@DIMEMAN said:
That's right I'm back. Here is my 35 cents (Dimeman who also collects Quarters) free of charge.
1) If I see "crapped the bed" one more time I think I will scream!
2) To say Dallasactuary doesn't know what he is talking about is silly.......keep up the good work DA.
3) Both men should be in the HOF and both men are!
4) Schmidt is a power hitter and Brett is a per centage hitter. DA explained why Schmidt is the better overall hitter.
5) If I had to chose which to play 3rd I would pick Schmidt because last I heard you want power from the corner players.
6) Neither one is the best 3rd Baseman....that would go to Brooks or Nettles.
7) Neither one is the best overall player ever......that would go to Mays with Williams, Mantle and Musual getting HM.
There you have it free of charge from the Dimeman....JMHO!
Not bad. I agree with 6 out of 7. Brooks and Nettles were better FIELDING 3rd baseman but overall Schmidt (then Mathews) was/were almost as good in the field, and much better offensively.
I love seeing someone mention Musial as one of the best ever!
Good comeback dman!
That's what I meant on #6.....defense only. And yes, Musial was a great player. Living close to STL I got to see him in person when I was a kid.
Point taken on #6 and their great defense isn't possible to argue against.
That being said, I watched many hundreds of Phillies games with Schmidt at third base, and I'm telling ya, the guy was like a vacuum cleaner out there. One thing he did perhaps better than any third baseman I can think of is cover the bunt. He wasn't the quickest third baseman out there, but he had some sort of innate ability to get a jump on a bunt and make the right play. A number of times on a sacrifice bunt, he would grab the bunt and throw the lead runner out at second base. I saw this countless times. He rarely made a mistake or a throwing error, and when he got to the ball he rarely bobbled it or anything such as that. Plays that the scorer would rule a hit for most third baseman because they couldn't make the play or they fumbled the ball but it was a tough play so the scorer didn't give them an error...well Schmidt would make those plays for outs, time and time again. These are facts that stats will not show, but is further proof why those who watched him play, despite Brett's better offense in some categories, clearly rate Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time.
Sometime guys do things that don't show up on a stat sheet.
I used to be amazed at how Justin Morneau went from first to third on singles, for a big man he was amazing! His 2010 season was going to be EPIC until he was injured.> @DIMEMAN said:
These are facts that stats will not show, but is further proof why those who watched him play, despite Brett's better offense in some categories, clearly rate Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time.
Schmidt was a great defensive third baseman. I enjoyed watching him turn the double play with that side arm/underhand throw to 2nd base. That is not an easy throw. It's easier to throw it overhand.
Having said that, one could easily say the same thing about Nettles. He robbed many people of doubles down the line, and singles to left. Brett did as well. Schmidt's agility was no better then theirs. Nettles wasn't even quick. He lifetime stolen base numbers are bad. Brett's stolen base numbers are a little better then Schmidt. Brett was just as quick in his first step as Schmidt, and both were quicker then Nettles.
We can only go on what we saw. The numbers tell us that Schmidt and Brett have pretty identical fielding numbers (.955 to 950). We see their regular season numbers give a slight edge to Schmidt. However, I did watch both Schmidt and Brett in very meaningful games, that some don't take as highly as I do, and Schmidt just doesn't compare to Brett in that category, except for that one great series against the Royals. Just imagine Schmidt's all time postseason numbers if he didn't have that.
George Brett was like a David Ortiz in the postseason. He would lift a team on his back and carry them. Mike Schmidt was just another out in the postseason, outside of one series. It's almost like comparing David Ortiz in the postseason to Alex Rodriguez, and Schmidt was even worse in the postseason then Arod was.
I have to agree with some of this post. Both Brett and Schmidt were fine defensive players.
I like your Fielding % argument over the GG "factor". Schmidt's GG's were nice, but Buddy Bell was winning that award in the AL and then Gary Gaetti. Neither of these guys are great hitters like George. Had these guys played in NL....who knows? But they didn't.
The base stealing numbers are IDENTICLE. Each guy stole 12 bases a year and was caught 6 times. I don't see any advantage here for either player. Schmidt stole 29 one year but was caught 12 times, Mike appeared to stop running almost completely his last 6 years while George ran more at the end of his career. He should have stopped before his last two years but it looks like he wanted the 200 SB.
I completely agree with you if you want to decide who's "Easily the best 3rd baseman of all time" by post season numbers..............then Brett was better than Schmidt.
Both players had over 10,000 regular season PA, George had 184 and Mike had 158 post season PA respectively.
The rest of us are going to base the opinion more on the regular season, only using the post season if the two players are virtually tied, which in this case they are not.
Brett also played about 2 years longer than Schmidt, so when you bring up career totals you aren't being fair. You could also say that George was an average player accumulating numbers his last three seasons, while Mike quit after about 1 1/4, he was not willing to be an average player.
On who was the better hitter, Home Runs are MUCH more valuable than doubles. If it boils down to one number in two similar hitters, look at SLG%.............It's a narrow, but clear win for Mike, with Eddie Mathews (not as good in post season as George either) just edging George for 2nd place. Not that would be a better debate!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
Now that we've proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman, I guess we should discuss what's really important. Was the Philly Fanatic better then the San Diego Chicken ?
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
@1970s said:
Here's a question for those of you who say Schmidt had a greater lifetime OPS then Brett.
Schmidt retired with a lifetime .908 OPS. Brett retired with a lifetime .857 OPS
Advantage Schmidt. We all know Mike was a better power hitter. No doubting that.
However, in his career Schmidt had 13 seasons with an OPS above .800
Brett had 15 seasons with an OPS above .800 (and he only had 1 in his last 5 seasons when he DH'ed as he was getting older).
George Brett's best two OPS seasons were 1,118 and 1,022
Schmidt's best two OPS seasons were 1,080 and 1,004
The only times both of them were above the 1,000 mark.
And Brett's CAREER postseason OPS is 1,023 To put that in perspective, David Ortiz's lifetime OPS in the postseason is .947. Schmidt's is .690, which is pretty much AAA level.
So Brett ended up giving his club 2 more seasons with an OPS above .800 then Schmidt gave his club. Even though Schmidt's OPS was slightly better, Brett still was able to drive in more runs, albeit by 1.
No one seems to be arguing about post season numbers, so I don't know why you keep repeating them.
Brett drove in more runs because he had MANY MANY more opportunities than Schmidt.
Brett had the best single season, but Schmidt had the better average OPS over their careers. .908 vs. .857 is not huge but it shows Mike was a little better. It IS very close, but George is no higher than #3. That's fantastic!
George, you were a GREAT hitter! Just not the best all time at 3B.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
Oh yeah, for you OPS+ people, Gene Tenace had a better career OPS+ then George Brett, and John Kruk was 1 point lower then Brett. LOL. Great stat. LOL.
I never bring up made up numbers. Some like them, I do not.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
Now that we've proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman, I guess we should discuss what's really important. Was the Philly Fanatic better then the San Diego Chicken ?
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
Possibly all the Schmidt supporters crapped the thread?
I know dallas actuary did when he said Schmidt did everything better than Brett.
Career batting average- Brett, .305 Schmidt, .269
But of course batting average isn't important to dallas, so that stat doesn't count.
Its important to everyone who ever played the game, but not the dallas nerd.
@1970s said:
Now that we've proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman, I guess we should discuss what's really important. Was the Philly Fanatic better then the San Diego Chicken ?
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
Possibly all the Schmidt supporters crapped the thread?
I know dallas actuary did when he said Schmidt did everything better than Brett.
Career batting average- Brett, .305 Schmidt, .269
But of course batting average isn't important to dallas, so that stat doesn't count.
Its important to everyone who ever played the game, but not the dallas nerd.
Batting average is a great way to measure a batters ability, so is SLG% and OPS. Schmidt wins 2 of the three.
