ESPN Top 100

[Shoeless Moe]

Final Final comment on Mr. 15......what a joke.......I'm not gonna comment on the guy who cherry picked all the stats Trout leads over Altuve, I posted the main categories and was fair for both sides, he picked every one Trout leads, I could do the same for Altuve, but what's the point, or how he comments on a cold streak or 2 for Altuve in the Playoffs (who by the way has a .286 lifetime Postseason average with 23 HRs) yet says "Trout went 1 for 12 in 3 games in the playoffs, it happens".....double standard? white privilege much?.......and Mr No Name who say's I'm the cherry picker, yet doesn't comment on the real cherry picker who I just mentioned, so not going to respond to No Name, grow a pair then we'll talk.

I'll leave y'all with this to contemplate:

Lifetime vs. the Top 100 pitchers:

Mike Trout (#15) vs Clayton Kershaw (#52) - .200 BA (4 for 20)
Mike Trout (#15) vs Justin Verlander (#72) - .125 (5 for 40)
Mike Trout (#15) vs Max Scherzer (#65) - .188 (3 for 16)

total - 12 for 76 = .157 - not quite the Golden Boy..........oh and Williams hit .347 lifetime against Feller in 124 ABs.

...and not that it matters, because we are talking about Trout, but for comparison sake:

Jose Altuve vs Clayton Kershaw - .333 (6 for 18)
Jose Altuve vs Justin Verlander - .563 (9 for 16)
Jose Altuve vs Max Scherzer - .143 (2 for 14)

total - 17 for 48 = .354

No cherry picking there, those are what are called.................FACTS!

"WOOOOOOOOOOO"

[bobbvc]

These lists are always fun, especially in the off season. I personally witnessed Pedro throw a perfect game against the Padres and it was impressive. (He went on to lose the game in the 10th, also impressive by today's standards). But to rank him ahead of Honus Wagner is laughable.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bobbvc

These lists are always fun, especially in the off season. I personally witnessed Pedro throw a perfect game against the Padres and it was impressive. (He went on to lose the game in the 10th, also impressive by today's standards). But to rank him ahead of Honus Wagner is laughable.

It's a bit harder to compare Pitcher to Hitter, so no comment on Wagner vs Pedro, but no one is convincing me Pedro & Randy Johnson arn't the best pitchers of All time. So I have no complaint with Pedro's position, would like to see Randy right next to him though. Sorry, but you can have your farm hands Walter Johnson, Cy Young & Christy Mathewson.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

It's a bit harder to compare Pitcher to Hitter, so no comment on Wagner vs Pedro, but no one is convincing me Pedro & Randy Johnson arn't the best pitchers of All time. So I have no complaint with Pedro's position, would like to see Randy right next to him though. Sorry, but you can have your farm hands Walter Johnson, Cy Young & Christy Mathewson.

How about this attempt. Roger Clemens the real best ever only has one less Cy Young than both your picks combined. He also has one more MVP than both your picks combined. It really isn't even close.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bnorth

How about this attempt. Roger Clemens the real best ever only has one less Cy Young than both your picks combined. He also has one more MVP than both your picks combined. It really isn't even close.

Funny you should mention Roger. He's my #3.

It's real close between Roger, Pedro & Randy. He's probably be the only one I'd allow in the discussion.

I ding him slightly 'cuz of the steriods thing.....and throwing the bat at Piazza. Other than that he's right there.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Funny you should mention Roger. He's my #3.

It's real close between Roger, Pedro & Randy. He's probably be the only one I'd allow in the discussion.

I ding him slightly 'cuz of the steriods thing.....and throwing the bat at Piazza. Other than that he's right there.

You can't ding him for missing Piazza. He wasn't used to throwing bats.

I looked and seen if you add the triple crowns won by Pedro and Randy together they won as many combined as Roger won by himself.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bnorth

You can't ding him for missing Piazza. He wasn't used to throwing bats.

Hey all 3 of mine have their issues:

Roger threw a bat at Piazza
Randy threw a ball at a bird (and disintegrated it)
Pedro threw a Zimmer to the ground (I give Zimm credit though for getting in there, at 80 or whatever he was at the time)

......but none of that puts them below the farmers, or anyone else.

[guy3050]

Originally Posted by bobbvc

These lists are always fun, especially in the off season. I personally witnessed Pedro throw a perfect game against the Padres and it was impressive. (He went on to lose the game in the 10th, also impressive by today's standards). But to rank him ahead of Honus Wagner is laughable.

Pedro was the winning pitcher Expos won 1-0 in the 10th inning

[timber63401]

Keeping in mind it was in the middle of the steroid era, prime Pedro years are really remarkable.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Hey all 3 of mine have their issues:

Roger threw a bat at Piazza
Randy threw a ball at a bird (and disintegrated it)
Pedro threw a Zimmer to the ground (I give Zimm credit though for getting in there, at 80 or whatever he was at the time)

......but none of that puts them below the farmers, or anyone else.

I loved him throwing Zim to the ground. Pedro handled that perfectly. Zim asked for trouble - and he found it.

[luciobar1980]

Here are a few not on the list to at least discuss:

Mark McGwire (I know, I know)

Eddie Matthews (this one surprises me) whoops, never mind, he's there. One "T" Mathews !

[tod41]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Too high:

Bonds
Seaver
Henderson (way too high)
Clemente

Too low:

Bench

Seaver is too low. Should be ahead of Clemons, Maddox and Pedro.

[Ricky]

No George Sisler, Al Simmons or Mickey Cochrane. What other egregious misses?

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

Not sure I understand the people saying Pedro Martinez is way too high.

He was the most dominant pitcher of his era. From '97-03, the peak of the steroid era, he went 118-36, with a 2.20 ERA, 0.94 WHIP, 213 ERA+, and 5.59 K/BB ratio. I mean, those numbers are outrageous.

