He explained it as was posted earlier (he moved him down 10 or 20 spots so that he could be associated with the number he is most famous for), but also I don't care almost at all about historical Yankee stuff.Surprised the MFY fans here aren't loosing their shit over DiMaggio at #56.
He played 22 years but was pretty bad the final 10, only 7.6 bWAR total from 2001-2010.I can't wait to find out who the 47 players are that are better at baseball than Ken Griffey Jr
What? Seriously? Junior is 48??? Not 24?I can't wait to find out who the 47 players are that are better at baseball than Ken Griffey Jr
See, these aren’t exactly rankings. Yes, there’s a general order, from great to greater to even greater to greatest. But what I’ve been trying to do is not RANK the player. I’ve been trying to connect the player to a number. I know that sounds weird and perhaps stupid, but I really have tried to do this with every player.
Ah, my fault. I hadn't really been following. This one just showed up in my Facebook feed and triggered me.As someone said in the comments at The Athletic, Griffey is probably slotted in at 48 because it's double the No. 24 he wore in Seattle.
And to recap, from Joe's newsletter:
Not exactly. Carney Lansford had Boggs blocked at 3B. Boggs wasn't in the starting lineup on the 23rd but he came in once Lansford tried to stretch a triple into an inside the park HR and sprained his ankle. Who knows how much longer the Sox would have left him as a role player.But on June 22 against Detroit, in the bottom of the 11th inning with the scored tied 4-4, Boggs did something unthinkable. He hit a walk-off home run. The Red Sox were so thrilled, they put him in the next game. And the next. And the next. He had become a regular for the first time.
And for the next three months, Boggs hit about .400.
It is kind of strange because things from the 70s and 80s seem to be overrated in almost every other pop culture instance, but baseball players from that era I think are underrated historically. Maybe it is because the golden age of the 50s-60s is so strong and the guys coming in on the heels of that are not as revered, or that the game was pretty balanced so nobody has a lot of record-setting numbers (aside from base stealing). Guys like Boggs, Brett, Schmidt, etc. are generally underrated, but you look at their numbers and they really do blow you away. Look at all that black ink on Schmitty's page:That Boggs write up is fantastic. Man, those 80s statistics for Boggs are astounding. I remember Boggs being great and his Strat-O-Matic card was glorious. He was in high demand if you were picking players for an all star league with friends.
But, even then, I didn't appreciate how awesome he was. Obviously, the MVP voters didn't either.
That's true and those numbers are pretty fine. But Schmidt did win 3 MVPs. Brett won 1 and was in the Top Three 3 other times.It is kind of strange because things from the 70s and 80s seem to be overrated in almost every other pop culture instance, but baseball players from that era I think are underrated historically. Maybe it is because the golden age of the 50s-60s is so strong and the guys coming in on the heels of that are not as revered, or that the game was pretty balanced so nobody has a lot of record-setting numbers (aside from base stealing). Guys like Boggs, Brett, Schmidt, etc. are generally underrated, but you look at their numbers and they really do blow you away. Look at all that black ink on Schmitty's page:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schmimi01.shtml
Aren't Schmidt and Brett generally regarded as the best 3Bs ever? Not sure they're underrated (although I was surprised to see Boggs edges out Brett in WAR).It is kind of strange because things from the 70s and 80s seem to be overrated in almost every other pop culture instance, but baseball players from that era I think are underrated historically. Maybe it is because the golden age of the 50s-60s is so strong and the guys coming in on the heels of that are not as revered, or that the game was pretty balanced so nobody has a lot of record-setting numbers (aside from base stealing). Guys like Boggs, Brett, Schmidt, etc. are generally underrated, but you look at their numbers and they really do blow you away. Look at all that black ink on Schmitty's page:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schmimi01.shtml
Not Pedro, but got the "other" #45.I wonder if we get Pedro tomorrow at #45.
