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:
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.
- 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.
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.
That’s not to say that I couldn’t defend the individual rankings. I’m sure I could. But to do so would be to say negative things about various players’ talent, which goes against the very essence of this project. And anyway, fighting over the questions — Ted Williams over Ty Cobb? Steve Carltonover Sandy Koufax? Carl Yastrzemskiover Ken Griffey? — is a big part of the fun.
Minor quibble here. Ted was such a great flight student in his WW II training that he never went overseas. Navy brass kept him stateside to teach new pilots. He was transferred to Hawaii near the end of the war, waiting assignment that never came because of the bomb. He is definitely a WW II veteran, just never flew a combat mission until Korea.I, for one, am happy people stepped up to kill Nazis.
One amazing thing about Ted is that he came back from 2 wars as good as when he left. Many other players came back significantly lesser, which is no surprise - take the player out of the game for several years of his athletic prime and that’ll happen. But Ted wasn’t a ceremonial figure in the service - he flew combat missions! And he was so good at it, they called him back for Korea. While it robbed him of key years in his career, it didn’t slow him down. Just an incomparable feat.
Yes...I would love to somehow get these to my computer illiterate fatherThis whole series is astounding. I want it as a book.
I think the rant is exactly what Pos was trying to elicit by including those letters. Joe wants us to feel angry about the role racism has played in our national pastime, both for the open segregation and for everything else that even icons like Aaron had - and still have - to go through.Beatifully written and makes me furious all at the same time. Some of the people who wrote those quoted letters to Hank are probably still alive, and I hope they feel guilty every day of their lives. I'm 40, and sometimes it's easy to forget just how recent that awful time in our history was (really most of our history, when you put your mind to it). I'm so glad I was lucky enough to have parents who taught me better.
Sorry for the rant.
Regarding the bolded, this single line is just great writing.Other than Pedro, this might be the one I was most looking forward to, and Joe nailed it. I largely agree with you on the commenters (though, I would argue that this is true of most of the internet.... man, has is it the most amazing thing ever created that also managed to set an entire species back 50 years), but one brought up an interesting point that I was thinking about before:
If Barry Bonds wasn't the one who broke the game, would baseball have ever gone through the steroid reckoning that it did?
What I mean is, if everything else was exactly the same, but we remove Bonds from the equation (or, better yet, he maintains his already Hall of Fame level peak from pre-1998), how big does the steroid scandal get? If Canseco still comes out and says 85% of players are using, if the other players still have their hearings.... would anyone have cared? Or would it have eventually blown over?
If I had a vote for the Hall, Bonds and Clemens would be my #1 and #2. I loved watching Barry Bonds bat, just loved it. He was obviously an egotistical dink, who rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but how many "best of their generation" players (other than Mike Trout) haven't been?
I found Joe's comment in the middle of his work about Bonds always being nice to him really, really interesting. Joe is obviously a guy who pursues his craft as a huge fan of the game, and a fan of people in general, and I wonder if he exudes that so much that he was able to get through and have Bonds act like a real person to him. I wonder how much different (better?) sports writing, and media in general, would be if more people who were as good a person as Joe Posnanski seems to be, also had the talent to write that he does.
Given Joe put Oscar Charleston above Ted Williams, I don't think he'll blink about putting Mays ahead of Ruth.Ruth or Mays? People have said Mays is his number one of all-time, but does that mean he surpasses the Bambino, arguably the most recognizable baseball player and name of all time?
+1Ruth's offensive numbers are so huge they're almost cartoon-ish. I can't imagine him not being #1.
Willie Mays was a Star but Babe Ruth basically invented the concept of being a star. Our whole celebrity obsessed culture basically starts with him.When I was growing up in the sixties, nobody wasn't a Willie Mays fan. I'm sure it was the same for the Babe in the 20s.
He also basically invented the concept of Black Ink:Willie Mays was a Star but Babe Ruth basically invented the concept of being a star. Our whole celebrity obsessed culture basically starts with him.
https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gretzwa01.htmlHas any athlete ever dominated a team sport over more than a decade as utterly as that?
Good one. Certainly in the same class.
I am very much not dissapointed. Wonderful job. Perfect.I cannot wait for his Bonds piece. Cannot wait.
Well said. If this series were titled “The Baseball 100: a project celebrating the best baseball players in history”, that would indeed be a different story (and surely less fascinating too)! But no, “great” brings in something extra, that larger-than-life quality that separates the immortals from the rest of us. There is no stat for this.Pos does a nice job with the Babe. It’s hard to find an original angle on Ruth. It’s like trying to say something new about JFK or Lincoln (though we now have a great Lincoln movie...so maybe that great Ruth movie is possible). Weaving together the mythos, the accomplishments, and baseball’s unique relationship to its past was well done and thoughtful.
I would argue Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever, maybe the greatest American athlete ever, because I see greatness as a function of two parts: 1. Dominance over contemporaries and 2. Popularity beyond sports. We could argue whether or not the Babe was the most dominant player relative to his time period in baseball history. A few others may have a case, but there’s no doubt he was one of the best players ever. No, it’s the popularity beyond the sport where he blows away all American competition. He’s still a major cultural icon today, a century on. He is one one of the defining figures of celebrity culture. He was baseball at a time baseball was the biggest sport in the country. There will never be a greater baseball player, never be another who is more widely known and idolized than the Babe.
Just to toot my own horn.Given Joe put Oscar Charleston above Ted Williams, I don't think he'll blink about putting Mays ahead of Ruth.
What if you changed that to ENDURING popularity beyond sports? Time is a great filter. Tim Tebow will likely be a trivia question for the next generation; the Babe is still in the headlines 100 years after his prime.Eh, I disagree that popularity matters at all when it comes to attempting to quantify ‘greatness’, that would make Tim Tebow the greatest baseball player around currently.
