Chris,

Do you really think Edgar is a future HOFer? I sure hope so, but I'm very doubtful.

I like how he simply says that ever metric (other than his own presumably) is wrong WRT Chipper's fielding.

I watch a lot of Braves games, and while I don't think Chipper was ever Jeter bad out there, he isn't good and hasn't been for a long time.

I like how he simply says that ever metric (other than his own presumably) is wrong WRT Chipper's fielding.

I don't say that. I said Adjusted Range Factors (which FRAA and WS are) tend to be wrong because they estimate chances, while my method uses *actual* chances. Which would you think is better?

Do you really think Edgar is a future HOFer?

THis got mentioned at Baseball Analysts too, and I think I poked myself in the eye. I have long been sure that he wasn't, but an empirical look at standards I generally accept intimate he could be - however, I would give Edgar a negative defensive rating, presumably a large enough one to drop his overall (offense plus defense) outside of the threshold for the HOF.

Evidence of the "Chipper gets no respect" phenomenon: 4 comments into his "is he the greatest 3B ever" thread, and it is high-jacked to talk about the HOF chances of Edgar Martinez. By thread 10, people will be debating about David Wright's hygeine habits.

Evidence of the "Chipper gets no respect" phenomenon: 4 comments into his "is he the greatest 3B ever" thread, and it is high-jacked to talk about the HOF chances of Edgar Martinez.

Exactly, Dial, why don't you give Chipper any respect? :)

4 comments into his "is he the greatest 3B ever" thread, and it is high-jacked to talk about the HOF chances of Edgar Martinez.

Best ever: probably not gonna happen. HOF-worthy: definitely, he's probably already in and has been for years (although he's solidifying his five-year auto-candidacy chances). Inner circle? That's the question. As Mr. Dial said, he keeps going a little longer like he is and he will be whether the voters know it or not.

3Bman do get no respect. Frankly, I think a lot of folks would say there's just one inner-circle HOF 3Bman, and a lot of other folks would complain about all his strikeouts and sub-.270 BA. Hell, Eddie Mathews retired with 500 HR and had to wait four extra years (so much for the supposedly magic 500 HR mark).

Griffey has no business being mentioned among Mantle, Mays, Cobb, and Speaker. He's a fair shot behind all of them. His peak was much lower, and his lack of durability in his 30s, make it a clear case.

This is not, of course, Chris' main point. It seems inconceivable that Jones could get the Santo, Blyleven, Dahlen treatment, but I suppose that anything is possible. He's a great, great player.

Griffey has no business being mentioned among Mantle, Mays, Cobb, and Speaker. He's a fair shot behind all of them. His peak was much lower, and his lack of durability in his 30s, make it a clear case.

I agree he shouldn't be, but I am pretty sure he will be.

This is not, of course, Chris' main point. It seems inconceivable that Jones could get the Santo, Blyleven, Dahlen treatment, but I suppose that anything is possible. He's a great, great player.

It has been pointed out to me that there is an April 30 BPro article where this may be intimated based on a skewed view of Chipper's defense.

(sigh...)

I hate Chipper Jones...

(Of course, that's the fanboy in me talking.)

I read that BP article with contempt. Why do they even bother mentioning FRAA any more when they know what a bad statistic it is? Now that they have Dan Fox's simple fielding runs, they should re-do their database with those numbers in the years for which they have them.

---
I have numbers for three alternate PBP-based systems that cover some or all of Chipper's career.

UZR from 2003 to 2007 has Chipper as +8/150 at third base.
Dan Fox's SFR has him at +3 over his career (1994-2007) at third base.
SG's ZR database has him at +44 (+4.5/150) over his career (1994-2007) at third base.

My memory is hazy, but I think the talk of Chipper moving to LF picked up steam after he had some high-profile fielding miscues. It started at the end of 2000, when he made an error in the 9th inning of the last game of the season which led to a loss and the team's losing home-field advantage for the playoffs. Then in the 2001 NLCS he made errors in a couple of games that led to runs scored in games the Braves lost. Despite generally steady fielding these helped build a rep that his defense was becoming a problem.

