Will be done with this after this post but when you see such blatant ignorance from skin2 its tough to just let it go.
As far as Brett ducking lefties- 34% of his career at bats were against lefties.
With Schmidt being a righty, his manager would want to get him as many at bats as possible against lefties,
yet only 24% of his career at bats were against lefties. Good god you're not very bright skin2.
Skin thinks Brett was dodging lefties yet 34% of the time he was facing one.
Schmidt should be in the lineup every time a lefty pitches but only managed 24% of his at bats against them.
So the obvious conclusion, at some point skin2 suffered a pretty serious head injury so in the future
I'll just let him rant on and treat him as our 'special contributor' here.
Wonder where the dodging is the genius skin2 spoke so non- eloquently about?
Might be worth mentioning of the five hitters, Brett had the lowest average against lefties, .280
Gwynn hit a phenomenal .325 against lefties. So if Brett was ducking lefties, he sure wasn't very good
at it as he was only 1 percentage point behind Gwynn, who surely didn't care if the pitcher was righty or lefty.
Reggie Bars were Awesome! I think your taking the personality of these ball players too much, they are just men who happen to be athletes, there are a lot of these “jerks” that do a bunch of things that nobody knows about, bad things too especially in the Pre camera era but even still if they can play you want them on the team, at least I do
Glad at least the candy bar was enjoyable.
I guess I come from a different time or was brought up with different values.
Not expecting them to be saints and don't care too much about their off-field problems.
Growing up I would see a guy like Chuck Foreman make a great run for a touchdown and simply toss the ball to the referee. That's COOL, act like you do this all the time. Now guys have to make a big deal out of it when they make a two yard run and get a first down.
Sometimes Killebrew used to pause (briefly) when he hit one out before taking his homerun "trot", but guys like Jackson bugged me. Loved seeing him fail. He sure had problems in NY getting along with Munson and Martin (Martin was a nut too, but he was the manager).
I would rather lose with Killebrew than win with Reggie. Weird huh?
Some people like hot dog players because they "spice up" the game.
Not me.
I was brought up just fine, my “Values” have everything to do with real life and not sporting venues that I prostitute for entertainment but whatever floats your boat I guess. I’m so glad I’m not uptight lol
I am not uptight at all. I just don't like the "in your face stuff". I am also sure you were brought up just fine.
Sports, and how the players act, have changed. I simply don't enjoy a lot of the new behaviors.
Being different does not mean one is better than the other, that has changed in today's world too.
Many times over the years I have heard that Killebrew was "boring", I didn't think so, but I can sure see how someone would feel that way.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Reggie Bars were Awesome! I think your taking the personality of these ball players too much, they are just men who happen to be athletes, there are a lot of these “jerks” that do a bunch of things that nobody knows about, bad things too especially in the Pre camera era but even still if they can play you want them on the team, at least I do
Glad at least the candy bar was enjoyable.
I guess I come from a different time or was brought up with different values.
Not expecting them to be saints and don't care too much about their off-field problems.
Growing up I would see a guy like Chuck Foreman make a great run for a touchdown and simply toss the ball to the referee. That's COOL, act like you do this all the time. Now guys have to make a big deal out of it when they make a two yard run and get a first down.
Sometimes Killebrew used to pause (briefly) when he hit one out before taking his homerun "trot", but guys like Jackson bugged me. Loved seeing him fail. He sure had problems in NY getting along with Munson and Martin (Martin was a nut too, but he was the manager).
I would rather lose with Killebrew than win with Reggie. Weird huh?
Some people like hot dog players because they "spice up" the game.
Not me.
I was brought up just fine, my “Values” have everything to do with real life and not sporting venues that I prostitute for entertainment but whatever floats your boat I guess. I’m so glad I’m not uptight lol
I am not uptight at all. I just don't like the "in your face stuff". I am also sure you were brought up just fine.
Sports, and how the players act, have changed. I simply don't enjoy a lot of the new behaviors.
Being different does not mean one is better than the other, that has changed in today's world too.
Many times over the years I have heard that Killebrew was "boring", I didn't think so, but I can sure see how someone would feel that way.
Ok that’s fair, no problem. I think these guys showing off is a direct result of Sportscenter, they all want air time to increase their popularity and it’s turned into showboating. Personally it don’t bother me, the big think in the NFL that really annoys me is guys want a highlight hit rather than simply wrapping a guy up and tackling which a lot of times blows upon their face.
Reggie Bars were Awesome! I think your taking the personality of these ball players too much, they are just men who happen to be athletes, there are a lot of these “jerks” that do a bunch of things that nobody knows about, bad things too especially in the Pre camera era but even still if they can play you want them on the team, at least I do
Glad at least the candy bar was enjoyable.
I guess I come from a different time or was brought up with different values.
Not expecting them to be saints and don't care too much about their off-field problems.
