Reevaluating Sporting News 100 Best Baseball Players of All-Time List in the Post-Steroids Era

In 1998, "The Sporting News" released a list of what it considered the 100 greatest baseball players in the game's history. It's a pretty good list, although there are a few fairly controversial placements in my opinion. That's to be expected on any list such as this I suppose. But most striking to me is how contemporary players on the list have seen their statuses rise or fall rather significantly in light of the steroids scandal in its infancy when this list was being compiled.

1 Babe Ruth
2 Willie Mays
3 Ty Cobb
4 Walter Johnson
5 Hank Aaron
6 Lou Gehrig
7 Christy Mathewson
8 Ted Williams
9 Rogers Hornsby
10 Stan Musial
11 Joe DiMaggio
12 Grover Alexander
13 Honus Wagner
14 Cy Young
15 Jimmie Foxx
16 Johnny Bench
17 Mickey Mantle
18 Josh Gibson
19 Satchel Paige
20 Roberto Clemente
21 Warren Spahn
22 Frank Robinson
23 Lefty Grove
24 Eddie Collins
25 Pete Rose
26 Sandy Koufax
27 Tris Speaker
28 Mike Schmidt
29 Nap Lajoie
30 Steve Carlton
31 Bob Gibson
32 Tom Seaver
33 George Sisler
34 Barry Bonds
35 Joe Jackson
36 Bob Feller
37 Hank Greenberg
38 Ernie Banks
39 Greg Maddux
40 Yogi Berra
41 Nolan Ryan
42 Mel Ott
43 Al Simmons
44 Jackie Robinson
45 Carl Hubbell
46 Charlie Gehringer
47 Buck Leonard
48 Reggie Jackson
49 Tony Gwynn
50 Roy Campanella
51 Rickey Henderson
52 Whitey Ford
53 Roger Clemens
54 Harry Heilmann
55 George Brett
56 Willie McCovey
57 Bill Dickey
58 Lou Brock
59 Bill Terry
60 Joe Morgan
61 Rod Carew
62 Paul Waner
63 Eddie Mathews
64 Jim Palmer
65 Mickey Cochrane
66 Cool Papa Bell
67 Oscar Charleston
68 Eddie Plank
69 Harmon Killebrew
70 Pie Traynor
71 Juan Marichal
72 Carl Yastrzemski
73 Lefty Gomez
74 Robin Roberts
75 Willie Keeler
76 Al Kaline
77 Eddie Murray
78 Cal Ripken, Jr.
79 Joe Medwick
80 Brooks Robinson
81 Willie Stargell
82 Ed Walsh
83 Duke Snider
84 Sam Crawford
85 Dizzy Dean
86 Kirby Puckett
87 Ozzie Smith
88 Frankie Frisch
89 Goose Goslin
90 Ralph Kiner
91 Mark McGwire
92 Chuck Klein
93 Ken Griffey, Jr.
94 Dave Winfield
95 Wade Boggs
96 Rollie Fingers
97 Gaylord Perry
98 Dennis Eckersley
99 Paul Molitor
100 Early Wynn

General observations....

The top-10 is solid. One may argue that the placement of a few of those players should be reversed one or two positions, but in general there are no glaring omissions or overhyped players in the ranks.

There are a good 15 players on the list I've never heard of (Bill Terry, Oscar Charleston)....and another 15-20 whose career statistics I'm not intimiately familiar with enough to stand in judgment of their placement (Al Simmons, Mickey Cochrane, Eddie Plank)....and several members of the Negro League who were victims of questionable recordkeeping. If some of the urban legends surrounding Satchel Paige's early years are accurate, he should be in the top-five rather than #19.

Random placement observations or players from the past 30 years....

Johnny Bench at #16? Ahead of Mickey Mantle and Pete Rose? Seems pretty generous. Even if we're taking to account his numbers solely as a catcher, Carlton Fisk's lifetime numbers were comparable to Bench's, and he's not even in the top-100.

Only #41 for Nolan Ryan? I realize he wasn't the most consistent pitcher the game has ever seen, but he pitched for 27 seasons, had seven no-hitters, and struck out nearly 1,000 more hitters than the next runner-up in the game's history. He should be ahead of Mike Schmidt and Steve Carlton (who by the way is second-place in lifetime strikeouts).

Eddie Murray, one of a handful in the 500 homeruns and 3,000 hits club, seems as though he should be ahead of Rod Carew and George Brett.

Dennis Eckersley, whose unique resume of 197 career wins as a starter and 390 career saves as a closer, is unprecedented in the game's history and should rate higher than #98.

But most striking is the placement of players still active when this list came out. Cal Ripken, Jr. was only #78 on this list. That seems way too low today. Greg Maddux at #39 probably seemed generous at the time, but 10 years later looking back at the fact that this guy won 355 games yet never more than 20 in a single season, it may actually be several positions too stingy.

And of course the real sad story is how the steroids scandal has tainted so many on this list. A revision of this list today (and most likely 20 years from now) is not likely to see Barry Bonds anywhere near #34. Roger Clemens wouldn't have likely gotten to 300 let alone 350 wins if not for his "enhancement", rendering his #53 ranking too generous in retrospect. Mark McGwire at #91 is equally tainted as his career seemed drifting towards mediocrity before the late 90s when he started looking like Popeye.

The inverse of that is that #93 Ken Griffey, Jr., is looking pretty damn good these days, on pace for 650 career homeruns despite incessant injuries that would have likely been avoided had he took the easy way out and juiced up. Similarly, it seems the sky is the limit for Jim Thome as well, still blasting balls out of the park at an impressive clip and potentially joining the 600-homer club before career end, to my knowledge without any steroid taint.

Pitchingwise, it's pretty clear to me Randy Johnson should be on the periphery of this list. There's a guy who could have had truly epic numbers if he had settled his control issues before he turned 30!

Any additional thoughts are welcome....

Smart Politics for GOP Governors to Oppose Stimulus Money

I've had decidedly mixed feelings for weeks now in regards to Obama's stimulus plan, particularly after the "moderate" Senators stripped away nearly $40 billion worth of the funding to cash-strapped states that represented the most tangibly stimulative portion of the legislation. In the end, I probably would have held my nose and voted for it if only in an effort to reduce the level of hardship brought upon by our continued economic freefall rather than any serious expectation of "stimulus". As far as this package fixing our economic migraines anytime soon, it seems very likely to fail.

With that in mind, it poses the opposition party in a sticky situation in statehouses across America who know this thing is likely to fail in its long-term goal yet face such devastating budgetary affairs that rejecting the money would be insane. Specifically, Republican Governors running for President are strongly pondering going so far as to refuse federal stimulus funds allocated to their states. Sarah Palin of Alaska, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and even Rick Perry of Texas (a serious Presidential contender in nobody's mind except perhaps his own) have all indicated they may turn away some or most of the federal stimulus money so they'll have clean hands while campaigning in Iowa in late 2011.

On the surface, this seems like career suicide. Jindal has already rejected a huge chunk in federal unemployment dollars for Louisiana, even though the state is mired in an ugly $2 billion deficit. While the electorates in Louisiana and most of the states where these ideologically "pure" governors govern fancy themselves "conservatives", they are among the most government-dependent states in the country, literally reaping federal outlays as much as 30% higher than what they pay in federal taxes. Just because Louisiana voters who voted 60% McCain last November because they didn't want a black man running the country doesn't mean they want to forfeit unemployment checks they're entitled to after losing their jobs.

But there's more going on here than what Jindal and his ilk would have us believe. It seems that if a majority of the legislatures in these states approve of using the stimulus dollars, the governor's opposition is overridden. Suddenly, there is no longer a downside for Jindal, Palin, and Sanford to oppose the bailout "on principle" so long as they have a quid pro quo with their state's lawmakers to take the money despite their objections. This will set up any of these GOP governors very well for the 2012 GOP primaries, especially if the economy is still in the toilet or the budget deficit is still at or near 10 figures.

Obama Becomes Lame Duck President in Three Weeks

It was abundantly clear that Obama was not gonna get much if any "honeymoon" period given the calamitous conditions he has just inherited, but a couple significant tactical blunders have produced a trainwreck economic stimulus package that has for all intents and purposes ended Barack Obama's Presidency less than a month after taking his oath.

You can now count me out for supporting this stimulus package. The only part of the package that would have produced immediate stimulus (or at least stopped some of the bleeding) was the money given to the states....and the "moderates" have now cut that in half. Are these beacons of "moderation" retarded? At this point, there's nothing in the stimulus package that I can see as being particularly useful in keeping the economy from going off the rails in 2009. If it's all backloaded spending projects that take effect in the summer of 2011, and of course hundreds of billions more in mindless tax cuts, then what good is it?

Obama made two big mistakes here. First, he trusted Congress to churn out this bill without Rahm-bo micromanaging its crafting and working his tyrant magic to make sure it's free of the very kind of frivolous spending that gives its critics perfect ammunition to cherry pick. Now Obama has a bill full of dopey earmarks that Sean Hannity gets to demagogue every night that assures falling public support. Second, he convinced himself bipartisanship was not only desired, but a MUST. The Republicans have absolutely nothing to gain by supporting this bill. Even on the off-chance it works (which now seems even more unlikely), the solution will create a new crisis, most likely in the form of manic inflation 2-3 years down the road.

Given that Obama has quite a few smart and experienced people in his inner circle, I'm surprised he got rolled so easily on this. The inevitable consequence is that a stimulus bill irrationally catering to every Republican whim (over $300 billion MORE in tax cuts) will nonetheless get next to no Republican votes as the GOP is fully invested in the stimulus passing and then ultimately failing. Meanwhile, in order to avoid embarrassing the new President, Democrats will be forced to vote for this turkey knowing full well that it will fail.

Let the good times roll.