Third Base

[bluesky5]

Why are third baseman represented less than any position in the HoF?

Mike Schmidt
Eddie Mathews
George Brett
Wade Boggs
Jimmy Collins
Home Run Baker
Pie Traynor
Brooks Robinson
Ron Santo
George Kell
Deacon White [Barely over 50% at third.]
Fred Lindstrom [100+ G at third just 4 times]
Chipper Jones [I think we can all agree he is in for sure.]

Harmon Killebrew, Mel Ott and Paul Molitor spent time there too.

Jimmy Collins was the first to be elected to the HoF.

[henrich]

Not sure if there is any validity to this at all, but i would say that they don't field as well as a shortstop nor do they hit as well as a first baseman? Shortstops past their prime move to second or third, so their primary position may be some place else??

[dgarza]

It seems like 3B is a position a lot of players spend significant time at, but not so many make it their "main" position. There's not a big difference in how many HOFers played 300 games at 3B and how many played 300 @ SS or 300 @ 2B.

300 games at 3B - 21

                   
                   
Deacon White       
Bobby Wallace      
Pie Traynor        
Joe Sewell         
Mike Schmidt       
Ron Santo          
Brooks Robinson    
Cal Ripken         
Tony Perez         
Paul Molitor       
Eddie Mathews      
Freddie Lindstrom  
Harmon Killebrew   
George Kell        
Travis Jackson     
Frankie Frisch     
George Davis       
Jimmy Collins      
George Brett       
Wade Boggs         
Home Run Baker

300 games at SS - 23
300 games at 2B - 22

[Francoeurstein]

It could be an anomaly? However, I'd really like to know why this is so.

[henrich]

interesting...this is a hall of fame list, but if you look at how many primary position players had 4000 or more at bats that would be 132 3B, 139 2B, 148 SS, 146 1B, and then just to round it out 88 C, 155 LF, 159 CF and 148 RF

[Jackaroo Dave]

Not sure if there is any validity to this at all, but i would say that they don't field as well as a shortstop nor do they hit as well as a first baseman? Shortstops past their prime move to second or third, so their primary position may be some place else??

Baseball has never made up its mind whether this is a hitting position or a fielding one.

I'm not even talking about the shift in value beteeen 2B and 3B when bunts went out of the game and DP's came in.

Aurelio Rodriguez, Clete Boyer, and Ken Reitz had careers of decent length, as did Butch Hobson, Jim Ray Hart, and Bob Horner. I think 3B is unique in this respect. Sometimes you put up with a really good glove man in a hitter's position, or vice versa, but with third, it's routine. So, as Henrich said, you don't get the best fielders, and you don't get the best hitters, and when you get the best all-around third basemen, you get someone who's a good fielder considering his bat and a good hitter considering his glove. Someone like Brooks Robinson, Ken Boyer, Ron Santo, Robin Ventura. . . .

But this tends to hide the value of fielding at 3rd, and thereby lower the value of hitting.

So the excellence is a little blurry, even at the highest levels. For example, Eddie Mathews went for the longest time without due recognition. I can't recall anyone nominating him for best third baseman ever during his playing career, probably because he was considered "parked" at third, not a complete player like Pie Traynor.

Even Schmidt doesn't get his due, because his huge talent is split.

Contrast, say, Ripkin or Yount or Banks at short. They were excellent offensive shortstops and their gloves were taken for granted becuase they were shortstops. If they'd played third over their careers, they would not have received the automatic excellent fielding rating.

(I think the answer to the question, "Why was Pie Traynor thought to be the best third baseman in baseball forever?" will go a long way towards answering Bluesky's question. I don't think it's a coincidence. Why was he overrated by Baseball Nation while Hack, Santo, Nettles, Ventura, Cey, are underrated?)

[bluesky5]

Off the top of my head before 1900:

Deacon White
Jimmy Collins
Arlie Latham
Lave Cross
Ned Williamson
John McGraw
Buck Ewing

I know pretty much about 19th c. players. I can name less third basemen than any other position.

[dgarza]

Off the top of my head before 1900:

Deacon White
Jimmy Collins
Arlie Latham
Lave Cross
Ned Williamson
John McGraw
Buck Ewing

I know pretty much about 19th c. players. I can name less third basemen than any other position.

Levi Meyerle

[SavoyBG]

Off the top of my head before 1900:

Buck Ewing

Ewing was a catcher.

[SavoyBG]

Off the top of my head before 1900:

Deacon White
Jimmy Collins
Arlie Latham
Lave Cross
Ned Williamson
John McGraw
Buck Ewing

I know pretty much about 19th c. players. I can name less third basemen than any other position.

Billy Nash

[Bothrops Atrox]

Baseball has never made up its mind whether this is a hitting position or a fielding one.

I'm not even talking about the shift in value beteeen 2B and 3B when bunts went out of the game and DP's came in.

Aurelio Rodriguez, Clete Boyer, and Ken Reitz had careers of decent length, as did Butch Hobson, Jim Ray Hart, and Bob Horner. I think 3B is unique in this respect. Sometimes you put up with a really good glove man in a hitter's position, or vice versa, but with third, it's routine. So, as Henrich said, you don't get the best fielders, and you don't get the best hitters, and when you get the best all-around third basemen, you get someone who's a good fielder considering his bat and a good hitter considering his glove. Someone like Brooks Robinson, Ken Boyer, Ron Santo, Robin Ventura. . . .

