Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 24, 2018

Posnanski: Baseball 100 Rules

In this era of reboots, it was perhaps inevitable that Joe Posnanski would take another crack at the 100 greatest players in major league history. 

The Baseball 100 is more than just a ranking system to me. The difference between my 78th ranked player and my 212th ranked player is so miniscule that it’s mathematically irrelevant. With one slight adjustment, I could have those two players switch places.

Nearly all of the series is to be pay walled, but Zach Greinke is No. 100 on the list.

In the original version of this list, I included a bunch of Negro leaguers — I can tell you that four were in my Top 20. I still believe this. But Negro leaguers will now be a major part of my corresponding Shadowball 100….It’s an eclectic list that includes players who are, in their own ways, larger than life.

No. 100 on this list is Duane Kuiper.

 

 

Rennie's Tenet Posted: August 24, 2018 at 08:01 AM | 671 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, joe posnanski, joe posnanski top 100, reboots

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 7 of 7 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7
   601. bbmck Posted: February 14, 2020 at 08:31 PM (#5924543)
MLB position player WAR rankings of the Poz 100 barring some really surprising entry like 18. Duane Kuiper:

1-44: All exclusions most likely because of time lining: 28 Cap Anson, 33 George Davis, 34 Roger Connor, 39 Dan Brouthers
45-87 or 45-98: 15 players selected. 48 Johnny Bench, 69 Gary Carter and 80 Carlton Fisk included and 78 Ivan Rodriguez excluded have the highest WAR for Catchers. 51 Reggie Jackson, 57 Mike Trout, 58 Derek Jeter and 86 Ernie Banks have high levels of fame even relative to other great players and are included. 62 Johnny Mize is pretty credibly low 30s with war credit.

52 Frank Thomas, 54 Arky Vaughan, 56 Larry Walker, 71 Miguel Cabrera, 73 Carlos Beltran, 76 Tony Gwynn, 87 Roberto Alomar included.

45 Paul Molitor, 50 Luke Appling, 53 Jim Thome, 72 Robinson Cano, 74 Manny Ramirez, 79 Eddie Murray, 83 Ryne Sandberg excluded.

Setting aside PED issues for Cano and Manny, reasonably similar cases and a coin flip over which DH, SS, OF, current player, OF, 3000+ Hits and 2B are better. Along with excluding 46 Bill Dahlen, 47 Sam Crawford, 67 Bobby Wallace, 70 Ed Delahanty and 85 Fred Clarke on time lining.

As well as excluding 49 Lou Whitaker, 55 Paul Waner, 59 Harry Heilmann, 60 Rafael Palmeiro, 61 Bobby Grich, 63 Alan Trammell, 64 Ron Santo, 65 Barry Larkin, 66 Frankie Frisch, 68 Scott Rolen, 75 Tim Raines, 77 Al Simmons, 81 Edgar Martinez, 82 Kenny Lofton and 84 Graig Nettles. Being harsher on 2B than the Hall of Fame is pretty impressive.

99 Willie McCovey is less than 5 WAR behind 76 Tony Gwynn with only Roberto Alomar on the list between them. 114 Jackie Robinson, 125 Yogi Berra, 126 Mike Piazza, 127 Ichiro Suzuki, 137 Hank Greenberg and T391 Roy Campanella. The exclusion of Ivan Rodriguez is somewhat surprising, the inclusion of the other catchers is not. Jackie and Ichiro are expected inclusions. Greenberg with more years of military service at a younger age than Appling and McCovey doesn't really stand out in any way from many players excluded for the Poz 100.

13 - NYY Babe Ruth 142.6, Lou Gehrig 112.4, Mickey Mantle 110.3, Joe DiMaggio 78.1, Derek Jeter 72.4, Yogi Berra 60, Alex Rodriguez 54.2, Rickey Henderson 30.9, Wade Boggs 18.3, Reggie Jackson 17.2, Johnny Mize 3.7, Ichiro Suzuki 2.8, Carlos Beltran 2.4
11 - OAK Rickey Henderson 72.7, Jimmie Foxx 62.6, Eddie Collins 57.3, Reggie Jackson 48.1, Nap Lajoie 9.8, Ty Cobb 6.3, Frank Thomas 3.6, Joe Morgan 1.6, Tris Speaker 0.5, Mike Piazza 0.1, Willie McCovey -0.2
9 - BOS Ted Williams 123.1, Carl Yastrzemski 96.4, Wade Boggs 71.9, Tris Speaker 55.7, Carlton Fisk 39.5, Jimmie Foxx 34.1, Babe Ruth 19.3, Adrian Beltre 7.8, Rickey Henderson 0.4
9 - SFG Willie Mays 154.8, Barry Bonds 112.5, Mel Ott 107.8, Willie McCovey 59.4, Johnny Mize 28.2, Rogers Hornsby 10.1, Joe Morgan 7.1, Gary Carter 1.8, Carlos Beltran 1.2
8 - LAD Jackie Robinson 61.4, Roy Campanella 37, Mike Piazza 32, Adrian Beltre 23.4, Arky Vaughan 8.9, Frank Robinson 2, Gary Carter 1.2, Rickey Henderson 0.2

7 - NYM Carlos Beltran 31.1, Mike Piazza 24.6, Gary Carter 11.4, Willie Mays 1.6, Rickey Henderson 1.3, Roberto Alomar 0.4, Yogi Berra -0.1
7 - STL Stan Musial 128.2, Rogers Hornsby 91.4, Albert Pujols 86.6, Ozzie Smith 65.9, Johnny Mize 39, Carlos Beltran 6.1, Larry Walker 3.3
6 - BAL Cal Ripken Jr 95.9, Brooks Robinson 78.4, Frank Robinson 32.3, Roberto Alomar 12.5, Reggie Jackson 5.3, Rogers Hornsby 0.7
6 - DET Ty Cobb 144.7, Al Kaline 92.8, Charlie Gehringer 80.7, Hank Greenberg 54.2, Miguel Cabrera 51.3, Eddie Mathews 1.1
6 - LAA Mike Trout 72.5, Rod Carew 17.4, Albert Pujols 13.7, Frank Robinson 8.2, Reggie Jackson 3.5, Rickey Henderson -0.1

