2017-68

29.  What We May Have Learned From Doing This

              1.  Mike Grady was a really good player that nobody remembers.

              2.  The Hall of Fame Standard is about seven years as the #1 catcher in baseball, or seven to ten years as #1 to 3.

              3.  While Ted Simmons has a viable Hall of Fame argument, it is not the overpowering argument that some in our community would like to believe that it is.  Simmons ranks just a notch below the core players who define the Hall of Fame at this position—Yogi, Dickey, Cochrane, Bench, Piazza, Carter, Rodriguez.  

              4.  Jorge Posada’s Hall of Fame credentials are as good or better than Simmons’, and it is something of an embarrassment to the Hall of Fame voters that he dropped off the ballot after one look.   One suspects that at some point he will receive a more serious consideration. 

              5.  If Rick Ferrell, Ernie Lombardi and Ray Schalk are legitimate Hall of Famers, the reasons for that escape our methodology.

              6. Active players Mauer and Posey are in good shape; Molina needs to keep plugging but could be.

              7.  Other than perhaps Simmons and Posada, there is no other catcher who probably should be in the Hall of Fame. 

              8.  With some allowance for imprecision, we could say that the best catchers in baseball have been Mike Grady (1900-1901), Johnny Kling (1902-1906), Roger Bresnahan (1907-1910), Chief Meyers (1911-1914), Ray Schalk (1915-1918), Wally Schang (1919-1921), Bob O’Farrell (1922-1926), Mickey Cochrane (1927-1935), Bill Dickey (1936-1943), Walker Cooper (1944-1947), Yogi Berra (1948-1960), Elston Howard (1961-1964), Joe Torre (1965-1966), Bill Freehan (1967-1968), Johnny Bench (1969-1976), Ted Simmons (1977-78), Gary Carter (1979-1987), Carlton Fisk (1988-1990), Mickey Tettleton (1991-1992), Mike Piazza (1993-2000), Jorge Posada (2001-2005), Joe Mauer (2006-2010) and Buster Posey (2011 to the present.) 

30.   And Now We Turn to the First Baseman

              First Base and Catcher are exact opposites in this sense, that catching is the one position (other than pitching) which is least interactive with other positions, while first base is the one position which is most interactive with other positions.  

              A catcher does not commonly move to another position in mid-career or at the end of his career.   Catchers are catchers; they are not athletes who catch.   Jonathon Lucroy is not going to move to second base next year.  

              First base, on the other hand, is the place where you stash the player who can’t play anywhere else.   It is not that first base is not an important defensive position; it is important, because the first baseman is involved in a huge number of plays.   You can play first base without speed or a throwing arm, so if you can hit but you can’t run or throw, you’re the first baseman. 

              Frank Robinson, an outfielder, had an early-season injury in 1959 and the Reds needed a first baseman, so Robinson moved to first base.   He hit .311 with 36 homers, 125 RBI, which made him the best first baseman in baseball.  

              Hank Aaron in 1971 was 37 years old, couldn’t really play the outfield anymore, so he moved to first base.   He hit .327 with 47 homers, 118 RBI, which made him the best first baseman in baseball. 

              Nap Lajoie, a second baseman, played first base in 1911, so he rates as the best first baseman in baseball in 1911, then is not on the first base charts in the surrounding years. 

              That doesn’t really happen at catcher.  You don’t just decide to go catch for a year, and rank as the best catcher in baseball.  At first base it happens all the time.  People just drop in to first base and take over the position.   Stan Musial bounces from first base to the outfield for ten years or more.   When he is at first base he is the best first baseman in baseball.   The other years he is not on the list.   This kind of thing rarely happens among catchers.

              In my spreadsheet I have each player’s position marked by his career position, and for this study I tried to straighten out who was playing which position in each season.   I probably missed some; I probably have somebody marked as the #1 first baseman in baseball in some season in which he was mostly playing third base or left field or something.   I apologize for any errors of this nature, and I hope you will be forgiving of them.   I am trying to advance our understanding of this general issue by providing lists of the top players at each position each year.  I’m sure I didn’t get it all exactly right, but I worked at it for several weeks and I did the best I could.

              This also matters, however, because many players are "partial career" first baseman, and their numbers won’t always add up based on the information in front of you.   A player may have 5 years as a first baseman, two years as a DH, 4 years as a third baseman, 2 years as a left fielder and 2 years as a right fielder, and he might earn YOPDI points at all of those positions.   When I am ranking the best first basemen, his points at all positions have to count, and if he is more of a first baseman than anything else, then he is on the first base list.   So you have lots of points on the first base list which are not earned as a first baseman, and lots of points earned at first base which are not on the first base list.  That doesn’t really happen at catcher; there is Craig Biggio and a couple of other weird guys, but not many.  

