The Best First Basemen in History

All stats in this column are through Monday, August 23, 2010.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about Jim Thome's pursuit of 600 home runs (he's at 581) and his place in history. Comparing him to contemporaries like Jeff Bagwell, Todd Helton, and Mark McGwire, I think I showed that Thome is an all-time great. But what does that mean? Where do he and the other great first basemen of the last 20 years stack up historically?

There are people who understand more about the history of baseball than I do, who have really seen guys play that I've only caught in highlights, who have studied statistics consistently over a period of decades, who have even invented some of the statistics I'll cite in this piece. I'm not Bill James or Pete Palmer or Tom Tango; I'm not Peter Gammons or Tom Verducci. What kind of world is it where Joe Posnanski (who knows a ton about baseball history and far less about football) writes about the greatest running backs in history and I (who know a great deal about football history and far less about baseball) rank the best first basemen the game has seen?

I don't think I'm unqualified to undertake this kind of project. If I did, I wouldn't try. But people like James and Tango have advanced statistical analysis of the game so far that people like me really can try to assess the greatness of players past and present. The numbers don't tell the whole story, of course, but they certainly tell a lot of it, and if I interpret the statistics differently than someone else, that doesn't necessarily mean either of us is wrong. This sort of thing would be a lot less fun if there was only one right answer.

So below, you'll find my list of the finest first basemen in the history of organized baseball, with two exceptions: I didn't include Negro Leaguers or 19th-century players. I'm confident that Buck Leonard would rate as one of the top 10 first basemen, and a couple other Negro Leaguers might slip into the top 15, but I just don't have the appropriate background to rank those players with confidence. The same applies to Japan's Sadaharu Oh. Were Leonard and Oh great players? Obviously. Were they better than Hank Greenberg, Willie McCovey, Eddie Murray? I simply don't know.

The same applies to players like Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, and Roger Connor. The game they were playing was much different than today's, and rather than give you rankings based more on guesswork than analysis, let's just say I don't believe any of them was Lou Gehrig, but I do think they're all in the top 20.

Before we get to the list, though, what makes a first baseman? As the least challenging defensive position, it's sort of an old folks home, where good hitters go when their defense fades. Stan Musial played more than 1,000 games at first, and would rival Gehrig for the top position if we ranked him as a first baseman. Pete Rose played first base in Philadelphia. Ernie Banks played more innings at first than at shortstop. Rod Carew spent more time at first than at second. We even have to contend with first basemen who were really designated hitters.

How do we handle this? I wanted to set a minimum number of innings, or a percentage of games played at first. Eventually, I threw up my hands. If you're used to seeing someone listed as a first baseman, that's how I ranked him. If you're used to seeing him somewhere else, he won't appear on this list. That means Musial, Rose, Banks, and Carew are not part of this project, along with many others who spent part of their careers at first base. Longtime DHs like Thome and Frank Thomas are usually listed as first basemen, so they are eligible.

1. Lou Gehrig
.340 / .442 / .632
2721 H, 493 HR, 1995 RBI, 1888 R

No surprise here. At various times in his career, he led the majors in batting average, on-base percentage, slugging, OPS, OPS+, runs, RBI, doubles, home runs, bases on balls, and total bases. He never led the majors in hits, though he collected over 200 eight times and did lead the American League in 1931. He also once led the AL in triples. A partial list of Gehrig's other records and accomplishments:

* MLB career record for grand slams (23).
* AL single-season record for RBI (184 in 1931).
* Scored over 100 runs for 13 seasons in a row, averaging 139 from 1926-38.
* Drove in over 100 runs for 13 seasons in a row, averaging 147 from 1926-38.
* Top-five all-time in RBI, OBP, slugging, OPS (1.080), OPS+ (179).
* Top-10 all-time in runs, extra-base hits (1,190).
* Almost twice as many walks (1508) as strikeouts (790).

Gehrig also had a good defensive reputation. He ranks top-10 all-time in put-outs as a first baseman, and advanced modern fielding statistics show him as a good defensive player.

2. Albert Pujols
.332 / .426 / .625
1863 H, 399 HR, 1204 RBI, 1157 R

Apart from Barry Bonds, the game hasn't seen such a consistently dominant player since ... who? Willie Mays? Pujols leads all active players in career batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. Take that in for a second. He has a better batting average than Ichiro Suzuki, but Pujols walks twice as often and has led the majors in extra-base hits three times in nine seasons. He hits for average like a singles specialist, but he walks and takes extra bases like a power hitter. There's nothing he doesn't do well as an offensive player. Here's his average line per 162 games:

597 AB, 123 R, 198 H, 44 2B, 2 3B, 43 HR, 128 RBI, 94 BB, 67 SO, 373 TB

That's an average. Since Pujols' rookie season, only 12 other players have recorded 373 total bases in a season once, and only Pujols and Alex Rodriguez have done it more than once. Here's a challenge: what was Albert's worst season? Was it 2002, when he set career-lows in batting average (.314), OBP (.394), and slugging (.561), but scored 118 runs, drove in 127, and walked more than he struck out? Maybe it was 2007, when he had career lows for runs (99), RBI (103), and home runs (32), but hit .327, walked 99 times, and was rated by WAR as the best player in the National League. Maybe it's even this season, with Pujols not a clear NL MVP, but leading the league in RBI, HR, total bases, slugging, and intentional walks. Those are down years for Albert Pujols.

