Totally get the Seitzer play at 3B. Another solid BA guy. In 1987 (Seitzer's AS year) the combo of Seitzer and Brett hit 37 HRs though. Schmidt hit 35 alone. 37 HRs out of your corner IF is a tough number to swallow. They should've traded Seitzer for some power at 1B and kept Brett's 22 HRs at 3B. None of that is germaine to the conversation though. The fielding delta means little to nothing.
The numbers have been laid out. Opinions expressed. All that's left is an actual poll that counts how many would choose Brett or Schmidt. And even that won't change anyone's mind if it's already made up.
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
vintage fun- You may be correct about the HR totals in 1987, but I would wager that KC
was the toughest park to hit home runs in during that time, maybe even now.
The Royals realized that and that's why they built a team based on speed,(Willie Wilson, Amos Otis, Frank White)and
gap hitters (George Brett, Hal Mcrae, Al Cowens).
If the Royals had tried to go with power and somehow traded for Mike Schmidt early in his career, he would
have finished his career with 400-450 homers in spacious Kaufmann Stadium. Probably the low side of those numbers.
A person with a lifetime .970 fielding percentage, or a fielder with a .955 fielding percentage ?
Now you are just intentionally being obtuse or have a medical condition. You took his first baseman stats and adding then in to jack up his fielding percentage.That’s just pathetic. Quit wasting our time. First baseman are suppose to have .990 plus.
I give you just how misleading fielding percentages can be. Miguel Cabrera’s fielding percentage at third is higher then Brett’s and the same as Schmidt. Was he a good fielding third baseman? Fielding percentage offers only one glimpse whether a guy can field. You do love your back of baseball card stats so what can I say. Go try to convince the unitiated
mark
I have to throw in the towel (sorry, spectators) on 1970s, because there's nowhere to go from here, but I have to ask you, Mark - is he really this dumb or is he playing some kind of game? The stupidity, or obtuseness if you prefer, just keeps escalating as the prior stupidity is pointed out. I think what we may be seeing is some kind of dare, because it takes balls of steel to post the stuff 1970s is posting.
And just to be clear to anyone who thinks Brett is better than Schmidt and is taking offense at anything I've written. It's not my job to make that case, but there is a case to be made that you're right and I wish someone would make it so we could have a real discussion. What's got my head spinning, when I'm not laughing out loud, is the absurdity of the case that 1970s (and his lil' shadow Darin) has been making.
Also, just in case anyone can't immediately see what justacommeman is saying, Brett's career fielding percentage is .970 and Schmidt's is .961. But if you take away the games that each of them played at 1B, where a .990 fielding percentage, plus or minus a point or two, is automatic, Schmidt's fielding percentage is .955 and Brett's is .951. Brett has a higher fielding percentage than Schmidt, for what little that's worth, solely because the Royals hid him at first base for 300 more games than Schmidt. That's all there is to it. Fielding percentage is an argument that Schmidt supporters could use if they needed to dig that deep, it is not an argument that works in Brett's favor. In other words, if you're a Brett supporter and you are using fielding percentage to build your case, you have already lost the debate.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
FWIW, Bill James did a recent study in which he went year by year, ranking the top players at each position. He ranked Schmidt as #1 for 1980. The only year in which Brett was #1 was 78.
When I make a good point, which is quite often, Dallas doesn't address it anyway.
BTW- Schmidt wasn't all that better a home run hitter than Brett. George hit 181 HR's on the road, so if
he played in just an average home run ballpark, he would have finished with 362 career home runs.
Still not as many as Schmidt, but when factoring in how many more doubles and triples Brett hit, certainly
a more valuable hitter than Schmidt.
Just to clarify about Dallas' ineptness, I just posted that Brett was moved to first because
of a promising rookie named Kevin Seitzer, and Dallas had to post that the Royals hid him at first.
Just another case of Dallas not knowing much about baseball. You don't want to disturb the rookies'
hitting by making him move to a new position, so you move the veteran to first base because you know
he can handle it. Dallas understands nothing about things like this so he just posts that the Royals hid
him at first.
@markj111 said:
FWIW, Bill James did a recent study in which he went year by year, ranking the top players at each position. He ranked Schmidt as #1 for 1980. The only year in which Brett was #1 was 78.
Bill James probably knows even less about baseball than Dallas, so what's your point?
Let's hear from Baseball Digest, which has been around a lot longer and is more credible than Bill James.
Baseball Digest- " George Brett, Strong Choice for 1980 Player of the Year".
They did pick Schmidt second, probably should have gone with Cecil Cooper, but Schmidt did have a decent
year.
Brett's award as top player of the year from Baseball digest was his second in a row, as they rightfully
picked him as the top player of 1979.
You're right 1970's.
Its just annoying when Dallas is so uninformed about a player like Brett, because he never saw him play
like we did, that he makes up lies and says the Royals hid him at first base.
I do feel a little sorry for Phillies fans that their best player was so terrible under the enormous intensity
of playoff baseball. But it is nice our favorite player knew he had to carry the team and was still able to
do so under that kind of pressure.
NIce being on the correct side of the argument with you 1970's!!
A person with a lifetime .970 fielding percentage, or a fielder with a .955 fielding percentage ?
Now you are just intentionally being obtuse or have a medical condition. You took his first baseman stats and adding then in to jack up his fielding percentage.That’s just pathetic. Quit wasting our time. First baseman are suppose to have .990 plus.
I give you just how misleading fielding percentages can be. Miguel Cabrera’s fielding percentage at third is higher then Brett’s and the same as Schmidt. Was he a good fielding third baseman? Fielding percentage offers only one glimpse whether a guy can field. You do love your back of baseball card stats so what can I say. Go try to convince the unitiated
mark
I have to throw in the towel (sorry, spectators) on 1970s, because there's nowhere to go from here, but I have to ask you, Mark - is he really this dumb or is he playing some kind of game? The stupidity, or obtuseness if you prefer, just keeps escalating as the prior stupidity is pointed out. I think what we may be seeing is some kind of dare, because it takes balls of steel to post the stuff 1970s is posting.
And just to be clear to anyone who thinks Brett is better than Schmidt and is taking offense at anything I've written. It's not my job to make that case, but there is a case to be made that you're right and I wish someone would make it so we could have a real discussion. What's got my head spinning, when I'm not laughing out loud, is the absurdity of the case that 1970s (and his lil' shadow Darin) has been making.
Also, just in case anyone can't immediately see what justacommeman is saying, Brett's career fielding percentage is .970 and Schmidt's is .961. But if you take away the games that each of them played at 1B, where a .990 fielding percentage, plus or minus a point or two, is automatic, Schmidt's fielding percentage is .955 and Brett's is .951. Brett has a higher fielding percentage than Schmidt, for what little that's worth, solely because the Royals hid him at first base for 300 more games than Schmidt. That's all there is to it. Fielding percentage is an argument that Schmidt supporters could use if they needed to dig that deep, it is not an argument that works in Brett's favor. In other words, if you're a Brett supporter and you are using fielding percentage to build your case, you have already lost the debate.
I’m beginning to think he is serious which has me concerned for him.
