25 thoughts on “The 100 Greatest Baseball Players of All-Time”

1. 

   Bonds is a steroid cheat so is Clemens and others in that era ? Get them off the list foo

2. 

   PEDs are NOT factored in. Here’s why:

   https://www.the100greatest.com/2021/02/10/making-the-cut-baseball/#PEDs

3. 

   How is George Brett, cal ripken, and Nolan Ryan so far down on list?

4. 

   Hey Patrick!

   I appreciate the question. I guess it’s a matter of perspective but I don’t consider them low on the list. All three are in the top 70 or in the 99.65 percentile of players to ever suit up for a MLB team. However, to address why they aren’t rated higher than they are, I’ll go one at a time…

   George Brett

   Brett at #49 is pretty lofty. The next 3b I have ahead of him is Chipper Jones. Chipper has a pretty substantial advantage in OPS+ which is fueled by his superiority in getting on base and hitting for power. Chipper also gets the advantage in degree of difficulty as he played in a league that was experiencing an influx of international talent. There are a few players ranked ahead of Brett who I could make an argument for moving Brett ahead of on the strength of era (Cy Young, Tris Speaker, and Honus Wagner to name a few) but there aren’t many.

   Nolan Ryan

   Nolan was one of a kind, for better or worse. Nobody was more unhittable, but nobody walked more batters. In fact, Nolan led the league in walks eight times. In 27 years, he won zero Cy Youngs and finished second just once. There are just too many great pitchers with much better command and substantially better resumes for Ryan to rate higher on the list.

   Cal Ripken Jr.

   Cal deserves major kudos for showing up to play for 2,632 consecutive games. That’s bananas. Still, it’s important to recognize that Cal’s greatest achievement doesn’t really have anything to do with on-field performance. When we examine what he did on the field, it starts to become evident why it’s more appropriate to rate him outside of the top 50. Ripken, of course, started his career with 10 consecutive 20 home runs seasons which was unheard of for a shortstop. While he proved that shortstops could hit home runs, his career OPS+ is a pedestrian 112 which represents one of the lowest marks in the top 100. His .340 OBP also leaves a lot to be desired.

5. 

   Where is Brian Downing?

6. 

   Also, John Kruk

7. 

   Hi Laura!

   I love me some Kruk but he only had 1,100 career hits. That’s not gonna fly in the top 100 let alone the top 500.
   Downing has a stronger case but he falls well short of the top 100 as well. Consider that his score on the Gray-Ink Test (which measures the number of times a player finished in the top 10 in a significant category) is 25. The average score for a Hall of Famer is 144.

8. 

   I’m not a big baseball guy, but why aren’t Shohei Ohtani, Aaron Judge, or any other current player not on the list?

   P.S. I’m not sure why, but I still see the 1890-2011 Cy Young typo (I’m using iOS and Safari)

   1. 

      Hey Nic,

      Ohtani and Judge are unique cases. Ohtani had 878 career hits following the 2024 seasons. Judge had 1026. Those would be, by far, the lowest totals of anyone on the list. Instead of rushing them onto the list after last season, I decided to wait for more balance in peak vs. longevity. Ohtani and Judge are set for massive debuts. It’ll happen after this year if both stay healthy.

      The Cy Young typo should be fixed permanently. I had to copy and paste an old spreadsheet where the typo wasn’t fixed, which is why it came back.

9. 

