@dallasactuary said:
Not to kick a dead horse, but I was wondering if there was any disagreement in the wider world over the GOAT third baseman so I did a simple Google search. I found 10 sites that had third basemen ranked, usually from 10 to 1, sometimes more than 10, and they were somewhat surprising in their degree of unanimity:
Site:Schmidt's rank:Brett's rank
Athlon Sports 1 2
Wahoo Sam 1 4
Bleacher Report 1 2
Ranker 1 3
Baseball Egg 1 4
ESPN 1 2
ThoughtCo 1 2
The Grueling Truth 1 2
Fox Sports 1 4
Hall of Stats 1 5
Sports Retriever No ranking, but shows 4 candidates; Schmidt is among them, Brett is not
Schmidt was #1 on everyone's list, Brett varied from 2 to 5, with an average position of 3.
This was every site I found with the search I did; I make no guarantee that there aren't others. I ignored sites from a particular city/newspaper/etc. whose purpose was to advance the case that, say, Adrian Beltre or Scott Rolen was the GOAT; in any event, those sites didn't have rankings of other 3B anyway.
The three most settled questions in all of baseball appear to be that Ruth was the GOAT, Gehrig was the GOAT at 1B and Schmidt was the GOAT at 3B. Every other position has at least some disagreement (even at shortstop where there shouldn't be).
It shouldn't be arguable that Schmidt is the GOAT. And to those who know baseball and understand the game, it isn't arguable.
However it is arguable that Brett is at #2 as he could be placed lower. Personally I think Brett is second best. But i can understand the various points of those who have Brett at 3 or 4.
It is one thing to say you think Brett was a better third baseman. What you cannot reasonably say is he is "easily" the best third baseman. It reveals your obvious bias and immunity to facts, logic, and reason.
You know, I was thinking about the Phillies today, and I visited their google website.
Didn't know a lot about their history, so was completely surprised they won their
division in 76,77,78,80, and 83 when Schmidt was playing.
Eerily similiar to when Brett played for K.C., division titles in 76,77,78,80,84 and 85.
The Royals did come up with one more title than the Phillies, but it is close.
So congrats to both players, as divison titles were harder to win with more teams
in the division. The Royals played in the A.L. west back then.
My point is, I guess I don't really care if Schmidt was better, the Royals wouldn't have
won more than 6 division titles if Schmidt was the Royals third basemen instead of Brett.
Why, because overall Schmidt had superior teammates than Brett did. For instance,
our shortstop chewed on a toothpick while he was playing, how good do you think he was?
The Royals did have some good hitters, but always had lots of holes in the lineup.
So I'm kind of wondering if the Phillies underperformed. If Schmidt was such an all time great,
you would think he and Rose and Bowa and Luzinski and Maddox and the great Steve Carlton
would have won more than they did.
Weird that a player who you claim was so much better than Brett, with all the help he got from teammates,
didn't win as many division titles as George. LOL.
The biggest laugh came when you were listing the "great" Phillies of that era and included Bowa, who had an OPS+ of 76 in his years on the Phillies.
So let's really compare the Royals and Phillies from 1976 to 1985, not compare the delusions of a single not-too-bright fan.
Over those years, the Royals team OPS+ was 103.2, the Phillies 99.9. Conclusion, the Royals hit better than the Phillies. And bear in mind that Schmidt hit better than Brett over this period, so the difference between the rest of the teams was even larger than this.
Over those years, the Royals ERA+ was 105.4; the Phillies 103.6. Conclusion: the Royals pitched better than the Phillies.
And one thing that can't be left out when comparing division titles is the quality of the division. After all, someone has to win every division, good or bad; it's just harder to win a good division than a bad one. Over those years, the record of the other teams in the Royals division was .467; the Phillies .494. Conclusion, the Phillies were in a better division than the Royals.
So, the team in the weaker division with better hitting and better pitching won one more division title than the team in the harder division with worse pitching and worse hitting. This impresses precisely zero people with even a rudimentary understanding of baseball. And Darin.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I have obviously missed out on these discussions, but are we sure that Darin is not some sort of onion-type, satirist posting this way? There is no way these are genuine posts, right? Nobody can honestly have these thoughts and be real, right?
Having no dog whatsoever in this fight, I am not sure what the case is for Brett over Schmidt.
Did Schmidt have a terrible 1983 world series? Sure. But 20 at-bats is a nothing sample size, and his performance in the 1980 world series (when he won series MVP) refutes the idea that he was unable to perform in the world series. Schmidt had 3 league MVPs to Brett's 1; wins above replacement Schmidt outpaces Brett 106.8 to 88.7; OPS Schmidt again tops Brett by ranking nearly 100 positions higher all time; Schmidt hit for more power and got on base at a higher rate.
