| 2000-2009 All-Stars | 2010-2019 All-Stars | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pos | Player | BTP | Rank | Pos | Player | BTP | Rank | |
| 1B | Pujols, Albert 1438 | 121.9 | 5 | 1B | Pujols, Albert 1438 | 79.9 | 25 | |
| 2B | kent, jeff | 72.0 | 47 | 2B | Cano, Robinson 2092 | 59.5 | 62 | |
| SS | Tejada, Miguel | 74.8 | 40 | SS | Tulowitzki, Troy 2308 | 46.8 | 125 | |
| 3B | Rodriguez, Alex | 117.3 | 7 | 3B | Beltre, Adrian 1141 | 57.1 | 69 | |
| CA | Posada, Jorge | 65.0 | 66 | CA | Posey, Buster 2745 | 49.0 | 108 | |
| DH | Ortiz, David | 93.8 | 19 | DH | Cabrera, Miguel 1776 | 78.8 | 28 | |
| OF | Ramirez, Manny 17 | 102.7 | 11 | OF | Braun, Ryan J. 2300 | 72.0 | 35 | |
| OF | Guerrero, Vladimir | 99.6 | 14 | OF | Trout, Mike 2949 | 70.7 | 38 | |
| OF | Berkman, Lance 1261 | 90.4 | 20 | OF | Gonzalez, Carlos 2460 | 68.2 | 44 | |
| SP | Johnson, Randy 15 | 168.2 | 1 | SP | Kershaw, Clayton 2494 | 210.1 | 1 | |
| SP | Santana, Johan 1448 | 143.9 | 2 | SP | Scherzer, Max 2588 | 190.2 | 2 | |
| SP | Martinez, Pedro J. 18 | 141.9 | 3 | SP | Verlander, Justin 2112 | 164.4 | 3 | |
| SP | Sabathia, CC 1492 | 124.1 | 4 | SP | Greinke, Zack 1871 | 155.5 | 4 | |
| CP | rivera, mariano | 80.0 | 34 | CP | *Kimbrel, Craig 2825 | 75.4 | 29 | |
* Craig Kimbrel ranks third among players listed as closing pitchers for the 2010s, but the top two listed players—Francisco Liriano (82.1) and Ian Kennedy (79.5)—have only recently served as closers and spent the bulk of their careers as starters. Kimbrel is the highest-ranking player in the 2010s who has served most of his career primarily as a closer.
Pujols led batters in both decades, but batters’ share of Box-Toppers points plummeted in 2010s
Comparing Box-Toppers’ All-Decade All-Star teams from the 2000s and the 2010s, a couple of interesting things stand out:
Batters with 15.0+ BTPs in 2000s
Batters earned far more Box-Toppers points (BTPs) during the decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) compared to the 2010s (2010-2019). For example, there were 35 times in the 2000s in which a batter earned 15.0 or more Box-Toppers points in a single season (led by Lance Berkman, who earned 20.8 points in 2006). However, in the 2010s, there were just seven times a batter earned 15.0 or more points in a season (led by Miguel Cabrera's 16.9 points in 2013).| BTP | Player | Team | Year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20.8 | Lance Berkman | Astros | 2006 |
| 2 | 20.7 | Barry Bonds | Giants | 2002 |
| 3 | 18.9 | Alex Rodriguez | Yankees | 2007 |
| 4 | 17.9 | Frank Thomas | White Sox | 2000 |
| 5 | 17.7 | Carlos Delgado | Blue Jays | 2003 |
| 6 | 17.2 | Magglio Ordonez | White Sox | 2007 |
| 7 | 17.0 | Alex Rodriguez | Mariners | 2000 |
| 7 | 17.0 | Jason Giambi | Athletics | 2000 |
| 7 | 17.0 | Todd Heltion | Rockies | 2001 |
| 7 | 17.0 | Jason Giambi | Yankees | 2002 |
| 11 | 16.7 | Chipper Jones | Braves | 2001 |
| 11 | 16.7 | David Ortiz | Red Sox | 2006 |
| 11 | 16.7 | Albert Pujols | Cardinals | 2009 |
| 14 | 16.5 | Albert Pujols | Cardinals | 2003 |
| 14 | 16.5 | Miguel Cabrera | Tigers | 2009 |
| 16 | 16.4 | Adam Lind | Blue Jays | 2009 |
| 17 | 16.2 | Gary Sheffield | Yankees | 2004 |
| 17 | 16.2 | Matt Holliday | Rockies | 2007 |
| 19 | 16.0 | Sammy Sosa | Cubs | 2001 |
| 19 | 16.0 | Jim Thome | Indians | 2002 |
| 19 | 16.0 | Albert Pujols | Cardinals | 2006 |
| 22 | 15.9 | Magglio Ordonez | White Sox | 2002 |
| 22 | 15.9 | Albert Pujols | Cardinals | 2004 |
| 22 | 15.9 | Jim Edmonds | Cardinals | 2004 |
| 22 | 15.9 | Travis Hafner | Indians | 2006 |
| 26 | 15.7 | Derrek Lee | Cubs | 2009 |
| 27 | 15.5 | Barry Bonds | Giants | 2001 |
| 27 | 15.5 | Javy Lopez | Braves | 2003 |
| 29 | 15.4 | David Wright | Mets | 2006 |
| 29 | 15.4 | Ryan Howard | Phillies | 2009 |
| 31 | 15.2 | Todd Helton | Rockies | 2000 |
| 31 | 15.2 | Alex Rodriguez | Rangers | 2002 |
| 31 | 15.2 | Raul Ibanez | Royals | 2002 |
| 31 | 15.2 | Albert Pujols | Cardinals | 2008 |
| 35 | 15.0 | Miguel Cabrera | Marlins | 2007 |
Albert Pujols was the leading batter in Box-Toppers points in both decades.