Pujols is also an exceptional defensive first baseman, with a Gold Glove and four Fielding Bible Awards.

3. Jimmie Foxx
.325 / .428 / .609
2646 H, 534 HR, 1922 RBI, 1751 R

The choice for second place was razor-close. I have no doubt that Pujols will eventually lay definitive claim on the second spot, and he might one day challenge Gehrig at the top, but at this point in his career, after only 9½ seasons, Pujols and Foxx rate, I believe, very close to equal. The averages are almost identical, and Foxx played for much longer, without being a defensive liability, so a traditional statistical analysis would rate Foxx clearly ahead. I did not do so for several reasons:

1) Foxx was in his prime in the 1930s, when offensive stats were even more inflated than they are today. In 1932, when Foxx hit 58 home runs, the average AL team scored 5.23 runs per game. Last year, when Pujols set a career high for home runs, the average NL team scored 4.43 runs/game, less than 85% of Foxx's context. A run created in 2009 was more valuable than a run created in 1932, but Pujols creates just as many runs per 27 outs (9.8) as Foxx did (10.0).

2) Pujols has been just as good as Foxx was at his peak. Pujols is a three-time NL MVP, and has never finished outside the top 10 in MVP voting. Barring injury, he is a lock to be top-five again in 2010. Foxx was a three-time AL MVP, and finished in the top 10 of MVP voting two other times, though he deserved it more than that. By virtually any measure, though, Pujols already has more great seasons than Foxx did. In the subjective eyes of MVP voters, Pujols has 9-10 MVP-caliber seasons, compared to 5 for Foxx (though I'll repeat that he was unfairly passed over several times). In the pure mathematics of sabermetrics, Bill James identifies 30 Win Shares as an MVP-caliber season. Pujols has at least 31 Win Shares every year of his career, nine times and counting. Foxx recorded eight seasons of 30 Win Shares, including his 1935 season rounded up from 29.5.

3) Maybe the above point seems more like I'm pointing out that Pujols had more great seasons rather than comparing peak performance per se. Well, Pujols has been just as good as Foxx was at his peak. Each player was three times voted the most valuable player in his league. Let's look at highlights from those six seasons.

Foxx, 1932: .364 / .469 / .749, led majors in HR, RBI, TB, SLG, OPS
Foxx, 1933: .356 / .449 / .703, led majors in HR, RBI, TB, SLG, OPS
Foxx, 1938: .349 / .462 / .704, led majors in BB, RBI, TB, OBP, SLG

Pujols, 2005: .330 / .430 / .609, 360 TB, 89% SB, led majors in R, IBB
Pujols, 2008: .357 / .462 / .653, led majors in TB, SLG, OPS, IBB
Pujols, 2009: .327 / .443 / .658, led majors in R, HR, TB, SLG, OPS, IBB

In 2005, when Pujols led MLB in "only" two categories, he was also top-five in batting average (.330), extra-base hits (81), total bases (360), OBP (.430), SLG (.609), and OPS (1.039). He was top-10 in hits (195), HR (41), RBI (117), and BB (97). That's in the majors, not just the NL. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not an MVP-caliber performance.

4) Foxx played in a less competitive era, when it was easier for superstars to separate themselves from the pack. In the 1930s, the AL had eight teams. Today, the NL has 15. In the '30s, blacks were forbidden to play in the majors, and there were very few Latin or Japanese players. Today, MLB draws from a much wider talent pool. This isn't a mark to be held against great players of Foxx's era, or to disqualify them from ranking among the best ever. I've heard this argument stretched to contend that Babe Ruth wasn't a great player, which is ridiculous. But whereas Pujols has competed against the best baseball has to offer, Foxx never had to stand out from Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston or Buck Leonard. I believe increased competition in today's game makes Pujols' dominance even more impressive.

I would never want to give the impression that I don't believe Jimmie Foxx was a great, great ballplayer. I think it's obvious that he was. Like Pujols, he really could do everything. They're similar players in a lot of ways. For the reasons outlined above, I believe Pujols ranks slightly ahead.

