10. Ed Delahanty
Delahanty was one of the first great hitters in the game's history. In his 16 year career, he had a .346 average, 101 home runs, 1464 RBI, 1599 runs scored, 522 doubles, 185 triples and 455 stolen bases. He was never selected to an All-Star game because there were none during his playing days.
He had a .400 or better average in three different seasons and his .346 career average ranks fifth all time. He also had two on base percenage titles, five slugging percentage titles and five OPS titles. His 185 triples rank 13th all time and he had 2596 career base hits. Finally, he led the league in RBI three times.
9. Jim Rice
Rice is one of the greatest Red Sox ever. In his 16 year career, he had a .298 average, a .352 on base percentage, 382 home runs, 1451 RBI, 1249 runs scored, 2452 base hits and 373 doubles. He was selected to the All-Star team eight times, starting in left field in three of them. He also won back-to-back Silver Slugging Awards in the 1983 and 1984 seasons.
Rice finished in the top five in the MVP voting six times, including winning the award in the 1978 season. In that season, he had a .315 average, 46 home runs, 139 RBI, 121 runs scored and seven stolen bases. He nearly won the Triple Crown that year as he finished third in batting average and led the league in both home runs and RBI.
8. "Shoeless" Joe Jackson
Jackson is one of the best, if not the best, hitters ever. In his 13 year career, he had a .356 average, 54 home runs, 785 RBI, 873 runs scored, 1772 base hits and 202 stolen bases. His career was cut short though as he was not allowed to play, as he was accused of being part of the Black Sox Scandal. It is reported that members of the White Sox tried to fix the 1919 World Series.
His .356 career average ranks third all time as he is only behind Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby. He finished in the top five in the MVP voting three times, including a second place vote in the 1913 season. Jackson easily would have had over 3,000 hits as he was only 30 years old when he was not allowed to play anymore.
7. Al Simmons
Simmons was simply a beast offensively. In his 20 year career, he had a .334 average, 307 home runs, 1827 RBI, 1507 runs scored, 2927 base hits, 539 doubles, 149 triples and 88 stolen bases. He was selected to the All Star team three times, but it would've been more had there been an All Star game in his entire career.
He helped lead the Athletics and the Reds to four World Series appearances, including two championships back-to-back with the Athletics in the 1929 and 1930 seasons. He won two batting titles and he finished in the top five in MVP voting four times, including a second place finish in the 1925 season.
6. Manny Ramirez
Ramirez is one of the five greatest right handed hitters of all time. So far in his 16 year career, he has a .314 average, 527 home runs, 1725 RBI 1444 runs scored, 2392 base hits, 507 doubles, a .411 on base percentage and a .593 slugging percentage. He has been selected to the All-Star team 12 times, starting at left field in five of them.
comments (42) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Marcel, for once in your life, you have come up with a reasonable "top ten" list. The only guy on your list who CLEARLY doesn't belong there is Jim Rice. Get him off of the list, and replace him with one of these guys...
Tim Raines
Willie Stargell
Minnie Minoso
Billy Williams
Joe Medwick
Jesse Burkett
Goose Goslin
Fred Clarke
Zack Wheat
Sherry Magee
Ralph Kiner
Harry Stovey
Rice was nowhere near the player than any of the above guys were. His career OPS+ is only 127. KIiner (148), Stargell (147), Stovey (141), Burkett (140), and Magee (137) were all much better hitters than Rice and the rest of the players up there were at least as good offensively as Rice in much longer careers, with better defense and baserunning.
His stats were an illusion of his home ballpark. Even the dumb sportswriters have gotten it right by making hi wait so long to get into the hall of fame. I think he will finally get elected in the upcoming vote.
Compared to your shortstop and thirdbase lists though, this one actually makes you look like you are knowledgable about baseball history.
about 1 month ago
I think Manny should be ahead of Yastrzmezki. And Willie Stargell should be somewhere on here. But overall, this is a very good list.
from about 1 month ago
Steven, Stargell was my last cut, but there is no reason in the world for Manny to be ahead of Yastrzmeski. Yaz was as good as a hitter, a much much better defensive player and a far better teammate than Manny. There is no way in hell Manny should be ahead of Yastrzemski.
from about 1 month ago
Marcel, there is no way that Yaz was anywhere near as good a hitter as Manny Ramirez. Yaz has a career OPS+ of 128. Manny's career OPS+ is 155. Yaz is not even in the same league with Manny as a hitter. Manny's OPS+ of 155 is up there with people like Mel Ott, Frank Robinson, Hank Aaron and Joe DiMaggio. Yaz's 128 is well below people like Gene Tenace, Will Clark and Pedro Geurrero.
Look at their other numbers
PLAYER AVG OBP SLG
Yaz .285 .379 .462
Manny .314 .411 .593
How can you POSSIBLY think that Yaz was as good of a hitter as Manny?
Even with an adjustment for the eras they each played in (that's what OPS+ does), it's no contest.
You also like to speak out of both sides of your mouth. When trying to make a case for some players you talk about how many championships they won (Manny - 2, Yaz - 0), but here you say that Yaz was a far better teammate than Manny. Make up your mind.....do you want nice teammates, or multiple championships?
Steven is 100% correct, Manny belongs ahead of Yaz.
from about 1 month ago
Bruce, watch out with that OPS+ stuff, who decided that was such a determining stat. You said that Gene Tenace has a better OPS+ than Yaz, you're surely not saying he was a better overall player. Though I believe Tenace was a much better Catcher than he gets credit for and Yaz is slightly overrated in general.
from about 1 month ago
No Mike, I'm not trying to say the Tenace was a better player than Yaz. I'm merely providing some names to put Yaz's level of offense into context for Marcel. OPS+ is the best single stat to determine a player's offensive value per plate appearance. It is adjusted for era and for home park. It tells us how far above or below average a player was as a batter. League average is 100, so it's easy to understand. Manny's OPS+ of 155 is a figure of historic proportions. Yaz's OPS+ of 127 makes him merely a very good hitter for a very long time.
Marcel may like Tenace though, considering that he won three world championships and was the MVP of the 1972 world series. He was a part time player that season who got to play every game in that series because Reggie Jackson was injured scoring the winning run on a double steal in the final game of the ALCS.
about 1 month ago
Bruce, you're wrong. I'll give you that Manny is a better hitter than Yas, but not by much. Remember, he was the last player to win the Triple Crown. He is also a much better defensive player and teammate. Yes, Manny has won two championships, but Yaz never had as good as a team as Manny had in Boston when he won his two championships.
about 1 month ago
Marcel, where do you get "not by much" from?
Do you have a basic understanding of what OPS+ is?
An OPS+ of 155 means that manny is 55% better than the average major league hitter. That puts him among the top 25 or 30 hitters of all time. Yaz is only 28% better than the average major league hitter. It's not even remotely close as to who is the better hitter. Manny is an all time great. Yaz is just a very good hitter.
Do you understand the difference between slugging .593 for your career and slugging .462 for your career?
If you're gonna write these articles you really need to do a lot more homework first. You are lacking a fundemental comprehension of how to compare the numbers of different players.
If you really think that Manny is just a little better hitter than Yaz, it's kind of embrarrasing.
Yaz played on plenty of very good teams, like in 1978, with stars like Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Carlton Fisk, Dennis Eckersley and Luis Tiant. Every one of those guys is among the top career players at his position.
Winning a triple crown does not prove that a player is an all time great, unless you think Cy Seymour is also better than Manny.
from about 1 month ago
Hey all, the discussion is about the 10 best left FIELDERS, that takes Manny pretty much off the list, especially comparing him to Yaz, who could hit, run and catch and throw too! Ted Williams was the best in my opinion, Stan was great, but Ted's overall numbers were better, except for World Series championships, which take in the whole team, not just one individual. Even Manny would not have the RBI numbers if team mates were'nt on base!
from about 1 month ago
Bruce, Cy Seymour never hit for the triple crown, what the hell are you talking about, no one ever said he hit for the triple crown or said he was better than Ramirez, except you. Where do you get that Seymour hit for the triple crown.
Bruce, only 12 different players in the history of MLB have ever hit for the triple crown, it's a short list--Seymour is not on it, trust me.
from about 1 month ago
Michael, my mistake, Cy missed leading in HRs that year by one, but the point remains the same. Marcel mentioning that Yaz was the last player to win the triple crown has not bearing on whether or not he was close to being as good a hitter as Ramirez. It would be like saying that Lou Gehrig was a better HR hitter than Babe Ruth because Gehrig once hit four HRs in a game and Babe never did that.
about 1 month ago
Here's what I would go with for the top ten LFers:
1. Ted Williams
2. Stan Musial
3. Barry Bonds
4. Rickey Henderson
5. Ed Delahanty
6. Manny Ramirez
7. Carl Yaz
8. Joe Jackson
9. Al Simmons
10. Tim Raines
from about 1 month ago
Bruce - really raines ahead of pops? was it at least close? :)
Marcel - pretty well put together list. obviously we'd all tweak it a little, but that's the personal aspect. Well-researched/written. nice job!
as an aside: personally I think Man-Ram was a fine fielder, especially in Boston. Obviously he didn't cover much ground, but he played the wall well enough to compensate and had (has) a pretty strong arm - way better than I remember Bonds' being (arm strength I mean)
from about 1 month ago
Josh, yes it was close with Raines and Stargell, but Raines had more caeer win shares, (387 to 370)and a much better top 5 seasons (162 to 148) and a bit better win shares per 162 games played (26.64 to 25.39). Combine that with the fact that Stargell played 740 less game in LF than raines and i think you have to go with Tim. Of course, Stargell would be the choice on a team that already had a real good leadoff hitter and needed more HR power.
The bigger question is......does Marcel even know what win shares are?
about 1 month ago
Dick, apparantly you never saw Ted play, as he was not much better in the field than manny is. Defense is not a huge part of a LFers game, Dick. It's a place where you need a great hitter much more than a great defensive player. That's why there have been very few great defensive LFers in the entire history of baseball. If a player is a great defensive outfielder, he plays CF or maybe RF.
Do you think the Dodgers would rather have had a great defensive LFer this year rather than Manny Ramirez hitting .396 with tremendous power in leading them to a division title down the stretch?
The ten greatest LFErs means the ten best overall players who played LF, Dick. If Marcel wants to do a different list of the best defensive players at each position, that's another story entirely.
about 1 month ago
Here's a poll I did after the 2001 season. 25 experts (including Bill James) each ranked the top 50 players of all time in order, and those lists were tabulated through a weighted point system. Here are the results of that poll:
Rank / Player Total Points - Mentions
1. Babe Ruth 1742 25
2. Honus Wagner 1626 25
3. Willie Mays 1614 25
4. Ted Williams 1510 25
5. Ty Cobb 1491 25
6. Walter Johnson 1467 25
7. Hank Aaron 1423 25
8. Barry Bonds 1341 25
9. Tris Speaker 1291 25
10. Stan Musial 1242 25
11. Lou Gehrig 1239 25
12. Mickey Mantle 1195 25
13. Rogers Hornsby 1140 25
14. Lefty Grove 1105 25
15. Mike Schmidt 1195 25
16. Cy Young 1062 25
17. Eddie Collins 1049 25
18. Frank Robinson 959 25
19. Christy Mathewson 940 25
20. Jimmie Foxx 937 25
21. Grover Alexander 924 24
22. Joe Morgan 879 23
23. Nap Lajoie 846 24
24. Roger Clemens 841 23
25. Joe DiMaggio 841 23
26. Rickey Henderson 812 22
27. Josh Gibson 786 18
28. Mel Ott 766 23
29. Tom Seaver 722 24
30. Eddie Mathews 699 24
31. Greg Maddux 697 23
32. Oscar Charleston 663 16
33. Johnny Bench 655 24
34. Satchel Paige 624 18
35. Warren Spahn 600 24
36. George Brett 595 24
37. Yogi Berra 491 19
38. Arky Vaughan 385 17
39. Bob Feller 359 16
40. Ken Griffey, Jr. 357 15
41. Bob Gibson 347 18
42. Mike Piazza 330 17
43. Mark McGwire 322 12
44. Kid Nichols 320 14
45. Cal Ripken 292 15
46. Jackie Robinson 267 12
47. Jeff Bagwell 260 13
48. Ed Delahanty 246 11
49. Carl Yastrzemski 234 12
50. Sandy Koufax 194 8
51. Alex Rodriguez 186 9
52. Johnny Mize 185 9
53. Steve Carlton 175 9
54. Hank Greenberg 168 8
55. Pete Rose 135 6
56. Reggie Jackson 131 8
57. Charlie Gehringer 130 7
58. Pop Lloyd 129 5
59. Buck Leonard 128 5
60. Joe Jackson 125 5
61. Roberto Clemente 114 5
62. Roy Campanella 111 6
63. Randy Johnson 100 5
64. Carl Hubbell 94 5
65. Al Kaline 90 6
66. Martin Dihigo 86 2
67. Duke Snider 82 5
68. Cap Anson 82 3
69. Wade Boggs 80 5
70. Mickey Cochrane 79 4
71. Robin Yount 77 4
72. Turkey Steames 75 3
73. Tony Gwynn 70 4
74. Dan Brouthers 70 3
75. Whitey Ford 68 4
76. Eddie Murray 66 3
77. King Kelly 60 2
78. Tim Keefe 58 3
79. Bid McPhee 54 2
80. Willie McCovey 53 3
81. George Davis 51 3
82. Pedro Martinez 45 3
83. Buck Ewing 45 2
84. Smokey Joe Williams 44 3
85. Mule Suttles 39 2
85. John Clarkson 37 2
87. Frank Thomas 37 2
88. Tim Raines 35 2
89. Ozzie Smith 33 2
90. Willie Stargell 29 2
91. Roberto Alomar 28 2
Remember, this was 2001, before Manny had emerged with much of his great career,and also before all the steroids stuff. Here are the top ten LFers according to this poll, as of 2001:
1. Ted Williams
2. Barry Bonds
3. Stan Musial
4. Rickey henderson
5. Ed Delahanty
6. Carl Yaz
7. Joe Jackson
8. Tim Raines
9. Willie Stargell
The only guy missing is Al Simmons, and Manny, who had only played 7 or 8 years at that time.