As for Schmidt and Brett I saw them both play a ton. Brett a little more. By the way I get the total fervent fan thing about Darin. KC is mid market two team sports city. They love their heroes. Their average players become above average. Very passionate and very jaded. They generally have chips on their shoulders. Not too long ago I remember a Royals fan telling me Justin Verlander was washed up and that Danny Duffy was the next big thing. I don’t think Duffy had got a guy out since and Velander has been Cy Young like.
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......
@markj111 said:
FWIW, Bill James did a recent study in which he went year by year, ranking the top players at each position. He ranked Schmidt as #1 for 1980. The only year in which Brett was #1 was 78.
Bill James probably knows even less about baseball than Dallas, so what's your point?
Let's hear from Baseball Digest, which has been around a lot longer and is more credible than Bill James.
Baseball Digest- " George Brett, Strong Choice for 1980 Player of the Year".
They did pick Schmidt second, probably should have gone with Cecil Cooper, but Schmidt did have a decent
year.
Brett's award as top player of the year from Baseball digest was his second in a row, as they rightfully
picked him as the top player of 1979.
Bill James has 3 WS rings. How many do you have? He has made living in baseball for about 40 years. How many years have you made a living studying the game? What teams are paying you for your expertise?
Suggest that the trolls go back underneath the bridge.
@vintagefun said:
The numbers have been laid out. Opinions expressed. All that's left is an actual poll that counts how many would choose Brett or Schmidt. And even that won't change anyone's mind if it's already made up.
That's a great idea. Why not have a poll and see where the posters stand on this issue. I think it would be close.
A person with a lifetime .970 fielding percentage, or a fielder with a .955 fielding percentage ?
Now you are just intentionally being obtuse or have a medical condition. You took his first baseman stats and adding then in to jack up his fielding percentage.That’s just pathetic. Quit wasting our time. First baseman are suppose to have .990 plus.
I give you just how misleading fielding percentages can be. Miguel Cabrera’s fielding percentage at third is higher then Brett’s and the same as Schmidt. Was he a good fielding third baseman? Fielding percentage offers only one glimpse whether a guy can field. You do love your back of baseball card stats so what can I say. Go try to convince the unitiated
mark
I have to throw in the towel (sorry, spectators) on 1970s, because there's nowhere to go from here, but I have to ask you, Mark - is he really this dumb or is he playing some kind of game? The stupidity, or obtuseness if you prefer, just keeps escalating as the prior stupidity is pointed out. I think what we may be seeing is some kind of dare, because it takes balls of steel to post the stuff 1970s is posting.
And just to be clear to anyone who thinks Brett is better than Schmidt and is taking offense at anything I've written. It's not my job to make that case, but there is a case to be made that you're right and I wish someone would make it so we could have a real discussion. What's got my head spinning, when I'm not laughing out loud, is the absurdity of the case that 1970s (and his lil' shadow Darin) has been making.
Also, just in case anyone can't immediately see what justacommeman is saying, Brett's career fielding percentage is .970 and Schmidt's is .961. But if you take away the games that each of them played at 1B, where a .990 fielding percentage, plus or minus a point or two, is automatic, Schmidt's fielding percentage is .955 and Brett's is .951. Brett has a higher fielding percentage than Schmidt, for what little that's worth, solely because the Royals hid him at first base for 300 more games than Schmidt. That's all there is to it. Fielding percentage is an argument that Schmidt supporters could use if they needed to dig that deep, it is not an argument that works in Brett's favor. In other words, if you're a Brett supporter and you are using fielding percentage to build your case, you have already lost the debate.
I’m beginning to think he is serious which has me concerned for him.
As for Schmidt and Brett I saw them both play a ton. Brett a little more. By the way I get the total fervent fan thing about Darin. KC is mid market two team sports city. They love their heroes. Their average players become above average. Very passionate and very jaded. They generally have chips on their shoulders. Not too long ago I remember a Royals fan telling me Justin Verlander was washed up and that Danny Duffy was the next big thing. I don’t think Duffy had got a guy out since and Velander has been Cy Young like.
mark
Yeah, all Royals fans are exactly the same.
Just lost a little respect for you there, Commoner, thanks for all the ridiculous generalities.
But you know nothing about me so I just have to ignore the self righteous crap you just spewed,
People like you who think you're worldly and sophisticated just because you have money are generally a lot more
worthless than your average Royals fan. How's that for a generality.
@markj111 said:
FWIW, Bill James did a recent study in which he went year by year, ranking the top players at each position. He ranked Schmidt as #1 for 1980. The only year in which Brett was #1 was 78.
Bill James probably knows even less about baseball than Dallas, so what's your point?
Let's hear from Baseball Digest, which has been around a lot longer and is more credible than Bill James.
Baseball Digest- " George Brett, Strong Choice for 1980 Player of the Year".
They did pick Schmidt second, probably should have gone with Cecil Cooper, but Schmidt did have a decent
year.
Brett's award as top player of the year from Baseball digest was his second in a row, as they rightfully
picked him as the top player of 1979.
Bill James has 3 WS rings. How many do you have? He has made living in baseball for about 40 years. How many years have you made a living studying the game? What teams are paying you for your expertise?
Suggest that the trolls go back underneath the bridge.
You did start it with a 'For what its worth'.
It wasn't worth anything.
A person with a lifetime .970 fielding percentage, or a fielder with a .955 fielding percentage ?
Now you are just intentionally being obtuse or have a medical condition. You took his first baseman stats and adding then in to jack up his fielding percentage.That’s just pathetic. Quit wasting our time. First baseman are suppose to have .990 plus.
I give you just how misleading fielding percentages can be. Miguel Cabrera’s fielding percentage at third is higher then Brett’s and the same as Schmidt. Was he a good fielding third baseman? Fielding percentage offers only one glimpse whether a guy can field. You do love your back of baseball card stats so what can I say. Go try to convince the unitiated
mark
I have to throw in the towel (sorry, spectators) on 1970s, because there's nowhere to go from here, but I have to ask you, Mark - is he really this dumb or is he playing some kind of game? The stupidity, or obtuseness if you prefer, just keeps escalating as the prior stupidity is pointed out. I think what we may be seeing is some kind of dare, because it takes balls of steel to post the stuff 1970s is posting.
And just to be clear to anyone who thinks Brett is better than Schmidt and is taking offense at anything I've written. It's not my job to make that case, but there is a case to be made that you're right and I wish someone would make it so we could have a real discussion. What's got my head spinning, when I'm not laughing out loud, is the absurdity of the case that 1970s (and his lil' shadow Darin) has been making.
Also, just in case anyone can't immediately see what justacommeman is saying, Brett's career fielding percentage is .970 and Schmidt's is .961. But if you take away the games that each of them played at 1B, where a .990 fielding percentage, plus or minus a point or two, is automatic, Schmidt's fielding percentage is .955 and Brett's is .951. Brett has a higher fielding percentage than Schmidt, for what little that's worth, solely because the Royals hid him at first base for 300 more games than Schmidt. That's all there is to it. Fielding percentage is an argument that Schmidt supporters could use if they needed to dig that deep, it is not an argument that works in Brett's favor. In other words, if you're a Brett supporter and you are using fielding percentage to build your case, you have already lost the debate.
