@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.
Yeah, I guess he got the strong arm from his father.
Your memory is better than mine, I had heard his Dad was a pitcher in the majors but I don't remember him.
I want to see Mahomes do well. He will be a target for my second QB pick in my draft
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:
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.
Man are you in love with the batting average. That’s really the heart any soul of it. It’s only one stat for me. I place others higher on the scale. BTW Brooks Robinson would be the back up on that team. He got majority of the other first place votes. They would have to bring Brett in from the stands as he doesn’t make the team. However I could make the case for Brett as DH on that team. Id want him in the lineup somehow
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......
Mark- I just did some research on the team you're talking about. A fan vote?
Just to discredit it as quickly as possible, they voted Mantle the sixth best outfielder.
That certainly wouldn't set well with Dallas and all his supporters so that's the end of that discussion.
Just in case this misleads anyone, OPS+ (and WAR and Win Shares, and any decent stat)
Just in case this misleads you, OPS+ tells us that this person was a better lifetime hitter then George Brett, yet duncetuary continues to make mention of it.
Duncetuary calls this a "decent stat" LOL+
Bill James states that WAR is not reliable either, yet duncetaury continues to use it.
What a fool.
Let's take this one at a time.
OPS+ is a decent stat, better than "decent" in fact, it's an excellent stat.
OPS+ is "a" decent stat, but the "logic" that you're using requires that it be the "only" decent stat. Now, if I'd ever said that it was and that you could rank "best" players by OPS+ alone then your post would make sense, but, of course, I never said that.
Gene Tenace was an excellent hitter; nobody with any baseball sense could possibly deny that. But his career spanned a total of 5,527 plate appearances, in which he compiled an OPS+ of 136. That's excellent. George Brett, in the seasons comprising his best 5,527 plate appearances compiled an OPS+ of 157; that's phenomenal. In the rest of his career, a little over 5,527 more plate appearances, Brett's OPS+ was 113; that's very good. Brett was a better hitter than Tenace for as long as Tenace played, and then was a very good hitter for a whole other Tenace-length career. Nobody would ever claim Tenace was a better hitter than Brett, and I certainly didn't. You, actually, are the only one who has ever made the comparison. You would stop if you were capable of shame, or complex thought.
I have never "used" WAR in this thread, and the circumstances are rare indeed that I have used it anywhere else. I listed offensive WAR in my first post among a list of other stats because offensive WAR does have some value, where defensive WAR has next to none. Bill James would agree with that assessment; his gripe with WAR is primarily the defensive component. WAR also does a poor job giving credit for clutch hitting, James' other gripe, which is why I also listed Win Shares and WPA, which do a much better job. Mostly, I included offensive WAR to demonstrate that no matter who is doing the measuring or how they measure it, Schmidt always beats Brett.
Do you realize that you have now mentioned things that I have said dozens of times and not once have you been correct? There is a quote feature here that you should learn how to use. Quote my actual words and it ought to become immediately clear, even to you, that what you think I said is not what I said. But then, you have no comebacks for anything I've actually said, so I understand why you make up quotes and argue against those instead. It makes you feel smart, even though it makes you look stupid to everyone else.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
Mark- I just did some research on the team you're talking about. A fan vote?
Just to discredit it as quickly as possible, they voted Mantle the sixth best outfielder.
That certainly wouldn't set well with Dallas and all his supporters so that's the end of that discussion.
No.
It was 36 Baseball Writers of America. They same body who votes for the Hall. The only reason I brought it up was 1970’s non sense about Brett getting 98% of the vote and Schmidt 96% and that being some kind of benchmark. They went in different years obviously. When the same body of writers had the chance to vote for best ever and could pick from everybody they picked Schmidt. Brooks finished second. Whoever finished third was way back.
Yes they kept Mantle off and they also kept the guy with the all time highest batting average off. They are only three outfield spots so lots of greats got left off. Cobb, Mantle, Aaron etc etc
Williams, Mays and Ruth made the team. Tough to argue to much against those choices
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......
I should have been clearer as mine was not a 'get you to think' post as much as an actual question. I do respect your opinion and intelligence and these two guys being compared got me wondering if there is an actual tipping point, all things being equal.
And I am well aware that other factors come into play and that baseball is not played in a vacuum - I was just curious if there was a tipping point where the value of one starts to trump the other.
Not to mention the whole point of advanced stats (OPS+, WAR) is to compare players in a vacuum, but I digress.
Anyway, I figured a smart guy who is good with the numbers might know how to derive that - when average trumps power (and vice versa, though the derivation would probably be a reflection of both).
Two great players being discussed so I'll reiterate I don't think 'clearly' and 'obviously' belong anywhere in the thread saying ones career is better than the other. Very close to the impartial observer. Brett's defensive versatility versus Schmidt's anchoring 3rd really well for the better part of two decades doesn't give one the clear edge to me, either.* I do think postseason excellence seems to be downplayed by statisticians and that's my admitted bias - I fall into the camp that values it greatly.
*In a thread where Brett is being claimed to be the best third baseman ever, I ultimately think you have to leave the versatility aspect out. As much as I would value it in a player to player comparison, we're supposed to be evaluating the two men as third baseman.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Its no surprise the Phillies won their only World Series in that era, when they had a guy named Rose on the team. Someone who played in only 6 World series. lol
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I was just curious if there was a tipping point where the value of one starts to trump the other.
I'm pretty sure the question as asked has no answer. You're asking a question based on BA and HR, and there is no way to tell which of two players is better than the other from those two stats alone (assuming we're not talking about .400/50 vs. .200/0 or some comparison like that).
But, if you are asking about the hypothetical case where all else really is equal - two players on the same team in the same season - then there is an answer. If we accept OPS (no "+" is necessary when all else is equal) as the best measure of hitting ability, then your power hitter has an OPS of .816 and the high average guy has an OPS of .933 (I'm crediting them each with 50 walks, 25 2B and 5 3B in 650 PA). For the power guy to catch the high average guy in OPS by hitting nothing but more singles, all of which replaced outs, he'd need 37 more singles, for a BA of .312. That is, the 38 more singles that the high average guy would then have (he started with 75 more singles) are worth about the same as the 15 extra homers the power guy has. Actually the 15 extra HR are worth more than the 38 extra singles, but that gets offset by the 23 more outs that the power guy made. So when all else is equal .350/25 = .312/40, or 1HR = 2.5 points of BA (in a season, not a career).
Does that answer your question?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Anyone watching the live feed from Cooperstown of the HOF procession? Great stuff.
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 should have been clearer as mine was not a 'get you to think' post as much as an actual question. I do respect your opinion and intelligence and these two guys being compared got me wondering if there is an actual tipping point, all things being equal.
And I am well aware that other factors come into play and that baseball is not played in a vacuum - I was just curious if there was a tipping point where the value of one starts to trump the other.
Not to mention the whole point of advanced stats (OPS+, WAR) is to compare players in a vacuum, but I digress.
Anyway, I figured a smart guy who is good with the numbers might know how to derive that - when average trumps power (and vice versa, though the derivation would probably be a reflection of both).
Two great players being discussed so I'll reiterate I don't think 'clearly' and 'obviously' belong anywhere in the thread saying ones career is better than the other. Very close to the impartial observer. Brett's defensive versatility versus Schmidt's anchoring 3rd really well for the better part of two decades doesn't give one the clear edge to me, either.* I do think postseason excellence seems to be downplayed by statisticians and that's my admitted bias - I fall into the camp that values it greatly.
*In a thread where Brett is being claimed to be the best third baseman ever, I ultimately think you have to leave the versatility aspect out. As much as I would value it in a player to player comparison, we're supposed to be evaluating the two men as third baseman.
Not just "best" "easily the best" in my opinion neither is correct, but "easily the best" is idiotic.
I agree with using OPS (I don't like OPS+) and also looking at defense. I also give a little extra credit to a right handed batter over a lefty, not a lot though. Post season gets a little as well, but I look at that as more of a tie-breaker.
In this comparison I feel Schmidt's home run frequency beats Brett's high batting average, (shows up in SLG), fielding basically the same, slight edge to Schmidt. Baserunning same. If Brett could have walked a bit more it would have helped him, he was a number three hitter if I remember, and Schmidt was a cleanup guy. Postseason does go to Brett clearly, but he has already lost.
What I wasn't aware of was that Brett played a lot less at 3rd than I imagined, doesn't matter why. My guy Killebrew gets lumped in with 1B because he played a few more games there than 3B, Schmidt gets a little more credit for playing a bigger percentage of games at third.
Brett was a fabulous player. I also like Mathews above him at third. It is usually regarded as a "sluggers" position as well.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
"In this comparison I feel Schmidt's home run frequency beats Brett's high batting average, (shows up in SLG), fielding basically the same, slight edge to Schmidt. Baserunning same. If Brett could have walked a bit more it would have helped him, he was a number three hitter if I remember, and Schmidt was a cleanup guy. Postseason does go to Brett clearly, but he has already lost."
If the regular season edge in your opinion is 'slight', and Brett's postseason is better 'clearly' than wouldn't than kind of make the sum total a wash?
I honestly haven't made up my mind as to the answer but this thread has certainly put up a good case for each player - frivolous digs at the other posters aside...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
From me, the best conclusion I come to often is 'in the discussion' for greatest of all time. Rarely do you have a case where someone is 'clearly' the best of all time. Maybe Babe Ruth in terms of baseball player would get the least disagreement but there are those who would dissent, I'm sure.
As mentioned prior, Alex Rodriguez basically crushes every other third baseman in my eyes. I have my own view of steroids, as we all do, but in the games in which he played baseball he was about as good as it gets and I'm not going to pretend he doesn't exist. Stripping him of Hall of Fame induction, calling him a cheater, making fun of all the shirtless photos, the lying, the denials, the half truths, the lying, the failed tests, the clinic in Florida - all fair game, part of the narrative and helps contextualize the precious records and statistics. But if I'm playing on a sandlot and I've got first pick at 3B and Eddie, Mike, George, Brooks and Alex are my choices?
I'm taking A-Roid without any hesitation whatsoever and deal with the fact we now automatically have to be skins because of my pick.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Speaking for myself, I'm just having fun. Think of it as Charles Barkley and Shaq going at it, or Michael Irvin and Chris Carter going at it. For me it's just for fun. If you take offense at it, then I apologize. Don't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable here. +++
I'm unbothered by it; just adds to already dense posts.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Considering all the "can't control his bowels" remarks about George Brett including from Brett himself, i'm wondering now when Brett was involved in that pine tar incident, was that actually pine tar on the bat?
@1970s said:
The bottom line is that if you consider them being pretty much equal during the regular season, and Brett being so good when it counted the most, then Brett is the clear, and I mean CLEAR cut choice as the greatest third baseman of all time.
This, at last, is a true statement, since you included the "if". It is also true that if you consider Lou Brock and Stan Musial pretty much equal during the regular season that Brock being so good when it counted the most makes him CLEARly better than Musial. There's no reasonable way to consider Brett or Brock "pretty much equal" to Schmidt or Musial, but "if" you believe it anyway, then your conclusion logically follows.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
"In this comparison I feel Schmidt's home run frequency beats Brett's high batting average, (shows up in SLG), fielding basically the same, slight edge to Schmidt. Baserunning same. If Brett could have walked a bit more it would have helped him, he was a number three hitter if I remember, and Schmidt was a cleanup guy. Postseason does go to Brett clearly, but he has already lost."
If the regular season edge in your opinion is 'slight', and Brett's postseason is better 'clearly' than wouldn't than kind of make the sum total a wash?
I honestly haven't made up my mind as to the answer but this thread has certainly put up a good case for each player - frivolous digs at the other posters aside...
To me no, in this comparison the post season advantage (158vs184 PA) does not make up for the 10,000-11,000 plate appearances in the regular season, far far too few at bats to determine an "All-Time" winner. Especially, as I stated, I would only use the postseason if it wasn't clear who was better.
The deciding factor for me is the SLG%. I have found that shows the value of a batters hits when comparing two players who are not the same type of hitter. A .500 SLG is great , Brett comes close with .487 but Schmidt exceeds it handily with .527.
Also in comparing apples to oranges the slugger here wins 8 home run titles with a second and two third place finishes.
The high average guy wins 3 batting titles with 2 second place finishes.
Finally, remember the original (ridiculous) claim was that Brett "easily" was the best ever 3rd baseman. Traditionally 3rd is a power hitters spot and Schmidt fits better here. Bretts final 5 seasons were at 1B and DH. Despite having a shorter career Schmidt played about 500 more games at 3rd.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
"In this comparison I feel Schmidt's home run frequency beats Brett's high batting average, (shows up in SLG), fielding basically the same, slight edge to Schmidt. Baserunning same. If Brett could have walked a bit more it would have helped him, he was a number three hitter if I remember, and Schmidt was a cleanup guy. Postseason does go to Brett clearly, but he has already lost."
If the regular season edge in your opinion is 'slight', and Brett's postseason is better 'clearly' than wouldn't than kind of make the sum total a wash?
