The 100 Greatest in 100 Days: #26 Tom Seaver

Dazzling the list at #26 is “The Franchise” Tom Seaver. Seaver famously led the Miracle Mets—a team that had not finished better than 9th in the National League in its seven seasons of existence—to the 1969 World Series Championship. His capstone performance was a 10-inning complete-game victory over the Orioles in Game 4, giving the Mets a commanding 3-1 lead in the series. Seaver’s ’69 regular season was largely responsible for the Mets making the playoffs in the first place as he went 25-7, leading the league in wins while also winning the NL Cy Young and finishing runner up in the MVP race. While 1969 was a stellar year for him, Terrific Tom’s career was just getting started on the superlatives. He would follow up his first Cy Young with two more in 1973 and 1975 on his way to eight top-5 finishes. Only Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and Randy Johnson have more. Seaver is 6th all-time in strikeouts and 7th all-time in shutouts and WAR. He’s the only pitcher in history with at least 310 wins and fewer than 206 losses, 3,500 strikeouts, and 200 complete games. He’s the only pitcher in history with 3,500 strikeouts, fewer than 4,000 hits allowed, and an ERA under 3.00. He’s the only pitcher in history with more than 60 shutouts, 230 complete games, and 3,600 strikeouts.  He’s the only pitcher since 1915 with 300 career wins and an ERA under 3.00. His nine consecutive 200-strikeout seasons are the most in history, and he joins Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux as only three pitchers since 1914 with at least a 127 career ERA+ over 4,200 innings.

Leave a Reply

Hi (hopefully) awesome reader! I welcome your comments. However, please be aware that I make all of my arguments using facts, statistics, and logic. Unfortunately, the average comment on a top-100 list goes something like this:

"UR StooPid. (Insert player) is trash. I've watched (pick a sport) for (pick a number of years) and (pick a player) is better than everyone. UR DUMB. HAHA6969."

–Some Jabroni

As cognitively stimulating as this species of comment is, it ends up being a missed opportunity to share a nuanced perspective. I reply to all comments that show even the most basic levels of thought and humility. The people who make the comments like the example above are under the assumption that the three seconds of thought that popped into their brains after reading the list is more than the 1000s of hours that I put into creating and maintaining the lists. I would be happy to defend any placement, or make an adjustment if one is warranted. If you are a jabroni, like the one above, then your comment will die in the lonely void of the unpublished comments section.

For everyone else, I look forward to your comments!

P.S. The theme of this site and the top-100 lists is that athletes from previous generations have historically been grossly overrated by sports publications in a way that is statistically improbable. Click on the "About" dropdown menu to see just how badly the average top-100 list disproportionately favors athletes from older generations when leagues were smaller, race quotas existed, and globalization wasn't a thing. Also, please consider reading "The History" section of the sport you are commenting on.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *