ESPN Top 100 MLB Players of All-Time

[Robles Fan]

94 Bryce Harper
89 Joe Jackson
63 David Ortiz
56 Dave Winfield (just below Reggie Jackson)
28 Derek Jeter
15 Mike Trout
13 Ken Griffey Jr

Also, some notables NOT listed: Gary Sheffield, Jeff Bagwell, Dick Allen, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina


I know player rankings of these sorts are always completely subjective. But the above slots stood out the most to me to the point where they need some serious explaining. To slide someone like Bryce Harper right in to the #94 slot is to automatically assume that he is already a real bona fide hall of famer, which he clearly is not. While his direct contemporary, Mike Trout, at the #15 spot, might as well already be considered a legit all-time great despite having just 10 full seasons under his belt. David Ortiz, despite his postseason heroics, somehow earns the #63 while a superior DH like Edgar Martinez is nowhere to be found here. How or why someone like Dave Winfield (#56) could possibly be placed right to the great Reggie Jackson (#55) is beyond me. Winfield in my eyes is about as good as someone like Andre Dawson or Billy Williams, who are both nowhere to be found here. Sorry, but Derek Jeter (#28) is overrated like hell here. You cannot possibly justify him being nearly 40 slots ahead of Cal Ripken (#66) who is clearly his superior. And lastly, I've mentioned some notables that had somehow failed to be included. If someone of the likes of Bryce Harper can already make the top 100 then I absolutely must know what's keeping these notable players with much more accomplished careers out.

[hammertime]

I keep a spreadsheet of various top 100 lists and average rankings, I'll have to add this one into the mix.

[rats60]

I don't take this list seriously. Joe Jackson was better than Bonds. Grover Cleveland was a top 5 pitcher. Sandy Koufax was a top 2 pitcher. Both way too low. Honus Wagner was a top 3 player. Clemente was better than Aaron, not to mention Frank Robinson, way too low. Hornsby way too low. Bench way too low.

Overrated from just the top 25 Frank Robinson too high, Clemens too high, Trout way too high, Maddux too high, Griffey way too high, Pedro too high, Mantle way too high, Aaron way to high.

This is just typical ESPN click bait.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

No major gripe from me, but I am always amazed that Jimmie Foxx isn’t higher on these lists. His career numbers reached in (essentially) 13.5 seasons is remarkable. He’s in my top 15, but #40 is way too low imo

Foxx is a top 25 player. So are Greenberg and Speaker. Again this is click bait to appeal to modern casual fans not baseball historians. So much disrespect for many players in the pre ESPN era.

[cjraleigh]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

No major gripe from me, but I am always amazed that Jimmie Foxx isn’t higher on these lists. His career numbers reached in (essentially) 13.5 seasons is remarkable. He’s in my top 15, but #40 is way too low imo

Big Foxx fan and thought the same thing as well. Insulting to have him at 40.

At the risk of sounding blasphemous, he was every bit Gehrig’s contemporary other than the juggernaut team Lou played on and his tragic fate.

Otherwise, both had multiple MVPs, multiple rings, were Triple Crown winners, batting champs, and were otherwise legendary at the same position in the same league at the same point in time.

https://stathead.com/tiny/RgL2O

[jjrpilot]

Ichiro is way too low.

Having 10 consecutive 200+ hit seasons? Insane. He still reached the 3000 hit mark after starting at an older age in the MLB.

[JRX]

Hello clickbait my old friend.....

[msink28]

Albert Pujols is massively disrespected as well. He only finished outside of the Top 5 in MVP voting once in his first 11 seasons, and has a real case for being considered the postseason hitter of all time. He is easily a top-20 player.

[Archangel1775]

What's crazy is if Ohtani gives us 5 years of the same production and a few pennants along the way, he could break the Top 100.

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by YouTheManNick

Baseball twitter is absolutely melting down over this.

Personally. And this is just me personally. You do you. I'm SO SICK of 'goat' discourse in both sports fandom and sports cards. So tired of it. So sick of the term 'goat' in general. Would love to go back in time and punch the person who coined it before they could say it. Or maybe find away to eternal sunshine the term from everyone's minds.

These players all / were great players in their own way.

It gets so muddled due to how the game and people in general have changed and evolved over the course of 100+ years. Lots of people think Babe Ruth shouldn't be even on the list because they don't think he could play against today's pitchers. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. But does it even matter? Is the fact that he changed the way the game was played and was far and away better than everyone else enough? I mean. If your argument against Ruth is that he played against inferior talent, how come no one else from that era hit 700 home runs or even came close?

