Is ARod the best 3B ever?

[onejayhawk]

There is no question he is the best SS. It isn't close. Add Schmidt, Chipper, Boggs and Brett to the mix and it gets murkier.

Here is the top 10 for the last 50 years, based on WAR

# First Last RAR WAR
1 Barry Bonds 1649.3 164.0
2 Alex Rodriguez 1131.8 111.0
3 Mike Schmidt 1011.7 106.5
4 Rickey Henderson 1027.5 106.2
5 Joe Morgan 903.2 98.8
6 Cal Ripken 903.0 92.5
7 Albert Pujols 893.7 89.2
8 Wade Boggs 858.8 88.3
9 Chipper Jones 869.2 84.8
10 George Brett 801.1 84.6

Note that there are five 3B in the top 10.

J

[overkill94]

There is no question he is the best SS. It isn't close. Add Schmidt, Chipper, Boggs and Brett to the mix and it gets murkier.

Here is the top 10 for the last 50 years, based on WAR

# First Last RAR WAR
1 Barry Bonds 1649.3 164.0
2 Alex Rodriguez 1131.8 111.0
3 Mike Schmidt 1011.7 106.5
4 Rickey Henderson 1027.5 106.2
5 Joe Morgan 903.2 98.8
6 Cal Ripken 903.0 92.5
7 Albert Pujols 893.7 89.2
8 Wade Boggs 858.8 88.3
9 Chipper Jones 869.2 84.8
10 George Brett 801.1 84.6

Note that there are five 3B in the top 10.

J

Seven if you include late career Ripken and early career Pujols!

From a pure numbers and talent standpoint A-Rod is one of the best players ever and I'm sure his WAR advantage over Schmidt would be larger if he hadn't missed so much time these last few years (WAR is cumulative, right?) Historians will ding him big time for the PED thing so Schmidt will probably continue to stay atop many peoples' 3B rankings.

[Gregg]

I would think Eddie Mathews has to at least be in the team picture. 500 hrs, 10 time All Star, two World Series.

Brooks Robinson had a pretty good glove 16 consecutive Gold. He is also in the team picture.

But Schmidt is hands down the best. 545 hrs, 10 Gold Gloves, 3 MVP's.

[onejayhawk]

PEDs will be a footnote and possibly an adjustment. Usage was too broad and by both hitters and pitchers. Like the dead ball and later live ball, they will be taken into account. Also you cannot tell which seasons are effected. Either you do the users, or you eliminate the best players, and pitchers, of a generation.

It does come down to ARod and Schmidt. ARod has equal power, better BA and was a brilliant defender in his earlier years. There careers are close enough together that reasonable comparisons are possible. I can understand picking Schmidt, but it's not a no brainer.

J

[Gregg]

PEDs will be a footnote and possibly an adjustment. Usage was too broad and by both hitters and pitchers. Like the dead ball and later live ball, they will be taken into account. Also you cannot tell which seasons are effected. Either you do the users, or you eliminate the best players, and pitchers, of a generation.

It does come down to ARod and Schmidt. ARod has equal power, better BA and was a brilliant defender in his earlier years. There careers are close enough together that reasonable comparisons are possible. I can understand picking Schmidt, but it's not a no brainer.

J

Are you counting all of his stats or just those in which he actually played 3rd base?

[Pauly]

Does Miggy Cabrera count as a 3B? If so he should take it eventually, no?

[revo]

Are you counting all of his stats or just those in which he actually played 3rd base?

Yeah, this whole argument makes no sense if you're just going to take his career stats and say he's the best SS ever AND the best 3B ever. His career is pretty clear-cut -- 1st 10 years he played SS, the last 10 years he played 3B.

I also don't see how PEDs will be a "footnote." Live ball/dead ball affected everyone, PEDs affected the performance of only those who used drugs (and the stats of those they took it out against, but since the era's OPS ballooned, it's easy to see which side won out.)

Overall, since he's a known cheater, what's the point? Is Lance Armstrong still the best cyclist ever?

[swampdragon]

Overall, since he's a known cheater, what's the point? Is Lance Armstrong still the best cyclist ever?

I agree with you and many many people agree with you today

We don't really know what the thoughts will be about PEDs and cheating 10-15 years from you

[onejayhawk]

Yeah, this whole argument makes no sense if you're just going to take his career stats and say he's the best SS ever AND the best 3B ever. His career is pretty clear-cut -- 1st 10 years he played SS, the last 10 years he played 3B.

