MLB Top 100 of All Time
daltex
Posts: 3,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
ESPN has a little list: https://espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33145121/top-100-mlb-players-all
Thoughts? To get the ball rolling, I'll just say that I think ESPN vastly overrates cultural significance compared to on field results. There are two major issues that you have to resolve making a list like this: PEDs and Negro League stats. Either you can say that PED suspects played as well as they did and evaluate them that way, or you can discount them almost completely out of existence. There is no possible universe where Rodriguez is 26th and Jeter is 28th. Rodriguez has to be a lot higher or a lot lower than Jeter depending on how you consider PEDs.
Similarly, there are either far too many or far too few players who had the bulk of their careers in the Negro Leagues. Like it or not, none of those players has the stats to be in the top hundred. This isn't because they weren't that good, necessarily, but because the stats aren't nearly complete enough to make that kind of assessment. If, on the other hand, you're willing to use anecdotal evidence to show how good Josh Gibson and Oscar Charleston were, than there are many Negro Leaguers who have better reputations than Bryce Harper. Bradford Doolittle has analyzed the list and notes that there are 18 players born between 1880 and 1911 (Gibson) in the top 100, with 15 being primarily from the Al and NL and 3 from the Negro Leagues. It seems unlikely that that is how the best eighteen players of that era would shake out.
I think ultimately everyone who makes this kind of list will have to come to terms with these two questions. ESPN's "Neither fish nor fowl" approach is a complete failure.
Comments
I haven't read the list yet, but I believe I understand your point. They could say, as a made-up example, that a certain player would be ranked #1 all-time, but he is suspected of PED use so he is being left off of the list entirely. Instead, they knock players down the list in a way which is truly inaccurate.
Edited to add: I read through their methodology. And it looks like they used a huge voting system of specific head to head comparisons to create this list. They avoided dealing with the issues all-together.
Dave Winfield at 56, Willie Stargell at 88..........
Stargell should be higher than Winfield.
Pedro Martinez is #11? ALLTIME......
Consuela is very opinionated about this list.
Consuela, I'm going to have to fire you and also what about
Mike Schmidt being way up at number 18 on the list...................
.......
Their methodology allowed for the rankings to flow in an unusual manner.
If anyone just read the list, you should take the time to read how they made the list.
I haven't looked through the list but any list that puts Jeter within 2 spots of ARod is seriously flawed. Jeter was a tremendous player but he wasn't in Alex's league. And that's talking about 20-year old Alex let alone roided-up Alex.
I started to read the list, then my eyes started bleeding so I stopped. That list is crap.
Hank Aaron is a legend but at #3???
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Little disappointed where Cal is on the list.
Nolan Ryan at #42 seems very optimistic
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......