I am not sure what objective measure anyone is stating that Brett is "clearly" a superior hitter to Schmidt. Brett played in early 2 more season's worth of games than Schmidt did, yet Schmidt put up a much more formidable hitting line. Both were tremendous players in their own right but just stop with the idea that Schmidt was not an all-time great or that Brett was somehow vastly superior.
Ax, I can’t remember what team/s you root for? If I remember correctly you don’t actually have a team you just rag on everyone else’s team? Or is it the Buc’s? Either you or Joey Stalin was a hopeless Yucs fan
@perkdog said:
Ax, I can’t remember what team/s you root for? If I remember correctly you don’t actually have a team you just rag on everyone else’s team? Or is it the Buc’s? Either you or Joey Stalin was a hopeless Yucs fan
Stalin is a Bucs fan.
He showed up in the Eagles 2018 thread to gloat about his Bucs. He thought Ryan Fitzpatrick and his Bucs were bound for glory after they got off to a hot start.
As Stalin was clearly told at the time, but he wouldn't listen, Fitzpatrick would soon revert back to his old losing form and the Bucs would fizzle out, which is exactly what happened.
After a painful visit to the woodshed, Stalin then went back to hiding under his bed and was never heard from again. 🤣
Weird that a player who you claim was so much better than Brett, with all the help he got from teammates,
didn't win as many division titles as George. LOL.
Let's TRY to get something correct;
Original thread said Brett was "better and it was not even close" or words to that effect.
Most of the posts pointing out that this is incorrect (at least before things got silly) said that while George was a fantastic player, Mike was better in some key areas, and better overall at third base.
I don't really see anyone saying Schmidt was "so much better" just better.......and it's pretty obvious that while they were both great players Mike was clearly better.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@perkdog said:
Ax, I can’t remember what team/s you root for? If I remember correctly you don’t actually have a team you just rag on everyone else’s team? Or is it the Buc’s? Either you or Joey Stalin was a hopeless Yucs fan
Stalin is a Bucs fan.
He showed up in the Eagles 2018 thread to gloat about his Bucs. He thought Ryan Fitzpatrick and his Bucs were bound for glory after they got off to a hot start.
As Stalin was clearly told at the time, but he wouldn't listen, Fitzpatrick would soon revert back to his old losing form and the Bucs would fizzle out, which is exactly what happened.
After a painful visit to the woodshed, Stalin then went back to hiding under his bed and was never heard from again. 🤣
Ok the “Woodshed” comment brought it all back for me, I remember that 😂
Weird that a player who you claim was so much better than Brett, with all the help he got from teammates,
didn't win as many division titles as George. LOL.
Let's TRY to get something correct;
Original thread said Brett was "better and it was not even close" or words to that effect.
Most of the posts pointing out that this is incorrect (at least before things got silly) said that while George was a fantastic player, Mike was better in some key areas, and better overall at third base.
I don't really see anyone saying Schmidt was "so much better" just better.......and it's pretty obvious that while they were both great players Mike was clearly better.
The "isn't even close" comment relates to the postseason performance between Brett and Schmidt. That isn't even close.
The regular season lifetime performances are basically equal.
Brett carried his team when it counted the most, while Mike Schmidt is a negative WPA
postseason performer. So, yes, not even close. Brett is the clear winner because of
his postseason heroics.
I've been banging this drum from the get go. Still sticking by it.
At least you are consistent.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@AxtellIsBack said:
I have obviously missed out on these discussions, but are we sure that Darin is not some sort of onion-type, satirist posting this way? There is no way these are genuine posts, right? Nobody can honestly have these thoughts and be real, right?
Right?
Whole World celebrates Axtells' glorious return to CU message board. President declares entire month of March National Holiday!
The "isn't even close" comment relates to the postseason performance between Brett and Schmidt. That isn't even close.
The regular season lifetime performances are basically equal.
No, they are not. Schmidt clearly had the better regular season numbers by any objective measure and the difference is statistically measurable.
Brett carried his team when it counted the most, while Mike Schmidt is a negative WPA
postseason performer. So, yes, not even close. Brett is the clear winner because of
his postseason heroics.
I've been banging this drum from the get go. Still sticking by it.
When does it "count the most"? Wouldn't that be in the world series? The ultimate stress because the championship is so close?
If that is the measure, and not some insignificant number of plate appearances (their postseason plate appearances were about 1.5% of the amount they had in their careers), then the world series by YOUR ARGUMENT (when it "counted the most"), Brett had a NEGATIVE WPA of -0.15 while Schmidt was positive at 0.12.
to throw another wrench into this tire fire, check out brett and schmidts career WPA Clutch numbers:
Brett: 5.8
Schmidt: -10.7
though i am sure you all can tell from the name, Clutch measures how well a player performs in high leverage situations.
