George or Mike

1970s1970s Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭✭
edited February 2, 2019 10:48AM in Sports Talk


«13

Comments

  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 18,575 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Mantle but close

    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......
  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 27,383 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 22, 2019 5:58PM

    Willie. Fewer physical issues and equal skills. As one of my father’s salesman said,”Mantle’s legs are made of glass.”

    I have that card somewhere in my childhood hoard.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible.
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 18,524 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Too close to call.


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 18,240 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sey Hey Kid for me. We won’t know the official right answer until Dallas Chimes in though

  • keetskeets Posts: 20,608 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 22, 2019 7:36PM

    I think Mickey Mantle was probably more fun to hang out with but I would take Willie Mays as my Center Fielder. I have a question: How did these guys generate the power they each had??


  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭

    I pick Willie, but there are strong arguments to be made for Mickey, too. Every aspect of the game that is difficult or impossible to measure enters in to the comparison: peak vs. career, defense, what to do with military service years, etc. There are no "right answers" to these questions, so no right answer to the OP.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • JRR300JRR300 Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    Growing up, I saw more games with Mays than Mantle; not sure how much that influences my choice. Mays for me was just an amazing defender, so he gets the slight nod over Mickey. Either way, I'd have taken either one on my team.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    I think Mickey Mantle was probably more fun to hang out with but I would take Willie Mays as my Center Fielder. I have a question: How did these guys generate the power they each had??

    Both players extremely muscular. Both players swung HARD. Couldn't find a shirtless Mick, but forearms look impressive! Willie had a 6 pack!

    Mantle said he felt he was better when he "was going good" but Mays went past him in the end. Sounds about right.


    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • AUandAGAUandAG Posts: 20,843 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Willie, by all means. Saw him play as a kid in old Seals Stadium (SF) and new Candlestick Park. Never saw Mantle but I understand why someone may pick him over Willie.....just not me.

    bob :)

    BST deals: Dozens of buys/sells. Will provide a list upon request.
    Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), [email protected]
  • PatsGuy5000PatsGuy5000 Posts: 285 ✭✭✭

    Both great! Mays gets the edge because of longevity.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,015 ✭✭✭✭

    Mantle was better, but Mays was able to keep his skills for longer.

  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Willie, and by a decent margin.

  • JRR300JRR300 Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    Interesting debate. By the way, I love that card at the beginning of this thread!

  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 18,575 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In the core of their careers I take Mantle because of the “it” factor and having a switch hitter in the middle of my line up. He makes any line up scarier

    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......
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭✭

    @Justacommeman said:
    In the core of their careers I take Mantle because of the “it” factor and having a switch hitter in the middle of my line up. He makes any line up scarier

    m

    Absolutely! It really depends on how you want to look at it and what you prefer personally.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • 1970s1970s Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭✭

    @JRR300 said:
    Interesting debate. By the way, I love that card at the beginning of this thread!

    Welcome. I would recommend you look up the George Brett thread. Now that was
    an interesting and entertaining debate.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭✭

    @1970s said:

    @JRR300 said:
    Interesting debate. By the way, I love that card at the beginning of this thread!

    Welcome. I would recommend you look up the George Brett thread. Now that was
    an interesting and entertaining debate.

    Are you trying to scare this guy off?!?!?!?!??

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • DarinDarin Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @1970s said:

    @JRR300 said:
    Interesting debate. By the way, I love that card at the beginning of this thread!

    Welcome. I would recommend you look up the George Brett thread. Now that was
    an interesting and entertaining debate.

    Are you trying to scare this guy off?!?!?!?!??

    We need a Killebrew or ____________ thread.

    I once started a Willie Stargell or Willie McCovey thread, to see how many would
    get the correct answer, which is Stargell.LOL. That thread was pretty cordial, as compared
    to the Brett or Schmidt thread.

    Collecting: Patrick Mahomes rookie cards, the next great NFL quarterback.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭✭

    @Darin said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @1970s said:

    @JRR300 said:
    Interesting debate. By the way, I love that card at the beginning of this thread!

    Welcome. I would recommend you look up the George Brett thread. Now that was
    an interesting and entertaining debate.

