No Respect For Thirdbase [Archive]

leecemark

05-07-2004, 08:07 PM

No position has as few players in the Hall of Fame as thirdbase. Even with as few as there are, they haven't really got the right guys. The best player not in the Hall is a thirdbaseman. Why do you think so few 3B are in and who do you think should be. Three of my top 10 thirdbasemen are eligible, but not in. It would be four of ten if you count Molitor as a DH (which he was) and not a thirdbaseman. No other position has more than one of my top ten eligible but not in and none of my top 15 eligible shortstops are not in. My list as follows:
1. Mike Schmidt - in
2. George Brett - in
3. Eddie Mathews - in
4. Wade Boggs - not eligible, but surely will be in
5. Ron Santo - the best player not in
6. Frank Baker - in
7. Brooks Robinson - in
8. Ken Boyer - not in , but should be
9. Graig Nettles - not in, but would have my vote
10. Paul Molitor - coming soon to a Hall near you
11. Stan Hack - not in, but should have been a long time ago
12. Pie Traynor - in
13. Al Rosen - not in and career probably was too short
14. Sal Bando - not in and not likely to be
15. Ron Cey - not in
16. Darrel Evans - not in
17. Jimmy Collins - in and maybe underrated by me
18. Bob Elliott - not in
19. Buddy Bell - not in
20. Chipper Jones - no longer at third,but building his case

Players not in my top 20 but in the Hall: George Kell and Freddy Lindstrom.
Players not in my top 20, but better than Kell or Lindstrom: Tommy Leach, Henie Groh, Harlond Clift, Lave Cross and Gary Gaetti. Player I wouldn't endorse but am surprised some batting average boosters haven't: Bill Madlock
There are also two Negro League 3B's in the Hall, Judy Johnson and Ray Dandrige, and possibly other Negro Leaguers better than some guys I've mentioned. I leave them (and most 19th century guys) off my lists because I haven't studied them enough to rate them with any accuracy.

santotohof

05-08-2004, 04:56 AM

Molitor is in but really they put him in as a DH. I agree with you on Chipper. He has been quietly amassing a HOF career but ,like Molitor ,I don't think they'll treat him as a 3baseman.

Cougar

05-09-2004, 02:22 AM

Brad Harris

05-09-2004, 09:56 AM

I tend to agree with the concensus - Boyer, Evans, Hack, Nettles and Santo should all be in a.s.a.p.

There are a number of other, very interesting cases among third basemen to which I am sympathetic, but I'm of a mind to focus on the five guys named above first: they are pretty obviously deserving in my book. It will be difficult enough to find support for Darrell Evans or Stan Hack; it would be foolish to go looking for support for Lave Cross, Bob Elliott or Tommy Leach until some of these guys are elected first.

Fuzzy Bear

05-07-2006, 07:49 PM

Top 10 eligible 3b not enshrined:

1. Ron Santo
2. Stan Hack
3. Ken Boyer
4. Graig Nettles
5. Darrell Evans

(These top 5 should go in today.)

6. Buddy Bell
7. Lave Cross
8. Al Rosen
9. Bob Elliott
10. Heinie Groh

Sal Bando could mix in this bottom half somewhere, as could Cey and Leach, I guess.

I would put Al Rosen in. Rosen is the Dizzy Dean of position players; he had a short career, but he had a peak like no other; his PEAK value may well have exceeded Schmidt's. If Dizzy Dean got in the HOF with the short career he had, Rosen deserves more serious consideration than he's gotten to date.

RuthMayBond

05-07-2006, 07:58 PM

No position has as few players in the Hall of Fame as thirdbase. Even with as few as there are, they haven't really got the right guys. The best player not in the Hall is a thirdbaseman. Why do you think so few 3B are in and who do you think should be. Three of my top 10 thirdbasemen are eligible, but not in. It would be four of ten if you count Molitor as a DH (which he was) and not a thirdbaseman. No other position has more than one of my top ten eligible but not in and none of my top 15 eligible shortstops are not in. My list as follows:
1. Mike Schmidt - in
2. George Brett - in
3. Eddie Mathews - in
4. Wade Boggs - not eligible, but surely will be in
5. Ron Santo - the best player not in
6. Frank Baker - in
7. Brooks Robinson - in
8. Ken Boyer - not in , but should be
9. Graig Nettles - not in, but would have my vote
10. Paul Molitor - coming soon to a Hall near you
11. Stan Hack - not in, but should have been a long time ago
12. Pie Traynor - in
13. Al Rosen - not in and career probably was too short
14. Sal Bando - not in and not likely to be
15. Ron Cey - not in
16. Darrel Evans - not in
17. Jimmy Collins - in and maybe underrated by me
18. Bob Elliott - not in
19. Buddy Bell - not in
20. Chipper Jones - no longer at third,but building his case
Rosen better than Evans?
Traynor better than Jones?

Fuzzy Bear

05-07-2006, 08:08 PM

Rosen better than Evans?
Traynor better than Jones?

Rosen is better than Evans on peak value.

Traynor is better than Jones on career value, to date, but that may change.

leecemark

05-07-2006, 08:12 PM

--Rosen was better than Evans, although Evans lasted enough longer that he perhaps should rank ahead. Certainly he was more valuable, although I think overrated by sabermetrics. As for Traynor and Jones, this was posted 2 years ago. Pie has gone down and Chipper up in my estimation since then and Jones is ahead.
--Actually this thread was revived 2 years to the day from its inception. Quite the concidence.

RuthMayBond

05-07-2006, 08:14 PM

Rosen is better than Evans on peak value.And John Paciorek is better than Rosen on peak ;)

<Traynor is better than Jones on career value, to date>

Chipper is a little behind in PA & glove, but
141 OPS+ to 107? :eek:

538280

05-07-2006, 08:29 PM

ElHalo

05-07-2006, 09:02 PM

No position has as few players in the Hall of Fame as thirdbase. Even with as few as there are, they haven't really got the right guys. The best player not in the Hall is a thirdbaseman.

I had no idea Sherry Magee was a third baseman.

In all seriousness, I do believe that there are three eligible 3Bmen who should be in (Santo, Hack, and, thanks to Chris, Groh), and that there are some questionable guys in already. However, 3B in my view is BY FAR the weakest position. There just haven't been that many guys who've been great players and also happened to play 3rd. It happens; outside of Griffey, there's been a thinness on great CF's for decades, and it just so happens that the thinness on 3Bmen has lasted a hundred and fifty years.

leecemark

05-07-2006, 09:08 PM

--Hall of Fame quality thirdbasemen were certainly in short supply for the first 80 or so years of MLB. For much of that time a thirdbaseman was simply a team's second best SS. Since the 50s I'd say it has produced as many great players as any other position though. I guess the lower number of 3Bs is largely a reflection of the much higher standards being applied to modern players. Many second tier stars of the pre-WWII/integration period reside in Cooperstown. Very few non-superstars of the modern era have made it.

KCGHOST

05-07-2006, 09:37 PM

I have no problem with Santo, Hack and maybe Evans. To me the rest of the guys are short of the mark for varying reasons.

runningshoes

05-07-2006, 09:56 PM

Santo should have been elected in 1979.

He's way over due.

baseballPAP

05-08-2006, 12:27 AM

While there are only 4 guys I'd consider "should-bes" (Santo, Boyer, Bando and John Beckwith), I would think a decent case could be made for any of these: Harlond Clift, Darrell Evans, Billy Nash, Hack, Nettles and Groh. Billy Nash is an interesting player....while not a great hitter, he was great at the things he was supposed to be in his era....great glove and fast as hell...yet I've never seen him mentioned here. Third base more than any other position (possibly along with 2B) has seen its focus shift many times. Players that were everything you could ask for when they played don't necessarily look that good these days.

538280

05-08-2006, 05:19 AM

Two guys who I've always wanted to learn more about as possible HOF caliber players are Denny Lyons and Bill Joyce. I always get them confused, but I've come to remember Joyce as the 1890s guy and Lyons as the 1880s one. I really know close to nothing about them other than their statistics, and those stats are very, very impressive in both cases.

