Regarding Black players, around 1907 Honus Wagner, the greatest shortstop ever, was told that John Henry Lloyd was being called "The Black Wagner."
Honus said, "It's an honor to be mentioned with John Henry Lloyd/"
Around 1935, Babe Ruth was asked who the best player he ever saw was. "The best player in the Majors, huh?" The writer said, "Not just the Majors, but anywhere.
The Babe said, "Oh. In that case I'd have to say Pop Lloyd."
His numbers cannot be documented, but maybe Lloyd should be listed here.
Did MIke Trout's mother make this list?!? To have him (and Harper) on a list of ALL-TIME players is one thing but to have him AHEAD of names like Cal Ripken, Eddie Murray, Nolan Ryan, Carl Yastrzemski, Tony Gwynn, etc, etc, etc,..... is an absolute JOKE.
Trout absolutely belongs among those guys. If injuries hadn't derailed him, he'd likely have claimed many records. As it is, he still has a fair shot at 500 home runs and 100 WAR for his career. (For context, Yaz has 96 WAR and Ripken has 95.) He is also a phenomenal defender. Three-time MVP, and it should probably be four-time, frankly. Mike Trout is one of the best to ever play the game. No question. Definitely better than Eddie Murray, and it's not even close.
Babe Ruth cannot be ranked 1st on this list. Yes he hit 714 home runs, but he was terrible at fielding. I do agree with Willie Mays though, for he is the greatest defensive center fielder of all time and hit 660 home runs. In order to be in the top 20, you gotta make sure that player is a 5 tool player. You also can't put player like Barry Bonds so high up on this list because he took PED's. I see you know what you are doing, but there needs to be sources.
Understand your point but you are forgetting(?) that before he went to the Yankees Ruth was one of the premier pitchers in major league baseball with Boston. Consider that the guy accomplished all those hitting feats and STILL had the time (and talent) to win 90 games! And a lifetime ERA of 2.28 in over 1200 innings ain't bad. There never has been such a player with such combined stats as this.
I just read this amazing book about Babe Ruth. You should read it. There will never be another player like Babe Ruth. Some of his feats are simply incredible. In any case, he was actually an above average fielder throughout most of his career. If you look at his advanced stats on baseball-reference.com, you'll see the same thing.
Ohtani is a marvel, but even he cannot compare to Babe Ruth. Simply comparing numbers without context creates a very misleading perception that anybody, ever, was comparable to Babe Ruth. If Ruth played with today's ballpark's dimensions, he would have hit 75 home runs every year. Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs in 1927. The Washington Nationals *as a team* hit 29 home runs that year. He was an elite pitcher, an above-average fielder, and the best hitter who ever played. In the interest of encouraging fertile discussion, there's a certain perspective from which Willie Mays is at least in the conversation, given his superior overall athleticism. But I think the average baseball fan really does not understand how impossibly good Babe Ruth was. You need to compare him to the guys he played against. He absolutely decimated them.
3000 hits. One of the best pure hitters in the history of the game. Sure, his off-field accomplishments increase his standing, but he was one of the greatest players and fielders ever
I'd say Zsmallz5 isn't quite using it right. "Pure hitter" is for players who's value comes almost exclusively from their bat. Ted Williams might be the best "pure hitter" the game's ever seen. It's not a good fit for Clemente, who was an extraordinary fielder and provided a lot of value with his defense.
No, that's not how the term is used. "Pure hitter" means a player with classic bat-on-ball skills: a good eye, patient approach, great coordination, fast reflexes, etc. "Pure" as in "this guy was born to hit a baseball." It is generally used to differentiate from a "slugger," who is someone who has value because he can hit home runs, but does not get hits as consistently. Ichiro, Wade Boggs, Ty Cobb, Tony Gwynn, and, yes, Ted Williams, were "pure hitters." Contrast them with someone like Pete Alonso, whose main skill is mashing long homers. Although his value comes entirely from his bat, no one calls him a "pure hitter." He sometimes looks lost, swings at terrible pitches, and almost falls over from getting fooled so badly. Hitting does not look as natural from him as it did from Tony Gwynn, who often looked like he knew exactly what pitch was coming and swung with such ease and confidence that it seem effortless. Roberto Clemente was one of those guys too. A pure hitter.