But this tends to hide the value of fielding at 3rd, and thereby lower the value of hitting.

So the excellence is a little blurry, even at the highest levels. For example, Eddie Mathews went for the longest time without due recognition. I can't recall anyone nominating him for best third baseman ever during his playing career, probably because he was considered "parked" at third, not a complete player like Pie Traynor.

Even Schmidt doesn't get his due, because his huge talent is split.

Contrast, say, Ripkin or Yount or Banks at short. They were excellent offensive shortstops and their gloves were taken for granted becuase they were shortstops. If they'd played third over their careers, they would not have received the automatic excellent fielding rating.

(I think the answer to the question, "Why was Pie Traynor thought to be the best third baseman in baseball forever?" will go a long way towards answering Bluesky's question. I don't think it's a coincidence. Why was he overrated by Baseball Nation while Hack, Santo, Nettles, Ventura, Cey, are underrated?)

Absolutely. People expect either 1B prodigious offense/ counting milestones from their 3B or Ozzie Smith level defensive reputations from their 3B to be HOFers. So a large group of guys who were very good at both, but dominating at neither (Nettles, Evans, Bando, Groh, Hack, Ventura, Boyer, Bell, soon to be Rolen, etc) never got the fair look they deserved. Nothing more than peoples' lack of understanding of the importance of positional scarcity.

[bluesky5]

Ewing was a catcher.

I just looked it up, finally. I thought he played more third than he did. Only 127 games. My bad.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I honestly think it's just fate. Before 1950ish, there just aren't many qualified third basemen. It was a position reserved for guys able to make the longest infield throw allotted a brief time to react, yet didn't necessarily have the scrappy range of shortstop. Since then, certain players, most notably Cal Ripken but , have paved the way for the rangy bulk player in the non-first base infield positions. Ripken, Eddie Mathews, A-Rod, Adrian Beltre, Derek Jeter, Mike Schmidt, Albert Pujols, Lou Boudreau, George Brett, and others proved that the left portion of the infield can be manned by someone who isn't 5'8" 167 lbs.

I know there's the issue of diet/nutrition, but star third basemen of yesteryear were thinner and more fleet-footed in the natural sense than the guys I mentioned. They were scrappier, able to make the plays of a middle infielder to a lesser degree. What their bodies lacked in range was reimbursed by a longer throw. Star third basemen Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, Buck Herzog, Art Devlin, Heinie Zimmerman, Buck Weaver, Stan Hack, Fred Lindstrom, Frankie Frisch, Heinie Groh, John McGraw, and even Home Run Baker were thinner, ganglier than their post-Mathews counterparts. These guys were either naturally quick or possessed long limbs enabling them to reach hot grounders and fire off the throw. Not a lot of muscle encased their frames. Managers looked more for this type of player, leaving heavier guys to man first or the outfield. Thus we are left with a smaller pool of guys able to meet this criteria, meaning not as many HoF qualified players actually played third before 1950s.

Does this mean we need to induct more? I certainly don't think so. Inducting a player just because there aren't many enshrined contemporaries is fairly close to affirmative action.

[bluesky5]

I honestly think it's just fate. Before 1950ish, there just aren't many qualified third basemen. It was a position reserved for guys able to make the longest infield throw allotted a brief time to react, yet didn't necessarily have the scrappy range of shortstop. Since then, certain players, most notably Cal Ripken but , have paved the way for the rangy bulk player in the non-first base infield positions. Ripken, Eddie Mathews, A-Rod, Adrian Beltre, Derek Jeter, Mike Schmidt, Albert Pujols, Lou Boudreau, George Brett, and others proved that the left portion of the infield can be manned by someone who isn't 5'8" 167 lbs.

I know there's the issue of diet/nutrition, but star third basemen of yesteryear were thinner and more fleet-footed in the natural sense than the guys I mentioned. They were scrappier, able to make the plays of a middle infielder to a lesser degree. What their bodies lacked in range was reimbursed by a longer throw. Star third basemen Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, Buck Herzog, Art Devlin, Heinie Zimmerman, Buck Weaver, Stan Hack, Fred Lindstrom, Frankie Frisch, Heinie Groh, John McGraw, and even Home Run Baker were thinner, ganglier than their post-Mathews counterparts. These guys were either naturally quick or possessed long limbs enabling them to reach hot grounders and fire off the throw. Not a lot of muscle encased their frames. Managers looked more for this type of player, leaving heavier guys to man first or the outfield. Thus we are left with a smaller pool of guys able to meet this criteria, meaning not as many HoF qualified players actually played third before 1950s.

Does this mean we need to induct more? I certainly don't think so. Inducting a player just because there aren't many enshrined contemporaries is fairly close to affirmative action.

I think you summed it up pretty nicely.

[dgarza]

Now what we have is a situation in which more HOF 3B have played in the last 40-50 years than HOF 2B. And we have only 2 real HOF CFers who have stepped onto the field in the last 40 years (Mays & Puckett [Yount & Dawson are more hybrids]).