@markj111 said:
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.
All this information doesn't really matter. The fact is that we've already figured out that these two were equal in the field. There's really nothing else that can be presented to change the facts. But everyone can keep on trying.
Let’s see if I follow 1970’ s logic ( my head hurts) then Miguel Cabrera is already better then George Brett without taking another at bat.
Cabrera is a better defensive player. Higher life time fielder. Miggy .987. Brett .970. Higher fielding percentage at 3rd then Brett. Higher fielding precentage at 1st base as well. He also played shortstop and the outfield so he is more versatile.
Cabrera is obviously a better offensive player. He smokes Brett in batting ave, HR’s, RBI’s, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPs+. No debate there.
Cabrera won more batting titles, more MVP’s and throw in a triple crown for good measure. Cabera is better. Case closed. He might actually be better.
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......
Actually we are not talking just Brett and Schmidt.
Here is your OP:
1970’s incorrectly states
George Brett - One of the best baseball players of all time, and easily the best 3rd baseman.
It says nothing of Schmidt at all. Also Brett can’t be the best 3rd baseman of all time if he can’t even measure up to Cabrera.
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......
Just when I thought this so-called debate couldn't get any more moronic, it does, lol.
BTW, you know you have someone beat when they resort to repeatedly posting sophomoric variations of your user name under the ridiculous notion that anyone but them finds it even remotely amusing.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@1970s said:
Here's is stevek's post from the first page of this thread.............................................................
This topic was recently discussed in painstaking detail in another thread. The bottom line is that Schmidt's defense was markedly superior to Brett, and for a third baseman, solid defense at that position is extremely important to winning baseball games.
We all agree that Brett's hitting surpasses Schmidt in certain aspects, and that is notable. However when combining offensive production and defensive capability, Schmidt clearly wins out over Brett......................................................................................................................................
I'm sure you participated in that flawed thread. You and others led each other astray.
Oh so sad. The blind leading the blind. LOL+++
Please excuse me now. My lunch is ready. I have a delicious bowl of win share pudding for desert too.
When i get a chance, just in case someone pulls it up thru search, I'll make a post in that other thread that this topic was recently discussed in painstaking detail in another thread.
However I should take out the word "painstaking" and replace it with something else because this thread has gone way beyond merely painstaking.
@Justacommeman said:
Actually we are not talking just Brett and Schmidt.
Here is your OP:
1970’s incorrectly states
George Brett - One of the best baseball players of all time, and easily the best 3rd baseman.
It says nothing of Schmidt at all. Also Brett can’t be the best 3rd baseman of all time if he can’t even measure up to Cabrera.
m
You are clearly out of your league. The consensus amongst baseball experts is Brett, Schmidt, and Matthews make up the top 3. Please either accept the facts, or take your dreams and visions to the Detroit Tigers thread (if there is one). LOL+
And you are clearly out of your mind.
BTW Brooks Robinson is the second best third baseman of all time according to the writers who vote for the HOF who you covet.
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......
@Brick said:
How often was Pete Rose playing 3rd base. No one could argue he was not better than both Schmidt and Brett.
This thread has convinced me how important batting average actually is, so yes Rose was better than
Schmidt and Mathews was better than Schmidt. Nobody has made a solid argument that there was
anyone better than Brett at third base, however.
I was told by a physics professor that batting average lies at the core of the fundamental laws of baseball. Without batting average, there is no OBP, OPS, OPS+, etc. Its the building block, the atom, the strings in string theory. Baseball would
simply fail to exist without it. Therefore, it is all important, and a .267 hitter is not the greatest third basemen of all time.
You can't argue with physics in this case.
@Brick said:
How often was Pete Rose playing 3rd base. No one could argue he was not better than both Schmidt and Brett.
Pete Rose was pretty comparable to Brett, but, like Brett, clearly not as good as Schmidt. Rose played forever as a very good player, but was rarely great. He played a bunch of positions, but the only one he played well was LF. If you line up Rose's seasons from best to worst, and do the same with Schmidt's, and compare them, Schmidt wins all of the first 10 (his best better than Rose's best, his 2nd best better than Rose's second best, etc.). Then they're basically a toss-up for a few more seasons after that. Then you've got 10 seasons when Rose was mediocre, but "wins" because Schmidt had too much pride to hang around like Rose did. It's not really all that close; Schmidt was better. With Brett it is close, but I think Brett was better, too.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Brick said:
How often was Pete Rose playing 3rd base. No one could argue he was not better than both Schmidt and Brett.