A pure hitter is someone who hits the ball for a high average with power. Essentially, they obtain a .300 average, 30 doubles, and 20-30 home runs each year by simply hitting the baseball.
You made this comment years ago but I agree. Willie Stargell should be ranked much higher and certainly above Willie McCovey. But when it all comes down to it, there are many players who could/should be on this list and there are quite a few on here that probably shouldn't be.
I think the omission of Oscar Charleston from this list is a major "faux pas". There are many sources from his playing days---black AND white---who maintain he was the best player they ever saw.
It's weird that they included a mere two Negro Leagues players (the most obvious, incontrovertible ones), but left obvious omissions. Either include the whole lot of them who deserve it, or just leave them all out for the sake of consistency. (I would strongly favor including them.) Having Carlton Fisk and Barry Larkin ahead of Oscar Charleston, Cool Papa Bell, and Bullet Rogan is indefensible. But at least if they just kept at "MLB Players," it'd be consistent. Including only Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige just screams "We want to be PC, but don't actually want to surrender spots to guys who didn't play in MLB, because we're really just trying to promote MLB with this list." It's far more egregious than omitting this MLB player or that MLB player from 60 years ago, in my opinion.
Verlander belongs on this list just as much as Kershaw does. He’s actually won a World Series ring, has three no-hitters, and an absurd strikeout count.
Update from the future, he won another Cy Young at age 39. He's been frequently injured, but effective when healthy and just signed for one more year (and $15,000,000) with the SF Giants.
I wonder if we'll even get a baseball season this year. It seems like one possibility is that you test all the players regularly, and then allow something like 5000 well-spaced-out fans into the stadiums. Sporting events seem like one of the last things that are likely to return.
Of course stadiums full of screaming fans are totally fine, but kids have to wear masks at school and some of them are still online even in 2022. A good reality check about the priorities of the American public which seem to be driven mostly by fear and greed.
For someone like Bryce Harper to show up on this list but not Roy Halladay makes little sense at all. Also, I know what he did, but Pete Rose seems like he should be higher than 37th. And I'd argue Albert Pujols should be higher too. He has the possibility of reaching 3000 hits and 700 home runs, something no one else has done.
I'm more confused that he's apparently associated most with the Angels. Understanding he spent more time with them than either Houston or Texas, but he helped get the Astros to the NLCS twice and threw his last two no-hitters with the Rangers (not to mention subsequent leadership roles with both clubs over the past 20 years). And I would guess that if you asked your average baseball fan which of the three they associated Ryan with the Angels would get about 15-20% of the vote.
Well, those are counting stats. He did pitch for a staggering 27 seasons, so he had more time than most pitchers to accrue those stats. He is actually only 19th all-time in strikeouts per nine innings. (Many of the guys ahead of him are current players, because the game has changed so much. Blake Snell is #1 all-time as I write this, if you can believe it.) Ryan was more a sui generis phenom, whose power was so overwhelming that, on certain days, he would drop jaws all over the ballpark. But he struggled a lot with control, which he kept from ever being "the best" pitcher in the game. (He didn't win a single Cy Young.) So, yes, he has the record for no-hitters because on certain days, he was indeed unhittable, but he was never as consistently dominant as guys like Pedro, Randy Johnson, Maddux, Mathewson, or Seaver. He's right where he should be on this list.
This ranking is obviously highly subjective, but Trout has no business being anywhere near 15. Based on this list, he should slot between Brett and Ichiro at say 43-46.
But honestly, if this was an accurate ranking, he doesn't belong in the top 100.
When this list was made the injuries hadn't quite hit him as hard yet. As it stands now, he ranks 50th all-time in WAR. Still a Hall of Famer, but he was on track for that "greatest of all time" discussion early on. Feels a lot like Ken Griffey Jr's years with the Reds, unfortunately.
I love these people who think that baseball players stopped being great once their childhood ended. Mike Trout is, without any shadow of a doubt, a top-50 player of all-time, and if he hadn't been derailed by injuries, he would be in the top 20.
He's in the Hall of Fame as a Met and played more games with the Mets than any other team (although his Dodgers years were somewhat better than his Mets years).
