The 100 Greatest in 100 Days: #8 Ted Williams

Breaking into the list at #8 is “The Splendid Splinter” Ted Williams. Had Williams not missed three seasons serving in WWII and a litany of games throughout his career with injuries, he might have had a legitimate claim as the greatest player of all time. Williams reached 550 plate appearances just nine times over his career. For comparison, Lou Gehrig—whose career was tragically cut short at the age of 35—managed to reach 670 plate appearances 13 times. While Williams was on the diamond, however, he was arguably the most efficient player to ever play the game. He is the all-time leader in on-base percentage with an outlandish .482 mark. To put that into perspective, there have only been seven total seasons that have yielded a .482 on-base percentage since Williams retired in 1961 (Bonds x 4, Cash, Mantle, F. Thomas). His cartoonish 191 OPS+ and .633 slugging percentage trail only Babe Ruth on the all-time list, and he’s 4th all-time in walks and 8th in batting average. Williams won the AL MVP in 1946 and 1949 and was the runner-up four times. He had nine top-5 finishes and received MVP votes in 18 seasons which is tied for the second-most in history (Hank Aaron most, Stan Musial).  Williams led the league in on-base percentage a remarkable 12 times which is two more than any other player in history. He also led the league in OPS 10 times, OPS+  slugging percentage and intentional walks nine times, batting average, runs, and total bases six times, and home runs and RBIs 4 times. His six seasons of at least 140 walks are tied for the most in history (Bonds). He won the AL Triple Crown in 1942 and 1947 becoming the only player in history to win multiple. He’s the only player in history with 2,000 career walks and fewer than 800 strikeouts and he’s the only player in history with 150 RBIs, 150 runs, and 160 walks in a single season.

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 *