Surprised not to see Roy Hallady here. Jim Thome and Rafael Palmeiro are surprising omissions too. Neither ever had the flash, but they were rock solid players for their whole careers. Palmeiro is one of only four players (along with Hank Aaron, Eddie Murray, and Willie Mays, I think) who have both 3,000 hits and 500 home runs. He also has three Gold Gloves. Thome very quietly worked his way into the record books: 7th all-time in home runs, 19th all-time in OPS, 26th all-time in RBI's. Pretty remarkable career.
Quizmaster, were the given teams your decision or ESPN's? If they represent the team the player is most associated with I must disagree with a few, the most egregious of which is Curt Schilling with the Philllies. He won two World Series with the Red Sox (remember the bloody sock?) He also won the Series with the Diamondbacks over the Yankees in 2001. I just can't believe that Boston would take a back seat to the Philadelphia Phillies. Also, he retired in March 2009, not 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Schilling).
There is certainly a case to be made for any of the three teams Schilling played for. But looking at his entry on Wikipedia, his Phillies career (9 seasons) warrants 2 paragraphs, his 4 seasons with the Diamondbacks also receives 2 paragraphs, and his 5 seasons with the Red Sox gets a whopping 9 paragraphs! No disrespect to fans from Philadelphia and Arizona but I believe the "bloody sock" wins every time as far as name recognition goes, and that happened in Boston.
Oh so apparently Bryce Harper is better than Jim Thome, Gary Sheffield, Trevor Hoffman, and others... OK. I mean like maybe at the end of his career yeah but now? He's had one (albeit extremely) good year.
His stats are amazing considering the era he played in. Imagine how low his ERA would have been if he were throwing in the 1960s - from a higher mound, in a larger stadium, against 180 pound hitters.
He did fade away after that. But Pedro during 1999 and 2000 was probably the most dominant pitcher ever.
I have other pitchers higher than Pedro because he lacked longevity. If it were based on their best year (2000), Pedro would be number 1. And nobody is even close. (Steve Carlton's 1972 is second, but it looks tame compared to Pedro's.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 have other pitchers higher than Pedro because he lacked longevity. If it were based on their best year (2000), Pedro would be number 1. And nobody is even close. (Steve Carlton's 1972 is second, but it looks tame compared to Pedro's.)
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.
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.