12 of schmidts 18 years he was clutch negative.
7 of bretts 21 years were clutch negative.
it sure seems brett was more clutchy, at least in the regular season
@AxtellIsBack said:
Clutch is a garbage made up stat.
If you're going to bring up batting average then it is clear you have no idea how to understand a hitters worth.
In the world series. When it counts the most. YOU said this nonsense so I can using your argument. Schmidt out performed Bret in WPA. Your stat.
Its undeniable.
care to explain why clutch is a "garbage made up stat" and what you would consider to be accurate, non made up stats. could it be you dont understand the stat?
not sure if you are referencing me in the rest of the post.
@1970s said:
The regular season lifetime performances are basically equal.
This made me laugh, again.
Actually it almost made me cry.
OK. Got a question for you. I will ask it as long as you agree that the answer will settle this debate fair and square.
Here's the question.....................
When Manny Machado was traded to the San Diego Padres this year, the Vegas line for the Over/Under in Wins for the
Padres went from 74 to 77. Basically, Manny Machado was seen as having a 3 more wins impact for his team during the regular season. And by the way, those extra wins probably will not even mean a playoff appearance.
How many more wins did Mike Schmidt contribute to his team over the course of his career than George Brett ?
What kind of an impact did those wins mean to the Phillies making the postseason and winning the world series ? In other words, did he "carry" his team or not. Remember, it takes a lot to carry a team on your back in baseball, being that it is such a team game, where pitching really is the main ingredient.
So please tell me how many more wins Schmidt contributed to his team during the regular season over Brett.
Please tell me the WPA of Schmidt and Brett in the postseason and other meaningful statistics that show
how much of an impact they had on their team during the postseason.
What you'll find out is that during their regular season careers, their impact to their teams wins was very close.
Their impact during the postseason was not even close.
That has been the drum I've been banging since the get go. Go back and read the entire thread, and you'll
see that I keep banging that point over and over again.
Again, it's not even close.
craig44 answered you regular season questions. Were you confused AGAIN and meant post season? We ALL already know Mike was the better player overall, and especially in the regular season, how many numbers do you need to see?
The original post did NOT mention the post season. Obviously you were crushed in the number of people who disagreed and now you are trying to spin the debate into an area you have a chance in.
IF these two were in the playoffs every year and IF Brett did great and Schmidt did poorly, you might have a case. Since they did play one WS "head to head" and Schmidt won that battle individually AND team wise THAT should have a LOT of significance in post season comparison.They were both great, Schmidt was a little better.
Brett was great in the post season in 1976,77,78,80 but his team lost. He was bad in 1981,84,85 except for the 1985 ALCS he didn't have a positive WPA in the 1985 WS.
Schmidt was lousy in the playoffs in 1977,78 and NLCS in 1980 but crushed it against the Royals, did ok in 1981 and lost, then did awesome in NCLS and horrible in WS in 1983. They both won one WS and lost one. If you want to put such significance on post season play, I'll counter with WINNING is what matters here, and there is no clear cut victor here, other than Brett did better when his team lost BIG DEAL.
I am sure there are no two players that are somewhat close, where one guy beats the other in every single statistic imaginable. I am sure you can find some minute statistic that Brett wins, maybe he did better on Tuesday afternoon games in July following a National Holiday, when it was above 88 degrees.
Steve Lombardizzi had a 1.121 OPS in every WS he played, he MUST be the best 2nd Baseman EVER! His team even won!
The regular season counts for about 98.5% of these two guys' numbers, and Schmidt is the better offensive player.
Defense looks like a win for Mike too.
I will concede that in playoff losses (14 games), Brett was better. MEANINGLESS
Please get back to us on the "Tuesday afternoon games in July following a National Holiday, when it was above 88 degrees" comparison. It might prove George was better in the regular season as well.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
to throw another wrench into this tire fire, check out brett and schmidts career WPA Clutch numbers:
Brett: 5.8
Schmidt: -10.7
though i am sure you all can tell from the name, Clutch measures how well a player performs in high leverage situations.
12 of schmidts 18 years he was clutch negative.
7 of bretts 21 years were clutch negative.
it sure seems brett was more clutchy, at least in the regular season
Well, someone finally found a good number for George.
Please check on Tuesday afternoon games in July following a National Holiday, when it was above 88 degrees.
Is there a number for "there wasn't a clutch situation in the game because someone hit a couple of home runs"?
Good for George, Mike is still better, but it might have gotten a teensy bit closer........or not.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@AxtellIsBack said:
Because the number of at bats in this "statistic" are so insignificant that you cannot draw any reasonable conclusion from it.
wrong. the formula used calculates both the context neutral at bats (that means all of them) and subtracts those from high leverage situations. for playoff statistics, i agree, it would be a very small sample size. the numbers i gave were for regular season. the sample size is huge for career.
what about the second part of the question? which stat better measures? let me guess. you are a batting average type of guy arent you.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@AxtellIsBack said:
Because the number of at bats in this "statistic" are so insignificant that you cannot draw any reasonable conclusion from it.
wrong. the formula used calculates both the context neutral at bats (that means all of them) and subtracts those from high leverage situations. for playoff statistics, i agree, it would be a very small sample size. the numbers i gave were for regular season. the sample size is huge for career.
what about the second part of the question? which stat better measures? let me guess. you are a batting average type of guy arent you.
I literally said batting average is a garbage statistic.
@AxtellIsBack said:
Clutch is a garbage made up stat.
I kind of meant that in my post. If you are going to look at how a guy did in "clutch" situations that's fine, but then you have to look at how often a guy like Schmidt slugged a home run to put a game out of reach, avoiding a clutch situation.
This would SEEM to me to favor the Bretts over the Schmidts simply because of their higher BA. They "succeed" more often even if their hit doesn't accomplish as big a result.
So maybe there needs to be a stat for that. "Out of reach" I am sure not every game has a "clutch" moment, or does it?
Batting average is only "garbage" if that's the only number you look at.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@AxtellIsBack said:
Because the number of at bats in this "statistic" are so insignificant that you cannot draw any reasonable conclusion from it.
wrong. the formula used calculates both the context neutral at bats (that means all of them) and subtracts those from high leverage situations. for playoff statistics, i agree, it would be a very small sample size. the numbers i gave were for regular season. the sample size is huge for career.
what about the second part of the question? which stat better measures? let me guess. you are a batting average type of guy arent you.
I literally said batting average is a garbage statistic.
what in the world are you talking about? you literally said clutch is a made up garbage statistic. yes, raw batting average is near meaningless. the clutch stat is certainly not raw batting average. it is context dependent. you are a confusing guy.
@AxtellIsBack said:
Clutch is a garbage made up stat.
I kind of meant that in my post. If you are going to look at how a guy did in "clutch" situations that's fine, but then you have to look at how often a guy like Schmidt slugged a home run to put a game out of reach, avoiding a clutch situation.
This would SEEM to me to favor the Bretts over the Schmidts simply because of their higher BA. They "succeed" more often even if their hit doesn't accomplish as big a result.
So maybe there needs to be a stat for that. "Out of reach" I am sure not every game has a "clutch" moment, or does it?
Batting average is only "garbage" if that's the only number you look at.
WPA and clutch both figure in the leverage index (Li) this figures the probability a team has of winning a game in every possible situation. it calculates how critical every situation in a game is, applies it to a player, like schmidt or brett, and how they are able to change the leverage of a particular situation. it is a very interesting statistic, and I think, quite valuable.
I decided I like WPA! Killebrew is better than Schmidt, Mathews and Brett. However not as good as Chipper?!?!?!?!?!? Boggs is not too good here.
I don't know how "clutch" is figured (or WPA for that matter) and I am hesitant to put a lot of trust in the new stats. Unless of course Killebrew rates high in a good way. ;-)
Here's an example of what I was curious about;
Schmidt comes up in the 3rd inning with 2 men on and his team leading by 2-0. He hits a home run. over the rest of the game the opponent scores 3 runs and the Phillies win 5-3. Was Mike "clutch"?
Brett comes up in the 9th inning with 2 men on losing 4-2 and hits a double, but only one run is able to score (Mayberry was on first) and the Royals lose 4-3. Is George "clutch"?
I have heard clutch referred to as "late and close" and can appreciate it's value, but a slugger is more likely to make a bigger change in a game than a high average guy.
Also heard a lot about "hitting with runners in scoring position" when Schmidt or Killebrew came up EVERY runner including the batter was in scoring position.
And don't forget "chicks dig the long ball"!!!!!
P.S. just found out a little about WPA;
" From 1925-1973, the data is incomplete, though for most seasons only less than 20 games per season total are missing."
Hmmmmmmm 20 games a season is a LOT! A .125% difference when comparing two guys that are close could change the outcome.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Says a guy (Joey Votto) isn't clutch even if he has a 1.054 OPS in high-leverage situations. That's outstanding! But he also has a 1.042 OPS in medium-leverage situations and a 1.048 OPS in low-leverage situations. He's not so much a great clutch hitter as he is a great hitter, period.
So he's NOT clutch even if he excells in "clutch" situations because he is also good in medium and low leverage situations.
GARBAGE
Next new stat please.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Separating WPA from "clutch" WPA is nonsensical, for the very reasons JB mentioned. Games are won or lost in clutch at bats, and they are won or lost in non-clutch at bats, and WPA measures all of them. If Brett beats Schmidt in one subset of at bats, and Schmidt beats Brett over all at bats, it necessarily follows that Schmidt beats Brett in winning games in non-clutch at bats by more than Brett beats Schmidt in clutch at bats.
And in all his hapless flailing, 1970s appears, for the moment anyway, to have settled on WPA as the only stat that matters. So, I have to ask, is your conclusion now that Eddie Mathews was the greatest third baseman of all-time? He beats Brett, and Schmidt, in career WPA, and has positive postseason WPA; his regular + postseason WPA beats Brett and Schmidt. If he's not the GOAT third baseman, why not? And since I'm asking about Mathews, since the same also applies to Chipper Jones, is he the GOAT? And if we count Harmon Killebrew at 3B, he also beats Brett and Schmidt and has positive postseason WPA; is he the GOAT?
WPA actually does provide a pretty good basis for ranking all of these players, but it ranks them as hitters only. I won't direct this at 1970s because he won't understand it, but once you have a WPA ranking as a starting point you need to then adjust it for fielding contributions, including, if you choose to, the postseason where Brett crapped the bed. It's this step that carries Schmidt to the top, easily, and slides Brett, and Jones, down the list.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@HJP717 said:
What about Cal Ripken Jr. The iron
man of baseball?
He ranks a lot higher on the list at his own position than he does at 3B. Ripken had his last really good season at age 30, and then played until he was 40. And while he hit great for a shortstop, he's dwarfed by every third baseman named in this thread (as a hitter).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Separating WPA from "clutch" WPA is nonsensical, for the very reasons JB mentioned. Games are won or lost in clutch at bats, and they are won or lost in non-clutch at bats, and WPA measures all of them. If Brett beats Schmidt in one subset of at bats, and Schmidt beats Brett over all at bats, it necessarily follows that Schmidt beats Brett in winning games in non-clutch at bats by more than Brett beats Schmidt in clutch at bats.
And in all his hapless flailing, 1970s appears, for the moment anyway, to have settled on WPA as the only stat that matters. So, I have to ask, is your conclusion now that Eddie Mathews was the greatest third baseman of all-time? He beats Brett, and Schmidt, in career WPA, and has positive postseason WPA; his regular + postseason WPA beats Brett and Schmidt. If he's not the GOAT third baseman, why not? And since I'm asking about Mathews, since the same also applies to Chipper Jones, is he the GOAT? And if we count Harmon Killebrew at 3B, he also beats Brett and Schmidt and has positive postseason WPA; is he the GOAT?
WPA actually does provide a pretty good basis for ranking all of these players, but it ranks them as hitters only. I won't direct this at 1970s because he won't understand it, but once you have a WPA ranking as a starting point you need to then adjust it for fielding contributions, including, if you choose to, the postseason where Brett crapped the bed. It's this step that carries Schmidt to the top, easily, and slides Brett, and Jones, down the list.
HEY nobody's talking about fielding if we get Killebrew into the discussion!
1970s realizes he's wrong, but will never admit it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
care to explain why clutch is a "garbage made up stat" and what you would consider to be accurate, non made up stats. could it be you dont understand the stat?
not sure if you are referencing me in the rest of the post.
Why is it trash? Because it's meaningless? An arbitrary line in the sand to designate what is meaningful and what is not, while ignoring the 99% of the game that is played out of those made up timelines?
If Schmidt hit so well early in games to eliminate a lot of high-leverage situations, to sit there and penalize him is foolish. Schmidt proved he could hit well in the most important of at-bats, so well he won the World Series MVP as a result.
This argument is the same idiotic nonsense that said Jeter had some magical "clutch" gene.
Comments
It shouldn't be arguable that Schmidt is the GOAT. And to those who know baseball and understand the game, it isn't arguable.
However it is arguable that Brett is at #2 as he could be placed lower. Personally I think Brett is second best. But i can understand the various points of those who have Brett at 3 or 4.
It is one thing to say you think Brett was a better third baseman. What you cannot reasonably say is he is "easily" the best third baseman. It reveals your obvious bias and immunity to facts, logic, and reason.
Kate Jackson looked better on the Rookies than she did with the Angels. I liked Kate a lot, but I believe the winner here was Jaclyn Smith.
and in no universe was Brett better than Schmidt!
You know, I was thinking about the Phillies today, and I visited their google website.
Didn't know a lot about their history, so was completely surprised they won their
division in 76,77,78,80, and 83 when Schmidt was playing.
Eerily similiar to when Brett played for K.C., division titles in 76,77,78,80,84 and 85.