Batters overall earned precipitously fewer Box-Toppers points in the 2010s compared to the 2000s.
Pujols led all batters in the 2000s, earning 121.9 Box-Toppers points from 2000-2009. He also led all batters in the 2010s, earning 79.9 Box-Toppers points from 2010-2019.
He is the only player to make Box-Toppers’ All-Decade All-Star teams for both the 2000s and the 2010s. Players made the All-Decade All-Star teams if they led their position in Box-Toppers points over the corresponding decade or if they were among the top three outfielders or top four starting pitchers. (See both All-Decade All-Star team lists at the top of this page.)
While Pujols is the only player to make both All-Decade All-Star teams, there are nine players who ranked among the top 100 overall players in Box-Toppers points in both decades. (See the top 100 players in Box-Toppers points in both decades toward the bottom of this page.) Pujols’ 121.9 points ranked fifth in the 2000s and his 79.9 points ranked 25th in the 2010s. The others are:
Adrian Beltre—2000s (55.2 points, 91st), 2010s (57.1 points, 69th).
Miguel Cabrera—2000s (72.1 points, 46th), 2010s (78.8 points, 28th).
Bartolo Colon—2000s (74.1 points, 42nd), 2010s (64.4 points, 49th).
Dan Haren—2000s (61.0 points, 76th), 2010s (55.2 points, 97th).
Felix Hernandez—2000s (56.9 points, 86th), 2010s (118.2 points, 11th).
John Lackey—2000s (73.7 points, 43rd), 2010s (53.5 points, 88th).
Cliff Lee—2000s (53.5 points, 100th), 2010s (65.6 points, 48th).
Batters with 15.0+ BTPs in 2010s
In the past decade (2010-2019), there were only seven times when a batter earned 15.0 Box-Toppers points in a single season, a massive drop-off from the 2000s (2000-2009), when batters reached 15.0 points in a season 35 times. Moreover, three of the seven times a batter reached 15 points in a season in the 2010s were in the decade's first year (2010) and there have only been three such instances in the past seven seasons.| BTP | Player | Team | Year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16.9 | Miguel Cabrera | Tigers | 2013 |
| 2 | 15.7 | Prince Fielder | Brewers | 2011 |
| 3 | 15.5 | Jose Abreu | White Sox | 2014 |
| 3 | 15.5 | Anthony Rizzo | Cubs | 2017 |
| 5 | 15.4 | Albert Pujols | Cardinals | 2010 |
| 6 | 15.2 | Jose Bautista | Blue Jays | 2010 |
| 7 | 15.0 | Ryan Braun | Brewers | 2010 |
CC Sabathia—2000s (124.1 points, fourth), 2010s (79.3 points, 27th).
Of those nine, three are batters—Pujols, Beltre and Cabrera—the other six are starting pitchers.
There are five players who ranked among the top 50 batters in Box-Toppers points in both decades. (See the top 50 batters in Box-Toppers points in both decades at the bottom of this page.) They are:
Pujols—2000s (121.9 points, first), 2010s (79.9 points, first).
Beltre—2000s (55.2 points, 44th), 2010s (57.1 points, 16th).
Cabrera—2000s (72.1 points, 20th), 2010s (78.8 points, second).
Matt Holliday—2000s (53.6 points, 47th), 2010s (47.2 points, 31st).
David Ortiz—2000s (93.8 points, seventh), 2010s (49.4 points, 23rd).
•
Batters earned precipitously fewer Box-Toppers points in the 2010s than they did in the 2000s. The formula for determining Box-Toppers Player of the Game honors (the system by which Box-Toppers points are awarded) has remained unchanged since we began tracking in 1995. To win Player of the Game honors, a player must be determined to be the key player in a team’s win based on a formula derived from standard box scores.
Prior to 2010, batters consistently earned half or more of all Box-Toppers points awarded but since 2010, batters’ share of points earned has consistently fallen to 45 percent or below—and as low as below 40 percent in two seasons.
As a result, the balance of power has shifted decidedly to pitchers; batters overall are earning far fewer points.
For example, Pujols led all batters in both decades, but the 79.9 points he had in the 2010s is only two-thirds of the 121.9 point total he had to lead batters in the 2000s. His 79.9 points from the 2010s would rank 16th among batters in the 2000s.
Among the top 50 players in the 2000s, the average Box-Toppers point total was 73.1. The average point total among the top 50 for the 2010s is 52.7, only 72 percent of the 2000s average total for top 50 batters.