              A player is generally rated not where he played the most GAMES, but where he had the most VALUE.   Ernie Banks is the easiest example.   Banks played 1,259 games at first base in his career, 1,125 at shortstop, so other people might list him as a first baseman.   But he earned 64 YOPDI points as a shortstop, and none at all as a first baseman.  He was the best shortstop in baseball in the 50s; he was not one of the best first basemen in baseball in the 1960s.  So, for our purposes, he can’t possibly be listed as a first baseman. 

31.  The 19^th Century First Basemen

              There were three great first basemen in the 19^th century:  Roger Connor, Dan Brouthers and Cap Anson.   All three are in the Hall of Fame.   These are the top 10 first basemen of 19^th century baseball, with their approximate YOPDI scores.  (I wasn’t as careful figuring YOPDI scores for 19^th century players as I was for 20^th and 21^st century players, because I don’t really regard the 19^th century as major league baseball.) 

1.  Big Dan Brouthers (1879-1896, two games in 1904).  Seven seasons as the #1 first baseman in baseball, seven more seasons as #2.   About 119 YOPDI points.   Elected to the Hall of Fame in 1945.

2.  Roger Connor (1880 to 1897).  Connor was baseball’s 19^th century Home Run champion, although no one knew that at the time.   Career batting records were not maintained in the 19^th century.   I don’t believe anyone realized that Connor was the Home Run record holder before Babe Ruth until 1969, although there may have been some isolated knowledge of that fact somewhere.

              Both Brouthers and Connor were big men and left-handed hitters; thus, they were in the tradition of Lou Gehrig, Johnny Mize, Luke Easter, Ted Kluszewski, Willie McCovey, Boog Powell, Jim Thome and David Ortiz.   Connor was one of the original "Giants" who gave the New York Giants their nickname.   He ranks as the #1 first baseman in baseball six times in the 19^th century, ranks second six times (usually behind Brouthers.)   About 110 YOPDI points. . . an obvious Hall of Fame number.   He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1976.  My point, which I lost before I got to it, was that this TYPE of player—the big first baseman who could hit the hell out of the ball—basically disappeared from baseball from about 1894 to 1925, re-emerging with Jacques Fournier and Lou Gehrig in the mid-twenties, but Brouthers and Connor were guys like that.  

3.  Cap Anson (1876 to 1897).   Only four seasons as the #1 first baseman in baseball, before the emergence of Brouthers and Connor, but many other good season. two seasons as #2.   Seventeen seasons as one of the five best first baseman in baseball.   About 92 YOPDI points. 

4.  Joe Start (1876-1886).   An old star, he joined the Brooklyn Athletics in 1862 and starred for the Athletics in undefeated seasons in 1864 and 1865.  By the time the National League started in 1876 he was 33 years old, but played for 11 years in the National League and was one of the top first basemen of his era, generally ranking second behind McVey or Anson in the late 1870s.  About 39 YOPDI points. 

5.  Cal McVey (1876 to 1879).   McVey was a star on the famous Cincinnati team of 1869, which toured the country beating the best teams from other cities, which triggered the formation of organized baseball.   He was one of the best players in the National Association (1871-1875), and was still the best first baseman in baseball after the National League formed in 1876.   Two seasons as the #1 first baseman in baseball (1876, 1878); about 32 YOPDI points. 

6.  Jack Doyle (1889-1905).   A good player, not a great one, Doyle fell into a moment when there really was not a top first baseman, so ranks as the top first baseman of 1895-1896.   About 31 YOPDI points.  Years of Position Dominance Index.

7.   John Morrill (1876 to 1890).  Longtime Boston Braves first baseman, had some pretty good years.  About 24 YOPDI points.

8.  Bill Everitt (1895 to 1901).   Cubs third baseman in Cap Anson’s last years, moved to first base when Anson finally retired.  About 19 YOPDI points.

9.  Henry Larkin (1884 to 1893).  An outfielder/first baseman in the American Association.  About 19 YOPDI points.

10.  Fred Tenney.   In mid-career at the end of the 19^th century; actually still young then. 

              The scores for 19^th century first basemen are consistent with those at catcher, in that the three players who score at 116, 114 and 77 are in the Hall of Fame, but nobody else.  65 is about the Hall of Fame cutoff.   Harry Stovey played 500+ games at first base, but is listed here as a left fielder.

32.  The Fred Tenney-Jake Beckley Era (1900-1902)

              Welcome to the 20^th century.  Two teaser notes: 

              1) Marisfan will be very pleased with one element of the First Base rankings, and

              2) Craig Wright may also claim victory over another element.