To each their own, for me it is irrelevant.What if you changed that to ENDURING popularity beyond sports? Time is a great filter. Tim Tebow will likely be a trivia question for the next generation; the Babe is still in the headlines 100 years after his prime.
In two sentences you go from discounting Charleston specifically because he didn’t play against the best competition, to elevating Ruth. . . despite the fact that he didn’t play against the best competition.Just to toot my own horn.
I like Joe. He's a great writer. But I think these couple choices are nonsense. Oscar Charleston might have been Ted's equal if he'd gotten the opportunity, but he didn't, and Ted is the second greatest offensive force in the history of baseball, and should have gone above Charleston. Ruth may have faced lesser competition, but he dominated to an extent no one else has come close to matching, and he was a brilliant pitcher on tpo of that. He should be #1. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter, but it still makes me roll my eyes.
Yep, I said currently (I don't pay any attention to these things but I'd guess his Q score is above every current MLB player), but more my point is that how famous an athlete is/was shouldn't factor into any serious analysis of how great they were.Tim Tebow? LOL. Over the last 120 or so years, there was a window of about 5 years where Tebow might have been in the same league of fame (in the US only) as Babe Ruth. That window closed a while ago and it will never be open again.
Ruth did play against the best competition of his time; his "lesser competition" was speaking to his era. Williams and Mays also played against the best competition of their times, again even if it does not compare to modern standards. Charleston did not play against the best competition of his era. The top end of the Negro League may have been as good as best of the MLB, but that doesn't mean the rank and file was, just like the best Japanese players may be capable of playing at the same high level in the Majors...but by the same token, some aren't. I'm not willing to call Sadaharu Oh the greatest power hitter ever for the same reason I would never put Oscar Charleston among the Top 5 players ever...he never played the best competition. Not his fault, but he didn't.In two sentences you go from discounting Charleston specifically because he didn’t play against the best competition, to elevating Ruth. . . despite the fact that he didn’t play against the best competition.
Quibble with Joe’s rankings all you want (I would’ve put Ruth first, too) but at least he’s logically consistent. He reasoned that the incredible success black players had in the late 40s and 50s proves that the high-end talent of the Negro Leagues was every bit as good as that in the Majors (and how could anyone argue against that?). And it only stands to reason, then, that the player who, by all accounts, is the best Negro League player of all-time would of course be a top ten player overall, and would further be deserving of consideration of the number one spot.
And Michael Jordan is the greatest Baseball player of the last 30 years?Eh, I disagree that popularity matters at all when it comes to attempting to quantify ‘greatness’, that would make Tim Tebow the greatest baseball player around currently.
I think you may be misreading the tone there, especially given the source.Just found this after a minute of googling (from May 2018), and I searched "most famous current mlb players q score", I did not include Tebow's name.
"In conclusion: the most famous active baseball player is almost certainly Tim Tebow."
https://deadspin.com/who-is-the-most-famous-baseball-player-1825918760
What evidence do you have that the average MLB player in the 20s was better than the average Negro Leagues player? Talent after the very top level players dropped off quickly in the majors. And those were the guys most loudly against integration, because they knew they'd lose their jobs.Ruth did play against the best competition of his time; his "lesser competition" was speaking to his era. Williams and Mays also played against the best competition of their times, again even if it does not compare to modern standards. Charleston did not play against the best competition of his era. The top end of the Negro League may have been as good as best of the MLB, but that doesn't mean the rank and file was, just like the best Japanese players may be capable of playing at the same high level in the Majors...but by the same token, some aren't. I'm not willing to call Sadaharu Oh the greatest power hitter ever for the same reason I would never put Oscar Charleston among the Top 5 players ever...he never played the best competition. Not his fault, but he didn't.
Good point. The thing that always struck me about that famous 1927 season was that while Babe Ruth went bananas and outhomered every other AL team...he had a teammate who also happened to outhomer half of the AL teams. When one guy outhomers several teams, he might just be a freak....but when two different guys outhomer several teams, it might be fair to conclude that some of those teams just aren't any good.What evidence do you have that the average MLB player in the 20s was better than the average Negro Leagues player? Talent after the very top level players dropped off quickly in the majors. And those were the guys most loudly against integration, because they knew they'd lose their jobs.
I'm not a statisitician but I would say the law of large numbers probably indicate that in two populations, one about 8-9X larger than the other (US black population was about 10-11% in the '20-30s) and assuming that both populations are roughly equally skilled, there will be more excellent, good, average, below average players in the larger universe than in the smaller universe. And I'm estimating (ballparking) that the size of the players populations and demand for the best players in both universes were roughly equal (16 MLB teams, ~12-20 Negro League teams played at different times), but the white player pool to draw from was much bigger. And assuming that only the best of the best played in both MLB and the Negro leagues it might not be that much of a stretch to conclude the average MLB player was better than the average NL player.What evidence do you have that the average MLB player in the 20s was better than the average Negro Leagues player? Talent after the very top level players dropped off quickly in the majors. And those were the guys most loudly against integration, because they knew they'd lose their jobs.
Part of it was Williams’ disdain for baseball writers, or some of the writers, who of course voted for the thing. The other part is that a player on a pennant winning team (DiMaggio 2 times over Williams, and Gordon once) got an additional boost. The most galling must have been losing to Joe Gordon. While Gordon was a hall of fame player who had an excellent season, Ted had one of his best, with black ink everywhere including of course the triple crown.Every time I read about Ted Williams getting screwed out of three MVPs (1941, 1942, 1947), my blood boils.