4. Jeff Bagwell
.297 / .408 / .540
2314 H, 449 HR, 1529 RBI, 1517 R

The top three first basemen of all time, I believe, are fairly easy to identify, and I suspect we could get widespread agreement among knowledgeable baseball fans that Gehrig, Pujols, and Foxx occupy those positions. The fourth spot is trickier. I'm sure there are some fans who wouldn't put Bagwell in the top 10. I know someone who has repeatedly questioned whether Bags should even be a Hall of Famer. To me, that says more about this person than it does about Bagwell, but I recognize that this may be a contentious selection.

What was the hole in Bagwell's game? What didn't he do well enough to be considered one of the very best first basemen of all time? The answer, of course, is nothing. He hit for average, he walked, he hit with power, he ran well, he was a good fielder, and he was a full-time player for 14 seasons.

What was Jeff Bagwell's best season? 1994, of course, when he won NL MVP. I know Tony Gwynn was hitting .394, and Matt Williams was chasing Roger Maris, but there's little doubt that Bagwell was the best player in baseball that year. He led the NL in runs and OPS, led the majors in RBI, TB, SLG, and OPS+. Remember, this was a strike-shortened season, and Bagwell put up respectable full-season totals in only 110 games.

Bagwell: .368 / .451 / .750, 104 R, 116 RBI, 39 HR, 300 TB
Gwynn: .394 / .454 / .568, 79 R, 64 RBI, 12 HR, 238 TB
Williams: .267 / .319 / .607, 74 R, 96 RBI, 43 HR, 270 TB
F.Thomas: .353 / .487 / .729, 106 R, 101 RBI, 38 HR, 291 TB

Bagwell was a unanimous choice for NL MVP that season. Williams finished second, though that honor probably should have gone to Greg Maddux (1.56 ERA), Barry Bonds (1.073 OPS), or Craig Biggio (.894 OPS).

Hold on, Craig Biggio? Fine, he played a good second base and he had some great skills and intangibles that don't show up in OPS, but how did he leapfrog guys like Moises Alou and Fred McGriff? For the same reason Bagwell's numbers are so impressive: the Astrodome was a pitcher's park, one of the best pitcher's parks in baseball. Only the A's, Dodgers, and Giants had parks that depressed scoring as much as Houston's. Projections estimate that if you put Bagwell on the Rockies in 1994, he would have gotten more hits than Gwynn and more homers than Williams. Even in a neutral park, he improves to .376 / .460 / .766, a 25-point boost in OPS. In a neutral AL park, that's .385 / .470 / .787.

The projections above are just estimates, and I don't mean to play a "what if" game with Bagwell. His accomplishments are plenty impressive as is. But the man played his whole career in Houston, and there's just no question it makes his stats look less impressive than they are in context. The calculations for park effects may not be easy to understand, but all fans recognize that some parks favor hitters — Coors Field is the obvious example, of course — and some favor pitchers. In the 1990s, the Astrodome was probably as good an example as any of the latter.

Forget park effects, though. Straight-up, Bagwell has very impressive numbers: 1500 runs and RBI, 400 HR, over 200 SB. His career OPS of .948 ranks 22nd all-time, ahead of Ty Cobb and Willie Mays. Only two members of the .400/400 Club (.400 OBP and 400 HR) also have at least 200 stolen bases: Bagwell and Barry Bonds. Bagwell was a great hitter, a Gold Glove first baseman, and an incredibly consistent player for a decade and a half.

5. Frank Thomas
.301 / .419 / .555
2468 H, 521 HR, 1704 RBI, 1494 R

Am I biased in favor of current players, with three of my top five active in the 2000s? Maybe I'm just biased in favor of players born on May 27, 1968, which is when both Bagwell and Thomas were born. What are the odds that two of the greatest first basemen in history would be born on exactly the same day of the same year? That's got to be astronomical, right? But weird things like that happen. Sometimes people survive falls from 10-story buildings, or walk away from 100-mph car crashes. These things don't happen very often, but they are improbable, not impossible.

What are the odds that three of the top five first basemen would all be current or recent players? Not terribly likely, but surely no less likely than that the two best first basemen of the '90s were born on the same day, or that the two best first basemen of all time (Gehrig and Foxx) were contemporaries. Pujols, Bagwell, and Thomas are all ranked where I think they deserve to be, and I have no motive for over-rating modern players. If I did this same exercise for third basemen or center fielders, I might be accused of bias against contemporary players.

Let's acknowledge something right off: Thomas is barely a first baseman. He played about half of his career as a full-time DH. He was a poor defensive player, and often he was not a defensive player at all. Purely as an offensive player, however, he may be the best on this list, rivaling even Gehrig, Pujols, and Foxx. Thomas led the American League in OPS four times, ranked in the top five another four times.