   Hi Jake,
   This is a great list and I respect your brave call to put Bonds at No. 1. I think if you don’t consider PEDS, that it the right call. I also understand the position on PEDS – very tough to penalize those that got caught in an era when a lot of guys were at it. My issue in the case of Bonds is that it’s quite easy to see when the PEDs kicked in and the inflationary impact it had on his career. He was 35, in decline, then starts juicing, resulting in the best 3-4 year stretch anyone has ever had. I tend to take the approach to discount these seasons, at least by a bit, so that his decline phase looks a bit more typical. He still lands at No. 2 by my count, but I don’t think he’d have an argument for surpassing Ruth without the drugs.
   There’s a lot to unpack on your list, but I’m particularly interested in Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams. To me the numbers are pretty clear – Williams was the better hitter: better average, more home runs, better OPS+, more offensive WAR. Williams’ defense wasn’t great, but it’s hard to give Gehrig any big edge there given that he played first base, and was no better than average. Yes Gehrig was a great guy struck by a tragic illness and of course he had the games streak, but I don’t see that that’s enough to counter balance Ball Game’s clearly superior hitting. Worth remembering also that Williams lost three seasons at his absolute peak to the War, and parts of two others to Korea. He also played at least part of his career post-segregation, which Lou did not. Gehrig obviously won more, but he had some rather good teammates! Anyway, interested in your rationale.

   1. 

      Hey Stirlo, great questions!

      First, your take on Bonds is exactly what I’m hoping for with the decision to not factor PEDs. By the numbers, it’s Bonds. So Bonds is #1. However, I want each individual to make the determination on suspected PEDs users on their own. If you want to discount Bonds, then Ruth is #1. You’ll have to decide how much to discount and who else to discount, but you can adjust the list based on those determinations as you see fit. I understand that we have a pretty good idea of when it might have started, but even then, I don’t want to determine what Bonds would have done without help vs. how much the help inflated his statistics. There’s also the fact that the entire league was taking steroids. If Bonds did what he did in a league where everyone else was doing the same, then his accomplishments (leading the league in categories and MVPs) can still be taken at face value relative to the rest of the league. I don’t want to get into policing all of that.

      The Ted Williams/Lou Gehrig question is a great one, and I won’t begrudge anyone who has Williams over Gehrig. There is a lot of ammunition on each side. First, even though Williams was active when desegregation hit, the influx of black players was a slow trickle, so there wasn’t much of a difference in league demographics from the league that Gehrig played in to what Williams saw during his prime. The size of the league was the same and the general makeup of the league was the same. This is all to say that when I’m comparing Williams and Gehrig, there is no degree of difficulty factored in. It’s a straight statistical comparison. I’ll also point out that this may have been all moot had either Williams not missed three seasons in his prime due to military service, or had Gehrig not had his career tragically cut short. I do not factor in what a player might have done during missed seasons. It sucks, but I don’t know what would’ve happened, and I don’t want to get into projections. They may have gotten injured. They may have had a down year. We have an idea of what might have happened, but I don’t feel comfortable going beyond that.

      As for what put Gehrig over Williams for me:

      1). Playoff performance. You are correct that Gehrig played for better teams. However, this factor isn’t just about championships–it’s about how much of an impact Gehrig had on those championships. His playoff stat line over seven World Series is out of this world. Williams had an abysmal showing in his only World Series appearance. Obviously, Williams only had one shot at it, but the advantage for Gehrig when the games mattered the most is about as big of an advantage one player can have over another in any comparison.

      2). High-end production. Gehrig’s high-end seasons were astronomical. He drove in over 170 RBIs three times. Gehrig had seven seasons with 150+ RBIs. Williams had one. Gehrig had three seasons with at least 45 HRs. Williams had none. Gehrig had 5 seasons with 40+ HRs. Williams had one. I’m including a list of the high-end accomplishments on Gehrig’s ledger below.

      3). Gehrig’s availability. Gehrig played more than 150 games in a season 12 times. Williams did it twice. This can be shown with plate appearances, too.

      4). Gehrig’s lead leading instances came with Babe Ruth in the league. That is something that Ted Williams didn’t have to contend with when it came to leading the league in a category. The fact that Gehrig was able to lead the league in so many categories with Ruth in the league is a degree of difficulty advantage.