He ended up with 3,000+ strikeouts despite throwing only 2800 career innings. Injuries limited him after age 32, and he retired younger than some guys will now. But his numbers are absurd, in maybe the most offensively dominated era of baseball history.

I place more value on peak/performance than I do on counting stats, though some can argue that longevity is a skill. 10th best winning percentage ever, 8th best WHIP ever, 13th in H/9, 11th in K/9, 12th in K/BB, and 6th in ERA+

The game has changed recently and tilted back toward pitchers to some degree, which might make his accomplishments seem not as great, but I think when you adjust for era/context, hes arguably the most dominant pitcher ever, maybe behind only WaJo. But then you get into trying to compare their eras, which is really a fool's errand.

Couldn't have said it better.

Many reasons why other people don't get this. Some of the top ones are plenty of bias against more modern players, the fact that he only has 219 wins (which isn't acceptable for career greatness....unless your name is Koufax), and the fact that his impossibly great years didn't produce any individual stats that appear legendary on the surface. Like a 1.12 ERA, 30 wins, etc.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Couldn't have said it better.

Many reasons why other people don't get this. Some of the top ones are plenty of bias against more modern players, the fact that he only has 219 wins (which isn't acceptable for career greatness....unless your name is Koufax), and the fact that his impossibly great years didn't produce any individual stats that appear legendary on the surface. Like a 1.12 ERA, 30 wins, etc.

Pedro had a fantastic peak but faded due to injuries. His peak was higher than Seaver, for example, but he was not as dominant for as long as Seaver. He also played on a lot of good teams which helps. He certainly ranks high but not as high as he is placed in my humble opinion.

[Shoeless Moe]

I think it's kind of interesting how everyone pretty much agrees with Baseball's Greatest Hitters, Pitchers not so much. I think I could throw out a list of the Greatest of All Time 1-10 and someone else could have those reversed, with almost the exact same Pitchers.

Hitters:
Ruth is pretty much always #1.
Then it's Cobb or Mays for #2.
However, I's say Ted Williams easily is right there.
Then ya got Aaron.

So those are pretty much everyone's Top 5. You can try to make cases for DiMaggio, Gehrig, Mantle, Wagner, Robinson.....but I don't think they crack the Top 5.

Pitchers though 1-5, good luck getting a consensus.

Let's try.

Let's see your Top Pitchers 1 - 5 as you would rank them.

Mine would be:

1-Randy Johnson
2-Pedro Martinez
3-Roger Clemens
4-Bob Gibson
5-Bob Feller

Shit but now I left out Walter Johnson. and Lefty Grove. and Seaver....and many will have Koufax in there. See it's impossible.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Just based on numbers which do seem to hold up across eras, I'd have to put Walter Johnson and Young in any top five. On your list I might take Seaver before Gibson. I'd move Pedro down because of his career numbers but I understand the argument.

[darwinbulldog]

1. WaJo
2. Young
3. Clemens
4. Nichols
5. Alexander

[molenick]

I think if we made a list that was just based on career value and a list just based on peak value, there would be more (but not full) agreement. But it is true that pitchers seem to be harder to rank than hitters.

But since there is one list, everyone has to decide what they value most. The reason I rank (alphabetically) Alexander, Clemens, Gibson, Grove, R. Johnson, W. Johnson, Maddux, Mathewson, Seaver, and Young higher than Martinez is that they had longer careers and also high peak values. In some cases (not all) both their career and peak values rank higher than Martinez.

Martinez's four highest WARs were 11.7, 9.8, 9.0, 8.0 = 38.5
Grove 11.2, 10.4, 10.4, 9.8 = 41.8
Clemens 11.9, 10.4, 9.4, 8.8 = 40.5
Randy Johnson 10.7, 10.1, 9.1, 8.4 = 38.3
Gibson 11.2, 10.4, 8.9, 7.1 = 37.6
Seaver 10.6, 10.2, 7.8, 7.3 = 35.9
Maddux 9.7, 9.1, 8.5, 7.8 = 35.1.

Alexander, Johnson, Mathewson, and Young were in the 40s or 50s and obviously had much longer careers as well.

I used 4 years to get the peak-of-the-peak for each. Seaver and Maddux don't quite match Martinez but for me it's close enough that even a little credit for a long career makes me rank them higher. I rank Koufax below Martinez because his argument is entirely on peak value and his four best years (36.4) were not as good as Martinez's. I rank Spahn below Martinez because in my mind his long career did not offset his four best years "only" being 32.5. I feel the same about Carlton. To me Gibson was the closest call. I could go either way between the two, so I rank them 10 and 10a.

But I see an argument to get Martinez as high as second. First, put him over Gibson, Maddux, and Seaver because of peak vs. career. Then ahead of Clemens because of suspicion of steroids. Then ahead of Alexander, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, and Young because of dead ball stats being skewed (although I think the point of WAR is to try and unskew them a little). Then ahead of Grove because how can a player be better than someone who played 70 years later (that's really the only argument I see for putting Grove below Martinez…he was very similar to Martinez in that he dominated in a hitter's era but he was more dominant and did it for longer than Martinez).

But I can’t get him past Randy Johnson, who was just as dominant, pitched 1300 more innings, and has a higher WAR, WAR7, JAWS, and some other acronyms.

I'm sure I may have missed someone. I did not consider 19th century-only pitchers because it is hard to compare an era when pitchers could pitch over 600 innings and have a WAR of 20.5 (as Pud Galvin did in 1884). But if I did, Nichols would be my choice. I also did not include Negro League pitchers because I don't feel qualified weighing the statistics available with the reputations some players had.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by molenick

I think if we made a list that was just based on career value and a list just based on peak value, there would be more (but not full) agreement. But it is true that pitchers seem to be harder to rank than hitters.