I’m beginning to think he is serious which has me concerned for him.
As for Schmidt and Brett I saw them both play a ton. Brett a little more. By the way I get the total fervent fan thing about Darin. KC is mid market two team sports city. They love their heroes. Their average players become above average. Very passionate and very jaded. They generally have chips on their shoulders. Not too long ago I remember a Royals fan telling me Justin Verlander was washed up and that Danny Duffy was the next big thing. I don’t think Duffy had got a guy out since and Velander has been Cy Young like.
mark
Yeah, all Royals fans are exactly the same.
Just lost a little respect for you there, Commoner, thanks for all the ridiculous generalities.
But you know nothing about me so I just have to ignore the self righteous crap you just spewed,
People like you who think you're worldly and sophisticated just because you have money are generally a lot more
worthless than your average Royals fan. How's that for a generality.
Let’s make no mistake about it. I was speaking directly to you when I stated “”chip on the shoulder”. Of course you know little to nothing about me either and you are making generalizations. I’ve lived in cities that had ZERO sports team all the way to those that have 2 or 3 of every sport. I lived in St Louis for 7 years. Two sports team town at the time. Baseball and hockey. So I have some experience. FYI all my KC friends are exactly like you when it comes to defending their teams and and players as well. So draw from that as well in regards to my comments.
A lot of us think Schmidt has a slight edge over Brett as best 3rd baseman ever. A lot think Schmidt had a slightly better 1980 then Brett including a Bill James. Again razor thin. Bill James is a baseball expert whether you like it or not. He gets paid for his opinions. The fact that you just dismiss his opinions that don’t suit your narrative is your problem not ours. If he said he Brett was better you would cite him. Because he didn’t he’s dumb. Got it
I 100% expect you as a KC fan to think Brett was better. It would be weird if you didn’t. He was great. What I can’t figure out for the life of me why you couldn’t see it the other way when the data is there. I get it you saw Brett play a lot but it doesn’t diminish Schmidt in the slightest. I think you have a hard time believing he was as great. He was. 1970’s is a lost cause on this so whatever on that.
BTW I was born poor and didn’t have two nickels to rub together until I was 35. I scratched and clawed for everything and still do. I was born in the Midwest. You are the very first person to think I’m sophisticated. My friends and family would laugh. BTWII- when I golfed every day in the 1990’s my boss said I hit the ball further then anyone he ever seen. He said I was “country strong” like George Brett. Like Brett I wasn’t big either. I took it as a huge compliment.
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......
@markj111 said:
FWIW, Bill James did a recent study in which he went year by year, ranking the top players at each position. He ranked Schmidt as #1 for 1980. The only year in which Brett was #1 was 78.
Bill James probably knows even less about baseball than Dallas, so what's your point?
Let's hear from Baseball Digest, which has been around a lot longer and is more credible than Bill James.
Baseball Digest- " George Brett, Strong Choice for 1980 Player of the Year".
They did pick Schmidt second, probably should have gone with Cecil Cooper, but Schmidt did have a decent
year.
Brett's award as top player of the year from Baseball digest was his second in a row, as they rightfully
picked him as the top player of 1979.
Bill James has 3 WS rings. How many do you have? He has made living in baseball for about 40 years. How many years have you made a living studying the game? What teams are paying you for your expertise?
Suggest that the trolls go back underneath the bridge.
So no other so called expert has ever disagreed with James? He is no better than the Espn hacks.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I haven't verified this on the Bill James website, but I've read a number of comments on the internet over the years that Bill James has stated words to the effect that...if Mike Schmidt would have had a higher batting average, he would have been the greatest baseball player in MLB history.
I do believe that James probably said that. That's pretty high praise for a baseball player. And it's not surprising considering Schmidt's power and extraordinary fielding ability.
Of course Schmidt didn't have a higher batting average so he isn't the greatest baseball player of all time. But James has Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time, and of course James is exactly right.
As the unofficial ambassador of forum tranquility, I call this debate a draw.
Both Schmitt and Brett were exemplary performers and provided plenty of enjoyment to this former MLB fan.
One thing that the numbers will never reflect is the experience of the hometown fan that relives the ninth inning home run or the near no hitter at his first live baseball game.
Growing up, an Al Kaline home run meant way more to me than a Mickey Mantle grand slam.
Jack Morris was way better to me than the numbers show as I recall sitting in a Chicago hotel room watching his no hitter at Comiskey (damn..I should have been there).
Same is true of Nolan Ryan, who was great...but not the greatest as his velocity endless K's and 7 no hitters didn't make up for a bit better than pedestrian w/l record.
Billy Martin was the best manager in baseball...not because he really was, but because he tossed a BP ball to my dad in the early 1970's.
1970’s you debate like a combination of a zealot and an eleven year old girl. Mindboggling at times. Incoherent the rest.
You think because you keep repeating faulty data and twisting the facts it makes it true? No it just makes you look foolish. Nobody in their right mind or followed baseball closely thinks Brett was a better fielding third baseman then Schmidt. Nobody. Schmidt was a better fielder at third and one of the best ever at the position.
mark
Edited to not make this political. That’s the last thing we need
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......
But James has Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time, and of course James is exactly right.
And the hall of fame voters voted Brett in with a greater majority then Schmidt ?
So which of the "experts" are correct ?
LOL+
So you are aren’t a James fan in this case. You’re into the Hall of Fame voters. Ok then let’s have it your way. In 1997 The BWAA comprised of 36 creme la creme HOF voters voted on the all time greatest team. Schmidt received 21 of 36 first place votes at third base and finished first place in a landslide. Brooks Robinson finished second. He had 13 first place votes.
Just sayin MrTwisty
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......
Here's a very serious question for Bill James. Please let me know if you can find his opinion on whether Brett or Schmidt was a better fielder.
Now, here's a question for everyone else.
If player X from the national league retires with a .318 lifetime average and wins 11 batting titles, and player Y from the American league retires with a .329 batting average and wins 1 batting title, who is the better hitter for average over his lifetime ?
Pitching was the same, and both players had pretty much equal support in their lineup hitting in front of, and behind them.
Who is the better lifetime hitter for average ? The AL player or the NL player ?
This is all I want to know.
For his career, James credits Schmidt with 88.33 defensive Win Shares, Brett with 61.52. Schmidt's top 5 total is 36.6, Brett's is 28.12. In Win Shares per 1,000 innings at third base, Schmidt is 4.51, Brett is 3.73. Of modern third basemen, Schmidt's Win Shares per 1,000 innings is tied with Tim Wallach for the #2 spot behind only Clete Boyer. James credits Schmidt with 6 Gold Gloves (led the league in defensive Win Shares), Brett with 1. HIs analysis is consistent with pretty much everyone else's who has done an analysis, as opposed to speaking out of their posteriors.
Your hypothetical example, not surprisingly, is missing too much information to answer:
Did they play at the same time?
What were the park factors for their respective home parks?
