12-22-2012, 09:06 AM #1
Espn's Hall of 100...
Some of the things on this list are just complete BS. Talk about Eastern Sports Promotional Network.. Killebrew at #64? Blyleven at #72? Carew at #53!? Kirby Puckett doesn't even receive honorable mentions..? My view might be biased, but seriously Killebrew should be a top 30 atleast.
ESPN's Hall of 100 -- Ranking the all-time greatest MLB players - ESPN
12-22-2012, 05:51 PM #2
Walter Johnson as #12 is nice though.
12-23-2012, 10:51 AM #3
Curt Schlling makes the list and Puckett doesn't? Give me a break.
12-23-2012, 01:56 PM #4
Barry Bonds at #3 seems questionable. And Roger Clemens at #7. With steroids, I suspect that Killebrew would have hit over 1,000 homers.
12-23-2012, 05:00 PM #5
I guess I pretty much agree with ESPN--the Twins' best players were great, but they weren't all-time greats.
12-23-2012, 05:27 PM #6
I think Puckett should have at least made the honorable mentions, but other than that, I don't have a huge problem with where the Twins players are ranked.
There are some other egregious errors on that list, starting with Reggie Jackson at 55.
12-26-2012, 10:34 AM #7
Oakland A's Reggie Jackson was phenomenal. Angels Reggie was overrated, overweight and in decline. But Reggie had 10+ all-star caliber seasons, including MVP caliber ones. Toss out the rookie year and the last 5 (although even at 39 Reggie had a very nice year and was decent at 40) and you get a better picture.
Schilling isn't a good choice. He was a great pitcher and has a legitimate HoF case, but if you're narrowing it down to a top 100, they should be no-doubters. Schilling isn't an easy call. His first 4 years he couldn't get out of the bullpen. He had his first all-star type season and then got hurt for a couple of years. Went on a nice run as a very good pitcher...and got hurt again for a couple of years. He had 4 more dominant, elite years...and got hurt again. He was never a big "black ink" guy. He gets some additional credit for post-season success, but any extra credit he gets for being terrific late in his career is offset by doing nothing at the start.
I'd rank Killer a bit higher myself, but I'm guessing his lack of defensive value drove him down a bit; he was a better hitter & slugger than Reggie.
Puckett should have at least gotten honorable mention, IMHO, but I'm guessing he's getting caught in the debate over a) his defensive value, and b) longevity. I mean, bRef has Puck as a net-negative for defense over his career and piled up most of his positive value in one season: his rookie year. Now, I have trouble seeing it that way, but without giving him the defense, Puck falls closer to the lower end of HoF CFs than the top in terms of WAR. Admittedly, that's not the end-all, be-all. But there are probably some reactionary fools who look at Puck and think he got too much of a sentimental bonus and needed to be pushed down.
There are a lot of goofy things on this list, but I suspect they did it hoping to stir people up more than anything else.
12-26-2012, 10:44 AM #8
We Minnesotans get our feelings hurt over this kind of unofficial popularity contest way too easily.