100 greatest baseball players of all time

CollectorAtWork

In 1998, Sporting News put out a list of their 100 greatest players of all time. The list is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sporting_News_list_of_Baseball's_Greatest_Players

Since it's now 12 years since then, which players would you add to the list, and who would you remove. I realize that this is difficult since we're in the steroids era. I would say that these would be certain HOF'ers, so even if the player's career ended soon, they would still be in the HOF. This would remove newer stars like Tim Lincecum. Here's my take:

Add (in no order)
------
(1) Albert Pujols
(2) Derek Jeter
(3) Johan Santana
(4) Randy Johnson
(5) Roy Halliday
(6) Ichiro Suzuki
(7) Mariano Rivera
(8) Pedro Martinez

Remove
----------
(1) Roger Clemens (steroids)
(2) Barry Bonds (steroids)
(3) Mark McGwire (steroids)
(4) Dave Winfield
(5) Wade Boggs
(6) Gaylord Perry
(7) Paul Molitor
(8) Eddie Murray

The players that I'm removing, if not for steroids, I feel were more rewarded for longevity and beign a consistently good player over a long time, rather than a great player. It would be, in their prime, which player I would be more afraid of. Again, this list is only my opinion. Look forward to seeing what others think!

(On a side note, I'm thinking of collecting all of the rookie cards of the top 100 players. Of course, if the cost is too high for a particular player, I'll probably just try to settle for any card of that player.)

TomGshotput

You really think the peak of Lou Brock was higher than Boggs or Murray?

Interesting how only four black players from before 1947 make the list, but no less than 20 from after those years are on it. While the overall breakdown is very close to 50-50 (with all of the top seven pitchers coming from those years)

Very haphazard list, more like 100 great baseball players in a rough order of greatest as opposed to actually putting together something well thought out

As happens all too often, why are there so many hitters from the 1930s?

PowderedH2O

The same thing will happen 50 years from now. Enterprising sportswriters will look and see the great offensive stats and ignore their context. I mean, really, was Carl Yastrzemski's .301 in the year of the pitcher (1968) any less impressive than any other batting titles? But nobody celebrates that as a great season. 10th place in the AL was Frank Howard at .274!!! But, if we go to a season like 1933, 10th place was Pinky Higgins at .314. So, was Higgins in 1933 better than Yaz in 1968 as far as batting average? Heck no!!! The 1930 National League batting race was won by Bill Terry at .401 and he is celebrated as the last National Leaguer to hit .400. Yeah... big deal. 10th place that year was Hack Wilson at .356. That's right, .356 was 10th!!! The league's batting average was .303. The Phillies team hit .315 and finished dead last. So, I guess the Phillies had a lineup of all guys that were better than Yaz too. I'd rather see a list of the top 100 that caps a certain era at maybe 15. We just can't use the inflated numbers to compare players of different times. Had a guy like Fred McGriff put up the numbers he had from 1965-1983, he would have been a first ballot HOFer. But in the times he played, he was just good. Sorry to ramble, but I hate unscientific lists.

BTW, to the OP... still too early on Santana for me. Even Pujols, Halladay too. I know, that at the rate Pujols is going he has the potential to be one of those elite immortal type guys up there with Ruth and Mays. But, if he were to just suddenly drop to mere mortal status this year or next year and play six more seasons at a decent clip and then retire, I'm not sure he would rate above Eddie Murray. So, I need just a little bit more.

Mickey71

Halliday is not 1 of the 100 greatest players of all time either is Santana. They have a lot more work to do. The rest I have no problem with.

ShawnyD

removing boggs and murray? ridiculous. Even without the roids barry bonds still would have have hit 600 dingers.

edmundfitzgerald

The physical evidence on Puljos (increased head size, massive frame and legs) leads me to strongly believe that he
was trained by someone who put HGH in his coffee. I would take him off the list.

Any power hitter today should be off the list.

Didn't Roger Clemens strike out 20 Seattle Mariners before he started his increased body shape ?

Heck, even look at Greg Maddux's rookie card, and the size of his legs ten years later.

Too many guys on roids this era to ever include any of them (except Mariano and maybe a few others)

digicat

<< <i>The physical evidence... >>



You pretty much have to close the record books in 1984 to keep baseball pure.