Also, if the AL player played in the DH era, then he has a built in advantage over the NL player. Absent the actual data for the players with respect to runners on third, we'd have to assume that the AL player had more of them - because there are more of every type of baserunner in the AL than in the NL - and more of the AL player's fly outs become sacrifice flies and don't hurt his batting average. A batting average difference of one hit per 90 at bats could easily be explained entirely by the SF difference.
So the answer to your question is "not enough information".
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Edited to not make this political. That’s the last thing we need.
LOL. You drinking now ? Had a few too many ? If you take the time to actually read my post, you'll see that the point I was making was about experts. The entire thought is centered around experts who make predictions. There is nothing "political" at all about the point that was being made. There was no political discussion, ideas, or thoughts.
Geez. And I'm trying to reason with these people ???
LOL+
Try and keep up. You are falling way behind. I made the political comment and retracted it. Not you.
How about them experts YOU cited naming Schmidt as the all time best third baseman. Followed by Brooks Robinson. Between the Schmidt and Robinson they snatched 34 out of the possible 36 first place votes.
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......
@1970s said:
So now you're saying that Greg Nettles was better then Schmidt and Brett during the 1970's because of his WAR.
First you used OPS+, which told me that Gene Tenace was better then George Brett.
Now with WAR, you're telling me that Nettles was better then both Schmidt and Brett during
the 1970's.
Have any of you - the sane ones who can read - noticed that "So, you're saying..." is invariably followed by something that was not in fact said? Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, calls this the "so tell" for cognitive dissonance ("tell" as it used in poker). The person who shows the "so tell" is trying to hold two contradictory thoughts in their head simultaneously, and what you see is their brain's attempt to reconcile those two contradictory things by restating one of them - unhindered by facts or logic - so it is now consistent with the other. Observe:
I never mentioned Greg (sic) Nettles
I haven't mentioned WAR in this thread
I have mentioned more times than I can count in other threads that defensive WAR is a terrible statistic
I never said the "better" player could be identified by OPS+ alone
The last sentence brings them all together but adds "the 1970s", a decade I never mentioned, and a decade in which the three players mentioned played different numbers of seasons.
I just wanted to acknowledge this post as a sort of standard. Not a single statement of fact in it is correct - not one. That's actually hard to do without trying.
As for replying to it - it's impossible! First because it doesn't contain anything resembling a question, second because it's a word salad of false statements that don't make a point, and third because it could only have been written by someone so lost in cognitive dissonance that the possibility they would understand a response is non-existent. I am speechless, and somewhat in awe, that I (we) have just witnessed the Worst. Post. Ever.
But wait, there's more. The rest of my post was a response to his hypothetical AL/NL batter question. He didn't acknowledge that, but then posted his little finger-drumming skeleton thingy implying that nobody had responded to his question. Again, awe. If anyone has designs on ever claiming the Worst. Post. Ever. trophy, I think you should set a different goal; this one has now been locked up forever.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
So now you're saying that Greg Nettles was better then Schmidt and Brett during the 1970's because of his WAR.
First you used OPS+, which told me that Gene Tenace was better then George Brett.
Now with WAR, you're telling me that Nettles was better then both Schmidt and Brett during
the 1970's.
Have any of you - the sane ones who can read - noticed that "So, you're saying..." is invariably followed by something that was not in fact said? Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, calls this the "so tell" for cognitive dissonance ("tell" as it used in poker). The person who shows the "so tell" is trying to hold two contradictory thoughts in their head simultaneously, and what you see is their brain's attempt to reconcile those two contradictory things by restating one of them - unhindered by facts or logic - so it is now consistent with the other. Observe:
I never mentioned Greg (sic) Nettles
I haven't mentioned WAR in this thread
I have mentioned more times than I can count in other threads that defensive WAR is a terrible statistic
I never said the "better" player could be identified by OPS+ alone
The last sentence brings them all together but adds "the 1970s", a decade I never mentioned, and a decade in which the three players mentioned played different numbers of seasons.
I just wanted to acknowledge this post as a sort of standard. Not a single statement of fact in it is correct - not one. That's actually hard to do without trying.
As for replying to it - it's impossible! First because it doesn't contain anything resembling a question, second because it's a word salad of false statements that don't make a point, and third because it could only have been written by someone so lost in cognitive dissonance that the possibility they would understand a response is non-existent. I am speechless, and somewhat in awe, that I (we) have just witnessed the Worst. Post. Ever.
But wait, there's more. The rest of my post was a response to his hypothetical AL/NL batter question. He didn't acknowledge that, but then posted his little finger-drumming skeleton thingy implying that nobody had responded to his question. Again, awe. If anyone has designs on ever claiming the Worst. Post. Ever. trophy, I think you should set a different goal; this one has now been locked up forever.
Dallas, we’ve noticed. Trust me we’ve noticed. It could also be Beaten Posters Syndrome. You know it when a poster is being bludgeoned to death and he has to resort LOL after each of his posts. Or in his case LOL+
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......
Here's a point nobody has brought up.
Brett did play in the AL and faced a DH in the opposing lineup every day. Schmidt faced a weak
hitting pitcher every day in the opposing lineup.
Over the course of his career, how many hard smashes from the opposing DH did Brett have to
try to handle compared to hard smashes from the opposing pitcher that Schmidt had to handle?
Enough to affect their fielding percentages? I'm sure Brett must have handled many hard shots
from the DH but also made some errors that Schmidt was never faced with.
How many weak grounders from a pitcher did Schmidt cleanly handle, that Brett never had a chance
to handle because he's in the DH league?
I've brought up a pertinent point so this post will be ignored by the Dallas expert.
Seems like some in this thread missed their calling in life. They could have been lawyers and made a lot of money. Either that or became insurance salesman, and made a lot of money. LOL
@Darin said:
Brett did play in the AL and faced a DH in the opposing lineup every day. Schmidt faced a weak
hitting pitcher every day in the opposing lineup.
Over the course of his career, how many hard smashes from the opposing DH did Brett have to
try to handle compared to hard smashes from the opposing pitcher that Schmidt had to handle?
Enough to affect their fielding percentages? I'm sure Brett must have handled many hard shots
from the DH but also made some errors that Schmidt was never faced with.
How many weak grounders from a pitcher did Schmidt cleanly handle, that Brett never had a chance
to handle because he's in the DH league?
I've brought up a pertinent point so this post will be ignored by the Dallas expert.
It's possible that this could have some effect, but I don't know that it does, and I don't know how it could be measured. Mostly, it's because what is or is not an error depends on the whim of the official scorer. If a hulking DH hits a screamer down the line and Brett can't handle it perfectly, he's probably not going to be charged with an error (nor should he be). But maybe be did pick up a few extra errors that way from unforgiving official scorers.
Balancing that is that NL third basemen field a LOT more bunts than AL third basemen. They are difficult plays in a different way than screaming line drives, but they are difficult nonetheless. Bad third basemen don't field many bunts, so it's likely a bad third baseman gets a slight advantage when being compared to an AL third baseman, but who cares when we're talking about bad third basemen? Schmidt fielded a lot of bunts, had to pick them clean and make a quick throw in a different direction than he was moving. Prime chances to make errors, and it could be that he was hurt more by this than Brett was by facing the DH. In the absence of data showing otherwise, I think it's likely a wash, or at least so insignificant that it's not worth worrying about. But I don't know.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
Sorry, I almost passed out and am now on oxygen seeing that Dallas took
a good point I made seriously.
