I can now see how this debate carried on and on and on..... just a lot of rehashing the stats of two great players. very similar but very different. I can feel myself getting drawn in, but like I said before..I will refrain and recuse myself out of respect for my hometown hero.
Darrin above has the RISP stats. Isn't it curious that these averages are just about equal to their overall career averages? That would tell me that they performed with RISP just about the same as they did at the plate over their career. You would expect Brett to have a higher RISP average because he hit for a better average over his entire career.
My definition of the best hitter is that he is able to consistently make solid contact with the ball, assuming that over time and all things being equal, he will have more hits extra base hits and subsequently drive in more runs. I do believe that this definition is flawed somewhat in today's era with more shifting of fielders. Pull hitters from the last decade would certainly have had lower batting averages in today's game.
@JRR300 said:
Darrin above has the RISP stats. Isn't it curious that these averages are just about equal to their overall career averages? That would tell me that they performed with RISP just about the same as they did at the plate over their career. You would expect Brett to have a higher RISP average because he hit for a better average over his entire career.
Your last point is exactly right; comparing BA with RISP doesn't really add anything to what we already knew when we compared their overall batting averages. And we knew very little since BA is a stat that provides so little useful information.
My definition of the best hitter is that he is able to consistently make solid contact with the ball, assuming that over time and all things being equal, he will have more hits extra base hits and subsequently drive in more runs.
But why base your evaluation on an assumption when you can just look up what actually happened? Schmidt did hit more extra base hits than Brett (per game), Schmidt did drive in more runs than Brett (per game), and Schmidt did produce more runs than Brett (by a lot per game, but just plain more for their careers). Did he hit as many line drives as Brett? I have no idea, and I don't care because it doesn't matter. If your goal is to win baseball games, and you get the choice of Schmidt or Brett, you should take Schmidt, and you should take him without needing to even think about it, so clear is the gap between them.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Go ahead and start Schmidt, and then when he comes to bat in a clutch situation with men
on base pinch hit Brett for him.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Dallas are you saying BA with RISP is not a useful stat? Just want to officially get it on record.
If you have runners in scoring position and need one run to win the game
would you rather have a .307 hitter or a .268 hitter with RISP at the plate?
What other stat would be important in this situation to help make your decision on which hitter to take?
Brett also has a higher OBP with RISP? is that the stat you use?
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
You can disregard what Dallas thinks because he doesn't think batting average with RISP is
a meaningful statistic. Only because Brett was much better. If Schmidts had been higher, then
you can bet your ass it would be a meaningful stat to Dallas.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
@Darin said:
Dallas are you saying BA with RISP is not a useful stat? Just want to officially get it on record.
If you have runners in scoring position and need one run to win the game
would you rather have a .307 hitter or a .268 hitter with RISP at the plate?
What other stat would be important in this situation to help make your decision on which hitter to take?
Brett also has a higher OBP with RISP? is that the stat you use?
At first glance this looks like a good number for George,
Is Brett hitting singles here and Schmidt hitting home runs? Is it the other way around? How about SLG% with RISP?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
Dallas are you saying BA with RISP is not a useful stat? Just want to officially get it on record.
If you have runners in scoring position and need one run to win the game
would you rather have a .307 hitter or a .268 hitter with RISP at the plate?
What other stat would be important in this situation to help make your decision on which hitter to take?
Brett also has a higher OBP with RISP? is that the stat you use?
At first glance this looks like a good number for George,
Is Brett hitting singles here and Schmidt hitting home runs? Is it the other way around? How about SLG% with RISP?
Doesn't really matter because in my scenario you need one run to win the game so a single will do it.
The important stat is batting average which Dallas says is not important. .307 to .268
And checkmate on Dallas.
Since you asked, Bretts OBP RISP - .410 to Schmidts .400
Slugging Brett .481 to Schmidts .531 which doesn't matter.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
@Darin said:
Dallas are you saying BA with RISP is not a useful stat? Just want to officially get it on record.
If you have runners in scoring position and need one run to win the game
would you rather have a .307 hitter or a .268 hitter with RISP at the plate?
What other stat would be important in this situation to help make your decision on which hitter to take?
Brett also has a higher OBP with RISP? is that the stat you use?
At first glance this looks like a good number for George,
Is Brett hitting singles here and Schmidt hitting home runs? Is it the other way around? How about SLG% with RISP?
Doesn't really matter because in my scenario you need one run to win the game so a single will do it.
The important stat is batting average which Dallas says is not important. .307 to .268
And checkmate on Dallas.
Since you asked, Bretts OBP RISP - .410 to Schmidts .400
Slugging Brett .481 to Schmidts .531 which doesn't matter.
Thanks for the stats.
Unlike most of you guys, I am willing to keep an open mind. I find your "scenario" very amusing.
Looks to me like George and Mike hit for average, got on base and slugged about the same as with RISP as they did without. Brett hit better for average, Schmidt better for power.
Unfortunately for you, your "scenario" is not true all the time, so it really has no meaning.
Brett was an amazingly good hitter and as high as third on the all-time list of great at 3rd base.
My objection to the OP on the thread this actually belongs on was that Brett was the best and it "wasn't even close"
These are the kind of outrageously incorrect statement that I respond to.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JRR300 said:
I can now see how this debate carried on and on and on..... just a lot of rehashing the stats of two great players. very similar but very different. I can feel myself getting drawn in, but like I said before..I will refrain and recuse myself out of respect for my hometown hero.
Darrin above has the RISP stats. Isn't it curious that these averages are just about equal to their overall career averages? That would tell me that they performed with RISP just about the same as they did at the plate over their career. You would expect Brett to have a higher RISP average because he hit for a better average over his entire career.