And with the decline in Box-Toppers points earned by batters, far fewer batters earned 15.0 or more Box-Toppers points in a single season in the 2010s compared to the 2000s. In the 2000s, there were 35 times in which a batter reached 15.0 Box-Toppers points in a single season, but in the 2010s, there were only seven times. (See the charts elsewhere on this page: Batters with 15.0+ BTPs in the 2000s and Batters with 15.0+ BTPs in the 2010s.)
There was only one time in the 2010s in which a batter finished among the season’s top 10 overall players. That was 2013, when Miguel Cabrera finished eighth overall with 16.9 points, the highest single-season point total for a batter during the decade. In the 2000s, batters finished among the top 10 overall players in Box-Toppers points 23 times and there was only one season in the 2000s (2005) in which a batter did not finish among the overall top 10.
Of the top 100 overall players in the 2000s, 48 are batters and 52 are pitchers. But in the 2010s, only 21 of the top 100 overall players are batters—the other 79 are pitchers.
Overall, in the 2000s, batters earned 51.71 percent of all Box-Toppers points awarded but that fell to 42.38 percent in the 2010s. That is a decline of 9.33 percent. But in essence, batters were earning only about 82 percent of the points they were previously earning. (Here’s a post from September 2018 showing charts and graphs and specific numbers to that date showing batters’ share of Box-Toppers points declining.)
The percentage of points in the 2000s represents a decline from the 1990s, though there is not data for the entire decade from 1990-1999. Box-Toppers tracking began in 1995, so we have five years of data. But during that span from 1995-1999, batters earned 54.13 percent of all points. That means batters were earning 1.28 times as many points in the 1990s as they did in the 2010s.
Batters clearly earned a far lower share of Box-Toppers points in the 2010s than the 2000s. There was a notable shift at the turn of the last decade. From 1995 to 2009, batters earned half or more of all Box-Toppers points awarded each season except one—in 2002, batters earned 49.71 percent of all points, practically roundable to 50 percent. However, in 2010 and after, batters have earned fewer than half of all points in each of the decade’s 10 seasons—and twice they have slipped below 40 percent (39.14 percent in 2014 and 39.35 percent in 2018).
Batters’ share of Box-Toppers points earned didn’t just gradually decline over time. The shares were very steady in the 2000s ranging from 56.91 percent in 2000 to 49.71 percent in 2002. The shares have also been very steady in the 2010s, ranging from 45.76 percent in 2010 to 39.41 percent in 2014. The weird and startling thing is that the whole scale just dropped 10 percent and it oddly coincided with the start of the 2010s. Consider this: The 2000s season with the lowest percentage share of points earned by batters (49.71 in 2002) is considerably higher than the 2010s season with the highest percentage share of points earned by batters (45.76 in 2010). The numbers from the 2000s do not overlap in any way with the numbers from the 2010s, as you might expect, especially since they are measuring players game-by-game using the exact same method.
Something not only changed but seems to have been greatly altered, mutated or transmogrified into something else entirely.
•
There is a temptation to somehow change the Box-Toppers formula to backwards engineer it so it restores the balance between batters and pitchers. But to change the way Box-Toppers is measured would destroy the consistency we have built over the past 25 years. It would be more difficult (impossible even) to objectively compare past and present players if we changed the way Box-Toppers is formulated simply to restore balance to batters.
This problem with batters’ shares of Box-Toppers points declining is not a problem of Box-Toppers making, but perhaps a problem that Box-Toppers helps make more apparent. And rather than being a problem of statistics, it seems to be a problem of the game. It seems to be a problem that belongs to batters.
For whatever reason, batters’ performances in baseball, relative to pitchers’, has declined and declined precipitously. There are a variety of possible reasons—the eradication of steroids, the increasing use of the defensive shift, the increasing velocity of pitchers, the differing use of relief pitchers, the move by batters to focus on “launch angle,” which results in more home runs but many, many more strikeouts.
Part of the problem here is that while people acknowledge these changes, they do not seem to acknowledge that batters are playing a far lesser role in the game than they did in 2009 and before. People still refer to batters and pitchers in almost equal terms, often conflating batters to be the stars of the game.
It may have been true before 2010, but since then, pitchers are eating batters’ lunches. Pitchers have always had a slight advantage in Box-Toppers points—no batter has ever led all players in Box-Toppers points in any of the 25 seasons of tracking, but there were three times when batters finished second overall—1996, Albert Belle of the Indians had 20.4 points; 2006, Lance Berkman of the Astros had 20.8 points; and 2007, Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees had 18.9 points. But while pitchers always had an advantage, batters still earned half or more of all Box-Toppers points up to 2009. In other words, batters were the player most responsible for helping his team win the game in more than 50 percent of all games for the 15 seasons from 1995 to 2009.
But in 2010 and after, pitchers have earned at least 54 percent of all points awarded each season. In two seasons, pitchers earned more than 60 percent of all points awarded. The tables have turned and pitchers are dominating.
Yet, we still talk about batters as if they are still as relevant as they were in the 2000s.
