How do you pick players?
There is no set system and readers can feel free to challenge any of my picks. I try to take a big-picture approach, considering not only their statistics but awards, black and grey ink (leading the league / finishing in the top 10 in a category) post season performance, and overall appreciation by the fans. Hall of Famers are almost always a lock, although there are exceptions. (Red Ruffing was gawd-awful in his years in Boston!) Players with retired numbers are also about 99% automatic. MVP winners are given strong preferential treatment. Cy Young’s, Rookies of the Year, All-Stars, Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, and other awards all guarantee a player serious consideration. Among otherwise equal players, if one played for post-season teams I might be more included to pick him, especially if he had GOOD post-seasons. But, at the same time, I also try to get players from as many different years and teams as possible, so playing for the better teams does not always help. ACTIVE PLAYERS are eligible, but must be clear choices based of what they’ve ALREADY done. NO ONE is picked for potential. In a few more years, if they become the clearly superior choice, I’ll go back and revise the team. In the meantime, I’d rather honor someone else. So while I’ll allow active players, they are given a bit more scrutiny.
And while both PEAK value and CAREER value are considered, and I try to make sure I have a little of both, there's almost no more important stat than GAMES PLAYED. True One-Season-Wonders will likely get left off, unless they’re REALLY well remembered for their one [historic] year. Thus Jim Lonborg and Mark Fydrich make the Red Sox and Tigers, but many others will get left off those teams and others. 2-3 season wonders, on the other hand, get picked rather a lot over a 10-year guy with more mediocre numbers. There’s no hard and fast rule. I just try to envision the team that I’d most like to manage (or watch play!) based on the players that qualify.
How do you treat steroids?
In general I try to ignore them. In my opinion, what Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Manny Ramirez, Sosa, Clemens, Rodriguez, etc… have done on the field of play warrants consideration. Period. If I’ve got a choice between equal players, I might be more inclined to pick the older player, but that’s as much for my prejudice against the modern era than against steroids users, and my prejudice against the modern era has to do with WAAAY more than just steroids. But all players are considered against their era – hence my heavy weighting of Awards, Black & Grey Ink, and stats like *OPS+ and *ERA+: because the value of these things don’t change year to year! The best of any era is still the best of an era.
Why the five year minimum?
To be fair to the players that put in their time, and had many good years, so they’re not left off by a guy who came to town for a cup of coffee and had one GREAT year. It’s a way of making sure that peak value doesn’t ever outweigh career value in any truly absurd ways. Some guys get left of some teams rather regrettably – Like Michey Cochrane not being eligible for the Classic Tigers is perhaps the best (worst) example of this – but I felt like I needed to draw a line somewhere, and a five year minimum seemed to work out about 99% of the time.
Why reduce it for expansion teams?
Practical answer? If I don’t, some teams can’t even field a starting lineup, let alone a 40-man roster! Plus if they’ve been around less time, they’re bound to have fewer career / franchise players. For every Tony Gwynn (using San Diego as a four-year example), there’s a Goose Gossage, Steve Garvey or Ozzie Smith – either a hall of famer or retired number – that totally BELONGS on the team, and don’t really have anyone better to replace them, with only four years. But if a team has been around for 100+ years, there’s generally enough talent to go around. And with so many players changing teams these days, it also cuts down on the number of changes I might have to make, year to year, moving forward! LOL. Also, I don’t think that a journeyman / mercenary like Dave Kingman or Gary Sheffield should be seriously considered for storied, historic franchises. NEWER franchises, however…
Why split some teams up into two franchises?
Two reasons. First, out of fairness to the expansion teams. If these teams were to ever actually play, ANY team that had been around for 100+ years would always have a HUGE advantage over ANY team that had only been around 20 or 30. So to make the discussion at least SOMEWHAT interesting, head to head, I’ve made it so that every team has only about 50-60 years to draw from. (up to 70 for the original NL teams, but not too many 1800’s players will be considered – generally only the Hall of Famers.)
The second reason is to avoid crowding out the great players, allow some room for purely sentimental choices and still allow for some serious debate. Take a team like the Giants, with four Hall of Fame First baseman – Kelly, Terry, Mize and McCovey. By splitting them up I not only allow room for controversial Hall of Famer Kelly, who would have been (should be?) left off, but I also open up the possibility for someone like Will Clark to be considered. Likewise, consider a team like the Yankees, at Catcher for example: Berra and Dickey (both Hall of Famers) are automatic, but who’s the third? MVP and the club’s first black Player Elston Howard? Or MVP and former beloved team Captain Thurman Munson? (Both of whom have their Numbers retired!) Even as a Red Sox fan, I’d hate to leave either one of them off. In the OF they already have seven Hall of Famers: Combs, Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Jackson, Winfield and Henderson. Add in #9 (retired) Roger Maris, and you’ve only got ONE SPOT left to consider Charlie Keller, Tommy Henrich, Hank Bauer, Bobby Murcer, Lou Piniella, Mickey Rivers, Bernie Williams, Paul O’Neill, etc…) So while a lot of mediocre guys might get in, typically as 3rd stringers on weak teams, so likely they’d get picked anyway, but this way they don’t get on while better players on better teams get excluded. This blog is intended to celebrate as many players as possible. (About 1200 or more by the time it's done!)
Why split at 1950?
Right now it’s just the most even way to do it. Expansion teams have between 10 and 50 years. AL Teams have 50 (Classic) and 60 (Modern) while NL teams have between 60 (modern) and 70 (classic) season to select player from. Teams like the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Browns/Orioles, Senators/Twins and A’s. Split a little later but still right around the half century mark. Maybe after the 2019 season, if I’m still alive and doing this, I’ll move the cutoff to 1960, move some of the 1950’s players to the Classic teams, displacing some of the lesser talents there, and the AL teams will have a 60/60 split and NL Teams a 60/80 split. (With the relocated teams still having between a 65/75 to 60/80 split.)
You’re crazy! How can you pick [this guy] and not [that guy]?!
If you feel this way, please let me know! I’m a life-long Red Sox fan, who grew up in Connecticut. So I know a LOT about both the Red Sox and Yankees. And I’ve live in Michigan for about 12 years now, so I’ve learned more about the Tigers than most Tigers fans even knew. Beyond that? I’m going by research and memory. I’m not a FAN of any other team, and thus I don’t look at the players through a fan’s eyes. (But don’t worry Twins fans: Ron Davis won’t even be allowed to sell hot dogs for that team!)
BACK