6 - SDP Tony Gwynn 69.2, Roberto Alomar 12.2, Ozzie Smith 11, Willie McCovey 5.3, Rickey Henderson 4.1, Mike Piazza 3
5 - ATL Hank Aaron 142.5, Eddie Mathews 94.6, Chipper Jones 85.2, Rogers Hornsby 8.8, Babe Ruth 0.2
5 - CHW Frank Thomas 68.3, Eddie Collins 66.7, Carlton Fisk 28.9, Ken Griffey Jr 0.4, Roberto Alomar -0.7
5 - CIN Pete Rose 78.1, Johnny Bench 75.2, Frank Robinson 63.9, Joe Morgan 58, Ken Griffey Jr 12.8
5 - PHI Mike Schmidt 106.8, Nap Lajoie 17.6, Joe Morgan 3.2, Pete Rose 1.3, Jimmie Foxx 0.3

5 - PIT Honus Wagner 120.1, Roberto Clemente 94.5, Arky Vaughan 64, Barry Bonds 50.3, Hank Greenberg 3.4
5 - SEA Ken Griffey Jr 70.6, Ichiro Suzuki 56.3, Alex Rodriguez 38.1, Adrian Beltre 21.2, Rickey Henderson 1.3
4 - CLE Nap Lajoie 80, Tris Speaker 74.2, Roberto Alomar 20.3, Frank Robinson 0.9
4 - HOU Jeff Bagwell 79.9, Joe Morgan 30.7, Carlos Beltran 3.7, Eddie Mathews 0.9
3 - CHC Ernie Banks 67.5, Rogers Hornsby 16, Jimmie Foxx -1.2

3 - MIA Miguel Cabrera 18.3, Ichiro Suzuki 0.3, Mike Piazza -0.1
3 - TEX Adrian Beltre 43.2, Alex Rodriguez 25.5, Carlos Beltran 0.3
3 - TOR Roberto Alomar 22.3, Frank Thomas 2, Rickey Henderson 0.5
3 - WSN Gary Carter 55.8, Larry Walker 21.1, Pete Rose 0.3
2 - KCR George Brett 88.7, Carlos Beltran 24.8

2 - MIL Robin Yount 77.3, Hank Aaron 0.5
2 - MIN Rod Carew 63.8, Tris Speaker 3.6
1 - ARI Roberto Alomar 0.1
1 - COL Larry Walker 48.3
1 - TBR Wade Boggs 1.2

Franchises for the players (so far):

1 - 24
2 - 14
3 - 12
4 - Adrian Beltre, Gary Carter, Jimmie Foxx, Reggie Jackson, Tris Speaker
5 - Rogers Hornsby, Joe Morgan, Mike Piazza, Frank Robinson
7 - Roberto Alomar, Carlos Beltran
9 - Rickey Henderson
   602. bbmck Posted: February 14, 2020 at 10:37 PM (#5924549)
MLB pitching WAR rankings are really simple. Time line out 15 Tim Keefe, 16 Eddie Plank, 18 John Clarkson, 21 Pud Galvin, 27 Jim McCormick and 29 Old Hoss Radbourn. The oddity that only 28 Tom Glavine has retired with 68.7 to 80.4 pitching WAR since 1891 creates a clear gap and arguably Glavine should be in the upper portion by virtue of being one of the best hitting pitchers.

30 Justin Verlander, 43 Clayton Kershaw, 46 Bob Feller, 70 Max Scherzer, 78 Mariano Rivera and 89 Sandy Koufax are the rest of the selections due to MLB pitching. Feller's war service, Koufax and Rivera's post season dominance. Kershaw tied with Roy Halladay in ~500 fewer innings, Scherzer and 39 Zack Greinke with reasonably similar cases.

The emphasis on peak doesn't really show up other than Koufax. 23 Mike Mussina with 8.2, 7.1, 6.6 and 6.1 as his highest pitching WAR seasons isn't displaced by 41 Stan Coveleski 9.7, 8.6, 8.3, 7.2, 6.6, 6.6 and 6.3 while peak does presumably show up with the exclusions of players like Paul Molitor 6.2, 6, 5.7 and Jim Thome 7.5, 7.4, 5.9. Some peak credit given that simply doesn't bridge the weird lack of 7x pitching WAR is the simplest explanation.

7 - BOS Roger Clemens 80.7, Cy Young 64.3, Pedro Martinez 53.8, Lefty Grove 44.9, (Babe Ruth 20.6), Curt Schilling 17.7, Fergie Jenkins 6.9, Tom Seaver 1.9
7 - PHI Robin Roberts 69.8, Steve Carlton 64.6, Pete Alexander 60.1, Curt Schilling 36.8, Kid Nichols 1.8, Pedro Martinez 0.7, Fergie Jenkins 0.5
6 - ATL Kid Nichols 107.4, Warren Spahn 91.8, Phil Niekro 89.6, Greg Maddux 66.2, Gaylord Perry 1.4, Cy Young 0.6
6 - CLE Bob Feller 65.1, Gaylord Perry 28.6, Bert Blyleven 20.1, Cy Young 5.7, Phil Niekro 1.3, Steve Carlton -0.1
6 - HOU Nolan Ryan 25.4, Roger Clemens 16.7, Justin Verlander 15.9, Randy Johnson 4.3, Robin Roberts 2.7, Curt Schilling -0.1
6 - NYY Mariano Rivera 56.3, Mike Mussina 35.1, Roger Clemens 21.2, Phil Niekro 6.3, Gaylord Perry -0.3

5 - SFG Christy Mathewson 97.9, Gaylord Perry 36.9, Warren Spahn 0.6, Randy Johnson 0.3, Steve Carlton -0.6
5 - STL Bob Gibson 81.6, Steve Carlton 20.9, Cy Young 16, Pete Alexander 14.8, Kid Nichols 7.4
4 - CHC Fergie Jenkins 52.9, Pete Alexander 40.9, Greg Maddux 33.7, Robin Roberts -0.7
4 - LAD Clayton Kershaw 65.4, Sandy Koufax 53.1, Pedro Martinez 3.3, Greg Maddux 1.7
4 - NYM Tom Seaver 76, Pedro Martinez 8.1, Nolan Ryan 3, Warren Spahn 0

4 - TEX Fergie Jenkins 21.8, Gaylord Perry 15.5, Nolan Ryan 15.2, Bert Blyleven 11
3 - ARI Randy Johnson 52.7, Curt Schilling 25.9, Max Scherzer 2.6
3 - BAL Mike Mussina 47.6, Robin Roberts 11.2, Curt Schilling 0.3
3 - MIN Walter Johnson 151.6, Bert Blyleven 49, Steve Carlton -1.4
3 - WSN Max Scherzer 34.9, Pedro Martinez 20.2, Randy Johnson -0.1

2 - CHW Tom Seaver 9.7, Steve Carlton 0.7
2 - CIN Tom Seaver 18.4, Christy Mathewson -0.3
2 - DET Justin Verlander 55.5, Max Scherzer 21.2
2 - LAA Nolan Ryan 40, Bert Blyleven 6.1
2 - SDP Gaylord Perry 7.5, Greg Maddux 3.2

2 - SEA Randy Johnson 39, Gaylord Perry 2.9
2 - TOR Roger Clemens 20.1, Phil Niekro -0.3
1 - KCR Gaylord Perry 0.5
1 - OAK Lefty Grove 68.4
1 - PIT Bert Blyleven 9.8
0 - COL, MIA, MIL, TBR

50+ career pitching WAR and pitched for MIL: 32 Don Sutton, 39 Zack Greinke and 49 CC Sabathia

Franchises for the players (so far):

1 - Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Walter Johnson, Clayton Kershaw, Sandy Koufax, Mariano Rivera
2 - Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, Mike Mussina, Justin Verlander
3 - Pete Alexander, Kid Nichols, Max Scherzer, Warren Spahn
4 - Roger Clemens, Fergie Jenkins, Greg Maddux, Phil Niekro, Robin Roberts, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver
5 - Bert Blyleven, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Cy Young
6 - Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson
8 - Gaylord Perry

5+ pitching WAR in the same season among the 28:

1972: Bert Blyleven, Steve Carlton, Bob Gibson, Fergie Jenkins, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver
1997 and 2001: Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling

50% of the MLB pitchers on the Poz 100 had a 5+ pitching WAR season in 1972 or 1997 and 2001.
   603. Baldrick Posted: February 16, 2020 at 11:55 AM (#5924728)
#40. Roberto Clemente:
His game was not quite elegant the way, say, Joe DiMaggio‘s game or Aaron’s game was elegant. There was nothing quiet about it. In full flight, he was a jarring presence, a blur of angles — elbows, knees, shoulders, all of them running off in different directions, an asterisk in motion. In the language of Hollywood, he was not conventionally beautiful. So he merely redefined what beauty meant.
...
His style, his energy, his zeal on the field, it remains so infectious and irresistible and timeless … especially that last one. Clemente is timeless. You see other players in old film footage, and their power, their grace, their grandeur gets lost. Even the greatest — Ruth, Walter Johnson, Jimmie Foxx, DiMaggio, Paige — they all look a little out of date in film, a little out of time.

But not Clemente. To see him swing the bat now, to see him unleash a throw from right field, to see him run the bases, it is as current and alive as anything at the moment. Clemente is an ageless summer song that takes us back and takes us forward at exactly the same time.
   604. Baldrick Posted: February 17, 2020 at 01:17 PM (#5924885)
#39. Nap Lajoie. It's mostly about the race for the batting title, but has a lot more detail than I can ever remember reading about it:
“This is Mr. Lajoie.”

“Who?”

“Mr. Lajoie. I understand that you are having some trouble regarding my hits in today’s games.”

“No. No trouble.”

“Don’t you think I should have had nine hits in nine times at bat?”

“If I had thought so, I would have scored it as such.”

   605. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: February 17, 2020 at 01:24 PM (#5924886)
Nice tie-in with the current Astros scandal in the Lajoie essay:

Ban Johnson found himself in a bad spot. On the one hand, he had to investigate this thing. On the other, he did not exactly want to uncover anything that would make Larry look bad - Lajoie was the American League, he practically founded the whole thing by leaving the National League and coming over in the first place.

So he did what commissioners have done ever since: He investigated his own way. He brought in O'Connor and Corriden and Howell for questioning. Days later, O'Connor and Howell were fired and banished from the American League (Rowdy Jack did reappear in the Federal League.) Corriden was forgiven because he was just a rookie following orders.

And Lajoie was left alone entirely.

   606. Baldrick Posted: February 18, 2020 at 12:26 PM (#5925099)
#38. Yaz:
“The Boston Red Sox paid freshman shortstop Carl Yastrzemski of Notre Dame a $100,000 bonus to sign,” wrote Wilton Garrison in The Charlotte Observer. “Odds are 100-to-1 he will never make the majors. And they still wonder what’s wrong with baseball!”

You love to see it.
   607. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 18, 2020 at 12:33 PM (#5925100)
Yaz posted an OPS+ of less than 100 exactly twice in his 23 years: His rookie year (91 OPS+) at age 21, and a 96 OPS+ in 1981 at age 41...which he then followed up with 111 at age 42 and 106 at age 43.

Wicked hahd hittah, Yaz.
   608. Rally Posted: February 18, 2020 at 12:42 PM (#5925102)
Hard to believe he's now 80 years old. I watched him play, so I'm old too.
   609. Booey Posted: February 18, 2020 at 01:12 PM (#5925117)
Yaz was a weird one, cuz his stats were basically all over the map throughout his career. He hit 40 homers 3 times, but never even hit 30 in any other year, and he had 12 qualifying seasons with less than 20. Batting average was similar; he won 3 batting titles and came within a fraction of a percentage point of winning a 4th, but finished at "just" .285 lifetime because he also had a bunch of seasons in the .255-.275 range.

