Chipper Jones upbeat about 18th season with Braves

[Old Sweater]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AjgyvV2ygRT17BDk3VjbcjcRvLYF?slug=ap-braves-chippershealth

Jones is feeling optimistic about his health as he moves closer to his 18th season with the Braves. Despite two knee surgeries in the last two years, the last link to the Braves’ 1995 World Series championship is not ready to talk about ending his career.

In fact, the third baseman, who turns 40 in April, talked about the possibility of playing two more years. He has an option in his contract for 2013.


Hey, I like it! Good positive outlook.

How about you Braves fans?

[RickD]

Chipper! Love it. Keep going man. Of course, when he retires, Jamie Moyer will still be going strong!

[The Edge]

Hey, I like it! Good positive outlook.

How about you Braves fans?

With the lack of anyone outside of Prado who can play the hotcorner and obviously no plans of platooning Diaz and Hinske, we really have no other options. At this point, I don't think Chipper is a terrible player but its obvious he's never going to be who he was and just put up his worst defensive season since 2006.

As a fan of Chipper Jones, I wish he would walk away from the game as the only switch hitter at .300+ 400+ homers. As a fan of the team, I think he's our best option is also to platoon Hinske and Diaz in LF(we're no stranger to the platoon, we used it for a while) and use Prado at 3rd. I believe Prado is the best offensive and defensive option at 3rd, though with him too I worry about his ability to stay healthy playing in the infield. Chipper has also consistently been really upbeat as the season begins but is one of those guys that seems to get down on the team rather quickly where Prado is a workhorse and will do anything you ask him to do.(would probably catch 120 games if he was asked to).

With all that said, I don't blame Chipper so much as I blame the front office for not planning ahead and being in this position where the best thing we have in the minors is still a couple years off and still a big question mark and the not budgeting the fact that we now have a 3B who struggles to give us a quarter of the season at rather average numbers.

[RickD]

Well apparently Jones caused a mini-uproar when he joked about retiring after a ST game. He responded: "It was tongue and cheek. I was kidding. I just got done playing eight innings with three at-bats. I was a little tired," he told mlb.com.

[PitchingWins]

Larry Wayne Jones Jr will make it to the HOF one day and he has had a nice career.

Personally, while he is deserving of the HOF, I have long felt that he has been over rated for quite a while. Very nice player. One of the better switch-hitters of all time. In the conversation as a top five 3B all time. Vastly over rated as a team leader. Barely in the top 20 players for his generation. And, while his first 9 years were extremely solid (not great) and consistent his last 8 years have been not worth noting.

As far as his retirement is concerned? I think he hurts his team at this point more than he helps it. His defense is horrific. He stubbornly stays in the lineup when not 100%. And, Braves leadership insists on penciling him into the Three-Hole no matter what and has been doing this for far too long. Maybe in 2011 if he is not in that spot so often, the Braves win a few more games? Two more years?

I did notice today that he was in the Two-Hole yet this is not the spot for him. Drop him down in the order already! Until the Braves slot him correctly, that lineup will scuffle.

[yankeebiscuitfan]

I think he has been the face of the franchise over the last ten years. As far as I am concerned he always has been a team player; offering to accept a pay cut to make it possible for the Braves to sign a high priced FA is the proof for that.

[WilsonC]

Larry Wayne Jones Jr will make it to the HOF one day and he has had a nice career.

Personally, while he is deserving of the HOF, I have long felt that he has been over rated for quite a while. Very nice player. One of the better switch-hitters of all time. In the conversation as a top five 3B all time. Vastly over rated as a team leader. Barely in the top 20 players for his generation. And, while his first 9 years were extremely solid (not great) and consistent his last 8 years have been not worth noting.

Take another look at his more recent years. The last 8 years? He hit .297/.399/.520, with 174 HR in about 1000 games during that stretch. Prorate that over a full career, and his numbers are better than a lot of Hall of Famers even through his later years. He's missed more games as he's aged, but he's retained his performance extremely well through his latter years - it's really only the last three years (age 37 and up) where there's been a noticeable decline in hitting skill, and even in those years he's posted OPS numbers over .800.


As far as his retirement is concerned? I think he hurts his team at this point more than he helps it. His defense is horrific. He stubbornly stays in the lineup when not 100%. And, Braves leadership insists on penciling him into the Three-Hole no matter what and has been doing this for far too long. Maybe in 2011 if he is not in that spot so often, the Braves win a few more games? Two more years?

I did notice today that he was in the Two-Hole yet this is not the spot for him. Drop him down in the order already! Until the Braves slot him correctly, that lineup will scuffle.

At 39, he certainly wasn't as good as prime Chipper Jones, which is to be expected. However, of Braves hitters with over 250 AB, he had the second highest batting average, the third highest on-base percentage, the highest slugging percentage, and the second highest OPS and OPS+ by a negligible margin behind McCann. Even in 2011, as a shadow of his former self, he was still one of the most effective hitters on the team when he was in the lineup. That tells us as much about the Braves' lineup last year as it does him - you have to put somebody in the middle of the order, even without a true fit - but given the personnel they have, he hasn't been at all misplaced in the middle of the lineup.

[PitchingWins]

Take another look at his more recent years. The last 8 years? He hit .297/.399/.520, with 174 HR in about 1000 games during that stretch. Prorate that over a full career, and his numbers are better than a lot of Hall of Famers even through his later years. He's missed more games as he's aged, but he's retained his performance extremely well through his latter years - it's really only the last three years (age 37 and up) where there's been a noticeable decline in hitting skill, and even in those years he's posted OPS numbers over .800.
Those "last 8 years" include '06 thru '08 where he was off the charts good in those production percentage metrics (BA, OBP, SLG, OPS). He has not come close to doing this the last three years. This is a tale of two careers. The last 8 years have NOT been anything close to HOF worthy.

I love how folks make the old "prorate that over a full career" or look at the numbers on a 162 game basis argument. We are talking about an 8 year period where Larry averaged playing in 134 games per year. I don't care what his rates are, if you "project" a career where a guy misses 28 games per year on average do to injury... he does not make the HOF.

I will indulge the the "last 1000 games" argument. First, let's look at the last the last 8 years for Larry where he has played in 982 games. Multiply this by 3 for a nice long career. This would look like a career of 2946 Games with 522 HR and a slash line of .297/.399/.520 and an OPS of .813

Now, let's plug in some real numbers from a real player of Larry's era:

This "mystery" player had a 22 year career primarily as a 3B. He played in 2576 Games and has the career slash line of .292/.393/.514 with an OPS of .907 and he has 509 career HR with 2689 Hits and 1475 BB. Are these HOF numbers?

He even played on the same team with Larry in 2002 and 2003. Here are their numbers as Braves those two years:

.319/.412/.540 with 64 HR and 216 RBI is what the "mystery" player did.
.316/.419/.527 with 53 HR and 206 RBI is what Larry did.

The "mystery" player is Gary Sheffield.

Let's look at reality here... Larry is going to have to climb over EIGHT other guys to hit as many HR as Sheffield has and these guys include the names Winfield, Stargell, Musial, Gehrig, McGriff and Eddie Murray. It will not happen (see bold above). It also points to the foolishness of projecting Larry's last 8 years for a "career" picture of that time frame. This "picture" has him hitting more HR than he has already hit in or will hit his HOF career!

Do we REALLY want to look at his "more recent years?" The last three years Larry has been a shell of his former self. To even think he is capable of escaping these levels of production moving forward defies reality.


At 39, he certainly wasn't as good as prime Chipper Jones, which is to be expected. However, of Braves hitters with over 250 AB, he had the second highest batting average, the third highest on-base percentage, the highest slugging percentage, and the second highest OPS and OPS+ by a negligible margin behind McCann. Even in 2011, as a shadow of his former self, he was still one of the most effective hitters on the team when he was in the lineup. That tells us as much about the Braves' lineup last year as it does him - you have to put somebody in the middle of the order, even without a true fit - but given the personnel they have, he hasn't been at all misplaced in the middle of the lineup.
Indeed, this does say how bad that Braves lineup was in 2011 yet these facts still remain:

- Larry was a 2.8 WAR player in 2009 with Escobar (4.4), McCann (4.2), Prado (3.2) better than Larry. Diaz (2.6) was slightly worse.

- Larry was a 2.9 WAR player in 2010 with McCann (5.6), Heyward (5.1), Prado (4.4) better than Larry. Infante (2.6) was slightly worse.

- Larry was a 2.1 WAR player in 2011 with McCann (4.2), Uggla (2.5), Heyward (2.2) better than Larry. Prado (1.6) was worse.

It is pretty clear that Larry has been the FOURTH best offensive player in each of the last three seasons. How do you keep putting your fourth best hitter in the Three-Hole?

I contend that he has been misplaced and certainly going forward will continue to be misplaced if Braves management continues to insist that Larry is a Three-Hole hitter.

On another note, would any members care to see my argument for where Larry rates historically with the players of his own era?

[WilsonC]

Those "last 8 years" include '06 thru '08 where he was off the charts good in those production percentage metrics (BA, OBP, SLG, OPS). He has not come close to doing this the last three years. This is a tale of two careers. The last 8 years have NOT been anything close to HOF worthy.

So basically, you're suggesting he's been nothing special during the last eight years if you ignore the years which he's been really good. He had an off year in 2004, rebounded to have four more peak level seasons, and then declined at age 37. Like most players - even most Hall of Famers - his durability has declined as he's aged, but his performance didn't start dropping until the last three years.