Will take me a while to recover from this.
Try making more "good points". LOL
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
Sorry, I almost passed out and am now on oxygen seeing that Dallas took
a good point I made seriously.
Will take me a while to recover from this.
Try making more "good points". LOL
True dat; I take all good points seriously.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I have a question as it relates to this debate. Since we have many knowledgeable and passionate fans here, I'll state that I don't know the answer and I don't have a dog in the fight (Yankee fan).
What is the tipping point where an average hitter trumps a power hitter? Much of the analysis presumes a HR the 'best' hit. But surely, there's got to be a point where you'd rather have the guy up who's more likely to just get a hit. How many times - as fans - are we saying 'Just gimme a single, I don't need a HR.' Yes, I get that a HR is always better than the three other hits but the HR hitter is not always going to homer, you know? I mean, is .250/40 better than .350/25? Always? Big spot aside, just on average I think if want the better average hitter up more often...
Don't consider that last bit Schmidt/Brett if that helps. Just two hypothetical hitters, please.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I mean, is .250/40 better than .350/25? Always? Big spot aside, just on average I think if want the better average hitter up more often...
Don't consider that last bit Schmidt/Brett if that helps. Just two hypothetical hitters, please.
In a vacuum, where everything else is equal, the .350 hitter is better, and by quite a bit.
But all else is rarely equal, and the .250 hitter very likely drew more walks than the .350 hitter. If he drew 100 walks and the .350 hitter drew 50, then they'd be about equal. If the .350 hitter played in Boston and the .250 hitter played in Oakland, then they'd be about equal. The moral of the story is, don't try to decide which of two hitters is better than the other by looking at only their homeruns and batting average.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I mean, is .250/40 better than .350/25? Always? Big spot aside, just on average I think if want the better average hitter up more often...
Don't consider that last bit Schmidt/Brett if that helps. Just two hypothetical hitters, please.
In a vacuum, where everything else is equal, the .350 hitter is better, and by quite a bit.
But all else is rarely equal, and the .250 hitter very likely drew more walks than the .350 hitter. If he drew 100 walks and the .350 hitter drew 50, then they'd be about equal. If the .350 hitter played in Boston and the .250 hitter played in Oakland, then they'd be about equal. The moral of the story is, don't try to decide which of two hitters is better than the other by looking at only their homeruns and batting average.
Excellent post.
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.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I mean, is .250/40 better than .350/25? Always? Big spot aside, just on average I think if want the better average hitter up more often...
Don't consider that last bit Schmidt/Brett if that helps. Just two hypothetical hitters, please.
In a vacuum, where everything else is equal, the .350 hitter is better, and by quite a bit.
But all else is rarely equal, and the .250 hitter very likely drew more walks than the .350 hitter. If he drew 100 walks and the .350 hitter drew 50, then they'd be about equal. If the .350 hitter played in Boston and the .250 hitter played in Oakland, then they'd be about equal. The moral of the story is, don't try to decide which of two hitters is better than the other by looking at only their homeruns and batting average.
Dallas forgot to mention strikeouts.
If you have a .390 hitter with 24 HR and only 22 strikeouts,
take him every time over a .286 hitter with 48 HR and 119 strikeouts.
Dallas says it would be a tossup between two players with these numbers, so please don't listen to him.
The .390 hitter who rarely strikes out, even when he does make an out, is moving a lot of runners up
a base simply by putting the ball in play.
Its already been explained here how the .390 hitter could go hitless for 35 games (yes games, not at bats)
and still have a higher average than the .286 hitter.
So generally, go with the high average hitter. They're much more skilled at putting the ball in play
and moving runners, in contrast to the guy who tries for a home run every time up, usually killing rallies
when your team needs you most.
Just to show the importance of a high batting average over a low batting average.
Everyone knows Brett had more career at bats than Schmidt.
Brett had 10,349 at bats compared to Schmidts 8,352.
So Brett had 1,997 more at bats.
What would Schmidts' batting average have to be to raise his average from his pedestrian
.267 up to Brett's .305 if Schmidt could have those additional 1,997 more at bats.
He would have to go an astonishing 920-1,997 which is a .461 clip to become as skilled as George
and raise his career average to .305!
Kind of shows the value of a high batting average versus a low one.
If you're wondering why Hank Aaron was so much better than Schmidt, this is the reason exactly.
You see, Hank Aaron was a career .305 hitter.
And the next time you see Dallas post that batting average isn't important,
ask him who was a better hitter, Hank Aaron or Mike Schmidt.
@garnettstyle said:
Darin, Wheaties, and 1970's have brought up some good points.
Darin and Wheaties may have but 1970's just flat out made something up, and what he made up is simply not true. The leader in pitches per plate appearance this year (Aaron Hicks) faces 4.26 pitches per plate appearance. The "makes pitchers work" idea has no basis in fact; we all remember individual at bats where a pitcher had to throw a dozen or more pitches to get an out, but over the course of a season, and certainly over a career, the difference between the high and low is about a single pitch per at bat (varies by about half a pitch around the mean). And, completely contrary to what 1970s said, the ones that will bubble their way to the top - which really ought to be obvious - are the batters who get a lot of walks. When the league average for pitches per plate appearance is less than 4, every walk is an above average event.
I picked a couple names off the top of my head to represent high average hitters and low average/high walk hitters form recent years (pitches per plate appearance wasn't tracked until 1988) - Ichiro and Jose Bautista. Ichiro faced 3.63 pitches per plate appearance (below the league average of 3.80) and Bautista faced 4.2 (league average 3.81). I'm sure everyone remembers an at bat where it took 15 pitches to get Ichiro out, and lots of at bats where Bautista struck out on three pitches or popped out on the first pitch, but over time the walks added up to more pitches. Wade Boggs, for the years where the stat was tracked, did have a high pitch per plate appearance count (4.13), but he also walked a lot. If you look year by year his P/PA was higher when his walks were higher and got lower as his walks dropped.
But don't let any of these stats distract from the fact that pitches per plate appearance vary hardly at all from one batter to another, and over the course of most any game, and certainly over the course of any season or career, it has no effect at all on how long a starting pitcher stays in the game.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
Veterans Stadium field dimensions. 330 left and right. 371 left and right center. 408 center
Kaufmann Stadium field dimension. 330 left and right. 387 left and right center. 410 center
Put that into your home run analysis. Which player had it easier ? LOL +++
Just in case this misleads anyone, OPS+ (and WAR and Win Shares, and any decent stat) takes all of this into account. To the degree that it is easier to score runs in one park over another, for two players with identical stats the one in the easy park will have a lower OPS+ than the one in the hard park. Schmidt does take about a 1% hit relative to Brett in his OPS+ for the park factor.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Grote- Instead of 'liking' all of Dallas' posts or telling him, 'very good post' Dallas,
you could just save time and put 'Official defender of Dallasactuary' in your sigline. LOL.