              OK, we begin the 20^th century with two drop-in first basemen.   Ed Delahanty was an outfielder, very fast and very graceful.  When Joe DiMaggio came to the majors in 1936, old sportswriters wrote "My God, this guy looks exactly like Ed Delahanty."   For some reason he played first base in 1900, so he rates as the best first baseman of 1900, although he was really an outfielder.

              Buck Freeman was a right fielder.   When he jumped from the Braves to the upstart Boston Red Sox in 1901, our inaugural season, the Red Sox had three other outfielders, so he played first base.  He had a tremendous year, hitting .339 with 12 homers, 114 RBI, which actually was pretty much his normal numbers, but since he played first base and Delahanty was back in the outfield, he ranks as the #1 first baseman in 1901.   In 1902 he went back to the outfield.

              Fred Tenney and Jake Beckely were the best "real" first baseman of this era, the best players who were actually first baseman.   Beckley was kind of a Brouthers/Gehrig/McCovey style player, not as good as those guys but he is in the Hall of Fame.  Tenney wasn’t a big bopper; he was a little guy who was a leadoff man.   In the Dead Ball era many first basemen were fast runners and slick fielders, and not big hitters.  Also, in this era first basemen were often the team captains.   They had duties sort of like what a veteran catcher has now.   They kept the pitcher on his game. 

              I am expanding the charts here.   For first basemen I am presenting the Home Runs, RBI, Batting Average and OPS for each player, and his Established Game-Adjusted Win Shares, which is his ranking number.   There is a method to my madness; that is, there are reasons I am presenting this information now, but wasn’t before.  

              1)  If you present TOO MUCH information on a chart, people can’t process it.   Since we’ve been doing this for four days now, I would hope that the form makes more sense than it did, and you can process more information without your eyes glazing over.  You automatically assimilate certain elements of the chart; your mind has room for more facts. 

              2)  At catcher, the best hitters are often not the best players.   There are big-hitting catchers scattered across baseball history who are not the best catchers in baseball; Gary Sanchez, for example.   At first base, the hitting numbers generally explain the rankings better than they do at other positions. 

33.  The Frank Chance Era (1903-1908)

              No comment needed:

34.  The Interregnum (1910-1917)

              For almost ten years between the time that Frank Chance started to slip and the emergence of George Sisler, there really is no Hall of Fame first baseman, no first baseman who gets to the top of the list and stays there.   The three "star" first basemen of this era were Hal Chase, Jake Daubert and Stuffy McInnis.   Chase, of course, was a legendary defensive first baseman, but was a corrupt player who was rumored to be throwing games for more than ten years before he was finally proven to be throwing games and was kicked out of baseball, but in the meantime he was the biggest star among the first baseman.   Daubert won the National League batting title in 1913 and 1914 and was a star because of that, but he wasn’t an especially productive hitter; he was a guy who benefitted from the fixation on batting averages which baseball fans had from 1880 until about 1990.   (Casey Stengel, Daubert’s teammate, wrote a biography about his playing days, and says in that book that Daubert  was very overrated—an observation that he does not offer about any other player, as I recall.)  Stuffy McInnis was famous as a member of Connie Mack’s "$100,000 infield" and as the inventor of the "knee reach", stretching off first base to catch the throw before it got to first base.   He was a good player but not a great one.   Probably the best first baseman of that era was Ed Konetchy, but Konetchy isn’t quite a Hall of Famer, either:

35.  The George Sisler Years (1917 to 1922)

              From 1917 to 1922 the best first baseman in baseball was George Sisler, which shouldn’t require any explanation in view of his phenomenal hitting statistics.  Sisler was in the mold of the Dead Ball era first basemen—fast, a slick fielder and a line drive hitter, rather than a big power hitter.  

              Sisler missed the 1923 season with "an illness effecting his eyesight", as it was said in the newspapers.   He went blind for a time, and was never quite the same player afterward, although he was very good after the illness. My apologies if my information is wrong here, but my understanding is that the illness was syphilis.  There was a syphilis epidemic at that time.   Syphillis is a very serious illness which killed a lot of people, but there were treatments, and it could be cured with luck and treatment.  

              In that era the mere fact that a player was sexually active would have been. . .well, "officially" scandalous, although of course anyone who wasn’t an idiot would have assumed that most athletes or many athletes were.  Newspapers at the time never said what Sisler’s illness was.  In the modern world it is seen more as a tragedy than as a disgrace; no one speaks ill of Magic Johnson because his career was ended by a sexually transmitted disease.   It is not something to be embarrassed about.   Sisler was a very active Christian Scientist, although he may have come to religion after the illness; I don’t know.