He's always been hard for me to rank historically because his value stats are the same way; he had 3 epic seasons (1967, 1968, 1970) that make up a third of his career WAR (32.5 out of 96.4), and then he was just a borderline HOFer for the rest of his career (63.9 WAR in 20 seasons). He's basically Dave Winfield with 3 all time great seasons tacked on. Is that an inner circle or just a "regular" HOFer? I...don't know.
   610. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame) Posted: February 18, 2020 at 01:43 PM (#5925140)
I heard some talking head (maybe Bill Simmons?) refer the other day to Mookie Betts being the best position player the Red Sox had since Williams, but whither Yaz?
   611. bbmck Posted: February 18, 2020 at 02:13 PM (#5925146)
Boston position players, most recent season:

2019: Dustin Pedroia, Mookie Betts
2018: Ian Kinsler
2016: David Ortiz
2014: Grady Sizemore
2010: Adrian Beltre

2008: Manny Ramirez
2005: John Olerud
2004: Nomar Garciaparra
2002: Rickey Henderson

1994: Andre Dawson
1992: Wade Boggs
1990: Dwight Evans
1989: Jim Rice
1983: Carl Yastrzemski

Kinsler, Sizemore, Olerud, Rickey and Dawson do very little for the Red Sox. Beltre with one great season for the team and the rest have more PA with the Red Sox than Mookie and played at a high level for the team.
   612. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: February 18, 2020 at 02:24 PM (#5925150)
I heard some talking head (maybe Bill Simmons?) refer the other day to Mookie Betts being the best position player the Red Sox had since Williams, but whither Yaz?

It was Simmons, and I remember having the same reaction as you.

Imagine if the same free agency rules applied during Yaz's time. If the team felt compelled to trade him a year before he hits FA like they just did with Betts, Yaz would've been dealt after 1965 (5 WAR, 156 OPS+). Or more realistically, say they held him back for a few weeks in 1961 to get an extra year of control, so they trade him after 1966 (5.5 WAR, 119 OPS+). They'd be trading away 15 more All-Star seasons, 71 more WAR (38 in the next four seasons alone), and the Impossible Dream.
   613. Rally Posted: February 18, 2020 at 03:24 PM (#5925163)
He's basically Dave Winfield with 3 all time great seasons tacked on. Is that an inner circle or just a "regular" HOFer? I...don't know.


Neither. I'd call him a second tier HOFer - not inner circle, but just below them and well above the guys who you have to debate whether he should be in or out.

The 1967 season is an incredible statistical story - To start out it rates higher than any season by a position player ever except for 2 Babe Ruth seasons. Better than any year by Mantle or Mays, or Hornsby, or Ted, Wagner, Trout, Gehrig, even better than any year of Barroids (mainly because Yaz was in his prime in 1967 and a great defender. Barry was just as good as a young player on defense, if he hit 73 homers when he was a gold glover he'd be #1 ahead of Ruth).

But to top that off with the perfect timing, hitting 417/504/760 in September of an incredibly tight pennant race, well, I have to agree with Joe that this was the MVP of all MVP seasons. And yes, by that I mean even better than any season Cesar Tovar* ever produced.

*Tovar was a fine player. League average hitter, a fast runner, plus defender, and he played at least 200 games at all 3 outfield spots plus second and third base. 28 career WAR. He'd fit in well in recent seasons where everybody is trying to come up with a Zobrist.
   614. TomH Posted: February 18, 2020 at 07:04 PM (#5925216)
Going off of rally's 613...

Who would be up for a bbtf ranking mLb top 50 (or 100) seasons of all time, counting down to #1? We could by consensus start with 50 and vote them "off the island", Survivor style.
   615. cookiedabookie Posted: February 18, 2020 at 07:18 PM (#5925220)
So, given his pretty extreme timelining, I expect Eddie Collins to come up soon, and definitely by spot 30. The last two players who started in the 1800s and have a chance of making it are Cy Young and Honus Wagner, and I suspect neither of them make it in the top ten. Young might even be outside the top twenty. Bench and Gibson will be the last two catchers on. I'm really surprised he went Piazza over Dickey and Pudge Rodriguez, and that neither will make the top 100. I can't see more than three NgL players left - Paige, Charleston, and Gibson.

At this point, it doesn't look like George Brett makes it, which is my biggest surprise. And I can't imagine Pedro doesn't make it, but I don't see him being in the top thirty all time, so he should be coming up soon.
   616. Jaack Posted: February 18, 2020 at 08:21 PM (#5925236)
The count from the previous page still looks spot on, which means George Brett and Pop Lloyd are likely there. I would guess that the next two will be Brett and Ott with a chance Lloyd is in there. 35 will probably be Pedro or Trout with the other one at 30. Of course, the clue that Posta ski put out on twitter for tomorrow's guy sounds like Rickey Henderson, but this feels pretty early for Rickey.

At this point, I don't think the timelining is super strong. The 19th century guys got excluded outside of Young and Nichols, and some of the back end candidates like Al Simmons and Frankie Frisch got cut. But Lajoie got placed just about right, and Ott definitely fits this range as well without timelining.

I think I-Rod is probably the most striking exclusion. Everyone else that got left out is either borderline top 100 or 19th century.
   617. taxandbeerguy Posted: February 18, 2020 at 08:41 PM (#5925239)
I must have missed and don't have a subscription. Who was 42 and 41? Jackie must have been 42, but who was 41?
   618. Eric L Posted: February 18, 2020 at 08:54 PM (#5925244)
Tom Seaver
   619. Jaack Posted: February 18, 2020 at 08:54 PM (#5925245)
42. Jackie Robinson
41. Tom Seaver
40. Roberto Clemente
39. Nap Lajoie
38. Carl Yastrzemski
   620. JJ1986 Posted: February 18, 2020 at 09:16 PM (#5925248)
I get that it's not supposed to be a strict list, but Seaver seems low.
   621. taxandbeerguy Posted: February 18, 2020 at 09:49 PM (#5925254)
Thanks Eric and Jaack!

JJ1986 - Seaver does seem low, would've pegged him at least 15 (even up to 22-25) spots higher.
   622. Mefisto Posted: February 18, 2020 at 10:01 PM (#5925255)
Seaver wore 41. This is one of those cutesy rankings which really spoil the project for me.
   623. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 18, 2020 at 10:15 PM (#5925259)
The Lajoie article is fantastic.
   624. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 18, 2020 at 10:16 PM (#5925260)
JJ1986 - Seaver does seem low, would've pegged him at least 15 (even up to 22-25) spots higher.

