Printable View
I haven't the foggiest idea why. Also, I should note that it's 11 if you include Molitor. Ron Santo is a huge HoF snub, for whatever reason. The guy played fantastic defense (and won the Gold Gloves for it) and had a great bat.
Furthermore, third base often times, for whatever reason, seems to attract the "low average, good OBP, good SLG" type of guy, like Darrell Evans, and that low batting average immediately turns off HoF voters.
Third base in the first part of the century as significantly different than it is now, and I would say that the Hall of Fame has a poor job evaluating that era, although they did elect Jimmy Collins, but he had a shining, but short, managerial career as well. I don't think the voters ever really took that defensive difference into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
It is because people now feel that players who hit in a certain way belong at a certain position, regardless of defense, which is stupid. But it is true...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
First base rankings:
- Lou Gehrig
- Jimmie Foxx
- Cap Anson
- Johnny Mize
- Dan Brouthers
- Roger Connor
- Hank Greenberg
- Mark McGwire
- Eddie Murray
- Willie McCovey
- Buck Leonard
- Harmon Killebrew
- Mule Suttles
- Will Clark
- Keith Hernandez
- Joe Start
- George Sisler
- Bill Terry
- Jake Beckley
Okay, worked everything in for first basemen and the above rankings are "final". I honestly don't have a good grasp on Joe Start, who's peak came in the 1860's, before there were major leagues and when statistics were very sparingly kept well. I ranked him nearly entirely on his career from 1870 onward.
No Giambi?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
From up above:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Also, Giambi? LOL. What made you say him instead of...oh...I don't know...Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Fred McGriff, Carlos Delgado, Albert Pujols...?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I dunno...I must be high....I was going to edit in 'nevermind' and you posted before I could.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
what resource do you use to find information on pre 1900 players?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
1B looks pretty good. If it were me, I'd probably kick McGwire up several notches, and Killebrew up a few notches. And I'd have Hernandez above Clark.
Baseball-ReferenceQuote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
this is good stuff HGM, keep it up. Looks like it will be awhile before you even finish the infield haha.
Quick question, are you doing pitchers and if so are you only ranking like the top 15 or 20?
McGwire over Murray? I would have thought Murray had more career value but then again I haven't looked at the numbers...aS FOR hERNANDEZ, did you say once tht you didn' think he was a HOFer but here you say he iss one of the top 15 1BM ever??Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
A couple notes. First, as the HoM did, the players are placed into their position by either the position at which they provided the most overall value in their career (roughly). However, they're ranked based on their overall career. Killebrew spent 791 games at third and 471 games at left field, and was a butcher at both positions, particularly at third, which drags his overall ranking down a good deal. You also have to factor in him being a plodder on the basepaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
With McGwire, his ranking depends on whether you prefer peak or career. Personally, I don't see anybody in my top 7 that I'd rank him higher than (obviously). Gehrig and Foxx are the clear 1-2. Anson never had a peak like McGwire's, but had the longest career of any player in history and was an great player for the majority of it and effective for the entirety of it. Translated to a 162 game schedule, Anson would've had somewhere around 16,000-17,000 plate appearances. Obviously, had he actually played that much, it's likely he would've broken down earlier than he did, but if you translate the shorter season schedules into longer schedules (as you should to compare his value to other guys), he was immensely valuable to his clubs. Mize and Greenberg both had peaks comparable to McGwire's, and similar career value, except they both missed 3-4 years while serving their country. I (and most HoM voters) give credit for that, and that puts them above McGwire. Brouthers and Connor also had comparable peaks and both had more career value.
Clark and Hernandez are really, really similar. They could easily go in any order. Comparable peaks and careers.
If I want to be a serious voter for the HoM, I'm going to have to rank them (and all of them), in order to accurately rank all candidates. I'm tackling them last though.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Murray definitely beats Big Mac on career value, but he never really had a phenomenal peak. He was just incredibly good for incredibly long. McGwire's peak puts him over Murray for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
A couple things,Quote:
aS FOR hERNANDEZ, did you say once tht you didn' think he was a HOFer but here you say he iss one of the top 15 1BM ever??
1) As I said, I'm ranking the players that the Hall of Merit has inducted. Hernandez was inducted by them, so he's ranked by me. This also means that the current and recently retired batch of first basemen are being ranked. Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, and Albert Pujols are easily above Hernandez, pushing him down to #19, and there's certainly arguments for other players as well (Giambi, Delgado, etc.).
2) I have no idea if I ever said here that I didn't think Hernandez was a HoFer, although it's possible I did. However, I've since changed my mind, particularly after reading through the Hernandez discussion the HoM had. He was the best defensive first basemen ever, and had a very good bat to boot. Clearly a bottom-rung player, but he's in, for me.
So again, you agree with the HoM on all 19 selections?