Reluctantly, I will use Mike Trout as an example. He is often referred to as the greatest player of his generation or one of the great all-time players. Trout does rank first among American League batters over the past six seasons, with 54.7 Box-Toppers points from 2014-19. He’s averaged 8.7 points per season over the past eight seasons. In other words, Trout is a very good player, among the best and most consistent batters of the past half decade.
But Box-Toppers doesn’t see Trout as anywhere near the top overall player of the decade of the 2010s. He does rank fourth among all batters of the decade (70.7 points), but that is merely 38th among all players, behind 34 pitchers and three other batters.
Further, if Trout had that same 70.7 points in the 2000s, he would rank 25th among that decade’s batters and 10th among all outfielders.
Further still, let’s compare Trout’s first nine seasons to another all-time great player, Trout’s teammate, Albert Pujols. Trout has 70.7 points over his first nine seasons, Pujols had 121.9 over his first nine (2001-2009). In other words, Pujols had 1.72 times as many points as Trout.
Some things to consider: Pujols was playing on a Cardinals team that was consistently winning (Pujols was with the Cardinals through 2011 before signing with the Angels in 2012), while Trout played on an Angels team that did not win as much. Pujols was playing in a different era in which batters had more advantages and earned a larger share of Box-Toppers points. And Trout was kept in check by higher pitching velocity, frequent pitching changes, defensive shifts and a game in which the balance of power had swung to pitchers.
But consider one more thing. Let’s look at Pujols’s last nine seasons and compare them to Trout’s first nine. Trout has 70.7 points compared to Pujols’s 64.5. Trout is better—but not by a lot. It seems to me that that greatest player of his generation and possibly one of the greatest players of all time should far and away be his team’s and his era’s most dominant batter, especially when compared to an often injured, aging star who is an entire decade older.
Trout’s Box-Toppers point total is a pale shade of Pujols’s Box-Toppers point total in his prime. You can argue the game has changed and that steroids have been removed from the game. But Pujols has never been suspected of steroid use. At its simplest level, he more often contributed to his team’s victories than Trout.
So when people say Mike Trout is the unquestioned greatest player of his generation and possibly the greatest of all time, I will simply say that’s not true—because I am questioning.
It is hard to say a batter is the greatest player in the game when all batters—even those who are better than average, even those who are the best of their era—are far less often the key contributor to their teams’ wins.
About Box-Toppers—Box-Toppers tracks who most helps their team win the most games. Using standard box score statistics, Box-Toppers uses a simple formula to determine a Player of the Game for each Major League Baseball game played. That player is the person who contributed most to his team’s win. In regular season games, players earn 1.0 Box-Toppers point for being named Player of the Game and can earn bonus points for being Player of the Day or top player or batter in their league for the day.
Box-Toppers strives for accuracy. See a mistake in a post? A wrong name, wrong team, grammar error, spelling goof, etc.? Thanks for pointing it out! Contact Box-Toppers here. Let's fix it and make it right.
Top 100 players of 2000s and 2010s