I honestly haven't made up my mind as to the answer but this thread has certainly put up a good case for each player - frivolous digs at the other posters aside...
To me no, in this comparison the post season advantage (158vs184 PA) does not make up for the 10,000-11,000 plate appearances in the regular season, far far too few at bats to determine an "All-Time" winner. Especially, as I stated, I would only use the postseason if it wasn't clear who was better.
The deciding factor for me is the SLG%. I have found that shows the value of a batters hits when comparing two players who are not the same type of hitter. A .500 SLG is great , Brett comes close with .487 but Schmidt exceeds it handily with .527.
Also in comparing apples to oranges the slugger here wins 8 home run titles with a second and two third place finishes.
The high average guy wins 3 batting titles with 2 second place finishes.
Finally, remember the original (ridiculous) claim was that Brett "easily" was the best ever 3rd baseman. Traditionally 3rd is a power hitters spot and Schmidt fits better here. Bretts final 5 seasons were at 1B and DH. Despite having a shorter career Schmidt played about 500 more games at 3rd.
I don't blame you not do I think you are crazy for feeling the way you do. To me, the ability to elevate performance in the postseason is of massive importance. I do understand valuing a lifetime of stats over a handful of at bats. However, that is how it works in real baseball, too. Champions are crowned this way and this way alone.
This also reminds me of a story from around 99-00, when the normally reserved Derek Jeter was asked about the A-Rod contract and whether he was underpaid. He said, 'Maybe I should ask Mr. Steinbrenner for a raise,' and as every reporter leaned forward, he continued, '...after all, I have to play all these extra games at the end of each season.'
I think it should be a big factor when separating the best of the best. The goal is to win.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I don't blame you not do I think you are crazy for feeling the way you do. To me, the ability to elevate performance in the postseason is of massive importance. I do understand valuing a lifetime of stats over a handful of at bats. However, that is how it works in real baseball, too. Champions are crowned this way and this way alone.
This also reminds me of a story from around 99-00, when the normally reserved Derek Jeter was asked about the A-Rod contract and whether he was underpaid. He said, 'Maybe I should ask Mr. Steinbrenner for a raise,' and as every reporter leaned forward, he continued, '...after all, I have to play all these extra games at the end of each season.'
I think it should be a big factor when separating the best of the best. The goal is to win.
Why would it be crazy to think the way I do?
Using your (?) thoughts about it, what about comparing players who had little or no post season experience to one who has some, or a lot, do they automatically lose? Ted Williams stunk in WS play, does that mean Mickey Mantle was a better hitter? Stan Musial not too good in post season either, Carl Yastrzemski better?
I can't see in this case a better player with over 2100 games started at 3B (Schmidt) to George's 1692 getting beat out by a handful of games, even postseason ones.
Try this; look up Mickey Mantles World Series stats and notice his best two WS were losses in 1960 and 1964. In 1961 he had his worst WS and his team won, in 1962 he was almost as bad and won again. One player playing great (or poorly) does not guarantee winning a series.
If you want to stress the importance of winning postseason series' Schmidt's teams were 3 wins 5 losses and Brett's were 3 wins 6 losses.
Overall George is #3 all time at 3B on my list, that's fantastic!
We'll agree to disagree on this one. I am however going to assume that we agree that the OP was wrong in saying "Easily the best 3B of all time".
Brett was a GREAT postseason hitter though, better than Schmidt, I'll certainly grant you that.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Yea, that Mantle guy really choked in the post season. I guess that's why his Topps 1952 PSA 10 card is only worth an estimated 10 million dollars, instead of say 15 or 20 million. LOL
I don't blame you not do I think you are crazy for feeling the way you do. To me, the ability to elevate performance in the postseason is of massive importance. I do understand valuing a lifetime of stats over a handful of at bats. However, that is how it works in real baseball, too. Champions are crowned this way and this way alone.
This also reminds me of a story from around 99-00, when the normally reserved Derek Jeter was asked about the A-Rod contract and whether he was underpaid. He said, 'Maybe I should ask Mr. Steinbrenner for a raise,' and as every reporter leaned forward, he continued, '...after all, I have to play all these extra games at the end of each season.'
I think it should be a big factor when separating the best of the best. The goal is to win.
Why would it be crazy to think the way I do?
Using your (?) thoughts about it, what about comparing players who had little or no post season experience to one who has some, or a lot, do they automatically lose? Ted Williams stunk in WS play, does that mean Mickey Mantle was a better hitter? Stan Musial not too good in post season either, Carl Yastrzemski better?
