Look: None of this means to diminish the otherworldly talent of young Nationals outfielder Bryce Harper, who enjoyed a historic offensive season at age 21 in 2015 and certainly ranks among contemporary baseball’s best and most charismatic players. But even Harper — a fan and student of the game — probably thinks this is absurd: In its list of the All-Time Top 100 MLB players, ESPN put Harper at No. 85.
According to the introductory post, “an ESPN expert panel voted on thousands of head-to-head matchups of 162 players, based on both peak performance and career value” to create the list. Based on the inclusion of Negro League legend Cool Papa Bell at at No. 77, we can assume the Top 100 ranking refers to the Top 100 ballplayers ever and not simply the Top 100 MLB players ever. And because Hall of Fame pitcher Pete Alexander slots in at No. 97, it seems the list is based on performance relative to the player’s era (as is typical of such comparisons) rather than sheer ability — if it were the latter, the entirety of the Top 100 would be active and recent players, since baseball is currently played at a much higher level than it ever was before.
So it honestly seems baffling that Harper should even be included in the original group of 162 players considered for the list. Yes, he had an incredible season last year and yes, the ranking incorporates “peak performance.” But for as awesome as his 2015 campaign was, it ranks as only the 75th best season in MLB history by OPS, 57th by the park- and league-adjusted stat OPS+, and 56th by WAR among position players. And, notably, it was one year. If one season is enough to constitute “peak performance,” the list should include guys like Al Rosen and Norm Cash, fine players who both enjoyed one exceptionally awesome year.
(PHOTO: Hunter Martin/Getty Images)
If it doesn’t, then it’s more or less impossible to come up with a method by which Harper can be considered the 85th best player in baseball history. He has had one excellent season and a few pretty good ones. By WAR, he doesn’t even land in the Top 100 of active players.
ESPN writer Eddie Matz puts it well:
Just because Harper put up one monster year doesn’t mean we should automatically grant him the keys to the kingdom. Slow your roll. Let him do it a few more times before we exalt him to “top 100 in the history of a sport that has been in existence for nearly two centuries” status.
After all, he’s still only 23 years old — well within the parameters of what’s known in the poultry biz as a spring chicken. It’s way too early to start counting him.
Part of the fun of sports, obviously, is arguing over sports. But arguing whether Bryce Harper should be called the 85th best baseball player ever seems so silly it’s hardly worth engaging. (Note: Whoops!)
Mike Trout? Different story: Trout’s first several seasons have been about as good as the peak years of many of the best players of all time, so one could easily make the case for Trout on the list even if he hasn’t yet cracked the Top 100 in any major counting stat. And plenty of other players with resumes longer than Trout’s certainly deserve recognition among the Top 100.
But Harper, for all his youth and talent and potential, just isn’t there yet, or anywhere close. His inclusion is so ridiculous that it trivializes the rest of the list.
(Thanks to Big League Stew for calling our attention to this story.)