Don't feel bad. As soon as you post something that makes sense and is free of misconception, I'll like your post, too. In the mean time, you still have 1970s at your side, 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:
Don't feel bad. As soon as you post something that makes sense, I'll like your post, too. In the mean time, you still have 1970s at your side.
I’m still waiting for 1970’s to post something that remotely makes sense so I can hit him up with an agree.
At the end of the day there can only be one Greatest Third Baseman of All- Time and that’s Mike Schmidt. He is the Highlander. And guess what? George Brett was great also.
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......
@Darin said:
Fair enough Grote- thought posting that you always take .390 over .286 made perfect sense,
but there are some terribly feeble minded folks on here.
And if the .390 hitter misses over a quarter of that season sitting on the bench and the .286 hitter wins the World Series MVP vs the very team the .390 hitter played for, how does that affect your decision?
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’m still waiting for 1970’s to post something that remotely makes sense so I can hit him up with an agree.
mark
The Detroit Lions suck.
That I can get behind. “Agree”
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
1970-S...you have the wrong George as 3B GOAT.
George Kell had a lifetime BA of .306 to Brett's .305.
Kell had a 3B fielding average of .954 to Brett's .951.
I suppose if we narrow the metrics enough, George Jetson could be the 3B stud.
Totally get the Seitzer play at 3B. Another solid BA guy. In 1987 (Seitzer's AS year) the combo of Seitzer and Brett hit 37 HRs though. Schmidt hit 35 alone. 37 HRs out of your corner IF is a tough number to swallow. They should've traded Seitzer for some power at 1B and kept Brett's 22 HRs at 3B. None of that is germaine to the conversation though. The fielding delta means little to nothing.
The numbers have been laid out. Opinions expressed. All that's left is an actual poll that counts how many would choose Brett or Schmidt. And even that won't change anyone's mind if it's already made up.
vintage fun- You may be correct about the HR totals in 1987, but I would wager that KC
was the toughest park to hit home runs in during that time, maybe even now.
The Royals realized that and that's why they built a team based on speed,(Willie Wilson, Amos Otis, Frank White)and
gap hitters (George Brett, Hal Mcrae, Al Cowens).
If the Royals had tried to go with power and somehow traded for Mike Schmidt early in his career, he would
have finished his career with 400-450 homers in spacious Kaufmann Stadium. Probably the low side of those numbers.
>
Though your logic is flawed, your ability to extend your post count is enviable.
Which is better, 10 gold gloves, or 1?
If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger.
I have to throw in the towel (sorry, spectators) on 1970s, because there's nowhere to go from here, but I have to ask you, Mark - is he really this dumb or is he playing some kind of game? The stupidity, or obtuseness if you prefer, just keeps escalating as the prior stupidity is pointed out. I think what we may be seeing is some kind of dare, because it takes balls of steel to post the stuff 1970s is posting.
And just to be clear to anyone who thinks Brett is better than Schmidt and is taking offense at anything I've written. It's not my job to make that case, but there is a case to be made that you're right and I wish someone would make it so we could have a real discussion. What's got my head spinning, when I'm not laughing out loud, is the absurdity of the case that 1970s (and his lil' shadow Darin) has been making.
Also, just in case anyone can't immediately see what justacommeman is saying, Brett's career fielding percentage is .970 and Schmidt's is .961. But if you take away the games that each of them played at 1B, where a .990 fielding percentage, plus or minus a point or two, is automatic, Schmidt's fielding percentage is .955 and Brett's is .951. Brett has a higher fielding percentage than Schmidt, for what little that's worth, solely because the Royals hid him at first base for 300 more games than Schmidt. That's all there is to it. Fielding percentage is an argument that Schmidt supporters could use if they needed to dig that deep, it is not an argument that works in Brett's favor. In other words, if you're a Brett supporter and you are using fielding percentage to build your case, you have already lost the debate.
FWIW, Bill James did a recent study in which he went year by year, ranking the top players at each position. He ranked Schmidt as #1 for 1980. The only year in which Brett was #1 was 78.
OK, I can't resist one more. What's better, .974 or .971?
LOL+LOL++
Dave Kingman was clearly a better fielder than Brooks Robinson. Tell me where my logic is flawed.
When I make a good point, which is quite often, Dallas doesn't address it anyway.
BTW- Schmidt wasn't all that better a home run hitter than Brett. George hit 181 HR's on the road, so if
he played in just an average home run ballpark, he would have finished with 362 career home runs.
Still not as many as Schmidt, but when factoring in how many more doubles and triples Brett hit, certainly
a more valuable hitter than Schmidt.
Just to clarify about Dallas' ineptness, I just posted that Brett was moved to first because
of a promising rookie named Kevin Seitzer, and Dallas had to post that the Royals hid him at first.
Just another case of Dallas not knowing much about baseball. You don't want to disturb the rookies'
hitting by making him move to a new position, so you move the veteran to first base because you know
he can handle it. Dallas understands nothing about things like this so he just posts that the Royals hid
him at first.
Bill James probably knows even less about baseball than Dallas, so what's your point?
Let's hear from Baseball Digest, which has been around a lot longer and is more credible than Bill James.
Baseball Digest- " George Brett, Strong Choice for 1980 Player of the Year".
They did pick Schmidt second, probably should have gone with Cecil Cooper, but Schmidt did have a decent
year.
Brett's award as top player of the year from Baseball digest was his second in a row, as they rightfully
picked him as the top player of 1979.
You're right 1970's.
Its just annoying when Dallas is so uninformed about a player like Brett, because he never saw him play
like we did, that he makes up lies and says the Royals hid him at first base.
I do feel a little sorry for Phillies fans that their best player was so terrible under the enormous intensity
of playoff baseball. But it is nice our favorite player knew he had to carry the team and was still able to
do so under that kind of pressure.
NIce being on the correct side of the argument with you 1970's!!
I’m beginning to think he is serious which has me concerned for him.
As for Schmidt and Brett I saw them both play a ton. Brett a little more. By the way I get the total fervent fan thing about Darin. KC is mid market two team sports city. They love their heroes. Their average players become above average. Very passionate and very jaded. They generally have chips on their shoulders. Not too long ago I remember a Royals fan telling me Justin Verlander was washed up and that Danny Duffy was the next big thing. I don’t think Duffy had got a guy out since and Velander has been Cy Young like.
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......
Bill James has 3 WS rings. How many do you have? He has made living in baseball for about 40 years. How many years have you made a living studying the game? What teams are paying you for your expertise?
Suggest that the trolls go back underneath the bridge.
That's a great idea. Why not have a poll and see where the posters stand on this issue. I think it would be close.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Yeah, all Royals fans are exactly the same.
Just lost a little respect for you there, Commoner, thanks for all the ridiculous generalities.
But you know nothing about me so I just have to ignore the self righteous crap you just spewed,
People like you who think you're worldly and sophisticated just because you have money are generally a lot more
worthless than your average Royals fan. How's that for a generality.
You did start it with a 'For what its worth'.
It wasn't worth anything.