Growing up I would see a guy like Chuck Foreman make a great run for a touchdown and simply toss the ball to the referee. That's COOL, act like you do this all the time. Now guys have to make a big deal out of it when they make a two yard run and get a first down.
Sometimes Killebrew used to pause (briefly) when he hit one out before taking his homerun "trot", but guys like Jackson bugged me. Loved seeing him fail. He sure had problems in NY getting along with Munson and Martin (Martin was a nut too, but he was the manager).
I would rather lose with Killebrew than win with Reggie. Weird huh?
Some people like hot dog players because they "spice up" the game.
Not me.
I was brought up just fine, my “Values” have everything to do with real life and not sporting venues that I prostitute for entertainment but whatever floats your boat I guess. I’m so glad I’m not uptight lol
I am not uptight at all. I just don't like the "in your face stuff". I am also sure you were brought up just fine.
Sports, and how the players act, have changed. I simply don't enjoy a lot of the new behaviors.
Being different does not mean one is better than the other, that has changed in today's world too.
Many times over the years I have heard that Killebrew was "boring", I didn't think so, but I can sure see how someone would feel that way.
Ok that’s fair, no problem. I think these guys showing off is a direct result of Sportscenter, they all want air time to increase their popularity and it’s turned into showboating. Personally it don’t bother me, the big think in the NFL that really annoys me is guys want a highlight hit rather than simply wrapping a guy up and tackling which a lot of times blows upon their face.
Don't get me wrong, when Gibson or Puckett hit WS home runs, seeing them celebrate was thrilling. But when a guy stands there staring at a home run in a much less important situation, it looks foolish.
Obviously a lot of people like the celebrating over little stuff. I distinctly remember a Vikings linebacker getting beat on a pass play by a running back who made a 40 yard gain, the linebacker made a pretty big hit on the tackle and jumped up gyrating around as if he had just had the worlds biggest orgasm. DUDE you just got beat for a 40 yard gain!
I am a dinosaur.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I'm noticing forum members have trouble focusing on a topic. Even a silly topic like alliterative baseball teams somehow brings up wrestlers and basketball players .
Since its a lost cause let me add kolin kapernik to the line up , another wrong sport player but I got my letters down at least
@bronco2078 said:
I'm noticing forum members have trouble focusing on a topic. Even a silly topic like alliterative baseball teams somehow brings up wrestlers and basketball players .
Since its a lost cause let me add kolin kapernik to the line up , another wrong sport player but I got my letters down at least
Shouldn't Joe Jackson be at the top of any alliterative and illiterative baseball team?
And by the way Bronco- you're partly correct.
When a completely boring topic like the Kraft thread comes up, somehow every agonizing post is on topic.
If its a snoozefest its staying on topic, some unwritten rule I suppose.
@Darin said:
Will be done with this after this post but when you see such blatant ignorance from skin2 its tough to just let it go.
Skin2 won't come back. Now that he understands players don't make the line ups, but managers do.
Sad that he never knew this simple baseball procedure. My question is has he ever watched a baseball
game in his life ? Anyone who thinks players make the line ups may only watch camel racing.
I'm here, and I will be glad to challenge you in a game of baseball. I pitch, you hit. You pitch, I hit. Anytime.
Players do not make the lineup idiot...but some players DO have the capability to play 160 games a year...while some do not(whether because they are sat due to being made of glass or because a match up is not in their favor as in the case of Brett).
Also, superstars in sports DO have the power to 'decide' if they are taking the day off or forcing their way into the lineup. Maybe not in baseball today because they are now trained to 'rest'. But back then, damn straight they had immense influence if they played or not.
How did Ripken and Murray play day in and day out????????? Morons.
A player who bats '.300' and plays 160 game is more valuable than a player who bats '.300' and plays 140 games. Get it idiot?? I'm sure you do not. You will probably look at the wrong part of that statement and say something stupid.
Also in the case of Brett he sat at the end of the 1990 season to protect his lead in the batting title and that is fact.
Also, you and Darin made such idiotic comments such as "It is the players job to drive in runs...not walk." Idiots. I detailed how idiotic that was in another thread.
Also, to expound upon your idiotic statement....it took George Brett 1,500 plate apperances to drive in one more run and score 77 more runs than Schmidt. So if you are going to disagree with the best hitting measurements because you have a 'feeling' that drawing walks is of little value....then look at the most basic element of driving in runs and scoring runs....and Schmidt was better than Brett. Period.
Idiots.
And Darin, those lefties you used to compare to Brett ALSO did not play 160 games a year and sat at opportune times...hence a similar percentage of at bats vs lefties. Also, know that the best lefties the opposing manager will always take the opportunity to bring in a lefty to face them...hence higher percentages. However, that does not mean they do not take their days off with a more difficult matchup. Yet, guys like Schmidt, Murray, etc....they played vs every match up. They could have sat when they were only 80%. They could have sat when a tough matchup was on the hill. Both of which would have helped their batting average etc.. Get it idiots??
skin- its just hard to have a discussion with you when all you post is nonsense.
Do you even realize how many times in his career Brett was injured and on the disabled list? And not with hangnails.
I guess Ripken and Murray didn't have McRae showing them how to bust up double plays at second base. Or maybe
some players are more injury prone. Even away from the field Brett was injury prone, he was doing laundry once
and heard Buckner was about to bat so rushed to the TV and broke his toe in the process. Stupid, yes but it did happen.
I have a picture of him batting with his right thumb all taped up. That happened all the time, he wore out a path to the
trainers room. You think for some reason he's supposed to go bat against lefties when he's on the disabled list, Haha.
You're not real bright.
I can remember one time from memory Brett had just come off the disabled list and was knocking the cover off
the ball and they were in Boston and he hit a ball off the green monster and rounded first and pulled up lame,
pulled hamstring. And I'm betting that was against a lefty, as he usually took them the other way.
Brett had a great, but sometimes very frustrating career. He was injured a lot, legitimately not hangnails or nonsense
that skin posts.
Brett was awesome, no doubt....however, some guys sit until they are 100% and some don't. Some sit when a tough matchup is on the hill, some don't.
Brett sat, while some of his contemporary players did not, while they played through nagging injuries and played vs ALL matchups. Whether Brett was fragile, injury prone, or just a plain pu*&y, that truth will never be know.
What we do know, is a player producing at Brett's rate for 140 games is not nearly as valuable as a player producing at Schmidt's rate for 155 games. Period.
We also know that Brett purposely sat at the end of the season to win a batting title. That should never ever be forgotten.
skin- its not really how many runs you drive in, its how many chances you have to drive in a run.
Brett- 2701 at bats with RISP, 82 Hr and 1207 RBI's.
Schmidt- 2361 at bats, 158 Hr and 1055 RBI's.
Clearly Brett was better. And of course Schmidt should have more total RBI's than Brett, he hit a lot
more home runs, mostly solo. As stated before, Brett was the better hitter, Schmidt the better home run hitter.
If you don't think Brett was a better hitter, check their stats against right handed pitchers. 76% of the time Schmidt
was facing a righty, and Brett was a better hitter than Schmidt against righties. Therefore, 76% of the time Brett
was a better hitter than Schmidt. Conversely, 24% of the time Schmidt was better than Brett.
Here are the modern day numbers that matter to skin and dallas and the rest of the bunch.
Against righthanders. OB% Brett .388, Schmidt .369 SLG% Brett .517 Schmidt .511 (wait, who was the HR hitter?)
OPS Brett .906 Schmidt .880
And Schmidt faced righties 76% of the time, so clearly the modern day stats say Brett was better. LOL. Nothing for
Dallas and skin to dispute now. Case closed.
As we see already that Schmidt was superior offensively to Brett in OPS+ and the other accurate hitting measurements, we also see that he produced runs and RBI at a much better rate than Brett did offensively as well....which makes Schmidt better in both old school and new school offensive measurements....making Schmidt a slam dunk at being superior than Brett offensively.
That is not even considering the defensive side of the spectrum. Certainly, defensive measurements are iffy...but every single one of them has Schmidt as vastly superior....and I'm not even going to look at those.
I'm going to look at the most basic element of fielding, and that is simply whether the player makes an error or not. We already know Schmidt had superior range...by how much is debatable...but superior nonetheless.
First thing to keep in mind is that Schmidt played 4,500 MORE innings at 3B than Brett. That alone upticks Schmidt's value regardless.
While playing third base Brett had a .951 fielding percentage.
While playing third base Schmidt had a .955 fielding percentage.
That equates to Brett making an extra two errors per 450 chances. Not a ton difference, but better is better.
Schmidt made less errors per chance than Brett, Schmidt played 4,500 more innings than Bret....and those two things, when added to the advanced fielding measurements that show Schmidt had more range....make Schmidt a slam dunk superior fielder than Brett.
Add that when Brett was missing so many games and his team had to suffer with reserve players so much....it really is not a contest, unless you are a homer, blind, or an idiot.
PS 1970s for attempting to discredit me, my ability, question my intelligence, yes I watched the games, and played them, and can still play them better than you.
I would guess you are either a pencil neck, a stiff, or a fat slob. I would be happy to oblige in a baseball contest with you.
And I was away from posting because I like to eat Pu#&y....which makes me have something in common with Brett, because he is one.
Case closed. Good try...but you fools come up short again.
Professional stars CAN insist they play no matter who is pitching....absolutely. Happens all the time. Cal Ripken and Eddie Murray great examples. Gamers.
In today's baseball climate that may have changed as 'rest' days are now the norm.
George Brett had more than enough rest days.
