Chipper Jones v. George Brett

[Vercingetorix]

On PTI yesterday, they were speculating about the chance Jones will hit .350 this year, and George Brett's name came up in passing, long enough for Wilbon to say something like, "[Jones] is obviously not as good a hitter as George Brett," to which Kornheiser agreed as though it was a given. I don't really care what the PTI guys think, obviously, but I'll play because it's it's an interesting question IMO. Why is "obvious" that Jones isn't as good a hitter?

Career numbers for Brett: .305 BA, .369 OBP, .487 SLG. Jones so far: .309 BA, .405 OBP, .549 SLG. Clearly Jones has played in a more offensively-minded era, but even if you normalize those numbers into OBP+ (on-base plus slugging, adjusted to league and park so that 100 is dead league average), Jones is still ahead (career 144 OPS+ vs 135 for Brett). Brett had 317 HR and 1595 RBI; Jones has 396 HRs and 1328 RBI despite over 3300 fewer at-bats so far. Jones is not likely to get 3000 hits like Brett did, but that's more due to the fact that he draws 30 more walks a year than anything else. Jones has been out of the lineup a lot in recent years, but Brett missed a lot of games too. Both won one MVP and one World Series ring. Brett's last good season came at 36, which is coincidentally the age Jones is now.

I'm not necessarily arguing that Jones is a greater player than Brett; I'm just interested in the difference between their reputations. By Brett's early 30s, he was already universally regarded as a first-ballot HOFer; Jones is 36 and people are just starting to talk about him as a HOF candidate. But when you look at the numbers, there isn't much difference. Why, then, is (and was) Brett so universally regarded as a greater hitter?

Answer: he hit .390 one year and he was a perennial antagonist for the Billy Martin/Reggie Jackson Yankees. That's it. Somebody persuade me I'm wrong.

 

[Vercingetorix]

I should add that even though I am a Braves fan, I have never been a particularly big fan of Jones himself. He's the perfect embodiment of everything north Florida is about, IMO. But it's been obvious for several years that he's a great -- and I do not use that term lightly -- player.

Numbers for Chipper here, and for Brett here.

 

[vols kick balls]

I'd have to say that Chipper is the better hitter based on the stats alone (to young so see Brett play). Anyone who can post a .954 OPS for a career is a HOFer IMO. Chipper hit for more power, slightly better average, and got on base more.

 

[JTrainDavis]

Career numbers for Brett: .305 BA, .369 OBP, .487 SLG. Jones so far: .309 BA, .405 OBP, .549 SLG. Clearly Jones has played in a more offensively-minded era, but even if you normalize those numbers into OBP+ (on-base plus slugging, adjusted to league and park so that 100 is dead league average), .

Verc, you play SimLeague Baseball don't you.

I honestly never thought of Chipper as a Hall of Famer, perhaps because i rarely see him, playing in Atlanta and in the NL, so i rarely see him play, as i avoid ESPN like the plague.

If i were a voter, I'd say Yea. And i am very against alot of recent HOF inductees, Stat Compilers such as Sutter, Eddie Murray, and alot of the "Longevity Gang" Due to the advanced training and medical methods, as well as the whole 'juice' issue, lots of 3,000 hit or 500 HR guys are crap in my book. Chipper has been a gamer.

Funny, i guess i hit baseball adulthood early, its hard to believe its been almost 20 years since Glavine, Avery, Smoltz, Pendleton, Justice, Bream, and company started that whole Bravos run

 

[Vercingetorix]

I'd have to say that Chipper is the better hitter based on the stats alone (to young so see Brett play). Anyone who can post a .954 OPS for a career is a HOFer IMO. Chipper hit for more power, slightly better average, and got on base more.

It occurred to me shortly after I typed up this post that what seemed like a really interesting question to me is probably going to strike many of our VN regulars as a post comparing a current player to somebody like Roberto Clemente or Juan Marichal -- great players, certainly, but just a stat line in the record book. Oops.

