Looking back at the MLB All-Century Team

By Blaidd Drwg

I was reading this blog and there was a statement that got me thinking about something (I will post the statement below). First, a little game of who is the best player on this list:

All of the players played the OF. Since we are looking at players from different eras, I thought that the counting stats (hits, HR, RBI, etc) would skew the perceptions, so I went with the stats that I thought would best compare the players. A note about player B – his RTZ is incomplete since not all of the data to compile the stat is available, but, based on what I have read, calling him a league average defender seems to be accurate. Looking at this chart, it is pretty clear that Player A is would probably be ranked #4 among these players, but it is really not clear who would be the best of the bunch (I would probably vote for player B).

Same chart, with a slight adjustment for players A and C:

The best in this chart is pretty clear – it is Player C.

Now for the reveal:

Player A – Ken Griffey, Jr

Player B – Stan Musial

Player C – Barry Bonds

Player D – Frank Robinson

The first chart includes Griffey and Bonds stats through 1998; the second includes their whole careers. So what made me do this comparison? This little tidbit:

In 1999, when Major League Baseball and its fans chose their All-Century roster, Griffey was there, beating out the likes of Barry Bonds, Stan Musial, and Frank Robinson, to name a few. He was the face of baseball for a decade and, when he won his MVP award in 1997, it felt like he was certain to win many more.

I had forgotten that Bonds did not make the team (and he was arguably the best player in baseball at the time), but was surprised Frank Robby also failed to make it and that Musial was the last OF to make it (selected by a “blue ribbon” panel after the fan vote – he actually had fewer fan votes than Roberto Clemente), as they were also among the greatest players to play the game. I realize that like the All Star voting, the All Century team was about popularity more than actual greatness, and Griffey was the most popular player in the game in 1999, so the results should not be all that surprising. You also can’t make the “position argument” (they didn’t play the same positions) since the voting was not by position – all OFers were lumped together. In retrospect though, there were at least 3 players who appear to be more deserving.

Before anyone makes the Bonds/steroids comments – it is generally accepted that Bonds did not use anything prior to 2001, and no one can prove or disprove that either Bonds or Griffey were clean prior to 1999, so I don’t see any argument for the stats not being comparable.

The second chart is the full career numbers for all of the players. Bonds, just purely on raw numbers, is clearly the best on this list. If you want to take him out with the steroid argument, then take your pick – Musial or Robby. Either way, Griffey ranks #4.

The other thing that I noticed was just how badly Griffey’s career fell off a cliff. Here are the numbers for Griffey and Bonds from 1999 through the end of their careers:

Griffey really only had 2 great seasons after age 28 (1999 and 2000) and became as fragile as a china doll after that, but that wasn’t really a surprise. What shocked me is how truly bad defensively he became. I guess that was to be expected as his health declined, but it really does make me question why the Reds continued to play him in CF when it was pretty obvious he couldn’t handle the position anymore.

Griffey is no doubt a first ballot HOFer but for all of the sappy sentimentalism that has been showered on him the past few days, I am not sure if you can legitimately make the argument for him as one of the 10 best OF in baseball history anymore.