Comparing Box-Toppers’ top 100 players from the decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) to the top 100 from the decade of the 2010s (2010-2019). Players are ranked by the Box-Toppers points (BTP) they earned in the corresponding decade.| 2000-2009 | 2010-2019 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Pos | BTP | Player | Pos | BTP | |||
| 1 | Johnson, Randy 15 | pi sp | 168.2 | 1 | Kershaw, Clayton 2494 | pi sp | 210.1 | |
| 2 | Santana, Johan 1448 | pi sp | 143.9 | 2 | Scherzer, Max 2588 | pi sp | 190.2 | |
| 3 | Martinez, Pedro J. 18 | pi sp | 141.9 | 3 | Verlander, Justin 2112 | pi sp | 164.4 | |
| 4 | Sabathia, CC 1492 | pi sp | 124.1 | 4 | Greinke, Zack 1871 | pi sp | 155.5 | |
| 5 | Pujols, Albert 1438 | 1b | 121.9 | 5 | Sale, Chris 2806 | pi sp | 142.6 | |
| 6 | Vazquez, Javier 1146 | pi sp | 120.8 | 6 | Lester, Jon 2173 | pi sp | 133.1 | |
| 7 | Rodriguez, Alex | 3b | 117.3 | 7 | Strasburg, Stephen 2736 | pi sp | 132.8 | |
| 8 | Schilling, Curt 74 | pi sp | 116.9 | 8 | Hamels, Cole 2135 | pi sp | 130.0 | |
| 9 | Halladay, Roy 1178 | pi sp | 108.8 | 9 | Price, David 2593 | pi sp | 126.0 | |
| 10 | Hudson, Tim 1231 | pi sp | 103.2 | 10 | Bumgarner, Madison 2753 | pi sp | 124.4 | |
| 11 | Ramirez, Manny 17 | lf | 102.7 | 11 | Hernandez, Felix 2064 | pi sp | 118.2 | |
| 12 | mussina, Mike | pi sp | 102.5 | 12 | Kluber, Corey 3200 | pi sp | 109.1 | |
| 13 | Oswalt, Roy 1469 | pi sp | 101.5 | 13 | Gonzalez, Gio 2626 | pi sp | 103.9 | |
| 14 | Guerrero, Vladimir | rf | 99.6 | 14 | deGrom, Jacob 3343 | pi sp | 96.7 | |
| 15 | Zito, Barry 1415 | pi sp | 99.0 | 15 | Wainwright, Adam 2150 | pi sp | 95.6 | |
| 16 | Peavy, Jake 1635 | pi sp | 98.7 | 16 | Carrasco, Carlos 2885 | pi sp | 95.1 | |
| 17 | giambi, jason | 1b | 96.8 | 17 | Cole, Gerrit 3232 | pi sp | 93.1 | |
| 18 | jones, chipper | 3b | 93.9 | 18 | Cueto, Johnny 2400 | pi sp | 92.4 | |
| 19 | Ortiz, David | dh | 93.8 | 19 | Arrieta, Jake 2738 | pi sp | 91.9 | |
| 20 | Berkman, Lance 1261 | 1b lf rf | 90.4 | 20 | Weaver, Jered 2178 | pi sp | 86.4 | |
| 21 | sheffield, gary | lf | 89.5 | 21 | Darvish, Yu 3003 | pi sp | 84.4 | |
| 22 | schmidt, jason | pi sp | 87.5 | 22 | Lynn, Lance 2992 | pi sp | 82.6 | |
| 23 | pettitte, andy | pi sp | 87.3 | 23 | Liriano, Francisco 2104 | pi cp sp | 82.1 | |
| 24 | Thome, Jim 77 | 1b dh | 87.3 | 24 | Shields, James 2157 | pi sp | 81.3 | |
| 25 | Delgado, Carlos | 1b | 86.5 | 25 | Pujols, Albert 1438 | 1b | 79.9 | |
| 26 | Helton, Todd 1060 | 1b | 86.2 | 26 | Kennedy, Ian 2723 | pi cp | 79.5 | |
| 27 | Bonds, Barry 95 | lf | 85.1 | 27 | Sabathia, CC 1492 | pi sp | 79.3 | |
| 28 | Beckett, Josh 1544 | pi sp | 82.2 | 28 | Cabrera, Miguel 1776 | dh | 78.8 | |
| 29 | clemens, roger | pi sp | 81.7 | 29 | Kimbrel, Craig 2825 | pi cp | 75.4 | |
| 30 | Smoltz, John 61 | pi sp | 81.4 | 30 | Happ, J.A. 2536 | pi sp | 75.3 | |
| 31 | Glaus, Troy 1132 | 3b | 81.1 | 31 | Corbin, Patrick 3027 | pi sp | 74.6 | |
| 32 | Ramirez, Aramis 1364 | 3b | 80.3 | 32 | Gallardo, Yovani 2333 | pi sp | 73.3 | |
| 33 | Buehrle, Mark 1407 | pi sp | 80.2 | 33 | Sanchez, Anibal 2187 | pi sp | 72.3 | |
| 34 | rivera, mariano | pi cp | 80.0 | 34 | Teheran, Julio 3176 | pi sp | 72.2 | |
| 35 | Burnett, A.J. 1300 | pi sp | 78.6 | 35 | Braun, Ryan J. 2300 | lf | 72.0 | |
| 36 | Maddux, Greg 83 | pi sp | 78.1 | 36 | Dickey, R.A. 1734 | pi sp | 70.9 | |
| 37 | Ordonez, Magglio | rf | 77.1 | 37 | Quintana, Jose 3040 | pi sp | 70.7 | |
| 38 | Carpenter, Chris | pi sp | 76.8 | 38 | Trout, Mike 2949 | cf | 70.7 | |