For his career he only started in 78% of his team's games when a lefty was the starting pitcher!
Irregardless, batting .300 and playing 160 games is of more value than batting .300 and playing 140 games. Is that beyond your comprehension? Are you that much of an idiot? You are the same idiot that thinks a walk is bad event when it happens in front of a hitter who hits 30 homers a year. Moron.
Players also sit when they are only 85% like George Brett. Other players PLAY when they are 85%. It may hurt their stats, but is still better than the alternative(crappy reserve playing).
Brett had ONE more career RBI than Schmidt. One.
However, that one extra RBI came at the expense of Brett making 1,183 MORE OUTS than Schmidt did. 1,183 more outs just to get one more RBI. One.
LMAO and some idiots think it makes someone bad when an RBI is derived from a HOME RUN, as if that is worse than driving someone else in. There are actually morons who believe that. LMAO
However, that one extra RBI came at the expense of Brett making 1,183 MORE OUTS than Schmidt did. 1,183 more outs just to get one more RBI. One.
Well, there also were those 920 more hits, 257 more doubles, and an incredible 78 more triples.
I bring that up because there is a misconception that Schmidt had better range at third, because you're
not telling me that someone like George who hit 137 triples to Schmidts 59, and 665 doubles to Schmidts' 408,
was somehow slower getting to balls at third base than Schmidt. Brett actually had more range, as I've already
posted the numbers and don't feel like looking them up.
Again, its been proven Brett was a better hitter 76% of the time, and Schmidt 24% of the time. No way to argue that.
Just bring up a righthander, Brett can hit him better than Schmidt can.
Meaning Brett can outhit Schmidt 3 out of every 4 at bats. Dispute that. Again, case closed and you lose.
You don't know what constitutes a good hitter because you do not understand the negative impact of making an out. You do not understand the proper offensive value of drawing a walk. When someone does not understand those two things, everything else they said is idiocy.
You are also the idiot who directly said, "It is the cleanup hitters job to drive in runs....and in response to that:
Brett had ONE more career RBI than Schmidt. One.
However, that one extra RBI came at the expense of Brett making 1,183 MORE OUTS than Schmidt did. 1,183 more outs just to get one more RBI. One.
Idiot, Schmidt did the exact thing better than Brett that YOU YOURSELF said was his job. Moron. In fact, you are so stupid you actually believe that is something I am posting as if it is a meaningful measurement. RBI need not even be looked at. It is posted because YOU said it was his job to drive in runs...and Schmidt did better than Brett lol.
Then you try to say that driving yourself in isn't as good as driving in someone else...idiot, they are both RBI.
You do understand Brett wasn't a cleanup hitter, correct? He batted third.
Check out the few times he did bat cleanup. The numbers are better than Schmidts'.LOL.
Of course Brett made more outs, he had more at bats. At least he didn't have 4 full years of strikeouts like Schmidt.
And I don't understand the negative impact of making an out? Hahaha. Again, your just not bright enough to have
an argument like this.
@Darin said:
You do understand Brett wasn't a cleanup hitter, correct? He batted third.
Check out the few times he did bat cleanup. The numbers are better than Schmidts'.LOL.
Of course Brett made more outs, he had more at bats. At least he didn't have 4 full years of strikeouts like Schmidt.
And I don't understand the negative impact of making an out? Hahaha. Again, your just not bright enough to have
an argument like this.
I know what each of them did and you said their job was to drive in runs....yes he had more at bats...hence why he had that many more hits, doubles etc.. that you pointed out. Idiot. In one post you say he had more of that, and then in another you say 'well he had more at bats thats why he had more outs"
So, no, you don't understand the negative impact of an out.
Brett made 1,183 more outs than Schmidt. Where does he make up for that?
He doesn't make up for that because you can see Schmidt had a higher OB% and SLG%....by a lot! lol That tells you the value of the outs right there compared to the value of the walks, siingles, doubles, triples, and home runs.
But you don't understand walks so you say their jobs were to drive in runs and not walk....and Schmidt did that better too...idiot.
PS, Rich Dauer made far more contact than George Brett....does that make him a better hitter than Brett? Idiot. THe negative impact of a strikeout is minimal compared to a contact out. Again, you say they drive in runs....but Schmidt did better in that department. You don't have a leg to stand on.
Hey George, you only plyaed in 78 percent of your team's games when a lefty was on the hill. LOL. Some gamer.
@Darin said:
,,, because there is a misconception that Schmidt had better range at third,
This made me laugh.
It is true range is important for a shortstop. For instance, Ozzie Smith could get to a lot of balls that
a SS that is not quick could not get to.
The same does not apply for a third baseman. Yes, maybe Brooks Robinson is the exception. Maybe he got
to a lot of balls a leadfooted thirdbasemen could not get to. But Mike Schmidt is not the exception. Brett could
get to just as many balls as Schmidt could. Brett was quicker and had more speed than Schmidt. If your 22nd
century stats are showing otherwise, their wrong.