But since there is one list, everyone has to decide what they value most. The reason I rank (alphabetically) Alexander, Clemens, Gibson, Grove, R. Johnson, W. Johnson, Maddux, Mathewson, Seaver, and Young higher than Martinez is that they had longer careers and also high peak values. In some cases (not all) both their career and peak values rank higher than Martinez.

Martinez's four highest WARs were 11.7, 9.8, 9.0, 8.0 = 38.5
Grove 11.2, 10.4, 10.4, 9.8 = 41.8
Clemens 11.9, 10.4, 9.4, 8.8 = 40.5
Randy Johnson 10.7, 10.1, 9.1, 8.4 = 38.3
Gibson 11.2, 10.4, 8.9, 7.1 = 37.6
Seaver 10.6, 10.2, 7.8, 7.3 = 35.9
Maddux 9.7, 9.1, 8.5, 7.8 = 35.1.

Alexander, Johnson, Mathewson, and Young were in the 40s or 50s and obviously had much longer careers as well.

I used 4 years to get the peak-of-the-peak for each. Seaver and Maddux don't quite match Martinez but for me it's close enough that even a little credit for a long career makes me rank them higher. I rank Koufax below Martinez because his argument is entirely on peak value and his four best years (36.4) were not as good as Martinez's. I rank Spahn below Martinez because in my mind his long career did not offset his four best years "only" being 32.5. I feel the same about Carlton. To me Gibson was the closest call. I could go either way between the two, so I rank them 10 and 10a.

But I see an argument to get Martinez as high as second. First, put him over Gibson, Maddux, and Seaver because of peak vs. career. Then ahead of Clemens because of suspicion of steroids. Then ahead of Alexander, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, and Young because of dead ball stats being skewed (although I think the point of WAR is to try and unskew them a little). Then ahead of Grove because how can a player be better than someone who played 70 years later (that's really the only argument I see for putting Grove below Martinez…he was very similar to Martinez in that he dominated in a hitter's era but he was more dominant and did it for longer than Martinez).

But I can’t get him past Randy Johnson, who was just as dominant, pitched 1800 more innings, and has a higher WAR, WAR7, JAWS, and some other acronyms.

I'm sure I may have missed someone. I did not consider 19th century-only pitchers because it is hard to compare an era when pitchers could pitch over 600 innings and have a WAR of 20.5 (as Pud Galvin did in 1884). But if I did, Nichols would be my choice. I also did not include Negro League pitchers because I don't feel qualified weighing the statistics available with the reputations some players had.

I love RJ as well, but the acronyms don't show that RJ's career was just as dominant.

Pedro's career WAR: 83.9 in 2827 innings (33.7 IP per)
Randy's career WAR: 101.1 in 4135 innings (40.9 IP per)

Pedro's career ERA+ was 154. Randy's was 135.

Not only was Pedro more dominant, but it's not even that close.

I'm fine with ranking RJ "higher" because he pitched so many more innings though, but I prefer Pedro's 2800 innings which were more elite. The ol' subjective argument

[molenick]

Yeah, I get that. I didn't want to overdo the acronyms, but I did see that Martinez beats Johnson in WAR/162 6.4 to 5.6, which I think is like your stat but in reverse (?).

In fact, the only ones above him in WAR/162 with more innings as well are Walter Johnson, Grove, Clemens, and Nichols (he's tied with Young at 6.4).

And if you go by WAR7 it is close (Johnson 61.5, Martinez 58.2).

I do lean towards giving some credit for longevity (as long as it is productive) so I guess that's why I rank Johnson higher. The longer careers generally gain counting stats as they go down in rate stats. Otherwise we need to figure out how to get Noodles Hahn and his 6.4 WAR/162 over 2000+ innings into the argument (that's 12th all-time ahead of Alexander, Mathewson, Gibson, Seaver, Maddux, Johnson, and many others).

[nat]

Maybe Paige belongs in this discussion? B-R (which now has Negro League WAR!) has Satchel Paige listed at 46 WAR in only ~1700 innings. On a per-inning basis he's a bit ahead of Young and a smidgen behind Clemens. Now, of course he didn't pitch as many innings as those guys, but we might want to take into consideration the fact that Negro League seasons were very short.

If we don't want to adjust his stats for the shorter seasons, then DarwinBulldog's list looks pretty good. I think it actually gets more difficult ranking the next five or so. RJ, Matty, Grove all seem to be in a tight scrum together.

FWIW, here's the career bWAR pitching leaderboard:

Young
WaJo
Clemens
Nichols
Alexander
Grove
Seaver
Maddux
Johnson
Matty

Those are all the guys above 100. Niekro and Blyleven are the next two, but they seem to be a clear step down from this group.

[darwinbulldog]

Not a bad rotation

[molenick]

I am hesitant to post another long, rambling post, but when the Paige question came up earlier, I did some research on Baseball Reference for other Negro League pitchers.

Three of them (Ray Brown, Bill Foster, and Bullet Rogan) are close to Paige in innings pitched, seem to have more impressive numbers in many of the traditional stats, and top him in WAR7 and WAR/162. In particular, Bill Foster and Bullet Rogan* are ranked as the second and third best pitchers in WAR/162 (behind another Negro Leaguer Dave Brown, but he only pitched half as many innings as the other players mentioned). Ray Brown is 21st in WAR/162 and Paige 38th. Rogan is 39th in WAR7, Foster 141st, Brown 224th, Paige 294th. There are other Negro Leaguers that rank highly in these categories, but they do not have as many innings or, if they do, the rest of their stats were not as impressive as these four.

One caveat is that I can't figure out Paige's WAR/162 just for the Negro Leagues. But that wouldn’t change his WAR7, since his seven best years were in the Negro Leagues. Plus, now that they are all considered major leagues, I am not sure if a differentiation is needed.

