Justin Steele Questions MLB Top 100 List After Nico Hoerner’s Exclusion

As the MLB offseason winds down, most major free-agent signings have been completed and teams are now finalizing arbitration agreements ahead of Spring Training. Analysts and fans are turning their attention to player rankings, including MLB Network’s recently released Top 100 list for the 2026 season.

The list immediately drew reactions from players, including Cubs starter Justin Steele, who noticed his teammate Nico Hoerner was left off the ranking. Rather than expressing disappointment about his own exclusion, Steele focused on Hoerner, arguing the second baseman’s performance in 2025 merited recognition.

Steele took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice his concerns, writing that the omission “suggests the list wasn’t taken seriously” and that the numbers clearly support Hoerner’s inclusion. His comments highlight the broader debate about how traditional metrics and advanced stats factor into ranking systems.

The controversy underscores a familiar tension in baseball rankings: players can contribute in many ways beyond the traditional power statistics that often dominate such lists. Hoerner’s combination of defensive excellence, base-stealing, and on-base skills exemplifies this multifaceted value.

1. Hoerner’s 2025 Season

Nico Hoerner had a standout 2025 campaign despite modest power numbers. While he hit only seven home runs, he maintained an OPS of .739, reflecting strong on-base skills and situational hitting. Defensively, Hoerner excelled at second base, positioning himself as one of the league’s best middle infielders. His range, instincts, and ability to turn double plays consistently contributed to the Cubs’ infield stability and run-prevention efforts. On the base paths, Hoerner swiped 29 bases, showcasing his speed and base-running intelligence. His ability to create scoring opportunities through steals and taking extra bases added a valuable dynamic to the Cubs’ offense. Advanced metrics further highlight his impact. Hoerner posted an fWAR of 4.8 in 2025, reflecting his all-around contributions in both offense and defense. Over the past five seasons, he has accumulated 19.1 fWAR, emphasizing his consistency and long-term value.

2. Justin Steele’s Reaction

Justin Steele’s response to the Top 100 list was measured but pointed. Rather than defending himself, he championed his teammate’s accomplishments, signaling respect and recognition within the Cubs clubhouse. Steele’s criticism reflects a broader sentiment among players and analysts that some ranking systems may overemphasize power stats while undervaluing defensive prowess and base-running. Hoerner’s exclusion, in Steele’s view, undermines the credibility of the list. By publicly defending Hoerner, Steele also brings attention to how rankings can influence player perception and market value. For players whose contributions are less flashy but equally important, visibility in such lists can affect contract negotiations and public recognition. Steele’s comments were concise but pointed: “The numbers speak for themselves,” he wrote, highlighting his reliance on empirical performance metrics rather than subjective reputation.

3. The Subjectivity of Rankings

Baseball rankings inherently involve subjectivity, balancing statistics, intangibles, and perceived value. Lists like MLB Network’s Top 100 reflect editorial perspectives, which may not always align with player or team evaluations. Players like Hoerner demonstrate the difficulty in ranking multi-dimensional contributors. While power hitters and sluggers often dominate headlines, defensive specialists and contact hitters can provide comparable value through efficiency, baserunning, and run prevention. Despite being omitted, Hoerner’s fWAR, defensive metrics, and base-stealing numbers firmly establish him as a top-tier player. Analysts and teams alike often recognize such contributions even if public rankings overlook them. Ultimately, debates over lists like these serve as a reminder that player value extends beyond traditional statistics and that rankings, while popular, are not the definitive measure of performance.