This thread has convinced me how important batting average actually is, so yes Rose was better than
Schmidt and Mathews was better than Schmidt. Nobody has made a solid argument that there was
anyone better than Brett at third base, however.
I was told by a physics professor that batting average lies at the core of the fundamental laws of baseball. Without batting average, there is no OBP, OPS, OPS+, etc. Its the building block, the atom, the strings in string theory. Baseball would
simply fail to exist without it. Therefore, it is all important, and a .267 hitter is not the greatest third basemen of all time.
You can't argue with physics in this case.
Your physics professor should stick to physics.
OBP%, OPS, OPS+, etc all incorporate batting average, but as more comprehensive stats will do, provide a more insightful analysis of just how productive a hitter is. So unless you believe a single is equal to a home run, which is the case if you are looking at batting average as your most important metric, the other stats you listed are better tools to come to the correct conclusion.
So far, it's only you, a rabid Royals fan, and the OP who believe, or have stated, that Brett was better than Schmidt. That ought to tell you something right there. Just because you two keep reposting the same ill-conceived opinions doesn't mean there are more votes for Brett, 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.
@Tabe said:
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.
Brett went to 1B late in his career to give way to Kevin Seitzer (3B) who was a very good hitter.
Before going to 1B late in his career, he played SS, 3B most of the time, with some time in LF and RF. So he played most of his career at the two of the toughest positions in baseball, 3B and SS.
What's even more laughable is the people who said Mike Schmidt was so much better then Brett at 3B, when Schmidt had a .955 and Brett had a .950. They say Schmidt won 11 gold gloves and Brett won a lot less.
So I asked them who is a better hitter. A guy who hit .315 lifetime in the NL and won 11 batting titles, or a guy who hit .317 lifetime in the AL and won 1 batting title.
Schmidt didn't play in a leauge with Nettles, or his gold gloves would have been a lot less.
Plain and simple, Schmidt and Brett were equals at third base.
You keep mentioning shortstop. You do realize that Brett only played 11 games there, right? And handled all of 24 chances? That's barely more games than Todd Worrell played in right field.
He was 39. He had a bad back. His team sucked, and so did he. So he quit baseball.
LOL++++++++++++++
Your command of the English language, and the elemental rules of logic, leave a great deal to be desired. Nothing you posted here refutes my statement; Schmidt could have continued getting paid to play, or sit on the bench, with a sore back, but chose to retire instead, freeing up his salary for his team to use on a better player. I don't know if his back hurt or not, or if it was just that he was old, but Pete Rose sucked, too. But he kept playing, kept drawing a paycheck, and kept dragging his team down for years, playing worse than replacement level. Schmidt had too much pride to do that. What you posted proves that, it doesn't refute it; if your brain had a few more crinkles you might be able to see that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
You say Mike had pride. You say he could have hung on to pad his stats.
The truth is that he was physically unable to play.
You do understand that he retired in 1989 ?
You do understand that his fielding percentage in 1988 was .939
and then in 1989 it was .918 ?
You do realize how poor a .918 fielding percentage is for a 3B ???
You do realize that his batting average was .203 in 1989 also ?
Imagine the Philly front office saying to themselves what do we do with Schmidt when
he's hitting .203 and fielding at a .918 clip ? Mike saved the front office of any headaches by stepping down himself because he realized how much he sucked that year.
But you say he could have hung on to pad his stats. You are either a liar or just someone who doesn't want to write the truth.
LOL++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You do realize that you are still batting 1.000? Every sentence in which you have tried to convey what I have said has been wrong. I didn't say that Schmidt could have hung on to pad his stats - that's what Rose did. What I said is that he could have hung around on the roster, even sitting on the bench or DL accumulating no stats, and continued to draw a paycheck, but chose to forfeit that paycheck, and help his team, by retiring. Since this is simply a fact, when you try to refute it you have to misstate what I actually said and then refute the quote you just made up. Throughout this entire thread, in fact, you have been arguing with yourself. You haven't refuted a single thing I've said, you just say you disagree and then you refute something else nobody said. And no matter how many "+" signs you add to your LOL's (I see you're up to 32 now), you have to realize that you are now the only person laughing. I was, but this has now crossed over the line where it's getting creepy, and I feel like I am taunting the handicapped or pulling the legs off of insects. I will no longer contribute to your self-abasement; the thread is yours to do with as you please.
