There's the usual conflict between long term and short term greatness. This measure emphasizes long term achievement, in contrast to Koufax-style short term greatness.
The stat heads don’t place enough emphasis on postseason success and who was clutch. Bonds never won a World Series. That matters a great deal. Or should.
Thanks, Steve. I'm one of your readers who doesn't care passionately about baseball, yet enjoys your informed commentary, and even your commentary-on-commentary.
That said, NYT reporter Alexander Nazaryan's breathless tone is tiresome.
Thought experiment: if statistician Daniel J. Eck had published on a new method that upranked white players but downranked ¡Black! players, would that have been News Fit To Print? The question is its own answer.
Steve pasted Nasaryan's paragraph 5 ("Baseball purists may object...") and then part of paragraph 6, this quote from Eck: "I’m OK with a PED-laden person being number one, over, say, a person who played before baseball was integrated.”
A bit odd, but a reasonable opener -- after all, Nazaryan's editors gave him 20 more paragraphs, plenty of space for an exploration of juicing. But that didn't happen.
Professor Eck's method established that Hakeem Jeffries is a better and more-important Statesman than George Washington.
Here's a 'Reader's Pick' comment by Jim:
"I have a PhD in clinical psychology for which I was required to take many courses in advanced statistics, and I have applied that training throughout my career. So I understand and admire the methodology that created this list.
"But there are statistics and there is morality. Yes, Babe Ruth played in an era in which the talent pool was smaller in part because people of color were not allowed to participate in the sport. But Babe Ruth did not choose that. In contrast, Barry Bonds systematically chose to break the rules to achieve the statistics that put him at the top of this list. And in doing so, he even cheated his godfather, Willie Mays, who in my opinion is, other than Babe Ruth, the greatest player in the history of the game. Same for Roger Clemens."
Any list without Keith Hernandez in the top 10 is clearly flawed. Batting, fielding, running, game strategy, drinking, smoking, carousing, leading his teammates, mustache growing - the man could do it all.
I am too far on the spectrum to really enjoy team sports. Indivual efforts impress me much more. Hard enough for me to properly cooperate with teammates without sharing my glory or their shame.
Re Willie Mays and his performance drop-off from age 25-29: IIRC around the time Tiger Woods got to 10-12 Majors, many said he was automatic to exclipse Jack. Some wit (or savant?) said, let's wait until Tiger is married and has kids.
Tiger was married in 2004 and had kids in 2007 and 2009; his infamous marital implosion was in 2009.
He won his last PGA in 2007, last US Open in 2008, next-to-last Master in 2005 (had the 2019 comeback), and last Open in 2005.
Willie Mays got married in 1956 (age 25). They adopted a child in 1959 and were divorced by 1963 (age 32 season). And his 'down' years were still pretty good.
Don't care much about these lists, they are abstractions on top of statistical abstractions. Having said that, baseball is stats, but it has gone overboard the last 10 years.
Anyway at Candlestick Bonds hit the hardest ball I've seen. A line drive that hit the right field fence on the fly and Bonds could only get to first base.
This is really not that precisely measurable. Ruth's greatest unmentioned advantage was having Gehrig hit behind him. Bonds' greatest except for the drugs was the lower mound. One virtually unmeasurable is pitching skill including velocity and accuracy and the size of the strike zone. Another is whether the extent of night time baseball or field size made a difference. That Gehrig is not in the top 25 makes me suspicious big time that something is not being measured that well.
Or Joe Morgan or quite a few others on the list in my opinion...Ripken, Schmidt, some of the pitchers, Speaker. Williams thought Dimaggio was the best all around player he ever saw. So what about him ? Henderson better than Gehrig..? Heaven help us. heh heh heh And Jimmy Foxx? An afterthought? This guy has a problem with baseball before integration.
Pitchers probably shouldn't be compared with position players. There is no way that a starting pitcher who appears once every five or six games (once every four in past years) is as valuable a player as an everyday player. That said, Ruth threw about 1200 innings with an ERA of about 2.30. It was the dead ball era, but the person who single-handedly ended the dead ball era was Ruth, when he decided to turn himself into a full-time position player. Ruth was not only the best baseball player of all time, he was the most significant in radically altering the game.
I think I need to disagree with your first two sentences. Even though a pitcher only participates periodically, they have a direct role in every play of the game while they are in the field, whereas even a SS only is directly involved in a play 6-8 times a game on average. A guy on the mound who ensures a SS (or anyone else) barely has to touch the ball is more valuable than a position player where the difference in fielding percentage between a stud and a run of the mill guy is a couple percent.