These players played in different eras and time periods and approached the game differently. Of course modern players are going to be 'better' than players from 30, 40, 60, 100, 120 years ago. That's evolution. They eat better. They train better. They have 100+ years of baseball history and knowledge to draw from. Groundwork that was laid by those who came before them. Should the difference in eras diminish what the older players did?

Anyway. This is a mini rant from someone who went on a twitter rabbit hole which was an absolute mistake. I'm just gonna walk away now.

LL Cool J is your man:

[seanrs1]

Based on ESPN's rankings which players cards are over valued and which are under valued?

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by drakehendrix34

The only thing that diminishes them for me is that many in the top 20 played in segregated leagues. Only playing half the talent

Now this is a really dumb post. I wonder if you can figure out why.

[Anish]

Originally Posted by drakehendrix34

The only thing that diminishes them for me is that many in the top 20 played in segregated leagues. Only playing half the talent

Yes. And even less than that in terms of worldwide talent.

Take Acuna, Soto, Ohtani, etc out of the game today and the guys still in the league look that much better.

Ruth, for example, had 14 HR crowns, but maybe he’d only have 4 if everyone could play.

WAR is also a silly way to compare players across eras when the “replacement level player” has improved DRAMATICALLY. A hundred years ago it was a guy who worked a day job and played ball in the evening. Today, it’s a guy who’s dedicated his whole life to the game.

I have no problem with big time postseason players like Ortiz being high. The regular season to me is basically meaningless. Walkoff hits/dominant pitching in October should be worth much more. You play to win the WS.

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by Anish

Yes. And even less than that in terms of worldwide talent.

Take Acuna, Soto, Ohtani, etc out of the game today and the guys still in the league look that much better.

Ruth, for example, had 14 HR crowns, but maybe he’d only have 4 if everyone could play.

WAR is also a silly way to compare players across eras when the “replacement level player” has improved DRAMATICALLY. A hundred years ago it was a guy who worked a day job and played ball in the evening. Today, it’s a guy who’s dedicated his whole life to the game.

I have no problem with big time postseason players like Ortiz being high. The regular season to me is basically meaningless. Walkoff hits/dominant pitching in October should be worth much more. You play to win the WS.

So you think if old time players played today they’d still be working day jobs and wouldn’t have access to the same advancements today’s players enjoy?

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by drakehendrix34

The only thing that diminishes them for me is that many in the top 20 played in segregated leagues. Only playing half the talent

in 1920, just to grab any random census:

105.7 million people in the US.
94.8. Million of them white.

This "half the talent" narrative is so baffling, and so ahistorical it eats at my brain.

Even now, roughly 60% of players are white, and STILL not equitable. White players, virtually since 1947, have underperformed their percentages in baseball against all other races.

And the idea that 1947 is some sort of true delineation point statistically is ridiculous. 1946 was unfair because it was all white - but 1947 was ok because by the season end there were TWO regular black players.

The Red Sox didn't have a black player until 1959, and it SURE wasn't because there weren't good black players available. Teams would actually trade away good black players because they ran out of excuses to keep them in the minors.

Ray Dandridge hit .362 in 1949 for the Giants in AAA. He could play, 2B, 3b, and SS
At SS that year the Giants went with Buddy Kerr: .209/.284/.227

So if you think post 1947 the stats are all "real" - nope.

And if you think stats pre-1947 are missing HALF THE TALENT - nope.

This stuff is never nearly that simple, but always treated that way.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Anish

Yes. And even less than that in terms of worldwide talent.

Take Acuna, Soto, Ohtani, etc out of the game today and the guys still in the league look that much better.

Ruth, for example, had 14 HR crowns, but maybe he’d only have 4 if everyone could play.

WAR is also a silly way to compare players across eras when the “replacement level player” has improved DRAMATICALLY. A hundred years ago it was a guy who worked a day job and played ball in the evening. Today, it’s a guy who’s dedicated his whole life to the game.

I have no problem with big time postseason players like Ortiz being high. The regular season to me is basically meaningless. Walkoff hits/dominant pitching in October should be worth much more. You play to win the WS.

I like the idea posed here that baseball players were so poor they had to work milking cows for a haypenny a week before playing baseball in the evening, you know, before lights were installed.

Baseball players, since 1875, made more money than the average person. Many were not good with money, so they would supplement it, almost primarily in the off-season. Year by year this has disappeared although it was still a thing for some during the last strike.

