Comments on Newsday's Top 100 Greats and Legends List

Newsday recently posted a piece titled: Newsday's 100: The Super Elite Hall of Fame. The idea was to grant that the MLB Hall of Fame's criteria for choosing players has not been consistent over the years (a case made by Bill James and many other writers before), so what would a list of only the truly cream of the crop look like? They decided to go for a list of just the very best 100 "greats and legends", with another 18 players listed who are not eligible for the Hall of Fame (Pete Rose and Joe Jackson plus players who have retired recently or are still active).

Since I love projects like this, I of course would like to comment on their selections. I don't have comments on the players included from the Negro Leagues, as I just don't know enough about them to have an opinion one way or the other. That said...

Players that I question being in the top 100:

• Lou Brock -- Borderline. Lots of steals, and performed great in three World Series, but also struck out a lot, had a low OBP, and was a rather poor fielder considering his speed.
• Buck Ewing -- A great 19th century catcher, but not one of the greats of all-time. In fact, he only played 100+ games in a season four times. A few years ago Bill James ranked him 17th amongst catchers.
• Bill Dickey, Carlton Fisk, Gabby Hartnett -- Borderline. They are three of the top-10 catchers of all time, so the question then becomes how many catchers do you want in your top-100 "greats" list? I say Cochrane and Campanella are in, and maybe Dickey, Fisk, and Hartnett are too, but I'm open to arguments against them here as well. And if these guys are in, why not Gary Carter? Where do you draw the line?
• Lary Doby -- A good player, but not a great one. His career numbers of .283, 253 HR, and 970 RBI don't merit being in this top 100 list. And no, he didn't lose much MLB time to the Negro Leagues early in his career, since he was only 24 when he played his first full season for the Indians.
• Jim Galvin -- No way. He lost almost as many games as he won. Although Gentile listed Galvin way to low in his top 1,000 listing, he doesn't deserve to be in a top-100 list either.
• Ozzie Smith -- Borderline. Not sure someone who was as two-dimensional as Ozzie should be in a top-100 list of "greats". Superior defense at SS, and lots of SB too, but is that enough?
• King Kelly -- One of the first 19th century stars who split time between OF and C, but I don't think he is a top-100 all-time great. He led the league in batting twice, and runs scored three times, adn was usually amongst the leaders in other categories, but that isnt' enough for me here.
• Bob Lemon -- Borderline. Yes, he had seven 20-win seasons in a span of 10 years. But he only won 207 in his career, so I question him being called a "great".
• Red Ruffing -- Definitely not a top-100 "great". He pitched for powerful Yankees clubs, so that helped him win 20 games twice and 21 games twice. But a lifetime 273-225 record, and a 3.80 ERA, doesn't qualify him for this list.
• George Sisler and Bill Terry -- Their career batting averages look worthy, but you have to consider the eras in which they played. Bill James has done that, and a few years ranked Sisler as only the 24th best 1B of all-time, and Terry as the 26th best. So that would keep them far outside of a top-100 "greats" list.
• Pie Traynor -- Definitely not. Similar to Sisler and Terry, you have to consider Traynor's .320 average relative to his era. Again, Bill James a few years ago ranked Traynor as the 15th best 3B of all time, behind the likes of Darrell Evans, Sal Bando, Ken Boyer, and Graig Nettles -- and none of these are all-time "greats".
• John Ward -- As with Galvin, I recently noted that Gentile ranked Ward a bit too low. But I also don't think he is a top-100 guy either.
• Dave Winfield -- Borderline. My main problem with including Winfield is that Newsday did also include Eddie Murray. I don't see how that makes sense.
• Early Wynn -- Definitely not. He held on a long time to get that 300th win. But a lifetime 300-244 record, and a 3.54 ERA (compared with a league ERA of 3.77) doesn't make him an all-time "great". I'd go with Jenkins, Niekro, Perry, and others before Wynn.

Here are ones Newsday considered close that I might prefer over some of the above:

• Eddie Murray -- See my comments on Winfield.
• Al Simmons -- He had 12 seasons of 100+ RBI, including his first 11 seasons. And some of those were really high totals: 151, 157, 165. True his .334 average is like Terry and Sisler and must be considered in light of his era, but I think Simmons did more than they did to earn a spot in a top 100 list.
• Paul Waner -- Similarly, I think Paul Waner probably belongs in the top 100 list. He had nine seasons of 100+ runs and while not a HR hitter, did hit 605 doubles and 191 triples. I much prefer Simmons and Waner to Sisler, Terry, and Traynor.
• Some pitchers from Newsday's "near-miss" list that I prefer over Galvin, Wynn, and Ruffing are Ed Walsh, Robin Roberts, Hoyt Wilhelm, and Fergie Jenkins.

Next, here is a list without commentary of some players who I think are at least as deserving, if not more so, of being included on the "near'miss" list, and perhaps a few of these would properly be considered top-100 "greats" (in alphabetical order):

• Frank Baker
• John Clarkson
• Sam Crawford
• Ed Delahanty
• Dennis Eckersley
• Rollie Fingers
• Johnny Mize
• Kid Nichols
• Phil Niekro
• Gaylord Perry
• Arky Vaughn

I particularly think that Nichols belongs in the top 100 way ahead of Galvin, and that Delahanty and Crawford likely should have been in the list of top-100 "greats". Bill James makes a pretty good case for Vaughn as the second-best SS of all-time, so perhaps he should be as well. The others I'm just suggesting were ommissions from the "near-miss" listing that Newsday provided.

As for current players, a few names that probably also should be mentioned in this discussion are Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Roberto Alomar, Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, and Craig Biggio.

For more discussion like this, see my recent four posts on Derek Gentile's fun book Baseball's Best 1,000: Rankings of the Skills, the Achievements, and the Performance of the Greatest Players of All Time -- the posts are here (comments on players 1-50), here (comments on players 51-100), here (comments on players 101-300), and here (comments on players 301-1000).

Of Onions and Oil

The July 8 WSJ had an interesting opinion piece titled "The Onion Ringer". It notes the effects from a ban on futures trading in onions, and argues that the same negative effects could occur if congress continues to demonize, and eventually bans, oil speculators.

On Why We Need a Market for Human Organs

Its been a while since I've blogged about the desperate need for a market solution to the issue of kidney donation. So I wanted to note this good opinion piece in the May 16 issue of the WSJ, by Sally Satel: "Why We need a Market for Human Organs". She makes many great points, and even responds to some critics by noting how such a regulated system could be put in place so that the poor would not be taken advantage of. In addition to the more fundamental philosphical arguments that one could give (e.g., we have a fundamental individual right to sell one of our kidney's if we want to), Satel's arguments and reasons are strong ones and hopefully will one day help to change policy on this issue.

As I've blogged on this subject a lot in the past, I've decided to gather the links to those postings in one place. So here they are, with the oldest ones last:

• The Need for an Organ Market (12/23/07)
• Repugnance Shouldn't Be a Standard (8/4/07)
• Market for Kidneys... Guess Where? (11/26/06)
• 10-person Domino Donation at Johns Hopkins (11/26/06)
• Sounds Good, But How About Really Helping? (10/29/06)
• Consequentialist Bioethicist is Proud of Efforts to Restrict Organ Donations (9/15/06)
• A Good Sign for Change to Organ Donation Policy (8/5/06)
• Equal Opportunity to Suffer and Die (6/18/06)
• Market for Organs (5/20/06)

Placido Polanco Chokes Up All The Way

A bit of baseball humor... see this doctored-photo and headline from the Onion: Placido Polanco Chokes Up All the Way.

On the Electoral College

I'm against retaining the Electoral College process in the US. On this issue I am open to debate though, so I was interested to read arguments in favor of the current system in the WSJ opinion piece titled "Don't Mess With the Electoral College". But I was very disappointed by the weak points made by its author, David Lewis Schaefer.

First, he focuses on the "National Popular Vote" scheme, which wouldn't get rid of the Electoral College system as such (as that would require a Constitutional amendment), but would rather have states designate their electoral votes to whoever won the national popular vote. For me then, he is arguing against a straw man.

But even his specific arguments seem weak to me. He seems to think it a good thing that the current system "favors the two party approach". Why not give third parties a chance? He writes:

Today voters have little incentive to vote for candidates nominated by minor parties such as the Libertarians, the Greens or Ross Perot's 1992 Reform Party. Since winning even 30% of the vote nationwide is likely to yield very few (if any) electoral votes, most voters wind up choosing one of the two major-party candidates.

