@1970s said:
State your case. I'll bring the popcorn. Bring it !
Sorry, it's too late for you to play dumb and we both know it. You did a valiant job of sticking to an absurd position for as long as you did, but as I said, you slipped, we all saw it, and there's no going back. So who do you really think is the GOAT third baseman, Schmidt or Mathews?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Let's have the "scholars" on the board explain to us who was better in the postseason.
LOL+++++++++++++++++++
You forgot a few:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
Why don't you go do something an actuary does, like sharpen the pencils in your pocket protector.
Well, I'm not proud of it or anything, but one thing actuaries do is laugh at stupid people. So I'm good; but thanks for your concern.
@1970s said:
Fielding 3B - Tie or slight edge to Schmidt .955 to .951
See, you can keep doing this 'til the cows come home, but you already gave it away. By equating "Fielding " with nothing but fielding percentage, you have been making the case that Jose Iglesias is the greatest fielding shortstop of all time. But you laughed at daltex when he said that, showing that you don't believe your own argument. You both believe and disbelieve the same proposition at the same time (i.e., you are mentally defective), or you are pretending to believe something that you don't really believe (i.e., you're a troll). I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're a troll, and no matter how much energy you devote trying to convince me that you're mentally defective I don't think I'll believe it. If you want to see how to convince me of such a thing, see Darin's posts; he's not pretending. "That what clutch do"; seriously, you're missing a humor gene if you don't laugh at that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
Royals 6 division titles with Brett
Phillies 5 division titles with the player who is supposed to be the goat.
If Brett had played with the Phillies instead of Royals and Schmidt with Royals, numbers probably reverse.
Phillies 6, Royals 5
That what clutch do.
Clutch wins three series and lose six?? Good one.
Six division titles in the crappiest division, lmao. Brett cost them the lcs when the royals actually earned a division title(1976-78). See below.
So clutch does not include picking up routine ground balls costing your team unearned runs and the game?? That part of his game negated the hitting part...hence why the Royals were only 3-6 in post season play. Also, Brett was not clutch when it counted most...in the World Series where he was negative WPA...and the Royals only won because of Brett Saberhagen and a blind umpire.
You forgot a few:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
PS and as pointed out before, the Royals only won that many division titles because their division was terrible. In half of those titles, the East had anywhere from two to five teams better than the Royals. 1984 was ridiculously bad.
In the years where the ROyals were great and truly earned division titles...1976-1978 Brett cost them the chance to get to the World Series because he could not field ground balls cleanly.
It occurs to me that someone besides 1970s might actually be interested to know why fielding percentage is such a poor way to evaluate defensive contributions. The problem with it is that it is basically a counting stat, and as such has no context, and context is the essence of every worthwhile stat.
The context that is missing from fielding percentage is that the overwhelming majority of fielding plays are easy. The classic example is at first base, where the only skill required 99% of the time is the ability to catch a ball thrown directly at you. In that case, a 1B with a FP of .995 is five times better at making plays without committing an error as a 1B with a FP of .991 [.995 - 99% = .005, .991 - 99% = .001; .005 = 5 * .001], not 0.4% better.
At 3B, I don't know what the percentage of gimme plays is, but let's say it's not 99% but 93%. In that case, Schmidt's .955 gets adjusted to .025 and Brett's .951 gets adjusted to .021. Schmidt, then, is 19% better at avoiding errors.
But avoiding errors is only part of what fielding is about. Fielding a ball cleanly, but then not getting anyone out is obviously less valuable than fielding the ball cleanly and then throwing a runner out. You can count assists per game and see Schmidt beating Brett by 5%, or count double plays made per game and see Schmidt beating Brett by 12%, but these small margins understate Schmidt's true advantage in the same way that fielding percentage did. It's a lot more complicated figuring out which assists and DPs made are routine, and backing those out, but there are several sources that have tried, and they all agree with each other at a high level.
B-Ref has a stat called zone runs: Schmidt beats Brett by 83%.
In Range Factor / 9 innings, Schmidt beats Brett by 115% when compared to league average
In Range Factor / game, the margin is 600%
In defensive WAR, Schmidt's margin is 736%
In what I think is the best measure, WIn Shares, Schmidt's margin is 47%.
And I think that's about right; Schmidt's triple-digit advantages in some of the other measures reflect anomalies in how those measures are created, small sample sizes of some measures once routine/replacement/average are backed out, etc.
The best measure, Win Shares, shows Schmidt as 47% more valuable than Brett defensively, and the second best measure, Zone Runs shows Schmidt 83% more valuable. If you are at the pearly gates and to gain admission you need to say how much better defensively Schmidt was than Brett, pick a number in that range. 50% sounds about right, feels about right, and is supported by the best defensive stats out there.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
1970s reminds me of the guy in the movies who gets beat up and just keeps on getting up and getting up only to be knocked to the ground again and again.
garnettstyle is the guy cheering on our man who's getting clobbered.
The guy just won't quit.
I am now going to be like the guys who can't stand watching the fight anymore as it has become pathetic. I am going to wander off and do something else.
You ever see Cool hand Luke? It sounds like you're describing that scene with Newman and George Kennedy.
How did that movie end?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
1970s reminds me of the guy in the movies who gets beat up and just keeps on getting up and getting up only to be knocked to the ground again and again.
garnettstyle is the guy cheering on our man who's getting clobbered.
The guy just won't quit.
I am now going to be like the guys who can't stand watching the fight anymore as it has become pathetic. I am going to wander off and do something else.
You ever see Cool hand Luke? It sounds like you're describing that scene with Newman and George Kennedy.
1970s no wonder why you only show a part of the quote...lmao. Don't worry, I will keep pasting the whole thing:
You forgot a few:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
@1970s said:
What do George Herman Ruth and George Brett have in common ?
.
Neither can field ground balls at third base...especially in the post season...thereby REDUCING the teams Win Probability....which wasn't even a 'probability', but more of a certainty in Brett's case because they actually did lose those series...LMAO
Same reason why Brett's NEGATIVE WPA in the World Series made him a non factor in their 1980 loss to the MVP Schmidt, and a coattail rider in 1985(as they won because of Saberhagen and a blind umpire). Brett never led his team to World Series victory. In your philosophy, you lose. Again.
Sooo...when you add in the fielding mishaps, Brett's WPA was negative to his team's chances of winning....which is why they didn't probably lose...they DID lose.
Maybe Buckner and Brett should be the question of what they have in common....can't pick up a ground ball in a big game.
Those are the facts below. Giving the other team unearned runs IN THE POSTSEASON on defense are facts in one's post season performance....and go into the FACT that they lost those post season series. Facts.
Another fact: Brett's WPA in World Series play was in the negative. Hence why his team only won one World Series in his career(and they did NOT win because of Brett. They won because of Saberhagen and a blind umpire).
The facts:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
Only drunks have a negative WPA in the postseason.
Correct. George Brett negative WPA in World Series play. Good call.
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
@1970s said:
The best hitters shine in the playoffs and then crap the bed in the World Series. And fielding percentage is all that counts in the regular season, but fielding doesn't count at all in the postseason.
What I can't figure out is whether you don't understand that this is what your argument has been reduced to, or if you do understand it and just enjoy humiliating yourself. Either way, it's entertaining.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
Pretty much everyone here is laughing at your hypocrisy.
Pretty much everyone here is laughing at someone, and I'm certain that it's not me. I tried, I really tried, to view this thread as an elaborate practical joke on your part, and viewed as such you come out looking very clever. But the practical joke, if that had been what this was, was exposed, and a clever man would have called it a day right then. But you persist, and the distance between "1970s" and "clever" has grown so vast that they are no longer even on speaking terms. The good news, though, is that you have joined Drj and PSASAP in my CU HOF. Unlike the MLB HOF, my HOF is very exclusive and it requires a sustained demonstration of impenetrable ignorance to get in. I honestly thought Darin would be the next inductee, but even he has abandoned you on this topic.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
I know that if I just walk away all anyone will remember is what a fool I made of myself here, but if I keep replying, even if I reply like a frightened third grade girl fighting back tears, there's a chance, maybe a one in a million chance, that someone will ride to my rescue and make an argument I'm not bright enough to make. Or maybe everyone else will get tired of laughing at me and they'll walk away, leaving me to claim victory in a battle I lost long ago, and to nobody since I will be completely and uncomfortably alone.
Wow, that got awkward. I gave you a chance to walk away with a shred of dignity intact, but you didn't take it. Remember that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@stevek said:
Mike Schmidt World Series MVP awards: 1
George Brett World Series MVP awards: 0
This case is now officially closed.
Another anti-American joining the fray.
The topic of this thread was that George Brett was the greatest third baseman of all time
because he blew away Mike Schmidt in the postseason
Please go read the stats, or please just simply go away. Perhaps there is a thread on the greatest CU lovers ever that you can find joy in.
This is an educational thread, and staying on topic is of utmost importance.
Now either debate the topic that was presented, or find some other sandbox to play in.
You refuse to acknowledge the overall evidence about Schmidt being better than Brett.
Now you refuse to acknowledge the World Series MVP awards.
It's a good illustration of the old saying that ignorance is bliss.
Your premise is bogus and your reasoning is unsound. Better off admitting it and cutting your losses. But perhaps you just enjoy being blissful.
I only will acknowledge what the thread's premise was about, that George Brett was a much
greater postseason player, putting him over the top. The stats are the stats. They
are irrefutable. LOL+
Except you forgot to add key information. Don't worry, it isn't going away:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
The Middle East will be at peace before this thread is
m
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......
Comments
Sorry, it's too late for you to play dumb and we both know it. You did a valiant job of sticking to an absurd position for as long as you did, but as I said, you slipped, we all saw it, and there's no going back. So who do you really think is the GOAT third baseman, Schmidt or Mathews?
You forgot a few:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Brett's fielding percentage in 1976-1978 ALCS
1976 .769
1977 .895
1978 .917
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
Royals 6 division titles with Brett
Phillies 5 division titles with the player who is supposed to be the goat.
If Brett had played with the Phillies instead of Royals and Schmidt with Royals, numbers probably reverse.
Phillies 6, Royals 5
That what clutch do.
This made me laugh.
Why don't you go do something an actuary does, like sharpen the pencils in your pocket protector.
Well, I'm not proud of it or anything, but one thing actuaries do is laugh at stupid people. So I'm good; but thanks for your concern.
See, you can keep doing this 'til the cows come home, but you already gave it away. By equating "Fielding " with nothing but fielding percentage, you have been making the case that Jose Iglesias is the greatest fielding shortstop of all time. But you laughed at daltex when he said that, showing that you don't believe your own argument. You both believe and disbelieve the same proposition at the same time (i.e., you are mentally defective), or you are pretending to believe something that you don't really believe (i.e., you're a troll). I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're a troll, and no matter how much energy you devote trying to convince me that you're mentally defective I don't think I'll believe it. If you want to see how to convince me of such a thing, see Darin's posts; he's not pretending. "That what clutch do"; seriously, you're missing a humor gene if you don't laugh at that.
Clutch wins three series and lose six?? Good one.
Six division titles in the crappiest division, lmao. Brett cost them the lcs when the royals actually earned a division title(1976-78). See below.
So clutch does not include picking up routine ground balls costing your team unearned runs and the game?? That part of his game negated the hitting part...hence why the Royals were only 3-6 in post season play. Also, Brett was not clutch when it counted most...in the World Series where he was negative WPA...and the Royals only won because of Brett Saberhagen and a blind umpire.
You forgot a few:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Brett's fielding percentage in 1976-1978 ALCS
1976 .769
1977 .895
1978 .917
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
PS and as pointed out before, the Royals only won that many division titles because their division was terrible. In half of those titles, the East had anywhere from two to five teams better than the Royals. 1984 was ridiculously bad.
In the years where the ROyals were great and truly earned division titles...1976-1978 Brett cost them the chance to get to the World Series because he could not field ground balls cleanly.
This made me laugh, but I'm not playing anymore.
It occurs to me that someone besides 1970s might actually be interested to know why fielding percentage is such a poor way to evaluate defensive contributions. The problem with it is that it is basically a counting stat, and as such has no context, and context is the essence of every worthwhile stat.
The context that is missing from fielding percentage is that the overwhelming majority of fielding plays are easy. The classic example is at first base, where the only skill required 99% of the time is the ability to catch a ball thrown directly at you. In that case, a 1B with a FP of .995 is five times better at making plays without committing an error as a 1B with a FP of .991 [.995 - 99% = .005, .991 - 99% = .001; .005 = 5 * .001], not 0.4% better.
At 3B, I don't know what the percentage of gimme plays is, but let's say it's not 99% but 93%. In that case, Schmidt's .955 gets adjusted to .025 and Brett's .951 gets adjusted to .021. Schmidt, then, is 19% better at avoiding errors.
But avoiding errors is only part of what fielding is about. Fielding a ball cleanly, but then not getting anyone out is obviously less valuable than fielding the ball cleanly and then throwing a runner out. You can count assists per game and see Schmidt beating Brett by 5%, or count double plays made per game and see Schmidt beating Brett by 12%, but these small margins understate Schmidt's true advantage in the same way that fielding percentage did. It's a lot more complicated figuring out which assists and DPs made are routine, and backing those out, but there are several sources that have tried, and they all agree with each other at a high level.
B-Ref has a stat called zone runs: Schmidt beats Brett by 83%.
In Range Factor / 9 innings, Schmidt beats Brett by 115% when compared to league average
In Range Factor / game, the margin is 600%
In defensive WAR, Schmidt's margin is 736%
In what I think is the best measure, WIn Shares, Schmidt's margin is 47%.
And I think that's about right; Schmidt's triple-digit advantages in some of the other measures reflect anomalies in how those measures are created, small sample sizes of some measures once routine/replacement/average are backed out, etc.
The best measure, Win Shares, shows Schmidt as 47% more valuable than Brett defensively, and the second best measure, Zone Runs shows Schmidt 83% more valuable. If you are at the pearly gates and to gain admission you need to say how much better defensively Schmidt was than Brett, pick a number in that range. 50% sounds about right, feels about right, and is supported by the best defensive stats out there.
How did that movie end?
It was a failure to communicate.
Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
1970s no wonder why you only show a part of the quote...lmao. Don't worry, I will keep pasting the whole thing:
You forgot a few:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Brett's fielding percentage in 1976-1978 ALCS
1976 .769
1977 .895
1978 .917
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
Syphilis?
You’re boring. Bye-bye.
Neither can field ground balls at third base...especially in the post season...thereby REDUCING the teams Win Probability....which wasn't even a 'probability', but more of a certainty in Brett's case because they actually did lose those series...LMAO
Same reason why Brett's NEGATIVE WPA in the World Series made him a non factor in their 1980 loss to the MVP Schmidt, and a coattail rider in 1985(as they won because of Saberhagen and a blind umpire). Brett never led his team to World Series victory. In your philosophy, you lose. Again.
Sooo...when you add in the fielding mishaps, Brett's WPA was negative to his team's chances of winning....which is why they didn't probably lose...they DID lose.
Maybe Buckner and Brett should be the question of what they have in common....can't pick up a ground ball in a big game.
1970s
Those are the facts below. Giving the other team unearned runs IN THE POSTSEASON on defense are facts in one's post season performance....and go into the FACT that they lost those post season series. Facts.
Another fact: Brett's WPA in World Series play was in the negative. Hence why his team only won one World Series in his career(and they did NOT win because of Brett. They won because of Saberhagen and a blind umpire).
The facts:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Brett's fielding percentage in 1976-1978 ALCS
1976 .769
1977 .895
1978 .917
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
Brett failed to hit when it counted in the World Series. Schmidt did not. Actually, Schmidt carried them to a World Series. Brett was carried to a World Series by Saberhagen and an umpire.
Schmidt was superior as a hitter
Schmidt was superior as a fielder
Schmidt was superior in World Series play. This is all that really matters if you believe in post season results.
Brett had a few more lucky hot streaks hitting in the ALCS
Brett's poor fielding in those ALCS rendered those hot streaks meaningless...and they lost.
They lost....just like you. You lost.
Correct. George Brett negative WPA in World Series play. Good call.
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Brett's fielding percentage in 1976-1978 ALCS
1976 .769
1977 .895
1978 .917
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
What I can't figure out is whether you don't understand that this is what your argument has been reduced to, or if you do understand it and just enjoy humiliating yourself. Either way, it's entertaining.
Pretty much everyone here is laughing at someone, and I'm certain that it's not me. I tried, I really tried, to view this thread as an elaborate practical joke on your part, and viewed as such you come out looking very clever. But the practical joke, if that had been what this was, was exposed, and a clever man would have called it a day right then. But you persist, and the distance between "1970s" and "clever" has grown so vast that they are no longer even on speaking terms. The good news, though, is that you have joined Drj and PSASAP in my CU HOF. Unlike the MLB HOF, my HOF is very exclusive and it requires a sustained demonstration of impenetrable ignorance to get in. I honestly thought Darin would be the next inductee, but even he has abandoned you on this topic.
Mike Schmidt World Series MVP awards: 1
George Brett World Series MVP awards: 0
This case is now officially closed.
Wow, that got awkward. I gave you a chance to walk away with a shred of dignity intact, but you didn't take it. Remember that.
It is now. You've been fired for lack of competency.
You refuse to acknowledge the overall evidence about Schmidt being better than Brett.
Now you refuse to acknowledge the World Series MVP awards.
It's a good illustration of the old saying that ignorance is bliss.
Your premise is bogus and your reasoning is unsound. Better off admitting it and cutting your losses. But perhaps you just enjoy being blissful.
1970s you have been fired from your own thread.......and George Brett still can't pick up a ground ball in the playoffs.
Except you forgot to add key information. Don't worry, it isn't going away:
Here is a quote from an article in the Kansas City Star, by Joe Posnanski, in regard to the 1977 ALCS...which the Royals lost:
"We’re going to beat those ($#&$#%),” Billy Martin said.
Game two, Yankee Stadium: Yankees win 6-2
The big blow was a two-run error made by Brett,"
LMAO.
Those are one of the errors I highlighted earlier for you. So when you add those things into his few lucky hot streaks in the ALCS, the sum result is his WPA was negative, and obviously didn't play good enough to win, or they would have.
Brett's fielding percentage in 1976-1978 ALCS
1976 .769
1977 .895
1978 .917
Are those the fielding perentages of a high school player? LOL, looks like it.
Mike Schmidt WOrld Series WPA .15
George Brett WOrld Series WPA NEGATIVE .12
.
Unfortunately for your argument, we all know Mike Tyson played shortstop, moving to second later in his career.
The Middle East will be at peace before this thread is
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......