I have really enjoyed the essays. As far as the comments go, I don't think most people realize that there is probably not that huge a difference between 76 and 125. I imagine that the bottom quarter of this list, comparing different positions in disparate eras, was probably the hardest, with many great players barely missing the cut.
The comments that immediately dismiss someone in the bottom 10 as "not being top 100" bug me. I think most of them make a quick inner comparison to players who are top 20 in their mind and find them wanting (because there IS a big difference in talent between 100 and 20) and dismiss that player. Unless you can easily thing of 30 or 40 guys who don't make the list that you think are better, it seems an absurd thing to say without seeing the rest of the list.
I imagine these comments will only get more contentious as it goes on. (The Ichiro and Gwynn are too low guys will probably make the comment that they are better on the next 50 essays, and the longer the list goes, the more people whose favorites were lower than they would like will chime in each time) but please know that there are many of us who see this as a great daily experience.
It’s disappointing (although not surprising) that so many people don’t get the point of the list. My two favorite yahoos are the guy who accused Joe of New York bias because the first 3 guys (Ichiro/Moose/Beltrán) were all Yankees and the guy who was not only upset about Gwynn’s placement but insisted that he was clearly a Top 10 all-time player.
On the other hand, I’ve never seen so many positive remarks on the Athletic, so there’s obviously a lot of people who do “get it”
It's easy to complain about the order of somebody else's list. Until you try to do your own. Nobody has a right to complain unless they have publicly created their own list.
Except that Joe's getting paid to make this list. Making a list that has reason behind it and that you're willing to defend is hard work, and I think it's too much to demand that anyone who has a different opinion make and publish their own list.
When I offer a different opinion, I do give players I'd have included instead.
My point is that it's easy to say "Tony Gwynn should be much higher than 95!". But until you create your own list and name the other 50 players he should be ahead of, the complaint is meaningless.
This is like when somebody says something like "Baker Mayfield is a top ten QB" Easy to say in a vacuum. But once you list the actual 10 best QBs, probably harder to include him.
Richie, I’m not complaining at all! In fact I’m simply agreeing with Joe’s point in his email. The order isn’t the point, especially outside of the top fifty. Make that at all.
Joe, thanks again for taking on this project. When you publish the coffee table version of this list you should absolutely think of doing 100 through 51 in alphabetical order.
Can’t wait to buy it whatever form it takes. The writing is that good.
Also, we’re on vacation for a few days and I’ve been saving this book about Houdini. Can’t wait!
I have really enjoyed the essays. As far as the comments go, I don't think most people realize that there is probably not that huge a difference between 76 and 125. I imagine that the bottom quarter of this list, comparing different positions in disparate eras, was probably the hardest, with many great players barely missing the cut.
The comments that immediately dismiss someone in the bottom 10 as "not being top 100" bug me. I think most of them make a quick inner comparison to players who are top 20 in their mind and find them wanting (because there IS a big difference in talent between 100 and 20) and dismiss that player. Unless you can easily thing of 30 or 40 guys who don't make the list that you think are better, it seems an absurd thing to say without seeing the rest of the list.
I imagine these comments will only get more contentious as it goes on. (The Ichiro and Gwynn are too low guys will probably make the comment that they are better on the next 50 essays, and the longer the list goes, the more people whose favorites were lower than they would like will chime in each time) but please know that there are many of us who see this as a great daily experience.
Thanks, Joe. Loving the essays.
And ditto on that baseball card thread. That drove all kinds of nostalgia for me. I was reminded of the Mike Greenwells, Walt Weiss, etc.
I remember getting Greenwells. Don't remember going for Weiss. I still have a big pile of 1985 Topps Mark McGwire rookies if anyone is interested. :)
It’s disappointing (although not surprising) that so many people don’t get the point of the list. My two favorite yahoos are the guy who accused Joe of New York bias because the first 3 guys (Ichiro/Moose/Beltrán) were all Yankees and the guy who was not only upset about Gwynn’s placement but insisted that he was clearly a Top 10 all-time player.
On the other hand, I’ve never seen so many positive remarks on the Athletic, so there’s obviously a lot of people who do “get it”
It's easy to complain about the order of somebody else's list. Until you try to do your own. Nobody has a right to complain unless they have publicly created their own list.
Except that Joe's getting paid to make this list. Making a list that has reason behind it and that you're willing to defend is hard work, and I think it's too much to demand that anyone who has a different opinion make and publish their own list.
When I offer a different opinion, I do give players I'd have included instead.
Hope you're having a Merry Christmas! :)
My point is that it's easy to say "Tony Gwynn should be much higher than 95!". But until you create your own list and name the other 50 players he should be ahead of, the complaint is meaningless.
This is like when somebody says something like "Baker Mayfield is a top ten QB" Easy to say in a vacuum. But once you list the actual 10 best QBs, probably harder to include him.
Richie, I’m not complaining at all! In fact I’m simply agreeing with Joe’s point in his email. The order isn’t the point, especially outside of the top fifty. Make that at all.
Sorry. Wasn't trying to call you out.
Joe, thanks again for taking on this project. When you publish the coffee table version of this list you should absolutely think of doing 100 through 51 in alphabetical order.
Can’t wait to buy it whatever form it takes. The writing is that good.
Also, we’re on vacation for a few days and I’ve been saving this book about Houdini. Can’t wait!