Google? Weigh in on Bill James and who he thinks is the all time MLB greatest ever.
"Bill James, a prominent figure in sabermetrics, considers Babe Ruth the greatest baseball player of all time. While acknowledging the possibility of other players being as good or even having greater impact in their respective eras, James consistently emphasizes Ruth's unparalleled dominance and impact on the game"
“Then again, maybe Ruth should get extra credit for revolutionizing professional sports in the Western world?”
Uh, that part. Ruth single handedly changed the entire sport, making it more offensive
Babe Ruth’s dominance is in part due to his talent, but is also in part to him exercising a superior batting strategy that had not existed before.”
Translation: therefore Ruth is going to be penalized for not only being nearly a full standard deviation better than his peers, (and since PEDs were non-existent in MLB during his career), therefore it is automatically unfair that Ruth figured out how to exercise a superior batting strategy, EVEN THOUGH anyone could have employed the same strategy. The writers do not directly state what this batting strategy is—video footage of Ruth shows that he is standing in the batters box like everyone else, and swinging the bat like every other hitter, then as now.
“I’m OK with a PED-laden person being number one, over, say, a person who played before baseball was integrated,” Dr. Eck said. “
And here we have the actual nub of what’s going on. This is intentional bias, reverse discrimination. Because it’s so “obvious” that weighed vs which other, PEDs are by far the lesser cardinal sin than playing pre-1947, when you can’t trust those stats at all, because racism, racism, and racism.
"In other words, despite Bonds’s steroid use, he put up more outlandishly impressive numbers, in era-adjusted terms, than Ruth."
No he did not. The HR stat, as an offensive weapon, which also changed the entire configuration of modern ballparks, (e.g. OF’s power alleys began being pulled in so as to capitalize on more HR’s hit), these things are directly traced to a single individual, namely, Babe Ruth. The HR was well entrenched by the time Bonds started playing in MLB. The HR stat was not even a major thing during the first five yrs of Ruth's career--starting in 1918-1919, at the tail end of the Dead Ball Era, when he began hitting HR's in larger amounts than fans and writers alike were accustomed to seeing.
FACT: It was more outlandishly impressive that Ruth in 1920 hit 54 HR's (which outhomered entire teams' HR totals in MLB at the time) than it was for Bonds to hit 73 in 2001, when McGwire had already hit 70 in 1998, just three years previously.
When Babe Ruth hit 60 HRS in 1927, he broke his own record of 59 HRs in 1921. When Ruth hit 54 HRs in 1920, he broke the then record of 28 HRS, in other words Ruth’s first single season HR record nearly doubled the total of the prior record holder.
Bonds on the other hand, surpassed McGwire by 3 HRs. Not very impressive, especially as both were taking PEDS.
During the 1920’s, during his peak years, Ruth out homered entire teams’ total HRs hit for the season. For Bonds to equal that order of magnitude, he would’ve had to have hit 150 + HRs in a single season.
“Bonds, in comparison, was increasingly good from 22-25” Uh, actually, not really upon closer examination. Good, enough would be a more accurate designation
“From age 22 to 34, Bonds’ career looks like that of a traditional inner circle Hall of Famer.”
Depends where the circle is drawn. With Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Musial, Williams, even Mantle? Not by a long shot.
With Ernie Banks, Griffey Jr, Frank Robinson? Yes, along those lines, but definitely not inner circle (if that implies the greatest to have ever played the game, period, not at that level).
“I’ve never seen a really good explanation for why Willie was better in his early 30s than his late 20s.”
Really? I took for granted when studying Willie’s basic stats years ago, that a late part of it was moving from the Polo Grounds to first Seals Stadium for three seasons and then Candlestick in 1961, when he was 30. Different ballpark configurations, particularly the OFs and how much ground a CFer has to cover is a major reason for why a player like Willie had some off years—he was adjusting to a new ballpark in a new city, and a minor league calibre one at that. Once Candlestick became SF’s permanent park, he adjusted quite well.
It’s also a reason why Hank Aaron had a late career HR surge—Atlanta’s ballpark was more conducive to HRs than Milwaukee County Stadium.
But the modern ballparks all had their OF fences shortened compared to the Dead Ball Era as a reaction to one man’s HR prowess, and that’s Babe Ruth.