about 1 month ago
By the way, here's the best 19th century players at each position:
C - Buck Ewing
1B - Dan Brouthers
2B - Cupid Childs
SS - Hughie Jennings
3B - John McGraw
LF - Ed Delahanty
CF - Billy Hamilton
RF - Sam Thompson
P - Cy Young
P - Kid Nichols
P - John Clarkson
from about 1 month ago
Bruce, I never thought I'd say this, but that is the exact same 1800s list that I have, Let's face it, it's basically an all 1890s team except for a couple players. Again, I have the same players as you do, except for the Starting Pitchers. But the exact same position players. Cy Young and Kid Nichols are Pitchers from the 1890s and John Clarkson was a Pitcher from the 1880s. Here's the problem, Clarkson was great, no doubt, but here are 5 others from the 1880s that I believe were better, in order. Larry Corcoran, John Ward, Dave Foutz, Bob Caruthers and Tim Keefe (then Clarkson). So, I wouldn't have Clarkson on my team. Other than Pitchers, same team.
from about 1 month ago
Mike, Clarkson had a better peak than Keefe with 249 win shares in his best 5 seasons to Keefe's 236. Clarkson averaged more win shares per season (32.69 to 30.06). Keefe would certainly be the next pitcher on the team.
The other guys you chose all had much shorter careers than Clarkson and Keefe. Great pitchers much shorter careers. Old Hoss Radbourne was probably better than Foutz, Ward, Caruthers and Corcoran.
from about 1 month ago
Oh Bruce, we're not going to argue about that fairly short career crap again are we, they were both great Pitcher's but Corcoran was definitely better, Corcoran had a better ERA, a better OBA, a better OOB% and a better winning %. They both are Pitchers of the 1880s, easy to compare, Clarkson was great, but doesn't quite match up to Corcoran, nobody from the 1880s really does. I mean, those 4 things I mentioned with Corcoran, the better ERA, OBA, OOB% and W%--that means that Corcoran's hitters scored less, hit less, got on base less and won games less. What's the question?
Clarkson wasn't better at much of anything than Corcoran except he Pitched in just over 500 games and Corcoran Pitched in just under 300 games. I can tell that you might be as stubborn and passionate as I am in your ways, were going to have to agree to disagree on this length of career stuff. You can take length of career, I'll take the better player. I love this stuff, Bruce, always great to hear your comments, you're one hell of a historian.
from about 1 month ago
Mike, the length of a career is very important in evaluating players. Corcoran only pitched 29 innings after the age of 26. Even with the much shorter career his ERA+ is well below Clarkson ERA+.
PLAYER INNINGS ERA+
Clarkson 4536 134
Corcoran 2392 123
Corcoran only had one season (1882) where his ERA+ was better than Corcorcan's ERA+ FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER. The reason Corcoran's ERA is lower is merely because he never pitched in the 1890s when the league offensive levels were much higher. You have to adjust the actual ERA for the era, Mike. Corcoran was not better than Clarkson any more than someone like Mel Stottlemyre and his career 2.97 ERA was better than someone like Clemns with a career ERA around 3.20. It all has to be adjusted for era.
ERA+ measures the pitcher's ERA after it is adjusted for league averages and home park effects. Corcoran's ERA was 23% better than average. Clarkson's ERA+ was 34% better than average in about twice as many career innings.
If we take each players three best years it's even more of a landslide for Clarkson.
PLAYER YEAR INNINGS WIN LOSS ERA+
Clarkson 1885 623 53 16 163
Corcoran 1880 536 43 14 124
Clarkson 1889 620 49 19 153
Corcoran 1882 356 27 12 148
Clarkson 1886 467 36 17 150
Corcoran 1883 474 34 20 132
Clarkson was better at prevening runs, and did it for twice as long as Corcoran. Clarkson is a much better picther, both for his acreer , and his peak.
from about 1 month ago
you make a strong argument there Bruce, it's true, Corcoran didn't make it into the 1890s. Nice work, good point.
from about 1 month ago
Bruce, I still think that length of career is WAY overrated when evaluating a player, I simply disagee with you on that. I do agree that you have to take the era and other things into acoount like the fact that Clarkson pitched into the 1890s and Corcoran didn't. It is important. It still goes back to this for me. You think Mike Schmidt is the best Third Baseman ever, I think he's 2nd, we both agree he's one of the best ever. If he had played 11 seasons instead of 18, you wouldn't think that he was the best ever, but I still would. That fact is likely true. That is why length of career is WAY WAY WAY overrated, it needs to be taken into account, but most historians go overboard with it. My Mike Schmidt scenario is simply true, sad, but true. It's funny, we generally don't care about length of career when we rate a player defensively. Like Bill Lange was the great/elite defensive Center Fielder from the 1890s, but I'm going to call him the 6th best from the 1890s because he had a fairly short career. It doesn't happen defensively, but it seems to be the norm offensively, amazing.
about 1 month ago
Marcel, nice list. I have 6 of the 10 the same as you. The only 2 that definitely should not be on there are Yaz and Rice. I believe that Stargell was better than Yaz from the 1970s, but I have Yaz 2nd and he was surely an extremely good player. And I believe that Kirk Gibson was better than Rice in the 1980s, but I have Rice 2nd and he was surely a great player. I realize that my opinion of Gibson is not well received, but I believe that Gibson was far underrated. I also would not have Simmons on my list, but Simmons would surely make a top 20 list, and I would not have Henderson on the list, but he would also surely make a top 20 list.
The 4 that I would have on my list to replace those 4 that you have are Lance Berkman from the 2000s, Joe Kelley from the 1890s, Harry Stovey from the 1880s and Ken Williams from the 1920s.
And Ted Williams has to be first, in fact, I think it is a logical argument that Ted Williams is the best overall player in the history of MLB, other than Babe Ruth.
So, the 6 that I agree with you on, though I would certainly change the order, are Musial, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Ramirez, Jackson and Delahanty. Nice job, I love this stuff.
about 1 month ago
Defense isn't as important at Left Field like it is at Second Base, Shortstop, etc..but here are my defensive ratings for the 10 players on Marcel's list, and the 4 I would have on the list that he doesn't.
Just something to chew on, someone on one of the comments brought up defense, should be fun.
I think it was Bill James that once said--if you can run but you can't throw, you're in Left; if you can throw but you can't run, you're in Right; if you can do both, you're in Center; if you can't do either, you're at First. A good rule, in general. Sometimes you'll have players break that general rule, like Stargell playing Left with his Right Field arm. Of course, Bill James will tell you how great Bill Lange is, then contradict himself by ranking him # 60 on his Center Field list. Sounds like James loses all common sense with that fairly short career crap too. Don't get me wrong, love James and his work.
Anyway, here we go:
STAN MUSIAL- Average defense, without being good or bad, got the job done.
TED WILLIAMS- Terrible defense, still the best Left Fielder ever, even with his terrible defense, some very optimistic historians like to call him average, or just bad, I'd like to too, but I can't.
BARRY BONDS- Extremely good defense, more than solid defensive player, bordered on great.
RICKY HENDERSON- Average defense, kind of got the job done, the casual fan can't believe that he didn't play Center Field, there's a reason why he didn't. OK in the field, not good.
CARL YASTRZEMSKI- Great/Elite defense, he had a rifle for an arm, he was good on any field and a master in the field at Boston.
MANNY RAMIREZ- Average defense, yes, average, not good, but not necessarily bad, without being good he pretty much gets the job done, great arm helps make up for being terrible at covering the field.
AL SIMMONS- Great defense, no major flaws, just an average arm, still great overall.
SHOELESS JOE JACKSON- Good defense, without being great, he was solid.
JIM RICE- Good defense, not great, but definitely good, had a great arm.
ED DELAHANTY- Great/Elite defense, great at everything on defense, no question.
LANCE BERKMAN- Bad defense, not terrible, but bad, there's a reason he's been moved to First Base.
JOE KELLEY- Great defense, good at everything on defense, the only better defensive player in Left during the 1890s was Delahanty.
HARRY STOVEY- Great/Elite defense, his .896 FA was actually good for back then, not great, but good, good across the board defensively. Cliff Carroll might give him a run for his money, but I think Stovey was the best defensive Left Fielder of the 1880s. Such an underrated player, across the board.
KEN WILLIAMS- Good defensively, not great, but good, much better than his FA might lead you to believe.
What I love about rating defense, no one really seems to take length of career into account, no one has ever said, Bill Lange was the great/elite defensive Center Fielder of the 1890s, but he had a fairly short career, so I think he was the 5th best. They do that with almost everyone offensively and it's widely accepted, doesn't sound right, does it?
about 1 month ago
Mike, you missed the boat on Rickey's defense. He has some of the best LF defense stats of all time, got to a ton of balls when he was in his prime in Oakland and early with the Yankees. Even won a gold glove once or twice with Oakland. Rating him as average is absurd. He was a wy better defensive player than Rice and Ramirez. And Rickey did play CF a decent amount, including being the regular Yankee CFer in his awesome season of 1985.
Even with his well below averga e arm, Henderson was an excellent LFer for most of his career, until he got older, very similar to Bonds.
from about 1 month ago
By the way, the picture that you see next to my posts is a picture I took of Rickey when he was playing for the Newark Bears.
from about 1 month ago
Bruce, maybe you're right on Henderson, maybe he was good, not average, didn't know that about the picture, that's neat.
about 1 month ago
There are two way to evaluate players.
One is for career vaue, and the other is for peak value.
For career value think of it this way. If you're gonna draft a player out of high school and have him for his entire career, who would you rather have?
For peak value think of it this way. If you were going to sign a free agent, in his prime, and only have him for three to five seasons, who would you rather have.
For career value you would have to take Willie Mays over Mickey Mantle, but for peak value you would have to take Mickey Mantle over Willie Mays.
You have to realize that a player's career averages (Batting, OBP, slugging) look worse when he plays longer because he was good enough to cointinue to be a good, but not great player for a real long time. You can't penalize a guy because he had a longer decline phase than another guy who lost his talents at a younger age. That's why Yaz and his 127 OPS+ in over 10,000 ABNs is more impressive than a guy with a 135 OPS+ in just 6500 ABs.
from about 1 month ago
Bruce, good point, I kind of agree. But I think lists should be who was the best player. Not all the way peak values, but much less on career values. Maybe somewhere in between the 2. Joe Kuhel was an average First Baseman from the 1930s, to me. Wasn't bad, but not good either when compared to the other First Baseman from the 1930s. But he had a long career and most will overrate him because of that. I just think less weight needs to be put on length of career, I take it into account, with much less weight than most, I get the feeling. Again, with Schmidt, I could tell he was one of the best Third Baseman after 11 seasons, him playing 18 seasons didn't change that fact for me, he could have played 10 seasons, 13 seasons, he was one of the best ever no matter how long he played. I'm not going to generally rate a player that played 500 games unless I have to, but once they play 800 or 900 games, that's long enough for me. Do I take into account that they only played 900 games, of course I do, maybe I don't take it into account as much as most do, but I don't think we should.
Not all, but most agree that Ruth was the best ever. He played for 22 seasons, I get the feeling that if Ruth had only played 13 seasons, I would be arguing with people about Ruth. It's sad, but probably true. It's not the way it should be. Always great talking to you.
from about 1 month ago
Bruce, now we're getting somewhere, put all that career value and peak value stuff aside. Simplify the question, it's easy enough, Who was the better player, Mays or Mantle?
Whatever your answer is is who should be rated higher in my opinion. It's easy enough, though the Mays/Mantle question is a tough one.
from about 1 month ago
With Mays and Mantle it comes down to when you are getting him and for how long. I out mre stock inmto career value than you do, so i want Mays, but mantle at jhis peak (1956, 1957, 1961, 1962) was better than mays at his peak.
My top three of all time
1 - Ruth
2 - Wagner
3 - Mays
from about 1 month ago
bruce how do you rank a rod ?
from about 1 month ago
Mike, I haven't ranked players now in about 5 years, so i'd have to think about it a while before i could figure out where i would put A-Rod. I can tell you that he is clearly not as good as Wagner. Wagner was the best player in his league for about 13 or 14 years, and his 1908 season might be the greatest year of all time by anybody. Bill James rates it as 59 win shares, which beats even the best Babe Ruth seasons.
The only seasons that are better than that come from 19th century pitchers when they were throwing 600+ innings a year, like Old Hoss Radbourn in 1884 with 89 win shares, and Tim Keefe in 1883 with 70 win shares. It's clear that in any given game that the pitcher is by far the most important player on each team, so obviously if a great pitcher can pitch almost every game like they did in those days, he'd easily be the most valuable player in the league.
Imagine if someone like Pedro in his prime was pitching 600 innings ionstead of 210 innings.
Wagner was the best hitter in his league by far in most seasons, and was a great gold glove caliber fielder at SS, and a great basestealer. It was like having a guy hit like Pujols while also being the best fielder at SS.
Most of the real sharp historians agree on Ruth-Wagner-Mays as the top three, although this was before Bonds went into the stratosphere in the early part of this decade. Without taking the steroids into account I think Bonds would have to rank ahead of Mays. Those three or four seasons were like seeing what it must have been like when Ruth was around. When a guy gets over 100 intentional walks, and over 200 walks, in one season, it's just crazy.
Personally I liked Speaker better than Cobb. Cobb would do stupid shit like get thrown out stealing home with no outs and a hall of famer (Sam Crawford) batting. Not a good leader or teammate. Speaker's stats are almost as good, with much better fielding, and a team guy who was more concerened with winning.
A-Rod is clearly # 2 at SS if that's where he ends up being ranked. If he ends up at 3B he could possibly pass up Schmidt. Depends how long he lasts, and how long he can sustain his level of play.
from about 1 month ago
That's my point exactly, you end your discussion with A-Rod by saying, he could end up better than Schmidt, it depends on how long he last.
What? It DOES NOT depend on how long he lasts. He's either better or he's not.
We're supposed to be saying who the better player was, not if A-Rod plays 1 more year or 5 more years.
Bruce, I like your top 3 players, mine are Ruth, Williams and Gehrig. Love this stuff.