HR frequency (especially for corner players) is another great way to measure value. Schmidt hit a home run every 15.24 times at bat Brett every 32.64.
Looks more like I am the only one left trying to help you Brett fans understand he was GREAT but not quite the best. I am going to give up now too.
Have a nice evening everyone!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@1970s said:
Now that we've proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman, I guess we should discuss what's really important. Was the Philly Fanatic better then the San Diego Chicken ?
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
Because he didn’t. But he believes if he says it enough times it will stick. There is a lot of that going on these days
mark
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......
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
For a Philly fan, you're not so bad after all, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
For a Philly fan, you're not so bad after all, lol..
Johnny Bench, quote, “If Jerry Grote were on my team, I'd be playing third base.”
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
For a Philly fan, you're not so bad after all, lol..
Johnny Bench, quote, “If Jerry Grote were on my team, I'd be playing third base.”
Speaking of Bench. He was the best all around catcher ever!
@grote15 said:
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
I'm really just trying to make a point. Dallas said Schmidt did EVERYTHING better than Brett, and that
simply is not true. Brett was better at a lot of things. And I stick to my arguement that Brett ran the bases better also,
because I saw a lot of the Royals games and Brett turned many singles into doubles just by pure hustle, as did
Hal McCrae.
Brett - better at hitting for high average, better at hitting doubles, better at hitting triples, better baserunner,
better under pressure(playoff stats prove this), much better at putting the ball in play vs. striking out.
Just to name a few.
Maybe Brett wasn't better than Schmidt overall, but he did do some things better so Dallas actuary is
completely wrong and isn't the baseball expert he pretends to be.
Part of Bretts greatness is that he could do things Schmidt and his contemporaries could never dream of
doing, like have more home runs than strikeouts, which Brett did in 1980 with a very respectable 24 homers
and 22 strikeouts. Who only strikes out 22 times a season these days? And Schmidt never hit over 20 doubles,
triples, and home runs in a season either. Only Brett, Mays and a few others do that.
So I may not really be arguing Brett is better overall than Schmidt, although the Royals wouldn't have
won nearly as many games if Schmidt was on the team instead of Brett, because we had to have a guy who
could produce under pressure since we had very little firepower besides Brett, unlike the star packed Phillies teams.
Wait a minute, Brett was a lot better than Schmidt after all, I guess it was pretty easy to convince myself.
@JoeBanzai said:
Maybe Brett wasn't better than Schmidt overall, but he did do some things better so Dallas actuary is
completely wrong and isn't the baseball expert he pretends to be.
What I was saying was that Schmidt hit for more power, got on base more, ground into fewer double plays and hit better in key situations (those four things cover hitting), and Schmidt was a better fielder. As such, he was better at "everything". There is also the question of baserunning, and if either one of them was measurably better than the other I don't see it, so I ignored that. But if you'd like to hang your hat on whatever microdifference exists there and declare Brett the winner, I won't bother arguing the point because the silliness of caring about that microdifference pales in comparison to the silliness of thinking Brett was better than Schmidt overall, and you got the big question right (or would, if you'd drop that silly "maybe").
If the misunderstanding of what I meant by "everything" was that you thought I meant literally "everything", then my long posts would have be ridiculously long if I have to spell out what ought to be freaking obvious. For the sanity of the people who don't require their hands held in a baseball discussion, however, I will continue to refer to "everything that matters" as "everything".
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Schmidt was one of the best. However, a 390 post 1980 season, and a member of the 3000/300/300 club are more amazing and impressive than anything Schmidt accomplished.
Brett is also the only player in history to accumulate more than 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, 600 doubles, 100 triples, 1,500 RBI and 200 stolen bases.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@JoeBanzai said:
Maybe Brett wasn't better than Schmidt overall, but he did do some things better so Dallas actuary is
completely wrong and isn't the baseball expert he pretends to be.
I did not say the above, just to be clear. I have had some spirited debates with Dallas and would never be foolish enough to say he was "completely wrong" about baseball analysis.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@garnettstyle said:
Schmidt was one of the best. However, a 390 post 1980 season, and a member of the 3000/300/300 club are more amazing and impressive than anything Schmidt accomplished.
Brett is also the only player in history to accumulate more than 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, 600 doubles, 100 triples, 1,500 RBI and 200 stolen bases.
Garnettsyle - a very intelligent man, and wise beyond his years.
Comparing Schmidt to Brett is a little like comparing David Ortiz to Alex Rodriguez. Yes, Alex put up slightly better regular season totals lifetime, but Papi put up MUCH better postseason totals. NY fans had a love\hate relationship with AROD, because he pooped his pants when the team needed him to win championships. Papi is beloved in Boston, very popular, and carried that team on his back when it counted the most. Fans had a love/hate relationship with Schmidt too, so much so that Schmidt went after them in the press, and he wore a wig and sunglasses out on the field once to disguise himself from his booing fans. Like Schmidt, AROD heard the boos too from his fans. Brett was adored by his fans because of what Garnettstyle just posted up there, plus he beat the crap out of solid pitching in the postseason. Something Michael Crap Schmidt could not do.
Hold on here , If I had to choose whether I wanted either AROD or Ortiz straight up I'd pick AROD , Ortiz is only half a player , he literally naps in the dugout for half of every game.
I will say I like them together in the broadcasting booth
Sad thread... Instead of pursuing an argument to suggest there is a best third baseman of all time... How about having a list in no order of the ten best.
This is just painful to read and I expect more instead of what I have read here.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@JoeBanzai said:
Maybe Brett wasn't better than Schmidt overall, but he did do some things better so Dallas actuary is
completely wrong and isn't the baseball expert he pretends to be.
I did not say the above, just to be clear. I have had some spirited debates with Dallas and would never be foolish enough to say he was "completely wrong" about baseball analysis.
I have no idea what happened here; sorry about the misquote.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@coinkat said:
Sad thread... Instead of pursuing an argument to suggest there is a best third baseman of all time... How about having a list in no order of the ten best.
This is just painful to read and I expect more instead of what I have read here.
@1970s said:
Lifetime OPS+ leaders. Gene Tenace is right above George Brett. Beat him by a point.
And we respect people on this board who use this statistic to make a point ? LOL...LOL...LOL
1970s, while I enjoy your Special Olympics posts as much as anyone, it does bother me that you keep dragging Dallas88 into this. Especially if you are going to be posting insults based on falsehoods, it seems very inappropriate to be directing those insults at someone who isn't here to defend himself. Fire away at me to your heart's content, but you should stop taking shots at Dallas88.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
And batting average does matter, just not to Dallas.
Just think how high Schmidts' OBP would have been if he was a .300 hitter. Which is a stat that does
matter to Dallas.
If Schmidt is actually the general consensus best all time 3rd baseman,
its kind of embarrasing that he hit for such a low average.
Ted Williams would wonder if that's the best we could really do, then wave George Brett
onto the field to replace Schmidt. And no one is going to argue with Mr. ballgame. Not even Dallas.
Case closed.
OBP%, SLG% and OPS are all better indicators of a player's production and value than batting average. Why keep fixating on a limited stat when you have more comprehensive stats to do so? Unless it's to manufacture an advantage for the player from your home team?
And for the record., Ted Williams, as great a player as he was, was not a very good ,manager. Superstar players often aren't within the sport in which they excelled.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
.267 is Bench's lifetime batting average.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
I usually agree pretty much with DA, but not on those 2! OMG.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
I usually agree pretty much with DA, but not on those 2! OMG.
He was being facetious.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Darin said:
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
I usually agree pretty much with DA, but not on those 2! OMG.
I would take Ryne Sandberg at second base over Joe Morgan.
And Rogers Hornsby as well.
I've always liked the Pirates, but Bill Mazeroski sucked and is no where near hall of fame material,
so Dallas you should really take him off your sig line.
Stargell is about the lowest batting average guy that I'm a huge fan of, and he hit a very
respectable .282 for his career.
I just really admire the guys who can hit for a high average, like Tony Gwynn. He was a magician with
the bat. It takes real talent to be able to do that, whereas there are plenty of power guys who couldn't do anything
else, Pete Incaviglia, Dave Kingman, guys like that who could hit the long ball but still sucked.
Jose Altuve is amazing and is in the top 3 of my favorite players to watch today.
The best of the best as far as high average guys playing today.
I loved both guys. Two of my favorites growing up. Their defense was relatively equal. Offensively, one hit for power, one hit for average. If I were building a team, which one I take might be dependent on what the rest of my team looked like. We are truly splitting hairs on these guys. Brett had a slightly longer career which helps some of his numbers, but about 40% of it was at a position other than 3B. And I'm sorry, but there are no points for playing 1B/DH in MLB. By 1986 Boggs was the AL all-star starter. By 1987 Brett was the reserve 1B and would continue to be a reserve. Truly, the AS numbers don't mean much but the fact that Boggs could supplant this legend to a reserve role speaks volumes...and the fact that Schmidt played his whole career at 3B vs. 60% for Brett makes Schmidt the winner of the "let's split hairs" debate. And I'm sure if he really wanted to, Schmidt could've logged a few accumulation years at 1B and likely reached 600 homers without affecting his average.
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
@estang said:
I would take both Brett & Schmidt on my team, and be very happy.
I grew up watching the A.L. so Brett left a bigger impression on me.
I will call this debate a "push"
I am not going to wade back into this debate. I made my points in another thread and certainly did not disparage Schmidt in doing so. He was a great player.
Estang, one person who did not come up is a guy that ended up in Minnesota -- Paul Molitor. He was special but always a bit overshadowed by others like Brett and and on his own team, the immensely talented Robin Yount.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@1970s said:
Brett's 3,154 career hits are the most by any third baseman in major league history. He is one of four players in MLB history to accumulate 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, and a career .300 batting average (the others being Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Stan Musial. He was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1999 on the first ballot and is the only player in MLB history to win a batting title in three different decades.
He played 21 seasons with the same franchise, The guy was an absolute hitting machine. In 187 postseason plate appearances, the guy hit .337.
I remember the season he hit .390 The guy was just awesome. I watched Mike Schmidt play his entire career as well, and I would take Brett over Schmidt for my team. I don't think it's even close.
What a joke of a post. Schmidt had a higher OBP, far more power, and was a greatly superior defender. You are right about one thing-it’s not close.
You can make the case that Mike Schmidt was more valuable to the Phillies in 1980 than Brett was to the Royals. Or, rather, contributed more. Brett was incredible, no question - chasing .400 and all that.
He also missed 45 games.
Schmidt, on the other hand, hit "only" .286 but hit 48 homers, won a Gold Glove - and played in 150 games.
>
What a joke of a post. Schmidt had a higher OBP, far more power, and was a greatly superior defender. You are right about one thing-it’s not close.
So tell me, how is a .955 lifetime fielder "GREATLY SUPERIOR" to a .950 lifetime fielder ?
And how did that "power hitter" have less lifetime RBI's then Brett ?
He had a slightly better OBP, but you failed to mention his KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK's, which
coupled with his much lower batting average attributed to the fact that he couldn't drive in more runs then Brett did.
LOL
>
Brett won 1 gold glove, Schmidt won 10. Brett hung on for three years as an average to below average hitter, compiling numbers. Schmidt chose not to do that. Actually Mathews and Boggs were better than Brett. Probably Chipper too. Both were great, Schmidt was better, and has the numbers to prove it.
Comments
One game was with the Dodgers and I got to see Duke Snider also.
I have to agree with some of this post. Both Brett and Schmidt were fine defensive players.
I like your Fielding % argument over the GG "factor". Schmidt's GG's were nice, but Buddy Bell was winning that award in the AL and then Gary Gaetti. Neither of these guys are great hitters like George. Had these guys played in NL....who knows? But they didn't.