This is a clown comment. Do have any idea what a major undertaking this is? Do you truly understand how demanding 200,000 words in this timeframe is? Honestly, if he successfully writes 100 2-4,000 word pieces in 100 straight days, it will be one of the most impressive things I've ever seen in journalism.I’m sorry, but what a clown. Pos is a talented writer but this shows incredibly bad planning and a lack of commitment.
I mean, actually I do. I did a similar project in 2016 and understand how much has to be done before the undertaking is even announced. I understand it is a difficult process and requires a lot of commitment, but a professional of Posnanski's caliber and recognition should have been sure he could complete it before it was announced; TBH, he should have had it completely done or close to it when the first entry was published.This is a clown comment. Do have any idea what a major undertaking this is? Do you truly understand how demanding 200,000 words in this timeframe is? Honestly, if he successfully writes 100 2-4,000 word pieces in 100 straight days, it will be one of the most impressive things I've ever seen in journalism.
I think I ended up at around 180,000 or so. Granted, I did 50 entries and not 100, which is substantially easier because you are not quite bouncing around subject-to-subject as frequently. I wrote about 30-35 entries in Nov./Dec. of 2015, and they came out once a week for the entire year of 2016. I probably finished the entries around March/April, but the point is I had a massive cushion to work with as the year started.Just out of curiosity, how many words did you end up with @Kliq?
I think "clown" is a bit strong, but it's definitely a self-imposed death march.
You’re the clown for comments like that. What Joe is doing is incredible and has been the highlight of this winter for me and many others. Clown, my ass.I’m sorry, but what a clown. Pos is a talented writer but this shows incredibly bad planning and a lack of commitment.
Wow guys. I'm not saying that the entries haven't been good, they are great! He is a great writer! I've really enjoyed them!You’re the clown for comments like that. What Joe is doing is incredible and has been the highlight of this winter for me and many others. Clown, my ass.
I feel like anyway you slice it, Yogi has to be one of the five best catchers of all-time even if you include Josh Gibson. So if you want to have the catcher position adequately represented, he probably has to be somewhere on the list. The problem with catchers are that statistics, even modern statistics like WAR, don't do a very good job telling you about their overall impact. Berra was an above-average hitter throughout his career and a strong defensive catcher, maybe even an elite one. He won 3 MVPs and 10 rings. I don't see how you can keep him off the list if you want to have more than 3-4 catchers.I am willing to be convinced otherwise...but today is the first time I disagreed with Joe on a player. Not on the ranking, per se, I am on board with how he is doing that part. But is Yogi Berra really one of the top-100 players of all-time? If he put him in there for his stories, then that is OK. Screwing DiMaggio out of 20 or so spots to put him at 56 is totally fine, but calling a player one of the 100 best is a little stretch.
That said... am I wrong about Yogi?
I didn't read today's yet and I'm not really a big baseball historian, but he did win three MVPs in five years and was top 7 in the MVP voting seven years in a row, and was top 15 in the MVP voting 12 years in a row, every year from his age 25-36 season, and was in the All-Star game 15 straight seasons.I am willing to be convinced otherwise...but today is the first time I disagreed with Joe on a player. Not on the ranking, per se, I am on board with how he is doing that part. But is Yogi Berra really one of the top-100 players of all-time? If he put him in there for his stories, then that is OK. Screwing DiMaggio out of 20 or so spots to put him at 56 is totally fine, but calling a player one of the 100 best is a little stretch.
That said... am I wrong about Yogi?
Yeah. I'm willing to believe that there was some Yankee bias in All-Star and MVP voting in those days, but Yogi had a 7 year stretch where he averaged an OPS+ of 134. Bill James had him ranked 1st among catchers in his last abstract, ahead of Bench. Even if you want to say that Piazza would bump him if that were done today...Yogi is legit.I didn't read today's yet and I'm not really a big baseball historian, but he did win three MVPs in five years and was top 7 in the MVP voting seven years in a row, and was top 15 in the MVP voting 12 years in a row, every year from his age 25-36 season, and was in the All-Star game 15 straight seasons.
Yes, you are.That said... am I wrong about Yogi?
I am also wondering if he wants it done this year in conjunction with the Negro Leagues Centennial. I could see Satchel Paige, Oscar Charleston, and Josh Gibson as top of the list candidates. Some of his finest work on the list so far has been spent describing some of the Negro Leagues greats.I still am sticking to my guess that the point of all of this is to have Bonds and Clemens at #1/#2 to try to help get them elected before their window is up, so in that case he needs to get it done ASAP and really couldn't wait a year.
In the early years, people mocked Berra for his looks. They mocked him for his awkwardness. They mocked him for his grammar. They mocked him for reading comic books. They mocked him for his size, for the funny way he talked, for the way he would swing at any pitch, for the way his mind worked. They mocked him because they knew how much it hurt.
They mocked him because every punchline was just a little bit funnier with Yogi Berra’s name in it.
Then, in 1942, he entered the U.S. Army and didn’t pick up a bat or ball for nearly four years — they wouldn’t let him play baseball at Fort Riley because of the color of his skin.
And so to recap, it’s 1945 and here’s Jackie Robinson. He’s 26. He’s known as a football player. He’d played one season of college baseball and hit .097. He has a bum ankle. He is hyper-aware of his surroundings, of the basic unfairness of the world around him, and has no illusions about things changing. Oh, and also, there’s an unspoken agreement in baseball that no one will sign a black player.
From that paragraph: "Oh, and also, there’s an unspoken agreement in baseball that no one will sign a black player."Unsurprisingly, Jackie Robinson is entry #42.
I love how Joe puts Robinson's unlikely and amazing achievement in perspective in the following paragraphs:
Maybe my reading comprehension is off...but are you suggesting that MLB owners did not collude an keep African-Americans out of the game during Robinson's time and the preceding 5 decades or so?From that paragraph: "Oh, and also, there’s an unspoken agreement in baseball that no one will sign a black player."
Well, they sure did try...passing them off as Spaniards, Cubans, Native Americans, some mulattoes even could pass for white. And in the 19th century, there were actually some major-league players who were black: William Edward White played one game for the Providence Grays (NL) in 1879, Moses Fleetwood Walker and his brother Welday played for Toledo in the American Association in 1884. The AA and NL played a "World Series" for several years and eventually some of the AA teams joined the NL.
I'm saying that there were a few owners, managers, etc., who realized that there were some very good African-American players and tried to find ways to circumvent discrimination. I think it was generally more successful at a minor-league level, though.Maybe my reading comprehension is off...but are you suggesting that MLB owners did not collude an keep African-Americans out of the game during Robinson's time and the preceding 5 decades or so?
That is quite the hot take. The way you framed your response is that you don't think there was an unspoken agreement to keep African-Americans out of baseball, and that JoePos was wrong to assert that notion.I'm saying that there were a few owners, managers, etc., who realized that there were some very good African-American players and tried to find ways to circumvent discrimination. I think it was generally more successful at a minor-league level, though.
He said above (a few posts up) that he has mostly been writing them from scratch:Even if he stopped right now, completing 60 of these in 60 days is really impressive (and even if many of them were pre-written or mostly written).
I know he said that, but I'm sure he had at the very least detailed outlines or rough drafts for most of these things.He said above (a few posts up) that he has mostly been writing them from scratch:
"I thought I would be able to lean a lot more on the essays written in previous Baseball 100 attempts. But the truth is that, other than a couple of early ones, I’ve basically been writing these things from scratch."
Yaz’s 1967 season was incredible in every way. He won the Triple Crown. His 12.5 WAR is the highest for any position player not named Ruth. And most of all, he played at his peak exactly when the Red Sox needed it most; this was the stuff of sorcery. Yastrzemski wasn’t just the MVP of 1967. If you were picking an all-time MVP, you’d probably pick Yaz in ’67.