| 39 | Hunter, Torii 1190 | cf | 76.4 | 39 | Encarnacion, Edwin 2098 | dh | 70.2 | |
| 40 | Tejada, Miguel | ss | 74.8 | 40 | Santana, Ervin 2005 | pi sp | 69.9 | |
| 41 | Wolf, Randy 1235 | pi sp | 74.7 | 41 | Zimmermann, Jordan 2612 | pi sp | 69.4 | |
| 42 | Colon, Bartolo | pi sp | 74.1 | 42 | Tanaka, Masahiro 3305 | pi sp | 69.3 | |
| 43 | Lackey, John 1640 | pi sp | 73.7 | 43 | Lincecum, Tim 2288 | pi sp | 68.6 | |
| 44 | hoffman, trevor | pi cp | 72.7 | 44 | Gonzalez, Carlos 2460 | rf | 68.2 | |
| 45 | Burrell, Pat 1346 | lf | 72.5 | 45 | Bauer, Trevor 3065 | pi sp | 67.4 | |
| 46 | Cabrera, Miguel 1776 | dh | 72.1 | 46 | McCutchen, Andrew 2637 | lf | 66.9 | |
| 47 | kent, jeff | 2b | 72.0 | 47 | Samardzija, Jeff 2495 | pi sp | 66.8 | |
| 48 | Ibanez, Raul 1137 | lf | 71.7 | 48 | Lee, Cliff 1798 | pi sp | 65.6 | |
| 49 | Lee, Carlos 1246 | lf | 71.5 | 49 | Colon, Bartolo | pi sp | 64.4 | |
| 50 | Konerko, Paul 1107 | 1b | 70.8 | 50 | Gray, Sonny 3259 | pi sp | 64.3 | |
| 51 | Zambrano, Carlos 1676 | pi sp | 70.8 | 51 | Morton, Charlie 2503 | pi sp | 64.0 | |
| 52 | Penny, Brad 1420 | pi sp | 70.4 | 52 | Vargas, Jason 2055 | pi sp | 63.9 | |
| 53 | Webb, Brandon 1720 | pi sp | 70.2 | 53 | Archer, Chris 3194 | pi sp | 62.8 | |
| 54 | Lee, Derrek | 1b | 69.8 | 54 | Keuchel, Dallas 3050 | pi sp | 62.6 | |
| 55 | Wood, Kerry | pi sp | 69.2 | 55 | Goldschmidt, Paul 2935 | 1b | 62.3 | |
| 56 | edmonds, jim | cf | 69.1 | 56 | Latos, Mat 2644 | pi sp | 61.6 | |
| 57 | Beltran, Carlos 1194 | cf | 69.0 | 57 | Stanton, Giancarlo 2737 | lf dh | 60.9 | |
| 58 | Jones, Andruw | cf | 68.3 | 58 | Cruz, Nelson Ramon 2224 | dh | 60.7 | |
| 59 | moyer, jamie | pi sp | 68.0 | 59 | Wilson, C.J. 2074 | pi sp | 60.4 | |
| 60 | Dunn, Adam 1512 | lf | 67.9 | 60 | Jimenez, Ubaldo 2349 | pi sp | 60.0 | |
| 61 | Millwood, Kevin | pi sp | 67.8 | 61 | Bruce, Jay 2453 | lf rf | 59.9 | |
| 62 | Lowe, Derek | pi sp | 67.1 | 62 | Cano, Robinson 2092 | 2b | 59.5 | |
| 63 | Abreu, Bobby | rf | 66.3 | 63 | Freeman, Freddie 2887 | 1b | 59.4 | |
| 64 | Hafner, Travis 1650 | dh | 65.9 | 64 | Leake, Mike 2709 | pi sp | 59.3 | |
| 65 | Lilly, Ted 1452 | pi sp | 65.9 | 65 | Fister, Doug 2688 | pi sp | 59.2 | |
| 66 | Posada, Jorge | ca | 65.0 | 66 | Porcello, Rick 2573 | pi sp | 58.1 | |
| 67 | Sheets, Ben 1460 | pi sp | 64.2 | 67 | Rizzo, Anthony 3063 | 1b | 58.0 | |
| 68 | Rolen, Scott | 3b | 63.9 | 68 | Upton, Justin 2411 | lf | 57.1 | |
| 69 | anderson, garret | lf | 62.8 | 69 | Beltre, Adrian 1141 | 3b | 57.1 | |
| 70 | giles, brian | rf | 62.7 | 70 | Davis, Chris 2478 | 1b | 56.9 | |
| 71 | wakefield, tim | pi sp | 62.6 | 71 | Odorizzi, Jake 3291 | pi sp | 56.6 | |
| 72 | Gagne, Eric 1351 | pi cp | 62.4 | 72 | Jones, Adam 2347 | rf | 56.0 | |
| 73 | Pineiro, Joel 1506 | pi sp | 62.4 | 73 | Paxton, James 3280 | pi sp | 55.9 | |
| 74 | Sexson, Richie | 1b | 62.3 | 74 | Bautista, Jose Antonio 2169 | rf | 55.4 | |
| 75 | Teixeira, Mark 1738 | 1b | 61.6 | 75 | Nola, Aaron 3569 | pi sp | 55.3 | |
| 76 | Haren, Danny 1787 | pi sp | 61.0 | 76 | Hellickson, Jeremy 2778 | pi sp | 55.2 | |
| 77 | Perez, Odalis 1178 | pi sp | 60.6 | 77 | Iwakuma, Hisashi 3048 | pi sp | 55.2 | |
| 78 | Lowell, Mike 1224 | dh 3b ph | 60.1 | 78 | Halladay, Roy 1178 | pi sp | 55.2 | |
| 79 | Howard, Ryan 2040 | 1b | 59.6 | 79 | Donaldson, Josh 3144 | 3b | 55.1 | |
| 80 | glavine, tom | pi sp | 59.4 | 80 | Chapman, Aroldis 2826 | pi cp | 55.1 | |
| 81 | Floyd, Cliff | dh rf lf | 59.1 | 81 | Buchholz, Clay 2363 | pi sp | 54.9 | |
| 82 | Clement, Matt 1249 | pi sp | 58.9 | 82 | Cain, Matt 2081 | pi sp | 54.6 | |