The base stealing numbers are IDENTICLE. Each guy stole 12 bases a year and was caught 6 times. I don't see any advantage here for either player. Schmidt stole 29 one year but was caught 12 times, Mike appeared to stop running almost completely his last 6 years while George ran more at the end of his career. He should have stopped before his last two years but it looks like he wanted the 200 SB.
I completely agree with you if you want to decide who's "Easily the best 3rd baseman of all time" by post season numbers..............then Brett was better than Schmidt.
Both players had over 10,000 regular season PA, George had 184 and Mike had 158 post season PA respectively.
The rest of us are going to base the opinion more on the regular season, only using the post season if the two players are virtually tied, which in this case they are not.
Brett also played about 2 years longer than Schmidt, so when you bring up career totals you aren't being fair. You could also say that George was an average player accumulating numbers his last three seasons, while Mike quit after about 1 1/4, he was not willing to be an average player.
On who was the better hitter, Home Runs are MUCH more valuable than doubles. If it boils down to one number in two similar hitters, look at SLG%.............It's a narrow, but clear win for Mike, with Eddie Mathews (not as good in post season as George either) just edging George for 2nd place. Not that would be a better debate!
I don't see where we have proven that Brett was the best all time third baseman. But you sure have yourself convinced.
No one seems to be arguing about post season numbers, so I don't know why you keep repeating them.
Brett drove in more runs because he had MANY MANY more opportunities than Schmidt.
Brett had the best single season, but Schmidt had the better average OPS over their careers. .908 vs. .857 is not huge but it shows Mike was a little better. It IS very close, but George is no higher than #3. That's fantastic!
George, you were a GREAT hitter! Just not the best all time at 3B.
I never bring up made up numbers. Some like them, I do not.
Possibly all the Schmidt supporters crapped the thread?
I know dallas actuary did when he said Schmidt did everything better than Brett.
Career batting average- Brett, .305 Schmidt, .269
But of course batting average isn't important to dallas, so that stat doesn't count.
Its important to everyone who ever played the game, but not the dallas nerd.
Batting average is a great way to measure a batters ability, so is SLG% and OPS. Schmidt wins 2 of the three.
HR frequency (especially for corner players) is another great way to measure value. Schmidt hit a home run every 15.24 times at bat Brett every 32.64.
Looks more like I am the only one left trying to help you Brett fans understand he was GREAT but not quite the best. I am going to give up now too.
Have a nice evening everyone!
Darin is a diehard Royals fan so it's really no surprise that he is the only person in this thread besides the OP that considers Brett better than Schmidt.
That's not a knock against him but simply a fact. I consider Tom Seaver to be the best pitcher of all time, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Because he didn’t. But he believes if he says it enough times it will stick. There is a lot of that going on these days
mark
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......
If it wasn't for his catcher when he was with the Mets, Seaver wouldn't have been nuttin.
For a Philly fan, you're not so bad after all, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Johnny Bench, quote, “If Jerry Grote were on my team, I'd be playing third base.”
Speaking of Bench. He was the best all around catcher ever!
I'm really just trying to make a point. Dallas said Schmidt did EVERYTHING better than Brett, and that
simply is not true. Brett was better at a lot of things. And I stick to my arguement that Brett ran the bases better also,
because I saw a lot of the Royals games and Brett turned many singles into doubles just by pure hustle, as did
Hal McCrae.
Brett - better at hitting for high average, better at hitting doubles, better at hitting triples, better baserunner,
better under pressure(playoff stats prove this), much better at putting the ball in play vs. striking out.
Just to name a few.
Maybe Brett wasn't better than Schmidt overall, but he did do some things better so Dallas actuary is
completely wrong and isn't the baseball expert he pretends to be.
Part of Bretts greatness is that he could do things Schmidt and his contemporaries could never dream of
doing, like have more home runs than strikeouts, which Brett did in 1980 with a very respectable 24 homers
and 22 strikeouts. Who only strikes out 22 times a season these days? And Schmidt never hit over 20 doubles,
triples, and home runs in a season either. Only Brett, Mays and a few others do that.
So I may not really be arguing Brett is better overall than Schmidt, although the Royals wouldn't have
won nearly as many games if Schmidt was on the team instead of Brett, because we had to have a guy who
could produce under pressure since we had very little firepower besides Brett, unlike the star packed Phillies teams.
Wait a minute, Brett was a lot better than Schmidt after all, I guess it was pretty easy to convince myself.
What I was saying was that Schmidt hit for more power, got on base more, ground into fewer double plays and hit better in key situations (those four things cover hitting), and Schmidt was a better fielder. As such, he was better at "everything". There is also the question of baserunning, and if either one of them was measurably better than the other I don't see it, so I ignored that. But if you'd like to hang your hat on whatever microdifference exists there and declare Brett the winner, I won't bother arguing the point because the silliness of caring about that microdifference pales in comparison to the silliness of thinking Brett was better than Schmidt overall, and you got the big question right (or would, if you'd drop that silly "maybe").
If the misunderstanding of what I meant by "everything" was that you thought I meant literally "everything", then my long posts would have be ridiculously long if I have to spell out what ought to be freaking obvious. For the sanity of the people who don't require their hands held in a baseball discussion, however, I will continue to refer to "everything that matters" as "everything".
Schmidt was one of the best. However, a 390 post 1980 season, and a member of the 3000/300/300 club are more amazing and impressive than anything Schmidt accomplished.
Brett is also the only player in history to accumulate more than 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, 600 doubles, 100 triples, 1,500 RBI and 200 stolen bases.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I did not say the above, just to be clear. I have had some spirited debates with Dallas and would never be foolish enough to say he was "completely wrong" about baseball analysis.
Hold on here , If I had to choose whether I wanted either AROD or Ortiz straight up I'd pick AROD , Ortiz is only half a player , he literally naps in the dugout for half of every game.
I will say I like them together in the broadcasting booth
High praise from Pete Rose and some comments
from George Brett:
With apologies to DA....306 lifetime, 10 time all star!
Sad thread... Instead of pursuing an argument to suggest there is a best third baseman of all time... How about having a list in no order of the ten best.
This is just painful to read and I expect more instead of what I have read here.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I have no idea what happened here; sorry about the misquote.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/680370/greatest-third-basemen-since-1920/p1
Personally autographed 3,000 hit game ticket
Lafayette Grading Set
99% of the time, OPS+ is a wonderful analytical tool.
Gene Tenace is the other 1%.
1970s, while I enjoy your Special Olympics posts as much as anyone, it does bother me that you keep dragging Dallas88 into this. Especially if you are going to be posting insults based on falsehoods, it seems very inappropriate to be directing those insults at someone who isn't here to defend himself. Fire away at me to your heart's content, but you should stop taking shots at Dallas88.
He did say Dallas 88 has a huge bias towards George Brett, so you can't be him.
I just find it very hard to believe that the greatest third baseman of all time has a career .267 batting average.
Seems pretty pedestrian.
And batting average does matter, just not to Dallas.
Just think how high Schmidts' OBP would have been if he was a .300 hitter. Which is a stat that does
matter to Dallas.
If Schmidt is actually the general consensus best all time 3rd baseman,
its kind of embarrasing that he hit for such a low average.
Ted Williams would wonder if that's the best we could really do, then wave George Brett
onto the field to replace Schmidt. And no one is going to argue with Mr. ballgame. Not even Dallas.
Case closed.
OBP%, SLG% and OPS are all better indicators of a player's production and value than batting average. Why keep fixating on a limited stat when you have more comprehensive stats to do so? Unless it's to manufacture an advantage for the player from your home team?
And for the record., Ted Williams, as great a player as he was, was not a very good ,manager. Superstar players often aren't within the sport in which they excelled.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Seems ironic that a Killebrew fan would obsess about batting average. Bill James ranks Killebrew as the 7th best first baseman of all time with his .256 average. That is a lower average than the next 41 first basemen ranked behind him, including Greenberg (.313). I will grant you that ranking offensive contributions by batting average is not as bad as ranking defensive contributions by fielding average, but batting average tells such a small part of the story that there's just no reason to worry about it.