In 1991, Thomas led all major leaguers in walks, OBP, and OPS. In 1992, he led the AL in doubles, walks, OBP, and OPS. The next two seasons, he won AL MVP. In the strike-shortened '95 season, he still managed over 100 runs and RBI, with 40 homers, leading the majors in walks for the third time in five seasons. The next season, Thomas hit .349, drove in 134 runs, and had a 1.085 OPS. In '97 ... well, you get the idea. This guy had half a dozen MVP-caliber seasons, finished in the top three of MVP voting five times.

Thomas hit a wall when he turned 30. Through the 1997 season, he was .330 / .452 / .600 in 1,076 games. Per 162 games, over that time he averaged: 191 H, 38 doubles, 39 HR, 129 RBI, 119 runs, 133 BB, 347 TB. He led the majors at various times in games, runs, doubles, walks, intentional walks, sacrifice flies, OBP, and OPS. After '97, he never again led his league in a major offensive category.

Players with more than 100-RBI seasons than Thomas: Barry Bonds, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Babe Ruth, Al Simmons.

Players with more .300 / .400 / .600 seasons than Thomas: Barry Bonds, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Albert Pujols, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams.

Players with more career walks than Thomas: Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, Mickey Mantle, Joe Morgan, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski.

6. Johnny Mize
.312 / .397 / .562
2011 H, 359 HR, 1337 RBI, 1118 R

Johnny Mize, in his 20s, rivaled Joe DiMaggio. They came up the same year, 1936, and both immediately became regulars, Mize in the NL, Joltin' Joe in the AL. DiMaggio was a little better, but the difference is not large. DiMaggio, during these years, led the AL in a major offensive category nine times. Mize, during the same period, led the NL in a major offensive category 17 times. He led the league in batting average (1939), doubles (1941), triples (1938), home runs ('39 and '40), RBI ('40 and '42), slugging (1938-40 and '42), OPS (1938-40), and total bases (1938-40). In his final season before going to war, Mize hit .305, led the NL in RBI and slugging, and played first base at a Gold Glove level.

After the war, Mize was still a great player. In '46, he hit .337 in 101 games. The next year he led the majors in home runs, runs, and RBI. In '48, he again led the majors in home runs, but he was 35 and slowing down. He was traded to the Yankees the next season, and closed out his career as an effective part-time player for the 1953 World Series champions. It is impossible to evaluate Mize's career fairly, though, without considering that he lost 3½ seasons of his prime to World War II, 3½ seasons when he was probably one of the five best players in baseball.

What is a conservative estimate for Mize's lost production during these years? Looking at Mize's 1940-42 seasons, I took his worst average per game in every category, and projected them for a 140-game season. This gives Mize a .302 / .373 / .473 line every year, the worst of his career to that point in every category. He gets 163 hits, 25 doubles, 7 triples, and 18 home runs. He drives in 108 runs, but scores just 74, with 59 walks and 50 strikeouts. It is inconceivable, I think — just totally out of the question — that Mize would not have bettered these totals, but even if we plug that line in for every season from 1943-45, Mize's career totals rise to 2499 H, 441 2B, 115 3B, 412 HR, 1341 R, 1662 RBI, 1033 BB. A more realistic projection moves those totals above 2500 H, 450 2B, 425 HR, and 1400 R.

I'm sure there are some people who believe it is unfair to give Johnny Mize credit for things he didn't do. I understand that point of view, but it seems obvious to me that it would be far more unfair to punish Mize for when he was born, for serving his country when he was called on to do so. Mize was the best first baseman in the National League in the early 1940s, and he was the best first baseman in the National League in the late 1940s. Almost certainly, he would have been the best first baseman in the National League in the mid-1940s, as well. This is not a "what might have been" scenario; clearly, Johnny Mize was a great baseball player from 1943-46, a great player who was unable to play for reasons unrelated to injuries or salaries disputes, a great player who was unable to play for reasons totally outside his control, subject only to the tides of history.

Mize's career totals are low because of this missed time, but his averages are exceptional, and he was a very good defensive first baseman.

7. Willie McCovey
.270 / .374 / .515
2211 H, 521 HR, 1555 RBI, 1229 R

Willie McCovey finished higher than 10th in MVP voting three times: 1968-70, when he was already 30 years old. He played 22 seasons in the majors, but in many seasons, he was injured or ineffective. McCovey was consistently a top player from 1965-70, and he had very good seasons in '63 and '74, but the other 14 years were a rollercoaster.