    Are you trying to scare this guy off?!?!?!?!??

    We need a Killebrew or ____________ thread.

    I once started a Willie Stargell or Willie McCovey thread, to see how many would
    get the correct answer, which is Stargell.LOL. That thread was pretty cordial, as compared
    to the Brett or Schmidt thread.

    I think I debated Killebrew vs. Reggie. It was a pretty lively one. Killer was better of course. ;-)

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • DarinDarin Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @Darin said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @1970s said:

    @JRR300 said:
    Interesting debate. By the way, I love that card at the beginning of this thread!

    Welcome. I would recommend you look up the George Brett thread. Now that was
    an interesting and entertaining debate.

    Are you trying to scare this guy off?!?!?!?!??

    We need a Killebrew or ____________ thread.

    I once started a Willie Stargell or Willie McCovey thread, to see how many would
    get the correct answer, which is Stargell.LOL. That thread was pretty cordial, as compared
    to the Brett or Schmidt thread.

    I think I debated Killebrew vs. Reggie. It was a pretty lively one. Killer was better of course. ;-)

    I would take Killebrew.
    Let's not do a Killebrew or Stargell thread. It would probably never end. LOL.

    Collecting: Patrick Mahomes rookie cards, the next great NFL quarterback.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭✭

    @Darin said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @Darin said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @1970s said:

    @JRR300 said:
    Interesting debate. By the way, I love that card at the beginning of this thread!

    Welcome. I would recommend you look up the George Brett thread. Now that was
    an interesting and entertaining debate.

    Are you trying to scare this guy off?!?!?!?!??

    We need a Killebrew or ____________ thread.

    I once started a Willie Stargell or Willie McCovey thread, to see how many would
    get the correct answer, which is Stargell.LOL. That thread was pretty cordial, as compared
    to the Brett or Schmidt thread.

    I think I debated Killebrew vs. Reggie. It was a pretty lively one. Killer was better of course. ;-)

    I would take Killebrew.
    Let's not do a Killebrew or Stargell thread. It would probably never end. LOL.

    I think it might be fun, they look pretty evenly matched!

    Just got this back from the framer today.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JRR300JRR300 Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    will take more than that to scare me off!!!! Was always a fan of Killebrew, but Stargell played the Phillies many times a year and I frequently saw him up close and personal. Had great seats at the Vet in a box adjacent to the visitor's dugout. My recollection of him as a clutch hitter who could hit it a mile is ingrained in my memory. Never saw Killebrew in person. my memory tells me Stargell because of what he used to do against our home team.
    Didn't see the Brett vs Schmidt thread you refer to. Brett the better overall hitter, but Schmidt's defense was just amazing. As a Phillies fan, I would have to recuse myself from that argument.

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭

    @JRR300 said:
    Brett the better overall hitter, ...

    Schmidt was the better overall hitter. I'll let it go now.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2019 1:31PM

    @JRR300 said:
    will take more than that to scare me off!!!! Was always a fan of Killebrew, but Stargell played the Phillies many times a year and I frequently saw him up close and personal. Had great seats at the Vet in a box adjacent to the visitor's dugout. My recollection of him as a clutch hitter who could hit it a mile is ingrained in my memory. Never saw Killebrew in person. my memory tells me Stargell because of what he used to do against our home team.
    Didn't see the Brett vs Schmidt thread you refer to. Brett the better overall hitter, but Schmidt's defense was just amazing. As a Phillies fan, I would have to recuse myself from that argument.

    I saw Killebrew in person and can tell you he had (especially for his size) unbelievable power. So, if we go by who we saw in person there will be no agreement.

    Since you see Brett's hitting as better than Schmidt's we will never agree on much of anything!

    In a nutshell Killebrew and Stargell are almost exactly the same hitter. As "overall hitters" Stargell was a little better with a higher BA and more doubles, as a "slugger" Killebrew hit more home runs per year. Stargell's 10 extra doubles per year equal Killebrew's 5 home runs. No edge to either player.

    Willie had more hits per 162; 153 to 139, but Harmon had a big edge in walks 104 to 64. I am NOT going to give Harmon a big edge here as my feelings are a walk to a cleanup hitter are not that valuable. No edge to either player.