Replacement player is a calculation for around what it would take to get a team to 50 wins, more or less (different sites have used and changed their definition of replacement). Replacement players have gotten far better. And the league has gotten far bigger, and there really isn't much of a difference in the war/playing time of players of yesteryear versus players of today. There is some - but expansion of both leagues and rosters has made the talent levels not near the exaggerated image of blind, polio stricken midgets playing baseball so they can afford a piece of bread that seems to be rampant thinking in the past few years.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Robles Fan

94 Bryce Harper
89 Joe Jackson
63 David Ortiz
56 Dave Winfield (just below Reggie Jackson)
28 Derek Jeter
15 Mike Trout
13 Ken Griffey Jr

Also, some notables NOT listed: Gary Sheffield, Jeff Bagwell, Dick Allen, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina


I know player rankings of these sorts are always completely subjective. But the above slots stood out the most to me to the point where they need some serious explaining. To slide someone like Bryce Harper right in to the #94 slot is to automatically assume that he is already a real bona fide hall of famer, which he clearly is not. While his direct contemporary, Mike Trout, at the #15 spot, might as well already be considered a legit all-time great despite having just 10 full seasons under his belt. David Ortiz, despite his postseason heroics, somehow earns the #63 while a superior DH like Edgar Martinez is nowhere to be found here. How or why someone like Dave Winfield (#56) could possibly be placed right to the great Reggie Jackson (#55) is beyond me. Winfield in my eyes is about as good as someone like Andre Dawson or Billy Williams, who are both nowhere to be found here. Sorry, but Derek Jeter (#28) is overrated like hell here. You cannot possibly justify him being nearly 40 slots ahead of Cal Ripken (#66) who is clearly his superior. And lastly, I've mentioned some notables that had somehow failed to be included. If someone of the likes of Bryce Harper can already make the top 100 then I absolutely must know what's keeping these notable players with much more accomplished careers out.

I don't get worked up about lists like this because the methodology is often not listed. Peak? Career? How do you rate a Mike Trout who has had a Pujolsian first decade, but we know how his 2nd decade went...

But you're right, Cal Ripken has Jeter on Peak offensively. He has him on peak defensively. He has him on career offensively. He has him on career defensively. And he's Cal Ripken, not exactly an unpopular, under the radar type of player.

On the whole, Cal also raked in the postseason and does have a win.

So the work you'd have to do to make Jeter better than Cal would be putting an awful lot of weight on those other rings, or an awful lot of pretending about his defense, to such a degree that the same logic would change the list dramatically for other players.

That's to have Jeter better than Cal. To have Jeter FORTY SPOTS better than Cal would have to take an awful lot of simple hero worship and bias and his beautiful dazzling new york eyes.

and that's how you know that a list you barely paid any attention to in the first place, got infinitely more attention from you than it deserved.

[Silent George]

It also amuses me that Ortiz ranks 65th all time on fangraphs in offensive value.

And literally all he was was offensive value.

And he ranks here 63rd all time.

He's 4,111th among qualifying players for defensive value, out of 4,115.

Naturally you combine that with 65th in offense and you have a guy who goes up in the rankings.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by JRX

Hello clickbait my old friend.....

ESPN got its money’s worth

[REGGIE206]

This list is silly.. lol

[YouTheManNick]

Originally Posted by gresh87

you may not like who you're up against.

Wow. That is very interesting. Thank you for sharing. Don't think I'll be punching an Ali or LL Cool J anytime soon. Ha.


A part of it for me also is didn't 'goat' used to be a bad thing? As in scapegoat. Like, wasn't steve bartman a 'goat'? Bill Buckner. Etc.

[hammertime]

Originally Posted by YouTheManNick

Wow. That is very interesting. Thank you for sharing. Don't think I'll be punching an Ali or LL Cool J anytime soon. Ha.


A part of it for me also is didn't 'goat' used to be a bad thing? As in scapegoat. Like, wasn't steve bartman a 'goat'? Bill Buckner. Etc.

"A" goat is a bad thing. "The" GOAT is something else.

[inaka]

Mike Schmidt ranked above Rickey Henderson?
Absolutely ridiculous.

[66_Fiat]

Originally Posted by YouTheManNick

Wow. That is very interesting. Thank you for sharing. Don't think I'll be punching an Ali or LL Cool J anytime soon. Ha.


A part of it for me also is didn't 'goat' used to be a bad thing? As in scapegoat. Like, wasn't steve bartman a 'goat'? Bill Buckner. Etc.

GOAT = Greatest of All Time

[YouTheManNick]

Originally Posted by hammertime

"A" goat is a bad thing. "The" GOAT is something else.

Oh it's something alright.