Blacklabelsociety

<< <i>removing boggs and murray? ridiculous. Even without the roids barry bonds still would have have hit 600 dingers. >>



Agreed 100%

Murray hit 500 homers and 3000 hits and in company with only what 2-3 other players?

megatron

<< <i>

<< <i>removing boggs and murray? ridiculous. Even without the roids barry bonds still would have have hit 600 dingers. >>



Agreed 100%

Murray hit 500 homers and 3000 hits and in company with only what 2-3 other players? >>



Yup, switch hitter, too. And a mean mustache and side burns to top it off.

TomGshotput

Murray was in the top five in MVP voting six times (in addition to beign a consistently good player over a long time). Not sure how being fifth best in the league falls short of being great, but I guess there must be at least 100 players who can match that

Santana and Halladay over Glavine and Smoltz doesn't make much sense

Others who did enough over the past 12 years to make the list would include Piazza, Rodriguez, Bagwell, Thomas, Jones and maybe Guerrero

CollectorAtWork

Pujols has already won 3 MVPs. I think he's already in. I can't forsee him having a Juan Gone drop-off. Maddux was never a power pitcher. It's hard (although I agree, not impossible) to put him in the steroids bracket. Santana has already won 2 Cy Young's and Halliday one. I'm not saying that if you win an MVP or Cy Young, you're definitely in, but if you haven't, you would need really good credentials. Of the list that I have for Adds, only Jeter and Rivera don't have MVP's or Cy Youngs. You can argue that Jeter might be able to reach 4000 hits and Rivera is the best relief pitcher ever.

Eddie Murray has never won an MVP. Neither has Wade Boggs. Murray's career to me is more longevity. I'm also one of those believers in "Let's not vote him in just because he's in a weak position." For example, just because Piazza has some of the best stats for catcher doesn't mean that he should be in the Top 100 (or even in the HOF). If you compared his stats to a 1st baseman, that would pale considerably. The players in the top 100 need to have some characteristic that makes them great. That's why Brock is in, for his base stealing. Frankly, I'm iffy on Ozzie Smith. I believe the Hall has always emphasized offense much more than defense even if Ozzie was the best.

DeutscherGeist

Removing Boggs does not make sense. In his prime, only Gwynn could match him. Boggs did extend his career for 3000 hits, but he really had a dominant prime in terms of hitting, getting on base, and slugging doubles.

CARDBOARDZOMBIE

<< removing boggs and murray? ridiculous. Even without the roids barry bonds still would have have hit 600 dingers. >>
Agreed 100%
Murray hit 500 homers and 3000 hits and in company with only what 2-3 other players? >>
Yup, switch hitter, too. And a mean mustache and side burns to top it off.>>

I must agree as well. Murray and Boggs should be there. Bonds was getting MVPs before the roids.

Hallco

Winfield, Boggs, Molitor, Murray and Ozzie Smith were all 1st Ballot Hall of famers. Just sayin'!

larryallen73

I think the list of the "100" greatest baseball players should have at least 250 players by the time we are done with it here!

markj111

No way for Rivera. Too soon for Halliday or Santana. I think not on Suzuki. Not sure on Pedro. I do not know who I would take out. Probably Winfield and Molitor of the ones shown. Others include Fingers (a joke as a top 100), Dean and Campanella (short careers), Ryan and Rose (great ballplayers, but way overrated), and Wynn.

UlyssesExtravaganza

Add Frank Thomas, Ichiro, Randy Johnson, and Dan Gladden. Remove Perry, Fingers and Early Wynn.