My definition of the best hitter is that he is able to consistently make solid contact with the ball, assuming that over time and all things being equal, he will have more hits extra base hits and subsequently drive in more runs. I do believe that this definition is flawed somewhat in today's era with more shifting of fielders. Pull hitters from the last decade would certainly have had lower batting averages in today's game.
It's actually refreshing to see someone not defending their hometown player.
When I look at the numbers, I see Brett being a better hitter for average, but Schmidt's SLG% is higher by about the same amount. To me, a home run is going to be better than two doubles, so I feel that while they were both great guys to have up to bat, Mike is a little better.
Post season tells a little different story, but I don't think enough to change the ratings.
@1970s said:
Veterans Stadium field dimensions. 330 left and right. 371 left and right center. 408 center
Kaufmann Stadium field dimension. 330 left and right. 387 left and right center. 410 center
George Brett was at a 16 foot disadvantage to Mike Schmidt to left and right center for half his games in his career. Schmidt had a 16 foot advantage at Veterans Stadium for half the games of his career.
Those doubles off the wall and warning track outs that Brett hit for over 3,000 AB's could
have translated into many, many more home runs and a much higher OPS for his career.
In their home parks this is certainly true, but being a lefty Brett had the advantage in just about every away field and he was hitting against a right handed pitcher about 2/3 of the time, so he had it a little easier in those respects.
In his book "Ted Williams' Hit List", Ted says right handed hitters have it tougher because of these factors. Makes sense to me.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It was amazing that two of the greatest third basemen had their careers run at almost exactly the same time and had such similar career stats that caused this debate. And another who came around a little later but had his career cut short by injury, Matt Williams. Just fortunate to be able to say I saw them both play.
@1970s said:
Growing up I saw a lot of Schmidt because I got the Phillies station. I also saw a good amount of Brett because I got the Yankee station as well. Being born in 1965, I was able to watch the two greatest third basemen of all time during my youth. They were both great to watch. Because I only saw Brett against the Yankees and in the playoffs, that is why I always go with Brett. He was a Yankee killer, and a playoff stud. Anyone who could beat the Yankees the way he did was the best. The Yankees had some great teams between 1976 through 1981, and I didn't like that very much. Both players were great.
Your mistake is thinking that seeing a game is important. Best to look at tables of figures and computer screens and decide that way. Don't trouble yourself to watch any games.
Baseball is like sex in that regard I'm sure most would agree its much better to see it on a screen than participate .
Slugging Brett .481 to Schmidts .531 which doesn't matter.
Only in your scenario. In all others..................it does.
Exactly, which is why every argument on behalf of Brett focuses on some specific situation or metric and why everyone arguing for Brett steers away from, nay, refuses to acknowledge the existence of, the best stats that measure what actually happened. Schmidt was a very little bit better than Brett at a few things, a great deal better than Brett at a few other things, and in a different class altogether as a fielder. Overall, they aren't close enough that anyone with eyes can't see the space between them.
Both of these stats take full account of how much more valuable it is to get a hit with RISP, or with two outs, or when losing by 1 late in a game, etc. To JR and everyone else making assumptions regarding the value of these events, you don't need to because someone already measured it, added it all up, and published the results. Brett lost.
The two best hitting third basemen were Schmidt and Mathews, in some order. Schmidt was the only good fielding third baseman of the three and he was great. There is nothing resembling a good argument that the best overall third baseman was anyone other than Schmidt, and the very bad arguments being made are getting painful to read. I'm not stupid and I don't like it when my eyes bleed, so I stopped reading what 1970s posts, but I mean the rest of the people somehow willing themselves not to see the plainly obvious.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'll take the credit for first mentioning Mathews over Brett.
I could be wrong, but I'm not going through the other thread to find out.
Dallas, please consider that most if not all of the Brett voters DO realize that he was AT BEST the #3 all-time at 3B. Boggs may have been better as well.
They just like to argue and never admit that they are wrong.
Silly aren't they?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
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?
Yes, Brett had a better average with runners in scoring position, so what? Schmidt had a better SLG% with men on base .535 to .496....and neither matter, because you stated yourself that their job was to drive in runs....and Schmidt drove in runs better than Brett. Period. lol.
This is hilarious. Your very own misguided theory shot yourself in the foot. LMAO.
Are you really that dumb to believe that walks from a middle of the order hitter are meaningless or trivial?
Take two years from Mike Schmidt and the hitters who batted behind him.
1976 and the three lineup spots behind Schmidt:
BA.297, .281, .278
SLG%, .445, .455, .434
1977
BA, .313, .273, .475
SLG% .592, .477, .475
So in 1977, the lineup spot behind Mike Schmidt hit .313 with a .592 SLG%....as good or Better than almost every George Brett season except for his top few seasons.
So you are going to say Schmidt's walks were meaningless when he basically had a guy with 'george brett' season batting behind him? Then you are going to hail George Brett for driving in runs...and knock Schmidt for getting on base in front of someone hitting as good as George Brett? DUmb.
Go ahead and do that exercise for every season and at bat and you will see that guys who bat third and fourth have excellent hitters behind them and doing the team a great service....and you know what? People already have done that!
The value of a guy batting thrid and getting on base is typically at least 90% as valuable as a leadoff hitter doing the same. Those have ALL been looked at in the play by play data of every MLB play since 1950. It isn't some joker like you who is just guessing or has a faulty opinion like you. It is the reality. Just looking above should knock some sense into you, just like looking at the same examples I did with Mantle and the caliber of hitters batting behind him.
Also, you guys keep saying a walk is worthless if they don't get driven in. Ok, then a single is worthless if it doesn't DRIVE IN a run OR score a run. See, I can play that game too . That would SEVERELY negate the value of batting average
So go ahead and take every single by Brett that did not drive in a run, and every single he got where he didn't score, and just strike them from his batting average, lol. Same stupid reasoning.
The only time where getting on base value gets significantly low is when you get down to the guys batting sixth and beyond in the NL. NOT for the guys batting third or fourth(unless extreme circumstances in the lineup for that particular year force that issue).
It isn't a matter of opinion.
I also want to add that you are one of the guys who believe that the middle of the order simply has the job of driving in runs...which would mean that the top of the order simply has the job of getting on base to be driven in....yet you ignore that when it comes to Ichiro, whom has a lifetime OB% worse than Adam DUnn...lol.
SO again, you can't have it both ways in several instances.
A trapdoor opens and your entire party falls into a pit full of orcs .
Skin said..."and yet another idiot."
Thanks for playing.
The most satisfying thing aside from destroying you in these 'debates' is I can also also play the game better than you too. ...so your 'stat geek' and 'never played the game' arguments don't work.
A trapdoor opens and your entire party falls into a pit full of orcs .
Skin said..."and yet another idiot."
Thanks for playing.
The most satisfying thing aside from destroying you in these 'debates' is I can also also play the game better than you too.
Talking about baseball stats should never be described as satisfying . Its way way down on any list of satisfying things. Just a tick above root canal .
A trapdoor opens and your entire party falls into a pit full of orcs .
Skin said..."and yet another idiot."
Thanks for playing.
The most satisfying thing aside from destroying you in these 'debates' is I can also also play the game better than you too.
Talking about baseball stats should never be described as satisfying . Its way way down on any list of satisfying things. Just a tick above root canal .
Yet here you are. You must like root canals considering how often you frequent these 'stat' threads. lol. No worries, it provides me good entertainment. Please don't leave.
A trapdoor opens and your entire party falls into a pit full of orcs .
Skin said..."and yet another idiot."
Thanks for playing.
The most satisfying thing aside from destroying you in these 'debates' is I can also also play the game better than you too.
Talking about baseball stats should never be described as satisfying . Its way way down on any list of satisfying things. Just a tick above root canal .
Yet here you are. You must like root canals considering how often you frequent these 'stat' threads. lol. No worries, it provides me good entertainment. Please don't leave.
I think all present would agree I don't contribute any actual value to these threads .
The argument that Schmidt has always been a much better fielder than Brett has always been nonsense.
Its always been based on the fact that Brett had some fielding problems in his early days. He actually worked
hard on defense and improved tremendously. He was above average at fielding his position.
How many errors did Brett have in his five seasons with the most errors compared to Schmidts top five error seasons?
Brett had 127 errors in his top five error prone years.
Schmidt had 126 errors in his top five error years.
Now can somebody please explain, not Dallas because he doesn't know much about defensive stats, but somebody
with some common sense explain how Schmidt was much better as a fielder than Brett?
I know its difficult, but surely 1970's and I don't have a monopoly on common sense.
And Brett having to field all those hot smashes to third on the cement like astro turf at Royals stadium?
Sorry, Schmidt wasn't any better than Brett at defense. Its just for some reason they kept handing out gold
gloves to him, Brett had more competition for gold gloves in the AL.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Okay Darrin, here goes. Schmidt played on the turf at the Vet, probably the hardest surface around. Other teams would dread coming to play on that turf. But aside from that, using the eye test, Schmidt had tremendous range either way, left or right. I assume he got that exceptional range coming up as a shortstop. He also charged the ball better than anyone else and had that barehand pickup, throw in one motion play down pat, to the point he made it look routine. I didn't see Brett as much, but he just didn't have those additional qualities. Sure he fielded everything, but didn't get to near as many balls as Schmidt did. They both had great reflexes for the balls hit at them, but that's probably the easiest play for them..all reflex. My prior statement had nothing to do with Brett's fielding woes early in his career but more the fact he just didn't have the same range. It got to gthe point that with Bowa and Schmidt in the infield, you expected every ground ball hit on the left side to be an out. He got all those Gold Gloves for a reason!
So Brett didn't get to near as many balls as Schmidt?
What I've done is take the five years both Brett and Schmidt had the most chances.
Brett had 2,466 chances in 752 games, for an average of 3.28 chances per game.
Schmidt had 2,644 chances in 779 games, for an average of 3.39 chances per game.
Over the course of 162 games (a full season) Brett had 531 chances to Schmidts 549 chances.
Now, let's take what league they played in. Schmidt played in the NL his entire career and Brett in the AL.
What could be significant about this? the pitchers hit in the NL as opposed to the DH in the AL.
And the pitchers seem to bunt an awful lot in the NL.
I'm putting forth the theory that Schmidt handled more than 18 bunts more per year than Brett did,
mainly from the NL pitchers and that is why he handled 18 more chances per year(which is a puny amount
over the course of a years worth of games).
So this shows us that Brett more than likely had more range than Schmidt, which is not surprising considering
Brett had better quickness and speed than the lumbering Schmidt (want to check stolen bases?)
Yes, the numbers actually show Brett got to more balls than Schmidt when you factor in the bunt equation.
That is why you remember Schmidt charging so many bunts.
I don't recall Brett ever charging a bunt with a pitcher at the plate.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Just one more musing and I'm done with the subject because you can't convince Schmidt lovers that Brett
was just as good at defense.
If a pitcher and a DH both hit 50 balls at the third baseman during the course of a season,
I wonder which players average exit velocity would be higher, and therefore harder to field?
Dallas, this is a tough one for you, so put on your thinking cap. Remember, a DH practices his hitting
a lot whereas a pitcher makes his money pitching, and hitting is secondary.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
@Darin said:
Dallas, this is a tough one for you, so put on your thinking cap. Remember, a DH practices his hitting
a lot whereas a pitcher makes his money pitching, and hitting is secondary.
Seriously, can we debate whether the sun rises in the east or the west? Is water wet or dry? Something, anything, less freaking obvious than Schmidt's defensive superiority to Brett? If you insist on continuing this debate, have it without me; I will be explaining kaleidoscopes to blind people or teaching dogs to do calculus or something less frustrating.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
Still waiting for the dunce to explain how Barry Bonds was light years better then Ted Williams
because his WPA blew Ted's away.
Still waiting for him to explain how Schmidt's defense was "so much" better then Brett's when
they had about the same fielding percentage at third base.
Oh, that's right. He's not coming back to this thread. Oh well. I guess I'll watch
Beavis and Butthead reruns tonight, or Little Rascal reruns for laughs instead of reading
his comedy that he presents here.
When you post stats trying to explain how equal Brett and Schmidt were defensively, they somehow
aren't important stats to Dallas. But the numbers don't lie, Brett and Schmidt were about equal, I
give the nod to Brett because obviously its harder in the AL facing a premiere hitter (DH) instead
of a lousy hitter (pitcher) every game.
Graig Nettles was better defensively than both of them.
Schmidt's competition for gold gloves was someone nicknamed the Penguin.
Brett would have won more if the 3rd basemen in the AL weren't so superior to the NL third basemen.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
@Darin said:
Graig Nettles was better defensively than both of them.
Schmidt's competition for gold gloves was someone nicknamed the Penguin.
Brett would have won more if the 3rd basemen in the AL weren't so superior to the NL third basemen.
Nettles was clearly better than Brett, and he was almost as good as Schmidt. Since you said something that was almost correct I felt it should be acknowledged.
Schmidt's competition for Gold Gloves was Darrell Evans early in his career, and Tim Wallach later on. Cey has nothing to do with anything. If you want to claim Wallach was better than Schmidt, I won't argue; Wallach was exceptional, as was Evans. There is no question that Schmidt won more Gold Gloves than he deserved; this is true of every single player with more than a handful of Gold Gloves, and why I have consistently criticized counting up Gold Gloves as an argument for defensive greatness. But Schmidt probably did deserve 5 or 6, and he got a couple each that rightfully belonged to Evans and Wallach.
With Evans/Schmidt and then Wallach/Schmidt in the NL, and Nettles/Bell/Gaetti in the AL, there wasn't much difference in the quality of fielding at third base in the two leagues in the years that Schmidt and Brett were playing third. Neither was a league in which Brett would have been in the conversation for winning Gold Gloves; he just wasn't that good. Brett actually had one really good year at third early in his career - 1977 - and may have deserved a Gold Glove that year, and that year only. The one he won in 1985 was a joke; it was one of his worst years as a fielder. Gold Glove voters know how to recognize defensive greatness better than you do, but they are still terrible at it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
again, it's easy for me to keep arguing about Schmidt's defensive superiority here. But at some point, one has to realize that the wall he is banging his head on is not moving, so it's time to move on. Seems like no matter what anyone says, in your eyes Brett was equal defensively. Your opinion so that's fine. BTW, I do agree with JoeBanzai that Gaetti was an excellent defensive 3B as well. Toiled in Minnesota so he doesn't get the recognition he deserves.
Of course Dallas couldn't refute the numbers comparing Brett and Schmidt, they make too much sense.
And Dallas doesn't specialize in making sense. if he did he would also be the official defender of Frank White,
who was just as good as Mazeroski and who for some reason he officially defends.
Of course neither one belongs in the National Hall of Fame. Just doesn't make sense Dallas defends one but not the other.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
No one ever accused of Brett being a good fielder during his playing days. Let’s not recreate history.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Darin said:
Of course Dallas couldn't refute the numbers comparing Brett and Schmidt, they make too much sense.
And Dallas doesn't specialize in making sense. if he did he would also be the official defender of Frank White,
who was just as good as Mazeroski and who for some reason he officially defends.
Of course neither one belongs in the National Hall of Fame. Just doesn't make sense Dallas defends one but not the other.
All of the relevant "numbers" comparing Brett and Schmidt show Schmidt to be better. The "numbers" that you and your brain-damaged puppet-master presented were fielding averages, which are close to worthless, and Brett's fielding average included all his years at first base making it comically worthless.
As for Frank White, I don't recall ever hearing him mentioned before, but if he was I'm sure I agreed that he was an exceptionally great fielder. I'm not aware that he needs defending, but since you appear to believe that he does, then I nominate you for the role. I think Mazeroski was better, but at least here, as opposed to Brett, you'd be backing someone whose case isn't laughable.
As for the HOF, and if you could read you'd know that I've said this several times, I support Mazeroski being a member not because he is without question the greatest second baseman in history - because reasonable people can and do question that - but because he was considered the greatest ever when he played, and still is to this day, not just by a plurality of fans who care about such things but also by all of the "stat nerds" whose work shows him to be the greatest ever. If instead that same consensus had developed regarding Lonny Frey, or Glenn Hubbard, or Frank White, then I would support their inclusion in the HOF, even if I personally still believed that Mazeroski was the GOAT. In other words, I think the HOF ought to include the GOAT at every position, and Mazeroski is the one who has, by FAR, the most support for the title at second base. Someday, if DJ LeMahieu takes the title from Maz, then I'll support his HOF induction.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
If a pitcher and a DH both hit 50 balls at the third baseman during the course of a season,
I wonder which players average exit velocity would be higher, and therefore harder to field?
