Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Hall Watch 2004-The Third Basemen-Robin Ventura

Hall Watch 2004-The Third Basemen-Robin Ventura

Robin Ventura is a 6 time Gold-Glove winning third baseman and a fine hitter. That normally isn't enough for the Hall, and it probably won't do for Ventura, but I thought that it would be fun to recap his career and remember some other fine third basemen who are just outside the Hall. Ventura hit .243/.337/.362 in 152 ABs for the Dodgers in 2004 at age 36. His career does seem to be winding down.

Ventura was the tenth overall pick of the 1989 draft by the White Sox, after winning the Golden Spikes award in 1988. He signed immediately and reported straight to double A Birmingham where he hit .278/.403/.361 with 93 walks in 547 PAs. He had a cup of coffee in September for the Sox and made the team out of spring training in 1990. After a difficult rookie year in 1990 (.249/.324/.318- Alex Rios worriers take note), he established his career pattern in his sophomore year hitting .284 with 23 homers and 80 walks. From there, he had fairly standard growth after that with a modest overall improvement in his power as he aged.

Ventura earned his 6 Gold Gloves, with fine overall defence over a period of 9 years. He was never a threat to steal, and wisely rarely tried.

For Ventura's chart, we have 2 old favorites of mine:

Player    G      AB     H     HR    W     BA     OBP    SLUG    OPS+     
Ventura   2079   7054   1885  294   1075  .267   .362   .444    115      
Bando     2019   7060   1790  242   1031  .254   .352   .408    119
Cey       2073   7162   1868  316   1012  .261   .354   .445    121

I could have chosen a couple of others- Darrell Evans, Ken Boyer, but these two are by far the closest. Ventura was the best of the 3 as a fielder, although Bando was very good and would have won a Gold Glove or three had Brooks Robinson not been in the league (Bando was in my view better than Brooks in the 70s, but not by a huge amount, and the voters had simply gotten used to writing the name of the greatest defensive third baseman ever on their ballot). Cey was an average fielder in his prime, and as he aged, his range diminished to practically zero. All in all, I'd rate them Bando, Ventura, Cey, but it's quite a tight knot.

Should Ventura be in the Hall of Fame? I don't think so. There are at least 5 better who are not there- Santo, Boyer, Stan Hack, Evans and Bando. Will he? You wouldn't think so, but it is unpredictable. Ventura has been a better player than Pie Traynor.

Next up: The Oufielders

Posted by Mike Green on Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 08:00 AM EST.

Hall Watch 2004-The Third Basemen-Robin Ventura | 22 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 10:11 AM EST (#103298) #

Quirky observation: two of the four players you list as most similar (Boyer, Bando) had brothers play in the big leagues.

I personally always thought Darrell Evans belonged in the Hall, though I know I am in the minosirty of that opinion. If Ventura gets in before Santo, I hope even White Sox fans will be able to recognize the Chicago Baseball Injustice at play.

I think Cey is a great comparable for Ventura -- one of the best in the game for a very long time, partnered with another borderline HOFer across the diamond -- Ventura/Thomas, Cey/Garvey -- but probably not quite there.

Mike Green - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 10:42 AM EST (#103300) #

Another who belongs on the Ventura comparable list is Graig Nettles, not quite the hitter that Robin was but every bit as good with the glove.

Darrell Evans would squeak into my Hall of Fame. What distinguishes him from the Ventura/Bando/Cey class is his career length. He was a valuable contributor into his early 40s.

Mike D - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 11:34 AM EST (#103314) #

I had a chance to meet Rockin' Robin at a Mets charity event. Really nice guy, and very patient with his young fans. Ventura has been a better player than Pie Traynor I'm afraid I can't agree with this, Mike. Offensively, the edge in OPS+ between Ventura and Traynor is due entirely to home run hitting, which I guess is a reasonable basis to distinguish the two. That said, Traynor's offensive profile (high average, absurdly low Ks) seems to paint a picture of a skilled "extreme contact" approach, and I'm always loath to judge batters' mindsets through the lens of what we now understand about offence. But while Ventura was an excellent defensive third baseman, Traynor was a superlative defensive third baseman, in an era when infield conditions and glove technology made it damn hard to play third base. Pie's defensive statistics are good, and he was subjectively considered by his peers to be the best third baseman making plays down the line of all time. His reflexes and throwing arm were legendary. Nice piece, Mike!

Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 11:52 AM EST (#103316) #

<i>Offensively, the edge in OPS+ between Ventura and Traynor is due entirely to home run hitting</i><p>

The OPS+ barrier would be a lot bigger if it reflected the fact that Traynor didn't have to compete against the best black players of the day.

Brian W - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 11:56 AM EST (#103317) #

The only thing I will remember Ventura for in another ten years is his fight with Nolan Ryan. When getting beaten by an old man is the highlight of your career, you aren't a Hall of Fame player.

Mike D - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 11:59 AM EST (#103318) #

But it might be smaller if Traynor had access to modern training, nutrition, supplements, video analysis. Or if, like Ventura, he played through two rounds of expansion (and its accompanying quality of pitching.) Or if NL parks of his era weren't more spacious than most parks Ventura played in.

Your point is, of course, valid. But we're trying to compare apples to apples here, however flawed that comparison may necessarily be.

Mike Green - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 12:03 PM EST (#103320) #

I'm not really sure who was the better defender-Ventura or Traynor. Let's say Traynor slides in behind Brooks as the 2nd best defensive third baseman of all time. What is the difference between a great defensive third baseman and a very good defensive baseman? I doubt that it is 3 runs per season.

On the other hand, the offence comparison is relatively easy. Traynor (OPS+ of 107) played from 1920 to 1937. League averages were .295/.353/.416. League averages during Ventura's time were .264/.335/.416. K rates were much lower in Traynor's time. To give a flavour, here are the 1925 Pirates. Only Kiki Cuyler, the leading power hitter on the club, struck out more than 32 times in the season.

It is pretty clear to me that Ventura was a significantly better hitter, and I doubt that any defensive advantage Traynor had could make up the difference. I suppose I could try to quantify the value of a third baseman's defensive contributions.

John Northey - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 12:16 PM EST (#103321) #

Ventura has to always be remembered for his amazing streak in college too. A 58 game hitting streak. Amazingling that has been beaten since then by a 60 game streak by Damian Costantino in 2003.

Mike D - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 12:17 PM EST (#103322) #

Traynor had more so-so offensive seasons at the end of his career than has Robin. Plus, he had six top-8 MVP finishes to Ventura's one -- and defence was a major reason.

It doesn't much matter to me whether Ventura or Traynor were statistically better defensively, because Traynor was considered to have *unprecedented* defensive value at third base.

There's very little OPS+ upside if you don't hit home runs. Again, it's reasonable to hold that against Traynor, at least more than I do.

Mike Green - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 12:28 PM EST (#103323) #

Here is the 1928 NL MVP voting. Hughie Critz and Pie Traynor more valuable than Dazzy Vance, Chick Hafey, Rogers Hornsby and Gabby Hartnett? I don't think so. Shall we put it kindly and say the voters didn't distinguish themselves? Shades of Jayson Stark's Shannon Stewart campaign...

Craig B - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 01:16 PM EST (#103327) #

Ventura's 58-game streak is still the Division I record, though, since Costantino's record came in Division III.

Craig B - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 01:25 PM EST (#103328) #

There's very little OPS+ upside if you don't hit home runs. Again, it's reasonable to hold that against Traynor

It's reasonable, yes, but there are reasonable limits as to how much you can dun him for it. Traynor played in a VERY tough home run park in Forbes Field, and for a team whose home run leader was routinely in single digits. Forbes Field's home run factor hovered around 50, meaning that the Pirates usually didn't even try to hit home runs - they built their offense differently.

It's not Traynor's fault that during his prime Donie Bush had him bunting 30-40 times a year and hitting the ball on the ground. The fact that he was the game's best bunter - that's a skill. Linear weights, OPS and runs created punish Traynor for that, which isn't a fair assessment of his ability.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 01:44 PM EST (#103330) #

Oh, let's face it. Traynor needs to get into the Hall just so Sportscenter can repeatedly work in a drop of Homer Simpson saying "Mmmmm. Pie."

kpataky - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 01:44 PM EST (#103332) #

Don't forget Ventura is 3rd all time in Grand Slams with 18, trailing only Eddie Murray (19) and Lou Gehrig (23).

And I'll never forget the grand slam single he hit against the Braves in the NLCS to win game 5 and keep that series alive for the Mets.

Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 01:46 PM EST (#103333) #

Oh, let's face it. Traynor needs to get into the Hall just so Sportscenter can repeatedly work in a drop of Homer Simpson saying "Mmmmm. Pie."

Can someone be inducted twice? :)

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 02:24 PM EST (#103335) #

yeah, I knew that as I wrote it, but wanted to use the Simpsons reference. It's kind of like writing a column to fit a headline because the hed is so kick-ass.

Pistol - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 02:24 PM EST (#103336) #

You can in basketball. There's at least a couple in as both a player and a coach (Wooden and Wilkens).

Mike Green - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 02:26 PM EST (#103337) #

While Forbes Field was a tough home run park, it was a good doubles and triples park. Traynor was 3rd or 4th in the club in slugging just about every year, and his ISO power was decidedly uninspired, even by the standards of the club.

Donie Bush was his manager for 3 years, and did ask Traynor to sacrifice a lot, as Craig says. But, his sacrifice totals under other managers (McKechnie, Ens and Gibson) were about the same as the rest of the team, and his power (doubles, triples and home runs) simply wasn't there.

I grew up thinking that Pie Traynor was a better third baseman than Eddie Mathews, because he hit for a higher average. And I'd never heard of Laughing Larry Doyle. I know now that the numbers (other than batting average) do tell an important story, and that Doyle and Mathews were both far superior players.

Magpie - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 05:37 PM EST (#103347) #

Darrell Evans would squeak into my Hall of Fame. What distinguishes him from the Ventura/Bando/Cey class is his career length. He was a valuable contributor into his early 40s.

So was Graig Nettles, of course. Evans and Nettles have very similar numbers: they both hit .248 over their careers; Nettles played 2700 games, Evans 2687; Nettles hit 390 HR, Evans hit 414; Nettles drove in 1314 runs, Evans drove in 1354.

How were they different? Well... Nettles drew a lot of walks (1088, career high 82); Evans drew lots and lots of walks (1605, career high 126).

Evans was a very good defensive third baseman. Nettles... was probably the best defensive third baseman in the AL for most of the 1970s. Better than Brooks, better than Bando, better than young Buddy Bell.

Overall, I think Evans is a little bit better than Nettles. Who is a little bit better than Ventura. I don't want to figure out where to slot Bando and K.Boyer and Cey and Traynor...

Mike Green - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 09:44 PM EST (#103360) #

I saw very little of Nettles in the early 70s when he was with Cleveland, and much more of Darrell Evans (the Hank Aaron 715 watch had him on the tube a lot) and Sal Bando.
His superficial defensive numbers are indeed the best of the American League 3rd basemen of the time, and if you tell me that he was better than Bando, you won't get a strenuous argument.

Craig B - Tuesday, February 22 2005 @ 11:16 PM EST (#103364) #

I know now that the numbers (other than batting average) do tell an important story, and that Doyle and Mathews were both far superior players.

I'd take issue with the idea that Doyle was a "far superior" player to Traynor (Mathews, no doubt). Larry Doyle was certainly a great player, a fine hitter with defensive problems but who played a pretty key defensive position. Still, third base in Traynor's time was a more key defensive position than second base in Doyle's time, and Traynor was a Gold Glove player, while Doyle was below average.

Traynor's marks on Bill James's tests (Career WS, Top 3 seasons, top 5 consecutive, and WS/162) are close to Doyle's. They show Doyle as a slightly better player, which with an appropriate timeline adjustment (I am quite convinced that the level of play is singificantly higher in the NL from 1920-1935 than in the NL from 1907-1920) puts them about equal.

At any rate, Traynor isn't the elite, upper-echelon HOFer that he was once seen to be. That doesn't mean he wasn't a very good player. It's important to note that Traynor's offensive role was only distorted for three seasons, but they were his age 26-28 seasons, which should have been his peak.

Mike Green - Wednesday, February 23 2005 @ 12:24 PM EST (#103385) #

FWIW, I don't see evidence of Traynor's superior defense or defensive importance in the numbers, although admittedly the numbers do not tell a clear story. Actually, it appears that due to the size of Forbes Field at the time, outfield defence was disproportionately important.

The MVP voters liked Doyle quite a bit better than Traynor; he finished 3rd in 1991 and 1st in 1912, after which he was ineligible. Not that the MVP voters are infallible.:)

Hall Watch 2004-The Third Basemen-Robin Ventura | 22 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.