Joe Posnanski's Top 100 Players in Baseball

yeah, he was 2nd and 1st among AL nonpitchers in WAR in '98 & '99, only in the top 10 twice more.

His most valuable stat might be having 540+ PA for 17 straight seasons (all but two of those were 650+).

Wow Steve Carlton is crazy. I completely repressed that for some reason (even though I vaguely remember that interview when it happened).

Whoa, I knew he was eccentric but didn't realize he was a conspiracy nut.

he's the Woody Allen of Cy Young winners

(sorry, posting on behalf of "Jim Bunning truthers")

I thought the breakdown of his '72 season was amazing. He was lousy for a full month, Pedro/Koufax the rest of the way. And, by Joe's research, the team didn't make as much of a difference as you might have assumed (some, yes).

Junior at #51. Good pick. Don't know if I could think of another player where a) the career totals are imposing, but b) there's this albatross of coulda-shoulda because of how they were compiled. I was so caught up in him and Thomas for those first few years. And yes, it was probably clear already, before 2000, that Bonds was the superior player.

This got me thinking -- if Bonds had had Griffey's career after '98, how would he have been remembered? Everything he did from 2000-2005 also helped remind people of how great he had been before that. I guess he'd be lumped together with Thomas as a guy who was otherworldly for a few years, and then hung around compiling stats with one or two great seasons mixed in there. He wouldn't be considered a top-50 all time player, IOW.

Interesting. Griffey began to break down after his age 30 season, his first with the Reds (which was far from his peak, and continued a clear and ominous decline, but he did hit 40 home runs and make some more progress towards catching Aaron); Bonds began his science-fiction surge at age 35, the very same year. So there's a five-year age gap when their fortunes cross. At first I was going to try a time-shifting thing, creating two players based strictly on age: 1) Griffey's totals through age 30 + Bonds' totals starting at age 31; 2) Bonds' totals through age 30 + Griffey's starting at age 31. Those numbers are absurd: young Griffey/old Bonds hits 908 home runs. Instead, here's what you get if you ignore the age gap and just switch them starting in the year 2001:

Griffey (1989-2000) + Bonds (2001-2007): retires at age 37 with 706 HR, 8743 AB, 2661 H, 5353 TB, 1852 BB, 1806 R, 1861 RBI, 216 SB, .304/.429/.612

Bonds (1986-2000) + Griffey (2001-2010): retires at age 45 with 686 HR, 10905 AB, 3055 H, 5894 TB, 2018 BB, 2,083 R, 1971 RBI, 482 SB, .280/.393/.540

Perceptions would obviously be changed...have to think about that.

.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).

Before I got into baseball, Ken Griffey Jr was one of the 7-8 non-expos names I knew in baseball.

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."

Not from the top 100 players list, but this is fantastic:

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-dutch-leonard-affair/

Yeah that was great history.

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/no-47-albert-pujols/

at least 25 spots too low, imo

Yeah that does seem low to me too.

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.

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

xp yeah

I bet it's a lot of damn pitchers lurking in the wings

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.

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.

if he was going to punish players for being mid-career, he should have cut off his list at players who retired by 2013

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)

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.

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.

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...

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.))

The only recent player who's in Raines' top 10 B-R sim scores is Johnny Damon (3rd).

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.

directly comparing greats from different eras is very often arbitrary.

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.

My god this is taking forever.

He's stalling, because he wants to be sure that Mark Buehrle's for real.

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.

ha!

(xpost to self) Joe can get on with his countdown now.

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.

I liked his post about A Few Good Men, the Demi Moore character always pissed me off too.

It's alive!

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

Digging way back but Christy Matthewson ?

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 – 51.2
2. Grover Alexander – 42.9
3. Cy Young – 41.7
4. Roger Clemens – 40.8
5. Lefty Grove – 40.3
6. Christy Mathewson – 39.3
7. Randy Johnson – 38.7
8. Pedro Martinez – 38.4
9. Rube Waddell – 38.2
10. Bob Feller – 37.2
11. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Just to clarify, it's more like early-mid 30s, and it's not a 10 or 20% decline, it's 50-60%.

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

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.

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