If anyone else wants to talk about third basemen, I'll be happy to.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Brick said:
How often was Pete Rose playing 3rd base. No one could argue he was not better than both Schmidt and Brett.
This thread has convinced me how important batting average actually is, so yes Rose was better than
Schmidt and Mathews was better than Schmidt. Nobody has made a solid argument that there was
anyone better than Brett at third base, however.
I was told by a physics professor that batting average lies at the core of the fundamental laws of baseball. Without batting average, there is no OBP, OPS, OPS+, etc. Its the building block, the atom, the strings in string theory. Baseball would
simply fail to exist without it. Therefore, it is all important, and a .267 hitter is not the greatest third basemen of all time.
You can't argue with physics in this case.
Your physics professor should stick to physics.
OBP%, OPS, OPS+, etc all incorporate batting average, but as more comprehensive stats will do, provide a more insightful analysis of just how productive a hitter is. So unless you believe a single is equal to a home run, which is the case if you are looking at batting average as your most important metric, the other stats you listed are better tools to come to the correct conclusion.
So far, it's only you, a rabid Royals fan, and the OP who believe, or have stated, that Brett was better than Schmidt. That ought to tell you something right there. Just because you two keep reposting the same ill-conceived opinions doesn't mean there are more votes for Brett, LOL..
Lets just say then, that if the Royals would have had Schmidt instead of Brett, they would have been less successful
as a team. His constant K'ing in the middle of the lineup would have killed too many rallies. K'ing the bed, if you will.
Having Brett batting third, and Schmidt following him the Royals would have been great, but Schmidts' bat couldn't
replace Brett because George could do too many things in the spacious K that Schmidt couldn't. Mainly, finding gaps.
Luckily, the Royals did have a guy that could carry their team, even in the pressure of the playoffs, and didn't
get a HR or K guy that didn't suit their lineup or stadium.
@garnettstyle said:
Pete Rose currently holds 22 major league records. More than any other player. There is no way in hell a 267 average guy was better than Rose.
Once upon a time batting average mattered. To us it still does. To Grote and Dallasactuary it doesn't.
There was recently a thread on who was the greatest hitter of all time. Ty Cobb was not even mentioned.
Ten years ago he would have been mentioned by several posters. That is what Dallas and the so called 'experts'
have done.
These names tell you how important batting average is.
Dave Kingman, Mike Schmidt, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams.
They all had extraordinary power. What one stat progressively sets them apart from the previous player?
No Grote, not OPS. Take a seat in the corner. Wrong Dallas, its not OBP. Put on your dunce cap and move on.
Your days as a so called baseball expert are over, you don't know anything.
KIngman sucked because of his low batting average. Remember, all these players had great power.
Schmidt could have been another Hank Aaron if he could hit for a higher average. That is how important
batting average is. And Williams is above them all because of the .344, because .344 hitters with that much
power only come along once in 100 years.
So next time Grote or Dallas tells you batting average isn't important, tell them you know a lot more than they do
about baseball, because you do.
@markj111 said:
No one is saying BA is not important. It is less important than OBP and power.
It's amazing how difficult this seemingly simple concept is to grasp.
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.
In a world where Dallas and Grote think amount of walks are what make a great hitter,
its just tough sometimes to convey the importance of batting average.
That's all I'm trying to do. The skill to get on base with your bat is what's important.
Next Dallas will be saying you don't need to bring a bat to the plate to become a great hitter.
@Darin said:
In a world where Dallas and Grote think amount of walks are what make a great hitter,
its just tough sometimes to convey the importance of batting average.
That's all I'm trying to do. The skill to get on base with your bat is what's important.
Next Dallas will be saying you don't need to bring a bat to the plate to become a great hitter.
Stop trying. They're both about as smart as that keyboard you're typing on.
Says the guy who asked me for advice on how to get the gum unstuck from his 75 mini cards.
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:
In a world where Dallas and Grote think amount of walks are what make a great hitter,
its just tough sometimes to convey the importance of batting average.
That's all I'm trying to do. The skill to get on base with your bat is what's important.
Next Dallas will be saying you don't need to bring a bat to the plate to become a great hitter.
Stop trying. They're both about as smart as that keyboard you're typing on.
Says the guy who asked me for advice on how to get the gum unstuck from his 75 mini cards.
That's particularly difficult especially when the gum has been chewed.
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:
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
But you're welcome, LOLOL..
I have learned much over the years by reading grote's posts about wax, cellos, etc. And i appreciate it.
It's sad when some don't seem to appreciate it.
One thing in particular that stands out about grote's wisdom, and I'm pretty sure that grote stated this years ago in a post although some chance it may have been someone else...is that just because cards are packed in a cello, doesn't mean that all the cards are pristine and mint because a cello wrapped too tight can actually wear on the card's corners over the years and turn the cards into 7's at best.
That one piece of advice likely saved me thousands of dollars over the years. But please, nobody tell grote this, otherwise that New York Mets loving SOB might demand some sort of commission for having saved me all this money.
Comments
What do you mean “we” paleface?
Let’s see if I follow 1970’ s logic ( my head hurts) then Miguel Cabrera is already better then George Brett without taking another at bat.
Cabrera is a better defensive player. Higher life time fielder. Miggy .987. Brett .970. Higher fielding percentage at 3rd then Brett. Higher fielding precentage at 1st base as well. He also played shortstop and the outfield so he is more versatile.
Cabrera is obviously a better offensive player. He smokes Brett in batting ave, HR’s, RBI’s, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPs+. No debate there.
Cabrera won more batting titles, more MVP’s and throw in a triple crown for good measure. Cabera is better. Case closed. He might actually be better.
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......
Actually we are not talking just Brett and Schmidt.
Here is your OP:
1970’s incorrectly states
George Brett - One of the best baseball players of all time, and easily the best 3rd baseman.
It says nothing of Schmidt at all. Also Brett can’t be the best 3rd baseman of all time if he can’t even measure up to Cabrera.
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......
Just when I thought this so-called debate couldn't get any more moronic, it does, lol.
BTW, you know you have someone beat when they resort to repeatedly posting sophomoric variations of your user name under the ridiculous notion that anyone but them finds it even remotely amusing.
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.
When i get a chance, just in case someone pulls it up thru search, I'll make a post in that other thread that this topic was recently discussed in painstaking detail in another thread.
However I should take out the word "painstaking" and replace it with something else because this thread has gone way beyond merely painstaking.
And you are clearly out of your mind.
BTW Brooks Robinson is the second best third baseman of all time according to the writers who vote for the HOF who you covet.
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......
You have forgotten about the SI cover jinx. Player in front always takes precedence.
How often was Pete Rose playing 3rd base. No one could argue he was not better than both Schmidt and Brett.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
This thread has convinced me how important batting average actually is, so yes Rose was better than
Schmidt and Mathews was better than Schmidt. Nobody has made a solid argument that there was
anyone better than Brett at third base, however.
I was told by a physics professor that batting average lies at the core of the fundamental laws of baseball. Without batting average, there is no OBP, OPS, OPS+, etc. Its the building block, the atom, the strings in string theory. Baseball would
simply fail to exist without it. Therefore, it is all important, and a .267 hitter is not the greatest third basemen of all time.
You can't argue with physics in this case.
Pete Rose was pretty comparable to Brett, but, like Brett, clearly not as good as Schmidt. Rose played forever as a very good player, but was rarely great. He played a bunch of positions, but the only one he played well was LF. If you line up Rose's seasons from best to worst, and do the same with Schmidt's, and compare them, Schmidt wins all of the first 10 (his best better than Rose's best, his 2nd best better than Rose's second best, etc.). Then they're basically a toss-up for a few more seasons after that. Then you've got 10 seasons when Rose was mediocre, but "wins" because Schmidt had too much pride to hang around like Rose did. It's not really all that close; Schmidt was better. With Brett it is close, but I think Brett was better, too.
Your physics professor should stick to physics.
OBP%, OPS, OPS+, etc all incorporate batting average, but as more comprehensive stats will do, provide a more insightful analysis of just how productive a hitter is. So unless you believe a single is equal to a home run, which is the case if you are looking at batting average as your most important metric, the other stats you listed are better tools to come to the correct conclusion.
So far, it's only you, a rabid Royals fan, and the OP who believe, or have stated, that Brett was better than Schmidt. That ought to tell you something right there. Just because you two keep reposting the same ill-conceived opinions doesn't mean there are more votes for Brett, 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.
You keep mentioning shortstop. You do realize that Brett only played 11 games there, right? And handled all of 24 chances? That's barely more games than Todd Worrell played in right field.
Your command of the English language, and the elemental rules of logic, leave a great deal to be desired. Nothing you posted here refutes my statement; Schmidt could have continued getting paid to play, or sit on the bench, with a sore back, but chose to retire instead, freeing up his salary for his team to use on a better player. I don't know if his back hurt or not, or if it was just that he was old, but Pete Rose sucked, too. But he kept playing, kept drawing a paycheck, and kept dragging his team down for years, playing worse than replacement level. Schmidt had too much pride to do that. What you posted proves that, it doesn't refute it; if your brain had a few more crinkles you might be able to see that.
You do realize that you are still batting 1.000? Every sentence in which you have tried to convey what I have said has been wrong. I didn't say that Schmidt could have hung on to pad his stats - that's what Rose did. What I said is that he could have hung around on the roster, even sitting on the bench or DL accumulating no stats, and continued to draw a paycheck, but chose to forfeit that paycheck, and help his team, by retiring. Since this is simply a fact, when you try to refute it you have to misstate what I actually said and then refute the quote you just made up. Throughout this entire thread, in fact, you have been arguing with yourself. You haven't refuted a single thing I've said, you just say you disagree and then you refute something else nobody said. And no matter how many "+" signs you add to your LOL's (I see you're up to 32 now), you have to realize that you are now the only person laughing. I was, but this has now crossed over the line where it's getting creepy, and I feel like I am taunting the handicapped or pulling the legs off of insects. I will no longer contribute to your self-abasement; the thread is yours to do with as you please.
If anyone else wants to talk about third basemen, I'll be happy to.
Lets just say then, that if the Royals would have had Schmidt instead of Brett, they would have been less successful
as a team. His constant K'ing in the middle of the lineup would have killed too many rallies. K'ing the bed, if you will.
Having Brett batting third, and Schmidt following him the Royals would have been great, but Schmidts' bat couldn't
replace Brett because George could do too many things in the spacious K that Schmidt couldn't. Mainly, finding gaps.
Luckily, the Royals did have a guy that could carry their team, even in the pressure of the playoffs, and didn't
get a HR or K guy that didn't suit their lineup or stadium.
That looks like Fantasyland to me.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Pete Rose currently holds 22 major league records. More than any other player. There is no way in hell a 267 average guy was better than Rose.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Once upon a time batting average mattered. To us it still does. To Grote and Dallasactuary it doesn't.
There was recently a thread on who was the greatest hitter of all time. Ty Cobb was not even mentioned.
Ten years ago he would have been mentioned by several posters. That is what Dallas and the so called 'experts'
have done.
These names tell you how important batting average is.
Dave Kingman, Mike Schmidt, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams.
They all had extraordinary power. What one stat progressively sets them apart from the previous player?
No Grote, not OPS. Take a seat in the corner. Wrong Dallas, its not OBP. Put on your dunce cap and move on.
Your days as a so called baseball expert are over, you don't know anything.
KIngman- .235
Schmidt- .267
Aaron - .305
Williams- .344
KIngman sucked because of his low batting average. Remember, all these players had great power.
Schmidt could have been another Hank Aaron if he could hit for a higher average. That is how important
batting average is. And Williams is above them all because of the .344, because .344 hitters with that much
power only come along once in 100 years.
So next time Grote or Dallas tells you batting average isn't important, tell them you know a lot more than they do
about baseball, because you do.
No one is saying BA is not important. It is less important than OBP and power.
It's amazing how difficult this seemingly simple concept is to grasp.
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.
In a world where Dallas and Grote think amount of walks are what make a great hitter,
its just tough sometimes to convey the importance of batting average.
That's all I'm trying to do. The skill to get on base with your bat is what's important.
Next Dallas will be saying you don't need to bring a bat to the plate to become a great hitter.
Says the guy who asked me for advice on how to get the gum unstuck from his 75 mini cards.
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's particularly difficult especially when the gum has been chewed.
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
But you're welcome, LOLOL..
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 have learned much over the years by reading grote's posts about wax, cellos, etc. And i appreciate it.
It's sad when some don't seem to appreciate it.
One thing in particular that stands out about grote's wisdom, and I'm pretty sure that grote stated this years ago in a post although some chance it may have been someone else...is that just because cards are packed in a cello, doesn't mean that all the cards are pristine and mint because a cello wrapped too tight can actually wear on the card's corners over the years and turn the cards into 7's at best.
That one piece of advice likely saved me thousands of dollars over the years. But please, nobody tell grote this, otherwise that New York Mets loving SOB might demand some sort of commission for having saved me all this money.