      Gehrig’s Remarkable List of Achievements

      It would be easy to lose sight of the Iron Horse’s significance given he played in the shadow of Babe Ruth, but the difference between the two is much smaller than the historical narrative indicates. Gehrig was eight years younger than Ruth. Ruth’s numbers were astronomical, no doubt, but it took some time for major league pitchers to adjust to hitters looking to hit home runs. By the time Gehrig reached his peak, pitchers had more tools to combat the changing game. We can only wonder what Gehrig’s numbers would’ve looked like had he arrived at the same time as Ruth and been able to feast on overmatched pitching. Although that’s fun speculation, the numbers Gehrig did put up are still almost too silly to believe. He had 13 consecutive seasons of 100 RBIs and 100 runs which is the all-time record. He had 11 seasons of at least 120 RBIs which is tied with Ruth for the all-time record. He had nine seasons of at least 140 RBIs which is the all-time record and two more than any other player. He had seven seasons of at least 150 RBIs and four seasons of at least 160 RBIs; both are the all-time records. There have only been seven seasons in history that yielded 170 RBIs and Gehrig has three of them. Unsurprisingly, that is also the all-time record. He drove in 185 RBIs in 1931 which is the second-highest single-season total of all time. Gehrig had nine seasons of at least 135 runs which are tied with Ruth for the all-time record. He had 12 consecutive seasons with at least 125 runs which is a ludicrous streak on its own but even more so considering the second-longest streak in history is four! Gehrig’s eight seasons of at least 135 runs and 135 RBIs are the most all-time. Babe Ruth is the only other player with more than two. Gehrig produced five seasons of at least 400 total bases which is the most in history and two more than any other player. He had seven seasons of at least 200 hits and 150 RBIs. Nobody else has more than three. He had four seasons of at least 200 hits and 165 RBIs. Nobody else has more than one. There have only been two seasons ever with at least 218 hits and 173 RBIs. Gehrig has both. Gehrig had seven seasons of at least 200 hits and a 1.100 OPS. Nobody else has more than four. His three seasons with at least 200 hits and an OPS+ of 200 is tied for the most ever. He had nine seasons with at least 80 extra-base hits and fewer than 80 strikeouts which is the most all-time, and he had seven seasons with at least 85 extra-base hits and fewer than 70 strikeouts which is also the most all-time. There have only been four seasons in history where a player had more home runs than strikeouts with at least 49 home runs. Gehrig has two of them. His 117 extra-base hits in 1927 are the second-highest single-season total of all-time. Gehrig is third all-time in slugging percentage, 4th in OPS+, and 5th in on-base percentage. He won two MVPs, finished runner-up twice, and had 8 top-5 finishes. Although Gehrig had one of the greatest regular-season careers in history, his production actually improved in the postseason. Among players with at least 150 postseason plate appearances, Gehrig’s .483 on-base percentage and .361 batting average are #1 in baseball history, and he’s tied for first with an otherworldly OPS of 1.214. He led the Yankees to six World Series titles in seven appearances. Of course, Gehrig’s career was tragically cut short while he was still firmly entrenched in his prime by the disease that would become synonymous with his name. Gehrig almost certainly would’ve blown past 2,000 runs, 2,000 RBIs, 3,000 hits, 600 home runs, and 600 doubles which would’ve put him in a club that would have made even the Babe envious.

10. 

    I’m struggling by with this one, I’m afraid I just don’t see it with Genrig. I’m a pretty big convert to WAR, at least on the offensive side – I think it does a nice job compiling everything positive and negative a player does in context of his surroundings. Between them, Gehrig had the best single year, the next three belonged to Williams. Williams lead the league in OPS+ 9 times to Gehrig’s 3. Williams had 4 full seasons of over 200 OPS+, Gehrig 3. I just don’t see the argument that Gehrig had better peak seasons once you factor in context. The post season argument is valid, but it’s tough with MLB. Gehrig, for all his success played 34 post season games. That’s an awful small sample side. I don’t doubt Gehrig’s next Myers would have been even more impressive if he hadn’t got sick. But he was 36 and his best years were likely behind him. Williams’ missing years were smack bang in the middle of his prime. Bill James had an interesting stance on years’ lost. He didn’t give credit for time lost to injury or a career curtailed by illness and death, but he did give credit to war time years. His argument was that you don’t have speculate about Williams in say 1943 – he WAS a great player, he just didn’t happen to be playing. I’m not sure I completely buy that argument, but I’m certainly more confident is predicting Williams would have hit 100 more homers than I am in speculating what Gehrig would have done with a few more years.
    Anyway, if to a close call I agree, but I feel pretty good that I’m on the right side of this one. One final thing that bothers me a little. Ruth and Gehrig, purportedly two of the best few players ever played 12 or more seasons together and won the WS (in an era of few teams) just 3 times. I’m not certain that’s a great return.

    1. 

       Hey Stirlo,

       I’m familiar with James’s stance on missed seasons, and I don’t favor that approach. Players have down seasons. There are no guarantees. Gehrig led the league in OPS+ the year before he started showing symptoms. It would stand to reason that he was set to have another fantastic year. However, nobody knows what would’ve happened. Same for Williams. Even the great players have down years and get injured. I don’t feel comfortable giving Williams or anybody else credit for seasons that didn’t happen.

       WAR is great, but it’s a single interpretation of performance. Even then, you’re using it selectively. Gehrig had 9 seasons with 8+ WAR. Williams had 7. Gehrig had 11 seasons with 7+ WAR. Williams had 9. They both had five seasons of 9.5+, and Gehrig had the top season by 1.3 WAR which is a significant difference. Their 162-game averages for WAR are 8.6 to 8.5 which is a virtual wash. I view WAR as a metric, not the metric, but even then, Gehrig is not outclassed in a WAR comparison.

       As for OPS+, Gehrig led the league in OPS+ only three times because he played in a league with Babe Ruth. He finished second to Ruth four times. Had Williams played with Ruth, and Gehrig not, we would see the opposite occur. William’s OPS numbers rely significantly on his insane walk totals. Walks are great, but while Williams was walking, Gehrig was driving in runs by hitting more XBHs.

       Gehrig’s 162-game averages: 141 runs 204 hits 89 XBH 149 RBIs 8.5 WAR
       Williams’s 162-game averages: 127 runs 188 hits 79 XBH 130 RBIs 8.6 WAR

       I’ll take the guy who was more productive and who was the greatest post-season performer in the history of baseball. In every sport, legacies are forged in the playoffs. Baseball is no different. Pick a different sport and do the same comparison (Player A was an all-time great in the regular season and the GOAT of the playoffs, and Player B was an all-time great in the regular season and terrible in the playoffs). That’s like Michael Jordan or Shaq vs. James Harden. Williams had one chance and didn’t capitalize. Gehrig had several chances, and became arguably the greatest postseason player of all-time. Gehrig’s postseason performance should be a significant factor. The playoffs are the whole reason for playing. It’s worth noting that Gehrig led the Yankees to a threepeat right after Ruth left NY.

       I am happy with Gehrig where I have him. The argument that I can make for Gehrig is stronger than the one I can make for Williams. However, I won’t begrudge anyone who has Williams ahead.

11. 

    Why not Shohei?

    1. 

       Hey Anon,

       Shohei and Judge could’ve entered after last season, but Judge barely had 1,000 career hits and Shohei was below 900. I decided to wait for one more season of data before placing them. Both are due for massive debuts. I’m looking forward to the final reveal after the season, especially if they maintain even a semblance of their current pace.

12. 

    Barry Bonds is only good because he was on steroids

    1. 

       Hey George,

       I don’t factor in PEDs. That’s up to the reader to determine. However, Bonds led position players in WAR 7 times before he ever took steroids. That’s the most since 1948. We’ll never be able to definitively say the exact impact of PEDs, but Bonds was an all-time great before they entered the equation.

13. 

    Good list but here are some things I don’t agree with
    Barry Bonds is not the best player of all time
    Ken Griffey Jr should be higher than #33
    Why are stars like Nolan Ryan, Cal Ripken Jr, Roberto Clemente, Cy Young, and Honus Wagner so low
    Why is Joey Votto Higher than Ichiro

    I do love that you put Mike Shmidt at #11 though

    1. 

       Thanks for the comments, George! I’ll do my best to hit on your questions…

       I don’t make adjustments for PED use. Bonds is definitely the greatest baseball player of all-time without discounting for PED use.

       Griffey– I love Griffey, but injuries really derailed his chance to rate higher.

       Cy Young and Honus Wagner–the competition level of their era was way too low to rate them higher.

       Nolan Ryan–Zero Cy Young Awards limits his ceiling.

       Cal Ripken–112 OPS+ would be very low for someone inside the top 50.

       Clemente–led the league in WAR for position players just once, and was not a huge run producer. Just three seasons with 100+ runs, and 2 with 100+ RBIs.

       Votto over Ichiro– Votto career OBP is .409. Ichiro’s is .355. Votto’s career slugging % is .511. Ichiro’s is .402.

14. 

    Great job on the list but I have a big problem with you putting Stan Musial lower than A-Rod, Schmidt, Pujols and Trout. Musial is easily in the top 10 of all time!!! I understand your rationale for giving modern players more credit due to the increased size of the talent pool but Stan Musial was exceptional throughout his career and his rankings on baseball reference bear that out. At age 36 he was 2nd in MVP voting, behind only Hank Aaron and ahead of Willie Mays. He even had an impressive age 41 season which he received MVP votes for. Pujols numbers are bolstered due to DH status, Schmidt was great defensively but his offensive numbers pale in comparison to Musial’s. Though A-Rod was a great player, his admitted use of PED’s should be included in determining ranking. They obviously helped him some. Trout is very talented but his career is probably close to over and he most likely won’t get to even 100 WAR, (Compared to Musial’s 128.6). Though Musial played before expansion, he did play d after desegregation and held his own alongside Aaron, Mays, Clemente and Robinson. Also, Having Bond’s as the greatest of all time is just plain wrong. I do think he deserves to be in the hall, but you shouldn’t completely dismiss his use of PED’s. It obviously contributed to his remarkable 2001-2004 seasons stretch in which he achieved his 3 highest WAR totals. We will never know how much it contributed to his success but it obviously did.

    1. 

       Hey Howard! I appreciate the comments, and the love for Musial. He was a great player, for sure.

       Before I start, I’ll just reiterate that PED use is not a consideration for this list. If you want to ding players on that, go for it. Bonds, A-Rod etc. were not only competing against PED users for MVP awards, but they were facing pitchers who were also on PEDs. I don’t doubt there was inflation in statistics, but inflation across the board wouldn’t have much of an impact on leading the league in categories and winning awards. Bonds led the league and won more MVP awards than anyone and he did it in a large, fully integrated league.

       Musial was great, but, as you mentioned, he played in a time where it was much, much easier to succeed. The fact that Mike Trout led the league in WAR and OPS+ more times than Musial and Mike Schmidt led the league in WAR and OPS+ as many times as Musial and both did it in a league that was double the size and fully integrated is game, set, match for those two over Musial, IMO. It’s also worth noting that Musial dominated one of the weakest stretches in MLB history when several dozen Hall of Famers were serving in WWII. Clearly, he had great non-war time seasons, but two of the times he led the league in WAR and OPS+ came with several of the game’s best players in the war.

       RE: WAR. I like WAR as a metric, not the metric, and I like it less when comparing players from very different eras. There’s a reason 16 of the top 20 players on the all-time WAR list began their careers by 1954 and it’s not because baseball players were better back then. Even using WAR to compare contemporary players needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Geraldo Perdomo has nearly an identical offensive WAR to Shohei Ohtani in 2025. Ohtani is +100 in total bases, +35 in OPS+, +33 in home runs, +44 in runs, and +.158 in slugging % (!!!). This is all to say that we need to be careful with weighing Musial’s career WAR total too heavily when trying to find the right place for him.

15. 