@Darin said:
,,, because there is a misconception that Schmidt had better range at third,
This made me laugh.
It is true range is important for a shortstop. For instance, Ozzie Smith could get to a lot of balls that
a SS that is not quick could not get to.
The same does not apply for a third baseman. Yes, maybe Brooks Robinson is the exception. Maybe he got
to a lot of balls a leadfooted thirdbasemen could not get to. But Mike Schmidt is not the exception. Brett could
get to just as many balls as Schmidt could. Brett was quicker and had more speed than Schmidt. If your 22nd
century stats are showing otherwise, their wrong.
At third base:
Schmidt averaged .27 assists per inning.
Brett averaged .25 assists per inning.
That is your range. Obviously, I know the flaw in defensive measurements...but just taking those numbers at face value, Schmidt got to more balls and made less errors per chance. A more detailed look says the gap is even wider than those numbers at face value....so you have no leg to stand on, again. lol.
Or are you counting fielding percentage from when Brett was playing first, lol...that wouldn't surprise me if you did.
For those who keep saying Schmidt's walks aren't of much value because they don't drive in runs, and that is his supposed job title(to drive in runs), keep the following in mind:
George Brett had 1,065 singles that never advanced a single base runner(and obviously not drive in a run). He had another 418 that did not drive in a run either.
So if you are going to go by that philosophy, that a middle of the order hitter's job is to drive in runs, then George Brett had 1,483 career hits that were as 'useless' as those walks you like to bash so often.
You sure are fixated on RBI's, I guess you like comparing apples to oranges.
Let's compare apples to apples.
Brett batted third, Schmidt batted cleanup.
Brett is 38th all time in RBI's, Schmidt 39th.
How many batters that hit third in the lineup are ahead of George Brett in career RBIs'?
How many batters that hit cleanup in the lineup are ahead of Mike Schmidt in career RBIs'?
I haven't looked it up but I would wager Brett would be ahead of Schmidt. You won't look it
up because it would be comparing apples to apples. Rememer, I've always said Brett was a better hitter,
not a better HR hitter.
And Dallas, you certainly are welcome in advance for making you laugh.
Comments
Bobo Brazil......now there is a blast from the past!
George says- "Hey Schmitty, save that for someone who would enjoy it like skin2"
Will be done with this after this post but when you see such blatant ignorance from skin2 its tough to just let it go.
As far as Brett ducking lefties- 34% of his career at bats were against lefties.
With Schmidt being a righty, his manager would want to get him as many at bats as possible against lefties,
yet only 24% of his career at bats were against lefties. Good god you're not very bright skin2.
Skin thinks Brett was dodging lefties yet 34% of the time he was facing one.
Schmidt should be in the lineup every time a lefty pitches but only managed 24% of his at bats against them.
So the obvious conclusion, at some point skin2 suffered a pretty serious head injury so in the future
I'll just let him rant on and treat him as our 'special contributor' here.
Premier lefthanded hitters of Bretts generation and percentage of at bats against lefty pitchers.
Gwynn- 35%
Mattingly- 35%
Brett- 34%
Carew- 31%
Boggs- 30%
Wonder where the dodging is the genius skin2 spoke so non- eloquently about?
Might be worth mentioning of the five hitters, Brett had the lowest average against lefties, .280
Gwynn hit a phenomenal .325 against lefties. So if Brett was ducking lefties, he sure wasn't very good
at it as he was only 1 percentage point behind Gwynn, who surely didn't care if the pitcher was righty or lefty.
I am not uptight at all. I just don't like the "in your face stuff". I am also sure you were brought up just fine.
Sports, and how the players act, have changed. I simply don't enjoy a lot of the new behaviors.
Being different does not mean one is better than the other, that has changed in today's world too.
Many times over the years I have heard that Killebrew was "boring", I didn't think so, but I can sure see how someone would feel that way.
Shoeless Joe.
Sweet Daddy Siki
Ok that’s fair, no problem. I think these guys showing off is a direct result of Sportscenter, they all want air time to increase their popularity and it’s turned into showboating. Personally it don’t bother me, the big think in the NFL that really annoys me is guys want a highlight hit rather than simply wrapping a guy up and tackling which a lot of times blows upon their face.
Don't get me wrong, when Gibson or Puckett hit WS home runs, seeing them celebrate was thrilling. But when a guy stands there staring at a home run in a much less important situation, it looks foolish.
Obviously a lot of people like the celebrating over little stuff. I distinctly remember a Vikings linebacker getting beat on a pass play by a running back who made a 40 yard gain, the linebacker made a pretty big hit on the tackle and jumped up gyrating around as if he had just had the worlds biggest orgasm. DUDE you just got beat for a 40 yard gain!
I am a dinosaur.
