When people think of first basemen they think of hitters first and for good reason. You could argue that they are the best hitters overall in baseball. Certainly, outfielders will have a huge say in that, but most teams have a better hitter at first base than at any other position. As we saw with the catchers, there are different metrics that we use. Some of them compare with the league average, so they can be compare players over time. Others exist on their own, so it is more difficult to compare players across eras.
We will be adding base running runs from Fangraphs this time around. While it may not mean a lot in the grand scheme of things, it does help us differentiate between OPS+ and wRC+. wRC+ includes base running, so it ends up being a lower in most cases. However, there are a few notable exceptions. It may not make a huge difference, but when the overall picture is close, every little thing helps.
| OPS+ | wRC+ | OW% | BPO | BsR | |
| Lou Gehrig | 179 | 173 | .803 | 1.205 | -27.2 |
| Jimmie Foxx | 163 | 158 | .781 | 1.125 | -18.9 |
| Jeff Bagwell | 149 | 149 | .722 | .975 | 6.5 |
| Frank Thomas | 156 | 154 | .732 | 1.033 | -38.2 |
| Eddie Murray | 129 | 127 | .624 | .787 | 3.4 |
| Jim Thome | 147 | 145 | .713 | 1.020 | -35.2 |
| Willie McCovey | 147 | 145 | .718 | .900 | -0.4 |
| Harmon Killebrew | 143 | 142 | .706 | .899 | -0.1 |
| Hank Greenberg | 158 | 154 | .765 | 1.086 | -2.3 |
| Tony Perez | 122 | 121 | .619 | .737 | -0.7 |
| George Sisler | 125 | 123 | .672 | .756 | 19.4 |
We could break this down in any number of ways, so we will look at the metrics themselves. Four of the five are normalized by comparing the player with the average player. The lone holdout is a statistic called bases per out (BPO). Even though it isn’t normed, it is an incredibly valuable statistic. Sure, the top three guys all played in the Live Ball Era, but you can still compare players from the same period.
Tony Perez didn’t play at exactly the same time as Willie McCovey and Harmon Killebrew, but they were contemporaries. You can see that both were vastly superior to Perez. It’s to the point where you have to question his place in the Hall of Fame. Couple that with his offensive winning percentage and it’s enough to raise the question again. Offensive winning percentage assumes all eight position players produced the same as he did and the team gave up an average number of runs.
The three Live Ball Era first sackers would win well over 120 games if all the hitters produced like they did. A team of Perez’s would win 100 games on the nose. Even a team with that record is usually one of the favorites to win the World Series. Obviously, all eleven guys produce numbers that would make a team full of those guys favorites to win the World Series.
These numbers tend to make a lot more sense when we place the players in groups from the same era. Even though most of the numbers are normed, it is still hard to compare players from the Live Ball Era with the players that played in the 1960s and 1970s. The current era might be comparable to the Live Ball Era, but there is still some separation. We are taking the fielding out of it, so these rankings are not complete, but many would swear by them.
Live Ball Era
| OPS+ | wRC+ | OW% | BPO | BsR | |
| Lou Gehrig | 179 | 173 | .803 | 1.205 | -27.2 |
| Jimmie Foxx | 163 | 158 | .781 | 1.125 | -18.9 |
| Hank Greenberg | 158 | 154 | .765 | 1.086 | -2.3 |
These numbers demonstrate how good Hank Greenberg really was. Give him his three full seasons he lost to the World War and his career numbers would have been almost as good as Foxx and Gehrig. When you look at the rate statistics you can see that he was just a cut beneath Foxx. Gehrig is in a league of his own. Even when we throw Albert Pujols into the equation, he still winds up better than the rest.
Expansion Era
| OPS+ | wRC+ | OW% | BPO | BsR | |
| Willie McCovey | 147 | 145 | .718 | .900 | -0.4 |
| Harmon Killebrew | 143 | 142 | .706 | .899 | -0.1 |
| Eddie Murray | 129 | 127 | .624 | .787 | 3.4 |
| Tony Perez | 122 | 121 | .619 | .737 | -0.7 |
It’s always interesting to see how similar players are from various eras. You could argue that McCovey and Killebrew are practically the same player based on this profile. Both Murray and Perez enjoyed longer careers, so you could argue that their overall value was suppressed by playing longer. Murray played in over 3000 games (around 400 more than McCovey and 500 more than Killebrew). Perez really only played in about 200 more games than McCovey and 300 more than Killebrew. So, it is harder to make that excuse for him.
Both Murray and Perez drove in more runs than Killebrew and McCovey in that span of time and that is why they are in the Hall of Fame. Of course, in addition to the increased number of games, there is no accounting for the number of opportunities those players had. However, ignoring that we could look at the number of games they played and then take the number of runs and RBI on a per game basis.
| Games | Runs | RBI | TRP | TRP/G | |
| Willie McCovey | 2588 | 1229 | 1555 | 2784 | 1.075 |
| Harmon Killebrew | 2435 | 1283 | 1584 | 2867 | 1.177 |
| Eddie Murray | 3026 | 1627 | 1917 | 3544 | 1.171 |
| Tony Perez | 2777 | 1272 | 1652 | 2924 | 1.050 |
It’s hard to take these numbers at face value. They are raw numbers that don’t account for the hitting environment or the quality of the teams around them. With the exception of Willie Mays, there were no Hall of Famers that surrounded either McCovey or Killebrew. Perez had Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, and Pete Rose. Murray had Cal Ripken Jr. on his team for most of his time with the Orioles. Even still, this is just another spot where Perez comes out a bit behind his colleagues.
Steroid Era
| OPS+ | wRC+ | OW% | BPO | BsR | |
| Frank Thomas | 156 | 154 | .732 | 1.033 | -38.2 |
| Jeff Bagwell | 149 | 149 | .722 | .975 | 6.5 |
| Jim Thome | 147 | 145 | .713 | 1.020 | -35.2 |
Again, we notice how similar these players are when we break them down by era. Bagwell’s base-running keeps him in the conversation. He also spent a good portion of his career in the Astrodome where power was suppressed. However, you could put a blanket over all of these guys offensively. As we saw in the last article, the fielding numbers were not necessarily this close.
Daily fantasy baseball is taking the world by storm. While total points (and total points per game) is not as scientific as the sabermetric numbers, it is a lot of fun to play and looking at the historical numbers can be fun. The total points formula changes depending on the source, so we came up with our own.
Total Points= TB + Runs + RBI+ SB + BB + HBP – SO – CS- GIDP
| Games | TP | TP/G | |
| Lou Gehrig | 2164 | 9661 | 4.46 |
| Jimmie Foxx | 2317 | 8715 | 3.76 |
| Jeff Bagwell | 2150 | 7005 | 3.26 |
| Frank Thomas | 2322 | 7801 | 3.36 |
| Eddie Murray | 3026 | 8510 | 2.81 |
| Jim Thome | 2543 | 6982 | 2.75 |
| Willie McCovey | 2588 | 6626 | 2.56 |
| Harmon Killebrew | 2435 | 6628 | 2.72 |
| Hank Greenberg | 1394 | 5436 | 3.90 |
| Tony Perez | 2777 | 6262 | 2.30 |
| George Sisler | 2055 | 6726 | 3.27 |
These numbers confirm what we already saw from the sabermetric numbers, but they reveal them in another way. Gehrig comes out on top in total points and total points per game. Perez comes out lacking again. Naturally, someone has to be the worst of the group, so it doesn’t mean he doesn’t belong in yet, but it will be interesting to see once we start comparing him with the guys on the outside looking in.
