is chasing down Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, Boggs, Mantle, Rose, Murray and Raines

I understand the first 4 players in the list, but the other ones don't make much sense to compare to a 3b. Mantle played a difficult position and I suppose you could say that Rose did for part of his career, too. Anybody want to fill me in?

I'd call Rolen more than a pretender in the Chavez/Glaus mold. Blalock and Ramirez don't belong in the conversation. I'm not sure how you can mention David Wright and not Miguel Cabrera.

Anybody want to fill me in?

Great switch hitters.

Personally, I rank Chipper as "about" the second best 3B of all time. He can't catch Schmidt, and just needs a bit more volume to be #2. 2-3 years of normal decline, and he passes Brett.

He was always a decent glove man. I wish BPro would fix or remove his defensive ranking - it wrongly makes people think he wasw awful at third, and that a serious disservice.

Rolen, with any decent bat recovery (and I think he will), should be considered for the HOF, if he can climb in PAs.

Chipper is baseball royalty and deserves to be treated as such during the twilight of his career

oh-uh.

I see trouble.

Personally, I rank Chipper as "about" the second best 3B of all time. He can't catch Schmidt, and just needs a bit more volume to be #2. 2-3 years of normal decline, and he passes Brett.

Uh-huh. I would very much like to know the basis on which you think that Brett is superior to Eddie Mathews, and thus the basis on which you think that Chipper has to catch Brett rather than Mathews. Right now, with 2000 fewer PAs (10101 for Mathews, 8143 for Chipper), they have the exact same career OPS+ (143). I see little likelihood that Chipper is going to be as good or better an offensive player in his last few years than he has been throughout his career, but hey, anything's possible. IMO, Chipper is fighting for third, with only a longshot chance at ousting Mathews from the # 2 spot.

Great as Chipper Jones has been, I doubt he ends up the best 3B among his contemporaries. Alex Rodriguez is probably going to wind up playing more games at third than short.

I agree, Sam. No way Chipper maintains that career OPS+. Boy, two things leap to mind here: 1) Matthews was a monster; 2) The Braves have enjoyed some amazing offensive production at 3b! Regarding Rolen, will his bat recover? Sure doesn't look good. And do folks think of him as Chris does? I'd be surprised if he gets any support for the HOF at all, even if his bat does recover...

I am sure few think of Rolen like that. But people tend to get bogged down with their own perceptions rather than on-field performances.

As for the Dugout Central articles: Part of what's frustrating about these DC articles is the limited manner in which the authors approach their craft. They latch onto a system of their own devising, then reveal nothing about how it works, yet claim it is superior, and will make them lots of money when MLB teams hire them on. Or, they pick a single stat and make overarching claims based upon it. And, so we get a guy like Doyle who vomits up offal like this:

Rob Neyer and Peter Gammons have both stated that Chipper would be a Hall of Famer if he retires right now. Chipper disagrees. He feels he needs five more good years to make the best case possible for the Hall. It’s very possible that Chipper is correct. After all, he hasn’t made an All-Star team since 2001.

Sure I'm beating a dead horse, but how is that relevant? How is that analysis?

Then, Doyle will call a player like David Wright, who is all of 25 and has what looks like a legit career ahead of him, the

golden boy du jour in the National League and...perhaps the greatest of the pretenders.

What is this crap? Why even bother to RTFA? How is Wright's career thus far that of a pretender? And, yeah, where is Miguel? He's not a good defensive 3B, but his offense is so bloody insane: 150+ OPS+ scores at ages 22-24... Both Wright and Cabrera are ahead of Chipper at this point, though we can't possibly know if they will be able to maintain as Chipper has, even if all signs do point to yes.

I'm more interested in how you guys rate this...

Sure I'm beating a dead horse, but how is that relevant? How is that analysis?

It might not be analysis (though it might be), but it certainly is relevant. You don't think the fact that Chipper hasn't been considered the best 3B in his league over the last 5 years is relevant?

It's also reasonable to list Wright and not Cabrera if you are asking the question "Who is currently the best 3B in the NL?"

I can see the lines of reasoning the author is using. And just to note, I do think Chipper is a lock for the HOF, but is still probably 5th behind Boggs and Brett because of career length.

It's also reasonable to list Wright and not Cabrera if you are asking the question "Who is currently the best 3B in the NL?"

I think at this point, it's completely unreasonable to consider Cabrera the best 3B in the NL.

If I am asking a question about who is the best third-baseman in the NL, I don't look to All-Star appearances to answer it, especially not first off. Doyle obviously does. And, given how stacked the position is offensively, I'm not too concerned about whether a 36-year old is the very best in the league. He is in the top 5, though, and has been the very best multiple times in his career. I can see Doyle's lines of reasoning too. I just think they are weak, and reveal a lack of depth (which may well be consistent w/ the typical fan and/or HOF voter). But maybe that's just me...

The more that people write articles about player, while he is still active, asking whether he has already achived a Hall of Fame Career, the more likely (I believe) that he will get voted in. The concept of Chipper Jones (or whoever), Hall of Famer, gets embedded in the sportswriters memory.

So, by all means, let us see more articles about Chipper in this vein. He already deserves election, and I think these help.

You don't think the fact that Chipper hasn't been considered the best 3B in his league during the first half of any given year over the last 5 years is relevant?

That's more like it. Chipper's usually done his best work in the second half, and he's had a few years where he's suffered some minor injuries in the first half, which prevented an All-Star selection (last year being a prime example).

Hell, Chipper wasn't an All-Star selection in '99, and he won the MVP award that year.

If I am asking a question about who is the best third-baseman in the NL, I don't look to All-Star appearances to answer it,

Apologies if it pops up later in the article, but the AS reference in the quoted bit is about his chances of making the HoF, not "who's the best 3B in the NL." And yes, not making the AS game since 2001 is relevant to that ... unfortunately.

But, if one looks at it, those lack of performances aren't due to a lack of appreciation necessarily. In 02-03, he was in LF where there's lots of AS competition. 04 was a lost year, 05-06 were injury-plagued (and 05 he was injured mid-season). 07 is the real head-scratcher -- he'd missed a couple weeks but he was carrying a 1000 OPS at the time the teams were selected.

Jones vs. Mathews is a tough call. Jones will decline? No doubt, but he's been over his career 143 OPS+ each of the last 3 seasons, so he's got some decline cushion before that career OPS+ starts to drop. Chipper also brings baserunning value that Mathews didn't have. I know nothing about Mathews' defense but I'm gonna guess Chipper is better. Obviously Chipper needs to catch up in PA and (unlikely) games at 3B (he's 700 behind) so I tend to agree that he probably won't catch Mathews. But I'm far from ruling it out as we have seen no evidence of offensive decline in Chipper.

As to all-time 3B, I agree that Mathews is #2. I put a lot of emphasis on games played at the position and Brett had only 1,692. Even if we grant that Brett was a better offensive player (not at all clear to me), too much of that value was amassed at other positions. While I'm more a peak than career guy when it comes to the HoF, "greatest ever" (especially at a position) requires a long, great consistent career at that position.

As to guys like AROD -- I really dislike calling someone an "X" just because they played a few more games at X than Y. How does AROD rank as a 3B? Let's look at how he did during his years as a 3B. Where does he rank as a SS? Let's rank him against other SS and adjust for games played. Somewhat contrary to the Brett-Mathews comparision, AROD produced so much more than even most other great SS that in his 10 years (or whatever), he probably still ranks no worse than 3rd-4th in career value (depending on defensive ratings and whether you measure vs. average or vs. replacement).

I'll grant, in AROD's case and some others, I'm more lenient as it's clear that during his time as an SS, he could have played 3B (IMO, we can't assume the reverse though) and you can make a pretty good case for best ever if he had. For someone like Brett or Banks -- sure, both obviously could have played 1B/DH their entire careers, but then their numbers don't look so impressive. Banks and Brett are in because, even in their limited time at their first positions, they established themselves as in the top 3 or 4 who had ever played that position (up to that time). Also milestones helped obviously.

Back to Chipper -- the interesting question is what do the Braves do now. Chipper's getting old and probably should move to 1B. Do they live with Chipper at 3B, probably getting worse defensively and more injury-prone, and resign Teixeira? Do they resign Teixeira and let Chipper go whenever his contract is up (or earlier)? Or do they let Teixeira go and gamble on the aging Chipper at 1B? Or does Chipper give it a second go in LF?

And on "pretenders" -- Rolen was outstanding defensively in his prime and I suspect more valuable than Chipper. Rolen's 3 years younger but has a few more games at 3B. I seriously doubt Rolen catches Chipper for his career -- Rolen hardly looks like a good bet to age well. Rolen is sorta this generations Santo.

But before anybody misunderstands that, let me make very clear -- Santo did not have a short career. He had 2,243 games with 2,130 at 3B -- that's just a smidgen behind Mathews. Who knows how the defense compares, but Rolen seems to have a way to go to catch up with Santo.

Seeing both of them play I will say that Chipper was the better fielder and by far a better baserunner. Jones gets aided by the better fielding conditions but even so Eddie didn't have a lot of admirers on the Braves pitching staff. Of course, nobody was about say ANYTHING to Eddie who wasn't restrained by the societal norms of today. Mathews expressed himself with his fists quite well.

Baserunning it isn't close. Eddie was a sharp player but Jones is just on another level. Because Mathews hit the ball in the air so much he avoids the double play that gets Chipper as he is a line drive guy.

Classic contrast as Jones is the better all-around player but Eddie could really hit and did it in a terrible environment. Jones plays against a fully integrated game but Mathews against a concentration of talent. Eddie faced top flight pitching a LOT. Robin Roberts. Curt Simmons. Carl Erskine. Don Newcombe. Don Drysdale. Mizell. Antonelli. Podres. Friend. Larry Jackson.

I think in the same place, at the same time I give the edge to the Krauthead.

But I am likely biased.....................

"And on "pretenders" -- Rolen was outstanding defensively in his prime and I suspect more valuable than Chipper. Rolen's 3 years younger but has a few more games at 3B. I seriously doubt Rolen catches Chipper for his career -- Rolen hardly looks like a good bet to age well. Rolen is sorta this generations Santo."

At the risk of seeming insensitive, I'd say Rolen clearly has a leg up on Santos.

Or do they let Teixeira go and gamble on the aging Chipper at 1B? Or does Chipper give it a second go in LF?

I could see Chipper at 1B if they can't afford to bring back Tex; I don't see him going back to LF, though. I think he just hated it in the outfield. I see him at 3B until such time as he and Cox decide together that he's a problem over there.

And, yeah, where is Miguel? He's not a good defensive 3B, but his offense is so bloody insane:

no one thinks that when his career is over the majority will have been spend at 3B...

I give Brett the edge in peak value over these guys although Eddie and Chipper are likely better prime guys. Brett should also get some consideration for playing in an era that A. was tougher to dominate and B. featured better competition at 3B than any other in history (particularly relevant, I believe, in analyzing Gold Gloves and fielding metrics as he was competing against a group of great fielders).

I give Brett the edge in peak value over these guys although Eddie and Chipper are likely better prime guys.

Not sure what you mean here; is it one year peak vs. 3-5 year peak?

I'm a little surprised with all of the comparison to Brett that there isn't more comparison with Boggs; has the end of Boggs' career tarnished his image that much?

I've never heard anyone suggest Boggs belonged in the conversation with Brett and Matthews over who was second best.

Is ARod a slamdunk vs Schmidt for career value? Schmidt played better defense at 3rd. His D at short probably wasn't as good as ARod's, but I'm not sure what place that has in the discussion. Schmidt's offensive leadership of his era outpaces ARod's of his by a bit, I think.

In today's parks, Schmidt challenges for 700 HR's, I'd think.

I've never heard anyone suggest Boggs belonged in the conversation with Brett and Matthews over who was second best.

Then I'll suggest it. Boggs belongs in the conversation, at least.

Boggs had a career 130 OPS+ in 2439 games.
Brett had a career 135 OPS+ in 2707 games.

Brett clearly appears to be in the lead. But...

(1) Boggs's OPS+ is OBP-heavy. That (probably) helps him.
(2) Boggs played 2215 games at 3B (and only 175 at 1B/DH). Brett played 1692 games at 3B (and 967 at 1B/DH). In other words, roughly 40% of Brett's career was played at 1B/DH. That fact ought to be considered.
(3) Boggs won two Gold Gloves to Brett's one. Yeah, yeah, Gold Gloves are relatively meaningless. Still, combined with (2), I think one needs to at least consider the possibility that Boggs makes up some of any offensive difference with his glove.

Let's look at totals (using baseball prospectus numbers for convenience).

Boggs, career: 462 BRAA, 48 FRAA --> 510 runs above average
Brett, career: 498 BRAA, -3 FRAA --> 495 runs above average

I assume that the above offensive numbers adjust for Brett's time at first base, that he gets credit for his time there but is compared to other 1B-men. And the result is that Boggs comes out ahead. Granted, Boggs comes out ahead thanks to BP's infamous FRAA, but again, depending on how one adjusts for position in an argument about "second-best third baseman ever," I think the offensive numbers are close enough that Boggs clearly merits mention in the discussion, at least.

Of course, some people like peak arguments...

Looking only at seasons in which Brett played the plurality of his games at third base (i.e., through 1986)...

Brett's OPS+s: 203, 178, 158, 148, 144, 144, 142, 141, 137, 125, 123, 121, 91
Boggs's OPS+s: 173, 166, 156, 151, 150, 142, 141, 140, 127, 125, 121, 119, 104, 102, 98, 96, 94, 94

Brett had the best season by this measurement, obviously. Depending on how one defines peak, I think Brett would likely seem to be ahead here...

But OPS+ doesn't take games played into consideration. It's all well and good to give Brett full credit for his amazing 203 OPS+ in 1980, but he only played 117 games that year.

So once again, let's look at Baseball Prospectus's numbers (again, for Brett, through 1986)...

Brett's BRAA: 65, 63, 40, 39, 36, 33, 31, 25, 20, 19, 18, 10, -7
Boggs's BRAA: 65, 62, 55, 49, 48, 42, 31, 27, 26, 19, 18, 15, 8, 4, 2, 0, -4, -5

Wow. At this point, Boggs looks to have had the better peak, doesn't he? Boggs's 1988 is a match for Brett's 1980, Boggs's 1987 is only slightly behind Brett's 1985, and then Boggs has four more seasons better than Brett's third best as a third baseman.

So what do we have? Painting things in a fairly-pro Boggs light, we have Boggs amassing more career value in games played at 3B (though possibly not overall). We have Boggs having a better peak as a 3B (and, though not presented above, also if we give Brett credit for his games played at 1B but still compare him in those seasons to other 1B).

I don't understand why Boggs wouldn't be in the discussion for second-best 3B if Brett is in the discussion. Yes, Brett had a mystique about him. Opponents feared him more than Boggs. I'm still unconvinced that Brett's fear factor merits ignoring the 600 more games Boggs played at third base (despite the late career start) or the (frankly) better peak that Boggs had. Brett may have been a better overall player. One may prefer to have had Brett's career over Boggs's career. But I think Boggs definitely has an argument over Brett as a 3B.

-----

Matthews, is tougher. I'm not sure I see how to construct an argument for Boggs over Matthews unless one BOTH gives a lot of credit to Boggs for his OBP-heavy OPS+ AND assumes Boggs had a lot more defensive value than Matthews.

Boggs over Brett I can see. Either Boggs or Brett over Matthews is one I have nore trouble understanding. But if people think Brett deserves consideration, then I think Boggs surely does (even if Brett is ultimately thought to rank higher).

no one thinks that when his career is over the majority will have been spend at 3B...

People were saying the same thing about the Notorious I-N-G and look how that's turned out...