Two arguments for Paige are strikeouts and that he pitched well when he was older. And it's true, his strikeouts totals and ratios are better than the other three pitchers. But we know from Nolan Ryan that strikeouts and longevity don’t necessarily make you the greatest pitcher (although Paige had much better control than Ryan).

Here is a mix of traditional and analytic stats:
Bill Foster 110-56 2.63 1.172 47.1 WAR in 1499.67 IP (31.8 IP per WAR)
Bullet Rogan 120-52 2.65 1.157 61.5 WAR* in 1500 IP (24.4 IP per WAR; but 39.7 using just his pitching WAR of 37.8)
Ray Brown 122-45 3.02 1.205 39.5 WAR in 1477 IP (37.4)
Satchel Paige 118-80 2.70 1.092 46.3 WAR in 1695 IP (36.6)

Looking at this, it may be that Paige was the best, but it's not a no-brainer. If we start with the assumption that "of course he was the best because that's what I've always heard" then there is a tendency to find arguments that support that and ignore contradictory evidence. But if we started from scratch and were not aware of the legend of Satchel Paige, and used statistics now available to us that weren't before, we might come up with a different answer. I'm not saying he was a bum…just that maybe, possibly, who knows, he was perhaps the second or third best Negro League pitcher based on the numbers available now (which may change as more research is done). And to be honest, I feel weird saying that because for the last 50 years I just assumed he was the best.

Anyway, at least I learned something about players that I was not familiar with (other than their names). I also recognize Smokey Joe Williams as a candidate for best Negro League pitcher but his best years came before Baseball Reference has stats. Other names I see mentioned in these discussions, such as Leon Day, Martin Dihigo, and Hilton Smith also do not have enough data in BR for a statistical comparison.

And I nominate Bullet Rogan as candidate for best two-way player: 120-52 .698 2.65 pitching; .338/.413./.521/.934 batting (mostly as an outfielder in the same years he was pitching).

* Rogan's WAR rankings are skewed because they include his batting. But he was still a helluva pitcher.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by molenick

I am hesitant to post another long, rambling post, but when the Paige question came up earlier, I did some research on Baseball Reference for other Negro League pitchers.

Three of them (Ray Brown, Bill Foster, and Bullet Rogan) are close to Paige in innings pitched, seem to have more impressive numbers in many of the traditional stats, and top him in WAR7 and WAR/162. In particular, Bill Foster and Bullet Rogan* are ranked as the second and third best pitchers in WAR/162 (behind another Negro Leaguer Dave Brown, but he only pitched half as many innings as the other players mentioned). Ray Brown is 21st in WAR/162 and Paige 38th. Rogan is 39th in WAR7, Foster 141st, Brown 224th, Paige 294th. There are other Negro Leaguers that rank highly in these categories, but they do not have as many innings or, if they do, the rest of their stats were not as impressive as these four.

One caveat is that I can't figure out Paige's WAR/162 just for the Negro Leagues. But that wouldn’t change his WAR7, since his seven best years were in the Negro Leagues. Plus, now that they are all considered major leagues, I am not sure if a differentiation is needed.

Two arguments for Paige are strikeouts and that he pitched well when he was older. And it's true, his strikeouts totals and ratios are better than the other three pitchers. But we know from Nolan Ryan that strikeouts and longevity don’t necessarily make you the greatest pitcher (although Paige had much better control than Ryan).

Here is a mix of traditional and analytic stats:
Bill Foster 110-56 2.63 1.172 47.1 WAR in 1499.67 IP (31.8 IP per WAR)
Bullet Rogan 120-52 2.65 1.157 61.5 WAR* in 1500 IP (24.4 IP per WAR; but 39.7 using just his pitching WAR of 37.8)
Ray Brown 122-45 3.02 1.205 39.5 WAR in 1477 IP (37.4)
Satchel Paige 118-80 2.70 1.092 46.3 WAR in 1695 IP (36.6)

Looking at this, it may be that Paige was the best, but it's not a no-brainer. If we start with the assumption that "of course he was the best because that's what I've always heard" then there is a tendency to find arguments that support that and ignore contradictory evidence. But if we started from scratch and were not aware of the legend of Satchel Paige, and used statistics now available to us that weren't before, we might come up with a different answer. I'm not saying he was a bum…just that maybe, possibly, who knows, he was perhaps the second or third best Negro League pitcher based on the numbers available now (which may change as more research is done). And to be honest, I feel weird saying that because for the last 50 years I just assumed he was the best.

Anyway, at least I learned something about players that I was not familiar with (other than their names). I also recognize Smokey Joe Williams as a candidate for best Negro League pitcher but his best years came before Baseball Reference has stats. Other names I see mentioned in these discussions, such as Leon Day, Martin Dihigo, and Hilton Smith also do not have enough data in BR for a statistical comparison.

And I nominate Bullet Rogan as candidate for best two-way player: 120-52 .698 2.65 pitching; .338/.413./.521/.934 batting (mostly as an outfielder in the same years he was pitching).

* Rogan's WAR rankings are skewed because they include his batting. But he was still a helluva pitcher.

Quite honestly, I understand the possible reasoning behind adding the Negro League stats as major league stats, but disagree that they are necessarily the true equivalent of MLB stats and belong side by side with them. It has long been an argument of some that pre-integration MLB star player stats are possibly somewhat inflated due to the fact that those MLB players did not get/have to play against Negro League players, and therefore were able to pad their numbers playing against lesser talented white players. But that argument goes both ways!

If you look at the sheer number of MLB players historically, and the number of Negro League players whose stats have now been added onto the major league's records, something quite clearly does not add up. Given the overall population of whites and blacks in the US, and the historical percentages of black MLB players since integration finally took place, and those percentages today, from a statistical standpoint it would readily seem that it is the Negro Leagues that were probably filled with a significantly higher percentage of non-MLB talent than the white, segregated major leagues ever were. And because of that, it is the star Negro League players whose stats are likely much more inflated and embellished from having played against overall far lesser talent than their white counterparts in MLB pre-integration.

