Nate seems awfully unimpressed with Chipper's 99 season, which was one of the best ever for a third baseman. He's dinging Chipper because BPro's defensive stats don't speak highly of Chipper, isn't he?

He's dinging Chipper because BPro's defensive stats don't speak highly of Chipper, isn't he?

I think the that's part of it. And I think the Hooters waitress thing was an unnecessary swipe, but I'll hold judgment to see what they say about A-Rod's chick next time he's mentioned. Other comment of note:

“Larry Jones. There’s a good ‘ol boy who didn’t get messed up in that PED stuff."

Granted, Nate here is channeling suspected MSM reasoning -- Chipper wasn't a juicer -- but I think this example (which I've heard elsewhere) is indicative of just how damn hard it is going to be to discuss steroids in this era intelligently. Maybe I watch too many Braves games, but surely I'm not the only one who noticed just how beefier Chipper was from the late 90s until 2003 or 2004, am I? In the past couple of years he's been much thinner.

Does that mean anything? No, but not much more than that has been used to accuse others of steroid use. I love the Braves and Chipper Jones, but I always have wondered why he (and others) have gotten a free pass.

Nate seems awfully unimpressed with Chipper's 99 season, which was one of the best ever for a third baseman.

Yep, Jones had an OPS+ of 175 in '99, a number that Mike Schmidt only bested once in his career (1981, 199)

Maybe BP disses his defense so much that they refuse to acknowledge him as a third baseman.

Yep, Jones had an OPS+ of 175 in '99, a number that Mike Schmidt only bested once in his career (1981, 199)

And Schmidt's came in a strike season. Chipper in 1999 had the seventh-highest OPS+ ever by a third baseman with at least 502 PAs, and most runs created ever by a 3B.

Yep, Jones had an OPS+ of 175 in '99, a number that Mike Schmidt only bested once in his career (1981, 199)

George Brett bested it twice: 202 in 1980, 178 in 1985, and was clearly a better third baseman than Schmidt.

;)

Chipper won the 1999 NL MVP Award, although his WARP (9.0) was not especially strong for an MVP winner

I wonder if he would say the same thing about A-rod in 05. Because A-rod's defense was pretty bad in 05, and I doubt Chipper's was much worse. And Chipper out hit A-rod.

I have watched Chipper Jones play third base his entire career, and there is no way he is as bad as the BPro numbers describe. It would be pretty obvious to any regular baseball fan. He doesn't go to his right that well, but otherwise the feet are ok, the hands ok, and the arm is pretty good. In any evaluation metric there are going to be outputs that don't make sense. Why the folks there don't just put an "asterik" by Jones defensive rating puzzles me. 'Cause he is ok. Not good. Not great. But he gets by.

Jones was the offensive anchor for one of the best teams in baseball for over a decade. He's going to the Hall of Fame.

Defensive metrics have fallen into a trap that befalls many new developments in science. The current crop of defensive metrics are worlds better than what came before. Thus, there is a tendency to conclude that they're actually good (accurate representations of defensive ability, in this case) when that isn't the case. Being better than utter garbage isn't a good bar. One day, soon, I hope, there will be ways to quantify defensive performance. But I don't think we're there yet. Unfortunately, the guys who come up with these metrics don't look at the results and think that their metric is wrong; they think that they've discovered that scouts, players, managers and legions of baseball fans are wrong in their evaluation of players.

Unfortunately, the guys who come up with these metrics don't look at the results and think that their metric is wrong; they think that they've discovered that scouts, players, managers and legions of baseball fans are wrong in their evaluation of players.

I would assume that, based on results, ESPN's Defensive Ratings are the best ever? They do seem to mesh quite well with how scouts, players, managers, and legions of baseball fans feel about the relative defensive merits of players.

Cause he is ok. Not good. Not great. But he gets by.

That's about as accurate a description of Chipper's defense as possible.

What's interesting just from personal observation is that Chipper doesn't seem to have degraded much defensively. He's essentially the same defensive player he was in 1999. He spent two and a half years in left field, moved back to third base in 2004 and basically just picked up where he left off.

I would argue that Chipper should be in the Hall if he retired today. Sorry, Nate. Look at his OPS+ in regards to other 3rd basemen in the Hall. He doesn't have the longevity of some of the others, but his hitting at 3rd has been, well...:

Schmidt 147
ARod 146
Chipper 143
Mathews 143
Brett 135
Boggs 130
Rolen 128
Kell 111
Lindstrom 110
Traynor 107
B Robinson 104

And the BP defensive metrics have been debunked by many...especially in regards to Chipper (who is unfairly penalized by BP for playing behind the Braves' staff). Chipper has never been Rolen, but he's not Bonilla either. He's Hall-worthy, easy. My main concern is the writers won't understand how valuable Chipper's .400ish OBP% is...

I don't grok how not 1, not 2, but 3 starting pitchers in 1999 can outrank a MVP-caliber position player. I haven't checked but would be willing to bet that Larry's edge in Win Shares over Maddux, Glavine, and Unit would be close to 10.

I will always believe thaat Chipper's 1999 MVP was won, not because of his overall year -- which was indeed fine -- but because of the way he helped to secure the Braves' first place finish by completely destroying their division-rival Mets in head to head competition.

I just went to BB-Ref to look it up, to make sure my memories of that year are accurate, and not a product of PTSD. Over the 12 games against the Mets, Chipper batted .400, with a .510 OBP and a 1.000 SLG. In those 12 games, he hit 7 HRs, drove in 16 runs, and scored 14.

The Braves went 9-3 against the Mets that year, and won the division by 6.5 games.

but because of the way he helped to secure the Braves' first place finish by completely destroying their division-rival Mets in head to head competition.

Tthe 9/21 through 9/24 series is when he won it, going 4 for 9, with all four hits being home runs. He produced eight of the 13 runs the Braves scored in the series. And more importantly, that was the Mets last best chance to make some noise and really make it a race, and Chipper really slammed the door on them. On the 21st, he homered in the first inning to give the Braves a 1-0 lead, then hit a game winning homer in the bottom of the 8th in a 2-1 win. The next day he gave the Braves a 2-0 lead with another homer in the first inning. In the final game, he hit a 2-run homer in the fifth that put the Braves ahead for good. And doing it against a New York team must have left a huge impression on voters.

And doing it against a New York team must have left a huge impression on voters.

I am sure. It made an even bigger impression on Met Fans at the time.

Thus, there is a tendency to conclude that they're actually good (accurate representations of defensive ability, in this case) when that isn't the case. Being better than utter garbage isn't a good bar. One day, soon, I hope, there will be ways to quantify defensive performance. But I don't think we're there yet. Unfortunately, the guys who come up with these metrics don't look at the results and think that their metric is wrong; they think that they've discovered that scouts, players, managers and legions of baseball fans are wrong in their evaluation of players.


The defensive metrics from BIS, ZR, and the revised UZR are good metrics. Not being as good as offensive stats doesn't mean bad.

BPro's aren't good at all, nor is DSG's "Range", but BIP/vchance based stats are good.

And Chipper, IMO is slightly above average. BPro misjudges Chipper's career defense by - what - 200 runs? It's stunningly poor analysis.

Moreover, Ron Santo can't hold Chipper's jock. What nonsense.

Moreover, Ron Santo can't hold Chipper's jock. What nonsense.

Y'know, I was gonna rag on Silver's comment that Santo was better but this is far bigger BS.

Santo played 2243 games, 2130 of them at 3B. Jones is at 1808 and 1350. 2.5 seasons of games and 5 seasons of 3B counts for a lot in my book. And Jones may be average as a 3B but it's highly unlikely he was as good as Santo.

There's no doubt Chipper's the better hitter for his career. But their peaks were pretty close (best 5 seasons, 500+ PA, OPS+ and EQA):

Jones 175, 162, 155, 146, 142
Santo 164, 161, 153, 146, 138

Jones 346, 334, 333, 322, 315
Santo 334, 333, 324, 317, 307

Add defense and Santo was quite possibly better in those years.

So it comes down to this:

1. Chipper's the better hitter
2. Santo had the longer career (to date), especially at 3B
3. Santo was almost certainly the better defender but we have little/no good idea by how much

There's a good chance that Santo's career value is greater than Chipper's right now. When we discussed this last year, using your numbers from the last decade plus, Santo needed to be the defensive equivalent of Matt Williams to best Chipper on career value (even using your numbers for Chipper's defense). Chipper's the more talented player, he probably wins a 10-year (or, say, 6-7,000 PA) comparison reasonably handily (assuming we don't use BPro's numbers). If he plays reasonably well for another three years, he'll pass Santo easily in career value. If he retired now, I'd probably put him in ahead of Santo.

But to say Santo can't hold his jock -- utter ########.

But to say Santo can't hold his jock -- utter ########.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that that was overstatement for effect.


Looking at the numbers though, what jumps out is that Santo was retired by the age that Chipper is now (35). Those extra years for Santo came at the beginning of his career, when he was a below average hitter (overall- he had one nice year among the 3). Not that I am giving Santo demerits for that.

It was for effect, but Chipper is a b etter player, and has anotehr handful of years ahead of him. If you had to pick either one (at the start of their career), you take Chipper, and it isn't particularly close.

I will always believe thaat Chipper's 1999 MVP was won, not because of his overall year -- which was indeed fine -- but because of the way he helped to secure the Braves' first place finish by completely destroying their division-rival Mets in head to head competition.

I hate to be nit-picky about this, but Chipper's 1999 season wasn't "fine." It was spectacular. Aside from the 175 OPS+, he also stole 25 bases and was caught only thrice. Chipper deserved to win that MVP even if he hadn't eviscerated the Mets in that September series. That was just a huge, wonderful, extraordinary bonus.

I hate to be nit-picky about this, but Chipper's 1999 season wasn't "fine." It was spectacular. Aside from the 175 OPS+, he also stole 25 bases and was caught only thrice. Chipper deserved to win that MVP even if he hadn't eviscerated the Mets in that September series. That was just a huge, wonderful, extraordinary bonus.

That might have been the year he had utterly horrendous defensive stats. Maybe it was 2000.