RuthMayBond

05-08-2006, 07:27 AM

I had no idea Sherry Magee was a third baseman.He isn't, nor is he the best not in the Hall. That might fall to Rose, Raines (if he doesn't get voted in), Dahlen, Whitaker ...

adarowski

05-08-2006, 12:44 PM

So, I'm doing an extensive look at third basemen for the Rule V Baseball Blog. Two guys look better on paper than I see them get credit for. Bill Madlock is one, but the other is Bob Elliott. Any general feeling about these guys out there? I've seen universal support for Santo (of course) and quite a bit for Hack, Evans, and Boyer. Just trying to be exhaustive on this one.

Thanks! My first post!

leecemark

05-08-2006, 01:37 PM

--Welcome to BBF. Elliot I think just gets overlooked. He played through WWII which hurts him, perhaps even more than if he'd missed those years. He also split his time between OF and 3B which hurts him some. He is close, but no cigar IMO.
--Madlock does get talked about some here, but usually not in a very positive way. He has the batting titles, but nothing else. Lousy fielder, bad clubhouse guy and short career numbers.

DoubleX

05-08-2006, 02:03 PM

I agree that Bob Elliot gets almost next to no mention on these boards. I think I have him in my top 15 at 3B.

dgarza

05-08-2006, 02:17 PM

Surely we can say that Deacon White was a 3b, can't we?
I'm surprised no one has mentioned him.

Fuzzy Bear

05-08-2006, 04:53 PM

3Bmen not in who should be:
Ken Boyer I'm shaky on. I'm not so sure if he's a HOFer. I could be convinced though.

Most, if not all, of the arguments made for Ron Santo, can be made for Ken Boyer. Boyer played in the shadow of Eddie Mathews (who played in the shadow of Brooks Robinson, for reasons still obscure) while Santo emerged as Mathews started to decline a bit, but he's still of the same type and quality as Santo. Boyer also won an MVP and played on a surprise World Champion, things Santo did not do.

538280

05-08-2006, 08:51 PM

Most, if not all, of the arguments made for Ron Santo, can be made for Ken Boyer. Boyer played in the shadow of Eddie Mathews (who played in the shadow of Brooks Robinson, for reasons still obscure) while Santo emerged as Mathews started to decline a bit, but he's still of the same type and quality as Santo. Boyer also won an MVP and played on a surprise World Champion, things Santo did not do.

Now that's where I disagree. I don't think Boyer and Santo were really comparable in value. Similar in type, but Santo was the much better hitter, and thus more valuable. Santo's OPS+ is 125, Boyer's 116. Are those really comparable? No. Santo also had about 1000 more PAs. He was, according to several metrics, one of the best players in the NL in the mid 1960s (the best according to TPR and maybe WS). Boyer had that MVP award, but he really didn't deserve it at all, and Santo deserved one in 1967 IMO.

I did a comparison a while ago, Sal Bando against Ken Boyer. In any objective way I could look at it, making all neccessary adjustments. I just cannot see Boyer ahead. Bando is a little bit better in everything. Yet everyone rates Boyer ahead, and I just don't get what the big deal is with him. OPS+ peak was 143, 135, 130. IN his prime was at about 125. Short period of dominance, and it's not a tremendous peak. Not a great career value guy, so what's the deal?

I know Boyer was a good fielder, but I don't think he was anywhere near Brooks Robinson or his own brother's territory. Probably a B to B+ 3B from what I've gathered. Not all that special. So, enlighten me. What am I missing?

ElHalo

05-08-2006, 09:01 PM

I guess the lower number of 3Bs is largely a reflection of the much higher standards being applied to modern players. Many second tier stars of the pre-WWII/integration period reside in Cooperstown. Very few non-superstars of the modern era have made it.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Very few non-superstar old timers made it into the Hall immediately after their careers were done. They made it in decades later... decades that the more modern players haven't gotten a chance to wait yet. Granted, there's no longer a Frankie Frisch factor, but I do think that you'll see more second tier modern guys start to get in as the decades pass.