It has been pointed out to me that there is an April 30 BPro article where this may be intimated based on a skewed view of Chipper's defense.

BPro has been slamming Chipper on defense for years, it's an article of faith with them. even when their own numbers suggested that he was at worst mediocre they simply ignored the numbers and declared him abysmal.

Which would you think is better?

Eyeball Mark 1

Seriously, I agree with your main point, Chipper is and has been every bit as great (if not moreso) as Griffey Junior, not that the MSM will ever recognize it.

Chipper’s defense has been below average exactly twice in his thirteen-year career.

I am always surprised by the confidence with which Advanced Defensive Metricians put forth their claims.

Griffey has no business being mentioned among Mantle, Mays, Cobb, and Speaker. He's a fair shot behind all of them. His peak was much lower, and his lack of durability in his 30s, make it a clear case.

in the bizarro world of MSM, however, his lowish peak and 30s decline are taken as proof that he didn't do steroids, which somehow makes him even greater

in the bizarro world of MSM, however, his lowish peak and 30s decline are taken as proof that he didn't do steroids, which somehow makes him even greater

well his career path DOES resemble an average pre-1990s path than does Barry Bonds, or Raffy Palmeiro...
just saying....

I don't hate Jones, but I do think he doesn't have any real right to the nickname he has. "Chipper" should be a little scrappy guy, not a big-time slugger. Larry Jones sounds much more like a power threat.

Larry Jones sounds much more like a power threat.

Wayne Jones? Maybe that's a pitcher.

Chipper is and has been every bit as great (if not moreso) as Griffey Junior, not that the MSM will ever recognize it.

So's your mom.

I don't say that. I said Adjusted Range Factors (which FRAA and WS are) tend to be wrong because they estimate chances, while my method uses *actual* chances. Which would you think is better?

Wait, I don't get it. No you don't. You say one thing is wrong and then assert another.

Oh wait, I get it. I am to read the comments on the post to find out that the "another article" link below the post (but above the comments) is actually an explanation posted in 2005 of the preferred method used but not cited in the post itself. Ohhhhkay. Man, no kidding, this defensive metric stuff is HARD.

"Wayne Jones? Maybe that's a pitcher."

And Larry Wayne Jones has a dozen Cub Scouts buried in the crawlspace under his house. See, it all works out: a name for every task.

The problem is traditional metrics have shown Chipper to be a poor fielder. His Range Factor ...has routinely been below league norms. In the face of a significant groundball pitching staff ...Chipper “should” have seen many more chances than league average. ...Traditional metrics are wrong.

So then...why is the expectation not met? Did the random Braves shortstop gobble up all his chances? Isn't it usually the other way around? Or do your stats make Chipper look better by being surrounded by above average fielders?

I am always surprised by the confidence with which Advanced Defensive Metricians put forth their claims.

I appreciate your sarcasm, but I don't find the claim "Chipper Jones hasn't been below average but twice in his career" to be difficult thing to say. He's generally 4+ runs over by the metric, so, even with some skepticism about the precision is very unlikely he's below average very often.

My claim wasn't that I have his exact run value as much as it is, he's not been below average. THe metrics would have to be futher off than I think can be asserted.

But, hey, people have to complain about something.

Oh wait, I get it. I am to read the comments on the post to find out that the "another article" link below the post (but above the comments) is actually an explanation posted in 2005 of the preferred method used but not cited in the post itself. Ohhhhkay. Man, no kidding, this defensive metric stuff is HARD.

Well, I didn't physically post the article. I had requested the link be where I first cited the defensive runs saved. That just wasn't how the site editor chose to present it. I apologize for the difficulties.

The problem is traditional metrics have shown Chipper to be a poor fielder. His Range Factor ...has routinely been below league norms. In the face of a significant groundball pitching staff ...Chipper “should” have seen many more chances than league average. ...Traditional metrics are wrong.

So then...why is the expectation not met? Did the random Braves shortstop gobble up all his chances? Isn't it usually the other way around? Or do your stats make Chipper look better by being surrounded by above average fielders?

Hey, an actual question!
The way Adjusted Range Factors (ARFs) are adjusted is by taking league average distributions. Third basemen (3Bs) that play behind left-handed pitchers(LHP) see more GBs because LHPs face more RHBs. Likewise, 3Bs that play behind groundball pitchers (GBP) see more GBs than those that do not. Not only is Tom Glavine a LHP, but also a GBP. Greg Maddux was an extreme GBP. So, FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Average) and WS (Win Shares) both evaluate fielding in this manner, taking the number of innings by these types of pitchers, and multiplying their balls-in-play (BIP) by some percentage, and assigning 3Bs that percentage, independent of whether or not they actually got those chances. It makes sense, and in order to generate data for all of baseball history, this is the type of assumptions one must make.

That's all well and good, EXCEPT since 1987, we have actual BIP data. We know precisely how many GBs got hit in the general area of 3B; not just for Chipper but for all players.

For some reason, there were far fewer than expected GBs hit to 3B. We don't "think this", we have the actual BIP locations. It's not that other fielders cut him off, but that fewer balls were hit to 3B.

Now, Tom Glavine throws what? away away away. WAY more than any other LHP that I know of. RHBs that pull it hit it to the SS. It's too far outside to hit to 3B. A LHP like Al Leiter likes to throw inside, so he'll get the more typical BIP distribution.

IN 2002, the Braves signed Vinny Castilla, one of the league's top RF (compared to league), and Chipper went to left field. What happened? (Keep in mind this isn't meant to be conclusive, just illustrative) Castilla, in the two seasons before coming to ATL, he posted league relative RFs 1.11 and 1.05 (better than league average). His only season in ATL with Glavine (2002), he posted a 0.90 rRF. Glavine went to NY, and Castilla posted a 1.05 mark in ATL. Then left and posted a 1.11 again.

THis is true for all fielders. THere are players who, with no perfect explanation have fewer BIP hit to them, and ARFs just cannot account for this. When we have actual BIP data (from 1987 to present), that data is substantially more trustworthy.

That's a good question, and I hope I clarified sufficiently.

Unlike Ted Simmons, Chipper should be good enough with the bat (incl. passing Magic Milestones) that it should compensate for his perceived defensive shortcomings, even if (like Simmons) the case against his D was/is overstated.

First, Jones defense was ok. He struggled going to his right but otherwise held his own.

The metrics and those that use them to claim CJ is a train wreck give credence to the perception that members of this community don't watch actual games.

I have witnesses truly bad third basemen. Jones isn't even close to being included in the team picture.

Second, he will walk into the HOF.

Edgar Martinez? He could REALLY hit.

Couldn't run.

Didn't catch or throw unless somebody died or a malaria outbreak hit the team.

Team was pretty good a couple of times. Also part of teams deemed huge underachievers. (Fairly or unfairly)

Got scr#wed early by dumb management.

But in the end the resumes aren't remotely comparable.

Not to "pull a Dial" but how can anyone wonder about this? There are 1001 more difficult questions around baseball.

The only knock against Jones at this point is (or should be) games played. But he's up over 1900 now (nearing 1500 at 3B) such that this won't be an issue for much longer. He should be a first-ballot guy.

Now, where is he all-time for 3B? I think we all agree he's behind Schmidt. He's 400+ games behind Mathews, more than 600 behind at 3B, and we would expect enough decline that his career OPS+ will fall below Mathews. I don't think he can claim the #2 spot -- certainly not yet. Brett and Boggs are the interesting questions.

