OT - Best 3B ever?

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by Sean

What's up Pete? Why no love for Harmon Killebrew?

I see Killer at a 1 sacker half of his career. Gaetti "The Rat" was the man

[the 'stache]

I'm sorry, but this whole exercise is silly. Chipper Jones was a great player in his day, and is a worthy Hall of Famer. That being said, anybody claiming he is a better third baseman than Michael Jack Schmidt needs to take off their rose colored glasses.

Though baseball lends itself to statistical analysis more than any other professional sport, it is folly, in my opinion, to merely compare career numbers when attempting to make an argument for or against any particular player's greatness. Why? Because doing so eliminates context. The context of the eras the players under consideration played in cannot be overlooked, and it too often is. There is no logic in saying "player x got more total bases than player y, therefore they were a better player". Ah, no.

When I gauge a player's greatness, I compare them against their peers. Because while Mike Schmidt and Home Run Baker both played third base, and both are in Cooperstown, dismissing Baker's accomplishments merely based on a look at his career numbers would be a disservice to the game.

I will post a more in depth analysis a little later.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

I agree totally with Drew; what question are you asking? Most of you guys are giving all types of stats for hitting...why don't you just compare these players with the best offensive players to ever play.

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.

[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...

[glynparson]

but the gap between Brooks and Schmidt as fielders is MUCH closer than the gap between them as hitters. Brooks is great just not Schmidt. As for the argument how can the greatest fielder not be top 2 it is easy Ozzie smith not a top 2 shortstop, and many will tell you Bob Boone was the greatest defensive catcher they ever saw, I have NEVER heard him considered a top 2 catcher of all time. Bill james is right Offense does win more than defense in Baseball, and are we really gonna pretend those 70's Reds teams couldn't hit?

[bbcard1]

There is the possibility that Brooks may just be the tiniest bit overrated as a fielder. He played in an era where you didn't see people on TV every day. He made some awesome plays on the biggest stage. Great fielder for sure, but you didn't see near as much of him as you did more recent guys.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glynparson

but the gap between Brooks and Schmidt as fielders is MUCH closer than the gap between them as hitters. Brooks is great just not Schmidt. As for the argument how can the greatest fielder not be top 2 it is easy Ozzie smith not a top 2 shortstop, and many will tell you Bob Boone was the greatest defensive catcher they ever saw, I have NEVER heard him considered a top 2 catcher of all time. Bill james is right Offense does win more than defense in Baseball, and are we really gonna pretend those 70's Reds teams couldn't hit?

Yeah you don't see Bill Mazeroski (considered my many to be the greatest fielding 2nd baseman ever) in the discussion with Hornsby and Collins etc. If his name comes up at all it's usually to say it's a joke he is in the Hall.

How about Keith Hernandez in the first base discussion? Let's be consistent, Brooks fans.

[ullmandds]

For me...Brooks Robinson was the greatest fielding 3rd baseman of all time...and I "stole" his nickname for myself at yankee fantasy camp as I was the best fielding 3rd baseman there!!!!!!

Growing up a yankees fan...I followed George Brett's career more closely than Schmidt's...as he was more a direct adversary...and I had a love hate relationship with him...as I had infinite respect for him...but hated when he played well against the yankees.

In light of this...I feel Schmidt is the greatest 3rd baseman of all time.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah you don't see Bill Mazeroski (considered my many to be the greatest fielding 2nd baseman ever) in the discussion with Hornsby and Collins etc. If his name comes up at all it's usually to say it's a joke he is in the Hall.

How about Keith Hernandez in the first base discussion? Let's be consistent, Brooks fans.

Can we agree that Brooks was the best defensive 3rd baseman of all time? Or we can go with what Frank Robinson stated, "He was the best defensive player at any position." The problem you have is Brooks could hit, was a clutch hitter at that, a leader,...AND...look at his post season performance as well.