I'm noticing forum members have trouble focusing on a topic. Even a silly topic like alliterative baseball teams somehow brings up wrestlers and basketball players .
Since its a lost cause let me add kolin kapernik to the line up , another wrong sport player but I got my letters down at least
Shouldn't Joe Jackson be at the top of any alliterative and illiterative baseball team?
And by the way Bronco- you're partly correct.
When a completely boring topic like the Kraft thread comes up, somehow every agonizing post is on topic.
If its a snoozefest its staying on topic, some unwritten rule I suppose.
I'm here, and I will be glad to challenge you in a game of baseball. I pitch, you hit. You pitch, I hit. Anytime.
Also, Deadlifts, squats, incline bench...anytime. Wrestling, football, lets go.
Players do not make the lineup idiot...but some players DO have the capability to play 160 games a year...while some do not(whether because they are sat due to being made of glass or because a match up is not in their favor as in the case of Brett).
Also, superstars in sports DO have the power to 'decide' if they are taking the day off or forcing their way into the lineup. Maybe not in baseball today because they are now trained to 'rest'. But back then, damn straight they had immense influence if they played or not.
How did Ripken and Murray play day in and day out????????? Morons.
A player who bats '.300' and plays 160 game is more valuable than a player who bats '.300' and plays 140 games. Get it idiot?? I'm sure you do not. You will probably look at the wrong part of that statement and say something stupid.
Also in the case of Brett he sat at the end of the 1990 season to protect his lead in the batting title and that is fact.
Also, you and Darin made such idiotic comments such as "It is the players job to drive in runs...not walk." Idiots. I detailed how idiotic that was in another thread.
Also, to expound upon your idiotic statement....it took George Brett 1,500 plate apperances to drive in one more run and score 77 more runs than Schmidt. So if you are going to disagree with the best hitting measurements because you have a 'feeling' that drawing walks is of little value....then look at the most basic element of driving in runs and scoring runs....and Schmidt was better than Brett. Period.
Idiots.
And Darin, those lefties you used to compare to Brett ALSO did not play 160 games a year and sat at opportune times...hence a similar percentage of at bats vs lefties. Also, know that the best lefties the opposing manager will always take the opportunity to bring in a lefty to face them...hence higher percentages. However, that does not mean they do not take their days off with a more difficult matchup. Yet, guys like Schmidt, Murray, etc....they played vs every match up. They could have sat when they were only 80%. They could have sat when a tough matchup was on the hill. Both of which would have helped their batting average etc.. Get it idiots??
skin- its just hard to have a discussion with you when all you post is nonsense.
Do you even realize how many times in his career Brett was injured and on the disabled list? And not with hangnails.
I guess Ripken and Murray didn't have McRae showing them how to bust up double plays at second base. Or maybe
some players are more injury prone. Even away from the field Brett was injury prone, he was doing laundry once
and heard Buckner was about to bat so rushed to the TV and broke his toe in the process. Stupid, yes but it did happen.
I have a picture of him batting with his right thumb all taped up. That happened all the time, he wore out a path to the
trainers room. You think for some reason he's supposed to go bat against lefties when he's on the disabled list, Haha.
You're not real bright.
I can remember one time from memory Brett had just come off the disabled list and was knocking the cover off
the ball and they were in Boston and he hit a ball off the green monster and rounded first and pulled up lame,
pulled hamstring. And I'm betting that was against a lefty, as he usually took them the other way.
Brett had a great, but sometimes very frustrating career. He was injured a lot, legitimately not hangnails or nonsense
that skin posts.
Brett was awesome, no doubt....however, some guys sit until they are 100% and some don't. Some sit when a tough matchup is on the hill, some don't.
Brett sat, while some of his contemporary players did not, while they played through nagging injuries and played vs ALL matchups. Whether Brett was fragile, injury prone, or just a plain pu*&y, that truth will never be know.
What we do know, is a player producing at Brett's rate for 140 games is not nearly as valuable as a player producing at Schmidt's rate for 155 games. Period.
We also know that Brett purposely sat at the end of the season to win a batting title. That should never ever be forgotten.
skin- its not really how many runs you drive in, its how many chances you have to drive in a run.
Brett- 2701 at bats with RISP, 82 Hr and 1207 RBI's.
Schmidt- 2361 at bats, 158 Hr and 1055 RBI's.
Clearly Brett was better. And of course Schmidt should have more total RBI's than Brett, he hit a lot
more home runs, mostly solo. As stated before, Brett was the better hitter, Schmidt the better home run hitter.
If you don't think Brett was a better hitter, check their stats against right handed pitchers. 76% of the time Schmidt
was facing a righty, and Brett was a better hitter than Schmidt against righties. Therefore, 76% of the time Brett
was a better hitter than Schmidt. Conversely, 24% of the time Schmidt was better than Brett.
Here are the modern day numbers that matter to skin and dallas and the rest of the bunch.
