Greatest Third Basemen Since 1920

dallasactuary

Best overall, I mean; offense + defense = total package.

Before I plunge into the names, let’s take care of some housekeeping:

1. Anything that is not obviously a fact (a statistic, an award, etc.) is my opinion. That’s the last time I’ll say that, so remember it if you care.

2. “Best” can mean different things: is a third baseman who plays decent defense and has a decent bat for twenty years “better” than a superstar third basemen who wins Gold Gloves and hits like Ruth for 10 years? How about if the superstar only plays for three years? What if the superstar hits like Ruth but fields like Garvey (at third)? “Best” is some combination of the length of the career, the heights of greatness achieved on the best seasons, of offense and defense. If, in your opinion, a player is exactly as great as his best season, then Al Rosen is your man. If all you value is longevity, then Brooks Robinson is your man. If defense is everything, then Clete Boyer may get your nod. I’m not going to rank my list based on just one thing, I’m going to consider all of these things.

3. Following from 2., if you think my list or someone else’s is way out of line somewhere, then please don’t just say so – say WHY.

4. I’m counting A-Rod as a shortstop, so he’s not in any of the lists. If you think someone else is missing that may be the reason.

5. If a player had a really short career, or they’re still playing and haven’t been playing for a long time – I ignored them. Let them earn their way on to my lists by playing for a career, that’s my motto.

I’ll start with the most subjective list – the best peak fielders. I’m basing this on what I know from general memory, from articles I’ve read about the oldtimers, from Gold Gloves, from Win Shares, and from fielding stats. By far, the least important is the fielding stats – without context, which can be impossible to get in many cases, they don’t mean anything. If you know that a third baseman played on teams with tons of right-handed fly ball pitchers, then by all means, if that player has a good range factor then give him credit for that. But if you have no idea if that is true or the opposite is true, then don’t even look because there is no way to know if it means anything.

1. Clete Boyer
2. Graig Nettles
3. Puddin’ Head Jones
4. Mike Schmidt
5. Gary Gaetti
6. Brooks Robinson
7. Tim Wallach
8. Scott Rolen
9. Eric Chavez
10. Willie Kamm

Should Robin Ventura be on there? Aurelio Rodriguez or Jeff Cirillo? Santo or Ken Boyer? I don’t know. This is my list and I like it as good as any other.

How about the best career fielders?

1. Mike Schmidt
2. Brooks Robinson
3. Graig Nettles
4. Gary Gaetti
5. Willie Kamm
6. Tim Wallach
7. Ron Santo
8. Scott Rolen
9. Aurelio Rodriguez
10. Ken Boyer

A lot of the same names as on the peak list. Not surprising, third basemen that are as good as these guys were too valuable to let go, and they stayed put for a long time being great.

Clete Boyer was absolutely phenomenal for a while; better than Brooks at his peak and some of Robinson’s Gold Gloves should have gone to Boyer (a few of the others should have gone to Rodriguez). But Boyer didn’t last as long as anyone on this list so he drops behind his brother and completely off the list because of that. Puddin’ Head Jones (Phillies, 50’s) – same thing. Santo and Ken Boyer weren’t as amazing as the peak guys, but they were great for a very long time.

Now let’s turn to offense. These lists are going to have a lot of new names on them, but the ones that are also on the defensive lists? They may just show up on the best overall list.

The best hitters at their peak:

1. Mike Schmidt
2. Eddie Mathews
3. George Brett
4. Wade Boggs
5. Ron Santo
6. Al Rosen
7. Sal Bando
8. Chipper Jones
9. Stan Hack
10. Scott Rolen

The defensive lists were too subjective to comment on too much, but I feel much less restrained here.

Schmidt’s not #1 by a mile, but he’s #1 by a quarter mile, anyway. Brett and Mathews are neck and neck for the #2 spot and if you think they should be reversed, I won’t fight you. If you want to drop either one of them below #3, then we’re going to have words. Mathews was a very different player than Brett, and the only things he did really well were hit homers and draw walks; fortunately for Mathews and the Braves doing those two things really well makes you a really great player. Boggs and Santo, likewise, are #4, and #5 in some order; the method I’m using to rank them isn’t sacred and I could tweak it in any number of reasonable ways and get the other ordering. Al Rosen at #6 is a sad case; quite possibly one of the 50-100 greatest players ever, he didn’t get to play full-time until he was 26 (despite setting records wherever he went in the minors), and injuries started dragging him down at 31. So no HOF, not on anybody’s greatest ever lists, but one hell of a player. At #7 is one of the most underrated players at any position ever in Sal Bando. The A’s win three WS in a row and they have one pitcher in the HOF (and he doesn’t belong there) and one hitter (who does belong); the Reds win the next two and get four HOFers. A top 10 most underrated players of the 70’s list probably includes Bando, Tenace and Rudi (and Mike Epstein may have the best season ever by a player nobody’s heard of). At #8 is Chipper Jones, and he’s having his peak right now so he may still be climbing this list. #9 Stan Hack was the greatest third baseman of his time and ought to be in the HOF. Injuries appear to be stopping #10 Scott Rolen’s climb up the greatest lists, too, but his first three years on the Cardinals were all-time caliber.