PowderedH2O

Again, you have to let player's careers flesh out a bit before enshrining them. If you looked at Dave Parker after 1979, would you think he was headed to the HOF? How about George Foster around 1981? These weren't just good players. These were the elite players of baseball. I don't think the Pirates would have traded Parker after 1979 for any player in baseball. Not Brett, Schmidt, Rose, Rice, Dawson, anyone! He was a batting champion with decent power and was a stud in the outfield. But things happen, and Parker only gets in with a ticket. Same thing with Doc Gooden and Denny McLain. Yes, Santana and Halladay look great. But it is still early. Santana had 122 wins through 2009. Blyleven is still waiting to get in with more than double that, and more than double Santana's strikeout total. I am well aware that Santana at his prime is more dominant than Blyleven. But an injury here and a nick there and a dominant fastball becomes an average fastball. And the next thing you know, that promising young career becomes a good career, but not a HOF one (Bret Saberhagen, Frank Tanana, John Candelaria, Jimmy Key, maybe Tim Hudson, etc...). Jim Maloney had 134 wins at age 29. Never won another game. Steve Blass had a similar breakdown. And Chris Short. Let's hold off on enshrining those pitchers until they put a few more top notch seasons in the books.

mcadams

<< <i>Add Frank Thomas, Ichiro, Randy Johnson, and Dan Gladden. Remove Perry, Fingers and Early Wynn. >>



Add Dan Gladden? Really? Weren't his best years in Japan...and even if he played his whole career in the AL, he wouldn't make the top 500. If you were joking and I misunderstood, forgive me.

-Michael

fandango

good thread...

reminds me, i think JOE O made a mistake not including Pujols in his most recent coffee table book....i think he needs to make the second addition....

hammered

<< <i>Add Frank Thomas, Ichiro, Randy Johnson, and Dan Gladden. Remove Perry, Fingers and Early Wynn. >>




Not Gladden. Tom Brunansky, maybe.

CollectorAtWork

Regarding the debate on Santana and Halliday, don't forget that Koufax only had 165 wins in his career. You can argue that he left early, but the fact is, he left. Santana, to date, is 123-60 with a 3.11 ERA, which compares favorably with Koufax's 165-87, 2.76 ERA. No question Koufax is better, but Koufax is #26 on the Sporting News list, and no one is talking about taking him off the list. Santana is worse, but more than 75 spots worse? I think if Santana can have 2 good years, which I fully expect, he's in, probably around #80 or so. Roy Halliday is 149-76 with a 3.42 ERA. A bit worse, I agree. However, now that Halladay is out of the AL Beast, I fully expect in the next couple of years, his ERA to get better.

ShawnyD

Santana is on the downside of a nice career, he's no Koufax.
Halliday needs several more good seasons to be on that list. I love Roy, I love that he finishes games, unfortunately playing on a mediocre Toronto team for most of his career didnt do him any favors.

Bristow

(8) Eddie Murray


500 hr 3000 hits he still should be on there

fandango

<< <i>(8) Eddie Murray


500 hr 3000 hits he still should be on there >>



welcome to the boards!

is that your BC pujols?

Bristow

I wish Just an avatar

coinkat

sorry but this type of list is a waste of time and is comparing apples to oranges

The game has changed- Walter Johnson and Babe Ruth can not be compared to the stars of the past twenty years.

The better approach is to have break this down by era and position.

The bigger problem is that sports fans seem to think all of this can be nicely tracked by numbers and numbers mean that somehow players can be ranked in some type of Greatest of all time list...

ROTFLMAO

TomGshotput

How can you better understand the sport (or anything) if you only make comparisons based on how things are similar, not different?

Walter Johnson played in a much different era than Greg Maddux

Joe Mauer plays a much different position than Derek Jeter

Reggie Jackson produced much different offensive events than Pete Rose

Whitey Ford had much different run support than Robin Roberts and Roberts pitched for a much longer time than Sandy Koufax and Koufax pitched in much different ballparks than Hal Newhouser and Newhouser was in a much different country for parts of the 1940s than Bob Feller

To dismiss those things as incomparable seems the most laughable approach

PowderedH2O

Baseball invites these comparisons. If it is like comparing apples and oranges then we should never talk about the past. Sorry, but as a baseball fan, there is nothing that is more enjoyable than looking at the rich history of the game and wondering what Sandy Koufax in his prime would do against Babe Ruth in his prime. Or wondering how would Jimmie Foxx do against Mariano Rivera. Yes, the game has changed, but it is still the game.

billwaltonsbeard

where does Gary Carter's perm fit into all this?

UlyssesExtravaganza

I was totally kidding about Gladden. Top 3500 maybe he gets in.

markj111

<< <i>I was totally kidding about Gladden. Top 3500 maybe he gets in. >>





If you're a Braves fan, he does not make the top 35,000.

coinkat

Compare Greg Maddux and Walter Johnson-

Explain the basis for your methodology and have fun

TomGshotput

Count the number of years each pitcher was the best or one of the very best in his league; count the number of seasons where he may not have been the best, but still a true ace; count the number of seasons he was a solid contributor. Compare ERA, walks, strikeouts, innings pitched, et cetera, to the other starters in the league. Look into ballparks they pitched in and defenses they had behind them. Read the opinions of other people who have put a great deal of thought into baseball history. Consider the various ways the game has changed over the decades

Do you really think taking a few minutes to do something like could never reveal anything about the sport and its history?

PowderedH2O

Using baseball-reference.com's statistical analysis, Walter Johnson rates #1 in all-time pitchers in black ink (leading the league in important statistical categories) and Greg Maddux rates as #10. Using the gray ink test (top ten in the league in the same categories), Johnson is #2 behind Cy Young. Maddux is #11. I think that is a fair marker of comparison. Johnson is the greatest pitcher of all-time, or very close, depending upon how you measure it. Maddux is not to that level, but is a sure thing HOFer.

markj111

Without taking sides, I will note that Johnson pitched in a league that had about half as many teams as in Maddux's era. Both were great pitchers.

DIMEMAN

How can the ALL TIME hit leader be over rated?!?!?!?

The HOF is NOT complete until Pete Rose is IN and the barf bag comish is OUT!!!!!!

coinkat

Not to argue... the differences that lead to numbers is what really can not be measured-

Johnson's ERA:

Lets figure 1907 to 1927 and look how the game changed in those twenty years... For example and I don't have a record book in front of me, but Batting and team Home Runs- Probably no team in the American League (or National) in 1907 likely hit over 45-50HRs as a team- The 1927 Yankees as team probably hit at least 150 to 180 if not more- probably more.

Travel- there was no teams west of the Mississippi

mode of travel- mostly by train

There were no night games

The leagues were smaller- faced the same opponents more often

AL-NY, Wash, Det, Phil, Chi, Cleve, Bos and the St Louis Browns

Eventually a 154 game schedule was adopted

In terms of comparing a pitcher- one really needs to look who else is on the team- defensively and offensively- One can not just look at numbers to define a pitcher- What if Johnson had pitched for NY?

TomGshotput

<< <i>In terms of comparing a pitcher- one really needs to look who else is on the team- defensively and offensively >>



So why do you refuse to do that?

Why did you originally state so definitively that differences in travel and schedule and teammates and opponents could not be compared, then go ahead and do just that?

PowderedH2O

Again, I was comparing Johnson to his peers and Maddux to his peers. Johnson's numbers against his peers were more impressive. Yes, the game has changed. But I think it is an even swap. Johnson played no night games. He played against all white guys. He never made a west coast trip. He pitched against the same seven teams over and over. But, he also had to take trains everywhere. He had to finish almost all of his games because the relief pitching was mainly failed starters. When Johnson had an injury, he had the benefit of early 20th century medicine. Johnson probably never had the benefit of watching film of his opponent (or if he did, it was rare). He also made money, but not the kind of money Maddux made. So, each pitcher had to deal with their own time periods. But, all of the other pitchers in those time periods dealt with the same obstacles. On a scale of 1-100, If Johnson is a 100, Maddux is in the 90's.

coinkat

I have not made comparisons- just pointed to some of the issues that would have to be dealt with for those that choose to make comparisons

WinPitcher

<< <i>

<< <i>Add Frank Thomas, Ichiro, Randy Johnson, and Dan Gladden. Remove Perry, Fingers and Early Wynn. >>



Add Dan Gladden? Really? Weren't his best years in Japan...and even if he played his whole career in the AL, he wouldn't make the top 500. If you were joking and I misunderstood, forgive me.

-Michael >>




Ummm I think he was being sarcastic.


Steve

Mickey71

I also believe Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher of all time. His ERA and shut outs record is just awesome. He was clearly dominant.

You generally can only compare pitchers within their own era; and he was by far the best.

rbdjr1

Pedro Martinez? I think he shrunk?

rd


"Pound for pound", one of the greatest pitchers ever! IMHO!