I love how folks make the old "prorate that over a full career" or look at the numbers on a 162 game basis argument. We are talking about an 8 year period where Larry averaged playing in 134 games per year. I don't care what his rates are, if you "project" a career where a guy misses 28 games per year on average do to injury... he does not make the HOF.

His durability was certainly the first thing to decline. However, he was a very durable player into his early 30's, and as far as him being overrated, nobody's considered him a durable player in recent years.


I will indulge the the "last 1000 games" argument. First, let's look at the last the last 8 years for Larry where he has played in 982 games. Multiply this by 3 for a nice long career. This would look like a career of 2946 Games with 522 HR and a slash line of .297/.399/.520 and an OPS of .813

Now, let's plug in some real numbers from a real player of Larry's era:

This "mystery" player had a 22 year career primarily as a 3B. He played in 2576 Games and has the career slash line of .292/.393/.514 with an OPS of .907 and he has 509 career HR with 2689 Hits and 1475 BB. Are these HOF numbers?

He even played on the same team with Larry in 2002 and 2003. Here are their numbers as Braves those two years:

.319/.412/.540 with 64 HR and 216 RBI is what the "mystery" player did.
.316/.419/.527 with 53 HR and 206 RBI is what Larry did.

The "mystery" player is Gary Sheffield.

Let's look at reality here... Larry is going to have to climb over EIGHT other guys to hit as many HR as Sheffield has and these guys include the names Winfield, Stargell, Musial, Gehrig, McGriff and Eddie Murray. It will not happen (see bold above). It also points to the foolishness of projecting Larry's last 8 years for a "career" picture of that time frame. This "picture" has him hitting more HR than he has already hit in or will hit his HOF career!

Well, most Hall of Famers are nowhere near 2900 games played, so you don't need to assume exceptional durability. Using his actual games played at his "decline years" rates, he comes out to about 420 HR and 2500 hits, while hitting .297/.399/.520. - not too far from what he actually did, and better than a lot of Hall of Famers. It's not a shoo-in, but it's certainly better than a lot of Hall of Famers.

As far as comparisons to Sheffield go, he's a player who'd be a shoo-in if he was judged purely on his performance. The only barriers for him are non-playing elements - people who assume he was on steroids, and his generally unpleasant public personality. I consider Shef one of the most underrated stars of the era. He's actually the player I've always thought of as being an excellent offensive comparison for Chipper Jones - both have a balanced skill set, hitting around .300 with a ton of walks, not many strikeouts, and excellent power that combines a balance between HR and 2B, rather than being pure power hitters.


Do we REALLY want to look at his "more recent years?" The last three years Larry has been a shell of his former self. To even think he is capable of escaping these levels of production moving forward defies reality.

Of course he has. He's on the verge of turning 40, and few players match their peak production at that age. That said, .268/.371/.444 (120 OPS+) is still a pretty good hitter, and even with the reduced playing time he's topped 2 WAR (roughly an average player's level) in each of those years - that's an above average player. When a player can be a shadow of his former self, and still be above average, it tells you something about how good he was in his prime.


Indeed, this does say how bad that Braves lineup was in 2011 yet these facts still remain:

- Larry was a 2.8 WAR player in 2009 with Escobar (4.4), McCann (4.2), Prado (3.2) better than Larry. Diaz (2.6) was slightly worse.

- Larry was a 2.9 WAR player in 2010 with McCann (5.6), Heyward (5.1), Prado (4.4) better than Larry. Infante (2.6) was slightly worse.

- Larry was a 2.1 WAR player in 2011 with McCann (4.2), Uggla (2.5), Heyward (2.2) better than Larry. Prado (1.6) was worse.

It is pretty clear that Larry has been the FOURTH best offensive player in each of the last three seasons. How do you keep putting your fourth best hitter in the Three-Hole?

I contend that he has been misplaced and certainly going forward will continue to be misplaced if Braves management continues to insist that Larry is a Three-Hole hitter.

On another note, would any members care to see my argument for where Larry rates historically with the players of his own era?

If you want to look at WAR, you may notice that Jones ranks 14th overall among all positions throughout those 8 years that aren't worth aren't worth noting ;)

But WAR shouldn't be even considered for batting order, because it's not an offensive stat. It includes position and defense, which are irrelevant in constructing a batting order.

Look instead at something like wRC+ - it's the context adjusted rate metric that forms the foundation for the hitting portion of the WAR metrics you used. Over those three years combined, only McCann ranks ahead of Chipper among everyday players.

In 2009, Diaz ranks ahead with a career year (137 wRC+), then the gap between McCann (120), Escobar (118), Prado (117) and Jones (116) was small enough to be insignificant.

In 2010, Heyward (134) ranked ahead of him, then McCann (124) and Jones (122) were comparable.