Against righthanders. OB% Brett .388, Schmidt .369 SLG% Brett .517 Schmidt .511 (wait, who was the HR hitter?)
OPS Brett .906 Schmidt .880
And Schmidt faced righties 76% of the time, so clearly the modern day stats say Brett was better. LOL. Nothing for
Dallas and skin to dispute now. Case closed.
Furthermore,
In language that you can understand:
Brett had ONE more career RBI than Schmidt. One.
However, that one extra RBI came at the expense of Brett making 1,183 MORE OUTS than Schmidt did. 1,183 more outs just to get one more RBI. One.
Furthermore,
As we see already that Schmidt was superior offensively to Brett in OPS+ and the other accurate hitting measurements, we also see that he produced runs and RBI at a much better rate than Brett did offensively as well....which makes Schmidt better in both old school and new school offensive measurements....making Schmidt a slam dunk at being superior than Brett offensively.
That is not even considering the defensive side of the spectrum. Certainly, defensive measurements are iffy...but every single one of them has Schmidt as vastly superior....and I'm not even going to look at those.
I'm going to look at the most basic element of fielding, and that is simply whether the player makes an error or not. We already know Schmidt had superior range...by how much is debatable...but superior nonetheless.
First thing to keep in mind is that Schmidt played 4,500 MORE innings at 3B than Brett. That alone upticks Schmidt's value regardless.
While playing third base Brett had a .951 fielding percentage.
While playing third base Schmidt had a .955 fielding percentage.
That equates to Brett making an extra two errors per 450 chances. Not a ton difference, but better is better.
Schmidt made less errors per chance than Brett, Schmidt played 4,500 more innings than Bret....and those two things, when added to the advanced fielding measurements that show Schmidt had more range....make Schmidt a slam dunk superior fielder than Brett.
Add that when Brett was missing so many games and his team had to suffer with reserve players so much....it really is not a contest, unless you are a homer, blind, or an idiot.
PS 1970s for attempting to discredit me, my ability, question my intelligence, yes I watched the games, and played them, and can still play them better than you.
I would guess you are either a pencil neck, a stiff, or a fat slob. I would be happy to oblige in a baseball contest with you.
And I was away from posting because I like to eat Pu#&y....which makes me have something in common with Brett, because he is one.
Case closed. Good try...but you fools come up short again.
WTF?
Nah, but there are people that wish they could....and it sounds like you have experience with the bad taste in your mouth.
Casey Stengel had to wait for DiMaggio to let him know before putting him in lineup.
Professional stars CAN insist they play no matter who is pitching....absolutely. Happens all the time. Cal Ripken and Eddie Murray great examples. Gamers.
In today's baseball climate that may have changed as 'rest' days are now the norm.
George Brett had more than enough rest days.
For his career he only started in 78% of his team's games when a lefty was the starting pitcher!
Irregardless, batting .300 and playing 160 games is of more value than batting .300 and playing 140 games. Is that beyond your comprehension? Are you that much of an idiot? You are the same idiot that thinks a walk is bad event when it happens in front of a hitter who hits 30 homers a year. Moron.
Players also sit when they are only 85% like George Brett. Other players PLAY when they are 85%. It may hurt their stats, but is still better than the alternative(crappy reserve playing).
Brett had ONE more career RBI than Schmidt. One.
However, that one extra RBI came at the expense of Brett making 1,183 MORE OUTS than Schmidt did. 1,183 more outs just to get one more RBI. One.
LMAO and some idiots think it makes someone bad when an RBI is derived from a HOME RUN, as if that is worse than driving someone else in. There are actually morons who believe that. LMAO
Well, there also were those 920 more hits, 257 more doubles, and an incredible 78 more triples.
I bring that up because there is a misconception that Schmidt had better range at third, because you're
not telling me that someone like George who hit 137 triples to Schmidts 59, and 665 doubles to Schmidts' 408,
was somehow slower getting to balls at third base than Schmidt. Brett actually had more range, as I've already
posted the numbers and don't feel like looking them up.
Again, its been proven Brett was a better hitter 76% of the time, and Schmidt 24% of the time. No way to argue that.
Just bring up a righthander, Brett can hit him better than Schmidt can.
Meaning Brett can outhit Schmidt 3 out of every 4 at bats. Dispute that. Again, case closed and you lose.
You don't know what constitutes a good hitter because you do not understand the negative impact of making an out. You do not understand the proper offensive value of drawing a walk. When someone does not understand those two things, everything else they said is idiocy.
You are also the idiot who directly said, "It is the cleanup hitters job to drive in runs....and in response to that:
Brett had ONE more career RBI than Schmidt. One.
However, that one extra RBI came at the expense of Brett making 1,183 MORE OUTS than Schmidt did. 1,183 more outs just to get one more RBI. One.
Idiot, Schmidt did the exact thing better than Brett that YOU YOURSELF said was his job. Moron. In fact, you are so stupid you actually believe that is something I am posting as if it is a meaningful measurement. RBI need not even be looked at. It is posted because YOU said it was his job to drive in runs...and Schmidt did better than Brett lol.
Then you try to say that driving yourself in isn't as good as driving in someone else...idiot, they are both RBI.
probably wise to delete some things
You do understand Brett wasn't a cleanup hitter, correct? He batted third.
Check out the few times he did bat cleanup. The numbers are better than Schmidts'.LOL.
Of course Brett made more outs, he had more at bats. At least he didn't have 4 full years of strikeouts like Schmidt.
And I don't understand the negative impact of making an out? Hahaha. Again, your just not bright enough to have
an argument like this.
darin,
According to your philosophy on what constitutes their job...driving in runs:
Mike Schmidt had 1,208 RBI vs Right Handers in 7,586 plate appearances.
George Brett had 1,092 RBI vs Right Handers in 7,757 plate appearances.
So Schmidt actually had more RBI vs RH than Brett and in LESS plate appearances.
And Schmidt had less team speed in front of him, and when he batted third, he had the pitcher just three slots ahead of him in the order.
OMG, this gets funnier and funnier and funnier. You say idiotic stuff and then it backfires from the other idiotic stuff you had previously spouted!
PS Brett started in 78% of his team's games when they faced a lefty. Some gamer.
This made me laugh.
Yes you do say idiotic things...finally got something right.
I know what each of them did and you said their job was to drive in runs....yes he had more at bats...hence why he had that many more hits, doubles etc.. that you pointed out. Idiot. In one post you say he had more of that, and then in another you say 'well he had more at bats thats why he had more outs"
So, no, you don't understand the negative impact of an out.
Brett made 1,183 more outs than Schmidt. Where does he make up for that?
He doesn't make up for that because you can see Schmidt had a higher OB% and SLG%....by a lot! lol That tells you the value of the outs right there compared to the value of the walks, siingles, doubles, triples, and home runs.
But you don't understand walks so you say their jobs were to drive in runs and not walk....and Schmidt did that better too...idiot.
PS, Rich Dauer made far more contact than George Brett....does that make him a better hitter than Brett? Idiot. THe negative impact of a strikeout is minimal compared to a contact out. Again, you say they drive in runs....but Schmidt did better in that department. You don't have a leg to stand on.
Hey George, you only plyaed in 78 percent of your team's games when a lefty was on the hill. LOL. Some gamer.
This made me laugh.
(Internet Troll Golden Rule: when calling someone else stupid, be sure your spelling is correct.)
It is true range is important for a shortstop. For instance, Ozzie Smith could get to a lot of balls that
a SS that is not quick could not get to.
The same does not apply for a third baseman. Yes, maybe Brooks Robinson is the exception. Maybe he got
to a lot of balls a leadfooted thirdbasemen could not get to. But Mike Schmidt is not the exception. Brett could
get to just as many balls as Schmidt could. Brett was quicker and had more speed than Schmidt. If your 22nd
century stats are showing otherwise, their wrong.
This made me laugh.
Okay Dallas, you win at trying to belittle someone. Congrats to you.
At third base:
Schmidt averaged .27 assists per inning.
Brett averaged .25 assists per inning.
That is your range. Obviously, I know the flaw in defensive measurements...but just taking those numbers at face value, Schmidt got to more balls and made less errors per chance. A more detailed look says the gap is even wider than those numbers at face value....so you have no leg to stand on, again. lol.
Or are you counting fielding percentage from when Brett was playing first, lol...that wouldn't surprise me if you did.
More to add:
For those who keep saying Schmidt's walks aren't of much value because they don't drive in runs, and that is his supposed job title(to drive in runs), keep the following in mind:
George Brett had 1,065 singles that never advanced a single base runner(and obviously not drive in a run). He had another 418 that did not drive in a run either.
So if you are going to go by that philosophy, that a middle of the order hitter's job is to drive in runs, then George Brett had 1,483 career hits that were as 'useless' as those walks you like to bash so often.
Chew on that for a bit.
You sure are fixated on RBI's, I guess you like comparing apples to oranges.
Let's compare apples to apples.
Brett batted third, Schmidt batted cleanup.
Brett is 38th all time in RBI's, Schmidt 39th.
How many batters that hit third in the lineup are ahead of George Brett in career RBIs'?
How many batters that hit cleanup in the lineup are ahead of Mike Schmidt in career RBIs'?
I haven't looked it up but I would wager Brett would be ahead of Schmidt. You won't look it
up because it would be comparing apples to apples. Rememer, I've always said Brett was a better hitter,
not a better HR hitter.
And Dallas, you certainly are welcome in advance for making you laugh.
niether schmidt nor brett are alliterative , not even a little
100