.280/.393/.540 is about what I would have expected from the young Bonds/old Griffey combo, but the counting stats are a lot more impressive that I thought they'd be. You have to figure that the old Bonds would have never have played past 40 since he couldn't stay healthy, but that would still leave him with about 600 HR, 1700 RBI. So maybe it's Jim Thome's career power numbers and slash stats, plus the great baserunning and defense. That *should* make him a top-30 all time player, but I'm not sure people would have seen him that way (although 600 HR would be hard to ignore).
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Saturday, 1 March 2014 16:37 (ten years ago) link
Before I got into baseball, Ken Griffey Jr was one of the 7-8 non-expos names I knew in baseball.
― Van Horn Street, Saturday, 1 March 2014 21:43 (ten years ago) link
Yes, that makes more sense--add Griffey's totals only for 2001-2007, up to the point where Bonds actually retired (which is what your original post hinted at). Here's what you get: 649 HR, 9930 AB, 2832 H, 5507 TB, 1868 BB, 1966 R, 1836, 482 SB, .285/.399/.555.
Top 30? Just as raw numbers, that's in range of Mays: 660 HR, 338 SB, .302/.384/.557. Mays would move ahead when you start adjusting for era, but young Bonds/old Griffey would still be in the Top 30 with room to spare, I would think.
Something I wrote in 1993 for Radio On:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SjjGanCdBAZ25ya1c2b0FILVk/edit?usp=sharing
I remembered it as being just about Griffey, Thomas, and Gonzalez, but it's also about Bonds and Olerud. I get a little carried away at times--you can tell I'm in full swoon--but I think most of it holds up. I laughed when I read the words "just flipped through the encyclopedia"--a lot of leg work back then. And everyone can be thankful we have WAR instead of "Run Factor."
― clemenza, Saturday, 1 March 2014 22:48 (ten years ago) link
Not from the top 100 players list, but this is fantastic:
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-dutch-leonard-affair/
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Friday, 14 March 2014 07:02 (ten years ago) link
Yeah that was great history.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Friday, 14 March 2014 10:17 (ten years ago) link
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/no-47-albert-pujols/
at least 25 spots too low, imo
― surfbort memes get played out, totally (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 25 March 2014 13:43 (ten years ago) link
Yeah that does seem low to me too.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 25 March 2014 14:05 (ten years ago) link
He's 40th all time in WAR (27th for position players) so it's a defensible ranking based on career value, but the entire writeup focuses on his peak value, so the ranking makes no sense to me.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 15:56 (ten years ago) link
maybe he's just protecting the list in case pujols continues to spiral downward for the next 5 years and then retires, but the whole post is about how his only company is guys like ruth, williams, mays, etc, so putting him at 47 is weird
― surfbort memes get played out, totally (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 25 March 2014 15:57 (ten years ago) link
xp yeah
I bet it's a lot of damn pitchers lurking in the wings
― @ActuallyMattC (Display Name (this cannot be changed):), Tuesday, 25 March 2014 15:59 (ten years ago) link
I think he's hedging his bets too. If Pujols continues to decline, the ranking won't look that unusual down the road--even though, yes, continued decline won't alter his peak value. Without necessarily saying so, I think Posnanski has factored in career value, which is currently a bit up in the air.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 17:15 (ten years ago) link
I'd have to go back and look at the rest of the list, but you could probably predict exactly how many pitchers are coming and exactly who they are.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 17:18 (ten years ago) link
if he was going to punish players for being mid-career, he should have cut off his list at players who retired by 2013
― love and light (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 25 March 2014 18:05 (ten years ago) link
also i can predict the future and have a feeling pujols is going to have a great year this year (i will probably be totally wrong on that but it's a gut feeling i can't deny)
― love and light (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 25 March 2014 18:06 (ten years ago) link
He's been favouring peak over career value for the entire series up until now, so to hedge on Pujols when he was bullish on so many other players (who were nowhere near as dominant as Pujols was) is a bit messed up.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 20:17 (ten years ago) link
The thing Posnanski just posted on serendipitous timing--Catfish Hunter vs. Jim Kaat--is quite good. Trying to think of which players today might be benefiting from good timing or getting lost because of bad timing. Example: if you're a player with a broad range of skills--good average, medium-range power, good fielding and baserunning--you'll be treated more favorably today by writers and in awards voting than you would have in 1985, when you were more likely to have been overlooked. (As you should.) If you're a guy who knocks in 100 runs and doesn't do much else, you've come along at least 20 years too late.
