View Full Version : Who is the best 1B'man of the 'Recent Era'?
Greg Pappas
11-09-2008, 11:36 AM
Who is the best 1B'man of the 'Recent Era', incorporating players that played from 1970 through today?
Players that have not played at least ten seasons are ineligible.
BRob51
11-09-2008, 01:00 PM
Who is the best 1B'man of the 'Recent Era', incorporating players that played from 1970 through today?
Players that have not played at least ten seasons are ineligible.
Eddie Murray certainly is a good one. Pujols should be on this list aswell.
whatdoiget000
11-09-2008, 02:32 PM
Palmeiro has to be mentioned as well, despite steroids, but Pujols hasnt played ten seasons.
Greg Pappas
11-09-2008, 02:37 PM
Eddie Murray certainly is a good one. Pujols should be on this list aswell.
Murray would be my choice off the top of my head.
Pujols is ineligible, but will likely be the man in a couple of seasons. :)
waroriole
11-09-2008, 02:52 PM
Murray easy. I wouldn't give Pujols the automatic edge after 10 years, although it appears that he will end up enjoying a better career than Eddie.
sakata_catching
11-09-2008, 05:25 PM
My vote is for Jeff Bagwell.
BaltimoreTerp
11-09-2008, 09:02 PM
Frank Thomas.
And no "DHs don't count..." :laughlol:
Moose Milligan
11-09-2008, 09:15 PM
Frank Thomas.
And no "DHs don't count..." :laughlol:
Yeah, I was gonna say Thomas...
Bagwell?
I'm going with Thomas because his peak was so dominant. His career value is about the same as Eddie's.
DrungoHazewood
11-10-2008, 12:54 PM
I'm going with Thomas because his peak was so dominant. His career value is about the same as Eddie's.
I'm going with Eddie because he could actually field. But Thomas is a strong candidate because there was a time, in the 1990s, when you could talk about Thomas being in the same class as a hitter with Ruth and Williams.
I rate Thomas around 60, Bagwell 75, Murray 90. So I'll go with Thomas, Bagwell if Thomas is ineligible.
Nigel Tufnel
11-10-2008, 04:47 PM
At his peak, Don Mattingly was probably as good as anybody. But his peak was short.
sangar
11-10-2008, 04:49 PM
1st goes to Eddie of course but Steve Garvey deserves some consideration.
TyCobb
11-10-2008, 04:57 PM
I will go with Bagwell. The dude never had a bad season until his very last. And even in the last few his shoulders were so bad I couldn't believe he walk out on the field.
DrungoHazewood
11-10-2008, 05:12 PM
At his peak, Don Mattingly was probably as good as anybody. But his peak was short.
1st goes to Eddie of course but Steve Garvey deserves some consideration.
Mattingly and Garvey both had the problem of never drawing a walk. They both peaked around 50 a year, so even the year Mattingly hit .350 he didn't have a .400 OBP. Garvey made 450 more outs than any other first baseman of the 1965-1990 era. And once Mattingly's decline came, his numbers were completely hollow. You can get away with a .040 separation in AVG and OBP when you're hitting .330 with 30 homers, not so much when it's .256 with five.
Nigel Tufnel
11-10-2008, 05:43 PM
Mattingly and Garvey both had the problem of never drawing a walk. They both peaked around 50 a year, so even the year Mattingly hit .350 he didn't have a .400 OBP. Garvey made 450 more outs than any other first baseman of the 1965-1990 era. And once Mattingly's decline came, his numbers were completely hollow. You can get away with a .040 separation in AVG and OBP when you're hitting .330 with 30 homers, not so much when it's .256 with five.
I completely agree. But all I was saying is, if you happened to choose 'value for peak 4-year period' as your criteria, then Mattingly's 1984-1987 is comparable to, and arguably better than, Murray's 1981-1984 or 1982-1985.
If you even expand that to 5-year peak period, then Murray's clearly better. And, of course, if you look at their entire careers, Murray's better by a mile.
Believe me, it pains me to say this, but at his best, Mattingly might have been better than Murray at his. There just wasn't much to his career besides that peak.
Baltimoron
11-10-2008, 09:59 PM
Although his best years may have come before 1970, Willie McCovey has got to be in the conversation if we are looking at entire career of anyone who played after 1970.
And Dick Allen deserves some mention, maybe moreso than the Mattinglys and Garveys. His D was horrible but he raked - 11 straight years with an OPS+ over 145.
Although HOFers, I dunno how well Perez or Cepeda match up, but I'll mention them.
Is Pops or the Big Puma eligible at 1b although playing more elsewhere?
I'm going with Eddie because he could actually field. But Thomas is a strong candidate because there was a time, in the 1990s, when you could talk about Thomas being in the same class as a hitter with Ruth and Williams.
Yet there WARP3's are basically identical even though Eddie had about 2,700 more plate appearances. I don't think there's a question regarding who had the stronger peak, which is the difference for me.