Those who think that fact a vice should consider the alternative. Under NPV, states commit their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how small a percentage of the overall vote that candidate wins. Thus a candidate whom a large majority of Americans finds highly unacceptable might become the next president. That's because the NPV would encourage more minor-party or "insurgent" candidates who'd been denied the nomination of one of the major parties.

At most, this is an argument against the NPV approach. Ditching the Electoral College could be done in various ways, including a system that demanded a first round followed by a run-off between the top two or three candidates. Also, it seems unlikely that many third-parties would find greast success overnight, as the Electoral College is only one part of the process that is rigged against them. Odds are, for the foreseeable future, the Dems and Reps would continue to dominate the scene.

He also asserts that "It also ensures that the winner will have geographically broad (rather than merely sectional) support, and will be at least acceptable to the vast majority of the electorate." So what? Why does it matter that the winner have "geographically broad support"? If more people prefer another candidate, then that other candidate should be the winner. Period.

Another of his arguments:

Another problem: If vote totals are close, the losing candidate has a strong incentive to demand recounts or challenge voting procedures in every state, regardless of how badly he lost. After all, "every vote counts." Imagine the Florida debacle of 2000 spread across dozens of states, every four years.

This is exaggeration. "Every four years"? You prefaced this with "If vote totals are close...", and that doesn't happen every time. But besides that, if it took vote recounts, even across the entire nation, to get it right, then so be it. The alternative is the person who gets less votes winning the race. How is that better?

Then he adds this nonsensical closing:

Is there really any need to abolish the existing system, just because candidates who "lose" the popular vote by a small margin sometimes come out on top in the electoral vote? The true purpose of an electoral system is not to ensure that the presidential candidate preferred by 51% of the electorate is chosen. Rather, it is to choose an effective leader whom even most supporters of the losing major-party candidate will regard as tolerable -- so that the government is perceived as representing the people as a whole, not just victorious partisans. That's why leading-party candidates typically "run toward the middle" during the general election campaign. In a two-party race, you can't win an election without demonstrating your acceptability to a large swath of the public.

Huh? "...just because candidates lose the popular vote by small margin"? Why are in favor of arbitrarily elevating the loser to the status of winner? His answer is ridiculous: "Rather, it is to choose an effective leader whom even most supporters of the losing major-party candidate will regard as tolerable -- so that the government is perceived as representing the people as a whole, not just victorious partisans." It would seem that, in the abstract, if the person who gets 49% of the vote is "tolerable" by your standards, then so would the person who got 51% of the vote. So by what reason do you still go for the one with 49%? And lastly, candidates "run to the middle", not because of the Electoral College, but because that is where the biggest votes are. The same would be true if we had a straight popularity majority vote system, or one with stages/runoff rounds.

I'm still not convinced that retaining the Electoral College is the right thing to do. I would argue we should not have it, and that we should have either a majority vote system or a plurality vote system with one or two runoff rounds if a certain threshold percentage of votes is not obtained. The benefits of this would be at least the following:

• Third parties might finally have a chance to be heard (at least this one hurdle would be removed for them.)
• It would mean we never have someone who loses the popular vote being elected president.
• It would mean every vote would count equally. Right now, I know my vote in NY doesn't matter because the Democrat will easily win the state and hence get all of NY's (rather sizeable) electoral votes.
• It would reduce or eliminate all of the silliness of the news coverage and debates on a state by state basis. Stop wasting time and money -- just count the votes.

The only semi-plausible argument I've heard against this approach is one of the original arguments in favor of the Electoral College -- that it helps preserve the importance of smaller states. That is, it encourages candidates to visit and campaign in more states, rather than just focus on the biggest states and cities. But the EC system actually has perverse effects in this regard, as it encourages candidates to relatively ignore very large states that are undoubtedly going to go their way (like NY for Democrats). How is that fair? And it also leads to candidates spending more time on issues of interest to just particular states that are "in play". Presidential candidates aren't running to be "President of the states that are up for grabs", they are running to be President of the entire country.

And even if this was a valid point in the early days of the country, when almost all campaign-relations were local, it has almost no weight today. Most people get most of their input on who to vote for from newspapers, magazines, TV, the Internet, etc. -- not from the silly hand-shaking, baby-kissing events if and when the candidate happens by our village square. Save all that money wasted criss-crossing the nation, and put it to better use on other aspects of campaigning. The inefficiencies due to unintended consequences of the EC system are astounding.

Oh, and while I'm on this general topic, can we also please get rid of the silly system of having some states hold political primaries significantly before others? How is that fair? What gives people in Iowa and New Hampshire the right to effectively rule out some party candidates before the rest of us have had our say? All states should hold political primaries on the same day, or at least the same week, so that this negative effect is eliminated. Again, if you are an egalitarian when it comes to political rights, then this is the only fair approach to take.

On Offshore Drilling

The July 12/13 WSJ had an interesting opinion piece titled "Environmentalists Say Yes to Offshore Drilling". The part of the story supporting the provocative title was of some interest to me, but even better were the numbers reported that indicate the different sources of oil spillage into the oceans. Guess what? Offshore drilling is not a major source at all, and still wouldn't be even if US government restrictions were loosened. Here are the numbers from a joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institute (amounts are per year):

• 363 million gallons -- runoff from dry land (cities, roads, industrial sites, etc.)
• 137 million gallons -- routine ship maintenance
• 62 million gallons -- natural seepage from underwater oil deposits
• 40 million gallons -- tanker spills (approximate estimate -- this figure wasn't given directly in the article, but I think I did the math right based on what was said)
• 15 million gallons -- offshore drilling

Here are the three paragraphs where the above numbers come from:

A joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, examining several decades' worth of data, found that more oil seeps into the ocean naturally than from accidents involving tankers and offshore drilling. Natural seepage from underwater oil deposits leaks an average of 62 million gallons a year; offshore drilling, on the other hand, accounted for only 15 million gallons, the smallest source of oil leaking into the oceans.

The vast majority of the oil that finds its way into the sea comes from dry land, NASA found. Runoff from cities, roads, industrial sites and garages deposits 363 million gallons into the sea, making runoff by far the single largest source of oil pollution in the oceans. "Every year oily road runoff from a city of 5 million could contain as much oil as one large tanker spill," notes the Smithsonian exhibit, "Ocean Planet."

The second-largest source of ocean oil pollution was routine ship maintenance, accountable for 137 million gallons a year, NASA found -- more than 2.5 times the amount that comes from tanker spills and offshore drilling combined. But no one is proposing that we ban cargo and cruise ships.

The Hurdles to Kurzweil's AI Fantasies

In April Wired magazine had an article about Ray Kurzweil, AI/futurist/singulartarian, and his hopes for Artificial Intelligence to extend his life. Indeed, he takes a couple hundred pills a day in the hopes he will live long enough to see the day when computer technology will have advanced enough that his "personality" can be uploaded and hence, he claims, he'll achieve immortality.

While the main Wired article linked above was mildly interesting (i.e., as an update to what Kurzweil is doing these days), what I was really glad to see was the shorter sidebar: Never Mind the Singularity, Here's the Science. This was an excellent overview of five scientific hurdles that Kurzweil and others like him will need to solve -- and they won't be easy! I found the first four to be especially compelling. I highly recommend this sidebar to anyone interested in this topic.

NOTE: I have decided to remove the second paragraph of this posting, wherein I made some offhand remarks about my opinions on Strong AI vs. Searle's views on it (Chinese Room Argument and so on). This generated some interesting comments, but I just don't have time to get into a debate with anyone on this topic right now -- I'd need to do a lot of catching up from 15 years away from the subject to have an intelligent debate, and I just don't have the time/interest at present. So I've removed that part of this posting, and I've deleted the comments and my replies as well. (My apologies to those who spent time on composing those comments.)

Comments on Baseball's Best 1,000 (Part 4)

I recently picked up the 2008 edition of Derek Gentile's fun book Baseball's Best 1,000: Rankings of the Skills, the Achievements, and the Performance of the Greatest Players of All Time. I've enjoyed reading this book, and I'm doing a series of blog posts where I comment on his selections. The first post is here (comments on players 1-50), the second is here (comments on players 51-100), and the third is here (comments on players 101-300). I recommend you read these first.