― clemenza, Monday, 7 April 2014 22:59 (ten years ago) link
Well but part of his point around the timing thing is just who is around when you get inducted. It's pretty clear to me that Biggio had retired in 2005 (with 3000 hits of course) he'd probably be in whereas because he's going to get stuck in this glut of dudes he might have to wait another 3 or 4 years to be inducted. Mussina also probably would look at lot better if he retired before this massive glut of pitchers. I mean value of walks (for batters) and strikeouts (for pitchers) and defensive range probably more understood now than well anytime previous, but I don't know that Raines would have been more or less likely to be thought of as a HOFer in 1984 than 2014 because of it...
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 8 April 2014 01:45 (ten years ago) link
I would think for sure there would be a better appreciation of Raines today than in the mid-'80s, when James and Pete Palmer seemed like a chorus of two. I don't know if I can point to a specific player today as evidence, as I'm not sure if there's anyone around who's really similar to Raines. (I don't know, is there? I might be missing someone obvious. You can't use Trout, who's at a whole other level. If you could merge Ellsbury's 2009 and 2011 seasons in the right way, you might have a Raines-type player.))
― clemenza, Tuesday, 8 April 2014 13:04 (ten years ago) link
The only recent player who's in Raines' top 10 B-R sim scores is Johnny Damon (3rd).
― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 8 April 2014 15:08 (ten years ago) link
If Berra's that high, Bench must be really high. Has Piazza come up yet? I'd put him ahead of Berra, I-Rod too.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 22 April 2014 17:27 (ten years ago) link
directly comparing greats from different eras is very often arbitrary.
― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 22 April 2014 23:31 (ten years ago) link
Of course, but that's what we do, right? Probably more with baseball than any other sport--being a fan just wouldn't be the same without such comparisons.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 22 April 2014 23:56 (ten years ago) link
My god this is taking forever.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Thursday, 24 April 2014 13:11 (ten years ago) link
He's stalling, because he wants to be sure that Mark Buehrle's for real.
― clemenza, Thursday, 24 April 2014 22:25 (ten years ago) link
He's stalling because it's taking longer than he thought to process the paperwork for his entry into the witness protection program, which he'll need after ranking Barry Bonds at #1.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Friday, 25 April 2014 05:44 (ten years ago) link
ha!
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 25 April 2014 15:12 (ten years ago) link
(xpost to self) Joe can get on with his countdown now.
― clemenza, Saturday, 26 April 2014 01:26 (ten years ago) link
I don't want to complain too strenuously, because this is available for free, it has been excellent, and it will finish. But Posnanski sure does take a lot of detours between updates. Today, the best places to get ribs.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 23:04 (ten years ago) link
I liked his post about A Few Good Men, the Demi Moore character always pissed me off too.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Wednesday, 7 May 2014 15:42 (ten years ago) link
It's alive!
― clemenza, Monday, 12 May 2014 18:14 (ten years ago) link
I actually thought Pedro might sneak into the Top 25, being on the short list of pitchers where there's a reasonable argument he was the most dominant peak-value pitcher ever (let's say three or four best seasons). Who else...Grove, Clemens, both Johnsons*, a few others. (I'll add Koufax, too, though his mystique has taken a hit because of park-era adjustments.)
*not Josh--saw enough of that guy
― clemenza, Monday, 12 May 2014 19:06 (ten years ago) link
Digging way back but Christy Matthewson ?
― Van Horn Street, Monday, 12 May 2014 21:56 (ten years ago) link
Yes.
There are a bunch of ways you could arrive at such a list. I picked an easy one I could check really fast: four best seasons, all of them 8.0+ WAR, all of them post-1900.
1. Walter Johnson – 51.22. Grover Alexander – 42.93. Cy Young – 41.74. Roger Clemens – 40.85. Lefty Grove – 40.36. Christy Mathewson – 39.37. Randy Johnson – 38.78. Pedro Martinez – 38.49. Rube Waddell – 38.210. Bob Feller – 37.211. Robin Roberts – 35.1
Koufax, Maddux, and Gibson just missed, with a fourth season between 7.0-8.0. (Same for Halladay, although he never reached 9.0 in any one season.) Depending upon how many seasons you set the bar at, and what WAR figure you use--three of 10+, five of 7+--you get a different list.
Johnson #1 is way ahead. Truthfully, I'm a little skeptical of all pitching stats pre-Ruth. I know all adjustments are made, but once you eliminate the home run, it's a very different game. And, I have to believe, an easier one for pitchers.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 01:16 (ten years ago) link
Another point in W. Johnson's favor: although he had lots of 10+ seasons scattered throughout his career, his four best were consecutive (1912-1915).
You can sponsor Walter Johnson's Baseball Reference page for $165. Max Scherzer's will set you back $265, A.J. Burnett's $385. Please tell me at least one of those is a typo.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 01:27 (ten years ago) link
lol
Love Pedro. Ranking seems about right because while esp. those two years (99-00) are off the chart amazing once you go to 5-7-10 year peaks he has a lot of contemporary company and all of those dudes (he's still slightly ahead of Maddux at 7 year, but he falls behind Johnson and Clemens at 4) were better and for longer.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 13 May 2014 13:15 (ten years ago) link
Yeah, the more you stretch out the concept of peak--or the more heavily you weight career--the more Pedro starts to edge downwards.
Any thoughts on how much you trust the statistical dominance of Johnson/Mathewson/Alexander? Johnson's in his mid-30s when Ruth starts to hit home runs, and while he's still very, very good, he's not dominant anymore. I don't know how much of that is attibutable to age, and how much to a changing, less pitcher-friendly game.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 15:54 (ten years ago) link
Just to clarify, it's more like early-mid 30s, and it's not a 10 or 20% decline, it's 50-60%.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:09 (ten years ago) link
i think it's really foolish to compare players across eras, period, but especially so pre-ruth. it was just a completely different game then. you can say walter johnson was the best pitcher of his era, but there's just no way to realistically compare him to seaver or clemens or other dominant pitchers
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:18 (ten years ago) link
That's my thinking exactly. People always put the 19th century to one side, but they're still more or less playing a 19th century game until Ruth comes along. Clearly Johnson and Mathewson and Young and Alexander were great pitchers; I just have doubts about whether they were as great as their 12/13/14 WARs would have it.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 17:04 (ten years ago) link
I think WAR is still somewhat useful for comparing pitchers of the pre-Ruth era to each other, just not to players from the modern era. Basic counting and results-based stats show a pitcher like Mathewson to be dominant, contemporaneous accounts describing him say the same, and his WAR also points to the same thing. But comparing him to Pedro Martinez is just pointless
― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 17:14 (ten years ago) link
No argument with the idea of comparing them to each other--pretty clearly Johnson was the greatest pitcher of his era.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 17:16 (ten years ago) link
"Any thoughts on how much you trust the statistical dominance of Johnson/Mathewson/Alexander? Johnson's in his mid-30s when Ruth starts to hit home runs, and while he's still very, very good, he's not dominant anymore. I don't know how much of that is attibutable to age, and how much to a changing, less pitcher-friendly game."
This has been answered, but yeah I trust it against the era. Do I trust it enough to say that those guys were better pitchers than Clemens/Johnson/Maddux/Martinez? Definitely not. I think there is a good chance those four guys (plus Seaver and maybe Carlton at his best) are the best pitchers to have ever pitched by any objective measure.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 14 May 2014 01:48 (ten years ago) link
Really liked this, and yes, I think it definitely matters, or at the very least matters how you handle it:
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/knowing-arky/#more-2001
I've devoted a good portion of the last 35-40 years to music, films, and baseball. I have lots of gaps in what I know. When one of them comes up, I say so--I wouldn't try to deflect attention away from the gap with derision.
― clemenza, Thursday, 15 May 2014 02:30 (ten years ago) link
He's really obsessed with a Few Good Men.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 May 2014 11:52 (ten years ago) link
And tennis, and soccer, and lots else besides the Top 100 Players in Baseball. He writes well about anything, but I kind of hope his comments continue to dwindle whenever he writes about other things, at least until he finishes that other thing he started. Coming up on one month since he posted #41.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 8 July 2014 15:54 (ten years ago) link
The Top 100 won't be resuming anytime soon--but will, it seems, be completed at some point.
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/a-joeblogs-update/
― clemenza, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 13:04 (ten years ago) link
In emulation of James's "Hey Bill," the launch of "Yo Joe!":
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/yo-joe/#more-2313
― clemenza, Tuesday, 9 September 2014 04:04 (ten years ago) link
those are thouroughly entertaining, I hope he keeps doing them
― Maggie killed Quagmire (collest baby ever) (frogbs), Thursday, 11 September 2014 18:53 (ten years ago) link
If nothing else, he's at least writing about baseball. He writes very well about tennis--well enough that a barely-casual fan like me will read some of his posts--but I still want him to focus on baseball.
― clemenza, Friday, 12 September 2014 00:26 (ten years ago) link