55 years of Twins-my opinion of the top300 Twins

[Nate Tubbs Rules]

Year 55 in the books, Mauer still can't quite catch Tony.   Hunter moves ahead of Perry.   Dozer and Perkins move up into the top60, Plouffe into the top100.  Sano/Rosario/Hicks/Pelfrey/Milone/Ervin join the list new this year.

 

https://wgom.org/2015/10/29/updated-one-mans-opinion-of-top300-twins-55-years-of-numbers/

 

[Halsey Hall]

No way, no how, is Ploof in the top 100!

[Nate Tubbs Rules]

You like Pedro Munoz and Pat Mears more?  It's not like Trevor had to shake a ton of future Hall of Famers to get there (well he did leapfrog both Winfield and Thome this year I guess)

[scottz]

This is great. I'm not sure how I would rank them all, but I love that you did.

[rileyroy]

Great list. I would have ranked Frank Quilici much higher based on the Frank Quilci factor. He was .500 as a manager his first two and a half years.

[nicksaviking]

Nice work. That was probably the first time I thought of Brent Gates since...

 

Well to be honest don't think it ever occurred to me that he was no longer on the team.

[DocBauer]

Brian Duensing should be rated higher because.........................................................................Brian Duensing.

[ScottyB]

How were years calculated?  Why does Al Newman show only 1 season.  He's one of 7 guys to play on the 2 world champions.  He played 5 years for the Twins.  Nick Punto played for 7 years with the Twinks, not 3.  Eddie G played with the Twins for over a decade, not 3 years. 

 

Maybe we need to recalculate.  I'm sure there are other errors as well.  That was just a brief browsing.

[Nate Tubbs Rules]

The YRS column is Years Started.   Al New Newman was a bench player morst of his Twins tenure, Punto about half the time.  5 starting pitchers, one closer, and 10 position players get a mark in that column every year.

[big dog]

I really enjoyed this, whether I agree with the rankings or not.  It also points out just how few really, really good players the team has had for more than few years, when you see guys with 3 or 4 good years up towards the top.

 

My guess is this is also the case for a lot of other teams- guys you remember as great, but who had brief careers with that particular team.

[stringer bell]

I got through the first hundred and some of the names brought back memories. It is hard to compare players from different eras and also tough to compare relatively long stints to those who were outstanding but only played with the Twins for a short time.

[Rosterman]

Not saying too much for the other 450 names to play in a Twins uniform.

[ashbury]

Not saying too much for the other 450 names to play in a Twins uniform.

Same can be said for almost all players in every uniform.

 

There was a statistic that, at some point in time in the not too distant past, close to 10% of ALL plate appearances and/or innings pitched in major league history were credited to Hall Of Famers. At first it seems shocking but when you stop to think about the nature of HOFers it kind of makes sense. The vast majority of players who get their name into the Baseball Encyclopedia (I am showing my age) are so-so players or less, and that's because they get cycled through at a rapid pace.

[stringer bell]

 

Same can be said for almost all players in every uniform.

 

There was a statistic that, at some point in time in the not too distant past, close to 10% of ALL plate appearances and/or innings pitched in major league history were credited to Hall Of Famers. At first it seems shocking but when you stop to think about the nature of HOFers it kind of makes sense. The vast majority of players who get their name into the Baseball Encyclopedia (I am showing my age) are so-so players or less, and that's because they get cycled through at a rapid pace.

I always check the obituaries in BB Reference. I would say that somewhere between 30 and 50 percent of the players had very forgettable careers--no full seasons and just a handful of at-bats or innings pitched.

[gil4]

 

Brian Duensing should be rated higher because.........................................................................Brian Duensing.

And because of all of that (imaginary) trade value. 

[Dantes929]

 

 

No way, no how, is Ploof in the top 100!

Not saying Plouffe definitely is a top 100 guy but 100 is a lot and I was actually surprised at the quality of the last 100 on the list.    When I consider intuitively that most starters are around for several years that the roster of starters probably has only had about a dozen cycles where only about a dozen players should be considered you are only talking about a 144 guys.   Obviously it is a quicker cycle than my intuition but it is still reasonable that a guy that led the team in RBI twice would be in the top 100 no matter how bad the team.

Its a fine list and I am guessing that if you had 100 fans here create the list you would get 100 very different lists with maybe 200 different players making one of the top 100 lists.    In fact I am guessing that if Nate Tubb Rules created the list from scratch every week of the year there would be 52 different lists with well over a 100 different players making at least one of his top 100 lists.