| 83 | dye, jermaine | rf | 58.1 | 83 | Bailey, Homer 2324 | pi sp | 54.5 | |
| 84 | thomas, frank | dh 1b | 58.1 | 84 | Hendricks, Kyle 3386 | pi sp | 53.9 | |
| 85 | Garcia, Freddy 1228 | pi sp | 57.6 | 85 | Cahill, Trevor 2658 | pi sp | 53.9 | |
| 86 | Hernandez, Felix 2064 | pi sp | 56.9 | 86 | Hammel, Jason 2235 | pi sp | 53.8 | |
| 87 | Dempster, Ryan 1109 | pi sp | 56.8 | 87 | Ryu, Hyun-Jin 3139 | pi sp | 53.6 | |
| 88 | Washburn, Jarrod 1084 | pi sp | 56.5 | 88 | Lackey, John 1640 | pi sp | 53.5 | |
| 89 | Hernandez, Orlando | pi sp | 56.2 | 89 | Granderson, Curtis 2051 | dh lf ph | 53.3 | |
| 90 | Utley, Chase 1861 | 2b | 55.9 | 90 | Estrada, Marco 2847 | pi sp | 53.1 | |
| 91 | Beltre, Adrian 1141 | 3b | 55.2 | 91 | Norris, Bud 2638 | pi cp | 53.1 | |
| 92 | Padilla, Vincente 1357 | pi mr | 55.0 | 92 | Fernandez, Jose 3147 | pi sp | 53.1 | |
| 93 | Wagner, Billy | pi cp | 55.0 | 93 | Fiers, Mike 3029 | pi sp | 52.9 | |
| 94 | Soriano, Alfonso 1445 | lf | 54.8 | 94 | Chacin, Jhoulys 2711 | pi sp | 52.9 | |
| 95 | Morris, Matt | pi sp | 54.8 | 95 | Holland, Derek 2634 | pi sp | 52.8 | |
| 96 | Sosa, Sammy 43 | rf | 54.6 | 96 | Kazmir, Scott 1947 | pi sp | 52.3 | |
| 97 | Mulder, Mark 1362 | pi sp | 53.9 | 97 | Haren, Danny 1787 | pi sp | 52.2 | |
| 98 | Holliday, Matt 1836 | dh 1b lf | 53.6 | 98 | Kuroda, Hiroki 2401 | pi sp | 51.9 | |
| 99 | Wells, Vernon 1548 | cf | 53.6 | 99 | Miley, Wade 3006 | pi sp | 50.8 | |
| 100 | Lee, Cliff 1798 | pi sp | 53.5 | 100 | Minor, Mike 2894 | pi sp | 50.5 | |
What are those numbers after players' names?
• Active players (as of 2019) are listed by the position they predominantly played most recently (for example, Miguel Cabrera is listed as designated hitter, though he more notably played first or third base throughout his career). Retired players are generally listed at the position they played most prominently during their careers.
• This chart is sortable! Click or tap any of the headers to sort. For example, click the Player header to sort players alphabetically by last name, click again to sort in reverse alphabetical order. Refresh the page to return to standard order.
Top 50 batters of 2000s and 2010s
Comparing Box-Toppers’ top 50 batters from the decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) to the top 50 from the decade of the 2010s (2010-2019). Players are ranked by the Box-Toppers points (BTP) they earned in the corresponding decade.| 2000-2009 | 2010-2019 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Pos | BTP | Player | Pos | BTP | |||
| 1 | Pujols, Albert 1438 | 1b | 121.9 | 1 | Pujols, Albert 1438 | 1b | 79.9 | |
| 2 | Rodriguez, Alex | 3b | 117.3 | 2 | Cabrera, Miguel 1776 | dh | 78.8 | |
| 3 | Ramirez, Manny 17 | lf | 102.7 | 3 | Braun, Ryan J. 2300 | lf | 72.0 | |
| 4 | Guerrero, Vladimir | rf | 99.6 | 4 | Trout, Mike 2949 | cf | 70.7 | |
| 5 | giambi, jason | 1b | 96.8 | 5 | Encarnacion, Edwin 2098 | dh | 70.2 | |
| 6 | jones, chipper | 3b | 93.9 | 6 | Gonzalez, Carlos 2460 | rf | 68.2 | |
| 7 | Ortiz, David | dh | 93.8 | 7 | McCutchen, Andrew 2637 | lf | 66.9 | |
| 8 | Berkman, Lance 1261 | 1b lf rf | 90.4 | 8 | Goldschmidt, Paul 2935 | 1b | 62.3 | |
| 9 | sheffield, gary | lf | 89.5 | 9 | Stanton, Giancarlo 2737 | lf dh | 60.9 | |
| 10 | Thome, Jim 77 | 1b dh | 87.3 | 10 | Cruz, Nelson Ramon 2224 | dh | 60.7 | |
| 11 | Delgado, Carlos | 1b | 86.5 | 11 | Bruce, Jay 2453 | lf rf | 59.9 | |
| 12 | Helton, Todd 1060 | 1b | 86.2 | 12 | Cano, Robinson 2092 | 2b | 59.5 | |
| 13 | Bonds, Barry 95 | lf | 85.1 | 13 | Freeman, Freddie 2887 | 1b | 59.4 | |