He's 21 in career WAR, so that's fair.
   625. cookiedabookie Posted: February 18, 2020 at 10:57 PM (#5925263)
Brett above Yaz and Deaver seems pretty indefensible, imo
   626. Rally Posted: February 19, 2020 at 08:43 AM (#5925284)
Dever needs 12-15 more years like his 2019 to make this list.
   627. Rally Posted: February 19, 2020 at 08:48 AM (#5925285)
Looks like he'll have Young, Mathewson, Alexander, and Johnson all ahead of Pedro and Seaver.

I couldn't do that. They have more W's and innings, but didn't pitch in integrated leagues or against the live ball (for the most part). I'd pick one, probably Johnson, and have him near the top, but the others would have been written up by now and somewhere between 40-60.
   628. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 08:55 AM (#5925290)
Looks like he'll have Young, Mathewson, Alexander, and Johnson all ahead of Pedro and Seaver.

I couldn't do that. They have more W's and innings, but didn't pitch in integrated leagues or against the live ball (for the most part). I'd pick one, probably Johnson, and have him near the top, but the others would have been written up by now and somewhere between 40-60.


Pedro's problem is he has three immediate contemporaries who were much better. Something about the silly-ball era allowed the top starters to really dominate.
   629. JJ1986 Posted: February 19, 2020 at 09:22 AM (#5925297)
I'd probably have Seaver even higher than his value numbers say, because you've got the 4 modern guys and 4 older guys and then George Thomas is the best pitcher to debut over a 60-year span between Grove and Clemens.
   630. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 09:24 AM (#5925299)
I'd probably have Seaver even higher than his value numbers say, because you've got the 4 modern guys and 4 older guys and then George Thomas is the best pitcher to debut over a 60-year span between Grove and Clemens.

That makes sense.
   631. Howie Menckel Posted: February 19, 2020 at 09:43 AM (#5925302)
but as noted, Seaver wore No. 41 so that's so fun.

Right?

ok, it's just really dumb - but Joe has his acolytes here who forgive even the dumbest of the dumb.
   632. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 10:30 AM (#5925312)
but as noted, Seaver wore No. 41 so that's so fun.


Poor Willie Mays, stuck at 24. Ozzie Smith, Jeter, Ruth is going to be a controversial top-3.
   633. Baldrick Posted: February 19, 2020 at 10:39 AM (#5925315)
I don't like the gimmicky numbering, but this is - by a long long way - the best writing about baseball that's come out over the offseason and it baffles me that people have spent as much time talking about the dumb gimmick as all the incredible stories.
   634. Rally Posted: February 19, 2020 at 10:50 AM (#5925320)
I'm OK with the 42 for Jackie Robinson, since the number is retired across MLB, except the day where everybody wears it.

Seaver 41 because he wore that number? Agree it's dumb, but a minor transgression. Doesn't negate a good player writeup.
   635. Baldrick Posted: February 19, 2020 at 10:56 AM (#5925322)
#37 is indeed Pedro:
It is true that Martínez was mostly done at 33. He did not quite get to 3,000 innings for his career. The fact he won 219 games (against 100 losses) probably cost him a few Hall of Fame votes — he didn’t appear on 49 ballots — even though it is really unimportant. It is true, Martínez did not have the huge numerical careers of his great contemporaries Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens or Greg Maddux.

But at his best, he was better than they were, I think. I’ve said it before; if the Devil ever gives me one pitcher to play for my soul, I’m taking Martínez circa 1999 and 2000. He wasn’t just the greatest pitcher I ever saw. He was the one pitcher who you knew would damn well move the devil off the plate.

Growing up, my favorite player was Roger Clemens. Hey, I was a kid, I didn't know better. By the late 90s, I had found some better players to love, but still had a major soft spot for Clemens. So when Pedro joined the AL and immediately took over as best pitcher in the league, I was a little chuffed. It took me the better part of 1999 to come to terms with Pedro. But once I did, I really did. Watching him pitch that year was literally like nothing I had ever seen before.
   636. Sweatpants Posted: February 19, 2020 at 01:16 PM (#5925392)
I always thought it was kind of a shame that, of the four elite pitchers of the late 1990s, Clemens pretty much has to rank as the best of them. Maddux, Johnson, and Martinez were all singular pitchers. Maddux was the unassuming looking artist who dominated with slow rollers and one-hoppers. Johnson was the towering, long-haired personification of power. Martinez basically did anything that he wanted out there, shifting between power, movement, and intimidation throughout the same game.

Clemens just seemed like a typical hard-throwing right-hander who pitched at a high level for longer than any of those other guys. The only real defining characteristic he had on the mound was his proneness to losing his temper. I don't even really know why he was so good. He just was. I guess I never really got the guy as a pitcher.
   637. Blastin Posted: February 19, 2020 at 02:00 PM (#5925395)
To me, yeah, the most interesthing thing is similar players or contemporaries.

So Pedro, Maddux, Clemens, Jonhson is really interesting. I guess Pedro lost because he's the only one without the longevity and heft. The others had massive peaks and longevity, so it makes sense.
   638. taxandbeerguy Posted: February 19, 2020 at 02:23 PM (#5925400)
Almost 100 years apart but

Clemens = Walter Johnson (the greatest)
Maddux = Cy Young (Insane longevity and durability with lots of greatness)
Randy Johnson = Pete Alexander (great peaks and primes, started later relative to the others)
Pedro = Mathewson (dazzling peaks, but less longevity than the guys above)

Walter Johnson's more peaky than Clemens and his peak is more consecutive, Cy Young has even more durability than Maddux but the longevity factor is there, plus the pinpoint control (low walks) and a fair number of strikeouts
Randy and Pete both have about a 12-14 year stretch where all their best years are (with a couple injury seasons mixed in) but they both debuted later, but last well into their 40's. Christy's got bulk but has some huge peak seasons, Pedro's peak is even higher but missing the bulk. Both were done around 36-37 which is early compared to the guys above.

Lots of parallels.
   639. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 02:27 PM (#5925401)
So Pedro, Maddux, Clemens, Jonhson is really interesting. I guess Pedro lost because he's the only one without the longevity and heft. The others had massive peaks and longevity, so it makes sense.

Yeah. Pedro's a HoFer based on his amazing 7 year run from 97-03, but the other three all have an equivalent number of similarly dominant seasons (though not all consecutively) and they add 2000+ more innings of very good pitching.
   640. Baldrick Posted: February 19, 2020 at 02:32 PM (#5925403)
Clemens just seemed like a typical hard-throwing right-hander who pitched at a high level for longer than any of those other guys. The only real defining characteristic he had on the mound was his proneness to losing his temper. I don't even really know why he was so good. He just was. I guess I never really got the guy as a pitcher.

I mostly agree, but Clemens is interesting for developing an absolutely world-class splitter, which was a big part of why he remained so damn good for so long.

One thing I've always found interesting about Clemens is that he didn't really ever lead the league in much, at least when it comes to component pieces. He had the most Ks five times, which is great but not otherworldly. Best WHIP three times. Best in K/9 three times, HR/9 twice. Never led in BB/9, and actually never got particularly close. Most innings just twice. But he led the league in ERA seven times and ERA+ eight times.
   641. bbmck Posted: February 19, 2020 at 02:34 PM (#5925404)
Peak Pedro pitching for your soul is sub-optimal unless it's a 7 inning game. 1999-2000, two 8 IP Complete Games are counted twice because it's too annoying to remove them:

12 starts doesn't finish 7th: 3.78 ERA, 6-1 because the Red Sox are really good, just over 16 outs per start
36 starts 7-8.2 IP: 1.86 ERA, 25-8, the kind of start you can expect when he's pitching for your soul, dominates in a high scoring era
12 complete games: 1.02 ERA, 9-3, "only" 5 shutouts, averages 12.83 K in those games

I'm taking 1965-1966 Koufax to pitch for my soul, he occasionally didn't pitch well but if he's trailing 2-1 to Pedro through seven I still have hope:

14 starts doesn't finish 7th: 5.76 ERA, 3-5 which is Road: 9 GS, 7.46 ERA and 11.7 outs per game and Home: 5 GS, 3.33 ERA and 14.6 outs
14 starts 7-8.2 IP: 2.99 ERA, 0-10, 3 of those are CG
54 starts of 9+ IP: 1.19 ERA, 50-2, 3 of those aren't CG, averages 10.04 K in those games, the kind of start you can expect, dominates in a low scoring era
   642. Howie Menckel Posted: February 19, 2020 at 02:36 PM (#5925405)
Peak Pedro pitching for your soul is sub-optimal unless it's a 7 inning game.

B I N G O
   643. JJ1986 Posted: February 19, 2020 at 02:45 PM (#5925408)
I can't imagine that it wasn't easier to go 9 innings in the mid-60s than it was in the DH-league in the high offense era of the late 1990s.
   644. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 02:55 PM (#5925412)
I think I'd take 94-95 Greg Maddux. 7.8 IP per start with a 265 ERA+. And given how low his pitch counts usually were, I'm pretty sure he can go 9.

I also think hi style of pitching works in any era.
   645. TomH Posted: February 19, 2020 at 03:10 PM (#5925416)
I would agree with snapper, altho if you add in postseason and weight it more than regular season, it probably puts Pedro back ahead. Maddux's defense was I suspect better behind him in this period, which helped his ERA+ a bit. Either way, it's close.

   646. jmurph Posted: February 19, 2020 at 03:41 PM (#5925421)
12 complete games: 1.02 ERA, 9-3, "only" 5 shutouts, averages 12.83 K in those games

Seems worth noting that he led the league in shutouts in 2000.

Also, broadly speaking, I think taking the guy who was definitely the better pitcher is always a good idea. (EDIT: That's referring to the Pedro vs Koufax thing above.)
   647. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 03:55 PM (#5925424)
Also, broadly speaking, I think taking the guy who was definitely the better pitcher is always a good idea.

But we don't know who that is. That's the whole point.

Pedro Martinez never pitched in a world where your ace was expected to complete every game he started, and start 40 times a year, but you could coast against some weak hitters. Walter Johnson never pitched in a world where he could throw max effort for 100-120 pitches, 30 times a year, and have a bunch of relievers ready to spell him, but the average hitter was much better.
   648. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 03:57 PM (#5925425)
Growing up, my favorite player was Roger Clemens. Hey, I was a kid, I didn't know better. By the late 90s, I had found some better players to love, but still had a major soft spot for Clemens. So when Pedro joined the AL and immediately took over as best pitcher in the league, I was a little chuffed. It took me the better part of 1999 to come to terms with Pedro.


Sounds like you weren't chuffed about Pedro but chapped.

Randy Johnson = Pete Alexander (great peaks and primes, started later relative to the others)


Can't Randy Johnson = Lefty Grove instead? For symmetry?
   649. jmurph Posted: February 19, 2020 at 03:58 PM (#5925426)
We aren't sure that Pedro was a better pitcher than Sandy Koufax?

EDIT: Saw your edit. Yeeeeaaah I get it but that's just like a philosophical argument that we can't really know anything. All of the available information shows us who the (clearly) better pitcher was.
   650. Baldrick Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:17 PM (#5925432)
Sounds like you weren't chuffed about Pedro but chapped.

I thought it sounded weird as I wrote it, but couldn't be bothered to check. That'll teach me.
   651. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:27 PM (#5925437)
We aren't sure that Pedro was a better pitcher than Sandy Koufax?

No. How would we be sure? Obviously Pedro put up more value, but who had the better talent? I don't know how we could know.

Is this just a pure time-lining argument?

EDIT: Saw your edit. Yeeeeaaah I get it but that's just like a philosophical argument that we can't really know anything. All of the available information shows us who the (clearly) better pitcher was.

No, we can know lots of things. We know Maddux, Clemens, and Johnson were better than Pedro b/c they pitched at the same time. We know Pedro was better than Early Wynn or Don Sutton.