I'm old enough (37) to remember Brett in his prime, which is why it's an interesting comparison (to me). Brett was regarded as an almost larger-than-life figure in the early-to-mid 80s, but yet here comes poor dumb Hooters-chasing north Floridian Chipper Jones a couple of decades later and he's had at least as good of a career.

 

[Vercingetorix]

Verc, you play SimLeague Baseball don't you.

I do not know what SimLeague Baseball is. I'd guess something like Strat-O-Matic, but updated? I don't play fantasy sports, etc. I just read a lot of Bill James early enough to be convinced that a lot of the "new" stats are useful for evaluating what's going on, OPS in particular. I'm not sure that it's a coincidence that the Red Sox have won two World Series since they hired James in 2003.

Funny, i guess i hit baseball adulthood early, its hard to believe its been almost 20 years since Glavine, Avery, Smoltz, Pendleton, Justice, Bream, and company started that whole Bravos run

Believe me, I can't believe it's been that long either. And I've been on the Braves bandwagon since Pascual Perez was arguably the staff ace.

 

[GAVol]

I lost all respect for Brett when he kept getting DL'd for hemorrhoids.

 

[volfanbill]

well... i hate Larry and my very first pair of Tball cleats had G. Brett's name on them so I can't make an unbiased decision on this. I take Brett, but I can't imagine Larry not being a HOFer.

 

[GAVol]

Believe me, I can't believe it's been that long either. And I've been on the Braves bandwagon since Pascual Perez was arguably the staff ace.

I was actually at the "I-285" game where they had to scratch Perez got lost and kept circling the perimeter looking for the stadium. :wacko:

 

[Vercingetorix]

well... i hate Larry and my very first pair of Tball cleats had G. Brett's name on them so I can't make an unbiased decision on this. I take Brett, but I can't imagine Larry not being a HOFer.

I'm not as interested in the actual Larry-vs-Brett comparison as much as I am the gigantic gulf between their reputations. I don't know how old you are, but by the time the Royals won the title in 85 (when Brett was only 32), everybody knew he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. His reputation was cemented during the late 70s when he was battling Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson. That reputation persists, considering that Wilbon just yesterday talked about how Jones was "obviously not as good" a hitter as Brett. In contrast, most of us (me included) just sort of turned around a few years ago and suddenly realized that Larry Wayne Jones Junior, professional screwup and Hooters waitress chaser, was clearly having a Hall of Fame career. And when you look at the numbers, maybe even better than the immortal George Brett.

Fame is a strange thing. I'm tempted to argue that you could tell all you need to know about the difference between the Yankees and the Mets just by comparing the reputations of Yankees antagonist Brett and Mets antagonist Jones, but I'd have to think that out a little more.

 

[Vercingetorix]

I lost all respect for Brett when he kept getting DL'd for hemorrhoids.

I was actually at the "I-285" game where they had to scratch Perez got lost and kept circling the perimeter looking for the stadium. :wacko:

Dude, you're old.

(To this day I cannot hear the word "hemorrhoid" without thinking on some level about George Brett. The first time I heard the word was because of him. I had to get my dad to explain, and even then, I was like, "so why does that mean he can't hit??")

 

[The Dude]

How is Jones a professional screwup?

 

[Vercingetorix]

How is Jones a professional screwup?

I was thinking more about off-the-field stuff, stuff he says in the papers, etc. He's just a good old boy from that cultural Mecca, south Georgia/north Florida, and it shows.

He is, however, a great baseball player.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I think Chipper's reputation is weighed upon heavily by his postseason no-shows. When David Justice is your squad's clutch hitter, there's a problem.

I don't particularly care for Jones, but he is arguably the best switch hitter ever and has done it without a lot of protection in the lineup. I don't think there is going to be a lot of debate about his HOF candidacy.

 

[TennNC]

I think Chipper's reputation is weighed upon heavily by his postseason no-shows. When David Justice is your squad's clutch hitter, there's a problem.

I don't particularly care for Jones, but 1)he is arguably the best switch hitter ever and has done it without a lot of protection in the lineup. 2)I don't think there is going to be a lot of debate about his HOF candidacy.