DoubleX

05-08-2006, 10:11 PM

Now that's where I disagree. I don't think Boyer and Santo were really comparable in value. Similar in type, but Santo was the much better hitter, and thus more valuable. Santo's OPS+ is 125, Boyer's 116. Are those really comparable? No. Santo also had about 1000 more PAs. He was, according to several metrics, one of the best players in the NL in the mid 1960s (the best according to TPR and maybe WS). Boyer had that MVP award, but he really didn't deserve it at all, and Santo deserved one in 1967 IMO.

I did a comparison a while ago, Sal Bando against Ken Boyer. In any objective way I could look at it, making all neccessary adjustments. I just cannot see Boyer ahead. Bando is a little bit better in everything. Yet everyone rates Boyer ahead, and I just don't get what the big deal is with him. OPS+ peak was 143, 135, 130. IN his prime was at about 125. Short period of dominance, and it's not a tremendous peak. Not a great career value guy, so what's the deal?

I know Boyer was a good fielder, but I don't think he was anywhere near Brooks Robinson or his own brother's territory. Probably a B to B+ 3B from what I've gathered. Not all that special. So, enlighten me. What am I missing?

Since you're the biggest Sal Bando fan I know, did you catch his cameo, along with Gene Tenance, on the Simpsons last night?

tigers527

05-08-2006, 11:18 PM

Lemme preface this by saying this I am a child of the 70's. Some of the fellows you speak I am unsure on. Some of the numbers you speak are completely alien to me. I will say this though,

THE HALL OF FAME is that, not the hall of PRETTY GOOD, or even the hall of GREAT. It is for those trancendant names. The ones we all know, the ones that stand the test of time. Just because currently there are no 3rd basemen there right now? Means we need to vote a few in that dont deserve? Hold on, check yourself for a few....maybe A-Rod can make it?

People for consideration in my opinion need to dominate their position for at least 5 years (by dominate I mean top 3 in MLB by position), I would hope for more like 7 years. They then need to fill up some if not most of their "magic" numbers, in the autumn years (while maintaining the top 1/2 of MLB). That's a sure HOFer to me.

That said Darrell Evans, Santo, Matlock and the like although good maybe even great are not HOFers

538280

05-09-2006, 05:26 AM

People for consideration in my opinion need to dominate their position for at least 5 years (by dominate I mean top 3 in MLB by position), I would hope for more like 7 years. They then need to fill up some if not most of their "magic" numbers, in the autumn years (while maintaining the top 1/2 of MLB). That's a sure HOFer to me.

That said Darrell Evans, Santo, Matlock and the like although good maybe even great are not HOFers

Santo certainly meets your criteria of top 3 in the MLB by position, Evans probably was top 3 at least 5 or 6 years in that tough 3B era (though in most other eras he would have been #1 almost every year), and top 10 for like 15-20. Madlock I agree isn't even close to a HOFer.

I think you're misinterpreting the statistics of Evans and Santo. They're much more valuable than their traditional stats lead you to believe. Try looking at things that actually correlate to runs.

Since you're the biggest Sal Bando fan I know, did you catch his cameo, along with Gene Tenance, on the Simpsons last night?

I don't watch the Simpsons, but if I knew Bando was going to be on there I probably would have caught that one episode. :) Was it good, funny, or did he make a fool of himself? Anything helps my HOF candidate.

I think unlike my other favorite, Bando may actually be electable because he has the infamous "greatness" that so many are looking for around here. His vaue transcends what he did on the field and he was part of a winning team.

I ask anyone who's interested. Try objectively rating Bando and Boyer, making all necessary era adjustments. I don't see how Boyer comes out ahead.

cavalier1968

05-09-2006, 03:09 PM

I know my opinion is skewered, but Buddy Bell is the best fielding 3B iv ever seen...been watching BB since 1975.

Cav

RuthMayBond

05-09-2006, 03:13 PM

I know my opinion is skewered, but Buddy Bell is the best fielding 3B iv ever seen...been watching BB since 1975.

CavI have him as the fourth best defensive 3B career ever :gt:

adarowski

05-09-2006, 06:53 PM

Surely we can say that Deacon White was a 3b, can't we?
I'm surprised no one has mentioned him.

When you factor in that his secondary position was catcher, this should only help him, IMO. But I can't find a case against the guy. The problem with fully endorsing him is that nobody's really seen him play. There's old school, then there's Deacon White. But it's hard to argue with the numbers.

DoubleX

05-09-2006, 07:12 PM

I don't watch the Simpsons, but if I knew Bando was going to be on there I probably would have caught that one episode. :) Was it good, funny, or did he make a fool of himself? Anything helps my HOF candidate.

I think unlike my other favorite, Bando may actually be electable because he has the infamous "greatness" that so many are looking for around here. His vaue transcends what he did on the field and he was part of a winning team.

It was more random than funny and only lasted a few seconds, but Tenace's and Bando's names were in the credits.

dgarza

05-10-2006, 06:53 AM

The problem with fully endorsing him is that nobody's really seen him play.
Well nobody ALIVE has seen him play.

Cougar

05-10-2006, 07:05 AM

Surely we can say that Deacon White was a 3b, can't we?
I'm surprised no one has mentioned him.

I've got him as a catcher. He played more games at 3b, but I think he's remembered better as the first great catcher.

Catcher was a funny position back then...it was rare for anyone to rack up many games played there. With lousy gloves and no protective equipment, it was a real meat grinder.

RuthMayBond

05-10-2006, 08:29 AM

Well nobody ALIVE has seen him play.Not even Bill Burgess? :eek:

Alibi Ike

05-10-2006, 09:31 AM

I don't watch the Simpsons, but if I knew Bando was going to be on there I probably would have caught that one episode. :) Was it good, funny, or did he make a fool of himself? Anything helps my HOF candidate.

Here is a link to the part:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-pfwMI2TZSI&search=74%20a%27s

It is a brief cameo and had me LOLing.

dgarza

05-10-2006, 09:44 AM

Not even Bill Burgess? :eek:
I think he was still too short and young to see over everybody else.

Bench 5

05-10-2006, 10:23 PM

Santo never got elected because a few other Cubs made the HOF and yet the Cubs never went to the playoffs. Ernie Banks, Fergie Jenkins, and Billy Williams made the Hall. Many voters were of the opinion that a team that never made the playoffs shouldn't have 4 HOF'ers.

I don't think it's a good argument in this situation because by the time Santo and Williams became stars, Banks was in his 30's and on the downside of his career. Fergie was the best pithcer on the staff and he went on to success with the Rangers after leaving the Cubs. They had a good team for a few years but just not good enough. That's always been the knock against sending him to the HOF.

Most Chicago fans also feel that Joe Morgan has been behind the veteran's camp to keep him out.

He will get elected someday but unfortunately it will probably be after he dies.

Yankwood

05-10-2006, 10:59 PM

Vinny Castilla had a peak like Rosen's-181 home runs and 562 RBI's in a 5year period but were probably counting Coors against him, right?

RuthMayBond

05-11-2006, 06:42 AM

Many voters were of the opinion that a team that never made the playoffs shouldn't have 4 HOF'ers.I'm assuming they're not referring to a "one-year" team but over a few years, because there's teams like the 25 Yanks, 58 Dodgers, and 84 Brewers who didn't make the playoffs and were pretty bad

Bench 5

05-11-2006, 08:41 AM

I'm assuming they're not referring to a "one-year" team but over a few years, because there's teams like the 25 Yanks, 58 Dodgers, and 84 Brewers who didn't make the playoffs and were pretty bad

Banks, Jenkins, Santo, and Williams played together for several years and never went to the playoffs. Like you say there are a lot of teams that were bad for a year or so with multiple HOF'ers but this Cubs team never finished higher than 2nd and was notorious for their choke in 1969. I think Santo deserves to be in the HOF. It was more difficult to make the playoffs back then so that shouldn't be held against him.

