ESPN's Hall Of 100 is so insanely wrong that there is no point in even criticising the choices in a list. I'll just touch on it.
They don't understand that hitter's eras and pitcher's eras skew statistics so ridiculously that the players in those years have to be considered first in their context. Batting .300 in the 1930's was an average accomplishment. Batting .300 in the 1960's was superb. Mel me no Otts, please. Al me no Simmons. Lefty Grove is the #47th best, really? I might pick him first.
They don't understand that leadoff hitters are significantly less valuable than number 3 or 4 hitters. Pete Rose does not only belong at #37, he doesn't belong at #87,
They don't understand that fielding is only 15% of the game. Great fielding is nice. That's all. Relatedly, they don't understand that someone has to play catcher, and that is the most valuable position in the field.