ESPN Top 100

[egri]

I don't like it when these sorts of lists are compiled with active players. The book on them is still being written, and all it takes is an injury or sudden drop-off to make the writer look foolish. If this was the early 1980s, the list would have Dale Murphy and Steve Garvey on there, and that would be a mistake.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egri

I don't like it when these sorts of lists are compiled with active players. The book on them is still being written, and all it takes is an injury or sudden drop-off to make the writer look foolish. If this was the early 1980s, the list would have Dale Murphy and Steve Garvey on there, and that would be a mistake.

If a FB list had come out a month ago would you have objected to Tom Brady being on it?

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If a FB list had come out a month ago would you have objected to Tom Brady being on it?

A month ago? No, because by then he was the GOAT. 10-11 years ago? Yes, because we didn't know how he was going to come back from his injury and how many more years he had left in the tank. I don't think anybody could have foreseen back then that he would play until 2022 at an MVP level. I certainly didn't; I thought if we were lucky there might be another Super Bowl run or two, but especially after the second Giants Super Bowl I wasn't optimistic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egri

A month ago? No, because by then he was the GOAT. 10-11 years ago? Yes, because we didn't know how he was going to come back from his injury and how many more years he had left in the tank. I don't think anybody could have foreseen back then that he would play until 2022 at an MVP level. I certainly didn't; I thought if we were lucky there might be another Super Bowl run or two, but especially after the second Giants Super Bowl I wasn't optimistic.

Then your objection isn't really to current players. So where are you going to draw the line then? Not at 10 years, by your objection to Trout? 12? 15? Are you OK with Scherzer being on the list? Verlander? Miggy?

[G1911]

A player should be ranked on what he has actually accomplished. Trout has performed at an exceptional level and is on pace for a very high all time ranking. He's also played 1,288 games. Would you take 1,288 games of Trout or 2,808 games of Frank Robinson? I think the answer is obvious. Trout could eventually be even higher than this list has him, but he doesn't deserve it at this point in time based on the reality of what has actually happened in the real world.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by G1911

A player should be ranked on what he has actually accomplished. Trout has performed at an exceptional level and is on pace for a very high all time ranking. He's also played 1,288 games. Would you take 1,288 games of Trout or 2,808 games of Frank Robinson? I think the answer is obvious. Trout could eventually be even higher than this list has him, but he doesn't deserve it at this point in time based on the reality of what has actually happened in the real world.

This is correct.

[molenick]

I will start this by saying that this is in no way a knock on Satchel Paige and I post this with all due respect and only to open up a discussion.

Paige is clearly the most famous player who played primarily in the Negro Leagues. But now that we have statistics from those leagues, his seem very good but not extraordinary. The stats of Josh Gibson, Oscar Charleston, Buck Leonard, Bullet Rogan, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Cristobal Torriente, and Cool Papa Bell (among others) not only live up to their reputations but in many ways far exceed them, while Paige's stats are fine but don't jump off the page (no pun intended). By any statistical evidence that I see, he is not the best Negro League player ever [actually I see now that Gibson was rated higher...but Charleston should be as well, and maybe some others.]

Am I missing something in regard to his stats? Is it that we don't have complete data yet? That I am not interpreting his stats correctly? That a lot of his greatness came while pitching exhibition games? That the Negro Leagues were essentially hitter's leagues so the pitching stats are skewed? That shorter seasons are more conducive to impressive hitting stats than pitching stats?

Or is it possible that anecdotal evidence and his reputation (in many ways self-created) are greater than his actual ranking as a player. Kind of like King Kelly being the most famous (along with Anson) 19th century player but not being the best. And that we are so used to just assuming he is one of the best players that when people make these lists, they list him that high without really thinking about it.

Again, I say this in the spirit of discussion. I would like to stay on as many people's lawns as possible .

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then your objection isn't really to current players. So where are you going to draw the line then? Not at 10 years, by your objection to Trout? 12? 15? Are you OK with Scherzer being on the list? Verlander? Miggy?

I think Brady is a special case; what he did for that long and at that age is unprecedented for a QB. Scherzer, Verlander, Miggy I would not put on his level. Let me put it this way: in 1959, I would not have objected to Ted Williams being on the list; in 1949 I would have said he had the peak but not duration (almost happened; he almost retired after 1950 when he busted his elbow in the All-Star game), and at some point between the two I would have become ok with it. Maybe after he came back from Korea and almost won a batting title?