In 2011, McCann (121), Jones (119), and Freeman (118) were about on par.

So basically, McCann and an occasional player with no track record has been better offensively. There's no mismanagement here. Even "washed-up" Chipper, when he's been on the field, has been about as good a choice for the three spot as anyone on the team.

[PitchingWins]

So basically, you're suggesting he's been nothing special during the last eight years if you ignore the years which he's been really good. He had an off year in 2004, rebounded to have four more peak level seasons, and then declined at age 37. Like most players - even most Hall of Famers - his durability has declined as he's aged, but his performance didn't start dropping until the last three years
No, what I am saying is that Larry has had two separate and distinct stretches in his career. The first stretch, where he was consistent, above average and durable while always being that "second Level" of threat offensively. Kind of a "tweener." He hit for average yet not nearly as well as the pure average hitters. He hit for power yet not nearly as well as the sluggers.

The second stretch that you are so fond of is not remarkable in any way except to say that Larry was consistent only in being a guy that you could count on to get hurt every year. You love his rates when he played yet I wonder if you consider that it is often easier to maintain higher rates of production when when you don't play as frequently. What has more value, a pitcher who has a 3.24 ERA and 3.31 FIP in 242 Innings or a pitcher who gives you a 2.78 ERA and 2.83 FIP in 160 Innings? What has more value, the hitter with a .408 w/OBA in 400 ABs or the hitter that gives you a .378 w/OBA in 600 ABs?

I am not ignoring his level of production in 2004, the first year of his "second stretch." This marks the beginning of the decline. His slash line was .248/.362/.485 or one of his worst seasons. It also marks the beginning of the era where Larry consistently started missing time. 2005 and 2006 were solid yet he missed 1/3 of each year.

Don't even get me started on 2007. Any Braves fan can tell you that during the important period of that year while the Braves were close and chasing the Phillies, the Braves went 6-12 and fell far out of that race. Larry saw his "rates" decline in this period (18 Games) to .278/.341/.541 while his year line was .337/.425/.604 (134 Games) yet the thing worth noting was that AFTER his team was toast he put this slash line up in (20) meaningless games: .391/.488/.716 with 6 HR and 21 RBI. The 18 game stretch when his team needed him most saw a decline... the 20 game stretch after his team was now behind in the standings by double digits and Larry pads his stats. Kind of puts in perspective his "raw" numbers of 29 HR and 102 RBI for 2007.

2008 was a very nice year even when you consider he still could not even play in 80% of his team's games. He only started 118 games and Pinch-Hit in 10 more. Again, it is usually easier to maintain incredible rates with less of a work load.


His durability was certainly the first thing to decline. However, he was a very durable player into his early 30's, and as far as him being overrated, nobody's considered him a durable player in recent years.
Exactly! Larry has NOT been a durable player since the age of 31. And, how is a player who puts up a decent stretch for 8 years while missing significant time even in a conversation with other (unnamed) HOF players or as a guy who should merit HOF consideration on these 8 seasons?


Well, most Hall of Famers are nowhere near 2900 games played, so you don't need to assume exceptional durability. Using his actual games played at his "decline years" rates, he comes out to about 420 HR and 2500 hits, while hitting .297/.399/.520. - not too far from what he actually did, and better than a lot of Hall of Famers. It's not a shoo-in, but it's certainly better than a lot of Hall of Famers.
Part of Larry's credentials for the HOF are longevity! When you look at the missed time, does it not put this longevity into a more proper perspective?


As far as comparisons to Sheffield go, he's a player who'd be a shoo-in if he was judged purely on his performance. The only barriers for him are non-playing elements - people who assume he was on steroids, and his generally unpleasant public personality. I consider Shef one of the most underrated stars of the era. He's actually the player I've always thought of as being an excellent offensive comparison for Chipper Jones - both have a balanced skill set, hitting around .300 with a ton of walks, not many strikeouts, and excellent power that combines a balance between HR and 2B, rather than being pure power hitters.
The only thing we can take from this is that of two players with very similar sets of numbers, one guy is virtually a shoo-in because he got along with the media while the other guy probably does not get in because he was not as likeable. Is this not the subjective? Is this not related to perception vs reality? Does this not strengthen my argument that Larry has been a bit over rated? Yes, yes and yes!


Of course he has. He's on the verge of turning 40, and few players match their peak production at that age. That said, .268/.371/.444 (120 OPS+) is still a pretty good hitter, and even with the reduced playing time he's topped 2 WAR (roughly an average player's level) in each of those years - that's an above average player. When a player can be a shadow of his former self, and still be above average, it tells you something about how good he was in his prime.
The last three years and a player with a 2 WAR is simply barely above average. I do not see any wisdom in looking at what he did from 1995 thru 2003 as any type of indicator of what he is doing TODAY from that Three-Hole.


