Peter... I really don't have a problem with individuals rating him in the top 2-3 if they are interested in mainly the offensive statistics. Schmidt combined the two, hitting and fielding, and was the best of his era (not really just as a 3rd baseman).

Can we agree that Brooks played better, both offensively and defensively, in the postseason, than Schmidt?

BROOKS. I don't care if he couldn't hit for shat, That guy saved more hits and runs to easily make up for his hitting. The best third baseman to ever play the game.

This says it all

Frank Baker's WAR for peak 7 years was about 46, just behind Chipper's 46.6. Might have hit 45 home runs a year in lively ball era... also, he hit .363 in six World Series...also stole 235 bases....and in peak seasons was always in upper half of league in 3b fielding...

Schmidt hit very well in a couple of series -- 80 WS and 83 NLCS -- but had a few disappearing acts that drove his overall postseason averages to pretty mediocre levels.

Boggs is the best 3rd baseman and in no way is overrated.

Since we are obviously only talking offence #'s and how they compared to players in the era they played. Only Barry Bonds has more consecutive years leading the league in IBB than Wade. You can throw out any #'s you want but when the other teams fear you so much that you lead the league 6 years in a row in IBB that has to mean something.

Since 1955 when this became a recorded stat only Barry Bonds has led the league in IBB more times. Not just 3rd basemen but the league.
Chipper Jones never led the league in IBB.
George Brett led the league in IBB twice.
Mike Schmidt led the league in IBB twice.

Wade Boggs is the best 3B of all time because he had so many intentional walks? THAT is the stat that beats all others??

Just sticking up for my all-time favorite player. Right or wrong to me he is the best.

That stat might not beat all others but it means the other teams feared him the most IMO.

Boggs never finished higher than 4th in MVP voting. He hit .330 one year and didn't make the top 20. Hit .363 one year with his best power numbers by far (24-89) and finished 9th. LOL. Vastly overrated, selfish player who cared only about his stats.

It's Mike Schmidt. Anybody know how he's doing?

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/s...midt-ill-.html

Boggs was a stud. MVP voter ranking is not a tell all (see also- all star ballot and HOF voting)... it can also mean that people got used to and had taken for granted the fact he hit .350 every year. He was great at what he did, which was spray the ball and hit gap to gap. I'd take him on my team in a second.

Feel like this thread is pretty biased by "good ole days syndrome"

We can argue all day about the best overall 3B, but those who will not admit that Chipper is the best hitting 3B ever have simply let their emotions cloud their judgement.

Chipper had a .401 Career OBP and .529 Career SLG. Both better than Schmidt and Brett. His OPS is 22 and 43 points higher than Schmidt and Brett respectively.

Sure Schmidt hit more HR than Chipper, but Chipper still managed to have more RBI (aren't RBI the intrinsic value of a HR?).

Also, Despite Schmidt's HR lead, both Brett and Chipper have more career XBH than Schmidt.

For their Careers Chipper and Brett both walked more than they struck out, Schmidt did not.

This isn't apples to apples, but Chipper also hit .300 from both sides of the plate.

Schmidt and I are fellow Ohio University alums :D

Bob Brenly, too. He may not be in the converstation, but what other 3B has ever had a day like this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ino98pZbtRA

:eek: :D

Chipper had more RBI
 

because he played longer than schmidt and had the advantage of a number of years as an outfielder. When the phillies moved schmidt to first he hung it up. Plus schmidt averaged more RBI per 162 games than Chipper did anyways.

Baseball reference has no sentiment, just objective era-neutral data. Schmidt 1st, Chipper 5th. Nuf ced.

Brooks Robinson won 16 straight Gold Gloves at 3B. He literally won games with his glove, like others won games with their bat.

Ahhh finally someone who actually looked at the numbers!

Yeah I looked at the numbers too.

Schmidt


Black Ink Batting - 74 (11), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 224 (31), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 250 (23), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 56 (57), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Third Base (1st), 106.5 career WAR/58.6 7yr-peak WAR/82.5 JAWS


Jones

Black Ink Batting - 4 (426), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 107 (202), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 180 (57), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 70 (16), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Third Base (5th), 85.2 career WAR/46.6 7yr-peak WAR/65.9 JAWS

did you deduct the appropriate numbers for Larry being a %$#*&@ Atlanta Brave??? :cool:

I'm still trying to figure out the kudos that were given to Pie Traynor and Jimmy Collins:confused:

Jimmy Collins

Black Ink Batting - 6 (350), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 128 (140), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 42 (455), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 26 (442), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Third Base (21st), 53.3 career WAR/38.5 7yr-peak WAR/45.9 JAWS


Traynor

Black Ink Batting - 2 (610), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 134 (127), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 96 (176), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 43 (131), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Third Base (58th), 36.1 career WAR/25.6 7yr-peak WAR/30.9 JAWS

Pertaining Chipper...
 

I grew up in Atlanta and I am a die hard Braves fan. Having said that, they have broken my heart over the years way too many times, way too many....The Braves should have won at least 3 World Series, and I think the discussion of C. Jones as the best ever at that position would be a lot stronger if that had been the case...JMO

It is truly amazing that everyone seems to have changed their mind in this thread based on the arguments of others.

Wait a minute, come to think of it, I don't think anyone has changed their mind based on the arguments of others.

Remember that the gerbil in the wheel always ends up in the place where he started. Carry on.

I'll take the (probably) second-best defensive 3B who is definitely the best offensive 3B over the guy who was definitely the best defensive 3B but only the 15th or 20th best offensive 3B.

Brooks Robinson - 268 HRs, 104 OPS+
Mike Schmidt - 548 HRs, 147 OPS+

All the credit in the world to Brooks defensively but Schmidt was better all-around - and it's really not even close.

As others have stated, Brooks vs. Schmidt is pretty silly. Brooks was a fine ballplayer, but no where near the player Schmidt was. The difference in offense is staggering, and can't really be debated. Defense is much tougher to evaluate. However, Schmidt was a very good defensive 3B in his own right, winning ten gold gloves. Was Brooks better defensively? Sure, but by how much? Surely not enough to make up for the difference in hitting. Brooks finished with .267 ba, .322 on base, .727 OPS, 104 OPS+. He was basically an average MLB hitter during the era he played.

Schmidt vs. Brett is more interesting. Most people have Schmidt #1, and I think it is hard to argue. Brett has the edge in small ball (ave/obp/speed combined), but Schmidt was superior in power and defense.

2B to me is a little more open to debate. Hornsby best hitter for sure, but his defense leaves a little to be desired, and brings him down much closer to the ranks of Collins/Lajoie/Morgan in my opinion.

I liked Boggs a lot, but I have to respond to this (IMO) gross misunderstanding of what an IBB means. It has almost nothing to do with how much a hitter is feared.

It has everything to do with how much a pitcher/team would rather face the guy hitting BEHIND the guy who gets the IBB. The assessment is less about the guy walking than it is about the guy after him. Even if you are only a good hitter, you'll get walked if the guy behind you is crap.

Not only that, but it is a question of whether the opposing team would rather face the guy behind you - even with you running on first. So it actually factors in how good/bad a runner the guy who walks is...is he a likely double play candidate? And is the guy behind him a ground ball hitter?

I'm amazed how many people misunderstand the significance of an IBB.

Mickey Mantle had fewer career IBBs than Joe Torre...true fact...


Cheers,
Blair

For example, Johnny Mize, who was a pretty good hitter in his own right, played with Martin Dihigo in Cuba. According to Mize. they were walking Dihigo to get to him.

The IBB certainly takes into account the person you are throwing the wide ones to, but if the hitter behind is better, it isn't going to happen.

Yeah, as feared as Maris was in 1961, I don't think anyone intentionally walked him the whole year. I wonder why not?

That was the first thing that came into my mind

When I think of 3rd base I think of Brooks Robinson. The 1970 WS sealed it for me.

Exactly. With all due respect, some of the names being suggested in this thread as being better than Schmidt are laughable. Baseball-reference has no hometown bias, and says that the case for best third baseman of all-time really isn't close. I don't think I have ever seen any disucussion of this topic where there seems to be so much "It's anybody but Schmidt" posturing.

Specious argument.

I hate to break it to you, there, "Chipper Hank" (you wouldn't be at all biased in favor of Jones being voted the best third baseman of all-time, now would you?), but I have no horse in this race. The only player to appear in this friendly debate for whom I have any affinity is Eddie Mathews, who of course played for the Milwaukee Braves. While he was a Hall of Famer, and a member of the 500 home run club, it is clear to me as a baseball historian that he is not one of the top two or three best to ever play third base. Therefore, he is excluded from further consideration, and my analysis in this discussion continues with me relying on empirical data as the sole basis for my conclusions. Emotion does not enter into the equation for me. Not at all.

The simple answer is yes, Jones drove in 28 more runs than Schmidt, in 95 more games. But the simple answer is seldom sufficient, and in this case, it is downright misleading.

You have to, again, examine both players in the context of the eras in which they participated in Major League baseball.

Mike Schmidt led the National League in RBI four times. He was second in RBI one other time, and third in RBI four other times. In the 14 full seasons Schmidt played in the Majors, he led, finished second or third in nine of those fourteen seasons.

Chipper Jones? Not only did he never lead the National League in RBI, he only finished in the top 10 in the National League in RBI once in his career. In 2003, he drove in 106 runs, ninth best in the NL.

Want indisputable proof of who was really the bigger run producer? Again, when it comes to comparing players across different eras, the best way to gauge their effectiveness is against their own peers. The men that were on the field, doing the same job, facing the same pitchers day in, day out.

Mike Schmidt became a full-time player in 1974, playing 162 games, and driving in 116 runs. In 1987, he appeared in 147 games, driving in 113 runs. This is a fourteen year period.

During this period, nobody in baseball, in either the American or National League, drove in more runs than Mike Schmidt, who tallied 1,450 RBI. He was the best of the best. In fact, he drove in nearly 100 more runs than the player nearest to him, Jim Rice, who finished with 1,351 RBI. In total, 19 players drove in 1,000 or more runs during this 14 year peak period:

http://imageshack.com/a/img585/5262/3z15.png

Now, let's look at the era during which Chipper Jones played. The first season Chipper Jones played more than 140 games, 1995, he drove in 86 runs. The last time Jones played in over 140 games, 2009, was his age 37 season (just like Schmidt's 1987 prime-end season).

How did Chipper Jones compare to other hitters during this fifteen year span? He finished fifth in the Major Leagues with 1,445 RBI. This is a nod to Jones' incredible consistency. However, we also notice that unlike during Schmidt's prime, when 19 players totaled over 1,000 RBI, during Chipper Jones' 15 year prime, there were 40 players with over 1,000 RBI. That's more than double.

http://imageshack.com/a/img706/974/2h18.png

So, this leads one to believe that driving in 100 runs in Mike Schmidt's time might be a bigger deal than driving 100 in Chipper Jones' time. To see if this is indeed the case, let's give each player the same 14 year sample size. I will eliminate Jones' 2009 season when he hit .264 with 71 RBI. This means Jones' sample ends the season he won the batting title.

So, how many 100 RBI seasons were there in the Major Leagues between 1974 and 1987, the prime years of Mike Schmidt's career? 197 in total. Here's a link to Baseball Reference.com (note: I use tiny URL to shorten the link)

100 RBI seasons in Major Leagues between 1974 and 1987

Ok, what about the number of 100 RBI seasons during the 14 year prime of Chipper Jones' career? 537!

100 RBI seasons in the Major Leagues between 1995 and 2008.

How about looking at the strength of their individual RBI tallies? In other words, within that list of 197 100 RBI seasons during Schmidt's prime, and the list of 537 100 RBI seasons during Chipper Jones' prime, where did their best individual performances appear?

Well, Chipper Jones' best tally, 111 RBI in both 1997 and 2000, was the 262nd best individual RBI performance during this 14 year period. That means during this period, players put up 261 single season RBI totals better than Jones. For Schmidt, there were only 21 individual performances better than the 121 runs he drove in during the 1980 season.

Let's look at the highest single season RBI totals during Mike Schmidt's prime years of 1974 to 1987:

http://imageshack.com/a/img819/246/zxto.png

During this fourteen year span, Major League hitters had a total of twenty-nine individual seasons of 120 or more RBI. Nine of those seasons saw players drive in 130 or more runs, and of those, only twice did players drive in 140 or more runs. If you look at only the National League, five of the top twenty-one individual highest RBI seasons belong to Schmidt. In other words, for fourteen years, nearly one quarter of the twenty-one best individual RBI performances belonged to one man, Mike Schmidt:

http://imageshack.com/a/img23/9712/jqh0.png

What about during the prime of Chipper Jones' career? We've already seen that more players drove in 1,000 runs, by a two to one ratio comparatively. What about the best individual RBI seasons in baseball during the 14 prime years of Jones' career?

While there were twenty-nine seasons of 120 or more RBI during Schmidt's prime, there were a whopping one hundred and fifty-four 120 + RBI seasons during Jones' prime. That's more than a five to one ratio! There were seventy-six seasons of 130 + RBI compared to nine such occurrences during Schmidt's prime. And 140 + RBIs? Two players between 1974 and 1987, Don Mattingly and George Foster, exceeded the 140 RBI plateau. During the prime of Chipper Jones' career? Forty-one seasons of 140 or more RBI. Additionally, there were eight seasons of 150 or more RBI, and two seasons of 160 or more RBI.

http://imageshack.com/a/img541/8447/90o1.png

What do these numbers say? During the prime of Mike Schmidt's career, driving in 100 runs in a single season was a much bigger deal than it was during Chipper Jones' prime seasons. And during these periods, Mike Schmidt was the best run producer in baseball. Chipper Jones was the fifth best run producer in baseball during his prime, but he only finished in the top 10 in his league in RBI once. One time in fourteen seasons. In other words, every single year, there were at least eight players that drove in more runs than Chipper Jones did. So while Chipper Jones might have a few more RBI (again, though, in ninety-five more games), the numbers Mike Schmidt put up were far more impressive.

Want more proof? Let's eliminate the benefit both players get from their long careers, and focus on their five year peaks. Let's compare those five best years against the rest of the Major League hitters, and see how they fare.

The period of 1996 to 2000 represents all of Chipper Jones' best individual RBI seasons. 2-111 RBI seasons, 2-110 RBI seasons, and a 107 RBI season.

Mike Schmidt's peak is a little more difficult to figure. His best individual season of 121 RBI led the NL in 1980. His second best tally, 119 RBI, occurred in 1986. Selecting the five year period from 1980 to 1984 sees Schmidt leading the NL in RBIs three times, but they clearly do not count as his five best individual seasons. This should give an edge of indeterminable size to Jones.

Between 1996 and 2000, Chipper Jones drove in 549 runs. That is the sixteenth best total in baseball during that span. Ken Griffey Jr. drove in 685 runs during this period. Note, too, that twenty-seven players drove in 500 or more runs, meaning that twenty-seven players averaged 100 + RBI a season for these five years.

http://imageshack.com/a/img42/2246/lml8.png

What about Mike Schmidt? Even though we're not selecting the five best individual RBI seasons of his career, he drove in more runs than any player in the National Leagues during the period of 1980 to 1984. In fact, he is the only player in the National League to drive in 500 runs in this span, in large part due to the strike shortened 1981 season in which only 107 games were played. Schmidt was second in the Majors in RBI during this period to Eddie Murray's 525. But Murray played 21 more games, and also played in the American League with the designated hitter.