I missed this, and it's worth responding to. Obviously, a DH is going to hit it harder when he hits it to third base. Since most DH's are lefties, and most of the rest are fly ball hitters, it doesn't happen as often as you think, but when it does happen, we can assume it's usually a hard hit ball. If it's hit hard enough, and the third baseman can't reach it, or even if he reaches it but can't field it cleanly, it won't show up in his fielding stats anywhere since really hard hit balls to third are almost never scored as errors no matter what happens. So in the end, I think you're left with a lot less than 50 plays a year that are relevant to this discussion, but your point retains some merit because as small as the number of hard-but-not-too-hard drives a DH hits to third, its still greater than the corresponding number for pitchers.
But, of course, you've left out the balancing advantage that AL third basemen have - how many bunts to they have to field from DHs compared to NL third basemen fielding bunts from pitchers? I say "balancing", but really it's more than balancing. NL third basemen field a lot of bunts from pitchers, and also more bunts from other positions in the order as well since strategy is just different with a pitcher in the lineup rather than a DH. And all bunts are softly hit and result in errors if they're misplayed. And since fielding a bunt requires more skills than fielding a line drive, they result in more errors.
So your general point has some merit, but it's the NL third basemen who are at a slight disadvantage with respect to fielding average, not their AL counterparts.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JRR300 said:
again, it's easy for me to keep arguing about Schmidt's defensive superiority here. But at some point, one has to realize that the wall he is banging his head on is not moving, so it's time to move on. Seems like no matter what anyone says, in your eyes Brett was equal defensively. Your opinion so that's fine. BTW, I do agree with JoeBanzai that Gaetti was an excellent defensive 3B as well. Toiled in Minnesota so he doesn't get the recognition he deserves.
Thanks, Gary was a great player for a few years. If I remember correctly he had one of the great quotes in sports history.
"It's hard to field the ball when you have both hands around your throat."
Always loved that one!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
If a pitcher and a DH both hit 50 balls at the third baseman during the course of a season,
I wonder which players average exit velocity would be higher, and therefore harder to field?
Hard hit balls aren't the toughest play a 3rd baseman has to make, it's the "swinging bunt", much more likely to come off the bat of a pitcher than a DH.
If Brett hit more home runs and was a better fielder, he would be ranked higher than 3rd or 4th all time at 3rd base.
IF all of Brett's other numbers were the same and he hit 500 HR he would be better than Schmidt.........maybe.
IF Killebrew would have been immediately put at third base in 1954 and stayed there for his entire career he would not have gotten hurt in 1965 and 1968 HE would have been the greatest 3rd baseman of all time "and it wouldn't even be close"!
IF this Schmidt/Brett debate ever ends it will be a miracle.
I just love it when we play the IF game!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Just reading an article on CBS about the greatest player that wore each number. For #20, it was a tie between Frank Robinson and "the greatest third baseman of all time". The nod for #5 went to Albert Pujols with mention of Joltin Joe, Brett, Bench, Bagwell and Brooks Robinson. The fire seemed to be going out so I needed to pour some gasoline on it.
Comments
I can now see how this debate carried on and on and on..... just a lot of rehashing the stats of two great players. very similar but very different. I can feel myself getting drawn in, but like I said before..I will refrain and recuse myself out of respect for my hometown hero.
Darrin above has the RISP stats. Isn't it curious that these averages are just about equal to their overall career averages? That would tell me that they performed with RISP just about the same as they did at the plate over their career. You would expect Brett to have a higher RISP average because he hit for a better average over his entire career.
My definition of the best hitter is that he is able to consistently make solid contact with the ball, assuming that over time and all things being equal, he will have more hits extra base hits and subsequently drive in more runs. I do believe that this definition is flawed somewhat in today's era with more shifting of fielders. Pull hitters from the last decade would certainly have had lower batting averages in today's game.
Your last point is exactly right; comparing BA with RISP doesn't really add anything to what we already knew when we compared their overall batting averages. And we knew very little since BA is a stat that provides so little useful information.
But why base your evaluation on an assumption when you can just look up what actually happened? Schmidt did hit more extra base hits than Brett (per game), Schmidt did drive in more runs than Brett (per game), and Schmidt did produce more runs than Brett (by a lot per game, but just plain more for their careers). Did he hit as many line drives as Brett? I have no idea, and I don't care because it doesn't matter. If your goal is to win baseball games, and you get the choice of Schmidt or Brett, you should take Schmidt, and you should take him without needing to even think about it, so clear is the gap between them.
Go ahead and start Schmidt, and then when he comes to bat in a clutch situation with men
on base pinch hit Brett for him.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Dallas are you saying BA with RISP is not a useful stat? Just want to officially get it on record.
If you have runners in scoring position and need one run to win the game
would you rather have a .307 hitter or a .268 hitter with RISP at the plate?
What other stat would be important in this situation to help make your decision on which hitter to take?
Brett also has a higher OBP with RISP? is that the stat you use?
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
You can disregard what Dallas thinks because he doesn't think batting average with RISP is
a meaningful statistic. Only because Brett was much better. If Schmidts had been higher, then
you can bet your ass it would be a meaningful stat to Dallas.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
At first glance this looks like a good number for George,
Is Brett hitting singles here and Schmidt hitting home runs? Is it the other way around? How about SLG% with RISP?
Doesn't really matter because in my scenario you need one run to win the game so a single will do it.
