On their career totals, Chipper is roughly the same degree better a hitter than Rolen as Rolen is better than league average. And speaking of, Brooks Robinson was quite close to league average offensively. I know that isn't at all the crux of his argument, but it limits him significantly in terms of the all-time discussion in my opinion (which is heavily informed by statistics, having been aware of baseball for relatively little of any of the usual suspects' careers. Just to get that out there.). From the linked article, Boggs hit about .70 points higher at Fenway during his peak years. That's insane. Perfect fit for the Red Sox, but would he have been as great in Cleveland? I'd probably go Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, Chipper, Boggs, then Robinson. Freely admitting that I saw little to none of anyone but Chipper. 2-5 are extremely close statistically offensively. Brooks's defense when he was one of nine in the field doesn't totally close the gap of his offense when he was the only one in the box. Most of those guys had better peaks as well, but Chipper has had more good seasons and has been more consistent in general. I think he belongs in there.
I am a Braves fan, but I've never really bought into Chipper The Hero. He was a very good player that played a long time and was pretty consistent. He also wasn't the most likable guy when he'd call others out for shit he routinely did. It would take some convincing for me to believe he roided though.
Robinson wasn't the greatest hitter. However, he changed the way the position is played. He's head and shoulders above the rest of the list defensively.
I just had a friend on Facebook say that Chipper was right up there with "Mantle, Gehrig, and Williams" and posted a Jayson Stark article that cherry-picked some stats, and when I called it ridiculous he said "It's not an opinion."
Anyone that's ever tried to pass chipper off as anything but a redneck is lying to themselves. He's still one of the better third basemen of this era and will be a HOF'er
Most of this crap spewed about Chipper being so great comes from the younger fans, like me, who grew up with Chipper being the face of the Braves. You are right. Only idiots can't see Chipper for what he truly is. What killed me is when he come out and criticized Heyward for not playing hurt, when he goes on the DL for a hang nail. He seriously went on the DL earlier this year with a thigh bruise. Being a Brave's fan, I will always have fond memories of Chipper's career, but he should have been done with the Braves five years ago.
Sorry Chipper is not a real baseball player he's a product of Selig's frenzy to try to make and keep Baseball as Americas past time ... I think Hat would concur with this. Selig allowed the performance enhancing to blossom and then when it got out of hand he then tried to reign it in... Truth be told he needs to be banished from the game also! He could never hold Schmidt's jock.. was what I ment to say!
I like Chipper. He's been a hell of a good player for the team I like for a really long time. That's all I really care about. Hooter's waitresses don't really factor into the equation for me one way or another.
This. I'm sure if you did a quick rundown of those in Cooperstown, there are more than a few guys who had their own versions of the Hooters waitress deal. What that has to do with a guy's baseball career, I don't know. I for one, don't care.
And to say that he can't "hold the jock" of guys like Brett and Schmidt is beyond stupid. He's absolutely in those guys' category.
If by in their category you mean he played third base, you're correct. If you mean anything else, you're [dadgum] clueless.
I haven't really gotten a sabermetric tone out of much of the baseball discussion here, but I found it to be a fun coincidence that while George Brett is #30 in career wins above replacement for position players, Chipper Jones is #31. Brett's best seasons were significantly better. Chipper was more consistent and more effective in the twilight of his career. Statistically there isn't a lot to separate them.
How much of that numeric hogwash is adjusted for the fact that Brett played a huge portion of his career when pitching was less diluted, the ball and the players weren't juiced, before the trend of building hitter friendly retro bandboxes took hold, and on teams where he was essentially the only offensive threat?