As with the fielding lists, the career best is going to be very similar to the peak best:


1. Mike Schmidt
2. Eddie Mathews
3. George Brett
4. Chipper Jones
5. Wade Boggs
6. Paul Molitor
7. Darrell Evans
8. Ron Santo
9. Stan Hack
10. Ron Cey

Aside from a little rearrangement we see Paul Molitor (a HOFer), Darrell Evans (who should be a HOFer) and Ron Cey replacing the shorter career guys Bando, Rolen and Rosen. Evans and Cey were great hitters playing in pitcher’s parks so they’re not generally thought to be this good – but they were.

At this point the greatest overall list almost writes itself:

#1 - Mike Schmidt - We knew he was going to be here when we started. What else is there to say?

#2 - Eddie Mathews – I thought I’d have Brett here, and Brett may belong here. But I decided what method to use before I started and Mathews beat out Brett.

#3 – George Brett – loses to Mathews by a nose. If he’d stayed at third a few seasons longer, and certainly if he’d been a better third basemen, he’d have topped Mathews.

#4 – Wade Boggs – I’ve got him just a hair behind Brett. He’s not as good a hitter as Brett, but he was a little better at third base and he played over 500 more games at third; that made up a lot of ground.

#5 – Ron Santo – I’ve written 10,000 or more words on Santo already. I’ll just repeat that he is – by far – the most deserving eligible player not already in the HOF.

#6 – Chipper Jones – I’ve read some analysts who say Jones wasn’t that bad at third early in his career, but I’m not buying it – he was awful. For whatever reason, he’s gotten much better after spending a couple years in the outfield. But his hitting is up in Boggs/Brett territory and at this point I have him just a hair behind Santo overall. Barring some kind of miracle, passing Santo is as high as he can get, though; Boggs is way ahead.

#7 – Brooks Robinson – the worst hitter on this list, and not as good a hitter as #11 through #13 either, but he makes up a lot of ground with his glove. How much better he was defensively than Santo is open to debate, and how much value you want to give Robinson for sticking around forever is, too, but I don’t see him as a better player than Santo or Jones. But I can see a case made that Robinson could be as high as #5.

#8 – Scott Rolen – He was climbing this list fast but has stalled here after basically being no better than average the past four seasons. He needs at least two more really good seasons to catch Robinson and that looks very unlikely now.

#9 – Darrell Evans – great bat, great glove, ignored completely by the HOF. Idiots.

#10 – Graig Nettles – in a virtual tie with Evans on my list and almost as weak a hitter as Robinson. But he had a great glove and a long career, and hitting better than Robinson is not exactly easy.


For those who may be wondering, yes, Pie Traynor was eligible for all of these lists but he didn’t make any of them. He was somewhere between 15 and 20 on the peak and career hitting lists and between 10 and 15 on the career fielding list. That left him around #15 overall. Pie Traynor was a very good baseball player – but he hit about as well as Brooks Robinson and he didn’t have Robinson’s glove.

Paul Molitor didn't end up in my top 10, either, and that surprised me. He was #11, though, and if you're only going to play half the game for half your career then I guess things like this will happen. In any case, there is very little distance separating #9 from # 11 on my list, so it wouldn't take much to get Molitor in the top 10. I tend to think he probably belongs there, but I'm not going to go back and redo everything just to move him up a spot.

I started at 1920 because fielding stats before that are so different than after that and there's no way I know of to compare them. Homerun Baker and Jimmy Collins probably belong on all of these lists somewhere, but I have no idea where.

stevek

Lemme think about this for a billionth of a second...okay got it...Mike Schmidt

StopYurWhining

Michael Jack Schmidt. case closed lol.