I'll still take A-Rod and Jennings over Wagner. I realize I'm in the minority with Jennings, most will say he's a top 15 or 20 Shortstop, not a top 5. I love Jennings, always have thought he was more than a top 20 Shortstop.
By the way, Hughie Jennings 1895 and 1896 seasons are arguably the best single seasons in history for a Shortstop, maybe better than Wagners 1908 season. I realize that Wagners was in the low offensive decade of the 1900s, which makes it even more impressive, and the opposite is true for Jennings in the 1890s. But they were still 2 unbelievable seasons for Jennings, back to back.
about 1 month ago
Mike, you can't just call someone the best because of the highest level that he has attained at any one point. Otherwise Don Larsen would have to be the greatest picther of all tiome because of one game in the world series in 1956.
As far as jennings in 1895 and 1896 being better than 1908 Wagner, that statement is so preposterous that I think you need to have your head examined.
Let's look at some numbers:
OPS+
1908 Wagner - 205
1895 Jennins - 142
1896 Jennings - 151
What this means is that Wagner in 1908 was 105% better as a batter (more than double) than the average position player in 1908. Jennings was only 42% better in 1895 and 51% better in 1896.
Let's look at the league averages in these years.
1908 NL - Average runs per game - 6.6
1895 NL - Average runs per game - 13.2
1896 NL - Average runs per game - 12.0
Notice that in 1895 there were exactly TWICE AS MANY runs scored per game in the major leagues as there were in 1908.
Now Mike, you're a pretty smart guy. I'm sure that you don't think that all of a sudden the hitters forgot how to hit, or the pitchers got better. These differences in run scoring are attributed to rule changes and other factors. In 1895 and 1896 the pitchers were still getting adjusted to pitching from 60 feet 6 innches, instead of 50 feet like in 1892 and earlier. The other big rule change here is that in the 1890s a foul ball was not yet considered a strike. Obvioulsy that's a huge advantage for the batter, if a foul ball does not count as a strike. By 1908 a foul ball was a strike, which was a huge factor in the decreasing offensive numbers of the day.
The only accurate way to measure the value of a player's stats is to compare them against the league averages of the day. In 1895 and 1896 the league bvatting average for position players was over .300.
LEAGUE ERA
1908 - 2.35
1895 - 4.77
1896 - 4.36
Mike, why do you think that there were twice as many runs being scored in 1895 as in 1908?
Do you think that there were just tons of great hitters in 1859, and then there were tons of great pitchers in 1908?
How about players who played in both of those seasons?
Cy Young
1895 - 35-10 3.25 ERA
1908 - 21-11 1.26 ERA
Mike, do you get anything out of the fact that Young had a much better winning percentage in 1895 with a 3.25 ERA than he did in 1908 with a 1.26 ERA?
This is simlar to the mid-60s, when the mound was still 5 inches higher and the ERA in both leagues that year was under 3.00. Once they lowered the mound for the 1969 season the league ERA in both leagues jumped to around 3.60.
Everything has to be looked at in context, Mike. A .300 hitter in 1968 is a much different thing than a .300 hitter in 1930, when the entire National League batted .303 which included the pitchers stats as hitters.
Bill James rates Wagner's 1908 season as 59 win shares. Jennings 1895 season gets 29 win shares. His 1896 season gets 36 win shares. They wee both great seasons, but are NOWHERE NEAR the level of Wagner in 1908. In fact, Wagner had 6 season that were better than Jennings best season. Every year from 1904 through 1909, Wagner had more than 40 win shares.
I hope you "get" this now, Mike. You can't just look at raw numbers to rate players across eras. Not when there's twice as many runs being scored in one season that there are in another season just 13 years later. It would be like saying that the NBA players of the 60s were much better offensively than the players are now because there were so many more points scored per game back then. It has to do with the pace of the game, Mike. There were way more possesions per game in the 60s because teams had fast breaks all the time back then. Avergaing 25 poiints a game in 1965 is not near as valauble as averaging 25 poiints a game in 2004.
As for it not mattering how long A-Rod plays and whether or not he sustains the same level of play, what happens if he has some kind of injury, and then continues to play the rest of his career at a much lower level, like Mattingly for instance? When a player has a bad back, that is part of what you have to rate. If his bad back brings him down to just an okay player who used to be great, that has to be factored in to any rating of the player. Part of being the best is how long you were able to be the best for.
Jennings was the best shortstop in baseball for a 5 year period. Wagner was the best SS in baseball for a 15 year period. Zoil Versalles was the best SS in baseball for a one year period. These players are not all equal, Mike.
about 1 month ago
Here's a pretty good list of the top 25 at each position based on career wins created above a .408 winning percentage, which is the arbitrary figure the author used to represent a high level replacement player:
THE LIST WAS DONE AFTER THE 2003 SEASON, SO THE LAST 5 SEASONS WERE NOT ADDED IN YET.
http://members.cox.net/~harlowk22/atgwsobj.html
Peak value means nothing here, it is only based on career value. An estimate of how many more games his teams won with the player than they would have won if they had instead had a replacement level player at that same position over the same amount of time. A replacement level player would be a below average major league starter, someone who normally would be a backup. This is why longevity and durability is imp[ortant, Mike, because MOST teams have to use a well below average major leaguer to replace a starter who is hurt, or who has retired. An average player has value. Many penmnats have been lost because a team was unable to come up with an average major league player at a particular position.
1B
R_POS WAR2 Name
001 091.8 Lou Gehrig
002 068.7 Jimmie Foxx
003 063.3 Dan Brouthers
004 059.4 Frank Thomas
005 057.0 Dick Allen
006 056.3 Jeff Bagwell
007 055.5 Mark McGwire
008 055.3 Roger Connor
009 052.1 Cap Anson
010 050.9 Eddie Murray
011 050.8 Willie McCovey
012 050.6 Johnny Mize
013 046.6 Will Clark
014 044.1 Rafael Palmeiro
015 044.1 Harmon Killebrew
016 043.1 Hank Greenberg
017 036.6 Frank Chance
018 036.6 Norm Cash
019 036.3 Fred McGriff
020 036.0 Bill Terry
021 035.0 Keith Hernandez
022 033.8 Orlando Cepeda
023 032.8 Don Mattingly
024 031.2 John Olerud
025 027.8 Boog Powell
For those who didn't think much of Frank Thomas, he rates real high on this list. So does Dick Allen. McGwire does too, but I left him off my list as most of us did because of the steroids.
BIGGEST SURPRISE ON THE LIST - John Olerud
MOST SURPRISING OMISSION - George Sisler
SEEMS TOO LOW - Hank Greenberg/Johnny Mize - short careers hurt them. If you give ceredit for time missed during wars they'd both be top ten.
SEEMS TOO HIGH - Will Clark - His raw numbers don't look as good because he was done as a great player before the big boom in offensive stats in the late 1990s.
