hot topics

Well, just to say something, here's an off-the-cuff prelim I did at some point, without looking at any numbers.

1. Schmidt
2. Brett
3. Boggs
4. Mathews
5. Wilson (Yeah, that's probably too high.)
6. Baker
7. Santo
8. Molitor (Could be a little low)
9. Allen
10. Sutton (Not everybody's going to buy that one)
11. Collins
12. Groh
13. Hack (And I had those 2 the other way around on my Group 3 ballot, so that's changing.)
14. Robinson
15. Beckwith (Too low.)
16. Boyer
17. Evans
18. Nettles

Among non-electees, Bus Clarkson would be somewhere in the 12-14 range, I guess (but I'm his biggest fan), Tommy Leach would be between Beckwith and Boyer, and Ron Cey, Tony Perez and Bob Elliott would be between Evans and Nettles.

I found this info from Chris Cobb's Negro League estimates in my Hall of Merit files on my old computer. Here's the goods on Beckwith and Wilson:


The "pk" column refers to the player's 5-year non-consecutive peak and the "pr" refers to the total of the players WS above 20 in a season (AKA the jschmeagol method). I believe these were the latest available estimates: the John Beckwith WS are dated 2/13/05 and the Jud Wilson WS are dated 3/23/05. I think those refer to the dates Mr. Cobb posted them. . . .

IMPORTANT: I almost forgot to mention, the above estimates are based on the 154 game schedule, not 162. Also, according to the John Beckwith thread (post #311) his estimated time is supposed to reflect his character issues.

Using DanR's WARP, with no adjustments for military service, here are the Pennants Added totals:

John Beckwith (not available)
Ezra Sutton (not available)
Jud Wilson (not available)

And by my salary estimator:

1. Schmidt, $373M
2. Mathews, $273M
3. Boggs, $250M
4. Brett, $244M
(Larry, $200M before having the first half of his life)
5. Santo, $193M
6. Groh, $186M
7. Baker, $184M
8. Allen, $183M
9. Evans, $183M
10. Collins, $180M
11. Molitor, $177M
(Rolen, $176M)
12. Brooks, $170M
13. Nettles, $164M
(McGraw, $164M--can we get him in for 2009 please!)
14. Hack, $157M
(Leach, if he slots here, $155M)
15. Boyer, $148M
(Bell, $148M)
(Cey, $147M)
(Ventura, $146M)

Prelim:

1) Schmidt - Great glove man, strong peak, maintained production late into his career, and (along with Mathews) the best bat among the third sackers.
2) Mathews - As feared a hitter as Hammerin' Hank during their years in Milwaukee.
3) Brett - Despite his batting average, not the hitter Mathews was.
4) Boggs - Could seemingly get on base at will, strong glove.
5) Santo - What more can be said? Among the Hall of Fame's most offensive omissions.
6) Hack - One of the top leadoff men of the thirties, great glove as well. Really bridged the gap between the defense-first 3Bs of the previous generation and the offense-first 3Bs to come.
7) Molitor - Great leadoff man, decent glove at several positions. Couldn't stay healthy for a full season till they made a DH out of him, though.
8) Wilson - A truly great LH hitter, a seemingly adequate glove.
9) Collins - One of the best hitting third basemen of the dead ball era, also a very good fielder.
10) Robinson - Best fielding 3B ever, fair hitter with middling power. Offense was more important from third when he played.
9) Beckwith - A hitter who happened to play third.
12) Baker - Very good peak, but his career was short compared to a lot of the guys here.
13) Evans - Played forever, played consistently well. We all know he's been historically underrated.
14) Nettles - If Brooks Robinson never existed, would be remembered as one of the best fielding third sackers ever. Hit a lot of homers, didn't contribute much else with the bat.
15) Sutton - Seems not to have hit his peak until age 32. Good, long 19th century career. Strong defender and a good hitter, though not the best batsman of his generation.
16) Groh - Good D at a time when it was more important, could also get on base.
17) Boyer - Very good hitter and fielder, shortish career. I wouldn't argue against his enshrinement in the HoM, but I just don't think he was as good as the other players in the Hall.

Whoa, where's Dick Allen on my list? Something seems to have gotten lost. Well, I'd preliminarily slot him at #6, between Santo and Hack; but his shortish career and weak glove may drop him down a few slots (better bat than anyone on the list other than Schmidt and Mathews, though).

10. Sutton (Not everybody's going to buy that one)

I will. The finest third baseman of the 19th century, the guy was still the best career ML third basemen 50 years after he retired (peak is a different matter).

If he winds up near the bottom of the pack, I'm going to be extremely disappointed.

Without reading or considering the comments and discussion so far, which I will before final. There's a couple of tough choices here, nowhere near as tough as SS but probably tougher than at the other positions so far.

1. Schmidt

2. Brett
3. Mathews
4. Boggs

5. Baker
6. Santo
7. Wilson

8. Deacon White? I thought he was on this list.
9. B. Robinson
10. Molitor
11. Groh
12. Sutton

13. J. Collins
14. Beckwith
15. Hack

Not PHoM

16. Boyer
17. Da. Evans
18. Nettles

Not Ranked

Dick Allen, for reasons discussed above. Or, well, it's not discussed. I thought he was a 1B. Slot him in Deacon White's place preliminarily if you must. I might.

8. Deacon White? I thought he was on this list.

He was with the catchers, Marc. Did you vote in that election?

I agree with John regarding Sutton.

When you adjust for season length, you've got a guy with a 10,700 AB career, who put up a 119 OPS+ playing 3B when it was a key defensive position.

When he wasn't playing 3B, he was mostly playing SS, so he gains there.

Molitor had a 122 OPS+ in a similar length career, providing much less defensive value, as an example.

I'll probably have Sutton between 5 and 7 on my ballot.

3B position ballot (prelim)

1) Schmidt - 18th overall
2) Mathews
3) Brett
4) Boggs
5) Beckwith (Bat enough to get him in alone and he played 1/3 @ SS, not 1/3 @ 1B like Wilson or Allen)
6) Molitor
7) Santo
8) Jud Wilson
9) Darrell Evans
10) Heinie Groh
11) Stan Hack
12) Frank Baker
13) Brooks Robinson
14) Jimmy Collins
15) Dick Allen (tied with Collins but Allen loses all tiebreakers)
16) Graig Nettles
(Tommy Leach)
(John McGraw)
17) Ken Boyer
XX) Ezra Sutton - no idea exactly where to place him yet but 10th isn't unreasonable.

Molitor wasn't that great. Really low peak, esp. for those who value durability. He doesn't have a single 6-WARP2 season, which is starting-the-All-Star-game caliber. He wouldn't sniff my PHoM if he didn't add so much value on the basepaths (+76 runs per Fox fourth in the 1956-2007 period, after Rickey, Wilson, and Raines).

DL from MN, what's to love about Hack? How much you loppin' off for the war?

Nothing terrific about Hack, I did notice an error in how I was calculating (getting treated like a pre-shift 3B when he's more modern than that) and he slides below Baker and Robinson. Allen moves up above Collins too.

10) Groh
11) Baker
12) Robinson
13) Hack
14) Allen
15) Collins

My prelim:

1. Schmidt

2. Mathews
3. Brett
4. Boggs

5. Sutton

6. Santo
7. Evans
8. Groh
9. Robinson
10. Molitor
11. Baker
12. Allen
13. Collins
14. Nettles
15. Wilson

16. Hack
17. Beckwith

18. Boyer

It has nothing to do with the voting, but it's All-Star Game time again, so that means its RonStar time!

(Thanks again to Jeff M for the name)

For newer voters, RonStars are people who make the All-Star team (1) for the first time, (2) have no teammates named to the team, and (3) are not starting. As a broad generalization, these are players who are usually helped by the "one-per-team" rule, but not always. Last minute roster changes can and do change RonStar status. As of this morning (after starters are announced), there are only five potential RonStars for the 2008 All-Star Game:

AL

SP - JOAQUIM SORIA, KC. Kansas city is a great RonStar team, contributing such luminaries as Ellie Rodriguez (1969), Amos Otis (1970), Jeff Montgomery (1992), Kevin Appier (1995*), Jose Rosado (1997), Dean Palmer (1998*) Ken Harvey (2004*), Mark Redman (2006*) and Gil Meche (2007*). (* means permanent RonStar, in that they never made another All-Star Game) Mike Sweeney ruined it during the early 90's by making the All-Star team a lot. Soria's chances of getting in the game are slim, as the big four of Nathan, K-Rod, Papelbon, and Rivera will likely get the call before him.

SP - GEORGE SHERRILL, BAL. The Orioles are not a good RonStar team, only having Bob Turley (1954), Ken Singleton (1977) and Melvin Mora (2003). As the only lefty reliever, will probably get in if there is a LOOGY situation.

NL

SP - EDINSON VOLQUEZ, CIN. The Reds have really done well with recent RonStars. In their history, they have contributed Paul Derringer (1935), Grady Hatton (1952*), Adam Dunn (2002*), Aaron Boone (2003*), Felipe Lopez (2005*), and Bronson Arroyo (2006*). Volquez pitched Saturday, so he'll only get an inning. He's too good not to get some action.

OF - NATE MCLOUTH, PIT. Continuing a glorious tradition of Pirate RonStars with Murry Dickson (1953*), Frank Thomas (1954), Hank Foiles (1957*), Ken Brett (1974*), Carlos Garcia (1994*), Denny Neagle (1995), Jason Kendall (1996), Tony Womack (1997*), Ed Sprague (1999*), Mike Williams (2002), Jack Wilson (2004*), and Jason Bay (2005). The only true centerfielder on the NL roster will see some action in New York.

1B - ADRIAN GONZALEZ, SD. Padre RonStar immortals include Chris Cannizzaro (1969*), Cito Gaston (1970*), Nate Colbert (1971), Johnny Grubb (1974*), Randy Jones (1975), Dave Winfield (1977), Mark Davis (1988), Rondell White (2003*), Mark Loretta (2004), Jake Peavy (2005), Since Pujols is the DH, Gonzalez will spell starter Berkman at some point tomorrow night.

As some examples, Washington's Christian Guzman has no teammate in New York, but he made the team before, so he can't be a RonStar this year. Ryan Ludwick and Aaron Cook are also first-time All-Stars, and aren't starting, but they have teammates selected.

I like the "every team represented" rule, and always cheer for RonStars to get in the game, which keeps my interest going during a lopsided game in the late innings. I usually pick one favorite RonStar for each team. This year, its Sherrill and McLouth.

One can lose permanent RonStar status by being selected again. Those who are no longer lifetime Ronstars include:

Scott Kazmir (2006 RonStar with Tampa Bay)
Justin Duchscherer (2005 RonStar with Oakland)
Ryan Dempster (2000 RonStar with Florida)

Just to lend some relevance to this thread, here are Hall-of-Meriters and/or Hall-of-Famers who were once RonStars (but later lost that status):

Satchel Paige, StLB (1952)
Catfish Hunter, KC (1966)
Tom Seaver, NYM (1967)
Nolan Ryan, Cal (1972)
Don Sutton, LA (1972)
Gary Carter, Mon (1975)
Dave Winfield, SD (1977)
Dave Stieb, Tor (1980)

No HOM third basemen have ever been a RonStar.

I have a real time understanding Beckwith/Wilson significantly below Dick Allen. They are very comparable hitters with Beckwith and Wilson both being described in their threads as "Dick Allen clones" but both were considered to have more career value than Allen. I can see a peak only voter bunching them up but I really have a hard time understanding Joe D's ballot placements.

I have a real time understanding Beckwith/Wilson significantly below Dick Allen.

I have never really trusted the MLE's in general, but aside from that, Dick Allen has an argument for being as good as any hitter alive for about a decade or so. If you made a list of the top hitters alive, regardless of league, when Beckwith/Wilson played, how far down the list would they be? In other words, I am expressing doubt that either Beckwith or Wilson were really comparable hitters to Allen.

Interesting... it seems that there is not a single thirdbaseman that made the HoM that didn't also make my PHoM.

Jimmy Collins took 54 years to join the PHoM after the HoM, but he still beats Graig Nettles on this ballot, though Nettles ahd the record the other way (getting in my PHoM 12 years before getting in the HoM.)

Prelim

1. Mike Schmidt
2. Eddie Matthews
3. George Brett
4. Wade Boggs
5. Ron Santo
6. Paul Molitor
7. Frank Baker
8. Darrell Evans
9. Stan Hack
10. Dick Allen
11. Brooks Robinson
12. Heinie Groh
13. Jud Wilson
14. Ezra Sutton
15. John Beckwith
16. Jimmy Collins
17. Graig Nettles
18. Ken Boyer

... as good as any hitter alive for about a decade or so ...

This is from Dizzypaco's comment above. Let's phrase the question this way: suppose either Beckwith or Wilson had traded places with Jimmy Foxx. (The ages and timings aren't perfect, but there's at least an overlap). Foxx as a major leaguer played predominantly 1B, but the hypothetical Foxx-in-the-NgL might have been a 3B, or more likely a catcher. (Of course, Beckwith was a SS.) I don't know where all that leads us, but it seems to be part of the frame of reference for Dizzypaco's comment.

Well, Jud Wilson was a pretty good 3B, I mean with the glove, and Beckwith was a SS/3B. Somebody please refresh my memory about Allen's defensive value.

It looks to me after X number of ballots that the easiest thing to do with the 19C and NgL once again is just to say, ah, the hell with 'em.

Joe and John, I think you are overrating Ezra Sutton. Here's why:

Joe sums up Sutton's case like this:

When you adjust for season length, you've got a guy with a 10,700 AB career, who put up a 119 OPS+ playing 3B when it was a key defensive position.

When he wasn't playing 3B, he was mostly playing SS, so he gains there.</i>

Sutton's raw career OPS+ is helped by the fact that his late peak came in the longest seasons of his career. If you adjust his seasons to 162 games individually to weight his offensive performance equally for each season, his career OPS+ is only 110. Graig Nettles (OPS+ 110) is thus a much more appropriate offensive comp than Molitor.

Third base was a key defensive position, but offensive performance by third basemen was not horrible during Sutton's era: shortstop was much much lower. For his career, Sutton had only 445 RCAP. To put this in context, Deacon White had 711 RCAP: that is what a great hitter at C/3B looks like in this era. Hardy Richardson had 408 RCAP, in a much shorter career. He's a better comp for Sutton in terms of offensive value.

So both by properly weighted OPS+ and RCAP, Sutton's production is comparable to players in the lower echelon of the HoM, not to the higher echelon guys.

(I'll also note that he really fattened his OPS+ in years with weak competition: 1871 and 1875, which were the NA's weakest years, and 1884, which was the NL's weakest year b/c of competition with 2 leagues, are 3 of his 5 big offensive seasons. I don't dock him for that directly, but I don't give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to assessing his offensive value.)

Moreover, Sutton's defense was not outstanding. He played some shortstop, yes, but WARP1 does not see his defense as exceptional: He is earns 80 season adjusted FRAA for his career at third base, but he was below average at all the other positions he played, so his total FRAA is more like 40. Compare his OPS+ comp Nettles, with 135 FRAA.

Now, 3B was a more important defensive position during Sutton's era, so maybe that's a wash, but I don't see Sutton being comparable to guys like Santo and Molitor, who sit in the tier below Matthews/Brett/Boggs. He doesn't have the offense to match with them, nor the defense, in Santo's case. He is more comparable to the career candidates down in the lower part of the list: Robinson and Nettles. It's not time-lining that puts him there, it's the total package on offense and defense that he brings.

Third Base preliminary ballot.

From one of the strongest positions (SS), we turn to one of the weakest (3B). Schmidt would rank second if he were ranked against the shortstops, but he is comparable to Lloyd, Ripken, and Vaughan, not to Hans. Mathews, Brett, and Boggs are comparable to the top 10 shortstops, but the quality falls off rapidly after that. Santo, who is #7 here, would be at #20 my shortstops list, as I see it. Lou Boudreau and Pee Wee Reese are his best comps, I think.

I. All-Time Top 10

none.

II. Inner-Circle HoMers
1. Mike Schmidt. Total = 492. Another election in which the top of the ballot is very easy. Mike Schmidt, while not an all-time top ten player, is comfortably in the inner circle. No one else is close.

III. Among the best players of their generation
2. Eddie Mathews. Total = 393. Hit like Schmidt, but a mediocre fielder.
3. George Brett. Total = 387. Brilliant when healthy: a player I was always excited to watch. As a hitter, he could do anything.
4 Wade Boggs. Total = 384. Nearly Brett’s equal in quality, and was a hit-machine during his peak, but not nearly as exciting a player as Brett.
5. Jud Wilson. Total = 330.5. Like Buck Leonard at first base, he got a late start in the Negro Leagues. I think he was probably closer to Mathews, Brett, and Boggs than my system shows.

IV. Obvious HoMers
6. Paul Molitor. Total = 309. George Brett lite, but his injury problems reduced his value considerably.
7. Ron Santo. Total = 295. Great prime; marvelously durable for the hot corner.
8. Frank Baker. Total = 265. Fabulous peak. If he hadn’t left the game twice before finally retiring, he would probably rank higher. I rank him above my system’s total because the missed time saps his career value.

V. Solid HoMers when you read the fine print
9. Heinie Groh. Total = 266. Peak was not far behind Baker’s. Unjustly forgotten.
10. Brooks Robinson. Total = 267. Top modern defensive third baseman.
11. Dick Allen. Total = 277. Could mash, but a defensive liability in a short career. I’d rather vote for him as a first baseman, but since he’s in this pool, here’s where I rank him at third. I don’t buy much of the “he hurt his teams” argument, but really, I’d rather have had Brooks Robinson as my team’s third baseman—hence the lower placement of Allen.
12. Darrell Evans. Total = 275. Odd career shape lowers him in the rankings somewhat, as does the uncertain value of his defense.
13. John Beckwith. Total = 264. The Dick Allen of the 1920s.
14. Graig Nettles. Total = 254. Almost as good defensively as Brooks Robinson; a better hitter than is usually recognized.
15. Jimmy Collins. Total = 249. Top pre-modern defensive third baseman. Just enough career to be a solid HoMer.
16. Ezra Sutton. Total = ???? Probably the best third baseman before Collins and McGraw, and managed a longer career at the position than anyone else in the nineteenth century, but didn’t put together a sustained peak, wasn’t a great fielder, and tended to have his strongest years as a hitter in seasons when league quality dropped. I support his inclusion in the HoM, but I think he is often overvalued. See my prior post for a more detailed accounting.
17. Stan Hack. Total = 246. Great at getting on base. Just enough defensive value to be a solid HoMer.

VI. Almost as good an argument to be out, as to be in
18. Ken Boyer. Total = 232. Nice prime, but short career. This placement is without military service credit, which he might deserve. Better than Bob Elliott and Ed Wiliamson, so not a bad choice at a weak position, but not as good as John McGraw.

Chris Cobb, why so high on Molitor? No peak, couldn't stay on the field, all those years at DH...what's pulling him up so high on your system?

Chris Cobb, why so high on Molitor? No peak, couldn't stay on the field, all those years at DH...what's pulling him up so high on your system?

Well, despite all that, he still had lot of very valuable seasons--I count 9 seasons of 4.2 WAR or better, and another 4-5 more in the 3+ range, and that's before an adjustment for playing in the DH league. That adds up: my system does like career value, and if there's enough of it, a player doesn't have to sport a great peak to do quite well. As so few of the third basemen who were really offensive forces had long careers, Molitor rises high.

Really, I think it's more an indication of how weak the competition is here. Molitor would be around 18 if he were dropped into the shortstop rankings.

His high ranking definitely isn't affected by my use of WARP1 and WS as well as WAR: if I used only the WAR score, he would still rank just behind the Big 5.

"Sutton's raw career OPS+ is helped by the fact that his late peak came in the longest seasons of his career. If you adjust his seasons to 162 games individually to weight his offensive performance equally for each season, his career OPS+ is only 110."

Wow, I had never considered that factor seriously for anyone (peak in the longest seasons). Thanks, Chris, as always.

We've had 9 lists, 2 of which didn't include the NeLers or Ezra Sutton. Still, pretty clear tiers are already evident. The rating is just the sum of the rankings. A low number is better. Wilson, Sutton and Beckwith just get their average for their missing values.

1. Schmidt 9--the Honus Wagner of 3B

2. Mathews 21
3. Brett 27
4. Boggs 33--the Lloyd, Ripken and Vaughan of 3B; no votes outside of 2-4

5. Santo 54--no votes outside of 5-7, the Appling of 3B

6. Molitor 73--I agree, not that good, probably a tier too high
7. Baker 78--a little under-rated but probably in the right tier
8. Wilson 79--under-rated but probaby in the right tier, big range from 5-15, which I understand, but he certainly oughta be closer to 5 than to 15

9. Allen 91
10. Groh 92--big range from 6-16, why?
11. B. Robinson 96
12. Da. Evans 97--big range from 7-17, which I understand

13. J. Collins 104
14. Sutton 106--I suppose Sutton and Collins could be a separate tier; it would be too much to bump them up with Allen and Groh
15. Beckwith 116--huge range from 5-17, which I, well, I don't understand a 5, were you thinking of Wilson?
15. Hack 116--range from 6-16, hard to see a #6 for Hack

17. Nettles 138
18. Boyer 150--obviously a big mistake

Wilson, Groh, Beckwith, Hack and Evans seem to be the tougher choices (bigger range) so far.

This probably won't make any difference to anybody, but check post #368 in the Beckwith thread. The MLEs, based on Holway, see 1922 as an off-season for him, when it was in fact one of his best seasons--.388/.435/.652 in 52 games vs. NNL opponents, .357/.415/.589 in 66 games against all top black opposition. He led NNL third basemen in both range factor (3.53, NNL ave 3.17) and errors (.913 fielding pct, .938 NNL ave).

Wow, I had never considered that factor seriously for anyone (peak in the longest seasons). Thanks, Chris, as always

In not considering that factor, I don't think you have missed much. I had been curious about this effect for early players for a while, so when the HoM-not-HoF ranking project gave me cause to look again at 1870s and 1880s players, I worked up the numbers. Sutton was, I think, the only player whose pro-rated OPS+ differed from his raw OPS+ by more than 2 points. But in that one case, it's a meaningful effect.

Offense-only chart. My usual system, based on RCAA. No extrapolation for season length. MLB players only.

An apology and a few notes that I remember from old analysis:

1. I apologize for not understanding how forgiving this group is about philosophy. I thought the group was MUCH more strict about evening out the decades than it seems now to be. So I apologize for obsessing when I got to George Wright. I'm still going to vote that way, because I think it's right, but I do understand that my opinion is not a hard consensus here. I badly overestimated the comments about hating timelining.

2. I don't dock Baker, Collins or Groh for playing time. They all three played about 15 years, and there's no one out there who's playing much more. Third base seems to have been an unusually physically demanding position in the early 20th century, and 15 years is about all anyone could get out of his body. I treat the three of them, when comparing to modern third basemen, as if they had played 18 years or so. Well, let's say 16 or 17 for Baker.

3. There's no one really like Home Run Baker playing third base anywhere near his time. I give him a lot of credit for that. Right now, my prelim list has him #2, ahead of even Brett. I do understand that this will probably be his highest vote.

4. One fun thing I did when I got the Historical Abstract was to take Bill's "overrated" players and look at who he had ranked above them that were either contemporary or earlier. George Sisler, for example, is ranked 24th at first base, but there's no one above him until you get back to the 19th century. So when the HoF voters decided he was the greatest first baseman of the 20th century, that was fact at the time. Well, the same thing applies to Jimmy Collins, who is also generally credited with inventing modern third base play, and is true of Pie Traynor (who isn't even on this list), unless you count either Stan Hack, who is actually later, or Home Run Baker. I give Collins credit there, and would give Traynor credit if he were here. On the other hand, the inability of HoF voters to understand just how great Baker was indicates that, early in the century, defense was valued very very highly. Everyone knew he could hit like no other third sacker.

5. What happened to Martin Dihigo? I just assumed he would end up here, although it is very well documented that he could literally play anywhere.

I have a real time understanding Beckwith/Wilson significantly below Dick Allen. They are very comparable hitters with Beckwith and Wilson both being described in their threads as "Dick Allen clones" but both were considered to have more career value than Allen. I can see a peak only voter bunching them up but I really have a hard time understanding Joe D's ballot placements.

Adding Dick Allen to the Negro League chart above and doing a Q&D;adjustment to 162 games shows that, according to the MLEs, while Beckwith's & Wilson's careers were longer, and their defense better, Allen was just in another class offensively than the two Negro Leaguers and it shows, particularly in the difference between peak values.

Comparisons between Major Leaguers and Negro Leaguers were never meant to be more than creating a generalized impression concerning ballplayers who we knew so little about. Both Beckwith & Wilson were big bat infielders not known for their glove. Both were known for their temper--Beckwith to the point where Holway has stated (according to the NBJHBA) "his character deficiences often negated his performance value." Combine that with a short career and Dick Allen seems a fairly good comparison, but like Dizzypaco said it would take a lot to equal Dick Allen's offense and the MLEs are only an educated guess, which at this point don't point to Dick Allen, IMO, but maybe a poor man's version.

Also, Beckwith may have played SS/3B, but the MLE grade for his defense is a D, I believe; however, I have no idea how accurate that is since it was entirely based on his reputation at the time the MLEs were made. There was also a lot of discussion about how much of a clubhouse cancer Beckwith really was; lots of information can be found in the rather large thread dedicated to Mr. John Beckwith.

Well, Jud Wilson was a pretty good 3B, I mean with the glove, and Beckwith was a SS/3B. Somebody please refresh my memory about Allen's defensive value.

My impression from the discussion on Jud Wilson was that he was an offensive guy first and that his glove wasn't something to brag about (like Beckwith). In that file I mentioned earlier his defensive grade is marked as "C+,B+". I'm not really sure what that means other than that one grade refers to 1B and the other to 3B. I guess I could go back and read his thread, but it's getting a bit late so I'll refresh my (hazy) memory concerning Negro League defensive analysis some other time. . . .

O's chart is interesting to say the least. Can't wait to see your ballot. Maybe Mike Schmidt won't be unanimous after all.

Brock, nice post. We all oughta remember that 3B was a lot different before 1930 than it has been since. My early-3Bmen rankings may be higher than most others, altho I'm not quite bold enough to slot F Baker at #2.

re: the case for/against Molitor. For a guy who 'wasn't durable', & got 'hurt a lot'; he sure had a career ANYWAY, didn't he? Name all of the men who played more games at "throwing infielder" positions who crossed home plate more times in their careers than Paul Molitor. Hint: Criag Biggio, limping along to his final career ##s, doubled the total. The man created runs for his team, and was a good glove while he played. Oh, and then you have his post-season stats: an OPS of about 1050 in 29 games. He scored 28 runs in those 29 games, and drove in 22. "Mister October"'s post-season stats look pathetic compared to Molitor.