Cougar

05-11-2006, 11:28 AM

Vinny Castilla had a peak like Rosen's-181 home runs and 562 RBI's in a 5year period but were probably counting Coors against him, right?

Coors, the fact that his numbers are less impressive in the offense-soaked 1990's, the fact that Rosen drew lots of BB and Castilla drew very few, the fact that Castilla never led the league in anything in that stretch (although he did win an RBI crown in 2004), the fact that Castilla was not generally the best player at his position in the league as Rosen was (let along the league MVP in 1953).

Nevertheless, this is a good and fair point. Through age 32, when Rosen was forced to retire due to back trouble, his most similar players were Castilla and Kevin Mitchell. Those aren't comps that buttress a HOF case; quite the opposite. Rosen backers need to confront that inconvenient fact.

Part of the solution is to use other metrics; win shares, etc.

Yankwood

05-11-2006, 12:01 PM

Coors, the fact that his numbers are less impressive in the offense-soaked 1990's, the fact that Rosen drew lots of BB and Castilla drew very few, the fact that Castilla never led the league in anything in that stretch (although he did win an RBI crown in 2004), the fact that Castilla was not generally the best player at his position in the league as Rosen was (let along the league MVP in 1953).

Nevertheless, this is a good and fair point. Through age 32, when Rosen was forced to retire due to back trouble, his most similar players were Castilla and Kevin Mitchell. Those aren't comps that buttress a HOF case; quite the opposite. Rosen backers need to confront that inconvenient fact.

Part of the solution is to use other metrics; win shares, etc.Yes, I agree neither is an all time great at his position. It's just funny how sometimes we forget seasons not that long ago.

adarowski

05-11-2006, 08:33 PM

Cougar

05-11-2006, 09:57 PM

Hey folks... just finishing up some 3B research I'm hoping to post tomorrow. Figured I'd solicit some last minute opinions on a few guys...

Bob Elliot vs. Stan Hack

Darrell Evans vs. Bill Madlock

I've kinda got my theories in place, but I'm curious about some last minute input.

Thanks!

Hack > Evans > Elliott > Madlock

The bright line is between Evans and Elliott.

538280

05-12-2006, 05:14 AM

Hey folks... just finishing up some 3B research I'm hoping to post tomorrow. Figured I'd solicit some last minute opinions on a few guys...

Bob Elliot vs. Stan Hack

Darrell Evans vs. Bill Madlock

I've kinda got my theories in place, but I'm curious about some last minute input.

Thanks!

Like I said, make sure you don't forget to mention Sal Bando. He's certainly better than Madlock, and IMO is probably ahead of Hack and Elliot too. It seems all articles I've ever read about 3Bmen outside the Hall overlook him.

adarowski

05-12-2006, 06:10 AM

Hack > Evans > Elliott > Madlock

The bright line is between Evans and Elliott.

Sweet, exactly my thoughts yet I can't quite put a finger on why. :)

adarowski

05-12-2006, 06:13 AM

Like I said, make sure you don't forget to mention Sal Bando. He's certainly better than Madlock, and IMO is probably ahead of Hack and Elliot too. It seems all articles I've ever read about 3Bmen outside the Hall overlook him.

I've got him in there... and he was certainly a good third baseman. Seems a strike against him was that he was playing in a golden age of third basemen, so to speak. I've got him in there, and being a big Bando fan you may not agree with my final assessment. But rest assured that he was included, and from my research, I probably would have picked him for my team over Madlock.

But at some point, to undervalue Bando is to undervalue Cey. There's a guy you don't hear enough about either.

baseballPAP

05-12-2006, 06:31 AM

Hack did all the little things, but lacked in the big things.
Evans did all the things that were overlooked at the time, but are more appreciated now by us "numbers geeks".
Elliot was just about dead between the two as far as skill set, but got killed by his home park early on (notice the HR jump when he left Forbes).
Madlock was the worst of the 4 with the glove, but probably the best pure hitter of the four. On my 100 point scale, they finish like this (30%power, 30%onbase ability, 30%defense, 10% intangibles)(ranked 1-10):
Evans:8,7,6,5 total-68
Hack:3,9,6,10 total-64
Elliott:6,7,5,6 total-60
Madlock:5,7,4,2 total-50

And, for what its worth,
Sal Bando:7,8,6,8 total-71
who I have rated above them all....Bando(12), Evans(18), Hack(21), Elliott(30), Madlock(NR)

RuthMayBond

05-12-2006, 07:12 AM

Cougar

05-12-2006, 08:21 AM

For career value
Evans > Hack > Elliott > Bando > Madlock

That's about right. I've got Hack over Evans, but it's semantic...they're close.

