Among third basemen, one of the big hitters.

Apparently a poor fielder. Were there any significant illusions in his fielding numbers?

(I think the topic needs a post in it in order to become visible.)

I'm not so sure I would classify him as a "poor" fielder. He had 3 poor seasons defensively, 99, 01, 06, double digit negatives all 3 of those years. But for his career only -23, and he had 8 seasons in the black and 3 more at 0. Maybe slightly below average with a few bad seasons, most likely impacted by injury.

What I find most intriguing about Jones is that although he started missing a lot of time from age 32 on, the quality of his production remained almost the same on a per 650 PA (or 162 G) basis when broken out into thru age 31, and age 32-40. (I break it out there because he had over 150 games played for 8 straight seasons before dropping off to 137 at age 32 and starting the pattern of missed time.

Per 162 G thru age 31 : 698 PA, .309/.404/.541 .946 OPS, 142 OPS+ ; Per 650 PA, 5.7 WAR, 35 batting runs, -2 fldg runs

Per 162 G from age 32 : 673 PA, .296/.397/.513 .910 OPS, 139 OPS+ ; Per 650 PA, 5.7 WAR, 34 Batting runs, 0 fldg runs

Of course due to his numerous ailments from age 32 onwards, his overall production was lower.

He had 6067 PA through age 31, and 4547 from age 32 to end of career. The drop off in playing time or PA's is pretty normal. I just like the symetry of the Rate stats, and linear weights on a rate basis.

When he posted up, he was the same guy, remarkably consistent.

BP used to hoot and holler about his defense, once claiming he was the worst defensive player of all time. If you look at his player page, they still list his FRAA as consistenly awful. If you check their career rankings (you can sort by each stat), the only player in history with a lower FRAA is Derek Jeter.

However, no one actually cares about FRAA anymore (it seems bizarre BP is still using it), and the newer stats just don't bear these claims out at all. Here is an article (link) by Dial way back when in defense of his defense.

Mets fans used to chant "LARRY" (his real name, not Lawrence) but he mauled them anyway.

the fans were so passionate that he ultimately took a liking to them - and named his son Shea, no kidding.

he appears occasionally on NYC radio to talk about the Mets-Braves rivalry. he says he kind of loved the Piazza post-9-11 HR off them, in a way, because he figured it was a net win. added that some of his other favorite games of his career were losses to the Mets, oddly enough.

this has won over some Mets fans, remarkably enough.

Has to have the lowest Black Ink Test score of any inner-circle inductee who wasn't a catcher or shortstop.

Of course, it's not a demerit, just a sign of the limitations of a particular metric. It penalizes him for being remarkably well-rounded at hitting for average, hitting for power, and drawing walks, while never quite being the best in his league in any of those skills.

Went to my high school (8 years later).

Never felt like he was as bad withthe glove as reported, relatively limited range sure, but I can't remember too many routine plays he missed (especially before his move to LF and subsequent move back), and he had the best barehand side arm in the business. I obviously wouldn't say he was good, but he wasn't a black hole over there either.

Maybe the most consistent hitter in modern history. Not only was he turning in the same good numbers every year, but for the bulk of his career he leveraged his switch hitting as good as anyone, hitting a wRC+ of 128 from his weaker right side and a 145 from the left.

And while I don't put much stock in "clubs," being the 7th guy in baseball history to triple slash .300/.400/.500 in his career is a pretty impressive feet.

Did the Braves' staff throw off the metrics, I wonder?

Of course, it's not a demerit, just a sign of the limitations of a particular metric. It penalizes him for being remarkably well-rounded at hitting for average, hitting for power, and drawing walks, while never quite being the best in his league in any of those skills.

He DID win a batting title.

I like that Jones literally never had a bad year at the plate. His career low in OPS+ was 108, his rookie season. After that it was 116. Even his last 3 seasons were all in the 120's.

And while I don't put much stock in "clubs," being the 7th guy in baseball history to triple slash .300/.400/.500 in his career is a pretty impressive feet.

There's more than that. From the sillyball era itself there was Jones, Thomas, Manny, Edgar, Walker, and Helton. Pujols and Votto amongst active players. Maybe Cabrera (too lazy to look it up, sorry).

Before that, just going off memory, there's Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Cobb, Speaker, Ott, Hornsby, probably Mize and Greenberg, Williams, Musial. Heilmann? Maybe Shoeless Joe. Probably some others I'm forgetting.

Still an impressive group, though.

For the first half of Chipper's career or so, I resented him, mostly because he was the best player on those semi-dynastic Braves teams, and I tend to get annoyed by teams that win all the time.

But the main reason was that I thought he had stolen the 1999 NL MVP from Mike Piazza. That season concluded just as I was discovering the internet, really, as for the first time I had a terminal with a reasonably fast connection to it in my dorm room sophomore year. I can remember inveighing against his MVP selection on the basis that Mike Piazza was a catcher and had driven in more runs and stuff like that. Within a couple of months, I had discovered Rob Neyer, and if the award had played out the same way the next year I would have been happily shitting all over a n00b like me, with his silly RBI. In fact, I can remember shitting all over someone on the Neyer boards who dared to argue that Tim Hudson or David Wells should have won the 2000 AL Cy Young, based solely on wins. I still remember the guy acknowledging that maybe Pedro had been better, but Hudson and Wells had the wins, and Pedro "didn't achieve it".

Of course, with the benefit of hindsight I can see that Piazza, no matter how much of a boost he might get for playing catcher, clearly didn't deserve that award, and that it was basically a pick-em between Jones and Bagwell. Jones' brilliant play in the final weeks put him over the line that year, and seeing as how it was the only time he would ever win an MVP, I can't begrudge him the award. But he continued to annoy me for a long time.

As is the way with many great players, however, I came to appreciate him as he got old. Chipper's final act was fascinating, as he put up an off year at 32 that a lot of us thought foretold the end, and was instead a prelude to a period during which he had trouble staying on the field but hit 342 / 435 / 592 from 33-35, including consecutive years in which he led the league in OPS+ for the only time in his career, and then won his only batting title. I appreciated late-career Chipper far more than the younger version, I guess because his teams weren't as good -- but also because his hint of decline gave his renaissance, as a dinged-up, somewhat saggy-eyed slugger grinding it out as the last remnant of the old dynasty on the middling-to-bad teams that ensued, some drama.

He eventually did show the effects of age, but retained enough of his ability to be an effective, if diminished, player till the day he hung them up. I can't believe it's been almost five years since he retired. Here's to Chipper Jones, one of the real greats.

But the main reason was that I thought he had stolen the 1999 MVP from Mike Piazza.

Piazza finished 7th in 1999. He wasn't getting the award that year even if Chipper didn't exist. 1999 was actually one of Piazza's weaker peak seasons; his 135 OPS+ was his lowest in the 1993-2002 span. Granted, I didn't know about OPS+ back then, but I did notice that his avg (.303) and OBP (.361) were the lowest of his career up to that point.

Did the Braves' staff throw off the metrics, I wonder?

Glavine in particular lived on the outside corner, making him hard for RHB to pull. Which of course means relatively few groundballs to third.

@10, ah, distinction of PA cut-off. Article I read had the cutoff at 10k PAs

Piazza finished 7th in 1999. He wasn't getting the award that year even if Chipper didn't exist.

Oh, no doubt. But in those days my default position was, "Mike Piazza should win the MVP. Prove to me otherwise." For whatever reason, I really latched on to Jones as the poster boy for what I felt was Piazza's consistently being stiffed. In retrospect, that was obviously an overblown stance, but that's where I was.