I can't see in this case a better player with over 2100 games started at 3B (Schmidt) to George's 1692 getting beat out by a handful of games, even postseason ones.
Try this; look up Mickey Mantles World Series stats and notice his best two WS were losses in 1960 and 1964. In 1961 he had his worst WS and his team won, in 1962 he was almost as bad and won again. One player playing great (or poorly) does not guarantee winning a series.
If you want to stress the importance of winning postseason series' Schmidt's teams were 3 wins 5 losses and Brett's were 3 wins 6 losses.
Overall George is #3 all time at 3B on my list, that's fantastic!
We'll agree to disagree on this one. I am however going to assume that we agree that the OP was wrong in saying "Easily the best 3B of all time".
Brett was a GREAT postseason hitter though, better than Schmidt, I'll certainly grant you that.
It's not crazy - I think I said that. I meant too, anyway.
I do think Mickey was better than Ted, though not based on facts or numbers. I am a Mantle homer and can't be objective about him. He's behind only Babe for me.
I don't think you are wrong, though @JoeBanzai. And 'easily the best' is too much, yes - but best would be ok. I'd also be ok with Schmidt getting the nod. Different players, different baseball skills - both awesome.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
catching up after a long weekend and all i have to say is this beaut has a deserving place in the annals. between crying incessantly (from laughter) and rubbing profusely (in disbelief), my eyeballs have had it
if there were more exhibitions like this i'd be happier than a puppy with two peters
I just caught up on this thread and have to laugh at some of the assertions. George Brett getting credit for being some versatile defensive player because he played 5 positions. Sure thing. Mind you, he played a TOTAL of 47 games at 3 of those 5 positions. And the 4th (1B) is by far the easiest position on the diamond and can be played by literally any MLB player.
Then we get into fielding percentages where Brett is given credit for having a high fielding percentage, thanks in large part to his .993 in 461 games at 1B. We'll just ignore that David Ortiz - one of the worst defensive players in recent memory - had a .990 at 1B. Or Miguel Cabrera, also a terrible first baseman, has/had a .994.
Hey, if you prefer Brett, more power to you. But the assertions regarding his defense are pretty hilarious.
Why didn't Seitzer play first base as just about anyone could. That would put his bat in the lineup and Brett the tremendous third baseman could play his natural position.
I thought I was through wasting brain cells on this “argument,” but I wanted to note a few things
Schmidt played more games at SS than Brett did.
Nettles won only two gold gloves.
Schmidt handled 10% more chances per 9 innings than the league average; Brett handled 4% more.
I knew you wouldn't answer, but I didn't realize you'd spend so many words not answering.
I'm confused, though, why you wrote "Answer" and then followed that with something about "agility and speed". Are you now saying that fielding ability can be determined by measuring "agility and speed"? Wait, I'll rephrase.
True or false: agility and speed, all by themselves, demonstrate fielding ability at any given position.
Seriously, just "true" or "false", no need to add a single other word to your response.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Yeah, I guess he got the strong arm from his father.
Your memory is better than mine, I had heard his Dad was a pitcher in the majors but I don't remember him.
I want to see Mahomes do well. He will be a target for my second QB pick in my draft
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......
Man are you in love with the batting average. That’s really the heart any soul of it. It’s only one stat for me. I place others higher on the scale. BTW Brooks Robinson would be the back up on that team. He got majority of the other first place votes. They would have to bring Brett in from the stands as he doesn’t make the team. However I could make the case for Brett as DH on that team. Id want him in the lineup somehow
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......
Mark- I just did some research on the team you're talking about. A fan vote?
Just to discredit it as quickly as possible, they voted Mantle the sixth best outfielder.
That certainly wouldn't set well with Dallas and all his supporters so that's the end of that discussion.
Let's take this one at a time.
OPS+ is a decent stat, better than "decent" in fact, it's an excellent stat.
OPS+ is "a" decent stat, but the "logic" that you're using requires that it be the "only" decent stat. Now, if I'd ever said that it was and that you could rank "best" players by OPS+ alone then your post would make sense, but, of course, I never said that.
Gene Tenace was an excellent hitter; nobody with any baseball sense could possibly deny that. But his career spanned a total of 5,527 plate appearances, in which he compiled an OPS+ of 136. That's excellent. George Brett, in the seasons comprising his best 5,527 plate appearances compiled an OPS+ of 157; that's phenomenal. In the rest of his career, a little over 5,527 more plate appearances, Brett's OPS+ was 113; that's very good. Brett was a better hitter than Tenace for as long as Tenace played, and then was a very good hitter for a whole other Tenace-length career. Nobody would ever claim Tenace was a better hitter than Brett, and I certainly didn't. You, actually, are the only one who has ever made the comparison. You would stop if you were capable of shame, or complex thought.
I have never "used" WAR in this thread, and the circumstances are rare indeed that I have used it anywhere else. I listed offensive WAR in my first post among a list of other stats because offensive WAR does have some value, where defensive WAR has next to none. Bill James would agree with that assessment; his gripe with WAR is primarily the defensive component. WAR also does a poor job giving credit for clutch hitting, James' other gripe, which is why I also listed Win Shares and WPA, which do a much better job. Mostly, I included offensive WAR to demonstrate that no matter who is doing the measuring or how they measure it, Schmidt always beats Brett.
Do you realize that you have now mentioned things that I have said dozens of times and not once have you been correct? There is a quote feature here that you should learn how to use. Quote my actual words and it ought to become immediately clear, even to you, that what you think I said is not what I said. But then, you have no comebacks for anything I've actually said, so I understand why you make up quotes and argue against those instead. It makes you feel smart, even though it makes you look stupid to everyone else.
No.
It was 36 Baseball Writers of America. They same body who votes for the Hall. The only reason I brought it up was 1970’s non sense about Brett getting 98% of the vote and Schmidt 96% and that being some kind of benchmark. They went in different years obviously. When the same body of writers had the chance to vote for best ever and could pick from everybody they picked Schmidt. Brooks finished second. Whoever finished third was way back.
Yes they kept Mantle off and they also kept the guy with the all time highest batting average off. They are only three outfield spots so lots of greats got left off. Cobb, Mantle, Aaron etc etc
Williams, Mays and Ruth made the team. Tough to argue to much against those choices
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......
@dallasactuary
I should have been clearer as mine was not a 'get you to think' post as much as an actual question. I do respect your opinion and intelligence and these two guys being compared got me wondering if there is an actual tipping point, all things being equal.
And I am well aware that other factors come into play and that baseball is not played in a vacuum - I was just curious if there was a tipping point where the value of one starts to trump the other.
Not to mention the whole point of advanced stats (OPS+, WAR) is to compare players in a vacuum, but I digress.
Anyway, I figured a smart guy who is good with the numbers might know how to derive that - when average trumps power (and vice versa, though the derivation would probably be a reflection of both).
Two great players being discussed so I'll reiterate I don't think 'clearly' and 'obviously' belong anywhere in the thread saying ones career is better than the other. Very close to the impartial observer. Brett's defensive versatility versus Schmidt's anchoring 3rd really well for the better part of two decades doesn't give one the clear edge to me, either.* I do think postseason excellence seems to be downplayed by statisticians and that's my admitted bias - I fall into the camp that values it greatly.
*In a thread where Brett is being claimed to be the best third baseman ever, I ultimately think you have to leave the versatility aspect out. As much as I would value it in a player to player comparison, we're supposed to be evaluating the two men as third baseman.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Its no surprise the Phillies won their only World Series in that era, when they had a guy named Rose on the team. Someone who played in only 6 World series. lol
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I'm pretty sure the question as asked has no answer. You're asking a question based on BA and HR, and there is no way to tell which of two players is better than the other from those two stats alone (assuming we're not talking about .400/50 vs. .200/0 or some comparison like that).
But, if you are asking about the hypothetical case where all else really is equal - two players on the same team in the same season - then there is an answer. If we accept OPS (no "+" is necessary when all else is equal) as the best measure of hitting ability, then your power hitter has an OPS of .816 and the high average guy has an OPS of .933 (I'm crediting them each with 50 walks, 25 2B and 5 3B in 650 PA). For the power guy to catch the high average guy in OPS by hitting nothing but more singles, all of which replaced outs, he'd need 37 more singles, for a BA of .312. That is, the 38 more singles that the high average guy would then have (he started with 75 more singles) are worth about the same as the 15 extra homers the power guy has. Actually the 15 extra HR are worth more than the 38 extra singles, but that gets offset by the 23 more outs that the power guy made. So when all else is equal .350/25 = .312/40, or 1HR = 2.5 points of BA (in a season, not a career).
Does that answer your question?
Anyone watching the live feed from Cooperstown of the HOF procession? Great stuff.
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.
@dallasactuary
I appreciate it and yes that is what I was driving at. As I mentioned, I respect your knowledge and opinions even if we may disagree...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Not just "best" "easily the best" in my opinion neither is correct, but "easily the best" is idiotic.
I agree with using OPS (I don't like OPS+) and also looking at defense. I also give a little extra credit to a right handed batter over a lefty, not a lot though. Post season gets a little as well, but I look at that as more of a tie-breaker.
In this comparison I feel Schmidt's home run frequency beats Brett's high batting average, (shows up in SLG), fielding basically the same, slight edge to Schmidt. Baserunning same. If Brett could have walked a bit more it would have helped him, he was a number three hitter if I remember, and Schmidt was a cleanup guy. Postseason does go to Brett clearly, but he has already lost.
What I wasn't aware of was that Brett played a lot less at 3rd than I imagined, doesn't matter why. My guy Killebrew gets lumped in with 1B because he played a few more games there than 3B, Schmidt gets a little more credit for playing a bigger percentage of games at third.
Brett was a fabulous player. I also like Mathews above him at third. It is usually regarded as a "sluggers" position as well.
@JoeBanzai
"In this comparison I feel Schmidt's home run frequency beats Brett's high batting average, (shows up in SLG), fielding basically the same, slight edge to Schmidt. Baserunning same. If Brett could have walked a bit more it would have helped him, he was a number three hitter if I remember, and Schmidt was a cleanup guy. Postseason does go to Brett clearly, but he has already lost."
If the regular season edge in your opinion is 'slight', and Brett's postseason is better 'clearly' than wouldn't than kind of make the sum total a wash?
I honestly haven't made up my mind as to the answer but this thread has certainly put up a good case for each player - frivolous digs at the other posters aside...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
From me, the best conclusion I come to often is 'in the discussion' for greatest of all time. Rarely do you have a case where someone is 'clearly' the best of all time. Maybe Babe Ruth in terms of baseball player would get the least disagreement but there are those who would dissent, I'm sure.
As mentioned prior, Alex Rodriguez basically crushes every other third baseman in my eyes. I have my own view of steroids, as we all do, but in the games in which he played baseball he was about as good as it gets and I'm not going to pretend he doesn't exist. Stripping him of Hall of Fame induction, calling him a cheater, making fun of all the shirtless photos, the lying, the denials, the half truths, the lying, the failed tests, the clinic in Florida - all fair game, part of the narrative and helps contextualize the precious records and statistics. But if I'm playing on a sandlot and I've got first pick at 3B and Eddie, Mike, George, Brooks and Alex are my choices?
I'm taking A-Roid without any hesitation whatsoever and deal with the fact we now automatically have to be skins because of my pick.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I'm unbothered by it; just adds to already dense posts.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Considering all the "can't control his bowels" remarks about George Brett including from Brett himself, i'm wondering now when Brett was involved in that pine tar incident, was that actually pine tar on the bat?
This, at last, is a true statement, since you included the "if". It is also true that if you consider Lou Brock and Stan Musial pretty much equal during the regular season that Brock being so good when it counted the most makes him CLEARly better than Musial. There's no reasonable way to consider Brett or Brock "pretty much equal" to Schmidt or Musial, but "if" you believe it anyway, then your conclusion logically follows.
Gene Tenace, homer
To me no, in this comparison the post season advantage (158vs184 PA) does not make up for the 10,000-11,000 plate appearances in the regular season, far far too few at bats to determine an "All-Time" winner. Especially, as I stated, I would only use the postseason if it wasn't clear who was better.
The deciding factor for me is the SLG%. I have found that shows the value of a batters hits when comparing two players who are not the same type of hitter. A .500 SLG is great , Brett comes close with .487 but Schmidt exceeds it handily with .527.
Also in comparing apples to oranges the slugger here wins 8 home run titles with a second and two third place finishes.
The high average guy wins 3 batting titles with 2 second place finishes.
Finally, remember the original (ridiculous) claim was that Brett "easily" was the best ever 3rd baseman. Traditionally 3rd is a power hitters spot and Schmidt fits better here. Bretts final 5 seasons were at 1B and DH. Despite having a shorter career Schmidt played about 500 more games at 3rd.
Curt Gowdy is on the short list for sure. Awesome and velvety smooth.
Correct me if I am wrong but also has a short, spectacular cameo in the first Naked Gun?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I don't blame you not do I think you are crazy for feeling the way you do. To me, the ability to elevate performance in the postseason is of massive importance. I do understand valuing a lifetime of stats over a handful of at bats. However, that is how it works in real baseball, too. Champions are crowned this way and this way alone.
This also reminds me of a story from around 99-00, when the normally reserved Derek Jeter was asked about the A-Rod contract and whether he was underpaid. He said, 'Maybe I should ask Mr. Steinbrenner for a raise,' and as every reporter leaned forward, he continued, '...after all, I have to play all these extra games at the end of each season.'
I think it should be a big factor when separating the best of the best. The goal is to win.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
stevek home run, i think it was against the Mets.
i just forgot to drop the bat.
Why would it be crazy to think the way I do?
Using your (?) thoughts about it, what about comparing players who had little or no post season experience to one who has some, or a lot, do they automatically lose? Ted Williams stunk in WS play, does that mean Mickey Mantle was a better hitter? Stan Musial not too good in post season either, Carl Yastrzemski better?
I can't see in this case a better player with over 2100 games started at 3B (Schmidt) to George's 1692 getting beat out by a handful of games, even postseason ones.
Try this; look up Mickey Mantles World Series stats and notice his best two WS were losses in 1960 and 1964. In 1961 he had his worst WS and his team won, in 1962 he was almost as bad and won again. One player playing great (or poorly) does not guarantee winning a series.
If you want to stress the importance of winning postseason series' Schmidt's teams were 3 wins 5 losses and Brett's were 3 wins 6 losses.
Overall George is #3 all time at 3B on my list, that's fantastic!
We'll agree to disagree on this one. I am however going to assume that we agree that the OP was wrong in saying "Easily the best 3B of all time".
Brett was a GREAT postseason hitter though, better than Schmidt, I'll certainly grant you that.
Yea, that Mantle guy really choked in the post season. I guess that's why his Topps 1952 PSA 10 card is only worth an estimated 10 million dollars, instead of say 15 or 20 million. LOL
It's not crazy - I think I said that. I meant too, anyway.
I do think Mickey was better than Ted, though not based on facts or numbers. I am a Mantle homer and can't be objective about him. He's behind only Babe for me.
I don't think you are wrong, though @JoeBanzai. And 'easily the best' is too much, yes - but best would be ok. I'd also be ok with Schmidt getting the nod. Different players, different baseball skills - both awesome.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Alrighty then. Have a great week!
catching up after a long weekend and all i have to say is this beaut has a deserving place in the annals. between crying incessantly (from laughter) and rubbing profusely (in disbelief), my eyeballs have had it
if there were more exhibitions like this i'd be happier than a puppy with two peters
I just caught up on this thread and have to laugh at some of the assertions. George Brett getting credit for being some versatile defensive player because he played 5 positions. Sure thing. Mind you, he played a TOTAL of 47 games at 3 of those 5 positions. And the 4th (1B) is by far the easiest position on the diamond and can be played by literally any MLB player.
Then we get into fielding percentages where Brett is given credit for having a high fielding percentage, thanks in large part to his .993 in 461 games at 1B. We'll just ignore that David Ortiz - one of the worst defensive players in recent memory - had a .990 at 1B. Or Miguel Cabrera, also a terrible first baseman, has/had a .994.
Hey, if you prefer Brett, more power to you. But the assertions regarding his defense are pretty hilarious.
Why didn't Seitzer play first base as just about anyone could. That would put his bat in the lineup and Brett the tremendous third baseman could play his natural position.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I thought I was through wasting brain cells on this “argument,” but I wanted to note a few things
Schmidt played more games at SS than Brett did.
Nettles won only two gold gloves.
Schmidt handled 10% more chances per 9 innings than the league average; Brett handled 4% more.
They placed the best player in the front of the pic. Placed the other player in the back of the pic.
That's the way they usually do it.
True or false: fielding average, all by itself, demonstrates 100% of fielding ability at any given position.
Seriously, just "true" or "false", no need to add a single other word to your response.
I knew you wouldn't answer, but I didn't realize you'd spend so many words not answering.
I'm confused, though, why you wrote "Answer" and then followed that with something about "agility and speed". Are you now saying that fielding ability can be determined by measuring "agility and speed"? Wait, I'll rephrase.
True or false: agility and speed, all by themselves, demonstrate fielding ability at any given position.
Seriously, just "true" or "false", no need to add a single other word to your response.
Here's something that should be said about Mike Schmidt that hasn't been brought up yet:
GREAT MOUSTACHE! Not quite Tom Selleck but excellent just the same.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest