Citing Retrosheet one year ago I wrote:
14. Paul Wendt Posted: January 23, 2007 at 02:57 PM (#2285264)
"Career" voters at least should consider that Nettles was platooned, apparently in Minnesota and the NL, not in Cleveland or New York; that is, 1968-69 & 1984-89, not 1970-83. It appears that he averaged only 111 games, NY 1980-83, for other reasons.


<u>Graig Nettles, at bats vs left- and right-handed pitchers, 1980s (past prime)</u>
1980 140 184 : big drop in playing time but not platoon tactic
1981 137 212 : 39% full-time play, strike season
1982 156 249 : 39
---- left right &#xlh;p
1983 161 301 : 35 New York, more than 33% lhp
1984 _77 318 : 19 San Diego
1985 _97 343 : 22 "
1986 _53 301 : 15 "
1987 _48 129 : 27 Atlanta
1988 __5 _88 : _5 Montreal

Column four ("lh;p") is percent atbats vs left-handed pitchers

Nettles was 39.1 years old when he completed his American League career in 1983.
This year I don't care about his NL career.

I'd just like to note that Win Probability Added suggests that Graig Nettles was one of the greatest clutch performers of the last 35 years: the timing of his hits added a full six wins above what we would have expected with an average distribution. That increases his career value by about 10%. I have not yet decided whether I will give him credit for this, but voters who are convinced by the Win Shares approach most definitely should.

On his pay site, Bill James is doing a "tournament" of all-time 3B. (The tournament is limited to the Brooks Robinson-esque "relatively low BA/power/defense" model, so no Boggs/Brett/etc., and Schmidt is presumably excluded for being too good ;) Anyway, Nettles just beat Santo...

Addendum: Nettles was knocked out of the tournament by Brooks Robinson. The "tournament game" was decided by one "point", and since the scores were designed to replicate college basketball scores, one point is not much. James concludes the wrapup by saying of Nettles, "He was a Hall of Famer in my book."

Then again, in the very next article, he looks over the top players eliminated before the Brooks vs. Chipper finals -- a group which he ranks Nettles, Santo, B. Bell, Rolen, Cey, J. Collins, Bando, Elliott, K. Boyer -- and says "I'm not actually arguing that these 8 players [other than Collins] should all be in the Hall of Fame. The only one I'm actually arguing for is Santo."

Then again, in the very next article, he looks over the top players eliminated before the Brooks vs. Chipper finals -- a group which he ranks Nettles, Santo, B. Bell, Rolen, Cey, J. Collins, Bando, Elliott, K. Boyer . . .

Interesting. Of those, here are the highest positions each ranked in HoM voting (my term "on ballot" means that the player received votes in last year's election).

Nettles: 3, IN in 13th year
Santo: 2, IN in 1st year
Bell: 42, still on ballot after 16 years (42 in 2009)
Rolen: active
Cey: 47, still on ballot after 18 years (93= in 2009)
J. Collins: 1, IN in 8th year
Bando: 38=, on ballot after 24 years (38= in 2009)
Elliott: 26, on ballot after 52 years (34 in 2009)
K. Boyer: 2, IN in 17th year

James clearly sees Boyer in a much different light that I don't understand. His relegation of Collins is in keeping with his general dismissal of 19th century ball.

Collins was knocked out of the tournament by Brooks. Again, the "game" was decided by one "point", so it was an awfully close call. "Collins' career winning percentage is higher than Robinson's, but Robinson's marginal win contribution (above Collins) is .454."

James does have Collins as the best defensive 3B ever on a per-inning basis, and says "It is my view that Collins is a legitimate Hall of Fame selection, despite a relatively short career by Hall of Fame standards." Of course, yeah, then he comes up with a system that ranks him below Buddy Bell. Again, it's hard to tell how concerned James is about these inconsistencies. (Certainly, he has made it clear that he thinks there is a large subjective component to the HOF, so he very well could just be disagreeing with his own system.)

Boyer was knocked out by Rolen. As you probably know, James has been a Boyer advocate in the past, so he writes a lot about this result. It seems to be more an endorsement of Rolen than a disparagement of Boyer.

Ken Boyer, who I think could be in the Hall of Fame, was a premier player for nine years, from 1956 to 1964. Rolen has been playing at a comparable level for 14 years now.

With a won-lost contribution of 255-155, Boyer is +100, meaning that he is at least minimally qualified for the Hall of Fame. With a WSV of 304¹, he is in the area where it’s a judgment call. If he went into the Hall of Fame, I would be pleased—but I’m not going to argue for him, because he is not the best qualified candidate who could be elected. His won-lost contribution is very similar to Don Mattingly’s (243-127, 302). If Mattingly was elected to the Hall of Fame I would be very pleased, because Mattingly is a good guy and he is a qualified Hall of Famer by the standard of who has been elected in the past. Boyer is at the same level.

¹ We take the player’s Won and Lost contributions, and we turn that into a “Wins above replacement” type of number (WSV, Win Shares Value) by the formula (3 W – L )/ 2, or, if you prefer, W + (W – L)/2.

I haven't seen James' article, but there are three factors adding to Boyer's case that he probably overlooks:

1. Boyer spent his age-21 and age-22 seasons in military service. This likely delayed his play in MLB for at least a year.
2. Boyer accrued most of his value under the old 154-game schedule
3. Boyer played in the NL at a time when it was a much better league than the AL. Pro ball had just contracted; for the most part, the Negro leagues had merged with the NL to form a super league.

I'll go purely subjective. If Ventura was that good based on things we could measure now but didn't back then, then clearly Nettles was not just a good 3b or a league leading 3B but was a once in a generational 3b, despite the presence of Robinson.

I saw both of them play-- just not early Robinson. During their overlap, Nettles was clearly better defensively. Far and away, with no player today being close.

I don't think there is another position I can say that at based on what I have seen. I think every other position, I can name a better defender since the 70s except 3b. Possible exception of C.

Damn, I wish they'd show 78 World Series game 3, and from earlier in that season, the game vesus the Angels where Guidry struck out 18. Both games had Nettles at his finest.