2B
R_POS WAR2 Name
001 098.3 Eddie Collins
002 093.0 Rogers Hornsby
003 083.7 Joe Morgan
004 083.7 Nap Lajoie
005 051.8 Craig Biggio
006 051.2 Charlie Gehringer
007 050.5 Rod Carew
008 050.4 Roberto Alomar
009 047.5 Bobby Grich
010 045.9 Frankie Frisch
011 044.1 Ryne Sandberg
012 043.5 Lou Whitaker
013 040.2 Jackie Robinson
014 038.2 Larry Doyle
015 036.1 Billy Herman
016 035.6 Willie Randolph
017 032.8 Hardy Richardson
018 032.3 Bobby Doerr
019 031.4 Cupid Childs
020 031.4 Bid McPhee
021 030.6 Johnny Evers
022 029.1 Joe Gordon
023 028.5 Jeff Kent
024 026.7 Tony Lazzeri
025 026.5 Chuck Knoblauch
Hardy Richardson rates ahead of Childs and McPhee as the top 19th century 2Bman. It's easy to forget him because he played lots of positions. Only 585 games at 2B with 554 games in the outfeild.
BIGGEST SURPRISE ON LIST - Chuck Knoblauch - I think of him as just a real solid regular, not someone who would be top 25 of all time at his position. I guess it's easy to ovrlook his good pre-Yankee years.
MOST SURPRISING OMISSION - Nellie Fox
SEEMS TOO LOW - Jackie Robinson - short career
SEEMS TOO HIGH - Larry Doyle - very good hitter, so-so fielder, long career.
3B
R_POS WAR2 Name
001 076.9 Mike Schmidt
002 070.3 Eddie Mathews
003 060.7 George Brett
004 056.3 Wade Boggs
005 054.8 Paul Molitor
006 048.5 Frank Baker
007 042.2 Stan Hack
008 040.1 Edgar Martinez
009 038.7 Tommy Leach
010 035.2 Heinie Groh
011 034.4 Darrell Evans
012 034.4 Chipper Jones
013 034.2 Jimmy Collins
014 033.7 Ron Santo
015 032.8 John McGraw
016 030.5 Bob Elliott
017 030.4 Sal Bando
018 027.8 Toby Harrah
019 027.3 Al Rosen
020 027.1 Robin Ventura
021 026.4 Pie Traynor
022 026.4 Ken Boyer
023 026.1 Denny Lyons
024 025.9 Ron Cey
025 024.4 Buddy Bell
026 024.2 Brooks Robinson
As I said, Mathews is clearly # 2. He's closer to # 1 then he is to # 3. He tends to be overlooked because he was overshadwoed during his career by Mantle, Mays, Aaron, etc.... but he is clearly better than Brett.
BIGGEST SURPRISE ON LIST - Toby Harrah - was thought of as a star for a while, but has gotten lost over the years as he split time at 3B, SS and even 2B. Also Edgar Martinez, who belongs instead in the DH category.
MOST SURPRISING OMISSION - Graig Nettles - I guess if brooks is only at # 26 then Nettles is proably just below him.
SEEMS TOO LOW - Ron Santo - bit of a short career hurt him.
SEEMS TOO HIGH - Tommy Leach - I knew he was very underrated, but he finished ahead of some greats here.
SS
R_POS WAR2 Name
001 126.4 Honus Wagner
002 058.8 Arky Vaughan
003 054.7 George Davis
004 053.1 Robin Yount
005 050.6 Bill Dahlen
006 050.4 Cal Ripken Jr.
007 046.3 Luke Appling
008 044.4 Alex Rodriguez
009 043.6 Barry Larkin
010 041.1 Joe Cronin
011 038.1 Lou Boudreau
012 035.5 Alan Trammell
013 033.3 Pee Wee Reese
014 031.7 Vern Stephens
015 029.8 Jack Glasscock
016 029.7 Joe Sewell
017 029.0 Hughie Jennings
018 028.4 Nomar Garciaparra
019 027.4 Ernie Banks
020 027.1 Derek Jeter
021 026.7 Dave Bancroft
022 026.6 Herman Long
023 026.6 Joe Tinker
024 026.2 Bobby Wallace
025 025.9 Tony Fernandez
026 025.0 Jim Fregosi
027 024.0 Ozzie Smith
028 022.3 Phil Rizzuto
029 022.2 Art Fletcher
030 020.5 Johnny Pesky
031 020.4 Maury Wills
Nice to see Jack Glasscock show up at # 15. CLEARLY the first greeat major league SS, he was easily the best SS of the 1880s. He'd be top ten if they had been playing 154 game seasons back then.
BIGGEST SURPRISE ON LIST - Tony Fernandez - didn't think his offense was good enough to be here.
MOST SURPRISING OMISSION - Dave Concepcion
SEEMS TOO LOW - Ozzie Smith - did not even make the top 25.
SEEMS TOO HIGH - Vern Stephens - great hitter, but a relatively short career.
Catcher and outfielders next post.
about 1 month ago
C
R_POS WAR2 Name
001 055.2 Yogi Berra
002 047.6 Johnny Bench
003 046.9 Mike Piazza
004 045.8 Bill Dickey
005 045.5 Carlton Fisk
006 042.9 Mickey Cochrane
007 042.8 Gabby Hartnett
008 037.0 Buck Ewing
009 036.7 Gary Carter
010 032.3 Joe Torre
011 031.5 Bill Freehan
012 029.4 Roger Bresnahan
013 029.1 Ivan Rodriguez
014 029.0 Roy Campanella
015 027.1 Gene Tenace
016 025.6 Ted Simmons
017 024.0 Thurman Munson
018 022.4 Lance Parrish
019 021.0 Wally Schang
020 017.9 Darrell Porter
021 017.4 Charlie Bennett
022 017.1 Tom Haller
023 015.7 Mickey Tettleton
024 015.5 Johnny Romano
025 014.8 Elston Howard
Based on these numbers the best I-Rod could be now would be #9. He's just not as good as you younger guys seem to think. Glad to see Charlie Bennett here. He was a 19th century star whose career ended abruptly when he had his legs severed in a train accident.
BIGGEST SURPRISE ON LIST - Mickey Tettleton - very good OBP and power, but he was really more of a DH type.
MOST SURPRISING OMISSION - Ernie Lombardi - Great player who just didn't play all that much. Even in his prime he was only playing 120 games a year.
SEEMS TOO LOW - Roy Campanella - short MLB career
SEEMS TOO HIGH - Bill Freehan - Does not get the credit he is due because he played during one of the worst offensive periods ever so people don't realize just how good of a player he was. Offense was tremendous for a catcher in that time, he would hit like .270 with 20 HRs and 60 walks and was awesome on defense. Probably the best testimonial to his value is that he was on 10 straight all star teams. Not many people would put him among Carter, Torre, Brenahan, I-Rod and Campanella, but careful analysis shows it to be an accurate ranking.
CF
R_POS WAR2 Name
001 140.7 Ty Cobb
002 118.2 Tris Speaker
003 115.5 Willie Mays
004 109.3 Mickey Mantle
005 071.8 Joe DiMaggio
006 060.0 Billy Hamilton
007 046.8 Duke Snider
008 041.1 Hugh Duffy
009 041.1 Bernie Williams
010 040.3 Ken Griffey Jr.
