When it's all said and done: Best First Basemen

[mothershipconnection]

Briggs, you're making an awful lot of inferences from "a good hitter did the right thing in an important situation". I'd care more about the probability that he gets hits, hits for power, and still does the same thing in close and late situations than what I think he's thinking.

[Ennder]

Stats don't tell you anything about situational hitting. Morneau is as good a situational hitter as anyone in the game at any position.

 

We will have to agree to disagree, Morneau is having by far the best year of his career this year which might move him up the list but situational hitting is such a minor part of what makes a player good or bad that it can't possible move him up the list by itself. This is the same kind of thinking that made Carlos Lee so grossly overrated.

[prophet]

I am shocked anyone would have Howard near the top of their list.

I'm not shocked. Baseball is a stat driven game, and if you look at Howard's stats, he's impressive. I personally would rather have Gonzalez on my team, but that's mainly just because of his contract compared to Howard. If you take contract out of the picture, Howard has him beat in almost every statistical category, other than strikeouts. You can say defense offsets offense, but then again, Howard's defense hasn't seemed to hurt the Phillies all that much the last few seasons. (Two world series, one win). I'd be ok with that. My list based just on talent:

 

Tex

Fielder

Youkalis

Howard

Morneau

Gonzalez

 

But, that's the great thing about opinion polls, everyone can be right, and you can prove an opinion wrong.

[thebruce44]

I am shocked anyone would have Howard near the top of their list.

I'm not shocked. Baseball is a stat driven game, and if you look at Howard's stats, he's impressive. I personally would rather have Gonzalez on my team, but that's mainly just because of his contract compared to Howard. If you take contract out of the picture, Howard has him beat in almost every statistical category, other than strikeouts. You can say defense offsets offense, but then again, Howard's defense hasn't seemed to hurt the Phillies all that much the last few seasons. (Two world series, one win).

Howard and AGon have had essentially the same offense if you factor in that one plays in perhaps the best hitters park and the other the best pitchers park for half their games. As proof, since becoming regular players, AGon's OPS+ is 140 while Howard's is 141. Then, as you said, add in defense and age to help you project their future numbers and its not even close. I can't agree with people who look at stats like RBIs or WS wins (or say Howard's defense hasn't hurt his team because they won a WS) since the poll was best first basemen, not best team that the first basemen in question played on.

[prophet]

I'm not asking anybody to agree or disagree with me. All I'm saying is that I'm not shocked that Howard would be near the top of peoples list. Simply because he is one of the best power bats in the game. And I do think that when you're evaluating players from different teams, the ball park that they play in shouldn't be a detriment to the player, rather it should be a positive to the player. Especially since, like you said, we're predicting future numbers. Obviously, there is no way to know what team either player is going to play for going forward, but if Howard stays playing in a hitters park, and Gonzalez stays playing in a pitchers park, Howard's future stats are going to blow Gonzalez out of the water. So, if were predicting future stats, the ball park shouldn't be used to hurt Howard going forward, it should be used to help him. Plus, people can choose to discount any stat they want, and put importance on any other stat they want, but the bottom line for baseball or any other sport is winning and losing. And in baseball, you win by scoring more runs than the other guy. So, whatever someones feelings are about RBI's not being important, RBI's means your scoring runs, and therefore helping to win. In the same breath, the most important stat in baseball is "wins". No other stat matters, if you don't win. So, I'll never be convinced to discount "wins", or "ws wins", because what stat is more important than wins?

 

But, like I said, this is an opinion poll. I'll never convince you I'm right, and you'll never convince me you're right.

[topper09er]

In the same breath, the most important stat in baseball is "wins". No other stat matters, if you don't win. So, I'll never be convinced to discount "wins", or "ws wins", because what stat is more important than wins?

Wins should never have anything to do with individual player analysis except maybe in tennis or golf. Baseball is the most team oriented sport that exists, which means it is the hardest for 1 dominant players to affect his team's W-L. Albert Pujols is clearly the most dominant hitter recently, yet his team has only even been to the playoffs 1 of the past 3 seasons whereas Lebron James is about to add 20 wins to some new team. Will you argue Berra is better than Bench because of more WS titles? Is Phil Ri(rr)zzuto better than Honus Wagner? Ty Cobb and Ted Williams (players easily in the top 10 all-time basically unanomously) have a combined 0 WS titles.