    OPS and OPS+ Stargell has a very slight edge. No edge to either player.

    WAR Killebrew wins 60.4 to 57.5. No edge to either player.

    Similarity scores Stargell 884.4 to 880.3. No edge to either player.

    RBI (usually not a great stat to use, but Stargell had Clemente and Killebrew had Oliva and later Carew, so it seems ok) Stargell 106 per year "Killer" 105. No edge to either player.

    That's it for comparing offense by the basic numbers, I'll take either guy.

    Defensively, one was an outfielder the other a 3rd baseman (part time in the outfield) both ended up at first base. Slight edge Killebrew. No edge to either player.

    Looking down to the "Player Value--Batting" chart it looks like Killebrew was a bout 2 runs a year better in most areas. Both were not very good baserunners, Willie gets penalized for playing LF and they both get penalized for 1B. Killebrew minute edge. No edge to either player.

    Both were fantastic leaders. Killebrew was a quiet leader Willie more enthusiastic. No edge to either player.

    So I keep looking. Next are numbers that don't actually compare the two players, but how they compared against the rest of the league, some refer to it as "dominance". Since my guy does well here, I'll say it means a LOT! LOL

    Led his league;
    Doubles
    Willie 1 Killer 0
    Home Runs
    Killer 6 Willie 2
    RBI
    Killer 3 Willie 1
    Walks
    Killer 4 Willie 0
    OB%
    Killer 1 Willie 0
    SLG%
    Killer 1 Willie 1
    OPS
    Willie 2 Killer 0

    Seasons in the top 10;
    WAR position players.
    Killer 6 Willie 3
    Offensive WAR
    Killer 11 Willie 6
    OB%
    Killer 9 Willie 4
    SLG%
    Killer 11 Willie 10
    OPS
    Killer 12 Willie 7
    Runs
    Killer 9 Willie 2
    Total bases
    Killer 9 Willie 5
    2B
    Willie 5 Killer 0
    Home Runs
    Killer 13 Willie 10
    RBI
    Killer 10 Willie 7
    Walks
    Killer 13 Willie 2
    Adjusted OPS+
    Killer 10 Will 7
    Runs Created
    Killer 9 Willie 6
    Extra Base Hits
    Killer 11 Willie 8
    Base-Out Runs Added
    Killer 9 Willie 8
    Win Probability Added
    Willie 9 Killer 8
    Situational wins added
    Killer 11 Willie 8
    Base Out Wins Added
    Killer 11 Willie 8

    Hall of Fame Statistics
    Black Ink Batting
    Killer 48 Willie 17
    Grey Ink Batting
    Killer 193 Willie 125
    Hall of Fame Monitor
    Killer 178 Will 106
    Hall of Fame Standards
    Killer 46 Willie 44

    Looking to me like Killebrew is showing a clear, if small edge.

    I also feel that it is harder for a Right handed batter to put up numbers as he faces a right handed pitcher 2/3 of the time and almost every park has longer distances to left field than right.

    In 1979 Willie had a dream post season winning both the NLCS and WS MVP's, something Harmon never did. Overall Killebrew was good in the post season and Willie was either fantastic or pretty bad. No edge to either here in probably the least important area.

    Killebrew also lost about two seasons at the beginning of his career when the Senators couldn't send him to the minors because of the "Bonus Baby" rule. Instead, he sat on the bench for a couple of years, then was able to get sent down for playing time and when called up two years later promptly led the AL in home runs with 42.

    Not sure if Willie had anything similar to curtail his career.

    My vote (surprise) goes to Killebrew, but I sure won't complain if I ended up with Willie!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JRR300JRR300 Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @JRR300 said:
    Brett the better overall hitter, ...

    Schmidt was the better overall hitter. I'll let it go now.

    I'm sorry Dallas.....you're talking to someone who watched Schmidt play just about every game of his major league career. Schmidt was a better power hitter, but Brett was a better hitter. Just a total line drive machine, year in and year out. I believe that Schmidt was and is the greatest 3B to ever play the game, but Brett was just a plain better "hitter". Sounds like we will agree to disagree.