The important stat is batting average which Dallas says is not important. .307 to .268
And checkmate on Dallas.
Since you asked, Bretts OBP RISP - .410 to Schmidts .400
Slugging Brett .481 to Schmidts .531 which doesn't matter.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Thanks for the stats.
Unlike most of you guys, I am willing to keep an open mind. I find your "scenario" very amusing.
Looks to me like George and Mike hit for average, got on base and slugged about the same as with RISP as they did without. Brett hit better for average, Schmidt better for power.
Unfortunately for you, your "scenario" is not true all the time, so it really has no meaning.
Brett was an amazingly good hitter and as high as third on the all-time list of great at 3rd base.
My objection to the OP on the thread this actually belongs on was that Brett was the best and it "wasn't even close"
These are the kind of outrageously incorrect statement that I respond to.
It's actually refreshing to see someone not defending their hometown player.
When I look at the numbers, I see Brett being a better hitter for average, but Schmidt's SLG% is higher by about the same amount. To me, a home run is going to be better than two doubles, so I feel that while they were both great guys to have up to bat, Mike is a little better.
Post season tells a little different story, but I don't think enough to change the ratings.
In their home parks this is certainly true, but being a lefty Brett had the advantage in just about every away field and he was hitting against a right handed pitcher about 2/3 of the time, so he had it a little easier in those respects.
In his book "Ted Williams' Hit List", Ted says right handed hitters have it tougher because of these factors. Makes sense to me.
Only in your scenario. In all others..................it does.
It was amazing that two of the greatest third basemen had their careers run at almost exactly the same time and had such similar career stats that caused this debate. And another who came around a little later but had his career cut short by injury, Matt Williams. Just fortunate to be able to say I saw them both play.
Your mistake is thinking that seeing a game is important. Best to look at tables of figures and computer screens and decide that way. Don't trouble yourself to watch any games.
Baseball is like sex in that regard I'm sure most would agree its much better to see it on a screen than participate .
Exactly, which is why every argument on behalf of Brett focuses on some specific situation or metric and why everyone arguing for Brett steers away from, nay, refuses to acknowledge the existence of, the best stats that measure what actually happened. Schmidt was a very little bit better than Brett at a few things, a great deal better than Brett at a few other things, and in a different class altogether as a fielder. Overall, they aren't close enough that anyone with eyes can't see the space between them.
Win Probability Added: Mathews 59.1, Schmidt 55.4, Brett 52.3
Batter Runs: Schmidt: 577, Mathews 549, Brett 507
Both of these stats take full account of how much more valuable it is to get a hit with RISP, or with two outs, or when losing by 1 late in a game, etc. To JR and everyone else making assumptions regarding the value of these events, you don't need to because someone already measured it, added it all up, and published the results. Brett lost.
The two best hitting third basemen were Schmidt and Mathews, in some order. Schmidt was the only good fielding third baseman of the three and he was great. There is nothing resembling a good argument that the best overall third baseman was anyone other than Schmidt, and the very bad arguments being made are getting painful to read. I'm not stupid and I don't like it when my eyes bleed, so I stopped reading what 1970s posts, but I mean the rest of the people somehow willing themselves not to see the plainly obvious.
I'll take the credit for first mentioning Mathews over Brett.
I could be wrong, but I'm not going through the other thread to find out.
Dallas, please consider that most if not all of the Brett voters DO realize that he was AT BEST the #3 all-time at 3B. Boggs may have been better as well.
They just like to argue and never admit that they are wrong.
Silly aren't they?
Yes, Brett had a better average with runners in scoring position, so what? Schmidt had a better SLG% with men on base .535 to .496....and neither matter, because you stated yourself that their job was to drive in runs....and Schmidt drove in runs better than Brett. Period. lol.
This is hilarious. Your very own misguided theory shot yourself in the foot. LMAO.
Are you really that dumb to believe that walks from a middle of the order hitter are meaningless or trivial?
Take two years from Mike Schmidt and the hitters who batted behind him.
1976 and the three lineup spots behind Schmidt:
BA.297, .281, .278
SLG%, .445, .455, .434
1977
BA, .313, .273, .475
SLG% .592, .477, .475
So in 1977, the lineup spot behind Mike Schmidt hit .313 with a .592 SLG%....as good or Better than almost every George Brett season except for his top few seasons.
So you are going to say Schmidt's walks were meaningless when he basically had a guy with 'george brett' season batting behind him? Then you are going to hail George Brett for driving in runs...and knock Schmidt for getting on base in front of someone hitting as good as George Brett? DUmb.
Go ahead and do that exercise for every season and at bat and you will see that guys who bat third and fourth have excellent hitters behind them and doing the team a great service....and you know what? People already have done that!
The value of a guy batting thrid and getting on base is typically at least 90% as valuable as a leadoff hitter doing the same. Those have ALL been looked at in the play by play data of every MLB play since 1950. It isn't some joker like you who is just guessing or has a faulty opinion like you. It is the reality. Just looking above should knock some sense into you, just like looking at the same examples I did with Mantle and the caliber of hitters batting behind him.
Also, you guys keep saying a walk is worthless if they don't get driven in. Ok, then a single is worthless if it doesn't DRIVE IN a run OR score a run. See, I can play that game too
. That would SEVERELY negate the value of batting average 
So go ahead and take every single by Brett that did not drive in a run, and every single he got where he didn't score, and just strike them from his batting average, lol. Same stupid reasoning.
The only time where getting on base value gets significantly low is when you get down to the guys batting sixth and beyond in the NL. NOT for the guys batting third or fourth(unless extreme circumstances in the lineup for that particular year force that issue).
It isn't a matter of opinion.