In this final post, I'll give comments on some players that I think he ranks significantly too high or too low, covering players listed from 301-1000. In the last post in this series I noted that Gentile consistently ranks good pitchers (boths starters and relievers) in the 101-300 range too low. This continued for the rest of the listing. The other consistent pattern I noted that I disagree with his Gentile's relatively high ranking of poor-hitting, longtime catchers. I won't comment on these below, but there were a couple dozen catchers who are ranked higher than I would. It is one thing to rank Bob Boone 324th and Jim Sundberg 348th, as they won loads of Gold Glove awards. No, I am talking about players like Scioscia (410), Rick Dempsey (469), Jerry Grote (498), and many, many more who I think are ranked too high.

Now for my comments on players ranked 301-1000:

• 314. Rafael Palmeiro -- His numbers (.288, 585 HR, 3020 hits, 1835 RBI), even discounted a bit relative to his era, I think justify a higher ranking. I guess if you discount them further because of the cloud of steroid use, then that would lower his spot in the list.
• 322. Chipper Jones -- Even before his impressive 2008 season, I think Chipper should be rated higher than this! He's an MVP, he's close to 400 HR, and has a career average over .300.
• 323. Joe Carter -- Too low. Gentile notes that he is one of only nine players to have had 100+ RBI in ten seasons. His 396 HR, 1445 RBI, and 231 SB I think justify ranking him closer to the likes of Rice, Murphy, and Dawson than down here below 300.
• 326. Jim Bottomley -- One can certainly argue that he is not deserving of being in the HOF. His .310 average isnt' that impressive compared with a .293 league average over his career. But I think this ranking is a bit low for someone who had 120+ RBI in five consecutive seasons and is clearly better than many listed ahead of him.
• 330. Bruce Sutter -- As I said earlier, Gentile seems to rate all of the dominant closers lower than I would.
• 332. Chuck Klein -- See Jim Bottomley and magnify my comments. He won the MVP in 1932, was runner up the year before, and was runner-up in 1933, losing to Carl Hubbell even though he took home Triple Crown honors. A lifetime .320 hitter (though relative to league average of .293), he led the league in HR four out of five years from 1929-1933, missing only in 1930 when he came in second while hitting an amazing 59 doubles. True, his numbers need to be considered in light of his era, but even so... he shouldn't be this low.
• 336. John Montgomery Ward -- A pretty unique career, I think it warrants a higher ranking. A 19th century star, Ward started out as a pitcher going 164-102 from 1878-1884, including a 47-19 record in 1879. When not pitching he'd play other positions, most often the OF, as he could hit and run well. He continued until 1894 as a SS/2B, and stole 111 bases in 1887 and 88 in 1892.
• 349. Edgar Martinez -- Granted, he mostly was a DH. Lifetime numbers of .312, 309 HR, 1261 RBI, 1219 Runs, 7 times an all-star and two batting titles... make me think he should be higher than this.
• 356. Harold Baines -- Similar arguement to Martinez: granted a lot of time spent as a DH, but his .289, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, 2866 hits are hard to argue with.
• 357. Jose Canseco -- Yet another hitter who spent a lot of time as a DH (though Jose played more games in the OF). Steroid use (and his attitude about it!) doesn't earn him any popularity, but he did have 462 HR, 1407 RBI, 200 SB, and was the first ever 40/40 club member in his 1988 MVP season. Should he really be nearly 100 spots lower than Andre Thornton? Or 50 spots below Rick Monday? I don't think so.
• 360. Don Baylor -- Again, a DH. He had 338 HR, 1276 RBI, and even 285 SB (often forgotten). Should be higher than this.
• 386. Al Spalding -- Hard to rank him, because he pitched in the 1870s and had a short career. But considering where Koufax and Dean are ranked, I think Spalding should be higher. Afterall, he had an incredible 253-65 record for a .796 winning percentage. And of course that is from just 6 full seasons in which he led the league in wins every year with totals of 19, 38, 41, 52, 55, and 47. He won the ERA title twice, and was second three times.
• 396. Catfish Hunter -- A lifetime record of 224-166 and a 3.26 ERA, with five consecutive 20+ win seasons. One Cy Young Award and a 10-2 record in the postseason add to his resume, one that I think earns him a higher ranking than nearly 400th! I mean, is he really worse than Dave Cash (390) and only one better than Carney Lansford (397)?
• 402. Tom Glavine -- I think Glavine should be even higher than Catfish, given his two Cy Young Awards and six-times appearing in the top 3 in the voting. He now is a 300 game winner and a 10-time all-star. How is he ranked this low, a mere three spots ahead of Don Buford? Gimme a break!
• 406. Andres Gallaraga -- Kinda similar to the DHs I mentioned earlier, The Big Cat struck out a lot but also hit .288 with 399 HR, 1425 RBI over his career, and led his league in BA once, HR once, RBI twice, and took home two Gold Gloves. He is really only two spots better than Toby Harrah, and six ahead of Doug DeCinces?
• 419. Curt Schilling -- I'm not yet an advocate of him for the HOF, but I think this is a bit low.
• 458. Juan Gonzalez -- How is a two-time MVP, who led his league in HR in two *other* seasons, ranked this low? Career numbers include .295, 434 HR, 1404 RBI. I have one question for Mr. Gentile: How can you rank Gonzalez this low, but Albert Belle all the way up at 148? Shouldn't they be much closer to each other?
• 474. Bill Buckner -- Compare him with Mark Grace. Why is Grace ranked at 212, and Buckner all the way down at 474?
• 480. Tommy John -- I think 288 career wins deserves a higher spot than this.
• 486. Jim Kaat -- Ditto, as Kaat won 283 games. I agree John and Kaat should be near each other in an all-time ranking like this, but they should both be higher. Kaat has the added distinction of winning an amazing 16 Gold Glove awards.
• 500. Lee Smith -- I'm not sure where I'd rank Lee Smith, as I don't consider him in the class of Gossage, Fingers, Sutter and a few others. And he is no longer the all-time saves leader. But again, Gentile ranks too many great closers too low, so I'd likely have him higher than this.
• 501. Mariano Rivera -- And speaking of relievers, Mo must be higher than this! Mariano is arguably the greatest reliever of all time.
• 507. Larry Walker -- A great hitter (.313, 383 HR, 1311 RBI, 230 SB) and a great fielder (7 Gold Gloves), Walker should be much higher than this. He won an MVP in 1997.
• 513. Rollie Fingers -- I don't get this at all. How is Fingers this low? And how is he this far below Gossage and Sutter, and then ranked below even Lee Smith? Look at his numbers relative to the 70s and early 80s!
• Roy Smalley (525), Rick Burleseon (530), Bill Doran (532) -- There are lots of players I've been skipping over (most of all light-hitting catchers) that I could have commented on that I think are too high relative to others near them in the list. Here are three such middle-infielders -- are these guys really this close to Walker and Fingers? Are they better than fellow middle-infielder Jeff Kent (534)? No way.
• 539. Dan Quisenberry -- My favorite pitcher of all time should be higher than this, though I agree he should appear after the top guys (Gossage, Fingers, Rivera, and Sutter).
• 555. Frank McCormick -- an MVP and nine-time All-Star should be higher than Robby Thompson (551), whose .257, 119 HR, 458 RBI, 1187 Hits are not very impressive.
• 557. Jake Beckley -- He had 2,930 hits, batted .308, and stole 315 bases. Most of all, he had 234 triples (fourth all-time). He should be higher than this.
• 572. Tom Tresh -- Yes, he won a Gold Glove and ROY. But would he be this high if he hadn't been on the Yankees for most of his short career? I doubt it -- this is too high for a career.245 hitter with only 153 HR and 530 RBI. I mean, is he really better than Bob Meusel (598), another Yankee, who hit .309 with 156 HR, 1067 RBI, and 142 SB? No.
• 608. Omar Vizquel -- I'm not an advocate for Vizquel for the HOF. And I'm not sure where I'd put him in a top 1000 list like this. But wherever that is, he should be a good deal higher than Mark Belanger (600). Both are most known for being great defensive shortstops. But Omar has been an all-star 3 times and has 11 gold gloves, while Belanger was an all-star only once and won 8 gold gloves. Belanger had some speed, totaling 167 SB for his career, but that is far fewer than Vizquel's 384. But most of all, Belanger had a pitiful .228 lifetime average (plus an even worse .183 in 10 postseason series), and only had three seasons batting over .250. Vizquel is no slugger, but at least he has batted .273 over his career, and managed to come in sixth in the 1999 race with a .333 mark. Surely Omar should be way ahead of Belanger on an all-time list.
• 617. Ben Oglivie -- I'm not going to argue he should be higher. I just wanted to again note the insanity of ranking Andre Thornton at 260. Was Thornton really that much better than Oglivie?
• 672. Addie Joss -- Another dominating pitcher who had a short career (died of meningitis). He had a 1.89 ERA compared with a league ERA of 2.68, leading the league twice. He won 20+ games four times, and ended up with a 160-97 record which is a .623 winning percentage. And as Gentile notes, Joss completed an amazing 234 of his 260 starts. Its always hard to rank players whose careers were cut short, but I think Joss should be higer than this.
• 684. John Smoltz -- Definitely too low. He won the Cy Young Award in 1996 when he went 24-8 with 276 strikeouts. He has been an all-star 8 times. But like Eckersley, Smoltz has managed to be successful at the highest level as both a starter and a reliever. From 2002-04 he had SV totals fo 55, 45, and 44. And in the second of those seasons he had an incredible 1.12 ERA and 0.87 WHIP. He should be far higher than this.
• 737. Pud Galvin -- A Hall-of-Famer with a lifetime record of 364-310: not a great percentage (.540), but still, 364 wins is 364 wins. His ERA of 2.86 is also only a little better than the league average during his time period (3.07). Its not easy to rank someone who retired in 1892, but he completed a mind-boggling 646 of his 689 career starts -- so I'd rank him higher than this.
• 779. Steve Finley -- Gentile's writeup on Finley is confusing, as he says that he has had over 24 HR in a season three times. Leaving aside the odd "over 24" standard, he has actually had six such seasons, including totals of 30, 34, 35, and 36. In his career Finley had 304 HR and 320 SB, quietly joining the rare 300/300 club. Although only an All-Star twice, he did grab five gold-gloves in the outfield, so I think he should be ranked a lot higher than this.
• 803. Chief Bender -- A 212-127 record is a .625 win rate. Although a borderline HOFer, I think he clearly deserves to be ranked higher than this.
• 858. David Cone -- The success of his first full season (1988), in which he went 20-3 with a 2.22 ERA, was never repeated. He won the Cy Young Award in the strike-shortened 1994 season, going 16-5 with a 2.94 ERA (a year when the League ERA was 5.00). His career record of 194-126 equates to a .606 winning percentage. I think this five-time all-star should be ranked higher than this, especialy when you consider Bret Saberhagen was ranked 654th and Orel Hershiser was ranked 613th.
• 864. Matt Williams -- 378 HR, 1218 RBI, 5-time All-Star, and 4 Gold Gloves at 3B mean Williams should be a lot higher than this.
• 891. Jesse Tannehill -- He had a career 197-116 record, which is a .629 winning percentage. He won 20+ games six times. Not a HOFer, but should be higher ranked than this I think.
• 905. Mike Mussina -- Even through the 2006 season I'd argue Mussina should be higher than this. But given his strong 2008 thus far, he is building his HOF resume. As of this writing he is 263-150 lifetime, which is a .637 winning percentage. He's never won 20 games in a season, and has never won a Cy Young Award (he has been in the top six in voting 8 times). But he is a five-time all-star and has won six Gold Gloves too. He should be several hundred spots higher than this -- I mean, Schilling is 419th, and I consider Mussina to be a better HOF candidate than Schilling.
• 934. David Kingman -- Granted, he had a low .236 average and his massive swing led to many strikeouts. But 442 HR (twice led league, and four times runner-up) and 1210 RBI deserve a higher ranking than this.
• 947. Ichiro Suzuki -- For some reason Gentile didn't update this entry after the 2004 season, so presumably if he had Ichiro would be ranked higher. By now he has had 200+ hits in all seven of his seasons (though he might not in 2008). He has a .331 average and 306 SB. And in his first seven seasons in the majors he has been both an all-star and gold-glover. Even if he quit today, I would rank him in the top 500 at least.
• Jeff Reardon (964) and John Franco (973) are again instances of Gentile's low ranking of good relievers. And he doesn't include Trevor Hoffman in the top 1,000 at all, though presumably he would at this point since Hoffman is now the all-time saves leader.
• 1000. Rich Dauer -- In case you were curious, this is who Gentile chose to round out his massive project. As a .257 hitter, with 43 HR, 372 RBI, 984 H, and only 6 SB, I would think there are more deserving players to make the list even in this last spot.

