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......
@Darin said:
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.
Dallasactuary = Dallas88 = grote15
Why else would someone continuously visit a thread, make no comments, but just
hit agree buttons.
A. They have no life .
B. They are the same.
You make the call.
You must have missed my posts in this thread about 10 pages ago before you started posting repeatedly and making less and less sense. I don't have the time or patience of Dallas to combat that.
At least we agree on Barry Sanders.
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.
justacommeman- Regarding your statement about Schmidt being best all time and Brett being great also,
I still think when the all time greatest team is playing Ted Williams would look over at third base and say,
what is Schmidt doing there, I saw Brett make a run at .400 but Schmidt never came close to
a career average of .300!
Then he would stop the game and bring in Brett to replace Schmidt.
@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?
Darin, am curious to hear your answer to this question.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Darin said:
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?
You see that’s the fly in their ointment. In 1980 Schmidt put together a monster year which included a MVP regular season and an MVP World Series. While the .390 average ( fantastic BTW even with missing a ton of games ) gets thrown around Schmidt lead the league in HR’s, RBI’s, SLG, OPS, OPS+, Total bases and a Gold Glove. Oh and his Phillies beat the Royals that year. So why would anyone even blink if someone said Schmidt had a better year then Brett? Of course he did.
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:
justacommeman- Well timed 'agree'. That was funny. LOL.
The funny thing is I think they actually might do something this year. FYI I have access to Chargers and Rams tickets. If you can make it to a Chargers/ Chiefs game I would be honored to take you. FYI that goes for any of you other knuckleheads if your team is playing in LA this year
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......
I’m beginning to think Darin is actually George Brett. That would be awesome
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......
@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?
Darin, am curious to hear your answer to this question.
Grote- we are talking individual contributions, not team achievements. Clearly if Brett had played in 30+
more games that season he would have padded his stats to almost unbelievable numbers. Have you ever
read about his 1980 season, how much pressure he was feeling towards the last couple months and how
hard it was for him to sleep? Even his own father put pressure on him, if he had an o fer game his Dad
would ask him why he didn't get any hits.
Of course in the series it was kind of hard to carry the team when you're suffering from hemmoroids. If he
hadn't been there might have been a different outcome. If you doubt Bretts' ability to carry his team, sometime
watch the entire 1985 playoff series between the Royals and Blue Jays. With a healthy Brett that 1980 series may
have gone the other way. Brett's teammates just weren't good enough to pick him up in 1980 and beat the Phillies.
Lots of excuses and what ifs there, but I get your point, 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.
@Darin said:
justacommeman- Well timed 'agree'. That was funny. LOL.
The funny thing is I think they actually might do something this year. FYI I have access to Chargers and Rams tickets. If you can make it to a Chargers/ Chiefs game I would be honored to take you. FYI that goes for any of you other knuckleheads if your team is playing in LA this year
m
The Chiefs could be very good this year. I am serious about the statement in my sigline. Okay both statements.
Mahomes could be very special. There is talk that the Chiefs are going to open up the offense more this year,
because of Mahomes' ability to throw long passes accurately. They say he is very bright and his teammates
seem to love him. Had a chance to do some commercials during the offseason and turned down the money,
saying he wanted to make it big in the NFL before doing stuff like that.
@Darin said:
justacommeman- Well timed 'agree'. That was funny. LOL.
The funny thing is I think they actually might do something this year. FYI I have access to Chargers and Rams tickets. If you can make it to a Chargers/ Chiefs game I would be honored to take you. FYI that goes for any of you other knuckleheads if your team is playing in LA this year
m
The Chiefs could be very good this year. I am serious about the statement in my sigline. Okay both statements.
Mahomes could be very special. There is talk that the Chiefs are going to open up the offense more this year,
because of Mahomes' ability to throw long passes accurately. They say he is very bright and his teammates
seem to love him. Had a chance to do some commercials during the offseason and turned down the money,
saying he wanted to make it big in the NFL before doing stuff like that.
I remember his father, pitched briefly for the Mets.
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.
Comments
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......
justacommeman- Well timed 'agree'. That was funny. LOL.
You must have missed my posts in this thread about 10 pages ago before you started posting repeatedly and making less and less sense. I don't have the time or patience of Dallas to combat that.
At least we agree on Barry Sanders.
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.
justacommeman- Regarding your statement about Schmidt being best all time and Brett being great also,
I still think when the all time greatest team is playing Ted Williams would look over at third base and say,
what is Schmidt doing there, I saw Brett make a run at .400 but Schmidt never came close to
a career average of .300!
Then he would stop the game and bring in Brett to replace Schmidt.
Darin, am curious to hear your answer to this question.
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.
You see that’s the fly in their ointment. In 1980 Schmidt put together a monster year which included a MVP regular season and an MVP World Series. While the .390 average ( fantastic BTW even with missing a ton of games ) gets thrown around Schmidt lead the league in HR’s, RBI’s, SLG, OPS, OPS+, Total bases and a Gold Glove. Oh and his Phillies beat the Royals that year. So why would anyone even blink if someone said Schmidt had a better year then Brett? Of course he did.
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......
The funny thing is I think they actually might do something this year. FYI I have access to Chargers and Rams tickets. If you can make it to a Chargers/ Chiefs game I would be honored to take you. FYI that goes for any of you other knuckleheads if your team is playing in LA this year
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I’m beginning to think Darin is actually George Brett. That would be awesome
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......
Grote- we are talking individual contributions, not team achievements. Clearly if Brett had played in 30+
more games that season he would have padded his stats to almost unbelievable numbers. Have you ever
read about his 1980 season, how much pressure he was feeling towards the last couple months and how
hard it was for him to sleep? Even his own father put pressure on him, if he had an o fer game his Dad
would ask him why he didn't get any hits.
Of course in the series it was kind of hard to carry the team when you're suffering from hemmoroids. If he
hadn't been there might have been a different outcome. If you doubt Bretts' ability to carry his team, sometime
watch the entire 1985 playoff series between the Royals and Blue Jays. With a healthy Brett that 1980 series may
have gone the other way. Brett's teammates just weren't good enough to pick him up in 1980 and beat the Phillies.
Lots of excuses and what ifs there, but I get your point, 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.
The Chiefs could be very good this year. I am serious about the statement in my sigline. Okay both statements.
Mahomes could be very special. There is talk that the Chiefs are going to open up the offense more this year,
because of Mahomes' ability to throw long passes accurately. They say he is very bright and his teammates
seem to love him. Had a chance to do some commercials during the offseason and turned down the money,
saying he wanted to make it big in the NFL before doing stuff like that.
I remember his father, pitched briefly for the Mets.
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.