But I don't know how you can be so sure that you can rank two elite pitchers who pitched in radically different environments so clearly?
   652. taxandbeerguy Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:31 PM (#5925441)
648-

Well Lefty Grove does work in terms of symmetry, I was kind of going with ol' Pete because all 4 deadball (or partially deadball) guys are all very high up this list and a rough contemporaries of each other (although not quite to the extent of the big 4 in the 90's). Smokey Joe Williams is a contemporary as well but never got his chance to compete in the MLB.

Grove is kind of on his own, he overlaps with Walter Johnson and Alexander a little bit, but they're not really contemporaries of each other. Although you could say the same about Pete and Cy Young (although they did both play in 1911). Grove's only contemporary with a good shot at this list (but didn't make it) would be Carl Hubbell, who's presumably somewhere in the 101-150 range. Feller has some overlap with Grove as well.

After the deadball guys the only pitchers this far up the list are Grove, Spahn, Seaver and Bob Gibson. Gibson's a bit short of this level of career and peak and Spahn doesn't have the killer peak. The other 60's and 70's guys kind of cancel each other rout to some extent (Perry, Jenkins, Carlton, Niekro, Blyleven, Ryan). Koufax is peak argument only.
   653. jmurph Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:34 PM (#5925442)
No. How would we be sure? Obviously Pedro put up more value, but who had the better talent? I don't know how we could know.

Is this just a pure time-lining argument?

The modern player is the one with the much better numbers in this conversation, why would that be a timelining argument?

Is this your normal way of talking about players? I'm genuinely baffled by this. Pedro had a significantly better career, the five best seasons by ERA+, etc. Why do I have to clarify "better career" "more value" instead of using the word "better," which literally everyone understands the meaning of in this context?
   654. jmurph Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:39 PM (#5925443)
628. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 08:55 AM (#5925290)
Looks like he'll have Young, Mathewson, Alexander, and Johnson all ahead of Pedro and Seaver.

I couldn't do that. They have more W's and innings, but didn't pitch in integrated leagues or against the live ball (for the most part). I'd pick one, probably Johnson, and have him near the top, but the others would have been written up by now and somewhere between 40-60.

Pedro's problem is he has three immediate contemporaries who were much better.

A few hours ago you were pretty comfortable declaring someone was better than someone else.

WHAT IS HAPPENING.
   655. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:44 PM (#5925445)
The modern player is the one with the much better numbers in this conversation, why would that be a timelining argument?

Is this your normal way of talking about players? I'm genuinely baffled by this. Pedro had a significantly better career, the five best seasons by ERA+, etc. Why do I have to clarify "better career" "more value" instead of using the word "better," which literally everyone understands the meaning of in this context?


Because Pedro was babied more than any other elite pitcher during his peak. He never had to throw even 250 IP once. He also pitched in a high ERA era when it was easier to put up gaudy ERA+.

He had a better career, but we were talking about who had better talent at their peak. That is not knowable.
   656. jmurph Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:45 PM (#5925446)
but we were talking about who had better talent at their peak.

We definitely were not talking about that until like 20 minutes ago when you raised it specifically to make the baffling argument that we can't know that Pedro was the better pitcher than Sandy Koufax.
   657. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:46 PM (#5925447)
A few hours ago you were pretty comfortable declaring someone was better than someone else.

WHAT IS HAPPENING.


Same era vs. different era. How is that not obvious?

We have no idea what kind of gaudy number Koufax would have put up if he only had to pitch 7 ininngs, 30 times a year. We have no idea how long Pedro would have lasted, or how well he'd have pitched, if asked to start 40 games and complete 30 of them.
   658. jmurph Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:47 PM (#5925448)
So just to be clear, you are literally never comfortable comparing players across eras. Ever.

This is a ridiculous argument.
   659. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:48 PM (#5925449)
We definitely were not talking about that until like 20 minutes ago when you raised it specifically to make the baffling argument that we can't know that Pedro was the better pitcher than Sandy Koufax.

Pardon?

Peak Pedro pitching for your soul is sub-optimal unless it's a 7 inning game.


That's a pure talent argument.
   660. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 04:50 PM (#5925450)
So just to be clear, you are literally never comfortable comparing players across eras. Ever.

This is a ridiculous argument.


Of course not.

But when you're talking about the very best of each era, I don't think you can compare meaningfully.

Was Ruth or Bonds better as a position player, who knows? Was Walter Johnson, or Seaver, or Clemens, or Maddux the best? How could we ever know.
   661. jmurph Posted: February 19, 2020 at 05:02 PM (#5925452)
Because Pedro was babied more than any other elite pitcher during his peak.

This is really veering into cardsfanboy territory at this point. They track these sorts of things you know.

Prior to the 2001 injury, his usage was not wildly out of line with other top starters:

MLB IP rank by year:
2000: 18th (and again, led the league in SHO that year, albeit with only 4, but whadya know, league context actually matters)
1999: 19th
1998: 12th
1997: 6th

Post 2000 he has three straight shortened years (though the latter two are 199 and 186 innings, respectively) and returns for two more normal years:

2004: 13th
2005: 23rd

before fizzling out. No one has or will ever accuse him of being a horse, but the innings thing is CONSTANTLY exaggerated here to win arguments, and it's just as ridiculous now as it was when he was still playing.
   662. DCA Posted: February 19, 2020 at 05:18 PM (#5925453)
Prior to the 2001 injury, his usage was not wildly out of line with other top starters:

But it was wildly out of line with other historically great starters, who regularly led the league in IP or were pretty close to it.
   663. dlf Posted: February 19, 2020 at 05:28 PM (#5925454)
The comparison was to ELITE pitchers. His contemporaries on Posnanski's list or yet to come:

Clemens: lead the league in IP twice, six more times top 5, four more times top 10.
Maddux: lead the league in IP five times, six more times top 5, five more times top 10.
Johnson: lead the league in IP twice, seven more times top 5, once more top 10.
Schilling: lead the league in IP twice, three more top 5, two more top 10
Mussina: lead the league in IP once, three more top 5, four more top 10.

Pedro: best finish 6th with no other times top 10.