Everyone keeps spewing out all kinds of advanced numbers and statistics in their comparisons of where players should be on this ESPN list. I wonder if the Negro Leagues are not more akin to upper-level minor leagues, which is what they pretty much became after integration in 1948. And as such, maybe Negro League stats shouldn't be taken at face value as equivalent to other's stats. If you are going to insist on including them as full MLB stats, then explain and give me valid, factual, and logical reasons why we shouldn't also recognize say the PCL as a major league. Or what about some Cuban or other Latin-American leagues, why haven't any of them been granted full MLB status? Aren't there much greater numbers of Latin players in MLB today than African-American players? And you can even include the Japanese-Asian leagues in this argument. Josh Gibson gets even more consideration, recognition, and acceptance of his talent and ability now that his records are actual MLb stats, so why not someone like Sadaharu Oh? If you're going to go out of your way to recognize one ethnic group of formerly disenfranchised players, you either do it for ALL of them, or none of them!!!

[Shoeless Moe]

Yah I think you need to go 10 deep for Pitchers.

So my revised list would be:

1-Randy Johnson
2-Pedro Martinez
3-Roger Clemens
4-Bob Feller
5-Walter Johnson
6-Satchel Paige
7-Nolan Ryan
8-Sandy Koufax
9-Bob Gibson
10-Lefty Grove

So who just misses the cut, for me: Kershaw, Maddux, Seaver, Alexander, Spahn, Young, Mathewson & Steve Carlton

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Yah I think you need to go 10 deep for Pitchers.

So my revised list would be:

1-Randy Johnson
2-Pedro Martinez
3-Roger Clemens
4-Bob Feller
5-Walter Johnson
6-Satchel Paige
7-Nolan Ryan
8-Sandy Koufax
9-Bob Gibson
10-Lefty Grove

So who just misses the cut, for me: Kershaw, Maddux, Seaver, Alexander, Spahn, Young, Mathewson & Steve Carlton

IMO you have Pedro too high, Feller too high, Ryan should not be anywhere near the list, Grove too low. My list would include Seaver Young Alexander and Mathewson and probably (not going to rekindle this) Spahn. So I'll go 15 deep.

W Johnson
Young
Clemens
Grove
Seaver
Randy
Paige
Alexander
Mathewson
Spahn
Pedro
Feller
Gibson
Maddux
Carlton

[molenick]

I get Bob's point, but just to be clear, I was trying to compare pitchers within the context of the Negro Leagues with the data available. I have no idea how I would incorporate those players (including Paige) into an all-time list with non-Negro Leaguers aside from a gut feeling. Other than that, I think Peter's list is reasonable. But I will say that the traditional stats for the players I mentioned look pretty good as well.

[Touch'EmAll]

I would go with these all time top 5 pitchers (career value, not peak), not necessarily in order best to worst:

Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Bob Feller
Seaver
Maddux
Pedro

Next Tier:
Mathewson
Koufax
Nolan Ryan - most sheer dominant, most fun to watch
Paige - really don't know, just gut feeling
Randy Johnson

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IMO you have Pedro too high, Feller too high, Ryan should not be anywhere near the list, Grove too low. My list would include Seaver Young Alexander and Mathewson and probably (not going to rekindle this) Spahn. So I'll go 15 deep.

W Johnson
Young
Clemens
Grove
Seaver
Randy
Paige
Alexander
Mathewson
Spahn
Pedro
Feller
Gibson
Maddux
Carlton

It's very hard to exclude a guy with 7 No Hitters and 12 1-Hitters. When he was on, he was on. No one on the list comes close to that.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

It's very hard to exclude a guy with 7 No Hitters and 12 1-Hitters. When he was on, he was on. No one on the list comes close to that.

Less so if that pitcher walked 2,795 batters. He did finish 2nd in the Cy Young voting that one time though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

It's very hard to exclude a guy with 7 No Hitters and 12 1-Hitters. When he was on, he was on. No one on the list comes close to that.

Yes, but he was often off. His control was not that good. His bb/9 was awful, almost 5. Read Bill James' discussion of him, it's IMO pretty enlightening. 29th ranked pitcher by JAWS. I think Bill James in 2003 ranked him around 20th or maybe even lower.

[Touch'EmAll]

I googled "Bill James top 100 All Time", up came the list and the highest ranked player that is a pitcher is Walter Johnson at #8. The second highest ranked pitcher is Satchell Paige at #17.

I honestly have never seen any meaningful accurate season by season/career stats for Paige. I figured they simply don't exist. Maybe I haven't scoured the internet deep enough to see what I am looking for.

So how does Bill James arrive at #17 for Paige (2nd best pitcher of all time)? From where is he getting his stats?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

I googled "Bill James top 100 All Time", up came the list and the highest ranked player that is a pitcher is Walter Johnson at #8. The second highest ranked pitcher is Satchell Paige at #17.

I honestly have never seen any meaningful accurate season by season/career stats for Paige. I figured they simply don't exist. Maybe I haven't scoured the internet deep enough to see what I am looking for.

So how does Bill James arrive at #17 for Paige (2nd best pitcher of all time)? From where is he getting his stats?

Not saying he's wrong, but it's interesting that a statistician like James put so many Negro League players in his top 100 and relied mostly on anecdotal evidence.

[nat]

Bill never really was a statistician. (As he'd be the first to tell you.) His real strength as a baseball writer was his willingness to ask questions, and to be open to unexpected answers. He used numbers to answer questions when he could, but it would be a mistake to include him in the list of genuine statisticians (Tom Tango, Michael Litchman, and so on) who study baseball.

Somebody said: "it is the Negro Leagues that were probably filled with a significantly higher percentage of non-MLB talent than the white, segregated major leagues ever were."