| 14 | Glaus, Troy 1132 | 3b | 81.1 | 14 | Rizzo, Anthony 3063 | 1b | 58.0 | |
| 15 | Ramirez, Aramis 1364 | 3b | 80.3 | 15 | Upton, Justin 2411 | lf | 57.1 | |
| 16 | Ordonez, Magglio | rf | 77.1 | 16 | Beltre, Adrian 1141 | 3b | 57.1 | |
| 17 | Hunter, Torii 1190 | cf | 76.4 | 17 | Davis, Chris 2478 | 1b | 56.9 | |
| 18 | Tejada, Miguel | ss | 74.8 | 18 | Jones, Adam 2347 | rf | 56.0 | |
| 19 | Burrell, Pat 1346 | lf | 72.5 | 19 | Bautista, Jose Antonio 2169 | rf | 55.4 | |
| 20 | Cabrera, Miguel 1776 | dh | 72.1 | 20 | Donaldson, Josh 3144 | 3b | 55.1 | |
| 21 | kent, jeff | 2b | 72.0 | 21 | Granderson, Curtis 2051 | dh lf ph | 53.3 | |
| 22 | Ibanez, Raul 1137 | lf | 71.7 | 22 | Harper, Bryce 3011 | rf | 49.9 | |
| 23 | Lee, Carlos 1246 | lf | 71.5 | 23 | Ortiz, David | dh | 49.4 | |
| 24 | Konerko, Paul 1107 | 1b | 70.8 | 24 | Posey, Buster 2745 | ca | 49.0 | |
| 25 | Lee, Derrek | 1b | 69.8 | 25 | Kemp, Matt 2151 | lf | 49.0 | |
| 26 | edmonds, jim | cf | 69.1 | 26 | Choo, Shin-Soo 2267 | rf lf | 48.5 | |
| 27 | Beltran, Carlos 1194 | cf | 69.0 | 27 | Votto, Joey 2366 | 1b | 48.2 | |
| 28 | Jones, Andruw | cf | 68.3 | 28 | Kinsler, Ian 2144 | 2b | 48.2 | |
| 29 | Dunn, Adam 1512 | lf | 67.9 | 29 | Reynolds, Mark 2297 | 1b 3b 2b ph | 47.9 | |
| 30 | Abreu, Bobby | rf | 66.3 | 30 | Fielder, Prince 2029 | 1b | 47.7 | |
| 31 | Hafner, Travis 1650 | dh | 65.9 | 31 | Holliday, Matt 1836 | dh 1b lf | 47.2 | |
| 32 | Posada, Jorge | ca | 65.0 | 32 | Gonzalez, Adrian 2193 | 1b | 46.9 | |
| 33 | Rolen, Scott | 3b | 63.9 | 33 | Tulowitzki, Troy 2308 | ss | 46.8 | |
| 34 | anderson, garret | lf | 62.8 | 34 | Cabrera, Asdrubal 2362 | 3b 2b | 45.7 | |
| 35 | giles, brian | rf | 62.7 | 35 | Mauer, Joe 1869 | ca | 45.5 | |
| 36 | Sexson, Richie | 1b | 62.3 | 36 | Napoli, Mike 2161 | ca | 44.7 | |
| 37 | Teixeira, Mark 1738 | 1b | 61.6 | 37 | Murphy, Daniel 2589 | 1b ph | 44.5 | |
| 38 | Lowell, Mike 1224 | dh 3b ph | 60.1 | 38 | Hosmer, Eric 2886 | 1b | 44.5 | |
| 39 | Howard, Ryan 2040 | 1b | 59.6 | 39 | Zimmerman, Ryan 2180 | 1b | 44.1 | |
| 40 | Floyd, Cliff | dh rf lf | 59.1 | 40 | Arenado, Nolan 3306 | 3b | 43.9 | |
| 41 | thomas, frank | dh 1b | 58.1 | 41 | McCann, Brian 2179 | ca | 43.9 | |
| 42 | dye, jermaine | rf | 58.1 | 42 | Cespedes, Yoenis 3008 | lf | 43.9 | |
| 43 | Utley, Chase 1861 | 2b | 55.9 | 43 | Yelich, Christian 3334 | rf | 43.7 | |
| 44 | Beltre, Adrian 1141 | 3b | 55.2 | 44 | Martinez, J.D. 2922 | dh rf | 43.7 | |
| 45 | Soriano, Alfonso 1445 | lf | 54.8 | 45 | Pence, Hunter 2287 | dh lf | 42.5 | |
| 46 | Sosa, Sammy 43 | rf | 54.6 | 46 | Ozuna, Marcell 3190 | lf | 42.2 | |
| 47 | Holliday, Matt 1836 | dh 1b lf | 53.6 | 47 | Ramirez, Hanley 2119 | 1b dh | 41.2 | |
| 48 | Wells, Vernon 1548 | cf | 53.6 | 48 | Trumbo, Mark 2851 | dh rf | 40.9 | |
| 49 | Cameron, Mike | cf | 53.1 | 49 | Seager, Kyle 3031 | 3b | 40.7 | |
| 50 | Millar, Kevin 1243 | 1b | 52.4 | 50 | Martinez, Victor 1695 | ca dh | 40.4 | |
What are those numbers after players' names?
• Active players (as of 2019) are listed by the position they predominantly played most recently (for example, Miguel Cabrera is listed as designated hitter, though he more notably played first or third base throughout his career). Retired players are generally listed at the position they played most prominently during their careers.
• This chart is sortable! Click or tap any of the headers to sort. For example, click the Player header to sort players alphabetically by last name, click again to sort in reverse alphabetical order. Refresh the page to return to standard order.