I also notice that Walter Johnson was shamefully left off the top ten list of greatest ever to have played the game. 417 career W’s, 2.12 ERA, 3, 508 career SO, when no P posted 3,000 career strikeouts for nearly half a century after Walter retired, and he’s left off the top ten list of all time greatest players?
Also Bert Blyleven (no Cy Young Awards, no 300 W’s era 3.32) is ahead of Tom Seaver (3 Cy Young Awards, 2.86 career ERA, 311 career W’s)? What the f is that unless it’s a typo.
And Warren Spahn’s not in the top 20? 363 career W’s, 3.09 ERA, most seasons with 20 W’s second only to Cy Young. Spahn won the Cy Young Award in 1957, back when it was one award for two leagues (not given to best AL/NL pitchers as today). Bert Blyleven is better than Warren Spahn? When he wasn’t even considered the best pitcher in a given season? Seriously?
So by this metric, Bert Blyleven is greater than both Walter Johnson and Tom Seaver (and Blyleven and Seaver’s careers overlapped, so they definitely can be compared to one another). Oh, and also he’s greater than Tris Speaker (one of the few OF-ers who can be compared to today. Speaker has 3,000+ H’s, career BA 345 all time doubles record, but he’s not as great as Bert Blyleven—the greatest pitcher people don’t think about or immediately recall, because “obviously” all time great players slip under people’s radars all the time.
Oh, and Lou Gehrig isn’t in the top 20 greatest players list either, so Blyleven is “obviously” greater than Lou Gehrig.
So basically we’re told to believe that Bert Blyleven is a far greater all time player than Lou Gehrig, Tris Speaker, Walter Johnson, Tom Seaver, Warren Spahn—all players who were praised and lauded during their lifetimes, while Bert slipped under the radar for the most part (wasn’t a first ballot HOF, for example)
Per Bonds achievements, A reasonable question would be, Steve, what is Bonds’ career WAR 1986-2000, and then what is his WAR from just for the seasons 2001-2004? And, does his WAR from 1986-1998 truly make him among the greatest ever to have played in MLB?
HOF, absolutely. But the greatest of the greatest ever to have played in the 20th century?
That designation, belongs and always will belong, to Babe Ruth, the one single individual who literally changed the way MLB offense is played, directly impacted offensive strategies, and, directly impacted the way modern ballparks are constructed (OF's with shorter fences, shorter power alleys, and shorter distances from home plate). One person did that, and that's Babe Ruth.
By traditional WAR, Babe Ruth is listed at 183.1, the highest in MLB history.
there's a saying, can you leave out a specific player and still tell the story or history of the sport?
For example, can you leave out Bert Blyleven and still tell the story of MLB? Of course, without a doubt. If Bert's so great, why'd it take him nearly 20 yrs post retirement to get into HOF? No Cy Young Awards either, so he wasn't considered the most dominant pitcher during a season throughout his career. Now, you can say that Nolan Ryan didn't win a Cy Young Award either, which is true. But he definitely ranks higher than Bert Blyleven. That has to be a major typo on their part.
And the cat was let out of the bag when one of the major stats dudes who helped compile the list stated that better PEDs than playing pre-1947.
I do agree with your assessment about ranking Nolan Ryan ahead of Rogers Hornsby. Seaver had a lower career ERA, and almost as many career Wins. People forget that Nolan Ryan pitched 27 yrs in MLB, but wasn't on the radar for his first five. He gets traded to ANA and suddenly has career stats go through the roof (primarily with SO's, not with games won).
A few years ago, Jose Canseco cryptically stated that there are three former teammates he's never named that he knows for a fact did PEDS, and one of them is in the HOF.
I once stated to Steve that I do think it could be Nolan Ryan--both at the beginning of his career and at the tail end of his career.
In his book Juiced, Canseco makes mention that he played with Ryan at the tail end of his career and that a number of TEX players were taking PEDS, in no small part due to Canseco showing them how to obtain various on field results with them. Nolan Ryan's pitching coach in TEX was also known to have been an early juicer in the 70's.
It will be interesting to see if Canseco ever reveals the identity of the former teammate who juiced that's in the HOF.
Ryan's fastball had Chinese mustard on it when he was still a skinny teenager. He struck out 313 batters in 215 innings between single A and the National League as early as 1966. I think it's extremely unlikely he was juicing at that age. I'd like to believe he was clean till the end, but who knows?