    How is barry bonds the goat when he had a career playoff batting average of .240 and had no rings? to me the goat has to be albert pujols, as crazy as that sounds he is the best batter in the playoffs of all time and has 2 rings. also greatest longevity.

    1. 

       Hey Roman! Pujols was a great player, no doubt. He led the league in WAR six times, won three MVPs, and is one of only three players in history with 1,400+ extra base hits. He also finished 2nd in the MVP voting four times for a really impressive 7 top-2 finishes. The reason why I can’t make a strong argument for Pujols in the top 5-10 is despite his longevity he was a borderline terrible baseball player over the last 10 years of his career. He was a poor defender, wasn’t a threat on the base paths in any way (all-time leader in grounding into double plays), and his milestones (3000 hits, 700 home runs, 2000 RBIs etc.) were only reached because he and his bloated contract hung around for seven years too long. He had a negative WAR over the last seven years of his contract which means he was worse than a minor leaguer. Again, really strong resume, but I think he maxes out just outside of the top 10.

       It’s true that Bonds didn’t get a ring. However, his regular season resume is so far ahead of every other player in baseball history that not having a ring doesn’t move him off the throne. He led the league in WAR 11 times. Nobody born in the last 95 years has done it more than 6 times. In fact, Bonds’s 162.8 WAR is more than Pujols and Bryce Harper combined. Bonds was an elite baserunner, an elite defensive outfielder, and his 7 MVPs are more than any two players combined (until Shohei wins his 4th in a couple weeks and then it’ll be as many as any two players combined). It’s also worth noting that focusing on his .245 postseason batting average is missing the forest for the trees. He had the single greatest postseason run in the history of baseball when he led the Giants to game seven of the 2002 World Series. He hit 8 home runs and had 27 walks in just 17 games!

16. 

    hey, i’ve got a question for you here! i absolutely understand having so few relievers on this list, as they usually have less impact on a game than a starter or a position player, and the exceptions of mariano and eckersley, pretty much inarguably the two greatest closers of all time who were extremely influential to the success of their teams, make a ton of sense, too.

    my question is, who do you believe are the greatest multi-inning relievers of all time? are there any even remotely close to the top 100 (maybe rollie fingers or goose gossage)? is there even really value to the multi-inning reliever, who kind of sits in no-man’s-land between a starter and a setup/closer duo or trio, and therefore is “greatest multi-inning reliever” even a discussion worth having or would it by necessity just be filled with pre-modern-closer relievers? (even eckersley, a former starter who clearly wouldn’t have lacked in stamina, averaged right around one inning per appearance once he settled into his role with the athletics.)

    1. 

       Great question on multi-inning relievers. I do think they’re a relic of the past. There are two reasons for this, IMO.

       1). Nobody wants that role. The money is in wins and saves. The multi-inning guys don’t get those. The agents won’t let their players be useD as workhorses like that, IMO.

       2). Teams carry so many pitchers that burning a pitcher every inning is sustainable. Those guys get to empty the gas tank in a way a multi-inning guy can’t. The one inning model works, too. Strikeouts and MPH are way up across the board.

       So, I absolutely agree with you that players in this category are from a very specific time and place in MLB history. Gossage, Fingers and Bruce Sutter are definitely in the conversation for multi-inning, middle relief GOAT, and darkhorses in that conversation are Mike Marshall and Hoyt Wilhelm. Most, if not all of them, would land in the top 200, in all likelihood.

       What would that look like now? Honestly, I think Troy Melton’s role with the Tigers in the latter half of the season did a good job of recreating it. However, that role only existed because of the transitional nature of Melton’s season. The Tigers had him on a pitch count because he’d never thrown more than 101 innings. Melton, for his part, was just happy to be a part of the show. Very quickly–starting next year–the Tigers will maximize Melton’s value by moving him into the rotation and that’ll be it for his role as an ace long-reliever. Melton’s multi-inning role for Detroit was a vital one. The Tigers, I’m sure, would love to have a guy in that role as effective as Melton. I just don’t think it’ll ever be a permanent spot for someone for the reasons I mentioned above.