 

In a forum like this where the question is to predict the best overall career team W-L record should play ZERO factor.

 

[prophet]

Okay, I can dig that argument. And I'll be willing to take out the fact that AGon hasn't won and Howard has. But, the basic topic of the thread, was who will have a better career going forward, and one of the main things to judge a players career on, are whether or not they won. And Howard wins. But, if we're going to stick to the basis of the thread which is "who will have a better career going forward", I still don't see AGon's stats measuring up to Howard. The basis of the thread isn't who is a better player, it's who will have a better career going forward, and baseball is measured on stats. I feel that Gonzalez is a better overall "player", but his "stats" will never measure up to Howard as long as they stay on the teams they're currently on. And when people measure a baseball player's career, the measurement will always be based on stats. It's just the nature of the sport.

 

And, when I talk about winning I mean winning the whole thing. Lebron can add 20 wins to any team he wants, but he hasn't "won" anything. And until he wins, they're will be dozens of players in the history of hoops better than him. On an entirely different note though (and I was just curious on peoples opinion), when we're talking about players, how come winning shouldn't be used to evaluate them, but when we evaluate coaches or managers, that's all that matters? In my opinion, players have more impact on winning and losing than managers or coaches, regardless of the sport.

[joepepsi]

I remember hearing Rob Dibble once argue on the Dan Patrick show that Luis Sojo was a better player than ARod because he had 2 World Series Rings.

[Ennder]

I just think judging players by team achievement is just terrible. It is like people who say one QB is better than another because he has more Super Bowls like that actually matters. I'll never understand that line of thinking. Ryan Howard is a good player because he hits a lot of HR, not because his team was good enough to win a world series, they have nothing to do with each other.

[topper09er]

But, the basic topic of the thread, was who will have a better career going forward, and one of the main things to judge a players career on, are whether or not they won. And Howard wins. But, if we're going to stick to the basis of the thread which is "who will have a better career going forward", I still don't see AGon's stats measuring up to Howard. The basis of the thread isn't who is a better player, it's who will have a better career going forward, and baseball is measured on stats. I feel that Gonzalez is a better overall "player", but his "stats" will never measure up to Howard as long as they stay on the teams they're currently on. And when people measure a baseball player's career, the measurement will always be based on stats. It's just the nature of the sport.

 

And, when I talk about winning I mean winning the whole thing. Lebron can add 20 wins to any team he wants, but he hasn't "won" anything. And until he wins, they're will be dozens of players in the history of hoops better than him. On an entirely different note though (and I was just curious on peoples opinion), when we're talking about players, how come winning shouldn't be used to evaluate them, but when we evaluate coaches or managers, that's all that matters? In my opinion, players have more impact on winning and losing than managers or coaches, regardless of the sport.

But, the basic topic of the thread, was who will have a better career going forward, and one of the main things to judge a players career on, are whether or not they won.

 

No, it is not. There are literally hundreds of baseball statistics that have been developed to rank players that have nothing to do with team wins.

 

And Howard wins.

 

No, he doesnt, the Phillies win. If the team was the exact same but didnt have Chase Utley or Cole Hamels then all of a sudden Howard doesnt win.

 

I feel that Gonzalez is a better overall "player", but his "stats" will never measure up to Howard as long as they stay on the teams they're currently on.

 

There are also many stats, like adjusted OPS+, that account for players parks and leagues that show Gonzalez does measure up to Howard.

 

And until he wins, they're will be dozens of players in the history of hoops better than him.

 

This is just rediculous, this is the same as saying there are dozens of OF better than Cobb or Ted Williams because they have 0 WS titles.

 

[prophet]

 

And until he wins, they're will be dozens of players in the history of hoops better than him.

 

This is just rediculous, this is the same as saying there are dozens of OF better than Cobb or Ted Williams because they have 0 WS titles

I don't think it's the same. Baseball and Basketball are two different games and are judged differently. Baseball players are judged by stats first, winning second. NBA is judged on winning first, stats second.

[prophet]

Ennder]I just think judging players by team achievement is just terrible. It is like people who say one QB is better than another because he has more Super Bowls like that actually matters. I'll never understand that line of thinking. Ryan Howard is a good player because he hits a lot of HR, not because his team was good enough to win a world series, they have nothing to do with each other.