Stretch was a little one-dimensional as a ballplayer. He was great at one thing, hitting home runs. He was also patient at the plate, walked a lot and hit for an okay average. But he wasn't a good fielder, he couldn't run, and he only hit .300 once. A lot of those walks were intentional, 260, the third-highest total in history (behind Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron). McCovey scared the daylights out of opposing pitchers and managers. He was great at hitting home runs, so great you didn't care that he couldn't field or run.

McCovey led the National League in home runs three times, finished second to Willie Mays when Willie hit 52. McCovey also topped the NL in RBI twice, walks once, intentional walks four times, and slugging three times. In his MVP year (1969), he led in pretty much everything: homers, RBI, IBB, OBP, SLG, OPS. It was by far the best season of his career:

.320 / .453 / .656, 157 H, 45 HR, 322 TB, 101 R, 126 RBI, 121 BB, 66 SO

8. Dick Allen
.292 / .378 / .534
1848 H, 351 HR, 1119 RBI, 1099 R

This selection will not sit well with some people. Bill James once described Allen as "the second-most controversial player in baseball history." In fact, let me give you the full quote, from the 2003 New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract:

"The second-most controversial player in baseball history, behind Rogers Hornsby. Allen had baseball talent equal to that of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, or Joe DiMaggio, and did have three or four seasons when he was as good a player as anyone in baseball, but lost half of his career or more to immaturity and emotional instability."

That captures the problem rather concisely, I think. I put more time and energy into deciding where to rank Allen than any other player on this list. In a pure statistical analysis focusing on peak performance, he could rate as high as second, trailing only Gehrig. Even taking into account his relatively short career and abbreviated prime, solely on the numbers I would rank him ahead of McCovey.

Evaluating peak performance is critical in judging players. It is useful and important to look at the bottom line, the career totals, but it's equally important to understand how those totals are organized. Say two players, Alex and Babe, both have 2000 hits and 300 home runs, but Alex played for 20 years and Babe played for 10. Alex averaged 100 hits and 15 homers per season, while Babe averaged 200 hits and 30 homers. Clearly, Babe was the more valuable player. Alex was just holding down a position, and he must be one amazing defensive player to last 20 years with that kind of offense, but he's replaceable, easily. There are hundreds of guys who can do what he does. Babe was an all-star, probably a year-in, year-out MVP candidate. When Alex finally hangs it up, you bring a guy in from Triple A to fill his position, no big deal. When Babe retires, your team is going to feel it. Dick Allen had that kind of prime.

Allen's 1964 and 1972 seasons were as good as any season by Foxx, Thomas, McCovey, or anyone else on this list not named Lou Gehrig. In his Rookie of the Year campaign in '64, Allen led MLB in triples (13) and runs (125) and led the NL in total bases (352). He hit .313 with a .557 slugging percentage, and had an okay year at third base (he led the league in errors, but had good range and made a lot of plays other third basemen couldn't). The Win Shares system ranks Allen as the best player in baseball that year; WAR has him behind Willie Mays. In '72, when Allen did win AL MVP, he led the league in HR, RBI, BB, OBP, and slugging.

Allen also had huge seasons at the plate from 1965-68 and in 1971. This article gives a good year-by-year breakdown of Allen's career. At the beginning of his career, this guy was clearly, inarguably on the path to becoming an all-time great. During his first six seasons as a regular, his OPS+ was 164, which ranks him between Joe DiMaggio (165) and Eddie Collins (163), also comparable to Willie Mays (167), Shoeless Joe Jackson (167), Mel Ott (162), and Henry Aaron (161) when those players were 22-27 years old.

Allen and McCovey were similar in some ways. They both played in the '60s and '70s, both were first basemen, both won Rookie of the Year, both had an MVP season. Both were good sluggers and mediocre defensive players. In their respective primes, Allen was a far better player. Here are their career Win Shares by age:

Allen played in only 10 games when he was 21, whereas that was McCovey's ROY season, but after that Allen pulls ahead, far ahead, with totals twice as high as McCovey's up through age 26, and still well ahead through age 30. After that point, Allen's advantage disappears quickly.

McCovey had one great season, and several good ones, after Allen had lost his effectiveness or retired. But Allen's best seasons were better than McCovey's best seasons. I realize Win Shares is a little too esoteric for some people. Here are some basic stats for both players through ages 26, 30, and 35:

26, Allen: 840 H, 145 HR, 1533 TB, 512 R, 455 RBI, .302 / .380 / .551
26, McCovey: 524 H, 126 HR, 1013 TB, 327 R, 349 RBI, .271/ .357 / .523

These numbers confirm what the Win Shares already told us: Allen was a far more valuable player. What's noteworthy is how far ahead Allen is in total bases, despite that their home run totals are fairly close. Allen's batting average was 30 points higher, and unlike McCovey, he hit doubles and triples. Allen averaged 11 triples a season during these years.

30, Allen: 1412 H, 271 HR, 2603 TB, 851 R, 848 RBI, .298 / .386 / .550
30, McCovey: 1100 H, 268 HR, 2127 TB, 659 R, 733 RBI, .278 / .370 / .537

By age 30, McCovey has closed the gap for home runs, but remains far behind in everything else.

35, Allen: 1848 H, 351 HR, 3379 TB, 1099 R, 1119 RBI, .292 / .378 / .534
35, McCovey: 1649 H, 413 HR, 3225 TB, 985 R, 1165 RBI, .279 / .387 / .545

McCovey has edged ahead in the power categories, but they're close to equal at this point. Allen rates a little higher in Win Shares because his home park was a little tougher for offense and he was a more valuable defensive player (mostly from his time at third).

But Allen had all the qualities sports fans love to hate. He struck out a ton. He wasn't a good defensive player. He missed a lot of time with injuries, sometimes seemed to give indifferent effort. He was abrasive. He was black. Even Allen's detractors admit that he was subject to appalling racism, and I think it's reasonable to suggest that his career might have looked substantially different if he had been born earlier — playing in the Negro Leagues — or later, when race became less of an issue for most fans, especially in an environment like today's, when athletes — abetted by media-savvy agents — are more careful about protecting their images.

In today's game, Allen could have left Philadelphia as a free agent and played somewhere his relationship with the fans might have been less problematic. Again, I'm not here to play "what if" and I'm not rating Allen on an imaginary career in the 2000s, but I also don't want to rate players up or down based on luck, and I think Allen had a lot of bad luck. Philadelphia in the early '60s was one of the worst possible environments in which for him to begin his career.

Many fans and writers have alleged that Allen was a divisive and distracting presence in the locker room. As to the latter, that he was distracting, I don't doubt that was sometimes true. That he was divisive is less clear. Managers and teammates have given glowing testimonials in Allen's favor, and almost all of Allen's teammates in Philadelphia took his side in the infamous conflict with Frank Thomas. Allen was especially well-liked in Chicago; Goose Gossage and Jim Kaat in particular have spoken favorably about him. Craig R. Wright wrote a partisan but illuminating article for SABR Magazine focusing on interviews with Allen's managers.

Even Bill James, who in The Politics of Glory wrote that Allen "did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball", has softened his stance:

"The time has come, I think, to put the past away, and to elect Dick Allen to the Hall of Fame. ... Maybe I was right before; maybe I was wrong. I don’t know. On the field, Dick Allen was a major talent, easily surpassing all of the Hall of Fame tests that I have laid out. In my view the time has come to put the other stuff away, and recognize the quality of his contribution on the field."

Allen hit well for average (six times top-10 in BA), was a great base-runner (though not an exceptional base stealer), hit for power (three times led league in slugging), and walked (60+ BB every year from 1964-72). He is one of about a dozen players with double-digit walk-off home runs. Everyone agrees that Allen was a great hitter, even a historic hitter. From 1964-74, the years during which Allen received MVP votes, here are the top 10 in OPS:

1) Hank Aaron, .941
2) Dick Allen, .940
3) Willie McCovey, .937
4) Frank Robinson, .914
5) Willie Stargell, .905
6) Roberto Clemente, .892
7) Willie Mays, .890
8) Harmon Killebrew, .887
9) Carl Yastrzemski, .883
10) Billy Williams, .877

Did Allen do anything particularly worthwhile outside of those 11 seasons? I admit that he did not, but that's nine Hall of Famers he's sandwiched in with, and basically at the top of the list. I don't believe the record on Allen's behavior — and it's speculation more than evidence — is enough to downgrade this guy so much that he would fall out of the top 10. I think he's much closer to fifth than 15th.

9. Hank Greenberg
.313 / .412 / .605
1628 H, 331 HR, 1276 RBI, 1051 R

Conventionally, he is rated higher than this. Until the last decade, he was frequently ranked behind only Gehrig and Foxx. The 1930s were a huge-hitting era, and the big numbers look impressive compared to those of players like McCovey and Allen, who played in the pitching-dominated '60s and '70s. There are two marks against Greenberg: he had a short career, with only 6,096 plate appearances. That's far fewer than Mize or Allen, fewer even than Albert Pujols. And while Greenberg had great seasons, legitimate MVP seasons, he didn't reach the same heights as some of the other players on this list, and he really only had six great seasons.

Let's start with the positive: those six seasons (1934-35, 37-38, 40, and 46). During those six years, Greenberg won two MVP Awards and led the AL at various times in runs, RBI, doubles, home runs, walks, total bases, slugging, and OPS. His average season was .324 / .417 / .643, with 93 extra-base hits, 370 total bases, and more walks than strikeouts: 123 R, 187 H, 43 2B, 9 3B, 41 HR, 153 RBI, 91 BB.

Look, that's a fantastic résumé. Is it better than that of Mize, who also missed time because of the war? I can't see that it is. Greenberg won the MVP in '35 and '40, but Mize finished second twice, and I can't see that Greenberg's years are appreciably better than Mize's. Greenberg in 1940 led the AL in homers, RBI, and slugging. Mize in 1940 led the NL in all the same categories. Greenberg led the AL in total bases and OPS. Mize led the NL in total bases and OPS. Greenberg hit 50 doubles. Mize hit more singles and more triples. Greenberg walked more, Mize struck out less and grounded into fewer double plays. Mize stole more bases.

1940 isn't even Mize's best season. He was just as good in '37, batting a career-high .364. He was just as good in '39, leading the NL in batting average, home runs, OPS, and total bases. Greenberg's prime is no better or worse than Mize's prime; both were superb players. But Greenberg's prime is shorter, and he didn't stick around as a productive part-time player like the Big Cat did. For their careers, Mize has 400 more hits, has more home runs, more runs, more RBI, more walks, fewer strikeouts, almost 500 more total bases. And Mize was in the heart of his prime when he left for war. Greenberg, two years older, was already 30 and probably wasn't going to get any better.

Okay, that's one player. How do I get Greenberg, a two-time MVP, a .300 hitter with power, behind guys like McCovey and Allen? Greenberg was 30 when he went to war, about the same age Allen was when he stopped being worth the bother. Let's do the same thing we did with Allen and McCovey, career Win Shares by age:

Give Greenberg another three seasons, even another three big seasons, and he's really just pulling even. Through age 30, Allen was the more effective player. And Greenberg, even in his MVP years, didn't have the kind of impact Allen did at his best. Greenberg's best year was probably his first MVP season, 1935. He tied for the league lead in homers, and led the AL in RBI, XBH, and TB by huge margins. He was top-five in hits, doubles, triples, runs, and OPS. He ranked among the AL's top 10 in BA, OBP, and BB. That's phenomenal, obviously.

Allen's best year was probably his MVP season, 1972. He led the league in OBP by 15 points, in slugging by 65. He led in home runs and RBI, in walks and extra-base hits and times on base and OPS. He led in AB/HR and was the best power/speed player in the majors. He was top-five in BA, runs, and total bases. He placed among the AL's top 10 in hits, doubles, triples, and IBB.

Allen's OPS that year was 1.023, 12.5% better than Carlton Fisk's second-place .909. Greenberg in '35 ranked third in OPS (1.039), behind Foxx (1.096) and Gehrig (1.049). Allen did this in 1972, when the average AL team scored 3.47 runs per game. Greenberg posted basically the same OPS, a little higher, in 1935, when the average AL team scored 5.09 runs per game.

Look, I'm not trying to beat up Hank Greenberg. He was a great player, and I rank him in the top 10 without hesitation. Most people rank him in the top five, though, and I'd hate for anyone to think I was lazy or biased in assembling this list. I believe Greenberg has historically been overrated, and I hope I've done a good job of explaining why. Greenberg was a sensational all-around talent: a top-notch power hitter with a .313 lifetime average, a good fielder, patient at the plate, underrated base-runner ... he struggled with injuries, played 150 games only four times, 140 games only six times.

Everyone on this list has six great seasons. In Jeff Bagwell's eighth-best season, he drove in 130 runs and scored 126. In Johnny Mize's eighth-best season, he hit .317 and led his league in doubles. In McCovey's eighth-best season, he ranked third in the NL in HR and fifth in OPS. In Greenberg's eighth-best season, he played 78 games. With this kind of company, he simply doesn't stand out. Eddie Murray had twice as many career hits as Greenberg.

10. Harmon Killebrew
.256 / .376 / .509
2086 H, 573 HR, 1584 RBI, 1283 R

Killebrew hit 573 home runs in the heart of the second deadball era. Babe Ruth hit 40 home runs 11 times; four other players are in a second-place tie, with eight 40-homer seasons: Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, and Killebrew. That's two guys from the steroid era, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Killebrew. He led the AL in homers six times, in RBI three times, slugging once, walks four times, and OBP once. He didn't hit for average and he couldn't run, but he may be the best pure home run hitter on this list. Put him in an offensive era like Hank Greenberg or Frank Thomas and he'd have 600 home runs, 1750 RBI, maybe a .400 OBP.

11. Jim Thome
.277 / .404 / .557
2198 H, 581 HR, 1609 RBI, 1519 R

I wrote about Thome at some length two weeks ago, and I won't rehash that material here. He is one of 10 players with 1500 runs, 1500 RBI, and 1500 bases on balls. The others are Barry Bonds, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, Mike Schmidt, Ted Williams, and Carl Yastrzemski. That's select company. A year from now, he'll probably have 600 home runs.

12. Eddie Murray
.287 / .359 / .476
3255 H, 504 HR, 1917 RBI, 1627 R

One of four players with 3,000 hits and 500 home runs; the others are Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Rafael Palmeiro. They didn't call him Steady Eddie for nothing. Going purely by career totals, he's the greatest player on this list, except for Gehrig. Eddie Murray was a good player for a long time. He was only a great player for a few seasons, and never a truly elite player in a historic sense. In 21 years in the majors, Murray led his league in a major offensive category four times: home runs and RBI in the strike-shortened '81 campaign, walks and OBP in '84. He also led the AL in intentional walks three times.

Without exaggeration, most of the other players on this list led their league in more categories than that just in a single season. In 1969, Killebrew led the AL in HR, RBI, BB, IBB, and OBP, while McCovey led the NL in HR, RBI, IBB, OBP, and SLG. In 1940, Greenberg and Mize led their respective leagues in HR, RBI, TB, SLG, and OPS. Murray didn't stand out from the crowd the way most historic players do; he's distinguished more by his career length and sustained productivity than anything else. His on-base and slugging averages are the lowest of any player on this list, the slugging by a wide margin (39 points). He never had a single-season OPS of 1.000, never even .950.

If you could draft Murray or Jim Thome, who would you take? It's a tough call, I think. Murray had 1,000 more hits. That's huge, 1,000 hits. Thome will probably get down to triple digits before he retires, but he'll still be way behind. On the other hand, Thome had five 1.000 OPS seasons, 11 with an OPS of at least .950; that's 11 more than Murray. Some of that we can chalk up to timeline; if Murray's prime had come in the late '90s or early 2000s, he surely would have broken .950 several times. He wouldn't have met the mark 11 times, though, and he never would have posted a 1.122 like Thome did in 2002.

I want to say I'd take Murray. In fact, I probably would take Murray. It wouldn't be the right choice. Thome is so much more dangerous as a slugger, so much better at getting on base, so much more efficient than Murray that I think it makes up for Eddie's steadiness.

Murray's projected career stats if he'd played his whole career in a late-90s context: 3594 H, 560 HR, 2247 RBI, 1900 R, 1474 BB, .300 BA, .374 OBP, .498 SLG.

Outside the Top 12

Mark McGwire
.263 / .394 / .588
1626 H, 583 HR, 1414 RBI, 1167 R

Thirteenth on my list, absent any consideration of performance-enhancing drugs. Sensational power hitter, but he hit .263, couldn't run, didn't field well, couldn't stay healthy, and got to be a distraction.

Will Clark
.303 / .384 / .497
2176 H, 284 HR, 1205 RBI, 1186 R

One of the most underrated first basemen in history, probably the most underrated top-tier major league first baseman in history. In 1988, he had 100 walks, 100 runs, 100 RBI, hit 29 homers and led the majors in IBB. The next season, he batted .333 with 196 hits and 38 doubles, led the NL in runs, and had a .953 OPS. In '91, he led the National League in slugging and total bases, drove in 116 runs, and won a Gold Glove. Those three seasons, in the context of late-'80s Candlestick Park, are the equal of McGwire's three best seasons.

Rafael Palmeiro
.288 / .371 / .515
3020 H, 569 HR, 1835 RBI, 1663 R

Eddie Murray with steroids.

George Sisler
.340 / .379 / .468
2812 H, 102 HR, 1175 RBI, 1284 R

Held the single-season hit record for 80 years, hit .400 twice, led the majors in total bases one year. A great player, certainly. But he never walked (472 BB), got caught stealing too often, didn't hit for power, didn't play well defensively, and didn't have a long career.

Frank Chance
.296 / .394 / .394
1274 H, 20 HR, 596 RBI, 798 R

Mentioned in a famous poem, but he had 5,103 plate appearances and no power.

There are many fine first basemen not mentioned here: Orlando Cepeda, Carlos Delgado, Jason Giambi, Todd Helton, Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff, Tony Perez, Bill Terry — it doesn't diminish their greatness. Top 12 is a high standard, and I'm not saying those guys shouldn't be Hall of Famers. Probably some of them shouldn't, but if Eddie Murray were the cutoff for the Hall of Fame, Cooperstown would be a lot less crowded, and I don't think that's necessary. The Hall feels more complete for honoring people like Sisler and Cepeda. Were they better than Bagwell, Allen, Killebrew, Thome? I hope I've made a persuasive case why they're not, and why the 12 players I chose are the greatest first basemen in MLB history.