ESPN's top 100 baseball players of the 00's

TheVon · December 17, 2009 3:59AM

Well, since Markj111 hasn't posted this yet, I thought I would.

See everybody, Neyer doesn't hate Jeter. He's #4 on the list.

Top 100

Goot · December 17, 2009 4:13AM

Chip at #7 and Crawford at #91

K · December 17, 2009 4:43AM

Lot of F***in Yankees on that list... I don't like it!

MCMLVTopps · December 17, 2009 4:48AM

How can you rate a position player with a pitcher and call the list a "top 100"? Pitchers can maybe play a position spot, but position players can't do what pitchers do. Weird list to me. Besides, pitchers pitch every 5th day, the other guys are out there day in and day out. Neyer musth've been bored and decided to come up with this nonesense.

Greg Maddux is so far down the list as to be laughable...anybody think they can pitch like Rivera? I guess steroid use doesn't count in this top 100.

TheVon · December 17, 2009 4:55AM

We Red Sox fans should just be thrilled that we signed the #36 guy to a two year deal. Strangely, I don't feel any better about that signing now than I did before I saw this list.

VitoCo1972 · December 17, 2009 5:03AM

Funny that Rivera is so far down. I'm a huge Red Sox fan that was born in '79 - and have no trouble saying that Mariano Rivera is the best player to ever play in my lifetime.

I can't definitively say that since '79 I've seen the best player ever at one position - except closer. And it's not even close.

KatsCards · December 17, 2009 5:15AM

I'm a little surprised by some of the placements on the list--Ortiz at #53 with Drew at #22 and Beltre at #45 (because he hit 48 homers one season). Maddux should not be that low. And how is Jose Reyes rated so low--lower than Brad Radke and Jose Valentin???

Mickey71 · December 17, 2009 5:56AM

J.D. Drew is the 22nd best player of the entire decade in MLB. That's ridiculous period. Was the writer on crack? Beltran was not #6 either. Crazy list.

Bunker · December 17, 2009 7:44AM

Griffey did not make the list?

Morgoth · December 17, 2009 7:49AM

This list is mentally impared. J.D. Drew isn't top 50. Beltre's one great season nets him two spots higher than Glaus, even the writer states his placement is odd. Also he states Boston has no regrets on the drew signing, wanna bet?

bighurt2000 · December 17, 2009 8:15AM

Yes, Frank Thomas made the list at 97.

James

Mercury10c · December 17, 2009 8:39AM

<< and have no trouble saying that Mariano Rivera is the best player to ever play in my lifetime >>

You cannot be serious. A guy who pitches 1 inning maybe 3 or 4 times a week? Better than Jeter?
Better than Pujols? Better than Arod, Griffey, etc, etc, etc. If you want to say that he is the best
closer to play in your lifetime, I'll agree with that. But best player? No way.

TheVon · December 17, 2009 9:33AM

<< 

<< and have no trouble saying that Mariano Rivera is the best player to ever play in my lifetime >>

You cannot be serious. A guy who pitches 1 inning maybe 3 or 4 times a week? Better than Jeter?
Better than Pujols? Better than Arod, Griffey, etc, etc, etc. If you want to say that he is the best
closer to play in your lifetime, I'll agree with that. But best player? No way. >>

I think if you read the rest of his post you'll see that is basically what he said.

"I can't definitively say that since '79 I've seen the best player ever at one position - except closer. And it's not even close."

VintageCardLover · December 17, 2009 12:53PM

what a ridiculous list.

perkdog · December 17, 2009 1:03PM

<< We Red Sox fans should just be thrilled that we signed the #36 guy to a two year deal. Strangely, I don't feel any better about that signing now than I did before I saw this list. >>

Yea neither do I!

I seriosly cant believe he has him ranked ahead of Chase Utley though...

That list is utterly stupid

frankhardy · December 17, 2009 10:04PM

The list has to be put into proper context. The list is for the best players for the entire decade. Joe Mauer is way, way down on the list, but that's because he has only played just a few full seasons. That's why J.D. Drew is high (too high, IMO) on the list. Maddux being way down on the list is, again, because we are talking about the entire decade. The last few years of his career, he was not the Greg Maddux of the 1990's.

Morgoth · December 17, 2009 11:36PM

Its criminal to place Beltre above Glaus in this list. It seems the guy just looked at who was more productive now and used that rather than their entire 00's output.