One thing to keep in mind is that Negro League teams often had smaller rosters than AL/NL teams. Looking at the 1943 Kansas City Monarchs (grabbed a team from the middle of Paige's career): they only had eight players who got >100 at bats. Only four other position players managed to get even 10 at bats. They only had seven pitchers who appeared in more than one game. It looks like the entire team was the starting nine, a bench bat or two, and a couple spare pitchers.

Comparing them to the 43 Yankees. The Yanks had, by my count, 13 position players who appeared in a substantial number of games, to go along with 10 pitchers who made more than a cameo appearance or two. Almost twice as many players on the roster.

Negro League competition wasn't all that diluted, compared to AL/NL competition, because there weren't as many guys on each roster.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought Bill James was heavily involved in developing sabermetrics.

[John1941]

Bill James was a statistician. Probably the best proof of that is his development of Win Shares, which was WAR before WAR.

[nat]

He was instrumental in developing sabermetrics, but that's his "using numbers to answer questions when he can". His actual mathematical acumen is limited. In various places throughout the Abstracts he denies being a statistician, and says that he's only interested in mathematics as it helps him understand baseball better. You'll notice that his work involves very little in the way of actual statistics - there're very few regression analyses to be found. And a lot of his work had nothing to do with numbers at all: short biographies of notable players take up a significant chunk of several of the Abstracts.

Win Shares is James' uberstat, but it's not WAR before WAR. It's premised on dividing actual team wins between players. Philosophically, it's the opposite of WAR. The question James wants his stat to answer is "who deserves credit, and how much credit, for each team win?". The question that WAR tries to answer is "how many additional wins would you expect from a team, if this player were to join it?" Win Shares is thus much more context-dependent than is WAR. It provides an interesting record of what happened, but, analytically, it's much less useful. It doesn't tell you much that's of much use for analyzing a trade, or for predicting a player's performance, and so on.

[molenick]

I think it is great that earlier rankings (and the ESPN list) included Negro League players, because we know some of them would have been stars if they could have played in what were then the Major Leagues. But I think after deciding that they should be included, people didn't have that much to go on except anecdotal evidence, some apocryphal stories, sketchy statistics, and in some cases earlier rankings (which themselves relied on anecdotal evidence, stories, etc.). Paige was the best pitcher, Gibson the best catcher, Charleston the best outfielder, Leonard the best first baseman, etc. It was just a matter of deciding how to rank them among the non-Negro League players.

Now that we have some statistics, in many cases they justify our "gut" rankings. In some cases, the stats are superhuman and clearly have to be taken in context...Josh Gibson's 162 game average .is 374/.458/.719 with 46 HRs, 166 Runs and 196 RBIs. I think we can agree he would not have done that in an integrated major leagues in the 1930s. But I think we can also agree that he certainly lives up to the hype (if not exceeding it). No one can look at those stats and say, I guess he really wasn't as good as they said he was.

But Paige's stats do not hit me in the same way. They are very good, his 162 game average is 14-9 with a 2.70 ERA and 169 strikeouts in 199 innings. His ERA+ is 152 and his lifetime WAR is 46.3 in 1695 innings (36.6 innings per WAR).

Then I look at Bill Foster: 162 game average 19-9 with a 2.63 ERA and 156 strikeouts in 253 innings. His ERA+ is 164 and his lifetime WAR is 47.0 in 1499.67 innings (31.9 innings per WAR).

Bullet Rogan: 162 game average 22-10, 2.70 ERA, 161 ERA+, 168 strikeouts in 275 innings.

Ray Brown: 162 game average 22-8, 3.02 ERA, 149 ERA+, 126 strikeouts in 271 innings.

Except for strikeouts, these players appear to be statistically better than Paige.

Now, there might be reasons for this. For example, Paige was used primarily as a reliever in the integrated Major Leagues, so his 162 game average was watered down for W-L. And pitching in the integrated Major Leagues also worsened his career ERA and W-L pct. There may also be statistics from games that have not been discovered yet.

But let's say Bill Foster was the traditional #1 ranked Negro League pitcher, and say there were stories about him taking the outfielders off the field when he was pitching, and throwing strikes over a bubble gum wrapper.

And then say we were presented with all these statistics we didn't have before. I think we would say, well, yeah, that just shows we got it right, like we do (or I do, anyway) with Gibson (and Charleston, Leonard, and others).

I don't think we would look at Paige's stats and say, no, really he should have been number one all along, it's obvious, can't you see that he has a worse W-L pct., higher ERA, lower ERA+, lower WAR, lower WAR7, lower WAR/162, and lower JAWS and that proves he was better than the guy we always said was number one.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by nat

Bill never really was a statistician. (As he'd be the first to tell you.) His real strength as a baseball writer was his willingness to ask questions, and to be open to unexpected answers. He used numbers to answer questions when he could, but it would be a mistake to include him in the list of genuine statisticians (Tom Tango, Michael Litchman, and so on) who study baseball.

Somebody said: "it is the Negro Leagues that were probably filled with a significantly higher percentage of non-MLB talent than the white, segregated major leagues ever were."

One thing to keep in mind is that Negro League teams often had smaller rosters than AL/NL teams. Looking at the 1943 Kansas City Monarchs (grabbed a team from the middle of Paige's career): they only had eight players who got >100 at bats. Only four other position players managed to get even 10 at bats. They only had seven pitchers who appeared in more than one game. It looks like the entire team was the starting nine, a bench bat or two, and a couple spare pitchers.

Comparing them to the 43 Yankees. The Yanks had, by my count, 13 position players who appeared in a substantial number of games, to go along with 10 pitchers who made more than a cameo appearance or two. Almost twice as many players on the roster.

Negro League competition wasn't all that diluted, compared to AL/NL competition, because there weren't as many guys on each roster.