I've posted before that Brett and Jones and very similar hitters (through this age). I've never looked closely but I'd assume they have pretty similar peaks. Brett was no wizard with the glove. Brett only played 1700 games at 3B ... but a whopping 2700 games overall. Brett did a good job of maintaining his OPS+ late in his career, dropping to 135. Chipper has a pretty good chance of passing him in terms of value at 3B, but it seems likely Brett will have the overall career advantage. There could be a more complicated argument in Brett's favor -- the standard deviation of offensive performance (I hear) is higher in high-scoring eras, so Chipper's OPS+ may not be quite as impressive as Brett's. For now, I'll give Brett a slight edge.

Now Boggs -- what I suspect is not widely appreciated is that Chipper's OBP is only 10 points behind Boggs (405 vs 415). That will probably decline some but the big edge in power, speed, etc. makes Chipper a much better offensive player in his prime than Boggs. Boggs has a big advantage in games (overall and at 3B) -- Jones has a decent chance to catch him in total games, little chance to catch him in 3B games. Boggs did actually win a couple of gold gloves (at the ages of 36-37 which is pretty funny really) but I'm not sure he was actually any better defensively than Jones. I'm more a peak than career guy (especially at positions other than 1B/LF/RF/DH) so I'll go with Jones here but if he ages badly or gets hurt, I might flip.

Unless you buy BPro's defensive numbers, any Jones-Santo debate is now over. Chipper clearly had the higher peak (this was never really in question), has a good shot at catching up in total games (about 300 behind), probably won't catch up in games at 3B. But Chipper's offensive edge is large enough now that Santo would likely have to had posted Brooks-ish defensive numbers to have any hope of catching up vs. an average-ish defensive Jones.

Rolen right now is looking like Santo with probably better defense but (to date) many fewer games played (overall and at 3B). He needs to age well to have much of a case for the HoF (at least much of a case that the writers will pay attention to).

As you might have noticed, I try to evaluate "best X ever" based primarily on performance in years in which that player actually played X. For example, Brett's years as a 1B/DH help him primarily in a tie-breaker sense. If/when Chipper passes him in games at 3B, I'll put less value on Brett's longer career in this debate. Not that I have a formula or anything, but something like 1 game at 3B worth 2-3 games elsewhere. Note, this is a somewhat different debate than "better player among those with > Y games at 3B."

Although hardly ideal, I think that's the best way to deal with positional rankings. Don't use an arbitrary cutoff to decide whether Banks is a SS or a non-SS -- rank him in terms of peak and career value while playing SS and compare to other SS measured similarly. If you then want to use his time as an average-ish 1B to, say, move him above/below Arky Vaughn, that's fine.

Do you really think Edgar is a future HOFer?

No. Just like I don't think Felix Hernandez can survive the kidney failure from earlier tonight.

He's 400+ games behind Mathews, more than 600 behind at 3B

I personally think Chipper has 5 more years (counting this one) of 135+ games. Most of them at 3B. That'ss get him to Mathews level, even at 3B. I don't know how much his OPS+ is going to drop either.

Oh, but I don't really disagree witht eh rest - Chipper is in position to pass Brett, and could age well enough to pass Mathews (Happier, Sam?). Schmidt cannot be threatened unless Chipper plays until he's 44.

Chris, I completely agree with you in terms of Schmidt's total (offense + defense) contribution, but Chipper actually isn't that far behind Schmidt in terms of offense. He has 1750 fewer plate appearances and trails Mr. Schmidt by 3 points of OPS+. Neutralized to a 750-run environment, Chipper has a higher OPS and higher OBP, although they are very close (Schmidt is 400/561; Chipper is 408/557). If Chipper can finish this year strong and have two healthy years at around 150 OPS+ (talk about a big if :), he'll be right there with Schmidt in terms of career offense.

Now, while I don't think Chipper is nearly as bad as BP says in terms of defense, he ain't catching up to MJS in that regard. If Chipper finishes his career as "only" the second best third baseman of all time, I can live with that. I may also send flowers to Todd Van Poppel for telling the Braves he wouldn't sign with them if they drafted him instead of Chipper.