  • JRR300JRR300 Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    I saw Killebrew in person and can tell you he had (especially for his size) unbelievable power.

    All I'm saying here is that IMO, the two are so close that I am swayed by what I saw; that was the miniscule edge that let me say Stargell. Like you said, I'd have been thrilled to have either one playing on my hometown team.

  • 1970s1970s Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭✭

    @JRR300 said:

    Didn't see the Brett vs Schmidt thread you refer to. Brett the better overall hitter, but Schmidt's defense was just amazing. As a Phillies fan, I would have to recuse myself from that argument.

    You are correct sir. Great knowledge demonstrated on your part. Schmidt had a slight edge over Brett in the regular season, but Brett blows Schmidt away in the postseason when it counts the most.

    Schmidt was a .955 fielder at 3B. Brett was .950
    Not a bid edge to Schmidt. Both could pick it.

    It's a very long read, and quite entertaining if you like Tyson vs. Holyfield. The gloves
    surely come off in this one.................LOL+

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1001856/george-brett-one-of-the-best-baseball-players-of-all-time-and-easily-the-best-3rd-baseman/p1

  • 1970s1970s Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭✭

    @JRR300 said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @JRR300 said:
    Brett the better overall hitter, ...

    Schmidt was the better overall hitter. I'll let it go now.

    I'm sorry Dallas.....you're talking to someone who watched Schmidt play just about every game of his major league career. Schmidt was a better power hitter, but Brett was a better hitter. Just a total line drive machine, year in and year out. I believe that Schmidt was and is the greatest 3B to ever play the game, but Brett was just a plain better "hitter". Sounds like we will agree to disagree.

    Dallas is wrong. Your are right on this one. His main two arguments was that Schmidt
    was a "way better fielder" ( Like I said, .955 to .950)

    His other main argument was that Schmidt's OPS+ was better.
    When I asked him if Gene Tenace was a better hitter then George Brett because his
    career OPS+ was better, his weaknesses were exposed.

    So the two points Dallas were hanging his hat on were totally flawed.

    When you get a chance, go look at Schmidt's career postseason stats.
    Then look at Brett's postseason stats. It's not even close.

    Brett hit every tough pitcher hard. Even Guidry and Steve Carlton could not stop him.
    The guy was a hitting machine.

  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 18,575 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Schmidt was better. That was proven in to to satisfaction of most in the thread 1970’s provided above.

    1980’ WS MVP Mike Schmidt over the Kansas City and George Brett . That was mysteriously left out.

    Anyways there is really nothing more to add. Both were great.

    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......
  • 1970s1970s Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭✭

    JRR300....

    You're simply saying Brett was the better "hitter". Like Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn were
    great pure hitters. I know what you're saying. Brett was the better pure hitter.

    Schmidt hit for more power, which propels some on this board to think that he was the better hitter because of stats that they like to look at.

    It's just two different philosophies. That's all.

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 18,524 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Both were great. I think anyone would take either one as their 3rd Baseman.


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • DarinDarin Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭✭

    JRR300 is now my favorite poster of all time. A great grasp of baseball and
    very knowledgeable on the subject. Great reading his posts about Stargell and Brett.

    Collecting: Patrick Mahomes rookie cards, the next great NFL quarterback.
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭

    @JRR300 said:
    I'm sorry Dallas.....you're talking to someone who watched Schmidt play just about every game of his major league career. Schmidt was a better power hitter, but Brett was a better hitter.

    Maybe, as someone else said, you mean "pure hitter", which I'm fine with since "pure hitter" is two unrelated words strung together to create a phrase that doesn't mean anything.

    But if you really do mean "hitter", then you'll have to explain what that word means to you. Schmidt got on base more often than Brett, and when he got on base he got further along the basepaths than Brett. Schmidt's at bats created more runs, and won more games, than Brett's at bats. That's what hitting means to me, and I thought to everyone, and on that basis it is a fact that Schmidt was a better hitter. Your reference to "line drives" maybe means that Brett's hits were "prettier" than Schmidt's, and I suppose that could be "better" is some sense unrelated to baseball. If that's it, I won't argue the point because I don't care. But if you mean that Brett did something better than Schmidt at the plate that actually mattered in a baseball sense, then you'll have to explain what that thing was because it is hidden by every stat that says otherwise.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 1,865 ✭✭✭

    I'll take Brett any day.

    IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @JRR300 said:
    I'm sorry Dallas.....you're talking to someone who watched Schmidt play just about every game of his major league career. Schmidt was a better power hitter, but Brett was a better hitter.

    I was too young to see Killebrew's early years, but I saw a lot of games he played in. He was the best home run hitter of all time and it isn't even close. I mean I saw a LOT of his games. He HAD to be better than Babe Ruth, I never saw HIM play even one single time!

    Maybe, as someone else said, you mean "pure hitter", which I'm fine with since "pure hitter" is two unrelated words strung together to create a phrase that doesn't mean anything.

    But if you really do mean "hitter", then you'll have to explain what that word means to you. Schmidt got on base more often than Brett, and when he got on base he got further along the basepaths than Brett. Schmidt's at bats created more runs, and won more games, than Brett's at bats. That's what hitting means to me, and I thought to everyone, and on that basis it is a fact that Schmidt was a better hitter. Your reference to "line drives" maybe means that Brett's hits were "prettier" than Schmidt's, and I suppose that could be "better" is some sense unrelated to baseball. If that's it, I won't argue the point because I don't care. But if you mean that Brett did something better than Schmidt at the plate that actually mattered in a baseball sense, then you'll have to explain what that thing was because it is hidden by every stat that says otherwise.

    Exactly right dallas. If you consider a "screaming" line drive double a better hit than a fly ball home run, Brett was better.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JRR300JRR300 Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    @Darin said:
    JRR300 is now my favorite poster of all time. A great grasp of baseball and
    very knowledgeable on the subject. Great reading his posts about Stargell and Brett.

    Thanks Darin...I appreciate that very much. I've been a die hard baseball fan all my life and would like to think I've learned a little about the game in my lifetime.

    I can go on with the Brett/Schmidt debate because you are forcing me to criticize one of my all time favorite players, which I just cannot do. I stand by my statement, "Brett the better hitter, Schmidt the better overall player"

  • 1970s1970s Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 25, 2019 3:04PM

    @DIMEMAN said:
    Both were great.

    Tony Romo o

    But if you mean that Brett did something better than Schmidt at the plate that actually mattered in a baseball sense, then you'll have to explain what that thing was because it is hidden by every stat that says otherwise.

    I'll personally apologize for this insane comment made by an uniformed poster.

    Obviously this poster does not feel that the playoffs and World Series are an important part of the baseball season. He tries to persuade the uneducated baseball enthusiast that the Brett-Schmidt postseason stats "are not really out there". He tries to tell people that "it's not really a meaningful stat". In his little world you see, a players contribution in the postseason isn't really as important to his contributions during the regular season.

    The fact of the matter is that Schmidt has a very slight edge over Brett during the regular season, but Brett blows Schmidt away in the postseason against better pitching.

    The fact that Brett demonstrated time and time again against the greatest pitchers baseball had to offer, and the fact that Mike Schmidt crapped the bed in the postseason against elite pitching, proves that Brett was in fact the better hitter. Schmidt caved in under pressure, where Brett thrived in it. Brett was indeed the better hitter when it counted the most.

    The playoff stats are out there. But if you're a Schmidt fan, don't compare his playoff
    stats to Brett's. You'll only be very disappointed.

  • JRR300JRR300 Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    I'll add this to the defense comment. If Brett was such a good defensive 3B (I'm not saying he was bad, mind you), why would they move him to play first. The Phils talked about that idea, but could never find a replacement who could make the plays like Schmidt did. As we all know, 3B is a reflex position...the ball is on you so quick that the first move is critical. Schmidt had uncanny instincts when it came to that, he had a cannon for an arm and routinely made the plays behind third base look easy, and could come in on the ball like only one other third baseman I remember, Brooks Robinson. For that reason he gets my nod over Brett.

  • DarinDarin Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭✭

    Dallas, the definition of "hitter" is actually pretty easy.
    Its when you're at the plate and you hit the ball.

    Granted, Mike Schmidt drew more walks. But walking, of course, isn't hitting.
    Schmidt possibly drew more walks because he felt he had a better chance of getting on base
    with a walk than by actually hitting the ball because of his sub par batting average.
    Brett, on the other hand, was supremely confident at the plate and knew he could help his team
    more by putting the ball in play than by trying to draw a walk simply because of his high batting average,
    which was some 38 points higher than Schmidt over the course of their careers.
    Of course Brett could have drawn a lot more walks than he did but he knew it would be detrimental to
    the team as it was usually up to him to drive in runs, whereas Schmidt could pass the torch to productive
    hitters who hit after him.

    Collecting: Patrick Mahomes rookie cards, the next great NFL quarterback.
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭

    @Darin said:
    Dallas, the definition of "hitter" is actually pretty easy.
    Its when you're at the plate and you hit the ball.

    Ok, fair enough, That's a definition of "hitter", which JR hasn't provided yet. It's a definition that doesn't interest me since it's unrelated to the value of the player to his team, but it's a definition that declares Rick Burleson a better hitter than Johnny Bench, so it does have humor going for it. Was that the point of your post? To make me laugh? Mission accomplished.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭✭

    Just wanted to remind everyone this is the "Willie or Mickey" thread. Those two other guys have their own.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 18,575 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    Just wanted to remind everyone this is the "Willie or Mickey" thread. Those two other guys have their own.

    All roads lead to Brett/ Schmidt Blvd

    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......
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭✭

    Won't it ever "run out of gas?" ;-)

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭

    Interesting trivia bit: Schmidt and Brett were selected with consecutive picks in the 1971 amateur draft, in the second round, so every team passed on both of them once. In the 39th round of the same draft, the Twins selected Joe Theismann

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • 1970s1970s Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭✭

    @JRR300 said:
    I'll add this to the defense comment. If Brett was such a good defensive 3B (I'm not saying he was bad, mind you), why would they move him to play first. The Phils talked about that idea, but could never find a replacement who could make the plays like Schmidt did. As we all know, 3B is a reflex position...the ball is on you so quick that the first move is critical. Schmidt had uncanny instincts when it came to that, he had a cannon for an arm and routinely made the plays behind third base look easy, and could come in on the ball like only one other third baseman I remember, Brooks Robinson. For that reason he gets my nod over Brett.

    Schmidt was an excellent third base man. He did make it look easy over at the hot corner.
    Brett statistically played the same as Schmidt throughout his career.

    Two points. Their quickness was the same. You don't have to look at stolen base records to remember that both guys were equally quick and agile equally. Nettles was actually very slow, but his instincts and positioning always served him well. Nettles didn't have a rocket arm either. Actually, there could be a thread about how Nettles was the greatest unathletic third baseman of all time. The guy was slow and didn't have a cannon, but made all the plays.

    Lastly, Brett was moved to 1B late in his career because the Royals had an up and coming kid Kevin Seitzer, and it made sense to their organization to play Seitzer at third and move
    Brett to 1B. Why ? Anyone knows, but as we all know, Brett outplayed Schmidt in years, with
    Mike retiring after saying his body could not do it anymore. So perhaps moving Brett to 1B worked out well for George and the Royals in the long run. Who knows.

  • 1970s1970s Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Darin said:
    Dallas, the definition of "hitter" is actually pretty easy.
    Its when you're at the plate and you hit the ball.

    Ok, fair enough, That's a definition of "hitter", which JR hasn't provided yet. It's a definition that doesn't interest me since it's unrelated to the value of the player to his team, but it's a definition that declares Rick Burleson a better hitter than Johnny Bench, so it does have humor going for it. Was that the point of your post? To make me laugh? Mission accomplished.

    And Gene Tenace being better than Buster Posey is equally amusing.
    The OPS+ fetish brings lots of joy and humor as well. Tenace > Brett. LOL+
    Perhaps Tenace is better then Bench too ? LOL+

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭

    @1970s said:
    And Gene Tenace being better than Buster Posey is equally amusing.
    The OPS+ fetish brings lots of joy and humor as well. Tenace > Brett. LOL+
    Perhaps Tenace is better then Bench too ? LOL+

    Yes, Tenace > Posey, Brett or Bench is very funny. But since you're the only one who has ever said these things, and you say things like them a LOT, you understand that you're the one everyone is laughing at, right? If you ever want to understand what OPS+ is I would be happy to explain it to you so you can stop making a fool of yourself. But then, your fetish with OPS+ brings all of us a lot of joy and humor, and you seem to enjoy being the butt of our jokes, so maybe it's better if we just continue on in your ignorance.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • Skin2Skin2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭

    joebanazi,
    Like a lof of LH batters, Stargell sat his share vs lefties too(even Brett who sat vs lefties at the end of the season so he could win a batting title), and that helps saves his percentages.

    SO when it is close between Killebrew and Stargell, that has to be taken into account and would certainly give the edge to Killebrew.

    @1970s said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Darin said:
    Dallas, the definition of "hitter" is actually pretty easy.
    Its when you're at the plate and you hit the ball.

    Ok, fair enough, That's a definition of "hitter", which JR hasn't provided yet. It's a definition that doesn't interest me since it's unrelated to the value of the player to his team, but it's a definition that declares Rick Burleson a better hitter than Johnny Bench, so it does have humor going for it. Was that the point of your post? To make me laugh? Mission accomplished.

    And Gene Tenace being better than Buster Posey is equally amusing.
    The OPS+ fetish brings lots of joy and humor as well. Tenace > Brett. LOL+
    Perhaps Tenace is better then Bench too ? LOL+

    That OPS+ aspect has been explained already to you, as with all rate stats and the amount of Plate appearances and career lengths that can lessen or 'save' those percentages. For the people who put so much weight in batting average, that is like saying, "Roberto Hernandez has a .500 career batting average, therefore he is better than Ted Williams."

  • Skin2Skin2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭
    edited January 27, 2019 9:01AM

    @Darin said:
    Dallas, the definition of "hitter" is actually pretty easy.
    Its when you're at the plate and you hit the ball.

    Granted, Mike Schmidt drew more walks. But walking, of course, isn't hitting.
    Schmidt possibly drew more walks because he felt he had a better chance of getting on base
    with a walk than by actually hitting the ball because of his sub par batting average.
    Brett, on the other hand, was supremely confident at the plate and knew he could help his team
    more by putting the ball in play than by trying to draw a walk simply because of his high batting average,
    which was some 38 points higher than Schmidt over the course of their careers.
    Of course Brett could have drawn a lot more walks than he did but he knew it would be detrimental to
    the team as it was usually up to him to drive in runs, whereas Schmidt could pass the torch to productive
    hitters who hit after him.

    So if Brett's 'job' was to drive in runs(as if one would actually be foolish enough to believe that getting on base batting third is not of high importance), and that Schmidt didn't do his 'job' of driving in runs because he walked a lot more........................and Schmidt drove in 107 RBI per season and Brett 96? Schmidt had 1,595 RBI & Brett 1,596 RBI....but Schmidt did it in 1,600 LESS plate appearances than Brett..............Wouldn't that make Schmidt better at the very definition you created?

    LMAO

    Hmmm, so 'hitting' is simply 'hitting the ball? Ok, so the outcome doesn't matter? 600 ground balls to the SS are ok as long as you hit the ball? Like Dallas said, is Rich Dauer then one of the best hitters in baseball history because when he came up he hit the ball at a higher percentage than almost anyone post WWII.

    I do have to ask, is the team's best hitter's job to make outs?? Brett made 459 outs per season, Schmidt 437.

    No, you guys already said, "It is their job to drive in runs," so I guess we are back to Schmidt doing that better than Brett...lol. Sunday morning entertainment.

  • DarinDarin Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭✭

    Brett was actually better than Schmidt at batting with RISP, .307 to .268 so he would be the man to
    have up in clutch situations to drive in runs. Of course Schmidt would be a lot better to have at the plate if you needed
    a solo home run.

    Or are you and Dallas going to say batting average with RISP is an unimportant stat?

    Collecting: Patrick Mahomes rookie cards, the next great NFL quarterback.
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.