“Brett was very versatile and just as effective as Schmidt in his fielding”
And this little diddy as well
“It's almost laughable to hear people on this board say that Schmidt was a better fielder then Brett. Brett was just as good, and brought more to his team being that he was so versatile every year of his playing career.”
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......
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
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......
Is the question best 3B or most valuable to the team? Schmidt logged a helluva lot more time at the position in question. I think there's general agreement that fielding doesn't mean much in this conversation as they are so close. Schmidts numbers slightly better than Brett, exclusive to 3B. Brett slightly better overall, per the numbers you gave...971 IS better than 960...but those numbers aren't exclusive to 3B. Can you show your work? Did you derive that number by averaging averages? Not trying to be difficult... just curious as based on the stats you have there are a few ways to calculate. You've listed seasons in which they played different positions as opposed to games at those positions, etc. Furthermore, it showed that Schmidt was flexible too, which doesn't help the flexibility argument, logging time at SS, 2nd and 1B. They were damn close at 3B, SS and 1B (within thousandths) so the delta is driven by Brett's OF percentage vs Schmidt's 2B percentage. Cmon now.
Fielding and Flexibility are a push. Do you value Power or Average. Simple as that. Personally I'll take 4 less hits/100 and 4 more HRs/100...but that's just me. As I said earlier, I'm not gonna kick anyone in the shins who chooses Brett.
The dumbest thing in this thread are the absolutes and the LOLs. Just agree they're both greats and we can move on to another argument. This one is as settled as it's gonna get...and it's still a pick 'em.
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
There are some misconceptions that you wouldn't know about unless you followed a players' career closely.
For instance, Brett didn't move to first base because he couldn't hack it at third anymore, it was because of
a promising rookie named Kevin Seitzer, who hit .323 his rookie year. Third was Seitzers' natural position, and
the Royals thought it best to move Brett to first to get Seitzers' bat in the lineup.
Just to clear things up for Dallas and the rest of you who never even watched a Royals' game when Brett
was playing.
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......
Comments
@1970’s said
“Brett was very versatile and just as effective as Schmidt in his fielding”
And this little diddy as well
“It's almost laughable to hear people on this board say that Schmidt was a better fielder then Brett. Brett was just as good, and brought more to his team being that he was so versatile every year of his playing career.”
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......
Not so sure that the spectators came out ahead either.
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
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......
Is the question best 3B or most valuable to the team? Schmidt logged a helluva lot more time at the position in question. I think there's general agreement that fielding doesn't mean much in this conversation as they are so close. Schmidts numbers slightly better than Brett, exclusive to 3B. Brett slightly better overall, per the numbers you gave...971 IS better than 960...but those numbers aren't exclusive to 3B. Can you show your work? Did you derive that number by averaging averages? Not trying to be difficult... just curious as based on the stats you have there are a few ways to calculate. You've listed seasons in which they played different positions as opposed to games at those positions, etc. Furthermore, it showed that Schmidt was flexible too, which doesn't help the flexibility argument, logging time at SS, 2nd and 1B. They were damn close at 3B, SS and 1B (within thousandths) so the delta is driven by Brett's OF percentage vs Schmidt's 2B percentage. Cmon now.
Fielding and Flexibility are a push. Do you value Power or Average. Simple as that. Personally I'll take 4 less hits/100 and 4 more HRs/100...but that's just me. As I said earlier, I'm not gonna kick anyone in the shins who chooses Brett.
The dumbest thing in this thread are the absolutes and the LOLs. Just agree they're both greats and we can move on to another argument. This one is as settled as it's gonna get...and it's still a pick 'em.
There are some misconceptions that you wouldn't know about unless you followed a players' career closely.
For instance, Brett didn't move to first base because he couldn't hack it at third anymore, it was because of
a promising rookie named Kevin Seitzer, who hit .323 his rookie year. Third was Seitzers' natural position, and
the Royals thought it best to move Brett to first to get Seitzers' bat in the lineup.
Just to clear things up for Dallas and the rest of you who never even watched a Royals' game when Brett
was playing.
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