KOBEcollector

I'd rather Brett playing third on my team than Schmidt . . I seem to remember Brett playing better in the big games

jaxxr

Mel Ott played 3B in over 250 games, all post 1920,

He was an about average defender, however a so much better hitter than Jim Rice, he must be objectively rated number one.

Seriously, pretty good list Steve, I do probably place more value on one's durability, so might quibble that Brooks is rated too low, but any "list" is always subject to interpretation. Most will agree, Schmidt was the best ever.

joestalin

Did you just say that Brooks Robinson was the worst hitter on the list? LOL ooooooook

bigfische

So in your mind is Chipper a HOFer? He is between two of them on your list. The only arguement i can see against him at this point are his counting stats are still low by todays standards, but they are still growing. Next year should put an end to any questions as long as he isnt hurt all season or totally loses it somehow.

StopYurWhining

Chipper is a heck of a ball player. A very probably HOF'er

dallasactuary

<< <i>Mel Ott played 3B in over 250 games, all post 1920 >>



True, but Ott was an outfielder. Rose played over 600 games at third but he's not a third baseman either. Only one position per player, please; if I do a top 10 at every position. I'm not going to put Pete Rose on five of the nine lists.


And JS, I will humor you and pretend you know something about baseball - who do you think was a worse hitter than Robinson on that list? Nettles is the only one who wasn't a MUCH better hitter, but if all you're thinking is that Robinson was a little better than Nettles I don't think you would have laughed out loud. So share, please.

coinkat

Didn't we already this before?

KOBEcollector

Didn't we already this before?

What would give you that idea

TomGshotput

<< <i>#3 – George Brett – loses to Mathews by a nose. If he’d stayed at third a few seasons longer, and certainly if he’d been a better third basemen, he’d have topped Mathews >>



Are you counting only games at third or every game for their entire career? It is always much easier and usually a better analysis if you consider everything the player has done, but only rate them at their primary position (by leaving ARod off the peak lists, I'll assume that is what you did). Molitor should be rated as a DH

Used to think Mathews-Brett had to as close as any of these all-time great comparisons could ever be. Looking deeper Mathews is a little ahead in every way. Slightly better on offense and better on defense. Though Brett played more seasons at a high level, once you account for the schedule difference, Mathews actually played more during their peaks, the final few years at the end for Brett cannot change how he ranks

After this year, I'll put Jones ahead of Santo. That career .400 obp is pretty damn good. And shows helps show how truly great Boggs was

The best thing that can be said about Nettles is he completely destroys the idea that there is a Yankees bias in Hall-of-Fame voting. I can appreciate long careers, but every year of Ken Boyer's seven year peak was better than Nettle's best year. I would put Boyer right behind Robinson and Evans. On the surface Robinson and Nettles are very similar. But Robinson's stats from his best years from before 1969 are very close to Nettles' best from the 70s. When the general consensus is so strong for one player as the best fielder at the position ever, I would need to see some good evidence to begin to think otherwise

Bill James writeup of Darrell Evans as an underrated player in the Historical Baseball Abstract was presented very well. Switched leagues in the middle of his career; changed positions in the middle of his career; drew a lot of walks and didn't hit singles; good defense at a corner position; a lot of things good, but not one thing that was great

Number 10 on the list might depend on how you view Hack and Elliot for their years during World War II. Discount them a little and Bando is easily ahead, still slightly ahead of Rolen

WinPitcher

Where does Frank baker fit into this list?

Steve

TomGshotput

Baker could be right around Robinson and Evans, depending on how strong or weak you think early 20th century baseball was. Jimmy Collins could also be top 10; thirdbase defense was much more important 100 years ago

DrJ

<< <i>Didn't we already this before?

What would give you that idea >>



Since Dallas had a mental break down after Ryan "Clutch City" Howard put the Phils into the playoffs and will most likely win the MVP, his memory has been less than stellar.

J

markj111

I agree with you on all four re the HOF.

ymarea

Not that I think David Wright belongs on this list, but I'm very impressed with his hitting. It's been consistenly excellent for several years now. I must admit that I haven't seen him play all that often so I don't know how good he is defensively.

To those who have seen Wright play a lot, how good is his glove? Will he someday crack the top 10 if he continues to perform like he has been?

kadokakid

Brooks Robinson needs to move up the list.

Peace

dallasactuary

TomG - what you suggest is what I am doing - counting all of a players career and assigning that player's career to the one position he played the most. What I meant by my comment on Brett was that had he stayed at third base, he would have had a higher career value as a fielder; those years he spent at first and at DH added little or nothing.

And the #10 spot on the list could indeed go to several different people. Nettles got the nod from me ecause of how I valued career hitting and fielding; value peak fielding and hitting a little higher and you can get Hack or Bando. Put even more value on career vs. peak and Molitor gets in there; they really are all very, very close. Molitor got 3,000 hits so he got a free pass to the HOF, but he was no better or worse than Nettles, Hack or Bando.

I agree with your analysis of Brett and Mathews; I see Mathews with a relatively small but clear lead across the board. But Brett does have his advantages and if you define peak differently than I did and weight it higher than I did you can get him past Mathews. Bill James has him ahead of Mathews, but every player who ever played in Kansas City is ranked a little too high by James.

I disagree with you on Boyer, though. Geat fielder, but not Robinson great, and peak hitting comparable to Nettles but he wasn't as good in the field nor did he play as long as Nettles.

I do discount Hack some for having his peak years in a depleted league. Not too much, but as it turned out, enough to knock him out of the 10 spot.


Steve - I addressed Baker in the last sentence of my original post. You mean you didn't hang on to every single word?

TomGshotput

Perhaps I give to much credit for obp and not enough for thirdbase defense, but when you struggle to determine if Tommy John had a higher peak value, I will refuse to put Nettles anywhere near Molitor. Molitor had a four year stretch in the early 90s where he was one of the best hitters in the league. He had an additional four or five years where he was a better hitter than Nettles ever was. Even without 3 000 hits, the OPS+ and runs created alone is very close to Hall-of-Fame level. Then when you include stolen bases and Word Series records he is a good choice, definitely not the Lou Brock exception. . . And even if we can't include him on the list of thirdbaseman, he did have nine years as a good defensive infielder

Hack didn't really even have his peak years in a depleted league, once players started leaving for the war he was already close to finished, nothing like Dixie Walker.

jay0791

IMO mike schmidt is easily the best 3rd baseman. He was a great team leader as well.
evans falls a tad short and santo should be in the hof.

aro13

Bill James list from 2003:

1. Schmidt
2. Brett
3. Mathews
4. Boggs
5. Home Run Baker
6. Santo
7. B. Robinson
8. Molitor
9. Hack
10. D. Evans
11. Bando
12. K. Boyer
13. Nettles
14. Rosen
15. Traynor


The only player I think that is ranked too high is probably Boggs. Away from Fenway Park in his career his OB% is .387 and his SLG% is .395. He benefitted more from his home park than virtually any other player in history when you factor in foul territory, short opposite field wall, facing more right-handed pitchers (versus lefties he is .372 OBP and .389 SLG) etc.

FanOf390

George Brett gets my vote.

* A.L. Batting champion in 3 different decades (70's, 80's, and in 1990)
* Incredibly good stats in playoff games, even when Royals lost 3 times to NY in the 70's
(yes, Brett had a 3-homer game in one of those losing efforts against the Yankees)
* 20 Doubles, 20 Triples, and 20 Homers in 1976 (only 3rd baseman in history to do so)
* Clutch homer off of Goose Gossage in 1980 playoffs to put Royals into World Series
* Brett's .390 average in 1980 is still the best single-season average in last 60 years
* Oh, and Brett was a pretty good fielder too.

Charlie

WinPitcher

Brett's .390 average in 1980 is still the best single-season average in last 60 years



Ahh Tony Gwynn may argue that point with you.


Steve

FanOf390

"Ahh Tony Gwynn may argue that point with you."

Say what? When did Gwynn hit higher than .390?

WinPitcher

Gwynn was hitting 394 and was actually raising his average when play stopped in 1994.

He wound up with around 480 plate appearances too.


He was well on his way to hitting 400 that yr.

Of course we will never know.


Steve

Hoopster

Considering that Gwynn did his .394 hitting in the Live Ball/Expansion era, Brett's .390 was of greater value towards winning, and all the more impressive.

In fact, I am drinking a beer to toast Brett's 1980 season! He was still the second best third baseman, but there is no shame in being number two behind the ruggedly handsome crater man.

oxy8890

Schmidt would be my #1 if I were living in the OP's world. But IMHO A-Rod has played too many years at 3rd not to include him.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Schmidt would be my #1 if I were living in the OP's world. But IMHO A-Rod has played too many years at 3rd not to include him. >>



Nobody gets to make the list at more than one position, so I counted him at the position where he has played 500+ more games.

By the end of his career he may flip to counting as a third baseman or he may not, but wherever he ends up I think it is extremely likely that he will be #1 on the list for that position. Right now, I'd put him at #2 on either one but he was, yet again, the best player in the AL this year so I don't think he's likely to stop climbing these lists any time soon.

aro13

dallasactuary - Maybe ARod can pass Schmidt but there is no way he is passing Wagner.

jaxxr

I certainly agree with that opinion,

Tough to top Schmidt at 3B, but truly impossible to top Honus at SS, who was also an outstanding defender,
unless AROD goes back to SS for a few seasons and puts up unreal numbers there, still would be very very hard.

dallasactuary

He's 32 and he's closer to Wagner than he is to #2 and he is still the best player in the AL and one of the top few in MLB. I'm not saying that he's a lock by any means, but there is a very real chance that he'll do it. Now, at the end of the day, whether you think he has caught him or not is going to depend on how much you think we should adjust for the relative quality of play in Wagner's time vs. the quality of play today. I don't mean adjusting for runs scored - that's an objective measurement and we can be pretty sure we're all doing that the same - but the subjective adjustment that recognizes that players, and pitchers, in Wagner's day just weren't as good. Wagner led the league in everything every year, but I think it is extremely likely that A-Rod would lead the league in everything every year, too, with that competition. What would A-Rod's OPS+ have been in the 1900's? Wagner's was about 160 at 38 when he basically stopped adding significantly to his value; A-Rod is at 148. Even if A-Rod has peaked there, how much more impressive is Wagner's 160 than A-Rod's 148? There's no obviously correct answer to that, but there's also no obvious reason why A-Rod can't catch Wagner in a few more years. Also, A-Rod is losing out on some fielding value by playing third instead of short, but by playing third he is also more likely to play an extra season or two. I am quite certain that he CAN do it, but I'm not certain that he WILL do it.

{All of this is kind of moot: to catch Wagner will certainly require that A-Rod keep playing at 3B for several more years and by then he will be categorized there rather than at SS, so I guess I'm really arguing that he can pass Wagner on the overall greatest ever at any position list. Which would put him behind only Ruth.}

TomGshotput

If you think it is truly impossible for anyone to rate higher than whomever is at the top, the rating system you are using is completely flawed

jaxxr

Tom,
please read the full post, there was mention of " unless......", to qualify the point.
Anyone knows any record or performance, however unlikely, can possibly, be topped.


"I'm really arguing that he can pass Wagner on the overall greatest ever at any position list. Which would put him behind only Ruth."

Many feel Barry Bonds is better than Arod, from merely his own time era.
Many feel, players like Cobb, Mays, Gehrig, and Williams are also ahead of Arod, very unlikely that Arod will produce enough to pass them..

Without going into a long bore-filled debate, there are plenty of early 20th century hardships, which can be viewed as enhancements to a player's performance, modern advancements and expansion among them, bio-physical improvements are somewhat offset by other factors. None of us has a time machine, and can only offer an opinion, normalization is an imperfect study.

Hoopster

Barry Bonds is better than Arod. I don't have any doubt that Arod has taken the same stuff that Bonds has.

TomG is right on. CUrrently, all the methods being used make it basically impossible to top players from Pre War time. There are circumstances why Pre War players were able to dominate their peers, circumstances that just weren't there from the 1960's to 1980's needed to create legends in those years as well.

However, there are also circumstances from the new live ball era(1993-2008) that made it easy for these players, like Arod or Bonds, to dominate their peers! Steroids are only a part of it.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Barry Bonds is better than Arod. I don't have any doubt that Arod has taken the same stuff that Bonds has. >>


I don't even count Bonds as a baseball player, so he didn't enter my thinking when I wrote my post, but I certainly agree that if you do count Bonds then he was better.

But all it takes is a passing glance at Bonds' stats to identify exactly where he started cheating; his pattern of improving to peak and then declining was well within the boundaries defined by every other player in the history of the game - until 2000, when he suddenly got much, much better than he had ever been before. At 35.

A-Rod is still well within expected boundaries; he had his best year ever last year at 31 which is right where one should bet a player would have his best season not knowing anything else. I obviously am in no position to determine whether he has or has not cheated, but I am in a position to say that there is no statistical evidence, or even any indication, that he has. So I have significant doubt that he has cheated and feel very comfortable at this point excluding Bonds from any and all consideration for greatest ever lists while continuing to include A-Rod.


As for A-Rod vs. Wagner, how close do you see them right now and how likely do you think it is A-Rod retires as a better player than Wagner?


jaxxr - I agree, and I didn't mean to imply that A-Rod had already passed everyone but Wagner and Ruth, just that he'd already passed all of the other shortstops. But I do think that that he is gaining fast on Gehrig and will almost surely pass him and that passing the others is well within reach if he can keep up anything like his current level for a few more years. Part of it is that he is accomplishing similar offensive feats to the players you named while playing a skill position; the only skill position players ahead of A-Rod at this point are Wagner, Schmidt and Morgan, and maybe Hornsby. I think it is a virtual lock that he will pass all of those except Wagner and finish ranked somewhere among Cobb, Mays and Williams. But I also think it is possible, and not even that unlikely, that he will pass all of them, too.

jaxxr

Arod will certainly need a few more accomplishments, like perhaps, league leading titles to compare well with some others,

Adjusted OPS+ is a fine, popular, and very 'trendy" stat to evaluate a player's hitting.
League leader, for a few of the aforementioned ballplayers,
Hornsby 12 times, Cobb 11 times, Bonds 9 times, Schmidt 6 times, Wagner 6 times, Gehrig 3 times, and Arod 2 times as the league leader.

The use of adjusted OPS+ titles, does not "prove" things, merely presents a good case for those who place very high value upon it, and how well one compares to his peers in a particular season or seasons.

WinPitcher

Arod will certainly need a few more accomplishments


Yeah like hitting in the clutch for one, getting into a WS and being big would help too.


Steve

dallasactuary

Counting league leaders is fine as far as it goes, but there are a few things that have to be kept in mind before they mean anything at all:

1. You can't just count the triple crown stats, since RBI is so much a function of one's place in the batting order, HR is so much a function of the home park, and batting average doesn't really measure very much. A-Rod has led the league in RBI only twice, but he's led in runs scored five times. He's led in batting average only once, but in the far more important stat of slugging average he's led four times. Count league leaders if you think it's important, but count ALL the league leaders not just the few most familiar ones.

2. Giving all or nothing credit for being #1 in a category makes the second best and 100th best players equivalent, which is obviously nonsense. An enormous part of A-Rod's value is that he is among the top 10 best at nearly every aspect of the game. Counting only league leaders misses, conservatively, half of A-Rod's value. Do you want a player who leads the league in HR every year but can't do anything else well, or do you want the player who comes in second in HR, RBI, Runs, Walks, Doubles, etc.? If you have the time and patience, count top 10s and weight them 10 for first, 9 for second, etc. You'll still have a number of debatable value but one that is infinitely more useful than counting league leaders only.

3. Back to the initial point, leading the league in Wagner's day (or Cobb's or Gehriig's or to a lesser extent Williams' or Mays') was easier than it is today. We can argue about how much easier, but it can not be reasonably denied that it was easier. I have absolutely no doubt that A-Rod's number of league leaders would be at least double had he played 100 years earlier. I'm pretty certain that double is way too low. To count Wagner's league leaders and A-Rod's league leaders and compare them as if they are equivalent is not at all worthwhile; it is another example, like RBI, of a comparison actually making our evaluation worse than it was without it.

4. A player is not better or worse based on who plays at the same time. Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson all led the league in a lot of things; any one of them would have led the league in almost everything if the other two hadn't been in the same league at the same time. But Willie Mays was not a worse player because Hank Aaron existed, and Hank Aaron was not a worse player because Frank Robinson existed; they were all what they were. Honus Wagner, by analogy, WAS Willie Mays playing in a league without either Aaron or Robinson (or Mathews or McCovey or Snider or Banks). That gives Wagner lots more league leaders but it doesn't really tell us anything about Wagner or Mays.

TomGshotput

Thanks for the clarification, jax. It is always annoying to hear idiots say it is impossible to believe Williams was better than Ruth because he never hit more homeruns than an entire team; or it is impossible to believe Mays was better than Ruth because he was never a great pitcher. Things don't work like that. Sports change. If Ruth was black or came from the west coast or was born 20 years later he never would have done those things either

Wagner was one of the very best players in the league nearly every year of his career and 1908 was one of the best years in baseball history. Rodriguez has been one of the very best players in the league about half his career, the other half merely top 10. If he simply continues doing what he has been doing -- an MVP candidate every other year would be a slight decline -- and does not change positions, nor do anything "unreal," it would be reasonable to consider him as surpassing Wagner (of course that would mean he would most likely be viewed as a thirdbaseman for his career, but not necessarily so). Over the course of 100 years a sport, a culture, a country and the entire globe change, after accounting for this, it is likely that a well thought out, well supported ranking system could see Rodriguez as better than Wagner

It is a general rule that whether numbers are unreal or not, the best infielder of the past 50 years should at least be close to the best infielder of the first 50 years

Rodriguez is already close to Gehrig and Cobb and is likely to surpass one or both of them soon. It is easy to see that there is an aweful lot still seperating Rodriguez from Bonds

jaxxr

Adjusted OPS +, is not a triple crown stat,
it is a combination of, on base percentage and slugging percentage, those two stats themseles already being combinations of batting average, HRs and several other items. It is then adjusted for the ballpark.

RBI brought up for some reason, may well be a factor based upon batting order position, but almost all fans, know the best hitters will bat 3rd or 4th in the line up, I dont think many of the guys mentioned did not bat typically otherwise.

It can be viewed the older days, without medical advances to prolong careers and reduce injury, with no dilution by expansion pitchers, with no free agency or player union to protect themselves, nor creature comforts like air-conditioning, jet air travel, and good diet or training programs, was harder for one to excell, than as it may be for the more recent pampered, multi-millionare guys. But no way to be absolutely sure, no time travel is available, so any view is an opinion, not a fact.

League leader is an incredible feat, topping any and all peers for a particular full season. It may be correct to give more credit to runner ups or top level performances as well, after all Gehrig did have probably the greatest ballplayer of all time, as a peer.

So lets check the fine Adjusted OPS + stat, how many times in times in the top 10, compared to the rest of your league peers ?

Cobb 18, Bonds 15, Wagner 14, Hornsby 14, Gehrig 12, Schmidt 10, and Arod 8 times has been in the top ten.
Arod may have enough gas in the tank to get a few more top ten finishes, though it does seem unlikely he will dominate enough to be the league leader enough times , to really enhance his rank. A quick glance, did show that if cut off to the top 5, Arod would suffer a bit in the totals with all except Schmidt.

WinPitcher

Where would Harmon Killebrew be on this list had you included him?


He played almost 800 games at 3rd which was about 1/3 of his total.

He also played first and the outfield.

He by the way was a decent 3rd basemen. IMO


Steve

aro13

There is a way to measure the time line - at least if you think baseball has vastly improved over time.
I do not have it in front of me but I believe that Bill James formula is:

Players Year of Birth - 1800 divided by 10 gives you a value

A player born in 1900 would have a value of 10. A player born in 1980 would have a value of 18. In James ranking system he used these numbers otherwise he stated that most of the top players would have played pre-1950 as in his view it was far easier to dominate the game in the early days.

Even given a time line adjustment I cannot see ARod passing Wagner or coming close. He is now a thirdbaseman not a shortstop. Using any reliable measurement you want I see Wagner as being better.

dallasactuary - I am leaning away from OPS+ as the best measurement of value. According to James, and I agree with him, OPS is not the best way to determine runs created. He believes on-base percentage and slugging percentage should be multiplied together to give a more accurate reading. A player with a .400 OBP and a .400 SLG will create more runs than a player with a .350 OBP and a ,450 SLG.

Also, I believe that Honus Wagner has the greatest win shares for a player from age 35 on including Barry Bonds.

jaxxr

Killebrew had 10 top 10 seasons in adjusted OPS +, never was seasonal leader.

I know you are probably interested in two of your other favorite ballplayers, so please allow me to add,
Jim Rice 1 league leader, 5 top 10, and Ron Santo, no LL, 4 top 10.

WinPitcher

Aro

You see Wagner as better at SS or better overall? or both?

Can Arod be the better overall player but not the best shortstop?

It seems he he is being penalized for playing a 2nd pos.

Killebrew is another example he played 4 or 5 pos.

Steve

Hoopster

It isn't a matter of a time machine to determine the goodness of cross era players, it is understanding the circumstances on why they were able to dominate so easily and to such a great degree.

When Babe Ruth hit more HR than all the teams, it isn't because he was 20x times better than Mike Schmidt...it is the circumstances that allowed him to do so.

When Honus Wagner was playing, it is quite true that the available population of players was simply not as great as it was in say, 1984. He simply didn't have the stiff competition. Dallas's analogy with having no Mays or Frank RObinson to compete against is spot on. Mike Schmidt had even more competition than Mays and Frank. His numbers against his peers do not shine out as much as a result.

Bill James formula is off, because based on that, Arod would be given a higher competition value than Schmidt, and that is not true. He has an EASIER competition than Schmidt. It is easier for Arod to outdistance his peers, as it was for Schmidt.

If you think I am crazy, just look at the all time MLB leaderboards when compared against peers in OPS+, or ERA+, or Batter Runs per game, and you will see the leaderboard is simply filled with Pre War players and the current live ball players(19930-present).

Right off the bat that should raise a red flag. Same with the best seasons of all time. Those are dominated from those years too. It is not because those players were that much better, it is simply because the circumstances of hte league and society enabled them to do so.

Unless one believes that mothers from 1860 had a special secret on how to give birth to pitchers(hence their dominance in peer evaluation).

aro13

Steve - I see Wagner as being the best shortstop ever. IF Arod passes Schmidt as the best thirdbasemen ever I still do not see him ranking higher than Wagner as a player.

I believe in any kind of ranking players that play catcher, shortstop, secondbase or centerfield their entire careers should be given an advantage over players that play firstbase, leftfield, rightfield or thirdbase.

I will say that Arod's switch was not because he was still not a good defensive shortstop but because of the ego issue it would have created in New York if Jeter had been moved to secondbase. Even factoring that in, I still say Wagner.

In my opinion Ruth is the greatest of all-time, followed by Wagner and than maybe Bonds.

aro13

hoopster - Using Win Shares and Runs Created (and accounting for time frame and ballpark) James system makes perfect sense. If you look at his rankings you will not find too many players from the 60's, 70's and 80's that are not ranked properly.

Yeah, OPS+ lends itself to more modern players but as James has stated it is not the best statistic to use.

Hoopster

As an example of what I am saying...

24 of the top 50 players all time in OPS+ are from Pre War era.
18 of the top 23 Starting Pitchers all time in ERA+ are from Pre War...PRE WWI that is!!(where most of their career was spent).

Those are measurements against ones peers! Yes, it seems pretty fair to say that it was easier to outdistance one's peers in Pre War, and now, than at any other time.

I may be off one or two on those totals as I did it fast. BUt that trend continues to the next 50 also.

Then the current live ball era players also have an inordinate amount of names on those same lists.

Hoopster

One of the reasons why OPS+ favors modern players is that because of how it has become so easy to hit the ball out of the park, all of these sluggers are getting a ton more walks to pump up their OB%. So not only can they easily pump up their SLG%, it is fairly easy for them to attain high OB%'s as well because the pitchers give them a lot of free passes.

If James is giving more credit to a 2001 player for level of competition, as opposed to a 1984 player, then he is wrong.

jaxxr

"When Babe Ruth hit more HR than all the teams, it isn't because he was 20x times better than Mike Schmidt...it is the circumstances that allowed him to do so."

That is INCORRECT,
Ruth never did hit more HRs than ALL ( understanding the definiton of "all" as most do ) the teams.
I doubt any rational baseball fan feels Ruth was 20x times, or just 20 times, better than Mike Schmidt.

In 1924, Jack Fournier did hit more HRs than the entire Braves team. In 1922 Ken Williams hit more HRs than Babe Ruth and also more than the entire Cleveland team. In 1920 Ruth did not hit as many HRs as the rest ( the 24 other guys ) of the Yanks, nor the Giants or Phillies. In 1927 Ruth did not hit as many HRs as the rest of the Yanks, nor the Giants, Cards, or Cubs. In 1928 Ruth did hit more HRs than several teams....so regardless of the printed error, perhaps a mere typo,.....

Just exactly what were the "circumstances" that allowed him to hit so well ??

From 1922 to 1932, a five year surround of the Babe's famous 60 in 1927, he did not lead the majors, or even just the AL, in HRs every single year. Some of his peers would include Lou Gehrig, Jimmy Foxx, Ty Cobb, George Sisler, Al Simmons, Harry Hielman, and Ken Williams, plus Rogers Hornsby, Hack Wilson, Mel Ott, and Chuck Klien from the NL. Somehow the circumstances did not allow any of these fine fellows to excell quite the same.

They all had to play in about the same amount of scheduled doubleheaders, they all had to play regardless of health, not aided by modern medicine, training, or diet, they had to face similar pitching not diluted by expansion, and so on.

What special circumstances allowed Ruth, not Gehrig, Sisler, Klien, nor anyone else around, hit so many HRs, create so many runs, average such a high OPS+ ???

Why might these circumstances apply to Ruth, and not others ???