011 040.2 George Gore
012 039.9 Edd Roush
013 039.1 Jimmy Ryan
014 038.9 Larry Doby
015 038.8 Kirby Puckett
016 038.6 Jimmy Wynn
017 038.4 Earl Averill
018 038.3 Roy Thomas
019 037.6 Richie Ashburn
020 036.1 Pete Browning
021 035.9 Wally Berger
022 035.6 George Van Haltren
023 035.5 Max Carey
024 032.7 Amos Otis
025 032.6 Cesar Cedeno
Cobb played so long that his numbers here are far ahead of the other great CFers. Here's a case when not using peak value makes him look better than he was. Notcie the big gap between Mantle & DiMaggio.
BIGGEST SURPRISE ON LIST - No surprises to me, although Browning barely played more games in CF (490) than he did in LF (477)
MOST SURPRISING OMISSION - Dale Murphy - Dale gets a lot of hall of fame talk here and there, but these numbers say NO WAY.
SEEMS TOO LOW - Ken Griffey Jr. - Even through the 2003 season you would think he would have been higher, and it's not like he's been all that great since then.
SEEMS TOO HIGH - Bernie Williams - slightly higher than Griffey through 2003 is hard to believe even though he is underappreciated.
LF
R_POS WAR2 Name
001 118.4 Barry Bonds
002 109.5 Ted Williams
003 101.7 Stan Musial
004 082.7 Rickey Henderson
005 061.7 Jesse Burkett
006 059.5 Fred Clarke
007 057.9 Ed Delahanty
008 057.0 Carl Yastrzemski
009 054.1 Joe Jackson
010 052.1 Al Simmons
011 049.7 Tim Raines
012 049.3 Sherry Magee
013 047.3 Zack Wheat
014 045.6 Willie Stargell
015 043.4 Billy Williams
016 043.3 Jim O'Rourke
017 043.1 Jimmy Sheckard
018 043.0 Goose Goslin
019 040.7 Joe Kelley
020 039.4 Harry Stovey
021 038.7 Joe Medwick
022 036.8 Frank Howard
023 036.3 Tip O'Neill
024 035.7 George Burns
025 034.3 Bob Johnson
Bonds was clearly # 1 although if you gave Ted Ccredit for the war years he'd fly by Barry. Glad to see Sherry Magee up so hgh. He's one of the least known great players in history. Probably the best NL hitter of the teens.
BIGGEST SURPRISE ON LIST - George Burns
MOST SURPRISING OMISSIONS - Minnie Minoso / Ralph Kiner - Great players done in by short careers. Minoso by the color line and Kiner by early retirement.
SEEMS TOO LOW - Joe Medwick at # 21 seems too low. I would have thought he was better than Sheckard and O'Rourke, but it's probably just an illusion crtaeted by the high scoring era he played in and the low scoring eras they played in.
SEEMS TOO HIGH - Jesse Burkett - probably the "SEEMS TO HIGH" winner for all of the lists. Never would have put him ahead of Delahanty, Simmons and Raines, but I jjst checked, and he does have more career win shares than all of them, and was better on a per game basis than all of them except for Delahanty. Super long career for someone playing mainly in the 19th century too, with over 9600 plate appearances.
RF
R_POS WAR2 Name
001 134.3 Babe Ruth
002 106.2 Hank Aaron
003 086.1 Mel Ott
004 081.4 Frank Robinson
005 065.8 Sam Crawford
006 065.1 Pete Rose
007 059.6 Reggie Jackson
008 057.1 Paul Waner
009 054.9 Al Kaline
010 052.3 Tony Gwynn
011 051.0 Gary Sheffield
012 048.2 Elmer Flick
013 048.0 Harry Heilmann
014 045.6 Roberto Clemente
015 044.8 King Kelly
016 044.5 Dave Winfield
017 043.2 Reggie Smith
018 041.3 Bobby Bonds
019 041.1 Willie Keeler
020 040.5 Jack Clark
021 037.8 Fielder Jones
022 035.5 Larry Walker
023 035.5 Kiki Cuyler
024 035.5 Dwight Evans
025 035.2 Ken Singleton
BIGGEST SURPRISE ON LIST - Fielder Jones - Overlooked excellent player whose raw numbers are not impressive until you take into account that his entire career was played in the worst offensive era of all time, and mainly in a very good pitcher's park.
MOST SURPRISING OMISSION - Enos Slaughter/Andre Dawson/ Dave Parker/Tony Oliva - all borderline hall of famers.
SEEMS TOO LOW - Roberto Clemente - People always rank him higher than his stats say he should be beacuse of intangibles and also because they misunderstand the value of his high average. He didn't walk much and only had decent power. Made a ton of outs every year. Hit into more double plays (275) then he had home runs (240) for his career. People don't like to hear this, but he clearly been overrated by history.
SEEMS TOO HIGH - Elmer Flick - Another guy whose offense is underappreciated becauase his raw numbers don't look so great until you adjust them for the deab ball era he played in. Hard to look at him and Heillmann side by side and realize that they were about equal, but it's true. Heillmann played through the greatest extended offensive era of all time.
about 1 month ago
And the overall top position players of all time through 2003:
Remember, this does not include the numbers that Bae Ruth had for pitching. If it did, he'd be # 1. Barry would be # 3 if the last 5 years were added in.
I didn't realize that Sam Crawford would be so high. The "Big Hurt" was already # 31 without the past 5 seasons. By now Sheffield must be top 40 of all time That's hard to believe. How about Jose Cruz making the top 250 of all time?
As of the end of the 2003 season Jeter was down at # 221. Neither Rice or Brock made the LF list. Both were behind Augie Galan.
001 140.7 Ty Cobb
002 134.3 Babe Ruth
003 126.4 Honus Wagner
004 118.4 Barry Bonds
005 118.2 Tris Speaker
006 115.5 Willie Mays
007 109.5 Ted Williams
008 109.3 Mickey Mantle
009 106.2 Hank Aaron
010 101.7 Stan Musial
011 098.3 Eddie Collins
012 093.0 Rogers Hornsby
013 091.8 Lou Gehrig
014 086.1 Mel Ott
015 083.7 Joe Morgan
016 083.7 Nap Lajoie
017 082.7 Rickey Henderson
018 081.4 Frank Robinson
019 076.9 Mike Schmidt
020 071.8 Joe DiMaggio
021 070.3 Eddie Mathews
022 068.7 Jimmie Foxx
023 065.8 Sam Crawford
024 065.1 Pete Rose
025 063.3 Dan Brouthers
026 061.7 Jesse Burkett
027 060.7 George Brett
028 060.0 Billy Hamilton
029 059.6 Reggie Jackson
030 059.5 Fred Clarke
031 059.4 Frank Thomas
032 058.8 Arky Vaughan
033 057.9 Ed Delahanty
034 057.1 Paul Waner
035 057.0 Carl Yastrzemski
036 057.0 Dick Allen
037 056.3 Wade Boggs
038 056.3 Jeff Bagwell
039 055.5 Mark McGwire
040 055.3 Roger Connor
041 055.2 Yogi Berra
042 054.9 Al Kaline
043 054.8 Paul Molitor
044 054.7 George Davis
045 054.1 Joe Jackson
046 053.1 Robin Yount
047 052.3 Tony Gwynn
048 052.1 Al Simmons
049 052.1 Cap Anson
050 051.8 Craig Biggio
051 051.2 Charlie Gehringer
052 051.0 Gary Sheffield
053 050.9 Eddie Murray
054 050.8 Willie McCovey
055 050.6 Johnny Mize
056 050.6 Bill Dahlen
057 050.5 Rod Carew
058 050.4 Roberto Alomar
059 050.4 Cal Ripken Jr.
060 049.7 Tim Raines
061 049.3 Sherry Magee
062 048.5 Frank Baker
063 048.2 Elmer Flick
064 048.0 Harry Heilmann
065 047.6 Johnny Bench
066 047.5 Bobby Grich
067 047.3 Zack Wheat
068 046.9 Mike Piazza
069 046.8 Duke Snider
070 046.6 Will Clark
071 046.3 Luke Appling
072 045.9 Frankie Frisch
073 045.8 Bill Dickey
074 045.6 Willie Stargell
075 045.6 Roberto Clemente
076 045.5 Carlton Fisk
077 044.8 King Kelly
078 044.5 Dave Winfield
079 044.4 Alex Rodriguez
080 044.1 Rafael Palmeiro
081 044.1 Harmon Killebrew
082 044.1 Ryne Sandberg
083 043.6 Barry Larkin
084 043.5 Lou Whitaker
085 043.4 Billy Williams
086 043.3 Jim O'Rourke
087 043.2 Reggie Smith
088 043.1 Jimmy Sheckard
089 043.1 Hank Greenberg
090 043.0 Goose Goslin
091 042.9 Mickey Cochrane
092 042.8 Gabby Hartnett
093 042.2 Stan Hack
094 041.3 Bobby Bonds
095 041.1 Hugh Duffy
096 041.1 Willie Keeler
097 041.1 Joe Cronin
098 041.1 Bernie Williams
099 040.7 Joe Kelley
100 040.5 Jack Clark
101 040.3 Ken Griffey Jr.
102 040.2 George Gore
103 040.2 Jackie Robinson
104 040.1 Edgar Martinez
105 039.9 Edd Roush
106 039.4 Harry Stovey
107 039.1 Jimmy Ryan
108 038.9 Larry Doby
109 038.8 Kirby Puckett
110 038.7 Tommy Leach
111 038.7 Joe Medwick
112 038.6 Jimmy Wynn
113 038.4 Earl Averill
114 038.3 Roy Thomas
115 038.2 Larry Doyle
116 038.1 Lou Boudreau
117 037.8 Fielder Jones
118 037.6 Richie Ashburn
119 037.0 Buck Ewing
120 036.8 Frank Howard
121 036.7 Gary Carter
122 036.6 Frank Chance
123 036.6 Norm Cash
124 036.3 Fred McGriff
125 036.3 Tip O'Neill
126 036.1 Billy Herman
127 036.1 Pete Browning
128 036.0 Bill Terry
129 035.9 Wally Berger
130 035.7 George Burns
131 035.6 Willie Randolph
132 035.6 George Van Haltren
133 035.5 Larry Walker
134 035.5 Max Carey
135 035.5 Kiki Cuyler
136 035.5 Alan Trammell
137 035.5 Dwight Evans
138 035.2 Ken Singleton
139 035.2 Heinie Groh
140 035.1 Mike Tiernan
141 035.0 Keith Hernandez
142 034.4 Darrell Evans
143 034.4 Chipper Jones
144 034.3 Bob Johnson
145 034.3 Albert Belle
146 034.2 Jimmy Collins
147 034.1 Charlie Keller
148 033.9 Minnie Minoso
149 033.8 Orlando Cepeda
150 033.7 Ron Santo
151 033.3 Pee Wee Reese
152 032.8 Hardy Richardson
153 032.8 John McGraw
154 032.8 Don Mattingly
155 032.7 Amos Otis
156 032.6 Cesar Cedeno
157 032.6 Fred Lynn
158 032.5 Sammy Sosa
159 032.4 Darryl Strawberry
160 032.3 Sam Thompson
161 032.3 Jose Canseco
162 032.3 Joe Torre
163 032.3 Bobby Doerr
164 032.2 Ralph Kiner
165 031.9 Mike Griffin
166 031.7 Vern Stephens
167 031.5 Bill Freehan
168 031.4 Pedro Guerrero
169 031.4 Cupid Childs
170 031.4 Bid McPhee
171 031.2 John Olerud
172 031.0 Harry Hooper
173 030.8 Bobby Murcer
174 030.6 Johnny Evers
175 030.5 Bob Elliott
176 030.4 Sal Bando
177 030.4 Rocky Colavito
178 030.3 Augie Galan
179 030.3 Hack Wilson
180 030.1 Benny Kauff
181 029.9 Dixie Walker
182 029.9 Lou Brock
183 029.9 Sam Rice
184 029.8 Jack Glasscock
185 029.7 Jim Rice
186 029.7 Topsy Hartsel
187 029.7 Joe Sewell
188 029.4 Roger Bresnahan
189 029.3 Enos Slaughter
190 029.1 Joe Gordon
191 029.1 Ivan Rodriguez
192 029.0 Hughie Jennings
193 029.0 Kenny Lofton
194 029.0 Roy Campanella
195 029.0 Dave Parker
196 028.9 Heinie Manush
197 028.8 Ross Youngs
198 028.5 Jeff Kent
199 028.4 Nomar Garciaparra
200 028.4 Bobby Veach
201 028.4 Paul Hines
202 028.2 Ginger Beaumont
203 027.8 Toby Harrah
204 027.8 Earle Combs
205 027.8 Boog Powell
206 027.7 Roy White
207 027.5 Willie Davis
208 027.5 Tony Oliva
209 027.4 Jake Beckley
210 027.4 Ernie Banks
211 027.4 Chick Stahl
212 027.3 Al Rosen
213 027.3 Dom DiMaggio
214 027.3 Andre Dawson
215 027.2 Brian Downing
216 027.2 Chet Lemon
217 027.2 Gavvy Cravath
218 027.1 Robin Ventura
219 027.1 Gene Tenace
220 027.1 Tommy Henrich
221 027.1 Derek Jeter
222 027.0 Ed Konetchy
223 027.0 Jose Cruz
224 026.8 Jeff Heath
225 026.8 Brett Butler
226 026.8 George Sisler
227 026.7 Tony Lazzeri
228 026.7 Dave Bancroft
229 026.6 Herman Long
230 026.6 Jack Fournier
231 026.6 Joe Tinker
232 026.5 Roger Maris
233 026.5 Chuck Knoblauch
234 026.5 Vada Pinson
235 026.4 Pie Traynor
236 026.4 David Justice
237 026.4 Ken Boyer
238 026.3 Oyster Burns
239 026.2 Babe Herman
240 026.2 Dale Murphy
241 026.2 Bobby Wallace
242 026.1 Denny Lyons
243 025.9 Tony Fernandez
244 025.9 Ron Cey
245 025.6 Dolph Camilli
246 025.6 Ted Simmons
247 025.6 Tony Perez
248 025.5 Dummy Hoy
249 025.4 Juan Gonzalez
250 025.0 Al Oliver