And yet Ryan's first five years (spent in NY along with Seaver) were anything but dominant, neither did he demonstrate any major signs of greatness that he would later display. It was when he was traded to the Angels before the 72 season that he displayed the greatness that he's remembered for. Also, NY sent him down during the late 60's, and traded him away after 71 season. Not exactly a team that showed they believed in him much less thought he was all that.
I'm referring to when he started his career in 72 onward in Anaheim. Here was a 26 yr old, who had just been ignominiously traded away from a major market franchise (and had been sent down to the minors during his time on the roster). People also tend to forget that Ryan wasn't always a starter in the Mets' rotation and was often relegated to the bullpen (which back in those days was more of an insult than a compliment).
Also, during the last few years of his career, late 80's and early 90's in TEX, Ryan was teammates with Jose Canseco. If he had retired five years earlier, Nolan Ryan doesnt record 300 Wins.
The point being, of course, is that in light of the vast number of MLB players who juiced, from the superstars to the subby bench players, anything is possible. The fact that Canseco publicly stated that a HOFer he played with that no one would suspect, tends to point toward Nolan Ryan as a most likely suspect.
My point is that steroids and muscular strength were not the difference between NY and Anaheim. Ryan was scary strong and scary fast long before he went to the Angels. Even when he was a scrawny kid in '66.
The obvious problem in NY was his control. I watched Ryan when he came up in '68. He would walk three guys, looking like he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn -- and then strike out the next three hitters. Opposing hitters were legit terrified, but his poor control limited Ryan's effectiveness as a pitcher. He simply was not yet good enough to consistently start ahead of guys like Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, and McAndrew. When he was traded to the Angels -- at age 24 -- he did not get stronger, but he certainly gained command, particularly of his curveball. In other words, he matured, like all pitchers do.
I can't rule out Ryan using in the 80s or 90s. But I would bet good money he was clean through at least the 70s.
When i was kid I believed this type of official narrative as well, which included him using pickle brine on his arm to help his control.
Nolan Ryan is MLB's all time strikeout king. He is also MLB's all time walk king, with 2,795. He is the only pitcher in MLB history to record over 2,000 walks. This is no small part of why he only won 20 games twice in his career and why it took him nearly 25 yrs to record 300 Wins.
The point is that Ryan wasn't good enough to start in NY's rotation, whereas he should've at least been the third starter behind Seaver and Koosman during his time in NY. After five years, NY thought they had seen enough and traded him away.
I am also saying that after Jose Canseco's book and stated testimony (many things he stated regarding players and PEDS have proven to be correct and accurate), that we cannot automatically rule out that players such as Nolan Ryan used PEDS at all during their careers. And if it can be conceded that great players such as Nolan Ryan could conceivably have juiced, then it can also be stated that its just as possible that they began juicing at an earlier point in their careers as well. We'd all like to think he was clean, but, in reality we no longer can make that statement with any assurance, at least for MLB players who began their careers post 1960's. Just as NFL players on certain teams began juicing in the early and mid 60's, its also possible that a few MLB players, individuals not teams as a whole, but individuals, did in fact experiment with juicing. PEDS weren't brought in en masse until Jose Canseco in the late 80's. Baseball may be a very conservative sport, but onfe an individual player demonstrates that a new way of playing bringss instant success, results, then the majority of players soon hop on the bandwagon and attempt results for their own careers as well.
Well, clearly something is amiss here.
Sandy Koufax is certainly the greatest of all time, and he had the good sense to stop pitching before his arm fell off.
There's the usual conflict between long term and short term greatness. This measure emphasizes long term achievement, in contrast to Koufax-style short term greatness.
I know.
I’m just cranky after losing to the Angels last night.
The Angels have tended to earn all six of their victories over the Dodgers this year.
Excelling through fundamentally changing the way the game is played is a reasonable definition of greatness.
Indeed.
IIRC, Mays moved to Candlestick in 1960 (29?) but the power alley was shortened the next year? But i haven’t looked at home road splits.
The Dodgers moved to the LA Coliseum in 1958 and decided to hose left handed slugger Duke Snider by making it a million miles to right field.
Duke must have adjusted, as while his 58 stats were better on the road, his 59-61 stats were better at home each year
Willie's 1960 splits were awful:
H: .299/.366/.509/12/45
A: .338/.395/.596/17/58
The stat heads don’t place enough emphasis on postseason success and who was clutch. Bonds never won a World Series. That matters a great deal. Or should.