If you want to look at WAR, you may notice that Jones ranks 14th overall among all positions throughout those 8 years that aren't worth aren't worth noting.
So what you are saying is that Larry was the 14th best positional WAR player of this 8 year era? This makes you wonder what his "prime" years looked like when compared to other players of that era. If you look at 1993 thru 2003 (the start of his MLB career), he is the 12th best positional WAR player. Even when you plug in only his best 9 year burst (1995 thru 2003) he is FIFTH BEST! Now, look at where he is as an offensive player of that 1995 thru 2003 era: 19th in w/OBA... 16th in wRC+... Kind of makes you want to consider how this guy is getting all the "lock for first-ballot" induction talk lately? Unless, you like the HOF to include guys who were very good yet clearly not the best of the best?


But WAR shouldn't be even considered for batting order, because it's not an offensive stat. It includes position and defense, which are irrelevant in constructing a batting order.

Look instead at something like wRC+ - it's the context adjusted rate metric that forms the foundation for the hitting portion of the WAR metrics you used. Over those three years combined, only McCann ranks ahead of Chipper among everyday players.
OK, Larry is the 11th best offensive player in MLB for this period (2004 thru 2011)according to wRC+. Remove the two "lights out" seasons from this 8 year body of work and you will see a free fall in this ranking, which suggests that this period is driven by TWO good seasons and TWO good seasons only. How does this strengthen any HOF talk?


In 2009, Diaz ranks ahead with a career year (137 wRC+), then the gap between McCann (120), Escobar (118), Prado (117) and Jones (116) was small enough to be insignificant.

In 2010, Heyward (134) ranked ahead of him, then McCann (124) and Jones (122) were comparable.

In 2011, McCann (121), Jones (119), and Freeman (118) were about on par.

So basically, McCann and an occasional player with no track record has been better offensively. There's no mismanagement here. Even "washed-up" Chipper, when he's been on the field, has been about as good a choice for the three spot as anyone on the team.
No matter how you slice, spin or present the facts and no matter how slim the margins are... Larry is not even close to the top hitter on his team anymore. That is all I am saying. I do not know how anyone can argue differently?

He should NOT be in the Three-Hole and he should have been out of that spot for a while now!

[WilsonC]

No, what I am saying is that Larry has had two separate and distinct stretches in his career. The first stretch, where he was consistent, above average and durable while always being that "second Level" of threat offensively. Kind of a "tweener." He hit for average yet not nearly as well as the pure average hitters. He hit for power yet not nearly as well as the sluggers.

The second stretch that you are so fond of is not remarkable in any way except to say that Larry was consistent only in being a guy that you could count on to get hurt every year. You love his rates when he played yet I wonder if you consider that it is often easier to maintain higher rates of production when when you don't play as frequently. What has more value, a pitcher who has a 3.24 ERA and 3.31 FIP in 242 Innings or a pitcher who gives you a 2.78 ERA and 2.83 FIP in 160 Innings? What has more value, the hitter with a .408 w/OBA in 400 ABs or the hitter that gives you a .378 w/OBA in 600 ABs?

That's not two stretches, it's three stretches: one which he was an excellent all-around hitter and durable, one which he retained his performance but started having injuries, and one which his performance started declining. That's typical, outside of how well he retained his performance.


I am not ignoring his level of production in 2004, the first year of his "second stretch." This marks the beginning of the decline. His slash line was .248/.362/.485 or one of his worst seasons. It also marks the beginning of the era where Larry consistently started missing time. 2005 and 2006 were solid yet he missed 1/3 of each year.

You can cherry pick the worst year of almost any player in an attempt to make him look worse than he is. Doesn't mean it's meaningful, aside from how it affects his career as a whole. Hell, Babe Ruth had a mortal age 30 season plugged in the middle of superior years. Besides which, even with the outlier poor batting average, he was still a good hitter in 2004 - I'll take an .850-ish OPS in a player's off year any day.


Don't even get me started on 2007. Any Braves fan can tell you that during the important period of that year while the Braves were close and chasing the Phillies, the Braves went 6-12 and fell far out of that race. Larry saw his "rates" decline in this period (18 Games) to .278/.341/.541 while his year line was .337/.425/.604 (134 Games) yet the thing worth noting was that AFTER his team was toast he put this slash line up in (20) meaningless games: .391/.488/.716 with 6 HR and 21 RBI. The 18 game stretch when his team needed him most saw a decline... the 20 game stretch after his team was now behind in the standings by double digits and Larry pads his stats. Kind of puts in perspective his "raw" numbers of 29 HR and 102 RBI for 2007.

Really? You're taking an 18 game "slump" in which his OPS was over .880, in which he had a full-season pace of 36 HR, a 126 RBI, and 64! doubles to suggest he didn't carry his weight that year? You're kind of helping me make my point here - when a player's seemingly bad performances are really good, it's often because we're comparing him to his own established level rather than looking at what he actually did.


Part of Larry's credentials for the HOF are longevity! When you look at the missed time, does it not put this longevity into a more proper perspective?

Longevity and durability are two different things. They're related, and the a player's career total games is in large part a combination of the two, but we're still looking at separate aspects. Was he durable? For the first half of his career yes, for the latter part no. If there's anyone who suggests otherwise, I haven't seem them. As far as longevity, though, that's more a factor of how long he was an asset to his team. With Jones, he's helped his teams for a long time, even if he's no longer able to do it for a full season.


The only thing we can take from this is that of two players with very similar sets of numbers, one guy is virtually a shoo-in because he got along with the media while the other guy probably does not get in because he was not as likeable. Is this not the subjective? Is this not related to perception vs reality? Does this not strengthen my argument that Larry has been a bit over rated? Yes, yes and yes!

Except there's more players than Sheffield and Jones. Hank Aaron is better regarded than Barry Bonds, even though Bonds' performance is superior. Does that make Aaron overrated, or is it more accurate to say that factors beyond performance tend to impact the way people look at Bonds? Sheffield's like Dick Allen, in that players with numbers that good almost always make it in, but both are disliked enough that they're not given their due for their offensive excellence. We can't judge a player as overrated by comparing him to a single player who's underrated.


The last three years and a player with a 2 WAR is simply barely above average. I do not see any wisdom in looking at what he did from 1995 thru 2003 as any type of indicator of what he is doing TODAY from that Three-Hole.

I've never seen anyone suggest otherwise.


So what you are saying is that Larry was the 14th best positional WAR player of this 8 year era? This makes you wonder what his "prime" years looked like when compared to other players of that era. If you look at 1993 thru 2003 (the start of his MLB career), he is the 12th best positional WAR player. Even when you plug in only his best 9 year burst (1995 thru 2003) he is FIFTH BEST! Now, look at where he is as an offensive player of that 1995 thru 2003 era: 19th in w/OBA... 16th in wRC+... Kind of makes you want to consider how this guy is getting all the "lock for first-ballot" induction talk lately? Unless, you like the HOF to include guys who were very good yet clearly not the best of the best?

Ahhhhh, there's the rub. I have never, ever seen anyone suggest Chipper Jones was arguably the best player of his generation. It actually surprises me that he was the fifth best in WAR over a prolonged stretch - I've never heard him described as a top five offensive player, even in his prime. If that's accurate, you could make a good case that he's been severely underrated throughout his career. I've never seen him described as an "inner-circle" Hall of Famer, either, though I suppose some people's definitions of the inner circle might be wider. But not all Hall of Famers are inner-circle guys, not even first-ballot guys. The Hall hasn't been limited to the absolute best of the best since about WWII. Players who were arguably a top ten position player during a fairly long prime and remained effective as long as Chipper Jones are almost always in the Hall of Fame easily, unless there's a non-baseball reason to keep them out.

It's perfectly valid to have higher standards for election than the real Hall does, but that doesn't reflect the ability of the player as much as it does the bar. If two people agree that a player is a 70 WAR player (or equivalent, however you choose to rank players), and one person has a 60 WAR threshold for the Hall whereas the other has an 80 WAR threshold, does that mean one person is over/underrating him? Of course not - they rate him the same. The difference is in their cutoff.

Chipper's performance puts him well above the actual threshold for the Hall. You may not agree with that threshold, but that has nothing to do with the performance of Jones or any one player.


OK, Larry is the 11th best offensive player in MLB for this period (2004 thru 2011)according to wRC+. Remove the two "lights out" seasons from this 8 year body of work and you will see a free fall in this ranking, which suggests that this period is driven by TWO good seasons and TWO good seasons only. How does this strengthen any HOF talk?

You want to emphasize his off year in 2004 but throw out his good years. Gotcha.


No matter how you slice, spin or present the facts and no matter how slim the margins are... Larry is not even close to the top hitter on his team anymore. That is all I am saying. I do not know how anyone can argue differently?

He should NOT be in the Three-Hole and he should have been out of that spot for a while now!

Then who do you think should have been?

[PitchingWins]

That's not two stretches, it's three stretches: one which he was an excellent all-around hitter and durable, one which he retained his performance but started having injuries, and one which his performance started declining. That's typical, outside of how well he retained his performance.
You can nit pick any player into three, four, or five "stretches" in his career. I submit two simply because there is the healthy Larry and the hurt Larry. Pretty simple.

Healthy for 9 years:
Hits - 1587
2B - 304
3B - 26
HR - 270
RBI - 943
Runs - 964

Injured for 8 years:
Hits - 1026
2B - 221
3B - 12
HR - 184
RBI - 618
Runs - 595

And, you ignore the fact that the rates you love so much are easier to maintain with a smaller work load or sample size.


You can cherry pick the worst year of almost any player in an attempt to make him look worse than he is. Doesn't mean it's meaningful, aside from how it affects his career as a whole. Hell, Babe Ruth had a mortal age 30 season plugged in the middle of superior years. Besides which, even with the outlier poor batting average, he was still a good hitter in 2004 - I'll take an .850-ish OPS in a player's off year any day.
I guess you also like to ignore his K and BB data from 2004? I was not cherry-picking a bad year... simply refuting your contention that Larry did not have any poorer years or years that were below his standard in that second stretch of his career prior to the last three.

That ".850-ish OPS" that you will take any day? Do you remember the time in history? It ranked 68th in MLB!


Really? You're taking an 18 game "slump" in which his OPS was over .880, in which he had a full-season pace of 36 HR, a 126 RBI, and 64! doubles to suggest he didn't carry his weight that year? You're kind of helping me make my point here - when a player's seemingly bad performances are really good, it's often because we're comparing him to his own established level rather than looking at what he actually did.
I was not suggesting he did not carry his weight that year. Just pointing out that while he drew the BB and hit some meaningless HR in that 18 game period his team faded, he did manage to fluff his numbers with a torrid 20 game period to finish the season that pumped his numbers up quite a bit. The first look at 2007 suggests a fine year with a .337/.425/.604 and 1.029 OPS with 29 HR and 102 RBI. The best 20 game stretch he had that year was the final 20 games with his team out of the race. Sorry, I have to look at how and when a player put up his numbers, especially if his team is a contender.


Longevity and durability are two different things. They're related, and the a player's career total games is in large part a combination of the two, but we're still looking at separate aspects. Was he durable? For the first half of his career yes, for the latter part no. If there's anyone who suggests otherwise, I haven't seem them. As far as longevity, though, that's more a factor of how long he was an asset to his team. With Jones, he's helped his teams for a long time, even if he's no longer able to do it for a full season.
We disagree. If any player makes a MLB roster it is because someone feels he can be an asset to the team. I never said Larry does not deserve to wear a uniform.

This simple fact remains: For a guy who is coming up on a career that spans nearly two decades, the latter half of this was as a part-time performer.

You continue to ignore the initial thrust of my point to begin with. You maintain that Larry's stretch from 2004 thru 2011 was worthy of HOF dialogue. I say that a player who can not even start 75% of his team's games for that period of time should never be in a HOF discussion.


Except there's more players than Sheffield and Jones. Hank Aaron is better regarded than Barry Bonds, even though Bonds' performance is superior. Does that make Aaron overrated, or is it more accurate to say that factors beyond performance tend to impact the way people look at Bonds? Sheffield's like Dick Allen, in that players with numbers that good almost always make it in, but both are disliked enough that they're not given their due for their offensive excellence. We can't judge a player as overrated by comparing him to a single player who's underrated.
The point you ignore is that Larry has always been a media darling. He has always got the benefit from umpires on close pitches. Clearly, some of this is deserved yet the perception is still what it is. This has not been limited to the media who reports on him and the umpires who give him the benefit on close pitches. It has been a fact for far too long that every game that we see on TV with the Braves has the announcers telling us all that this guy is a first-ballot "lock." They go on and on about his leadership when he has led his team to nothing. They talk about how clutch he is when his playoff record says differently.

I used Sheffield to illustrate a point. Not to sustain the contention that Larry has been overrated. If anyone has been paying attention to what Larry has done in his career and weigh this with the others players of his era while looking at his track record the last eight years and do this with objectivity while paying attention to context... they should come to the conclusion that while he has been a marvelous player for a long time he is not as good as everyone suggests. Unfortunately, most fans simply drink the Koolaid that the media pours.

I love your mention of Barry and Hank. One player is clearly better. One player is highly regarded. And, clearly, for Larry, factors beyond performance have affected how people see him.


I've never seen anyone suggest otherwise.
Were you not the one who mentioned that Larry was a "shadow of his former self" yet still above average as a 2+ WAR player and this was a good enough reason to keep him in the Three-Hole?


Ahhhhh, there's the rub. I have never, ever seen anyone suggest Chipper Jones was arguably the best player of his generation. It actually surprises me that he was the fifth best in WAR over a prolonged stretch - I've never heard him described as a top five offensive player, even in his prime. If that's accurate, you could make a good case that he's been severely underrated throughout his career. I've never seen him described as an "inner-circle" Hall of Famer, either, though I suppose some people's definitions of the inner circle might be wider. But not all Hall of Famers are inner-circle guys, not even first-ballot guys. The Hall hasn't been limited to the absolute best of the best since about WWII. Players who were arguably a top ten position player during a fairly long prime and remained effective as long as Chipper Jones are almost always in the Hall of Fame easily, unless there's a non-baseball reason to keep them out.

