Today would be the 85th birthday of Bob Elliott.
Many of you, perhaps most, are now asking, "Who the hell is Bob Elliott?" I don't blame you. After all, Bob not only had a boring name but he apparently played a rather forgettable career as well. At least, that appears to be the case on this web site, where he is one of those unfortunate players without any profile at all.
The truth is, Bob Elliott was one of the finest third basemen in baseball history. The National League MVP in 1947 and a seven-time All-Star, he compiled a career OPS of .815 and drove in nearly 1,200 runs. He was also considered by some to be the finest fielding third baseman in the National League, all while earning the nickname "Mr. Team".
It's a pity that he's not remembered, but not an unexpected one. After all, for some reason third base is the position that has been relegated to the tail end of the baseball food chain.
No position in baseball has been more butchered by the various Hall of Fame election bodies than third base. It's not even close. Excluding Negro Leaguers, only nine, count 'em, nine third basemen have been inducted, three of whom don't belong there. So, in the sixty-five or so years of the Hall of Fame's existence, they've managed to identify only a half dozen worthy candidates.
Even catchers, the next most neglected group, have twelve representatives. And it's not like this situation is going to get better soon. Wade Boggs will get his ticket punched in a few years, and Paul Molitor kind of counts, though he played less than 30% of his career games at third, but there really aren't any other viable candidates coming up for election soon. That might be enough to keep up with the other positions, each of which has as many or more solid candidates that will be eligible shortly, but it's certainly not enough to rectify things.
Why has third base been so neglected? To be honest, I don't really know. I guess, in the absence of any other theory, I subscribe to Bill James' position. James feels that third base is the position that most requires the combined skills of both a defender and hitter. I would quibble a bit and say that center field holds the same or similar requirement, but essentially he's right.
Using this theory as our base, is it fair to say that those third basemen who were passed over fell short in one of these areas? No, it's not.
Take a look at the traditional career statistics of one group of seven third basemen who were passed over for the Hall of Fame versus a group of seven Hall of Fame third basemen:
Group A Group B
G 2237 1966
AB 7877 7406
R 1151 1092
H 2138 2174
2B 345 366
3B 56 93
HR 282 169
RBI 1159 1100
AVG .271 .294
OBP .360 .358
SLG .437 .436
I'll spare you the suspense and tell you now that Group A is the group that was passed over. Included are Ron Santo, Ken Boyer, Darrell Evans, Graig Nettles, Bob Elliott, Stan Hack and Ron Cey. Group B includes every Hall of Fame third baseman except the two who are obviously head and shoulders above the rest, Mike Schmidt and George Brett.
Now obviously these numbers don't tell the whole story. We all know that traditional statistics such as these are not the best reflection of a player's contribution. That said, let's be honest - these are the numbers Hall voters are looking at. You're not going to find many members of the BBWAA or Veteran's Committee asking about a player's TPR, VORP or EQA, ya know?
Along the same lines, the fact that we haven't accounted for ballpark variances or the offensive differences between various eras in baseball history is another moot point. Again, the voters don't seem to care. These are truly the offensive numbers Hall voters consider when making their decisions.
However, there are a couple of major items that we've excluded so far that Hall voters do consider. The first is defense. These are the average defensive statistics, just at third base, of the two groups:
Group A Group B
G 1851 1807
PO 1655 2032
A 3842 3678
E 262 276
DP 330 316
FP .954 .953
LgFP .949 .940
RnF 2.97 3.16
lgRnF 2.66 2.94
Thinking as a rational person instead of as a Hall voter, I can determine that Group B was probably a bit better defensively. Most of these men played before the Gold Glove was created, in eras where fields weren't tended well and gloves were pretty shoddy. Still, I can also recognize that the great Brooks Robinson's numbers are part of Group B. With these excluded, the two groups don't differ that much.
Now, thinking as a Hall voter, it appears that Group A might be the better defensive group. Even with Robinson's numbers included in Group B, Group A still manages a better range factor compared to the league average and fewer errors in more games. They have a higher fielding percentage, turned more double plays and had more assists. What's not to like? By voters' standards, it certainly appears that Group A is at least as viable a group of candidates as Group B.
The final factor most voters' consider is play in championship situations. Without further ado, these are the combined post-season numbers for each group:
Group A Group B
G 142 110
AB 502 408
R 52 49
H 129 121
2B 20 25
3B 2 4
HR 16 10
RBI 72 55
AVG .257 .297
OBP .340 .351
SLG .400 .451
Combined, the Hall of Famers reached 18 World Series and won 8; the wannabes reached 16 and won 5. In each group there was one player that never played in a post-season game.
Overall, that's an edge to the Hall of Famers, but it's not enormous. The numbers of Group A certainly indicate that they performed basically up to expectations in the post-season, while Group B performed slightly better.
Still, the numbers that the voters really look at, batting average and championships, are in favor of the group that was inducted. Could this be it? Is this the key to understanding why these seven men were inducted while an extremely comparable group of seven other third basemen was passed over? I suspect it had a hand in things, but it's doubtful that this is the full reason.
No, I suspect the real reason is simply lack of homework. For instance, I've seen it argued that Ron Santo supposedly had a short career. Well, he didn't, at least not by the standards of Hall of Fame third basemen. Santo's 2,243 games exceed that average by nearly a full season's worth of games (146 to be exact). The same has been said of Ken Boyer, though his 2,034 career games are just 63 shy of that same average. I've seen it argued that Bob Elliott played for a bunch of losers, which is also just plain wrong. Elliott's teams enjoyed a .515 winning percentage during his career and made the World Series in 1948, in which he posted an impressive OPS of 1.010.
We could say similar things about each of the seven men I've included in Group A. The truth is that the members of the BBWAA have been very tough, collectively, in voting for third basemen (just five - Schmidt, Brett, Mathews, Robinson and Traynor) while the Veteran's Committee has elected almost exclusively unworthy cronies (Kell, Lindstrom and Collins - we'll give Frank Baker the benefit of the doubt). In between lie up to a dozen third basemen who deserved more consideration, if not election, from each voting body.
Bob Elliott is certainly one of these. Maybe giving him credit here isn't much, but it's more than he got from the voters.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Team.
» Paul White would have voted for Ron Santo, Ken Boyer and Bob Elliott, but he doesn't have a ballot. You can read more of Paul's work at www.lostinleftfield.com.
Also by Paul White
» 3,000 Hits That Don't Belong in Cooperstown
» Frankie Frisch's Sad Legacy: The Cheapening of The Hall of Fame
» Babe's MVP Snubs
» The Schalk-Schang Redemption: Two Men Who Prove That The Hall of Fame Veterans Committee Was a Sham
» Being Tony Muser
» More submissions
Copyright © 2001 by Paul White. Posted November 26, 2001.
BALLPLAYERS | TEAMS | CHRONOLOGY | TODAY | BOOKS | NEWSLETTER | ERRATA | FAQ
