Joe Posnanski's Top 100 Players in Baseball

yeah, the fact that he was so much better than his peers, and so consistently, is enough for me. it's funny how inner-circle hall of famers are on the outsiden edges of the bell curve distribution, looking in

*outside edges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSyxhRP-DL8

Forgot all about that...posted a link in the comments section.

#6, Ted Williams of the MFL.

Think I've encountered this elsewhere, too:

DiMaggio during the streak: .408/.463/.717, 1.180 OPS
Williams all of 1941: .406/.553/.735, 1.288 OPS

Gleaned this from the comments: Oscar Charleston is the missing player. I always thought Gibson/Leonard were considered #1/2 among Negro League players, but I guess that's changed.

otherwise, i have no idea why trout is in the upper 20s on the list.

I'm assuming it's because 27 is his uniform number

Hey! You've unlocked the key that opens some (if not all) of the doors: Seaver's uniform number was 41, Gibson's was 45...

As I've mentioned at least once, someone at a national SABR convention -- I recall it being Kevin Goldstein, tho it may not have been -- suggested that by objective standards, Adam Jones is probably a better baseball player than Willie Mays, to great consternation. That's just evolution.

All-time player lists can only measure an individual against his era.

I have received that suggestion with great consternation.

Gleaned this from the comments: Oscar Charleston is the missing player. I always thought Gibson/Leonard were considered #1/2 among Negro League players, but I guess that's changed.

I almost mentioned this, I swear! But then I thought “higher than satchel Paige and Josh Gibson, though?”

james ranked him #4 all time behind ruth wagner and mays in 01

wow! i don't know all that much about charleston, i should figure my shit out!

#5, Oscar Charleston.

That’s what the rankings are...they are here to give this project shape and to spark a few feelings. Yes, they’re in the basic order of a formula I used, one based on five things in no particular order:

Wins Above Replacement
Peak Wins Above Replacement
How multi-dimensional they were as players
The era when they played
Bonus value — This might include postseason performances, leadership, sportsmanship, impact on the game as a whole, if they lost prime years to the war and numerous other possibilities.

But I have no illusions about the formula. It is as flawed as anything so, whenever possible, I attached the player and a number that fits. So, for instance, Mariano Rivera is 91 for Psalm 91, the Psalm of Protection. Gary Carter is 86 for his role on the 1986 Mets. Joe DiMaggio is 56 for the hitting streak. Grover Cleveland Alexander is 26 because that was his magical year, 1926.

Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Jimmie Foxx, Greg Maddux, Mike Trout, Jackie Robinson, Frank Robinson and Mike Schmidt, among others, were all given a ranking based on their uniform numbers. I would say at least two-thirds of the numbers have some sort of connection to the ballplayer.

I even skipped No. 19 because of the ’19 Black Sox, the biggest single-year scandal in baseball history.

The Psalm of Protection?

that does make me wonder who ranks #666

who WAS the most evil baseball player?

I'm also suddenly intrigued about the sexual life of Monte Irvin at #69.

Assuming there are no more hidden-meanings to the rankings at this point, I'll guess Aaron 4th, Bonds 3rd, Ruth 2nd, then Mays at #1--that, or switch Bonds and Ruth. I think Joe is an err-on-the-side-of-contemporaneity kind of guy, so I don't think Ruth will be first. If not for the complicating PED factor, which I don't think he'll ignore altogether, I could even have seen Bonds at #1.

#4, Hank Aaron.

And then there’s his absurd, almost laughable, breakaway lead in career total bases. If you want to call Henry Aaron the king of something, call him the King of Total Bases. He had 6,856 total bases in his career — 700 more than anyone else.

Musial could have hit 350 more doubles and not had as many total bases as Aaron.

Ruth could have hit 250 more home runs and not has as many total bases as Aaron. (Bonds would have needed 220 more homers just to tie Aaron.)

Pete Rose could have cracked another 1,100 singles and not had as many total bases as Aaron.

Unrelated to this, a Facebook baseball group I'm on has been doing one of those bracketed greatest-hitter-ever (hitter, not player) polls. I've decided I'll go with Ted Williams right till the end, if he makes it.

i think every time i've ever had to make a decision on that, i went with ted williams, too. the thing that always does it for me is realizing he missed all of 1943-45, his prime years, and still came out so far ahead of everyone. also, his 1957, as a 38-39 year old. amazing.

Exactly my thinking--plus what he did in those two (very) partial Korean War seasons. He did have a big Fenway advantage, but when you look at his career road stats (.328/.467/.615), that seems less important.

yeah it’s williams without hesitation for me too. underrated in this countdown imo

I can't speak to Oscar Charleston, but #5 seems fair to me for Williams as a player rather than just a hitter. Mays was, from all accounts, one of the greatest fielders ever, Bonds was great, and I think Aaron was viewed as solid, at least. Ruth, probably not, but you've got to credit him with his pitching. I've read different opinions about Williams, but he did seem to be quite indifferent to fielding until late in his career. And with Mays and Bonds, speed also factors in.

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.

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.

#2, Ruth. (Didn't think there'd be a post today, but there is.)

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.

wonder how many times that commenter saw ruth play?

gotta give it up for the #1, Pete Kozma

#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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How does that happen?!

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.

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."

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+

*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.

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!

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.

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.

(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.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

tbf i don't think anyone in the world outside of jerry reinsdorf wanted baines in the HOF