The Royals did come up with one more title than the Phillies, but it is close.
So congrats to both players, as divison titles were harder to win with more teams
in the division. The Royals played in the A.L. west back then.
My point is, I guess I don't really care if Schmidt was better, the Royals wouldn't have
won more than 6 division titles if Schmidt was the Royals third basemen instead of Brett.
Why, because overall Schmidt had superior teammates than Brett did. For instance,
our shortstop chewed on a toothpick while he was playing, how good do you think he was?
The Royals did have some good hitters, but always had lots of holes in the lineup.
So I'm kind of wondering if the Phillies underperformed. If Schmidt was such an all time great,
you would think he and Rose and Bowa and Luzinski and Maddox and the great Steve Carlton
would have won more than they did.
Weird that a player who you claim was so much better than Brett, with all the help he got from teammates,
didn't win as many division titles as George. LOL.
That whole post made me laugh.
The biggest laugh came when you were listing the "great" Phillies of that era and included Bowa, who had an OPS+ of 76 in his years on the Phillies.
So let's really compare the Royals and Phillies from 1976 to 1985, not compare the delusions of a single not-too-bright fan.
Over those years, the Royals team OPS+ was 103.2, the Phillies 99.9. Conclusion, the Royals hit better than the Phillies. And bear in mind that Schmidt hit better than Brett over this period, so the difference between the rest of the teams was even larger than this.
Over those years, the Royals ERA+ was 105.4; the Phillies 103.6. Conclusion: the Royals pitched better than the Phillies.
And one thing that can't be left out when comparing division titles is the quality of the division. After all, someone has to win every division, good or bad; it's just harder to win a good division than a bad one. Over those years, the record of the other teams in the Royals division was .467; the Phillies .494. Conclusion, the Phillies were in a better division than the Royals.
So, the team in the weaker division with better hitting and better pitching won one more division title than the team in the harder division with worse pitching and worse hitting. This impresses precisely zero people with even a rudimentary understanding of baseball. And Darin.
I have obviously missed out on these discussions, but are we sure that Darin is not some sort of onion-type, satirist posting this way? There is no way these are genuine posts, right? Nobody can honestly have these thoughts and be real, right?
Right?
Having no dog whatsoever in this fight, I am not sure what the case is for Brett over Schmidt.
Did Schmidt have a terrible 1983 world series? Sure. But 20 at-bats is a nothing sample size, and his performance in the 1980 world series (when he won series MVP) refutes the idea that he was unable to perform in the world series. Schmidt had 3 league MVPs to Brett's 1; wins above replacement Schmidt outpaces Brett 106.8 to 88.7; OPS Schmidt again tops Brett by ranking nearly 100 positions higher all time; Schmidt hit for more power and got on base at a higher rate.
I am not sure what objective measure anyone is stating that Brett is "clearly" a superior hitter to Schmidt. Brett played in early 2 more season's worth of games than Schmidt did, yet Schmidt put up a much more formidable hitting line. Both were tremendous players in their own right but just stop with the idea that Schmidt was not an all-time great or that Brett was somehow vastly superior.
Ax, I can’t remember what team/s you root for? If I remember correctly you don’t actually have a team you just rag on everyone else’s team? Or is it the Buc’s? Either you or Joey Stalin was a hopeless Yucs fan
Stalin is a Bucs fan.
He showed up in the Eagles 2018 thread to gloat about his Bucs. He thought Ryan Fitzpatrick and his Bucs were bound for glory after they got off to a hot start.
As Stalin was clearly told at the time, but he wouldn't listen, Fitzpatrick would soon revert back to his old losing form and the Bucs would fizzle out, which is exactly what happened.
After a painful visit to the woodshed, Stalin then went back to hiding under his bed and was never heard from again. 🤣
Let's TRY to get something correct;
Original thread said Brett was "better and it was not even close" or words to that effect.
Most of the posts pointing out that this is incorrect (at least before things got silly) said that while George was a fantastic player, Mike was better in some key areas, and better overall at third base.
I don't really see anyone saying Schmidt was "so much better" just better.......and it's pretty obvious that while they were both great players Mike was clearly better.
I > @stevek said:
Ok the “Woodshed” comment brought it all back for me, I remember that 😂
At least you are consistent.
Whole World celebrates Axtells' glorious return to CU message board. President declares entire month of March National Holiday!
This made me laugh, again.
Actually it almost made me cry.
No, they are not. Schmidt clearly had the better regular season numbers by any objective measure and the difference is statistically measurable.
When does it "count the most"? Wouldn't that be in the world series? The ultimate stress because the championship is so close?
If that is the measure, and not some insignificant number of plate appearances (their postseason plate appearances were about 1.5% of the amount they had in their careers), then the world series by YOUR ARGUMENT (when it "counted the most"), Brett had a NEGATIVE WPA of -0.15 while Schmidt was positive at 0.12.
regular season WPA:
Brett: 52.3, he led the league 2x, his top four seasons: 6.2, 6.0, 5.5, 5.1
Schmidt: 55.4, Led league 3X, top four seasons: 5.9, 5.9, 5.8, 5.1
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
😂😂😂 love this thread!
to throw another wrench into this tire fire, check out brett and schmidts career WPA Clutch numbers:
Brett: 5.8
Schmidt: -10.7
though i am sure you all can tell from the name, Clutch measures how well a player performs in high leverage situations.
12 of schmidts 18 years he was clutch negative.
7 of bretts 21 years were clutch negative.
it sure seems brett was more clutchy, at least in the regular season
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Clutch is a garbage made up stat.
If you're going to bring up batting average then it is clear you have no idea how to understand a hitters worth.
In the world series. When it counts the most. YOU said this nonsense so I can using your argument. Schmidt out performed Bret in WPA. Your stat.
Its undeniable.
care to explain why clutch is a "garbage made up stat" and what you would consider to be accurate, non made up stats. could it be you dont understand the stat?
not sure if you are referencing me in the rest of the post.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Because the number of at bats in this "statistic" are so insignificant that you cannot draw any reasonable conclusion from it.
craig44 answered you regular season questions. Were you confused AGAIN and meant post season? We ALL already know Mike was the better player overall, and especially in the regular season, how many numbers do you need to see?
The original post did NOT mention the post season. Obviously you were crushed in the number of people who disagreed and now you are trying to spin the debate into an area you have a chance in.
IF these two were in the playoffs every year and IF Brett did great and Schmidt did poorly, you might have a case. Since they did play one WS "head to head" and Schmidt won that battle individually AND team wise THAT should have a LOT of significance in post season comparison.They were both great, Schmidt was a little better.
Brett was great in the post season in 1976,77,78,80 but his team lost. He was bad in 1981,84,85 except for the 1985 ALCS he didn't have a positive WPA in the 1985 WS.
Schmidt was lousy in the playoffs in 1977,78 and NLCS in 1980 but crushed it against the Royals, did ok in 1981 and lost, then did awesome in NCLS and horrible in WS in 1983. They both won one WS and lost one. If you want to put such significance on post season play, I'll counter with WINNING is what matters here, and there is no clear cut victor here, other than Brett did better when his team lost BIG DEAL.
I am sure there are no two players that are somewhat close, where one guy beats the other in every single statistic imaginable. I am sure you can find some minute statistic that Brett wins, maybe he did better on Tuesday afternoon games in July following a National Holiday, when it was above 88 degrees.
Steve Lombardizzi had a 1.121 OPS in every WS he played, he MUST be the best 2nd Baseman EVER! His team even won!
The regular season counts for about 98.5% of these two guys' numbers, and Schmidt is the better offensive player.
Defense looks like a win for Mike too.
I will concede that in playoff losses (14 games), Brett was better. MEANINGLESS
Please get back to us on the "Tuesday afternoon games in July following a National Holiday, when it was above 88 degrees" comparison. It might prove George was better in the regular season as well.
Well, someone finally found a good number for George.
Please check on Tuesday afternoon games in July following a National Holiday, when it was above 88 degrees.
Is there a number for "there wasn't a clutch situation in the game because someone hit a couple of home runs"?
Good for George, Mike is still better, but it might have gotten a teensy bit closer........or not.
wrong. the formula used calculates both the context neutral at bats (that means all of them) and subtracts those from high leverage situations. for playoff statistics, i agree, it would be a very small sample size. the numbers i gave were for regular season. the sample size is huge for career.
what about the second part of the question? which stat better measures? let me guess. you are a batting average type of guy arent you.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It’s the gift that keeps on giving
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I literally said batting average is a garbage statistic.
I kind of meant that in my post. If you are going to look at how a guy did in "clutch" situations that's fine, but then you have to look at how often a guy like Schmidt slugged a home run to put a game out of reach, avoiding a clutch situation.
This would SEEM to me to favor the Bretts over the Schmidts simply because of their higher BA. They "succeed" more often even if their hit doesn't accomplish as big a result.
So maybe there needs to be a stat for that. "Out of reach" I am sure not every game has a "clutch" moment, or does it?
Batting average is only "garbage" if that's the only number you look at.
what in the world are you talking about? you literally said clutch is a made up garbage statistic. yes, raw batting average is near meaningless. the clutch stat is certainly not raw batting average. it is context dependent. you are a confusing guy.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
WPA and clutch both figure in the leverage index (Li) this figures the probability a team has of winning a game in every possible situation. it calculates how critical every situation in a game is, applies it to a player, like schmidt or brett, and how they are able to change the leverage of a particular situation. it is a very interesting statistic, and I think, quite valuable.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Batting average is an incomplete statistic, so therefore it's not worth looking at all, in any way.
I decided I like WPA! Killebrew is better than Schmidt, Mathews and Brett. However not as good as Chipper?!?!?!?!?!? Boggs is not too good here.
I don't know how "clutch" is figured (or WPA for that matter) and I am hesitant to put a lot of trust in the new stats. Unless of course Killebrew rates high in a good way. ;-)
Here's an example of what I was curious about;
Schmidt comes up in the 3rd inning with 2 men on and his team leading by 2-0. He hits a home run. over the rest of the game the opponent scores 3 runs and the Phillies win 5-3. Was Mike "clutch"?
Brett comes up in the 9th inning with 2 men on losing 4-2 and hits a double, but only one run is able to score (Mayberry was on first) and the Royals lose 4-3. Is George "clutch"?
I have heard clutch referred to as "late and close" and can appreciate it's value, but a slugger is more likely to make a bigger change in a game than a high average guy.
Also heard a lot about "hitting with runners in scoring position" when Schmidt or Killebrew came up EVERY runner including the batter was in scoring position.
And don't forget "chicks dig the long ball"!!!!!
P.S. just found out a little about WPA;
" From 1925-1973, the data is incomplete, though for most seasons only less than 20 games per season total are missing."
Hmmmmmmm 20 games a season is a LOT! A .125% difference when comparing two guys that are close could change the outcome.
I have a new stat. It's called J.O.E. stands for Just Observe Everything.
It's a comprehensive measurement of every player in every situation EVER.
Let me know who you want to compare and I'll give you the results!
Just read a bit about "clutch" don't like it.
Says a guy (Joey Votto) isn't clutch even if he has a 1.054 OPS in high-leverage situations. That's outstanding! But he also has a 1.042 OPS in medium-leverage situations and a 1.048 OPS in low-leverage situations. He's not so much a great clutch hitter as he is a great hitter, period.
So he's NOT clutch even if he excells in "clutch" situations because he is also good in medium and low leverage situations.
GARBAGE
Next new stat please.
I love the new JOE stat!!! my only question, can we normalize it for park effect?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Separating WPA from "clutch" WPA is nonsensical, for the very reasons JB mentioned. Games are won or lost in clutch at bats, and they are won or lost in non-clutch at bats, and WPA measures all of them. If Brett beats Schmidt in one subset of at bats, and Schmidt beats Brett over all at bats, it necessarily follows that Schmidt beats Brett in winning games in non-clutch at bats by more than Brett beats Schmidt in clutch at bats.
And in all his hapless flailing, 1970s appears, for the moment anyway, to have settled on WPA as the only stat that matters. So, I have to ask, is your conclusion now that Eddie Mathews was the greatest third baseman of all-time? He beats Brett, and Schmidt, in career WPA, and has positive postseason WPA; his regular + postseason WPA beats Brett and Schmidt. If he's not the GOAT third baseman, why not? And since I'm asking about Mathews, since the same also applies to Chipper Jones, is he the GOAT? And if we count Harmon Killebrew at 3B, he also beats Brett and Schmidt and has positive postseason WPA; is he the GOAT?
WPA actually does provide a pretty good basis for ranking all of these players, but it ranks them as hitters only. I won't direct this at 1970s because he won't understand it, but once you have a WPA ranking as a starting point you need to then adjust it for fielding contributions, including, if you choose to, the postseason where Brett crapped the bed. It's this step that carries Schmidt to the top, easily, and slides Brett, and Jones, down the list.
What about Cal Ripken Jr. The iron
man of baseball?
He ranks a lot higher on the list at his own position than he does at 3B. Ripken had his last really good season at age 30, and then played until he was 40. And while he hit great for a shortstop, he's dwarfed by every third baseman named in this thread (as a hitter).
All things will be considered. Just Observe EVERYTHING! ;-)
HEY nobody's talking about fielding if we get Killebrew into the discussion!
1970s realizes he's wrong, but will never admit it.
>
Why is it trash? Because it's meaningless? An arbitrary line in the sand to designate what is meaningful and what is not, while ignoring the 99% of the game that is played out of those made up timelines?
If Schmidt hit so well early in games to eliminate a lot of high-leverage situations, to sit there and penalize him is foolish. Schmidt proved he could hit well in the most important of at-bats, so well he won the World Series MVP as a result.
This argument is the same idiotic nonsense that said Jeter had some magical "clutch" gene.
And George Brett is the winner.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED