Actually forgot all about this...From yesterday: #3, Bonds.
Probably the longest entry yet, divided into "For Bonds Fans"/"For Bonds Critics" arguments and counter-arguments.
― clemenza, Thursday, 9 April 2020 16:32 (four years ago) link
Another reason I think Mays will be #1: he's still alive. Someone, I'm sure, will get word to him that a prominent baseball writer has been counting down his greatest-players-ever, and he was picked as the greatest. Towards the end of life, I think that's something anybody would appreciate.
― clemenza, Friday, 10 April 2020 06:58 (four years ago) link
#2, Ruth. (Didn't think there'd be a post today, but there is.)
― clemenza, Friday, 10 April 2020 11:13 (four years ago) link
I hardly ever read online comments--irony: I'm on ILX--but I thought I'd take a glance after the Ruth entry. 15 minutes after posting, there are about 20 already. Only one seems negative:
"Say it ain't so Joe! The logic that would NOT make Ruth hands down, no argument #1, should not even make him top 100. We get it Joe: you're woke, but...no, the Bambino is of course #1."
Happily, someone called this idiot out on the "woke" part.
― clemenza, Friday, 10 April 2020 11:21 (four years ago) link
wonder how many times that commenter saw ruth play?
gotta give it up for the #1, Pete Kozma
― let me be your friend on the other end! (Karl Malone), Friday, 10 April 2020 14:36 (four years ago) link
#1, yes.
Sounds a little apocryphal, but...
That year, 1954, was an incredible one for Mays. He’d missed almost all of the previous two seasons while serving in the Army, and he looked rusty for the first three or four weeks of the season. And then, on May 6, things kicked in. Over the next 24 games, he hit .424 with 13 homers. Later in June, he had a seven-game stretch where he went 15-for-26 with seven home runs.
At the All-Star Break, he had 31 home runs. He was ahead of Babe Ruth’s 60-home run pace. The press kept asking Mays if he thought he had a shot at the record, but at the end of July, he stopped even trying. Durocher had asked him to give up home runs and to, instead, get on base more and spark more rallies.
Here’s how good Willie Mays was: He did just that. He hit only five homers the rest of the season. But he also hit .379/.442/.601 with 16 doubles and seven triples.
― clemenza, Monday, 13 April 2020 15:44 (four years ago) link
He has a post up today about the death of his 95-year-old grandmother--not directly COVID-related (though she was tested), but related in that his own mother was only allowed to communicate with her over the phone.
― clemenza, Sunday, 19 April 2020 17:16 (four years ago) link
New project:
"I’m tentatively calling it 60 Moments. My editor Kaci Borowski and I are still playing with the name. But here’s the idea: I’m going to count down the 60 greatest moments in baseball history(!)(?)."
As a Jays fan, I want Ernie Whitt's grand slam when the Jays erased a 10-run deficit against the Red Sox to be Top 10, but I'm going to guess it might not make the list.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 21 April 2020 23:34 (four years ago) link
A couple of things:
First, I wanted to pass along some pretty exciting news: The Baseball 100 is about to become a book. So many of you have asked about that for years, and now it’s going to happen. The great folks at my publishing house, Avid Reader, are going to publish the book in October to coincide with the World Series (and, sure, hopefully in time for you to buy many many copies as Christmas gifts for friends and family). I’m very excited about it, obviously, but particularly for two reasons:
1. The Baseball 100 will NOT be a coffee table book. No offense to coffee table books, I love them, but the Baseball 100 was meant to READ. I feel like it has some of the best writing that I’ve ever done, and while that might not mean a whole lot in the grand picture, it does mean quite a bit to me, and I would like for the book to be the sort you could take to the beach, take on a train or a plane, read in bed at night. I mean, don’t get me wrong, it will be big — 300,000 words is a lot of words — but my editor and friend Jofie Ferrari-Adler and the folks at Avid are dedicated to designing the book for readers. I love that.
2. One of America’s greatest journalists and baseball fans has agreed to write the introduction. No, more than agreed — he ASKED to write the introduction. It’s an incredible honor, and I can’t wait to tell you who it is.
Also:
Second, I want you to be the first to know about the project that I’m about to start at The Athletic: I’m going to count down (aw, come on, not another countdown) the 100 greatest players (so unoriginal) who are NOT in the Hall of Fame. It’s not going to be exactly like the Baseball 100 in that I’m not going to do an individual essay on all 100 players. I’ll do very short essays, 10 at a time, on the first 70. The final 30 players will each get his own essay.
Here’s the fun part: I’m going to do it in the order that I would vote them into the Hall of Fame. So it won’t necessarily be in the order of the players’ greatness on the field. In fact, I can tell you that it definitely will not be in the order of the players’ greatness. It’s a much more holistic kind of list. That project will begin on December 1 and end on the day the Hall of Fame announces its new inductees. I hope you come along for the ride.
― clemenza, Thursday, 19 November 2020 14:24 (three years ago) link
I hope, and assume, the not-in-the-Hall list won't duplicate the six or seven players on the 100-greatest list who aren't not-in-the-Hall because they're not good enough.
― clemenza, Thursday, 19 November 2020 15:43 (three years ago) link
How does that happen?!
― FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 19 November 2020 20:05 (three years ago) link
Maybe I garbled that. I'm talking about Bonds, Clemens, Rose, etc. He's already written entries for them on the greatest-ever list; he doesn't need to write another one (or duplicate the same entry) for the not-in-the-Hall list.
― clemenza, Thursday, 19 November 2020 20:27 (three years ago) link
Just noticed yesterday that he'd started his countdown of "the Outsiders"; he's halfway finished. From the Rick Reuschel entry (#51): "In fact, over his career he had 158 quality starts that were either losses or no-decisions. That ranks eighth in the expansion era. In those starts, Reuschel was 0-81 with a 2.45 ERA."
― clemenza, Tuesday, 8 December 2020 16:17 (three years ago) link
In those starts [quality starts that were either losses or no-decisions], Reuschel was 0-81 with a 2.45 ERA."
i always wish there was a baseline for that kind of stat, like the average SP's ERA in their quality starts that weren't wins. because the very worst ERA you can have in a quality start is 4.50, right? (6 innings, 3 earned runs). so it wouldn't surprise me if the average was around 3.00 or something...i don't know. it's still sounds impressive (especially just the sheer quantity of them). i guess it's also hard to compare between eras, since reuschel was pitching in a lower scoring environment for a lot of his career.
what i'm saying is that we need a no-win Quality Starts era-neutralized composite stat. it can be called, QDERAR:LKJEPR#@R134+
― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 8 December 2020 16:24 (three years ago) link
*joe morgan lets out a bloodcurdling scream from the beyond*
That's a good point. It's like the first time you hear Team X has only lost once when leading after 8 innings and you go "Wow," and then you find out that that's pretty much true of every team. My guess is that Reuschel's no-win quality-start ERA is below the norm. And I'm not sure if he'd be that affected by any adjustment--a lot of his career was spent in Wrigley, and that would even out any era adjustment.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 8 December 2020 21:42 (three years ago) link
Oh, for sure. I don’t doubt that reuschel is way below the average ERA in that situation, or that posnaski didn’t put in the time to check. I’m just always curious about what the actual baseline is!
― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 8 December 2020 21:52 (three years ago) link
This Outsiders list is in some ways more interesting than the Top 100 list, which was players who get written about to death; instead, all these great players who will fade from view because they missed the HOF. (#41: Bobby Abreu.) The entries are short enough that I hope he appends everything to the Top 100 book.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 9 December 2020 16:05 (three years ago) link
and you go "Wow," and then you find out that that's pretty much true of every team
the worst case of this was a few years ago when some HOF voter said he was considering not voting for mariano rivera because he had a really bad ERA in games that he lost. he didn't have any other reasons, he clearly just saw the stat in a tweet or something and didn't look into it. and then constructed an entire narrative that mo was a phony because his ERA was bad in games where he gave up runs.
― ✖, Wednesday, 9 December 2020 23:39 (three years ago) link
(Haven't read the article as I don't have a subscription) I would have thought Pos would rank Reuschel higher, I always thought he had a very decent case for the HOF. I'm a sucker for longevity cases, but there is a zone in the 60-70 WAR/3000 + IP/ between 3.00 and 3.50 era/fip in which some players are in (Glavine, Bunning, Palmer, Drysdale) and others aren't (Lolich, Koosman, Friend) and it seems only tea leaves are separating them.
― Van Horn Street, Thursday, 10 December 2020 03:31 (three years ago) link
reuschel played for some awfully shitty teams, not least the mid-80s pirates, so he didn't get the wins
but also he barely broke 2k K's, only twice approached a cy, gave up more hits than innings pitched
i love him but he's a hall-of-really-good guy
― mookieproof, Thursday, 10 December 2020 04:37 (three years ago) link
Now that he's into the Top 30, full essays. The Schilling piece is not what I expected:
https://theathletic.com/2250850/2020/12/11/top-mlb-outside-the-hall-of-fame-curt-schilling/
(Probably paywalled--I can put it on a Google Doc later, Joe always said that was okay ocassionally.)
― clemenza, Friday, 11 December 2020 17:11 (three years ago) link
that's well said and is very close to my own change in thinking about the hall. there was another voter last year - pretty sure it was keith law - who wrote a short diatribe expressing his newfound disillusionment with the institution. i think more and more people might start to think this way (though pos obviously isn't writing off the HOF entirely)
for most of my time as a baseball fan i saw the HOF as nothing more than another argument to win. it was a major battleground in the endless stats vs tradition culture war and another opportunity to feel smug. that's what it is for most dingholes on the internet. and when a player like edgar or blyleven finally gets in, it gives us dingholes a big validating endorphin rush. so you keep campaigning for guys on the outside looking in, because the more you care about the more you stand to win when they win.
last year the players that i would've rooted for the hardest on a statistical basis were a bigot (schilling), 2 wife beaters (bonds and andruw), and a statutory rapist (clemens). (and scott rolen, who i don't believe is caught up in any shit.) it's really hard to continue seeing a HOF win as a win for truth and rightness when that's that cast of characters who stand to actually benefit. like pos, i stopped seeing the Hall as an abstract concept and started seeing it the way that i think most of the players themselves see it - a ceremony meant to honor men, an opportunity for honored men to get up on stage and make a speech about their whole lives and their whole selves, not just the numbers on the back of their baseball card. that's what i see now when i think of HOF elections - not a plaque reeling off achievements, but a man walking up to a podium.
the kicker for me was actually harold baines. after he was voted in, everyone basically agreed that he didn't deserve it but people kept talking about the speech - that he was a great, well liked guy who played for a million years, probably had a lot of stories to tell, and he deserves to get up there and command our attention for x minutes. i honestly never even watched an entire ceremony, i never cared about them. people would say so and so gave a great speech, and i'd think "i should watch that when i have time" and then i never had the time. my feelings about the HOF were about me, not them.
that's how i see the hall now. regardless of what the hall says about itself, it's really just an opportunity for players to stand up there and build their public profiles, add value to their autographs, elevate their eventual biographies a little more into hagiographies. i don't want that to happen for any of these assholes. so i just don't see the value in it anymore.
― ✖, Saturday, 12 December 2020 01:57 (three years ago) link
I want to add that the hockey and basketball hall of fame have women enshrined and I think it’s time for the BBWA writer to take a proper stand on this.
― Van Horn Street, Saturday, 12 December 2020 02:00 (three years ago) link
X -- I really like your post, even though I'm not where you are in my own thinking. Which, at this point, is more muddled than ever. I want Schilling in, remain indifferent to Bonds and Clemens, and balk at the idea of Baines (and Vizquel, and other good guys)--is there any consistency there? In my mind there is, but I don't know anymore. I want Dick Allen in; he was considered a bad guy for most of his career, now he's a good guy. I'm fine with Kirby Puckett; good guy (more than just good) when he played, now a villain. I suspect Posnanski's Schilling piece today may be seen as influential down the road. Sean Foreman voted for Tim Hudson, left Schilling off.
― clemenza, Saturday, 12 December 2020 03:35 (three years ago) link
tbf i don't think anyone in the world outside of jerry reinsdorf wanted baines in the HOF
― ✖, Saturday, 12 December 2020 09:12 (three years ago) link
Something of an extension to his Schilling post, Joe argues today that both Felipe Alou and Dusty Baker should be in (or, more accurately, that there should be a mechanism in place for the likes of hybrid careers like Felipe Alou's and Dusty Baker's): "Honor great baseball lives." I don't disagree. I used to make more or less the same argument for Leo Durocher, before he was finally inducted in 1994--that he was so integral to so much baseball history, the sum was greater than the parts. (Durocher's managerial career was actually pretty similar to Baker's: good career winning pct., very little to show for it in terms of postseason success.)
― clemenza, Friday, 18 December 2020 16:15 (three years ago) link
Pete Rose, #9 on Posnanski's Outsiders list. I figured out a way to quickly compile the whole list--I'll do that later today.
― clemenza, Thursday, 14 January 2021 16:41 (three years ago) link
ooh that wld be great, thanks
― early-Woolf semantic prosody (Hadrian VIII), Thursday, 14 January 2021 16:42 (three years ago) link
100. Juan Alberto González Vázquez99. Fredric Michael (Fred) Lynn98. Rocco Domenico (Rocky) Colavito97. Albert Jojuan Belle96. Samuel James (Jimmy) Tilden Sheckard95. Quincy Thomas Trouppe94. Fernando Valenzuela Anguamea93. Darrell Wayne Evans92. Steven Patrick (Steve) Garvey91. David Gene (Dave) Parker90. Frank Oliver Howard89. Albert (Al) Oliver88. Willie Larry Randolph87. William Lance Berkman86. Paul Aloysius Hines85. Ronald Ames Guidry84. Walter Anton (Wally) Berger83. Dwight Eugene (Doc) Gooden82. Elston Gene Howard81. Orel Leonard Hershiser IV80. William Nuschler (Will) Clark Jr.79. Urbain Jacques (Urban Shocker) Shockcor78. Jorge Rafael Posada Villeta77. Louis Rogers (Pete) Browning76. Bobby Lee Bonds75. Timothy Adam (Tim) Hudson74. Francis Joseph (Lefty) O’Doul73. James Sherman (Jim or Jimmy) Wynn72. John Garrett Olerud71. David Gus (Buddy) Bell70. Howard Ellsworth (Smoky Joe) Wood
T-69. Omar Enrique Vizquel GonzálezDavid Ismael (Dave) Concepción BenitezDagoberto (Bert, Campy) Campaneris BlancoMark Henry Belanger
“I basically think all four players have roughly an equal Hall of Fame case to me. If I had to rank them in the order I’d vote them in, I suppose I’d go like this:
1. Bert Campaneris2. Omar Vizquel3. Dave Concepción4. Mark Belanger
But honestly, as players, I’d vote them all in or none of them.”
68. Torii Kedar Hunter67. Dan Raymond Quisenberry66. Richard Benjamin (Dick) Lundy65. Charles Ernest (King Kong) Keller64. Andrew Eugene (Andy) Pettitte63. Mark Alan Buehrle62. John Wesley (Jack) Glasscock61. Roger Eugene Maris
T-60. Vernon Decatur (Vern) StephensAnthony Nomar Garciaparra
59. Walter Williams (Billy) Pierce58. Stanley Camfield (Stan) Hack57. Grant U. (Home Run) Johnson56. Wesley Cheek (Wes) Ferrell55. Salvatore Leonard (Sal) Bando54. Maurice Morning (Maury) Wills53. Donald Arthur (Don) Mattingly52. William Henry (Willie) Davis51. Rickey Eugene (Rick) Reuschel50. William Frederick (Bill) Dahlen49. William Ashley (Bill) Freehan48. Bernabé (Bernie) Williams Figueroa Jr.47. Sherwood Robert (Sherry) Magee46. James Lee (Jim) Kaat45. John Christopher Beckwith44. Vada Edward Pinson43. Thurman Lee Munson42. Theodore Roosevelt (Double Duty) Radcliffe41. Bob Kelly (Bobby) Abreu40. Thomas Edward (Tommy) John39. Jeffrey Franklin Kent38. Alejandro Oms37. Kenton Lloyd (Ken) Boyer36. David Andrew (Dave) Stieb35. Pedro (Tony) Oliva López Hernándes34. James Kevin Brown33. Graig Nettles32. Rafael Palmeiro Corrales31. Bret William Saberhagen30. Curt Schilling29. Reggie Smith28. Doc Adams27. Johan Santana26. David Cone
T-25. Felipe AlouDusty Baker
T-24. Sammy SosaGary Sheffield
23. Fred McGriff22. Keith Hernandez21. John Donaldson20. Manny Ramirez19. Todd Helton18. Bobby Grich
T-17. Luis TiantBilly Wagner
16. Kenny Lofton
T-15. Andruw JonesJim Edmonds
14. Mark McGwire13. Gil Hodges12. Shoeless Joe Jackson11. Dale Murphy10. Dwight Evans9. Pete Rose
Cutting, pasting, cutting--not that onerous. So really there’s going to be 110-120 players by the time he finishes. (He should have had Rose and Shoeless Joe as a tie.) He stopped with the full names inside of #30--I really liked those. I'll update as he counts down.
― clemenza, Thursday, 14 January 2021 19:39 (three years ago) link
terrific, thanks p!
― early-Woolf semantic prosody (Hadrian VIII), Thursday, 14 January 2021 19:43 (three years ago) link
79. Urbain Jacques (Urban Shocker) Shockcor62. John Wesley (Jack) Glasscock
normal baseball names, nothing to see here
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 14 January 2021 19:47 (three years ago) link
Shockcor was a shocker--never knew that.
― clemenza, Thursday, 14 January 2021 19:52 (three years ago) link
Schilling was on his Top 100 list, so he does allow overlap...with that in mind, I'm trying to guess the remaining eight.
Bonds and Clemens. (But not A-Rod--when he began, he put him in a separate list of best 10 players not yet eligible.) Probably a tie at #1.
Lou Whitaker, Scott Rolen, Buck O'Neill...and then I get stuck.
― clemenza, Thursday, 14 January 2021 22:10 (three years ago) link
8. Curt Flood
Of course--when I was trying to guess yesterday, I was scanning WAR charts on Baseball Reference, down to about 60 career WAR. I added O'Neil because Posnanski was his friend and has written numerous columns on him. Now that Joe has clearly factored character-counts into his advocacy, Flood is an obvious choice. (Posnanski sits about halfway on that question, I'd say--he's still going to have Bonds and Clemens on his list. He's an inch to the right of wherever Schilling exists on that spectrum.)
I sent this a Hey Bill" into James last summer:
This years Veteran's Committee ("The Golden Era"--ugh) covers Curt Flood's window, 1950-1969. I think Flood should be in the HOF already, but voting him in this year, would, I feel, make a strong statement about the moment we're in. Not sure if you agree--you may not--but if you do, the problem then becomes how do you categorize him? He was a good player who falls short based on his on-field career, with the mitigating circumstance that his career was cut short because of the very thing you'd be inducting him for. But can you call him a builder? That seems weird.
Answered: 8/29/2020Player and pioneer.
So he didn't say whether or not he agrees that Flood should be inducted.
― clemenza, Friday, 15 January 2021 13:19 (three years ago) link
(I said on some thread the other day that all my posts strategically leave out one word. Except when I strategically add one--get rid of that "this.")
― clemenza, Friday, 15 January 2021 13:23 (three years ago) link
i have been working on leaving out one additional word per post, every year that i'm on ilx. by the end, my posts will just be one or two words, tops, and probably just conjunctions by that point
didn't say so explicitly, but any true "pioneer" of the game (like Flood) is HOF-worthy, imo.
― Karl Malone, Friday, 15 January 2021 17:23 (three years ago) link
I'm a month late with this, but a category for "hybrid" HOF careers is sorely needed.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Sunday, 17 January 2021 22:40 (three years ago) link
7. Dick Allen
I must have assumed he'd already been listed.
― clemenza, Monday, 18 January 2021 14:37 (three years ago) link
That leaves Bonds, Clemens, O'Neil, and Whitaker for sure, I think; Rolen probably (doesn't make sense to me that he'd be this high, but it makes even less sense that he wouldn't be in the Top 100); plus one more.
― clemenza, Monday, 18 January 2021 14:39 (three years ago) link
O’Neill I wasn’t expecting.
― FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 18 January 2021 20:54 (three years ago) link
Paul O'Neill at #3 will not make me happy.
(If you go back a few posts, I misspelled his name too!)
― clemenza, Monday, 18 January 2021 23:03 (three years ago) link
I don’t see it at all. He’s nowhere near those other guys.
― FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 19 January 2021 02:45 (three years ago) link
Buck O'Neil in; Paul O'Neill, no.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 19 January 2021 05:56 (three years ago) link
(Unless you mean Buck O'Neil shouldn't go in as a player. I don't know enough about his playing career, but I'm basing that on this move in the direction of character, combined with Posnanski's friendship with him.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 19 January 2021 05:58 (three years ago) link
6. Lou Whitaker
― clemenza, Tuesday, 19 January 2021 13:12 (three years ago) link
5. Scott Rolen
― clemenza, Wednesday, 20 January 2021 13:12 (three years ago) link
4. Roger Clemens
I bet he puts Buck O'Neil at #1 and not Bonds. Still not sure who the third will be.
― clemenza, Thursday, 21 January 2021 14:03 (three years ago) link
3. Barry Bonds
― clemenza, Friday, 22 January 2021 13:57 (three years ago) link
I started skimming the Bonds comments, and the thing I've been puzzling over was made clear: Minnie Miñoso will be #2.
― clemenza, Friday, 22 January 2021 14:17 (three years ago) link