The real question isn't if Paul belongs in the upper half of our group - it's more like should Molitor take the #4 spot form Boggs, a man who got on base extremely well but was a lousy runner and thus in rea life generated far fewer runs for his team than the RC formulae indicate.

re: Ezra Sutton - so underrated by the masses that we're now in danger of overrating him. Unless we go all Chris Cobb and underrate him :) A cursory look at BP's 'translated stats' show him to not be an offensive force, but he had a long career at a tough position and flashed a good glove. Really, I'm very glad we discussed him significantly, and my understanding of 19th century ball is greatly enhanced by finding this gem of a player. He won't make my top 7, but he seems a good comp for J Collins.

re: Beckwith and Allen. Y'all may as well get ready now to howl at my placements of the troblemakers.

Thanks for the discussion, it is clear I have been overestimating Beckwith's career length and slightly underestimating Wilson. Wilson seems comparable to Gwynn and Clemente offensively. I'm still having a really hard time (as a career voter) understanding either player below Dick Allen. Allen was a pretty terrible defender, even considering his time at 1B.

I can't get Beckwith below the Evans-to-Hack grouping so he'll end up somewhere in there. Wilson is going to move up to claim the #5 slot I had for Beckwith. Chris has me convinced that Ezra Sutton should place right behind Jimmy Collins at this point (ahead of Nettles).

This whole exercise has been fruitful. The only two guys I still don't understand at all how to place are Lip Pike and Al Spalding.

O's chart is interesting to say the least. Can't wait to see your ballot. Maybe Mike Schmidt won't be unanimous after all.

On the one hand, I think there is a slight edge of underappreciation of just how good a hitter Mathews was. Well, among the mainstream, it's more than slight. Mathews had to creep up on the HoF ballot for several years before he was elected; he should have been first ballot by acclamation. When some writer lists or mentions great third basemen, Mathews is likely to be the one he forgets about.

But against that are two other considerations:

The first, and bigger, consideration is defense. Schmidt was an outstanding defender. Mathews wasn't. In an earlier generation, Mathews wouldn't have been a third baseman at all - he'd have been LF or 1B.

The second consideration is Dan R's favorite point: it was easier to achieve offensive dominance in the 1950's than in the 70's-80's. Mathews wasn't as good an offensive player as Mickey Mantle; Schmidt doesn't have a Mantle to look up to. Of course that argument shouldn't be about Mantle, as there's no reason for players at that level to be evenly distributed in time. But there's still a point there. (Mathews did play in the stronger league.)

As for comparing Schmidt to Brett and Boggs: if you consider prime and start looking at, say, years 4-10 on my chart, Schmidt does pull a clear offensive edge on those two, and also has his defense. And recall that I didn't extrapolate for season length - I don't think that matters much for 154 vs. 162, but it does matter for 1981, considering what Schmidt was hitting that year.

I will put Schmidt first on my ballot - but putting Schmidt first is not the kind of no-thought-needed exercise that putting Wagner first on the shorstop balot was.

Chris Cobb, why do you make an adjustment to my WARP for playing in the DH league? Those adjustments are already baked into the replacement levels (0.6 WAR per full season lower in the AL than in the NL) and the standard deviation regression. No further effect is necessary...

Whoa, TomH, where is this coming from? Who cares about Runs? This isn't the 1880's and Harry Stovey, it's the 1980's...don't we have some moderately more sophisticated tools at our disposal? You're certainly right that after factoring in baserunning, Molitor created more offensive value above average than Boggs did. Boggs is ahead by 8 wins on raw hitting, but Molitor is a massive 13 wins ahead on baserunning, leaving an advantage of about 5 wins to Molitor.

However, that spread isn't anywhere close to as big as the gap in career defensive value between them. First, Molitor was not "a good glove when he played," he was an average one. He is -9.7 runs for his career in SFR and +10 by TotalZone. Boggs, by contrast, was a *damn* good glove: +91 runs according to SFR, +61 per TotalZone, and +48 just for the 1987-98 period covered by Chris Dial's Zone Rating numbers. So that's about +70, which is around 7.5 wins over Molitor given the run environment. Total value above average is +2.5 to Boggs.

But then comes the real kicker: Boggs was a real third baseman! A replacement player, in Boggs's playing time (2,215 games at 3B, 108 at DH, and 67 at P, with strike adjustments), would have been 31 wins below a player hitting and fielding at the league average. By contrast, a replacement player in Molitor's playing time (1,174 games at DH, 791 at 3B, 400 at 2B, 197 at 1B, 57 at SS, and 50 in the outfield, with strike adjustments) would have been just 21 wins below a player hitting and fielding at the league average. The result is a very beefy 12.5-win career advantage for Boggs. That's really big.

Then, if you care, obviously the peak is no comparison. Boggs had seven straight MVP-caliber seasons, while Molitor never once had a year good enough to justify starting the All-Star game. I just don't see how an honest voter could have Molitor even within sniffing distance of Boggs.

Not a voter, but again, there is an argument here which interests me. I'm not sure I buy the arguments that Brett deserves to be ranked above Boggs.

Some peak analysis...

Brett's best OPS+s:
203 (117 games, 112 at 3B)
178 (155 games, 152 at 3B)
158 (123 games, 102 at 3B)
153 (142 games, 1 at 3B)
149 (157 games, 0 at 3B)

Boggs's best OPS+s:
173 (147 games, 145 at 3B)
166 (155 games, 151 at 3B)
156 (149 games, 149 at 3B)
151 (161 games, 161 at 3B)
150 (153 games, 153 at 3B)

I leave this for people to see for themselves, but superficially, Brett looks like the better peak hitter, but several of his best seasons (including his superlative 1980) happened in years in which he missed quite a few games, and others happened in the latter part of his career by which time he'd been moved away from third base. For those people who care about consecutive-years peaks, subsets of Boggs's 1982-1990 will likely (once games played are taken into consideration) beat any section of similar length in Brett's career (especially if you restrict Brett to his seasons at 3B).

Career length:
Brett played 300 more games overall, but Boggs played 600 more games at 3B. (Brett spent roughly 35% of his career at 1B and DH). Brett has a higher OPS+ (135 to 130) but was (possibly) not as good a fielder (witness Boggs's Gold Gloves and the fact that Boggs was never moved off third, unlike Brett). Brett last played 3B regularly in 1986 at the age of 33. I submit that we shouldn't give Brett a ton of credit for his years after that when ranking him against Boggs at 3B.

All of the above could be gone into in more depth. For now, I'll strongly suggest that people who rank Brett over Boggs re-examine their numbers. I think Brett tends to get a boost in these sorts of discussions (perhaps too much of one) based on his reputation (gamer, clutch), but is not properly debited for his injuries, his (possibly) inferior defense, and the time he spent playing first or DHing. I can't argue Boggs/Brett over Matthews or Schmidt, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced that Brett belongs above Boggs.

Chris Cobb, why do you make an adjustment to my WARP for playing in the DH league? Those adjustments are already baked into the replacement levels (0.6 WAR per full season lower in the AL than in the NL) and the standard deviation regression. No further effect is necessary...

My understanding is that the DH adjustment is something you added into WAR version 2. I am still using WAR version 1 numbers, because I got a long way with them and have no time to update everyone to the new numbers. These posit a single major league replacement level. Therefore, I apply a DH adjustment for AL post-DH players. If I am mistaken in my understanding that adjustments for DH were not built in to WAR version 1, then I should obviously adjust my treatment of Molitor and a host of other post-1972 AL players.

Third Basemen ranking. MVP/AS are my own calculations, but for Negro Leaguers I use some combination of Holway/James MVP and AS selections. Monster = 15.0 WARP1 or WARP2 and above. Great=10.0 WARP1 or WARP2 and above. Interesting that no third baseman has ever had a Monster WARP1 or WARP2 season.

1. Mike Schmidt. 26.3 bws/700PA, 9 MVP, 14 AS. No Monster, 12 Great (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987). High – 12.9 W1 (1980).

2. Eddie Mathews. 26.8 bws/700PA, 9 MVP, 14 AS. No Monster, 7 Great (1953, 1954, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963). High 13.3 W2 (1959).

3. George Brett. 22.4 bws/700PA, 6 MVP, 12 AS. No Monster, 5 Great (1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1985). High 11.7 W1 & W2 (1980).

4. Wade Boggs. 20.8 bws/700PA, 6 MVP, 12 AS. No Monster, 6 Great (1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989). High 11.8 W2 (1989).

5. Jud Wilson. 22.7 bws/700PA (MLE), 1 MVP, 11 AS.

6. Paul Molitor. 21.2 bws/700PA, 4 MVP, 13 AS. No Monster, 1 Great (1982). High 10.0 W2 (1982).

7. Frank Baker. 24.7 bws/700PA, 4 MVP, 10 AS. No Monster, 6 Great (1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914). High 14.4 W1 (1912).

8. Ron Santo. 19.0 bws/700PA, 4 MVP, 8 AS. No Monster, 6 Great (1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968). High 14.1 W1 (1964) He also had 14.0 in 1967 as the only 3B to crack seasonal 14 WARP1 twice.

9. Brooks Robinson. 14.7 bws/700PA, 2 MVP, 11 AS. No Monster, 3 Great (1962, 1964, 1967). High 12.1 W1 (1964).

10. Dick Allen. 29.9 bws/700PA, 6 MVP, 9 AS. No Monster, 4 Great (1964, 1965, 1966, 1972). High 13.5 W1 (1964).

11. John Beckwith. 23.0 bws/700PA (MLE), 2 MVP, 7 AS.

12. Heinie Groh . 20.0 bws/700PA, 3 MVP, 8 AS. No Monster, 6 Great (1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920). High 13.7 W1 (1917).

13. Jimmy Collins. 17.2 bws/700PA, 3 MVP, 10 AS. No Monster, 5 Great (1897, 1898, 1901, 1903, 1904). High 12.1 W1 (1898).

14. Darrell Evans. 19.2 bws/700PA, 4 MVP, 11 AS. No Monster, 2 Great (1973, 1974). High 12.7 W1 (1973).

15. Stan Hack. 20.6 bws/700PA, 3 MVP, 11 AS. No Monster, 1 Great (1945). High 12.0 W1 (1945).

16. Ezra Sutton. 18.4 bws/700PA (after 1875), 2 MVP, 10 AS (starting 1871). No Monster, 1 Great (1884). High 10.8 (1884).

17. Graig Nettles. 15.7 bws/700PA, 1 MVP, 8 AS. No Monster, 1 Great (1976). High 11.3 W2 (1976).

18. Ken Boyer. 17.9 bws/700PA, 1 MVP, 8 AS. No Monster, 3 Great (1956, 1961, 1964). High 10.6 W1 (1964).

Chris Cobb, to be totally honest with you, I don't remember. But there's a real easy way to check: take two players with a SFrac of 1.00 at the same position at the same year in different leagues. Do they have the same Rep2 value? If so, then you need to adjust for the DH (0.6 wins/162). If not, then the adjustment is already baked in.

I just realized I left a line off of #31, because I didn't even have him listed with the third basemen:



The summary number I extract out of that puts him about even with Boggs offensively. I agree that he has to rank below Boggs becuase he had considerably less career defensive value.

Preliminary, with the two Negro Leaguers not placed as yet:

1. Mike Schmidt
2. Eddie Mathews - The gap between #1 and #2 is not as large as I once thought, and almost all of it is glove-related. Schmidt leads in OPS+ 146-145, OWP .740-.727, Mathews in EQA .318-.317. Schmidt’s lead is much larger in the metrics that encompass fielding.
3. Wade Boggs - Has the edge on Brett in several metrics (except WS). His real edge, for me, consists of 6 MVP-worthy seasons to Brett’s 4.
4. George Brett - I once thought more highly of Brett but his career at 3B was not all that long and, defensively, not all that glorious, despite one Gold Glove.
5. Ron Santo - I’m still hopeful about Cooperstown, but meanwhile…
6. Paul Molitor - Certainly the career numbers allow him to be placed this high, but I’m not certain it is warranted by other considerations.
7. Home Run Baker - Truly outstanding during his time, a shame it was disrupted.
8. Brooks Robinson - Seems to me his overall value is over-rated, although his defense was truly great. A lot of other Orioles had something to do with the team’s success in Brooksie’s years.
9. Dick Allen - I don’t usually think of him as a third baseman (652G).
10. Stan Hack
11. Eddie Collins
12. Heinie Groh - Numbers 10-12 don’t arouse any strong feelings in me, other than to say that they all seem worthy of inclusion in the HoM.
13. Graig Nettles - Should have had a few more GG. His 1971 season was probably the best ever for defense among third basemen.
14. Darrell Evans – I’ve always felt that his peak seasons were too spread out to qualify him as a really great player. Just too many so-so seasons mixed in.
15. Ken Boyer - Another good but not great player.
16. Ezra Sutton – I just can’t see him in any higher place on this list. A couple of good years but they came when the talent was thinnest.

(Jud Wilson and John Beckwith not yet rated.)

> Eddie Collins

Wrong Collins...

"Who cares about Runs...don't we have some moderately more sophisticated tools at our disposal?"

Given the choice between the non-sophisticated metric of runs scored, and your subjective 'all-star games started', I and many others might feel the former a better stake in the ground :)

Look, my point for mentioning runs was to quickly and simply refute the "Molitor was always hurt" argument, which doesn't hold much water if you look at his career totals.

I think Boggs is underrated by MLB fans; the fact that he did not even make the final 100 on the all-century team is lousy. How people have Brooks Robby ahead of him I don't know. I was a Red Sox fan in the 1980s, and appreciated those .440 OBAs. But....

Defensive value: OK, Boggs' career at 3B vice Molitor's all-over-the-diamond map might give Wade a 10-win edge. That's giving zero points for Molitor's flexibility, in say, moving to a new position (3B) for the good of the team, and then having them spank the league for their first and only pennant ever, and come one poorly-timed injury away from a deserevd World Series title. Is that worth ANYthing? That's also giving zero points for the tougher job, batting-wise, for being a DH. A few studies have shown baters hit slightly less well when DHing, and I think our 'replacement-level DH' models do not account for this very well.

Boggs took possibly more than his share of advantage of Fenway; .354 at home, .302 on the road, with 50% more wall-doubles at home. He may have been less valuable in other places.

Defense: BP and WS do not show Boggs significantly better than Molitor. Their reps while active seemed about equal as well. I will defer somewhat to the pbp methods smart people have developed for 1987-current time, but I think the ##s you gave overstate the case somewhat.

Win Shares has Molitor ahead on career, 412 to 294. I use a homemade WSAB, "base" being 13 WS per 162 games. They come out even using my WSAB. And again, WS replacement level for DH is pathetically low, AND it does not adjust for baserunning. If I only used WS, Molitor would come out ahead.

You have Molitor 13 wins ahead on baserunning. That's believable.

So, Molitor ahead on batting + baserunning, close on fielding, Boggs ahead on replacement level, Molitor small edge in flexibility, Molitor far ahead in post-season performance, which your methods didn't seem to account for. Seems close to me.

Yes, Boggs has a better peak argument. Even for a career voter like me, that puts Boggs on top of Molitor on my ballot.

"I just don't see how an honest voter could have Molitor even within sniffing distance of Boggs."
So that makes me...?

When evaluating Boggs, its worth keeping in mind that his primary offensive value was getting on base (which would typically lead OPS+ to underrate his contribution). However, I think Boggs' lack of speed is more relevant for him than for a typical slow player, given that getting on base was his primary value, and that he batted at the top of the lineup. He scored a lot of runs, but not as many as you'd might think given his on base percentage and the lineup batting after him (in Fenway Park), and he sure didn't drive in many. Jim Rice's enormous GIDP totals are partially a result of Boggs' baserunning, IMO.

I'm questioning how many actual runs he (or a player of his full range of abilities) was responsible for. Typically, I'd be very sympathetic to the durability argument against Brett, but in this case, its not hard for me rate Brett over Boggs, and I'm not sure Boggs isn't being overrated in general. He had a very good peak, but I don't think he really contributed that much during the 1990's, and I don't even think I would consider him a devastating player even in his best years.

A few studies have shown baters hit slightly less well when DHing,

The problem is how to know when a hitter is DHing because he's recovering from injury and when he'd DHing for the heckuvit. Manny Ramirez might well hit better as a left fielder than as a DH, but that may be because he's more likely to be DHing when his hamstrings are bothering him, and so forth.

I didn't say actual All-Star games, I said "good enough to start the All-Star game," which is 6 WARP2.

No, the "Molitor was always hurt" argument has nothing to do with his career value. It matters in terms of peak/pennants added, because he didn't contribute nearly as much value in any given discrete season as your average HoM'er due to his perennial missed games.

No, I don't think Molitor's willingness to shift to a new position is worth anything at all. If he HADN'T been willing to do what his manager asked him, I think there would be fair grounds to dock him for that. But I certainly don't see why he somehow deserves brownie points just for following orders. Does Banks get extra credit for moving to 1B? Will ARod get extra credit for moving to 3B? This is ludicrous.

I also see absolutely no reason to give a DH extra batting credit. The fact is that the minor leagues are full of guys who could be 100 OPS+ DH's in the major leagues (see Nate Silver's study). That is the appropriate baseline to measure DH batting against--period. Furthermore, for what it's worth, I think those studies are BS, because position players are likely to be nursing nagging injuries if they're put at DH.

Yes, Fenway was a dream park for Boggs. That won games for the Red Sox. Do you dock Mel Ott for playing in the Polo Grounds?

I don't see why we would pay the slightest attention to FRAA and WS now that we have stats using Retrosheet data, which show a far, far higher correlation to today's PBP metrics. SFR, TZ, and DRA are very, very good, and if they see things one way and FRAA/WS see them another, I'm going to weight FRAA/WS precisely 0 in my analysis (since they come out with a 0.00 weighting in the multiple regression analyses I've done). (DRA isn't available for Molitor because he so rarely played 130 games at one position in a season, so I left that stat out).

What, exactly, is Win Shares bringing to the table that my analysis is leaving out here? What additional information does it include that makes it relevant to this debate?

It makes you very, very misguided. :)

Dizzypaco, again, we have precise measures for this stuff, there's no need for more guesswork! Boggs' baserunning cost his teams 45 runs below average over the course of his career. You should knock about 3 points off his career OPS+ for it (but that's partially counteracted by needing to adjust for the OBP-heavy shape of his production).

Typically, I'd be very sympathetic to the durability argument against Brett, but in this case, its not hard for me rate Brett over Boggs

Why? You say that Boggs doesn't deserve as much credit for his OBP because (essentially) Jim Rice kept hitting into double plays. Ok, for the sake of argument, we'll fault Boggs for this. How much do we fault Boggs? And for any non-base stealer, how do we know they wouldn't have been just as much "at fault" if they'd been on base for Rice?

Back to how much do we fault Boggs. How many runs do we subtract from him for his (alleged) baserunning problems? And is that enough to make up for the (possibly) superior defense, superior OBP (possibly more important than SLG), and more games spent at the position in question? And are we yet properly taking credit away from Brett for his years spent extending his career as a DH/1B (which may or may not have kept him more healthy, which may or may not have allowed him to concentrate more on his hitting, and which almost certainly pads his OPS+ numbers relative to third basemen unfairly since he wasn't actually a third baseman for the last third of his career)?

Offense-only chart. My usual system, based on RCAA.

Brett  74 73 57 52 52 52 41 38 38 30 27 25 21 20 18 12  2  -5 -6 -19
Boggs  72 68 64 61 58 45 34 31 29 29 21 19 14  8  5  4 -4 -10

And here's a BRAA chart, restricted to seasons in which the player in question played a majority of his games at third base. (I'm using baseballprospectus's numbers, incidentally).



Notes:
Brett's 22 came in a strike year (1981). So did Boggs's 25 (1994) and, to a lesser extent his 18 (1995).
Boggs played a few more games/innings at 1B than at 3B in 1982 so I did not include it.

Are there voters who give credit for time missed due to managerial incompetence? (See Edgar Martinez and Wade Boggs for two, certainly; possibly Willie McCovey -- I don't know his story particularly well; arguably some black ballplayers as well. Not saying that Boggs's missed years are morally equivalent to Satchel Paige's or Minnie Minoso's, but I'm not sure how voters account for this).

"No, I don't think Molitor's willingness to shift to a new position is worth anything at all."

It's not willingness. It's ABILITY. A team without a player who has the ABILITY to be a utility infielder would be pretty hamstrung if they had to carry three backups for 2B, 3B and SS, none of whom could play anywhere else, would they not? The team is the sum of its parts, and ya know, sometimes WAR/TR/EqA does not comprehensively catch how to add to the sum.

Pete Rose moved to 3B for Cinci in 1975. He was uniquely qualified to do so. This got some guy named Foster in the lineup. Sorta helped the team win 108 games. That's worth nothing?? Any non-misguided analyst should be able to see this :)

What does Win Shares uniquely bring to the table? What if a team constantly under-(over-)performed their RC projections, or their W-L pythags? WS apportions credit for this. In Boggs' case, as others have said, he seemingly contributed to the team at times not equating to the sum of their parts, as a slow OBP guy stood on first abse in front of GIDP RH suggers. Jim Rice gets all the credit in bizarro-fan-world for his RBI. In bizarro-saber-world, he merely gets all the blame for the GIDP. In this case, I happen to think saber-world is closer to the truth, but the split ain't 100-to-0.

I still don't agree, Tom. Virtually every major league shortstop could be at least an average fielding 2B if they had to. How do you know that Boggs couldnt've shifted somewhere else if he had been asked to?? Yes, positional flexibility has a value in that it enables the team to effectively expand the roster (carry an extra reliever or whatever), but a) it's pretty small and b) it's not fair to just assume that guys who weren't asked to do it wouldn't have been able to.

Did Boggs's teams consistently have worse records than their OPS+/ERA+ would indicate, especially *after* deducting for the 45 runs--not more and not less--that we know Boggs cost them on the basepaths? If that's the case, it's news to me.

Dan R, the data I'm working with don't actually include SFRAC: just WARP1, WARP2, pennants added, rate, and salary. A separate file contains SDev for each league for each season and rep level for each position for each season. So SDev is broken out by league, but rep level isn't. AFAICT, there is no DH adj. to rep level in the iteration that I am using.

If I have time, I'll download the newer numbers and look at the third basemen in light of those, and see if it changes anything.

No, the rep level chart doesn't include the DH adjustment. The rep level chart is for the NL post-1973, there's just an 0.6 wins/162 correction added in to the actual calculations.

Moving from OF (or 1B) to 3B sucessfully is NOT common. Unsuccessfully, yeah. When a team has a 'hole', along with an extra good player on the bench, and a man fills the hole by moving to a more (or at least as) demanding a position (not just from SS to 2B), and the team is helped, I give the hole filler some extra credit. YMMV.

Well, that's not relevant in this case, since Molitor was moving to a less demanding position (3B) from a tougher one (2B).

so, you're saying you'd agree with my point if it WERE the case he was moving to a tougher one?

I wouldn't give him credit for the "flexibility" per se, no. But I would consider giving him credit for being "wasted" by his manager at a less demanding position for the years that he actually had the ability to play a more challenging one. Along similar lines, I could see giving Molitor a little extra credit for his first few years at 3B, because presumably he still would have been able to play a decent 2B if his manager had put him there.

Right about now I need Harvey's Wallbangers to give me an early 80s Brewer history short course.

Best as I can recall/put back together, in 1980/81, Jim Gantner came up, and he could really pick it at 2B. Molitor put in some time at SS in those years, but I guess was not gonna cut it as a fulltime SS. And they had this Yount guy anyways. So by 81, Molitor is mostly a CFer. Gorman Thomas is a huge bat and can also play CF, but he plays RF when Paulie is in center. They don't have a 3Bman in 81 - Money (late career, on decline?) and Howell are not cutting it. So in 82, Molitor goes to 3B from CF. This allows Money to DH, Thomas to CF, Charlie Moore of the rifle arm in RF. Success, all is well.

Could Molitor still have played 2B in 1981ff? (Could he have played SS for a MLB team that did not have Yount? I dunno!) Stats seem to say he was good at 2B in 80/81. Of course, maybe he was moved off for injury protection; would not be the first time THAT happened to a good-hitting 2Bman, and since he lasted long enough to collect a bajillion hits, ya can't argue it.

I perceive his flexibility helped the team, and that he may have been slightly underused. Not sayin everyone has to agree.

Just a quick reminder: Molitor didn't quite go directly from 2B to 3B. There's some OF in there.

1978-1979: primarily 2B, with occasional games at SS (but with Robin Yount developing, there was no need to have him play SS)
1980: hurt some. Played 2B when he played, but Gantner gets in a full year split between 2B and 3B.
1981: mostly hurt. Mostly played CF when he did play, with Don Money returning to 3B. Gantner established at 2B.
1982: 3B; completely healthy. Scores 136 runs.
1983: 3B. Healthy, mostly.
1984: Hurt. Misses nearly entire season.
1985: 3B. Plays 140 games.
1986: 3B. Misses a third of the season.
1987: Plays 118 games, split nearly evenly between DH and 3B/2B (yes, there were some games back at 2B). Scores 114 runs in 118 games.
1988: Healthy. 2/3 3B, 1/3 DH. Scores 115 runs.
1989: Healthy. 80% 3B, 20% DH. Towards the end of the year gets moved from leadoff to #3. Doesn't score as many runs.
1990: Misses a third of the season. Plays more 2B than anything else. (Gantner also hurt?)
1991: Becomes DH/1B. Remains primarily that for the rest of his career.

In the early 80's. Molitor would probably have been a better CF than Gorman Thomas. Whether Molitor in CF, Thomas in RF, and Money/etc. at 3B would have been a better alignment for the team ... eh, probably not.

Harveys has posted on this. I believe his line is that Molitor was good at both 2B and 3B, but kept getting hurt when he played the field.

Prelim:

Let's see if I'm any closer to consensus than I was on the shortstops...

1. Schmidt
2. Mathews (not far behind)

3. Baker
4. Brett
5. Boggs (these three are packed pretty tight, not certain about the order, though clearly Baker's peak speaks to me more than to most)

6. J. Wilson
7. Santo
8. Allen
9. Groh
10. E. Sutton
11. J. Collins
12. Beckwith
13. B. Robinson
14. Molitor
15. Hack
16. Da. Evans (this whole group is reasonably tight, though I can probably find some separation before my final ballot. Probably movement to come here before then)

17. Nettles (not in my pHOM)

18. Boyer (really not in my pHOM)

Presumably Molitor gets credit for the games he played at 2B and he gets credit for the games he played at 3B. And he gets credit for the games he played elsewhere. Prtesumably he doesn't get any EXTRA credit for playing anywhere or everywhere or nowhere. Next question.

sunnyday, that's how I vote too. But TomH is arguing for extra credit for Molitor on the grounds of "flexibility."

Exactamente.

glad we all agree on what we mean at least :)