And since someone mentioned Cey, he's just behind Bando, by a paper-thin margin. And ahead of Madlock.

RuthMayBond

05-12-2006, 08:24 AM

That's right.

And since someone mentioned Cey, he's just behind Bando, by a paper-thin margin. And ahead of Madlock.I have Cey squeezed in between Hack and Elliott

Cougar

05-12-2006, 08:32 AM

I didn't read carefully; we've a minor disagreement about the relative ranking of Evans and Hack, but I don't think it's material. (I edited my previous post.)

I'm surprised you have Cey so high. The good BB/PA and Dodger Stadium?

Because that helps Bando as well (the Oakland Coliseum is quite disagreeable to hitters), and Bando's got a slightly better rep. with the glove, was a more key member of a better dynasty...basically intangibles, I admit.

Cey did last a little longer; the move to Wrigley helped.

RuthMayBond

05-12-2006, 08:34 AM

Fuzzy Bear

05-13-2006, 07:17 AM

3Bmen not in who should be:
1.Ron Santo-no explanation necessary. Who knows why he hasn't gotten in. Only player outside who rivals him is Dick Allen.
2.Sal Bando-been over him many times, I have no idea why he doens't get more support
3.Darrell Evans-Very good player for a really long time, very good hitter and fielder. Similar to Nettles but greater bat, less glove
4.Graig Nettles-On the fence on him, great glove a pretty good bat. BA was so low though that his OBP isn't high even though he walked a lot.
5.Heinie Groh-Monster peak, best player in NL between Wagner and Hornsby.

Ken Boyer I'm shaky on. I'm not so sure if he's a HOFer. I could be convinced though.

It's easy to see why Bando doesn't get more support:

(A) His batting statistics are below the level one would expect for a HOF third baseman, given the length of his career, era played in.

(B) His fielding, while good, did not overcome his hitting; he never won a Gold Glove, granted that Brooks Robinson was active at the same time as Bando.

(C) While active, Bando was never considered the best at his position in the league, let alone in baseball. I grant you that it is no disgrace to be overshadowed by Robinson, then Schmidt and Brett, but Bando, while active, was competing for third place with the likes of Cey, Madlock, DeCinces, Nettles, and Darrell Evans.

There are intangibles that could cause Bando to rate higher. He was fourth in MVP voting in 1983 and third in 1974, but JOE RUDI????? finished ahead of Bando in MVP voting in 1972. (Rudi was second in AL MVP voting in 1972; one wonders whether or not the BBWAA needed to be drug tested that year!) It's hard to give Bando credit here when the writers were more impressed with Joe Rudi.

I'm not saying "no" to Bando, but I'm not convinced he should be rated ahead of Nettles, Evans, or Cey, not to mention Ken Boyer, Buddy Bell and Santo. Truthfully, if one wants to make a case for Bando, one can make a better case for Doug DeCinces, who has similar batting stats, and superior defensive stats (much higher range factors). DeCinces was also trapped behind Brooks Robinson; he was ready for a regular job at least 2 years before he got one, and had he been given the 3B job when he was actually ready, his career stats would have been clearly better than Bando's. The only clear advantage Bando has over DeCinces is in OBP, and that counts for a lot, but DeCinces has other advantages. I'm not sure that Bando should be rated ahead of Tim Wallach, who was far, far superior, defensively, to Bando. Being a leader on a great, pennant winning team counts for something, but it's not such an overwhelming factor as to cause one to advocate for Kirk Gibson's election to the Hall. That's my feeling on Bando in a nutshell.