Baseball's Top 100???

First of all, I looked through this whole list on ESPN.

As I did so, I found myself disagreeing with several positions.  Derek Jeter was way too high.  Why was Cy Young placed below so many pitchers?  Why did they neglect to make adjustments for the Drug Lords?  Why was Pete Rose, all time hits leader, but far over-rated, so high on the list? 

Clearly, any thinking baseball fan will have some issues with any such list.  But, most baseball fans also love the idea of someone putting together such a list. 

I love reading about the history of baseball.  I love reading about one man's opinion (or a group of men) on who the best players in history were.  There's something about the nostalgia of baseball that is like eating a good chocolate--do it slowly, enjoy every bite, savor every moment.  

Recently I read Larry Dierker's "My Team: Choosing My Dream Team From My Forty Years in Baseball".  The idea was similar to this Top 100 list.  The twist was that he chose two players from each field position, then a group of starting pitchers, and a group of relievers--for his team, then for a second team.  His list didn't include the Babe Ruths and Ty Cobbs of baseball, but men who played during his forty years (as indicated in the title).   He chose with things like "club house guy" in mind, made note of folks who had been sort of evicted from various teams, put together some folks based upon which would do better against right or left-handed pitching, etc.  He included numbers on folks, too, but those were not his only criteria.  He was able to go a bit deeper on some things, because he had a more intimate knowledge of the players of whom he spoke.

I would love to find more books like this.  Recently I was remembering that early in my life it was baseball that drove me to read.  I recalled getting a book about Hank Aaron when I was in third or fourth grade, reading it more than once, and going back to the library for more.  Aaron quickly became one of my biggest baseball heroes, though I learned of him at the end of his brilliant career.  But I read of other historic greats--Mantle, Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, .....

What fun!

Speaking of fun, I've been contemplating the possibility of writing my own "best of" list.  I've often thought that we needed a new metric to capture the best-of-the-best.  WAR seems like a pile of I-can't-touch-this data.  It doesn't seem like something the casual fan can grasp.  The defensive metrics alone are well beyond the capability of a casual fan to capture.  I once tinkered with some ideas on Runs.  Maybe I will dig into some of those new-fangled numbers in Baseball Reference or something.

But, one thing keeps coming back to me--I want any list that I create to be casual fan-friendly.  There are metrics that the casual fan has used for ages that the sabermetric folks mock.  I listen to ESPN's Baseball Today podcast, so I've heard how nasty those mockers can be.  Their character is suspect. 
Are they right?  Well, they are probably right on the numbers.  But their nastiness really taints their message.  Plus, they love saying things like "Wins don't matter" for pitchers.  I understand their point, but that doesn't make me think they are intelligent.  Nobody can convince me that King Felix deserved the Cy Young award when he won 13 games.  Don't tell me a great pitcher cannot win for a bad team.  The 2010 Seattle Mariners were better than the 1972 Phillies.  Go tell Steve Carlton you can't win for a losing team.  Given a voice, I would have voted for someone like Price or CC.  Even Buckholz.  The mockers would mock me and audibly speak of my stupidity.  That's okay.  I have little respect for their hatred.  I just can't vote for someone who has a mere 13 wins.  What good did they do their team? 

But... dangit.  When it comes to the sabermetric numbers like WAR, King Felix was the best pitcher.  That's just another reason I can't quite trust that number.  It doesn't think the way Dierker could by his knowledge of individual players.  Who really wants a Barry Bonds in the clubhouse?  Nobody.  Who wants him in their lineup?  Everybody.  He is a cancer, like TO in football.  A team probably performs at a lower level with such horrific characters in their clubhouse--in spite of what he brings to the table in personal performance. 

The King Felix thing reminds me of having Miguel win the Triple Crown.  His season was far less impressive than many individual seasons that have happened since 1967, but nobody else stepped up this year.  Heck, even Mike Trout's year was more impressive.  He missed a month of the season, but set all kinds of rookie records.  He had a fabulous season for a veteran.  On that point, I stand with the WAR folks.  In fact, a quick browse of Baseball Reference shows no less than 38 seasons since 1967 that were superior to Cabrerra's this year.  Including, of course, Trout's season--which was shorted by one month. 

I'm going to think a bit about this Top 100 idea.  I suspect I will create something.  Eventually.  I will just need to think through what criteria I would use, what the point of my list will be (single team?  best of all time?  what what?), etc. 

Fun to come.