by applying statistical measures to smooth out variations between eras and then measure the players accomplishments against already enshrined players.  To see a more detailed description of Jaffe’s system,  visit here.

This article will examine the first base position.

In my analysis, twenty eight players on Jaffe’s list have distinguished themselves as potential candidates for inclusion on the updated 2017 Top 100 first basemen list.  The following twenty eight players make up this candidate pool:

Albert Pujols

Jim Thome

Miguel Cabrera

Todd Helton

Jason Giambi

David Ortiz

Mark Teixeira

Joey Votto

Carlos Delgado

Adrian Gonzalez

Kevin Youkilis

Paul Goldschmidt

Justin Morneau

Edwin Encarnacion

Travis Hafner

Tino Martinez

Paul Konerko

Carlos Pena

Prince Fielder

Freddie Freeman

Anthony Rizzo

Aubrey Huff

Chris Davis

Ryan Howard

Brandon Belt

Lyle Overbay

Eric Hosmer

Mark Trumbo

After creating this twenty eight player list, I examined playing time at first base since a number of these players have played positions other than first base during their careers.  Results indicate that it may be best to exclude six players from this list due to playing time.  David Ortiz played 2029 games as a designated hitter and only 278 games as a first baseman.  Travis Hafner played 1043 games as a designated hitter and only 72 games as a first baseman.  Edwin Encarnacion has played 674 games at third, 425 games at designated hitter, and 388 games at first.  Aubrey Huff played 555 games at first, 408 at designated hitter, 360 at third base and 329 as an outfielder.  Finally, Mark Trumbo has played 371 games as a first baseman, 361 games as an outfielder, and 13 games as a designated hitter.

                 

 

 

Based on these results, Ortiz, Hafner, and Encarnacion should not be considered first basemen as they played other positions more frequently during their careers (although Encarnacion has the potential to continue amassing appearances as a first baseman as his career progresses).  Although Huff most often appeared as a first baseman, his starts there account for approximately only 34% of his games played.  Similarly, only about 43% of Trumbo’s starts have come at first base.  These five players did not distinguish themselves as first basemen, especially defensively, and as a result are dropped from consideration for the updated Top 100 first basemen list.

Kevin Youkilis shares commonalities with this group but his overall profile is slightly different.  A review of his playing career indicates that he played 55% of his games as a first baseman.  Defensive metrics generally view his work in neutral to slightly positive terms (he won a Gold Glove in 2007).  However, playing only 613 games at first is not enough of a resume when compared to the games played at first base by players that already populate James’s 2001 list.  Thus, Youkilis is also excluded from the updated Top 100 first baseman list.

This leaves twenty two players for consideration:

Albert Pujols

Jim Thome

Miguel Cabrera

Todd Helton

Jason Giambi

Mark Teixeira

Joey Votto

Carlos Delgado

Adrian Gonzalez

Paul Goldschmidt

Justin Morneau

Tino Martinez

Paul Konerko

Carlos Pena

Prince Fielder

Freddie Freeman

Anthony Rizzo

Chris Davis

Ryan Howard

Brandon Belt

Lyle Overbay

Eric Hosmer

The next group of players put together fine careers but did not meet the threshold for inclusion as an all-time great.  This group includes Carlos Pena and Lyle Overbay.

    

Pena has great numbers from 2007-2009.  During this time, he made an All Star team, won a Gold Glove, and a Silver Slugger.  He hit 116 home runs and drove in 323 runs.  These monster seasons, as well as a handful of others solid performances, gave him a career OPS+ of 117.  Unfortunately, Pena did not compile gaudy statistics that make his work jump off the page.  He had some nice moments but does not make a strong case for inclusion on an all time greatest first baseman.  Overbay played over 1400 games at first base and although the defensive metrics don’t love his work, various measures indicate that his defense was solid.  His bat played well at times (he led the league in doubles once, had two seasons of batting over .300, and 6 seasons of an OPS+ that was 100 or better) but he never had a strong peak or sustained great run.  No All Star selections, no Gold Gloves, no Silver Sluggers, and the last 4 or 5 years were forgettable.  He’s not an all timer.

This brings the list to twenty players:

Albert Pujols

Jim Thome

Miguel Cabrera

Todd Helton

Jason Giambi

Mark Teixeira

Joey Votto

Carlos Delgado

Adrian Gonzalez

Paul Goldschmidt

Justin Morneau

Tino Martinez

Paul Konerko

Prince Fielder

Freddie Freeman

Anthony Rizzo

Chris Davis

Ryan Howard

Brandon Belt

Eric Hosmer

The next group is the “young, and on the right trajectory” group.  These players are today’s star first basemen.  Although elite, these players have not amassed the statistics, awards, and games at the position needed to legitimately crack the All Time greats list.  This group includes Paul Goldschmidt, Freddie Freeman, and Anthony Rizzo and to a lesser degree Brandon Belt, Eric Hosmer, and Chris Davis.

         

Goldschmidt has made 764 appearances at first base in his five full and one partial season with Arizona.  He’s a 4 time All Star that’s won two Gold Gloves and two Silver Sluggers.  He’s averaged a 147 OPS+ and totaled 29 WAR to go along with 140 home runs and 99 steals.  If Goldschmidt puts up an additional five seasons that are like his last five there is no question that he will earn a place on the All Time Greats of first base.  Freeman has made 898 appearances in his six full seasons and twenty game September call-up (2010) with the Braves.  Freeman has averaged a 134 OPS+ during his time in the bigs and has amassed 22.1 WAR to go along with 138 homers and two All Star selections.  He is 27 years old and has the opportunity to put some prime production in the books if he can continue to build on his impressive 2016 season. Rizzo has two partial and four full seasons as a pro.  He has made 743 appearances at first base.  Rizzo has a career 21.7 WAR and 130 OPS+ (with an OPS+ of 152, 146, and 146 in his three most recent seasons).  He’s earned three All Star selections, one Gold Glove, one Silver Slugger, and was a member of the curse breaking/World Series winning 2016 Cubs.  Rizzo has an opportunity to gain national recognition with the Cubs if the team is able to fulfill their lofty expectations as perennial World Series contenders.  I like his chances for inclusion on a future All Time Great List of first basemen.

    

Belt and Hosmer are both well respected first basemen.  However, they currently are not considered in the same class as Goldschmidt, Freeman, and Rizzo.  Belt will turn 29 during the 2017 season.  He has 643 games at first base.  He’s been on two world champion Giants teams and earned his first All Star selection in 2016.  He has a career OPS+ of 127 but has totaled only 80 homers and 32 steals (he has a career 16.9 WAR).  He’s never led the league in any category and has an injury history.  He’s on the outside looking in, but I’m not ready to remove him from future consideration for an All Time Greats list just yet.  Hosmer has 871 appearances at first base and has earned three Gold Gloves.  He earned his first All Star selection in 2016 and was on the 2015 World Series Champion Royals.  For his career, he has earned 10.1 WAR and an OPS+ of 107.  He’s compiled 102 homers and 54 steals in his six pro seasons.  He has time to add to his resume but, like Belt, is probably not quite on track to make it onto the All Time Great First Basemen list.

Chris Davis is likely on the outside looking in as well.  He is in a somewhat different position however because Davis struggled in his first few years and at almost 31 may have a hard time compiling enough elite seasons to make an All Time Greats list.  He has 794 games played at first base and career marks of 17.7 WAR, 120 OPS+, and 241 home runs.  He’s led the league in homers twice and strikeouts twice.  He’s a one time All Star and has won one Silver Slugger.  The home run totals are eye catching but so is the .196 he batted in 2014 and the back to back 200+ strikeout seasons he’s put up.  He’s earned negative defensive WAR in all but two of his seasons (1 season if you don’t count 0.0 dWAR as a positive).  If Davis keeps mashing 40 to 50 homers for another five years, he may sneak onto a greatest first basemen list.  But even strong homer totals might not be enough to earn him a spot as an all timer.

The potential player list has now shrunk to 14.  The remaining first basemen are:

Albert Pujols

Jim Thome

Miguel Cabrera

Todd Helton

Jason Giambi

Mark Teixeira

Joey Votto

Carlos Delgado

Adrian Gonzalez

Justin Morneau

Tino Martinez

Paul Konerko

Prince Fielder

Ryan Howard

In part two, I will examine the remaining 14 candidates.

 

Taking a Walk Down Pop-Punk’s Memory Lane

 

Punk USA: The Rise and Fall of Lookout! Records

By Kevin Prested

MicrocosmPublishing.com

In Punk USA, Kevin Prested takes on the huge task of exploring the rise and fall of Lookout Records.  Documenting the label’s ownership and employees, the bands and releases, and the music scene itself in 191 pages is quite an accomplishment.  His book is painted in broad strokes allowing for huge events and chunks of time to be neatly summarized and easily understood.  Without a detailed focus on any one moment or any one band, Punk USA is able to avoid the pitfalls of taking sides in historical conflicts or becoming a biography for one or two particular Lookout bands.  However, it is this bird’s eye view of history that also makes this book very good but not great.

                                  

Lookout was the most important pop punk label of the 1990s.  They released records for Green Day, Operation Ivy, Screeching Weasel, The Queers, and Mr. T Experience.  Lookout also put out music for a number of other bands that ended up being less successful and less nationally known.  Some of these bands include Brent’s TV, Tilt, and Blatz.  Prested treats all of the Lookout bands and releases with similar coverage.  Devoting the same amount of print to larger and smaller bands is egalitarian in approach and gives the reader a general timeline of events.  However, by focusing on too many bands, Prested prevents his book from delving into the historical significance of the key bands and the major releases that launched punk rock onto the national scene.  Missing the opportunity to learn about the workings of seminal bands or the creation of landmark releases is a huge missed opportunity.

                                         

This approach also handicaps Prested’s coverage of the major events in the label’s history.  The departure of founder, Lawrence Livermore, is discussed briefly, the on again and off again relationship between Lookout and Screeching Weasel is only touched upon, the details of mismanagement of millions of dollars from Green Day’s recordings is hardly examined, and the dealings the label had with Ben Weasel and the negative effect his label’s (Panic Button) sale to Lookout had on the health of Lookout is reported upon but not thoroughly explored.  Covering these events in greater depth and more detail would have made more a more interesting read.

                                          

The 1990s punk scene launched a ton of bands into the mainstream.  Labels like Epitaph, Fat, Nitro, Fearless, and Hopeless all played a part in exposing great bands to a national audience.  However, it was the initial rise of Lookout that helped support the highly influential and extremely prolific Gilman scene.  Lookout became home to pop-punk releasing the genre defining My Brain Hurts and Anthem for a New Tomorrow by Screeching Weasel, Love Songs for the Retarded by the Queers, the Operation Ivy collection, and Mr. T Experience’s Love Is Dead.  Additionally, and probably most importantly from a historical perspective, Green Day’s early releases were put out by Lookout.  Green Day’s success not only brought attention to the Cali-punk community but bankrolled Lookout allowing them to create an aggressive schedule of releases for years.

                                                      

Prested has condensed a good deal of history into an orderly timeline of events and gives equal time to the various parties that make up the story of Lookout Records.  The book is easy to digest and is a great way for newer fans of punk to learn the history of an extremely important time for the movement.  There are a ridiculous number of stories that could be told about Lookout’s heyday and many of them are in this book.  However, the approach Prested chose to employ in telling Lookout’s tale prevents him from the deep exploration of key moments in the label’s rise and fall.  The approach also fails to explain the most intriguing moments of the label’s historic run.  I enjoyed Punk USA and the additional information (parts of the book that were cut for various reasons) found on Prested’s website and I would heartily recommend this book to any fan of the genre.  However, those of you seeking details about the inner workings of the label and its bands may be somewhat disappointed as Punk USA will likely leave you with more questions than answers.

 

Check out these other posts:

Screeching Weasel – Punk rock 101: a quick look at all their music and cherry picking the best stuff each release.

A look back at Love is Dead with Dr. Frank of the Mr. T. Experience.

A book review of NOFX’s Hepatitis Bathtub.

What happens when a 2 and 3 year old become obsessed with KISS?

What the Topps 2016 Baseball Sticker Album Can Tell Us

This past Christmas, I purchased the Topps 2016 Baseball Sticker Album as a present for my son.  Although he is only 3, he loves watching and playing baseball.  Buster Posey is his favorite player and since he was on the cover and a sticker for him existed, I figured buying the album was a no lose proposition.  I remember how much fun I had completing the Topps and Fleer sticker albums in the early 80s as an elementary school aged kid and hoped that the combination of baseball and stickers would capture his attention.  He and his 4 year old sister have been opening up packs each day and completing the album.  It’s been a great experience.   Each team has 8 or 9 stickers (for certain teams, the mascot is given a sticker.  These teams are left with 8 player stickers).  Unlike baseball cards that include a variety of players (stars, washed up veterans, journeymen, minor league prospects, etc…), these stickers focus on the ‘best’ players for each club.  As we have completed the album, I have been struck by how many of these “core” players moved on prior to or during the 2016 season.

Of the 250 players represented with a sticker, 56 of these players were no longer with their team at the season’s conclusion.  That’s 22 percent of the players that Topps and Major League Baseball deemed the most visible, popular, marketable, and (insert your favorite descriptor here) that failed to remain with their team.  There were a few players that inflated this number to 22%.  High profile free agents were included with their 2015 team.  David Price is depicted as a Blue Jay, Jason Heyward as a Cardinal, and Justin Upton as a Padre.  However, the vast majority of the player movement was accounted for by other transitions such as trades or being released so the 22 percent of players moving is not far off from the true percentage of seasonal shuffling that occurred.

There were significant differences between teams regarding the number of players that were moved during 2016.  For instance, 6 of 8 San Diego Padres and 6 of 9 Oakland As players were no longer with their teams when the 2016 ended.  Compare this with all 9 Minnesota Twins and all 8 Detroit Tigers players remaining employed by their respective team at season’s end.  Interestingly, teams that kept the players depicted on the stickers did not necessarily win more (ex. Arizona had all 8 players remain on the team for the entire 2016 as did Cleveland and that is about as divergent as two seasons can be).

But let’s get back to the 22% of ‘upper talent’ moving in a single season.  Many questions run though my head when I see that 22% number.  How does the roster churning of today’s bigger names impact the casual or diehard fan?  How about the way the league and its advertising partners market players, teams, and the game?  What about team chemistry and player and/or team production?  To what extent do analytic team projections or Vegas futures become impacted by multiple “top 9” players moving locations?

The stars of today’s game have a recognition problem.  Gone are the days of Top 10 Q Ratings for even the game’s best players.  Recently retired players like Derek Jeter and David Ortiz and past stars like Pete Rose are more identifiable to the general public than baseball’s biggest current cornerstones like Mike Trout, Clayton Kershaw, and Bryce Harper.  Although these talents have stayed with their original team, their surrounding cast of supporting stars and role players appear to regularly turn over.  This player movement may have distanced the casual fan from their local teams and may be one of the reasons that have led to an overall loss of recognition for even the best players.

The Topps 2016 Baseball Sticker Album illustrates that higher quality player movement is part of today’s game.  Although this movement has helped competitive teams consolidate power and underperforming teams enter the rebuilding process earlier and at times more efficiently, there are a number of consequences that may negatively impact the game, its fans, and its marketing partners.  While I had recognized the significant player movement each season, the activity of building the 2016 sticker collection allowed me to better gauge the true frequency of top tier performers moving.  The extent of that movement creates significant ripples throughout various aspects of the game both on and off the field.

Is It Time to Free Joey Votto?

 

2017 will be Joey Votto’s age 33 season.  Including the 22 million dollars he will earn this season, Votto is owed approximately 190 million dollars through 2024 (his age 40 season).  When he signed this contract/extension with the Reds, both he and the team likely envisioned their future together very differently.  As it has played out, the Reds have seldom contended for a post-season birth and Votto is one (maybe even the only) piece left of what once looked like a perennial contender.

It is a little surprising that a team that fancies itself a contender for 2017 or 2018 has not taken the plunge and made a deal for Votto.  He would likely have the most value to an American League team with deep pockets.  Such a team could slot Votto in as a first baseman now and slowly move him to designated hitter as he ages.  I suspect that an interested team may not have to give up nearly as much for him as one might expect due to his contract cost and length.  What contender wouldn’t want the type of production that Votto is capable of as recent as this past year (check out my last post which focuses on his incredible second half of 2016)?

It would be tremendous if Votto was one of the few players that played for a single organization for his entire career.  There is something special about a player of his caliber staying with one team like Kirby Puckett, Cal Ripken, or Tony Gwynn.  However, if the Reds are eventually going to look to move him as part of a complete rebuild or prolonged youth movement or if Votto is going to one day ask to play for a team that has World Series aspirations, now is the time to make a deal.  Possible destinations?  The Blue Jays, Red Sox, Mariners, or even an NL team like the Nationals.

Votto’s contract is creeping towards the point where the natural aging process will make it difficult for him to produce at his currently elite level.  Each passing year that the Reds hold on to Votto will make an eventual trade less likely and/or the return the Reds receive less impressive.   When his hitting skills finally erode the money owed and the years remaining on his deal may make the last years of his deal painful.  Thus, a current contender should take on Votto now, enjoy his production for the next few years, and hope that his aging curve is slow and gentle through 2024.

An interested playoff quality team should also consider adding Votto now because the new CBA has narrowed the places ownership can spend money.  As a result, owners will likely spend more liberally on free agents.  What currently seems like a steep price for Votto during the 2020 through 2024 seasons may ultimately be less of a bitter pill to swallow, especially if a move for Votto pays immediate dividends for the team acquiring his services.

Votto is a difference maker.  Teams with a need at first base and/or designated hitter who think they may make a playoff run need to take a long hard look at themselves and decide if they are serious about competing for a title.  If they are, they need to make a deal for Votto.

Photo credit: Getty Images.