I have very much enjoyed reading and critiquing Gentile's ranking. Even with all the criticisms I have made, I obviously respect the project he undertook and the amount of time he must have spent researching it. For baseball fans like myself, I recommend his book as a fun read... let the debates continue!

Beaker does Ode To Joy

The classic Muppets character Beaker here does Ode to Joy. There is a lot going on in this video, so you might want to watch it a couple of times. See also Habanera, and Classical Chicken.

Comments on Baseball's Best 1,000 (Part 3)

I recently picked up the 2008 edition of Derek Gentile's fun book Baseball's Best 1,000: Rankings of the Skills, the Achievements, and the Performance of the Greatest Players of All Time. I've enjoyed reading this book, and I'm doing a series of blog posts where I comment on his selections. The first post is here (comments on players 1-50), and the second is here (comments on players 51-100). I recommend you read these first.

In this post I'll remark on some of the selections that Gentile makes for players ranked 101-300. Unlike my first two posts, I won't list all of the players -- just the ones that I think are either notably too high, too low, or that I am particularly pleased are listed where they are.

But first, I want to make one general remark that became evident to me in reading through this part of his rankings. Gentile seems to rate pitchers -- both starters and relievers -- a bit lower than I would relative to everyday players. This will get brought to light somewhat in my comments below.

And now, some comments on the players rated 101-300:

• 109. Nolan Ryan -- Really this low? I know that most fans consider Ryan to highly: he was a lot of fun to watch, but his lifetime W-L% wasn't so great (even relative to the poor teams he was often on). For instance, TSN a few years back ranked him 41st all-time (too high in my view). But I think 109 is a bit low.
• 114. Pie Traynor -- Several decades ago, he was talked about as the greatest 3B of all-time. That was an exaggeration then, I think 114 overall is still too high now.
• 122. Alex Rodriguez -- Really below Traynor? And below Bobby Doerr (117) and Dick Allen (118)? And only one spot ahead of Don Mattingly at #123? No, I think A-Rod deserves to be at or above 100 already, and of course if he keeps playing at a high level he could easily crack the top 20 or even top 10 before he is done.
• 129. Reggie Smith -- I like him, and he surely is underrated today, but this is a bit high I think. Consider that he is above fellow outfielders Dale Murphy (138), Dave Winfield (140), Andre Dawson (143), and Kirby Puckett (146).
• 140. Dave Winfield -- I don't see how he is below the aforementioned Mattingly, Smith, Murphy. I mean, over 3,000 hits, 465 HR, 1,833 RBI, 12 All-Star teams, and 7 Gold Gloves? Should be much closer to the top 100, if not in it (TSN ranked him 94th all-time in 1998). I consider Winfield to have been justly selected as a Hall-of-Famer, and those other guys are rightly excluded.
• 146. Kirby Puckett -- Below Will Clark at 145? And below fellow Minnesota favorite Tony Oliva at 142? I don't see it. And neither would Bill James, who a few years ago ranked Puckett 98th all-time. And the somewhat popularity-tilted TSN ranked him 86th all-time.
• 156. Roberto Alomar -- his personality not withstanding, is Roberto really 50 spots lower than Barry Larkin (106)? If anything Alomar's lifetime numbers are better, and he was a 12-time All-Star with 10 Gold Gloves. Indeed, a few years ago Bill James rated Alomar the 80th player of all-time, and Larkin below him at 93rd. Surely a snub at this spot in the list.
• 158. Phil Niekro -- This seems a bit low, esp. compared with Ted Lyons (147). Oh, and by-the-way, his brother Joe and his 221 wins don't make the list at all (one of many victims of Gentile's stronger preference for everyday players than pitchers).
• 166. Darrell Evans -- I'm pleased to see him this high -- a player underrated by most fans.
• 167. Craig Biggio -- A major snub here. His position versatility, his long career, his high-OBP, 3,000 hits, and on and on... all warrants a higher slot. Who is next at 168? Sal Bando. Biggio is really only spot ahead of Sal? Come on. And don't let Bill James see this ranking for Biggio: a few years ago he ranked Biggio the 35th best player of all time (I wouldn't go quite that far).
• 173. Gaylord Perry -- see my comments for Niekro and magnify. TSN ranked him 97th all-time in 1998.
• 176. Willie Randolph -- too high! Just a few spots below Tony Lazzeri? And consider again the injustice of Biggio being at 167 if Randolph is here at 176!
• 178. Ivan Rodriguez -- a bit low, compared with Piazza at 89th place. Still playing, so hopefully he'd climb up this list by the time he retires.
• 181. Pedro Martinez -- definitely too low. He is still playing, but even if he retired today, he was so dominant for a few years, he should be higher based on that alone. Compare with others who were dominant for a short period: Sandy Koufax (47), Dizzy Dean (91), Big Ed Walsh (135). Or even Jim Palmer at 86th place, who played longer than those others but not as long as other stars. Given these ratings, Pedro should be close to or in the top 100.
• 183. Dave Parker -- Shouldn't he be up higher with the likes of Murphy, Dawson, and Rice? And how is Wally Berger (182) a slot ahead of Parker?
• 184. Manny Ramirez -- his numbers, without any talk of steroids, mean he deserves to be higher already.
• 185. Max Carey -- Led the league in SB 10 times, and was arguably the best centerfielder of his era. I think he should be higher than this.
• 187. Gene Tenace -- Wow. Top 1,000 surely. But this high? No way. Derek Jeter is #186, and Tenace comes right behind him? Tenace's career numbers are .241, 674 RBI, and 1076 hits. Um, OK. He is this close behind Pedro, Manny, and others I've complained about above? No way. Or compare Tenace with Joe Torre who is below him at 190 -- they are both C-1B-3B even, and surely Torre rates higher! 201 HRs, lots of walks, catching sometimes, and post-season heroics are all nice plusses, but this is way to high.
• 197. Tommy Leach -- I'm glad to see him crack the top-200. Good.
• 208. Phil Rizzuto -- I'm glad to see him this low. He shouldn't have been elected to the Hall of Fame.
• 209. Jesse Burkett -- too low for sure. A lifetime .338 hitter, against a league batting average during his tenure of .280. Lifetime OBP was .415, he scored 1,720 runs, stole 389 bases, and was only 150 hits shy of 3,000. He won three batting titles, including two seasons over .400. Compared with other old-timers, Jesse should be higher than this.
• 211. Hoyt Wilhelm -- The first reliever elected to the Hall of Fame, I think he should be higher than this. He started during parts of several seasons, and the one season he was a full-time SP he went 15-11 and led the AL in ERA with a 2.19 mark. As a reliever he kept his ERA below 2.00 six times! Interestingly, he never actually led his league in saves. But still, he racked up 227 of them before the statistic became a household word (well, in baseball fan households anyway).
• 232. Dennis Eckersley -- Appropriate that I complain about Eck's placement right after Wilhelm's. He too should be higher. 197 career wins and 390 career saves, and some of the most lights-out seasons ever, mean he should be ranked 150th or higher. TSN ranked him 98th all-time in 1998.
• 241. Sammy Sosa -- For some reason, the entry on Sosa hasn't been updated since after the 2003 season, so perhaps Gentile would re-evaluate Sammy's spot in the list now that he has 609 career HR. Even with the steroid suspicions, I think he should be a bit higher.
• 242. Wee Willie Keeler -- Ouch. Similar to my comments on Jesse Burkett, but even more so given he places Keeler 33 spots lower. He had a .341 average compared with a .280 league average during his time period. He didn't walk much, but he had 2,932 hits, scored 1,719 runs, and stole 495 bases. Two batting titles, including .424 in 1897.
• 245. Gary Sheffield -- See Manny Ramirez. Should be lower than Manny, but they both should be higher than Gentile lists them. Sheffield is still playing, so will likely end up with about a .290 average, 500+ HR, 1,700+ RBI, 250+ SB, and close to 3,000 hits. Obviously at that point he'll be higher than 245th, but I think he should be already.
• 249. Eddie Plank -- um, what? A 326-197 record for a .627 winning percentage. A lifetime 2.35 ERA (against a league average 2.87). A lifetime WHIP of 1.12. He completed 410 of his 529 starts. His postseason record was a hard-luck 2-5, given he posted a 1.32 ERA! Granted he's not in the class of Johnson, Alexander, and Mathewson, but he's in the next rung for his era -- and should be far higher than 249th all-time. TSN a few years ago ranked Plank 68th overall -- perhaps a bit too high, but closer to the mark than 249th.
• 253. Vada Pinson -- Like Darrell Evans, an oft-forgotten and underrated player. I'm glad to see him at least this high, but I think he perhaps deserves better: .286, 2,757 hits, 256 HR, 1366 Runs, and 305 SB.
• 254. Goose Gossage -- a victim of Gentile's generally low ranking of dominant closers. I'd rate each of the great ones higher than he does.
• 260. Andre Thornton -- Wow... definitely too high. His numbers: .254, 253 HR, 895 RBI, 792 Runs, 1,342 hits. And he played parts of 15 seasons. If he had only played 10, then maybe. But he played a long while, and only had 30+ HR three times. And its not like he was a catcher or middle infielder with power -- he split his time between 1B and DH! He was only an All-Star twice, and never led the league in any important categories. There is no way he should be this high in the rankings. I won't list all the guys that should be higher than Thornton but aren't -- there are too many.
• 262. Dwight Evans -- But I gotta list this one. See, this is what I mean. How is Thornton higher than Evans, or even anywhere close to him in the list? Dwight's numbers: .272, 385 HR, 2,446 hits, 1,384 RBI, 1,470 Runs, 8 Gold Gloves in the OF. Even leaving aside the comparison with Thornton, Evans should be up closer to Murphy, Dawson, Rice, and similar others, not down in this mid-200s range.
• 269. Bert Blyleven and 271. Early Wynn. -- Again, not enough credit is being given to starting pitchers here. Wynn was ranked 100th by TSN in 1998.
• 274. Randy Johnson -- Speaking of which, holy-cow man. The dominating Randy Johnson only comes in at 274th? He has led the league in strikeouts nine times, and is second all-time. He led the league in ERA four times. He won 20 games or more 3 times, and won 19 games 3 times. A ten-time All-Star, and most of all a five-time Cy Young Award winner? He should be in the top-100 at this point. What the heck?
• 290. Old Hoss Radbourn -- It is admittedly tough to rank the early pitchers. Radbourn played from 1880-1891, and he had two mind-boggling seasons in particular. In 1883 he went 48-25, and then in 1884 he agreed to pitch most of the second half of the season and went 59-12 (with a 1.38 ERA). He is often described as having gotten burned out after that, though he managed to win 20+ in five more seasons and end up with a 309-195 record. I gotta rank him higher than 290th... I mean, Gentile has Jay Bell ranked 289th!
• 292. Ralph Kiner -- Really? Someone who dominated his time, winning seven consecutive HR titles? He ended up hitting .279, with 369 HR, and .398 OBP. And that puts him just one spot ahead of Tony Fernandez (293), and again, well behind Andre Thornton? And TSN ranked him 90th all-time, perhaps a bit high, but closer to the mark than this 292nd appearance.

Stay tuned for the next batch!

Comments on Baseball's Best 1,000 (Part 2)

I recently picked up the 2008 edition of Derek Gentile's fun book Baseball's Best 1,000: Rankings of the Skills, the Achievements, and the Performance of the Greatest Players of All Time. I've enjoyed reading this book, and I recently started a series of blog posts where I comment on his selections. The first post is here, and I recommend you read that one first.

Before I comment on players he ranks 51-100, I wanted to warn readers that there are some noticeable typos in the book. Generally I find the book to be well-written, and with few errors, but there are a few mistakes which are kinda funny if you think about them (well, for baseball fans at least):

• Gentile clearly updated his section on Roger Clemens mid-way through the 2007 season, as he notes Clemens had gotten his 350th win. But then he indicates his lifetime record to be 350-118. This is way off, as after the 2007 season ended his record was 354-184. Suffice to say that if someone really had 350 wins AND a .748 career winning percentage, they would be rated even higher than the 20th spot that Gentile gives Clemens. Such a pitcher would be the best of all time (ahead of Johnson), and might even be a top-3 overall player.
• Several pitchers have their CG totals listed as "SB" -- likely a typo as the CG is the last stat given for each pitcher, while SB is the last stat given for each hitter. This happens for at least John Clarkson (#131), and for Ed Walsh (#135), though the error is made worse for Walsh as the 315 number given is actually his GS not his CG.
• But the typo I actually found hilarious was Dave Winfield's career Stolen Base mark, which was indicated to be 1,686 instead fo 223. Turns out 1,686 was his career strikeouts. If he was really that great on the basepaths (a full 280 more than career leader Rickey Henderson), then Winfield would surely have been rated a top-20 player, and not find himself in 140th place -- which is way to low, by the way.

OK... now my next batch of comments. As a reminder... I am not commenting on players from the Negro Leagues who are in the Gentile's top 1,000 list (indicating them with an asterisk). And when I refer to other rankings, these are:

• TSN - 1998 book "The Sporting News Selects Baseball's Greatest 100 Players"
• James - 2001 book by Bill James "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract

In starting where I left off, at number 51:

• 51. Arky Vaughn -- I like to give Arky his due, and James makes a strong case for him to rated as the #2 SS of all time, and even higher overall (39). No doubt, TSN snubbed him by not including him in their top 100 at all.
• 52. Bill Terry -- surely too high. While TSN generally agrees with Gentile, by rating Terry 59th, James completely disagrees by not including him the top 100 and only ranking him 26th amongst first-basemen. I have to agree more with James here, because while Terry's raw numbers look impressive, you have to consider the era in which he played (league batting average during his time was a lofty .289 and was over .300 in some seasons). So while I might not downgrade him as much as James does, I think 52nd is too high.
• 53. Cal Ripken
• 54. Whitey Ford -- Again, TSN agrees, ranking him 52nd. James keeps Ford off his top-100, and while I might get him in the top-100, I think 54 is too high.
• 55. Duke Snider
• 56. Steve Carlton
• 57. Buck Leonard *
• 58. Lou Brock -- Again, TSN agrees, ranking him 58th also. But I prefer James on this one too, as he doesn't include Brock in his top-100, presumably because of his lackluster fielding, low OBP and high strikeout rate. Oh, and did you know that Lou was only an all-star six times? Lower than I would have thought given his level of fame.
• 59. Bill Dickey -- Noticing a pattern at this point? TSN rates Dickey 57th, while James keeps him off his top-100. Interestingly, he doesn't downgrade fellow catching old-timer Mickey Cochrane, who Gentile ranks 62, TSN ranks 65, and James ranks 72. I'm not sure which I would rate higher.
• 60. Cap Anson
• 61. Cool Papa Bell *
• 62. Mickey Cochrane -- see comments above for Dickey.
• 63. Reggie Jackson
• 64. Roberto Clemente -- seems about right, though obviously I cringe at seeing him lower than Brock here. Surely TSN's ranking of him 20th is way too high! James has him 74th.
• 65. Hank Greenberg
• 66. Robin Yount
• 67. Tony Gwynn
• 68. Gabby Hartnett -- really? Before Piazza, Fisk, Carter as catchers? No way!
• 69. Harmon Killebrew
• 70. Bob Gibson -- I think he should be a bit higher. TSN has him at 31, and that might be too high. James says 46th.
• 71. Ryne Sandberg
• 72. Rod Carew
• 73. Joe Jackson -- hard to rate him because of his banishment. 73rd seems about right.
• 74. Mule Suttles *
• 75. Brooks Robinson
• 76. Home Run Baker
• 77. Ken Griffey Jr.
• 78. Willie McCovey
• 79. Ron Santo -- nice to see!
• 80. Dan Brouthers
• 81. Joe Cronin -- A bit high I think. Neither TSN nor James include Cronin in their top 100.
• 82. Wade Boggs -- This is fine placement relative to Carew and Gwynn I think, but surely he should be higher than Cronin!
• 83. Carl Hubbell
• 84. Al Simmons
• 85. Greg Maddux
• 86. Jim Palmer
• 87. Joe Williams *
• 88. Johnny Mize
• 89. Mike Piazza -- see Hartnett. And I would rate him close to Cochrane and Dickey.
• 90. Tim Raines -- very nice to see.
• 91. Dizzy Dean
• 92. Mark McGwire -- hard to rate him, given the clouds of suspicion.
• 93. Willie Stargell
• 94. Paul Waner
• 95. Willie Wells *
• 96. Al Kaline
• 97. Juan Marichal
• 98. Frankie Frisch
• 99. Sam Crawford
• 100. Mordecai Brown

Fun stuff!

In my third post in this series I won't list the players, I'll just comment on some I think are way too high or way to low from 101-1,000.

Top-25 Memories of Yankee Stadium

Local sports columnist Scott Pitoniak wrote an interesting piece in today's paper, "A Yankee Stadium Scrapbook". I especially like his top-25 list of famous events that took place at this famed location.

More Baseball HOF Probability Considerations

Local sports columnist Bob Matthews today updated his probability ratings for active players as to whether they will make the baseball Hall of Fame or not. I agree with most of his assessments. A few disagreements and other comments:

• I'm not sure that I'd quite rate Vladimir Guerrero as a 100% lock to make it. If he has just one or two more seasons, then yes. But as of today, maybe not quite. If Bob's assessment had that as an assumption, then fine.
• I'd put Vlad in a 75-99% category, something Bob didn't have. And with him I'd bump up Chipper Jones, instead of having him along with Jeff Kent and Lance Berkman at only 51-75 percent chance. In fact, I'd rate Jones just ahead of Guerrero if they both retired today.
• I'd also bump up Gary Sheffield from the 25-50% category to at least 51-75%, or perhaps 75-99%.
• If Hanley Ramirez is considered "Well on his way", then I should think Jose Reyes is too, as opposed to "Too early to gauge".
• I was glad to see Carlos Delgado and Jim Edmonds in the "Nice career, but no chance" category -- I fear they will have their supporters, but I don't think they are HOFers. I agree with all the other hitters he mentioned there too.
• As with hitters, I think a 76-99% category is needed, and in it I'd put John Smoltz. His Eckersley-like SP/RP combination is unique enough that I think he is nearly a lock.
• I'd switch Roy Oswalt and Billy Wagner, and have the latter in the 25-50 percent category and the former in the 1-25% category.
• And I'm glad to see him put Schilling and Mussina in the 25-50% category, though if Mussina can pitch again next year like he is this year, he'll become closer to a lock.
• As he turns 33 tomorrow, I don't consider Tim Hudson to be "Well on his way", but closer to "Nice career, but no chance". I think his best days are behind him.
• And ditto for Mark Buehrle, who is now 29, has never won 20 games, is not an exciting strikeout pitcher, and has a lifetime 3.79 ERA. I don't consider him to be "Well on his way".

Where the Hell is Matt?

Here is my seemingly obligatory post linking to the wildly popular "Where the Hell is Matt?" video on YouTube. I've seen earlier versions of this Matt-dancing-around-in-various-places-in-the-world video, but this one seems to be the most recent version, and is quite impressive in terms of the number of locations he has visited. And if you are wondering, as I was, about the song playing during the video, here is another video that uses the song ("Praan" by Garry Schyman) and currently has a comment with the following translation of the Bengali lyrics:
I will not easily forget
The life that stirs in my soul
Hidden amidst Death
That infinite Life

I hear you in the thunder
A simple tune
A tune to which I will arise (3x)

And in that storm of happiness
As your music plays in your mind
The whole wide world
Dances to your rhythm

Sleeping Sun

Another plug for Pandora.com here. I first blogged about this internet radio service here, and then again later here and here. In those various posts I have explained what Pandora is, and some of the music that I've been introduced to through my personal radio station programmed around Enya and songs that I find similar. These have included songs from numerous artists, from obvious ones like Clannad and other Celtic artists, to several songs from Sarah Brightman, to groups I had never heard of before such as Dargaard.

Here is the latest song that I really like a lot that I've found through Pandora: "Sleeping Sun", by the Finnish symphony-power-metal group Nightwish. This group formed in 1996, and they've had several albums. You can learn more about them from their Wikipedia entry or their own website. For many years their lead vocalist was Tarja Turenen (see her Wikipedia entry or her own website). But she is no longer with the group, and while Anette Olzon, her replacement, also has a good voice, I think I prefer Tarja's (to my admittedly untrained ears, her voice seems richer, more haunting, more operatic).

To see and hear Tarja/Nightwish doing "Sleeping Sun", you can watch the two videos they produced for it on YouTube. The Sleeping Sun video I prefer has a medieval battle theme, while the other Sleeping Sun video depicts Finnish background scenes. The music is the same in both.

From the little sampling I've done on iTunes, much of their music sounds interesting to me, and worth further exploration, but only their song "Sleeping Sun" has really struck me as something I really like. The song dates back to 1999, but the version I heard on Pandora was from their 2005 compilation album Highest Hopes -- one version of which has a cover of Pink Floyd's "High Hopes" (which I've not yet heard)... a very interesting connection for me as a big Pink Floyd fan.

WSJ Series: Your U.N. at Work

Spread out over a year now, the Wall Street Journal has run the occasional brief opinion piece under the title "Your U.N. at Work". These items are all rightfully critical of the United Nations. They've done four of these so far, and here are the links:

• March 30, 2007 -- describes the incredible Hillel Neuer's (from the NGO U.N. Watch) performance at the Human Rights Council where he notes the council's fixation with Israel, and is then threatened with future censorship by the council president.
• May 19, 2007 -- reports that Zimbabwe was elected to chair the Commission for Sustainable Development (no, that is not a headline from The Onion). Only slightly less bizarre was the election of Iran as vice-chair for the Disarmament Commission.
• August 31, 2007 -- more on human rights, including that Libya was put in charge of organizing an anti-racism conference.
• June 7, 2008 -- this is the one that caught my eye, and since it was labelled "IV", led me to discover the three previous entries above. This time around, we learn that a former Nicaraguan Sandinista regime official (also a priest) was elected president of the UN General Assembly. And that Burma's government has been given one of the VP spots. This one ends with:
  
  "Speaking after his election, Father d'Escoto called for greater "democracy" at the U.N. – an odd remark coming from a former servant of a communist dictatorship. He also called for the U.N. to take a stand against "acts of aggression, such as those occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan." That would be American aggression, not the Taliban's, the Mahdi Army's or al Qaeda's.
  
  A former Lenin Prize winner as General Assembly president and cruel Burma as vice president – another sick joke from the U.N."

Good stuff! I wish the WSJ would do more of these! I assume they have a much broader readership than the website of UN Watch, and so could have more of an impact on people's views of the UN.

As I've raised before on this blog... I really wish the US would get out of the UN. If we must have such an international organization (I'm open to that), then membership should have strict requirements. To start with, only democracies that protect basic individual rights would be allowed as members. If the benefits of membership were great enough, this alone might get some of the smaller non-democracies to abruptly change their approach to government. The bigger ones would thumb their nose at us -- or even band together to form their own club: "United Monarchy, Dictatorship, Communist, Fascist, and other inherently rights-abusing Statist Nations". Contrast that group with the countries that would be in the "United Democratic and Individual-Rights Respecting Nations". That would make quite clear what is currently obscured by intentional UN fog.

Saudi Arabia: Why develop Nuclear energy rather than Solar?

An opinion piece in the June 10 WSJ by Edward J. Markey asks a very good question: Why is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?

First off, this would seem to have a very real potential for disaster down the road. I'm no expert on Saudi Arabia and the chances of the regime their falling and Islamic radicals taking over. But is that a chance worth taking?

But Markey makes another point that I hadn't thought of before:

Saudi Arabia has poured money into developing its vast reserves of natural gas for domestic electricity production. It continues to invest in a national gas transportation pipeline and stepped-up exploration, building a solid foundation for domestic energy production that could meet its electricity needs for many decades. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, would require enormous investments in new infrastructure by a country with zero expertise in this complex technology.

Have Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush or Saudi leaders looked skyward? The Saudi desert is under almost constant sunshine. If Mr. Bush wanted to help his friends in Riyadh diversify their energy portfolio, he should have offered solar panels, not nuclear plants.

Why would the Saudi's want to develop nuclear energy, instead of solar? If any country could make Solar energy work, you'd think it would be the sun-baked peninsula of Saudi Arabia. To me, this either means that solar energy is much farther away from being economically viable on a large scale than many environmentalists would like us to believe AND/OR Saudi Arabia really isn't interested in only expanding their energy supply and energy diversity. The latter is the conclusion feared by Markey, as he notes that Saudi Arabia is quite possibly thinking ahead to when Iran (their biggest rival in the region) gets a nuke or two.

Calling for a new kind of "Fair and Balanced" reporting

Gregg Easterbrook had an interesting opinion piece in the June 13 WSJ: "Life is Good, So Why Do We Feel So Bad?". He details the various measures according to which life as improved, on average, for a large number of people. He admits areas of life on Earth where there are negative trends, but then asks why the overwhelmingly bad attitude of so many people, the doom-and-gloom reports that we all get at almost every turn, on almost every issue. He describes many of the reasons, before hitting on what I think is the biggest one, the ways news gets reported:

Whatever goes wrong in the country or around the world is telecast 24/7, making us think the world is falling to pieces – even when most things are getting better for most people, even in developing nations. If a factory closes, that's news. If a factory opens, that's not a story. You've heard about the factories Ford and General Motors have closed in this decade. Have you heard about the factories Toyota, Honda and other automakers opened in the U.S. in the same period? The jobs there have solid, long-term prospects.

The relentlessly negative impressions of American life presented by the media, including the entertainment media, explain something otherwise puzzling that shows up in psychological data. When asked about the country's economy, schools, health care or community spirit, Americans tell pollsters the situation is dreadful. But when asked about their own jobs, schools, doctors and communities, people tell pollsters the situation is good. Our impressions of ourselves and our neighbors come from personal experience. Our impressions of the nation as a whole come from the media and from political blather, which both exaggerate the negative.

The latter has never been thicker. Democrats insist Republicans are ruining domestic policy, Republicans insist Democrats are ruining foreign policy. Neither claim is true, but both reflect what we've been conditioned to believe: that America is in much worse circumstances than it actually is.

I really wish this issue would get raised more often. The only time I regularly hear it raised is on Fox News (or other right-leaning news outlets) when they talk about how "good news" stories out of Iraq are being ignored. That is fine, but the issue is far broader than just Iraq. The example given above is a good one: large layoffs are reported on, time and again, but incremental -- or even sudden -- increases in employment by a company are rarely mentioned. Or consider all the news about other negatives in our everyday lives: high gas prices, high food prices, high health care costs, crimes of various kinds, forest fires in California, massive natural disasters in Asia, and on an on.

With apologies to Fox News, wouldn't it be nice if we could get a new kind of "Fair and Balanced" in our news each night (and in newspapers, etc.)? Instead of 95% (my rough estimate) of the news being either negative or trivial/humorous, how about reporting regularly on truly good, life-affirming developments? And I don't mean altruistic, self-sacrifice stories -- those do get covered in various ways, in special news shows and so on. Rather, I mean things like how new inventions save us time and money, or how much value people get from various aspects of the Internet, or how good decisions made by CEOs and other business leaders have led to benefits for employees and stockholders, or how people in the US and some other countries are improving their lives because of the freedoms they have to make a life for themselves. The possible stories here are infinite... alas, I don't predict it will happen anytime soon.

AFI's 10 Top 10

The American Film Institute (AFI) recently did a special on "America's 10 Greatest Films in 10 Classic Genre's." I always enjoying their top-100 lists, so it was interesting to see this different type of "top 100" list from them.

I've seen the majority, though far from all, of these 100 films. And some that I have seen I have only a vague memory of. Here are my personal thoughts on some of the categories and selections:

• In the Fantasy category, Wizard of Oz is a no-brainer. I was glad to see LOTR:FOTR as #2. I was also very pleased to see Field of Dreams make it sixth, though I consider that a Sports movie and only secondarily a Fantasy movie. And I was also pleased to see Harvey make it -- one of my all-time top-10 movies! Again, I see how they can call it Fantasy, though I tend to think of it as an odd type of comedy.
• Obviously I'm happy that Star Wars makes it, and at a high ranking (2nd only to 2001: A Space Odyssey). I'm happy that Terminator 2 made list at 8th -- a rare sequel that was arguably better than the original. And good for AFI for recognizing Back to the Future with the 10th spot here: unlike some 1980s movies, this one has aged well and is still a lot of fun.
• For Sports, since Field of Dreams made it in the Fantasy category, I think they did a good job of picking these. Personally I'd rank The Natural, though I know most critics consider it good, but not great. But at least Hoosiers rec'd a high ranking (4th).
• For Courtroom Drama, the top two are obvious: To Kill a Mockingbird and 12 Angry Men. I was glad to see A Few Good Men come in fifth place.
• And all 10 chosen in the Epic category are big time movies, though I need to re-watch Reds as I don't remember it very well.

Comments on Baseball's Best 1,000 (Part 1)

I recently picked up the 2008 edition of Derek Gentile's fun book Baseball's Best 1,000: Rankings of the Skills, the Achievements, and the Performance of the Greatest Players of All Time. Apparently he had a 2004 edition as well, though somehow I missed that. It seems this edition's rankings are based on stats/etc. up through about mid-way through the 2007 season.

The author notes that he doesn't have an overall single statistic approach, as other authors have used. Rather, he considers all the common statistics, as well as awards, all-star appearances, and so on -- taking into account both the absolute numbers and the era-relative comparisons as well. I prefer this kind of approach to these kinds of "all-time" questions in baseball, though I also enjoy the attempt to create a single overall, cross-era-comparing equation (like TPR or WIn Shares or whatever).

The author also does his best to include players from the Negro Leagues, though with incomplete data this isn't easy to do. Because of this, and because my own knowledge of the Negro League players is not very strong, I won't comment on any of them in what follows (except to indicate "*" in each case).

Any two baseball fan's top-10 all-time player's list will vary, and even more so their top-100 list. So naturally a top-1000 list will vary a great deal indeed. While no one rank Rich Dauer (his #1000) over Babe Ruth (his #1), there is a lot of room for healthy debate in such a ranking project. What follows are my disagreements with his listing -- in some cases I have questions or just mild disagreement, but in other cases I am baffled as to how the author could rank the player there instead of much higher or lower.

When I refer to other rankings, these are:

• TSN - 1998 book "The Sporting News Selects Baseball's Greatest 100 Players"
• James - 2001 book by Bill James "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract

I'll only comment on the players where I have something significant to say: lack of comment doesn't imply I necesssarily would rank that player in that exact spot, I just don't disagree enough to say anything.

In this post, I'll start with consideration of his top-50:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Honus Wagner -- interesting to see him this high, before his contemporary Ty Cobb. He was sometimes referred to as the "Cobb of the NL", but was Cobb ever called the "Wagner of the AL"? TSN ranks Cobb 3rd and Wagner 13th (a bit low). In 2002 Cobb ranked 2nd all-time in Win Shares while Wagner came in 3rd. However in James's own top-100 list... he ranks Wagner second, ahead of both Mays and Cobb.
4. Ty Cobb
5. Walter Johnson
6. Barry Bonds -- tough to rank him, given his possibly (likely?) inflated numbers from steroids. And yet his numbers are mind-boggling.
7. Mickey Mantle -- this is the first big disagreement I have with Gentile. I don't see how Mantle could be this high -- over Ted Williams even?. TSN ranked him 17th, which might be a bit low but seems closer to the mark than 7th. But Gentile is in good company, as James ranked Mantle 6th (right after Cobb and before Williams). One can feel for Mantle's late-career injuries, but what about Williams lost years to the war?
8. Ted Williams
9. Josh Gibson*
10. Stan Musial
11. Joe DiMaggio -- Exactly where TSN had him ranked too. James listed him 13th -- and I prefer to see Speaker rated over Joe D.
12. Tris Speaker -- See above. Also, TSN ranked Speaker only 27th -- a travesty!
13. Lou Gehrig -- I'd rank Lou ahead of Joe D. as well, though James did not. TSN ranked him 6th -- surely too high.
14. Hank Aaron -- I'd rank him ahead of Joe D. as well.
15. Lefty Grove
16. Grover Cleveland Alexander -- I disagree with Alexander appearing so far ahead of Christy Mathewson. TSN agrees, as they have Mathewson as high as 7th, with Alexander at 12th. James seems to agree with Gentile though, ranking Alexander 20th and Mathewson 42nd.
17. Satchel Paige*
18. Eddie Collins -- Whenever I see him ranked this high I question it, but then after some thought, I tend to agree. TSN had him a bit lower at 24th. James flips Collins (18th) and Morgan (15th) amongst 2B. I'm conflicted though -- what about Rogers Hornsby? I still think of him as the greatest at the position (TSN ranks him 9th overall, while James has him 22nd).
19. Joe Morgan
20. Roger Clemens -- if you believe the steroid accusations, you might adjust down. He and Maddux were the best of their generation, but with Maddux you don't have the clouds overhead.
21. Rogers Hornsby -- see Collins discussion above.
22. Oscar Charleston*
23. Cy Young -- I'd probably nudge him up a bit. TSN had him 14th overall, James had him 23rd.
24. Mike Schmidt
25. Rickey Henderson -- Good to see. TSN totally messed this up by ranking him 51st. James is on target by rating him 26th.
26. Jackie Robinson -- Hard to rank him, because of his short career. Obviously, in terms of importance to the game, he is at or near the top (with Ruth and few others). TSN ranked him lower, at 44th place. James liked him at 32nd place.
27. Jimmie Foxx
28. Pete Rose -- another player who is hard to rank. Not only is their the distaste over his gambling, his attitude about his gambling, and his banishment from the game, but he also was a unique type of player and his lifetime numbers don't compare easily with other greats. TSN put him 25th, James had him 33rd, and I think somewhere around 25-35 is about right.
29. Frank Robinson
30. Eddie Mathews -- I don't like seeing Mathews ahead of Brett.
31. Pop Lloyd*
32. Mel Ott
33. Carl Yastrzemski -- seems about right, while TSN definitely does Yaz wrong by ranking him 72nd, below the likes of Pie Traynor!
34. Warren Spahn
35. Nap Lajoie
36. Yogi Berra -- the first catcher in the list (other than Josh Gibson of course). James also rated Berra top amongst catchers, and 41st overall. TSN went dramatically the other way, rating Bench 16th and Berra 40th -- surely there isn't that much distance between them.
37. Tom Seaver
38. Bob Feller
39. Roy Campanella -- I don't think he should rank ahead of Bench, and James lists him third amongst catchers as well.
40. George Sisler -- This is in line with TSN's view of Sisler (33rd), but I agree with James that he is overrated. James goes so far as to rate him 24th among 1B, and therefore not in his overall top 100 at all.
41. Christy Mathewson -- I really don't see how you can have this much space between Mathewson and Alexander, as their career numbers and achievements are quite similar. I'll admit that TSN's ranking of him as 7th ia a bit high, but I think Mathewson, Alexander, and Young should all be in the 10-20 range.
42. Turkey Stearnes*
43. George Brett -- I would have rated him higher than Mathews, and both TSN and James agree.
44. Johnny Bench -- see comments on Berra and Campy above.
45. Charlie Gehringer -- a bit high in my view. TSN has him 46th, but I like James's ranking of him at 59th.
46. Kid Nichols
47. Sandy Koufax -- a hard one to rank, due to his short career. TSN had him higher (26th), but I like him in this 40-60 range.
48. Eddie Murray -- my initial reaction was that this is too high, and that TSN's ranking at 77th is better. But upon reflection, I think somewhere in the 45-55 range is good. James rated him at 61.
49. Harry Heilmann -- Too high. This is similar to TSN's 54 ranking, but James considers him like Sisler (as having numbers aided by his era), and hence not worthy of even a top-100 spot.
50. Ernie Banks -- Gentile nearly splits the difference between TSN's ranking (38th) and James's (77th). I'd put Banks a bit closer to the lower end of this range.

I plan to look at the 51-100 ranked p