Statman · December 17, 2009 11:52PM

Just like everyone else, Drew seems a lot higher than I would have thought. Just because he played the entire decade doesn't make him great. The other one that jumped out was #29 Javier Vasquez. Not saying he doesn't deserve making the list, I just wouldn't have thought of him so high.

Hoopster · December 18, 2009 12:21AM

Seems strange at first, but look at their decade totals...

Name...AVG...OB%....SLG%...OPS+.....Plate Apperances
Ortiz.....283....378.....554.......136..........5653
Drew....286....396.....507.......132..........4850

That is actually pretty close. In terms of value though, Drew's inability to stay healthy puts him 800 plate apperances behind Ortiz, and that widens the gap and gives a larger edge to Ortiz offensively. Also, I don't know how many games Drew sat out or was benched because a left hander was on the mound. That also hurts his value(and saved or plumped his percentages some...the Ken Phelps factor).

To be fair, the writer is counting the entire player, so defense is taken into account as well. If defense is to be ignored, then a guy like Mazeroski should be ignored as well(not in the 2000's of course, but all time).

Drew is going to have an edge defensively due to Ortiz being a DH, and Drew manning right field, and then center field in part time status.

However, in MY estimation, looking at the full season+ worth of plate apperances Ortiz contributed over Drew(due to Drew being a p u s s y), the fact that Drew was also benched vs. left handers at times, and that even though Ortiz played DH, he could have played 1b should the situation dictate it, I put Ortiz ahead of Drew.

Also, Ortiz had a much stronger and more consistent prime where his team could count on that type of production, and build their team accordingly, while Drew's teams never had that luxury.

Ortiz belongs ahead of Drew.

That Mike Cameron signing for the Red Sox is very strange...especially if he is going to play Left Field. He only has value if he could hit like that while manning center field. To put him in left just erases that value. Plus he is getting old.

As for a 'post season player', that myth has been dispelled, broken, smashed, debunked, so that really shouldn't even enter the equation in this list.

P.S. Looking only at an arbitrary timeline like a decade, as presented, is going to give weird and skewed results. Those are 'false' type parameters, as some guy's gretness overlaps those arbitrary timelines. If you want to get a more accurate picture, just line up each players years side by side from year ONe to retirement. Of course, use accurate measurements

jradke4 · December 18, 2009 3:04AM

sosa on the list??? no braun??

Elemenopeo · December 18, 2009 7:46AM

This list could not be more laughable.

DaBeef · December 18, 2009 2:00PM

<< This list could not be more laughable. >>

i agree

fandango · December 18, 2009 10:16PM

<< what a ridiculous list. >>

mr anti-pujols himself..."vintagecardlover" who NEVER TALKS ABOUT VINTAGE CARDS, only buts in and trolls most of the time...

who cares what you think ALT

now back to the post...

the writer forgot to add that Pujols Won the Triple Crown for the decade (amazing feat in itself) eventhough he didnt play all 10 years....

RipublicaninMass · December 19, 2009 8:31AM

" 22
J.D. Drew

Don't laugh. Drew has averaged only 123 games per season, but when he's played he's hit, fielded and run with great skill. The Red Sox knew what they were getting and don't have any regrets."

BUllflop!!

Morgoth · December 19, 2009 12:14PM

Guy was platooned for and was hurt all the time, I don't get the love affair with him but oh well.

DaBeef · December 19, 2009 12:25PM

I cannot understand why Peter Gammons did not want to work with such brilliant people at ESPN. Just think of the conversations he could have had with this guy.

Boopotts · December 19, 2009 1:22PM

<< This list could not be more laughable. >>

That depends on how you're judging it. If you're saying it's laughable because it probably isn't accurate, then yes-- if you're saying it's laughable because someone else could do a better job, then probably not.

Every judging contest has enormous variance-- world class wine tasters have been known to rank a given wine last in one test, and then first in another. The problem with judging is that you're usually dealing with contestants who have very little separating them, which means the results will always lack consistency. This is why I don't pay attention to the college football 'National Championship', the Heisman 'race', nonsense like the MLB Hall of Fame (or, for that matter, all Halls of Fame), figure skating, or the Ms. Universe pageant. Aside from being discussion pieces of at best moderate interest, these kinds of lists have no practical value. They show you nothing about how to evaluate talent, or how to predict going forward how a player is going to perform, or anything else that could rightfully be considered a substantial contribution to the collective understanding of the sport in question. It's all surface noise-- blips on a screen to satisfy a content quota.

ESPN's top 100 baseball players of the 00's

Comments