What does the index say about the former Astros legend>
Every once in a while, we need to peel back the curtain. I am a big believer in gathering data and then letting the data take me to interesting places. Others will make conclusions and then find the data to support them. Not every position has a compelling debate for the top spot. We saw that with the catchers, but first base belongs to Lou Gehrig.
So, there isn’t much use of going through that particular debate. However, some more interesting conversations could be had based on the data we see. Here in Houston, we see a familiar face nearer the top of the index standings. A study of him is a fascinating study in where value comes from. That is particularly true when you compare him with the one player that shares his birthday.
I should note that we are excluding the 19th century first basemen for the moment. We are also excluding Johnny Mize for the moment as well. They will come up in a subsequent article because they are also interesting. For our purposes, the comparison of Jeff Bagwell and Frank Thomas are a lot more interesting.
HOF Index
Lou Gehrig: 113.9 BWAR, 115.9 FWAR, 91.6 BWAR10, 93.4 FWAR10, 414.7 index
Jimmie Foxx: 93.0 BWAR 101.6 FWAR, 75.2 BWR10, 80.9 FWAR10, 350.7 index
Albert Pujols: 101.7 BWAR, 88.7 FWAR, 81.3 FWAR, 77.3 FWAR10, 349.0 index
Jeff Bagwell: 79.9 BWAR, 80.2 FWAR, 63.4 BWAR10, 63.9 FWAR10, 287.4 index
Frank Thomas: 73.8 BWAR, 72.0 FWAR, 58.6 BWAR10, 59.4 FWAR10, 263.8 index
The index is all about finding gaps in data. There is no particular score that makes someone a Hall of Famer. It is all about finding players similar to the others. So, the debate between Gehrig and Foxx isn’t as compelling as the debate between Pujols and Foxx. Since they are separated by less than two wins amongst four sources we can’t reasonably say that one is better than the other based only on these numbers.
This is why we go through the tests. However, the numbers also tell us why Bagwell finished considerably ahead of Thomas. After all, when we look at back of the baseball card we would think that Thomas was the better player. In order to do that we are going to add baseball-reference’s Rbaser (base running runs) in the offensive analysis for what will become obvious shortly.
Offensive Numbers
Lou Gehrig: 179 OPS+, -4 Rbaser, .803 OW%, .472 rOBA, 2232 runs created
Jimmie Foxx: 163 OPS+, -9 Rbaser, .780 OW%, .451 rOBA, 2129 runs created
Albert Pujols: 145 OPS+, 4 Rbaser, .677 OW%, .394 rOBA, 2298 runs created
Jeff Bagwell: 149 OPS+ 31 Rbaser, .722 OW%, .419 rOBA, 1788 runs created
Frank Thomas: 156 OPS+, -24 Rbaser, .732 OW%, .423 rOBA, 2002 runs created
It should be noted that out of 47 profiled first basemen, no one had more base running runs than Jeff Bagwell. Obviously, there are others at other positions that were a lot more valuable on the base paths, but this is why we don’t mix positions. The standard for the WAR formulas on both sites is that ten runs equals one win. Therefore, Bagwell was 5.5 wins better than Thomas and almost three wins better than Pujols.
This is significant for a couple of different reasons. Bagwell is better than most historically because he did everything well, and base running was just one of those things. Yet, we are talking about five wins when all of these players had 250 or more wins in their index score. This illustrates a point that I made earlier about what actually creates value. The vast majority of it happens in the batter’s box.
Fielding Numbers
Lou Gehrig: -2 Rfield, -9.0 DWAR, -7.4 FG, 2 TZ
Jimmie Foxx: 19 Rfield, -5.9 DWAR, -9.1 FG, 21 TZ
Albert Pujols: 138 Rfield, -4.1 DWAR, -16.5 FG, 66 TZ/UZR
Jeff Bagwell: 54 Rfield, -7.2 DWAR, -8.2 FG, 58 TZ/UZR
Frank Thomas: -65 Rfield, -22.5 DWAR, -26.7 FG, -69 TZ/UZR
Pujols demonstrates something interesting about the fielding numbers. He was a designated hitter for much of his last several seasons, so his value numbers (DWAR and FG) took a major nosedive while the comparisons with average remained very good. Frank Thomas was both bad in comparison with first basemen and in overall value because he also DHed for a long time.
Bagwell was good defensively and not great. Yet, he illustrates an important concept in terms of value. When you are good as a hitter, base runner, and fielder then you end up being great overall. So, even though the offensive numbers don’t look spectacular, he ends up in a solid fourth slot overall when you take away the 19th century first basemen.
Awards Voting
Albert Pujols: 70 BBWAA MVP points, 76 BWAR MVP points
Lou Gehrig: 55 BBWAA MVP points, 70 BWAR MVP points
Jimmie Foxx: 45 BBWAA MVP points, 64 BWAR MVP points
Jeff Bagwell: 33 BBWAA MVP points, 36 BWAR MVP points
Frank Thomas: 51 BBWAA MVP points, 26 BWAR MVP points
Usually, the BBWAA gets it right, but as we see with Frank Thomas, they were overwhelmed by his offensive numbers. All of them except for Thomas were better than the BBWAA according to BWAR. While it isn’t a perfect test, it gives us just a little more evidence in picking the order for our guys.
Running through all of these tests protect us from bias. We in Houston love Jeff Bagwell and we could be inclined to give him some extra credit. So, if we run through the index scores, offensive numbers, fielding numbers, and awards voting. The last test comes in the postseason performance.
Postseason Performance
Albert Pujols: 360 PA, .319/.422/.572, 19 HR, 57 Runs, 54 RBI, 1 SB
Lou Gehrig: 150 PA, .361/.483/.731, 10 HR, 30 Runs, 35 RBI, 0 SB
Jeff Bagwell: 129 PA, .226/.364/.321, 2 HR, 11 Runs, 13 RBI, 1 SB
Jimmie Foxx: 73 PA, .344/.425/.609, 4 HR, 11 Runs, 11 RBI, 0 SB
Frank Thomas: 68 PA, .224/.441/.424, 3 HR, 5 Runs, 5 RBI, 0 SB
Gehrig’s numbers are stupid. Babe Ruth obviously gets the majority of the publicity from those Yankees teams, but Gehrig was the more consistent force. Pujols obviously was also very good in the playoffs. In fact, he has even better numbers than David Ortiz who is more famous for his playoff exploits.
Bagwell’s numbers are subpar but we are also talking about a little more than 100 plate appearances. It is the equivalent of five weeks of baseball. How much do you want to ding a guy for five weeks of bad performance when his career spanned 15 seasons.