I guess that's what i like about opinion polls, people are never going to see things the same way. But, I think the reason I judge players on winning, rather than stats, is because that's how they judge themselves. I've never heard a retirement speech where a players only regret is that they never led the league in OPS+, but I've heard tons of speeches about their only regret being they never won a title.

[topper09er]

I guess that's what i like about opinion polls, people are never going to see things the same way. But, I think the reason I judge players on winning, rather than stats, is because that's how they judge themselves. I've never heard a retirement speech where a players only regret is that they never led the league in OPS+, but I've heard tons of speeches about their only regret being they never won a title.

This is an opinion poll on which of several players will have the best careers when they are all retired, it has nothing to do with the teams they are on. Everything in the world that cannot be directly calculated with an equation is not automatically an opinion where no one can ever be wrong no matter what they think, and I dont think your stance that players should be first judged based on WS is correct. Its not that I disagree with you, I am saying you are wrong, respectfully. The 2 have nothing, at all, in any way, to do with each other. There are some things that reasonable people cannot disagree about.

 

I would be interested in having you rate the following SS in order and explain why:

Arky Vaughan 0-1 WS, 136 OPS+

Phil Rizzutto 7-2 WS, 93 OPS+

Frankie Crosetti 6-1 WS, 84 OPS+

 

And I could find hundreds of other examples where you would have to admit that ranking these players based on WS titles is not correct or embarrass yourself by giving them credit for playing with Ruth, Gehrig, Dickey, DiMaggio, Mantle and Berra.

 

 

[Ennder]

I guess that's what i like about opinion polls, people are never going to see things the same way. But, I think the reason I judge players on winning, rather than stats, is because that's how they judge themselves. I've never heard a retirement speech where a players only regret is that they never led the league in OPS+, but I've heard tons of speeches about their only regret being they never won a title.

But again this just isn't accurate. Players do not judge themselves based on titles, they want to win titles. Those are two very different things. You'll never hear someone say that Prince Fielder wasn't a good player because he hasn't won a world series, players just don't think like that. Players aren't going to say Craig Counsell was one of the best SS ever since he won 2 world series. Players want to win titles, they don't judge themselves by them. It makes a tiny bit of sense in basketball since one player has such a huge effect on things but it makes absolutely no sense in baseball or football.

[prophet]

I'm not talking about other players judging Prince or Counsel, I'm talking about players judging themselves. When it's all said and done, players will more often play an extra couple years to try to win a title. It's almost like that one title will complete they're career. And, it is an opinion when I say wins are the most important thing in baseball. That's what an opinion is. If you say OPS is the most important stat, that's your opinion. Plus, since this is about the best careers going forward, like you said, I still think Ryan Howard will have the best stats at the end of his career. Honestly, I've never seen any of those SS play, (i'm only 29 yo) so I'll never rank someone if I haven't actually seen em. But, how would you rank, Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, Steve Young, and Warren Moon. FYI i'm going to be gone for about a week or so. Not sure if i'll be able to check the message board.I

[thebruce44]

And, it is an opinion when I say wins are the most important thing in baseball. That's what an opinion is.

 

Fair enough, but then you have to understand that an opinion based on erroneous facts can still be wrong. If its your opinion that water isn't wet, you are still wrong even though its just an opinion.

 

Plus, since this is about the best careers going forward, like you said,

 

Where are you getting that from? Its about who will have the best career when it is all over. The whole body of work. So far AGon and Howard are about even on offense, with AGon being the superior defender and much younger. Based on all of that information, it is very likely that when both retire AGon will have had the better career. It is also likely that Pujols, Prince, Tex, Cabrera, Youk, and Votto will have had better careers as well.

 

And I do think that when you're evaluating players from different teams, the ball park that they play in shouldn't be a detriment to the player, rather it should be a positive to the player. Especially since, like you said, we're predicting future numbers.

 

I strongly disagree with this, which is why I used OPS+ to show you factual information about how AGon has been just as good as Howard offensively if they were playing in the same conditions. Furthermore, going forward there is a very low chance AGon will continue to play half his games in Petco. Its crazy to think how good his raw numbers might be in a hitters park. We will probably find out in a season or two.

[dlk9s]

Honestly, I've never seen any of those SS play, (i'm only 29 yo) so I'll never rank someone if I haven't actually seen em.

I never saw Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Cy Young, or Walter Johnson play, but I have a pretty good idea of where I'd rank them. If you are going to say that baseball is stats driven game, then you will need to use stats to evaluate players you never had the opportunity to see.