He was clearly babied far more than his contemporary elites.

A generation or two earlier looking at others in Poz's list:

Seaver: 0, 8, 4
Blyleven: 0, 7, 3
Niekro: 4, 4, 3
Ryan: 1, 2, 6
Perry: 2, 8, 1
Carlton: 5, 3, 6
Jenkins: 1, 8, 1
Gibson: 0, 7, 1
Koufax: 2, 2, 0

He's also added a couple of more current players:

Verlander: 4, 5, 0
Kershaw: 1, 3, 0
Scherzer: 2, 3, 1

Pedro Martinez was used like a good starter, but was babied far, far more than these elite pitchers. Guestimating how he would have handled a more typical ace workload of his own era, let alone that of an earlier one is a fools errand as is the opposite trying to guess how Koufax would have done with ~75-100 fewer IP a year.

   664. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 19, 2020 at 06:19 PM (#5925456)
But it was wildly out of line with other historically great starters, who regularly led the league in IP or were pretty close to it.


I think the comparisons to the league leaders is a bit of a red herring. It should be axiomatic that pitching 335 innings in a season (as Koufax did in his heaviest workload) is more valuable than pitching 241 innings (as Pedro did in his heaviest workload). Just like a position player with 700 PAs in a season is more valuable than one with 550, all else being equal.

At the same time, the fact that nobody in Pedro's time was throwing anything like 335 innings in a season is relevant as well. It's also worth pointing out that not even Koufax could handle this workload; he retired with 400 fewer IP than Pedro would eventually have.

Snapper is correct in saying the comparison between the two on peak value is very difficult to make, if not impossible. (If you rank their top seasons by WAR, you go Pedro, Koufax, Koufax, Pedro, Koufax, Pedro.) For career value, the answer is clearly Pedro Martinez.
   665. jmurph Posted: February 19, 2020 at 07:01 PM (#5925460)
H/T to Tom for making that first point clearer than I was going to.

But I think the comparison is less close than that. Their best seasons by ERA+ go Pedro Pedro Pedro Pedro Pedro Koufax Pedro (I'm doing that from memory from earlier, hopefully I got that right). WAR7 for pitchers is Pedro 21st Koufax 57th. WAA is Pedro 11th Koufax 89th. I think it should be extremely uncontroversial to say one of these guys was the better pitcher.
   666. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 07:28 PM (#5925465)
But I think the comparison is less close than that. Their best seasons by ERA+ go Pedro Pedro Pedro Pedro Pedro Koufax Pedro (I'm doing that from memory from earlier, hopefully I got that right). WAR7 for pitchers is Pedro 21st Koufax 57th. WAA is Pedro 11th Koufax 89th. I think it should be extremely uncontroversial to say one of these guys was the better pitcher.

ERA+ and OPS+ are not good metrics across eras. It's a lots easier to put up big numbers in those stats in some eras rather than others.

And you still have to account for volume too.
   667. Snowboy Posted: February 19, 2020 at 07:43 PM (#5925468)
That's a devilish explanation, snapper.
   668. cookiedabookie Posted: February 19, 2020 at 07:53 PM (#5925469)
36 spots left, here's who looks like they will make it:

Babe Ruth
Barry Bonds
Ty Cobb
Willie Mays
Roger Clemens
Walter Johnson
Honus Wagner
Tris Speaker
Hank Aaron
Rogers Hornsby
Cy Young
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Eddie Collins
Lou Gehrig
Mickey Mantle
Mike Schmidt
Alex Rodriguez
Rickey Henderson
Greg Maddux
Mel Ott
Lefty Grove
Randy Johnson
Pete Alexander
Josh Gibson
Frank Robinson
Jimmie Foxx
Christy Mathewson
Joe Morgan
Albert Pujols
Johnny Bench
Oscar Charleston
Satchel Paige

Those 34 seem to be no doubters to me. That leaves two open spots. The two that make sense to me right now are George Brett and Mike Trout.

That would leave Roger Connor as my highest ranked player who doesn't make the list.
   669. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2020 at 09:36 PM (#5925477)
That's a devilish explanation, snapper.

I'm not history's 42nd greatest monster for nothing :-)
   670. Mefisto Posted: February 19, 2020 at 09:46 PM (#5925478)
The Jackie Robinson of monsters? The Douglas Adams of monsters?
   671. Snowboy Posted: February 19, 2020 at 10:45 PM (#5925481)
Those 34 seem to be no doubters to me. That leaves two open spots. The two that make sense to me right now are George Brett and Mike Trout.


I count 33 on your list. Nice list.
I can't think of who is left off? Maybe it's Pop Lloyd?
Page 7 of 7 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogYankees’ Brett Gardner wants fan making bizarre sexual claims kept away from his family, MLB stadiums
(10 - 11:17pm, Feb 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-18-2020
(35 - 11:02pm, Feb 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(671 - 10:45pm, Feb 19)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogFeinstein: In the Astros scandal, Rob Manfred has taken a bad situation and made it worse (WaPo)
(7 - 10:43pm, Feb 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOakland Athletics off the radio waves in the Bay Area, commit to A’s Cast stream
(23 - 9:51pm, Feb 19)
Last: "RMc", the superbatsman

NewsblogHow will the Red Sox market a Mookie-less team? - The Boston Globe
(74 - 9:06pm, Feb 19)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2020)
(141 - 8:50pm, Feb 19)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(1385 - 8:03pm, Feb 19)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - January, 2020
(604 - 7:58pm, Feb 19)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogMLB expanding playoff system?
(128 - 7:54pm, Feb 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDisciplining Astros not as easy for MLB as Altuve revealing a tattoo
(30 - 7:43pm, Feb 19)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-19-2020
(61 - 7:28pm, Feb 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogRob Manfred offers little insight, shows contempt for reporters in press conference
(120 - 12:59pm, Feb 19)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogWhitley's new strategy: Less work, more weight
(6 - 1:26am, Feb 19)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogPederson, Stripling back to work with Dodgers after no trade
(8 - 10:10pm, Feb 18)
Last: akrasian

Page rendered in 0.6262 seconds
46 querie(s) executed