And the greatest second baseman of all time hit .270 while the greatest catcher of all time also hit .267; the stat simply isn't very important. If you can see OBP and SLG, then there is no reason whatsoever to look at batting average; it adds nothing to what you already know.
Just curious who you have here as the best second baseman and catcher. If the catcher is not Bench.....I would have to disagree.
.267 is Bench's lifetime batting average.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
+1
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
@DIMEMAN said:
Why even ask a guy who thinks the best hitter and Pitcher ever are Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven?
And the best second baseman of all time is Joe Morgan.
I usually agree pretty much with DA, but not on those 2! OMG.
He was being facetious.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I was joking
I guess I'm now officially a Harmon Killebrew fan! That one surprised me,
but if Dallas says so I guess it must be true.
I do like the guy and have heard he was very good to his fans, but you may be thinking of Joe Banzai.
I would take Ryne Sandberg at second base over Joe Morgan.
And Rogers Hornsby as well.
I've always liked the Pirates, but Bill Mazeroski sucked and is no where near hall of fame material,
so Dallas you should really take him off your sig line.
Stargell is about the lowest batting average guy that I'm a huge fan of, and he hit a very
respectable .282 for his career.
I just really admire the guys who can hit for a high average, like Tony Gwynn. He was a magician with
the bat. It takes real talent to be able to do that, whereas there are plenty of power guys who couldn't do anything
else, Pete Incaviglia, Dave Kingman, guys like that who could hit the long ball but still sucked.
Jose Altuve is amazing and is in the top 3 of my favorite players to watch today.
The best of the best as far as high average guys playing today.
I loved both guys. Two of my favorites growing up. Their defense was relatively equal. Offensively, one hit for power, one hit for average. If I were building a team, which one I take might be dependent on what the rest of my team looked like. We are truly splitting hairs on these guys. Brett had a slightly longer career which helps some of his numbers, but about 40% of it was at a position other than 3B. And I'm sorry, but there are no points for playing 1B/DH in MLB. By 1986 Boggs was the AL all-star starter. By 1987 Brett was the reserve 1B and would continue to be a reserve. Truly, the AS numbers don't mean much but the fact that Boggs could supplant this legend to a reserve role speaks volumes...and the fact that Schmidt played his whole career at 3B vs. 60% for Brett makes Schmidt the winner of the "let's split hairs" debate. And I'm sure if he really wanted to, Schmidt could've logged a few accumulation years at 1B and likely reached 600 homers without affecting his average.
He was great at striking out. I guess that impresses some people.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I would take both Brett & Schmidt on my team, and be very happy.
I grew up watching the A.L. so Brett left a bigger impression on me.
I will call this debate a "push"
Erik
I am not going to wade back into this debate. I made my points in another thread and certainly did not disparage Schmidt in doing so. He was a great player.
Estang, one person who did not come up is a guy that ended up in Minnesota -- Paul Molitor. He was special but always a bit overshadowed by others like Brett and and on his own team, the immensely talented Robin Yount.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
In no order of the ten best...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
What a joke of a post. Schmidt had a higher OBP, far more power, and was a greatly superior defender. You are right about one thing-it’s not close.
You can make the case that Mike Schmidt was more valuable to the Phillies in 1980 than Brett was to the Royals. Or, rather, contributed more. Brett was incredible, no question - chasing .400 and all that.
He also missed 45 games.
Schmidt, on the other hand, hit "only" .286 but hit 48 homers, won a Gold Glove - and played in 150 games.
Where is that clip of a horse on the ground with a guy beating him with a whip!
>
Brett won 1 gold glove, Schmidt won 10. Brett hung on for three years as an average to below average hitter, compiling numbers. Schmidt chose not to do that. Actually Mathews and Boggs were better than Brett. Probably Chipper too. Both were great, Schmidt was better, and has the numbers to prove it.