1) Disagree. Mantle, E. Murray and Rose, then perhaps Chipper.

2) Agreed. He's a lock. And he's just as good a hitter as Brett (in fact, it's a great comparison IMO).

 

[Vercingetorix]

I understand why people do it, but putting much weight on baseball players' postseason performance makes no real sense. The sample size is just too small. Jones has had postseason series in which he's been dominant; he's had series in which he's done nothing. All together, he's hit a respectable .288/.411/.459 in 333 postseason at-bats, but all I need to know about that kind of a sample size is that Willie Harris hit like Tony Gwynn for about that long last year.

 

[Vercingetorix]

1) Disagree. Mantle, E. Murray and Rose, then perhaps Chipper.

2) Agreed. He's a lock. And he's just as good a hitter as Brett (in fact, it's a great comparison IMO).

Mantle is the best switch-hitter, agreed. Eddie Murray's a pretty good comparison, but I think I'd take Jones. (Especially if we get to count that he plays a more important defensive position.)

Jones is not only a greater hitter than Rose was, it's not close. Rose was a singles hitter without much power, which was one thing when he was able to man a reasonable defensive position, but another thing when he was at LF and 1B. Rose spent five years as by far the worst first baseman in the league trying to hang on and get that record. Maybe even the worst full-time player, regardless of position. No thanks. A lineup full of Chippers would score two runs a game more than a lineup full of Roses.

(I know there was nowhere near as much offense in the NL in the 70s, but Jones's numbers are still better than Rose's even after you adjust for the context of the leagues in which they played. Career OPS+: Jones 144, Rose 118.)

 

[TennNC]

Mantle is the best switch-hitter, agreed. Eddie Murray's a pretty good comparison, but I think I'd take Jones. (Especially if we get to count that he plays a more important defensive position.)

Jones is not only a greater hitter than Rose was, it's not close. Rose was a singles hitter without much power, which was one thing when he was able to man a reasonable defensive position, but another thing when he was at LF and 1B. Rose spent five years as by far the worst first baseman in the league trying to hang on and get that record. Maybe even the worst full-time player, regardless of position. No thanks. A lineup full of Chippers would score two runs a game more than a lineup full of Roses.

(I know there was nowhere near as much offense in the NL in the 70s, but Jones's numbers are still better than Rose's even after you adjust for the context of the leagues in which they played. Career OPS+: Jones 144, Rose 118.)

I take fielding out of the equation since we're talking best switch-hitters. I see your point, though, and Chipper may be slightly better when his career is over, but I wouldn't say "it's not close."

Rose's stats are watered down b/c he played 24 seasons. Chipper's only played 15 so far, so we'll see how long he can keep it up. This season is phenomenal though so far.

Now, a disclaimer for me: I'm biased toward average above everything else (even OPS). I want to know what % of official ABs someone got a base hit - of any kind. I'm odd that way, but singles are just about as valuable as extra-base hits to me.

 

[Vercingetorix]

I take fielding out of the equation since we're talking best switch-hitters. I see your point, though, and Chipper may be slightly better when his career is over, but I wouldn't say "it's not close."

Rose's stats are watered down b/c he played 24 seasons. Chipper's only played 15 so far, so we'll see how long he can keep it up. This season is phenomenal though so far.

Now, a disclaimer for me: I'm biased toward average above everything else (even OPS). I want to know what % of official ABs someone got a base hit - of any kind. I'm odd that way, but singles are just about as valuable as extra-base hits to me.

That would be a fundamental point of disagreement between us. I would gladly trade 25-30 points of batting average for 20 extra home runs across the board. A team of guys who hit .330 with no power won't score nearly as many runs as another team of guys who hit .280 with 35-40 HRs and a bunch of doubles apiece, IMO. I'm with Earl Weaver and his three-run home run.