Scott Rolen is an interesting case. Unless he's got another 6 years in him there is no way the writers actually vote for him, but I think his case is very strong. Basically, defensive metrics rate his defense at his peak as Brooksian, and his offense was pretty damn good. A strong peak guy has to give Rolen a long look.

from the ajc today - this caught my eye:

In 221 games since June 24, 2006, he had a .361 average (305-for-844) with 66 doubles, six triples, 58 homers, 184 RBI and a .441 OBP and .660 slugging percentage before Wednesday.

Weren't we just reading how I would only say horrible things about Braves players?

I personally think Chipper has 5 more years (counting this one) of 135+ games. Most of them at 3B.

Well, who knows, but I would guess not. I get only 9 guys who played 150+ games (total) at 3B from ages 38 on. The best OPS+ in that group was Nettles at 103. Ripken 99, Boggs 97, Gaetti 89 and Brooks 58 are other recent examples. Chipper needs 600 games at 3B to catch Mathews there (which would put him comfortably ahead of Mathews in total games played) and he'll likely need at least 300 games 38+ to do that. It's not impossible, but the chances of him doing that AND maintaining his career OPS+ at Mathews' level seem slim. (Obviously Chipper's a much better hitter than all those guys except maybe Boggs, so he'd presumably outhit Nettles' 103.)

And whether Chipper stays at 3B I suspect will largely be determined on whether the Braves can/want to resign Teixeira.

Thinking about it, I haven't really done anything to credit Jones' baserunning edge over Mathews'. Maybe that will be enough to put him in front if he can catch Mathews in games.

Weren't we just reading how I would only say horrible things about Braves players?


Thats only because you have him on your fantasy team!

A nice article and some very nice posts here, particularly Chris in 26 and Walt in 29.

(sigh...)

I hate Chipper Jones...

(Of course, that's the fanboy in me talking.)

Well, I hate him for that same reason. Perversely, perhaps, it makes me support his HOF case even more -- it would be nice to think that your team was getting beaten like a rented mule because the other guy was a world class, all-time talent.

At this point, the NL, with Utley, Jones, Pujols Berkman seem to have the real star power in the line up.

I'm just getting caught up on BTF again but I wanted to say thanks for the article. As you know, there are few things in the world that piss me off more than the unwarranted BPro sullying of Chipper Jones. And that's exactly what I consider it to be. BPro's defensive metrics were clearly out-dated and incorrect but they kept (keep) pushing them out of fear of undermining their brand. Truth or facts be damned. As a result there's a large segment of younger fans (statheads who came up after the BPro crew "graduated" from Usenet) who really seem to think Chipper Jones is as bad as Ryan Braun, but that the Braves just couldn't bring themselves to hurt his feelings by moving him.

Colin's recollections are correct. The move to LF followed a couple of spectacular, high-profile defensive mistakes going into the playoffs. But even then that wasn't the real reason for the move. Chipper was moved to the OF not because he couldn't play 3B but because the FA the Braves thought best improved their team (incorrectly so, I would and did argue) played a better defensive 3B. The Braves wanted Castilla and trusted his Astros offensive resurgence. When they decided he was their guy on the FA market, Chipper agreed to move to LF for the best interests of the team. Had the Braves had a LF option to sign that year he would have played his entire career at 3B.

Chipper may very well be the best player the Braves have developed since Aaron. Maddux was a free agent and I'm not sure Glavine or Smoltz can claim to be his better any more. He's topped Murphy by all reasonable measures, I think.

It's obvious to anyone who looks that the Braves' defensive statistics for second and third base are skewed in favor of second basemen. When guys like Keith Lockhart and Nick Green start looking like gold glovers, that should be a hint. Another hint would be that Vinny Castilla, who looked great in the stats everyone else, graded out below-average in his two years as the Braves' third baseman. I've never thought that Chipper was great, but the negative effects of his defense have been dramatically overstated.