http://imageshack.com/a/img845/4707/shff.png

There's yet one further way to look at this. Consider this: Mike Schmidt drove in 106 runs in 1984 to lead the National League. Chipper Jones had five seasons with more RBI where he did not lead the league. Let's look at his best two RBI seasons to truly put his production in context:

In 1997, Chipper Jones established his career high with 111 RBI. The Major League leader in RBIs that season was Ken Griffey Jr, who knocked in 147 runs for the Mariners. Where did Chipper Jones finish among the best individual RBI men in baseball that season? He was twenty-first in the Majors in RBI. Twenty men drove in more runs than Chipper Jones.

http://imageshack.com/a/img34/5933/jset.png

What about 2000, when Jones tied his career high with 111 RBI. Where did he rank among Major League hitters in RBIs? Thirtieth!

http://imageshack.com/a/img811/1737/t6rz.png

This is why it so important to consider more than just the black and white numbers. Mike Schmidt driving in 106 runs in 1987 to lead the NL at first glance appears to be slightly less impressive than the 111 RBIs Chipper Jones tallied in both 1997 and 2000. But this is not the case. Only three men in the entire National League drove in 100 or more runs in 1984:

http://imageshack.com/a/img62/890/onhu.png

Meanwhile, twenty-two hitters drove in 100 or more in the National League during the 2000 season:

http://imageshack.com/a/img607/3958/d218.png

In 2000, the National League ERA was 4.63. 11,884 earned runs were scored in the National League that season.

In 1984, the National League ERA was 3.59. 6,947 earned runs were scored in the National League that season.

Context tells us two numbers are not always the same, and that sometimes the smaller number is actually, well, better. Driving in 106 runs when the average National League team in 1984 is scoring 579 earned runs is far more impressive than driving in 111 runs when the average National League team in 2000 is scoring 743 runs.

This should completely debunk your theory that somehow Chipper Jones was the better run producer. He was in point of fact, not. The ledger might show that Jones and Schmidt drove in nearly the same number of runs over the course of their Hall of Fame careers, but I think sufficient evidence has now been produced to demonstrate that Schmidt did it during a time when hitting was at a premium. Pitching dominated baseball in Schmidt's day. He was the very best power hitter in baseball for the entirety of his career, and nobody was even close. Even when we include every single year of his career: the 13 game 1972 season, the 42 game 1989 season, Schmidt hit 112 more home runs than anybody in baseball.

http://imageshack.com/a/img43/9260/ao0u.png

I've already shown that he also drove in more runs than anybody in Major League Baseball during his prime. When I expand to include his entire career, the same holds true:

http://imageshack.com/a/img837/1184/5pjs.png

So, again, to summarize, during his career, nobody in baseball drove in more runs, and nobody hit more home runs.

Oh yeah, and then there's the whole 3 MVPs, 10 Gold Glove thing.

What about...Silver Sluggers? These awards are handed out annually to the best hitter at each position in baseball. So, every year, a third baseman in the National League is selected as the best hitter at their position.

Even though this award didn't exist until 1980, Mike Schmidt's ninth season in the Major Leagues, Schmidt still has more Silver Slugger Awards at third base--by far--than Chipper Jones. Schmidt won six of them. Chipper Jones? Two.

http://imageshack.com/a/img547/2343/gxzz.png

Chipper Jones was losing the Silver Slugger Award to Ken Caminiti, Vinny Castilla, Mike Lowell, and some guy named Morgan Ensberg, who I've never heard of. Schmidt won all but two of the Silver Slugger Awards handed out while he was a full-time player.

Do I even need to go into fielding?

So, in summary, if you head is not blown by now, it should be.

