Anybody who thinks Bill Buckner lost the '86 World Series for the Red Sox didn't watch Game 6. That's just a stupid narrative that the sports media has run with that reflects complete ignorance/dishonesty about how that game went down. By the time that ball went under Buckner's glove, every Red Sox fan on earth already knew Boston had blown another shot at a World Series championship.
I was just surprised Rice wasn't on here. But look at the years: Jim Rice played in left field, taking over from Carl Yastrzemski, who took over from Ted Williams. All that with the Green Monster as the backdrop. Solace for a near-century without a championship.
Ten is a pretty elite group...some of the other possibles (maybe not Top 10, it's subjective) of note were Johnny Pesky, Tris Speaker, Carlton Fisk, Luis Tiant, Dom DiMaggio, Joe Cronin, Vern Stephens, Nomar Garciaparra, Jimmy Collins, Jim Rice, etc...
Either this WAR stat wasn't a thing when I used to follow baseball, or it at least hadn't caught on as much as it evidently has now. Can someone help clarify things for me a bit? When I looked it up online, I find that 6+ is considered to be an MVP-level player. So how in the heck are these players 50 and above?
It's a little (or a lot) complicated, but it's designed to be the best single measure of a player's worth. +6 WAR means that player (let's say a shortstop) will bring his team six more wins over the course of a season than a replacement (average) shortstop would. So the higher your WAR, the more value to your team because you will create more wins than an average player would if he was in your place.
I'm honestly not sure exactly how it's calculated, but I know that's what it represents.
Crazy that he has almost as much WAR as Ortiz and played here for the same number of years. I know he never had Ortiz's leadership or postseason heroics, but still. I certainly hope they retire his number.
Just a note: Jimmie Foxx had some good years with the Sox. In 7 seasons, hit .320, slugged .605, had high HR & RBI totals...not saying he should necessarily be on the list but definitely impressive credentials!
1901-09 - Pitcher. At first, I assumed I had no shot at this. Then I decided to try to think of any old-time pitchers who may have been great enough to win the Cy Young award once that award started being given out. Couldn't come up with anything except players I knew played for other teams. (e.g. Christy Mathewson)
Drug testing is more of an IQ test than anything else nowadays. You have to know when and how to do it without getting caught. And most of them do, in some form.
The "steroid era" was different than today because it was like the Wild West. The testing rules had yet to be formalized, so a player couldn't point to a string of negative tests to prove his innocence. And then a witch hunt ensued.
Steroids will still tamper the 90s. Although it is an era most fans wish to forget, the decade was filled with countless of memorable players and events in any baseball fan's childhood.
It's a much-debated statistic that tries to capture in one number a player's overall value.
I'm honestly not sure exactly how it's calculated, but I know that's what it represents.
Sometimes casual fans don't like WAR because they don't understand the value of walking, base-running, defense, and positional scarcity.
Actually, it was already true last year, as Pedroia had a negative WAR in 2018.
The light finally came on with :19 left. D'Oh!!
David Ortiz*
The "steroid era" was different than today because it was like the Wild West. The testing rules had yet to be formalized, so a player couldn't point to a string of negative tests to prove his innocence. And then a witch hunt ensued.
It's getting old. Really old.
But I recognize I'm in the minority here.