Absolutely. He turned the franchise around, took them to the World Series, went into the Hall of Fame as a Met, has his number retired by the Mets, and is generally regarded as the best position player in Mets' history. He was very good on the Dodgers, but he's just one of many great players in their history. He's not special to them. The Dodgers don't even have him in their team hall of fame, and I don't think their fans have any special affection for him. He is absolutely cherished by the Mets and their fans, and in retirement he clearly considers himself a Met.
WOW...Where is Eddie Murray??? Someone that had over 3000 hits and over 500 HRs you think would make the top 100. Only 6 people in history accomplished this.
disappointed that Kirby Puckett isn`t on their but Molitor is I think Puckett had a way better career than Molitor even though Molitor played for the Twins for 2 seasons and Managed them for 3 seasons. I still think Kirbs was better.
He was simply that: a slugger. In the 90s and early 2000s (Steroids Era). He was terrible defensively. Enough to make you in the HOF, but not the top 100.
Has a relatively high WHIP (Although he played in the Steroids Era). Compared to Mike Mussina (Who barely makes my top 100), Mussina has more Ks, has a lower BB%, and played better defense with fewer innings pitched.
Jeter at 28? For a contact hitter with no MVPs, was never the best SS in his league, and for several years wasn't even the best SS on his own team. Putting Jeter at 68 would have been generous.
But then ESPN has never really understood baseball.
I live in Atlanta and this needs to be updated. Ronald Acuna Jr. isn't on here, and he was literally 2023 NL MVP!!
Also, why is Roberto Clemente ranked lower than Mike Trout? Mike Trout has only been to the playoffs once and Roberto Clemente has won a World Series MVP!
And Bryce Harper is now on the Phillies. (House Divided)
Ronald Acuna Jr. in the top 100. Don't make me laugh.
Clemente was a great hitter and had amazing fielding, but Mike Trout had the most dominant stretch in baseball history from 2012 to 2019. Trout single-handedly carried the Angels in those years, but he unfortunately doesn't get rewarded for it.
Honus said, "It's an honor to be mentioned with John Henry Lloyd/"
Around 1935, Babe Ruth was asked who the best player he ever saw was. "The best player in the Majors, huh?" The writer said, "Not just the Majors, but anywhere.
The Babe said, "Oh. In that case I'd have to say Pop Lloyd."
His numbers cannot be documented, but maybe Lloyd should be listed here.
But injuries stink.
Of course stadiums full of screaming fans are totally fine, but kids have to wear masks at school and some of them are still online even in 2022. A good reality check about the priorities of the American public which seem to be driven mostly by fear and greed.
(His "primary team" on the HoF website is the Angels, but his plaque has a Rangers cap.)
But honestly, if this was an accurate ranking, he doesn't belong in the top 100.
Too low:
99, 97, 96, 82, 80, 79, 78, 75, 71, 66, 64, 62, 61, 57, 54, 53, 48, 40, 37, 36, 35, 26
Too high:
6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 44, 46, 49, 51, 52, 59, 65, 69, 83, 86
Snubbed:
Jeff Bagwell
Arky Vaughan
Johnny Mize
Gaylord Perry
Bert Blyleven
Robin Roberts
Ferguson Jenkins
Gary Carter
Curt Schilling (Hate him all you want, but he is talented.)
Larry Walker
Carlos Beltran
Mike Mussina
Forgotten Negro Leagues Stars
Sadaharu Oh (Foreign or not, he was an amazing slugger.)
Should not be on list:
Dave Winfield
Whitey Ford
David Ortiz
Manny Ramirez
Juan Marichal
Cap Anson
Joe Jackson
Vladimir Guerrero
Jim Palmer
Paul Molitor
Willie Stargell
Pudge Rodriguez
John Smoltz
Roy Halladay
Bryce Harper
Roy Halladay
Duke Snider
Jim Thome
This is just an opinion, but it won’t be baseball if we don’t argue over our rankings.
But then ESPN has never really understood baseball.
Also, why is Roberto Clemente ranked lower than Mike Trout? Mike Trout has only been to the playoffs once and Roberto Clemente has won a World Series MVP!
And Bryce Harper is now on the Phillies. (House Divided)
Clemente was a great hitter and had amazing fielding, but Mike Trout had the most dominant stretch in baseball history from 2012 to 2019. Trout single-handedly carried the Angels in those years, but he unfortunately doesn't get rewarded for it.