Just subjectivly and without crunching any numbers, I think you underrate Langston a bit. Didn't he set a salary record when he signed with the Angels? I know he was a better player than Reynolds, but I think you know that, too. Just a matter of definition there. But as the list is putatively the top "athletes", I didn't expect his broadcasting to count. I suppose one could exclude that but say that being a great athlete transcends actual impact on the field (that it includes ambassadorship, being a good representative, etc.) and tha Reynolds is thus deserving, even without factoring in his broadcasting.
"Most famous" would be another approach. But then readers don't necessarily need a list to tell them who is most famous. The point of this list is largely to remind us of some players we haven't thought about recently, I assume, and also, of course, to weigh in on the topic of relative greatness.
It is interesting how strong the list is. Once we're talking about a top 100 in a market, I'd think we'd be talking about some obscure guys. But we're not. It's going across the sports that makes the list so strong.
And going across sports must also tax your knowledge. I don't envy you. Quite a lot of homework involved with this. We all learn that our local talk show host has a weak sport or two. Ditto our ESPN SportsCenter anchor, even if he or she is just reading off a prompter.
David, thanks for the thoughtful comment! We hope you stick around for the remainder of the list.
To be clear, broadcasting does not count. The tidbit about his broadcasting career is just that, but it played no role in our subjective ranking of where players should be ranked.
Regarding the merits of Reynolds over Langston, the key factor is how long Reynolds was in Seattle, and if, over that stretch, his body of work is better than Langston's short but impressive time in Seattle. That's the argument and one that could be made for Langston. Maybe you're right and we missed here . . . Langston's 19.2 WAR beats Reynolds' 15.0 WAR.
Here's my argument for Reynolds: he spent his entire career here in Seattle (10 of 12 seasons), he was recognized as the best player defensively at his position in the AL for three seasons, and one of the best at his position in the league on two separate occasions (two All-Stars).
Just subjectivly and without crunching any numbers, I think you underrate Langston a bit. Didn't he set a salary record when he signed with the Angels? I know he was a better player than Reynolds, but I think you know that, too. Just a matter of definition there. But as the list is putatively the top "athletes", I didn't expect his broadcasting to count. I suppose one could exclude that but say that being a great athlete transcends actual impact on the field (that it includes ambassadorship, being a good representative, etc.) and tha Reynolds is thus deserving, even without factoring in his broadcasting.
"Most famous" would be another approach. But then readers don't necessarily need a list to tell them who is most famous. The point of this list is largely to remind us of some players we haven't thought about recently, I assume, and also, of course, to weigh in on the topic of relative greatness.
It is interesting how strong the list is. Once we're talking about a top 100 in a market, I'd think we'd be talking about some obscure guys. But we're not. It's going across the sports that makes the list so strong.
And going across sports must also tax your knowledge. I don't envy you. Quite a lot of homework involved with this. We all learn that our local talk show host has a weak sport or two. Ditto our ESPN SportsCenter anchor, even if he or she is just reading off a prompter.
David, thanks for the thoughtful comment! We hope you stick around for the remainder of the list.
To be clear, broadcasting does not count. The tidbit about his broadcasting career is just that, but it played no role in our subjective ranking of where players should be ranked.
Regarding the merits of Reynolds over Langston, the key factor is how long Reynolds was in Seattle, and if, over that stretch, his body of work is better than Langston's short but impressive time in Seattle. That's the argument and one that could be made for Langston. Maybe you're right and we missed here . . . Langston's 19.2 WAR beats Reynolds' 15.0 WAR.
Here's my argument for Reynolds: he spent his entire career here in Seattle (10 of 12 seasons), he was recognized as the best player defensively at his position in the AL for three seasons, and one of the best at his position in the league on two separate occasions (two All-Stars).