I was the one who said the Negro League stats were diluted down. I'm not arguing or disagreeing with your figures and statements, but you're using the wrong numbers.

I did some online research and am relying upon facts and figures I got off various sites. So if something I ended up using is wrong, I apologize, but blame the online sources.

So, since the National League was first formed in 1876, there have been 19,969 recognized MLB players through 2/17/2022, none of which appear to be solely Negro League players. And as of the end of 2020, MLB recognized approximately 3.400 Negro League player's stats as now being official MLB stats. These were taken from seven different Negro Leagues that operated during the period 1920-1948. And it appears that about 45 of those newly added Negro League player stats were for players that eventually made it into the majors, so I'll reduce the number of added Negro League player stats down to 3,355 (3,400 - 45) so as not to double count those players that did get into the majors also. Currently, depending on where you look, the black population in the US is at about the 12%-14% range. Back during the 1920-1948 period the Negro League stats were taken from, the black population in the US was even lower, at only about 10%. And finally, in 1956, Jackie Robinson's last year in the majors, the percentage of black players on MLB rosters was 6.7%. At the start of the 2020 season, the percentage of black players on MLB rosters had risen to 7.8%, still below the percentage of blacks overall in the US population.

Now without even adjusting for the increased number of teams and players over the past 60 years, starting with MLB's expansion that began back in 1961, if you take the overall total number of recognized MLB players in history and divide that by the number of years MLB has existed, you come up with an overall average of 136.8 new MLB players (19,969 / 146 Yrs) being recognized and added each year. Now if we do the same calculation for the Negro Leagues, we end up with them adding an average of 115.7 new MLB level players (3,355 / 29 Yrs) being recognized and added each year. The problem is, blacks accounted for only about 10% of the overall US population back then, and have historically represented an even lesser percentage of MLB rosters over a long period of time.

So based on those numbers and percentages, you would expect the average number of new black MLB level players being added from the Negro Leagues to be more like 13.7 players each year (136.8 MLB average X 10% black population), versus the 115.7 new MLB level players that were actually being added from the Negro Leagues annually. The 102 player difference (115.7 - 13.7) between these expected and actual average MLB level players being recognized and added each year by the Negro Leagues between 1920-1948 is most likely made up of players, the vast majority of which, that do not have MLB level talent, and are only playing at this level because Negro League teams needed to fill out their rosters with somebody. So as a result, it would seem logical to assume those Negro League stars that did have MLB level talent were able to feast on and pad and embellish their stats by playing a lot less MLB talent level players. Much, much, much more so than their white counterparts in the segregated major leagues. So to now take these Negro League stats and compare them straight across the board against everyone else in MLB is, I feel, totally unfair to all the regular MLB players, as they likely played against much higher overall MLB level talent throughout their careers, as opposed to their Negro League counterparts.

So if you want to go back and tell me again how the Kansas City Monarchs team having small rosters explains away the ridiculously disproportionate number of Negro League players that got their stats added onto MLB's records, and can do so with some actual facts, figures, and logical arguments, I'm all ears. Just promise you won't come back with some crap about how the black athletes just want to all play football and basketball now, and that's the best explanation you can give to explain how those Negro League players were all legit MLB level players back then. And so you know, I made sure to skew some of the numbers I was using so they'd actually go against the argument I was making. In other words, the numbers are likely even more ridiculously disproportionate than I was putting forth.

[nineunder71]

Throwing Zimmer was more impressive than the bat at Piazza, nod goes to Pedro over Clemens for this reason only.....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nineunder71

Throwing Zimmer was more impressive than the bat at Piazza, nod goes to Pedro over Clemens for this reason only.....

One of my favorite Pedro moments was during a Red Sox Indians game that was escalating in the 7th as Pedro threw a brushback pitch and then Nagy retaliated by drilling Jose Offerman. All hell breaks loose, the umpires warn both benches, and so on. Pedro then somehow persuades Jimy Williams to put him back out for the 8th and of course he immediately drills Alomar hard and he and Williams get tossed. Pedro protected his hitters and was unapologetic about it. His comment was something like things happen.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Too high:

Bonds
Seaver
Henderson (way too high)
Clemente

Too low:

Bench

Seaver too high? Think again. One of only TWO…..yes TWO pitchers who ever won 300+ games (311); struck out 3,000+ batters (3,640); and post a sub-3.00 ERA (2.86). Walter Johnson being the other. Ranked #7 lifetime in WAR among all pitchers & #6 in JAWS (Jaffe System combining best peak 7 years & longevity). Lifetime .603 winning percentage is roughly 100 points superior to his teams Winning % & he posted 231 complete games and 61 shoutouts. Hitters posted a measly .226 lifetime batting average against Seaver - an amazing statistic. Pedro Martinez being # 11 is a complete joke - not Seaver being #22.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

And finally, in 1956, Jackie Robinson's last year in the majors, the percentage of black players on MLB rosters was 6.7%. At the start of the 2020 season, the percentage of black players on MLB rosters had risen to 7.8%, still below the percentage of blacks overall in the US population.

It's worth noting that this is true, but there was also a 40 year stretch from 1968-1998 that the % of black players was more like 14-19%.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseb...ics-1947-2016/

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

It's worth noting that this is true, but there was also a 40 year stretch from 1968-1998 that the % of black players was more like 14-19%.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseb...ics-1947-2016/

Great point--when baseball was popular with black athletes, they made up a sizeable portion of MLB rosters relative to their population in the country as a whole.

I am still not sure what BobC is trying to get at by saying the % of blacks in the major leagues is not currently high. Is he not aware of the fact that it has a lot to do with baseball becoming less popular among black athletes compared to football, basketball or other professions?

If his point is that black athletes are not capable of playing in the majors, then he needs to do a better job presenting that case.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Great point--when baseball was popular with black athletes, they made up a sizeable portion of MLB rosters relative to their population in the country as a whole.

