As I wrote a few weeks ago, this offseason looks like it
might be one
of the best drought-busters in recent memory. That got me thinking, though,
specifically about an article
I wrote last year (and the accompanying
Sporcle quiz). Who are the best active players without a World Series win? Does
the quantity of new teams in the mix for the World Series mean that a similar
number of titleless players will be appearing in the Fall Classic this year?
I’ll probably make another quiz later this year, once the
World Series itself is over and we know who all we can cross off the list. For
now, though, let’s just look at these unfortunate souls and see who has the
best chance of having their misery alleviated.
First, I used a pretty straight-forward methodology. I just
went down Baseball-Reference’s
list of most Wins Above Replacement among active players and manually took
out anyone who had played on a champion. Right now, 64 of the top 100 players
are without a title to their name. (WAR totals as of 9/24).
Player
|
WAR
|
Rank in top 100
|
|||
77.6
|
3
|
||||
67.5
|
6
|
||||
59.9
|
8
|
||||
58.8
|
10
|
||||
58.1
|
11
|
||||
51.4
|
14
|
||||
50.8
|
16
|
||||
50.2
|
17
|
||||
49.6
|
18
|
||||
47.1
|
21
|
||||
46.3
|
22
|
||||
45.4
|
24
|
||||
44.2
|
25
|
||||
43.9
|
27
|
||||
42.0
|
29
|
||||
41.1
|
31
|
||||
40.7
|
32
|
||||
39.6
|
33
|
||||
39.5
|
33
|
||||
39.4
|
35
|
||||
37.8
|
38
|
||||
37.7
|
39
|
||||
37.4
|
40
|
||||
36.7
|
41
|
||||
36.4
|
42
|
||||
36.4
|
42
|
||||
36.3
|
44
|
||||
36.2
|
45
|
||||
36.1
|
46
|
||||
35.6
|
49
|
||||
34.4
|
50
|
||||
34.2
|
51
|
||||
33.3
|
52
|
||||
33.2
|
53
|
||||
33.2
|
53
|
||||
Andrew
McCutchen
|
33.1
|
55
|
|||
30.2
|
60
|
||||
30.1
|
61
|
||||
30.1
|
61
|
||||
28.7
|
65
|
||||
28.4
|
66
|
||||
28.3
|
68
|
||||
28.2
|
70
|
||||
27.8
|
71
|
||||
27.8
|
71
|
||||
27.4
|
73
|
||||
27.2
|
74
|
||||
27.2
|
74
|
||||
J.J. Hardy
|
27.0
|
76
|
|||
26.7
|
78
|
||||
26.6
|
79
|
||||
25.5
|
83
|
||||
25.4
|
84
|
||||
25.4
|
84
|
||||
25.0
|
86
|
||||
24.8
|
87
|
||||
24.6
|
88
|
||||
24.3
|
90
|
||||
23.9
|
91
|
||||
23.9
|
91
|
||||
23.8
|
93
|
||||
23.7
|
94
|
||||
23.5
|
95
|
||||
23.4
|
96
|
||||
23.0
|
100
|
||||
Some of these players are in the minors this season, so
while they are “active”, they only loosely fit our criteria. Johan Santana was
in the minors rehabbing until he got hurt again; Miguel Tejada just plain hasn’t
seen the majors this year either. A couple others played part of the year and
have since been cut from their teams. Also, Alfonso Soriano is a debatable
case. He played on the 1999 and 2000 Yankees, but was a short-term call-up both
years. Players are pretty liberal about giving out rings to players, though (even
players traded away mid-season usually get honored), so there’s a chance he
actually has World Series rings anyway, but I included him just in case.
But outside of those weird cases, this is your list of the
Baseball gods’ damned. Those doomed to be above-average-to-great without
reaching that eternal reward of the World Series. But how many of them might
see their suffering ended this year? Since we have our field of playoff teams
more or less set, we might as well look at which unlucky stars each one brings
to the table. Maybe it’ll help those of you without a horse in the race decide
who to back the rest of the way, if nothing else.
Baltimore Orioles:
J.J. Hardy (76th overall among active players), Nick Markakis (87th),
Adam Jones (95th)
This is a nice core to start off our list. While all three
are lower on the list, all are younger and playing key roles this year.
Markakis is having a small resurgence in the leadoff slot, while Hardy and
Jones have been solid up the middle. Also, it’s worth pointing out that, while
these players have the most WAR of active players right now, that only makes it biased to older players. I would bet
that Manny Machado (at the very least, form this team) winds up with more
career WAR than a lot of the players on this list, and winning now would remove
him from future versions of this list (even if he is on the DL to finish 2014).
Detroit Tigers: Torii
Hunter (17th), Justin Verlander (31st), Ian Kinsler (33rd),
Victor Martinez (51st), Joe Nathan (79th), Max Scherzer
(91st)
If you want a World Series match-up that will end as many
winless streaks as possible, this is your AL choice. Scherzer is leading the
pitching staff, while Kinsler and Martinez have been leading the offense (by
Baseball-Reference WAR, at least; Miguel Cabrera only just trails them, but he
won with the Marlins back in 2003). Only one other team still in contention is
even in competition with Detroit in this category (more on that later).
Kansas City Royals:
Alex Gordon (68th), James Shields (74th)
The Royals are a younger team, but they still have their ace
and MVP on the list.
Los Angeles Angels:
Jered Weaver (42nd), Mike Trout (70th), Josh Hamilton (71st),
Howie Kendrick (73rd)
The Angels don’t have the strength or depth of the Tigers,
but they still place four players here. Another thing to draw attention to here
is that Mike Trout is already the 70th best active career by WAR,
after only three full seasons. The Angels winning would just prevent him from
eventually rising to Adrian Beltre-Carlos Beltran status.
Oakland Athletics:
Oakland is one of five teams without anyone on the list. They do have Adam Dunn
now, the active leader in games played without a postseason appearance. Dunn is
actually 28th
in Offensive WAR among active players. However, his defense has been bad
enough that he only has 16.8 WAR.
Also, to save you the work, the other teams without a player
on this list are the Cubs, Astros, Red Sox, and White Sox. The A’s really stand
out in this group; Houston and the two Chicago teams are clearly rebuilding,
while the Red Sox just won last year to take a lot of their players off the
list. To be fair, though, a lot of the players on this list got their start playing for Oakland. Also, the A’s
actually do have players on the
overall top 100; they just happen to be Jon Lester and Coco Crisp, both of whom
won with Boston.
Los Angeles Dodgers:
Zack Greinke (29th), Clayton Kershaw (32nd), Carl
Crawford (35th), Adrian Gonzalez (38th), Hanley Ramirez
(42nd), Dan Haren (53rd)
The Dodgers are the Tigers’ National League answer, with six
of their own players. Those two teams combined account for twelve of the
twenty-six players listed here. Also,
the Dodgers probably have the overall strongest group here, with Clayton
Kershaw leading the way and only one of their six outside of the top half of
the list.
Pittsburgh Pirates:
Andrew McCutchen (55th), Russell Martin (61st)
Like the Royals, we have a young Pittsburgh team, with a
respectable two players of their own. Andrew McCutchen falls into the Mike
Trout category, I’d say; you root for one of the best stars today to win now
and get off the list before he rises any higher into ignominy.
San Francisco Giants:
Tim Hudson (11th)
With their last win just two years ago, the Giants don’t
have too many players here. However, they did bring in Tim Hudson over the
offseason, who rates higher than any other non-winner still in the running. And
that’s worth something, at least.
St. Louis Cardinals:
Mark Ellis (52nd), Jhonny Peralta (61st)
Again, with just three years since their last championship,
the Cardinals players are mostly set in their legacies. However, offseason
import Jhonny Peralta has probably been their best player this year, and places
61st among players today.
Washington Nationals:
Ryan Zimmerman (50th)
While their only representative in the top 100 has been
injured for a lot of the year, the Nationals probably have the best young
nucleus, and a win now would keep a lot of rising stars from ever appearing
here (including, but not limited to, Anthony Rendon, Bryce Harper, Doug Fister,
Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann, and Gio Gonzalez).
With only four days of regular season baseball left, I feel
comfortable saying that these will be our playoff teams (sorry Mariners,
although King Felix would be your only representative). If nothing
else, it’ll be nice to see at least some of baseball’s most unfortunate see a change
in their fates.
No comments:
Post a Comment