I also want to add that you are one of the guys who believe that the middle of the order simply has the job of driving in runs...which would mean that the top of the order simply has the job of getting on base to be driven in....yet you ignore that when it comes to Ichiro, whom has a lifetime OB% worse than Adam DUnn...lol.
SO again, you can't have it both ways in several instances.
Skin said..."and yet another idiot."
Thanks for playing.
The most satisfying thing aside from destroying you in these 'debates' is I can also also play the game better than you too. ...so your 'stat geek' and 'never played the game' arguments don't work.
Talking about baseball stats should never be described as satisfying . Its way way down on any list of satisfying things. Just a tick above root canal .
Yet here you are. You must like root canals considering how often you frequent these 'stat' threads. lol. No worries, it provides me good entertainment. Please don't leave.
I think all present would agree I don't contribute any actual value to these threads
.
The Mick for offense. Switch hitter.
Say Hey for defense.
The argument that Schmidt has always been a much better fielder than Brett has always been nonsense.
Its always been based on the fact that Brett had some fielding problems in his early days. He actually worked
hard on defense and improved tremendously. He was above average at fielding his position.
How many errors did Brett have in his five seasons with the most errors compared to Schmidts top five error seasons?
Brett had 127 errors in his top five error prone years.
Schmidt had 126 errors in his top five error years.
Now can somebody please explain, not Dallas because he doesn't know much about defensive stats, but somebody
with some common sense explain how Schmidt was much better as a fielder than Brett?
I know its difficult, but surely 1970's and I don't have a monopoly on common sense.
And Brett having to field all those hot smashes to third on the cement like astro turf at Royals stadium?
Sorry, Schmidt wasn't any better than Brett at defense. Its just for some reason they kept handing out gold
gloves to him, Brett had more competition for gold gloves in the AL.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Okay Darrin, here goes. Schmidt played on the turf at the Vet, probably the hardest surface around. Other teams would dread coming to play on that turf. But aside from that, using the eye test, Schmidt had tremendous range either way, left or right. I assume he got that exceptional range coming up as a shortstop. He also charged the ball better than anyone else and had that barehand pickup, throw in one motion play down pat, to the point he made it look routine. I didn't see Brett as much, but he just didn't have those additional qualities. Sure he fielded everything, but didn't get to near as many balls as Schmidt did. They both had great reflexes for the balls hit at them, but that's probably the easiest play for them..all reflex. My prior statement had nothing to do with Brett's fielding woes early in his career but more the fact he just didn't have the same range. It got to gthe point that with Bowa and Schmidt in the infield, you expected every ground ball hit on the left side to be an out. He got all those Gold Gloves for a reason!
So Brett didn't get to near as many balls as Schmidt?
What I've done is take the five years both Brett and Schmidt had the most chances.
Brett had 2,466 chances in 752 games, for an average of 3.28 chances per game.
Schmidt had 2,644 chances in 779 games, for an average of 3.39 chances per game.
Over the course of 162 games (a full season) Brett had 531 chances to Schmidts 549 chances.
Now, let's take what league they played in. Schmidt played in the NL his entire career and Brett in the AL.
What could be significant about this? the pitchers hit in the NL as opposed to the DH in the AL.
And the pitchers seem to bunt an awful lot in the NL.
I'm putting forth the theory that Schmidt handled more than 18 bunts more per year than Brett did,
mainly from the NL pitchers and that is why he handled 18 more chances per year(which is a puny amount
over the course of a years worth of games).
So this shows us that Brett more than likely had more range than Schmidt, which is not surprising considering
Brett had better quickness and speed than the lumbering Schmidt (want to check stolen bases?)
Yes, the numbers actually show Brett got to more balls than Schmidt when you factor in the bunt equation.
That is why you remember Schmidt charging so many bunts.
I don't recall Brett ever charging a bunt with a pitcher at the plate.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Just one more musing and I'm done with the subject because you can't convince Schmidt lovers that Brett
was just as good at defense.
If a pitcher and a DH both hit 50 balls at the third baseman during the course of a season,
I wonder which players average exit velocity would be higher, and therefore harder to field?
Dallas, this is a tough one for you, so put on your thinking cap. Remember, a DH practices his hitting
a lot whereas a pitcher makes his money pitching, and hitting is secondary.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Seriously, can we debate whether the sun rises in the east or the west? Is water wet or dry? Something, anything, less freaking obvious than Schmidt's defensive superiority to Brett? If you insist on continuing this debate, have it without me; I will be explaining kaleidoscopes to blind people or teaching dogs to do calculus or something less frustrating.
When you post stats trying to explain how equal Brett and Schmidt were defensively, they somehow
aren't important stats to Dallas. But the numbers don't lie, Brett and Schmidt were about equal, I
give the nod to Brett because obviously its harder in the AL facing a premiere hitter (DH) instead
of a lousy hitter (pitcher) every game.
Graig Nettles was better defensively than both of them.
Schmidt's competition for gold gloves was someone nicknamed the Penguin.
Brett would have won more if the 3rd basemen in the AL weren't so superior to the NL third basemen.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Nettles was clearly better than Brett, and he was almost as good as Schmidt. Since you said something that was almost correct I felt it should be acknowledged.
Schmidt's competition for Gold Gloves was Darrell Evans early in his career, and Tim Wallach later on. Cey has nothing to do with anything. If you want to claim Wallach was better than Schmidt, I won't argue; Wallach was exceptional, as was Evans. There is no question that Schmidt won more Gold Gloves than he deserved; this is true of every single player with more than a handful of Gold Gloves, and why I have consistently criticized counting up Gold Gloves as an argument for defensive greatness. But Schmidt probably did deserve 5 or 6, and he got a couple each that rightfully belonged to Evans and Wallach.
With Evans/Schmidt and then Wallach/Schmidt in the NL, and Nettles/Bell/Gaetti in the AL, there wasn't much difference in the quality of fielding at third base in the two leagues in the years that Schmidt and Brett were playing third. Neither was a league in which Brett would have been in the conversation for winning Gold Gloves; he just wasn't that good. Brett actually had one really good year at third early in his career - 1977 - and may have deserved a Gold Glove that year, and that year only. The one he won in 1985 was a joke; it was one of his worst years as a fielder. Gold Glove voters know how to recognize defensive greatness better than you do, but they are still terrible at it.
Gary Gaetti-"The Rat" EXCELLENT 3rd baseman. Helped the Twins win a couple of WS.
again, it's easy for me to keep arguing about Schmidt's defensive superiority here. But at some point, one has to realize that the wall he is banging his head on is not moving, so it's time to move on. Seems like no matter what anyone says, in your eyes Brett was equal defensively. Your opinion so that's fine. BTW, I do agree with JoeBanzai that Gaetti was an excellent defensive 3B as well. Toiled in Minnesota so he doesn't get the recognition he deserves.
Of course Dallas couldn't refute the numbers comparing Brett and Schmidt, they make too much sense.
And Dallas doesn't specialize in making sense. if he did he would also be the official defender of Frank White,
who was just as good as Mazeroski and who for some reason he officially defends.
Of course neither one belongs in the National Hall of Fame. Just doesn't make sense Dallas defends one but not the other.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
No one ever accused of Brett being a good fielder during his playing days. Let’s not recreate history.
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......
All of the relevant "numbers" comparing Brett and Schmidt show Schmidt to be better. The "numbers" that you and your brain-damaged puppet-master presented were fielding averages, which are close to worthless, and Brett's fielding average included all his years at first base making it comically worthless.
As for Frank White, I don't recall ever hearing him mentioned before, but if he was I'm sure I agreed that he was an exceptionally great fielder. I'm not aware that he needs defending, but since you appear to believe that he does, then I nominate you for the role. I think Mazeroski was better, but at least here, as opposed to Brett, you'd be backing someone whose case isn't laughable.
As for the HOF, and if you could read you'd know that I've said this several times, I support Mazeroski being a member not because he is without question the greatest second baseman in history - because reasonable people can and do question that - but because he was considered the greatest ever when he played, and still is to this day, not just by a plurality of fans who care about such things but also by all of the "stat nerds" whose work shows him to be the greatest ever. If instead that same consensus had developed regarding Lonny Frey, or Glenn Hubbard, or Frank White, then I would support their inclusion in the HOF, even if I personally still believed that Mazeroski was the GOAT. In other words, I think the HOF ought to include the GOAT at every position, and Mazeroski is the one who has, by FAR, the most support for the title at second base. Someday, if DJ LeMahieu takes the title from Maz, then I'll support his HOF induction.
I missed this, and it's worth responding to. Obviously, a DH is going to hit it harder when he hits it to third base. Since most DH's are lefties, and most of the rest are fly ball hitters, it doesn't happen as often as you think, but when it does happen, we can assume it's usually a hard hit ball. If it's hit hard enough, and the third baseman can't reach it, or even if he reaches it but can't field it cleanly, it won't show up in his fielding stats anywhere since really hard hit balls to third are almost never scored as errors no matter what happens. So in the end, I think you're left with a lot less than 50 plays a year that are relevant to this discussion, but your point retains some merit because as small as the number of hard-but-not-too-hard drives a DH hits to third, its still greater than the corresponding number for pitchers.
But, of course, you've left out the balancing advantage that AL third basemen have - how many bunts to they have to field from DHs compared to NL third basemen fielding bunts from pitchers? I say "balancing", but really it's more than balancing. NL third basemen field a lot of bunts from pitchers, and also more bunts from other positions in the order as well since strategy is just different with a pitcher in the lineup rather than a DH. And all bunts are softly hit and result in errors if they're misplayed. And since fielding a bunt requires more skills than fielding a line drive, they result in more errors.
So your general point has some merit, but it's the NL third basemen who are at a slight disadvantage with respect to fielding average, not their AL counterparts.
I’m waiting for Dallas to update his sigline with “George Brett Sucks” 🙄
Thanks, Gary was a great player for a few years. If I remember correctly he had one of the great quotes in sports history.
"It's hard to field the ball when you have both hands around your throat."
Always loved that one!
Up until about 6th grade, I continued to argue vigorously even when I knew I was wrong.
Hard hit balls aren't the toughest play a 3rd baseman has to make, it's the "swinging bunt", much more likely to come off the bat of a pitcher than a DH.
If Brett hit more home runs and was a better fielder, he would be ranked higher than 3rd or 4th all time at 3rd base.
IF all of Brett's other numbers were the same and he hit 500 HR he would be better than Schmidt.........maybe.
IF Killebrew would have been immediately put at third base in 1954 and stayed there for his entire career he would not have gotten hurt in 1965 and 1968 HE would have been the greatest 3rd baseman of all time "and it wouldn't even be close"!
IF this Schmidt/Brett debate ever ends it will be a miracle.
I just love it when we play the IF game!
Just reading an article on CBS about the greatest player that wore each number. For #20, it was a tie between Frank Robinson and "the greatest third baseman of all time". The nod for #5 went to Albert Pujols with mention of Joltin Joe, Brett, Bench, Bagwell and Brooks Robinson. The fire seemed to be going out so I needed to pour some gasoline on it.