I stole most of the idea from when Gleeman started his top40 list years ago (still unfinished right?)  The below quote is his, and the rest is an exerpt from a book I put together 2 years ago.  Some of it is outdated, but I've updated the list and stats through 2012 (or as much as I could given that Baseball prospectus and b-ref keeps changing their WAR, WARP, VORP stats)

“The rankings only include time spent playing for the Minnesota Twins. In other words, David Ortiz doesn't get credit for turning into one of the best players in baseball after joining the Red Sox and Paul Molitor doesn't get credit for being one of the best players in baseball for the Brewers and Blue Jays. The Twins began playing on April 11, 1961, and that's when these rankings start as well.”

I used a variety of factors, as Gleeman did, including longevity and peak value (although looking at his list and comments he probably gave a little more weight to longevity than I did).  Longevity included how many years the player was a Twin as well as how many plate appearances or innings pitched that player had in those years.  For peak value, I looked at their stats, honors, and awards in their best seasons, as well as how they compared to their teammates.  Did they lead their team in OPS or home runs or ERA for starters or WPA?  If so, that got some bonus points.  I factored in postseason heroics, awards (gold gloves, silver sluggers, MVPs, Cy Youngs), statistical achievements (batting titles, home run leaders, ERA champs, etc), and honors (all star appearances), and unlike Gleeman I looked at team success as well.  If you were the #1 starter on a division winning champ, that gave you more points than the #1 starter on a cellar dweller.  I looked at some of the advanced stats like WPA, WAR (as calculated by baseball.projection.com and used at baseball-reference.com), WARP3 and VORP (as calculated by Baseball Prospectus), and Win Shares (as calculated by Bill James).  For hitters, I also looked at OPS and the old school triple crown statistics like batting average, home runs, stolen bases, and RBI (and not only where you finished within the AL in any given year, but where you appear on the top25 lists amongst all Twins in the last 50 years).  For pitchers I looked at strikeouts, innings pitched, win/loss percentage, ERA as well as ERA).  If there was a metric that was used for all 50 years of Twins history, I tried to incorporate it.   I tended to give more credit to guys who were starters instead of part time/platoon players, more credit to position players over pitchers (just slightly, but probably unfairly) and starters over relievers (and closers over middle relievers).   There’s no formula to my magic, just looking at a lot of factors and in the end going with the gut in all tie-breakers.  Up in the top10 I’m looking at All star appearances, Cy Young and MVP votes, batting average or ERA titles or top10 finishes, etc, and placement in the top25 hitting and pitching lists in Twins history as well.  In the middle 100s, it’s more about who started a few more years or had 2 good seasons rather than 1 with possibly an occasional all-star berth or top10 finish in SB or strikeouts.  Once you’re in the latter half of the 200s there are none of those on anyone’s resume, so its basically just looking at peak season in OPS+ or ERA+, WAR, Win Shares, and who started the most years, had the most at bats, or pitched the most innings.  What the player did as a coach, manager, or broadcaster is not taken into consideration for this list, so Tom Kelly or Billy Gardner weren’t able to make the top 300 since they were poor players and Frank Quilici and Billy Martin didn’t improve their status due to their managing careers.

Continue reading One man’s opinion of the top300 Twins ever →