I also don't see how PEDs will be a "footnote." Live ball/dead ball affected everyone, PEDs affected the performance of only those who used drugs (and the stats of those they took it out against, but since the era's OPS ballooned, it's easy to see which side won out.)

Overall, since he's a known cheater, what's the point? Is Lance Armstrong still the best cyclist ever?

I understand the reluctance to call him either a SS or a 3B, but he has a fair claim to both. There are the Younts, Molitors, Banks of history for comparison. The guy has over 10,000 innings as a 3B, so I think he's entitled.

On the PEDs, I don't think there is a choice. You hold your nose and do it or you discard what was clearly a HoF career without them.

Yes, Lance Armstrong is the greatest ever and will be rememberd as such. Again, if you throw him out, you skip the whole generation.

J

[Pogues]

No.

As Revo said, you can't plug him at two different positions. When I would attempt to make rankings of best players by position, I would first take any possible players for any of the lists, and determine their position. Rodriguez played 1272 games at SS, 1189 games at 3B. So, in my rankings, he would be ranked as a SS.

For comparison sake:

Yount 1479 games at SS, 1150 games at CF--shortstop
Molitor 1171 games at DH, 791 games at 3B---designated hitter
Banks 1259 games at 1B, 1125 games at SS--shortstop

So anyway, we could even take his part of his career as a 3B, and look at the war: 52.5. Double it, since it is almost half his career, and it's 105. A touch under Schmidt at 106.5.

That's my opinion, based mostly in that Rodriguez shouldn't even be considered a 3B when listing the best by position. Think of it this way, if you were creating an all-time team to take the field, you can't have Alex Rodriguez, Honus Wagner, Paul Molitor, or anyone else play more than one position. ARod might be great, but he ain't THAT great to cover the entire left side.

[Judge Jude]

"Rodriguez played 1272 games at SS, 1189 games at 3B. So, in my rankings, he would be ranked as a SS."

he has 2 years and 60 million more reasons to exceed his G total at 3B.

at Baseball Hall of Merit, we ranked a guy like Banks at SS, his peak spot, but accounted for the fact that his entire decade of 1B play was barely above replacement. he was a spectacular peak SS and all-time great, but the back half of his career adds little to his career excellence.

[Pogues]

"Rodriguez played 1272 games at SS, 1189 games at 3B. So, in my rankings, he would be ranked as a SS."

he has 2 years and 60 million more reasons to exceed his G total at 3B.

When his 3B totals exceed his SS totals for games played, then we'll talk about him at 3B.

Good argument for Banks...I'm swayed and could be in other circumstances such as that.

[onejayhawk]

Forget the PEDs and games played at SS. Is ARod a better player than Mike Schmidt? It looks close, at least at first glance.

J

[cavebird]

There is no way to determine this objective. Not even at SS, despite the proclamation that he is the best shortstop ever and it isn't even close at the start of the thread. WAR is a nice, useful stat, but it is hardly unchallengable. The modern defensive numbers in it are the best we can do, but still questionable. The pre-2002 (before UZR) defensive numbers are even less reliable. Even the offensive numbers can be challenged---almost all the best offensive metrics come from huge offensive eras; maybe because replacement level offense does not increase that much even in offensive eras while the top players go nuts. There's no reasonable way to compare A-Rod to someone like Hornsby or even Schmidt. You could argue that increased athleticism means modern players tend to be better (also, modern players have more tougher competition), at least until the end of the steroid era, at which point you could argue that athleticism decreased. But does that mean we are giving a bonus to the roiders? And what does "best" mean? The whole question is just a minefield.

[Sour Masher]

Arod's rep will be forever tarnished for several reasons. PED haters will always downgrade his accomplishments because he was a recidivist cheater. Anti-Sabermetrics folks will belittle his numbers on the grounds that he was horrible in the intangibles--he was never a leader, and he wasn't clutch. Some will downgrade him because they didn't like his shiny, fake personality. Bottom line is Arod is not well liked, and is not, for many reasons, given the respect his numbers deserve.

While the career stats sheets make a very strong case for Arod being the best SS and/or best 3bman of all time, and maybe one of the top 10 hitters of all time, I cannot imagine many who lived and watched baseball during his 3b years ever making a strong and serious case for Arod being an all time great, let alone the very best at any position. The only people I could see making this argument are statistical purists who decide to ignore PEDs as a stat booster, either because they believe the effects of PEDs are overblown, or they believe that everyone in Arods era cheated, but only a few got caught and punished. I have seen folks on here make both cases. I respect those folks, but I disagree with them on both of these issues to an extent.