I am still not sure what BobC is trying to get at by saying the % of blacks in the major leagues is not currently high. Is he not aware of the fact that it has a lot to do with baseball becoming less popular among black athletes compared to football, basketball or other professions?

If his point is that black athletes are not capable of playing in the majors, then he needs to do a better job presenting that case.

Jackie Robinson signing did not magically open up the floodgates for black athletes, or latino athletes for that matter. It wasn't until well into the latter part of the 50's that percentages combined reached 12%. I have no doubt that the lack of representation that BobC is alluding to has little to do with the overall quality of play of the Negro League. Besides the fact that the league ended shortly after the barrier was broken, so by the time the opportunities were more forthcoming, any feeder effect would be non-existent.
BTW, the fact that latino athletes are represented in MLB in roughly DOUBLE their demographic percentages is astounding to me. Coupled that with the 1300 roster spaces in the NBA and NFL occupied by black athletes and it is not so surprising the MLB representation is as low as it is.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

It's worth noting that this is true, but there was also a 40 year stretch from 1968-1998 that the % of black players was more like 14-19%.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseb...ics-1947-2016/

Doesn't really matter or affect the Negro League situation and questions as the numbers I was pointing out were so disproportionate back then that even if we take into account the higher % of black MLB players at certain times in history, as you pointed out, and double the expected average annual number of black players to be recognized as MLB level players each year from 13.7 to 27.4, it still comes nowhere near the actual 115.7 Negro League players they began calling major leaguers each year. The Negro Leagues were basically a few major league players spending their years playing in the minors, and padding their numbers against weaker overall talent. And is why to me, any Negro League player on any all-time records or lists is suspect, and likely may not fully deserve the acclaim, ranking, and standing they are being afforded. I am not saying anyone was not a great player, but there is evidence that if people are basing at least some of their opinions on stats, they may not be as accurate and comparable as one would hope, and otherwise expect, due to the reduced overall level of talent they were primarily playing against.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Great point--when baseball was popular with black athletes, they made up a sizeable portion of MLB rosters relative to their population in the country as a whole.

I am still not sure what BobC is trying to get at by saying the % of blacks in the major leagues is not currently high. Is he not aware of the fact that it has a lot to do with baseball becoming less popular among black athletes compared to football, basketball or other professions?

If his point is that black athletes are not capable of playing in the majors, then he needs to do a better job presenting that case.

So you're basically just saying that I'm wrong because all blacks are overall so much better athletes than whites could ever be at pretty much every major sport, and the only reason for them not dominating over whites in any particular sport is simply because they aren't really so interested in that particular sport and therefore, choose not to play it. That about right?

Assuming so, it is senseless to waste my time trying to debate you as I've seen how discussions go with others of such thinking and understanding. Suffice it to say then that you are of the opinion that had baseball not been segregated back during the time of the Negro Leagues, from 1920-1948, that because all the black athletes back then were not yet so enamored with football and basketball that all the major league baseball teams from then would have most likely been made up of 50%, 60%, or maybe even 70% or more of black players then. I'm obviously so wrong for ever thinking to look at historical trends and percentages in trying to project or estimate likely numbers of a particular group's participation, and success, in certain sports. Thank you.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Jackie Robinson signing did not magically open up the floodgates for black athletes, or latino athletes for that matter. It wasn't until well into the latter part of the 50's that percentages combined reached 12%. I have no doubt that the lack of representation that BobC is alluding to has little to do with the overall quality of play of the Negro League. Besides the fact that the league ended shortly after the barrier was broken, so by the time the opportunities were more forthcoming, any feeder effect would be non-existent.
BTW, the fact that latino athletes are represented in MLB in roughly DOUBLE their demographic percentages is astounding to me. Coupled that with the 1300 roster spaces in the NBA and NFL occupied by black athletes and it is not so surprising the MLB representation is as low as it is.

The Negro Leagues likely ended as their star players were being signed to play in the majors and/or to minor league contracts with teams with MLB affiliations. And in the eyes of their fanbase, the Negro League teams saw themselves demoted to low minor league status, at best. Ownership probably saw drops in interest and attendance as a result, and likely made shutting a team down as a straightforward business decision.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BobC

So you're basically just saying that I'm wrong because all blacks are overall so much better athletes than whites could ever be at pretty much every major sport, and the only reason for them not dominating over whites in any particular sport is simply because they aren't really so interested in that particular sport and therefore, choose not to play it. That about right?

Assuming so, it is senseless to waste my time trying to debate you as I've seen how discussions go with others of such thinking and understanding. Suffice it to say then that you are of the opinion that had baseball not been segregated back during the time of the Negro Leagues, from 1920-1948, that because all the black athletes back then were not yet so enamored with football and basketball that all the major league baseball teams from then would have most likely been made up of 50%, 60%, or maybe even 70% or more of black players then. I'm obviously so wrong for ever thinking to look at historical trends and percentages in trying to project or estimate likely numbers of a particular group's participation, and success, in certain sports. Thank you.

BobC, you are really going off the rails now.
The SABR demographic statistics show that African Americans made up 15% or more of MLB rosters from 1968 to 1977, which is about double what is today. I am not the only person who thinks this could be due to a waning in popularity of the sport among blacks. SABR also thinks this. If you look at the SABR article, it says right on the bottom: "The past 20 years has witnessed a decline in African American players in the game....The prevalent opinion seems to be that the cause of the decline in African Americans is external to major league baseball: that African Americans are focusing on other sports as youths, either by choice or because of fewer opportunities to play baseball. As far as we are aware, this issue has not been studied — it is reasoned speculation."

I never said, nor do I believe that African Americans could make up 50% to 70% of rosters. I am simply pointing out that current demographics are not a great metric for measuring African Americans ability to perform in the MLB.