They’re cherry-picking which factors are worthy of adjustment. That’s awfully bold.
Thanks, Steve. I'm one of your readers who doesn't care passionately about baseball, yet enjoys your informed commentary, and even your commentary-on-commentary.
That said, NYT reporter Alexander Nazaryan's breathless tone is tiresome.
Thought experiment: if statistician Daniel J. Eck had published on a new method that upranked white players but downranked ¡Black! players, would that have been News Fit To Print? The question is its own answer.
Steve pasted Nasaryan's paragraph 5 ("Baseball purists may object...") and then part of paragraph 6, this quote from Eck: "I’m OK with a PED-laden person being number one, over, say, a person who played before baseball was integrated.”
A bit odd, but a reasonable opener -- after all, Nazaryan's editors gave him 20 more paragraphs, plenty of space for an exploration of juicing. But that didn't happen.
Professor Eck's method established that Hakeem Jeffries is a better and more-important Statesman than George Washington.
Here's a 'Reader's Pick' comment by Jim:
"I have a PhD in clinical psychology for which I was required to take many courses in advanced statistics, and I have applied that training throughout my career. So I understand and admire the methodology that created this list.
"But there are statistics and there is morality. Yes, Babe Ruth played in an era in which the talent pool was smaller in part because people of color were not allowed to participate in the sport. But Babe Ruth did not choose that. In contrast, Barry Bonds systematically chose to break the rules to achieve the statistics that put him at the top of this list. And in doing so, he even cheated his godfather, Willie Mays, who in my opinion is, other than Babe Ruth, the greatest player in the history of the game. Same for Roger Clemens."
Any list without Keith Hernandez in the top 10 is clearly flawed. Batting, fielding, running, game strategy, drinking, smoking, carousing, leading his teammates, mustache growing - the man could do it all.
don't forget long-distance spitting from the grassy knoll ;)
Roger McDowell was the second spitter!
lol that's a conspiracy theory!
Steve unironically feels that Keith should be denied entry into Cooperstown because of his cocaine habit
I am too far on the spectrum to really enjoy team sports. Indivual efforts impress me much more. Hard enough for me to properly cooperate with teammates without sharing my glory or their shame.
Of the team sports, baseball is the most individualistic
Re Willie Mays and his performance drop-off from age 25-29: IIRC around the time Tiger Woods got to 10-12 Majors, many said he was automatic to exclipse Jack. Some wit (or savant?) said, let's wait until Tiger is married and has kids.
Tiger was married in 2004 and had kids in 2007 and 2009; his infamous marital implosion was in 2009.
He won his last PGA in 2007, last US Open in 2008, next-to-last Master in 2005 (had the 2019 comeback), and last Open in 2005.
Willie Mays got married in 1956 (age 25). They adopted a child in 1959 and were divorced by 1963 (age 32 season). And his 'down' years were still pretty good.
Solid anecdata.
I never really thought about it, but it's a shame Willie Mays never had children; perhaps Mrs. Mays was barren
Don't care much about these lists, they are abstractions on top of statistical abstractions. Having said that, baseball is stats, but it has gone overboard the last 10 years.
Anyway at Candlestick Bonds hit the hardest ball I've seen. A line drive that hit the right field fence on the fly and Bonds could only get to first base.
The stadium went quiet
As someone who doesn't follow baseball, the defensive throwing at the professional level has always impressed me at least as much as the hitting.
I think I’m going to call this the Bert Blyleven Sans Walter Johnson list.
This is really not that precisely measurable. Ruth's greatest unmentioned advantage was having Gehrig hit behind him. Bonds' greatest except for the drugs was the lower mound. One virtually unmeasurable is pitching skill including velocity and accuracy and the size of the strike zone. Another is whether the extent of night time baseball or field size made a difference. That Gehrig is not in the top 25 makes me suspicious big time that something is not being measured that well.
Any list claiming that Bert Blyleven was a better player than Lou Gehrig is immediately suspect if not immediately discredited.
Or Joe Morgan or quite a few others on the list in my opinion...Ripken, Schmidt, some of the pitchers, Speaker. Williams thought Dimaggio was the best all around player he ever saw. So what about him ? Henderson better than Gehrig..? Heaven help us. heh heh heh And Jimmy Foxx? An afterthought? This guy has a problem with baseball before integration.
What about Josh Gibson?
I heard he was good.
Pitchers probably shouldn't be compared with position players. There is no way that a starting pitcher who appears once every five or six games (once every four in past years) is as valuable a player as an everyday player. That said, Ruth threw about 1200 innings with an ERA of about 2.30. It was the dead ball era, but the person who single-handedly ended the dead ball era was Ruth, when he decided to turn himself into a full-time position player. Ruth was not only the best baseball player of all time, he was the most significant in radically altering the game.
I think I need to disagree with your first two sentences. Even though a pitcher only participates periodically, they have a direct role in every play of the game while they are in the field, whereas even a SS only is directly involved in a play 6-8 times a game on average. A guy on the mound who ensures a SS (or anyone else) barely has to touch the ball is more valuable than a position player where the difference in fielding percentage between a stud and a run of the mill guy is a couple percent.
Ruth transformed the game because no one cared about stopping a pitcher from doing something so unconventional with a bat.
Bill James' list. He started the sabermetrics craze.
https://baseballevolution.com/top100s/billjames100.html
Google? Weigh in on Bill James and who he thinks is the all time MLB greatest ever.
"Bill James, a prominent figure in sabermetrics, considers Babe Ruth the greatest baseball player of all time. While acknowledging the possibility of other players being as good or even having greater impact in their respective eras, James consistently emphasizes Ruth's unparalleled dominance and impact on the game"
We are coming up on three months since Bill James has tweeted; I hope he's ok
“Then again, maybe Ruth should get extra credit for revolutionizing professional sports in the Western world?”
Uh, that part. Ruth single handedly changed the entire sport, making it more offensive
Babe Ruth’s dominance is in part due to his talent, but is also in part to him exercising a superior batting strategy that had not existed before.”
Translation: therefore Ruth is going to be penalized for not only being nearly a full standard deviation better than his peers, (and since PEDs were non-existent in MLB during his career), therefore it is automatically unfair that Ruth figured out how to exercise a superior batting strategy, EVEN THOUGH anyone could have employed the same strategy. The writers do not directly state what this batting strategy is—video footage of Ruth shows that he is standing in the batters box like everyone else, and swinging the bat like every other hitter, then as now.
“I’m OK with a PED-laden person being number one, over, say, a person who played before baseball was integrated,” Dr. Eck said. “
And here we have the actual nub of what’s going on. This is intentional bias, reverse discrimination. Because it’s so “obvious” that weighed vs which other, PEDs are by far the lesser cardinal sin than playing pre-1947, when you can’t trust those stats at all, because racism, racism, and racism.
"In other words, despite Bonds’s steroid use, he put up more outlandishly impressive numbers, in era-adjusted terms, than Ruth."
No he did not. The HR stat, as an offensive weapon, which also changed the entire configuration of modern ballparks, (e.g. OF’s power alleys began being pulled in so as to capitalize on more HR’s hit), these things are directly traced to a single individual, namely, Babe Ruth. The HR was well entrenched by the time Bonds started playing in MLB. The HR stat was not even a major thing during the first five yrs of Ruth's career--starting in 1918-1919, at the tail end of the Dead Ball Era, when he began hitting HR's in larger amounts than fans and writers alike were accustomed to seeing.
FACT: It was more outlandishly impressive that Ruth in 1920 hit 54 HR's (which outhomered entire teams' HR totals in MLB at the time) than it was for Bonds to hit 73 in 2001, when McGwire had already hit 70 in 1998, just three years previously.
When Babe Ruth hit 60 HRS in 1927, he broke his own record of 59 HRs in 1921. When Ruth hit 54 HRs in 1920, he broke the then record of 28 HRS, in other words Ruth’s first single season HR record nearly doubled the total of the prior record holder.
Bonds on the other hand, surpassed McGwire by 3 HRs. Not very impressive, especially as both were taking PEDS.
During the 1920’s, during his peak years, Ruth out homered entire teams’ total HRs hit for the season. For Bonds to equal that order of magnitude, he would’ve had to have hit 150 + HRs in a single season.
“Bonds, in comparison, was increasingly good from 22-25” Uh, actually, not really upon closer examination. Good, enough would be a more accurate designation
“From age 22 to 34, Bonds’ career looks like that of a traditional inner circle Hall of Famer.”
Depends where the circle is drawn. With Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Musial, Williams, even Mantle? Not by a long shot.
With Ernie Banks, Griffey Jr, Frank Robinson? Yes, along those lines, but definitely not inner circle (if that implies the greatest to have ever played the game, period, not at that level).
“I’ve never seen a really good explanation for why Willie was better in his early 30s than his late 20s.”
Really? I took for granted when studying Willie’s basic stats years ago, that a late part of it was moving from the Polo Grounds to first Seals Stadium for three seasons and then Candlestick in 1961, when he was 30. Different ballpark configurations, particularly the OFs and how much ground a CFer has to cover is a major reason for why a player like Willie had some off years—he was adjusting to a new ballpark in a new city, and a minor league calibre one at that. Once Candlestick became SF’s permanent park, he adjusted quite well.
It’s also a reason why Hank Aaron had a late career HR surge—Atlanta’s ballpark was more conducive to HRs than Milwaukee County Stadium.
But the modern ballparks all had their OF fences shortened compared to the Dead Ball Era as a reaction to one man’s HR prowess, and that’s Babe Ruth.
I also notice that Walter Johnson was shamefully left off the top ten list of greatest ever to have played the game. 417 career W’s, 2.12 ERA, 3, 508 career SO, when no P posted 3,000 career strikeouts for nearly half a century after Walter retired, and he’s left off the top ten list of all time greatest players?
Also Bert Blyleven (no Cy Young Awards, no 300 W’s era 3.32) is ahead of Tom Seaver (3 Cy Young Awards, 2.86 career ERA, 311 career W’s)? What the f is that unless it’s a typo.
And Warren Spahn’s not in the top 20? 363 career W’s, 3.09 ERA, most seasons with 20 W’s second only to Cy Young. Spahn won the Cy Young Award in 1957, back when it was one award for two leagues (not given to best AL/NL pitchers as today). Bert Blyleven is better than Warren Spahn? When he wasn’t even considered the best pitcher in a given season? Seriously?
So by this metric, Bert Blyleven is greater than both Walter Johnson and Tom Seaver (and Blyleven and Seaver’s careers overlapped, so they definitely can be compared to one another). Oh, and also he’s greater than Tris Speaker (one of the few OF-ers who can be compared to today. Speaker has 3,000+ H’s, career BA 345 all time doubles record, but he’s not as great as Bert Blyleven—the greatest pitcher people don’t think about or immediately recall, because “obviously” all time great players slip under people’s radars all the time.
Oh, and Lou Gehrig isn’t in the top 20 greatest players list either, so Blyleven is “obviously” greater than Lou Gehrig.
So basically we’re told to believe that Bert Blyleven is a far greater all time player than Lou Gehrig, Tris Speaker, Walter Johnson, Tom Seaver, Warren Spahn—all players who were praised and lauded during their lifetimes, while Bert slipped under the radar for the most part (wasn’t a first ballot HOF, for example)
Per Bonds achievements, A reasonable question would be, Steve, what is Bonds’ career WAR 1986-2000, and then what is his WAR from just for the seasons 2001-2004? And, does his WAR from 1986-1998 truly make him among the greatest ever to have played in MLB?
HOF, absolutely. But the greatest of the greatest ever to have played in the 20th century?
That designation, belongs and always will belong, to Babe Ruth, the one single individual who literally changed the way MLB offense is played, directly impacted offensive strategies, and, directly impacted the way modern ballparks are constructed (OF's with shorter fences, shorter power alleys, and shorter distances from home plate). One person did that, and that's Babe Ruth.
By traditional WAR, Babe Ruth is listed at 183.1, the highest in MLB history.
Nolan Ryan is another one that looks out of place. Ryan had some great stuff, but there's just no way he ranks ahead of Seaver and Hornsby.
there's a saying, can you leave out a specific player and still tell the story or history of the sport?
For example, can you leave out Bert Blyleven and still tell the story of MLB? Of course, without a doubt. If Bert's so great, why'd it take him nearly 20 yrs post retirement to get into HOF? No Cy Young Awards either, so he wasn't considered the most dominant pitcher during a season throughout his career. Now, you can say that Nolan Ryan didn't win a Cy Young Award either, which is true. But he definitely ranks higher than Bert Blyleven. That has to be a major typo on their part.
And the cat was let out of the bag when one of the major stats dudes who helped compile the list stated that better PEDs than playing pre-1947.
I do agree with your assessment about ranking Nolan Ryan ahead of Rogers Hornsby. Seaver had a lower career ERA, and almost as many career Wins. People forget that Nolan Ryan pitched 27 yrs in MLB, but wasn't on the radar for his first five. He gets traded to ANA and suddenly has career stats go through the roof (primarily with SO's, not with games won).
A few years ago, Jose Canseco cryptically stated that there are three former teammates he's never named that he knows for a fact did PEDS, and one of them is in the HOF.
I once stated to Steve that I do think it could be Nolan Ryan--both at the beginning of his career and at the tail end of his career.
In his book Juiced, Canseco makes mention that he played with Ryan at the tail end of his career and that a number of TEX players were taking PEDS, in no small part due to Canseco showing them how to obtain various on field results with them. Nolan Ryan's pitching coach in TEX was also known to have been an early juicer in the 70's.
It will be interesting to see if Canseco ever reveals the identity of the former teammate who juiced that's in the HOF.
Ryan's fastball had Chinese mustard on it when he was still a skinny teenager. He struck out 313 batters in 215 innings between single A and the National League as early as 1966. I think it's extremely unlikely he was juicing at that age. I'd like to believe he was clean till the end, but who knows?
And yet Ryan's first five years (spent in NY along with Seaver) were anything but dominant, neither did he demonstrate any major signs of greatness that he would later display. It was when he was traded to the Angels before the 72 season that he displayed the greatness that he's remembered for. Also, NY sent him down during the late 60's, and traded him away after 71 season. Not exactly a team that showed they believed in him much less thought he was all that.
I'm referring to when he started his career in 72 onward in Anaheim. Here was a 26 yr old, who had just been ignominiously traded away from a major market franchise (and had been sent down to the minors during his time on the roster). People also tend to forget that Ryan wasn't always a starter in the Mets' rotation and was often relegated to the bullpen (which back in those days was more of an insult than a compliment).
Also, during the last few years of his career, late 80's and early 90's in TEX, Ryan was teammates with Jose Canseco. If he had retired five years earlier, Nolan Ryan doesnt record 300 Wins.
The point being, of course, is that in light of the vast number of MLB players who juiced, from the superstars to the subby bench players, anything is possible. The fact that Canseco publicly stated that a HOFer he played with that no one would suspect, tends to point toward Nolan Ryan as a most likely suspect.
My point is that steroids and muscular strength were not the difference between NY and Anaheim. Ryan was scary strong and scary fast long before he went to the Angels. Even when he was a scrawny kid in '66.
The obvious problem in NY was his control. I watched Ryan when he came up in '68. He would walk three guys, looking like he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn -- and then strike out the next three hitters. Opposing hitters were legit terrified, but his poor control limited Ryan's effectiveness as a pitcher. He simply was not yet good enough to consistently start ahead of guys like Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, and McAndrew. When he was traded to the Angels -- at age 24 -- he did not get stronger, but he certainly gained command, particularly of his curveball. In other words, he matured, like all pitchers do.
I can't rule out Ryan using in the 80s or 90s. But I would bet good money he was clean through at least the 70s.
When i was kid I believed this type of official narrative as well, which included him using pickle brine on his arm to help his control.
Nolan Ryan is MLB's all time strikeout king. He is also MLB's all time walk king, with 2,795. He is the only pitcher in MLB history to record over 2,000 walks. This is no small part of why he only won 20 games twice in his career and why it took him nearly 25 yrs to record 300 Wins.
The point is that Ryan wasn't good enough to start in NY's rotation, whereas he should've at least been the third starter behind Seaver and Koosman during his time in NY. After five years, NY thought they had seen enough and traded him away.
I am also saying that after Jose Canseco's book and stated testimony (many things he stated regarding players and PEDS have proven to be correct and accurate), that we cannot automatically rule out that players such as Nolan Ryan used PEDS at all during their careers. And if it can be conceded that great players such as Nolan Ryan could conceivably have juiced, then it can also be stated that its just as possible that they began juicing at an earlier point in their careers as well. We'd all like to think he was clean, but, in reality we no longer can make that statement with any assurance, at least for MLB players who began their careers post 1960's. Just as NFL players on certain teams began juicing in the early and mid 60's, its also possible that a few MLB players, individuals not teams as a whole, but individuals, did in fact experiment with juicing. PEDS weren't brought in en masse until Jose Canseco in the late 80's. Baseball may be a very conservative sport, but onfe an individual player demonstrates that a new way of playing bringss instant success, results, then the majority of players soon hop on the bandwagon and attempt results for their own careers as well.
Nolan Ryan started weightlifting in 1973, but couldn't get any teammates to try it until 1979.