Talking about Rose specifically, he had pretty decent power for his era until he was about 30, but after that he had a bunch of seasons where he'd hit .307 with 6 HR, .317 with 7, .302 with 7, .311 with 9, .284 with 3, etc. And those are all before he really went in the toilet at age 39 -- after which he played SIX MORE FULL YEARS in order to get his record. I'm honestly surprised that you don't run into more Reds fans who hate him for penciling himself into the lineup in 85 and 86 when it was obvious he was hurting the team. Because if your 1B is hitting .264 with 2 HR, you're not really trying to win.

 

[TennNC]

That would be a fundamental point of disagreement between us. I would gladly trade 25-30 points of batting average for 20 extra home runs across the board. A team of guys who hit .330 with no power won't score nearly as many runs as another team of guys who hit .280 with 35-40 HRs and a bunch of doubles apiece, IMO. I'm with Earl Weaver and his three-run home run.

Talking about Rose specifically, he had pretty decent power for his era until he was about 30, but after that he had a bunch of seasons where he'd hit .307 with 6 HR, .317 with 7, .302 with 7, .311 with 9, .284 with 3, etc. And those are all before he really went in the toilet at age 39 -- after which he played SIX MORE FULL YEARS in order to get his record. I'm honestly surprised that you don't run into more Reds fans who hate him for penciling himself into the lineup in 85 and 86 when it was obvious he was hurting the team. Because if your 1B is hitting .264 with 2 HR, you're not really trying to win.

On the first point, I feel like Hillary Clinton - the math doesn't agree with me, yet I don't change sides. I know power is valuable - I just love the art of getting lots and lots of base hits and am blinded by great singles hitters (Gwynn, Carew, Rose, Boggs, etc.).

On Rose, he's proved he's an egomaniac so many times, including a Braves-Phils game in the early 80s where he told me to get the hell out of his way when I (who was about 8 at the time) asked for his autograph.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I just wanted to say I hate Larry Jones and I hope that hooters girl was worth it.

Carry on!

 

[Vercingetorix]

On the first point, I feel like Hillary Clinton - the math doesn't agree with me, yet I don't change sides. I know power is valuable - I just love the art of getting lots and lots of base hits and am blinded by great singles hitters (Gwynn, Carew, Rose, Boggs, etc.).

I agree that there's something pure about guys like that, but as you say, the math doesn't really agree with it. Ty Cobb claimed he could hit have as many home runs as Ruth, but wasn't willing to sacrifice his average for power -- supposedly there was some incident where, to make a point, he hit five HRs in two days, but then went right back to slapping the ball the other way for singles. Which is fine, but sticking with the home runs would have helped his team more.

Which is why, as far as I can tell, the best pure hitter of all time had to have been Ted Williams. Tony Gwynn's average with Hank Aaron's power, basically.

 

[The Dude]

I was thinking more about off-the-field stuff, stuff he says in the papers, etc. He's just a good old boy from that cultural Mecca, south Georgia/north Florida, and it shows.

He is, however, a great baseball player.

Seriously, if nailing skanks and stupid statements makes someone a screwup, then most men are screwups. I think Rocker, Vick, and Perdue are better examples of ATL screwups. Jones just did what a lot of guys have, granted with a oddly casual, hickish vaunt.

 

[Vercingetorix]

Seriously, if nailing skanks and stupid statements makes someone a screwup, then most men are screwups. I think Rocker, Vick, and Perdue are better examples of ATL screwups. Jones just did what a lot of guys have, granted with a oddly casual, hickish vaunt.

As I said, my complaint about him was cultural. There's a certain subset of the American Good Old Boy that's native to an band between about Albany, Georgia down to around Orlando, and Chipper's a pretty stereotypical member of the species. What makes his Hooters scandal so typical of that type is not that he was nailing a waitress; it's that someone who makes as much money as him was hanging around in a Hooters to begin with.

The "oddly casual, hickish vaunt" is just how they all talk down there. North Florida might as well be in Alabama.

 

[GAVol]

What makes his Hooters scandal so typical of that type is not that he was nailing a waitress; it's that someone who makes as much money as him was hanging around in a Hooters to begin with.

Bingo