It's perfectly valid to have higher standards for election than the real Hall does, but that doesn't reflect the ability of the player as much as it does the bar. If two people agree that a player is a 70 WAR player (or equivalent, however you choose to rank players), and one person has a 60 WAR threshold for the Hall whereas the other has an 80 WAR threshold, does that mean one person is over/underrating him? Of course not - they rate him the same. The difference is in their cutoff.

Chipper's performance puts him well above the actual threshold for the Hall. You may not agree with that threshold, but that has nothing to do with the performance of Jones or any one player.
I am glad to see that we can agree that the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum has relaxed it's standards to a level neither of us like. However, it still begs the questions I have been asking: Has anything Larry has done merit the overly high regard that far too many people have for him? Just because the standards have been relaxed in Cooperstown, is this the correct way to perceive Larry? And, even in the light of those standards, have the last 8 years Larry has put up been deserving of any HOF discussion?


You want to emphasize his off year in 2004 but throw out his good years. Gotcha.
I never glean the best or worst years to make a point. I was hoping that you would recognize that the years of 2004 thru 2011 that you seem to love so much are fueled by only TWO out of the eight years. You can't have it both ways, can you?

Like it or not, the last 8 years of Larry's career were marked by what he did in 2004. This year was not an "outlier" as the new Larry emerged in 2004 and he has never repeated any of his levels of performance from 1995 thru 2003 since.


Then who do you think should have been?
Larry was a candidate to be in the Three-Hole some of the time! Prado clearly should have been there some of the time as well and not just when Larry was out of the lineup. McCann, the same thing. The point is that there should have been much more flexibility with this spot than the knee-jerk "let's put Larry back in there" credo that the Braves brass has used for the last three years.

I am confused... on the one hand you clearly agree that Jones' performance has declined the last three years yet you insist that he is still a good choice for that Three-Hole? Does this mean that you think he is the choice again in '12 for this spot in the lineup? The Braves are still a pretty weak hitting team.

On a final note, Wilson, I truly appreciate the dialogue! I am not hoping to convince you to change your mind on anything. I merely hope that others read the back and forth and this allows for a deeper discussion about Larry Wayne Jones Jr and where he should stand in MLB history. I hope that the dialogue leads folks to reconsider what the media tells us and crunch some data themselves to come to their own conclusions.

With a deeper look at Larry's career, it begs another question... the importance of the BB and how this metric can impact the perception of production, especially for hitters in the middle of a lineup. Maybe we can joust on this one?

:)

[Chitown Champ]

Don't mean to damper this wonderful discussion, but Chipper has recently announced that he plans to retire at the end of the 2012 season.

[PitchingWins]

Don't mean to damper this wonderful discussion, but Chipper has recently announced that he plans to retire at the end of the 2012 season.
I think this is a good decision. He has looked absolutely horrible this spring. Very small sample size yet the slash of .200/.286/.240 does not look good. Another case of a player hanging around a bit longer than he should have.

Very nice career!

[yankeebiscuitfan]

Atlanta's third baseman Chipper Jones has announced his retirement after the 2012 season.

Jones, who has battled knee injuries in recent seasons, has hinted at retirement but now has a timeline. Earlier this spring, he was quoted as saying he wasn’t sure if he would make it through the entire season. A day later, he said he was just joking and that he had no plans to call it career during the upcoming season.

In 126 games last season, Jones hit .275 with 18 homers, 70 RBIs and a .344 on-base percentage. He was selected to his seventh All-Star team.

HOF material or not, I think baseball will lose another class act.

[DaaBoTownSox]

I'm gonna hold hope that in announcing so early, it will give him time to think about it, and he will reconsider.

[RickD]

This gives him a chance to do a real goodbye kind of tour as he plays.

[BobH]

As a Braves fan I will miss him, but he's had a great career. I still remember seeing him play in high school as he attended same in Jacksonville, Fl. Even then it was easy to see he would have a stellar career whoever he played for. I hope he goes out with a decent year.

Just a quick question for PitchingWins. Is it possible you're really Larry Bowa using an alias?...:biggrin:-BH

[Chitown Champ]

It appears Chipper will undergo knee surgery on Monday in order to repair a torn meniscus in his left knee. He will begin the year on the DL. He hopes to return in time for the Braves' home opener on April 13. Rough start to the season already.

[Old Sweater]

You know, guys you've followed during their whole careers named Chipper, aren't suppose to age.:) Hope Chipper can get healthy and have a productive 2012 season.

[PitchingWins]

Hope Chipper can get healthy and have a productive 2012 season.

I just do not see this happening. It is going to be a long and frustrating year for Larry. Kind of a sad farewell tour?

I also see Heyward having another bad year... he just has not adjusted and the league knows how to get him out consistently.