Let’s make no mistake about it. I was speaking directly to you when I stated “”chip on the shoulder”. Of course you know little to nothing about me either and you are making generalizations. I’ve lived in cities that had ZERO sports team all the way to those that have 2 or 3 of every sport. I lived in St Louis for 7 years. Two sports team town at the time. Baseball and hockey. So I have some experience. FYI all my KC friends are exactly like you when it comes to defending their teams and and players as well. So draw from that as well in regards to my comments.
A lot of us think Schmidt has a slight edge over Brett as best 3rd baseman ever. A lot think Schmidt had a slightly better 1980 then Brett including a Bill James. Again razor thin. Bill James is a baseball expert whether you like it or not. He gets paid for his opinions. The fact that you just dismiss his opinions that don’t suit your narrative is your problem not ours. If he said he Brett was better you would cite him. Because he didn’t he’s dumb. Got it
I 100% expect you as a KC fan to think Brett was better. It would be weird if you didn’t. He was great. What I can’t figure out for the life of me why you couldn’t see it the other way when the data is there. I get it you saw Brett play a lot but it doesn’t diminish Schmidt in the slightest. I think you have a hard time believing he was as great. He was. 1970’s is a lost cause on this so whatever on that.
BTW I was born poor and didn’t have two nickels to rub together until I was 35. I scratched and clawed for everything and still do. I was born in the Midwest. You are the very first person to think I’m sophisticated. My friends and family would laugh. BTWII- when I golfed every day in the 1990’s my boss said I hit the ball further then anyone he ever seen. He said I was “country strong” like George Brett. Like Brett I wasn’t big either. I took it as a huge compliment.
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......
So no other so called expert has ever disagreed with James? He is no better than the Espn hacks.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I haven't verified this on the Bill James website, but I've read a number of comments on the internet over the years that Bill James has stated words to the effect that...if Mike Schmidt would have had a higher batting average, he would have been the greatest baseball player in MLB history.
I do believe that James probably said that. That's pretty high praise for a baseball player. And it's not surprising considering Schmidt's power and extraordinary fielding ability.
Of course Schmidt didn't have a higher batting average so he isn't the greatest baseball player of all time. But James has Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time, and of course James is exactly right.
Mr. James
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
As the unofficial ambassador of forum tranquility, I call this debate a draw.
Both Schmitt and Brett were exemplary performers and provided plenty of enjoyment to this former MLB fan.
One thing that the numbers will never reflect is the experience of the hometown fan that relives the ninth inning home run or the near no hitter at his first live baseball game.
Growing up, an Al Kaline home run meant way more to me than a Mickey Mantle grand slam.
Jack Morris was way better to me than the numbers show as I recall sitting in a Chicago hotel room watching his no hitter at Comiskey (damn..I should have been there).
Same is true of Nolan Ryan, who was great...but not the greatest as his velocity endless K's and 7 no hitters didn't make up for a bit better than pedestrian w/l record.
Billy Martin was the best manager in baseball...not because he really was, but because he tossed a BP ball to my dad in the early 1970's.
Stats are great but the game is way better.
1970’s you debate like a combination of a zealot and an eleven year old girl. Mindboggling at times. Incoherent the rest.
You think because you keep repeating faulty data and twisting the facts it makes it true? No it just makes you look foolish. Nobody in their right mind or followed baseball closely thinks Brett was a better fielding third baseman then Schmidt. Nobody. Schmidt was a better fielder at third and one of the best ever at the position.
mark
Edited to not make this political. That’s the last thing we need
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......
So you are aren’t a James fan in this case. You’re into the Hall of Fame voters. Ok then let’s have it your way. In 1997 The BWAA comprised of 36 creme la creme HOF voters voted on the all time greatest team. Schmidt received 21 of 36 first place votes at third base and finished first place in a landslide. Brooks Robinson finished second. He had 13 first place votes.
Just sayin MrTwisty
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......
i have crapped the bed sooo many times since this thread started
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
For his career, James credits Schmidt with 88.33 defensive Win Shares, Brett with 61.52. Schmidt's top 5 total is 36.6, Brett's is 28.12. In Win Shares per 1,000 innings at third base, Schmidt is 4.51, Brett is 3.73. Of modern third basemen, Schmidt's Win Shares per 1,000 innings is tied with Tim Wallach for the #2 spot behind only Clete Boyer. James credits Schmidt with 6 Gold Gloves (led the league in defensive Win Shares), Brett with 1. HIs analysis is consistent with pretty much everyone else's who has done an analysis, as opposed to speaking out of their posteriors.
Your hypothetical example, not surprisingly, is missing too much information to answer:
Did they play at the same time?
What were the park factors for their respective home parks?
Also, if the AL player played in the DH era, then he has a built in advantage over the NL player. Absent the actual data for the players with respect to runners on third, we'd have to assume that the AL player had more of them - because there are more of every type of baserunner in the AL than in the NL - and more of the AL player's fly outs become sacrifice flies and don't hurt his batting average. A batting average difference of one hit per 90 at bats could easily be explained entirely by the SF difference.
So the answer to your question is "not enough information".
Try and keep up. You are falling way behind. I made the political comment and retracted it. Not you.
How about them experts YOU cited naming Schmidt as the all time best third baseman. Followed by Brooks Robinson. Between the Schmidt and Robinson they snatched 34 out of the possible 36 first place votes.
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......
Have any of you - the sane ones who can read - noticed that "So, you're saying..." is invariably followed by something that was not in fact said? Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, calls this the "so tell" for cognitive dissonance ("tell" as it used in poker). The person who shows the "so tell" is trying to hold two contradictory thoughts in their head simultaneously, and what you see is their brain's attempt to reconcile those two contradictory things by restating one of them - unhindered by facts or logic - so it is now consistent with the other. Observe:
I just wanted to acknowledge this post as a sort of standard. Not a single statement of fact in it is correct - not one. That's actually hard to do without trying.
As for replying to it - it's impossible! First because it doesn't contain anything resembling a question, second because it's a word salad of false statements that don't make a point, and third because it could only have been written by someone so lost in cognitive dissonance that the possibility they would understand a response is non-existent. I am speechless, and somewhat in awe, that I (we) have just witnessed the Worst. Post. Ever.
But wait, there's more. The rest of my post was a response to his hypothetical AL/NL batter question. He didn't acknowledge that, but then posted his little finger-drumming skeleton thingy implying that nobody had responded to his question. Again, awe. If anyone has designs on ever claiming the Worst. Post. Ever. trophy, I think you should set a different goal; this one has now been locked up forever.
Dallas, we’ve noticed. Trust me we’ve noticed. It could also be Beaten Posters Syndrome. You know it when a poster is being bludgeoned to death and he has to resort LOL after each of his posts. Or in his case LOL+
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......
Here's a point nobody has brought up.
Brett did play in the AL and faced a DH in the opposing lineup every day. Schmidt faced a weak
hitting pitcher every day in the opposing lineup.
Over the course of his career, how many hard smashes from the opposing DH did Brett have to
try to handle compared to hard smashes from the opposing pitcher that Schmidt had to handle?
Enough to affect their fielding percentages? I'm sure Brett must have handled many hard shots
from the DH but also made some errors that Schmidt was never faced with.
How many weak grounders from a pitcher did Schmidt cleanly handle, that Brett never had a chance
to handle because he's in the DH league?
I've brought up a pertinent point so this post will be ignored by the Dallas expert.
Seems like some in this thread missed their calling in life. They could have been lawyers and made a lot of money. Either that or became insurance salesman, and made a lot of money. LOL
It's possible that this could have some effect, but I don't know that it does, and I don't know how it could be measured. Mostly, it's because what is or is not an error depends on the whim of the official scorer. If a hulking DH hits a screamer down the line and Brett can't handle it perfectly, he's probably not going to be charged with an error (nor should he be). But maybe be did pick up a few extra errors that way from unforgiving official scorers.
Balancing that is that NL third basemen field a LOT more bunts than AL third basemen. They are difficult plays in a different way than screaming line drives, but they are difficult nonetheless. Bad third basemen don't field many bunts, so it's likely a bad third baseman gets a slight advantage when being compared to an AL third baseman, but who cares when we're talking about bad third basemen? Schmidt fielded a lot of bunts, had to pick them clean and make a quick throw in a different direction than he was moving. Prime chances to make errors, and it could be that he was hurt more by this than Brett was by facing the DH. In the absence of data showing otherwise, I think it's likely a wash, or at least so insignificant that it's not worth worrying about. But I don't know.
Sorry, I almost passed out and am now on oxygen seeing that Dallas took
a good point I made seriously.
Will take me a while to recover from this.
Try making more "good points". LOL
True dat; I take all good points seriously.
I have a question as it relates to this debate. Since we have many knowledgeable and passionate fans here, I'll state that I don't know the answer and I don't have a dog in the fight (Yankee fan).
What is the tipping point where an average hitter trumps a power hitter? Much of the analysis presumes a HR the 'best' hit. But surely, there's got to be a point where you'd rather have the guy up who's more likely to just get a hit. How many times - as fans - are we saying 'Just gimme a single, I don't need a HR.' Yes, I get that a HR is always better than the three other hits but the HR hitter is not always going to homer, you know? I mean, is .250/40 better than .350/25? Always? Big spot aside, just on average I think if want the better average hitter up more often...
Don't consider that last bit Schmidt/Brett if that helps. Just two hypothetical hitters, please.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
In a vacuum, where everything else is equal, the .350 hitter is better, and by quite a bit.
But all else is rarely equal, and the .250 hitter very likely drew more walks than the .350 hitter. If he drew 100 walks and the .350 hitter drew 50, then they'd be about equal. If the .350 hitter played in Boston and the .250 hitter played in Oakland, then they'd be about equal. The moral of the story is, don't try to decide which of two hitters is better than the other by looking at only their homeruns and batting average.
Excellent post.
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, Wheaties, and 1970's have brought up some good points.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Dallas forgot to mention strikeouts.
If you have a .390 hitter with 24 HR and only 22 strikeouts,
take him every time over a .286 hitter with 48 HR and 119 strikeouts.
Dallas says it would be a tossup between two players with these numbers, so please don't listen to him.
The .390 hitter who rarely strikes out, even when he does make an out, is moving a lot of runners up
a base simply by putting the ball in play.
Its already been explained here how the .390 hitter could go hitless for 35 games (yes games, not at bats)
and still have a higher average than the .286 hitter.
So generally, go with the high average hitter. They're much more skilled at putting the ball in play
and moving runners, in contrast to the guy who tries for a home run every time up, usually killing rallies
when your team needs you most.
Just to show the importance of a high batting average over a low batting average.
Everyone knows Brett had more career at bats than Schmidt.
Brett had 10,349 at bats compared to Schmidts 8,352.
So Brett had 1,997 more at bats.
What would Schmidts' batting average have to be to raise his average from his pedestrian
.267 up to Brett's .305 if Schmidt could have those additional 1,997 more at bats.
He would have to go an astonishing 920-1,997 which is a .461 clip to become as skilled as George
and raise his career average to .305!
Kind of shows the value of a high batting average versus a low one.
If you're wondering why Hank Aaron was so much better than Schmidt, this is the reason exactly.
You see, Hank Aaron was a career .305 hitter.
And the next time you see Dallas post that batting average isn't important,
ask him who was a better hitter, Hank Aaron or Mike Schmidt.
Darin and Wheaties may have but 1970's just flat out made something up, and what he made up is simply not true. The leader in pitches per plate appearance this year (Aaron Hicks) faces 4.26 pitches per plate appearance. The "makes pitchers work" idea has no basis in fact; we all remember individual at bats where a pitcher had to throw a dozen or more pitches to get an out, but over the course of a season, and certainly over a career, the difference between the high and low is about a single pitch per at bat (varies by about half a pitch around the mean). And, completely contrary to what 1970s said, the ones that will bubble their way to the top - which really ought to be obvious - are the batters who get a lot of walks. When the league average for pitches per plate appearance is less than 4, every walk is an above average event.
I picked a couple names off the top of my head to represent high average hitters and low average/high walk hitters form recent years (pitches per plate appearance wasn't tracked until 1988) - Ichiro and Jose Bautista. Ichiro faced 3.63 pitches per plate appearance (below the league average of 3.80) and Bautista faced 4.2 (league average 3.81). I'm sure everyone remembers an at bat where it took 15 pitches to get Ichiro out, and lots of at bats where Bautista struck out on three pitches or popped out on the first pitch, but over time the walks added up to more pitches. Wade Boggs, for the years where the stat was tracked, did have a high pitch per plate appearance count (4.13), but he also walked a lot. If you look year by year his P/PA was higher when his walks were higher and got lower as his walks dropped.
But don't let any of these stats distract from the fact that pitches per plate appearance vary hardly at all from one batter to another, and over the course of most any game, and certainly over the course of any season or career, it has no effect at all on how long a starting pitcher stays in the game.
Just in case this misleads anyone, OPS+ (and WAR and Win Shares, and any decent stat) takes all of this into account. To the degree that it is easier to score runs in one park over another, for two players with identical stats the one in the easy park will have a lower OPS+ than the one in the hard park. Schmidt does take about a 1% hit relative to Brett in his OPS+ for the park factor.
Grote- Instead of 'liking' all of Dallas' posts or telling him, 'very good post' Dallas,
you could just save time and put 'Official defender of Dallasactuary' in your sigline. LOL.
Don't feel bad. As soon as you post something that makes sense and is free of misconception, I'll like your post, too. In the mean time, you still have 1970s at your side, 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.
I’m still waiting for 1970’s to post something that remotely makes sense so I can hit him up with an agree.
At the end of the day there can only be one Greatest Third Baseman of All- Time and that’s Mike Schmidt. He is the Highlander. And guess what? George Brett was great also.
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......
Fair enough Grote- thought posting that you always take .390 over .286 made perfect sense,
but there are some terribly feeble minded folks on here.
And if the .390 hitter misses over a quarter of that season sitting on the bench and the .286 hitter wins the World Series MVP vs the very team the .390 hitter played for, how does that affect your decision?
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.
That I can get behind. “Agree”
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......