Mike Schmidt was a Three time National League MVP. Chipper Jones won the NL MVP once. Schmidt won more Silver Slugger Awards, six to two, even though his career was half over before the award was created. Schmidt drove in more runs, and hit more home runs, than anybody in baseball during his career (and nobody was even close). Chipper Jones was 10th in home runs during his career, and 4th in RBI. Outstanding, but not the top like Schmidt. For slugging percentage during their careers, Chipper Jones was 21st best in the Majors with a .529 SLG. Mike Schmidt? Best in the Majors with a .527 slugging. In fact, he was one of only three players in baseball to have over 5,000 at bats during his career, and a .500 or better slugging (Jim Rice .502, George Brett .501). Interestingly enough, thirty-five players with over 5,000 at bats during Chipper's career had a .500 or better SLG.

What about on base percentage (OBP)? You claim that Chipper Jones was better. Really?

Highest OBP in baseball during Mike Schmidt's career (minimum 5,000 ABs):

http://imageshack.com/a/img191/5301/pfhh.png

Mike Schmidt had the seventh highest OBP in baseball during the entirety of his career. Even though he was a .267 career hitter, he got on base more often than Pete Rose, the game's all-time hits leader, and George Brett, who won three American League batting titles (in three different decades). Yet Schmidt was either standing on a base, or circling them, more often than two of the all-time greats.

Chipper Jones? Jones had the fourteenth best OBP in baseball during his career.

http://imageshack.com/a/img33/9186/lm6b.png

So, comparatively, Schmidt had a better OBP than Chipper Jones did.

No matter what approach you take, Mike Schmidt is the superior player. This is indisputable. Statistical analysis shows time and time again that Mike Schmidt is one of the most devastating power hitters to ever play the game. Not only did he hit home runs, but he drove in runs better than anybody else to play the game for more than a generation. And though Chipper Jones was a better hitter when average is considered (.303 career to .267 for Schmidt), Schmidt was better at getting on base when a peer comparison is made. Schmidt is better than Jones because in their days, the pitching that Schmidt faced was vastly superior.

Schmidt is by far the more decorated player, be it by MVPs, Silver Sluggers, Gold Gloves or All Star selections (12 to 8). He dominated the league leader boards in a way that Jones never did. And when career numbers are placed in the context of the eras which the players participated, Schmidt blows Chipper Jones out of the water. For the last 1,564 games of his career, from age 28 on, not once was Chipper Jones selected as the best offensive third baseman in the National League. By what possible stretch of the imagination can he be considered the best to ever play his position, when on an annual basis he was not the best at his position in his own league?

Chipper Jones was a fine player. But Schmidt is the best ever.

I am 27yo and could not disagree more. I grew up watching Chipper and he was a great player and teammate. Nothing wrong with admitting that he was great and also naming Schmidt as the best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Stache - Great argument and research.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe Chipper had the edge in two-out doubles with men on first and third on Sundays in June?

Well, I'll start out saying, that I don't have a horse in this race.. But I wanted to look at a little more than simple numbers, some that often don't really mean a lot. I've never been a fan of RBIs as a pure stand-alone stat.

Looking at the all-time(all positions) list of RBI/GIDP ratios..to get an idea on the effect a player had on extending or killing rallies..
Schmidt is 8th. 1595 RBI/ 156 GIDP, for a ratio of 10.22/1
Brett is 51st. 1596 RBI/236 GIDP, for a ratio of 6.76/1
Chipper is 65th 1623 RBI/ 254 GIDP, for a ratio of 6.39/1

Now, I will admit that Schmidt's K's actually work in his favor in this category, and so do his HRs. So it's kinda hard to take those ratios as pure...I'll rework the math to eliminate HR, and only look at other runners driven in..

Schmidt 6.40
Brett 5.42
Chipper 4.59

I'd adjust these even further, taking into account the % of PA w/Runners on that didn't result in a KO..

Schmidt 82.2% 5.26

Brett 90.2% 4.89

Chipper 87.5% 4.02

We can also look at the RBI%. Which is (RBI-HR)/Runners on..
Chipper came to the plate with 6958 runners on in his career...
(1623-458)/6958 leaving him with an RBI% of 16.60

Schmidt came to the plate with 6246 runners on in his career...
(1526-528)/6246 leaving an RBI% of 15.98

Brett came to the plate with 7183 runners on in his career...
(1596-317)/7183 leaving an RBI% of 17.81


Ulitmately. Once strikeouts and GIDPs factor into everything, Schmidt was still the most effective at not killing rallies...Chipper lagged quite a bit, and Brett honestly isn't that far behind Schmidt... As for pure RBI% Brett jumps out by a lot. But Chipper and Schmidt are close enough, that it's not that big a deal... I am really surprised that Schmidt drove in so few runners that weren't himself though..

Having said all that. Schmidt's glove really sets him apart... Honestly, I've never been a huge fan of Schmidt's, but I must concede that he is probably the best overall 3B ever..

Best Comedy Films about Thirdbasemen?
 

Thread title should be changed to "About Schmidt" (2002)

A film not about Mike Schmidt

Attachment 133756

Another classic "What About Bob?" (1991)

A film not about Bob Horner who preceded Chipper at 3B for Atlanta

Attachment 133755

Good films for those growing weary of thirdbasemen. Enjoy.:D

Enough holding back, Bill...how do you really feel? Kidding aside I agree with just about everything you wrote. I do think that an argument can be made for Mathews as a top three 3B though. After Shcmidt it's a pretty tight grouping for the next spots.

How did I forget to mention..........
 

the 1996 classic Coen brothers film starring that other "Chipper" :eek::eek::eek:

Wade Boggs because he was the only third baseman to ride a horse around Yankee Stadium celebrating a world series victory!!
:D

great analysis, but...
 

Intuitively I would probably agree that Schmidt outpaces Jones, Boggs, and all other 3bs, but RBI is only one measure of offensive production, not the only one.

Bill James among others have shown that RBI is EXTREMELY context-dependent (on teammates' ability, batting order, runs/game, etc.). My impression is that Jones batted third more than fourth (as Schmidt did), and certainly Boggs batted mostly leadoff. Inevitably 3 batters are gonna get fewer RBI than cleanup hitters....

When all is said and done, wouldn't OPS (adjusted for the era) be a better measure of batting accomplishments overall? Schmidt probably still wins, though.

Tim

I compared home runs, RBI, OBP, SLG.

OPS is of course a combination of OBP and SLG. Schmidt was tops in SLG and seventh in OBP in all of baseball during his career. Jones was 14th in OBP and 21st in SLG while he played. It doesn't take a lot of processing to extrapolate that Schmidt blew Chipper Jones out of the water in OPS when era is considered.

So, Schmidt was the better power hitter. Better run producer. Better in OBP/SLG/OPS, and better defensively. He was also selected as the best offensive third baseman six times in the second half of his career, while Jones was continually being passed over.

There is no argument that could be made in favor of Chipper Jones over Mike Schmidt. None.

If Miggy doesn't pull a Pujols, in a few years this may be worth revisiting.

I respectfully disagree, Peter, only because Cabrera won't have the amount of time played at third base to really merit inclusion in this type of discussion.

He's played 1,630 games in his career, of which 686 have been played at third. With Prince Fielder's trade to Texas, Cabrera will be moving back to first, and Nick Castellanos will be given every opportunity to become Detroit's full-time third baseman.

Cabrera is a spectacular offensive force, you'll get no argument from me there. But he's never been more than an acceptable defender. Even if he'd played almost exclusively at third throughout his career, I don't know if his offense alone would be enough to usurp Schmidt's spot atop the list. But it would make for an interesting analysis, for sure.

I must admit I'm biased, since I'm a Phillies and Yankees fan.....Schmidt is the man.

All the other 3rd baseman mentioned here are greats; but, Mike Schmidt wins this contest in the all-around ballplayer category.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...tRookie50x.jpg


TED Z

I was under the impression he had played more at third. Given that he has not, and will be moving to first, he probably should not be considered. But I would forgive his average defense if he continues to put up those numbers.

Schmidt, with no one else even reasonably close, IMHO.

Happy collecting,

Larry

Great point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk