OT - Best 3B ever?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I agree with this comment. I think it's tough (often silly) to use only offense centric analysis when rating players by position. Aside from catcher (where defensive wear and tear definitely affects career longevity and offensive output), maybe historically the middle infield (though this doesn't seem to matter so much anymore) a position shouldn't have a huge effect on limiting offensive output.

By categorizing this rating by position, I think by default you need to assign a fair amount of emphasis on defense... and when someone asks who's the greatest "3rd baseman" I'll always think first of guys like Schmidt, Brooks Robinson, etc as players who distinguished themselves and were identified as "3rd basemen". Conversely, take a guy like Miguel Carbrera. His offensive stats are amazing, and if he continues to hit and plays a few more years at 3rd, he'll likely have the greatest offensive totals for a 3rd baseman... but after seeing him up close in the 2012 WS, he's kind of a dog at 3rd and I wouldn't really identify him as a 3rd baseman. He may as well be a 1st baseman, crappy corner outfielder, or DH. Another example, Jeff Kent may have some of the best offensive totals for a 2nd baseman.. but really who cares? He was a 3rd baseman originally, and I think mainly moved to 2nd due to deficiencies at 3rd. Guys like him (and probably Hornsby) are/were far more offensively driven players and I think taking their positions into account is almost irrelevent when rating them.

Also agree with what Bill says, you need to take era into context. 60's/70's/80's saw suppressed offensive numbers. Schmidt's hitting stood out far more in his era than Jones in his.. or someone like Fred Lindstrom did in his. These guys are all great and HOFers, so I'd be happy with any.

Very well stated, and to be honest this is pretty much the exact thing I've been stating about DH's the whole time(usually in discussions about Edgar). That you really need to compare a DH to EVERYONE, due to the lack of any sort of defensive metric.. And I'm surprised that it's never dawned on me to apply that same theory to the Ho-hum guys on defense. The guys that weren't necessarily at a premium position due to their defensive prowess, but because it made more sense offensively to just give a little on defense. It makes plenty of sense.. Although, while not great at a defensive position, something could be said for these less that stellar defensive guys, that they were at least competent enough to not be a complete and total liability at a premium position.. It's not like Cecil Fielder would've been a great fit at SS, just because his bat made up for it...